A federal judge in Oakland will hear arguments today on a bid by lawyers for California prison inmates for a court order requiring state officials to come up with a plan for physical distancing to prevent the spread of the coronavirus.
U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar will conduct the hearing by telephone.
“The COVID-19 pandemic poses an enormous and unprecedented risk of harm to the people living in California’s significantly overcrowded prisons,” the inmates’ lawyers wrote in a brief filed with Tigar.
Although the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has released some prisoners early and moved others to less crowded facilities, the inmates’ lawyers say those steps aren’t nearly enough.
“In this emergency the minimal steps taken to date by CDCR to prevent transmission are simply not a reasonable response to the magnitude of the crisis,” the attorneys wrote.
Lawyers for the state argued in an opposition brief that prison officials have taken “extensive, thoughtful and unprecedented measures” and should be allowed to continue to identify and carry out feasible strategies without being second-guessed by the courts.
“Neither this court nor plaintiffs may substitute their judgment for that of state experts and officials,” state attorneys wrote.
The state’s 35 adult prisons house about 114,000 inmates. As of Wednesday, 69 inmates in seven prisons and 78 staff members at 21 facilities had tested positive for the COVID-19 coronavirus, according to the CDCR website.
Thus far, the CDCR has granted early release to about 3,400 inmates who were within 60 days of a release date, transferred about 1,270 prisoners from dormitories to low-density facilities and suspended transfers from county jails to state prisons, according to the state’s brief.
About 46,000 inmates live in dormitories, where many are in bunks or in beds within 3 feet of each other, the prisoners’ lawyers say.
The attorneys have asked Tigar to order the state to develop a plan for permitting safe distancing for those now in dormitories and protecting those at risk for serious illness or death from the virus.
They suggest the state could find more vacant facilities, including some outside the prison system, in which prisoners could be kept in CDCR custody while being physically distanced. They also suggest releasing about 1,500 more inmates who are within six months of a release date, at low risk of re-offending and at high medical risk.
The prisoners’ lawyers’ motion was made in a long-running prison overcrowding case filed in 2001. In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld an order by a three-judge federal court requiring release of some prisoners to
correct “woefully and constitutionally inadequate” health care resulting from overcrowding.
Last month, the attorneys asked a reconvened three-judge panel to order the release of some prisoners to prevent contagion.
But on April 4, the three-judge panel turned down the request. It said a federal law, the Prison Litigation Reform Act, allows a three-judge court to order prisoner releases only as a last resort after other measures have been tried.
The panel said the attorneys could return to a one-judge court to seek less drastic measures and could later appeal to a three-judge panel if the lesser steps seemed inadequate.
The attorneys then followed up by filing the motion with Tigar for a plan for relocating some prisoners and protecting those at greatest risk.
In the April 4 decision, the panel urged prison officials to “leave no stone unturned” to protect inmates.
The panel wrote, “It is likely that only through significant effort will California’s prisons be able to minimize the spread of COVID-19.”
7 comments
Six feet under would work. We should not be accommodating ANY people who’ve shown a contempt for our laws.
Prediction, progressive liberal state legislature will use this “crisis” to empty more prison beds. Sending even more convicted Felons back to counties they came from. Counties in turn will be forced to release even more misdemeanor criminals, before their sentences are served, turning county jails into giant laughable revolving doors.
Outcome, misdemeanor criminals will become emboldened, committing greater numbers of crimes confident IF caught they’ll serve after conviction days or mere hours behind bars.
Their criminal activity will effectively become unchecked, because deterrence thru threat of incarceration is removed, until a violent enough act is committed to result in a serious charge.
Face it CA state legislature is clueless, stumbling from one knee jerk reaction to the next usually in an attempt to fix one of their previous knee jerk experiments. None of which are ever thought all the way thru, considering what could go horribly wrong as result of their actions.
Prime example AB-109, sending Felons back to counties they came from, caused terrible jail overcrowding in all 58 CA counties. A mere three years later panicked liberals spent $10,306,082 to con voters into passing Prop 47 making it more difficult to charge a Felony in CA.
What is amazing is CA residents end up paying for every one of state legislature’s experiments yet they keep electing grossly incompetent individuals to office. But that’s what happens when those who can’t make it in the real world decide being a politician is easier because after voting citizens of CA provide NO adult supervision of their activities.
All these people getting let out yet I have not read or heard about one prison that everyone got sick at with the virus spreading only senior homes.
Time to reopen Alcatraz!
@Hehaseesaw – you might want to read the article more carefully before you chime in.
“The state’s 35 adult prisons house about 114,000 inmates. As of Wednesday, 69 inmates in seven prisons and 78 staff members at 21 facilities had tested positive for the COVID-19 coronavirus, according to the CDCR website.”
While it is unfortunate that inmates are released early as a result of COVID 19, we need to look at the larger public safety picture. Only those inmates who are within 60 days of their release date are being released early.
Releasing inmates who are near the end of their sentence means fewer inmates to care for, less cost to the tax payer and fewer people within the prison system to spread the disease.
I am a supporter of the criminal justice system and believe that criminals should be incarcerated.
Unfortunately COVID 19 is a disease – it does not care about my personal beliefs or values. I am willing to compromise my beliefs and values in the short term for the greater good.
“I am willing to compromise my beliefs and values in the short term for the greater good.”
Hmm. I wonder how many times that phrase has been used over the course of history, and what outcomes followed.
Rollo
In the case of Nazi Germany, I would agree with you. This is a different situation however. We are dealing with a disease, not an ideology. We have to let the science govern, not our personal desires. We may not like the science or what it has to tell us, but an educated person doesn’t have much to argue here.
Comments are closed.