Plata et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 2445

ORDER requiring further briefing re: 2435 Plaintiffs' renewed motion for an order requiring Defendants to demonstrate how they will achieve the required population reduction by June 2013. Supplemental briefs or stipulation due by 06/22/12. Signed by Judges Stephen Reinhardt, Lawrence K. Karlton & Thelton E. Henderson on 06/07/12. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/7/2012)

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS 2 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 AND THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT COMPOSED OF THREE JUDGES 5 PURSUANT TO SECTION 2284, TITLE 28 UNITED STATES CODE 6 7 RALPH COLEMAN, et al., 8 Plaintiffs, NO. 2:90-cv-0520 LKK JFM P 9 v. 10 EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., et al., 11 Defendants. THREE-JUDGE COURT 12 13 MARCIANO PLATA, et al., NO. C01-1351 TEH Plaintiffs, 14 THREE-JUDGE COURT 15 v. 16 EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., et al., 17 Defendants. ORDER REQUIRING FURTHER BRIEFING 18 19 On May 9, 2012, plaintiffs renewed their motion for an order requiring defendants to 20 demonstrate how they will achieve the required population reduction by June 2013.1 21 Defendants filed an opposition to the motion on May 23, 2012, in which they confirm their 22 intention to seek a modification of the Court’s order from 137.5% of design capacity to 23 145% of design capacity.2 On May 31, 2102, plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their 24 1 25 The Court denied plaintiffs’ first motion without prejudice on March 22, 2012. 2 Defendants released “The Future of California Corrections,” which purports to be a 26 “blueprint” for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, on April 23, 2012. In that report, which is available at http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/2012plan/index.html, 27 defendants project that, absent additional measures to comply with this Court’s order, “the prison population is expected to drop to about 141 percent of design capacity” by June 2013, 28 and they signal their intention to seek a modification of the Court’s order. Report at 50. 1 motion. Therein plaintiffs contend, inter alia, that defendants’ proposed motion to modify 2 will present questions of fact as well as law and, therefore, that proceedings on any motion to 3 modify “will require significant factual investigation, including expert evaluations and 4 reports, and expert discovery.” Reply at 5. Good cause appearing, the parties will be granted 5 a period of fifteen days to file further briefs addressing plaintiffs’ contention and proposing, 6 separately or jointly, a schedule for proceedings on a motion to modify.3 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 Dated: 06/07/12 STEPHEN REINHARDT UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS 11 12 13 14 Dated: 06/07/12 LAWRENCE K. KARLTON SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 16 17 18 Dated: 06/07/12 THELTON E. HENDERSON SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3 If the parties are in agreement, in lieu of further briefing they may file in the same fifteen-day period a stipulation setting forth a proposed schedule for proceedings on a motion 27 to modify. 28 2

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?