On August 20, 2001, ten male California inmates filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, against officials of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), alleging that the CDCR's medical services were inadequate, and violated the Eighth Amendment, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and section 504 of Rehabilitation Act. The plaintiffs, represented by attorneys from the Prison Law Office and private counsel.

Plaintiffs' specific complaints mirrored those raised in an earlier case, Shumate v. Wilson, No. CIV S-95-0619 (E.D. Cal. 2000), PC-CA-0011, a case brought by women inmates of the California Institution for Women and the Central California Women's Facility. In Shumate, the plaintiffs alleged that California Department of Corrections officials provided inadequate medical services, including: sick call, triage, emergency care, nurses, urgent care, chronic care, specialty referrals, medical screenings, follow-up care, examinations, medications, diets, terminal care, health education, and dental care. The Shumate case settled in 1997.

The Plata parties stipulated to injunctive relief, requiring the CDCR to implement a series of health care improvements and subjecting the CDCR to a series of audits to determine compliance. The parties did not agree whether or not inmates two facilities at issue in Shumate should be members of the class, but provided that upon the defendants' motion, the District Court would resolve the issue.

After a fairness hearing, the District Court adopted the class action settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate, on May 20, 2002.

Earlier, on March 19, 2002, the defendants had moved to exclude Shumate inmates from the class. The District Court (Judge Thelton E. Henderson) denied the defendants' motion, and ordered the Shumate inmates be included in the class. The defendants appealed that order on June 3, 2002. On May 27, 2003, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Judges John T. Noonan, Atsushi W. Tashima, and Kim M. Wardlaw) dismissed the appeal. Writing for the court, Judge Wardlaw held that because there was no reviewable final order before the court and because the prerequisites for interlocutory appeal were not met, the court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal. Plata v. Davis, 329 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2003).

On May 10, 2005, the District Court issued an order to show cause regarding the interim placement of California's prison medical care system into receivership. After hearings in early June, the District Court (Judge Henderson) placed California's prison health system into receivership on June 30, 2005.

On February 14, 2006 Robert Sillen was appointed as Receiver. In that capacity, Mr. Sillen was charged to act as the executive manager of the state's prison medical care system and given fully authority to direct improvements necessary to bring the system up to constitutional standards. The California Prison Health Care Receivership Corp., a San Jose-based non-profit organization, was created to house the activities of the Receiver.

The Receiver issued his first report on July 5, 2006. That report detailed the Receiver's initial evaluations of the problems plaguing the prison health care system and his immediate recommendations for change. Certain pilot programs were developed to provide immediate relief, while the Receiver and his staff started developing a long-range plan for systemic reform. The Receiver issued subsequent reports on his activity.

To facilitate proposed changes, Judge Henderson allowed the Receiver to waive California state law and increase salaries of critical medical staff and physicians, so as to bring them in line with comparable positions.

While the Plata case involved the overhaul of the CDCR's medical delivery systems, the CDCR faced legal challenges in other areas of its operation. The CDCR's mental health services were the subject of a separate federal class action lawsuit Coleman v. Schwarzenegger (PC-CA-2), while dental services issues were litigated in the federal class action lawsuit Perez v. Tilton (PC-CA- 33) and violations of the Americans with Disability Act were alleged in the class action case Armstrong v. Davis (PC-CA-1). Each case was handled by a separate federal district court judge: Plata (Judge 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 cases to work together to streamline their progress.

On May 11, 2007, the Receiver filed a Plan of Action in the Plata case which outlined his plan for restructuring and developing a constitutionally adequate health care system in California's prisons. On May 15, 2007, the Receiver issued a report to the Court, addressing the issue of prison overcrowding and its effect on overhauling the prison health care system. A supplemental overcrowding report was filed by the Receiver on June 11, 2007.
For a more complete listing of Receiver reports, press releases and work papers, visit the website of the California Prison Health Care Receivership (CPR) at http://www.cprinc.org.

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 hearing on the motion, made in three cases (Plata, Coleman, and Armstrong) was held June 27, 2007; the judges in Plata and Coleman ordered that a three-judge court be convened. (The judge in Armstrong stayed the motion.) 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 three-judge court was accordingly convened to hear argument in Plata and Coleman; its members were Judge Karlton (from Coleman), Judge Henderson (from Plata), and Judge Reinhardt, selected at random from the 9th Circuit.

In separate activity, the Plata Receiver issued his Sixth Quarterly Report (dated September 25, 2007) in which he summarized the major remedial projects that were underway.

On December 14, 2007, after two months of discovery proceedings, the court issued an order staying the discovery and vacating all pre-trial and trial dates. The court also granted in part the defendants' motion for additional time to review and revise their privilege logs. The court then referred the case back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.

On January 23, 2008, the court appointed J. Clark Kelso to be the new Receiver in the case, replacing Robert Sillen. On February 26, 2008, the court approved a construction agreement in the case. This agreement approved three different construction projects, including a medical center at the San Quentin Prison, additional office space at the CDCR, as well as 5000 CDCR medical beds and 5000 CDCR mental health beds.

On March 4, 2008, Costa County was dismissed (by joint stipulation) as an intervenor in this case. On March 11, 2008, the Receiver issued a draft strategic plan, which detailed what he believed needed to be done in order to bring California’s prison health care up to Constitutional standards. On April 1, 2008, the court approved a chief executive officer pilot program coordination agreement between the parties. On April 25, 2008, the court lifted the stay on discovery.

On May 29, 2008, the California state senate voted to decline SB1665, a bill which would have provided 7 billion dollars for the Receiver’s prison health care strategic plan. On June 16, 2008, the district court (Judge Henderson) approved the Receiver’s plan. Because the state government did not want to provide the funding for the plan, on August 13, 2008, the Receiver asked the district court to issue a court order instructing the state government to provide the necessary funding. The Receiver also filed a motion asking the court to hold the defendants in contempt for their failure to fund the remedial projects.

On August 20, 2008, the court dismissed (by joint stipulation) Solano County as an intervenor in the case. On September 15, 2008, the defendants filed a summary judgment motion.

On October 27, 2008, the district court ordered the defendants to transfer $250 million to the receiver by November 5, 2008. On October 31, 2008, the defendants filed a motion to stay the court’s order that they transfer the money to the receiver. The court set the hearing on that motion for November 7, 2008, ordering the defendants to be ready to pay on that date should they not succeed in their motion to stay.

On November 3, 2008, the court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. On November 7, 2008, the district court denied the defendants’ motion to stay the court’s order that they must pay $250 million to fund the Receiver’s plan.

In the Plata and Coleman prisoner release order issue, before the three-judge district court, trial began on November 18, 2008, lasted several weeks. Attorneys for the plaintiffs want the prison population reduced from about 156,300 inmates to 110,000. On February 9, 2009, the three-judge court announced in a "tentative ruling" that it was inclined to find for the plaintiffs, and order California to reduce its overcrowding from 190% of its prisons' design capacity to between 120% and 145%, over the next two or three years. The court invited the parties to attempt settlement in light of its announcement.

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.

The case is ongoing; no doubt, California will appeal.

[updated 8-4-09]

Kristen Sagar - 02/09/2009

compress summary