Emma C., et al v. Eastin, et al

Filing 2077

ORDER Re: 2076 State Defendants' Response by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 07/08/15. (tehlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/8/2015)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

EMMA C., et al.,
Plaintiffs,

5
6
7
8

v.
DELAINE EASTIN, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 96-cv-04179-TEH
ORDER RE: STATE DEFENDANTS’
RESPONSE ON REQUEST FOR
CLARIFICATION OF BUDGET
ORDER

9

The Court issued its Budget Order for the 2015-16 fiscal year on June 18, 2015.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

(Docket Nos. 2064-65). State Defendants filed a request for clarification of the Budget

12

Order on June 23. (Docket No. 2067). The Court responded to that request and afforded

13

State Defendants an opportunity to file a responsive brief regarding the State’s position on

14

the allocation of the Court Monitor’s Budget. (Docket No. 2069). State Defendants filed

15

their response, which conceded the issues surrounding the current budget and instead

16

proposed modifications to the budget process for future years. (Docket No. 2076).

17

Specifically, State Defendants request “that the Court advance the budget

18

negotiation process so that any future budget is submitted to the Court for approval no later

19

than the November before the next fiscal year.” Resp. at 3. State Defendants explain that

20

the state Department of Finance “requires details about the upcoming fiscal year’s budget

21

to be submitted by the November before the next fiscal year,” and that CDE “must provide

22

requests for adjustments to the budget to the State Legislature by the January before the

23

next fiscal year.” Id.

24

While the Court recognizes the budgetary constraints faced by all of the defendants

25

in this case, it is unclear what changed circumstances have prompted State Defendants’ to

26

request such a drastic change to the budget process. Currently, the budget process begins

27

in the Spring before the fiscal year with the submission of proposed budgets by District

28

Defendant and the Court Monitor, followed by a meet and confer process between State

1

and District Defendants. The procedural constraints raised in State Defendants’ response

2

do not appear to have been an issue in the past. Furthermore, the Court is concerned that a

3

budget submission deadline eight months before the beginning of the fiscal year is far too

4

early for the Parties to meaningfully assess and predict budgetary needs and resources.

5

This appears to be especially true during this highly transitional period, as Ravenswood is

6

positioned to achieve compliance with an increasing number of RSIP requirements.

7

The Court suspects that the other Parties in this case may have an opinion on the
suggested modifications to the budget process. Consequently, if State Defendants wish to

9

formally propose these modifications, they should meet and confer with the other Parties

10

and file a noticed motion so that District Defendant and Plaintiffs have an opportunity to

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

be heard on the issue. This motion should include an explanation of the changed

12

circumstances giving rise to this request. The Court reserves judgment on State

13

Defendants’ proposal until that time.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17
18

Dated: 07/08/15

_____________________________________
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2