Coleman, et al v. Schwarzenegger, et al

Filing 6750

ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 07/02/2020. On or before July 15, 2020, the parties are directed to file briefing addressing the court's questions. (Andrews, P)

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

Plaintiffs,

13
14
15

v.

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

ORDER

GAVIN NEWSOM, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18

This matter is set for the second regular quarterly status conference of this year on

19

July 17, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. For the reasons explained below, and good cause appearing, the

20

parties will be directed to file, on or before July 15, 2020, briefing responsive to the following

21

questions, identifying issues that will appear on the agenda for the status conference. The issues

22

may frame the court’s consideration of how best to resume Program Guide enforcement,

23

including but not limited to enforcement of its orders regarding compliance with defendants’

24

2009 staffing plan, under the circumstances the state’s prisons are facing with the extremely

25

troubling advance of the COVID-19 pandemic.

26

1. Whether increased clustering of members of the plaintiff class, particularly at

27

the Enhanced Outpatient Program (EOP) and higher levels of care, is a feasible

28

option for achieving full and durable compliance with the Program Guide and
1

1

other remedial requirements of this action sooner rather than later, given that

2

clustering could be expected to reduce the need for transfers within the prison

3

system to achieve compliance. The briefing on this issue should include

4

discussion of available clustering options and whether any of those options can

5

be achieved during the COVID-19 pandemic through application of best

6

practices defined by reputable public health authorities. In considering this

7

issue, in addition to any other matter the parties may brief, they should address

8

whether Plata v. Brown, 427 F.Supp.3d 1211 (N.D. Cal. 2013), serves as

9

authority for the proposition that this court sitting as a single judge court may

10

sua sponte enter an order directing defendants to submit a clustering plan and

11

to order implementation of that plan at such time as best public health practices

12

indicate it is safe to do so.

13

2. Whether defendants are or soon will be planning for additional voluntary

14

releases or sentencing reforms that would reduce the size of the plaintiff class

15

in sufficient numbers to achieve full and durable compliance with the Program

16

Guide and other remedial requirements of this action sooner rather than later.

17

If defendants are so planning, do they have a targeted occupancy rate for which

18

they are aiming that will facilitate compliance concurrently with

19

implementation of best practices in management of COVID-19.

20

3. If the answer to the second question above is no, and if Program Guide

21

compliance cannot be achieved without a greater number of population

22

reductions than currently planned, whether this court should sua sponte request

23

the convening of a three-judge court to consider entry of a prisoner release

24

order specifically directed to reduce the number of Coleman class members in

25

the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. See 18 U.S.C.

26

§ 3626(a)(3)(D) (“ If the requirements under subparagraph (A) have been met,

27

a Federal judge before whom a civil action with respect to prison conditions is

28

pending who believes that a prison release order should be considered may sua
2

1

sponte request the convening of a three-judge court to determine whether a

2

prisoner release order should be entered.”); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(3)(A)

3

(setting out requirements that “(i) a court has previously entered an order for

4

less intrusive relief that has failed to remedy the deprivation of the Federal

5

right sought to be remedied through the prisoner release order; and (ii) the

6

defendant has had a reasonable time to comply with the previous court

7

orders”). Here, “the previous order requirement of § 3626(a)(3)(A)(i) was

8

satisfied . . . by appointment of a Special Master in 1995 . . . [which was]

9

intended to remedy the constitutional violations . . . [and which has] been

10

given ample time to succeed.” Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. at 514. The parties

11

may, as appropriate, include their discussion of the requirements of 18 U.S.C.

12

§ 3626(a)(3)(A) in the briefing required by this order.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 2, 2020.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3