Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-1233.pdf
Page Number: 41.0

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

35 

Opinion of the Court 

the  Eighth  Amendment,  but  in  no  sense  are  they  remote 
bystanders  in California’s medical care system.  They are
that system’s next potential victims. 

A release order limited to prisoners within the plaintiff
classes would, if anything, unduly limit the ability of State 
officials  to  determine  which  prisoners  should  be  released. 
As the State acknowledges in its brief, “release of seriously 
mentally  ill  inmates  [would  be]  likely  to  create  special
dangers  because  of  their  recidivism  rates.”  Consolidated 
Reply  Brief  for  Appellants  34.  The  order  of  the  three-
judge  court  gives  the  State  substantial  flexibility  to 
determine  who  should  be  released.    If  the  State  truly  be-
lieves that a release order limited to sick and mentally ill 
inmates  would  be  preferable  to  the  order  entered  by  the
three-judge  court,  the  State  can  move  the  three-judge 
court for modification of the order on that basis.  The State 
has not requested this relief from this Court.

The order also is not overbroad because it encompasses 
the entire prison system, rather than separately assessing
the  need  for  a  population  limit  at  every  institution.  The 
Coleman court found a systemwide violation when it first 
afforded  relief,  and  in  Plata  the  State  stipulated  to  sys-
temwide  relief  when  it  conceded  the  existence  of  a  viola-
tion.  Both  the  Coleman  Special  Master  and  the  Plata 
Receiver  have  filed  numerous  reports  detailing  system-
wide  deficiencies  in  medical  and  mental  health  care. 
California’s  medical  care  program  is  run  at  a  systemwide
level,  and  resources  are  shared  among  the  correctional 
facilities. 

Although  the  three-judge  court’s  order  addresses  the
entire  California  prison  system,  it  affords  the  State  flexi-
bility  to  accommodate  differences  between  institutions.
There  is  no  requirement  that  every  facility  comply  with 
the  137.5%  limit.    Assuming  no  constitutional  violation
results, some facilities may retain populations in excess of 
the  limit  provided  other  facilities  fall  sufficiently  below  it