1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS 2 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 AND THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT COMPOSED OF THREE JUDGES 5 PURSUANT TO SECTION 2284, TITLE 28 UNITED STATES CODE 6 7 8 RALPH COLEMAN, et al., 9 Plaintiffs, NO. CIV S-90-0520 LKK JFM P 10 v. THREE-JUDGE COURT 11 ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 14 MARCIANO PLATA, et al., 15 NO. C01-1351 TEH Plaintiffs, 16 THREE-JUDGE COURT v. 17 ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, OPINION AND ORDER 18 et al., 19 Defendants. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 3 I. INTRODUCTION .................................................. 6 4 II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ..................... 10 5 A. Plata (Medical Care)........................................... 10 6 1. Complaint, Stipulation, and Order for Injunctive Relief .......... 11 7 2. Appointment of Court Experts and Their Findings .............. 13 8 3. Periodic Status Conferences................................ 15 9 4. Proceedings To Determine Whether a Receiver Should Be 10 Appointed .............................................. 16 11 5. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Concerning Continuing 12 Failure To Meet Constitutional Standards and Necessity of a 13 Receivership ............................................ 17 14 6. Interim Remedies........................................ 20 15 7. Appointment of the Plata Receiver .......................... 21 16 B. Coleman (Mental Health Care)................................... 22 17 1. Findings of Eighth Amendment Violations .................... 23 18 2. Remedial Orders......................................... 26 19 a. Mental Health Care Beds and Treatment Space ........... 28 20 b. Transfers to Appropriate Level of Care.................. 32 21 c. Staffing .......................................... 33 22 3. Special Master’s 2006 Monitoring Reports .................... 34 23 C. Crowding in California’s Prison System............................ 37 24 1. The Increasing California Prison Population ................... 37 25 2. Studies Commissioned by the State of California To Examine 26 Prison Crowding......................................... 38 27 3. Defining the Capacity of California Prisons.................... 39 28 4. Crowding in Relation to Capacity ........................... 42 2 1 D. Governor Schwarzenegger’s Emergency Proclamation ................ 43 2 E. Motions To Convene Three-Judge Court and Subsequent Prison Studies 3 by the State of California........................................ 44 4 1. Motions To Convene and Initial Proceedings .................. 44 5 2. Intervening Reports on Prison Crowding...................... 44 6 3. Final Hearing and Rulings ................................. 45 7 F. Proceedings Before this Three-Judge Court ......................... 48 8 III. LEGAL FRAMEWORK ............................................ 49 9 A. The PLRA Standard for Prisoner Release Orders: Primary Cause and 10 No Other Relief............................................... 51 11 B. The PLRA Standard for All Prospective Relief: Need-Narrowness- 12 Intrusiveness and Consideration of Public Safety..................... 52 13 C. The Remedial Nature of the Three-Judge Court Proceeding ............. 54 14 IV. CROWDING AS PRIMARY CAUSE ................................. 55 15 A. General Problems in the Delivery of Medical and Mental Health Care 16 Caused by Crowding........................................... 58 17 B. Space Issues Affecting the Delivery of Care ......................... 60 18 1. Reception Centers ........................................ 60 19 2. Treatment Space......................................... 65 20 3. Inability To House Inmates by Classification .................. 67 21 4. Beds for Mentally Ill Inmates............................... 68 22 C. Conditions of Confinement...................................... 70 23 D. Other Access to Care Issues...................................... 73 24 1. Staffing................................................ 73 25 a. Medical Staff...................................... 74 26 b. Mental Health Staff................................. 76 27 c. Custodial Staff..................................... 77 28 2. Medication Management .................................. 79 3 1 3. Specialty Medical Care.................................... 80 2 4. Lockdowns ............................................. 81 3 E. Medical Records .............................................. 83 4 F. Increasing Acuity of Mental Illness................................ 85 5 G. Extreme Departures from the Standard of Care and Preventable or Possibly 6 Preventable Deaths, Including Suicides............................. 86 7 H. Expert Opinions Regarding Causation ............................. 88 8 I. Findings and Conclusions ....................................... 99 9 V. NO OTHER RELIEF .............................................. 101 10 A. Alternatives to a Prisoner Release Order........................... 102 11 1. Inadequacy of Construction as a Remedy .................... 102 12 a. Prison Construction................................ 102 13 b. Construction of Re-entry Facilities .................... 103 14 c. Medical Facilities and Prison Expansion ............... 105 15 d. Construction as a Means of Compliance................ 108 16 2. Inadequacy of Additional Hiring ........................... 109 17 3. Insufficiency of the Plata Receivership and Coleman Special 18 Mastership ............................................ 109 19 4. Other Proposals ......................................... 112 20 B. Expert Testimony............................................. 114 21 C. Findings and Conclusions ...................................... 119 22 VI. NARROWLY DRAWN, LEAST INTRUSIVE REMEDY THAT EXTENDS 23 NO FURTHER THAN NECESSARY ................................ 119 24 A. Scope of Relief............................................... 120 25 B. Form of Relief............................................... 122 26 C. The Required Population Reduction .............................. 124 27 28 4 1 VII. POTENTIAL POPULATION REDUCTION MEASURES AND THEIR 2 IMPACT ON PUBLIC SAFETY AND THE OPERATION OF THE 3 CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM .................................... 131 4 A. Criminogenic Nature of Overcrowded Prisons ...................... 133 5 B. Potential Population Reduction Measures .......................... 137 6 1. Early Release Through Expansion of Good Time Credits ........ 139 7 2. Diversion of Technical Parole Violators ..................... 145 8 3. Diversion of Low-Risk Offenders with Short Sentences......... 149 9 4. Expansion of Evidence-Based Rehabilitative Programming in 10 Prisons or Communities .................................. 152 11 5. Sentencing Reform and Other Potential Population Reduction 12 Measures.............................................. 154 13 C. Impact of Proposed Measures on Communities ..................... 157 14 1. Investigation and Prosecution of Crime...................... 157 15 2. Effect on Jail Population.................................. 160 16 3. Effect on Parole Supervision Resources...................... 162 17 4. Impact on Community Corrections, Rehabilitative Services, and 18 Re-entry Programs ...................................... 164 19 5. Impact on Integrity of Criminal Justice System................ 166 20 6. Weight To Be Given Public Safety ......................... 167 21 D. Feasibility Notwithstanding the Present Fiscal Crisis ................. 167 22 E. Inclusion of Mentally Ill Inmates in Any Population Reduction Order . 168 23 F. Empirical Evidence on Incarceration and Crime Rates................ 172 24 G. Findings and Conclusions ...................................... 177 25 VIII. CONCLUSION ................................................... 181 26 ORDER............................................................... 183 27 28 5 1 I. INTRODUCTION 2 “California’s correctional system is in a tailspin,” the state’s independent oversight 3 agency has reported. Ex. P3 at i (Jan. 2007 Little Hoover Commission Report, “Solving 4 California’s Corrections Crisis: Time Is Running Out”).1 Tough-on-crime politics have 5 increased the population of California’s prisons dramatically while making necessary reforms 6 impossible. Id. at ii, 2-5, 9, 20. As a result, the state’s prisons have become places “of 7 extreme peril to the safety of persons” they house, Ex. P1 at 7-8 (Governor 8 Schwarzenegger’s Oct. 4, 2006 Prison Overcrowding State of Emergency Declaration), while 9 contributing little to the safety of California’s residents, Ex. P3 at ii. California “spends 10 more on corrections than most countries in the world,” but the state “reaps fewer public 11 safety benefits.” Id. at 14. Although California’s existing prison system serves neither the 12 public nor the inmates well, the state has for years been unable or unwilling to implement the 13 reforms necessary to reverse its continuing deterioration. 14 In this proceeding, we address two particular problems that every day threaten the 15 lives and health of California prisoners. First, the medical and mental health care available to 16 inmates in the California prison system is woefully and constitutionally inadequate, and has 17 been for more than a decade. The United States Constitution does not require that the state 18 provide its inmates with state-of-the-art medical and mental health care, nor does it require 19 that prison conditions be comfortable. California must simply provide