Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-1233.pdf
Page Number: 40.0

34 

BROWN v. PLATA 

Opinion of the Court 

tees  of  State  Univ.  of  N.  Y.  v.  Fox,  492  U. S.  469,  480 
(1989).  The  scope  of  the  remedy  must  be  proportional
to  the  scope  of  the  violation,  and  the  order  must  extend 
no  further  than  necessary  to  remedy  the  violation.    This 
Court  has  rejected  remedial  orders  that  unnecessarily
reach  out  to  improve  prison  conditions  other  than  those 
that  violate  the  Constitution.    Lewis  v.  Casey,  518  U. S. 
343, 357 (1996).  But the precedents do not suggest that a
narrow  and  otherwise  proper  remedy  for  a  constitutional 
violation  is  invalid  simply  because  it  will  have  collateral 
effects. 

Nor does anything in the text of the PLRA require that 
result.  The  PLRA  states  that  a  remedy  shall  extend  no 
further  than  necessary  to  remedy  the  violation  of  the 
rights  of  a  “particular  plaintiff  or  plaintiffs.”    18  U. S. C. 
§3626(a)(1)(A).  This  means  only  that  the  scope  of  the 
order  must  be  determined  with  reference  to  the  consti-
tutional  violations  established  by  the  specific  plaintiffs
before the court. 

This  case  is  unlike  cases  where  courts  have  impermis-
sibly  reached  out  to  control  the  treatment  of  persons  or
institutions beyond the scope of the violation.  See Dayton 
Bd.  of  Ed.  v.  Brinkman,  433  U. S.  406,  420  (1977).    Even 
prisoners  with  no  present  physical  or  mental  illness  may 
become afflicted, and all prisoners in California are at risk 
so long as the State continues to provide inadequate care. 
Prisoners  in  the  general  population  will  become  sick,  and 
will  become  members  of  the  plaintiff  classes,  with  rou- 
tine  frequency;  and  overcrowding  may  prevent  the  timely
diagnosis  and  care  necessary  to  provide  effective  treat-
ment  and  to  prevent  further  spread  of  disease.    Relief 
targeted  only  at  present  members  of  the  plaintiff  classes 
may therefore fail to adequately protect future class mem-
bers  who  will  develop  serious  physical  or  mental  illness.
Prisoners who are not sick or mentally ill do not yet have a 
claim  that  they  have  been  subjected  to  care  that  violates