Plata et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 2890

ORDER requiring additional reporting. Signed by Judges Stephen Reinhardt, Thelton E. Henderson, and Kimberly J. Mueller on 03/04/16. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/4/2016)

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.,
Plaintiffs,

9

United States District Court
Northern District of California

EDMUND G. BROWN JR., et al.,
Defendants.

12
13

MARCIANO PLATA, et al.,

14

Plaintiff,

15
16

THREE-JUDGE COURT

v.

10
11

Case No. 2:90-cv-0520 KJM KJN P

v.
EDMUND G. BROWN JR., et al.,

17

Case No. 01-cv-01351-TEH
THREE-JUDGE COURT
ORDER REQUIRING ADDITIONAL
REPORTING

Defendants.

18
19

On February 10, 2014, this court granted defendants’ request for a two-year

20

extension in which to comply with the court’s June 30, 2011 order to reduce California’s

21

in-state adult institution population to no more than 137.5% of design capacity. The two-

22

year extension gave defendants until February 28, 2016 to meet the court-ordered

23

reduction. Feb. 10, 2014 Order at 2 (ECF No. 2766/5060).1 Since receiving the extension,

24

defendants have made laudable progress, and achieved compliance with the percentage

25
26
27
28

1

All filings in this Three-Judge Court are included in the individual docket sheets
of both Plata v. Brown, No. 01-cv-01351-TEH (N.D. Cal.), and Coleman v. Brown, No.
2:90-cv-0520 KJM KJN P (E.D. Cal.). This court includes the docket number of Plata
first, then Coleman.

1

benchmark one year early, with the population remaining below the benchmark since

2

February 2015:

3
In-state
adult
institution
population

%
Design
Capacity

Out-ofstate
population

In-state
private
prison
population
(California
City)

4
5
6

Date

In-state
contract
bed
capacity 2
(MCCFs)

February 11, 2015

112,993

136.6%

8,828

1,973

4,218

8

March 11, 2015

112,106

135.5%

8,778

1,893

4,218

9

April 8, 2015

111,863

135.3%

8,394

1,999

4,218

10

May 13, 2015

111,341

134.6%

8,060

2,152

4,218

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

June 10, 2015

111,370

134.7%

7,726

2,308

4,218

12

July 8, 2015

111,168

134.4%

7,277

2,339

4,218

13

August 12, 20153

111,485

134.8%

6,961

2,225

4,218

14

September 9, 2015

111,656

135.0%

6,508

2,245

4,218

15

October 14, 2015

112,195

135.7%

5,907

2,147

4,218

16

November 11, 2015

112,350

135.8%

5,447

2,071

4,218

17

December 9, 2015

112,510

136.0%

5,264

1,978

4,218

18

January 13, 2016

112,737

136.3%

5,173

1,882

4,218

February 10, 2016

112,887

136.5%

5,088

1,813

4,218

19
20
21

See Defs.’ Monthly Status Reports (ECF Nos. 2838/5278, 2842/5289, 2846/5300,

22

2848/5306, 2860/5322, 2862/5331, 2864/5336, 2870/5354, 2874/5368, 2876/5379,

23
24
25
26
27
28

2

Defendants’ monthly reports all state that there are 4,218 MCCF (modified
community correctional facility) beds “that are in various stages of activation and
transfer.”
3

The court uses the figures on page 1 of Defendants’ August status report, which
appear to be correct based on the weekly report available at http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/
Reports_Research/Offender_Information_Services_Branch/WeeklyWed/TPOP1A/TPOP1
Ad150812.pdf. The figures at the top of Exhibit A to the August report appear not to have
been updated from the July report.
2

1

2880/5388, 2882/5400, 2886/5411). Even as the benchmark has been attained, as reflected

2

in the above table, however, the in-state adult institution population has been gradually

3

increasing since July 2015. Part of this growth is due to the State’s commendable efforts

4

to return inmates from out-of-state facilities, but there still remain over 5,000 inmates in

5

out-of-state facilities. There are also approximately 5,500 inmates housed in in-state

6

contract facilities.4 Moreover, defendants project that the total number of inmates will

7

increase by over 3,600 over the next few years, which in itself threatens to push the

8

population back over the threshold. See An Update to the Future of California

9

Corrections: January 2016 at 25, available at http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Blueprint-Update-

10

2016/An-Update-to-the-Future-of-California-Corrections-January-2016.pdf.
The court commends defendants for achieving the required reduction in the current

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

in-state adult institution population. It also commends the parties for working

13

cooperatively to ensure that the court’s orders are fully implemented. E.g., Stip. & Order

14

in Response to Nov. 14, 2014 Order (ECF No. 2830/5254).
At the same time, as this court has previously ordered and as defendants recognize,

15
16

the court will “maintain jurisdiction over this matter for as long as is necessary to ensure

17

that defendants’ compliance with the 137.5% final benchmark is durable, and such

18

durability is firmly established.” Feb. 10, 2014 Order at 5. Additional work remains for

19

defendants to demonstrate that they can maintain compliance with the population

20

benchmark in the absence of court-ordered remedies. To that end, defendants shall

21

//

22

//

23

//

24

//

25
26
27
28

4

As of midnight February 10, 2016, which is the source of the population data in
defendants’ most recent status report, there were 5,530 inmates housed in in-state contract
beds, including the 1,813 inmates housed at California City. See CDCR, Weekly Rpt. of
Population, Feb. 10, 2016, available at http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Reports_Research/
Offender_Information_Services_Branch/WeeklyWed/TPOP1A/TPOP1Ad160210.pdf.
3

1

continue to report to the court monthly as required by the February 10, 2014 Order. Id.

2

at 3. Defendants’ monthly reports shall include a discussion of the steps defendants are

3

taking to ensure that compliance with the 137.5% benchmark is durable.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

Dated: 03/04/16

8
9

_______________________________________
STEPHEN REINHARDT
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE
NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Dated: 03/04/16
THELTON E. HENDERSON
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13
14
15
16

Dated: 03/04/16
KIMBERLY J. MUELLER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4