Produced By: Kelsey Bolar and Andrea Mew
Written By: Andrea Mew
In 2022, Central California Women’s Facility (CCWF) inmate Cathleen Quinn was approaching the light at the end of the tunnel. Incarcerated for nearly 20 years on a sentence of 15 years to life for second-degree murder, Quinn had been deemed suitable for parole. But three weeks away from freedom, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) revoked her grant for parole, leaving her behind bars for another five years.
Her transgression, Quinn believes, was daring to speak out against SB 132, a California law allowing male offenders to “self-identify” and be housed in women’s prisons. That’s because in February 2022, after reporting a male who was placed in her facility – and who allegedly peeped on her twice in the women’s restroom – Quinn was hit with a wrongful verdict of “institutional misconduct” and lost her chance to leave.
The Offense
The first trans-identified inmate Quinn came into contact with was Eva Reeves, a male inmate formerly known as Michael “Oso” Contrares, who, as IW Features has previously reported, is believed to be responsible for at least 13 murders.
In January 2022, Quinn said she was using the restroom when she noticed a person walking up to the frosted glass on the door and just standing there. Seated on the toilet, Quinn called out to tell the person she recognized as Reeves to go away. He remained outside the door.
Quinn said she told her friend she found the situation “really disturbing” but ultimately decided to brush it off, hoping it was a one-time accident. It wasn’t.
After a couple of weeks of “a very uncomfortable kind of tension” between her and Reeves, he allegedly did it again, this time lingering even longer.
Concerned about her privacy and safety, Quinn reportedly told Reeves to knock it off. Still, the situation didn’t sit right with her. Why had a male prisoner been allowed anywhere near the women’s facility in the first place?
So Quinn filed a grievance with CDCR against SB 132, the policy that opened the door for men such as Reeves to transfer into the women’s prison.
In her complaint, Quinn accused Reeves of intentionally peeping on her twice so that prison officials could document the incidents in their log books and have a record should anything else occur. Quinn intentionally chose not to file a Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) allegation since she wasn’t alleging sexual assault. Doing so could have opened Quinn to administrative segregation and lengthy investigations, that also could have impacted her ability to qualify for parole.
After documenting the incidents, the captain on the yard came and interviewed Quinn, asking if she feared for her safety.
According to Quinn, she expressed the following sentiments: “‘No. The only reason I filed this grievance was because I believe that SB 132 is bad policy. I believe that preoperative men should not be housed with women here with their genitalia still attached. I disagree with it. And I just want it notated that because of the situation that has happened to me twice now, I feel very uncomfortable, and I think that this policy is bad.’”
A couple of days later, Quinn said the captain told her the case was closed. But On March 30, the parole board found Cathleen suitable for parole, following a 150-day review period where she must remain free of disciplinary write-ups.
But just a few months later in June, the prison issued a write-up to Cathleen, asserting that her grievances regarding the male peeping incidents earlier in the year were “false reports of criminal conduct” and harassment of the perpetrator based on “transgender status.”
Even though the write-up hadn’t yet been adjudicated, the state vacated Cathleen’s parole grant. Despite being later found “not guilty” of the allegations detailed in the report, Cathleen’s opportunity for parole was gone.
The Fallout
Quinn said she went to speak with CCWF’s PREA compliance manager, Captain Alonzo Padilla, to figure out what was going on, and he allegedly told her: “The bottom line is that you guys [female inmates] are always going to lose because their [transgender-identifying inmates] lawyers are better than your lawyers.”
What’s more, Quinn alleged the parole board commissioner was “terribly rude” in his proceedings with her. According to a transcript of the hearing reviewed by IW Features, at one point, the commissioner told Quinn he was “disappointed in her” because “it’s hard enough to get a finding of suitability [of parole]” and that “once you get found suitable, man, you better be perfect.”
He added: “I would not be out there, you know, trying to change the law.”
His point, Quinn believes, was very clear: if she had just kept quiet about a male being housed in her facility, she more than likely would have gotten out.
IW Features reached out to CCWF and the CDCR’s Board of Parole commissioner who is named in the transcript. He and CCWF did not respond to our request for comment.
This was a devastating blow for Quinn. “I had just been told I could go home after 17 years, 18 years. And so I was devastated,” Quinn said. “I was three weeks from paroling when they took away my date. I mean, my family had already made arrangements for me to come. People were waiting for me.”
Quinn felt punished for asking for help — and for standing up for herself.
When she was issued the write-up, for instance, Quinn said she asked the warden what she had done to warrant a write-up when all she did was voice an opinion about SB 132 and document an uncomfortable incident involving a male inmate.
Paraphrasing, she said, “His words to me were this, ‘If you didn’t do anything wrong, just keep your head down and be quiet and let the process play out,’” Quinn said.
Despite her parole delay, Quinn tries to maintain a positive attitude and productive mindset. She said other women inside the facility, including staff, have asked her how she can still walk around with a smile on her face after everything that transpired.
“Even staff have said that to me, ‘You know, Cath, you got screwed. You know that, right?’” she said.
But Quinn also believes that something good will come from her hardships.
The Comeback
In 2021, the Women’s Liberation Front (WoLF) sued the state of California, aiming to overturn SB 132. In its lawsuit, WoLF argued that housing incarcerated women with male offenders infringes on their constitutional rights, citing the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
By May 2022, the ACLU and other advocacy organizations requested to join the case, seeking to represent male inmates who wished to be housed in women’s prisons. California and the ACLU collaborated to have the case dismissed.
In May 2024, the Eastern District Court of California granted that dismissal on procedural grounds.
Undeterred, WoLF filed an amended complaint on July 19, 2024, which is currently before the court, awaiting a response from the state and the ACLU. This amended complaint added two new plaintiffs –– one of whom is Quinn.
“Courage is contagious,” Quinn said of her decision to file the original grievance against SB 132 and to now participate in WoLF’s lawsuit. “If one person can step up and they see that that one person can, then other people might feel the courage to do so also.”
