Coleman, et al v. Schwarzenegger, et al

Filing 4978

THREE-JUDGE COURT ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton, Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt, and Senior Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 1/13/2014 ORDERING that, on or before 1/23/2014, plaintiffs and defendants shall each file proposed order f or this court to consider as it determines how to rule on the pending request. Either plaintiffs or defendants may, at their option, file comments on or objections to the proposed order by 1/28/2014. The current deadline of 4/18/2014 shall be EXTENDED by the time between the date of this order and the date of the order ruling on the defendants' request for extension. (Donati, J)

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 DAD (PC)

9

v.

10

EDMUND G. BROWN JR., et al.,

11

Defendants.

THREE-JUDGE COURT

12
13

MARCIANO PLATA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

14
15

v.

16

EDMUND G. BROWN JR., et al.,

17

Defendants.

NO. C01-1351 TEH
THREE-JUDGE COURT
ORDER TO FILE PROPOSED
ORDERS RE: DEFENDANTS’
REQUEST TO EXTEND
POPULATION REDUCTION
DEADLINE

18
19

This Court has repeatedly extended the meet-and-confer process, and by virtue thereof

20 the date for the State’s compliance, in hopes that the parties could reach agreement on how
21 this Court can best ensure a durable solution to the prison population problem as required by
22 our orders of August 4, 2009, June 30, 2011, and June 20, 2013. It now appears that no such
23 agreement will be reached, and the Court therefore intends to issue an order within the next
24 30 days as to whether it will grant, deny, or grant in part and deny in part the State’s request
25 for an extension of time in which to comply with those orders. Because, as a result of the
26 recent process in which the parties have engaged, they may have modified their views as to
27 the appropriate content of the order to be issued by this Court, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
28 that, on or before January 23, 2014, plaintiffs and defendants shall each file proposed orders

1 for this Court to consider as it determines how to rule on the pending request. These
2 proposed orders shall not be statements of the parties’ ultimate wishes but, rather, shall
3 include those terms, and only those terms, that the parties believe are best suited to achieve
4 durable compliance with this Court’s orders to maintain a prison population of no more than
5 137.5% design capacity. Either plaintiffs or defendants may, at their option, not later than
6 January 28, 2014, file comments on or objections to the proposed order submitted by their
7 opponents of not more than seven pages.
8

The current April 18, 2014 deadline for compliance with our orders is hereby

9 extended by the time between the date of this order and the date of the order ruling on
10 defendants’ request for extension.
11
12 IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
14 Dated: 01/13/14
15

STEPHEN REINHARDT
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE
NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

16
17
18 Dated: 01/13/14
19

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

20
21
22 Dated: 01/13/14
23

THELTON E. HENDERSON
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

24
25
26
27
28
2