Opinion ID: 778366
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Mental Health and Dental Provisions

Text: 95 Plaintiffs argue in part that the district court improperly denied the contempt motion on the ground that Defendants had not committed an Eighth Amendment violation. However, in its concluding discussion, the court explained: 96 With respect to dental care and mental health care, the Court has determined that the care provided and steps taken to address those issues substantially complied with the terms of the Stipulation and Judgment. In addition, the Court has concluded that there is not a current and ongoing violation of the Constitutional rights of inmates at [the Prison] with respect to the dental and mental health care provided. 97 (Emphasis added.) Substantial compliance with the Judgment is an acceptable defense to Plaintiffs' motion for civil contempt. Go-Video, Inc. v. Motion Picture Ass'n of Am. (In re Dual-Deck Video Cassette Recorder Antitrust Litig.), 10 F.3d 693, 695 (9th Cir.1993). The district court addressed that question directly and answered it in Defendants' favor. 98 Because the court applied the correct legal standard, Plaintiffs are left with their alternative argument that the district court denied the prisoners' contempt motion based on the erroneous conclusion that [the Prison] had substantially complied with the terms of the Judgment. For the reasons explained in the foregoing sections of this opinion, the district court did not make clearly erroneous findings of fact. The district court concluded that these findings indicate substantial compliance, a conclusion that is not an abuse of discretion.