After the Plata ruling, California's legislature lowered its prison population by enacting Proposition(s): 36, 47 and 57. Should the resultant extra living space be prioritized for those prisoners who are serving Life or have already been incarcerated for a decade or decades? [Key Question]

Should California's DOC still be allowed to punish its prisoners —using emergency Overcrowding regulation 15 CCR § 3269(h) — for a good faith cell assignment refusal, now that the Plata ruling created more space/flexibility hence ending the emergency? [Legal]

Were the cases supporting denial applied by California 's courts, an example of clear Legal Error? [Legal]

Were the misrepresented procedural rulings, issued by the lower courts done deliberately or inadvertently? [Mixed]

Did California Prison system's rulemaking authority deliberately obfuscate their emergency Overcrowding —Housing Regulations to Inter Alia engineer a vanguard to any potential constitutional attacks towards the reasonableness of the act's nature and purpose/means and ends? [Mixed]

In the prison setting, should the regulatory prohibition against self-defense be scrapped once a state system exceeds its design capacity? [Mixed]

Despite presentation of a solid factual and legal foundation for relief, did the courts below unjustly impair Petitioner's substantial right to humane living conditions, when it upheld the administrative findings? [Factual]

In response to their emergency, why did CA build 21 prisons with small cells and bunk beds if their intent was suppose to be to reduce crowding? [Factual]

Should the extra living space created by California's prison population reduction measures be prioritized for long-serving or long-incarcerated prisoners?