Prison Crisis Judge Wants Calif. To Be National Model for Inmate Care

SAN FRANCISCO — U.S. District Court Judge Thelton E. Henderson is confident that the many parties involved with California’s prisons will come together to fix the inmate healthcare system he once described as “broken beyond repair.” 

Henderson presided over the 2001 Plata v. Schwarzenegger class-action lawsuit filed against California over medical care and conditions in the state’s 33-facility prison system, ruling the state was in violation of the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
“I’m sure we will make California a national model for inmate healthcare,” Henderson says.

Henderson is part of the three-judge panel appointed by the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to consider whether overcrowding is the primary factor in unconstitutional medical and mental healthcare in the California state prison system.

Motions filed by plaintiffs’ attorneys in the Plata and Coleman v. Schwarzenegger cases ask the panel, which includes U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence K. Karlton and Judge Stephen R. Reinhardt of the 9th Circuit U.S. Courts of Appeals, to impose a population cap on state prisons.

“Correctional defendants are particularly resistant to courts ordering change,” Henderson says. “They can be experts at the waiting game, but I’m not going away; I’m here for the long haul.”

State lawmakers hope to reach an out-of-court settlement to ward off the threat of federal intervention, mandated population caps or the enforced transfer of the entire state prison system to federal oversight.

Imposition of a federally mandated prison population cap could result in the early release of tens of thousands of inmates throughout the state, according to reports.

The judicial panel appointed two independent mediators — Elwood Lui, a plaintiff’s attorney in prison litigation and former state appellate judge and state Court of Appeals Judge Peter Siggins, a former legal affairs secretary and interim chief of staff for the Schwarzenegger administration — to oversee negotiations and broker a settlement with representatives of the governor’s office, the Legislature, plaintiff’s attorneys, and justice, law enforcement and corrections officials.

“I’m hopeful the players, parties and interests will find a way to resolve it short of a trial and a ruling by the three-judge court,” Henderson says.

The three-judge panel postponed trial proceedings in the matter indefinitely to allow time for negotiations, officials say.

Henderson is working more collaboratively with stakeholders to achieve permanent solutions to prison conditions, overcrowding and medical care. However, he says courts should not display undue deference to those who created the unconstitutional conditions.

The state settled the Plata case in 2002, agreeing to implement remediation measures designed to return conditions and care throughout the system to constitutional standards. However, in 2006, Henderson placed the $1.1 billion prison healthcare system under federal receivership after the state failed to implement the agreed reforms.

“In cases involving corrections defendants, adopting too passive a judicial approach will result in little or no change,” Henderson says.
Henderson cited several actors that have hindered a resolution for the litigation over conditions at California’s prisons, from the political will and electoral motives of lawmakers to the code-of-silence culture of correctional staff to bureaucracy at government offices.

“The barriers and obstacles are so great and so ingrained that change only comes through sustained, serious and aggressive judicial intervention,” Henderson says.

Henderson says judicial intervention must balance two equal obligations, the duty to protect the constitutional rights of a population with little public or political support and avoid unnecessary judicial intrusion or interference in the management and operation of state institutions.
“Any court seeking to effect long-term institutional change must adopt a catalyst approach that prods the parties into self change,” Henderson says.

The goal for a court in a case of this nature should be to provide the correct combination of incentives and penalties rather than impose unilateral remedies under federal mandate, Henderson says.

In January, the judge appointed J. Clark Kelso to replace Robert Sillen as head of the California Prison Health Care Receivership Corporation after becoming dissatisfied with the pace of prison healthcare reform.

“I’m taking a more active role and working more collaboratively with the new head of the receivership,” Henderson says.
Former head of the Santa Clara healthcare system, Sillen was criticized for his confrontational leadership style, and for failing to deliver remedial measures and a clear, focused plan for reform in a timely manner.

Henderson endorses the work Kelso has done during his short tenure as receiver. Kelso completely rewrote the receivership’s plan of action, which Sillen had completed shortly before his ouster, to create a clear, concise and focused strategic road map for reform, Henderson says.

“He is an astonishingly fast learner,” Henderson says.

Although the 74-year-old Henderson admits he has started to consider retirement, he plans to hold off until he is certain that the medical and mental health care system in state prisons meets constitutional standards. He says once reforms efforts reach a point where they cannot be changed, he will hang up his robe.

“Sillen thought it would take 10 years to resolve, but I think Kelso’s estimate of three to five years is the more reliable,” Henderson says.