Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-1233.pdf
Page Number: 31.0

Cite as:  563 U. S. ____ (2011) 

25 

Opinion of the Court 

recent  observations  of  prison  conditions;  the  court  ad-
mitted  recent  reports  on  prison  conditions  by  the  Plata 
Receiver  and  Coleman  Special  Master;  and  both  parties
presented testimony related to current conditions, includ-
ing  understaffing,  inadequate  facilities,  and  unsanitary 
and  unsafe  living  conditions.  See  supra,  at  4–8,  19–24. 
Dr.  Craig  Haney,  for  example,  based  his  expert  report  on 
tours  of  eight  California  prisons.    App.  539.  These  tours 
occurred  as  late  as  August  2008,  two  weeks  before  Dr.
Haney  submitted  his  report  and  less  than  four  months 
before the first day of trial.  Id., at 585; see also id., at 563, 
565,  580  (July  tours).    Other  experts  submitted  reports
based  on  similar  observations.  See,  e.g.,  Doc.  3231–13, 
at  6  (Dr.  Shansky);  App.  646  (Dr.  Stewart);  id.,  at  1245 
(Austin); id., at 1312 (Lehman).

The  three-judge  court’s  opinion  cited  and  relied  on  this
evidence  of  current  conditions.    The  court  relied  exten-
sively on the expert witness reports.  See generally Juris.
App.  85a–143a.  The  court  cited  the  most  current  data 
available  on  suicides  and  preventable  deaths  in  the  Cali-
fornia  prisons.  Id.,  at  123a,  125a.    The  court  relied  on 
statistics  on  staff  vacancies  that  dated  to  three  months 
before trial, id., at 105a, 108a, and statistics on shortages 
of treatment beds for the same period, id., at 97a.  These 
are  just  examples  of  the  extensive  evidence  of  current 
conditions  that  informed  every  aspect  of  the  judgment  of
the three-judge court.  The three-judge court did not abuse
its  discretion  when  it  also  cited  findings  made  in  earlier 
decisions of the Plata and Coleman District Courts.  Those 
findings remained relevant to establish the nature of these
longstanding, continuing constitutional violations. 

It is true that the three-judge court established a cutoff
date  for  discovery  a  few  months  before  trial.    The  order 
stated  that  site  inspections  of  prisons  would  be  allowed
until  that  date,  and  that  evidence  of  “changed  prison
conditions”  after  that  date  would  not  be  admitted.    App.