22 Cal.App.5th 489
Cal. Ct. App.2018Background
- Petitioner Tikisha Upshaw, charged with special-circumstance murder, was held at Santa Rita Jail (SRJ), the county facility for maximum-security female inmates, and housed in a pod with co-defendant Burks under a keep-separate order.
- Upshaw moved to transfer to a jail in a contiguous county (San Francisco County Jail), citing (1) lack of access to rehabilitative programs due to the keep-separate order, (2) threats to personal safety from other inmates, and (3) inadequate access to counsel.
- The trial court initially granted the transfer; the Alameda County Sheriff moved for reconsideration arguing statutory limits and lack of evidence of SRJ being "unfit or unsafe."
- The trial court granted reconsideration, vacated the transfer order, and reasoned section 4007 contemplates conditions making a jail unfit or unsafe for prisoners generally and that an individual transfer for personal safety is not authorized; alternatively, it found no good cause.
- The Court of Appeal considered whether section 4004 or 4007 authorized an individual transfer, and whether Upshaw failed to exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Penal Code §4004 authorize transfer between county jails? | §4004 permits removal for good cause; this includes transfers to other county jails. | §4004 addresses temporary releases/escape exceptions, not indefinite inter-county transfers. | No—§4004 does not authorize transfers between county detention facilities. |
| Does Penal Code §4007 authorize transfer of an individual prisoner to a contiguous county when jail is "unsafe for confinement"? | §4007 allows transfer when the jail is "unsafe," and that may include conditions threatening an individual inmate’s safety. | §4007 applies only to groups/prison-wide habitability or to sheriff-initiated moves; not to an individual’s safety claim. | Yes—§4007 can authorize transfer of an individual upon sufficient evidence that the jail is unsafe for that prisoner’s confinement. |
| Was Upshaw entitled to transfer here on the record presented? | Upshaw argued threats and program denial established SRJ was unsafe for her confinement. | Sheriff argued evidence was insufficient, Upshaw didn’t use jail grievance procedures, and transfer imposes high costs. | Court did not decide on sufficiency of evidence; it noted trial court found safety concerns credible but did not make a present-danger finding. |
| Must administrative remedies be exhausted before a §4007 petition? | Upshaw contended she had made efforts and administrative remedies were ineffective. | Sheriff argued exhaustion is required and Upshaw failed to file grievances about the safety threats. | Yes—administrative remedies must be exhausted; Upshaw failed to do so and may not invoke futility. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Valencia, 3 Cal.5th 347 (statutory language and construction principles)
- Block v. Superior Court, 62 Cal.App.4th 363 (§4004 construed to permit short-term releases, not transfers between jails)
- Lisenba v. California, 314 U.S. 219 (discussion of §4004’s limits in context of custody and transfers)
- People v. White, 2 Cal.5th 349 (court will not rewrite statutes)