Plata et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 2693

ORDER responding to 2674 Defendants' request for clarification and modifying status report requirements. Modified biweekly status reports begin on 09/16/13. Defendants shall file 08/15/13 and 08/29/13 status reports as previously ordered. Signed by Judges Stephen Reinhardt, Lawrence K. Karlton, and Thelton E. Henderson on 08/09/13. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/9/2013)

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 Defendants. NO. C01-1351 TEH THREE-JUDGE COURT ORDER RESPONDING TO DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION AND MODIFYING STATUS REPORT REQUIREMENTS 19 20 Defendants request that this Court clarify the extent to which our June 20, 2013 Order 21 waives state laws. See Defs.’ Request for Clarification (ECF. No. 2674/4686). This Court 22 hereby provides such clarification by reiterating that all state laws that impede the 23 implementation of the Amended Plan and any authorized substitutions to that Plan, see 24 June 20, 2013 Op. & Order at 48-50 (ECF No. 2659/4662), are waived. As we stated in our 25 Order: 26 27 28 To the extent that any . . . state or local laws or regulations impede the immediate implementation of the Amended Plan, we waive [them] and direct defendants to provide us with a list of such laws and regulations within 20 days of this Opinion & 1 2 3 4 Order. Our purpose for waiving these laws and regulations is to enable defendants to implement or commence implementation of all measures in the Amended Plan immediately. We will therefore not accept as a reason for non-compliance any contention that our Order failed to waive the necessary laws or regulations. Defendants must act forthwith as if they have full legal authorization to do so. 5 Id. at 44. This waiver includes all laws and constitutional provisions that defendants cite in 6 their Request for Clarification as restricting the expenditure of state funds without legislative 7 appropriation and as impeding the early release of prisoners. See Defs.’ Request for 8 Clarification at 1-2. 9 This Court emphasizes, however, that the waiver applies only to the extent that the 10 laws impede the implementation of the Amended Plan including the authorized substitutions 11 to that Plan as specified in our June 20 Order. It does not serve to waive statutory and 12 constitutional requirements as to any measures not in the Amended Plan including authorized 13 substitutions to that Plan. For example, the waiver extends to “slowing the return” of 3,569 14 out-of-state prisoners, as that measure is included in the Amended Plan. June 20, 2013 Op. 15 & Order at 28-29. It does not apply to transferring more prisoners to out-of-state facilities, as 16 that measure is neither in the state’s Plan for compliance, submitted on May 2, 2013, nor in 17 the List the state submitted on that same date of all measures discussed over the course of 18 this litigation. See Defs.’ Resp. to Apr. 11, 2013 Order (ECF No. 2069/4542). Defendants 19 state in their Request for Clarification that “[d]efendants construe the June 20 order as 20 providing the necessary authorization for Defendants to implement all aspects of the 21 amended court-ordered plan . . . [n]otwithstanding the absence of any specific authorization 22 under state law.” Defs.’ Req. for Clarification at 3. Defendants are correct. This Court’s 23 June 20 Order provides the necessary authorization for implementation of the Amended Plan 24 and the authorized substitutions to that Plan – and not for any other action. 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 2 1 In the future, if defendants conclude that other laws need to be waived in order to 2 allow them to comply with our June 20 Order, they shall submit a list of such laws forthwith. 3 They need not, however, wait for “clarification,” as we have already stated that all laws that 4 impede the implementation of our June 20 Order are waived. See June 20, 2013 Op. & Order 5 at 44. 6 The Court modifies defendants’ reporting requirements as follows: Defendants shall 7 submit a report by September 16, 2013, informing us of their estimate of the prison 8 population as of the then-current date and as of December 31, 2013, and how they plan on 9 reaching the 137.5% design capacity ratio by the latter date. Specifically, defendants shall 10 report: (1) the status of the Low Risk List; (2) which measures of those allowed by our 11 June 20 Order they have chosen to implement; (3) how they plan on implementing those 12 measures by December 31, 2013; (4) the number of prisoners each measure selected will 13 directly affect, and the extent to which each such measure will serve to reduce the prison 14 population; and (5) any unexpected change to the prison population that will require further 15 action within the Amended Plan and authorized substitutions. Defendants shall continue to 16 submit biweekly reports thereafter updating this Court on that information and on any 17 changes thereto.1 18 // 19 // 20 // 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 1 Defendants shall also submit the biweekly reports due on August 15 and 29 as 28 previously ordered in our June 20 Opinion & Order. 3 1 No effort to reduce the prison population by measures other than those authorized in 2 the June 20 Order shall serve to excuse the failure to reduce the prison population to 137.5% 3 design capacity by December 31, 2013. Nor will we “accept as a reason for non-compliance 4 [with that Order] any contention that our Order failed to waive the necessary laws or 5 regulations.” Id. at 44. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 Dated: 08/09/13 10 STEPHEN REINHARDT UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS 11 12 13 Dated: 08/09/13 14 LAWRENCE K. KARLTON SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 16 17 Dated: 08/09/13 18 THELTON E. HENDERSON SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

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?