Plata et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 2275

ORDER inviting responses from plaintiffs and intervenors to 2274 Defendants' November 12, 2009 proposed prison population reduction measures. Plaintiffs' and intervenors' responses, if any, due by 12/07/09. Defendants' response due by 12/18/09. Signed by Judges Stephen Reinhardt, Lawrence K. Karlton, and Thelton E. Henderson on 11/18/09. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/18/2009)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 v. v. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AND THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT COMPOSED OF THREE JUDGES PURSUANT TO SECTION 2284, TITLE 28 UNITED STATES CODE RALPH COLEMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, NO. CIV S-90-0520 LKK JFM P THREE-JUDGE COURT ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al., Defendants. MARCIANO PLATA, et al., Plaintiffs, NO. C01-1351 TEH THREE-JUDGE COURT ORDER INVITING RESPONSES FROM PLAINTIFFS AND INTERVENORS TO DEFENDANTS' NOVEMBER 12, 2009 PROPOSED PRISON POPULATION REDUCTION MEASURES ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al., Defendants. On August 4, 2009, this three-judge court ordered defendants to present the court 21 within 45 days with a plan "that will in no more than two years reduce the population of the 22 CDCR's adult institutions to 137.5% of their combined design capacity." Aug. 4, 2009 23 Opinion & Order at 183. On September 18, 2009, defendants submitted a proposed 24 "Population Reduction Plan." Because the plan defendants provided did not comply with our 25 August 4, 2009 order, we rejected defendants' proposed plan, and ordered them to submit 26 within 21 days "a population reduction plan that complies with this court's August 4, 2009 27 Opinion and Order and that, most important, provides for a reduction of the prison 28 population to 137.5% of design capacity within two years." Oct. 21, 2009 Order at 2. On 1 November 12, 2009, defendants submitted a plan in response to that order. In that plan, 2 defendants propose measures that they estimate will reduce the population of CDCR's adult 3 institutions to 137.5% of their design capacity by December 2011. 4 On or before December 7, 2009, plaintiffs and intervenors shall submit (1) their 5 comments and/or objections, if any, regarding each of the population reduction measures 6 proposed by defendants on November 12, 2009, as well as regarding the proposed population 7 reduction plan as a whole, and (2) any population reduction measures that they believe to be 8 more practical or effective than those proposed by defendants. Should plaintiffs or 9 intervenors propose any population reduction measures that require the waiver of any 10 provision of state law, they shall so advise the court, and shall explain why the proposed 11 waiver is permissible under 18 U.S.C. 3626(a)(1)(B). Should plaintiffs or intervenors 12 propose any population reduction measures that would require state funding that is otherwise 13 not provided for, or if any of their objections to the population reduction measures proposed 14 by defendants would be ameliorated or resolved by the provision of state funding for use in 15 connection with such measures, they shall identify the measures requiring such funding, and 16 provide estimates of the amounts required for use in connection with each such measure. 17 Defendants shall submit their responses to such comments, objections, and proposals on or 18 before December 18, 2009. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 Dated: 11/18/09 23 24 25 26 Dated: 11/18/09 27 28 LAWRENCE K. KARLTON SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 2 STEPHEN REINHARDT UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS 1 2 3 Dated: 11/18/09 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 THELTON E. HENDERSON SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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?