Gates v. Deukmejian

PC-CA-004-003

McCUTCHEN, DOYLE, BROWN & ENERSEN WARREN E. GEORGE (State Bar # 053588) Three Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 94111 ' Telephone: (415) 393-2000
4 PRISON LAW OFFICE
DONALD SPECTER (# 83925)
5 MILLARD MURPHY (# 124451)
Freedom Mall, Main Street
6 San Quentin, CA 94964
Telephone: (415) 457-9144
7
BROBECK, PHLEGER & HARRISON
8 MICHAEL W. BIEN ( # 096891)
Spear Street Tower
9 One Market Plaza
San Francisco, CA 94105
10 Telephone: (415) 442-0900

ROSEN & PHILLIPS SANFORD JAY ROSEN (# 062566) PAUL A. Di DONATO (# 124962 > SAMUEL R. MILLER (# 138942) 155 Montgomery Street, 8th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-6830
ACLU FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC.
MATTHEW A. COLES (# 076090) 1663 Mission Street Sac Francisco, CA 94103 Telephone: (415) 621-2493
Attorneys for Plaintiff Subclass

11 Attorneys for Plaintiff Class

12 JOHN K VAN DE KAMP, Attorney General
of the State of California
13 RICHARD B. IGLEHART, Chief Assistant
Attorney General
14 JAMES E. FLYNN (# 61139)
Deputy Attorney General
15 JAMES B. CUNEO (# 37423)
Deputy Attorney General
16 1515 K Street, P. O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
17 Telephone: (916) 323-1976

> — 7
u>

18 Attorneys for Defendants

19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

20

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

21 JAY LEE GATES, et al.

)

22

Plaintiffs,

) No. CIV S-87-1636 LKK-JFM

23

v.

)

24 GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, et al.,

)

CONSENT DECREE

25

Defendants.

26

27

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

3 I. INTRODUCTION

4 II. DEFINITIONS

5 HI. MEDICAL CARE ISSUES

6 IV. MEDICAL DISABILITY ISSUES

7 V. MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES

8

A. Suicide

9

B. Psychiatric Officer of the Day

10

C. Hiring and Retention of Professional Staff

11

D. Taser, Restraints and Involuntary Medication

12

E. Inpatient Care

13

F. The Provision of Appropriate Psychiatric

Care to All Prisoners at CMF

14

15

G. Classification, Housing and Management

16 VI. AIDS

17 VII. GENERAL CONDITIONS ISSUES

18

A. Law Library

19

B. Housing Assignments

20

C. Double Celling

21

D. Inmate Clerks

22

E. Disciplinary and Detention Cells

23

F. Toilets, Showers, and Sinks

24

G. Exercise

25

H. Emergency Procedures

26

I. Staffing

27

J. Converting Space for Housing

Page 1 5 6 10 14 14 15 16 17 17
19
21 25 27 27 28 28 29 29 31 32 32 32 33

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

2

Page

3 VIII. CONSTRUCTION AND IMPLEMENTATION

33

4 IX. MEDIATION AND COMPLIANCE

37

5 X. TERMINATION OF THE DECREE

41

6 XI. COSTS AND FEES

43

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3 JAY LEE GATES, et al.,

4

Plaintiffs,

5

v.

6 GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, et al.

7

Defendants.

8

) No. CIV S-87-1636 LKK-JFM
)
) CONSENT DECREE ) ) )
) ) )

9 I. INTRODUCTION

10

1. The Amended Complaint - Class Action was filed on

11 January 6, 1988 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983 on behalf of

12 eight inmates representing all inmates confined at the California

13 Medical Facility - Main and the Northern Reception Center

14 (hereafter CMF).

15

2. The Amended Complaint alleged that defendants had

16 violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United

17 States Constitution by subjecting plaintiffs and class members to

18 deficient conditions of confinement, by denying them access to

19 medical and mental health care, by depriving them of access to

20 attorneys, and by segregating those class members who were

21 infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).

22

3. Defendants filed a timely answer which denied

23 these allegations on January 27, 1988.

24

25

26

27

1

4. This action was certified as a class action on

2 May 13, 1988, defining the class as follows:

3

All inmates who are or will be confined at the

California Medical Facility - Main (CMF-Main) and the

4

Northern Reception Center (NRC). Inmates at CMF-Main

include those confined to the "AIDS Wing," or "Special

5

Housing Unit" ("SpHU"). Inmates at the California

Medical Facility - South are specifically excluded from

6

the class.

7

5. A Second Amended Complaint was filed on March 10,

8 1989

9

6. The Second Amended Complaint alleged the same

10 causes of action as the Amended Complaint, but added claims on

11 behalf of handicapped inmates representing a class of inmates who

12 plaintiffs alleged had been discriminated against on the basis of

13 their handicaps in violation of section 504 of the Rehabilitation

14 Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. section 794 (hereafter section 504).

15

7. The Court created a subclass of HIV-infected

16 inmates housed in the Special Housing Unit (SPU) at CMF on March

17 10, 1989.

18

8. Defendants filed a timely answer which denied

19 these allegations on March 20, 1989.

20

9. The action was recertified as a class action on

21 May 17, 1989 to include the section 504 claims of mobility-

22 impaired inmates confined to wheelchairs, mentally ill inmates,

23 and HIV-infected inmates.

24

10. The Court has jurisdiction over the parties and

25 subject matter of this action.

26

11. The defendants named in the Second Amended

27 Complaint are George Deukmejian, Governor of the State of

1 California, Joseph G. Sandoval, Secretary of the Youth and Adult

2 Correctional Agency, James Rowland, Director of the Department of

3 Corrections, Nadim Khoury, M.D., Assistant Deputy Director -

4 Health Services, Eddie Ylst, Warden - CMF, Kenneth Shepard, K.D.,

5 Chief Deputy Warden for Clinical Services - CMF, Nicholas Poulos,

6 M.D., Chief Physician and Surgeon - CMF, V. Meenakshi, M.D.,

7 Chief Psychiatrist - CMF, H. Benton, M.D., Chief Psychiatrist -

8 NRC, Douglas G. Arnold, Deputy Director of the Department of

9 Mental Health, D. Michael O'Connor, M.D., Director, Department of

10 Mental Health, and Sylvia Blount, R.N., Executive Director - DMH

11 Vacaville Psychiatric Program, all sued in their official

12 capacities.

13

12. Governor George Deukmejian is dismissed as a

14 defendant.

15

13. Joseph G. Sandoval is dismissed as a defendant.

16

14. Nicholas Poulos, M.D. is no longer employed as

17 Chief Physician and Surgeon - CMF. Daniel E. Thor, M.D. his

18 successor in office, is substituted for purposes of compliance

19 with the provisions of this Consent Decree.

20

15. V. Meenakshi, M.D. is no longer employed as the

21 Chief Psychiatrist for the Outpatient Psychiatric Program - CMF.

22 Paul Morentz, M.D., her successor in office, is substituted for

23 purposes of compliance with the provisions of this Consent

24 Decree.

25

16. H. Benton, M.D. is no longer employed as Chief

26 Psychiatrist - NRC. Bruce Baker, M.D., is acting in that

27 capacity pending appointment of a successor in office who will be

3.

1 substituted for purposes of compliance with the provisions of

2 this Consent Decree.

3

17. D. Michael O'Connor, M.D. is no longer employed as

4 the Director of the Department of Mental Health. Defendant

5 Douglas G. Arnold is acting in that capacity pending appointment

6 of a successor in office who will be substituted for purposes of

7 compliance with the provisions of this Consent Decree.

8

18. Douglas G. Arnold is no longer employed as Deputy

9 Director for State Hospitals - DMH. Clyde Murrey, his successor

10 in office, is substituted for purposes of compliance with the

11 provisions of this Consent Decree.

12

19. Defendants agree that this Consent Decree is

13 binding on them and their agents, employees, successors, and

14 assigns 15

20. The parties agree that actions alleged in the

16 Second Amended Complaint implicate rights secured and protected

17 by the United States Constitution and by section 504 of the

18 Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. Recognizing these

19 constitutional and statutory interests and for the purpose of

20 avoiding the continuation of expensive, protracted and

21 adversarial litigation, the parties agree to the provisions set

22 forth in this Consent Decree.

23

21. The parties agree that in entering into this

24 Consent Decree they waive specific findings of fact and

25 conclusions of law and any determination whether the remedies

26 provided are legally required.

27

1

22. By entering into this Consent Decree, defendants :

2 do not admit any violation of law.

!

3

23. The provisions of this Consent Decree may not bs '

4 used as evidence of any violation of law in any other proceeding, ]

5 except enforcement proceedings in this case.

6

24. The provisions of this Consent Decree are a fair |

7 and equitable resolution of the claims of plaintiffs and the

8 class members in this action.

9

25. The parties agree that it is not the intent of

10 this Consent Decree to prescribe the minimum standards required

11 by the United States Constitution. The provisions of this decree

12 do not, in whole or in part, themselves create any liberty

13 interest in plaintiffs that is enforceable under the Fourteenth

14 Amendment.

15 II. DEFINITIONS

16

As used in this Consent Decree, the following terms

17 will have the meanings set forth herein, unless specifically

18 stated otherwise:

19

1. "California Medical Facility" (CMF) means the

20 California Medical Facility - Main (CMF-Main) and the Northern

21 Reception Center (NRC), but excluding the California Medical

22 Facility - South (CMF-South).

23

2. "Physical therapy aides" presently means Medical

24 Technical Assistants (MTA's) or inmates who are providing

25 physical therapy services under supervision and pursuant to an

26 approved vocational training program.

27

1

3. "Psychiatric classifications" presently means

2 inmates in Categories I, J, K, U, T, Psychiatric Attention, and

3 Psychiatric Evaluation.

4

4. "Clinician or clinical staff", for purposes of

5 Part V (Mental Health Care) of this Consent Decree, means a

6 psychiatrist, psychologist, or licensed social worker trained in

7 psychological evaluation and diagnosis.

8

NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND

9 DECREED THAT:

10 III. MEDICAL CARE ISSUES

11

1. Defendants will develop written treatment

12 guidelines which are approved by the Medical Executive Committee

13 at CMF for the following medical conditions:

14

a. Asthma

15

b. Seizure disorders

16

c. Obstructive lung disease

17

d. Tuberculosis

18

e. HIV disease, including dental care

19

f. Renal disease

20

g. Liver disease

21

h. Diabetes mellitus

22

i. Cardiovascular disease, including

hypertension.

23

Plaintiffs may provide defendants with reconmendations regarding

24

the treatment guidelines to be developed. The parties agree that

25

the treatment guidelines are advisory and that they are not

26

27

6.

1 intended to control the exercise of professional judgment by a I

2 physician in his or her treatment of a particular patient.

3

2. The written treatment guidelines referred to in

4 Part III, paragraph 1, above, will include and emphasize criteria -

5 that will assist the attending physician in determining when a i
i
6 patient should be transferred for further treatment to a hospital j
7 accredited by the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of
8 Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) which is appropriately staffed
9 and equipped to care for patient with one or more of the medical
10 conditions set forth in Part III, paragraph 1, above.
11 3. The treatment guidelines referred to in paragraph 1
12 above, will be placed in a Guideline Manual. A copy of the
13 Guideline Manual will be maintained at appropriate outpatient
14 clinic locations, such as B-l and NRC, and in the hospital.
15 4. Defendants will develop a plan to provide
16 continuing education programs which focus upon the medical
17 conditions set forth in Part III, paragraph 1, above, and upon
18 recognition and use of the transfer criteria referred to in Part
19 III, paragraph 2, above.
20 5. Defendants will develop (a) problem lists and (b)
21 flow sheets for each of the medical conditions referred to in
22 Part III/ paragraph 1, above, which are approved by the Medical
23 Executive Committee at CMF. These problem lists and flow sheets
24 will be maintained in the medical records of each inmate who
25 suffers from one or more of the medical conditions set forth in
26 Part III, paragraph 1, above.
27

1

6. CMF has a Quality Assurance Committee (QA

2 Committee) and'program. For purposes of this Consent Decree, the

3 parties agree that the QA program will interface with an

4 appropriate peer review program and that it will include a system

5 of quality assurance for each medical department at CMF which is

6 part of an overall institutional medical plan for quality

7 assurance. The QA program will include the following:

8

a. A written program for quality assurance in

9 each medical department at CMF which provides for monitoring and

10 evaluation of clinical services, including quality, timeliness,

11 appropriateness, and resolution of problems;

12

b. Monitoring and evaluation of the quality,

13 timeliness, and appropriateness of clinical services through the

14 routine collection of information about important aspects of

15 care, periodic assessment of such information to identify

16 problems, and use of identified criteria, as set forth in the

17 applicable institution and departmental QA plans;

18

c. Documentation of actions taken to resolve and

19 correct identified problems and an evaluation of the

20 effectiveness of corrective actions;

21

d. Annual reappraisal of the QA program to

22 determine effectiveness; however the parties agree that during

23 the life of this Consent Decree, the QA program shall be

24 appraised quarterly during the first year of its operation to

25 determine its effectiveness, semi-annually during the second

26 year, and annually thereafter.

27

i

1

7. Defendants will appoint a QA Coordinator who is |

2 qualified to administer the QA program at CMF.

i

3

8. Defendants will retain Quality Healthcare

!

4 Resources, Inc., or an organization with similar background and

5 expertise, to assist in further development and assessment of a

6 QA program at CMF which covers inpatient care, hospital-sponsored .

7 ambulatory care, physical medicine and rehabilitation care,

8 dental care, and psychiatric care at CMF and NRC. Within ninety

9 (90) days of being retained, the consultant will provide a

10 written report on his initial assessment of the existing QA

11 program, make recommendations for modifications, if necessary,

12 and provide QA education to medical staff. After the initial

13 assessment report, the independent consultant will provide

14 periodic reports which assess the effectiveness of the quality

15 assurance program at CMF on the schedule described in Part III,

16 paragraph 6(d). The consultant will use standards of the JCAHO

17 in assessing and developing the QA program at CMF. The quarterly

18 reports will assess the effectiveness of the QA program with

19 respect to medical, dental, and mental health care of inmates at

20 CMF. The parties agree that assessments of the QA program will

21 include implementation and operation of the treatment guidelines

22 and transfer criteria set forth in Part III, paragraphs 1 and 2,

23 above.

24

9. CMF has the ability to do arterial blood gases

25 (ABG's) and has purchased and trained staff in the use of peak

26 flow meters. Defendants will review the location and use of this

27 equipment to determine whether it is located and used in the

1 manner most effective for the diagnosis and treatment of inmates

2 with pulmonary function disorders.

3

10. CMF has a computer based Drug Interaction Profile

4 (DIP) which is available to medical staff to obtain information

5 about possible drug interactions. Defendants will review

6 existing policies and procedures regarding use of the DIP to

7 ensure that it is being used, where medically appropriate, by

8 staff, particularly for patients with one or more of those

9 medical conditions set forth in paragraph 1, above.

10

11. Defendants will review the existing Medical

11 Officers of the Day (MOD) system at CMF to determine whether

12 additional hours of physician coverage are needed on nights,

13 weekends, or holidays and report on the results.

14 IV. MEDICAL DISABILITY ISSUES

15

1. Defendants will develop and implement a plan for

16 organizing existing medical staff and resources into a section of

17 Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation under the Department of

18 Medicine at CMF. The section will include physical medicine,

19 physical therapy, occupational therapy, and psychology. The

20 section of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation will develop and

21 implement continuing education programs for members of the

22 section.

23

2. The parties agree that the Physical Medicine and

24 Rehabilitation section of the Department of Medicine at CMF will

25 be covered by the QA program at CMF.

26

3. Defendants will develop and implement a plan for

27 identifying disabled inmates and the cause of their disability.

10.

1 For purposes of this Consent Decree, "disabled inmate" is defined

2 as an inmate who is mobility-impaired through confinement to a

3 wheelchair or who uses a prosthetic device.

4

4. Defendants will ensure that a treatment plan for

5 each disabled inmate is developed and that it is reviewed

6 periodically. The treatment plan will document among other

7 things whether an inmate has need of training in Activities of

8 Daily Living (ADL). The adequacy of treatment plans, including

9 but not limited to, provision for periodic evaluations of

10 wheelchairs, prostheses, and orthoses and training in their use

11 and the timely provision of such equipment from the date of a

12 physician's order, will be subject to review through the QA

13 program.

14

5. Defendants will develop and implement a plan for

15 providing ADL training for inmates who require it and for

16 providing assistance to inmates who cannot perform ADL

17 independently.

18

6. Defendants will review and prepare a report on the

19 availability of hours of care provided by physiatrists at CKF to

20 determine whether additional hours of care are needed to meet the

21 current medical needs of inmates who require such services. If

22 defendants determine that additional hours of care are needed,

23 defendants will develop and implement a plan to ensure that

24 sufficient hours of physiatry care are provided to meet the

25 medical needs of inmates who require such care.

26

27

1

7. Defendants will ensure that physical therapy aides

2 provide patient care which is within the scope of applicable

3 professional standards.

4

8. Defendants will review and prepare a report on the

5 availability of hours of care provided by the physical therapist

6 at CMF to determine whether additional hours of care are needed

7 to meet the current needs of inmates who require such services.

8 If defendants determine that additional hours of care are needed,

9 defendants will develop and implement a plan to ensure that

10 sufficient hours of a physical therapist's time is available to

11 meet the medical needs of inmates who require such services.

12

9. Defendants will ensure that physical therapy

13 services are available through appropriately trained, certified

14 backup providers whenever CMF is without a full-time physical

15 therapist for a period of time longer than one month.

16

10. Defendants will ensure that the water temperature

17 of whirlpool and sitz baths is individualized, where a patient's

18 condition requires, and will provide whirlpools and sitz baths

19 with working thermostats.

20

11. Defendants will provide special mattresses,

21 referred to as egg-crate mattresses, if ordered by a staff

22 physician, to those disabled patients who require them.

23

12. Defendants will ensure that inmates with complete

24 spinal cord lesions above the T6 level and who are referred for

25 housing in an air-conditioned unit by a staff physician order are

26 housed in such a unit unless the patient refuses placement there,

27

12.

1 and the refusal is documented appropriately in the inmate's

!

i

2 medical record'.'

!

3

13. Defendants will ensure that disabled inmates with j

i

4
mobility impairments at CMF are housed in a wheelchair-accessible

5 environment, unless the patient refuses the offer of placement in ;

6 such an environment, and the refusal is documented in the

{

7 inmate's medical record.

8

14. Defendants will perform an access survey of the

9
housing and program areas at CMF with the assistance of an

10

independent consultant who has appropriate background and

\

11 expertise in order to evaluate the accessibility of those areas

12 to disabled inmates. The consultant will provide a written

13 report and make written recommendations. Copies of the report

14 and recommendations will be provided to the Mediator and

15 plaintiffs' counsel. Upon evaluation of the results of the

16 access survey, defendants will develop a plan within ninety (90)

17 days to ensure that disabled inmates have meaningful access to

18 housing and program areas, including beds, toilet facilities,

19 showers, lavatories, mirrors, water fountains, exercise yards,

20 and the gymnasium. Such access will be periodically evaluated

21 and reported on to the Mediator.

22

15. Defendants will develop a plan to ensure that

23 reasonable accommodations are made so that disabled inmates have

24 equivalent access to package pickup, canteen, and laundry

25 services.

26

16. Defendants will ensure that disabled inmates who

27 are otherwise qualified will have the opportunity to participate

1 in work, exercise, educational, and vocational programs available

2 at CMF, consistent with the requirements of section 504. A

3 disabled inmate will not be deemed unqualified to participate

4 because he is physically unable to participate for a full work

5 day or because access to the program area requires that the

6 inmate be searched.

7

17. Defendants shall review the existing prerelease

8 program for disabled inmates to determine whether it provides

9 them with appropriate information and assistance to meet the

10 special needs of those inmates following release and report on

11 the results.

12 V. MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES

13

A. SUICIDE

14

1. Defendants agree to provide appropriate suicide

15 prevention programs at CMF.

16

2. Defendants shall develop a plan by March 31, 1990

17 regarding suicide prevention programs at CMF. The plan will

18 address the following issues:

19

a. Training of medical, custodial and

20 psychiatric staff;

21

b. Inclusion in orientation programs of

22 materials concerning suicide prevention;

23

c. Review of current policies and practices

24 concerning the use of 5-point restraints, isolation and strip

25 cells;

26

d. Programs for identification, counseling,

27 treatment and hospitalization of prisoners at risk for suicide,

14.

1 including those prisoners believed by a psychiatrist or

2 psychologist to be serious suicide risks who are not admitted to

3 the DMH Unit;

4

e. Reporting of suicide attempts, suicidal

5 expressions and suicidal gestures to prison officials and

6 psychiatric staff;

7

f. Appropriate housing for suicide risk

8 prisoners

9

3. Defendants shall prepare a report to the Mediator

10 which sets forth defendants' plan to address any identified

11 dericiencies in the suicide prevention program including dates

12 for implementation of any new programs (no later than July 31,

13 1990).

14

4. Defendants will report to the Mediator

15 periodically the following information:

16

a. For each prisoner that commits suicide, the

17 following information: name, CDC number, housing unit,

18 classification, and copies of incident reports concerning death,

19 autopsy and coroner's report, death certificate, central,

20 psychiatric and medical file for last three months;

21

b. Monthly statistics showing the number of

22 suicide attempts; the name, housing unit and classification of

23 each prisoner attempting suicide; incident reports on attempted

24 suicides.

25

B. PSYCHIATRIC OFFICER OF THE DAY

26

1. There shall be a psychiatrist present at CMF at

27 all times.

1

2. Defendants shall evaluate by March 31, 1990

2 whether Psychiatric Officer of the Day (POD) coverage by one

3 psychiatrist provides adequate and appropriate psychiatric care

4 for the existing prisoner population. The evaluation will

5 address the adequacy of the psychiatric care provided to

6 prisoners at CMF and NRC during POD hours.

7

3. The results of defendants' evaluation shall be set I

8 forth in a written report, to be submitted to the Mediator. The

9 report will contain defendants' plan to address any identified

10 deficiencies in the POD program, including dates for

11 implementation of any new program (no later than July 31, 1990).

12

C. HIRING AND RETENTION OF PROFESSIONAL STAFF

13

1. Defendants shall evaluate and report to the

14 Mediator, by not later than March 31, 1990, regarding all issues

15 affecting the hiring and retention of professional staff

16 necessary to provide psychiatric care. The report will contain

17 defendants' plans, if any, to address the problems of hiring and

18 retaining the professional staff necessary to provide psychiatric ;

19 care and dates for implementation of the plans.

20

2. Defendants will report to the Mediator

21 periodically information sufficient to show their level of mental

22 health staffing on a monthly basis including information

23 concerning contract staff.

24

3. Beginning March 31, 1990, at least seventy-five

25 percent (75%) of all budgeted mental health positions must be

26 filled, on average, within 6 months after establishment of the

27 positions over any six month period.

1

D. TASERS, RESTRAINTS AND INVOLUNTARY MEDICATION

2

1. Tasers will not be used to restrain a prisoner to

3 administer involuntary medication.

4

2. Defendants shall revise by March 31, 1990 their

5 written policies to limit, to the greatest extent possible, the

6 use of Tasers on prisoners with psychiatric classifications or

7 any other prisoner taking antipsychotic medications. Defendants

8 shall report their revisions to the Mediator. Defendants'

9 policies must provide for the following:

10

a. Custodial staff must confer with a

11 psychiatrist regarding the use of the Taser and such consultation

12 shall be appropriately documented except in an emergency;

13

b. The use of a Taser is a last resort.

14 Alternative means of addressing the situation must be considered

15 and the reasons for their rejection stated in writing;

16

3. Defendants shall provide to the Mediator

17 periodically incident reports, including the record of the

18 psychiatric consultation, concerning each use of the Taser on

19 prisoners with psychiatric classifications.

20

4. Defendants shall evaluate and report to the

21 Mediator regarding their procedures and practices for the

22 administration of involuntary psychotropic medication in the

23 outpatient units.

24

E. INPATIENT CARE

25

1. Defendants will provide appropriate access to

26 inpatient psychiatric care for all prisoners at CMF.

27

17.

1

2. Defendants will evaluate by March 31, 1990 the

2 following issues concerning inpatient psychiatric care:

3

a. The utilization of existing inpatient beds at

4 CMF and Atascadero State Hospital (ASH);

5

b. The appropriateness and operation of the

6 stated admission criteria and exclusionary criteria for the DMH

7 Unit at CMF and ASH including inpatient care for prisoners who

8 refuse medication, for prisoners who are violent, for prisoners

9 with a history of disciplinary problems, for prisoners with

10 chronic mental illness, for prisoners with suicidal tendencies,

11 for prisoners with HIV seropositivity, ARC or AIDS;

12

c. The operation of the CAT teams.

13

3. The results of defendants' evaluation will be set

14 forth in a written report, to be submitted to the Mediator. The

15 report will also contain defendants' plans to address any

16 identified problems and dates for implementation of any plan (no

17 later than May 31, 1990).

18

4. Defendants will work through the organized medical

19 staff to develop a program for providing privileges to

20 appropriate CMF medical staff to admit patients to the DMH Unit.

21 The program will be implemented by March 1, 1990.

22

5. Defendants' periodic reports will contain

23 information concerning the monthly utilization of inpatient beds

24 at CMF and ASH, as well as referrals and rejections by those

25 programs and copies of the CAT team referral/rejection reports.

26

27

1

F. THE PROVISION OF APPROPRIATE PSYCHIATRIC CARE

TO ALL PRISONERS AT CMF.

2

1. Defendants will provide appropriate psychiatric

3

screening for each incoming inmate at CMF and will provide

4

appropriate psychiatric evaluation and treatment for all inmates

5

at CMF as medically indicated.

6

2. Defendants will prepare and implement a program,

7

to be operational by June 30, 1990, to provide appropriate

8

psychiatric care for prisoners discharged from the inpatient

9

psychiatric programs at CMF and ASH. The outpatient program as

10

implemented will address the following elements:

11

a. Reducing regression as much as possible by

12

providing appropriate programming and therapies;

13

b. Providing therapeutic programs designed to

14

facilitate increased functioning, participation in prison

15

programming and return to the general population;

16

c. Appropriate monitoring of medications;

17

d. Communication and consultation between

18

inpatient and outpatient psychiatric staff.

19

3. Defendants will improve outpatient psychiatric

20

services. The program will be implemented in phases. An interim

21

program will be in effect by June 30, 1990. Defendants will

22

provide periodic reports to the Mediator concerning the program

23

and its implementation. The program will be staffed and fully

24

25

26

27

19.

1 operational by October 31, 1990. The outpatient program will

2 address the following issues:

3

a. Staffing levels for psychiatrists,

4 psychologists, social workers, recreational and occupational

5 therapists, nursing staff and custodial staff will be sufficient

6 to provide appropriate access to psychiatric evaluation and

7 treatment programs for all prisoners at CMF requiring such

8 programs;

9

b. The need for additional staff will be

10 periodically assessed based on the needs of the population of

11 CMF, and defendants will request such funding for additional

12 staffing pursuant to the budgetary processes;

13

c. Treatment plans will be developed for all

14 prisoners at CMF receiving psychiatric care. Such plans shall be

15 reviewed and revised at appropriate intervals commensurate with

16 the level of psychiatric care required by the patient;

17

d. Each prisoner referred to CMF from another

18 institution (or from another unit within CMF) for psychiatric

19 evaluation or treatment shall be examined and evaluated by a

20 member of the clinical staff within 24 hours of his arrival at

21 CMF and provided with appropriate treatment. A treatment plan

22 for each such prisoner will be prepared by the treatment team

23 within ten days of assignment to a treatment level;

24

e. Appropriate space and facilities for

25 treatment programs will be provided;

26

f. Appropriate access to psychiatrists and other

27 mental health professionals will be provided to all prisoners

1 based on their needs. The special psychiatric needs of prisoners !

2 diagnosed with HIV shall be addressed. All prisoners receiving

3 psychotropic medications will be seen by a psychiatrist at

I

4 appropriate intervals;

5

g. Medications will be appropriately monitored

6 and appropriate medical records and charts will be maintained;

7

h. Each prisoner request to see a psychiatrist

8 or psychologist will be documented in writing and responded to

9 appropriately.

10

i. Isolation and seclusion in their cells of

11 prioners in need of psychiatric care will be minimized.

12

4. In an effort to comply with paragraphs 2 and 3

13 above, defendants will implement their Outpatient Program Guide.

14

5. Defendants will evaluate their program for

15 providing psychiatric evaluation and treatment in October of 199 0

16 and report to the Mediator by December 15, 1990. The Mediator,

17 if necessary, will independently investigate the program, in the

18 determination of the adequacy of defendants' program for

19 providing appropriate psychiatric seivices.

20

G. CLASSIFICATION. HOUSING. MANAGEMENT

21

1. No prisoner shall be "declassified" from any

22 psychiatric classification without a statement in writing from a

23 psychiatrist, made after a psychiatric evaluation including an

24 interview, recommending the declassification. If a psychiatrist

25 recommends that an inmate be declassified, the prisoner's case

26 manager or treatment team shall describe the need for further

27 treatment, if any. The declassification recommendation will then

1 be forwarded to the Classification Committee for its

2 recommendation for appropriate placement of the prisoner.

3

Defendants shall develop written standards and

4 procedures for declassification of prisoners and submit a report '
i
5 by March 31, 1990. Defendants shall provide to the Mediator

6 periodically a copy of the decisions of the Classification

7 Committee and any supporting documents in 25% of the cases in

8 which a prisoner is declassified from Categories J or K. The

9 reporting rate may be adjusted by the Mediator. Defendants shall

10 report periodically the total number of prisoners declassified

11 from Categories J and K.

12

2. All classification procedures, housing decisions

13 and disciplinary actions concerning prisoners with psychiatric

14 classifications must consider the existing psychiatric treatment

15 plan for the prisoner. Defendants shall develop and implement

16 appropriate written rules and procedures by March 31, 1990.

17

3. Defendants will evaluate whether and under what

18 circumstances it is appropriate to house prisoners with

19 psychiatric classifications in Willis Unit. Defendants will

20 prepare and implement a pilot program by June 30, 1990 regarding

21 the housing of inmates with psychiatric classifications in Willis

22 Unit. Defendants will evaluate and report on the program and the

23 housing of prisoners in psychiatric classifications in Willis

24 Unit by December 15, 1990. The Mediator, if necessary, will

25

26

27

1 conduct an independent investigation. The program will, at a

2 minimum, addres.8 the following issues:

3

a. Prisoners with psychiatric classifications

4 may not be placed in Willis Unit without prior approval of a

5 clinician absent an emergency. If the clinician approving the

6 referral is not a member of the prisoner's existing treatment

7 team, he or she must consult after placement with a member of

8 that team. In an emergency a prisoner with a psychiatric

9 classification may be placed in Willis Unit without the prior

10 approval of a clinician provided that the prisoner is examined

11 and approved for such placement by a clinician within 24 itours

12 after the placement. If the clinician does not approve the

13 emergency placement, custody staff may request that the case be

14 reviewed jointly by the Chief Psychiatrist and Associate Warden.

15 The case must normally be reviewed within 24 hours. If the case

16 is not resolved by the Chief Psychiatrist and Associate Warden,

17 it may be referred to the Chief Deputy Warden for Clinical

18 Services and the Chief Deputy Warden for Operations. The case

19 must normally be reviewed and a written decision made within 24

20 hours. Any written decision of the chief deputy wardens

21 concerning the review of a decision to place a particular

22 prisoner in Willis Unit will be produced periodically to the

23 Mediator.

24

The program shall set forth the factors to be

25 considered by the clinician in assessing the appropriateness of

26 housing the inmate in Willis Unit and the narrow circumstances

27

justifying an emergency placement without the prior approval of a i

clinician.

b. Prisoners in psychiatric treatment categories

who are housed in Willis Unit shall receive adequate psychiatric

care. The program shall set forth the types and levels of

staffing and the psychiatric programs which will be available to

prisoners in psychiatric treatment categories in Willis Unit.

c. To the maximum extent possible prisoners in

psychiatric treatment categories who are housed in Willis Unit

10 shall be housed separately from other prisoners in that unit.

11

d. All prisoners with psychiatric

12 classifications housed in Willis Unit as of the date the Consent

13 Decree is filed will be examined individually by a clinician

14 within thirty (30) days concerning the appropriateness of their

15 continued housing in Willis Unit. Such evaluation shall consider

16 the availability of psychiatric treatment in Willis Unit at the

17 time of the examination. Defendants shall report to the Mediator

18 the decision reached as to each such prisoner, including a copy

19 of the results of the psychiatric examination. If the clinician

20 does not approve the continued placement, custody staff may

21 request that the case be reviewed jointly by the Chief

22 Psychiatrist and Associate Warden. The case must normally be

23 reviewed within 24 hours. If the case is not resolved by the

24 Chief Psychiatrist and Associate Warden, it may be referred to

25 the Chief Deputy Warden for Clinical Services and the Chief

26 Deputy Warden for Operations. The case must normally be reviewed

27 and a written decision made within 24 hours. Any written

1 decision of the chief deputy wardens concerning the review of a

2 decision to continue the placement a particular prisoner in

3 Willis Unit will be produced periodically to the Mediator.

4 VI. AIDS

5

1. Within 120 days of the effective date of this

6 agreement, defendants will in good faith develop and begin

7 implementation of a pilot program to determine the feasibility of

8 placing HIV seropositive inmates in a general population program

9 at CMF. It is the goal of the pilot program to demonstrate that

10 such placement is possible consistent with medical, behavioral,

11 and security considerations.

12

2. Screening of HIV seropositive inmates for

13 placement in a general population program at CMF during the pilot

14 program will be done on a case-by-case basis through the pilot

15 program's selection criteria. These selection criteria shall not

16 be binding on any future program. The pilot program's selection

17 criteria will include the following:

18

a. Classification score generally not to exceed

19 that of indicated placement in Level III facilities;

20

b. No documented recent history of assaultive

21 behavior;

22

c. No documented recent history of sexual

23 behavior of a kind that poses a risk of transmission of the HIV

24 virus: 25

d. No documented recent intravenous drug use or

26 possession of intravenous drug paraphernalia;

27

25.

1

e. No documented recent history of propensity to

2 prey or be preyed upon;

3

f. Medical condition as determined by medical

4 and/or psychiatric staff must be commensurate with placement.

5

g. An inmate's preference for being housed in

6 SPU or in a general population program will be considered.

7

3. During the pilot program, selected HIV

8 seropositive inmates will be placed in a general population

9 program of defendants' design at CMF. These inmates will be

10 drawn from inmates presently housed in the SPU and newly-

11 discovered HIV seropositive inmates coming into or identified

12 within CMF. Inmates placed in the general population program

13 during the pilot program at CMF will be assigned to a single open

14 housing unit. It is anticipated that between 20 and 30 inmates

15 will be placed in a general population program during the first

16 three months of the program's operation. Additional numbers of

17 inmates may be added to the pilot program by defendants.

18

4. The pilot program will be evaluated by defendants

19 after nine (9) months of the effective date of this agreement.

20 Defendants will prepare a report for submission to the Mediator

21 within eleven (11) months of the effective date of this

22 agreement. The report will address, among other things:

23

a. The relative success of the pilot program;

24

b. Participation of HIV seropositive inmates in

25 jobs, programs, and activities at CMF during the pilot program;

26

27

26.

1

c. Plans for future placement of HIV

2 seropositive inmates at CKF, including disbursement in general

3 population;

4

d. Plans for future availability of programming

5 for HIV seropositive inmates at CMF;

6

5. Defendants will continue to make AIDS education

7 classes available to inmates at CMF on a regular basis as long as

8 there is continuing interest among the inmate population. At a I
9 minimum, defendants will offer such classes at least once every 6

10 months regardless of inmate interest or attendance. Defendants

11 will submit a report to the Mediator describing and evaluating

12 the AIDS education program at CMF. This report will be submitted j

13 at approximately the same time as the report described in

14 paragraph 4.

15

6. Defendants will maintain the confidentiality of

16 inmates' HIV seropositive status as provided for by law.

17 VII. GENERAL CONDITIONS ISSUES

18

A. LAW LIBRARY

19

Within ninety (90) days of the filing of an order

20 approving this Consent Decree, defendants will develop and

21 implement an adequate plan to provide reasonable physical access

22 to the law library to all inmates in closed units, including

23 Administrative Segregation, the Psychiatric Management Unit, and

24 the Special Program Unit, or those who are confined to their

25 cells for more than ten (10) days. The plan shall include

26 physical access to the law library for all inmates who are not

27 otherwise able to get physical access to the library for more

27.

1 than ten (10) days because they are on Cell Feed and Lock-Up, are

2 confined-to-quarters or are in the Disciplinary and Detention

3 Cells.

4

B. HOUSING ASSIGNMENTS

5

Defendants shall maintain housing assignment policies

6 and practices at CMF that are designed to minimize violence and

7 that take into account inmate safety and the needs of an inmate

8 with respect to any disabilities and medical or mental health

9 care. Defendants shall conduct a review of the existing housing

10 assignment policies and practices at CMF and submit a report to

11 the Mediator and plaintiffs regarding the adequacy of those

12 policies and practices to satisfy the considerations set forth

13 above. At plaintiffs' request, the Mediator, in evaluating the

14 report, may investigate, among other things, defendants' mixing

15 of security and custody levels and the use of overrides in making

16 housing assignments.

17

C. DOUBLE CELLING

18

1. Defendants shall not double cell any inmate whose

19 medical or psychiatric condition or physical disability requires

20 a single cell.

21

2. Defendants shall not involuntarily double cell

22 reception center inmates in any pocket cell unless all of the

23 following conditions are satisfied:

24

a. Defendants shall make every reasonable effort

25 to maximize out-of-cell time, but in no event shall inmates be

26 locked in their cells more than twelve (12) hours per day;

27

1

b. Inmates are not housed in a pocket cell for

2 more than sixty (60) calendar days;

3

c. After orientation, inmates are provided with

4 the opportunity to engage in adequate indoor and outdoor

5 recreational activities at least five (5) hours per day, five (5)

6 days per week.

7

D. INMATE CLERKS

8

Defendants shall review the policies and practices by

9 which inmate clerks are permitted access to information

10 concerning other inmates. Defendants shall submit a report to

11 the Mediator and recommend any changes in policies and practices

12 as necessary to prohibit access to information which may

13 reasonably be expected to threaten the safety or security of any

14 other inmate or staff member.

15

E. DISCIPLINARY AND DETENTION CELLS

16

Defendants shall review all policies and procedures and

17 practices for placement and retention of any inmates in the

18 Disciplinary and Detention Cells of the administrative

19 segregation unit and the conditions of confinement and treatment

20 of inmates in such cells. Defendants shall ensure that their

21 written policies contain specific criteria for placing an inmate

22 in such cells. Inmates with serious mental illness or a recent

23 history of attempted suicide, as determined by a psychiatrist,

24 psychologist, or physician, shall not be housed in these cells.

25 Defendants shall not house inmates in these cells for longer than

26 ten (10) full consecutive calendar days.

27

29.

1

Defendants shall not place any inmate in the

2 Disciplinary and Detention cells unless:

3

1. There is good cause for such placement and such

4 cause is adequately documented;

5

2. Within twenty-four (24) hours of confinement, a

6 psychiatrist, psychologist, or physician examines the inmate and

7 determines that this housing will not jeopardize the inmate's

8 mental well-being;

9

3. A psychiatrist, psychologist, or physician

10 examines the inmate once every 7 2 hours and determines that this

11 housing is not jeopardizing the inmate's mental well-being;

12

4. The flaps are not closed in the absence of good

13 cause and that cause shall be documented. Good cause shall

14 include, but not be limited to, throwing any material at a staff

15 member or inmate. No officer below the rank of lieutenant shall

16 determine whether there is good cause. The flaps may not be

17 closed for more than the time necessary to deter the inmate from

18 committing similar misbehavior, and the need for such deterrent

19 action shall be assessed and documented at least every

20 twenty-four (24) hours.

21

5. Within sixty (60) days, defendants shall take all

22 reasonable steps to modify the plumbing to provide that inmates

23 shall be able to flush their toilets at will, except when an

24 inmate floods his cell or otherwise abuses the toilet facilities.

25 When control of the toilets is taken away from an inmate the

26 reasons therefor shall be documented and the toilet shall be

27 flushed at least once every hour.

1

6. The cells shall be kept in a clean and sanitary

2 condition. Defendants shall ensure that upon entering these

3 cells each inmate has or is furnished with supplies sufficient to

4 maintain personal hygiene.

5

7. Each cell shall be equipped with an adequate means

6 of artificial illumination. Within sixty (60) days, defendants

7 shall take all reasonable steps to modify electrical switches to

8 provide that lights inside the cell shall be connected to a

9 functioning on-off switch that is under the control of the

10 occupant.

11

8. Each inmate shall be provided with a paper garbage

12 bag each day.

13

F. TOILETS, SHOWERS. AND SINKS

14

Defendants shall evaluate the facilities at CMF

15 regarding the adequacy of existing toilets, showers and sinks for

16 each unit, and sub-unit, including individual dormitories and

17 submit a report to the Mediator for providing additional

18 facilities on a unit by unit basis. The Mediator shall review

19 this report and determine whether the facility or proposed

20 facilities for each unit are adequate. When reviewing the

21 adequacy of the facilities, the Mediator may consider published

22 standards, including but not limited to those of the American

23 Correctional Association and the American Public Health

24 Association. The parties recognize that such standards do not by

25 themselves establish constitutional standards under the Eighth

26 Amendment.

27

1

G. EXERCISE

2

Defendants shall review all policies, procedures and

3 practices for providing outdoor exercise to all inmates in closed

4 units, including, but not limited to, Willis Unit and the

5 Psychiatric Management Unit. Defendants shall submit a report

6 and proposal to the Mediator for providing every inmate with a

7 minimum of ten (10) hours of outdoor exercise per week.

8 Defendants may suspend exercise for an inmate for no more than

9 ten (10) days if the suspension is based upon genuine reasons of

10 discipline or the safety and security of the prison. The

11 opportunity for outdoor exercise may be curtailed for any period

12 medically indicated upon the order of a physician which shall be

13 appropriately documented.

14

H. EMERGENCY PROCEDURES

15

Defendants shall review their existing policies and

16 practices for removing an inmate in a Willis Unit cell during the

17 first watch. Defendants shall submit a report to the Mediator

18 and recommend any revision in their policies, procedures and

19 practices which are necessary to assure that an inmate may be

20 removed from his cell promptly upon discovery that an emergency

21 exists and consistent with safety and security.

22

I. STAFFING

23

Defendants shall review the staffing levels of each

24 unit at CMF to determine whether there are adequate custody staff

25 to properly supervise and to provide escorts and other services

26 to inmates in those units. Defendants shall submit a report of

27

1 their conclusions and any recoiranendations to the Mediator and

2 plaintiffs' counsel.

3

J. CONVERTING SPACE FOR HOUSING

4

Defendants shall not convert any space at CMF that

5 did not house inmates as of November 1, 19 89 to a housing unit,

6 unless all of the following conditions are satisfied:

7

1. Except in cases of emergency, defendants

8 shall provide notice to the Mediator and plaintiffs of their

9 intention to convert space for housing as soon as reasonably

10 possible, but not less than thirty (30) days before inmates are

11 housed in the space to be converted; and

12

2. At the request of plaintiffs, the Mediator

13 may immediately determine the impact of the conversion. The

14 Mediator may not recommend to the Court that the conversion be

15 prohibited, unless he or she finds that the conversion will

16 itself violate the Eighth Amendment standards. He or she,

17 however, may determine that the conversion will make defendants

18 unable to meet their obligations under the Consent Decree and may

19 recommend appropriate remedies to the Court.

20 VIII. CONSTRUCTION AND IMPLEMENTATION

21

In construing and implementing the terms of this Consent

22 Decree, the parties agree to the following:

23

1. If defendants seek to modify any plans or programs

24 required by this Consent Decree, they shall serve a copy of the

25 proposed modification on plaintiffs and the Mediator. The

26 plaintiffs shall have thirty (30) days from receipt of the

27 proposed modification in which to file with the Mediator a

1 response to the proposed modification. If plaintiffs object to

2 the modification sought, the parties shall meet or otherwise

3 confer in a good faith effort to resolve their differences

4 concerning the proposed modification. If the parties are unable

5 to resolve their differences through the meet-and-confer process,

6 the proposed modification will be referred to the Mediator for

7 findings and recommendations. Defendants shall have the burden

8 of persuasion that the proposed modification should be approved.

9 Any proposed modification to which plaintiffs do not object

10 within thirty (30) days of receipt shall be deemed approved.

11 These provisions for modifications do not govern the provisions

12 for emergency suspensions or modifications described in Part

13 VIII, paragraph 2, below.

14

2. It is not the intent of this Consent Decree to

15 prohibit nor does it prohibit the Director or Warden from

16 temporarily suspending compliance with all or any part of this

17 Consent Decree during a state of riot or turmoil or other genuine

18 emergency. The determination by the Director or Warden that a

19 state of genuine emergency exists shall be set forth in writing

20 as soon as reasonably possible, shall detail briefly with

21 reasonable specificity the reasons for the determination, shall

22 promptly be provided to the Mediator and plaintiffs' counsel and

23 shall be subject to the mediation and enforcement process

24 provided for herein.

25

3. Defendants promptly shall provide a copy of the

26 Consent Decree to each of their employees and agents who works

27 now or in the future at the institution or who now or in the

•J A

1 future has any management responsibility for operations, policies j

2 and procedures for or at the institution. Notice to the class of |

3 the provisions of the Consent Decree will issue pursuant to

(

4 notice provisions approved by the Court. If the parties to the

5 Consent Decree cannot agree on the provisions for notice to the

6 class, each party shall promptly submit their proposals to the

7 Court for its determination.

8

4. Except as expressly stated in this Consent Decree,

9 plaintiffs' counsel shall timely be provided by defendants with

10 copies of all reports, plans, proposals, policies and procedures,

11 and other materials that the defendants are obligated to produce

12 or provide under the Consent Decree. On reasonable notice and

13 for good cause, the Mediator may provide that plaintiffs' counsel

14 shall have reasonable access to other documents, and to

15 defendants' employees and agents and to areas of the institution

16 relevant to this Consent Decree.

17

5. If additional funding is necessary for timely

18 implementation of any of defendants' obligations, the defendants

19 shall employ every lawful means at their disposal to secure such

20 funding. Any failure, however, timely to secure such funding

21 shall not relieve the defendants of their obligations under the

22 Consent Decree, and the Court may employ whatever means is

23 lawfully available to it to compel timely implementation,

24 consistent with the other terms of the Consent Decree.

25

6. No person who has notice of this Consent Decree

26 shall fail to comply with the letter and spirit hereof nor shall

27

1 any person subvert the letter or spirit hereof by any sham,

2 indirection, or other artifice.

3

7. Unless otherwise provided for by this Consent

4 Decree any dispute between the parties arising under this Consent

5 Decree shall be resolved through the mediation and compliance

6 procedures set forth in Part IX of this Consent Decree.

7

8. Unless otherwise specifically set forth in this

8 Consent Decree, defendants will provide plaintiffs and the

9 Mediator with copies of any reports provided for by this Consent

10 Decree within 120 days from the date the order approving the

11 decree is filed, or at such later time as is agreed on by the

12 parties or ordered by the Court. Any plans required by this

13 Consent Decree shall specify a date on which implementation of

14 the plan shall commence.

15

9. All medical staff committee minutes, which are

16 confidential and privileged from disclosure under applicable law,

17 will be made available to the independent consultant on QA

18 programs described in this Consent Decree in order to carry out

19 his or her duties under the decree. The independent QA

20 consultant shall also be permitted to attend medical staff

21 committee meetings. At the request of plaintiffs, the Mediator

22 may designate a physician selected by him or her who shall be

23 permitted to review the medical staff committee minutes and

24 attend meetings. Access to medical staff committee meetings or

25 minutes by the QA consultant or a physician designated by the

26 Mediator shall be pursuant to the bylaws of the CMF Medical Staff

27 regarding courtesy privileges for nonstaff physicians. If such

1 courtesy privileges are denied, the denial shall be subject to

2 the mediation process. For good cause shown, plaintiffs' counsel

3 may request copies of the medical staff committee minutes from

4 the Mediator. Such a request will be subject to the mediation

5 process. Disclosure pursuant to the terms of this Consent Decree

6 shall not operate as a waiver of any claim of privilege in this

7 or any other action.

8 IX. MEDIATION AND COMPLIANCE

9

1. A person who is mutually agreeable to the parties

10 will be appointed by the Court to serve as Mediator. The parties

11 shall promptly meet and confer and seek to agree on a qualified

12 candidate. If within thirty (30) days after this Consent Decree

13 is entered by order of the Court, the parties have not agreed on

14 the person who shall be Mediator, each side shall nominate no

15 more than three candidates for appointment. Within ten (10) days

16 of submission, each side may veto one candidate on the other

17 side's list. The remaining candidates shall be submitted to the

18 Court with their resumes and brief descriptions of their

19 qualifications. Among the criteria the Court will consider

20 relevant in making its designation are the candidates' expertise

21 in the fields of correctional administration, health care and

22 mediation. Within twenty (20) days of these submissions to the

23 Court, the Court shall select and appoint as Mediator one of the

24 candidates submitted by the parties, or such other person as the

25 Court shall find has sufficient expertise in mediation, 26 correctional administration and correctional health care. If the
27 Court selects as the Mediator a person who is not proposed by a

1 party, the Court shall allow the parties fifteen (15) days in

2 which to make written objections to the Court's selection.

3 Promptly thereafter, the Court will appoint that person or submit j

4 to the parties a new candidate for their comment.

5

2. The Mediator shall have the following powers and

6 duties:

7

a. Work with the parties to develop plans of

8 implementation or reports required by the provisions of this

9 Consent Decree;

10

b. Work with the parties to resolve

11 disagreements over the adequacy of plans of implementation or

12 reports that defendants are required to prepare under this

13 Consent Decree;

14

c. Make written findings and recommendations to

15 the Court regarding disputes over the adequacy of plans of

16 implementation or reports that were not resolved through

17 mediation;

18

d. Receive periodic compliance reports from

19 defendants that set forth information regarding and progress

20 toward implementation of the terms of this Consent Decree. The

21 format of these compliance reports is within the discretion of

22 defendants. The Mediator may require that additional information

23 be included in these reports, and that changes be made in format;

24

e. Provide the Court and the parties with a

25 written report at least every ninety (90) days during the first

26 year of this Consent Decree concerning the status of

27 implementation of the provisions of the decree, and then at least

38.

1 every 180 days thereafter during the life of the Consent Decree;

2 All such reviews and reports shall address whether any changes in !
i
3 circumstances have affected the defendants' ability to provide !
i
4 the medical, psychiatric or custodial care provided for by this ]

5 Consent Decree;

'

6

f. Provide for appropriate notices to the class

7 members and appropriate employees and agents of the defendants;

8

g.

9 agree to assign.

Perform such other duties as the parties may ;
I

10

3. Except as specifically provided herein, the

11 Mediator shall have access to all parts of the institution with

12 or without notice, all relevant documents, persons, and

13 institutional meetings and proceedings to the extent that all

14 such access is needed to fulfill his or her obligations under the

15 Consent Decree and may retain experts for his or her consultation

16 in those subject areas covered by the provisions of this Consent

17 Decree.

18

4. When plaintiffs have reason to believe that the

19 provisions of this Consent Decree are not being properly

20 implemented, plaintiffs' counsel shall notify defendants by

21 telephone and in writing of the perceived violations, as well as

22 their basis in law and fact. A copy of the written notice will

23 be sent to the Mediator. Defendants shall respond in writing to

24 plaintiffs and the Mediator within 10 working days of receipt of

25 the written notification. If the parties are unable promptly to

26 resolve their differences, the Mediator shall be notified by

27 plaintiffs' counsel in writing.

39.

1

5. Upon his or her appointment the Mediator shall

2 promptly establish a general schedule and procedure for the

3 dispute resolution process provided for herein. Such processes

4 are to be concluded with issuance by the Mediator of his or her

5 final report, if such become necessary, no later than 45 days

6 from receipt of the written notice described in Part IX,

7 paragraph 4, above, unless the time is extended by the Mediator

8 for good cause.

9

6. The reports and reconunendations of the Mediator

10 shall be filed with the Court and served on the parties and shall

11 be based on provisions of this Consent Decree and/or applicable

12 law. The Mediator's report shall be final and binding on the

13 parties as if entered in fact by the Court unless, within 15

14 working days of filing, a party files objections with the Court

15 in the form of a noticed motion. If objections to the Mediator's

16 report and recommendations are filed, the Court shall consider

17 the matter de novo and issue an appropriate order regarding

18 compliance. Any evidence not previously presented to the

19 Mediator in the course of the proceedings described in Part IX,

20 paragraphs 4 and 5 will be admitted at a hearing before the Court

21 only upon a showing that the party offering it lacked a

22 reasonable opportunity to present the evidence to the Mediator.

23 The burden of persuasion is on the party who has objected to the

24 Mediator's findings and recommendations.

25

7. Following a finding of noncompliance with the

26 Consent Decree by the Court, defendants shall have thirty (30)

27 calendar days to comply with the provisions of the order of

1 compliance. This 30-day period may be extended by the Court

2 where defendants show to the Court that compliance is not

3 reasonably possible within this 30-day period. If the 30-day

4 period is extended, the Court shall fix a date by which

5 compliance shall be required. Defendants shall notify the Court,

6 the Mediator and plaintiffs in writing when compliance is

7 accomplished.

8

8. After first informing the Mediator and defendants

9 in writing and only in extraordinary circumstances, plaintiffs

10 may apply directly to the Court for emergency relief on the

11 grounds that compliance with the mediation process would lead to

12 immediate irreparable harm to class members.

13

9. In the event the Mediator becomes permanently

14 unavailable due to death or other unforeseen circumstances, a new

15 Mediator shall be selected in the same manner as provided for the

16 selection of his or her predecessor.

17 X. TERMINATION OF THE DECREE

18

1. The Court shall retain jurisdiction of this action

19 for all purposes under this Consent Decree until defendants shall

20 have fully and faithfully implemented its provisions and until

21 the judgment is discharged.

22

2. It is the goal of the parties that the provisions

23 of this Consent Decree shall be fully and faithfully implemented

24 in their entirety within twenty-four (24) months from the date an

25 order approving the Consent Decree is filed.

26

3. On or after a date on which defendants have fully

27 and faithfully implemented any provision of this Consent Decree,

1 the defendants may request that the Mediator may certify

2 compliance with that provision and may make appropriate

3 modifications in defendants' reporting obligations under this

4 Consent Decree.

5

4. On or after the date on which the Mediator

6 certifies that defendants have fully and faithfully implemented 7 the provisions of this Consent Decree in their entirety and have 8 been in substantial compliance with the Consent Decree for no 9 less than one year, defendants may move that the injunction 10 entered herein be dissolved, the judgment discharged, 11 jurisdiction terminated, and the case closed and dismissed with 12 prejudice on the grounds that defendants have fully and 13 faithfully implemented and maintained the provisions of the 14 Consent Decree; provided that no such motion may be filed prior 15 to 36 months from the date an order approving this Consent Decree

16 is filed.

17

5. Dismissal shall be granted unless, within thirty

18 (30) days after receipt of defendants' motion, plaintiffs file

19 opposition. If such opposition is filed, the Court shall hold a

20 hearing on the motion, and the burden will be on plaintiffs to

21 demonstrate that the defendants have not fully and faithfully

22 implemented all provisions of this Consent Decree. If plaintiffs

23 fail to meet this burden, the injunction shall be dissolved, the

24 judgment shall be discharged, jurisdiction shall be terminated,

25 and the case shall be closed and dismissed with prejudice.

26

27

XI. COSTS AND FEES

1. ..Plaintiffs may seek to recover reasonable costs

and attorneys' fees and other expenses that may be sought

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1988 and 29 U.S.C. Section 794(b)

for work performed in this matter prior to entry of this Consent

Decree and reasonably performed during the pendency of this

Consent Decree. Reasonable costs and expenses shall be awarded

in amounts agreed to by the parties or, absent agreement, as

determined by the Court upon plaintiffs' noticed motions.

10

2. Defendants shall pay the Mediator his reasonable

11 fees and expenses, including the reasonable fees and expenses of

12 any experts or consultants he or she hires pursuant to Part IX,

13 paragraph 3. The rate and procedure for compensation shall be

14 determined by the Mediator and defendants. In the event they are

15 unable to agree, the matter shall be presented to the Court for

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

A "5

1 adoption of a compensation rate and procedure.

2 CONSENTED TO BY THE UNDERSIGNED:

3 FOR THE DEFENDANTS

4 BY:

5

6 J»tES ROWLAND Q^rector
7 -Department of Corrections

EDDIE Warden California Medical Facility

8

9 DR. NADIM/KHOURY /7 Assistant Deputy^irector
10 Health ieowr^es \v Department/ of Correct!^
11
12 DANIEL E. THOR, ^
13 Chief Physician and Surgeon California M e s c a l Facility
14
15
16 BRUCE BAKER, M.D. Chief Psychiatrist (Acting)
17 Northern Reception Center

lief Deputy Director 'Clinical Services California Medical Facility
A
PAUL MORENTZ, M.D /Chief Psychiatris
Outpatient Psychiatnic Program California Medical cility
/ i
DOUGLAS/G. ARNOLD Director (Acting) Department of Mental Health

18

19 CLYDE

Deputy Director

/

20

for State Hospitalls

Department of Mental Health

21

22 JOHN K. VAN DE KAMP

Attorney General

23

of the State of California

&nrfiKBLOUKT Executive Director DMH - Vacaville Psychiatric
Program Department of Mental Health

24

25
26 Dep Atto
27

xney General r Defendants

JjpES E. FLYNN// Deputy Attorney/General JVtto'rney for Defendants

1 FOR THE PLAINTIFFS

FOR THE HIV SUBCLASS

2 BY:

BY:

3

4

WARREN E. GEORGE

xi

5 McCutchen, Doyle, Brown

& Enersen

6

SANFORD JAY ROSEN
^ & Phillips

7

y

8 CYNTHIA GRECO HERR McCutchen, Doyle, Brown

9

& Enersen

-^MATTHEW A. COLES ACLU Foundation of Northern California

10

11 MICHAEL W. BIEN Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison
12

13

14 DONALD SPECTER Prison Law Office
15

16

WHEREFORE, the parties to this action having agreed to

17 the provisions of the Consent Decree set forth above, and the

18 Court being advised in the premises, this Consent Decree is

19 hereby entered as the JUDGMENT of this Court.

20

IT IS SO ORDERED, this

day of

, 1989 at

21 Sacramento, California.

22

23

24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
25

26

27

 
 FILED
o'UL 2 2 1996

- . f U E R K , U.S. DISTRICT COURT

1

EASTERN DISTRICTOFCAURWNIA

2
Gates v. Deukmejian
3

>fcPUTYV_£Rk~

4
PC-CA-004-007
5

2 JJ 1996

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 JAY LEE GATES, et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,

NO. CIV. S-87-1636 LKK

13

v.

14 JAMES GOMEZ, et al.,

ORDER

15

Defendants.

IS

17

Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties to this action,

18 this court entered a consent decree addressing, 'inter alia, the

19 conditions of confinement at the California Medical Facility at

20 Vacaville ("CMF") -1 The defendants, relying on the Prison

21 Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), 18 U.S.C. § 3626, have moved for

22 the termination of an order issued by this court under the

23 provisions of that decree.

24

25

1 The history of the negotiations leading to the decree are

briefly discussed in this court's recent decision in the instant

26 case. See Order entered July 12, 1996.

For the reasons explained below, that motion will be denied.

I.

THE ORDER AND THE MOTION

A. THE ORDER

The plaintiffs herein contested the defendants' policy of

. 6 placing mentally ill patients requiring psychotropic medication in the Willis Unit, an administrative segregation unit at CMF. See

Mediator's Findings and Recommendations Re: Perceived Violation A-

13 filed March 21, 1995. This court, after de_ novo review of the

10 findings and recommendations of the mediator, concluded that the

11 policy violated various provisions of the consent decree and a

12 subsequent stipulated order of enforcement. See Consent Decree

13 §§ V.F.I, and V.G.3.; Stipulation and Order Re: Resolution of PV-

14 506. Consistent with that determination, the court ordered the

15 defendants to cease housing psychiatric patients taking

16 psychotropic medication on the Willis Unit until they adopted

17 appropriate policies and procedures relative to treatment of such

18 patients. See Gates v. Gomez. No. 87-1636 (E.D. Cal. April 9,

19 1996). That order was not appealed.

2 0 B. THE MOTION

21

Defendants move to immediately terminate the order. They

22 argue that 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a) prohibits prospective relief which

23 corrects conditions of confinement not prohibited by the federal

24 constitution, and note the statute's rigorous standard concerning

25

26

the scope of relief.2 Because the statute provides for immediate

termination of prospective relief in excess of the standards set

forth in section 362S(a) (1) (A) , see 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(2)3, and

because the amendment is intended to apply to all prospective

relief whether the judgment was entered prior or subsequent to

adoption of the statute, see PLRA Section 802(b)(I)4, the

7 defendants conclude that they are entitled to immediate

3 2 The section provides in pertinent part:

9

Prospective relief in any civil action with

10

respect to prison conditions shall extend no

further than necessary to correct the violation

11

of a federal right of a particular plaintiff or

plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or

12

approve any prospective relief unless the court

finds that such relief is narrowly drawn,

13

extends no further than necessary to correct the

violation of the federal right, and is the least

14

intrusive means necessary to correct the

violation of the federal right . . . ."

15

18 U.S.C. § 3626(a) (1) (A) 16
3 The section provides:

17

In any civil action with respect to prison

18

conditions, a defendant or intervenor shall be

entitled to the immediate termination of any

19

prospective relief if the relief was approved or

granted in the absence of a finding by the court

20

that the relief is narrowly drawn, extends no

further than necessary to correct the violation

21

of the federal right, and is the least intrusive

means necessary to correct the violation of the

22

federal right.

23 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b) (2) .

24

4 The Congress provided that the statue "shall apply with

respect to all prospective relief whether such relief was

25 originally granted or approved before, on, or after enactment of

this Title." § 802 of Title VII of the Appropriations for,

26 alia, the Judiciary.

termination.

II. ANALYSIS

In a related matter, this court noted its duty to construe

statutes to avoid constitutional questions if the language of the

statute permits such a construction. See Coleman v. Wilson.

F. Supp. , No. 90-520, slip op. at 8, n. 7 (E.D. Cal. July 12,

1996) . Relying upon this principle, plaintiffs, noting the

possible constitutional issue created by construing the statute to

10 apply to final judgments,

Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm Inc., 514

11 U.S. , 131 L.Ed.2d 328 (1995), argue that the statute does not

12 apply when the consent decree upon which prospective injunctive

13 relief Is based was entered prior to adoption of the PLRA. As I

14 explain below, although I come to a conclusion having a result

15 similar to that which plaintiffs argue for, I do so for reasons

16 distinct from those advanced by them.

17

Plaintiffs' argument that the PLRA does not apply to the April

18 9, 1996 order because the PLRA does not address final judgments

19 entered prior to its adoption ignores the requirement that a

20 construction avoiding a constitutional question be "fairly

21 possible." Crowell v. Benson. 285 U.S. 22, 62 (1932). As the 22 Supreme Court has explained, w*[w]e cannot press statutory

23 construction to the point of disingenuous evasion' even to avoid

24 a constitutional question." Public Citizen v. U.S. Department of

25 Justice. 491 U.S. 440, 467 (1989) (quoting U.S. v. Lories. 471 U.S.

26 84, 86 (1985;

The language of the. PLRA is uncompromising in this

regard; there is simply no question that Congress intended to address relief whenever the judgment had been entered.5

While the language of the PLRA pertaining to its applicability

to past judgments appears uncompromising, it does not follow that

I must come to grips with the constitutional issue. Indeed,

construction of another term of the statute and the language of the

7 consent decree permits the court to avoid the constitutional issue.

8 I turn first to the statute.

9

Defendants apparently take the position that the term "federal

10 right" is the equivalent of constitutional right; however, they

11 tender no reason to read the statute that way. Thus, clearly a

12 federal statute creates a federal right, and it appears to this

13 court that the final judgment of a federal court, valid at the time

14 it was entered, also creates rights which can fairly be

15 characterized as "federal rights." Neither the statutory

16 definition of relief to include "consent decrees," 18 U.S.C. 17 § 3626(g)(9)s, nor its application to relief whenever the decree

18

19

5 Although the definition of relief and prospective relief

found in 18 U.S.C. § 3626 (g) is less than helpful, see. Coleman v.

20 Wilson. F. Supp , No. 90-520 (E.D. Cal. July 12, 1996), that

ambiguity is not pertinent to this motion. As this court explained

21 in Coleman. relief appropriately looks to the equitable orders of

a court. Whatever else is true, an order of the sort in issue here

22 is relief within the meaning of the statute.

23

6 The section provides:

24

(9) The term 'relief means all relief in any form that may

be granted or approved by the court, and includes consent decrees,

25 but does not include a private settlement agreement."

26 18 U.S.C. § 3626(g)(9).

issued, see, n. 4, sjiara., appears to undermine a construction of the

term "federal right" to include those rights embodied in a final

decree of a federal court. Thus, to the extent that this court

found that defendants' policy violated a right embodied in the

consent decree, the April 9, 1996 order "correct [s] the violation

of a federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs," as

required by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(2). Moreover, as I now explain,

the agreement of the parties and the language of the consent decree

embodying that agreement demonstrate both that the absence of a

10 federal right antecedent to entry of the decree is irrelevant, and

11 that the PLRA's standards relating to the construction of orders

12 of relief do not apply to orders issued pursuant to that decree.

13

In the consent decree, the parties expressed their agreement

14 that "it is not the intent of this consent decree to prescribe the

15 minimum standards required by the United States Constitution."

16 Consent Decree § 1.24 Accordingly, this court has repeatedly

17 explained in the course of this litigation, and the Ninth Circuit

18 has at least twice affirmed, that the consent decree established

19 contractual standards exceeding those required under the Eighth

20 Amendment. Sfifi Gates v. Rowland. 3 9 F.3d 143 9, 1444 (9th Cir.

21 1994); Gates v. Gomaz. 60 F.3d 525, 531 (9th Cir. 1995). In sum,

22 the defendants, pursuant to agreement, forswore limiting plaintiffs 23 to relief defined by the Eighth Amendment.7

24

25

7 While it seems self evident, the court pauses to note that

unless the parties stipulated otherwise, the plaintiffs were

26 limited to such relief as is afforded under the Eighth Amendmenc

The consent decree also provides than "the parties agree that

in entering into this consent decree they waive specific findings

of fact and conclusions of law and any determination whether the

remedies provided are legally required." Consent Decree § 1.21.

Thus, by its plain language, the parties entered into an agreement

waiving a right to a determination of whether an order conforms to a legal requirement.8

Given the agreement of the parties, the only question that is

raised is whether the parties may waive the limitations of the

10 Eighth Amendment, specific findings and conclusions, and the

11 restriction on the scope of the'order. Although the PLRA adds

12 stringent standards for relief, nothing in the statute precludes

13 the parties from exercising their traditional right to settle on

14 any terms, including waiver of legal rights they might otherwise

15 have.

16

17

18 or relevant federal statutes. Accordingly, no question is raised in this motion about whether the state may waive a statutory right
19 which did not exist at the time the consent decree was entered.

20

8 Fed. R. Civ. P. 52 makes findings of fact and conclusions

of law mandatory "[i]n all actions tried upon the facts without a

21 jury," and Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 requires them when injunctiye relief

is granted. Those provisions existed at the time the consent

22 decree was entered in this case, so that once again there is no

issue of the waiver of a right which did not exist at the time of

23 the parties' agreement. Of course, a consent decree, because it

embodies an agreed disposition by the parties is not a trial upon

24 the facts, thus excusing the need.for findings and conclusions. See

5A Moore's Federal Practice 1(52.03 [3] (citing United States v.

25 Scholnick. 606 F.2d 160, 165-66 (6th Cir. 1979)); Bowater North

American Corp. v. Murray Machinery. Inc. 773 F.2d 71 (6th Cir.

26 1985) .

Clearly, that is what the defendants did in this case.9

The law of this case makes clear that the waivers are proper.

Although the Eighth Amendment and federal statutes applied to the

violations alleged in the plaintiffs' action, the parties were

"free to negotiate- to do more than those laws require." Gates v.

Rowland. 39 F.3d at 1444. Thus, it is established that the state

was able to and did waive its right to have this case determined under a constitutional or federal statutory standard. Id.10

The Circuit's determination is consistent with governmental

10 waiver jurisprudence generally. Thus, in Harris v. City of Fort

11 Myers. 624 F.2d 1321, 1323 (5th Cir. 1980) , a municipal defendant

12 subject to a previously entered consent decree sought to have

13 subsequent Supreme Court authority applied to its case thus

14 avoiding an obligation to paying attorney's fees. The Fifth

15

16

9 I also note that defendants have not moved for modification

or termination of the consent decree. Accordingly, the decree need

17 not be reviewed under the standards set forth in Rufo v. Inmates

of Suffolk County Jail. 502 U.S. 367 (1992) . Even if they had

18 moved for such modification, the passage of the PLRA does not alter the legality of the underlying conduct alleged by plaintiffs such

19 that modification based on a change in law would be appropriate. Cf. Sweeton v. Brown. 27 F.3d 1162, 1166 (6th Cir. 1994), cert.

20 denied. 115 S.Ct. 1118 (1995) (holding that where new law makes

legal what a consent decree was designed to prevent, the decree

21 should be terminated).

22

10 Indeed, it is established that a state may waive its

sovereign immunity protected under the Eleventh Amendment. See Port

23 Authority Trans-Hudson v. Feeney. 495 U.S. 299, 304-307(1990).

Without suggesting that the stringent standards for Eleventh

24 Amendment waiver, see also Micomonaco v. State of Washington. 4 5 F.3d 316, 321 (9th Cir. 1995), Actmedia. Inc. v. Stroh. 830 F.2d

25 957, 963 (9th Cir. 1986), apply to the waiver of rights under PLRA,

even if they did the language of the Decree suffices. See Consent

26 Decree §§ 1.21 and I. 25.

Circuit explained that regardless of the legal standards applicable

under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, the fact that defendant chose to enter into

a consent decree served as a waiver of the standards enunciated in

a subsequent decision. Id at 1324. The situation before me is

analogous. Defendants entered into an agreement prior to enactment

of the PLRA. The agreement provided that the terms of the consent

decree would govern, and that determinations concerning what, but

for the agreement, would otherwise be legally required would not

be made. Consent Decree at § 1.21. Defendants having waived the

10 right to raise defenses under federal statutes cannot now rely on

11 the PLRA as a basis for termination of relief that was issued 12 pursuant to the agreement.11

13

III.

14

CONCLUSION

15

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above defendants' motion

16 to immediately terminate the relief ordered on.April 9, 1996, is

17 DENIED.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

DATED: July 22, 1996.

20

LAWRENCE \. ICARLTON

21

CHIEF JUDGEvEMERITUS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR1

22

23

lx Indeed, to the extent that the PLRA appears to constrain

the ability of a state to settle its litigation on terms

24 satisfactory to itself, the statute raises questions under the

Tenth Amendment. See United States v. Begins. 3 04 U.S. 27, 52

25 (193 7) ("It is of the essence of sovereignty to be able to make

contracts and give consents bearing upon the exertion of

26 governmental power").

 
 imiiinliiiu Gates v. Deukmejian
PC-CA-004-001

ROSEN & PHILLIPS

NOTICE TO ALL PRISONERS AT CMF-MAIN AND NRC:
SETTLEMENT OF GATESv. DEUKMEJIAN
This notice describes your rights to comment on a proposed negotiated settlement of a lawsuit concerning the conditions of confinement at CMF and NRC.
Gates v. Deukmejian is a class action federal lawsuit filed in Sacramento. It was filed by several prisoners alleging that certain conditions at CMF and NRC were unconstitutional or violated a federal law prohibiting discrimination against disabled persons. Because you are a prisoner at CMF or NRC you are a member of the class of p l a i n t i f f s in Gates. The parties in Gates have reached an o u t - o f - c o u r t settlement.
Before the settlement is approved by the Court you are entitled to comment on the fairness of the settlement. ALL COMMENTS MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT BY January 19, 1990. All comments must be in writing and addressed to Clerk - United States District Court, Eastern District; 650 Capitol Mall; Sacramento, California 95814; Attention: Gates v. Deukmejian.
The Court will hold a hearing at 10:00 a.m. on January 24, 1990 to consider all w r i t t e n comments and to decide whether the Consent Decree is fair, just and reasonable and should become a Court Order. Until the Court decides that it is fair, just and reasonable, the Consent Decree will not be enforceable as a Court Order.
THE LAWSUIT
In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs claimed that they were not receiving adequate medical and psychiatric care, that the prison was overcrowded causing general conditions to worsen, and that prisoners with disabilities were not receiving proper treatment or access to programs. The plaintiffs asked the Court to order defendants to change the health care system to provide proper psychiatric and medical care, to reduce crowding and improve conditions, and to provide wheelchair inmates with meaningful access to places and programs within CMF.
The lawsuit also included a subclass of inmates confined to the Special Program Unit as a result of being HIV-positive or as having AIDS. The subclass claimed that they were unlawfully segregated from the general population and given discriminatory t r e a t m e n t . The subclass asked the Court to order defendants to end their policy of total involuntary segregation of inmates who have AIDS or who are HIV-positive from the rest of the prison population, and to order defendants to give them the same treatment in all conditions of confinement that they give to other inmates.
The trial began on September 11, 1989. For almost two months p l a i n t i f f s presented their case to the Court. In November, plaintiffs and defendants began serious settlement negotiations. Those negotiations resulted in an out of court settlement, called a Consent Decree, by which defendants agree to make many changes in the care and treatment of prisoners, including the AIDS subclass, without admission of wrongdoing or court determination that changes are legally required.

CLASS ACTION
The court has c e r t i f i e d this as a class action. Because it governs the claims of all prisoners at CMF-Main and NRC, the Consent Decree will have a significant legal e f f e c t on your right to bring further actions concerning conditions at this prison. One e f f e c t of the Decree is to l i m i t your ability to litigate all issues that it covers. If the court approves the Decree, the defendants may move the court to dismiss lawsuits seeking injunctions concerning alleged violations of federal constitutional rights filed by prisoners at CMF-Main and NRC concerning the issues covered by the Consent Decree while the Decree is in effect, which is at least three years. If defendants do not comply with the terms of the Decree, however, prisoners will have a remedy through the review process described in parts VII and IX of the Consent Decree. This review process is described below under the heading "How The Settlement Works."
This Decree will not prevent prisoners from filing lawsuits in federal court seeking damages for alleged violations of the Constitution and federal law. It will not affect existing actions for damages. Also, this Decree will not prevent prisoners from filing lawsuits in state court based on state statutes, regulations or the California Constitution.
TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT
The most important terms of the Consent Decree are summarized below. Not all of the terms of the Consent Decree and changes defendants agreed to make are described in this Summary. If you are in the general population and would like to review the full text you may read a copy of the Consent Decree at the law library. If you are in a closed unit, you can get a copy of the Consent Decree to read from your Correctional Counselor.
MEDICAL CARE ISSUES (See Part III of Consent Decree, pages 6-10)
1. There will be w r i t t e n treatment guidelines for certain medical conditions.
2. The treatment guidelines will include criteria concerning when patients should be transferred to an accredited outside hospital.
3. Problem lists and flow sheets will be put in the medical records of patients who suffer from certain medical conditions.
4. CMF has a program called a Quality Assurance program to review the medical care provided to make sure CMF is providing proper care. An outside healthcare organization will evaluate and help improve and expand the QA program to assure that it is consistent with standards used in accredited hospitals and clinics. The outside organization will regularly report on whether the program is working.
5. Defendants will make sure equipment to diagnose and treat inmates with lung disorders is appropriately located and used.
6. Defendants will make sure that medical staff are properly using computer Drug Interaction Profiles to make sure patients who need to take a combination of drugs do not get bad side effects as a result.
4476I

7. Defendants will study and report on whether more doctors are needed at CMF on nights, weekends, or holidays.
MEDICAL DISABILITY ISSUES (See Part IV of Consent Decree, pages 10-14)
1. CMF will now have a section of the medical department for Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, including physical medicine, physical therapy, occupational therapy, and psychology.
2. Medical care given by the Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation section will be covered by the Quality Assurance program discussed above under Medical Care Issues.
3. A treatment plan will be developed for each disabled inmate (defined in the settlement agreement as inmates who are mobility-impaired because they need a wheelchair or prosthetic device) and reviewed regularly. The adequacy of any t r e a t m e n t plan, including such things as whether an inmate has need of periodic evaluation of his wheelchair, a r t i f i c i a l limb or brace to make sure it is working properly, or training in the use of a wheelchair, a r t i f i c i a l limb, or brace will be reviewed by the Quality Assurance program to make sure it is proper.
4. Training in Activities of Daily Living (for example, dressing, bathing) will be given to inmates who need it, and help will be given to inmates who cannot do A c t i v i t i e s of Daily Living on their own.
5. Defendants will make sure that there are enough available hours of time from a physiatrist (a doctor who specializes in the treatment of physically disabled patients) to treat the inmates who need specialized treatment.
6. Defendants will make sure that physical therapy aides do only what they are qualified to do according to professional standards.
7. Defendants will make sure that there are enough available hours of time from physical therapists to treat inmates who need physical therapy.
8. Mobility impaired disabled inmates will be housed in a wheelchair-accessible environment unless they refuse placement there.
9. An independent expert in access by disabled persons (someone not a Department of Corrections or CMF employee) will evaluate program and housing areas to make sure that disabled inmates have meaningful access to housing and program areas, including beds, toilet facilities, showers, lavatories, mirrors, water fountains, exercise yards, and the gym.
10. Disabled inmates will have equivalent access to package pickup, canteen, and laundry services.
11. Disabled inmates who are qualified will have the opportunity to participate in work, exercise, educational, and vocational programs available at CMF. A disabled inmate will not be disqualified because he is unable to participate for a full work day or because getting to the program requires the inmate to be searched.
4476I

i V
12. Defendants will study and report on whether the existing prerelease program gives disabled inmates the information and help they need to meet their special needs after release.
MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES (See Part V of Consent Oecree, pages 14-25)
1. A suicide prevention program will be in place at CMF no later than July 3 1 , 1990. The program will include training for custodial and psychiatric staff, appropriate housing and treatment for prisoners at risk for suicide and a review of policies concerning the use of 5-point restraints, isolation and strip cells.
2. A psychiatrist is and will be present at CMF at all times. Defendants w i l l study whether an additional psychiatrist is necessary for nights, weekends and holidays.
3. Tasers will not be used to restrain a prisoner to administer involuntary psychiatric medication. Tasers will only be used on prisoners with psychiatric classifications or taking anti-psychotic medications as a last resort and after (except in an emergency) consultation with a psychiatrist.
4. Appropriate access to inpatient psychiatric care will be provided to all prisoners at CMF. CDC/CMF medical staff will be eligible to obtain admitting privileges to the DMH Unit by March 1, 1990.
5. Defendants will provide appropriate psychiatric screening for each incoming inmate and will provide appropriate psychiatric evaluation and treatment for all inmates at CMF as medically indicated. By June 30, 1990, defendants will begin a program to provide appropriate outpatient care to prisoners discharged from the inpatient units at CMF and Atascadero State Hospital. The program will be designed to f a c i l i t a t e increased functioning, participation in prison programming and return to the general population.
6. Prisoners will not be declassified from psychiatric classifications without the w r i t t e n approval of a psychiatrist made after a psychiatric evaluation, including an interview.
7. Prisoners with psychiatric classifications will not be housed in Willis Unit without prior approval of a psychiatrist, psychologist or social worker ("clinician") except in an emergency. All prisoners with psychiatric classifications now housed in Willis Unit will be evaluated by a clinician who will determine whether they should be housed in Willis Unit. Defendants will begin a pilot program by June 30, 1990 for housing and treating certain prisoners with psychiatric classifications in Willis Unit. Appropriate psychiatric
are will be provided to all prisoners based in Willis Unit. Prisoners with psychiatric assifications will be housed separately from other prisoners in Willis Unit. V and AIDS ISSUES (See Part VI of Consent Decree, pages 25-27)
1. Within four (4) months of the Court's approval of this proposed Consent :ree, CMF will begin a "pilot program" to place some number of known HIV-positive ates into a single, open, general population program at CMF. There will be twenty (20) iirty (30) inmates placed in this general population program within the first three
hs of the program's operation. The number of inmates may increase to more than i (30) by the end of the pilot program.

2. The goal of the pilot program is to show that it is possible to place HIV-infected inmates in a general population program at CMF consistent with medical, behavioral and security considerations.

3. The inmates in the pilot program will include inmates presently in the SPU at CMF and may include newly discovered HIV-infected inmates coming into or identified at CMF.

4. Criteria for placement in the general population component of the pilot program are listed in the Consent Decree. These c r i t e r i a will not be binding on any future program. Inmates who are placed in the general population component of the pilot program will be housed in the open unit and they will have greater freedom of movement and greater access to prison programs than inmates currently in the Special Program Unit.

5. There will be regular AIDS education for all prisoners at CMF.

6. Within eleven (11) months of the date the Court signs the Consent Decree, defendants will report on the success of the pilot program and describe their plans for housing and programming HIV-infected inmates at CMF. These will be subject to a review process provided for in the Decree. This review process is described below under the heading "How The Settlement Works."

7. HIV virus.

"HIV infected inmate" means any inmate who has tested positive for the

GENERAL CONDITIONS ISSUES (See Part VII of Consent Decree, pages 27-33)

1. All prisoners in Willis Unit, the Psychiatric Management Unit, and the Special Program Unit will be permitted a reasonable opportunity to go to and use the law library.

2. Prison officials will maintain housing assignments in a way that minimizes violence and takes a prisoner's medical and mental condition into account.

3. Prisoners cannot be double-celled if a physical or mental condition requires single celling. Double-celling of reception center inmates in pocket cells can occur only if prison officials make all reasonable efforts to maximize the time prisoners spend out of their cells, they are not confined in the cells more than 12 hours a day for more than 60 days, and prisoners have adequate recreation 5 hours per day 5 days per week.

4. Prisoner clerks may not have access to any information that would threaten the safety of any other prisoner or staff member.

5. Prisoners cannot be housed in Disciplinary and Detention cells if they suffer from serious mental illness or have a recent history of attempted suicide. A term in these cells cannot last longer than 10 full consecutive days.

When prisoners are placed in Disciplinary and Detention cells they must be examined by a psychiatrist, psychologist or physician within 24 hours, and then every 72 hours. The flaps on the doors of these cells cannot be closed unless prisoners misbehave in such a way as to make that necessary.

4476I

Within 60 days after the Consent Decree is approved, prisoners in Disciplinary and Detention cells will generally have control over their own lights and plumbing. The cells must be clean. A garbage bag must be provided once a day.
6. Prison officials must determine whether there are enough toilets, sinks and showers at CMF and NRC to meet the needs of all prisoners.
7. Each prisoner in a closed unit will have the opportunity for outdoor exercise 10 hours per week, except that exercise can be suspended for 10 days for individual misbehavior or institution security. Exercise can also be reduced by a doctor's order.
8. Prison officials will review their procedures for providing emergency assistance to prisoners in Willis Unit on the first watch to assure that upon discovery of an emergency a prisoner is removed from his cell promptly in a manner consistent with security requirements.
9. Defendants will review staffing levels to determine whether there are adequate custody staff to supervise properly and to provide escorts for prisoners, and report their conclusions and recommendations.
10. Under normal conditions, prison officials must report their intention to convert space for housing prisoners 30 days before the conversion takes place. Any conversions will be subject to a review process provided for in the Decree. (See the next section in this notice.)
HOW THE SETTLEMENT WORKS (See Parts VIII and IX of Consent Decree, pages 33-41)
A person called the Mediator will be appointed by the Court to oversee the Consent Decree. Prison officials must report to the Mediator regularly and tell the Mediator what they have done pursuant to the Consent Decree. The plaintiffs' attorneys will get copies of reports that defendants have to prepare under the Consent Decree. Once the Mediator is appointed, the Mediator has the power to receive complaints from inmates and to meet with inmates if he or she chooses.
The Mediator will report to the Court and both sides every 90 days during the first year and every 180 days after the first year about how defendants have or have not done the things they agreed to do in the Consent Decree. The Mediator can go into CMF without notice if he or she wants, and can see all parts of the prison, any documents, and talk to any people he or she needs to. The Mediator can also hire experts, for example doctors or psychiatrists, to advise him or her on how the Consent Decree is working.
In a state of genuine emergency, the Director or Warden may temporarily suspend compliance with all or any part of this Consent Decree. If such a state of emergency occurs, defendants must promptly notify the Mediator and plaintiffs' counsel in writing.
In extraordinary circumstances, p l a i n t i f f s may apply d i r e c t l y to the Court for emergency relief on the grounds that compliance with the mediation process would lead to irreparable harm to prisoners. They must inform the Mediator and defendants in writing.
4476I

If inmates object to what defendants are doing under the Consent Decree, the inmates' attorneys can tell defendants and the Mediator. The Mediator will work with both sides to try to resolve the problem. If both sides cannot agree on how to resolve the problem, the Mediator will say in a report whether he or she thinks defendants are doing what they agreed to, what is required by applicable law, and what should be done. Either side who disagrees with what the Mediator decided can appeal to the Court for help.

WHEN THE SETTLEMENT ENDS (See Part X of Consent Decree, pages 41-42)

It is the goal of the parties that the provisions of the Consent Decree be implemented within two years. When the Mediator determines that defendants have fully implemented the provisions of the Consent Decree and have been in compliance for at least one year, defendants may move to dissolve the Consent Decree. However, defendants cannot file such a motion prior to three years from the date this Consent Decree is signed by the Court. If plaintiffs do not believe the lawsuit should be ended at that point, the Court will decide whether it should be ended.

There has been no agreement as to fees for p l a i n t i f f s ' attorneys, which under the Consent Decree and applicable law will be the subject of Court proceedings after the Court has passed on the fairness of the Consent Decree.

You may write p l a i n t i f f s ' attorneys with any questions you have about the settlement:

MEDICAL CARE AND DISABILITY ISSUES GENERAL CONDITIONS ISSUES

Warren George, Esq. Cynthia Greco Herr, Esq. McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen Three Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 94111

Donald Specter, Esq. Millard A. Murphy, Esq. Prison Law Office P.O. Box 4745 Davis, CA 95617

MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES

HIV ISSUES

Michael Bien, Esq. Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison One Market Plaza Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105

Sanford Jay Rosen, Esq. Rosen & Phillips 155 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104
Matthew Coles, Esq. American Civil Liberties Union 1663 Mission St, Suite 460 San Francisco, CA 94103

THIS NOTICE IS GIVEN BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.

4476I

 
 J.S. v. Cal.

• ••< H

•V HH W

••• I

PC-CA-013-006

1 McCUTCHEN, DOYLE, BROWN & ENERSEN WARREN E. GEORGE (State Bar # 053588)
2 Three Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 94111
3 Telephone: (415) 393-2000

4 PRISON LAW OFFICE DONALD SPECTER (# 083925)
5 MILLARD MURPHY (# 124451) Freedom Mall, Main Street
6 San Quentin, CA 94964 Telephone: (415) 457-9144
7 BROBECK, PHLEGER & HARRISON
8 MICHAEL W. BIEN (# 096891) Spear Street Tower
9 One Market Plaza San Francisco, CA 94105
10 Telephone: (415) 442-0900
11 Attorney for Plaintiffs

ROSEN & PHILLIPS SANFORD JAY ROSEN (# 062566) PAUL A. Di DONATO (# 124962) 155 Montgomery Street 8th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-6830
ACLU FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC.
MATTHEW A. COLES (# 076090) 1663 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94103 Telephone: (415) 621-2493

12

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15

16 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

No. CIV S-89-1233 EJG-JFM

17

Plaintiffs,

18 vs.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 19
Defendants.
20

21 JAY LEE GATES, et al.,

No. CIV S-87-1636 LKK-JFM

22 23 vs.

Plaintiffs,

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF PLAINTIFFS IN GATES V. DEUKMEJIAN

24 GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, et al.,

25

Defendants.

26

455\2\complnt9.o20

- 1-

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF PLAINTIFFS

1

2

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

3 I. NATURE OF ACTION

4

l. Plaintiffs, prisoners incarcerated at the California

5 Medica Facility ("CMF") and at the Northern Reception Center

6 ("NRC"), bring this action to remedy the legally deficient medical

7 care and psychiatric care that are presently being provided at CMF

8 and NRC.

9

2. These prisoner plaintiffs also contend that the

10 conditions of confinement experienced by prisoners at CMF and NRC

11 fall beneath the standards of human decency, inflict needless

12 suffering on prisoners, create an environment which threatens the

13 prisoners' mental and physical well-being, and result in the

14 physical and mental deterioration and debilitation of such

15 prisoners. These conditions of confinement are both unnecessary

16 and penologically unjustifiable. Plaintiffs bring this action to

17 remedy these conditions as well.

18

3. Plaintiffs bring this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the

19 Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United

20 States and under 29 U.S.C. § 794 on behalf of all inmates confined

21 at CMF and NRC (but excluding CMF South) for declaratory and

22 injunctive relief against California officials who have

23 responsibility for, and complete control over, the health care,

24 conditions of confinement, and rehabilitation activities of the

25 plaintiffs. Defendants, although apprised of plaintiffs' medical

26 and psychiatric needs, needs for humane and appropriate conditions

455\2\complnt9.o20

- 2 -

COMPLAINT IN
INTERVENTION OF PLAINTIFFS

1 of confinement, and needs for appropriate rehabilitation activities

2 that are a necessary and appropriate part of their medical and

3 psychiatric care thereby subjecting them to severe and unnecessary

4 physical pain and injury. Defendants have thus violated

5 plaintiffs' rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to

6 the United States Constitution.

7

4. As to the second cause of action only, plaintiffs also

8 bring this action under both 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Eighth and

9 Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and 29 U.S.C. § 794

10 ("Rehabilitation Act of 1973"), on behalf of all inmates who are,

11 or will be involuntarily confined on the Special Program Unit (SPU)

12 maintained for identified HIV positive inmates at CMF for

13 declaratory and injunctive relief against California officials who

14 have responsibility for the complete control over:

15

a. the segregation of some inmates from the rest of the

16 prison population in the SPU; and

17

b. differences in the conditions of confinement and

18 care of inmates confined in the SPU. Under color of law,

19 defendants have infoluntarily confined inmates in the SPU even

20 though there is no sound reason for such segregation, and any goal

21 at which it might be aimed could be achieved by less discriminatory

22 means and even though said segregation results, inter alia, in

23 breach of inmates' confidentiality as to their HIV status. Again

24 acting under color of law, defendants have subjected inmates in the

25 SPU to discrimination in the conditions of confinement, again

26 without sound reason and in the face of available, less

455\2\COmplnt9.o20

- 3-

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF PLAINTIFFS

discriminatory means by which any goal at which the discriminatory

treatment is aimed could be achieved. Defendants have thus violated plaintiffs1 rights under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973

and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

5. The California Department of Corrections is a recipient

of federal financial assistance as that term is used in 29 U.S.C. §

7 794.

8 II. JURISDICTION

9

6. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by 28 U.S.C. §

10 1343. Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2201

11 and injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1343.

12 III. PARTIES

13

7. Plaintiffs are citizens of the United States who are

14 presently confined at CMF and at NRC. Plaintiff Jay Lee Gates is a

15 prisoner confined at CMF. He has been denied access to medical

16 care, and deprived of access to the law library, during lockdowns

17 at CMF. Plaintiff Harvey Canaday is a prisoner confined at CMF.

18 He suffers from lung cancer. Although Mr. Canaday needs regular

19 chemotherapy for his condition, defendants have failed and refused

20 to provide such treatment. Plaintiff Jerold Daniels is a prisoner

21 confined at CMF. He suffers from cancer of his lymphatic system.

22 Mr. Daniels needs regular chemotherapy for his condition but

23 defendants have failed and refused to provide such treatment.

24 Plaintiff Rodger Parker is a prisoner confined at CMF. He suffers

25 from, among other things, a life-threatening sleep apnea syndrome.

26 Defendants have failed and refused to provide appropriate medical

455\2\complnt9.o2 0

- 4 -

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF PLAINTIFFS

treatment for his condition. Plaintiff Carl Kimbrough is a prisoner confined at CMF in the prison's "AIDS Wing." He has tested seropositive to the AIDS virus; i.e., he has developed antibodies to the human immunodeficiency virus. Defendants have failed and refused to provide appropriate medical and psychiatric treatment for his condition. Plaintiff Dennis Wilbely is a prisoner confined at CMF in the "AIDS Wing." He suffers from AIDSRelated Complex ("ARC"). Defendants have failed and refused to provide appropriate medical and psychiatric treatment for his 10 condition. Plaintiff Lonnie West is a prisoner confined at CMF in 11 the "AIDS Wing." He suffers from AIDS. Defendants have failed 12 and refused to provide appropriate medical and psychiatric 13 treatment for his condition. Plaintiff Felipe Garcia is a prisoner 14 confined at CMF. He is an amputee, confined to a wheelchair, who 15 requires regular kidney dialysis. He is handicapped as that term 16 is used in 29 U.S.C. § 794. Despite his handicaps, he is otherwise 17 qualified to participate in educational, occupational, work and 18 other programs and additional rehabilitation activities made 19 available to other prisoners at CMF. Such programs and activities 20 are a necessary and appropriate part of his medical care and 21 rehabilitation. Defendants have failed and refused to provide him 22 access to such programs and other rehabilitation activities because 23 of his handicaps. Although defendants have provided Mr. Garcia 24 with an artificial leg, they have failed and refused to provide him 25 with appropriate and necessary training, physical therapy, or 26 medical supervision in the use of this prosthetic device.

455\2\COmplnt9.o20

- 5 -

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF PLAINTIFFS

Plaintiff John Britto is a prisoner confined at CMF. He is classified by defendants as a "Category J11 psychiatric patient,

that is as a psychotic in remission. He is handicapped as that

term is used in 29 U.S.C. § 794. Despite his handicap, he requires

for his treatment and is otherwise qualified to participate in

occupational, educational, work and other programs and additional

rehabilitation activities made available to other prisoners at CMF.

Such programs and activities are a necessary and appropriate part

of his psychiatric care and rehabilitation. Defendants have failed

10 and refused to provide him access to such programs and other

11 rehabilitation activities because of his handicap. Plaintiff Roger

12 Morris is a prisoner confined at CMF. He is classified by

13 defendants as a "Category J" psychiatric patient, that is as a

14 psychotic in remission. He is handicapped as that term is used in

15 29 U.S.C. § 794. Despite his handicap, he requires for his

16 treatment and is otherwise qualified to participate in

17 occupational, educational, work and other programs and additional

18 rehabilitation activities made available to other prisoners at CMF.

19 Such programs and activities are a necessary and appropriate part

20 of his psychiatric care and rehabilitation. Defendants have failed

21 and refused to provide him access to such programs and other

22 rehabilitation activities because of his handicap. Plaintiff

23 Timothy McCapes is a prisoner confined at NRC. He and the other

24 named plaintiffs suffer from the pervasive impact overcrowding has

25 had on the conditions of their confinement.

26

8. Defendant George Deukmejian is Governor of the State of

4 55\2\complnt9.o20

- 6-

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF PLAINTIFFS

California and the Chief Executive Officer of the state government.

He is sued herein in his official capacity. As Governor he is

obligated to supervise the official conduct of all executive and

ministerial officers and to see that all offices are filled and

their duties performed. Defendant Deukmejian has the authority to

appoint and remove the subordinate defendants named herein.

Governor Deukmejian retains the ultimate state authority over the

8 care and treatment of plaintiffs.

9

9. Defendant Joseph G. Sandoval is Secretary of the Youth

10 and Corrections Agency of the State of California and is sued

11 herein in this capacity. The Youth and Corrections Agency

12 supervises the operation of the California state prison system,

13 including CMF and NRC.

14

10. Defendant James Rowland is the acting Director of the

15 California Department of Corrections and is sued herein in that

16 capacity. The Department of Corrections is responsible for the

17 operation of the California State prison system, including CMF and

18 NRC.

19

ii. Defendant Nadim Khoury, M.D., is the Chief of Medical

20 Services for the California Department of Corrections and is sued

21 in this capacity. As Chief of Medical Services, Dr. Khoury is

22 responsible for supervising the provision of medical and

23 psychiatric care for all prisoners within the custody of the

24 Department, including those at CMF and NRC.

25

12. Defendant Eddie Ylst is the Superintendent of CMF. He is

26 sued in that capacity. Defendant Ylst is responsible for the daily

455\2\complnt9.o20

- 7 -

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF PLAINTIFFS

1 operations at CMF and NRC.

2

13. Defendant Kenneth Sheppard, M.D., is the Medical Director

3 of CMF and is sued in this capacity. He is directly responsible

4 for the medical care provided to all prisoners at CMF and NRC.

5 Defendant Nicholas Poulos, M.D., is the Chief Physician and Surgeon

6 at CMF and is sued in this capacity. Defendant Poulos is directly

7 responsible for the medical care provided to prisoners at CMF and

8 NRC.

9

14. Defendant Paul Morantz, M.D., is the Chief Psychiatrist

10 at CMF. He is sued in that capacity. Defendant Morantz is

11 directly responsible for the psychiatric care of all prisoners

12 confined at CMF. He is the acting Chief Psychiatrist at NRC. He

13 is sued in that capacity. Defendant Morantz is directly

14 responsible for the psychiatric care of all prisoners confined at

15 NRC.

16

15. Douglas G. Arnold is the Deputy Director, Division of

17 State Hospitals, of the Department of Mental Health, and is sued

18 herein in this capacity. The Department of Mental Health has

19 entered into a contract with the California Department of

20 Corrections. Pursuant to that contract the Department of Mental

21 Health has assumed responsibility for the staffing and operation of|

22 all in-patient psychiatric services at CMF main, and certain out-

23 patient services as well. Mr. Arnold is directly responsible for

24 the in-patient and certain out-patient psychiatric care provided to

25 prisoners at CMF and NRC.

26

16. D. Michael O'Connor, M.D., is the Director of the

455\2\complnt9.o20

- 8 -

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF PLAINTIFFS

Department of Mental Health and he is sued in that capacity. Dr.

O'Connor is directly responsible for the in-patient and certain

out-patient psychiatric care provided to prisoners at CMF and NRC.

17. Sylvia Blount, R.N., is the Executive Director,

Department of Mental Health, Vacaville Psychiatric Program and she

is sued in that capacity. Nurse Blount is directly responsible for

the in-patient and certain out-patient psychiatric care provided to

8 prisoners at CMF and NRC.

9 IV. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

10

18. Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and,

11 pursuant to Rule 23(b)(l) and Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of

12 Civil Procedure, on behalf of all persons who are and will be

13 confined at CMF and NRC, but not including CMF South.

14

a. Approximately 6,000 prisoners are confined at CMF

15 and NRC at the present time. Accordingly, the class is so numerous

16 that joinder of all its members is impracticable.

17

b. The conditions, practices and omissions that form

18 the basis of this complaint are common to al members of the class

19 and the relief sought will apply to all of them.

20

c. The claims of the plaintiffs are typical of the

21 claims of the entire class.

22

d. The prosecution of separate actions by individual

23 members of the class would create a risk of inconsistent and

24 varying adjudications which would establish incompatible standards

25 of conduct for the defendants.

26

e. The prosecution of separate actions by individual

455\2\complnt9.o20

- 9 -

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF PLAINTIFFS

members of the class would create a risk of adjudications with

respect to individual members which would, as a practical matter,

substantially impair the ability of other members to protect their

4 interests.

5

f. Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds

generally applicable to the class, making appropriate injunctive

and declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole, or to

8 particular subclasses.

9

g. There are questions of law and fact common to the

10 members of the class including defendants' violations of the Eighth

11 and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and of

12 the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 because of overcrowding, deficient

13 medical care, deficient psychiatric care, and denial of the benefit

14 of and discrimination in access to therapy programs and

15 rehabilitation activities for handicapped prisoners that are a

16 necessary and appropriate part of their medical and psychiatric

17 care.

18

h. The names plaintiffs are capable, through counsel,

19 of fairly and adequately representing the class and protecting its

20 interest because they are prisoners confined at CMF who suffer

21 from, among other things, defendants' violations of the Eighth and

22 Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the

23 Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as set forth in plaintiffs' statement

24 of Class Claims.

25

i. There are named plaintiffs and members of the class

26 who are handicapped as defined under the Rehabilitation Act of

455\2\complnt9.o20

- 10 -

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF PLAINTIFFS

1 1973.

2

19. Plaintiffs Kimbrough and West also bring this action on

behalf of themselves and a subclass consisting of all inmates who

are or will be confined in the SPU at CMF.

a. Approximately 140 prisoners are confined in the SPU

now. Accordingly, the subclass is so numerous that joinder of all

its members is impracticable.

b. The conditions, practices and omissions that form

the basis of this complaint are common to all members of the

10 subclass and the relief sought will apply to all of them.

11

c. The claims of the plaintiffs are typical of the

12 claims of the entire subclass.

13

d. The prosecution of separate actions by individual

14 members of the subclass would create a risk of inconsistent and

15 varying adjudication which would establish incompatible standards

16 of conduct for the defendants.

17

e. The prosecution of separate actions by individual

18 members of the subclass would create a risk of adjudications with

19 respect to individual members which would, as a practical matter,

20 substantially impair the ability of other members to protect their

21 interest.

22

f. Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds

23 generally applicable to the subclass, making appropriate injunctive

24 and declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole, or to

25 particular subclasses.

26

g. There are questions of law and fact common to the

455\2\complnt9.o2 0

- 11 -

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF PLAINTIFFS

1 members of the subclass including defendants' violations of the

2 Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments

3 to the U.S. Constitution because of the segregation of inmates in

4 the SPU and because of the different treatment of those inmates.

5

h. The named plaintiffs are capable, through counsel,

6 of fairly and adequately representing the subclass and protecting

7 its interests because they are prisoners confined at CMF who suffer

8 from, among other things, defendants' violations of the

9 Rehabilitation Act and the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments as set

10 forth in the second case of action.

11 V. STATEMENT OF CLASS CLAIMS

12

Overcrowding

13

20. CMF and NRC are, and are known by defendants to be,

14 grossly overcrowded and understaffed. Currently, these

15 institutions are operating at approximately 160% or more of design

16 capacity. Classrooms, conference rooms, meeting rooms, and library

17 areas have been converted to dormitory space in a futile effort to

18 deal with this overcrowding. These circumstances, in combination

19 with deteriorated and inadequate physical facilities, have resulted

20 in, among other things:

21

a. The inhumane confinement of prisoners two to a cell.

22 Confinement of two prisoners to a cell the size of those at CMF

23 leaves no room for prisoners to move about within their cells,

24 precludes the possibility of any semblance of privacy and

25 unreasonably increases the hostility and the potential for violent

26 conflicts between prisoners;

455\2\complnt9.o20

- 12 -

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF PLAINTIFFS

1

b. At NRC double-celled prisoners are locked in their

2 cells 24 hours a day, Monday through Friday, except for meals,

3 showers, medical appointments and classification hearings. One of

A the inmates is forced to sleep on a mattress on the floor,

5 resulting in a complete lack of floor space for both prisoners.

6

c. Other NRC prisoners are crammed into dormitories,

7 converted dayrooms, classrooms with 50 other prisoners with only

8 two toilets and two showers. They have no physical access to the

9 law library. They are not adequately supervised by correctional

10 personnel.

11

d. NRC prisoners often spend six months living in these

12 conditions. During this time they are not eligible under

13 California law to earn sentence reducing credits, as are most other

14 California prisoners.

15

e. An increase in the level of hostility and violence

16 at CMF. Prisoners are not being kept in safe custody, but instead

17 are being subjected to discriminatory and arbitrary treatment and

18 live in constant fear for their personal safety and even their

19 lives;

20

f. The imposition by prison officials of increasingly

21 harsh and repressive security measures, including frequent

22 lockdowns, in an attempt to forestall an outbreak of uncontainable

23 violence;

24

g. Serious emotional and psychological problems for the

25 prisoners and the prison staff. Prison and staff members are

26 experiencing severe psychological symptoms of frustration, tension,

455\2\complnt9.o20

- 13 -

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF PLAINTIFFS

paranoia and psychosis;

h. Intolerable noise levels resulting from housing the

prisoner population in open cell blocks;

i. Food service facilities which are inadequate to

serve the needs of the prisoner population, with the result that

the food provided to prisoners is nutritionally inadequate, and the

food service facilities and procedures fail to meet minimal public

8 health and sanitation standards;

9

j . Inadequate prison work, educational, therapy, and

10 rehabilitation programs. Work programs have not been expanded to

11 serve the increased prison population, and educational programs are

12 being reduced. In addition, otherwise qualified prisoners with

13 handicaps have been denied meaningful access to work, educational,

therapy, rehabilitation and other programs. The result is a lack

15 of constructive activity for the prisoners, and a failure to

16 provide access to prison activities that handicapped prisoners are

17 otherwise qualified to participate in;

18

k. A "pass" system (used by defendants to control the

19 movements of prisoners from place to place within CMF) which

20 frequently fails and leads to unreasonable delay and deprivation of

21 access to visitation, religious, law library, health care, therapy,

22 rehabilitation and other facilities for all prisoners and, in

23 particular, for handicapped prisoners;

24

i. An undermanned and inadequately trained

25 administrative and security staff; and

26

m. Denial of access to medical and psychiatric care,

455\2\COmplnt9.o20

- 14 -

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF PLAINTIFFS

and denial of humane, safe, appropriate, and speedy medical and

psychiatric care.

3

Psychiatric Care

4

21. Pursuant to defendants' policies and practices, prisoners

at CMF and NRC are denied access to psychiatric care, are denied

humane, safe, appropriate and speedy psychiatric care and are

denied their rights to appropriate procedures prior to the

administration of involuntary psychiatric treatment including

involuntary psychiatric medication in the following ways:

10

a. Professional staffing for treatment and handling of

11 inmates with psychiatric illness is grossly inadequate.

12 Consequently, prisoners with serious mental illness are often

13 untreated.

b. The absence of psychiatric staffing results in

15 treatment of only a fraction of prisoners in acute care units

16 requiring attention. Instead, attention is given largely to

17 "crisis" cases. Lack of psychiatric staffing results in an

18 inability to distinguish which prisoners are most in need of

19 medical attention. Some prisoners are admitted to psychiatric

20 units without legitimate psychiatric diagnosis, including inmates

21 who are merely disruptive.

22

c. The psychiatric care units at CMF lack insufficient

23 space to properly care for prisoners with mental illness. Pressure

24 to make space available for new psychiatric admissions results in

25 the discharge of prisoners to out-patient units before such

26 discharges are medically warranted. Decisions regarding the

455\2\complnt9.o20

- 15 -

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF PLAINTIFFS

release of prisoners from acute psychiatric care are based on

shortage of space and custodial consideration, rather than proper

medical factors.

d. The health and safety of those prematurely

discharged prisoners with mental illness is jeopardized by

subsequent lack of treatment. Psychiatric treatment for Category J

prisoners is inadequate, in part, because of insufficient staffing,

lack of appropriate therapies, failure to monitor medication, and a

general lack of support and follow-up. As a result Category J

10 prisoners needlessly suffer, and are subjected to more frequent

11 hospitalization of longer duration, and more frequent involuntary

12 medication. The failure to provide appropriate therapies includes

13 the failure to provide meaningful access to work and educational

14 programs, occupational therapy and other rehabilitation activities

15 that Category J prisoners are otherwise qualified to participate

16 in.

17

e. The use of certain medications on patients with

18 psychiatric problems, including psychotropic drugs, requires close

19 medical supervision and testing. Prisoners at CMF who receive such

20 drugs are inadequately monitored by medical or psychiatric staff.

21 Prisoners are often not evaluated for adverse drug effects or

22 toxicity.

23

f. Suicide prone individuals are not properly

identified and monitored. Suicide watches in psychiatric units are

25 not properly monitored by medical staff. There is needless loss of

26 life as a result.

455\2\complnt9.o20

- 16 -

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF PLAINTIFFS

g. Prisoners at the "S-Unit" at CMF, the psychiatric

ward, are continually locked up and have no access to an exercise

yard.

h. Violent or hostile prisoners with mental illness are

treated with excessive and unsafe levels of force by prison

officials. Prison protocol allows the use of electric-shock stun

guns to subdue certain prisoners. At least one inmate with mental

illness has died following use of a stun gun and other excessive

force by prison officials.

10

i. Prisoners' rights to refuse psychiatric commitment,

11 to refuse medication, including powerful anti-psychotics, and to

12 give full informed consent to psychiatric treatments, are

13 frequently violated. The practices and procedures for determining

14 whether or not a prisoner should receive involuntary psychiatric

15 treatment and medication, and for administering such medication,

16 are improper and inadequate. Neither are prisoners provided with

17 sufficient information concerning side effects, alternatives, risks

18 and benefits of psychiatric medications to give fully informed

19 consent to such medication;

20

j . Prisoners with mental impairments and handicaps have

21 been excluded from, denied the benefits of, and subjected to

22 discrimination under various programs and activities, including

23 work education, therapy, and other rehabilitation programs that

24 they are otherwise qualified to participate in.

25

Medical Care

26

22. Pursuant to defendants' policies and practices, prisoners

455\2\complnt9.o20

- 17 -

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF PLAINTIFFS

at CMF and NRC as a class are denied access to medical care and are

denied humane, safe, appropriate and speedy medical treatment in

the following ways:

a. Prisoners are repeatedly denied access to necessary

medical care both for conditions previously diagnosed as requiring

a physician's care and for new conditions for which treatment is

repeatedly requested or is obviously necessary because:

8

(1) Medical Technical Assistants ("MTAs"), who

9

control the issuance of sick-call passes and the arrangement

10

of guard escort services, arbitrarily and unreasonably refuse

11

to grant prisoners access to physicians and medical clinics;

12

(2) Security staff often fail to release prisoners

13

seeking medical attention from work assignments and for non-

14

medical reasons deny access to sick call;

15

(3) Staff shortages at the primary care out-patient

16

clinics prohibit prisoners from receiving meaningful access to

17

timely diagnosis and treatment for serious medical conditions;

18

(4) Staff shortages at the acute care clinics for

19

the most serious medical problems prohibit CMF prisoners from

20

receiving meaningful access to adequate treatment for chronic

21

renal failure, diabetes, cancer, bone/joint/muscle injuries,

22

and serious infectious diseases;

23

(5) staff shortages during non-weekday hours, often

24

amounting to only one physician for the entire prisoner

25

population of CMF and NRC, result in grossly inadequate

physician access for prisoners during evening and weekend

455\2\complnt9.o20

- 18 -

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF PLAINTIFFS

1

shifts; and

2

(6) Defendants in charge of administrative

3

segregation routinely deny prisoners access to needed medical

4

aid.

5

b. Prisoners receive constitutionally deficient medical

6 care because:

7

(1) Untrained and unsupervised prisoners provide

8

direct patient services to other prisoners;

9

(2) Untrained and unsupervised MTAs provide direct

10

patient services to prisoners;

11

(3) The lack of medical staff prevents sufficient

12

evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of serious prisoner

13

illnesses and acute medical conditions;

14

(4) Serious overcrowding among the prisoner

15

population strains the medical and sanitation resources of CMF

16

to a medically dangerous level and jeopardizes the health of

17

the prisoners;

18

(5) Defendants refuse to allow outside specialists

19

to provide necessary and vital medical care to prisoners who

20

require it;

21

(6) Unsanitary conditions such as lack of showering

22

and toilet facilities in the hospital directly adversely

23

affect the quality of health care services provided to

24

prisoners at CMF;

25

(7) Poor ventilation, inadequate natural lighting

26

and overcrowding in the hospital unit exacerbate the deficient

455\2\complnt9.o20

- 19 -

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF PLAINTIFFS

1

health care services provided to prisoners; and

2

(8) There are not enough isolation units for acute

3

medical/surgical problems which precludes effective medical

4

care for prisoners with serious illnesses.

5

c. Defendants needlessly and indifferently create

6 serious medical risks to prisoners by:

7

(1) Failing to keep adequate or accurate medical

8

records for prisoners which results in incomplete medical

9

analysis and inconsistent medication treatment;

10

(2) Prescribing medication with obvious physical

11

side effects such as vomiting and by ignoring prisoners'

12

requests to discontinue such medications;

13

(3) Inadequately providing for the disposal of

14

infectious waste and enhancing the potential for infectious

15

disease among both sick and healthy prisoners.

16

(4) Ignoring prisoners' complaints of pain and

17

refusing to administer pain medication despite clear and

18

obvious need;

19

(5) Not providing medically appropriate special

20

diets to prisoners who colostomies, bleeding ulcers, diabetes,

21

or other conditions requiring special medical attention;

22

(6) Employing the lethal "Taser" stun gun to

23

immobilize prisoners for the involuntary injection of

24

medication;

25

(7) Prematurely transferring sick medical attention

26

and return prisoners to their "home" prisons and endangering

455\2\complnt9.o20

- 20 -

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF PLAINTIFFS

1

the recuperation of these prisoners;

2

(8) Refusing to inform prisoners of the diagnosis,

3

treatment plan, side effects of medication, or the expected

4

course of illness; and

5

(9) Refusing to provide handicapped prisoners with

6

appropriate and necessary training, physical therapy or

7

medical supervision in the use of prosthetic device.

8

d. Prisoners with physical impairments and handicaps

9 have been excluded from, denied the benefits of, and subjected to

10 discrimination under various programs and activities, including

11 work, educational, occupational, and other programs, physical

12 therapy, and rehabilitation activities that they are otherwise

13 qualified to participate in.

14

Special Program Unit (SPU)

15

23. Pursuant to defendants' policies and practices, certain

16 prisoners at CMF are placed in a Special Program Unit (SPU). Some

17 of these prisoners are incorrectly diagnosed as having the HIV

18 virus. Prisoners in the SPU are confined in inhumane and

19 unconscionable conditions, in the following way:

20

a. Prisoners in the SPU are confined in cramped, double-

21 celled conditions;

22

b. Prisoners in the SPU are not provided adequate physical

23 access to the law library;

24

c. Prisoners in the SPU do not have equal adequate access to

25 the main exercise yard or to other programs or facilities in the

26 prison and are instead confined in the SPU; and

4 55\2\complnt9.o2 0

- 21 -

COMPLAINT IN
INTERVENTION OF PLAINTIFFS

1

d. Prisoners in the SPU have less access to medical,

2 psychiatric and other services and facilities relative to their

3 medical and psychiatric needs than other prisoners confined at CMF

4 and NRC.

5

24. Pursuant to defendants' policies and practices,

6 prisoners who test positive for HIV (AIDS antibody) and are

7 segregated in the SPU may be more likely to develop the disease if

8 housed in the SPU, since the presence of certain adverse factors

9 such as stress, poor nutrition, lack of exercise and exposure to

10 opportunistic infections, all present in the SPU, may increase

11 their likelihood of developing AIDS.

12

25. Pursuant to defendants1 policies and practices, the

13 lives and well-being of prisoners confined in the SPU are severely

14 endangered in that prisoners classified at different levels (e.g.,

15 parole violators, minimum, medium and maximum security risks) are

16 all housed together, creating tensions and hostilities between all

17 of these prisoners.

18

26. Pursuant to defendants' policies and practices,

19 prisoners in the SPU are treated as a new class of lepers, cut off

20 from contact with their peers and deprived of reasonable contacts

21 with their families.

22

27. Pursuant to defendants' policies and practices, inmates

23 in the SPU are, without rational or medical purpose, deprived of

24 opportunities for therapeutic, occupational, educational, and

25 rehabilitation activities and from desperately needed support

26 services that they are otherwise qualified to participate in.

455\2\complnt9.o20

- 22 -

COMPLAINT IN
INTERVENTION OF PLAINTIFFS

1

Segregation

2

28. Both NRC and CMF prisoners are placed in segregation

3 units at their respective institutions. At NRC these prisoners are

4 double-celled. Prisoners in these units suffer from lack of

5 adequate exercise, poorly ventilated and lighted cells, and cold

6 food. These prisoners gain access to physicians and other

7 qualified medical personnel only through MTAs who are not properly

8 trained or supervised to make initial screening decisions. These

9 prisoners also do not have physical access to the law library,

10 thereby preventing any meaningful access to the courts.

11

29. The cruel and inhumane conditions of confinement at CMF

12 and NRC are not cruel and inhumane simply by accident. By their

13 actions and inactions, defendants have caused and exacerbated these

14 cruel and unusual conditions in violation of the Eighth and

15 fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the

16 Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and have permitted them to persist, in

17 that, among other things:

18

a. Defendants have long recognized that the conditions of

19 confinement at CMF and NRC jeopardize the health and safety of the

20 prisoners confined there;

21

b. Although experts, within and without the employ of

22 defendants, have made numerous recommendations for the elimination

23 or alleviation of the inhumane incarceration of prisoners at CMF

24 and NRC, defendants have done little to implement the

25 recommendations of these experts or otherwise to terminate the

26 illegal and unconstitutional confinement of prisoners at CMF;

455\2\complnt9.o2 0

- 23 -

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF PLAINTIFFS

1

c. Defendants have expended, at best, a negligible portion

2 of their available funds in recent years in ways reasonably

3 calculated to alleviate the inhumane conditions at CMF and NRC; and

4

d. Defendants have violated and are continued to violated

5 state laws governing conditions of confinement and medical and

6 psychiatric care for prisoners at CMF and NRC.

7

30. As a result of defendants1 repeated and continued denial

8 of necessary medical psychiatric care, and as a result of

9 defendants' repeated and continuing refusal to correct

10 overcrowding, plaintiffs and the plaintiff class presently suffer

11 unnecessary physical pain, mental anguish, physical deterioration,

12 and temporary or permanent disabilities.

13

31. By repeatedly and persistently denying plaintiffs and the

14 plaintiff class necessary medical and psychiatric care, and as a

15 result of defendants' repeated and continuing refusal to correct

16 overcrowding despite repeated requests and obvious h\need as herein

17 alleged, defendants, acting under color of state law, have acted

18 with deliberate indifference depriving the plaintiff class of their

19 right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment as guaranteed by

20 the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

21

32. By repeatedly and persistently denying plaintiffs and the

22 plaintiff class necessary medical and psychiatric care, and as a

23 result of defendants' repeated dan continuing refusal to correct

24 overcrowding despite repeated requests and obvious need as herein

25 alleged, defendants, acting under color of state law, are depriving

26 plaintiffs and the plaintiff class of their rights to due process

455\2\complnt9.o20

- 24 -

COMPLAINT IN
INTERVENTION OF PLAINTIFFS

1 as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

2 Constitution.

3

33. By repeatedly and persistently denying plaintiffs and the

plaintiff class prompt access to their attorneys, defendants,

acting under color of state law, are depriving plaintiffs and the

6 plaintiff class of their rights to due process as guaranteed by the

7 Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

8

34. By repeatedly and persistently denying plaintiffs and the

plaintiff class necessary medical and psychiatric care, and by

10 denying physically and mentally impaired and handicapped members of

11 the class meaningful access to programs and facilities that they

12 are otherwise qualified to participate in and by denying physically

13 and mentally impaired and handicapped members of the class the

14 benefits of participation in programs and activities that they are

15 otherwise qualified to participate in, and subjecting them to

16 discrimination, defendants have violated the Rehabilitation Act of

17 1973.

18

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

19

35. Paragraphs 4-20, 23-27, and 29-30 are incorporated by

20 reference.

21

36. Both those named plaintiffs who represented the subclass

22 and all members of the subclass are individuals with handicaps as

23 that term is used in 29 U.S.C. § 794.

24

37. It is defendants policy to place in the SPU at CMF all

25 inmates who have AIDS, all inmates who have AIDS Related Condition

26 (ARC), and all inmates whom defendants know or suspect to be

455\2\complnt9.o20

- 25 -

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF PLAINTIFFS

infected with the virus which causes AIDS (HIV).

38. Plaintiffs and all members of the subclass are

segregated from the rest of CMF, as described above, despite the

fact that they are fully qualified to live at CMF without

segregation. There is no sound justification for the segregation,

and any goal at which it is aimed could be achieved without

segregating plaintiffs and the members of the subclass.

39. Plaintiffs and all members of the subclass are

discriminated against in virtually all aspects of life at CMF,

10 including, (but not limited to) visitation by contact with their

11 families, contact with their peers, access to occupational,

12 educational, therapy, and rehabilitation programs and activities,

13 being housed together with inmates classified at different levels,

14 access to recreation and recreational facilities, access to the

15 library and the law library. Plaintiffs and the subclass are not

16 disqualified by their disabilities from full and equal

17 participation in all aspect of life at CMF, including (but not

18 limited to) those enumerated in this paragraph. There is no sound

19 justification for this discrimination, and any goal at which it is

20 aimed could be achieved without discrimination against plaintiffs

21 and the subclass.

22

40. The segregation and discrimination described above

23 violate the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, in particular Section 504

24 of the Act.

25

4i. The segregation and discrimination described above

26 violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S.

4 55\2\complnt9.o2 0

- 26 -

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF PLAINTIFFS

1 Constitution.

2

42. Unless enjoined by an order of this Court, defendants

3 will continue to unlawfully segregate plaintiffs and the subclass,

4 and will continue to discriminate against plaintiffs and the

5 subclass.

6

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray that this Court:

7

A. Declare this suit is maintainable as a class action

6 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(l) and 23(b)(2);

9

B. Adjudge and declare that the conditions, practices and

10 omissions described above are in violation of the rights of the

11 plaintiffs and the class they represent under the Constitution of

12 the United States and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973;

13

C. Enjoin defendants, their agents, employees, and all

14 persons acting in concert with them, from subjecting plaintiffs and

15 the class they represent to the unconstitutional and illegal

16 conditions, practices and omissions described above;

17

D. Order the defendants to provide plaintiffs with medical

18 and psychiatric care and conditions of confinement which are

19 consistent with their constitutional rights;

20

E. Order the defendants to end their practice of denying

21 physically and mentally impaired and handicapped inmates the

22 benefits of, excluding them from participation in, and subjecting

23 them to discrimination under programs and activities at CMF and

24 NRC;

25

F. Order the defendants to accommodate the special needs of

26 physically and mentally impaired and handicapped inmates;

455\2\complnt9.o20

- 27 -

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF PLAINTIFFS

1

G. Order the defendants to end their policy of segregating

2 inmates who have AIDS, who have ARC, or who are infected with HIV

3 from the rest of the prison population;

4

H. Order the defendants to give all inmates with AIDS, with

5 ARC or who are infected with HIV the same treatment in all

6 conditions of confinement which they give to other inmates, except

7 where the special needs of such inmates require different

8 treatment; and

9

I. Award attorneys' fees, costs, and such further relief as

10 the Court may deem just and proper.

11

12 DATED: October/tZ' 1989

MCCUTCHEN, DOYLE, BROWN &

13

ENERSEN

14

15

By.

16

Warren E. George

17
18 DATED: October 24, 1989

ROSEN & PHILIPS

19

20
A. DJ/DONJ
21
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
22

23

24

25

26

455\2\complnt9.o20

- 28 -

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF PLAINTIFFS

 
 COPY

McCUTCHEN, DOYLE, BROWN & ENERSEN 1 WARREN E. GEORGE
CHRISTOPHER C.' MAGORIAN 2 CYNTHIA JO GRECO
Three Embarcadero Center 3 San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: (415) 393-2000 4

DONALD SPECTER

5 MILLARD MURPHY

I

PRISON LAW OFFICE 6 Freedom Mali, Main Street

San Quentin, California 94964 7 Telephone: (415) 457-9144

Gates v. Deukmejian PC-CA-004-009

8 BROBECK, PHLEGER & HARRISON MICHAEL W. BIEN
9 Spear Street Tower One Market Plaza
10 San Francisco, California 94105 Telephone: (415) 442-0900
11

ACLU FOUNDATION OF NORTHER CALIFORNIA, INC.
MATTHEW A. COLES 1663 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94103 Telephone: (415) 621-2493

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14

JAY LEE GATES, HARVEY CANADAY, 15 JEROLD DANIELS, RODGER PARKER,
CARL KIMBROUGH, DENNIS WIL3ELY, 16 LONNIE WEST, and TIMOTHY McCAPES

17

Plaintiffs,

No. CIVS 37-1636 LKK-JF>

18

vs

19 GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor of the
State of California, N.A. 20 CHADERJIAN, Secretary of Youth and
Corrections Agency, JAMES ROWLAND, 21 Acting Director of the Department
of Corrections, NADIM KH0U3Y, M.D., 22 Chief, Medical Services, EDDIE YLST
Superintendent, California Medical 23 Facility, KENNETH SHEPPARD, M.D.,
Medical Director, California Medical 24 Facility, NICHOLAS POULOS, M.D. Chief
Physician and Surgeon, California 25 Medical Facility, V. MEENAKSHI, M.D.,
Chief Psychiatrist, California Medical 26 Facility, and H. BENTON, M.D., Chief

AMENDED COMPLAINT CLASS ACTION

Psychiatrist, Northern Reception Center)

Defendants.

)

AMENDED COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

1

_

NATURE OF ACTION

2

1. Plaintiffs, prisoners incarcerated at the

3 California Medical Facility ("CMF") and at the Northern

4 Reception Center ("NRC), bring this action to remedy the

5 constitutionally deficient medical care and psychiatric care

6 that are presently being provided at CMF and NRC.

7

2. These prisoner plaintiffs also contend that the

3 conditions of confinement experienced by prisoners at CMF and'

q NRC fall beneath the' standards of human decency, inflict

IQ needless suffering on prisoners, create an environment which

H threatens the prisoners' mental and physical well-being, and

12 result in the physical and mental deterioration and

12 debilitation of such prisoners. These conditions of

14 confinement are both unnecessary and penologically 15 unjustifiable. Plaintiffs bring this action to remedy these

16 conditions as well.

,.,

3. Plaintiffs bring this action under 42 U.S.C.

1 S § 1983, the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the 1« Constitution of the United States on behalf of all inmates

20 confined at CMF and NRC (but excluding CMF South) for

21 declaratory and injunctive relief against California officials 22 who have responsibility for, and complete control over, the

23 health care and conditions of confinement of the plaintiffs.

24 Defendants, although apprised of plaintiffs' medical and

25 psychiatric needs, and needs for humane and appropriate

2 S conditions of confinement have, under color of state law,

AMENDED COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION 2

1 repeatedly and persistently denied plaintiffs necessary medical

2 and psychiatric care, and humane and appropriate conditions of

3 confinement thereby subjecting them to severe and unnecessary

4 physical pain and injury. Defendants have thus violated 5 plaintiffs1 rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments

5 to the United States Constitution.

7

JURISDICTION

8

4. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by 28

9 U.S.C. § 1343. Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief under 28

10 U.S.C. § 2201 and injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1343.

11

PARTIES

12

5. Plaintiffs are citizens of the United States who

13 are presently confined at CMF and at NRC. Plaintiff Jay Lee

14 Gates is a prisoner confined at CMF. He has been denied access 15 to medical care, and deprived of access to the law library,

16 during lockdowns at CMF. Plaintiff Harvey Canaday is a 1 7 prisoner confined at CMF. He suffers from lung cancer. 13 Although Mr. Canaday needs regular chemotherapy for his

jo condition, defendants have failed and refused to provide such

2 0 treatment. Plaintiff Jerold Daniels is a prisoner confined at 21 CMF. He suffers from cancer of his lymphatic system. Mr.

22 Daniels needs regular chemotherapy for his condition but

23 defendants have failed and refused to provide such treatment.

2 4 Plaintiff Rodger Parker is a prisoner confined at CMF. He

25 suffers from, among other things, a life-threatening sleep

2 6 apnea syndrome. Defendants have failed and refused to provide

AMENDED COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION 3

1 appropriate medical treatment for his condition. Plaintiff

2 Carl Kimbrough is a prisoner confined at CMF in the prison's

3 "AIDS Wing." He has tested seropositive to the AIDS virus;

4 i.e., he has developed antibodies to the human immunodeficiency

5 virus. Defendants have failed and refused to provide

g appropriate medical and psychiatric treatment for his

7 condition. Plaintiff Dennis Wilbely is a prisoner confined at

8 CMF in the "AIDS Wing." He suffers from AIDS-Related Complex

3 ("ARC"). Defendants have failed and refused to provide

i Q appropriate medical and psychiatric treatment for his

2_1 condition. Plaintiff Lonnie West is a prisoner confined at CMF

1 2 in the "AIDS Wing." He suffers from AIDS. Defendants have

IT failed and refused to provide appropriate medical and

14 psychiatric treatment for his condition. Plaintiff Timothy

nc McCapes is a prisoner confined at NRC. He and the other named

• > g plaintiffs suffer from the pervasive impact overcrowding has

,7 had on the conditions of their confinement.

._

6. Defendant George Deukmejian is Governor of the

x o

lg State of California and the Chief Executive Officer of the

2 0 state government. He is sued herein in his official capacity.

As Governor he is obligated to supervise the official conduct

of all executive and ministerial officers and to see that all

offices are filled and their duties performed. Defendant

Deukmejian has the authority to appoint and remove the

subordinate defendants named herein. Governor Deukmejian ,, retains the ultimate state authority over the care and
2. •

AMENDED COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION 4

1 treatment of plaintiffs.

2

7. Defendant N.A. Chaderjian is Secretary of the

3 Youth and Corrections Agency of the State of California and is

4 sued herein in this capacity. The Youth and Corrections Agency

5 supervises the operation of the California state prison system,

5 including CMF and NRC.

7

8. Defendant James Rowland is the acting Director of

3 the California Department of Corrections and is sued herein in

9 that capacity. The Department of Corrections is responsible

IQ for the operation of the California State prison system,

H including CMF and NRC.

±2

9. Defendant Nadim Khoury, M.D. is the Chief of

12 Medical Services for the California Department of Corrections

•]_4 and is sued in this capacity. As Chief of Medical Services, 2_5 Dr. Xhoury is responsible for supervising the provision of

16 medical and psychiatric care for all prisoners within the

2_7 custody of the Department, including those at CMF and NRC.

ia

10. Defendant Eddie Ylst is the Superintendent of

,Q CMF. He is sued in that capacity. Defendant Ylst is

2Q responsible for the daily operations at CMF and NRC.

-,

11. Defendant Kenneth Sheppard, M.D. is the Medical

22 Director of CMF and is sued in this capacity. He is directly

23 responsible for the medical care provided to all prisoners at

2 4 CMF and NRC.' Defendant Nicholas Poulos, M.D., is the Chief

25 Physician and Surgeon at CMF and is sued in this capacity.

2 6 Defendant Poulos is directly responsible for the medical care

AMENDED COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION 5

1 provided to prisoners at CMF and NRC.

2

12. Defendant V. Meenakshi, M.D. is the Chief

3 Psychiatrist at CMF. She is sued in that capacity. Defendant

4 Meenakshi is directly responsible for the psychiatric care of 5 all prisoners confined at CMF. Defendant H. Benton, M.D. is

g the Chief Psychiatrist at NRC. He is sued in that capacity.

7 Defendant Benton is directly responsible for the psychiatric 8 care of all prisoners confined at NRC.

9

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

,Q

13. Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf

,, and, pursuant to Rule 23(b)(l) and Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal

,2 Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of all persons who are and ,-, will be confined at CMF and NRC, but not including CMF South.

.

(a) Approximately 6,000 prisoners are confined

1 5 at CMF and NRC at the present time. Accordingly, the class is
so numerous that joinder of all its members is impracticable.
1 o

(b) The conditions, practices and omissions that

form the basis of this complaint are common to all members of 18

the class and the relief sought will apply to all of them.

(c) The claims of the plaintiffs are typical of

., the claims of the entire class.

(d) The prosecution of separate actions by

individual members of the class would create a risk of 24 inconsistent and varying adjudications which would establish
incompatible standards of conduct for the defendants.
(e) The prosecution of separate actions by 2 6

AMENDED COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION 6

1 individual members of the class would create a risk of

2 adjudications with respect to individual members which would,

3 as a practical matter, substantially impair the ability of

4 other members to protect their interests.

5

(f) Defendants have acted or refused to act on

6 grounds generally applicable to the class, making appropriate 7 injunctive and declaratory relief with respect to the class as g a whole, or to particular subclasses.

g

(g) There are questions of law and fact common

j_g to the members of the class including defendants' violations of

j, the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

±2 Constitution because of overcrowding, deficient medical care,

^2 and deficient psychiatric care.

^4

(h) The named plaintiffs are capable, through

jc counsel, of fairly and adequately representing the class and

,fi protecting its interests because they are prisoners confined at

1 7 CMF who suffer from, among other things, defendants' violations

l a of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

,g Constitution set forth'in plaintiffs' statement of Class Claims

20

STATEMENT OF CLASS CLAIMS

-, Overcrowding

14. CMF and NRC are, and are known by defendants to

be, grossly overcrowded and understaffed. Currently, these

institutions are operating at approximately 200% of design

capacity. Classrooms, conference rooms, meeting rooms, and

library areas have been converted to dormitory space in a
2 b

AMENDED COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION 7

1 futile effort to deal with this overcrowding. These

2 circumstances, in combination with deteriorated and inadequate

3 physical facilities, have resulted in, among other things:

4

(a) The inhumane confinement of prisoners two to

5 a cell. Confinement of two prisoners to a cell the size of

5 those at CMF leaves no room for prisoners to move about within

7 their cells, precludes the possibility of any semblance of

8 privacy and unreasonably increases the hostility and the

3 potential for violent conflicts between prisoners;

;LQ

(b) At NRC double-celled prisoners are locked in

H their cells 24 hours a day, Monday through Friday, except for

12 meals, showers, medical appointments and classification

12 hearings. One of the inmates is forced to sleep on a mattress

T_4 o n t h e f l o o r , r e s u l t i n g in a c o m p l e t e lack of floor s p a c e for

15 both prisoners.

15

(c) Other NRC prisoners are crammed into

17 dormitories, converted dayrooms, classrooms with 50 other

12 prisoners with only two toilets and two showers. They have no

19 physical access to the law library. They are not adequately 20 supervised by correctional personnel.

21

(d) NRC prisoners often spend six months living

22 in these conditions. During this time they are not eligible

23 under California law to earn sentence reducing credits, as are

24 most other California prisoners.

25

(e) An increase in the level of hostility and

2 6 violence at CMF. Prisoners are not being kept in safe custody.

AMENDED COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION 8

1 but_j.nstead are being subjected to discriminatory and arbitrary

2 treatment and live in constant fear for their personal safety

3 and even their lives;

4

(f) The imposition by prison officials of

5 increasingly harsh and repressive security measures, including

5 frequent lockdowns, in an attempt to forestall an outbreak of

7 uncontainable violence;

3

(g) Serious emotional and psychological problems

9 for the prisoners and the prison staff. Prisoners and staff

2Q members are experiencing severe psychological symptoms of

H frustration, tension, paranoia and psychosis;

12

(h) Intolerable noise levels resulting from

jt3 housing the prisoner population in open cell blocks;

24

(i) Food service facilities which are inadequate

25 to serve the needs of the prisoner population, with the result

25 that the food provided to prisoners is nutritionally

27 inadequate, and the food service facilities and procedures fail

2a to meet minimal public health and sanitation standards;

2g

(j) Inadequate prison work and educational

20 programs. Work programs have not been expanded to serve the

22 increased prison population, and educational programs are being

22 reduced. The result is a lack of constructive activity for

23 prisoners;

24

(k) A "pass" system (used by defendants to

2 5 control the movement of prisoners from place to place within

2c CMF) which frequently fails and leads to unreasonable delays

AMENDED COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION 9

1 and deprivation of access to visitation, religious, law

2 library, health care and other facilities;

3

(1) An undermanned and inadequately trained

4 administrative and security staff; and

5

(m) Denial of access to medical and psychiatric

5 care, and denial of humane, safe, appropriate, and speedy

7 medical and psychiatric care.

8 Psychiatric Care

g

15. Pursuant to defendants' policies and practices,

10 prisoners at CMF and NRC are denied access to psychiatric care,

H are denied humane, safe, appropriate and speedy psychiatric

12 care and are denied their rights to appropriate procedures

13 prior to the administration of involuntary psychiatric

14 treatment including involuntary psychiatric medication in the

15 following ways:

2_6

(a) Professional staffing for treatment and

17 handling of inmates with psychiatric illness is grossly

13 inadequate. Consequently, prisoners with serious mental

19 illness are often untreated.

2Q

(b) The absence cf psychiatric staffing results

21 in treatment of only a fraction cf prisoners in acute care

22 units requiring attention. Instead, attention is given largely

23 to "crisis" cases. Lack of psychiatric staffing results in an

24 inability to distinguish which prisoners are most in need of

25 medical attention. Sorr.e prisoners are admitted to psychiatric

25 units without legitimate psychiatric diagnoses, including

AMENDED COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION 10

1 inmates who are merely disruptive.

2

(c) The psychiatric care units at CMP lack

3 sufficient space to properly care for prisoners with mental

4 illness. Pressure to make space available for new psychiatric

5 admissions results in the discharge of prisoners to outpatient

g units before such discharges are medically warranted.

7 Decisions regarding the release of prisoners from acute

3 psychiatric care are based on shortage of space and custodial

9 considerations, rather than proper medical factors.

]_Q

(d) The health and safety of these prematurely

H discharged prisoners with mental, illness is jeopardized by

^2 subsequent lack of treatment.

2_3

(e) The use of certain medications on patients

14 with psychiatric problems, including psychotropic drugs,

15 requires close medical supervision and testing. Prisoners at lg CMF who receive such drugs are inadequately monitored by

17 medical or psychiatric staff. Prisoners are often not

IQ evaluated for adverse drug effects or toxicity.

^g

(f) Suicide prone individuals are not properly

2Q identified and monitored. Suicide watches in psychiatric units

2\ are not properly monitored by medical staff. There is needless

22 loss of life as a result.

23

(g) Prisoners at the "S-Unit" at CMF, the

74 psychiatric ward, are continually locked up and have no access

2 5 to an exercise yard.

26 ' ' '

AMENDED COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION
11

1

_

(h) Violent or hostile prisoners with mental

2 illness are treated with excessive and unsafe levels of force

3 by prison officials. Prison protocol allows the use of

4 electric-shock stun guns to subdue certain prisoners. At least 5 one inmate with mental illness has died following use of a stun

g gun and other excessive force by prison officials.

7

(i) Prisoners' rights to refuse psychiatric

g commitment, to refuse medication, including powerful

3 anti-psychotics, and to give full informed consent to in psychiatric treatments, are frequently violated. The practices

,, and procedures for determining whether or not a prisoner should

,j receive involuntary psychiatric treatment and medication, and

,- for administering such medication, are improper and

14 inadequate. Neither are prisoners provided with sufficient , c information concerning side effects, alternatives, risks and

1,co benefits of psychiatric medications to give fully informed 1 7 consent to such medication.

i a Medical Care
^ y _____________

._

16. Pursuant to defendants' policies and practices,

prisoners at CMF and NRC as a class are denied access to

medical care and are denied humane, safe, appropriate and

speedy medical treatment in the following ways:

(a) Prisoners are repeatedly denied access to

necessary medical care both for conditions previously diagnosed

as requiring a physician's care and for new conditions for

which treatment is repeatedly requested or is obviously
2. 6

AMENDED COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION 12

necessary because:

2

(1) Medical Technical Assistants ("MTAs"),

-

who control the issuance of sick-call passes and the

.

arrangement of guard escort services, arbitrarily and

_

unreasonably refuse to grant prisoners access to

o

physicans and medical clinics;

(2) Security staff often fail to release

prisoners seeking medical attention from work 8
assignments and for non-medical reasons deny access to

sick call; 10
(3) Staff shortages at the primary care

outpatient clinics prohibit prisoners from receiving

meaningful access to timely diagnosis and treatment

for serious medical conditions; 14

(4) Staff shortages at the acute care

clinics for the most serious medical problems prohibit

CMF prisoners from receiving meaningful access to adequate treatment for chronic renal failure, 18 diabetes, cancer, tone/joint/xuscie injuries, and
serious infectious diseases; 20
(5) Staff shortages during r.cn-weekday

hours, often amounting to only cr.e physician for the 22
entire prisoner population of CM" and NRC, result in

grossly inadequate physician access for prisoners 24
during evening and weekend shifts; and

/ // 2 6

AMENDED COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION 13

1

(6) Defendants in charge of administrative

2

segregation routinely deny prisoners access to needed

3

medical aid.

4

(b) Prisoners receive constitutionally deficient

5 medical care because:

6

(1) Untrained and unsupervised prisoners

7

provide direct patient services to other prisoners;

3

(2) Untrained and unsupervised MTAs provide

9

direct patient services to prisoners;

•_-

(2) The lack of medical staff prevents

H

sufficient evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of

12

serious prisoner illnesses and acute medical

13

conditions;

l^

(4) Serious overcrowding among the prisoner

15

population strains the medical and sanitation

lg

resources of CMF to a medically dangerous level and

17 ,

jeopardizes the health of the prisoners;

13

(5) Defendants refuse to allow outside

ig

specialists to provide necessary and vital medical

20

care to prisoners who require it.

21

(6) Unsanitary conditions such as lack of

22

showering and toilet facilities in the hospital

23

directly and adversely affect the quality of health

24

care services provided to prisoners at CMF;

25 / / /

26 ' ' '

AMENDED COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION 14

1

(7) Poor ventilation, inadequate natural

2

lighting and overcrowding in the hospital unit

3

exacerbate the deficient health care services provided

4

to prisoners, and;

5

(8) There are not enough isolation units

6

for acute medical/surgical problems which precludes

7

effective medical care for prisoners with serious

3

illnesses.

g

•

(c) Defendants needlessly and indifferently

^Q ::sacs serious medical risks to prisoners by:

H

(1) Failing to keep adequate or accurate

12

medical records for prisoners which results in

13

incomplete medical analysis and inconsistent

14

medication treatment;

15

(2) Prescribing medication with obvious

lg

physical side effects such as vomiting and by ignoring

17

prisoners' requests to discontinue such medications;

ig

(3) Inadequately providing for" the disposal

!„

of infectious waste and enhancing the potential for

2Q

infectious disease among both sick and healthy

2i

prisoners;

-_

(4) Ignoring prisoners' complaints of pain

__

and refusing to administer pain medication despite

-4

clear and obvious need;

2_

(5) Not providing medically appropriate

special diets to prisoners who have colostomies.

AMENDED COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION 15

1

bleeding ulcers, diabetes, or other conditions

2

requiring special medical attention;

3

(6) Employing the lethal "Taser" stun gun

4

to immobilize prisoners for the involuntary injection

5

of medication;

5

(7) Prematurely transferring sick medical

7

attention and return prisoners to their "home" prisons

g

and endangering the recuperation of these prisoners;

-s

and

j_g

(8) Refusing to inform prisoners of the

^

diagnosis, treatment plan, side effects of medication,

^2

or the expected course of illness.

13 AIDS Unit

,4

17. Pursuant to defendants' policies and practices,

ie certain prisoners at CMF are placed in an "AIDS Wing." Some of

i6 these prisoners are incorrectly diagnosed as having the AIDS •,7 virus. Prisoners in the "AIDS Wing" are confined in inhumane

1 8 and unconscionable conditions, in the following ways: (a) Prisoners in the "AIDS Wing" are confined in

20 cramped, double-celled conditions; (b) Prisoners in the "AIDS Wing" are confined in

poorly lit and inadequately ventilated quarters, which serve to

undermine their already compromised health and morale;

(c) Prisoners in the "AIDS wing" are not

provided physical access to the law library nor do they have

2 6 access to any "paging" system;

AMENDED COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION 16

1

(d) Prisoners in the "AIDS Wing" have no access

2 to the main exercise yard or to other programs or facilities in

3 the prison and are instead confined in the "AIDS Wing"; and

4

(e) Prisoners in the "AIDS Wing" have less

5 access to medical, psychiatric and other services and

6 facilities than other prisoners confined at CMF and NRC.

7

18. Pursuant to defendants' policies and practices,

3 prisoners who simply test positive for the AIDS antibody and

q are segregated in the "AIDS Wing" may be more likely to develop

IQ -he disease if housed in the "AIDS wing," since the presence of

Xi certain adverse factors such as stress, poor nutrition, lack of

12 exercise, and exposure to opportunistic infections, all present

]_3 in the "AIDS Wing," may increase their likelihood of developing

14 AIDS. 25

19. Pursuant to defendants' policies and practices,

25 the lives and well-being of prisoners confined in the "AIDS

27 Wing" are severely endangered in that prisoners classified at

2a different levels (e.g., parole violators, minimum, medium and

29 maximum security risks) are all housed together, creating

20 tensions and hostilities between all of these prisoners.

22

20. Pursuant to defendants' policies and practices,

22 prisoners in the "AIDS Wing" are treated as a new class of

23 lepers, cut off from contact with their peers and deprived of

24 reasonable contacts with their families.

25

21. Pursuant to defendants' policies and practices,

25 inmates in the "AIDS Wing" are, without rational or medical

AMENDED COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION
17

1 purpose, deprived of opportunities for therapeutic occupational

2 and educational activities and from desperately needed support

3 services.

4 Segregation

5

22. Both NRC and CMF prisoners are placed in

6 segregation units at their respective institutions. At NRC

7 these prisoners are double-celled. Prisoners in these units

3 suffer from lack of adequate exercise, poorly ventilated and

lichted cells, and cold food. These prisoners gain access to

IQ physicians and other qualified medical personnel only through

]_]_ MTAs who are not properly trained or supervised to make initial

12 screening decisions. These prisoners also do not have physical

]_3 access to the law library, thereby preventing any meaningful

-4 access to the courts.

15 Accass-to Attorneys

lg

23. In contrast to all other California prisons,

17 prisoners at CMF and NRC cannot receive confidential visits

ig from an attorney or a representative of an attorney unless the

ig prisoner consents in writing before the visit or the attorney

20 has been appointed by a court to represent the prisoner. As a

21 result of this policy and practice, prisoners experience

22 unnecessary and unreasonable delays in gaining access to

23 attorneys, thereby suffering irreparable injury.

24

24. The cruel and inhumane conditions of confinement

25 at CMF and NRC are not cruel and inhumane simply by accident.

25 By their actions and inactions, defendants have caused and

AMENDED COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION 13

1 exacerbated these cruel and unusual conditions in violation of

2 the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

3 Constitution and have permitted them to persist, in that, among

4 other things:

5

(a) Defendants have long recognized that the

6 conditions of confinement at CMF and NRC jeopardize the health

7 and safety of the prisoners confined there;

8

(b) Although experts, within and without the

9 employ of defendants', have made numerous recommendations for

_Q zr.e elimination or alleviation of the inhumane incarceration of

11 prisoners at CMF and NRC, defendants have done little to

12 implement the recommendations of these experts or otherwise to

12 terminate the illegal and unconstitutional confinement of

14 prisoners at CMF;

15

(c) Defendants have expended, at best, a

25 negligible portion of their available funds in recent years in

U ways reasonably calculated to alleviate the inhumane conditions

1 8 at CMF and NRC; and

,„

(d) Defendants have violated and are continuing

2Q to violate state laws governing conditions of confinement and

21 medical and psychiatric care for prisoners at CMF and NRC.

22

25. As a result of defendants' repeated and

23 continuing denial of necessary medical and psychiatric care,

24 and as a result of defendants' repeated and continuing refusal

25 to correct overcrowding, plaintiffs and the plaintiff class

2g presently suffer unnecessary physical pain, mental anguish.

AMENDED COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION
• 19

1 physical deterioration, and temporary or permanent disabilities

2

26. By repeatedly and persistently denying plaintiffs

3 and the plaintiff class necessary medical and psychiatric care,

4 and as a result of defendants' repeated and continuing refusal 5 to correct overcrowding despite repeated requests and obvious

6 need as herein alleged, defendants, acting under color of state 7 law, have acted with deliberate indifference depriving the

3 plaintiff class of their rights to be free from cruel and a unusual'punishment as guaranteed by the Eighth Amendment to the

It United States Constitution.

H

27. By repeatedly and persistently denying plaintiffs

12 a°d the plaintiff class necessary medical and psychiatric care,

13 and as a result of defendants' repeated and continuing refusal

ij to correct overcrowding despite repeated requests and obvious

T 5 need as herein alleged, defendants, acting under color of state 15 law, are depriving plaintiffs and the plaintiff class of their

17 rights to due process as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment

13 to the United States Constitution.

ig

28. 3y repeatedly and persistently denying plaintiffs

2Q and the plaintiff class prompt access to their attorneys,

21 d e f e n d a n t s , a c t i n g u n d e r c o l o r o f s t a t e l a w , a r e d e p r i v i n g

22 plaintiffs and the plaintiff class of their right to d u e

23 process as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United

24 States Constitution.

25 / / /

26 ' ' '

AMENDED COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION 20

1

— WHERE-FORE, plaintiffs pray that this Court:

2

A. Declare this suit is maintainable as a class

3 action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(l) and

4 23(b)(2);

5

B. Adjudge and declare that the conditions,

5 practices, and omissions described above are in violation of

7 the rights of the plaintiffs and the class they represent under

3 the Constitution of the United States;

C. Enjoin defendants, their agents, employees, and

J_Q all persons acting in concert with them, from subjecting

H plaintiffs and the class they represent to the unconstitutional

12 conditions, practices and omissions described above;

2_3

D. Order the defendants to provide plaintiffs with

•; 4 n-.adical and psychiatric care and conditions of confinement 25 which are consistent with their constitutional rights.

ig

E. Award attorneys' fees, costs, and such further

17 relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

18

Dated: January 5, 1983.

lg

McCUTCHEN, DOYLE, BROWN & ENERSZN

20

WARREN E. GEORGE

21

3^

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

22

23

24

25

26

AMENDED COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION 21

 
 Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 1 of 121

CLOSED, PRISONER_CIVIL_RIGHTS
U.S. District Court Eastern District of California - Live System (Sacramento) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:87-cv-01636-LKK-JFM

(PC) Gates, et al v. Gomez, et al Assigned to: Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton Referred to: Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds Demand: $0 Related Cases: 2:93-cv-01599-LKK-JFM
2:93-cv-01599-LKK-JFM
2:94-cv-00817-LKK-JFM Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

Date Filed: 11/20/1987 Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff Jay Lee Gates

represented by Donald Specter Prison Law Office General Delivery San Quentin, CA 94964 (415) 457-9144 Fax: (415) 457-9151 Email: dspecter@prisonlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew A Coles American Civil Liberties Union Northern California 1663 Mission Street Suite 460 San Francisco, CA 94103 415-621-2493 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sanford Jay Rosen Rosen Bien and Asaro 155 Montgomery Street Eighth Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 415 433-6830 Email: srosen@rbalaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Warren E George, Jr Bingham and McCutchen LLP

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 2 of 121

Plaintiff John Ronald Bertram TERMINATED: 01/20/1993
V. Defendant Ron Shinn

Three Embarcadero Center Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94111 415-393-2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John Ronald Bertram 3144 Las Vegas Boulevard No Las Vegas, NV 89115 PRO SE
represented by DAG Attorney General's Office for the State of California PO Box 944255 1300 I Street Suite 125 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 916-445-9555 TERMINATED: 03/18/1992 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Allen Robert Crown Attorney General's Office for the State of California PO Box 944255 1300 I Street Suite 125 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 916-445-9555 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Edmund Flynn Attorney General of the State of California 1300 P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 (916) 323-1976 Fax: (916) 324-5205 Email: James.Flynn@doj.ca.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 3 of 121

Defendant James Rowland
Defendant Nadim Khoury Assistant Deputy Director - CDC Health Services
Defendant Eddie Ylst

represented by DAG (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/18/1992 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Allen Robert Crown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Edmund Flynn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DAG (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/18/1992 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Allen Robert Crown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Edmund Flynn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DAG (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/18/1992 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Allen Robert Crown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Edmund Flynn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 4 of 121

Defendant Kenneth Shepard Chief Deputy Warden for CMF Clinical Services
Defendant Nicholas Poulos
Defendant Daniel Thor Chief Physician and Surgeon, CMF

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DAG (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/18/1992 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Allen Robert Crown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Edmund Flynn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DAG (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/18/1992 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Allen Robert Crown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Edmund Flynn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DAG (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/18/1992 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Allen Robert Crown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Edmund Flynn (See above for address)

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 5 of 121

Defendant Paul Morentz Chief Psychiatrist - CMF Outpatient Program
Defendant H MD
Defendant Bruce Baker

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DAG (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/18/1992 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Allen Robert Crown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Edmund Flynn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DAG (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/18/1992 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Allen Robert Crown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Edmund Flynn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DAG (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/18/1992 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Allen Robert Crown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Edmund Flynn

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 6 of 121

Defendant A R MD Chief Psychiatrist - Northern Reception Center
Defendant D Michael OConnor
Defendant Douglas G Arnold Acting Director of the California Department of Mental Health

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DAG (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/18/1992 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Allen Robert Crown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Edmund Flynn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DAG (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/18/1992 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Allen Robert Crown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Edmund Flynn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DAG (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/18/1992 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Allen Robert Crown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 7 of 121

Defendant Clyde Murrey Acting Deputy Director for State Hospitals, DMH
Defendant Sylvia RN Executive Director - DMH Vacaville Psychiatric Program
Intervenor Troy Christian Davey TERMINATED: 05/06/1996

James Edmund Flynn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DAG (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/18/1992 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Allen Robert Crown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Edmund Flynn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DAG (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/18/1992 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Allen Robert Crown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Edmund Flynn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ann M Hansen Law Offices of Richard A Seltzer 2 Theatre Square Suite 234 Orinda, CA 94563 925-253-7909 Fax: 2540550 TERMINATED: 05/06/1996 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 8 of 121

Date Filed 05/07/1990 05/14/1990 05/15/1990 05/21/1990 05/21/1990
05/21/1990 05/23/1990 06/04/1990
06/04/1990 06/04/1990 06/07/1990 06/28/1990 07/06/1990 07/09/1990 07/11/1990
07/11/1990 07/11/1990

#

Docket Text

365 MINUTES of 5-7-90, of CCPOA's motion to intervene DENIED. Deft to prepare ord w/i 10dys after transcript. (old) (Entered: 05/10/1990)

366 NOTICE by defendant Ron Shinn of w/d of defts obj to taxing costs. (old) (Entered: 05/21/1990)

367 REPORTERS TRANSCRIPT of 5/7/90. (old) (Entered: 05/22/1990)

MOTION by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates for attorney fees (old) (Entered: 05/26/1990)

368 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton setting hearing on motion for attorney fees [0-1] 10:00 6/25/90 ; Defts to file & serve resp to apple by 6-6-90; Pltf's to file & serve reply to defts resp by 6-18-90. (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 05/26/1990)

369 CERTIFIED COPY of judgment from USCA ; AFFIRMED. (old) (Entered: 05/26/1990)

370 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant Ron Shinn of order [368-1] (old) (Entered: 05/31/1990)

371 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton; GRANTING cont. of hrg frm 6/25/990 to 8/13/90 @ 10:00am LKK; Defts oppo by 7/25/90; Pltfs reply by 8/6/90. (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 06/07/1990)

372 OPPOSITION by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates to Defts req for add time to resp to pltf's attys fee appl and cont hrng. (old) (Entered: 06/07/1990)

373 DECLARATION of Sanford Jay Rosen in oppo to defts req for add time resp atty fee appl & cont. (old) (Entered: 06/07/1990)

374 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant Ron Shinn of order [371-1] (old) (Entered: 06/12/1990)

375 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton; Application to interven by CCPOA DENIED. (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 07/03/1990)

376 EXHIBIT by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates (UNDER SEAL) (old) (Entered: 07/06/1990)

377 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant Ron Shinn of order [375-1] (old) (Entered: 07/11/1990)

378 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM of P&A's by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates in support of motion for attorney fees [0-1] (old) (Entered: 07/13/1990)

379 DECLARATION of Samuel R. Miller re motion for attorney fees [0-1] (old) (Entered: 07/13/1990)

380 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION of Michael W. Bien re motion for

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 9 of 121

07/11/1990 07/11/1990 07/16/1990 07/16/1990 07/16/1990 07/25/1990
07/25/1990 07/25/1990 07/25/1990 07/25/1990 07/25/1990
07/25/1990 07/25/1990 07/30/1990 08/03/1990 08/07/1990 08/07/1990 08/07/1990

attorney fees [0-1] (old) (Entered: 07/13/1990)
381 DECLARATION of David B. Baum re motion for attorney fees [0-1] (old) (Entered: 07/13/1990)
382 DECLARATION of Tina A. Thomas re motion for attorney fees [0-1] (old) (Entered: 07/13/1990)
383 MOTION by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates for attorney fees set for 8/13/90 @ 10:00am LKK. (old) (Entered: 07/17/1990)
384 DECLARATION of Sanford Jay Rosnen re motion for attorney fees [383-1] (old) (Entered: 07/17/1990)
442 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates in support of motion for attorney fees [383-1] (old) (Entered: 12/20/1990)
385 MEMORANDUM of pts and auth by defendant in opposition to motion for attorney fees [383-1]; set for 8/13/90 @ 10:00 bef LKK (old) (Entered: 07/26/1990)
386 Separate APPENDIX, Volume I, by defendant in opposition to motion for attorney fees [383-1] (old) (Entered: 07/26/1990)
387 Separate APPENDIX, Volume II, by defendant in opposition to motion for attorney fees [383-1] (old) (Entered: 07/26/1990)
388 Separate APPENDIX, Volume III, by defendant in opposition to motion for attorney fees [383-1] (old) (Entered: 07/26/1990)
389 Separate APPENDIX, Volume IV, by defendant in opposition to motion for attorney fees [383-1] (old) (Entered: 07/26/1990)
390 Separate APPENDIX, Volume V, Part 1, by defendant in opposition to motion for attorney fees [383-1] (old) Modified on 07/26/1990 (Entered: 07/26/1990)
391 Separate APPENDIX, Volume V, Part 2, by defendant in opposition to motion for attorney fees [383-1] (old) (Entered: 07/26/1990)
392 Separate APPENDIX, Volume V, Part 3, by defendant in opposition to motion for attorney fees [383-1] (old) (Entered: 07/26/1990)
393 MEMORANDUM by defendant Ron Shinn in opposition to motion for attorney fees [383-1] (old) (Entered: 07/31/1990)
394 LETTER to LKK fr DAG Cuneo re: request meeting w/Judge and parties re addressing issues of mediation ect. (old) (Entered: 08/06/1990)
395 REPLY by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates to defendant's opposition to plaintiffs application for attorney's fees and costs. (old) (Entered: 08/07/1990)
396 DECLARATION by Ruth T. Fridhandler in support of motion for attorneys fees attorney fees [383-1] (old) (Entered: 08/07/1990)
397 SECOND DECLARATION of Jay-Allen Eisen in support of plaintiff's

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 10 of 121

08/07/1990 08/07/1990 08/07/1990 08/07/1990 08/07/1990 08/07/1990
08/07/1990
08/09/1990
08/09/1990 08/09/1990 08/13/1990 08/13/1990
08/16/1990 08/16/1990 08/27/1990
08/28/1990

application for attorney's fees. (old) (Entered: 08/07/1990)
398 SECOND DECLARATION of Sanford Jay Rosen in support of plaintiff's application for attorney's fees. (old) (Entered: 08/07/1990)
399 SECOND DECLARATION of Matthew A. Coles in support of plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees (old) (Entered: 08/07/1990)
400 SECOND DECLARATION of Donald Specter in support of application for attorney's fees. (old) (Entered: 08/07/1990)
401 SECOND DECLARATION of Warren E. George in support of plaintiff's application for attorney's fees. (old) (Entered: 08/07/1990)
402 THIRD DECLARATION of Michael W. Bien in support of plaintiff's application for attorney's fees and costs. (old) (Entered: 08/07/1990)
403 APPENDIX by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates of material in support of reply concerning plaintiff's application for attorney's fees. (old) (Entered: 08/07/1990)
404 LETTER to court from counsel for plaintiff Jay Lee Gates re reply brief & supporting documents sent by overnight express; and requesting that both parties be allowed 20 minutes for oral argument at the 8/27 hearing (old) (Entered: 08/13/1990)
405 STIPULATION and ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton : taxing of costs of $94,185.35 (Returned to attorney Herr for service) (old) (Entered: 08/13/1990)
406 REPLY by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates to response to motion for attorney fees [383-1] (old) (Entered: 08/13/1990)
407 DECLARATION of Sanford Jay Rosen in support of motion reply [4061] (old) (Entered: 08/13/1990)
408 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant Ron Shinn of judgment taxing costs. (old) (Entered: 08/15/1990)
409 LETTER to court from Jerman C. Arnold a witness in the Gates trial indicating that he has been threathened because he had testified. (old) (Entered: 08/15/1990)
410 NOTICE of Filing Signed Declaration of Dan Stormer by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates (old) (Entered: 08/21/1990)
411 DECLARATION Dan Stormer in Support of Plaintiffs' Application for attorney fees [383-1] (old) (Entered: 08/21/1990)
419 MINUTES of plfts mtn for atty fees that the motion for attorney fees [383-1] is submitted and mtn for order to establish procedures to collect fees is submitted. (old) (Entered: 09/04/1990)
412 PROPOSED ORDER AWARDING INTERIM FEE by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates to be heard 8/27/90 @10:00 bef LKK (old) (Entered: 08/29/1990)

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 11 of 121

08/28/1990
08/28/1990 08/28/1990
08/30/1990 08/30/1990 08/30/1990 08/31/1990
09/05/1990 09/06/1990 09/11/1990 09/21/1990 09/21/1990 09/26/1990 10/03/1990 10/04/1990

413 ORDER AWARDING INTERIM FEE by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton (cc: all counsel) dft is ordered to pay plfts $100,000.00 with lawful interest accruing commencing this date. Dfts will be liable for payment of further attys fees and costs for merits work to be determined by this court, and for fees work upon later application and proof of plfts. (old) (Entered: 08/29/1990)
414 PROPOSED ORDER AWARDING PLFTS COSTS AND DISBURSEMENTS by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates to be heard 8/27/90 @10:00 bef LKK (old) (Entered: 08/29/1990)
415 ORDER AWARDING PLFTS COSTS AND DISBURSEMENTS dft is ordered to pay plfts $253.429.42 in out-of-pocket costs and disbursements, with lawful interest accruing commencing this date. (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 08/29/1990)
416 LETTER to court from defendant re attorneys fees (old) (Entered: 08/31/1990)
417 LETTER to court from plaintiff's attorney re response to James Flynn's letter of 7/20/90. (old) (Entered: 08/31/1990)
418 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS of 8/27/90 (old) (Entered: 08/31/1990)
420 LETTER to LKK fr S. Rosen re: court reviewing rec and accepting pltfs lodestar w/discrete billing and judgts and a 10% or less reduction w/out engaging in a line by line acct; crt should issue an ord awarding fees ect. (old) (Entered: 09/05/1990)
421 PROOF OF SERVICE by plaintiff of order [415-1], order [413-1] (old) (Entered: 09/07/1990)
422 LETTER to court from defendants atty DAG Flynn re: attys fees and costs. (old) (Entered: 09/12/1990)
423 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARTION of James Flynn by defendant Ron Shinn (old) (Entered: 09/17/1990)
424 RESPONSE by plaintiff to suppl decl of James E. Flynn (old) (Entered: 09/24/1990)
425 OPPOSITION by plaintiff to dfts req for reconsideration and modification of o awarding costs and expenses (old) (Entered: 09/24/1990)
426 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton Relating cases; 88-568 MLS JFM has been reassigned to 88-568 LKK JFM; all dates are vacated. (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 09/28/1990)
428 MAIL Returned order 9/25/90 [426-1] to James Camarillo (old) (Entered: 10/10/1990)
427 NOTICE by plaintiff of substitution (old) (Entered: 10/10/1990)

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 12 of 121

10/09/1990 10/26/1990 10/26/1990 10/31/1990 10/31/1990 10/31/1990 11/01/1990 12/04/1990 12/04/1990 12/05/1990
12/05/1990
12/05/1990 12/10/1990 12/11/1990

429 MAIL Returned [426-1] addressed to plaintiff Jay Lee Gates (old) (Entered: 10/12/1990)
LODGED dfts req for reconsideration and modifiction of order awarding costs and expenses to be signed (old) (Entered: 10/30/1990)
432 REQUEST by defendant for reconsideration and modification of order awarding costs and expenses (old) (Entered: 11/01/1990)
LODGED order supplement to 8/27/90 order awarding interim fee to be signed by judge (old) (Entered: 11/01/1990)
430 APPLICATION by plaintiff for reconsideration and modification of order awarding interim fee to plfts (old) (Entered: 11/01/1990)
431 DECLARATION of Sanford Jay Rosen re application [430-1] (old) (Entered: 11/01/1990)
433 LETTER to court from Mediator Allen Breed enclosing mediators first rpt concerning the status of impelmentation of the provisions of the decree (old) (Entered: 11/01/1990)
434 NOTICE by defendant Ron Shinn of objections to mediators 2nd progress rpt on implementation of the consent decree and mtn for order that mediators finding not be enforced (old) (Entered: 12/07/1990)
435 LETTER to court from John W. Cummings who is a member of the plft class requesting to meet with the mediator, and that clk send this ltr to the mediator and one copy back to plft (old) (Entered: 12/07/1990)
436 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton granting application for reconsideration [430-1], granting request for reconsideration [432-1], granting motion for attorney fees [383-1] (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 12/10/1990)
437 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ordering that the mediators recommendations are adopted in full: 1) the mediators 1st progress rpt is accepted as representing dfts status in implementing the provisions of the consent degree; 2) dfts are cautioned to meet all reporting requirements or risk appropriate sanctions; 3) the ptys shall expeditiously agree on plans, programs, and standards of service required by the decree; and, 4) the revised dates for submission of plans, rpts, and analysis as set forth in the sum section of the rpt are approved (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 12/10/1990)
439 LETTER to court from defendant Ron Shinn signed by DAG - Flynn re atty fees (old) (Entered: 12/11/1990)
438 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton establishing procedures for collecting attys fees and costs during the pendency of the consent decree (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 12/10/1990)
440 EX PARTE MOTION by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates for temporary restraining order (old) (Entered: 12/14/1990)

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 13 of 121

12/12/1990 12/17/1990 12/17/1990 12/18/1990
12/21/1990 12/26/1990 01/02/1991 01/02/1991 01/03/1991 01/03/1991 01/04/1991 01/08/1991 01/08/1991 01/09/1991 01/09/1991 01/09/1991

441 MOTION by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates for corrections of clerical errors filed 12/12/90. (old) (Entered: 12/19/1990)
443 MAIL Returned order 12/5/90 [437-1] addressed to plaintiff Jay Lee Gates (old) (Entered: 12/20/1990)
445 LETTER to court signed by Allen F. Breed, mediator re agreements (old) (Entered: 12/28/1990)
444 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton granting motion for attorney fees sum $5,627,399.66. Plaintiff's request for reconsideration granted re order 8/27/90. Defendants' request for reconsideration granted re reimbursement for costs [0-1] (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 12/27/1990)
LODGED application of Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison for leave to w/draw as co counsel for plfts; proposed order approving w/drawal and ntc of sub of cnsl (kh) (Entered: 12/21/1990)
446 MOTION by Charles E. Puett to add newly received evidence to emergency mtn in ex parte filed 12/11/90 seeking tro (old) (Entered: 01/02/1991)
447 MAIL Returned amd cmp [444-1] addressed to plaintiff Jay Lee Gates (old) (Entered: 01/03/1991)
448 STATEMENT by defendant Ron Shinn of non-objection in support of mediators 2nd progress rpt letter [445-1] (old) (Entered: 01/03/1991)
449 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendant Ron Shinn from Dist. Court decision [436-1] ( fee status: wv) (old) (Entered: 01/04/1991)
450 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendants from Dist. Court decision, [436-1] ( fee status: wv) (old) Modified on 02/08/1991 (Entered: 01/04/1991)
451 LETTER to court from mediator Allen F. Breed revising 2nd progress rpt (old) (Entered: 01/04/1991)
LODGED proposed order deferring ruling of application to w/draw and substitute cnsl and order to show cause re application to be signed (old) (Entered: 01/09/1991)
452 OBJECTIONS by defendant Ron Shinn to lodged application for w/drawal and substitution of plfts cnsl [0-1] req to show cause issue (old) (Entered: 01/09/1991)
455 NTC OF MTN AND MOTION by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates for attorney fees to be heard 3/4/91 @ 10:00 bef LKK (old) (Entered: 01/10/1991)
456 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates in support of motion for attorney fees [455-1] to be heard 3/4/91 @ 10:00 bef LKK (old) (Entered: 01/10/1991)
457 DECLARATION of Michael W. Bien re motion for attorney fees [455-1] to be heard 3.4.91 @ 10:00 bef LKK (old) (Entered: 01/10/1991)

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 14 of 121

01/09/1991 01/09/1991 01/09/1991 01/09/1991 01/09/1991 01/09/1991 01/09/1991 01/10/1991
01/10/1991
01/11/1991 01/15/1991 01/15/1991 01/15/1991 01/15/1991
01/24/1991 01/25/1991
01/31/1991
02/01/1991

458 DECLARATION of Donald Specter re motion for attorney fees [455-1] to be heard 3.4.91 @ 10:00 bef LKK (old) (Entered: 01/10/1991)
459 DECLARATION of Warren George re motion for attorney fees [455-1] to be heard 3/4/91 @ 10:00 bef LKk (old) (Entered: 01/10/1991)
460 DECLARATION of John W. Keker re motion for attorney fees [455-1] to be heard 3/4/91 @ 10:00 bef LKK (old) (Entered: 01/10/1991)
461 DECLARATION of Brad Seligman re motion for attorney fees [455-1] to be heard 3/4/91 @ 10:00 bef LKK (old) (Entered: 01/10/1991)
462 DECLARATION of Matthew Coles re motion for attorney fees [455-1] to be heard 3/4/91 @ 10:00 bef LKK (old) (Entered: 01/10/1991)
463 DECLARATION of Sanford J. Rosen re motion for attorney fees [455-1] to be heard 3/4/91 @ 10:00 bef LKK (old) (Entered: 01/10/1991)
520 DECLARATION of Stephen Bomse in support of plfts supplemental application for attys fee (old) (Entered: 05/23/1991)
453 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING that dfts mtn for order that mediators finding not be enforced is dropped from 1/22/91 calendar (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 01/10/1991)
454 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton denying motion to add newly received evidence to emergency mtn in ex parte filed 12/11/90 seeking tro [446-1] (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 01/10/1991)
464 2nd EMERGENCY EX PARTE MOTION by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates for temporary restraining order (old) (Entered: 01/15/1991)
465 APPEAL fee paid [450-1] (old) (Entered: 01/16/1991)
466 MOTION by plaintiff John Ronald Bertram for compliance w/ consent decree (old) (Entered: 01/17/1991)
467 PROOF OF SERVICE by plaintiff John Ronald Bertram of motion for compliance w/ consent decree [466-1] (old) (Entered: 01/17/1991)
468 LETTER to court from plaintiff Charles Edward Puett requesting the ct to add page two to emergency mtn for compliance [466] which he inadvertantly forgot to enclose (old) (Entered: 01/17/1991)
470 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION and Ordering Form for dates: 8/27/90 (old) (Entered: 01/29/1991)
469 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton denying motion for compliance w/ consent decree [466-1] (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 01/25/1991)
471 RESPONSE by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates, plaintiff Charles Edward Puett, plaintiff John Ronald Bertram to dfts objection to proposed w/drawal and substitution of plfts cnsl (old) (Entered: 02/01/1991)
472 DECLARATION of Sanford Jay Rosen re plfts 1st quarterly stmt of fees

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 15 of 121

02/01/1991 02/06/1991
02/25/1991 02/25/1991
02/25/1991 02/25/1991 02/28/1991 02/28/1991 03/01/1991 03/05/1991 03/06/1991

and disbursements for monitoring compliance w/ the consent decree which was approved by order on 3/8/90 (old) (Entered: 02/07/1991)
473 DECLARATION of Sanford Jay Rosen re plfts 1st quarterly stmt part B of fees and disbursements for monitoring compliance w/ the consent decree (old) (Entered: 02/07/1991)
474 REPLY by defendant Ron Shinn, plaintiff Charles Edward Puett, plaintiff John Ronald Bertram, defendant James Rowland, defendant Nadim Khoury, defendant Eddie Ylst, defendant Kenneth Shepard, defendant Nicholas Poulos, defendant Daniel Thor, defendant Paul Morentz, defendant H Benton, defendant Bruce Baker, defendant A R Rotella, defendant D Michael OConnor, defendant Douglas G Arnold, defendant Clyde Murrey, defendant Sylvia Blount re to plaintiffs' response to objection to proposed withdrawal & substitution [471-1] (old) (Entered: 02/12/1991)
475 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING the mediators rpt to be filed; the ct hereby accept the revised dates for submission of plans, rpts, and analyses set forth in the summary section of the rpt (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 02/26/1991)
476 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING that the mediators rpt be filed; ct accepts the revised dates for submission of plans, rpts and analyses set forth in the summary section of the rpt; and the ct cautions dfts that unless implementation deadlines in the plans and the consent decree itself are met in the future, the could may sanction dfts (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 02/26/1991)
477 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton granting lodged [0-1] withdrawing Trautman of Brobeck, Phleger et at and substituting attorney Samuel Rand Miller (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 02/26/1991)
478 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton granting Brobeck, Phleger, et al to withdraw as atty of rcd and substituting in Rosen, Bien and Asaro (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 02/26/1991)
479 STIPULATION and ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton : setting hearing on motion for attorney fees [455-1] 10:00 3/18/91 (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 02/28/1991)
480 NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate Docket Number 9115270 (old) (Entered: 03/01/1991)
481 MEMORANDUM by defendant in opposition to motion for attorney fees to be heard 3/18/91 at 1:30 bef LKK [455-1] (old) (Entered: 03/04/1991)
487 PROOF OF SERVICE by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates of order [477-2] (old) (Entered: 03/08/1991)
482 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton setting hearing on motion for attorney fees [455-1] 10:00 4/22/91; reply papers due no later than 3/18/91 (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 03/06/1991)

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 16 of 121

03/07/1991 03/08/1991 03/08/1991
03/08/1991 03/08/1991 03/11/1991 03/11/1991 03/11/1991 03/11/1991 03/11/1991 03/11/1991 03/14/1991
03/14/1991 03/20/1991 04/01/1991 04/01/1991

488 MAIL Returned stipulation and order re disc [479-1] returned to C. Puett (old) (Entered: 03/11/1991)
483 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton AMENDING order filed 2/25/91; (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 03/08/1991)
484 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING that the mediators report filed; the ct accepts and approves the matters agreed to by the ptys in the findings and conclusions; and the rpt is made a part of the consent decree (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 03/08/1991)
485 LETTER to court from Mediator A. Breed re findings and conclusions re the perceived violations (old) (Entered: 03/08/1991)
486 NOTICE of findings and conclusions of the mediator,perceived violations numbers 503 and 504 (old) (Entered: 03/08/1991)
489 REPLY by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates re mtn for atty fees [455-1] to be heard 3/18/91 at 10:00 bef LKK (old) (Entered: 03/12/1991)
490 2ND DECLARATION of Brad Seligman re motion for attorney fees [455-1] to be heard 3/18/91 at 10:00 bef LKK (old) (Entered: 03/12/1991)
491 2ND DECLARATION of Jay Rosen re motion for attorney fees [455-1] to be heard 3/18/91 at 10:00 bef LKK (old) (Entered: 03/12/1991)
LODGED proposed order awarding interim fee for fees wk to be signed (old) (Entered: 03/12/1991)
LODGED proposed order granting plfts supplemental application for award of reasonable attys fees and costs to be signed (old) (Entered: 03/12/1991)
494 MAIL Returned order substituting atty [477-2]to Michael Bien; wrong address; resent (old) (Entered: 03/14/1991)
492 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING that the report shall be filed; the ct accepts and approves the matter agreed to by the parties as reflected in the rpt; and, the rpt is made a part of the consent decree in this case; the rpt is made a part of the consent decree in this case (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 03/14/1991)
493 NOTICE enclosing mediators rpt on perceived violation no 501 law library access (old) (Entered: 03/14/1991)
495 NTC OF MTN AND MOTION by defendant opposing plfts proposed 1991 fee rates to be heard 4/22/91 at 10:00 bef LKK (old) (Entered: 03/25/1991)
LODGED proposed order shortening time for briefing and hrg on payment for travel time and plfts cnsl requested 1990 rates for periodic fees and payments (old) (Entered: 04/02/1991)
496 MOTION by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates to compel payment for travel time

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 17 of 121

04/01/1991 04/01/1991 04/08/1991 04/08/1991 04/08/1991 04/08/1991 04/09/1991
04/10/1991 04/15/1991 04/18/1991 04/22/1991
04/22/1991

and of plfts cnsl requested rates for periodic fees payments to be heard 4/22/91 10:00 bef LKK (old) (Entered: 04/02/1991)
497 MOTION by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates for order shortening time for briefing and hrg on plfts mtn to compel by way of dcl of S. Rosen to be heard 4/22/91 at 10:00 bef LKK (old) (Entered: 04/02/1991)
498 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates in support of motion to compel payment for travel time and of plfts cnsl requested rates for periodic fees payments to be heard 4/22/91 10:00 bef LKK [496-1] (old) (Entered: 04/02/1991)
500 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates in opposition to motion for attorney fees [455-1] to be heard 5/6/91 at 10:00 bef LKK (old) (Entered: 04/09/1991)
501 NOTICE by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates of hearing setting hearing on motion to compel payment for travel time and of plfts cnsl requested rates for periodic fees payments to be heard 4/22/91 10:00 bef LKK [496-1] 10:00 5/6/91 ( cc: a) (old) (Entered: 04/09/1991)
502 DECLARATION of J. Eisen re plfts supplemental application for attys fees (old) (Entered: 04/09/1991)
503 2nd DECLARATION of Stephen Bomse in support of plfts supplemental application for attys fees to be heard 4/22/91 at 10:00 bef LKK (old) (Entered: 04/09/1991)
499 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton setting hearing on motion to compel payment for travel time and of plfts cnsl requested rates for periodic fees payments to be heard 4/22/91 10:00 bef LKK [496-1] 10:00 5/6/91, denying lodged request for order shortening time[0-1] (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 04/09/1991)
504 STIPULATION proposed order shortening time for briefing and hrg on payment for travel time and plfts cnsl requested 1990 rates for periodic fees and payments NOT TO BE SIGNED (old) (Entered: 04/10/1991)
505 MEMORANDUM by defendant in opposition to motion to compel payment for travel time and of plfts cnsl requested rates for periodic fees payments to be heard 4/22/91 10:00 bef LKK [496-1] (old) (Entered: 04/16/1991)
506 REPLY by defendant to plfts oppo to mtn opposing plfts atty fee rates to be heard 5/6/91 at 10:00 bef LKK (old) (Entered: 04/19/1991)
LODGED order awarding monitorship fees; modified proposed order awarding interim fee for fees work; plfts rply in support of mtn to compel payment for travel time and of plfts cnsl req 1990 rates for periodic fees; declaration of S Rosen in support of application of plfts mtn to compel; declaration of W Georgein support of plfts mtn to compel (old) (Entered: 04/23/1991)
507 LETTER to court from defendant from DAG re attys fees and costs (old)

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 18 of 121

04/25/1991 04/30/1991 05/01/1991 05/02/1991 05/06/1991
05/08/1991
05/08/1991 05/10/1991 05/14/1991 05/15/1991 05/15/1991 05/15/1991 05/21/1991 05/21/1991 05/28/1991
05/28/1991

(Entered: 04/24/1991)
LODGED proposed order confirming attys fees on the 1st quarterly stmt to be signed (old) (Entered: 04/29/1991)
509 LETTER to court from Dept of Corrections enclosing exhibits to the Mediators fourth rpt concerning the status of implementation of the provision of the Gates consent decreee (old) (Entered: 05/03/1991)
508 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton for attorney fees (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 05/01/1991)
510 NOTICE of change of address of John R Bertram; c/o Leon Shahon 5529 Del Amo Blvd, Lakewood, CA 90713 (old) (Entered: 05/07/1991)
511 MINUTES of plfts motions that the motion to compel payment for travel time and of plfts cnsl requested rates for periodic fees payments [496-1] is submitted,that the motion for attorney fees [455-1] is submitted; attys have 5 days to submit letter briefs (old) (Entered: 05/07/1991)
512 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton the mediators rpt is ordered filed and the ct accepts the conclusions set forth in the rpt (cc: all counsel) RESERVED 5/17/91 (old) Modified on 05/17/1991 (Entered: 05/08/1991)
513 PERCEIVED VIOLATION REPORT from mediator Allen Breed (old) (Entered: 05/14/1991)
516 MAIL Returned order [512-1] addressed to plaintiff John R Bertram (old) (Entered: 05/16/1991)
517 LETTER to court from plaintiff Jay Lee Gates re attys fees (old) (Entered: 05/17/1991)
Text not available. (Entered: 05/15/1991)
514 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton AMENDING mediators rpt concerning perceived violation #506 (cc: all counsel) RESERVED 6/13/91 (old) Modified on 06/13/1991 (Entered: 05/15/1991)
515 LETTER to court from Mediator Allen Breed re typo error on perceived violation no 506 dated 4/30/91 (old) (Entered: 05/15/1991)
518 LETTER to court from Rosen, Bien & Asaro re dfts ltr to ct dated 5/13/91 (old) (Entered: 05/23/1991)
519 LETTER to court from DAG re letter briefs (old) (Entered: 05/23/1991)
521 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING the rpt filed; rpt is accepted as representing dfts status in implementation of the consent decree; ct accepts the revised dates for the submission of plans, rpts and analyses as set forth in the summary section of the rpt; (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 05/28/1991)
522 MEDIATORS FOURTH PROGRESS RPT CONCERNING THE

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 19 of 121

05/31/1991 06/03/1991 06/04/1991 06/04/1991 06/07/1991
06/12/1991 06/14/1991
06/19/1991
06/19/1991 06/24/1991 06/26/1991 06/27/1991 06/28/1991 07/10/1991

STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE DECREE (old) (Entered: 05/28/1991)
526 MAIL Returned order [514-1] addressed to plaintiff John R Bertram (old) (Entered: 06/13/1991)
523 DECLARATION of Sanford Jay Rosen regarding plfts 2nd quarterly stmt of fees and disbursements for monitoring compliance w/ the consent decree which was approved by order (old) (Entered: 06/05/1991)
LODGED proposed order to show cause to be signed (old) (Entered: 06/05/1991)
LODGED ex parte application for order shortening time and declaration of A Karliner in support thereof (old) (Entered: 06/07/1991)
524 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton set for 10:00 7/1/91; returned to plfts for service on ptys; ordered to be served on or before 6/12/91; respondents shall file and hand serve their oppo papers on or bef 6/17/91; plfts shall file and hand serve their reply papers by 6/24/91 (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 06/07/1991)
525 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton granting application for order shortening time for mtn for contempt and other relief to be placed on calendar 7/1/91 at 10:00 (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 06/12/1991)
527 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton refering this matter to JFM for findings and recommendations; this matter is hereby removed from LKKs law and mtn calendar on 7/1/91 and reset to JFMs law and mtn calendar for 7/1/91 at 10:00 in dept 6; dfts oppo papers due 6/17/91; plfts reply due no later than 6/24/91 (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 06/14/1991)
528 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ordering the rpt filed; ct accepts and approves the matters agreed to by the ptys as reflected in that rpt; and the rpt is made a part of the consent decree in this case (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 06/19/1991)
529 REMARK mediator A Breeds report re perceived violation no 507 (old) (Entered: 06/19/1991)
LODGED proposed order and stipulation re continuance of hrg on order to show cause to 8/19/91 to be signed (old) (Entered: 06/26/1991)
530 PROOF OF SERVICE by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates of proposed stipulation and order [0-1] (old) (Entered: 06/27/1991)
532 PROOF OF SERVICE by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates of order to show cause hearing [524-1] (old) (Entered: 06/28/1991)
531 STIPULATION and ORDER by Magistrate John F. Moulds : ; In-court hearing motion for contempt continued from 7/1/91 to 8/19/91 @ 10:00 (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 06/28/1991)
533 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING that the

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 20 of 121

07/10/1991 07/22/1991 07/22/1991 07/29/1991
07/29/1991
08/05/1991 08/08/1991 08/12/1991 08/13/1991

perceived violation report no. 506 be filed; the ct accepts and approves the conclusions agreed to by the ptys as reflected in that report and; the rpt is made a part of the consent decree in this case (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 07/10/1991)
534 PERCIEVED VIOLATION no 506 (old) (Entered: 07/10/1991)
535 DECLARATION of Samuel Miller submitting supplement to plfts 2nd quarterly stmt of fees and disbursements for monitoring compliance w/ the consent decree (old) (Entered: 07/22/1991)
536 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates in support of mtn for contempt and other relief to be heard 8/1/91 at 10:00 bef JFM (old) (Entered: 07/22/1991)
537 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton: The matter of attorney's fees is refered to JFM; as to plaintiff's motion to compel, defendant's are ordered to pay attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $144,100.34. The court modifies the 12/5/90 complaince fees order to require that the parties notice al annual and quarterly motions to compel and motions opposing plaintiff's projected rates for complince and monitoring on Judge Moulds' law and motion calendar for preparation of findings and recommendations. As to plaintiffs' proposed 1991 rates for monitoring work the court hereby denies plaintiffs' requested 1991 rates, plaintiffs shall be compensated at their present 1990 rates for compliance work performed during 1991 (See order for more specific details.) (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 07/29/1991)
538 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton granting motion for attorney fees [455-1], the reasonable rate for supplemental attorneys' fees are referred to Magistrate Moulds for determination of an hourly rate; granting motion to compel payment in the sum of $144,100.34 to plaintiffs' for compliance and monitoring dureing the first and second quarter of the consent decree [496-1]; the court denies plaintiffs' proposed rates for monitoring- plaintiffs shall be compensated at 1990 rates for performance in 1991. (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 07/29/1991)
539 MEMORANDUM by defendant in opposition to of plfts mtn for contempt and other relief to be heard 8/19/91 at 10:00 bef JFM (old) (Entered: 08/06/1991)
540 NTC OF MTN AND MOTION by defendant to stay jgm and amd to be heard9/23/91 at 10:00 bef LKK (old) (Entered: 08/08/1991)
541 REPLY by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates, plaintiff John Ronald Bertram to dfts oppo to mtn for contempt and other relief to be heard 8/19/91 at 10:00 bef JFM (old) (Entered: 08/12/1991)
542 AMD SUPPLEMENT by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates, plaintiff John Ronald Bertram re memorandum in support of mtn for contempt and other relief [536-1] (old) (Entered: 08/13/1991)

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 21 of 121

08/19/1991
08/19/1991
08/21/1991 08/26/1991
08/26/1991 08/26/1991 08/29/1991 09/04/1991 09/04/1991 09/09/1991

543 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by Magistrate Judge John F Moulds RECOMMENDING dfts be directed to fill, or have written confirmantion of acceptance by a qualified candidate, all positions in the Outpatient Psychiatric Program by 10/1/91 AND any Outpatient Psychiatric Program position that is vacant for more than twenty working days be filled with an equivalent in overtime, contractual services, or by an individual holding a different job classification whose training and experience allows him or her to satisfactorily accomplish the vacant position's primary duties; when an individual will not be a staff member already employed by the Outpatient Psychiatri Program unless such services are compensated by overtime (cc: all counsel) (kh) (Entered: 08/19/1991)
544 MINUTES of plaintiff's motion for contempt granting in part the motion for order to show cause hearing [524-1]; magistrate to recommend per Finding and Recommendation that defendant file with the court by 10/1/91 notification that all out-patient psychiatric positions are filled or defendants have written confirmation of filled positions, see order for clarification ; in part motion continued to 10/2/91 @ 9:00 (old) (Entered: 08/19/1991)
545 MINUTE ORDER ; In-court hearing on motion for contempt is continued fro0m 10/2/91 to 10/7/91 @ 9:00 (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 08/23/1991)
546 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING that the mediators 5th progress rpt concerning the status of implementation of the provisions of the decree be filed; the rpt is accepted as representing the dfts status in implementation of the consent decree in this case; and, the ct accepts the revised dates for the submission of plans, rpts, and anaylses as set forth in the conclusionsection of the report (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 08/26/1991)
547 LETTER to court from mediator Allen F Breed enclosing mediators 5th progress report concerning the status of implementation of the provisions of the decree (old) (Entered: 08/26/1991)
548 REPORT of mediators fifth progress report concerning the status of implementation of the provisions of the decree (old) (Entered: 08/26/1991)
549 OBJECTIONS by defendant to Report and Recommendation [543-1] (old) (Entered: 08/30/1991)
550 RESPONSE by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates to objections to f&rs (old) (Entered: 09/05/1991)
551 DECLARATION of Sanford Jay Rosen re plfts 3rd quarterly stmt of fees and disbursements for monitoring compliance w/ the consent decree which was approved by order 3/8/91 (old) (Entered: 09/05/1991)
552 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates in opposition to motion to stay jgm and amd to be heard9/23/91 at 10:00 bef LKK [540-1] (old)

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 22 of 121

09/09/1991 09/09/1991 09/09/1991 09/09/1991 09/09/1991 09/09/1991 09/09/1991 09/09/1991 09/09/1991 09/10/1991 09/16/1991 09/17/1991
09/20/1991 09/23/1991
09/24/1991

(Entered: 09/10/1991)
553 DECLARATION of Warren George re motion to stay jgm and amd to be heard9/23/91 at 10:00 bef LKK [540-1] (old) (Entered: 09/10/1991)
554 NTC OF MTN AND MOTION by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates for attorney fees to be heard 10/10/91 at 9:00 bef JFM (old) (Entered: 09/10/1991)
555 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates in support of motion for attorney fees to be heard 10/10/91 at 9:00 bef JFM [554-1] (old) (Entered: 09/10/1991)
556 DECLARATION of Sanford Jay Rosen re motion for attorney fees to be heard 10/10/91 at 9:00 bef JFM [554-1], re motion to stay jgm and amd to be heard9/23/91 at 10:00 bef LKK [540-1] (old) (Entered: 09/10/1991)
557 DECLARATION of Sanford Jay Rosen re motion for attorney fees to be heard 10/10/91 at 9:00 bef JFM [554-1], re motion to stay jgm and amd to be heard9/23/91 at 10:00 bef LKK [540-1] (old) (Entered: 09/10/1991)
558 DECLARATION of Richard W Nichols (old) (Entered: 09/10/1991)
559 DECLARATION of Robert Sullivan (old) (Entered: 09/10/1991)
560 DECLARATION of Michael McManus (old) (Entered: 09/10/1991)
561 DECLARATION of Michael Remy (old) (Entered: 09/10/1991)
562 3rd DECLARATION of Jay Allen Eisen re motion for attorney fees to be heard 10/10/91 at 9:00 bef JFM [554-1] (old) (Entered: 09/11/1991)
LODGED proposed order confirming attys fees on the 2nd quarterly stmt to be signed (old) (Entered: 09/16/1991)
563 REPLY by defendant Ron Shinn, defendant James Rowland, defendant Nadim Khoury, defendant Eddie Ylst, defendant Kenneth Shepard, defendant Nicholas Poulos, defendant Daniel Thor, defendant Paul Morentz, defendant H Benton, defendant Bruce Baker, defendant A R Rotella, defendant D Michael OConnor, defendant Douglas G Arnold, defendant Clyde Murrey, defendant Sylvia Blount re to plfts oppo to mtn to amd and stay order [552-1] (old) (Entered: 09/17/1991)
LODGED req and proposed order for extension of time to oppose plfts mtn to set rates for award of supplemental attys fees to be due 10/3/91 to be signed (old) (Entered: 09/23/1991)
565 MINUTES of mtn that the report & recommendation objection [549-1] is submitted, granting in part motion to stay jgm and amd re expert witnesses mtn; MTN TO JFM on $7000 attys fees [540-1]; dfts mtn to stay considered when dft submits bond; matter of litigation budget to be calendared in from of JFM (old) (Entered: 09/25/1991)
564 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton granting attorneys' fees on the second quarterly statement. (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 09/24/1991)

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 23 of 121

09/25/1991 09/27/1991 09/30/1991
10/01/1991 10/02/1991 10/02/1991 10/04/1991 10/04/1991 10/07/1991 10/10/1991
10/10/1991 10/10/1991

566 OPPOSITION by defendant to pltfs' motion for attorney fees to be heard 10/10/91 at 9:00 bef JFM [554-1] (old) (Entered: 09/27/1991)
567 Reporter's TRANSCRIPT of 8/19/91 of order to show cause re pltf's motion for contempt (old) (Entered: 09/27/1991)
568 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING: report & recommendation is ADOPTED in full [543-1], motion to stay jgm and amd to be heard9/23/91 at 10:00 bef LKK [540-1] is DENIED, court's order of 7/29/91 awarding pltf's atty fees in the sum of $144,100.34 be MODIFIED to reduce the award by 7,924.50; court hereby refers the question of relevant legal mrkt and attys fees to JFM for further prep of rr; pltfs may file a motion for comp for expert witness fees at $30/day supported by appropriate documentation re # of days; dfts are directed to ntc their motion for apptmnt of a special master for fees to work in establishing yrly litigation budget for hrg bef JFM (cc: all counsel) (old) Modified on 09/30/1991 (Entered: 09/30/1991)
569 ORDER by Magistrate John F. Moulds granting defts' request for extension of time to file opposition to pltfs' mtn to set rates for award of supplemental attorneys' fees by 9/26/91 and that the pltfs' reply be due 10/3/91. (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 10/01/1991)
570 REPORT by defendants re: order to show cause for contempt; hrg date 10/7/91 @ 9:00. (old) (Entered: 10/02/1991)
571 REPLY by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates, plaintiff John Ronald Bertram in support of motion to set rates for award of suppl attys fees to be heard 10/10/91 at 1:30 bef JFM [554-1] (old) (Entered: 10/02/1991)
572 NTC OF MTN AND MOTION by defendant to appoint special master and expert for attys fees and costs to be heard 10/31/91 at 10:00 bef JFM (old) (Entered: 10/08/1991)
LODGED proposed findings and recommendations to be signed (old) (Entered: 10/08/1991)
573 MINUTES of pltf's mtn for contempt; mtn submitted; court to prepare order; mediator to report back to court on 11/1/91 in regards to deft's complaince with court's order. (old) (Entered: 10/09/1991)
574 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton ORDERING: the findings and conclusions of the Mediator is ordered FILED, the court ACCEPTS and APPROVES the conclusions agreet to by the parties as reflected in the report, AND the report is made a part of the consent decree in this case (cc: all counsel) (kh) (Entered: 10/10/1991)
575 FINDINGS of FACT and CONCLUSIONS of the mediator - perceived violation no 508 (kh) (Entered: 10/10/1991)
576 CIVIL MINUTES of motion hearing that the motion for establishment of rates of supplemental attorney fees heard 10/10/91 at 9:00 bef JFM [5541] is SUBMITTED; written order to be prepared by the court; findings and recommendations to issue forthwith (old) (Entered: 10/11/1991)

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 24 of 121

10/15/1991 10/15/1991
10/18/1991 10/18/1991 10/24/1991 10/28/1991 10/29/1991 10/30/1991 10/31/1991 10/31/1991 11/12/1991 11/15/1991 11/20/1991 11/26/1991

577 LETTER to court from Samuel Miller re setting appropriate rates for attys fees (old) (Entered: 10/15/1991)
578 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS from JFM concerning motion for attorney fees heard 10/10/91 at 9:00 bef JFM [554-1] RECOMMENDING: that plaintiffs' attorneys be compensated for work performed in this case as outlined in the recommendations; SEE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DETAILS; any party must file and serve objections within 10 days of being served with these findings; any reply to these objections must be filed within 10 days after service of the objections; failure to file timely objections may waive the right to appeal (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 10/17/1991)
579 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates, plaintiff John Ronald Bertram to motion to appoint special master and expert for attys fees and costs to be heard 10/31/91 at 10:00 bef JFM [572-1] (old) (Entered: 10/18/1991)
580 DECLARATION of Samuel R Miller in opposition to defendants' motion to appoint special master and expert for attys fees and costs to be heard 10/31/91 at 10:00 bef JFM [572-1] (old) (Entered: 10/18/1991)
581 REPLY by defendant to plaintiffs' objections to motion to appoint special master and expert for attys fees and costs to be heard 10/31/91 at 10:00 bef JFM [572-1] (old) (Entered: 10/25/1991)
582 NOTICE of Appeal by defendant (old) (Entered: 10/29/1991)
APPEAL FILING FEE PAID: on 10/29/91 in the amount of $ 105.00 receipt # 136263. (old) (Entered: 10/30/1991)
584 TRANSCRIPT of 10/7/91; hearing on motion for contempt (old) (Entered: 10/31/1991)
583 MAILED case information, docket fee payment ntc, certificate of Notice of Appeal and Appeal order/judgment to Court of Appeals. Copy of appeal and docket sheet to all parties. (old) (Entered: 10/31/1991)
585 MINUTES that the motion to appoint special master and expert for attys fees and costs to be heard 10/31/91 at 10:00 bef JFM [572-1] is submitted; order to be prepared by the court (old) (Entered: 11/01/1991)
586 NOTICE OF CROSS-APPEAL by plaintiff from Dist. Court decision, [538-1] ( fee status: ifp) (old) (Entered: 11/13/1991)
587 MAILED case information, docket fee payment ntc, certificate of Notice of Appeal and Appeal order/judgment to Court of Appeals. Copy of appeal and docket sheet to all parties. (old) (Entered: 11/15/1991)
588 NOTICE by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates of related case(s) 91-989 (old) (Entered: 11/22/1991)
589 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING: the mediator's sixth progress report concerning the status of implementation of the provisions of the decree is ordered filed; the report is accepted as

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 25 of 121

11/26/1991 11/26/1991 12/03/1991 12/04/1991 12/11/1991 12/19/1991
12/19/1991 12/19/1991 12/19/1991 12/30/1991
01/03/1992 01/09/1992 01/09/1992 01/15/1992

representing the defts' status in implementation of the consent decree in this case; court accepts the findings as set forth in the summary section of the report (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 11/26/1991)
590 LETTER to court from mediator enclosing sixth progress report (old) (Entered: 11/26/1991)
591 SIXTH PROGRESS REPORT from mediator re the status of implementation of the provisions of the decree (old) (Entered: 11/26/1991)
592 DECLARATION of Sanford Jay Rosen re plaintiff's fourth quarterly statement of fees and disbursements for compliance with consent decree (old) (Entered: 12/03/1991)
593 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton ORDERING: related case notice [588-1] is GRANTED, case is RELATED to CIV S-91-989 (cc: all counsel) (kh) (Entered: 12/04/1991)
594 LETTER to court from Byron Detweiler re paging system for subclass HIV+ security housing (old) (Entered: 12/11/1991)
595 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton; The court orders filed the Mediator's Report on Perceived Violation No. 404, dated 11/27/91; Deft's Inmate Housing Procedures, dated 10/11/91, and the addendum thereto, dated 11/91, are ordered filed and are made a part of the record in this case; (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 12/19/1991)
596 REPORT by mediator Allen F Breed on Percieved Violation No. 404 (old) (Entered: 12/19/1991)
597 NOTICE by defendants of HOUSING PROCEDURES, and ADDENDUM thereto (old) (Entered: 12/19/1991)
598 LETTER to court from Timothy O'Keefe requesting order based on content (prisoner status) (old) (Entered: 12/19/1991)
LODGED Proposed order confirming additional attorneys' fees on the first and second quarterly statements, supplemental attorneys' fees, and attorneys' fees on the third quarterly statement (old) (Entered: 12/30/1991)
599 LETTER to court from Brian Detweiler re Cat O program and HIV+ status and enclosing letter re change in classification (old) (Entered: 01/03/1992)
600 MOTION to cite for contempt for failure to obey order before Magistrate John F. Moulds (old) (Entered: 01/09/1992)
601 AFFIDAVIT of Richard Lauranzano regarding motion to cite for contempt for failure to obey order before Magistrate John F. Moulds [600-1] (old) (Entered: 01/09/1992)
602 ORDER by Magistrate John F. Moulds ORDERING: clerk shall forward the appropriate forms for commencement of a separate civil rights action

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 26 of 121

01/21/1992 01/22/1992
01/22/1992 01/22/1992 01/31/1992 02/12/1992 02/12/1992 02/12/1992 02/18/1992 02/20/1992
02/26/1992 02/26/1992

by a prison inmate to Timothy O'Keefe (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 01/15/1992)
603 ORDER by Magistrate John F. Moulds ORDERING: it is CONFIRMED that sums listed in the order became collectable and legal interest began accruing on such sums as of the date indicated in order; SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 01/21/1992)
604 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton ORDERING the Mediator's REPORT on perceived violation No 404 and FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS for perceived violation No 510 are ordered FILED, the court ACCEPTS and APPROVES the conclusions agreed to by the parties as reflected in those reports, AND the reports are made part of the consent decree in this case (cc: all counsel) (kh) (Entered: 01/22/1992)
605 MEDIATOR'S REPORT on perceived violation No 404 (cc: all counsel) (kh) Modified on 01/22/1992 (Entered: 01/22/1992)
606 FINDINGS OF FACT and CONCLUSIONS of the mediator RE perceived violation No 510 (cc: all counsel) (kh) (Entered: 01/22/1992)
607 SUPPLEMENT by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates to motion to cite for contempt for failure to obey order before Magistrate John F. Moulds [600-1] (old) (Entered: 01/31/1992)
608 230M NOTICE issued re plaintiff Richard Lauranzano's motion to cite for contempt for failure to obey order filed 1/9/92 (old) (Entered: 02/12/1992)
609 230M NOTICE issued re plaintiff Rick Lauranzano's motion to cite for contempt for failure to obey order filed 1/31/92 (old) (Entered: 02/12/1992)
610 LETTER: from clerk's office notifying parties that it has trial exhibits in its custody which will be destroyed if not claimed by parties within 60 days (old) (Entered: 02/13/1992)
611 SECOND ADDENDUM to plaintiff Rick Lauranzano's motion to cite for contempt for failure to obey order before Magistrate John F. Moulds [600-1] (old) (Entered: 02/19/1992)
612 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that pltf's motion for an order to show cause and order of contempt be discharged without a finding of contempt and that the second paragraph of the findings and recommendations filed 8/19/91 be modified ; SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS [600-1] (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 02/20/1992)
613 REPLY BRIEF re custody staffing by defendant (old) (Entered: 02/27/1992)
614 OPPOSITION by defendant to motion to cite for contempt for failure to obey order before Magistrate John F. Moulds [600-1] (old) (Entered: 02/27/1992)

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 27 of 121

02/27/1992
03/02/1992 03/04/1992 03/04/1992 03/05/1992 03/05/1992 03/06/1992 03/10/1992
03/10/1992 03/12/1992 03/12/1992 03/17/1992

615 MEDIATOR'S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS concerning motion to cite for contempt for failure to obey order before Magistrate John Moulds [600-1]; RECOMMENDING: pltf's motion for contempt be resolved upon submission of this report; court find all clinical positions were filled as of 10/1/91; dfts had written confirmation of acceptance of all but 2 positions and these and/or all other positions were filled through redirection or overtime; court modify 2nd paragraph of RR dated 8/19/91; and court order dft to submit a monthly staffing report; see report for details (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 02/28/1992)
616 DECLARATION of Sanford Jay Rosen re pltf's fifth quarterly statement of fees and disbursements for monitoring compliance with the consent decree approved 3/8/90 (old) (Entered: 03/02/1992)
617 MOTION by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates, plaintiff John Ronald Bertram to stay , or continuance of motion to cite for contempt or to obey order filed 1/31/92 (old) (Entered: 03/09/1992)
618 DECLARATION of Adela B Karliner in support re motion to stay [6171], re motion continuance of motion to cite for contempt or to obey order filed 1/31/92 [617-2] (old) Modified on 03/09/1992 (Entered: 03/09/1992)
LODGED proposed order staying motion to cite for contempt filed 1/31/92 (old) (Entered: 03/09/1992)
619 REPLY by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates to defts' opposition to motion to cite for contempt for failure to obey order before Magistrate John F. Moulds [600-1] (old) (Entered: 03/10/1992)
620 POST-MEDIATION BRIEF by defendants re: custody staffing (old) (Entered: 03/10/1992)
621 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton ORDERING: Mediator's 7th Progress Report court is in receipt of be filed; report is accepted as representing dfts' status in implementation of Consent Decree; and court accepts conclusions as set forth throughout 7th Progress Report (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 03/10/1992)
622 MEDIATOR'S SEVENTH PROGRESS REPORT by mediator Allen F Breed RE status of implementation of the provisions of the decree (old) (Entered: 03/10/1992)
623 OPPOSITION by plaintiff Richard Lauranzano to motion to stay [617-1], motion continuance of motion to cite for contempt or to obey order filed 1/31/92 [617-2] (old) (Entered: 03/12/1992)
629 FINDINGS of fact and conclusions of law from mediator re custodial coverage (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 04/06/1992)
624 ORDER by Magistrate John F. Moulds ORDERING: motion to stay [617-1] motion to cite for contempt is GRANTED; motion to cite for contempt for failure to obey order before Magistrate John F. Moulds [600-1] STAYED until 4/17/92 (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered:

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 28 of 121

03/18/1992
03/26/1992 03/27/1992 03/27/1992 04/06/1992
04/07/1992 04/09/1992 04/13/1992 04/13/1992 04/13/1992 04/15/1992

03/17/1992)
625 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that pltf's motion for an order to show cause and order of contempt be discharged without a finding of contempt and that the paragraph of the findings and recommendations filed 8/19/91 be modified [612-1] are ADOPTED in full; [600-1] motion to cite for contempt for failure to obey order before Magistrate John Moulds DISCHARGED without a finding of contempt; second paragraph of findings and recommendations filed 8/19/91 MODIFIED as follows:"Any Outpatient Psychiatric clinical position that is vacant for more than twenty working days shall be filled through overtime, contractual services or redirection. If dfts provide the services through the use of overtime or redirection, they shall maintain documentation of the overtime hours actually worked" (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 03/18/1992)
626 NOTICE by plaintiff of related case(s) 92-262 GEB, 92-261 LKK, 90520 LKK (old) (Entered: 03/27/1992)
627 NOTICE by defendant of objections and hearing ; In-court hearing re mediator's findings and recommendations re custodial staffing set for 4/30/92 at 9:00 am in ctrm 6 bef JFM ( cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 03/31/1992)
627 OBJECTIONS by defendant to Report and Recommendation from mediator re custodial staffing [615-1] (old) (Entered: 03/31/1992)
628 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING: MEDIATOR'S FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ordered FILED ; court accepts the recommendations of the Mediator set forth on page 19; SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 04/06/1992)
630 ORDER by Magistrate John F. Moulds denying motion to appoint special master and expert for attys fees and costs heard 10/31/91 at 10:00 bef JFM [572-1] (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 04/07/1992)
631 NOTICE by defendant of opposition to related case notice [626-1] (old) (Entered: 04/10/1992)
632 MOTION by plaintiff for withdrawal of stay of motion to cite for contempt or to obeyorder filed 1/31/92 before Magistrate John F. Moulds (old) (Entered: 04/14/1992)
633 DECLARATION of Adela Karliner in support of motion for withdrawal of stay of motion to cite for contempt or to obey order filed 1/31/92 before Magistrate John F. Moulds [632-1] (old) (Entered: 04/14/1992)
LODGED proposed order withdrawing stay of motion to cite for contempt (old) (Entered: 04/14/1992)
LODGED dfts' request and proposed order for reconsideration of order filed 4/6/92 re mediator's findings and recommendations not to be signed

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 29 of 121

04/16/1992 04/20/1992 04/22/1992
04/22/1992 04/23/1992 04/29/1992 04/30/1992 04/30/1992 05/01/1992 05/05/1992 05/08/1992 05/13/1992
05/22/1992 05/22/1992

(old) Modified on 04/28/1992 (Entered: 04/16/1992)
634 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in opposition to report & recommendation objection [627-1] from dfts (re findings of mediator re custodial staffing) (old) (Entered: 04/16/1992)
635 REQUEST by defendant for reconsideration of order re appointment of fees master and expert filed 4/7/92 (old) (Entered: 04/21/1992)
636 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING: [628-2] order filed 4/6/92 accepting mediator's findings and recommendations re custodial staffing VACATED (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 04/22/1992)
659 JOINT STIPULATION of discovery RE plaintiff's motion to clarify protective order, or for modification set for 6/25/92 at 9:00 before JFM [654-1] (kh) (Entered: 06/24/1992)
637 REPLY by defendants to plaintiffs' opposition to objections to mediator's findings and recommendations RE custody staffing (kh) (Entered: 04/28/1992)
638 NON-RELATED CASE ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING: re [626-1] case not related to cv 92-261 LKK and 92-262 GEB (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 04/29/1992)
639 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in opposition to dfts' request for reconsideration of order re appointment of fees master and expert [635-1] (old) (Entered: 05/01/1992)
640 MINUTES of hrg re mediator's F and R's that the mediator's findings of fact [629-1] is submitted (old) (Entered: 05/01/1992)
641 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING: [593-1] related case order filed 12/4/91 is VACATED; cv 91-989 LKK is reassigned to WBS (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 05/01/1992)
642 REPLY by defendants to plaintiffs' OPPOSITION to defendants' request for reconsideration of Magistrate Judge's order RE appointment of fees master and expert (kh) (Entered: 05/06/1992)
643 MEDIATION BRIEF by defendant re aids-related issues (old) (Entered: 05/11/1992)
644 LETTER to court from defendant enclosing article which should have been included with those cited on page 3 of dfts' request for reconsideration of magistrate's order re appointment of fees master (old) (Entered: 05/13/1992)
645 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton denying pltfs' request for reconsideration of 4/7/92 order [635-1] (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 05/22/1992)
646 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING: mediator's eighth progress report re status of implementation of the provisions of the

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 30 of 121

05/22/1992 05/22/1992 05/26/1992 05/28/1992 05/29/1992 06/01/1992 06/01/1992 06/01/1992
06/04/1992 06/05/1992 06/08/1992 06/17/1992 06/17/1992 06/22/1992 06/22/1992

decree ordered filed; report accepted as representing dfts' status in implementation of the consent decree; court accepts findings and conclusions as set forth in report (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 05/22/1992)
647 EIGHTH PROGRESS REPORT RE STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSENT DECREE by mediator Allen F Breed (old) (Entered: 05/22/1992)
LODGED proposed order cofirming atty fees on the fourth and fifth quarterly statements (old) Modified on 05/26/1992 (Entered: 05/26/1992)
648 MAIL Returned [638-1] addressed to plaintiff John Ronald Bertram (old) (Entered: 05/28/1992)
650 REQUEST by defendant for reconsideration of order filed 5/22/92 (old) (Entered: 05/29/1992)
649 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton: Confirming atttorneys' fees on the fourth and fifth quarterly statements (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 05/29/1992)
651 MAIL Returned [646-1] addressed to plaintiff John Ronald Bertram (old) (Entered: 06/02/1992)
652 MAIL Returned [645-1] addressed to plaintiff John Ronald Bertram (old) (Entered: 06/02/1992)
653 DECLARATION of Stanford Jay Rosen regarding plainitff's sixth quarterly statement of fees and disbursments for monitoring compliance with the consent decree which was approved by order 3/8/90 (first quarter, 1992) (old) (Entered: 06/02/1992)
654 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates to clarify protective order, or for modification set for 6/25/92 at 9:00 before JFM (old) (Entered: 06/05/1992)
655 MAIL Returned [649-1] as to J Betram (old) (Entered: 06/08/1992)
656 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates, defendant Douglas G Arnold in opposition to request [650-1] (old) (Entered: 06/09/1992)
657 LETTER to court from plaintiff re motion for reconsideration for appointment of special master (old) (Entered: 06/18/1992)
658 OPPOSITION by defendant to motion to clarify protective order, or for modification set for 6/25/92 at 9:00 before JFM [654-1] (old) (Entered: 06/18/1992)
660 DECLARATION of Adela B Karliner in SUPPORT of plaintiff's motion to clarify protective order, or for modification set for 6/25/92 at 9:00 before JFM [654-1] (kh) (Entered: 06/24/1992)
661 DECLARATION of Michael W Bien in SUPPORT of plaintiff's motion to clarify protective order, or for modification set for 6/25/92 at 9:00

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 31 of 121

06/22/1992 06/22/1992 06/25/1992 06/25/1992 06/25/1992 06/25/1992 06/25/1992
06/25/1992 06/25/1992 06/25/1992 06/25/1992

before JFM [654-1] (kh) (Entered: 06/24/1992)
662 DECLARATION of James Flynn RE refusal to sign plaintiffs' proposed joint stipulation [659-1] of discovery disagreement RE plaintiffs' motion to modify or clarify protective order (kh) (Entered: 06/24/1992)
LODGED (proposed) order modifying protective order filed 7/18/88 (kh) (Entered: 06/24/1992)
663 CIVIL MINUTES of plaintiff's moiton to clarify before JFM STATING the motion to clarify protective order, or for modification [654-1] is SUBMITTED after oral argument was heard (kh) (Entered: 06/26/1992)
664 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION by defendants opposing plaintiff's proposed 1992 fee rates by defendants; motion hearing 7/26/92 at 9:00am in ctrm 8 before Magistrate John F Moulds (kh) (Entered: 06/26/1992)
665 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION by plaintiffs to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs during 1991 by plaintiffs; motion hearing 7/23/92 at 9:00am before Magistrate John F Moulds (kh) (Entered: 06/26/1992)
666 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES by plaintiffs in SUPPORT of motion to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs during 1991 plaintiffs; motion hearing 7/23/92 at 9:00am before Magistrate John F Moulds [665-1] (kh) (Entered: 06/26/1992)
667 SEPARATE APPENDIX by plaintiffs of annotated 1991 Quarterly Billing Statements in SUPPORT of motion to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs during 1991 by plaintiffs; motion hearing 7/23/92 at 9:00am before Magistrate John F Moulds [665-1] (kh) (Entered: 06/26/1992)
668 DECLARATION of Donald Specter in SUPPORT of plaintiff's motion to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs during 1991 by plaintiffs; motion hearing 7/23/92 at 9:00am before Magistrate John F Moulds [665-1] (kh) (Entered: 06/26/1992)
669 DECLARATION of Sarah W Anderson in SUPPORT of plaintiff's motion to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs during 1991 by plaintiffs; motion hearing 7/23/92 at 9:00am before Magistrate John F Moulds [665-1] (kh) (Entered: 06/26/1992)
670 DECLARATION of Warren E George in SUPPORT of plaintiff's motion to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs during 1991 by plaintiffs; motion hearing 7/23/92 at 9:00am before Magistrate John F Moulds [665-1] (kh) (Entered: 06/26/1992)
671 DECLARATION of Michael W Bien in SUPPORT of plaintiffs' motion to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs during 1991 by plaintiffs; motion hearing 7/23/92 at 9:00am before Magistrate John F Moulds [665-1] (kh) (Entered: 06/26/1992)

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 32 of 121

06/25/1992
06/25/1992
06/29/1992
06/29/1992 07/01/1992
07/07/1992 07/09/1992 07/09/1992 07/09/1992 07/23/1992 07/24/1992 07/29/1992
07/31/1992
08/06/1992

672 DECLARATION of Sanford Jay Rosen in SUPPORT motion to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs during 1991 by plaintiffs; motion hearing 7/23/92 at 9:00am before Magistrate John F Moulds [665-1] (kh) (Entered: 06/26/1992)
673 DECLARATION of Samuel R Miller in SUPPORT of motion to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs during 1991 by plaintiffs; motion hearing 7/23/92 at 9:00am before Magistrate John F Moulds [665-1] (kh) (Entered: 06/26/1992)
675 AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING by defendants SETTING the hearing on motion opposing plaintiff's proposed 1992 fee rates by defendants; from 7/26/92 before John F Moulds [664-1] TO 9:00am on 7/23/92 (kh) (Entered: 07/02/1992)
676 NOTICE of SUBMISSION of declarations of Patrick Fabian and Thomas F Smegal Jr; declarations (kh) (Entered: 07/02/1992)
674 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton denying dfts' request for reconsideration of order field 5/20/92 [650-1]; order filed 5/20/92 amended so that the last line reads "dfts' motion for reconsideration is DENIED" (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 07/01/1992)
LODGED stipulation and proposed order re pltf's motion to compel atty fees (old) (Entered: 07/08/1992)
677 MAIL Returned [674-1] addressed to plaintiff John Ronald Bertram (old) (Entered: 07/14/1992)
678 LETTER to court from plaintiff re Coleman Protective order (old) (Entered: 07/14/1992)
679 DECLARATION of Adela Karliner in support of letter brief re protective order [678-1] (old) (Entered: 07/14/1992)
680 TRANSMITTAL of documents (nos 322-454, vols 17-22) 6 vols total to 9CA (old) (Entered: 07/23/1992)
681 SUPPLEMENTAL Memorandum of Points and Authorities by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates in support of plaintiffs' motion to compel payment of attorneys' fees and costs during 1991 [666-1] (old) (Entered: 07/28/1992)
682 ORDER after hearing by Magistrate John F. Moulds ORDERING: Plaintiff's motions for Order Modifying or Clarifying Protective Orders file 7/18/88 are GRANTED; Stipulation and Protective Order filed 7/18/88 is modified (cc: all counsel) (kh) (Entered: 07/29/1992)
683 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton ORDERING in any party contests the Mediators findings RE conversion of space to a hoousing unit at CMF they are to file objections within 10 days, if no objections are file dthe findings shall be adopted by the court (cc: all counsel) (kh) (Entered: 07/31/1992)
684 MAIL Returned [682-1] addressed to plaintiff John Ronald Bertram (old)

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 33 of 121

08/07/1992 08/07/1992
08/07/1992 08/07/1992 08/07/1992 08/07/1992 08/07/1992 08/07/1992 08/07/1992 08/07/1992 08/07/1992 08/07/1992 08/07/1992 08/07/1992 08/07/1992 08/07/1992
08/07/1992

(Entered: 08/10/1992)
685 OBJECTIONS by defendant to MEDIATOR'S report on the planned conversion of space to a housing unit (old) (Entered: 08/10/1992)
686 OPPOSITION by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates, plaintiff John Ronald Bertram to motion opposing plaintiff's proposed 1992 fee rates by defendants; motion hearing 7/26/92 at 9:00am in ctrm 8 before Magistrate John F Moulds [664-1] (old) (Entered: 08/10/1992)
687 DECLARATION of Sanford J Rosen in Support of motion response [686-1] (old) (Entered: 08/10/1992)
688 DECLARATION of Warren George in SUPPORT of motion response [686-1] (old) (Entered: 08/10/1992)
689 DECLARATION of Samuel R Miller in SUPPORT of motion response [686-1] (old) (Entered: 08/10/1992)
690 DECLARATION of Guy Saperswtein in SUPPORT of motion response [686-1] (old) (Entered: 08/10/1992)
691 DECLARATION fo Tina A Thomas in SUPPORT of motion response [686-1] (old) (Entered: 08/10/1992)
692 DECLARATION of Robert Sullivan in SUPPORT OF motion response [686-1] (old) (Entered: 08/10/1992)
693 DECLARATION of Richard Pearl in SUPPORT OF motion response [686-1] (old) (Entered: 08/10/1992)
694 DECLARATION of Robert A Goodin in SUPPORT OF motion response [686-1] (old) (Entered: 08/10/1992)
695 DECLARATION of Michael Kahn in SUPPORT OF motion response [686-1] (old) (Entered: 08/10/1992)
696 DECLARATION of Luther Orton in SUPPORT OF motion response [686-1] (old) (Entered: 08/10/1992)
697 DECLARATION of Donald Specter in SUPPORT OF motion response [686-1] (old) (Entered: 08/10/1992)
698 DECLARATION of Matthew Coles in SUPPORT OF motion response [686-1] (old) (Entered: 08/10/1992)
699 DECLARATION Jay-Allen Eisen in SUPPORT OF motion response [686-1] (old) (Entered: 08/10/1992)
700 SEPERATE APPENDIX of ANNOTATED 1991 QUARTERLY BILLING STATEMENTS IN SUPPORT OF by defendant re motion to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs during 1991 by plaintiffs; motion hearing 7/23/92 at 9:00am before Magistrate John F Moulds [665-1] (old) (Entered: 08/10/1992)
701 MEMORANDUM of Points and Authorites by defendant in support of

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 34 of 121

08/11/1992 08/13/1992
08/13/1992
08/17/1992
08/17/1992 08/17/1992 08/17/1992 08/18/1992 08/20/1992

objection [685-1] (old) (Entered: 08/10/1992)
708 LETTER to court from inmate Edward S Fuller re information of evidence (old) (Entered: 08/18/1992)
702 STIPULATION and ORDER by Magistrate John F. Moulds : setting hearing on motion to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs during 1991 plaintiffs; motion hearing 7/23/92 at 9:00am before Magistrate John F Moulds [665-1] 9:00 8/27/92, setting hearing on motion opposing plaintiff's proposed 1992 fee rates by defendants; motion hearing 7/26/92 at 9:00am in ctrm 8 before Magistrate John F Moulds [664-1] 9:00 8/27/92; plaintiffs and defendants shall file and serve their opposition papers to one another's motions on or before 8/7/92 AND plaintiffs and defendants shall file and serve their reply papers to one another's motion on or before 8/20/92 (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 08/13/1992)
703 ORDER by Magistrate John F. Moulds ORDERING the stay imposed on 3/17/92 on the motion for an order of contempt is withdrawn AND the clerk is directed to to send plaintiff Laurenzano forms for initiationg a civil rights action in this court AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION recommending that the motion filed by class member Lauranzano on 1/9/92 for an order of contempt be denied without prejudice (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 08/13/1992)
704 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ADOPTING the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations [578-1] and ORDERING: plaintiff's attorneys shall be compensated for work performed in securing attorneys' fees for the merits portion and also for the compliance and monitoring portion of this case at the rates set forth in the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations; FURTHER ORDERING plaintiff's attorneys shall be compensated for work performed in securing attorneys' fees for the compliance and monitoring portion of this case at the rates prevailing in the Sacramento Legal market (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 08/17/1992)
705 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton ORDERING: the report by the mediator on the planned conversion of space to a housing unit at the California Medical Facility is hereby ADOPTED (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 08/17/1992)
706 DECLARATION by plaintiffs of Donald Specter (old) (Entered: 08/18/1992)
707 OPPOSITION by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates and plaintiff John Ronald Bertram to deft's objection [685-1] to mediator's report on planned conversion of space to a housing unit (old) (Entered: 08/18/1992)
709 REPLY by defendant's [686-1] to plaintiffs' opposition to defendants' motion opposing proposed 1992 fee rates (old) (Entered: 08/19/1992)
710 Plaintiffs' evidentary objections and MOTION by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates and plaintiff John Ronald Bertram to strike portions of declarations of

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 35 of 121

08/20/1992 08/20/1992 08/20/1992 08/20/1992 08/20/1992 08/20/1992 08/20/1992 08/20/1992 08/20/1992 08/20/1992 08/21/1992
08/21/1992

Ruth Younger and James Flynn in Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Payment of 1991 Attorneys Fees and costs motion to be heard by Magistrate John F Moulds on 8/27/92 at 9:00 am (old) (Entered: 08/21/1992)
711 RESPONSIVE DECLARATION of Steven Fama in support of motion to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs during 1991 by plaintiffs; [665-1] (old) (Entered: 08/21/1992)
712 SUPPLEMENT Declaration of Warren E George In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion For Attorneys' Fees and Cost by plaintiffs (old) (Entered: 08/21/1992)
713 DECLARATION re motion to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs during 1991 by plaintiffs; [665-1] (old) (Entered: 08/21/1992)
714 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION re motion to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs during 1991 by plaintiffs; [665-1] (old) (Entered: 08/21/1992)
715 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION re motion to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs during 1991 by plaintiffs; [665-1] (old) (Entered: 08/21/1992)
716 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION re motion to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs during 1991 by plaintiffs; [665-1] (old) (Entered: 08/21/1992)
717 SECOND DECLARATION of Samuel R Miller In Support Of Plaintiff's motion to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs during 1991 by plaintiffs; [665-1] (old) (Entered: 08/24/1992)
718 REPLY by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates and plaintiff John Ronald Bertram re: Motion To Compel Payment Of Attorneys' Fees and Costs During 1991 [665-1] (old) (Entered: 08/24/1992)
719 MAIL Returned [702-1] addressed to plaintiff John Ronald Bertram Mail Attempted-Not Known (old) (Entered: 08/24/1992)
720 MAIL Returned [703-1], [703-2] addressed to plaintiff John Ronald Bertram Mail Attempted-Not Known (old) (Entered: 08/24/1992)
721 REQUEST for Reconsideration of Order 7/31/92 by defendant Ron Shinn, defendant James Rowland, defendant Nadim Khoury, defendant Eddie Ylst, defendant Kenneth Shepard, defendant Nicholas Poulos, defendant Thor, defendant Paul Morentz, defendant H Benton, defendant Bruce Baker, defendant A R Rotella, defendant D Michael OConnor, defendant Douglas G Arnold, defendant Clyde defendant Sylvia Blount (old) (Entered: 08/24/1992)
722 REPLY to plaintiff's opposiion to mediator's report on planned conversion of space to a housing unit by defendant Ron Shinn, defendant James Rowland, defendant Nadim Khoury, defendant Eddie Ylst,

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 36 of 121

08/25/1992 08/25/1992 08/27/1992 08/27/1992
09/02/1992 09/02/1992 09/03/1992
09/03/1992 09/08/1992

defendant Kenneth Shepard, defendant Nicholas Poulos, defendant Thor, defendant Paul Morentz, defendant H Benton, defendant Bruce Baker, defendant A R Rotella, defendant D Michael OConnor, defendant Douglas G Arnold, defendant Clyde defendant Sylvia Blount (old) (Entered: 08/24/1992)
723 Opposition by defendant to plaintiff's motion to strike portions of declarations of Ruth Younger and James Flynn in Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Payment of 1991 Attorneys Fees and costs [710-1] (old) (Entered: 08/27/1992)
724 SECOND DECLARATION of James E Flynn in support of defendants' opposition to plaintiffs motion to comel re: 1991 attorney fees and costs (old) (Entered: 08/27/1992)
725 NOTICE of submission of additional evidence in oppostition to defendants' motion opposing plaintiffs' rates for attorny fees by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates and plaintiff John Ronald Bertram (old) (Entered: 08/28/1992)
726 MINUTES of Motion Hearing that the motion to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs during 1991 by plaintiffs; motion hearing 7/23/92 at 9:00am before Magistrate John F Moulds [665-1] is submitted, that the motion opposing plaintiff's proposed 1992 fee rates by defendants; motion hearing 7/26/92 at 9:00am in ctrm 8 before Magistrate John F Moulds [664-1] is submitted; Plaintiff arguments; Plaintiff Submits document and defense requests document to be striken, court will allow document; defense may file response; defendant arguments, plaintiff's rebuttal; defendant's reply and Matters are submitted (old) (Entered: 08/31/1992)
727 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton ACCEPTING and FILING the Mediator's Ninth Progress Report as representing the defendants' status in implementation of the provisions of the Consent Decree in this case and the court accepts the conclusions as set forth in the Progress Report (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 09/02/1992)
728 NOTICE of Mediator's Ninth Progress Report Concerning the status of implementation of the provisions of the decree by mediator Allen F Breed (old) (Entered: 09/03/1992)
729 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton VACATING [705-1] order adopting the Mediator's report on the planned conversion of space to a housing unit at the California Medical Facility; Defendants' objections to the report are hereby REFERRED to magistrate Judge John F Moulds for preparation of findings and recommendations, pursuant to 28 USC 636 (b)(1)(B) (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 09/03/1992)
730 LETTER from Judge Lawrence K Karlton directing the three recipients of the letter filed on 8/25/92 to file a letter brief within 10 days with the court (old) (Entered: 09/08/1992)
731 DECLARATION of Sanford J Rosen RE: plaintiff's seventh quarterly

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 37 of 121

09/09/1992 09/10/1992 09/10/1992 09/11/1992 09/14/1992 09/17/1992
09/17/1992 09/18/1992 09/28/1992 10/06/1992 10/09/1992 10/14/1992 10/16/1992 10/19/1992 10/19/1992

statement of fees and disbursments for monitoring compliance with the consent decree which was approved by order on 3/8/90 (old) (Entered: 09/09/1992)
LODGED proposed order confirming attorney's fees on the sixth quarterly statement (old) (Entered: 09/10/1992)
LODGED stipulation re plaintiffs' 1993 rates for payment of attorney's fees (old) (Entered: 09/14/1992)
733 LETTER to court from Deft State of California in case number CIV-S89-1233 LKK, responding to Judge Karlton's letter of 9/1/92 (old) (Entered: 09/14/1992)
732 LETTER to court from plaintiff Jay Lee Gates attorney re Partial Dismissal (old) (Entered: 09/14/1992)
734 MAIL Returned [727-1] addressed to plaintiff John Ronald Bertram (old) (Entered: 09/15/1992)
735 STIPULATION and ORDER RE plaintiffs' 1993 Rates for payment of attorneys' fees by Magistrate John F Moulds ORDERING the deadline for plaintiffs to notify defendants of plaintiffs' 1993 rates shall be tolled 30 days following entry of the order deciding the 1992 rates (cc: all counsel) (kh) (Entered: 09/17/1992)
736 ORDER CONFIRMING ATTORNEY'S FEES on the sixth quarterly statement by Magistrate John F Moulds (cc: all counsel) (kh) (Entered: 09/17/1992)
737 MAIL Returned [729-1] addressed to plaintiff John Ronald Bertram marked ATTEMPTED NOT KNOWN (old) (Entered: 09/21/1992)
LODGED TRANSCRIPT of plaintiff's motion to compel attorney fee and defendant motion opposing fee rates before JFM 9/8/92 - to ECRO (kh) (Entered: 09/29/1992)
738 LETTER to court from US DEPT OF JUSTICE re Stipulation and Order Dismissing Portions of consent Decree Entered in USA v California (old) (Entered: 10/07/1992)
739 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that the mediator's findings and recommendations filed with the court on 3/12/92 be ADOPTED by Magistrate John F Moulds (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 10/09/1992)
740 TRANSCRIPT of 8/27/92 (old) (Entered: 10/15/1992)
742 POST HEARING BRIEF by defendants re: aids related issues (old) (Entered: 10/21/1992)
743 OBJECTIONS by defendant to Report and Recommendation (old) (Entered: 10/21/1992)
744 POST MEDITATION BRIEF by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates (old) (Entered: 10/21/1992)

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 38 of 121

10/21/1992
10/28/1992 11/02/1992 11/03/1992 11/03/1992 11/03/1992 11/03/1992 11/03/1992 11/19/1992 11/30/1992 12/03/1992
12/04/1992
12/04/1992 12/09/1992

741 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that the mediator's findings and recommendations filed with the on 3/12/92 be ADOPTED [739-1] and DENYING motion for an order of contempt without prejudice (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 10/21/1992)
745 RESPONSE by defendant to plaintiffs' post mediation brief [741-1] (old) (Entered: 10/29/1992)
746 RECORD on appeal returned from U.S. Court of Appeals (old) (Entered: 11/02/1992)
747 REPLY by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates to deft's obj to magistrates finding and recommendations [743-1] (old) (Entered: 11/03/1992)
748 REQUEST by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates to submit supplemental memorandum on identification of inmates in billing records and supplemental memorandum (old) (Entered: 11/03/1992)
749 DECLARATION of Alison Hardy (old) (Entered: 11/03/1992)
750 THIRD DECLARATION of Samuel R Miller in support of plaintiffs' motion to compel payment of attorneys' fees and costs during 1991 (old) (Entered: 11/03/1992)
751 SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBIT by dfts inadvertently left off dfts' objections to report & recommendation [743-1] (old) (Entered: 11/05/1992)
752 NOTICE OF OBJECTIONS AND OBJECTIONS by defendant to mediator's findings of fact and recommendations (old) (Entered: 11/24/1992)
LODGED proposed order confirming attorneys' fees on the seventh quarterly statement (old) (Entered: 12/01/1992)
753 DECLARATION of Sanford Jay Rosen re plaintiffs' eight quarterly statement of fees and disbursments for monitoring complaiance with the consent decree which was approved by order on 3/8/90 (old) Modified on 12/09/1992 (Entered: 12/03/1992)
754 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton ORDERING: The Mediator's Report to be filed; Defendants' obj to the report are REFERRED to JFM for prepartions of findings and recommendations (cc: all counsel) (old) Modified on 12/09/1992 (Entered: 12/04/1992)
755 Mediator's Findings of Fact and Recommendations (old) Modified on 12/09/1992 (Entered: 12/04/1992)
756 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton adopting report & recommendation motion except for the portion recommending adoption of the mediators recommendation that staffing decisions be incorporated into defendants' fiscal year 1992-93 budget process; [739-1] The mediator's recommendation that defendants maintain a minimum the post

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 39 of 121

12/10/1992 12/17/1992
12/17/1992 01/04/1993 01/05/1993 01/07/1993 01/08/1993 01/08/1993 01/15/1993 01/20/1993
01/22/1993

assignment schedule as provided in Appendix A to the mediators findings and recommendations filed 3/12/92 is adopted and ordered; The mediator's recommendation that the above post assignments not remove defendats' responsibitlity under Part V(F,3,a) of the Consent Decree is adopted and ordered and the mediator's recommendation that the staffing decisions be incorporated into defendants' fiscal year 1992-93 budget process is found to be moot (cc: all counsel) (old) Modified on 12/09/1992 (Entered: 12/09/1992)
757 ORDER by Magistrate John F Moulds CONFIMING attorney's fees on the seventh quarterly statement (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 12/10/1992)
758 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton ORDERING: The Mediator's Tenth Progress Report is ordered filed; The report is accepted as represting the deft's status in implementation of the provisions of the Consent Decree in this case; and the court accepts the conclusions as set forth throughout the Tenth Progress Report (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 12/17/1992)
759 Mediator's Tenth progress Report concering status of implementation of the provisons of the Decree in the case of Gates vs Deukmejian (old) (Entered: 12/17/1992)
LODGED stipulation and order extending briefing and hearing dates on defendants' objections to the mediator's findings and recommendations re aids-related issues (old) (Entered: 01/05/1993)
760 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendant, plaintiff from Dist. Court decision [756-1] ( fee status: not paid) (old) (Entered: 01/06/1993)
761 OPPOSITION by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates to deft's objection [752-1] to mediatiors findings and recommendations re aids related issues (old) (Entered: 01/08/1993)
762 NOTICE OF MOTION and MOTION by defendants to stay pending appeal filed 12/9/92 set for 2/16/93 bef LKK in crtm 1 at 10:00 am (old) (Entered: 01/11/1993)
763 APPEAL fee paid [760-1] by deft's (old) (Entered: 01/11/1993)
764 MAILED case information/docket fee payment notice, copy of Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Copy of appeal and certified copy of docket sheet to all parties. (old) (Entered: 01/15/1993)
765 STIPULATION and ORDER by Magistrate John F Moulds EXTENDING hearing schedule as follows: Plaintiff's shall file and serve their opposiition brief by 1/7/93, Defendant's shall file and serve their reply by 1/14/93 and the hearing on deft's motion is RESET for 1/21/93 at 9:00 am bef JFM (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 01/20/1993)
766 MINUTES of mediator's findings, findings and recommendations to issue by Magistrate/Judge Moulds (old) (Entered: 01/22/1993)

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 40 of 121

02/01/1993 02/01/1993 02/05/1993
02/08/1993 02/10/1993 02/10/1993 02/10/1993 02/16/1993
02/16/1993 02/22/1993 02/24/1993 02/25/1993
03/02/1993 03/03/1993
03/04/1993

767 BRIEF by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates regarding minutes [766-1] of proposed findings and recommendations (old) (Entered: 02/02/1993)
768 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates to motion to stay pending appeal filed 12/9/92 [762-1] and counter motion for contempt (old) Modified on 03/24/1993 (Entered: 02/02/1993)
769 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton ORDERING: Hearing on deft's motion for stay will be held on 2/16/93 and pltf's motion for contempt is REFERRED to Magistrate John F Moulds for preparation of findings and recommendations (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 02/05/1993)
770 REQUEST from Gary West for copies of this case (old) (Entered: 02/09/1993)
771 LETTER to court from defendant's attorney re proposed findings and recommendations (old) (Entered: 02/11/1993)
772 NOTICE by defendant's of proposed findings and recommendations (old) (Entered: 02/11/1993)
LODGED findings and recommendations (old) (Entered: 02/11/1993)
773 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton DENYING motion to stay pending appeal filed 12/9/92 [762-1]; Deft's are GRANTED a 10 day STAY in which to seek a stay from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 02/16/1993)
774 MINUTES of 2/16/93: Deft's motion for stay pending appeal DENIED; Court to prepare order (old) (Entered: 02/16/1993)
775 NOTICE of hearing that the motion for contempt if set for hrg on 3/18/93 at 9:30 am in ctrm 8 bef JFM ( cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 02/22/1993)
LODGED proposed order confirming attorney fees on the eighth quarterly statement (old) (Entered: 03/01/1993)
776 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by Magistrate John F Moulds recommending that the mediator's recommendations re participation by HIV+ inmates at California Medical Facility in food preparation be adopted and that the policy approved by both parties be approved (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 02/25/1993)
779 OBJECTIONS by defendant to pltf's motion for contempt and req to continue hearing pending ruling by the court of appeal on motion for stay (old) (Entered: 03/04/1993)
780 DECLARATION of Sanford Jay rosen re pltf's Ninth Quarterly Statement of Fees and Disbursements for Monitoring Compliance with the Consent Decree which was approved by order on 3/8/90 (old) (Entered: 03/04/1993)
777 ORDER by Magistrate John F Moulds CONFIRMING attorneys' fees on

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 41 of 121

03/04/1993 03/05/1993
03/05/1993
03/05/1993 03/10/1993 03/10/1993 03/16/1993
03/17/1993 03/17/1993 03/18/1993
03/18/1993
03/23/1993
03/23/1993 03/29/1993 03/29/1993 03/29/1993

the eighth quarterly statement (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 03/04/1993)
778 LODGED Document of proposed finding and recommendations re Aids Related Issues-NOT SIGNED (old) (Entered: 03/04/1993)
781 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton ORDERING: the Mediator's Eleventh Progress Report Concernig the Status of Implementation of the Provisions of the Decree is FILED; The court accepts the conslusions as set forth throughout the Eleventh Progress Report (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 03/05/1993)
782 MEDIATOR'S Eleventh Progress Report Concerning the Status of Implementation of the Provisions of the Decree (old) (Entered: 03/05/1993)
783 OBJECTIONS by defendant to Report and Recommendation [776-1] (old) (Entered: 03/08/1993)
784 REPLY by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates re [779-1] deft's opposition to motion for contempt (old) (Entered: 03/11/1993)
785 DECLARATION of Donald Spencer (old) (Entered: 03/11/1993)
786 LETTER to court from Donald Spector with enclosure from the Ninth Circuit Court order denying deft's moiton for stay (old) (Entered: 03/17/1993)
787 DECLARATION of Carl Larson (old) (Entered: 03/18/1993)
788 LETTER to court from Matthew A Coles of the ACLU (old) (Entered: 03/18/1993)
789 REPLY by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates re [783-1] deft's objections to magistrate judge's findings an recommendations re aids-related issues (old) (Entered: 03/19/1993)
790 MINUTES of 3/18/93 before Magistrate John F Moulds : Plaintiff's motionfor contempt WITHDRAWN; Motion settled by parties (old) (Entered: 03/19/1993)
791 CERTIFIED COPY of Appellate Court Order: AFFIRMING the decision of the District Court [586-1] IN PART, REVERSED and REMANDED IN PART; costs awarded to defendants/appellants (old) (Entered: 03/23/1993)
792 MEDIATION BRIEF by defendants (old) (Entered: 03/23/1993)
793 APPLICATION by plaintiff for referral of remanded attorneys' fees issues to magistrate Judge John F Moulds (old) (Entered: 03/30/1993)
LODGED order referring remanded fees issues to Magistrate John F Moulds (old) (Entered: 03/30/1993)
LODGED revised proposed order referring remanded fees issues to

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 42 of 121

04/06/1993 04/06/1993 04/06/1993 04/15/1993 04/16/1993 04/16/1993 04/20/1993
04/21/1993 04/22/1993 04/23/1993 04/30/1993 04/30/1993 04/30/1993 04/30/1993 05/03/1993

magistrate Judge John F Moulds by pltf's (old) (Entered: 03/30/1993)
794 FINDINGS AND CONSLUSIONS of the Mediator re: perceived violation No A-9 (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 04/06/1993)
795 APPENDIX A by defendant re findings of fact [794-1] (old) (Entered: 04/06/1993)
796 APPENDIX B by defendant re findings of fact [794-1] (old) (Entered: 04/06/1993)
797 LODGED Document by pltf's of proposed order referring remanded fees issues to magistrate judge JFM-NOT TO BE SIGNED (old) (Entered: 04/19/1993)
798 APPELLANTS OPENING BRIEF to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (old) (Entered: 04/19/1993)
799 EXCERPTS OF RECORD for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (old) (Entered: 04/19/1993)
800 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton motion for attorney fees REFERRED to Magistrate John F Moulds for findings and recommendations in accordance with the Ninth Circuit's remand order (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 04/20/1993)
801 LETTER to court from plaintiff Jay Lee Gates requesting one small change in the findings and recommendations issued on 2/25/93 (old) (Entered: 04/22/1993)
802 NOTICE AND MOTION on objections to mediator's findgs and recommendations and MOTION by defendants to modify order (old) (Entered: 04/23/1993)
803 LODGED Document by pltf's revised proposed order referring remanded fees issues to Magistrate Judge John F Moulds (old) (Entered: 04/23/1993)
804 NOTICE by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates of applicationfor attorney's fees (old) (Entered: 04/30/1993)
805 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates in support of notice [804-1] for application for attorneys fees (old) (Entered: 04/30/1993)
806 DECLARATION of David Smuels in support re notice [804-1] (old) (Entered: 04/30/1993)
807 SEPARATE APPENDIX OF DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES vol I-V by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates (old) (Entered: 04/30/1993)
808 AMENDMENT of Pltf's memorandum of points and authorities in support of application for attorney's fees by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates [8051] (old) (Entered: 05/04/1993)

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 43 of 121

05/04/1993 05/05/1993
05/07/1993 05/11/1993 05/11/1993 05/13/1993 05/13/1993 05/14/1993 05/14/1993 05/14/1993
05/14/1993 05/14/1993 05/14/1993 05/14/1993 05/14/1993

LODGED proposed order confirming attorney's fees on the ninth quarterly statement by pltfs (old) (Entered: 05/05/1993)
809 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton ADOPTING report & recommendation motion [776-1] Deft's are provided up to 6 months fromt eh date of this order to implement training and education programs for staff and inmates; The parties shall resolve any remaining issues re AIDS policy within 60 days of the date of this order; Those issues not resolved shall be immediately scheduled for an evidentiary hearing before the Mediator (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 05/05/1993)
810 EXHIBITS #24 by Mediator re consideration of treatment plan during housing moves (old) (Entered: 05/07/1993)
811 STIPULATION on filing of mediation hearing transcripts and exhibits re custody staffing (old) (Entered: 05/11/1993)
812 EXHIBITS index re custody staffing mediation (old) (Entered: 05/11/1993)
813 OPPOSITION by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates to deft's objections to mediator's findings and conclusions (old) (Entered: 05/13/1993)
814 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates to deft's objection [813-1] to report and recommendation (old) (Entered: 05/14/1993)
815 ORDER CONFIRMING Attorney's Fees on the Ninth Quarterly Statement by Magistrate John F Moulds (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 05/14/1993)
816 DECLARATION of Jay Allen Eisen in support of pltf's moiton for attorney's fees and costs (old) (Entered: 05/17/1993)
817 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates for attorney fees and costs on appeal by pltf hrg 6/21/93 at 10:00 ctrm 1 LKK; motion to be heard by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton (old) (Entered: 05/17/1993)
818 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates IN SUPPORT OF the motion for attorney fees and costs on appeal by pltf [817-1] (old) (Entered: 05/17/1993)
819 DECLARATION of Richard Pearl IN SUPPORT OF the motion for attorney fees and costs on appeal by pltf [817-1] (old) (Entered: 05/17/1993)
820 DECLARATION of Fred Altshuler IN SUPPORT OF the motion for attorney fees and costs on appeal by pltf [817-1] (old) (Entered: 05/17/1993)
821 DECLARATION of Amitai Schwartz IN SUPPORT OF the motion for attorney fees and costs on appeal by pltf [817-1] (old) (Entered: 05/17/1993)
822 DECLARATION of Richard Goff IN SUPPORT the motion for attorney

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 44 of 121

05/14/1993 05/14/1993 05/14/1993 05/14/1993 05/17/1993 05/17/1993 05/19/1993
05/19/1993 05/19/1993
05/19/1993 05/19/1993 05/24/1993 05/24/1993 05/24/1993

fees and costs on appeal by pltf [817-1] (old) (Entered: 05/17/1993)
823 DECLARATION of Sanford Rosen IN SUPPORT OF the motion for attorney fees and costs on appeal by pltf [817-1] (old) (Entered: 05/17/1993)
824 APPLICATION by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates for the referral of the motion for atty fees 817-1 to the Magistrate-Judge (old) (Entered: 05/17/1993)
825 DECLARATION of Guy Saperstein IN SUPPORT OF the motion for attorney fees and costs on appeal by pltf [817-1] (old) (Entered: 05/17/1993)
LODGED pltf's proposed order referring the motion for atty fees 817-1 to the Magistrate-Judge (old) (Entered: 05/17/1993)
826 NOTICE of hearing by the court that the mediator's findings and recommendations are ADVANCED to 5/27/93 at 10:00 ctrm 8 JFM ( cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 05/17/1993)
827 LETTER to court from counsel Stephen Liacouras re informing the court of errors in the memorandum in support of the application for atty fees; sent to staff attorney per LKK chambers (old) (Entered: 05/17/1993)
828 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton ORDERING the Mediator's Twelth Progress Report is FILED; The report is accepted as representing the defts status in implementation of the provisions of the Consent Decree in this case and the court accepts the conclusions as set forthe throughout the Twelth Progress Report (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 05/19/1993)
829 MEDIATOR'S PROGRESS REPORT concerning the Status of Implementation of the Provisons of the Decree (old) (Entered: 05/19/1993)
830 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton REFERRING motion for attorney fees and costs on appeal by pltf to John F Moulds Hearing on this matter is set for 6/21/93 is VACATED (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 05/19/1993)
831 LODGED Document of order referring application for fees and costs on appeal to Magistrate Judge John F Moulds-NOT TO BE SIGNED (old) (Entered: 05/19/1993)
832 REPLY by defendants to pltfs objections (old) (Entered: 05/19/1993)
833 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates to Admission of declarations of Kyle S McKinsey and Clyde Murrey (old) (Entered: 05/25/1993)
834 STATEMENT of facts and conclusions by defendants (old) Modified on 05/26/1993 (Entered: 05/26/1993)
835 MEMORANDUM in support of statement and conclusion of law by defendants (old) (Entered: 05/26/1993)

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 45 of 121

05/27/1993 05/27/1993 05/28/1993
05/28/1993
05/28/1993 06/01/1993
06/01/1993 06/01/1993 06/01/1993
06/01/1993 06/01/1993 06/01/1993
06/01/1993 06/01/1993 06/03/1993
06/03/1993

836 CERTIFICATE of Record Transmitted to USCA for appeal 93-15363 (Notice sent) (old) (Entered: 05/28/1993)
837 MINUTES of 5/27/93 before Magistrate John F Moulds: Hearing re Mediators Findings (old) (Entered: 05/28/1993)
838 NOTICE AND MOTION by defendant to stay pending appeal of the courts order filed 5/5/93 motion to be heard 8/24/93 at 10:00 am by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton (old) (Entered: 06/01/1993)
839 MEMORANDUM by defendant in support of motion to stay pending appeal of the courts order filed 5/5/93 [838-1] (old) (Entered: 06/01/1993)
840 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendant from Dist. Court decision [840-1] of order 5/5/93 ( fee status: NOT PAID) (old) (Entered: 06/01/1993)
841 EX PARTE APPLICATION by plaintiff for extension of time for pltfs to file motion to compel payment of disputed 1992 fees and costs for defts to move to oppose pltfs 1993 billing rates (old) (Entered: 06/01/1993)
LODGED order by pltfs extending time for pltfs to file thier mtoion to compel paymnet (old) (Entered: 06/01/1993)
LODGED by pltfs order finding defts in contempt of court (old) (Entered: 06/01/1993)
842 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION by plaintiff for contempt of retrofitting orders motion to be heard 7/19/93 at 10:00 by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton (old) (Entered: 06/01/1993)
843 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in support of motion for contempt of retrofitting orders [842-1] (old) (Entered: 06/01/1993)
844 DECLARATION of Sarah W Anderson in support re motion for contempt of retrofitting orders [842-1] (old) (Entered: 06/01/1993)
845 DECLARATION of Sanford Jay Rosen re pltfs Tenth Quarterly Statement of Feesand Disbursments for moitoring compliance with the consent decree (old) (Entered: 06/01/1993)
846 AMENDED MOTION by plaintiff for attorney fees and costs on appeal (old) (Entered: 06/01/1993)
847 OBJECTIONS by defendants to motion for attorney fees and costs on appeal [846-1] (old) (Entered: 06/03/1993)
848 AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION by defendants to stay pending appeal of courts order filed 5/5/93 to be heard on 7/19/93 at 10:00 am (old) (Entered: 06/04/1993)
849 DECLARATION of Fred H Altshuler in support re motion to stay pending appeal of courts order filed 5/5/93 [848-1] (old) (Entered: 06/04/1993)

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 46 of 121

06/04/1993 06/07/1993
06/10/1993
06/10/1993 06/15/1993 06/15/1993 06/17/1993 06/18/1993 06/18/1993 06/18/1993 06/18/1993 06/18/1993 06/18/1993

851 AMENDED MOTION by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates for contempt of retrofitting orders to be heard on 7/19/93 at 10:00 (old) (Entered: 06/07/1993)
850 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by Magistrate John F Moulds RECOMMENDING that the Mediator's Findings and Conclusions filed 4/6/93 be ADOPTED in their entirety with the exception that the date by which the CDC and the Dept of Mental Health shall modify their interagency agreement is 7/1/93 (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 06/07/1993)
852 ORDER by Magistrate John F Moulds ORDERING pltfs request for an extension of time within which to file a motion to compel payment of disputed 1992 fees and costs and within which defts can move to oppose pltfs 1993 attorney's fees is GRANTED and pltfs motion to compel payment of disputed 1992 fees and costs and defts opposition to pltfs 1993 attorney's fees rates, if any shall be filed 60 days from the date this court issues its findings and recommendations on pltfs motion to compel payment of disputed 1991 fees and costs (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 06/10/1993)
LODGED Defendant's Request For Extension of Time to File Objections to Magistrate's Judge's Findings and Recommendations Re: PV A-9 (Ash Beds) (old) (Entered: 06/11/1993)
853 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton ORDERING defts have until 7/8/93 to file objections to magistrate judges findings and recommendations (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 06/15/1993)
854 MAILED case information/docket fee payment notice, copy of Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Copy of appeal and certified copy of docket sheet to all parties. (old) (Entered: 06/17/1993)
855 MEMORANDUM by defendants in opposition to pltfs' application for attys' fees and costs on appeal; hrg 7/1/93 at 1:30 ctrm 8 JFM (old) (Entered: 06/18/1993)
856 LETTER to court from the Mediator Allen F Breed of filing the Mediator's reprot and recommendation re: Perceived Violation No A-7 and documents that were introduced as part of the formal mediation hearing (old) (Entered: 06/18/1993)
857 DECLARATION of Michael W Bien (old) (Entered: 06/18/1993)
858 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION concerning (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 06/18/1993)
859 TRANSCRIPT of 3/26/93 of Mediation Proceedings vol I (old) (Entered: 06/18/1993)
860 TRANSCRIPT of 4/15/93 of Mediation Proceedings vol II (old) (Entered: 06/18/1993)
861 DECLARATION of Bruce M Slavin (old) (Entered: 06/18/1993)

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 47 of 121

06/18/1993 06/18/1993 06/18/1993 06/18/1993 06/18/1993 06/18/1993
06/18/1993 06/18/1993 06/18/1993 06/18/1993 06/18/1993 06/18/1993 06/18/1993 06/22/1993 06/22/1993
06/22/1993
06/22/1993 06/22/1993
06/22/1993

862 DECLARATION of Larry H Dizmang M D (old) (Entered: 06/18/1993)
863 DECLARATION of Dennis F Koson (old) (Entered: 06/18/1993)
864 DECLARATION of Richard D May (old) (Entered: 06/18/1993)
865 DECLARATION of Lawrence C Mayerle M D (old) (Entered: 06/18/1993)
866 DECLARATION of Dr Russell C Petrella (old) (Entered: 06/18/1993)
867 NOTICE from the DAG of providing notification that the following documents from coleman will be used in the Gates mediation on Perceived violation A-7: Declaration of Edward Kaufman MD; Declaration of Russell Petrella MD; Deposition excerpts of Dennis Koson MD; Edward Kaufman MD; Russell Petrella MD; (old) (Entered: 06/18/1993)
868 DECLARATION of Edward Kaufman (old) (Entered: 06/18/1993)
869 COPY OF TRANSCRIPT of 3/26/93 from Coleman vol XII (old) (Entered: 06/18/1993)
870 COPY OF TRANSCRIPT of 3/26/93 vol XII from Coleman (old) (Entered: 06/18/1993)
871 COPY OF TRANSCRIPT of 3/26/93 vol XII from Coleman (old) (Entered: 06/18/1993)
872 DEFENDANTS EXHIBITS A-D, Plaintiffs exhibits 34-28 and 46 (old) (Entered: 06/18/1993)
873 PLAINTIFFS EXHIBITS 40-45 (old) (Entered: 06/18/1993)
874 PLAINTIFFS EXHIBITS 1 thru 33 (old) (Entered: 06/18/1993)
875 APPLICATION by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates for Second Interim Fee Award (old) (Entered: 06/24/1993)
876 REPLY MEMORANDUM of POINTS AND AUTHORITIES by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates in support of application [875-1] (old) (Entered: 06/24/1993)
877 SUPPLEMENTAL APPENDIX by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates re application for attorney fees [875-1]; Exhibits 1,2 attached (old) (Entered: 06/24/1993)
878 DECLARATION of Sanford Jay Rosen In Support Of application for attorney fees [875-1] (old) (Entered: 06/24/1993)
879 NOTICE of Submission of SUGGESTION OF PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS by way of proposed findings of fact and conclusion of law by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates (old) (Entered: 06/24/1993)
LODGED proposed order awarding second interim fees (old) (Entered: 06/24/1993)

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 48 of 121

06/24/1993 06/28/1993 06/29/1993 07/01/1993 07/01/1993 07/06/1993 07/06/1993
07/08/1993 07/08/1993 07/12/1993 07/12/1993 07/12/1993 07/12/1993 07/12/1993
07/12/1993 07/12/1993

880 REPLY MEMORANDUM of POINTS AND AUTHORITIES by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates in support of application [875-1] (old) (Entered: 06/25/1993)
881 CERTIFIED COPY of Appellate Court Order SETTING briefing schedule for appeal 93-16136 (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 06/30/1993)
LODGED defts' stipulation modifying the court's order of 5/5/93 (old) (Entered: 07/01/1993)
882 MINUTES before Magistrate John F Moulds TAKING UNDER SUBMISSION the motion for attorney fees and costs on appeal [846-1]; findings and recommendings to issue C/R: (old) (Entered: 07/02/1993)
883 OBJECTIONS by defendants to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [850-1] filed 6/7/93 (old) (Entered: 07/02/1993)
884 OPPOSITION by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates to motion to stay pending appeal of courts order filed 5/5/93 [848-1] (old) (Entered: 07/07/1993)
885 LETTER to court from counsel Sarah Anderson re request to continue the 7/19/93 pltf's motion for contempt of retrofitting orders pursuant to an agreed stipulation; letter sent to the courtroom deputy (old) (Entered: 07/12/1993)
886 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates in opposition to the defts' report & recommendation objection [883-1] (old) (Entered: 07/12/1993)
887 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates in opposition to the defts' report & recommendation objection [883-1] (old) (Entered: 07/12/1993)
890 Motion for Status report by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates: requesting status of case (old) (Entered: 07/14/1993)
891 DECLARATION of Stephen M Liacouras and Offer of Proof (old) (Entered: 07/14/1993)
892 DECLARATION of Raymond K Procunier (old) (Entered: 07/14/1993)
893 APPLICATION by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates for Leave to Submit Evidence not Considered by the Mediator (old) (Entered: 07/14/1993)
894 Notice of Motion and MOTION by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates for hearing on Objections to the Mediator's Findings and Recommendations by pltf Gates ; hearing date 8/26/93 at 10:30 before JFM (old) (Entered: 07/14/1993)
895 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates to the Mediator's Findings and Recommendations re: P V no A-7 and Proposed Modifications (old) (Entered: 07/14/1993)
896 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates of Points and Authorities in support of Plaintiff's objections to the Mediator's Findings and Recommendations re: P V No A-7 [895-1] (old) (Entered: 07/14/1993)

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 49 of 121

07/12/1993 07/13/1993
07/13/1993
07/19/1993 07/19/1993 07/19/1993 07/19/1993 07/22/1993 07/29/1993 07/29/1993 07/29/1993 07/30/1993
08/02/1993 08/05/1993

897 OBJECTIONS by defendants to the mediator's findings and recommendations; hrg 8/26/93 at 10:30 ctrm 8 JFM (old) (Entered: 07/15/1993)
888 STIPULATION and ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton ORDERING that the the court's order of 5/5/93 be modified to provide at page 12 " 5. the parties shall resolve any remaining issues re AIDS policy within 60 days of the date of tis order, with the exception of the spousal visitation issue which shall be resolved within 150 days of the date of this order; those issues not resolved shall be immediately scheduled for an evidentiary hearing before the mediator." (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 07/13/1993)
889 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton DENYING defts' motion for an order staying this court's 5/5/93 order 5/5/93 [848-1] pending appeal; hearing set for 7/19/93 is VACATED (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 07/13/1993)
898 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates for contempt by pltf hrg 9/2/93 at 10:00 ctrm 8 JFM (old) (Entered: 07/19/1993)
899 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates in support of the motion for contempt by pltf [898-1] (old) (Entered: 07/19/1993)
900 DECLARATION of Michael Bien IN SUPPORT of pltf's motion for contempt 898-1 (old) (Entered: 07/19/1993)
901 APPENDIX by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates IN SUPPORT of their motion for contempt 898-1 (old) (Entered: 07/19/1993)
LODGED pltfs' order confirming attys' fees on the 10th quarterly statement (old) (Entered: 07/23/1993)
902 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates in opposition to the defts' objections to the mediator's findings and recommendations; hrg 8/26/93 at 10:30 ctrm 8 JFM (old) (Entered: 07/30/1993)
903 DECLARATION of Andrea Asaro in support of re memorandum [902-1] (old) (Entered: 07/30/1993)
904 MEMORANDUM by defendants in opposition to the pltf's objections to the mediator's findings and recommendations (old) (Entered: 07/30/1993)
905 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton: The matter of the objections to the mediator's 6/18/93 report and recommendation re: Perceived Violation No. A-7 is hereby referred toMagistrate Judge John F Moulds for preparation of findings and recommendations (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 07/30/1993)
LODGED defts' request for extension of time to file opposition to pltf's motion for contempt (old) (Entered: 08/03/1993)
906 Defendants' Reply to Plaintiff's Cross-Opposition to Defendants'

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 50 of 121

08/06/1993 08/06/1993 08/11/1993
08/11/1993 08/11/1993
08/13/1993 08/24/1993 08/24/1993 08/26/1993 08/30/1993 08/30/1993 08/30/1993

Objections to Mediator's Findings and Recommendations re: PV A-7 [902-1] (old) (Entered: 08/09/1993)
907 Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants' Cross-Opposition to Plaintiff's Objections to the Mediator's Findings and Recommendations re: P V No A-7 [904-1] (old) (Entered: 08/09/1993)
908 DECLARATION of Sanford Jay Rosen regarding plaintiffs' Eleventh Quarterly Statement of Fees and Disbursements for Monitoring Compliance with the Consent Decree which was approved by order on 3/8/90 (Second Quarter 1993) (old) (Entered: 08/09/1993)
909 ORDER by Magistrate John F Moulds DENYING the motion to strike portions of declarations of Ruth Younger and James Flynn in Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Payment of 1991 Attorneys Fees and costs [710-1] (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 08/11/1993)
910 ORDER by Magistrate John F Moulds GRANTING the pltf's motion for attorney fees and costs on the tenth quarterly statement [846-1] (cc: all (old) (Entered: 08/11/1993)
911 ORDER by Magistrate John F Moulds GRANTING the lodged defts' request for extension of time for filing opposition to pltfs' motion for contempt be extended to and including 8/23/93 and that pltfs' time for filing a reply be extended to and including 8/30/93 (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 08/11/1993)
912 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton REFERRING the motion for contempt by pltf to Magistrate John F Moulds for preparation of the findings and recommendations (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 08/13/1993)
LODGED Stipulation and Order (old) (Entered: 08/25/1993)
913 ATTACHMENT B to Declaration of Donna Gail Lewis re: defendants' opposition to plaintiffs' motion for contempt (no opposition filed) (old) (Entered: 08/25/1993)
914 MINUTES of Motion/Objection to Mediator's before Magistrate John F Moulds : Arguments heard; matter submitted; Findings and Recommendations to issue (old) (Entered: 08/27/1993)
915 STIPULATION and ORDER by Magistrate John F Moulds ORDERING Magistrate Moulds order of 8/11/93 will not be final until a decision on pltf's motion to compel payment filed 8/20/93 is entered (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 08/30/1993)
917 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates to declaration of Donnal Lewis and motion to strike (old) (Entered: 08/31/1993)
918 DECLARATION of Michael Bien in support re motion for contempt by pltf [898-1] (old) (Entered: 08/31/1993)

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 51 of 121

08/30/1993 08/30/1993 08/31/1993
09/01/1993
09/01/1993 09/01/1993 09/01/1993 09/01/1993 09/02/1993 09/03/1993
09/09/1993 09/10/1993 09/10/1993 09/10/1993

LODGED finding and recommendations re pltfs motion for contempt and other relief (old) (Entered: 08/31/1993)
919 REPLY by plaintiff re [898-1] pltf's motion for contemp (old) (Entered: 08/31/1993)
916 ORDER by Magistrate John F Moulds ORDERING: Within 10 days of the date of this order, pltfs shall provide the court with informationre attorenys' fees and costs for 1991 (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 08/31/1993)
920 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton ORDERING: the Mediator's Thirteenth Progress Report FILED and the report is accepted as representing the defts status and the court accepts the conslusions as set forth throughout the report (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 09/01/1993)
921 Mediator's Thirteenth Progress Report Concerning the Status of Implementation of the Provisons of the Decree (old) (Entered: 09/01/1993)
922 OBJECTIONS by defendant to [921-1] mediators thirteenth progress report (old) (Entered: 09/02/1993)
923 OBJECTIONS by defendant to pltfs motion to strike declaration of Donna Gail Lewis (old) (Entered: 09/02/1993)
924 SECOND declaration of Donna Gail Lewis in RESPONSE by defendant to [898-1] motion for contempt and other relief (old) (Entered: 09/02/1993)
926 MINUTES of 9/2/93 before Magistrate John F Moulds: Arguments by 10/1/93; defts are to submit revised plan in format approved by mediator (old) (Entered: 09/03/1993)
925 ORDER by Magistrate John F Moulds ORDERING: hearing on motion for contempt by pltf [898-1] is CONTINUED for 9:00 am on 10/15/93; further hearing is set for 11/19/93 at 9:00 am; Defts to submit their revised plan for Outpatient Psychiatric Program by 10/1/93; By 11/1/93 experts selected by the Mediator shall review defts plan and recommend appro dissappoval or modifications; Parties shall have 10 working days to respond to experts recommendations; (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 09/03/1993)
927 REQUEST by defendant to vacate order due to inadvertant error of court (old) (Entered: 09/10/1993)
928 REQUEST for intervention by non party Richard Lauranzano (old) (Entered: 09/10/1993)
929 REQUEST for ex parte motion for contempt of court order by Courtney J Crosby (old) (Entered: 09/10/1993)
930 DECLARATION of Snaford Jay Rosen in response re order [916-1] (old) (Entered: 09/10/1993)

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 52 of 121

09/10/1993 09/14/1993 09/15/1993
09/15/1993 09/16/1993 09/17/1993
09/17/1993 09/20/1993 09/21/1993 09/21/1993 09/22/1993
09/23/1993
09/27/1993 09/27/1993 09/27/1993

931 TRANSCRIPT of 9/2/93 of hearing on pltfs motion for contempt (old) (Entered: 09/10/1993)
LODGED stipulation re pltfs 1994 rates for payment of attorneys fees (old) (Entered: 09/15/1993)
932 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by JFM RECOMMENDING pltf's motion to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs during 1991 [665-1] be denied and pltfs motion to compel payment of attorneys' fees and costs during 1991 filed 6/25/92 be granted in all other respects in the total amount of $209,043.66 (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 09/15/1993)
933 MOTION for protective order by Lauranzano (old) (Entered: 09/15/1993)
934 OBJECTIONS by defendant to request [929-1] for contempt of court order by pltf (old) (Entered: 09/17/1993)
935 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton ORDERING: The 9/1/93 order [920-1] is VACATED; The matter of the objections to the mediator's report is REFERRED to JFM for a preparation of findings and recommendations (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 09/17/1993)
936 LETTER to court from criminal justice consultant re objections to the mediator's report (old) (Entered: 09/17/1993)
LODGED proposed order confirming attorney fees on the 11th quarterly statement (old) (Entered: 09/21/1993)
938 RESPONSE by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates to [934-1] (old) (Entered: 09/22/1993)
939 REQUEST for interventionof class by Courtney J Crosby (old) (Entered: 09/22/1993)
937 STIPULATION and ORDER by Magistrate John F Moulds ORDERING: Parties STIPULATE that the deadline for pltfs to notify defts of pltfs' 1994 rates shall be tolled until 2/28/94 and may be tolled further depending upon the status of pltfs's 1992 and 1993 rates (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 09/22/1993)
940 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION That defendants' motion opposing plaintiff's proposed fee increases for 1992 be granted and plaintiffs' counsel's proposed fee increases for 1992 be denied; defendants motion that the hourly rates currently in place be frozenfor the duration of this litigation be denied (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 09/23/1993)
941 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates to Report and Recommendation [932-1] (old) (Entered: 09/28/1993)
942 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates in support of report & recommendation objection [941-1] (old) (Entered: 09/28/1993)
943 DECLARATION of Sanford Jay Rosen in support re report &

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 53 of 121

09/28/1993
09/28/1993 09/30/1993 09/30/1993 10/01/1993 10/01/1993 10/04/1993 10/04/1993 10/04/1993 10/04/1993 10/07/1993 10/13/1993
10/13/1993 10/18/1993 10/19/1993

recommendation objection [941-1] (old) (Entered: 09/28/1993)
944 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton ORDERING: The findings and recommendations filed 1/7/93 are ADOPTED in full; The mediator's Findings and Conclusions on Perceived Violation No A-9, filed 4/6/93 and re the decrease in beds available at Atascadero State Hospital for inmates in the custody of the California Dept of Corrections are ADOPTED in their entriety with the exception that the date by which the California Dept of Corrections and the Department of Mental Health shall modify their interageny agreement is 10/1/93 (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 09/28/1993)
946 REQUEST for ex-parte motion of temporary restraining order by Joseph Alldredge (old) (Entered: 09/30/1993)
945 ORDER by Magistrate John F Moulds ORDERING: Attorneys fees on the Eleventh Quarterly Statement is CONFIRMED-SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 09/30/1993)
947 APPEAL fee paid [840-1] (old) (Entered: 10/01/1993)
948 NOTICE by defendants of compliance with order re filing outpatient psychiatric program plan (old) (Entered: 10/04/1993)
949 OBJECTIONS by defendants to Report and Recommendation [932-1] (old) (Entered: 10/04/1993)
950 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT of 5/14/92 (proceedings at time of mediation hearing) (old) (Entered: 10/04/1993)
951 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates to Report and Recommendation [940-1] (old) (Entered: 10/04/1993)
952 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates in support of report & recommendation objection [951-1] (old) (Entered: 10/04/1993)
953 DECLARATION of Sanford Jay Rosen in support re report & recommendation objection [951-1] (old) (Entered: 10/04/1993)
955 OBJECTIONS by defendants to Report and Recommendation [940-1] (old) (Entered: 10/13/1993)
954 ORDER by Magistrate John F Moulds ORDERING: The hearing set for 10/15/93 on pltfs motion for an order of contempt is dropped from the calendar; as previously ordered; The next hearing is set for 11/19/93 (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 10/13/1993)
956 REQUEST for emergency ex-parte motionfor immediate order of temporary injunctive relief by Mr Alldredge (old) (Entered: 10/14/1993)
957 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates to report & recommendation objection [955-1] submitted by defts (old) (Entered: 10/20/1993)
958 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates to report & recommendation objection [955-1] (old) (Entered: 10/21/1993)

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 54 of 121

10/20/1993 10/20/1993 10/20/1993 10/20/1993 10/20/1993 10/20/1993 10/26/1993 11/01/1993 11/01/1993
11/03/1993 11/04/1993 11/04/1993 11/05/1993
11/08/1993
11/09/1993

959 MOTION for temporary restraining order by Joseph Alldredge (old) (Entered: 10/21/1993)
960 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION by plaintiff to enforce antiretaliation order and other orders of this court to be heard on 11/18/93 at 9:30 (old) (Entered: 10/21/1993)
MOTION by plaintiff to enforce anti-retaliation order and other orders of this court (old) (Entered: 10/21/1993)
961 NOTICE by plaintiffs of motion to enforce anti-retaliation order and other orders of this court (old) (Entered: 10/21/1993)
962 DECLARATION of Richard Lauranzano (old) (Entered: 10/21/1993)
963 DECLARATION of Stephen Liacouras in support re motion to enforce anti-retaliation order and other orders of this court [960-1] (old) (Entered: 10/21/1993)
964 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendant from Dist. Court decision [944-1] ( fee status: PAID) (old) (Entered: 10/27/1993)
965 MEMORANDUM by defendant in opposition to motion to enforce antiretaliation order and other orders of this court [960-1] (old) (Entered: 11/02/1993)
966 DECLARATION of Sanford Jay Rosen re pltfs twelfth quarterly statement of fees and disbursements for monitoring compliance with the consent decree which was approved by order of 3/8/90 (old) (Entered: 11/02/1993)
967 NOTICE by defendants of filing original signed declarations of Tim Rosetti and Sally Hodgdon and page 3 of declaration of Camilla Jancek (old) (Entered: 11/05/1993)
968 MEMORANDUM by defendant in opposition to motion for protective order [933-1] (old) (Entered: 11/05/1993)
969 MEMORANDUM by defendant in opposition to motion for temporary restraining order [959-1] (old) (Entered: 11/05/1993)
970 NOTICE from the Ninth Circuit court of appeals of appellants motion for a stay of the district court's order pending appeal is GRANTED; The briefing schedule established by the Clerk shall remain in effect; This appeal shall be calendard as soon as possible after briefing (old) (Entered: 11/08/1993)
LODGED stipulation and order extending time for filing of pltf's motion to compel payment of disputed 1992 fees and costs and defts motion opposing pltfs proposed 1993 rates setting consolidated briefing and hearing schedule for both motions by pltf's (old) (Entered: 11/10/1993)
972 MINUTE ORDER: In-court hearing SET 11/18/93 at 9:30 in ctrm #8 , RESETTING hearing on motion to enforce anti-retaliation order and other orders of this court [960-1] for 9:30 am on 1/4/94 (cc: all counsel)

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 55 of 121

11/10/1993 11/10/1993 11/10/1993 11/10/1993 11/16/1993
11/18/1993
11/18/1993 11/22/1993
11/24/1993 11/30/1993 12/01/1993
12/03/1993

(old) (Entered: 11/16/1993)
973 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in support of motion to enforce antiretaliation order and other orders of this court [960-1] (old) (Entered: 11/16/1993)
974 RESPONSIVE DECLARATION OF RICHARD LAURANZANO by plaintiffs (old) (Entered: 11/16/1993)
975 AFFIDAVIT of Dale E Robinson (old) (Entered: 11/16/1993)
976 SECOND DECLARATION of Stephen Liacouras in support re motion to enforce anti-retaliation order and other orders of this court [960-1] (old) (Entered: 11/16/1993)
971 STIPULATION and ORDER by Magistrate John F Moulds ORDERING An EXTENSION of time for filing of pltfs motion to compel payment of disputed 1992 fees and costs and defts motion opposing pltfs proposed 1993 rates and setting consolidated briefing and hearing schedule for both motions (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 11/16/1993)
977 RELATED CASE ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton ORDERING Case 2:87-cv-1636 LKK JFM is RELATED to member cases 2:93-cv-1599 DFL JFM Case CIV S 93-1599 is REASSIGNED to Judge Lawrence K Karlton for all further proceedings (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 11/18/1993)
978 MINUTES of 11/18/93 before Magistrate John F Moulds: The motion to enforce anti-retaliation order and other orders of this court [960-1] is submitted; Court to issue order (old) (Entered: 11/19/1993)
979 ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Magistrate John F Moulds ORDERING: Clerk to send inmates Alldredge and Crosby forms for commencing civil rights actions in this court; RECOMMENDING that Joseph Alldredge's mtns for tro filed 9/28/93 and 10/13/93 be denied; Courtney Jerome Crosby's mtn for intervention of class filed 9/21/93 be denied; w/in 30 days any party may file written objections w/ court (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 11/22/1993)
980 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT of 11/24/93 (old) (Entered: 11/29/1993)
982 RESPONSE by defendants to pltfs' request for inspection re: motin for contempt on outpatient psychiatric program (old) (Entered: 12/02/1993)
981 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by Magistrate John F Moulds RECOMMENDING that the motion to modify order [802-1] be granted and the Thirteenth Progress Report be modified as follows: The date in the first line of paragrah 3 at pg 36 is changed from 6/20/93 to 6/30/93, The word "restructured" in the third line of the first asterisked paragraph at pg 60 is changed to "restricted" and the word"excercise" is inserted between the words "consecutive" and "days" on lines 2 and 3 of the first full paragraph at pg 98 (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 12/01/1993)
983 MAILED case information/docket fee payment notice, copy of Notice of

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 56 of 121

12/03/1993 12/09/1993
12/09/1993 12/09/1993
12/09/1993 12/09/1993 12/09/1993 12/09/1993 12/09/1993 12/09/1993 12/09/1993
12/09/1993 12/15/1993 12/16/1993

Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Copy of appeal and certified copy of docket sheet to all parties. (old) (Entered: 12/03/1993)
984 CERTIFICATE of Record Transmitted to USCA (Notice sent) (old) (Entered: 12/03/1993)
985 MOTION by plaintiffs to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs incurred during 1992 and to modify the periodic fees process motion to be heard on 2/3/94 at 11:00 bef JFM (old) (Entered: 12/10/1993)
Text not available. (Entered: 12/10/1993)
986 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in 2:87-cv-01636 in support of motion to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs incurred during 1992 and to modify the periodic fees process [985-1] (old) (Entered: 12/10/1993)
987 DECLARATION of Donald Specter in support re motion to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs incurred during 1992 and to modify the periodic fees process [985-1] (old) (Entered: 12/10/1993)
988 DECLARATION of Matthew Coles in support re motion to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs incurred during 1992 and to modify the periodic fees process [985-1] (old) (Entered: 12/10/1993)
989 DECLARATION of Michael W Bien in support re motion to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs incurred during 1992 and to modify the periodic fees process [985-1] (old) (Entered: 12/10/1993)
990 DECLARATION of Waren E George in support re motion to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs incurred during 1992 and to modify the periodic fees process [985-1] (old) (Entered: 12/10/1993)
991 DECLARATION of Stephen Liacouras in support re motion to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs incurred during 1992 and to modify the periodic fees process [985-1] (old) (Entered: 12/10/1993)
992 DECLARATION of Sanford Jay Rosen in support re motion to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs incurred during 1992 and to modify the periodic fees process [985-1] (old) (Entered: 12/10/1993)
993 APPENDIX OF ANNOTATED 1992 QUARTERLY BILLING STATEMENTS by plaintiffs in support of motion to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs incurred during 1992 and to modify the periodic fees process [985-1] (old) (Entered: 12/10/1993)
994 DEFENDANTS notice of motion and motion in opposition to plaintiff's proposed 1993 rates to be heard 2/3/94 at 11:00 bef JFM (old) Modified on 01/07/1994 (Entered: 12/10/1993)
995 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION and Ordering Form for dates: NONE ORDERED (old) (Entered: 12/16/1993)
CERTIFICATE of Record Transmitted to USCA for appeal notice filed

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 57 of 121

12/17/1993
12/17/1993 12/17/1993 12/21/1993 12/22/1993
12/22/1993 12/23/1993 12/28/1993 01/03/1994 01/04/1994

10/26/93 (Notice sent) (old) (Entered: 12/16/1993)
996 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton ORDERING: The Mediator's Fourteenth Progress Report Concerning the Status of Implementation of the Provisions of the Decree is ordered FILED; The report is accepted as representing the defts' status in the implementation of the provisions of the Consent Decree in this case and the court accepts the conclusions as set forth throughout the Fourteenth Progress Report (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 12/17/1993)
997 MEDIATOR'S FOURTEENTH PROGRESS REPORT by mediator Allen F Breed concerning the Status of Implementation of the Provisions of the Decree (old) (Entered: 12/17/1993)
998 SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE by defendants of Compliance with order re: Filing Outpatient Psychiatric Program Plan (old) (Entered: 12/20/1993)
999 NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate Docket Number 9317322 (old) (Entered: 12/21/1993)
1000 ORDER by Magistrate John F Moulds ORDERING: hearing on motion to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs incurred during 1992 and to modify the periodic fees process [985-1] is RESET for 10:00 am on 1/26/94; The parties responses to the Mediator's review of the Outpatient Psychiatric Program shall be filed with the court by 1/19/94 and a hearing on the Mediatro's review of the Outpatient Psychiatric Program is set for 1/26/94 at 10:00 in ctrm 8 (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 12/22/1993)
1001 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by Magistrate John F Moulds RECOMMENDING that the Mediator's 7/23/92 report on the conversion of space at CMF Main to housing units be adopted by the District Court (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 12/22/1993)
1002 MINUTE ORDER: setting hearing on motion for contempt by pltf [8981] 11:00 1/27/94, setting hearing on motion for hearing on Objections to the Mediator's Findings and Recommendations by pltf Gates [894-1] 11:00 1/27/94 (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 12/28/1993)
1003 OBJECTIONS by defendants to Report and Recommendation [1001-1] (old) (Entered: 12/28/1993)
1004 EXPERTS' REPORT on deft's Revised Outpatient Psychiatric Program Plan (old) (Entered: 01/03/1994)
1005 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton ORDERING: report & recommendation motion [940-1] filed 9/23/93 re defts' Objections to Pltfs Counsels' Proposed Rates for Compliance Work Performed in 1992 are ADOPTED in their entirety; Deft's motion opposing pltf's proposed fee increases for 1992 is GRANTED and pltf's counsels proposed fee increases for 1992 is DENIED and defts' motion that the hourly rates currently in place be frozen for the duration of this litigation is DENIED; Report and Recommendation [932-1] filed 9/15/93 re pltf's motion to

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 58 of 121

01/06/1994 01/06/1994 01/06/1994 01/06/1994
01/06/1994 01/06/1994 01/06/1994 01/06/1994 01/06/1994
01/06/1994
01/06/1994
01/06/1994
01/07/1994 01/13/1994 01/19/1994

compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs for 1991 are ADOPTED in their entirety except for the correction to the total amount of disputed fees and costs; the correct total is $222,441.83 and pltf's motion to compel is DENIED-SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS (old) (Entered: 01/04/1994)
1006 OBJECTIONS by defendants to Mediator's Recommendation re Inspection of Facility by plaintiffs' attorneys (old) (Entered: 01/07/1994)
1007 DECLARATION of Donald Specter in opposition to defendant's motion re 1993 rates for attorney fees [994-1] (old) (Entered: 01/07/1994)
1008 PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION to defendants' motion re plaintiffs' 1993 attorneys' fees rates [994-1] (old) (Entered: 01/07/1994)
1009 DECLARATION of Robert Allan Goodin in opposition to defendants' motion re: 1993 rates for attorneys' fees [994-1] (old) (Entered: 01/07/1994)
1010 DECLARATION of Matthew Coles in opposition to defendants' motion re 1993 rates for attorneys' fees [994-1] (old) (Entered: 01/07/1994)
1011 DECLARATION of Guy Saperstein in opposition to defendants' motion re 1993 rates for attorneys' fees [994-1] (old) (Entered: 01/07/1994)
1012 DECLARATION of Richard Pearl in opposition to defendants' motion re: 1993 rates for attorneys' fees [994-1] (old) (Entered: 01/07/1994)
1013 DECLARATION of Michael Kahn in opposition to defendants' motion re: 1993 rates for attorneys' fees [994-1] (old) (Entered: 01/07/1994)
1014 DECLARATION of Warren E George in opposition to defendants' motion re: 1993 rates for attorneys' fees [994-1] (old) (Entered: 01/07/1994)
1015 DECLARATION of Sanford Jay Rosen in opposition to defendants' motion re: 1993 rates for attorneys' fees [994-1] (old) (Entered: 01/07/1994)
1016 SEPARATE APPENDIX by plaintiffs in opposition to defendants' motion re: 1993 rates for attorneys' fees [994-1] (old) (Entered: 01/07/1994)
1017 RESPONSE by defendants in opposition to motion to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs incurred during 1992 and to modify the periodic fees process [985-1] (old) (Entered: 01/07/1994)
1018 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 01/07/1994)
LODGED proposed order confiming attorneys' fees on the twelfth quarterly statement by pltfs (old) (Entered: 01/14/1994)
1019 RESPONSE to report of Mediator's experts on defendants' revised outpatient psychiatric program by defendants [998-1] (old) (Entered:

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 59 of 121

01/19/1994 01/19/1994 01/19/1994 01/20/1994 01/20/1994 01/20/1994 01/20/1994 01/21/1994 01/21/1994 01/21/1994
01/21/1994 01/21/1994 01/24/1994 01/24/1994

01/21/1994)
1029 DECLARATION of Michael W Bien (old) (Entered: 01/25/1994)
1030 DECLARATION of Vallabhaneni Meenakshi, MD (old) (Entered: 01/26/1994)
1031 SUPPLEMENTAL by plaintiff memorandum in support [899-1] of pltfs' motion for contempt and in response to experts' report (old) (Entered: 01/26/1994)
LODGED stipulation, Mediator's recommendation to amend report on conversion of space to housing unit and order by defts (old) (Entered: 01/21/1994)
LODGED proposed amended order establishing procedure for collecting attorneys' fees and costs during the pendency of the consent decree (old) (Entered: 01/21/1994)
1020 REPLY by plaintiff's re motion to compel payment of disputed attorney's fees and costs incurred during 1992 and modify the periodic fees process [985-1] (old) (Entered: 01/21/1994)
1021 DECLARATION of Sanford Jay Rosen re motion to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs incurred during 1992 and to modify the periodic fees process [985-1] (old) (Entered: 01/21/1994)
1022 AMENDED response to [1019-1] report of mediator's experts on defendants' revised outpatient psychiatric program by defendants (old) (Entered: 01/24/1994)
1023 REPLY by defendants to plaintiff's opposition [1008-1] to defendants' motion in opposition to plaintiffs' proposed 1993 rates (old) (Entered: 01/24/1994)
1024 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to defendants' objection [1006-1] to Mediator's Recommendation re Inspection of Facility by plaintiffs' attorneys and memorandum of points and authorities in support thereof (old) (Entered: 01/24/1994)
1025 DECLARATION of Alicon Hardy in support of plaintiff's response [1024-1] to defendants' objection to mediator's recommendation re: Inspection of Facility (old) (Entered: 01/24/1994)
1026 DECLARATION of Heather Mackay in support of plaintiffs' response [1024-1] to defendant's objection to mediator's recommendation re: Inspection of Facility (old) (Entered: 01/24/1994)
1027 AFFIDAVIT of Ronald Dale Birdwell as to military service (old) (Entered: 01/24/1994)
1028 ORDER by Magistrate John F Moulds ORDERING: Attorney's fees on the twelfth quarterly statement are CONFIRMED- SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 01/24/1994)

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 60 of 121

01/24/1994 01/27/1994
01/27/1994 01/28/1994
02/01/1994 02/03/1994 02/03/1994 02/03/1994

1032 REPLY by defendants to pltf's response [1024-1] to defts' objection to mediator's recommendation re: Inspection of Facility (old) (Entered: 01/26/1994)
1033 STIPULATION and ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton ORDERING: Parties agree that the Mediator may recommend to the court that the portion of his report dated 7/23/92 re the planned conversion of space to a housing unit which contains the requirement that the population level at CMF-Main not increase above the level which exited prior to the closing of NRC be amended to eliminate that requirement, the at the portions of the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations filed 12/22/93 may be modified in accordance with the Mediator's recommendation, and that deft's objections to the findings and recommendations may be denied as moot (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 01/27/1994)
1034 MINUTES of 1/27/94 before Magistrate John F Moulds : Hearing re Mediator Review of Out Patient Psych Program; Pltf' motion re contempt; Pltf's arguments, defts arguments, pltf's arguments; Order will issue upholding plan re: Mediators inspection of facilities; Facts will be certified to District Court Re: Contempt by defts and date will be set for defts to appear before District Court to answer contempt charges (old) (Entered: 01/28/1994)
1035 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton ORDERING: The findings and recommendations filed 12/1/93 are ADOPTED IN FULL; The Mediator's Thirteenth Progress Report [921-1] is MODIFYIED as follows: The date in the first line of para 3 at page 36 is changed from June 20, 1993 to June 30, 1993; The word "restructured" i the third line of the first asterisked paragraph at pg 60 is changed to "restricted"; The work "exercise" is inserted between the words "consecutive" and "days" on lines 2 and 3 of the first full paragrah at pg 98 and the Thirteenth Progress Report is filed and accepted in all other respects (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 01/28/1994)
1036 ORDER by Magistrate John F Moulds ORDERING: The Mediator's 12/27/93 order in a letter addressed to Jim Flynn, Judy Harper and Heather MacKay re pltf's inspection of CMF for disocvery puposes on the issue of utilization of inmate clerks is AFFIRMED (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 02/01/1994)
1037 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT of 1/27/94: hearing re: mediator review of outpatient psychiatric program; Pltf motion re contempt (old) (Entered: 02/04/1994)
1038 DECLARATION of Sanford Jay Rosen re pltf's Thirteenth Quarterly Statement of Fees and Disbursements for Monitoring Complicance With the Consent Decree which was approved by order on 3/8/90 (old) (Entered: 02/04/1994)
1039 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendants from Dist. Court decision ( fee status: PAID) (old) (Entered: 02/04/1994)

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 61 of 121

02/03/1994 02/03/1994
02/03/1994 02/07/1994 02/09/1994 02/11/1994 02/11/1994 02/14/1994 02/16/1994 02/18/1994 02/18/1994 02/23/1994
02/23/1994 02/25/1994 03/01/1994 03/09/1994

1040 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION and Ordering Form for dates: None ordered (old) (Entered: 02/04/1994)
1041 MINUTES of 2/3/94 before Magistrate John F Moulds : Pltf's motion to compel payment of disputed 1992 fees and const to modify the periodic fees process and deft's objections to pltf's proposed 1993 rates held; Pltf's arguments; Deft's arguments; Matter submitted; Parties will submit stipulation if they can resolve part of the matter; Court to prepare written order (old) (Entered: 02/04/1994)
1042 RECEIPT #154899 of $105 by deft State of CA for appeal (old) (Entered: 02/04/1994)
1043 REQUEST by J Alldredge for status of action and related documents (old) (Entered: 02/08/1994)
1044 MAILED case information/docket fee payment notice, copy of Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Copy of appeal and certified copy of docket sheet to all parties. (old) (Entered: 02/09/1994)
1045 NOTICE OF APPEAL by plaintiff from Dist. Court decision of 1/4/94 ( fee status: PAID) (old) (Entered: 02/14/1994)
1046 RECEIPT #157029 (old) (Entered: 02/14/1994)
1047 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT of motion hearing of 2/3/94 (old) (Entered: 02/15/1994)
1048 MAILED case information/docket fee payment notice, copy of Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Copy of appeal and certified copy of docket sheet to all parties. (old) (Entered: 02/16/1994)
1049 MEDIATOR'S Fifteenth Progress Report Concerning the Status of Implementation of the Provisions of the Decree by mediator Allen F Breed (old) (Entered: 02/18/1994)
1050 LETTER to court from mediator Allen F Breed re Fifteenth Progress Report (old) (Entered: 02/18/1994)
1051 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONby Magistrate John F Moulds RECOMMENDING The Mediator's Findings of Fact and Recommendations re Perceived Violation No A-7 (37mm Gun), filed with the court on 6/18/93 be ADOPTED-SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 02/23/1994)
1052 NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate Docket Number 9415259 (old) (Entered: 02/24/1994)
1053 EX PARTE MOTION by Mr J Alldredge re Gate's Consent Decree (old) (Entered: 02/28/1994)
1054 NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate Docket Number 9215284 (old) (Entered: 03/02/1994)
1055 REQUEST by defendants for extension of time to file objections to

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 62 of 121

03/11/1994 03/18/1994
03/18/1994 03/21/1994 03/22/1994
03/23/1994 03/25/1994 03/25/1994 03/31/1994 04/01/1994 04/01/1994 04/01/1994 04/04/1994
04/05/1994

mediator's fifteenth progress report (old) (Entered: 03/10/1994)
1056 OBJECTIONS by defendants to Report and Recommendation [1051-1] (old) (Entered: 03/14/1994)
1057 ORDER by Magistrate John F Moulds GRANTING request [1055-1] by defts to file objections to the Mediator's Fifteenth Progress Report; Deft's have until 3/21/94 to file objections to the Mediators Fifteenth Progress Report (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 03/18/1994)
LODGED stipulation and order re pltf's 1994 rates (old) (Entered: 03/21/1994)
LODGED stipulation and proposed order confirming attorneys' fees and consts awarded in the district court's order of 1/4/94 (old) (Entered: 03/22/1994)
1058 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton ADOPTING IN FULL report & recommendation motion filed 2/23/94 by John F Moulds and ORDERING The Mediator's Findings of Fact and Recommendations re Perceived Violation No A-7 (37mm Gun), filed with the court on 6/18/93 [1051-1] IS ADOPTED (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 03/22/1994)
1059 MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE to defendant's objections [1056-1] magistrate judge's findings and recommendations by plaintiffs (old) (Entered: 03/24/1994)
1060 STIPULATION and ORDER by Magistrate John F Moulds : granting lodged order regarding plaintiffs' 1994 rates [0-0] (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 03/25/1994)
1061 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to correct 3/22/94 order by plaintiffs (old) (Entered: 03/28/1994)
LODGED proposed order confirming attorneys' fees ont he thirteenth quarterly statment (old) (Entered: 03/31/1994)
1062 RESPONSE by defendants in 2:87-cv-01636 to MOTION to correct 3/22/94 order by plaintiffs [1061-1] (old) (Entered: 04/05/1994)
1064 LETTER to court from mediator Allen F Breed in 2:87-cv-01636 (old) (Entered: 04/05/1994)
1065 Mediator's REPORT on Perceived Violation No 403 (old) (Entered: 04/05/1994)
1067 MANDATE from Circuit Court of Appeals GRANTING appeal [964-1] to substitute Governor Pete Wilson for former Governor Deukmejian and the caption in this case shall reflect Gates vs James Gomez, et al.,; The motion for voluntary dismissal of this appeal without prejudice to reinstatement within 28 days of the district court's order re the mediator's Fifteenth Progress Report is GRANTED; (old) (Entered: 04/08/1994)
1063 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton: the report [1049-1] is ordered FILED; the report is accepted as representing the dfts' status in

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 63 of 121

04/06/1994 04/11/1994 04/11/1994 04/18/1994 04/20/1994 04/22/1994 04/29/1994 05/02/1994
05/06/1994
05/06/1994 05/09/1994 05/13/1994 05/16/1994

the implementation of the Consent Decree in this case; the Court accepts the conclusions as set forth throughout the Fifteenth Progress Report (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 04/05/1994)
1066 ORDER CONFIRMING ATTORNEYS' FEES ON THE THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY STATEMENT by Magistrate John F Moulds (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 04/06/1994)
1068 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendants from Dist. Court decision [34-1] ( fee status: Not Paid) (old) (Entered: 04/12/1994)
1069 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION and Ordering Form for dates: None ordred (old) (Entered: 04/12/1994)
1070 NOTICE by plaintiffs of setting hearing on motion to correct 3/22/94 order by plaintiffs [1061-1] for 10:00 am on 5/23/94 before LKK ( cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 04/19/1994)
1071 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION and Ordering Form for dates: 3/26/93; 4/15/93 and 8/26/93 (old) (Entered: 04/20/1994)
1072 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for stay of 3/22/94 order re: PV A-7 (37 mm GUN) by defts motion to be heard on 5/23/94 at 10:00 by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton (old) (Entered: 04/25/1994)
1073 NOTICE by defendants of filing signed declaration of Warden Michael Pickett (old) (Entered: 05/02/1994)
1074 DECLARATION of Sanford Jay Rosen regarding pltfs' Fourteeth Quarterly Statement of Fees and Disbursements for monitoring compliance with the consent decree which was approed by order of 3/8/94 (First Quarter 1994) (old) (Entered: 05/02/1994)
LODGED stipulation and order consolidating briefing and hering schedule for bothe the Motion to Compel Payment of Disputed 1993 fees and costs and the Motion re Plaintiff's Proposed 1994 Rates by pltfs (old) (Entered: 05/09/1994)
1075 PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS by plaintiffs to Proposed Stipulation and Request for Transfer to Magistrate Judge for Hearing (old) (Entered: 05/09/1994)
1076 OPPOSITION by plaintiffs to motion for stay of 3/22/94 order re: PV A7 (37 mm GUN) by defts [1072-1] (old) (Entered: 05/10/1994)
1077 REPLY MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in support of motion to correct 3/22/94 order by plaintiffs [1061-1] (old) (Entered: 05/16/1994)
1078 STIPULATION and ORDER by Magistrate John F Moulds ORDERING Briefing schedule for both the Motion to Compel Payment of Disputed 1993 Fees and Costs and the Motion re Plaintiffs' Proposed 1994 rates are CONSOLIDATED; Pltf's will file both motions by 5/18/94; Defts' opposition to both motions are due by 6/2/94; Pltfs' reply is due 6/9/94 and hearing on both motion will be heard on 6/16/94 at 11:00 am (cc: all

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 64 of 121

05/18/1994
05/18/1994 05/18/1994
05/18/1994
05/18/1994
05/18/1994
05/18/1994 05/18/1994 05/18/1994 05/18/1994 05/18/1994 05/18/1994 05/18/1994 05/18/1994

counsel) (old) (Entered: 05/16/1994)
1079 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs incurred during 1993 and plaintiffs' proposed 1994 rates by plaintiffs motion to be heard 6/16/94 at 11:00 by JFM (old) (Entered: 05/18/1994)
1080 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in support of motion to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs incurred during 1993 and plaintiffs' proposed 1994 rates by plaintiffs [1079-1] (old) (Entered: 05/18/1994)
1081 DECLARATION of Sanford Jay Rosen in support re motion to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs incurred during 1993 and plaintiffs' proposed 1994 rates by plaintiffs [1079-1] (old) (Entered: 05/18/1994)
1082 DECLARATION of Stephen Liacouras in support re motion to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs incurred during 1993 and plaintiffs' proposed 1994 rates by plaintiffs [1079-1] (old) (Entered: 05/18/1994)
1083 DECLARATION of Warren E George in support re motion to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs incurred during 1993 and plaintiffs' proposed 1994 rates by plaintiffs [1079-1] (old) (Entered: 05/18/1994)
1084 SEPARATE APPENDIX by plaintiffs of annotated 1993 quarterly billing statement re motion to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs incurred during 1993 and plaintiffs' proposed 1994 rates by plaintiffs [1079-1] (old) (Entered: 05/18/1994)
1085 DECLARATION of Donald Specter in support re motion to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs incurred during 1993 (old) (Entered: 05/18/1994)
1086 DECLARATION of Michael W Bien in support re motion to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs incurred during 1993 (old) (Entered: 05/18/1994)
1087 DECLARATION of Tina A Thomas in support of plaintiffs' proposed 1994 rates for attorneys' fees (old) (Entered: 05/18/1994)
1088 DECLARATION of Gary Cohen in support of plaintiff's proposed 1994 rates for attorneys' fees (old) (Entered: 05/18/1994)
1089 DECLARATION of Jay-Allen Eisen in support of plaintiffs' proposed 1994 rates for attorneys' fees (old) (Entered: 05/18/1994)
1090 DECLARATION of Robert Allan Goodin in support of plaintiffs' proposed 1994 rates for attorney's fees (old) (Entered: 05/18/1994)
1091 DECLARATION of Michael Kahn in support of plaintiffs' proposed 1994 rates for attorneys' fees (old) (Entered: 05/18/1994)
1092 DECLARATION of Richard Pearl in support of plaintiff's proposed 1994

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 65 of 121

05/19/1994 05/19/1994 05/19/1994 05/19/1994 05/23/1994 05/23/1994
05/25/1994 05/25/1994 05/27/1994 06/02/1994 06/06/1994 06/06/1994 06/08/1994
06/08/1994 06/09/1994

rates for attorenys' fees (old) (Entered: 05/18/1994)
1093 MAILED case information/docket fee payment notice, copy of Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Copy of appeal and certified copy of docket sheet to all parties. (old) (Entered: 05/19/1994)
1094 CERTIFICATE of Record Transmitted to USCA for appeal filed on 4/11/94 (Notice sent) (old) (Entered: 05/19/1994)
1095 DECLARATION of Guy Saperstein in support of plaintiff's proposed 1994 rates for attorneys' fees (old) (Entered: 05/20/1994)
1096 NOTICE of filing additional declaration in support of plaintiffs' proposed 1994 rates by plaintiffs (old) (Entered: 05/20/1994)
35 Volumes of reporter's transcript of 1989 trial (COPIES ONLY) (old) (Entered: 05/23/1994)
1097 MINUTES of 5/23/94 before Honorable Lawrence K Karlton : Motion for stay of 3/22/94 order re: PV A-7 (37 mm GUN) by defts [1072-1] is DENIED and the Motion to correct 3/22/94 order by plaintiffs [1061-1] is GRANTED; C/R: Richard Fong (old) (Entered: 05/24/1994)
1098 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION and Ordering Form for dates: 3/26/94; 4/15/93 and 8/26/93 (old) (Entered: 05/26/1994)
1099 LETTER to court from Criminal Justice Consultant that he will be out of the country from 6/7/94 until 7/1/94 (old) (Entered: 05/26/1994)
LODGED proposed order denying defendants' motion for stay and concerning plaintiffs' motion to correct 3/22/94 order (old) (Entered: 05/31/1994)
1100 OPPOSITION to plaintiffs motion to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs incurred during 1993 and plaintiffs' proposed 1994 rates by plaintiffs [1079-1] (old) (Entered: 06/06/1994)
1103 OPPOSITION by defendants to plaintiffs' lodged [0-0] order denying defendants' motion for stay and concerning plaintiffs' motion to correct 3/22/94 order (old) (Entered: 06/08/1994)
1104 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT of 5/23/94 proceedings (old) (Entered: 06/08/1994)
1101 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton ORDERING the Mediator's Sixteenth Progress Report is ordered FILED; The report is accepted as represting the defendants' status in the implementation of the provisions of the Consent Decree in this case and the court accepts the conclusions as set forth throughout the Sixteenth Progress Report (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 06/08/1994)
1102 MEDIATOR'S Sixteenth Progress Report (old) (Entered: 06/08/1994)
1105 REPLY by plaintiffs re motion to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs incurred during 1993 and plaintiffs' proposed 1994 rates by

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 66 of 121

06/09/1994
06/10/1994 06/15/1994
06/16/1994
06/16/1994 06/17/1994 06/23/1994 06/24/1994
06/27/1994 06/28/1994 06/29/1994 06/29/1994 07/05/1994 07/07/1994

plaintiffs [1079-1] (old) (Entered: 06/09/1994)
1106 SECOND DECLARATION of Sanford Jay Rosen in support re motion to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs incurred during 1993 and plaintiffs' proposed 1994 rates by plaintiffs [1079-1] (old) (Entered: 06/09/1994)
1107 NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate Docket Number 9415884 for appeal filed 4/11/94 (old) (Entered: 06/13/1994)
1108 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton DENYING motion for stay of 3/22/94 order re: PV A-7 (37 mm GUN) by defts [1072-1] and GRANTING motion to correct 3/22/94 order by plaintiffs [1061-1] (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 06/15/1994)
1109 MINUTES of before Magistrate Judge John F Moulds : that the motion to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs incurred during 1993 and plaintiffs' proposed 1994 rates by plaintiffs [1079-1] is submitted C/R: Tape (old) (Entered: 06/16/1994)
1110 NOTICE by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates in 2:87-cv-01636 of related case(s) Civ S-94-0817 EJG (old) (Entered: 06/17/1994)
1111 NOTICE of related case(s) 2:94-cv-817 EJG (old) (Entered: 06/20/1994)
1112 EMERGENCY EX PARTE MOTION for temporary injunctive relief by plaintiff (old) (Entered: 06/24/1994)
1113 RELATED CASE ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton ORDERING: 2:94-CV-817 EJG JFM is RELATED to actions 2:87-CV1636 LKK JFM and 2:93-CV-1599 LKK JFM Case 2:94-cv-817 is REASSSINGED to Honorable Lawrence K Karlton for all further proceedings and any dates currently set in 2:94-CV-817 are VACATED (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 06/24/1994)
1114 AMENDMENT to Notice of Appeal by defendants [1068-1] (old) (Entered: 06/28/1994)
1115 AMENDED [CORRECTED] NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendants from District Court decision [150-1] {amending appeal of 4/11/94 appealing the 3/22/94 order} (fee status: not paid) (old) (Entered: 06/30/1994)
1116 CERTIFIED COPY of Appellate Court Order: re: USCA #s 94-15284 and 94-15259 are STAYED in the Ninth Circuit until 7/25/94 (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 06/30/1994)
1117 EX PARTE EMERGENCY MOTION by Mr Joseph Allgredge for immediate order for temporary injunctive relief (old) (Entered: 06/30/1994)
1118 MAILED AMENDED case information/docket fee payment notice, copy of Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Copy of appeal and certified copy of docket sheet to all parties. (old) (Entered: 07/05/1994)
LODGED proposed order confirming attorneys' fees on the fourteenth

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 67 of 121

07/20/1994 07/22/1994 07/25/1994 07/25/1994
07/25/1994

quarterly statement by plaintiff (old) (Entered: 07/08/1994)
1119 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton ORDERING: Plaintiff's motion [1061-1] to correct the 3/22/94 Order (37 mm Gun) pursuant to FRCP 60(a) is GRANTED and the last clause of paragraph II of the 3/22/94 order is AMENDED-SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 07/20/1994)
1120 SECOND AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL [1068-1] by defendants; Ninth Circuit #94-15884 (old) (Entered: 07/25/1994)
1121 ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F Moulds ORDERING: The mediator shall file 30 days prior to the district court hearing re contempt, a plan to develop and implement an Outpatient Psychiatric Program; The parties shall respond to the plan at least 10 days prior to the hearing; All parties, and parties counsel, agents and employees, shall fully cooperate with the Mediator, his experts, assistants, and consultants in the development of said plain, and any failure by the parties or parties' counsel, agents, or emplyees to cooperate with the Mediator which materially impedes the Mediator's efforts to develop a plan for an Outpatient Psychiatric Program at California Medical Facility at Vacaville shall be immediately reported by the Mediator to this court and shall forthwith be noticed on the calendar of the district court for further hearing re contempt (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 08/03/1994)
1122 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by Magistrate Judge John F Moulds recommending the district court find defendendant in civil contempt of court for failure to comply with its orders concerning development and implementation of an Outpatient Psychiatric Program for inmates at California Medical Facility at Vacaville; The district court appoint a special master with all powers necessary to develop and implement an Outpatient Psychiatric Program that complies with the Consent Decree and that defendants be ordered to pay the costs of said development and implementation; The district court appoint the Mediator currently served in this case to serve as the said special master; by separate order this court will direct the Mediator to file with the court, 30 days before the district court hearing re contempt, a plan for development and implementation of an Outpatient Psychiatric Program; Defendants be fined the sum on $10,000 per day from the date of an order of contempt by the district court for every day an Outpatient Psychiatric Program which complies with the Consent Decree is not in operation at California Medical Facility and until such an Outpatient Psychiatric Progarm is fully operational and the district court make such other and further orders and impose such sanctions as are necessary to insure future compliance with the orders of this court and to punish defendants for their persistent violations of the orders of the district court (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 08/03/1994)
1122 ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F Moulds ORDERING Defendant's hearing to show cause set for 10:00 am on 10/3/94 Before Honorable Lawrence K Karlton (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 08/03/1994)

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 68 of 121

08/05/1994 08/05/1994 08/09/1994 08/18/1994
08/22/1994 08/23/1994 08/26/1994 08/29/1994 09/07/1994 09/08/1994
09/19/1994 09/19/1994 09/19/1994

1123 ORDER CONFIRMING Attorneys' Fees on the Fourteenth Quarterly Statement by Magistrate Judge John F Moulds (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 08/05/1994)
1124 APPEAL fee paid [1068-1] #159463 for $105 (old) (Entered: 08/08/1994)
1125 OBJECTIONS by defendants to Report and Recommendation [1122-1] and Order [1121-1] re: Contempt and Separate Order and Oppositon to Order to Show Cause re: Contempt (old) (Entered: 08/10/1994)
1181 REQUEST by dfts for order sealing Exhibit B (declaration of Robert McGahey) to dfts' objections to Magistrate Judge's certification, recommendations, and order re: contempt and separate order and opposition to order to show cause re: contempt (old) (Entered: 11/29/1994)
1126 DECLARATION of Sanford Jay Rosen regarding plaintiffs 15th quarterly statement of fees and disbursements for monitoring compliance with the consent decree which was approved by order on 03/08/90 (old) (Entered: 08/22/1994)
LODGED Seventeenth Progress Report concerning the Status of Implementation of the Provisions of the Decree by Mediator Allen F Breed (old) (Entered: 08/23/1994)
1127 REQUEST by defendants for extension of time to file objections to Mediator's 17th Progress Report (old) (Entered: 08/29/1994)
1128 MEDIATION BRIEF by defendants regarding: P.V. 402 (Inmate Clerks) (old) (Entered: 08/31/1994)
1130 OBJECTIONS by defendants to mediators seventeenth progress report [0-0] (old) (Entered: 09/09/1994)
1129 ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F Moulds GRANTING defendants request [1127-1] to enlarge time to file objections to the Mediator's 17th Progress Report and ORDERING defendants are GRANTED 10 days from the date of this order to file objections (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 09/08/1994)
1131 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to defendants objections to Magistrate Judges certification recommendations and order re contempt and seperate order and seperate submission re defendants contempt by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates [1125-1] (old) (Entered: 09/20/1994)
1132 APPENDIX in Support of plaintiffs opposition to defendants objections to Magistrate Judges certification recommendations and order re contempt and seperate order and seperate submission re defendants contempt by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates [1131-1] (old) (Entered: 09/20/1994)
1133 OBJECTIONS to and motion to strike defendants evidence and certain declarations by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates; declarations of Michael T Pickett; Robert McGahey; Richard Michael Yarvis MD; Donna Gail Lewis and

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 69 of 121

09/19/1994 09/19/1994 09/19/1994 09/19/1994 09/21/1994
09/21/1994 09/23/1994
09/23/1994 09/23/1994 09/23/1994
09/23/1994
09/26/1994
09/26/1994 09/26/1994 09/27/1994
09/27/1994

John O'Shaughnessy (old) (Entered: 09/20/1994)
LODGED Proposed Order to show cause by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates (old) (Entered: 09/20/1994)
LODGED Proposed Order finding defendants in civil contempt by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates (old) (Entered: 09/20/1994)
1134 PROOF OF SERVICE by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates (old) (Entered: 09/20/1994)
1135 SEALED document by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates (old) (Entered: 09/20/1994)
LODGED Defendants request for extension of time to file response to mediators 08/94 plan and for continuance of hearing on magistrate judges contempt certification by defendants (old) (Entered: 09/22/1994)
1136 LETTER to court from Joseph Simmons in re to be added to this action (old) (Entered: 09/23/1994)
1138 NOTICE by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates of hearing; OSC hearing reset for 10/03/94 at 1:30pm ; hearing before the Honorable Judge Lawrence K Karlton (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 09/27/1994)
1139 PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM in support of Mediators 08/94 OPP Plan (old) (Entered: 09/27/1994)
1140 DEFENDANTS RESPONSE to mediators 08/94 Outpatient Psychiatric Program Plan by defendants (old) (Entered: 09/27/1994)
1141 PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION to defendants request for extension of time to take discovery of the Mediator and his experts and to continue the 10/03/94 hearing by plaintiffs (old) (Entered: 09/27/1994)
1142 DECLARATION of Michael W Bien in opposition to defendants request for extension and continuance of contempt hearing (old) (Entered: 09/27/1994)
1137 LODGED Document request for extension of time to file response to mediator's August, 1994 plan and for continuance of hearing on magistrate judge's contempt certification (old) (Entered: 09/26/1994)
1143 contempt and separate order by defendants (old) (Entered: 09/28/1994)
1144 DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION to plaintiffs objections to and motion to strike evidence by defendants (old) (Entered: 09/28/1994)
1145 CORRECTED DEFENDANTS REPLY to plaintiffs opposition to defendants objections to certification, and order re contempt and separate order and searate submission by defendants [1143-1], regarding [1133-1] (old) (Entered: 09/28/1994)
1146 CORRECTED DEFENDANTS REPLY to plaintiffs objections to and motion to strike evidence by defendants (old) (Entered: 09/28/1994)

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 70 of 121

09/27/1994 09/27/1994 09/28/1994 09/28/1994 09/29/1994
09/30/1994 09/30/1994
10/03/1994 10/04/1994 10/04/1994 10/05/1994 10/06/1994 10/07/1994 10/07/1994 10/19/1994 10/27/1994

LODGED Proposed Order confirming attorneys fees on the fifteenth quarterly statement by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates (old) (Entered: 09/28/1994)
1147 LETTER to court from counsel James E Flynn in re to inform court corrected papers will be filed (old) (Entered: 09/28/1994)
1148 NOTICE by defendants of filing original declarationof Peter J Siggins (old) (Entered: 09/29/1994)
1149 DECLARATION of Peter J Siggins in support of leave to take discovery and extension of time (old) (Entered: 09/29/1994)
1150 REPLY by defendants to plaintiff's opposition to defendants request for extension of time to take discovery of the Mediator and Discovery of the Mediator and his experts and to continue the 10/3/94 hearing [1141-1] (old) (Entered: 10/03/1994)
1151 DECLARATION of James E Flynn (old) (Entered: 10/03/1994)
1152 OBJECTIONS to and MOTION by plaintiff to strike defendants' additional evidence regarding the Mediator's August 1994 OPP Plan and Reply to defendant's opposition to plaintiffs' prior evientiary objections; motion to be heard 10/3/94 at 1:30 by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton (old) (Entered: 10/03/1994)
1155 MINUTES of 10/3/94 before Honorable Lawrence K Karlton re Order show cause/contempt [1122-2]; Oral arguments heard; and matter is submitted C/R Richard Fong (ndd) (Entered: 10/05/1994)
1153 LODGED Document Order Finding defendants in Civil Contempt-NOT TO BE SIGNED (old) (Entered: 10/04/1994)
1154 LODGED Document (old) (Entered: 10/04/1994)
1156 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT of 10/3/94 by C/R Richard J Fong (old) (Entered: 10/06/1994)
1157 ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F Moulds ORDERING: The attorneys' fees on the fifteenth quarterly statement (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 10/06/1994)
1158 RESPONSE by plaintiff's to defendants' objections to mediator's seventeeth progress report [1130-1] (old) (Entered: 10/11/1994)
1159 DECLARATION of Warren George in support of plaintiffs' response to defendant's objections to the seventeeth progress report [1158-1] (old) (Entered: 10/11/1994)
1160 MEDIATOR'S FINDINGS of fact and RECOMMENDATIONS Re: Perceived Violation No 402 (Inmate Clerks) (old) Modified on 11/09/1994 (Entered: 10/19/1994)
1161 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton ORDERING that the Mediator's Seventeenth Progress Report is ADOPTED with the following modifications: the statement on pg 1 substituting Gov Pete Wilson for

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 71 of 121

10/27/1994
10/27/1994 10/27/1994 11/04/1994 11/04/1994 11/04/1994

former Gov George Deukmejian is deleted; the word "many" in paragraph 5 of pg 79 is changed to "some"; The 17th Progress Report is FILED and ACCEPTED in all other respects and its conclusions re compliance with the Consent Decree are ADOPTED by the court; This action shall hereinafter be captioned "Jay Lee Gates et al V James Gomez et al"; Defts shall comply with the conclusions and Recommendations of the Mediator as set forth in the 17th Progress Report, which are now ordered by the court as necessary to achieve compliance; Defts shall come into compliance within 30 days of service (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 10/27/1994)
1162 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton ORDERING that the certified facts submitted by the Magistrate judge are APPROVED AND ADOPTED; Defts are adjudged to be in civil contempt of court and shall be sanctioned in the amount of $10,000/day until compliance is met with section VF of the Consent Decree; Impositions of sanctions is STAYED conditioned upon compliance with the independently operative enforcement orders set forth; Mediator's 8/94 OPP Plan is FILED and APPROVED with the following the following conditions: letter from Allen Breed dated 10/10/94 is incorporated into the plan; Mod 1 of the Experts' Report filed herein on 1/3/94 is incorporated into the plan; all references to a "Community standard of care" are striken; The plan shall be implemented at defts' cost with the following conditions: Mediator shall meet and confer with Dr Richard Yarvis (within 30 days of service) to review defts' objections to the OPP plan; Mediator shall meet with defts at first opportunity to review timelines set forth in the OPP Plan; Allen F Breed is appointed Special Master for implementation of the OPP Plan; the Special Master shall certify any failure to comply with a deadline or a substantiative requirement to comply with a deadline directly to the judge; Upon the certification that the OPP is implemented and operating, defts may move for an order finding the purge of contempt; The court at this time, and without prejudice, declines to initiate criminal contempt proceedings and denies Rule 11 sanctions (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 10/27/1994)
1163 MEDIATOR'S OUTPATIENT PSYCHIATRIC PROGRAM by mediator Allen F Breed; Parties shall respond to the Plan at least 10 days prior to the hearing re contempt scheduled for 10/3/94 at 10:00 in ctrm 1 (old) (Entered: 10/28/1994)
1164 MEDIATOR'S SEVENTEENTH PROGRESS REPORT concerning the Status of Implementation of the Provisions of the Decree by mediator Allen F Breed (old) (Entered: 10/28/1994)
1165 LETTER to court from Les Williams in re of support (old) (Entered: 11/04/1994)
1166 LETTER to court from Robert Ferrell in re to the classaction lawsuit (old) (Entered: 11/04/1994)
1167 LETTER to court regarding article published in the Sacramento Bee, October 29, 1994 (old) (Entered: 11/07/1994)

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 72 of 121

11/04/1994 11/04/1994 11/07/1994 11/08/1994
11/08/1994 11/10/1994 11/16/1994 11/16/1994 11/18/1994 11/28/1994 11/28/1994 11/28/1994
11/28/1994 11/28/1994 11/29/1994

1168 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendants from District Court decision entered 10/27/94 re contempt ( fee status paid) (old) (Entered: 11/07/1994)
1169 OBJECTIONS by defendants to mediator's findings and recommendations re: P V 402 (inmate clerks) [1160-1] (old) (Entered: 11/09/1994)
1170 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION by defendants in 2:87-cv-01636 to stay pending appeal (kb) (Entered: 11/09/1994)
1171 DECLARATION of Sanford Jay Rosen regarding plaintiffs' sixteenth quarterly statement of fees and disbursements for monitoring compliance with the consent decree which was approved by order on 3/8/90 (kb) (Entered: 11/09/1994)
1172 COPY OF LETTER from Francis E Olsen to Allen F Breed re psychiatric care (kb) (Entered: 11/09/1994)
1173 NOTICE of hearing setting hearing on motion by defendants in 2:87-cv01636 to stay pending appeal [1170-1] 10:00 12/12/94 ( cc: ) (old) (Entered: 11/15/1994)
LODGED Mediator's Eighteenth Progress Report concerning the Status of Implementation of the Provisions of the Decree by mediator Allen F Breed (old) (Entered: 11/17/1994)
1174 LETTER to court from counsel for mediator Allen F Breed of submitted Mediator's Eighteenth Progress Report (old) (Entered: 11/17/1994)
1175 EMERGENCY REQUEST by defendants for postponement of the proceedings of the mediator; Alternative request for recording of the proceedings (old) (Entered: 11/21/1994)
1176 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to defendants objections [1169-1] (old) (Entered: 11/28/1994)
1177 PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION to defendants' motion to stay pending appeal [1170-1] (ndd) (Entered: 11/28/1994)
1178 PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM of points and authorities in support of plaintiffs' response [1176-1] to defendants' objections to the mediator's findings and recommendations re: PV402 (inmate Clerks) (ndd) (Entered: 11/28/1994)
1179 DECLARATION of Michael W Bien in support of plaintiff's opposition [1177-1] to defendants' motion for stay pending appeal (ndd) (Entered: 11/28/1994)
1180 REQUEST for Emergency Protective Order from Rick Lauranzano (ndd) (Entered: 11/28/1994)
1182 ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F Moulds ORDERING: dfts' request for order sealing Exhibit B to dfts' objections to Magistrate Judge's certification of facts and recommendations [1180-1] is GRANTED (cc:

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 73 of 121

11/29/1994 11/29/1994
12/01/1994 12/05/1994 12/07/1994
12/07/1994 12/07/1994 12/08/1994 12/08/1994
12/08/1994 12/09/1994 12/12/1994

all counsel) (old) (Entered: 11/29/1994)
1183 SEALED document by dfts (Declaration of Robert McGahey in Support of dfts' objections to contempt certification and opposition to order to show cause) (old) (Entered: 11/29/1994)
1184 LETTER to court from mediator Allen F Breed regarding Court's order 10/27/94 [1162-1]; a meeting on 11/28/94 between Special Master and the court-appointed psychiatric experts to accomplish the following objectives: Defendants will present their substantive objections to the OPP plan and their suggestions as to solutions to any objections; Defendants will present any objections to current time lines in the OPP plan and their suggestions for alternate dates (ndd) (Entered: 11/30/1994)
1185 OPPOSITION by defendants to inmate Lauranzano's motion for emergency protective order (old) (Entered: 12/02/1994)
1186 DEFENDANTS' REPLY to plaintiffs' response [1176-1] to defendants'objections to magistrate judge's finding and recommendations (ndd) (Entered: 12/06/1994)
1187 MAILED case information/docket fee payment notice copy of Notice of Appeal and appealed order [1162-1] to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals; copy of appeal and certified copy of docket sheet to all parties (old) (Entered: 12/07/1994)
1188 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION and Ordering Form for dates 10/3/94 [1156-1], 1/27/94 [1037-1] (old) (Entered: 12/08/1994)
1189 REPLY by defendants to opposition to motion by defendants to stay case pending appeal [1170-1] (old) (Entered: 12/08/1994)
1190 DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS to Mediator's Eighteenth Progress report [1174-1] (ndd) Modified on 12/09/1994 (Entered: 12/09/1994)
1192 LETTER to court from mediator Allen F Breed re: inability of parties to resolve differences regaarding the placement of inmates w/ a high potential for eminent suicidal behavior in teh Observation Unit (S-3) (old) (Entered: 12/09/1994)
1193 LETTER to court from mediator Allen F Breed re: meeting between parties set for 12/7/94 RESCHEDULED for 12/13/94 at 10:00 at CMF and setting forth the agenda for that meeting (old) (Entered: 12/09/1994)
1191 CERTIFICATE OF RECORD transmitted to 9th Circuit [1168-1] (notice sent) (old) (Entered: 12/09/1994)
1194 MINUTES of dfts' motion to stay proceedings pending appeal and dfts' objections to Mediator's findings and recommendations before Honorable Lawrence K Karlton: motion by dfts to stay pending appeal [1170-1] DENIED; pltf to prepare order; dfts' objections to Mediator's findings and recommendations [1169-1] is SUBMITTED; C/R: Dick Fong (old) (Entered: 12/13/1994)

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 74 of 121

12/13/1994 12/13/1994 12/14/1994
12/15/1994 12/16/1994 12/16/1994 12/19/1994 12/19/1994 12/20/1994 12/23/1994

1196 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in 2:87-cv-01636 in support of Motion to enforce order [960-1] (old) (Entered: 12/14/1994)
1197 NOTIFICATION by 9th Circuit of Appellate Docket Number 94-17146 (old) (Entered: 12/15/1994)
1195 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by Magistrate Judge John F Moulds RECOMMENDING pltfs' motion for attorneys' fees for work performed on the prejudgment merits portion of this case, filed 4/9/90 and renewed 3/30/93 BE GRANTED and pltfs be awarded fees in the total amount of $3,199,980.89 to be reduced by $1,000,000 already paid as an interim payment pursuant to the District Court's 8/28/90 order; pltfs be paid interest from 3/8/90 on the unpaid portion of the fee award; pltfs be paid interest from 3/8/90 until the date of payment on the one million dollars interim payment; and pltfs' 6/22/93 application for a second interim payment BE DENIED W/O PREJUDICE (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 12/14/1994)
LODGED proposed order denying dfts' motion for stay by plaintiffs (old) (Entered: 12/16/1994)
LODGED stipulation and order regarding pltfs' 1995 rates (old) (Entered: 12/19/1994)
1198 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT of judge's decision of 12/12/94 before LKK by C/R Richard J Fong (old) (Entered: 12/19/1994)
1200 REQUEST by pltf class member Richard Lauranzano to set hearing date for his motion for emergency protective order/tro/preliminary injunction (old) (Entered: 12/21/1994)
1201 ADDENDUM by pltf class member Richard Lauranzano to request for emergency protective order [1180-1] (old) (Entered: 12/21/1994)
1199 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton GRANTING lodged order denying dfts' motion for stay [0-0]; ORDERING: motion by defendants to stay pending appeal [1170-1] is DENIED (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 12/20/1994)
1202 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by Magistrate Judge John F Moulds RECOMMENDING: motion to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs incurred during 1992 [985-1] BE GRANTED and pltfs be awarded their costs in the amount of $11,793.83 and fees in the amount of $252,088; motion to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs incurred during 1993 [1079-1] BE GRANTED and pltfs be awarded their costs in the amount of $11,587.72 and the full amount of disputed fees at the rates set forth on Exhibit C; dfts' 12/9/93 motion in opposition to pltfs' proposed 1993 hourly rates BE DENIED; pltfs' counsel be compensated for work performed during 1994 on compliance and monitoring of the consent decree at the rates set forth in Exhibit C; pltfs' counsel be compensated for 1993 and 1994 work on fees-on-fees at the rates set forth in Exhibit D; pltfs' motion for unclaimed fees from 1991 BE DENIED; pltfs' 12/9/93 motion to modify

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 75 of 121

12/23/1994 12/23/1994
12/27/1994 12/29/1994 12/30/1994 01/03/1995 01/03/1995 01/04/1995

the periodic fees process BE GRANTED IN PART and the District Court's 12/5/90 order BE MODIFIED as follows: 7. pltfs will file a yearly motion to compel payment of disputed items, if necessary, no later than 60 days after the parties meet and confer with respect to the statement covering the fourth quarter of each year. If dfts have opposed any billing rates of pltfs' counsel, the yearly motion to compel also will be used to establish billing rates for the prior year which sahll cover both disputed and undisputed time; and pltfs' 12/9/93 motion to modify the periodic fees process BE DENIED in all other respects (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 12/23/1994)
1203 ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F Moulds ORDERING: pltfs to provide a computation of the dollar amount of disputed fees for work performed in 1993 at the rates set forth in the court's recommendations [1202-1] filed on this date (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 12/23/1994)
1204 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton ORDERING: mediator's findings and recommendations re: perceived violation number 402 [11601] APPROVED AND ADOPTED w/ the following modifications: reference to inmate social security numbers is STRICKEN from fact number 10; recommendation 1 is AFFIRMED and ORDERED pursuant to consent decree section IX.6 MODIFIED to read as follows: dfts shall revise their policies and practices to prohibit inmate clerks' access to information which may reasonably be expected to threaten the safety or security or any other inmate or staff member, consistent with the findings set forth herein. The revised policy shall include clear guidelines indentifying categories of information which should not be made available to inmate clerks regardless of the type of document in which the information is contained; recommendation 2 is AFFIRMED and ORDERED pursuant to consent decree section IX.6; dfts shall comply with the provisions of this order pursuant to consent decree section IX.7 (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 12/23/1994)
1205 OPPOSITION by dfts to Richard Lauranzano's addendum to motion for protective order [1201-1] (old) (Entered: 12/27/1994)
1206 DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS to Magistrate judge's Findings and Recommendations issued on 12/14/94 [1195-1] (ndd) (Entered: 12/30/1994)
1207 RESPONSE by pltfs to dfts' objections to mediator's eighteenth progress report [1190-1] (old) (Entered: 01/03/1995)
1208 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT of 12/12/94 proceedings before LKK by C/R: Richard J Fong (old) (Entered: 01/04/1995)
1209 LETTER to court from Richard M Yarvis MD re: August, 1994 OPP Plan and subsequent modifications thereto (old) (Entered: 01/05/1995)
LODGED proposed order confirming attorneys' fees on the sixteenth quarterly statement by plaintiffs; EXHIBIT A (old) (Entered: 01/05/1995)

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 76 of 121

01/09/1995 01/09/1995 01/09/1995 01/09/1995 01/10/1995 01/10/1995 01/10/1995 01/11/1995
01/11/1995 01/13/1995 01/17/1995 01/20/1995 01/23/1995

1210 LETTER to court from mediator Allen F Breed re 8/94 Outpatient Psychiatric Plan (OPP) w/final 12/23/94 revisions (old) (Entered: 01/09/1995)
1211 8/94 OUTPATIENT PSYCHIATRIC PROGRAM PLAN (OPP) w/ 12/23/94 revisions (old) (Entered: 01/09/1995)
1212 REPORT ON STATUS OF OUTPATIENT PSYCHIATRIC PLAN (OPP) by special master Allen F Breed w/ ATTACHMENTS A-E (old) (Entered: 01/09/1995)
1213 RESPONSE by mediator Allen F Breed to dfts' objections to Eighteenth Progress Report [1190-1] (old) (Entered: 01/09/1995)
1215 DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS to Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendation issued on 12/23/94 [1202-1] (ndd) (Entered: 01/11/1995)
1216 PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS to Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendation filed 12/23/94 [1202-1] (ndd) (Entered: 01/11/1995)
1217 DECLARATION of Stephen M Liacouras in support of plaintiffs' objections [1216-1] in response to Magistrate Judge's order dated 12/22/94 (ndd) (Entered: 01/11/1995)
1214 ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F Moulds GRANTING lodged proposed order confirming attorneys' fees on the sixteenth quarterly statement [0-0]; ORDERING: it is CONFIRMED that the amount of $167,617.58 will become collectable and legal interest shall begin accruing on said amount at the rate of 7.22% as of 1/4/95 (interest equals the annual yield on 26-week T-Bills as of 12/8/94) (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 01/11/1995)
1218 OPPOSITION by plaintiffs to dfts' objections [1206-1] to findings and recommendations filed 12/14/94; APPENDIX A (old) (Entered: 01/12/1995)
1219 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION in opposition to report of the special master on status of the outpatient psychiatric program plan by dfts set 2/13/95 at 10:00 before LKK; EXHIBITS (old) (Entered: 01/19/1995)
1220 DECLARATION of Micheal Pickett and Constance in support of defendants oppositions [1219-1] (old) (Entered: 01/19/1995)
1223 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendant in 2:87-cv-01636 from District Court decision [1204-1] ( fee status paid) (old) (Entered: 01/23/1995)
1221 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton ORDERING: mediator's 18th Progress Report [0-0] lodged w/ the court on 11/16/94 is ordered FILED W/ THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATION: page 43, asterisk 6 should read: "Outside of interviews and attendance at team meetings, patients are not involved in any other treatment activities"; the report is accepted as representing the dfts' status in implementation of the provisions of the Consent Decree in this case; and the court accepts the

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 77 of 121

01/23/1995 01/27/1995
01/27/1995 01/27/1995 01/30/1995 02/01/1995
02/02/1995 02/06/1995

conclusions as set forth throughout the 9th Progress Report (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 01/23/1995)
1222 18TH PROGRESS REPORT by mediator Allen F Breed concerning the status of implementation of the provisions of the decree (old) (Entered: 01/23/1995)
1224 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton ADOPTING report & recommendation on pltfs' motion for attorneys' fees for work performed on the prejudgment merits portion of this case [1195-1] in its entirety; ORDERING: pltfs' motion for attorneys' fees for work performed on the prejudgment merits portion of this case filed 4/9/90 and renewed on 3/30/93 [793-1] is GRANTED; pltfs are awarded fees in the total amount of $3,199,980.89 to be reduced by $1,000,000 already paid as an interim payment pursuant to this court's order of 8/28/90; pltfs shall be paid interest from 3/8/90 on the unpaid portion of the fee award; pltfs shall be paid interest from 3/8/90 until the date of payment on the $1,000,000 intermim payment; and pltfs' application for second interim payment [875-1] is DENIED w/o prejudice (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 01/27/1995)
1225 OPPOSITION by plaintiff to objections to Report and Recommendation dated 12/23/94 [1202-1] (old) (Entered: 01/31/1995)
1226 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to dfts' opposition to report of the special master on status of the outpatient psychiatric program plan (old) (Entered: 01/31/1995)
1227 Order from Circuit Court ORDERING: appellant's motion to stay the District Court's 10/27/94 order of contempt pending appeal [1168-1] is GRANTED; the District Court's order is stayed pending further order of this court; this court, on its own motion, expedites this appeal; clerk shall place this appeal on the 4/95 calendar in San Francisco; appellant's opening brief is due 2/14/95; appellee's answering brief is due 3/16/95; the optional reply brief is due 3/30/95 (old) (Entered: 02/01/1995)
1228 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton ORDERING: by order dated 1/27/95, the Ninth Circuit stayed this court's order of contempt, thereby staying implementation of the special master's OPP Plan; this development renders dfts' motion in opposition to report of the special master on status of the outpatient psychiatric program plan [1219-1] MOOT; accordingly, the hearing now set for 2/13/95 is VACATED and the motion WITHDRAWN; dfts may refile their motion, if desired, following the Ninth Circuit's disposition of the appeal in this matter (cc: all counsel) (old) Modified on 02/01/1995 (Entered: 02/01/1995)
1229 MAILED case information/docket fee payment notice copy of Notice of Appeal and appealed 12/23/94 order to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals; copy of appeal and copy of docket sheet to all parties (old) (Entered: 02/02/1995)
1230 STIPULATION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F Moulds ORDERING: pursuant to stipulation, plaintiffs shall notify defendants of

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 78 of 121

02/06/1995
02/09/1995 02/13/1995 02/13/1995 02/23/1995

plaintiffs' counsel's 1995 fees by 3/31/95; defendants' motion in opposition to plaintiffs' 1995 rates (if any) shall be filed in connection with and according to the same schedule as plaintiffs' motion to compel payment of disputed fees and costs for 1994; in the event the court modifies the Compliance Fees Process, as described above, making plaintiffs the moving party in any rates dispute, plaintiffs' motion to establish 1995 rates will be consolidated with plaintiffs' motion to compel payment of disputed fees and costs in 1994; the parties will stipulate to a simultaneous briefing schedule for both motions (cc: all counsel) (ndd) (Entered: 02/06/1995)
1231 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton ORDERING: the Magistrate Judge's findings & recommendations [1202-1] filed 12/23/94 are ADOPTED in their entirety; plaintiff's 12/9/93 motion to compel payment of disputed fees and costs incurred during 1992 [1079-1] and plaintiffs are awarded their costs in the amount of $11,793.83 and fees in the amount of $252,088; plaintiff's 5/18/94 motion to compel payment of disputed fees and costs incurred during 1993 is granted and plaintiffs awarded their costs in the amount of $11,587.72 and fees in the amount of $526,975; defendants' 12/9/93 motion in opposition to plaintiffs' proposed 1993 hourly rates [994-1] is DENIED; plaintiffs' counsel shall be compensated for work performed during 1994 on compliance and monitoring of the Consent Decree at the rates set forth on Exhibit A; plaintiffs' counsel shall be compensated for 1993 and 1994 work on feeson-fees at the rates set forth on Exhibit B; plaintiffs' motion for Unclaimed fees from 1991 is denied; plaintiffs' 12/9/93 motion to modify the Periodic Fees Process is granted in part and this court's order of 12/5/90 is modified as follows: "7 Plaintiffs will file a yearly motion to compel payment of disputed items, if necessary, no later than 60 days after the parties meet and confer with respect to the statement covering the fourth quarter of each year; if defendants have opposed any billing rates of plaintiffs' counsel, the yearly motion to compel also will be used to establish billing rates for the prior year which shall cover both disputed and undisputed time"; and plaintiffs' 12/9/93 motion to modify the periodic fees process [985-1] is DENIED in all other respects (cc: all counsel) (ndd) (Entered: 02/06/1995)
1232 DECLARATION of Sanford Jay Rosen regarding plaintiffs' 17th quarterly statement of feees and disbursements for monitoring compliance with the Consent Decree which was approved by order on 3/8/90 (4th quarter, 1994) (ndd) (Entered: 02/15/1995)
1233 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendant from District Court order filed 1/27/95 [1224-1] (fee status paid) (old) (Entered: 02/16/1995)
1234 NOTIFICATION by 9th Circuit of Appellate Docket Number 95-15217 (ndd) (Entered: 02/16/1995)
1235 LETTER to court from mediator Allen F Breed advising the court that James T Barter, MD, court appointed psychiatrist in this action, has accepted a 2 year assignment in New Zealand and Richard T Rada, MD has been asked to assume Mr Barter's responsibilities; copy of Richard T

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 79 of 121

02/28/1995 03/01/1995
03/07/1995 03/07/1995 03/08/1995 03/08/1995 03/08/1995 03/08/1995 03/08/1995 03/13/1995 03/13/1995

Rada's curriculum vitae attached (old) (Entered: 02/28/1995)
1237 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendant from District Court decision filed 2/6/95 (fee status paid) (old) (Entered: 03/01/1995)
1236 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Magistrate Judge John F Moulds RECOMMENDING: plaintiffs' 10/20/93 motion to enforce antiretaliation order and other orders of this court [960-1] BE DENIED; inmate Lauranzano's 11/28/94 pleading entitled "Emergency Protective Order" BE DENIED w/o prejudice; inmate Lauranzano's 12/19/94 pleading entitled "Addendum to Emergency Protective Order/Request for TRO/Injunctive Relief" BE DENIED w/o prejudice; and inmate Lauranzano's 12/19/94 pleading entitled "Scheduling Request for a [sic] Emergency Protective Order/TRO/Preliminary Injunction BE DENIED w/o prejudice; any party may object w/i 10 days after being served w/ findings and recommendations; any reply to objections due w/i 7 days after service of objections (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 03/01/1995)
1238 MAILED case information/docket fee payment notice copy of Notice of Appeal and appealed order filed 1/27/95 to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals; copy of appeal and copy of docket sheet to all parties (old) (Entered: 03/07/1995)
1239 MAILED case information/docket fee payment notice copy of Notice of Appeal and appealed order filed 2/6/95 to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals; copy of appeal and copy of docket sheet to all parties (old) (Entered: 03/07/1995)
1240 RESPONSE by mediator Allen F Breed to dfts' motion in opposition to the report of the special master on status of the outpatient psychiatric program plan [1219-1] (old) (Entered: 03/09/1995)
1241 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT of 11/28/94 instructions of the court in its 10/27/94 order by C/R: Wendy Murray (old) (Entered: 03/09/1995)
1242 MEDIATOR'S NINETEENTH PROGRESS REPORT concerning the status of implementation of the provisions of the decree (old) (Entered: 03/09/1995)
1243 EXHIBITS to mediator's nineteenth progress report concerning the status of implementation of the provisions of the decree [1242-1] (old) (Entered: 03/09/1995)
1244 LETTER to court from mediator Allen F Breed regarding mediator's nineteenth progress report on the status of implementation of the provisions of the decree [1242-1], exhibits [1243-1] (old) (Entered: 03/09/1995)
1245 NOTIFICATION by 9th Circuit of Appellate Docket Number 95-15402 (old) (Entered: 03/15/1995)
1246 NOTIFICATION by 9th Circuit of Appellate Docket Number 95-15403 (old) (Entered: 03/15/1995)

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 80 of 121

03/21/1995 03/21/1995 03/21/1995 03/21/1995 03/22/1995 03/27/1995 03/27/1995
03/27/1995
03/29/1995 04/06/1995

1247 EXHIBIT list for hearing of 2/2/95 (old) (Entered: 03/22/1995)
1248 TRANSCRIPT of 2/2/95 hearing on before mediator Allen F Breed by C/R Wendy Graves (old) (Entered: 03/22/1995)
1249 MEDIATOR'S FINDINGS of fact and recommendations re perceived violation No A-13 (non-classified inmates on psychotropic medication being placed in willis unit) (cc: all counsel) (kb) (Entered: 03/23/1995)
1250 DECLARATION of Dr. C. Christiansen (old) (Entered: 03/23/1995)
1251 LETTER to Allan Breed from Les Wiliams re treatment of inamtes (kb) (Entered: 03/24/1995)
1252 ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F Moulds ORDERING: the 06/23/94 Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Injunctive Relief is DENIED without prejudice [1112-1] (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 03/27/1995)
1253 ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F Moulds: plaintiffs filed a motion for attorneys fees and costs for work performed defending on appeal the district courts grant of attorneys fees on the prejudgment merits portion of this action; IT IS ORDERED that within ten days of the date of this order plaintiffs provide to the District Court: (1) a declaration decribing Sacramento hourly rates as of October 1992 for fees-on-fees work; and (2) the total amount of fees sought at those Sacramento rates (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 03/27/1995)
1254 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by Magistrate Judge John F Moulds RECOMMENDING: plaintiffs 05/14/93 motion for attorneys fees for work performed on appeal defending the District Courts grant of attorneys fees on the prejudgment merits portion of this action be granted and plaintiffs be compensated for all hours claimed at current Sacramento rates; plaintiffs 05/14/93 motion for costs incurred on appeal defending the District Courts grant of attorneys fees on the prejudgment merits portion of this action be denied; and plaintiffs be paid interest on the fee award from 10/06/92; referred back to Honorable Lawrence K Karlton (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 03/27/1995)
1255 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION re: dfts' objections to mediator's 19th progress report by dfts set 5/8/95 at 10:00 before LKK; EXHIBITS (old) (Entered: 03/31/1995)
1256 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton adopting report & recommendation [1236-1] Plaintif's 10/20/93 motion to enforce antiretaliation order and other order of this court is denied; Inmate Lauranzano's 11/28/94 pleading entitled Emergency Protective Order is denied without prejudice; Inmate Lauranzano's 12/19/94 pleading entitled Addendum to Emergency Protective Order/Request for TRO/Injunctive Relief is denied without prejudice; Inmate Lauranzano's 12/19/94 pleading entitled Scheduling Request for a (sic) Emergency Protective Order/TRO/Preliminary Injunction is denied without prejudice (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 04/06/1995)

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 81 of 121

04/10/1995 04/10/1995 04/10/1995 04/10/1995 04/10/1995 04/12/1995
04/13/1995 04/17/1995 04/18/1995
04/18/1995 04/19/1995 04/20/1995
04/20/1995 04/21/1995

1257 OBJECTIONS by dfts to Report and Recommendation [1254-1] (old) (Entered: 04/13/1995)
1258 OBJECTIONS by pltfs to Report and Recommendation [1254-1] (old) (Entered: 04/13/1995)
1259 DECLARATION of Michael H Remy in SUPPORT of pltfs' objections to report and recommendations [1258-1] (old) (Entered: 04/13/1995)
1260 DECLARATION of Sanford Jay Rosen in SUPPORT of pltfs' objections to report and recommendations [1258-1]; EXHIBITS A-B (old) Modified on 04/13/1995 (Entered: 04/13/1995)
1261 DECLARATION of Sanford Jay Rosen regarding fees sought at 1992 Sacramento billing rates; EXHIBIT A (old) (Entered: 04/13/1995)
1262 (Notice of motion and motion) RESPONSE by defts Ron Shinn, James Rowland, Nadim Khoury, Eddie Ylst, Kenneth Shepard, Nicholas Poulos, Daniel Thor, Paul Morentz, H Benton, Bruce Baker, A R Rotella, D Michael OConnor, Douglas G Arnold, Clyde Murrey, Sylvia Blount to Mediator's findings and recommendations [1249-1] (old) (Entered: 04/17/1995)
1263 LETTER to court from Vladimir Zatko (old) (Entered: 04/17/1995)
1264 LETTER to court from Vladmir Zatko (old) (Entered: 04/18/1995)
1265 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton ADOPTING Findings and Recommendations [1254-1] in full; GRANTING motion for attorney fees and costs on appeal by pltf [817-1] in part on the merits portion of this action and pltfs shall be compensated for all hours claimed at Sacramento rates effective 10/92 in the amount of $41,098.00 AND DENIED as to costs incurred on appeal defending the USDC's grant of attorney fees on the prejudgment merits portion of the action; pltfs shall be paid interest on the fee award from 10/6/92 (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 04/18/1995)
1266 LETTER to court from Vladmir Zatko (old) (Entered: 04/20/1995)
1267 REPLY by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates regarding [1257-1] (old) (Entered: 04/20/1995)
1268 RESPONSE by defts Ron Shinn, James Rowland, Nadim Khoury, Eddie Ylst, Kenneth Shepard, Nicholas Poulos, Daniel Thor, Paul Morentz, H Benton, Bruce Baker, A R Rotella, D Michael OConnor, Douglas G Arnold, Clyde Murrey, Sylvia Blount to Mediator's Findings of Fact [1249-1] (old) (Entered: 04/21/1995)
1271 LETTER to court from Vladimir Zatko re status of consent action (old) (Entered: 04/25/1995)
1269 NON-RELATED CASE ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton ORDERING that it would be inappropriate to relate this action with CIV S 90-520 LKK JFM and CIV S 95-619 WBS JFM (cc: all counsel) (old)

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 82 of 121

04/21/1995 04/21/1995 04/24/1995 04/25/1995 04/27/1995 04/27/1995
04/28/1995 05/01/1995
05/01/1995 05/01/1995 05/04/1995
05/04/1995 05/04/1995 05/04/1995

(Entered: 04/21/1995)
LODGED Stipulation confirming attorney fees by pltfs, defts (old) (Entered: 04/25/1995)
LODGED stipulation confirming attorney fees by pltfs, defts (old) (Entered: 04/25/1995)
1270 RESPONSE by pltfs to dfts' objections to the 19th progress report [12571]; EXHIBITS (old) (Entered: 04/25/1995)
LODGED pro hac vice application by mediator Allen F Breed (old) (Entered: 04/27/1995)
Text not available. (Entered: 04/27/1995)
1272 CLERK'S record on appeal transmitted to 9th Circuit original case files (58 volumes), transcripts (32 expandos, and two boxes) and certified copy of docket mailed to Charisse at 9th Circuit (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 04/27/1995)
1273 CERTIFIED COPY of 9th Circuit Order dismissing the appeal 95-15217 pursuant to motion by appellant [1233-1] (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 04/28/1995)
1274 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton GRANTING lodged pro hac vice application [0-0]; ORDERING: attorney William C Collins ADMITTED to appear pro hac vice for mediator Allen F Breed ; local counsel designation - Dale A Drozd (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 05/01/1995)
LODGED stipulation and [proposed] Order of continuance of hearing on perceived violation No A-13 by plaintiff in 2:87-cv-01636 (old) (Entered: 05/02/1995)
1275 REPLY by dfts to pltf's response to dfts' objection to 19th progress report [1270-1]; EXHIBITS (old) (Entered: 05/02/1995)
1276 STIPULATION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F Moulds GRANTING lodged stipulation confirming attorneys' fees and costs awarded in court's 2/6/95 order [0-0]; ORDERING: attorneys' fees and costs for the years 1992, 1993 awarded pltfs by order of 2/6/95 in the amount of $802,444.55 plus interest CONFIRMED as set forth in this order (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 05/04/1995)
LODGED stipulation and [proposed] order pertaining to plaintiffs' attorneys' rates for use in 1995 by plaintiff in 2:87-cv-01636 (old) (Entered: 05/05/1995)
LODGED proposed Order confirming attorneys' fees on the seventeenth quarterly statement by plaintiffs in 2:87-cv-01636 (old) (Entered: 05/05/1995)
1278 LETTER addressed to counsel from mediator Allen F Breed in 2:87-cv01636 re: possible objections to 20th Progress Report (old) (Entered:

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 83 of 121

05/04/1995 05/05/1995
05/08/1995 05/08/1995 05/09/1995
05/09/1995 05/09/1995 05/11/1995

05/05/1995)
1279 DECLARATION of Michael W Bien re: laintiffs' 18th quarterly statement of fees and disbursements for monitoring compliance with the consent decree approved by order on 3/8/90 (old) (Entered: 05/05/1995)
1277 STIPULATION AND ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton GRANTING lodged stipulation and order of continuance of hearing on perceived violation no. A-13 [0-0]; ORDERING: hearing on perceived violation no. A-13 CONTINUED to 6/5/95 at 10:00 before LKK ; parties deadline for submitting opposition and reply briefs extended accordingly (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 05/05/1995)
1281 MEMORANDUM by mediator Allen F Breed requesting paragraph IX of the Consent Decree be clarified, or if necessary amended (old) (Entered: 05/09/1995)
1282 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for clarification of exercise provision of consent decree by dfts set 6/19/95 at 10:00 before LKK; MEMORANDUM in support; EXHIBITS (old) (Entered: 05/10/1995)
1280 STIPULATION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F Moulds GRANTING lodged stipulation and proposed order confirming attorneys' fees and costs awarded in the court's 1/27/95 order [0-0]; ORDERING: attorneys' fees for work performed on the prejudgment merits portion of this case awarded to pltfs by this court's ordered of 1/27/95 in the amount of $3,199,980.89 reduced by $1,000,000 already paid as an interim payment CONFIRMED; dfts are now obligated to pay $2,199,980.89 plus interest in the amount of $65,963.84 (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 05/09/1995)
1283 NOTICE by defendant in 2:87-cv-01636 of change of address to 1300 I St, Ste 1101 P O Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94344-2500 (after 5/15/95) (old) (Entered: 05/11/1995)
1284 REQUEST by defendants in 2:87-cv-01636 for reconsideration of granting pro hac vice application for mediator's counsel (old) (Entered: 05/11/1995)
1285 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton ORDERING: the following matters are specially set for hearing on Tuesday, 6/27/95 at 1:30 before LKK: 1) motion in opposition to mediator's findings and recommendations re perceived violation A-13 [1262-1], 2) motion for clarification of exercise provision of consent decree by dfts [1282-1], 3) matters raised in the mediator's memorandum [1281-1] filed 5/8/95 regarding unescorted access and confidential communications w/ staff and inmates; all prior dates set in this matter are VACATED ; pltf's opposition to dfts' motion in opposition to mediator's findings and recommendations re: perceived violation A-13 shall be filed no later than 5/22/95; dft's reply, if any, filed no later than 5/29/95; pltfs' opposition to dfts' motion for clarification of excercise provision of consent decree shall be filed no later than 6/5/95; dfts' reply, if any, due 6/12/95; both parties shall file responses to the mediator's memoranda regardign access

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 84 of 121

05/11/1995 05/12/1995 05/15/1995 05/15/1995 05/16/1995
05/22/1995 05/23/1995 05/23/1995 05/23/1995 05/23/1995 05/23/1995

and confidentiality no later than 6/12/95; supplemental briefs responding to points raised by opposing counsel may be filed no later than 6/19/95; mediator may file a supplemental memorandum no later than 6/19/95 (cc: all counsel) (old) Modified on 05/11/1995 (Entered: 05/11/1995)
1286 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton ORDERING: mediator's 19th progress report [1242-1] APPROVED AND ADOPTED w/ modifications to page 21, paragraph 4 and page 85, line 9 as indicated in this order (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 05/11/1995)
1289 RETURNED Receipt from USCA case number 94-17146 acknowledging receipt of 58 Volumes clerk's record on appeal; 2 cartons Reporter's Transcripts (35 Vol); 8 cartons of mixed material (kb) (Entered: 05/15/1995)
1287 STIPULATION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds ORDERING: The stipulation by the parties to the billing rates shown on the attached schedule for work in 1995 is APPROVED (See order for more details)(cc: all counsel) (kb) (Entered: 05/15/1995)
1288 ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds ORDERING: the attorneys' fees on the seventeenth quarterly statement are APPROVED (see order for further details) (cc: all counsel) (kb) (Entered: 05/15/1995)
1290 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING: the court construes dfts request for reconsideration as a petition for clarification of the issues; Mr Collins and Mr Breed shall respond in writing to dfts' concerns within 14 days of the effective date of this Order; the parties shall file memoranda or letter briefs setting forth their positions no later than 7 days thereafter; the matter will then stand submitted (cc: all counsel) (kb) (Entered: 05/16/1995)
1291 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates in 2:87-cv-01636 in support of mediator's findings and recommendations re perceived violation No A-13 (kb) (Entered: 05/24/1995)
1292 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION by plaintiffs in 2:87-cv-01636 to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs incurred during 1994 (kb) (Entered: 05/24/1995)
1293 DECLARATION of Donald Specter in support of motion to compel payment for attorneys' fees and costs during 1994 [1292-1] (kb) (Entered: 05/24/1995)
1294 DECLARATION of Michael W Bien in support of pltfs' motion to compel 1994 attorneys' fees and costs [1292-1] (kb) (Entered: 05/24/1995)
1295 DECLARATION of Sanford Jay Rosen in support of pltf's motion to compel payment of disputed attorney fee and cost for 1994 [1292-1] (kb) (Entered: 05/24/1995)
1296 MEMORANDUM of points and authorities by plaintiffs in 2:87-cv01636 in support of motion to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 85 of 121

05/23/1995
05/26/1995 05/26/1995 05/26/1995 05/26/1995 05/31/1995 05/31/1995 06/01/1995 06/01/1995 06/02/1995 06/02/1995 06/02/1995
06/02/1995 06/05/1995 06/05/1995

and costs in curred during 1994 [1292-1] (kb) (Entered: 05/24/1995)
1297 SEPARATE APPENDIX by plaintiff in 2:87-cv-01636 of annotated 1994 quarterly billing statements in support of motion to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs for 1994 [1292-1] (kb) (Entered: 05/24/1995)
1298 TWENTIETH PROGRESS REPORT by mediator Allen F Breed concerning the status of impementation of the provisions of the decree (old) Modified on 05/26/1995 (Entered: 05/26/1995)
1299 LETTER to court from mediator Allen F Breed re: twentieth progress report concerning the status of implementation of the provisions of the decree [1298-1] (old) (Entered: 05/26/1995)
1300 NOTICE of filing Table of Authorities and the original signed Declaration of Dr Lamb and Gary Walters by defendants (ndd) (Entered: 05/30/1995)
1301 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION of Sanford Jay Rosen in support motion to compel payment of 1994 attorneys fees [1292-1] (old) (Entered: 05/31/1995)
1302 NOTICE regardingmediator's memorandum regarding assistance of counsel and payment of fees (old) (Entered: 05/31/1995)
LODGED: request for extension of time for defendants' to file reply to mediator's findings (old) (Entered: 05/31/1995)
1303 PROOF OF SERVICE of mediator's memorandum regarding assistance of counsel and payment of fees (old) (Entered: 06/02/1995)
1304 MEDIATOR'S MEMORANDUM regarding assistance of counsel and payment of fees (old) (Entered: 06/02/1995)
LODGED Ex Parte Motion for leave to file dfts' reply to plts' Memorandum re PV A-13 by defendants (ndd) (Entered: 06/05/1995)
LODGED dfts' reply to plts' memorandum of points and authorities in support of findings and Recommendations re PV A-13 (ndd) (Entered: 06/05/1995)
1305 CERTIFIED COPY of 9th Circuit Order AFFIRMING in part and REVERSING in part the decision of the District Court [840-1], AFFIRMING in part and reversing in partJ the decision of District Court [760-1] (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 06/05/1995)
1315 REPLY by defendants to plaintiffs memorandum of points and authorities in support of findings and recommendations re PV A-13 (old) (Entered: 06/12/1995)
1306 AMENDMENT to appeal order of 6/2/95: Amended to tax costs (old) (Entered: 06/05/1995)
1307 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton GRANTING lodged

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 86 of 121

06/05/1995 06/05/1995 06/06/1995 06/07/1995
06/07/1995 06/07/1995 06/08/1995
06/09/1995 06/12/1995 06/12/1995
06/12/1995
06/12/1995 06/12/1995 06/14/1995
06/14/1995 06/15/1995

extension of time for to 6/1/95 to reply to mediators findings and recommendations re perceived violation A-13 [0-0] (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 06/05/1995)
1308 PLTS' OPPOSITION to dfts' motion for clarification of exercise provision of consent decree [1282-1] (ndd) (Entered: 06/06/1995)
1309 DECLARATION of Alison Hardy in support of plts' opposition [1308-1] (ndd) (Entered: 06/06/1995)
1310 RESPONSE by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates to Mediator's report and recommendation [1304-1] (old) (Entered: 06/07/1995)
1311 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton GRANTING dfts' ex parte motion for leave to file in excess of time dfts' reply to pltfs' memorandum re: PV A-13 (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 06/07/1995)
1312 MEMORANDUM by defendants re: mediator's retention of counsel (old) (Entered: 06/08/1995)
1313 AMENDED table of contents and authorities by defendants (old) (Entered: 06/08/1995)
LODGED Stipulation and Proposed Order confirming attorneys' fees and costs awarded in the District Court's order 4/18/95 by plaintiff (ndd) (Entered: 06/08/1995)
1314 MAIL returned [1307-1] addressed to mediator Allen F Breed (old) (Entered: 06/12/1995)
RESERVICE of DOCUMENT(S) [1307-1] addressed to mediator Allen F Breed (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 06/12/1995)
1316 PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM of points and authorities in support of the mediators request for clarification of part IX(3) of the consent decree by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates (old) (Entered: 06/13/1995)
1317 DECLARATION of Donald Spector in support of the mediators request for clarification of part IX(3) of the consent decree [1282-1] (old) (Entered: 06/13/1995)
1318 DECLARATION of Sanford Jay Rosen concerning powers of the Mediator [1281-1] (old) (Entered: 06/13/1995)
1319 DEFENDANTS RESPONSE to memorandum of Allen Breed by defendants [1281-1] (old) (Entered: 06/13/1995)
LODGED Stipulation and order regarding hearing on plaintiffs motion to compel payment of disputed attorneys fees and costs incurred during 1994 by defendants (old) (Entered: 06/15/1995)
1321 AMENDED PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants [1319-1] (old) (Entered: 06/15/1995)
1320 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton ORDERING that the

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 87 of 121

06/16/1995 06/16/1995 06/19/1995 06/19/1995 06/20/1995 06/20/1995 06/21/1995 06/22/1995 06/26/1995
06/26/1995
06/26/1995

Mediator's 20th Progress Report re status of Implementation is ordered filed and that the report is accepted as representing the defts' status in implementation of the provisions of the consent decree in this case (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 06/15/1995)
LODGED Order and stipulation for defts to file by 06/15/95 a reply to plaintiffs opposition to the motion for clarification of the exercise provision of consent decree by defendants (old) (Entered: 06/19/1995)
1322 DEFENDANTS REPLY to response to motion for clarification of exercise provision of consent decree dfts [1282-1] (old) (Entered: 06/19/1995)
1323 REPLY by plaintiff in 2:87-cv-01636 to plaintiff memorandum in support of mediator's request for clarification (old) (Entered: 06/20/1995)
1324 REPLY by plaintiff in 2:87-cv-01636 to defendants' response to the mediator's request for clarification of part IX(3) of the consent decree (old) (Entered: 06/20/1995)
1325 NOTICE of submission of original signed declaration of James Flynn by defendants (old) (Entered: 06/21/1995)
1326 REPLY MEMORANDUM by mediator Allen F Breed (old) (Entered: 06/21/1995)
1327 STIPULATION AND ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton extending time, to and including 6/15/95, for defts to file a reply to pltfs' opposition to the motion for clarification (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 06/21/1995)
1328 EXHIBITS A and G (signed original copies) of defts response to memorandum of Allen Breed by defendants (old) (Entered: 06/23/1995)
1329 STIPULATION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F Moulds GRANTING lodged stipulation regarding hearing on motion to compel payment of disputed atty fees and costs incurred during 1994 [0-0]; ORDERING: hearing on motion to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs incurred during 1994 [1292-1] CONTINUED to 8/10/95 at 10:00 before JFM; after a further meeting of counsel, dfts shall file their opposition to the motion no later than 7/13/95; pltfs shall file their reply no later than 7/27/95 (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 06/26/1995)
1330 ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F Moulds ORDERING: pltf Joseph Alldredge's motion for temporary restraining order [959-1] DENIED w/o prejudice; pltf Joseph Alldredge's motion for immediate order for temporary injunctive relief [1117-1] DENIED w/o prejudice; pltf Alldredge is advised that the pltf class in this matter is represented by counsel and, accordingly, all motions must be brought by counsel (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 06/26/1995)
1333 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION by Troy Christian Davey for permissive intervention to case 2:87-cv-01636 and to modify the

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 88 of 121

06/26/1995 06/26/1995 06/26/1995 06/27/1995
06/28/1995 07/05/1995 07/07/1995

protective order FRCP 24(b), 26(c) ; set for 7/27/95 at 10am in Rm 5054 (old) (Entered: 06/28/1995)
1334 MEMORANDUM by intervenor Troy Christian Davey in support of motion for permissive intervention [1333-1] and to modify the protective order [1333-2] (old) (Entered: 06/28/1995)
1335 DECLARATION of Richard Seltzer in support of motion for permissive intervention [1333-1] and to modify the protective order [1333-2] (old) (Entered: 06/28/1995)
LODGED [proposed] order on motion for permissive intervention and to modify the protective order by intervenor Troy Christian Davey (old) (Entered: 06/28/1995)
1332 MINUTES of law and motion before Honorable Lawrence K Karlton: motion in opposition to report of the special master on status of the outpatient psychiatric program plan by dfts [1219-1] SUBMITTED; and motion for clarification of exercise provision of consent decree by dfts [1282-1] SUBMITTED; C/R: Cathie Bodene (old) (Entered: 06/28/1995)
1331 STIPULATION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F Moulds awarding attorney fees in the amount of $41,098.00 (plus interest) to pltf re appeal work (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 06/28/1995)
1336 CERTIFIED COPY of judgment from 9th Circuit: AFFIRMING in part REVERSING and REMANDING the Decision of the District Court for recalculation of attorneys' fees [Appeal [1039-1] USCA #94-15259 (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 07/05/1995)
1337 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton; DENYING motion for clarification of exercise provision of consent decree by dfts [1282-1]; the mediator's retention of a legal expert to assist him in responding to dfts' escort and monitoring policy is CONFIRMED as authorized by section IX(3) of the Consent Decree; dfts SHALL PAY the reasonable costs and expenses of said legal expert pursuant to section IX(2) of the Consent Decree; dfts SHALL RESCIND their escort policy and shall permit the Mediator and his agents unmonitored access; the Mediator may go anywhere in the institution without escort, except where the Warden finds that there is a security problem associated with a particular unescorted visit, in which case a staff member may be assigned as a security escort; the Mediator may speak to any staff member or inmate in confidence and these private conversations shall not be monitored by dfts in any way; dfts SHALL COMPLY with the dispute resolution process as set forth in the Consent Decree re: PV A-15 and SHALL TIMELY COMPLY with all related briefing and hearing ddls set by the Mediator; the Mediator has the authority pursuant to section IX of the Consent Decree to make threshold determinations of Decree interpretation and applicability as part of the dispute resolution process; all proceedings initiated by the filing of a perceived violation are DEEMED to be "disputes arising under the Decree" within the meaning of section IX (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 07/07/1995)

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 89 of 121

07/07/1995 07/12/1995 07/13/1995 07/19/1995 07/20/1995 07/25/1995 07/25/1995
07/25/1995
07/27/1995 07/27/1995 07/27/1995 08/03/1995
08/03/1995

1338 MINUTE ORDER ADVANCING HEARING on motion by Troy Christian Davey for permissive intervention to case 2:87-cv-01636 [1333-1] 9:00 7/26/95 (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 07/10/1995)
LODGED stipulation to continue hearing on protective order (old) (Entered: 07/13/1995)
1339 RESPONSE by defendants in 2:87-cv-01636 to motion to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs incurred during 1994 [1292-1] (old) (Entered: 07/14/1995)
LODGED Order and Stipulation for continuation of hearing by defendants in 2:87-cv-01636 (kb) (Entered: 07/20/1995)
1341 MAIL returned Minute Order [1338-1] addressed to Reydecil Nevarez (kb) (Entered: 07/26/1995)
LODGED Document Order and stipulation for continuation of hearing lodged on 7/12/95 not to be signed (kb) (Entered: 07/25/1995)
1340 STIPULATION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds the hearing on motion by Troy Christian Davey for permissive intervention to case 2:87-cv-01636 [1333-1] is CONTINUED to 10:00am on 8/10/95 in Courtroom 8; dfts' opposition must be filed on or before 7/27/95; intervenor Davey's optional reply brief must be filed on or before 8/3/95 (cc: all counsel) (kb) (Entered: 07/25/1995)
1342 TRANSCRIPT of 5/27/95 hearing on deft's motion in opposition to mediator's F&R's, deft's motion to clarify exercise provision of consent decree before Honorable Lawerence K Karlton; by C/R Catherine EF Bodene (old) (Entered: 07/27/1995)
1343 REPLY by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates in 2:87-cv-01636 to response to motion to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs incurred during 1994 [1292-1] (kb) (Entered: 07/31/1995)
1344 DECLARATION of MJ Tony Paikeday in supoprt of reply re motion to to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs incurred during 1994 [1343-1] (kb) (Entered: 07/31/1995)
1345 OPPOSITION by defendants in 2:87-cv-01636 to motion by Troy Christian Davey for permissive intervention to case 2:87-cv-01636 [1333-1] (kb) (Entered: 07/31/1995)
1346 DECLARATION of Sanford Jay Rosen in regarding nineteenth quarterly statement of fees and disbursements for moitoring compliance with the consent decree which was approved by order on 3/8/90 (kb) (Entered: 08/04/1995)
1347 REPLY memorandum of points and authorities by intervenor Troy Christian Davey in 2:87-cv-01636 in support of motion by Troy Christian Davey for permissive intervention to case 2:87-cv-01636 [1333-1] and to modify the protective order FRCP 24(b), 26(c) [1333-2] (kb) (Entered: 08/04/1995)

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 90 of 121

08/03/1995 08/03/1995 08/03/1995 08/09/1995 08/09/1995 08/09/1995 08/10/1995 08/14/1995
08/15/1995
08/17/1995

1348 DECLARATION of Christopher T Cody in support of motion for permissive intervention and [1333-1] to modify the protective order [1333-2] (kb) (Entered: 08/04/1995)
1349 AMENDED JUDGMENT [1336-1] from USCA the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part and REMANDED for recalculation of the attorneys' fees [Appeal [1039-1] USCA #94-15259] (kb) (Entered: 08/04/1995)
1350 CERTIFIED COPY of judgment from 9th Circuit the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for recalculation of the attorneys' fees; USCA #94-15884 [Appeal [1068-1] (cc: all counsel) (kb) (Entered: 08/04/1995)
1351 CERTIFIED COPY of 9th Circuit Order: appellants' motion for transfer to the district court of appellate fee application is granted (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 08/09/1995)
1352 DECLARATION of Donna Petrine in support of plts' reply re: motion to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs incurred during 1994 [1343-1] (ndd) (Entered: 08/10/1995)
LODGED Stipulation and Proposed Order confirming additional undisputed attorneys' fees and costs for 1994 by plfs (ndd) (Entered: 08/10/1995)
1353 MINUTES of Motion to compel payment of disputed attorneys fees and costs for 1994 and Intervenor's motion for permissive intervention before Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds; arguments; plt's motion to compel granted; plt to prepare order; intervenor's motion granted; order to issue by Court (ndd) (Entered: 08/11/1995)
1354 STIPULATION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds ORDERING that the following sums became collectable and legal interest begain accruing on such sums as of the date indicated: First quarter of 1994 $84,258, interest rate 4.31%, 6/28/94; Second quarter $13,200.75, interest rate 5.69%, 10/28/94; Third quarter $14,422.95, interest rate 7.22%, 1/4/95; Fourth $13,626, interest rate 6.41%, 4/10/95 (cc: all counsel) (ndd) (Entered: 08/14/1995)
1355 ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds GRANTING motion by Troy Christian Davey for permissive intervention to case 2:87-cv-01636 [1333-1]; GRANTING motion to modify the protective order FRCP 24 (b), 26(c) [1333-2]; the protective orders filed in this action are MODIFIED to allow attorneys for Troy Christian Davey in 2:94-cv-151 WBS JFM P access to the materials obtained through discovery in this case; Troy Christian Davey and his attorneys are bound by and subject to all terms and conditions of the protective orders (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 08/15/1995)
LODGED Proposed Findings and Recommendations by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates (old) (Entered: 08/31/1995)

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 91 of 121

08/17/1995 08/17/1995 08/29/1995 08/31/1995
09/05/1995 09/06/1995 09/08/1995 09/08/1995 09/11/1995 09/18/1995 09/18/1995 09/25/1995 09/26/1995 10/03/1995 10/17/1995

1357 LETTER to court from counsel for plaintiff Jay Lee Gates re proposed Findings and Recommendation [1353-1] (old) (Entered: 08/31/1995)
1358 LETTER to court from counsel for defendants re disputed for 1994 attorneys' fees [0-0] (old) (Entered: 08/31/1995)
1356 OBJECTIONS by defendant's to order of Magistrate granting intervention and modification of protective order [1355-1] (old) (Entered: 08/30/1995)
1359 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds recommending that plaintiff's motion for order to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs incurred during 1994 [1292-1], be GRANTED in all respects in the total amount of $72,391.41 with interest; referred back to Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton; Objections due within ten (10) days of the date of this order (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 08/31/1995)
1360 MEDIATOR'S 21st Progress Report concerning the status of implementation of the provisions of the Decree (ndd) (Entered: 09/07/1995)
RESERVICE of DOCUMENT(S) [1359-1] addressed to plaintiffs, defendants (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 09/06/1995)
LODGED Proposed Order confirming Attorneys' fees on the 18th Quarterly Statements by plfs (ndd) (Entered: 09/11/1995)
1361 LETTER to court from counsel of Troy Davey regarding dfts' objections to his intervention [1356-1] (ndd) (Entered: 09/11/1995)
1362 Notice of filing of OBJECTIONS by defendants to draft twenty-first quarterly report [1360-1] (old) (Entered: 09/13/1995)
1363 ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds GRANTING lodged proposed order confirming attorneys' fees on the eighteenth quarterly statement [0-0] (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 09/18/1995)
1364 OBJECTIONS by defendant Ron Shinn in 2:87-cv-01636 to magistrate's findings and recommendations [1359-1] (old) (Entered: 09/18/1995)
1366 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORATIES in support of Magistrates Findings and Recommendations, by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates in 2:87-cv-01636 (old) (Entered: 09/27/1995)
1365 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton AFFIRMING the decision of the District Court [1355-1] (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 09/26/1995)
LODGED Order confirming attorney's fees on the 19th quarterly statement by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates (old) (Entered: 10/04/1995)
1367 ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds GRANTING lodged proposed order confirming attorney's fees on the 19th quarterly statement [0-0] The following sums confirmed: $22,917.93; Interest Rate 5.52%;

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 92 of 121

10/31/1995
11/08/1995 11/16/1995 11/21/1995 11/21/1995 11/22/1995 11/30/1995 11/30/1995
12/05/1995
12/06/1995 12/08/1995

Daily Interest $34.17; Date interest began Accruing 10/2/95; Interest equals the annual yield on 26-wek T-Bills as of 9/14/95 (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 10/17/1995)
1368 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton then Findging and Recommendations [1359-1] filed 8/31/95 are ADOPTED in full; pltf's motion for an order to compel the payment of disputed fees and costs incurred in 1994 [1292-1] is GRANTED in all respects in the total amount of $72,391.41 with interest as noted in the Findings and Recommendations (cc: all counsel) (kb) (Entered: 10/31/1995)
1369 DECLARATION of Sanford Jay Rosen regarding pltfs twentieth quarterly statement of fees and disbursements for monitoring compliance with consent decree which was approved by order on 03/08/90 by pltfs (old) (Entered: 11/15/1995)
1370 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendant from District Court decision (fee status paid;) (old) (Entered: 11/20/1995)
1372 TRANSCRIPT of Mediator's twenty-second progress report concerning the status of implementation of the provisions of the decree (old) (Entered: 11/28/1995)
1373 LETTER to court from counsel for mediator Allen F Breed regarding mediator's twenty-second progress report [1372-1] (old) (Entered: 11/28/1995)
1371 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION and Ordering Form for dates No dates (old) (Entered: 11/28/1995)
1374 MAILED case information/docket fee payment notice, copy of Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, copy of appeal and certified copy of docket sheet to all parties (ndd) (Entered: 11/30/1995)
1375 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: The Mediator's Twenty-Second Progress Report report is order FILED; AND the report is accepted as representing the defts' status in implemenation of the provisions of the Consent Decree in this case (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 11/30/1995)
1376 ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds clerk to serve document submitted by inmate David Rodgers, upon attorney Breed for him to determine if they should be filed with the Court If deemed appropriate documents documents shall be returned to Court and filed; Document entitled "Gates Consent Decree IX Mediation and Compliance Section * Emergency Relief" mailed to Mr Breed this day (old) (Entered: 12/05/1995)
1380 OPPOSITION by defendants to inmate Rodgers request for emergency relief (old) (Entered: 12/11/1995)
1377 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING that the 9/5/95 Mediator's Twenty-First Progress Report is order filed; the report is accepted as representing defts' status in implementation of the provisions

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 93 of 121

12/08/1995 12/08/1995 12/13/1995 12/18/1995 01/04/1996 01/04/1996 01/10/1996
01/17/1996
01/31/1996 02/02/1996 02/06/1996

of the Consent Decree in this case (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 12/08/1995)
1378 STIPULATION of the parties Re Perceived Violation A-16 by defendants (old) (Entered: 12/08/1995)
1379 LETTER to court from counsel for mediator Allen F Breed in regarding stipulation [1378-1] (old) (Entered: 12/08/1995)
1381 NOTIFICATION by 9th Circuit of Appellate Docket Number 95-17314 (ndd) (Entered: 12/15/1995)
1382 LETTER to court from counsel William Collins re removal from service list (old) (Entered: 12/18/1995)
LODGED Stipulation & Proposed order confirming attorneys fees and costs awarded in the District Court's order of 10/27/95 by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates (old) (Entered: 01/04/1996)
LODGED: Stipulatio of the parties re resolution of perceived Violation A-16 (old) (Entered: 01/05/1996)
1383 STIPULATION AND ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton ORDERING: the parties agree as follows: procedure no 423 attached as Exhibit A shall be substituted for procedure nos 16 & 16A on a six month trial basis; implementation of procedure nos 423 shall begin on 01/01/96 and the trial period shall end on 06/30/96; implementation of procedure no 423 shall become permanent unless pltfs notify defts of their intent to object to procedure no 423 on or before 07/01/96 and file further objections with the Mediator on or before 07/31/96; the responsibilities of the defts under the Stipulation of the parties re perceived violation A16 of 09/11/95 shall terminate on 12/31/95; perceived violation A-16 shall be considered resolved as of 12/31/95 and shall be closed by the Mediator (see order for more details) (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 01/10/1996)
1384 STIPULATION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds: CONFIRMING attorneys' fees and costs awarded in the district court's order of 10/27/95; $2,2,92 at interest rate of 5.31% beginning to accrue 6/28/94; $17,051.18 at 5.69% interest began to accrue 10/28/94; $11,083.69 at 7.22% interest began to accur 1/4/95; $42,066.54 at 6.41% interest began to accrue on 4/10/95 (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 01/17/1996)
1385 LETTER to court from Mediator ALlen F Breed re parties' stipulation re resolution of perceived violation A-16 (kb) (Entered: 02/05/1996)
1386 DECLARATION of Sanford Jay Rosen re pltf's twenty first quarterly statement of fees and disbursements for monitoring compliance with the consent decree which was approved by order on 3/8/90 (ndd) (Entered: 02/05/1996)
LODGED stipulation and order regarding pltfs 1996 rates by pltf Jay Lee Gates (kdc) (Entered: 02/07/1996)

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 94 of 121

02/26/1996 02/26/1996 02/27/1996
03/04/1996 03/04/1996
03/25/1996 04/09/1996

LODGED Proposed Order Confriming Attorneys' fees on the twentieth quarterly statement by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates (old) (Entered: 02/28/1996)
1389 MEDIATOR'S Twenty-Third Progress Report concerning the status of implementation of provision of the Decree (old) (Entered: 03/04/1996)
1387 STIPULATION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds ORDERING that the parties stipulate and agree as follows: pltfs shall notify defts of pltfs' counsel's proposed 1996 billing rates by 2/28/96; every year thereafter, pltf shall notify defts of pltfs' counsel's proposed billing rates for that calendar year by 2/28/96 of that year; defts shall inform pltfs on any objections to the proposed 1996 biling rates by 3/15/96; every year thereafter defts shall inform pltf of any objections to the proposed billing rates for that calendar year by 3/15/96 of that year; defts' motion in opposition to pltfs 1996, if any, shall be filed in connection with and according to the same schedule as pltfs' motion to compel payment of disputed fees and costs for 1995 AND pltfs will be the moving party in any rate dispute, and pltfs' motion to establish 1996 rates will be consilidated with pltfs' motion to compel payment of disputed fees and costs incurred in 1995; every year thereafter pltfs' motion to establish rates for the claenar year will be consildated with pltfs' motion to compel payments of disputed fees and costs for the preceding year; The parties will stipulate to a simultaneous briefing schedule for both motions (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 02/27/1996)
1388 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING that: the report is ordered filed; AND the report is accepted as representing the defts' status in implementation of the provision of the Consent Decree in this case (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 03/04/1996)
1390 ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds GRANTING attorney fees on the Twentieth Quarterly Statement upon defts on 11/7/95; defts do not dispute $114,620.03 in fees and costs from the Twentieth Quarterly Statement which became due and owing to pltfs on 1/6/96; Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a chart setting forth the amounts due and owing on the 20th Quarterly Statement at the Court-awarded rates for work performed in 1994: Wherefore, IT IS CONFIRMED that the following sums became collectable and legal interest began accuring on such sums as of the date indicated (interest equals the annual yield on 26-week TBills as of 1/4/96) (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 03/04/1996)
1391 LETTER to court from Allen F Breed, mediator re resolution of HIV related issues (old) (Entered: 03/28/1996)
1392 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton the court hereby ADOPTS the Mediator's Recommendations insofar as they state: No further psychiatric care will be permitted on Willis Unit until dfts develop appropriate Policies and Procedures following the guidelines given in the order with an accompanying plan for implementation which has been approved by the Mediator (see order for guidelines for development of Policies and Procedures regarding mentally ill inmates in Willis Unit)(cc: all counsel) (kb) (Entered: 04/09/1996)

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 95 of 121

04/15/1996 04/15/1996 04/30/1996
05/01/1996 05/09/1996
05/09/1996 05/13/1996
05/16/1996 05/20/1996 05/20/1996

1393 LETTER to court from counsel for intervenor Troy Christian Davey in 2:87-cv-01636 requesting that Seltzer & Cody be taken off the service lists in the Gates and Coleman cases (old) (Entered: 04/16/1996)
1394 LETTER to court from counsel for mediator Allen F Breed in 2:87-cv01636 informing the Court that perceived violation No A-15 (exercise in DMH-V) has been informally resolved (old) (Entered: 04/16/1996)
1395 ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds the parties, within 20 days of the date of this order shall file a joint statement setting forth their positions on the amount to be credited to dfts for disapproved fees already paid for media contacts and conference attendance and a statement of what further proceeings are deemed necessary (cc: all counsel) (kb) (Entered: 04/30/1996)
1396 CERTIFIED COPY of judgment from 9th Circuit REMANDING and AFFIRMING the matter back to District Court [Appeal [1237-1] (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 05/08/1996)
1397 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton: parties to brief the applicability of Prison Litigation Reform Act section 802(f)(4); hearing SET for 2pm on 6/17/96 ; dfts to file and serve brief by fax on pltfs' counsel by 5/24/96; pltfs to file and serve brief by fax on dfts' counsel by 5/31/96; dfts' reply brief DUE 6/7/96 (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 05/09/1996)
1399 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to terminate prospective relief ordered 4/9/96 hearing set for 10am on 6/17/96 motion to be heard by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton (old) (Entered: 05/13/1996)
1398 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton ORDERING: defts in the above captioned action have filed a motion to terminate prospective relief ordered 4/9/96; the motion is presently noticed to be heard on 6/17/96 at 10:00am; pursuant to order filed herein on 5/9/96 the question of the applicability of the amendments to 18 USC 3626(b)(2) to the instant case shall be argued at a hearing scheduled on 6/17/96 at 2:00pm; accordingly the court now hereby SETS the defts motion to terminate prospective relief to be heard together with argument concerning the question presented by the court in its 5/9/96 order; all arguments shall be presented at hearing on 6/17/96 at 2:00pm; the briefing schedule for defts motion shall be in accordance with local rules (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 05/13/1996)
1400 DECLARATION of Michael W Bien regarding plfs' twenty-second quarterly statement of fees and disbursements for monitoring compliance with the consent decree which was approved by order on 3/8/90 (First Quarter, 1996) (old) (Entered: 05/20/1996)
1401 CERTIFIED COPY of 9th Circuit Order DISMISSING the appeal [13701] (cc: all counsel) (kb) (Entered: 05/20/1996)
LODGED Joint Statement & proposed order regarding media contacts time credits due defts pursuant to this court's 4/30/96 order by plaintiff

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 96 of 121

05/22/1996
05/22/1996 05/22/1996 05/24/1996 05/24/1996 05/29/1996
05/31/1996 05/31/1996 05/31/1996 06/04/1996 06/04/1996 06/04/1996 06/04/1996 06/07/1996 06/10/1996

(old) (Entered: 05/23/1996)
1402 LETTER to court from counsel for mediator Allen F Breed in 2:87-cv01636 submitting report for review and acceptance as representing the dfts' status in implementation of the provisions of the Consent Decree in this case (old) (Entered: 05/23/1996)
1403 MEDIATOR'S TWENTY-FOURTH PROGRESS REPORT by mediator Allen F Breed in 2:87-cv-01636 concerning the status of implementation of the provisions of the decree (old) (Entered: 05/23/1996)
1404 LETTER to court from mediator Allen F Breed in 2:87-cv-01636 informing Judge Karlton that he will unable to be at the hearing on 6/17/96 but will continue acting as mediator (old) (Entered: 05/23/1996)
1406 BRIEF by defendants on effect of Prison Litigation Reform Act on payment of the fees andcosts of the mediator (kdc) (Entered: 05/30/1996)
1407 LETTER to court from mediator Allen F Breed in 2:87-cv-01636 enclosing page 105 of the twenty-fourth progress report (old) (Entered: 05/31/1996)
1405 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton ORDERING: the Mediator's 24th Progress Report is ORDERED FILED; the report is accepted as representing the defts status in implementation of the provisions of the Consent Decree in this case (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 05/29/1996)
1408 OPPOSITION by plf Jay Lee Gates in 2:87-cv-01636 to motion to terminate prospective relief ordered 4/9/96 [1399-1] (old) (Entered: 06/04/1996)
1409 MEMORANDUM by plf Jay Lee Gates in 2:87-cv-01636 on the application of the Special Master provisions of the PLRA to the mediator (old) (Entered: 06/04/1996)
1410 DECLARATION of Sanford Jay Rosen in support of memorandum [1409-1] (old) (Entered: 06/04/1996)
1411 NOTICE by plf Jay Lee Gates in 2:87-cv-01636 of claim of unconstitutionality (old) (Entered: 06/07/1996)
1412 NOTICE by plf Jay Lee Gates in 2:87-cv-01636 of claim of unconstitutionality (old) (Entered: 06/07/1996)
1413 NOTICE by plf Jay Lee Gates in 2:87-cv-01636 of claim of unconstitutionality (old) (Entered: 06/07/1996)
1414 CERTIFIED COPY of 9th Circuit Order plaintiffs-appellees' motion to transfer the appellate fee application to the district court is GRANTED (old) (Entered: 06/07/1996)
1415 REPLY BRIEF by defendants on effect of the PLRA on the payment of the fees and costs of the mediator (kdc) (Entered: 06/10/1996)
1417 REPLY by defendant to plaintiffs' opposition to defts' motion to

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 97 of 121

06/11/1996
06/14/1996 06/14/1996 06/17/1996 06/27/1996 06/27/1996 07/09/1996
07/10/1996 07/12/1996

terminate prospective relief ordered 4/9/96 [1399-1] (old) (Entered: 06/11/1996)
1416 ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds the parties have agreed that these fees will be credited to dfts as follows: pltf's have determined that dfts have paid $2,668.50 in fees and costs for media contacts and conference attendance during the calendar years 1992 and 1993; such amount will be credited to dfts through the quarterly fees process and will be applied as a set-off against undisputed fees owed by dfts in the next stipulation and order regarding such fees filed with this Court pursuant to the quarterly fees procedure and although the parties do not anticipate any dispute regarding the amount or crediting of these fees if such dispute should arise, the parties agree to bring it to the Court's attention through the motion to compel disputed fees and costs for the calendar year 1995 (cc: all counsel) (kb) (Entered: 06/11/1996)
1418 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION of Michael W Bien concerning the application of the prison litigation reform act to the mediator (old) (Entered: 06/18/1996)
1419 NOTICE regarding status of potential intervention by Assistant US Attorney Edmund F Brennon (old) (Entered: 06/18/1996)
1420 MINUTES before Honorable Lawrence K Karlton Oral Arguments on Court Requested Briefing; that the motion to terminate prospective relief ordered 4/9/96 [1399-1] is SUBMITTED after further brief, that the notice [1411-1] is SUBMITTED after further brief; opening brief to be filed within 5 days, opposition to be filed 5 days thereafter; C/R Cathie Bodene (old) (Entered: 06/19/1996)
1421 RESPONSE by dfts in 2:87-cv-01636 to Court's request for further briefing re Prison Litigation Reform Act [1397-2] (old) (Entered: 06/28/1996)
1422 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES by plf Jay Lee Gates in 2:87-cv-01636 on Tenth Amendment issues in opposition to motion to terminate prospective relief ordered 4/9/96 [1399-1] (old) (Entered: 06/28/1996)
1423 LETTER to court from Donald Spector, counsel for plf Jay Lee Gates, in 2:87-cv-01636 enclosing a decision filed last week in the Western District of Michigan ruling that the automatic stay provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act is unconstitutional; requesting that dfts' motion be denied and that the Court should construe the Special Master provisions of the PLRA to avoid the serious constitutional questions that will otherwise arise (old) (Entered: 07/10/1996)
1424 AFFIDAVIT of Allen F Breed regarding mediation fees (old) (Entered: 07/11/1996)
1425 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton the court concludes that the provisions of the PLRA governing the compensation and duties of special masters are inapplicable to Mr Breed; Accordingly, the terms of the

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 98 of 121

07/12/1996 07/12/1996 07/19/1996 07/22/1996 07/22/1996 07/26/1996 07/26/1996 08/01/1996 08/02/1996
08/02/1996 08/05/1996 08/06/1996
08/06/1996 08/07/1996

Consent Decree continue to govern Mr Breed's role in this litigation (cc: all counsel) (kb) (Entered: 07/15/1996)
1426 STIPULATION AND ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton in resolution of perceived violation A-4 (see order for further details) (cc: all counsel) (kb) (Entered: 07/15/1996)
1427 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton that perceived violation A-4 which concerned the transfer procedures of certain inmates to Atascadero State Hospital is now closed (cc: all counsel) (kb) (Entered: 07/15/1996)
1428 MEMORANDUM OF LAW of the United States of America with respect to the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (old) (Entered: 07/22/1996)
1429 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton dfts' motion to immediately terminated the relief ordered on 4/9/96 [1399-1] is DENIED (cc: all counsel) (kb) (Entered: 07/22/1996)
LODGED stipulation and order regarding motion to compel fees and costs incurred in 1995 and to establish plfs' 1996 rates by plf Jay Lee Gates in 2:87-cv-01636 (old) (Entered: 07/24/1996)
1430 STIPULATION of dfts and pltfs to continue implementation of procedure 423 (kb) (Entered: 07/29/1996)
1431 LETTER to court from mediator Allen F Breed regarding stipulaiton of parties to continue implementation of procedure 423 [1430-1] (kb) (Entered: 07/29/1996)
1432 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendant James Rowland from District Court decision (fee status not paid) (old) Modified on 08/02/1996 (Entered: 08/02/1996)
1433 DECLARATION of Michael W Bien regarding pltfs 23rd quarterly ststement of fees and disbursements for monitoring compliance with the consent decree which was approved by order on 3/18/90 (old) (Entered: 08/02/1996)
1434 RECEIPT of $105.00 for defendant James Rowland by State of CA Receipt # 174184 (old) (Entered: 08/02/1996)
LODGED Stipulation & Proposed order confirming attorneys fees on the 21st quarterly statement by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates (old) (Entered: 08/05/1996)
1435 MAILED case information/docket fee payment notice copy of Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals copy of appeal and certified copy of docket sheet to all parties from appeal filed 8/1/96 by defts #1432 (old) (Entered: 08/06/1996)
LODGED Proposed Order confirming attorneys fees on the 22nd quarterly statment by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates (old) (Entered: 08/07/1996)
1436 STIPULATION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F Moulds

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 99 of 121

08/12/1996
08/12/1996
08/12/1996 08/12/1996 08/15/1996 08/23/1996 08/23/1996 08/23/1996

ORDERING: pltfs time in which to file a motion to compel fees and costs incurred during the claendar year 1995 if any currently to be filed no later than 7/31/96 is extended up to and including 9/30/96; pltfs if they choose shall bring a quarterly motion to compel to fees and costs for the 22nd quarter (first quarter of 1996) to resolve the issue of the applicability of the PLRA including the applicability of the PLRA to the rates charged by pltfs in 1996; said motion shall be filed no later than 9/30/96; pltfs shall have 30 days from notice of any final determination by the District Court of the applicability of the PLRA to billing rates in this action in which to propose a rate schedule for 1996 and defts shall have 15 days thereafter to inform pltfs in writing of any objections to the proposed 1996 billing rate; if defts object to pltfs proposed 1996 billing rates pltf will have 60 days from the date of service of defts objections to file a motion to establish billing rates for the calendar year 1996; in the alternative at any time prior to the District Court's final determination of the applicability of the PLRA to billing rates either party may 30 days after providing the other party written notice of an intent to do so move to establish rates for the calendar year 1996 (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 08/07/1996)
1437 STIPULATION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F Moulds ORDERING: the following sums become collectable and legal interest began accruing on such sums as of the date indicated; amount: $65,973.59; interest rate: 5.25%; daily interest: $9.49; date interest began accruing: 4/1/96 (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 08/12/1996)
1438 ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F Moulds ORDERING: request by pltf's attorney's fees on the 22nd quarterly statement is granted; the following sums became collectable and legal interest began accruing on such sums as of the date indicated: amount: $29,855.60; interest rate: 5.89%; daily interest $4.82; date interest began accruing: 07/14/96 (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 08/12/1996)
1439 NOTIFICATION by 9th Circuit of Appellate Docket Number 96-16537 (kb) (Entered: 08/13/1996)
1440 NOTICE OF APPEAL by dfts in 2:87-cv-01636 from District Court decision (fee status paid) (old) (Entered: 08/14/1996)
1441 MAILED case information/docket fee payment notice; copy of Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals; copy of appeal and copy of docket sheet to all parties (old) (Entered: 08/15/1996)
1442 CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE by mediator Allen F Breed in 2:87-cv-01636 (old) (Entered: 08/26/1996)
1443 MEDIATOR'S TWENTY-FIFTH PROGRESS REPORT by mediator Allen F Breed in 2:87-cv-01636 concerning the status of implementation of the provisions of the decree (old) Modified on 08/26/1996 (Entered: 08/26/1996)
1444 LETTER to court from mediator Allen F Breed in 2:87-cv-01636 regarding [1443-1] (old) (Entered: 08/26/1996)

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 100 of 121

08/27/1996 08/29/1996 08/29/1996 08/29/1996 09/03/1996 09/05/1996 09/05/1996 09/13/1996
09/19/1996
09/27/1996
09/27/1996

1445 TRANSCRIPT of 6/17/96 hearing on oral arguments by C/R Catherine E F Bodene (old) (Entered: 08/29/1996)
1446 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION and Ordering Form for dates 6/27/95 and 6/17/96 regarding transcript [1445-1] (old) (Entered: 09/03/1996)
1447 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION and Ordering Form for dates 6/27/95 and 6/17/96 regarding transcript [1445-1] (old) (Entered: 09/03/1996)
1448 NOTIFICATION by 9th Circuit of Appellate Docket Number 96-16575 (old) (Entered: 09/03/1996)
LODGED Stipulation & Proposed Order confirming additional undisputed attorneys fees and costs for 1995 by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates (old) (Entered: 09/05/1996)
1449 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton the Mediator's Twenty-Fifth Progress Report is ordered filed; and the report is acceptable as representing the dfts' status in implementation of the provisions of the Consent Decree in this case (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 09/05/1996)
1450 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton approving the certification of compliance; dfts will not be required to further report on Part IV, VI, and Part VII.E of the Consent Decree unless the Mediator finds a failure to comply at a later date (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 09/05/1996)
1451 CERTIFIED COPY of 9th Circuit Order: this petition for a writ of mandamus warrants further consideration; the real parties in interest shall file a response by 10/7/96; respondent district court may simultaneously file a response; petitioners may reply no later than 10/17/96; all service shall be by hand or overnight delivery; this case shall be calendared the week of 11/4/96 in San Francisco along with case nos 96-70659 and 9670640 (cc: all counsel) (kdc) (Entered: 09/17/1996)
1452 STIPULATION AND ORDER confirming additional undisputed attorneys' fees and costs for 1995 by Magistrate Judge John F Moulds it is confirmed that the following sums became collectable and legal interest began accruing on such sums as of the dates indicated: 18th Quarterly Statement $73,331.99, 5.53% interest rate 7/3/95; 19th Quarterly Statement $35,962.39, 5.52% interest rate 10/2/95; 20th Quarterly Statement $26,748.64, 5.16% interest rate 1/6/96; and 21st Quarterly Statement $1,345.85, 5.25% interest rate 4/1/96 (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 09/19/1996)
1453 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs for the twenty-second quarter (first quarter 1996) by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates in 2:87-cv-01636 ; Motion Hearing Set for 10:00 11/14/96 before Magistrate Judge John F Moulds (old) (Entered: 09/30/1996)
1454 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates in 2:87-cv-01636 in support of motion to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs for the twenty-second quarter (first

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 101 of 121

09/27/1996 09/27/1996 10/04/1996 10/10/1996 10/10/1996 10/15/1996 10/16/1996
10/25/1996
10/29/1996 11/01/1996 11/07/1996

quarter 1996) [1453-1] (old) (Entered: 09/30/1996)
1455 DECLARATION of Sanford Jay Rosen in support of pltf's motion to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs for the twentysecond quarter (first quarter 1996) [1453-1] (old) (Entered: 09/30/1996)
1456 SEPARATE APPENDIX of the annotated quarterly billing statement for the twenty-second quarter in support of pltf's motion to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs for the twenty-first quarter (first quarter 1996) in 2:87-cv-01636 [1453-1] (old) (Entered: 09/30/1996)
1457 CLERK'S record on appeal transmitted to 9th Circuit including 8 volumes of Clerk's records and 7 expando, one volume of Reporter's Transcript and certified copy of docket mailed to 9th Circuit regarding appeal [1432-1] (cc: all counsel) (ndd) (Entered: 10/04/1996)
LODGED proposed order confirming attorneys' fees on the twenty-third quarterly statement by pltf Jay Lee Gates in 2:87-cv-01636 (old) (Entered: 10/11/1996)
LODGED stipulation and order extending time to file motion to compel fees and costs incurred in the twenty-third quarter (second quarter 1996) by pltf Jay Lee Gates in 2:87-cv-01636 (old) (Entered: 10/11/1996)
1458 RETURNED Receipt from Ninth Circuit case number 96-16537 acknowledging receipt of 8 volumes Clerk's Record, 7 expando's, 1 volume Reporter's Transcripts (kb) (Entered: 10/16/1996)
1459 ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F Moulds ORDERING: the time in which pltfs may bring a quarterly motion to compel to fees and costs for the 23rd quarter (second quarter of 1996) to resolve the issue of the applicability of the PLRA to those fees and costs currently to be filed by 10/30/96 shall be extended up to and including 01/31/97 (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 10/16/1996)
1460 ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F Moulds confirming attorneys' fees on the twenty-third quarterly statement; the following sums became collectable and legal interest began accruing on such sums as of the date indicated: Amount $86,504.59, Interest Rate 5.90%, Daily Interest $13.98, Date Interest Began Accruing 9/30/96 (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 10/25/1996)
1461 OPPOSITION by defendants in 2:87-cv-01636 to motion to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs for the twenty-second quarter (first quarter 1996) by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates in 2:87-cv-01636 [1453-1] (kb) (Entered: 10/30/1996)
1462 DECLARATION of Sanford Jay Rosen re: pltf's 24th quarterly statement of fees and disbursements for monitoring compliance with the consent decree (old) (Entered: 11/04/1996)
1463 REPLY MEMORANDUM by pltfs in 2:87-cv-01636 in support of pltf's motion to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs for the twenty-second quarter (first quarter 1996) [1453-1] (old) (Entered:

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 102 of 121

11/07/1996 11/14/1996
11/25/1996
11/27/1996 12/10/1996 12/17/1996 12/20/1996 12/27/1996 12/27/1996 01/03/1997 01/06/1997

11/08/1996)
1464 REPLY DECLARATION of Donna Petrine in support of pltfs' motion to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs for the twentysecond quarter (first quarter 1996) [1453-1] (old) (Entered: 11/08/1996)
1465 MINUTES before Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds that the motion to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs for the twentysecond quarter (first quarter 1996) by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates in 2:87-cv01636 [1453-1] is SUBMITTED; written order to be prepared by the Court (kb) (Entered: 11/15/1996)
1466 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by Magistrate Judge John F Moulds recommending that the motion to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs for the twenty-second quarter (first quarter by pltf Jay Lee Gates in 2:87-cv-01636 [1453-1] be granted; that dfts be directed to pay to pltfs' counsel reasonable fees and costs incurred during the twenty-second quarter in the amount of $32,629.22 with interest thereon in accordance with paragraph 9 of the order filed 12/10/90; referred back to Honorable Lawrence K Karlton; objections due within 10 days after being served; any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within 10 days after service of objections (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
1467 MEDIATOR'S 26th progress report concerning the status of implementation of the provisions of the decree by mediator Allen F Breed (old) (Entered: 11/29/1996)
1468 OBJECTIONS TO FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS [1466-1] by defendants in 2:87-cv-01636 (kb) (Entered: 12/11/1996)
1469 CERTIFIED COPY of judgment from 9th Circuit REVERSING decision of the District Court [Appeal [1168-1] (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 12/17/1996)
1470 REPLY by pltf Jay Lee Gates in 2:87-cv-01636 to dfts' objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations issued on 11/25/96 [1466-1] (old) (Entered: 12/26/1996)
1486 RETURNED Receipt of files 1-58, 16 expando files and 34 transcripts from Ninth Circuit (dd) (Entered: 02/20/1997)
1488 Receipt by USDC Sacramento, acknowledging receipt of documents from 9th Circuit case number 87cv1636: Re 16 Expando files # 1-18, 4351, 29-37, 38, 39-42, 52-58; 3 ring binders; 34 transcripts (old) (Entered: 02/27/1997)
1471 REQUEST by Timothy O'Keefe in 2:87-cv-01636 to Honorable Lawrence K Karlton to review the treatment he is receiving (old) Modified on 01/10/1997 (Entered: 01/03/1997)
LODGED proposed order confirming attorneys' fees on the twenty-fourth quarterly statement by pltf Jay Lee Gates in 2:87-cv-01636 (old) (Entered: 01/07/1997)

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 103 of 121

01/08/1997
01/10/1997 01/21/1997 01/21/1997 01/21/1997 01/22/1997 01/22/1997 01/31/1997 01/31/1997 01/31/1997

1472 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton the Findings and Recommendation filed 11/25/96 [1466-1] are ADOPTED in full; pltf's motion to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs for the twenty-second quarter [1453-1] is GRANTED; dft shall pay to plf's counsel reasonable fees and costs incurred during the twenty-second quarter in the amount of $32,629.22 with interest thereon in accordance with paragraph 9 of the order filed 12/10/90 (cc: all counsel) (kb) (Entered: 01/08/1997)
1473 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton the Mediator's Twenty-Sixth progress Reprot [1467-1] is ordered filed; the report is accepted as representing the dfts' status in implementaion of the provisions of the Consent Decree in this case (cc: all counsel) (kb) (Entered: 01/10/1997)
1474 LETTER to court from Inmate Timothy O'Keefe mailing a package of lunch meat to the court which he feels should be delivered without interference by the mailroom staff (old) (Entered: 01/21/1997)
1475 PROOF OF SERVICE by inmate Timothy O'Keefe of letter sent to Judge Karlton regarding complaints he has regarding food, prison personnel and treatment he and other inmates are receiving (old) (Entered: 01/21/1997)
1476 PROOF OF SERVICE by Timothy O'Keefe of letter regarding mail restrictions (old) (Entered: 01/21/1997)
1477 ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F Moulds ORDERING: the clerk is directed to place the letter submitted by Mr O'Keef in the court file & return the lunch meat submitted on or about 01/21/97 to Timothy O'Keef D-91032 CA Medical Facility PO Box 2000 Vacaville CA 95696-2000 (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 01/22/1997)
1478 ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F Moulds ORDERING: it is confirmed that the following sums became collectable & legal interest began accruing on such sums as of the date indicated: $32,862.60 at 5.45% with daily interest $4.91 beginning on 12/31/96 (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 01/22/1997)
1479 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to compel payment of disputed Attorneys' fees and costs for the twenty-third quarter (second quarter 1996) by pltf Jay Lee Gates in 2:87-cv-01636 ; motion hearing set for 10:00 3/6/97 before Honorable Magistrate Judge John F Moulds (old) (Entered: 02/03/1997)
1480 DECLARATION of Michael W Bien in support of pltfs' motion to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs for the twenty-third quarter (second quarter 1996) [1479-1] (old) (Entered: 02/03/1997)
1481 SECOND APPENDIX of the annotated quarterly billing statement for the twenty-third quarter by pltf Jay Lee Gates in 2:87-cv-01636 in support of pltfs' motion to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs for the twenty-third quarter (second quarter 1996) [1479-1] (old) (Entered: 02/03/1997)

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 104 of 121

01/31/1997
02/03/1997
02/05/1997 02/07/1997 02/20/1997 02/27/1997 02/27/1997 02/27/1997 02/27/1997 02/27/1997
02/28/1997 02/28/1997 03/03/1997 03/05/1997

1482 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES by pltf Jay Lee Gates in 2:87-cv-01636 in support of pltfs' motion to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs for the twenty-third quarter (second quarter 1996) [1479-1] (old) (Entered: 02/03/1997)
1483 DECLARATION of Sanford Jay Rosen regarding pltf's 25th quarterly statement of fees and disbursements for monitoring compliance with the consent decree which was approved by order on 3/8/90 (fourth quarted, 1996) (kb) (Entered: 02/04/1997)
1484 CERTIFIED COPY of 9th Circuit Order ORDERING: APPEAL NO 9417146; appellee's motion for transfer to district court of appellate fee application is DENIED (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 02/06/1997)
1485 PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates to proposed stipulation & request for transfer to Magistrate Judge for hearing (old) (Entered: 02/11/1997)
1487 OPPOSITION by dfts to motion to compel payment of disputed Attorneys' fees and costs for the twenty-third quarter (second quarter 1996) by pltf Jay Lee Gates [1479-1] (ch) (Entered: 02/21/1997)
1489 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates in 2:87-cv-01636 in support of pltfs motion to compel [1479-1] (old) (Entered: 02/28/1997)
1490 DECLARATION of Sanford Jay Rosen in support of pltfs motion to compel [1479-1] (old) (Entered: 02/28/1997)
1491 DECLARATION of Patricia A Streeter in support of pltfs motion to compel [1479-1] (old) (Entered: 02/28/1997)
1492 CERTIFIED COPY of 9th Circuit Order ORDERING: the motion to vacate the previously established briefing schedule is granted (old) (Entered: 02/28/1997)
1493 NOTICE of hearing RESETTING HEARING on motion to compel payment of disputed Attorneys' fees and costs for the twenty-third quarter (second quarter 1996) by pltf Jay Lee Gates in 2:87-cv-01636 [1479-1] to 3/20/97 (old) (Entered: 02/28/1997)
1494 MEDIATOR'S twenty-seventh progress report concerning the status of implementation of the provisions of the decree (kb) (Entered: 03/03/1997)
1495 LETTER to court from mediator Allen F Breed regarding 27th progress report [1494-1] (kb) Modified on 03/03/1997 (Entered: 03/03/1997)
1496 NOTICE by plaintiffs in 2:87-cv-01636 of original signature page to declaration of Patricia A Streeter [1491-1] (kb) (Entered: 03/05/1997)
1497 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton the 27th Progress Report Concerning the Status of Implementation of the Provisions of the Decree is ordered filed and the report is accepted as representing the dfts' status

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 105 of 121

03/07/1997 03/13/1997 03/14/1997
03/28/1997 04/01/1997 04/01/1997
04/02/1997 04/07/1997 04/09/1997

in implementation of the provisions of the Consent Decree in this case (cc: all counsel) (kb) (Entered: 03/05/1997)
1498 COPY of 9th Circuit Order granting appellees' motion for extension of time to file request for attorneys' fees and expenses (cc: all counsel) (kb) (Entered: 03/10/1997)
1500 LETTER to court from Deputy Attorney General Allen R Crown requesting that his name be added to our service list (old) (Entered: 03/14/1997)
1499 ORDER AND FINDING & RECOMMENDATIONS by Magistrate Judge John F Moulds ORDERING: the motion to compel payment of disputed Attorneys' fees and costs for the twenty-third quarter (second quarter 1996) by pltf Jay Lee Gates [1479-1] is dropped from this court's 3/20/97 law & motion calendar; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING: pltf's motion to compel payment of disputed Attorneys' fees and costs for the twenty-third quarter (second quarter 1996) by pltf Jay Lee Gates [1479-1] be granted; dfts be directed to pay to pltf's counsel reasonable fees & costs incurred during the 23rd quarter in the amount of $62,884.01 with interest thereon in accordance with paragraph 9 of the district court's order filed 12/10/90; referred back to Honorable Lawrence K Karlton ; within 10 days after being served with these findings & recommendations any party may file written objections with the court (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 03/14/1997)
1501 OBJECTIONS by defendants in 2:87-cv-01636 to findings and recommendations [1499-1] (old) (Entered: 04/01/1997)
1502 LETTER to court from Mediator Allen F Breed outlining his belief that, by virtue of the Ninth Circuit's decision vacating the contempt order, further guidance of the parties and the Mediator is required (old) (Entered: 04/01/1997)
1503 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton ORDERING each party is ordered to file a response to the Mediator's letter [1502-1] within 20 days; the response shall specify whether there is any disagreement as to the facts reported by Mr Breed, and if so setting out what they regard as the pertinent facts; the parties shall set out their views as to the appropriate orders the court should issue to insure compliance with the Consent Decree (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 04/01/1997)
1504 REPLY by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates in 2:87-cv-01636 to dfts objections to findings and recommendations [1499-1] (old) (Entered: 04/04/1997)
LODGED Stipulation and proposed order regarding plts motions to establish 1996 and 1997 rates and to compel payment of 1996 disputed fees and costs by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates in 2:87-cv-01636 (old) (Entered: 04/07/1997)
1505 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton ORDERING the Clerk of the Court shall forward a copy of the mediator's letter, filed 4/1/97, to the parties in this action [1502-1] (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered:

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 106 of 121

04/10/1997
04/11/1997 04/16/1997 04/17/1997
04/28/1997 05/01/1997 05/08/1997 05/09/1997 05/15/1997 05/15/1997 05/16/1997

04/09/1997)
1506 STIPULATION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F Moulds: parties STIPULATE and AGREE that pltfs' motions to establish rates for 1996 and 197, as well as pltfs' motion to compel payment of disputed fees and coss 1996, shall be consolidated within the later: (a) 60 days from the Court's final ruling on pltfs' motion to compel payment of disputed fees and costs for the 23rd Quarter, or (b) 5/19/97 (cc: all counsel) (kdc) (Entered: 04/10/1997)
LODGED Stipulation and order regarding briefing schedule by plaintiffs in 2:87-cv-01636 (old) (Entered: 04/14/1997)
1507 STIPULATION AND ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton ORDERING: each party shall file a response to the Mediator's letter on or before 5/9/97; each party may file a reply brief on or before 5/23/97 (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 04/16/1997)
1508 STIPULATION AND ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton ORDERING: the parties agree to extend the trial period for dfts Procedure 423 for an additional 3 months through 6/30/97; dfts shall during that time permit the Mediator's expert to audit the procedure by reviewing selected files & interviewing the inmates & members of their treatment teams regarding their exercise refusals & treatment plans; implementation of Procedure 423 shall become permanent unless pltfs object to the procedure on or before 7/1/97 & file permanent objections on or before 7/30/97 (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 04/17/1997)
1509 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING the parties are directed to file supplemental briefing not later than 5/16/97; and this matter is set for hearing on 5/27/97 at 10:00 before Honorable Lawrence K Karlton (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 04/28/1997)
1510 DECLARATION of Sanford Jay Rosen regarding pltfs 26th quarterly statement of fees and costs [1467-1] (old) (Entered: 05/02/1997)
LODGED Stipulation & Order re: briefing scheding by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates (old) (Entered: 05/09/1997)
LODGED Proposed order confirming undisputed attorneys fees on the 25 quarterly statement and additoinal undisputed attorneys fees on the 24 quarterly statement by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates in 2:87-cv-01636 (old) (Entered: 05/12/1997)
1511 DECLARATION of Michael W Bien in response to the 4/1/97 court order [1503-1] (old) (Entered: 05/15/1997)
1512 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to mediator's recommendations re: OPP plan and orders [1502-1] (old) (Entered: 05/16/1997)
1513 NOTICE by defendants in 2:87-cv-01636 of lodging of outpatient psychiatric program policies and procedures manual (old) (Entered: 05/19/1997)

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 107 of 121

05/16/1997 05/16/1997 05/16/1997 05/16/1997 05/16/1997 05/20/1997
05/30/1997 05/30/1997 05/30/1997 06/09/1997 06/12/1997 06/12/1997 06/12/1997 06/13/1997

1514 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES in response to dfts objections [1501-1] by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates in 2:87-cv-01636 (old) (Entered: 05/19/1997)
1515 RESPONSE by defendants in 2:87-cv-01636 to order [1509-2] (old) (Entered: 05/19/1997)
1516 DECLARATION of Allen R Crown in support of response [1515-1] (old) (Entered: 05/19/1997)
LODGED Stipulation and proposed order regarding hearing on dfts objections by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates in 2:87-cv-01636 (old) (Entered: 05/19/1997)
1517 RESPONSE by defendant in 2:87-cv-01636 to letter of the mediator [1502-1] (old) (Entered: 05/19/1997)
1518 STIPULATION AND ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton motion to compel payment of disputed Attorneys' fees and costs for the twenty-third quarter (second quarter 1996) by pltf Jay Lee Gates in 2:87cv-01636 [1479-1] [1509-1] HEARING RE-SET FOR 6/9/97 (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 05/20/1997)
1519 REPLY by defendants in 2:87-cv-01636 to pltfs response to the 4/1/97 letter of the mediator [1512-1] (old) (Entered: 06/02/1997)
1520 REPLY by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates in 2:87-cv-01636 regarding dfts response to the 4/1/97 letter of the mediator [1517-1] (old) (Entered: 06/02/1997)
1521 STATEMENT by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates in 2:87-cv-01636 of recent decisions (old) (Entered: 06/02/1997)
1522 MINUTES of hearing regarding dft's objection to Magistrate Judge findings before Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton C/R Catherine Bodine (old) (Entered: 06/10/1997)
1523 LETTER to court from mediator Allen F Breed regarding twenty eight progress report concerning status of implementation of the provisions of the consent decree (old) (Entered: 06/13/1997)
1524 28th PROGRESS REPORT by mediator Allen F Breed regarding status of implementation of the provisions of the consent decree (old) (Entered: 06/13/1997)
1528 MEDIATOR Allen F Breed's 28th progress report concerning the status of implementation of the provisions of the decree (old) (Entered: 06/18/1997)
1525 STIPULATION AND ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton the parties request for extension of time [0-0] GRANTED; each party shall file a response to the Mediator's letter on or before before 5/16/97; each pary may file a reply brief on or before 5/30/97 (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 06/13/1997)

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 108 of 121

06/17/1997 06/18/1997
06/18/1997 06/23/1997 06/24/1997 06/26/1997 06/26/1997 06/26/1997 06/27/1997 07/02/1997 07/07/1997 07/07/1997

1526 ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F Moulds ORDERING: the following sums became collectable & legal interest began accruing on such sums as of the date indicated: $48,259.48 & $1,000.00 (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 06/17/1997)
1527 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton ORDERING: within 5 days from the date of this order dfts shall serve on pltfs & on the mediator a complete copy of the out patient psychiatric program policy & procedure manual filed on 5/16/97 (OPP Manual) & shall file with the court a certificate of service attesting to such service; if dfts believe that this action is subject to dismissal within 15 days from the date of this order they shall file a motion to dismiss the action; any such motion shall be briefed on the same schedule as pltfs motion to interpret and/or enforce Section VF of the consent decree (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 06/18/1997)
1529 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton ORDERING: the report is ORDERED filed; the report is accepted as representing the dfts status in implementations of the provisions of the Consent Decree in this case (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 06/18/1997)
1530 SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT by pltf Jay Lee Gates in 2:87-cv01636 of recent decisions [1521-1] (old) (Entered: 06/24/1997)
1531 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants in 2:87-cv-01636 of outpatient psychiatric services policies and procedures manual; declaration of Constance L Picciano (old) (Entered: 06/25/1997)
LODGED stipulation and [proposed] order modifying briefing schedule by pltfs in 2:87-cv-01636 (old) (Entered: 06/27/1997)
1533 NOTICE by defendants in 2:87-cv-01636 of filing original declaration of Robert Horel (old) (Entered: 06/27/1997)
1534 CERTIFICATE OF RE-SERVICE by defendants in 2:87-cv-01636 of Procedures 406 and 802 of the Outpatient Psychiatric Services Polity and Procedure Manuel; declaration of Constance L Picciano (old) (Entered: 06/27/1997)
1532 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING that paragraph 2 of 6/18/97 order [1527-1] is AMENDED as set forth in this order (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 06/27/1997)
1535 STIPULATION AND ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton motions to be filed and served by hand by 7/24/97; oppositions to be filed and served by hand by 8/22/97; and replies to be filed and served by hand by 9/12/97 (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 07/02/1997)
1536 DECLARATION of Sanford Jay Rosen regarding pltf's motion to compel payment of disputed attorneys' fees and costs for the 23rd quarter (old) (Entered: 07/09/1997)
1537 REQUEST for Judicial notice by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates regarding pending motion to compel payment of attorney's fees and costs for the

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 109 of 121

07/14/1997 07/15/1997 07/22/1997
07/22/1997 07/23/1997
07/23/1997 07/24/1997 07/24/1997 07/24/1997 07/24/1997 07/29/1997

23rd quarter (old) (Entered: 07/09/1997)
LODGED stipulation on procedure 423 by plaintiffs and defendants (old) (Entered: 07/17/1997)
LODGED stipulation and proposed order regarding pltf's motion to compel payment of disputed attorney's fees and costs for the 26th quarter by plaintiff and defendants (old) (Entered: 07/17/1997)
1538 STIPULATION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F Moulds ORDERING: the parties stipulated that any special quartley motion to compel payment of disputed 26th quarter fees & costs shall be timely if filed & served within 60 days after the court's final ruling on pltf's pending motion to compel payment of disputed fees & costs for the 23rd quarter (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 07/23/1997)
LODGED Proposed order confirming undisputed attorneys fees on the 26th quarterly statement by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates in 2:87-cv-01636 (old) (Entered: 07/24/1997)
1539 STIPULATION AND ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton; parties agree to extend the trial period for dfts Procedure 423 for an additional 3 months, through 9/30/97; dfts shall during that time permit Mediator's expert to audit procedure by reviewing selected files and interviewing inmates and members of their treatment teams re their exercise refusals and treatment plans; files shall be audited for the period from 1/1/97 through 3/31/97; implementation of Procedure 423 shall become permanent unless pltf's object to procedure on or before 10/01/97 and file objections on or before 10/31/97 (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 07/23/1997)
1545 LETTER to special master Allen F Breed from Ferdinand Reynolds (kh) (Entered: 07/31/1997)
1540 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to dismiss by defendants in 2:87-cv-01636 (old) (Entered: 07/25/1997)
1541 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to interpret and enforce section VF of the consent decree by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates in 2:87-cv-01636 motion TO BE HEARD by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton (old) (Entered: 07/25/1997)
1542 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates in 2:87-cv-01636 in support of motion [1541-1] (old) (Entered: 07/25/1997)
1543 DECLARATION of Michael W Bien in support of motion [1541-1] (old) (Entered: 07/25/1997)
1544 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING findings and recommendations [1499-2] ADOPTED in full, motion to compel payment of disputed Attorneys' fees and costs for the twenty-third quarter (second quarter 1996) by pltf Jay Lee Gates [1479-1] GRANTED (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 07/29/1997)

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 110 of 121

07/29/1997 07/31/1997 08/07/1997 08/11/1997
08/20/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/22/1997 08/26/1997 09/05/1997 09/09/1997 09/09/1997

1546 NOTICE by defendants in 2:87-cv-01636 of filing original declaration of Jay Harness MD (old) (Entered: 07/31/1997)
1547 LETTER to court from Hill C Snellings requesting that Dale A Drozd be omitted from the service list (old) (Entered: 08/01/1997)
1548 ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds ORDERING that order confirming undisputed attorney's fees on the 26th quarterly statement is GRANTED; (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 08/07/1997)
1549 ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds ORDERING that the clerk of the court is directed to serve a copy of the letter filed 7/23/97 from inmate Ferdinand Reynolds on counsel for pltfs by serving a copy on Michael Bien, counsel for dfts Constance Picciano and on the mediator (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 08/11/1997)
1550 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendants in 2:87-cv-01636 from District Court decision ( fee status paid) (old) (Entered: 08/21/1997)
1551 OPPOSITION by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates in 2:87-cv-01636 to motion to dismiss by defendants in 2:87-cv-01636 [1540-1] (old) (Entered: 08/22/1997)
1552 REQUEST for Judicial notice by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates in 2:87-cv01636 in support of opposition to motion to dismiss (old) (Entered: 08/22/1997)
1553 DECLARATION of Warren George in support of opposition to motion to dismiss [1551-1] (old) (Entered: 08/22/1997)
1554 NOTICE by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates in 2:87-cv-01636 of claim of unconstitutionality (old) (Entered: 08/22/1997)
1555 SEALED document (old) (Entered: 08/22/1997)
1556 MAILED case information/docket fee payment notice, copy of Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, copy of appeal and copy of docket sheet to all parties (old) (Entered: 08/22/1997)
1557 OPPOSITION by defendant in 2:87-cv-01636 to motion to interpret and enforce section VF of the consent decree by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates in 2:87-cv-01636 [1541-1] (old) (Entered: 08/25/1997)
1558 SUBMISSION OF ORIGINAL signed declaration of Bruce M Salvin by defendants (old) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
1559 DECLARATION of Michael W Bien regarding pltfs 27th quarterly statement of fees & costs for monitoring compliance with the consent decree (old) (Entered: 09/08/1997)
1560 MOTION for protective order & to quash deposition subpoena by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates ; Motion Hearing Set for 10/2/97 at 10:00am before Magistrate Judge John F Moulds (old) (Entered: 09/10/1997)
1561 DECLARATION of William Fernholz in support of pltf's motion for

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 111 of 121

09/10/1997 09/11/1997 09/11/1997 09/12/1997 09/12/1997 09/12/1997 09/16/1997
09/16/1997
09/17/1997
09/26/1997 09/30/1997

protective order & to quash deposition subpoena [1560-1], [1560-2] (old) (Entered: 09/10/1997)
LODGED Stipulation & Proposed Order regarding pltfs motion to compel payment of disputed attorneys fees & costs for the 27th quarter by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates (old) (Entered: 09/12/1997)
1562 LETTER to court from mediator Allen Breed in 2:87-cv-01636 regarding Mediators 29th progress report concerning the status of implementation of the provisions of the decree (old) (Entered: 09/12/1997)
1563 TRANSCRIPT of Mediators 29th progress report concerning the status of implementation of the provisions of the decree (old) (Entered: 09/12/1997)
LODGED ex parte request for 2nd extension of time to file reply to pltf's opposition to dft's motion to dismiss by defendants in 2:87-cv-01636 (old) (Entered: 09/16/1997)
1566 REPLY BRIEF by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates in support of motion to interpret and enforce section V.F. of the consent decree (kdc) (Entered: 09/16/1997)
1567 SEALED document by plaintiff (old) (Entered: 09/16/1997)
1564 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton: the mediator's twenty-ninth progress report concerning the status of implementation of the provisions of the decree is ordered filed; the report is accepted as representing the dfts' status in implementation of the provisions of the Consent Decree in this case (cc: all counsel) (dd) (Entered: 09/16/1997)
1565 STIPULATION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds whereby parties agree that any special quarterly motion to compel payment of disputed 27th quarter fees and costs may be consolidated with any motion pltfs may file to establish reates for 1996 and 1997, to compel payment of disputed fees and costs for 1996 and to compel payment of disputed fees and costs for the 26th quarter (see order for specific details) Motions are due not earlier than 11/17/97 (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 09/16/1997)
1568 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING dft's 20 days from the time of filing of the order ruling on plt's motion for protective order to file a reply to pltf's opposition to motion to dismiss by defendants in 2:87-cv-01636 [1540-1] (cc: all counsel) (old) Modified on 09/17/1997 (Entered: 09/17/1997)
LODGED stipulation of the parties resetting hearing on motion of pltfs and non-party witnesses for protective order; briefing schedule for dfts related motion to strike by pltfs and dfts (old) (Entered: 09/29/1997)
1569 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to strike declarations of Michael W Bien and Warren George by defendants ; memorandum of points and authorities (old) (Entered: 10/01/1997)

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 112 of 121

09/30/1997 10/02/1997
10/06/1997 10/08/1997 10/10/1997 10/10/1997 10/10/1997 10/14/1997 10/16/1997
10/23/1997
11/03/1997 11/03/1997

1570 SEALED document by defendants in 2:87-cv-01636 (old) (Entered: 10/01/1997)
1571 STIPULATION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds: the briefing schedule on dfts' related motion to strike as follows: dfts' motion to strike shall be served by fax no later than 5:00pm on 9/29/97 and filed with the court no later than 9/30/97; plts' opposition due 10/8/97; dfts' reply due 10/13/97; motion for protective order [1560-1] and dfts' crossmotion to compel, dfts' motion to strike [1569-1] shall be heard on 10:00 10/16/97, subject to resetting by the court at its discretion (cc: all counsel) (ndd) (Entered: 10/02/1997)
1572 NOTIFICATION by 9th Circuit of Appellate Docket Number 97-16590 (old) (Entered: 10/07/1997)
1573 OPPOSITION by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates in 2:87-cv-01636 to motion to strike declarations of Michael W Bien and Warren George by defendants [1569-1]; declaration of Michael W Bein and Warren E George (old) (Entered: 10/09/1997)
1574 DECLARATION of Michael W Bin in support of pltf's motion for protective order [1560-1], and to quash deposition subpoenas [1560-2] (old) (Entered: 10/14/1997)
1575 STIPULATION re discovery disagreement (kdc) (Entered: 10/14/1997)
1577 REPLY by defendant in 2:87-cv-01636 to response in opposition to motion to strike declarations of Michael W Bien and Warren George by defendants [1569-1] (old) (Entered: 10/15/1997)
1576 REPLY by defendants to opposition to motion to strike declarations of Michael W Bien and Warren George [1569-1] (kdc) (Entered: 10/15/1997)
1578 MINUTES of motion hearing before the Honorable John F Moulds: pltf's motion for protective order and to quash deposition subpoena SUBMITTED; dfts' cross motion to compel and to strike SUBMITTED [1569-1] [1560-1] [1560-2]; Order to be prepared by Court (old) (Entered: 10/17/1997)
1579 ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F Moulds ORDERING: pltfs 9/9/97 motions for protective order & to quash subpoenas are DENIED; dfts cross motion to compel depositions is DENIED; dfts 9/30/97 motion to strike declarations is DENIED; dfts reply brief in support of their motion to dismiss shall be filed & served within 20 days from the date of this order; dfts request for attorney's fees & expenses is DENIED; each party shall bear their own fees & expenses incurred on the instant motions (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 10/23/1997)
1580 DECLARATION of Sanford Jay Rosen in re pltfs' Twenty-Eight Quarterly Statement of fees and costs of monitoring complaince with the consent decree (Third Quarter 1997) (old) (Entered: 11/04/1997)
LODGED Stipulation and Order re Settlement of evidentiary

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 113 of 121

11/06/1997 11/12/1997 11/13/1997
11/13/1997 11/13/1997 11/20/1997 11/25/1997 11/26/1997 12/02/1997
12/04/1997 12/05/1997 12/09/1997 12/15/1997

disagreement by plt Jay Lee Gates in 2:87-cv-01636 (ndd) (Entered: 11/04/1997)
1581 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION of Michael W Bien in opposition to dfts' motion to terminate consent deredd and in support of plts' motion to interpret and enforce the decree [1541-1] (ndd) (Entered: 11/07/1997)
1582 REPLY by dfts to pltfs' opposition to motion to dismiss by defendants [1540-1] (old) (Entered: 11/13/1997)
1583 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton ORDERING that within twenty (20) days from the date of this order the parties shall each file and serve a brief addressing the effect, if any, of dft's appeal from the court's 7/22/96 order on this court's jurisdiction over one or both the motions pending before this court [1429], [1432-1] (cc: all counsel) (ljr) (Entered: 11/13/1997)
1584 SUPPLEMEMTAL DECLARATION of Michael W Bien in opposition to to dfts motion to terminate consent decree and in support of pltfs motion to interpret and enforce the decree (old) (Entered: 11/14/1997)
1585 REPLY by defendants in 2:87-cv-01636 to opposition to motion to dismiss by defendants in 2:87-cv-01636 [1540-1] (old) (Entered: 11/14/1997)
1586 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING stipulation and orer re settlement of evidentiary disagreement [0-0] GRANTED (cc: all counsel) (ch) (Entered: 11/20/1997)
LODGED order to substitute exhibit D of the supplemental declaration of Michael W Bien by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates in 2:87-cv-01636 (old) (Entered: 11/26/1997)
1587 MEDIATOR'S THRITIETH PROGRESS REPORT concerning the status of implementation of the provisions of the decree (kdc) (Entered: 12/01/1997)
1588 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING the Mediator's Thirtieth Progress Report [1587-1] is ordered filed and is accepted as representing the dfts status in implementation of the provisions of the Consent Decree in this case (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 12/02/1997)
1589 LETTER to court from Timothy O'Keefe informing the court of the conditions at the prison (ch) (Entered: 12/08/1997)
1590 LETTER to court from Timothy O'Keefe informing the court of the conditions at the prison (ch) (Entered: 12/09/1997)
LODGED by dfts stipulation and order extending briefing scheduling and continuing proceedings (ljr) (Entered: 12/10/1997)
LODGED stipulation and proposed order pertaining to pltfs' attys' rates for use in 1996 and 1997 by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates (ljr) (Entered: 12/16/1997)

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 114 of 121

12/15/1997 12/19/1997 12/23/1997
12/23/1997
01/14/1998 01/23/1998 01/23/1998 01/26/1998 02/02/1998 02/04/1998 02/04/1998

LODGED stipulation and proposed order re resolution of attys' fees issues under the proson litigation reform act by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates (ljr) (Entered: 12/16/1997)
1591 STIPULATION AND ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING the request to substitute exhibit D of the supplemental delcaration of Michael W Bien filed 11/6/97 is GRANTED (cc: all counsel) (kh) (Entered: 12/19/1997)
1592 STIPULATION AND ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERED that based upon the foregoing stipulation of the parties, with the exception of monitoring of the consent decree in this case by the court-appointed mediator and his experts, whether on his own initiative or the request plts' counsel, interviews of plts by their counsel, and counsel's review of records in the CMF Compliance Unit, all proceedings are stayed until 3/1/98, unless the court is earlier notified by the parties that settlement negotiations are complete (cc: all counsel) (ndd) (Entered: 12/23/1997)
1593 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING that in light of the stipulation and order staying proceedings in this action until 3/1/98, it is ORDERED that dfts' 7/24/97 motion to dismiss [1540-1] and plts' 7/24/97 motion to interpret and enforce section VF of the consent decree by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates in 2:87-cv-01636 [1541-1] are DENIED without prejudice to their renewal on or after 3/1/98 (cc: all counsel) (ndd) (Entered: 12/23/1997)
1594 TRANSCRIPT of 6/9/97 hearing on dfts objections to by C/R Catherine Bodene (old) (Entered: 01/15/1998)
1595 STIPULATION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds APPROVING pltfs' attorneys' rates for 1996 and 1997 (cc: all counsel) (kdc) (Entered: 01/23/1998)
1597 TRANSCRIPT of 6/9/97 hearing on dfts' objections to magistrate judge's findings by C/R Catherine E.F. Bodene (ljr) (Entered: 01/26/1998)
1596 STIPULATION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds regarding the resolution of attorneys' fees isssues under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (cc: all counsel) (kdc) (Entered: 01/26/1998)
1598 DECLARATION of Sanford Jay Rosen re pltfs' twenty-ninth quarterly statement of fees and costs for monitoring compliance with the consent decree (dd) (Entered: 02/03/1998)
LODGED proposed order confirming additional attorneys' fees on the 24th quarterly statement by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates in 2:87-cv-01636 (dd) (Entered: 02/05/1998)
LODGED proposed order confirming additional attorneys' fees on the 25th quarterly statement and additional attorneys' fees on the 24th quarterly statement by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates in 2:87-cv-01636 (dd) (Entered: 02/05/1998)

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 115 of 121

02/04/1998 02/04/1998 02/05/1998 02/05/1998 02/11/1998 02/11/1998
02/11/1998 02/11/1998 02/11/1998 02/27/1998 03/02/1998
03/04/1998 03/06/1998
03/09/1998

LODGED proposed order confirming additional attorneys' fees on the 26th quarterly statement by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates in 2:87-cv-01636 (dd) (Entered: 02/05/1998)
LODGED proposed order confirming undisputed attorneys' fees on the 27th quarterly statement by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates in 2:87-cv-01636 (dd) (Entered: 02/05/1998)
1599 REQUEST for declaratory judgment by William King (dd) (Entered: 02/06/1998)
1600 AFFIDAVIT of William King (dd) (Entered: 02/06/1998)
1601 ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds ORDERING additional attorneys fees on the 24th quarterly statement (third quarter 1996) [0-0] GRANTED (cc: all counsel) (ch) (Entered: 02/11/1998)
1602 ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds ORDERING additional attorney fees on the 24th quarterly statement 94th quarter 1996) and additional attorne fees on the 24th quarterly (3rd quarter 1996) [0-0] GRANTED (cc: all counsel) (ch) (Entered: 02/11/1998)
1603 ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds ORDERING additional attorney fees on the 26th quarterly statement (1st quarter 1997) [0-0] GRANTED (cc: all counsel) (ch) (Entered: 02/11/1998)
1604 ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds ORDERING additional fees on the 27th quarterly statement (2nd quarter 1997) [0-0] GRANTED (cc: all counsel) (ch) (Entered: 02/11/1998)
LODGED proposed order confirming undisputed attorneys' fees on the 28th quarterly statement by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates (dd) (Entered: 02/12/1998)
1605 OPPOSITION by defendant to notice and request for declaratory judgment of William King [1599-1] (ch) (Entered: 03/02/1998)
1606 ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F Moulds ORDERING: it is confirmed that $115,287.38 in fees & expenses became collectable & legal interest began accruing on such sum as of 12/30/97; the interest rate on the $115,287.38 in fees & expenses equals 5.468% the annual yield on 26 week T-Bills as of 12/4/97 (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 03/02/1998)
LODGED stipulation and order continuing the stay of proceedings in this case until 5/1/98 by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates and dfts in 2:87-cv-01636 (old) (Entered: 03/05/1998)
1607 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton; ORDERING case stayed until 5/1/98 unless the Court is earlier notified by the parties that settlement negotiations are complete (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 03/06/1998)
1608 MEDIATOR'S 31st Progress Report concerning the Status of

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 116 of 121

03/11/1998 03/17/1998 05/01/1998 05/01/1998 05/05/1998 05/06/1998 05/06/1998 05/13/1998 05/14/1998 05/15/1998
05/21/1998 06/02/1998

Implementation of the Provisions of the Decree in 2:87-cv-01636 (ndd) (Entered: 03/10/1998)
1609 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING Mediator's 31st Progress Report FILED and the report is accepted as representing the dfts' status in implementation of the provisions of the Consent Decree (cc: all counsel) (kdc) (Entered: 03/11/1998)
1610 TRAVERSE by plft of dft's opposition to request for declaratory judgment [1605-1] (pb) (Entered: 03/18/1998)
LODGED stipulation and order continuing proceedings by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates (old) (Entered: 05/04/1998)
1611 DECLARATION of Sanford Jay Rosen re pltfs' 30th quarterly statement of fees and costs for monitoring compliance with the consent decree (first quarter 1998) (old) (Entered: 05/04/1998)
1612 STIPULATION AND ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton GRANTED all proceedings are STAYED until 7/1/98 unless the Court is earlier notified by the parties that settlement negotiations are complete (cc: all counsel) (ljr) (Entered: 05/05/1998)
LODGED Order confirming undisputed attorneys' fees on the twentyninth quarterly statement (fourth quarter, 1997) and add'l undisputed expenses on the twenty-eight quarterly statement (third quarter 1997) by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates in 2:87-cv-01636 (old) (Entered: 05/07/1998)
LODGED Stipulation and proposed order re 1) pltf's motion to compel payment of disputed fees and costs of 1997, 2) pltf's motion to set 1998 rates, and 3) dfts' proposed motion to recoup fees for contempt appeal by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates in 2:87-cv-01636 (old) (Entered: 05/07/1998)
1613 ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds ORDERING lodged stipulation and proposed order GRANTED; parties are given until July 24, 1998 to timely file and serve (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 05/13/1998)
LODGED stipulation by defendants re the maintenance of beds in 2:87cv-01636 (kdc) (Entered: 05/18/1998)
1614 ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds ORDERING re letter [1590-1], The Clerk of the Court is directed to send a copy of the letter form inmate Timoty O'Keefe filed 12/5/97, to all counsel and to the mediator; The Clerk of the Court is directed to send a copy of inmate King's 2/5/98 request for declaratory judgment and accompanying affidavit to counsel for pltfs and to the mediator; inmate King's 2/5/98 request is [1599-1] DENIED (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 05/15/1998)
1615 ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds ORDERING lodged order confirming undisputed attorneys fees GRANTED (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 05/21/1998)
1616 Mediator's 32nd Progress Report concerning the status of implementation

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 117 of 121

06/16/1998 06/19/1998 06/26/1998 06/30/1998 06/30/1998 07/02/1998 07/02/1998 07/02/1998 07/06/1998
07/09/1998 07/16/1998 07/16/1998

of the provisions of the Decree (ndd) (Entered: 06/03/1998)
1617 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING that the report [1616-1] is ordered filed and the report is accepted as representing the dfts' status in implementation of the provisions of the Consent Decree in this case (cc: all counsel) (ndd) (Entered: 06/16/1998)
1618 AGREEMENT of the parties for merger and dismissal and request for hearing by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates in 2:87-cv-01636 (kdc) (Entered: 06/22/1998)
1619 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING this matter set for hearing on their proposed agreement for resolution of this action incourt hearing set for 9:15 7/2/98 (cc: all counsel) (ch) (Entered: 06/26/1998)
1620 LETTER to court from counsel for plaintiff Jay Lee Gates in 2:87-cv01636 re the hearing on the merger of CVS-87-1636 and CVS-90-520 (kdc) (Entered: 06/30/1998)
LODGED order requiring notice to the class by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates in 2:87-cv-01636 (kdc) (Entered: 06/30/1998)
1622 MINUTES of Proposed Resolution before Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton: the Fairness hearing set for 10/19/98 C/R C Bodene (ndd) (Entered: 07/06/1998)
LODGED order confirming undisputed attorneys' fees on the thirtieth quarterly statement by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates in 2:87-cv-01636 (kdc) (Entered: 07/07/1998)
LODGED order confirming undisputed attorneys' fees on the thirtieth quarterly statement by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates in 2:87-cv-01636 (kdc) (Entered: 07/07/1998)
1621 ORDER REQUIRING NOTICE TO THE CLASS by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING that dfts will provide notice to the plt class in the form set forth in Appendix A; within 10 days dfts shall provide each prisoner at CA Medical Facility a copy of the notice; the Notice shall be published on all bulletin boards used for inmates notices for 30 days; a fairness hearing set for 10:00 10/19/98 (cc: all counsel) (ndd) (Entered: 07/06/1998)
1623 LETTER to court from Allen F Breed criminal justice consultant forwarding an unsigned letter to the court (ch) (Entered: 07/10/1998)
1624 ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds confirming undisputed attorneys fees on the 13th quarterly statement is GRANTED (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 07/16/1998)
1625 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING the fairness hearing set for 10/19/98 at 10:00am continued to 10/26/98 in-court hearing set for 9:30 10/26/98 three inmates will be permitted to testify at the fairness hearing; the court will issue writs of habeas corpus ad

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 118 of 121

07/20/1998 07/20/1998 08/05/1998 08/05/1998 08/11/1998
08/11/1998 09/08/1998 09/10/1998 09/10/1998 09/10/1998 10/06/1998

testificandum for their appearance at the hearing once the names and locations are provided; the clerk fo the court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the mediator Allen Breed and on the special master in Coleman vs Wilson no 90-cv-520 J Michael Keating Jr (cc: all counsel) (ch) (Entered: 07/16/1998)
LODGED order confirming further undisputed attorneys' fees for 1987 by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates in 2:87-cv-01636 (kdc) (Entered: 07/21/1998)
LODGED stipulation and proposed order regarding pltfs' motion to set 1998 rates and dfts' proposed motion to recoup fees for contempt appeal by plaintiffs in 2:87-cv-01636 (kdc) (Entered: 07/21/1998)
1626 DECLARATION of Sanford Jay Rosen regarding pltfs' 31st quarterly statement of fees and costs for monitoring compliance with the consent decree (kdc) (Entered: 08/06/1998)
1627 CLERK'S NOTICE: Melecio was notified that documents he sent to the court in error were being returned to him because they appear to be unrelated to this action (kdc) (Entered: 08/06/1998)
1628 ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds ORDERING: IT IS CONFIRMED that $25,443.25 in fees and expenses for twenty-sixth through twenty-ninth quarters became collectible and legal interest began accruing on such sum as of 7/2/98; the interest on this amount equals 5.413%; interest on the total principal of $25,433.25 therefore accrues at $3.77 each day after July 15,1998 (cc: all counsel) (kdc) (Entered: 08/11/1998)
1629 STIPULATION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds: pltfs' motion to set 1998 rate and dfts' motion for recoupment shall be timely filed and served by 11/1/98 (cc: all counsel) (kdc) (Entered: 08/11/1998)
1630 LETTER to court from counsel for Allen F Breed in 2:87-cv-01636 enclosed the 33rd Progress Report (ndd) (Entered: 09/10/1998)
1631 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING that the 33rd Progress Report is ordered filed; the report is accepted as representing the dfts' status in implementation of the provisions of the Consent Decree in this case (cc: all counsel) (ndd) (Entered: 09/10/1998)
1632 Mediator's 33rd Progress Report by Allen F Breed in 2:87-cv-01636 (ndd) (Entered: 09/10/1998)
1636 LETTER to court from counsel Allen F Breed providing the names of the inmates who have been selected to testify at the fairness hearing in this action: Richard Lauranzano C-84058, Tony Williams C-55920, Christopher Munoz D-94785 (kdc) (Entered: 10/09/1998)
1633 ORDER and WRIT ISSUED to the Warden of the California Medical Facility for the production of Christopher Munoz at 9:30am on 10/26/98 in courtroom 1 before Honorable Judge Lawrence K. Karlton (cc: all counsel, parties, USM and CSP-SAC Out-to-Court Desk) (as) (Entered:

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 119 of 121

10/06/1998
10/06/1998
10/08/1998 10/08/1998 10/09/1998 10/13/1998 10/15/1998 10/16/1998
10/19/1998 10/26/1998 10/30/1998 11/02/1998 11/03/1998

10/06/1998)
1634 ORDER and WRIT ISSUED to the Warden of the California Medical Facility for the production of Richard Lauranzano at 9:30am on 10/26/98 in courtroom 1 before Honorable Judge Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING (cc: all counsel, parties, USM, CSP-SAC Out-to-Court Desk) (as) (Entered: 10/06/1998)
1635 ORDER AND WRIT ISSUED to the Warden of the California Medical Faciilty for the production of Tony Williams at 9:30am on 10/26/98 in courtroom 1 before Honorable Judge Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING (cc: all counsel, all parties, USM, CSP-SAC Out-to-Court Desk) (as) (Entered: 10/06/1998)
CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT received on 10/7/98 addressed to Warden CMF (kdc) (Entered: 10/09/1998)
LODGED order confirming undisputed attorneys' fees on the third first quarterly statement by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates in 2:87-cv-01636 (kdc) (Entered: 10/09/1998)
1637 NOTICE regarding mediator's 34th progress report (as) (Entered: 10/13/1998)
1638 REQUEST by defendants in 2:87-cv-01636 to modify order for production of inmates and to vacate writs of habeas corpus ad testificandum (kdc) (Entered: 10/13/1998)
1639 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING that dfts' 10/13/98 request to modify order for production of inmates and to vacate writs of habeas corpus ad testificandum [1638-1] is DENIED (cc: all counsel) (ndd) (Entered: 10/15/1998)
1640 ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds ORDERING that $58,149.78 in fees and expenses for the thirty first quarter are collectable and legal interest will begin accruing on such sum as of 10/26/98 interest on the total principal of $58,149.78 accrues at $7.54 each day after 10/26/98 (cc: all counsel) (ljr) (Entered: 10/16/1998)
1641 ERRATA to 34th Progress Report by Allen F. Breed, Mediator (pb) (Entered: 10/20/1998)
1642 MINUTES of Fairness Hearing before Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton: three inmaes testified and matter taken under submission; C/R C Bodene (ndd) (Entered: 10/28/1998)
LODGED stipulation and proposed order re motion to set 1009 rates and motion to recoup fees by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates in 2:87-cv-01636 (kdc) (Entered: 11/02/1998)
1644 DECLARATION of Sanford Jay Rosen regarding pltfs' 32nd Quarterly Statement of fees and costs (kdc) (Entered: 11/03/1998)
1643 ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds ORDERING that plts

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 120 of 121

11/03/1998 11/13/1998 12/04/1998 12/21/1998
12/21/1998 12/24/1998
01/19/1999 01/25/1999
02/03/1999 03/03/1999

motion to set 1998 rates and dfts motion for recoupment shall be timely filed and served by 12/1/98 (cc: all counsel) (mll) (Entered: 11/03/1998)
1645 TRANSCRIPT of 10/26/98 hearing on re Fairness Hearing by C/R C Bodene (ndd) (Entered: 11/04/1998)
1646 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING the Agreement for Merger and Dismissal filed 6/19/98 [1618-1] is APPROVED; Clerk is directed to serve a copy of this order on the special master in Coleman v Wilson, 2:90cv520, J Michael Keating Jr (cc: all counsel) (ndd) (Entered: 11/13/1998)
1647 CERTIFIED COPY of judgment from 9th Circuit ORDERED that upon stipulation between the parties, the appeal [1550-1] is DISMISSED; costs and attorney's fees shall be allocated according to the provisions of the stipulation (cc: all counsel) (ndd) (Entered: 12/07/1998)
1648 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING that within 5 days from the date of this order, the parties shall file in Coleman v Wilson, 2:90cv0520 LKK JFM P the stipulation attached as Exhibit C to the Agreement of the Parties for Merger and Dismissal and proposed order thereon; CASE DISMISSED (cc: all counsel) (ndd) (Entered: 12/21/1998)
LODGED order confirming undisputed attys fees on the thirty second quarterly statement by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates (mll) (Entered: 12/22/1998)
1649 ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds ORDERING that $48,011.62 in fees and expenses for the 32nd quarter are collectable and legal interest will begin accruing on such sum as of 12/29/98; the interest rate on the $48,011.62 in fees and expenses equals 4.242%, the annual yield on 26-week T-Bills as of 10/13/98; daily interest on the $48,011.62 is calculated as $5.58; interest on the total prinicpal of $48,011.62 accrues at $5.58 each day after 12/29/98 (cc: all counsel) (mll) (Entered: 12/24/1998)
1650 Mediator's 35th Progress Report concerning the status of implementation of the provisions of the Decree in 2:87-cv-01636 (ndd) (Entered: 01/20/1999)
1651 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING that the Mediator's 34th Progress Report [1637-1], submitted on 10/9/98, is ordered filed nunc pro tunc; the Mediator's 35th Progress Report, submitted on 1/19/99 [1650-1] is ordered filed; the reports are accepted as representing the dfts' status in implementation of the provisions of the Consent Decree in this case (cc: all counsel) (ndd) (Entered: 01/25/1999)
1652 DECLARATION of Michael W Bien regarding plts' 33rd Quarterly Statement of Fees and Costs for monitoring compliance with the Consent Decree (ndd) (Entered: 02/04/1999)
LODGED PROPOSED ORDER confirming undisputed attorney fees on

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 121 of 121

03/10/1999 08/02/1999

the thirty third quarterly statement (fourth quarter, 1998) by plaintiff Jay Lee Gates (mll) (Entered: 03/04/1999)
1653 ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds confirming undisputed attorneys fees on the thirty third quarterly statement (forth quarter, 1998); interest on the total principal of $29,742.78 accrues at $3.74 each day after 3/30/99 (cc: all counsel) (mll) (Entered: 03/10/1999)
1654 NON-RELATED CASE ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING that the court has determined that it is inappropriate to relate or reassign the cases, and therefore declines to do so (cc: all counsel) (ndd) (Entered: 08/02/1999)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

07/06/2005 12:32:46

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

2:87-cv-01636-LKKJFM

Billable Pages: 30

Cost:

2.40

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

 
 987 F.2d 1392 (1992)
Jay Lee GATES; Charles Edward Puett; John Ronald Betram, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
George DEUKMEJIAN, Governor, Defendant and James Rowland, Director, Nadim Khoury, M.D.; Eddie Ylst; Kenneth Sheppard, M.D., Nicholas Poulos, Daniel Thor, Paul Morentz, H. Benton, Bruce Baker, A.R. Rotella, D.
Michael O'Connor, Douglas G. Arnold, Clyde Murrey, Sylvia Blount, DefendantsAppellants.
No. 91-15270.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted March 11, 1992. Decided October 6, 1992.
As Amended on Denial of Rehearing March 2, 1993.
13934 *1393 *1394 John G. Donhoff, Jr., Deputy Atty. Gen., San Francisco, CA, for defendants-appellants.
Samuel R. Miller and Sanford J. Rosen, Rosen, Bien & Asaro, San Francisco, CA, for plaintiffs-appellees.
Before: CHOY, FARRIS, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
CHOY, Circuit Judge:
A number of California state officials appeal the district court's award of over $6 million in attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. We affirm the district court's decision in part, vacate and remand in part, and reverse in part.
1395 *1395 I. BACKGROUND
This dispute arises out of a complex class action suit brought by prisoners incarcerated at the California Medical Facility ("CMF") and the Main Northern Reception Center ("NRC") ("plaintiffs") against a number of California state officials ("defendants") in which plaintiffs challenged the alleged unconstitutional treatment of inmates at CMF and NRC.
The history of efforts to ameliorate problems at CMF predates initiation of this suit.[1] However, because these efforts were perceived as moving too slowly and as unlikely to ameliorate all the problems at the facilities, plaintiffs resolved to file the complaint in this case.[2]
On January 6, 1988 plaintiffs filed a complaint and motion for class certification in the district court.[3] Over the course of the following one and one-half years plaintiffs engaged in extensive discovery which, according to the district court, defendants resisted throughout. Defendants responded with an aggressive posture, for example, challenging the motion for class certification, arguing to limit discovery to class representatives, and filing a motion for summary judgment.[4]
Judge Raul Ramirez supervised settlement discussions in early 1989. The negotiations progressed over the course of three months; however, they ultimately broke down and terminated on June 5, 1989.[5] Trial began before Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds, and continued until the end of October 1989 when the parties again agreed to enter into settlement negotiations. Plaintiffs rested their case on October 30th and settlement negotiations began immediately and continued for two and one-half weeks concluding with final negotiations on November 16 and 17, 1989. The proposed settlement was signed on November 20, 1990 and Magistrate Judge

Moulds issued his findings and recommendations in support of the consent decree on February 21, 1990. Judge Karlton adopted these and approved the consent decree on March 8, 1990.
The consent decree addresses the primary areas raised in the complaint including medical care, psychiatric care, conditions of confinement, and HIV inmates. It includes a minimum three-year reporting and mediation process designed to ensure proper plan development and implementation of the general provisions of the decree. Under 1396 the decree a mediator is appointed *1396 by the district court to assist the parties in developing plans of implementation and reports as required by the decree, to resolve disagreements regarding the adequacy of the plans or reports developed by the appellants under the decree, to mediate violations of the decree, and to submit findings and recommendations to the court for its approval.
Although the consent decree settled all disputes on the merits, it did not resolve the question of attorneys' fees. In this regard, the decree merely provided that plaintiffs may seek to recover reasonable costs, attorneys' fees, and other expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and 29 U.S.C. § 794(b) for work performed prior to entry of the decree and reasonably performed during the pendency of the decree. After making an unsuccessful demand for fees, costs, and disbursements on defendants, on April 4, 1990 plaintiffs filed an Application for Attorneys' Fees and Costs with the district court.
On August 27th, after a hearing and prior to its final decision on the merits of plaintiffs' entire fees application, the district court issued two orders. In one the court ordered payment of $253,429.42 of out-of-pocket costs and disbursements since none of these were contested by the defendants. In the other, the court concluded that a minimum of $1 million in fees was not contested or seriously contestable and ordered that amount paid as an interim fee award. The court, however, declined to enforce payment of either the costs and disbursements or the interim award through a writ of execution.
On December 5, 1990 the district court granted plaintiffs' discounted fee request in full thus awarding the total remaining fees of $5,627,399.66.[6] On December 14, 1990 the district court entered an amended order correcting a mathematical error in the original December 5, 1990 order ("amended order").
In its amended order the district court held that the plaintiffs clearly were the prevailing party entitled to full attorneys' fees and costs and that defendants' arguments with regard to partial success were "patently frivolous." Amended Order at 7-8. It also found that "the lodestar amount is reasonable and justified by ample documentation," and that the ten percent across-the-board reduction in the lodestar figure compensated for any overbilling or duplication the court found suggested in the record. Id. at 5-6.
The court found that plaintiffs' counsel had demonstrated that their expertise in complex prison litigation required application of San Francisco rather than Sacramento rates and that plaintiffs adequately had documented that the rates their counsel charged were the prevailing market rates. The court added that defendants' arguments against these rates were also "patently frivolous." Id. at 6. The court further concluded that plaintiffs were entitled to receive current rather than historic rates in order to adjust for the delay in receiving their compensation. The court noted that plaintiffs adequately had documented that the 2.0 contingency multiplier was necessary to attract counsel, that 2.0 was the proper multiplier, and that the enhancement therefore was justified, especially in light of the obvious undesirability of the litigation.
Finally, the court considered defendants' non-compliance with its interim attorneys' fees award, granting plaintiffs' request for reconsideration, and amending its earlier order to allow for a writ of execution in light of defendants' refusal to voluntarily comply with the order.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review a district court's determination regarding the proper amount of the attorneys' fees award under § 1988 for an abuse of discretion. Bouman v. Block, 940 F.2d 1211, 1235 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 1397 640, 116 L.Ed.2d 658 (1991); Cunningham v. County *1397 of Los Angeles, 879 F.2d 481, 487 (9th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1035, 110 S.Ct. 757, 107 L.Ed.2d 773 (1990).

III. ANALYSIS
1. Lodestar Calculation
In its amended order the district court concluded that the lodestar amount was reasonable and justified by ample documentation. Moreover, it found that plaintiffs' discrete billing judgment reductions, coupled with their proposed ten percent across-the-board reduction in the lodestar, adequately compensated for any overbilling or duplication in the record. Finally, the court noted that "[d]espite finding the reduced lodestar reasonable from a record review," it had offered defendants the services of a special master as long as they bore the cost if the master concluded that the ten percent reduction was reasonable. Amended Order at 5. Defendants declined to accept the offer. On the basis of this refusal, the district court concluded that defendants conceded its finding that the ten percent reduction compensates for any currently identifiable overbilling.
On appeal, defendants urge that the district court abused its discretion in making these findings. Their specific objections are twofold.
First, defendants argue that the district court erred in selecting ten percent as the proper reduction. They contend that the district court abused its discretion in reducing the lodestar by that amount because it neither possessed nor articulated a reasoned basis for selecting ten percent, rather than some other figure.[7] Second, they argue that the district court abused its discretion in failing to review and make findings as to the merit of each of their specific objections to plaintiffs' billing judgment reductions and, on the basis of its independent review, to reduce plaintiffs' claimed hours accordingly.
Section 1988 authorizes a court "in its discretion" to "allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs." 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The starting point for determining a reasonable fee is the "lodestar" figure, which is the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate. City of Burlington v. Dague, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 112 S.Ct. 2638, 2640, 120 L.Ed.2d 449 (1992); Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 1939, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983). Although there is a strong presumption that the lodestar represents a reasonable fee, Dague, ___ U.S. at ___, 112 S.Ct. at 2641; Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546, 565, 106 S.Ct. 3088, 3098, 92 L.Ed.2d 439 (1986), reversed on other grounds after rehearing, 483 U.S. 711, 107 S.Ct. 3078, 97 L.Ed.2d 585 (1987) (Delaware Valley I), the Supreme Court in Hensley noted that district courts
should exclude from this initial fee calculation hours that were not reasonably expended. Cases may be overstaffed, and the skill and experience of lawyers vary widely. Counsel for the prevailing party should exclude from a fee request hours that are excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary, just as a lawyer in private practice is ethically obligated to exclude hours from his fee submission. "In the private sector, `billing judgment' is an important component in fee setting. It is no less important here."
Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433-34, 103 S.Ct. at 1939-40 (citations omitted); see Riverside v. Rivera, 477 U.S. 561, 569, 106 S.Ct. 2686, 2691, 91 L.Ed.2d 466 (1985).
The fee applicant bears the burden of documenting the appropriate hours expended in the litigation and must submit evidence in support of those hours worked. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433, 437, 103 S.Ct. at 1939, 1941. The 1398 party opposing the fee application has a burden of rebuttal that requires submission of evidence to the district *1398 court challenging the accuracy and reasonableness of the hours charged or the facts asserted by the prevailing party in its submitted affidavits. Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 892 n. 5, 104 S.Ct. 1541, 1545, 79 L.Ed.2d 891 (1984); Toussaint v. McCarthy, 826 F.2d 901, 904 (9th Cir.1987).
In accordance with the principles set forth in Hensley, the lodestar figure in plaintiffs' fee application reflected discrete billing judgment reductions in the amount of $108,495.80 and proposed a ten percent across-the-board reduction in the lodestar. The discrete billing judgment reductions, which were made before and during the district court's review of plaintiffs' fee application, included reductions in hours billed as well as in rates charged. As

proposed by plaintiffs, the ten percent reduction was intended to account for any overlap or duplication in work that had not already been accounted for through the discrete billing judgment reductions.[8]
Defendants submitted evidence to rebut plaintiffs' claimed reductions, asserting that the reductions were insufficient to account for five particular areas in which plaintiffs allegedly overbilled. Specifically, defendants argued and presented the district court with evidence that plaintiffs' calculation of the reasonable hours billed was incorrect in the following five respects: (1) it did not consider the fact that the case was "grossly overstaffed;" (2) a "huge percentage" of the time billed by McCutchen and Brobeck was "lumped," with a large number of hours reportedly billed to activities such as "meetings" or "pleadings and research" without allocating time to a particular task; (3) all the time spent by "inexperienced attorneys and, especially, summer students" was billed; (4) numerous specific duplicative court and deposition appearances were billed; and, (5) "enormous amounts of time" were billed for time co-counsel spent conferring with one another.
The district court has a great deal of discretion in determining the reasonableness of the fee and, as a general rule, we defer to its determination, including its decision regarding the reasonableness of the hours claimed by the prevailing party. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437, 103 S.Ct. at 1941; Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, 796 F.2d 1205, 1213 (9th Cir.1986), amended, 808 F.2d 1373 (9th Cir.1987). Despite this general deference, the district court is required to articulate not only the reasons for its findings regarding the propriety of the hours claimed or for any adjustments it makes either to the prevailing party's claimed hours or to the lodestar.
In Hensley the Court noted:
We reemphasize that the district court has discretion in determining the amount of a fee award, This is appropriate in view of the district court's superior understanding of the litigation and the desirability of avoiding frequent appellate review of what essentially are factual matters. It remains important, however, for the district court to provide a concise but clear explanation of its reasons for the fee award.
Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437, 103 S.Ct. at 1941 (emphasis added).
We have interpreted the Hensley "concise but clear" language as requiring the district court to give at least some indication of how it arrived at the amount of compensable hours for which fees were awarded to allow for meaningful appellate review. Cunningham, 879 F.2d at 485. Although we do not require "an elaborately reasoned, calculated, or worded order ... [and] a brief explanation of how the court arrived at its figures will do," id., "something more than a bald, unsupported amount is necessary." Chalmers, 796 F.2d at 1211 n. 3; Jordan v. Multnomah County, 815 F.2d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir.1987) ("[w]hile the district court is in the best position to judge the reasonableness of the fee award, ... such a position does not mean the trial judge can remain silent as to how she or he reached the `reasonableness' conclusion (citation omitted)"); Sealey, Inc. v. Easy Living, Inc., 743 F.2d 1399 1378, 1385 *1399 (9th Cir.1984) (fees award vacated where it appeared that the court "accepted uncritically" the plaintiff's representations concerning the time expended on the case).[9]
Despite the "concise but clear" requirement, in cases where a voluminous fee application is filed in exercising its billing judgment the district court is not required to set forth an hour-by-hour analysis of the fee request. See, e.g., Jacobs v. Mancuso, 825 F.2d 559, 562 (1st Cir.1987); In re "Agent Orange" Product Liability Litigation, 818 F.2d 226, 237-38 (2d Cir.1987) ("no item-by-item accounting of the hours disallowed is necessary or desirable"); OhioSealy Mattress Mfg. Co. v. Sealy Inc., 776 F.2d 646, 657-58 (7th Cir.1985). Rather, as defendants concede, when faced with a massive fee application the district court has the authority to make across-the-board percentage cuts either in the number of hours claimed or in the final lodestar figure "as a practical means of trimming the fat from a fee application." New York State Ass'n for Retarded Children v. Carey, 711 F.2d 1136, 1146 (2d Cir.1983); Daggett v. Kimmelman, 811 F.2d 793, 797-98 (3d Cir.1987); Tomazzoli v. Sheedy, 804 F.2d 93, 97-98 (7th Cir.1986); Mares v. Credit Bureau of Raton, 801 F.2d 1197, 1202-03 (10th Cir.1986) (77% reduction in hours).
Irrespective of its obvious utility, the percentage or, "meat-axe approach," nonetheless has been criticized when employed in cases where the fee applications at issue involved substantial amounts of money and where district courts failed adequately to articulate their reasons for selecting specific percentage deductions. In re Continental

Illinois, 962 F.2d 566 (7th Cir.1992); Heiar, 746 F.2d at 1203-04; see In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation, 751 F.2d 562, 594-95 (3d Cir.1984).

Heiar, for example, involved a situation where the district court judge simply cut the fee request in half rather than indicating those parts of the fee petition he found excessive. In vacating the defendant's award, Judge Posner noted that

where as in this case the request is for a large amount of money [$50,000] ... the judge must do more than eyeball the request and if it seems excessive cut it down by an arbitrary percentage. He has to make a judgment 0907 considering the nature of the case and the details of the request, taking evidence if need be, and defending his judgment in a reasoned (though brief) opinion 0907 on what the case should have cost the party who submitted the request.

Id. at 1204.

Similarly, in Continental Illinois the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court's handling of a $9 million fee application including its forty percent across-the-board cuts in the legal research and conferring categories. The appeals court concluded that the district court abused its discretion when it slashed broad categories of activity by arbitrary percentages "on the basis of his inarticulable and unsubstantiated dissatisfaction with lawyers' efforts to economize," rather than by disallowing specific items of unreasonable activity and providing examples of excessive time spent on legal research. Continental Illinois, 962 F.2d at 570. In so holding the court noted that such a method

1400

won't do, especially when millions of dollars are at stake. The qualification is important: in small cases, the amount at issue in the request for lawyers' fees may be too slight to justify cutting with laser precision. The meat-axe approach (we called it "trimming fat from a fee application" in Tomazzoli v. Sheedy, supra, 804 F.2d at 98) may be acceptable in such a case. (The judge awarded only $6,000 in attorney's fees in Tomazzoli). It is true that in a large case, where the stakes in the attorney's fee are greater, so is the burden on the judge because the *1400 fee application will be longer and more complex.

Id.

Thus, percentages indeed are acceptable, and perhaps necessary, tools for district courts fashioning reasonable fee awards. However, decisions of district courts employing percentages in cases involving large fee requests are subject to heightened scrutiny and the use of percentages, in any case, neither discharges the district court from its responsibility to set forth a "concise but clear" explanation of its reasons for choosing a given percentage reduction nor from its duty to independently review the applicant's fee request.

Assessing the merit of defendants' contentions in light of these principles, we conclude that the district court abused its discretion. We therefore vacate and remand this portion of the district court's order for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

As a preliminary matter, we reject defendants' argument that the district court abused its discretion in failing expressly to rule on each of their specific objections. The "concise but clear" explanation requirement mandates that the district court explain the reasons for its fees award; it does not demand that the court make findings as to each of defendants' specific objections to plaintiffs' billing judgment. Cf. Truck Terminals, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 314 F.2d 449, 454-55 (9th Cir.1963) ("The fact that particular items of evidence were not mentioned in the findings or opinion of the Tax Court does not establish that they were not considered by that court").

Interpreting the "concise but clear" explanation requirement in this manner not only would result in unnecessary expenditure of precious, and already strained, judicial resources but would undermine the concise portion of that rule. As long as the district court supplies us with a sufficient understanding of the reasons for its decision additional exposition is unnecessary and we will presume that the district court implicitly rejected those specific challenges to plaintiffs' billing judgment deductions that it did not expressly discuss in its order.

We do conclude, however, that the district court here failed to articulate a "concise but clear" explanation for why the ten percent across-the-board reduction, when coupled with plaintiffs' discrete billing judgments, properly compensated for plaintiffs' overbilling or duplication. Absent some indication of how the district court exercised its discretion, we are unable to assess whether the court abused that discretion.
In its only statement regarding the ten percent figure, the district court concluded that
[t]he amount of time spent appears to be reasonable. In light of the legal and factual complexity of this action, counsel's division of labor was justified and some duplication of effort was unavoidable. Determining with any precision what hours were duplicative, and what duplicative hours were unavoidable, is impossible from a paper record. Plaintiff's concessions and across-theboard reduction compensate for any overbilling which the court finds suggested in the current record.
Amended Order at 5. This cursory statement affords us no explanation as to how the court arrived at ten percent as the correct reduction and thus, it does not allow for us meaningfully to assess its determination.
Integrally related to the district court's failure to provide an adequate explanation for the ten percent reduction, the district court abused its discretion when it seemingly uncritically accepted plaintiffs' suggested reductions and failed independently to review the record, even in a limited manner, in order to substantiate the accuracy of those reductions.
Although Judge Karlton's amended order contains a number of statements indicating that he independently 1401 reviewed plaintiffs' fee application to determine whether the proposed reductions were adequate,[10]*1401 other
evidence in the record, especially when coupled with the absence of sufficient findings, strongly indicates that the district court, in fact, conducted no such inquiry.
We find the record of the August 27, 1990 hearing, at which the ten percent reduction was discussed at length, particularly telling in this regard. See Reporter's Transcript, Aug. 27, 1990 Hearing at 7-15 ("August 27th RT"). At the hearing, for example, the following colloquy took place:
THE COURT: ... I am much taken with your suggestion that the court can avoid spending the rest of its life worrying about every half hour billed on the theory that plaintiffs have taken a 10 percent discount for possible overbilling, double billings and the errors that human beings make. I think that's a very sensible way of proceeding, There are two questions that I have to ask you about that way of proceeding, one, is there any authority for it? And, two, why 10 percent? Why not 9 or 11? Do you see what I am saying? ...
MR. ROSEN: ... We discussed it, and the actual discussion among counsel, should it be 5 percent or should it be 10 percent? Frankly, we selected 10 percent because of the very large size of the Lode Star [sic]. Because there were a large number of offices involved, because there was some unavoidable duplication which may have been unnecessary in retrospect, and we erred on the high side, in addition to more than $100,000 in discreet [sic] billing judgments that we provided. That's basically how we selected it....
THE COURT: (addressing Mr. Cuneo for the Government) Counsel? Why isn't that a sensible thing for any judge who is faced with this level of concern to adopt? Just say, look, unless you can show that there was intentional manipulation, that all they have done is, in effect, built-in a 10 percent discount and took it 0907
August 27th RT (emphasis added). Judge Karlton's following remark also is revealing:
The reality is, that where there are significant disputes concerning whether or not 10 percent will adequately address the problem of mistaken error, I just don't know whether I am free under the law to avoid the task of spending the rest of my life examining this billing. On the other hand, nobody in his right mind could believe that that's the appropriate way to proceed.

Id. at 13:9-16.
The lack of even a brief explanation of how and why Judge Karlton selected ten percent and the fact that the record not only fails to illuminate the court's reasoning but casts doubt on the very existence of such a rationale, leads us to the ineluctable conclusion that the district court, faced with an admittedly voluminous paper record, threw up its hands and relied on plaintiffs' suggested, yet admittedly arbitrary, ten percent figure without itself reviewing the record.
The district court's proposal to defendants regarding the special master makes its abuse of discretion here all the more pronounced. Not only is the district court required to independently review plaintiffs' fee request even absent defense objections, but upon submitting their rebuttal evidence to plaintiffs' claimed reasonable hours, defendants were entitled to have the district court review both their objections and plaintiffs' claimed hours. Judge Karlton's proposal effectively forced the defendants to take a gamble if they wanted to obtain the record review that the district court was obliged to give them in the first place.[11]
1402 *1402 Because the district court neither provided this court with a "concise but clear" explanation of its reasons for selecting the ten percent figure nor independently reviewed plaintiffs' fee application, we vacate its determination of the reasonable lodestar amount and its findings that plaintiffs' discrete billing judgment reductions and ten percent across-the-board reduction in the lodestar compensated for any overbilling or duplication. We remand the matter to the district court to reassess the reasonableness of the requested fee in accordance with the above principles.
Because the review of such a voluminous fee request is a daunting task, the district court may consider returning the case to Magistrate Judge Moulds because, as the district court itself noted at the beginning of the August 27th hearing, of his greater familiarity with this case.
2. Adjustments to the Lodestar
In addition to billing judgment reductions, in rare cases, a district court may make upward or downward adjustments to the presumptively reasonable lodestar on the basis of those factors set out in Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 69-70 (9th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 951, 96 S.Ct. 1726, 48 L.Ed.2d 195 (1976) (citing Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir.1974)), that have not been deemed subsumed in the lodestar calculation. Delaware Valley I, 478 U.S. at 564-65, 106 S.Ct. at 3098; Blum, 465 U.S. at 897-90, 104 S.Ct. at 1549; Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434, 103 S.Ct. at 1939; Cunningham, 879 F.2d at 484.[12]
Defendants argue that the district court erred when it increased plaintiffs' fee award twofold by employing a multiplier to account for the fact that their counsel was retained on a contingency fee basis. They also argue that the district court erred in failing to reduce the fee award based upon plaintiffs' limited or partial success.
In its amended order, the district court noted that the lodestar may be adjusted upward to compensate for contingent risk factor and cited the Supreme Court's decision in Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air, 483 U.S. 711 107 S.Ct. 3078, 97 L.Ed.2d 585 (1987) (Delaware Valley II) as support. The court also noted that plaintiffs must show that, without the promise of a multiplier, they would have faced substantial difficulties locating counsel.
Citing our decision in Fadhl v. City & County of San Francisco, 859 F.2d 649 (9th Cir.1988), the court found that the San Francisco legal community compensates for the contingency factor in this litigation by allowing a multiplier of two. The court found that plaintiffs' attorneys adequately "documented the market custom of providing enhancers, the necessity of a multiplier in attracting counsel, and their reliance upon a potential enhancer in accepting representation." Amended Order at 7. Finally, the court concluded that the 2.0 enhancer was justified "especially in light of the obvious undesirability of the litigation." Id.
After briefing in this case the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Dague v. City of Burlington, 935 F.2d 1343, 1359-60 (2d Cir.1991), cert. granted in part, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 964, 117 L.Ed.2d 130 (1992) (U.S. S.Ct.

1403 Docket No. 91-810). We withdrew submission of this case in order to *1403 await the Supreme Court's decision in Dague.
In Dague the Supreme Court addressed whether, in determining an award of attorney's fees under section 7002 (e) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, 90 Stat. 2826, as amended 42 U.S.C. § 6972(e), or section 505(d) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 86 Stat. 889, as amended, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(d), a court "may enhance the fee above the `lodestar' amount in order to reflect the fact that the party's attorneys were retained on a contingent-fee basis and thus assumed the risk of receiving no payment at all for their services." City of Burlington v. Dague, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 112 S.Ct. 2638, 2639, 120 L.Ed.2d 449 (1992).
In its June 24, 1992 opinion in Dague the Court answered this query with a resounding "no," when it held "that enhancement for contingency is not permitted under the fee shifting statutes." Id. at ___, 112 S.Ct. at 2643-44. Although the Solid Waste Disposal and Federal Water Pollution Control Acts and not § 1988 were at issue in Dague, the Dague Court expressly noted that the language of both of these sections "is similar to that of many other federal fee-shifting statutes, see, e.g., 42 U.S.C. §§ 1988, 2000e-5(k), 7604(d); our case law construing what is a `reasonable' fee applies uniformly to all of them." Id. at ___, 112 S.Ct. at 2641 (citing Flight Attendants v. Zipes, 491 U.S. 754, 758 n. 2, 109 S.Ct. 2732, 2735 n. 2, 105 L.Ed.2d 639 (1989)).
Given the Court's holding in Dague, it is clear that contingency multipliers are no longer permitted under § 1988. Thus, we reverse the portion of the district court's amended order awarding a 2.0 contingency multiplier in this case.
Defendants also contend that the district court abused its discretion in failing to reduce the lodestar because plaintiffs only achieved partial success. In the district court they argued, and here they reiterate, that plaintiffs only achieved partial success because the consent decree did not address or incorporate a number of the allegations in plaintiffs' second amended complaint and did not include many of the specific proposals contained in plaintiffs' proposed injunction.
In the amended order under the heading "Partial Success," the district court responded to defendants' argument stating that: "[p]laintiffs are clearly a prevailing party entitled to full attorneys' fees and costs. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983). It long has been the law that obtaining relief through a consent decree does not alter prevailing party status. Maher v. Gagne, 448 U.S. 122, 100 S.Ct. 2570, 65 L.Ed.2d 653 (1980); Hanrahan v. Hampton, 446 U.S. 754, 100 S.Ct. 1987, 64 L.Ed.2d 670 (1980). Defendants' arguments with regard to partial success are patently frivolous." Amended Order at 4-5.
In order to recover attorneys' fees under § 1988 a party must be a "prevailing party." Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433, 103 S.Ct. at 1939. Defendants here concede that plaintiffs are a prevailing party. A determination that a party has prevailed, however, does not preclude a determination that the prevailing party, nonetheless, has achieved partial or limited rather than complete success. In other words, the prevailing party is not automatically deemed to have attained complete rather than partial success. Rather, the partial success determination is part of the district court's secondary inquiry into what fee is reasonable in a given case. Id. at 434-35, 103 S.Ct. at 1940. As the Hensley Court noted: "That the plaintiff is a `prevailing party' ... may say little about whether the expenditure of counsel's time was reasonable in relation to the success achieved." Id. at 436, 103 S.Ct. at 1941.
We agree with defendants that a plain reading of the district court's partial success findings indicates that the court based its conclusion that defendants' partial success claim was frivolous solely on the fact that the plaintiffs were the prevailing party. Moreover, because the prevailing party and partial or limited success inquiries are 1404 distinct, the record indicates that the district court's analysis regarding partial success is erroneous as a matter of *1404 law. Given this error, we vacate the district court's findings regarding partial success and remand to the district court in order for it to revisit this issue.
In an effort to assist the district court in its reassessment of this question, we note that a number of principles should guide its inquiry.
In Hensley the Supreme Court noted that the "results obtained" was one factor that might lead the district court to adjust the presumptively reasonable lodestar calculation and that this factor "is particularly crucial where a plaintiff is deemed `prevailing' even though he succeeded only on some of his claims for relief." Id. at 434, 103

S.Ct. at 1940. The Hensley Court set out a comprehensive framework for assessing the effect of a prevailing party's results obtained or partial success on the calculation of a fee award. The district court first asks if the plaintiff did not prevail on claims that were unrelated to those on which he succeeded and excludes any fees associated with those unsuccessful claims. Second, the court makes further reductions when plaintiffs' success on any remaining interrelated unsuccessful and successful claims was limited. Id.
In subsequent decisions modifying the Hensley holding, the Court has held that "the `results obtained' generally will be subsumed within other factors used to calculate a reasonable fee." Blum, 465 U.S. at 900, 104 S.Ct. at 1549; Delaware Valley I, 478 U.S. at 565, 106 S.Ct. at 3098; Corder v. Gates, 947 F.2d 374, 378 (9th Cir. 1991); Cunningham, 879 F.2d at 488; Jordan, 815 F.2d at 1262 & n. 6. Thus, the favored procedure is for the district court to consider the extent of the plaintiff's success in making its initial determination of hours reasonably expended at a reasonable rate, and not in subsequent adjustments to the lodestar figure. Corder, 947 F.2d at 378 ; Cabrales v. County of Los Angeles, 864 F.2d 1454, 1464 (9th Cir.1988).
Particularly notable in light of defendants' argument that plaintiffs' success was limited because the consent decree does not mirror the second amended complaint and the proposed injunction, is the Supreme Court's rejection in Hensley of "a mathematical approach comparing the total number of issues in the case with those actually prevailed upon" to the determination of whether fees should be reduced to account for limited or partial success. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 435 n. 11, 103 S.Ct. at 1940 n. 11; Toussaint v. McCarthy, 826 F.2d 901, 905 (9th Cir.1987); Greater Los Angeles County on Deafness v. Community Television, 813 F.2d 217, 222 (9th Cir. 1987). It is clear that a litigant need not prevail on every claim in order to receive a full fee. Id. at 220. "Litigants in good faith may raise alternative legal grounds for a desired outcome, and the court's rejection of or failure to reach certain grounds is not sufficient reason for reducing a fee. The result is what matters." Hensley, 461 U.S. at 435, 103 S.Ct. at 1940 (emphasis added).
Finally, a district court should not reduce the lodestar merely because the prevailing party did not receive the type of relief that it requested. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 435 n. 11, 103 S.Ct. at 1941 n. 11;[13]City of Riverside v. Rivera, 477 U.S. 561, 574-75, 106 S.Ct. 2686, 2694, 91 L.Ed.2d 466 (1986); Quesada v. Thomason, 850 F.2d 537, 540 (9th Cir.1988); Jordan, 815 F.2d at 1262 & n. 6. This is especially true in civil rights cases. Riverside, 477 U.S. at 574-75, 106 S.Ct. at 2694; Romberg v. Nichols, 953 F.2d 1152, 1167 (9th Cir.1992); see also Blanchard v. Bergeron, 489 U.S. 87, 95, 109 S.Ct. 939, 945, 103 L.Ed.2d 67 (1989).
3. Attorneys' Fee Rates
A. San Francisco versus Sacramento Hourly Rates
Defendants contend that the district court erred in awarding hourly rates comparable to prevailing rates in San 1405 Francisco. They argue that, because Sacramento attorneys with sufficient experience to handle *1405 the case
were able and willing to represent the plaintiffs, the district court should have employed the prevailing rates for Sacramento when calculating the fee.
The district court held that the plaintiffs adequately had documented that their expertise in complex prison litigation required application of San Francisco rates and that the rates they charged are the prevailing market rates. It also concluded that defendants' arguments against the rates charged, "such as the availability of Sacramento personal injury lawyers ... [are] patently frivolous." Amended Order at 6.
Reasonable fees under § 1988 are calculated according to the prevailing market rates in the relevant legal community, Blum, 465 U.S. at 895, 104 S.Ct. at 1547, and the general rule is that the rates of attorneys practicing in the forum district, here the Eastern District of California 0907 Sacramento, are used. Davis v. Mason County, 927 F.2d 1473, 1488 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 275, 116 L.Ed.2d 227 (1991).[14] Although we have not ruled on the issue, a number of circuits have held that rates, other than those of the forum, may be employed if local counsel was unavailable, either because they are unwilling or unable to perform because they lack the degree of experience, expertise, or specialization required to handle properly the case. See, e.g., McDonald v. Armontrout, 860 F.2d 1456, 1459-60 (8th Cir.1988); Polk v. New York State Dept. of Correctional

Servs., 722 F.2d 23, 25 (2d Cir.1983); Louisville Black Officers Org., Inc. v. Louisville, 700 F.2d 268, 278 (6th Cir.1983); Chrapliwy v. Uniroyal, Inc., 670 F.2d 760, 768-69 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 956, 103 S.Ct. 2428, 77 L.Ed.2d 1315 (1983); see also National Wildlife Federation v. Hanson, 859 F.2d 313, 317-18 (4th Cir.1988); Maceira v. Pagan, 698 F.2d 38, 40 (1st Cir.1983).
Defendants attempt to distinguish these cases by arguing that the evidence presented to the district court failed to establish that Sacramento law firms were unwilling or unable to represent the plaintiff class or sub-class. They contend that, although "all the pleaded issues together amounted to a comprehensive conditions of confinement and health care case," the evidence that they introduced into the record as compared to "plaintiffs' counsels' selfserving declarations," proved that two or more Sacramento firms could have handled the case exactly as did plaintiffs' counsel.
We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding fees at San Francisco rates. Plaintiffs offered substantial evidence demonstrating that the issues in prisoner civil rights cases are extremely complex and thus require experienced and sophisticated counsel. They offered numerous declarations of San Francisco and Sacramento attorneys which directly support their contention that Sacramento attorneys and law firms with the requisite expertise and experience to handle this type of complex institutional prison reform litigation were unavailable.[15] Defendants' proof that Sacramento attorneys were capable of handling a case of this complexity consisted of three declarations of partners in major Sacramento insurance defense and commercial litigation firms. These declarations, however, do not persuasively rebut plaintiffs' overwhelming contrary proof that Sacramento firms could not successfully have provided the expert representation required to effectively represent 1406 the litigants in this matter.[16] Although *1406 the district court may have selected words that were too strong when it found defendants' argument that personal injury attorneys adequately could handle this case "patently frivolous," given the record we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion by awarding fees at San Francisco rates on the ground that Sacramento attorneys with adequate expertise were unavailable.
B. Historic Versus Current Rates
Defendants also contend that the district court abused its discretion when it awarded plaintiffs current (then 1990) San Francisco community rates rather than historic rates.
In awarding fees at current rather than historic rates the district court cited Missouri v. Jenkins ex rel. Agyei, 491 U.S. 274, 283-84, 109 S.Ct. 2463, 2469, 105 L.Ed.2d 229 (1989) and noted that "plaintiffs' counsel began preparing this lawsuit over three years ago. Since that time they have expended an enormous amount of time and money without compensation. An award based on current rates is reasonable to adjust for this delay." Amended Order at 6-7.
In Jenkins the Court observed that "[c]learly, compensation received several years after the services were rendered 0907 as it frequently is in complex civil rights litigation 0907 is not equivalent to the same dollar amount received reasonably promptly as the legal services are performed, as would normally be the case with private billings." Jenkins, 491 U.S. at 283, 109 S.Ct. at 2469. Thus, the Court held that an adjustment for delay in payment is an appropriate factor in determining what constitutes a reasonable attorneys' fee under § 1988 and "that an appropriate adjustment for delay in payment-whether by application of current rather that historic rates or otherwise 0907 is within contemplation of the statute." Id. at 284, 109 S.Ct. at 2469.
We long have recognized that district courts have the discretion to compensate prevailing parties for any delay in the receipt of fees by awarding fees at current rather than historic rates in order to adjust for inflation and loss of the use funds. Bouman, 940 F.2d at 1235; Jordan, 815 F.2d at 1262 n. 7; Suzuki v. Yuen, 678 F.2d 761, 763 (9th Cir.1982); accord King v. Palmer, 906 F.2d 762, 769 (D.C.Cir.1990); Iqbal v. Golf Course Superintendents Ass'n of America, 900 F.2d 227, 228 (10th Cir.1990); Chambless v. Masters, Mates & Pilots Pension Plan, 885 F.2d 1053, 1060 (2d Cir.1989). A fee award at current rates is intended to compensate prevailing attorneys for lost income they might have received through missed investment opportunities as well as lost interest. See, e.g., Jenkins, 491 U.S. at 283 n. 6, 109 S.Ct. at 2469 n. 6; Bouman, 940 F.2d at 1235. The record reflects that plaintiffs' counsel presented evidence that their work on this case precluded them from engaging in substantial

work on other cases that would have paid at full market rates. These potential earnings, like interest payments and investment opportunities foregone, are deserving of compensation.
Defendants' argument that an interest adjustment would have been sufficient to compensate for the delay in this case similarly is unavailing. As defendants correctly note, Jenkins does not require an enhancement for delay under all circumstances, but rather permits an adjustment "where appropriate."[17]Id. at 281, 284, 109 S.Ct. at 1407 2468, 2469 ("within the contemplation of the statute"); see Huntington Branch NAACP v. Huntington, New *1407 York, 961 F.2d 1048, 1049 (2d Cir.1992). The Jenkins Court, however, made clear that the district court has the discretion to choose the method by which it will adjust the fee to compensate for delay in payment and that it may do so "by adjusting the fee based on historical rates to reflect its present value," or "otherwise." Jenkins, 491 U.S. at 282, 109 S.Ct. at 2468 (citing with approval Delaware Valley II, 483 U.S. at 716, 107 S.Ct. at 3082); Romberg, 953 F.2d at 1164 (citing Jenkins and remanding because interest adjustment should have been considered to compensate for delay).[18] Thus, the district court's determination to adjust to current rates rather than to make an interest adjustment squarely was within the bounds of its discretion.
Finally, the length of the delay in payment indeed is a consideration in deciding whether an award of current rather than historic rates is warranted. See, e.g., Chalmers, 796 F.2d at 1215 (five year delay in payment of $149,785); Smith v. Freeman, 921 F.2d 1120, 1122-23 (10th Cir.1990) (fourteen months delay in payment of $8,139). Defendants' argument, however, that the delay in this case was too short to justify a current rates award is unconvincing. Plaintiffs' attorneys have waited over three years to be compensated. This delay is particularly onerous given that the fees awarded in this case, even without the 2.0 multiplier, runs in the millions of dollars. [19]
For the above reasons, we affirm the district court's award of current San Francisco rates.
4. Expert Witness Fees as Costs
Defendants contend that in light of the Supreme Court's decision in West Virginia University Hospital, Inc. v. Casey, ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 1138, 113 L.Ed.2d 68 (1991), which was decided on March 19, 1991 after the district court entered its Amended Order, the district court's award of tens of thousands of dollars in expert witness fees to plaintiffs as costs was clearly erroneous and must be reversed. We agree.
Included among the costs awarded plaintiffs' counsel was $93,089.12 (out of a total costs and expenses in the amount $345,732.76) all of which was designated under the category "expert witnesses." In Casey the Court held that § 1988 does not convey authority to shift expert fees in civil rights litigation to the losing party and that when experts appear at trial they are eligible for the fee provided by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920 and 1821, but that the prevailing party may not be awarded more than this amount for expert witnesses' trial testimony and is not entitled to anything for services rendered by experts in a nontestimonial capacity. Casey, ___ U.S. at ___, 111 S.Ct. at 1148.
Plaintiffs argue that defendants have waived their right to raise the issue of expert witness fees because they failed first to present it to the district court. As a general rule, we will not consider issues raised for the first time 1408 on appeal. United *1408 States v. Childs, 944 F.2d 491, 495 (9th Cir.1991) (citing United States v. Hayden, 860 F.2d 1483, 1485 (9th Cir.1988)). In our discretion, however, we may address a new issue raised for the first time on appeal if it "arises while the appeal is pending because of a change in law." United States v. Carlson, 900 F.2d 1346, 1349-50 (9th Cir. 1990). Here, because the Casey decision was rendered after the district court entered its December 14, 1990 order and it changed the law with regard to compensation for expert witness fees under § 1988 we exercise our discretion to address defendants' argument.[20]
We conclude that, given the Supreme Court's decision in Casey, the district court's award of expert witness fees cannot stand. Thus, we remand to the district court with instruction to modify the award of expert witness fees as costs in accordance with Casey.

5. Writ of Execution for Interim Fees and Total Fee Award

Defendants' final contention is that the district court erred in issuing a writ of execution permitting plaintiffs to collect the $1 million in interim attorneys' fees that it awarded in its August 27, 1990 interim order before the California State Legislature was given an opportunity to appropriate the funds for the award.[21] They argue that our decision in Spain v. Mountanous, 690 F.2d 742 (9th Cir.1982) prohibits issuance of such a writ because it is inconsistent with principles of federalism.
A. Mootness

Defendants concede that once the writ issued they paid the fees awarded in the district court's interim fee order rather than seeking a stay on enforcement of the writ of execution under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 27. They also concede that, because they already have paid the interim fees award, under normal circumstances they would not be permitted to challenge the district court's authority to issue that writ because the question would be moot. Nonetheless, they argue that the issue is not moot under the exception to the mootness doctrine for cases "capable of repetition yet evading review." Southern Pac. Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 U.S. 498, 515, 31 S.Ct. 279, 283, 55 L.Ed. 310 (1911).

Two criteria must be met for a case to fall within this exception. First, the challenged action must be of inherently short duration, a period too brief for effective judicial review, and second, the party who is raising the challenge must have a reasonable expectation that he will be subjected to the same type of action again. Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149, 96 S.Ct. 347, 347, 46 L.Ed.2d 350 (1975); Barilla v. Ervin, 886 F.2d 1514, 1519 (9th Cir.1989).

We conclude that defendants' argument fails under our decisions in In re Combined Metals Reduction Co., 557 F.2d 179, 191 (9th Cir.1977) and In re Bunker Ltd. Partnership, 820 F.2d 308 (9th Cir.1987). In Bunker we clarified our holding in Combined Metals noting that under that decision

1409

a party may not profit from the "capable of repetition yet evading review" exception to mootness, where through his own failure to seek and obtain a stay he has prevented an appellate court from reviewing the trial court's decision. The exception was designed to apply to situations where the type of injury involved inherently precludes judicial review, not *1409 to situations where the failure of parties to take actions has precluded review as a practical matter.

Id. at 311 (citations omitted). Because, as defendants admit, they did not seek a stay under Rule 27 their own inaction essentially was the only reason that writ evaded our review. Similarly, if the district court were to issue a writ of execution permitting plaintiffs to collect the fees awarded in its Amended Order, that writ would only evade our review if the defendants again failed to obtain (or at least attempted to obtain) a stay under Rule 27. Thus, because under the above decisions the defendants may not take advantage of the "capable of repetition yet evading review" exception to the mootness doctrine. Their claim here, therefore, is moot and we lack jurisdiction to address whether the district court possessed authority to issue a writ of execution before the California Legislature denied appropriation of the interim fee award.

B. Ripeness

Defendants admit that the district court has not yet issued a writ of execution permitting collection of the unpaid fees awarded in its final Amended Order and plaintiffs correctly note that the district court's Periodic Fees Order does not include a writ of execution provision in the event of nonpayment. Defendants argue, however, that because the Periodic Fees Order contains another "unrealistic deadline" for payment of the final fee award the district court inevitably will issue a writ of execution for payment of those funds, and that this court, therefore, should rule on whether the district court's issuance of such a writ would be permissible.

We refuse to decide this question because it is not yet ripe for determination and thus, under Article III of the Constitution, we lack jurisdiction to rule on its merit. The ripeness inquiry asks whether the issues are fit for judicial decision and whether the parties will suffer hardship if the court does not consider the issues. Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 149, 87 S.Ct. 1507, 1515, 18 L.Ed.2d 681 (1967), overruled on other grounds, Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 105, 97 S.Ct. 980, 984, 51 L.Ed.2d 192 (1977); State of California ex rel. Water Resources Control Bd. v. F.E.R.C., 966 F.2d 1541, 1562 (9th Cir.1992); Western Oil & Gas Ass'n v. Sonoma County, 905 F.2d 1287, 1290 (9th Cir.1990) (ripeness inquiry asks "whether there is yet a need for the court to act"), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 784, 112 L.Ed.2d 846 (1991).
This issue is not fit for judicial resolution. The harm to defendants is speculative and hypothetical rather than direct or immediate because the district court has not even threatened to issue a writ and, if the California Legislature appropriates the funds required to pay the judgment, the writ never will issue. Abbott Labs., 387 U.S. at 152, 87 S.Ct. at 1517. Moreover, defendants have failed to demonstrate that they will suffer any hardship if we wait to review this question after, and if, the district court in fact issues a writ.
Thus, because the question of the district court's authority to compel defendants to pay the final fees award without first permitting the legislature an opportunity to appropriate the funds as promised, is unripe we are without jurisdiction to reach its merit.
IV. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, we affirm the district court's determination regarding current San Francisco rates. In light of the Supreme Court's decision in City of Burlington v. Dague, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 2638, 120 L.Ed.2d 449 (1992), we reverse the district court's decision to employ a 2.0 contingency enhancement. Moreover, given the Court's decision in West Virginia University Hospital v. Casey, Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 1138, 113 L.Ed.2d 68 (1991), we also reverse the district court's award of expert witness fees as costs and remand for the court to modify its costs award accordingly.
Furthermore, we vacate the district court's determination regarding the reasonableness of plaintiffs' proposed 1410 discounted lodestar, including its findings that the *1410 across-the-board ten percent reduction in the lodestar
and plaintiffs' discrete billing judgment reductions were adequate to compensate for any overbilling or duplication in the record and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We also vacate the district court's determination regarding partial success and remand this question for reexamination as well.
Finally, because defendants' arguments regarding the writs of execution for interim attorneys' fees and the final fee order respectively are moot and unripe, we are without jurisdiction to rule on their merits.
AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART. Costs on this appeal are awarded to defendants/appellants.
[1] In 1984 in Durggan v. McCarthy, Sacramento Superior Court No. 326371, Alameda County Legal Aid alleged that the California Department of Corrections ("CDC") was providing inpatient medical and psychiatric care without an acute care hospital license as required under California law. CMF eventually was issued a license and the case subsequently was dismissed. In 1985 the United States Department of Justice ("USDOJ") commenced an investigation at CMF under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997. In January 1987 the USDOJ issued findings that medical and psychiatric care, environmental conditions, and overcrowding at CMF were constitutionally deficient.
[2] Prison Law Office ("PLO") and McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enerson ("McCutchen") were the two firms initially involved in preparing the first draft of plaintiffs' complaint. Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison ("Brobeck") and the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California ("ACLU") joined as plaintiffs' attorneys in the summer of 1987 and Rosen, Bien & Asaro ("Rosen") in the fall of 1988 when the complexity and difficulty of representing the HIV subclass became apparent.

[3] The complaint challenged as constitutionally deficient under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and 29 U.S.C. § 794 medical and psychiatric care, indecent conditions of confinement 0907 particularly overcrowding 0907 and segregated housing and treatment of HIV infected inmates at CMF and NRC.
[4] The district court found that defendants' litigation posture contributed to the amount of time plaintiffs' attorneys expended between filing of the complaint and the trial.
[5] Why settlement talks foundered is unclear. Plaintiffs contend that they failed because CDC flatly refused to enter into a consent decree. Defendants argue that they failed due to plaintiffs' insistence on settling all issues together 0907 rather than bifurcating the HIV segregation and general conditions issues on which progress was not being made 0907 and because they wanted the consent decree to include issues that defendants believed were resolved already in CRIPA and Durggan.
[6] This figure was computed as follows:

$3,313,699.83 discounted lodestar

×

2 enhancer

_____________

$6,627,399.66 subtotal

- $1,000,000.00 interim fee award

_____________

$5,627,399.66 Total remaining fees

[7] Related to this claim, defendants also urge that the district court abused its discretion when, after accepting as reasonable and without scrutiny plaintiffs' proposed reductions, it offered to send the fee application to a special master but only if defendants footed the bill for those services if the master concluded that plaintiffs' ten percent reduction was adequate.

[8] The ten percent reduction amounted to $368,188.87 which, with the discrete reductions, meant a total reduction in the fee award before the 2.0 multiplier of $476,684.67 and of $953,369.34 in the final enhanced award.

[9] Accord Heiar v. Crawford County, 746 F.2d 1190, 1204 (7th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 472 U.S. 1027, 105 S.Ct. 3500, 87 L.Ed.2d 631 (1985); Wojtkowski v. Cade, 725 F.2d 127, 130 (1st Cir. 1984); National Ass'n of Concerned Veterans v. Secretary of Defense, 675 F.2d 1319, 1327 (D.C.Cir.1982).

[10] These include statements that he found the reduced lodestar "justified by ample documentation," and "reasonable from a record review." Amended Order at 5:7 & 5:23.

[11] Plaintiffs argue that because defendants had the opportunity to stipulate to having the fees matter determined by Magistrate Judge Moulds at the commencement of the August 27, 1990 hearing and refused to do so they cannot argue here that the district court should have referred the fees dispute to a magistrate judge.

Plaintiffs' contention is unsound. Undoubtedly if defendants had known that Judge Karlton was going to deny them his own review of the record and instead require them to take the risk under his proposal if they wanted a review of any kind, they would have stipulated at the outset. Plaintiffs' counsel are asking us unfairly to judge defendants' actions with twenty-twenty hindsight.

[12] The Johnson-Kerr factors include: (1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the issues involved; (3) the skill required to perform the legal services properly; (4) the preclusion of other employment by an attorney due to acceptance of the case; (5) the customary fee; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) time limitations imposed by a client or the circumstances; (8) the amount in question and results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys; (10) the "undesirability" of the case; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and, (12) awards in similar cases. Kerr, 526 F.2d at 70; United States Steel Workers v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 896 F.2d 403, 406 n. 3 (9th Cir.1990).

[13] Thus, "a plaintiff who failed to recover damages but obtained injunctive relief, or vice versa, may recover a fee award based on all hours reasonably expended if the relief obtained justified that expenditure of attorney time." Id.
[14] Defendants concede that if San Francisco market rates are applicable plaintiffs' requested rates are accurate.
[15] San Francisco attorney Steven Mayer's declaration is representative:
It is my understanding that, for a variety of reasons such as the complexity of the case, and its contingent character, this case was too big for even the biggest private law firms in San Francisco ... to handle on an individual basis, even with the expert assistance of counsel from the [PLO] ... and [ACLU].... For this reason, it is understandable that plaintiffs' counsel concluded that there were no firms or attorneys in Sacramento capable, either singly or in combination, of taking on this case.
Mayer Decl. at ¶ 15.
[16] Defense declarant Franklin in one sentence notes that she is involved in a jail conditions case in Lassen County but offers neither information regarding the scope or complexity of that case nor an opinion regarding the ability of her firm or other Sacramento firms to take on complex contingent institutional prison reform cases like Gates. Defense declarant Murphy merely noted that "many attorneys and law firms in the Sacramento community ... have the expertise and resources to provide representation in ... [section 1983 cases]" and declarant Birney, whose firm is involved in complex medical malpractice cases, stated that "[w]ith respect to issues concerning allegations of professional malpractice, including medical and psychiatric care" many Sacramento firms have the expertise and resources to handle such cases.
[17] Defendants claim that the district court mistakenly believed that it was required to apply current rates under Jenkins. The district court's order, however, bears no indication that the court misunderstood Jenkins in this fashion.
[18] Adjusting the fee based on historic rates to reflect present value essentially describes adjustment of fees for inflation. Oklahoma Aeronautics, Inc. v. United States, 943 F.2d 1344, 1348-49 (D.C.Cir.1991).
[19] Defendants attempt to argue that the award of $1 million in interim attorneys' fees somehow cushioned the impact of this delay. In Jenkins the Court noted that "in economic terms, such an interim award does not differ from enhancement for delay in payment." Jenkins, 491 U.S. at 283-84 n. 6, 109 S.Ct. at 2469 n. 6. This argument, however, lacks force given the facts of this case. First, the interim award of $1 million only compensated for a small portion (less than one-sixth) of the total fees awarded plaintiffs. Second, payment of the interim award was delayed for over eight months because the defendants failed to comply with the district court's March 27, 1990 order until the court issued a writ of execution in December 5, 1990.
Defendants also argue that an award of 1990 rates results in a windfall to plaintiffs' counsel rather than merely compensating them for the effects of inflation or the loss of use of the funds. Proof that an award at current rates will result in a windfall to the prevailing attorneys may be ground to deny use of current rates. Murray v. Weinberger, 741 F.2d 1423 (D.C.Cir. 1984); cf. Thompson v. Barrett, 599 F.Supp. 806, 813-14 (D.D.C.1984) (application of historic rates in lengthy case proper because use of current rates for attorneys' current experience would produce a windfall). However, because defendants fail to provide the court with any evidence to substantiate their allegation, we decline to address it.
[20] We need not decide the validity of defendants' argument that this issue raises a defect in the district court's subject matter jurisdiction that properly may be raised at any time. Moreover, given the application of this exception, plaintiffs' argument that this court's decision in Davis v. Mason County, 927 F.2d 1473 (9th Cir. 1991) is distinguishable is without merit.
[21] The district court also ordered the defendants to pay plaintiffs $253,429.42 in costs and disbursements and it issued a writ of execution for the plaintiffs' limited to the amount of unpaid costs. Defendants only mention this writ in passing and their challenge here appears limited to the writ of execution regarding the interim fees and the

potential threat of such a writ of execution under the Periodic Fees Order for collection of the remainder of the fees awarded in the Amended Order.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 977 F.2d 1300 (1992)
Jay Lee GATES; Charles Edward Puett; John Ronald Betram, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
George DEUKMEJIAN, Governor, Defendant, and James Rowland, Director, Nadim Khoury, M.D.; Eddie Ylst; Kenneth Sheppard, M.D., Nicholas Poulos, Daniel Thor, Paul Morentz, H. Benton, Bruce Baker, A.R. Rotella, D.
Michael O'Connor, Douglas G. Arnold, Clyde Murrey, Sylvia Blount, DefendantsAppellants.
No. 91-15270.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted March 11, 1992. Decided October 6, 1992.
13012 *1301 *1302 John G. Donhoff, Jr., Deputy Atty. Gen., San Francisco, Cal., for defendants-appellants.
Samuel R. Miller and Sanford J. Rosen, Rosen, Bien & Asaro, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiffs-appellees.
Before: CHOY, FARRIS, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
CHOY, Circuit Judge:
A number of California state officials appeal the district court's award of over $6 million in attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. We affirm the district court's decision in part, vacate and remand in part, and reverse in part.
1303 *1303 I. BACKGROUND
This dispute arises out of a complex class action suit brought by prisoners incarcerated at the California Medical Facility ("CMF") and the Main Northern Reception Center ("NRC") ("plaintiffs") against a number of California state officials ("defendants") in which plaintiffs challenged the alleged unconstitutional treatment of inmates at CMF and NRC.
The history of efforts to ameliorate problems at CMF predates initiation of this suit.[1] However, because these efforts were perceived as moving too slowly and as unlikely to ameliorate all the problems at the facilities, plaintiffs resolved to file the complaint in this case.[2]
On January 6, 1988 plaintiffs filed a complaint and motion for class certification in the district court.[3] Over the course of the following one and one-half years plaintiffs engaged in extensive discovery which, according to the district court, defendants resisted throughout. Defendants responded with an aggressive posture, for example, challenging the motion for class certification, arguing to limit discovery to class representatives, and filing a motion for summary judgment.[4]
Judge Raul Ramirez supervised settlement discussions in early 1989. The negotiations progressed over the course of three months; however, they ultimately broke down and terminated on June 5, 1989.[5] Trial began before Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds, and continued until the end of October 1989 when the parties again agreed to enter into settlement negotiations. Plaintiffs rested their case on October 30th and settlement negotiations began immediately and continued for two and one-half weeks concluding with final negotiations on November 16 and 17, 1989. The proposed settlement was signed on November 20, 1990 and Magistrate Judge Moulds issued his findings and recommendations in support of the consent decree on February 21, 1990. Judge Karlton adopted these and approved the consent decree on March 8, 1990.

The consent decree addresses the primary areas raised in the complaint including medical care, psychiatric care, conditions of confinement, and HIV inmates. It includes a minimum three-year reporting and mediation process designed to ensure proper plan development and implementation of the general provisions of the decree. Under 1304 the decree a mediator is appointed *1304 by the district court to assist the parties in developing plans of implementation and reports as required by the decree, to resolve disagreements regarding the adequacy of the plans or reports developed by the appellants under the decree, to mediate violations of the decree, and to submit findings and recommendations to the court for its approval.
Although the consent decree settled all disputes on the merits, it did not resolve the question of attorneys' fees. In this regard, the decree merely provided that plaintiffs may seek to recover reasonable costs, attorneys' fees, and other expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and 29 U.S.C. § 794(b) for work performed prior to entry of the decree and reasonably performed during the pendency of the decree. After making an unsuccessful demand for fees, costs, and disbursements on defendants, on April 4, 1990 plaintiffs filed an Application for Attorneys' Fees and Costs with the district court.
On August 27th, after a hearing and prior to its final decision on the merits of plaintiffs' entire fees application, the district court issued two orders. In one the court ordered payment of $253,429.42 of out-of-pocket costs and disbursements since none of these were contested by the defendants. In the other, the court concluded that a minimum of $1 million in fees was not contested or seriously contestable and ordered that amount paid as an interim fee award. The court, however, declined to enforce payment of either the costs and disbursements or the interim award through a writ of execution.
On December 5, 1990 the district court granted plaintiffs' discounted fee request in full thus awarding the total remaining fees of $5,627,399.66.[6] On December 14, 1990 the district court entered an amended order correcting a mathematical error in the original December 5, 1990 order ("amended order").
In its amended order the district court held that the plaintiffs clearly were the prevailing party entitled to full attorneys' fees and costs and that defendants' arguments with regard to partial success were "patently frivolous." Amended Order at 7-8. It also found that "the lodestar amount is reasonable and justified by ample documentation," and that the ten percent across-the-board reduction in the lodestar figure compensated for any overbilling or duplication the court found suggested in the record. Id. at 5-6.
The court found that plaintiffs' counsel had demonstrated that their expertise in complex prison litigation required application of San Francisco rather than Sacramento rates and that plaintiffs adequately had documented that the rates their counsel charged were the prevailing market rates. The court added that defendants' arguments against these rates were also "patently frivolous." Id. at 6. The court further concluded that plaintiffs were entitled to receive current rather than historic rates in order to adjust for the delay in receiving their compensation. The court noted that plaintiffs adequately had documented that the 2.0 contingency multiplier was necessary to attract counsel, that 2.0 was the proper multiplier, and that the enhancement therefore was justified, especially in light of the obvious undesirability of the litigation.
Finally, the court considered defendants' non-compliance with its interim attorneys' fees award, granting plaintiffs' request for reconsideration, and amending its earlier order to allow for a writ of execution in light of defendants' refusal to voluntarily comply with the order.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review a district court's determination regarding the proper amount of the attorneys' fees award under § 1988 for an abuse of discretion. Bouman v. Block, 940 F.2d 1211, 1235 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 1305 640, 116 L.Ed.2d 658 (1991); Cunningham v. County *1305 of Los Angeles, 879 F.2d 481, 487 (9th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1035, 110 S.Ct. 757, 107 L.Ed.2d 773 (1990).
III. ANALYSIS

1. Lodestar Calculation
In its amended order the district court concluded that the lodestar amount was reasonable and justified by ample documentation. Moreover, it found that plaintiffs' discrete billing judgment reductions, coupled with their proposed ten percent across-the-board reduction in the lodestar, adequately compensated for any overbilling or duplication in the record. Finally, the court noted that "[d]espite finding the reduced lodestar reasonable from a record review," it had offered defendants the services of a special master as long as they bore the cost if the master concluded that the ten percent reduction was reasonable. Amended Order at 5. Defendants declined to accept the offer. On the basis of this refusal, the district court concluded that defendants conceded its finding that the ten percent reduction compensates for any currently identifiable overbilling.
On appeal, defendants urge that the district court abused its discretion in making these findings. Their specific objections are twofold.
First, defendants argue that the district court erred in selecting ten percent as the proper reduction. They contend that the district court abused its discretion in reducing the lodestar by that amount because it neither possessed nor articulated a reasoned basis for selecting ten percent, rather than some other figure.[7] Second, they argue that the district court abused its discretion in failing to review and make findings as to the merit of each of their specific objections to plaintiffs' billing judgment reductions and, on the basis of its independent review, to reduce plaintiffs' claimed hours accordingly.
Section 1988 authorizes a court "in its discretion" to "allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs." 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The starting point for determining a reasonable fee is the "lodestar" figure, which is the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate. City of Burlington v. Dague, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 112 S.Ct. 2638, 2640, 120 L.Ed.2d 449 (1992); Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 1939, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983). Although there is a strong presumption that the lodestar represents a reasonable fee, Dague, ___ U.S. at ___, 112 S.Ct. at 2641; Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546, 565, 106 S.Ct. 3088, 3098, 92 L.Ed.2d 439 (1986), reversed on other grounds after rehearing, 483 U.S. 711, 107 S.Ct. 3078, 97 L.Ed.2d 585 (1987) (Delaware Valley II), the Supreme Court in Hensley noted that district courts
should exclude from this initial fee calculation hours that were not reasonably expended. Cases may be overstaffed, and the skill and experience of lawyers vary widely. Counsel for the prevailing party should exclude from a fee request hours that are excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary, just as a lawyer in private practice is ethically obligated to exclude hours from his fee submission. "In the private sector, `billing judgment' is an important component in fee setting. It is no less important here.'"
Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433-34, 103 S.Ct. at 1939-40 (citations omitted); see Riverside v. Rivera, 477 U.S. 561, 569, 106 S.Ct. 2686, 2691, 91 L.Ed.2d 466 (1986).
The fee applicant bears the burden of documenting the appropriate hours expended in the litigation and must submit evidence in support of those hours worked. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433, 437, 103 S.Ct. at 1941. The party opposing the fee application has a burden of rebuttal that requires submission of evidence to the district court 1306 challenging the accuracy and reasonableness *1306 of the hours charged or the facts asserted by the prevailing party in its submitted affidavits. Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 892 n. 5, 104 S.Ct. 1541, 1545 n. 5, 79 L.Ed.2d 891 (1984); Toussaint v. McCarthy, 826 F.2d 901, 904 (9th Cir.1987).
In accordance with the principles set forth in Hensley, the lodestar figure in plaintiffs' fee application reflected discrete billing judgment reductions in the amount of $108,495.80[8] and proposed a ten percent across-theboard reduction in the lodestar. The discrete billing judgment reductions, which were made before and during the district court's review of plaintiffs' fee application, included reductions in hours billed as well as in rates charged. As proposed by plaintiffs, the ten percent reduction was intended to account for any overlap or duplication in work that had not already been accounted for through the discrete billing judgment reductions.[9]

Defendants submitted evidence to rebut plaintiffs' claimed reductions, asserting that the reductions were insufficient to account for five particular areas in which plaintiffs allegedly overbilled. Specifically, defendants argued and presented the district court with evidence that plaintiffs' calculation of the reasonable hours billed was incorrect in the following five respects: (1) it did not consider the fact that the case was "grossly overstaffed;" (2) a "huge percentage" of the time billed by McCutchen and Brobeck was "lumped," with a large number of hours reportedly billed to activities such as "meetings" or "pleadings and research" without allocating time to a particular task; (3) all the time spent by "inexperienced attorneys and, especially, summer students" was billed; (4) numerous specific duplicative court and deposition appearances were billed; and, (5) "enormous amounts of time" were billed for time co-counsel spent conferring with one another.
The district court has a great deal of discretion in determining the reasonableness of the fee and, as a general rule, we defer to its determination, including its decision regarding the reasonableness of the hours claimed by the prevailing party. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437, 103 S.Ct. at 1941; Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, 796 F.2d 1205, 1213 (1986), amended, 808 F.2d 1373 (9th Cir.1987). Despite this general deference, the district court is required to articulate the reasons for its findings regarding the propriety of the hours claimed or for any adjustments it makes either to the prevailing party's claimed hours or to the lodestar.
In Hensley the Court noted:
We emphasize that the district court has discretion in determining the amount of a fee award, This is appropriate in view of the district court's superior understanding of the litigation and the desirability of avoiding frequent appellate review of what essentially are factual matters. It remains important, however, for the district court to provide a concise but clear explanation of its reasons for the fee award.
Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437, 103 S.Ct. at 1941 (emphasis added).
We have interpreted the Hensley "concise but clear" language as requiring the district court to give at least some indication of how it arrived at the amount of compensable hours for which fees were awarded to allow for meaningful appellate review. Cunningham, 879 F.2d at 485. Although, we do not require "an elaborately reasoned, calculated, or worded order ... [and] a brief explanation of how the court arrived at its figures will do," id., "something more that a bald, unsupported amount is necessary." Chalmers, 796 F.2d at 1211 & n. 3; Jordan v. Multnomah County, 815 F.2d 1258 (9th Cir.1987) ("[w]hile the district court is in the best position to judge the reasonableness of the fee award, such a position does not mean the trial court can remain silent as to how she or 1307 he reached the "reasonableness" *1307 conclusion"); Sealy, Inc. v. Easy Living, Inc., 743 F.2d 1378, 1385 (9th Cir.1984) (fees award vacated where it appeared that the court "accepted uncritically" the plaintiff's representations concerning the time expended on the case).[10]
Despite the "concise but clear" requirement, in cases where a voluminous fee application is filed in exercising its billing judgment the district court is not required to set forth an hour-by-hour analysis of the fee request. See, e.g., Jacobs v. Mancuso, 825 F.2d 559, 562 (1st Cir.1987); In re "Agent Orange" Product Liability Litigation, 818 F.2d 226, 237-38 (2d Cir.1987) ("no item-by-item accounting of the hours disallowed is necessary or desirable"); OhioSealy Mattress Mfg. Co. v. Sealy Inc., 776 F.2d 646, 657-58 (7th Cir.1985). Rather, as defendants concede, when faced with a massive fee application the district court has the authority to make across-the-board percentage cuts either in the number of hours claimed or in the final lodestar figure "as a practical means of trimming the fat from a fee application." New York State Ass'n for Retarded Children v. Carey, 711 F.2d 1136, 1146 (2d Cir.1983); Daggett v. Kimmelman, 811 F.2d 793, 797-98 (3d Cir.1987); Tomazzoli v. Sheedy, 804 F.2d 93, 97-98 (7th Cir.1986); Mares v. Credit Bureau of Raton, 801 F.2d 1197, 1202-03 (10th Cir.1986) (77% reduction in hours).[11]
Irrespective of its obvious utility, the percentage or, "meat-axe approach," nonetheless has been criticized when employed in cases where the fee applications at issue involved substantial amounts of money and where district courts failed adequately to articulate their reasons for selecting specific percentage deductions. In re Continental Illinois, 962 F.2d 566 (7th Cir.1992); Heiar, 746 F.2d at 1203-04; see In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation, 751 F.2d 562, 594-95 (3d Cir.1984).

Heiar, for example, involved a situation where the district court judge simply cut the fee request in half rather than indicating those parts of the fee petition he found excessive. In vacating the defendant's award, Judge Posner noted that
where as in this case the request is for a large amount of money [$50,000] ... the judge must do more than eyeball the request and if it seems excessive cut it down by an arbitrary percentage. He has to make a judgment 0907 considering the nature of the case and the details of the request, taking evidence if need be, and defending his judgment in a reasoned (though brief) opinion 0907 on what the case should have cost the party who submitted the request.
Id. at 1204.
Similarly, in Continental Illinois the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court's handling of a $9 million fee application including its forty percent across-the-board cuts in the legal research and conferring categories. The appeals court concluded that the district court abused its discretion when it slashed broad categories of activity by arbitrary percentages "on the basis of his inarticulable and unsubstantiated dissatisfaction with lawyers' efforts to economize," rather than by disallowing specific items of unreasonable activity and providing examples of 1308 excessive time spent on *1308 legal research. Continental Illinois, 962 F.2d at 570. In so holding the court noted that such a method
won't do, especially when millions of dollars are at stake. The qualification is important: in small cases, the amount at issue in the request for lawyers' fees may be too slight to justify cutting with laser precision. The meat-axe approach (we called it "trimming fat from a fee application" in Tomazzoli v. Sheedy, supra, 804 F.2d at 98) may be acceptable in such a case. (The judge awarded only $6,000 in attorney's fees in Tomazzoli). It is true that in a large case, where the stakes in the attorney's fee are greater, so is the burden on the judge because the fee application will be longer and more complex.
Id.
Thus, percentages indeed are acceptable, and perhaps necessary, tools for district courts fashioning reasonable fee awards. However, decisions of district courts employing percentages in cases involving large fee requests are subject to heightened scrutiny and the use of percentages, in any case, neither discharges the district court from its responsibility to set forth a "concise but clear" explanation of its reasons for choosing a given percentage reduction nor from its duty to independently review the applicant's fee request.
Assessing the merit of defendants' contentions in light of these principles, we conclude that the district court abused its discretion. We therefore vacate and remand this portion of the district court's order for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
As a preliminary matter, we reject defendants' argument that the district court abused its discretion in failing expressly to rule on each of their specific objections. The "concise but clear" explanation requirement mandates that the district court explain the reasons for its fees award; it does not demand that the court make findings as to each of defendants' specific objections to plaintiffs' billing judgment. Cf. Truck Terminals, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 314 F.2d 449, 454-55 (9th Cir.1963) ("The fact that particular items of evidence were not mentioned in the findings or opinion of the Tax Court does not establish that they were not considered by that court").
Interpreting the "concise but clear" explanation requirement in this manner not only would result in unnecessary expenditure of precious, and already strained, judicial resources but would undermine the concise portion of that rule. As long as the district court supplies us with a sufficient understanding of the reasons for its decision additional exposition is unnecessary and we will presume that the district court implicitly rejected those specific challenges to plaintiffs' billing judgment deductions that it did not expressly discuss in its order.
We do conclude, however, that the district court here failed to articulate a "concise but clear" explanation for why the ten percent across-the-board reduction, when coupled with plaintiffs' discrete billing judgments, properly

compensated for plaintiffs' overbilling or duplication. Absent some indication of how the district court exercised its discretion, we are unable to assess whether the court abused that discretion.
In its only statement regarding the ten percent figure, the district court concluded that
[t]he amount of time spent appears to be reasonable. In light of the legal and factual complexity of this action, counsel's division of labor was justified and some duplication of effort was unavoidable. Determining with any precision what hours were duplicative, and what duplicative hours were unavoidable, is impossible from a paper record. Plaintiff's concessions and across-theboard reduction compensate for any overbilling which the court finds suggested in the current record.
Amended Order at 5. This cursory statement affords us no explanation as to how the court arrived at ten percent as the correct reduction and thus, it does not allow for us meaningfully to assess its determination.
1309 *1309 Integrally related to the district court's failure to provide an adequate explanation for the ten percent reduction, the district court abused its discretion when it seemingly uncritically accepted plaintiffs' suggested reductions and failed independently to review the record, even in a limited manner, in order to substantiate the accuracy of those reductions.
Although Judge Karlton's amended order contains a number of statements indicating that he independently reviewed plaintiffs' fee application to determine whether the proposed reductions were adequate,[12] other evidence in the record, especially when coupled with the absence of sufficient findings, strongly indicates that the district court, in fact, conducted no such inquiry.
We find the record of the August 27, 1990 hearing, at which the ten percent reduction was discussed at length, particularly telling in this regard. See Reporter's Transcript, Aug. 27, 1990 Hearing at 7-15 ("August 27th RT"). At the hearing, for example, the following colloquy took place:
THE COURT: ... I am much taken with your suggestion that the court can avoid spending the rest of its life worrying about every half hour billed on the theory that plaintiffs have taken a 10 percent discount for possible overbilling, double billings and the errors that human beings make. I think that's a very sensible way of proceeding, There are two questions that I have to ask you about that way of proceeding, one, is there any authority for it? And, two, why 10 percent? Why not 9 or 11? Do you see what I am saying? ...
MR. ROSEN: ... We discussed it, and the actual discussion among counsel, should it be 5 percent or should it be 10 percent? Frankly, we selected 10 percent because of the very large size of the Lode Star [sic]. Because there were a large number of offices involved, because there was some unavoidable duplication which may have been unnecessary in retrospect, and we erred on the high side, in addition to more that $100,000 in discreet [sic] billing judgments that we provided. That's basically how we selected it....
THE COURT: (addressing Mr. Cuneo for the Government) Counsel? Why isn't that a sensible thing for any judge who is faced with this level of concern to adopt? Just say, look, unless you can show that there was intentional manipulation, that all they have done is, in effect, built-in a 10 percent discount and took it 0907
August 27th RT (emphasis added). Judge Karlton's following remark also is revealing:
The reality is, that where there are significant disputes concerning whether or not 10 percent will adequately address the problem of mistaken error, I just don't know whether I am free under the law to avoid the task of spending the rest of my life examining this billing. On the other hand, nobody in his right mind could believe that that's the appropriate way to proceed.
Id. at 13:9-16.

The lack of even a brief explanation of how and why Judge Karlton selected ten percent and the fact that the record not only fails to illuminate the court's reasoning but casts doubt on the very existence of such a rationale, leads us to the ineluctable conclusion that the district court, faced with an admittedly voluminous paper record, threw up its hands and relied on plaintiffs' suggested, yet admittedly arbitrary, ten percent figure without itself reviewing the record.
The district court's proposal to defendants regarding the special master makes its abuse of discretion here all the more pronounced. Not only is the district court required to independently review plaintiffs' fee request even absent defense objections, but upon submitting their rebuttal evidence to plaintiffs' claimed reasonable hours, defendants were entitled to have the district court review both their objections and plaintiffs' claimed hours. Judge 1310 Karlton's *1310 proposal effectively forced the defendants to take a gamble if they wanted to obtain the record review that the district court was obliged to give them in the first place.[13]
Because the district court neither provided this court with a "concise but clear" explanation of its reasons for selecting the ten percent figure nor independently reviewed plaintiffs' fee application, we vacate its determination of the reasonable lodestar amount and its findings that plaintiffs' discrete billing judgment reductions and ten percent across-the-board reduction in the lodestar compensated for any overbilling or duplication. We remand the matter to the district court to reassess the reasonableness of the requested fee in accordance with the above principles.
Because the review of such a voluminous fee request is a daunting task, the district court may consider returning the case to Magistrate Judge Moulds because, as the district court itself noted at the beginning of the August 27th hearing, of his greater familiarity with this case.
2. Adjustments to the Lodestar
In addition to billing judgment reductions, in rare cases, a district court may make upward or downward adjustments to the presumptively reasonable lodestar on the basis of those factors set out in Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 69-70 (9th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 951, 96 S.Ct. 1726, 48 L.Ed.2d 195 (1976) (citing Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir.1974)), that have not been deemed subsumed in the lodestar calculation. Delaware Valley I, 478 U.S. at 564-65, 106 S.Ct. at 3097-98; Blum, 465 U.S. at 890-97, 104 S.Ct. at 1544-48; Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434, 103 S.Ct. at 1940; Cunningham, 879 F.2d at 484.[14]
Defendants argue that the district court erred when it increased plaintiffs' fee award twofold by employing a multiplier to account for the fact that their counsel was retained on a contingency fee basis. They also argue that the district court erred in failing to reduce the fee award based upon plaintiffs' limited or partial success.
In its amended order, the district court noted that the lodestar may be adjusted upward to compensate for contingent risk factor and cited the Supreme Court's decision in Delaware Valley I, 478 U.S. at 568, 106 S.Ct. at 3099 as support. The court also noted that plaintiffs must show that, without the promise of a multiplier, they would have faced substantial difficulties locating counsel.
Citing our decision in Fadhl v. City & County of San Francisco, 859 F.2d 649 (9th Cir.1988), the court found that the San Francisco legal community compensates for the contingency factor in this litigation by allowing a multiplier of two. The court found that plaintiffs' attorneys adequately "documented the market custom of providing enhancers, the necessity of a multiplier in attracting counsel, and their reliance upon a potential 1311 enhancer in accepting representation." Amended Order at 7. Finally, *1311 the court concluded that the 2.0 enhancer was justified "especially in light of the obvious undesirability of the litigation." Id.
After briefing in this case the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Dague v. City of Burlington, 935 F.2d 1343, 1359-60 (2d Cir.1991), cert. granted in part, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 964, 117 L.Ed.2d 130 (1992). We withdrew submission of this case in order to await the Supreme Court's decision in Dague.

In Dague the Supreme Court addressed whether, in determining an award of attorney's fees under section 7002 (e) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, 90 Stat. 2826, as amended 42 U.S.C. § 6972(e), or section 505(d) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 86 Stat. 889, as amended, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(d), a court "may enhance the fee above the `lodestar' amount in order to reflect the fact that the party's attorneys were retained on a contingent-fee basis and thus assumed the risk of receiving no payment at all for their services." City of Burlington v. Dague, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 112 S.Ct. 2638, 2639, 120 L.Ed.2d 449 (1992).
In its June 24, 1992 opinion in Dague the Court answered this query with a resounding "no," when it held "that enhancement for contingency is not permitted under the fee shifting statutes." Id. at ___, 112 S.Ct. at 2643-44. Although the Solid Waste Disposal and Federal Water Pollution Control Acts and not § 1988 were at issue in Dague, the Dague Court expressly noted that the language of both of these sections "is similar to that of many other federal fee-shifting statutes, see, e.g., 42 U.S.C. §§ 1988, 2000e-5(k), 7604(d); our case law construing what is a `reasonable' fee applies uniformly to all of them." Id. at ___, 112 S.Ct. at 2641 (citing Flight Attendants v. Zipes, 491 U.S. 754, 758 n. 2, 109 S.Ct. 2732, 2735 n. 2, 105 L.Ed.2d 639 (1989)).
Given the Court's holding in Dague, it is clear that contingency multipliers are no longer permitted under § 1988. Thus, we reverse the portion of the district court's amended order awarding a 2.0 contingency multiplier in this case.
Defendants also contend that the district court abused its discretion in failing to reduce the lodestar because plaintiffs only achieved partial success. In the district court they argued, and here they reiterate, that plaintiffs only achieved partial success because the consent decree did not address or incorporate a number of the allegations in plaintiffs' second amended complaint and did not include many of the specific proposals contained in plaintiffs' proposed injunction.
In the amended order under the heading "Partial Success," the district court responded to defendants' argument stating that: "[p]laintiffs are clearly a prevailing party entitled to full attorneys' fees and costs. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983). It long has been the law that obtaining relief through a consent decree does not alter prevailing party status. Maher v. Gagne, 448 U.S. 122, 100 S.Ct. 2570, 65 L.Ed.2d 653 (1980); Hanrahan v. Hampton, 446 U.S. 754, 100 S.Ct. 1987, 64 L.Ed.2d 670 (1980). Defendants' arguments with regard to partial success are patently frivolous." Amended Order at 4-5.
In order to recover attorneys' fees under § 1988 a party must be a "prevailing party." Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433, 103 S.Ct. at 1939. Defendants here concede that plaintiffs are a prevailing party. A determination that a party has prevailed, however, does not preclude a determination that the prevailing party, nonetheless, has achieved partial or limited rather than complete success. In other words, the prevailing party is not automatically deemed to have attained complete rather than partial success. Rather, the partial success determination is part of the district court's secondary inquiry into what fee is reasonable in a given case. Id. at 434-35, 103 S.Ct. at 1939-40. As the Hensley Court noted: "That the plaintiff is a `prevailing party' ... may say little about whether the expenditure of 1312 counsel's time was reasonable in *1312 relation to the success achieved." Id. at 436, 103 S.Ct. at 1941.
We agree with defendants that a plain reading of the district court's partial success findings indicates that the court based its conclusion that defendants' partial success claim was frivolous solely on the fact that the plaintiffs were the prevailing party. Moreover, because the prevailing party and partial or limited success inquiries are distinct, the record indicates that the district court's analysis regarding partial success is erroneous as a matter of law. Given this error, we vacate the district court's findings regarding partial success and remand to the district court in order for it to revisit this issue.
In an effort to assist the district court in its reassessment of this question, we note that a number of principles should guide its inquiry.
In Hensley the Supreme Court noted that the "results obtained" was one factor that might lead the district court to adjust the presumptively reasonable lodestar calculation and that this factor "is particularly crucial where a plaintiff is deemed `prevailing' even though he succeeded only on some of his claims for relief." Id. at 434, 103 S.Ct. at 1940. The Hensley Court set out a comprehensive framework for assessing the effect of a prevailing party's results obtained or partial success on the calculation of a fee award. The district court first asks if the

plaintiff did not prevail on claims that were unrelated to those on which he succeeded and excludes any fees associated with those unsuccessful claims. Second, the court makes further reductions when plaintiffs' success on any remaining interrelated unsuccessful and successful claims was limited. Id.
In subsequent decisions modifying the Hensley holding the Court has held that "the `results obtained' generally will be subsumed within other factors used to calculate a reasonable fee [and], it normally should not provide an independent basis for increasing the fee award." Blum, 465 U.S. at 900, 104 S.Ct. at 1549; Delaware Valley I, 478 U.S. at 565, 106 S.Ct. at 3098; Romberg, 953 F.2d 1152, 1161 (9th Cir.1992); Corder v. Gates, 947 F.2d 374, 374-81 (9th Cir.1991); Cunningham, 879 F.2d at 487 & n. 6.
Despite the general rule that limited or partial success is subsumed in the lodestar, under certain "exceptional circumstances," a district court has the latitude to adjust the lodestar on the basis of some of the subsumed factors provided the adjustment is "supported by evidence in the record demonstrating why such a deviation from the lodestar is appropriate." Id. at 488. In those rare cases when the district court does adjust a fee for reasonable success, it is obliged to "state[] which factors it is relying upon and [to] explain[] its reasoning." Id. at 487.[15]
Particularly notable in light of defendants' argument that plaintiffs' success was limited because the consent decree does not mirror the second amended complaint and the proposed preliminary injunction, is the Supreme Court's rejection in Hensley of "a mathematical approach comparing the total number of issues in the case with those actually prevailed upon" to the determination of whether fees should be reduced to account for limited or partial success. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 435 n. 11, 103 S.Ct. at 1940 n. 11; Toussaint v. McCarthy, 826 F.2d 901, 905 (9th Cir.1987); Greater Los Angeles Council on Deafness v. Community Television, 813 F.2d 217, 222 (9th Cir.1987). It is clear that a litigant need not prevail on every claim in order to receive a full fee. Id. at 220. "Litigants in good faith may raise alternative legal grounds for a desired outcome, and the court's rejection of or 1313 failure to reach certain grounds is not sufficient reason for reducing a fee. The result is what mat- *1313 ters." Hensley, 461 U.S. at 435, 103 S.Ct. at 1940 (emphasis added).
Finally, a district court should not reduce the lodestar merely because the prevailing party did not receive the type of relief that it requested. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 435 n. 11, 103 S.Ct. at 1940 n. 11;[16]City of Riverside v. Rivera, 477 U.S. 561, 574-75, 106 S.Ct. 2686, 2694-95, 91 L.Ed.2d 466 (1986); Quesada v. Thomason, 850 F.2d 537, 540 (9th Cir.1988); Jordan, 815 F.2d at 1262 & n. 6. This is especially true in civil rights cases. Riverside, 477 U.S. at 574-75, 106 S.Ct. at 2694-95; Romberg, 953 F.2d at 1167; see also Blanchard v. Bergeron, 489 U.S. 87, 95, 109 S.Ct. 939, 945, 103 L.Ed.2d 67 (1989).
3. Attorneys' Fee Rates
A. San Francisco versus Sacramento Hourly Rates
Defendants contend that the district court erred in awarding hourly rates comparable to prevailing rates in San Francisco. They argue that, because Sacramento attorneys with sufficient experience to handle the case were able and willing to represent the plaintiffs, the district court should have employed the prevailing rates for Sacramento when calculating the fee.
The district court held that the plaintiffs adequately had documented that their expertise in complex prison litigation required application of San Francisco rates and that the rates they charged are the prevailing market rates. It also concluded that defendants' arguments against the rates charged, "such as the availability of Sacramento personal injury lawyers ... [are] patently frivolous." Amended Order at 6.
Reasonable fees under § 1988 are calculated according to the prevailing market rates in the relevant legal community, Blum, 465 U.S. at 895, 104 S.Ct. at 1547, and the general rule is that the rates of attorneys practicing in the forum district, here the Eastern District of California 0907 Sacramento, are used. Davis v. Mason County, 927 F.2d 1473, 1488 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 275, 116 L.Ed.2d 227 (1991).[17] Although we have not ruled on the issue, a number of circuits have held that rates, other than those of the forum, may be

employed if local counsel was unavailable, either because they are unwilling or unable to perform because they lack the degree of experience, expertise, or specialization required to handle properly the case. See, e.g., McDonald v. Armontrout, 860 F.2d 1456, 1459-60 (8th Cir.1988); Polk v. New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 722 F.2d 23, 25 (2d Cir.1983); Louisville Black Police Officers Org., Inc. v. Louisville, 700 F.2d 268, 278 (6th Cir.1983); Chrapliwy v. Uniroyal, Inc., 670 F.2d 760, 768-69 (7th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 956, 103 S.Ct. 2428, 77 L.Ed.2d 1315 (1983); see also National Wildlife Federation v. Hanson, 859 F.2d 313, 317-18 (4th Cir.1988); Maceira v. Pagan, 698 F.2d 38, 40 (1st Cir. 1983).
Defendants attempt to distinguish these cases by arguing that the evidence presented to the district court failed to establish that Sacramento law firms were unwilling or unable to represent the plaintiff class or sub-class. They contend that, although "all the pleaded issues together amounted to a comprehensive conditions of confinement and health care case," the evidence that they introduced into the record as compared to "plaintiffs' counsels' selfserving declarations," proved that two or more Sacramento firms could have handled the case exactly as did plaintiffs' counsel.
We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding fees at San Francisco rates. Plaintiffs offered substantial evidence demonstrating that the issues in prisoner civil rights cases are extremely complex 1314 and thus require experienced and sophisticated counsel. They offered numerous declarations of San *1314 Francisco and Sacramento attorneys which directly support their contention that Sacramento attorneys and law firms with the requisite expertise and experience to handle this type of complex institutional prison reform litigation were unavailable.[18] Defendants' proof that Sacramento attorneys were capable of handling a case of this complexity consisted of three declarations of partners in major Sacramento insurance defense and commercial litigation firms.[19] These declarations, however, do not persuasively rebut plaintiffs' overwhelming contrary proof that Sacramento firms could not successfully have provided the expert representation required to effectively represent the litigants in this matter.[20] Although the district court may have selected words that were too strong when it found defendants' argument that personal injury attorneys adequately could handle this case "patently frivolous," given the record we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion by awarding fees at San Francisco rates on the ground that Sacramento attorneys with adequate expertise were unavailable.
B. Historic Versus Current Rates
Defendants also contend that the district court abused its discretion when it awarded plaintiffs current (then 1990) San Francisco community rates rather than historic rates.
In awarding fees at current rather than historic rates the district court cited Missouri v. Jenkins ex rel. Agyei, 491 U.S. 274, 283-84, 109 S.Ct. 2463, 2469, 105 L.Ed.2d 229 (1989) and noted that "plaintiffs' counsel began preparing this lawsuit over three years ago. Since that time they have expended an enormous amount of time and money without compensation. An award based on current rates is reasonable to adjust for this delay." Amended Order at 6-7.
In Jenkins the Court observed that "[c]learly, compensation received several years after the services were rendered 0907 as it frequently is in complex civil rights litigation 0907 is not equivalent to the same dollar amount received reasonably promptly as the legal services are performed, as would normally be the case with private billings." Jenkins, 491 U.S. at 283, 109 S.Ct. at 2469. Thus, the Court held that an adjustment for delay in payment is an appropriate factor in determining what constitutes a reasonable attorneys' fee under § 1988 and "that an appropriate adjustment for delay in payment 0907 whether by application of current rather than historic rates or otherwise 0907 is within contemplation of the statute." Id. at 284, 109 S.Ct. at 2469.
We long have recognized that district courts have the discretion to compensate prevailing parties for any delay in the receipt of fees by awarding fees at current rather than historic rates in order to adjust for inflation and loss of 1315 the use of funds. *1315 Bouman, 940 F.2d at 1235; Jordan, 815 F.2d at 1262 n. 7; Suzuki v. Yuen, 678 F.2d 761, 763 (9th Cir.1982); accord King v. Palmer, 906 F.2d 762, 769 (D.C.Cir.1990); Iqbal v. Golf Course Superintendents Ass'n of America, 900 F.2d 227, 228 (10th Cir.1990); Chambless v. Masters, Mates & Pilots Pension Plan, 885 F.2d 1053, 1060 (2d Cir.1989). A fee award at current rates is intended to compensate

prevailing attorneys for lost income they might have received through missed investment opportunities as well as lost interest. See, e.g., Jenkins, 491 U.S. at 283 n. 6, 109 S.Ct. at 2469 n. 6; Bouman, 940 F.2d at 1235. The record reflects that plaintiffs' counsel presented evidence that their work on this case precluded them from engaging in substantial work on other cases that would have paid at full market rates. These potential earnings, like interest payments and investment opportunities foregone, are deserving of compensation.
Defendants' argument that an interest adjustment would have been sufficient to compensate for the delay in this case similarly is unavailing. As defendants correctly note, Jenkins does not require an enhancement for delay under all circumstances, but rather permits an adjustment "where appropriate."[21]Id., 491 U.S. at 281, 284, 109 S.Ct. at 2468, 2469 ("within the contemplation of the statute"); see Huntington Branch NAACP v. Huntington, New York, 961 F.2d 1048, 1049 (2d Cir.1992). The Jenkins Court, however, made clear that the district court has the discretion to choose the method by which it will adjust the fee to compensate for delay in payment and that it may do so "by adjusting the fee based on historical rates to reflect its present value," or "otherwise." Jenkins, 491 U.S. at 282, 109 S.Ct. at 2468 (citing with approval Delaware Valley II, 483 U.S. at 716, 107 S.Ct. at 3082 & Jenkins, 491 U.S. at 284, 109 S.Ct. at 2469); Romberg, 953 F.2d at 1164 (citing Jenkins and remanding because interest adjustment should have been considered to compensate for delay).[22] Thus, the district court's determination to adjust to current rates rather than to make an interest adjustment squarely was within the bounds of its discretion.
Finally, the length of the delay in payment indeed is a consideration in deciding whether an award of current rather than historic rates is warranted. See, e.g., Chalmers, 796 F.2d at 1215 (five year delay in payment of $149,785); Smith v. Freeman, 921 F.2d 1120, 1122-23 (10th Cir.1990) (fourteen months delay in payment of $8,139). Defendants' argument, however, that the delay in this case was too short to justify a current rates award is unconvincing. Plaintiffs' attorneys have waited over three years to be compensated. This delay is particularly onerous given that the fees awarded in this case, even without the 2.0 multiplier, runs in the millions of dollars. [23]
1316 *1316 For the above reasons, we affirm the district court's award of current San Francisco rates.
4. Expert Witness Fees as Costs
Defendants contend that in light of the Supreme Court's decision in West Virginia University Hospitals, Inc. v. Casey, ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 1138, 113 L.Ed.2d 68 (1991), which was decided on March 19, 1991 after the district court entered its Amended Order, the district court's award of tens of thousands of dollars in expert witness fees to plaintiffs as costs was clearly erroneous and must be reversed. We agree.
Included among the costs awarded plaintiffs' counsel was $93,089.12 (out of a total costs and expenses in the amount $345,732.76) all of which was designated under the category "expert witnesses." In Casey the Court held that § 1988 does not convey authority to shift expert fees in civil rights litigation to the losing party and that when experts appear at trial they are eligible for the fee provided by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920 and 1821, but that the prevailing party may not be awarded more than this amount for expert witnesses' trial testimony and is not entitled to anything for services rendered by experts in a nontestimonial capacity. Casey at ___, 111 S.Ct. at 1148.
Plaintiffs argue that defendants have waived their right to raise the issue of expert witness fees because they failed first to present it to the district court. As a general rule, we will not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal. United States v. Childs, 944 F.2d 491, 495 (9th Cir.1991) (citing United States v. Hayden, 860 F.2d 1483, 1485 (9th Cir.1988)). In our discretion, however, we may address a new issue raised for the first time on appeal if it "arises while the appeal is pending because of a change in law." United States v. Carlson, 900 F.2d 1346, 1349-50 (9th Cir. 1990). Here, because the Casey decision was rendered after the district court entered its March 27, 1990 order and it changed the law with regard to compensation for expert witness fees under § 1988 we exercise our discretion to address defendants' argument.[24]

We conclude that, given the Supreme Court's decision in Casey, the district court's award of expert witness fees cannot stand. Thus, we remand to the district court with instruction to modify the award of expert witness fees as costs in accordance with Casey.
5. Writ of Execution for Interim Fees and Total Fee Award
Defendants' final contention is that the district court erred in issuing a writ of execution permitting plaintiffs to collect the $1 million in interim attorneys' fees that it awarded in its August 27, 1990 interim order before the California State Legislature was given an opportunity to appropriate the funds for the award.[25] They argue that our decision in Spain v. Mountanos, 690 F.2d 742 (9th Cir.1982) prohibits issuance of such a writ because it is inconsistent with principles of federalism.
A. Mootness
Defendants concede that once the writ issued they paid the fees awarded in the district court's interim fee order rather than seeking a stay on enforcement of the writ of execution under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 27. 1317 They also concede *1317 that, because they already have paid the interim fees award, under normal circumstances they would not be permitted to challenge the district court's authority to issue that writ because the question would be moot. Nonetheless, they argue that the issue is not moot under the exception to the mootness doctrine for cases "capable of repetition yet evading review." Southern Pac. Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 U.S. 498, 515, 31 S.Ct. 279, 283, 55 L.Ed. 310 (1911).
Two criteria must be met for a case to fall within this exception. First, the challenged action must be of inherently short duration, a period too brief for effective judicial review, and second, the party who is raising the challenge must have a reasonable expectation that he will be subjected to the same type of action again. Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149, 96 S.Ct. 347, 348, 46 L.Ed.2d 350 (1975); Barilla v. Ervin, 886 F.2d 1514, 1519 (9th Cir.1989).
We conclude that defendants' argument fails under our decisions in In re Combined Metals Reduction Co., 557 F.2d 179, 191 (9th Cir.1977) and In re Bunker Ltd. Partnership, 820 F.2d 308 (9th Cir.1987). In Bunker we clarified our holding in Combined Metals noting that under that decision
a party may not profit from the "capable of repetition yet evading review" exception to mootness, where through his own failure to seek and obtain a stay he has prevented an appellate court from reviewing the trial court's decision. The exception was designed to apply to situations where the type of injury involved inherently precludes judicial review, not to situations where the failure of parties to take actions has precluded review as a practical matter.
Id. at 311 (citations omitted). Because, as defendants admit, they did not seek a stay under Rule 27 their own inaction essentially was the only reason that writ evaded our review. Similarly, if the district court were to issue a writ of execution permitting plaintiffs to collect the fees awarded in its Amended Order, that writ would only evade our review if the defendants again failed to obtain (or at least attempted to obtain) a stay under Rule 27. Thus, because under the above decisions the defendants may not take advantage of the "capable of repetition yet evading review" exception to the mootness doctrine. Their claim here, therefore, is moot and we lack jurisdiction to address whether the district court possessed authority to issue a writ of execution before the California Legislature denied appropriation of the interim fee award.
B. Ripeness
Defendants admit that the district court has not yet issued a writ of execution permitting collection of the unpaid fees awarded in its final Amended Order and plaintiffs correctly note that the district court's Periodic Fees Order does not include a writ of execution provision in the event of nonpayment. Defendants argue, however, that

because the Periodic Fees Order contains another "unrealistic deadline" for payment of the final fee award the district court inevitably will issue a writ of execution for payment of those funds, and that this court, therefore, should rule on whether the district court's issuance of such a writ would be permissible.
We refuse to decide this question because it is not yet ripe for determination and thus, under Article III of the Constitution, we lack jurisdiction to rule on its merit. The ripeness inquiry asks whether the issues are fit for judicial decision and whether the parties will suffer hardship if the court does not consider the issues. Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 149, 87 S.Ct. 1507, 1515, 18 L.Ed.2d 681 (1967), overruled on other grounds, Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 105, 97 S.Ct. 980, 984, 51 L.Ed.2d 192 (1977); State of California ex rel. Water Resources Control Bd. v. F.E.R.C., 966 F.2d 1541, 1562 (9th Cir.1992); Western Oil & Gas Ass'n v. Sonoma County, 905 F.2d 1287, 1290 (9th Cir.1990) (ripeness inquiry asks "whether there is yet a need for the court to act"), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 784, 112 L.Ed.2d 846 (1991).
1318 This issue is not fit for judicial resolution. The harm to defendants is speculative *1318 and hypothetical rather than direct or immediate because the district court has not even threatened to issue a writ and, if the California Legislature appropriates the funds required to pay the judgment, the writ never will issue. Abbott Labs., 387 U.S. at 152, 87 S.Ct. at 1517. Moreover, defendants have failed to demonstrate that they will suffer any hardship if we wait to review this question after, and if, the district court in fact issues a writ.
Thus, because the question of the district court's authority to compel defendants to pay the final fees award without first permitting the legislature an opportunity to appropriate the funds as promised, is unripe we are without jurisdiction to reach its merit.
IV. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, we affirm the district court's determination regarding current San Francisco rates. In light of the Supreme Court's decision in City of Burlington v. Dague, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 2638, 120 L.Ed.2d 449 (1992), we reverse the district court's decision to employ a 2.0 contingency enhancement. Moreover, given the Court's decision in West Virginia University Hospitals v. Casey, Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 1138, 113 L.Ed.2d 68 (1991), we also reverse the district court's award of expert witness fees as costs and remand for the court to modify its costs award accordingly.
Furthermore, we vacate the district court's determination regarding the reasonableness of plaintiffs' proposed discounted lodestar, including its findings that the across-the-board ten percent reduction in the lodestar and plaintiffs' discrete billing judgment reductions were adequate to compensate for any overbilling or duplication in the record and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We also vacate the district court's determination regarding partial success and remand this question for reexamination as well.
Finally, because defendants' arguments regarding the writs of execution for interim attorneys' fees and the final fee order respectively are moot and unripe, we are without jurisdiction to rule on their merits.
AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART. Costs on this appeal are awarded to defendants/appellants.
[1] In 1984 in Durggan v. McCarthy, Sacramento Superior Court No. 326371, Alameda County Legal Aid alleged that the California Department of Corrections ("CDC") was providing inpatient medical and psychiatric care without an acute care hospital license as required under California law. CMF eventually was issued a license and the case subsequently was dismissed. In 1985 the United States Department of Justice ("USDOJ") commenced an investigation at CMF under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997 et seq. In January 1987 the USDOJ issued findings that medical and psychiatric care, environmental conditions, and overcrowding at CMF were constitutionally deficient.
[2] Prison Law Office ("PLO") and McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enerson ("McCutchen") were the two firms initially involved in preparing the first draft of plaintiffs' complaint. Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison ("Brobeck") and the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California ("ACLU") joined as plaintiffs' attorneys in the summer of

1987 and Rosen, Bien & Asaro ("Rosen") in the fall of 1988 when the complexity and difficulty of representing the HIV subclass became apparent.
[3] The complaint challenged as constitutionally deficient under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and 29 U.S.C. § 794 medical and psychiatric care, indecent conditions of confinement 0907 particularly overcrowding 0907 and segregated housing and treatment of HIV infected inmates at CMF and NRC.
[4] The district court found that defendants' litigation posture contributed to the amount of time plaintiffs' attorneys expended between filing of the complaint and the trial.
[5] Why settlement talks foundered is unclear. Plaintiffs contend that they failed because CDC flatly refused to enter into a consent decree. Defendants argue that they failed due to plaintiffs' insistence on settling all issues together 0907 rather than bifurcating the HIV segregation and general conditions issues on which progress was not being made 0907 and because they wanted the consent decree to include issues that defendants believed were resolved already in CRIPA and Durggan.
[6] This figure was computed as follows:

$3,313,699.83

×

2

_____________

$6,627,399.66

$1,000,000.00

_____________

$5,627,399.66

discounted lodestar enhancer
subtotal interim fee award
Total remaining fees

[7] Related to this claim, defendants also urge that the district court abused its discretion when, after accepting as reasonable and without scrutiny plaintiffs' proposed reductions, it offered to send the fee application to a special master but only if defendants footed the bill for those services if the master concluded that plaintiffs' ten percent reduction was adequate.

[8] Defendants neglected to mention these deductions in their Brief.

[9] The ten percent reduction amounted to $368,188.87 which, with the discrete reductions, meant a total reduction in the fee award before the 2.0 multiplier of $476,684.67 and of $953,369.34 in the final enhanced award.

[10] Accord Heiar v. Crawford County, 746 F.2d 1190, 1204 (7th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 472 U.S. 1027, 105 S.Ct. 3500, 87 L.Ed.2d 631 (1985); Wojtkowski v. Cade, 725 F.2d 127, 130 (1st Cir. 1984); National Ass'n of Concerned Veterans v. Secretary of Defense, 675 F.2d 1319, 1327 (D.C.Cir.1982).

[11] Defendants err in asserting that no court has made additional billing judgment reductions by reducing the lodestar by a percentage rather than by reducing the number of hours component of the lodestar equation. Copeland v. Marshall, 641 F.2d 880, 903 (D.C.Cir.1980) (en banc) (upholding district court's percentage decrease of the proposed lodestar calculation to account for expenditure of unnecessary time by inexperienced lawyers).

Further, we fail to see why a percentage reduction in the lodestar should be treated differently from a percentage reduction in the number of claimed hours. In each case the end result 0907 a percentage reduction in the claimed fee 0907 is the same and thus either method is acceptable. Cf. Cabrales v. County of Los Angeles, 864 F.2d 1454, 1465 (9th Cir.1988) (noting that it is inconsequential whether the lodestar figure or the reasonable hours component is adjusted for lack of success).

[12] These include statements that he found the reduced lodestar "justified by ample documentation," and "reasonable from a record review." Amended Order at 5:7 & 5:23.

[13] Plaintiffs argue that because defendants had the opportunity to stipulate to having the fees matter determined by Magistrate Judge Moulds at the commencement of the August 27, 1990 hearing and refused to do so they cannot argue here that the district court should have referred the fees dispute to a magistrate judge.
Plaintiffs' contention is unsound. Undoubtedly if defendants had known that Judge Karlton was going to deny them his own review of the record and instead require them to take the risk under his proposal if they wanted a review of any kind, they would have stipulated at the outset. Plaintiffs' counsel are asking us unfairly to judge defendants' actions with twenty-twenty hindsight.
[14] The Johnson-Kerr factors include: (1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the issues involved; (3) the skill required to perform the legal services properly; (4) the preclusion of other employment by an attorney due to acceptance of the case; (5) the customary fee; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) time limitations imposed by a client or the circumstances; (8) the amount in question and results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys; (10) the "undesirability" of the case; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and, (12) awards in similar cases. Kerr, 526 F.2d at 70; United States Steel-workers v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 896 F.2d 403, 406 n. 3 (9th Cir.1990).
[15] In this regard,
[t]he primary concern of the appellate courts ... appears to be that the district court not consider the `subsumed' factors both when it sets the lodestar and when it examines the increasing or reducing factors. Whether the district court engaged in such double counting must be our primary inquiry in determining whether a remand is necessary.
Romberg v. Nichols, 953 F.2d 1152, 1162, amended and superseded on other grounds, 970 F.2d 512 (9th Cir.1992).
[16] Thus, "a plaintiff who failed to recover damages but obtained injunctive relief, or vice versa, may recover a fee award based on all hours reasonably expended if the relief obtained justified that expenditure of attorney time." Id.
[17] Defendants concede that if San Francisco market rates are applicable plaintiffs' requested rates are accurate.
[18] San Francisco attorney Steven Mayer's declaration is representative:
It is my understanding that, for a variety of reasons such as the complexity of the case, and its contingent character, this case was too big for even the biggest private law firms in San Francisco ... to handle on an individual basis, even with the expert assistance of counsel from the [PLO] ... and [ACLU].... For this reason, it is understandable that plaintiffs' counsel concluded that there were no firms or attorneys in Sacramento capable, either singly or in combination, of taking on this case.
Mayer Decl. at ¶ 15.
[19] Defendants argue that, because at least four jail conditions cases were prosecuted by local Sacramento counsel, competent Sacramento counsel were available to handle this case. Because defendants' failed to designate copies of these complaints in their excerpts of the record, we are unable to assess the merit of their argument.
[20] Defense declarant Franklin in one sentence notes that she is involved in a jail conditions case in Lassen County but offers neither information regarding the scope or complexity of that case nor an opinion regarding the ability of her firm or other Sacramento firms to take on complex contingent institutional prison reform cases like Gates. Defense declarant Murphy merely noted that "many attorneys and law firms in the Sacramento community ... have the expertise and resources to provide representation in ... [section 1983 cases]" and declarant Birney, whose firm is involved in complex medical malpractice cases, stated that "[w]ith respect to issues concerning allegations of professional malpractice, including medical and psychiatric care" many Sacramento firms have the expertise and resources to handle such cases.

[21] Defendants claim that the district court mistakenly believed that it was required to apply current rates under Jenkins. The district court's order, however, bears no indication that the court misunderstood Jenkins in this fashion.
[22] Adjusting the fee based on historic rates to reflect present value essentially describes adjustment of fees for inflation. Oklahoma Aerotronics, Inc. v. United States, 943 F.2d 1344, 1348-49 (D.C.Cir.1991).
[23] Defendants attempt to argue that the award of $1 million in interim attorneys' fees somehow cushioned the impact of this delay. In Jenkins the Court noted that "in economic terms, such an interim award does not differ from enhancement for delay in payment." Jenkins, 491 U.S. at 283-84 n. 6, 109 S.Ct. at 2469 n. 6. This argument, however, lacks force given the facts of this case. First, the interim award of $1 million only compensated for a small portion (approximately one-sixth) of the lodestar sum awarded plaintiffs. Second, payment of the interim award was delayed for over eight months because the defendants failed to comply with the district court's March 27, 1990 order until the court issued a writ of execution in December 5, 1990.
Defendants also argue that an award of 1990 rates results in a windfall to plaintiffs' counsel rather than merely compensating them for the effects of inflation or the loss of use of the funds. Proof that an award at current rates will result in a windfall to the prevailing attorneys may be ground to deny use of current rates. Murray v. Weinberger, 741 F.2d 1423 (D.C.Cir. 1984); cf. Thompson v. Barrett, 599 F.Supp. 806, 813-14 (D.D.C.1984) (application of historic rates in lengthy case proper because use of current rates for attorneys' current experience would produce a windfall). However, because defendants fail to provide the court with any evidence to substantiate their allegation, we decline to address it.
[24] We need not decide the validity of defendants' argument that this issue raises a defect in the district court's subject matter jurisdiction that properly may be raised at any time. Moreover, given the application of this exception, plaintiffs' argument that this court's decision in Davis v. Mason County, 927 F.2d 1473 (9th Cir. 1991) is distinguishable is without merit.
[25] The district court also ordered the defendants to pay plaintiffs $253,429.42 in costs and disbursements and it issued a writ of execution for the plaintiffs' limited to the amount of unpaid costs. Defendants only mention this writ in passing and their challenge here appears limited to the writ of execution regarding the interim fees and the potential threat of such a writ of execution under the Periodic Fees Order for collection of the remainder of the fees awarded in the Amended Order.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 39 F.3d 1439 (1994)
Jay Lee GATES, John Ronald Bertram, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
James ROWLAND and his successor in office James H. Gomez, Director of the California Department of Correction; Nadim Khoury, M.D., Assistant Deputy Director 0907 CDC Health
Services; Eddie Ylst and his successor in office Steve Cambra, Warden (Interim) 0907 California Medical Facility; Kenneth Shepard, M.D., Chief Deputy Warden for CMF Clinical
Services; Nicholas Poulos, M.D., and his successor in office George R. Gay, Chief Physician and Surgeon (Acting); CMF; Paul Morentz, M.D., Chief Psychiatrist 0907 CMF Outpatient Psychiatric Program; H. Benton, M.D., and his successor in office A.R. Rotella, M.D., Chief Psychiatrists 0907 Northern Reception Center; D. Michael O'Connor, M.D., and his successor in office William Mayer, Director of the California Department of Mental Health; 1440 Douglas *1440 G. Arnold and his successor in office Clyde Murrey, Acting Deputy Director for State Hospitals; DMH and Sylvia Blount, R.N., Executive Director 0907 DMH Vacaville
Psychiatric Program, Defendants-Appellants. Jay Lee GATES, Plaintiff-Appellant, and George Deukmejian, Governor, Plaintiff, v.
James ROWLAND, Director, Defendant-Appellee. Jay Lee GATES, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
George DEUKMEJIAN; Ron Shinn; James Rowland; Nadim Khoury, M.D.; Assistant Deputy Director 0907 CDC Health Services; Eddie Ylst; Kenneth Shepard, Chief Deputy
Warden for CMF Clinical Services, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
Nos. 91-16702, 91-16780, 93-15363 and 93-16136.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted February 8, 1994. Decided November 4, 1994.
14412 *1441 *1442 Allen R. Crown, Asst. Atty. Gen., Michael A. Santoki, Supervising Deputy Atty. Gen., and James E. Flynn, Deputy Atty. Gen., Sacramento, CA, for defendants-appellants-cross-appellees.
Sanford Jay Rosen, Rosen, Bien & Asaro, and Matthew A. Coles, ACLU Foundation of Northern California, Inc., San Francisco, CA, and Donald Specter, Prison Law Office, San Quentin, CA, for plaintiffs-appellees-crossappellants.
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges.
HUG, Circuit Judge:
A consent decree entered into by various California state officials and a class, including all inmates at the California Medical Facility ("CMF") in Vacaville, California, gives rise to these three separate The inmates brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to challenge deficient medical and psychiatric care, indecent confinementconditions, and treatment and segregation of HIV-positive inmates at the CMF 0907 Main and Northern Reception Center. The consent decree included a provision for payment of attorneys' fees.
In No. 93-15363, the defendants-appellants challenge the district court's interpretation of the consent decree, so far as defendants are required to provide additional correctional staff at CMF. In No. 93-16136, the defendants-

appellants challenge the district court's order enjoining them from denying food service positions to HIV-positive inmates. In No. 91-16702, the defendants-appellants appeal the district court's award of attorneys' fees to the plaintiffs. In No. 91-16780, the plaintiffs cross-appeal contending that additional attorneys' fees are due.
I.
FACTS
Plaintiffs brought this action to challenge conditions at the CMF 0907 Main and Northern Reception Center, which they alleged were overcrowded and understaffed. The certified class of all inmates at CMF claimed that the shortages of custody staff and overcrowding exposed them to an unconstitutional risk of harm in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. As a remedy, they proposed limits on the numbers of inmates who could be housed at CMF and an increase in the correctional staff to provide "adequate supervision" for inmates. They also alleged that the denial of access to medical and mental health care and to attorneys, and the segregation of HIVpositive inmates violated their constitutional rights. A subclass of HIV-positive inmates made claims under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794. The section 504 claims of mobility-impaired inmates 1443 confined to wheelchairs *1443 and of mentally ill inmates were also included in the action.
After two months of trial, settlement negotiations began. The defendants agreed to an alternative dispute resolution procedure, which used a mediator with correctional experience who would assist with negotiations and, if necessary, would file findings and recommendations with the court.
A consent decree was approved on March 8, 1990. The consent decree stated that it was not intended "to prescribe the minimum standards required by the United States Constitution." The consent decree provided for a dispute resolution process, involving mediation and reports to the court. Under the procedure outlined in the consent decree, the mediator is to work with the parties to resolve disagreements through mediation, but also has the power to make findings and recommendations in a report to the court on those matters that are not resolved through mediation. The parties could object to the mediator's report and obtain a court determination of any issue.
II.
NO. 93-15363: CUSTODIAL STAFFING
The defendants agreed to review existing staffing levels and to report on whether they believed there were "adequate custody staff to properly supervise and to provide escorts and other services to inmates in those units." Pursuant to the decree, the defendants submitted a report reviewing the custody staffing level at CMF and concluding that the level was adequate. The plaintiffs disputed the report's conclusions, and a mediator retained a consultant, James Henderson, a correctional staffing expert, to prepare a report that was provided on June 26, 1991. Henderson conducted a staffing analysis to determine the minimum number of correctional officers required to operate the prison safely, and concluded that custodial staffing at CMF should be increased by 36 positions.
The defendants objected to Henderson's report. The mediator was unable to resolve the disagreement over the adequacy of custodial staffing, thus, a formal evidentiary hearing was held on October 8, and November 1, 1991, as provided by the consent decree.
The mediator found that the Henderson report was a "conservative but sound staffing analysis." He deleted all positions in Henderson's recommendation that were added to improve efficiency and management, and that were related to developing an outpatient psychiatric program. In his findings and recommendations filed on March 12, 1992, the mediator concluded that 12 additional positions were necessary.

The defendants objected on the ground that the mediator had not used the constitutional standard of whether inmates were exposed to an unreasonable risk of harm to measure "adequate custodial staffing." Instead, the mediator interpreted the consent decree, according to its plain meaning, as establishing a standard based on whether staffing was adequate from a correctional perspective.
The magistrate judge recommended adoption of the mediator's recommendation. The defendants again objected, but the district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation, with some modifications, on December 9, 1992. The district court held that "adequate custodial staffing," as used in the consent decree, was not ambiguous and when construed according to its ordinary meaning, did not implicate the constitutional standard.
The defendants argue that the consent decree's reference to "adequate supervision" was ambiguous and should be interpreted according to the mutual intentions of the parties at the time the consent decree was entered.
The consent decree stated:
Defendants shall review the staffing levels of each unit at CMF to determine whether there are adequate custody staff to properly supervise and to provide escorts and other services to inmates in those units. Defendants shall submit a report of their conclusions and any recommendations to the Mediator and plaintiffs' counsel.
The primary issue is whether "adequate custodial staffing to properly supervise" means only that staff sufficient to 1444 protect inmates from an unreasonable risk of violence, which *1444 is the constitutional minimum standard. See
Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 526-27, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 3200-01, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984). The plaintiffs contend that the district court and the mediator properly applied the higher standard of accepted correctional practices.
Interpretation of a consent decree is a question of law that we review de novo. Thompson v. Enomoto, 915 F.2d 1383, 1388 (9th Cir.1990), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 965, 117 L.Ed.2d 131 (1992). The rules of contract interpretation of the situs state govern interpretation of the consent decree. Id. The language of the contract governs if it is clear and explicit. Id. Cal.Civil Code § 1638. Words in a contract are generally understood in their ordinary and popular sense, and technical words are interpreted as usually understood by persons in the profession or business to which they relate. Cal.Civil Code § 1644.
The plain meaning of the terms of the consent decree is clear: the staff must be adequate "to properly supervise prisoners and to provide escorts and other services." The consent decree does not state that the staff must only protect inmates from an unreasonable risk of violence. We must interpret the contract "to give effect to the mutual intention of the parties as it existed at the time of contracting," Thompson, 915 F.2d at 1388 (citing Cal.Civil Code § 1636), but we determine that by referring to the language of the agreement, if possible. Cal.Civil Code §§ 1638, 1639. Where the parties negotiated use of a constitutional standard, they specified so in the language of the consent decree. Otherwise, the consent decree is not limited to constitutional standards. In fact, it states that "[t]he parties agree that it is not the intent of [the] Consent Decree to prescribe the minimum standards required by the United States Constitution."
The language of the consent decree is not ambiguous. Even if it were, the objectively determinable mutual intention of the parties at the time the parties agreed to the consent decree does not indicate any alternative meaning. The consent decree did not mention the constitutional standard. "[T]he true intent of a party is irrelevant if it is unexpressed." United Commercial Ins. Serv., Inc. v. Paymaster Corp., 962 F.2d 853, 856 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 660, 121 L.Ed.2d 585 (1992).
Furthermore, the district court's construction of the "adequate supervision" phrase is consistent with other provisions of the consent decree. The consent decree specifically provides that the parties waive "any determination whether the remedies provided are legally required." The remedies provided by the consent decree are not to be considered "legally required." The defendants argue that the district court should have limited the staffing to the constitutional minimum because the district court applied a statutory standard when it evaluated a separate claim that arose from the consent decree concerning the treatment of HIV-positive inmates. This claim is without merit. The Constitution and relevant applicable statutes, such as the Rehabilitation Act, establish floors

below which the prison officials may not go legally. They are, however, free to negotiate to do more than those laws require, which is what resulted in the custodial staffing provision of the consent decree.
We affirm the judgment of the district court in No. 93-15363.
III.
NO. 93-16136: HIV-POSITIVE INMATES
The HIV-positive inmates challenged the prison policy of segregating HIV-positive inmates from other inmates and denying them access to jobs and programs open to other inmates. The consent decree provided that the defendants would develop a pilot program to determine the feasibility of placing HIV-seropositive inmates in a general population program at CMF. The stated goal of the pilot program was "to demonstrate that such placement is possible consistent with medical, behavioral, and security considerations."
The defendants submitted their report to the mediator. The parties mediated three issues in hearings conducted by the mediator. Issues concerning the defendants' policy regarding the HIV-positive inmates in the CMF 1445 population were all agreed to, with the *1445 exception of one issue. That single issue was the defendants' policy of excluding HIV-positive inmates from preparing or serving food at CMF. The defendants enforced a blanket policy excluding all HIV-positive inmates from food service programs. After an unsuccessful attempt at negotiations, a formal evidentiary hearing was held before the mediator. The mediator recommended that the court enjoin the defendants from denying food service employment to those inmates, absent a written determination that an individual inmate is not otherwise qualified to perform the job and that the defendants cannot reasonably accommodate the inmate so that he will be able to perform the essential functions of the job.
The defendants objected, but the magistrate judge recommended that the district court adopt the mediator's findings and recommendations. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations and held that the policy of exclusion violated section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The district court's order stated in part:
2. The following policy which has been agreed to by the parties is approved:
"Placement in a closed HIV positive unit can only be ordered by a Unit or Institution Classification Committee, and only if one of the following criteria is met:
A. A documented history within the last twelve (12) months of the following high risk behavior will normally exclude an HIV positive inmate from an open housing unit:
1. Participation in anal or oral intercourse; or
2. Assault during which the HIV positive inmate bleeds and inflicts an open wound on another.
B. An HIV positive inmate may be excluded from open housing if:
1. There is reasonable cause to believe that the inmate is likely to engage in anal or oral intercourse; or
2. There is reasonable cause to believe that the inmate is likely to engage in assaultive behavior which is intended or likely to inflict an open wound on another.
In either case, the fact of the case and the grounds and reasoning for the reasonable cause decision must be documented in a classification form 128-G."
3. Defendants are enjoined from denying food service employment to all HIV positive inmates at California Medical Facility absent a written determination that an individual inmate is not otherwise qualified to perform the job in that he cannot perform the essential functions of the job, and that

defendants cannot reasonably accommodate the inmate such that he will be able to perform those functions....
A. Discussion
In agreeing to the provisions of the consent decree, the parties recognized that rights established by section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 were implicated. Section 504, as amended and codified at 29 U.S.C. § 794(a) ("the Act"), provides that "[n]o otherwise qualified individual with a disability ... shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."[1] Thus, the Act requires that the plaintiff (1) have a disability, (2) be otherwise qualified for the job, and (3) be excluded due to discrimination solely by reason of his or her disability. In addition, the program doing the discriminating must receive federal assistance.
The term "individual with a disability" is defined in section 706(8)(B) of the Act to be "any person who (i) has a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more of such person's major life activities, (ii) has a record of such an impairment, or (iii) is regarded as having such an impairment." 29 U.S.C. § 706(8)(B).
In School Board of Nassau County v. Arline, 480 U.S. 273, 107 S.Ct. 1123, 94 L.Ed.2d 307 (1987), the Supreme 1446 Court held that the *1446 Act applied to a teacher with tuberculosis who had been removed from a teaching
position to an administrative position because of the perceived threat her condition posed to the health of others. The Court stated that the contagious effects of a disease could not be meaningfully distinguished from the disease's physical effect on the claimant. "It would be unfair to allow an employer to seize upon the distinction between the effects of a disease on others and the effects of a disease on a patient and use that distinction to justify discriminatory treatment." Id. at 282, 107 S.Ct. at 1128. Thus, the Court held that the essential inquiry was whether she was otherwise qualified for the job. Id. at 287, 107 S.Ct. at 1130. The Court stated:
In the context of the employment of a person handicapped with a contagious disease, we agree with amicus American Medical Association that this inquiry should include
"[findings of] facts, based on reasonable medical judgments given the state of medical knowledge, about (a) the nature of the risk (how the disease is transmitted), (b) the duration of the risk (how long is the carrier infectious), (c) the severity of the risk (what is the potential harm to third parties) and (d) the probabilities the disease will be transmitted and will cause varying degrees of harm."
In making these findings, courts normally should defer to the reasonable medical judgments of public health officials. The next step in the "otherwise-qualified" inquiry is for the court to evaluate, in light of these medical findings, whether the employer could reasonably accommodate the employee under the established standards for that inquiry.
Id. at 287-88, 107 S.Ct. at 1131 (citation and footnote omitted).
Following the Arline decision, we held in Chalk v. United States District Court, 840 F.2d 701 (9th Cir.1988), that the Act applied to a teacher who was diagnosed with AIDS. We noted that:
AIDS is caused by infection of the individual with HIV, a retrovirus that penetrates the chromosomes of certain human cells that combat infection throughout the body. Individuals who become infected with HIV may remain without symptoms for an extended period of time.
Id. at 706. In this case, as in Chalk, the physical impairment to the individual is not the issue, but rather the issue is the contagious effect of the HIV virus. Thus, there is no distinction to be drawn, for purposes of the Act, between those persons in whom the HIV virus has developed into AIDS and those persons who have remained asymptomatic. It is the possible transmission of the virus to others that is the basis of the individual's disability under the provisions of the Act. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101(2), defines disability in terms identical to those of the Act in section 706(8)(B). The regulations implementing the ADA include, as a physical or medical impairment, "HIV disease (whether symptomatic or asymptomatic)." 28 C.F.R. § 35.104(4)(l)(ii). This is consistent with the holdings of Arline and Chalk. Thus, we hold that a person infected with

the HIV virus is an individual with a disability within the meaning of the Act. The Eleventh Circuit has reached a similar conclusion. See Harris v. Thigpen, 941 F.2d 1495, 1522-24 (11th Cir.1991).
We have held that the Act is applicable to prisons receiving federal financial assistance. Bonner v. Lewis, 857 F.2d 559, 562 (9th Cir.1988). It is undisputed that the prison facilities involved here received federal financial assistance. The defendants do not contest the fact that the policy restricts HIV prisoners who are otherwise qualified from participating in the food service program solely because they are infected with the HIV virus.
The issue is how the Act is to be applied in a prison setting. It is clear that HIV-seropositive prisoners have certain statutory rights; but, just as constitutional rights of prisoners must be considered in light of the reasonable requirements of effective prison administration, so must statutory rights applicable to the nation's general population be considered in light of effective prison administration. The Act was not designed to deal specifically 1447 with the prison *1447 environment; it was intended for general societal application. There is no indication that Congress intended the Act to apply to prison facilities irrespective of the considerations of the reasonable requirements of effective prison administration. It is highly doubtful that Congress intended a more stringent application of the prisoners' statutory rights created by the Act than it would the prisoners' constitutional rights. Thus, we deem the applicable standard for the review of the Act's statutory rights in a prison setting to be equivalent to the review of constitutional rights in a prison setting, as outlined by the Supreme Court in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987). The Court stated:
[W]hen a prison regulation impinges on inmates' constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.
Id. at 89, 107 S.Ct. at 2261. This is equally applicable to the statutory rights created by the Act. In applying Turner to a prison regulation in an Arizona prison system, we synthesized the factors relevant to the determination of reasonableness as set forth in Turner.
Turner identifies four factors relevant in determining the reasonableness of prison policies: (1) whether there is a valid, rational connection between the prison policy and the legitimate governmental interest put forward to justify it; (2) whether there are alternative means of exercising the right; (3) the impact that accommodation of the constitutional right will have on guards, on other inmates, or on the allocation of prison resources; and (4) whether the regulation or policy is an "exaggerated response" to prison concerns. The burden is on the inmates to show that the challenged regulation is unreasonable under Turner.
Casey v. Lewis, 4 F.3d 1516, 1520 (9th Cir. 1993) (citations omitted).
The defendants admit that the medical risk of HIV prisoners infecting others through service of food, though theoretically possible, is slight. They do not justify the policy on medical considerations of the likelihood of transmitting the virus through food service. Rather, the justification is based on custodial security concerns that arise because of the inmates' perception of how the virus may be transmitted. The plaintiffs produced medical testimony that the HIV virus is transmitted by bodily fluids entering the body of another. The infected fluids include blood, semen, vaginal secretions, saliva, tears, and possibly sweat, although the latter three have lower concentrations of the virus. The fluids can enter the body through sexual contact, through open sores in the skin or mouth, or through mucous membranes in the eyes, nose, or mouth. There are cases where people have been infected by the virus entering the body through the mouth, most notably by oral sex. There is, of course, the wellpublicized case where several patients apparently were infected orally by their treating dentist.
Although the risks of a prisoner acquiring HIV through food service are slight, even the plaintiffs' witnesses conceded the theoretic possibilities. The prison authorities, testifying for the defendants, noted the perception problems in the methods of transmission of a mysterious virus about which much is, as yet, unknown. Even public health officials advise precautions in situations where the risks are slight or unknown. The prison authorities also noted the particular sensitivity of prisoners to food service, which has often been the source of violence or riots. The prisoners have no choice of where to eat. The prison authorities testified that if HIVseropositive inmates are placed in food service jobs, the other inmates will perceive a threat regardless of scientific research or medical pronouncements. When the transmission is by bodily fluids, such perceptions are

particularly likely. Inmates fear that other inmates may do things to food that might be objectionable. If HIVseropositive inmates are placed in food service jobs, the other inmates will think the worst 0907 that they will bleed into the food, spit into the food, or even worse. If the inmate population perceives a risk from the food they must eat, they will want the infected inmates removed from the food service jobs. If they have no assurance that the 1448 infected inmates are removed, there may be violent actions against the inmates with the *1448 virus, inmates they perceive to have the virus, or the staff that permits the perceived risk.
The plaintiffs respond that proper education concerning the transmission of the HIV virus will remove the perceived risk. The prison authorities point out that many members of the general prison population are not necessarily motivated by rational thought and frequently have irrational suspicions or phobias that education will not modify. This is particularly true in light of the unknown aspects of the disease. Persons with such fears or phobias in society can choose to eat elsewhere 0907 prisoners cannot.
The agreed compromise struck by the plaintiffs and the defendants with regard to the HIV-seropositive inmates affords those inmates reasonable opportunities in the general prison population. The HIV-seropositive inmates are screened for placement in the general housing of the prison population and are afforded the full programming opportunities available to the general population, except they are not given food service assignments. Prison authorities have provided a reasonable basis for this restriction based on legitimate penological concerns.
The Supreme Court in Turner noted that: Running a prison is an inordinately difficult undertaking that requires expertise, planning, and the commitment of resources, all of which are peculiarly within the province of the legislative and executive branches of government. Prison administration is, moreover, a task that has been committed to the responsibility of those branches, and separation of powers concerns counsel a policy of judicial restraint. Where a state penal system is involved, federal courts have, as we indicated in Martinez, additional reason to accord deference to the appropriate prison authorities.
Turner, 482 U.S. at 84-85, 107 S.Ct. at 2259 (citing Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 405, 94 S.Ct. 1800, 1807, 40 L.Ed.2d 224 (1974)). Under the standard of review announced in Turner, deference is due to the prison authorities' policy not to open food service jobs to HIV-infected inmates. We reverse that portion of the district court's order, which requires the defendants to allow HIV-infected inmates the opportunity to work in food service jobs.
IV.
ATTORNEYS' FEES: NOS. 91-16702 and 91-16780
The issues concerning attorneys' fees relate to attorneys' fees and costs awarded to the plaintiffs for two specific activities: (1) the preparing and the litigating of the application for attorneys' fees and costs for work done prior to the entry of the consent decree, and (2) the attorneys' fees and costs incurred in monitoring the compliance phase of the case following the entry of the consent decree. The arguments in the appeal of the defendants and the cross-appeal of the plaintiffs relate to the award for both activities. The original order of the district court awarding fees for both activities was entered on July 29, 1991. An order amending that order was entered on September 30, 1991. The appeal and cross-appeal concern the original order as amended.
A. Fees for Work on the Fee Application
Following the entry of the consent decree, the plaintiffs made an application for attorneys' fees and an award was made by the district court. That award was appealed, and we entered a judgment reversing that award in part and remanding for further proceedings in the district court. See Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392 (9th Cir.1993). The issues raised in that remand are not before us on this appeal. The issue on this phase of the appeal relates only to the plaintiffs' award of attorneys' fees for preparing and litigating the fee application. However, the opinion in that case provides guidance in resolving some of the issues involved in this appeal.

"We review the district court's determination regarding the proper amount of the attorneys' fees award under § 1988 for an abuse of discretion." Id. The plaintiffs sought fees and costs in the amount of $220,904. The district 1449 court awarded $177,603. The defendants seek a reduction in the *1449 award; the plaintiffs in the cross-appeal seek an increase.
The defendants raise two objections. First, they contend that the district court did not adequately review the hours expended and the costs presented by the plaintiffs. Second, they contend that because the firm of Rosen, Bein & Asaro is the lead law firm handling the application for attorneys' fees, the other law firms should not be compensated for their work on the fees litigation.
We held in Gates that:
The fee applicant bears the burden of documenting the appropriate hours expended in the litigation and must submit evidence in support of those hours worked. The party opposing the fee application has a burden of rebuttal that requires submission of evidence to the district court challenging the accuracy and reasonableness of the hours charged or the facts asserted by the prevailing party in its submitted affidavits.
Id. at 1397-98 (citations omitted). The plaintiffs' counsel submitted documentation of the hours expended and evidence in support of those hours. The district court's order reflects that the court carefully considered the plaintiffs' declarations and billing statements. The defendants failed to meet their burden of rebuttal by submitting evidence to challenge the assertions of the plaintiffs' counsel. The order of the court states "Defendants have failed to point with specificity to any fees sought by the plaintiffs which are `duplicative.'" The defendants did not object to the calculation of hours expended in their motion to amend the original order.
On the issue of whether the time expended by law firms in addition to the Rosen law firm should be compensated, the test is whether the time expended was duplicative. See Davis v. City and County of San Francisco, 976 F.2d 1536, 1544 (9th Cir. 1992), vacated in part, 984 F.2d 345 (9th Cir.1993). The plaintiffs contend that the time was necessarily spent, and the defendants have made no showing that the hours claimed are duplicative.
On cross-appeal, the plaintiffs contend that the district court erred when it applied the hourly fees for the Sacramento area, rather than the San Francisco area that was used to calculate the fees for the merits work. In Gates, we recognized that normally the relevant legal community for determining the prevailing market rates for attorneys' fees is the community in which the forum is situated. 987 F.2d at 1405. However, we concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding fees at San Francisco rates for litigation leading to the consent decree. We stated:
Plaintiffs offered substantial evidence demonstrating that the issues in prisoner civil rights cases are extremely complex and thus require experienced and sophisticated counsel. They offered numerous declarations of San Francisco and Sacramento attorneys which directly support their contention that Sacramento attorneys and law firms with the requisite expertise and experience to handle this type of complex institutional prison reform litigation were unavailable.
Id. The district court determined, however, that it was not justified to apply San Francisco rates to litigating the amount of attorneys' fees. The justification of complex, specialized knowledge and experience did not apply. This is certainly a reasonable conclusion. The district court did not abuse its discretion in selecting the forum area of Sacramento in determining prevailing market rates.
B. Fees and Costs for Monitoring Work
After the consent decree was entered, the district court entered an order establishing a procedure for periodic payment of attorneys' fees and costs during the pendency of the consent decree. The order allows the plaintiffs to submit quarterly statements of fees and costs. The defendants then have 30 days from the receipt of the quarterly statement to notify the plaintiffs of any disputed items and of the basis for the dispute. The parties then

must meet and confer within 30 days of the defendants' notification. The plaintiffs may file a yearly motion to compel payment of disputed items, and under certain circumstances, the plaintiffs may bring a quarterly motion to compel.
1450 *1450 The order also provides that on or before September 15 of each year during the life of the consent decree, the plaintiffs' counsel will provide the defendants with written notice of anticipated billing rates for the coming year and the effective date of the new rates. The defendants may make a motion to oppose the projected rates within 30 days of receipt of the plaintiffs' notice.
The order states that the standard of review to be applied to disputed billing items will be whether the services were reasonably performed during the pendency of the consent decree.
The plaintiffs' first quarterly statement of fees was presented on February 1, 1991, covering compliance and monitoring work performed and costs incurred from March 9 through September 30, 1990. The defendants agreed to most of the fees and costs requested by the plaintiffs' counsel, but disputed certain items. At the meet and confer session, the defendants' counsel objected to paying for the plaintiffs' counsel's travel time and to the San Francisco market rates sought by the plaintiffs for 1990 compliance work. The plaintiffs then moved to compel payment of travel time and of the San Francisco 1990 market rates. The defendants filed a motion opposing the plaintiffs' proposed rates for monitoring work to be performed in 1991.
1. Justiciability
The plaintiffs contend in their cross-appeal that the order awarding fees for monitoring the compliance with the consent decree are unripe for review because the orders are interim orders, and the compliance work is ongoing. They urge the court not to allow any appeal until the conclusion of the periodic fees process after the final conclusion of the monitoring period.
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1291 confers jurisdiction of appeals on the courts of appeals over all final decisions of the district courts. Interim attorneys' fees awards made under section 1988 prior to entry of a final judgment on the merits are not appealable under section 1291. See Rosenfeld v. United States, 859 F.2d 717, 720 (9th Cir.1988); Hillery v. Rushen, 702 F.2d 848 (9th Cir.1983).
Although the fees orders in this case came after entry of the consent decree, which is a final judgment on the merits, the appellants argue that they are analogous to interim fees orders because they arose in an ongoing, regular periodic fees process. In Rosenfeld, we considered the finality of interim fee awards under the Freedom of Information Act. We concluded that an interim fees award was not final when it did not come after a final judgment on the merits, it did not dispose of the underlying litigation, and it did not dispose of the issue of attorneys' fees because the district court explicitly provided for revision of the amount of the fees award at the conclusion of the litigation. Rosenfeld, 859 F.2d at 720.
The awards before us are different because they follow a final judgment on the merits, and they do dispose of the issue of attorneys' fees for monitoring work performed during the first period of the consent decree. See, e.g., Haitian Refugee Center v. Messe, 791 F.2d 1489, 1494 (award finally disposing of issue of fees for litigating the case up to certain point was appealable), vacated in part, 804 F.2d 1573 (11th Cir. 1986).
The facts weigh in favor of review now. Legal issues determined at this stage will smooth the process for future awards. The fees orders are final, and the defendants must pay the plaintiffs' counsel. The compliance period has not been limited to a definite time frame, thus review could be postponed for many years, if not granted now. The defendants suggest that the periodic motions before the district court could be grouped annually for possible appeals. We encourage the district court to group the motions in some such manner. However, we hold that the claim presently before us is reviewable.

2. Defendants' Objections
a. The defendants contend that the district court did not adequately review the billings for hours and costs for the 1451 monitoring work. As previously discussed in connection with the other attorneys' fees award, the *1451 plaintiffs
produced adequate support, the district court reviewed it, and the defendants failed to make adequate specific objections.
b. The defendants contend that the special expertise justifying the San Francisco rates for the litigation leading to the consent decree was not necessary for the monitoring phase of this case.
The district court considered the issue in some detail, and concluded that the plaintiffs established that "the same expertise that support application of San Francisco rates for the merits portion of this case" justified using San Francisco as the relevant legal market for the compliance and monitoring phase. The court noted that counsel for the defendants had conceded that the plaintiffs' counsel's expertise on HIV issues was as essential to compliance and monitoring as it was to the merits phase. We conclude that this determination was not an abuse of discretion.
3. Plaintiffs' Objections
The plaintiffs-cross-appellants requested increased rates for 1991, but the district court rejected those rates as unreasonable. Again, the plaintiffs on cross-appeal argue that the district court applied the wrong legal standard when it found the rates unreasonable because the plaintiffs had provided no evidence concerning retainer and other longterm billing arrangements, which would be more analogous to the relationship between a client and an attorney.
The district court's suggestion that a long-term billing arrangement containing lower rates would be a more appropriate standard for the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees was neither inappropriate nor the only basis for the court's decision. The court criticized the plaintiffs' evidence for relying on specific data from only one law firm and general assertions of reasonableness by several lawyers. The court observed that counsel were seeking an increase at the "high end of the legal market." As the defendants argued in opposing the plaintiffs' motion, the rate increases proposed by the plaintiffs' counsel exceeded the rate of inflation and exceeded the rate of increase of other Bay area law firms' fees. The court stated, "what is missing from this case is some reflection on recent developments in the practice of setting fees in the open market ... if plaintiffs were private paying clients, one might well expect a negotiated `litigation budget,' or some other arrangement to control costs due to the length of the litigation." The district court's determination of the appropriate billing rate was not an abuse of discretion.
V.
CONCLUSION
The order of the district court concerning the merits of the case is affirmed with the exception of the portion of the order requiring the defendants to permit the HIV-infected inmates to serve in the food program. That portion is reversed. The district court's award of attorneys' fees is affirmed.
AFFIRMED in part, and REVERSED in part.
[1] The 1992 amendment substituted the word "disability" for the word "Handicap," which was used in section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 60 F.3d 525 (1995)
Jay Lee GATES; John Ronald Bertram, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
James GOMEZ;[*] Nadim Khoury, M.D., Assistant Deputy Director 0907 CDC Health Services; Kenneth Shepard, Chief Deputy Warden for CMF Clinical; Nicholas Poulos, M.D.; Thor Daniel, Chief Physician and Surgeon, CMF; Paul Morentz, Chief Psychiatrist 0907 CMF Outpatient Program, H MD; Bruce Baker, A R MD, Chief Psychiatrist Northern Reception Center; D. Michael O'Connor; Douglas G. Arnold, Acting Director of the California Department of Mental Health; Clyde Murrey, Acting Deputy Director for State Hospitals;
Sylvia RN, Executive Director DMH Vacaville Psychiatric Program; Eddie Yslt, DefendantsAppellants, and
George Deukmejian, Defendant. Jay Lee GATES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. James GOMEZ,[*] et al., Defendants-Appellants,
and George Deukmejian, Governor, Defendant.
Nos. 94-15259, 94-15884.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted April 12, 1995. Decided June 9, 1995.
As Amended August 3, 1995.
5267 *526 *527 James E. Flynn, Deputy Atty. Gen., Sacramento, CA, and Allen R. Crown, Deputy Atty. Gen., San Francisco, CA, for defendants-appellants.
Sanford Jay Rosen and Michael W. Bien, Rosen, Bien & Asaro, San Francisco, CA, for plaintiffs-appellees.
Before: GIBSON,[**] GOODWIN, and HUG, Circuit Judges.
HUG, Circuit Judge:
This case originated as a civil rights class action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 29 U.S.C. § 794 challenging medical care, psychiatric care, and conditions of confinement at the California Medical Facility and Main Northern Reception Center ("CMF") in Vacaville, California.[1] The suit also challenged the care and confinement of a subclass of HIV-infected inmates. The case went to trial in September, 1989. After plaintiffs rested their case, settlement negotiations culminated in a consent decree which was approved March 8, 1990. The operation of the consent decree has thus far given rise to two published appellate opinions: Gates v. Rowland, 39 F.3d 1439 (9th Cir.1994), and Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392 (9th Cir.1993). This opinion is the third.
528 *528 This opinion consolidates two appeals from enforcement orders under the consent decree. One appeal, No. 94-15884, is from an injunction modifying defendants' policy on the use of 37mm riot-control guns to control mentally ill inmates locked in their cells. The other appeal, No. 94-15259, is from a district court order awarding plaintiffs disputed attorneys' fees for compliance and monitoring work under the consent decree during 1991. We have jurisdiction to hear these two appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and as to both, we affirm in part and reverse in part.

I.
No. 94-15884: 37mm GUN
In this appeal, defendants challenge a district court order modifying their use of the 37mm gun to control mentally ill inmates locked in their cells. The district court ordered this modification pursuant to § V.F.1 of the Consent Decree. Defendants argue that the consent decree does not cover their use of the 37mm gun. They also argue that even if the decree does cover such use, the district court erred by not applying an Eighth Amendment standard to judge compliance with the decree. Finally, defendants argue that the district court abused its discretion by ordering the modifications because the district court order was not supported by the record and defendants were, in fact, in compliance with the decree.
We affirm the district court order in all respects except one. We hold that the district court abused its discretion by ordering the modification of defendants' 37mm gun policies to preclude the gun's use to protect property. Such a modification was not adequately supported by the record.
A. Facts
Beginning in March 1992, two years after the decree was approved, defendants began using a 37mm grenade launcher shooting multiple rubber baton rounds (hereinafter "37mm gun") to control mentally ill inmates. Each discharge of the 37mm gun shoots four hard rubber projectiles against mentally ill patients in closed cells. The gun makes a sound like a firecracker or cherry bomb when fired. The practice at issue in this appeal is defendants' use of the gun to extract violent or agitated mentally ill inmates from their cells. Before the gun is fired, the inmate is warned that the gun will be used. If he remains uncooperative, a warning shot is fired away from the inmate. If the inmate is still uncooperative, a second shot is ricocheted in his direction.
Plaintiffs objected to this practice on the ground that it violates § V.F.1 of the Consent Decree. They contend that use of the 37mm gun on mentally ill inmates poses unreasonable risks of serious psychological harm and physical trauma, that defendants use the gun to extract mentally ill prisoners from their cells when there is no important reason to remove them, that defendants fail to exhaust non-physical alternatives before using the gun, and that they fail to meaningfully consult with clinical staff before using the gun. Instead of the 37mm gun, plaintiffs advocate use of Management of Aggressive Behavior ("MAB") techniques,[2] which are used by all other psychiatric prison facilities in the country to manage aggressive behavior and are approved by the American Psychiatric Association. In contrast, only defendants use the 37mm gun to control mentally ill inmates, and such use has not been approved by the American Psychiatric Association, the American Medical Association, or any correctional standard setting body.
The parties engaged in informal mediation of this issue. After two evidentiary hearings, no agreement was reached and the mediator entered his findings and recommendations on June 18, 1993. Both parties filed objections. The magistrate judge adopted the mediator's findings and a modified version of his recommendations on February 23, 1994. Defendants filed objections to the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations. The 529 district court ruled on March 22, 1994, adopting the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations, *529 and entered its order on July 20, 1994. The district court denied defendants' request for a stay pending appeal of this order.
Defendants' Policy
After plaintiffs objected to the gun's use but before the evidentiary hearings, defendants implemented written policies on their use of the 37mm gun, which are set out in the California Department of Corrections Operations Manual at 55050.30 (March 19, 1993). Under these policies, the final decision to utilize the 37mm gun is made by custody personnel, although the inmate's file is reviewed by clinical staff.

Specifically, only the warden or chief deputy warden, or during nonbusiness hours the administrative officer-ofthe-day, can authorize the gun's use. In a life-threatening or extensive property-threatening emergency, when time does not permit prior approval, the watch commander may authorize the gun's use. The gun can only be used: (1) in self-defense or defense of others; (2) to prevent escape or serious injury to persons or damage of a substantial amount of property; (3) to contain a violent situation or prevent serious injury threatened by a group of inmates; (4) to prevent suicide or self-inflicted injury by an inmate barricaded within a cell or other enclosed area; or (5) to accomplish a necessary change in location after the inmate has been given reasonable opportunity to cooperate in the relocation process. In this last situation, the inmate must be given notice that the gun will be used if he does not cooperate, and lesser alternatives must be explored. A medical technical assistant must be present during the gun's use. The gun cannot be fired directly at the inmate; it must be ricocheted in the direction of the inmate. And if the inmate has a psychiatric classification, then either a psychiatrist, psychologist, licensed clinical social worker, or psychiatric nurse must review the inmate's file to identify any contraindications to the use of the gun. But the policy does not prevent the warden from ordering the gun's use over a clinician's objection.

District Court Order

The district court ordered the following revisions to defendants' policy on the use of the 37mm gun:

A. The 37mm gun will be used on inmates in psychiatric classification in cells or other confined areas only as a last resort after custodial and clinical staff have determined that the situation cannot be controlled by non-physical intervention or lower levels of force.

B. The Warden or the Administrative Officer acting in the Warden's place will certify in writing that the 37mm gun may be used on a specific inmate to:

1. prevent or stop serious assaultive behavior;

2. prevent an ongoing escape;

3. prevent suicide or imminent serious self-inflicted injury; or

4. accomplish a necessary change in location required for serious medical or health reasons after the inmate has been given a reasonable opportunity to cooperate and has refused.

C. A psychiatrist will review the medical file of the patient on whom use of the 37mm gun is being considered and personally evaluate the inmate to determine whether there are any medical or psychiatric reasons why the gun should not be used. The psychiatrist will approve or disapprove use of the 37mm gun in writing for the record.

D. If the psychiatrist approves the use of the 37mm gun, he or she will remain and observe the use of the gun on the inmate through completion of the cell extraction.

E. If the psychiatrist does not approve the use of the 37mm gun on the inmate, the Warden or Administrative Officer acting in the Warden's place will order alternative methods of restraint approved by CDC policy.

F. In emergency cases constituting actual life threatening situations wherein time does not permit

prior approval, the Watch Commander may authorize the use of the 37mm gun. However,

530

immediately following the emergency situation, notification *530 of such use will be made to the

Warden and the Psychiatric Officer of the day who will be responsible to review the

appropriateness of such action and document their findings for the record.

B. Standard of Review
Pursuant to § IX.6 of the Consent Decree, if a party objects, the district court reviews the mediator's report de novo. It also reviews de novo the magistrate judge's findings of fact to which a party has objected. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It reviews the magistrate judge's conclusions of law de novo, as well. Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.1983).
We review de novo the district court's interpretation of the consent decree. Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 934 F.2d 1092, 1094 (9th Cir.1991). "However, we give deference to the district court's interpretation based on the court's extensive oversight of the decree from the commencement of the litigation to the current appeal." Id.; accord Vertex Distrib., Inc. v. Falcon Foam Plastics, Inc., 689 F.2d 885, 893 (9th Cir.1982). Deference is appropriate in this case, as it has been under the supervision of District Judge Karlton and Magistrate Judge Moulds since its inception. We review for clear error the district court's findings of fact. United States v. Gila Valley Irrigation Dist., 31 F.3d 1428, 1432 (9th Cir.1994). The district court order requiring defendants to modify their policies is effectively an injunction and will be reversed "only where the district court abused its discretion or based its decision on an erroneous legal standard or clearly erroneous findings of fact." Id. at 1442 (interpreting a consent decree enforcement order as a preliminary injunction and applying the above standard of review).
C. Scope of the Consent Decree
Defendants claim that the district court had no jurisdiction to issue an enforcement order regarding their use of the 37mm gun because the gun's use was not covered by the consent decree. The district court order is based on § V.F.1 of the Consent Decree, which states, "Defendants will provide appropriate psychiatric screening for each incoming inmate at CMF and will provide appropriate psychiatric evaluation and treatment for all inmates at CMF as medically indicated." Defendants maintain that shooting a mentally ill prisoner in his cell with rubber bullets is not "psychiatric treatment," and thus not regulable under the decree. Plaintiffs maintain that shooting a mentally ill prisoner in his cell with rubber bullets can have an adverse effect on "appropriate psychiatric treatment," and thus, falls within the requirements of section F.1. We agree with the district court and conclude that defendants' use of the 37mm gun is covered by the consent decree.
A consent decree is construed with reference to ordinary contract principles of the state in which the decree is signed. Gates v. Rowland, 39 F.3d at 1444. In California, contracts are interpreted using an objective test to give effect to the mutual intention of the parties as it existed at the time the contract was made. Id. "The language of the contract governs if it is clear and explicit. Words in a contract are generally understood in their ordinary and popular sense, and technical words are interpreted as usually understood by persons in the profession or business to which they relate." Id. (citations omitted). Pursuant to § IX.6 of the Consent Decree, "[t]he burden of persuasion is on the party who has objected to the Mediator's findings and recommendations." In this case, the burden of persuasion is on defendants.
The defendants maintain that the type of restraint to be used is purely custodial and thus not covered by the decree. The district court, following the mediator's recommendations, held that while generally the decision to use force on mentally ill prisoners and the type of force to be used is a custodial decision, the type of force not to be used is a clinical decision. It framed the issue thus: "The issue is not whether the use of the weapon is a `treatment' within the meaning of the Decree. The issue is whether prison officials may make and implement custody decisions which are medically contraindicated. Breach of such a duty is clearly encompassed by the 531 Consent Decree." And as the *531 mediator pointed out, "If the use of a 37mm gun in a given case is contraindicated medically, and the weapon is still used, the patient would not be receiving appropriate psychiatric treatment as required by the Consent Decree." The mediator found that the use of force to control a mentally ill inmate
is not treatment which is "medically indicated" in the sense that term is commonly used and understood in mental health circles. The decision to use force is not part of the inmate's treatment

plan. The question is more properly phrased as to whether the particular force used to restrain or remove a patient is contraindicated. That is, has a physician made a professional judgment that the means to be used poses a substantial risk of harm to the patient's medical or mental health which outweighs the need for control and the possible risk of harm to staff and the patient from the use of other means?
We agree with the mediator, the magistrate judge, and the district court that § V.F.1 of the Consent Decree encompasses defendants' use of the 37mm gun.
The decree has a specific section imposing a restriction on the use of taser guns.[3] The defendants contend that the specific regulation of the use of taser guns in § V.D of the Consent Decree precludes the district court's interpretation of § V.F.1 of the Consent Decree to include a general medical limitation on the use of weapons to restrain mentally ill inmates. The two provisions are not inconsistent. Section V.D, covering tasers, is a specific application of the general standard set forth in section V.F.1; the district court's order is another specific application of section V.F.1 covering 37mm guns, which were not in use when the decree was entered. There is no reason the taser policy need be identical to the 37mm gun policy; they are different weapons with different risks. The district court's application of these sections is a reasonable interpretation of the decree.
D. Standard for Compliance
Defendants argue that even if the consent decree covers the use of the 37mm gun, the district court applied the wrong standard in judging compliance. Without citing any law, defendants argue that compliance is to be judged under the "deliberate indifference" standard of the Eighth Amendment. We rejected this argument in Gates v. Rowland, and we reject it again here.
Section 1.21 of the Consent Decree states, "The parties agree that in entering into this Consent Decree they waive specific findings of fact and conclusions of law and any determination whether the remedies provided are legally required." And section 1.25 states, "The parties agree that it is not the intent of this Consent Decree to prescribe the minimum standards required by the United States Constitution." On the basis of these provisions, we concluded in Gates v. Rowland, "Where the parties negotiated use of a constitutional standard, they specified so in the language of the consent decree. Otherwise, the consent decree is not limited to constitutional standards." 39 F.3d at 1444.
Section V.F.1 of the Consent Decree provides the governing standard in this case, that of appropriate psychiatric treatment as medically indicated. This is a sufficiently specific standard with which to judge defendants' compliance.
E. Enforcement Order
Defendants' last argument is that even if the consent decree covers use of the 37mm gun, and even if the district court applied the correct standard in evaluating defendants' compliance with the consent decree, the district court 532 abused its discretion in ordering reform of defendants' 37mm gun policies. *532 Defendants argue that the district court made no specific finding that defendants had violated the decree; therefore, the court had no authority to modify defendants' policies. Defendants also argue that, irrespective of whether a finding was made, defendants' policies do not actually violate the consent decree; therefore, the district court abused its discretion in modifying defendants' policies. Finally, defendants argue that the district court abused its discretion by modifying the mediator's recommendation and prohibiting use of the gun to prevent property damage because this modification was not supported by the record.
First, a specific finding of a past violation of a consent decree is not prerequisite to an injunction preventing a future violation. See, e.g., Vertex, 689 F.2d at 892 ("the district court could properly clarify that ambiguous language [of the consent decree], and this it did, requiring defendants to change their future advertising to comply with the consent judgment, as clarified."). Moreover, in adopting the mediator's report, the district court did find that defendants' policies violate the consent decree. The mediator found, "The final decision to utilize the 37mm

gun [at CMF] is made by custody personnel." This was in contrast to its finding that "[t]he type of restraint procedures used with mentally ill patients should normally be a clinical decision. If an emergency arises which requires custody officials to make the decision regarding restraint procedures with mentally ill patients, such a decision should not be medically contraindicated." The mediator similarly found, "since CMF is a prison health care facility, no custody decision should be made that is medically contraindicated." The mediator specified that this decision should be made by the professional judgment of a physician. The mediator found that "CMF policy allows a social worker or psychiatric nurse to make the determination whether the use of a 37mm gun is medically contraindicated." Thus, the district court, in adopting the findings of the mediator, did find that defendants violated the consent decree.

Defendants also argue that the district court's interpretation of the decree to require a psychiatrist's approval before the gun is used was not supported by the record because the evidence did not conclusively establish that the gun is more dangerous than MAB techniques. The mediator found,

6. Medical experts testified that the use of the 37mm gun on mentally ill patients could be traumatizing and result in psychological injury to the patient, but there were no studies presented to support this opinion.

7. No evidence based on studies was presented which demonstrated that the use of a 37mm gun in cell extractions reduced or increased the risk of injury to staff or to patients.

The mediator further explained,

There was extensive testimony of experts as to whether the use of a 37mm gun produced any long term effect on the course of a patient's mental illness or his relationship with the treating staff. This testimony was totally based on opinion with no studies or tangible evidence to support the diametrically opposed positions. ... At best, [] one can only declare a draw 0907 with plaintiffs' experts testifying that the use of any weapon may have a traumatic and lasting impact on a patient, and defendants' experts testifying that there was no evidence of such damage in the cases at CMF.

There was also disagreement amongst the experts as to whether more "force" is used with a 37mm gun or when a MAB approach is used.... It should be noted, however, that when the 37mm gun is used at CMF it is still often necessary for staff to enter the cell and physically restrain the inmate.

But the district court did not abuse its discretion in requiring the modification of defendants' policies because its order accommodated the mediator's findings. The court did not entirely ban the gun's use. Instead, the district court took a case-by-case approach, shifting the decision of whether to use the gun to a physician. The district court adopted the mediator's conclusion that,

533

The decision to control, and the method of control, properly belongs to custody officials. *533

However, since CMF is a prison health care facility, no custody decision should be made that is

medically contraindicated. If the use of a 37mm gun in a given case is contraindicated medically,

and the weapon is still used, the patient would not be receiving appropriate psychiatric treatment

as required by the Consent Decree.

To allow the use of a 37mm gun with mentally ill patients, then, there must first be an approval that such a use of force is not medically contraindicated.

In this way, the district court comported with the requirements of the consent decree 0907 that use of the gun be medically appropriate. Instead of imposing its own judgment, the district court relied on the judgment of defendants' own physicians that the gun's use on a particular prisoner would not be medically contraindicated.

But the district court order veered from this sound position when it limited the purposes for which the 37mm gun can be used by defendants. The mediator's recommendations allowed defendants to use the gun to "prevent imminent substantial property damage." But the magistrate judge and district court rejected this recommendation

and did not include the prevention of imminent substantial property damage as one of the allowable uses of the gun.
The touchstone of section V.F.1 as applied to this case is whether the restraint at issue is medically contraindicated. Where it has been found that an individual use of the gun is not medically contraindicated, there is no basis in section V.F.1 for a court order prohibiting the gun's use for that particular purpose. We hold that the district court abused its discretion by prohibiting the gun from being used to prevent "imminent substantial property damages" when there is no medical contraindication for the use of the gun.
CONCLUSION
Defendants' use of the 37mm gun falls under § V.F.1 of the Consent Decree. The standard for measuring compliance with this section is whether the defendants' use of the 37mm gun corresponds with providing appropriate psychiatric treatment. With one exception, the district court did not abuse its discretion by requiring the defendants to modify their policies concerning the use of the 37mm gun. This one exception is the district court's failure to include the prevention of imminent substantial property damage as a permissible use of the gun. We affirm in part and reverse in part the order of the district court.
II.
No. 94-15259: ATTORNEYS' FEES
The district court awarded plaintiffs a portion of their disputed attorneys' fees for 1991 compliance and monitoring work under the consent decree. Defendants appeal this order, contending that the district court abused its discretion in making this award because plaintiffs' billing statements were not sufficiently detailed, and some of the hours paid represent work in which plaintiffs did not prevail, work that was not reasonably related to compliance and monitoring of the consent decree, or inefficient work. We affirm the district court order in part and reverse in part.
A. Facts
Section XI.1 of the Consent Decree sets forth the parties' agreement as to attorneys' fees. It states,
Plaintiffs may seek to recover reasonable costs and attorneys' fees and other expenses that may be sought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1988 and 29 U.S.C. section 794(b) for work performed in this matter prior to entry of this Consent Decree and reasonably performed during the pendency of this Consent Decree. Reasonable costs and expenses shall be awarded in amounts agreed to by the parties or, absent agreement, as determined by the Court upon plaintiffs' noticed motions.
Pursuant to procedures established by the district court and agreed to by the parties, plaintiffs submit to defendants quarterly statements of their attorneys' fees and costs. If defendants dispute the amount of the 534 request, plaintiffs may file with the district *534 court a periodic motion to compel payment. The resolution of the parties' first fee dispute is published in Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d at 1396. The resolution of a second fee dispute is published in Gates v. Rowland, 39 F.3d at 1448. Gates v. Deukmejian involved fees incurred prior to entry of the consent decree, while Gates v. Rowland, like the present appeal, involved post-judgment monitoring fees.
This appeal concerns the disputed portion of plaintiffs' 1991 fees requests. Defendants paid parts of the 1991 requests without contest. During negotiations, plaintiffs reduced the disputed portion of their bill by $8,743.75; during the motion to compel disputed fees, plaintiffs reduced their bill by an additional $5,148. The magistrate judge issued his findings and recommendations on the disputed 1991 fees on September 15, 1993, further reducing plaintiffs' fees by $18,533.18. On January 4, 1994, the district court adopted the magistrate judge's

findings and recommendations with one clerical correction, awarding plaintiffs $203,908.65 in attorneys' fees and costs.

B. Standard of Review

We review for abuse of discretion a district court's award of attorneys' fees and costs under section 1988. Gates v. Rowland, 39 F.3d at 1448. Legal conclusions involved in the determination are reviewed de novo. Holland v. Roeser, 37 F.3d 501, 503 (9th Cir.1994). "The district court has a great deal of discretion in determining the reasonableness of the fee and, as a general rule, we defer to its determination." Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d at 1398; see also Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 1941, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983) ("We reemphasize that the district court has discretion in determining the amount of a fee award. This is appropriate in view of the district court's superior understanding of the litigation and the desirability of avoiding frequent appellate review of what essentially are factual matters."). But the district court must nonetheless articulate its reasons for the fee award. Id.

C. Discussion

Defendants offer four challenges to the district court's award of attorneys' fees. First, they claim that the district court erred because it did not reduce plaintiffs' fees based on the outcome of their work. They urge us to apply a prevailing party standard under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 to post-judgment monitoring and compliance work under the consent decree. But plaintiffs have already met the section 1988 prevailing party standard with the entry of the consent decree. See Keith v. Volpe, 833 F.2d 850, 857 (9th Cir.1987) (holding that post-judgment monitoring of the consent decree was a necessary aspect of plaintiffs' prevailing in the case, thus plaintiffs satisfied the § 1988 prevailing party requirement). We already decided, in Gates v. Rowland, 39 F.3d at 1450, that the standard to be applied to disputed billing items for compliance and monitoring work under this consent decree is "whether the services were reasonably performed during the pendency of the consent decree." As the magistrate judge noted, under this standard, outcome is relevant to whether the work performed was reasonable, but it is not the touchstone for a fee award. This "reasonable performance" standard was set out in the consent decree and confirmed by the district court in its Order Establishing Procedure for Collecting Attorneys' Fees and Costs During the Pendency of the Consent Decree, which order defendants did not appeal.

Defendants further claim that the district court abused its discretion in awarding plaintiffs fees because plaintiffs' billing statement 1) was not sufficiently detailed, 2) represented duplicative and inefficient work, and 3) represented work not reasonably related to compliance and monitoring of the consent decree. As we stated in Gates v. Deukmejian, and again in Gates v. Rowland:

The fee applicant bears the burden of documenting the appropriate hours expended in the

litigation and must submit evidence in support of those hours worked. The party opposing the fee

application has a burden of rebuttal that requires submission of evidence to the district court

535

challenging the accuracy and reasonableness of *535 the hours charged or the facts asserted by

the prevailing party in its submitted affidavits.

Gates v. Rowland, 39 F.3d at 1449 (quoting Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d at 1397-98).

Defendants contend that plaintiffs' statement was not sufficiently detailed because it did not identify the subject matter and party to "hundreds of hours of `client communications.'" As the Supreme Court held, "The applicant should ... maintain billing time records in a manner that will enable a reviewing court to identify distinct claims." Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437, 103 S.Ct. at 1941. Plaintiffs' billings for client communication included the date of the communication, the person who performed it, and in some cases the issue addressed. As plaintiffs explained before the district court and on appeal, they did not reveal the names of inmates with whom they communicated to protect the confidentiality of their communications and because their clients fear retaliation, and they did not always reveal the issue discussed to preserve attorney-client and attorney work product privileges. The magistrate judge found the detail of plaintiffs' billing statements "more than sufficient," and the district court adopted this finding. The magistrate judge found, "It is axiomatic that counsel's monitoring activities will include

communication with members of the class," and even though the issue discussed in the communication was not always provided, "the cumulative effect of the records" allowed him to conclude that time spent communicating with clients was reasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in adopting this finding. Cf. Davis v. City and County of San Francisco, 976 F.2d 1536, 1542 (9th Cir. 1992) (warning against imposing too high a standard of documentation on fee claimants), vacated in part, 984 F.2d 345 (9th Cir.1993).
As to the third claim 0907 that plaintiffs' hours were duplicative and inefficient 0907 defendants did not meet their rebuttal burden of submitting evidence challenging the accuracy and reasonableness of the hours charged or the facts asserted. The magistrate judge pointed out,
Defendants filed a separate appendix of annotated billing statements reflecting their disagreements with the joint annotations. Defendants' appendix has provided remarkably little assistance to the court in the resolution of these issues: These annotations do not indicate, in some cases, the amount of time objected to or, in other instances, the ground on which defendants object; the document is approximately 300 pages long and is not paginated; defendants do not provide a key or index to the coded objections to the billings; defendants themselves do not rely on the appendix or reference it in support of their objections to plaintiffs' billings; and the annotations reflect only a portion of defendants' objections to plaintiffs' billings, thereby requiring the court to engage in time-consuming comparison of the parties' appendices.
On appeal, we are restricted to the evidence produced in the district court.
Finally, defendants claim that the district court erred in awarding plaintiffs fees for work not reasonably related to compliance and monitoring of the consent decree. Plaintiffs' counsel were awarded fees for filing an amicus brief to the district court in Camarillo v. McCarthy, 998 F.2d 638 (9th Cir.1993), which challenged medical and living conditions for AIDS and HIV-infected inmates at CMF. They filed the brief to protect the interests of the class, since both the class and some of the issues raised in Camarillo were identical to the subclass and issues raised in the present action. The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that plaintiffs' work on the Camarillo amicus brief was reasonably related to compliance and monitoring work under the consent decree.
But the district court did abuse its discretion in awarding plaintiffs attorneys' fees for attending the Forensic Mental Health Association Annual Conference and for media contact. These are the kinds of activities that attorneys generally do at their own expense.
CONCLUSION
536-54D4efendants did not meet their rebuttal burden of providing specific evidence that *536-544 plaintiffs' hours were duplicative or inefficient. Plaintiffs' billing statements were sufficiently detailed and the hours compensated for work on the Camarillo amicus brief were reasonably related to compliance and monitoring work under the consent decree. In these respects, we affirm the district court's award of attorneys' fees. But we reverse the district court's award of attorneys' fees for attendance at the Forensic Mental Health Association Annual Conference and for media contact.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for recalculation of the attorneys' fees.
[*] James Gomez is substituted for his predecessor, James Rowland, as Director of the California Department of Corrections. Fed.R.App. P. 43(c)(1).
[**] Honorable Floyd R. Gibson, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting by designation.
[1] CMF is California Department of Correction's primary health care facility for the medical and psychiatric treatment of inmates with serious acute or chronic illness.
[2] Under MAB techniques, a number of staff, usually 4-6, use personal physical restraint to subdue the patient.

[3] Section V.D of the decree covers "Tasers, Restraints and Involuntary Medications." Sections 1-3 cover the use of the taser, and section 4 covers administration of involuntary medication. Under this section, tasers cannot be used to restrain a prisoner to administer involuntary medication, and the use of tasers on prisoners with psychiatric classifications or taking antipsychotic medications must be limited to the greatest extent possible. Specifically, custodial staff must confer with a psychiatrist before using a taser and such a conference must be documented except in emergencies; alternative means must be considered and the reasons for their rejection stated in writing before a taser can be used; and periodically, incident reports on the use of tasers on prisoners with psychiatric classifications must be provided to the mediator.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 98 F.3d 463 (1996)
Jay Lee GATES; John Ronald Bertram, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
Ron SHINN; James Rowland; Nadim Khoury, M.D., Assistant Deputy Director-CDC Health Services; Kenneth Shepard, Chief Deputy Warden for CMF Clinical; Nicholas Poulos,
M.D., Daniel E. Thor, Chief Physician and Surgeon, CMF; Paul Morentz, Chief PsychiatristCMF Outpatient Program; H MD; Bruce Baker; A R MD, Chief Psychiatrist Northern Reception Center; D. Michael O'Connor; Douglas G. Arnold, Acting Director of the
California Department of Mental Health; Clyde Murrey, Acting Deputy Director for State Hospitals; Sylvia R.N., Executive Director DMH Vacaville Psychiatric Program; Eddie Ylst,
Defendants-Appellants.
No. 94-17146.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted June 14, 1995. Decided October 16, 1996.
464 *464 Peter Siggins, Senior Assistant Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for defendants-appellants.
Michael W. Bien, Rosen, Bien & Asaro, San Francisco, CA, for plaintiffs-appellees.
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.
KLEINFELD, Circuit Judge:
Prison officials were held in contempt of court for failing to obey a consent decree. The issue in the case is whether a consent decree requiring "appropriate" psychiatric care is specific enough to empower a court to hold prison officials in contempt for failure to do so. We conclude that it is not.
FACTS
Prisoners brought a class action challenging the constitutional adequacy of medical care at the California Medical Facility. The Facility is part of the California state prison system. It provides medical and psychiatric services for inmates from throughout the California state prison system. All members of the plaintiff class have been convicted of crimes, are being imprisoned for them, and have been sent to the Facility because of mental illness. The parties agreed to a consent decree. The provision of the decree at issue here required the facility to develop an outpatient psychiatric program which would provide "appropriate psychiatric evaluation and treatment" for prisoners. An interim program was to be in effect by June 30, 1990 and to be fully operational by October 31, 1990.[1]
465 *465 This appeal[2] arises from disagreements about whether the facility's "outpatient" program is consistent with the terms of the consent decree. The prisoners are of course not "outpatients" in the usual sense of the word. They do not get out. Generally, an outpatient is someone who gets treatment at a hospital but does not occupy a bed there. An ordinary outpatient goes home to bed. The "outpatients" in California Medical Facility's outpatient psychiatric program do not occupy a bed at the prison hospital, but they do stay in the Facility. Unlike most nonprisoner outpatients, they do not live in the outside community.
The consent decree has involved years of detailed supervision by the district court of the Facility. The warden filed a declaration that "more than 10 million dollars has been expended on construction, equipment, contract costs, compliance team costs, and the expenses directly related to Gates," but compliance has been found by

the court to be so inadequate as to amount to contempt of court. The court has concluded that the consent decree requires much more extensive changes in staffing and methods of treatment than the Facility has been willing to adopt.
The prisoners moved to hold the officials of the Facility in contempt for failing to provide adequate care and for failure to meet deadlines set by the mediator. Pursuant to the consent decree, the court had appointed a mediator nominated by the defendants to develop institutional reforms in consultation with the prison officials, lawyers for the plaintiff class, prison psychiatry experts, and others. The district judge referred the motion to a magistrate judge, who directed the defendants to present a revised plan for an outpatient psychiatric program to the mediator.
The mediator and his experts reviewed the plan, and suggested thirteen modifications. The mediator recommended that the prison officials be found in contempt if they rejected the thirteen modifications. They declined, and the magistrate judge recommended to the district court that they be found in contempt.
The district court held the prison officials in contempt of court. The finding of contempt was based on the consent decree provision that the facility "provide appropriate psychiatric screening for each incoming inmate at CMF and ... provide appropriate psychiatric evaluation and treatment for all inmates at CMF as medically indicated." We are impressed with the difficulty of the problem faced by the district judge in trying to assure that the Facility provided adequate and appropriate treatment to avoid inhumane and dangerous conditions. We are also impressed by the daunting challenge the prison officials faced in dealing with mentally ill criminals in a way which would prevent them from hurting themselves or others, while trying to comply with the orders of a district court mediator. We conclude that the prison officials should not have been held in contempt of court, because the term "appropriate" had no specific meaning in this decree.
The mediator had construed "appropriate" to mean the "community standard of care" for outpatients. He thought his thirteen proposed modifications were in accord with a "community standard," the decree required that standard, and the prison had willfully refused to meet it. The prison officials had hired as the Facility's chief psychiatrist for program development a physician who had been the mediator's expert earlier in the litigation. That 466 physician said there was no *466 such thing as a "community standard" of psychiatric care for prisoners with mental diseases. He said treatment in the community varied, what the mediator wanted was more than any community programs provided, and treating the prisoners as though they were in the non-criminal, noninstitutionalized community would be inappropriate.
The district judge agreed with the prison officials that the decree did not adopt a "community standard" of outpatient psychiatric care. He found that the mediator's "community standard" was "not to be found within the four corners of the Consent Decree," and "has no recognizable criteria in psychiatric literature or practice," so "is too speculative to be enforced." The district judge nevertheless found the prison officials to be in contempt of court. The district court construed "appropriate psychiatric screening" and "appropriate psychiatric evaluation and treatment ... as medically indicated" to mean what he called a "clinical standard of care," referring to what was "medically indicated" under accepted "professional standards":
For these reasons, the standard applicable to adequate Psychiatric care in this case is to be determined by the language of the decree. Section V.F.1. provides that defendants shall provide "appropriate" Psychiatric evaluation and treatment "as medically indicated" (emphasis added). This language clearly establishes a clinical standard for appropriate mental health care generally and for the adequacy of particular [outpatient Psychiatric program] elements, which are specified components of such care.
The phrase "as medically indicated" as commonly understood, denotes care and treatment according to professional standards responsive to diagnostic criteria. The Decree by its terms affirmatively obligates defendants to provide treatment according to clinical psychiatric norms, rather than merely refraining from the deliberate indifference forbidden by the Eighth Amendment.
All future determinations of compliance with the general "appropriate evaluation and treatment" provisions of section V.F., including the "appropriateness" of the various mandatory [outpatient

Psychiatric program] elements specified in sections V.F.2 & 3, shall be made according to general clinical standards for the treatment of the psychiatric conditions at issue. This standard governs both the adequacy of the [outpatient Psychiatric program] plan and the adequacy of actual care and treatment to be provided under a fully implemented [outpatient Psychiatric program].
(citations omitted). Holding the prison officials in contempt of court, the court required them to comply with the mediators' thirteen proposed modifications, as an exercise of its remedial powers to cure the contempt. The judge explained that "where a finding of contempt has been made, the court may exercise its broad equitable remedial powers" and that "a remedial order following a contempt finding may include new requirements to serve the original intent of the consent decree." The court also determined that, even had a contempt finding not been made, enforcement of the thirteen proposed modifications would be appropriate under the consent decree.
The prison officials were "adjudged to be in civil contempt" and were sanctioned $10,000 per day for every day they were not in compliance. The court appointed the mediator to be a special master. The district court stayed the monetary sanctions so long as the prison officials complied with the special master's directives for implementation of the modified outpatient plan by the deadlines to be set by the special master. The special master was to report any failures by the prison officials to do what he said, when he said, and "[s]uch a report will result in the issuance of an Order to Show Cause before the district judge why sanctions should not become immediately due from the date of the certified violation until compliance with the proposed provision as certified by the Master."
We stayed the contempt order pending appeal.
ANALYSIS
A. Jurisdiction
467 The prisoners argue that we have no appellate jurisdiction because there is no final *467 order. The issue arises because the district court stayed the $10,000 per day penalty. We conclude that the order was final under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, so we have appellate jurisdiction.
Though the $10,000 per day in monetary sanctions was stayed, the district court order imposed two adverse consequences on the prison officials. First, the obloquy of contempt has been adjudicated against them. Second, the district court has required them to make the changes required by the special master, as a remedy for their contempt of court. This case is analogous to Stone v. City and County of San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850 (9th Cir.1992). As we held in Stone, neither the undetermined total amount of sanctions, nor the fact that the sanctions are conditional, defeats finality of a post-judgment contempt order. Id. at 855. Accord Shuffler v. Heritage Bank, 720 F.2d 1141, 1145 (9th Cir.1983) ("Once the finding of contempt has been made and a sanction imposed, the order has acquired all of the `elements of operativeness and consequences necessary to be possessed by any judicial order to enable it to have the status of a final decision under section 1291.'").
We have interpreted Firestone Tire and Rubber Company v. Risjord, 449 U.S. 368, 101 S.Ct. 669, 66 L.Ed.2d 571 (1981), in the context of a post-judgment contempt order imposing sanctions for violating a consent decree, as justifying review based on "pragmatic concerns." Stone v. City of San Francisco, 968 F.2d at 855. We balance the "inconvenience of piecemeal review" against the "danger of denying justice by delay." Id. A consent decree is a judgment. Where a decree has come down, the respondent has been held in contempt of court for violating it, and sanctions have been ordered for the contempt but stayed, the appealability of the contempt order depends on this "pragmatic" balancing. As in Stone, the balance tips in favor of allowing the appeal. We have already published three appellate decisions in this case, this being the fourth, so it is plainly impossible to avoid the "inconvenience of piecemeal review." The contempt order and $10,000 per day in sanctions amount to a persuasive hammer the special master is to use against the prison officials, so the "danger of denying justice by delay" is plain if the prison officials cannot now litigate whether the thirteen modifications are required by the consent decree.

We conclude that pragmatic concerns weigh in favor of reviewing the contempt order now. We now determine whether the decree on which the order was based could properly serve as a basis for a contempt citation.
B. Specificity of the Consent Decree
The core of the prison officials' argument is that the decree was not specific enough, with regard to the matters at issue, to support a determination that they were in contempt of court for violating it. The provision at issue requires "appropriate psychiatric evaluation and treatment for all inmates at CMF as medically indicated." We analyze how the prison officials are supposed to have violated the decree, and whether the decree could support a finding that the psychiatric care afforded violated it.
1. The required specificity.
The order holding the prison officials in contempt focuses upon two violations of the consent decree: the prison officials failed to provide appropriate psychiatric care in the outpatient screening and treatment program, and failed repeatedly to comply with the mediator's deadlines for curing the inadequacies. Failure to meet deadlines to cure the violation of the decree could not furnish a basis for the contempt unless there was a violation of the decree. The contempt order therefore stands or falls on whether there was a violation of the consent decree. For the contempt order to stand, the decree has to have been specific enough to require the thirteen proposed modifications to the outpatient psychiatric plan.
An injunction must be "specific in terms" and describe "in reasonable detail" the acts sought to be restrained. Fed. R.Civ.P. 65(d). Specificity in the terms of consent decrees is a predicate to a finding of contempt. Vertex 468 Distributing, Inc. v. Falcon Foam Plastics, Inc., 689 F.2d 885, 889 *468 (9th Cir.1982); Harris v. City of Philadelphia, 47 F.3d 1342, 1349 (3rd Cir.1995).
The consent decree is an injunction. A judgment issued by a court in the exercise of its equitable or admiralty jurisdiction is called a decree, and when a decree commands or prohibits conduct, it is called an injunction. Consent decrees differ from contested injunctions in that, instead of being won in contested litigation, they are issued by the court pursuant to an agreement of the parties. A consent decree is therefore "in some respects contractual in nature," but the equitable decree based on the agreement "is subject to the rules generally applicable to other judgments and decrees." Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 378, 112 S.Ct. 748, 757, 116 L.Ed.2d 867 (1992). Courts must find the meaning of a consent decree "within its four corners," and not by reference to the court's purpose or the purpose of the party seeking to hold the other in contempt because the party seeking the contempt did not win its case:
[T]he decree itself cannot be said to have a purpose; rather the parties have purposes, generally opposed to each other, and the resultant decree embodies as much of those opposing purposes as the respective parties have the bargaining power and skill to achieve. For these reasons, the scope of a consent decree must be discerned within its four corners, and not by reference to what might satisfy the purposes of one of the parties to it. Because the defendant has, by the decree, waived his right to litigate the issues raised, a right guaranteed by the Due Process Clause, the conditions upon which he has given that waiver must be respected, and the instrument must be construed as it is written, and not as it might have been written had the plaintiff established his factual claims and legal theories in litigation.
United States v. Armour & Co., 402 U.S. 673, 681-82, 91 S.Ct. 1752, 1757, 29 L.Ed.2d 256 (1971) (emphasis in original, footnote omitted).
If an injunction does not clearly describe prohibited or required conduct, it is not enforceable by contempt. As the Supreme Court has explained:
The judicial contempt power is a potent weapon. When it is founded upon a decree too vague to be understood, it can be a deadly one. Congress responded to that danger by requiring that a

federal court frame its orders so that those who must obey them will know what the court intends to require and what it means to forbid.
International Longshoremen's Ass'n. v. Philadelphia Marine Trade Ass'n, 389 U.S. 64, 76, 88 S.Ct. 201, 208, 19 L.Ed.2d 236 (1967).
As applied to this case, these requirements for specificity within the four corners of the decree require a distinction between the specificity of the consent decree, and the specificity of the mediator's recommendations. The consent decree itself, not merely the mediator's subsequent directives, must command the prison officials to provide the level of psychiatric care at issue, or else they cannot be held in contempt of court for failing to provide it. The problem of specificity is not whether the prison officials could avoid penalties by doing what they were told from time to time by the mediator. He could have no power to require more than the consent decree did. The only way to justify the contempt order is by finding that the requirement in the consent decree of an "appropriate" level of psychiatric care was sufficiently "specific in terms" to provide for what the mediator required.[3]
469 *469 2. The violation.
As we explain above, the consent decree itself had to be "specific in terms." We assume without deciding that the mediator's thirteen proposed modifications to the Facility's outpatient psychiatric plan were specific enough, so that had they been part of the consent decree, failure to implement them would support a contempt. The gravamen of the contempt was that the prison officials refused to adopt the thirteen modifications, which the court concluded were embraced by the consent decree requirement of an "appropriate psychiatric evaluation and treatment."[4]
We review now a few of the specific disagreements about the mediator's thirteen proposed modifications, to see whether the words of the consent decree provide sufficient specificity to resolve them. The prison officials presented evidence, mostly affidavits from Richard M. Yarvis, M.D., supporting their view of what was "appropriate."
The prison officials proposed to provide a coordinator to keep track of developmentally disabled and mentally retarded inmates, and ensure that they received all necessary psychiatric treatment. The mediator proposed a "team" for this purpose consisting of "0.5 Psychiatrist, 1.0 Psychologist, 1.0 Social Worker." Except for the psychiatrist, these staff "will not be assigned any collateral duties in the OPP"[5] and "will report to the chief psychiatrist for the outpatient psychiatric program." The chief psychiatrist for program development at the Facility stated this would be "an excessive expenditure of resources" for the case load of "approximately fifty developmentally disabled individuals" who reside at the Facility at any given time.
470 *470 The mediator wanted the prison to use an antipsychotic medication called clozapine. The prison's psychiatric expert thought clozapine was too risky a medication:
Clozapine is a new medication and one to which some significant risks are attached. There is considerable disagreement at the present time among CMF psychiatrists as to whether clozapine can be used safely at the facility.... Moreover, new medications with potentially less risk are about to come on line in psychiatric practice.
The mediator wanted the Facility to adopt specific treatment protocols for various psychiatric conditions. Dr. Yarvis said that the psychiatric profession did not agree what specific treatment protocols were appropriate for most of the diseases the Facility had to deal with:
The American Psychiatric Association has addressed the problem of defining practice parameters for many months and to date has been unable to reach a consensus with respect to any but two diagnostic categories, depressive disorders and eating disorders. It is both unrealistic and unreasonable to expect the psychiatric staff at CMF will succeed in a few months where a preeminent psychiatric organization has failed to date.

The prison officials thought some of the thirteen proposed modifications would be too dangerous. Dr. Yarvis said "dangerousness adds an important dimension" because "many have been convicted of violent criminal offenses and have been sentenced by the courts to the custody of the CDC for that reason." For example, the thirteen proposed modifications required a group therapy program which Dr. Yarvis said raised "safety issues," and "may prove impractical when applied to a highly dangerous patient population such as is found at CMF." Dr. Yarvis pointed out that many of the patients suffered not only from their psychiatric disorders, but from "severe character pathology" which does "not yield readily and sometimes not at all, to psychiatric intervention." There were high levels of "treatment noncompliance," "malingering," and "inaccurate technical information provided to [clinicians] by patients." Additionally, the prison officials contended:
The August, 1994 Plan generally fails to account for the extremely dangerous, highly unpredictable nature of many [outpatient psychiatric program] inmates. CMF has one of the highest inmate-to-staff assault ratios in the [California prison system]. This is directly attributable to the type of inmates housed in the [program]. The August 1994 Plan displays a basic lack of understanding of the dangerous level of inmates, poor physical plant design, and staffing realities. Mandating extensive out-of-cell program time, without regard to inmate assaultiveness, will only serve to drive upward the number of inmate-on-inmate assaults and inmate-on-staff assaults. The Mediator apparently based the August, 1994 Plan in large part on community mental health facilities. He does not sufficiently acknowledge that the population served in mental health programs at CMF is more violent. This fact requires a much more secure environment than is found at any mental health program outside correctional facilities. This is a critical difference. CMF does not want to foster an environment that will be unsafe for inmates and staff.
The mediator also proposed twenty hours of continuing medical education per year for psychiatrists, but Dr. Yarvis said this exceeded any standard with which he was familiar, and was far in excess of what he thought was needed, which would be four to five hours of psychopharmacological training per year.
As these disputes illustrate, the prison officials and the mediator differed, from the standpoint of what was medically indicated, regarding whether the thirteen proposed modifications would be "appropriate psychiatric evaluation and treatment" or not. The issues were matters of medical and administrative expertise. The district court never said that it was rejecting Dr. Yarvis's opinions as to what was "appropriate psychiatric evaluation and treatment," or explained why the mediator's view and not Dr. Yarvis's was correct with regard to what sort of psychiatric care was "appropriate."
471 *471 3. Was the decree sufficiently specific?
The district court order, effectively turning much control of the Facility over to a special master, raises troubling issues in the context of a correctional institution. We are required to "accord deference to the appropriate prison authorities." Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 85, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 2259, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987). These inmates, in addition to being criminals, are mentally ill, so some of the restraints which induce sane people to behave themselves even if of a criminal disposition will not restrain these inmates. As the prison officials' evidence showed, the inmates are more apt than noncriminal victims of mental illness to lie about their symptoms, sell their medication, and injure or kill staff, each other, and themselves. The mentally ill and disabled people would not have been convicted of crimes and placed in the Facility, after all, had they not demonstrated an inability or disinclination to behave themselves.
The issue of specificity of the consent decree, in this context, amounts to a choice of who decides, whose view shall prevail, on disagreements such as those described above. If the parties had consented to a decree which provided with specificity that the thirteen proposed modifications should prevail, or provided for a specific standard compelling them, then the district court would decide whether the prison psychiatric regime met the standard. In the absence of a decree "specific in terms," the district court would lack the power to decide. We now examine the meaning of the phrase in the decree, "appropriate psychiatric evaluation and treatment," as construed by the district court to mean a "clinical standard" for psychiatric evaluation and treatment "as medically indicated," to see whether it is specific in terms with reference to the dispute about the level of psychiatric care.

The question is whether there was a specific meaning to the term "appropriate level of psychiatric evaluation and treatment," with or without the modifiers "as medically indicated," and "clinical standard." These sound like meaningful professional medical terms, but no showing was made of any specific meaning to them in the prison psychiatric context.
Here are a few of the many things a "medically indicated" level of "appropriate" psychiatric could mean: (1) avoidance of "egregious or flagrant conditions" which would violate the civil rights of institutionalized persons under 42 U.S.C. § 1997a(a); (2) the level of care in other state psychiatric prison facilities; (3) the level of care in federal institutions; (4) recommendations in some medical treatise; (4) standards published by some professional association, perhaps the American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, or American Correctional Association; (5) state medical malpractice standards; (6) treating physician's recommendations; (7) chief psychiatrist's recommendations; (8) California private medical insurers' standards for what treatment is compensable; (9) provisions commonly written into California private health maintenance organization contracts; (10) accreditation standards of some relevant professional board; (11) the Eighth Amendment, had the decree not expressly rejected that as the standard.
The practical effect of such a vague standard, "appropriate" psychiatric care, is that the prison, and the state budget for the prison, remain under the continuing and largely unfettered supervision of the district court and its magistrate judge, mediator, special master, and experts, instead of the state political process and appointed prison administrators.
The vagueness of the psychiatric care standard is in striking contrast to other parts of the consent decree. For example, the decree requires the prison officials to "develop written treatment guidelines," nonbinding, for nine listed diseases, such as asthma, tuberculosis, and diabetes mellitus. Mental illness is not in the list, and the prison's psychiatric expert says such protocols would be impractical because the profession has not agreed on any except for eating disorders and depression. Yet the contempt order implicitly assumes that the prison officials consented to developing written protocols for all mental illnesses. The consent decree says that the prison 472 officials must hire a particular consultant *472 to assess and develop a quality assurance program, and the consultant must use the standards of the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations for that purpose. Yet the only standard for assessment and development of the psychiatric program is the meaningless one that it should be "appropriate." The lack of specific terms in the decree by which to measure, implies that the prison officials did not consent to having the court decide whether the level of psychiatric evaluation and treatment measured up.
This case is not distinguishable from Balla v. Idaho State Bd. of Corrections, 869 F.2d 461 (9th Cir.1989). In Balla, we held that an injunction requiring a "systematic" screening program and "sufficient" mental health professionals could not support a contempt finding:
Civil contempt is appropriate only when a party fails to comply with a court order that is both specific and definite. Thus, to support a contempt motion, the order alleged to have been disobeyed must be sufficiently specific. The standards cited by the prisoners in the November 1 order are too vague to support a contempt motion. They include such requirements as a "systematic" program for screening and evaluation, participation of "sufficient" numbers of mental health professionals, and implementation of a "basic" program for identifying, treating and supervising suicidal prisoners.
Id. at 465 (internal citations omitted). This is not a holding to be avoided by substituting some unspecific words, like "appropriate," for others, like "sufficient."
We acknowledge our holding in Gates v. Shinn, 60 F.3d 525 (9th Cir.1995) that "appropriate psychiatric treatment as medically indicated" is "a sufficiently specific standard with which to judge defendants' compliance." Id. at 531. That case, however, involved a challenge to a tactic for controlling mentally ill inmates that "ha[d] not been approved by the American Psychiatric Association, the American Medical Association, or any other correctional standard setting body." Id. at 528. The standard of "appropriate treatment" was sufficient because the tactic was so clearly inappropriate. By contrast, reasonable minds can and do differ as to whether the defendant's outpatient

plan provided for "appropriate psychiatric treatment." The standard of "appropriateness" is therefore insufficiently specific to uphold the district court's contempt order.
CONCLUSION
The order finding the prison officials in contempt and imposing sanctions and additional requirements on them is VACATED, and the decision of the district court is REVERSED. The consent decree cannot support a contempt finding for failure to provide an "appropriate level" of psychiatric screening and care, because that provision does not command any conduct with specificity.
We do not reach the prison officials' argument that they were not afforded due process in the contempt proceedings, because we vacate the contempt citation on other grounds. We also do not reach such questions as may arise under the Prison Reform Litigation Act, Public Law No. 104-134, changes in 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(2), 18 U.S.C. 3626(f), 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a). We have dealt only with the matter put before us on appeal, the contempt order for alleged past violation of a decree. The effect of the Prison Reform Litigation Act on the decree will doubtless be raised before the district court.
[1] In its entirety, the relevant provision reads:
F. THE PROVISION OF APPROPRIATE PSYCHIATRIC CARE TO ALL PRISONERS AT CMF
1. Defendants will provide appropriate psychiatric screening for each incoming inmate at CMF and will provide appropriate psychiatric evaluation and treatment for all inmates at CMF as medically indicated.
2. Defendants will prepare and implement a program, to be operational by June 30, 1990, to provide appropriate psychiatric care for prisoners discharged from the inpatient psychiatric programs at CMF and ASH. The outpatient program as implemented will address the following elements:
a. Reducing regression as much as possible by providing appropriate programing therapies;
b. Providing therapeutic programs designed to facilitate increased functioning, participation in prison programming and return to the general population;
c. Appropriate monitoring of medications;
d. Communication and consultation between inpatient and outpatient psychiatric staff.
3. Defendants will improve outpatient psychiatric services. The program will be in effect by June 30, 1990. Defendants will provide periodic reports to the Mediator concerning the program and its implementation. The program will be staffed and fully operational by October 31, 1990. The outpatient program will address the following issues:
a. Staffing levels for psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, recreational and occupational therapists, nursing staff and custodial staff will be sufficient to provide appropriate access to psychiatric evaluation and treatment programs for all prisoners at CMF requiring such programs;
b. The need for additional staff will be periodically assessed ...
c. Treatment plans will be developed for all prisoners at CMF receiving psychiatric care....
d. Each prisoner referred to CMF from another institution (or from another unit within CMF) for psychiatric evaluation or treatment shall be examined and evaluated by a member of the clinical staff within 24 hours of his arrival at CMF and provided with appropriate treatment....
e. Appropriate space and facilities for treatment programs will be provided;

f. Appropriate access to psychiatrists and other mental health professionals will be provided to all prisoners based on their needs. The special psychiatric needs of prisoners diagnosed with HIV shall be addressed. All prisoners receiving psychotropic medications will be seen by a psychiatrist at appropriate intervals;
g. Medications will be appropriately monitored and appropriate medical records and charts will be maintained;
h. Each prisoner request to see a psychiatrist or psychologist will be documented in writing and responded to appropriately.
i. Isolation and seclusion in their cells of prisoners in need of psychiatric care will be minimized.
4. In an effort to comply with paragraphs 2 and 3 above, defendants will implement their Outpatient Program Guide.
5. Defendants will evaluate their program for providing psychiatric evaluation and treatment in October 1990 and report to the Mediator by December 15, 1990. The Mediator, if necessary, will independently investigate the program, in the determination of the adequacy of defendants' program for providing appropriate psychiatric services.
[2] This consent decree has resulted in extensive litigation. Published decisions by this court stemming from this decree include: Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392 (9th Cir.1992); Gates v. Rowland, 39 F.3d 1439 (9th Cir.1994); Gates v. Rowland, 60 F.3d 525 (9th Cir.1995).
[3] Emphasizing that the underlying concern when enforcing consent decrees is `fair notice', the district court concluded that the mediator's directives gave the defendants "ample and repeated notice that their conduct violated the Decree." But fair notice must be found "within [the] four corners" of the consent decree. See Armour, 402 U.S. at 682, 91 S.Ct. at 1757. This requirement protects a party who agrees to a consent decree from obligations to which that party has not agreed. Id. at 681-82, 91 S.Ct. at 1757-58. The prison officials are not saying "we did not know we were supposed to use clozapine, have 2.5 staff to track developmentally disabled inmates, assemble dangerous inmates in groups for group therapy, and give our psychiatrists 20 hours a year of continuing medical education." They are saying "we do not think those requirements are `appropriate,' and we did not agree to them when we consented to the decree."
[4] The district judge found that the prison officials had repeatedly failed to meet past deadlines, but expressly decided that "there remains no concrete action to compel via civil sanctions" regarding these past delays. The judge therefore did not hold the prison officials in contempt based on missed deadlines. 10/27/94 order at 18.
The judge found that the "outstanding noncompliance involves the substantive adequacy of defendant's submissions and actions." 10/27/94 order at 18. He noted that the magistrate had given the prison officials one last chance to submit a complete, revised plan for the Outpatient Psychiatric Program, but the mediator's experts concluded that it would satisfy the consent decree only if thirteen specified modifications were made. 10/27/94 order at 4-5. The judge found that the prison officials were not providing "appropriate evaluation and treatment for all inmates at CMF as medically indicated." 10/27/94 order at 19. He accordingly found them in contempt of section V.F of the consent decree.
In a footnote, the contempt order says that the facts establish "not only violations of the general mandate regarding appropriate care and an adequate OPP, but the particular requirements of appropriate medication, monitoring, evaluations, recordkeeping, etc. See Sections V.F.2 & 3." 10/27/94 order at 19.
The particulars referred to appear to be the disagreements discussed below relating to clozapine, staffing, treatment protocols, etc., though the order does not specify what they are. Sections V.F.2 and V.F.3 specify elements to be addressed in a plan "to provide appropriate psychiatric care," as by "appropriate programming therapies," "appropriate monitoring of medications," and "communication and consultation." A program to "improve" outpatient psychiatric services was to "address" issues including staffing levels sufficient to provide "appropriate" access to programs, examination within 24 hours of referral from another institution followed by "appropriate treatment" in "appropriate" facilities with "appropriate" access to staff, with medications to be

"appropriately" monitored and responses to prisoner requests to see psychiatrists and psychologists to be documented in writing and responded to "appropriately."
There are some specifics not measured by the term "appropriate" in these subsections, but none of these specifics furnished the basis for the contempt determination. As is obvious from the quotations, all the more specific sections relating to the contempt measure the required conduct by what is "appropriate." The prison officials had one idea of what was "appropriate," furnished largely by their psychiatric expert, the mediator had another furnished by his psychiatric experts (the thirteen modifications), and the district court agreed with the mediator.
[5] In the decree, the parties' briefs, and many of the quoted excerpts, the outpatient psychiatric program is referred to as an "OPP" and expanded versions of the outpatient program guide as "plans." Typically in institutional litigation, the lawyers working on the same case for years develop their own vocabulary of casespecific terms and abbreviations, sometimes built on the institution's internal set of abbreviations. The writer and most readers have never seen this case before and will probably never see it again, so for us, use of the casespecific terms and abbreviations obfuscate. We use descriptive terms rather than abbreviations in this opinion to save the reader the need to memorize an abbreviation vocabulary list in order to understand the opinion.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 Gates v. Shinn, 82 F.3d 422 (1996)
82 F.3d 422 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION. (The Court’s decision is referenced in a “Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions” appearing in the Federal Reporter. Use FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 for rules regarding the citation of unpublished opinions.) United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Jay Lee GATES; John Ronald Bertram, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
Ron SHINN, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
Nos. 95-15402, 95-15403. | Argued and Submitted Feb. 14, 1996. | Decided April 8, 1996.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, D.C. No. CV-87-01636-LKK; Lawrence K. Karlton, District Judge, Presiding.
E.D.Cal., [APPEAL AFTER REMAND FROM 987 F.2d 1392].
AFFIRMED IN PART, REMANDED IN PART.
Before: SCHROEDER, D.W. NELSON, and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM*
*1 These appeals once again present our court with disputes over attorneys’ fees awarded pursuant to the consent decree in the litigation concerning prison conditions at the California Medical Facility in Vacaville, California. Both appeals follow our decision in Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392 (9th Cir.1992), where we remanded the district court’s fee order for limited purposes.
In one appeal, 95-15403, the defendants-appellants protest the district court’s award of fees to cover plaintiffs-appellees’ ongoing monitoring and enforcement of the consent decree. The appeal raises four issues. First, defendants contest the propriety of the district court’s award covering plaintiffs’ media contacts and attendance at the Forensic Mental Health Association Annual Conference. Plaintiffs acknowledge that in Gates v. Gomez, 60 F.3d 525 (9th Cir.1995), we held that the district court had abused its discretion in awarding fees for these purposes. Plaintiffs further acknowledge that the defendants have already paid these unwarranted fees. Plaintiffs agree that the district court may grant the defendants a credit in the appropriate amount, thereby reducing the defendants’ remaining fee obligation to the extent of the unwarranted fees already paid. We remand for that purpose.
Second, defendants have not demonstrated any error in the district court’s award for xeroxing fees and word processing time. Plaintiffs presented ample evidence below to show that the district court’s award for word processing time parallels the relevant market practice, and a similar record was made for xeroxing fees. See Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274, 285-89 (1989).
Third, defendants’ challenge to the award of fees for legislative contacts is governed by our decision in Gates v. Gomez, 60 F.3d 525 (9th Cir.1995), where we upheld the portion of the district court’s fee award pertaining to legislative contacts.
Fourth, defendants claim technical violations of FRAP 39 in connection with the district court’s award of fees for work done on appeal. We conclude the district court’s award appropriately furthers the goals of the consent decree.
Defendants’ other appeal, 95-15402, contests the district court’s award of fees for work done prior to the consent decree. The appeal raises three issues.
1

Gates v. Shinn, 82 F.3d 422 (1996)
Defendants first contend the district court on remand did not adequately consider the appropriate lodestar and should not have accepted plaintiffs’ proffered billing statements. Although defendants maintain that the statements were deficient in certain respects, the district court appropriately found that the defendants failed to demonstrate that the plaintiffs’ claimed fees and costs were excessive; moreover, the court was not required ‘expressly to rule on each of [the defendants’] specific objections.’ Gates I, 987 F.2d at 1400. We see no abuse of discretion.
The district court fully considered the appellants’ second contention, that plaintiffs should not have been considered to have achieved full success, and appropriately rejected it.
*2 Finally, the defendants argue that the district court abused its discretion by awarding interest on unpaid amounts of the fee award back to the date of the consent decree. Defendants argue that no precedent compelled the district court to award interest back to the date of the consent decree, and that the effect of doing so after remand was to penalize the defendants for having been successful on appeal. The district court’s ruling on interest, however, did not penalize the defendants for their success on appeal, because irrespective of defendants’ appeal, plaintiffs could have applied for such an award. See Friend v. Kolodzieczak, 72 F.3d 1386, 1391-92 (9th Cir.1995) (affirming district court’s holding that “[i]nterest runs from the date that entitlement to fees is secured, rather than from the date that the exact quantity of fees is set”), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 1016, 64 U.S.L.W. 3572 (U.S. Feb. 26, 1996); Perkins v. Standard Oil Co. of California, 487 F.2d 672, 676 (9th Cir.1973) (holding that interest on attorneys’ fees should be computed from the date fees are awarded even though award is subsequently reduced). The district court acted within its discretion.
The matter is REMANDED to credit appellants for unwarranted fees already paid for media contacts and conference attendance. The fee order is otherwise AFFIRMED.

Parallel Citations

1996 WL 163742 (Table)

Footnotes

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by

Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

2

 
 Gates v. Deukmejian, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1988)
1988 WL 92568 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, E.D. California.
Jay Lee GATES, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
George DEUKMEJIAN, et al., Defendants.
CIV S–87–1636 LKKJFM. | July 27, 1988.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Warren E. George, Christopher C. Magorian, Cynthia Jo Greco, McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen, San Francisco, Cal., Donald Specter, Millard Murphy, Prison Law Office, San Quentin, Cal., Michael W. Bien, Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, Matthew A. Coles, ACLU Foundation of Northern California, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiffs.
John K. Van de Kamp, Atty. Gen., Steve White, Chief Asst. Atty., Gen., James Ching, Supervising Deputy Atty., Gen., James E. Flynn, Deputy Atty. Gen., Sacramento, Cal., for defendants.
Opinion
ORDER
KARLTON, Chief Judge.
*1 Plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of documents came on regularly for hearing May 19, 1988. Warren E. George, Michael W. Bien, Christopher C. Magorian and Donald Specter appeared for plaintiffs. James E. Flynn and Allen Crown, Deputy Attorneys General, appeared for defendants. Upon review of the motion and the documents in support and opposition, upon hearing the arguments of counsel and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND ORDERS and announced them to the parties in open court:
This civil rights suit alleges that defendants are committing numerous constitutional violations in their operation of the Correctional Medical Facility-Main and the Northern Reception Center The discovery disputes before the court concern two categories of documents. Plaintiffs, recently certified as a class, seek to compel the production of correspondence between defendants and the California Medical Facility (“CMF”) and the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) in connection with

the DOJ’s investigation of CMF pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997a, and the minutes of various hospital committee meetings.1
I. The DOJ documents. In March of 1985 the United States Department of Justice initiated an investigation of the conditions present at the California Medical Facility. The DOJ proceeded under the authority of 42 U.S.C. § 1997a, which allows the DOJ to investigate and file suit for the correction of “egregious or flagrant conditions which deprive [prisoners) ... of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution....” Plaintiffs seek the correspondence between the parties to the investigation.2
The relevance of materials documenting an investigation of the conditions alleged in plaintiffs’ complaint is not open to serious dispute. Defendants have raised three main arguments in support of their claim to confidentiality. The first theory of confidentiality is based on an agreement between the CDC and the DOJ concerning documents generated during the CRIPA investigation.3 The relevant portions of the agreement, paragraphs 3 and 5, state that the “U.S. Department of Justice agrees that it will not disclose the contents or substance of any information or provide copies of any documents received from CDC during the course of this investigation to any person or agency not directly connected with this investigation and will not disclose such documents, records, reports, papers, or other information, of any nature, without prior written consent of CDC,” and that any “person or agency who does have access to information in accordance with this Agreement will be similarly bound by the terms of this Agreement.” The agreement prohibits the DOJ and any other person or agency with access to the information from distributing materials received during the investigation without prior written consent of the CDC. The agreement does not prohibit the CDC from producing documents to persons not party to the agreement. Paragraph 5 does not convince this court otherwise. The interpretation urged by defendants would have the convoluted result of requiring the CDC to get its own prior written permission before it could release documents. The agreement does not prohibit the CDC from producing the documents, whether it be in the context of this litigation or under other circumstances. This objection is overruled.
Defendants’ second theory of confidentiality is a rather creative but unsupportable extension of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). Sections 552(b)(5), (6), and (7) of the Act authorize nondisclosure of inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in
1

Gates v. Deukmejian, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1988)
litigation with the agency; personnel, medical, and similar files whose disclosure would constitute an invasion of privacy; and investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes. Defendants claim standing to raise the FOIA because of the confidentiality agreement with the DOJ, arguing that they are raising the privilege because the DOJ stated it would raise the privilege if a similar request was directed toward it. Flynn Declaration, ¶ 33. The facts of this motion, however, are not as defendants would have them. The request for production was directed to a state agency which does not have the authority to claim protection for documents under the FOIA. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 551(1) and 552. The DOJ’s promise to refrain from distributing any of the requested materials has no bearing on defendants’ ability to claim protection for documents under the FOIA. This objection is overruled.
*2 Lastly, defendants urge the court to apply the deliberative process privilege to protect the materials from production to plaintiffs. The deliberative process privilege is intended to shield agency documents which reflect advisory opinions, recommendations and deliberations recorded as part of the governmental decision and policy making process from disclosure. The purpose of the privilege is to encourage frank discussions, thereby insuring the quality of the resultant policy or decision. Mobil Oil Corp. v. Department of Energy, 520 F. Supp. 414, 416 (N.D.N.Y. 1981), rev’d on other grounds, 659 F.2d 150 (TECA), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1110 (1981). Defendants must establish the applicability of the privilege as well as demonstrate that the reasons for upholding the privilege outweigh plaintiffs’ need for the material.
Defendants have failed to complete the first step. Defendants have not presented an affidavit by an agency head or other appropriate official which states that the privilege has been claimed after personal consideration of the allegedly privileged information. Mobil Oil Corp. v. Department of Energy, 102 F.R.D. 1 (N.D.N.Y. 1983). As noted by plaintiffs, defendants have also sought to protect the wrong class of documents. The deliberative process privilege was intended to cover only internal discussion concerning potential policy concerns. See In re Franklin Nat. Bank Securities Lit., 478 F. Supp. 577, 581 (E.D.N.Y. 1979)(privilege protects intra-governmental deliberations). Documents sent between the CDC and the DOJ cannot be characterized as internal documents.
Defendants argue that documents shared between the CDC and the DOJ should be protected under the deliberative process privilege because of the legislative history of 42 U.S.C. S 1997 (“CRIPA”), which strongly encourages informal resolution of disputes regarding conditions of confinement. Defendants essentially argue that documents voluntarily given to the DOJ should be protected from disclosure so that candid negotiations

between the DOJ and prison officials will not be discouraged. Defendants’ advocacy of such an extension of the deliberative process privilege is novel but ultimately unpersuasive in view of the complete absence of any provisions regarding confidentiality within CRIPA. Cf. Olitsky v. Spencer Gifts, Inc., 842 F.2d 123 (5th Cir. 1988)(discussing express provisions for nondisclosure of certain materials in Title VII cases).
Defendants’ claims of privilege for the documents sent from the CDC to the DOJ are overruled. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of these documents is granted.
II. Minutes of hospital staff meetings. *3 Defendants object to the production of minutes from several clinical staff meetings under the authority of California Evidence Code § 1157, which prohibits the discovery of minutes of hospital committee meetings charged with the responsibility of improving the quality of care provided by the hospital.4 Plaintiff’s cause of action, 28 U.S.C. § 1983, is federal, so state rules of privilege provide persuasive weight only. Fed. R. Evid. 501; Lewis v. United States, 517 F.2d 236 (9th Cir. 1975). However, unlike the majority of state privileges reviewed by this court, Cal. Evid. Code § 1157 would constitute an absolute bar to disclosure of hospital committee meetings charged with the responsibility of improving the quality of medical care in the case at hand. In West Covina Hospital v. Superior Court, 41 Cal.3d 846, 226 Cal.Rptr. 132 (1986), the court noted that in order to improve hospital care the legislature determined that doctors must be absolutely free to speak candidly about hospital conditions without the fear of being dragged into malpractice actions. 41 Cal.3d at 851–852.5
After balancing the policy considerations presented by the strength of the privilege and plaintiffs’ need for the material, Baird v. Koerner, 279 F.2d 623 (9th Cir. 1960), the court concludes that an order requiring production would be premature. Plaintiffs are just beginning their discovery, and are understandably unable to determine whether they will be able to gain the desired information from other sources. Defendants have not supplied the court with enough information about the contents of the minutes to accurately balance plaintiffs’ need for the particular information against defendants’ need to protect it from disclosure. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel disclosure of hospital committee meeting minutes is denied at this time. This ruling is made without prejudice to renewal of the motion further along in discovery at a time when the parties can supply the information alluded to above. The law and motion date of August 25, 1988 is reserved for further hearing should the parties desire it.
2

Gates v. Deukmejian, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1988)

	  

Footnotes

1

Plaintiffs seek to compel the production of the minutes of the following committees: infection control, psychiatric, medical and

other clinical staff meetings.

2

The parties dispute whether interrogatory # 21 requests internal documents generated by the CDC but not given to the DOJ. After

reviewing the interrogatory this court concludes that the interrogatory does not request internal documents.

3

The agreement in its entirety reads as follows:

AGREEMENT

1. This Agreement is in reference to any and all documents, records, reports, papers, and information, of any nature, disclosed

or released to the United States Department of Justice or its agents in connection with the investigation of the California

Medical Facility (CMF) under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), 42 U.S.C. Section 1997.

2. The parties to this agreement are the California Department of Corrections (CDC), an agency of the State of California, and

the U.S. Department of Justice, an agency of the United States of America.

3. The U.S. Department of Justice agrees that it will not disclose the contents or substance of any information or provide

copies of any documents received from CDC during the course of this investigation to any person or agency not directly

connected with this investigation and will not disclose such documents, records, reports, papers and other information, of any

nature, without prior written consent of CDC.

4. Further, the Department of Justice agrees not to obtain, through CDC, any individually identifiable medical record except in

connection with the use of a voluntarily executed Authorization to Release Medical Information from the inmate about whom

the information is sought.

5. Any person or agency who does have access to information in accordance with this Agreement will be similarly bound by

the terms of this Agreement.

4

California Evidence Code § 1157 provides in relevant part that:

(a) Neither the proceedings nor the records of organized committees of medical, medical-dental, podiatric, registered dietitian,

psychological, or veterinary staffs in hospitals having the responsibility of evaluation and improvement of the quality of care

rendered in the hospital, or medical or dental review or dental hygienist review or chiropractic review or podiatric review or

registered dietitian review or veterinary review committees of local medical, dental, dental hygienist, podiatric, dietetic,

veterinary, or chiropractic societies, or psychological review committees of state or local psychological associations or

societies having the responsibility of evaluation and improvement of the quality of care, shall be subject to discovery....

Defendants have also asserted confidentiality under the “selfcritical analysis” privilege in federal common law. In view of the

court’s holding below regarding Cal. Evid. Code § 1157, the court need not reach the question of federal privilege at this time.

The court notes, however, that the record regarding the content of the documents and the competing needs for production and

nondisclosure is flawed in a manner similar to the records regarding the state privilege.

5

Plaintiffs argue that the Covina case compels the conclusion that the privilege is inapplicable because Covina noted that § 1157 is

“aimed directly at malpractice actions in which a present or former hospital staff doctor is a defendant.” 41 Cal.3d at 854, quoting

Matchett v. Superior Court, 40 Cal.App.3d at 628–634. While the statute might be aimed at these actions, Covina also noted that

the “obvious general purpose of section 1157 is to improve the quality of medical care in the hospitals by the use of peer review

committees.” 41 Cal.3d at 851. This purpose would.be served by prohibiting discovery of the minutes.

	  

3