Page 1
C.A. Orders Prisons to Revise Personal Property Rules
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Can’t Deny Male Inmates Access to Non-Gender-Specific Items That Female Prisoners May Possess—Opinion
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Fifth District Court of Appeal has declared that items that are available to general-population female prison inmates that are not gender-specific—such as tweezers, robes, earrings and alarm clocks—must also be accessible to their male counterparts under compulsion of the equal-protection provisions of the state and federal constitutions.
“Individual inmates in the same privilege class should receive the same property rights, regardless of gender.” the court held Thursday in an unpublished opinion authored by Justice Jennifer R.S. Detjen.
It granted a petition for a writ of habeas corpus sought by inmate Harald Mark Galzinski ordering the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to modify its Authorized Personal Property Schedule (“APPS”), decreeing:
“We order Department to revise the APPS to eliminate gender-based classifications that create a disparity in allowable property between general population male and female inmates. Department is ordered to determine which specific property items will be allowable equally for both general population male inmates and general population female inmates. In revising the property regulations, we do not require that property specific to female inmates’ unique needs, such as personal hygiene and brassieres, be available to both male and female inmates.”
Galzinaski, a rapist/child molester sentenced in 2005 to prison for 338 years to life, was initially denied relief by the Fifth District but the California Supreme Court on Jan. 25, 2023, ordered the department to show cause before the Court of Appeal why a writ should not be granted. In Thursday’s decision, Detgen said:
“While it is clear Department has a compelling interest in prison security and safety, it has not established such compelling interest justifies its gender-based property classification….Department claims the disparate treatment in allowable property between genders is necessary because male inmates are more violent and more likely to escape or attempt to escape than female inmates. However, for suspect classifications such as gender, equal protection standards cannot be satisfied by penalizing every single individual in a constitutionally protected class because of alleged misdeeds of some of its members….Moreover, such sweeping generalizations are insufficient.”
The case is In re Galzinski, F085635.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company