the chief of mental health services of the department of corrections this court should reverse and vacate the permanent injunction because the district court committed to foundational errors regarding the governing th amendment standard and the permissible scope of relief under the prison litigation reform act st the court incorrectly reviewed to find its actions under an objective test based on a flawed belief that systemic cases are viewed under a different standard  frankly the of them requires an inquiry into the defendant's state of mind in all cases and the court's finding on that ultimate issue of fact is incompatible with deliberate indifference in this case nd the court failed to follow the blueprint for crafting an injunction under the p l r a that this court provided and west of the court wrongly decided that westford did not apply to this case and consequently issued an injunction that violates the statute setting exact staffing  if they did indeed the supreme court in wilson clarified that the subjective standard applies to both individual answer stomach cases i ding no basis for distinguishing between the  two nd the court's findings of fact the defendant's mental states are incompatible with an ultimate conclusion most importantly the district court directly found that dr hansen sincerely believed that the department of corrections was providing effective care as of the time of the permanent injunction hearing based on previous improvements in care and additional staffing indeed the court found that the defendant violated defines opinion objectively about whether or not they were providing adequate care but that disagreement was over whether their opinions were objective we correct whether they were sincerely help and th testimony it's not the end of the analysis it's just the stuff along the way and here the court committed versatile error by relying on its objective analysis to find deliverance rather than its subjective findings regarding mine the rd part of the decision is set out on page thirty nine of our opening brief and that is that there are just numerous instances throughout the decision  terms in each instance that shows that the court compared the evidence against some other check the standard of what if will be a sufficient level of care and found that the deliberate some different standard was met based purely on that objective finding and so taking all of those things together that the decision as a whole clearly demonstrates that the court applied an objective standard how do you  reconcile that characterization with the last several pages of the district court's opinion where he basically says the only way you get discredits attention use when you're holding them accountable you've been acting since two thousand and four and they simply don't get it i mean that's basically as a message of the last three pages of opinion well that's not inconsistent with our reading of the decision because dr hinton's testimony will to a large degree was based on improvements that had occurred since the preliminary injunction and the court actually  improvements were made the court of the shire effect could find that they were so deficient that it could then infer that the from the the obvious deficiency of those actions that the defendants acted with the requisite mental  the court did not follow the blueprint for crafting in junk this court stepped forward and i stood for and therefore ended up issuing an injunction that violated those when i asked her for this court directed of the injunction has to depend on the circumstances of the case here i've got a foot dragger i've got somebody who just won't get with it unless we get somewhat more s this is going to move these four items are going to move in the right direction the only time you do something is if they in fact have specific focus and what it required and so in looking at the injunction terms you look if the are do those terms require that if i wanted to do anything more than the minimum that's necessary to correct the violation and regardless of what the defendant's compliance or noncompliance with prior agreements that really doesn't change whether the terms of the injunction if followed you know on what's necessary or are the minimum and the terms in this injunction are really more you know would be appropriate in an enforcement order but the problem here is that the district courts gets the st step by not issuing initially an injunction that comply with  staffing where the court said very exact staffing requirements spelling out the number of people that need to separate number of people be employed at various identify position even the district court itself recognize that there is no constitutional requirement that the department employee any specific number of people and so that part of the engine while it's both the pax and the purpose of the p r a because it requires the the injunction requires a specific number of people at various different but nd the agreement that the parties not entered into on was not a full consent decree until the court issued  of the agreement contemplated that any injunctive relief that the court and her pursuant to the agreement would have to comply with the p r s terms so i think kind of the so the agreement shares some aspects of the settlement settlement agreement and b and also i think just even under the terms of the agreement again it contemplated that there might be a point in the future where if there's noncompliance and th the other parts of the account injunction also violate the p r a section on segregation addresses a lot of issues that weren't even in the findings of a violation that the district court found so they necessarily want is the experienced and knowledgeable trial judge did what he was required to do he measured the ideals he has response to an acknowledged serious problem and determine officials who state through litigation that they will not take reasonable measures to bait an intolerable d risk of which they are we're could claim to be subject to bully blameless or purposes of the because if it were true that the subjective state was sufficient standing by itself that the doctors who achieve summary judgement in tennis there would be a reversal they thought they had done the right recognise they recognise that subjective belief this is insufficient and that the issue is whether the defenders had disregarded the risk of harm the china governor and was stimulated by director paul webster and the subject is the failure of webster to provide sufficient staffing and and as the just report judge said one of the problems with the department is that it has continued to rely on webster who has continuously failed ever to provide the where and and he said at some point the department self asked to do something to get the number of people that are necessary  prisoners at that time when they did deliver exhibit only fourteen they said they needed the staff that he then ordered them to have five years later they had near the staff they said were necessary even though in that time frame the number of seriously mental order to clear it up do you do something that litigates the order in order that the i don't know c z jested was tell us that we have to follow the constitution your brother's suggestion that the district court in effect skipped a step here and should have issued a order in sr noncompliance with the consent decree before  it was not a consent or in forcible that we had to star at the constitution and we had to prove a constitutional violation which we did and then the p r a on it the federal courts had to issue in order to drive three of the california prison system into into compliance with the constitutional violations there is any case that they have cited that there is required to stand and it also is not consistent with the the fact that congress left the ability to craft an injunction to the district court with the avia that it had to address the constitutional violation not that they would have this situation where there's political junction to cure the violation it doesn't they don't there's a permanent injunction and we're supposed to have an injunction that is toothless i don't think they're  at that point under the p r a you cannot enforce a settlement agreement in federal court is forbidden so the only evidence for the judge would be as though this were a new case that we file saying well here are five significant constitutional violations we would like an injunction  for an saul when the independent came up with a scheme with respect to handling certain kinds incorporated that scheme into an order compelling them to maintain this scheme with respect to the issues in west that was beyond the court's power because the power was limited to the limits of the constitution there's no evidence here that what is this that the staffing is excessive to the constitutional limits quite to the contrary the testimony of doctors is that the reason we can track it with wexford for x number of people was because we needed them to provide the care and there is no all decision i'm aware of where the supreme court says you can't order locking in injunctive requirements at the level of specificity that the court did in west defer which this injunction order in this case is even far more specific in terms of level of staffing and specific requirements in in different levels of care within the institution that's highly highly specific and those become constitutional baselines under this injunction which limits the institutional flexibility that presidents need to respond to  is effectively running the prison that the delivery of mental health care if it must be in the st instance the defendants agreed the but to simply articulate you have to give constitutional fair in order is not an order that you be inforced there is no way to measure again whether they have failed in their obligation to fulfill their responsibilities and flexibility when they have failed to do that just isn't flawed it is perfectly permissible to challenge a bill prisons build hospitals hire people all of those orders a current law and ultimately even that wasn't enough to get the of the california department of corrections to provide constitutional care it cannot be that an order when you're faced with a situation where department is supposed to provide constitutional care everyone agrees that there is the prisoners are suffering for the failure in all air henri's the testimony at the harm is occurring and it is a correct i believe to reinvest if you say that the only kind of or in the face of a constitutional violation cannot if we can go back to that and to this question of orders in this case i have it page of seven of the district court's opinion and he has the he as it may enter an order consistent with equitable and legal principles and then goes on of course to say not an order of contempt it sounds like the dist court can enter an order to enforce the consent decree which is contrary i believe to what you told me earlier we in crafting that language did not believe that he could simply issue in  say because he had a sincere belief which the judge rejected against the objective evidence including that that hint testified two weeks before in his deposition that when i asked him do you have enough people to do the job he didn't say yes he said we have procedures and  not with patti's when the court went through the different types of evidence that may be presented to support an inference that the defendants acted with that mental state but at the end of the day the trier of fact needs to draw that inference  well i mean there are a lot of preliminary options that could have occurred but once we got to this point what the district court could do was enter an injunction that complied with the limitations of the fuel are those limitations were written in your position to be limited to an injunction that orders the state to comply with the constitution correct or out or if it could be a more specific and i mean the point is to correct the violation