Plata v. Newsom
- Jon Tigar
- 4:01-cv-01351
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Plata v. Newsom, Judge Tigar set an emergency conference about possible prison population reductions during COVID-19, without deciding whether relief was legally required.
California state prison inmates, prison staff, and people in surrounding communities affected by the prison outbreaks; the parties were required to prepare for the emergency case management conference.
What happened
In Plata v. Newsom, the court addressed the worsening COVID-19 outbreak in California’s state prisons, including infections and deaths among inmates and staff. It expressed concern that crowded facilities might lack enough space to isolate people and that elderly and medically vulnerable inmates faced especially serious risks.
The court ordered an emergency case management conference for July 6, 2020. The parties were told to discuss possible next steps, including whether to refer the matter to a three-judge court to consider a prisoner-release order and whether further reductions in prison population were needed.
Judge Tigar did not decide whether the defendants were violating the Eighth Amendment or whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a prisoner-release order or other relief. The order instead directed the parties to meet, present plans, and address how the litigation should proceed.
The detailed version
- Plata v. Newsom · No. 4:01-cv-01351
- Jon Tigar
- July 5, 2020
Background
The court described an ongoing COVID-19 outbreak in California’s state prison system. As of July 3, 2020, the court reported 5,335 confirmed inmate cases, including 2,444 active cases, 949 reported staff infections, and the deaths of 25 inmates and two staff members. The virus had affected all 35 adult prison facilities, although not every facility had reported a positive inmate test.
The court expressed particular concern about elderly and medically vulnerable inmates and about whether crowded prisons had enough empty cells and beds for quarantine and isolation. It discussed the situation at California Medical Facility, which housed medically vulnerable people and had reported its first positive inmate test shortly after the court’s July 2 case management conference. The court also described the outbreak at San Quentin, where more than 1,400 inmates and more than 150 staff members had tested positive, three inmate deaths had been confirmed, and the facility had lacked sufficient quarantine and isolation space and staff to respond to the spread.
Prior constitutional finding
The court noted that, in an April 17, 2020 order, it had found that the defendants’ response at that time was not constitutionally deficient and therefore was not deliberately indifferent under the Eighth Amendment. The court had also stated that this earlier finding did not prevent a later finding of deliberate indifference. In this July 5 order, the court said that the later increase in infections, deaths, and risks might require the issue to be reconsidered, but it did not make that finding.
Order and next steps
The court set an emergency case management conference for July 6, 2020, at 3:00 p.m. It directed the parties to discuss what steps the court should take, including whether referring the matter to a three-judge court to consider a prisoner-release order was appropriate and what preliminary proceedings might be required. The court also indicated that the parties should address whether additional population reductions were needed to manage outbreaks and whether other measures could protect inmates, staff, and surrounding communities.
The court instructed the parties to meet and confer in good faith and present plans at the conference. It stated that it would take the matter under submission and determine how to proceed. The court emphasized that it expressed no opinion, unless and until the matter was litigated, on whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a prisoner-release order or any other legal relief. Judge Jon S. Tigar signed the order on July 5, 2020.
Disposition
This was an emergency case-management and scheduling order. It set a conference and directed the parties to prepare for discussion; it did not grant or deny a prisoner-release order and did not decide the Eighth Amendment claim.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.