Plata et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 2554

ORDER overruling 2532 Defendants' objections to Receiver's Twenty-Second Tri-Annual Report. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 02/28/13. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/28/2013)

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 5 MARCIANO PLATA, et al., 6 Plaintiffs, 7 v. 8 EDMUND G. BROWN JR., et al., 9 Defendants. NO. C01-1351 TEH ORDER OVERRULING DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO RECEIVER’S TWENTYSECOND TRI-ANNUAL REPORT 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 On February 13, 2013, Defendants filed objections to the Receiver’s Twenty-Second 12 Tri-Annual Report (“Report”), which was filed on January 25, 2013. Defendants object to 13 two statements in the Report – (1) that “[o]vercrowding and its consequences are and have 14 been a chronic, widespread and continuing problem for almost twenty years,” Report at 29, 15 and (2) that “there is no persuasive evidence that a constitutional level of medical care has 16 been achieved system-wide,” id. at 30 – and request that they be stricken. Both the Receiver 17 and Plaintiffs filed timely responses following this Court’s February 14, 2013 order. 18 After carefully considering the report, the objections, and the responses thereto, the 19 Court now OVERRULES the objections and DENIES the request to strike. Defendants have 20 cited no rule or other legal authority to support their request to strike statements from the 21 Receiver’s report. Defendants disagree with the Receiver’s statements, but their objections 22 go to the weight of the Receiver’s conclusions and not to whether the Receiver is entitled to 23 include them in his reports to the Court. Whether the consequences of overcrowding 24 continue to be a problem, and whether there is persuasive evidence that a constitutional level 25 of medical care has been achieved systemwide, are questions that will be addressed at the 26 appropriate time – by stipulation or by motion, by this Court or by the three-judge court 27 convened in this case and Coleman v. Brown, Case No. CIV S-90-0520 LKK JFM P (E.D. 28 Cal.). Nothing in this order prevents Defendants from contesting the weight that should be 1 given to the Receiver’s conclusions or from presenting evidence to support a contrary 2 conclusion when the issues are properly before this or the three-judge court. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: 02/28/13 7 THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 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?