Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will file a court-mandated plan today
to ease prison overcrowding that appears to defy demands by a panel
of three federal judges, the latest salvo in a long-running feud
between state and federal officials over California’s corrections
system.
By Kevin Yamamura and Denny Walsh, McClatchy News Service
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will file a court-mandated plan today to ease prison overcrowding that appears to defy demands by a panel of three federal judges, the latest salvo in a long-running feud between state and federal officials over California’s corrections system.
The federal judges last month ordered the state to reduce its prison population by 40,000 inmates over the next two years in response to lawsuits alleging that overcrowding has led to unconstitutional and inadequate levels of medical and mental health care.
Schwarzenegger’s Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation intends to file an inmate reduction plan with the court today, but the state’s proposal will be well shy of the judges’ inmate target, according to a legislative memo.
The plan will incorporate the package approved last week by the Legislature to cut the population by 16,000 inmates, as well as proposals to send 2,500 inmates out of state and 1,000 inmates to private prisons. It also will propose constructing new buildings on existing prison sites to house an additional 7,600 inmates.
California houses 150,655 inmates in its 33 adult prisons, according to corrections spokesman Oscar Hidalgo.
Senate Republicans objected to Schwarzenegger’s proposed prison cuts this summer, but they applauded the governor’s approach to stop short of the three-judge panel’s demands in his plan. They saw it as a potential legal strategy to challenge the federal judges, eventually forcing the U.S. Supreme Court to settle whether the federal government can mandate a release of prisoners.
“I assume the court is going to find this totally inadequate,” said state Sen. George Runner, R-Lancaster. “I hope they find it inadequate, reject it and then we appeal to the Supreme Court.”
Sen. Tom Harman, R-Huntington Beach, said his caucus believes the federal three-judge panel has overstepped its bounds. “The fundamental question is, do they have the jurisdiction and right to make these orders?”
The judges could respond by rejecting Schwarzenegger’s plan and asking him to resubmit it. They could put the plan under a review process that ultimately results in a final order demanding greater inmate reductions.
Or the judges could hold Schwarzenegger and Corrections Secretary Matthew Cate in contempt.
Even if they are cited for contempt, it is unlikely the governor and prison boss would wind up in jail. Inmates’ attorneys have said in the past they would not seek such an extreme penalty. But they questioned Schwarzenegger’s approach Thursday.
“It is inexplicable to me why the governor would not submit to the court a modified version of the plan he submitted to the Legislature,” said Donald Specter of the Prison Law Office, co-chief counsel for the inmates. “The governor said that that plan would not be a risk to public safety and, if enlarged slightly, would comply with the court’s requirements.”
He referred to a deal Schwarzenegger sought in July that called for a population reduction of 37,000 over two years. That plan would allow sick and elderly inmates or those in the final year of their sentences to finish serving time on home detention or in community hospitals wearing Global Positioning System tracking devices.
Although the state Senate agreed with the alternative-custody plan, members of the Assembly, citing public safety concerns, refused to go along. Instead, both houses approved changes in parole and an expansion of good-time credits that would reduce sentences for certain inmates who participate in rehabilitative programs. The slimmed-down Assembly version will reduce the population by an estimated 16,000 in the next year.
The plan Schwarzenegger intends to file today will not include the controversial alternative custody provisions, according to Runner.
If the plan proves unsatisfactory to the federal judges, “the state’s officials are correct that they may be facing contempt proceedings,” Specter said. “We will decide whether to pursue contempt after reviewing the state’s final plan.”
The other chief counsel for the inmates, Michael Bien, sounded a similar note. He said he believes state officials are running the risk of contempt “if the state’s ‘strategy’ is to set up a confrontation with the three-judge court by defying the court’s lawful order.”
The state’s adult prisons are operating at nearly 200 percent of design capacity.
A non-jury trial was conducted late last year before the three judges to determine whether California prisons are overcrowded and, if so, whether that is the primary cause of inmate health care that violates the U.S. Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. The constitutional violation had been found by the judges in earlier rulings.
The judges are 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephen R. Reinhardt of Los Angeles and U.S. District Judges Lawrence K. Karlton of Sacramento and Thelton E. Henderson of San Francisco.
In an Aug. 4 order, they found that the prisons are dangerously overcrowded and that is the main reason for the unconstitutional health care. The panel said inmate population had to be slashed to 137.5 percent of the institutions’ design capacity and gave the administration until today to come up with a plan on how to meet that mandate.
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996, a three-judge court appointed by the chief judge of a federal appellate court may order a state to take steps, including release of prisoners, to alleviate an unconstitutional condition. The law requires the judges to employ the least intrusive remedy. Any appeal goes directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.
State officials attempted to get a stay of the Aug. 4 order while they appealed it to the Supreme Court. Both the three-judge court and the high court refused to grant a stay. In a brief order last week, the Supreme Court strongly suggested it will take up the case after the three judges have issued their final ruling on actions to be taken to achieve the required cut.
