Armstrong v. Newsom

"Relief prescribing more specific mechanisms of compliance is appropriate” under the PLRA where a district court has already attempted to remedy the situation “through less intrusive means, and those attempts have failed.” Armstrong v. Brown, 768 F.3d 975, 983-984 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Armstrong v. Shwarzenegger, 622 F.3d 1058,1071).

The Department of Corrections (“DOC”) and the Governor of California appealed orders from the district court requiring them to implement remedial measures combating systematic violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) at R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”) and five other prisons (the Five Prisons). The DOC and the Governor assigned error to the district court’s failure to consider data from after the implementation of previous corrective measures. On appeal, they argued that the orders did not comply with the Prison Litigation Reform Act's (“PLRA”) requirement that injunctive relief be as non-intrusive as possible, and that not enough evidence existed to require certain portions of the orders. "Relief prescribing more specific mechanisms of compliance is appropriate” under the PLRA where a district court has already attempted to remedy the situation “through less intrusive means, and those attempts have failed.” Armstrong v. Brown, 768 F.3d 975, 983-984 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Armstrong v. Shwarzenegger, 622 F.3d 1058,1071). The Court held that the district court’s orders complied with the PLRA because less-intrusive measures had failed to remedy the situation. The Court found that while most measures were properly ordered because they were based on reasonable conclusions drawn from the record, not enough credible evidence existed specific to the Five Prisons to justify an order that Section 5(g) and 5(j) be applied to the Five Prisons. Therefore, the Court affirmed the RJD Order and affirmed the Five Prisons Order, except as to Sections 5(g) and 5(j). AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part.