Plata et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 2374

ORDER requiring interim reports to the three-judge court. Defendants shall file a report on or before 07/21/11 and monthly status reports beginning on 09/15/11. Signed by Judges Stephen Reinhardt, Lawrence K. Karlton, and Thelton E. Henderson on 06/30/11.(tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/30/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS 3 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 AND THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT COMPOSED OF THREE JUDGES 6 PURSUANT TO SECTION 2284, TITLE 28 UNITED STATES CODE 7 8 RALPH COLEMAN, et al., 9 Plaintiffs, NO. CIV S-90-0520 LKK JFM P 10 v. 11 EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., et al., 12 Defendants. THREE-JUDGE COURT 13 14 MARCIANO PLATA, et al., Plaintiffs, 15 16 v. 17 EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., et al., 18 NO. C01-1351 TEH THREE-JUDGE COURT Defendants. ORDER REQUIRING INTERIM REPORTS 19 20 The United States Supreme Court affirmed this court’s January 12, 2010 Order to 21 Reduce Prison Population on May 23, 2011, and issued judgment on June 24, 2011. The 22 January 12, 2010 order provided that its effective date would be “the day following the final 23 resolution by the Court of a timely-filed appeal of this Order.” Jan. 12, 2010 Order at 6. 24 Because judgment was issued on a Friday, the effective date of the order is Monday, June 27, 25 2011. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C). Accordingly, Defendants must reduce the population 26 of California’s thirty-three adult prisons as follows: 27 a. To no more than 167% of design capacity by December 27, 2011. 28 b. To no more than 155% of design capacity by June 27, 2012. 1 c. To no more than 147% of design capacity by December 27, 2012. 2 d. To no more than 137.5% of design capacity by June 27, 2013. 3 See Jan. 12, 2010 Order at 4. 4 Within fourteen days following each of the deadlines described above, defendants shall file a report advising the court whether the estimated population reduction has been achieved. This report shall include the total reduction in the population of California’s adult prisons that has been achieved; the current population of those institutions, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of design capacity; and the reductions associated with each of the individual measures that defendants described in their November 12, 2009 plan as well as any additional or alternative population reduction measures that it may have subsequently adopted. If the State has failed to achieve the required population reduction, defendants shall advise the court as to the reasons for such deficiency and what measures they have taken or propose to take to remedy it. They also shall advise the court as to whether such deficiency could have been avoided by the exercise of executive authority, such as that invested in the Governor and other officials by the California Emergency Services Act. Finally, defendants shall advise the court whether legislative changes are required to remedy any deficiency and, if so, what efforts defendants have made to obtain such changes, including specific proposals made to the legislature and the legislative responses to such proposals. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Id. at 5. 17 Defendants’ most recent report, filed on June 23, 2011, expressed uncertainty about 18 funding for Assembly Bill 109 (“AB 109”), a major component of defendants’ plan to 19 comply with this court’s order to reduce the prison population. Defendants shall file an 20 updated report on or before July 21, 2011, explaining whether funding has been secured for 21 AB 109 and, if so, when AB 109 is intended to go into effect. Defendants’ report shall also 22 include estimated reductions associated with AB 109 and all other population reduction 23 measures being implemented by the State, as well as a discussion on whether defendants 24 expect to meet the December 27, 2011 benchmark and, if not, what further actions are 25 contemplated and the specific persons responsible for executing those actions. 26 To keep the court informed of their progress, defendants shall file monthly status 27 reports due on the 15th of each month, beginning on September 15, 2011, until further order 28 of this court. These monthly reports shall list the design capacity, actual population, and 2 1 population as a percentage of design capacity at each adult institution, as well as aggregate 2 figures for the total inmate population housed in adult institutions. The reports shall also 3 include an updated discussion on whether defendants expect to meet the next six-month 4 benchmark and, if not, what further actions are contemplated and the specific persons 5 responsible for executing those actions. Monthly reports shall not be required in January 6 2012, July 2012, or January 2013, or July 2013; the required information should instead be 7 incorporated in defendants’ reports following each of the six-month benchmarks. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 Dated: 06/30/11 12 STEPHEN REINHARDT UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS 13 14 15 Dated: 06/30/11 16 LAWRENCE K. KARLTON SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 17 18 19 Dated: 06/30/11 20 THELTON E. HENDERSON SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?