Intake Processing Unit Impact Case Blocks June–August 2025

Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane Chief Deputy Inspector General Quarterly 2025 Intake Processing Unit Impact Case Blocks Independent Published in October 2025 Prison Oversight The Office of the Inspector General (the OIG), as part of our statute, maintains an Intake Processing Unit that receives complaints from the incarcerated population, and the public. Staff in the Intake Processing Unit respond to complaints that the OIG receives through U.S. Postal mail, phone calls (toll-free hotline), and inquiries through our website, which can exceed 1,000 monthly claims. Below are 23 complaints that the Intake Processing Unit reviewed and closed between June 2025 and August 2025. These cases highlight the OIG’s impact and efforts to resolve the complainant’s concerns. Incident Date December 2, 2024 Case Type Grievance and Appeal Process Mission Division of Adult Institutions: Region IV (Rancho Cucamonga Area) OIG Case Number 25-0097796-PI Complaint Summary On March 6, 10, and 12, 2025, the OIG received three complaints from an incarcerated person (complainant) alleging he was not compensated for his broken property. The complainant stated the department’s Office of Grievances (OOG) granted his grievance and informed him he would be reimbursed for the cost of his property. However, the complainant was never compensated and requested the OIG’s assistance. OIG Actions The OIG reviewed departmental records and found that the complainant filed a grievance on December 2, 2024, that stated his television was returned to him in broken condition after he returned from the restricted housing unit on July 19, 2024. Departmental records identified the complainant’s property was inventoried and operational on July 3, 2024, prior to placement in specialized housing. The OIG identified that on January 16, 2025, OOG granted the complainant’s claim and agreed to reimburse him in the amount of $198.00. On March 21, 2025, the OIG contacted OOG regarding the status of the complainant’s reimbursement. Disposition On March 24, 2025, OOG informed the OIG that the reimbursement had not yet been processed. Following the OIG’s contact, the OOG forwarded the appropriate forms to the complainant’s correctional counselor to initiate the reimbursement process. On June 6, 2025, OOG notified the OIG the complainant was reimbursed $198.00 on May 12, 2025, for his damaged property. Page 1 of 18 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4212 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane Chief Deputy Inspector General Quarterly 2025 Intake Processing Unit Impact Case Blocks Independent Published in October 2025 Prison Oversight Incident Date May 10, 2025 Case Type Safety Concerns Mission Division of Adult Institutions: Region I (Sacramento Area) OIG Case Number 25-0099778-PI Complaint Summary On May 18, 2025, the OIG received a complaint from an anonymous source (complainant), alleging that on May 10, 2025, a transgender incarcerated person was suicidal and had cut herself with a razor blade. The incarcerated person allegedly showed the cuts on her arm to two officers and told them she had swallowed the razor blade. The complainant alleged the incarcerated person had not received medical care for having swallowed the razor blade. OIG Actions On May 19, 2025, the OIG reviewed departmental records and located a May 10, 2025, incident report documenting the incarcerated person had engaged in self-injurious behavior with a razor blade inside her cell and was actively bleeding. Furthermore, the OIG’s review of medical records indicated staff were not aware she allegedly had swallowed a razor blade. Consequently, the OIG immediately notified the warden and the health care chief executive officer (CEO) that the incarcerated person swallowed a razor blade and needed medical attention. On May 19, 2025, following the OIG’s notification, a medical provider examined the incarcerated person and provided follow-up care. The provider noted that medical records from May 10, 2025, showed no evidence of self-injurious behavior. Although a nurse appropriately completed a medical report documenting the self-inflicted injuries, that information was not included in the incarcerated person’s medical records, as required by health care policy. In addition, the OIG was unable to locate documentation indicating staff had retrieved the razor blade. On May 29, 2025, the OIG sent a second notification to the warden and the health care CEO regarding the missing razor blade and the health care policy violation. Disposition On June 3, 2025, prison management notified the OIG that the nurse received training on both proper documentation and how to elevate similar incidents to appropriate staff. On June 3, 2025, prison management also requested an involved officer clarify what the incarcerated person did with the razor blade. The officer responded that he witnessed the incarcerated person flush the razor blade down the toilet. Page 2 of 18 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4212 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane Chief Deputy Inspector General Quarterly 2025 Intake Processing Unit Impact Case Blocks Independent Published in October 2025 Prison Oversight Incident Date April 17, 2025 Case Type Allegation of Staff Misconduct: Other Misconduct Mission Division of Adult Institutions: Region III (Bakersfield Area) OIG Case Number 25-0098952-PI Complaint Summary On April 17, 2025, the OIG received a complaint from an anonymous source (complainant) alleging that an officer stood and watched for two minutes while an incarcerated person had a seizure in the dayroom. The complainant alleged the officer stood at the door and watched without intervening, even as the incarcerated person repeatedly banged his head on the concrete floor. The complainant provided the officer’s last name, and the date and approximate time of the incident. OIG Actions The OIG reviewed the information provided by the complainant, and identified multiple officers with the same last name. On April 21, 2025, we notified the warden of the alleged staff misconduct, and included the officer’s last name and the date, time, and location of the incident. On May 2, 2025, the OIG followed up with the warden, who stated that on receipt of the notification on April 21, 2025, staff conducted a security check of every cell and did not find any issues. However, their response did not address the alleged misconduct of the unknown officer on April 17, 2025. Consequently, on June 6, 2025, the OIG followed up a second time to determine what actions the prison took regarding the allegation of staff misconduct. Disposition On June 11, 2025, the warden notified the OIG that the allegation of staff misconduct had been forwarded to the department’s Centralized Screening Team (CST). On June 12, 2025, CST referred the allegation of staff misconduct identifying only the officer’s last name to the Office of Internal Affairs, which opened an investigation the same day. Incident Date June 3, 2025 Case Type Safety Concern Mission Division of Adult Institutions: Region I (Sacramento Area) OIG Case Number 25-0100102-PI Complaint Summary On June 1 and 3, 2025, the OIG received complaints from an incarcerated person (complainant) alleging an officer had been harassing him. On June 3, 2025, the complainant stated “it could turn violent” because prison management had not disciplined the officer and separated the complainant and the officer. Page 3 of 18 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4212 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane Chief Deputy Inspector General Quarterly 2025 Intake Processing Unit Impact Case Blocks Independent Published in October 2025 Prison Oversight OIG Actions The OIG reviewed departmental records and did not locate documentation indicating the department was aware of the threat of violence. On June 2, 2025, departmental records identified the complainant stated to a nurse that he was going on a hunger strike because the same officer kept harassing him. On June 4, 2025, the OIG notified the warden and the chief of mental health about the complainant’s threat of violence. Disposition On June 4, 2025, within two hours of the OIG’s notification, the crisis intervention team evaluated the complainant, who reported he had been suicidal for a couple of days. Subsequently, prison staff moved the complainant to a mental health crisis bed at the same prison. On June 5, 2025, the chief psychiatrist evaluated the complainant. The complainant was later discharged from the mental health crisis bed and transferred to another prison. The OIG is highlighting this case to commend the prison for its quick response to our notification and follow-up intervention. Incident Date May 23, 2025 Case Type Centralized Screening Team: Screening Decision Mission Office of Internal Affairs’ Centralized Screening Team OIG Case Number 25-0100107-PI Complaint Summary On May 31, 2025, the OIG received a complaint from an incarcerated person (complainant) who alleged an officer used excessive use of force on a second incarcerated person on May 24, 2025. The complainant provided the names of the officer and the second incarcerated person. The complainant alleged medical staff did not treat the second incarcerated person’s injuries and did not complete a required medical form. OIG Actions The OIG reviewed departmental records and found that on June 2, 2025, the second incarcerated person filed a grievance alleging that on May 23, 2025, the officer used excessive force while applying restraints. The second incarcerated person also alleged the same officer behaved in a discriminatory manner when the officer repeatedly singled him out and denied him access to showers or hot water. On June 4, 2025, the department’s Centralized Screening Team (CST) reviewed the grievance and did not identify the two allegations of staff misconduct. On June 17, 2025, the OIG elevated these concerns to CST and requested its staff reconsider their screening decision. Disposition On June 19, 2025, CST added the two allegations of staff misconduct to the grievance claims, and appropriately routed the claims of excessive or unnecessary use-of-force and discrimination against an incarcerated person to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. Page 4 of 18 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4212 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane Chief Deputy Inspector General Quarterly 2025 Intake Processing Unit Impact Case Blocks Independent Published in October 2025 Prison Oversight Incident Date June 17, 2025 Case Type Contraband Mission Division of Adult Institutions: Region IV (Rancho Cucamonga Area) OIG Case Number 25-00100587-PI Complaint Summary On June 17, 2025, the OIG received a complaint from an anonymous source (complainant) who alleged an incarcerated person was selling contraband, such as drugs and mobile phones. The complainant alleged the incarcerated person brought in the contraband using an unmanned aerial vehicle (commonly known as a drone), and then kept the drugs and mobile phones in his cell. The incarcerated person allegedly possessed a mobile phone that he moved to other locations during cell searches, and he used mobile payment applications for his illegal transactions. Furthermore, the incarcerated person allegedly maintained a social media account. OIG Actions The OIG reviewed departmental records to corroborate information the complainant provided, but did not locate any records indicating the department was aware of the contraband. However, the OIG was able to verify the existence of an active social media account linked to the incarcerated person as identified by the complainant. On June 18, 2025, the OIG notified the warden of the alleged contraband and active social media account. Disposition On June 20, 2025, the warden notified the OIG that the investigative services unit searched the incarcerated person’s cell and discovered a mobile phone, a mobile phone charger, SIM cards, and mobile payment information. No other contraband or evidence was discovered at that time. On June 27, 2025, the incarcerated person received a rules violation report (RVR) for possession of a mobile phone, and on July 16, 2025, was found guilty. Incident Date April 21, 2025 Case Type Allegation of Staff Misconduct: Conduct or Job Performance Mission Division of Adult Institutions: Region III (Bakersfield Area) OIG Case Number 25-0099045-PI Complaint Summary On April 21, 2025, the OIG received a complaint from an anonymous source alleging a female officer was spying on her “married partner” (male officer) during work hours. The female officer also allegedly lingered “near [the male officer’s] assigned post or [made] rounds that appear to be unrelated to her actual duties.” In addition, the female officer allegedly used her personal mobile phone while inside the prison, which is, in general, forbidden per departmental policy. Page 5 of 18 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4212 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane Chief Deputy Inspector General Quarterly 2025 Intake Processing Unit Impact Case Blocks Independent Published in October 2025 Prison Oversight OIG Actions The OIG reviewed departmental records and confirmed the subject of the complaint was employed with the department, but found no documents indicating the prison was aware of this allegation of staff misconduct. On April 22, 2025, the OIG notified the warden of the potential staff misconduct. On May 22, 2025, the OIG followed up with the warden to determine what actions had been taken, if any, based on our office’s prior notification. On June 2, 2025, the department advised the OIG that the inquiry was being processed. On June 18, 2025, the OIG again followed up with the warden to determine the outcome of the inquiry. Disposition On June 18, 2025, the warden notified the OIG that the inquiry was completed and provided the OIG with a copy of the prison’s report. The OIG reviewed the report and determined the inquiry included a review of staff assignments, as well as audio-video surveillance system recordings of several work shifts. The investigator also considered the possibility that the complainant may have misidentified the subject and identified a second officer with the same last name who was married to another employee at the prison. The investigator then reviewed records related to the second officer. The investigator determined insufficient evidence existed to support the allegation of staff misconduct for either the female officer or the second officer. Incident Date June 24, 2025 Case Type Safety Concern Mission Division of Adult Institutions: Region III (Bakersfield Area) OIG Case Number 25-0100794-PI Complaint Summary On June 24 and 25, 2025, the OIG received four complaints from an anonymous source (complainant) alleging that an incarcerated person was “gonna get hurt” and needed to be moved “off of the yard.” The complainant provided the name, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) number, and the cell number of the incarcerated person. OIG Actions The OIG reviewed departmental records and found no documents indicating the prison was aware of the incarcerated person’s safety concerns. On June 25, 2025, the OIG notified the warden of the potential safety concern. Disposition On June 26, 2025, the OIG reviewed departmental records and found documentation that on June 25, 2025, the incarcerated person was moved to another facility for safety reasons. Furthermore, a confidential offender-separation alert was added to the electronic central files of both the incarcerated person and a second incarcerated person. This separation alert restricts the incarcerated person and the second incarcerated person from being housed at the same prison (or facility). Page 6 of 18 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4212 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane Chief Deputy Inspector General Quarterly 2025 Intake Processing Unit Impact Case Blocks Independent Published in October 2025 Prison Oversight Incident Date May 15, 2025 Case Type Staff Safety Concern Reconsideration Mission Division of Adult Institutions: Region I (Sacramento Area) OIG Case Number 25-0099722-PI Complaint Summary On May 15, 2025, the OIG received a complaint from an anonymous source (complainant) alleging an incarcerated person was soliciting a female correctional officer for sex and threatening to kill the officer if she revealed the contents of a note he wrote to her. OIG Actions The OIG reviewed departmental records and identified that on April 30, 2025, the incarcerated person gave the female officer a note indicating he wanted to get to know her better and that he thought she was beautiful. The officer informed the incarcerated person he would receive a rules violation report (RVR) for overfamiliarity. The incarcerated person responded, “If you get me in trouble, I’ll hurt you.” The female officer subsequently issued an RVR to the incarcerated person for threatening staff. The OIG reviewed the note, which also indicated the incarcerated person asked the female officer to obtain a “burner phone” (used for anonymous communication) to communicate with him through his sister, or communicate directly with him via a software application. This application allows incarcerated people to make calls and send and receive text messages and photographs with family and friends through their State-issued tablets. On April 30, 2025, a sergeant conducted a threat assessment review, which included an interview of the officer, who stated that she felt unsafe and feared for her safety when she spent time near the incarcerated person. The officer requested a staff separation alert, which would have precluded the incarcerated person from being housed at the same prison where the officer worked. After reviewing all relevant information, the warden concluded the case did not meet the criteria to justify the placement of a staff separation alert. On June 13, 2025, and again on July 2, 2025, the OIG requested the warden reconsider the decision not to issue a staff separation alert. Our request highlighted the incarcerated person’s history of violent offenses, including attempted murder. On July 23, 2025, the OIG sent a third request—the first to the new acting warden—to reconsider the prior warden’s decision not to issue a staff separation alert between the officer and the incarcerated person. Disposition Neither the prior nor the current warden ordered a staff separation alert to be instituted between the officer and the incarcerated person. The incarcerated person was moved to another facility, but remained housed at the prison where the officer worked. Page 7 of 18 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4212 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane Chief Deputy Inspector General Quarterly 2025 Intake Processing Unit Impact Case Blocks Independent Published in October 2025 Prison Oversight Incident Date April 22, 2025 Case Type Allegation of Staff Misconduct: Excessive or Unnecessary Use of Force Mission Division of Adult Institutions: Region I (Sacramento Area) OIG Case Number 25-0099066-PI Complaint Summary On April 22, 2025, the OIG received a complaint from an anonymous source (complainant) who alleged an incarcerated person sustained multiple rib fractures, a chest injury and possibly a brain bleed. The complainant alleged the incarcerated person “is being apparently brutally taken down and he is a mentally ill patient.” OIG Actions The OIG’s review of departmental records verified the incarcerated person was involved in 13 use-of-force incidents from February through April 2025, nine of which occurred in April 2025. In two of the nine incidents (April 11 and 17, 2025), the incarcerated person alleged staff misconduct in the form of excessive or unnecessary use of force. When an incarcerated person alleges excessive or unnecessary use of force, departmental policy requires prison staff to forward the allegation(s) of staff misconduct to the department’s Centralized Screening Team (CST). However, as of April 29, 2025, neither of the two allegations had been submitted to CST for review. On April 29, 2025, the OIG notified the warden that the allegations of staff misconduct had not been submitted to CST for review. Disposition On May 5, 2025, the warden forwarded the allegations of staff misconduct to CST. On May 8, 2025, CST referred the allegations of staff misconduct to the Office of Internal Affairs, which opened investigations into each of the two incidents. Incident Date June 5, 2025 Case Type Release Date Calculation; Grievance and Appeal Process Mission Division of Adult Institutions: Region I (Sacramento Area) OIG Case Number 25-0100650-PI and 25-0100580-PI Complaint Summary Between June 17 and 29, 2025, the OIG received three complaints from an anonymous source and three complaints from an incarcerated person (complainants) alleging the incarcerated person’s release date had been miscalculated. The incarcerated person alleged he previously submitted a grievance after he identified an incorrect application of both his program credits Page 8 of 18 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4212 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane Chief Deputy Inspector General Quarterly 2025 Intake Processing Unit Impact Case Blocks Independent Published in October 2025 Prison Oversight and credit earning rate that resulted in an improper release date. The incarcerated person filed a second grievance regarding the incorrect credit-earning rate and release date calculation error. The incarcerated person stated the grievance was inappropriately rejected as a duplicate issue involving the same issue as his prior grievance. OIG Actions The OIG reviewed departmental records and identified the two grievances referenced by the complainants. The OIG also found that on June 5, 2025, the prison’s case records staff notified the incarcerated person his release date was changed from July 26, 2025, to April 16, 2026. Departmental records indicated the release date was changed due to a credit-earning rate change. On June 13, 2025, the incarcerated person filed a second grievance, alleging the April 16, 2026, release date was inaccurate. This second grievance was rejected as a duplicate of the first grievance; however, the grievances involved different issues impacting his release date. On June 20, 2025, the OIG contacted the department’s Office of Grievances (OOG) and identified that the second grievance had been inappropriately rejected and requested the grievance be rereviewed to consider the incarcerated person’s imminent release date. On June 27, 2025, the OIG reviewed departmental records and found no changes had been made to the processing of the second grievance. The OIG followed up with OOG, and on June 27, 2025, OOG notified the OIG a new grievance log number had been generated. However, the new grievance did not identify imminent risk, which would warrant an expedited comprehensive review of his release date per departmental policy. On the same day, the OIG requested that OOG reconsider its imminent risk decision. Disposition OOG subsequently notified the OIG it had changed the grievance to reflect an imminent risk was present and requested the prison’s case records staff once again review the release date calculation. On July 2, 2025, the incarcerated person’s release date was changed back to July 26, 2025, and he was released as scheduled. Incident Date June 5, 2025 Case Type Allegation of Staff Misconduct: Other Misconduct; Contraband Mission Division of Adult Institutions: Region III (Bakersfield Area) OIG Case Number 25-0098664-PI Complaint Summary On April 7, 2025, the OIG received a complaint from an anonymous source (complainant) alleging a citizen was working with an officer to introduce mobile phones and drugs into a prison. OIG Actions The OIG reviewed departmental records and identified the staff member and the visitor who were involved in the alleged introduction of contraband into the prison. On April 8, 2025, OIG staff spoke to the complainant, who provided details about the alleged introduction of contraband along with information about the relationship between the officer and the citizen. Page 9 of 18 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4212 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane Chief Deputy Inspector General Quarterly 2025 Intake Processing Unit Impact Case Blocks Independent Published in October 2025 Prison Oversight On April 9, 2025, the OIG notified the warden about the staff misconduct allegation involving the introduction of contraband into the prison. On June 18, 2025, we reviewed departmental records and found no documentation indicating the prison had addressed the staff misconduct allegation involving introduction of contraband. Therefore, the OIG followed up with the warden to determine what actions had been taken based on our prior notification. On June 19, 2025, the warden notified the OIG that on April 11, 2025, the allegation of staff misconduct was referred to the department’s Centralized Screening Team (CST). Subsequently, the OIG reviewed departmental records and found the allegation was not entered into the departmental tracking system until June 19, 2025, following the OIG’s second notification. Disposition On July 3, 2025, CST reviewed and referred the allegation of staff misconduct to the Office of Internal Affairs, which opened an investigation on July 7, 2025. The OIG’s Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit (SMMU) is monitoring the investigation. Incident Date December 23, 2024 Case Type Allegation of Staff Misconduct: Integrity; Other Misconduct Mission Division of Adult Institutions: Region III (Bakersfield Area); Office of Internal Affairs’ Centralized Screening Team OIG Case Number 25-0099923-PI Complaint Summary On May 23, 2025, the OIG received a complaint from an incarcerated person (complainant) alleging two different groups of incarcerated people attacked him on December 23, 2024. He further alleged that on February 26, 2025, incarcerated people who had first-hand knowledge of the December 23, 2024, attacks informed him that departmental staff arranged the attacks because of his “past behavior.” Furthermore, the incarcerated people told the complainant that the assailants did not receive rules violation reports (RVRs). The complainant alleged that he filed a grievance providing the names of witnesses, and specific dates and times to support his allegations. The complainant also included a written statement from one of the assailants that stated three officers approached him in early December 2024 about a plan to recruit a second incarcerated person to attack the complainant. The officers allegedly promised to give a mobile phone to each assailant. The incarcerated person who authored the written statement stated he did not receive an RVR for the assault and did not receive a mobile phone. OIG Actions The OIG reviewed departmental records and found two incident reports that documented the December 23, 2024, attacks. According to the reports, all assailants were to receive an RVR; however, prison records showed the incarcerated person who signed the written statement Page 10 of 18 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4212 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane Chief Deputy Inspector General Quarterly 2025 Intake Processing Unit Impact Case Blocks Independent Published in October 2025 Prison Oversight and a second assailant did not receive RVRs. We did not locate a grievance related to the December 23, 2024, incidents. We requested and received a signed waiver from the complainant, so we could share the complaint information with the prison to conduct a further review. On June 23, 2025, the OIG shared the complaint with the warden and requested a review of the allegation of staff misconduct. On the same day, the department’s Office of Grievances assigned a grievance log number for the complaint. On June 26, 2025, the department’s Centralized Screening Team (CST) completed its assessment, but did not identify the complaint as an allegation of staff misconduct. The OIG disagreed with CST’s decision and determined the allegation met the threshold for an investigation as noted on the allegation decision index. Therefore, on July 1, 2025, the OIG contacted CST and recommended a second review of the claim and a referral to the Office of Internal Affairs for an investigation. Disposition On July 10, 2025, CST conducted a second review of the claim and referred the allegation of staff misconduct to the department’s Office of Internal Affairs, which opened an investigation the same day. Incident Date April 22, 2025 Case Type Safety Concerns: Contraband Mission Division of Adult Institutions: Region II (Fresno Area) OIG Case Number 25-0099086-PI Complaint Summary On April 22, 2025, the OIG received a complaint from an anonymous source (complainant) alleging an incarcerated person possessed a mobile phone. The complainant provided the incarcerated person’s moniker, the facility and building location where they were housed, and the mobile phone’s location within the cell. OIG Actions The OIG reviewed departmental records and could not identify the incarcerated person. On April 25, 2025, the OIG notified the hiring authority of the details surrounding the alleged contraband. Our staff followed up with the warden multiple times between May 2, 2025, and June 4, 2025, to determine the outcome. The warden explained that the investigation was ongoing. On June 26, 2025, the OIG again followed up with the warden to determine the outcome. Disposition On June 26, 2025, the warden notified the OIG that a cell search was completed, and contraband was discovered in the incarcerated person’s cell. Our review of departmental records identified the incarcerated person received a rules violation report on June 11, 2025; however, he was found not guilty of possessing a mobile phone. Instead, his cellmate confessed to owning the phone and was found guilty of possession of a mobile phone. Page 11 of 18 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4212 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane Chief Deputy Inspector General Quarterly 2025 Intake Processing Unit Impact Case Blocks Independent Published in October 2025 Prison Oversight Incident Date April 24, 2025 Case Type Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA): Incarcerated Person on Incarcerated Person Mission Division of Adult Institutions: Region I (Sacramento Area) OIG Case Number 25-0099529-PI Complaint Summary On May 9, 2025, the OIG received a complaint from an anonymous source (complainant) who alleged sexual misconduct by an incarcerated person (PREA aggressor). The complainant alleged that the PREA aggressor sexually coerced multiple incarcerated people into performing sexual acts with the PREA aggressor. The complainant also alleged the PREA aggressor was in possession of contraband. OIG Actions The OIG reviewed prison records and determined that the department was unaware of these allegations. On May 9, 2025, the OIG referred the alleged Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) violations and the possession of contraband to the warden. On May 13, 2025, the PREA aggressor was placed in the restricted housing unit. On June 23, 2025, the OIG followed up with the warden to determine what actions, if any, had been taken based on the OIG’s notification. Disposition On June 24, 2025, prison management notified the OIG that the investigative services unit substantiated the allegations of sexual abuse taken by the PREA aggressor. During the investigation, officers also identified the PREA aggressor was in possession of contraband. The PREA aggressor received a rules violation report for sexual battery and was subsequently transferred to another prison. The OIG commends prison staff for their thorough investigative work following our notification. Incident Date May 7, 2025 Case Type Centralized Screening Team (CST): Screening Decision Mission Office of Internal Affairs, Centralized Screening Team (CST) OIG Case Number 25-0101208-PI Complaint Summary On July 10, 2025, the OIG received a complaint from an incarcerated person (complainant) alleging that on April 20 or 21, 2025, while working, he was assaulted by a staff member. The complainant further stated he reported the misconduct, and staff had “continuously retaliated against [him].” Page 12 of 18 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4212 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane Chief Deputy Inspector General Quarterly 2025 Intake Processing Unit Impact Case Blocks Independent Published in October 2025 Prison Oversight OIG Actions We reviewed departmental records and verified that on May 1, 2025, the complainant filed a grievance alleging a staff member, on April 20 or 21, 2025, grabbed his wrist and aggressively yanked his hand back and did not let go until the complainant pulled away. On May 7, 2025, the department’s Centralized Screening Team (CST) referred the allegation of staff misconduct that occurred on April 20 or 21, 2025, to the department’s Office of Internal Affairs for an investigation. However, the allegation of excessive or unnecessary use of force by staff was not included as an allegation for the Office of Internal Affairs’ investigation. On July 18, 2025, the OIG questioned CST’s screening decision and elevated the unidentified allegation to CST’s administrators for inclusion in the existing Office of Internal Affairs’ investigation. Disposition On August 5, 2025, CST added the allegation of excessive or unnecessary use of force to the existing Office of Internal Affairs’ investigation. Incident Date May 26, 2025 Case Type Contraband; Safety Concern Mission Division of Adult Institutions: Region III (Bakersfield Area) OIG Case Number 25-0099956-PI Complaint Summary On May 26, 2025, the OIG received a complaint from a citizen (complainant) alleging an incarcerated person was in possession of a mobile phone and had been posting content on social media. The complainant also reported that the incarcerated person and his cellmate were in possession of weapons and planned to assault staff. OIG Actions The OIG reviewed departmental records and confirmed the identity of the incarcerated person who was allegedly in possession of a mobile phone. On May 27, 2025, we also reviewed social media and found the incarcerated person had posted videos that appeared to be recorded inside his cell. On May 27, 2025, the OIG notified the warden of the possible contraband mobile phone and shared the information related to the social media account. Furthermore, we notified the warden that the incarcerated person and his cellmate were in possession of weapons and planned to assault staff. On May 29 and 30, 2025, the OIG again reviewed the social media account and found the incarcerated person had posted additional content. On May 30, 2025, the OIG followed up with the warden to determine what actions had been taken based on the OIG’s notification. Prison management advised the OIG that no contraband was discovered when they searched the incarcerated person’s cell. Page 13 of 18 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4212 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane Chief Deputy Inspector General Quarterly 2025 Intake Processing Unit Impact Case Blocks Independent Published in October 2025 Prison Oversight Disposition On May 30, 2025, the incarcerated person was placed in the restricted housing unit, pending an investigation into the threat to assault staff. On May 30, 2025, approximately one hour after the OIG followed up with the warden, staff conducted another cell search and discovered a mobile phone. Staff also discovered a makeshift weapon on the incarcerated person’s cellmate. Moreover, on May 30, 2025, the incarcerated person received a rules violation report (RVR) for possession of a mobile phone, but on July 10, 2025, was he found not guilty. The cellmate received an RVR for possession of a mobile phone, and on July 9, 2025, he was found guilty. The cellmate also received an RVR for possession of a deadly weapon, and the department postponed the hearing pending a response from the district attorney. Incident Date July 12, 2025 Case Type Release Date Mission Division of Adult Institutions: Region IV (Rancho Cucamonga Area) OIG Case Number 25-0100866-PI Complaint Summary Between June 26 and July 15, 2025, the OIG received five complaints from an incarcerated person (complainant). The incarcerated person alleged that on June 25, 2025, he received an unjust rules violation report (RVR), and a credit loss was applied, causing his release date to change from July 16, 2025, to July 26, 2025, without a hearing. Subsequently, the complainant reported that the RVR was reduced to a counseling-only chrono with no credit loss; however, the department had not voided the credit loss, which would have restored his release date to July 16, 2025. OIG Actions We reviewed departmental records and verified that, on June 25, 2025, the complainant received an RVR. On July 3, 2025, a 30-day credit loss was applied to the complainant’s release date pending the RVR hearing results. Based on this credit loss, prison staff changed the incarcerated person’s release date from July 16, 2025, to July 26, 2025. On July 12, 2025, the RVR hearing was held and the administrative RVR was reduced to a counseling chrono—a document used to record disciplinary actions following minor misconduct—and no credit loss was applied. However, as of July 15, 2025, the RVR outcome had not been approved by the chief disciplinary officer (CDO); thus, the complainant’s release date had not been appropriately restored to July 16, 2025. On July 15, 2025, the OIG contacted the warden and requested the CDO conduct an expedited review of the RVR, and reassess the complainant’s release date. Disposition On July 15, 2025, the CDO approved the hearing results, and the 30-day credit loss was voided. On the same day, the complainant’s release date was changed back to July 16, 2025, and the complainant was timely released. Page 14 of 18 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4212 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane Chief Deputy Inspector General Quarterly 2025 Intake Processing Unit Impact Case Blocks Independent Published in October 2025 Prison Oversight Incident Date August 9, 2025 Case Type Release Date Issue Mission Division of Adult Institutions: Region II (Fresno Area) OIG Case Number 25-0102056-PI, 25-0102088-PI Complaint Summary On August 12, 2025, the OIG received complaints from a citizen and an incarcerated person alleging the incarcerated person was held past his release date of August 9, 2025. The incarcerated person alleged that on August 1, 2025, he was found not guilty for a rules violation report (RVR), but the prison had not corrected his release date. OIG Actions The OIG reviewed departmental records and found that on July 12, 2024, the incarcerated person received an RVR for possession of deadly weapon. On July 24, 2024, the incarcerated person postponed the disciplinary hearing. The prison automatically applied a 360-day credit loss on July 25, 2025, because the incarcerated person was near his release date of August 9, 2025, and the disciplinary hearing was still pending. On July 28, 2025, the incarcerated person revoked his request for hearing postponement. On August 1, 2025, the disciplinary hearing was held, and the incarcerated person was found not guilty. The outcome of the disciplinary hearing was delayed pending the chief disciplinary officer’s (CDO) approval. As a result, the incarcerated person’s release date could not be adjusted, and he was held past his release date. On August 12, 2025, OIG staff notified the warden and prison management about the potential release date issue. Disposition On August 12, 2025, following the OIG’s notification, the CDO approved the disciplinary hearing results. On August 14, 2025, the incarcerated person’s release date was recalculated, and on August 19, 2025, he was released from prison. Incident Date March 29, 2025 Case Type Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA): Incarcerated Person on Incarcerated Person Mission Division of Adult Institutions: Region II (Fresno Area) OIG Case Number 25-0098486-PI Complaint Summary On March 29, 2025, the OIG received four complaints from four incarcerated people (complainants) who alleged that in the early morning hours of March 29, 2025, their dormitory Page 15 of 18 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4212 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane Chief Deputy Inspector General Quarterly 2025 Intake Processing Unit Impact Case Blocks Independent Published in October 2025 Prison Oversight mate (PREA aggressor) sexually harassed and sexually assaulted them. Each complainant provided a graphic and detailed account of the PREA aggressor’s actions. OIG Actions The OIG reviewed departmental records and confirmed all five incarcerated people were located in the same dormitory (a shared room with multiple beds) during the alleged incident. On April 2, 2025, the OIG notified the warden of the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) allegations. We found that on the same day, the investigative services unit initiated a PREA inquiry and interviewed the four complainants. Disposition On May 1, 2025, the investigative services unit substantiated the allegations of sexual harassment carried out by the PREA aggressor. On the same day, the PREA aggressor received a rules violation report, and on June 10, 2025, the PREA aggressor was found guilty of “behavior which encourages illegal sexual acts.” Incident Date April 26, 2025 Case Type Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) Mission Division of Adult Institutions: Region 1 (Sacramento Area) OIG Case Number 25-0099160-PI Complaint Summary On April 26, 2025, the OIG received a voicemail complaint from an incarcerated person who alleged having been raped by an unknown person. OIG Actions On April 28, 2025, the OIG notified the prison of the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) allegation of sexual violence in accordance with federal PREA standards. Federal PREA Standard 115.51 states that for any individual reporting PREA complaints to our office, the responsible agency shall immediately forward reports of sexual abuse and sexual harassment to departmental officials, allowing the incarcerated person to remain anonymous upon request. Because the incarcerated person did not request to remain anonymous, we provided the name and California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation number of the complainant. On May 1, 2025, the investigative services unit (ISU) notified the OIG its staff opened a PREA inquiry. Disposition On May 1, 2025, ISU notified the OIG that the incarcerated person admitted to making a false PREA allegation against another incarcerated person, stating, “Hey sorry, it’s a fake PREA, I don’t want to come back to the yard.” ISU notified the OIG that the incarcerated person would be issued a rules violation report. On July 9, 2025, the incarcerated person was found guilty of filing a “False Report of Criminal Offense,” and the department imposed a 60-day loss of credits. The OIG is highlighting this case to show how the department holds incarcerated people accountable for reporting false PREA allegations. Page 16 of 18 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4212 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane Chief Deputy Inspector General Quarterly 2025 Intake Processing Unit Impact Case Blocks Independent Published in October 2025 Prison Oversight Incident Date July 15, 2025 Case Type Contraband; Rules and Violation Report (RVR) Mission Division of Adult Institutions: Region 2 (Fresno Area) OIG Case Number 25-0101279-PI Complaint Summary On July 13, 2025, the OIG received a complaint from an anonymous source (complainant) who alleged an incarcerated person was in possession of a mobile phone and had been actively posting on social media. OIG Actions The OIG reviewed departmental records and determined where the incarcerated person was housed. On July 15, 2025, the OIG notified the warden of the alleged mobile phone contraband. Disposition On July 15, 2025, within three hours of the OIG’s notification, custody staff searched the incarcerated person’s cell and discovered a mobile phone and a hypodermic syringe. The incarcerated person was issued two rules violation reports and was found guilty of “unauthorized possession of drug paraphernalia” and “possession of a cellular telephone.” The department imposed a 100-day loss of credits and a 61-day loss of credits, respectively, for the offenses. Incident Date March 12, 2025 Case Type Allegation of Staff Misconduct: Dishonesty Mission Division of Adult Institutions Region I (Sacramento Area) OIG Case Number 25-0098010-PI Complaint Summary On March 12, 2025, the OIG received a voicemail complaint from an incarcerated person (complainant) that stated he had been having difficulty breathing and was seeking medical treatment. However, the complainant alleged an officer told medical staff the complainant was refusing to seek medical treatment. OIG Actions The OIG reviewed medical records and found that on March 12, 2025, after contacting the OIG, prison medical staff treated the complainant for chest pains. We found that on March 8, 2025, custody staff denied the complainant’s escort to receive breathing treatments due to his agitated behavior. Departmental records indicated medical staff observed the complainant showed no signs or symptoms of respiratory distress. Page 17 of 18 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4212 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane Chief Deputy Inspector General Quarterly 2025 Intake Processing Unit Impact Case Blocks Independent Published in October 2025 Prison Oversight On March 13, 2025, the OIG notified departmental staff of the complainant’s allegation of staff misconduct stating the officer did not allow the complainant to receive medical treatment. Disposition On March 14, 2025, departmental staff referred the allegation of staff misconduct to the department’s Centralized Screening Team (CST). On March 19, 2025, departmental staff interviewed the complainant who alleged an officer fabricated a medical refusal document. On March 19, 2025, the Office of Internal Affairs opened an investigation into the allegation of dishonesty. Page 18 of 18 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4212 5 www.oig.ca.gov