952 F. Supp. 2d 901
E.D. Cal.2013Background
- This Three-Judge Court (Ninth Circuit panel) previously ordered California to reduce its prison population to 137.5% of design capacity to remedy Eighth Amendment violations in Plata and Coleman; that order was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Plata v. Brown.
- The Court required defendants to submit a List of possible population-reduction measures and a Plan to achieve 137.5% by December 31, 2013; defendants submitted a Plan that the Court found noncompliant.
- Defendants relied primarily on Realignment and a state Blueprint and proposed measures (fire camps, jail leases, limited good-time expansion, parole expansions, slowing return of out-of-state prisoners) that would not achieve the required reduction.
- The Court found defendants’ Plan numerically and temporally insufficient (short by thousands of beds/prisoners and some measures not implementable by Dec. 31, 2013), and identified defendants’ repeated delays and refusal to use authorities available or seek waivers.
- To cure the shortfall, the Court ordered an Amended Plan: defendants must implement their Plan plus full expansion of good-time credits (prospective and retroactive for all prisoners) or an equivalent measure that yields at least the same releases; the Court waived conflicting state/local laws to permit immediate implementation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants’ May 2, 2013 Plan complied with the Court’s April 11, 2013 order to reach 137.5% by Dec. 31, 2013 | Defendants must submit and implement a plan that achieves the 137.5% cap within the deadline; their Plan fails numerically and procedurally | The Plan (Realignment + Blueprint + limited measures) is sufficient or legislative relief/authorization is required; some measures cannot be implemented without state law change | Plan did not comply; court quantified shortfall and found many measures not implementable by deadline; ordered additional relief |
| Whether the Court may require specific remedial measures (intrude into prison administration) | Courts must ensure constitutional compliance; remedies may include specific measures if state fails to comply | Defendants asserted deference on prison administration and raised public-safety concerns about some measures (esp. retroactive/violent-offender credits) | Court ordered specific measures because of defendants’ prolonged noncompliance; deference does not excuse constitutional violations |
| Whether expansion of good-time credits (prospective and retroactive, including violent offenders) is consistent with public safety | Plaintiffs: full expansion (retroactive and for all prisoners) is supported by experts and other jurisdictions and will safely produce necessary reductions | Defendants: retroactivity or inclusion of violent offenders threatens public safety; authority/legality concerns | Court rejected defendants’ public-safety objections based on prior factual findings (affirmed by Supreme Court) and ordered full expansion or an equivalent yielding equal releases |
| Whether the Court may waive conflicting state/local laws to permit federal remedial measures | Plaintiffs: PLRA permits federal relief that conflicts with state law if necessary to correct federal-rights violation and no other relief will work | Defendants: sought legislative authorization and argued state law constrains implementation | Court found PLRA conditions met and immediately waived state/local laws necessary to implement the Amended Plan |
Key Cases Cited
- Plata v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 1910 (2011) (affirming three-judge court’s population-reduction remedy to cure Eighth Amendment violations)
- Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678 (1978) (district court may order specific remedial measures after repeated noncompliance)
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) (courts should be sensitive to prison administration but must enforce constitutional rights)
- Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (1972) (courts must enforce constitutional rights of prisoners)
- Spallone v. United States, 493 U.S. 265 (1990) (contempt should be a remedy of last resort; courts must use least power adequate)
- United States v. Asarco Inc., 430 F.3d 972 (9th Cir. 2005) (standard for modification under Rule 60(b)(5) / Rufo framework)
- Horne v. Flores, 557 U.S. 433 (2009) (durability of remedial relief is an important consideration)