Coleman, et al v. Schwarzenegger, et al
Filing
5070
ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 2/19/2014 DENYING 5062 Request to Strike the plaintiffs' reply brief; GRANTING the defendants fifteen days to file and serve a response to the plaintiffs' closing brief on plaintiffs' motion concerning housing and treatment of mentally ill inmates. (Michel, G)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
RALPH COLEMAN, et al.,
12
13
14
15
No. CIV. S-90-520 LKK/DAD (PC)
Plaintiffs,
v.
ORDER
EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
On January 21, 2013, the parties filed post-hearing briefs
18
on plaintiffs’ motion concerning housing and treatment of
19
mentally ill inmates in segregation.
20
February 5, 2014, plaintiffs filed a response to defendants’
21
post-hearing brief.
22
defendants filed objections and a request to strike that brief.
23
(ECF No. 5062).
24
to defendants’ motion (ECF No. 5063), and the next day defendants
25
filed a reply (ECF No. 5064).
26
(ECF No. 5051.)
(ECF Nos. 4985, 4988.) On
On February 10, 2014,
On the same day, plaintiffs filed an opposition
The dispute between the parties arises from a discrepancy
27
between the court’s oral ruling concerning closing briefs at the
28
conclusion of the evidentiary hearing on December 19, 2013 and
1
1
the minutes issued the same day.
2
(RT) (ECF No. 5020) at 3751:22-3752:6 with ECF No. 4972.
3
cause appearing, plaintiffs’ response will be considered and
4
defendants will be granted fifteen days to file a response to
5
plaintiffs’ closing brief.1
Compare Reporter’s Transcript
Good
6
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
7
1. Defendants’ February 10, 2014 request to strike
8
plaintiffs’ reply brief (ECF No. 5062) is denied; and
9
2. Defendants are granted fifteen days from the date of
10
this order in which to file and serve a response to
11
plaintiffs’ closing brief on plaintiffs’ motion
12
concerning housing and treatment of mentally ill inmates
13
in segregation.
14
submitted.
15
DATED:
Thereafter the matter will stand
February 19, 2014.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
26
27
28
The court must note that this dispute, which generated three additional
filings by the parties plus an order by the court, could easily have been
resolved by a joint request for clarification accompanied by a stipulation of
the parties agreeing to a solution and a proposed order thereon. Going
forward, the court expects the parties to work together wherever possible to
decrease, rather than expand, their areas of disagreement.
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?