Court Opinion

ID: 9490540
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 13:46:22.636302+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:54:09.441668
License: Public Domain

BEEZER, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the judgment. I write separately to emphasize that the role of the federal courts does not include the micromanagement of state institutions.
The Arizona Department of Corrections has met its burden of establishing a change in circumstances, the significant expansion of the Arizona prison population, which warrants modification, and perhaps even elimination, of the holiday package provision of the consent decree. Although the district court retains responsibility for tailoring the modification to resolve the security problems created by this prison population explosion, see Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 391, 112 S.Ct. 748, 763-764, 116 L.Ed.2d 867 (1992), the district court would do well to heed the views of the state prison authorities as to what constitutes a suitably tailored modification.
The Supreme Court has held that “the public interest and [ejonsiderations based on the allocation of powers within our federal system ... require that the district court defer to local government administrators, who have the primary responsibility for elucidating, assessing, and solving the problems of institutional reform, to resolve the intricacies of implementing a decree modification.” Id. at 392, 112 S.Ct. at 764 (internal quotations and citation omitted). Especially in the prison administration context, this admonishment should not be taken lightly: “[i]t is difficult to imagine an activity in which a State has a stronger interest, or one that is more intricately bound up with state laws, regulations, and procedures, than the administration of its prisons.” Lewis v. Casey, — U.S. -, -, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 2197, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (Thomas, J., concurring) (quoting Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 491-492, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 1837-1838, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973)).
*927Due to the existence of the consent decree entered into over two decades ago, the district court unfortunately is entangled in the administration of the Arizona penal institutions. In my view, the district court should severely limit its administrative role. Tailoring a suitable modification to the consent decree presents the district court with such an opportunity. The Arizona Department of Corrections officials have the experience, expertise and the primary authority to run the prisons; these officials are in the best position to determine how the holiday package provision should be modified in order to alleviate security concerns.