Analysis of Federal Court Decisions on Overcrowding of California's Prisons and Medical Care

The record considered by the judges is voluminous and has been developed over the course of years--decades. Given the findings of the judges--and the fact that there are two of them--any reviewing court will either have to find that they both have made a mistake in law or do not have the evidentiary basis for their findings, to reverse them. If only one judge is correct, there will be the empanelling of three judges to deal with the problems that overcrowding have caused on prison medical care. That is unlikely.

Secondly, these are decisions that order a panel of three U.S. District Court judges be appointed pursuant to Federal law, the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PRLA). This is not a decision by these judges, to release prisoners, or to cap the prison population, or to do anything else other than to order the panel be convened.

Fear, hysteria, or concern that prisoners will be suddenly released and in your neighborhood tomorrow, are not warranted.

On the other hand, the judges have made findings, pursuant to the PRLA and as required by it, which are serious and profound, and should concern all legislators and the Governor as well as Californians who follow public policy. There are huge implications here. The judges have found, in the words of the statutes, that "less intrusive relief has failed to remedy the deprivation" of a right under the Constitution. They have both also found that the state of California has "had a reasonable amount of time to comply with the previous court orders" and has not.

Under the PRLA, a three-judge court may only make a prisoner release order if they find "by clear and convincing evidence" that overcrowding is the primary cause of this violation of Federal rights and no other relief will remedy the situation.

The factual findings of the judges and the record should be closely paid attention to and heeded. These include unnecessary deaths and serious violations, not petty failures of the prison medical system or a transient or small overcrowding of our prisons.

Third, the Governor has announced that the state of California will appeal these decisions, and this will provide additional time before a panel is convened, which some legal commentators have seen as being within the range of about a year.

But appealing these orders will not make the problems go away. These judges have specifically noted the passage of AB 900, the $15 billion (with interest included) or so prison construction program. They have both found that this legislation either will not, or likely will not, alleviate the problems here. There are other changes in the California penal code relating to sentencing and the like that will be needed.

Fourth, both judges have expressed their great reluctance in making their rulings, but feel that they had no other choice. They have stated, both in the court hearings and also in their opinions, that they would like nothing better than that the state of California solve the problem and that the parties to these lawsuits can be in a position to settle these two class action cases by an agreed upon resolution.

Passages from Judge Henderson's Decision in Plata v. Schwarzenegger

Here are a few passages with page numbers and citations from the record omitted:

…as the Court noted in its order finding the appointment of a receiver to be appropriate, “[t]he Court has given defendants every reasonable opportunity to bring its prison medical system up to constitutional standards, and it is beyond reasonable dispute that the State has failed.” Oct. 3, 2005 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Re: Appointment of Receiver. Similarly, the Court explained that it “has attempted to move defendants toward meeting constitutional standards by issuing a series of court orders with detailed objectives and measures. Unfortunately, defendants have repeatedly delayed their progress and ultimately failed to achieve even a semblance of compliance” with the June 13, 2002 stipulated order for injunctive relief or the September 17, 2004 stipulated order regarding the quality of patient care. Thus, not only is it clear that the Court has previously entered orders for less intrusive relief; it is equally clear that Defendants have had a “reasonable amount of time” to comply with the June 2002 and September 2004 orders….

Defendants’ position would essentially have this Court wait years to see if the Receiver’s Plan of Action is able to remedy the constitutional deficiencies in this case, and the Court has already determined that such delay is neither necessary nor appropriate. Feb. 15, 2007 Order. While the Court agrees that the Receiver has made much progress since his appointment, that fact does not render irrelevant the previous five years of complete and utter failure by Defendants to cure the constitutional deficiencies in their delivery of medical health care to prisoners. “Where life and death hang[] in the balance, courts must act to ensure that constitutional violations are cured sooner rather than later,” and Defendants have already been given ample opportunity to attempt to bring the delivery of medical care to prisoners up to constitutional standards. It is beyond reason that a willing and competent institution would not be able to show – over a period of several years and with this Court virtually screaming at every step of the way – significant improvements in the hiring of medical personnel, the furnishing of adequate medical facilities, and the development of thoughtful and comprehensive plans for managing the delivery of medical health care. Yet that is precisely what has happened in this case, and it is why the appointment of the Receiver ultimately became necessary. To use the words of Defendants’ counsel at the June 27, 2007 hearing, the appointment order was a “culminating order,” and this Court finds it more reasonable to view such an order as the end of a series of less intrusive orders that failed to bring about any meaningful reform, rather than as a new beginning that requires this Court to wait more time, potentially years, to see whether the Receiver’s plans will succeed or fail….

Tellingly, the Receiver’s concerns about the impacts of overcrowding on his ability to reform the medical health care delivery system became even stronger in the weeks following his initial report. In his supplemental report, filed just four weeks after his initial report, the Receiver concluded that: “Mission changes, yard flips, and prison-to-prison transfers, aggravated by the limited alternatives imposed by overcrowding, are now assuming a size, scope and frequency that will clearly extend the timeframes and costs of the receivership and may render adequate medical care impossible, especially for patients who require longer term chronic care.”…

The Court acknowledges that the State has recently attempted to take action to reduce prison crowding through Assembly Bill 900 (“AB 900”), which Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law on May 3, 2007. Even assuming that the provisions of this legislation were to be timely implemented, however – which the Court has doubts about given the history of delays in this case, the highly controversial and political nature of the subject matter, and the conflicts that may sometimes arise between meeting constitutional standards and the tough on-crime approach to law enforcement espoused by some members of the California Legislature – it is unclear whether the legislation would reduce the impacts of overcrowding in any meaningful way. For instance, Defendants’ own estimates show only a slight projected reduction in the male inmate population: from approximately 162,848 male inmates in May 2007 to 159,939 male inmates in March 2008, and back up to 162,674 male inmates in March 2009 – a net projected decrease of less than 200 inmates over two years….

…AB 900 fails to address the critical component of staffing – made even more critical by the undisputed fact that California’s prison system is currently severely understaffed in terms of both medical and correctional officers – and fails to allocate adequate space for delivering health care….

As Plaintiffs correctly argue, AB 900 and theReceiver’s Plan of Action may proceed simultaneously with a three-judge court’s consideration of the necessity for a prisoner release order. The same is true for any other reforms being considered by the State, including those raised by the CDCR’s expert panel report. If, for example, the reforms in the expert panel report were actually implemented and reduced levels of prison crowding as estimated, then a three-judge court may find that a prisoner release order is not warranted….

As this Court has repeatedly stated, this case is unique because of the unprecedented size and scope of the Receivership, the appointment of which Defendants acknowledged was necessary given their own repeated failed attempts at meaningful reform. Of relevance to the pending motion, this case is also somewhat unique in that even Defendants acknowledge the seriousness of the overcrowding problem, which led the Governor to declare a state of emergency in California’s prisons in October 2006….

Although the Court has ordered that a three-judge court be convened, it also continues to encourage the parties to attempt an informal resolution of the issues raised by Plaintiffs’ motion. Contrary to the views expressed by the Coleman plaintiffs’ counsel at the June 27, 2007 hearing, a prisoner release order would, indeed, be a radical step, particularly given the size of California’s prison system. Such a step may not be necessary if, for example, the parties, in conjunction with the Receiver, were able to reach agreement that Plaintiffs’motion has become moot because AB 900 or any other subsequent action by the State removed overcrowding as a major impediment to bringing the delivery of inmate medical health care up to constitutional standards. This Court would like nothing more than to have the three-judge court be able to enter a consent judgment without the need for a prisoner release order.

Passages from Judge Karlton's Decision in Coleman v. Schwarzaenegger

Here are a few passages also with page numbers and citations from the record omitted:

Orders for Less Intrusive Relief: This court’s September 13, 1995 order identified four broad elements required for a constitutionally adequate prison mental health care system: (1) proper screening to identify individuals with serious mental disorders both at the time of their admission to CDCR and over the course of their incarceration; (2) competent staff in sufficient numbers “‘to identify and treat in an individualized manner those treatable inmates suffering from serious mental disorders’; (3) timely access to appropriate levels of care, including both beds and programs, and appropriate medication; and (4) an adequate medical record system. A fifth component of an adequate mental health care system, suicide prevention, was found adequate in design but deficient in implementation due to chronic understaffing.

Since February of 1996, this court has issued at least seventy-seven substantive orders to defendants in an effort to bring the CDCR’s mental health care delivery system into compliance with the requirements of the Eighth Amendment. Taken together, these orders have contained directives aimed at all of the aforementioned requirements for a constitutionally adequate mental health care delivery system. In addition, the Special Master and his staff have spent hundreds of thousands of hours working with the parties to develop program guidelines for a constitutionally adequate system and monitoring defendants’ implementation of those guidelines. During the same period of time, the Special Master has filed seventeen semi-annual monitoring reports and fifty-five other reports reflecting the results of these efforts. …

Through 2005, the record in this action reflected slow but evident progress toward constitutional compliance. Between 1997, when the court gave provisional approval to the plans and protocols for delivery of mental health care, and 2005, some prisons in California came into sufficient compliance with the provisionally approved remedial plans and protocols that the Special Master and his staff were able to reduce the number of monitoring visits to those prisons….

In spite of the commendable progress described above, defendants’ mental health care delivery system has not come into compliance with the Eighth Amendment at any point since this action began….

The semi-annual reports of the Special Master filed since March 2006 show a significant and thus very troubling reversal of the progress made by defendants in maintaining adequate staffing and access to necessary levels of care… The Special Master also reported that“[t]ransfers of inmates to more intensive levels of mental health programming and treatment became increasingly erratic during the monitoring period. Delays in transfers, especially to the most intensive treatment programs for inmates at the highest custody levels, became endemic….

…the Special Master reports that,

defendants cannot meet at least a substantial portion, amounting in some loose amalgam to about 33 percent, of acknowledged mental health needs with current staffing resources. Insufficient intensive mental health treatment beds and a chronic lack of programming
space for mental health treatment contribute further to defendants’ inability to meet required mental health services. All three deficiencies are unquestionably exacerbated by overcrowding.

With a mental health caseload of almost 33,000 inmates, this level of unmetneeds is unconscionable.

The orders of this court issued from 1995 through the present have failed to remedy the constitutionally inadequate delivery of mental health care to CDCR inmates….

Time for Compliance: It has been almost twelve years since this court found widespread violations of the Eighth Amendment in the delivery of mental health care to the members of the plaintiff class…. Defendants have had more than sufficient time to comply with the mandate required by the court’s 1995 order and the numerous orders issued since then.

There is no dispute that prisons in California are seriously and dangerously overcrowded. The Governor of California has repeatedly and eloquently noted the public emergency caused by overcrowded prison conditions, and the CDCR’s website contains several photographs of overcrowding at five of the State’s prisons taken in August 2006….

In June 2004, an independent panel appointed by Governor Schwarzenegger found significant overcrowding in the CDCR….

Defendants plan to add 12,000 prison “in-fill” beds by 2009. According to defendants, “[i]n-fill beds will provide additional capacity at existing prisons in a way that ensures proper facilities, support and services.” Id. It is not at all clear, however, that an additional 12,000 beds, even if timely completed, will alleviate the population crisis….

Review of the record before this court shows that, through AB 900, the State of
California has responded to the prison overcrowding crisis with legislation that requires the construction of thousands of beds to increase the capacity of the prison system, development and staffing of rehabilitation programs to reduce recidivism, and transfer of 8,000 inmates out of state. For the reasons discussed supra, none of these efforts will have any appreciable impact on the severely overcrowded prisons in California for at least two years, if then.

As the Special Master reported on May 31, 2007, “[o]ver the past 11-plus years, much has been achieved, and many of the achievements have succumbed to the inexorably rising tide of population, leaving behind growing frustration and despair.” Given the almost twelve years that this case has been in its remedial phase, and given the constitutional considerations at stake, the direction in which the State has at present chosen to go by enacting AB 900 simply fails to address in any timely way relief from the overcrowding crisis and its attendant impact.

After careful review of the record in this action, this court has come, with extreme reluctance but firm conviction, to the conclusion that the overcrowding crisis in the CDCR is preventing the delivery of constitutionally adequate mental health care to the plaintiff class and, therefore, that some form of limitation on the inmate population must be considered....

The court wishes to again observe that overcrowding is the State’s problem and in the interim, the court again urges the State to find its own solution to the crisis.