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

QUESTIONS PRESENTED , ¢ 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 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] ii ¢ 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] . Ss (‘> SSS , iii