Coleman v. Brown

• Decision Date: 03 July 2013
• Docket Number: Nos. 2:90–cv–0520 LKK JFM P, C01–1351 TEH.,s. 2:90–cv–0520 LKK JFM P, C01–1351 TEH.
• Citation: 960 F.Supp.2d 1057
• Parties: Ralph COLEMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Edmund G. BROWN Jr., et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California

960 F.Supp.2d 1057

Ralph COLEMAN, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.Edmund G. BROWN Jr., et al., Defendants.

Nos. 2:90–cv–0520 LKK JFM P, C01–1351 TEH.

United States District Court,

E.D. California.

July 3, 2013.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY JUNE 20, 2013 ORDER

Amy Whelan, National Center for Lesbian Rights, Claudia B. Center, Legal Aid Society, Edward P. Sangster, Raymond E. Loughrey, Jeffrey L. Bornstein, Megan F. Cesare–Eastman, K & L Gates LLP, Aaron Joseph Fischer, Ernest Galvan, Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld, Jane E. Kahn, Kenneth M. Walczak, Krista Michelle Stone–Manista, Lisa Adrienne Ells, Margot Knight Mendelson, Michael Bien, Michael Louis Freedman, Thomas Bengt Nolan, Blake Thompson, Lori Rifkin, Rosen Bien Galvan and Grunfeld LLP, San Francisco, CA, Fred D. Heather, Glaser Weil Fink Jacobs Howard Avchen & Shapiro LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Kimberly Hall Barlow, Jones & Mayer, Fullerton, CA, Sara Linda Norman, Donald Specter, Prison Law Office, Rebekah B. Evenson, Berkeley, CA, for Plaintiffs.

Danielle Felice O'Bannon, Department of Justice, Rochelle C. East, Debbie Jean Vorous, Kyle Anthony Lewis, Office of the Attorney General for the State of California, San Francisco, CA, Paul B. Mello, Hanson Bridgett LLP, Walnut Creek, CA, David Eugene Brice, Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants.

STEPHEN REINHARDT, Circuit Judge, LAWRENCE K. KARLTON, THELTON E. HENDERSON, Senior District Judges.

On June 20, 2013, this Court issued an Opinion and Order once again directing defendants to comply with our August 2009 Population Reduction Order by reducing the prison population to 137.5% design capacity by December 31, 2013. June 20, 2013 Op. & Order, 952 F.Supp.2d 901, 2013 WL 3326872 (E.D.Cal.2013) (ECF No. 2659/4662).¹ The Population Reduction Order, although almost four years old, has still not been complied with by defendants. On June 28, 2013, defendants requested a stay of the June 20 Order pending appeal to the United States Supreme Court. Defs.' Mot. to Stay (ECF No. 2665/4673). For the reasons set forth below, we DENY defendants' motion for a stay.

It is worth stating at the outset that by its underlying appeal defendants (sometimes referred to as “the State”) seek to relitigate a thoroughly reasoned decision of the Supreme Court, Brown v. Plata, issued two years ago. That decision holds that within two years the State must reduceits prison population to 137.5% of design capacity because, when a higher number of prisoners is confined in the prisons, the prison conditions result in medical and mental health care that violates the Eighth Amendment. ––– U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 1910, 179 L.Ed.2d 969 (2011). Because of the State's resistance to complying with that decision, and in order to avoid the necessity of contempt proceedings against the Governor and other state officials, this Three–Judge Court has repeatedly declined to initiate such proceedings and has even sua sponte extended the time for defendants to comply with the Population Reduction Order issued in conformity with Brown v. Plata. This Court has repeatedly directed defendants to adopt specific plans that will serve to reduce the prison population to the designated figure by the specified date. Until now, the State has insisted that it is unable (read unwilling) to comply with the Population Reduction Order. In the present motion, however, it has finally acknowledged that it will comply if the Supreme Court denies the stay it will request from that Court. Defs.' Mot. to Stay at 2 (ECF No. 2665/4673). Accordingly, with anticipation that the Supreme Court's denial of the stay will finally bring defendants into compliance with the Population Reduction Order and the Eighth Amendment (subject to the durability of its compliance), we further explain our reasons for denying defendants' motion.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The history of this litigation is of defendants' repeated failure to take the necessary steps to remedy the constitutional violations in its prison system, violations that have still not been remedied after 23 years. The litigation began with two separate class actions. The first, Coleman v. Brown, began in 1990 and concerns California's failure to provide constitutionally adequate mental health care to its prison population. The second, Plata v. Brown, began in 2001 and concerns California's failure to provide constitutionally adequate medical care to its prison population. The district courts in both cases found constitutional violations and ordered injunctive relief. In 1995, in Coleman, the district court found that defendants were violating the Eighth Amendment rights of mentally ill prisoners. Coleman v. Wilson, 912 F.Supp. 1282 (E.D.Cal.1995). The court appointed a Special Master to supervise defendants' efforts to remedy the constitutional violations. Id. at 1323–24. In 2005, in Plata, after a stipulated injunction failed to remedy the Eighth Amendment violations, the district court placed defendants' prison medical care system in a receivership. Oct. 3, 2005 FF & CL, 2005 WL 2932253, at *31. Now, 23 years later in one case and 12 years later in the other, despite the extensive efforts we have made to bring about compliance with our Population Reduction Order, which has been approved by the Supreme Court, defendants remain delinquent.

“After years of litigation, it became apparent that a remedy for the constitutional violations would not be effective absent a reduction in the prison system population.” Plata, 131 S.Ct. at 1922. In 2006, the Coleman and Plata plaintiffs independently filed motions to convene a three-judge court capable of issuing a population reduction order under the PLRA. Both motions were granted, and on July 26, 2007, the cases were assigned to the same Three–Judge Court, made up of the district judges overseeing Plata and Coleman and one circuit judge appointed in conformance with Court Rules by the Chief Judge of the Circuit. After a fourteen-day trial, this Three–Judge Court issued a 184–page opinion ordering defendants to reduce the institutional prison population to 137.5% design capacity within two years. Aug. 4, 2009 Op. & Order, 922 F.Supp.2d 882 (E.D.Cal.2009) (ECF No. 2197/3641) (“Population Reduction Order”).

In issuing the Population Reduction Order, this Court found that “no relief other than a prisoner release order is capable of remedying the constitutional deficiencies at the heart of these two cases,” id. at 962, and that “there was overwhelming agreement among experts for plaintiffs, defendants, and defendant-intervenors that it is ‘absolutely’ possible to reduce the prison population in California safely and effectively,” id. at 974. We did not instruct defendants how to reduce the prison population. We left this question to defendants but ordered them to submit a plan for compliance within 45 days of our Population Reduction Order. Id. at 1003–04. Defendants did not comply; they submitted a plan for reducing the population to 137.5% within five years, not two. Defs.' Population Reduction Plan (ECF No. 2237/3678). This Court ordered defendants to comply by providing a two-year plan. Oct. 21, 2009 Order Rejecting Defs.' Proposed Population Plan (ECF No. 2269/3711). Defendants responded with a plan for compliance by which they would reduce the prison population to 167%, 155%, 147%, and 137.5% at six-month benchmarks. Defs.' Response to Three–Judge Court's Oct. 21, 2009 Order (ECF No. 2274/3726). On January 12, 2010, this Court issued an order accepting defendants' two-year timeline, but stayed the date of the order while defendants appealed to the Supreme Court. Jan. 12, 2010 Order to Reduce Prison Population, 2010 WL 99000 (ECF No. 2287/3767).

In June 2011, the Supreme Court affirmed this Court's Population Reduction Order, holding that “the court-mandated population limit is necessary to remedy the violation of prisoners' constitutional rights.” Plata, 131 S.Ct. at 1923. Although the Population Reduction Order, the Supreme Court stated, was “of unprecedented sweep and extent,” and the release of prisoners a matter of “undoubted, grave concern,” so too “is the continuing injury and harm resulting from these serious constitutional violations.” Id. The Supreme Court rejected defendants' argument that a population reduction order was not required because the overcrowding could be eliminated through construction and other efforts. The Supreme Court called such options “chimerical,” id. at 1938–39, and noted that defendants' troubled history in this litigation belied placing trust in them. The Supreme Court said:

Attempts to remedy the violations in Plata have been ongoing for 9 years. In Coleman, remedial efforts have been ongoing for 16. At one time, it may have been possible to hope that these violations would be cured without a reduction in overcrowding. A long history of failed remedial orders, together with substantial evidence of overcrowding's deleterious effects on the provision of care, compels a different conclusion today.

Id. at 1939. The Supreme Court also rejected defendants' argument that population reduction would adversely affect public safety, citing this Court's extensive factual findings to the contrary. Id. at 1942–43. The Supreme Court specifically endorsed expanding good time credits, stating that “[e]xpansion of good time credits would allow the State to give early release to only those prisoners who pose the least risk of reoffending,” id. at 1943, and cited positive evidence from other jurisdictions that had successfully implemented good time credits, id. at 1942–43. The Supreme Court concluded that “[t]he relief ordered by the three-judge court is required by the Constitution and was authorized by Congress in the PLRA,” and ordered defendants to “implement the order without further delay.” Id. at 1947.

Following the Supreme Court's decision, this Court mandated a two-year schedule for defendants to reduce the prison population to 137.5%...