On April 23, 1990, mentally ill inmates in California state prisoners filed a class action lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California against California corrections and mental health officials alleging that mental health care provided at most California penal institutions violated their constitutional rights. They also filed a claim under the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, but that claim was eventually dismissed. Plaintiffs, represented by the Prison Law Office, Legal Aid, the Disability Rights and Education Defense Fund and private counsel, sought declaratory and injunctive relief.



The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds. On October 14, 1991, the court (Judge Lawrence K. Karlton) certified a class of all present and future inmates with serious mental disorders at California penal institutions (except San Quentin State Prison, Northern Reception Center at Vacaville and California Medical Facility-Main at Vacaville).



A preliminary injunction was issued concerning the exposure of inmates on psychotropic medications to extreme heat. Subsequently, following significant discovery, the matter was tried in an extensive trial before the magistrate during March, April and May of 1993. After the state filed objections to the magistrate's June 1994 recommended findings in favor of the plaintiffs, the court (Judge Karlton) on September 13, 1995, granted a permanent injunction, holding that the evidence supported the magistrate's factual findings and that the defendants had been deliberately indifferent to systemic deficiencies in inmates' mental healthcare, including inadequate screenings, understaffing, delays in access to care, deficiencies in medication management and involuntary medication, inadequacy of medical records, inadequately trained staff, improper housing of mentally ill inmates in administrative segregation, and the deliberately indifferent use of tasers and 37mm guns on inmates with serious mental disorders. Coleman v. Wilson, 912 F.Supp. 1282 (E.D. Cal. 1995). The court ordered that new policies and protocols be developed, and ordered that a special master be appointed to monitor compliance with the court-ordered injunctive relief. On December 11, 1995, the court (Judge Karlton) appointed J. Michael Keating, Jr., to serve as Special Master, setting out his duties, powers and compensation.



The Special Master began work and hired staff, but ceased his work pending further court direction after passage of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). On July 12, 1996, the court (Judge Karlton) held that the Special Master's compensation was not subject to the limitations contained in the PLRA. Wilson v. Coleman, 933 F.Supp. 954 (E.D. Cal. 1996). This ruling, along with two others also involving compensation of special masters under the PLRA, were heard together on appeals filed by inmates seeking writs of mandamus to vacate the district court orders that the PLRA not apply to master's appointed prior to its passage. On December 24, 1996, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Judges Fletcher, Farris and Tashima) rejected these claims. Wilson v. District Court, 103 F.3d 828 (9th Cir. 1996), and the Supreme Court denied certiorari on May 19, 1997. Wilson v. District Court, 520 U.S. 1230 (1997).



After the District Court entered its injunction, the state in 1996 appealed the early preliminary order concerning inmate exposure to heat, but on November 14, 1996, this appeal was rejected due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Judges Fletcher, Ferguson and Samuel P. King), holding in an unpublished opinion that no final order had ever been issued concerning the heat exposure. Coleman v. Wilson, 101 F.3d 705, 1996 WL 665551 (9th Cir. Cal.) Nov. 14, 1996).



The parties litigated disputes over attorneys’ fees and costs, which were substantial in this case, and the United States intervened in the case filing a memorandum of law on the constitutionality of the relevant PLRA provisions. The court subsequently issued a number of orders granting various payments of fees.



Between 1998 and 2006, the court accepted numerous compliance reports from the Special Master and issued a number of orders regarding compliance and implementation of remedial measures, including orders related to filling vacancies in mental health staffing, training, suicide prevention, outpatient beds, transfers of inmates to places that would better serve their mental health needs, and other measures. In May and August 2006, the court accepted plans submitted concerning long-term care and bed utilization. In September, 2006, the court adopted the inclusion of language in the Revised Program Guide concerning the clinical competency of psychiatrists. Subsequent reports addressed suicide trends in administrative segregation units.



On October 4, 2006, California Governor Schwarzenegger issued the Prison Overcrowding State of Emergency Proclamation. The Proclamation was issued in response to California’s prison overcrowding crisis, so that the State could ship thousands of inmates to out-of-state prisons to ease overcrowding. Following the Proclamation, the State contracted with two prison companies and began moving prisoners out of California. Note that the lawfulness of the Governor’s proclamation was subsequently challenged in the state court case California Correctional Peace Officers’ Association v. Schwarzenegger [PC-CA-36].



Plaintiffs moved for a TRO to prevent the transfer of inmates out-of-state. After a hearing on November 3, 2006, Judge Karlton denied the motion but ordered that an appropriately-credentialed mental health clinician employed by CDCR accompany the inmates on their transfer flight.



Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, a population cap on a prison or a prison system may be entered only by a specially constituted three-judge district court. Plaintiffs accordingly filed a motion to convene a three-judge district court to impose a prison population cap. A similar motion was filed in the related class action case Plata v. Schwarzenegger in which the CDCR's health care system was subject to Court oversight and remediation [PC-CA-18], and also in Armstrong v. Schwarzenneger [PC-CA-0001], a large-scale prisoner disability discrimination case. Attorneys for the plaintiffs want the prison population reduced from over 160,000 inmates to 110,000. The district judge in Armstrong stayed consideration of the motion pending its decision in Plata and Coleman. The district judges in those two cases consolidated the motions for convening of a three-judge district court, to consider imposition of a prison population cap. A hearing on the motion was held June 27, 2007; the judges ordered that a three-judge court be convened. The State attempted an appeal, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, by order dated September 11, 2007, dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the Appeals Court lacked jurisdiction as the appeal was premature. The district court panel convened to decide the overcrowding issue consisted of Judge Karlton, from this case, Judge Henderson, from Plata, and Judge Reinhardt, selected at random from the 9th Circuit.



In addition to the Coleman, Plata, and Armstrong cases, the CDCR was subject to another class action litigation challenging the constitutionality of other services in Perez v. Tilton (PC-CA- 33) (constitutionality of prison dental services) . Each of the four cases was handled by a separate federal district court judge: Plata (Judge Thelton Henderson); Coleman (Judge Lawrence Karlton); Armstrong (Judge Claudia Wilken) and Perez (Judge Jeffrey White). In early 2007, these four presiding judges instructed representatives of the remedial efforts in each case to work together to streamline their progress.



While litigation over prison overcrowding ensued, the Special Master continued his remediation work. His reports and corresponding court orders addressed issues which included: annual projections for mental health program populations, creation of a data collection system to track inmate referrals to various mental health services and administrative segregation, improvements in the pay scales of state mental health care workers, retrofitting of Administrative Segregation Unit Intake Cells for suicide prevention, assessment and treatment of inmates with exhibitionist or paraphilia behaviors; implementation of an Enhanced Outpatient Program at Reception Centers and creation of additional mental health beds.



In separate activity, on October 9, 2007, Judge Karlton appointed Matthew A. Lopes, Jr. to be the special master for this case. On February 26, 2008, the court approved a construction settlement between the parties. The agreement provided for the construction of 5000 mental health beds and 5000 medical beds, and the Plata Receiver was required to file quarterly reports.



On October 7, 2008, the court ordered the Defendants to do the following: 1) develop a plan to address overall dysfunction in custody/mental health relations at Salinas Valley State Prison (SVSP) within 90 days; 2) develop a plan for maximum utilization of all dormitory beds at SVSP within 90 days; 3) implement and maintain institutional electronic and manual tracking logs for inmates who have been placed into alternative housing pending Mental Health Crisis Bed (MHCB) transfers, and dates, times, and places of return to regular housing for inmates not transferred to an MHCB; 4) construct the mental health treatment and counseling space at SVSP and the mental health treatment and programming space at California Medical Facility (CMF) as described in their development Proposals submitted in response to the Court's 10/18/07 Order; and 5) disseminate the complete Monthly Report of Information Requested and Response to Court Order regarding Staff Vacancies and CDCR Mental Health Crisis Bed Monthly Report on a regular and timely basis. On November 3, 2008, the district court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment. Trial on the prisoner release order issue began in San Francisco on November 18, and lasted several weeks.



Back in the three-judge court (hearing Coleman and Plata, consolidated, on the issue of overcrowding), on February 9, 2009, the three-judge court issued a "tentative ruling" announcing its intention to rule in favor of the plaintiffs, and require California to reduce overcrowding from 190% of design capacity to something in between 120% to 145% of design capacity, over the next two or three years. If no new prisons are built, this would mean a reduction of something like 55,000 prisons. The court invited the parties to negotiate a settlement in light of the tentative ruling.



California declined the invitation to negotiate, and requested the three-judge court to issue a final ruling. On August 4, 2009, the three-judge district court, following two years of proceedings including fourteen days of trial, issued an opinion that imposes a population cap on California's prisons. The court found that the cap is necessary to cure the constitutional violations that have long existed with respect to the provision of medical and mental health care. Considering the strict requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act for entry of a population cap, the court found (as required by the statute as a prerequisite to such an order) that overcrowding is the primary cause of these violations. It approved a population limit of 137.5% of design capacity, and it ordered the state to submit a plan as to how best it can reduce the current prison population from its present level of more than 190% of design capacity. No immediate release of prisoners was ordered. Rather, the reduction in prison population of over 40,000 may be accomplished by the state over a two-year period, through a combination of various measures previously recommended by numerous state commissions and committees, including through the early release of some non-dangerous prisoners or the diversion to other forms of custody or supervision of other individuals, such as technical parole violators who are currently returned to prison for short periods.



The statute also requires courts considering population caps to assess the impact on public safety. The court found that the overcrowding in the prisons led to "criminogenic" conditions, which resulted in more crimes being committed by former prisoners and an increase in the recidivism rate. It also determined that, with adequate safeguards and improved rehabilitation and re-entry programs, the state could ensure that the order would result in an increase in public safety.


On January 12, 2010, the three-judge district court, still comprised of Judge Karlton (from Coleman), Judge Henderson (from Plata), and Judge Reinhardt, selected at random from the 9th Circuit, issued an Order to reduce the state's prison population by more than 40,000 inmates over two years. The court said the reduction was necessary to improve medical and health care throughout the state's adult prisons.

California appealed, and on January 19, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The order is still indefinite, and the case is ongoing.

Kristen Sagar - 06/30/2009

compress summary