Coleman, et al v. Schwarzenegger, et al

Filing 6177

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 6/7/19 GRANTING 6164 Motion for leave to file an amicus brief.(Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RALPH COLEMAN, et al.,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.

No. 2:90-cv-0520 KJM DB P

ORDER

GAVIN NEWSOM, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18

As authorized by minute order, ECF No. 6136, the Union of American Physicians

19

and Dentists (UAPD) has filed a request for leave to file an amicus brief and three declarations in

20

connection with proceedings on the report filed by the court-appointed neutral expert (Neutral

21

Expert Report), ECF No. 6147, following completion of his investigation into certain allegations

22

raised in the whistleblower report of Dr. Michael Golding, Chief Psychiatrist for the California

23

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) (Golding Report), ECF No. 5988. ECF

24

Nos. 6164-6167.

25

This court has “broad discretion to appoint amici curiae.” Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d

26

1237, 1259 (9th Cir. 1982), overruled on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 115

27

S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995).

28

1

1

6

Historically, amicus curiae is an impartial individual who suggests
the interpretation and status of the law, gives information concerning
it, and advises the Court in order that justice may be done, rather than
to advocate a point of view so that a cause may be won by one party
or another. See Leigh v. Engle, 535 F.Supp. 418, 420 (N.D.Ill.1982).
Amicus curiae fulfill the role by submitting briefing designed to
supplement and assist in cases of general public interest, supplement
the efforts of counsel, and draw the court’s attention to law that might
otherwise escape consideration. See Miller–Wohl Co. v.
Commissioner of Labor & Indus., 694 F.2d 203, 204 (9th Cir.1982).
An amicus curiae is not a party to litigation. See id.

7

Community Ass’n for Restoration of Environment (CARE) v. DeRuyter Bros. Dairy, 54 F.Supp.2d

8

974, 975 (E. D. Wa. 1999).

9

Accordingly, the request for leave to proceed amicus curiae will be granted.

2
3
4
5

The UAPD and its proposed brief meet all of these criteria.

10

In the same minute order, the UAPD was directed to “advise the court whether the

11

signators on the letters are requesting that the letters delivered to the court on April 26, 2019 be

12

filed on the public docket in connection with the proposed amicus brief.” ECF No. 6136. The

13

UAPD has not responded to this part of the minute order; as noted above, it has, however, requested

14

the court consider three declarations of CDCR psychiatrists filed with the amicus brief. The court

15

will disregard the letters delivered to the court on April 26, 2019. The three declarations that

16

accompany UAPD’s amicus brief have been filed and will be considered.

17

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the request of the

18

Union of American Physicians and Dentist for leave to file an amicus brief and accompanying

19

declarations, ECF Nos. 6164-6167, is granted.

20

DATED: June 7, 2019.

21
22

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28

2