Swatseneger

No. 09-1233 IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States
__________ ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL., Appellants, v. MARCIANO PLATA AND RALPH COLEMAN, ET AL., Appellees. __________
On Appeal from the United States District Courts for the Eastern and Northern Districts of California

__________

BRIEF OFAMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIAPSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION, AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PSYCHIATRY AND THE LAW, JUDGE DAVID L. BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW, FORENSIC MENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA, NATIONAL ALLIANCE ON MENTAL ILLNESS, AND NAMI-CALIFORNIA AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEES

__________

NATHALIE F.P. GILFOYLE AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICALASSOCIATION 750 First Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20002 (202) 336-6100 Counsel for American Psychological Association and California Psychological Association

November 1, 2010

AARON M. PANNER Counsel of Record KELLOGG, HUBER, HANSEN, TODD, EVANS & FIGEL, P.L.L.C. 1615 M Street, N.W. Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 326-7900 Counsel for American Psychiatric Association, CaliforniaPsychiatric Association, and American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law

(Additional Counsel Listed On Inside Cover)

IRA A. BURNIM BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW 1105 15th Street, N.W. Suite 1212 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 467-5730 Counsel for Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law DAVID MEYER C/O U.S.C. INSTITUTE OF PSYCHIATRY & LAW P.O. Box 86125 Los Angeles, California 90086 (323)442-4000 Counsel for Forensic Mental Health Association of California RON HONBERG DIRECTOR OF POLICY AND LEGAL AFFAIRS NATIONAL ALLIANCE ON MENTAL ILLNESS 3803 North Fairfax Drive Suite 100 Arlington, Virginia 22203 (703) 524-7600 Counsel for National Alliance on Mental Illness and NAMI-California

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................... iiINTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ................................ 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................... 4 ARGUMENT ............................................................... 6 I. THE ELEMENTS OF A MINIMALLY ADEQUATE CORRECTIONAL MENTAL HEALTH CARE PROGRAM PROVIDE THE APPROPRIATE FRAMEWORK IN WHICH TO EVALUATE THE THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT’S FINDINGS .......................... 9 II.THE THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT’S DETERMINATIONS THAT CROWDING IS THE PRIMARY CAUSE OF THE DENIAL OF MINIMALLY ADEQUATE MENTAL HEALTH CARE AND THAT NO OTHER RELIEF WOULD REMEDY THE VIOLATIONS ARE CONSISTENT WITH CLINICAL EXPERIENCE .............................................................. 13 A. Overcrowding May Seriously Obstruct the Provision of Minimally Adequate Care.......................................... 14 B. Research Shows that Overcrowding May Lead to Conditions that Exacerbate Existing Mental Illness ................. 24 CONCLUSION.......................................................... 28

ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Balla v. Idaho State Bd. of Corrections, 595 F. Supp. 1558 (D. Idaho 1984) ....................... 8 Bowring v. Godwin, 551 F.2d 44 (4th Cir.1977)..................................................................... 10 Clark-Murphy v. Foreback, 439 F.3d 280 (6th Cir. 2006).................................................. 4, 10 Coleman v. Wilson, 912 F. Supp. 1282 (E.D. Cal. 1995) ............................ 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12 DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (1989) ............................. 9, 13 Estellev. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) .................... 5, 9 Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) .............. 4, 13 Ginest v. Board of County Comm’rs, 333 F. Supp. 2d 1190 (D. Wyo. 2004) ............................... 8 Greason v. Kemp, 891 F.2d 829 (11th Cir. 1990)..................................................................... 10 Madrid v. Gomez, 889 F. Supp. 1146 (N.D. Cal. 1995)...