The Court affirmed a lower court ruling in the Plata v. Brown case, which mandated thatCalifornia reduce its jail population to 137.5% of its design capacity within two years. Thisrepresents a decrease from around 150,000 prisoners to 110,000 inmates. Stated differently,California has been mandated to eliminate almost the same amount of jail infrastructure as NorthCarolina.The lawsuit represents the conclusion of twenty years of litigation, but it is most likely not theend. A class of severely mentally ill prisoners fded the case in 1990. Since then, it has resulted innumerous court-ordered remedial plans, injunctions, the appointment of a special master andreceiver, and, finally, the empanelment of a three-judge court with the authority to order prisonpopulation reductions under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA). The court issuedthe aforementioned population-reduction order following 14 days of testimony. There is "norealistic possibility that California would be able to build itself out of this crisis," according tothe directive, although the state is not required to fulfill the 137.5% objective in any specificway.Reducing the jail population is an unusual remedy, and before such an order may be issued, anumber of prerequisites must be met under the PLRA. The first need is that a judge must havepreviously issued an order for less invasive relief that hasn't worked out after a fair amount oftime has passed. Second, only a three-judge court that has been specifically called for that reasonmay issue such an order. Third, the three-judge court can only issue a release order if it concludesthat "(i) crowding is the primary cause of the violation of a Federal right; and (ii) no other reliefwill remedy the violation of the Federal right" based on clear and persuasive evidence. Using the'least intrusive means necessary," the remedy must be "narrowly drawn" and may "extend noPreview Mode
This document has 4 pages. Sign in to access the full document!