Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-1233.pdf
Page Number: 8.0

2 

BROWN v. PLATA 

Opinion of the Court 

ment  is  a  power  reserved  to  a  three-judge  district  court,
not a single-judge district court.  18 U. S. C. §3626(a).  In 
accordance with that rule, the Coleman and Plata District 
Judges  independently  requested  that  a  three-judge  court 
be convened.  The Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for 
the  Ninth  Circuit  convened  a  three-judge  court  composed 
of  the  Coleman  and  Plata  District  Judges  and  a  third,
Ninth  Circuit  Judge.    Because  the  two  cases  are  interre-
lated,  their  limited  consolidation  for  this  purpose  has  a 
certain  utility  in  avoiding  conflicting  decrees  and  aiding
judicial consideration and enforcement.  The State in this 
Court has not objected to consolidation, although the State
does  argue  that  the  three-judge  court  was  prematurely 
convened.  The  State  also  objects  to  the  substance  of  the 
three-judge court order, which requires the State to reduce
overcrowding in its prisons. 

The appeal presents the question whether the remedial 
order  issued  by  the  three-judge  court  is  consistent  with
requirements  and  procedures  set  forth  in  a  congressional
statute, the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA).
18 U. S. C. §3626; see Appendix A, infra.  The order leaves 
the  choice  of  means  to  reduce  overcrowding  to  the  discre-
tion of state officials.  But absent compliance through new
construction,  out-of-state  transfers,  or  other  means—or 
modification  of  the  order  upon  a  further  showing  by  the 
State—the State will be required to release some number
of  prisoners  before  their  full  sentences  have  been  served. 
High  recidivism  rates  must  serve  as  a  warning  that  mis-
taken or premature release of even one prisoner can cause 
injury  and  harm.    The  release  of  prisoners  in  large  num-
bers—assuming  the  State  finds  no  other  way  to  comply 
with the order—is a matter of undoubted, grave concern. 

At  the  time  of  trial,  California’s  correctional  facilities 
held  some  156,000  persons.  This  is  nearly  double  the
number  that  California’s  prisons  were  designed  to  hold,
and California has been ordered to reduce its prison popu-