Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_01-cv-01351/USCOURTS-cand-4_01-cv-01351-237/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AND THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT COMPOSED OF THREE JUDGES 

PURSUANT TO SECTION 2284, TITLE 28 UNITED STATES CODE

RALPH COLEMAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

et al.,

Defendants.

NO. CIV S-90-0520 LKK JFM P

THREE-JUDGE COURT

MARCIANO PLATA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C01-1351 TEH

THREE-JUDGE COURT

ORDER TO REDUCE PRISON

POPULATION

On August 4, 2009, this three-judge court issued an Opinion and Order finding, by

clear and convincing evidence, that crowding is the primary cause of the constitutional

inadequacies in the delivery of medical and mental health care to California inmates and that

no relief other than a “prison release order,” as that term is broadly defined by the Prison

Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3626(g)(4), is capable of remedying these

constitutional deficiencies. We further concluded that relief requiring the State to reduce the

Case 4:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2287 Filed 01/12/10 Page 1 of 8
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

28

2

population of its thirty-three adult prisons to 137.5% of their total design capacity was

narrowly drawn, would extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of California

inmates’ federal constitutional rights, and was the least intrusive means necessary to correct

that violation. Accordingly, in consideration of this court’s limited role and the State’s “wide

discretion within the bounds of constitutional requirements,” Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817,

832-33 (1977), we ordered the State to provide “a population reduction plan that will in no

more than two years reduce the population of the CDCR’s adult institutions to 137.5% of

their combined design capacity.” Aug. 4, 2009 Opinion and Order at 183. As required by

the PLRA, we also gave “substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the

operation of a criminal justice system,” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A), and determined, based on

the evidence presented at trial, that means exist by which the defendants can accomplish the

necessary population reduction without creating an adverse impact on public safety or the

operation of the criminal justice system.

The State submitted a proposed prison population reduction plan on September 18,

2009, but that proposed plan would have reduced the prison population to only 166% of

design capacity in two years absent further legislation, and 151% of design capacity in two

years if all of the proposals were granted legislative approval. Defs.’ Sept. 18, 2009 Plan at

15, 19 (tables showing projected prison populations and crowding rates based on defendants’

proposed population reduction mechanisms). Because the plan that the State provided did

not comply with our August 4, 2009 Order, we rejected the plan and ordered the State to

submit a revised population reduction plan that complied with our August 4 Order. On

November 12, 2009, the State timely submitted a revised plan. In accordance with our

Orders, this revised plan proposed measures estimated to reduce the prison population to the

required 137.5% of design capacity by December 2011.

On December 7, 2009, plaintiffs agreed that the State’s revised plan satisfied the

requirements of our August 4, 2009 Order and proposed that we enter an order requiring the

defendants to achieve the six-month population reduction benchmarks set forth in the revised

plan without ordering implementation of any specific population reduction measures. We

Case 4:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2287 Filed 01/12/10 Page 2 of 8
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

28

3

agree that such an order is appropriate because it would afford the State maximum flexibility

in its efforts to achieve the constitutionally required population reduction.

As defendants and county intervenors observe in their December 18, 2009 replies to

plaintiffs’ response, we have not evaluated the public safety impact of each individual

element of the State’s proposed plan. However, the evidence presented at trial demonstrated

that means exist to reduce the prison population without a significant adverse impact on

public safety or the criminal justice system. Certain of the measures suggested by the State,

such as raising the threshold for grand theft and limiting the maximum sentence for certain

enumerated felonies to 366 days to be served in county jail, were not included within the

means we considered in our August 4 Opinion and Order, and were thus not evaluated from

the standpoint of public safety. We noted, however, that they had previously been endorsed

by state officials, and thus, presumably, “would not have an adverse effect on public safety.”

Aug. 4, 2009 Opinion and Order at 156. Certain measures that we concluded would

substantially reduce the prison population that we did evaluate positively from a public safety

standpoint, such as changes with respect to the churning of technical parole violators, appear

to be included only in part in the State’s plan. We believe, as we did when we issued our

prior Order, that it is appropriate for the State to exercise its discretion in choosing which

specific population reduction measures to implement, and, in doing so, to bear in mind the

necessity for ensuring the public safety. We are satisfied that, as we previously held, the

reduction in prison population that we have ordered can be implemented safely and trust that

the State will comply with its duty to ensure public safety as it implements the

constitutionally required reduction. Should the State determine that any of the specific

measures that it has included in its plan cannot be implemented without significantly

affecting the public safety or the criminal justice system, we trust that it will substitute a

different means of accomplishing the constitutionally required population reductions.

We emphasize here that we are not endorsing or ordering the implementation of any

of the specific measures contained in the State’s plan, only that the State reduce the prison

population to the extent and at the times designated in this Order. We also emphasize that

Case 4:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2287 Filed 01/12/10 Page 3 of 8
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

28

4

we do not intend by this Order to prohibit the State from taking actions that may have the

effect of reducing the prison population, whatever their impact on public safety, should those

actions be taken for reasons other than compliance with our Order.

The concerns that county intervenors express regarding funding may have merit. 

Counties may well require additional financial resources from the State in order to ensure

that no significant adverse public safety impact results from the State’s population reduction

measures. Counties may, for example, need additional financial resources in order to fund

the additional costs of ongoing rehabilitation, re-entry, drug or alcohol, educational, and job

training programs. Reducing the number of persons it imprisons should result in significant

savings to the State. We do not now decide whether and to what extent the State should

allocate part of its savings from such reductions to the counties; instead, we note that whether

public safety requires such a reallocation demands serious consideration by the State, both

under its general responsibilities to the public and in accord with the PLRA.

In light of all of the above, as well as our August 4, 2009 Opinion and Order, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. In accordance with the figures in defendants’ November 12, 2009 revised

population reduction plan, defendants shall reduce the population of California’s thirty-three

adult prisons as follows:

a. To no more than 167% of design capacity by six months from the

effective date of this Order.

b. To no more than 155% of design capacity by twelve months from the

effective date of this Order.

c. To no more than 147% of design capacity by eighteen months from the

effective date of this Order.

d. To no more than 137.5% of design capacity by twenty-four months from

the effective date of this Order.

“Design capacity” for purposes of these benchmarks may not remain static. For

example, an increase in design capacity through construction would decrease the number of

Case 4:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2287 Filed 01/12/10 Page 4 of 8
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

28

5

inmates by which the prison population must be reduced. Conversely, a decrease in design

capacity, such as would result from the closing of a prison, would increase the numeric

reduction required.

 2. All population reduction measures undertaken by defendants must comply not

only with our Orders and the PLRA, but also with any relevant orders entered by other

courts, including the individual Plata and Coleman courts.

3. Within fourteen days following each of the deadlines described above,

defendants shall file a report advising the court whether the estimated population reduction

has been achieved. This report shall include the total reduction in the population of

California’s adult prisons that has been achieved; the current population of those institutions,

both in absolute terms and as a percentage of design capacity; and the reductions associated

with each of the individual measures that defendants described in their November 12, 2009

plan as well as any additional or alternative population reduction measures that it may have

subsequently adopted. If the State has failed to achieve the required population reduction,

defendants shall advise the court as to the reasons for such deficiency and what measures

they have taken or propose to take to remedy it. They also shall advise the court as to

whether such deficiency could have been avoided by the exercise of executive authority,

such as that invested in the Governor and other officials by the California Emergency

Services Act. Finally, defendants shall advise the court whether legislative changes are

required to remedy any deficiency and, if so, what efforts defendants have made to obtain

such changes, including specific proposals made to the legislature and the legislative

responses to such proposals. Defendants are advised that we may also order the submission

of interim reports informing the court of what specific tasks defendants intend to undertake

during each six-month period and the specific persons responsible for executing those tasks.

4. If, at any time, the State believes that the waiver of state law by this court is

necessary to permit it to meet any of the above population reduction deadlines, defendants

shall promptly file a statement with this court, explaining the reasons that they believe such

waiver to be necessary; whether they have considered and rejected all other available

Case 4:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2287 Filed 01/12/10 Page 5 of 8
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

28

6

remedies; if they have rejected such remedies, the reasons therefor; and why the proposed

waiver is permissible under the PLRA and the Constitution of the United States.

5. To the extent that population reduction measures implemented by the State

increase the need for re-entry, rehabilitation, education, job training or other community

services provided by the counties, or necessitate other measures be undertaken by such

counties, defendants shall, in cooperation with the counties, calculate the amount of

additional funds that the counties may require from the State in order to maintain the level of

public safety at or about the existing level. Within thirty days of the effective date of this

Order, defendants shall file with this court a statement setting forth (1) the amounts agreed

upon or, should there be no agreement, the parties’ respective positions as to such amounts,

and (2) what steps defendants have taken or plan to take to fulfill their obligations to the

counties in connection with the implementation of the prison population reduction measures,

including the allocation to the counties of a portion of any budgetary savings resulting from

such implementation. It would be in the interest of both the State and the counties to

commence such discussions prior to the effective date of this Order.

6. The effective date of this Order is STAYED pending the United States

Supreme Court’s consideration of the appeal of our August 4, 2009 Opinion and Order and

any appeal of this Order. Unless this Order is rendered moot by the Court’s disposition of

any such appeal, the effective date of this Order shall be the day following the final

resolution by the Court of a timely-filed appeal of this Order or, if no such appeal is filed, the

later of the day following the expiration of defendant’s time for filing an appeal and the day

following the Court’s final resolution of the appeal of our August 4 Opinion and Order.

7. We note that this stay grants the State additional time in which to reduce the

population of its adult prisons, which Defendant Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has

proclaimed are in a state of emergency due to overcrowding. See Ex. P1 (Oct. 4, 2006 Prison

Overcrowding State of Emergency Proclamation). In addition, the stay affords defendants

the time and opportunity to seek legislation enacting those prisoner population reduction

measures that they proposed in their November 12, 2009 revised plan, but asserted that they

Case 4:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2287 Filed 01/12/10 Page 6 of 8
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

28

7

lacked the authority to implement. We also note that defendants represented in their

November 12, 2009 plan that they would seek legislation affording them such authority. 

Accordingly, within fourteen days of the effective date of this Order, defendants shall file a

report advising this court whether they have obtained the requisite authority for such

measures or for other alternative measures that would achieve equal or greater reductions in

the prison population, and, if not, what efforts they have made towards obtaining such

authority, including what specific proposals they have made and what specific responses

have been received from the legislature, if any. 

As we have repeatedly stated, we do not intervene lightly in the State’s management

of its prisons. However, the State’s long-standing failure to provide constitutionally

adequate medical and mental health care to its prison inmates has necessitated our actions,

and our prison population reduction Order is the least intrusive remedy for the constitutional

violations at issue. We reiterate our “hope that California’s leadership will act constructively

and cooperatively . . . so as to ultimately eliminate the need for further federal intervention.” 

Aug. 4, 2009 Opinion and Order at 182. We do, however, necessarily reserve the right, and

indeed we have the obligation, to order additional steps to implement our August 4 Order

should the actions taken by the State fail to meet any six-month reduction goal set forth in

this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 01/12/10 

STEPHEN REINHARDT

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

Dated: 01/12/10 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 4:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2287 Filed 01/12/10 Page 7 of 8
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

28

8

Dated: 01/12/10 

THELTON E. HENDERSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 4:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2287 Filed 01/12/10 Page 8 of 8