Gov. Brown: Overcrowding at San Quentin, State Prisons "A Distant Memory"

With inmate population down at San Quentin and prisons across California, legal filing claims that continued enforcement of the population reduction order is now "unfair, unnecessary and illegal."

By Bay City News Service

Gov. Jerry Brown has asked a federal three-judge panel to lift an order requiring the state to reduce the number of inmates in its overcrowded prisons to 110,000 by June.

In filings in federal courts in San Francisco and Sacramento on Monday night, Brown contends the order is no longer needed because the prison population has already been significantly reduced and health care greatly improved.

"The overcrowding and health care conditions cited by this court to support its population reduction order are now a distant memory," state lawyers argued in the papers. "California's vastly improved prison health care system now provides inmates with superior care that far exceeds the minimum requirements of the Constitution."

The population reduction was ordered in 2009 by the three-judge panel acting on a lawsuit in which inmates claimed that prison health care was so deficient that it amounted to unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment.

The reduction has been evident at Marin's San Quentin State Prison, where the reported population this week was 3,967, or 128 percent over capacity, the state prisons department told the Marin Independent Journal. That was down about 23 percent from early January 2009, when the population was 5,164, or 167 percent above capacity. In early January 2006, the prison had 5,433 inmates, or 148 percent above capacity.

The panel concluded that severe overcrowding was a primary cause of poor health care and ordered the state to decrease the population of its 33 adult prisons to 110,000 inmates, or 137 percent of the designed capacity.

At the time, the prisons housed 150,000 inmates in facilities designed for 80,000.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld that ruling in 2011, saying that the "grossly inadequate" health care was unconstitutional.

The prison population has now fallen to 119,000, as a result of several measures, including the so-called "realignment" process in which some low-level offenders are diverted to county jails.

Brown claims in the court papers that continued enforcement of the population reduction order is now "unfair, unnecessary and illegal."

Monday was also a deadline for the Brown administration to tell the court how it would complete the remainder of the population reduction by June.

In a separate filing, the administration said the number of inmates could be reduced further by changes in state laws to provide shorter sentences and/or by court orders for the early release of some prisoners, but argued that those options might endanger public safety.

The three-judge panel is made up of U.S. District Judges Thelton Henderson and Lawrence Karlton of Sacramento and 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Reinhardt of Los Angeles.

It was convened under a federal law that provides that a court order to reduce prison population can be made only by a three-judge panel and not by a single trial judge acting on a civil rights lawsuit.

Donald Specter, a lawyer for the inmates, called Brown's filings "misguided and misplaced" and said the prisoners' attorneys will oppose lifting the 2009 order.

"He's not aware of the true facts, which show that the prison system is still unconstitutionally overcrowded," said Specter, who works out of the Prison Law Office in Berkeley.

In a statement filed with the court on Monday, the prisoners' attorneys argued that the prison system remains "vastly overcrowded," that medical and mental health care continues to be inadequate and that there are safe and effective ways to reduce the population.

Copyright © 2013 by Bay City News, Inc. -- Republication, Rebroadcast or any other Reuse without the express written consent of Bay City News, Inc. is prohibited.

Stay Patched in: Follow Napa Valley Patch on Twitter | Like Napa Valley Patch on Facebook | Sign up for the daily email with links to the latest news | Got something to say? Start a blog and share your views.

MICHAEL P WILSON "Independent Kid" January 11, 2013 at 09:38 PM
Funny how that happens when you move inmates to county
Ash Leigh January 11, 2013 at 09:50 PM
I've heard about the over-population at county. They have the inmates sleeping on the floors in, "boats." These boats can become a fire hazard.
Cathy Gumina Odom January 12, 2013 at 03:55 AM
Our county jail?
Unfiltered Steve Simoneau January 13, 2013 at 01:16 AM
So Gov. Brown is unwilling to listen to the public when we claim that a new law is "unconstitutional", but he conveniently cites the Constitution when it benefits his agenda. He's a polititian, so no surprise there. The prison population being just one percent over capacity means that it is "over populated". Would a hospital that is 128 percent over capacity still function as it was designed? Implimenting reduced sentences and early releases will have minimal effect on public safety. If a prisoner does not change for the better after 6 months of current prison conditions then they are unlikely to change after 6 years. Some criminals will be a public safety issue regardless of how long they are incarcerated. They are convicted of new crimes shortly after release. In that case they are doing what is called "A life sentence on the installment plan".
F Otterbeck January 13, 2013 at 05:00 PM
Yes. All county jails are taking in non-violent offenders. That was the plan to reduce prison overflow. The counties pick up and house the prisoners, and the state pays the county the rate that it costs the state to house them. It is more expensive to house them in county facilities, but cheaper than building new prisons. Yay! The state budget is closer to being balanced!
Belle (Orchid Lady) January 13, 2013 at 11:15 PM
I have a question...one of the things I think this is designed to do is get overzealous DA's and judges to rethink prison sentences for low-level nonviolent offenders. My question is...now that the counties have to "deal with them" do you think more rehab/diversion programs will be used in lieu of incarceration?
MICHAEL P WILSON "Independent Kid" January 13, 2013 at 11:18 PM
With county DA's Yes With State judges no
F Otterbeck January 14, 2013 at 07:03 PM
I am not sure, Belle. For rehab to be effective, it is best to have 90 days in a facility, follow-up, and testing for a prolonged period. I think right now it is usually 30 days of rehab for those who are lucky enough to get it. That is a big cost difference. I am not sure how much that would cost. I am afraid to look. Diversion is more difficult for gang members. Maybe if we knew how many offenders are not addicted and not gang members we could compare costs.
Bob January 15, 2013 at 04:20 AM
Incredible! People need to understand that the prison industry is a business, about $10.1 billion. CDCR does not want to reduce the prison population as that will mean less money for them. An independent board with overriding authority should be set up to create such an early release plan, modify the draconian laws, be put in charge of truly rehabilitating those incarcerated via psychologists, education and training, and for true investment in resources for those released. These are our fellow Americans!!! Dear God, what has our state become???
F Otterbeck January 15, 2013 at 07:18 PM
Bob, a lot of the things you are suggesting have been attempted. Unfortunately, the prison lobby doesn't have to do much to be successful at blocking improvements. Most of all, there is a significant amount of voters who think that just locking people up and throwing away the key is reasonable.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something