Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-1233.pdf
Page Number: 3.0

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

3 

Syllabus 

and Plata courts had a solid basis to doubt that additional efforts to 
build new facilities and hire new staff would achieve a remedy, given 
the ongoing deficiencies recently reported by both the Special Master
and the Receiver.  Pp. 16–19.

(c) The  three-judge  court  did  not  err  in  finding  that  “crowding
[was]  the  primary  cause  of  the  violation,”  §3626(a)(3)(E)(i).    Pp. 19– 
29. 

(1) The trial record documents the severe impact of burgeoning 
demand  on  the  provision  of  care.    The  evidence  showed  that  there 
were  high  vacancy  rates  for  medical  and  mental  health  staff,  e.g.,
20%  for  surgeons  and  54.1%  for  psychiatrists;  that  these  numbers
understated the severity of the crisis because the State has not budg-
eted sufficient staff to meet demand; and that even if vacant positions 
could  be  filled,  there  would  be  insufficient  space  for  the  additional
staff.    Such  a  shortfall  contributes  to  significant  delays  in  treating
mentally ill prisoners, who are housed in administrative segregation 
for extended periods while awaiting transfer to scarce mental health
treatment beds.  There are also backlogs of up to 700 prisoners wait-
ing  to  see  a  doctor  for  physical  care.    Crowding  creates  unsafe  and 
unsanitary  conditions  that  hamper  effective  delivery  of  medical  and
mental  health  care.    It  also  promotes  unrest  and  violence  and  can 
cause  prisoners  with  latent  mental  illnesses  to  worsen  and  develop 
overt  symptoms.  Increased  violence  requires  increased  reliance  on 
lockdowns to keep order, and lockdowns further impede the effective 
delivery  of  care.    Overcrowding’s  effects  are  particularly  acute  in
prison  reception  centers,  which  process  140,000  new  or  returning 
prisoners  annually,  and  which  house  some  prisoners  for  their  entire 
incarceration period.  Numerous experts testified that crowding is the 
primary cause of the constitutional violations.  Pp. 19–24.

(2) Contrary  to  the  State’s  claim,  the  three-judge  court  prop-
erly admitted, cited, and considered evidence of current prison condi-
tions as relevant to the issues before it.  Expert witnesses based their
conclusions on recent observations of prison conditions; the court ad-
mitted  recent  reports  on  prison  conditions  by  the  Receiver  and  Spe-
cial Master; and both parties presented testimony related to current 
conditions.  The court’s orders cutting off discovery a few months be-
fore trial and excluding evidence not pertinent to the issue whether a 
population  limit  is  appropriate  under  the  PLRA  were  within  the 
court’s sound discretion.  Orderly trial management may require dis-
covery  deadlines  and  a  clean  distinction  between  litigation  of  the
merits  and  the  remedy.    The  State  points  to  no  significant  evidence 
that it was unable to  present and that would have changed the out-
come here.  Pp. 24–26.

(3) It was permissible for the three-judge court to conclude that