Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-1233.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2010 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued.
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

BROWN, GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. v. 

PLATA ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS FOR 
THE EASTERN AND NORTHERN DISTRICTS OF CALIFORNIA 

No. 09–1233.  Argued November 30, 2010—Decided May 23, 2011 

California’s  prisons  are  designed  to  house  a  population  just  under
80,000,  but  at  the  time  of  the  decision  under  review  the  population
was  almost  double  that.    The  resulting  conditions  are  the  subject  of 
two  federal  class  actions.    In  Coleman  v.  Brown,  filed  in  1990,  the 
District Court found that prisoners with serious mental illness do not 
receive minimal, adequate care.  A Special Master appointed to over-
see  remedial  efforts  reported  12  years  later  that  the  state  of  mental
health care in California’s prisons was deteriorating due to increased
overcrowding.  In  Plata  v.  Brown,  filed  in  2001,  the  State  conceded 
that  deficiencies  in  prison  medical  care  violated  prisoners’  Eighth 
Amendment  rights  and  stipulated  to  a  remedial  injunction.    But 
when  the  State  had  not  complied  with  the  injunction  by  2005,  the
court  appointed  a  Receiver  to  oversee  remedial  efforts.    Three  years
later,  the  Receiver  described  continuing  deficiencies  caused  by  over-
crowding.  Believing that a remedy for unconstitutional medical and
mental  health  care  could  not  be  achieved  without  reducing  over-
crowding,  the  Coleman  and  Plata  plaintiffs  moved  their  respective
District  Courts  to  convene  a  three-judge  court  empowered  by  the
Prison  Litigation  Reform  Act  of  1995  (PLRA)  to  order  reductions  in
the  prison  population.    The  judges  in  both  actions  granted  the  re-
quest,  and  the  cases  were  consolidated  before  a  single  three-judge 
court.  After hearing testimony and making extensive findings of fact,
the court ordered California to reduce its prison population to 137.5%
of design capacity within two years.  Finding that the prison popula-
tion  would  have  to  be  reduced  if  capacity  could  not  be  increased 
through new construction, the court ordered the State to formulate a 
compliance plan and submit it for court approval.