Posts Tagged ‘prison law office’
Here’s some interesting news on the prison litigation front: The ACLU of Arizona has joined forces with the Berkeley, Calif.-based Prison Law Office – they’re the ones who’ve been litigating California prison conditions cases for years, and brought us last year’s Plata decision at SCOTUS. The two groups have filed a federal lawsuit charging that the Arizona prison system’s use of solitary confinement amounts to cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the Eighth Amendment:
In one particularly tragic case, a prisoner at the state prison complex in Tucson died last year of untreated lung cancer that spread to his liver, lymph nodes and other major organs before prison officials even bothered to send him to a hospital. The prisoner, Ferdinand Dix, filed repeated health needs requests and presented numerous symptoms associated with lung cancer. His liver was infested with tumors and swelled to four times its normal size, pressing on other internal organs and impeding his ability to eat. Prison medical staff responded by telling him to drink energy shakes. He died in February 2011, days after finally being sent to a hospital but only after his abdomen was distended to the size of that of a full-term pregnant woman. A photograph of Dix shortly before his death appears in the lawsuit.
Jackie Thomas, one of the lawsuit’s named plaintiffs who is housed in solitary confinement at the state prison complex in Eyman, has suffered significant deterioration in his physical and mental health as a result of being held in isolation, where he has become suicidal and repeatedly harmed himself in other ways. Prison staff have failed to treat his mental illness, improperly starting and stopping psychotropic medications and repeatedly using ineffective medications that carry severe side effects. Last November, Thomas overdosed on medication but did not receive any medical care.
Given the unique circumstances under which Plata rose to the Supreme Court — California’s prison overcrowding had been endemic for years, and had reached the level of a state of emergency, as declared by Governor Schwarzenegger — I wasn’t sure that the Plata ruling would have much practical effect beyond the Golden State. So it’ll be interesting to watch as the Prison Law Office expands its work to Arizona. As Plata itself demonstrates, the staff there have a track record of translating concerns about prison conditions into legal claims that courts take seriously.
When U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson of San Francisco appointed a receiver in February 2006 to oversee inmates’ medical treatment, he said the lack of adequate care was killing an average of one prisoner a week, and state officials had shown themselves incapable of complying with constitutional standards, including the ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
On Tuesday, Henderson said the latest report from receiver Clark Kelso showed “significant progress,” to the point that many of the goals have been accomplished. “The end of the receivership,” the judge said, “appears to be in sight.”
It’s not over yet, though. Henderson told lawyers for state prison officials and the inmates to meet with Kelso and try to agree on when the state will be ready to run its own system, under continued monitoring — by Kelso or someone else — to prevent backsliding. Their report is due by April 30.
In the meantime, the prison population continues to shrink, a development closely linked to two decades of health care litigation.
Donald Spector, who heads the Prison Law Office, which has been litigating the California prison cases for 20+ years, told the Los Angeles Times that he’s worried the state may backslide after the receivership is lifted, given the state’s ongoing fiscal crisis. California Healthline has a helpful backgrounder on the issue.
As promised, here’s the second round of commentary on Tuesday’s oral arguments in Schwarzenegger v. Plata. And after the jump, some quick reax from yours truly.
I’ve gotta say, as a Texan reading this transcript, the same thought kept recurring: Thank God for the late Judge William Wayne Justice or Texas would be in the same mess or worse. TDCJ has its problems, but Judge Justice insisted the state address its most gaping flaws three decades ago, at a time when the state incarcerated around 30K inmates instead of 155K. Our system has plenty of shortcomings, but it’s not as big a mess as California’s.
Note the Justices’ shock at the California recidivism rates. They must truly be disconnected from the world they live in. … My impression, overall, is that many of the Justices already have their minds made up, and that the oral arguments might have done little beyond furnishing them with ammunition for writing the decision.
It’s hard to understand why California is so resistant to the common-sense notion that it needs to reduce prison overcrowding. Dozens of jurisdictions throughout the nation have implemented prison population reductions without an increase in crime, and cash-strapped California could save more than half a billion dollars per year by implementing population reduction measures recommended by its own experts.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer seemed shocked by photos from the crowded prisons, where bunk beds have taken over gymnasium floors and recreation areas, and medical facilities are located in former closets.
… if much of the recidivism involves drug possession, as opposed to robbery, rape, or murder, the public safety threat is less dramatic than Alito and Scalia imply. The first step toward alleviating overcrowding in prisons is to free people who don’t belong there—and stop locking them up.
My two cents: Read the rest of this entry »
So, I’ve now read the oral argument transcript (PDF here)… and actually, I don’t have much analysis to provide. If you’re familiar with the case, the argument was fairly straightforward, and the justices were mostly true to form. But to spare you from slogging through the 90+ page transcript, here’s how the most talkative justices reacted, in a nutshell: Read the rest of this entry »
Tomorrow’s the day when the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in Schwarzenegger v. Plata, the class-action lawsuit over California’s prison overcrowding crisis. The Wall Street Journal has an overview here, and the Los Angeles Times explains why this case will have ramifications beyond the Golden State:
Lawyers for 18 other states, including Illinois, Pennsylvania and Virginia, joined in support of California’s appeal, saying they feared a ruling upholding the prison release order could trigger similar moves across the nation. “Real world experience” suggests that releasing a large number of inmates would “inevitably place innocent citizens at much greater risk,” they said. …
Defenders of the judges’ order cite [Gov. Arnold] Schwarzenegger’s own words in 2006 declaring that California faced an overcrowding emergency in its prisons. They also say the state is exaggerating the possible effect of the order. California locks up many prisoners for repeat petty crimes or for technical parole violations, even though they are not considered dangerous or violent.
“California has people in prison who wouldn’t be in prison in any other state,” said former George W. Bush administration Solicitor Gen. Paul D. Clement, who represents one group of state prisoners. His brief cites comments from a former Texas prison director who said he was surprised and disturbed by the overcrowding in California’s prisons.
You can find all the documents you need to get briefed on the case here via SCOTUSblog, and at my earlier posts here (rounding up background info) and here (noting a criminologists’ amicus brief in support of the prisoners). For those of us not in D.C., I’ll try to round up links to oral argument coverage later this week. I’m especially curious to see what new justices Sotomayor and Kagan might say in one of the most significant prisoners’ rights cases to come across the docket since they’ve joined the court.
Here’s some recent radio if you’re in the mood for prison-related news:
- Angela Davis talks about the prison abolition movement on Democracy Now
- An interview with a Massachusetts prison librarian on NPR’s Talk of the Nation
And some handy links for those of you following the California prison overcrowding litigation, which has made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court:
- Oral arguments are November 30 — here’s a handy iCal import from SCOTUSblog!
- SCOTUSblog’s ongoing coverage of Plata v. Schwarzenegger, including downloads of all the briefs for the upcoming Supreme Court argument
- Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse page for Plata v. Schwarzenegger, including downloads of ALL the filings in the case dating back to its initial filing in 2001
- Three-judge panel’s 2009 Prisoner Release Order, the document that’ll be mainly at issue before SCOTUS — and a document well worth reading anyway, because it’s a veritable textbook in the history of mass incarceration
- Homepage of the Prison Law Office, the nonprofit firm that’s handled the litigation along with the law firm of Rosen, Bien & Galvan. If you scroll down that last link, you’ll note that Rosen, Bien has brought on former solicitor general Paul Clement to tag in for the SCOTUS argument
Forgive the light posting lately — reading up on Plata should keep you occupied for awhile….
Ninth Circuit: California Can’t Get Out of Obligations to Disabled State Prisoners By Housing Them in County Jails
In the latest ruling in the ongoing Armstrong litigation over the rights of disabled California prisoners and parolees, a Ninth Circuit panel ruled last week that California has the same obligations to those it holds under contract in county jails as it does to those in state prisons. Calling the state’s arguments to the contrary “barely colorable, constituting attacks on manifestly valid regulations,” Judge Reinhardt’s opinion noted that “even in the absence of a regulation explicitly saying so, a State cannot avoid its obligations under federal law by contracting with a third party to perform its functions.” The opinion opens:
More than a decade and a half ago, disabled prisoners and parolees brought this action against the California officials with responsibility over the corrections system and parole proceedings. They sought accommodations to their disabilities that are required by the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Constitution. Defendants denied that they had any obligation to provide such accommodations, forcing plaintiffs to undertake years of litigation. Plaintiffs prevailed repeatedly in the district court and in this court. For most of the last decade, the litigation has been in a remedial phase.
Now, however, defendants are again denying any obligation to accommodate a set of disabled prisoners and parolees held under California’s authority. Defendants house significant numbers of prisoners and parolees in jails operated by California’s fifty-eight counties. Defendants contend that they have no responsibility for ensuring that any disabled prisoners and parolees that they so house receive accommodations. … That argument, and defendants’ other arguments contesting their obligations to their prisoners and parolees housed in county jails, are without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the portion of the district court’s decision that holds that defendants are responsible for providing reasonable accommodations to the disabled prisoners and parolees that they house in county jails.
However, the ruling was not a pure victory for the plaintiffs. The panel also found that there was insufficient evidence to support the district court’s sweeping remedial order, and remanded back to the district court for a fuller evidentiary hearing, though in a paragraph carefully spelling out for the plaintiffs what they need to do next: Read the rest of this entry »
J. Clark Kelso, the federal receiver appointed to oversee California’s prison health care system, has an editorial in today’s Sacramento Bee, excerpted below:
My primary job as a federally appointed receiver is to raise the level of care to constitutional levels and turn back to the state a functioning prison medical care system that the state will be capable of maintaining. …
First, we need to formally remove the operational part of prison health care from the management of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation by establishing an organizationally separate, board-governed health care authority. This can be accomplished without spending more money or creating more bureaucracy. In fact, having a separate authority will make it easier to implement our savings program and to get our fair share of federal dollars in support of health care.
The corrections department’s mission is not health care. It is maintaining custody and control. The reason we have made so much progress on medical care in the past three years is because we have operated independently of CDCR and that independence let us focus on our health care mission. If responsibility for prison health care returns to the department of corrections after the conclusion of the receivership, the most likely result will be backsliding as the health care mission once again becomes subordinate to custody and control. This is not intended as a criticism of the department of corrections and its executive team or staff. It simply reflects the reality of organizational behavior and culture.
Kelso was appointed in 2008 in the course of the ongoing Plata v. Schwarzenegger class action lawsuit, in which prisoners alleged that they were being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the Eighth Amendment, in the form of deliberate official indifference to their serious medical needs. (In 2005, a federal judge found that a California inmate was dying needlessly every 6-7 days.)
California does not dispute the need to improve its prison health care system: the lawsuit reached a settlement in 2002. But litigation has continued over whether California is taking the appropriate remedial measures to fulfill the terms of that settlement. It was in the course of this litigation that a federal receiver was appointed, after the court found that the state had proven unable to devise and implement solutions on its own. Most recently, a panel of three federal judges ordered that the California’s efforts so far have failed to resolve the underlying issue of overcrowding, and that it must take steps to reduce its prison population by about 46,000 inmates. California will challenge that ruling this fall at the Supreme Court.
With all the press that California’s Prop 8 has been getting as it journeys through the federal courts, I’ve been remiss in failing to note on this blog that Prop 9 is also being challenged. Passed in 2008 (in the same election as Prop 8), Prop 9 or Marsy’s Law was marketed as the “Victims’ Rights and Protection Act,” and made a number of changes to parole hearing procedures in California. Among its major effects was to lengthen the time before indeterminately sentenced offenders are eligible for a parole eligibility hearing.* Opponents of Prop 9 noted that California already grants parole in an exceedingly low number of murder/manslaughter cases (<1%), and that many of the rights purportedly granted to victims by Prop 9, such as expanded rights to be heard at parole eligibility hearings, already existed either at the county level or pursuant to the Victims’ Bill of Rights of 1982 (otherwise known as the first Prop 8).
Nevertheless, the proposition passed with about 54% of voters in favor, and is now being challenged in the federal courts under the Ex Post Facto Clause. The Prison Law Office has summarized the law’s implications and possible objections to the law in a handy memo (PDF link). Although I have not had time to digest all the information about this case myself, I can confidently direct readers who want to know more over to California Corrections Crisis which has been following the case and summarized last week’s oral arguments at the Ninth Circuit. Stay tuned and I’ll be sure to keep you posted when the Ninth Circuit panel issues its ruling. The docket info is Gilman v. Schwarzenegger, No. 10-15471.
* Prop 9 also includes provisions that would curtail due process to parolees already out (who, given California sentencing law and policy, are usually determinately sentenced offenders), including imposing new limits on the right to appointed counsel at parole revocation hearings. However, California was quickly stayed from implementing these provisions because they appear to violate a previous injunction issued in an earlier lawsuit, Valdivia v. Davis. CDCR appealed the stay and I believe the most recent activity was the Ninth Circuit’s March 2010 ruling remanding the litigation back to the district court “to reconcile the Injunction and Proposition 9″ (opinion PDF), but perhaps readers are aware of more recent developments.
According to official prison reports, the California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (CDCR) frequently subjects entire racial groups to lockdowns, restricting the access of all prisoners of that racial group to medical care, religious services, family visits, and other resources for an average of more than three months at a time. Yesterday the Prison Law Office, a leading prisoners’ rights non-profit law firm based in Berkeley, Calif., issued a demand letter requesting that CDCR cease this practice. From the Prison Law Office letter to Secretary Matthew Cate (full PDF available here):
African-American prisoners from CSP-Solano wrote to us complaining that the institution continues its practice of locking prisoners down based only on racial classification, despite a decision by a California Superior Court that this practice was unlawful. … Several Northern Hispanic prisoners in one facility at CSP-Sacramento have written to us stating that they have been on “modified program” more or less continuously for the last ten years, and as a result receive fewer privileges, job opportunities and yard time than prisoners of other races. More than twenty African-Americans prisoners housed at Kern Valley State Prison informed us that all African-American prisoners in certain facilities have been locked down frequently as a consequence of fights between individual African-American prisoners, and that even African-American prisoners who are “unaffiliated” must endure extended denials of their rights or privileges with respect to movement, feeding, ducats, visiting, work, shower, medical, library, dayroom, recreation, canteen, packages, phone calls, family visits and religious services. Over a dozen White prisoners in one facility at SATF wrote to us complaining of multiple lengthy lockdowns; some informed us that they had been locked down for over a year. These deprivations of rights are imposed purely on the basis of race and even apply to prisoners who arrived at the prison after the date of the incident which provoked the lockdown.
The Prison Law Office argues that extended racially based lockdowns violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. While prisons are legally permitted to take race into account for safety reasons, any racially discriminatory disciplinary practices must be narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest, under Johnson v. California (2005). The letter concludes: “Even if the prisons were permitted to enforce race-based lockdowns for brief periods of time ‘as a necessary and temporary response to a race riot or other serious threat of race-related violence,’ … such race-based policies cannot remain in effect for weeks and even months as CDCR’s lockdowns too often do.”