Case 2:14-cv-01679-MCE-KJN Document 1 Filed 07/16/14 Page 1 of 10

1131831-12

1 GAY CROSTHWAIT GRUNFELD – 121944

KATHRYN G. MANTOAN – 239649

2 BLAKE THOMPSON – 255600

VAN SWEARINGEN – 259809

3 ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP

315 Montgomery Street, Tenth Floor

4 San Francisco, California 94104-1823

Telephone: (415) 433-6830

5 Facsimile: (415) 433-7104

Email:

ggrunfeld@rbgg.com

6

kmantoan@rbgg.com

bthompson@rbgg.com

7

vswearingen@rbgg.com

8 JESSE STOUT – 284544

LEGAL SERVICES FOR PRISONERS WITH CHILDREN

9 1540 Market Street, Suite 490

San Francisco, California 94102

10 Telephone: (415) 255-7036

Facsimile: (415) 552-3150

11 Email:

jesse@prisonerswithchildren.org

12 Attorneys for Plaintiff

13

14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

17 WILLIAM A. SASSMAN,

Case No.

18

Plaintiff,

19

v.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

20 EDMUND G. BROWN, JR, Governor of California, and JEFFREY A. BEARD,
21 Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, in their
22 official capacities, and DOES 1-10,

23

Defendants.

24

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:14-cv-01679-MCE-KJN Document 1 Filed 07/16/14 Page 2 of 10

1131831-12

1

INTRODUCTION

2

Plaintiff WILLIAM A. SASSMAN challenges Defendants’ unconstitutional

3 exclusion of men from California’s Alternative Custody Program (“ACP”), as authorized

4 by California Penal Code section 1170.05. State law and implementing regulations issued

5 by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) allow only

6 female prisoners to be considered for participation in the ACP, a highly desirable

7 alternative to incarceration. Plaintiff SASSMAN applied for the program but was denied

8 acceptance solely because of his sex. By allowing female but not male prisoners to

9 participate in a CDCR program that allows prisoners to reunite with their families in their

10 communities, ACP’s blanket sex-based exclusion violates the Equal Protection Clause of

11 the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Plaintiff brings this action

12 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.

13

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

14

1. This action arises under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

15 Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this

16 action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, 2201, and 2202.

17

2. Venue is proper in the Eastern District of California under 28 U.S.C.

18 § 1391(b)(2) because substantial acts and omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in

19 this District, including the authorization and implementation of the ACP as well as

20 Defendants’ decision to deny Plaintiff SASSMAN’s application to the ACP. Plaintiff

21 SASSMAN currently resides in this district.

22

3. Intradistrict venue is appropriate in this division pursuant to Federal Rule of

23 Civil Procedure 3 and E.D. Cal. L.R. 120(d) because a substantial part of the events or

24 omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in the counties served by this division.

25 In particular, Defendants’ decision to establish the ACP in a sex discriminatory fashion

26 occurred in Sacramento County.

27

PARTIES

28

4. Plaintiff WILLIAM A. SASSMAN is a male prisoner with a family, and is

1
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:14-cv-01679-MCE-KJN Document 1 Filed 07/16/14 Page 3 of 10

1131831-12

1 currently incarcerated at the Valley View Conservation Camp located in Elk Creek,

2 California.

3

5. Defendant EDMUND G. BROWN, JR. is the Governor or the State of

4 California and oversees all state agencies, including the CDCR. Defendant BROWN is

5 legally responsible for ensuring compliance with state and federal laws at all state

6 facilities, including state correctional facilities. Defendant BROWN is legally responsible

7 for the unlawful policies, practices, and procedures challenged herein, and has the

8 authority and legal obligation to abolish these unconstitutional policies, practices, and

9 procedures. Defendant BROWN is sued in his official capacity.

10

6. Defendant JEFFREY A. BEARD is the Secretary of the California

11 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. As Secretary of CDCR, Defendant Beard is

12 responsible for implementing the ACP, including the development and maintenance of

13 regulations implementing the program. Defendant BEARD is legally responsible for

14 ensuring compliance with state and federal laws at all correctional facilities. Defendant

15 BEARD is legally responsible for the unlawful policies, practices, and procedures

16 challenged herein, and has the authority and legal obligation to abolish these

17 unconstitutional policies, practices, and procedures. Defendant BEARD is sued in his

18 official capacity.

19

7. The true names and identities of Defendants DOES 1 through 10 are

20 presently unknown to Plaintiff. Each of Defendants DOES 1 through 10 are or were

21 employed by and are or were agents of the State of California or the California Department

22 of Corrections and Rehabilitation and are or were personally involved in the adoption

23 and/or implementation of the ACP. Plaintiff will seek to amend this Complaint as soon as

24 the true names and identities of Defendants DOES 1 through 10 have been ascertained.

25

8. Each and every act and omission alleged herein of Defendants, their officers,

26 agents, servants, employees, or persons acting at their behest or direction, were done and

27 are continuing to be done under the color of state law and within the scope of their official

28 duties as employees or agents of the State of California and the California Department of

2
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:14-cv-01679-MCE-KJN Document 1 Filed 07/16/14 Page 4 of 10

1131831-12

1 Corrections and Rehabilitation.

2

FACTS

3

The Alternative Custody Program As Currently Amended Categorically

Excludes Male Prisoners From Participation

4

5

9. On September 30, 2010, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed

6 into law Senate Bill (“SB”) 1266, which added section 1170.05 to the California Penal

7 Code, authorizing CDCR to “offer a program under which female inmates, pregnant

8 inmates, or inmates who, immediately prior to incarceration, were primary caregivers of

9 dependent children … who are committed to state prison may be allowed to participate in a

10 voluntary alternative custody program in lieu of confinement in state prison.”

11

10. As enacted and as amended, participants in the ACP are released from prison

12 and allowed to live in a residential home, transitional care facility, or residential drug

13 treatment program in the community for the remainder of their prison sentence.

14

11. Prisoners who have a current conviction for a serious or violent felony, or a

15 current or prior sex-offense conviction or California Penal Code section 290 registration

16 requirement are not eligible for the ACP. Additional exclusionary criteria include a history

17 of attempted escape in the last 10 years, an active restraining order, gang membership/

18 affiliation, a criminal or immigration hold, and certain types of in-custody misconduct.

19

12. When prisoners apply for the ACP, CDCR conducts a screening process to

20 determine whether the prisoner is eligible for the program. CDCR then prepares an

21 Individualized Treatment and Rehabilitation Plan and identifies an appropriate housing

22 placement for each prisoner. Each participant in the ACP is monitored by an agent from

23 CDCR’s Division of Adult Parole Operations while in the community, and is subject to

24 electronic monitoring and searches of the prisoner and his or her residence at any time.

25 Participants in the ACP may be returned to state prison at any time, with or without cause.

26

13. As originally enacted by the Legislature, the ACP was open to at least some

27 men, although men were still required to be “primary caregivers of dependent children …

28 immediately prior to incarceration” while women applicants faced no such restriction. SB

3
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:14-cv-01679-MCE-KJN Document 1 Filed 07/16/14 Page 5 of 10

1131831-12

1 1266 included legislative findings expressly emphasizing the importance of reuniting

2 incarcerated fathers with their children, noting that research “demonstrates that a father’s

3 involvement in his child’s life greatly improves the child’s chances for success. Helping

4 incarcerated fathers foster stronger connections with their children, where appropriate, can

5 have positive effects for children. Strong family connections help to ensure that fathers

6 stay out of prison once they are released.”

7

14. On or about September 12, 2011, CDCR announced the formal launch of the

8 ACP, which according to CDCR was a “Community-Based Program … aimed at reuniting

9 low-level offenders with their families and providing inmates with rehabilitative services

10 within the community,” but stated that “[i]nitially, the program will be offered to

11 qualifying female inmates” and that “[p]articipation may be offered at a later date to male

12 inmates, at the discretion of the Secretary of CDCR.”

13

15. On June 27, 2012, Defendant BROWN signed into law SB 1021, which

14 modified Penal Code section 1170.05 categorically to exclude men. As amended by SB

15 1021, the ACP now explicitly excludes all men, in that the statute authorizes a program in

16 which “female inmates … and only those persons, shall be eligible to participate in the

17 alternative custody program.”

18

16. On or about September 13, 2012, CDCR issued emergency regulations for

19 the ACP. Those regulations provide that “[t]o be eligible to participate in the Alternative

20 Custody Program (ACP), the inmate must volunteer and be female.” See Cal. Code Regs.

21 tit. 15, § 3078.2. Those regulations became permanent on February 25, 2013.

22

17. CDCR has expressed its intention to expand the ACP as part of its efforts to

23 meet court-ordered population reduction benchmarks. However, CDCR has improperly

24 and irrationally limited the proposed expansion to additional female prisoners with more

25 serious or violent criminal histories, rather than allowing any male prisoners to participate.

26 See Defs.’ Mar. 2014 Status Report in Resp. to Feb. 10, 2014 Order of the Three-Judge

27 Court, Coleman v. Brown, E.D. Cal. Case No. 2:90-cv-00520-LKK-DAD, Dkt. No. 5114-2

28 (Mar. 17, 2014) at Ex. B, p. 4.

4
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:14-cv-01679-MCE-KJN Document 1 Filed 07/16/14 Page 6 of 10

1131831-12

1

18. No men have ever been accepted to the ACP.

2

CDCR’s Refusal to Consider Plaintiff SASSMAN is

Gender-Based Discrimination

3

4

19. Plaintiff WILLIAM A. SASSMAN is a CDCR prisoner. Plaintiff

5 SASSMAN was accepted into CDCR custody on January 13, 2011. Plaintiff SASSMAN

6 had no criminal history prior to his current conviction.

7

20. Plaintiff SASSMAN has two minor children, with whom he lived and for

8 whom he shared caregiving responsibilities before he was arrested in November 2009.

9 Plaintiff SASSMAN has maintained contact with his minor children during his

10 incarceration through letters and visits. Plaintiff SASSMAN seeks to be more present in

11 his children’s lives, to care for them, help provide for their well-being, and to be

12 reintegrated into his community. Plaintiff SASSMAN also seeks to be closer to his

13 mother, who has been diagnosed with stage IV colon cancer and is no longer able to care

14 for herself fully at home, so that he can provide assistance to her as a caregiver. He has a

15 residential home to which he can return if accepted into the ACP.

16

21. On June 3, 2013, Plaintiff SASSMAN applied to the ACP, requesting that he

17 be allowed to finish his sentence in his home community of Sacramento. None of the

18 exclusionary criteria set forth in CDCR’s implementing regulations—including

19 disqualifying convictions, in-custody misconduct, or other law enforcement holds—applies

20 to Plaintiff SASSMAN.

21

22. On June 19, 2013, a CDCR Correctional Counselor denied Plaintiff

22 SASSMAN’s application, stating that the “[s]ubject is a male and per Title 15 Section

23 3000 Def [sic] ACP not eligible.”

24

23. Plaintiff SASSMAN appealed his ACP application denial through the third-

25 level of review. CDCR denied each of those appeals solely on the basis of Plaintiff

26 SASSMAN’s sex, male. His final third-level appeal was denied on December 17, 2013,

27 which “exhaust[ed] the administrative remedy available to [him] within CDCR.”

28

24. Since approximately March 2014, Plaintiff SASSMAN has been housed by

5
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:14-cv-01679-MCE-KJN Document 1 Filed 07/16/14 Page 7 of 10

1131831-12

1 CDCR in a low-security fire camp. Plaintiff SASSMAN is currently housed at CDCR’s

2 Valley View Conservation Camp in Elk Creek, California, where he works as a clerk

3 supporting prisoner fighting crews for fire suppression and flood control activities.

4

Defendants Have Refused to Remedy Their Refusal to Consider Plaintiff

for the ACP Based Solely on Plaintiff’s Gender

5

6

25. Male prisoners other than Mr. Sassman have also been denied the

7 opportunity to apply and be considered for the ACP. For example, one prisoner

8 incarcerated by CDCR at Valley State Prison in Chowchilla, California is the father of a

9 one year old daughter, and aside from his sex, this prisoner would meet all ACP eligibility

10 criteria; nothing would exclude him from program participation if he were female. Last

11 year the prisoner sought access to the ACP so that he could transition back into his

12 daughter’s life as well as pursue programming opportunities offered to ACP participants.

13 A CDCR Correctional Counselor refused even to provide the prisoner with an ACP

14 application because of the prisoner’s sex—male. After filing an prisoner appeal stating “I

15 am being excluded from the Alternative Custody Program … based solely on gender,” the

16 prisoner was instructed by an Appeals Coordinator to withdraw his appeal because the

17 ACP does not allow male prisoners to participate.

18

26. In addition to appeals and other communications, Defendants are aware that

19 the ACP is unconstitutional through a letter from Plaintiff’s counsel to the CDCR General

20 Counsel dated May 12, 2014, stating that Defendants’ policies, practices, and procedures

21 violate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Plaintiff’s letter went unanswered. Defendants

22 continue to violate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and have not made any attempts to

23 resolve the dispute pre-litigation.

24

27. Defendants’ actions have violated, continue to violate, and are reasonably

25 expected in the future to violate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

26

28. Defendants BROWN, BEARD, DOES 1-10, and other agents of the State of

27 California and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation are responsible

28 for or personally participated in creating and implementing these unconstitutional policies,

6
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:14-cv-01679-MCE-KJN Document 1 Filed 07/16/14 Page 8 of 10

1131831-12

1 practices, and procedures.

2

29. Defendants’ unconstitutional policies, practices, and procedures are ongoing

3 and continue to violate Plaintiff’s rights, causing irreparable harm to Plaintiff. Each day

4 Plaintiff SASSMAN is kept in prison away from his children solely on the basis that he is

5 male, not female, violates his fundamental rights to bond with and care for his children.

6 Every day that Plaintiff SASSMAN’s children grow older without access to their parent is

7 time together that cannot be regained. Nor can Plaintiff SASSMAN regain time separated

8 from his elder, infirm mother for whom he very much wants to provide caregiving

9 assistance. As such, Plaintiff SASSMAN has no adequate remedy at law.

10

30. Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from

11 continuing categorically to exclude male prisoners like Plaintiff SASSMAN from the ACP.

12

31. Defendants’ categorical exclusion of all male prisoners from the ACP harms

13 the public interest by exacerbating the overcrowding of California’s state prisons and

14 denying low-risk male offenders the opportunity to pursue reintegration with their

15 communities and their families, which would reduce California’s excessively high

16 recidivism rate. Defendants’ blanket exclusion further harms the public interest by

17 perpetuating outdated and damaging stereotypes suggesting that only mothers care for

18 children, and that children can only benefit from reunification with their mothers, to the

19 detriment and denigration of fathers’ roles in their children’s lives. The exclusion further

20 harms the public interest by denying children the benefits that attend the presence and

21 participation of fathers in their lives, as research has demonstrated and the Legislature has

22 acknowledged.

23

WHEREFORE Plaintiff prays for relief as hereinafter alleged.

24

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Against All Defendants – For Violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the

25

Fourteenth Amendment Under Color Of State Law – Section 1983)

26

27

32. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference the preceding

28 paragraphs.

7
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:14-cv-01679-MCE-KJN Document 1 Filed 07/16/14 Page 9 of 10

1131831-12

1

33. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United

2 States Constitution prohibits any state from denying “to any person within its jurisdiction

3 the equal protection of the laws.”

4

34. By excluding Plaintiff and other male prisoners who are similarly situated

5 from participation in the ACP, Defendants have deprived and continue to deprive Plaintiff

6 and other male prisoners of equal protection under the laws, in violation of the Fourteenth

7 Amendment to the United States Constitution and thus in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

8

35. The acts described above have caused and will continue to cause irreparable

9 harm to Plaintiff.

10

36. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against all Defendants.

11

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

12

The conduct previously alleged, unless and until enjoined by order of this Court,

13 will cause great and irreparable injury to Plaintiff. Further, a judicial declaration is

14 necessary and appropriate at this time so that all parties may know their respective rights

15 and act accordingly.

16

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests relief as follows:

17

1. A declaration that Defendants’ categorical exclusion of men from the

18 Alternative Custody Program, as memorialized in California Penal Code section 1170.05

19 and the associated implementing regulations in Title 15 of the California Code of

20 Regulations, violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

21

2. A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendants and their

22 employees, agents, and any and all persons acting in concert with them from enforcement

23 or application of the categorical exclusion of men from the Alternative Custody Program.

24

3. A preliminary and permanent injunction requiring Defendants to consider

25 Plaintiff SASSMAN’s application for ACP forthwith without regard to his sex.

26

4. Costs and reasonable attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and other

27 applicable law.

28

8
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:14-cv-01679-MCE-KJN Document 1 Filed 07/16/14 Page 10 of 10

1131831-12

1

5. Such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

2

3 DATED: July 16, 2014

Respectfully submitted,

4

ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP

5

By: /s/ Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld

6

Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld

7

Attorneys for Plaintiff

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 
 Case 2:14-cv-01679-MCE-KJN Document 9 Filed 08/07/14 Page 1 of 10

1 KAMALA D. HARRIS, State Bar No. 146672 Attorney General of California
2 JAY C. RUSSELL, State Bar No. 122626 Supervising Deputy Attorney General
3 MARTINE N. D'AGOSTINO, State Bar No. 256777 Deputy Attorney General
4 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102-7004
5 Telephone: (415) 703-5233 Fax: (415) 703-5843
6 E-mail: Martine.DAgostino@doj.ca.gov Attorneys for Defendants
7 Edmund G. Brown Jr. and Jeffrey A. Beard, Ph.D.

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

11

12

WILLIAM A. SASSMAN,

14-CV-01679-MCE-KJN (PR)

13

Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO

14

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

v.

15

Judge:

The Honorable Morrison C.

16 EDMUND G. BROWN JR., ET AL.,

England, Jr.

Trial Date: N/A

17

Defendants. Action Filed: July 16, 2014

18

19

In accordance with Rule 12(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants

20 Edmund G. Brown, Jr., and Jeffrey A. Beard answer Plaintiff William A. Sassman’s complaint,

21 and deny, admit, and allege as follows:

22

INTRODUCTION

23

Responding to the introduction of Plaintiff’s complaint, Defendants admit that Plaintiff

24 brings this action challenging the Alternative Custody Program, as authorized by California Penal

25 Code section 1170.05, as unconstitutional. Defendants admit that California Penal Code section

26 1170.05 and California Code of Regulations, title 15, section 3078, et seq., provide that “female

27 inmates sentenced to state prison for a determinate term of imprisonment…and only those

28 persons, shall be eligible to participate in the alternative custody program.” Cal. Penal Code 1
Defs.’ Ans. to Pl.’s Compl. (14-CV-01679-MCE-KJN (PR))

Case 2:14-cv-01679-MCE-KJN Document 9 Filed 08/07/14 Page 2 of 10

1 §1170.05. Defendants admit that Plaintiff applied for the Alternative Custody Program and was

2 denied. Defendants admit that Plaintiff purports to bring this action under the Equal Protection

3 Clause of Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Defendants admit that

4 Plaintiff purports to bring this action under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and seeks declaratory and injunctive

5 relief. Answering all remaining allegations in the introduction, Defendants state that the matters

6 alleged are questions of law to which no answer is required. Except as expressly admitted,

7 Defendants deny the allegations in the introduction.

8

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

9

1. Answering paragraph one, Defendants admit that Plaintiff purports to bring this

10 action under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. §1983.

11 Defendants admit that this Court may have jurisdiction over claims seeking declaratory and

12 injunctive relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343 and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28

13 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202.

14

2. Answering paragraph two, Defendants admit that venue is proper in this

15 District. Defendants admit that the California State Legislature meets at the California State

16 Capitol in Sacramento, California. Defendants deny that they personally denied Plaintiff’s

17 application to the Alternative Custody Program. Defendants are informed and believe and

18 therefore admit that Plaintiff presently lives within the Eastern District of California.

19

3. Answering paragraph three, Defendants admit that intradistrict venue is proper.

20 Answering all remaining allegations in paragraph three, Defendants state that the matters alleged

21 are questions of law, to which no answer is required. Except as expressly admitted, Defendants

22 deny the allegations in paragraph three.

23

PARTIES

24

4. Answering paragraph four, Defendants are informed and believe and therefore

25 admit that Plaintiff William Sassman, CDCR #AG0984, is a state inmate currently incarcerated at

26 Valley View Conservation Camp in Elk Creek, California.

27

5. Answering paragraph five, Defendants admit that Edmund G. Brown, Jr., is the

28 Governor of the State of California. Defendants admit the Plaintiff purports to sue Governor 2
Defs.’ Ans. to Pl.’s Compl. (14-CV-01679-MCE-KJN (PR))

Case 2:14-cv-01679-MCE-KJN Document 9 Filed 08/07/14 Page 3 of 10

1 Brown in his official capacity. Answering all remaining allegations in paragraph five, Defendants

2 state that the matters alleged are questions of law, to which no answer is required. Except as

3 expressly admitted, Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph five.

4

6. Answering paragraph six, Defendants admit that Jeffrey A. Beard is the

5 Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). Defendants

6 admit that Plaintiff purports to sue Secretary Beard in his official capacity. Except as expressly

7 admitted, Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph six.

8

7. Answering paragraph seven, Defendants state that the matters alleged are

9 questions of law, to which no answer is required. To the extent that a response is required,

10 Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph seven.

11

8. Answering paragraph eight, Defendants state that the matters alleged are

12 questions of law, to which no answer is required. To the extent that a response is required,

13 Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph eight.

14

FACTS

15

9. Answering paragraph nine, Defendants admit that on September 30, 2010,

16 former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Senate Bill (SB) 1266 into law.

17 Defendants admit that SB 1266 added section 1170.05 to the California Penal Code, authorizing

18 the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation “to offer a program under

19 which female inmates, pregnant inmates, or inmates who, immediately prior to incarceration,

20 were primary caregivers of dependent children …who are committed to state prison may be

21 allowed to participate in a voluntary alternative custody program in lieu of confinement in state

22 prison.”

23

10. Answering paragraph ten, Defendants admit that California Penal Code section

24 1170.05, as enacted in 2010 and amended in 2012, allows statutorily eligible participants in the

25 Alternative Custody Program to “participat[e] in an alternative custody program . . . in lieu of . . .

26 incarceration in state prison” through “Confinement to a residential home . . . .” ,“Confinement to

27 a residential drug or treatment program . . . .”, or “Confinement to a transitional care facility that

28 offers appropriate services.”

3
Defs.’ Ans. to Pl.’s Compl. (14-CV-01679-MCE-KJN (PR))

Case 2:14-cv-01679-MCE-KJN Document 9 Filed 08/07/14 Page 4 of 10

1

11. Answering paragraph eleven, Defendants admit that California Penal Code

2 section 1170.05(d) states, “[a]n inmate committed to the state prison who meets any of the

3 following criteria shall not be eligible to participate in the alternative custody program: (1) The

4 person has a current conviction for a violent felony, as defined by Penal Code section 667.5. (2)

5 The person has a current conviction for a serious felony, as defined in Sections 1192.7 and 1192.8.

6 (3) The person has a current or prior conviction for an offense that requires the person to register

7 as a sex offender as provided in Chapter 5.5 (commencing with Section 290) of Title 9 of Part

8 1. . . . [and] (5) The person has a history, within the last 10 years, of escape from a facility while

9 under adult or juvenile custody . . . .” Defendants admit that California Code of Regulations, title

10 15, section 3078.3, states in part “[e]xclusionary criteria includes, but is not limited to: . . . (6)

11 Active or potential misdemeanor or felony holds, warrants or detainers. (7) Active or potential

12 United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement holds, warrants, or detainers. (8) An active

13 restraining order. (9) In-custody misconduct equivalent to a Divisions ‘A-1’ through ‘C’

14 offense . . . during the last 24 calendar months, except for physical possession of alcohol. . . . (13)

15 Validated active or inactive prison gang members or associates, as defined in subsection

16 3378(c).”

17

12. Answering paragraph twelve, Defendants admit that California Code of

18 Regulations, title 15, section 3078.4(a)(2) and (a)(3), state, in part, “the Correctional Counselor

19 shall complete a preliminary screening for Alternative Custody Program (ACP) eligibility

20 utilizing the criteria provided in section 3078.2 . . . .” and “[a]n assessment of the inmate’s

21 predictive factors shall be completed using the California Static Risk Assessment, as provided for

22 in section 3768.1.” Defendants admit California Code of Regulations, title 15, section

23 3078.4(b)(1) further states in part that “[b]ased on the assessment . . . and a review of the inmate’s

24 central file, an Individualized Treatment and Rehabilitation Plan shall be prepared by designated

25 institution staff.” Defendants admit that California Code of Regulations, title 15, section

26 3078.4(b)(2), states in part that, “institution staff shall coordinate with the ACP Program Manager,

27 to identify appropriate placement consistent with the offender’s needs and availability of

28 appropriate program(s).” Defendants admit that California Code of Regulations, title 15, section 4
Defs.’ Ans. to Pl.’s Compl. (14-CV-01679-MCE-KJN (PR))

Case 2:14-cv-01679-MCE-KJN Document 9 Filed 08/07/14 Page 5 of 10

1 3078.5(a), states in part that “[e]ach Alternative Custody Program participant shall be assigned to

2 the supervision of a designated Division of Adult Parole Operations (DAPO) staff who shall

3 function as the case manager.” Defendants admit that California Code of Regulations, title 15,

4 section 3078.5(b) and (c) further state in part that the “[l]evel of supervision of the inmate will be

5 determined by DAPO staff” and “includes but is not limited to: . . . electronic monitoring . . . [and]

6 search and seizure by a peace officer at any time of the day or night, with or without a warrant

7 and with or without cause, for the purpose of verifying compliance with the requirements of the

8 ACP.”

9

13. Answering paragraph thirteen, Defendants admit that, as enacted in 2010,

10 California Penal Code 1170.05 authorized the creation of the Alternative Custody Program for

11 “female inmates, pregnant inmates, or inmates who were primary caregivers of dependent

12 children immediately prior to incarceration.” Defendants admit that SB 1266 included the

13 following legislative finding: “Separating parents from children has a substantial impact on their

14 futures. Children of inmates are much more likely than their peers to become incarcerated.

15 Research suggests that mothers who are able to maintain a relationship with their children are less

16 likely to return to prison. Research also demonstrates that a father’s involvement in his child’s

17 life greatly improves the child’s chance for success. Helping incarcerated fathers foster stronger

18 connections with their children, where appropriate, can have positive effects for children. Strong

19 family connections help to ensure that fathers stay out of prison once they are released.”

20

14. Answering paragraph fourteen, Defendants admit that on September 12, 2011,

21 CDCR began implementing the Alternative Custody Program. Defendants admit that a press

22 release entitled, “CDCR Announces Community-Based Program for Eligible Inmates,”

23 announced the implementation of the Alternative Custody Program, “aimed at reuniting low-level

24 offenders with their families and providing rehabilitative services within the community.”

25 Defendants admit that the press release stated that “[i]nitially, the program will be offered to

26 qualifying female offenders.” Defendants admit that the press released stated that,

27 “[p]articipation may be offered at a later date to male inmates, at the discretion of the Secretary of

28 CDCR.”

5
Defs.’ Ans. to Pl.’s Compl. (14-CV-01679-MCE-KJN (PR))

Case 2:14-cv-01679-MCE-KJN Document 9 Filed 08/07/14 Page 6 of 10

1

15. Answering paragraph fifteen, Defendants admit that Defendant Governor

2 Brown signed into law SB 1021 on June 27, 2012, which amended California Penal Code section

3 1170.05 to offer the Alternative Custody Program to qualifying “female inmates.”

4

16. Answering paragraph sixteen, Defendants admit that on or about September 13,

5 2012, emergency regulations adopted California Code of Regulations, title 15, section 3078.2,

6 which provides that, “[t]o be eligible to participate in the Alternative Custody Program (ACP),

7 the inmate must volunteer and be female.” Defendants admit that California Code of

8 Regulations, title 15, section 3078.2 was made permanent on February 25, 2013.

9

17. Answering paragraph seventeen, Defendants state that the March 17, 2014

10 Update to the Three-Judge Court, Coleman v. Brown, E.D. Cal. Case No. 2:90-cv-00520-LKK-

11 DAD at ECF No. 5114-2, discusses CDCR’s intention to expand the Alternative Custody

12 Program as part of the State’s plan to comply with court-ordered population benchmarks, and that

13 on February 10, 2014, the Three-Judge Court ordered Defendants to “[i]implement an expanded

14 alternative custody program for female inmates.” N.D. Cal. Case No. 3:01-cv-1351-TEH, ECF

15 No. 2766 at 3. Except as expressly admitted, Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph

16 seventeen.

17

18. Answering paragraph eighteen, Defendants are informed and believe and

18 therefore admit that no male inmates have been accepted into the Alternative Custody Program.

19

19. Answering paragraph nineteen, Defendants admit that Plaintiff is a CDCR

20 inmate, and was accepted into CDCR custody on January 13, 2011. Responding to the allegation

21 that Plaintiff “had no criminal history prior to his current conviction,” Defendants state that they

22 are unable to ascertain the meaning, if any, of the phrase “criminal history,” that the phrase is

23 ambiguous, and that Defendants have insufficient information with which to admit or deny the

24 allegation and, on that basis, deny the allegation.

25

20. Answering paragraph twenty, Defendants have insufficient information with

26 which to admit or deny the allegation that Plaintiff has two minor children based and, on that

27 basis, deny the allegation. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph twenty.

28 6
Defs.’ Ans. to Pl.’s Compl. (14-CV-01679-MCE-KJN (PR))

Case 2:14-cv-01679-MCE-KJN Document 9 Filed 08/07/14 Page 7 of 10

1

21. Answering paragraph twenty-one, Defendants are informed and believe and

2 therefore admit that Plaintiff applied to the Alternative Custody Program on June 3, 2013. Except

3 as expressly admitted, Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph twenty-one.

4

22. Answering paragraph twenty-two, Defendants are informed and believe and

5 therefore admit that Plaintiff’s application to the Alternative Custody Program was denied on

6 June 19, 2013.

7

23. Answering paragraph twenty-three, Defendants are informed and believe and

8 therefore admit that Plaintiff filed a prison grievance on June 24, 2013, appealing the denial of his

9 application to the Alternative Custody Program. Defendants are informed and believe and

10 therefore admit that this appeal, log number CCC-13-00709, was denied at the third level of

11 review on December 17, 2013. Defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to respond

12 to the allegation that Plaintiff’s appeals were denied solely on the basis of his sex, and on that

13 basis deny the allegation. Except as expressly admitted, Defendants deny the allegations in

14 paragraph twenty-three.

15

24. Answering paragraph twenty-four, Defendants are informed and believe and

16 therefore admit that Plaintiff is presently housed at Valley View Conservation Camp in Elk

17 Creek, California, and that Plaintiff is presently working as a clerk at Valley View Conservation

18 Camp.

19

25. Answering all allegations in paragraph twenty-five, Defendants have

20 insufficient information with which to admit or deny the allegations and, on that basis, deny all

21 allegations in paragraph twenty-five.

22

26. Defendants admit that CDCR General Counsel received a letter dated May 12,

23 2014 from Plaintiff’s counsel Gay Grunfeld, concerning Plaintiff’s application to the Alternative

24 Custody Program. Answering all remaining allegations in paragraph twenty-six, Defendants

25 state that the matters alleged are questions of law to which no answer is required. Except as

26 expressly admitted, Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph twenty-six.

27

28 7
Defs.’ Ans. to Pl.’s Compl. (14-CV-01679-MCE-KJN (PR))

Case 2:14-cv-01679-MCE-KJN Document 9 Filed 08/07/14 Page 8 of 10

1

27. Answering all allegations in paragraph twenty-seven, Defendants state that the

2 matters alleged are questions of law to which no answer is required. To the extent that a response

3 is necessary, Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph twenty-seven.

4

28. Answering all allegations in paragraph twenty-eight, Defendants state that the

5 matters alleged are questions of law to which no answer is required. To the extent that a response

6 is necessary, Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph twenty-eight.

7

29. Answering all allegations in paragraph twenty-nine, Defendants state that the

8 matters alleged are questions of law to which no answer is required. To the extent that a response

9 is necessary, Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph twenty-nine.

10

30. Answering all allegations in paragraph thirty, Defendants state that the matters

11 alleged are questions of law to which no answer is required. To the extent that a response is

12 necessary, Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph thirty.

13

31. Answering all allegations in paragraph thirty-one, Defendants state that the

14 matters alleged are questions of law to which no answer is required. To the extent that a response

15 is necessary, Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph thirty-one.

16

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

17

32. Answering paragraph thirty-two, Defendants admit that Plaintiff incorporates

18 by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding thirty-one paragraphs as if set

19 forth fully. Defendants incorporate by reference their responses to paragraphs one through thirty-

20 one of Plaintiff’s complaint as if set forth fully here.

21

33. Answering paragraph thirty-three, Defendants admit that Plaintiff purports to

22 bring a claim under the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.

23

34. Defendants admit that Plaintiff purports to bring this action under the Equal

24 Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. Answering all remaining allegations in

25 paragraph thirty-four, Defendants state that the matters alleged are questions of law to which no

26 answer is required. Except as expressly admitted, Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph

27 thirty-four.

28 8
Defs.’ Ans. to Pl.’s Compl. (14-CV-01679-MCE-KJN (PR))

Case 2:14-cv-01679-MCE-KJN Document 9 Filed 08/07/14 Page 9 of 10

1

35. Answering all allegations in paragraph thirty-five, Defendants state that the

2 matters alleged are questions of law and to which no answer is required. To the extent that a

3 response is necessary, Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph thirty-five.

4

36. Answering paragraph thirty-six, Defendants admit that Plaintiff purports to seek

5 declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendants.

6

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

7

Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief requested in his prayer for

8 relief.

9

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

10

Without admitting any of the allegations of Plaintiff’s complaint and without admitting or

11 acknowledging that Defendants bear any burden of proof as to any of them, Defendants assert the

12 following affirmative defenses. Defendants intend to rely upon any additional defenses that

13 become available or apparent during pretrial proceedings and discovery in this action and hereby

14 reserve the right to amend this answer to assert all such further defenses.

15

First Affirmative Defense

16

Defendants assert that Plaintiff has not been deprived of any rights, privileges, or

17 immunities guaranteed by the laws of the United States or by the laws of the State of California.

18

Second Affirmative Defense

19

Defendants assert that Plaintiff lacks standing to assert the claims alleged in the complaint.

20

Third Affirmative Defense

21

Defendants assert that Plaintiff’s claims are or may become moot, thus depriving this Court

22 of subject matter jurisdiction over his claims.

23

Fourth Affirmative Defense

24

Defendants assert that Plaintiff’s claims are barred, limited, or controlled by the Prison

25 Litigation Reform Act, including, but not limited to, the Act’s exhaustion requirement.

26

Fifth Affirmative Defense

27

Defendants assert that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrines of res judicata and

28 collateral estoppel.

9
Defs.’ Ans. to Pl.’s Compl. (14-CV-01679-MCE-KJN (PR))

Case 2:14-cv-01679-MCE-KJN Document 9 Filed 08/07/14 Page 10 of 10

1

Sixth Affirmative Defense

2

Defendants allege that, at all relevant times, their actions were reasonably related to

3 achieving legitimate penological goals.

4

Seventh Affirmative Defense

5

Defendants state that the matters alleged here may implicate Defendants’ collateral

6 obligations in other litigation.

7

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

8

Defendants demand under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that this matter

9 be tried by and before a jury to the extent provided by law.

10

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

11

Wherefore, Defendants pray as follows:

12

1. That Plaintiff takes nothing by reason of his complaint;

13

2. That the Court enter judgment in Defendants’ favor;

14

3. That Defendants be awarded their costs of suit and attorneys’ fees incurred in defense

15 of this action; and

16

4. For such relief as the Court otherwise deems appropriate.

17 Dated: August 7, 2014
18 19 20 21

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

22 23 24 25
SF2014409024
26 41044048.doc 27

/s/ Martine N. D’Agostino MARTINE N. D'AGOSTINO Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants Edmund G. Brown Jr. and Jeffrey A. Beard, Ph.D.

28 10
Defs.’ Ans. to Pl.’s Compl. (14-CV-01679-MCE-KJN (PR))

 
 Case: 2:14-cv-1679 As of: 11/05/2017 06:02 PM PST 1 of 10
CIVIL,CLOSED
U.S. District Court Eastern District of California − Live System (Sacramento) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:14−cv−01679−MCE−KJN

Sassman v. Brown et al Assigned to: Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr Referred to: Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman Related Case: 2:15−cv−01722−MCE−KJN
Case in other court: USCA, 15−17052 Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 07/16/2014 Date Terminated: 09/09/2015 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

William A. Sassman

represented by Jesse Abram Stout Legal Services for Prisoners with Children 1540 Market Street Suite 490 San Francisco, CA 94102 415−625−7049 Fax: 415−552−3150 Email: jesse@prisonerswithchildren.org TERMINATED: 11/05/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Blake Thompson Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP. 50 Fremont Street 19th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 433−6830 Fax: (415) 433−7104 Email: bthompson@rbg−law.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathryn Grzenczyk Mantoan Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP 405 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 773−5887 Fax: (415) 773−5759 Email: kmantoan@orrick.com TERMINATED: 02/04/2015

Richard Van Swearingen Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP 50 Fremont Street 19th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 415−433−6830 Fax: 415−433−7104 Email: vswearingen@rbgg.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld Rosen Bien Galvan and Grunfeld LLP 50 Fremont St. 19th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 415−433−6830 x 243 Fax: 415−433−7104 Email: ggrunfeld@rbgg.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:14-cv-1679 As of: 11/05/2017 06:02 PM PST 2 of 10

V. Defendant Edmund G. Brown, Jr. Governor of California
Defendant Jeffrey A. Beard Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

represented by Maneesh Sharma CA Dept of Justice 455 Golden Gate Ave., Ste. 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102 415−703−5553 Fax: 415−703−1234 Email: maneesh.sharma@doj.ca.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martine N. D'Agostino Attorney General's Office for the State of California 455 Golden Gate Avenue Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102 415−703−5233 Fax: 415−703−5980 Email: martine.dagostino@doj.ca.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alicia Anne Bower Attorney General's Office for the State of California 1515 Clay Street Suite 2000 Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 879−1982 Fax: (510) 622−2270 Email: alicia.bower@doj.ca.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Maneesh Sharma (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martine N. D'Agostino (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alicia Anne Bower (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 07/16/2014
07/16/2014

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Jeffrey A. Beard, Edmund G. Brown, Jr by William A. Sassman. Attorney Grunfeld, Gay Crosthwait added. (Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0972−5423311) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Grunfeld, Gay) (Entered: 07/16/2014)
2 NOTICE of RELATED CASE 2:90−cv−00520 by William A. Sassman. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Entered: 07/16/2014)

Case: 2:14-cv-1679 As of: 11/05/2017 06:02 PM PST 3 of 10

07/16/2014 07/16/2014 07/16/2014 07/21/2014 07/21/2014 07/24/2014
08/07/2014 08/07/2014 08/07/2014 08/18/2014 08/18/2014 08/21/2014
08/21/2014 08/21/2014 08/21/2014 08/21/2014

3 SUMMONS ISSUED as to *Jeffrey A. Beard, Edmund G. Brown, Jr* with answer to complaint due within *21* days. Attorney *Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld* *Rosen Bien Galvan and Grunfeld LLP* *315 Montgomery Street, 10th Floor* *San Francisco, CA 94104*. (Mena−Sanchez, L) (Entered: 07/16/2014)
4 CIVIL NEW CASE DOCUMENTS ISSUED; (Attachments: # 1 Consent to Magistrate Judge, # 2 VDRP) (Mena−Sanchez, L) (Entered: 07/16/2014)
5 MOTION for PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION RELIEF by William A. Sassman. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Declaration, # 4 Declaration, # 5 Request, # 6 Proposed Order) (Grunfeld, Gay) Modified on 7/18/2014 (Donati, J). (Entered: 07/16/2014)
6 SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED: Edmund G. Brown, Jr served on 7/17/2014, answer due 8/7/2014. (Thompson, Blake) (Entered: 07/21/2014)
7 SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED: Jeffrey A. Beard served on 7/17/2014, answer due 8/7/2014. (Thompson, Blake) (Entered: 07/21/2014)
8 MINUTE ORDER (Text Only) issued by courtroom deputy for Chief District Judge, Morrison C. England, Jr.: The Court is in receipt of the Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 5). The Motion as filed is deficient should be renoticed in compliance with Local Rule 230(a) before Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. Accordingly, the 8/13/2014 hearing is vacated. Available law and motion dates can be located on the Court's website at: www.caed.uscourts.gov. (Deutsch, S) (Entered: 07/24/2014)
9 ANSWER with Jury Demand by Jeffrey A. Beard, Edmund G. Brown, Jr. Attorney D'Agostino, Martine N. added. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(D'Agostino, Martine) (Entered: 08/07/2014)
10 RESPONSE by Jeffrey A. Beard, Edmund G. Brown, Jr to 2 Notice of Related Case − ATY. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(D'Agostino, Martine) (Entered: 08/07/2014)
11 NOTICE to RESCHEDULE HEARING on 5 MOTION for PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION : Motion Hearing set for 9/4/2014 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 7 (MCE) before Chief Judge Morrison C. England Jr.. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Entered: 08/07/2014)
12 [DISREGARD] RESPONSE by Jeffrey A. Beard, Edmund G. Brown, Jr to 2 Notice of Related Case − ATY. Attorney Sharma, Maneesh added. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Sharma, Maneesh) Modified on 8/18/2014 (docketed in wrong case) (Becknal, R). (Entered: 08/18/2014)
13 REPLY by William A. Sassman re 2 Notice of Related Case − ATY. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Entered: 08/18/2014)
14 NON−RELATED CASE ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 8/20/14 re 2 Notice of Related Case: The Court has determined, that it is inappropriate to relate or reassign the cases, the therefore declines to do so. This order is issued for informational purposes only, and shall have no effect on the status of the cases, including any previous Related (or Non−Related) Case Order of this Court. (Meuleman, A) (Entered: 08/21/2014)
15 OPPOSITION by Jeffrey A. Beard, Edmund G. Brown, Jr to 5 MOTION for PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION . (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(D'Agostino, Martine) (Entered: 08/21/2014)
16 REQUEST for JUDICIAL NOTICE by Jeffrey A. Beard, Edmund G. Brown, Jr in re 15 Opposition to Motion. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(D'Agostino, Martine) (Entered: 08/21/2014)
17 DECLARATION of Jay Virbel re 15 Opposition to Motion. (D'Agostino, Martine) (Entered: 08/21/2014)
18 DECLARATION of Martine D'Agostino re 15 Opposition to Motion. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J)(D'Agostino, Martine) (Entered: 08/21/2014)

Case: 2:14-cv-1679 As of: 11/05/2017 06:02 PM PST 4 of 10

08/21/2014 08/28/2014
08/28/2014
08/28/2014 08/29/2014 09/09/2014
09/10/2014 09/10/2014 09/15/2014 09/17/2014 09/17/2014 09/17/2014 09/17/2014 09/24/2014 10/01/2014

19 OBJECTIONS by Defendants Jeffrey A. Beard, Edmund G. Brown, Jr to 5 MOTION for PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION . (Sharma, Maneesh) (Entered: 08/21/2014)
20 MOTION TO STRIKE all affirmative defenses and demand for jury trial re 9 Answer by William A. Sassman. Motion Hearing SET for 10/2/2014 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 7 (MCE) before Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities, # 2 Proposed Order) (Grunfeld, Gay) Modified on 8/29/2014 (Michel, G). (Entered: 08/28/2014)
21 REPLY to 15 Opposition to 5 Motion for Preliminary Injunction by William A. Sassman. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Eldon Vail, # 2 Declaration of Jody Boyle, # 3 Declaration of Shirley Sassman, # 4 Declaration of Van Swearingen, # 5 Response to Defendants' Evidentiary Objections) (Grunfeld, Gay) Modified on 8/29/2014 (Michel, G). (Entered: 08/28/2014)
22 OBJECTIONS and REQUEST TO STRIKE 17 Declaration of Jay Virbel by Plaintiff William A. Sassman. (Grunfeld, Gay) Modified on 8/29/2014 (Michel, G). (Entered: 08/28/2014)
23 MINUTE ORDER (Text Only) issued by courtroom deputy for Chief District Judge, Morrison C. England, Jr.: On the Court's on motion the 9/4/2014 Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 5) is vacated and continued to 10/2/2014 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 7. (Deutsch, S) (Entered: 08/29/2014)
24 MINUTE ORDER (Text Only) issued by courtroom deputy for Chief District Judge, Morrison C. England, Jr.: On the Court's own motion, the October 2, 2014 Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 5) and Plaintiff's Motion to Strike (ECF No. 20) are vacated and ADVANCED for oral argument to October 1, 2014 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 7. The personal appearances of counsel are required and the Court will not entertain requests for telephonic appearances. (Deutsch, S) (Entered: 09/09/2014)
25 MOTION to STRIKE the Declarations of Eldon Vail and Jody Boyle by defendants. Motion Hearing set for 10/1/2014 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 7 (MCE) before Chief Judge Morrison C. England Jr.. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service) (D'Agostino, Martine) Modified on 9/11/2014 (Marciel, M) (Entered: 09/10/2014)
26 RESPONSE by defendants to plaintiff's Objections and 22 Request to Strike Declaration of Jay Virbel. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service) (Sharma, Maneesh) Modified on 9/11/2014 (Marciel, M) (Entered: 09/10/2014)
27 JOINT STATUS REPORT by William A. Sassman. (Thompson, Blake) (Entered: 09/15/2014)
28 OPPOSITION by Jeffrey A. Beard, Edmund G. Brown, Jr to 20 MOTION to STRIKE All Affirmative Defenses in Defendants' Answer and Defendants' Demand for Jury Trial. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(D'Agostino, Martine) (Entered: 09/17/2014)
29 DECLARATION of Martine D'Agostino re 28 Opposition to Motion. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(D'Agostino, Martine) (Entered: 09/17/2014)
30 PROPOSED ORDER re Granting Defendants' Motion for Leave to File an Amended Answer re 28 Opposition to Motion by Jeffrey A. Beard, Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (D'Agostino, Martine) (Entered: 09/17/2014)
31 OPPOSITION by William A. Sassman to 25 Motion to Strike the Declarations of Eldon Vail and Jody Boyle. (Thompson, Blake) (Entered: 09/17/2014)
32 REPLY re 20 Motion to Strike by William A. Sassman. (Thompson, Blake) Modified on 9/25/2014 (Michel, G). (Entered: 09/24/2014)
33 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings held before Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.: MOTIONS HEARING held on 10/1/2014. After argument from counsel, the Court denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 5) and submitted the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike (ECF No. 20) and Defendants' Motion to Strike Declarations (ECF No. 25). A formal, written order is forthcoming. Plaintiff's Counsel Blake Thompson, present. Defendants' Counsel Martine D'Agostino, Jay Russell, Maneesh Sharma, present. Court Reporter: Michelle Babbitt. Interpreter none present. (Deutsch, S) (Entered: 10/01/2014)

Case: 2:14-cv-1679 As of: 11/05/2017 06:02 PM PST 5 of 10

10/07/2014
10/09/2014
10/09/2014 10/13/2014 10/14/2014
10/16/2014 10/16/2014 10/16/2014 10/16/2014 10/19/2014 10/29/2014 11/04/2014

34 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 10−1−14, before Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr, filed by Court Reporter Michelle Babbitt, E−mail mbabbitt@caed.uscourts.gov. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through Reporter Babbitt or PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction must be filed within 5 court days. Redaction Request due 10/30/2014. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/7/2014. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/5/2015. (Babbitt, M) (Entered: 10/07/2014)
35 MOTION for RECONSIDERATION of 33 Denial of Preliminary Injunction by William A. Sassman. Motion Hearing set for 11/13/2014 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 7 (MCE) before Chief Judge Morrison C. England Jr.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Shirley Sassman, # 2 Declaration of Colin Spears, M.D., # 3 Declaration of Blake Thompson, # 4 Proposed Order granting Motion for Preliminary Injunctio, # 5 Proposed Order granting Motion) (Thompson, Blake) Modified on 10/14/2014 (Marciel, M) (Entered: 10/09/2014)
36 MOTION to SHORTEN TIME for Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Denial of Preliminary Injunction by William A. Sassman. (Thompson, Blake) (Entered: 10/09/2014)
37 RESPONSE by Jeffrey A. Beard, Edmund G. Brown, Jr to 36 MOTION to SHORTEN TIME for Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Denial of Preliminary Injunction . (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(D'Agostino, Martine) (Entered: 10/13/2014)
38 MEMORANDUM and ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 10/14/2014. Plaintiff's 5 Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED. Plaintiff's 22 Objections and Request to Strike is DENIED without prejudice. Defendants' 25 Motion to Strike is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff's 35 Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED in part. Plaintiff's 36 Motion to Shorten Time is GRANTED. Not later than 10/16/2014, government is required to respond to plaintiff's Request for accelerated Discovery and Summary Judgment schedule. Any Reply must be filed not later than 9:00 a.m. on 10/20/2014. In the meantime, scheduling deadlines are set as follows: A) Discovery i) All discovery, with the exception of Expert Discovery, shall be completed by 11/28/2014; ii) All expert discovery shall be completed by 12/31/2014. B) Motions for Summary Judgment i) Any Motion for Summary Judgment shall be filed not later than 1/30/2015; ii) Oppositions shall be filed not later than 2/20/2015; iii) Replies shall be filed not later than 3/5/2015; and iv) Motion for Summary Judgment Hearing is set on 3/19/2015 at 2:00 PM. (Marciel, M) (Entered: 10/14/2014)
39 RESPONSE by Jeffrey A. Beard, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., to 38 Order. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(D'Agostino, Martine) Modified on 10/20/2014 (Kastilahn, A). (Entered: 10/16/2014)
40 DECLARATION of Jill Brown re 39 Response. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(D'Agostino, Martine) (Entered: 10/16/2014)
41 DECLARATION of Martine D'Agostino re 39 Response,. (D'Agostino, Martine) (Entered: 10/16/2014)
42 DECLARATION of Mark Mackler re 39 Response,. (D'Agostino, Martine) (Entered: 10/16/2014)
43 REPLY by William A. Sassman on MOTION for Reconsideration and Request for expedited briefing schedule 39 . (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Blake Thompson)(Thompson, Blake) Modified on 10/20/2014 (Mena−Sanchez, L). (Entered: 10/19/2014)
44 MEMORANDUM and ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 10/29/14 ORDERING Plaintiff's Motion to Strike 20 is GRANTED, but with leave to amend. Any amended answer must be filed not later than ten (10) days following the date this Order is electronically filed. (Becknal, R) (Entered: 10/29/2014)
45 MINUTE ORDER (Text Only) issued by courtroom deputy for Chief District Judge, Morrison C. England, Jr.: On the Court's own motion and pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), the Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 35) scheduled for hearing on 11/13/2014, is submitted without oral argument and the hearing is vacated. If the

Case: 2:14-cv-1679 As of: 11/05/2017 06:02 PM PST 6 of 10

11/07/2014 11/21/2014
12/31/2014 12/31/2014 01/30/2015
01/30/2015 01/30/2015 01/30/2015 01/30/2015 01/30/2015 01/30/2015 01/30/2015 01/30/2015 02/04/2015

Court determines that oral argument is needed it will be scheduled at a later date.(Deutsch, S) (Entered: 11/04/2014)
46 AMENDED ANSWER by Jeffrey A. Beard, Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(D'Agostino, Martine) Modified on 11/12/2014 (Mena−Sanchez, L). (Entered: 11/07/2014)
47 PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., on 11/20/14 ORDERING that all discovery, with the exception of expert discovery, shall be completed by 11/28/15. Designation of Expert Witnesses due by 12/31/15. Motions for summary judgment shall be heard on 3/19/15, motion for summary judgment filed by 1/30/15, opposition filed by 2/20/15, and reply filed by 3/5/15. (Kastilahn, A) (Entered: 11/21/2014)
48 DESIGNATION/DISCLOSURE of EXPERT WITNESS by Jeffrey A. Beard, Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Sharma, Maneesh) (Entered: 12/31/2014)
49 DESIGNATION/DISCLOSURE of EXPERT WITNESS by William A. Sassman. (Swearingen, Richard) (Entered: 12/31/2014)
50 MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT by William A. Sassman. Motion Hearing set for 3/19/2015 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 7 (MCE) before Chief Judge Morrison C. England Jr.. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities, # 2 Statement of Undisputed Facts, # 3 Index of Exhibits, # 4 Declaration of Van Swearingen & Exs. A−N, # 5 Exhibit Exs. O−V of Swearingen Declaration, # 6 Exhibit Exs. W−DD of Swearingen Declaration, # 7 Declaration of William Sassman & Exs. A−H, # 8 Declaration of Sarah Fontaine & Exs. A−B, # 9 Declaration of Shean Collins, # 10 Request for Judicial Notice, # 11 Proposed Order)(Grunfeld, Gay) Modified on 2/10/2015 (Zignago, K.). (Entered: 01/30/2015)
51 MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Jeffrey A. Beard, Edmund G. Brown, Jr. Motion Hearing set for 3/19/2015 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 7 (MCE) before Chief Judge Morrison C. England Jr.. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(D'Agostino, Martine) (Entered: 01/30/2015)
52 DECLARATION of Martine D'Agostino in SUPPORT OF 51 MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(D'Agostino, Martine) (Entered: 01/30/2015)
53 DECLARATION of Jill Brown in SUPPORT OF 50 MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Part 1, # 2 Exhibit A − Part 2, # 3 Exhibit A − Part 3, # 4 Exhibit A − Part 4, # 5 Exhibit A − Part 5)(D'Agostino, Martine) (Entered: 01/30/2015)
54 STATEMENT of Undisputed Material Facts by Defendants Jeffrey A. Beard, Edmund G. Brown, Jr re 51 MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT. (D'Agostino, Martine) (Entered: 01/30/2015)
55 PROPOSED ORDER re Granting Defendants' 51 Motion for Summary Judgment. (D'Agostino, Martine) Modified on 2/10/2015 (Zignago, K.). (Entered: 01/30/2015)
56 MOTION to Exclude Expert Report and Testimony of Thomas G. Hoffman by Jeffrey A. Beard, Edmund G. Brown, Jr. Motion Hearing set for 3/19/2015 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 7 (MCE) before Chief Judge Morrison C. England Jr.. (Sharma, Maneesh) Modified on 2/10/2015 (Zignago, K.). (Entered: 01/30/2015)
57 DECLARATION of Maneesh Sharma in SUPPORT OF 56 Motion to Exclude Expert Report and Testimony of Thomas G. Hoffman. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Sharma, Maneesh) Modified on 2/10/2015 (Zignago, K.). (Entered: 01/30/2015)
58 PROPOSED ORDER re 56 Motion to Exclude Expert Report and Testimony of Thomas G. Hoffman by Jeffrey A. Beard, Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Sharma, Maneesh) Modified on 2/10/2015 (Zignago, K.). (Entered: 01/30/2015)
59 DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE., attorney Kathryn Grzenczyk Mantoan terminated (Grunfeld, Gay) (Entered: 02/04/2015)

Case: 2:14-cv-1679 As of: 11/05/2017 06:02 PM PST 7 of 10

02/19/2015
02/20/2015 02/20/2015
03/05/2015 03/05/2015 03/05/2015 03/05/2015 03/05/2015 03/05/2015 03/11/2015
03/12/2015 03/12/2015 03/12/2015 03/12/2015 06/30/2015

60 MOTION to STRIKE Reports and Testimony of Messina by William A. Sassman. Motion Hearing set for 3/19/2015 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 7 (MCE) before Chief Judge Morrison C. England Jr.. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum iso Motion to Exclude Reports and Testimony of Messina, # 2 Declaration of Van Swearingen, # 3 Proposed Order)(Grunfeld, Gay) (Entered: 02/19/2015)
61 OPPOSITION to 51 Motion for Summary Judgment by William A. Sassman. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Van Swearingen, # 2 Response to Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts) (Grunfeld, Gay) Modified on 2/23/2015 (Michel, G.). (Entered: 02/20/2015)
62 OPPOSITION to 50 Motion for Summary Judgment by Jeffrey A. Beard, Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Rodger Meier, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Declaration of Martine D'Agostino, # 4 Exhibit A, # 5 Exhibit B, # 6 Exhibit C, # 7 Exhibit D, # 8 Exhibit E, # 9 Exhibit F, # 10 Response to Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts) (D'Agostino, Martine) Modified on 2/23/2015 (Michel, G.). (Entered: 02/20/2015)
63 REPLY by Jeffrey A. Beard, Edmund G. Brown, Jr re 51 MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(D'Agostino, Martine) (Entered: 03/05/2015)
64 DECLARATION of Martine D'Agostino re 63 Reply. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(D'Agostino, Martine) (Entered: 03/05/2015)
65 DECLARATION of Robin Harrington re 63 Reply. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(D'Agostino, Martine) (Entered: 03/05/2015)
66 REPLY by William A. Sassman re 50 MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Van Swearingen in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Exclude Thomas Hoffman)(Grunfeld, Gay) (Entered: 03/05/2015)
67 OPPOSITION by William A. Sassman to 56 MOTION to Exclude Expert Report and Testimony of Thomas G. Hoffman. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Entered: 03/05/2015)
68 OPPOSITION by Jeffrey A. Beard, Edmund G. Brown, Jr to 60 MOTION to STRIKE Reports and Testimony of Messina. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Dr. Nena Messina)(Sharma, Maneesh) (Entered: 03/05/2015)
69 MINUTE ORDER (Text Only) issued by courtroom deputy for Chief District Judge, Morrison C. England, Jr.: On the Court's own motion and pursuant to Local Rule 230(g) the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 50), Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 51) and Plaintiff's Motions to Strike (ECF No. 56 and 60), scheduled for hearing on March 19, 2015, are submitted without oral argument and the hearing is vacated. If the Court determines that oral argument is needed it will be scheduled at a later date. (Deutsch, S) (Entered: 03/11/2015)
70 REPLY in support of 60 Motion to Strike Reports and Testimony of Nena Messina by William A. Sassman. (Grunfeld, Gay) Modified on 3/13/2015 (Michel, G.). (Entered: 03/12/2015)
71 DECLARATION of Van Swearingen in support of 60 Motion to Strike Reports and Testimony of Nena Messina. (Swearingen, Richard) Modified on 3/13/2015 (Michel, G.). (Entered: 03/12/2015)
72 REPLY in support of 56 Motion to Exclude Expert Report and Testimony of Thomas G. Hoffman by Jeffrey A. Beard, Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service) (Sharma, Maneesh) Modified on 3/13/2015 (Michel, G.). (Entered: 03/12/2015)
73 DECLARATION of Maneesh Sharma re 72 Reply. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Sharma, Maneesh) (Entered: 03/12/2015)
74 NOTICE of Supplemental Authority by William A. Sassman. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Entered: 06/30/2015)

Case: 2:14-cv-1679 As of: 11/05/2017 06:02 PM PST 8 of 10

08/13/2015 09/01/2015
09/09/2015
09/09/2015 09/21/2015 09/23/2015 09/25/2015 09/28/2015 10/07/2015 10/07/2015 10/07/2015 10/09/2015

75 NOTICE of RELATED CASE 2:15−cv−01722 by William A. Sassman. (Swearingen, Richard) (Entered: 08/13/2015)
76 RELATED CASE ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 8/31/2015 FINDING that this matter is related to the action denominated 2:15−cv−01722 JAM AC within the meaning of Local Rule 123(a); REASSIGNING the related case to Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. and Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman for all further proceedings; DIRECTING the Clerk of Court to make the appropriate adjustment in the assignment of civil cases to compensate for this reassignment. (Michel, G.) (Entered: 09/01/2015)
77 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 09/08/15 ORDERING that California's decision to open an alternative custody program to female inmates only and to permit them to apply for release up to two years prior to their earliest possible release date violates the Equal Protection Clause of 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; defendant's 51 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED; plaintiff's 50 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED; both 56 60 Motions to Strike are DENIED. Defendants are hereby enjoined and prohibited from applying and/or enforcing the female−only provisions of California Penal Code § 1170.05(a) and (c) in the implementation and administration of the ACP. CDCR shall immediately CEASE denying admission to the ACP on the basis that an applicant is male. Male prisoners shall be accepted into the ACP if they are otherwise eligible under Penal Code section 1170.05 and the implementing regulations. Within 30 calendar days, CDCR shall modify its website and any application forms, regulations, and materials provided to prisoners and the public about the ACP to remove any reference to the requirement that a prisoner must be female to apply or participate. This Order shall apply to defendants, their agents, employees, successors in office, and all persons with knowledge of it. No person who has notice of this injunction shall fail to comply with it, nor shall any person subvert the injunction by any sham, indirection, or other artifice. The Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this injunction. CASE CLOSED (Benson, A) (Entered: 09/09/2015)
78 JUDGMENT dated *09/09/15* pursuant to order signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 09/09/15. (Benson, A) (Entered: 09/09/2015)
79 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for Extension of Time for Application for Fees and Costs by William A. Sassman. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Entered: 09/21/2015)
80 BILL of COSTS SUBMITTED by William A. Sassman. (Thompson, Blake) (Entered: 09/23/2015)
81 NOTICE of CHANGE of ADDRESS by Richard Van Swearingen. (Swearingen, Richard) (Entered: 09/25/2015)
82 STIPULATION AND ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 9/25/2015 ORDERING the plaintiff to file his application for attorneys' fees and costs by 12/4/2015. (Michel, G.) (Entered: 09/28/2015)
83 MOTION TO MODIFY DEADLINES in the 9/9/15 ORDER [FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(6)] by Jeffrey A. Beard, Edmund G. Brown, Jr. Attorney Bower, Alicia Anne added. Motion Hearing set for 11/12/2015 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 7 (MCE) before Chief Judge Morrison C. England Jr.. (Bower, Alicia) Modified on 10/9/2015 (Kastilahn, A). (Entered: 10/07/2015)
84 DECLARATION of Jay Virbel re 83 MOTION TO MODIFY DEADLINES IN SEPTEMBER 9, 2015 ORDER [FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(6)]. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Bower, Alicia) (Entered: 10/07/2015)
85 PROPOSED ORDER re 83 DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO MODIFY DEADLINES in the 9/9/15 Order [FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(6)] by Jeffrey A. Beard, Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Bower, Alicia) Modified on 10/9/2015 (Kastilahn, A). (Entered: 10/07/2015)
86 NOTICE of APPEAL by Jeffrey A. Beard, Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Filing fee $ 505, receipt number 0972−6118563) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachments A & B)(D'Agostino, Martine) (Entered: 10/09/2015)

Case: 2:14-cv-1679 As of: 11/05/2017 06:02 PM PST 9 of 10

10/14/2015
10/15/2015
10/19/2015 10/29/2015 10/29/2015 10/29/2015 11/05/2015 11/05/2015 11/05/2015 11/09/2015
11/19/2015 12/01/2015 12/01/2015 12/15/2015
12/23/2015

87 APPEAL PROCESSED to Ninth Circuit re 86 Notice of Appeal filed by Jeffrey A. Beard, Edmund G. Brown, Jr.. Notice of Appeal filed *10/9/2015*, Complaint filed *7/16/2014* and Appealed Order / Judgment filed *9/9/2015*. Court Reporter: *Michelle Babbitt*. *Fee Status: Paid on 10/9/2015 in the amount of $505.00* (Attachments: # 1 Appeal Information) (Zignago, K.) (Entered: 10/14/2015)
88 MOTION to ENFORCE JUDGMENT by William A. Sassman. Motion Hearing set for 11/12/2015 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 7 (MCE) before Chief Judge Morrison C. England Jr.. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities, # 2 Declaration of Blake Thompson, # 3 Declaration of Bayardo Escobar, # 4 Proposed Order)(Thompson, Blake) Modified on 10/19/2015 (Zignago, K.). (Entered: 10/15/2015)
89 COSTS TAXED in amount of $ 11,963.56 against Defendants. (Kaminski, H) (Entered: 10/20/2015)
90 OPPOSITION by Jeffrey A. Beard, Edmund G. Brown, Jr to 88 MOTION to ENFORCE JUDGMENT . (D'Agostino, Martine) (Entered: 10/29/2015)
91 DECLARATION of Jay Virbel re 90 Opposition to Motion. (D'Agostino, Martine) (Entered: 10/29/2015)
92 OPPOSITION by William A. Sassman to 83 MOTION TO MODIFY DEADLINES IN SEPTEMBER 9, 2015 ORDER. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Blake Thompson. (Thompson, Blake) Modified on 10/29/2015 (Kaminski, H). (Entered: 10/29/2015)
93 DESIGNATION OF COUNSEL FOR SERVICE: Attorney Jesse Abram Stout TERMINATED. (Thompson, Blake) (Entered: 11/05/2015)
94 REPLY re 88 Motion to Enforce Judgment by William A. Sassman. (Thompson, Blake) Modified on 11/25/2015 (Michel, G.). (Entered: 11/05/2015)
95 REPLY in support of 83 Motion to Modify Deadlines re 77 Memorandum and Order by Jeffrey A. Beard, Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jay Virbel) (D'Agostino, Martine) Modified on 11/25/2015 (Michel, G.). (Entered: 11/05/2015)
96 MINUTE ORDER (Text Only) issued by courtroom deputy for Chief District Judge, Morrison C. England, Jr.: On the Court's own motion and pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), the Defendants' Motion to Modify Deadlines (ECF No. 93) and Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce Judgment (ECF No. 88), both scheduled for hearing on November 12, 2015, are submitted without oral argument and the hearing is vacated. If the Court determines that oral argument is needed it will be scheduled at a later date. Any outstanding request for telephonic appearance is denied as moot. (Deutsch, S) (Entered: 11/09/2015)
97 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for Extension of Time to File Fee Application by William A. Sassman. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Entered: 11/19/2015)
98 ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 11/30/2015 ORDERING 97 that the deadline for Plaintiff to file his application for attorneys' fees and costs is hereby EXTENDED up to and including 1/11/2016. (Reader, L) (Entered: 12/01/2015)
99 USCA CASE NUMBER 15−17052 for 86 Notice of Appeal filed by Jeffrey A. Beard, Edmund G. Brown, Jr.. (Zignago, K.) (Entered: 12/01/2015)
100 MEMORANDUM, and ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 12/15/15 ORDERING that Defendants' Motion to Modify Deadlines ECF No. 83 is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce Judgment ECF No. 88 is DENIED. The deadlines set forth in the conclusion of the Court's 9/9/15, Memorandum and Order ECF No. 77 , are hereby EXTENDED to 4/9/2016.(Mena−Sanchez, L) (Entered: 12/15/2015)
101 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for extension of time to file fee application by William A. Sassman. (Grunfeld, Gay) Modified on 12/23/2015 (Marciel, M) (Entered: 12/23/2015)

Case: 2:14-cv-1679 As of: 11/05/2017 06:02 PM PST 10 of 10

01/07/2016 01/29/2016 02/04/2016 02/16/2016 03/16/2016
04/14/2016 04/14/2016

102 STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 01/07/2016 ORDERING that the deadline for plaintiff to submit an application for attorneys' fees and costs is EXTENDED to 02/10/16. (Jackson, T) (Entered: 01/08/2016)
103 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for Extension of Time to File Fee Application by William A. Sassman. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Entered: 01/29/2016)
104 STIPULATION AND ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 2/2/2016 ORDERING the plaintiff to file his application for attorneys' fees and costs by 3/11/2016. (Michel, G.) (Entered: 02/04/2016)
105 NOTICE by William A. Sassman re CDCR non−compliance with 77 Order (Zignago, K.) (Entered: 02/17/2016)
106 ORDER and MANDATE of USCA as to 86 Notice of Appeal: Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, this appeal is voluntarily dismissed. Fed. R. App. P. 42(b). The parties agree to bear their own costs and attorneys' fees on appeal. (Benson, A) (Entered: 03/16/2016)
107 (DISREGARD and REFER to Amended Response 108 ) RESPONSE by Edmund G. Brown, Jr., to 77 Order. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(D'Agostino, Martine) Modified on 4/15/2016 (Kastilahn, A). (Entered: 04/14/2016)
108 AMENDED RESPONSE by Edmund G. Brown, Jr., to 77 Order. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(D'Agostino, Martine) Modified on 4/15/2016 (Kastilahn, A). (Entered: 04/14/2016)