Perez v. Tilton et al

Filing 248

ORDER DENYING 241 Administrative Motion to Continue Hearing and Enlarge Briefing Schedule and ADVANCING Hearing and Setting Briefing Schedule. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on October 1, 2008. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/1/2008)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CARLOS PEREZ, et al. Plaintiffs, v. MATTHEW CATE, et al., Defendants. / Now before the Court for consideration is Defendants' administrative motion to continue the hearing date and enlarge the briefing schedule on Plaintiffs' motion for an order enforcing the Stipulated Injunction and Order re Court Experts. Defendants move for a continuance on the basis that the lead Deputy Attorney General on this matter, Charles Antonen, will be unavailable on October 31, 2008, the date on which Plaintiffs have noticed their motion for hearing. Defendants also contend that Plaintiffs motion raises complicated issues and that, therefore, an expedited hearing is not feasible. Plaintiffs oppose the motion and argue that although Mr. Antonen will not be available on October 31, 2008, he would be able to prepare the opposition brief. Plaintiffs also note that Rochelle East, Senior Assistant Attorney General, has been involved in the discussion of the issues raised by Plaintiffs' motion. In brief, Plaintiffs' motion for enforcement seeks an Order from this Court permitting the Court appointed experts and court representatives, Dr. Jay Shulman and Dr. Joseph Scalzo, to review dental files for certain inmates, a revised screening procedure for prisoners who are to be transferred out-of-state, and a procedure for monitoring the dental care at out-of-state No. 05-05241 JSW ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME AND ADVANCING HEARING DATE ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ORDER ENFORCING STIPULATED INJUNCTION United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 prisons. Plaintiffs seek this relief because they have concerns that members of the class are being transferred out-of-state and because the Court experts had opined on a previous occasion that the Defendants' screening procedures were not adequate. The Court has ordered the parties to meet and confer on the issues of out-of-state transfer in anticipation of the possibility that Plaintiffs may seek to amend the Stipulated Injunction. The Court does not find good cause to grant Defendants' request for a continuance. Accordingly, their administrative motion is DENIED. Further, the Court believes that this issue should be resolved expeditiously. Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that Defendant's opposition shall be due on October 8, 2008. In their opposition, the Defendants should be prepared to address the impact, if any, of the Court's Order appointing the Court Experts as Court Representatives on Plaintiffs' request. Plaintiff's Reply shall be due on October 14, 2008. The Court shall hold a hearing on Monday October 20, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. The Court requests that the Court experts be present for the hearing, either in person or by telephone. If they intend to appear by telephone, they should contact the Court's Courtroom Deputy, Jennifer Ottolini, at 415-522-4173 and provide her with a landline at which they may be reached on the day of the hearing. IT IS SO ORDERED. United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: October 1, 2008 JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?