An Alameda County Superior Court judge allowed a proposed class action that challenges the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)’s decades-long practice of withholding “gate money” from people released from prison to proceed. The ruling, issued on April 1, 2026, denied CDCR’s efforts to dismiss the plaintiffs’ central causes of action and rejected the agency’s motion to strike the lawsuit’s class allegations.
The plaintiffs in the case are represented by UC Berkeley Law’s Criminal Law & Justice Center and Salahi PC. It challenges CDCR’s practice of deducting transportation and clothing costs from the $200 in release funds that California Penal Code section 2713.1 requires the agency to pay each person leaving prison. The law has been on the books since 1973 when the Legislature enacted it with near-unanimous support. It was signed into law by Governor Ronald Reagan.
Since 1994, CDCR has deducted clothing and transportation costs from the release funds of nearly all of the approximately 30,000 people it releases from prison each year. The lawsuit alleges that the agency has shortchanged tens of thousands of people during that period. Although CDCR moved to amend its regulation after the lawsuit was filed, the court found that this regulatory change does not moot the case, particularly given that CDCR has the authority to revert the regulation, has a 30-year track record of noncompliance with the statute, and still argues that its prior deduction practice was legal.
In the April 1 ruling, the Court:
- Allowed the plaintiffs’ writ of mandate claim to proceed, finding that the lawsuit properly seeks to compel CDCR to comply with its statutory duty, not merely to recover damages, and is therefore not subject to the Government Claims Act;
- Rejected CDCR’s argument that the case is moot, holding that CDCR’s recent decision to remove its deduction regulation does not end the controversy because the agency claims full authority to reinstate the practice and “has not conceded error”;
- Denied CDCR’s motion to strike the class allegations, ruling that the plaintiffs have adequately pled facts supporting classwide tolling theories and that the sufficiency of those allegations is better resolved on a developed evidentiary record at class certification; and
- Rejected CDCR’s argument that its 30-year deduction practice was lawful, finding that the plaintiffs stated a “plausible claim that the deduction regulation exceeded statutory authority” and that CDCR’s competing statutory interpretations cannot be resolved at the pleading stage.
“The ruling confirms what we argued from the start: CDCR cannot avoid accountability for decades of violating state law simply by changing its regulation after getting sued,” said Chesa Boudin, Founding Executive Director of Berkeley Law’s Criminal Law & Justice Center. “The court saw through CDCR’s attempts to moot this case and dismiss the claims of over a million people who were shortchanged in ways that undermined justice and public safety. We look forward to pursuing justice for our clients and the class.”
“This is a major step forward for every person who walked out of a California prison and received less than what the law required,” said Yaman Salahi, founder of Salahi PC. “The court’s decision to preserve the class allegations means that this case can seek relief not just for our four clients, who bravely stepped forward, but also for the hundreds of thousands of people affected by CDCR’s unlawful conduct stretching back more than three decades.”
The court did sustain CDCR’s demurrer on the unjust enrichment claim, finding it duplicative of the statutory cause of action, and narrowed the conversion claim on Government Claims Act timeliness grounds for certain plaintiffs while preserving it for Plaintiff Dwight Anderson and granting leave to amend for two others. The case can now advance to class certification and merits proceedings.
About Plaintiffs’ Counsel
The Criminal Law & Justice Center at UC Berkeley School of Law is a hub for research, education, and advocacy. The Center’s work encompasses impact litigation as well as empirical research, policy analysis, and teaching. Attorneys from the Center include Chesa Boudin and Rio Scharf.
Salahi PC is a San Francisco-based law firm dedicated to advancing social and economic justice through class actions and other impact litigation, including antitrust, civil rights and liberties, consumer protection, and employment matters. Attorneys from the firm include Yaman Salahi, Nicole Cabañez, and Taylor Applegate.