Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-1233.pdf
Page Number: 14.0

8 

BROWN v. PLATA 

Opinion of the Court 

ing from severe but not life-threatening conditions, experi-
ence prolonged illness and unnecessary pain. 

B 

These  conditions  are  the  subject  of  two  federal  cases. 
The  first  to  commence,  Coleman  v.  Brown,  was  filed  in 
1990.  Coleman involves the class of seriously mentally ill
persons in California prisons.  Over 15 years ago, in 1995, 
after  a  39-day  trial,  the  Coleman  District  Court  found 
“overwhelming  evidence  of  the  systematic  failure  to  de-
liver necessary care to  mentally ill inmates” in California 
prisons.  Coleman v. Wilson, 912 F. Supp. 1282, 1316 (ED 
Cal.).  The prisons were “seriously and chronically under-
staffed,”  id.,  at  1306,  and  had  “no  effective  method  for 
ensuring  . . .  the  competence  of  their  staff,”  id.,  at  1308. 
The  prisons  had  failed  to  implement  necessary  suicide-
prevention procedures, “due in large measure to the severe 
understaffing.”  Id.,  at  1315.  Mentally  ill  inmates  “lan-
guished  for  months,  or  even  years,  without  access  to  nec-
essary care.”  Id., at 1316.  “They suffer from severe hallu-
cinations,  [and]  they  decompensate  into  catatonic  states.” 
Ibid.    The  court  appointed  a  Special  Master  to  oversee 
development  and  implementation  of  a  remedial  plan  of 
action. 

In  2007,  12  years  after  his  appointment,  the  Special 

—————— 

(hereinafter 2009 Death Reviews). 

The three-judge court did not have access to statistics for 2008, but in
that  year  the  number  of  preventable  or  possibly  preventable  deaths
held  steady  at  66.    California  Prison  Health  Care  Receivership  Corp., 
K. Imai, Analysis of Year 2008 Death Reviews 9 (Dec. 2009).  In 2009, 
the  number  of  preventable  or  possibly  preventable  deaths  dropped  to
46.  2009 Death Reviews 11, 13.  The three-judge court could not have
anticipated  this  development,  and  it  would  be  inappropriate  for  this
Court  to  evaluate  its  significance  for  the  first  time  on  appeal.    The 
three-judge  court  should,  of  course,  consider  this  and  any  other  evi-
dence  of  improved  conditions  when  considering  future  requests  by  the
State for modification of its order.  See infra, at 45–48.