Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-1233.pdf
Page Number: 85.0

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

11 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

might  provide,  and  in  any  event,  that  is  not  a  task  that
should  be  undertaken  in  the  first  instance  by  this  Court.
But  possible  components  of  such  a  plan  are  not  hard  to
identify.

Many  of  the  problems  noted  above  plainly  could  be
addressed  without  releasing  prisoners  and  without  in-
curring  the  costs  associated  with  a  large-scale  prison
construction  program.   Sanitary  procedures  could  be  im-
proved;  sufficient  supplies  of  medicine  and  medical 
equipment  could  be  purchased;  an  adequate  system  of 
records management could be implemented; and the num-
ber of medical and other staff positions could be increased.
Similarly,  it  is  hard  to  believe  that  staffing  vacancies 
cannot  be  reduced  or  eliminated  and  that  the  qualifica-
tions  of  medical  personnel  cannot  be  improved  by  any 
means  short  of  a  massive  prisoner  release.  Without  spe-
cific  findings  backed  by  hard  evidence,  this  Court  should 
not  accept  the  counterintuitive  proposition  that  these 
problems  cannot  be  ameliorated  by  increasing  salaries, 
improving working conditions, and providing better train-
ing and monitoring of performance.

While  the  cost  of  a  large-scale  construction  program
may well exceed California’s current financial capabilities,
a  more  targeted  program,  involving  the  repair  and  per-
haps  the  expansion  of  current  medical  facilities  (as  op-
posed  to  general  prison  facilities),  might  be  manageable. 
After all, any remedy in this case, including the new pro-
grams  associated  with  the  prisoner  release  order  and 
other proposed relief now before the three-judge court, will
necessarily involve some state expenditures. 

Measures  such  as  these  might  be  combined  with  tar-
geted  reductions  in  critical  components  of  the  State’s 
prison  population.  A  certain  number  of  prisoners  in  the
classes on whose behalf the two cases were brought might 
be  transferred  to  out-of-state  facilities.  The  three-judge
court rejected the State’s proposal to transfer prisoners to