Report Back: Donald Specter and Paul Wright

Golden Gate University Law Professor Mort Cohen moderated a discussion between Prison Law Office Director Donald Specter and Prison Legal News Founder/Editor Paul Wright. Donald Specter told a series of fascinating war stories about litigation and advocacy he’s engaged in. He described pointing out to prison administrators that hearing-impaired inmates told to “Get down or we’ll shoot!” were in mortal peril. He said that last month he toured a CA prison and pointed out to wardens that overflowing toilets meant that prisoners in wheelchairs were getting sewage on their wheels and thus their hands. “Aren’t they supposed to be given gloves for that?” “No one told us.”

Next, he walked us through the genesis of the Plata/Coleman proceedings. In 1991, 7 years after Prison Law Office opened, 3 prisoners in Vacaville on psychotropic medication died from heatstroke because they were in overheated cells and insufficiently hydrated. Specter started the case because they had just won a San Quentin mental health and medical care case resulting in an injunction from Judge Marilyn Patel. Since implementing the injunction was too expensive, they moved those prisoners to Vacaville. PLO won a consent decree against Vacaville requiring adequate care and staffing for mentally ill inmates. In response, the Department of Corrections engaged in “bus therapy,” meaning scattering them around the state without regard to whether there were mental health workers at the prisons they went to. For example, many went to Pelican Bay State Prison, where there were only one psychologist and no psychiatrists. Having been burned twice, by San Quentin and Vacaville, PLO sued the whole prison system. They were only able to afford it with help from several SF law firms. They tried the case in 1993, and after a 3-month trial, an injunction issued in 1995. 6 months later PLO tried the Pelican Bay case, and Judge Henderson issued a similar order in 1995. In 1999 Specter started negotiating with the Attorney General’s office, and finally filed in 2001 because the AG said there were not enough doctors. Prisoners were at risk to receive bad care because they were being treated by doctors of the wrong specialties. The parties settled in 2002. In 2005 a receiver was appointed by Judge Henderson, but they still couldn’t fix the problems because prisons were at 200% of design capacity. Specter tried the present litigation before Judges Carlton, Henderson, & Reinhardt, against 51 interveners besides the State of CA, and is now finally waiting for a decision from the Supreme Court.

New (to me): Twice as many California prisoners kill themselves compared to the national average.

Specter said he finds most disappointing the degree to which the Legislature has come to depend upon the Judiciary for its decision-making. The Legislature has virtually abdicated its initiative in this policy area, relying on the courts to decide for them what to do with the prisons.

When asked how to fix the prison system, Specter said we need: (1) fewer prisoners, (2) less pay for prison guards / less concessions to CCPOA, (3) more programs in prisons to reduce recidivism rates and repeat crimes. Paul Wright said we need equality: in southern California celebrities can discharge their sentences in “pay-to-stay” state-run facilities where they get to keep their cell phones and laptops in their cells.

One of the best questions of the evening: “Does California have an emergency disaster plan in case of an earthquake on a scale comparable to Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans?” Specter cited the major fire that nearly destroyed a prison a few years ago, as evidence that even though there is such a plan here its implementation is suspect.

On another question, Paul Wright surprised many attendees by reminding us that a major obstacle to prison reform is the private prison industry that spends millions of dollars lobbying state governments to keep/put more people in prison.

Legislative Analyst’s Office Unhappy with Brown’s CDCR Budget

The Legislative Analyst’s Office has just issued a report critiquing Jerry Brown’s plan for the CDCR budget (which we briefly discussed just a few days ago), and it does not paint a pretty picture. LAO finds serious overbudgeting in some areas, and is deeply concerned with CDCR exceeding its budget in several areas.

General Fund support for CDCR, particularly with regard to CCPOA salaries and overtime (already on the top steps of the salary scale), appears to be excessive, and CDCR has already exceeded its authority in these matters. Among the other surprising expenditures are $55.2 million in medical transportation costs, $20.5 million in legal costs (wouldn’t it be cheaper to decrease population, which would also mean that the population decrease order would not have to be fought in court?), and $17.3 million in “empty beds” in case incarceration needs change.

The LAO report critiques the CDCR practice of notifying the legislature of budget shortfalls after the fact, thus coercing legislators to increase the budget in restrospect. Also, the budget does not take into account savings in adult parole and administration, which might mean the money could go elsewhere, where it is needed.

A particularly thorny issue is the fact that the budget assumes that CDCR will be making personnel cuts it has no intention of making absent a reduction in inmate population.

The budget, says the report, does not hold CDCR accountable regarding its expenditures, and there is no guarantee against CDCR pulling its retrospective budgeting trick again on the legislature. LAO therefore recommends that the legislature demand accountability and accuracy in the correctional budget.

Assembly Committee Critiques Receivership Spending

On today’s Chron, Marisa Lagos reports some disturbing findings from the Assembly Committee on Accountability and Administrative Review. Examining expenditures made by the federal receiver appointed by the court to oversee prison health care, the committee found extravagant spending with little or no effect on quality health care.

The findings, which are expected to be announced during a hearing today, show large salaries being paid to construction consultants on an abandoned project, who then turned around and charged taxpayers for housing, meals and dry cleaning. Prison health care spending has also grown by more than 65 percent since 2006, when a three-judge panel appointed the receiver after concluding that substandard medical treatment and neglect were killing one inmate per week.

Today’s public hearing will feature responses from the receivership, whose speaker explained to the Chron that —

all of the expenses paid out by the previous receiver were within federal reimbursement guidelines.

“Those contracts no longer exist, and after Clark arrived he cut back and eventually eliminated all of them,” she said.

Kincaid also noted that Kelso has made great strides toward reining in expenses. The overall death rate at prison health care centers has dropped by at least 10 percent since 2006, according to a presentation Kelso is scheduled to make to the committee today.

(Kelso recently reported continued improvements in inmate health care. Others found mixed results.)

Whether the expenses are attributable to the current or the former receivership should be an easy matter to check. What is less easy is to examine the complex connection between these developments and the overcrowding problem. It seems that both sides to the debate can use this report as ammunition for their position. As some readers may recall, one of the points made by the state in the Plata/Coleman litigation was that appointing the receiver should have been enough. Those concerned about early releases might argue that, had the receivership been more prudent in setting its priorities and spending its budget, there would be no need for the Plata/Coleman panel to order the population reduction. The counterargument, made by Don Specter in the newspaper article, is that regardless of how the receivership spends its money, as long as prisons are overcrowded no construction projects or expensive consultants will be able to improve the quality of health care behind bars.

What’s He Building In There? Part III

More building plans come in the heels of the Michigan construction and the Calaveras and San Bernardino projects. These projects, however, seem to be more benign and have a reentry/therapeutic purpose. The CDCR website describes the three projects as follows:

 Renovation and reuse of the former Northern California Women’s Facility in San Joaquin County as a 500-bed adult male secure community reentry facility pursuant to the mandates of AB 900, which envisioned this new type of correctional facility for inmates within 6-12 months of parole;

 Renovation and reuse of the former El Paso De Robles Youth Correctional Facility in San Luis Obispo County (closed in 2008) as a 1,000-bed Level II adult correctional facility to be named the Estrella Correctional Facility, and

 Renovation and reuse of the former Dewitt-Nelson Youth Correctional Facility in San Joaquin County (closed in 2008) as a 1,133-bed adult correctional facility with a mental health treatment mission.

More on Plata/Coleman Oral Arguments

A few more details on the oral arguments for the benefit of our readers:

The State’s case, presented by Carter Phillips, started with strong statements regarding the receiver, and how his appointment and deeds were remedy enough. Phillips caught much flak on this from Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor, who pointed out that the receiver himself declared several times that his efforts at improvement would be futile without a decrease in population.

Justice Sotomayor left little doubt as to where she stood on the state’s failure to provide care (and generated some rudeness from Justice Scalia):

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: So when are you going to get to that? When are you going to avoid the needless deaths that were reported in this record? When are you going to avoid or get around people sitting in their feces for days in a dazed state? When are you going to get to a point where you are going to deliver care that is going to be adequate?
Your Honor.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Don’t be rhetorical.
MR. PHILLIPS: I’ll do my best. Thank you, your Honor.

Justice Kennedy, who as many commentators said is key in this case, seemed to accept the idea that overcrowding is the cause for the medical crisis.

JUSTICE KENNEDY: Overcrowding is the principal — overcrowding is the principal cause, as experts have testified, and it’s now time for a remedy. The Court can’t — has to at some point focus on the remedy, and that’s what it did, and that it seems to me was a perfectly reasonable decision.

And elsewhere:

But I think it means that overcrowding must not be ordered unless that is the only efficacious remedy in — in a permissible period of time. And it seems to me there is massive expert testimony to support that proposition on the part of the prisoners.

Justice Breyer also seemed to be sympathetic to the appellees, from a pragmatic standpoint:

I mean, I read the newspaper. It doesn’t seem to me California has been voting a lot of money for new programs. The — the — what is it — what is it specifically that would happen that would cure this problem were we to say — I mean, a big human rights problem — what would we say — what would happen if we were to say, no, this panel’s wrong? What would happen that would cure the problem?

Justice Kagan highlighted the main problems with judicial review – to some extent providing support for the original three-judge panel and its dedication:

JUSTICE KAGAN: Mr. Phillips, my trouble listening to you is that it seems as though you are asking us to re-find facts. You know, you have these judges who have been involved in these cases since the beginning, for 20 years in the Plata case, who thought we’ve done everything we can, the receiver has done everything he can; this just isn’t going anywhere and it won’t go anywhere until we can address this root cause of the problem. And that was the view of the judges who had been closest to the cases from the beginning and the view of the three-judge court generally. So how can we reach a result essentially without, you know, re-finding the facts that they have been dealing with for 20 years?

Phillips: there have been big developments, but the state itself limited discovery from 2008 onward.

Phillips also distinguished the medical from the mental health problems. The Coleman problem, as he stated, was worse; and he said,

if the Court were to conclude ultimately that Coleman ought to go back for another analysis based on the problems there, I could understand that. And it would be a very different prisoner release order under those circumstances because then you would have to take out all of the evidence with respect to Plata and let that play out.

Questions to Don Specter, arguing for the appellees, focused on the fact that the “cutoff date” was 2008 and things may have vastly improved since then, as well as on the percentage of reduction.

By contrast to Justice Kennedy, Justice Alito expressed his opinion that there was a disconnect between overcrowding and medical care.

You could have a prison where the — the cells themselves are crowded, and yet there are other facilities available for medical care and plenty of staff to attend to those things. So what’s the connection?

He then pressed Specter to reflect on the fact that the released inmates are not necessarily of the class that is arguably compromised. Specter explained that population reduction could be done by a variety of ways, conceding that transferring inmates out of state is one possible way. (not talking about overcrowding in itself as making the operations difficult).

Justice Roberts seemed to lean toward a 145% capacity solution and pressed

The other issue on which Specter had to answer questions had to do with the public safety angle. Note the Justices’ shock at the California recidivism rates. They must truly be disconnected from the world they live in. I found this exchange particularly illuminating, and to be honest and personal, quite distressing.

JUSTICE ALITO: In general, what is the recidivism rate?
MR. SPECTER: Well, overall, the risk is around 70 percent, but for low-risk prisoners the risk is 17 percent who reviolate.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: I’m sorry. I couldn’t — what was the first -­
MR. SPECTER: The first number when you take all parolees, all together, it’s 70 percent.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: 7-0?
MR. SPECTER: 7-0, because — within three years. That’s what — the situation we have now, and that’s the situation that the governor, the secretary,and the court described as a failure. With parole reform you could reduce that number in many ways, and the Court described how you could do that. But the lowest –
JUSTICE ALITO: What is the lowest? It’s 17 percent.
MR. SPECTER: 17 percent, and California has a risk assessment instrument which the Court found – which the Court found could be used to make sure that what happened in Philadelphia doesn’t happen again. If I understand it -­
JUSTICE ALITO: Well, I understood that of the low-risk — if only the low-risk people are released, around 3,000 of them are going to commit another crime.
MR. SPECTER: They — but they don’t have to be released, first off. I want to make sure I emphasize the point that this is a crowding reduction measure. You don’t have to release 30,000 prisoners.
JUSTICE ALITO: They don’t have to be released if you can build enough cells -­
MR. SPECTER: Or you can divert, or you can improve the parole system so that parole violators don’t commit so many crimes. If you offer rehabilitation alternatives, if you provide a number of diversion into the community, there are a number of options short of releasing prisoners. And the 70 percent figure concludes -­
JUSTICE ALITO: The 17 percent figure goes exactly to my concern. This is going to have — it seems likely this is going to have an effect on public safety. And the experts can testify to whatever they want, but you know what? If this order goes into effect, we will see. We will see, and the people of California will see. Are there more crimes or are there not?
MR. SPECTER: Well, if it’s based on the experience in other jurisdictions, the court found we wouldn’t. And I wanted to say — to clarify one point, Your Honor: The 70 percent figure includes — doesn’t always include crimes. It includes lots of technical parole violators. People who have missed their appointments, for example. So it’s not as grave as some of the figures that are informed by the other side.

In rebuttal, Justice Kagan pressured phillips on whether the state could safely reduce population within five years.

My impression, overall, is that many of the Justices already have their minds made up, and that the oral arguments might have done little beyond furnishing them with ammunition for writing the decision. The big mystery, as Rory pointed out yesterday, is whether Justice Kennedy, who seems to see the causal connection between overcrowding and abysmal health care, will also approve of the remedy.

Historic Arguments in the California Prison Overcrowding Cases – A Guest Post by Rory Little

This morning the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in what has become known as the “California prison overcrowding cases.” The Court has not heard a case challenging prison conditions and court supervision in decades, and the 1996 Prison Litigation Act (“PLRA”), designed to restrict federal court supervision, has been unexamined until today. The Court accepted the State’s appeal (not certiorari) in two consolidated California cases. It then granted a highly unusual extra 20 minutes to the normal hour-long argument, and ran even beyond that until Chief Justice Roberts blew the final whistle. It was an historic moment in the history of these decades-long cases, and in the area of prison litigation in general.

Although an audiofile will not be available here until this Friday, observers report that the Justices were interrupting each other and even raising their voices, an unusual display of frustration in that august body. Indeed, at one point Chief Justice Roberts calmly cut off Justice Sotomayor (who had interrupted Justice Ginsburg’s question), saying “I’m sorry, could you answer Justice Ginsburg’s question first?” (The transcript is available here).

But the Justices’ reactions at this argument are not surprising – the underlying cases have generated similar frustrations and emotions for some two decades, as unconstitutional conditions in California’s state prisons have defied solution despite an unprecedented amount of executive, legislative, and judicial concentration.

At issue is the order from a special three-judge federal trial court, issued after over 70 prior orders failed to correct problems in the prisons, that directs the State to find a way to reduce its prison population to 137% — that’s right, “reduce” to 37% over design capacity. It is conceded that California’s prisons have not provided constitutionally adequate medical and mental health services to its inmates for many years. The conditions are “horrible,” as photographic evidence in the record shows. The district court found – and no one really disputes – that the problems all run back to the dramatic overcrowding of California’s prisons.

And because of the California’s seemingly intractable budget problems – as well as legislative gridlock and partisan intransigence – the huge amounts of money necessary to fix the prisons (or construct new ones) is simply not going to happen. “Pie in the sky,” said Justice Scalia today. As Justice Sonya Sotomayor remarked today, “I don’t see how you wait for an option that doesn’t exist.”

However, fifteen years ago Congress’s unhappiness with federal courts “taking over” state prison systems led to enactment of the 1996 PLRA. Now, the very existence of the PLRA, which anticipates special three-judge district courts and recognizes the possibility of court “population reduction” orders, indicates that Congress understood that, at some point a State’s unconstitutional conditions, and inability or refusal to repair them, might still lead to court supervision. The central question today was whether California’s prison system, and the three-judge court’s multi-year patience in ordering the State to fix the problems without success, warrants the reduction order ultimately entered early in 2010, after a number of prior “warning orders” went unheeded.

Also unusual is the contrast between the lawyers who presented the arguments today. The State’s agents hired Carter Phillips, a well-known Supreme Court advocate who clerked for Chief Justice Warren Burger and has argued over 60 cases before the Supreme Court. Indeed, few advocates could get away with what Phillips did this morning:
JUSTICE ALITO: Mr. –
MR. PHILLIPS: Can I just finish this?
JUSTICE ALITO: Yes.

The prisoner plaintiffs hired Paul Clement, also an established Supreme Court litigator who served as U.S. Solicitor General under President George W. Bush. However, the California prisoners have been represented throughout the litigation below by San Francisco lawyer Don Spector, longtime head of the Prison Law Office, and it was Specter who presented their case in the Supreme Court today. (Although the Court was reviewing two cases, it mysteriously denied a motion for Clement and Specter to split the argument – another unusual wrinkle). Although Specter has argued many cases in his quarter-century at Prison Law, he had argued only one Supreme Court case (Yeskey v. Penn (1998), which he won summarily). Today’s cases (Plata and Coleman) present a far more difficult challenge. But Specter, steeped deep in the details of this complicated litigation, did a masterful job. He even got a laugh from the normally reserved Chief Justice (transcript p, 48). Indeed, his intricate knowledge of the facts and record paid off in a number of exchanges with Justices Scalia, who seemed plainly allied with the other side, and Roberts. And with 11 amicus briefs filed on behalf of three times as many groups, the arguments did not suffer from a lack of effective advocacy for any party.

California and Phillips clearly wanted the Court to focus on the “federalism” aspects of allowing a federal court to direct the reduction of a State prison population. But Justice Sotomayor quickly set a detail-oriented, fact-specific tone for the argument: she directed Phillips early on to “slow down from the rhetoric and give me concrete details.” The argument then proceeded on that level for the bulk of its over 80 minutes. (Justice Scalia, however, had some fun with Justice Sotomayor’s earlier remark: when she asked Phillips “When are you going to avoid the needless deaths that were reported in this record?,” Justice Scalia interjected (ostensibly directed at Phillips and not his fellow Justice) “Don’t be rhetorical.”)

In the end, decision in the case appears to focus on Justice Kennedy (who is so often the necessary fifth vote that observers call it “the Kennedy Court”). And while he did not show his hand entirely, he did interrupt Phillips’ argument that the district court acted “prematurely,” as follows: “The problem I have with that, Mr. Phillips, is that at some point the Court has to say: You have been given enough time; the constitutional violation still persists…. Overcrowding is the principal cause, and it’s now time for a remedy.” Justice Kennedy also opined that “there is massive expert testimony to support … the prisoners,” and asked why the district court’s order was not “perfectly reasonable.”

Predicting results from oral argument is a dubious enterprise at best. And certainly some Justices, notably Justices Scalia and Alito, expressed skepticism. (Justice Thomas was characteristically silent.) But Justice Kennedy’s remarks demonstrate that the Court faces a sensitive challenge here: unless it wants to become the appellate master for prison litigation around the country as state budgets become increasingly stressed, it needs to demonstrate restrained deference to federal trial judges that provide years of hearings and opportunities for beleaguered state prison systems before they act. As the newest Justice, Kagan, remarked, “”You have these judges who have been involved in these cases … for 20 years ….[H]ow can we reach a [different] result without re-finding facts…?”

Indeed, one can speculate that if this case had not come from the Ninth Circuit, and had not had red-flag liberal Judge Stephen Reinhardt on the three-judge panel, the Court might not have even found appellate jurisdiction (or summarily affirmed). On the other hand, Congress did set strict limits in the 1996 statute, and the High Court needs to interpret just what they may mean in the reality crucible of a hard case. California has argued that the three-judge court was itself convened in violation of the statute. As Specter respectfully noted at one point regarding Phillips’ argument, “my friend and I have a disagreement.” The PLRA deserves Supreme Court resolution.

In the end, Specter’s argument presented the starkest argument: “unless you reduce the crowding, nothing else is going to work.” The district judges involved had issued over 70 previous orders, and appointed two different “receivers” for the prison system, all to no avail. If any set of unconstitutional prison conditions and unresponsive state reactions can ever satisfy the PLRA’s stringent requirements, it would be this one. Yet, as the Chief Justice inquired repeatedly, how can the state reduce prisoner population without endangering public safety, as the PLRA requires? These tensions are why the Court decided to hear the unusual argument session it hosted today.

So stay tuned. A decision is unlikely to issue until late spring. And it seems likely that the case will be remanded with directions to consider amending the Order in various ways. Prison population and conditions are always a dynamic moving target, and wholesale affirmance here seems unlilkely. But whatever the result, these arguments provided a fascinating window into the arena of prison litigation, as well as the working of the “new” Supreme Court whose near majority was appointed a decade after the PLRA was enacted.

Panel at Stanford: Reproductive Rights in Prison

Stanford’s Shaking the Foundations, at Stanford Law School, offers a series of panels, one of which might be of interest to blog readers:

Locked Up and Locked Out: Reproductive Rights of Women in Prison

Date, Time and Location
October 15, 4:15-5:45 PM

Speakers

  • Kim Buchanan (Panel Moderator), Associate Professor of Law, University of Southern California, Gould School of Law
  • Sara Ainsworth, Senior Legal & Legislative Counsel, Legal Voice
  • Amy Fettig, Staff Counsel, ACLU National Prison Project; Adjunct Professor of Law, Georgetown Law School
  • Sally Lieber, Former State Assembly Member, State of California
  • Carolyn Sufrin, M.D., M.A., Clinical Faculty, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of California, San Francisco; Women’s Health Specialist, San Francisco Department of Public Health/Jail Health Services.

Kelso: Sever Prison Health Care from CDCR

Yesterday’s Sac Bee featured, in their Viewpoints section, a short piece by Clark Kelso, the federal receiver for the prison medical system. He begins by reporting their success–true to humonetarian principles, starting with savings:

We began the year anticipating our expenditures would be $2.146 billion. During the year, we implemented substantial changes to improve quality of care while simultaneously reducing unnecessary costs. The result? A reduction of $408 million in our expenditures. That is almost a 20 percent reduction and just over 80 percent of what I had forecast 18 months ago. My executive team and staff in the 33 institutions deserve the credit for this success.

However, Kelso also reports the improvement in quality of care:

The 2009 report of inmate deaths shows continued improvement. We have reduced the number of medical lapses by 16 percent, reduced the number of possibly preventable deaths by 26 percent and reduced the number of likely preventable deaths by 83 percent. There are other performance measures that I will be releasing soon. Those measures will reinforce that we are maintaining and improving the quality of care, although much work remains to be done.

Kelso plans a series of pieces on future improvements, the first of which, and most important in his view, is severing health care from CDCR:

The corrections department’s mission is not health care. It is maintaining custody and control. The reason we have made so much progress on medical care in the past three years is because we have operated independently of CDCR and that independence let us focus on our health care mission. If responsibility for prison health care returns to the department of corrections after the conclusion of the receivership, the most likely result will be backsliding as the health care mission once again becomes subordinate to custody and control. This is not intended as a criticism of the department of corrections and its executive team or staff. It simply reflects the reality of organizational behavior and culture.

Whether or not one agrees with Kelso, or believes the improvements made to the health system were substantial (Julie Small’s report on this matter showed mixed results), he comes off as thoughtful and genuinely passionate about improving prison health care. Moreover, the transparency of data from the receivership is astounding, especially in light of the difficulty of obtaining similar data from correctional sources. What do our readers think–should health services be completely independent of CDCR control?

9th Circuit: State Responsible for Disabled Inmate Conditions in Jails

Is the state of CA responsible for meeting disabled inmate needs in local jails? The official state position has been to take responsibility only for accommodations in state prisons. However, the Ninth Circuit has expanded this responsibility, and allowed lawyers for disabled inmates to provide evidence of violations in a hearing to be held at a later date. The Chron reports:

The lawsuit dates to 1994 and resulted in a court-approved plan in 2001 to accommodate the needs of disabled inmates in state prisons. Tuesday’s ruling applies to inmates who were sentenced to prison for felonies but are now in county jail for drug treatment, or were jailed after being arrested or resentenced for violating their state parole.

Despite assigning those inmates to county custody, the state remains responsible for maintaining equal access to educational and treatment programs and to “the fundamentals of life, such as sustenance, the use of toilet and bathing facilities, and elementary mobility and communication,” Judge Stephen Reinhardt said in the 3-0 ruling.

The ruling is important because “the state is contracting out more and more” of its prisoners to local agencies, said Michael Bien, a lawyer for the inmates.

He said the court action was not aimed at requiring the state to provide wheelchairs, sign-language interpreters and other assistance to disabled jail inmates, but instead at ordering state prison and parole officials to notify counties about the inmates and their needs.

A recurring motif throughout this crisis has been the relegation of state responsibility to state facilities. The best example of this is the overcrowding crisis, which according to Governor Schwarzenegger’s plan would be remedied, in part, by reclassifying offenses so that inmates would be incarcerated in county, rather than state, facilities. This modest success for the plaintiffs, requiring state actors to be in contact with county facilities, may be one of the first examples of cooperation. Since only joint action will eventually lead to decrowding, it is a step in the right direction.