Coleman, et al v. Schwarzenegger, et al
Filing
4193
THREE-JUDGE COURT ORDER signed on 6/7/2012 ORDERING parties will be granted a period of 15 days to file further briefs addressing plaintiff's contention and proposing, separately or jointly, a schedule for proceedings on a motion to modify.(Waggoner, D)
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS
2
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
AND THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT COMPOSED OF THREE JUDGES
5
PURSUANT TO SECTION 2284, TITLE 28 UNITED STATES CODE
6
7
RALPH COLEMAN, et al.,
8
Plaintiffs,
NO. 2:90-cv-0520 LKK JFM P
9
v.
10
EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., et al.,
11
Defendants.
THREE-JUDGE COURT
12
13
MARCIANO PLATA, et al.,
NO. C01-1351 TEH
Plaintiffs,
14
THREE-JUDGE COURT
15
v.
16
EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., et al.,
17
Defendants.
ORDER REQUIRING FURTHER
BRIEFING
18
19
On May 9, 2012, plaintiffs renewed their motion for an order requiring defendants to
20 demonstrate how they will achieve the required population reduction by June 2013.1
21 Defendants filed an opposition to the motion on May 23, 2012, in which they confirm their
22 intention to seek a modification of the Court’s order from 137.5% of design capacity to
23 145% of design capacity.2 On May 31, 2102, plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their
24
1
25
The Court denied plaintiffs’ first motion without prejudice on March 22, 2012.
2
Defendants released “The Future of California Corrections,” which purports to be a
26 “blueprint” for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, on April 23,
2012. In that report, which is available at http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/2012plan/index.html,
27 defendants project that, absent additional measures to comply with this Court’s order, “the
prison population is expected to drop to about 141 percent of design capacity” by June 2013,
28 and they signal their intention to seek a modification of the Court’s order. Report at 50.
1 motion. Therein plaintiffs contend, inter alia, that defendants’ proposed motion to modify
2 will present questions of fact as well as law and, therefore, that proceedings on any motion to
3 modify “will require significant factual investigation, including expert evaluations and
4 reports, and expert discovery.” Reply at 5. Good cause appearing, the parties will be granted
5 a period of fifteen days to file further briefs addressing plaintiffs’ contention and proposing,
6 separately or jointly, a schedule for proceedings on a motion to modify.3
7
8 IT IS SO ORDERED.
9
10 Dated: 06/07/12
STEPHEN REINHARDT
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE
NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
11
12
13
14 Dated: 06/07/12
LAWRENCE K. KARLTON
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
15
16
17
18 Dated: 06/07/12
THELTON E. HENDERSON
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3
If the parties are in agreement, in lieu of further briefing they may file in the same
fifteen-day period a stipulation setting forth a proposed schedule for proceedings on a motion
27
to modify.
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?