Case4:15-cv-02725-CW Document1 Filed06/17/15 Page1 of 45

1 DAN SIEGEL, SBN 56400

2

EMILYROSE JOHNS, SBN 294319 SIEGEL & YEE

3

499 14th Street, Suite 300 Oakland, CA 94612

4 Tel: (510) 839-1200 Fax: (510) 444-6698
5

6

Attorneys for Plaintiffs BOBBY LOPEZ, et al.

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11

BOBBY LOPEZ, MARCO TOPETE, 12 JOHN MYLES, RICARDO ROLDAN,

Case No.

13

JOHN GONZALES, and RONALDO MEDRANO AYALA, on their own behalf

14

and on behalf of a class of similarly situated prisoners,

15 Plaintiffs,

COMPLAINT CIVIL RIGHTS CLASS ACTION

16

v. 17

EDMUND G. BROWN, Governor of the 18 State of California; JEFFREY A. BEARD,

19

Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation;

20 RONALD DAVIS, Warden, San Quentin State Prison,

21

Defendants.

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Lopez v. Brown, Case No. COMPLAINT – 1

Case4:15-cv-02725-CW Document1 Filed06/17/15 Page2 of 45

1

I. NATURE OF THE ACTION

2

1.

Plaintiffs BOBBY LOPEZ, MARCO TOPETE, JOHN MYLES, RICARDO

3 ROLDAN, JOHN GONZALES, and RONALDO MEDRANO AYALA, sue on their own behalf 4
and as representatives of a class of condemned prisoners who have been incarcerated in the 5 6 Adjustment Center at San Quentin State Prison under inhumane and degrading conditions

7 for excessively long periods of time without meaningful review of their placement and with no

8 hope of release.

9

2.

Plaintiffs and the class seek declaratory and injunctive relief against

10 EDMUND G. BROWN, JEFFREY A. BEARD, and RONALD DAVIS (defendants) in their
11 official capacities. Plaintiffs and the class are incarcerated by the California Department of 12
Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and are entirely under the control of defendants. 13
Plaintiffs are at the mercy of defendants to provide for and protect their most basic human 14 15 needs, including adequate housing, recreation, nutrition, physical and mental health care,
16 meaningful human contact, environmental stimulation, and social intimacy.

17

3.

Plaintiffs and the class are all men sentenced to death in California. They are

18 confined in the Adjustment Center, one of three units that house condemned men at San

19 Quentin State Prison (SQSP). The Adjustment Center holds approximately 100 condemned

20 men in extreme isolation.

21

4.

As in CDCR's Security Housing Units (SHUs) at other state prisons, men who

22

23 live in the Adjustment Center live under the most severe deprivations of basic human needs

24 and are subject to the most wretched treatment as compared to other California prisoners and

25 death row prisoners in other states.

26

5.

Plaintiffs and the class they represent are placed in these conditions as a result

27 of their perceived gang affiliations, and their retention is based on this perception rather than 28

Lopez v. Brown, Case No. COMPLAINT - 2

Case4:15-cv-02725-CW Document1 Filed06/17/15 Page3 of 45

1 on allegations and proof of actual gang-related behavior or other misconduct. Once confined

2 in the Adjustment Center, they are denied any meaningful review of their retention.

3

6.

Prisoners in the Adjustment Center spend 21 to 24 hours per day inside the

4 four walls and solid steel door of their cramped cells. They remain there alone, with no
5

6 exposure to natural light, no access to religious services, and devoid of recreational,

7 vocational, and educational programming. They are denied contact visits or telephone calls.

8 Defendants persistently and intentionally deny these men the normal human contact and

9 socialization necessary for a person’s mental and physical well-being. These brutal and

10 relentless conditions of confinement have produced harmful and predictable psychological

11 deterioration among plaintiffs and class members.

12

7.

Plaintiffs and the class are retained in these conditions indefinitely and

13

without meaningful review of their placement. Condemned prisoners receive a classification 14

15 grade of “A” or “B,” with “A” having many privileges and freedoms, and “B” having stark and

16 cruel deprivations.

17

8.

Plaintiffs, all Grade B, are entitled to a periodic classification “review,” which

18 occurs approximately every 90 days. See San Quentin Operational Procedure No. 0-0608,
19 §315(b) (October 2014). The “review,” however, is perfunctory and without process. The 20 classification committee provides no substantive assessment of the plaintiffs’ inability to be 21
reasonably managed by prison staff or their risk to the safety of the institution or risk of 22 23 escape—the criteria upon which a prisoner is assigned Grade B classification. See San Quentin
24 Operational Procedure No. 0-0608, §301 (October 2014).

25

9.

The depraved conditions of Grade B, called a “program” by CDCR, are, by

26 design, meant to penalize prisoners the administration sees as unsuitable for the privileges

27 granted to the majority of the condemned population. 28

Lopez v. Brown, Case No. COMPLAINT - 3

Case4:15-cv-02725-CW Document1 Filed06/17/15 Page4 of 45

1

10. The severity of this penalization amounts to torture, and plaintiffs have no

2 meaningful end in sight.

3

11.

In 2013, to protest the inhumane and degrading conditions and violations of

4 due process inherent in incarceration in the Adjustment Center, many plaintiffs and class
5

6 members organized and participated in a hunger strike. The hunger strike, conducted in

7 solidarity with prisoners isolated in SHUs across the state, was by all accounts peaceful. The

8 undercurrent of the strike, however, notably that plaintiffs and the class live in such a dire

9 and unforgiving environment that the only meaningful way to challenge the inhumane and

10 degrading conditions was to risk death, is a graphic condemnation of the conditions in the

11 unit and the helplessness felt by participants.

12

12.

In response to the strike, CDCR officials met with the organizers to discuss

13

their demands, which included increased recreation and socialization opportunities, 14

15 increased opportunity for family visits and communication, and meaningful review of their

16 retention in the Adjustment Center. Despite this meeting, no changes resulted. Instead,

17 participants were assessed a rules violation for their peaceful strike. This write-up is viewed

18 as a disciplinary offense and used to justify their continued retention in the Adjustment

19 Center.

20

13. At the hands of defendants and indeed by design, plaintiffs are placed

21

arbitrarily and with no meaningful process into isolation in the Adjustment Center, and while 22

23 there, suffer atypical and significant hardship, in violation of the due process clause of the

24 Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. While confined in the Adjustment

25 Center, plaintiffs suffer serious harm and are subject to a substantial risk of serious harm as a

26 result of the conditions and their isolation in the Adjustment Center cells, constituting cruel

27 and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States 28

Lopez v. Brown, Case No. COMPLAINT - 4

Case4:15-cv-02725-CW Document1 Filed06/17/15 Page5 of 45

1 Constitution.

2

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3

14.

Plaintiffs and the class bring claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the

4 Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
5

6

15.

This Court has jurisdiction for claims seeking declaratory and injunctive relief

7 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343 and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C §§ 2201,

8 2202.

9

16. Venue is proper in the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

10 1391(b)(2), in that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims

11 brought by plaintiffs and the class have occurred in Marin County in this District.

12
13 A.
14

Plaintiffs

III. PARTIES

15

17.

Plaintiff BOBBY LOPEZ (K76100) is a 50-year-old prisoner classified as Grade

16 B and housed in the Adjustment Center at San Quentin State Prison. He has been confined in

17 the Adjustment Center for 17 years, without any meaningful review of his placement and with

18 no reasonable means of earning his way into Grade A classification. Although he was
19 validated as a member of the Nuestra Familia prison gang in 1997 based on a gang 20
enhancement in his commitment offense, he has never received a formal inactive review.1 21

22

23

1. In other CDCR institutions, a prisoner suspected of gang affiliation is subject to an
internal confirmation procedure known as “validation.” The procedure requires the gang

24

investigation unit staff to collect information about a prisoner’s suspected gang affiliation, recommend validation if the information meets the minimum criteria established by a

25 weighted point system, and send the recommendation to the Office of Correctional Safety for approval. See 15 CCR §3778.2. A validated gang member is entitled to periodic reviews of his

26 classification and an “inactive review” every six years, to assess whether he has been

27

participating in actual gang activity during the validation period. See 15 CCR §3378.8. Prisoners who are validated are encouraged to “debrief,” or inform on prison gangs and

28 prison gang activity, as a means to gain release from segregation.

Lopez v. Brown, Case No. COMPLAINT - 5

Case4:15-cv-02725-CW Document1 Filed06/17/15 Page6 of 45

1 Lopez has received only one disciplinary write-up impacting his classification since 2005, and

2 that was for his participation in the 2013 hunger strike to improve conditions in the

3 Adjustment Center. Despite his clean disciplinary record, he is told that the only way he will 4
be released from the Adjustment Center and removed from indefinite Grade B classification is 5 6 to debrief. Lopez has been on death row since November 1997.

7

18. Plaintiff MARCO TOPETE (AK7990) is a 42-year-old prisoner classified as

8 Grade B and housed in the Adjustment Center at SQSP. Topete has been confined in the

9 Adjustment Center for three years, without any meaningful review of his placement and with

10 no reasonable means of earning his way into Grade A classification. Topete was validated as a
11 member of Northern Structure in December 1999. Despite having an inactive review when 12
confined at Pelican Bay State Prison in 2006, Topete has never had an inactive review during 13
his time as a condemned prisoner. At classification meetings, he is told to debrief for any 14 15 hope of release from the Adjustment Center. With the exception of a disciplinary write-up for
16 his participation in the 2013 hunger strike, Topete has received only three disciplinary write-

17 ups affecting his classification during his time in the Adjustment Center, each for relatively

18 minor infractions. Topete has been on death row since February 2012.

19

19.

Plaintiff JOHN MYLES (T15235) is a 43-year-old prisoner classified as Grade

20 B and housed in the Adjustment Center. Myles has been confined in the Adjustment Center 21
for 11 years, without any meaningful review of his placement and with no reasonable means of 22

23 earning his way into Grade A classification. He has not been validated as a gang member or

24 associate, but an allegation that he had ties to a street gang prior to his incarceration and a

25 single informational "chrono" documenting his possession of a single piece of gang material

26 has kept him indefinitely confined in the Adjustment Center for over a decade. During his 11

27 years in the Adjustment Center, Myles has received only three disciplinary infractions that 28

Lopez v. Brown, Case No. COMPLAINT - 6

Case4:15-cv-02725-CW Document1 Filed06/17/15 Page7 of 45

1 impact his classification, with the last one being in 2012. Myles is not told how he can earn his

2 way out of the Adjustment Center and instead just rots in the attendant isolation with no
3 meaningful hope of relief. Myles has been on death row since May 2001. 4
20. Plaintiff RICARDO ROLDAN (H62400) is a 44-year-old prisoner classified as 5 6 Grade B and housed in the Adjustment Center. Roldan has been confined in the Adjustment 7 Center for eight years, without any meaningful review of his placement and with no
8 reasonable means of earning his way into Grade A classification. Roldan has never been

9 validated as a gang member or associate. Nevertheless, he is told that he is unsuitable for

10 placement on East Block due to allegations of gang affiliation lodged against him in

11 confidential memoranda. Since he has been confined in the Adjustment Center, Roldan has

12 not received a disciplinary infraction affecting classification with the exception of a write-up
13 for participating in the hunger strike. Roldan has been on death row since January 1993.
14

15

21. Plaintiff JOHN GONZALES (P23300) is a 38-year-old prisoner classified as

16 Grade B and housed in the Adjustment Center. Gonzales has been confined in the Adjustment

17 Center for four years, without any meaningful review of his placement and with no reasonable

18 means of earning his way into Grade A classification. Gonzales has never been validated as a
19 gang member or associate. Despite that, confidential memoranda claim that Gonzales has ties 20 to the Mexican Mafia, and other prisoners’ “rosters” with Gonzales’ name on them are used to 21
condemn him to the Adjustment Center. Gonzales has only two disciplinary violations on his 22 23 record that affect his classification: one for participating in the peaceful hunger strike and one
24 for working out in an organized fashion with other men alleged to be gang affiliates. Gonzales

25 has been on death row since December 1998.

26

22. Plaintiff RONALDO MEDRANO AYALA (E10000) is a 65-year-old prisoner

27 classified as Grade B and housed in the Adjustment Center. He has been confined in the 28

Lopez v. Brown, Case No. COMPLAINT - 7

Case4:15-cv-02725-CW Document1 Filed06/17/15 Page8 of 45

1 Adjustment Center for 26 years, without any meaningful review of his placement and with no

2 reasonable means of earning his way into Grade A classification. Although he was validated as

3 a member of the Mexican Mafia upon his admission to the unit, he has never received an 4
inactive review. Ayala has been on death row since February 1989. 5 6 B. Defendants

7

23. Defendant EDMUND G. BROWN, Jr. is the Governor of the State of

8 California. As such, he has caused, created, authorized, condoned, ratified, approved or

9 knowingly acquiesced in the illegal, unconstitutional, and inhumane conditions, actions,

10 policies, customs and practices that prevail in the Adjustment Center at SQSP, as described

11 below. He has, therefore, directly and proximately caused, and will continue to cause in the

12 future, the injuries and violations of rights set forth below. Defendant Brown is sued in his
13 official capacity only.
14

15

24. Defendant JEFFREY A. BEARD is the Secretary of the CDCR. As such, he has

16 caused, created, authorized, condoned, ratified, approved or knowingly acquiesced in the

17 illegal, unconstitutional, and inhumane conditions, actions, policies, customs and practices

18 that prevail in the Adjustment Center, as described below. He has, therefore, directly and
19 proximately caused, and will continue to cause in the future, the injuries and violations of 20 rights set forth below. Defendant Beard is sued in his official capacity only. 21
25. Defendant RONALD DAVIS is the Warden of San Quentin State Prison. As 22 23 such, he has caused, created, authorized, condoned, ratified, approved or knowingly
24 acquiesced in the illegal, unconstitutional, and inhumane conditions, actions, policies,

25 customs and practices that prevail in the Adjustment Center, as described below. He has,

26 therefore, directly and proximately caused, and will continue to cause in the future, the

27 injuries and violations of rights set forth below. Defendant Davis is sued in his official 28

Lopez v. Brown, Case No. COMPLAINT - 8

Case4:15-cv-02725-CW Document1 Filed06/17/15 Page9 of 45

1 capacity only.

2

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

3 A.

Background of the Adjustment Center

4 26. San Quentin State Prison houses all men condemned to death in the State of
5

6 California. With 750 condemned prisoners, 727 of whom are men housed at San Quentin,

7 California far exceeds any other state in the number of prisoners awaiting execution. Many of

8 these prisoners have languished on death row for decades due to California’s exceedingly

9 long, and, as one district court has found, unconstitutional delays in the appeals process. See

10 Jones v. Chappell, 31 F.Supp.3d 1050, 1069 (2014).

11

27. Including men sentenced to death in 2014, nearly 78 percent of the

12 condemned population has been on death row for a decade or more. California has not
13 14 executed a condemned prisoner since 2006. Between 1976, when the national death penalty

15 moratorium was lifted, and 2006, California executed 13 men. The average time they spent on

16 death row was 17.5 years. As a result of California’s current de facto moratorium on

17 imposition of the death penalty, men are residing much longer than previously in the

18 condemned unit at San Quentin. Further, the sheer number of men condemned to death and

19 the severe delays in appeals attorney appointments mean that exhaustion of death penalty

20 appeals takes approximately 25 years to complete. See Jones v. Chappell, 31 F.Supp.3d 1050,
21 1054-1056 (2014).
22

23

28. With the exception of men in special health care or mental health care

24 management programs, condemned men are housed in one of three units at SQSP: Northern

25 Segregation, East Block, and the Adjustment Center.

26

29. All prisoners who arrive on death row begin their incarceration in the

27 Adjustment Center. Some, like plaintiffs Ayala, Topete, and Lopez, have never left. Others, 28

Lopez v. Brown, Case No. COMPLAINT - 9

Case4:15-cv-02725-CW Document1 Filed06/17/15 Page10 of 45

1 such as plaintiffs Gonzales, Roldan, and Myles, were moved into the Adjustment Center for a

2 disciplinary infraction and remain there for unconscionably long periods of time, despite
3 accruing long amounts of time free from serious disciplinary infractions. 4
30. Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations (Title 15) codifies the policies 5 6 and procedures to which all prisoners in CDCR custody are subject. Death row at San Quentin 7 is also governed by an additional procedural manual, Operational Procedure 0-0608 (O.P.
8 608), also known as the condemned manual. The condemned manual is reviewed annually by

9 the prison administration, and any proposed changes are submitted to the Warden for

10 approval. While the condemned manual is said to supplement Title 15, its vague procedures

11 sometimes contradict Title 15 in crucial ways, and the condemned manual is often followed in
12 the face of those conflicts. As a result, significant portions of plaintiffs’ daily lives are
13 governed by a procedural manual drafted, implemented, and monitored by the Warden and
14
15 staff of San Quentin.

16

31. O.P. 608 defines the classification scheme for men in the condemned unit.

17 They are denied the typical classification structure applied to other prisoners, as defined by

18 Title 15. In lieu of an individualized classification review to assign a privilege group and a
19 work group and the attendant rights and freedoms that come with those assignments, 20 prisoners in the condemned unit receive one of two classifications, Grade A or Grade B. 21
Prisoners are classified as Grade A or Grade B based on the vague standard of whether they 22 23 present a “high risk” of violence or escape or are “difficult management cases.” No further
24 guidance is provided.

25

32. Prisoners classified as Grade A can work, get an advanced education, call their

26 families every day, touch their loved ones during two and one-half hour visits, receive

27 quarterly packages and special purchase orders, order additional food and recreation items 28

Lopez v. Brown, Case No. COMPLAINT - 10

Case4:15-cv-02725-CW Document1 Filed06/17/15 Page11 of 45

1 from the commissary, create art, recreate with equipment, access the vast San Quentin

2 library, and worship in group settings. Prisoners classified as Grade B are denied all
3 possibilities for work, enrichment and socialization. They do not experience normal human 4
contact. They receive only minimal recreation; limited, non-contact visiting; access to a book 5 6 cart comprised of other condemned men’s used books; and only an annual package and
7 special order, the means by which they can receive new clothes, a radio, or a television.

8

33. Grade B classification can be assigned as punishment for a definite period.

9 Prisoners with a determinate Grade B assignment receive a Minimum Eligible Release Date

10 (MERD) and have their behavior reviewed in anticipation of that date. A prisoner with

11 disciplinary Grade B status may serve their term on the East Block or in the Adjustment

12 Center.
13 34.
14

In contrast, plaintiffs and the class are formally or informally classified

15 indeterminate Grade B and may only serve out their indefinite sentence in the Adjustment

16 Center. They have no MERD permitting them some idea of the time that they will be freed

17 from the abysmal conditions of the Adjustment Center. Instead, they have a meeting every 90

18 days that engenders no meaningful hope of relief from the extreme isolation and deprivations

19 suffered daily.

20

35. All the prisoners in the Adjustment Center are Grade B. Some Grade B

21

prisoners are also housed in East Block. The difference between the Adjustment Center and 22

23 East Block—where prisoners are housed behind bars, not solid steel; are showered with

24 natural sunlight, not slivers of indirect sunlight if they are lucky enough to have a cell that has

25 an unobstructed view of the windows above the hallway opposite their cell doors; and who

26 can more openly talk with other prisoners through their cell bars, instead of shouting through

27 the walls to a neighbor—is palpable for plaintiffs. 28

Lopez v. Brown, Case No. COMPLAINT - 11

Case4:15-cv-02725-CW Document1 Filed06/17/15 Page12 of 45

1

36. Topete, Roldan, Ayala, and Lopez have all been told by the classification

2 committee that they will never experience this relative freedom because Grade A or Grade B

3 East Block is not appropriate for anyone with a gang affiliation. All plaintiffs have been told to

4 debrief to be considered for Grade A or Grade B East Block classification.
5

6

37. While plaintiffs and the class languish for indeterminate periods in the

7 Adjustment Center, they struggle daily to maintain their psychological health and to maintain

8 some hope of relief from crushing conditions they’ve come to know day in and day out.

9 B. Unconstitutional Conditions in the Adjustment Center

10

38. Plaintiffs spend almost their entire days in cells that measure approximately

11 six feet wide and nine feet long, smaller than a standard parking spot. They cannot stretch 12
their arms the width of their cell without touching the walls. Topete, who reports spending 13 14 many hours in his cell pacing, can take only two full steps from the back of his cell to the door
15 before having to pivot and pace the other way.

16

39. The hollow steel cell doors have two slivered windows that look out onto a

17 bleak hallway and a small locked slot that is used to deliver food to plaintiffs and to handcuff

18 them before they are transported from their cell. The slot is caked with old food. The cells
19 have a third window next to the door that also looks onto the same hallway. The cells have no 20
windows to the outside. Plaintiffs have no natural light or airflow in their cells. The only 21
glimpse at the outside comes if a plaintiff is lucky enough to have a cell on the second or third 22 23 tier. The windows above the hallway of the tier, opposite the cells, are largely boarded up on
24 the first tier, obstructing the exposure to slivers of sunlight prisoners on the first floor might

25 otherwise have.

26

40. Temperature in the cells is uncontrolled, fluctuating from extremely hot to

27 extremely cold. Recycled air ventilation and flush restrictions on the toilets in the cells render 28

Lopez v. Brown, Case No. COMPLAINT - 12

Case4:15-cv-02725-CW Document1 Filed06/17/15 Page13 of 45

1 the air frequently stifling and stale.

2

41. The cells are starkly furnished. Plaintiffs have only a steel or concrete slab

3 bunk with a thin mattress to sleep on, and a sink-toilet combination in which to relieve 4
themselves. There is no chair or desk in the cell. There is no locker or shelving for storage. 5 6 Plaintiffs must store the property they are permitted in one of the six banker’s boxes they are

7 allowed in their cells.

8

42. Property is severely restricted in the Adjustment Center. Men are permitted

9 only 10 books, magazines, or newspapers at one time. They cannot keep personal hygiene

10 items in their cell, beyond toilet paper, a tooth brush, and toothpaste. After the 2013 hunger

11 strike, CDCR permitted plaintiffs three medical items such as lotion, eye drops, or nasal

12 spray. Plaintiffs cannot keep hygiene items in their original containers. Hygiene supplies—
13 including liquids such as shampoo—must be stripped of packaging and placed in plastic bags.
14

15

43. Plaintiffs are only permitted their hygiene items during their shower. If they

16 need an item while in their cell, they must bang on the cell door to get a guard's attention,

17 request that he or she provide the hygiene supply to them, and hope that the guard

18 acquiesces.

19

44. Plaintiffs spend a maximum of nine hours a week outside of their cells for

20 recreation. Three days a week, plaintiffs are released for three hours of exercise in a small 21
group yard segregated by race or in walk-alone cages if they are so assigned. 22

23

45. In practice, however, the amount of recreation time a prisoner gets is at the

24 discretion of the guards. Frequently, staff training, staff attenuation, incident investigations,

25 and official tours cut short the allotted amount of yard time. Staff training throughout the

26 month of April 2015 meant that plaintiffs received at most six hours of recreation a week.

27 Although these are the reasons often given to the prisoners, staff are not obligated to give a 28

Lopez v. Brown, Case No. COMPLAINT - 13

Case4:15-cv-02725-CW Document1 Filed06/17/15 Page14 of 45

1 reason for cancelling yard on a given day and often do not.

2

46. Plaintiffs cannot exercise with equipment. Where prisoners on Grade A yards

3 have heavy bags, speed bags, medicine balls, pull up bars, dip bars, a basketball court, and 4
tables on which to play board games provided to them, Adjustment Center yards have only 5 6 the rocky pavement, a few hand balls, and an outdoor toilet and shower, which is currently

7 unusable. Should plaintiffs or class members want to use the toilet, they must do so in view of

8 everyone else on the yard.

9

47. Walk alone cages are about twice the size of the men’s cells. They do not

10 provide space for much physical activity. Plaintiffs assigned to the cages cannot run for
11 exercise. A built-in toilet takes up a corner of the cage. Until the 2013 hunger strike, the walk 12
alone cages had no equipment to assist in recreation. They now have pull up bars. 13
48. Despite the exposure, plaintiffs utilize the shower in the yard as it is the only 14 15 way absent a doctor’s order that they are able to take a near daily shower. However, prison
16 staff have begun prohibiting its use due to California’s drought crisis. For Roldan, showering

17 every day is one of the few humanizing things over which he has control. The recent denial of

18 shower on the yard means that he and the other plaintiffs and class are relegated to three

19 showers a week and are denied the hygienic practice of washing off sweat after a work-out.

20

49. The yard has no protection from the elements, and the cages have a sheet of

21

corrugated tin covering half of the roof. Men on the yard have no protection from the sun, 22

23 wind, cold, or rain, and men in the cages have only minimal sun protection provided by the

24 thin strip of metal. Their clothing is strongly regimented. On the yard, plaintiffs can only wear

25 a blue denim coat or a thin sweatshirt and, at the discretion of staff, clear rain gear, leaving

26 them with little protection against the cold or rain. In severe conditions, some plaintiffs have

27 elected to forfeit precious yard time rather than spend three hours in extreme heat, cold, or 28

Lopez v. Brown, Case No. COMPLAINT - 14

Case4:15-cv-02725-CW Document1 Filed06/17/15 Page15 of 45

1 wet.

2

50. Before being released for yard, plaintiffs are required to submit to an

3 unclothed body search, whether they are going to group yard or to a walk-alone cage, where 4
they will have no physical contact with another prisoner. Plaintiffs are then handcuffed with 5 6 hands behind their backs for transport. According to O.P. 608, escort must be performed by

7 two guards. One guard has his or her hands on plaintiffs at all times, the other walks beside

8 the prisoners with baton withdrawn and in a strike position. Ayala consistently feels that he is

9 seconds away from a blow with a baton; a feeling that puts him on edge in almost every

10 encounter with guards.

11

51.

During their movement to and from the yard, plaintiffs must undress. They

12 can wear only their t-shirt, boxers, socks, and slip-on rubber shoes. Plaintiffs must walk
13 through the unit, in front of other prisoners and staff, dressed only in these minimal
14

15 garments. In inclement weather, plaintiffs may wear closed toe shoes for transport to and

16 from yard, although they must then wear leg irons when moving around the unit in shoes

17 other than the slip-on shoes. A second unclothed body search is performed when the men

18 leave the yard.

19

52. Prisoners who are escorted in leg chains must wear the chains the entire time

20 they are out of their cells. Myles has a medical need for handcuffs that are linked to one 21
another to create less tension on his shoulders. As a result of the looser compression of his 22

23 hands behind his back, he must be in leg chains. He is forced to wear them the entire time he

24 is out of his cell, even when handcuffs are removed, including during visits to the law library

25 and non-contact visits with attorneys.

26

53. Plaintiffs in the Adjustment Center are transported in this manner for all

27 movement in the unit. Men are subjected to undignified unclothed body searches before and 28

Lopez v. Brown, Case No. COMPLAINT - 15

Case4:15-cv-02725-CW Document1 Filed06/17/15 Page16 of 45

1 after visits, medical appointments, and law library visits, even if they have no contact with

2 another person and are under observation by guards the entire time. These searches are often

3 performed in view of other prisoners and guards, instead of in a private setting such as a

4 holding cell.
5

6

54. The absence of any tables, desks, chairs, benches, or stools in the yard and in

7 the cells means that plaintiffs are not permitted the small dignity of sitting at a table to eat or

8 a desk to write a letter or a legal appeal. The only time plaintiffs sit in a chair with a table in

9 front of them is during the occasional visit or when they attend the law library, which occurs

10 once every four to six weeks.

11

55. When writing letters to loved ones, Roldan kneels on his shower shoes and

12 uses his bunk as a table. Ayala fashions a seat out of the banker’s boxes where he keeps his
13 property. Gonzales and Topete sit on a blanket on the floor of their cells and write on their
14

15 beds. For Topete, who has chronic back pain, sitting in that position becomes excruciating

16 after 15 minutes. As a result, he can only write and research in brief increments.

17

56. Other than their bunks, plaintiffs have no surface on which to spread

18 paperwork, such as legal materials. Each table surface plaintiffs have access to is small and

19 narrow, making research and writing exceptionally difficult.

20

57. Plaintiffs are denied any opportunity for personal enrichment in the

21

Adjustment Center. They may not participate in educational or vocational courses. They are 22

23 not permitted to work within the prison. There is no recreational programming. There are no

24 group religious services, and individual religious services are conducted by a chaplain through

25 the closed doors of their cells. They cannot order arts and crafts supplies, listen to music on

26 compact discs, or learn to play an instrument. While plaintiffs have access to books, they are

27 not granted access to the library. Their books come from a cart shelved with limited reading 28

Lopez v. Brown, Case No. COMPLAINT - 16

Case4:15-cv-02725-CW Document1 Filed06/17/15 Page17 of 45

1 material confiscated from other prisoners in the unit. Some men have televisions and radios if

2 they were able to purchase them during their one annual opportunity. Despite the welcome

3 distraction of TV and radio, enrichment is still restricted. The educational channels on the

4 televisions are limited, and antennas to enhance the quality of the radio signal are forbidden.
5

6

58. Plaintiffs may listen to their television and radio only through clear plastic ear

7 buds, which have cords four feet in length. This forces the men to remain almost completely

8 stationary while listening to the television or radio.

9

59. Listening to television or the radio is plaintiffs’ only escape from the excessive

10 noise in the unit. Sounds echo throughout the Adjustment Center. Security gates and cell
11 doors constantly slam open and close. The sound of keys jingling on the belts of guards is 12
constant. Prisoners shout to one another through sealed cell doors in desperate attempts to 13
communicate or to alert one another to administration announcements. On a regular basis, 14 15 prisoners can be heard screaming and yelling in fits. Some days, according to Myles, all you
16 can hear all day long is screaming, hollering, and banging from prisoners who can no longer

17 endure the isolation. High ceilings and the enclosed steel cells in the unit amplify this noise.

18 The cacophony continues throughout the day and night.

19

60. A new security check system adds regularly to the excessive noise on the unit.

20 The Guard One security system is designed to account for guards’ suicide checks in cells. The 21
system employs a hand-held wand and a sensor affixed to cell doors that must connect to 22

23 register an encounter. Every 30 minutes, guards must visually check on the well-being of each

24 prisoner in the Adjustment Center and then touch the end of the wand to the sensor as

25 confirmation that the check was completed.

26

61. In practice, guards unnecessarily slam the wand against the sensor, creating a

27 loud bang against the cell door. If the sensor fails to register the first time, guards slam the 28

Lopez v. Brown, Case No. COMPLAINT - 17

Case4:15-cv-02725-CW Document1 Filed06/17/15 Page18 of 45

1 wand subsequent times. Plaintiffs experience this all through the night, waking up each time

2 there is a bang against the door.

3

62. The new system has frayed plaintiffs' nerves. Plaintiffs experience near

4 constant anxiety in their tiny cells in anticipation of the banging against their doors.
5

6

63. The noise makes sleep elusive. Many plaintiffs wake up every time the Guard

7 One check is conducted, resulting in sleep for 30 minute increments at best. Topete is

8 awakened every time the Guard One check is performed. The noise and sudden jostling out of

9 sleep causes his heart to race and makes it difficult for him to resume sleep. At times when

10 Ayala is awakened by these checks, his mind races with obsessive thoughts so overwhelming
11 that he cannot fall back to sleep. 12
64. Lopez requested that the sensors be moved to the walls to the side of the doors 13
in the hope that it would reduce the noise created by the hollow door, but CDCR officials 14 15 refused to relocate the sensors because placement on the cell doors was within the
16 manufacturers’ design and compliant with departmental procedure.

17

65. Ayala says the sleep deprivation makes him agitated and immediately angry at

18 any little thing. Lopez feels drained of energy all the time. Topete experiences exhaustion

19 daily as a result of his constantly interrupted sleep.

20

66. Plaintiffs do not receive adequate nutrition. Meals in the unit are often served

21

cold and on dirty trays. The portions are small and at times rotten or inedible. They are 22

23 predominately comprised of food that is starchy and high in sodium. Lunch almost every day

24 consists of bologna or salami and sandwich bread. Myles, who has high blood pressure,

25 nevertheless receives these high in sodium meals daily. Plaintiffs attempt to supplement their

26 daily meals with food from the commissary. However, they are limited to $55 a month and

27 are the last group in the cycle to make purchases. As a result, their food supply is very limited, 28

Lopez v. Brown, Case No. COMPLAINT - 18

Case4:15-cv-02725-CW Document1 Filed06/17/15 Page19 of 45

1 and most men report regular hunger pangs.

2

67. Guards take advantage of the small rations by using food as currency to

3 persuade prisoners to perform jobs around the unit or to skip showers on busy days. Roldan, 4
Lopez, and Ayala have all been offered an extra tray of food in exchange for cleaning the 5 6 shower or the yard toilet and sink, jobs that are supposed to be performed by guards. Myles is

7 often so hungry that he will accept additional food in exchange for skipping a shower, leaving

8 him to bathe using his sink in his cell.

9

68. The deleterious effects of these deprivations are exacerbated by plaintiffs’

10 extreme social isolation. Plaintiffs are permitted only minimal social contact through group
11 yard and non-contact visits with family. 12
69. The social contact on group yards is wrought with its own complexities. 13
Plaintiffs assigned to a group yard are assigned to one of three race-based options: the 14 15 southern Hispanic and White yard, the northern Hispanic and Black yard, and the
16 “integrated” yard. As a result, the little socialization the men are permitted is limited to

17 interaction only within their ethnic group as perceived and assigned by CDCR.

18

70. The minimal social contact plaintiffs on the group yards receive does not come

19 without consequence. Plaintiffs working out with other prisoners often receive informational
20 chronos or disciplinary write-ups citing the work-out as gang activity. Myles, who is offered 21
placement on a group yard in committee, declines the assignment and stays in a walk alone 22 23 cage in order to remain free from the gang allegations that unavoidably come from exercising

24 on a group yard. Prisoners who do exercise on group yards soon find that these allegations are

25 used as evidence to keep plaintiffs in the Adjustment Center. Only prisoners on the integrated

26 yard are typically free from this consequence. Even prisoners perceived as exercising together

27 while in the walk-alone cages receive write-ups for their workouts. 28

Lopez v. Brown, Case No. COMPLAINT - 19

Case4:15-cv-02725-CW Document1 Filed06/17/15 Page20 of 45

1

71.

Other than group yard, plaintiffs are restricted from any other group activity.

2 Plaintiffs can never eat together, work together, learn together, or pray together. Roldan
3 worries that by even simply greeting another prisoner, he will be accused of gang behavior. 4
72. Plaintiffs are denied all but the most minimal social contact with family. 5 6 Telephone calls are prohibited, except in cases of emergency. In the event of an emergency, 7 plaintiffs may be permitted a brief phone call at the sole discretion of prison staff. Topete was
8 denied a phone call to his family in 2013 when his grandmother died. Ayala’s parents have

9 both died since he has been in the Adjustment Center. When his mother died 10 years ago, he

10 was permitted a 10-minute phone call with his family. Five years ago, when his father passed
11 away, he was allowed to use the phone for just five minutes. Roldan was permitted only five 12
minutes to talk to his family when his father died in 1998 and when his mother had triple 13
bypass surgery in 2000. Lopez was denied a condolences call to his family when his cousin 14 15 died in a May 2015 natural disaster because the cousin was not considered immediate family,
16 despite the fact that Lopez lived with the cousin’s mother during his childhood and helped to

17 care for the cousin as if a younger brother.

18

73. Visits from loved ones are severely limited as well. Plaintiffs may only have

19 non-contact visits with family and friends. The partition between them means that plaintiffs
20 cannot touch or hug or kiss their family members. Plaintiffs are denied the most basic sense 21
of normalcy that comes from embracing a loved one or taking comfort in their familiar scents. 22 23 Myles dwells on the fact that he can no longer draw strength from grasping his family’s hand

24 and that he can no longer remember what it is like to love and be loved by his family. Topete’s

25 seven-year-old daughter constantly asks why her daddy cannot come out from behind the

26 window during visits.

27

74. When plaintiffs' families do make the journey to SQSP, they are limited to one

28

Lopez v. Brown, Case No. COMPLAINT - 20

Case4:15-cv-02725-CW Document1 Filed06/17/15 Page21 of 45

1 hour visits. Predictably, some of the exceedingly brief visit is taken up with a discussion about

2 any updates plaintiffs have on their capital appeals, leaving even less time for meaningful
3 socialization. Grade A prisoners are permitted two and a half hour long contact visits with 4
their family members, and if a family member travels further than 400 miles, additional time 5 6 may be arranged.2 Plaintiffs are permitted extra time with family only at the discretion of 7 prison staff and only if there is space in one of the visiting booths. In practice, an extension of
8 the hour does not often occur.

9

75.

Visitation is infrequent and inconsistent. Plaintiffs may only visit with family

10 on the weekends and occasionally on Thursday mornings. There are only five non-contact

11 booths in which plaintiffs can see their families, and their use is sometimes shared by other
12 non-AC prisoners in San Quentin. The long distances families must travel, restricted
13 visitation hours, and minimal booth availability mean that most plaintiffs are denied any
14
15 regular social intimacy with their families.

16

76. While visitation should be an affirming experience for plaintiffs and loved

17 ones, it remains another opportunity for plaintiffs’ dehumanization and humiliation. Despite

18 being denied all physical contact with their family members, plaintiffs are strip searched
19 before arriving in their sealed booth for the visit and again at its conclusion. Plaintiffs’ family 20 members often experience problems entering the facility. Topete’s daughter, five years old at 21
the time, was forced to remove her costume on Halloween because the pants for the costume 22 23 were deemed too tight. If guards are late bringing plaintiffs to their visits, that time comes out
24 of the duration of the visit. When a visit conflicts with yard, plaintiffs must sacrifice their

25 entire three hours of recreation for one hour with their loved ones.

26

27

2 This is significant as the majority of prisoners sentenced to death received their

28 sentences from Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Riverside counties.

Lopez v. Brown, Case No. COMPLAINT - 21

Case4:15-cv-02725-CW Document1 Filed06/17/15 Page22 of 45

1

77. Some families find the whole visitation process so upsetting that they no

2 longer come to visit. Myles has seen his mother only once since he was moved to the
3 Adjustment Center, 11 years ago. Ayala struggles with his family’s inability to understand the 4
emotional and physical anguish he experiences being chained up and strip searched before he 5 6 can visit them. As a result, he has asked his family to limit how often they come to visit. 7 Roldan and his family are so distressed by the visitation procedure that they choose to
8 communicate solely through letters and pictures.

9

78. Written correspondence is slow and censored. Social mail can take up to a

10 month to reach plaintiffs. Guards have wide discretion to confiscate letters, pictures, and

11 reading material sent through the mail before plaintiffs have an opportunity to review it.

12 These delays and omissions compound plaintiffs’ feelings of disconnectedness fostered by the
13 minimal visitation permitted and the complete deprivation of social telephone calls.
14

15

79. Plaintiffs suffer from serious medical conditions that are caused or

16 exacerbated by their confinement in the Adjustment Center. Medical care is limited in the

17 unit and plaintiffs are unable to see appropriate specialists and receive diagnoses on a regular

18 basis. Further, punishment and perceived security needs are put before plaintiffs’ health care

19 in even the most blatantly unnecessary ways.

20

80. Lopez, for example, is in constant pain following a surgical procedure to repair

21

a hernia. After the surgery he experienced more pain and asked to see a specialist for almost a 22

23 year. He was finally sent to a pain management specialist in 2014. The specialist at UCSF

24 recommended a consultation for a second surgery, but he has not received it. Further, his

25 pain management medication was taken from him as punishment for saving a pill to take in

26 the evening, when his pain was worse. Instead of managing his intake through better

27 monitoring or by crushing the pill and mixing it with water as is sometimes done in 28

Lopez v. Brown, Case No. COMPLAINT - 22

Case4:15-cv-02725-CW Document1 Filed06/17/15 Page23 of 45

1 correctional settings, the medication that minimally controlled his pain was discontinued.

2

81. Three hours after knee surgery, Myles was returned to the unit and forced to

3 walk up stairs to his second tier cell. He remained on the second tier following the surgery, 4
despite the difficulty and pain associated with climbing up and down. His knee took more 5 6 than twice as long to heal as he was advised it would, and he still experiences pain in his knee

7 from the poor aftercare. He is denied effective pain medication to manage his residual pain.

8

82. Defendants are directly responsible for the stark conditions at the Adjustment

9 Center and for the degree to which the conditions are compounded by other punitive

10 measures, including a pattern and practice of a coercive denial of standard medical care.

11

83. Punishment in the unit is demonstrative of the stark and inhumane conditions

12 suffered by plaintiffs daily. When an indefinitely confined prisoner who is subjected daily to
13 this social isolation and enforced idleness is found guilty of a rules violation, the penalties
14

15 prescribed are the definition of draconian. Plaintiffs can be punished by the denial of all

16 recreation access, almost complete removal of property, and total confinement to their cells.

17

84. Property restriction, a punishment assessed frequently against plaintiffs for

18 not following orders or talking back to custody officers, results in all property being removed
19 from the prisoner’s cell save a single box of legal materials. Plaintiffs are denied all 20 appliances, all books, all clothing in excess of state issue, and all commissary purchases. They 21
are not permitted calendars or devices to tell time while on property control. All personal 22 23 address books are removed, restricting what friends and families they can write to during this
24 time. Plaintiffs serve out this punishment in deep despair and disorientation.

25

85. Property control is commonly assessed for 90 days, at a minimum. But

26 plaintiffs have experienced property control in extreme excess of that. Beginning in 2011,

27 Ayala was on property control for over a year as a result of a single infraction. 28

Lopez v. Brown, Case No. COMPLAINT - 23

Case4:15-cv-02725-CW Document1 Filed06/17/15 Page24 of 45

1

86. Plaintiffs confined to their quarters may leave only for showers and legal

2 visits. Although this restriction is reviewed after 10 days, plaintiffs may remain confined to
3 their cells for long periods at the discretion of the Warden. Each plaintiff has experienced this 4
severe punishment for relatively minor infractions. Topete was confined to his quarters as 5 6 punishment for allegedly possessing a hand-written note. Roldan, Gonzales, and Myles have 7 all been punished in this manner for weeks on end, often as part of group-based punishments
8 where they themselves were not accused of or found guilty of breaking a rule.

9

87. Race plays a large role in the degradation plaintiffs experience at the hands of

10 staff. Ethnicity is at the forefront of their alleged association with prison gangs. Plaintiffs are

11 subject to taunting, racial slurs, harassment during and about unclothed body searches, and
12 mockery from guards. Most plaintiffs have had occasion to file a staff complaint based on
13 guards’ treatment of them. However, no plaintiffs’ staff complaint has ever resulted in
14
15 punishment for staff.

16

88. Further, guards have wide discretion to punish plaintiffs. They can discipline

17 plaintiffs for an action or behavior that has been permitted in the past. Roldan was punished

18 for possession of a staple that was affixing his appeal to an official response, which was

19 provided to him by guards. They can also write and include functionally uncontestable
20 informational chronos in plaintiffs’ files. Plaintiffs live with the constant knowledge that, 21
despite their compliance with rules, their jailers have almost complete and unchecked control 22 23 over their release from the Adjustment Center.

24

89. The extreme deprivations of plaintiffs’ basic human needs are CDCR policy

25 and implemented and executed by the Warden of SQSP with the knowledge and consent of

26 CDCR officials.

27

28

Lopez v. Brown, Case No. COMPLAINT - 24

Case4:15-cv-02725-CW Document1 Filed06/17/15 Page25 of 45

1 C. Due Process and Plaintiffs’ Retention in the Adjustment Center

2

90. Upon admission to the condemned program, all prisoners are housed in the

3 Adjustment Center. Newly admitted prisoners remain in the Adjustment Center for 30 to 90 4
days awaiting initial classification. At the initial classification meeting, prisoners receive a 5 6 Grade A or Grade B determination, a housing unit, and a yard assignment.

7

91. Overwhelmingly, prisoners with alleged gang affiliations receive Grade B

8 designation without regard to their actual behavior and remain in the Adjustment Center.

9

92. Notably, the alleged gang affiliation that keeps plaintiffs in the abysmal

10 conditions of the Adjustment Center does not stem from active gang behavior or misconduct
11 in prison. For some, their affiliations on the outside are used as justification for their 12
retention in the Adjustment Center. For example, Gonzales and Myles are alleged to have ties 13 14 to street gangs. Although none of the men are accused of activity in prison in furtherance of 15 their street gang affiliation, the classification committee uses their alleged ties as a reason to
16 deny them reprieve from the Adjustment Center.

17

93. Other plaintiffs have been accused of allegiance to prison gangs. However, the

18 condemned unit has no process and no quality control measures to verify that plaintiffs or the

19 class are allied with these gangs. Further, the condemned unit has no process or quality
20 control measures for assessing whether plaintiffs and the class remain active participants in
21 prison gangs. As a result, plaintiffs and the class are often assessed as having gang allegiances
22 23 because of their ethnicity and the region in which they grew up.

24

94. Once retained in the Adjustment Center, prisoners receive a “review” of their

25 classifications by the classification committee approximately every 90 days. The “review,”

26 however, is not substantive. Plaintiffs in the Adjustment Center have no program to 27 demonstrate their compliance with gang prohibitions, no metric by which their actions can be 28

Lopez v. Brown, Case No. COMPLAINT - 25

Case4:15-cv-02725-CW Document1 Filed06/17/15 Page26 of 45

1 assessed. As a result, their retention is at best, arbitrary, and at worst, a certainty.

2

95. Instead of a substantive review of a plaintiff’s suitability for retention or

3 release, classification committee meetings are a rigid four step process that rarely deviates. 4
Plaintiffs are brought before the committee in handcuffs. They remain bound the whole time. 5 6 Two officers stand over plaintiffs for the duration, one with a raised baton and one close

7 enough to maintain a hand on the plaintiff's shoulder. Then the meeting begins.

8

96. First, a psychologist asks plaintiffs if they want to hurt themselves or hurt

9 others. This inquiry is performed in front of the entire committee. Plaintiffs are then asked

10 what, if any, program change they are seeking. The classification committee then reviews

11 plaintiffs’ files and reads aloud portions of the record. What follows is either the outright

12 denial of plaintiffs’ requests or the assignment of arbitrary requirements outside of plaintiffs’
13 control.
14

15

97. During these reviews, it is clear to plaintiffs that avoiding disruptive or violent

16 behavior while in the Adjustment Center will never be enough to ensure their release. Many

17 plaintiffs have not received even a minor disciplinary write-up in years. Indeed, some

18 plaintiffs have not received a disciplinary write-up during their entire time in the Adjustment

19 Center.

20

98. For example, Roldan has been discipline-free since his confinement to the

21

Adjustment Center, with the exception of the write-up for the hunger strike. Gonzales too has 22

23 received only one write up, for the hunger strike, but otherwise remains free from disciplinary

24 infractions during his time in the Adjustment Center. Lopez has not received a disciplinary

25 write up affecting his classification status in over 10 years, save his write up for the hunger

26 strike.

27

99. Indeed, instead of analyzing disciplinary records and plaintiffs’ actual

28

Lopez v. Brown, Case No. COMPLAINT - 26

Case4:15-cv-02725-CW Document1 Filed06/17/15 Page27 of 45

1 behavior, classification committees focus on unsubstantiated “evidence” of gang affiliation.

2 Topete, Ayala, and Roldan were told that men who are gang affiliated are not suitable for

3 Grade B East Block or Grade A. For this reason, the classification committee is a meaningless,

4 perfunctory process for plaintiffs.
5

6

100. This unsubstantiated evidence comes from informational chronos and

7 confidential memoranda. Unlike disciplinary write-ups, where a prisoner is entitled to a

8 hearing where he can contest accusations and call witnesses to testify on his behalf, the

9 issuance of informational chronos and confidential memoranda has no attendant process.

10 There is no requirement that a rule be violated in order to receive one, and there is no

11 mechanism to challenge the accusations or the veracity of their content. Plaintiffs can file a

12 grievance over an issuance of an informational chrono or confidential memo, but no plaintiff
13 has been successful in having one removed from his record.
14

15

101. These documents are relied upon heavily, and in some cases exclusively, to

16 retain a plaintiff in the Adjustment Center.

17

102. On March 19, 2015, Ayala received an informational chrono for working out in

18 an organized fashion. This chrono included a note stating that it would be used to show gang

19 “activity” and that he is not able to reclassify to Grade A as a result.

20

103. In a particularly Kafkaesque demonstration of this process, Gonzales was

21

accused through confidential memorandum of remaining intentionally disciplinary free in 22

23 Grade A status, ultimately to receive and smuggle contraband back into the Adjustment

24 Center by committing a disciplinary infraction. This memo is used to justify his retention in

25 the Adjustment Center at each classification meeting.

26

104. Despite informational chronos or confidential memoranda often being void of

27 any actual behavior-based allegations, plaintiffs remain indefinitely confined to the 28

Lopez v. Brown, Case No. COMPLAINT - 27

Case4:15-cv-02725-CW Document1 Filed06/17/15 Page28 of 45

1 Adjustment Center due to the material within them.

2

105. Ever present is the final option, indeed the only real option, for release from

3 the Adjustment Center, which is to debrief. 4
106. The pressure to debrief is constant for plaintiffs whether or not they are 5 6 validated gang affiliates. At every classification committee meeting, plaintiffs are told to

7 debrief in exchange for consideration for Grade A placement.

8

107. Debriefing is extremely dangerous for plaintiffs. Informants are put at great

9 risk of retaliation in prison. They are assaulted and sometimes killed as a result of their

10 perception as snitches. Worse, in the eyes of many plaintiffs, the family members of
11 informants can be targeted if the informant is somehow difficult to reach. Should plaintiffs 12
debrief, they are putting themselves and their families at great risk of harm or death. 13
108. The risk of debriefing for the condemned is compounded by their active cases. 14 15 Each plaintiff and most class members are actively appealing their commitment offences.
16 Debriefing, however, requires plaintiffs to discuss all facts of the cases that led to their

17 incarceration and answer questions about all aspects of their lives that prison officials deem

18 relevant. Any information collected from this process can be used against the plaintiffs or

19 other class member in their appeals. To combat this practice, plaintiffs’ appointed capital
20 counsel have written the Warden at San Quentin requesting that a prisoner’s declination to 21
speak about his case not be used against him in classification meetings. These appeals have 22 23 fallen on deaf ears.

24

109. Lopez feels that every time officials ask him to debrief, it is as though they are

25 asking him to lie down and die.

26

110. Validated prisoners such as Topete, Lopez, and Ayala are doomed to die

27 without ever leaving the Adjustment Center. This is because they are denied inactive reviews. 28

Lopez v. Brown, Case No. COMPLAINT - 28

Case4:15-cv-02725-CW Document1 Filed06/17/15 Page29 of 45

1 Unlike validated prisoners in other institutions, plaintiffs will never outlive their validations

2 as gang affiliates as long as they remain condemned. They will never be given the opportunity

3 to demonstrate that they are not active in a gang and that their behavior does not merit their

4 label as gang affiliates.
5

6

111. Plaintiffs are given no notice about what behavior will keep them confined in

7 the Adjustment Center and what they can do to earn their way out. In an October 2014

8 classification chrono, it is documented that Topete’s gang affiliation was the reason he would

9 remain in the Adjustment Center. However, in February 2015, when recommended for formal

10 Indeterminate Grade B status, the committee told him that gang behavior is not an offense

11 that would subject him to Grade B status. Later, in March 2015, Ayala received an

12 informational chrono that said men with accusations of gang behavior would not be suitable
13 for removal from Grade B status.
14

15

112. The despair and distress of the process means that many in the Adjustment

16 Center elect to not attend classification meetings. Plaintiffs have come to experience

17 classification meetings as the practice of having decades old bad acts read aloud, hearing

18 accusations that they are violent gang members without any means of challenging the
19 accusations, and having their ability to speak against their classification curtailed. Myles 20 refuses to attend any 90-day classification meetings because he feels like the process of 21
announcing anonymous evidence against him and rehashing all of his past rules violations 22 23 with no meaningful opportunity to address the violations or discuss the ways in which he has
24 progressed is designed solely to provoke anger.

25

113. For plaintiffs, classification hearings are simply a reminder to debrief or

26 remain in solitude, with only the recitation of unsubstantiated evidence against them and no

27 meaningful review of the factors that are said to have resulted in plaintiff’s confinement in the 28

Lopez v. Brown, Case No. COMPLAINT - 29

Case4:15-cv-02725-CW Document1 Filed06/17/15 Page30 of 45

1 Adjustment Center.

2 D. Mental Health in the Adjustment Center

3

114. Confinement in the Adjustment Center strips plaintiffs of more than just their

4 essentials of life and dignity. Plaintiffs experience excruciating and unrelenting mental
5

6 anguish, pain, and suffering resulting from their extreme isolation.

7

115. The treacherous effect of long-term solitary confinement on the mental and

8 physical health of human beings is long-studied and well-documented. Solitary confinement

9 studies show clearly that isolation causes significant harm to an individual’s mental health

10 and places individuals at substantial risk of serious psychological harm.

11

116. Prisoners subject to extreme isolation suffer from a host of psychological

12 disorders, including anxiety and nervousness, headaches, lethargy and chronic tiredness,
13 14 trouble sleeping, obsessive ruminations, and oversensitivity to stimuli as a result of that

15 isolation.

16

117. Plaintiffs all exhibit signs and symptoms of the psychological damage

17 resulting from their isolation. Further, as plaintiffs and the class remain confined in the

18 Adjustment Center indefinitely, they remain at substantial risk of further harm to their
19 mental health and mental and physical well-being. 20
118. Due to their prolonged confinement and the constant noise from guards, 21
prisoners, and security checks, plaintiffs suffer from chronic sleeplessness and insomnia. 22 23 Ayala frequently gets just three to four hours of broken sleep a night. When he is woken up by
24 any one of the raucous noises that persist though the night, obsessive thoughts and paranoia

25 about the reason he was wakened prevent him from falling back asleep. Lopez wakes at every

26 noise close to his cell, making a sound night’s sleep impossible for him. As a result, he is less 27 able to cope with the rampant indignity and dehumanization of life in the Adjustment Center. 28

Lopez v. Brown, Case No. COMPLAINT - 30

Case4:15-cv-02725-CW Document1 Filed06/17/15 Page31 of 45

1 Myles has his sleep interrupted at least five times a night from excessive noise and from

2 officers performing security checks by shining a flashlight in his eyes. He also feels less able to

3 cope with the realities of his confinement as a result of the deprivation. He additionally

4 experiences memory loss from a lack of sleep.
5

6

119. Plaintiffs experience choking frustration as a result of the solitary conditions

7 in the Adjustment Center, the uncertainty of the length of confinement, and the attendant

8 injustice and helplessness they feel at being trapped in isolation with no mechanism through

9 which they can earn their way out. Despite its persistence, plaintiffs work consistently to

10 suppress the frustration they feel. They know any outward expression that could be perceived
11 as anger could lead to a disciplinary write-up resulting in grave punishments. Worse still, it 12
could be used to further justify their indefinite confinement in the Adjustment Center. 13
120. While the justifiable frustration created by their isolation is ever-present in 14 15 plaintiffs, they feel numb to other emotions. Plaintiffs often do not feel happiness or sadness.
16 They cannot draw upon emotions when they visit with their loved ones. This emotional

17 numbness further entrenches the men in their isolation, straining the only socially intimate

18 connections they have.

19

121. Myles says that most of the time, he feels nothing. At times, he is even

20 grateful for the numbness, because the times when he does feel, frustration and despair are 21
constant. Feeling nothing, he says, is easier in a place like this. 22

23

122. Plaintiffs experience difficulty with concentration and memory. Roldan feels

24 unable to focus and reflect on anything during his day. Ayala struggles to remember simple

25 day to day tasks.

26

123. Human touch has also become foreign to plaintiffs. Myles says that every time

27 a guard or prisoner puts a hand on him, he gets the highly anxious feeling reminiscent of 28

Lopez v. Brown, Case No. COMPLAINT - 31

Case4:15-cv-02725-CW Document1 Filed06/17/15 Page32 of 45

1 being grabbed by a complete stranger. Roldan detests being touched by anyone and goes to

2 great lengths to avoid it.

3

124. Plaintiffs’ become obsessive in their isolated confinement. Ayala and Gonzales

4 both note that their minds run constantly, often running through all the possible reasons for a
5

6 particular event in the Adjustment Center, such as the cancellation of yard. These

7 ruminations sometimes keep them awake through the night. Gonzales has obsessive-

8 compulsive tendencies. He sweeps and mops the floor of his cell before each time he leaves.

9 Roldan, Topete, and Myles also obsessively clean their surroundings. Gonzales feels that he

10 must wash his hands every time he is forced to touch something outside of his cell.

11

125. Despite these predictable and observable developed maladies, plaintiffs have

12 little to no access to mental health services in the Adjustment Center. On occasion, guards will
13 ask mental health staff to check on a particular prisoner. This contact is performed through
14

15 the prisoner’s cell door and is overheard by guards and neighbors. As a result of the lack of

16 confidentiality in the interaction and the potential for professed mental health symptoms to

17 be used negatively by guards and other prisoners, plaintiffs are reluctant to share any mental

18 health concerns.

19

126. Although without access to services and diagnoses, plaintiffs are acutely

20 aware of the deep fundamental changes to their experience of their own normalcy. Many 21
plaintiffs report that they observe their mental deterioration. Ayala does not remember what 22

23 it is like to exist without his symptoms.

24

127. The only mental health contact plaintiffs consistently have is the two

25 questions prisoners are asked at the beginning of the classification meetings. This too is

26 conducted in front of prison staff and outside of any confidential setting.

27

128. Confidential meetings, when they do occur, happen in a cramped and filthy

28

Lopez v. Brown, Case No. COMPLAINT - 32

Case4:15-cv-02725-CW Document1 Filed06/17/15 Page33 of 45

1 booth. Plaintiffs and class members are strip-searched before and after the appointment,

2 which adds to the mental anguish that led them to seek help.

3

129. Plaintiffs’ symptoms are predictable and expected in an isolated environment.

4 In addition, the conditions under which plaintiffs can expect to receive mental health care
5

6 result in a constructive denial of care, which exacerbates plaintiffs’ daily symptoms.

7 Defendants are aware of these issues and permit them to continue.

8 E. Class Allegations

9

130. Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and, pursuant to Rules 23(a),

10 23(b)(1), and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of all prisoners who

11 are now serving, or will in the future serve, indeterminate sentences in the Adjustment Center 12
at San Quentin State Prison on the basis of unverified and uncontestable gang affiliation 13 14 allegations, none of whom have been or will be afforded meaningful review of their
15 confinement, in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

16

131. Plaintiffs also bring this action on their own behalf and on behalf of all

17 prisoners who are now, or will be in the future, imprisoned by defendants in the Adjustment

18 Center under the conditions and pursuant to the policies described herein for an indefinite
19 period. Such imprisonment constitutes cruel and unusual punishment within the meaning of 20
the Eighth Amendment. 21
132. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Fed. R. 22 23 Civ. P. 23(a)(1). As of April 2015, there were 93 condemned men imprisoned in the
24 Adjustment Center. Plaintiffs and the class comprise the majority of this group. Upon

25 information and belief, these men have been denied meaningful notice and review, and thus

26 fit the class definition. All have been subjected to cruel and unusual punishment.

27

133. The class members are identifiable using records maintained in the ordinary

28

Lopez v. Brown, Case No. COMPLAINT - 33

Case4:15-cv-02725-CW Document1 Filed06/17/15 Page34 of 45

1 course of business by CDCR.

2

134. All class members are suffering the deprivation of at least one basic human

3 need due to their prolonged confinement in the Adjustment Center, including mental and 4
physical health, physical exercise, sleep, nutrition, normal human contact, meaningful 5 6 activity, and environmental stimulation. In addition, all class members are suffering

7 significant mental and physical harm. While the exact nature of those harms may differ in

8 some respects for each prisoner, the source of the harm complained of here is the same –

9 namely, defendants’ policies and practices in placing the class of prisoners for a lengthy

10 period of time in conditions of confinement shown to cause serious mental and physical

11 harm.
12 135. In addition, all prisoners placed in the Adjustment Center face a common risk
13 of suffering even more serious mental harm caused by their retention in the Center for such a
14
15 lengthy period of time.

16

136. There are questions of law and fact common to the members of the class.

17 Those questions include, but are not limited to:

18

a) Whether prolonged and indefinite confinement in the Adjustment Center under the

19

conditions and policies maintained by the defendants objectively constitutes cruel and

20

unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.

21

b) Whether defendants have been deliberately indifferent to the mental and physical 22

23

suffering incurred by the plaintiff class.

24

c) Whether incarceration under the conditions and policies imposed by defendants

25

results in constitutionally cognizable harm, or presents a constitutionally unacceptable

26

risk of harm.

27

d) Whether a legitimate penological reason exists for defendants to incarcerate

28

Lopez v. Brown, Case No. COMPLAINT - 34

Case4:15-cv-02725-CW Document1 Filed06/17/15 Page35 of 45

1

condemned prisoners indefinitely in the conditions described herein simply because

2

they are members or associates of a gang, without demonstrating that they are

3

currently engaged in or have been recently engaged in some illegal or wrongful gang-

4 related or other misconduct.
5

6

e) Whether the conditions in the Adjustment Center and the policies imposed by

7

defendants on all prisoners housed therein constitute an atypical and significant

8

hardship compared to the ordinary incidents of prison life.

9

f) Whether defendants deny prisoners incarcerated in the Adjustment Center

10

meaningful, periodic review of their confinement as required by the Due Process

11

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by: (1) failing to provide them with notice of

12 what they can do to get released from the Adjustment Center apart from risking their
13 lives and safety and that of their families by debriefing; (2) providing misleading notice
14

15

that they can become eligible to be released from the Adjustment Center by becoming

16

an “inactive” gang member or associate and refraining from any gang activity, when in

17

fact prisoners who are not involved in any current gang activity are still routinely

18

retained in the Adjustment Center; and 3) making a predetermination that many

19

prisoners will stay in the Adjustment Center until they either die or debrief, thus

20

rendering the classification reviews meaningless.

21

g) Whether Defendants fail to provide timely meaningful review of prisoners’ 22

23

imprisonment in the Adjustment Center by engaging in 90-day reviews that do not

24

substantively review whether the prisoners should be retained in the Adjustment

25

Center and therefore are meaningless, and providing no so-called “inactive” review.

26

137. Defendants are expected to raise common defenses to these claims, including

27 denying that their policies and practices violate the Constitution. 28

Lopez v. Brown, Case No. COMPLAINT - 35

Case4:15-cv-02725-CW Document1 Filed06/17/15 Page36 of 45

1

138. The claims of the plaintiffs are typical of those of the plaintiff class, as their

2 claims arise from the same policies, practices, courses of conduct, and conditions of

3 confinement, and their claims are based on the same legal theories as the class’ claims. The 4
cause of the named plaintiffs’ injuries is the same as the cause of the injuries suffered by the 5 6 rest of the class, namely defendants’ policies and practices.

7

139. Plaintiffs are capable of fairly and adequately protecting the interests of the

8 plaintiff class because plaintiffs do not have any interests antagonistic to the class. Plaintiffs,

9 as well as class members, seek to enjoin the unlawful acts, policies, and practices of

10 defendants. Indeed, some of the named plaintiffs have already served as de facto

11 representatives of the class by presenting the demands of hunger strikers to defendants

12 during the hunger strike of 2013. Finally, plaintiffs are represented by counsel experienced in
13 civil rights litigation, prisoners’ rights litigation, and complex class litigation.
14

15

140. This action is maintainable as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

16 23(b)(1) because the number of class members is numerous, and prosecution of separate

17 actions by individuals would create a risk of inconsistent and varying adjudications, which in

18 turn would establish incompatible standards of conduct for defendants. Moreover, the

19 prosecution of separate actions by individual members is costly, inefficient, and could result

20 in decisions with respect to individual members of the class that, as a practical matter, would 21
substantially impair the ability of other members to protect their interests. 22

23

141. This action is also maintainable as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

24 23(b)(2) because defendants’ policies and practices that form the basis of this Complaint are

25 generally applicable to all the class members, thereby making class-wide declaratory and

26 injunctive relief appropriate. Common questions of law and fact clearly predominate within

27 the meaning of Rule 23(b)(2) as set forth above. Class treatment provides a fair and efficient 28

Lopez v. Brown, Case No. COMPLAINT - 36

Case4:15-cv-02725-CW Document1 Filed06/17/15 Page37 of 45

1 method for the adjudication of the controversy herein described, affecting a large number of

2 persons, the joinder of whom is impracticable.

3

V. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

4 First Cause of Action: Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments
5

6

(Cruel and Unusual Punishment)

7

142. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the

8 preceding paragraphs as set forth herein.

9

143. Plaintiffs advance this claim on their own behalf, and on behalf of the class,

10 against all defendants.

11

144. By their policies and practices described herein, defendants have imposed

12 serious deprivations and continue to impose serious deprivations on the plaintiffs and the
13 class of the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities and have violated their basic human
14

15 dignity and their right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth and

16 Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution for each of the reasons set forth

17 below.

18 A. Deprivation of basic human needs

19

145. First, the cumulative effect of the horrendous and wrenching conditions of

20 confinement combined with the extremely prolonged isolation deny each plaintiff at least one 21
basic human need, including but not limited to normal human contact, environmental and 22

23 sensory stimulation, mental and physical health, physical exercise, sleep, nutrition, and

24 meaningful activity.

25 B. Imposition of serious psychological and physical injury, pain and suffering

26

146. Second, the deprivation of these basic human needs for a prolonged period

27 causes plaintiffs and the class serious psychological pain and suffering and permanent 28

Lopez v. Brown, Case No. COMPLAINT - 37

Case4:15-cv-02725-CW Document1 Filed06/17/15 Page38 of 45

1 psychological and physical injury. In addition to plaintiffs’ current psychological and physical

2 pain, the likelihood that plaintiffs and the class will remain in the Adjustment Center for the

3 foreseeable future subjects plaintiffs and the class to a significant risk of serious harm to their

4 psychological and physical health.
5

6 C.

Adjustment Center confinement designed to coerce plaintiffs to provide information

7

147. Third, defendants' policies and practices of isolating plaintiffs and the class in

8 the harsh conditions of the Adjustment Center is not legitimately related to security or other
9 10 penological needs, but rather designed to unjustifiably punish plaintiffs and the class for their

11 alleged associations and to coerce them into becoming informants for the State. The policy

12 and practice of holding plaintiffs and the class in prolonged isolation and subjecting them to

13 extreme deprivations of basic human needs with the threat that they will debrief or die in

14 those conditions is intolerable and an affront to modern standards of decency. It is cruel and

15 unusual punishment for defendants to coerce plaintiffs and the class to provide information
16 on other prisoners—if they indeed have any such information—by indefinitely confining them
17 in crushing and punitive conditions that constitute an atypical and significant hardship,
18
19 unless they so inform.

20

148. Prisoners who debrief or otherwise inform for the State—or those who are

21 even perceived to have informed—suffer a substantial risk of serious harm to their own

22 physical integrity and well-being as well as that of their loved ones from the palpable threat of
23 retaliation by prisoners and gangs upon whom the prisoner informs. The combination of the 24 stifling conditions in the Adjustment Center, the policies and practices designed to coerce 25
prisoners to debrief, the lack of any effective means of obtaining release from the Adjustment 26 27 Center without debriefing, and the substantial risk of serious harm if one does debrief, puts

28

Lopez v. Brown, Case No. COMPLAINT - 38

Case4:15-cv-02725-CW Document1 Filed06/17/15 Page39 of 45

1 prisoners in an untenable position and constitutes an unconstitutional threat to the safety of

2 prisoners confined in the Adjustment Center in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth

3 Amendments to the Constitution.

4 D.
5

Disproportionate punishment

6

149. Fourth, defendants' policies and practices of indefinite and prolonged

7 confinement in the Adjustment Center imposes disproportionate punishment on plaintiffs

8 and the class. Defendants have no legitimate penological interest in retaining prisoners

9 indefinitely in the debilitating conditions of the Adjustment Center simply because they are

10 alleged to be gang members or associates, without recent, serious disciplinary or gang-related
11 infractions. Nor are the policies or practices rationally related to legitimate security needs. 12
Defendants’ decades-long infliction of significant psychological harm and the risk of future 13
debilitating harm on these prisoners simply for allegedly being gang members or associates 14 15 offends civilized society’s sense of decency, constitutes an intolerable practice in modern
16 society, and is a disproportionate punishment that violates the Eighth and Fourteenth

17 Amendments to the Constitution.

18 E. 19 20

Deprivation of human dignity in violation of contemporary standards of decency
150. Finally, defendants’ continuation of plaintiffs’ isolation for many years under

21 debilitating and extreme conditions and deprivations strips human beings of their basic

22 dignity and humanity in violation of contemporary standards of decency and constitutes cruel
23 and unusual treatment as prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the 24 United States Constitution. 25
151. That California’s policies and practices violate modern standards of human 26 27 decency is evidenced by the fact that those policies and practices are unusual as compared to

28

Lopez v. Brown, Case No. COMPLAINT - 39

Case4:15-cv-02725-CW Document1 Filed06/17/15 Page40 of 45

1 other states’ segregation practices and as compared to the length of time a prisoner on

2 California’s death row can expect to experience these conditions as compared to other states’
3 death rows. Virtually no other state uses mere gang association or membership to confine 4
prisoners to segregated housing. Plaintiffs and the class are subject to unusually harsh 5 6 conditions of confinement even in comparison with other death rows, such as windowless 7 cells and a lack of telephone access to call loved ones, for years and in some cases for decades
8 longer than prisoners on other states’ death rows.

9

152. That California’s practices with respect to the plaintiff class violate

10 contemporary standards of human decency and dignity is also evidenced by the international
11 community’s condemnation of the practice of prolonged and indefinite solitary confinement 12
under very harsh and stifling conditions such as exist in the Adjustment Center and their 13
condemnation of separate and harsher treatment of prisoners on death row. Such 14 15 condemnation is reflected in international treaties such as the Convention Against Torture
16 and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, decisions and declarations of

17 international bodies, customary international law, and decisions of regional and national

18 courts.

19 F. 20

Defendants deliberate indifference to the deprivations suffered by plaintiffs

21

153. The policies and practices complained of herein have been and continue to be

22 implemented by defendants and their agents, officials, employees, and all persons acting in

23 concert with them under color of state law, in their official capacity.

24

154. Defendants have been and are aware of all the deprivations complained of

25 herein and have condoned or been deliberately indifferent to such conduct.
26

27

155. It should be obvious to defendants and to any reasonable person that the

28

Lopez v. Brown, Case No. COMPLAINT - 40

Case4:15-cv-02725-CW Document1 Filed06/17/15 Page41 of 45

1 conditions imposed on plaintiffs and the class for many years cause tremendous mental

2 anguish, suffering, and pain to such prisoners. Moreover, defendants have repeatedly been

3 made aware through administrative grievances, a hunger strike, and written complaints that 4
plaintiffs and class members are currently experiencing significant and lasting injury. 5 6 Defendants have been deliberately indifferent to plaintiffs’ pain and suffering.

7

156. Indeed, defendants have deliberately and knowingly caused such pain to

8 unjustifiably punish plaintiffs and in an effort to force plaintiffs and the class to become

9 informants.

10

Second Cause of Action: Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments

11

(Due Process)

12 157. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the
13 preceding paragraphs as set forth herein.
14

15

158. Plaintiffs advance this claim on their own behalf, and on behalf of the class,

16 against all defendants.

17

159. Defendants have deprived plaintiffs and the class of a liberty interest without

18 due process of law by denying them meaningful and timely periodic review of their prolonged,

19 continued, long-term, and indefinite detention in the Adjustment Center and meaningful
20 notice of what they must do to earn their release and to be subject to the same conditions as 21
other condemned prisoners at SQSP, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to 22 23 the United States Constitution.

24

160. The conditions and the duration of defendants’ confinement of plaintiffs and

25 the class in the Adjustment Center constitutes an atypical and significant hardship as

26 compared with the ordinary incidents of prison life due to the exceeding harshness and

27 isolation of the conditions in the Adjustment Center and the unconscionably long duration of 28

Lopez v. Brown, Case No. COMPLAINT - 41

Case4:15-cv-02725-CW Document1 Filed06/17/15 Page42 of 45

1 confinement in the Adjustment Center.

2

161. The conditions in the Adjustment Center are unduly harsh and do not

3 generally mirror those conditions imposed upon prisoners in segregated housing or in other 4
units on California’s death row. These harsh conditions include but are not limited to: 5 6 isolation in cells that are sealed off from contact with other prisoners, the lack of windows in

7 cells, a prohibition on social phone calls, no contact visits and very limited visiting hours, no

8 or minimal educational or general programming, exercise facilities that are void of nearly all

9 recreational equipment, food which is inferior to that served to other prisoners in California

10 prisons and on California’s death row, and denial of standard medical and mental health care.

11

162. Plaintiffs have been held in the crushing conditions described above for years,

12 and often for decades, with no meaningful hope of release and no functional procedure by
13 which to earn their way out. Plaintiffs are condemned and sentenced to remain in this single
14

15 place until they die. This shockingly lengthy confinement void of any meaningful process for

16 release is atypical in comparison to the ordinary disciplinary and administrative segregation

17 imposed in California.

18

163. Because indefinite placement in the Adjustment Center constitutes a

19 significant and atypical hardship, plaintiffs and the class are entitled to meaningful notice of
20 how they may alter their behavior to achieve Grade B East Block and Grade A classifications, 21
as well as meaningful and timely periodic reviews to determine whether they still warrant 22 23 detention in the Adjustment Center.

24

164. Defendants have denied and continue to deny any such notice or meaningful

25 review by: (1) failing to provide prisoners with notice of what they can do to be released from

26 the Adjustment Center apart from providing information that they do not have or risking

27 their life and safety and that of their families by debriefing; (2) providing misleading notice 28

Lopez v. Brown, Case No. COMPLAINT - 42

Case4:15-cv-02725-CW Document1 Filed06/17/15 Page43 of 45

1 that they can become eligible to be released from the Adjustment Center by refraining from

2 engaging in any gang activities, when in fact prisoners who are not involved in any current

3 gang activity are still routinely retained in the Adjustment Center; (3) making a 4
predetermination that many prisoners will stay in the Adjustment Center until they either die 5 6 or debrief, thus rendering the periodic reviews substantively and procedurally meaningless.

7

165. Defendants are also violating plaintiffs’ due process rights by retaining

8 plaintiffs and the class in conditions that amount to an atypical and significant hardship

9 without legitimate penological interest, as this detention occurs without reliable evidence that

10 plaintiffs and the class are committing any acts on behalf of a prison gang and are thus active
11 gang members. 12
166. Defendants are capable of providing plaintiffs and the class with meaningful 13
review of their initial placement and prolonged detention in the Adjustment Center and of 14 15 placing prisoners whose actual conduct does not require isolation in the Adjustment Center in
16 other units housing the condemned at minimal cost and without sacrificing defendants'

17 legitimate interests in maintaining safety and orderly conditions in the units housing the

18 condemned at SQSP.

19

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

20

Plaintiffs and the class they represent have no adequate remedy at law to redress the

21

wrongs suffered as set forth in this complaint. Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to 22

23 suffer irreparable injury as a result of the unlawful acts, omissions, policies, and practices of

24 defendants, as alleged herein, unless plaintiffs and the class they represent are granted the

25 relief they request. The need for relief is critical because the rights at issue are paramount

26 under the United States Constitution.

27

WHEREFORE, the named plaintiffs and the class they represent request that this

28

Lopez v. Brown, Case No. COMPLAINT - 43

Case4:15-cv-02725-CW Document1 Filed06/17/15 Page44 of 45

1 Court grant them the following relief:

2 a. Declare that the suit is maintainable as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

3

Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(1) and (2);

4 b. Declare that defendants’ policies and practices of confining prisoners in the Adjustment
5

6

Center violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution;

7 c. Issue injunctive relief ordering defendants to present a plan to the Court within 30 days of

8

the issuance of the Court’s order providing for:

9

i. The release from the Adjustment Center of those prisoners whose term in

10

the Adjustment Center are indefinite, or the assignment of a definite

11

confinement period based on actual disciplinary infractions of which the

12 prisoner has been found guilty, which is proportional to the severity of
13 the infraction;
14

15

ii. Alleviation of the conditions of confinement in the Adjustment Center so

16

that prisoners no longer are incarcerated under conditions of isolation,

17

sensory deprivation, lack of social and physical human contact, and

18

environmental deprivation;

19

iii. Meaningful review of the continued need for confinement in the

20

Adjustment Center of all prisoners currently housed in the Adjustment

21

Center within six months of the date of the Court’s order; and 22

23

iv. Meaningful review of Adjustment Center confinement for prisoners

24

housed in the Adjustment Center in the future;

25 d. Award Plaintiffs the costs of this suit, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation

26

expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and other applicable law;

27 e. Retain jurisdiction of this case until defendants have fully complied with the orders of this 28

Lopez v. Brown, Case No. COMPLAINT - 44

Case4:15-cv-02725-CW Document1 Filed06/17/15 Page45 of 45

.

.

1 Court, and there is a reasonable assurance that defendants will continue to comply in the

2

future absent continuing jurisdiction; and

3 f. Award such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

4 Dated June 17, 2015
5

YErJ SIEGEL &

6

By)MntbfL

7

Dan Siegel

8

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

BOBBY LOPEZ, et al.

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Lopez v. Brown, Case No. COMPLAINT - 45

Case4:15-cv-02725-CW Document1-1 Filed06/17/15 Page1 of 1

 
 1 KAMALA D. HARRIS Attorney General of California
2 JAY C. RUSSELL Supervising Deputy Attorney General
3 CHRISTOPHER H. FINDLEY, State Bar No. 174972 CHRISTINE M. CICCOTTI, State Bar No. 238695
4 Deputy Attorneys General 1300 I Street, Suite 125
5 P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
6 Telephone: (916) 323-4025 Fax: (916) 324-5205
7 E-mail: Christine.Ciccotti@doj.ca.gov Attorneys for Defendants Governor Brown,
8 Secretary Kernan, and Warden Davis

9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

OAKLAND DIVISION

12

13 BOBBY LOPEZ, et al.,
14
15 v.
16
17 EDMUND G. BROWN, et al.,

4:15-cv-02725-CW NJV

Plaintiffs, STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO VACATE AND RE-SET STATUS CONFERENCE

Judge:

The Honorable Claudia Wilken

Action Filed: 6/17/2015

18

Defendants.

19

20

On March 15, 2016, the parties appeared telephonically before Magistrate Judge Nandor J.

21 Vadas for a status conference in this matter. At the status conference, the parties reported on their

22 progress in settlement negotiations. As a result, this Court set a further status conference for

23 April 26, 2016, at which the parties were to continue to report on their progress. This Court also

24 ordered the parties to submit a joint status update no later than one week before the conference, in

25 which the parties could identify any impediments towards settlement.

26

The parties met on April 11, 2016 and intend to continue their negotiations. The April 11

27 meeting was fruitful in that it allowed the parties to clarify barriers to settlement. Defendants

28 agreed to take the revisions Plaintiffs’ proposed at that meeting into consideration, and intend to 1
Stip. and [Proposed] Order to Vacate and Re-Set Status Conference (4:15-cv-02725-CW NJV)

1 respond. As such, the parties agreed at the meeting that additional time was necessary for them to

2 continue that work and that there would be little to report to the court before a subsequent

3 meeting between the parties, which they are scheduling. As such, the parties stipulate and

4 respectfully request the Court vacate the April 26, 2016 status conference and the order to submit

5 a status conference statement by April 19, 2016. The parties stipulate and request the Court re-set

6 the telephonic status conference in this matter for June 7, 2016 at 2:00 p.m., with a joint status

7 report due no later than May 31, 2016.

8 Dated: April 19, 2016 9 10 11

Respectfully Submitted,
KAMALA D. HARRIS Attorney General of California JAY C. RUSSELL Supervising Deputy Attorney General

12

/s/ Christine M. Ciccotti

CHRISTINE M. CICCOTTI

13

Deputy Attorney General

Attorneys for Defendants Governor Brown,

14

Secretary Kernan, and Warden Davis

15

16 Dated: April 19, 2016 17 18 19

SIEGEL & YEE
/s/ EmilyRose Johns EMILYROSE JOHNS Attorney for Plaintiffs

20 Under N.D. Cal. Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I attest that I obtained concurrence in the filing of this document from E. Johns on April 18, 2016.
21
Dated: April 19, 2016 22

23 24 25 26 SA2015104183
12226815.doc
27

/s/ Christine M. Ciccotti CHRISTINE M. CICCOTTI Deputy Attorney General Attorney for Defendants Governor Brown, Secretary Kernan, and Warden Davis

28 2
Stip. and [Proposed] Order to Vacate and Re-Set Status Conference (4:15-cv-02725-CW NJV)

1

[PROPOSED] ORDER

2

The parties have stipulated to vacate the April 26, 2016 status conference and associated

3 deadlines for submitting joint status reports and reset the status conference for June 7, 2016.

4 Given the foregoing stipulation, and good cause appearing, IT IS SO ORDERED. This matter is
1:00
5 set for a telephonic status conference at 2:00 on June 7, 2016.

6 7 Dated: _A_p_r_i_l__2_1_,__2_0_1_6_____________ 8

___________________________ The Honorable Nandor J. Vadas United States District Court Magistrate Judge

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 3
Stip. and [Proposed] Order to Vacate and Re-Set Status Conference (4:15-cv-02725-CW NJV)

 
 Case 4:15-cv-02725-CW Document 97 Filed 08/21/17 Page 1 of 1

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

4 BOBBY LOPEZ, et al.,

5

Plaintiffs,

6

v.

7 EDMUND G. BROWN, et al.,

8

Defendants.

9 ________________________________/

10

No. C 15-2725 CW
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS
(Docket No. 63)

11

On January 17, 2017, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss.

12 The parties engaged in settlement negotiations and briefing was

13 continued. On July 24, the Court set the case management

14 conference for October 10.

15

In light of the parties’ ongoing efforts to settle the case,

16 the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice

17 to re-noticing it in the event that the parties do not settle

18 (Docket No. 63).

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

21 Dated: August 21, 2017 22 23

CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge

24

25

26

27

28

 
 Case 4:15-cv-02725-CW Document 114 Filed 09/05/18 Page 1 of 2

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

4 BOBBY LOPEZ, et al.,

Case No. 15-cv-02725-CW

5

Plaintiffs,

6

v.

7 EDMUND G. BROWN, et al.,

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO INTERVENE AND FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT

8

Defendants.

(Docket Nos. 106 & 107)

9

10

Movant Lee Max Barnett has filed a Motion to Intervene on

11 behalf of himself and the Condemned Row East Block Advisory

12 Council (EBAC). Docket No. 106. Movant also filed a Motion for

13 Relief from Judgment. Docket No. 107. Although this matter was

14 filed as a putative class action on behalf of condemned prisoners

15 held in solitary confinement in San Quentin State Prison, see

16 Docket No. 1 (Complaint), a class was never certified.

17 Plaintiffs and Defendants reached a settlement and stipulated to

18 a voluntary dismissal. Docket No. 105. This Court entered the

19 order granting voluntary dismissal. Id. This settlement was not

20 on behalf of a class. See id. No class members released any

21 claims; only the named Plaintiffs did.

22

Accordingly, Movant Barnett, as the proposed Intervenor,

23 cannot show that he “claims an interest relating to the property

24 or transaction that is the subject of [this] action.” Fed. R.

25 Civ. P. 24(a)(2). Any causes of action Movant Barnett may have

26 had before the settlement or that may have arisen because of the

27 settlement can still be brought on his own behalf. However,

28 Movant, as a non-lawyer, cannot represent anyone else such as

Case 4:15-cv-02725-CW Document 114 Filed 09/05/18 Page 2 of 2

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 EBAC or any of its members on whose behalf he purports to move on

2 here. See e.g., Docket No. 106 at 1. Relatedly, because Movant

3 is not, and cannot become, a party to this lawsuit, Movant

4 Barnett cannot sue to set aside the dismissal in this case. In

5 re Lovitt, 757 F.2d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 1985).

6

For the foregoing reasons, Movant’s Motions to Intervene and

7 for Relief from Judgment are DENIED.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

10 Dated: September 5, 2018 11

CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

 
 Case 4:15-cv-02725-CW Document 105 Filed 11/09/17 Page 1 of 3

1 DAN SIEGEL, STATE BAR NO. 56400 EMILY ROSE JOHNS, STATE BAR NO. 294319
2 SIEGEL, YEE & BRUNNER 475 14TH STREET, SUITE 400
3 OAKLAND, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 839-1200
4 Fax: (510) 444-6698 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Bobby Lopez, Marco Topete,
5 John Myles, Ricardo Roldan, John Gonzales, and Ronaldo Medrano Ayala
6

7 XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General of California
8 JAY RUSSELL Supervising Deputy Attorney General
9 CHRISTINE M. CICCOTTI CHRISTOPHER H. FINDLEY
10 Deputy Attorneys General State Bar No. 174972
11 1300 I Street, Suite 126 Sacramento, CA 95814
12 Telephone: (916) 210-7350 Fax: (916) 324-5205
13 E-mail: Christine.Ciccotti@doj.ca.gov Attorneys for Defendants Governor Brown,
14 Secretary Kernan, and Warden Davis

15

16

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

18

19 BOBBY LOPEZ, et al.,

Case No. 4:15-cv-02725-CW

20

Plaintiffs, STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR

VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

21

v.

The Honorable Claudia Wilken

22

Action Filed: June 17, 2015

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

24

Defendants.

25

26

27

28

Stipulation and Order Voluntary Dismissal (4:15-cv-02725-CW)

Case 4:15-cv-02725-CW Document 105 Filed 11/09/17 Page 2 of 3

1

STIPULATION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

2 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), the parties request this matter be
3 voluntarily dismissed with prejudice, and the Court’s jurisdiction over this matter shall
4 immediately terminate.
5

6 Dated: November 9, 2017
7
8
9

Respectfully submitted,
XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General of California JAY C. RUSSELL Supervising Deputy Attorney General

10 /S/ Christine M. Ciccotti

11

CHRISTINE M. CICCOTTI

12

Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants Governor Brown,

13

Secretary Kernan, and Warden Davis

14 Dated: November 9, 2017
15 16 17 18

SIEGEL, YEE, & BRUNNER
/S/ DAN SIEGEL
DAN SIEGEL Attorneys for Plaintiffs Bobby Lopez, Marco Topete, John Myles, Ricardo Roldan, John Gonzales, and Ronaldo Medrano Ayala

19 Under N.D. Cal. Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I attest that I obtained concurrence in the filing of this
20 document from D. Siegel on November 9, 2017.

21 Dated: November 9, 2017
22 23 24 25

/s/ Christine M. Ciccotti
CHRISTINE M. CICCOTTI Deputy Attorney General Attorney for Defendants Governor Brown, Secretary Kernan, and Warden Davis

26
SA2015104183
27 33122023.doc 28

Stipulation and Order Voluntary Dismissal (4:15-cv-02725-CW)

Case 4:15-cv-02725-CW Document 105 Filed 11/09/17 Page 3 of 3

1

ORDER

2

On stipulation of the parties, and for good cause appearing, under Federal Rule of Civil

3 Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), the Court dismisses this case with prejudice, and the Court’s

4 jurisdiction over this matter shall immediately terminate.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6 Dated: November 9, 2017 7

_______________________________________ The Honorable Claudia Wilken United States District Court Judge

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Stipulation and Order Voluntary Dismissal (4:15-cv-02725-CW)

 
 Case: 4:15-cv-2725 As of: 11/01/2018 12:11 PM PDT 1 of 13
ADRMOP,CLOSED,REFSET−RMI,RELATE
U.S. District Court California Northern District (Oakland) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:15−cv−02725−CW

Lopez, et al v. Brown, et al Assigned to: Hon. Claudia Wilken Referred to: Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman (Settlement) Relate Case Case: 4:09−cv−05796−CW Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 06/17/2015 Date Terminated: 11/09/2017 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Bobby Lopez on his own behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly situated prisoners

represented by Daniel Mark Siegel Siegel Yee & Brunner 475 14th Street, Suite 500 Oakland, CA 94612 510−839−1200 Fax: 510−444−6698 Email: danmsiegel@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anne Butterfield Weills Siegel & Yee 499 − 14th Street Suite 300 Oakland, CA 94612 510−839−1200 Fax: 510−444−6698 Email: aweills@aol.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

EmilyRose Naomi Johns Siegel Yee & Brunner 475 14th Street, Suite 500 Oakland, CA 94612 510−839−1200 Fax: 510−444−6698 Email: emilyrose@siegelyee.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Marco Topete on his own behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly situated prisoners

represented by Daniel Mark Siegel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anne Butterfield Weills (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

EmilyRose Naomi Johns (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
John Myles on his own behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly situated prisoners

represented by Daniel Mark Siegel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anne Butterfield Weills

Case: 4:15-cv-2725 As of: 11/01/2018 12:11 PM PDT 2 of 13

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

EmilyRose Naomi Johns (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ricardo Roldan on his own behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly situated prisoners

represented by Daniel Mark Siegel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anne Butterfield Weills (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

EmilyRose Naomi Johns (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
John Gonzales on his own behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly situated prisoners

represented by Daniel Mark Siegel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anne Butterfield Weills (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

EmilyRose Naomi Johns (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ronaldo Medrano Ayala on his own behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly situated prisoners

represented by Daniel Mark Siegel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anne Butterfield Weills (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

EmilyRose Naomi Johns (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Intervenor Pla
Lee Max Barnett TERMINATED: 09/05/2018

represented by Lee Max Barnett E−03100 2−E Bay−72 San Quentin State Prison San Quentin, CA 94974 PRO SE

V.

Case: 4:15-cv-2725 As of: 11/01/2018 12:11 PM PDT 3 of 13

Defendant
Edmund G. Brown Governor of the State of California

represented by Christine Marie Ciccotti California Attorney General's Office Civil 1300 I Street, 10th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 916−323−4025 Fax: 916−324−5205 Email: christine.ciccotti@doj.ca.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Holmes Findley Office of the Attorney General 600 West Broadway Suite 1800 San Diego, CA 92101 619−645−2019 Fax: 619−645−2581 Email: Christopher.Findley@doj.ca.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jay Craig Russell Office of the Attorney General Correctional Law Section 455 Golden Gate Avenue Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102−7004 415−703−5717 Fax: 415−703−5843 Email: jay.russell@doj.ca.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jillian Renee O'Brien California State Attorney General's Office 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102−7004 (415)703−5797 Fax: 415−703−5843 Email: jill.obrien@doj.ca.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Jeffrey A. Beard Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

represented by Christine Marie Ciccotti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Holmes Findley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jillian Renee O'Brien (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Ronald Davis Warden, San Quentin State Prison

represented by Christine Marie Ciccotti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Holmes Findley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 4:15-cv-2725 As of: 11/01/2018 12:11 PM PDT 4 of 13

Jay Craig Russell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jillian Renee O'Brien (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant S. Kernan

represented by Christine Marie Ciccotti (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Holmes Findley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jay Craig Russell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 06/17/2015
06/17/2015 06/18/2015
06/18/2015
06/18/2015 06/24/2015 06/25/2015 07/06/2015

# Docket Text
1 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT against All Defendants (Filing fee $ 400.00, receipt number 0971−9608898.). Filed by Ronaldo Medrano Ayala, Ricardo Roldan, Bobby Lopez, John Myles, Marco Topete, John Gonzales. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Siegel, Daniel) (Filed on 6/17/2015) Modified on 6/18/2015 (gbaS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/17/2015)
2 Proposed Summons. (Siegel, Daniel) (Filed on 6/17/2015) (Entered: 06/17/2015)
3 Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero.
Counsel for plaintiff or the removing party is responsible for serving the Complaint or Notice of Removal, Summons and the assigned judge's standing orders and all other new case documents upon the opposing parties. For information, visit E−Filing A New Civil Case at http://cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/caseopening.
Standing orders can be downloaded from the court's web page at www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges. Upon receipt, the summons will be issued and returned electronically. Counsel is required to send chambers a copy of the initiating documents pursuant to L.R. 5−1(e)(7). A scheduling order will be sent by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) within two business days. (ha, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/18/2015) (Entered: 06/18/2015)
4 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: Case Management Statement due by 9/18/2015. Case Management Conference set for 9/25/2015 02:00 PM in Courtroom G, 15th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Standing Order) (gbaS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/18/2015) (Entered: 06/18/2015)
5 Summons Issued as to Jeffrey A. Beard, Edmund G. Brown, Ronald Davis. (gbaS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/18/2015) (Entered: 06/18/2015)
6 CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Bobby Lopez.. (Siegel, Daniel) (Filed on 6/24/2015) (Entered: 06/24/2015)
7 CLERK'S NOTICE of Impending Reassignment to U.S. District Judge (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/25/2015) (Entered: 06/25/2015)
8 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers for all further proceedings. Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero no longer assigned to the case. Signed by Executive Committee on 7/6/15. (sv, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/6/2015) (Entered: 07/06/2015)

Case: 4:15-cv-2725 As of: 11/01/2018 12:11 PM PDT 5 of 13

07/10/2015 07/10/2015 07/14/2015 07/14/2015 07/21/2015 07/27/2015 07/28/2015
07/29/2015 08/17/2015 08/17/2015 08/18/2015 08/18/2015 08/19/2015 08/31/2015
09/08/2015
09/08/2015

9 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Ronaldo Medrano Ayala, Ricardo Roldan, Bobby Lopez, John Myles, Marco Topete, John Gonzales. Edmund G. Brown served on 7/6/2015, answer due 7/27/2015. (Siegel, Daniel) (Filed on 7/10/2015) (Entered: 07/10/2015)
10 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Ronaldo Medrano Ayala, Ricardo Roldan, Bobby Lopez, John Myles, Marco Topete, John Gonzales. Jeffrey A. Beard served on 7/6/2015, answer due 7/27/2015. (Siegel, Daniel) (Filed on 7/10/2015) (Entered: 07/10/2015)
11 NOTICE of Appearance by Daniel Mark Siegel Anne Butterfield Weills (Siegel, Daniel) (Filed on 7/14/2015) (Entered: 07/14/2015)
12 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Responsive Pleading [Stipulated] filed by Jeffrey A. Beard, Edmund G. Brown, Bobby Lopez, et al. (Ciccotti, Christine) (Filed on 7/14/2015) Modified on 7/15/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/14/2015)
13 NOTICE of Appearance by Jillian Renee O'Brien and Christopher H. Findley (O'Brien, Jillian) (Filed on 7/21/2015) (Entered: 07/21/2015)
14 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RELATE CASE. Signed by Judge Alsup on 7/27/2015. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/27/2015) (Entered: 07/27/2015)
15 CLERK'S NOTICE SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Case Management Statement due by 9/28/2015. Initial Case Management Conference set for Monday, 10/5/2015 02:00 PM before Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Courtroom 1, 4th Floor, Oakland. (Attachments: # 1 Standing Order) (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/28/2015) (Entered: 07/28/2015)
16 CLERK'S NOTICE The court has reviewed the motion and determined that no cases are related (3:79−cv−01630 WHA) and no reassignments shall occur. (dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/29/2015) (Entered: 07/29/2015)
17 ORDER RELATING CASE. C 15−2725 YGR AND C 09−5796 CW ARE RELATED. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 8/17/15. (napS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/17/2015) (Entered: 08/17/2015)
Case Reassigned to Judge Hon. Claudia Wilken. Judge Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers no longer assigned to the case. (cjlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/17/2015) (Entered: 08/17/2015)
18 CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER FOR REASSIGNED CIVIL CASE Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 8/18/15. (jebS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/18/2015) (Entered: 08/18/2015)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Joint Case Management Statement due by 9/15/2015. Initial Case Management Conference set for 9/22/2015 02:30 PM in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland. (jebS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/18/2015) (Entered: 08/18/2015)
19 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Bobby Lopez re 18 Order Case Management (Siegel, Daniel) (Filed on 8/19/2015) (Entered: 08/19/2015)
20 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Vacating Case Management Conference, Referring Case to Magistrate Judge, and Extending Time to Respond to Complaint filed by Jeffrey A. Beard, Edmund G. Brown, Ronald Davis, Bobby Lopez, et al. (Ciccotti, Christine) (Filed on 8/31/2015) Modified on 9/1/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/31/2015)
21 STIPULATION AND ORDER VACATING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE, REFERRING CASE TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE VADAS, AND EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 20 Stipulation.(napS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/8/2015) (Entered: 09/08/2015)
CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas for Settlement (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/8/2015) (Entered: 09/08/2015)

Case: 4:15-cv-2725 As of: 11/01/2018 12:11 PM PDT 6 of 13

09/08/2015 10/28/2015 12/03/2015 12/04/2015 12/30/2015
01/12/2016 02/02/2016 02/08/2016 02/09/2016 02/23/2016
03/15/2016

22 CLERK'S NOTICE Settlement Conference set for 10/28/2015 02:00 PM in Courtroom D, 15th Floor, San Francisco. The parties are instructed to review Judge Vadas' Settlement Conference Standing Order located on the court's website. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (glm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/8/2015) (Entered: 09/08/2015)
23 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas: Settlement Conference held on 10/28/2015. Not recorded. Plaintiff Attorneys Dan Siegel and Emily Rose Johns. Defendant Attorneys Christine M. Ciccotti, Jill O'Brien, Simone Renteria. Parties continue to meet and discuss and will contact this court for future dates. This is a text only Minute Entry (glm, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 10/28/2015) (Entered: 11/03/2015)
24 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Extending Time to Respond to Complaint filed by Jeffrey A. Beard, Edmund G. Brown, Ronald Davis. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Ciccotti, Christine) (Filed on 12/3/2015) (Entered: 12/03/2015)
25 STIPULATION AND ORDER GRANTING EXTENTION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 24 Stipulation. (jebS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/4/2015) (Entered: 12/04/2015)
26 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas: Evidentiary Hearing and site inspection at San Quentin State Prison adjustment center held on 12/30/2015. Parties coordinated site inspection with a meeting afterward. Defendants to provide draft settlement agreement by 1/21/16. Further settlement conference to be set in San Francisco by 2/15/16.Not recorded. Plaintiff Attorneys Daniel Siegel and Emily Rose Jones. Defendant Attorneys Christine Ciccotti, Jill O'Brien, Simone Renteria and Ron Davis. This is a text only Minute Entry (glm, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 12/30/2015) Modified on 1/13/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/12/2016)
27 CLERK'S NOTICE Further Settlement Conference set for 2/11/2016 10:00 AM in Courtroom D, 15th Floor, San Francisco. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (glm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/12/2016) (Entered: 01/12/2016)
28 CLERK'S NOTICE Pursuant to the parties' request for continuance of the 2/11/2016 settlement conference, settlement conference on the 2/11/2016 date is VACATED and a telephonic Status Conference is set for 2/23/2016 01:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (glm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/2/2016) (Entered: 02/02/2016)
29 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Extending Time to Respond to Complaint filed by Jeffrey A. Beard, Edmund G. Brown, Ronald Davis. (Ciccotti, Christine) (Filed on 2/8/2016) (Entered: 02/08/2016)
30 STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 29 Stipulation. Defendants may have up to and including March 23, 2016, in which to respond to Plaintiffs complaint. (jebS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/9/2016) (Entered: 02/09/2016)
31 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas: Status Conference held on 2/23/2016. Status Conference by phone set for 3/15/2016 01:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas.FTR Time 1:10−1:14. Plaintiff Attorney Dan Siegel by phone. Defendant Attorneys Christine Ciccotti, Jay Russell by phone. This is a text only Minute Entry (glm, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 2/23/2016) Modified on 2/25/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/24/2016)
32 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas: Status Conference held on 3/15/2016. Status Conference set for 4/26/2016 01:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas. Parties may appear by phone. Joint status update to be submitted no later than one week prior to hearing.FTR Time 1:28−1:32. Plaintiff Attorneys Emily Rose Johns and Dan Siegel both by phone. Defendant Attorneys Christine Ciccotti and Jay Russell both by phone. This is a text only Minute Entry (glm, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 3/15/2016)

Case: 4:15-cv-2725 As of: 11/01/2018 12:11 PM PDT 7 of 13

03/21/2016 03/29/2016 03/30/2016
04/19/2016 04/21/2016 05/13/2016 05/18/2016 05/26/2016 05/31/2016 06/03/2016

(Entered: 03/15/2016)
33 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Extending Time to Respond to Complaint filed by Edmund G. Brown, Ronald Davis, Bobby Lopez, et al. (Ciccotti, Christine) (Filed on 3/21/2016) Modified on 3/22/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/21/2016)
34 STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 33 Stipulation. Defendants may have up to and including June 1, 2016, in which to respond to Plaintiffs complaint.(jebS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/29/2016) (Entered: 03/29/2016)
35 CLERK'S NOTICE. Notice is hereby given that the Initial Case Management Conference, is set for Tuesday 9/6/16 at 2:30 p.m. The parties shall meet and confer prior to the conference and shall prepare a Joint Case Management Conference Statement which shall be filed no later than seven (7) days prior to the Case Management Conference, that complies with the Standing Order For All Judges Of The Northern District Of California and the Standing Order of this Court. Counsel located outside the Northern District of California may appear by telephone. Any request for a telephonic appearance must be Court approved in advance by contacting Judge Wilken's Courtroom Deputy at 510−637−3542. Counsel shall contact CourtCall at (866) 582−6878 to make arrangements for their appearance by telephone once the request is approved by the Court. (see Judge Wilkens Standing Order re: Telephonic Appearance). If appearing by telephone, counsel shall have a blank Minute Order and Case Management Order available to fill in the dates that are given in Court (download Judge Wilkens Minute Order and Case Management Order from the Courts website). Case Management Statement due by 8/30/2016. Initial Case Management Conference set for 9/6/2016 at 02:30 PM in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jebS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/30/2016) (Entered: 03/30/2016)
36 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER TO VACATE AND RE−SET STATUS CONFERENCE filed by Jeffrey A. Beard, Edmund G. Brown, Ronald Davis. (Ciccotti, Christine) (Filed on 4/19/2016) (Entered: 04/19/2016)
37 STIPULATION AND ORDER re 36 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER TO VACATE AND RE−SET STATUS CONFERENCE filed by Ronald Davis, Jeffrey A. Beard, Edmund G. Brown Status Conference set for 6/7/2016 01:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas. Signed by Judge Nandor J. Vadas on 4/21/2016. (glm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/21/2016) (Entered: 04/21/2016)
38 CLERK'S NOTICE Pursuant to the parties' request, a Settlement Conference is set in this matter for 6/3/2016 at 10:45 AM in Courtroom D, 15th Floor, San Francisco.. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (glm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/13/2016) (Entered: 05/13/2016)
39 CLERK'S NOTICE Regarding courtroom location change. Parties should meet in Courtroom C for the June 3, 2016 settlement conference rather than the previously noticed courtroom. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (glm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/18/2016) (Entered: 05/18/2016)
40 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Extending Time to Respond to Complaint filed by Edmund G. Brown, Ronald Davis, Bobby Lopez. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 5/26/2016) Modified on 5/27/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/26/2016)
41 STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 40 Stipulation.(napS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/31/2016) (Entered: 05/31/2016)
42 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas: Settlement Conference held on 6/3/2016. The parties continue to engage in settlement discussion.. Plaintiff Attorneys Emily Rose Johns and Dan Siegel. Defendant Attorneys Christine Ciccotti, Patrick McKinney II, Ron Davis, Jay Russell and Trina Hirsig. This is a text only Minute Entry (glm, COURT STAFF)

Case: 4:15-cv-2725 As of: 11/01/2018 12:11 PM PDT 8 of 13

06/29/2016 06/30/2016 08/12/2016
08/12/2016
08/16/2016 08/17/2016 08/24/2016 08/24/2016 08/26/2016

(Date Filed: 6/3/2016) (Entered: 06/14/2016)
43 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT filed by Jeffrey A. Beard, Edmund G. Brown, Ronald Davis, Bobby Lopez, et al. (Ciccotti, Christine) (Filed on 6/29/2016) Modified on 6/30/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/29/2016)
44 STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 43 Stipulation.(napS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/30/2016) (Entered: 06/30/2016)
45
*******FILED IN ERROR. FILED IN WRONG CASE*******
Sealed Transcript of Proceedings held on July 20, 2016, before Judge Nandor J. Vadas. Court Reporter/Transcriber Joan Marie Columbini, CSR, Telephone number joan.columbini.csr@gmail.com 510−367−3043. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy,any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. Redaction Request due 8/30/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/9/2016. (Columbini, Joan) (Filed on 8/12/2016) Modified on 8/15/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/12/2016)
46
*******FILED IN ERROR. FILED IN WRONG CASE*******
Transcript of Proceedings held on July 20, 2016, before Judge Nandor J. Vadas. Court Reporter/Transcriber Joan Marie Columbini, CSR, telephone number joan.columbini.csr@gmail.com 510−367−3043. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerk's Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. (Re (597 in 4:09−cv−05796−CW) Transcript Order, (604 in 4:09−cv−05796−CW) Transcript Order, ) Redaction Request due 9/2/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/12/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/10/2016. (Columbini, Joan) (Filed on 8/12/2016) Modified on 8/15/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/12/2016)
47 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Extending Time to Respond to Complaint filed by Edmund G. Brown, Ronald Davis., Bobby Lopez, et al (Ciccotti, Christine) (Filed on 8/16/2016) Modified on 8/17/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/16/2016)
48 STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 47 Stipulation.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/17/2016) (Entered: 08/17/2016)
49 CLERK'S NOTICE. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) The parties having contacted the court for a further settlement conference, A Further Settlement Conference is set for 10/18/2016 10:00 AM in Courtroom 14, 18th Floor, San Francisco. (glm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/24/2016) (Entered: 08/24/2016)
50 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Vacating Case Management Conference filed by Edmund G. Brown, Ronald Davis, Bobby Lopez, et al. (Ciccotti, Christine) (Filed on 8/24/2016) Modified on 8/25/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/24/2016)
51 STIPULATION AND ORDER VACATING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Joint Case Management Statement due by 11/29/2016. Further Case Management Conference set for 12/6/2016 02:30 PM in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 8/26/16. (dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/26/2016) (Entered: 08/26/2016)

Case: 4:15-cv-2725 As of: 11/01/2018 12:11 PM PDT 9 of 13

09/27/2016 09/27/2016 09/28/2016 10/18/2016
11/18/2016 11/18/2016 11/18/2016 11/29/2016
12/14/2016 12/16/2016 01/03/2017
01/17/2017

52 *** FILED IN ERROR, IN WRONG CASE. PLEASE DISREGARD. *** STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Extending Time to Respond to Complaint filed by Edmund G. Brown, Ronald Davis. (Ciccotti, Christine) (Filed on 9/27/2016) Modified on 9/27/2016 (fff, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/27/2016)
53 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Extending Time to Respond to Complaint filed by Edmund G. Brown, Ronald Davis, Bobby Lopez, et al. (Ciccotti, Christine) (Filed on 9/27/2016) Modified on 9/28/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/27/2016)
54 STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME re 53 STIPULATION Extending Time to Respond to Complaint to 11/18/2016 filed by Ronald Davis, Marco Topete, Ricardo Roldan, John Myles, Ronaldo Medrano Ayala, Edmund G. Brown, Bobby Lopez, John Gonzales. Response due by 11/18/16. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 9/28/16. (sisS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/28/2016) Modified on 9/29/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/28/2016)
55 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas: Settlement Conference held on 10/18/2016. Matter not settled. Status Conference set for 11/29/2016 01:45 PM before Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas. Parties may appear by phone by dialing 888−684−8852/Access Code 1868782. FTR Time Not recorded. Plaintiff Attorney Daniel Siegel. Defendant Attorney Christine Ciccotti. This is a text only Minute Entry (glm, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 10/18/2016) (Entered: 10/19/2016)
56 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER for Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint filed by Edmund G. Brown. (Ciccotti, Christine) (Filed on 11/18/2016) (Entered: 11/18/2016)
57 CLERK'S NOTICE. Please take notice that the Case Management Conference set for 12/6/16 is continued as follows: Joint Case Management Statement due by 2/14/2017; Further Case Management Conference set for 2/21/2017 02:30 PM in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/18/2016) (Entered: 11/18/2016)
58 STIPULATION AND ORDER ENLARGING TIME TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER by Hon. Claudia Wilken.(dtm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/18/2016) (Entered: 11/21/2016)
59 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas: Status Conference held on 11/29/2016. Status Conference set for 1/3/2017 01:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas. Parties may appear using the previously provided phone instructions. Plaintiff Attorney Emily Rose Johns by phone. Defendant Attorneys Christine Ciccotti and Jay Russell both by phone. Andrea Moon from CDCR by phone. This is a text only Minute Entry (glm, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 11/29/2016) Modified on 12/2/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/01/2016)
60 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Extending Time to Respond to Complaint filed by Edmund G. Brown, Bobby Lopez, et al. (Ciccotti, Christine) (Filed on 12/14/2016) Modified on 12/14/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/14/2016)
61 Order by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 60 Stipulation Extending Time to Respond to Complaint.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/16/2016) (Entered: 12/16/2016)
62 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas: Status Conference held on 1/3/2017. Status Conference set for 2/7/2017 01:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas. Previously provided phone instructions should be followed.FTR Time 1:25−1:30. Plaintiff Attorney Emily Rose Johns by phone. Defendant Attorneys Christine Ciccotti, Jay Russell and Trina Hirsig (CDCR) all by phone. This is a text only Minute Entry (glm, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 1/3/2017) (Entered: 01/04/2017)
63 MOTION to Dismiss ; Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed by Jeffrey A. Beard, Edmund G. Brown, Ronald Davis. Motion Hearing set for 2/21/2017 02:30 PM

Case: 4:15-cv-2725 As of: 11/01/2018 12:11 PM PDT 10 of 13

01/17/2017 01/17/2017 01/18/2017 01/18/2017 01/19/2017 01/20/2017 01/23/2017 01/26/2017 01/27/2017 01/27/2017 02/03/2017

in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland before Hon. Claudia Wilken. Responses due by 1/31/2017. Replies due by 2/7/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Warden Ron Davis, # 2 Proposed Order)(Ciccotti, Christine) (Filed on 1/17/2017) Modified on 5/5/2017 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/17/2017)
64 Request for Judicial Notice re 63 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint; Notice of Motion and Motion; Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed byJeffrey A. Beard, Edmund G. Brown, Ronald Davis. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−Z, # 2 Exhibit AA−II)(Related document(s) 63 ) (Ciccotti, Christine) (Filed on 1/17/2017) (Entered: 01/17/2017)
65 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Jeffrey A. Beard, Edmund G. Brown, Ronald Davis re 64 Request for Judicial Notice, 63 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint; Notice of Motion and Motion; Memorandum of Points and Authorities (Ciccotti, Christine) (Filed on 1/17/2017) (Entered: 01/17/2017)
66 NOTICE OF ERRATA re 64 Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, filed by Jeffrey A. Beard, Edmund G. Brown, Ronald Davis. (Ciccotti, Christine) (Filed on 1/18/2017) Modified on 1/19/2017 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/18/2017)
67 Corrected Request for Judicial Notice re 63 Motion to Dismiss, filed by Jeffrey A. Beard, Edmund G. Brown, Ronald Davis. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−Z in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss)(Related document(s) 63 ) (Ciccotti, Christine) (Filed on 1/18/2017) Modified on 1/19/2017 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/18/2017)
68 CLERK'S NOTICE. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.), Telephonic Status Conference set for 1/23/2017 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas. The parties shall attend the status conference by dialing 888−684−8852 and entering access code 1868782. (njvlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/19/2017) (Entered: 01/19/2017)
69 CLERK'S NOTICE Defense counsel in this matter having requested that this matter be heard at 9:00 a.m. rather than the previously scheduled 10:00 time, and Plaintiff's counsel having no objection, the Status Conference set for 1/23/2017 is advanced to 9:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (glm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/20/2017) (Entered: 01/20/2017)
70 CLERK'S NOTICE. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) Status conference set for 2/7/17 is VACATED. Settlement Conference set for 2/15/2017 01:00 PM in Courtroom D, 15th Floor, San Francisco. Parties to bring most current draft of settlement agreement. (njvlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2017) (Entered: 01/23/2017)
71 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER To Extend Time for Plaintiffs Opposition and Defendants Reply to Defendants Motion to Dismiss and to Continue the Hearing on Defendants Motion to Dismiss filed by Ronaldo Medrano Ayala, John Gonzales, Bobby Lopez, John Myles, Ricardo Roldan, Marco Topete, Edmund G. Brown, et al. (Johns, EmilyRose) (Filed on 1/26/2017) Modified on 1/26/2017 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/26/2017)
72 STIPULATION AND MODIFIED ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION AND DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AND TO CONTINUE THE HEARING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS by Hon. Claudia Wilken.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/27/2017) (Entered: 01/27/2017)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 63 MOTION to Dismiss. Responses due by 2/28/2017. Replies due by 3/14/2017. Motion Hearing set for 3/28/2017 02:30 PM before Hon. Claudia Wilken. Joint Case Management Statement due by 3/21/2017. Further Case Management Conference set for 3/28/2017 02:30 PM. (dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/27/2017) (Entered: 01/27/2017)
73 CLERK'S NOTICE The Settlement Conference previously scheduled for 2/15/2017 at 1:00 PM in Courtroom D in San Francisco is rescheduled to begin at 10:30 AM on the

Case: 4:15-cv-2725 As of: 11/01/2018 12:11 PM PDT 11 of 13

02/03/2017 02/15/2017
03/03/2017 03/06/2017
03/07/2017 03/08/2017 03/09/2017 03/14/2017 03/21/2017 03/21/2017 03/24/2017 03/24/2017
03/24/2017 03/27/2017

same date at San Quentin State Prison per the agreement of the parties. Settlement Conference set for 2/15/2017 10:30 AM. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (glm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/3/2017) (Entered: 02/03/2017)
Set/Reset Hearing re 73 Clerk's Notice, Settlement Conference set for 2/15/2017 10:30 AM. at San Quentin State Prison. (glm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/3/2017) (Entered: 02/03/2017)
74 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas: Settlement Conference held on 2/15/2017 at San Quentin State Prison. Matter was settled in full. Plaintiff Attorney Dan Siegel, Emily Rose Johns. Defendant Attorney Christine Ciccotti, Jay Russell. This is a text only Minute Entry (glm, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 2/15/2017) (Entered: 03/01/2017)
75 Letter from Marco Antonio Topete that plaintiffs and counsel came to an agreement that there shall be no valid settlement agreement. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/3/2017) (Entered: 03/03/2017)
76 NOTICE by Edmund G. Brown, Ronald Davis of Settlement and Declaration of Jay C. Russell in Support of Notice of Settlement with Exhibits A to B (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jay C. Russell in Support of Notice of Settlement with Exhibits A to B)(Russell, Jay) (Filed on 3/6/2017) Modified on 3/7/2017 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/06/2017)
77 Letter from Bobby Lopez that plaintiffs and counsel came to an agreement that there shall be no valid settlement agreement. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(cpS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/7/2017) (Entered: 03/08/2017)
78 Letter from Ronaldo Medrano Ayala that plaintiffs and counsel came to an agreement that there shall be no valid settlement agreement. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(cpS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/8/2017) (Entered: 03/08/2017)
79 Letter from John Gonzales that plaintiffs and counsel came to an agreement that there shall be no valid settlement agreement. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(cpS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/9/2017) (Entered: 03/14/2017)
80 Letter from Ricardo Roldan re all signatures should be present to validate settlement agreement. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(cpS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/14/2017) (Entered: 03/20/2017)
81 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Edmund G. Brown, Bobby Lopez, et al. (Findley, Christopher) (Filed on 3/21/2017) Modified on 3/22/2017 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/21/2017)
82 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Staying Litigation and Request for Voluntary Dismissal filed by Edmund G. Brown. (Findley, Christopher) (Filed on 3/21/2017) (Entered: 03/21/2017)
83 CLERK'S NOTICE. On 3/28/2017 at 2:30pm, matter will be heard in Courtroom 3, Third Floor, 1301 Clay St, Oakland. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/24/2017) (Entered: 03/24/2017)
84 CLERK'S NOTICE Continuing Motion Hearing 63 and Case Management Conference from 3/28/2017 to 5/23/2017 at 2:30 pm. An updated case management statement is due 5/16/17. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.)(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/24/2017) Modified on 3/24/2017 (dtmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/24/2017)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 63 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint; Notice of Motion and Motion; Memorandum of Points and Authorities. Motion Hearing set for 5/23/2017 02:30 PM before Hon. Claudia Wilken. (dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/24/2017) (Entered: 03/24/2017)
85 Letter from John Gonzales re error occurred with the settlement that took place on February 15, 2017. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(cpS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/27/2017) (Entered: 03/28/2017)

Case: 4:15-cv-2725 As of: 11/01/2018 12:11 PM PDT 12 of 13

03/27/2017 04/14/2017 04/24/2017
04/24/2017 04/29/2017 05/04/2017
05/09/2017 05/09/2017 05/22/2017 05/23/2017 05/23/2017 07/24/2017 07/24/2017
08/21/2017 08/29/2017

86 MOTION for Settlement Proceedings Continue, and Denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Complaint filed by Ronaldo Medrano Ayala. Responses due by 4/24/2017. Replies due by 5/8/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(cpS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/27/2017) Modified on 3/29/2017 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/28/2017)
87 Letter from John Gonzales requesting copy of what issues were discussed at the status settlement conference, and copy of discovery made available to the court on 3/28/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/14/2017) (Entered: 04/17/2017)
88 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION to Set A Briefing Schedule for Defendants' Pending Motion to Dismiss filed by Jeffrey A. Beard, Edmund G. Brown, Ronald Davis. Responses due by 5/2/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jay Russell in Support of Defendant's Administrative Motion)(Findley, Christopher) (Filed on 4/24/2017) (Entered: 04/24/2017)
89 Proposed Order re 88 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION to Set A Briefing Schedule for Defendants' Pending Motion to Dismiss by Jeffrey A. Beard, Edmund G. Brown, Ronald Davis. (Findley, Christopher) (Filed on 4/24/2017) (Entered: 04/24/2017)
90 DECLARATION IN OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 88 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION to Set A Briefing Schedule for Defendants' Pending Motion to Dismiss ) filed byRonaldo Medrano Ayala. (Siegel, Daniel) (Filed on 4/29/2017) Modified on 5/1/2017 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/29/2017)
91 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 63 MOTION to Dismiss) filed byRonaldo Medrano Ayala, John Gonzales, Bobby Lopez, John Myles, Ricardo Roldan, Marco Topete. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of EmilyRose Johns In Support Of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss)(Johns, EmilyRose) (Filed on 5/4/2017) Modified on 5/5/2017 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/04/2017)
92 ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE REQUESTS by Judge Claudia Wilken. (dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/9/2017) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/9/2017: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (dtmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/09/2017)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Joint Case Management Statement due by 7/18/2017. Further Case Management Conference set for 7/25/2017 02:30 PM. (dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/9/2017) (Entered: 05/09/2017)
93 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Continuing Case Management Conference for One Week filed by Edmund G. Brown, Ronald Davis, S. Kernan. (Findley, Christopher) (Filed on 5/22/2017) (Entered: 05/22/2017)
94 Order by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 93 Stipulation to Continue Case Management Conference.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/23/2017) (Entered: 05/23/2017)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Joint Case Management Statement due by 7/25/2017. Further Case Management Conference set for 8/1/2017 02:30 PM. (dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/23/2017) (Entered: 05/23/2017)
95 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT filed by Edmund G. Brown, Ronald Davis, S. Kernan, Bobby Lopez, et al. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 7/24/2017) Modified on 7/25/2017 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/24/2017)
96 CLERK'S NOTICE. You are hereby notified that the Further Case Management Conference set for 8/1/2017 is continued to 10/10/2017 at 2:30 pm. An updated joint case management statement is due 10/3/2017. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/24/2017) (Entered: 07/24/2017)
97 Order by Hon. Claudia Wilken denying 63 Motion to Dismiss.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/21/2017) (Entered: 08/21/2017)
98 NOTICE of Change of Address by EmilyRose Naomi Johns (Johns, EmilyRose) (Filed on 8/29/2017) (Entered: 08/29/2017)

Case: 4:15-cv-2725 As of: 11/01/2018 12:11 PM PDT 13 of 13

10/03/2017 10/10/2017
10/16/2017
11/02/2017 11/08/2017 11/08/2017
11/09/2017
11/09/2017 01/10/2018 01/26/2018 02/07/2018 02/07/2018 02/23/2018 02/27/2018 02/27/2018 03/20/2018 09/05/2018

99 JOIN CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Edmund G. Brown, Ronald Davis, S. Kernan, Bobby Lopez, et al. (Ciccotti, Christine) (Filed on 10/3/2017) Modified on 10/4/2017 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/03/2017)
100 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Claudia Wilken: Parties working on resolution. Further Case Management Conference held on 10/10/2017. Total Time in Court: 14 minutes. Court Reporter: Kathy Wyatt. (sisS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 10/10/2017) (Entered: 10/13/2017)
101 Amended Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Claudia Wilken: Further Case Management Conference held on 10/10/2017. Further Case Management Conference set for 11/14/2017 02:30 PM. Total Time in Court: 14 minutes. Court Reporter: Kathy Wyatt. (sisS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 10/16/2017) (Entered: 10/16/2017)
102 Letter from Marco Antonio Topete requesting clarification re settlement. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(cpS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/2/2017) (Entered: 11/06/2017)
CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Magistrate Judge Robert M Illman for Settlement (msrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/8/2017) (Entered: 11/08/2017)
103 ORDER REFERRING COMMUNICATION FROM CLASS MEMBER TO PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 11/8/17. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/8/2017) (Entered: 11/08/2017)
104 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER for Voluntary Dismissal filed by Edmund G. Brown, Ronald Davis, S. Kernan, Bobby Lopez, et al. (Ciccotti, Christine) (Filed on 11/9/2017) Modified on 11/12/2017 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/09/2017)
105 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 104 Stipulation for Voluntary Dismissal.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/9/2017) (Entered: 11/09/2017)
106 MOTION to Intervene filed by Lee Max Barnett. Responses due by 2/7/2018. Replies due by 2/21/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Motion to Intervene, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Envelope)(cpS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/10/2018) (Entered: 01/10/2018)
107 MOTION for relief from judgment filed by Lee Max Barnett. Responses due by 2/23/2018. Replies due by 3/9/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(cpS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/26/2018) (Entered: 01/26/2018)
108 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 106 MOTION to Intervene ) filed byEdmund G. Brown, Ronald Davis, S. Kernan. (Ciccotti, Christine) (Filed on 2/7/2018) (Entered: 02/07/2018)
109 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Edmund G. Brown, Ronald Davis, S. Kernan re 108 Opposition/Response to Motion (Ciccotti, Christine) (Filed on 2/7/2018) (Entered: 02/07/2018)
110 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 107 MOTION for relief from judgment ); (Prosed) Order filed byEdmund G. Brown, Ronald Davis, S. Kernan. (Ciccotti, Christine) (Filed on 2/23/2018) Modified on 2/25/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/23/2018)
111 REPLY (re 106 MOTION to Intervene ) filed byLee Max Barnett. (Attachments: # 1 letter, # 2 Envelope)(cpS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/27/2018) (Entered: 03/05/2018)
112 NOTICE of Errata by Lee Max Barnett (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(cpS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/27/2018) (Entered: 03/05/2018)
113 REPLY (re 107 MOTION for relief from judgment ) filed byLee Max Barnett. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(cpS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/20/2018) (Entered: 03/21/2018)
114 ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO INTERVENE AND RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT by Judge Claudia Wilken. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/5/2018) (Entered: 09/05/2018)