Sassman v. Brown
73 F. Supp. 3d 1241
E.D. Cal.2014Background
- Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants from excluding men from the ACP, challenging §1170.05 as unconstitutional sex-based discrimination.
- SB 1266 added §1170.05 to implement ACP, originally open to female inmates; men could participate only if primary caregivers prior to incarceration.
- CDCR launched ACP in 2011; by 2012 §1170.05 was amended to limit eligibility to female inmates, with emergency regulatory action reflecting female exclusivity.
- Defendants argue ACP is gender-responsive and tailored to female offenders’ pathways and family-court objectives; Plaintiff argues males are similarly situated and exclusion lacks substantial relation to objectives.
- Plaintiff applied June 3, 2013; denied June 19, 2013 due to gender; administrative appeals exhausted; suit filed July 16, 2014 seeking preliminary injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether male exclusion from ACP violates Equal Protection. | Sassman is similarly situated to eligible female inmates. | Gender classification serves important objectives; program tailored to women. | Plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits acknowledged; issue unresolved here. |
| Whether Plaintiff is similarly situated to female ACP participants. | He meets gender-neutral eligibility criteria. | Plaintiff differs because of caregiving history and other traits. | Court finds Plaintiff sufficiently similarly situated to claim Equal Protection. |
| Whether ACP exclusion of men bears a substantial relation to important governmental objectives. | Exclusion undermines family reunification goals. | Exclusion supported by gender-based considerations of care and trauma histories. | Exclusion not substantially related; discrimination fails under heightened scrutiny. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mississippi Univ. for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718 (U.S. 1982) (gender classifications require exceedingly persuasive justification; archaic notions prohibited)
- United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 539 (U.S. 1996) (gender-based classifications must be scrutinized free of stereotypes; substantial relationship to important objectives required)
- Woods v. Horton, 167 Cal.App.4th 658 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2008) (state interest in excluding male inmates from female-focused program rejected; not compelling rationale for exclusion)
- Pargo v. Elliott, 894 F. Supp. 1243 (S.D. Iowa 1995) (cases focusing on facilities/prison differences; not controlling here)
- Klinger v. Dept. of Corr., 31 F.3d 727 (8th Cir. 1994) (factors beyond gender in comparing prisoner programs; relevance limited)