Coleman, et al v. Schwarzenegger, et al
Filing
5416
THREE-JUDGE COURT ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 3/4/2016 ORDERING the defendants to continue to report to the court monthly as required by the 5061 Three-Judge Court Opinion; ORDERING that said reports include a discussion of the steps the defendants are taking to ensure that complaince with the 137.5% benchmark is durable. (Michel, G.)
1
2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS
3
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
AND THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT COMPOSED OF THREE JUDGES
6
PURSUANT TO SECTION 2284, TITLE 28 UNITED STATES CODE
7
8
RALPH COLEMAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
9
United States District Court
Northern District of California
EDMUND G. BROWN JR., et al.,
Defendants.
12
13
MARCIANO PLATA, et al.,
14
Plaintiff,
15
16
THREE-JUDGE COURT
v.
10
11
Case No. 2:90-cv-0520 KJM KJN P
v.
EDMUND G. BROWN JR., et al.,
17
Case No. 01-cv-01351-TEH
THREE-JUDGE COURT
ORDER REQUIRING ADDITIONAL
REPORTING
Defendants.
18
19
On February 10, 2014, this court granted defendants’ request for a two-year
20
extension in which to comply with the court’s June 30, 2011 order to reduce California’s
21
in-state adult institution population to no more than 137.5% of design capacity. The two-
22
year extension gave defendants until February 28, 2016 to meet the court-ordered
23
reduction. Feb. 10, 2014 Order at 2 (ECF No. 2766/5060).1 Since receiving the extension,
24
defendants have made laudable progress, and achieved compliance with the percentage
25
26
27
28
1
All filings in this Three-Judge Court are included in the individual docket sheets
of both Plata v. Brown, No. 01-cv-01351-TEH (N.D. Cal.), and Coleman v. Brown, No.
2:90-cv-0520 KJM KJN P (E.D. Cal.). This court includes the docket number of Plata
first, then Coleman.
1
benchmark one year early, with the population remaining below the benchmark since
2
February 2015:
3
In-state
adult
institution
population
%
Design
Capacity
Out-ofstate
population
In-state
private
prison
population
(California
City)
4
5
6
Date
In-state
contract
bed
capacity 2
(MCCFs)
February 11, 2015
112,993
136.6%
8,828
1,973
4,218
8
March 11, 2015
112,106
135.5%
8,778
1,893
4,218
9
April 8, 2015
111,863
135.3%
8,394
1,999
4,218
10
May 13, 2015
111,341
134.6%
8,060
2,152
4,218
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
7
June 10, 2015
111,370
134.7%
7,726
2,308
4,218
12
July 8, 2015
111,168
134.4%
7,277
2,339
4,218
13
August 12, 20153
111,485
134.8%
6,961
2,225
4,218
14
September 9, 2015
111,656
135.0%
6,508
2,245
4,218
15
October 14, 2015
112,195
135.7%
5,907
2,147
4,218
16
November 11, 2015
112,350
135.8%
5,447
2,071
4,218
17
December 9, 2015
112,510
136.0%
5,264
1,978
4,218
18
January 13, 2016
112,737
136.3%
5,173
1,882
4,218
February 10, 2016
112,887
136.5%
5,088
1,813
4,218
19
20
21
See Defs.’ Monthly Status Reports (ECF Nos. 2838/5278, 2842/5289, 2846/5300,
22
2848/5306, 2860/5322, 2862/5331, 2864/5336, 2870/5354, 2874/5368, 2876/5379,
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Defendants’ monthly reports all state that there are 4,218 MCCF (modified
community correctional facility) beds “that are in various stages of activation and
transfer.”
3
The court uses the figures on page 1 of Defendants’ August status report, which
appear to be correct based on the weekly report available at http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/
Reports_Research/Offender_Information_Services_Branch/WeeklyWed/TPOP1A/TPOP1
Ad150812.pdf. The figures at the top of Exhibit A to the August report appear not to have
been updated from the July report.
2
1
2880/5388, 2882/5400, 2886/5411). Even as the benchmark has been attained, as reflected
2
in the above table, however, the in-state adult institution population has been gradually
3
increasing since July 2015. Part of this growth is due to the State’s commendable efforts
4
to return inmates from out-of-state facilities, but there still remain over 5,000 inmates in
5
out-of-state facilities. There are also approximately 5,500 inmates housed in in-state
6
contract facilities.4 Moreover, defendants project that the total number of inmates will
7
increase by over 3,600 over the next few years, which in itself threatens to push the
8
population back over the threshold. See An Update to the Future of California
9
Corrections: January 2016 at 25, available at http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Blueprint-Update-
10
2016/An-Update-to-the-Future-of-California-Corrections-January-2016.pdf.
The court commends defendants for achieving the required reduction in the current
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
in-state adult institution population. It also commends the parties for working
13
cooperatively to ensure that the court’s orders are fully implemented. E.g., Stip. & Order
14
in Response to Nov. 14, 2014 Order (ECF No. 2830/5254).
At the same time, as this court has previously ordered and as defendants recognize,
15
16
the court will “maintain jurisdiction over this matter for as long as is necessary to ensure
17
that defendants’ compliance with the 137.5% final benchmark is durable, and such
18
durability is firmly established.” Feb. 10, 2014 Order at 5. Additional work remains for
19
defendants to demonstrate that they can maintain compliance with the population
20
benchmark in the absence of court-ordered remedies. To that end, defendants shall
21
//
22
//
23
//
24
//
25
26
27
28
4
As of midnight February 10, 2016, which is the source of the population data in
defendants’ most recent status report, there were 5,530 inmates housed in in-state contract
beds, including the 1,813 inmates housed at California City. See CDCR, Weekly Rpt. of
Population, Feb. 10, 2016, available at http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Reports_Research/
Offender_Information_Services_Branch/WeeklyWed/TPOP1A/TPOP1Ad160210.pdf.
3
1
continue to report to the court monthly as required by the February 10, 2014 Order. Id.
2
at 3. Defendants’ monthly reports shall include a discussion of the steps defendants are
3
taking to ensure that compliance with the 137.5% benchmark is durable.
4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
7
Dated: 03/04/16
8
9
_______________________________________
STEPHEN REINHARDT
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE
NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Dated: 03/04/16
THELTON E. HENDERSON
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
13
14
15
16
Dated: 03/04/16
KIMBERLY J. MUELLER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?