Stark facility.136 The report found that only seven (2%) of 323 youth on restricted programs were
allowed out of their cells for more than three hours a day, and only two (less than 1%) received
educational services.137 Further, it found that the facility had failed to implement many of the
protections needed to protect suicidal youth following the suicide two years earlier at the N.A.
Chaderjian facility.138 "Nothing has changed,'' commented Senator Gloria Romero. "We're dealing
with an organization that is impervious to change.''139
In 2008, the Prison Law Office filed a motion in Farrell complaining of the state’s failure
to comply with deadlines or to implement remedial plans, including plans with respect to locked
room confinement.140 In May 2008, the Farrell court confirmed that many of the conditions that
gave rise to the Consent Decree remained the same and that the state was in gross violation of
court orders.141 The court did not appoint a receiver in order to give the new Director of Corrections
and Rehabilitation an opportunity to demonstrate his commitment to change. It did, however, order
new timelines, and strengthen monitoring of compliance.142
The advocacy community took note of the state’s slow response and, over the next several
years, began to explore other strategies. Advocates also continued to keep the pressure on through
rallies and work with the media. A 2011 Books Not Bars press release called for the Youth
Authority to stop its rampant use of isolation, citing to a recent monitoring report in the Farrell
litigation documenting ongoing failures with respect to use of locked room time across the
I. Use of Locked Room Time in County Facilities
Although use of locked room time in state juvenile facilities received most of the attention,
county facilities also routinely used locked room time and became the subject of several inquiries
and lawsuits in the 1980s and 1990s.
In 1984, a class action case was filed against Solano County144 alleging that children were
isolated in their rooms continuously for days or weeks at a time. While in isolation, they were
136 MATTHEW L. CATE, INSPECTOR GENERAL, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, SPECIAL REVIEW OF THE HIGH
RISK ISSUES AT THE HEMAN G. STARK YOUTH CORRECTIONAL FACILITY (Feb. 2007),
137 Id. at 1.
139 Mark Martin, Grim conditions at youth prison: Report calls Chino facility lax, dangerous 2 years after governor
vowed to fix system, S.F. CHRON. (Feb. 28, 2007), https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Grim-conditions-at-youth-
140 Order to Show Cause: Re Appointment of Special Master and Compliance with Consent Decree and Remedial
Plans, 4-40, Farrell v. Tilton, RG 03079344 at 2 (Cal. Sup. Ct. 2008).
141 Order at 4-5, Farrell v. Cate (2008) Case No. RG03-079344.
142 Order at 10-21, Farrell v. Cate (2008) Case No. RG03-079344.
143 Press Release, Ellen Baker Ctr. for Hum. Rts., 24-Hour Lockup of Youth Rampant in California Youth Prisons
(June 1, 2011), http://ellabakercenter.org/in-the-news/books-not-bars/24-hour-lock-up-of-youth-rampant-in-
144 Jane G. v. Solano County, No. CIVS 81-0080– –RAR at 6-7, (E.D. Cal. 1984),
https://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/JI-CA-0005-0001.pdf. An ensuing settlement prohibited youth from
being isolated for punitive or disciplinary reasons. Isolation was to be limited to youth who presented an immediate
danger to themselves or others, and it was to be strictly time limited to no more than 24 hours. Youth in isolation were
to have a clean and sanitary room with adequate lighting, heat, and ventilation, and containing a bed, pillow, blankets