Gilman v. Fisher, et al

Filing 536

ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 3/10/2014 plaintiffs' 534 Motion to Alter or Amend 533 Judgment and the hearing on this Motion, set for 4/7/2014, is VACATED. (Marciel, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RICHARD M. GILMAN, et al.,

12

CIV. S-05-830 LKK/CKD

Plaintiffs,

13
14

No.

v.

ORDER

EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiffs have noticed a motion to alter or amend this

17
18

court’s judgment, entered in accordance with its February 28,

19

2014 Order (ECF No. 532).

20

judgment regarding Proposition 89 be changed to enjoin the

21

Governor from “reversing or modifying grants of parole to class

22

members when the reversal or modification would result in

23

delaying the prisoner’s release from custody beyond the release

24

date calculated by the California Department of Corrections and

25

Rehabilitation based on the term set by the Board of Parole

26

Hearings at the time the prisoner was granted parole” (ECF

27

No. 534).

28

////

Plaintiffs request that the court’s

1

1

The court has determined that this motion may be decided

2

without the need for oral argument.

3

scheduled for April 7, 2014, is hereby VACATED.

4

The hearing on this motion,

The motion will be denied, as the court granted plaintiffs

5

the full relief they requested regarding Proposition 89.

6

complaint requests an order requiring that “the Governor’s review

7

of parole decisions be based on the same factors the Board is

8

required to consider, as required by Article V, Section 8(b) of

9

the California Constitution, and Section 3401.2 of the California

10

Penal Code.”

11

The

(ECF No. 175) ¶ 5.1

[Corrected] Fourth Amended Supplemental Complaint

12

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion (ECF No. 534) is DENIED.

13

It IS SO ORDERED.

14

DATED:

March 10, 2014.

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

1

The court noted this limitation to plaintiffs’ request for
relief in its summary judgment order. See ECF No. 479 n.49.
While plaintiffs also requested “[s]uch other and further relief
as may be just and proper,” the court has already determined that
relief beyond what it granted was “beyond the power of this court
to grant.” ECF No. 532 at 58 n.7. Nothing in plaintiffs’ motion
papers shows that the court was incorrect in so holding.

28
2