High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
1
Although we refer to the evidence in the record in this tentative ruling, we continueto reserve final rulings on all of the outstanding evidentiary objections.IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIAAND THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIAUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT COMPOSED OF THREE JUDGESPURSUANT TO SECTION 2284, TITLE 28 UNITED STATES CODERALPH COLEMAN, et al.,Plaintiffs,v.ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,et al.,Defendants.NO. CIV S-90-0520 LKK JFM P
THREE-JUDGE COURT
MARCIANO PLATA, et al.,Plaintiffs,v.ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,et al.,Defendants.NO. C01-1351 TEH
THREE-JUDGE COURT
TENTATIVE RULINGHaving heard the evidence and arguments presented by the parties and intervenors, wewill now make a tentative ruling. Although it will take the Court some time to review all theevidence that has been presented and to issue a final opinion, we have decided to make thistentative ruling in order to give the parties notice of the likely nature of that opinion, and toallow them to plan accordingly.
1
(The term parties as used throughout shall, whereappropriate, include the intervenors.)
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282We tentatively conclude the following:
1.
First, plaintiffs have presented overwhelming evidence thatcrowding is the primarycause of the underlying constitutional violations. No party contests that California’s prisonsare overcrowded, however measured, and whether considered in comparison to prisons inother states or jails within this state. There are simply too many prisoners for the existingcapacity. The Governor, the principal defendant, declared a state of emergency in 2006because of the “severe overcrowding” in California’s prisons, which has caused “substantialrisk to the health and safety of the men and women who work inside these prisons and theinmates housed in them.” Pls.’ Exh. P-1. A state appellate court upheld the Governor’sproclamation, holding that the evidence supported the existence of conditions of “extremeperil to the safety of persons and property.”
CCPOA v. Schwarzenegger
, 163 Cal. App. 4th802, 818 (Cal. App. Ct. 2008). The Governor’s declaration of the state of emergencyremains in effect to this day. Moreover, in the underlying cases, the court found that theStates have failed to deliver constitutionally adequate mental or physical healthcare. Thosedeterminations have not been questioned in the courts that made those findings, nor has therebeen an appeal of those orders.Under these circumstances, the disagreement between the parties cannot be whetherovercrowding in California’s prisons exists or whether that condition constitutes extremeperil to health and safety. Rather it is whether overcrowding is the “primary cause” of theState’s inability to provide constitutionally adequate medical care and mental health care toits prisoners. We agree with the defendants that “primary cause” means the “chief, principal,or root” cause. We also agree that the delivery of constitutional medical and mental healthcare in prisons is a complicated and “polycentric” problem. As we have stated before,however, we believe that a polycentric problem can have a primary cause – a cause thatunderlies and affects nearly every dimension of the problem and that in this case must besubstantially mitigated before the constitutional failure can be resolved.Evidence offered at trial was overwhelmingly to the effect that overcrowding is theprimary cause of the unconstitutional conditions that have been found to exist in the
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627283California prisons. There is, for example, uncontroverted evidence that, because of overcrowding, there are not enough clinical facilities or resources to accommodate inmateswith medical or mental health needs at the level of care they require. There is alsouncontroverted evidence that, because of overcrowding, there are not enough clinical orcustodial personnel to ensure that inmates with medical or mental health needs are receivingappropriate treatment, are taking the medications that they need to take, are being escorted totheir medical appointments in a timely manner, and are having their medical informationrecorded and filed properly. Additionally, as the Governor has stated, and as the Californiaappellate court has found, overcrowded conditions – the use of triple bunks in gymnasiumsand other areas not intended to be used for housing, for example – have “substantiallyincreased the risk of the transmission of infectious illnesses among inmates and prison staff.”
CCPOA
, 163 Cal. App. 4th at 819-20.Almost every expert who testified in the first phase of the trial identifiedovercrowding as the main cause of the prison system’s constitutionally inadequate medicaland mental health care and as the problem that must be fixed before constitutionally adequatecare can be delivered. Among the experts was Ms. Jeanne Woodford, the former actingSecretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, who testified that itis impossible to get inmates necessary mental health treatment and health care exams whenoperating in the overcrowded setting of California’s prisons. Experts with correctionalexperience in states ranging from Texas and Pennsylvania to Maine and Washington testifiedto similar effect. Even defendants’ expert, Dr. Ira Packer, agreed that the primary cause of the inadequacy in mental health care is that there are not enough mental health resources forthe population. He also concluded in his expert report that crowding is the primary cause of the problems at the reception centers.The defendants argue that the work of the Receiver and the Special Master hassignificantly improved the conditions in the prisons, and that with more time the Receiverand California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (sometimes referred to asCDCR), as monitored by the Special Master, can remedy the constitutional violations
Add a Comment
jmcdonald 9975left a comment