Cal. Corona Prison Break Denied, For Now

As noted here on March 26, the inmates in California’s endless prison lawsuit asked the special three-judge district court for a release order, framing their request as a modification of the prior order. Friday evening, the court denied the motion. They didn’t buy the argument that this was a modification. The inmates are seeking a new release order, and they have to begin at the beginning, through the process mandated by the Prison Litigation Reform Act.

We therefore conclude that to the extent Plaintiffs can establish a constitutional violation based on the threat posed by COVID-19, it must be based on shortcomings in Defendants’ response to the virus, not on the longstanding systemic constitutional deficiencies in California’s prison health care delivery system. Because Plaintiffs’ motion seeks a release order to redress a different constitutional injury than those previously found in the Coleman and Plata proceedings, that relief cannot be granted through a modification to our prior remedial order.

*     *     *

Our order today does not leave Plaintiffs without options for seeking relief. While we must deny their motion as currently procedurally improper, we do so without prejudice to their bringing their request for relief in an appropriate forum. As with the Valley Fever motion in Plata, and as was done in the original Coleman and Plata litigation, Plaintiffs may go before a single judge to press their claim that Defendants’ response to the COVID-19 pandemic is constitutionally inadequate. For example, if they believe that the response violates Plaintiffs’ right to adequate medical care, they may seek relief before the individual Plata court. Likewise, Plaintiffs may seek relief before the individual Coleman court if they believe that Defendants’ response to COVID-19 is preventing the delivery of adequate mental health care. If a single-judge court finds a constitutional violation, it may order Defendants to take steps short of release necessary to remedy that violation. And if that less intrusive relief proves inadequate, Plaintiffs may request, or the district court may order sua sponte, the convening of a three-judge court to determine whether a release order is appropriate. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(3).

An appeal from this order would go directly to the Supreme Court, bypassing the court of appeals.

Thursday’s News Scan noted a report from the Sacramento Bee that several county jails were releasing prisoners early. The state prisons were reducing their population by halting intake from the county jails. That way, they can say they are not releasing anyone early, while the hydraulic pressure on the county jails has the same effect in reality. The Bee report noted that the prisons were awaiting a ruling from the three-judge court, which is the ruling noted above.

The denial of a court-ordered prison break does not, of course, prevent the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation from releasing prisoners on its own. This could be done by pushing the problem back to the counties, as is already being done, by using the sweeping parole powers given by Proposition 57, which they are are already overusing to the detriment of the law-abiding public, and possibly by other approaches.