Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-1233.pdf
Page Number: 36

30 

BROWN v. PLATA 

Opinion of the Court 

because  requiring  out-of-state  transfers  itself  qualifies  as 
a  population  limit  under  the  PLRA.9   Such  an  order  “has 
the  purpose  or  effect  of  reducing  or  limiting  the  prison 
population, or . . . directs the release from or nonadmission 
of prisoners to a prison.”  §3626(g)(4).  The same is true of 
transfers  to  county  facilities.    Transfers  provide  a  means 
to  reduce  the  prison  population  in  compliance  with  the 
three-judge  court’s  order.    They  are  not  a  less  restrictive 
alternative to that order. 

Even if out-of-state transfers could be regarded as a less
restrictive  alternative,  the  three-judge  court  found  no 
evidence  of  plans  for  transfers  in  numbers  sufficient  to 
relieve overcrowding.  The State complains that the Cole-
man  District  Court  slowed  the  rate  of  transfer  by  requir-
ing  inspections  to  assure  that  the  receiving  institutions
were  in  compliance  with  the  Eighth  Amendment,  but  the
State has made no effort to show that it has the resources 
and  the  capacity  to  transfer  significantly  larger  numbers
of prisoners absent that condition. 

Construction  of  new  facilities,  in  theory,  could  alleviate 
overcrowding, but the three-judge court found no realistic 
possibility that California would be able to build itself out 
of this crisis.  At the time of the court’s decision the State 
had plans to build new medical and housing facilities, but 
funding for some plans had not been secured and funding 
for  other  plans  had  been  delayed  by  the  legislature  for 
years.  Particularly  in  light  of  California’s  ongoing  fiscal 
crisis,  the  three-judge  court  deemed  “chimerical”  any 
“remedy  that  requires  significant  additional  spending  by 
the  state.”  Juris.  App.  151a.  Events  subsequent  to  the 

—————— 

9 A  program  of  voluntary  transfers  by  the  State  would,  of  course,  be
less  restrictive  than  an  order  mandating  a  reduction  in  the  prison 
population.  In light of the State’s longstanding failure to remedy these
serious  constitutional  violations,  the  three-judge  court  was  under  no
obligation  to  consider  voluntary  population-reduction  measures  by  the 
State as a workable alternative to injunctive relief.