Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 1 Filed 05/07/93 Page 1 of 20 Page ID #:8191
FILED

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

(Name of Plaintiff)

C\V-S- 9 3- 767 LKK UGH
(Case Number)

v.

1/Ifa Lvfl/ tf'
(jj), AiffADs AC/( k'. Kt~

(!jAI( /J u~
Peon. ') (J. ....t ClrlJfl

14/",-.2"::; ().o/l,. n.'J- "j)ii'''lc fol'' C,tfr...OIII'?C
(Names of Defendants)

I. Previous Lawsuits:

A. Have you begun other lawsuits in state or federal court, dealing with the same facts involved in this action or otherwise relating to your imprisonment: YES ( ) NO (~

B. If your answer to A is yes, describe the lawsuit in the space below. (If there is more then one lawsuit, describe the additional lawsuits on another piece of paper using the same outline. )

1. Parties to this previous lawsuit:

Plaintiffs

Defendants

FORM TO BE USED BY A PRISONER IN FILING A COMPLAINT UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
42 u.s.c. 1983
f

Case 2:11-cv-091232-R. GKC-JoEuMrt Do(icfumFeendte1ral FCileoudr0t,5/g0i7v/e93namPeagoef 2Doifs2tr0ictPage ID #:8192 if State Court, give name O~ ~ounty)

3. Docket Number -------------------------------------------4. Name of judge to whom case was assigned -------------------
5. Disposition (for example: Was the case dismissed? Was it
appealed? Is it still pending?)

6. Approximate date of filing lawsuit ________________________

7. Approximate date of disposition ___________________________

II.

/ciOt: Place of present confinement ""11

r-' (4 f t 4 f-t '?f'l i .J.../ '- ~'A(I"'.f,MivrU

I
A. IsI there a prisoner grievance procedure in this institution?

YES ( X )

NO ( )

B. Did you present the facts relating to y~ur complaint in the state prisoner greivance procedure? YES ()() NO ( )
c. If your answer was YES,

1. What steps did you take?

1.1'-' 0"I .~ t} ~t.u.s t7. () j A

A/l 2. What was the result? 'r 't- lAc)/<- ) '1) ",./<...) ;'(: ::..1 (l/../

.416 :dI UY {s I.+~ t?J J 37C()0 (O~ r.-<JIVJJC f)52)-J-

73 '

' "ir I?~ Cjluc .A/ly f3J i'E.J::/V AN

(h2 '( .A/"t .vor.fi-t'if~' '--f ;-; ~ t,

III.

Parties

t

~ , ' ''~, / 1'-')

~
(In item A below, place your name in the firsyt blank and place your present address in the second blank. Do the same for additional plaintiffs, if any)
i tl te A. Name of Plaintiff {JU {A ,r\J\ 'ROL4.S L C/~5''f
Address 'Po.Bf.~, 1.q·-A-SIIA ! J?,JY~~ S,4- (~/ll! 9'~t; 7!

(In item B below, place the full name of the defendant in the first blank, his offical position in the second blank, and his place of employment in the third blank. Use ite C for the names, positions and places of employment of any additional defendants.)
B. Defendant -I-Th..t-.J,....:.(...-:;O~-..:::L;./.;:;J..1.:J..ll_.:t.~:· .~IJ;:.-.(..__ is employed as cA.J.A (~dr/ v j ________________ at {Ji t i1e/tN/f, 5 '[4 77- P,~/3'1, d- S74C'

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 1 Filed 05/07/93 Page 3 of 20 Page ID #:8193

IV.

Statement of aim

(State here as briefly as possible the facts of your case. Describe how each defendant is involved. include also the names of other persons involved, dates and places. Do not give any legal arguments or cite cases or statutes. If you intend to allege a number of related claims, number and set forth each claim in a separate paragraph. Use as much .space as needed. Attach extra sheets if necessary.)

f l y ~i
Dvui A( t::) t..My gAr IyrrQ iJ,lA(>n's 2

f~ /;f' /0'\./

{J 1=- cJA ~ To Ld r c~yLtd .NO ;-- hA u t .

l<i4 m~~;$

rv-

V.

Relief

Ito

i <0

(State briefly exactly what you want the court to do for you. Make no legal arguments. Cite no cases or statutes.)

ccIww'::\nnJ

A1zt I Woy)d;;{. <I. l

f}tf/(!~ tJlCC4 Rzccr;-v t~ z?/

z _ ~ch/vJS ' -/,J /~ ~

I- /AJ

/'

J1\A:r CJ2 ;1I'-L .AI(s~:J 1A/"lO r C4r-d5 .. .A tJfAcz ~

It t.tL vtvCil"S ~I:?

TIvv--L .A fUt. <£/-.}o ULf 4 10 qU/J I" f&q r-

W 2.

•
J(2[zlu'2

;4

Chtt' :2!M'.-*'<-

MfS. " "
D. ODQ

0 0 ( --=--

t

I

Signed this

C,;

day of -AlA \/

, 19 q-~

--~-----

-~~~(~--------

(Signature of plaintiff)

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true

s-5 - I ?13

---.:...9t~·U~U. ~ iVt~~~ '1-.....;...;..

(Date)

(Signature of

-3-

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 1 Filed 05/07/93 Page 4 of 20 Page ID #:8194

1 2

TA {(or
~1r.

C~,J. /'~ W~i'c 0 LV tC't /
~ulc.l.AJor-If'iCt/UL

t

/.l4Ad~L7161IA,-/,«,1(4)Lr.-;

./1--01 L5 A

01 3 [),s L.N It J! PA." t-

LU/CCA. rr;'s u.s. 7d i!o!" 2p/,-./

4 gr-('s.-..-yTt,.~",-( 1 ..A"",-"d ~V((r;/,q~C? f(ru,. ., ~dc.A/41/\C;//;4u·

5 Tht Pf'ct-LStA----r C/1.Aplj/AJ L/U,0f/iU/2uJ7'c;f ~'L.. /~/ 14
6 1St- ;!.:iULI I<tSto~t. t-Il fJ~"-J/'Ld M"'L iAroj- • CAI"-a5

7 Y2lwL GjoJ MOL Pi' -V!VCJ~ LA /'ds t .A~d r&ivi /A L ihAt-

O. [J 8 Th t. C, C Wb u

po r Rf:.cc'(N't' 2(. .A W/CCA.---- CtIA~jq/ .

9 CS22 GD~ ). I tu wI- ro rtz 2. Allyl ;;{'luzl .A-d A JJj{)zc-1

t2- 10 ..A ~ /5 I- () J;:,/v tVtA h s f.;J~ tv2/'z-.,AIs 0 01'eL .,,1~;' 1 A- G{

11 p-..At Lv?. LUA--..-rlci tv Pr'4(..r/S L t5.-4r it,;itY/C'AJ, (h.Ar- L

t u P ! 1132

/J -fLz

t-

./v'L

~/9 ~_f') LV '-~' 'f.. U / tJ rc/ by Th 2.

i'6 hs r~ j-'

t 7 14 ChAp {J I'v Ifi/J.i"'i'-7 ~'{ 0 l tJh. ~ Ch ~/5 rt'~/

15 p;rSlc,-<hcl10"Cu~.s $i~C' rh? I'-I/7.CE.v/7<?" fie jJw,'•.(

!.5 /!rV's 16 L T L C;J~1 S ...4 Iso Kl-t lh'L S4--t 2 !h/ A.-iAS /1zL

r cfzo2

n,. 2.. S-zColVd ;{.z Ul..! W..(.s tulvd1..-v rh~ 0 Whlh .

17 18

r Ih Vv ~2N;- Lf- 10 Th'2 [/lcl/'d ~V2" (kJ/t"J1 Th t.

0 / :{/ ~I

01 »~LS

[4057. wh(o w~I''t. -.A/So 1//1-:12'- W;({'/-v5

tD7 o.L [';--. 19
20 6J f<

5// '7 ;'j TO ~ 'Z-4 /' /oJ

..AIs r ~ 0

Pv f7<cJt--"Z. /

f1-....4 ;-- ~'(

cI I/o ,..A I' 7. ~ (I {- ..A

'-V ?

C f1l /+A U £. C!> Ll /' z/ ~ () /\.N: ~ S . ~ lAC I-z -..;.5

e l 21 (; u. /' :5.4 b bAr

ro AA g.4./\4

".~ t'.v,... $ (.' ? (P r'V Z Gi ro/1 l

S;7 t

Y J: 22
23

./fA -z

11'1. Vv C. t:.A.J ASS -vv-r.A R 2 Spo>\.-r "l

i3

kU/I (sn

'i In I')

24 rhOu.yfc i2 /Jlc/ ./V6r Rcccc(C/<:. t5.-4ctC rh2. 41sr Q;!JA.j4Jf--t~5.

Th z. z {:) t 5f S i l 0 "-J TO.D? ·1.; • ~ / t-- 0 ~- (7.-;7 '2. /1? / /' c/ v'"'5 :> 0 ;: I vu A :)

I. 25 ~3,,( ;:r;.cl:. R, R.~~ &04..... C.hl? IV/oAAN. .4 ,t:Jj7U!5 /.S//l"'C:: ~' ~(J?

26 ~ ;rAIVl.?) &-oM'72... rhc f)//'ccfo,~ oj! CO('('tt:-f,'o-v-s, 04t:l

27

5 up, ~'UI ' Sf 5 ~ rtt..l p('L.:~,-~5 ( /J 71-t tS :5 y5 h .l"1..

7' 28 .J. /S 0

L

h AI'"V\. -U '----'j

O,-,(oN' zc-! ../1/L\.-{ 13/1312.

~OM-

4l
.k

P,'t ,",'fv)f'~~":,q}[~::E(' •')'>I -{-:{ fi'451;~r5 «'2 CU'" i fl, >/n
~J ~ , ( . n . 1/,,_' ;' !':" L ,'v /,i .~ J ~'1 ~ ( ~'-

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 1 Filed 05/07/93 Page 5 of 20 Page ID #:8195

STATE OF cAUFORNIA
r
INMATE/PAROLEE APPEAL FORM
CDC 602 (12/87)

-J-_(c)'i t "'... . /

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECnONS

location:

I1n, sti-tJu.tdico•.n-/=P=a~,:r:o~:l;et;, Re,e/,gi-on/!.j?:"

~-::;>/,1
tI-4

,'
"'

log N9, ' '\ f' n _ . / ' -"'/.:-_"
rv '

-'{ :--;

U

"-E:~ :-I 1--'-~::, _

_

_

_--2~=.J-.

~, -'

2.

2,

"'li5oII"IiI4~t~

You may appeal any policy, action or decision which has a significant adverse affect upon you. With the exception of Serious CDC 115s, classification

committee actions, and classification and staff representative decisions, you must first informally seek reliefthrough discussion with the appropriate staff

member, who will sign your form and state what action was taken, If you are not then satisfied, you may send your appeal with all the supporting

documents and not more than one additional page of comments to the Appeals Coordinator within 15 days of the action taken, No reprisals will be taken

for using the appeals procedure responsibly, NAME

NUMBER

~ IROOM NUMBER

),!,/) ;' ".~o
:/V/:,· ::· :'

o/Y A.~/ .'( '.

':::> .:,- ~
...) / / /

,

IL" '.;'

j
! , t ; '/

1i c.' ,,' <~

-;.,

/

C/ ,;Ia· i-,' '-?"

i

I

If you need more space, attach one additional sheet,

Inmate/Parolee Signature:

T7-. 0'7 / - - ~4 '-A-t,i ,"'/,/ '~1 ~'I

C, INFORMAL LEVEL (Date Received: _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Staff Response: O.R/vf -f';;J •

~

,4,f:_A-

co

r ' 0-1/-j U;;-;-I,-r/-.J ' J"I . o~''L

(

,

U ' /' L. .;

~
' ..(

;--.J

Date Submitted: ,9- "'). .- '1~_

Staff Sig natu re :

Date Returned to Inmate: ' f ( - / f U

D, FORMAL LEVEL

If you are dissatisfied, explain below, attach supporting documents (Completed CDC 115,Investigator's Report, Classification chrono, CDC 128, etc,) and

-r: A submit to the Institution/Parole Region Appeals Coordinator for processing within 15 d~;'s of receipt of response,

.'<'" ,AJ::' :-

~/;<'--Li.' ', 0 :'

/~ /,o!- " ,

1'0,

,/~'..-r, 0 1: ' / :

/>, ,

~ - )r:: ~,. /'"

;,"_,,/", /

/!- {.'~":': .:

J' '

/ , 1"

,"

/ A ./ .

),1;,4, f ;'.j,rr/·i,;.' . ( l i : / :" /,><;;-" ></--0,',-; ( 0 " -"'rV'"

/<:

.

.'

?/S2/ / r' I •

, ~?(;f~/-C"~/,,-;,.;- <~

;:'.4,/' -S:'"

r ,,,~/l, i " 1<._0.

C f / " ,:_

7~ _:, --,

~:;;;7 Y-- t"{;--

n ..,,.>!..?, /:J" "-:,:, / ,;,:

--

L. ;j ;.'.(' ,, ~ ,

f o {. / ." ::: -

,,_ '-_ :(.. :.<., '(_ _.....< ~. /

/'-; -_:. ,_.,/ .",-':""

?'/ J' -

:;.

{
~ .:.'.>"..:,...: ~. _ _ /

'" ./

'.,/ .

,

Signature:

C ,:::" -.- i ' :, ~ ':"'(;.....~,",""",~-;

, I

'/

BY Note: Property/Funds appeals must be accqrnp~~ied 'b~a completecRECEIVED

Date Submitted:

~,::- ~ 3-

," v"',
1 -'

CDC Appeal Number:

Board of Control form BC-1 E, Inmate Claim

FOlSQ.M'~ A PDf: At OFFICF

,J.
'; ': ;'" j~). (~

AUG 2 5 1992

9207316

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 1 Filed 05/07/93 Page 6 of 20 Page ID #:8196

First level

o Granted

o P. Granted

o Other ___________________________________________
_____________________ Due Date: _____________

_ /) /" ). ~

";,J,./'15 _

d " k ." 6 . # J

dECEIVFD B}
;OlSOM'S APPEAL OF-h

5,;.~ SEP 0 A 1992 /
Title: )Jotz'57;2JAJr ck/,1;P/A;..J Date comPletedY;;l-

Returned

SEP 041992

Date to Inmate: ______________

Signature:

tJ-[3-72 Date Submitted:

Second Level 0 Granted

0 P. Granted

nJPenied

0 Other _____________________________,--______

~ _J-+1______ G. REVIEWER'S ACTION (Complete within 10 working days): Date assigned: __ ______________ Due Date: _ .
J@fsooAItO,hed Lett" S WAS INTERVIEWED AT 1ST LEVEL BY REV. E. W. MEADS. ,

Signature: ~e~~~=:~~~~~~~~--~L--~~-~~3~

Date Returned to Inmate:

H. If dissatisfied, add data or reasons for requesting a Director's Level Review, and submit by mail to the third level within 15 days of receipt of

response.

t

.

Signature:

For the Director's Review, submit all documents to: Director of Corrections P.O. Box 942883 Sacramento, CA 94283-0001 Attn: Chief, Inmate Appeals

oDIRECTOR'S ACTION : 0 Granted See Attached Letter CDC 602 (12 / 87)

o P. Granted

o Denied

o Other ______________________________
Date: _________________

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 1 Filed 05/07/93 Page 7 of 20 Page ID #:8197

('

(

STATE OF 'CALIFORNIA-YOUTH AND ADULT COih,,:CTIONAL AGENCY

pm WILSON, Go.-emor

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
P. O. Box 942883 Sacramento, CA 94283-0001

January 22, 1993

William Rouser C10659 California state Prison-Sacramento P.o. Box 29 Represa, California 95671
RE: DIRECTOR LEVEL DECISION CASE NO. 9207316 INSTITUTION LOG NO. N-92-3580
This matter was reviewed on behalf of the California Department of Corrections, Inmate Appeals Branch, at California state Prison-Sacramento (SAC), on December 2, 1992, by Appeals Examiner R. Munoz.
All submitted documentation and supporting arguments of the parties have been considered. To the extent such documentation and arguments are in accordance with the findings and conclusions stated herein, they have been accepted. To the extent they are inconsistent therewith, they have been rejected.
ISSUES
Whether or not the institution's denial of appellant's request to receive Tarot cards, incense and small candles is ~ppropriate.
FINDINGS
I
The appellant states that he is not being allowed to receive or possess the articles necessary to practice his religion. Appellant claims he is a WICCA (PAGAN), who worships the God and Goddess. Appellant states that the Tarot cards, incense and candles are necessary ceremonial articles. Appellant states that the denial of the articles of worship, is a violation of his constitutional rights to practice his religion. Appellant requests he be allowed to receive the Tarot cards, incense and small candles.
II
The institution takes the position that the Tarot cards, incense and candles are not allowed. The institution states that the listed items are not authorized for inmate possession and institutional religious services are provided by the institution.

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM (

Document 1

Filed 05/07/93 (Page 8 of 20

Page ID #:8198

ROUSER, C-10659 - CASE NO.9207316 Page 2

III
The Department's rules regarding religion and property are contained in the California Code of Regulations (CCR) , Title 15, Sections 3190(a) and 3210.
3190. General Policy. "(a) Wardens and superintendents shall establish a
list of personal property items and the maximum amount of such items an inmate may have in his or her possession within the institution. Institutions shall permit inmates to possess in their living quarters, in addition to state property items issued to an inmate, personal property items that present no threat to institution security or the safety of persons."
3210. General policy. "Wardens, superintendents and regional parole
administrators will make every reasonable effort to provide for the religious and spiritual welfare of all interested individuals and groups of inmates or parolees. Depending upon the number of inmates or parolees of the various faiths, chaplains may be employed on a full-time, part-time, or intermittent basis, or their services may be accepted on a volunteer nonpaid basis, to minister to the religious interests and needs of the inmates or parolees. Whenever feasible, the department favors separate space for services of the faith groups represented by a sUbstantial number of inmates or parolees. However, in some institutions and in small facilities, such as camps, it will be necessary for the various faith groups to share such space as is available for religious services."
The documentation and arguments presented are persuasive that the Tarot cards, incense and candles are not allowed to be in an inmate's possession. The institution has provided religious services for inmates as determined to be necessary. The appellant's allegation of being denied his right to practice his religion is not supported, and the denial of unauthorized material appropriate.
DETERMINATION OF ISSUE
The institution's denial of appellant's request for Tarot cards, incense and candles is appropriate.
The appeal is denied.

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 1 Filed 05/07/93 (Page 9 of 20 Page ID #:8199
ROUSER, C-10659 - CASE NO.9207316 Page 3
ORDER No changes or modifications are required by the institution. This decision exhausts the administrative remedy available to appellant within the Department of Corrections.
CK R. REAGAN, C ef Inmate Appeals Branch cc: Warden T. White (A), FOL
Appeals Coordinator, FOL

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 1 Filed 05/07/93 Page 10 of 20 Page ID #:8200

C

(

1 Lv,Itf,'AIV'L Reu-S 2-tZ CJO, s-1
2 e(D~f3~ ~q -A:-SAdJ..
3 ·Rl~f~SA-- (Auf- 95b71

4

5

"t~."J-tt t-ul ~ fA /ls ()/S Tf! /ct- CtNft r

6

£..c~TZtN Dtst,e/cJ- 0' Ull~~/V;A

7

8

9 &Jr/ (rAM RfJ('(s 'it. ~

\ PLAINTIFF,

)

10 Tl-I-&O w ~~t't-< J f1 W. MeADS ~

11 ..]\ tffotr&ttNIi G-qMEJ ~

12 --------------------)

13

CASE NO. EX - PARTE=-=MO""'"I=I"""0N""""""'FO"'R"'--"-A"'"'Ss"""r"""'"G=NM=E=N""-j-'O'""'FCOUNSEL

14

15

To: the above entitled court:

16

Comes now, WI'JUAN\. ROV{SL/R ,the plaintiff in the above entitled

17 action, pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), with this Ex-Parte Motion

18 for Assignment of Counsel to assist plaintiff in the further litigation

19 of this action.

20

Plaintiff's motion is based on the following facts, and the particular

21 authorities cited hereinafter, as well as all the papers currently on file

22 in this action.

23

Plaintiff's motion is additionally base~ on the attached, sworn declaration,

24 and such further papers, exhibits, and or arguments as the court may deem

25 appropriately submitted.

26

27

28

I' klol

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 1 Filed 05/07/93 Page 11 of 20 Page ID #:8201

r'
1

I.t

t Jr4n.. Petitioner W/lli.4M..

STATEMENT OF FACTS RoUSE€, , 1S currently incarcerated

at

CA/I~

2

Pfli'sotJ'-SAL) B,1(JflM, Cal ifornia.

3

Petitioner does not currently have a meaningful source of income by which

4

to employ the services of an attorney by which to have experienced legal advice

5

- and/or skills applied to the further litigation of this case.

6

Petitioner as an indigent state prisoner has only limited access to legal

7

materials at the prison where he is confined, and has inadequate time to study

8

legal materials when he is giveD access.

9

Petitioner is a layman at la\'I with very llttle-experience in the complex

10

and confusing methods Df legal research, wri~ing and reasoning and virtually

11 no knowledge of the procedural rules or the federal rules of court or civil

12 procedure dy which to proceed with critically important discovery to obtain

13 certain types of evidence and other items that petitioner believes the defendants

14 currently have possession of and/or access to.

15

Petitioner does not know what papers he should now file or seek to submit

16 to the court or to defendants by which to further litigate this action. Petitione

17 attempts to read and understand the federal rules of civil procedUre, which

18, leave petitioner predominantly confused concerning appropriate action at

19 this point.

20

Petitioner sincerely desires to pursue this action and to seek the relief

21 prayed for in the original complaint filed with this court in this matter.

22

Pet it ion er has ali mited edue at ion, and no educat ion i n 1,a\v. Pet it ion er

23 does not understand, nor can he comprehend complex legal reasoning, standards,

24 and language when he attempts to study law and legal publications. Petitioner

25 has had to enlist the assistance of fellow prisoners, knowledgeable in law

26 and order, to prepare and file the pleadings currently before this court,

27 as well as this current motion for assignment of counsel.

28

2.
klo1

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM
(

Document 1

Filed 05/07/93

Pa,/ ge 12 of 20

Page ID #:8202

1

I I.

REASONS THE COURT SHOULD ASSIGN COUNSEL TO ASSIST

2

PLAINTIFF IN FURTHER LITIGATION OF THIS ACTION

3

(1) Plaintiff ;s unable to employ counsel (see: Forma Pauperis application

4 of file in this action).

5

(2) The issues involved are complex and dificult for petitioner to

6 nderstand in relationship to how to pruceed further to press his claims

7 0 a final resolution.

8

(3) The issues involved necessitate serious discovery proceedings to be

9 ndertaken by plaintiff in order to prepare for fu~ther proceedings on

10 ither summary judgement or to proceed to trial.

11 (4) The prison limits plaintiff access to law books and legal materi als.

12 (5) Plaintiff has no legal experienc! and very little experience or

13 knowledge of law.

14 (6) The interest of justice and the economy of judicial resources would

15 be best served by an assignment of counsel to assist your plaintiff in

16 this action.
s- - 17 DATED: S·- 1173
18

151

tJ1)~ ~
PLAIffiNPRO:t

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3. kl oi

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-J(EM Document 1 Filed 05/07/93 Page 13 of 20 Page ID #:8203

1

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF ASSIGNMENT OF COUNSEL

2

At the outset, plaintiff points out that there is clearly statutory

3

authority by which the District Court may appoint or assign counse1 to assist

4

plaintiff in the further litigation af this civil action ( see: Title 28

5

U.S.C. § 1915(d); and Title 28 U.C.S. § 3006A(g); in some relationship to

6

Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983; see also Norris v. Wainwright, 588 F. 2d 130, cert.

7

denied, 444 U.S. 846).

8

One consideration is that 9f the right of every litigant, rich or poor,

9

to equal consideration before the courts. ( ses: Coppedge v. United States,

10 369 U.S. 438, 456,) Moreover, even without the statutes, there is some

11 indication that the federal courts, in the proper situation or case, may

12 assign counsel for an indigent state prisoner under the court's supervisory

13 powers and sound discretion (see: McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332;

14 see also The Supervisory Power of the Federal Courts, 76 Harv. L. 1656 ) .

1S

Some courts have held that counsel -is not necessary, "unless the

16 circumstances of the particular case are such that counsel would be vital

17 to attain due process, or access to the courts." see: Eskridge "v. Rhay,

18 345 F. 2d•778: see also: Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F 2d 778; Dillion v. United
19 States, 307 F. 2d 447; Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817).

20

Your plaintiff is aware that the United States Supreme Court and the

21 United States Congress have never held that a civil litigant has a right 22 to counsel to be assigned, to assist him in pressing his claims before the

23 co~ " ·ts. Rather, the question of whether or not to assign cGunsel rests in

24 the sound discretion of the court, and such discretion "requires that

2S counsel be appointed at least in some cases." ( see: United States v.

26 Wilkens, 338 F. 2d 404: and United States v. Wilkens, 281 F. 2d 707-715).

27

There are many entanglements that may be avoided by the assignment of

28 counsel ( see: Taylor v. Pegelow, 335 F. 2d 147.) Moreover, at least one

klo1

4.

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 1 Filed 05/07/93 Page 14 of 20 Page ID #:8204

,~
1 federal district court has viewed in the context of federal habeas corpus

2 that unless the petition could be dismissed ."summarily~ an attorney should

3 be assigned to the impoverished,"layman-prisoner." ( see: Cullins v. Crouse,

4

348 F. 2d 887)~

5

In federal civil rights actions under Title 42 U.S.C: § 1983 to redress

6

i njuri es caused by persons . II acting under color of state 1aw", the courts

7 have considered assignment of counsel as important in cases where the

8 prisoner ( civil litigant ) mu~t conduct discovery by which to pursue his

9 or her case, and cannot do it himself ( see: Murrell v. Bennett, 615 F. 2d \
10 306 .) Moreover, • summary judgement" proceedings against the prisoner,

11 plaintiff, unable to secure discovery of the items to ward off such a

12 judgement, may not be permitted against a lay-prisoner who does not know

13 how to oppose such proceedings . ( see: Murrell v. Bennett, Supra. at pp. 310 ).

14

In your plaintiff's case, as the facts stated in the motion for counSel

15 and attached declaration demonstrate that plaintiff cannot himself proceed

16 further with the prosecution of this action without at least some assistance

17 from someone with the knowledge t~ pursue such action.

18

Wherefore, plaintiff prays this court will assign an attorney to assist

«

19 him in th~ further pursuit of this action.

20

21

DATED: S- 5 -/1![3

22

PLAIN I IFF, Po:

23

24

25

26

27

28

kLo1

5.

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-J(EM Document 1 Filed 05/07/93 P( age 15 of 20 Page ID #:8205

1

DECLARATION OF

2

I, 1u/{{fAM. Rou5 t({, depose, and declare as follows:

3

1. I am the plaintiff tn thi~ entitled action.

4

2. That I am currently a state prisoner, with no regular, meaningful

5

source of income with which to employ an attorney to ass-ist me.

6

3. That my personal attempts to read law books, rules of court, and

7

court procedures have resulted in confusion and inability to comprehend

8

what action to take next, to further prosecute this action.

9

4. That I have had to ask other prisoners, who appear to have some

10

knowledge of law, to assist me in writting and filing the papers currently

11

before the courts, as well as this present motion for counsel.

12

5.

13

14

6.

15

16

7.

17

18

19

..ffiy EXECUTED THIS ___S....o.-___ DAY OF

, 19~

20

21
PLAINI IFf INPROE:
22

23

24

25

26

27

28

klo1

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 1 Filed 05/07/93 Page 16 of 20 Page ID #:8206

tor IR~v. 100 240

6186) AppliC3tion

, ~=~===.============= ...:.-==============_

\,

----------------DlSTRICT OF----------------
APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION AND ORDER
CASE NUMBER:
C1V-S-93 - 767lKK GGH

1..-,__OW·~.-.J'-.·.-;._.l~l_· "L_A_;_V\. _~_()__~_!._f<______ declare that I am the (check appropriate box)

IS!! petitioner/plaintiff
o respondent/defendant

o movant (filing 28 U.S.c. 2255 motion)
o -------------o-th-er------------

in the above-entitled proceeding; that, in support of my request to proceed without being

required to prepay fees, cost or give security therefor, I state that because of my poverty, I

am unable to pay the costs of said proceeding or give security therefor; that I believe I am

4). US4 t 3 n-./c entitled to relief. The nature of my action, defense, or other proceeding or the issues I intend

to present on appeal are briefly stated as follows:

C q~ ;{Aw,5 i-t

p f)z/<~'\A'

I- #y (J

o:j.FJ'-'jr .AA/t1-Jo;'PI.~../'f 1(/1 hr).

t ~ Ct"'Z-ld~ 0 i2j.ir'O/\.J

In further support of this application, I answer the following questions.
•

1. Are you presently employed?

Yes 0

No r2"

a. If the answer is "yes," state the amount of your salary or wages per month, and give the name and address of your employer. (list both gross and net salary)

is b. If the answer "no," state the date of last employment and the amount of the
salary and wages per month which you receive<;!.
~ - d-.S - iCf q",:> ·Jiq ~ .A /t4oyV~.

2. Have you received within the past twelve months any money from any of the follow-

ing sources?

a. Business, profession or other form of self-employment

Yes 0 No 00

b. Rent payments, interest or dividends?

Yes 0 Nom

c. Pensions, annuities or life insurance payments?

Yes 0 No~

d. Gifts or inheritances?

Yes 0 No []'

e. Any other sources?

Yes 00 NoD

AO 240 ReCvearsse e 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 1 Filed 05/07/93 Page 17 of 20 Page ID #:8207

If the answer to any of the above is "yes," describe each source of money and state the

amount received
MOIV It

~ from eachtdlukr~incgVt,he

past
10

twelve months.

.

u..:5 L.A f- CAJVh-l/V ,

--.
I--

r

LJ,AI'I'-'L3-

3. Do you own any cash, or do you have money in checking or savings accounts?

rnJ Yes

No 0 (Include any funds in prison accounts.)

If the answer is "yes," state the total value of the items owned.

4. Do you own or have any interest in any real estate, stocks, bonds, notes, automobiles or other valuable property (excluding ordinary household furnishings and clothing)?
YesD No~
If the answer is "y~," describe the property and state its approximate value.

5. list the persons who are dependent upon you for support, state your relationship to those persons, and indicate how much you contribute toward their support.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on ---1.5-_-....:;;$=---.....1...1·_Cf:.....1_3=--_
(Date)

Signature of Applicant

CERTIFICATE (Prisoner Accounts Only)

I certify that the applicant named herein has the sum of $ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

on accbunt to his credit at the _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

t

institution where he is confined. I further certify that the applicant likewise has the following securities to his credit according to the records of said institution: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

I further certify that during the last six months the applicant's average balance was $ _ _ _ _ _ __

The application is hereby denied

Authorized Officer of Institution
ORDER OF COU RT
The application is hereby granted. Let the applicant proceed without prepayment of cost or fees or the necessity of giving security therefor.

United States Judge

Date

United States Judge

Date

or Map;j !rate
- - - - - - ' ' - - - - - - - - - -''.--..',,;,,,------------~

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 1 Filed 05/07/93( Page 18 of 20 Page ID #:8208 (
_~!7~~ S7A7ES DISTRIC7 coeR. tASTERS DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Rf..A ;rTJ.'~!p(-i E.v,.cKs?.,

\)....,i._·\i~tt-L ) G-AAJ

i

£ (". I)
(,VV,

M

f
.

A

UIS

I

•

f"

nMiS \loNt.'

.

AFFOAVIT IN St.:??CR7 OF
REQUEST TO PROCEED : S
FORMA PAUPERIS

LuI I,

tlIAM. R~ li-S'l.~ , depose and say that I am the movant in t:,e

above ent~tled case: that in su?port of my motion to proceed without being requi=ed

to prepay fees, costs or gi?e security therefore, I state that because of ~y pove=~y.

I am unable to pay the costs of said proceeding or to give security therefore: that

I believe I am entitled to relief.

I further declare that the response~ which I have made to questions and instructions below are .true.

1.

Are you presently employed? YES

NO C)() ___

\
. \

a. If the answer is YES. state the amount of your salary or wages ~er

.'to I <D
F'.)

month, and give the name and address of your employer.

0> 0>

W

W

b. If the answer is NO. state the date of las~ employment and the amount

of the salary and wages per month which yc~ received.

~ - ~5 ~ 1993

tr1 r'U! A A40,1/ Ih-

2.

Have you received , within the past twelve months, any money from any of t~e

following sources?

4. Business, profession or form of self-employment? YES! b. Rent payments, interest or dividends? Y£SC- ) NOC~)

NOC )C)

c. Pensions, annuities or life insurance payments? YESC ) NOCY)

d. e.

eifts or inheritances? YESC ) Any other source? YESCY) NOC

NO(X:)

~

I

) /y/,(J....I-'I.. ~"'Iv..,v<:s

(O

31' ~d O/IJ CA--vrHAJ.

3.

Do you ~wn any cash, or do you have any money in a checking or savings

account? ,. YES ( ) NO C )

If the answer is YES, state the total value of the items owned.

4.

Do you own estate, stocKS, bonds, notes, automobiles or other valuable property

Cexcluding ordinary household furnishings and clothing)?

YES(

NO(X)

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 1 Filed 05/07/93 ( Page 19 of 20 Page ID #:8209 (
If ~!1e an~....er ~s ';':;5, -jescribe the property and StAte its A?prcx::-::\ate ':a:'~e,

s.

List the persons 'who are dependant upon you for support, state your relatio~­

ship to those persons, and indicate how much you contribute to their suppor~.

I understand that a false statement or answer to any question in this affidavit will subject me to penalties for perjury, and I declare under penalty of perjury t~at the foregoing is true and correct,

f?1. Executed at

(JRz5A . .)ACr~-whJ

(City, cou£ty Statel

/

5'- ~5 -1793 COate)

qu~-R~
(Movant's Signature I

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 1 Filed 05/07/93 Page 20 of 20 Page ID #:8210

I Judge: LJ;..r: Mag: 6. bH

DEPUTY CLERK'S CHECKLIST FOR NEW CIVIL ACTIONS

Case Number:

Clv-s-93 - 767 LKK GGH

civil Actions (PRISONER MATTERS):

CIVIL RIGHTS ACTION Jurisdiction: 3 Cause of Action: 42 USC 1983 Nature of Suit: 550 Origin: 1

( ) PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS Jurisdiction: 3 Cause of Action: 28 USC 2254 Nature of suit: 530 Origin: 1

( ) MOTION TO VACATE SENTENCE Jurisdiction: 2 Cause of Action: 28 USC 2255 Nature of Suit: 510 Origin: 2
* Serve a copy of the motion on the
US Atty and Staff Attorneys (use prepared
cover letter).

() DEATH PENALTY/CAPITAL CASE

Jurisdiction: 3

t

Cause of Action: 28 USC 2254

Nature of Suit: 535

Origin: 1
** See additional checklist

~) OTHER
COMMENTS:

FORM COMPLETED BY:~

 
 Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 112 Filed 12/05/97 Page 1 of 10 Page ID #:9498

1 DANIEL E. LUNGREN, Attorney General of the State of California
2 GEORGE WILLIAMSON, Chief Assistant Attorney General
3 PETER J. SIGGINS, Senior Assistant Attorney General
4 JOAN W. CAVANAGH, State Bar No. 56708 Supervising Deputy Attorney General
5 JAMES E. FLYNN, State Bar No. 61139 Supervising Deputy Attorney General
6 1300 I Street; P. O. Box 944255 Sacramento, California 94244-2550
7 Telephone: (916) 323-1976

FILED
DEC - 5 1997
e_.TaE~RRKN.DuIS.sT.RDICISTTOAFICCTACUOFUORATNIA
~----DP~UI~V C~Ul-l( ----

8 Attorneys for Defendants Gomez, Reagan,
~1iiI:)~~~g~0283

tJV\ 1N0O

20

1997\ Q'/'"

)

\' ,(M.

11

\ /

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ClIAK EASlI8N'

•~DTO'ITFRC\AcTLClOroURRNTlA

ft~":--~ ' ~~~~~USER,

)

No. CIV S-93-0767 LKK GGH P

13

)

Plaintiff, )

NOTICE OF PRIVATE SETTLEMENT

14

)

AND STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR

v.

)

DISMISSAL WITHOur PREJUDICE

15

)

THEO WHITE, et al.,

)

16

Defend$IGINAL

17

18 -------------------------)

19

The parties to this action, through their undersigned

20 attorneys of record, notify the district court and stipulate as

21 follows:

,......, 22

1.

The parties have entered into a private settlement

23 of this action. A copy of the settlement is attached as a

24 courtesy to the court.

25

2. Pursuant to paragraphs 4 and 5 of the private

26 settlement agreement, the parties stipulate that upon signing the

27 agreement, the court may enter an order dismissing this action,

028 / / /

1.
//-.::2----

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 112 Filed 12/05/97 Page 2 of 10 Page ID #:9499

1 but shall retain jurisdiction to enforce it through reinstatement

2 of the original action as provided for in 18 U.S.C. § 3626(c).

3

WHEREFORE, the parties request that the district court

4 enter an order dismissing this action without prejudice to

5 reinstatement pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3626(c).

6
7 DATED: --L..:fI.,--"_8--L,,L_1_ _

8

9
10 DATED:

11

12

13
/zblq 14 DATED, 15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 .

\

.Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 112 Filed 12/05/97 Page 3 of 10 Page ID #:9500

ATTACHMENT

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 112 Filed 12/05/97 Page 4 of 10 Page ID #:9501

1 DANIEL E. LUNGREN, Attorney General of the State of California
2 GEORGE WILLIAMSON, Chief Assistant Attorney General
3 PETER J. SIGGINS, Senior Assistant Attorney General
4 JOAN W. CAVANAGH, State Bar No. 56708 Supervising Deputy Attorney General
5 JAMES E. FLYNN, State Bar No. 61139 Supervising Deputy Attorney General
6 1300 I Street; P. O. Box 944255 Sacramento, California 94244-2550
7 Telephone: (916) 323-1976

8 Attorneys for Defendants Gomez, Reagan, White and Meads
9 48149280-CA93CX0283

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12

WILLIAM ROUSER,

)

13

)

Plaintiff, )

14

)

v.

)

15

)

THEO WHITE, et al.,

)

16

)

Defendants. )

17

)

)

18

No. CIV S-93-0767 LKK GGH P PRIVATE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

19

The parties to this action, through their undersigned

20 attorneys of record, agree as follows:

21

1. This is a compromise of disputed claims.

22

2. By entering into this agreement, defendants do not

23 admit liability or waive any defenses to future claims.

24

3. By entering into this agreement, the parties do

25 not intend that their agreement be converted into a court order.

26

4. Upon signing this agreement, the parties shall

27 stipulate to a dismissal of this action.

28 III

1 .

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 112 Filed 12/05/97 Page 5 of 10 Page ID #:9502

1

5. The district court shall retain jurisdiction to

2 enforce the settlement under 18 U.S.C. § 3626(c).

3

6. Plaintiff shall be permitted access to J. and S.

4 Farrar, A Witches Bible Compleat (Magickal Childe Pub., Inc.,

5 1991) (hereafter "Witches Bible") subject to policies and

6 procedures applicable to inmate access to religious literature.

7

7. Plaintiff shall be permitted access to a room for

8 bi-weekly Esbats and for the eight Sabbats for Wiccan services

9 subject to the same policies and procedures regulating other

10 inmate individual or group religious worship. The size of the

11 room and the schedule for its use will be determined by prison

12 officials taking into account the number of worshippers, the

13 room's availability, safety and security considerations, and

14 administrative considerations, so long as these considerations

15 are taken into account in accommodating other religions. No

16 participant in the services shall be nude, and there shall be no

17 actual or simulated sexual acts during the services. The

18 services shall be conducted under the supervision of prison

19 officials consistent with supervision of other religious services

20 to ensure the safety and security of inmates and staff.

21

8. Prior to any service and consistent with policies

22 and procedures applicable to the review of prayers of other

23 religious services, plaintiff shall provide, at the request of

24 prison officials a written copy of any prayers to be recited or

25 read at the services for review. The review shall be only for

26 the purpose of ensuring the safety and security of inmates and

27 staff.

28 III

2 .

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 112 Filed 12/05/97 Page 6 of 10 Page ID #:9503

1

9. The time and location of group Wiccan services

2 will be included in the Chapel schedule which is posted and

3 available to inmates.

4

10. Plaintiff shall be permitted access to small

5 candles, incense, oil, small wands, ritual cups, small bells,

6 cords, water, and salt (hereafter "religious artifacts") for use

7 at the Esbats and the Sabbats subject to the policies and

8 procedures consistent with inmate access to religious artifacts.

9 The religious artifacts are subject to approval by prison

10 officials and search to ensure safety and security.

11

11. When the items set forth in paragraph 10 of this

12 agreement are not in use, prison officials shall have custody of

13 them.

14

12. Plaintiff shall be permitted to have the Thoth

15 edition of Tarot cards in his general personal property and

16 available for use in his cell or at the Esbats or eight Sabbats

17 subject to the policies and procedures applicable to other

18 religious artifacts. The cards shall be used only for religious

19 purposes. Nothing in this paragraph precludes prison officials

20 from restricting plaintiff's access to and use of the Tarot cards

21 if it is determined that plaintiff has modified them or used them

22 for nonreligious purposes or if their use threatens the safety

23 and security of the institution.

24

13. By agreeing to permit plaintiff access to the

25 Witches Bible and religious artifacts identified in paragraphs 10

26 and 12, defendants do not agree that they are obligated to pay

27 for those items for plaintiff, but defendants do agree that they

28 are obligated to assist plaintiff in obtaining those items via

3 .

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 112 Filed 12/05/97 Page 7 of 10 Page ID #:9504

1 institutional mail in a manner that is consistent with policies

2 and procedures applicable to a general population inmate's

3 receipt of religious artifacts from approved religious vendors.

4

14. A volunteer Wiccan spiritual adviser may attend

5 Esbat or Sabbat services provided that the person has complied

6 with the policies and procedures for access by volunteer

7 spiritual advisers.

8

15. Nothing in this agreement shall be interpreted to

9 preclude prison officials from temporarily suspending its

10 provisions in the case of an emergency, for the safety and

11 security of inmates or staff, or if plaintiff is confined in a

12 Security Housing Unit (SHU) or Administrative Segregation. If

13 plaintiff is so confined, plaintiff shall continue to have access

14 to his Witches Bible under paragraph 6 of this agreement.

15

16. The terms of this agreement shall apply to any

16 institution under the jurisdiction of the California Department

17 of Corrections (CDC) to which plaintiff is assigned and shall be

18 implemented at any given receiving institution in a manner that

19 is based on safety and security concerns or administrative

20 concerns peculiar to the institution.

21

17. Plaintiff waives damages and attorneys' fees.

22

18. Defendants shall pay plaintiff's costs in the

23 amount of $2,722.38.
24 III 25 III 26 III 27 III 28 III

4 .

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 112 Filed 12/05/97 Page 8 of 10 Page ID #:9505

1

19. It is the parties' expectation that implementation

2 of the terms of this agreement will commence within a reasonable

3 time, but no longer

days,

it is signed.

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 112 Filed 12/05/97 Page 9 of 10 Page ID #:9506

1

DECLARATION OF SERVICE

2

3 Case Name: WILLIAM ROUSER v. THEO WHITE, et al.

4 USDC-ED Case No.: CIV S-93-0767 LKK GGH P

5 I declare:

6 I am employed in the Office of the Attorney General, which is the office of a member of the Bar of this Court at which member's
7 direction this service is made. I am familiar with the business practice at the Office of the Attorney General for collection and
8 processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. In accordance with that practice, correspondence
9 placed in the internal mail collection system at the Office of the Attorney General is deposited with the United States Postal
10 Service that same day in the ordinary course of business.

11 On November 20, 1997, I placed the attached

12

NOTICE OF PRIVATE SETTLEMENT AND STIPULATION AND ORDER

FOR DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

13

14 in the internal mail collection system at the Office of the Attorney General, 1300 I Street, P.O. Box 944255, Sacramento,
15 California, 94244-2550, for deposit in the United States Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course of business, in a
16 sealed envelope, postage fully postpaid, addressed as follows:

17 SUSAN D. CHRISTIAN, ESQ. KING HALL CIVIL RIGHTS CLINIC
18 U.C. DAVIS SCHOOL OF LAW KING HALL, ROOM 90
19 DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616-5201

20 I declare under penalty of perjury the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on November 20,
21 1997, at Sacramento, California.

22

23

C. Sorenson

24

Signature

25

26

27

28

. ...

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 112 Filed 12/05/97 Page 10 of 10 Page ID

#:9507

dd

United States District Court

for the

Eastern District of California

December 5, 1997

* * CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE * *

2:93-cv-00767

Rouser v.
White

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California. That on December 5, 1997, I SERVED a true and correct copy (ies) of the attached, by placing said copy{ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person{s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy{ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Susan Dee Christian Room 090 University of California at Davis School of Law King Hall Civil Rights Clinic Davis, CA 95616-5201 Constance L Picciano Attorney General's Office Carlotta Wells United States Department of Justice Civil Division PO Box 883 Washington, DC 20044 Jonathan T Foot Federal Programs Branch Civil Division POBox 883 Washington, DC 20044

SJ/LKK
(. JackL Wagner, Clerk
:/ff&.
by: Deputy CJ~k

 
 Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 140 Filed 12/17/03 Page 1 of 15 Page ID #:34

FILED "'

1

DEC 17"

2

1

CLERK. u.s. DISTRICT COURT

3

EASTERN DISTRICT Of CAlifORNIA
8Y _--=--=:'-::-:::~-­

DEHJTY CLERK

4

5

6

7

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 WILLIAM ROUSER,

11

Plaintiff,

No. CIV S-93-0767 LKK GGH P

12

vs.

13 THEO WHITE, et aI.,

14

Defendants.

15 _____________________________1

ORDER; FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

16

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding with this civil rights action pursuant to 42

17 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 5, 1997, the parties filed a notice of private settlement and

18 stipulation for dismissal without prejudice. The stipulation provided that the court would retain

19 jurisdiction to enforce the settlement through reinstatement of the original action.

20

In documents filed earlier this year, plaintiff contends that defendants breached

21 the agreement. On June 19,2003, the court ordered the parties to file declarations, with attached

22 exhibits, addressing this issue. The court ordered plaintiffs declaration due within thirty days,

23 and defendants' responsive declaration due thirty days thereafter. On July 7,2003, plaintiff filed

24 a response to the June 19, 2003, order, in which he requested that the court take judicial notice of

25 his amended complaint filed April 9, 2003, in support of his claim that defendants had failed to

26 comply with the settlement agreement. On August 14,2003, defendants filed their response.
1 /10

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 140 Filed 12/17/03 Page 2 of 15 Page ID #:35

1

At the outset, the court observes that plaintiffs amended complaint identifies five

2 additional plaintiffs and includes allegations regarding some of these plaintiffs. The only matter

3 at issue at this time is whether defendants have violated the settlement agreement. The

4 settlement agreement applies to plaintiff only. Therefore, allegations regarding other inmates

5 will not be addressed in these findings and recommendations unless they are relevant to the

6 settlement agreement as it pertains to plaintiff. In addition, the court has not authorized an

7 amended complaint. The amended complaint is considered only as plaintiffs briefing in support

8 of his claim that defendants breached the plea agreement.

9

Esbats and Sabbats

10

The settlement agreement provides that plaintiff is to be permitted access to a

11 room for bi-weekly Esbats and for the eight annual Sabbats for Wiccan services, subject to the

12 same policies and procedures regulating other inmate individual or group religious worship.

13 Settlement Agreement, ~r 7.

14

In the amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that he was allowed one Sabbat and no

15 Esbats in a one year period. Amended Complaint, p. 5. Plaintiff also alleges that on the

16 Tuesdays that the Esbats were scheduled, he was not ducated to attend. Id., p. 6. Attached as

17 exhibit F to the amended complaint is a declaration by inmate Milton dated March 26, 2002.

18 Inmate Milton states that in June or July 2001, he worked as the Chapel Clerk. At this time,

19 Chaplain Stewart and Volunteer Chaplain Dewsnap told him not to make out a ducat list for the

20 Wiccans. After inmate Milton told them that he would make out the list, he was fired from his

21 job. Plaintiff alleges that the Wiccans were not permitted to conduct the last Sabbat service

22 because defendant Carlson forgot to process the paperwork. Id.

23

In the August 14,2003, response, defendants describe plaintiffs access to Esbats

24 and Sabbats as follows. At the time the settlement agreement was filed, plaintiff was housed in

25 Facility IV-B at the California Correctional Facility. Defendants' Response, Exhibit A, § 3. On

26 November 4, 1998, he was transferred to California State Prison-Corcoran. Id. On April 6,

2

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 140 Filed 12/17/03 Page 3 of 15 Page ID #:36

1 1999, he was transferred to California State Prison-Sacramento (CSP-Sac). Id. In the instant 2 order, the court will focus on plaintiffs access to Esbats and Sabbats since his transfl~r to CSP3 Sac.

4

Plaintiff was housed in Facility C from April 6, 1999, to February 26,2000, when

5 he was moved to administrative segregation (ad seg) in Facility A following disciplinary charges

6 for mutual combat with another inmate. Id." 4. He was moved to ad seg in Facility B on

7 February 26,2000, and remained there until April 7,2000, when he was transferred back to ad

8 seg on Facility A. Id. On May 30,2000, plaintiff was moved to general population on Facility A

9 where he is currently housed. Id.

10

Defendants state that plaintiff may not have been able to attend Esbats and

11 Sabbats while in ad seg. Under' 15 of the settlement agreement, prison officials have discretion

12 to suspend the terms of the agreement for attendance while plaintiff was in segregated housing.

13 Accordingly, this court will focus on plaintiffs ability to attend Esbats and Sabbats while he was

14 housed in the general population.

15

The exhibits attached to defendants' response contain plaintiff s communication

16 with prison officials regarding his access to Esbats and Sabbats. On August 24, 1999, plaintiff

17 sent a letter to Warden Pliler complaining that he had been released late for Wiccan services on

18 August 21, 1999. Defendants' Response, attachment 2, p. 6. On September 14,1999, Warden

19 Pliler responded to plaintiffs letter. Id., p. 5. Warden Pliler stated that the Wiccan sponsor was

20 responsible for compiling a list of inmate names wishing to attend services and giving the list to

21 prison officials responsible for preparing the ducat list. Id. Plaintiffs name was not on the ducat

22 list. Id.

23

On or around March 26, 2001, plaintiff sent a letter to L.L. Jackson, the

24 Community Resources Manager at eSP-Sac. Id., p. 18. In this letter, plaintiff stated that he

25 realized that he would miss the Sabbat, which was in two days. Id. The note does not state

26 why plaintiff missed the Sabbat.

3

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 140 Filed 12/17/03 Page 4 of 15 Page ID #:37

1

On April 22, 2001, plaintiff filed an inmate appeal stating that for one year he had

2 been unable to have any services: "And I feel that I have no chance left but to ask the judge to

3 intervene since for 1 year I have not been able to observe no Sabbat, order what is needed for

4 services, have any services, within that year I had only been allowed one service. That was when

5 the Wiccan chaplain came in September." Defendants' Response, Attachment 1, p. 59-61. On

6 June 5, 2001, plaintiffwithdrew this appeal. ld., p. 62.

7

On July 31,2001, plaintiff filed another inmate appeal stating that on July 27 and

8 31 he was not released to the chapel for Wiccan services because no one was available to

9 supervise the Wiccans. ld., p. 71. On August 29,2001, Lonnie Jackson responded to this appeal.

10 ld., p. 74. Mr. Jackson stated that the Muslim chaplain provides supervision for both Muslim

11 and Wiccan services. ld. On July 27,2001, the Muslim chaplain was not available due to

12 illness. ld. Consequently, Wiccan and Muslim services were cancelled. ld.

13

On October 25,2001, Lonnie Jackson sent a memorandum to Captain Walker in

14 Facility A in response to plaintiffs request that arrangements be made for the Sabbat on October

15 31. ld., pp. 26, 28. Lonnie Jackson has sent memos arranging for the following additional

16 Sabbats: Beltane (May 1,2002); Autumn Equinox (September 23,2002); Samhain (October 31,

17 2002); Imbolg (February 3,2003); and Lamas (July 31,2003). ld., pp. 32, 64-67.

18

Plaintiff filed an inmate appeal complaining that prison staff had failed to process

19 a request to conduct a Yule Sabbat on December 23,2002. The first level appeal response

20 describes how this occurred:

21

It is true that the WiccanlPagan religious group was unable to

celebrate their Yule Sabbat because the appropriate paper work did

22

not get completed. A brief description of events is as follows:

23

Inmate Rouser made a verbal request to acting CRM J. Carlson on

Facility A yard for a Wiccan celebration. He was instructed to

24

submit a written request. He submitted a hand written request on a

tom piece of paper which provided insufficient information to

25

schedule the event. He was instructed to resubmit. The attached

documents were submitted. Please note that there is no date on the

26

request and the ducat request is for December 17,2002 yet Mr.

4

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 140 Filed 12/17/03 Page 5 of 15 Page ID #:38

1

Rouser says that the event was to be on December 23.

2

The event was missed due to a breakdown in communication. Mr.

Rouser has been given a formatted document to refer to for future

3

requests and has been instructed to allow a minimum of thirty days

for approval.

4

5 Defendants' Response, attachment 1, p. 119.

6

According to L.L. Jackson, the Wiccans have not, to date, routinely asked to

7 conduct all eight Sabbats to which plaintiff is entitled each year, and their volunteer spiritual

8 advisor has not regularly come to the prison to conduct those services. Defendants' Response,

9 Exhibit A, p. 9.

10

On July 17, 2002, plaintiff filed an administrative appeal stating that Wiccans had

11 been delayed into the chapel. Defendants' Exhibit A, attachment 1, p. 93-101. On September

12 16,2002, L.L. Jackson responded to this appeal. Id., p. 100. In relevant part, Mr. Jackson stated

13 that:

14

Operational exigencies, institutional emergencies or security needs,

may be reason to cancel, delay or postpone scheduled religious

15

services. When operationally possible, all religious services shall

be conducted. By your own admission, this situation was remedied

16

by a memorandum authored and distributed by Sgt. Mayhew, A-

Facility Sergeant. You state that no further incidents of this nature

17

have occurred.

18 Id., p. 100.

19

L.L. Jackson states that he is aware of plaintiffs claim that inmate Milton was

20 fired because he objected when the chaplain told him not to make out a ducat list for Wiccans.

21 Defendants' Response, Exhibit A, p. 8. L.L. Jackson states that this allegation is untrue. Id.

22 Inmate Milton came up with this claim for the first time after Chaplain Stewart removed him

23 from his work assignment because he was not doing his job. Id.

24

In his August 29, 2003, response, plaintiff agrees that he withdrew his April 22,

25 2001, administrative appeal alleging that he had been allowed "but one Esbat or Sabbat service"

26 since his release to Facility A on May 30,2000. Plaintiff states that he withdrew the appeal

5

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 140 Filed 12/17/03 Page 6 of 15 Page ID #:39

1 because L.L. Jackson agreed to work to fix the difficulties plaintiff had faced in having Wiccan

2 services. As to the denial of Yule services on December 23, 2002, plaintiff states that inmate

3 Hysell filed an appeal regarding this matter. Attached to plaintiffs response are responses by

4 prison officials to inmate Hysell's appeals. The Second Level appeal stated, in relevant part:

5

You contend that on December 23, 2002, Community Resource

Manager (A) Jim Carlson denied your right to free exercise of your

6

religion. Your paperwork for Yule Sabbath was turned in to Mr.

Carlson in plenty of time to be approved, as has been done for

7

every Sabbath, but he refused to process it. You claim this was

done on purpose since Mr. Carlson has made statements that he

8

doesn't recognize your beliefs as a valid religion...

9

****

1 0

Your appeal is partially granted in that your staff misconduct

allegations has been referred to the SAC Investigative Services

11

Unit (ISU) for a review. ISU staff will interview you during this

process.

12

13 Plaintiffs Response, Exhibit A.

14

The court is puzzled by plaintiffs April 2001 administrative appeal claiming that

15 he had been allowed only one Wiccan service for the past year. Plaintiff apparently filed

16 no administrative appeals before this time complaining about his inability to attend these

17 services. Plaintiffs March 26, 2001, letter makes no mention of this. Defendants have also

18 provided a ducat dated March 21, 2001, identifying the inmates who would attend the Wiccan

19 servIce. Defendants' response, attachment 2, p. 17. Plaintiffs name is on this list.

20

Despite the conflicting record regarding plaintiffs ability to attend Esbats and

21 Sabbats from April 2000 to April 2001, the record indicates that plaintiff s ability to attend these

22 services since that time has been consistent. While plaintiff was not released to services in July

23 2001, this was because the Muslim chaplain was unavailable to supervise the Wiccans due to

24 illness. According to the record, plaintiffs only complaint since April 2001 regarding access

25 to Sabbats concerned the December 23, 2002, Yule Sabbat. The reason for why this Sabbat was

26 not held is not entirely clear. However, prison officials responded to plaintiffs complaints

6

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 140 Filed 12/17/03 Page 7 of 15 Page ID #:40

1 regarding this matter.

2

The record does not indicate that prison officials have, at least in the past 2 Yz

3 years, routinely refused to permit plaintiff to conduct Sabbat and Esbat services in accordance

4 with the settlement agreement. The record reflects that prison officials have permitted

5 plaintiff to have these services. Accordingly, the court finds no need for an evidentiary hearing

6 regarding this matter.

7

In the amended complaint, plaintiff also alleges that he asked defendant Jackson if

8 the Wiccans could have their own area to worship, as they outnumbered the Native Americans

9 and most other groups. Amended Complaint, p. 6. The settlement agreement states that Wiccans

10 are to be given access to a room for their services. Plaintiffs request that Wiccans have their

11 own area to worship is outside the scope of the terms of the settlement agreement.

12

Religious Artifacts

13

The settlement agreement provides that plaintiff shall be permitted access to small

14 candles, incense, oil, small wands, ritual cups, small bells, cords, water, and salt for use at the

15 Esbats and the Sabbats subject to the policies and procedures consistent with inmate access to

16 religious artifacts. Settlement Agreement, ~ 10. The religious artifacts are subject to approval by

17 prison officials and search to ensure safety and security. Id. When these items are not in use,

18 prison officials shall have custody of them. Id. at § 11. By agreeing to permit plaintiff access to

19 these religious artifacts, defendants agree that they are obligated to assist plaintiff in obtaining

20 these items via institutional mail in a manner that is consistent with policies and procedures

21 applicable to a general population inmate's receipt of religious artifacts from approved religious

22 vendors. Id. at ~ 13.

23

In the amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that he ordered chalices, an altar bell,

24 tarots cards and other items from Azure Green, but was denied access to them for months.

25 Amended Complaint, p. 5. Plaintiff also alleges that his orders from Azure Green were often

26 sent back for no good reason or sat on prison shelves for months prior to being inspected and

7

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 140 Filed 12/17/03 Page 8 of 15 Page ID #:41

1 issued. Id., p. 9. Plaintiff alleges that he is being denied access to the items required to cast his

2 circle at both the Sabbats and Esbats. Id., p. 10.

3

In their response, defendants state that on January 17, 2002, in response to

4 plaintiffs complaint that he had not received items ordered from a vendor or religious items,

5 Warden Pliler sent him a memo explaining the procedures for ordering such items and the

6 reasons he had difficulty in receiving his order. Defendants' Response, attachment 1, p. 88. This

7 memo states:

8

Most of the difficulty encountered in receiving packages is

centered on the improper shipment of the package. That is:

9

*Vendor stamp not being placed on the shipping label

*Shipping label not affixed to the exterior or the shipping

10

container.

11

Other difficulties causing package rejection or delays in

distribution include:

12

*Unauthorized (contraband) items received in the packages.

*Excessive amounts of authorized items being received (this

13

constitutes contraband)

*Packages being mailed into the institution from the home of

14

friends or relatives.

*Questionable materials, i.e., literature (content), artifacts, etc., that

15

raise security questions.

16 Id.

17

The memo also stated that a review of the activity on plaintiffs trust account

18 statement for the period of June 1, 2001, through January 4, 2002, did not indicate that any

19 checks were drafted to vendors of religious items. Id. In addition, there was no documentation

20 from CSP-SAC Receiving and Release that indicated items were being returned to any vendors.

21 Id.

22

On January 28, 2002, plaintiff filed an administrative appeal stating that he had

23 documentation indicating that he had ordered religious items from a vendor which were sent

24 back. Id., p. 85. Plaintiff referred to order #1171162B. Id. On February 6,2002, prison

25 officials responded that the mail/package receipt issue was discussed with Sergeant Saunders and

26 L.L. Jackson. Id. It was agreed that packages would be allowed provided the contents met the

8

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 140 Filed 12/17/03 Page 9 of 15 Page ID #:42

1 institutional parameters for safety and security. Id. A list of permitted items was placed in

2 receiving and release in order to prevent their improper rejection. Id. A copy of this list is

3 attached to defendants' response, attachment 2, pp. 29-30. On May 3,2002, Acting 'Warden

4 Rosario issued an addendum to eSP-Sacramento's supplemental Departmental Operations

5 Manual (DaM) § 53050 regarding inmate spiritual packages which further clarified the

6 procedures and items for religions, including Wicca. Defendants' Response, attachment 1, pp.

7 34-63.

8

On January 14, 2003, plaintiff filed another administrative appeal complaining

9 that religious items ordered from an approved vendor had been returned. Id., attachment 1, pp.

10 122-l36. On May 19, 2003, L.L. Jackson responded that the items had been mistakenly returned

11 to the vendor as unauthorized property. Id., pp. l35-l36. L.L. Jackson told plaintiff that the

12 items could be ordered and that he was recommending reimbursement for the $7.00 in shipment

13 fees for the returned items be made to plaintiffs wife who had paid for the shipment. Id.

14

Based on the record, the court finds that prison officials have encountered

15 difficulties in enforcing the portion of the settlement agreement authorizing plaintiff to possess

16 certain religious artifacts. This difficulty appears to stem from confusion by staff regarding what

17 artifacts are and are not permitted. However, prison staff have responded to plaintiff's

18 grievances regarding this matter. Acting Warden Rosario issued an addendum to esp-

19 Sacramento's supplemental Departmental Operations Manual (DaM) § 53050 regarding inmate

20 spiritual packages and a memorandum was placed in receiving and release identifying the

21 authorized religious property.

22

Despite plaintiffs inability to receive some of his Azure Green orders, the record

23 does not suggest that prison officials have a policy of refusing to enforce this portion of the

24 settlement agreement. Rather, they have responded to plaintiffs grievances and are making a

25 good faith attempt to enforce this portion of the settlement agreement. Accordingly, the court

26 finds that no evidentiary hearing is warranted regarding this matter.

9

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 140 Filed 12/17/03 Page 10 of 15 Page ID #:43

1

Plaintiff alleges that someone wrote "devil worshiper" and other things on the box

2 that he was given to store his religious artifacts. Id., p. 6. This box was stored in the chapel area.

3 Id. In his declaration attached to the amended complaint as Exhibit G, plaintiff states that he told

4 Lonnie Jackson what had happened, and the box was moved to the storage room of the chapel.

5 Plaintiff s concerns regarding the vandalism of this box are not covered by the settlement

6 agreement.

7

Plaintiff also requested permission to grow his own herbs. Id., p. 7. These

8 requests were denied, and plaintiff was advised to order herbs from Azure Green, an approved
9 vendor. Id. Plaintiff alleges that another inmate ordered herbs from Azure Green. Mh Prison

10 officials refused to permit the inmate to possess these herbs. Id. The settlement agreement does

11 not provide that plaintiff is permitted to possess herbs.

12

In his August 29,2003, plaintiff also alleges that prison officials gave him

13 permission to possess an altar, but then cut it open. The settlement agreement does not provide

14 that plaintiff is permitted to possess an altar.

15

Books and Tarot Cards

16

The settlement agreement provides that plaintiff shall be permitted access to A

17 Witches Bible Compleat, subject to policies and procedures applicable to inmate access to

18 religious literature. Settlement Agreement, ~ 6. Plaintiff is also permitted to have the Thoth

19 edition of Tarot cards in his personal property and available for use in his cell or at the Esbats or

20 eight Sabbats subject to the policies and procedures applicable to other religious artifacts. Id. at ~

21 12.

22

In the amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that he was not allowed to possess a

23 book called The Tree because of recipes it contained. Amended Complaint, p. 5. Plaintiff also
24 alleges that he was not allowed to possess a book called Santeria: African Magick. Mt

25 \\\\\

26 \\\\\

10

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 140 Filed 12/17/03 Page 11 of 15 Page ID #:44

1

The settlement agreement does not cover either of the books plaintiff claims he

2 was not permitted to possess. Accordingly, the court does not find that defendants breached the

3 plea agreement by the alleged refusal to permit plaintiff to possess these books.

4

Chaplain

5

The settlement agreement provides that a volunteer Wiccan spiritual adviser may

6 attend Esbat or Sabbat services provided that the person has complied with the policies and

7 procedures for access by volunteer spiritual advisers. Settlement Agreement, ~ 14. The amended

8 complaint alleges that while Facility A was on lockdown, Wiccan Chaplain McCollum and a

9 guest who was a high priestess, were denied access to plaintiff, while other chaplains were

10 allowed to walk the tiers and have direct access to inmates of their faiths. Amended Complaint,

11 p. 7. Plaintiff also alleges that his attempts to get a paid chaplain were denied. Id., p. 11.

12

In their response, defendants state that on July 17, 2002, plaintiff filed an

13 administrative appeal requesting appointment of a paid chaplain and that the Wiccans be

14 appointed their own inmate clerk. Defendants' Response, attachment 1, p. 93. In the appeal

15 response, L.L. Jackson stated, in relevant part:

16

As you are aware, a Wiccan volunteer is assigned to assist with

administering the Wiccan faith at SAC, and throughout the

17

department. As for the Wiccan clerk, each facility has a staff of

inmate clerks assigned to assist chaplains with various

18

administrative duties. A-Facility chapel currently has a filled

position for inmate clerk. That individual is well qualified and

19

capable of handling all assigned administrative duties for the

various faith groups in that facility. Your request to hire a Wiccan

20

chaplain and a Wiccan clerk are denied.

21 Id., p. 100.

22

The settlement agreement does not provide that prison officials must provide

23 Wiccans with a paid chaplain. Therefore, plaintiffs claim that his attempts to obtain a paid

24 chaplain, apparently in reference to the administrative appeal discussed above, is not covered by

25 the settlement agreement.

26 \\\\\

11

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 140 Filed 12/17/03 Page 12 of 15 Page ID #:45

1

Plaintiff also claims that volunteer Chaplain McCollum was denied access to

2 plaintiff while Facility A was on lockdown, while other chaplains were allowed to walk the tiers

3 and have direct access to inmates oftheir faiths. The settlement agreement provides that the

4 volunteer Wiccan spiritual advisor may attend Esbat or Sabbat services. The settlement

5 agreement does not provide that the volunteer Wiccan spiritual advisor may visit plaintiff in his

6 cell. Therefore, plaintiffs claim that Chaplain McCollum could not visit him while Facility A

7 was on lockdown is not covered by the settlement agreement.

S

Conclusion

9

The court certainly recognizes the possibility that a series of seemingly isolated

10 acts in violation of the settlement agreement can represent, when viewed collectively, a passive-

11 aggressive approach towards compliance with the agreement in this case. It is possible that

12 prison officials desire this agreement to suffer the death of a thousand cuts. However, at this

13 time, after carefully considering the record, the court finds that defendants have not willfully

14 failed to enforce the settlement agreement. While on some occasions portions of it have not been

15 complied with, defendants have generally responded to plaintiffs grievances regarding these

16 matters in a constructive way. Nor does plaintiffs violation of prison rules assist his case. For

17 these reasons, the court finds that no evidentiary hearing is required. However, should the

18 settlement agreement be violated in the future in a manner suggesting that defendants are

19 willfully and consistently violating it, plaintiff may re-file his request for an evidentiary hearing.

20

Finally, following the conclusion of briefing, plaintiff filed several motions for

21 judicial notice. In large part, these motions allege difficulties by other inmate Wiccans in

22 practicing their religion. Only plaintiff is covered by the settlement agreement. Therefore, to the

23 extent these motions allege problems particular to these inmates, they are not relevant to the

24 instant matter. Also, on September 2, 2003, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. This amended

25 complaint is not authorized. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15.

26 IIIII

12

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 140 Filed 12/17/03 Page 13 of 15 Page ID #:46

1

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

2

1. The motions for judicial notice filed by plaintiff on August 27, 2003,

3 September 8, 2003, and September 25,2003, are disregarded;

4

2. Plaintiffs amended complaint filed September 2,2003, is stricken; and

5

3. No evidentiary hearing is required because defendants are in complliance with

6 the September 5, 1997, settlement agreement.

7

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that to the extent plaintiff has sought an

8 enforcement of the settlement agreement, that request be denied without prejudice to its renewal.

1(- 9 DATED: December

,2003.

10

11

12

13 GGH:kj/lrr
rous0767.ord2
14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

13

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 140 Filed 12/17/03 Page 14 of 15 Page ID #:47 ndd
United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California December 17, 2003
* * CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE * *
2:93-cv-00767
Rouser v.
White

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California.
That on December 17, 2003, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office, or, pursuant to prior authorization by counsel, via facsimile.

William Rouser

VC/GGH

C-10659

FSP-1

AR/LKK

California State Prison Sacramento

PO Box 290066

Represa, CA 95671-0066

Constance L Picciano Attorney General's Office for the State of California PO Box 944255 1300 I Street Suite 125 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550

James Edmund Flynn Attorney General's Office for the State of California
PO Box 944255 1300 I Street Suite 125 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550

Carlotta Wells United States Department of Justice civil Division PO Box 883 Washington, DC 20044

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 140 Filed 12/17/03 Page 15 of 15 Page ID #:48 Jonathan T Foot Federal Programs Branch Civil Division POBox 883 Washington, DC 20044
Jack L. Wagner, Clerk
BY: ~ /~'~_/ Deputy Clerk ,

 
 Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 149 Filed 03/23/04 Page 1 of 15 Page ID #:49

FILED

1 2

r-; 2~200:

3

L-,-~---.J CLERK, U,S, OI:i1kICi COURT

l~:;1 ERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4

BY DEf JTY CLERK -

.,,; ','

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 WILLIAM ROUSER,
12 Plaintiff,
13 v.
14 THEO WHITE, et al.,
15 Defendants.
16

NO. CIV. S~93-767 LKK/GGH P
oRD E R
/

17

Plaintiff, William Rouser, a state prisoner proceeding pro se,

18 has moved to enforce a settlement agreement by reinstating a civil

19 rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was 20 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

21 § 636(b) (1) (B) and Local General Order No. 262.

22

On December 17, 2003, the magistrate judge filed findings

23 which were served on all parties. The district court reviews de

24 novo the magistrate judge's conclusions of law and those portions

25 of the proposed findings of fact to which objection has been made.

q 26 See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1) (c). The court may, however, assume the fl(

1

.

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 149 Filed 03/23/04 Page 2 of 15 Page ID #:50

1 correctness of that portion of the proposed findings of fact to

2 which no objection has been made. See United States v. Remsing,

3 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989) The court is not bound to adopt

4 the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations, but should

5 exercise "sound judicial discretion" in making its own

6 determination on the record. United States v. Raddat~, 447 U.S.

7 667, 675-76 (1980).

8

Here, plaintiff has objected to the magistrate judge's

9 findings and recommendations as to each of his claims, and has also

10 objected to the magistrate judge's characterization of the record.

11 Accordingly, this court has undertaken an independent examination

12 of the record, and reviews the magistrate judge's findings of fact

13 and conclusions of law de novo. Having done so, I adopt in part

14 and reject in part the magistrate judge's findings and

15 recommendations.

16

I.

17

BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

18

Plaintiff, Rouser, is incarcerated within the California

19 Department of Corrections ("CDC") prison system. He originally

20 filed suit on May 6, 1993, alleging that defendant prison officials

21 violated his right to practice the Wicca religion as protected by

22 the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. See

23 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 1 After extensive motion practice and before

24
1 Plaintiff alleged claims under the Religious Freedom 25 Restoration Act ("RFRA") of 1993, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb. The RFRA was
subsequently declared unconstitutional as applied to the states. 26 City of Flores v. Boerne, 521 U.S. 507 (1997).

2

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 149 Filed 03/23/04 Page 3 of 15 Page ID #:51

1 trial, the parties entered into a settlement agreement and

2 stipulation for dismissal without prejudice on December 5, 1997.

3 The settlement agreement provides plaintiff with rights of access

4 to Wiccan religious services and artifacts. This court retained

5 jurisdiction to enforce the agreement only through reinstatement

6 of the original action.

7

On February 24, 2003, plaintiff filed letters with the court

8 stating that the defendants breached the settlement agreement.

9 On June 19, 2003, the court allowed plaintiff's attorney who

10 negotiated the agreement on his behalf to withdraw, and he is now

11 proceeding pro se. On September 2, 2003, the plaintiff filed a

12 motion to enforce the settlement agreement by reinstating the

13 original action. See Amended Complaint.

14

Plaintiff's amended complaint identifies five additional

15 plaintiffs and includes allegations which were not included in his

16 original action. The magistrate judge found that because the only

17 matter at issue is whether the defendants have violated the

18 settlement agreement, and the settlement agreement applies to

19 plaintiff only, those additional plaintiffs and claims are not

20 cognizable. I concur.2 The amended complaint is thus construed

21 as plaintiff's allegations in support of his motion to enforce the

22 agreement. Moreover, I adopt the magistrate judge's findings

23 rej ecting plaintiff's allegations regarding rights not provided for

24
2 Those putative parties are, of course, free to file their 25 own separate suit. Moreover, once plaintiff's suit is reinstated,
he will be free to amend to include whatever wrongs he may allege 26 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15.

3

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 149 Filed 03/23/04 Page 4 of 15 Page ID #:52

1 in the settlement agreement. See Findings and Recommendations at

2 10:1 to 12:7. But see n.2 infra.

3

Plaintiff's complaint contains mul tiple allegations concerning

4 the defendants' failure to provide him access to religious services

5 and artifacts. The magistrate judge found that his allegations and

6 accompanying arguments were not sufficient to show that defendants

7 violated the agreement. I cannot agree.

8

II.

9

RIGHT OF ACCESS TO RELIGIOUS SERVICES

10 A. PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS

11

Plaintiff avers that defendants violated the settlement

12 agreement by failing to allow him to attend religious services

13 called Esbats and Sabbats. The agreement provides that plaintiff

14 is to be permitted access to a room for bi-weekly Esbats and for

15 the eight annual Sabbats for Wiccan services, subject to the same

16 policies and procedures regulating other inmate individual or group

17 religious worship. Settlement Agreement, § 7.

18

In his amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that he was

19 allowed only one Sabbat and no Esbats in a one year period.

20 Amended Complaint at 5. On April 22, 2001, plaintiff filed a

21 grievance alleging that he had been unable to attend these services

22 since his transfer on May 30, 2000 from an administrative

23 segregation facility to a general population facility. 3 Defs'
24 Under ~ 15 of the settlement agreement, prison officials
25 have discretion to suspend the terms of the agreement for attendance while plaintiff is in segregated housing. Plaintiff was
26 housed in administrative segregation during June 28, 1998 to April,

4

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 149 Filed 03/23/04 Page 5 of 15 Page ID #:53

1 Reply, Attachment 1, at 59-61.

2

Plaintiff also avers that the defendants breached the

3 settlement agreement when they allegedly failed to process a

4 request to conduct a Yule Sabbat on December 23, 2002. Plaintiff

5 filed a grievance on December 30, 2002 concerning this complaint.

6 Defs' Response, Exh. A, Attachment 1 at 100-101. The parties

7 present conflicting versions of the factual circumstances

8 surrounding this request. See Defs' Response, Attachment 1 at 119;

9 Pl's Response to Deft's Reply at 7-8.

10 B. THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

11

The magistrate judge found that the plaintiff had not

12 sufficiently demonstrated a violation of his constitutional

13 rights. 4 As I now explain, the grounds upon which he rejected

14 plaintiff's claims are inconsistent with the settlement, which this

15 court is duty bound to enforce.

16

The magistrate judge partially based his findings on

17 plaintiff's failure to seek administrative remedies, but did not

18 explain why plaintiff was required to do so. The settlement

19 agreement has no provision requiring exhaustion of grievance

20 procedures, and thus there is no apparent reason why the failure

21 to exhaust administrative remedies bars his claims, and more

22 narrowly, his right to reinstatement of his suit.

23 1999 and from Feb. 26, 2000 to May 30, 2000. Defs' Reply, Exh. A
24 at 2.

25

4 As I point out, infra, the correct inquiry at this stage

is whether plaintiff has made a showing of a violation of the

26 settlement agreement.

5

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 149 Filed 03/23/04 Page 6 of 15 Page ID #:54

1

It may be that the magistrate judge was applying the

2 provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") I requiring

3 prisoners complaining of prison conditions to exhaust

4 administrative remedies before suing under § 1983. SeE~ 42 U.S.C.

5 § 1997e (a) . Those provisions are inapplicable to the instant

6 matter, the case having been filed in 1993, nearly three years

7 before the PLRA was enacted. More to the point, what is at stake

8 is the enforcement of a settlement agreement arising out of a claim

9 of violation of the federal constitution. The state officials,

10 having entered into the agreement, were duty bound to live up to

11 their agreement, and the court retained jurisdiction to reinstate

12 the lawsuit if they failed to do so. As the Supreme Court recently

13 explained, even the Eleventh Amendment does not operate to bar

14 enforcement of such agreements. See Frew v. Hawkins, 124 S. Ct. 899,

15 903-905 (2004) (where settlement involves a federal decree entered

16 to implement a federal statute, enforcing "the decree vindicates

17 an agreement that the state officials reached to comply with

18 federal law." "Federal courts are not reduced to approving consent

19 decrees and hoping for compliance. Once issued, the decree may be

20 enforced"). While, of course, the instant matter does not involve

21 a consent decree, the court retained jurisdiction to reinstate the

22 suit if the defendants failed to keep their end of the bargain.

23 There is no principled way of distinguishing the matter-at-bar from

24 the High Court's decision in Frew.

25

Even if the obligation of this court to enforce the parties'

26 agreement were not dispositive, I cannot agree with the magistrate

6

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 149 Filed 03/23/04 Page 7 of 15 Page ID #:55

1 judge's implied conclusion that, although the original action was

2 filed in 1993, plaintiff's present filing triggers the PLRA

3 exhaustion requirement.

4

The Ninth Circuit has not addressed whether the reinstatement

5 of an action after breach of a settlement agreement, pursuant to

6 18 U.S.C. § 3626(c), is subject to the exhaustion requirements of

7 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). However, the plain language of the statutes

8 indicates that the reinstatement of an action such as this one does

9 not require exhaustion of administrative remedies.

10

I first examine the language of § 1997e(a) to determine when

11 a prisoner must exhaust administrative remedies. See In re

12 Transcon Lines, 58 F.3d 1432, 1437 (9th Cir. 1995) (II [I]n

13 interpreting a statute a court should always turn to one cardinal

14 canon before all others

[C] ourts must presume that a

15 legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute

16 what it says there") (quoting Connecticut Nat'l Bank v. Germain,

17 503 U.S. 249, 253 (1992)). Section 1997e(a) provides that "[n]o

18 action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions

. by

19 a prisoner

until such administrative remedies as are

20 available are exhausted. u The question then turns on what Congress

21 meant by the word 'brought.'

22

In Harris v. Garner, 216 F.3d 970 (2000), the Tenth Circuit

23 engaged in a thorough analysis of the meaning of "brought U in

24 section 1997e (a). Specifically, the question addressed by that

25 court was whether "bring,U the present form of "brought,U "means

26 to commence or start a lawsuit, or instead means to maintain or

7

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 149 Filed 03/23/04 Page 8 of 15 Page ID #:56

1 continue it to conclusion." Id. at 973. The court concluded that

2 it is well established that "brought" refers to the initiation, or

3 commencement, of legal proceedings, and not to the continuation of

4 an action. rd. at 973-974.

Plain meaning and commonsense

5 suggest that the court's conclusion is correct.

6

Given its established meaning, I must presume that Congress

7 used the settled legal definition of "brought" in

8 § 1997e (a). Harris at 974 (citing Commissioner v. Keystone Consolo

9 Industries, Inc., 508 U.S. 152, 159 (1993)) (Congress presumed to

10 be aware of settled interpretations of words) Given all the above

11 and given the structure of the PLRA, which I now address, it seems

12 clear that plaintiff's claim here falls outside § 1997e(a).

13

Plaintiff complains that the settlement agreement reached was

14 breached by the defendants, and now asks this court to reinstate

15 his action. The PLRA provides that prisoners complaining about

16 prison conditions may enter into private settlement agreements,

17 without regard to certain limitations on relief, if the "agreement

18 [is] not subject to court enforcement other than the reinstatement

19 of the civil proceeding that the agreement settled." 18 U.S.C.

20 § 3626(c) (2). That was precisely the deal struck by the parties.

21

The statute does not provide that the prisoner may bring a new

22 action, but that the court may reinstate the original action. In

23 United States V. Green, the Ninth Circuit examined a Eltatute that 24

25

5The Ninth Circuit, in a different context, has also noted

that bringing an action means commencing it. See McKinney V. Carey 26 3 11 F. 3d . 11 9 8 , 11 9 8 ( 9th Ci r . 2 0 02 )

8

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 149 Filed 03/23/04 Page 9 of 15 Page ID #:57

1 allowed an action to be reinstated. 107 F.2d 19, 22 (9th Cir.

2 1939). As in 18 U.S.C. § 3626 (c) (2), the statute did not

3 contemplate plaintiffs filing a new complaint, but that plaintiffs

4 could reinstate their complaint. The court held that "[t] 0

5 reinstate a case means simply to place again in the position

6 enj oyed prior to dismissal. u Id. at 22; see also In re Robert, 171

7 B.R. 881, 883 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 1994) (finding that a "new"

8 bankruptcy case was not commenced when the court vacated dismissal

9 of the case because the order stated that the case was

10 "reinstated"). Clearly, bringing an action and reinstating an

11 action are different acts, and statutes using one or the other term

12 refer to those distinctive meanings. Congress chose the word

13 reinstatement in 18 U.S.C. § 3626 (c) (2)), thus manifesting its

14 intent that prisoners who suffer breach of a settlement agreement

15 could have the suit reinstated, and were not required to commence

16 a new suit. It follows that, by seeking to reinstate his original

17 action, plaintiff need not meet the requirements set out in 42

18 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).

19

The magistrate judge also found that "[t]he record does not

20 indicate that prison officials have, at least in the past 2~

21 years, routinely refused to permit plaintiff to conduct Sabbat and

22 Esbat services in accordance with the settlement agreement. u

23 Findings and Recommendations at 7. I must respectfully suggest

24 that whether there are routine violations is not the proper

25 inquiry. The settlement agreement did not contemplate that a

26 breach would only occur after "routineu violations, nor does the

9

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 149 Filed 03/23/04 Page 10 of 15 Page ID #:58

1 law governing the settlement agreement support such a rule.

2

The settlement agreement is a private contract binding both

3 parties to its terms. Arnold v. United States, 816 F.2d 1306, 1309

4 (9th Cir. 1987). The rights of parties pursuant to settlement

5 agreements are determined using state law principles of contract

6 interpretation, and a failure to perform an express term of the

7 settlement agreement is a breach. Sharpe v. F.D.I.C._, 126 F.3d

8 1147, 1153 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing Witkin, Summary of California

9 Law, Contracts § 791 (9th ed. 1987) (liThe wrongful, i.e., the

10 unjustified or unexcused, failure to perform a contract is a

11 breach. ") ; Nicholson v. Barab, 233 Cal.App.3d 1671, 1681, 285

12 Cal.Rptr. 441 (1991) (settlement agreements interpreted according

13 to contract principles under California law)). A violation,

14 therefore, even if only a single is a breach which dissolves the

15 agreement. Accordingly, whether the defendants violated the

16 settlement agreement by failing to allow plaintiff to attend

17 religious services should be determined, not by whether defendants 18 "routinelyU refused him access, but by the appropriate standards

19 of contract law.

20

The magistrate judge noted that the record contained

21 conflicting accounts regarding plaintiff's ability to attend Esbats

22 and Sabbats for an entire year and that the reason for plaintiff's

23 inability to attend the Yule Sabbat "is not entirely clear. U 24 Despite these findings, however, he concluded that, because the

25 record also indicates that plaintiff's ability to attend these

26 services since the year complained of has been consistent, and

10

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 149 Filed 03/23/04 Page 11 of 15 Page ID #:59

1 prison officials responded to plaintiff's complaints, there was no

2 breach of contract. Findings and recommendations at 7. Because

3 the record shows that there is a genuine question concerning

4 whether the defendants breached the terms of the settlement

5 agreement, a hearing is warranted to determine whether there in

6 fact was a breach.

7

III.

8

RIGHT OF ACCESS TO RELIGIOUS ARTIFACTS

9 A. PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS

10

The settlement agreement also obligates the defendants to

11 assist plaintiff in obtaining the religious artifacts listed in the

12 agreement via institutional mail. Settlement Agreement at , 13.

13 Plaintiff claims that since the settlement agreement was executed,

14 he and other Wiccans have continuously encountered obstacles to

15 obtaining the religious artifacts, mostly due to orders being

16 rejected and sent back to the vendor by the prison mail service.

17 See Amended Complaint at 5 -10. The magistrate judge's findings

18 and recommendations describe the allegations, appeals" and

19 responses from the defendants in detail, and therefore do not need

20 to be restated here. See Findings and recommendation:; at 7 - 9.

21

Plaintiff further claims that his right to access artifacts

22 already ordered and obtained was also violated. The settlement

23 agreement states that plaintiff shall have access to them "for use

24 in the Esbats and the Sabbats." Settlement Agreement at , 10. On

25 July 17, 2002, plaintiff filed a group grievance alleging that the

26 Wiccan community had been denied access to the Chapel, which had

11

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 149 Filed 03/23/04 Page 12 of 15 Page ID #:60

1 been allocated for their use. PI's Response to Defs' Reply at 6. 2 According to plaintiff, upon notifying Sgt. J. Garcia, plaintiff 3 and other Wiccans were escorted and given access to the Chapel. 4 Id. Al though they were allowed access, however, Correctional

5 Officer Hannigan refused to allow plaintiff access to artifacts 6 necessary to conduct the Esbat Service. Id.

7 B.
8

THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The magistrate judge found that plaintiff did not show that

9 the defendants violated the agreement's provisions relating to

10 access to religious artifacts. He found that defendants adequately

11 responded to plaintiff's grievance of July 17,2002 regarding this

12 matter.

13

On September 16, 2002, the grievance was answered by way of

14 a memorandum issued by Community Resources Manager Lonnie Jackson.

15 Defs' Response, Exh. A, Attachment 1 at 100-101. The memorandum

16 partially granted plaintiff's appeal, stating that "Operational

17 Exigencies, Institutional Emergencies or Security needs, may be 18 reason to cancel, delay, or postpone scheduled Religious services. /I 19 Id.; see Settlement Agreement at ~ 15. While the memo explains why 20 plaintiff's access to the chapel was delayed, it does not explain

21 why he was not allowed use of the artifacts once he was in the 22 chapel. The magistrate judge did not address this aspect of 23 plaintiff's complaint.

24

25

As noted, the settlement agreement provides plaintiff with

26 the right to use the religious artifacts during services. It seems

12

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 149 Filed 03/23/04 Page 13 of 15 Page ID #:61

1 apparent that, if plaintiff was denied use of the artifacts in the

2 chapel, the defendants violated the agreement.

3

In addressing plaintiff's complaints regarding his

4 frustrations in ordering religious artifacts, the magistrate judge

5 found it enough that defendants responded to plaintiff's grievances

6 by issuing memorandums. Specifically, he found that

7

"prison officials have encountered difficulties in

enforcing the portion of the settlement agreement

8

authorizing plaintiff to possess certain religious

artifacts. This difficulty appears to stem from

9

confusion by staff regarding what artifacts are

and are not permitted. However, prison staff have

10

responded to plaintiff's grievances regarding this

matter. "

11

12 Findings and Recommendations at 9. He concluded that the "record

13 does not suggest that prison officials have a policy of refusing

14 to enforce this portion of the settlement agreement."

Of

15 course, the issuing of memos in response to plaintiff's grievances

16 is not compliance with the settlement agreement. Again, as

17 explained above, a single wrongful violation of plaintiff's right

18 to order and obtain religious artifacts may suffice to find a

19 breach, and a finding that defendants have a policy of refusing to

20 implement the agreement is not required to support such a breach. 6

21
6 Surely, it is significant that plaintiff has continuously 22 had problems with ordering items since the agreement was executed
in 1997. While it may be predictable that, without adequate 23 oversight, defendants would experience administrative difficulty
with the initial implementation of the portion of agreement 24 concerning the ordering of religious artifacts, that these
difficulties have not been remedied in over five years suggests 25 that the defendants have not made a good faith effort to live up
to their agreement. Again I note good or bad faith is not the 26 issue.

13

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 149 Filed 03/23/04 Page 14 of 15 Page ID #:62

1 IIII

2

3

In conclusion, the record warrants an evidentiary hearing,

4 using applicable standards of contract law, to determine whether

5 the settlement agreement was in fact violated.

6

Accordingly, the court hereby ORDERS that:

7

1. The December 17, 2003 Findings and Recommendations are

8 ADOPTED in part and REJECTED in part as specified abovei and

9

2. This case is REMANDED to the magistrate judge for further

10 proceedings consistent with this opinion.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

DATED: March 22, 2004.

13

14

15

S DISTRICT COURT

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

14

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 149 Filed 03/23/04 Page 15 of 15 Page ID #:63 ndd
United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California March 23, 2004
* * CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE * *
2:93-cv-00767
Rouser v.
White

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California.
That on March 23, 2004, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office, or, pursuant to prior authorization by counsel, via facsimile.

William Rouser

AR/LKK

C-10659

FSP-1

VC/GGH

California State Prison Sacramento

PO Box 290066

Represa, CA 95671-0066

James Edmund Flynn Attorney General's Office for the State of California PO Box 944255
1300 I Street Suite 125
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550

Carlotta Wells United States Department of Justice Civil Division PO Box 883 Washington, DC 20044

Jonathan T Foot
Federal Programs Branch Civil Division POBox 883
Washington, DC 20044

Jack L. WagneJ:~ Clerk
/~i-
by: n;{puty C!erl{

 
 Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 48 Filed 03/31/95 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:8451

FILED

MAR 3 1 1995

2

EASCTLEERRNK'D~S~R'DIS1'RlCl COUR

JY

ICTOF

R IA

3

4

5

6

7

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11

12 WILLIAM ROUSER,

13

Plaintiff,

No. CIV S-93-0767-LKK GGH P

14

vs.

15 THEO WHITE, et al.,

16

Defendants.

_________________________1
17

ORDER

18

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed

19 this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

20 The matter was referred to a united states Magistrate Judge

21 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1) (B) and Local General Order No.

22 262.

23

On March 16, 1995, the magistrate judge filed findings

24 and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and

25 which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the

26 findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty (20)

1
AO 72 (Rev 8/82)

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 48 Filed 03/31/95 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:8452

days. On March 23, 1995, plaintiff filed timely objections to the

2 findings and recommendations.

3

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

4 S 636(b) (1) (C) and Local Rule 305, this court has conducted a de

5 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

6 file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be

7 supported by the record and by proper analysis.

8

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

9

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed March 23,

10 1995, are adopted in full;

11

2. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is granted as

12 to his free exercise claim concerning tarot cards and denied in all

13 other respects;

14

3. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied as

15 to plaintiff's claim regarding tarot cards and denial of the

16 witches Bible while in administrative segregation, but granted in

17 all other respects;

18

4. Plaintiff's October 21, 1994, motion for a

19 preliminary injunction is granted with respect to his request for

20 tarot cards; within thirty days from the date of this order,

21 defendants shall implement a procedure by which plaintiff may

22 possess tarot cards when he intends to perform Wiccan rituals;

23 plaintiff and defendants shall provide further briefing regarding

24 the request for the Wiccan Bible as discussed above within thirty

25 days from the date of this order; and

26 / / / /

2
AO 72 (Rev 8/82)

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 48 Filed 03/31/95 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:8453

5. Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief is denied

2 in all other respects.

")/3(} 3 DATED:
4

Jcu - -

5

6 /rb rouser. 80S
7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21
22 23 24

25

26

3
AO 72 (Rev8/82)

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 48 Filed 03/31/95 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #:8454
bw United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
March 31, 1995

Rouser v.
White

* * CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE * *
2:93-cv-00767

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California.
That on March 31, 1995, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

William Rouser C-10659
Folsom State Prison PO Box 29 Represa, CA 95671

SJ/LKK VC/GGH

Constance L Picciano Attorney General's Office of the State of California
POBox 944255
1515 K Street
Suite 453 Sacramento, CA 95831-2550

 
 Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 95 Filed 05/06/97 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:9005

1 2

FILED

3

MAY 6 1997

4

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

AY____-D=EP=UT=Y ~CL~ER-K -----

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 WILLIAM ROUSER,

12

Plaintiff,

NO. CIV. S-93-767 LKK/GGH P

13

v.

ORDER AFTER HEARING

14 THEO WHITE, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16 ----------------------------_/

17

Defendants' motion to dismiss came on regularly for hearing

18 on May 5, 1997, before the Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton, Chief

19 Judge Emeritus. JOHN MAIER, REED PRUYN and JAMES ZAHRADKA

20 Certified Student Attorneya, appeared for plaintiff; JAMES FLYNN

21 appeared for defendants.

22

Upon consideration of the pleadings and papers on file herein,

23 and after hearing the argument of counsel, the court announced its

24 disposition of the motion and its reasons therefor into the record

25 as follows:

26 / / / /

95 1

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 95 Filed 05/06/97 Page 2 of 7 Page ID #:9006

1

This matter is before me on defendants' motion to dismiss

2 plaintiff's first amended complaint. The standards for such

3 motions are well-known and need not be repeated. ~ Clark v.

4 Kizer, 758 F. Supp. 572, 574 (E.D. Cal. 1990).

5

Plaintiff's original complaint was filed May 6, 1993, nearly

6 three years before the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") was

7 enacted. After denying defendants' motion for summary judgment,

8 ~ Order filed October 28, 1996, the court granted plaintiff leave

9 to file an amended complaint. ~ Order filed January 15, 1997

10 at 2.

11

Plaintiff's amended complaint filed February 12, 1997 relates

12 back to the original complaint because the claims arose out of the

13 same conduct plaintiff attempted to set forth in the original

14 pleading. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15{c) (2). Therefore, filing an

15 amended complaint after the PLRA was enacted on April 26, 1996 does

16 not trigger PLRA provisions unless those provisions apply to

17 actions that are already pending.

18

The PLRA imposes a filing fee requirement whenever a prisoner

19 "brings a civil action or files an appeal." 28 U.S.C. § 1915{b).

20 Congress has prescribed the reach of this provision by the plain

21 language indicating that it applies prospectively when a prisoner

22 "brings" an action. And where Congress has done so, this court

23 need not analyze whether the provision is merely a procedural rule

24 that may be applied retroactively. See Landgraf y. USI Film

25 Products, Inc., 511 U.S. 244, ,114 S. Ct . 1483, 1505 (1994).

26 Plaintiff's amended complaint therefore does not trigger this

2

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 95 Filed 05/06/97 Page 3 of 7 Page ID #:9007

1 provision.

2

The language of § 1915(b) distinguishes this case from Marks

3 y. Slocum, 98 F.3d 494 (9th Cir. 1996), since the Circuit held

4 there that Congress had not prescribed the reach of 28 U.S.C.

5 § 1915(e) (2), which provides that courts "shall dismiss the case

6 at any time" if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to

7 state a claim, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is

8 immune. Applying 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2) to plaintiff's amended

9 complaint, the court finds no basis for dismissing the complaint.

10

Exhaustion requirements relative to plaintiff's state claims

11 must be distinguished from exhaustion requirements applicable to

12 plaintiff's federal claims under § 1983. It is well established

13 under California law that claims against the state or its employees

14 founded on the California Constitution are subject to the claims

15 presentation requirements of the California Tort Claims Act, Cal .

16 Gov't Code § 945.5. See City of San Jose v. Superior Court,

17 12 Cal.3d 447, 454-55 (1974) i County of Contra Costa y. State of

18 California, 177 Cal.App.3d 62 (1986). Nevertheless, since

19 plaintiff's claims under the California Constitution only seek

20 injunctive relief, he is exempt from the claims presentation

21 requirement. 1 ~ M.G.M. Construction Co. y. Alameda County, 615

22 F. Supp. 149, 151 (N.D. Cal. 1985) (applying California law) i

23 Independent Housing Servs. v. Fillmore Center, 840 F. Supp. 1328,

24

25

lCounsel for plaintiff stipulated at oral argument that any

claims for damages that plaintiff sought under the California

26 Constitution are dismissed.

3

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 95 Filed 05/06/97 Page 4 of 7 Page ID #:9008

1 1358 (N.D. Cal. 1993). Accordingly, defendants' motion to dismiss

2 plaintiff's claims under the California Constitution will be

3 denied.

4

On the other hand, the requirements of the California Tort

5 Claims Act do not apply to actions under § 1983. ~ Toscano v.

6 Los Angeles County Sheriff's Depart., 92 Cal. App. 3d 775, 784

7 (1979). To the extent defendants contend that plaintiff's failure

8 to appeal his second grievance to the final level demonstrates that

9 he has not exhausted prison grievance procedures, the court first

10 concludes that the amended PLRA provision does not apply since, by

11 its terms, it applies to actions that "shall be brought." ~

12 42 U.S.C. § 1997e (a). Thus, the court applies the standards of

13 the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act ("CRIPA") in

14 concluding that it will not exercise its discretion to stay this

15 action and require plaintiff to exhaust any administrative remedies

16 that he has not already exhausted. ~ 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (1)

17 (1982).

18

Finally, in enacting 42 U. S. C. § 1997e (e), Congress has

19 prescribed that after April 26, 1996 "No Federal civil action may

20 be brought" by a prisoner seeking damages for emotional distress

21 absent physical injury. ~ 42 U.S.C. § 1997e{e). Since Congress

22 has prescribed that this provision will only apply to such actions

23 as "may be brought," and since the amended complaint relates back

24 to the original complaint, under these circumstances, the physical

25 injury requirement does not apply to plaintiff's claims for money

26 damages and therefore the court does not reach questions regarding

4

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 95 Filed 05/06/97 Page 5 of 7 Page ID #:9009

1 the constitutionality of this provision.

2

For all the foregoing reasons, the court makes the following

3 ORDERS:

4

1. Plaintiff's claims for money damages under the California

5 Constitution are DISMISSED;

6

2. Defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's fifth, sixth and

7 seventh causes of action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief

8 based on the California Constitution is DENIEDi

9

3. Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint for

10 failure to pay a filing fee is DENIEDi

11

4. Defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's § 1983 claims

12 for failure to exhaust is DENIED; and

13

5. Defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's surviving claims

14 for damages for emotional distress is DENIED.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16 17 18

~~!Jti/~~ DATED: May 5, 1997.

LCWHRIEEFNC~E~EM. EKRARIIlTOUNS

\

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

5

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 95 Filed 05/06/97 Page 6 of 7 Page ID #:9010 ch1
United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California May 6, 1997
* * CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE * *
2:93-cv-00767
Rouser v.
White

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California.
That on May 6, 1997, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Susan Dee Christian Room 090 University of California at Davis School of Law King Hall Civil Rights Clinic Davis, CA 95616-5201

SJ/LKK

Constance L Picciano Attorney General's Office of the State of California POBox 944255 1300 I Street Suite 125 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550

James Edmund Flynn Attorney General's Office of the State of California POBox 944255 1300 I Street Suite 125 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550

Carlotta Wells Room 1058 United States Department of Justice Civil Division PO Box 883 901 E Street NW
t..)CI:;,J.l/n~f(:>nl DC-. ~ooLflJ

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 95 Filed 05/06/97 Page 7 of 7 Page ID #:9011
Jonathan T Foot Federal Programs Branch Civil Division POBox 883 Washington, DC 20044

Jack L. Wagner, Clerk

BY:

Deputy Clerk

=

 
 Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 122 Filed 05/08/03 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:14

FILED

1

2

. MAY-8~=J

3

LClERK. US. DlS'''Cl COURl ';i ERN DISTRICT OF CALIfORNIA

4

DEhJTY CLERK

5

6

7

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 WILLIAM ROUSER,

12

Plaintiff,

No. CIV S-93-767 LKK/GGH P

13

vs.

14 THEO WHITE, et al.,

15

Defendants.

o R DE R

16 --------------------------_/

17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se.

He filed

18 suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that he is an adherent

19 of the religion of Wicca and that defendant prison officials

20 violated his rights protected by the First Amendment to the

21 Constitution of the United States.

22

On October 28, 1996, the court vacated the referral to the

23 assigned magistrate judge, retained this case for trial, and

24 appointed the Civil Rights Clinic at King Hall School of Law to

25 represent plaintiff. Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows

26 subsequently settled the case.

1

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 122 Filed 05/08/03 Page 2 of 6 Page ID #:15

1

Plaintiff has now filed numerous documents alleging that

2 defendants are violating the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

3 Accordingly, this court's October 28, 1996 withdrawal of the

4 referral is VACATED. This matter is REMANDED to the magistrate

5 judge for all proceedings consistent with Local Rule 72-302(c)

6 (17).

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

DATED: May 7, 2003

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 122 Filed 05/08/03 Page 3 of 6 Page ID #:16 ndd
United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California May 8, 2003
* * CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE * *
2:93-cv-00767
Rouser v.
White

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, u.S. District Court, Eastern District of California.
That on May 8, 2003, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the u.S. Mail, by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office, or, pursuant to prior authorization by counsel, via facsimile.

Susan Dee Christian Prison Law Office General Delivery San Quentin, CA 94964

AR/LKK VC/GGH

Constance L Picciano ~Attorney General's Office for the State of California PO Box 944255 1300 I Street Suite 125 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550

James Edmund Flynn Attorney General's Office for the State of California PO Box 944255 1300 I Street Suite 125 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550

Carlotta Wells
United States Department of Justice Civil Division PO Box 883 Washington, DC 20044

Jonathan T Foot

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 122 Federal Programs ~Lanch Civil Division POBox 883 Washington, DC 20044

Filed 05/08/03

Page 4 of 6

Page ID #:17

Jack L. Wagner, Clerk
/~¥- BY: =D-e-p' -u-,t-y-C=-:;-"l-e-r-=-k-.+-----

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 122 Filed 05/08/03 Page 5 of 6 Page ID #:18 pw
United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California May 9, 2003
* * CERTIFICATE OF RESERVICE * *
2:93-cv-00767
Rouser v.
White

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of
the Clerk, u.s. District Court, Eastern District of California.
That on May 9, 2003, I RESERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said
envelope in the u.s. Mail, by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office
delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office, or, pursuant to prior authorization by counsel, via facsimile.

Carter C White University of California at Davis King Hall civil Rights Clinic 400 Mrak Hall Drive Suite 90 Davis, CA 95616-5201
Constance L Picciano Attorney General's Office PO Box 944255 1300 I Street Suite 125 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
James Edmund Flynn Attorney General's Office PO Box 944255 1300 I Street Suite 125 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
Carlotta Wells united States Department of Justice Civil Division PO Box 883 Washington, DC 20044

AR/LKK VC/GGH

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 122 Filed 05/08/03 Page 6 of 6 Page ID #:19 Jonathan T Foot Federal Programs Branch Civil Division POBox 883 Washington, DC 20044
Jack L. Wagner, Clerk
BY'~~ Deuty Clerk

 
 Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 167 Filed 08/04/04 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:84

1

FILED

2

AUG" 4. 2004

3

4

CLERK. U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

DEPUTY CLERK

6

7

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 WILLIAM ROUSER,

11

Plaintiff,

No. CIV S-93-0767 LKK GGH P

12

vs.

13 THEO WHITE, et aI.,

14

Defendants.

15 __________________________~I

ORDER

16

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. On December 5, 1997, the parties

17 entered into a settlement agreement. On March 23,2004, the Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton

18 ordered an evidentiary hearing regarding whether the settlement agreement has been breached.

19 On April 7, 2004, this court set the evidentiary hearing for August 24, 2004. The court also

20 ordered that thirty days prior to the hearing the parties were to file briefing addressing the issue

21 of remedies.

22

In response to the April 7, 2004, order, on July 26, 2004, defendants filed a

23 motion to vacate the evidentiary hearing. Defendants argue that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 3626(c),

24 the court only has jurisdiction to reinstate the action if the settlement has been rescinded and is

25 IIIII

26 IIIII

1

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 167 Filed 08/04/04 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:85

1 no longer in effect. Defendants argue that the court does not have jurisdiction to enforce the

2 settlement's terms or to order any other traditional remedy for breach of contract. Because the

3 settlement has not been rescinded, and plaintiff has asked the court to enforce the terms of the

4 agreement, defendants argue the court lacks jurisdiction to conduct the evidentiary hearing.

5 Defendants' reasoning is circular and fallacious.

6

Title 28 U.S.C. § 3626(c)(2) provides,

7

(2) Private settlement agreements.

8

(A) Nothing in this section shall preclude parties from entering into a

private settlement agreement that does not comply with the limitations on

9

relief set forth in subsection (a), if the terms of that agreement are not

subject to court enforcement other than the reinstatement of the

10

civil proceeding that the agreement settled.

11

(B) Nothing in this section shall preclude any party claiming that a private

settlement has been breached from seeking in State court any remedy

12

under State law.

13

In his March 23, 2004, order, Judge Karlton found that plaintiff was seeking

14 reinstatement of his action. March 23,2004, order, p. 8: 13-15. Judge Karlton ostensibly further

15 found that the terms of the agreement went beyond § 3626(a), thus subjecting any breach to 16 reinstatement of the action. Id., p. 8: 13-20.1 Plaintiffhas clearly indicated in his briefing

17 pursuant to court order that he desires to seek reinstatement of the action, and no other remedy.

18 Therefore, because defendants do not concede that a breach of the settlement has occurred, the

19 court is required to hold an evidentiary hearing in order to find a recision of the settlement

20 agreement by virtue of defendants' conduct, and hence whether to find reinstatement is

21 appropriate.

22 \\\\\

23
I The undersigned uses the word "ostensibly" because the issue of whether the private 24 settlement in this case exceeded the parameters of § 3626(a) has not been raised. Judge Karlton
made his finding in the context of a discussion on the necessity of exhaustion of administrative 25 remedies. According to § 3626(c)(2), it is only private settlements which exceed the parameters
of subsection (a) that are limited to a reinstatement of action remedy. By parity of reasoning, 26 settlement agreements which match the requirements of subsection (a) may be fully enforced.

2

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 167 Filed 08/04/04 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:86

1

Defendants also argue that § 3626(c) provides that any breach of a private

2 settlement agreement must be determined in state court before a party can seek reinstatement of

3 his federal action. In support of this argument defendants cite York v. County ofEl Dorado, 119

4 F. Supp. 2d 1106, 1109-10 (E.D. Cal. 2000). Nothing in § 3626(c) requires a state court to

5 determine whether a private settlement has been breached before a party can seek reinstatement

6 of his action in federal court. In York, a case in which a settlement was reached, but the court

7 did not retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement, the court observed that private settlements

8 may be enforced in state court. 119 F. Supp. 2d at 1109. The Supreme Court has held that

9 federal courts have ancillary jurisdiction to enforcement settlement agreements of actions where

10 the terms of dismissal indicate that the court shall retain jurisdiction over the settlement.

11 Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. Of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 1676 (1994).

12

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that defendants' July 26,2004, motion to vacate

13 the hearing date is denied.

14 DATED: August3 ,2004.

15

16

17

18 ggh:kj
rouser.ord
19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 167 Filed 08/04/04 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #:87
mdk United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
August 4, 2004

* * CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE * *

Rouser v.
White

2:93-cv-00767

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, u.S. District Court, Eastern District of California.
That on August 4, 2004, I SERVED a true and correct copy{ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the u.S. Mail, by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office, or, pursuant to prior authorization by counsel, via facsimile.

William Rouser C-10659 FSP-1 California State Prison Sacramento PO Box 290066 Represa, CA 95671-0066
James Edmund Flynn Attorney General's Office PO Box 944255 1300 I Street, Suite 125 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
Carlotta Wells United States Department of Justice Civil Division PO Box 883 Washington, DC 20044
Jonathan T Foot Federal Programs Branch Civil Division POBox 883 Washington, DC 20044

VC/GGH

 
 Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 171 Filed 08/17/04 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:88

FILED
1

2

AUG 17 2004

3

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4

DEPUTY CLERK

5

6

7

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 WILLIAM ROUSER,

11

Plaintiff,

No. CIV S-93-0767 LKK GGH P

12

vs.

13 THEO WHITE, et al.,

14

Defendants.

ORDER

15 --------------------------~/

16

On August 13, 2004, defendants filed a request for reconsideration of the

17 magistrate judge's order filed August 4, 2004, denying their motion to vacate the evidentiary

18 hearing set for August 24, 2004. Pursuant to E.D. Local Rule 72-303(f), a magistrate judge's

19 orders shall be upheld unless "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Upon review of the entire

20 file, the court finds that it does not appear that the magistrate judge's ruling was clearly

21 erroneous or contrary to law.

22

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, upon reconsideration, the order of the

23 magistrate judge filed Apst 4, 2004, is affirmed.

II f 719. ~ 24 DATED:

.

25

r I

26

1

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 171 Filed 08/17/04 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:89 mdk
United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California August 17, 2004
* * CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE * *
2:93-cv-00767
Rouser v.
White

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, u.S. District Court, Eastern District of California.
That on August 17, 2004, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the u.S. Mail, by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office, or, pursuant to prior authorization by counsel, via facsimile.

William Rouser C-10659 FSP-1 California State Prison Sacramento PO Box 290066 Represa, CA 95671-0066

AR/LKK VC/GGH

Constance L Picciano Attorney General's Office for the State of California PO Box 944255 1300 I Street Suite 125 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550

James Edmund Flynn Attorney General's Office for the State of California PO Box 944255 1300 I Street Suite 125 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550

Carlotta Wells United States Department of Justice Civil Division PO Box 883 Washington, DC 20044

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 171 Filed 08/17/04 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:90 Jonathan T Foot Federal Programs Branch Civil Division POBox 883 Washington, DC 20044
Jack L. Wagner, Clerk
fa; ?MJY~ BY: De ut C erk
'-

 
 Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 282 Filed 06/20/07 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:1525

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

WILLIAM ROUSER,

11

Plaintiff,

No. CIV S-93-0767 LKK GGH P

12

vs.

13

THEO WHITE, et al.,

14

Defendants.

ORDER

15

/

16

17

On June 18, 2007, the trial confirmation hearing was held. This action is set for

18 trial on September 18, 2007, as to plaintiff’s claim for damages regarding events occurring at

19 California State Prison-Sacramento (CSP-Sac) and his claim for injunctive relief regarding

20 events occurring at Mule Creek State Prison (MCSP). Because plaintiff was recently transferred

21 away from MCSP, his claims for injunctive relief are dismissed as moot. The parties are directed

22 to file amended pretrial statements addressing only the claims for damages regarding CSP-Sac.

23

Accordingly, IT HEREBY ORDERED that:

24

1. Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief regarding events occurring at MCSP are

25 dismissed as moot;

26 /////

1

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 282 Filed 06/20/07 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:1526

1

2. Within ten days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file an amended pretrial

2 statement; defendants’ amended pretrial statement is due ten days thereafter; the parties shall

3 serve each other with their trial exhibits at the time they serve their amended pretrial statements;

4

3. The jury trial set for September 18, 2007, is vacated; this date will be re-set at

5 the trial confirmation hearing which will be scheduled in the amended pretrial order.

6 DATED: June 19, 2007.

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

 
 Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 300 Filed 10/16/07 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:1718

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 WILLIAM ROUSER,

11

Plaintiff,

No. CIV S-93-0767 LKK GGH P

12

vs.

13 THEO WHITE, et al.,

14

Defendants.

FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

15

/

16

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

17 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is set for a trial confirmation hearing before the Honorable

18 Lawrence K. Karlton on December 17, 2007. At that time, the jury trial will be scheduled.

19

Pending before the court is plaintiff’s September 26, 2007, motion for a

20 preliminary injunction. Plaintiff alleges that prison officials at Pleasant Valley State Prison

21 (PVSP) have interfered with his ability to practice his Wiccan religion by denying him adequate

22 access to candles, oils, incense and herbs.

23

The legal principles applicable to a request for preliminary injunctive relief are

24 well established. “The traditional equitable criteria for granting preliminary injunctive relief are

25 (1) a strong likelihood of success on the merits, (2) the possibility of irreparable injury to plaintiff

26 if the preliminary relief is not granted, (3) a balance of hardships favoring the plaintiff, and (4)

1

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 300 Filed 10/16/07 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:1719

1 advancement of the public interest (in certain cases).” Dollar Rent A Car v. Travelers Indem.

2 Co., 774 F.2d 1371, 1374 (9th Cir. 1985). The criteria are traditionally treated as alternative

3 tests. “Alternatively, a court may issue a preliminary injunction if the moving party demonstrates

4 ‘either a combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury or

5 that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in his favor.’” Martin

6 v. International Olympic Comm., 740 F.2d 670, 675 (9th Cir. 1984) (quoting William Inglis &

7 Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 526 F.2d 86, 88 (9th Cir. 1975)). The Ninth

8 Circuit has reiterated that under either formulation of the principles, if the probability of success

9 on the merits is low, preliminary injunctive relief should be denied:

10

Martin explicitly teaches that “[u]nder this last part of the

alternative test, even if the balance of hardships tips decidedly in

11

favor of the moving party, it must be shown as an irreducible

minimum that there is a fair chance of success on the merits.”

12

13 Johnson v. California State Bd. of Accountancy, 72 F.3d 1427, 1430 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting

14 Martin, 740 F.2d at 675).

15

Resolution of plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief would most likely require an

16 evidentiary hearing. These issues will be litigated at the jury trial. By the time an evidentiary

17 hearing could be scheduled, the jury trial will either be held shortly or have already occurred.

18 Under these circumstances, it does not make sense to hold a separate evidentiary hearing. For

19 these reasons, the motion for injunctive relief should be denied without prejudice.

20

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for

21 injunctive relief filed September 26, 2007, is denied without prejudice.

22

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

23 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

24 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

25 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

26 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

2

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 300 Filed 10/16/07 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:1720

1 shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

2 that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

3 Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

4 DATED: 10/16/07 5 6 7 8 rou767.inj

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9

10

11

12

13

14 15 16

17

18

19

20

21 22 23

24

25

26

3

 
 Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 316 Filed 11/19/07 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:1986

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 WILLIAM ROUSER,

11

Plaintiff,

No. CIV S-93-0767 LKK GGH P

12

vs.

13 THEO WHITE, et al.,

14

Defendants.

ORDER

15

/

16

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

17 seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

18 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

19

On October 16, 2007, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

20 herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

21 objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff

22 has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

23

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

24 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

25 entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and

26 by proper analysis.

1

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 316 Filed 11/19/07 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:1987

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1. The findings and recommendations filed October 16, 2007, are adopted in full;

3 and

4

2. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief filed September 26, 2007, is denied

5 without prejudice.

6 DATED: November 16, 2007.

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

 
 Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 383 Filed 09/23/08 Page 1 of 17 Page ID #:2341

Brian D. Hershman (State BarNo. 168175) bhershman@jonesday.com 2 Jenny L. Riggs (State Bar No. 204417) jlriggs@jonesday.com 3 JONES DAY 555 South Flower Street 4 Fiftieth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-2300 5 Telephone: (213) 489-3939 Facsimile: (213) 243-2539
6 Attornevs for Plaintiff
7 WILLIAM ROUSER

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10 SACRAMENTO DIVISION
11

12 WILLIAM ROUSER

13

Plaintiff,

14

v.

15 THEO WHITE, et aI.,

16

Defendants.

17

18

I CASE NO. 2:93-CV-0767-LKK-GGH(PC)
Assigned to: The Honorable Lav.Tence K. Karlton
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, PERMANENT INJUNCTION, DECLARATORY RELIEF, AND DAMAGES
Trial Date: None

19

20

21

22

23

24

26
27

LAi-2976238vl

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 383 Filed 09/23/08 Page 2 of 17 Page ID #:2342

1

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

2

1. This action arises out of the repeated and systematic denial ofa man's right to

3 practice his religion freely. Although the Constitutions of the United States and the State of

4 California set freedom of religion as one of the most important rights granted to citizens,

5 defendants herein have supported other religions while denying Plaintiff the right to practice his

6 religion, and have harassed Plaintiff based on his religion, all in violation of his civil rights.

7

2. This is a claim for damages and injunctive relief brought under 42 U.S.c. section

8 1983 against prison officials for violations ofPlaintifl's rights as protected by the First and

9 Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and the Religious Land Use and

10 Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.c. section 20000cc et seq. This claim also arises

11 under section 4 and 7 of Article 1 of the California Constitution.

12

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

13

3. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.s.c. sections 1331

14 and 1343; the Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to

15 28 U.S.C. section 1367. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.c. section 1983.

16

4. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.c. section 1391 (b)(2) in that a

17 substantial portion of the events giving rise to the claims alleged in this complaint arose in

18 Sacramento County, California.

19

PARTIES

20

5. Plaintiff William Rouser is a California resident currently incarcerated at Pleasant

21 Valley State Prison. At all times relevant to this matter, Rouser was a prisoner within the

22 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") prison system.

23

6. Defendant Theo \Vhite is or was at some time relevant to this complaint employed

24 by the CDCR and was the Warden of the California State Prison-Sacramento ("CSP-Sac')

25 Plaintiff is informed and believes that defendant White was responsible for the policies and

26 practices regarding the day-to-day operation of CSP-Sac and the supervision of all subordinate

27 personnel at CSP-Sac.

28

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 383 Filed 09/23/08 Page 3 of 17 Page ID #:2343

1

7. Defendant James H. Gomez is or was at some time relevant to this complaint

2 employed by the CDCR and was the Director of the CDCR. Plaintiff is informed and believes

3 that defendant Gomez was responsible for the policies and practices regarding the operation and

4 safety of all CDCR facilities. as well as CDCR's policies and practices regarding accommodation

5 of prisoners' religious practices.

6

8. Defendant Matthew Cates is or was at some time relevant to this complaint

7 employed by the CDCR and is or was at some time relevant to this complaint the Secretary of the

8 CDCR. Plaintiff is informed and believes that defendant Cate is responsible for the policies and

9 practices regarding the operation and safety of all CDCR facilities. as well as CDCR's policies

10 and practices regarding accommodation of prisoners' religious practices.

11

9. Defendant James A. Yates is or was at some time relevant to this complaint

12 employed by the CDCR and is or was at some time relevant to this complaint the Warden of

13 Pleasant Valley State Prison ("PVSP"). Plaintitf is informed and believes that defendant Yates

14 was responsible for the policies and practices regarding the day-to-day operation of PVSP and the

15 supervision of all subordinate personnel at PVSP.

16

10. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all times

17 mentioned in this complaint, each individual defendant was acting under color of state law.

18

11. Plaintiff is informed and believes. and on that basis alleges. that at all times

19 mentioned in this complaint, each individual defendant was acting in his or her official capacity

20 and in the course and scope of his or her employment.

21

12. Each defendant. and all of them, is also sued in his or her individual capacities for

22 the claims alleged in this complaint.

23

13. Plaintiff is informed and believes. and on that basis alleges. that each of Does 1

24 through 15 is responsible in some manner for the injuries alleged in this complaint. The true

25 names and capacities of Does I through 15 are presently unknown to Plaintitl and Plaintiff

26 therefore sues Does I though 15 by such tictitious names and will seek leave to amend this

27 complaint to add their true names and capacities when such has been ascertained.

28
2
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 383 Filed 09/23/08 Page 4 of 17 Page ID #:2344

STATEMENT OF FACTS

2

14. PlaintitI is an adherent of the Wiccan religious faith, a Pagan religion. Plaintiff

3 began learning about Wicca in the early 1970s and has been a consistent and devout practitioner

4 of that faith since at least the mid-1980s.

5

15. The use of articles is central to the practice of Plaintiffs Wiccan taith. including

6 but not limited to the use of Tarot cards, religious texts (including but not limited to A Witches'

7 Bible Compleat (the "Wiccan Bible"), incense. candles. wands and altars. and the practice of

8 casting circles with the use of such articles.

9

16. The ability to conduct group worship under the guidance of a spiritual leader is

I 0 also central to Plaintiff s understanding and practice of the Wiccan faith.

11

17. Plaintiflwas transferred to CSP-Sac on or about December 7. 1990. From that

12 time forward until the present, defendants, including defendants White and Gomez. have

13 routinely violated Plaintifl's constitutionally and statutorily protected religious rights.

14 Defendants' actions have included but have not been limited to harassing Plaintitlbased upon his

15 Wiccan faith, and removing and destroying articles central to Plaintiff s religious practice, as set

16 forth herein above.

17

18. Despite repeated requests from PlaintitI, defendants have further denied Plaintiff

18 and other Wiccans access to and use of the prison chapel for communal worship. as well as the

19 guidance of a spiritual leader in accordance with their Wiccan faith.

20

19. In response to this harassment and deprivation of his constitutionally protected

21 religious and equal protection rights, Plaintiff tirst filed an inmate administrative appeal on or

22 about August 2, 1992.

23

20. Plaintiffs first-level appeal was denied on or about August 19, 1992, following an

24 interview with Protestant Chaplain Edward W. Meads. Reverend Meads stated that Plaintitrs

25 requests for access to religious articles. a Wiccan chaplain, and use of CSP-Sae's chapel were

26 denied. purportedly on the grounds that Plaintiffs requests violated prison security and that

27 Wicca is not a valid religion.

21.
LA!·2976238vl

Defendant White

denial of Plaintiff s apF'eal on second-level appeal.

3
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 383 Filed 09/23/08 Page 5 of 17 Page ID #:2345

1

22. On or about January 22. 1993, Jack R. Reagan, chief of inmate appeals, affinned

2 the denial of the appeal on third-level appeaL claiming that CSP-Sac had made every reasonable

3 etIort to provide necessary religious services for inmates pursuant to California Code of

4 Regulations. Title IS, §§ 3190 and 3210.

5

23. On or about March 6,1993, Plaintiff was placed in Administrative Segregation

6 ("Ad-Seg·"). During his approximately eight-month-long confinement in Ad-Seg, defendants

7 denied Plaintiff access to any religious articles, including his Wiccan Bible.

8

24. On or about April 4. 1993. PlaintitItiled a second administrative appeal

9 challenging defendants' refusal to provide PlaintitIwith his Wiccan Bible. In his appeal, Plaintiff

10 reasoned that since Christian and Muslim inmates, as well as those of other faiths, are pennitted

11 to posses their religious texts while in Ad-Seg, Plaintiff also should be pennitted access to his

12 Wiccan Bible.

13

25. On or about April 6, 1993, Plaintiffs second administrative appeal was denied.

14 Based on a meritless and patently false assertion that Plaintiffs religious beliefs purportedly

15 involved animal and human sacrifice, defendants contended that access to the Wiccan Bible

16 would create a clear and present danger of violence and physical hann to persons pursuant to

17 California Code of Regulations, Title 15, § 3136(a).

18

26. Defendants continued to harass Plaintiff based upon his religious practices, and to

19 deny Plaintiff access to articles central to his religious practice, to deny Plaintiff access to the

20 prison chapel and thus the ability to engage in group worship. and to deny Plaintiff the guidance

21 of a spiritual leader.

22

27. Plaintiff filed this action on or about May 7. 1993, having exhausted his state

23 administrative remedies.

24

28. In November 1997, the parties reached a settlement agreement. Pursuant to the

25 tenns of that settlement agreement, defendants agreed:

26

a. To penni! P1aintitfaccess to the Wiccan Bible, even if housed in a Security

27

Housing Unit or Administrative Segregation, subject to the same policies and

28

procedures applicable to inmate access to

literature.

[Ai-29762}Ev J

4
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 383 Filed 09/23/08 Page 6 of 17 Page ID #:2346

1

b. To permit Plaintiff access to a room tor Wiccan services on a regular basis,

2

subject to the same policies and procedures regulating other inmate individual or

3

group religious worship;

4

c. To include the time and location of Wiccan services in the Chapel

5

schedule, which is posted and available to inmates;

6

d. To permit Plaintiff access to small candles. incense, oil, small wands, ritual

7

cups, small bells, cords, water and salt for use during services. consistent with

8

policies and procedures regulating inmate access to religious articles;

9

e. To permit Plaintiff to have the Thoth edition of Tarot cards in his general

10

personal property, available for use in his cell, and available tor use at the Wiccan

II

services, subject to the same policies and procedures applicable to other religious

12

articles;

13

f.

To assist Plaintiff in obtaining (although not paying for) the religious

14

articles referenced above via institutional mail. in a manner that is consistent with

15

policies and procedures applicable to a general population inmate's receipt of

16

religious articles from approved religious vendors; and

17

g. To permit a volunteer Wiccan spiritual advisor to attend Wiccan services.

18

29. Despite the settlement agreement, however. defendants continued to deny Plaintiff

19 access to the religious articles of his faith, continued to deny him access to group worship. and

20 continued to deny him access to a spiritual advisor.

21

30. In June 2007. PlaintitTwas transferred to Pleasant Valley State Prison and

22 currently is incarcerated in that facility.

23

31. From the time he was transferred to PVSP until the present. defendants, including

24 defendants Cate and Yates. have routinely violated Plaintiffs constitutionally and statutorily

25 protected religious rights. Defendants' actions have included but have not heen limited to

26 harassing Plaintiff based upon his Wiccan faith, and removing and destroying articles central to

27 Plaintiffs religious practice. as set forth herein above.

28
! .AI-2976238v j

5
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 383 Filed 09/23/08 Page 7 of 17 Page ID #:2347

1

Defendants also have prevented PlaintitT from obtaining and/or maintaining

2 religious articles central to his faith. By way of example only and not limitation. defendants have

3 agreed that PlaintitT can possess certain religious articles. but have either (a) rescinded their

4 approval with respect to those articles and/or (b) refused to provide Plaintiff with the names of

5 any approved third-party vendors from whom Plaintiff can purchase those articles. In addition.

6 even as to those approved religious articles that defendants have permitted Plaintiflto purchase

7 from approved third-party vendors, defendants have imposed unnecessary burdens on Plaintiffs

8 ability to obtain those articles. For example, defendants have refused to deliver the religious

9 articles to Plaintiff once received by the mail room, but have instead insisted that PlaintitT find a

10 prison chaplain willing to collect the articles for him and, should Plaintiff be unable to find a

II chaplain who is willing to assist quickly enough. defendants have returned PlaintifT's religious

12 articles to the vendor.

13

33. Defendants have not hired a Wiccan chaplain to assist Plaintiff with his religious

14 practices and with obtaining necessary religious articles. In addition to providing spiritual

15 guidance to those of their own faith, prison chaplains are charged with setting and enforcing

16 prison chapel schedules to permit members of their own faiths to conduct religious services;

17 assisting inmates with obtaining necessary religious articles to practice their faith; and with

18 various other and sundry tasks that enable an inmate of the chaplain' s faith to observe his

19 religion. Because defendants have refused to hire a Wiccan chaplain to assist Plaintiff, Plaintiff

20 has been denied the rights and services given to inmatcs of one of the religions sponsored by

21 defendants.

22

34. Despite repeated requests from PlaintifT, defendants have further denied Plaintiff

23 and other Wiccans access to and use of the prison chapel for communal worship. as well as the

24 guidance of a spiritual leader in accordance with their Wiccan faith.

25

35. By way of example only and not limitation. during the month of October 2007.

26 Plaintiff and other Wiccan inmates were told they would be permitted to have weekly services,

27 every Monday from 9:30 a.m. to II :30 a.m. under the supervision of the Muslim chaplain.

28 Despite this promise, PlaintifT was utterly denied services on

Mondays, and was pennitted

(,
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 383 Filed 09/23/08 Page 8 of 17 Page ID #:2348

only about 40 minutes of services on another Monday. On Monday, October 1,2007, PlaintitI

2 was not permitted to have services between 9:30 a.m. and II :30 a.m.; instead, PlaintitIwas not

3 released for services until 10:45 a.m. (and other Wiccan inmates were not released for services

4 until 11:15 a.m.), and yet all Wiccan were required to leave the chapel at 11:30 a.m. On the

5 following three Mondays - the 8th. the 15th, and the 22nd - defendants refused to permit services

6 at all. This practice of denying PlaintitI his religious and equal protection rights has continued.

7

36. In addition to denying services outright. defendants also have given pretextual

8 reasons for denial of services. By way of example only and not limitation. October 31, 2007 is

9 the Samhain Sabbat, a Wiccan holiday. Paper work was submitted to defendants on or about

10 September 6, 2007 requesting permission for Plaintiff and other Wiccan inmates to celebrate their

II holiday. Defendants approved the request, and Plaintiff and other Wiccan inmates were issued

12 ducats to permit them to attend Samhain Sabbat at 8:30 a.m. Yet PlaintifIs and other Wiccan

13 inmates were not released for their holiday. Later that day. PVSP was placed on lockdown, and

14 defendants contended that Plaintiff had been denied his Samhain Sabbat due to the later-occurring

15 10ckdowll.

16

37. When PlaintitI filed or attempted to file grievances related to the denial of his

17 religious and equal protection rights, defendants have refused to process his grievances or have

18 refused to return purportedly deficient grievances to him in a timely manner to permit him to

19 refile those grievances.

20

38. If not enjoined by the Court, defendants will continue to restrict Plaintiffs ability

21 to exercise his religion by denying PlaintitI access to clergy, religious services, and religious

22 articles. This restriction will impose irreparable injury on Plaintiff.

23

39. If not enjoined by the Court, defendants will continue to treat Plaintiff disparately

24 and deny Plaintiff equal protection under the law. This treatment will impose irreparable injury

25 on Plaintiff, and PlaintitIwill have no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law.

26

40. Injunctive relief including but not limited to an order enjoining defendants'

27 policies. practices. actions and omissions such as are alleged herein, and requiring the refornlation

28 of defendants' policies, practices, actions and omissions so as to eliminate their discriminatory

7
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 383 Filed 09/23/08 Page 9 of 17 Page ID #:2349

effect, are therefore appropriate and necessary to avoid irreparable harm to PlaintitT and to

2 effectuate the purposes of the United States and California Constitutions, the Religious Land Use

3 and Institutionalized Persons Act, and the other statutes and laws referenced herein as the subject

4 of Plaintitrs claims for relief.

5

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

6

Religious Land Use And Institntionalized Persons Violation

42 U,S.c. § 1983; (42 U.S.c. § 2000cc et seq.)

7

(Against Defendants Cate, Yates, and Does 1-15) 8

9

41. PlaintifT refers to and incorporates herein by reference the allegations contained in

10 Paragraphs I through 40 as though fully set forth in this claim for relief.

II

42. The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA") prohibits

12 any substantial burden on free exercise of religion unless it (1) furthers a compelling

13 governmental interest and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling interest.

14 Restrictions that merely further a legitimate penological interest are invalidated by RLUIPA.

15

43. On information and belief. the CDCR receives financial assistance from the United

16 States Government.

17

44. The policies, practices, and omissions alleged in this complaint substantially

18 burden Plaintiffs exercise of religion in violation of42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc el seq. and threaten to

19 continue burdening his exercise of religion.

20

45. The burdens on P1aintitrs religious practice are not the least restrictive means of

21 furthering any compelling governmental interest.

22

46. Defendants. and each of them, undertook the polices, practices, actions and

23 omissions alleged in this complaint intentionally and with willful disregard for Plaintiffs rights.

24

47, The polices. practices, actions and omissions of defendants alleged in this

25 complaint are a direct and proximate cause of the emotional distress, humiliation, dignitary harms

26 and other injuries that PlaintilT has suffered and continues to sufTer.

27

48. Injunctive relief is warranted by the allegations set forth throughout this complaint

and as specifically alleged above in Paragraphs 38 through 40.

!~Al-2976238vj

8
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 383 Filed 09/23/08 Page 10 of 17 Page ID #:2350

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2

Violation of Right to Free Exercise of Religion

(42 U.S.c. § 1983, First and Fourteenth Amendments To U.S. Constitution)

3

(Against All Defendants) 4

5

49. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein by reference the allegations contained in

6 Paragraphs 1 through 48 as though fully set forth in this claim for relief.

7

50. The First Amendment to the United State Constitution, as incorporated through the

8 Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits defendants from enacting regulations and policies that result in

9 "establishment of religion, or [that] prohibit[] the free exercise thereof."

10

51. Defendants have denied Plaintiff his federal right under the First Amendment to

II the United States Constitution by imposing a substantial governmental burden upon Plaintiff s

12 free exercise of a sincere religious belief.

13

52. Defendants knowingly, willfully, and maliciously, or with reckless or callous

14 disregard, substantially burdened Plaintiffs religious practice by harassing Plaintiff based on his

15 religious faith; by destroying, removing, and denying access to articles central to Plaintiffs

16 sincere religious beliefs; by denying Plaintiff the opportunity for group worship; and by denying

17 Plaintiff the guidance of a spiritual leader. Defendants have no legitimate or compelling reason

18 for placing a substantial burden on Plaintiffs ability to practice his religion.

19

53. That a substantial burden on an inmate's free exercise of religion violates the First

20 Amendment was clearly established law of which a reasonable person in defendants' position

21 would have known.

22

54. As a direct and proximate result of defendants' ongoing wTongful conduct, as

23 herein alleged, Plaintiff suffered. and continues to sufter, severe emotional distress. humiliation,

24 and dignitary harms, among other injuries.

55. Injunctive relief is warranted by the allegations set torth throughout this complaint

26 and as specifically alleged above in Paragraphs 38 through 40.

27

28
9
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 383 Filed 09/23/08 Page 11 of 17 Page ID #:2351

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2

Violation of Establishment Clause

(42 U.S.c. § 1983, First and Fourteenth Amendments To U.S. Constitution)

3

(Against All Defendants) 4

5

56. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein by reference the allegations contained in

6 Paragraphs I through 55 as though fully set forth in this claim for relief.

7

57. The actions against Plaintiff complained of herein are brought pursuant to

8 42 U.S.c. § 1983 because defendants' conduct constitutes a violation of the Establishment Clause

9 of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as incorporated through the Fourteenth

10 Amendment. Defendants have violated the prohibition on governmental acts or undertakings

11 respecting an establishment of religion under the First Amendment by favoring particular

12 religious denominations over Plaintiffs, as well as by disfavoring Plaintiffs religion.

13

58. Defendants' actions had the purpose of forwarding particular religions and

14 suppressing Plaintiffs; had the effect of advancing and endorsing particular religions and

15 inhibiting Plaintiffs; and caused excessive governmental entanglement with religion.

16

59. Defendants knowingly, willfully. maliciously, or with reckless or callous

17 disregard. violated the First Amendment's prohibition on governmental actions or undertakings

18 respecting an establishment of religion by harassing Plaintiff based on his religious faith while

19 retraining from harassment of inmates of other faiths; by destroying, removing, and denying

20 access to articles central to Plaintiffs sincere religious belief's while allowing inmates of other

21 faiths to possess and access religious items and texts; by denying PlaintifIthe opportunity for

22 group worship while granting such opportunities to inmates of other faiths; and by denying

23 Plaintiff the guidance of a spiritual leader while allowing such guidance to inmates of other faiths.

24

60. As a direct and proximate result of defendants' ongoing wTongful conduct. as

25 herein alleged. PlaintitI suffered. and continues to sutler, severe emotional distress. humiliation.

26 and dignitary harms, among other injuries.

27

61. Injunctive relief is warranted by the allegations set forth throughout this complaint

and as SP(?Citlcllll) alleged above in Paragraphs through 40,

] ~A!-297623gv 1

10
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 383 Filed 09/23/08 Page 12 of 17 Page ID #:2352

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2

Denial of Equal Protection

(42 U.S.c. § 1983, Fourteenth Amendment To U.S. Constitution) 3

(Against All Defendants) 4

5

62. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein by reference the allegations contained in

6 Paragraphs I through 61 as though fully set forth in this claim for relief

7

63. The actions against Plaintiff complained of herein are brought pursuant to

8 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because defendants' conduct constitutes a violation of the Equal Protection

9 Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Defendants' policies,

10 practices, acts and omissions deprive Plaintift: either directly or indirectly, of equal access to

II privileges and benetits granted as a matter of course to inmate adherents of faiths other than

12 Wicca, without any objective, content-neutral justitication for such discrimination and without

13 establishing that the actions of defendants further a legitimate penological goal.

14

64. Defendants knowingly, willfully. maliciously, or with reckless or callous

15 disregard, denied Plaintiff his federal right to equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth

16 Amendment to the United States Constitution. Defendants have done so by refusing Plaintiff a

17 reasonable opportunity to pursue his faith comparable to the opportunity accorded inmate

18 adherents of taiths other than Wicca.

19

65. As a direct and proximate result of defendants' ongoing wrongful conduct, as

20 herein alleged, Plaintiff suffered, and continues to suffer, severe emotional distress, humiliation,

21 and dignitary harms, among other injuries.

22

66. Injunctive relief is warranted by the allegations set forth throughout this complaint

23 and as specifically alleged above in Paragraphs 38 through 40.

24

25

26

27

28
1 I
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 383 Filed 09/23/08 Page 13 of 17 Page ID #:2353

1

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2

Violation of Right to Free Exercise of Religion

(Article 1, Section 4 of California Constitution) 3

(Against All Defendants) 4

5

67. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein by reference the allegations contained in

6 Paragraphs 1 through 66 as though fully set forth in this claim for relief.

7

68. Defendants have denied Plaintiff his right under the Constitution of the State of

8 California, Article I, Section 4, to freedom from substantial governmental burdens upon, and

9 governmental discrimination against, his religion by imposing a substantial governmental burden

10 upon Plaintiff s free exercise of a sincere religious belief.

II

69. Defendants knowingly, willfully, and maliciously, or with reckless or callous

12 disregard, substantially burdened Plaintiffs religious practice by harassing Plaintiff based on his

13 religious faith; by destroying, removing, and denying access to articles central to Plaintiffs

14 sincere religious beliefs; by denying Plaintiff the opportunity for group worship; and by denying

15 Plaintiff the guidance of a spiritual leader. Defendants have no legitimate or compelling reason

16 for placing a substantial burden on Plaintiffs ability to practice his religion.

17

70. As a direct and proximate result of defendants' ongoing \VTongful conduct, as

18 herein alleged, Plaintiff suffered, and continues to sufter, severe emotional distress, humiliation,

19 and dignitary harms, among other injuries.

20

71. Injunctive relief is warranted by the allegations set forth throughout this complaint

21 and as specifically alleged above in Paragraphs 38 through 40.

22

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

23

Violation of Establishment Clause

(Article 1, Section 4 of California Constitution)
24

(Against All Defendants) 25

26

.7"~. Plaintiff reters to and incorporates herein by reference the allegations contained in

27 Paragraphs 1 through 71 as though fully set forth in this claim for relief.

28
12
THiRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 383 Filed 09/23/08 Page 14 of 17 Page ID #:2354

1

73. Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution of the State of California provides, in

2 pertinent part: "Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference are

3 guaranteed.... The Legislature shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

4

74. Defendants have violated the prohibition pursuant to the California Constitution,

5 Article 1, section 4, on governmental acts or undertakings respecting an establishment of religion

6 by favoring particular religious denominations over Plaintiffs, as well as by disfavoring

7 Plaintiffs religion.

8

75. Defendants' actions had the purpose of forwarding particular religions and

9 suppressing Plaintiffs; had the effect of advancing and endorsing particular religions and

10 inhibiting Plaintiffs; and caused excessive governmental entanglement with religion.

11

76. Defendants knowingly, willfully, maliciously. or with reckless or callous

12 disregard, violated the California Constitution's prohibition on governmental actions or

13 undertakings respecting an establishment of religion by harassing Plaintiff based on his religious

14 faith while refraining from harassment of inmates of other faiths; by destroying, removing, and

15 denying access to articles central to Plaintiffs sincere religious beliefs while allowing inmates of

16 other faiths to possess and access religious items and texts; by denying Plaintiff the opportunity

17 for group worship while granting such opportunities to inmates of other faiths; and by denying

18 Plaintiff the guidance of a spiritual leader while allowing such guidance to inmates of other faiths.

19

77. As a direct and proximate result of defendants' ongoing wrongful conduct, as

20 herein alleged, Plaintiff suffered, and continues to suffer, severe emotional distress, humiliation.

21 and dignitary harms, among other injuries.

22

78. Injunctive relief is warranted by the allegations set forth throughout this complaint

23 and as specifically alleged above in Paragraphs 38 through 40.

24

25

26

28
13 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 383 Filed 09/23/08 Page 15 of 17 Page ID #:2355

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2

Denial of Equal Protection

(Article 1, Section 7 of California Constitution) 3

(Against All Defendants) 4

5

79. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein by reference the allegations contained in

6 Paragraphs 1 through 78 as though fully set forth in this claim for relief.

7

80. Defendants knowingly. willfully, maliciously, or with reckless or callous

8 disregard, denied Plaintiff his right to equal protection of the laws under Article 1, section 7 of the

9 Constitution of the State of California. Defendants have done so by refusing Plaintiff a

10 reasonable opportunity to pursue his faith comparable to the opportunity accorded inmate

11 adherents of faiths other than Wicca.

12

81. As a direct and proximate result of defendants' ongoing wTongful conduct, as

13 herein alleged. Plaintiff suffered, and continues to suffer, severe emotional distress, humiliation,

14 and dignitary hanns, among other injuries.

15

82. Injunctive relief is warranted by the allegations set forth throughout this complaint

16 and as specifically alleged above in Paragraphs 38 through 40.

17

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

18

Wherefore. Plaintiff William Rouser prays for the following relief:

19

1. Injunctive relief according to proof;

20

2. Retention ofjurisdiction over defendants until such time that the Court is

21

satisfied that defendants' unlawful policies, practices, acts and omissions no longer

22

exist and will not recur;

23

3.

Declaratory relief recognizing inmates' rights to free exercise of their

24

religion in the general population and in administrative segregation;

25

4. Compensatory damages according to proof;

26

5. Punitive damages according to proof;

27

6.

Reasonahle attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.s.c. § 1988;

7
LAl-2976238vl

Costs

suit: and
14
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 383 Filed 09/23/08 Page 16 of 17 Page ID #:2356

I

8, Such other and further relief as the Court deems proper.

2 Dated: September 23,2008 3 4
5 6
7
8

Respectfully submitted, JONES DAY
By lsi Jenny L. Riggs
Jenny L. Riggs Attorneys for Plaintiff WILLIAM ROUSER

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27
28
15
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 383 Filed 09/23/08 Page 17 of 17 Page ID #:2357

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

3

I hereby certify that on September 23,2008, I electronically filed the

4 foregoing document(s):

5

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS,

6

PER,\tANENT INJUNCTION, DECLARATORY RELIEF, AND DAMAGES

7
with the Clerk of the Court using CMlECF system which will send
8
notification of such filing to the following:
9

10

James Edmund Flynn

11

Deputy Attorney General

Attorney General of the State of California

12

1300 I Street, Suite 125

13

Post Office Box 944255

Sacramento, California 94244-2550

14

(916) 323-1976 - Telephone

15

(916) 324-5205 - Facsimile

james.f1ynn@doj.ca.gov

16

17

I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court

18 at whose direction the service was made.

19

Executed on September 23, 2008, at Los Angeles, California.

20

21

. Jane Finegan

'~l • ~

24
25 26 27
28
!j\f-2944470vl

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 
 Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 509 Filed 04/15/10 Page 1 of 33 Page ID #:7850

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 WILLIAM ROUSER,

11

Plaintiff,

No. CIV S-93-0767 LKK GGH P

12

vs.

13 THEO WHITE, et al.,

14

Defendants.

O R D E R

15

/

16

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding with counsel bringing

17 claims arising out of the alleged failure of prison officials to

18 accommodate the practice of his religion. At issue here is

19 plaintiff’s most recent motion for a preliminary injunction

20 enjoining various officials. The motion seeks an order allowing

21 plaintiff to obtain and maintain certain articles, which he

22 characterizes as religious, and to satisfy certain requirements

23 with respect to his religious services. For the reasons stated

24 below, plaintiff’s motion is granted as to most of the relief he

25 seeks.

26 ////

1

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 509 Filed 04/15/10 Page 2 of 33 Page ID #:7851

1

I. BACKGROUND

2

On May 7, 1993, plaintiff filed his original complaint

3 seeking damages and injunctive relief from, inter alia, defendant

4 Theo White (“White”), warden of California State Prison -

5 Sacramento (“CSP-Sac”), and defendant James H. Gomez (“Gomez”),

6 former director of the California Department of Corrections and

7 Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), under several theories of liability

8 alleging their infringement of his religious practice. On

9 December 5, 1997, the court dismissed the case pursuant to the

10 parties’ private settlement. On March 23, 2004, the court

11 reopened the case pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act,

12 which provides that the only way for courts to enforce private

13 settlement agreements is to reinstate civil proceedings. 18

14 U.S.C. § 3626(c)(2).

15

On January 30, 2006, plaintiff filed an amended complaint

16 adding defendants and claims relating to his treatment at Mule

17 Creek State Prison (“MCSP”). In June 2007, plaintiff was

18 transferred to Pleasant Valley State Prison (“PVSP”). On

19 September 23, 2008, plaintiff filed his third amended complaint,

20 bringing claims against four defendants, White, Gomez, Matthew

21 Cate (“Cate”), Secretary of CDCR, and James A. Yates (“Yates”),

22 warden at PVSP. This complaint sued all defendants in their

23 individual and official capacities, and plaintiff sought both

24 damages and injunctive relief.

25

On May 14, 2009, this court granted in part and denied in

26 part defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The motion was

2

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 509 Filed 04/15/10 Page 3 of 33 Page ID #:7852

1 denied insofar as plaintiff sought injunctive relief.

2 Specifically, the court concluded that “were the factfinder to

3 credit even some of plaintiff’s evidence of the violations he has

4 suffered since 1992 in attempting to exercise his religious

5 rights, a factfinder could infer a pattern of Constitutional

6 violations sufficient to call into question the permanence of any

7 changes defendants have voluntarily made now.” May 14, 2009

8 Order, Doc. 420, at 74. The court discusses the specific holdings

9 of this decision and the relevance of the holding below.

10

On December 10, 2009, this court granted plaintiff’s motion

11 to supplement his complaint to include claims for conduct

12 occurring after he filed his Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiff

13 sought to add three defendants to his complaint. Plaintiff

14 alleges that defendant correctional counselors P. Ortiz (“Ortiz”)

15 and B. Flores (“Flores”) retaliated against his filing of

16 grievances and litigation of this case by placing plaintiff in

17 administrative segregation and then causing plaintiff to be

18 transferred from PVSP to California State Prison Los Angeles

19 County (“LAC”). Plaintiff also added defendant Brian Haws

20 (“Haws”), warden of LAC.

21

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR FED. R. CIV. P. 65 MOTION FOR

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

22

23

A preliminary injunction is an "extraordinary remedy."

24 Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., ___ U.S. ___,

25 129 S. Ct. 365, 376 (2008) (internal citation omitted). When a

26 court considers whether to grant a motion for a preliminary

3

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 509 Filed 04/15/10 Page 4 of 33 Page ID #:7853

1 injunction, it balances "the competing claims of injury, . . .

2 the effect on each party of the granting or withholding of the

3 requested relief, . . . the public consequences in employing the

4 extraordinary remedy of injunction," and plaintiff's likelihood

5 of success. Id. at 374, 376-77 (quoting Amoco Prod. Co. v.

6 Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 542 (1987); Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo,

7 456 U.S. 305, 312 (1982). In order to succeed on a motion for a

8 preliminary injunction, the plaintiff must establish that "he is

9 likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer

10 irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the

11 balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is

12 in the public interest." Winter, 129 S. Ct. at 374.

13

An even more stringent standard is applied where mandatory,

14 as opposed to prohibitory, preliminary relief is sought. The

15 Ninth Circuit has noted that although the same general principles

16 inform the court's analysis, "where a party seeks mandatory

17 preliminary relief that goes well beyond maintaining the status

18 quo pendente lite, courts should be extremely cautious about

19 issuing a preliminary injunction." Martin v. International

20 Olympic Committee, 740 F.2d 670, 675 (9th Cir. 1984). Thus, an

21 award of mandatory preliminary relief is not to be granted unless

22 both the facts and the law clearly favor the moving party and

23 extreme or very serious damage will result. See Anderson v.

24 United States, 612 F.2d 1112, 1115 (9th Cir. 1979). "[I]n

25 doubtful cases" a mandatory injunction will not issue. Id.

26 ////

4

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 509 Filed 04/15/10 Page 5 of 33 Page ID #:7854

1

III. ANALYSIS

2

Rouser is a practicing Wiccan, who argues that defendants

3 have infringed upon his ability to practice his religion.

4 Plaintiff moves for a preliminary injunction against defendants

5 Cate and Haws. Specifically, plaintiff argues that these

6 defendants are violating his rights under the Religious Land Use

7 and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), the Free Exercise

8 and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment, as incorporated

9 through the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Equal Protection Clause

10 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiff seeks the following

11 injunctive relief:

12

(1) that defendants allow Mr. Rouser to keep and maintain

13 religious texts (including but not limited to A Witches' Bible

14 Compleat (the "Wiccan Bible")), to the maximum extent allowed

15 under CDCR policies and as applied to all inmates; this includes

16 allowing Mr. Rouser to have his Wiccan Bible while he is in

17 Administrative Segregation;

18

(2) that defendants allow Mr. Rouser to obtain group Wiccan

19 items prior to Wiccan group services;

20

(3) that defendants cannot take and/or destroy Mr. Rouser's

21 approved religious articles;

22

(4) that defendants provide a means for Mr. Rouser to order

23 and receive religious items;

24

(5) that when Wiccan services are scheduled, defendants must

25 allow Mr. Rouser to access the nature-based religious area for

26 group services for the entire scheduled time, unless the Yard is

5

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 509 Filed 04/15/10 Page 6 of 33 Page ID #:7855

1 on modified program and no religious group is allowed to meet

2 that day;

3

(6) that defendants grant Mr. Rouser access to a fire pit

4 during religious services;

5

(7) that defendants provide Mr. Rouser an outdoor

6 nature-based religious area, similar to the outdoor nature-based

7 religious area at Pleasant Valley State Prison, in which Mr.

8 Rouser may participate in Wiccan group services;

9

(8) that defendants cannot take unreasonable steps to

10 interrupt Mr. Rouser's group services, including but not limited

11 to blaring Christian music in the direction of Mr. Rouser's group

12 services or turning on the sprinkler system during Mr. Rouser's

13 group services; and

14

(9) that defendants announce Wiccan services to the same

15 extent they announce services for the main stream faiths (i.e.,

16 Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, and Native American).

17

Defendants oppose this motion on several grounds. First,

18 defendants argue that the motion should be denied for several

19 jurisdictional reasons. Second, defendants argue that the motion

20 should be denied under the requirements to issue a preliminary

21 injunction. The court will first dispose of defendants’

22 jurisdictional concerns, and then turn to the preliminary

23 injunction factors.

24

A. Whether the Court Has Jurisdiction to Issue a

Preliminary Injunction.

25

26

1. Whether Defendants Gomez’s and Ortiz’s

6

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 509 Filed 04/15/10 Page 7 of 33 Page ID #:7856

1

Interlocutory Appeal of this Court’s Decision

Denying Qualified Immunity Bars this Court’s

2

Ability to Issue a Preliminary Injunction.

3

On May 14, 2009, this court denied defendants Gomez’s and

4 Ortiz’s motion for summary judgment on the grounds that they are

5 entitled to qualified immunity for violation of the Free Exercise

6 Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. The court also denied

7 defendants’ motion on the grounds that they were entitled to

8 qualified immunity for violation of the Establishment Clause, but

9 only insofar as plaintiff was denied access to a Witches Bible

10 while in administrative segregation. The court held that

11 defendants were entitled to qualified immunity as to plaintiff’s

12 other claims for violation of the Establishment Clause. The court

13 granted defendants’ motion insofar as plaintiff’s claim for

14 violation of the Establishment Clause concerned his denial of

15 Tarot cards, candles, incense, and access to a chapel. On June

16 12, 2009, defendants filed a notice of appeal as to the “denial

17 of their motion for summary judgment asserting the defense of

18 qualified immunity from all damages asserted in plaintiff’s Third

19 Amended Complaint . . . .” Defendants’ Notice of Appeal, Doc. No.

20 421, at 2. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin defendants Cate and Haws,

21 successors in office to defendants Gomez and White, the

22 defendants who are appealing this court’s decision on qualified

23 immunity. Defendants argue that this court does not have

24 jurisdiction to enter a preliminary injunction against Cate and

25 Haws because their liability for injunctive relief is

26 “necessarily intertwined with the question on appeal” and,

7

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 509 Filed 04/15/10 Page 8 of 33 Page ID #:7857

1 therefore, the court cannot grant a preliminary injunction.

2

As this court held in its December 10, 2009 order,

3 “[i]nterlocutory appeal of denial of qualified immunity may

4 deprive the district court of jurisdiction.” December 10, 2009

5 Order at 8. Specifically, the court “is automatically divested of

6 jurisdiction to proceed with trial pending appeal.” Id. (quoting

7 Shuman v. Wright, 960 F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir. 1992)). Because

8 qualified immunity is only immunity from damages, this court held

9 that it “presently [only] lacks jurisdiction over the claims for

10 damages against Gomez and White.” The court continued to state

11 that “[a]ppeal does not deprive the court of jurisdiction over

12 other aspects of this case, including plaintiff’s claims for

13 injunctive relief and as to other defendants.” December 10, 2009

14 Order at 9 (citing Plotkin v. Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co., 688 F.2d

15 1291 (9th Cir. 1982)).

16

Defendants argue that this court’s reliance on Plotkin is

17 misguided.1 Specifically, defendants argue that “Plotkin holds

18 that an appeal from an interlocutory order does not divest the

19 court of jurisdiction to proceed with all ‘other aspects’ of the

20 case, but divests the court of jurisdiction only as to those

21 issues that do implicate issues on appeal.” Opposition at 35.

22 However, as this court explained in its previous order, Plotkin

23 held that “an appeal from an interlocutory order does not stay

24

25

1 Throughout this section defendants’ refer to the court’s

analysis in the December 10, 2009 order as if these were 26 arguments merely raised by plaintiffs.

8

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 509 Filed 04/15/10 Page 9 of 33 Page ID #:7858

1 the proceedings, as it is firmly established that an appeal from

2 an interlocutory order does not divest the trial court of

3 jurisdiction to continue with other phases of the case.” Plotkin,

4 688 F.2d at 1293. Defendants contend that any matter that seems

5 somewhat related to the matter on appeal constitutes the same

6 “phase[] of the case.” That is not so. For example, in Plotkin,

7 the Ninth Circuit held that the district court could entertain

8 defendant’s motion for summary judgment while denial of

9 plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction was on appeal.

10 December 10, 2009 Order (citing Plotkin, 688 F.2d at 1293). The

11 subject matter of the two motions in Plotkin was virtually

12 identical. Specifically, the preliminary injunction was denied

13 because plaintiff failed to exhaust the available administrative

14 remedies, and the motion for summary judgment was granted for the

15 same reason. Plotkin, 688 F.2d at 1292. Nonetheless, the Ninth

16 Circuit held that the district court had jurisdiction over the

17 summary judgment motion while its order denying the preliminary

18 injunction order was on appeal. Clearly, the Ninth Circuit did

19 not hold that district courts lack jurisdiction only as to those

20 issues that do not implicate the issues raised in the appeal.

21

Here, the only similarity between the issues on appeal and

22 the issue at bar is the possibility that the Ninth Circuit would

23 adopt reasoning that could conflict with this court’s

24 understanding of the constitutional and statutory requirements

25 concerning plaintiff’s religious practice. As an initial matter,

26 defendants are mistaken to argue that if the Ninth Circuit

9

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 509 Filed 04/15/10 Page 10 of 33 Page ID #:7859
1 reverses this court’s decision on qualified immunity that then 2 Cate and Haws would necessarily be dismissed from the case. The 3 appeal only concerns the extent to which White and Gomez are 4 liable in their individual capacity for damages, and not in the 5 official capacity for injunctive relief. Despite this difference, 6 the ruling of the Ninth Circuit may only possibly effect this 7 court’s reasoning under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and 8 not under RLUIPA. For example, if the Ninth Circuit were to 9 reverse this court’s decision as to whether Gomez and White are 10 entitled to qualified immunity on the grounds that the law was 11 not clearly established, this decision would not effect Cate’s 12 and Haws’ liability. First, Gomez and White would only be 13 dismissed from the action because they are retired, and thereby 14 no longer liable for injunctive relief. Cate and Haws, as active 15 officials, remain liable for injunctive relief even if Gomez and 16 White were entitled to qualified immunity. Second, it is not 17 clear that Cate and Haws would even be entitled to such immunity 18 where Gomez and White acted before this court issued orders 19 concerning the constitutional and statutory requirements, and 20 Cate and Haws allegedly infringed plaintiff’s rights after the 21 court described these requirements. The only possibility for the 22 Ninth Circuit’s decision on defendant’s qualified immunity appeal 23 to implicate the instant motion would be for the court of appeals 24 to decide that this court was wrong as to whether a reasonable 25 jury could conclude that Gomez and White violated the 26 constitution. If the Ninth Circuit were to so decide, the proper
10

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 509 Filed 04/15/10 Page 11 of 33 Page ID #:7860

1 avenue for defendants would be to file a motion to reconsider an

2 order granting a preliminary injunction based on those theories,

3 and not to preemptively oppose a motion for a preliminary

4 injunction on the grounds that there is a chance that the Ninth

5 Circuit could resolve their appeal in a way that could implicate

6 this order. As such, defendants’ argument does not prevent the

7 court from issuing a preliminary injunction.

8

2. Whether this Court’s Decision on Defendants’

Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Claims of

9

Retaliation Against Flores and Ortiz Bars the

Court’s Ability to Issue a Preliminary Injunction.

10

11

Defendants also argue that the court lacks jurisdiction to

12 issue injunctive relief as to the alleged retaliation claim

13 against defendants Flores and Ortiz because they anticipated that

14 this court will grant its motion to dismiss this claim for

15 failure to exhaust administrative remedies. On March 10, 2010,

16 this court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss on this ground.

17 Moreover, even if the court had granted the motion to dismiss,

18 this argument is irrelevant in that Rouser is seeking to enjoin

19 Cate and Haws, the officials responsible for his treatment at

20 LAC, and not Ortiz and Flores, the officials at PVSP, plaintiff’s

21 previous place of institution. Accordingly, defendants’ have not

22 demonstrated this court’s lack of jurisdiction for failure to

23 exhaust a retaliation claim against Flores and Ortiz.

24

3. Whether Plaintiff’s Motion Is Moot.

25

Defendants also argue that the court should not issue a

26 preliminary injunction here because plaintiff’s motion is moot.

11

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 509 Filed 04/15/10 Page 12 of 33 Page ID #:7861

1 Defendants seem to contend that their conduct at the correctional

2 institutions where plaintiff was previously incarcerated should

3 not bear on whether plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary

4 injunction at the institution where he is currently incarcerated.

5 In support of this argument, defendants refer to this court’s

6 previous order dismissing a preliminary injunction as moot where

7 plaintiff sought to enjoin officials at Mule Creek State Prison,

8 but was later transferred to PVSP. This argument conflates two

9 issues. While it is clear that plaintiff could not seek to enjoin

10 officials at prisons where he is no longer incarcerated, evidence

11 of conduct from those prisons is nonetheless relevant in deciding

12 whether defendants are engaging in a pattern and practice of

13 preventing plaintiff from practicing his religion. This is

14 especially so where Cate, one of the defendants plaintiff seeks

15 to enjoin, is secretary of the entire California Department of

16 Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Because plaintiff does

17 not seek to enjoin officers at his prior prisons, his motion is

18 not moot. Evidence from the previous institutions, however, is

19 relevant to plaintiff’s claims and shall be considered when

20 evaluating plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits.

21

Given that the court concludes it has jurisdiction over

22 plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, I now turn to

23 whether such an injunction should issue.

24

B. Whether Plaintiff Is Entitled to a Preliminary

Injunction.

25

26

1. Likelihood of Success on the Merits.

12

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 509 Filed 04/15/10 Page 13 of 33 Page ID #:7862

1

a. Whether Plaintiff Has Demonstrated a Causal

2

Connection Between the Actions of Defendants

Haws and Cate and His Treatment at LAC.

3

4

Defendants assert that plaintiff “has not shown any causal

5 connection between the actions of Warden Haws and the alleged 6 conduct of prison staff at CSP-Los Angeles County; . . .”2

7 Opposition at 37. Defendants do not argue that plaintiff has not

8 demonstrated such a connection between CDCR Secretary Cate and

9 the alleged conduct at LAC, but because the reasoning is

10 identical, and because the court decides that plaintiff has

11 demonstrated such a connection, the court considers defendants’

12 argument as if it sought to deny a connection between both

13 defendants that plaintiff seeks to enjoin and the alleged conduct

14 at LAC.

15

To succeed on a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,3 plaintiff

16 must show “(1) that a person acting under color of state law

17 committed the conduct at issue, and (2) that the conduct deprived

18 the claimant of some right, privilege, or immunity protected by

19

20

2 The court construes defendants’ argument as to causal

connection as an argument under the likelihood of success element 21 for a preliminary injunction even though defendants did not

include this discussion under the likelihood of success on the 22 merits section of their opposition. The reason for including it

in this section is that if plaintiff has not sufficiently shown a 23 causal connection, he would not be likely to succeed on the

merits. This argument is not a jurisdictional bar to entry of an 24 injunction, but rather goes to the strength of plaintiff’s

claims. 25

3 The court notes that this analysis only applies to 26 plaintiff’s § 1983 claim, and not for his claim under RLUIPA.

13

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 509 Filed 04/15/10 Page 14 of 33 Page ID #:7863

1 the Constitution or laws of the United States.” Leer v. Murphy,

2 844 F.2d 626, 632-33 (9th Cir. 1988) (internal citations

3 omitted). The Ninth Circuit construes the second element to

4 require that plaintiff show that a defendant deprived him “of a

5 constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, [where]

6 he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative

7 acts, or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to

8 do that causes the deprivation of which [the plaintiff

9 complains].” Id. at 633 (internal quotation omitted). “The

10 inquiry into causation must be individualized and focus on the

11 duties and responsibilities of each individual defendant whose

12 acts or omissions are alleged to have caused a constitutional

13 deprivation.” Id.

14

The Ninth Circuit applies a less stringent standard for

15 causation where plaintiffs seek injunctive relief as opposed to

16 damages. Id. Because the inquiry here is whether plaintiff is

17 likely to succeed on the merits of his claim for an injunction,

18 the court need only address whether he is likely to show

19 sufficient causation for injunctive relief. The circuit’s

20 standard for injunctive relief is “whether the combined acts or

21 omissions of the state officials responsible for operating the

22 state's penal system created living conditions that violate the”

23 constitution. Id. While this analysis “undeniably focuses on the

24 duties and responsibilities of each of the individual defendants

25 whose acts or omissions are alleged to have caused the

26 constitutional deprivation,” it nonetheless “is broader and more

14

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 509 Filed 04/15/10 Page 15 of 33 Page ID #:7864

1 generalized than when that same prisoner seeks damages for the

2 harmful effects” of the constitutional violation. Id.

3 Accordingly, in order to demonstrate that he is entitled to

4 injunctive relief under § 1983, plaintiff need not demonstrate

5 Cate’s and Haws’ personal participation in each allegedly

6 unconstitutional act, as defendants contend, but rather that they

7 are responsible for policies or practices that resulted in

8 violations of plaintiff’s First Amendment rights.

9

Plaintiff has clearly met this standard to the extent that

10 he seeks injunctive relief for policies that burden his religious

11 practice. While not completely clear from plaintiff’s motion, it

12 appears to the court that the injunctive relief that plaintiff is

13 seeking under § 1983 only concerns “prison policies that prevent

14 Mr. Rouser [from] access to group worship, religious articles,

15 and a fire pit.” Motion at 19. As the court reasoned in Rouse v.

16 Washington State Dep’t of Corrs., No. C08-5620 FDB, 2009 WL

17 1011623, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 15, 2009), “the proper defendant

18 for injunctive relief regarding the implementation of a [CDCR]

19 policy would be the Secretary of the [CDCR], [Cate] in his

20 official capacity” or, to the extent that the policy is

21 institution-specific, the warden of LAC, Haws in his official

22 capacity. Id. These policies are discussed in greater depth below

23 in the court’s description of the scope of preliminary relief.

24 Accordingly, plaintiff has met his burden of alleging a causal

25 connection sufficient to entitle him to injunctive relief against

26 Cate and Haws. The court addresses in the next section, whether

15

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 509 Filed 04/15/10 Page 16 of 33 Page ID #:7865

1 plaintiff is likely to succeed on these claims upon review of the

2 evidence provided in support and in opposition to this motion.

3

b. Whether Plaintiff Has Demonstrated That it Is

Likely That Defendants Are Violating His

4

Federal Constitutional and Statutory Rights.

5

i. Evidence Before April 2009

6

As an initial matter, this court has already considered

7 evidence provided by both parties as to whether defendants were

8 engaging in a pattern and practice of violating his rights under

9 RLUIPA and the Constitution by preventing him from practicing his

10 faith as of May 14, 2009 in response to defendants’ motion for

11 summary judgment. The court need not discuss these facts in depth

12 again. But, rather, suffice to say, these findings of fact also

13 reveal that plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his

14 claims as of, at earliest, April 3, 2009, the date plaintiff

15 submitted his opposition to defendants’ motion for summary 16 judgment.4

17

In particular, the claims for which plaintiff has a

18 sufficient likelihood of success as to his entitlement to

19 injunctive relief include the following:

20

21

4 The court notes that this approach only considers

admissible evidence. While inadmissible evidence may be 22 considered when determining the likelihood of success on the

merits, doing so here is not warranted. See Flynt Distrib. Co., 23 Inc. v. Harvey, 734 F.2d 1389, 1394 (9th Cir. 1984). Where

discovery is complete as to actions occurring before April 3, 24 2009, plaintiff’s likelihood of success is closely tied to the

admissible evidence he can present at trial. However, the court 25 will give some weight to inadmissible evidence for more recent

occurrences in that the parties have not yet conducted discovery 26 on those matters. See id.

16

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 509 Filed 04/15/10 Page 17 of 33 Page ID #:7866

1

(1) Defendants Cate and Yates substantially burdened

2 plaintiff’s religious exercise in violation of RLUIPA and of the

3 Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment by:

4

(a) Inhibiting plaintiff’s timely receipt of religious

5 articles through policies at PVSP surrounding the ordering and

6 receipt of religious items from vendors;

7

(b) Inhibiting group worship by plaintiff and other

8 Wiccans through, inter alia, restrictions on Wiccans’ use of

9 chapel space, failure to announce Wiccan group worship to the

10 general population, prohibition of Wiccans’ use of certain items,

11 such as a fire pit, that are part of group worship, and a policy

12 for use of lockers by religious groups that has resulted in

13 plaintiff and other Wiccans being unable to access the items 14 desired for group religious worship;5

15

(c) Inhibiting plaintiff from attending group worship

16 approximate 46 times due to actions by the guards in failing to

17 escort him to the outdoor area on time, requiring him to return

18 to his cell early, or interrupting his worship; and

19

(d) Failing to retain a paid chaplain for plaintiff and

20 other Wiccans at PVSP, in that only paid chaplains can approve

21 religious order forms, retrieve orders from the mailroom, approve

22 or deny grievances, access prison keys, and ensure inmates are

23 released on time for services.

24
5 Testimony from Lisa Morgenstern indicates that Wiccan 25 practice is sufficiently individual that it is unlikely any
article is required. Nonetheless, there is no suggestion that 26 the articles in question are not generally used in group worship.

17

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 509 Filed 04/15/10 Page 18 of 33 Page ID #:7867

1

(2) Defendants Gomez and White inhibited plaintiff’s free

2 exercise rights in violation of the First Amendment through:

3

(a) Preventing plaintiff from accessing Tarot cards,

4 candles, incense, and a Witches Bible, which made the exercise of

5 plaintiff’s religion significantly more difficult; and

6

(b) Denying some grievances filed by plaintiff

7 concerning his access to these items.

8

(3) Defendants violated the Establishment Clause of the

9 First Amendment by:

10

(a) Promulgating the CDCR policy which allows wardens

11 to hire chaplains only of “Muslim, Jewish, Catholic, Protestant .

12 . . and Native American” faiths;

13

(b) Allowing Native American inmates to access a sweat

14 lodge and fire pit at PVSP, while Wiccan inmates are not allowed

15 access;

16

(c) Securing the locker containing Wiccan items at PVSP

17 with a keyed lock where only the guards have access to the key,

18 while the lockers for the Native American and Catholic items are

19 secured with a combination lock of which Native American and

20 Catholic inmates know the combination, and the locker containing

21 Protestant items has no lock; and

22

(d) Rarely announcing Wiccan services to the general

23 population, while frequently announcing Protestant, Catholic, and

24 Muslim services.

25

(4) Defendants violated plaintiff’s rights under the Equal

26 Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by impeding his

18

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 509 Filed 04/15/10 Page 19 of 33 Page ID #:7868

1 practice of the Wiccan faith in ways that other religious

2 practitioners are not. In particular, the actions include those

3 described above of denial of a paid chaplain, denial of his

4 Witches Bible in Administrative Segregation in 1993, denial of

5 access to a firepit and sweat lodge, denial of access to a chapel

6 for a period of time, and policies regarding access to items from

7 third-party vendors, use of lockers by religious groups, and

8 announcements of religious services.

9

ii. Evidence During and After April 2009

10

a. Evidence from PVSP

11

Rouser ordered religious items from a vendor in early 2009.

12 Declaration of William Rouser in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion

13 for a Preliminary Injunction (“Rouser’s First Decl.”) ¶ 113-15.

14 On April 14, 2009, Rouser was informed by prison officers that

15 the items had arrived, yet would be returned to the sender if he

16 did not have a copy of an official religious order request form.

17 Id. Because Rouser was not allowed to make religious copies, he

18 did not have the copy. Id. Accordingly, his order was returned to

19 the vendor. Id.

20

On or about June 2009, prison officers confiscated Rouser’s

21 candle holders, even though these candle holders were previously

22 approved religious items. Id. at ¶ 117; Declaration of Tramaine

23 Hunter in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary

24 Injunction (“Hunter Decl.”) ¶ 9.

25

Twice in June 2009, prison officers released Rouser one hour

26 late for his two and a half hour religious service. Rouser’s

19

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 509 Filed 04/15/10 Page 20 of 33 Page ID #:7869

1 First Decl. at 120. Other Wiccan inmates have testified to

2 similar experiences. Declaration of James J. Burian in Support of

3 Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction ¶¶ 7-12; Hunter

4 Decl. ¶¶ 5, 8; Declaration of Douglass Hysell in Support of

5 Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (“Hysell’s First

6 Decl.”) ¶¶ 10-11; Second Declaration of Douglass Hysell in

7 Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction

8 (“Hysell’s Second Decl.”) ¶¶ 6-8. Rouser has presented evidence

9 that at around the same time Muslim inmates were allowed to have

10 services fairly on time. Declaration of Kajauna Irvin in Support

11 of Motion for Preliminary Injunction ¶ 28.

12

On or about June 21, 2009, the sprinklers went off in the

13 nature based religious area for about five minutes while Wiccan

14 inmates were celebrating Sabbat. Rouser’s First Decl. ¶ 125;

15 Hunter Decl. ¶ 10. Defendants have presented evidence that the

16 sprinklers would have only gone off at that time if someone went

17 to the sprinkler controls, turned them on, and remained there for

18 five minutes, and then turned them off or if there was a

19 malfunction. Lynch-Auniga Decl. ¶ 5. Defendants also claim that

20 if a person were at the sprinkler controls, he would have been

21 visible from the nature based religious area. Id.

22

Rouser was placed in Administrative Segregation on July 2,

23 2009, yet did not receive his Wiccan bible until July 24, 2009.

24 Id. at ¶ 128. Others in Administrative Segregation were promptly

25 given Christian Bibles and Qurans. Id. at ¶ 129. See also

26 Declaration of Claude Powell in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for

20

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 509 Filed 04/15/10 Page 21 of 33 Page ID #:7870

1 Preliminary Injunction ¶ 9 (“After being placed in Administrative

2 Segregation [in April of 2009], I received my personal belongings

3 and my Christian Bible. I saw a property officer going to the

4 cells passing out Christian Bibles and Qurans.”). Rouser has also

5 presented some evidence that prison officers have gone through

6 and thrown out his personal items including Rouser’s legal

7 documents and religious items. Declaration of Rickey Adams in

8 Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction ¶¶ 5-8; Declaration

9 of Marcus Barnhardt in Support of Motion for Preliminary

10 Injunction ¶¶ 8-9. 11

b. Evidence from LAC6

12

On August 7, 2009, plaintiff was transferred to LAC.

13 Rouser’s First Decl. ¶ 130. Rouser was informed by prison

14 officers at the time of his transfer that there is no religious

15 program for Wiccans at LAC. Id.

16

On August 27, 2009, the Muslim Chaplain at LAC informed

17 Rouser that a Wiccan volunteer chaplain, Lisa Morgenstern,

18 volunteers at LAC. Second Declaration of William Rouser in

19 Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (“Rouser’s Second Decl.”)

20 ¶ 9. As of September 4, 2009, the Wiccans were not scheduled for

21 group services, even though there are approximately thirty

22

23

6 Rouser argues that his transfer to LAC was in retaliation

for this litigation, which defendants deny. However, this 24 argument is not relevant here where plaintiff does not seek

injunctive relief prohibiting or requiring his transfer to 25 different prisons. For this reason, the court does not consider

the evidence offered in support of and in opposition to Rouser’s 26 claims of retaliation.

21

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 509 Filed 04/15/10 Page 22 of 33 Page ID #:7871

1 inmates interested in such services, and Wiccans do not have a

2 locker of any kind to keep their religious items. Id. at ¶ 14;

3 Rouser’s First Decl. ¶ 131. Furthermore, there is no nature based

4 religious area at LAC. Rouser’s Second Decl. ¶¶ 15-16. Rouser has

5 also been told by LAC officers that he cannot practice his

6 religion unless he has a sponsor or a court order. Id. at ¶¶ 17-

7 19.

8

Between November 9, 2009 and January 8, 2010, Rouser has

9 only been released for services on three occasions. Third

10 Declaration of William Rouser in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion

11 for Preliminary Injunction (“Rouser’s Third Decl.”) ¶ 4. Rouser

12 was able to lead one service, but did not have access to all of

13 the items necessary for such a service nor was he able to light 14 candles and incense as necessary for the service. Id. at 6-7.7

15 Rouser attempted to purchase these items, but his request was

16 denied, as was his appeal of the denial. Id. at ¶ 8. Rouser was

17 also not able to participate in the Yule service on December 23,

18 2009 because he was not released for the service. Id. at 12.

19

Native American inmates are released to outdoor areas for

20 services at LAC on Saturday mornings. Id. at 11.

21

Defendants have presented some evidence that rather than

22 contradicting Rouser’s evidence, differently interprets the

23 course of events. As to these arguments, Rouser has at least

24

25

7 According to Ms. Morgenstern’s testimony, Rouser is a

magician, which the court takes to mean he is the Wiccan 26 equivalent of a religious leader in more conventional faiths.

22

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 509 Filed 04/15/10 Page 23 of 33 Page ID #:7872

1 presented evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude

2 that his interpretation of the events is correct. The remaining

3 evidence presented by defendants concerns the extent to which

4 they are already in compliance with many elements of Rouser’s

5 proposed preliminary injunction. This evidence will be discussed

6 in the following section.

7

Nonetheless, the evidence presented by Rouser at least shows

8 that he is as likely to succeed on the merits of his claims of

9 constitutional and RLUIPA violations at LAC as he was in May

10 2009, when this court denied defendants’ motion for summary

11 judgment on these claims. Moreover, plaintiff has presented

12 evidence that strongly suggests that he is likely to succeed on

13 the merits on his argument that defendants’ treatment of him

14 constitutes a continuing violation as opposed to individualized

15 incidents. Rouser is similarly inhibited in the practice of his

16 religion at different prisons and under the supervision of

17 different prison officers. Thus, plaintiff has shown that he is

18 likely to succeed on the merits of his claims under the

19 Constitution and RLUIPA.

20

c. Evidence Relating to Lisa

Morgenstern’s Testimony.

21

22

On March 3, 2010, this court held an evidentiary hearing

23 concerning the experiences of Lisa Morgenstern, a Wiccan

24 volunteer chaplain at LAC. In response to this testimony

25 defendants filed an declaration of Chaplain A. Omeira,

26

23

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 509 Filed 04/15/10 Page 24 of 33 Page ID #:7873

1 characterized as Morgenstern’s supervisor at LAC.8 In turn,

2 Rouser submitted an additional declaration in response. The

3 parties have submitted numerous objections to each other’s

4 declarations. Initially, as discussed above, the evidentiary

5 objections are of little weight. The Ninth Circuit has held that,

6 “The trial court may give even inadmissible evidence some weight,

7 when to do so serves the purpose of preventing irreparable harm

8 before trial.” Flynt Distrib. Co., Inc. v. Harvey, 734 F.2d 1389,

9 1394 (9th Cir. 1984). The remaining objection is that of

10 defendants who claim that significant sections of Rouser’s

11 declaration should be stricken because they are beyond the scope

12 of Morgenstern’s testimony.

13

Ultimately, however, this is a situation where most of the

14 evidence provided in Morgenstern’s testimony and the responsive

15 declarations is beyond the scope of this motion. Plaintiff seeks

16 specific enumerated relief. The court’s inquiry is limited to

17 plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits insofar as he is

18 likely to obtain such injunctive relief at trial. For example,

19 plaintiff is not now seeking as preliminary injunctive relief the

20 hiring a Wiccan chaplain. Nonetheless, a large part of Ms.

21 Morgernstern’s testimony and portions of the responsive

22 declarations only concern this issue. Further, a significant

23 portion of the relevant testimony is uncontested. For example,

24
8 Precisely what this means is uncertain. Clearly Omeira 25 cannot supervise Ms. Morgenstern’s performance of religious
services. Thus, the court assumes he is her supervisor in 26 relation to administrative matters.

24

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 509 Filed 04/15/10 Page 25 of 33 Page ID #:7874

1 the parties agree that plaintiff does not have access to outdoor,

2 nature-based religious practice at LAC. The remaining facts

3 concern to what extent Wiccan practitioners are treated

4 differently than members of other religions. While these facts

5 may ultimately be relevant in determining the extent to which

6 Rouser is entitled to damages, they are not pertinent here where

7 (1) plaintiff has demonstrated a strong likelihood of success in

8 proving at trial that defendants have in the past treated Wiccans

9 less favorably than other faiths and (2) plaintiff seeks

10 preliminary relief of equal treatment. Specifically, if

11 defendants’ treatment of Wiccan religious activity over the past

12 few months is equal to that of other religious activity, it does

13 not make moot his claims for injunctive relief. Voluntary

14 cessation of unconstitutional behavior does not preclude an

15 order. See Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental

16 Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189 (2000). Accordingly, the

17 court does not resolve these disputes as they have no or little

18 bearing on the likelihood of plaintiff’s success on the merits of

19 his claims for injunctive relief.

20

2. Irreparable Injury.

21

In order for the court to award a preliminary injunction,

22 plaintiff must demonstrate that he is likely to suffer

23 irreparable harm without preliminary relief. Winter v. Nat’l Res.

24 Def. Council, Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008).

25 Here plaintiff seeks relief for alleged constitutional

26 violations. Such violations generally constitute irreparable harm

25

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 509 Filed 04/15/10 Page 26 of 33 Page ID #:7875

1 because they “cannot be adequately remedied through damages.”

2 Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1138 (9th Cir. 2009)

3 (interpreting Winter and quoting Nelson v. N.A.S.A., 530 F.3d

4 865, 881 (9th Cir. 2008); see also Mayweathers v. Newland, 258

5 F.3d 930, 938 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[I]nmates suffer irreparable

6 injury when they are unable to attend religious services that are

7 commanded by” their religion.). Inhibition of religious practice

8 is a clear example of such constitutional injury that cannot be

9 adequately remedied through damages. As such, to the extent that

10 plaintiff is likely suffering or likely to suffer injuries

11 arising from the inhibition of his religious practice, his

12 injuries are irreparable. In other words, if “a trial on the

13 merits shows that such [inhibition] violates [his] constitutional

14 rights, [plaintiff] will have suffered irreparable injury.”

15 Stormans, Inc., 586 F.3d at 1138.

16

Defendants do not challenge whether constitutional

17 violations constitute irreparable injuries. Rather, defendants

18 argue that Rouser is unlikely to experience irreparable injury

19 because defendants are already in compliance with most of the 20 terms of his proposed preliminary injunction.9 The court need not

21 address the factual dispute between the parties as to defendants’

22 current compliance with the proposed terms of the preliminary

23

24

9 Defendants also raise some arguments that more properly

concern the scope of the preliminary injunction than whether 25 plaintiff is likely to experience irreparable injury. These

arguments will be addressed in the final section of this order 26 addressing the scope of the injunction.

26

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 509 Filed 04/15/10 Page 27 of 33 Page ID #:7876

1 injunction. Specifically, the Supreme Court has held that

2 voluntary cessation of allegedly illegal conduct by a defendant

3 does not moot a plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief. Friends

4 of the Earth, Inc., 528 U.S. at 189 (2000). Doing so would “leave

5 the defendant free to return to his old ways.” Id. (internal

6 quotation omitted). Rather, a case does not become moot by a

7 defendant’s voluntary cessation of the allegedly illegal conduct

8 unless the defendant satisfies the “heavy burden of persuading

9 the court that the challenged conduct cannot reasonably be

10 expected to start up again . . . .” Id. (internal quotation

11 omitted).

12

While this reasoning concerns mootness, and not whether a

13 plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary injunction, it is

14 immediately relevant to defendant’s argument. Specifically,

15 plaintiff would be entitled to injunctive relief at trial even if

16 defendants could demonstrate that at the time of trial they were

17 not infringing the practice of his religion. Here, where the

18 alleged conduct infringing Rouser’s religious practice extends

19 through decades, it would be nearly impossible for defendants to

20 show that their conduct could not be expected to start up again.

21 This is especially so where the court reopened the case due to

22 defendants’ alleged failure to comply with the terms of the

23 settlement agreement. Similarly, because a preliminary injunction

24 is only awarded where plaintiff has shown that he is likely to

25 receive such a permanent injunction after trial, the same

26 reasoning applies. Accordingly, even if Rouser’s religion were

27

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 509 Filed 04/15/10 Page 28 of 33 Page ID #:7877

1 not currently being infringed by defendants, plaintiff’s claim

2 for injunctive relief has not become moot because defendants

3 could resume their conduct at any time. Furthermore, to the

4 extent that defendant is actually currently in compliance with

5 the terms of plaintiff’s proposed preliminary injunction,

6 plaintiff’s burden is merely to show that the voluntary cessation

7 does not demonstrate assurance of revival of the conduct.

8

3. Balance of Hardships and Public Interest.

9

Defendants do not make any arguments as to the balance of

10 hardships or the public interest. Suffice to say, the court is

11 persuaded that the balance of hardship tips sharply in favor of

12 plaintiff to the extent that he is unable to practice his

13 religion and allowing inmates to practice religion while

14 incarcerated is clearly within the public interest in that

15 Congress specifically passed the RLUIPA to serve such a purpose.

16

C. Scope of Preliminary Injunction.

17

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) allows courts to

18 enter an order for preliminary injunctive relief. 18 U.S.C. §

19 3626(a)(2). This relief, however, “must be narrowly drawn, extend

20 no further than necessary to correct the harm the court finds

21 requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means

22 necessary to correct that harm.” Id. Courts are also instructed

23 to “give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public

24 safety or the operation of a criminal justice system.” Id.

25 Defendants similarly do not raise any specific concerns with

26 whether plaintiff’s proposed preliminary injunctive relief

28

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 509 Filed 04/15/10 Page 29 of 33 Page ID #:7878

1 conforms with PLRA. Nonetheless, it seems to the court that the

2 relief described below is directly responsive to specific conduct

3 of defendants, and conforms with these requirements. For example,

4 plaintiff has provided evidence that defendants have prevented

5 him from practicing his religion by taking his religious items

6 and plaintiff seeks to enjoin defendants from taking these items.

7 Further, because defendants have presented no evidence as to how

8 any of this narrowly drawn relief would have an adverse impact on

9 public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system and

10 because the court is not otherwise aware of the possibility of

11 this relief causing such an adverse impact, this relief is proper

12 under the PLRA.

13

The relief the court grants results from institutional

14 policies and practices. Specifically, Rouser’s claims concerning

15 his religious articles are the result of policies and practices

16 concerning Rouser’s ability to maintain possession of his

17 religious articles and to obtain new articles. Similarly,

18 Rouser’s claims concerning his access to group worship, with

19 respect to location and announcement, result from policies that

20 prohibit access to a nature-based religious area and a fire pit

21 at LAC and the administrative difficulties in announcing Wiccan

22 services because LAC does not have a paid Wiccan chaplain.

23

To this extent, the court orders the following preliminary

24 injunctive relief:

25

(1) that defendants allow Mr. Rouser to keep and maintain

26 religious texts (including but not limited to A Witches' Bible

29

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 509 Filed 04/15/10 Page 30 of 33 Page ID #:7879

1 Compleat (the "Wiccan Bible")), to the maximum extent allowed

2 under CDCR policies and as applied to all inmates; this includes

3 allowing Mr. Rouser to have his Wiccan Bible while he is in

4 Administrative Segregation;

5

(2) that defendants allow Mr. Rouser to obtain the group

6 Wiccan items prior to Wiccan group services;

7

(3) that defendants cannot take and/or destroy Mr. Rouser's

8 approved religious articles;

9

(4) that defendants provide a means for Mr. Rouser to order

10 and receive religious items;

11

(5) that defendants announce Wiccan services to the same

12 extent they announce services for the mainstream faiths (i.e.,

13 Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, and Native American).

14

(6) that when Wiccan services are scheduled, defendants must

15 allow Mr. Rouser to access the outdoor, nature-based religious

16 area at LAC for group services for the entire scheduled time,

17 unless the Yard is on modified program and no religious group is

18 allowed to meet that day; and

19

(7) that defendants grant Mr. Rouser access to the fire pit

20 adjacent to the Native American sweat lodge during religious 21 services.10 The parties represented at the hearing on this motion

22
10 Defendants argue that Rouser is not entitled to this 23 relief because “Rouser did not exhaust his claim for a fire pit
prior to commencing this action.” Opposition at 42. To the extent 24 that defendants are arguing that Rouser need to have exhausted
his claim for access to a fire pit before he filed his original 25 complaint, such an argument is not grounded. See Order Denying
Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. No. 501. To the extent that defendants 26 are arguing that the claim for access to a fire pit was not

30

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 509 Filed 04/15/10 Page 31 of 33 Page ID #:7880

1 that practitioners of Native American faiths have access to a

2 sweat lodge. Outside of this sweat lodge is a area where rocks

3 are heated by fire to be moved into the sweat lodge. Plaintiff

4 stated that access to this fire pit would be sufficient.

5 Defendant stated that it was unsure whether the use of the fire

6 pit by Rouser would desecrate the site, but presented no evidence

7 one way or the other on this issue. Based on the evidence before

8 it, the court holds that Rouser is entitled to use this fire pit

9 during group services because (1) it is narrowly drawn with

10 respect to the constitutional violations described above and (2)

11 defendants have presented no evidence that doing so would have an

12 adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal

13 justice system.

14

The court nonetheless declines to order defendants to

15 construct an outdoor nature-based religious area, similar to the

16 outdoor nature-based religious area at PVSP because plaintiff has

17 not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the nature-

18 based religious area at LAC is insufficient. Rather, plaintiff

19 has only argued that he has not been allowed to access this area.

20 The court also declines to grant plaintiff’s request that the

21 court enjoin defendants from taking unreasonable steps to

22

23 exhausted before filing of the Fourth Amended Complaint, the
court notes that G. Duran, Correctional Counselor II, has 24 declared that Rouser has filed two grievances requesting access
to the fire pit. Declaration of G. Duran, ¶ 6. The first was 25 filed on March 5, 2009 and the second was filed on April 7, 2009.
Defendants have not made any arguments that these claims were not 26 properly appealed through the administrative system.

31

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 509 Filed 04/15/10 Page 32 of 33 Page ID #:7881

1 interrupt Mr. Rouser's group services, including but not limited

2 to blaring Christian music in the direction of Mr. Rouser's group

3 services or turning on the sprinkler system during Mr. Rouser's

4 group services because plaintiff has not demonstrated that these

5 actions were the result of CDCR or LAC policy.

6

IV. CONCLUSION

7

For the foregoing reasons, the court orders that plaintiff’s

8 motion for a preliminary injunction, Dkt. No. 425, is GRANTED as

9 to the relief described above.

10

Defendants are hereby ordered as follows,

11

(1) that defendants allow Mr. Rouser to keep and maintain

12

religious texts (including but not limited to A

13

Witches' Bible Compleat (the "Wiccan Bible")), to the

14

maximum extent allowed under CDCR policies and as

15

applied to all inmates; this includes allowing Mr.

16

Rouser to have his Wiccan Bible while he is in

17

Administrative Segregation;

18

(2) that defendants allow Mr. Rouser to obtain the group

19

Wiccan items prior to Wiccan group services;

20

(3) that defendants cannot take and/or destroy Mr. Rouser's

21

approved religious articles;

22

(4) that defendants provide a means for Mr. Rouser to order

23

and receive religious items;

24

(5) that defendants announce Wiccan services to the same

25

extent they announce services for the main stream

26

faiths (i.e., Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, and

32

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 509 Filed 04/15/10 Page 33 of 33 Page ID #:7882

1

Native American).

2

(6) that when Wiccan services are scheduled, defendants

3

must allow Mr. Rouser to access the outdoor,

4

nature-based religious area for group services for the

5

entire scheduled time, unless the Yard is on modified

6

program and no religious group is allowed to meet that

7

day; and

8

(7) that defendants grant Mr. Rouser access to the fire pit

9

adjacent to the Native American sweat lodge during

10

religious services.

11

The court further orders that plaintiff shall not be

12 required to post bond.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

DATED: April 15, 2010.

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

33

 
 Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 518 Filed 05/17/10 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:8015
FILED MAY 1 7 2010
..- EASCTLEERRNK'oUIS.ST.RDICISTTORFICCTACLOIFUORTNtA
~------~~~~--~

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

William Rouser,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

-vs-

)

)

Theo White, et. al.,

)

)

Defendant(s),

)

)

-vs-

)

)

Members of the Spotted Eagle

)

Circle, Lancaster State Prison,

)

)

Defendants/Real Parties

)

________~o~f~I~n~t~e~r~e~s~t~.~______________ )

Case No. CIV-S-93-0767 LKK GGH P
MOTION TO INTERVENE AS A DEFENDANT UNDER F.R.C.P., RULE 24
DATE: ____________
TIME: ____________
DEPT. :------------

1. The Members of the Spotted Eagle Circle, Lancaster State Prison, CSP-Los Angeles County, move for leave to intervene as a Defendant and Real Party of Interest
in this action and files the attached Answer.

2. The Plaintiff [Rouser] alleges failure of prison officials to accommodate the practice of his religion and his request for preliminary injunction infringes upon the Constitution rights of the Native American participants and we have a defense to the Plaintiff's claim.

3. Our defense presents questions of law and fact that are common to this action.

EMBER
-1-

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 518 Filed 05/17/10 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:8016

SPOTTED E GLE CI~LE MEMBER

SPOTTED EAGLE CIRCLE MEMBER

~~~~'</_ _ _ _ ~ 4~ /-t1"3£L/

MEMBER

SPOTTED EAGLE CIRCLE MEMBER

III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III
-2-

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 518-1 Filed 05/17/10 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:8017
FILED
MAY 17 2010
EAScTELERRNK.DuIS.sT.RDICISTTORFICCTACLOIFUC T A
.------~~----~--

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

William Rouser,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

-vs-

)

)

Theo White, et. al.,

)

)

Defendants,

)

)

-vs-

)

)

Members of the Spotted Eagle

)

Circle, Lancaster State Prison,

)

)

Defendants/Real Parties

)

------o~f~~ I n=t=e~r~ e s-t- . ----------- )

I.

Case No. CIV-S-93-0767 LKK GGH P INTERVENERS' ANSWER DATE: _______________ TIME: _______________ DEPT. ______________

RESPONDING TO ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT

1. Defendants does not admit to any allegations in the complaint until a copy is obtained.

2. Defendants lacks the knowledge-or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth or the allegations lodged in the complaint as they are unrepresented by counsel herein nor have read the Amended Complaint pending before this Honorable Court.

3. Defendants admits Plaintiff is entitled to his freedom of beliefs as federally protected but denies or lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth
of the remainder of the complaint.

-1-

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 518-1 Filed 05/17/10 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:8018

II.

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

4. The Defendants allege that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted without infringing upon the Constitutional rights of the Members of the Spotted Eagle Circle.

III.

FAILURE TO JOIN A REQUIRED PARTY

5. None.

IV.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE-STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

6. Defendants have an affirmative defense which opposes the Court's granting of a preliminary injunction and has filed within the 28 Day statutory requirement under Rule 6.

V.

COUNTER-CLAIM

7. Defendants move for counter-claim pursuant to F.R.C.P., Rule 59(e) for protection of rights for the Members of the Spotted Eagle Circle, Lancaster State Prison, County of Los Angeles, to correct the clear error or manifested injustice.

VI.

CROSS CLAIM

8. Defendants present no cross claim.

Dated: April 30, 2010
I~~

C:v J LJ~LE SPOTTED

CIRCLE MEMBER

Respectfully submitted,
/~~~- ~~~ CIRCLE MEMBER
SPO~E~~MEMBER

SPO TED EAGLE CIRCLE MEMBER

-2-

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 518-1 Filed 05/17/10 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:8019

e ~t""6'-
==~~~::-=-~~~----=~~--=----

cSPOTTED~· EAGLE:~MEMBER
~~dmt
SPOTTED EAGLE CIRCLE MEMBER

SPOTTED EAGLE CIRCLE MEMBER
III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III

SPOTTED EAGLE CIRCLE MEMBER -3-

 
 Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 519 Filed 05/24/10 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:8020

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 WILLIAM ROUSER,

11

Plaintiff,

No. CIV S-93-0767 LKK GGH P

12

vs.

13 THEO WHITE, et al.,

14

Defendants.

O R D E R

15

/

16

On April 15, 2010, the court granted in part, plaintiff’s

17 motion for a preliminary injunction. Part of the relief ordered

18 included allowing plaintiff access to a sweat lodge/fire pit used

19 by Native American inmates.

20

On April 29, 2010, the court signed a stipulation filed by

21 plaintiff and defendants. This stipulation indicated that

22 defendant will be appealing the court’s order to the Court of

23 Appeals, but that the parties are also engaged in mediation. The

24 stipulation was not clear as to whether defendants are currently

25 implementing the preliminary injunction. Rather, it stated that

26 because of the pending mediation, defendant need not seek a stay

1

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 519 Filed 05/24/10 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:8021

1 of enforcement in the district court. On May 4, 2010, defendant

2 filed a notice of appeal.

3

On May 17, 2010, thirteen prisoners,1 who are proceeding pro

4 se, filed a motion to intervene and a motion for reconsideration

5 of this court’s order granting plaintiff’s motion for a

6 preliminary injunction in part. These individuals are members of

7 the Spotted Eagle Circle at Lancaster State Prison. They seek to

8 bring a cross-claim against plaintiff.

9

In their motion to reconsider, the interveners argue that

10 allowing plaintiff access to their sweat lodge/fire pit would

11 desecrate the site for them. As such, they ask the court to

12 reconsider its order allowing plaintiff access to the site.

13

For the foregoing reasons, the court orders as follows:

14

(1) The motion to intervene, Dkt. No. 518, is GRANTED.

15

(2) The court has determined that it may be appropriate to

16

appoint counsel for the interveners. For this reason,

17

the court orders the Clerk of Court to serve copies of

18

this order, the court’s order granting in part

19

plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, Dkt.

20

No. 509, and the interveners motions, Dkt. Nos. 517,

21

518 upon California Indian Legal Services at the

22

following addresses:

23 ////

24
1 The court notes that while thirteen individuals signed the 25 motion to intervene and the declaration in support of the motion
for reconsideration, only twelve individuals signed the motion 26 for reconsideration.

2

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 519 Filed 05/24/10 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:8022

1

(a) 609 S. Escondido Boulevard

2

Escondido, CA 92025; and

3

(b) 3814 Auburn Boulevard, Suite 72

4

Sacramento, CA 95821.

5

(3) California Indian Legal Services shall inform the court

6

within thirty (30) days of the issuance of this order

7

whether it will represent the interveners in this

8

action. If the organization declines to represent the

9

interveners the court will seek alternative volunteer

10

counsel for them.

11

(4) If the interveners do not want California Indian Legal

12

Services or other volunteer counsel to represent them

13

in this case, they shall inform the court that they

14

object to the appointment of counsel within thirty (30)

15

days of the issuance of this order.

16

(5) The court stays enforcement of the April 15, 2010 order

17

pending resolution of the intervener’s motion to

18

reconsider as to only the following relief:

19

(a) that defendants grant Mr. Rouser access to the

20

fire pit adjacent to the Native American sweat

21

lodge during religious services; and

22

(b) that when Wiccan services are scheduled,

23

defendants must allow Mr. Rouser to access the

24

outdoor, nature-based religious area for group

25

services for the entire scheduled time, unless the

26

Yard is on modified program and no religious group

3

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 519 Filed 05/24/10 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #:8023

1

is allowed to meet that day only insofar as access

2

to this area interferes with the interveners’

3

religious practice.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

DATED: May 24, 2010.

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

4

 
 Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 527 Filed 09/23/11 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:8041

1 PHILIP E. COOK, State Bar No. 149067 pcook@jonesday.com
2 JASON C. WRIGHT, State Bar No. 261471 jcwright@jonesday.com
3 KARA BACKUS, State Bar No. 260594 kbackus@jonesday.com
4 LIN WANG, State Bar No. 261387 linwang@jonesday.com
5 Jones Day 555 South Flower Street, Fiftieth Floor
6 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2300 Telephone: (213) 489-3939
7 Facsimile: (213) 243-2539 Attorneys for Plaintiff Rouser
8 KAMALA D. HARRIS, State Bar No. 146672
9 Attorney General of California TRACY S. HENDRICKSON, State Bar No. 155081
10 Supervising Deputy Attorney General JAMES E. FLYNN, State Bar No. 61139
11 Deputy Attorney General 1300 I Street, Suite 125
12 P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
13 Telephone: (916) 323-1976 Fax: (916) 324-5205
14 E-mail: James.Flynn@doj.ca.gov

15 Attorneys for Defendants Cate, Flores, Gomez, Haws, Ortiz, White, Yates, and Cash
16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
17 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
18 SACRAMENTO DIVISION
19

20

21 WILLIAM ROUSER,

22

23

v.

2:93-cv-0767-LKK-GGH (PC)
Plaintiff, JOINT NOTICE AND MOTION FOR ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND TRANSFERRING VENUE

24 THEO WHITE, et al.,
25
26
27 28 / / /

Defendants.

Date:

October 24, 2011

Time:

10:00 a.m.

Courtroom: 4

Judge

Lawrence K. Karlton

Trial Date None

Action Filed: May 17, 1993

1
Joint Motion for Change of Venue (2:93-cv-0767-LKK-GGH (PC))

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 527 Filed 09/23/11 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:8042

1

TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT AND THE ATTORNEY OF RECORD FOR;

INTERVENORS SPOTTED EAGLE CIRCLE, T. NGUYEN, RUSS, TERRES,

2

MELTON, WEYANT, L. NGUYEN, D. LEE, HINKLE, ROBINSON, K. LEE,

3

DADO, McCARTER

4

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT, at the time and place set forth above, plaintiff and

5 defendants will jointly move for an order approving the settlement in this action and transferring

6 venue to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division,

7 under 28 U.S.C. §1404(a).

8

The grounds for this motion are that the parties have reached a settlement of this action

9 which provides for orders entering the parties’ settlement agreement as a consent decree under 18

10 U.S.C. § 3626(c)(1) and transferring venue to the United States District Court for the Central

11 District of California, Western Division. The settlement agreement resolves the claims at issue,

12 and the change of venue to the transferee court will serve the convenience of the parties and

13 witnesses, and the interests of justice during the compliance and enforcement of the settlement, as

14 more fully set forth in the parties’ memorandum of points and authorities.

15 / / /

16 / / /

17 / / /

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2
Joint Motion for Change of Venue (2:93-cv-0767-LKK-GGH (PC))

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 527 Filed 09/23/11 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:8043

1

This motion is based on the notice and motion, the supporting memorandum of points and

2 authorities and attached declaration, the pleadings, records, and files in this action, and such other

3 matters as may properly come before the Court.

4 Dated: September 23, 2011 5 6 7

Respectfully submitted,
/S/ JASON C. WRIGHT
JASON C. WRIGHT Attorney for Plaintiff Rouser

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 CA1993CX0283
31304018.doc
15

KAMALA D. HARRIS Attorney General of California TRACY S. HENDRICKSON Supervising Deputy Attorney General
/S/ JAMES E. FLYNN
JAMES E. FLYNN Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants Cate, Flores, Gomez, Haws, Ortiz, White Yates, and Cash

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 3
Joint Motion for Change of Venue (2:93-cv-0767-LKK-GGH (PC))

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 527-1 Filed 09/23/11 Page 1 of 8 Page ID #:8044

1 PHILIP E. COOK, State Bar No. 149067 pcook@jonesday.com
2 JASON C. WRIGHT, State Bar No. 261471 jcwright@jonesday.com
3 KARA BACKUSM, State Bar No. 260594 kbackus@jonesday.com
4 LIN WANG, State Bar No. 261387 linwang@jonesday.com
5 Jones Day 555 South Flower Street, Fiftieth Floor
6 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2300 Telephone: (213) 489-3939
7 Facsimile: (213) 243-2539 Attorneys for Plaintiff Rouser
8 KAMALA D. HARRIS, State Bar No. 146672
9 Attorney General of California TRACY S. HENDRICKSON, State Bar No. 155081
10 Supervising Deputy Attorney General JAMES E. FLYNN, State Bar No. 61139
11 Deputy Attorney General 1300 I Street, Suite 125
12 P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
13 Telephone: (916) 323-1976 Fax: (916) 324-5205
14 E-mail: James.Flynn@doj.ca.gov

15 Attorneys for Defendants Cate, Flores, Gomez, Haws, Ortiz, White, Yates, and Cash
16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
17 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
18 SACRAMENTO DIVISION
19

20

21 WILLIAM ROUSER,

2:93-cv-0767-LKK-GGH (PC)

22

23

v.

24 THEO WHITE, et al.,
25

26

27

28

Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION FOR ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND TRANSFERRING VENUE

Defendants.

Date:

October 24, 2011

Time:

10:00 a.m.

Courtroom: 4

Judge

Lawrence K. Karlton

Trial Date None

Action Filed: May 17, 1993

1

Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Joint Motion for Order Approving Settlement and Transferring Venue (2:93-cv-0767-LKK-GGH (PC))

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 527-1 Filed 09/23/11 Page 2 of 8 Page ID #:8045

1

INTRODUCTION

2

The parties have reached a settlement that will operate as a consent decree under 18 U.S.C.

3 § 3626(c)(1), when approved by the Court. Because Plaintiff William Rouser (“Plaintiff”) is now

4 housed at the California State Prison-Los Angeles County, compliance with the agreement will

5 occur at that prison. The parties have conditioned their agreement on a change of venue to the

6 United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division, because it

7 will serve the convenience of the parties, witnesses, and the interest of justice during

8 implementation of the agreement, and any future compliance and enforcement proceedings.

9 There is no bar, and all the relevant factors favor the transfer of venue.

10

ARGUMENT

11 I. 12

THE COURT SHOULD APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT BECAUSE IT COMPLIES WITH 18 U.S.C. § 3626.

13

The parties have entered into a settlement agreement providing Plaintiff with certain

14 injunctive relief. (Attached hereto as Exhibit A.) This settlement agreement is contingent on this

15 court entering the settlement agreement as a consent decree, enforceable as a judgment for

16 injunctive relief. Further, this Court should enter the settlement agreement as a consent decree

17 because it comports with the requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act.

18

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3626(c), a consent decree must comply with subsection (a). Section

19 3626(a) requires a court to determine that the injunctive relief is (1) narrowly drawn; (2) extends

20 no further than necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief; and (3) is

21 the least intrusive means necessary to correct that harm. The relief agreed to between the parties

22 meets these requirements.

23

First, the injunctive relief is “narrowly drawn” if it “[avoids] unnecessary disruption to the

24 state agency’s ‘normal course of proceeding.’” Clement v. Cal. Dep’t of Corrs., 364 F.3d 1148,

25 1153 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Ashker v. Cal. Dep’t of Corrs., 350 F.3d 917, 921-22, 924 (9th Cir.

26 2003)). In other words, the injunction is narrowly drawn if it does not prohibit other prison

27 policies or practices that are necessary to maintain security and other legitimate objectives. As

28 shown by Defendants’ own agreement to the relief, the proposed settlement agreement does not 2
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Joint Motion for Order Approving Settlement and Transferring Venue (2:93-cv-0767-LKK-GGH (PC))

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 527-1 Filed 09/23/11 Page 3 of 8 Page ID #:8046

1 disrupt other prison operations. Indeed, the settlement agreement provides Defendants with the

2 ability to ensure prison security while still complying with the settlement agreement. For instance,

3 when there is “a lockdown or inmate-caused safety or security concern,” Plaintiff’s religious

4 holiday (“Sabbat”) may be cancelled without being rescheduled. (Settlement Agreement ¶ 16.)

5

With regard to the second requirement, an injunction does not extend further than necessary

6 when it is limited to remedying the harm shown by the evidence. In other words, an injunction

7 premised on isolated violations must be limited to the named plaintiffs, but systemic violations of

8 constitutional rights will justify system-wide relief. Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 870-71

9 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding system-wide relief was appropriate because the evidence demonstrated

10 systemic violations by the defendants). Because the Settlement Agreement provides relief

11 specific to Plaintiff (Settlement Agreement ¶ 10), it does not “extend further than necessary.”

12

With regard to the third requirement, an injunction employs the “least intrusive means

13 necessary” when its enforcement does not require “‘the continuous supervision by the federal

14 court over the conduct of [state officers].’” Clement, 364 F.3d at 1153 (citations omitted). The

15 rule against “continuous supervision” does not prohibit an injunction simply because a plaintiff

16 may avail himself of the court’s enforcement powers; rather, the rule prohibits injunctive relief

17 that automatically requires the court to involve itself in the day-to-day management of the

18 defendant. Armstrong, 275 F.3d at 873 (holding the injunction at issue was “the least intrusive

19 means necessary” because the district court “did not attempt to ‘micro manage’ the Board’s

20 activities, but rather to set clear objectives for it to attempt to attain, and, in most circumstances,

21 general methods whereby it would attain them.”). Here, there is no provision in the settlement

22 agreement that automatically requires the Court’s attention; and as a result, it employs the least

23 intrusive means necessary.

24

Because the settlement agreement comports with the requirements of the Prison Litigation

25 Reform Act, this Court should enter the agreement as a consent decree and final judgment.

26 / / /

27 / / /

28 3
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Joint Motion for Order Approving Settlement and Transferring Venue (2:93-cv-0767-LKK-GGH (PC))

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 527-1 Filed 09/23/11 Page 4 of 8 Page ID #:8047

1 I. 2

THE COURT SHOULD TRANSFER VENUE FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THE PARTIES, WITNESSES, AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

3

The Court should find that the parties’ settlement of this long-running action satisfies the

4 requirement of 18 U.S.C. § 3626(c)(1) and should order venue transferred to the Central District,

5 Western Division under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

6

The Court has discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer venue for the convenience of

7 the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, to a district court where the action might have

8 been brought. Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir. 2000). “Weighing of

9 the factors in favor or against transfer involves subtle considerations and is best left to the

10 discretion of the district court.” Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Savage, 611 F.2d 270,

11 279 (9th Cir. 1979).

12

The threshold question for a court considering a transfer under section 1404(a) is whether

13 the action could have been brought in the district to which the moving party seeks to transfer the

14 action. In deciding whether an action could have been brought in the transferee court, the district

15 court is not required to confine its venue consideration to the facts as they existed at the time of

16 the original complaint. Cordis Corp. v. Siemens-Pacesetter, Inc., 682 F.Supp. 1200, 1201-02

17 (S.D. Fla. 1987) (citing In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation, 685 F.2d 810 (3d. Cir. 1982)). The

18 question is whether, at the present time, the transferee district is one where the action might have

19 been brought as to all defendants before the court. Id. At its core, a common-sense approach to

20 applying section 1404(a) requires that the phrase “where it might have been brought” not act as

21 an absolute bar to transfer where the surrounding circumstances favor transfer to best serve the

22 convenience or the interests of justice, even though the plaintiff could not have brought the exact

23 same case, when originally filed, in the transferee court. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v.

24 Magellan Navigation, Inc., 512 F.Supp.2d 1169, 1174 (W.D. Wis. 2007).

25

A. Transfer to the Central District is Proper Because this Action Could Have

Been Brought There.

26

27

This action is proceeding on the fourth amended complaint, which alleges federal

28 constitutional and statutory claims. (Fourth Am. and Suppl. Compl., Dec. 15, 2009, ECF No. 4
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Joint Motion for Order Approving Settlement and Transferring Venue (2:93-cv-0767-LKK-GGH (PC))

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 527-1 Filed 09/23/11 Page 5 of 8 Page ID #:8048

1 452.) All federal district courts have jurisdiction over federal constitutional, statutory, and civil

2 rights claims. 28 U.S.C. §1331, 1343. Subject matter jurisdiction in the Eastern District was

3 based on 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s

4 claims, and in particular his claims for monetary damages, occurred at prisons located in a county

5 within that court’s jurisdiction. ((Fourth Am. and Suppl. Compl., Dec. 15, 2009, ECF No. 452,

6 ¶4.) However, a portion of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief, which

7 were resolved by the parties’ consent decree, occurred at the California State Prison-Los Angeles

8 County, located in the Central District, Western Division. (Id. ¶¶ 12, 43.) For that reason, this

9 action could also have been brought in the Central District, Western Division, for events in Los

10 Angeles County. There is no dispute that the Central District, Western Division, would have

11 jurisdiction over all Defendants in this action. For these reasons, there is no bar to the transfer of

12 venue.

13

B. The Convenience of the Parties, Witnesses, and Interest of Justice Favor

the Transfer. 14

15

The convenience of the parties and witnesses, and the interest of justice favor the transfer.

16 In making that determination, the court considers the following factors: 1) the place where the

17 operative facts will occur; 2) the convenience of the parties; 3) the convenience of the witnesses;

18 4) the relative ease of access to sources of proof; 5) the availability of process to compel the

19 attendance of unwilling witnesses; 6) parties’ choice of forum; 7) the court’s familiarity with the

20 applicable law; and 8) trial efficiency, costs of litigation, and the interest of justice. Jones, 211

21 F.3d at 498.

22

1. Place Where Operative Facts Will Occur

23

A federal court will only retain jurisdiction of this matter for the purposes of any

24 enforcement action regarding the prospective relief agreed to by the parties. Most importantly,

25 the operative facts concerning compliance with the settlement will occur over the next year at

26 CSP-Los Angeles County, where Plaintiff is confined. In an injunctive relief case like this, where

27 one court is “closer to the action” and better able to monitor compliance with any injunction, this

28 / / / 5
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Joint Motion for Order Approving Settlement and Transferring Venue (2:93-cv-0767-LKK-GGH (PC))

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 527-1 Filed 09/23/11 Page 6 of 8 Page ID #:8049

1 factor weighs in favor of a transfer. Law Bulletin Pub., Co. v. LRP Publications, Inc., 992

2 F.Supp. 1014, 1021 (N.D. Ill. 1998).

3

2. Convenience of Parties

4

Plaintiff is an inmate, and defendant Cash is the Warden at the California State Prison-Los

5 Angeles County. Both parties are located in the county served by the Central District, Western

6 Division, and the prison is in Lancaster, California, which is approximately 75 miles from the

7 court, while the Eastern District is located in Sacramento, California, over 360 miles away. And,

8 the Attorney General and Plaintiff’s attorney of record have offices in Los Angeles itself, only a

9 few miles from the Central District, Western Division, courthouse. This factor favors transfer.

10

3. Convenience of Witnesses, Access to Sources of Proof, and Subpoena

Power 11

12

The convenience of witnesses will be served by the transfer. While the identity and

13 testimony of every witness concerning compliance cannot be anticipated at this time, witnesses

14 would include, at a minimum, Plaintiff and Warden Cash. And, as has occurred in earlier phases

15 of the litigation, witnesses such as the prison’s Community Partnership Manager, who oversees

16 inmate religious programs at the prison; the chaplain for the facility where Plaintiff is housed,

17 who is responsible for facilitating the Wiccan religious program; and the volunteer Wiccan

18 spiritual advisor could be expected to be witnesses, as well as correctional officers responsible for

19 releasing inmates for religious services. All those witnesses are located at the California State

20 Prison-Los Angeles County in Lancaster. Witness convenience in accessing the parties’ attorneys

21 and the court for hearings, if necessary, as well as access to documents and other sources of proof,

22 and subpoenas for unwilling witnesses, because they would be located within 100 miles of the

23 court, all favor transfer to the Central District, Western Division.

24

4. The Parties’ Choice of Forum

25

Defendants favor moving the venue to the Central District, Western Division because of

26 convenience to the parties. Plaintiff agrees that venue in the Central District of California is more

27 practical if, as the parties have agreed, the settlement agreement is entered as a consent decree

28 / / / 6
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Joint Motion for Order Approving Settlement and Transferring Venue (2:93-cv-0767-LKK-GGH (PC))

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 527-1 Filed 09/23/11 Page 7 of 8 Page ID #:8050

1 and the only remaining action by a court would possibly be review Defendants’ future conduct

2 that would necessarily occur in Los Angeles County. As a result, this factor favors transfer.

3

5. The Transferee Court’s Familiarity with the Law

4

The law on enforcement of the settlement agreement is the same, regardless of which

5 district court applies it, so the Central District, Western Division, can be expected to be as

6 familiar with the law as the Eastern District, Sacramento Division. This factor favors transfer.

7

6. Trial Efficiency, Cost of Litigation, and Interests of Justice

8

For the reasons discussed above, trial efficiency will be furthered by transfer of venue

9 because of the proximity of the parties and their attorneys to witnesses and evidence, and the

10 Central District court. Moreover, that proximity will also minimize associated costs and burdens

11 to the parties if future evidentiary hearings were necessary.

12 / / /

13 / / /

14 / / /

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 7
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Joint Motion for Order Approving Settlement and Transferring Venue (2:93-cv-0767-LKK-GGH (PC))

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 527-1 Filed 09/23/11 Page 8 of 8 Page ID #:8051

1

CONCLUSION

2

The Court should grant the parties’ motion, approve the settlement agreement as a consent

3 decree under § 3626(c)(1), and transfer venue to the Central District, Western Division, under

4 section 1404(a) because this action could have been brought there, and the convenience of the

5 parties, witnesses, and the interests of justice favor the transfer.

6 Dated: September 23, 2011 7 8 9

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Jason C. Wright
JASON C. WRIGHT Attorney for Plaintiff Rouser

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 CA1993CX0283
31305509.doc
17

KAMALA D. HARRIS Attorney General of California TRACY S. HENDRICKSON Supervising Deputy Attorney General
/s/ James E. Flynn
JAMES E. FLYNN Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants Cate, Flores, Gomez, Haws, Ortiz, White, and Cash

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 8
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Joint Motion for Order Approving Settlement and Transferring Venue (2:93-cv-0767-LKK-GGH (PC))

 
 Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 528 Filed 09/23/11 Page 1 of 14 Page ID #:8052

1 PHILIP E. COOK, State Bar No. 149067 pcook@jonesday.com
2 JASON C. WRIGHT, State Bar No. 261471 jcwright@jonesday.com
3 KARA BACKUS, State Bar No. 260594 kbackus@jonesday.com
4 LIN WANG, State Bar No. 261387 linwang@jonesday.com
5 Jones Day 555 South Flower Street, Fiftieth Floor
6 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2300 Telephone: (213) 489-3939
7 Facsimile: (213) 243-2539 Attorneys for Plaintiff Rouser
8 KAMALA D. HARRIS
9 Attorney General of California ROCHELLE C. EAST
10 Senior Assistant Attorney General TRACY S. HENDRICKSON
11 Supervising Deputy Attorney General JAMES E. FLYNN (State Bar No. 61139)
12 Deputy Attorney General 1300 I Street, Suite 125
13 P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
14 Telephone: (916) 323-1976 Fax: (916) 324-5205
15 Email: James.Flynn@doj.ca.gov Attorneys for Defendants Cate, Flores, Gomez, Haws,
16 Ortiz, White, Yates, and Cash

17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
18 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
19 SACRAMENTO DIVISION
20

21 WILLIAM ROUSER,
22 Plaintiff,
23 v.
24 THEO WHITE, et al.,
25 Defendants.
26

Case No. 2:93-cv-0767-LKK-GGH(PC) JOINT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Judge: Hon. Lawrence K. Karlton

27

28 / / /

LAI-3142072v2

1
Joint Settlement Agreement

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 528 Filed 09/23/11 Page 2 of 14 Page ID #:8053

1

Jurisdiction

2

1. The Court has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this action.

3

2. Within 30 days of the execution of this Joint Settlement Agreement

4 (“Agreement”), the parties will file in the Ninth Circuit a joint motion to dismiss the appeals

5 without prejudice. Once the court grants this motion, the parties will bring in the district court 1)

6 a joint motion to approve this Agreement and enter it as a consent decree, and 2) a joint motion

7 for change of venue as discussed in paragraph 52. Should the district court not approve the

8 Agreement, or not grant the motion for change of venue, appellants may reinstate the appeals. If

9 the district court approves both the Agreement and the change of venue, the Ninth Circuit will

10 deem the appeals dismissed with prejudice.

11

Parties

12

3. The parties to this stipulation are plaintiff William Rouser (C-10659) and

13 defendants Mathew Cate, Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and

14 Rehabilitation (CDCR), and Brenda Cash, Warden of the California State Prison – Los Angeles

15 County (CSP-Los Angeles County).

16

4. Defendants agree that this Agreement is binding on their agents and successors in

17 office.

18

Dismissal of Claims

19

5. The claims against defendants Gomez, White, Yates, Flores, and Ortiz for

20 damages and injunctive relief in this action are dismissed with prejudice.

21

6. Within thirty days of the Court’s order approving this Agreement, Rouser shall

22 voluntarily dismiss with prejudice the actions in Rouser v. Timm, et al., Fresno County Sup. Ct.

23 No. 09CECG01591; Rouser v. Chaplain McGee, et al., Fresno County Sup. Ct. No.

24 09CECG01301AMS; Rouser v. Fortson, et al., Los Angeles County Sup. Ct. No. MC021510; and

25 Rouser v. Myers, et al., Fresno County Sup. Ct. No. 09CECG03670.

26

General Provisions and Disclaimers

27

7. The parties enter this Agreement to avoid the continuation of expensive,

28 protracted, and adversarial litigation.

LAI-3142072v2

2
Joint Settlement Agreement

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 528 Filed 09/23/11 Page 3 of 14 Page ID #:8054

1

8. By entering this Agreement, the parties waive specific findings of fact and

2 conclusions of law, and any determination whether the remedies provided are legally required.

3

9. By entering into this Agreement, defendants do not admit any violation of law.

4

10. This action is not a class action on behalf of all Wiccan inmates in the California

5 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation institutions. Therefore, provisions of this

6 Agreement may not be used as evidence in any other proceeding, except enforcement proceedings

7 in this action; and the provisions of this Agreement will not have issue or claim preclusion effect

8 on any other case that may now exist, or that may arise in the future.

9

Access to Personal Religious Items

10

11. Defendants shall permit Rouser access to the following approved personal

11 religious items, subject to the provisions of California Code of Regulations, title 15, § 3213, as

12 follows:

13

a. J. and S. Farrar, A Witches Bible Compleat (Magickal Childe Publ, Inc.

14 (1991);

15

b. Book of Shadows;

16

c. Other religious literature, subject to policies and procedures applicable to

17 inmates access to approved inmate literature;

18

d. Tarot cards (one deck);

19

e. Oils (kyphi, frankinmyrrh, sage, cedar, or lavender), with a maximum of

20 four ounces of oil total, ordered and received per calendar quarter, and no more than a total of

21 four ounces of approved oils in Rouser’s personal possession at any given time;

22

f. Herbs (mint, cedar, sage, lavender);

23

g. Stones (5), no larger than one inch in diameter, or (10), no larger than one-

24 half inch in diameter;

25

h. Feathers (4);

26

i. Pentagram or other approved Wiccan medallion that does not exceed 1.5

27 inches in diameter and neck chain, that does not exceed 24 inches in length. The total value of

28 the medallion and chain may not exceed $100 in commercial value;

LAI-3142072v2

3
Joint Settlement Agreement

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 528 Filed 09/23/11 Page 4 of 14 Page ID #:8055

1

j. Seashells (one package of 18 shells as sold by approved vendor), the

2 individual shells not larger than one-half inch in diameter.

3

12. If the number or quantity of religious articles, as sold by an approved religious

4 vendor, exceeds that which is allowed, Rouser will be given the option of placing the excess

5 religious property in his stored property, sending the excess property home, or having it

6 destroyed.

7

13. If Rouser is sent to Administrative Segregation or a Security Housing Unit (SHU),

8 defendants will maintain and store Rouser’s personal religious items pending his release from

9 Administrative Segregation or SHU, except that Rouser will be permitted to have his Wiccan

10 Bible in his possession throughout the duration of any confinement in Administrative-Segregation

11 or SHU to the same extent that prisoners of other religious faiths are allowed to have a religious

12 text in those housing units.

13

Wiccan Group Services and Religious Study Groups

14

14. Prison officials shall provide Rouser reasonable opportunities to participate in

15 Wiccan group religious services, called esbats or sabbats, and to attend religious study groups that

16 are comparable to group religious services and study provided inmates of other religions, taking

17 into account factors such as the number of inmates, available space, safety and security,

18 resources, and administrative considerations, so long as those factors are also considered in

19 determining the access of other religious groups to regularly scheduled group religious activities.

20

15. Rouser shall have the opportunity to attend regular Wiccan group services, called

21 esbats, once a week, subject to the provisions of California Code of Regulations, title 15,

22 §3210(c).

23

16. Prison officials shall provide Rouser the opportunity to attend the following

24 special religious services, called sabbats:

25

a. Imbolg – February 2;

26

b. Spring Equinox – March 21;

27

c. May Day – May 1;

28

d. Midsummer – June 21;

LAI-3142072v2

4
Joint Settlement Agreement

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 528 Filed 09/23/11 Page 5 of 14 Page ID #:8056

1

e. Lughnasadh – August 1;

2

f. Autumn Equinox – September 21;

3

g. Samhain – October 31;

4

h. Yule (Winter Solstice) – December 23.

5

Prison officials shall use their reasonable efforts to schedule the sabbats on the dates

6 identified, but may schedule them on other dates, where necessary. If a scheduled sabbat is

7 cancelled for administrative reasons (such as maintenance or staff shortages), prison officials

8 shall reschedule the sabbat at the earliest practicable date. When a sabbat is cancelled because of

9 a lockdown or inmate-caused safety or security concern, the sabbat will not be rescheduled.

10

17. If the institution where Rouser is housed provides inmates the opportunity to

11 attend religious study groups, Rouser shall also be provided the opportunity, comparable to that

12 afforded inmates of other religious faiths, to attend a Wiccan religious study group for one hour,

13 once a week. Wiccan religious study groups are separate and apart from esbats and sabbats, and

14 shall be scheduled on different days than esbats and sabbats.

15

18. When attending a Wiccan esbat, sabbat, or group study, Rouser must be processed

16 into the location where the event is to be held by the facility Chaplain, volunteer Wiccan minister,

17 or other staff. Rouser must surrender his identity card to processing staff before entering, and

18 must sign in for each event. Rouser’s identification card will be returned when he exits the

19 location where the event is being held.

20

Schedule, Time, Location, and Announcement of Services

21

19. A master schedule of facility religious services and religious study groups that

22 includes the time and location of Wiccan events will be posted in the facility’s non-

23 denominational chapel and each building in the facility. Copies of the master schedule will be

24 provided to the Associate Warden for Programs and Housing, the Associate Warden for Central

25 Services, the Community Partnership Manager, the Facility Chaplain, and the Facility Captain.

26

20. The time and location of Wiccan group religious events shall be announced in the

27 same manner and to the same extent as announced for religious events of other religious groups.

28 / / /

LAI-3142072v2

5
Joint Settlement Agreement

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 528 Filed 09/23/11 Page 6 of 14 Page ID #:8057

1

21. In place of access to the facility’s nondenominational chapel, Wiccan esbats and

2 sabbats shall be held on the outdoor religious activity area designated by the institution for

3 outdoor religious activity. Prison officials shall have a reasonable time, no longer than sixty days

4 from the date this Agreement is approved by the Court, to make necessary arrangements to

5 provide access in accordance with institutional operational concerns to promote equitable access

6 to prayer areas.

7

22. Rouser shall have access to a fire pit on the outdoor worship area on the sabbats.

8 The fire pit shall not exceed twelve inches in diameter. Use of the fire pit shall be in accordance

9 with institutional safety and security concerns, including applicable fire safety regulations.

10

23. If the facility permits religious study groups, Rouser will be allowed to attend a

11 Wiccan study group on either the facility’s outdoor religious activity area, or in the facility’s non-

12 denominational chapel. Rouser will be allowed to bring his approved religious text, his religious

13 necklace, and a small spiritual bag containing stones. If inmates of other religious faiths are

14 allowed to bring additional personal religious articles to group services, Rouser will be allowed to

15 bring his personal religious articles comparable to those inmates of other religious faiths are

16 allowed to bring to their study groups.

17

24. Prison officials understand that a typical Wiccan esbat takes approximately one

18 hour to complete, and a typical sabbat takes approximately two hours to complete. Rouser will be

19 provided time for esbats and sabbats comparable to that provided to inmates of other religious

20 faiths for religious activities at the California State Prison – Los Angeles County, or at another

21 institution, if Rouser were to be transferred during the life of the Agreement. The time within

22 which a scheduled esbat or sabbat is to take place will be sufficient to allow Rouser and other

23 Wiccans attending the service to be released from their buildings, travel to the location of the

24 service, and complete the service. The parties recognize that prison officials may not provide the

25 full one or two hours for completion of the esbat or sabbat service on those occasions when

26 institutional safety, security, or administrative reasons require that less time be provided. Prison

27 officials shall use reasonable efforts to ensure that Wiccan religious services and study groups are

28 not shortened or cancelled more often than those for inmates of other religious faiths.

LAI-3142072v2

6
Joint Settlement Agreement

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 528 Filed 09/23/11 Page 7 of 14 Page ID #:8058

1

Religious Articles Approved for Group Services or Study Groups

2

25. If prison officials provide food for special religious observances of other religious

3 groups, they shall provide food for Wiccan sabbats, in accordance with California Code of

4 Regulations, title 15, § 3053.

5

26. If prison officials allow inmates to bring food or canteen items to religious services

6 or study groups, Rouser will be allowed to bring food or canteen items comparable to those

7 allowed inmates of other religious faiths.

8

Persons Who May Lead Wiccan Group Services

9

27. An approved volunteer Wiccan minister may attend and lead Wiccan esbats,

10 sabbats, and religious group study sessions, provided that the minister has complied with

11 institutional policies and procedures for approval and access by volunteer ministers.

12

28. If the institution where Rouser is confined has an approved volunteer Wiccan

13 minister, the volunteer shall lead Wiccan esbats, sabbats, or group study sessions, subject to his or

14 her availability.

15

29. If the volunteer Wiccan minister is not available, a Wiccan inmate will be

16 designated to facilitate the service or group. The inmate religious service facilitator will be

17 selected by the Warden or his designee from a list of Wiccan inmates who have been found

18 qualified by the volunteer Wiccan minister and approved by the Warden to serve as an inmate

19 religious facilitator. Rouser may apply to be qualified and approved for inclusion on that list,

20 based on criteria applicable to other inmate applicants.

21

Approved Wiccan Religious Items for Religious Group Sessions

22

30. Prison officials shall permit Rouser to have access to the following items for

23 Wiccan esbats and sabbats:

24

a. Candles and candleholders (7) in accordance with institutional safety and

25 security concerns, including applicable fire safety regulations;

26

b. Stick or cone incense (6) and an incense holder;

27 / / /

28 / / /

LAI-3142072v2

7
Joint Settlement Agreement

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 528 Filed 09/23/11 Page 8 of 14 Page ID #:8059

1

c. Anointing oils (kyphi, frankinmyrrh, sage, cedar, lavender), with a

2 maximum of four ounces of oil total, ordered and received per calendar quarter, and no more than

3 a total of four ounces of approved oils in Rouser’s personal possession at any given time;

4

d. Chalice or ritual cup (1);

5

e. Small bell (1);

6

f. Water;

7

g. Salt;

8

h. Tarot cards (two decks);

9

i.

Altar (1), no larger than two-by-two-by- four feet in size, and (1) similarly

10 sized altar cloth;

11

j. Drum (1) of a type approved by prison officials;

12

k. Feathers (4);

13

l. Herbs (mint, sage, cedar, lavender);

14

m. Small picture or statue of deities;

15

n. Stones (5), no larger than one inch in diameter, or (10), no larger than one-

16 half inch in diameter;

17

o. Wood wand (1), no larger than the size of an approved inmate pencil (not

18 sharpened);

19

p. Seashells (one package of 18 shells as sold by approved vendor), the

20 individual shells not larger than one-half inch in diameter.

21

31. Prison officials shall have custody and control of Wiccan group religious items

22 when they are not in use.

23

32. Prison officials shall develop a procedure that allows the volunteer Wiccan

24 minister, facility Chaplain, or approved inmate leader to obtain access to Wiccan group worship

25 articles in a timely manner for use at Wiccan esbats and sabbats.

26

33. Inmate personal religious items shall not be allowed at Wiccan group services,

27 except an approved religious text, religious necklace, and a small spiritual bag containing stones.

28 / / /

LAI-3142072v2

8
Joint Settlement Agreement

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 528 Filed 09/23/11 Page 9 of 14 Page ID #:8060

1

34. By agreeing to permit Rouser access to approved religious personal and group

2 religious items, prison officials do not agree that they are obligated to pay for those items.

3

Ordering Religious Articles

4

35. Rouser may order and receive Wiccan religious items consistent with policies and

5 procedures set forth in the California Code of Regulations, title 15, § 3190 and the Departmental

6 Operations Manual (DOM) § 54030.7.1.

7

Inmate Clerk

8

36. If the facility where Rouser is confined provides an inmate work assignment as a

9 clerk to the facility Chaplain, Rouser may apply for and be considered for such an assignment, in

10 accordance with California Code of Regulations, title 15, §§ 3040 et seq., and based on criteria

11 applicable to other inmate applicants.

12

Construction of the Agreement

13

37. Nothing in this Agreement bars prison officials from temporarily suspending its

14 provisions in the case of an emergency; where necessary to ensure the safety and security of the

15 institution, inmates, or staff; or when Rouser is confined in Administrative Segregation or SHU.

16

38. Nothing in this Agreement bars prison officials from restricting Rouser’s access to

17 and use of any personal or group religious items when prison officials determine that he has

18 modified those items or used them for a non-religious purpose, or that their use threatens the

19 safety and security of the institution, inmates, or staff.

20

39. This Agreement contains the parties’ entire agreement and supersedes any prior

21 written or oral agreements between them. No extrinsic evidence whatsoever may be introduced

22 in any judicial proceeding to provide the meaning or construction of this stipulated agreement.

23 Any modification to the terms of this Agreement must be in writing and be signed by a

24 representative of the parties and approved by the Court to be effective or enforceable.

25

40. This Agreement shall be governed by and be construed according to California

26 law. The parties waive any common law or statutory rule of construction that ambiguity should

27 be construed against the drafters of this Agreement, and agree that the language in all parts of this

28 Agreement shall in all cases be construed as a whole, according to its fair meaning.

LAI-3142072v2

9
Joint Settlement Agreement

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 528 Filed 09/23/11 Page 10 of 14 Page ID #:8061

1

41. The obligations governed by this Agreement are severable. If for any reason a part

2 of this Agreement is determined to be invalid or unenforceable, such determination shall not

3 affect the remainder. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the court does not order a change of

4 venue as set forth in paragraph 52, the Agreement shall become void and have no further effect.

5

42. The waiver by one party of any provision or breach of this Agreement shall not be

6 deemed a waiver of any other provision or breach of this Agreement.

7

43. The terms of this Agreement shall apply to Rouser at any institution under CDCR

8 jurisdiction to which he may be assigned, and shall be implemented in a manner that takes into

9 account the particular safety, security, and administrative concerns of that institution. If Rouser is

10 transferred to another institution, prison officials shall have thirty days from the date of transfer to

11 comply with the provisions in this Agreement.

12

44. The parties agree that any claim concerning Rouser’s right to possess a Wiccan

13 sigil as approved religious property, or to use a Wiccan sigil in personal or Wiccan group

14 religious services or activities, is not at issue in this action, or subject to the terms of this

15 Agreement, including paragraph 51. The parties further agree that nothing in this Agreement bars

16 prison officials from prohibiting possession or use of a sigil, and that nothing in this Agreement

17 bars Rouser from challenging such a prohibition in another judicial action or proceeding.

18

Compliance

19

45. If Rouser believes that defendants have not complied with the terms of the

20 Agreement, he will submit an inmate appeal (CDCR 602). The informal, formal, and first levels

21 of appeal will be bypassed, as provided for in California Code of Regulations, title 15, §

22 3084.5(b), and the appeal will be processed at the second level by the Warden or his or her

23 designee, such as the Community Partnership Manager or Chief Deputy Warden. The parties

24 further agree that, if Rouser is dissatisfied with the second-level review, he must appeal to and

25 properly exhaust his remedies at the Director’s level before seeking relief from the district court.

26 Copies of the CDCR 602 and responses shall be provided to the parties’ attorneys of record, if

27 any, who will meet and confer in an effort to resolve the dispute, before a motion is filed with the

28 court.

LAI-3142072v2

10
Joint Settlement Agreement

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 528 Filed 09/23/11 Page 11 of 14 Page ID #:8062

1

Nature and Termination of the Agreement

2

46. This Agreement shall be entered into the record with the District Court as a

3 consent decree under 18 U.S.C. § 3626(c)(1) and shall be made subject to the Court’s

4 enforcement.

5

47. One year after the order approving this Agreement is filed, defendants may move

6 to vacate the order, dismiss this action with prejudice, and enter judgment on the ground that a

7 preponderance of the evidence shows that they have substantially complied with the terms of this

8 Agreement.

9

48. In consideration of Rouser’s dismissal of certain claims, as set forth in paragraphs

10 5 and 6 of this Agreement, defendants agree to pay, on or before 150 days following the Court’s

11 order approving the Agreement and its filing in the record, the total sum of $30,000 to Rouser’s

12 attorney of record, Jones Day, which represents a compromise of amounts to which Rouser

13 claims he would be entitled to as legal costs, including attorney’s fees.

14

49. The parties shall bear their own attorney’s fees.

15

50. As to paragraphs 21 and 48 of this Agreement, defendants intend to comply within

16 the times set forth in those paragraphs, but the parties understand that payment of costs associated

17 with provision of the outdoor religious activity area and attorney’s costs may take up to 180 days

18 from the order approving the settlement. The parties further understand that payment is

19 contingent on funding, including the timely adoption of a State budget, and that additional delays

20 may occur that are not within defendants’ control. No interest shall be payable under this

21 Agreement for such delays.

22

51. With the exception of the claim or claims referenced in paragraph 44, it is the

23 intention of the parties in signing this Agreement that it shall be effective as a full and final

24 accord and satisfaction and release for all claims that were, or could have been asserted in the

25 Complaint against Defendants. By signing this Agreement, Plaintiff releases the Defendants and

26 all other persons from all claims, known or unknown, with the exception of the claim or claims

27 set forth in paragraph 44, which arise or could arise from the facts alleged in the Complaint

28 against any and all Defendants who are or ever were parties to this lawsuit.

LAI-3142072v2

11
Joint Settlement Agreement

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 528 Filed 09/23/11 Page 12 of 14 Page ID #:8063

1

In furtherance of this intention, each of the parties acknowledges that they are familiar

2 with, and expressly waive, the provisions California Civil Code section 1542, which provides:

3

“A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor

4

does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of

5

executing the release which if known by him or her must have

6

materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor.”

7

This settlement is the compromise of various disputed claims and shall never be treated as

8 an admission of liability by any of the parties for any purpose. The signature of or on behalf of

9 the respective parties does not indicate or acknowledge the validity or merits of any claim or

10 demand of the other party.

11

52. The parties agree to a transfer of venue from the United States District Court for

12 the Eastern District of California to the United States District Court for the Central District of

13 California, and that Defendants will prepare a joint motion and order transferring venue

14 concurrently with the filing of the Agreement. The parties agree that their Agreement is

15 conditioned on the court ordering a change of venue, and that their Agreement will void and have

16 no effect, if that Court does not order the change in venue.

17

18

[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LAI-3142072v2

12
Joint Settlement Agreement

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 528 Filed 09/23/11 Page 13 of 14 Page ID #:8064

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 528 Filed 09/23/11 Page 14 of 14 Page ID #:8065

 
 Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 529 Filed 10/17/11 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:8066

Mark A. Radoff, SBN 119311 1 Mark A. Vezzola, SBN 243441
CALIFORNIA INDIAN LEGAL SERVICES 2 609 S. Escondido Boulevard
Escondido, CA 92025 , 3 Tel. (760) 746-8941 .
Fax (760) 746-1815
4
Attorneys for Intervener 5 SPOTTED EAGLE CIRCLE
6

7

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

11

) No.: CIV S-93-0767 LKK GGH P

WILLIAM ROUSER,
12
Plaintiff,
13

) )
) ) INTERVENER'S STATEMENT OF NON

vs.

) OPPOSITION TO JOINT SETTLEMENT

14

) AGREEMENT AND JOINT NOTICE AND

THEO WHITE, et aI.,
15

) MOTION FOR ORDER APPROVING ) SETTLEMENT AND TRANSFERRING

Defendants.

) VENUE AND REQUEST TO APPEAR

16

) TELEPHONICALLY

17

vs.

) )

18

SPOTTED EAGLE CIRCLE, a group of Native American Prisoners at Lancaster State

) )
)

Date: Time:

October 24,2011 10:00 a.m.

19 Prison,

) Courtroom: 4

) Judge:

Hon. Lawrence K. Karlton

20

Intervener.

)

)
21

22

TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT AND ATTORNEYS OF RECORD FOR

PLAINTIFF WILLIAM ROUSER AND DEFENDANTS:

23

24

The SPOTTED EAGLE CIRCLE, by and through their counsel of record, has reviewed

25 the Joint Settlement Agreement (hereinafter "Agreement") and Joint Notice and Motion for

26 Order Approving Settlement and Transferring Venue, both filed with this court on September 23,

INTERVENER'S STATEMENT OF NON OPPOSITION TO JOINT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND JOINT NOTICE AND MOTION FOR ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND TRANSFERRING VENUE AND REQUEST TO APPEAR TELEPHONICALLY

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 529 Filed 10/17/11 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:8067

1 2011, the former having been signed by Plaintiff, WILLIAM ROUSER, and Defendants,

2 Secretary of Department of Corrections MATTHEW CATE, Director of Adult Institutions
3 TERRI MCDONALD, and Warden BRENDA CASH, Intervener, SPOTTED EAGLE CIRCLE
(hereinafter "CIRCLE"), while not a signatory of the Joint Settlement Agreement, has no
4
opposition to the form or content of the Joint Settlement Agreement or Joint Notice and Motion
5
for Order Approving Settlement and Transferring Venue.
6
Intervener's Statement of Non-Opposition is conditioned upon the understanding that the
7
terms of the Agreement in no way infringes on or entitle Plaintiff access to the outdoor space at
8
Lancaster Prison used by the CIRCLE for sweat lodge and other Native American religious 9 ceremonies. The CIRCLE wishes to preserve its rights to the outdoor space made available to it
10 for religious ceremonies while making this understanding part of the official record ofthis
11 matter. While the Joint Settlement Agreement does not explicitly name the outdoor space at

12 Lancaster Prison used by the CIRCLE for religious ceremonies, Intervener did not wish to delay

13 settlement ofthis protracted litigation by insisting on amending the language of the Agreement.

14

Finally, in ordeJ)o preserve its rights and make the record complete for all parties,

15 counsel for Intervener respectfully requests permission to appear telephonically at the hearing set

16 for October 24, 2011.

17
DATED: October 14,2011

/s/ Mark A. Vezzola

18

Mark A. Radoff (SBN 119311)

Mark A. Vezzola (SBN 243441)

19

Attorneys for Spotted Eagle Circle

Intervener
20

21

22

23

24

25

26

INTERVENER'S STATEMENT OF NON OPPOSITION TO JOINT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND JOINT NOTICE AND MOTION FOR ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND TRANSFERRING VENUE AND REQUEST TO APPEAR TELEPHONICALLY
2

 
 Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 530 Filed 10/18/11 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:8068

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 WILLIAM ROUSER,

11

Plaintiff,

No. CIV S-93-0767 LKK GGH P

12

vs.

13 THEO WHITE, et al.,

14

Defendants.

O R D E R

15

/

16

On September 23, 2011 plaintiff Rouser and defendant White

17 et. al., filed a joint notice and motion for an order approving

18 settlement and transferring venue. A hearing on the joint motion

19 is currently set for October 24, 2011. Intervenor Spotted Eagle

20 Circle filed a statement of non-opposition to the motion. The

21 court does not find oral argument necessary on this matter.

22

The parties jointly argue that transfer of venue is

23 appropriate because plaintiff Rouser is now housed at the

24 California State Prison-Los Angeles County, and compliance with

25 the settlement agreement, once approved by this court, will occur

26 at that prison. The settlement agreement is conditioned on a

1

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 530 Filed 10/18/11 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:8069

1 change of venue to the U.S. District Court for the Central

2 District of California, Western Division.

3

Accordingly, the court ORDERS as follows:

4

[1] The hearing on the joint motion currently scheduled

5

for October 24, 2011 is VACATED.

6

[2] The motion to approve the settlement and transfer

7

venue, ECF No. 527, is GRANTED.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

DATED: October 17, 2011.

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

 
 Case 2:93-cv-00767-LKK-GGH Document 197-1 Filed 08/09/05 Page 1 of 2

1 BILL LOCKYER Attorney General of the State of California
2 JAMES M. HUMES Chief Assistant Attorney General
3 FRANCES T. GRUNDER Senior Assistant Attorney General
4 STEPHEN P. ACQUISTO Supervising Deputy Attorney General
5 JAMES E. FLYNN, State Bar No. 61139 Supervising Deputy Attorney General
6 1300 I Street, Suite 125 P.O. Box 944255
7 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 Telephone: (916) 323-1976
8 Fax: (916) 324-5205

9 Attorneys for Defendants Gomez, Reagan, White, and Meads
10 48149286CA1993CX0283

11

12

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

15

16 WILLIAM ROUSER,

NO. CIV S-93-0767 LKK GGH P

17

Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] ORDER

18

v.

19 THEO WHITE, et al.,

20

Defendants.

21

22

The parties have agreed to rescind their private settlement agreement and have

23 stipulated that the court shall enter an order reinstating this action under 18 U.S.C. § 3626(c) and

24 dismissing plaintiff’s motion for reinstatement as moot.

25 / / /

26 / / /

27 / / /

28 / / /

Order
1

Case 2:93-cv-00767-LKK-GGH Document 197-1 Filed 08/09/05 Page 2 of 2

1

The court finds that good cause exists to reinstate this action under 18 U.S.C.

2 §3626(c). Plaintiff’s motion for reinstatement is denied as moot.

3

4

Dated:

5

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6

7 30028739.wpd

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Order
2

 
 Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 577 Filed 11/15/12 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:11362
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. CV 11-09123-RGK (JEMx)

Title

William Rouser v. Theo White, et al.

Date November 15, 2012

Present: The Honorable

R. GARY KLAUSNER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

S. Williams (Not Present) Deputy Clerk

Not Reported Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS) Order Re: Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce the Consent Decree (DE 558) and Plaintiff’s Request for No More Extensions of Time, Sanctions & Evidentiary Hearing (DE 571)

I. INTRODUCTION
William Rouser (“Plaintiff”) is an inmate in the California State Correctional System. On May 7, 1993, Plaintiff began litigating against state prison officials for his right to practice his religion, Wicca, while incarcerated. In 2011, Plaintiff entered a settlement agreement with Defendants Matthew Cate, Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Brenda Cash, Warden of the California State Prison, Los Angeles County (collectively “Defendants”).1 On Oct. 18, 2011, a court in the Eastern District of California approved the joint agreement and entered it as a Consent Decree (“Decree”). Then, it transferred the case to this Court because Plaintiff was transferred to prison within the Central District.
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce the Consent Decree (DE 558) and Plaintiff’s Oct. 9, 2012 Request for No More Extensions of Time, for Sanctions, and for an Evidentiary Hearing (DE 571.) The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce the Consent Decree and DENIES Plaintiff’s Oct. 9, 2012 Requests.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is presently incarcerated in California State Prison, Los Angeles County in Lancaster, California. The Decree entered into by the parties governs Plaintiff’s ability to

1 Named Defendant White was one of the defendants in the original action brought by Plaintiff. The claims against him and several other defendants were dismissed as a part of the Decree. (Decree ¶5.)

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 5

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 577 Filed 11/15/12 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:11363
practice Wicca while incarcerated in “any institution under California Department of Corrections (“CDCR”) jurisdiction to which he may be assigned.” (Decree ¶ 43.) It provides Plaintiff’s rights within a range of categories including, but not limited to, the right to access personal religious items and the right to observe religious services. However, compliance with the Decree may be temporarily suspended in various circumstances. (Decree ¶ 37.)

On July 26, 2012, Plaintiff filed this Motion to Have the Court Enforce the Consent Decree (“Pl.’s Mot.”). In his Motion, Plaintiff alleges multiple violations of the Decree, specifically violations of Plaintiff’s rights (1) to access religious items, (2) to have his inmate appeals heard at Warden level, (3) to observe weekly services and specified special religious services, and (4) to access an outdoor religious area. Plaintiff seeks to have the Decree provisions enforced against Defendants.

IV. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff alleges Defendants denied him several rights set forth by the Decree, and thus, seeks the Court’s enforcement of the Decree’s provisions. As Plaintiff is appearing pro se, the Court construes his pleadings liberally. However, many of the allegations are unclear, unsupported, or unrelated to the terms of the Decree. As such, the Court considers only the claims that are well-plead and relevant.

Additionally, the Court declines to consider any filings related to this Motion made after October 9, 2012, the date which he filed his Reply to Defendants’ Opposition. Any subsequent filings must be filed as separate motions. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-10. Further, any new allegations that Defendants violated the Decree must follow the administrative procedures outlined in the Decree before being brought to this Court. (Decree ¶ 45.)

For the following reasons, this Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiff’s Motion for Enforcement of the Decree.

A. Violation of Plaintiff’s Right to Access Religious Items

The Decree provides that Plaintiff shall have access to certain religious items. (Decree ¶ 11.) It also provides that prison officials will maintain custody of group religious items. (Id. ¶ 31.) It does not address the storage of personal items except in specific circumstances not alleged herein. (Id. ¶¶ 12-13.) Plaintiff alleges three violations. The Court agrees in part and considers each in turn.

First, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the Decree when a religious necklace stored in a locked closet under Defendants’ control was damaged and when other religious items stored in the closet were stolen. To the extent religious items are under Defendants’ control, the Court orders Defendants to adhere to the terms of the Decree and maintain group religious items such that Plaintiff’s access is not inhibited.

Second, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the Decree by inappropriately touching religious items under Defendants’ custody and control. Plaintiff alleges prison officials inappropriately touched his religious items so as to contaminate them for use. (Pl.’s Mot. at 2.) Plaintiff has not met his burden to show that the actions of prison officials have effectively denied him access to the items. For safety and security reasons, certain items must be kept in the prison officials’ custody. By necessity, in order to give these items to Defendant and the Wiccan volunteers, prison officials must touch these items. Thus, the alleged touching did not violate Plaintiff’s access to his religious items.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 5

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 577 Filed 11/15/12 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:11364
Third, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have violated the Decree by refusing to allow him to order candles, candle holders, incense, and incense holders. The Decree mandates that prison officials shall permit Plaintiff to order and access these items for Religious Group Services. (Decree ¶ 30.) While initially Defendants did not allow Plaintiff to order these items, this was due a miscommunication that has now been resolved and Plaintiff is allowed to order these items. Thus, the Court finds no violation.
In summary, the Court finds that the Defendants violated the Decree as to the first allegation, damage of items in Defendants’ custody, but that Defendants did not violate the Decree as to the second and third allegations, touching and ordering of religious items.
B. Violation of Plaintiff’s Right to Have Inmate Appeals Reviewed at Warden Level
Plaintiff alleges his inmate appeals are not being heard according to the procedures in the Decree. The Decree states that Plaintiff’s inmate appeals are to be processed by the Warden or his or her designee, thereby permitting his appeals to bypass the lower administrative levels. (Decree ¶ 45.) Plaintiff alleges his appeals are being dismissed before reaching the Warden. Defendants failed to respond to this issue in their Opposition. Thus, the Court orders Defendants to adhere to the appeals process set forth in the Decree.
C. Violation of Plaintiff’s Right to Observe Religious Services
The Decree provides that prison officials shall provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to participate in regular services once per week and special religious services designated in the Decree. (Decree ¶¶ 14-16.) The Decree allows for cancellation without rescheduling in certain circumstances. Services must be rescheduled when the reason for cancellation is administrative, such as a staff shortage. (Decree ¶ 16.) But, services are not required to be rescheduled when the reason for cancellation was a lockdown or an inmate-caused security or safety issue. (Id.)
1. December 21, 2011 Yule Sabbat
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the Decree by improperly cancelling the Yule Sabbat service scheduled for December 21, 2011 without rescheduling it. The Court disagrees. Plaintiff has provided no evidence that religious services on December 21, 2011 were cancelled due to anything other than an inmate-caused safety and security threat. As a result, this cancellation did not violate the Decree.
2. June 21, 2012 Summer Solstice Sabbat
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the Decree by improperly cancelling the Summer Solstice Sabbat scheduled for June 21, 2012, without rescheduling it. Plaintiff fails to support his allegation with adequate facts. Plaintiff merely states that the service was canceled, but provides no further indication as to what reasoning was provided for the cancellation and why it is inadequate. While the Decree provides that Defendants allow Plaintiff to observe religious services, it also allows for services to be cancelled in certain circumstances. Therefore, he has not met his burden of demonstrating a violation.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 3 of 5

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 577 Filed 11/15/12 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:11365
3. Disproportionate Cancellation of Wiccan Services
Plaintiff contends there was disproportionate cancellation of Wiccan services when compared to Christian services, in violation of the Decree. The Decree requires prison officials to make reasonable efforts to avoid cancelling or shortening Wiccan services “more often than those for inmates of other religious faiths.” (Decree ¶ 24.) Plaintiff alleges that Christian services were held, and not cancelled, on a day when a lockdown occurred one week after the Yule Sabbat of December 21, 2011 was cancelled due to a lockdown. Plaintiff has not alleged enough facts to support a violation here. Thus, this cancellation did not violate the Decree.
4. “Indefinite Cancellation” of Wiccan Services
Plaintiff alleges Wiccan services were cancelled indefinitely in violation of the Decree. The Court disagrees. Services were temporarily suspended after Wiccan volunteers created a safety issue by covering windows inside the prison. After that incident, Defendants properly suspended the services until staff could investigate and counsel the volunteers on the proper rules and procedures. The services were reinstated after this two-week period. As a result, this cancellation did not violate the Decree.
In summary, the Court finds that Plaintiff failed to meet his burden as to the violations of his right to observe weekly and specified religious services.
D. Violation of Plaintiff’s Right to Access an Outdoor Religious Area
Plaintiff alleges Defendants have improperly denied access to an outdoor religious area and the area is incomplete. The Decree provides Plaintiff will have access to an outdoor religious activity area “in accordance with institutional operational concerns to promote equitable access to prayer areas.” (Decree ¶ 21.) It further provides that Plaintiff will have access to a fire pit in this area, the use of which will be in accordance with institutional safety and security concerns. (Decree ¶ 22.)
Defendants have not denied Plaintiff his right to access an outdoor religious area. As Plaintiff’s filings have indicated, Defendants have given him access to work on the outdoor religious area (Pl’s Reply 2.) Further, Plaintiff’s allegations that the area is not “complete” is not supported by sufficient facts. Thus, Court finds that Plaintiff has not met his burden as to the violations of his right to access an outdoor religious area.
E. Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions and Evidentiary Hearing
On October 9, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Request for No More Extensions of Time, for Sanctions, and for an Evidentiary Hearing. (DE 571.) The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Request in its entirety. Given that the Court has found evidence sustaining only two of Plaintiff’s eight alleged violations, it finds that sanctions are unnecessary at this time. Substantial compliance “is a defense to an action for civil contempt.” Gen. Signal Corp. v. Donallco, Inc., 787 F.2d 1376, 1379 (9th Cir. 1986). Thus, Plaintiff’s Request for sanctions is rejected. Further, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that an evidentiary hearing in warranted. Finally, the Court considers Plaintiff’s Request for No More Extensions of Time to be moot in light of the disposition of this Motion.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 4 of 5

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 577 Filed 11/15/12 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #:11366
V. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce the Consent Decree as to the following:
1. Contamination and desecration of religious property (III.A) 2. Cancellation of the December 21, 2011 Yule Sabbat (III.C.1) 3. Cancellation of the June 21, 2012 Summer Solstice Sabbat (III.C.2) 4. Disproportionate cancellation (III.C.3) 5. Indefinite cancellation of services (III.C.4). 6. Outdoor religious area (III.D).
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce the Consent Decree as to the following:
1. Damage to his religious property when in Defendants’ control (III.A.) 2. Failure to follow proper inmate appeals procedures (III.B)
The Court also DENIES Plaintiff’s Request for No More Extensions of Time, for Sanctions, and for an Evidentiary Hearing. (DE 571.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
:
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 5 of 5

 
 Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 579 Filed 11/28/12 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:11367
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. CV 11-9123-RGK (JEMx)

Title

Rouser v. White

Date November 28, 2012

Present: The Honorable

R. GARY KLAUSNER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

S. Williams (Not Present) Deputy Clerk

Not Reported Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS) Order Re: Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunction, Evidentiary Hearing and Sanctions (DE 573)

Since 1993, William Rouser (“Plaintiff”) has been involved in litigation regarding his ability to practice his religion, Wicca, while incarcerated. Plaintiff and Defendants Matthew Cate, Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and Brenda Cash, Warden of the California State Prison – Los Angeles County (collectively “Defendants”) reached a joint settlement agreement that was approved and entered as a Consent Decree on October 18, 2011, in the Eastern District of California. Venue was transferred to the Central District where Plaintiff is currently incarcerated.

The Consent Decree defines the specific rights of Plaintiff to practice his religion while incarcerated and the specific obligations of Defendants to accommodate Plaintiff’s practice. It also designated a process by which Plaintiff’s allegations of Defendants’ non-compliance, if any, will be reviewed. (Consent Decree ¶ 45.) On July 26, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Enforce the Consent Decree. The Court issued its order on November 15, 2012, granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff’s Motion. (DE 577.) In that order, the Court instructed Defendants to follow the appeals process set forth by the Consent Decree.

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunction, Evidentiary Hearing, and Sanctions. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are persistently violating the Consent Decree and that he has been confined to administrative segregation illegally.

Plaintiff has failed to comply with the appeals process required by the Consent Decree. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion.

Prior to seeking relief with the Court in regards to the Consent Decree, Plaintiff is first required to file any complaints against Defendants for second-level review with the Warden of the prison. (Consent Decree ¶ 45.) If Plaintiff is dissatisfied with the second-level review “he

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 579 Filed 11/28/12 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:11368
must appeal to and properly exhaust his remedies at the Director’s level before seeking relief from the district court.” Id. Additionally, “copies of the CDCR 602 and responses shall be provided to the parties’ attorneys of record, if any, who will meet and confer in an effort to resolve the dispute, before a motion is filed with the court.” Id.

From Plaintiff’s Motion, it appears that while Plaintiff may have filed several appeals with the Warden, he has not alleged that he brought or attempted to bring these appeals to the attention of the Director for further appeal as required. Thus, Plaintiff fails to establish that he exhausted the appeals process as required by the Consent Decree before seeking relief from this Court.

In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

:
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2

 
 Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 594 Filed 03/13/13 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:11481

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JS-6

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. CV 11-09123-RGK (JEMx)

Title

Rouser v. White

Date March 13, 2013

Present: The Honorable

R. GARY KLAUSNER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

S. Williams (Not Present) Deputy Clerk

Not Reported Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS) Order Re: Defendants’ Motion to Vacate Order, Dismiss Action with Prejudice, and Enter Judgment (DE 587)

I. INTRODUCTION
William Rouser (“Plaintiff”) is an inmate in the California State Correctional System. On May 7, 1993, Plaintiff began litigating against state prison officials (collectively “Defendants”)1 for his right to practice his religion, Wicca, while incarcerated. In 2011, Plaintiff entered a settlement agreement with Defendants Matthew Cate, Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Brenda Cash, Warden of the California State Prison, Los Angeles County. On Oct. 18, 2011, a court in the Eastern District of California approved the joint settlement agreement (“Oct. 2011 Order”). (Dkt 530.) In the same order, the court transferred venue to the Central District because Plaintiff was transferred to prison within the district.
Presently before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Vacate the Oct. 2011 Order approving the settlement, Dismiss the Action with Prejudice, and Enter Judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is presently incarcerated in California State Prison, Los Angeles County in Lancaster, California. The joint settlement agreement governs Plaintiff’s ability to practice

1 Defendants include: Matthew Cates, Brenda Cash, B. Flores, James Gomez, Brian Haws, P. Ortiz, Theo

White, and J. Yates.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 594 Filed 03/13/13 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:11482
Wicca while incarcerated in “any institution under California Department of Corrections (“CDCR”) jurisdiction to which he may be assigned.” (Dkt 528 ¶ 43.) It provides Plaintiff’s rights within a range of categories including, but not limited to, the right to access personal religious items and the right to observe religious services. The parties to the agreement were Plaintiff, Defendants Cate and Cash. However, as part of the agreement, all claims against Defendants Gomez, White, Yates, Flores, and Ortiz, as well as various lawsuits filed by Plaintiff were dismissed with prejudice. (Id. ¶¶ 5-6.)
On October 18, 2011, the Eastern District of California court approved the settlement agreement.2 (Dkt 530.) Over a year has passed since this approval, and Defendants now seek to terminate the settlement agreement pursuant to its terms.
III. DISCUSSION
Defendants seek to vacate the Oct. 2011 Order approving the settlement agreement, dismiss Plaintiff’s action, and enter judgment in favor of Defendants. For the following reasons, the Court agrees.
Paragraph 43 of the settlement agreement states that “One year after the order approving this Agreement is filed, defendants may move to vacate the order, dismiss the action with prejudice, and enter judgment on the ground that a preponderance of the evidence shows that they have substantially complied with the terms of this Agreement.” (Dkt 528 ¶ 43.)
Here, the Court finds that Defendants have demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that they have substantially complied with the terms of the settlement agreement. From the record, Defendants appear to have taken significant steps to follow the settlement agreement. Defendants have provided declarations from prison staff, outlining the various actions taken to comply with the settlement agreement. Further, they have provided internal prison procedures setting forth approved Wiccan religious activity. (Dkt 587-1, 1-2.) Although it is not entirely clear from his Opposition, Plaintiff contends that Defendants have not complied with the settlement agreement in a handful of instances. Even assuming these are true, these alleged examples are insufficient to render Defendants substantially non-complaint. Therefore, the Court finds that Defendants have substantially complied with the settlement agreement, and GRANTS Defendants’ Motion.

2 In the same Oct. 18, 2011 order, the Eastern District court also transferred venue to the Central District.

The Court presumes that Defendants’ Motion does not seek to vacate the portion of the order transferring this

case.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 594 Filed 03/13/13 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:11483 IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion. The following is ordered:

(1) Defendants’ Motion to Vacate the October 18, 2011 Order (Dkt 530) and Dismiss the Action is GRANTED. This order does not vacate the transfer of venue.

(2) This matter is dismissed with prejudice, pursuant to the terms of the Joint Settlement Agreement; and,

(3) Judgment in entered for Defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

:
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 3 of 3

 
 Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 632 Filed 06/17/16 Page 1 of 52 Page ID #:12005

FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WILLIAM ROUSER, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
THEO WHITE; JAMES GOMEZ, Director of Corrections; J. YATES; P. ORTIZ, Correctional Counselor II; B. FLORES, Correctional Counselor I; BRIAN HAWS; BRENDA CASH; MATTHEW CATE,
Defendants-Appellees.

No. 13-56152
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-09123-
RGK-JEM
OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California
R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted June 4, 2015 Pasadena, California
Filed June 17, 2016
Before: Alex Kozinski and Consuelo M. Callahan, Circuit Judges, and James K. Singleton,* Senior District Judge.

* The Honorable James K. Singleton, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 632 Filed 06/17/16 Page 2 of 52 Page ID #:12006

2

ROUSER V. WHITE

Opinion by Judge Kozinski; Dissent by Judge Callahan

SUMMARY**

Consent Decree
The panel vacated the district court’s order terminating a consent decree, reinstated the 2011 consent decree between a California state prisoner and defendant prison officials concerning the prisoner’s religious exercise of his Wiccan religion, and remanded for further proceedings.
The panel accorded no special deference in reviewing the district court’s exercise of its discretion in terminating the consent decree where the district court had only supervised the litigation for two years of the twenty-year history of the case.
The panel held that the district court committed numerous errors in terminating the consent decree. Specifically, the panel held that the district court applied the wrong legal standard and found substantial compliance by the prison officials without giving due attention to the various exacting obligations embodied in the decree, and without considering whether the purpose of the decree had been served. The panel also held that the district court improvidently refused to hold an evidentiary hearing to resolve material factual disputes about whether defendants had complied with the
** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 632 Filed 06/17/16 Page 3 of 52 Page ID #:12007

ROUSER V. WHITE

3

decree. The panel also held that the district court encouraged noncompliance by finding that defendants had violated the consent decree, yet the court refused to grant any meaningful relief. The panel concluded that the district court abused its discretion in terminating the consent decree.

The panel held that the prisoner’s failure to receive the district court’s orders prejudiced his ability to allege violations of the 2011 decree. The panel held that the district court’s protracted failure to correct the pro se prisoner’s address, and its repeated failure to re-send notices of orders that had been returned as undeliverable, raised due process concerns.

Judge Callahan dissented because the majority’s reversal of the district court improperly denied the heightened deference due a trial court’s finding that a consent decree aimed at institutional reform had served its purpose, was at odds with the Prison Litigation Reform Act, and was undermined by a record showing compliance that was substantial. Judge Callahan would also hold that the prisoner did not make a due process argument, and even if the district court made a due process error, the prisoner suffered no prejudice.

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 632 Filed 06/17/16 Page 4 of 52 Page ID #:12008

4

ROUSER V. WHITE

COUNSEL

James M. Burnham (argued), Noel J. Francisco, Sarah A. Hunger and Kelsey A. Israel-Trummel, Jones Day, Washington, D.C., for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Maneesh Sharma (argued), Deputy Attorney General; Thomas S. Patterson, Supervising Deputy Attorney General; Jonathan L. Woff, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Kamala Harris, Attorney General; California Department of Justice, San Francisco, California; for Defendants-Appellees.

OPINION
KOZINSKI, Circuit Judge:
We consider the standards applicable to the termination of a consent decree on grounds of substantial compliance.
BACKGROUND
William Rouser is a Wiccan. Despite Wicca’s relative obscurity, Rouser was not its only adherent in the California State Prison at Sacramento. In 1992, he petitioned on behalf of himself and some thirty fellow Wiccan inmates that the prison recognize Wicca as a bona fide religion and afford its followers the same rights accorded to inmates of other faiths. Specifically, Rouser sought to (1) possess Wiccan ritual items like candles, incense and Tarot cards; (2) access A Witches Bible Compleat when placed in administrative segregation; (3) use the prison chapel for Wiccan ceremonies; and (4) receive the ministry of a Wiccan chaplain.

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 632 Filed 06/17/16 Page 5 of 52 Page ID #:12009

ROUSER V. WHITE

5

When the prison denied his requests, Rouser filed a civil rights complaint in the Eastern District of California. After District Judge Karlton set the matter for trial, the parties entered into a comprehensive settlement agreement (the “1997 Agreement”). The agreement applied to “any institution under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Corrections (CDC) to which [Rouser] is assigned” and described how the prisons and their staff would accommodate Rouser’s religious needs.

Over the next 14 years, Rouser notified the court of various ways in which the CDC and its employees violated the terms of the 1997 Agreement in the three facilities where he was housed. Rouser alleged, for example, that officials suspended Wiccan services while permitting other religious services; precluded him from ordering religious items like candles, oil, incense and herbs; prevented inmates from timely attending Wiccan services; and disregarded his administrative complaints.

Judge Karlton eventually granted a preliminary injunction. In a 33-page order, he found that prison officials substantially burdened Rouser’s religious exercise by “[i]nhibiting [his] timely receipt of religious articles” and “[i]nhibiting group worship.” A year later, the parties entered into another settlement agreement, which the district court adopted as a consent decree (“2011 Decree”) and is at the heart of this appeal. The decree reaffirmed the promises the CDC made in the 1997 Agreement and provided Rouser with additional privileges: He was allowed to possess listed religious items in his cell; he was entitled to attend weekly “esbats” and eight annual “sabbats” at an outdoor religious activity area; and CDC employees would “develop a procedure that allows the volunteer Wiccan minister . . . to

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 632 Filed 06/17/16 Page 6 of 52 Page ID #:12010

6

ROUSER V. WHITE

obtain access to Wiccan group worship articles in a timely manner for use at Wiccan esbats and sabbats.” In addition, Rouser was permitted to bypass the informal, formal and first levels of appeal and file a second-level appeal directly with the warden or his designee to report any noncompliance with the 2011 Decree.

The decree provided that after one year, defendants could move for termination by showing that they had substantially complied with its terms. After approving the 2011 Decree, Judge Karlton transferred the case to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on the parties’ motion.

Several months after the 2011 Decree went into effect, Rouser filed a motion to enforce its terms and asked for a preliminary injunction. He argued that officials violated the 2011 Decree in at least five ways: by damaging a religious necklace in their custody; by canceling and suspending Wiccan services without a legitimate justification; by prohibiting Rouser from using candles in his worship; and by failing to construct an outdoor religious worship area. Most significantly, Rouser alleged that they screened and disregarded his direct appeals to the warden. Defendants denied or attempted to justify some of their actions, but didn’t contest Rouser’s allegations that his appeals weren’t being processed in accordance with the terms of the 2011 Decree. And they all but conceded that they violated the decree by denying Rouser access to candles.

The district court found that defendants had violated the 2011 Decree in two ways: by damaging the religious necklace and dismissing Rouser’s grievances before they reached the warden. The court reminded defendants to “adhere to the terms of the Decree” but didn’t order them to replace the

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 632 Filed 06/17/16 Page 7 of 52 Page ID #:12011

ROUSER V. WHITE

7

necklace or grant any other relief. The court found no willful violation of the provision permitting Rouser to use candles— only a temporary prohibition due to a miscommunication that was later resolved. As to the remaining claims, the district court faulted Rouser for failing to provide sufficient evidence to meet his burden of proving noncompliance. Rouser, however, had provided a sworn declaration, a prison memorandum and a statement under penalty of perjury from another inmate to support his claims that the prison had no justification for canceling and suspending Wiccan services. Defendants presented their own sworn statements contradicting Rouser’s allegations, and the district court tacitly resolved the factual disputes in favor of defendants without an evidentiary hearing or even an acknowledgment that Rouser had presented contrary evidence.

Three months later, defendants moved to vacate the decree on grounds of substantial compliance. They relied on the declaration of Correctional Counselor Nathan Wilcox, who claimed that defendants “fully complied” with the 2011 Decree, but he discussed only some of its terms and said nothing about compliance with the other terms. See infra p. 12. Nor did he claim that defendants had remedied the two violations the court had found just three months earlier. Wilcox relied on an internal prison memorandum that set forth procedures for facilitating Wiccan group worship. But that memorandum was dated October 2012 and thus predated the district court’s finding that defendants had frustrated Wiccan group worship by damaging the religious necklace and failing to give Rouser direct access to the warden for his grievances.

Rouser disputed that the prison complied with the 2011 Decree and sought an evidentiary hearing, claiming that he’d

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 632 Filed 06/17/16 Page 8 of 52 Page ID #:12012

8

ROUSER V. WHITE

recently been prevented from ordering candles and incense. In their reply, defendants maintained that Rouser failed to “articulate any legitimate basis for extending this Court’s . . . 2011 Order,” and asked the court to deny the motion without a hearing or oral argument.

The court complied. It concluded in a minute order that “[d]efendants have demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that they have substantially complied with the terms of the settlement agreement.” The court didn’t mention its earlier finding that defendants had violated the 2011 Decree. Rather, the court found that Wilcox’s declaration and the outdated prison memo showed defendants took “significant steps to follow the settlement agreement” (emphasis added). Finding this sufficient to show substantial compliance, the court concluded that Rouser’s allegations of noncompliance, even if assumed to be true, were “insufficient to render Defendants substantially non-compliant” with the 2011 Decree.

DISCUSSION

We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s decision to terminate a consent decree. See Jeff D. v. Otter (Otter), 643 F.3d 278, 283 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Jeff D. v. Kempthorne (Kempthorne), 365 F.3d 844, 850 (9th Cir. 2004)). We apply heightened deference to the district court’s discretionary decisions where it “has been overseeing complex institutional reform litigation for a long period of time.” Kempthorne, 365 F.3d at 850. Here, however, the court that vacated the consent decree had supervised it for only two years of the twenty-year history of the case. Neither our cases nor the PLRA require deference to a district court simply because it has managed institutional-reform litigation

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 632 Filed 06/17/16 Page 9 of 52 Page ID #:12013

ROUSER V. WHITE

9

for two years. The dissent identifies no authority to the contrary. Diss. at 33–34. Thus, we accord no special deference in reviewing its exercise of discretion.

I. Purpose and History of the 2011 Decree

Our case law instructs district courts deciding a motion to vacate a consent decree to first consider “the more general goals of the decree.” Otter, 643 F.3d at 288 (quoting Youngblood v. Dalzell, 925 F.2d 954, 960 (6th Cir. 1991)). Then the court should examine defendants’ entire “record of compliance.” Id. (quoting Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467, 491 (1992)). We have reversed a district court’s termination of a consent decree for failing to explicitly consider the “goals of the decree[]” and only evaluating compliance with individual action items. Id. at 289.

The district court overlooked the teachings of Otter. Nowhere in its terse minute order did it mention the defendants’ record of compliance—either with the 2011 Decree or its predecessor—“which over the course of the litigation has been far from exemplary.” Id. at 288. Nor did it analyze whether the purposes of the 2011 Decree had been “adequately served” by defendants. Id. at 289.

The dissent claims that the district court identified the purpose of the decree by explaining that Rouser initially brought suit for, and entered into a settlement that governs, his “right to practice his religion, Wicca.” See Diss. at 38. But these passing observations don’t satisfy Otter’s requirement that a district court give “[e]xplicit consideration [to] the goals of the decree[].” 643 F.3d at 289. Nor do they comply with Otter’s requirement that the district court find

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 632 Filed 06/17/16 Page 10 of 52 Page ID #:12014

10

ROUSER V. WHITE

that “those goals have been adequately served” before vacating the decree. Id.

This alone provides sufficient grounds for reversing the order vacating the decree. Id. But there’s much more. Because the case must be returned to the district court, we note numerous other errors so that they will not be repeated on remand.

II. Substantial Compliance

A. Definition

The district court didn’t evaluate whether defendants substantially complied with each of the 2011 Decree’s terms. Instead, it concluded that they “complied with the [2011 Decree]” as a whole. As such, it abused its discretion by applying law incorrectly. Id. at 283. Our cases do not treat consent decrees as monolithic commands with which defendants either comply or not. “Without question courts treat consent decrees as contracts,” United States v. Asarco, Inc., 430 F.3d 972, 980 (9th Cir. 2005), that have “the additional element of judicial approbation.” Smith v. Sumner, 994 F.2d 1401, 1406 (9th Cir. 1993). Like terms in a contract, distinct provisions of consent decrees are independent obligations, each of which must be satisfied before there can be a finding of substantial compliance. Accordingly, courts don’t release parties from a consent decree unless they have substantially complied with every one of its provisions.

In Hallett v. Morgan we affirmed the district court’s ruling that a prison substantially complied with the specific provisions of a consent decree requiring the facility to

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 632 Filed 06/17/16 Page 11 of 52 Page ID #:12015

ROUSER V. WHITE

11

provide proper mental health and dental services to inmates. 296 F.3d 732, 749–50 (9th Cir. 2002). At the same time, we reversed its determination that the prison substantially complied with the “other medical care provisions” of the decree. Id. at 750–51. We also tacitly endorsed the Otter district court’s approach of separately evaluating whether defendants complied with individual “Action Items” in a consent decree. Otter, 643 F.3d at 285; see also Washington v. Penwell, 700 F.2d 570, 572 (9th Cir. 1983) (remanding to district court for failing to analyze compliance with one of several obligations in a consent decree).

The district court thus erred by applying the wrong legal standard for substantial compliance. The court was satisfied that the decree had been complied with because defendants had taken “significant steps to follow the settlement agreement.” See supra p. 8. But merely taking significant steps toward implementing the decree falls far short of “substantial compliance.” While the term is not amenable to a “mathematically precise definition,” Otter, 643 F.3d at 284 (quoting Joseph A. v. N.M. Dep’t of Human Servs., 69 F.3d 1081, 1085 (10th Cir. 1995)), state law gives it meaning. Id. And in California a party is deemed to have substantially complied with an obligation only where any deviation is “unintentional and so minor or trivial as not ‘substantially to defeat the object which the parties intend to accomplish.’” Wells Benz, Inc. v. United States, 333 F.2d 89, 92 (9th Cir. 1964) (quoting Connell v. Higgins, 150 P. 769, 775 (Cal. 1915)).

This standard doesn’t require perfection, contrary to what the dissent suggests. Diss. at 36. Deviations are permitted so long as they don’t defeat the object of the decree. But merely taking significant steps toward compliance comes nowhere

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 632 Filed 06/17/16 Page 12 of 52 Page ID #:12016

12

ROUSER V. WHITE

near satisfying this exacting standard. Rather, the district court should have first found that defendants substantially complied with each of the decree’s terms for a substantial period before terminating the decree.

B. Application

The record did not contain sufficient evidence to permit the district court to conclude that defendants met the substantial-compliance standard. For one, the district court had found, just four months earlier, that defendants had not complied with provisions related to custody over group worship supplies and expedited administrative appeals. Wilcox says nothing in his declaration to indicate that defendants had remedied these defects. Given this uncontested record of violations and the absence of any evidence that the deficient performance had been remedied, the district court’s conclusion that there has been substantial compliance rested on a “clearly erroneous finding of material fact.” Otter, 643 F.3d at 283 (quoting Casey v. Albertson’s Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1257 (9th Cir. 2004)).

More significant still, defendants failed to establish altogether that they complied with several action items in the 2011 Decree. For example, defendants agreed to make copies of a master schedule of religious services that included the time and location of Wiccan events. Nothing in the record documents that they fulfilled this obligation. And what of Rouser’s ability to access his Wiccan bible in administrative segregation? Or his right to be released from confinement in time to attend full Wiccan services? We don’t know, because defendants presented no evidence and the district court made no findings as to these terms of the 2011 Decree. There is no indication that the district court was aware of these terms

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 632 Filed 06/17/16 Page 13 of 52 Page ID #:12017

ROUSER V. WHITE

13

when it entered its order. Yet a consent decree may not be terminated without well-supported findings that all of its terms have been faithfully complied with for a substantial period.

The dissent doesn’t explain how defendants could possibly show substantial compliance with all key obligations in a consent decree by only complying with some of those obligations. Nor does it explain how Rouser could “concede[]” that defendants complied with decree provisions that weren’t mentioned in their motion to vacate. Diss. at 42. The dissent relies on stale documents—the 2012 internal prison memorandum and a year-old joint status report—to support its claim that the prison was complying with all decree provisions in 2013. Diss. at 45–46. That’s inconsistent with our caselaw requiring courts to examine the “record reflecting [prison] conditions as of the time termination is sought.” Gilmore v. California, 220 F.3d 987, 1010 (9th Cir. 2000). It’s also at odds with the dissent’s own warning that “past instances of non-compliance are of questionable relevance in deciding whether to vacate a consent decree.” Diss. at 46.

In addition to these gaps in the record, the district court overlooked those of defendants’ claims that Rouser disputed. Specifically, Rouser alleged that he was only allowed one ritual outdoors. And he claimed that he wasn’t allowed to use the seven candles specified in the 2011 Decree or obtain incense—both of which were important components of outdoor group worship. Where there is a factual dispute about whether defendants substantially complied with a decree, the district court may not simply “examine the [existing] record for ‘findings.’” Gilmore, 220 F.3d at 1010. Rather, the court must take evidence on the current conditions

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 632 Filed 06/17/16 Page 14 of 52 Page ID #:12018

14

ROUSER V. WHITE

at the prison. Id. As the dissent acknowledges, the district court didn’t follow this rule, even though Rouser contested “two relevant instances” of defendants’ compliance. Diss. at 41–42. The defendants’ alleged failures weren’t merely “trivial” deviations warranting a finding of substantial compliance. Connell, 150 P. at 775. If true, Rouser’s allegations would have documented material noncompliance with the terms of the decree and thus precluded any finding of substantial compliance. Accordingly, the district court should have—but didn’t—conduct a hearing before deciding material factual disputes related to defendants’ compliance with the decree.

III. Denial of Due Process

The district court terminated the 2011 Decree at a time when Rouser wasn’t receiving notice of its orders. The court had granted Rouser’s request to proceed pro se on March 28, 2012 and had recorded his address as the California State Prison, Los Angeles County, in Lancaster. However, the docket was not updated to reflect the address change, and the court continued to send its orders to Rouser’s former counsel—almost two dozen over the course of two years. Each of those was returned to the district court as undeliverable.1 Once back, a deputy clerk dutifully filed and

1 Although the court substituted Rouser for a few of his attorneys when it granted his request to proceed pro se, the docket continued to show that Rouser was being represented by attorney Richard Bates. Rouser had retained Bates in 2004 to represent him during his proceedings in the Eastern District of California. Although Bates withdrew as counsel in 2006, he was not removed as counsel of record until after Rouser filed his appeal. The dissent claims that the withdrawal was conditioned on Rouser filing a separate order, which he never did. Diss. at 48. But the district court’s minute entry indicates that Bates was dismissed even absent the

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 632 Filed 06/17/16 Page 15 of 52 Page ID #:12019

ROUSER V. WHITE

15

docketed them. See Appendix A. But nobody bothered to correct the service address or resend the court’s orders to Rouser in prison.

Rouser wrote to the court on October 27, 2012, explaining that he was “pro per and the only way he has been finding out about the [court’s] hearing dates is from the response filing of the defendants.” If anyone read this statement on the first page of Rouser’s pleading, nobody bothered to find out why Rouser was not getting the court’s orders or implement the address change. The court’s orders continued to be sent to—and immediately returned from—Rouser’s former attorney’s address.

Rouser’s failure to receive the court’s orders prejudiced his ability to allege violations of the 2011 Decree. The court’s November 15, 2012 order instructed Rouser on the proper format under the local rules for submitting notices of additional violations. It also informed him that the court would disregard any noncompliant filings dated after October 9, 2012. Rouser had no way of knowing about this ruling. So he was unfairly denied the chance to re-file his flawed notices and effectively oppose the motion to vacate the consent decree.

Had Rouser submitted his notices in the proper format, the district court would have been confronted with a host of additional allegations of non-compliance. Rouser claimed in

filing of an order for the court’s signature. In any case, the district court was well aware of Rouser’s pro se status, as it signed and filed his 2012 attorney-substitution request identifying him as proceeding “pro se.” Thus, despite knowing Rouser was pro se, the court delivered Rouser’s copy of its orders to Bates as if he were still Rouser’s attorney.

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 632 Filed 06/17/16 Page 16 of 52 Page ID #:12020

16

ROUSER V. WHITE

his several defective filings that defendants deprived him of the Wiccan bible in administrative segregation; prevented him from applying for the volunteer chapel clerk position; and continued to deny him direct access to the warden for his grievances. If true, each of these claims would have amounted to a material violation of the 2011 Decree.

Most troubling is the district court’s cavalier response once it finally realized that Rouser had not been receiving its orders. Rouser, apparently unaware that the case was over, wrote to the court on April 12, 2013, explaining that he’d learned that all of the court’s orders had been sent to his former counsel. Rouser claimed that he had been “effectively denied all due process and basically [had] been forced to fly blind.” He specifically sought leave to appeal “[i]f the judge has granted the defendants’ motion [to terminate the decree]” and requested the district court send him past orders. On the same day, he sent a letter addressed to the clerk’s office, explaining that his former counsel left the case in 2006, that he was a “pro per plaintiff” and that he had not received orders from the court, which denied him “all due process.” The docket does not reflect any response from either the court or the clerk’s office to Rouser’s letters.

On May 27, 2013, Rouser sent a strongly worded letter to the deputy state attorney general who served as counsel for defendants, with a copy to the court. In it, he declared that the court had “refused to send [him] any of its orders concerning this case . . . [w]hen it knows [he is] pro per and [has] been filing all motions and responses [himself].” Exasperated, Rouser wrote: “I am at a loss on how to get this court to send me copies of its orders . . . . I have [written to] the clerk as well and don’t know if I need to go to someone

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 632 Filed 06/17/16 Page 17 of 52 Page ID #:12021

ROUSER V. WHITE

17

else or who else is it when the court will not send you rulings in your own case.”

The court finally sent a copy of its order terminating the decree to Rouser on June 7, 2013. It declined to give Rouser additional time to oppose the now-moot motion to vacate, reasoning that Rouser already availed himself of the opportunity to respond to the motion. The court faulted Rouser for failing to keep it advised of his address and concluded that his failure to receive orders was due to his own oversight. The court, however, overlooked its own order of March 28, 2012 granting Rouser’s request to proceed pro se and recording his address as the Lancaster prison. Rouser has remained at that prison since. The failure to effectuate Rouser’s address change was thus the court’s fault, not Rouser’s.

This breakdown of communication between the court and Rouser is at loggerheads with the court’s obligation to alert pro se litigants that they are entitled to submit evidence when the district court is about to resolve a dispositive motion. Cf. Anderson v. Angelone, 86 F.3d 932, 935 (9th Cir. 1996). And it stands on its head the “special solicitude” we consistently afford pro se prisoners due to the lack of control they have over their mail. See Caldwell v. Amend, 30 F.3d 1199, 1201 (9th Cir. 1994). To this day, there’s nothing in the record indicating that anyone in the Central District of California has paused to question why so many returned orders are being docketed in this case. Rouser tried to bring the problem to the district court’s attention in multiple filings, all to no

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 632 Filed 06/17/16 Page 18 of 52 Page ID #:12022

18

ROUSER V. WHITE

effect.2 This raises doubts as to whether the judge or anyone else paid sufficient attention to Rouser’s pleadings. Because of this failure, Rouser was denied a fair opportunity to contest defendants’ motion to terminate the decree.

* * *

We are disappointed by the district court’s insouciance in this case. The court committed numerous errors in terminating a consent decree that had been carefully crafted over the course of two decades. The court applied the wrong legal standard and found substantial compliance without giving due attention to the various exacting obligations embodied in the decree, and without considering whether the purpose of the decree had been served. The court improvidently refused to hold an evidentiary hearing to resolve material factual disputes about whether defendants had complied with the decree. The court also encouraged noncompliance by finding that defendants had violated the consent decree, yet refusing to grant any meaningful relief.

In light of the court’s own findings, only four months earlier, that defendants had failed to comply with material

2 As discussed, in October 2012, Rouser filed a pleading indicating that he was only receiving notice of hearing dates from the “response filing of the defendants.” Then in April 2013, he wrote to the court and the clerk’s office explaining that he was a pro se plaintiff and had not received the court’s orders, and was thus deprived of due process. When the district court and the clerk’s office remained silent, Rouser sent a letter to opposing counsel with a copy to the court, saying that he was “at a loss on how to get [the] court to send [him] copies of its orders.” All of these communications were docketed and filed but had no effect until June 7, 2013, when the court eventually sent Rouser a copy of the order terminating the decree.

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 632 Filed 06/17/16 Page 19 of 52 Page ID #:12023

ROUSER V. WHITE

19

aspects of the decree, and with no proof that those failures had been remedied, termination of the decree was clearly an abuse of discretion. Under no circumstances should the district court consider terminating a decree unless and until there has been a substantial period of substantial compliance—in this case no less than a year—with every one of its terms.

The district court’s protracted failure to correct Rouser’s address, and its repeated failure to re-send notices of orders that had been returned as undeliverable, raises even broader questions. Bluntly stated, the record documented in Appendix A casts doubt on whether anyone in the Central District of California’s Clerk’s Office is paying attention to the important and sensitive process of providing parties with fair notice of the court’s orders. How can it be that the district court failed to implement the change of address for the delivery of orders after granting Rouser’s motion to proceed pro se, and then ignored almost two dozen orders that were returned to the court as undeliverable? Is the problem we note here limited to this case or does it reflect an absence of procedures designed to prevent and correct such errors in other cases? We find it inconceivable that a properly run clerk’s office would permit this to go on over the course of years.

We therefore VACATE the district court’s order terminating the consent decree, REINSTATE the 2011 Consent Decree and REMAND the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with our opinion. Costs to Appellant.

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 632 Filed 06/17/16 Page 20 of 52 Page ID #:12024

20

ROUSER V. WHITE

APPENDIX A

ORDER DATE & DOCKET NO.

DATE RETURNED & DOCKET NO.

ORDER CONTENTS

March 15, 2012 Dkt. No. 548

April 24, 2012 Dkt. No. 555

In chambers notice regarding partial joint settlement statement

July 18, 2012 Dkt. No. 557

July 26, 2012 Dkt. No. 583

Order requiring further filings related to partial joint settlement statement

July 31, 2012 Dkt. No. 559

August 24, 2012 Dkt. No. 562

Order calendaring Rouser’s motion to enforce consent decree

August 24, 2012 Dkt. No. 561

September 10, 2012 Dkt. No. 583

Order granting defendants’ request to extend response time

August 30, 2012 Dkt. No. 563

September 13, 2012 Dkt. No. 583

In chambers order taking Rouser’s motion to enforce consent decree under submission

September 19, 2012 October 4, 2012

Dkt. No. 566

Dkt. No. 583

Order requiring response from defendants to notice of further violations of consent decree

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 632 Filed 06/17/16 Page 21 of 52 Page ID #:12025

ROUSER V. WHITE

21

ORDER DATE & DOCKET NO. September 27, 2012 Dkt. No. 568
October 11, 2012 Dkt. No. 570
October 19, 2012 Dkt. No. 574
November 15, 2012 Dkt. No. 577
November 28, 2012 Dkt. No. 579
February 1, 2013 Dkt. No. 585

DATE RETURNED & DOCKET NO. October 22, 2012 Dkt. No. 583
October 25, 2012 Dkt. No. 583
December 7, 2012 Dkt. No. 580
December 18, 2012 Dkt. No. 581
December 7, 2012 Dkt. No. 582
February 22, 2013 Dkt. No. 590

ORDER CONTENTS
Order granting extension of time to defendants to respond to notice of further violations of consent decree
In chambers order taking notice of further violations of consent decree under submission
Order placing motion for injunction, evidentiary hearing and sanctions on court calendar
Order granting motion to enforce consent decree in part and instructing Rouser that future violations must be filed as separate motions
Order denying motion for injunction, evidentiary hearing and sanctions
Form order notifying defendants of deficiencies in their motion to vacate

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 632 Filed 06/17/16 Page 22 of 52 Page ID #:12026

22

ROUSER V. WHITE

ORDER DATE & DOCKET NO.
February 1, 2013 Dkt. No. 586
March 13, 2013 Dkt. No. 594 March 18, 2013 Dkt. No. 596
June 21, 2013 Dkt. No. 605
July 1, 2013 Dkt. No. 607
September 5, 2013 Dkt. No. 612
October 15, 2013 Dkt. No. 614

DATE RETURNED & DOCKET NO.

ORDER CONTENTS

February 22, 2013 Dkt. No. 591

Form order striking deficient motion to vacate

June 12, 2013 Dkt. No. 604

Order granting motion to vacate

March 25, 2013 Dkt. No. 598

Order denying as moot Rouser’s request for hearing on motion to vacate

August 1, 2013 Dkt. No. 609

Rouser’s notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit

August 9, 2013 Dkt. No. 610

Forwarding order from Ninth Circuit detailing appeal schedule and providing notice of past due docket fee

October 16, 2013 Dkt. No. 615, 616

Form order rejecting Rouser’s motion to take judicial notice of perjury and fraudulent documents

November 26, 2013 Dkt. No. 619

Forwarding order from Ninth Circuit granting Rouser’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 632 Filed 06/17/16 Page 23 of 52 Page ID #:12027

ROUSER V. WHITE

23

ORDER DATE & DOCKET NO.

DATE RETURNED & DOCKET NO.

November 19, 2013 January 14, 2014

Dkt. No. 618

Dkt. No. 623

December 18, 2013 January 27, 2014

Dkt. No. 621

Dkt. No. 624

ORDER CONTENTS
Forwarding order from Ninth Circuit assessing initial partial filing fee
Forwarding order from Ninth Circuit denying Rouser’s motion to take judicial notice of perjury and fraudulent documents

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 632 Filed 06/17/16 Page 24 of 52 Page ID #:12028

24

ROUSER V. WHITE

CALLAHAN, Circuit Judge, dissenting:

In 1993, William Rouser filed suit against California state prison officials (Defendants), alleging that they had infringed his right to practice Wicca while incarcerated in violation of the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses of the U.S. Constitution, among other laws. Twenty years later, the district court concluded that a court-approved settlement agreement (the Consent Decree) balancing Rouser’s ability to practice Wicca with prison officials’ need to maintain safe prisons had served its purpose. The court therefore vacated the Decree. We must decide whether the district court abused its discretion in determining that Defendants had substantially complied with the Decree.

The majority’s reversal of the district court improperly denies the heightened deference due a trial court’s finding that a consent decree aimed at institutional reform has served its purpose, is at odds with the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), and is undermined by a record showing compliance that is substantial. The majority rules that a party seeking to terminate a consent decree, including decrees involving federal-court intervention in state prisons, must demonstrate compliance with every one of a decree’s provisions for a substantial period of time. This rule effectively requires full, not substantial compliance. The rule is contrary to our precedent and Congressional intent, and it thrusts federal courts beyond their institutional competence. I dissent.

I.

Understanding the district court’s determination that Defendants have substantially complied with the Consent Decree first requires understanding the Decree’s contents and

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 632 Filed 06/17/16 Page 25 of 52 Page ID #:12029

ROUSER V. WHITE

25

the events preceding its vacatur. The majority does not explain the Decree’s numerous provisions and instead focuses on, and incorrectly describes, the few provisions that Rouser says have been violated. The majority’s failure to acknowledge the undisputed breadth of Defendants’ compliance is not without irony given that the majority faults the district court for not addressing “every one of [the Decree’s] provisions.” Maj. Op. 10 (emphasis in original).

A. The Consent Decree

Since Rouser initiated this lawsuit, the district court, among other things, approved a private settlement agreement in 1997, reopened the case in 2004 following Rouser’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement, and granted Rouser a preliminary injunction in 2010. After Defendants noticed that they intended to appeal the district court’s preliminary injunction order, the parties agreed to mediation and, in 2011, reached a court-approved settlement agreement that is the focus of this appeal.

The Consent Decree provides Rouser with access to listed personal religious items, including the Witches’ Bible, the Book of Shadows, other religious literature, a deck of tarot cards, up to four ounces of listed oils, listed herbs, up to five one-inch stones or ten one-half-inch stones, four feathers, a pentagram or other approved Wiccan medallion, and one package of eighteen seashells not larger than one-half inch in diameter. While in administrative segregation or the security housing unit Rouser is allowed access only to the Witches’ Bible, and only to the extent that prisoners of other religious faiths are allowed to have a religious text in those units. The Decree provides Rouser with access to a different set of items for group religious services, including candles and candle

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 632 Filed 06/17/16 Page 26 of 52 Page ID #:12030

26

ROUSER V. WHITE

holders, incense and incense holders, listed oils, water, salt, listed herbs, tarot cards, a drum, feathers, stones, seashells, a wood wand, a chalice or ritual cup, a small bell, a drum, an altar and altar cloth, and a small picture or statue of deities. While the Decree permits Rouser to use seven candles for group religious services, his access is subject to institutional safety and security concerns, including applicable fire safety regulations. Prison officials maintain custody and control over these group religious items while they are not in use.

The Consent Decree requires Defendants to provide Rouser with “reasonable opportunities to participate” in Wiccan events, including weekly services called Esbats, weekly religious study groups, and special religious services called Sabbats. In fulfilling these obligations, however, the Decree recognizes that Defendants also must “tak[e] into account factors such as the number of inmates, available space, safety and security, resources, and administrative considerations.” Sabbats are held eight times a year, and prison officials are required to “use their reasonable efforts to schedule the Sabbats on the dates identified.” If a Sabbat is cancelled for administrative reasons, prison officials must reschedule the Sabbat at the earliest practicable date. However, the Decree provides that officials will not reschedule a Sabbat cancelled because of inmate-caused safety or security concerns. The Decree requires Defendants to construct a fire pit and outdoor worship area, which Rouser may use during Sabbats. A volunteer Wiccan minister may attend and lead Wiccan services.

The Decree also includes provisions aimed at ensuring that prison officials treat Wicca similarly to how they treat other religions. For example, the Decree provides that the schedule, time, and location of Wiccan events will be posted

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 632 Filed 06/17/16 Page 27 of 52 Page ID #:12031

ROUSER V. WHITE

27

and announced in the same manner as other religious events and that Rouser may apply and be considered for an inmate work assignment as a clerk to the facility chaplain. The Decree requires prison officials to provide food for Sabbats to the extent that they provide food for special religious observances of other religious groups. Similarly, if prison officials allow inmates to bring food or canteen items to religious services and study groups, they will permit Rouser to bring comparable food or canteen items to weekly Wiccan services and study groups.

More generally, the Decree provides Rouser with an expedited inmate appeals process for appeals relating to noncompliance with the Decree. It also provides that prison officials may temporarily suspend the Decree’s provisions in emergencies, for security reasons, or when Rouser is confined in administrative segregation or the secure housing unit. Finally, the Decree includes a termination provision stating that, one year after its filing, Defendants could move to vacate the decree, dismiss the action with prejudice, and enter judgment on the ground that the preponderance of the evidence shows they have substantially complied with the Decree.

In sum, the Consent Decree’s central goal is to permit Rouser, like inmates of other faiths, to practice his religion while incarcerated consistent with prison officials’ need to maintain safe, orderly prisons in the face of finite resources. Achieving this goal requires prison officials to permit Rouser reasonable access to the religious items, services, and facilities that are important to Wicca.

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 632 Filed 06/17/16 Page 28 of 52 Page ID #:12032

28

ROUSER V. WHITE

B. Post-Settlement Litigation

Defendants proceeded to fulfill their obligations under the Consent Decree after the district court entered it on October 18, 2011. On March 8, 2012, the parties filed a joint status report describing Defendants’ compliance. The parties stated that Defendants had provided Rouser with access to all specified personal and group religious items, allowed Rouser to order additional religious items, progressed with construction of the fire pit, included Wiccan events in the master schedule for religious services and study groups, secured a volunteer Wiccan minister, and determined that there currently was not a chaplain clerk position open for application by Rouser or any other inmate. Defendants permitted Rouser to attend Wiccan services and activities on a regular basis, though Rouser complained that “there have been several instances where services were not timely started or were otherwise canceled.” Rouser, however, acknowledged that he was able to avail himself of an expedited inmate appeals process to address his concern.

On July 26, 2012, Rouser, now proceeding pro se, filed the first of a series of documents with the district court seeking to compel Defendants’ compliance with the Consent Decree. He alleged that (1) a religious necklace had been damaged; (2) the December 2011 Yule Sabbat had been canceled due to a contraband-related “laundry sweep”; (3) weekly services had been “terminated indefinitely” for two weeks; (4) officers were “desecrating” religious items in their custody by touching them while dispensing them; (5) the outdoor religious area under construction had not been completed; and (6) he had twice been denied expedited prisoner appeals. In later filings, Rouser sought monetary damages and immediate release from administrative

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 632 Filed 06/17/16 Page 29 of 52 Page ID #:12033

ROUSER V. WHITE

29

segregation, where he alleged that he was placed due to “enemy concerns” related to a Protestant inmate. He also alleged that Defendants told him that he could not order candles and incense.

Defendants responded with declarations from prison staff. Defendants explained that, consistent with the Consent Decree, the Yule Sabbat was “canceled due to inmate-caused safety and security issues, specifically reports of contraband in the inmate laundry that precipitated a temporary lockdown of the prison facility.” They explained that Wiccan weekly services were briefly suspended following a May 9, 2012 service during which “volunteers covered up windows in the chapel with inmates inside, restricting the view into the area, thereby creating a significant safety and security breach within the prison.” The suspension was lifted two weeks later, immediately after the Wiccan volunteers returned and were further instructed on compliance with prison procedures. Defendants averred that Rouser’s religious necklace, which is not listed among the group religious items kept by prison officials, was damaged while it was in his control. Defendants confirmed that they completed construction of the outdoor religious activity area and fire pit on August 21, 2012, and that Rouser had made use of the area since that time. Addressing Rouser’s latter allegations, Defendants explained that Rouser was not denied access to either candles or incense, but acknowledged “some miscommunication concerning [his] access and use of an open flame during services” stemming from security concerns, which had been resolved.

On November 15, 2012, the district court consolidated most of Rouser’s numerous filings and denied most of his

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 632 Filed 06/17/16 Page 30 of 52 Page ID #:12034

30

ROUSER V. WHITE

claims.1 The court began by noting that many of Rouser’s allegations were “unclear, unsupported, or unrelated to the terms of the Decree.” The court found that prison officials had not violated the Decree by improperly cancelling services, noting that the officials provided evidence that services were properly cancelled because of security and safety threats. The court found that prison officials had not denied Rouser access to an outdoor religious area or “desecrated” religious items by touching them, as they must in order to keep and dispense them. The court acknowledged Rouser’s allegation that a necklace had been damaged and other unspecified items had been stolen, and ordered prison officials to adhere to the terms of the Consent Decree “[t]o the extent religious items are under [their] control.” Addressing the only uncontested violation of the Decree, the court ordered Defendants to provide Rouser with expedited inmate appeals concerning the Decree.

C. Vacatur of the Consent Decree

A few months later, on February 4, 2013, Defendants moved to vacate the Consent Decree. In support of the motion, Defendants provided a declaration from Nathan Wilcox, a Correctional Counselor and Litigation Coordinator at the Lancaster Prison. Wilcox attested to Defendants’ “full compliance with the terms of the Consent Decree, including the construction of the outdoor religious area and Plaintiff’s access to religious items.” Wilcox stated that Rouser had been provided access to the personal religious items set forth in the Decree, including “tarot cards, oils, herbs, stones,

1 On November 28, 2012, the court issued a separate order denying Rouser’s other outstanding motions because Rouser had failed to comply with the Consent Decree’s exhaustion requirement.

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 632 Filed 06/17/16 Page 31 of 52 Page ID #:12035

ROUSER V. WHITE

31

feathers, and shells.” Rouser also had received access to all religious group items for Wiccan services, and had “been permitted to order and purchase additional religious items.” Esbats now were scheduled and held on a weekly basis with the assistance of a volunteer Wiccan minister, subject to institutional safety and security concerns. A fire pit and outdoor religious worship area had been constructed for Wiccan inmates’ use. Wilcox explained that Wiccan inmates used the outdoor religious area for the Samhain Sabbat on October 31, 2012, and the Yule Sabbat on December 23, 2012. Defendants also submitted an October 18, 2012 memorandum requiring Wiccan service “to be announced in the same manner and to the same extent as announced for religious events of other religious groups,” and detailing procedures for storage of group religious items and use of the outdoor religious area.

On February 21, 2013, Rouser opposed the motion to vacate, alleging that prison officials had only allowed him, in the absence of a volunteer chaplain, to complete one ritual at the outdoor religious ground since it was completed and to use one candle, instead of seven, for the 2012 Yule Sabbat.

On March 13, 2013, the district court granted the motion to vacate and entered judgment for Defendants. Citing to declarations by prison staff and “internal prison procedures setting forth approved Wiccan religious activities,” the court ruled that Defendants had demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that they had substantially complied with Decree. The court explained that “[a]lthough it is not entirely clear from his Opposition, Plaintiff contends that Defendants have not complied with the settlement agreement in a handful of instances.” The court concluded that, even assuming these

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 632 Filed 06/17/16 Page 32 of 52 Page ID #:12036

32

ROUSER V. WHITE

allegations to be true, they did not overcome Defendants’ showing of substantial compliance.

II.

The district court’s three-page order granting the motion to vacate is terse. Indeed, if the majority simply vacated and remanded for further explanation little ink would be spilled in dissent.2 However, the majority goes much further, rattling off supposed errors like a gatling gun. In doing so, the majority commits larger legal errors related to the standards applicable to the termination of consent decrees governing state prisons.

A. We owe special deference to the district court’s determination the Consent Decree has served its purpose.

We review the district court’s grant of a motion to vacate a consent decree for an abuse of discretion. Jeff D. v. Otter, 643 F.3d 278, 283 (9th Cir. 2011). While the abuse-ofdiscretion standard is always deferential, the deference owed

2 While terse, the district court’s explanation is sufficient to allow for meaningful judicial review. See Husain v. Olympic Airways, 316 F.3d 829, 835 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[I]f the district court’s findings are plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety, the appellate court cannot reverse even if it is convinced it would have found differently.”). As elaborated below, the largely uncontested declaration and prison procedures referenced by the district court confirm that the court did not abuse its discretion in finding substantial compliance. This case is therefore not, as Rouser contends, like Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ala. v. Unity Outpatient Surgery Center, Inc., 490 F.3d 718, 725 (9th Cir. 2007), where we remanded because a district court’s order was devoid of “any discussion of the relevant factors or any indication of the basis for its decision.”

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 632 Filed 06/17/16 Page 33 of 52 Page ID #:12037

ROUSER V. WHITE

33

a district court’s decision to terminate a consent decree governing institutional reform is heightened where, as here, the trial judge oversaw the decree for a significant period of time. See Jeff D. v. Kempthorne, 365 F.3d 844, 850 (9th Cir. 2004). A trial court in an institutional reform case is due special deference not only because of its familiarity with any progress toward compliance and past instances of noncompliance, but also because of its better understanding of the challenges that might make more perfect compliance unrealistic. For example, in overseeing a decree governing the management of state prisons, the trial court “develop[s] an understanding of the difficulties involved in . . . managing a jail that an appellate court, even with the best possible briefing, could never hope to match.” Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk Cty. Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 394 (O’Connor, J., concurring); see also Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 688 (1978) (providing “special deference because of the trial judge’s years of experience with the problem at hand and his recognition of the limits on a federal court’s authority in a case of this kind”).

The majority initially errs by denying special deference to the district court’s determination that the Consent Decree has served its purpose, reasoning that the district court handled the case for “only two years.” Maj. Op. 8. But even assuming that a district court must oversee a consent decree for some threshold amount of time before deference is due, two years of managing a decree is more than enough. This case’s history demonstrates that the district court is far better positioned than we are to determine if Defendants have substantially complied with the Decree. As noted, the district court decided to grant the motion to vacate not long after granting in part and denying in part Rouser’s motion to enforce. The district court was thus very familiar with the

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 632 Filed 06/17/16 Page 34 of 52 Page ID #:12038

34

ROUSER V. WHITE

challenges facing prison officials’ compliance, the steps that Defendants had made toward achieving full compliance, and the nature of Rouser’s remaining allegations of noncompliance.

That the district court’s experience supervising the Decree for two years is enough to merit deference is also supported by the PLRA, pursuant to which the Consent Decree was entered. The PLRA provides that, after two years, consent decrees providing prospective relief with respect to prison conditions are “terminable upon the motion of any party or intervener,” unless “the court makes written findings based on the record that prospective relief remains necessary to correct a current and ongoing violation of the Federal right” at issue. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(1), (3). If consent decrees are presumptively terminable after two years under the PLRA, it follows that two years of supervising a decree is a sufficient amount of time for a trial judge to acquire the expertise needed to determine whether a decree’s purpose has been served.

Of course, we don’t need Congress to tell us that two years is a substantial amount of time. Common sense tells us so. Two years is the term of a member of the House of Representatives, for example. Indeed, we classify crimes punishable by two years imprisonment as felonies because that is a substantial amount of time. The majority errs by refusing to accord “substantial deference to ‘the trial judge’s years of experience with the problem at hand.’” Rufo, 502 U.S. at 394 (O’Connor, J., concurring) (quoting Hutto, 437 U.S. at 688).

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 632 Filed 06/17/16 Page 35 of 52 Page ID #:12039

ROUSER V. WHITE

35

B. The district court did not abuse its discretion in vacating the Consent Decree.

Giving the district court the special deference it is owed, I cannot agree with the majority that the district court abused its discretion in vacating the Consent Decree. “A district court abuses its discretion if it does not apply the correct law or if it rests its decision on a clearly erroneous finding of material fact.” Casey v. Albertson’s Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1257 (9th Cir. 2004). Rouser has demonstrated neither of these conditions.

1. The district court did not fail to observe any procedure required for terminating consent decrees. Rather, the majority creates a rule that is inconsistent with our case law and the PLRA.

The majority first faults the district court for failing to observe procedure that the majority rules courts must follow in deciding whether to vacate a consent decree. According to the majority, a court faced with a motion to terminate a consent decree must first determine whether the basic purposes of the decree have been met, and then must determine whether the party seeking release from the decree has “substantially complied with every one of its provisions” for a “substantial period.” Maj. Op. 10, 11–12, 13, 19.

The majority’s “substantial period of substantial compliance with every term” invention is inconsistent with our case law and at odds with the PLRA. The majority attributes its rule to “the teachings of Otter.” Maj. Op. 9. But Jeff D. v. Otter, 643 F.3d 278 (9th Cir. 2011), created no such rule. In Otter, we faulted the district court for employing “the contempt burden and standard of proof” in determining

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 632 Filed 06/17/16 Page 36 of 52 Page ID #:12040

36

ROUSER V. WHITE

whether “substantial compliance [permitted] consent decrees to be vacated.” Otter, 643 F.3d at 287. We also directed the district court, on remand, to consider whether “the larger purposes of the decrees have been served,” rather than focusing myopically on whether individual “Action Items” had been completed. Id. at 288. This direction is consistent with our other decisions, which emphasize that substantial compliance does not mean that “every last wish and hope of the decree [has been] achieved, but [that] the decree accomplished its essential purposes and the situation improved greatly.” Labor/Cmty. Strategy Ctr. v. Los Angeles Cty. Metro. Transp. Auth., 564 F.3d 1115, 1123 (9th Cir. 2009) (emphasis added). The majority’s rule requiring a substantial period of substantial compliance with every term violates this precedent.

The majority’s rule, which effectively requires full rather than substantial compliance, is particularly inappropriate in cases involving federal oversight of a state prison. Its rule is in tension with the general “principle that federal court intervention in state institutions is a temporary measure and may extend no longer than necessary to cure constitutional violations.” Id. (citing Bd. of Ed. of Okla. City Pub. Sch. v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237, 248 (1991); Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 1986)). The majority’s rule is also inconsistent with the PLRA, which we have recognized was “intended . . . to revive the hands-off doctrine” regarding federal judicial intervention in prisons. Gilmore v. California, 220 F.3d 987, 997 (9th Cir. 2000). Under the PLRA, a court must terminate a consent decree after two years in the absence of a “current and ongoing violation” of

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 632 Filed 06/17/16 Page 37 of 52 Page ID #:12041

ROUSER V. WHITE

37

an asserted federal right.3 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(3). “In other words, if a violation no longer exists, the statute does not permit the court” to refuse to terminate the Decree. Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 743 (9th Cir. 2002).

Accordingly, the majority’s rule requiring substantial compliance with every provision for a substantial period of time has no place under our precedent or the law. Nor is its rule obligating district courts to examine in detail past instances of non-compliance that are not ongoing consistent with applicable law in prison-reform cases. Rather, our precedent and California law direct courts to consider “whether the larger purposes of [consent] decrees have been served” in deciding whether their vacatur is justified due to substantial compliance. Otter, 643 F.3d at 287; see Labor/Cmty. Strategy Ctr., 564 F.3d at 1122 (“Our analysis requires we do more than simply count the number of technical deviations from the decree. Instead, we must determine, using a holistic view of all the available information, whether [defendant’s] compliance with the Decree overall was substantial, notwithstanding some minimal level of noncompliance.”). And in deciding whether prospective relief remains merited in a case aimed at reform of a state prison, federal courts should “give substantial

3 Rouser accepts that this requirement applies to the district court’s termination of the Consent Decree, but argues that the PLRA requires evidentiary hearings and written findings before a district court terminates a consent decree governed by the PLRA. This position is contrary to § 3626(b)(3)’s plain language, our precedent, and decisions of our sister circuits. See, e.g., Hallett, 296 F.3d at 743; Cagle v. Hutto, 177 F.3d 253, 258 (4th Cir. 1999); see also Guajardo v. Tex. Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 363 F.3d 392, 397 (5th Cir. 2004).

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 632 Filed 06/17/16 Page 38 of 52 Page ID #:12042

38

ROUSER V. WHITE

weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).

Here, the district court satisfied these requirements by recognizing that the underlying purpose of the Consent Decree was to provide for Rouser’s “ability to practice Wicca while incarcerated.” The majority does not explain why this description of the Decree’s goal is inadequate or even attempt to provide a better description. The district court then found that Defendants’ largely uncontested declarations and memorandum regarding prison procedures demonstrated, by a preponderance of evidence, that Defendants have substantially complied with the Decree. In so holding, the district court did not violate any court-mandated procedure for resolving motions to vacate consent decrees.

Nor did the district court err, as the majority alternatively holds, by finding substantial compliance without conducting an evidentiary hearing. The majority relies on Gilmore v. California, but that case only held that a district court must “take evidence on the current circumstances at the prison . . . with respect to those remedies as to which plaintiffs did not concede that defendants were in compliance.” 220 F.3d at 1010. Here the district court took and considered evidence on current circumstances presented by both parties and assumed Rouser’s evidence as true. The district court did not, as the majority incorrectly states, “simply examine the existing record.” Maj Op. 13–14 (quotation marks and alteration omitted). The majority fails to understand that the act of taking evidence includes taking declarations and other new evidence, and is not limited to live hearings.

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 632 Filed 06/17/16 Page 39 of 52 Page ID #:12043

ROUSER V. WHITE

39

Neither our precedent nor the terms of the Consent Decree required more. See, e.g., Stewart v. Cate, 757 F.3d 929, 942 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding that a district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a request for an evidentiary hearing where newly presented evidence requiring a credibility assessment was assumed true). In fact, under the PLRA, neither evidentiary hearings nor written findings based on the record are required where a federal court determines that the consent decree governing state prisons should terminate. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(3); Cagle, 177 F.3d at 258 (“The plain language of § 3626(b)(3) imposes no requirement that a district court conduct an evidentiary hearing in order to determine whether there is a current and ongoing violation of federal rights.”).

2. The district court did not use an incorrect standard for substantial compliance.

The majority also faults the district court for “applying the wrong legal standard for substantial compliance.” Maj. Op. 11. The majority claims that the district court equated substantial compliance with “significant steps to follow the settlement agreement.” Id. Rouser, who is now represented by a major law firm, did not make, and thus waived, this argument, which unfairly characterizes the district court’s decision.4 Consistent with the Consent Decree’s termination

4 Without providing any supporting precedent, Rouser incorrectly faults the district court for “fail[ing] to define substantial compliance.” The district court was under no obligation to define substantial compliance. In fact, the court had no need to clarify its meaning in light of the parties’ agreement that California law governs the term. The parties agree that, under California law, substantial compliance does not require “literal compliance,” it requires that “the defects of performance must not pervade the whole or be so essential as substantially to defeat the object which the

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 632 Filed 06/17/16 Page 40 of 52 Page ID #:12044

40

ROUSER V. WHITE

provision, the district court placed the evidentiary burden on Defendants, and found that they had “demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that they have substantially complied with the terms of the [Decree].” The reference to “significant steps to follow the settlement agreement” simply indicates that Defendants have diligently worked to achieve compliance with the Decree, as detailed in their mostly uncontested filings. The district court concluded that Defendants’ evidence established that they “have substantially complied with the settlement agreement.”

3. The district court did not clearly err in finding that a preponderance of the evidence showed substantial compliance with the Consent Decree.

The majority also holds that the district court’s substantial compliance determination is based on a clearly erroneous factual finding. Under the abuse of discretion standard, “if the district court’s findings are plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety, the appellate court cannot reverse even if it is convinced it would have found differently.” Husain, 316 F.3d at 835. Again, this standard is even more deferential where, as here, we review a district court’s determination that a consent decree aimed at institutional reform has served its purpose. Labor/Cmty. Strategy Ctr., 564 F.3d at 1121.

Applying these rules to the record presented compels me to conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Defendants had substantially complied with the Consent Decree. As noted, the district court found that

parties intend to accomplish.” Connell v. Higgins, 170 Cal. 541, 556 (1915); see also Labor/Cmty. Strategy Ctr., 564 F.3d at 1122.

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 632 Filed 06/17/16 Page 41 of 52 Page ID #:12045

ROUSER V. WHITE

41

“declarations from prison staff, outlining the various actions taken to comply with the settlement agreement” and “internal prison procedures setting forth approved Wiccan religious activities” demonstrated Defendants’ substantial compliance with the Decree. The Wilcox declaration explained that (1) Rouser had been provided access to the personal and religious group items listed in the Decree; (2) Wiccan group services were scheduled and held on a weekly basis with the assistance of a volunteer Wiccan minister, subject to institutional safety and security considerations; (3) a fire pit and outdoor religious worship area had been constructed for Wiccan inmates’ use; and (4) Wiccan inmates used the outdoor religious area for the “Samhain sabbat on October 31, 2012 and the Yule sabbat on December 23, 2012.” The referenced prison procedures, among other things, (1) provide that Wiccan “services shall be announced in the same manner and to the same extent as announced for religious events of other religious groups”; (2) explain that the group religious items listed in the Consent Decree “are to be secured in the Facility Chapel”; and (3) establish rules for use of the outdoor religious area.

In response to Defendants’ proffer of compliance with the Decree, Rouser alleged two relevant instances of noncompliance.5 He alleged that prison officials had (1) only allowed him, in the absence of the volunteer chaplain, to use one candle, instead of seven, for the Yule 2012 Sabbat; and

5 Like his earlier motion to enforce, Rouser’s opposition to the motion to vacate focused in large part on his placement in administrative segregation due to enemy concerns related to other inmates. As the district court implicitly acknowledged in its earlier order on Rouser’s motion to enforce, these allegations are “unclear” and “unrelated” to the Consent Decree. The majority appears to agree and does not address these allegations.

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 632 Filed 06/17/16 Page 42 of 52 Page ID #:12046

42

ROUSER V. WHITE

(2) only allowed him, in the absence of the volunteer chaplain, to complete one ritual at the outdoor religious ground since it was completed a few months earlier. The district court determined that, even accepting these allegations that Defendants “have not complied with the [Decree] in a handful of instances” as true, they do not refute Defendants’ showing of substantial compliance.

The record does not show that this finding was clearly erroneous. Rouser did not contest most of Defendants’ sworn declaration stating that Defendants had fully complied with the Decree. Accordingly, the district court could take as true that Defendants complied with the Consent Decree except as to those provisions disputed by Rouser. The majority incorrectly treats all provisions in the Consent Decree not specifically addressed by Defendants as having been insufficiently evidenced. However, Defendants were not required to list out and address every line of the Consent Decree separately, and the majority errs by faulting the district court for not holding Defendants to such a requirement. A district court need not take evidence regarding provisions of a consent decree governing a state prison with which a plaintiff concedes defendants have complied. See Gilmore, 220 F.3d at 1010; 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(3).

There is therefore no dispute that, for example: volunteer Wiccan ministers now may attend and lead Wiccan services; weekly Esbats are now permitted; weekly Wiccan study groups are now permitted; an outdoor religious area and fire pit have been constructed for Wiccan inmates, which inmates had already used during Sabbats; Wiccan services now are posted and announced in the same manner as other religious events; Wiccan inmates are permitted to order food for

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 632 Filed 06/17/16 Page 43 of 52 Page ID #:12047

ROUSER V. WHITE

43

Sabbats and bring food to weekly Esbats and study groups; Rouser has been allowed to order and possess all of the personal religious items listed in the Decree; and Rouser may apply and be considered for an inmate work assignment as a clerk to the facility chaplain.

Additionally, it is apparent that there is no dispute that Rouser has been permitted to order and access the full list of group religious items. The single exception, according to Rouser, was that, during one Sabbat, he was only allowed access to one candle instead of seven in the absence of the volunteer chaplain.6 While the Decree permits Rouser to use seven candles for group religious services, subject to “institutional safety and security concerns,” the alleged noncompliance with this provision for a single service does not undermine Defendants’ showing of substantial compliance. Indeed, Rouser has not alleged that he was denied access to any group religious item for any weekly Esbat or any other Sabbat.7

6 In one part of his opposition, Rouser alleges more generally that he was not permitted to order candles, incense, or associated holders. This allegation, however, is contradicted by Rouser’s subsequent allegation that he was denied access to more than one candle (with no mention of incense) and only during the 2012 Yule Sabbat. Indeed, Rouser does not dispute that he was permitted to use candles and incense during other Sabbats and weekly Esbats. It follows that he has been permitted to order candles, incense, and associated holders.
7 It is notable that the only items that have been of concern are those involving open flames, which raise obvious prison-safety concerns. Indeed, in responding to Rouser’s same claim in his motion to enforce regarding candles and incense, Defendants explained that Rouser was not denied access to either candles or incense, but acknowledged “some miscommunication concerning [his] access and use of an open flame during services” stemming from security concerns, which had been

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 632 Filed 06/17/16 Page 44 of 52 Page ID #:12048

44

ROUSER V. WHITE

Rouser’s other allegation of non-compliance—that he was only allowed to complete one ritual at the outdoor religious ground since it was completed a few months earlier—does not undermine Defendants’ showing of substantial compliance either. There were three Sabbats since the beginning of October—the Samhain Sabbat on October 31, the Yule Sabbat on December 23, and the Imbolg Sabbat on February 2. Before the Imbolg Sabbat had come to pass, Defendants declared under penalty of perjury that inmates used the outdoor religious area for the Samhain Sabbat and the Yule Sabbat. Thus, it appears that Rouser’s concern is either with the Imbolg Sabbat or that, while Rouser accessed the outdoor religious area during the Yule Sabbat, he could not appropriately observe the event because he was denied access to the requisite number of candles. Regardless, Rouser acknowledged that he was unable to use the outdoor religious area because the Wiccan volunteer chaplain was not available to supervise the event.

Even accepting Rouser’s allegation as true, the fact that he could not use the outdoor religious area due to the absence of the volunteer chaplain during one Sabbat does not necessarily demonstrate even an isolated violation of the Consent Decree. The Decree acknowledges that, in providing Rouser “reasonable opportunities to participate in Wiccan group religious services,” prison officials must “tak[e] into account factors such as the number of inmates, available

resolved. Prison officials should, consistent with safety and administrative considerations, respect a Wiccan inmate’s interest in using candles for Wiccan services to the same extent that inmates of other religions are permitted to use candles for their services. It is likely unreasonable, however, to expect prison officials to be able to supervise the use of candles by Rouser and all other inmates every week of the year and on every Sabbat.

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 632 Filed 06/17/16 Page 45 of 52 Page ID #:12049

ROUSER V. WHITE

45

space, safety and security, resources, and administrative considerations, so long as those factors are also considered in determining the access of other religious groups to regularly scheduled group religious activities.” Moreover, Defendants’ prison procedures memorandum governing the use of the outdoor religious area makes clear that a volunteer or other staff must be available to escort inmates to the event.

Indicative of its commitment to riddle the district court’s exercise of discretion with as many holes as possible, regardless of their merit, the majority goes beyond the allegations of non-compliance made by Rouser in his opposition to the motion to vacate. First, the majority faults the district court and Defendants for not addressing a provision of the Consent Decree that does not exist. The majority says that Defendants should have addressed Rouser’s “right to be released from confinement in time to attend full Wiccan services.” Maj. Op. 12. The Decree contains no such provision. In fact, the Decree allows prison officials to suspend its provisions “when Rouser is confined in Administrative Segregation.”

Second, the majority faults Defendants for not addressing issues that they addressed. For example, the majority faults Defendants for not explaining whether they had made “copies of a master schedule of religious services that included the time and location of Wiccan events.” However, Rouser himself acknowledged in a joint status report that Defendants had included Wiccan events in the master schedule for religious services and study groups, as required. Moreover, the prison procedures memorandum states that “services shall be announced in the same manner and the same extent as

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 632 Filed 06/17/16 Page 46 of 52 Page ID #:12050

46

ROUSER V. WHITE

announced for religious events of other religious groups.8 As with the vast majority of other provisions in the Consent Decree, there is simply no dispute that Defendants have complied with this requirement.

Third, the majority faults the district court for not mentioning past instances of non-compliance with the Decree. As explained above, past instances of noncompliance are of questionable relevance in deciding whether to vacate a consent decree entered under the PLRA, which requires an “ongoing violation of the Federal right” for relief to be continued after two years. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(3); Hallett, 296 F.3d at 743. In any case, the majority wrongly concludes that the district court’s decision on the motion to enforce undermines the same court’s decision on the motion to vacate. The district court did not find that prison officials had damaged Rouser’s necklace. Instead, it ordered prison officials to adhere to the terms of the Consent Decree “[t]o the extent religious items are under [their] control.” Indeed,

8 The majority’s dismissal of evidence such as the prison procedures memorandum and the joint status report as “stale” illustrates how far the majority oversteps its role as a reviewing court. This evidence was not stale—the prison procedures memorandum was less than five months old and the joint status report was a year old when the district court vacated the Decree. Combined with Defendants’ declarations, this evidence confirmed, as Rouser did not dispute in opposition to the motion to vacate, that all or nearly all of the Decree’s provisions had been achieved. Moreover, the majority does not appreciate the difference between past, now-corrected instances of non-compliance and past acts achieving compliance. While corrected instances of non-compliance are of questionable relevance under the PLRA, which requires an “ongoing violation of the Federal right” for relief to be continued, 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(3), a district court obviously may look into the past in assessing whether a decree’s objectives, such as commitments to construct fire pit and allow access to spiritual leaders, have been accomplished.

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 632 Filed 06/17/16 Page 47 of 52 Page ID #:12051

ROUSER V. WHITE

47

a “religious necklace” is not a listed item in the Consent Decree. To the extent that the necklace in question is the medallion or pentagram, it is listed as a personal religious item, which the Decree states that Rouser possesses.

The only uncontested violation of the Decree alleged in the motion to enforce was Defendants’ failure to provide Rouser with expedited inmate appeals on a few occasions. However, this procedural failure did not undermine the purpose of the Decree. The Decree’s purpose is to provide Rouser with access to religious items, services, spiritual leadership, and facilities that are important to Wicca, not to provide Rouser with expedited inmate appeals. The majority fails to appreciate the difference between a procedural mechanism and a “larger purpose” of a decree. See Otter, 643 F.3d at 287; see also Labor/Cmty. Strategy Ctr., 564 F.3d at 1123.

On the record presented, the district court did not clearly err in finding that Rouser’s allegations that Defendants had failed to comply with the Decree in a “handful of instances” did not undermine Defendants’ showing of substantial compliance. The alleged “defects of performance [do] not pervade the whole.” Connell, 170 Cal. at 556. Nor are they “so essential as substantially to defeat the object which the parties intend to accomplish.” Id. Instead, “the larger purposes of [the Consent Decree has] been served,” Otter, 643 F.3d at 287, “and the situation improved greatly.” Labor/Cmty. Strategy Ctr., 564 F.3d at 1123. Like inmates of other religions, Rouser now has access, consistent with prison security and administrative considerations, to religious items, services, spiritual leadership, and facilities that are important to his faith. It certainly cannot be said that extending the

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 632 Filed 06/17/16 Page 48 of 52 Page ID #:12052

48

ROUSER V. WHITE

Decree is necessary to correct an ongoing violation of Rouser’s rights under federal law.

4. Rouser has not been deprived of due process, as he concedes.

The final reason the majority gives for reversal is that the district court violated Rouser’s due process rights by sending several orders to Rouser’s former counsel instead of Rouser. This argument was not raised by Rouser on appeal and was therefore abandoned. Wilcox v. Comm’r, 848 F.2d 1007, 1008 n.2 (9th Cir. 1988). Indeed, it is the majority that demonstrates “insouciance” by jumping to name-calling without having heard from the parties about due process concerns.

As an initial matter, the majority inappropriately pins all of the blame for the misdeliveries on the district court. Rouser’s previous attorney moved to withdraw as counsel in 2006, citing irreconcilable differences, including Rouser’s propensity to pepper the court with unauthorized filings. After a hearing, the district court granted the motion to withdraw subject to submission of “an order for the court’s signature.” The district court subsequently reminded the parties that “[t]he court indicated its intent to grant this motion and directed plaintiff’s counsel to file a proposed order.” Neither Rouser nor his former counsel ever filed the requisite order and thus none was entered. Accordingly, the majority faults the district court for sending court orders to a counsel whose motion to withdraw was never granted and who thus continued to be listed as Rouser’s counsel.

Moreover, Rouser was represented by attorneys at a major law firm from April 21, 2007, until March 28, 2012. During

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 632 Filed 06/17/16 Page 49 of 52 Page ID #:12053

ROUSER V. WHITE

49

this time, and certainly before withdrawing, Rouser’s counsel could have notified the court that the docket should not list Rouser’s previous attorney as a counsel of record. Even if the former counsel’s ongoing listing as a counsel of record was not apparent then, Rouser should have notified the district court of any problem earlier once it became apparent. The majority states that Rouser clearly did so in October 2012. However, the filing that the majority references only requests that “the court send him the ruling of the hearing of 10/5/12 for plaintiff is pro per and the only way he has been finding out about the hearing dates is from the response filing of defendants.” The import of this single sentence of a streamof-consciousness letter focused on unrelated issues, if clearer now in hindsight, was undoubtedly less than obvious back then. Rouser did not clearly notify the district court of the delivery problem until April 24, 2013. Thereafter, on June 7, 2013, the district court entered an order acknowledging that Rouser had been proceeding pro se and directing the clerk to send Rouser the order vacating the Consent Decree that Rouser requested.

Even if the district court’s failure to send documents to Rouser is partially attributed to the court and somehow constituted an error of constitutional magnitude, the district court correctly concluded that Rouser suffered no prejudice. Rouser received Defendants’ motion to vacate, learned of the court’s earlier order on his motion to enforce, and timely filed an opposition to the motion to vacate. Rouser has not alleged any prejudice.

The majority nonetheless contends that “Rouser’s failure to receive the court’s orders prejudiced his ability to allege violations of the 2011 Decree.” Maj. Op. 15. The majority reasons that the docket error left Rouser in the dark about the

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 632 Filed 06/17/16 Page 50 of 52 Page ID #:12054

50

ROUSER V. WHITE

requirements that must be met before submitting notices of violations of the Decree, which the majority says were set forth in the district court’s November 14, 2012 order denying Rouser’s motion to enforce. The majority’s argument fails for several reasons. First, it is not clear that Rouser did not actually obtain the November 14, 2012 order. Second, the order did not create any new filing requirements, it only referenced the Consent Decree’s exhaustion provision. As the district court noted, the Consent Decree requires that “allegations that Defendants violated the Decree must follow the administrative procedures outlined in the Decree before being brought to this Court.” Rouser was well aware of these requirements, having agreed to the Consent Decree, and thus suffered no prejudice even if he did not obtain the order.

Third, the subsequent allegations made by Rouser do not demonstrate that the district court erred in vacating the Consent Decree.9 Rouser’s allegation that he was denied the Witches’ Bible while in administrative segregation may be concerning, but Rouser did not repeat this allegation in opposing the motion to vacate. Moreover, the Consent Decree only requires prison officials to permit Rouser access to the Witches’ Bible to the extent that prisoners of other religious faiths are allowed to have a religious text while in administrative segregation. Rouser has never alleged that other prisoners are allowed such texts. Nor did Rouser repeat

9 The majority’s lists of filings that the district court failed to address and orders that Rouser didn’t receive are inaccurate. The district court addressed Rouser’s March 13, 2013 oral argument request, which the majority describes as alleging a violation of the expedited appeal provision, in a March 18, 2013 Order. Appendix A incorrectly lists Rouser as not having received the Court’s March 15, 2012 Order. However, Rouser was represented by counsel at the time that Order was filed, and his counsel received the Order.

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 632 Filed 06/17/16 Page 51 of 52 Page ID #:12055

ROUSER V. WHITE

51

his unclear allegation regarding applying for a volunteer chapel clerk position. In any case, this provision does not guarantee that Rouser will be selected for the chaplain clerk position, but only allows him “to apply and be considered for such an assignment.” In a joint status report, Rouser had previously acknowledged that Defendants had determined that there currently was not a chaplain clerk position open for application by Rouser or any other inmate.

Thus, even if Rouser had made a due process argument, and even if the district court had made a due process error, Rouser suffered no prejudice.

III.

The district courts’s finding of substantial compliance was not clearly erroneous or based on an incorrect legal standard. The majority, however, imposes a standard for terminating consent decrees that is inconsistent with our precedent and federal courts’ limited role in overseeing reform of state prisons. The majority also overreaches our role as an appellate court by refusing to provide the district court the special deference that it is due in this case and offhandedly dismissing evidence that the trial court found compelling.

The record shows that the basic purpose of the Consent Decree has been achieved. Prison officials now permit Rouser, like inmates of other faiths, to practice his religion while incarcerated, consistent with security and administrative considerations. Rouser has reasonable access to the religious items, services, spiritual leadership, and facilities that are important to his faith. Prison officials provide Wiccan events with resources comparable to those

Case 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM Document 632 Filed 06/17/16 Page 52 of 52 Page ID #:12056

52

ROUSER V. WHITE

provided for events of other religions, such as publicity, food, and staffing. While strictly observing any faith, particularly one involving many rituals, is undoubtedly difficult for an inmate, whose rights are not coextensive with those of the general public, Rouser’s ability to observe Wicca is greatly improved. It is time for this twenty-three-year-old case to be dismissed. Accordingly, I dissent.

 
 Case: 2:93-cv-00767-LKK-GGH As of: 06/19/2014 12:18 PM PDT 1 of 45
PRISONER_CIVIL_RIGHTS,CLOSED,TRANSFERRED
U.S. District Court Eastern District of California − Live System (Sacramento) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:93−cv−00767−LKK−GGH

(PC) Rouser v. White, et al Assigned to: Judge Lawrence K. Karlton Referred to: Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows Demand: $0
Case in other court: USCA, 10−16066
Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 05/07/1993 Date Terminated: 10/18/2011 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights Jurisdiction: Federal Question

William Rouser

represented by Jason C. Wright Jones Day (Los Angeles) 555 South Flower Street 50th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 213−243−2801 Fax: 213−243−2539 Email: jcwright@jonesday.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Lauren Riggs 1700 Harding Avenue Altadena, CA 91001 626−799−6231 Email: jennylriggs@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard G Bates , Jr Law Offices of Richard G Bates Jr. 1465 Enea Circle Suite 1040 Concord, CA 94520 925−798−8055 Email: estateatty@msn.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carter Capps White King Hall Civil Rights Clinic UC Davis School of Law One Shields Avenue, Bldg. TB 30 Davis, CA 95616 (530) 752−5440 Fax: (530) 752−5788 Email: ccwhite@ucdavis.edu TERMINATED: 06/19/2003

Kara Backus Jones Day 555 South Flower Street 50th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 213−243−2704 Fax: 213−243−2539 Email: kbackus@jonesday.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lin Wang

Case: 2:93-cv-00767-LKK-GGH As of: 06/19/2014 12:18 PM PDT 2 of 45
Jones Day 555 S. Flower Street 50th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 213−243−2489 Fax: 213−243−2539 Email: linwang@jonesday.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan Dee Christian Prison Law Office General Delivery San Quentin, CA 94964 415−457−9144 Fax: 457−9151 Email: susandc@sbcglobal.net TERMINATED: 05/09/2003

V. Intervenor Plaintiff Spotted Eagle Circle
Intervenor Plaintiff T. Nguyen
Intervenor Plaintiff C. Russ
Intervenor Plaintiff James Terres

represented by Mark A Radoff California Indian Legal Services 609 South Escondido Boulevard Escondido, CA 92025 760−746−8941−102 Fax: 760−746−1815 Email: mradoff@calindian.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mark A Radoff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mark A Radoff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mark A Radoff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Theo White Warden

represented by James Edmund Flynn Attorney General of the State of California 1300 I Street P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244−2550 (916) 323−1976 Fax: (916) 324−5205 Email: james.flynn@doj.ca.gov LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:93-cv-00767-LKK-GGH As of: 06/19/2014 12:18 PM PDT 3 of 45

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua Casey Irwin Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General 1515 Clay Street # 2000, POB 70550 Oakland, CA 94612−0550 510−622−2213 Fax: 510−622−2121 Email: Joshua.Irwin@doj.ca.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle L. Angus Attorney General's Office of the State of California P.O. Box 944255 1300 I Street Suite 125 Sacramento, CA 94244−2550 916−445−2395 Fax: 916−324−5205 Email: michelle.angus@doj.ca.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Constance Lee Picciano Office of the Attorney General 1300 I Street, Ste. 1101 P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244−2550 (916) 322−6453 Fax: (916) 324−5205 Email: Constance.Picciano@doj.ca.gov TERMINATED: 01/27/2005

Samantha H. Ramsey Attorney General's Office for the State of California Department of Justice 1300 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814 916−324−5165 Fax: 916−324−5205 Email: Samantha.Ramsey@doj.ca.gov TERMINATED: 12/15/2009

Defendant
E W Meads Protestant Chaplain TERMINATED: 12/15/2009

represented by Constance Lee Picciano (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/27/2005

David A. Carrillo Attorney General's Office of the State of California P.O. Box 70550 1515 Clay Street 20th Floor Oakland, CA 94612−0550 510−622−2215 Fax: 510−622−2121 Email: DavidA.Carrillo@doj.ca.gov TERMINATED: 09/30/2009

Case: 2:93-cv-00767-LKK-GGH As of: 06/19/2014 12:18 PM PDT 4 of 45

Defendant Jack R Reagan Chief Inmate Appeal TERMINATED: 12/15/2009
Defendant James Gomez Director of Corrections
Defendant USA TERMINATED: 12/15/2009

James Edmund Flynn (See above for address)
Joshua Casey Irwin (See above for address)
represented by Constance Lee Picciano (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/27/2005
David A. Carrillo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/30/2009
James Edmund Flynn (See above for address)
Joshua Casey Irwin (See above for address)
represented by James Edmund Flynn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Casey Irwin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michelle L. Angus (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Constance Lee Picciano (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/27/2005
Samantha H. Ramsey (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/15/2009
represented by Carlotta Wells United States Department of Justice Civil Division PO Box 883 Washington, DC 20044 202−514−3146 LEAD ATTORNEY
Jonathan T. Foot Federal Programs Branch Civil Division P O Box 883 Washington, DC 20044 202−524−2301 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:93-cv-00767-LKK-GGH As of: 06/19/2014 12:18 PM PDT 5 of 45

Defendant James E. Tilton TERMINATED: 12/15/2009
Defendant J. Yates
Defendant Matthew Cates

represented by David A. Carrillo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/30/2009
Fiel Dizon Tigno Attorney General's Office of the State of California P.O. Box 70550 1515 Clay Street 20th Floor Oakland, CA 94612−0550 510−622−2204 Fax: 510−622−2121 Email: fiel.tigno@doj.ca.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Edmund Flynn (See above for address)
Joshua Casey Irwin (See above for address)
represented by James Edmund Flynn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David A. Carrillo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/30/2009
Fiel Dizon Tigno (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Casey Irwin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michelle L. Angus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Samantha H. Ramsey (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/15/2009
represented by James Edmund Flynn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David A. Carrillo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/30/2009
Joshua Casey Irwin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:93-cv-00767-LKK-GGH As of: 06/19/2014 12:18 PM PDT 6 of 45

Defendant P Ortiz Correctional Counselor II
Defendant B. Flores Correctional Counselor I
Defendant Brian Haws Warden LAC
Defendant Officer Bush
Amicus American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Michelle L. Angus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Samantha H. Ramsey (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/15/2009
represented by James Edmund Flynn (See above for address)
Michelle L. Angus (See above for address)
represented by James Edmund Flynn (See above for address)
Michelle L. Angus (See above for address)
represented by James Edmund Flynn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michelle L. Angus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James Edmund Flynn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James Edmund Flynn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Intervenor S. Melton
Intervenor C. Weyant
Intervenor

represented by Mark A Radoff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mark A Radoff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:93-cv-00767-LKK-GGH As of: 06/19/2014 12:18 PM PDT 7 of 45

L. Nguyen

represented by Mark A Radoff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor D. Lee

represented by Mark A Radoff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor G. Hinkle

represented by Mark A Radoff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor D. Robinson

represented by Mark A Radoff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor S. Baek

represented by Mark A Radoff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor K. Lee

represented by Mark A Radoff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor
D. Sims TERMINATED: 07/27/2010

represented by D. Sims G−13643 CSP−LOS ANGELES PO BOX 4430 LANCASTER, CA 93536−4430 PRO SE

Intervenor S. Dado

represented by Mark A Radoff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor A. McCarter

represented by Mark A Radoff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 05/07/1993

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT to Honorable Lawrence K Karlton; Referred to Magistrate Gregory G Hollows; fee status request to proceed ifp; letter sent (old) (Entered: 05/07/1993)

Case: 2:93-cv-00767-LKK-GGH As of: 06/19/2014 12:18 PM PDT 8 of 45

06/14/1993
06/23/1993 07/16/1993
08/24/1993 09/07/1993 09/27/1993 10/06/1993
11/04/1993 01/10/1994 01/10/1994
01/10/1994 01/12/1994 02/14/1994 03/01/1994
03/22/1994 04/04/1994 04/22/1994

2 ORDER by Magistrate Gregory G Hollows ORDERING pltf's request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED; court has determined service is appropriate for all deft's; clerk is directed to send pltf 4 USM−285 forms, summons and copy of complaint; pltf is DIRECTED to return completed forms within 30 days (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 06/14/1993)
3 NOTICE of submission of documents by plaintiff William Rouser; 1 completed summons, 4 completed USM forms, 4 copies of the complaint (old) (Entered: 06/25/1993)
4 ORDER by Magistrate Gregory G Hollows ORDERING: Clerk of Court to issue summons; Clerk to forward summons, instructions for service of process, copies of complaint, copies of this order, copies of order filed 6/14/93 to USM; USM to serve process, copy of this order and copy of 6/14/93 order upon each dft; w/in 60 days USM to file return of service for each dft; all mtns to be briefed; pltf advised of requirements for opposing mtn for summary judgment made by dfts; mtn supported by unsigned affidavits or declarations will be striken; Clerk to serve upon pltf copy of Local Rules (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 07/16/1993)
5 RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon defendant Theo White, defendant E W Meads, defendant Jack R Reagan, defendant James Gomez on 8/19/93 (old) (Entered: 08/25/1993)
6 ANSWER by defendants and for jury demand (old) (Entered: 09/08/1993)
7 RESPONSE by plaintiff William Rouser to [6−1] deft's answer to complaint (old) (Entered: 09/28/1993)
8 DISCOVERY ORDER AND ORDER REQUIRING STATUS REPORT by Magistrate Gregory G Hollows GOVERNING discovery in this action and ORDERING pltf shall file status report within 30 days and defts status report due 15 days thereafter; parties are advised they may consent to trial by the Magistrate judge (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 10/06/1993)
9 STATUS REPORT by plaintiff William Rouser (old) (Entered: 11/05/1993)
10 MOTION by plaintiff William Rouser for request for records of previous status of proceedings to this pending action (old) (Entered: 01/11/1994)
11 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION by plaintiff William Rouser for time extension or leave of absence under showing of probable cause pursuant to FRCP Local Rule 142 and suppporting exhbits memorandum plus declaration of pltf (old) (Entered: 01/11/1994)
12 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff William Rouser in support of motion for time extension or leave of absence under showing of probable cause pursuant to FRCP Local Rule 142 [11−1] (old) (Entered: 01/11/1994)
13 MOTION by plaintiff William Rouser for court order for preferred legal status to use legal library at CA State Prison (old) (Entered: 01/13/1994)
14 SUGGESTION OF DEATH ON THE RECORD by defendants of Jack Reagan (old) (Entered: 02/15/1994)
15 ORDER by Magistrate Gregory G Hollows ORDERING: Pltf's status report [9−1], motion for court order for preferred legal status to use legal library at CA State Prison [13−1], motion for reords and motion for extension or leave of absence under showing of probable cause pursuant to FRCP Local Rule 142 [11−1], and motion for request for records of previous status of proceedings to this pending action [10−1] are STRICKEN; Due to pltf's injury, pltf is GRANTED 30 days within to file a status report which complies with the court's order of 10/6/93 (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 03/01/1994)
16 STATUS REPORT by plaintiff William Rouser (old) (Entered: 03/23/1994)
17 STATUS REPORT by defendants (old) (Entered: 04/05/1994)
18 SCHEDULING ORDER Magistrate Gregory G Hollows ; Discovery to be completed 8/5/94; Plaintiff's pretrial statement DUE 12/23/94; Deft's pretrial

Case: 2:93-cv-00767-LKK-GGH As of: 06/19/2014 12:18 PM PDT 9 of 45

06/01/1994 06/22/1994
07/14/1994 08/08/1994 08/08/1994 08/25/1994
08/29/1994
08/30/1994 09/02/1994
09/12/1994 09/21/1994 09/21/1994 09/21/1994 09/21/1994 09/21/1994 09/21/1994 09/28/1994
10/04/1994 10/14/1994

statment DUE 1/6/95; Pretrial Conference SET 1/13/95 bef GGH ; Jury Trial SET 4/11/95 at 10:00 bef LKK (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 04/22/1994)
19 MOTION by plaintiff William Rouser for order to take judicial notice (old) (Entered: 06/02/1994)
20 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Gregory G Hollows ORDERING: plaintiff's 3/22/94 status report [16−1] shall be STRICKEN; plaintiff's 6/1/94 motion to take judicial notice [19−1] is DENIED (cc: all counsel) (kb) (Entered: 06/22/1994)
21 REQUEST to refile status report by plaintiff William Rouser (old) (Entered: 07/14/1994)
22 MOTION to compel production of documents for defendant Meads by plaintiff William Rouser (old) (Entered: 08/09/1994)
23 NOTICE of submission of documents by plaintiff William Rouser of letter to DAG (old) (Entered: 08/09/1994)
LODGED Request for Extension of Time to File a Motion for Summary Judgment by defendants Theo White, E W Meads, Jack R Reagan, James Gomez (old) (Entered: 08/26/1994)
25 RESPONSE by defendants Theo White, E W Meads, Jack R Reagan, and James Gomez to motion to compel production of documents for defendant Meads by plaintiff William Rouser [22−1] (old) (Entered: 08/30/1994)
24 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Gregory G Hollows GRANTING request to file a status report [21−1] (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 08/30/1994)
26 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Gregory G Hollows ORDERING: An additional period of time be allowed, to and including 11/22/94, to complete and file defendants' motion for summary judgment (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 09/02/1994)
27 STATUS REPORT by plaintiff William Rouser (old) (Entered: 09/12/1994)
28 MOTION for summary judgment by plaintiff William Rouser (old) (Entered: 09/21/1994)
29 BRIEF by plaintiff William Rouser in support of Motion for summary judgment [28−1] (old) (Entered: 09/21/1994)
30 AFFIDAVIT of William Rouser in support of motion for summary judgment [28−1] (old) (Entered: 09/21/1994)
31 MOTION for court order to use the telephone by plaintiff William Rouser (old) (Entered: 09/23/1994)
32 REQUEST by plaintiff William Rouser for Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum (old) (Entered: 09/23/1994)
33 REQUEST by plaintiff William Rouser for Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum (old) (Entered: 09/23/1994)
LODGED request for extension of time by defendants to file opposition to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and further briefing schedule (old) (Entered: 09/29/1994)
34 OBJECTION to defendants request for extension of time [0−0] to file opposition to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (ndd) (Entered: 10/05/1994)
35 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Gregory G Hollows ORDERING: Defendants' request to extend their time to file opposition to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and adopt the briefing schedule; Defendants motion for summary judgment and opposition to plaintiff's motion for sumamry judgment both must be filed by 11/22/94; Plaitniff's opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment and reply to defendants' opposition to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment must be filed by 12/13/94; Defendant's reply to plaintiffs' opposition to defendants' motion for summary jdugment must be filed by 12/21/94 (cc: all

Case: 2:93-cv-00767-LKK-GGH As of: 06/19/2014 12:18 PM PDT 10 of 45

10/21/1994 10/21/1994 11/22/1994 12/01/1994 12/08/1994 12/15/1994 12/15/1994 12/15/1994 01/04/1995 01/12/1995
03/16/1995
03/23/1995 03/23/1995 03/31/1995

counsel) (old) (Entered: 10/14/1994)
36 MOTION for preliminiary injunction by plaintiff William Rouser (old) (Entered: 10/25/1994)
37 BRIEF by plaintiff William Rouser in support of preliminary injunction [36−1] (old) (Entered: 10/25/1994)
38 MOTION by defendant Theo White for summary judgment (old) Modified on 07/10/1995 (Entered: 11/23/1994)
39 OPPOSITION by plaintiff William Rouser to motion for summary judgment [38−1] (old) (Entered: 12/02/1994)
40 DEFENDANTS' REPLY to plaintiff's opposition to motion for summary judgment [38−1] (ndd) (Entered: 12/09/1994)
41 NOTICE by plaintiff William Rouser regarding writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum for Neland Mitchell (old) (Entered: 12/16/1994)
42 PROOF OF SERVICE by plaintiff William Rouser of pretrial statement and writo of habeas corpus ad testificandum (old) (Entered: 12/16/1994)
43 PRETRIAL STATEMENT from plaintiff William Rouser (old) (Entered: 12/16/1994)
LODGED request for extension of time to file pretrial statements by defendants (old) (Entered: 01/06/1995)
44 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Gregory G Hollows GRANTING lodged request for extension of time to file pretrial statements [0−0]; ORDERING: time for parties to file their pretrial statements EXTENDED pending an order on their respective motions for summary judgment and further order of the court (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 01/12/1995)
45 ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Magistrate Judge Gregory G Hollows ORDERING: motion to compel production of documents by defendant Meads by plaintiff William Rouser [22−1] DENIED; RECOMMENDING: pltf's motion for summary judgment [28−1] be granted as to his free exercise claim concerning tarot cards and denied in all other respects; dfts' motion for summary judgment [38−1] be denied as to pltf's claim regarding tarot cards and denial of the Witches Bible while in administrative segregation, but granted in all other respects; pltf's motion for preliminiary injunction [36−1] be granted w/ respect to his request for tarot cards; w/i 30 days of the date of the district court's order, dfts be directed to implement a proceduer by which pltf may possess tarot cards when he intends to perform Wiccan rituals; pltf and dfts shall provide further briefing regarding the request for the Wiccan Bible as discussed above w/i 3o days of the date of this order; and pltf's request for injunctive relief be denied in all other respects ; any party may object w/i 20 days after service; any reply due w/i 10 days of service of objections (cc: all counsel) (old) Modified on 03/16/1995 (Entered: 03/16/1995)
46 BRIEF by plaintiff William Rouser concerning denial of witches bible for summary judgment decission as ordered (old) (Entered: 03/27/1995)
47 OBJECTIONS to magistrates findings and recommendations by plaintiff William Rouser [45−1] (old) (Entered: 03/27/1995)
48 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton ADOPTING IN FULL findings and recommendations [28−1]; ORDERING: pltf's motion for summary judgment [28−1] GRANTED AS TO his free excercise claim concerning tarot cards and DENIED in all other respects; dfts' motion for summary judgment [38−1] is DENIED AS TO pltf's claim regarding tarot cards and denial of the Witches Bible while in administrative segregation, but GRANTED IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS; pltf's motion for preliminary injunction [36−1] GRANTED W/ RESPECT TO his request for tarot cards; dft shall implement a procedure by which pltf may possess tarot cards when he intends to perform Wiccan rituals w/i 30 days from the date of this order; pltf and dft shall provide further briefing regarding the request for the

Case: 2:93-cv-00767-LKK-GGH As of: 06/19/2014 12:18 PM PDT 11 of 45

04/05/1995 04/05/1995 04/07/1995
04/13/1995 04/21/1995 05/23/1995 05/25/1995 06/16/1995 06/19/1995 07/11/1995 07/11/1995 07/19/1995 07/19/1995 08/02/1995 08/03/1995 03/04/1996
03/21/1996 04/03/1996

Wiccan Bible as discussed above w/i 30 days from the date of this order; and pltf's request for injunctive relief [36−1] DENIED IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 03/31/1995)
50 OBJECTIONS by defendant Theo White to Magistrate's Report and Recommendation filed 3/16/95 (old) (Entered: 04/07/1995)
LODGED request to vacate 3/31/95 order adopting findings and recommendations filed 3/16/95 by defendant Theo White, defendant E W Meads, defendant Jack R Reagan, defendant James Gomez (old) (Entered: 04/07/1995)
49 MINUTE ORDER in re to the Magistrate findings and recommendations in reference to defts motion for summary judgment; jury trial set for 4/11/95 has been VACATED ; AND trial will be RESET following disposition of deft's motion for summary judgment (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 04/07/1995)
51 OPPOSITION by plaintiff William Rouser to defts' request to vacate Findings and Recommendations (old) (Entered: 04/17/1995)
52 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton vacating Order adopting Findings and Recommendations [48−1]; Matter is referred to GGH (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 04/21/1995)
53 SUPPLEMENT by defendants to the motion for summary judgment [38−1] (kb) (Entered: 05/24/1995)
54 NOTICE by defendants of change of address to 1300 I Street, Suite 1101, Sacramento, CA 95814 (ndd) (Entered: 05/30/1995)
55 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Gregory G Hollows ORDERING that the Dept of Justice shall file a notice of intervention within 3 weeks of service (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 06/16/1995)
56 NOTICE by defendants regarding intervention by the United States (old) (Entered: 06/20/1995)
57 MOTION by defendant USA to intervene (old) (Entered: 07/12/1995)
58 MEMORANDUM by defendant USA in support of its motion to intervene [57−1] (old) (Entered: 07/12/1995)
59 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows: That plaintiff and defendants are granted 15 days from the date of this order to file briefing addressing the 7/11/95 memorandum (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 07/19/1995)
60 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows DENYING motion for court order to use the telephone by plaintiff William Rouser [31−1] (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 07/19/1995)
61 BRIEF in response to motion by defendant USA to intervene [57−1] by plt Rouser (ndd) (Entered: 08/03/1995)
62 RESPONSE by defendants James Gomez, Jack R Reagan, E W Meads and Theo White to motion by defendant USA to intervene [57−1] and points and authorities of the United States (kb) (Entered: 08/04/1995)
63 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows GRANTING motion by defendant USA to intervene [57−1] REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION recommending that pltf is entitled to summary adjudication with respect to his specific claims on use of tarot cards and the Wiccan (Witches) Bible insofar as defts claims that they has a legitmate penological interest in denying pltf these tools of his religion ; objection due within twenty (20) days from the date of this order (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 03/04/1996)
64 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff William Rouser to Report and Recommendation (old) (Entered: 03/25/1996)
65 OBJECTIONS by defts'James Gomez, Jack R Reagan, E W Meads, Theo White to Report and Recommendation (old) (Entered: 04/08/1996)

Case: 2:93-cv-00767-LKK-GGH As of: 06/19/2014 12:18 PM PDT 12 of 45

04/11/1996 04/12/1996 04/18/1996 04/24/1996 05/24/1996 05/30/1996
06/03/1996 06/03/1996 06/07/1996
06/18/1996 06/20/1996
07/09/1996 08/09/1996 08/09/1996 08/23/1996 08/23/1996 08/23/1996 08/27/1996

66 OPPOSITION by plaintiff William Rouser to dft's objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations [65−1] (kdc) (Entered: 04/12/1996)
67 NOTICE by dfts of filing original signature page of dft Theo White's declaration to objections to findings and recommendations (kb) (Entered: 04/15/1996)
68 MEMORANDUM by defendants E W Meads, Jack R Reagan, James Gomez, USA, Theo White in support of objection to the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations [65−1] (old) (Entered: 04/19/1996)
69 NOTICE by plaintiff William Rouser of change of address to PO Box 7500 SHU Crescent City CA 95532 (old) (Entered: 04/26/1996)
70 REQUEST to file an amicus brief by ACLA (old) (Entered: 05/30/1996)
71 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton GRANTING ACLU until 6/24/96, in which to file an amicus curiae brief in the instant action filed 5/24/96 [70−1]; The Clerk is directed to serve a copy of this order upon Margaret C. Crobsy, American Civil Liberties Union, 1663 Mission Street, Suite 460, San Francisco, CA 94103; AND the consideration of the magistrate judge's pending findings and recommendations, pending the filing of the aforementioned brief by the ACLU [63−1], is DEFERRED (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 05/30/1996)
72 REQUEST by defendants to reply to brief of amicus curiae (old) (Entered: 06/06/1996)
LODGED proposed Order GRANTING request for elave to file reply to amicus curiae brief by dfts Theo White, E W Meads, Jack R Reagan, James Gomez (old) (Entered: 06/06/1996)
73 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton GRANTING dft's request for leave to file a reply to the amicus brief of the American Civil Liberties Union; Good Cause Appearing, the request is GRANTED; the court hereby ORDERS dfts to file their reply brief, if any, on or before 7/26/96 (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 06/07/1996)
LODGED Application to modify briefing schedule and Proposed Order by Amicus Curiae American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California (old) (Entered: 06/20/1996)
74 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton: ACLU's amicus curiae brief to be filed by 7/9/96; supplemental brief by pltf State and intervenor USA to be filed by 8/9/96; optional reply brief of all parties including ACLU DUE 8/23/96 (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 06/20/1996)
75 AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF by American Civil in response to court Order [74−1] (old) (Entered: 07/10/1996)
76 RESPONSE by James Gomez, Jack R Reagan, Theo White, E W Meads to [75−1] (old) (Entered: 08/12/1996)
77 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM of the United States in support of the constituttionality of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (kdc) (Entered: 08/13/1996)
78 REPLY to supplemental memorandum of United States in support of constitutionality of religious freedom act by dfts Theo White, E W Meads, Jack R Reagan and James Gomez [77−1] (old) (Entered: 08/26/1996)
79 ENTRY OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for USA by Jonathan T Foot (old) (Entered: 08/27/1996)
80 REPLY MEMORANDUM by USA in support of constititionality of the Religion Freedom Restoration Act re: amicus curiae brief by American Civil Liberties Union [75−1] (old) (Entered: 08/27/1996)
81 REQUEST by plaintiff William Rouser for appointment of counsel and DECLARATION in support thereof (old) (Entered: 08/28/1996)

Case: 2:93-cv-00767-LKK-GGH As of: 06/19/2014 12:18 PM PDT 13 of 45

08/27/1996 08/28/1996
10/28/1996
11/29/1996 12/04/1996 12/04/1996 12/06/1996 12/10/1996 01/13/1997 01/15/1997
02/12/1997 03/07/1997 03/07/1997 04/21/1997 04/25/1997 05/05/1997 05/06/1997

LODGED Findings and Order Appointing Counsel by plaintiff William Rouser (old) (Entered: 08/29/1996)
82 NOTICE by defendant USA of filing; dfts in the case submitted as an attachment to their dfts' response to Amicus Curiae Brief of American Liberties Union (filed 8/9/96), a copy of a petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in Flores v. City of Boerne, 73 F.3d 1352 (5th cir 1996); Intervenor USA hereby submits a copy of the Brief for the USA in opposition to that Petitioner for a Writ of Certiorari in Flores (old) (Entered: 08/29/1996)
83 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton: [63−1] the court will not adopt the FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION; pltf's and dfts' motions for summary judgment are DENIED; pltf's motion for preliminary injunction iS DENIED; the matter must be reserved for trial; the court is of the view that it is appropriate for it to retain the case for trial and WITHDRAWS the referral to Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows ; APPOINTING Sue Christianson as counsel for pltf William Rouser ; status conference SET for 2pm on 12/9/96 in Chambers (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 10/28/1996)
84 STATUS REPORT by plaintiff William Rouser (old) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
85 STATUS REPORT by dfts Jack R Reagan, James Gomez, Theo White, E Meads (old) (Entered: 12/05/1996)
86 SUGGESTION OF DEATH ON THE RECORD by defendant E W Meads (old) (Entered: 12/05/1996)
LODGED Stipulation to Continue Status Conference by plaintiff William Rouser (old) (Entered: 12/09/1996)
87 STIPULATION AND ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton CONTINUING scheduling conference from 12/9/96 to 1:30pm on 1/13/97 (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 12/10/1996)
89 MINUTES of status conference before Honorable Lawrence K Karlton: pretrial conference set for 1/20/98 at 2:30; jury trial set for 4/14/98 at 10:00; court order to follow (ljr) (Entered: 01/15/1997)
88 STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) CONFERENCE ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERED that discovery ddl set for 9/1/97; motion filing ddl set for 11/3/97; pretrial conference set for 2:30 1/20/98; jury trial set for 10:00 4/14/98 (cc: counsel) (ndd) (Entered: 01/15/1997)
90 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [1−1] by plaintiff William Rouser (ljr) (Entered: 02/13/1997)
91 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to dismiss pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1) by defendant James Gomez, Jack R Reagan, E W Meads, Theo White ; Hearing Set for 5/5/97 at 10:00am (old) (Entered: 03/10/1997)
92 ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT by defendants Gomez, Reagan, White and Meads; jury demand (old) (Entered: 03/10/1997)
93 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff William Rouser in opposition to dfts' motion to dismiss [91−1] (ch) (Entered: 04/22/1997)
94 DFTS' REPLY to plt's opposition to motion to dismiss pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1) [91−1] (ndd) (Entered: 04/28/1997)
96 MINUTES of dft's motion to dismiss before Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton dft's motion to dismiss is DENIED; order to be prepared by the court (ljr) (Entered: 05/06/1997)
95 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING pltf's claims for money damages under the California Constitution are DISMISSED; dfts' motion to dismiss pltf's fifth, sixth and seventh causes of action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief based on the CA Constitution is DENIED; dfts' motion to dismiss pltf's section 1983 claims for failure to exhaust is DENIED; and dfts' motion to dismiss pltf's surviving claims for damages for emotional distress is DENIED

Case: 2:93-cv-00767-LKK-GGH As of: 06/19/2014 12:18 PM PDT 14 of 45

06/16/1997 06/27/1997 07/14/1997 07/18/1997 07/23/1997 07/24/1997 07/29/1997
07/29/1997
07/30/1997
07/30/1997 08/05/1997
08/07/1997 08/11/1997 08/13/1997
08/22/1997 08/27/1997 10/31/1997

[19−1] (cc: all counsel) (ch) (Entered: 05/06/1997)
97 EXPERT WITNESS list by defendants (old) (Entered: 06/17/1997)
LODGED Appointed counsel's request for authority to incur costs by plaintiff William Rouser (old) (Entered: 07/01/1997)
101 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING appointed counsel's request for authority to incur costs; cost of hiring consultants will be no more than $3,000 [0−0] GRANTED (cc: all counsel) (ch) (Entered: 07/28/1997)
98 DISCLOSURE of expert witnesses by plaintiff William Rouser (kdc) (Entered: 07/22/1997)
99 LETTER to court from counsel for plaintiff William Rouser objecting to the advocacy contained the letter by Mr Flynn and request the matter be addressed in proper motion (ch) (Entered: 07/24/1997)
100 LETTER to court from counsel for defendant USA re pretrial matters concerning discovery (ljr) (Entered: 07/28/1997)
102 NOTICE OF MOTION and motion for protective order by plaintiff William Rouser , or, in the alternative motion for continuance of pretrial and trial deadlines by plaintiff William Rouser ; declaration; motion TO BE HEARD by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton; Motion Hearing Set For 9/22/97 at 10:00 (ljr) (Entered: 07/31/1997)
103 NOTICE OF MOTION and motion for relief from discovery cut−off; by plaintiff William Rouser ; memorandum of points and authorities; motion TO BE HEARD by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton; Motion Hearing Set For 9/22/97 at 10:00 (ljr) (Entered: 07/31/1997)
104 APPLICATION (MOTION) for order shortening time for hearing on pltf' motion for protective order by plaintiff William Rouser or in the alternative to continue pretrial and trial deadlines by plaintiff William Rouser and declaration of Susan Christian (old) (Entered: 08/01/1997)
105 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION of Susan D Christian in support of pltf's motion for continuance [102−1] or in alternative, motion for protective order [102−2] (old) (Entered: 08/01/1997)
106 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING HEARING VACATED re motions motion to modify the discovery deadline or for protective order by plaintiff William Rouser [103−1], [102−1], [102−2] scheduling conference for 10:00 am on 8/11/97 ; the parties are not required to file further status reports (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 08/05/1997)
107 SUPPLEMENTAL STATUS REPORT by defendant [85−1] (ch) (Entered: 08/08/1997)
109 MINUTES of Status Conference before Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton; Court order to follow (ndd) (Entered: 08/13/1997)
108 STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING discovery ddl set for 2/2/98; motion hearing ddl set for 4/3/98; pretrial conference set 2:30 6/29/98; jury trial set for 10:00 9/9/98 (cc: all counsel) (ndd) (Entered: 08/13/1997)
LODGED Appointed counsel's request for payment of costs; order by plaintiff (ch) (Entered: 08/25/1997)
110 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING that payment to be made to the King Hall in the amount of $1,462.47 (cc: all counsel) (ndd) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
111 REQUEST by defendant James Gomez, Jack R Reagan, Theo White, E W Meads for settlement conference before assigned Magistrate Judge and Waiver of Claim of Disqualification (ch) (Entered: 11/03/1997)

Case: 2:93-cv-00767-LKK-GGH As of: 06/19/2014 12:18 PM PDT 15 of 45

11/20/1997 12/05/1997 07/27/2001 08/21/2001
03/04/2002 03/04/2002 05/21/2002
02/24/2003 02/24/2003 03/19/2003
04/09/2003 04/09/2003 05/08/2003
05/09/2003
05/23/2003
06/11/2003 06/19/2003

LODGED notice of private settlement and stipulation and order for dismissal without prejudice by dfts James Gomez, Jack R Reagan, Theo White, and E W Meads (old) (Entered: 11/21/1997)
112 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING this action is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to the parties' private settlement of this action; CASE DISMISSED (cc: all counsel) (dd) (Entered: 12/05/1997)
LODGED " motion to resolve settlement and award sanctions due to dfts' contempt towards agreement" by plaintiff William Rouser (bd) (Entered: 07/30/2001)
113 ORDER by Gregory G Hollows Magistrate Judge ORDERING pltf's motion to resolve the settlement, lodged 7/27/01, is disregarded; Clerk is directed to serve a copy of this order on pltf, William Rouser, C−10659, PO Box 290066, CSP−Sacramento, Represa CA 95671−0066 (cc: all counsel) (bd) (Entered: 08/21/2001)
114 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to enforce private settlement agreement by plaintiff ; Motion Hearing not noticed (ak) (Entered: 03/05/2002)
115 PROOF OF SERVICE by plaintiff of [114−1] (ak) (Entered: 03/05/2002)
116 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING motion to enforce private settlement agreement by plaintiff [114−1] DISREGARDED; the Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on pltf William Rouser C−10659 and on the King Hall Civil Rightss Clinic (cc: all counsel) (ljr) (Entered: 05/21/2002)
117 DEMAND from plaintiff William Rouser "to his attorney for $4,400.00 that he may acquire an attorney" (bd) (Entered: 02/25/2003)
118 NOTICE by plaintiff William Rouser of continuing problems experienced during incarceration (bd) (Entered: 02/25/2003)
119 ORDER by Gregory G Hollows Magistrate Judge ORDERING Clk to serve a copy of pltf's 2/24/03 pleadings [118−1], [117−1] on pltf's counsel; Clk is driected to serve a copy of this order on pltf William Rouser, C−10659, PO Box 290066, Represa CA 95671−0066 (cc: all counsel) (bd) (Entered: 03/19/2003)
120 REQUEST (MOTION) for Judicial notice by plaintiff William Rouser (mdk) (Entered: 04/10/2003)
121 AMENDED COMPLAINT by plaintiff William Rouser, and asking to reopen case (mdk) (Entered: 04/10/2003)
122 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING that this court's 10/28/96 withdrawal of the referral is VACATED; Case REMANDED to Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows for all proceedings (cc: all counsel) (ndd) (Entered: 05/08/2003)
RESERVICE of DOCUMENT(S) #122 and 119 [122−2], [119−1] addressed to plaintiff William Rouser, defendant Theo White, defendant E W Meads, defendant Jack R Reagan, defendant James Gomez, defendant USA, amicus American Civil (pw) (Entered: 05/09/2003)
123 ORDER by Gregory G Hollows Magistrate Judge ORDERING that within 20 days of the date of this order, King Hall Civil Rights Clinic shall inform the court whether they intend to seek enforcement of the settlement and, if so, when; if King Hall informs the court they do not intend to seek enforcement of the settlement, pltf may file a notice of substitution of counsel within 30 days of the date of this order; Clk is directed to remove Susan Dee Christian from the service list (cc: all counsel) (bd) (Entered: 05/23/2003)
124 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to withdraw attorney by plaintiff ; Motion Hearing not noticed (nac) (Entered: 06/12/2003)
125 ORDER by Gregory G Hollows Magistrate Judge ORDERING motion to withdraw attorney by plaintiff [124−1] GRANTED; attorney Carter C White WITHDRAWN for William Rouser; within 30 days of the date of this order pltf shall file a

Case: 2:93-cv-00767-LKK-GGH As of: 06/19/2014 12:18 PM PDT 16 of 45

07/07/2003 08/01/2003
08/01/2003 08/06/2003
08/07/2003 08/07/2003
08/11/2003 08/14/2003 08/27/2003 08/29/2003 09/02/2003 09/02/2003 09/02/2003 09/08/2003 09/19/2003 09/25/2003 11/06/2003 12/17/2003

declaration with the court including exhibits in support of his claim that dfts have breached the settlement agreement; dfts' responsive declaration and exhibits are due 30 days thereafter; no reply is required (cc: all counsel) (ljr) (Entered: 06/19/2003)
126 DECLARATION of William Rouser in response to order [125−1] (bd) (Entered: 07/08/2003)
LODGED request for extension of time to 8/15/03 for dfts to file response to pltf's declarations and exhibits alleging breach of the private settlement agreement filed 12/5/97 and [proposed] order by dfts James Gomez, Jack R Reagan, Theo White, and E W Meads (bd) (Entered: 08/04/2003)
127 REQUEST (motion) for Judicial notice by plaintiff William Rouser (bd) (Entered: 08/04/2003)
LODGED corrected request for 10 day extension of time to file response to pltf's declaration and exhibits alleging breach of the private settlement agreement filed 12/5/97 and [proposed order] by dfts James Gomez, Jack R Reagan, Theo White, and E W Meads (bd) (Entered: 08/07/2003)
LODGED Document: lodged on 8/1/03 (NOT TO BE SIGNED PER JUDGE) (bd) (Entered: 08/07/2003)
128 ORDER by Gregory G Hollows Magistrate Judge ORDERING dft's request for 10 day extension of time to file response to pltf's declaration and exhibits alleging breach of the private settlement agreement filed 12/15/97 is GRANTED (cc: all counsel) (bd) (Entered: 08/07/2003)
129 RESPONSE by plaintiff William Rouser to request by dfts for 10 day extension of time to file response to pltf's declarations and exhibits, entitled "Request for Judicial Notice" (bd) (Entered: 08/12/2003)
130 RESPONSE by dfts James Gomez, Jack R Reagan, E W Meads, and Theo White to order re settlement compliance [37−1] (bd) (Entered: 08/15/2003)
131 REQUEST (motion) for Judicial notice by plaintiff William Rouser (bd) Modified on 08/28/2003 (Entered: 08/28/2003)
132 RESPONSE by plaintiff William Rouser to dft's reply to order re settlement agreement [130−1] (bd) (Entered: 09/02/2003)
133 OPPOSITION by dfts James Gomez, Jack R Reagan, Theo White, E W Meads to motion to take judicial notice [131−1] (bd) (Entered: 09/03/2003)
134 AMENDED COMPLAINT submitted by pltfs Rouser, Hysell, Lyons, Demarco, Samano, and Spooner against dfts Pliler, Rosario, Hill, Goldsmith, Johnson, Willey, Carlson, and Jackson (bd) (Entered: 09/03/2003)
135 NOTICE of change of address of "David Spooner", named in 9/2/03 amended complaint as a plaintiff to action, to SVSP, PO Box 1030, Soledad CA 93960−1030 (bd) (Entered: 09/03/2003)
136 NOTICE by plaintiff William Rouser of no resolution to disputes re pagan/wiccan inmates entitled "motion to take judicial notice" (bd) Modified on 09/09/2003 (Entered: 09/09/2003)
137 REPLY to response to motion for judicial notice dated 8/22/03 (hk) (Entered: 09/22/2003)
138 REQUEST (entitled "Motion") for Judicial Notice by plaintiff William Rouser (mm1) (Entered: 09/26/2003)
139 REQUEST (motion) for Judicial notice by plaintiff William Rouser (bd) (Entered: 11/07/2003)
140 ORDER by Gregory G Hollows Magistrate Judge ORDERING that the motions for judicial notice filed by plt [131−1] [136−1] [138−1] are disregarded; plt's amended complaint [134−1] is STRICKEN; no evidentiary hearing is required because dfts

Case: 2:93-cv-00767-LKK-GGH As of: 06/19/2014 12:18 PM PDT 17 of 45

01/15/2004 02/05/2004 02/09/2004
02/09/2004 02/09/2004 02/19/2004 02/26/2004 03/15/2004 03/23/2004
03/23/2004 03/23/2004 04/07/2004
04/21/2004 04/27/2004 05/03/2004 05/03/2004 06/21/2004 06/23/2004
07/09/2004

are in compliance with the 9/5/97, settlement agreement; FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION that to the extent plt has sought an enforcement of the settlement agreement, that request be denied without prejudice to its renewal (cc: all counsel) (ndd) (Entered: 12/17/2003)
141 OBJECTIONS TO FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS by plaintiff (nac) (Entered: 01/16/2004)
142 REQUEST for Judicial notice by plaintiff William Rouser (bd) (Entered: 02/06/2004)
143 MOTION for temporary restraining order Rouser and for preliminary injunction by plaintiff William Rouser ; no motion hearing date noticed (bd) (Entered: 02/10/2004)
144 DECLARATION of William Rouser in support of motion for TRO [143−1] and preliminary injunction [143−2] (bd) (Entered: 02/10/2004)
145 PROOF OF SERVICE by plaintiff William Rouser of [144−1], [143−1], [143−2] (bd) (Entered: 02/10/2004)
146 NOTICE by plaintiff William Rouser of contact with prison officials regarding issue of construction of altar (bd) (Entered: 02/20/2004)
147 REQUEST (MOTION) by plaintiff to take judicial notice (mdk) (Entered: 02/27/2004)
148 NOTICE by "Doug Hysel" of change of address to PO Box 409000 Ione CA 95640 (am served); request for copies (bd) (Entered: 03/16/2004)
149 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING that the FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION [140−1] are ADOPTED in part and REJECTED in part as specified in this order, this case is REMANDED to the magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this opinion (cc: all counsel) (ndd) (Entered: 03/23/2004)
150 REQUEST (Motion) by plaintiff William Rouser for Writ of Mandate &Declaratory Relief (mm1) (Entered: 03/24/2004)
151 REQUEST (Motion) to take Judicial Notice by plaintiff William Rouser (mm1) (Entered: 03/24/2004)
152 ORDER by Gregory G Hollows Magistrate Judge ORDERING motion for temporary restraining order [143−1] or for preliminary injunction by plaintiff William Rouser [143−2] is VACATED; evidentiary hearing is set for 9:00 8/25/04 (cc: all counsel) (bd) (Entered: 04/07/2004)
153 NOTICE of related case(s) CIV−S 04−355 FCD DAD P by Douglas Hysell (mdp) Modified on 04/22/2004 (Entered: 04/22/2004)
154 REQUEST (motion) for Judicial notice by plaintiff William Rouser (bd) (Entered: 04/28/2004)
155 FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCS by plaintiff William Rouser (bd) (Entered: 05/04/2004)
156 FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS by plaintiff William Rouser (bd) (Entered: 05/04/2004)
157 WITNESS list of incarcerated witnesses per order dated 4/7/04 by plaintiff (mdk) (Entered: 06/22/2004)
158 NON−RELATED ORDER by Gregory G Hollows Magistrate Judge ORDERING that this action and CIV.S−04−355 FCD DAD P are not related within the meaning of LR 123(a) (cc: all counsel) (nac) (Entered: 06/23/2004)
159 ORDER AND WRIT ISSUED by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows ORDERING the issuance of writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum for William Rouser for hearing on 8/25/04; Warden George Stratton of CSP Sacramento to produce William Rouser at 9:00 8/25/04 in Courtroom 24; the custodian is ordered

Case: 2:93-cv-00767-LKK-GGH As of: 06/19/2014 12:18 PM PDT 18 of 45

07/09/2004
07/16/2004 07/16/2004
07/26/2004 07/26/2004 07/29/2004 07/29/2004 08/02/2004 08/04/2004 08/12/2004 08/13/2004 08/17/2004 08/17/2004 08/20/2004 08/20/2004 08/24/2004

to notify the court of any change in custody of this inmate and is ordered to provide the new custodian with a copy of this writ; Clerk shall ser serve a copy of this order and writ on the Out−To−Court desk, CA State Prison (cc: all counsel) (mdk) (Entered: 07/09/2004)
160 ORDER by Gregory G Hollows Magistrate Judge ORDERING that at the 8/25/04 evidentiary hearing pltf may call as witnesses the four inmates identified in his 6/21/04 pleading [157−1]; dfts shall make these four imates available to tesify via video conference at the 8/25/04 evidentiary hearing (cc: all counsel) (mdk) (Entered: 07/09/2004)
161 ORDER by Gregory G Hollows Magistrate Judge ORDERING evidentiary hearing SET to begin at 9:00 on 8/24/04, not 8/25/04 as previous order indicated (cc: all counsel) (mdk) (Entered: 07/16/2004)
162 AMENDED ORDER and WRIT by Magistrate Judge Drozd for Magistrate Judge Hollows ORDERING issuance of writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum; Warden George Stratton of CSP Sacramento to produce William Rouser at 9:00 8/24/04 in Courtroom 24 before Judge Hollows; the custodian is ordered to notify the Court of any change in custody of this inmate and is ordered to provided the new custodian w/a copy of this writ; Clerk is to serve a copy of this amended order and writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum on the Out−To−Court Desk (cc: all counsel) (mdk) (Entered: 07/16/2004)
163 EXHIBIT AND WITNESS LIST for evidentiary hearing by dfts (bd) (Entered: 07/27/2004)
164 PRE−HEARING BRIEF AND MOTION to vacate evidentiary hearing by dfts James Gomez, Jack R Reagan, Theo White, and E W Meads ; no motion hearing date noticed (bd) (Entered: 07/27/2004)
165 BRIEF by plaintiff William Rouser per "order of April 4, 2004" (bd) (Entered: 07/30/2004)
168 EXHIBIT A − Private Settlement Agreement by plaintiff William Rouser (mdp) (Entered: 08/04/2004)
166 NON−INCARCERATED WITNESS list by plaintiff (nac) (Entered: 08/03/2004)
167 ORDER by Gregory G Hollows Magistrate Judge ORDERING motion to vacate evidentiary hearing date by dfts [164−1] DENIED (cc: all counsel) (mdk) (Entered: 08/04/2004)
169 OPPOSITION by plaintiff William Rouser to motion to vacate hearing date [164−1] (bd) (Entered: 08/13/2004)
170 REQUEST by dfts James Gomez, Jack R Reagan, Theo White, and E W Meads for reconsideration by district court of magistrate judge's ruling of 8/4/04 (bd) (Entered: 08/16/2004)
171 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING that, upon reconsideration, the order of the Magistrate Judge filed 8/4/04 [167−1] is AFFIRMED (cc: all counsel) (mdk) (Entered: 08/17/2004)
172 SUPPLEMENTAL WITNESS list by dfts (bd) (Entered: 08/18/2004)
173 OBJECTIONS to plt's Evidence [172−1] and motion in limine by dfts (ndd) (Entered: 08/23/2004)
174 SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBIT [163−1] by dfts (ndd) (Entered: 08/23/2004)
175 MINUTES before Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows of evidentiary hearing ; Richard Bates substituted in as counsel for pltf; Mr Bates requests a continuance of this matter; further briefing is due within 90 days, and the Court will set a new evidentiary hearing subject to discussion with counsel; the Court will also be issuing an order concerning this proceeding; C/R Dona Euler ECRO Tape 1 of 1 (mdk) (Entered: 08/25/2004)

Case: 2:93-cv-00767-LKK-GGH As of: 06/19/2014 12:18 PM PDT 19 of 45

09/02/2004
09/16/2004 09/30/2004 11/30/2004 12/06/2004 12/08/2004
12/16/2004 12/16/2004 12/16/2004 01/05/2005 01/05/2005 02/08/2005
03/24/2005 03/30/2005 04/14/2005 04/22/2005 04/22/2005 04/22/2005 04/22/2005

176 PRE−HEARING ORDER by Gregory G Hollows Magistrate Judge: w/in 90 days of date of Order parties shall file Joint Pre−Hearing Statement as well as their Witness &Exhibit Lists Evidentiary Hearing RE−SET for 9:00 2/7/05 ; Clerk shall serve Order on Richard G Bates; attorney Bates shall file a Substitution of Counsel forthwith (cc: all counsel) (mm1) (Entered: 09/02/2004)
177 REQUEST for reconsideration of magistrate judge's pre−hearing order filed 9/2/04 by dfts James Gomez, Jack R Reagan, E W Meads, and Theo White (bd) (Entered: 09/17/2004)
178 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING that upon reconsideration, the order of the magistrate judge filed 9/2/04 [176−1] is AFFIRMED (cc: all counsel) (ndd) (Entered: 09/30/2004)
179 PRE−HEARING STATEMENT by dfts James Gomez, Theo White, Jack R Reagan, and E W Meads (bd) (Entered: 12/01/2004)
180 REQUEST for Judicial notice by plaintiff (mdk) (Entered: 12/07/2004)
181 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows ORDERING that within 10 days of the date of this order, pltf to show cause for the failure to file a notice of substitution and for the failure to participate in the preparation of the joint pre−hearing statement; The Clerk is directed to amend court records to reflect that pltf's counsel is Richard G. Bates; attorney Richard G. Bates added for plaintiff ; The Clerk to serve this order on Mr. Bates (cc: all counsel) (nac) (Entered: 12/08/2004)
LODGED Notice of Enrollment of counsel by plaintiff William Rouser (ndd) (Entered: 12/17/2004)
182 DECLARATION of Richard G Bates Jr in response to OSC [181−2] (ndd) (Entered: 12/17/2004)
LODGED Stipulation for continuance of evidentiary hearing and for extension of time to comply with PTO by plaintiff William Rouser (ndd) (Entered: 12/17/2004)
183 ORDER signed by Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 1/5/05; 12/8/04 order to show cause is discharged. (Dotson, B) (Entered: 01/05/2005)
184 ORDER signed by Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 1/4/05 enrolling Richard G Bates as counsel for pltf. (Dotson, B) (Entered: 01/05/2005)
185 STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 1/4/2005 continuing evidentiary hearing to 9:00 6/6/05 and that time to comply with orders as stated in court's pre−trial order be extended to 3/25/05, and that a per−trial conference be set for 10:00 4/28/05. (Dotson, B) (Entered: 02/08/2005)
186 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER re Request for Extension of Time to file joint pre−hearing statement for evidentiary hearing by William Rouser. (Bates, Richard) Modified on 3/25/2005 (Dotson, B). (Entered: 03/24/2005)
187 ORDER extending the time to file the Joint Pre−Hearing Statement 186 signed by Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 03/30/05. (Warren, P) (Entered: 03/30/2005)
188 REQUEST (motion) for judicial notice by William Rouser. (Dotson, B) (Entered: 04/15/2005)
189 WITNESS LIST by William Rouser. (Bates, Richard) (Entered: 04/22/2005)
190 STATEMENT of Joint Pre−Hearing Statement by Defendants Theo White, E W Meads, Jack R Reagan, James Gomez and Plaintiff, William Rouser (Bates, Richard). (Flynn, James) (Entered: 04/22/2005)
191 EXHIBIT LIST of Defendants by Theo White, E W Meads, Jack R Reagan, James Gomez.. (Flynn, James) (Entered: 04/22/2005)
192 WITNESS LIST by Theo White, E W Meads, Jack R Reagan, James Gomez. (Flynn, James) (Entered: 04/22/2005)

Case: 2:93-cv-00767-LKK-GGH As of: 06/19/2014 12:18 PM PDT 20 of 45

05/09/2005 06/24/2005 07/01/2005 07/12/2005
07/12/2005 08/09/2005
08/16/2005 08/16/2005 08/16/2005 08/16/2005 08/24/2005 09/14/2005 09/19/2005 09/19/2005 09/20/2005 09/27/2005 10/06/2005 10/06/2005 10/19/2005

193 ORDER signed by Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 05/09/05: The evidentiary hearing set fo 06/06/05 is vacated without prejudice. (Warren, P) (Entered: 05/09/2005)
194 REQUEST (Motion) for JUDICIAL NOTICE by William Rouser. (Servantes, G) Modified on 6/27/2005 (Servantes, G). (Entered: 06/27/2005)
195 MOTION for PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by William Rouser. (Attachments: # 1 Request to take Judicial Notice# 2 Proof of Service)(Servantes, G) (Entered: 07/05/2005)
196 ORDER signed by Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 7/12/05. Within 30 days of date of this Order parties shall file Status Reports as discussed. Following receipt of this briefing, Court will re−set Evidentiary Hearing. Clerk directed to serve Order on plaintiff at Mule Creek State Prison.(Marciel, M) (Entered: 07/12/2005)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 196 Order, served on Jonathan T. Foot, Carlotta Wells, and plaintiff William Rouser at Mule State State Prison PO Box 409202 Ione, CA 95640. (Marciel, M) (Entered: 07/12/2005)
197 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for Order Reinstating Action Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ?3626(c) by Theo White, E W Meads, Jack R Reagan, James Gomez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order # 2 Declaration of service)(Flynn, James) (Entered: 08/09/2005)
198 ORDER signed by Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 8/16/05 re 197 ORDERING that plt's motion for reinstatement is DENIED as moot . (Duong, D) (Entered: 08/16/2005)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 198 Order served on Jonathan T Foot, William Rouser, Carlotta Wells. (Duong, D) (Entered: 08/16/2005)
199 ORDER signed by Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 8/16/05 ORDERING that within 30 days of the date of this order, the parties shall submit status reports. (Duong, D) (Entered: 08/16/2005)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 199 Order served on Jonathan T Foot, William Rouser, Carlotta Wells .(Duong, D) (Entered: 08/16/2005)
200 REQUEST (MOTION) to take Judicial Notice of consistant violations settlement agreement and inaffective assist of counsel by William Rouser. (MAINTAIN ON PAPER) (Girgis, C) (Entered: 08/25/2005)
201 STATUS REPORT by Defendants by Theo White, E W Meads, Jack R Reagan, James Gomez. (Flynn, James) (Entered: 09/14/2005)
202 MOTION TO COMPEL Plaintiff's Attorney to Return Plaintiff's Case Records by William Rouser. (Caspar, M) Modified on 9/26/2005 (Caspar, M). (Entered: 09/21/2005)
203 APPLICATION/REQUEST (entitled "Motion") for Permission to File Supplemental Complaint by William Rouser. (Caspar, M) Modified on 9/26/2005 (Caspar, M). (Entered: 09/21/2005)
204 APPLICATION/REQUEST for Temporary Restaining Orderand Preliminary Injunction by William Rouser. (Caspar, M) (Entered: 09/21/2005)
205 ORDER signed by Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 9/27/05 ordering that within ten days of the date of this order, plaintiff's counsel shall show cause for his failure to comply with the August 16, 2005, order. (Davis, D) (Entered: 09/27/2005)
206 DECLARATION of Richard G. Bates, Jr. (Bates, Richard) (Entered: 10/06/2005)
207 STATUS REPORT Plaintiff by William Rouser. (Bates, Richard) (Entered: 10/06/2005)
208 ORDER signed by Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 10/19/05 withdrawing 205 Order to show cause. Within 20 days of the date of this order Pla's counsel shall file a motion to withdraw as counsel; following receipt of that motion, court will issue further orders re the scheduling of this action. (Dotson, B) (Entered: 10/19/2005)

Case: 2:93-cv-00767-LKK-GGH As of: 06/19/2014 12:18 PM PDT 21 of 45

10/19/2005 11/10/2005
11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/18/2005 11/22/2005
11/22/2005 12/05/2005 12/05/2005 12/05/2005 12/06/2005 12/12/2005 12/12/2005 12/12/2005 12/13/2005 12/13/2005

SERVICE BY MAIL: 208 Order served on Jonathan T Foot, William Rouser, and Carlotta Wells. (Dotson, B) (Entered: 10/19/2005)
209 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to WITHDRAW as ATTORNEY by William Rouser. Motion Hearing set for 1/5/2006 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 24 (GGH) before Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows. (Bates, Richard) Modified on 11/14/2005 (Dotson, B). (Entered: 11/10/2005)
210 DECLARATION of Richard G. Bates, Jr in Support of re 209 MOTION to WITHDRAW as ATTORNEY. (Bates, Richard) (Entered: 11/10/2005)
211 MEMORANDUM/RESPONSE in SUPPORT re 209 MOTION to WITHDRAW as ATTORNEY. (Bates, Richard) (Entered: 11/10/2005)
212 MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER and PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by William Rouser. Declaration of William Rouser, proposed order, and exhibits. (Dotson, B) (Entered: 11/14/2005)
213 MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER and PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by William Rouser. Declaration of William Rouser and proposed order. (Dotson, B) (Entered: 11/14/2005)
214 NOTICE by William Rouser alleging harassment and intimidation. (Dotson, B) (Entered: 11/14/2005)
215 REQUEST for ruling on motions for by William Rouser. (Caspar, M) (Entered: 11/21/2005)
216 ORDER signed by Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 11/22/05 ordering that 212 and 213 motions for injunctive relief are vacated without prejudice to their renewal upon the filing of an amended complaint. The parties are placed on notice that no matter what the outcome of the motion to withdraw as counsel, this case will be placed on a strict schedule which will not be altered absent extraordinary cause. The Clerk shall serve Pltf Rouser at his last given address. (Kastilahn, A) (Entered: 11/22/2005)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 216 Order served on Jonathan T Foot, William Rouser and Carlotta Wells. (Kastilahn, A) (Entered: 11/22/2005)
217 [DISREGARD − UNSIGNED. DOCUMENT RE−FILED] CERTIFICATE of SERVICE by William Rouser. (Bates, Richard) Modified on 12/6/2005 (Dotson, B). (Entered: 12/05/2005)
218 CERTIFICATE of SERVICE by William Rouser re 211 Memorandum/Response in Support of Motion, 209 MOTION to WITHDRAW as ATTORNEY, 210 Proof of Service, Rouser (Bates, Richard) (Entered: 12/05/2005)
CLERK'S NOTICE of DOCKET CORRECTION; Disregard document 217 Certificate of Service. Document was unsigned and re−filed. (Dotson, B) (Entered: 12/06/2005)
219 AMENDED COMPLAINT against all defendants, filed by William Rouser.(Kastilahn, A) (Entered: 12/07/2005)
220 MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER and PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by William Rouser. (Dotson, B) (Entered: 12/13/2005)
221 MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER and PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by William Rouser. (Dotson, B) (Entered: 12/13/2005)
222 MOTION for SANCTIONS by William Rouser. (Dotson, B) (Entered: 12/13/2005)
223 ORDER vacating 195 Motion for Preliminary Injunction without prejudice to its renewal upon the filing of an amended complaint signed by Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 12/12/05. (Dotson, B) (Entered: 12/13/2005)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 223 Order served on Jonathan T Foot, William Rouser, and Carlotta Wells. (Dotson, B) (Entered: 12/13/2005)

Case: 2:93-cv-00767-LKK-GGH As of: 06/19/2014 12:18 PM PDT 22 of 45

12/19/2005 01/04/2006 01/05/2006
01/09/2006 01/13/2006
01/13/2006 01/13/2006 01/30/2006 02/23/2006 02/27/2006 03/14/2006 03/21/2006 03/22/2006 03/22/2006 03/22/2006 03/30/2006

224 RESPONSE 209 Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Record by William Rouser. (Caspar, M) (Entered: 12/20/2005)
226 REQUEST (entitled motion) to take judicial notice by William Rouser. (Caspar, M) (Entered: 01/05/2006)
225 MINUTES for proceedings held before Judge Gregory G. Hollows : MOTION HEARING held on 1/5/2006 re 209 MOTION to WITHDRAW as ATTORNEY filed by William Rouser. The court grants Plaintiff's Counsel request. Plaintiff to submit an order for the court's signature Plaintiffs Counsel Richard Bates present. Court Reporter/CD Number: 1 of 1. (Callen, V) (Entered: 01/05/2006)
227 MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER and PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by William Rouser. (Dotson, B) (Entered: 01/10/2006)
228 ORDER signed by Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 1/13/06 ORDERING THAT the Amended Complaint 219 is DISREGARDED, MOTIONS for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 221 and 227 are DISREGARDED, MOTION for SANCTIONS 222 is DISREGARDED. Plaintiff is granted 30 days to file a supplemental complaint. Discovery due by 7/28/2006. Pretrial Motions due by 10/6/2006. Pltf's PTS due by 12/29/06. Dfts PTS due by 1/12/07. Pretrial Conference set for 1/19/2007 in Courtroom 24 (GGH) before Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows to be conducted on the file only. Jury Trial set for 3/27/2007 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 4 (LKK) before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. Clerk directed to add plaintiff William Rouser to the service list. (Donati, J) Modified on 1/19/2006 (Donati, J). (Entered: 01/13/2006)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 228 Order served on Jonathan T Foot, William Rouser, Carlotta Wells (Donati, J) (Entered: 01/13/2006)
230 OPPOSITION by William Rouser to 228 Scheduling Order. (Dotson, B) (Entered: 02/01/2006)
229 AMENDED COMPLAINT against all defendants filed by William Rouser. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Complaint (Part 2 of 5)# 2 Amended Complaint (Part 3 of 5)# 3 Amended Complaint (Part 4 of 5)# 4 Amended Complaint (Part 5 of 5))(Dotson, B) (Entered: 01/31/2006)
231 REQUEST (motion) for court to take "administrative notice" of bias against Wiccan inmates by William Rouser. (Dotson, B) (Entered: 02/24/2006)
232 MOTION to DISMISS With Leave To Amend Or, In The Alternative, Strike Plaintiff's Supplemental Complaint Filed January 30, 2006 by Theo White, E W Meads, Jack R Reagan, James Gomez. (Flynn, James) (Entered: 02/27/2006)
233 DEFENDANT(S) MOTION to STAY by Theo White, E W Meads, Jack R Reagan, James Gomez. (Flynn, James) (Entered: 03/14/2006)
234 OPPOSITION to 233 DEFENDANT(S) MOTION to STAY. Request for sanctions for not serving pla with opposition to supplemental complaint. (Dotson, B) (Entered: 03/22/2006)
235 CERTIFICATE of SERVICE by Theo White, E W Meads, Jack R Reagan, James Gomez re 232 MOTION to DISMISS With Leave To Amend Or, In The Alternative, Strike Plaintiff's Supplemental Complaint Filed January 30, 2006 (Flynn, James) (Entered: 03/22/2006)
236 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Theo White, E W Meads, Jack R Reagan, James Gomez. Amendment to 232 MOTION to DISMISS With Leave To Amend Or, In The Alternative, Strike Plaintiff's Supplemental Complaint Filed January 30, 2006 Amended Certificate of Service. (Flynn, James) (Entered: 03/22/2006)
237 MEMORANDUM/RESPONSE in SUPPORT re 233 DEFENDANT(S) MOTION to STAY With Attachment 1 and Service by Mail. (Flynn, James) (Entered: 03/22/2006)
238 OPPOSITION to 232 MOTION to DISMISS With Leave To Amend Or, In The Alternative, Strike Plaintiff's Supplemental Complaint Filed January 30, 2006. (Dotson, B) (Entered: 03/31/2006)

Case: 2:93-cv-00767-LKK-GGH As of: 06/19/2014 12:18 PM PDT 23 of 45

04/07/2006 06/29/2006 06/29/2006 06/29/2006 07/11/2006
07/11/2006 07/14/2006 07/24/2006 07/24/2006 08/09/2006 09/27/2006
09/27/2006 12/08/2006 12/08/2006 12/28/2006
01/22/2007
01/22/2007

239 REQUEST (Motion) to Take Administrative Notice for by William Rouser. (Donati, J) (Entered: 04/10/2006)
240 REQUEST to Vacate Scheduling Order by Theo White, E W Meads, Jack R Reagan, James Gomez. (Flynn, James) Modified on 6/30/2006 (Yin, K). (Entered: 06/29/2006)
241 PROPOSED ORDER granting 240 Request. (Flynn, James) Modified on 6/30/2006 (Yin, K). (Entered: 06/29/2006)
242 DECLARATION of Service of 241 Proposed Order and 240 Request. (Flynn, James) Modified on 6/30/2006 (Yin, K). (Entered: 06/29/2006)
243 ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 7/11/06 ORDERING that 232 Motion to Dismiss is VACATED. James E. Tilton is substituted as defendant in his official capacity. Within 30 days of the date of this order, James E. Tilton shall file a response to plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief contained in the 1/30/06 supplemental complaint. The Clerk is directed to copy plaintiff's 1/30/06 supplemental complaint and open it as a new action assigned to the same judges as are assigned to the instant action. It is Hereby RECOMMENDED that 233 Motion to Stay be denied. Objections due within 20 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. Motion referred to Judge Lawrence K. Karlton.(Donati, J) (Entered: 07/11/2006)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 243 Order, Findings and Recommendations served on Jonathan T Foot, William Rouser, Carlotta Wells (Donati, J) (Entered: 07/11/2006)
244 STATEMENT of NON−OPPOSITION to MOTION by William Rouser. (Donati, J) (Entered: 07/17/2006)
245 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 7/24/06 DENYING, as unnecessary, defendants' 241 REQUEST to Vacate the Scheduling Order.(Marciel, M) (Entered: 07/24/2006)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 245 Order served on Jonathan T Foot, William Rouser, and Carlotta Wells. (Marciel, M) (Entered: 07/24/2006)
246 ANSWER to SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT by James E Tilton. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Service)(Flynn, James) Modified on 8/10/2006 (Caspar, M). (Entered: 08/09/2006)
247 ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 9/26/06 ORDERING that the FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS filed 7/11/06 243 are ADOPTED in full. Defendants' 3/14/06 Motion to Stay 233 is DENIED. (Mena−Sanchez, L) (Entered: 09/27/2006)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 247 Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations, O served on Jonathan T Foot, William Rouser, Carlotta Wells. (Mena−Sanchez, L) (Entered: 09/27/2006)
248 ORDER signed by Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 12/8/06 ORDERING that within 20 days of the date of this order, defendants shall file a response to plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief. (Donati, J) (Entered: 12/08/2006)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 248 Order served on Jonathan T Foot, William Rouser, Carlotta Wells (Donati, J) (Entered: 12/08/2006)
249 REQUEST for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's claims by Theo White, E W Meads, Jack R Reagan, James Gomez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order # 2 Declaration of Service)(Flynn, James) Modified on 12/29/2006 (Donati, J). (Entered: 12/28/2006)
250 OPPOSITION by Defendants Theo White, E W Meads, Jack R Reagan, James Gomez To 227 Plaintiff's Request for Injunctive Relief. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Service)(Flynn, James) Modified on 1/23/2007 (Donati, J). (Entered: 01/22/2007)
251 DECLARATION of David B. Long in Support of 250 Opposition. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1−5# 2 Declaration of Service)(Flynn, James) Modified on

Case: 2:93-cv-00767-LKK-GGH As of: 06/19/2014 12:18 PM PDT 24 of 45

01/24/2007
01/24/2007 01/30/2007 02/02/2007 02/08/2007
02/08/2007 02/26/2007 02/28/2007 03/07/2007 03/08/2007 03/16/2007 03/19/2007 03/20/2007 03/23/2007 03/29/2007 04/03/2007
04/03/2007 04/09/2007 05/17/2007

1/23/2007 (Donati, J). (Entered: 01/22/2007)
252 ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 1/24/07 ORDERING the plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE, within 10 days of the date of this order, for his failure to file a pretrial statement, VACATING the 3/27/07 Jury Trial before the Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton and VACATING 248 Order Directing Defendants to Respond. (Donati, J) (Entered: 01/24/2007)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 252 Order to Show Cause served on Jonathan T Foot, William Rouser, Carlotta Wells (Donati, J) (Entered: 01/24/2007)
253 REQUEST for 90 day extension of time to file pretrial statement by William Rouser. (Manzer, C) (Entered: 01/31/2007)
254 REPLY by Theo White, E W Meads, Jack R Reagan, James Gomez to Response to 252 Order to Show Cause . (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Flynn, James) Modified on 2/5/2007 (Donati, J). (Entered: 02/02/2007)
255 ORDER signed by Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 2/7/07 DISCHARGING 252 Order to Show Cause. Plaintiff's pretrial statement is due within 20 days of the date of this order. Defendants' pretrial statement is due 20 days thereafter.(Donati, J) (Entered: 02/08/2007)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 255 Order served on Jonathan T Foot, William Rouser, Carlotta Wells (Donati, J) (Entered: 02/08/2007)
256 LETTER from witness Douglas Hysell explaining that he was a part of plaintiff Rouser's Complaint. (Marciel, M) (Entered: 02/27/2007)
257 NOTICE by plaintiff William Rouser of interference with ability to comply with Court Orde. (Marciel, M) (Entered: 03/01/2007)
258 REPLY/RESPONSE to Plaintiff's Notice Re: Inability to File Pretrial Statement by Theo White, E W Meads, Jack R Reagan, James Gomez re 257 Notice − Other. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Service)(Flynn, James) (Entered: 03/07/2007)
259 NOTICE from Douglas Hysell (non−party) re: case. (Donati, J) (Entered: 03/09/2007)
260 NOTICE to administration and request for sanctions by William Rouser. (Manzer, C) MAINTAIN ON PAPER (Entered: 03/19/2007)
261 REQUEST for Extension of Time to File Pretrial Statement by defts. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order # 2 Declaration of Service)(Flynn, James) Modified on 3/20/2007 (Manzer, C). (Entered: 03/19/2007)
262 LETTER from Douglas Hysell addressed to Magistrate Judge Kellison informing Court of civil rights violations. (Marciel, M) (Entered: 03/21/2007)
263 NOTICE by William Rouser in Support of Motion for TRO and Order to Show Cause. (Donati, J) (MAINTAIN ON PAPER) Modified on 3/28/2007 (Yin, K). (Entered: 03/26/2007)
264 LETTER from William Rouser to James Tilton re: brutal abuse of authority. (Donati, J) (Entered: 03/30/2007)
265 ORDER signed by Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 4/3/07 GRANTING 261 Request for Extension of Time to file pretrial statement. Defendants' pretrial statement is due on or before 4/9/07. Plaintiff's pretrial statement is deemed timely filed. (Donati, J) (Entered: 04/03/2007)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 265 Order served on Jonathan T Foot, William Rouser, Carlotta Wells (Donati, J) (Entered: 04/03/2007)
266 DEFENDANT(S) PRETRIAL STATEMENT by Defendants Theo White, E W Meads, Jack R Reagan, James Gomez. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Service)(Flynn, James) (Entered: 04/09/2007)
268 PRETRIAL ORDER signed by Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 05/16/07 ORDERING that Trial Confirmation Hearing SET for 6/18/2007 at 11:15 AM

Case: 2:93-cv-00767-LKK-GGH As of: 06/19/2014 12:18 PM PDT 25 of 45

05/24/2007
05/24/2007 05/25/2007 05/25/2007 05/31/2007 06/04/2007 06/05/2007 06/05/2007 06/05/2007 06/07/2007 06/08/2007 06/11/2007 06/12/2007
06/12/2007 06/13/2007

before theHonorable Lawrence K. Karlton. Plaintiff shall appear via videoconference. Jury Trial set for 9/18/2007 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 4 (LKK) before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. Each party is granted fifteen days from the date of this order to file objections to same. If noobjections are filed, the order will become final without further order of this court. (Duong, D) (Entered: 05/17/2007)
269 ORDER and WRIT ISSUED signed by Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 5/24/07 ORDERING that a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum is ISSUED, commanding the warden to produce the inmate William Rouser to testify by video−conference before the United States District Court on 6/18/07 at 11:15 am. The custodian is ORDERED to notify the court of any change in custody of this inmate and is ordered to provide the new custodian with a copy of this writ. (Donati, J) (Entered: 05/24/2007)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 269 Order served on Jonathan T Foot, William Rouser, Carlotta Wells. 3 certified copies served on Warden. (Donati, J) (Entered: 05/24/2007)
270 REQUEST (motion) to expedite TRO and OSC of 03/14/07 by William Rouser. (Manzer, C) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
271 OBJECTIONS to dft's undisputed facts by Plaintiff William Rouser. (Manzer, C) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
272 OBJECTIONS by dfts to Pretrial Order 268 (Attachments: # 1 Appendix # 2 Declaration of Service)(Flynn, James) Modified on 6/1/2007 (Duong, D). (Entered: 05/31/2007)
273 SUPPLEMENTAL PRETRIAL STATEMENT by Defendants Theo White, E W Meads, James E. Tilton, Jack R Reagan, James Gomez. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Service)(Flynn, James) (Entered: 06/04/2007)
274 REQUEST ("PETITION") for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum by plaintiff William Rouser. (Marciel, M) (Entered: 06/06/2007)
275 MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER to restrain harassment of a witness by plaintiff William Rouser. (Marciel, M) (Entered: 06/06/2007)
276 DECLARATION of SERVICE by plaintiff William Rouser for 274 Request, 275 MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER. (Marciel, M) (Entered: 06/06/2007)
277 NOTICE by William Rouser that he did not receive 268 Pretrial Order. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Donati, J) (Entered: 06/08/2007)
RE−SERVICE BY MAIL: 268 Pretrial Order served on Jonathan T Foot, William Rouser, Carlotta Wells (Donati, J) (Entered: 06/08/2007)
RE−SERVICE BY MAIL: 268 Pretrial Order served on William Rouser at Pleasant Valley State Prison. (Donati, J) (Entered: 06/11/2007)
278 AMENDED ORDER and WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM signed by Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 6/12/2007 ORDERING that a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum is ISSUED, commanding the warden to produce the inmate William Rouser to testify by video−conference at PVSP, on 6/18/07 at 11:15 AM before Lawrence K. Karlton USDC, Sacramento, CA. The custodian is ORDERED to notify the court of any change in custody of this inmate and is ordered to provide the new custodian with a copy of this writ. 269 (cc: Warden PVSP)(Reader, L) Modified on 6/12/2007 (Reader, L). (Entered: 06/12/2007)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 278 Amended Order and Writ Issued, served on Jonathan T Foot, William Rouser, Carlotta Wells, Warden PVSP (Reader, L) Modified on 6/12/2007 (Reader, L). (Entered: 06/12/2007)
279 LETTER from Doug Hysell re William Rouser being moved from MCSP. (Cayo, A) (Entered: 06/14/2007)

Case: 2:93-cv-00767-LKK-GGH As of: 06/19/2014 12:18 PM PDT 26 of 45

06/13/2007 06/14/2007 06/18/2007
06/20/2007
06/20/2007 06/27/2007 06/27/2007 07/09/2007
07/18/2007 07/25/2007 07/27/2007 07/31/2007
07/31/2007 08/03/2007 08/08/2007 08/08/2007 08/21/2007

280 NOTICE of transfer before June 18, 2007 video conference by William Rouser (Cayo, A) (Entered: 06/14/2007)
RE−SERVICE BY MAIL: 278 Order served on William Rouser at PVSP. (Donati, J) (Entered: 06/14/2007)
281 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings held before Judge Lawrence K. Karlton: CONFIRMATION HEARING held on 6/18/2007. The Jury Trial date set for 09/18/2007 is VACATED. Plaintiff is instructed to file a new pretrial statement along with his exhibits. A new Pretrial Order shall be issued. The court will then set a further Trial Confirmation Hearing. Plaintiffs Counsel William Rouser (via video−conference) present. Defendants Counsel James Flynn present. (Rivas, A) (Entered: 06/18/2007)
282 ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 6/19/07. Plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief regarding events occurring at MCSP are DISMISSED as MOOT. Within 10 days of date of this Order, plaintiff shall file an Amended Pretrial Statement; defendants' Amended Pretrial Statement due 10 days thereafter. Parties shall serve eath other with trial exhibits at time they serve Amended Pretrial Statements. Jury Trial set for 9/18/07 is VACATED and will be re−set at Trial Confirmation Hearing. (Marciel, M) (Entered: 06/20/2007)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 282 Order served on Jonathan T. Foot, William Rouser, and Carlotta Wells. (Marciel, M) (Entered: 06/20/2007)
283 PRETRIAL STATEMENT by Plaintiff William Rouser.(Anderson, J) (Entered: 06/28/2007)
284 REQUEST to review the taped evidence offered by dfts by William Rouser. (Reader, L) (Entered: 06/29/2007)
285 REQUEST for Extension of Time to File Amended Pretrial Statement by Theo White, E W Meads, James E. Tilton, Jack R Reagan, James Gomez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Defendants' Request for Extension of time# 2 Declaration of Service)(Flynn, James) (Entered: 07/09/2007)
286 OPPOSITION by Plaintiff William Rouser to Defendants 285 Request for extension of time. (Anderson, J) (Entered: 07/19/2007)
287 REPLY by defendants to 286 Opposition to 285 Request for Extension of Time.(Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Service)(Flynn, James) Modified on 7/26/2007 (Donati, J). (Entered: 07/25/2007)
288 PETITION for Writ of Mandate by plaintiff William Rouser. (Marciel, M) (Entered: 07/30/2007)
289 ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 7/30/2007 ORDERING that within thirty days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file a second amended pretrial statement; defendants' amended pretrial statement is due within fifteen days thereafter. 285 (Reader, L) (Entered: 07/31/2007)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 289 Order, served on Jonathan T. Foot, William Rouser, Carlotta Wells (Reader, L) (Entered: 07/31/2007)
290 REPLY by William Rouser to dft's 287 Reply to pltf's Opposition. (Manzer, C) (Entered: 08/06/2007)
291 SECOND AMENDED PRETRIAL STATEMENT by Plaintiff William Rouser.(Anderson, J) (Entered: 08/09/2007)
292 REQUEST (Motion) to Expedite Writ of Mandate by William Rouser. (Reader, L) (Entered: 08/09/2007)
293 REQUEST for Extension of Time to File Second Amended Pretrial Statement by Theo White, E W Meads, James E. Tilton, Jack R Reagan, James Gomez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Extension of Time# 2 Declaration of Service)(Flynn, James) (Entered: 08/21/2007)

Case: 2:93-cv-00767-LKK-GGH As of: 06/19/2014 12:18 PM PDT 27 of 45

09/04/2007 09/11/2007 09/11/2007 09/14/2007 09/26/2007 09/26/2007 09/26/2007 10/15/2007 10/15/2007 10/15/2007 10/16/2007
10/16/2007 10/16/2007
10/16/2007 10/16/2007
10/19/2007 10/25/2007 10/25/2007

294 REQUEST for review of case file by district judge from 3/1/07 to this filing by William Rouser. (Kastilahn, A) (Entered: 09/05/2007)
295 ORDER signed by Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 09/11/2007 GRANTING 293 Request for extension of time. Defendants shall file second amended pretrial statement on or before 09/14/2007.(Dillon, M) (Entered: 09/11/2007)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 295 Order served on Jonathan T. Foot, William Rouser, Carlotta Wells (Dillon, M) (Entered: 09/11/2007)
296 SECOND AMENDED PRETRIAL STATEMENT by Defendants Theo White, E W Meads, James E. Tilton, Jack R Reagan, James Gomez. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate Proof of Service)(Flynn, James) (Entered: 09/14/2007)
297 MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER/ PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by William Rouser. (Duong, D) (Entered: 09/27/2007)
298 OPPOSITION by Plaintiff William Rouser to dfts' Undisputed Facts 296 . MAINTAINED ON PAPER]. (Duong, D) Modified on 9/27/2007 (Duong, D). (Entered: 09/27/2007)
299 PROPOSED ORDER allowing plt to have candles, incense and oils by William Rouser. (Duong, D) (Entered: 09/27/2007)
302 MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER and for PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by plaintiff William Rouser. (Marciel, M) Modified on 10/16/2007 (Marciel, M). (Entered: 10/16/2007)
303 SUPPLEMENT to Pretrial Evidence by plaintiff William Rouser. (Attachments: # 1 part 2 # 2 part 3 # 3 part 4) [MAINTAIN ON PAPER] (Marciel, M) (Entered: 10/16/2007)
304 CERTIFICATE of SERVICE by plaintiff William Rouser for 303 Supplement to Pretrial Evidence and 302 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and for Preliminary Injunction. (Marciel, M) (Entered: 10/16/2007)
300 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 10/16/07 RECOMMENDING that pltf's 297 motion for injunctive relief filed 9/26/07, is denied without prejudice. Motion referred to Judge Karlton. Within 20 days after being served with these findings, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within 10 days after service of the objections. (Kastilahn, A) (Entered: 10/16/2007)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 300 Findings and Recommendations served on Jonathan T. Foot, William Rouser and Carlotta Wells.(Kastilahn, A) (Entered: 10/16/2007)
301 AMENDED PRETRIAL ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 10/16/07. Counsel directed to Local Rule 16−285 regarding contents and deadline for filing Trial Briefs. Each party granted 15 days from date of Order to file Objections to same. If no Objections filed, the Order will become FINAL w/out further Order of Court. (Marciel, M) (Entered: 10/16/2007)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 301 Amended Pretrial Order served on Jonathan T. Foot, William Rouse, and Carlotta Wells. (Marciel, M) (Entered: 10/16/2007)
305 NOTICE of HEARING and DOCKET CORRECTION: pursuant to 301 Amended Pretrial Order, Trial Confirmation Hearing set for 12/17/2007 at 11:15 AM in Courtroom 4 (LKK) before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. (Marciel, M) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
306 REQUEST (petition) for sanctions by William Rouser. (Kaminski, H) (Entered: 10/22/2007)
307 OBJECTIONS to FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS 300 by Plaintiff William Rouser. (Anderson, J) (Entered: 10/26/2007)
308 REQUEST for sanctions for defendants blatant lies to the court by William Rouser. (Anderson, J) (Entered: 10/26/2007)

Case: 2:93-cv-00767-LKK-GGH As of: 06/19/2014 12:18 PM PDT 28 of 45

10/25/2007 10/25/2007 11/05/2007 11/08/2007
11/08/2007 11/09/2007 11/13/2007
11/13/2007 11/14/2007
11/14/2007 11/19/2007
11/19/2007 11/21/2007 11/29/2007
11/29/2007 12/03/2007 12/03/2007 12/03/2007

309 OBJECTIONS to pretrial order by Plaintiff William Rouser. (Anderson, J) (Entered: 10/26/2007)
310 LETTER regarding running out of paper from William Rouser (Anderson, J) (Entered: 10/26/2007)
311 REQUEST for damages for denial of Samhain Sabbat by William Rouser (Becknal, R) (Entered: 11/06/2007)
312 ORDER signed by Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 11/8/07 ORDERING that Plaintiff's 6/5/07, MOTION for a Temporary Restraining Order, construed as a Motion for a Protective Order 275 is DENIED. (Mena−Sanchez, L) (Entered: 11/08/2007)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 312 Order, served on Jonathan T. Foot, William Rouser, Carlotta Wells. (Mena−Sanchez, L) (Entered: 11/08/2007)
313 Additional Recent Evidence of malicious interference with ability to practice religion on 11/5/07 by William Rouser. (Duong, D) (Entered: 11/13/2007)
314 ORDER signed by Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 11/13/07 ORDERING that the October 16, 2007, amended pretrial order 301 is amended to reflect plaintiff's one item of evidence, i.e. the "magical novel," and plaintiff's three additional witnesses: Feryance, Delany and Anderson. (Duong, D) (Entered: 11/13/2007)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 314 Order, served on Jonathan T. Foot, William Rouser, Carlotta Wells. (Duong, D) (Entered: 11/13/2007)
315 ORDER AND WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM signed by Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 11/14/2007 ORDERING Warden at PVSP to produce inmate William Rouser, C−10659, material witness, Via Video Conferencing on 12/17/2007 at 11:15 AM, before Judge Lawrence K. Karlton, USDC EDCA, Sacramento, CA. 301 (cc: Warden, Out−to−Court) (Reader, L) (Entered: 11/14/2007)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 315 Order and Writ, served on Jonathan T. Foot, William Rouser, Carlotta Wells (Reader, L) (Entered: 11/14/2007)
316 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS 300 , in full, signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 11/16/07. Plaintiff's 297 Motion for Injunctive Relief is DENIED without prejudice. (Marciel, M) (Entered: 11/19/2007)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 316 Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations served on Jonathan T. Foot, William Rouser, and Carlotta Wells. (Marciel, M) (Entered: 11/19/2007)
317 REQUEST for additional witnesses and evidence for incidents that occured after filing of pretrial statement by William Rouser. (Anderson, J) (Entered: 11/26/2007)
318 MINUTE ORDER: Due to scheduling conflict, the Trial Confirmation Hearing currently set in the above entitled matter for December 17, 2007, is hereby VACATED and RESET to January 28, 2008 at 11:15 a.m., in Courtroom 4 (LKK) before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. The Order and Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum 315 issued on November 14, 2007 as to William Rouser, inmate # C−10659, is hereby VACATED. Ordered by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on November 29, 2007. (Rivas, A) (Entered: 11/29/2007)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 318 Minute Order served on Jonathan T. Foot, William Rouser, Carlotta Wells.(Rivas, A) (Entered: 11/29/2007)
319 MOTION IN LIMINE by William Rouser. (Kastilahn, A) (Entered: 12/04/2007)
320 NOTICE of new evidence by William Rouser. (Kastilahn, A) (Entered: 12/04/2007)
321 CERTIFICATE of SERVICE re 319 and 320 by William Rouser. (Kastilahn, A) (Entered: 12/04/2007)

Case: 2:93-cv-00767-LKK-GGH As of: 06/19/2014 12:18 PM PDT 29 of 45

12/14/2007
12/14/2007 12/19/2007
12/19/2007 12/19/2007 12/26/2007 12/28/2007 01/02/2008 01/07/2008 01/08/2008
01/08/2008 01/22/2008 01/28/2008
01/28/2008

322 ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 12/14/07 ORDERING that plt's notice of additional evidence 313 is DISREGARDED. Plaintiff's November 21, 2007 317 , and December 3, 2007 319 and 320 , requests to call additional witnesses and add new evidence are DENIED. Within ten days of the date of this order, plaintiff may file a new motion in support of his request to call witnesses concerning his recent denial of access to religious services. (Duong, D) Modified on 4/21/2008 (Donati, J). (Entered: 12/14/2007)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 322 Order served on Jonathan T. Foot, William Rouser, Carlotta Wells. (Duong, D) (Entered: 12/14/2007)
323 ORDER and WRIT signed by Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 12/19/07 ORDERING that a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum is ISSUED, commanding the warden to produce the inmate William Rouser to testify by video−conference before the US District Court on 1/28/08 11:15am. The custodian is ORDERED to notify the court of any change in custody of this inmate and is ORDERED to provide the new custodian with a copy of this writ. (Duong, D) (Entered: 12/19/2007)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 323 Order served on Jonathan T. Foot, William Rouser and Carlotta Wells. (Duong, D) (Entered: 12/19/2007)
324 REQUEST to add newly found evidence by William Rouser. (Anderson, J) (Entered: 12/20/2007)
325 REQUEST (Motion) in support of request to call witnesses concerning denial of access to religious as to courts 322 Order by William Rouser. (Anderson, J) (Entered: 12/27/2007)
326 NOTICE by plaintiff William Rouser of additional evidence for criminal conspiracy of 12/14/07, 12/15/07, and 12/16/07. (Marciel, M) (Entered: 01/02/2008)
327 NOTICE of witnesses interfering with plaintiff's ability to practice religion and harass for fighting for first amendment rights by William Rouser. (Anderson, J) (Entered: 01/03/2008)
329 REQUEST for sanction of defendants denying plaintiff William Rouser access to law library. (Marciel, M) (Entered: 01/08/2008)
328 ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 1/8/08 ORDERING that plaintiff's 325 request to call additional witnesses is GRANTED as to inmate Hysell, inmate Rodriguez, Chaplain Salaam, Lieutenant Scott, Sergeant Huckabay, Correctional Officers Tucker and Valencia, and Sergeant Navarro. Within ten days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall provide the court with the identification number of inmates Hysell and Rodriguez. Plaintiff's 324 request to add evidence is GRANTED in part. Plaintiff may offer into evidence the Beels memorandum. Plaintiff's request to offer into evidence the administrative appeal is DENIED. (Duong, D) (Entered: 01/08/2008)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 328 Order served on Jonathan T. Foot, William Rouser, Carlotta Wells. (Duong, D) (Entered: 01/08/2008)
330 REQUEST for Request for volunteer witnesses by William Rouser. (Becknal, R) (Entered: 01/24/2008)
331 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings held before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton: CONFIRMATION HEARING held on 1/28/2008. The Court advises Plaintiff that witnesses can waiver their witness fee if they are willing to come to court on their own. Defendant to file a notice of substitution for witness Eugene Beals. Plaintiff is granted 10 days to file new witness list. Jury Trial set for 5/13/2008 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 4 (LKK) before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. Court order to follow. Plaintiffs Counsel William Rouser present, via videoconference. Defendants Counsel James Flynn present. (Rivas, A) (Entered: 01/28/2008)
332 NOTICE re video conference by William Rouser. (Kaminski, H) (Entered: 01/29/2008)

Case: 2:93-cv-00767-LKK-GGH As of: 06/19/2014 12:18 PM PDT 30 of 45

01/29/2008
01/30/2008 01/30/2008 01/31/2008
01/31/2008 02/01/2008 02/21/2008 02/21/2008 02/22/2008 02/28/2008 03/03/2008 03/03/2008 03/03/2008 03/14/2008 03/14/2008 03/25/2008 03/31/2008 04/01/2008
04/01/2008

333 REQUEST to Substitute Witness for Trial and for Amended Pretrial Order, by J. Yates, E W Meads, James E. Tilton, Jack R Reagan, James Gomez. Attorney Flynn, James Edmund added. (Flynn, James) Modified on 1/30/2008 (Kastilahn, A). (Entered: 01/29/2008)
335 WITNESS LIST by William Rouser.(Duong, D) (Entered: 01/31/2008)
336 REQUEST for new witnesses who could not have been found earlier because of harrassment occurred on 1/14/08 by William Rouser. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Duong, D) (Entered: 01/31/2008)
334 ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 1/31/2008 ORDERING the jury trial is set for 5/13/2008, at 10:30 a.m. in courtroom 4; W/in 10 days of 1/28/2008, pltf shall file an amended witness list identifying the witnesses who will appear at trial; pltf should include the CDC ID number of the incarcerated witnesses; this list should only include the witnesses pltf has previously been granted permission to call; Dfts' request to substitute Associate Warden Brazelton for Associate Warden Beels is GRANTED; Following receipt of pltf's amended witness list, the court will issue a second amended pretrial order.(Matson, R) (Entered: 01/31/2008)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 334 Order, served on Jonathan T. Foot, William Rouser, Carlotta Wells. (Matson, R) (Entered: 01/31/2008)
337 AMENDED Witness List by William Rouser. (Kastilahn, A) (Entered: 02/04/2008)
338 TRIAL BRIEF by William Rouser.(Anderson, J) (Entered: 02/22/2008)
339 REQUEST for this court to tell defendant to have law librarian to make copies of evidence by William Rouser. (Anderson, J) (Entered: 02/22/2008)
340 NOTICE by William Rouser information to court (Reader, L) (Entered: 02/25/2008)
341 REQUEST by plaintiff William Rouser for Subpoenas Ad Testificandum for inmate witnesses to be called and presented for Trial on 5/13/07. (Marciel, M) (Entered: 02/29/2008)
342 PROPOSED QUESTIONS for VOIR DIRE by William Rouser.(Reader, L) (Entered: 03/04/2008)
343 NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS: 1 Subpoena, by William Rouser. (Reader, L) (Entered: 03/04/2008)
344 REQUEST for petition for writ of hc ad testificandum by William Rouser. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reader, L) (Entered: 03/04/2008)
345 SECOND AMENDED PRETRIAL ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 3/14/08. Each party granted 15 days from date of Order to file Objections to same. (Marciel, M) (Entered: 03/14/2008)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 345 Second Amended Pretrial Order served on Jonathan T. Foot, William Rouser, and Carlotta Wells. (Marciel, M) (Entered: 03/14/2008)
346 MAIL RETURNED as undeliverable (return to sender): 345 Second Amended Pretrial Order. Mail sent to Jonathan T. Foot. (Marciel, M) (Entered: 03/26/2008)
347 OBJECTION in part to second amended pretrial order, by Plaintiff William Rouser. (Kastilahn, A) (Entered: 04/01/2008)
348 OBJECTIONS by Defendants Theo White, E W Meads, James E. Tilton, J. Yates, Jack R Reagan, James Gomez to 345 Pretrial Order. Defendants' Objections to Second Amended Pretrial Order (Declaration of Service) (Flynn, James) (Entered: 04/01/2008)
349 MOTION Defendants' Notice and Motion to Change Trial Date; Points and Authorities by Theo White, E W Meads, James E. Tilton, J. Yates, Jack R Reagan, James Gomez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Flynn, James) (Entered: 04/01/2008)

Case: 2:93-cv-00767-LKK-GGH As of: 06/19/2014 12:18 PM PDT 31 of 45

04/03/2008 04/04/2008 04/04/2008 04/04/2008 04/09/2008 04/14/2008 04/21/2008 04/21/2008 04/22/2008
04/30/2008 05/02/2008 05/05/2008
05/14/2008 05/20/2008
05/20/2008 05/27/2008

350 TRIAL BRIEF by William Rouser.(Anderson, J) (Entered: 04/04/2008)
351 REPLY/RESPONSE to Plaintiff's 348 Objection to Second Amended Pretrial Order by Theo White, E W Meads, James E. Tilton, J. Yates, Jack R Reagan, James Gomez. (Flynn, James) Modified on 4/7/2008 (Anderson, J). (Entered: 04/04/2008)
352 ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 4/4/08 ORDERING that defendants Gomez and White are DISMISSED. Defendants' April 1, 2008, 349 motion to change the trial date is denied as unnecessary. (Duong, D) (Entered: 04/04/2008)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 352 Order served on Jonathan T. Foot, William Rouser and Carlotta Wells. (Duong, D) (Entered: 04/04/2008)
353 OPPOSITION by William Rouser to dft's Objection to Second Amended Pretrial Order and ANSWER to dfts' request for extension of time. (Carlos, K) Modified on 4/14/2008 (Yin, K). (Entered: 04/14/2008)
354 OBJECTIONS to 352 Order dismissing defendants Gomez and White by Plaintiff William Rouser. (Becknal, R) (Entered: 04/15/2008)
355 NOTICE of APPEARANCE by Jennifer Lauren Riggs on behalf of William Rouser. Attorney Riggs, Jennifer Lauren added. (Riggs, Jennifer) (Entered: 04/21/2008)
356 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER to Vacate Pre−Trial Dates and Trial Date; Request for Status Conference by William Rouser. (Riggs, Jennifer) Modified on 4/21/2008 (Reader, L). (Entered: 04/21/2008)
357 STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 4/21/2008 ORDERING 356 All pre−trial and trial dates are VACATED; Scheduling Conference set for 5/5/2008 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 4 (LKK) before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. Pltf shall appear through counsel at the status conference. (Reader, L) (Entered: 04/22/2008)
358 STATUS REPORT by defendants Matthew Cates, Theo White, E W Meads, J. Yates, Jack R Reagan, James Gomez. (Flynn, James) Modified on 5/1/2008 (Anderson, J). (Entered: 04/30/2008)
359 ASSOCIATION of ATTORNEY: Added attorney Joshua Casey Irwin for Theo White, E W Meads, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, Jack R Reagan and James Gomez. (Irwin, Joshua) Modified on 5/2/2008 (Benson, A). (Entered: 05/02/2008)
360 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings held before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton: SCHEDULING CONFERENCE held on 5/5/2008. Plaintiff's counsel is instructed to prepare a proposed order requiring the prison to allow a telephone call between plaintiff and his counsel; defendant's objections to the proposed order, if any, due 5 days thereafter. Further Status Conference set for 5/27/2008 at 03:00 PM in Courtroom 4 (LKK) before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. Plaintiffs Counsel Jenny Riggs present. Defendants Counsel James Flynn, Fiel Tigno, Jason Gatchalian present. (Rivas, A) (Entered: 05/05/2008)
361 PROPOSED ORDER Permitting Phone Call and Setting Status Conference by William Rouser. (Riggs, Jennifer) (Entered: 05/14/2008)
362 ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 5/20/2008 ORDERING 361 Plaintiff is to be permitted one attorney−client phone call with his counsel, Jones Day, within one week of the date of this order. The phone call may last up to one hour in length. The parties are to appear for a further status conference on May 27, 2008, at 3:00 p.m. Counsel who are not local may appear telephonically. (Reader, L) (Entered: 05/20/2008)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 362 Order, served on Jonathan T. Foot, Carlotta Wells, William Rouser (Reader, L) (Entered: 05/20/2008)
363 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings held before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton: STATUS CONFERENCE held on 5/27/2008. Discovery to remain open until 09/08/2008. Pretrial Conference set for 9/8/2008 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 4

Case: 2:93-cv-00767-LKK-GGH As of: 06/19/2014 12:18 PM PDT 32 of 45

05/30/2008
06/02/2008 06/03/2008 06/03/2008 06/03/2008 06/11/2008
06/17/2008
06/27/2008
06/30/2008 06/30/2008 07/25/2008
07/25/2008 07/25/2008 07/25/2008 07/25/2008

(LKK) before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. Plaintiff is granted one month to file an amended complaint without futher leave of court. Defendant to file answer no later than 07/25/2008. Court order to follow. Plaintiffs Counsel Jenny Riggs present. Defendants Counsel Jennifer L. Riggs, James Flynn, Fiel Dizon Tigno present. (Rivas, A) Modified on 5/28/2008 (Rivas, A). (Entered: 05/28/2008)
364 ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 5/29/08 ORDERING that Pretrial Conference set for 9/8/2008 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 4 (LKK) before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. Plaintiff is granted one month from the date of this order to file an amended complaint without leave of court. Plaintiff is granted 15 days to file supplement objections. (Anderson, J) (Entered: 05/30/2008)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 364 Order, served on Jonathan T. Foot, Carlotta Wells (Anderson, J) (Entered: 06/02/2008)
365 NOTICE re: Transfer of documents to plaintiff's attorney by Theo White, E W Meads, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, Jack R Reagan, James Gomez. (Flynn, James) Modified on 6/11/2008 (Marciel, M). (Entered: 06/03/2008)
366 ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 6/2/08 DISREGARDING plaintiff's 302 Motions for TRO and for Preliminary Injunction because he is now represented by counsel. (Marciel, M) (Entered: 06/03/2008)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 366 Order disregarding Motion for TRO and Preliminary Injunction served on Jonathan T. Foot, Carlotta Wells. (Marciel, M) (Entered: 06/03/2008)
367 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF to 354 Objections by William Rouser in Opposition to Dismissal of defendants Gomez and White. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits to Declaration of Jenny L. Riggs) (Riggs, Jennifer) Modified on 6/12/2008 (Marciel, M). (Entered: 06/11/2008)
368 REPLY/RESPONSE to Plaintiff's Supplemental Objections to Dismissal of Defendants Gomez and White by Theo White, E W Meads, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, Jack R Reagan, James Gomez re 354 Objections. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A thru C)(Flynn, James) (Entered: 06/17/2008)
369 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT for Civil Rights Violations, Permanent Injunction, Declartory Relief, and Damages against all defendants by William Rouser.(Riggs, Jennifer) Modified on 6/30/2008 (Becknal, R). (Entered: 06/27/2008)
370 ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 6/30/08 ORDERING pltf's motion for reconsideration of the Court's 4/4/08 order dismissing dfts Gomez and White from the suit 354 is GRANTED. (Carlos, K) (Entered: 06/30/2008)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 370 Order served on Jonathan T. Foot, Carlotta Wells (Carlos, K) (Entered: 06/30/2008)
371 MOTION to DISMISS Count 3 of the Second Amended Complaint by James E. Tilton, J. Yates. Attorney Tigno, Fiel Dizon added. Motion Hearing set for 9/8/2008 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 4 (LKK) before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. (Tigno, Fiel) (Entered: 07/25/2008)
372 MEMORANDUM/RESPONSE in SUPPORT. Of Motion to Dismiss Count 3 of the Second Amended Complaint (Tigno, Fiel) (Entered: 07/25/2008)
373 REQUEST for JUDICIAL NOTICE by James E. Tilton, J. Yates. Supporting Motion to Dismiss Count 3 of the Second Amended Complaint (Tigno, Fiel) (Entered: 07/25/2008)
374 CERTIFICATE of SERVICE by James E. Tilton, J. Yates. Declaration of Service Via: U.S. Mail (Tigno, Fiel) (Entered: 07/25/2008)
375 Derfendants' ANSWER to AMENDED COMPLAINT [Second] and Demand for Jury Trial] by Theo White, James E. Tilton, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, James Gomez.(Flynn, James) (Entered: 07/25/2008)

Case: 2:93-cv-00767-LKK-GGH As of: 06/19/2014 12:18 PM PDT 33 of 45

08/22/2008 08/29/2008 09/05/2008 09/08/2008
09/08/2008
09/10/2008
09/10/2008 09/16/2008 09/16/2008 09/23/2008 09/29/2008 10/28/2008 10/29/2008 11/04/2008 11/04/2008 11/24/2008

376 OPPOSITION by William Rouser to 371 MOTION to DISMISS Count 3 of the Second Amended Complaint. (Riggs, Jennifer) (Entered: 08/22/2008)
377 REPLY/RESPONSE to Memorandum of Points and Authorities Supporting Rule 12(b), 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Count 3 of the Second Amended Complaint by James E. Tilton, J. Yates. (Carrillo, David) (Entered: 08/29/2008)
378 MINUTE ORDER: The parties are notified that the pretrial conference set for 9/8/08 has been converted to a status conference and will be heard following the motion to dismiss at 10:00 am. Approved by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 09/05/2008. (Hoover, S) (Entered: 09/05/2008)
379 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings held before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton: MOTION HEARING held on 9/8/2008 re 371 MOTION to DISMISS Count 3 of the Second Amended Complaint filed by James E. Tilton, J. Yates. After oral argument, motion stands SUBMITTED. Court order to follow. Plaintiffs Counsel Jenny Riggs present. Defendants Counsel James Flynn, David Carrillo present. Court Reporter: C. Bodene. (Rivas, A) (Entered: 09/08/2008)
380 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings held before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton: SCHEDULING CONFERENCE held on 9/8/2008. Plaintiff is granted 15 days to file an Amended Complaint. Defendant is granted 20 days thereafter to respond. Final Pretrial Conference set for 5/11/2009 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 4 (LKK) before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. 5 day Jury Trial set for 8/11/2009 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 4 (LKK) before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. Court order to follow. Plaintiffs Counsel David Carrillo, James Flynn present. Defendants Counsel Jenny Riggs present. (Rivas, A) (Entered: 09/08/2008)
381 STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 9/9/08: All Discovery shall be conducted by 12/8/2008. All Law and Motion shall be completed by 2/8/2009. Final Pretrial Conference set for 5/11/2009 at 01:30 PM and Jury Trial set for 8/11/2009 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 4 (LKK). The Status Order shall NOT be modified except by leave of Court upon showing of good cause. (Marciel, M) (Entered: 09/10/2008)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 381 Scheduling Order served on Jonathan T. Foot, Carlotta Wells. (Marciel, M) (Entered: 09/10/2008)
382 ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 9/15/2008 DENYING 371 Motion to Dismiss. (Matson, R) (Entered: 09/16/2008)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 382 Order on Motion to Dismiss served on Jonathan T. Foot, Carlotta Wells. (Matson, R) (Entered: 09/16/2008)
383 Third AMENDED COMPLAINT against all defendants by William Rouser.(Riggs, Jennifer) (Entered: 09/23/2008)
384 ANSWER to THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT ; Demand for Jury Trial by defendants Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, and James Gomez. (Flynn, James) Modified on 10/1/2008 (Marciel, M). (Entered: 09/29/2008)
385 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER to extend deadline to diclose expert testimony by James E. Tilton, J. Yates. (Tigno, Fiel) Modified on 10/30/2008 (Benson, A). (Entered: 10/28/2008)
386 CERTIFICATE of SERVICE by James E. Tilton, J. Yates re 385 Stipulation and Proposed Order. PROOF OF SERVICE (Tigno, Fiel) (Entered: 10/29/2008)
387 ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 11/4/08 ORDERING that the 385 stipulation is DENIED. The parties are, of course, free to agree as they choose. The agreement, however, will not be enforced by the court. Accordingly, the court will not approve the proposed order. (Duong, D) (Entered: 11/04/2008)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 387 Order served on Jonathan T. Foot, Carlotta Wells. (Duong, D) (Entered: 11/04/2008)
388 PLAINTIFF(S) MID LITIGATION STATEMENT by William Rouser. (Riggs, Jennifer) Modified on 11/25/2008 (Plummer, M). (Entered: 11/24/2008)

Case: 2:93-cv-00767-LKK-GGH As of: 06/19/2014 12:18 PM PDT 34 of 45

11/24/2008 11/25/2008 12/17/2008 12/23/2008 12/23/2008 02/09/2009 02/09/2009 02/09/2009 02/09/2009
02/09/2009
02/09/2009
02/09/2009 02/11/2009 02/11/2009 02/12/2009

389 MID LITIGATION STATEMENT by Amicus American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California. Attorney Flynn, James Edmund added. (Flynn, James) Modified on 11/25/2008 (Plummer, M). (Entered: 11/24/2008)
390 CORRECTED MID LITIGATION STATEMENT by Defendants Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, James Gomez. (Flynn, James) Modified on 11/26/2008 (Plummer, M). (Entered: 11/25/2008)
391 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motions by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, James Gomez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Flynn, James) (Entered: 12/17/2008)
392 ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 12/23/08 ORDERING that the time for filing dispositive motions is extended to February 9, 2009, and that hearing on the motions be held on March 23, 2009. (Becknal, R) (Entered: 12/23/2008)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 392 Order served on Jonathan T. Foot, and Carlotta Wells (Becknal, R) (Entered: 12/23/2008)
393 REQUEST for Leave to Exceed Page Limitation by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, James Gomez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Flynn, James) (Entered: 02/09/2009)
394 MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, James Gomez. Motion Hearing set for 3/23/2009 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 4 (LKK) before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. (Attachments: # 1 Points and Authorities)(Flynn, James) (Entered: 02/09/2009)
395 STATEMENT of Undisputed Facts by Defendants Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, James Gomez re 394 MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A through E, # 2 Exhibit F Through M, # 3 Exhibit N Through Q)(Flynn, James) (Entered: 02/09/2009)
396 EXHIBIT R Through V to Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Facts re 394 MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed by Matthew Cates, James Gomez, J. Yates, Theo White. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit R − Part 1, # 2 Exhibit R − Part 2, # 3 Exhibit S and T, # 4 Exhibit U, # 5 Exhibit V)(Flynn, James) (Entered: 02/09/2009)
397 EXHIBIT W Through SS to Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Facts re 394 MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed by Matthew Cates, James Gomez, J. Yates, Theo White. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit W, # 2 Exhibit X Through Z, # 3 Exhibit AA−DD, # 4 Exhibit EE Through MM, # 5 Exhibit NN−SS)(Flynn, James) (Entered: 02/09/2009)
398 EXHIBIT TT Through LLL to Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Facts re 394 MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed by Matthew Cates, James Gomez, J. Yates, Theo White. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit TT, # 2 Exhibit UU, # 3 Exhibit VV Through ZZ, # 4 Exhibit AAA Through EEE, # 5 Exhibit FFF Through LLL)(Flynn, James) (Entered: 02/09/2009)
399 EXHIBIT MMM Through WWW to Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Facts re 394 MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed by Matthew Cates, James Gomez, J. Yates, Theo White. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit MMM Through WWW)(Flynn, James) (Entered: 02/09/2009)
400 ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 2/11/09 ORDERING that 393 dfts' request for leave to file a 32 pg memo of law in support of their motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. (Kastilahn, A) (Entered: 02/11/2009)
401 NOTICE of Filing Amended Exhibits by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, James Gomez re 395 Statement − R. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Exhibit Q, # 2 Amended Exhibit S)(Flynn, James) (Entered: 02/11/2009)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 400 Order served on Jonathan T. Foot and Carlotta Wells. (Kastilahn, A) (Entered: 02/12/2009)

Case: 2:93-cv-00767-LKK-GGH As of: 06/19/2014 12:18 PM PDT 35 of 45

02/24/2009 03/02/2009 03/03/2009 04/03/2009 04/03/2009
04/13/2009 04/13/2009 04/13/2009 04/13/2009 04/13/2009 04/13/2009

402 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for Continuance of Hearing on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment by William Rouser. (Riggs, Jennifer) (Entered: 02/24/2009)
403 STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 3/2/09 ORDERING that the hearing on Defendants' 394 Motion for Summary Judgment, currently calendared for 3/23/09 at 10:00 a.m., is continued to 4/20/09 at 10:00 a.m. Any opposition or reply papers shall be served and filed pursuant to the timing provisions of Local Rule 78−230 prior to the continued hearing date. (Becknal, R) (Entered: 03/03/2009)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 403 Stipulation and Order served on Jonathan T. Foot and Carlotta Wells. (Becknal, R) (Entered: 03/03/2009)
404 NOTICE of APPEARANCE by Lin Wang on behalf of William Rouser. Attorney Wang, Lin added. (Wang, Lin) (Entered: 04/03/2009)
405 OPPOSITION to defendants motion for summary judgment 394 by William Rouser. (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiff's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, # 2 Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Facts, # 3 Plaintiff's Statement of Disputed Facts in Support of Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, # 4 Plaintiff's Request For Judicial Notice in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, # 5 Plaintiff's Evidentiary Objections, # 6 Decl. of W. Rouser in Support of Pltf's Opp. to Mtn. for Summary Judgment and Exhibits 1−8 and 11 Par 1 of 4.PDF, # 7 Decl. of W. Rouser − Exhibits 12−24 Part 2 of 4, # 8 Decl. of W. Rouser − Exhibits 25−42 Part 3 of 4, # 9 Decl. of W. Rouser − Exhibits 43−45 Part 4 of 4, # 10 Second Declaration of William Rouser, # 11 Declaration of Kajauna Irvin in Support of Pltf's Opp. to Defs' Mtn. for Summary Judgment, # 12 Declaration of Lin Wang in Support of Plt's Opp. to Defs' Mtn. for Summary Judgment and Exhibits 52−53 Part 1 of 5, # 13 Declaration of Lin Wang − Exhibits 54−55 Part 2 of 5, # 14 Declaration of Lin Wang − Exhibits 56−58 Part 3 of 5, # 15 Declaration of Lin Wang − Exhibits 59−60 Part 4 of 5, # 16 Declaration of Lin Wang − Exhibit 61 Part 5 of 5, # 17 Declaration of Douglas Hysell in Support of Plt's Opp. to Mtn. for Summary Judgment, # 18 Declaration of Melvin Reed in Support of Pltf's Opp. to Mtn. for Summary Judgment, # 19 Declaration of Oliver Vann in Support of Pltf's Opp. to Defs' Mtn. for Summary Judgment, # 20 Declaration of Claude Powell in Support f Pltf's Opp. to Defs' Mtn. for Summary Judgment, # 21 Declaration of Marcus Barnhardt in Support of Pltf's Opp. to Defs' Mtn. for Summary Judgment, # 22 Declaration of Patrick McCollum in Support of Pltf's Opp. to Mtn. for Summary Jugdment)(Wang, Lin) Modified on 4/6/2009 (Plummer, M). (Entered: 04/03/2009)
406 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for Request to Exceed Page Limitation for MSJ Reply Brief by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, James Gomez. (Flynn, James) (Entered: 04/13/2009)
407 REPLY by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, James Gomez to RESPONSE to 394 Motion for Summary Judgment. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − E)(Flynn, James) (Entered: 04/13/2009)
408 REPLY/RESPONSE to Plaintiff's Evidentiary Objections by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, James Gomez re 407 Reply to Response to Motion, 406 Stipulation and Proposed Order. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Joshua Irwin)(Flynn, James) (Entered: 04/13/2009)
409 REPLY/RESPONSE to Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Statement of Undisputed Facts by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, James Gomez re 405 Opposition to Motion,,,,,,,,. (Irwin, Joshua) (Entered: 04/13/2009)
410 OBJECTIONS by Defendants Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, James Gomez. to Plaintiffs Evidence in Support of Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment (Irwin, Joshua) (Entered: 04/13/2009)
411 CERTIFICATE of SERVICE by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, James Gomez re 409 Reply/Response, 410 Objections. (Irwin, Joshua) (Entered: 04/13/2009)

Case: 2:93-cv-00767-LKK-GGH As of: 06/19/2014 12:18 PM PDT 36 of 45

04/14/2009 04/14/2009 04/14/2009
04/15/2009 04/16/2009 04/17/2009 04/22/2009
04/22/2009 05/04/2009 05/08/2009
05/15/2009 05/19/2009 06/12/2009 06/12/2009 06/15/2009

412 MINUTE ORDER (TEXT ONLY) by CRD. The parties are hereby notified that the hearing on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 394 , currently set for 04/20/2009, is CONTINUED TO 4/24/2009 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 4 (LKK) before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. (Rivas, A) (Entered: 04/14/2009)
413 NOTICE of Filing Corrected Amended Exhibit Q by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, James Gomez re 394 Motion for Summary Judgment. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Q, # 2 Att 1 to Ex Q)(Flynn, James) (Entered: 04/14/2009)
414 REQUEST for Continuance of Hearing on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, James Gomez re 394 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Matthew Cates, James Gomez, J. Yates, Theo White, 412 Minute Order,, Set/Reset Motion Hearing,. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Flynn, James) (Entered: 04/14/2009)
415 STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 4/14/09 ORDERING that the page limitation to Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is extended to 18 pages.(Mena−Sanchez, L) (Entered: 04/15/2009)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 415 Stipulation and Order, served on Jonathan T. Foot, Carlotta Wells. (Mena−Sanchez, L) (Entered: 04/16/2009)
416 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for Continuance of Pretrial Conference − Joint by William Rouser. (Riggs, Jennifer) (Entered: 04/17/2009)
417 ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 4/21/2009. Defendants' 394 Motion for Summary Judgment Hearing is CONTINUED to 5/8/2009 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 4 (LKK). Pretrial Conference and Trial dates set in this matter are VACATED and will be re−set at 5/8/2009 Hearing. (Marciel, M) (Entered: 04/22/2009)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 417 Order re−setting the Motion Hearing served on attorneys Jonathan T. Foot and Carlotta Wells. (Marciel, M) (Entered: 04/22/2009)
418 REPLY/RESPONSE to Defendants Objections To Plaintiffs Evidence In Support Of Plaintiffs Opposition To Defendants Motion For Summary Judgment by William Rouser re 405 Opposition to Motion. (Riggs, Jennifer) Modified on 5/5/2009 (Dillon, M). (Entered: 05/04/2009)
419 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings held before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton: MOTION HEARING held on 5/8/2009 re 394 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Matthew Cates, James Gomez, J. Yates, Theo White. After oral argument, the motion stands SUBMITTED. Court order to follow. Plaintiffs Counsel Jenny Riggs, Lin Wang present. Defendants Counsel James Flynn, Josh Irwin present. Court Reporter: C. Bodene. (Rivas, A) (Entered: 05/08/2009)
420 ORDER signed by Judge Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 5/14/09 ORDERING that Defendants' MOTION 394 is DENIED as to Defendants Cate and Yates and GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, as to Defendants White and Gomez. (Mena−Sanchez, L) (Entered: 05/15/2009)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 420 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment served on Jonathan T. Foot, Carlotta Wells. (Mena−Sanchez, L) (Entered: 05/19/2009)
421 NOTICE of APPEAL by Theo White, James Gomez as to 420 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment May 14, 2009 Order)(Flynn, James) (Entered: 06/12/2009)
RECEIPT number #CAE200017633 $455.00 fbo Theo White and James Gomez by State of CA on 6/12/2009. (Kastilahn, A) (Entered: 06/12/2009)
422 APPEAL PROCESSED to Ninth Circuit re 421 Notice of Appeal filed by James Gomez, Theo White. Filed dates for Notice of Appeal *6/12/2009*, Complaint *5/7/1993* and Appealed Order / Judgment *5/15/2009*. Court Reporter: *Cathy Bodene*. *Fee Status: Paid on 6/12/2009 in the amount of $455.00* ** (Attachments: # 1 Appeal Notice)(cc: USCA) (Plummer, M) Modified on 6/15/2009 (Plummer, M). (Entered: 06/15/2009)

Case: 2:93-cv-00767-LKK-GGH As of: 06/19/2014 12:18 PM PDT 37 of 45

06/15/2009 06/16/2009
09/11/2009 09/11/2009
09/11/2009 09/11/2009 09/11/2009 09/11/2009 09/11/2009 09/11/2009 09/11/2009 09/11/2009 09/11/2009
09/24/2009
09/25/2009

SERVICE BY MAIL: 422 Appeal Processed to USCA, served on Jonathan T. Foot, Carlotta Wells. (Plummer, M) (Entered: 06/15/2009)
423 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 5−8−2009, before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton, filed by Court Reporter Cathie Bodene, Phone number 916−446−6360 E−mail cbodene@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 PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction must be filed within 5 court days. Redaction Request due 7/7/2009. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/17/2009. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/14/2009. (Bodene, C) (Entered: 06/16/2009)
424 NOTICE of APPEARANCE by Jason Corbitt Wright on behalf of William Rouser. Attorney Wright, Jason Corbitt added. (Wright, Jason) (Entered: 09/11/2009)
425 MOTION Preliminary Injunction by William Rouser. (Attachments: # 1 Points and Authorities, # 2 Proposed Order , # 3 Declaration of William Rouser − Part 1 of 3, # 4 Declaration of William Rouser − Part 2 of 3, # 5 Declaration of William Rouse − Part 3 of 3, # 6 Declaration of Rickey Adams , # 7 Declaration of Marcus Barnhardt , # 8 Declaration of James J. Burian, # 9 Declaration of Jeffrey Goldstein , # 10 Declaration of Jason Scott Harper, # 11 Declaration of Tramaine Hunter)(Wright, Jason) Modified on 9/15/2009 (Dillon, M). (Entered: 09/11/2009)
426 DECLARATION of Douglas Hysell in Support of 425 MOTION Preliminary Injunction. (Wright, Jason) (Entered: 09/11/2009)
427 DECLARATION of Douglas Hysell (Second) in Support of 425 MOTION Preliminary Injunction. (Wright, Jason) (Entered: 09/11/2009)
428 DECLARATION of Kevin Iloff in Support of 425 MOTION Preliminary Injunction. (Wright, Jason) (Entered: 09/11/2009)
429 DECLARATION of Kajuana Irvin in Support of 425 MOTION Preliminary Injunction. (Wright, Jason) (Entered: 09/11/2009)
430 DECLARATION of Claude Powell in Support of 425 MOTION Preliminary Injunction. (Wright, Jason) (Entered: 09/11/2009)
431 DECLARATION of Melvin Reed in Support of 425 MOTION Preliminary Injunction. (Wright, Jason) (Entered: 09/11/2009)
432 DECLARATION of Lin Wang in Support of 425 MOTION Preliminary Injunction. (Wright, Jason) (Entered: 09/11/2009)
433 DECLARATION of William Rouser (Second) in Support of 425 MOTION Preliminary Injunction. (Wright, Jason) (Entered: 09/11/2009)
434 MOTION Supplement Third Amended Complaint by William Rouser. (Attachments: # 1 Points and Authorities Plaintiff's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Supplement Third Amended Complaint, # 2 Proposed Order [PROPOSED] Order Granting Leave to Supplement Third Amended Complaint, # 3 Declaration Declaration of Lin Wang in Support of Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement the Third Amended Complaint − Part 1 of 2, # 4 Declaration Declaration of Lin Wang in Support of Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement the Third Amended Complaint − Part 2 of 2)(Wright, Jason) (Entered: 09/11/2009)
435 MOTION (Ex Parte Request) to Continue Hearing And MOTION to Extend Time To Oppose Plaintiffs Motions For Preliminary Injunction And MOTION To File Fourth Amended And Supplemental Complaint by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, James Gomez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−Declaration of James E. Flynn, # 2 Exhibit A−Attachment 1, # 3 Declaration of Service via Mail)(Flynn, James) Modified on 9/25/2009 (Yin, K). (Entered: 09/24/2009)
436 RESPONSE by William Rouser to 435 MOTION to CONTINUE. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Riggs, Jennifer) (Entered: 09/25/2009)

Case: 2:93-cv-00767-LKK-GGH As of: 06/19/2014 12:18 PM PDT 38 of 45

09/25/2009
09/25/2009 09/30/2009 10/05/2009 10/08/2009
10/08/2009 11/02/2009 11/04/2009 11/05/2009 11/06/2009 11/10/2009 11/13/2009 11/17/2009 11/19/2009 12/07/2009

437 ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 9/25/09 ORDERING the hearing on 425 Motion for Preliminary Injunction and 434 Motion to Supplement Third Amended Complaint is CONTINUED to 10/20/2009 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 4 (LKK) before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. Defendants shall submit either an opposition or a statement of non−opposition by 10/6/09, unless the matter has settled before that time or the court has further continued the matter. Plaintiff's reply brief, if any, shall be submitted not later than 10/13/09. (Donati, J) (Entered: 09/25/2009)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 437 Order served on Jonathan T. Foot, Carlotta Wells. (Donati, J) (Entered: 09/25/2009)
438 DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE., attorney David A. Carrillo terminated (Carrillo, David) (Entered: 09/30/2009)
439 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for Continuance of Hearings On Motions For Preliminary Injunction And To Supplement Third Amended Complaint by William Rouser. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Riggs, Jennifer) (Entered: 10/05/2009)
440 ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 10/7/2009 ORDERING The hearings on 425 Pltf's Motion for Preliminary Injunction and 434 Motion to Supplement the 3rd Amended Complaint, currently calendared for 11/20/2009 at 1:30 p.m., are CONTINUTED to 12/7/2009 at 10:00 a.m., to give the Court sufficient time to rule on the motions before 12/21/2009, the date of pltf's Yule. The current briefing schedule is amended as followed: Dfts shall submit either an opposition or a statement of non−opposition to each motion by 11/5/2009, unless the matter has settled before that time or the Court has further continued the matter. Pltf's reply briefs shall be submitted no later than 11/19/2009. (Reader, L) Modified on 10/9/2009 (Plummer, M). (Entered: 10/08/2009)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 440 Order, served on Jonathan T. Foot, Carlotta Wells. (Reader, L) (Entered: 10/08/2009)
441 STIPULATION TO CONTINUE HEARING ON MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by William Rouser. (Riggs, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/02/2009)
442 PROPOSED ORDER re 441 Stipulation Continuing Hearing by William Rouser. (Riggs, Jennifer) Modified on 11/5/2009 (Yin, K). (Entered: 11/04/2009)
443 OPPOSITION by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, James Gomez to 434 MOTION Supplement Third Amended Complaint. (Flynn, James) (Entered: 11/05/2009)
444 PROPOSED ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. (Riggs, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/06/2009)
445 STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 11/10/09: HEARING as to 425 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction set for 2/22/2010 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 4 (LKK) before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. (Kaminski, H) (Entered: 11/10/2009)
446 NOTICE of Association of Counsel by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, James Gomez. Attorney Angus, Michelle Leigh added. (Angus, Michelle) (Entered: 11/13/2009)
447 NOTICE of Association of Counsel by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, James Gomez. Attorney Ramsey, Samantha H. added. (Ramsey, Samantha) (Entered: 11/17/2009)
448 REPLY by William Rouser re 434 MOTION Supplement Third Amended Complaint. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jason Wright in Support of Plaintifff's Reply in Support of Motion to Supplement the Third Amended Complaint)(Wright, Jason) (Entered: 11/19/2009)
449 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings held before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton: MOTION HEARING held on 12/7/2009 re 434 Plaintiff's MOTION To Supplement Third Amended Complaint filed by William Rouser. Motion granted. Court shall issue order. Plaintiffs Counsel Jason Wright, John Sasaki present.

Case: 2:93-cv-00767-LKK-GGH As of: 06/19/2014 12:18 PM PDT 39 of 45

12/10/2009
12/11/2009 12/15/2009 12/15/2009 01/11/2010 01/13/2010 01/14/2010 01/14/2010 01/14/2010
01/14/2010 01/15/2010
01/15/2010 01/15/2010

Defendants Counsel Michelle Angus, James Flynn present. Court Reporter/CD Number: C. Bodene. (Narcisse, M) (Entered: 12/07/2009)
450 ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 12/10/2009 re 434 Motion to Supplement the Complaint; this Motion 434 is DENIED as to pltf's initial request to add a claim for damages as to dft Haws; this Motion 434 is otherwise GRANTED; pltf shall re−file this complaint as a separate document. (Suttles, J) (Entered: 12/10/2009)
451 [DISREGARD − See doc. 452 ] AMENDED PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT against all defendants by William Rouser.(Wang, Lin) Modified on 12/15/2009 (Engbretson, K.). (Entered: 12/11/2009)
452 FOURTH AMENDED PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT against all defendants by William Rouser.(Riggs, Jennifer) (Entered: 12/15/2009)
453 REQUEST to terminate attorney Samantha H. Ramsey from service (Ramsey, Samantha) Modified on 1/14/2010 (Benson, A.). (Entered: 12/15/2009)
454 JOINT STIPULATION re Defendant's Deadline for Filing Responsive Pleading to Fourth Amended and Supplemented Complaint by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, James Gomez. (Angus, Michelle) Modified on 1/14/2010 (Benson, A.). (Entered: 01/11/2010)
455 DECLARATION of William Rouser in support of 425 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Wright, Jason) (Entered: 01/13/2010)
PARTY UPDATE: P Ortiz, and B. Flores, and Brian Haws added. (Benson, A.) (Entered: 01/14/2010)
456 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for Alter Briefing Schedule for Plantiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction by William Rouser. (Wright, Jason) (Entered: 01/14/2010)
457 ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT SERVICE DOCUMENTS and USM−285 Forms signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 01/13/10. Service is appropriate for P Ortiz, B. Flores, Brian Haws. Clerk to send plaintiff: 1 Summons, 3 USM−285 Forms and 1 copy of the Amended Complaint filed on 12/15/09 to be completed and returned w/i 10 days. Within 10 days, counsel for dfts shall inform the court in writing whether counsel for dfts Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, and James Gomez will waive service of process on behalf of dfts Ortiz, Flores, and Haws. (Attachments: # 1 4th amended complaint)(Benson, A.) (Entered: 01/14/2010)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 1 Summons, 3 USM−285 Forms and instructions mailed to plf's counsel. (Benson, A.) (Entered: 01/14/2010)
458 STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton re 456 on 1/15/2010 ORDERING that the hearing on Plaintiff's 425 Motion for Preliminary Injunction shall proceed as scheduled on February 22, 2010. The current briefing schedule is amended as followed: Defendants shall submit either an opposition or a statement of non−opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction by February 4, 2010, unless the matter has settled before that time or the Court has further continued the matter. Plaintiff's reply briefs shall be submitted no later than February 12, 2010. (Duong, D) (Entered: 01/15/2010)
459 ANSWER TO PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT with Jury Demand by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, P Ortiz, B. Flores, Brian Haws, James Gomez. Attorney Angus, Michelle Leigh added. (Angus, Michelle) (Entered: 01/15/2010)
460 MOTION to DISMISS by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, P Ortiz, B. Flores, Brian Haws, James Gomez. (Attachments: # 1 Points and Authorities, # 2 Declaration of G. Duran in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, # 3 Declaration of D. Foston in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss)(Angus, Michelle) (Entered: 01/15/2010)

Case: 2:93-cv-00767-LKK-GGH As of: 06/19/2014 12:18 PM PDT 40 of 45

01/19/2010 01/19/2010 01/25/2010 01/29/2010 01/29/2010 02/02/2010 02/02/2010
02/03/2010
02/04/2010 02/04/2010 02/04/2010 02/04/2010 02/04/2010 02/04/2010

461 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, P Ortiz, B. Flores, Brian Haws, James Gomez. Amendment to 460 MOTION to DISMISS. (Angus, Michelle) (Entered: 01/19/2010)
462 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, P Ortiz, B. Flores, Brian Haws, James Gomez. Amendment to 460 MOTION to DISMISS. (Angus, Michelle) (Entered: 01/19/2010)
463 NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS: One Summons, 3 USM−285 Forms, and 3 copies of the amended complaint by William Rouser. (Duong, D)(Service docs forwarded to LKK's chambers pursuant to GGH Chambers request on 1/27/10) Modified on 1/27/2010 (Plummer, M). (Entered: 01/26/2010)
464 ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 1/29/2010, ORDERING the Clerk to send pltf three blank USM−285 forms; and within 30 days, pltf shall submit to the court the completed USM−285 forms required to effect service.(Kastilahn, A) (Entered: 01/29/2010)
SERVICE BY MAIL: Mailed three blank USM−285 forms to pltf's counsel, Jason Corbitt Wright.(Kastilahn, A) (Entered: 01/29/2010)
465 MOTION To File Documents Under Seal; Memorandum of Points and Authorities by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, P Ortiz, B. Flores, Brian Haws, James Gomez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Angus, Michelle) (Entered: 02/02/2010)
466 NOTICE Of Filing Sealed Document by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, P Ortiz, B. Flores, Brian Haws, James Gomez re 465 MOTION To File Documents Under Seal; Memorandum of Points and Authorities. (Angus, Michelle) Modified on 2/2/2010 (Matson, R).(Documents received and routed to chambers) (Entered: 02/02/2010)
467 ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 2/3/2010 ORDERING that Because defendant's opposition is due tomorrow, the court tentatively grants defendant's 465 motion to file Exhibit J, Attachment 2 under seal, and subject only to in camera review. Plaintiff shall file an opposition or statement of nonopposition to defendants' motion to file documents under seal on or before February 9, 2010. Depending on the court's resolution of this motion, plaintiff may seek a reasonable extension of time to file his reply brief to his motion for a preliminary injunction, which is currently set to be filed on or before February 12, 2010.(Duong, D) (Entered: 02/03/2010)
468 OPPOSITION by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, P Ortiz, B. Flores, Brian Haws, James Gomez to 425 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Attachments: # 1 Unpublished Cases, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B part 1, # 4 Exhibit B part 2, # 5 Exhibit B part 3)(Angus, Michelle) (Entered: 02/04/2010)
469 EXHIBIT C−E by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, P Ortiz, B. Flores, Brian Haws, James Gomez re 468 Opposition to Motion,. (Angus, Michelle) (Entered: 02/04/2010)
470 EXHIBIT F part 1 by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, P Ortiz, B. Flores, Brian Haws, James Gomez re 468 Opposition to Motion,. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit F part 2, # 2 Exhibit F part 3, # 3 Exhibit F part 4, # 4 Exhibit F part 5, # 5 Exhibit F part 6)(Angus, Michelle) (Entered: 02/04/2010)
471 EXHIBIT G−I by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, P Ortiz, B. Flores, Brian Haws, James Gomez re 468 Opposition to Motion,. (Angus, Michelle) (Entered: 02/04/2010)
472 EXHIBIT J part 1 by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, P Ortiz, B. Flores, Brian Haws, James Gomez re 468 Opposition to Motion,. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit J part 2, # 2 Exhibit J part 3, # 3 Exhibit J Attachment 2)(Angus, Michelle) (Entered: 02/04/2010)
473 EXHIBIT K−O by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, P Ortiz, B. Flores, Brian Haws, James Gomez re 468 Opposition to Motion,. (Angus, Michelle) (Entered: 02/04/2010)

Case: 2:93-cv-00767-LKK-GGH As of: 06/19/2014 12:18 PM PDT 41 of 45

02/04/2010 02/04/2010 02/04/2010 02/04/2010
02/05/2010 02/07/2010 02/08/2010 02/08/2010
02/08/2010
02/08/2010 02/10/2010 02/12/2010 02/12/2010 02/12/2010 02/16/2010 02/19/2010

474 EXHIBIT P−S by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, P Ortiz, B. Flores, Brian Haws, James Gomez re 468 Opposition to Motion,. (Angus, Michelle) (Entered: 02/04/2010)
475 EXHIBIT T−Z by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, P Ortiz, B. Flores, Brian Haws, James Gomez re 468 Opposition to Motion,. (Angus, Michelle) (Entered: 02/04/2010)
476 OBJECTIONS by Defendants Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, P Ortiz, B. Flores, Brian Haws, James Gomez. (Angus, Michelle) (Entered: 02/04/2010)
477 MOTION for Evidentiary Hearing Re: Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction; Declaration of Counsel; Offer of Proof by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, P Ortiz, B. Flores, Brian Haws, James Gomez re 468 Opposition to Motion, filed by Matthew Cates, James Gomez, Brian Haws, B. Flores, J. Yates, P Ortiz, Theo White. (Angus, Michelle) Modified on 2/5/2010 (Dillon, M). (Entered: 02/04/2010)
478 OPPOSITION by William Rouser to 460 MOTION to DISMISS. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Wright, Jason) (Entered: 02/05/2010)
479 OPPOSITION to 465 Motion to File Documents Under Seal by William Rouser. (Wright, Jason) Modified on 2/8/2010 (Engbretson, K.). (Entered: 02/07/2010)
480 EXHIBIT Plaintiff William Rouser's Appendix of Unplublished Cases in Support of His Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss re 460 MOTION to DISMISS filed by Matthew Cates, James Gomez, Brian Haws, B. Flores, J. Yates, P Ortiz, Theo White. (Wright, Jason) (Entered: 02/08/2010)
481 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings held before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton: IN CHAMBERS CONFERENCE held on 2/8/2010. Evidentiary Hearing set for 3/3/2010 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 4 (LKK) before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. Plaintiffs Counsel Jason Wright present. Defendants Counsel Michelle Angus present. (Narcisse, M) (Entered: 02/08/2010)
482 ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 2/8/2010 ORDERING that an evidentiary hearing is set for the purpose of obtaining testimony of Lisa Morgenstern on 3/3/2010 at 10:00 AM. The hearing for 425 Motion for Preliminary Injunction and 460 Motion to Dismiss is CONTINUED to 3/3/2010. Dfts shall inform the court by 2/10/2010 whether it should (a) strike Exhibit J Attachment 2 to Dfts' Opposition to Pltf's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, (b) redact the names of the confidential informants contained in this exhibit and serve the redacted exhibit to pltf, or (c) designate the exhibit to be for attorneys' eyes only and serve the exhibit to pltf's counsel. Pltf may file a response, if any, by 2/12/2010. (Engbretson, K.) (Entered: 02/08/2010)
483 NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS: 3 USM−285 Forms, by William Rouser. (Reader, L) (Entered: 02/09/2010)
484 NOTICE of Withdrawl of Exhibit J Attachment 2 of Defendants' Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, P Ortiz, B. Flores, Brian Haws, James Gomez. (Angus, Michelle) (Entered: 02/10/2010)
485 MEMORANDUM by William Rouser in SUPPORT of 425 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Wright, Jason) (Entered: 02/12/2010)
486 RESPONSE by William Rouser to 425 Motion for Preliminary Injunction, 476 Objections. (Wright, Jason) (Entered: 02/12/2010)
487 OBJECTIONS by Plaintiff William Rouser to 486 Response. (Wright, Jason) (Entered: 02/12/2010)
488 REPLY by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, P Ortiz, B. Flores, Brian Haws, James Gomez to RESPONSE to 460 MOTION to DISMISS. (Angus, Michelle) (Entered: 02/16/2010)
489 DECLARATION of G. Duran re 488 Reply to Response to Motion. (Angus, Michelle) (Entered: 02/19/2010)

Case: 2:93-cv-00767-LKK-GGH As of: 06/19/2014 12:18 PM PDT 42 of 45

02/22/2010
02/22/2010 02/26/2010 02/26/2010 02/26/2010 03/01/2010 03/01/2010 03/02/2010 03/02/2010
03/03/2010
03/03/2010
03/03/2010 03/10/2010 03/18/2010

490 ORDER DIRECTING USM to serve * amended complaint * filed on * 12/15/09,* on * P Ortiz, B. Flores, Brian Haws*, signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 2/22/10 ORDERING that the clerk is directed to forward plaintiff's instructions for service, the completed summons, copies of the complaint and this order to the USM. The clerk is directed to serve plaintiff with local rules. (cc USM Priority) (Becknal, R) (Entered: 02/22/2010)
491 CONSENT or Decline forms issued, due by 3/29/2010 (Becknal, R) (Entered: 02/22/2010)
492 OBJECTIONS by Plaintiff William Rouser to 489 Declaration. (Wright, Jason) (Entered: 02/26/2010)
493 NOTICE of withdrawal of Jenny Riggs as counsel of record for plaintiff by William Rouser. (Riggs, Jennifer) Modified on 3/1/2010 (Plummer, M). (Entered: 02/26/2010)
494 DECLINE to PROCEED BEFORE US MAGISTRATE JUDGE by William Rouser. (Wang, Lin) (Entered: 02/26/2010)
495 MOTION [to] Vacate Evidentiary Hearing Set for March 3, 2010 by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, P Ortiz, B. Flores, Brian Haws, James Gomez re 482 Order. Attorney Flynn, James Edmund added. (Flynn, James) Modified on 3/2/2010 (Plummer, M). (Entered: 03/01/2010)
496 RESPONSE by William Rouser to 495 Request,. (Wright, Jason) (Entered: 03/01/2010)
497 REPLY by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, P Ortiz, B. Flores, Brian Haws, James Gomez re 496 Response. (Flynn, James) (Entered: 03/02/2010)
498 ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 3/2/10 ORDERING that Defendants' Request to vacate evidentiary heraing 495 is DENIED. Defendants have filed a reply to Plaintiff's opposition. In this reply, defendants raise several objections that will be heard at the hearing. If Plaintiff is unable to procure Ms. Morgenstern's appearance at the hearing, these objections will be moot. (Mena−Sanchez, L) (Entered: 03/02/2010)
499 MINUTES for proceedings held before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton: EVIDENTIARY and MOTION HEARING held on 3/3/2010. Defense shall file affidavit of Mr. Omeira within 15 days. Plaintiff shall file responsive affidavit or demand for cross examination 15 days thereafter. Motion for Preliminary Injunction 425 and Motion to Dismiss 462 SUBMITTED. Plaintiffs Counsel Jason Wright, John Sasaki present. Defendants Counsel James Flynn, Michelle Angus present. Court Reporter/CD Number: C. Bodene. (Attachments: # 1 Main Document) (Narcisse, M) Modified on 4/30/2010 (Rivas, A). (Entered: 03/04/2010)
500 AMENDED MINUTES for proceedings held before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton: EVIDENTIARY and MOTION HEARING held on 3/3/2010. Defense shall file affidavit of Mr. Omeira within 15 days. Plaintiff shall file responsive affidavit or demand for cross examination 15 days thereafter. Motion for Preliminary Injunction 425 and Motion to Dismiss 462 SUBMITTED. Plaintiffs Counsel Jason Wright, John Sasaki present. Defendants Counsel James Flynn, Michelle Angus present. Court Reporter/CD Number: C. Bodene. (Attachments: # Main Document) (Narcisse, M). Modified on 4/30/2010 (Rivas, A). (Entered: 03/04/2010)
513 EXHIBITS to EVIDENTIARY HEARING held on 03/03/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Request for Evidentiary Hearing; # 2 Exhibit B − Declaration of Lisa Morgenstern). (Rivas, A) Modified on 4/30/2010 (Rivas, A). (Entered: 04/30/2010)
501 ORDER denying 460 dfts' Motion to Dismiss, signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 3/9/2010. (Kastilahn, A) (Entered: 03/10/2010)
502 DECLARATION of Chaplain A. Omeira in Response to Testimony of L. Morgenstern. (Flynn, James) (Entered: 03/18/2010)

Case: 2:93-cv-00767-LKK-GGH As of: 06/19/2014 12:18 PM PDT 43 of 45

03/22/2010 03/30/2010 04/02/2010 04/02/2010 04/07/2010
04/07/2010 04/15/2010 04/15/2010 04/28/2010 04/29/2010
05/04/2010

503 ANSWER TO PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT with Jury Demand by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, P Ortiz, B. Flores, Brian Haws, James Gomez. (Angus, Michelle) (Entered: 03/22/2010)
504 NOTICE of APPEARANCE by Kara Backus on behalf of William Rouser. Attorney Backus, Kara added. (Backus, Kara) (Entered: 03/30/2010)
505 DECLARATION of William Rouser in SUPPORT OF 425 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Backus, Kara) (Entered: 04/02/2010)
506 OBJECTIONS by Plaintiff William Rouser to 502 Declaration. (Backus, Kara) (Entered: 04/02/2010)
507 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on March 3rd, 2010, before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton, filed by Court Reporter Cathie Bodene, Phone number 916−446−6360 E−mail cbodene@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 PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction must be filed within 5 court days. Redaction Request due 4/28/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/10/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/6/2010. (Bodene, C) (Entered: 04/07/2010)
508 OBJECTIONS by Defendants Theo White, Matthew Cates, P Ortiz, B. Flores, Brian Haws, James Gomez to 506 Objections, 505 Declaration. (Flynn, James) (Entered: 04/07/2010)
509 ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 4/15/2010 GRANTING 425 Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, as to the relief described; and the court further ORDERS that plaintiff shall not be required to post bond. (Reader, L) (Entered: 04/15/2010)
510 WAIVER of SERVICE RETURNED EXECUTED: P Ortiz Waiver sent on 3/8/2010, B. Flores Waiver sent on 3/8/2010, Brian Haws Waiver sent on 3/8/2010. (Carlos, K) (Entered: 04/16/2010)
511 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for Preliminary Injunction by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, P Ortiz, B. Flores, Brian Haws, James Gomez. (Flynn, James) (Entered: 04/28/2010)
512 STIPULATION AND ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 4/28/2010 ORDERING 509 the Court issued an order for a preliminary injunction. Defendants will appeal that order to the Court of Appeal for the 9th Circuit. Dfts will file that appeal on or before 5/7/2010. The parties have conferred with the Chief Circuit Mediator and have agreed to participate in the mediation of the case in its entirety, including, but not limited to the preliminary injunction order, the appeal of this Court's order denying qualified immunity for dfts Gomez and White, and any additional cases or matters which they agree to mediate. The parties are considering mediation dates in late May or early June of 2010. The Chief Circuit Mediator has advised the parties that a stay of the appeal will be issued pending mediation, when dfts' appeal is filed. Because of those facts, the parties agree that dfts are not required to first seek a stay of enforcement of the preliminary injunction in the district court. If the parties are unable to mediate the dispute, and the stay of the appeal pending mediation is lifted, the parties agree that pltf can move the district court for enforcement of the preliminary injunction, and dfts can oppose that motion or move for a stay in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal. In the event the parties are unable to mediate the dispute, and the stay of appeal is lifted, the parties agree that the preliminary injunction will take effect as if entered by the Court on the date the stay of appeal is lifted. (Reader, L) Modified on 4/29/2010 (Reader, L). (Entered: 04/29/2010)
514 NOTICE of INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL by dfts as to 509 Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction and 420 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment. Attorney Flynn, James Edmund added. (Attachments: # 1 Standing Order 5/15/2009 [CR 420], # 2 Standing Order 4/15/2010 [CR 509], # 3 Statement of Representation)(Flynn, James) Modified on 5/7/2010 (Yin, K). (Entered: 05/04/2010)

Case: 2:93-cv-00767-LKK-GGH As of: 06/19/2014 12:18 PM PDT 44 of 45

05/05/2010 05/07/2010 05/12/2010 05/17/2010 05/17/2010 05/24/2010
06/07/2010 06/23/2010 06/29/2010 06/29/2010 06/30/2010

RECEIPT number #CAE200025966 $455.00 fbo Bush, Theo White, J Yates, Matthew Cates, P. Ortiz, B. Flores, Brian Haws, and James Gomez by State of CA on 5/5/2010. (Kastilahn, A) (Entered: 05/05/2010)
515 APPEAL PROCESSED to Ninth Circuit re 514 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal, filed by Matthew Cates, Bush, James Gomez, Brian Haws, B. Flores, J. Yates, P Ortiz, Theo White. Filed dates for Notice of Appeal *5/4/2010*, Complaint *5/7/1993* and Appealed Order / Judgment *4/15/2010*. Court Reporter: *C. Bodene*. *Fee Status: Paid on 5/5/2010 in the amount of $455.00* ** (Attachments: # 1 Appeal Information) (Yin, K) (Entered: 05/07/2010)
516 USCA CASE NUMBER 10−16066 for 514 Notice of Appeal, filed by Matthew Cates, Bush, James Gomez, Brian Haws, B. Flores, J. Yates, P Ortiz, Theo White. (Engbretson, K.) (Entered: 05/12/2010)
517 MOTION for RECONSIDERATION re 512 Order for Preliminary Injunction by Members of the Spotted Eagle Circle, Lancaster State Prison. (Owen, K) (Entered: 05/18/2010)
518 MOTION to Intervene by Members of the Spotted Eagle Circle. (Attachments: # 1 Interveners' Answer)(Matson, R) Modified on 6/30/2010 (Matson, R). (Entered: 05/18/2010)
519 ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 5/24/2010 ORDERING that the 518 motion to intervene, is GRANTED. The court has determined that it may be appropriate to appoint counsel for the interveners. For this reason, the court orders the Clerk of Court to serve copies of this order, the court's order granting in part plaintiff's 509 motion for a preliminary injunction, and the 517 518 interveners motions, upon California Indian Legal Services at the following addresses: 609 S. Escondido Boulevard Escondido, CA 92025; and 3814 Auburn Boulevard, Suite 72 Sacramento, CA 95821. California Indian Legal Services shall inform the court within thirty (30) days of the issuance of this order whether it will represent the interveners in this action. If the organization declines to represent the interveners the court will seek alternative volunteer counsel for them. The court stays enforcement of the April 15, 2010 order pending resolution of the intervener's motion to reconsider as to only the following relief: that defendants grant Mr. Rouser access to the fire pit adjacent to the Native American sweat lodge during religious services; that when Wiccan services are scheduled, defendants must allow Mr. Rouser to access the outdoor, nature−based religious area for group services for the entire scheduled time, unless the Yard is on modified program and no religious group is allowed to meet that day only insofar as access to this area interferes with the interveners' religious practice. (cc California Indian Legal Services w/#509, 517, 518)(Duong, D) (Entered: 05/24/2010)
520 REQUEST for case disposition and copy of docket sheet by Andrew Kicking Horse. (Return address not provided on letter − response not sent)(Marciel, M) Modified on 6/11/2010 (Rivas, A). (Entered: 06/08/2010)
521 NOTICE of Acceptance of Appointment as Counsel by Spotted Eagle Circle. Attorney Radoff, Mark A added. (Radoff, Mark) (Entered: 06/23/2010)
PARTY UPDATE: S. Melton, C. Weyant, T. Nguyen, L. Nguyen, D. Lee, G. Hinkle, C. Russ, D. Robinson, S. Baek, K. Lee, D. Sims, S. Dado, D. Reese and James Terres added. (Duong, D) (Entered: 06/29/2010)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 519 Order on Motion for Intervention served on S. Baek, S. Dado, G. Hinkle, D. Lee, K. Lee, S. Melton, L. Nguyen, T. Nguyen, D. Reese, D. Robinson, C. Russ, D. Sims, James Terres, C. Weyant. (Duong, D) Modified on 6/30/2010 (Duong, D). (Entered: 06/29/2010)
522 ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 6/30/2010 ORDERING The interveners shall inform the court w/in 14 days if they accept representation by CILS. A failure to respond will be deemed acceptance of CILS. (2) The court currently lacks jurisdiction over its order granting, in part, plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction. Accordingly, it cannot hear the motion to reconsider the order at this time. Because the parties have represented that they are actively engaged in mediation, the court declines at this time to request that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals allow this court to reconsider its order granting, in part,

Case: 2:93-cv-00767-LKK-GGH As of: 06/19/2014 12:18 PM PDT 45 of 45

06/30/2010 06/30/2010 07/23/2010 07/27/2010
07/30/2010 09/08/2011 09/23/2011
09/23/2011 10/17/2011
10/18/2011
10/20/2011
11/09/2011 11/30/2011 02/13/2012

plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction. If mediation is unsuccessful, the parties are ORDERED to inform the court within seven (7) days of the end of mediation. It is the courts understanding that the interveners may participate in the mediation. Attorneys from CILS may only participate in the mediation if the interveners consent to representation by them. (3) The Clerk of Court is instructed to serve this order and the May 24, 2010 order, Dkt. No. 519, upon the intervening members of the Spotted Eagle Circle.(Matson, R) (Entered: 06/30/2010)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 522 Order, served on S. Baek, S. Dado, G. Hinkle, D. Lee, K. Lee, S. Melton, L. Nguyen, T. Nguyen, D. Reese, D. Robinson, C. Russ, D. Sims, James Terres, C. Weyant. (Matson, R) (Entered: 06/30/2010)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 519 Order, served on S. Baek, S. Dado, G. Hinkle, D. Lee, K. Lee, S. Melton, L. Nguyen, T. Nguyen, D. Reese, D. Robinson, C. Russ, D. Sims, James Terres, C. Weyant. (Matson, R) (Entered: 06/30/2010)
523 NOTICE of Acceptance of Representation for Interveners by Spotted Eagle Circle. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Radoff, Mark) (Entered: 07/23/2010)
524 ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 7/27/10 ORDERING the court DISMISSES intervenor Sims from this action for his failure to keep the court apprised of his current address; and the court MODIFIES its order granting the motion to intervene 519 to include A. McCarter as an intervenor. (Carlos, K) (Entered: 07/27/2010)
525 CERTIFICATE of SERVICE by Spotted Eagle Circle re 523 Notice . (Radoff, Mark) Modified on 8/10/2010 (Yin, K). (Entered: 07/30/2010)
526 ORDER of USCA for 421 514 Notices of Appeal: these Appeals are DISMISSED without prejudice to reinstatement; parties shall bear their own costs; and this Order shall act as Mandate of 9th Circuit (Marciel, M) (Entered: 09/08/2011)
527 JOINT MOTION for Order Approving Settlement and Transferring Venue by Matthew Cates, B. Flores, James Gomez, Brian Haws, P Ortiz, Theo White, J. Yates. Motion hearing set for 10/24/11 at 10:00 a.m. in courtroom 4 before Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum)(Flynn, James) Modified on 9/26/2011 (Plummer, M). (Entered: 09/23/2011)
528 JOINT SETTLMENT AGREEMENT by Matthew Cates, B. Flores, James Gomez, Brian Haws, P Ortiz, Theo White, J. Yates. (Flynn, James) Modified on 9/26/2011 (Plummer, M). (Entered: 09/23/2011)
529 STATEMENT of Non Opposition to Joint Settlement Agreement &Joint Ntc and Motion for Order Approving Settlement &Transfering Venue and Request to Appear Telephonically by Intervenor Plaintiff Spotted Eagle Circle. (Radoff, Mark) (Entered: 10/17/2011)
530 ORDER granting 527 Motion to approve the settlement and transfer venue to Central District of California, Western Division signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 10/17/11: The hearing on the joint motion currently scheduled for October 24, 2011 is VACATED. (Kaminski, H) (Entered: 10/18/2011)
531 TRANSMITTAL of DOCUMENTS re 530 Order, on *10/18/2011* to * USDC* *Central District of California* *312 N. Spring Street* *Los Angeles, CA 90012*. * Volumes of Files: 7. Volumes of Expandable Folders: 2.* (Kaminski, H) (Entered: 10/20/2011)
OTHER COURT CASE NUMBER from Central District of California case number 2:11−cv−9123. (Donati, J) (Entered: 11/09/2011)
532 LETTER from Andrew Kicking Horse. (Kaminski, H) (Entered: 12/01/2011)
533 LETTER from George Hamilton requesting a copy of docket sheet. (Kaminski, H) Modified on 2/14/2012 (Kaminski, H). (Response Sent − This case was transferred to the USDC Central District of California on 10/18/2011, along with the record. Please contact the Central District, Case No. 2:11−cv−9123, with your request.) Modified on 2/17/2012 (Yin, K). (Entered: 02/14/2012)

 
 Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 1 of 70
(JEMx),APPEAL,CLOSED,DISCOVERY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (Western Division − Los Angeles)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:11−cv−09123−RGK−JEM

William Rouser v. Theo White, et al Assigned to: Judge R. Gary Klausner Referred to: Magistrate Judge John E. McDermott Demand: $0 Case in other court: 9th CCA, 13−56152
9th CCA, 18−55642
California Eastern, 2:93−cv−00767 Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 11/03/2011 Date Terminated: 03/13/2013 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights Jurisdiction: Federal Question

William Rouser

represented by William Rouser CDC C−10659 California State Prison − Sacramento B−6−124 PO Box 290066 Re, CA 95671 PRO SE

Carter C White King Hall Civil Rights Clinic UC Davis School of Law One Shields Avenue, Bldg. TB 30 Davis, CA 95616 (530) 752−5440 Fax: (530) 752−5788 TERMINATED: 06/19/2003

Jason Corbitt Wright Jones Day 555 South Flower Street 50th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071−2300 213−489−3939 Fax: 213−243−2539 Email: jcwright@jonesday.com TERMINATED: 03/28/2012

Jennifer Lauren Riggs 1700 Harding Avenue Altadena, CA 91001 626−799−6231 Email: JennyLRiggs@gmail.com TERMINATED: 03/28/2012

Kara Backus Jones Day 555 South Flower Street 50th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 213−243−2704 Fax: 213−243−2539 Email: kbackus@jonesday.com TERMINATED: 03/28/2012

Lin Wang Jones Day 555 South Flower Street Fiftieth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071−2300 213−489−3939

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 2 of 70
Fax: 213−243−2539 Email: linwang@jonesday.com TERMINATED: 03/28/2012
Philip Earl Cook Cook Law Firm PC 601 South Figueroa Street Suite 2050 Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−988−6100 Fax: 213−988−6099 Email: pcook@cooklawfirm.la TERMINATED: 03/28/2012
Richard G Bates , Jr Law Ofc Richard G Bates Jr 1040 1465 Enea Cir Concord, CA 94520 925−798−8055 Fax: 925−798−8009 TERMINATED: 04/30/2014
Susan Dee Christian Prison Law Office General Delivery San Quentin, CA 94964 415−457−9144 Fax: 457−9151 TERMINATED: 05/09/2003

V. Intervenor Plaintiff Spotted Eagle Circle
Intervenor Plaintiff T. Nguyen
Intervenor Plaintiff C. Russ

represented by Mark A Radoff California Indian Legal Services 609 South Escondido Boulevard Escondido, CA 92025 760−746−8941−102 Fax: 760−746−1815 TERMINATED: 07/10/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by T. Nguyen P−24706 CSP−LOS ANGELES COUNTY PO BOX 4430 LANCASTER, CA 93536−4430 PRO SE
Mark A Radoff (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/10/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by C. Russ E−94525 CSP−LOS ANGELES COUNTY PO BOX 4430

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 3 of 70

LANCASTER, CA 93536−4430 PRO SE

Mark A Radoff (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/10/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff James Terres

represented by James Terres C−92246 CSP−LOS ANGELES COUNTY PO BOX 4430 LANCASTER, CA 93536−4430 PRO SE

Mark A Radoff (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/10/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Theo White Warden

represented by Danielle Rachel Hemple 300 South Spring Street Los Angeles, CA 90013 (213) 830−7311 Email: dhemple@gmail.com TERMINATED: 02/02/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gretchen K Buechsenschuetz CAAG − Office of Attorney General California Department of Justice 300 South Spring Street Suite 1702 Los Angeles, CA 90013 213−620−2286 Fax: 213−897−7604 Email: gretchen.buechsenschuetz@doj.ca.gov (Inactive) TERMINATED: 02/02/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Todd Grabarsky CAAG − Office of Attorney General California Department of Justice 300 South Spring Street Suite 1702 Los Angeles, CA 90013 213−269−6044 Fax: 213−897−7604 Email: Todd.Grabarsky@doj.ca.gov TERMINATED: 02/02/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Constance Lee Picciano Office of the Attorney General 1300 I Street, Ste. 1101

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 4 of 70

P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244−2550 (916) 322−6453 Fax: (916) 324−5205 TERMINATED: 01/27/2005

James Edmund Flynn Attorney General of the State of California 1300 I Street P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244−2550 (916) 323−1976 Fax: (916) 324−5205 TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph R Wheeler CAAG − Office of the Attorney General 1300 I Street Suite 125 Sacramento, CA 95814 916−210−7315 Email: joseph.wheeler@doj.ca.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua Casey Irwin Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General 1515 Clay Street # 2000, POB 70550 Oakland, CA 94612−0550 510−622−2213 Fax: 510−622−2121 TERMINATED: 01/24/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle L Angus CAAG − Office of the Attorney General California Department of Justice 1300 I Street Suite 125 Sacramento, CA 94244−2550 916−445−2395 Fax: 916−324−5205 Email: Michelle.Angus@doj.ca.gov (Inactive) TERMINATED: 01/24/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samantha H. Ramsey Attorney General's Office for the State of California Department of Justice 1300 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814 916−324−5165 Fax: 916−324−5205 TERMINATED: 12/15/2009

Defendant
E W Meads Protestant Chaplain TERMINATED: 12/15/2009

represented by Constance Lee Picciano (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/27/2005

David A. Carrillo Attorney General's Office of the State of

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 5 of 70

California P.O. Box 70550 1515 Clay Street 20th Floor Oakland, CA 94612−0550 510−622−2215 Fax: 510−622−2121 TERMINATED: 09/30/2009

James Edmund Flynn (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Joshua Casey Irwin (See above for address)

Defendant
Jack R Reagan Chief Inmate Appeal TERMINATED: 12/15/2009

represented by Constance Lee Picciano (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/27/2005

David A. Carrillo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/30/2009

James Edmund Flynn (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Joshua Casey Irwin (See above for address)

Defendant
James Gomez Director of Corrections

represented by Danielle Rachel Hemple (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gretchen K Buechsenschuetz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Todd Grabarsky (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Constance Lee Picciano (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/27/2005

James Edmund Flynn (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph R Wheeler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 6 of 70

Joshua Casey Irwin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/24/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle L Angus (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/24/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samantha H. Ramsey (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/15/2009

Defendant
AUSA USA TERMINATED: 12/15/2009

represented by Carlotta Wells United States Department of Justice Civil Division PO Box 883 Washington, DC 20044 202−514−3146 LEAD ATTORNEY

Jonathan T. Foot Federal Programs Branch Civil Division P O Box 883 Washington, DC 20044 202−524−2301 LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant
James E. Tilton TERMINATED: 12/15/2009

represented by David A. Carrillo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/30/2009

Fiel Dizon Tigno Office of Attorney General 1515 Clay St 20F PO Box 70550 Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 622−2100 Fax: (510) 622−2270 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Edmund Flynn (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Joshua Casey Irwin (See above for address)

Defendant J. Yates

represented by Danielle Rachel Hemple (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gretchen K Buechsenschuetz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 7 of 70

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Todd Grabarsky (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David A. Carrillo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/30/2009

Fiel Dizon Tigno (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/24/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Edmund Flynn (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph R Wheeler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua Casey Irwin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/24/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle L Angus (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/24/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samantha H. Ramsey (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/15/2009

Defendant Matthew Cates

represented by Danielle Rachel Hemple (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gretchen K Buechsenschuetz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Todd Grabarsky (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David A. Carrillo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/30/2009

James Edmund Flynn

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 8 of 70

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph R Wheeler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua Casey Irwin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/24/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle L Angus (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/24/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samantha H. Ramsey (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/15/2009

Defendant
P Ortiz Correctional Counselor II

represented by Danielle Rachel Hemple (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gretchen K Buechsenschuetz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Todd Grabarsky (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Edmund Flynn (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Joseph R Wheeler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle L Angus (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/24/2017

Defendant
B. Flores Correctional Counselor I

represented by Danielle Rachel Hemple (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gretchen K Buechsenschuetz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 9 of 70

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Todd Grabarsky (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Edmund Flynn (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Joseph R Wheeler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle L Angus (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/24/2017

Defendant
Brian Haws Warden LAC

represented by Danielle Rachel Hemple (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gretchen K Buechsenschuetz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle L Angus (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Todd Grabarsky (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Edmund Flynn (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph R Wheeler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Bush

represented by James Edmund Flynn (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus
American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

represented by James Edmund Flynn (See above for address)

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 10 of 70
TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Intervenor S. Melton
Intervenor C. Weyant
Intervenor L. Nguyen
Intervenor D. Lee
Intervenor G. Hinkle
Intervenor D. Robinson
Intervenor S. Baek
Intervenor K. Lee

represented by Mark A Radoff (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/10/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mark A Radoff (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mark A Radoff (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/10/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mark A Radoff (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/10/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mark A Radoff (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/10/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mark A Radoff (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/10/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mark A Radoff (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/10/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mark A Radoff (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/10/2018

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 11 of 70

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor
D. Sims TERMINATED: 07/27/2010

represented by D. Sims G−13643 CSP−LOS ANGELES PO BOX 4430 LANCASTER, CA 93536−4430 PRO SE

Intervenor S. Dado

represented by Mark A Radoff (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/10/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Andrew L Kicking Horse McCarter

represented by Mark A Radoff (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/10/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 05/07/1993 06/14/1993
06/23/1993 07/16/1993
08/24/1993 09/07/1993 09/27/1993 10/06/1993

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT to Honorable Lawrence K Karlton; Referred to Magistrate Gregory G Hollows; fee status request to proceed ifp; letter sent (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (et). (Entered: 05/07/1993)
2 ORDER by Magistrate Gregory G Hollows ORDERING pltf's request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED; court has determined service is appropriate for all deft's; clerk is directed to send pltf 4 USM−285 forms, summons and copy of complaint; pltf is DIRECTED to return completed forms within 30 days (cc: all counsel) (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (ja). (Entered: 06/14/1993)
3 NOTICE of submission of documents by plaintiff William Rouser; 1 completed summons, 4 completed USM forms, 4 copies of the complaint (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (ja). (Entered: 06/25/1993)
4 ORDER by Magistrate Gregory G Hollows ORDERING: Clerk of Court to issue summons; Clerk to forward summons, instructions for service of process, copies of complaint, copies of this order, copies of order filed 6/14/93 to USM; USM to serve process, copy of this order and copy of 6/14/93 order upon each dft; w/in 60 days USM to file return of service for each dft; all mtns to be briefed; pltf advised of requirements for opposing mtn for summary judgment made by dfts; mtn supported by unsigned affidavits or declarations will be striken; Clerk to serve upon pltf copy of Local Rules (cc: all counsel) (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (ja). (Entered: 07/16/1993)
5 RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon defendant Theo White, defendant E W Meads, defendant Jack R Reagan, defendant James Gomez on 8/19/93 (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (et). (Entered: 08/25/1993)
6 ANSWER by defendants and for jury demand (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (et). (Entered: 09/08/1993)
7 RESPONSE by plaintiff William Rouser to [6−1] deft's answer to complaint (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (ja). (Entered: 09/28/1993)
8 DISCOVERY ORDER AND ORDER REQUIRING STATUS REPORT by Magistrate Gregory G Hollows GOVERNING discovery in this action and

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 12 of 70

11/04/1993 01/10/1994 01/10/1994 01/10/1994 01/12/1994 02/14/1994 03/01/1994
03/22/1994 04/04/1994 04/22/1994
06/01/1994 06/22/1994 07/14/1994 08/08/1994 08/08/1994

ORDERING pltf shall file status report within 30 days and defts status report due 15 days thereafter; parties are advised they may consent to trial by the Magistrate judge (cc: all counsel) (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (ja). (Entered: 10/06/1993)
9 STATUS REPORT by plaintiff William Rouser (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (ja). (Entered: 11/05/1993)
10 MOTION by plaintiff William Rouser for request for records of previous status of proceedings to this pending action (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (ja). (Entered: 01/11/1994)
11 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION by plaintiff William Rouser for time extension or leave of absence under showing of probable cause pursuant to FRCP Local Rule 142 and suppporting exhbits memorandum plus declaration of pltf (old)[Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (ja). (Entered: 01/11/1994)
12 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff William Rouser in support of motion for time extension or leave of absence under showing of probable cause pursuant to FRCP Local Rule 142 [11−1] (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (ja). (Entered: 01/11/1994)
13 MOTION by plaintiff William Rouser for court order for preferred legal status to use legal library at CA State Prison (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 01/13/1994)
14 SUGGESTION OF DEATH ON THE RECORD by defendants of Jack Reagan (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 02/15/1994)
15 ORDER by Magistrate Gregory G Hollows ORDERING: Pltf's status report [9−1], motion for court order for preferred legal status to use legal library at CA State Prison [13−1], motion for reords and motion for extension or leave of absence under showing of probable cause pursuant to FRCP Local Rule 142 [11−1], and motion for request for records of previous status of proceedings to this pending action [10−1] are STRICKEN; Due to pltf's injury, pltf is GRANTED 30 days within to file a status report which complies with the court's order of 10/6/93 (cc: all counsel) (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 03/01/1994)
16 STATUS REPORT by plaintiff William Rouser (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 03/23/1994)
17 STATUS REPORT by defendants (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 04/05/1994)
18 SCHEDULING ORDER Magistrate Gregory G Hollows ; Discovery to be completed 8/5/94; Plaintiff's pretrial statement DUE 12/23/94; Deft's pretrial statment DUE 1/6/95; Pretrial Conference SET 1/13/95 bef GGH ; Jury Trial SET 4/11/95 at 10:00 bef LKK (cc: all counsel) (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 04/22/1994)
19 MOTION by plaintiff William Rouser for order to take judicial notice (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 06/02/1994)
20 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Gregory G Hollows ORDERING: plaintiff's 3/22/94 status report [16−1] shall be STRICKEN; plaintiff's 6/1/94 motion to take judicial notice [19−1] is DENIED (cc: all counsel) (kb)[Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 06/22/1994)
21 REQUEST to refile status report by plaintiff William Rouser (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 07/14/1994)
22 MOTION to compel production of documents for defendant Meads by plaintiff William Rouser (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 08/09/1994)
23 NOTICE of submission of documents by plaintiff William Rouser of letter to DAG (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 08/09/1994)

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 13 of 70

08/25/1994 08/29/1994
08/30/1994 09/02/1994
09/12/1994 09/21/1994 09/21/1994 09/21/1994
09/21/1994 09/21/1994 09/21/1994 09/28/1994 10/04/1994 10/14/1994
10/21/1994 10/21/1994 11/22/1994

LODGED Request for Extension of Time to File a Motion for Summary Judgment by defendants Theo White, E W Meads, Jack R Reagan, James Gomez (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 08/26/1994)
25 RESPONSE by defendants Theo White, E W Meads, Jack R Reagan, and James Gomez to motion to compel production of documents for defendant Meads by plaintiff William Rouser [22−1] (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 08/30/1994)
24 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Gregory G Hollows GRANTING request to file a status report [21−1] (cc: all counsel) (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 08/30/1994)
26 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Gregory G Hollows ORDERING: An additional period of time be allowed, to and including 11/22/94, to complete and file defendants' motion for summary judgment (cc: all counsel) (old)[Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 09/02/1994)
27 STATUS REPORT by plaintiff William Rouser (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 09/12/1994)
28 MOTION for summary judgment by plaintiff William Rouser (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 09/21/1994)
29 BRIEF by plaintiff William Rouser in support of Motion for summary judgment [28−1] (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 09/21/1994)
30 AFFIDAVIT of William Rouser in support of motion for summary judgment [28−1] (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (ja). (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/18/2012: # 1 Affidavit − Part I, # 2 Affidavit − Part II) (ja). (Entered: 09/21/1994)
31 MOTION for court order to use the telephone by plaintiff William Rouser (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (ja). (Entered: 09/23/1994)
32 REQUEST by plaintiff William Rouser for Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (ja). (Entered: 09/23/1994)
33 REQUEST by plaintiff William Rouser for Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (ja). (Entered: 09/23/1994)
LODGED request for extension of time by defendants to file opposition to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and further briefing schedule (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 09/29/1994)
34 OBJECTION to defendants request for extension of time [0−0] to file opposition to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (ndd) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (ja). (Entered: 10/05/1994)
35 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Gregory G Hollows ORDERING: Defendants' request to extend their time to file opposition to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and adopt the briefing schedule; Defendants motion for summary judgment and opposition to plaintiff's motion for sumamry judgment both must be filed by 11/22/94; Plaitniff's opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment and reply to defendants' opposition to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment must be filed by 12/13/94; Defendant's reply to plaintiffs' opposition to defendants' motion for summary jdugment must be filed by 12/21/94 (cc: all counsel) (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (ja). (Entered: 10/14/1994)
36 MOTION for preliminiary injunction by plaintiff William Rouser (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (ja). (Entered: 10/25/1994)
37 BRIEF by plaintiff William Rouser in support of preliminary injunction [36−1] (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (ja). (Entered: 10/25/1994)
38 MOTION by defendant Theo White for summary judgment (old) Modified on 07/10/1995 [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (ja). (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/9/2012: # 1 Motion − PartI, # 2 Motion − Part II) (ja).

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 14 of 70

12/01/1994 12/08/1994 12/15/1994 12/15/1994 12/15/1994 01/04/1995 01/12/1995 03/16/1995
03/23/1995 03/23/1995 03/31/1995

(Entered: 11/23/1994)
39 OPPOSITION by plaintiff William Rouser to motion for summary judgment [38−1] (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (ja). (Entered: 12/02/1994)
40 DEFENDANTS' REPLY to plaintiff's opposition to motion for summary judgment [38−1] (ndd) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (ja). (Entered: 12/09/1994)
41 NOTICE by plaintiff William Rouser regarding writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum for Neland Mitchell (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (ja). (Entered: 12/16/1994)
42 PROOF OF SERVICE by plaintiff William Rouser of pretrial statement and writo of habeas corpus ad testificandum (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (ja). (Entered: 12/16/1994)
43 PRETRIAL STATEMENT from plaintiff William Rouser (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (ja). (Entered: 12/16/1994)
LODGED request for extension of time to file pretrial statements by defendants (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 01/06/1995)
44 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Gregory G Hollows GRANTING lodged request for extension of time to file pretrial statements [0−0]; ORDERING: time for parties to file their pretrial statements EXTENDED pending an order on their respective motions for summary judgment and further order of the court (cc: all counsel) (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (ja). (Entered: 01/12/1995)
45 ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Magistrate Judge Gregory G Hollows ORDERING: motion to compel production of documents by defendant Meads by plaintiff William Rouser [22−1] DENIED; RECOMMENDING: pltf's motion for summary judgment [28−1] be granted as to his free exercise claim concerning tarot cards and denied in all other respects; dfts' motion for summary judgment [38−1] be denied as to pltf's claim regarding tarot cards and denial of the Witches Bible while in administrative segregation, but granted in all other respects; pltf's motion for preliminiary injunction [36−1] be granted w/ respect to his request for tarot cards; w/i 30 days of the date of the district court's order, dfts be directed to implement a proceduer by which pltf may possess tarot cards when he intends to perform Wiccan rituals; pltf and dfts shall provide further briefing regarding the request for the Wiccan Bible as discussed above w/i 3o days of the date of this order; and pltf's request for injunctive relief be denied in all other respects ; any party may object w/i 20 days after service; any reply due w/i 10 days of service of objections (cc: all counsel) (old) Modified on 03/16/1995[Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (ja). (Entered: 03/16/1995)
46 BRIEF by plaintiff William Rouser concerning denial of witches bible for summary judgment decission as ordered (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (ja). (Entered: 03/27/1995)
47 OBJECTIONS to magistrates findings and recommendations by plaintiff William Rouser [45−1] (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (ja). (Entered: 03/27/1995)
48 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton ADOPTING IN FULL findings and recommendations [28−1]; ORDERING: pltf's motion for summary judgment [28−1] GRANTED AS TO his free excercise claim concerning tarot cards and DENIED in all other respects; dfts' motion for summary judgment [38−1] is DENIED AS TO pltf's claim regarding tarot cards and denial of the Witches Bible while in administrative segregation, but GRANTED IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS; pltf's motion for preliminary injunction [36−1] GRANTED W/ RESPECT TO his request for tarot cards; dft shall implement a procedure by which pltf may possess tarot cards when he intends to perform Wiccan rituals w/i 30 days from the date of this order; pltf and dft shall provide further briefing regarding the request for the Wiccan Bible as discussed above w/i 30 days from the date of this order; and pltf's request for injunctive relief [36−1] DENIED IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS (cc: all counsel) (old)[Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (ja). (Entered: 03/31/1995)

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 15 of 70

04/05/1995 04/05/1995
04/07/1995
04/13/1995 04/21/1995 05/23/1995 05/25/1995 06/16/1995 06/19/1995 07/11/1995 07/11/1995 07/19/1995
07/19/1995 08/02/1995 08/03/1995
03/04/1996

50 OBJECTIONS by defendant Theo White to Magistrate's Report and Recommendation filed 3/16/95 (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (ja). (Entered: 04/07/1995)
LODGED request to vacate 3/31/95 order adopting findings and recommendations filed 3/16/95 by defendant Theo White, defendant E W Meads, defendant Jack R Reagan, defendant James Gomez (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 04/07/1995)
49 MINUTE ORDER in re to the Magistrate findings and recommendations in reference to defts motion for summary judgment; jury trial set for 4/11/95 has been VACATED ; AND trial will be RESET following disposition of deft's motion for summary judgment (cc: all counsel) (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (ja). (Entered: 04/07/1995)
51 OPPOSITION by plaintiff William Rouser to defts' request to vacate Findings and Recommendations (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (ja). (Entered: 04/17/1995)
52 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton vacating Order adopting Findings and Recommendations [48−1]; Matter is referred to GGH (cc: all counsel) (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (ja). (Entered: 04/21/1995)
53 SUPPLEMENT by defendants to the motion for summary judgment [38−1] (kb) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (ja). (Entered: 05/24/1995)
54 NOTICE by defendants of change of address to 1300 I Street, Suite 1101, Sacramento, CA 95814 (ndd) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (ja). (Entered: 05/30/1995)
55 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Gregory G Hollows ORDERING that the Dept of Justice shall file a notice of intervention within 3 weeks of service (cc: all counsel) (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (ja). (Entered: 06/16/1995)
56 NOTICE by defendants regarding intervention by the United States (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (ja). (Entered: 06/20/1995)
57 MOTION by defendant USA to intervene (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (ja). (Entered: 07/12/1995)
58 MEMORANDUM by defendant USA in support of its motion to intervene [57−1] (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (ja). (Entered: 07/12/1995)
59 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows: That plaintiff and defendants are granted 15 days from the date of this order to file briefing addressing the 7/11/95 memorandum (cc: all counsel) (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (ja). (Entered: 07/19/1995)
60 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows DENYING motion for court order to use the telephone by plaintiff William Rouser [31−1] (cc: all counsel) (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (ja). (Entered: 07/19/1995)
61 BRIEF in response to motion by defendant USA to intervene [57−1] by plt Rouser (ndd) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (ja). (Entered: 08/03/1995)
62 RESPONSE by defendants James Gomez, Jack R Reagan, E W Meads and Theo White to motion by defendant USA to intervene [57−1] and points and authorities of the United States (kb) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (ja). (Entered: 08/04/1995)
63 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows GRANTING motion by defendant USA to intervene [57−1] REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION recommending that pltf is entitled to summary adjudication with respect to his specific claims on use of tarot cards and the Wiccan (Witches) Bible insofar as defts claims that they has a legitmate penological interest in denying pltf these tools of his religion ; objection due within twenty (20) days from the date of this order (cc: all counsel) (old)[Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 03/04/1996)

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 16 of 70

03/21/1996 04/03/1996 04/11/1996 04/12/1996 04/18/1996 04/24/1996 05/24/1996 05/30/1996
06/03/1996 06/03/1996 06/07/1996
06/18/1996 06/20/1996
07/09/1996 08/09/1996 08/09/1996

64 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff William Rouser to Report and Recommendation (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 03/25/1996)
65 OBJECTIONS by defts'James Gomez, Jack R Reagan, E W Meads, Theo White to Report and Recommendation (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 04/08/1996)
66 OPPOSITION by plaintiff William Rouser to dft's objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations [65−1] (kdc) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 04/12/1996)
67 NOTICE by dfts of filing original signature page of dft Theo White's declaration to objections to findings and recommendations (kb) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 04/15/1996)
68 MEMORANDUM by defendants E W Meads, Jack R Reagan, James Gomez, USA, Theo White in support of objection to the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations [65−1] (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 04/19/1996)
69 NOTICE by plaintiff William Rouser of change of address to PO Box 7500 SHU Crescent City CA 95532 (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 04/26/1996)
70 REQUEST to file an amicus brief by ACLA (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 05/30/1996)
71 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton GRANTING ACLU until 6/24/96, in which to file an amicus curiae brief in the instant action filed 5/24/96 [70−1]; The Clerk is directed to serve a copy of this order upon Margaret C. Crobsy, American Civil Liberties Union, 1663 Mission Street, Suite 460, San Francisco, CA 94103; AND the consideration of the magistrate judge's pending findings and recommendations, pending the filing of the aforementioned brief by the ACLU [63−1], is DEFERRED (cc: all counsel) (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 05/30/1996)
72 REQUEST by defendants to reply to brief of amicus curiae (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 06/06/1996)
542 LODGED proposed Order GRANTING request for elave to file reply to amicus curiae brief by dfts Theo White, E W Meads, Jack R Reagan, James Gomez (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 06/06/1996)
73 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton GRANTING dft's request for leave to file a reply to the amicus brief of the American Civil Liberties Union; Good Cause Appearing, the request is GRANTED; the court hereby ORDERS dfts to file their reply brief, if any, on or before 7/26/96 (cc: all counsel) (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 06/07/1996)
LODGED Application to modify briefing schedule and Proposed Order by Amicus Curiae American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 06/20/1996)
74 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton: ACLU's amicus curiae brief to be filed by 7/9/96; supplemental brief by pltf State and intervenor USA to be filed by 8/9/96; optional reply brief of all parties including ACLU DUE 8/23/96 (cc: all counsel) (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/26/2012: # 1 APPLICATION) (mhe). (Entered: 06/20/1996)
75 AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF by American Civil in response to court Order [74−1] (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 07/10/1996)
76 RESPONSE by James Gomez, Jack R Reagan, Theo White, E W Meads to [75−1] (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 08/12/1996)
77 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM of the United States in support of the constituttionality of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (kdc) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 08/13/1996)

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 17 of 70

08/23/1996 08/23/1996 08/23/1996 08/27/1996 08/27/1996 08/28/1996
10/28/1996
11/29/1996 12/04/1996 12/04/1996 12/06/1996 12/10/1996 01/13/1997 01/15/1997
02/12/1997 03/07/1997

78 REPLY to supplemental memorandum of United States in support of constitutionality of religious freedom act by dfts Theo White, E W Meads, Jack R Reagan and James Gomez [77−1] (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 08/26/1996)
79 ENTRY OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for USA by Jonathan T Foot (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 08/27/1996)
80 REPLY MEMORANDUM by USA in support of constititionality of the Religion Freedom Restoration Act re: amicus curiae brief by American Civil Liberties Union [75−1] (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 08/27/1996)
81 REQUEST by plaintiff William Rouser for appointment of counsel and DECLARATION in support thereof (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 08/28/1996)
LODGED Findings and Order Appointing Counsel by plaintiff William Rouser (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 08/29/1996)
82 NOTICE by defendant USA of filing; dfts in the case submitted as an attachment to their dfts' response to Amicus Curiae Brief of American Liberties Union (filed 8/9/96), a copy of a petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in Flores v. City of Boerne, 73 F.3d 1352 (5th cir 1996); Intervenor USA hereby submits a copy of the Brief for the USA in opposition to that Petitioner for a Writ of Certiorari in Flores (old)[Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 08/29/1996)
83 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton: [63−1] the court will not adopt the FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION; pltf's and dfts' motions for summary judgment are DENIED; pltf's motion for preliminary injunction iS DENIED; the matter must be reserved for trial; the court is of the view that it is appropriate for it to retain the case for trial and WITHDRAWS the referral to Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows ; APPOINTING Sue Christianson as counsel for pltf William Rouser ; status conference SET for 2pm on 12/9/96 in Chambers (cc: all counsel) (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 10/28/1996)
84 STATUS REPORT by plaintiff William Rouser (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (ja). (Entered: 12/02/1996)
85 STATUS REPORT by dfts Jack R Reagan, James Gomez, Theo White, E Meads (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (ja). (Entered: 12/05/1996)
86 SUGGESTION OF DEATH ON THE RECORD by defendant E W Meads (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (ja). (Entered: 12/05/1996)
LODGED Stipulation to Continue Status Conference by plaintiff William Rouser (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 12/09/1996)
87 STIPULATION AND ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton CONTINUING scheduling conference from 12/9/96 to 1:30pm on 1/13/97 (cc: all counsel) (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (ja). (Entered: 12/10/1996)
89 MINUTES of status conference before Honorable Lawrence K Karlton: pretrial conference set for 1/20/98 at 2:30; jury trial set for 4/14/98 at 10:00; court order to follow (ljr) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (ja). (Entered: 01/15/1997)
88 STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) CONFERENCE ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERED that discovery ddl set for 9/1/97; motion filing ddl set for 11/3/97; pretrial conference set for 2:30 1/20/98; jury trial set for 10:00 4/14/98 (cc: counsel) (ndd) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (ja). (Entered: 01/15/1997)
90 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [1−1] by plaintiff William Rouser (ljr) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (et). (Entered: 02/13/1997)
91 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to dismiss pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1) by defendant James Gomez, Jack R Reagan, E W Meads, Theo White ; Hearing Set for

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 18 of 70

03/07/1997 04/21/1997 04/25/1997 05/05/1997 05/06/1997
06/16/1997 06/27/1997 07/14/1997 07/18/1997 07/23/1997 07/24/1997 07/29/1997
07/29/1997 07/30/1997 07/30/1997

5/5/97 at 10:00am (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (ja). (Entered: 03/10/1997)
92 ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT by defendants Gomez, Reagan, White and Meads; jury demand (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (ja). (Entered: 03/10/1997)
93 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff William Rouser in opposition to dfts' motion to dismiss [91−1] (ch) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (ja). (Entered: 04/22/1997)
94 DFTS' REPLY to plt's opposition to motion to dismiss pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1) [91−1] (ndd) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (ja). (Entered: 04/28/1997)
96 MINUTES of dft's motion to dismiss before Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton dft's motion to dismiss is DENIED; order to be prepared by the court (ljr) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (ja). (Entered: 05/06/1997)
95 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING pltf's claims for money damages under the California Constitution are DISMISSED; dfts' motion to dismiss pltf's fifth, sixth and seventh causes of action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief based on the CA Constitution is DENIED; dfts' motion to dismiss pltf's section 1983 claims for failure to exhaust is DENIED; and dfts' motion to dismiss pltf's surviving claims for damages for emotional distress is DENIED [19−1] (cc: all counsel) (ch) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (ja). (Entered: 05/06/1997)
97 EXPERT WITNESS list by defendants (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (ja). (Entered: 06/17/1997)
LODGED Appointed counsel's request for authority to incur costs by plaintiff William Rouser (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 07/01/1997)
101 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING appointed counsel's request for authority to incur costs; cost of hiring consultants will be no more than $3,000 [0−0] GRANTED (cc: all counsel) (ch)[Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 07/28/1997)
98 DISCLOSURE of expert witnesses by plaintiff William Rouser (kdc) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 07/22/1997)
99 LETTER to court from counsel for plaintiff William Rouser objecting to the advocacy contained the letter by Mr Flynn and request the matter be addressed in proper motion (ch) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 07/24/1997)
100 LETTER to court from counsel for defendant USA re pretrial matters concerning discovery (ljr) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 07/28/1997)
102 NOTICE OF MOTION and motion for protective order by plaintiff William Rouser , or, in the alternative motion for continuance of pretrial and trial deadlines by plaintiff William Rouser ; declaration; motion TO BE HEARD by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton; Motion Hearing Set For 9/22/97 at 10:00 (ljr) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 07/31/1997)
103 NOTICE OF MOTION and motion for relief from discovery cut−off; by plaintiff William Rouser ; memorandum of points and authorities; motion TO BE HEARD by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton; Motion Hearing Set For 9/22/97 at 10:00 (ljr)[Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 07/31/1997)
104 APPLICATION (MOTION) for order shortening time for hearing on pltf' motion for protective order by plaintiff William Rouser or in the alternative to continue pretrial and trial deadlines by plaintiff William Rouser and declaration of Susan Christian (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 08/01/1997)
105 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION of Susan D Christian in support of pltf's motion for continuance [102−1] or in alternative, motion for protective order [102−2] (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 08/01/1997)

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 19 of 70

08/05/1997
08/07/1997 08/11/1997 08/13/1997
08/22/1997 08/27/1997 10/31/1997 11/20/1997 12/05/1997 07/27/2001 08/21/2001
03/04/2002 03/04/2002 05/21/2002
02/24/2003 02/24/2003

106 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING HEARING VACATED re motions motion to modify the discovery deadline or for protective order by plaintiff William Rouser [103−1], [102−1], [102−2] scheduling conference for 10:00 am on 8/11/97 ; the parties are not required to file further status reports (cc: all counsel) (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 08/05/1997)
107 SUPPLEMENTAL STATUS REPORT by defendant [85−1] (ch) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 08/08/1997)
109 MINUTES of Status Conference before Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton; Court order to follow (ndd) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 08/13/1997)
108 STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING discovery ddl set for 2/2/98; motion hearing ddl set for 4/3/98; pretrial conference set 2:30 6/29/98; jury trial set for 10:00 9/9/98 (cc: all counsel) (ndd)[Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 08/13/1997)
LODGED Appointed counsel's request for payment of costs; order by plaintiff (ch) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 08/25/1997)
110 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING that payment to be made to the King Hall in the amount of $1,462.47 (cc: all counsel) (ndd) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 08/27/1997)
111 REQUEST by defendant James Gomez, Jack R Reagan, Theo White, E W Meads for settlement conference before assigned Magistrate Judge and Waiver of Claim of Disqualification (ch) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 11/03/1997)
LODGED notice of private settlement and stipulation and order for dismissal without prejudice by dfts James Gomez, Jack R Reagan, Theo White, and E W Meads (old) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 11/21/1997)
112 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING this action is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to the parties' private settlement of this action; CASE DISMISSED (cc: all counsel) (dd) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 12/05/1997)
LODGED " motion to resolve settlement and award sanctions due to dfts' contempt towards agreement" by plaintiff William Rouser (bd) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 07/30/2001)
113 ORDER by Gregory G Hollows Magistrate Judge ORDERING pltf's motion to resolve the settlement, lodged 7/27/01, is disregarded; Clerk is directed to serve a copy of this order on pltf, William Rouser, C−10659, PO Box 290066, CSP−Sacramento, Represa CA 95671−0066 (cc: all counsel) (bd) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 08/21/2001)
114 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to enforce private settlement agreement by plaintiff ; Motion Hearing not noticed (ak) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 03/05/2002)
115 PROOF OF SERVICE by plaintiff of [114−1] (ak) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 03/05/2002)
116 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING motion to enforce private settlement agreement by plaintiff [114−1] DISREGARDED; the Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on pltf William Rouser C−10659 and on the King Hall Civil Rightss Clinic (cc: all counsel) (ljr) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 05/21/2002)
117 DEMAND from plaintiff William Rouser "to his attorney for $4,400.00 that he may acquire an attorney" (bd) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 02/25/2003)
118 NOTICE by plaintiff William Rouser of continuing problems experienced during incarceration (bd) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe).

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 20 of 70

03/19/2003 04/09/2003 04/09/2003 05/08/2003 05/09/2003 05/23/2003
06/11/2003 06/19/2003
07/07/2003 08/01/2003 08/01/2003 08/06/2003 08/07/2003

(Entered: 02/25/2003)
119 ORDER by Gregory G Hollows Magistrate Judge ORDERING Clk to serve a copy of pltf's 2/24/03 pleadings [118−1], [117−1] on pltf's counsel; Clk is driected to serve a copy of this order on pltf William Rouser, C−10659, PO Box 290066, Represa CA 95671−0066 (cc: all counsel) (bd) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 03/19/2003)
120 REQUEST (MOTION) for Judicial notice by plaintiff William Rouser (mdk) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 04/10/2003)
121 AMENDED COMPLAINT by plaintiff William Rouser, and asking to reopen case (mdk) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/9/2012: # 1 Amended Complaint − Part II, # 2 Amended Complaint − Part III) (ja). (Entered: 04/10/2003)
122 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING that this court's 10/28/96 withdrawal of the referral is VACATED; Case REMANDED to Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows for all proceedings (cc: all counsel) (ndd) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 05/08/2003)
RESERVICE of DOCUMENT(S) #122 and 119 [122−2], [119−1] addressed to plaintiff William Rouser, defendant Theo White, defendant E W Meads, defendant Jack R Reagan, defendant James Gomez, defendant USA, amicus American Civil (pw) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 05/09/2003)
123 ORDER by Gregory G Hollows Magistrate Judge ORDERING that within 20 days of the date of this order, King Hall Civil Rights Clinic shall inform the court whether they intend to seek enforcement of the settlement and, if so, when; if King Hall informs the court they do not intend to seek enforcement of the settlement, pltf may file a notice of substitution of counsel within 30 days of the date of this order; Clk is directed to remove Susan Dee Christian from the service list (cc: all counsel) (bd)[Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 05/23/2003)
124 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to withdraw attorney by plaintiff ; Motion Hearing not noticed (nac) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 06/12/2003)
125 ORDER by Gregory G Hollows Magistrate Judge ORDERING motion to withdraw attorney by plaintiff [124−1] GRANTED; attorney Carter C White WITHDRAWN for William Rouser; within 30 days of the date of this order pltf shall file a declaration with the court including exhibits in support of his claim that dfts have breached the settlement agreement; dfts' responsive declaration and exhibits are due 30 days thereafter; no reply is required (cc: all counsel) (ljr) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 06/19/2003)
126 DECLARATION of William Rouser in response to order [125−1] (bd) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 07/08/2003)
LODGED request for extension of time to 8/15/03 for dfts to file response to pltf's declarations and exhibits alleging breach of the private settlement agreement filed 12/5/97 and [proposed] order by dfts James Gomez, Jack R Reagan, Theo White, and E W Meads (bd) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 08/04/2003)
127 REQUEST (motion) for Judicial notice by plaintiff William Rouser (bd) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 08/04/2003)
LODGED corrected request for 10 day extension of time to file response to pltf's declaration and exhibits alleging breach of the private settlement agreement filed 12/5/97 and [proposed order] by dfts James Gomez, Jack R Reagan, Theo White, and E W Meads (bd) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 08/07/2003)
LODGED Document: lodged on 8/1/03 (NOT TO BE SIGNED PER JUDGE) (bd) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 08/07/2003)

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 21 of 70

08/07/2003 08/11/2003 08/14/2003 08/27/2003 08/29/2003 09/02/2003 09/02/2003 09/02/2003 09/08/2003 09/19/2003 09/25/2003 11/06/2003 12/17/2003
01/15/2004 02/05/2004 02/09/2004

128 ORDER by Gregory G Hollows Magistrate Judge ORDERING dft's request for 10 day extension of time to file response to pltf's declaration and exhibits alleging breach of the private settlement agreement filed 12/15/97 is GRANTED (cc: all counsel) (bd) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 08/07/2003)
129 RESPONSE by plaintiff William Rouser to request by dfts for 10 day extension of time to file response to pltf's declarations and exhibits, entitled "Request for Judicial Notice" (bd) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 08/12/2003)
130 RESPONSE by dfts James Gomez, Jack R Reagan, E W Meads, and Theo White to order re settlement compliance [37−1] (bd) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/4/2012: # 1 PAGES 151−244) (mhe). (Entered: 08/15/2003)
131 REQUEST (motion) for Judicial notice by plaintiff William Rouser (bd) Modified on 08/28/2003 [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 08/28/2003)
132 RESPONSE by plaintiff William Rouser to dft's reply to order re settlement agreement [130−1] (bd) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 09/02/2003)
133 OPPOSITION by dfts James Gomez, Jack R Reagan, Theo White, E W Meads to motion to take judicial notice [131−1] (bd) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 09/03/2003)
134 AMENDED COMPLAINT submitted by pltfs Rouser, Hysell, Lyons, Demarco, Samano, and Spooner against dfts Pliler, Rosario, Hill, Goldsmith, Johnson, Willey, Carlson, and Jackson (bd) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 09/03/2003)
135 NOTICE of change of address of "David Spooner", named in 9/2/03 amended complaint as a plaintiff to action, to SVSP, PO Box 1030, Soledad CA 93960−1030 (bd) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 09/03/2003)
136 NOTICE by plaintiff William Rouser of no resolution to disputes re pagan/wiccan inmates entitled "motion to take judicial notice" (bd) Modified on 09/09/2003 [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 09/09/2003)
137 REPLY to response to motion for judicial notice dated 8/22/03 (hk) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 09/22/2003)
138 REQUEST (entitled "Motion") for Judicial Notice by plaintiff William Rouser (mm1) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 09/26/2003)
139 REQUEST (motion) for Judicial notice by plaintiff William Rouser (bd) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 11/07/2003)
140 ORDER by Gregory G Hollows Magistrate Judge ORDERING that the motions for judicial notice filed by plt [131−1] [136−1] [138−1] are disregarded; plt's amended complaint [134−1] is STRICKEN; no evidentiary hearing is required because dfts are in compliance with the 9/5/97, settlement agreement; FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION that to the extent plt has sought an enforcement of the settlement agreement, that request be denied without prejudice to its renewal (cc: all counsel) (ndd) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 12/17/2003)
141 OBJECTIONS TO FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS by plaintiff (nac) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 01/16/2004)
142 REQUEST for Judicial notice by plaintiff William Rouser (bd) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 02/06/2004)
143 MOTION for temporary restraining order Rouser and for preliminary injunction by plaintiff William Rouser ; no motion hearing date noticed (bd) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 02/10/2004)

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 22 of 70

02/09/2004 02/09/2004 02/19/2004 02/26/2004 03/15/2004 03/23/2004
03/23/2004 03/23/2004 04/07/2004
04/21/2004 04/27/2004 05/03/2004 05/03/2004 06/21/2004 06/23/2004
07/09/2004
07/09/2004

144 DECLARATION of William Rouser in support of motion for TRO [143−1] and preliminary injunction [143−2] (bd) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 02/10/2004)
145 PROOF OF SERVICE by plaintiff William Rouser of [144−1], [143−1], [143−2] (bd) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 02/10/2004)
146 NOTICE by plaintiff William Rouser of contact with prison officials regarding issue of construction of altar (bd) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 02/20/2004)
147 REQUEST (MOTION) by plaintiff to take judicial notice (mdk) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 02/27/2004)
148 NOTICE by "Doug Hysel" of change of address to PO Box 409000 Ione CA 95640 (am served); request for copies (bd) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 03/16/2004)
149 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING that the FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION [140−1] are ADOPTED in part and REJECTED in part as specified in this order, this case is REMANDED to the magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this opinion (cc: all counsel) (ndd) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 03/23/2004)
150 REQUEST (Motion) by plaintiff William Rouser for Writ of Mandate & Declaratory Relief (mm1) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 03/24/2004)
151 REQUEST (Motion) to take Judicial Notice by plaintiff William Rouser (mm1) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 03/24/2004)
152 ORDER by Gregory G Hollows Magistrate Judge ORDERING motion for temporary restraining order [143−1] or for preliminary injunction by plaintiff William Rouser [143−2] is VACATED; evidentiary hearing is set for 9:00 8/25/04 (cc: all counsel) (bd) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 04/07/2004)
153 NOTICE of related case(s) CIV−S 04−355 FCD DAD P by Douglas Hysell (mdp) Modified on 04/22/2004 [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 04/22/2004)
154 REQUEST (motion) for Judicial notice by plaintiff William Rouser (bd) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 04/28/2004)
155 FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCS by plaintiff William Rouser (bd) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 05/04/2004)
156 FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS by plaintiff William Rouser (bd) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 05/04/2004)
157 WITNESS list of incarcerated witnesses per order dated 4/7/04 by plaintiff (mdk) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/5/2012: # 1 WITNESS LIST) (mhe). (Entered: 06/22/2004)
158 NON−RELATED ORDER by Gregory G Hollows Magistrate Judge ORDERING that this action and CIV.S−04−355 FCD DAD P are not related within the meaning of LR 123(a) (cc: all counsel) (nac) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 06/23/2004)
159 ORDER AND WRIT ISSUED by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows ORDERING the issuance of writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum for William Rouser for hearing on 8/25/04; Warden George Stratton of CSP Sacramento to produce William Rouser at 9:00 8/25/04 in Courtroom 24; the custodian is ordered to notify the court of any change in custody of this inmate and is ordered to provide the new custodian with a copy of this writ; Clerk shall ser serve a copy of this order and writ on the Out−To−Court desk, CA State Prison (cc: all counsel) (mdk) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 07/09/2004)
160 ORDER by Gregory G Hollows Magistrate Judge ORDERING that at the 8/25/04 evidentiary hearing pltf may call as witnesses the four inmates identified in his 6/21/04

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 23 of 70

07/16/2004
07/16/2004
07/26/2004 07/26/2004 07/29/2004 07/29/2004 08/02/2004 08/04/2004 08/12/2004 08/13/2004 08/17/2004 08/17/2004 08/20/2004 08/20/2004 08/24/2004
09/02/2004

pleading [157−1]; dfts shall make these four imates available to tesify via video conference at the 8/25/04 evidentiary hearing (cc: all counsel) (mdk) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 07/09/2004)
161 ORDER by Gregory G Hollows Magistrate Judge ORDERING evidentiary hearing SET to begin at 9:00 on 8/24/04, not 8/25/04 as previous order indicated (cc: all counsel) (mdk) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 07/16/2004)
162 AMENDED ORDER and WRIT by Magistrate Judge Drozd for Magistrate Judge Hollows ORDERING issuance of writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum; Warden George Stratton of CSP Sacramento to produce William Rouser at 9:00 8/24/04 in Courtroom 24 before Judge Hollows; the custodian is ordered to notify the Court of any change in custody of this inmate and is ordered to provided the new custodian w/a copy of this writ; Clerk is to serve a copy of this amended order and writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum on the Out−To−Court Desk (cc: all counsel) (mdk) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 07/16/2004)
163 EXHIBIT AND WITNESS LIST for evidentiary hearing by dfts (bd) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/4/2012: # 1 PAGES 151−300, # 2 PAGES 300−365) (mhe). (Entered: 07/27/2004)
164 PRE−HEARING BRIEF AND MOTION to vacate evidentiary hearing by dfts James Gomez, Jack R Reagan, Theo White, and E W Meads ; no motion hearing date noticed (bd) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 07/27/2004)
165 BRIEF by plaintiff William Rouser per "order of April 4, 2004" (bd) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 07/30/2004)
168 EXHIBIT A − Private Settlement Agreement by plaintiff William Rouser (mdp) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 08/04/2004)
166 NON−INCARCERATED WITNESS list by plaintiff (nac) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 08/03/2004)
167 ORDER by Gregory G Hollows Magistrate Judge ORDERING motion to vacate evidentiary hearing date by dfts [164−1] DENIED (cc: all counsel) (mdk) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 08/04/2004)
169 OPPOSITION by plaintiff William Rouser to motion to vacate hearing date [164−1] (bd) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 08/13/2004)
170 REQUEST by dfts James Gomez, Jack R Reagan, Theo White, and E W Meads for reconsideration by district court of magistrate judge's ruling of 8/4/04 (bd) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 08/16/2004)
171 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING that, upon reconsideration, the order of the Magistrate Judge filed 8/4/04 [167−1] is AFFIRMED (cc: all counsel) (mdk) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 08/17/2004)
172 SUPPLEMENTAL WITNESS list by dfts (bd) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 08/18/2004)
173 OBJECTIONS to plt's Evidence [172−1] and motion in limine by dfts (ndd) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 08/23/2004)
174 SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBIT [163−1] by dfts (ndd) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 08/23/2004)
175 MINUTES before Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows of evidentiary hearing ; Richard Bates substituted in as counsel for pltf; Mr Bates requests a continuance of this matter; further briefing is due within 90 days, and the Court will set a new evidentiary hearing subject to discussion with counsel; the Court will also be issuing an order concerning this proceeding; C/R Dona Euler ECRO Tape 1 of 1 (mdk) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 08/25/2004)
176 PRE−HEARING ORDER by Gregory G Hollows Magistrate Judge: w/in 90 days of date of Order parties shall file Joint Pre−Hearing Statement as well as their Witness & Exhibit Lists Evidentiary Hearing RE−SET for 9:00 2/7/05 ; Clerk shall serve Order

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 24 of 70

09/16/2004 09/30/2004 11/30/2004 12/06/2004 12/08/2004
12/16/2004 12/16/2004 12/16/2004 01/05/2005 01/05/2005 02/08/2005
03/24/2005
03/30/2005 04/14/2005 04/22/2005 04/22/2005

on Richard G Bates; attorney Bates shall file a Substitution of Counsel forthwith (cc: all counsel) (mm1) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 09/02/2004)
177 REQUEST for reconsideration of magistrate judge's pre−hearing order filed 9/2/04 by dfts James Gomez, Jack R Reagan, E W Meads, and Theo White (bd) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 09/17/2004)
178 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING that upon reconsideration, the order of the magistrate judge filed 9/2/04 [176−1] is AFFIRMED (cc: all counsel) (ndd) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 09/30/2004)
179 PRE−HEARING STATEMENT by dfts James Gomez, Theo White, Jack R Reagan, and E W Meads (bd) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 12/01/2004)
180 REQUEST for Judicial notice by plaintiff (mdk) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 12/07/2004)
181 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows ORDERING that within 10 days of the date of this order, pltf to show cause for the failure to file a notice of substitution and for the failure to participate in the preparation of the joint pre−hearing statement; The Clerk is directed to amend court records to reflect that pltf's counsel is Richard G. Bates; attorney Richard G. Bates added for plaintiff ; The Clerk to serve this order on Mr. Bates (cc: all counsel) (nac) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 12/08/2004)
541 LODGED Notice of Enrollment of counsel by plaintiff William Rouser (ndd) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 12/17/2004)
182 DECLARATION of Richard G Bates Jr in response to OSC [181−2] (ndd) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (mhe). (Entered: 12/17/2004)
LODGED Stipulation for continuance of evidentiary hearing and for extension of time to comply with PTO by plaintiff William Rouser (ndd) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 12/17/2004)
183 ORDER signed by Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 1/5/05; 12/8/04 order to show cause is discharged. (Dotson, B) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 01/05/2005)
184 ORDER signed by Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 1/4/05 enrolling Richard G Bates as counsel for pltf. (Dotson, B) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 01/05/2005)
185 STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 1/4/2005 continuing evidentiary hearing to 9:00 6/6/05 and that time to comply with orders as stated in court's pre−trial order be extended to 3/25/05, and that a per−trial conference be set for 10:00 4/28/05. (Dotson, B) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 02/08/2005)
186 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER re Request for Extension of Time to file joint pre−hearing statement for evidentiary hearing by William Rouser. (Bates, Richard) Modified on 3/25/2005 (Dotson, B). [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 03/24/2005)
187 ORDER extending the time to file the Joint Pre−Hearing Statement 186 signed by Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 03/30/05. (Warren, P) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 03/30/2005)
188 REQUEST (motion) for judicial notice by William Rouser. (Dotson, B) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 04/15/2005)
189 WITNESS LIST by William Rouser. (Bates, Richard) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 04/22/2005)
190 STATEMENT of Joint Pre−Hearing Statement by Defendants Theo White, E W Meads, Jack R Reagan, James Gomez and Plaintiff, William Rouser (Bates, Richard). (Flynn, James) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered:

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 25 of 70

04/22/2005 04/22/2005 05/09/2005 06/24/2005 07/01/2005 07/12/2005
07/12/2005 08/09/2005 08/16/2005 08/16/2005 08/16/2005 08/16/2005 08/24/2005 09/14/2005 09/19/2005 09/19/2005

04/22/2005)
191 EXHIBIT LIST of Defendants by Theo White, E W Meads, Jack R Reagan, James Gomez.. (Flynn, James) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 04/22/2005)
192 WITNESS LIST by Theo White, E W Meads, Jack R Reagan, James Gomez. (Flynn, James) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 04/22/2005)
193 ORDER signed by Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 05/09/05: The evidentiary hearing set fo 06/06/05 is vacated without prejudice. (Warren, P) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 05/09/2005)
194 REQUEST (Motion) for JUDICIAL NOTICE by William Rouser. (Servantes, G) Modified on 6/27/2005 (Servantes, G). [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 06/27/2005)
195 MOTION for PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by William Rouser. (Attachments: # 1 Request to take Judicial Notice# 2 Proof of Service)(Servantes, G) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 07/05/2005)
196 ORDER signed by Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 7/12/05. Within 30 days of date of this Order parties shall file Status Reports as discussed. Following receipt of this briefing, Court will re−set Evidentiary Hearing. Clerk directed to serve Order on plaintiff at Mule Creek State Prison.(Marciel, M) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 07/12/2005)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 196 Order, served on Jonathan T. Foot, Carlotta Wells, and plaintiff William Rouser at Mule State State Prison PO Box 409202 Ione, CA 95640. (Marciel, M) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 07/12/2005)
197 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for Order Reinstating Action Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ?3626(c) by Theo White, E W Meads, Jack R Reagan, James Gomez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order # 2 Declaration of service)(Flynn, James) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 08/09/2005)
198 ORDER signed by Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 8/16/05 re 197 ORDERING that plt's motion for reinstatement is DENIED as moot . (Duong, D) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 08/16/2005)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 198 Order served on Jonathan T Foot, William Rouser, Carlotta Wells. (Duong, D) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 08/16/2005)
199 ORDER signed by Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 8/16/05 ORDERING that within 30 days of the date of this order, the parties shall submit status reports. (Duong, D) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 08/16/2005)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 199 Order served on Jonathan T Foot, William Rouser, Carlotta Wells .(Duong, D) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 08/16/2005)
200 REQUEST (MOTION) to take Judicial Notice of consistant violations settlement agreement and inaffective assist of counsel by William Rouser. (MAINTAIN ON PAPER) (Girgis, C) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Main Document 200 replaced on 1/25/2012) (mhe). (Entered: 08/25/2005)
201 STATUS REPORT by Defendants by Theo White, E W Meads, Jack R Reagan, James Gomez. (Flynn, James) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 09/14/2005)
202 MOTION TO COMPEL Plaintiff's Attorney to Return Plaintiff's Case Records by William Rouser. (Caspar, M) Modified on 9/26/2005 (Caspar, M). [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 09/21/2005)
203 APPLICATION/REQUEST (entitled "Motion") for Permission to File Supplemental Complaint by William Rouser. (Caspar, M) Modified on 9/26/2005 (Caspar, M). [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 09/21/2005)

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 26 of 70

09/20/2005 09/27/2005 10/06/2005 10/06/2005 10/19/2005
10/19/2005 11/10/2005
11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/18/2005 11/22/2005
11/22/2005 12/05/2005

204 APPLICATION/REQUEST for Temporary Restaining Orderand Preliminary Injunction by William Rouser. (Caspar, M) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 09/21/2005)
205 ORDER signed by Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 9/27/05 ordering that within ten days of the date of this order, plaintiff's counsel shall show cause for his failure to comply with the August 16, 2005, order. (Davis, D) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 09/27/2005)
206 DECLARATION of Richard G. Bates, Jr. (Bates, Richard) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 10/06/2005)
207 STATUS REPORT Plaintiff by William Rouser. (Bates, Richard) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 10/06/2005)
208 ORDER signed by Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 10/19/05 withdrawing 205 Order to show cause. Within 20 days of the date of this order Pla's counsel shall file a motion to withdraw as counsel; following receipt of that motion, court will issue further orders re the scheduling of this action. (Dotson, B) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 10/19/2005)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 208 Order served on Jonathan T Foot, William Rouser, and Carlotta Wells. (Dotson, B) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 10/19/2005)
209 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to WITHDRAW as ATTORNEY by William Rouser. Motion Hearing set for 1/5/2006 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 24 (GGH) before Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows. (Bates, Richard) Modified on 11/14/2005 (Dotson, B). [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 11/10/2005)
210 DECLARATION of Richard G. Bates, Jr in Support of re 209 MOTION to WITHDRAW as ATTORNEY. (Bates, Richard) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 11/10/2005)
211 MEMORANDUM/RESPONSE in SUPPORT re 209 MOTION to WITHDRAW as ATTORNEY. (Bates, Richard) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 11/10/2005)
212 MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER and PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by William Rouser. Declaration of William Rouser, proposed order, and exhibits. (Dotson, B) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 11/14/2005)
213 MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER and PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by William Rouser. Declaration of William Rouser and proposed order. (Dotson, B) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 11/14/2005)
214 NOTICE by William Rouser alleging harassment and intimidation. (Dotson, B) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 11/14/2005)
215 REQUEST for ruling on motions for by William Rouser. (Caspar, M) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 11/21/2005)
216 ORDER signed by Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 11/22/05 ordering that 212 and 213 motions for injunctive relief are vacated without prejudice to their renewal upon the filing of an amended complaint. The parties are placed on notice that no matter what the outcome of the motion to withdraw as counsel, this case will be placed on a strict schedule which will not be altered absent extraordinary cause. The Clerk shall serve Pltf Rouser at his last given address. (Kastilahn, A) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 11/22/2005)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 216 Order served on Jonathan T Foot, William Rouser and Carlotta Wells. (Kastilahn, A) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 11/22/2005)
217 [DISREGARD − UNSIGNED. DOCUMENT RE−FILED] CERTIFICATE of SERVICE by William Rouser. (Bates, Richard) Modified on 12/6/2005 (Dotson, B).

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 27 of 70

12/05/2005 12/05/2005 12/06/2005 12/12/2005 12/12/2005 12/12/2005 12/13/2005 12/13/2005 12/19/2005 01/04/2006 01/05/2006
01/09/2006 01/13/2006
01/13/2006

[Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 12/05/2005)
218 CERTIFICATE of SERVICE by William Rouser re 211 Memorandum/Response in Support of Motion, 209 MOTION to WITHDRAW as ATTORNEY, 210 Proof of Service, Rouser (Bates, Richard) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 12/05/2005)
CLERK'S NOTICE of DOCKET CORRECTION; Disregard document 217 Certificate of Service. Document was unsigned and re−filed. (Dotson, B) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 12/06/2005)
219 AMENDED COMPLAINT against all defendants, filed by William Rouser.(Kastilahn, A) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 12/07/2005)
220 MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER and PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by William Rouser. (Dotson, B) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 12/13/2005)
221 MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER and PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by William Rouser. (Dotson, B) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 12/13/2005)
222 MOTION for SANCTIONS by William Rouser. (Dotson, B) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 12/13/2005)
223 ORDER vacating 195 Motion for Preliminary Injunction without prejudice to its renewal upon the filing of an amended complaint signed by Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 12/12/05. (Dotson, B) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 12/13/2005)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 223 Order served on Jonathan T Foot, William Rouser, and Carlotta Wells. (Dotson, B) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 12/13/2005)
224 RESPONSE 209 Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Record by William Rouser. (Caspar, M) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 12/20/2005)
226 REQUEST (entitled motion) to take judicial notice by William Rouser. (Caspar, M) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 01/05/2006)
225 MINUTES for proceedings held before Judge Gregory G. Hollows : MOTION HEARING held on 1/5/2006 re 209 MOTION to WITHDRAW as ATTORNEY filed by William Rouser. The court grants Plaintiff's Counsel request. Plaintiff to submit an order for the court's signature Plaintiffs Counsel Richard Bates present. Court Reporter/CD Number: 1 of 1. (Callen, V) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 01/05/2006)
227 MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER and PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by William Rouser. (Dotson, B) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 01/10/2006)
228 ORDER signed by Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 1/13/06 ORDERING THAT the Amended Complaint 219 is DISREGARDED, MOTIONS for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 221 and 227 are DISREGARDED, MOTION for SANCTIONS 222 is DISREGARDED. Plaintiff is granted 30 days to file a supplemental complaint. Discovery due by 7/28/2006. Pretrial Motions due by 10/6/2006. Pltf's PTS due by 12/29/06. Dfts PTS due by 1/12/07. Pretrial Conference set for 1/19/2007 in Courtroom 24 (GGH) before Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows to be conducted on the file only. Jury Trial set for 3/27/2007 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 4 (LKK) before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. Clerk directed to add plaintiff William Rouser to the service list. (Donati, J) Modified on 1/19/2006 (Donati, J). [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 01/13/2006)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 228 Order served on Jonathan T Foot, William Rouser, Carlotta Wells (Donati, J) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 01/13/2006)

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 28 of 70

01/13/2006 01/30/2006
02/23/2006 02/27/2006 03/14/2006 03/21/2006 03/22/2006 03/22/2006
03/22/2006 03/30/2006 04/07/2006 06/29/2006 06/29/2006 06/29/2006 07/11/2006

230 OPPOSITION by William Rouser to 228 Scheduling Order. (Dotson, B) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 02/01/2006)
229 AMENDED COMPLAINT against all defendants filed by William Rouser. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Complaint (Part 2 of 5)# 2 Amended Complaint (Part 3 of 5)# 3 Amended Complaint (Part 4 of 5)# 4 Amended Complaint (Part 5 of 5))(Dotson, B)[Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Main Document 229 replaced on 1/20/2012) (ja). (Entered: 01/31/2006)
231 REQUEST (motion) for court to take "administrative notice" of bias against Wiccan inmates by William Rouser. (Dotson, B) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 02/24/2006)
232 MOTION to DISMISS With Leave To Amend Or, In The Alternative, Strike Plaintiff's Supplemental Complaint Filed January 30, 2006 by Theo White, E W Meads, Jack R Reagan, James Gomez. (Flynn, James) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 02/27/2006)
233 DEFENDANT(S) MOTION to STAY by Theo White, E W Meads, Jack R Reagan, James Gomez. (Flynn, James) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 03/14/2006)
234 OPPOSITION to 233 DEFENDANT(S) MOTION to STAY. Request for sanctions for not serving pla with opposition to supplemental complaint. (Dotson, B) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 03/22/2006)
235 CERTIFICATE of SERVICE by Theo White, E W Meads, Jack R Reagan, James Gomez re 232 MOTION to DISMISS With Leave To Amend Or, In The Alternative, Strike Plaintiff's Supplemental Complaint Filed January 30, 2006 (Flynn, James) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 03/22/2006)
236 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Theo White, E W Meads, Jack R Reagan, James Gomez. Amendment to 232 MOTION to DISMISS With Leave To Amend Or, In The Alternative, Strike Plaintiff's Supplemental Complaint Filed January 30, 2006 Amended Certificate of Service. (Flynn, James) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 03/22/2006)
237 MEMORANDUM/RESPONSE in SUPPORT re 233 DEFENDANT(S) MOTION to STAY With Attachment 1 and Service by Mail. (Flynn, James) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 03/22/2006)
238 OPPOSITION to 232 MOTION to DISMISS With Leave To Amend Or, In The Alternative, Strike Plaintiff's Supplemental Complaint Filed January 30, 2006. (Dotson, B) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 03/31/2006)
239 REQUEST (Motion) to Take Administrative Notice for by William Rouser. (Donati, J) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 04/10/2006)
240 REQUEST to Vacate Scheduling Order by Theo White, E W Meads, Jack R Reagan, James Gomez. (Flynn, James) Modified on 6/30/2006 (Yin, K). [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 06/29/2006)
241 PROPOSED ORDER granting 240 Request. (Flynn, James) Modified on 6/30/2006 (Yin, K). [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 06/29/2006)
242 DECLARATION of Service of 241 Proposed Order and 240 Request. (Flynn, James) Modified on 6/30/2006 (Yin, K). [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 06/29/2006)
243 ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 7/11/06 ORDERING that 232 Motion to Dismiss is VACATED. James E. Tilton is substituted as defendant in his official capacity. Within 30 days of the date of this order, James E. Tilton shall file a response to plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief contained in the 1/30/06 supplemental complaint. The Clerk is directed to copy plaintiff's 1/30/06 supplemental complaint and open it as a new action assigned to the same judges as are assigned to the instant action. It is Hereby RECOMMENDED that 233 Motion to Stay be denied. Objections due within 20 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. Motion referred to Judge Lawrence K.

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 29 of 70

07/11/2006 07/14/2006 07/24/2006 07/24/2006 08/09/2006 09/27/2006 09/27/2006 12/08/2006 12/08/2006 12/28/2006 01/22/2007 01/22/2007 01/24/2007
01/24/2007 01/30/2007

Karlton.(Donati, J) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 07/11/2006)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 243 Order, Findings and Recommendations served on Jonathan T Foot, William Rouser, Carlotta Wells (Donati, J) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 07/11/2006)
244 STATEMENT of NON−OPPOSITION to MOTION by William Rouser. (Donati, J) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 07/17/2006)
245 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 7/24/06 DENYING, as unnecessary, defendants' 241 REQUEST to Vacate the Scheduling Order.(Marciel, M) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 07/24/2006)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 245 Order served on Jonathan T Foot, William Rouser, and Carlotta Wells. (Marciel, M) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 07/24/2006)
246 ANSWER to SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT by James E Tilton. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Service)(Flynn, James) Modified on 8/10/2006 (Caspar, M). [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 08/09/2006)
247 ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 9/26/06 ORDERING that the FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS filed 7/11/06 243 are ADOPTED in full. Defendants' 3/14/06 Motion to Stay 233 is DENIED. (Mena−Sanchez, L) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 09/27/2006)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 247 Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations, O served on Jonathan T Foot, William Rouser, Carlotta Wells. (Mena−Sanchez, L) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 09/27/2006)
248 ORDER signed by Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 12/8/06 ORDERING that within 20 days of the date of this order, defendants shall file a response to plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief. (Donati, J) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 12/08/2006)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 248 Order served on Jonathan T Foot, William Rouser, Carlotta Wells (Donati, J) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 12/08/2006)
249 REQUEST for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's claims by Theo White, E W Meads, Jack R Reagan, James Gomez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order # 2 Declaration of Service)(Flynn, James) Modified on 12/29/2006 (Donati, J). [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 12/28/2006)
250 OPPOSITION by Defendants Theo White, E W Meads, Jack R Reagan, James Gomez To 227 Plaintiff's Request for Injunctive Relief. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Service)(Flynn, James) Modified on 1/23/2007 (Donati, J). [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 01/22/2007)
251 DECLARATION of David B. Long in Support of 250 Opposition. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1−5# 2 Declaration of Service)(Flynn, James) Modified on 1/23/2007 (Donati, J). [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 01/22/2007)
252 ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 1/24/07 ORDERING the plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE, within 10 days of the date of this order, for his failure to file a pretrial statement, VACATING the 3/27/07 Jury Trial before the Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton and VACATING 248 Order Directing Defendants to Respond. (Donati, J) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 01/24/2007)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 252 Order to Show Cause served on Jonathan T Foot, William Rouser, Carlotta Wells (Donati, J) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 01/24/2007)
253 REQUEST for 90 day extension of time to file pretrial statement by William Rouser. (Manzer, C) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 01/31/2007)

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 30 of 70

02/02/2007 02/08/2007 02/08/2007 02/26/2007 02/28/2007 03/07/2007 03/08/2007 03/16/2007 03/19/2007 03/20/2007 03/23/2007 03/29/2007 04/03/2007 04/03/2007 04/09/2007 05/17/2007

254 REPLY by Theo White, E W Meads, Jack R Reagan, James Gomez to Response to 252 Order to Show Cause . (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Flynn, James) Modified on 2/5/2007 (Donati, J). [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 02/02/2007)
255 ORDER signed by Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 2/7/07 DISCHARGING 252 Order to Show Cause. Plaintiff's pretrial statement is due within 20 days of the date of this order. Defendants' pretrial statement is due 20 days thereafter.(Donati, J) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 02/08/2007)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 255 Order served on Jonathan T Foot, William Rouser, Carlotta Wells (Donati, J) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 02/08/2007)
256 LETTER from witness Douglas Hysell explaining that he was a part of plaintiff Rouser's Complaint. (Marciel, M) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 02/27/2007)
257 NOTICE by plaintiff William Rouser of interference with ability to comply with Court Orde. (Marciel, M) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 03/01/2007)
258 REPLY/RESPONSE to Plaintiff's Notice Re: Inability to File Pretrial Statement by Theo White, E W Meads, Jack R Reagan, James Gomez re 257 Notice − Other. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Service)(Flynn, James) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 03/07/2007)
259 NOTICE from Douglas Hysell (non−party) re: case. (Donati, J) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 03/09/2007)
260 NOTICE to administration and request for sanctions by William Rouser. (Manzer, C) MAINTAIN ON PAPER [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 03/19/2007)
261 REQUEST for Extension of Time to File Pretrial Statement by defts. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order # 2 Declaration of Service)(Flynn, James) Modified on 3/20/2007 (Manzer, C). [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 03/19/2007)
262 LETTER from Douglas Hysell addressed to Magistrate Judge Kellison informing Court of civil rights violations. (Marciel, M) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 03/21/2007)
263 NOTICE by William Rouser in Support of Motion for TRO and Order to Show Cause. (Donati, J) (MAINTAIN ON PAPER) Modified on 3/28/2007 (Yin, K). [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 03/26/2007)
264 LETTER from William Rouser to James Tilton re: brutal abuse of authority. (Donati, J) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 03/30/2007)
265 ORDER signed by Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 4/3/07 GRANTING 261 Request for Extension of Time to file pretrial statement. Defendants' pretrial statement is due on or before 4/9/07. Plaintiff's pretrial statement is deemed timely filed. (Donati, J) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 04/03/2007)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 265 Order served on Jonathan T Foot, William Rouser, Carlotta Wells (Donati, J) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 04/03/2007)
266 DEFENDANT(S) PRETRIAL STATEMENT by Defendants Theo White, E W Meads, Jack R Reagan, James Gomez. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Service)(Flynn, James) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 04/09/2007)
268 PRETRIAL ORDER signed by Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 05/16/07 ORDERING that Trial Confirmation Hearing SET for 6/18/2007 at 11:15 AM before theHonorable Lawrence K. Karlton. Plaintiff shall appear via videoconference. Jury Trial set for 9/18/2007 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 4 (LKK) before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. Each party is granted fifteen days from the date of this order to file objections

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 31 of 70

05/24/2007
05/24/2007 05/25/2007 05/25/2007 05/31/2007 06/04/2007 06/05/2007 06/05/2007 06/05/2007 06/07/2007 06/08/2007 06/11/2007 06/12/2007
06/12/2007

to same. If noobjections are filed, the order will become final without further order of this court. (Duong, D) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 05/17/2007)
269 ORDER and WRIT ISSUED signed by Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 5/24/07 ORDERING that a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum is ISSUED, commanding the warden to produce the inmate William Rouser to testify by video−conference before the United States District Court on 6/18/07 at 11:15 am. The custodian is ORDERED to notify the court of any change in custody of this inmate and is ordered to provide the new custodian with a copy of this writ. (Donati, J) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 05/24/2007)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 269 Order served on Jonathan T Foot, William Rouser, Carlotta Wells. 3 certified copies served on Warden. (Donati, J) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 05/24/2007)
270 REQUEST (motion) to expedite TRO and OSC of 03/14/07 by William Rouser. (Manzer, C) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 05/29/2007)
271 OBJECTIONS to dft's undisputed facts by Plaintiff William Rouser. (Manzer, C) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 05/29/2007)
272 OBJECTIONS by dfts to Pretrial Order 268 (Attachments: # 1 Appendix # 2 Declaration of Service)(Flynn, James) Modified on 6/1/2007 (Duong, D). [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 05/31/2007)
273 SUPPLEMENTAL PRETRIAL STATEMENT by Defendants Theo White, E W Meads, James E. Tilton, Jack R Reagan, James Gomez. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Service)(Flynn, James) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 06/04/2007)
274 REQUEST ("PETITION") for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum by plaintiff William Rouser. (Marciel, M) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 06/06/2007)
275 MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER to restrain harassment of a witness by plaintiff William Rouser. (Marciel, M) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 06/06/2007)
276 DECLARATION of SERVICE by plaintiff William Rouser for 274 Request, 275 MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER. (Marciel, M) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 06/06/2007)
277 NOTICE by William Rouser that he did not receive 268 Pretrial Order. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Donati, J) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 06/08/2007)
RE−SERVICE BY MAIL: 268 Pretrial Order served on Jonathan T Foot, William Rouser, Carlotta Wells (Donati, J) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 06/08/2007)
RE−SERVICE BY MAIL: 268 Pretrial Order served on William Rouser at Pleasant Valley State Prison. (Donati, J) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 06/11/2007)
278 AMENDED ORDER and WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM signed by Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 6/12/2007 ORDERING that a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum is ISSUED, commanding the warden to produce the inmate William Rouser to testify by video−conference at PVSP, on 6/18/07 at 11:15 AM before Lawrence K. Karlton USDC, Sacramento, CA. The custodian is ORDERED to notify the court of any change in custody of this inmate and is ordered to provide the new custodian with a copy of this writ. 269 (cc: Warden PVSP)(Reader, L) Modified on 6/12/2007 (Reader, L). [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 06/12/2007)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 278 Amended Order and Writ Issued, served on Jonathan T Foot, William Rouser, Carlotta Wells, Warden PVSP (Reader, L) Modified on

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 32 of 70

06/13/2007 06/13/2007 06/14/2007 06/18/2007
06/20/2007
06/20/2007 06/27/2007 06/27/2007 07/09/2007
07/18/2007 07/25/2007 07/27/2007 07/31/2007
07/31/2007 08/03/2007

6/12/2007 (Reader, L). [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 06/12/2007)
279 LETTER from Doug Hysell re William Rouser being moved from MCSP. (Cayo, A) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 06/14/2007)
280 NOTICE of transfer before June 18, 2007 video conference by William Rouser (Cayo, A) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 06/14/2007)
RE−SERVICE BY MAIL: 278 Order served on William Rouser at PVSP. (Donati, J) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 06/14/2007)
281 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings held before Judge Lawrence K. Karlton: CONFIRMATION HEARING held on 6/18/2007. The Jury Trial date set for 09/18/2007 is VACATED. Plaintiff is instructed to file a new pretrial statement along with his exhibits. A new Pretrial Order shall be issued. The court will then set a further Trial Confirmation Hearing. Plaintiffs Counsel William Rouser (via video−conference) present. Defendants Counsel James Flynn present. (Rivas, A) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 06/18/2007)
282 ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 6/19/07. Plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief regarding events occurring at MCSP are DISMISSED as MOOT. Within 10 days of date of this Order, plaintiff shall file an Amended Pretrial Statement; defendants' Amended Pretrial Statement due 10 days thereafter. Parties shall serve eath other with trial exhibits at time they serve Amended Pretrial Statements. Jury Trial set for 9/18/07 is VACATED and will be re−set at Trial Confirmation Hearing. (Marciel, M) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 06/20/2007)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 282 Order served on Jonathan T. Foot, William Rouser, and Carlotta Wells. (Marciel, M) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 06/20/2007)
283 PRETRIAL STATEMENT by Plaintiff William Rouser.(Anderson, J) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 06/28/2007)
284 REQUEST to review the taped evidence offered by dfts by William Rouser. (Reader, L) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 06/29/2007)
285 REQUEST for Extension of Time to File Amended Pretrial Statement by Theo White, E W Meads, James E. Tilton, Jack R Reagan, James Gomez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Defendants' Request for Extension of time# 2 Declaration of Service)(Flynn, James) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 07/09/2007)
286 OPPOSITION by Plaintiff William Rouser to Defendants 285 Request for extension of time. (Anderson, J) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 07/19/2007)
287 REPLY by defendants to 286 Opposition to 285 Request for Extension of Time.(Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Service)(Flynn, James) Modified on 7/26/2007 (Donati, J). [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 07/25/2007)
288 PETITION for Writ of Mandate by plaintiff William Rouser. (Marciel, M) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 07/30/2007)
289 ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 7/30/2007 ORDERING that within thirty days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file a second amended pretrial statement; defendants' amended pretrial statement is due within fifteen days thereafter. 285 (Reader, L) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 07/31/2007)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 289 Order, served on Jonathan T. Foot, William Rouser, Carlotta Wells (Reader, L) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 07/31/2007)
290 REPLY by William Rouser to dft's 287 Reply to pltf's Opposition. (Manzer, C) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 08/06/2007)

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 33 of 70

08/08/2007 08/08/2007 08/21/2007 09/04/2007 09/11/2007 09/11/2007 09/14/2007 09/26/2007 09/26/2007 09/26/2007 10/15/2007 10/15/2007 10/15/2007 10/16/2007
10/16/2007

291 SECOND AMENDED PRETRIAL STATEMENT by Plaintiff William Rouser.(Anderson, J) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 08/09/2007)
292 REQUEST (Motion) to Expedite Writ of Mandate by William Rouser. (Reader, L) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 08/09/2007)
293 REQUEST for Extension of Time to File Second Amended Pretrial Statement by Theo White, E W Meads, James E. Tilton, Jack R Reagan, James Gomez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Extension of Time# 2 Declaration of Service)(Flynn, James) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 08/21/2007)
294 REQUEST for review of case file by district judge from 3/1/07 to this filing by William Rouser. (Kastilahn, A) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 09/05/2007)
295 ORDER signed by Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 09/11/2007 GRANTING 293 Request for extension of time. Defendants shall file second amended pretrial statement on or before 09/14/2007.(Dillon, M) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 09/11/2007)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 295 Order served on Jonathan T. Foot, William Rouser, Carlotta Wells (Dillon, M) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 09/11/2007)
296 SECOND AMENDED PRETRIAL STATEMENT by Defendants Theo White, E W Meads, James E. Tilton, Jack R Reagan, James Gomez. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate Proof of Service)(Flynn, James) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 09/14/2007)
297 MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER/ PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by William Rouser. (Duong, D) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 09/27/2007)
298 OPPOSITION by Plaintiff William Rouser to dfts' Undisputed Facts 296 . MAINTAINED ON PAPER]. (Duong, D) Modified on 9/27/2007 (Duong, D). [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Main Document 298 replaced on 1/25/2012) (mhe). (Entered: 09/27/2007)
299 PROPOSED ORDER allowing plt to have candles, incense and oils by William Rouser. (Duong, D) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 09/27/2007)
302 MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER and for PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by plaintiff William Rouser. (Marciel, M) Modified on 10/16/2007 (Marciel, M). [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 10/16/2007)
303 SUPPLEMENT to Pretrial Evidence by plaintiff William Rouser. (Attachments: # 1 part 2 # 2 part 3 # 3 part 4) [MAINTAIN ON PAPER] (Marciel, M) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Main Document 303 replaced on 1/25/2012) (mhe). (Entered: 10/16/2007)
304 CERTIFICATE of SERVICE by plaintiff William Rouser for 303 Supplement to Pretrial Evidence and 302 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and for Preliminary Injunction. (Marciel, M) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 10/16/2007)
300 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 10/16/07 RECOMMENDING that pltf's 297 motion for injunctive relief filed 9/26/07, is denied without prejudice. Motion referred to Judge Karlton. Within 20 days after being served with these findings, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within 10 days after service of the objections. (Kastilahn, A) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 10/16/2007)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 300 Findings and Recommendations served on Jonathan T. Foot, William Rouser and Carlotta Wells.(Kastilahn, A) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 10/16/2007)

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 34 of 70

10/16/2007
10/16/2007 10/16/2007 10/19/2007 10/25/2007 10/25/2007 10/25/2007 10/25/2007 11/05/2007 11/08/2007 11/08/2007 11/09/2007 11/13/2007
11/13/2007 11/14/2007
11/14/2007

301 AMENDED PRETRIAL ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 10/16/07. Counsel directed to Local Rule 16−285 regarding contents and deadline for filing Trial Briefs. Each party granted 15 days from date of Order to file Objections to same. If no Objections filed, the Order will become FINAL w/out further Order of Court. (Marciel, M) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 10/16/2007)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 301 Amended Pretrial Order served on Jonathan T. Foot, William Rouse, and Carlotta Wells. (Marciel, M) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 10/16/2007)
305 NOTICE of HEARING and DOCKET CORRECTION: pursuant to 301 Amended Pretrial Order, Trial Confirmation Hearing set for 12/17/2007 at 11:15 AM in Courtroom 4 (LKK) before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. (Marciel, M) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 10/19/2007)
306 REQUEST (petition) for sanctions by William Rouser. (Kaminski, H) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 10/22/2007)
307 OBJECTIONS to FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS 300 by Plaintiff William Rouser. (Anderson, J) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 10/26/2007)
308 REQUEST for sanctions for defendants blatant lies to the court by William Rouser. (Anderson, J) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 10/26/2007)
309 OBJECTIONS to pretrial order by Plaintiff William Rouser. (Anderson, J) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 10/26/2007)
310 LETTER regarding running out of paper from William Rouser (Anderson, J) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 10/26/2007)
311 REQUEST for damages for denial of Samhain Sabbat by William Rouser (Becknal, R) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 11/06/2007)
312 ORDER signed by Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 11/8/07 ORDERING that Plaintiff's 6/5/07, MOTION for a Temporary Restraining Order, construed as a Motion for a Protective Order 275 is DENIED. (Mena−Sanchez, L) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 11/08/2007)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 312 Order, served on Jonathan T. Foot, William Rouser, Carlotta Wells. (Mena−Sanchez, L) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 11/08/2007)
313 Additional Recent Evidence of malicious interference with ability to practice religion on 11/5/07 by William Rouser. (Duong, D) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 11/13/2007)
314 ORDER signed by Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 11/13/07 ORDERING that the October 16, 2007, amended pretrial order 301 is amended to reflect plaintiff's one item of evidence, i.e. the "magical novel," and plaintiff's three additional witnesses: Feryance, Delany and Anderson. (Duong, D) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 11/13/2007)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 314 Order, served on Jonathan T. Foot, William Rouser, Carlotta Wells. (Duong, D) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 11/13/2007)
315 ORDER AND WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM signed by Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 11/14/2007 ORDERING Warden at PVSP to produce inmate William Rouser, C−10659, material witness, Via Video Conferencing on 12/17/2007 at 11:15 AM, before Judge Lawrence K. Karlton, USDC EDCA, Sacramento, CA. 301 (cc: Warden, Out−to−Court) (Reader, L) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 11/14/2007)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 315 Order and Writ, served on Jonathan T. Foot, William Rouser, Carlotta Wells (Reader, L) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 11/14/2007)

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 35 of 70

11/19/2007 11/19/2007 11/21/2007 11/29/2007
11/29/2007 12/03/2007 12/03/2007 12/03/2007 12/14/2007
12/14/2007 12/19/2007
12/19/2007 12/19/2007 12/26/2007 12/28/2007

316 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS 300 , in full, signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 11/16/07. Plaintiff's 297 Motion for Injunctive Relief is DENIED without prejudice. (Marciel, M) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 11/19/2007)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 316 Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations served on Jonathan T. Foot, William Rouser, and Carlotta Wells. (Marciel, M) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 11/19/2007)
317 REQUEST for additional witnesses and evidence for incidents that occured after filing of pretrial statement by William Rouser. (Anderson, J) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 11/26/2007)
318 MINUTE ORDER: Due to scheduling conflict, the Trial Confirmation Hearing currently set in the above entitled matter for December 17, 2007, is hereby VACATED and RESET to January 28, 2008 at 11:15 a.m., in Courtroom 4 (LKK) before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. The Order and Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum 315 issued on November 14, 2007 as to William Rouser, inmate # C−10659, is hereby VACATED. Ordered by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on November 29, 2007. (Rivas, A) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 11/29/2007)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 318 Minute Order served on Jonathan T. Foot, William Rouser, Carlotta Wells.(Rivas, A) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 11/29/2007)
319 MOTION IN LIMINE by William Rouser. (Kastilahn, A) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 12/04/2007)
320 NOTICE of new evidence by William Rouser. (Kastilahn, A) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 12/04/2007)
321 CERTIFICATE of SERVICE re 319 and 320 by William Rouser. (Kastilahn, A) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 12/04/2007)
322 ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 12/14/07 ORDERING that plt's notice of additional evidence 313 is DISREGARDED. Plaintiff's November 21, 2007 317 , and December 3, 2007 319 and 320 , requests to call additional witnesses and add new evidence are DENIED. Within ten days of the date of this order, plaintiff may file a new motion in support of his request to call witnesses concerning his recent denial of access to religious services. (Duong, D) Modified on 4/21/2008 (Donati, J). [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 12/14/2007)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 322 Order served on Jonathan T. Foot, William Rouser, Carlotta Wells. (Duong, D) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 12/14/2007)
323 ORDER and WRIT signed by Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 12/19/07 ORDERING that a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum is ISSUED, commanding the warden to produce the inmate William Rouser to testify by video−conference before the US District Court on 1/28/08 11:15am. The custodian is ORDERED to notify the court of any change in custody of this inmate and is ORDERED to provide the new custodian with a copy of this writ. (Duong, D) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 12/19/2007)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 323 Order served on Jonathan T. Foot, William Rouser and Carlotta Wells. (Duong, D) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 12/19/2007)
324 REQUEST to add newly found evidence by William Rouser. (Anderson, J) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 12/20/2007)
325 REQUEST (Motion) in support of request to call witnesses concerning denial of access to religious as to courts 322 Order by William Rouser. (Anderson, J) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 12/27/2007)
326 NOTICE by plaintiff William Rouser of additional evidence for criminal conspiracy of 12/14/07, 12/15/07, and 12/16/07. (Marciel, M) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 01/02/2008)

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 36 of 70

01/02/2008 01/07/2008 01/08/2008
01/08/2008 01/22/2008 01/28/2008
01/28/2008 01/29/2008 01/30/2008 01/30/2008 01/31/2008
01/31/2008 02/01/2008

327 NOTICE of witnesses interfering with plaintiff's ability to practice religion and harass for fighting for first amendment rights by William Rouser. (Anderson, J) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 01/03/2008)
329 REQUEST for sanction of defendants denying plaintiff William Rouser access to law library. (Marciel, M) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 01/08/2008)
328 ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 1/8/08 ORDERING that plaintiff's 325 request to call additional witnesses is GRANTED as to inmate Hysell, inmate Rodriguez, Chaplain Salaam, Lieutenant Scott, Sergeant Huckabay, Correctional Officers Tucker and Valencia, and Sergeant Navarro. Within ten days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall provide the court with the identification number of inmates Hysell and Rodriguez. Plaintiff's 324 request to add evidence is GRANTED in part. Plaintiff may offer into evidence the Beels memorandum. Plaintiff's request to offer into evidence the administrative appeal is DENIED. (Duong, D) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 01/08/2008)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 328 Order served on Jonathan T. Foot, William Rouser, Carlotta Wells. (Duong, D) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 01/08/2008)
330 REQUEST for Request for volunteer witnesses by William Rouser. (Becknal, R) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 01/24/2008)
331 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings held before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton: CONFIRMATION HEARING held on 1/28/2008. The Court advises Plaintiff that witnesses can waiver their witness fee if they are willing to come to court on their own. Defendant to file a notice of substitution for witness Eugene Beals. Plaintiff is granted 10 days to file new witness list. Jury Trial set for 5/13/2008 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 4 (LKK) before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. Court order to follow. Plaintiffs Counsel William Rouser present, via videoconference. Defendants Counsel James Flynn present. (Rivas, A) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 01/28/2008)
332 NOTICE re video conference by William Rouser. (Kaminski, H) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 01/29/2008)
333 REQUEST to Substitute Witness for Trial and for Amended Pretrial Order, by J. Yates, E W Meads, James E. Tilton, Jack R Reagan, James Gomez. Attorney Flynn, James Edmund added. (Flynn, James) Modified on 1/30/2008 (Kastilahn, A). [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 01/29/2008)
335 WITNESS LIST by William Rouser.(Duong, D) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 01/31/2008)
336 REQUEST for new witnesses who could not have been found earlier because of harrassment occurred on 1/14/08 by William Rouser. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Duong, D) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 01/31/2008)
334 ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 1/31/2008 ORDERING the jury trial is set for 5/13/2008, at 10:30 a.m. in courtroom 4; W/in 10 days of 1/28/2008, pltf shall file an amended witness list identifying the witnesses who will appear at trial; pltf should include the CDC ID number of the incarcerated witnesses; this list should only include the witnesses pltf has previously been granted permission to call; Dfts' request to substitute Associate Warden Brazelton for Associate Warden Beels is GRANTED; Following receipt of pltf's amended witness list, the court will issue a second amended pretrial order.(Matson, R) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 01/31/2008)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 334 Order, served on Jonathan T. Foot, William Rouser, Carlotta Wells. (Matson, R) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 01/31/2008)
337 AMENDED Witness List by William Rouser. (Kastilahn, A) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 02/04/2008)

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 37 of 70

02/21/2008 02/21/2008 02/22/2008 02/28/2008 03/03/2008 03/03/2008 03/03/2008 03/14/2008
03/14/2008 03/25/2008 03/31/2008 04/01/2008
04/01/2008
04/03/2008 04/04/2008
04/04/2008
04/04/2008

338 TRIAL BRIEF by William Rouser.(Anderson, J) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 02/22/2008)
339 REQUEST for this court to tell defendant to have law librarian to make copies of evidence by William Rouser. (Anderson, J) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 02/22/2008)
340 NOTICE by William Rouser information to court (Reader, L) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 02/25/2008)
341 REQUEST by plaintiff William Rouser for Subpoenas Ad Testificandum for inmate witnesses to be called and presented for Trial on 5/13/07. (Marciel, M) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 02/29/2008)
342 PROPOSED QUESTIONS for VOIR DIRE by William Rouser.(Reader, L) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 03/04/2008)
343 NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS: 1 Subpoena, by William Rouser. (Reader, L) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 03/04/2008)
344 REQUEST for petition for writ of hc ad testificandum by William Rouser. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reader, L) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 03/04/2008)
345 SECOND AMENDED PRETRIAL ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 3/14/08. Each party granted 15 days from date of Order to file Objections to same. (Marciel, M) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 03/14/2008)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 345 Second Amended Pretrial Order served on Jonathan T. Foot, William Rouser, and Carlotta Wells. (Marciel, M) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 03/14/2008)
346 MAIL RETURNED as undeliverable (return to sender): 345 Second Amended Pretrial Order. Mail sent to Jonathan T. Foot. (Marciel, M) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 03/26/2008)
347 OBJECTION in part to second amended pretrial order, by Plaintiff William Rouser. (Kastilahn, A) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 04/01/2008)
348 OBJECTIONS by Defendants Theo White, E W Meads, James E. Tilton, J. Yates, Jack R Reagan, James Gomez to 345 Pretrial Order. Defendants' Objections to Second Amended Pretrial Order (Declaration of Service) (Flynn, James) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 04/01/2008)
349 MOTION Defendants' Notice and Motion to Change Trial Date; Points and Authorities by Theo White, E W Meads, James E. Tilton, J. Yates, Jack R Reagan, James Gomez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Flynn, James) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 04/01/2008)
350 TRIAL BRIEF by William Rouser.(Anderson, J) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 04/04/2008)
351 REPLY/RESPONSE to Plaintiff's 348 Objection to Second Amended Pretrial Order by Theo White, E W Meads, James E. Tilton, J. Yates, Jack R Reagan, James Gomez. (Flynn, James) Modified on 4/7/2008 (Anderson, J). [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 04/04/2008)
352 ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 4/4/08 ORDERING that defendants Gomez and White are DISMISSED. Defendants' April 1, 2008, 349 motion to change the trial date is denied as unnecessary. (Duong, D) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 04/04/2008)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 352 Order served on Jonathan T. Foot, William Rouser and Carlotta Wells. (Duong, D) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 04/04/2008)

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 38 of 70

04/09/2008 04/14/2008 04/21/2008 04/21/2008 04/22/2008 04/30/2008 05/02/2008 05/05/2008
05/14/2008 05/20/2008
05/20/2008 05/27/2008

353 OPPOSITION by William Rouser to dft's Objection to Second Amended Pretrial Order and ANSWER to dfts' request for extension of time. (Carlos, K) Modified on 4/14/2008 (Yin, K). [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 04/14/2008)
354 OBJECTIONS to 352 Order dismissing defendants Gomez and White by Plaintiff William Rouser. (Becknal, R) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 04/15/2008)
355 NOTICE of APPEARANCE by Jennifer Lauren Riggs on behalf of William Rouser. Attorney Riggs, Jennifer Lauren added. (Riggs, Jennifer) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 04/21/2008)
356 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER to Vacate Pre−Trial Dates and Trial Date; Request for Status Conference by William Rouser. (Riggs, Jennifer) Modified on 4/21/2008 (Reader, L). [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 04/21/2008)
357 STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 4/21/2008 ORDERING 356 All pre−trial and trial dates are VACATED; Scheduling Conference set for 5/5/2008 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 4 (LKK) before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. Pltf shall appear through counsel at the status conference. (Reader, L) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 04/22/2008)
358 STATUS REPORT by defendants Matthew Cates, Theo White, E W Meads, J. Yates, Jack R Reagan, James Gomez. (Flynn, James) Modified on 5/1/2008 (Anderson, J). [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 04/30/2008)
359 ASSOCIATION of ATTORNEY: Added attorney Joshua Casey Irwin for Theo White, E W Meads, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, Jack R Reagan and James Gomez. (Irwin, Joshua) Modified on 5/2/2008 (Benson, A). [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 05/02/2008)
360 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings held before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton: SCHEDULING CONFERENCE held on 5/5/2008. Plaintiff's counsel is instructed to prepare a proposed order requiring the prison to allow a telephone call between plaintiff and his counsel; defendant's objections to the proposed order, if any, due 5 days thereafter. Further Status Conference set for 5/27/2008 at 03:00 PM in Courtroom 4 (LKK) before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. Plaintiffs Counsel Jenny Riggs present. Defendants Counsel James Flynn, Fiel Tigno, Jason Gatchalian present. (Rivas, A) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 05/05/2008)
361 PROPOSED ORDER Permitting Phone Call and Setting Status Conference by William Rouser. (Riggs, Jennifer) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 05/14/2008)
362 ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 5/20/2008 ORDERING 361 Plaintiff is to be permitted one attorney−client phone call with his counsel, Jones Day, within one week of the date of this order. The phone call may last up to one hour in length. The parties are to appear for a further status conference on May 27, 2008, at 3:00 p.m. Counsel who are not local may appear telephonically. (Reader, L) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 05/20/2008)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 362 Order, served on Jonathan T. Foot, Carlotta Wells, William Rouser (Reader, L) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 05/20/2008)
363 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings held before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton: STATUS CONFERENCE held on 5/27/2008. Discovery to remain open until 09/08/2008. Pretrial Conference set for 9/8/2008 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 4 (LKK) before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. Plaintiff is granted one month to file an amended complaint without futher leave of court. Defendant to file answer no later than 07/25/2008. Court order to follow. Plaintiffs Counsel Jenny Riggs present. Defendants Counsel Jennifer L. Riggs, James Flynn, Fiel Dizon Tigno present. (Rivas, A) Modified on 5/28/2008 (Rivas, A). [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 05/28/2008)

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 39 of 70

05/30/2008
06/02/2008 06/03/2008 06/03/2008 06/03/2008 06/11/2008 06/17/2008
06/27/2008 06/30/2008 06/30/2008 07/25/2008 07/25/2008 07/25/2008 07/25/2008 07/25/2008

364 ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 5/29/08 ORDERING that Pretrial Conference set for 9/8/2008 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 4 (LKK) before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. Plaintiff is granted one month from the date of this order to file an amended complaint without leave of court. Plaintiff is granted 15 days to file supplement objections. (Anderson, J) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 05/30/2008)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 364 Order, served on Jonathan T. Foot, Carlotta Wells (Anderson, J) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 06/02/2008)
365 NOTICE re: Transfer of documents to plaintiff's attorney by Theo White, E W Meads, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, Jack R Reagan, James Gomez. (Flynn, James) Modified on 6/11/2008 (Marciel, M). [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 06/03/2008)
366 ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 6/2/08 DISREGARDING plaintiff's 302 Motions for TRO and for Preliminary Injunction because he is now represented by counsel. (Marciel, M) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 06/03/2008)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 366 Order disregarding Motion for TRO and Preliminary Injunction served on Jonathan T. Foot, Carlotta Wells. (Marciel, M) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 06/03/2008)
367 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF to 354 Objections by William Rouser in Opposition to Dismissal of defendants Gomez and White. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits to Declaration of Jenny L. Riggs) (Riggs, Jennifer) Modified on 6/12/2008 (Marciel, M). [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 06/11/2008)
368 REPLY/RESPONSE to Plaintiff's Supplemental Objections to Dismissal of Defendants Gomez and White by Theo White, E W Meads, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, Jack R Reagan, James Gomez re 354 Objections. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A thru C)(Flynn, James) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 06/17/2008)
369 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT for Civil Rights Violations, Permanent Injunction, Declartory Relief, and Damages against all defendants by William Rouser.(Riggs, Jennifer) Modified on 6/30/2008 (Becknal, R). [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 06/27/2008)
370 ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 6/30/08 ORDERING pltf's motion for reconsideration of the Court's 4/4/08 order dismissing dfts Gomez and White from the suit 354 is GRANTED. (Carlos, K) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 06/30/2008)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 370 Order served on Jonathan T. Foot, Carlotta Wells (Carlos, K) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 06/30/2008)
371 MOTION to DISMISS Count 3 of the Second Amended Complaint by James E. Tilton, J. Yates. Attorney Tigno, Fiel Dizon added. Motion Hearing set for 9/8/2008 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 4 (LKK) before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. (Tigno, Fiel) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 07/25/2008)
372 MEMORANDUM/RESPONSE in SUPPORT. Of Motion to Dismiss Count 3 of the Second Amended Complaint (Tigno, Fiel) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 07/25/2008)
373 REQUEST for JUDICIAL NOTICE by James E. Tilton, J. Yates. Supporting Motion to Dismiss Count 3 of the Second Amended Complaint (Tigno, Fiel) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 07/25/2008)
374 CERTIFICATE of SERVICE by James E. Tilton, J. Yates. Declaration of Service Via: U.S. Mail (Tigno, Fiel) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 07/25/2008)
375 Derfendants' ANSWER to AMENDED COMPLAINT [Second] and Demand for Jury Trial] by Theo White, James E. Tilton, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, James Gomez.(Flynn, James) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 07/25/2008)

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 40 of 70

08/22/2008 08/29/2008 09/05/2008 09/08/2008
09/08/2008
09/10/2008
09/10/2008 09/16/2008 09/16/2008 09/23/2008 09/29/2008 10/28/2008 10/29/2008

376 OPPOSITION by William Rouser to 371 MOTION to DISMISS Count 3 of the Second Amended Complaint. (Riggs, Jennifer) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 08/22/2008)
377 REPLY/RESPONSE to Memorandum of Points and Authorities Supporting Rule 12(b), 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Count 3 of the Second Amended Complaint by James E. Tilton, J. Yates. (Carrillo, David) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 08/29/2008)
378 MINUTE ORDER: The parties are notified that the pretrial conference set for 9/8/08 has been converted to a status conference and will be heard following the motion to dismiss at 10:00 am. Approved by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 09/05/2008. (Hoover, S) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 09/05/2008)
379 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings held before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton: MOTION HEARING held on 9/8/2008 re 371 MOTION to DISMISS Count 3 of the Second Amended Complaint filed by James E. Tilton, J. Yates. After oral argument, motion stands SUBMITTED. Court order to follow. Plaintiffs Counsel Jenny Riggs present. Defendants Counsel James Flynn, David Carrillo present. Court Reporter: C. Bodene. (Rivas, A) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 09/08/2008)
380 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings held before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton: SCHEDULING CONFERENCE held on 9/8/2008. Plaintiff is granted 15 days to file an Amended Complaint. Defendant is granted 20 days thereafter to respond. Final Pretrial Conference set for 5/11/2009 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 4 (LKK) before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. 5 day Jury Trial set for 8/11/2009 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 4 (LKK) before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. Court order to follow. Plaintiffs Counsel David Carrillo, James Flynn present. Defendants Counsel Jenny Riggs present. (Rivas, A) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 09/08/2008)
381 STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 9/9/08: All Discovery shall be conducted by 12/8/2008. All Law and Motion shall be completed by 2/8/2009. Final Pretrial Conference set for 5/11/2009 at 01:30 PM and Jury Trial set for 8/11/2009 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 4 (LKK). The Status Order shall NOT be modified except by leave of Court upon showing of good cause. (Marciel, M) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 09/10/2008)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 381 Scheduling Order served on Jonathan T. Foot, Carlotta Wells. (Marciel, M) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 09/10/2008)
382 ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 9/15/2008 DENYING 371 Motion to Dismiss. (Matson, R) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 09/16/2008)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 382 Order on Motion to Dismiss served on Jonathan T. Foot, Carlotta Wells. (Matson, R) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 09/16/2008)
383 Third AMENDED COMPLAINT against all defendants by William Rouser.(Riggs, Jennifer) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 09/23/2008)
384 ANSWER to THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT ; Demand for Jury Trial by defendants Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, and James Gomez. (Flynn, James) Modified on 10/1/2008 (Marciel, M). [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 09/29/2008)
385 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER to extend deadline to diclose expert testimony by James E. Tilton, J. Yates. (Tigno, Fiel) Modified on 10/30/2008 (Benson, A). [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 10/28/2008)
386 CERTIFICATE of SERVICE by James E. Tilton, J. Yates re 385 Stipulation and Proposed Order. PROOF OF SERVICE (Tigno, Fiel) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 10/29/2008)

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 41 of 70

11/04/2008
11/04/2008 11/24/2008 11/24/2008 11/25/2008 12/17/2008 12/23/2008 12/23/2008 02/09/2009 02/09/2009
02/09/2009 02/09/2009
02/09/2009
02/09/2009

387 ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 11/4/08 ORDERING that the 385 stipulation is DENIED. The parties are, of course, free to agree as they choose. The agreement, however, will not be enforced by the court. Accordingly, the court will not approve the proposed order. (Duong, D) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 11/04/2008)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 387 Order served on Jonathan T. Foot, Carlotta Wells. (Duong, D) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 11/04/2008)
388 PLAINTIFF(S) MID LITIGATION STATEMENT by William Rouser. (Riggs, Jennifer) Modified on 11/25/2008 (Plummer, M). [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 11/24/2008)
389 MID LITIGATION STATEMENT by Amicus American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California. Attorney Flynn, James Edmund added. (Flynn, James) Modified on 11/25/2008 (Plummer, M). [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 11/24/2008)
390 CORRECTED MID LITIGATION STATEMENT by Defendants Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, James Gomez. (Flynn, James) Modified on 11/26/2008 (Plummer, M). [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 11/25/2008)
391 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motions by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, James Gomez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Flynn, James) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 12/17/2008)
392 ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 12/23/08 ORDERING that the time for filing dispositive motions is extended to February 9, 2009, and that hearing on the motions be held on March 23, 2009. (Becknal, R) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 12/23/2008)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 392 Order served on Jonathan T. Foot, and Carlotta Wells (Becknal, R) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 12/23/2008)
393 REQUEST for Leave to Exceed Page Limitation by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, James Gomez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Flynn, James) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 02/09/2009)
394 MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, James Gomez. Motion Hearing set for 3/23/2009 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 4 (LKK) before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. (Attachments: # 1 Points and Authorities)(Flynn, James) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 02/09/2009)
395 STATEMENT of Undisputed Facts by Defendants Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, James Gomez re 394 MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A through E, # 2 Exhibit F Through M, # 3 Exhibit N Through Q)(Flynn, James) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 02/09/2009)
396 EXHIBIT R Through V to Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Facts re 394 MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed by Matthew Cates, James Gomez, J. Yates, Theo White. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit R − Part 1, # 2 Exhibit R − Part 2, # 3 Exhibit S and T, # 4 Exhibit U, # 5 Exhibit V)(Flynn, James) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 02/09/2009)
397 EXHIBIT W Through SS to Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Facts re 394 MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed by Matthew Cates, James Gomez, J. Yates, Theo White. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit W, # 2 Exhibit X Through Z, # 3 Exhibit AA−DD, # 4 Exhibit EE Through MM, # 5 Exhibit NN−SS)(Flynn, James) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 02/09/2009)
398 EXHIBIT TT Through LLL to Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Facts re 394 MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed by Matthew Cates, James Gomez, J. Yates, Theo White. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit TT, # 2 Exhibit UU, # 3 Exhibit VV Through ZZ, # 4 Exhibit AAA Through EEE, # 5 Exhibit FFF Through LLL)(Flynn,

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 42 of 70

02/09/2009 02/11/2009 02/11/2009 02/12/2009 02/24/2009 03/02/2009
03/03/2009 04/03/2009 04/03/2009

James) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 02/09/2009)
399 EXHIBIT MMM Through WWW to Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Facts re 394 MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed by Matthew Cates, James Gomez, J. Yates, Theo White. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit MMM Through WWW)(Flynn, James) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 02/09/2009)
400 ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 2/11/09 ORDERING that 393 dfts' request for leave to file a 32 pg memo of law in support of their motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. (Kastilahn, A) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 02/11/2009)
401 NOTICE of Filing Amended Exhibits by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, James Gomez re 395 Statement − R. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Exhibit Q, # 2 Amended Exhibit S)(Flynn, James) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 02/11/2009)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 400 Order served on Jonathan T. Foot and Carlotta Wells. (Kastilahn, A) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 02/12/2009)
402 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for Continuance of Hearing on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment by William Rouser. (Riggs, Jennifer) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 02/24/2009)
403 STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 3/2/09 ORDERING that the hearing on Defendants' 394 Motion for Summary Judgment, currently calendared for 3/23/09 at 10:00 a.m., is continued to 4/20/09 at 10:00 a.m. Any opposition or reply papers shall be served and filed pursuant to the timing provisions of Local Rule 78−230 prior to the continued hearing date. (Becknal, R) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 03/03/2009)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 403 Stipulation and Order served on Jonathan T. Foot and Carlotta Wells. (Becknal, R) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 03/03/2009)
404 NOTICE of APPEARANCE by Lin Wang on behalf of William Rouser. Attorney Wang, Lin added. (Wang, Lin) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 04/03/2009)
405 OPPOSITION to defendants motion for summary judgment 394 by William Rouser. (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiff's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, # 2 Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Facts, # 3 Plaintiff's Statement of Disputed Facts in Support of Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, # 4 Plaintiff's Request For Judicial Notice in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, # 5 Plaintiff's Evidentiary Objections, # 6 Decl. of W. Rouser in Support of Pltf's Opp. to Mtn. for Summary Judgment and Exhibits 1−8 and 11 Par 1 of 4.PDF, # 7 Decl. of W. Rouser − Exhibits 12−24 Part 2 of 4, # 8 Decl. of W. Rouser − Exhibits 25−42 Part 3 of 4, # 9 Decl. of W. Rouser − Exhibits 43−45 Part 4 of 4, # 10 Second Declaration of William Rouser, # 11 Declaration of Kajauna Irvin in Support of Pltf's Opp. to Defs' Mtn. for Summary Judgment, # 12 Declaration of Lin Wang in Support of Plt's Opp. to Defs' Mtn. for Summary Judgment and Exhibits 52−53 Part 1 of 5, # 13 Declaration of Lin Wang − Exhibits 54−55 Part 2 of 5, # 14 Declaration of Lin Wang − Exhibits 56−58 Part 3 of 5, # 15 Declaration of Lin Wang − Exhibits 59−60 Part 4 of 5, # 16 Declaration of Lin Wang − Exhibit 61 Part 5 of 5, # 17 Declaration of Douglas Hysell in Support of Plt's Opp. to Mtn. for Summary Judgment, # 18 Declaration of Melvin Reed in Support of Pltf's Opp. to Mtn. for Summary Judgment, # 19 Declaration of Oliver Vann in Support of Pltf's Opp. to Defs' Mtn. for Summary Judgment, # 20 Declaration of Claude Powell in Support f Pltf's Opp. to Defs' Mtn. for Summary Judgment, # 21 Declaration of Marcus Barnhardt in Support of Pltf's Opp. to Defs' Mtn. for Summary Judgment, # 22 Declaration of Patrick McCollum in Support of Pltf's Opp. to Mtn. for Summary Jugdment)(Wang, Lin) Modified on 4/6/2009 (Plummer, M). [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 04/03/2009)

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 43 of 70

04/13/2009 04/13/2009 04/13/2009 04/13/2009 04/13/2009 04/13/2009 04/14/2009
04/14/2009 04/14/2009
04/15/2009 04/16/2009 04/17/2009 04/22/2009
04/22/2009

406 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for Request to Exceed Page Limitation for MSJ Reply Brief by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, James Gomez. (Flynn, James) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 04/13/2009)
407 REPLY by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, James Gomez to RESPONSE to 394 Motion for Summary Judgment. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − E)(Flynn, James) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 04/13/2009)
408 REPLY/RESPONSE to Plaintiff's Evidentiary Objections by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, James Gomez re 407 Reply to Response to Motion, 406 Stipulation and Proposed Order. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Joshua Irwin)(Flynn, James) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 04/13/2009)
409 REPLY/RESPONSE to Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Statement of Undisputed Facts by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, James Gomez re 405 Opposition to Motion,,,,,,,,. (Irwin, Joshua) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 04/13/2009)
410 OBJECTIONS by Defendants Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, James Gomez. to Plaintiffs Evidence in Support of Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment (Irwin, Joshua) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 04/13/2009)
411 CERTIFICATE of SERVICE by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, James Gomez re 409 Reply/Response, 410 Objections. (Irwin, Joshua) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 04/13/2009)
412 MINUTE ORDER (TEXT ONLY) by CRD. The parties are hereby notified that the hearing on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 394 , currently set for 04/20/2009, is CONTINUED TO 4/24/2009 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 4 (LKK) before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. (Rivas, A) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 04/14/2009)
413 NOTICE of Filing Corrected Amended Exhibit Q by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, James Gomez re 394 Motion for Summary Judgment. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Q, # 2 Att 1 to Ex Q)(Flynn, James) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 04/14/2009)
414 REQUEST for Continuance of Hearing on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, James Gomez re 394 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Matthew Cates, James Gomez, J. Yates, Theo White, 412 Minute Order,, Set/Reset Motion Hearing,. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Flynn, James) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 04/14/2009)
415 STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 4/14/09 ORDERING that the page limitation to Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is extended to 18 pages.(Mena−Sanchez, L) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 04/15/2009)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 415 Stipulation and Order, served on Jonathan T. Foot, Carlotta Wells. (Mena−Sanchez, L) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 04/16/2009)
416 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for Continuance of Pretrial Conference − Joint by William Rouser. (Riggs, Jennifer) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 04/17/2009)
417 ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 4/21/2009. Defendants' 394 Motion for Summary Judgment Hearing is CONTINUED to 5/8/2009 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 4 (LKK). Pretrial Conference and Trial dates set in this matter are VACATED and will be re−set at 5/8/2009 Hearing. (Marciel, M) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 04/22/2009)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 417 Order re−setting the Motion Hearing served on attorneys Jonathan T. Foot and Carlotta Wells. (Marciel, M) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 04/22/2009)

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 44 of 70

05/04/2009 05/08/2009
05/15/2009 05/19/2009 06/12/2009 06/12/2009 06/15/2009 06/15/2009 06/16/2009
09/11/2009 09/11/2009
09/11/2009

418 REPLY/RESPONSE to Defendants Objections To Plaintiffs Evidence In Support Of Plaintiffs Opposition To Defendants Motion For Summary Judgment by William Rouser re 405 Opposition to Motion. (Riggs, Jennifer) Modified on 5/5/2009 (Dillon, M). [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 05/04/2009)
419 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings held before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton: MOTION HEARING held on 5/8/2009 re 394 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Matthew Cates, James Gomez, J. Yates, Theo White. After oral argument, the motion stands SUBMITTED. Court order to follow. Plaintiffs Counsel Jenny Riggs, Lin Wang present. Defendants Counsel James Flynn, Josh Irwin present. Court Reporter: C. Bodene. (Rivas, A) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 05/08/2009)
420 ORDER signed by Judge Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 5/14/09 ORDERING that Defendants' MOTION 394 is DENIED as to Defendants Cate and Yates and GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, as to Defendants White and Gomez. (Mena−Sanchez, L) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 05/15/2009)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 420 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment served on Jonathan T. Foot, Carlotta Wells. (Mena−Sanchez, L) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 05/19/2009)
421 NOTICE of APPEAL by Theo White, James Gomez as to 420 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment May 14, 2009 Order)(Flynn, James) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 06/12/2009)
RECEIPT number #CAE200017633 $455.00 fbo Theo White and James Gomez by State of CA on 6/12/2009. (Kastilahn, A) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 06/12/2009)
422 APPEAL PROCESSED to Ninth Circuit re 421 Notice of Appeal filed by James Gomez, Theo White. Filed dates for Notice of Appeal *6/12/2009*, Complaint *5/7/1993* and Appealed Order / Judgment *5/15/2009*. Court Reporter: *Cathy Bodene*. *Fee Status: Paid on 6/12/2009 in the amount of $455.00* ** (Attachments: # 1 Appeal Notice)(cc: USCA) (Plummer, M) Modified on 6/15/2009 (Plummer, M). [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 06/15/2009)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 422 Appeal Processed to USCA, served on Jonathan T. Foot, Carlotta Wells. (Plummer, M) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 06/15/2009)
423 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 5−8−2009, before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton, filed by Court Reporter Cathie Bodene, Phone number 916−446−6360 E−mail cbodene@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 PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction must be filed within 5 court days. Redaction Request due 7/7/2009. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/17/2009. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/14/2009. (Bodene, C) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 06/16/2009)
424 NOTICE of APPEARANCE by Jason Corbitt Wright on behalf of William Rouser. Attorney Wright, Jason Corbitt added. (Wright, Jason) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 09/11/2009)
425 MOTION Preliminary Injunction by William Rouser. (Attachments: # 1 Points and Authorities, # 2 Proposed Order , # 3 Declaration of William Rouser − Part 1 of 3, # 4 Declaration of William Rouser − Part 2 of 3, # 5 Declaration of William Rouse − Part 3 of 3, # 6 Declaration of Rickey Adams , # 7 Declaration of Marcus Barnhardt , # 8 Declaration of James J. Burian, # 9 Declaration of Jeffrey Goldstein , # 10 Declaration of Jason Scott Harper, # 11 Declaration of Tramaine Hunter)(Wright, Jason) Modified on 9/15/2009 (Dillon, M). [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 09/11/2009)
426 DECLARATION of Douglas Hysell in Support of 425 MOTION Preliminary Injunction. (Wright, Jason) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 09/11/2009)

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 45 of 70

09/11/2009 09/11/2009 09/11/2009 09/11/2009 09/11/2009 09/11/2009 09/11/2009 09/11/2009
09/24/2009
09/25/2009 09/25/2009
09/25/2009 09/30/2009 10/05/2009

427 DECLARATION of Douglas Hysell (Second) in Support of 425 MOTION Preliminary Injunction. (Wright, Jason) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 09/11/2009)
428 DECLARATION of Kevin Iloff in Support of 425 MOTION Preliminary Injunction. (Wright, Jason) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 09/11/2009)
429 DECLARATION of Kajuana Irvin in Support of 425 MOTION Preliminary Injunction. (Wright, Jason) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 09/11/2009)
430 DECLARATION of Claude Powell in Support of 425 MOTION Preliminary Injunction. (Wright, Jason) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 09/11/2009)
431 DECLARATION of Melvin Reed in Support of 425 MOTION Preliminary Injunction. (Wright, Jason) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 09/11/2009)
432 DECLARATION of Lin Wang in Support of 425 MOTION Preliminary Injunction. (Wright, Jason) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 09/11/2009)
433 DECLARATION of William Rouser (Second) in Support of 425 MOTION Preliminary Injunction. (Wright, Jason) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 09/11/2009)
434 MOTION Supplement Third Amended Complaint by William Rouser. (Attachments: # 1 Points and Authorities Plaintiff's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Supplement Third Amended Complaint, # 2 Proposed Order [PROPOSED] Order Granting Leave to Supplement Third Amended Complaint, # 3 Declaration Declaration of Lin Wang in Support of Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement the Third Amended Complaint − Part 1 of 2, # 4 Declaration Declaration of Lin Wang in Support of Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement the Third Amended Complaint − Part 2 of 2)(Wright, Jason) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 09/11/2009)
435 MOTION (Ex Parte Request) to Continue Hearing And MOTION to Extend Time To Oppose Plaintiffs Motions For Preliminary Injunction And MOTION To File Fourth Amended And Supplemental Complaint by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, James Gomez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−Declaration of James E. Flynn, # 2 Exhibit A−Attachment 1, # 3 Declaration of Service via Mail)(Flynn, James) Modified on 9/25/2009 (Yin, K). [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 09/24/2009)
436 RESPONSE by William Rouser to 435 MOTION to CONTINUE. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Riggs, Jennifer) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 09/25/2009)
437 ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 9/25/09 ORDERING the hearing on 425 Motion for Preliminary Injunction and 434 Motion to Supplement Third Amended Complaint is CONTINUED to 10/20/2009 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 4 (LKK) before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. Defendants shall submit either an opposition or a statement of non−opposition by 10/6/09, unless the matter has settled before that time or the court has further continued the matter. Plaintiff's reply brief, if any, shall be submitted not later than 10/13/09. (Donati, J) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 09/25/2009)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 437 Order served on Jonathan T. Foot, Carlotta Wells. (Donati, J) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 09/25/2009)
438 DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE., attorney David A. Carrillo terminated (Carrillo, David) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 09/30/2009)
439 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for Continuance of Hearings On Motions For Preliminary Injunction And To Supplement Third Amended Complaint by

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 46 of 70

10/08/2009
10/08/2009 11/02/2009 11/04/2009 11/05/2009 11/06/2009 11/10/2009 11/13/2009 11/17/2009 11/19/2009 12/07/2009
12/10/2009 12/11/2009

William Rouser. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Riggs, Jennifer) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 10/05/2009)
440 ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 10/7/2009 ORDERING The hearings on 425 Pltf's Motion for Preliminary Injunction and 434 Motion to Supplement the 3rd Amended Complaint, currently calendared for 11/20/2009 at 1:30 p.m., are CONTINUTED to 12/7/2009 at 10:00 a.m., to give the Court sufficient time to rule on the motions before 12/21/2009, the date of pltf's Yule. The current briefing schedule is amended as followed: Dfts shall submit either an opposition or a statement of non−opposition to each motion by 11/5/2009, unless the matter has settled before that time or the Court has further continued the matter. Pltf's reply briefs shall be submitted no later than 11/19/2009. (Reader, L) Modified on 10/9/2009 (Plummer, M). [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 10/08/2009)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 440 Order, served on Jonathan T. Foot, Carlotta Wells. (Reader, L) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 10/08/2009)
441 STIPULATION TO CONTINUE HEARING ON MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by William Rouser. (Riggs, Jennifer) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 11/02/2009)
442 PROPOSED ORDER re 441 Stipulation Continuing Hearing by William Rouser. (Riggs, Jennifer) Modified on 11/5/2009 (Yin, K). [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 11/04/2009)
443 OPPOSITION by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, James Gomez to 434 MOTION Supplement Third Amended Complaint. (Flynn, James) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 11/05/2009)
444 PROPOSED ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. (Riggs, Jennifer) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 11/06/2009)
445 STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 11/10/09: HEARING as to 425 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction set for 2/22/2010 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 4 (LKK) before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. (Kaminski, H) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 11/10/2009)
446 NOTICE of Association of Counsel by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, James Gomez. Attorney Angus, Michelle Leigh added. (Angus, Michelle) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 11/13/2009)
447 NOTICE of Association of Counsel by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, James Gomez. Attorney Ramsey, Samantha H. added. (Ramsey, Samantha) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 11/17/2009)
448 REPLY by William Rouser re 434 MOTION Supplement Third Amended Complaint. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jason Wright in Support of Plaintifff's Reply in Support of Motion to Supplement the Third Amended Complaint)(Wright, Jason) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 11/19/2009)
449 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings held before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton: MOTION HEARING held on 12/7/2009 re 434 Plaintiff's MOTION To Supplement Third Amended Complaint filed by William Rouser. Motion granted. Court shall issue order. Plaintiffs Counsel Jason Wright, John Sasaki present. Defendants Counsel Michelle Angus, James Flynn present. Court Reporter/CD Number: C. Bodene. (Narcisse, M) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 12/07/2009)
450 ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 12/10/2009 re 434 Motion to Supplement the Complaint; this Motion 434 is DENIED as to pltf's initial request to add a claim for damages as to dft Haws; this Motion 434 is otherwise GRANTED; pltf shall re−file this complaint as a separate document. (Suttles, J) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 12/10/2009)
451 [DISREGARD − See doc. 452 ] AMENDED PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT against all defendants by William Rouser.(Wang, Lin) Modified on

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 47 of 70

12/15/2009 12/15/2009 01/11/2010 01/13/2010 01/14/2010 01/14/2010 01/14/2010
01/14/2010 01/15/2010
01/15/2010 01/15/2010 01/19/2010

12/15/2009 (Engbretson, K.). [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 12/11/2009)
452 FOURTH AMENDED PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT against all defendants by William Rouser.(Riggs, Jennifer) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 12/15/2009)
453 REQUEST to terminate attorney Samantha H. Ramsey from service (Ramsey, Samantha) Modified on 1/14/2010 (Benson, A.). [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 12/15/2009)
454 JOINT STIPULATION re Defendant's Deadline for Filing Responsive Pleading to Fourth Amended and Supplemented Complaint by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, James Gomez. (Angus, Michelle) Modified on 1/14/2010 (Benson, A.). [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 01/11/2010)
455 DECLARATION of William Rouser in support of 425 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Wright, Jason) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 01/13/2010)
PARTY UPDATE: P Ortiz, and B. Flores, and Brian Haws added. (Benson, A.) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 01/14/2010)
456 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for Alter Briefing Schedule for Plantiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction by William Rouser. (Wright, Jason) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 01/14/2010)
457 ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT SERVICE DOCUMENTS and USM−285 Forms signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 01/13/10. Service is appropriate for P Ortiz, B. Flores, Brian Haws. Clerk to send plaintiff: 1 Summons, 3 USM−285 Forms and 1 copy of the Amended Complaint filed on 12/15/09 to be completed and returned w/i 10 days. Within 10 days, counsel for dfts shall inform the court in writing whether counsel for dfts Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, and James Gomez will waive service of process on behalf of dfts Ortiz, Flores, and Haws. (Attachments: # 1 4th amended complaint)(Benson, A.) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 01/14/2010)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 1 Summons, 3 USM−285 Forms and instructions mailed to plf's counsel. (Benson, A.) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 01/14/2010)
458 STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton re 456 on 1/15/2010 ORDERING that the hearing on Plaintiff's 425 Motion for Preliminary Injunction shall proceed as scheduled on February 22, 2010. The current briefing schedule is amended as followed: Defendants shall submit either an opposition or a statement of non−opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction by February 4, 2010, unless the matter has settled before that time or the Court has further continued the matter. Plaintiff's reply briefs shall be submitted no later than February 12, 2010. (Duong, D) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 01/15/2010)
459 ANSWER TO PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT with Jury Demand by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, P Ortiz, B. Flores, Brian Haws, James Gomez. Attorney Angus, Michelle Leigh added. (Angus, Michelle) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 01/15/2010)
460 MOTION to DISMISS by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, P Ortiz, B. Flores, Brian Haws, James Gomez. (Attachments: # 1 Points and Authorities, # 2 Declaration of G. Duran in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, # 3 Declaration of D. Foston in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss)(Angus, Michelle) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 01/15/2010)
461 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, P Ortiz, B. Flores, Brian Haws, James Gomez. Amendment to 460 MOTION to DISMISS. (Angus, Michelle) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 01/19/2010)

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 48 of 70

01/19/2010 01/25/2010 01/29/2010 01/29/2010 02/02/2010 02/02/2010 02/03/2010
02/04/2010 02/04/2010 02/04/2010 02/04/2010 02/04/2010 02/04/2010

462 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, P Ortiz, B. Flores, Brian Haws, James Gomez. Amendment to 460 MOTION to DISMISS. (Angus, Michelle) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 01/19/2010)
463 NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS: One Summons, 3 USM−285 Forms, and 3 copies of the amended complaint by William Rouser. (Duong, D)(Service docs forwarded to LKK's chambers pursuant to GGH Chambers request on 1/27/10) Modified on 1/27/2010 (Plummer, M). [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 01/26/2010)
464 ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 1/29/2010, ORDERING the Clerk to send pltf three blank USM−285 forms; and within 30 days, pltf shall submit to the court the completed USM−285 forms required to effect service.(Kastilahn, A) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 01/29/2010)
SERVICE BY MAIL: Mailed three blank USM−285 forms to pltf's counsel, Jason Corbitt Wright.(Kastilahn, A) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 01/29/2010)
465 MOTION To File Documents Under Seal; Memorandum of Points and Authorities by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, P Ortiz, B. Flores, Brian Haws, James Gomez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Angus, Michelle) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 02/02/2010)
466 NOTICE Of Filing Sealed Document by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, P Ortiz, B. Flores, Brian Haws, James Gomez re 465 MOTION To File Documents Under Seal; Memorandum of Points and Authorities. (Angus, Michelle) Modified on 2/2/2010 (Matson, R).(Documents received and routed to chambers) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 02/02/2010)
467 ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 2/3/2010 ORDERING that Because defendant's opposition is due tomorrow, the court tentatively grants defendant's 465 motion to file Exhibit J, Attachment 2 under seal, and subject only to in camera review. Plaintiff shall file an opposition or statement of nonopposition to defendants' motion to file documents under seal on or before February 9, 2010. Depending on the court's resolution of this motion, plaintiff may seek a reasonable extension of time to file his reply brief to his motion for a preliminary injunction, which is currently set to be filed on or before February 12, 2010.(Duong, D) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 02/03/2010)
468 OPPOSITION by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, P Ortiz, B. Flores, Brian Haws, James Gomez to 425 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Attachments: # 1 Unpublished Cases, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B part 1, # 4 Exhibit B part 2, # 5 Exhibit B part 3)(Angus, Michelle) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 02/04/2010)
469 EXHIBIT C−E by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, P Ortiz, B. Flores, Brian Haws, James Gomez re 468 Opposition to Motion,. (Angus, Michelle) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 02/04/2010)
470 EXHIBIT F part 1 by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, P Ortiz, B. Flores, Brian Haws, James Gomez re 468 Opposition to Motion,. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit F part 2, # 2 Exhibit F part 3, # 3 Exhibit F part 4, # 4 Exhibit F part 5, # 5 Exhibit F part 6)(Angus, Michelle) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 02/04/2010)
471 EXHIBIT G−I by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, P Ortiz, B. Flores, Brian Haws, James Gomez re 468 Opposition to Motion,. (Angus, Michelle) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 02/04/2010)
472 EXHIBIT J part 1 by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, P Ortiz, B. Flores, Brian Haws, James Gomez re 468 Opposition to Motion,. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit J part 2, # 2 Exhibit J part 3, # 3 Exhibit J Attachment 2)(Angus, Michelle) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 02/04/2010)
473 EXHIBIT K−O by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, P Ortiz, B. Flores, Brian Haws, James Gomez re 468 Opposition to Motion,. (Angus, Michelle) [Transferred

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 49 of 70

02/04/2010 02/04/2010 02/04/2010 02/04/2010
02/05/2010 02/07/2010 02/08/2010 02/08/2010
02/08/2010
02/08/2010 02/10/2010 02/12/2010 02/12/2010

from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 02/04/2010)
474 EXHIBIT P−S by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, P Ortiz, B. Flores, Brian Haws, James Gomez re 468 Opposition to Motion,. (Angus, Michelle) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 02/04/2010)
475 EXHIBIT T−Z by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, P Ortiz, B. Flores, Brian Haws, James Gomez re 468 Opposition to Motion,. (Angus, Michelle) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 02/04/2010)
476 OBJECTIONS by Defendants Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, P Ortiz, B. Flores, Brian Haws, James Gomez. (Angus, Michelle) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 02/04/2010)
477 MOTION for Evidentiary Hearing Re: Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction; Declaration of Counsel; Offer of Proof by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, P Ortiz, B. Flores, Brian Haws, James Gomez re 468 Opposition to Motion, filed by Matthew Cates, James Gomez, Brian Haws, B. Flores, J. Yates, P Ortiz, Theo White. (Angus, Michelle) Modified on 2/5/2010 (Dillon, M). [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 02/04/2010)
478 OPPOSITION by William Rouser to 460 MOTION to DISMISS. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Wright, Jason) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 02/05/2010)
479 OPPOSITION to 465 Motion to File Documents Under Seal by William Rouser. (Wright, Jason) Modified on 2/8/2010 (Engbretson, K.). [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 02/07/2010)
480 EXHIBIT Plaintiff William Rouser's Appendix of Unplublished Cases in Support of His Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss re 460 MOTION to DISMISS filed by Matthew Cates, James Gomez, Brian Haws, B. Flores, J. Yates, P Ortiz, Theo White. (Wright, Jason) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 02/08/2010)
481 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings held before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton: IN CHAMBERS CONFERENCE held on 2/8/2010. Evidentiary Hearing set for 3/3/2010 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 4 (LKK) before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. Plaintiffs Counsel Jason Wright present. Defendants Counsel Michelle Angus present. (Narcisse, M) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 02/08/2010)
482 ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 2/8/2010 ORDERING that an evidentiary hearing is set for the purpose of obtaining testimony of Lisa Morgenstern on 3/3/2010 at 10:00 AM. The hearing for 425 Motion for Preliminary Injunction and 460 Motion to Dismiss is CONTINUED to 3/3/2010. Dfts shall inform the court by 2/10/2010 whether it should (a) strike Exhibit J Attachment 2 to Dfts' Opposition to Pltf's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, (b) redact the names of the confidential informants contained in this exhibit and serve the redacted exhibit to pltf, or (c) designate the exhibit to be for attorneys' eyes only and serve the exhibit to pltf's counsel. Pltf may file a response, if any, by 2/12/2010. (Engbretson, K.) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 02/08/2010)
483 NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS: 3 USM−285 Forms, by William Rouser. (Reader, L) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 02/09/2010)
484 NOTICE of Withdrawl of Exhibit J Attachment 2 of Defendants' Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, P Ortiz, B. Flores, Brian Haws, James Gomez. (Angus, Michelle) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 02/10/2010)
485 MEMORANDUM by William Rouser in SUPPORT of 425 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Wright, Jason) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 02/12/2010)
486 RESPONSE by William Rouser to 425 Motion for Preliminary Injunction, 476 Objections. (Wright, Jason) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.]

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 50 of 70

02/12/2010 02/16/2010 02/19/2010 02/22/2010
02/22/2010 02/26/2010 02/26/2010 02/26/2010 03/01/2010
03/01/2010 03/02/2010 03/02/2010
03/03/2010
03/03/2010

(Entered: 02/12/2010)
487 OBJECTIONS by Plaintiff William Rouser to 486 Response. (Wright, Jason) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 02/12/2010)
488 REPLY by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, P Ortiz, B. Flores, Brian Haws, James Gomez to RESPONSE to 460 MOTION to DISMISS. (Angus, Michelle) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 02/16/2010)
489 DECLARATION of G. Duran re 488 Reply to Response to Motion. (Angus, Michelle) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 02/19/2010)
490 ORDER DIRECTING USM to serve * amended complaint * filed on * 12/15/09,* on * P Ortiz, B. Flores, Brian Haws*, signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 2/22/10 ORDERING that the clerk is directed to forward plaintiff's instructions for service, the completed summons, copies of the complaint and this order to the USM. The clerk is directed to serve plaintiff with local rules. (cc USM Priority) (Becknal, R) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 02/22/2010)
491 CONSENT or Decline forms issued, due by 3/29/2010 (Becknal, R) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 02/22/2010)
492 OBJECTIONS by Plaintiff William Rouser to 489 Declaration. (Wright, Jason) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 02/26/2010)
493 NOTICE of withdrawal of Jenny Riggs as counsel of record for plaintiff by William Rouser. (Riggs, Jennifer) Modified on 3/1/2010 (Plummer, M). [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 02/26/2010)
494 DECLINE to PROCEED BEFORE US MAGISTRATE JUDGE by William Rouser. (Wang, Lin) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 02/26/2010)
495 MOTION [to] Vacate Evidentiary Hearing Set for March 3, 2010 by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, P Ortiz, B. Flores, Brian Haws, James Gomez re 482 Order. Attorney Flynn, James Edmund added. (Flynn, James) Modified on 3/2/2010 (Plummer, M). [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 03/01/2010)
496 RESPONSE by William Rouser to 495 Request,. (Wright, Jason) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 03/01/2010)
497 REPLY by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, P Ortiz, B. Flores, Brian Haws, James Gomez re 496 Response. (Flynn, James) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 03/02/2010)
498 ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 3/2/10 ORDERING that Defendants' Request to vacate evidentiary heraing 495 is DENIED. Defendants have filed a reply to Plaintiff's opposition. In this reply, defendants raise several objections that will be heard at the hearing. If Plaintiff is unable to procure Ms. Morgenstern's appearance at the hearing, these objections will be moot. (Mena−Sanchez, L) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 03/02/2010)
499 MINUTES for proceedings held before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton: EVIDENTIARY and MOTION HEARING held on 3/3/2010. Defense shall file affidavit of Mr. Omeira within 15 days. Plaintiff shall file responsive affidavit or demand for cross examination 15 days thereafter. Motion for Preliminary Injunction 425 and Motion to Dismiss 462 SUBMITTED. Plaintiffs Counsel Jason Wright, John Sasaki present. Defendants Counsel James Flynn, Michelle Angus present. Court Reporter/CD Number: C. Bodene. (Attachments: # 1 Main Document) (Narcisse, M) Modified on 4/30/2010 (Rivas, A). [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 03/04/2010)
500 AMENDED MINUTES for proceedings held before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton: EVIDENTIARY and MOTION HEARING held on 3/3/2010. Defense shall file affidavit of Mr. Omeira within 15 days. Plaintiff shall file responsive affidavit or demand for cross examination 15 days thereafter. Motion for Preliminary Injunction 425 and Motion to Dismiss 462 SUBMITTED. Plaintiffs Counsel Jason Wright, John

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 51 of 70

03/03/2010 03/10/2010 03/18/2010 03/22/2010 03/30/2010 04/02/2010 04/02/2010 04/07/2010
04/07/2010 04/15/2010 04/15/2010 04/28/2010 04/29/2010

Sasaki present. Defendants Counsel James Flynn, Michelle Angus present. Court Reporter/CD Number: C. Bodene. (Attachments: # Main Document) (Narcisse, M). Modified on 4/30/2010 (Rivas, A). [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 03/04/2010)
513 EXHIBITS to EVIDENTIARY HEARING held on 03/03/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Request for Evidentiary Hearing; # 2 Exhibit B − Declaration of Lisa Morgenstern). (Rivas, A) Modified on 4/30/2010 (Rivas, A). [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 04/30/2010)
501 ORDER denying 460 dfts' Motion to Dismiss, signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 3/9/2010. (Kastilahn, A) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 03/10/2010)
502 DECLARATION of Chaplain A. Omeira in Response to Testimony of L. Morgenstern. (Flynn, James) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 03/18/2010)
503 ANSWER TO PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT with Jury Demand by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, P Ortiz, B. Flores, Brian Haws, James Gomez. (Angus, Michelle) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 03/22/2010)
504 NOTICE of APPEARANCE by Kara Backus on behalf of William Rouser. Attorney Backus, Kara added. (Backus, Kara) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 03/30/2010)
505 DECLARATION of William Rouser in SUPPORT OF 425 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Backus, Kara) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 04/02/2010)
506 OBJECTIONS by Plaintiff William Rouser to 502 Declaration. (Backus, Kara) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 04/02/2010)
507 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on March 3rd, 2010, before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton, filed by Court Reporter Cathie Bodene, Phone number 916−446−6360 E−mail cbodene@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 PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction must be filed within 5 court days. Redaction Request due 4/28/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/10/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/6/2010. (Bodene, C) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 04/07/2010)
508 OBJECTIONS by Defendants Theo White, Matthew Cates, P Ortiz, B. Flores, Brian Haws, James Gomez to 506 Objections, 505 Declaration. (Flynn, James) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 04/07/2010)
509 ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 4/15/2010 GRANTING 425 Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, as to the relief described; and the court further ORDERS that plaintiff shall not be required to post bond. (Reader, L) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 04/15/2010)
510 WAIVER of SERVICE RETURNED EXECUTED: P Ortiz Waiver sent on 3/8/2010, B. Flores Waiver sent on 3/8/2010, Brian Haws Waiver sent on 3/8/2010. (Carlos, K) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 04/16/2010)
511 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for Preliminary Injunction by Theo White, J. Yates, Matthew Cates, P Ortiz, B. Flores, Brian Haws, James Gomez. (Flynn, James) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 04/28/2010)
512 STIPULATION AND ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 4/28/2010 ORDERING 509 the Court issued an order for a preliminary injunction. Defendants will appeal that order to the Court of Appeal for the 9th Circuit. Dfts will file that appeal on or before 5/7/2010. The parties have conferred with the Chief Circuit Mediator and have agreed to participate in the mediation of the case in its entirety, including, but not limited to the preliminary injunction order, the appeal of this Court's order denying qualified immunity for dfts Gomez and White, and any

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 52 of 70

05/04/2010
05/05/2010 05/07/2010
05/12/2010 05/17/2010 05/17/2010 05/24/2010

additional cases or matters which they agree to mediate. The parties are considering mediation dates in late May or early June of 2010. The Chief Circuit Mediator has advised the parties that a stay of the appeal will be issued pending mediation, when dfts' appeal is filed. Because of those facts, the parties agree that dfts are not required to first seek a stay of enforcement of the preliminary injunction in the district court. If the parties are unable to mediate the dispute, and the stay of the appeal pending mediation is lifted, the parties agree that pltf can move the district court for enforcement of the preliminary injunction, and dfts can oppose that motion or move for a stay in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal. In the event the parties are unable to mediate the dispute, and the stay of appeal is lifted, the parties agree that the preliminary injunction will take effect as if entered by the Court on the date the stay of appeal is lifted. (Reader, L) Modified on 4/29/2010 (Reader, L). [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 04/29/2010)
514 NOTICE of INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL by dfts as to 509 Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction and 420 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment. Attorney Flynn, James Edmund added. (Attachments: # 1 Standing Order 5/15/2009 [CR 420], # 2 Standing Order 4/15/2010 [CR 509], # 3 Statement of Representation)(Flynn, James) Modified on 5/7/2010 (Yin, K). [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 05/04/2010)
RECEIPT number #CAE200025966 $455.00 fbo Bush, Theo White, J Yates, Matthew Cates, P. Ortiz, B. Flores, Brian Haws, and James Gomez by State of CA on 5/5/2010. (Kastilahn, A) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 05/05/2010)
515 APPEAL PROCESSED to Ninth Circuit re 514 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal, filed by Matthew Cates, Bush, James Gomez, Brian Haws, B. Flores, J. Yates, P Ortiz, Theo White. Filed dates for Notice of Appeal *5/4/2010*, Complaint *5/7/1993* and Appealed Order / Judgment *4/15/2010*. Court Reporter: *C. Bodene*. *Fee Status: Paid on 5/5/2010 in the amount of $455.00* ** (Attachments: # 1 Appeal Information) (Yin, K) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 05/07/2010)
516 USCA CASE NUMBER 10−16066 for 514 Notice of Appeal, filed by Matthew Cates, Bush, James Gomez, Brian Haws, B. Flores, J. Yates, P Ortiz, Theo White. (Engbretson, K.) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 05/12/2010)
517 MOTION for RECONSIDERATION re 512 Order for Preliminary Injunction by Members of the Spotted Eagle Circle, Lancaster State Prison. (Owen, K) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 05/18/2010)
518 MOTION to Intervene by Members of the Spotted Eagle Circle. (Attachments: # 1 Interveners' Answer)(Matson, R) Modified on 6/30/2010 (Matson, R). [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 05/18/2010)
519 ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 5/24/2010 ORDERING that the 518 motion to intervene, is GRANTED. The court has determined that it may be appropriate to appoint counsel for the interveners. For this reason, the court orders the Clerk of Court to serve copies of this order, the court's order granting in part plaintiff's 509 motion for a preliminary injunction, and the 517 518 interveners motions, upon California Indian Legal Services at the following addresses: 609 S. Escondido Boulevard Escondido, CA 92025; and 3814 Auburn Boulevard, Suite 72 Sacramento, CA 95821. California Indian Legal Services shall inform the court within thirty (30) days of the issuance of this order whether it will represent the interveners in this action. If the organization declines to represent the interveners the court will seek alternative volunteer counsel for them. The court stays enforcement of the April 15, 2010 order pending resolution of the intervener's motion to reconsider as to only the following relief: that defendants grant Mr. Rouser access to the fire pit adjacent to the Native American sweat lodge during religious services; that when Wiccan services are scheduled, defendants must allow Mr. Rouser to access the outdoor, nature−based religious area for group services for the entire scheduled time, unless the Yard is on modified program and no religious group is allowed to meet that day only insofar as access to this area interferes with the interveners' religious practice. (cc California Indian Legal Services w/#509, 517, 518)(Duong, D) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 05/24/2010)

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 53 of 70

06/07/2010 06/23/2010 06/29/2010 06/29/2010 06/30/2010
06/30/2010 06/30/2010 07/23/2010 07/27/2010 07/30/2010 09/08/2011 09/23/2011

520 REQUEST for case disposition and copy of docket sheet by Andrew Kicking Horse. (Return address not provided on letter − response not sent)(Marciel, M) Modified on 6/11/2010 (Rivas, A). [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 06/08/2010)
521 NOTICE of Acceptance of Appointment as Counsel by Spotted Eagle Circle. Attorney Radoff, Mark A added. (Radoff, Mark) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 06/23/2010)
PARTY UPDATE: S. Melton, C. Weyant, T. Nguyen, L. Nguyen, D. Lee, G. Hinkle, C. Russ, D. Robinson, S. Baek, K. Lee, D. Sims, S. Dado, D. Reese and James Terres added. (Duong, D) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 06/29/2010)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 519 Order on Motion for Intervention served on S. Baek, S. Dado, G. Hinkle, D. Lee, K. Lee, S. Melton, L. Nguyen, T. Nguyen, D. Reese, D. Robinson, C. Russ, D. Sims, James Terres, C. Weyant. (Duong, D) Modified on 6/30/2010 (Duong, D). [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 06/29/2010)
522 ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 6/30/2010 ORDERING The interveners shall inform the court w/in 14 days if they accept representation by CILS. A failure to respond will be deemed acceptance of CILS. (2) The court currently lacks jurisdiction over its order granting, in part, plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction. Accordingly, it cannot hear the motion to reconsider the order at this time. Because the parties have represented that they are actively engaged in mediation, the court declines at this time to request that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals allow this court to reconsider its order granting, in part, plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction. If mediation is unsuccessful, the parties are ORDERED to inform the court within seven (7) days of the end of mediation. It is the courts understanding that the interveners may participate in the mediation. Attorneys from CILS may only participate in the mediation if the interveners consent to representation by them. (3) The Clerk of Court is instructed to serve this order and the May 24, 2010 order, Dkt. No. 519, upon the intervening members of the Spotted Eagle Circle.(Matson, R) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 06/30/2010)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 522 Order, served on S. Baek, S. Dado, G. Hinkle, D. Lee, K. Lee, S. Melton, L. Nguyen, T. Nguyen, D. Reese, D. Robinson, C. Russ, D. Sims, James Terres, C. Weyant. (Matson, R) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 06/30/2010)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 519 Order, served on S. Baek, S. Dado, G. Hinkle, D. Lee, K. Lee, S. Melton, L. Nguyen, T. Nguyen, D. Reese, D. Robinson, C. Russ, D. Sims, James Terres, C. Weyant. (Matson, R) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 06/30/2010)
523 NOTICE of Acceptance of Representation for Interveners by Spotted Eagle Circle. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Radoff, Mark) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 07/23/2010)
524 ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 7/27/10 ORDERING the court DISMISSES intervenor Sims from this action for his failure to keep the court apprised of his current address; and the court MODIFIES its order granting the motion to intervene 519 to include A. McCarter as an intervenor. (Carlos, K) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 07/27/2010)
525 CERTIFICATE of SERVICE by Spotted Eagle Circle re 523 Notice . (Radoff, Mark) Modified on 8/10/2010 (Yin, K). [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 07/30/2010)
526 ORDER of USCA for 421 514 Notices of Appeal: these Appeals are DISMISSED without prejudice to reinstatement; parties shall bear their own costs; and this Order shall act as Mandate of 9th Circuit (Marciel, M) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 09/08/2011)
527 JOINT MOTION for Order Approving Settlement and Transferring Venue by Matthew Cates, B. Flores, James Gomez, Brian Haws, P Ortiz, Theo White, J. Yates. Motion hearing set for 10/24/11 at 10:00 a.m. in courtroom 4 before Judge Lawrence

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 54 of 70

09/23/2011 10/17/2011 10/18/2011 10/20/2011 11/03/2011 11/08/2011 11/15/2011 12/05/2011
12/05/2011 12/05/2011
12/08/2011

K. Karlton. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum)(Flynn, James) Modified on 9/26/2011 (Plummer, M). [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 09/23/2011)
528 JOINT SETTLMENT AGREEMENT by Matthew Cates, B. Flores, James Gomez, Brian Haws, P Ortiz, Theo White, J. Yates. (Flynn, James) Modified on 9/26/2011 (Plummer, M). [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 09/23/2011)
529 STATEMENT of Non Opposition to Joint Settlement Agreement & Joint Ntc and Motion for Order Approving Settlement & Transfering Venue and Request to Appear Telephonically by Intervenor Plaintiff Spotted Eagle Circle. (Radoff, Mark) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 10/17/2011)
530 ORDER granting 527 Motion to approve the settlement and transfer venue to Central District of California, Western Division signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 10/17/11: The hearing on the joint motion currently scheduled for October 24, 2011 is VACATED. (Kaminski, H) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 10/18/2011)
531 TRANSMITTAL of DOCUMENTS re 530 Order, on *10/18/2011* to * USDC* *Central District of California* *312 N. Spring Street* *Los Angeles, CA 90012*. * Volumes of Files: 7. Volumes of Expandable Folders: 2.* (Kaminski, H) [Transferred from California Eastern on 11/8/2011.] (Entered: 10/20/2011)
533 NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF CASE TRANSFERRED IN: Formerly case number 2:93−cv−00767−LKK−GGH from USDC Eastern District of California at Sacramento. The above−referenced case has been transferred to this district and assigned the above civil case number 2:11−cv−9123−RGK (JEMx). (et) (Entered: 11/09/2011)
532 ORIGINAL file, certified copy of transfer order and docket sheet received from California Eastern (Entered: 11/08/2011)
534 STANDING ORDER REGARDING NEWLY ASSIGNED CASES by Judge R. Gary Klausner. (vdr) (Entered: 11/17/2011)
536 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Gretchen K Buechsenschuet counsel for Defendants Matthew Cates, B. Flores, James Gomez, Brian Haws, P Ortiz, Theo White, J. Yates. Adding Gretchen B. Buechsenschuetz as attorney as counsel of record for Cate, Flores, Gomez, Haws, Ortiz, White, Yates and Cash for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by Defendants Cate, Flores, Gomez, Haws, Ortiez, White, Yates, and Cash (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Service)(Buechsenschuet, Gretchen) (Entered: 12/05/2011)
537 Certificate of Service filed by Defendants Matthew Cates, B. Flores, James Gomez, Brian Haws, P Ortiz, Theo White, J. Yates re: Notice of Change of Attorney Information (G−06), Notice of Change of Attorney Information (G−06), Notice of Change of Attorney Information (G−06) 536 (Buechsenschuet, Gretchen) (Entered: 12/05/2011)
538 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Gretchen K Buechsenschuet counsel for Defendants Matthew Cates, B. Flores, James Gomez, Brian Haws, P Ortiz, Theo White, J. Yates. James E. Flynn will no longer receive service of documents from the Clerks Office for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice.James E. Flynn is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by Defendants Cate, Flores, Gomez, Haws, Ortiz, White, Yates, and Cash (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Service)(Buechsenschuet, Gretchen) (Entered: 12/05/2011)
539 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Miscellaneous Document, 537 . The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event selected. Title page is missing. The correct event is: Civil Events − Service Documents (Non Complaint) − Proof of Service. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (shb) (Entered: 12/08/2011)

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 55 of 70

02/10/2012
02/23/2012
03/08/2012 03/15/2012 03/15/2012 03/22/2012 03/22/2012
03/28/2012
03/30/2012 04/03/2012 04/05/2012 04/25/2012 04/25/2012 07/18/2012
07/26/2012 07/31/2012
08/17/2012

543 MINUTE IN CHAMBERS NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES AND ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner: The parties shall confer, and file a joint status report regarding this matter not later than February 24, 2012. The status report shall not exceed seven pages (shb) (Entered: 02/13/2012)
544 Joint REQUEST for Extension of Time to File Joint Status Report filed by Defendants Matthew Cates, B. Flores, James Gomez, Brian Haws, P Ortiz, Theo White, J. Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Declaration of Service)(Buechsenschuet, Gretchen) (Entered: 02/23/2012)
546 STATUS REPORT Re: Settlement (Joint) filed by Defendants Matthew Cates, B. Flores, James Gomez, Brian Haws, P Ortiz, Theo White, J. Yates. (Buechsenschuet, Gretchen) (Entered: 03/08/2012)
547 ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner: denying Request 544 for Extension of Time to as moot. (vdr) (Entered: 03/15/2012)
548 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge R. Gary Klausner. Not later than 3/23/2012, the parties shall file a further joint status report. (vdr) (Entered: 03/15/2012)
549 STATUS REPORT Joint in Response to March 15, 2012 Minute Order filed by Plaintiff William Rouser. (Wright, Jason) (Entered: 03/22/2012)
550 First REQUEST to Substitute attorney William Rouser (pro se) in place of attorney Jason Wright and Lin Wang of Jones Day and Kara Backus and Jenny Riggs filed by Plaintiff William Rouser. Request set for hearing on 4/23/2012 at 09:00 AM before Judge R. Gary Klausner. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wright, Jason) (Entered: 03/22/2012)
551 ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner GRANTING Request for Approval of Substitution of William Rouser as Pro Se in place and stead of attorneys Kara Backus, Lin Wang, Jason Wright of Jones Day and Jenny Riggs 550 . (jp) (Entered: 03/28/2012)
552 Mail Returned addressed to Fiel Dizon Tigno, Return to Sender, no such address, re Order on Request for Extension of Time to File Document 547 . (bm) (Entered: 04/03/2012)
553 Mail Returned addressed to Fiel Dizon Tigno, Return to Sender, no such address, re Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive 548 . (bm) (Entered: 04/03/2012)
554 Mail Returned addressed to Fiel Dizon Tigno re Order on Request to Substitute Attorney 551 (rrey) (Entered: 04/06/2012)
555 Mail Returned addressed to Richard G Bates re Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive − no proceeding held 548 (shb) (Entered: 04/30/2012)
556 Mail Returned addressed to D sims re Order on Request to Substitute Attorney 551 (shb) (Entered: 04/30/2012)
557 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS RE: JOINT STATUS REPORT 549 by Judge R. Gary Klausner. The Plaintiff Intervenors are hereby ordered to submit a Notice of Dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 by 8/6/2012 or to submit a status report to the Court by that same date stating why such claims will not be dismissed and the status of the litigation between the remaining parties to those claims so that the Court may set an appropriate date for trial. (vdr) (Entered: 07/18/2012)
558 MOTION to Have Court Enforce the Consent Decree filed by Plaintiff William Rouser.(vdr) (Entered: 07/27/2012)
559 NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES AND ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner, re MOTION to Enforce the Consent Decree 558 Plaintiffs Motion to Have Court Enforce the Consent Decree, filed on July 26, 2012, has been placed on calendar for September 10, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. Defendants opposition, if any, shall be filed by August 20, 2012. Plaintiffs reply, if any, shall be filed by August 31, 2012. (shb) (Entered: 08/01/2012)
560 EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME to File a Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce filed by Defendants Matthew Cates, B. Flores, James

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 56 of 70

08/24/2012 08/28/2012 08/30/2012
08/31/2012
09/12/2012 09/19/2012 09/26/2012
09/27/2012 10/03/2012 10/09/2012 10/09/2012 10/11/2012
10/15/2012 10/18/2012

Gomez, Brian Haws, P Ortiz, Theo White, J. Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Declaration of Service)(Buechsenschuet, Gretchen) (Entered: 08/17/2012)
561 ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner: granting 560 Ex Parte Application for Enlargement of Time to File Responsive Document. IT IS ORDERED THAT Defendant's request for enlargement of time is granted. Defendants shall file their responsive document on or before August 31, 2012. (shb) (Entered: 08/27/2012)
562 Mail Returned addressed to Richard G Bates re Order, Set/Reset Motion Hearing and R&R Deadlines,, 559 (shb) (Entered: 08/28/2012)
563 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner: taking under submission 558 Motion to Enforce Consent Decree. The Court hereby advises counsel that the above−referenced motion, noticed for hearing on September 10, 2012, has been taken under submission and off the motion calendar. No appearances by counsel are necessary. The Court will issue a ruling after full consideration of properly submitted pleadings. (shb) Modified on 8/31/2012 (shb). (Entered: 08/31/2012)
564 OPPOSITION to MOTION to Enforce the Consent Decree 558 filed by Defendants Matthew Cates, B. Flores, James Gomez, Brian Haws, P Ortiz, Theo White, J. Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Declaration of Service)(Buechsenschuetz, Gretchen) (Attachment 1 replaced on 9/14/2012) (bm). (Attachment 1 replaced on 11/16/2015) (yl). (Entered: 08/31/2012)
565 NOTICE TO COURT OF DEFENDANTS FURTHER VIOLATIONS OF CONSENT DECREE filed by Plaintiff William Rouser. (shb) (Entered: 09/14/2012)
566 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge R. Gary Klausner: The Court orders Defendants to file a written response to Plaintiffs September 12, 2012 Notice 565 . Defendants response is limited to five pages and must be filed on or before September 26, 2012. (rne) (Entered: 09/19/2012)
567 EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME to File Respond to Plaintiff's Notice of Further Violations of Consent Decree filed by Defendants Matthew Cates, B. Flores, James Gomez, Brian Haws, P Ortiz, Theo White, J. Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Declaration of Service)(Buechsenschuetz, Gretchen) (Entered: 09/26/2012)
568 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner: granting 567 Ex Parte Application for Enlargement of Time to File. (rne) (Entered: 09/27/2012)
569 RESPONSE filed by Defendants Matthew Cates, B. Flores, James Gomez, Brian Haws, P Ortiz, Theo White, J. Yatesto Notice (Other) 565 (Buechsenschuetz, Gretchen) (Entered: 10/03/2012)
571 REQUEST for Extension of Time for Sanctions and Evidentiary Hearing filed by Plaintiff William Rouser.(vdr) (Entered: 10/11/2012)
572 PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE IN SUPPORT TO DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE AND RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION AND DEFENDANT'S PERJURED STATEMENTS AND CONTEMPT OF COURT filed by Plaintiff William Rouser. (shb) (Entered: 10/11/2012)
570 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION 558 FOR COURT TO ENFORCE CONSENT by Judge R. Gary Klausner. The Court hereby advises counsel that the above−referenced motion, noticed for hearing on 10/15/2012, has been taken under submission and off the motion calendar. No appearances by counsel are necessary. The Court will issue a ruling after full consideration of properly submitted pleadings. (vdr) (Entered: 10/11/2012)
573 MOTION for injunction, and evidentiary hearing to stop defendants abuse of plaintiff's rights and irreparable harm, MOTION for Sanctions filed by Plaintiff William Rouser. (shb) (Entered: 10/19/2012)
575 NOTICE OF FURTHER VIOLATIONS OF CONSENT JUDGMENT filed by Plaintiff William Rouser. (shb) (Entered: 10/24/2012)

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 57 of 70

10/19/2012 11/08/2012 11/15/2012 11/21/2012
11/28/2012 01/03/2013 01/03/2013 01/03/2013 01/03/2013 01/31/2013
02/01/2013
02/01/2013 02/04/2013

574 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge R. Gary Klausner. Plaintiff's Motion 573 for Injunction, Sanctions and Evidentiary Hearing to Stop Defendants' Abuse of Plaintiff's Rights and the Irreparable Harm, has been placed on the Courts calendar for 11/26/2012 at 9:00 a.m. (vdr) (Entered: 10/19/2012)
576 REQUEST for ruling of hearing on October 5, 2012 filed by Plaintiff William Rouser. (shb) (Entered: 11/09/2012)
577 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner: granting in part and denying in part 558 Motion to Enforce; denying 571 Request for Extension of Time to File. (rne) (Entered: 11/15/2012)
578 (IN CHAMBERS) Plaintiff's Motion for Injunction, Sanctions and Evidentiary Hearing to Stop Defendants' Abuse of Plaintiff's Rights and the Irreparable Harm (DE 573), noticed for hearing on November 26, 2012, has been taken under submission and off the motion calendar. No appearances by counsel are necessary. The Court will issue a ruling after full consideration of properly submitted pleadings. IT IS SO ORDERED by Judge R. Gary Klausner. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY.(sw) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 11/21/2012)
579 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner: denying 573 Motion for Injunction, Evidentiary Hearing and Sanctions. (rne) (Entered: 11/29/2012)
580 Mail Returned addressed to RICHARD G BATES re Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive − no proceeding held, Set/Reset Motion Hearing and R&R Deadlines,, 574 (rne) (Entered: 01/07/2013)
581 Mail Returned addressed to RICHARD G BATES re Order on Motion to Enforce, Order on Request for Extension of Time to File Document 577 (rne) (Entered: 01/07/2013)
582 Mail Returned addressed to RICHARD G BATES re Order on Motion for Order, Order on Motion for Sanctions 579 (rne) (Entered: 01/07/2013)
583 MAIL RETURNED addressed to Richard Bates 9020 Brentwood Blvd # A Brentwood, CA 94613−4048 re Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive − no proceeding held, 557 (ir) (Entered: 01/23/2013)
584 **STRICKEN PURSUANT TO ORDER FILED 2/1/13**NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Vacate Order on Motion to Transfer Case, Order on Motion for Order,, 530 filed by Defendants Matthew Cates, B. Flores, James Gomez, Brian Haws, P Ortiz, Theo White, J. Yates. Motion set for hearing on 2/25/2013 at 09:00 AM before Judge R. Gary Klausner. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Declaration of Service)(Buechsenschuetz, Gretchen)Modified on 2/1/2013 (ir). (Entered: 01/31/2013)
585 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: MOTION to Vacate Order on Motion to Transfer Case, Order on Motion for Order,, 530 MOTION to Vacate Order on Motion to Transfer Case, Order on Motion for Order,, 530 584 . The following error(s) was found: Proposed Document was not submitted as a separate attachment. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (shb) (Entered: 02/01/2013)
586 ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner: the following document be STRICKEN for failure to comply with the Local Rules, General Order and/or the Courts Case Management Order: Notice of Motion 530 584 , for the following reasons: Motion untimely. See Local Rule 6−1. (ir) (Entered: 02/01/2013)
587 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Vacate Order on Motion to Transfer Case, Order on Motion for Order,, 530 filed by Defendants Matthew Cates, B. Flores, James Gomez, Brian Haws, P Ortiz, Theo White, J. Yates. Motion set for hearing on 3/11/2013 at 09:00 AM before Judge R. Gary Klausner. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Declaration of Service)(Buechsenschuetz, Gretchen) (Entered: 02/04/2013)

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 58 of 70

02/08/2013 02/21/2013 02/26/2013 02/26/2013 03/05/2013 03/06/2013
03/13/2013
03/13/2013 03/13/2013 03/18/2013
04/03/2013 04/03/2013 04/24/2013 04/24/2013 05/31/2013 06/07/2013
06/12/2013

588 NOTICE filed by Plaintiff William Rouser. (lmh) (Entered: 02/11/2013)
589 PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION to Vacate Order on Motion to Transfer Case, Order on Motion for Order,, 530 587 filed by Plaintiff William Rouser. (bp) (Entered: 02/27/2013)
590 Mail Returned addressed to Richard G Bates re Notice of Deficiency in Electronically Filed Documents (G−112),, 585 (shb) (Entered: 02/28/2013)
591 Mail Returned addressed to Richard G Bates re Striking Electronically Filed Documents (G−106), 586 (shb) (Entered: 02/28/2013)
592 REPLY to Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion to Vacate filed by Defendants Matthew Cates, B. Flores, James Gomez, Brian Haws, P Ortiz, Theo White, J. Yates. (Buechsenschuetz, Gretchen) (Entered: 03/05/2013)
593 (IN CHAMBERS) NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES AND ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner. Defendants Matthew Cates, B. Flores, James Gomez, Brian Haws, P Ortiz, Theo White, and J. Yates Motion to Vacate Order on Motion to Transfer Case (DE 587),noticed for hearing on March 11, 2013, has been taken under submission and off the motion calendar. No appearances by counsel are necessary. The Court will issue a ruling after full consideration of properly submitted pleadings. IT IS SO ORDERED.THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY.(sw) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 03/06/2013)
594 MINUTES: (IN CHAMBERS) Order Re: Defendants' Motion to Vacate Order,Dismiss Action with Prejudice, and Enter Judgment 587 : Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion. The following is ordered: (1) Defendants' Motion to Vacate the October 18, 2011 Order 530 and Dismiss the Action is GRANTED. This order does not vacate the transfer of venue. (2) This matter is dismissed with prejudice, pursuant to the terms of the Joint Settlement Agreement; and, (3) Judgment in entered for Defendants IT IS SO ORDERED by Judge R. Gary Klausner. (ir) (Entered: 03/13/2013)
595 Mail Returned addressed to THORNTON TAYLOR & DOWNS BECKER TOLSON DOHERTY re Text Only Scheduling Notice,, 593 (rne) (Entered: 03/13/2013)
597 REQUEST for Oral Argument on March 11, 2013 Hearing filed by Plaintiff William Rouser. (rne) (Entered: 03/19/2013)
596 MINUTE IN CHAMBERS Order Re: Plaintiffs Request for Oral Argument on March 11, 2013 Hearing (filed on March 13, 2013) by Judge R. Gary Klausner: In light of the Courts order on March 13, 2013 granting Defendants Motion to Vacate, Dismiss Action with Prejudice, and Enter Judgment, Plaintiffs request for oral argumentregarding the March 11, 2013 hearing is DENIED as moot. (shb) (Entered: 03/18/2013)
598 Mail Returned addressed to Richard G Bates re Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive − no proceeding held, 596 (shb) (Entered: 04/04/2013)
599 Mail Returned addressed to Fiel Dizon Tigno re Order on Motion to Vacate,, 594 (shb) (Entered: 04/04/2013)
600 REQUEST to Receive Orders and for Extension of Time to Respond to Any Adverse Order filed by Plaintiff William Rouser. (rne) (Entered: 04/30/2013)
601 REQUEST to Be Substituted In as Pro Se Plaintiff and for Copy of Order to Be Delivered filed by Plaintiff William Rouser. (rne) (Entered: 04/30/2013)
602 STATEMENT re Court's Refusal to Send Plaintiff Any of the Orders of this Court filed by Plaintiff William Rouser. (rne) (Entered: 06/07/2013)
603 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner: granting in part and denying in part 600 Request for a Copy of the Court's Last Order for Extension of Time to Respond to Any Adverse Order; granting 601 Request Substitute in Plaintiff as Pro se. (Attachments: # 1 Previously Issued Order) (rne) (Entered: 06/07/2013)
604 Mail Returned addressed to Richard G. Bates re Order on Motion to Vacate,, 594 (bp) . (Entered: 06/13/2013)

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 59 of 70

06/17/2013 06/21/2013 07/01/2013 07/15/2013 08/02/2013 08/12/2013 08/22/2013 09/05/2013
09/20/2013 10/15/2013
10/16/2013 10/25/2013 10/30/2013 11/19/2013
11/26/2013 12/05/2013

606 Mail Returned addressed to FIEL DIZON TIGNO re Order on Request for Order 603 (rne) (Entered: 07/01/2013)
605 NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th CCA filed by plaintiff William Rouser. Appeal of Order on Motion to Vacate 594 . Filed On: 3/13/2013; Entered On: 3/13/2013; Filing fee $ 455 billed. (Attachments: # 1 Motion for Extensio of Time) (dmap) (Entered: 07/01/2013)
607 NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate Docket Number 13−56152 9th CCA regarding Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 605 as to Plainitff William Rouser. (dmap) (Entered: 07/01/2013)
608 Mail Returned addressed to Fiel Dizor re 9th CCA Assigned Case Number Notice 607 (shb) (Entered: 07/16/2013)
609 Mail Returned addressed to Richard G Bates re Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 605 (shb) (Entered: 08/02/2013)
610 Mail Returned addressed to Richard G Bates re 9th CCA Assigned Case Number Notice 607 (shb) (Entered: 08/15/2013)
611 Mail Returned addressed to Nixie 945205CO6 re Order on Request for Order 603 (yl) (Entered: 08/23/2013)
612 NOTICE OF DISCREPANCY AND ORDER: by Judge R. Gary Klausner, ORDERING Motion to Take Judicial [Notice] of Perjury and the Use of Fraudulent Documents to Influence this Judge submitted by Plaintiff William Rouser received on 8/27/13 is not to be filed but instead rejected. Denial based on: Local Rule 7−4: hearing Information not provided. (lom) (Entered: 09/06/2013)
613 Mail Returned addressed to Fiel Dizon Tigno re Notice of Document Discrepancies and Order − Rejecting, 612 Unable to Forward (jy). (Entered: 09/24/2013)
614 ORDER from 9th CCA filed re: Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 605 filed by William Rouser, CCA # 13−56152. Appellant's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) and (2), however, appellant eventually must pay the full amount of the filing and docketing fees for this appeal. Accordingly, within 21 days after the date of this order, appellant shall complete and file with this court the enclosed prisoner authorization form, which directs the prison officials at appellant's institution to assess, collect, and forward to the court the $455.00 filing and docketing fees for this appeal on a monthly basis whenever funds exist in appellant's trust fund account. Order received in this district on 10/15/13. (car) (Entered: 10/16/2013)
615 Mail Returned addressed to Richard G Bates re Notice of Document Discrepancies and Order − Rejecting, 612 Return to Sender. (jy) (Entered: 10/18/2013)
616 Mail Returned addressed to Richard G Bates re Notice of Document Discrepancies and Order − Rejecting, 612 (shb) (Entered: 10/28/2013)
617 MAIL RETURNED addressed to Fiel Dizon Tigno at Thornton Taylor Downs Becker Tolson & Doherty 505 Sansome St, Ste 1600 San Francisco, CA 94111 re USCA Order 614 (ir) (Entered: 11/01/2013)
618 ORDER from 9th CCA filed re: Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 605 filed by William Rouser, CCA # 13−56152. Appellant William Rouser, prison identification number C−10659, has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this appeal and has completed and filed the required authorization form directing the appropriate prison officials to assess, collect, and forward to the district court the filing and docketing fees for this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) and (2). [See document for further details]. Order received in this district on 11/19/13. (car) (Entered: 11/21/2013)
619 Mail Returned addressed to Richard G. Bates re USCA Order,,, 614 (bp) (Entered: 12/02/2013)
620 Mail Returned addressed to Fiel Dizon Tigno re USCA Order,, 618 − Attempted − Not known. (jy) (Entered: 12/12/2013)

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 60 of 70

12/18/2013
01/08/2014 01/21/2014 01/30/2014 04/02/2014
12/11/2014 01/08/2015
01/08/2015 03/09/2015 05/13/2016 06/08/2016 06/17/2016

621 ORDER from 9th CCA filed re: Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 605 filed by William Rouser, CCA # 13−56152. Appellant's motion to take judicial (notice) of perjury and the use of fraudulent documents to influence this Judge is denied. Appellant's emergency motion to practice religion and motion for preliminary injunction pending appeal are denied. Upon review of the record, this court has determined that the appointment ofpro bono counsel in this appeal would benefit the courts review. The motion for appointment of counsel is granted. Order received in this district on 12/18/13. The Clerk shall enter an order appointing pro bono counsel to represent appellant for purposes of this appeal only, and establishing a revised briefing schedule. (mat) (Entered: 12/23/2013)
622 Mail Returned addressed to File Dizon Tigno re USCA Order,,, 621 (bp) (Entered: 01/09/2014)
623 Mail Returned addressed to Richard G Bates re USCA Order,, 618 (shb) (Entered: 01/27/2014)
624 Mail Returned addressed to Richard G Bates re USCA Order,,, 621 (shb) (Entered: 01/30/2014)
625 ORDER from 9th CCA filed re: Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 605 filed by William Rouser, CCA # 13−56152. Pursuant to this court's December 18, 2013 order directing the Clerk to appoint pro bono counsel, James M. Burnham, Esq., Sarah A. Hunger, Esq., and Noel J. Francisco, Esq., are hereby appointed to represent appellant for purposes of this appeal only. [See document for further information]. Order received in this district on 4/2/14. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment) (car) (Entered: 04/04/2014)
626 MOTION for Sanctions for failure to comply with Settlement Agreement and to Compel Compliance with Settlement Agreement filed by Intervenor Andrew L Kicking Horse McCarter. (lom) (Entered: 12/18/2014)
627 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): Order Re: Motion for Sanctions for Failure to Comply With Settlement Agreement and to Compel Compliance With Settlement Agreement (DE 626) by Judge R. Gary Klausner: On December 11, 2014, intervenor Andrew Kicking Horse McCarter (McCarter) filed thepresent motion (the Motion) seeking to compel compliance with, and impose sanctions for violationof, a joint settlement agreement (JSA) between plaintiff William Rouser (Plaintiff) and defendantsMatthew Cate, Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Brenda Cash, Warden of theCalifornia State Prison, Los Angeles County (collectively, Defendants). On October 18, 2011, a courtin the Eastern District of California approved the JSA and entered it as a consent decree.1On March 13, 2013, pursuant to the terms of the JSA, the Court vacated the October 18, 2011order approving the JSA, dismissed this action with prejudice, and entered judgment for Defendants.(See ECF No. 594.) The case before this Court is now closed. Thus, there is no JSA to be enforced oractive pending case. Therefore, the Court DENIES the Motion. (bp) (Entered: 01/09/2015)
628 Mail Returned addressed to Fiel Dizon Tigno re MOTION for Sanctions for failure to comply MOTION for Order for to Compel Compliance with Settlement Agreement 626 (shb) (Entered: 01/12/2015)
629 Mail Returned: Addressed to Fiel Dizon Tigno re Minute Order on Motion for Sanctions, Order on Motion for Order 627 (cr) (Entered: 03/09/2015)
630 FINANCIAL ENTRY: Received $57.40 subsequent IFP payment from William Rouser. Re: USCA Memorandum/Opinion/Order,,, 614 . Receipt number LA136380. (ek) (Entered: 05/13/2016)
631 FINANCIAL ENTRY: Received $37.41 subsequent IFP payment from William Rouser. Re: USCA Memorandum/Opinion/Order,,, 614 . Receipt number LA137464. (ek) (Entered: 06/08/2016)
632 OPINION from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals filed re: Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 605 filed by William Rouser. CCA # 13−56152. We (9TH CCA) therefore VACATE the district cour's order terminating the consent decree, REINSTATE the 2011 Consent Decree and REMAND the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with our opinion. Costs to Appellant.(mat) (Entered: 06/20/2016)

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 61 of 70

06/30/2016 08/18/2016 09/21/2016 10/13/2016 11/09/2016 11/18/2016
12/08/2016 12/13/2016 12/15/2016 12/27/2016 01/03/2017 01/06/2017
01/06/2017

633 ORDER from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals filed re: Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 605 filed by William Rouser. CCA # 13−56152. Appellees' unopposed motion for an extension of time to file a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc is GRANTED. (mat) (Entered: 06/30/2016)
634 REQUEST to the Clerk to Tax Costs against Defendants Theo White, et al filed by Plaintiff William Rouser. (bp) (Entered: 08/19/2016)
635 BILL OF COSTS. Costs Taxed in amount of $455.00 in favor of William Rouser and against Theo White, et al. RE: REQUEST to the Clerk to Tax Costs against Defendants Theo White 634 (nl) (Entered: 09/21/2016)
636 FINANCIAL ENTRY: Received $59.30 subsequent IFP payment from William Rouser. Re: USCA Memorandum/Opinion/Order,,, 614 . Receipt number LA143948. (ek) (Entered: 10/13/2016)
637 ORDER from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals filed re: Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 605 filed by William Rouser. CCA # 13−56152. The petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED.(mat) (Entered: 11/09/2016)
638 MANDATE of Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals filed re: Notice of Appeal 605 CCA # 13−56152. The judgment of the 9th Circuit Court, entered June 17, 2016, takes effect this date. This constitutes the formal mandate of the 9th CCA issued pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. [See USCA Opinion 632 , VACATE the district court's order terminating the consent decree, REINSTATE the 2011 Consent Decree and REMAND the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with our opinion. Costs to Appellant.] (mat) (Entered: 11/21/2016)
639 MOTION FOR RECUSAL fy Judge R. Gary Klausner filed by Plaintiff William Rouser. (rn) (Entered: 12/13/2016)
640 REFERRAL OF MOTION to Disqualify Judge R. Gary Klausner has been filed. Pursuant to GO 16−05 and Local Rule 72−5 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Disqualify Judge R. Gary Klausner 639 is referred to Judge George H. Wu for determination. (rn) (Entered: 12/13/2016)
641 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge George H. Wu: denying 639 MOTION to Disqualify Judge **SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS** (jag) (Entered: 12/15/2016)
642 {WITHDRAWN PURSUANT TO ORDER TO WITHDRAW] BREACH OF CONTRACT REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS MOTION filed by Plaintiff William Rouser. (bp) Modified on 2/6/2017 (bp). (Entered: 12/30/2016)
643 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER SETTING HEARING by Judge R. Gary Klausner: The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff's MOTION for Sanctions 642 , REQUEST for Order 597 . The Court sets the matter for hearing on 1/30/2017 at 09:00 AM. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (cr) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 01/04/2017)
644 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Danielle Rachel Hemple counsel for Defendants Matthew Cates, B. Flores, James Gomez, Brian Haws, P Ortiz, Theo White, J. Yates. Adding Danielle R. Hemple as counsel of record for M. Cate, B. Flores, J.Gomez, F. Haws, P. Ortiz, T. White, and J. Yates for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Defendants M. Cate, B. Flores, J. Gomez, F. Haws, P. Ortiz, T. White, and J. Yates. (Attorney Danielle Rachel Hemple added to party Matthew Cates(pty:dft), Attorney Danielle Rachel Hemple added to party B. Flores(pty:dft), Attorney Danielle Rachel Hemple added to party James Gomez(pty:dft), Attorney Danielle Rachel Hemple added to party Brian Haws(pty:dft), Attorney Danielle Rachel Hemple added to party P Ortiz(pty:dft), Attorney Danielle Rachel Hemple added to party Theo White(pty:dft), Attorney Danielle Rachel Hemple added to party J. Yates(pty:dft))(Hemple, Danielle) (Entered: 01/06/2017)
645 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Extension of Time to File An Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions (ECF NO. 642) and Request for Oral Argument (ECF NO. 597); Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Declaration of Danielle R. Hemple filed by Defendants Matthew Cates, B. Flores, James Gomez, Brian Haws, P Ortiz, Theo White, J. Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Hemple, Danielle) (Entered:

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 62 of 70

01/09/2017
01/09/2017 01/12/2017 01/12/2017 01/18/2017 01/20/2017 01/24/2017 01/24/2017
01/24/2017
02/02/2017
02/06/2017
05/25/2017 05/25/2017 06/07/2017 06/15/2017

01/06/2017)
646 (IN CHAMBERS) TO ALL PARTIES AND ORDER CONTINUING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 642 by Judge R. Gary Klausner: The Court on its own motion continues the Motion for Sanctions 642 filed by the Plaintiff from 01/30/2017 to 02/27/2017 at 9:00 a.m. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (cr) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 01/09/2017)
647 ORDER DENYING EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AS MOOT 645 by Judge R. Gary Klausner. (ah) (Entered: 01/10/2017)
648 FINANCIAL ENTRY: Received $10.00 subsequent IFP payment from William Rouser. Re: USCA Memorandum/Opinion/Order,,, 614 . Receipt number LA148489. (ek) (Entered: 01/12/2017)
649 NOTICE of Change of address Filed by Plaintiff William Rouser. (kl) (Entered: 01/17/2017)
650 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO PRODUCE PLAINTIFF FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING filed by Plaintiff William Rouser. Motion set for hearing on 1/30/2017 at 09:00 AM before Judge R. Gary Klausner. (ah) (Entered: 01/19/2017)
651 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) Order Re: Ex Parte Application to Produce Plaintiff for Evidentiary Hearing (DE 650) by Judge R. Gary Klausner: Plaintiff's request is denied. (SEE CIVIL MINUTES FOR FURTHER SPECIFICS) (bp) (Entered: 01/23/2017)
652 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Danielle Rachel Hemple counsel for Defendant J. Yates. Fiel Dizon Tigno is no longer counsel of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Defendant J. Yates. (Hemple, Danielle) (Entered: 01/24/2017)
653 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Danielle Rachel Hemple counsel for Defendants Matthew Cates, James Gomez, Theo White, J. Yates. Joshua Casey Irwin is no longer counsel of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Defendants M. Cate, J. Gomez, T. White and J. Yates. (Hemple, Danielle) (Entered: 01/24/2017)
654 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Danielle Rachel Hemple counsel for Defendants Matthew Cates, B. Flores, James Gomez, Brian Haws, P Ortiz, Theo White, J. Yates. Michelle L. Angus is no longer counsel of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Defendants M. Cate, B. Flores, J. Gomez, F. Haws, P. Ortiz, T. White and J. Yates. (Hemple, Danielle) (Entered: 01/24/2017)
655 STIPULATION to Withdraw Motion NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Sanctions 642 STIPULATION TO WITHDRAW PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SANCTIONS WITHOUT PREJUDICE filed by DEFENDANT Matthew Cates, B. Flores, James Gomez, Brian Haws, P Ortiz, Theo White, J. Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order [PROPOSED] Order)(Hemple, Danielle) (Entered: 02/02/2017)
656 ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner, re Stipulation to Withdraw Motion/Application/Request/Ex Parte Application, 655 . IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 642), filed on December 27, 2016, is WITHDRAWN; and The withdrawal is without prejudice to Plaintiff's ability to refile the Motion for Sanctions in the future. (bp) (Entered: 02/06/2017)
658 NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS filed by Plaintiff William Rouser. (bp) (Entered: 06/12/2017)
659 BREACH OF CONTRACT REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS filed by Plaintiff William Rouser. (bp) (Entered: 06/12/2017)
657 FINANCIAL ENTRY: Received 3.60 from WILLIAM ROUSER on 6/7/17. Re: USCA Memorandum/Opinion/Order,, 618 . Receipt number LA155426. (jo) (Entered: 06/07/2017)
660 SCHEDULING NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES AND ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner. Plaintiff's Motion for Breach of Contract and Request for Sanctions 659 , has been placed on calendar for hearing on 7/24/2017 at 9:00 am. THERE IS NO PDF

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 63 of 70

06/26/2017 07/03/2017
07/03/2017 07/05/2017
07/12/2017 07/14/2017 07/17/2017 07/31/2017
08/02/2017
08/03/2017 08/11/2017 08/21/2017

DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (sw) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 06/15/2017)
661 Motion for Further Evidence filed by Plaintiff William Rouser. (pso) (Entered: 06/28/2017)
662 STIPULATION to Continue Hearing On Plaintiffs Motion for Breach of Contract and Request for Sanctions from July 24, 2017 to August 28, 2017 Re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Sanctions 659 filed by Defendants Matthew Cates, B. Flores, James Gomez, Brian Haws, P Ortiz, Theo White, J. Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Danielle R. Hemple in Support of the Parties Stipulation to Continue Hearing On Plaintiffs Motion for Breach of Contract and Request for Sanctions, # 2 Proposed Order)(Hemple, Danielle) (Entered: 07/03/2017)
664 MOTION TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY 661 filed by Plaintiff William Rouser. (lom) (Entered: 07/06/2017)
663 ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner: The hearing on Plaintiffs Motion for Breach of Contract and Request for Sanctions (ECF No. 659), scheduled by the Court for July 24, 2017, at 9:00 a.m. (ECF No. 660), shall be continued to August 28, 2017, at 9:00 a.m.; 2. Defendants opposition to Plaintiffs motion shall be due on or before July 31, 2017; and 3. Plaintiffs reply shall be due on or before August 14, 2017. IT IS SO ORDERED. (yl) (Entered: 07/05/2017)
665 FINANCIAL ENTRY: Received $1.79 final subsequent IFP payment from William Rouser. Re: USCA Memorandum/Opinion/Order,, 618 . Receipt number LA157301. (ek) (Entered: 07/12/2017)
666 MOTION TO REPLACE LEGAL DOCUMENTS STOLEN BY DEFENDANTS filed by Plaintiff William Rouser. (pso) (Entered: 07/17/2017)
667 SCHEDULING NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES AND ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner. Plaintiff's Motion to Replace Legal Documents Stolen by Defendants 666 , has been placed on calendar for hearing on 8/28/2017 at 9:00 am. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (sw) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 07/17/2017)
668 STIPULATION for Order to Stay Briefing and Hearing Schedule on Plaintiff's Motion for Breach of Contract and Request for Sanctions (ECF No. 659), Motion to Augment Evidence (ECF No. 661), Motion to Take Judicial Notice of Criminal Conspiracy (ECF No. 664), and Motion to Replace Legal Documents (ECF No. 666) filed by Defendants Matthew Cates, B. Flores, James Gomez, Brian Haws, P Ortiz, Theo White, J. Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Danielle R. Hemple, # 2 Proposed Order)(Hemple, Danielle) (Entered: 07/31/2017)
669 GRANTING STIPULATION TO STAY BRIEFING AND HEARING SCHEDULE ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS (ECF No. 659 ), MOTION TO AUGMENT EVIDENCE (ECF No. 661 ), MOTION TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY (ECF No. 664 ), AND MOTION TO REPLACE LEGAL DOCUMENTS (ECF No. 666 ) 668 by Judge R. Gary Klausner: The hearing scheduled for August 28, 2017, is vacated. On or before ninety days after the date of this Order, the parties shall file a joint status report. (ah) (Entered: 08/03/2017)
670 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO PRODUCE PROPERTY AND DOCUMENTS filed by Plaintiff William Rouser. (ah) (Entered: 08/09/2017)
671 SCHEDULING NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES AND ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner. Plaintiff's Motion for Return of Property 670 , has been placed on calendar for hearing on 09/18/2017 at 9:00 am. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (sw) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 08/11/2017)
672 STIPULATION to Withdraw Motion NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Return of Property 670 STIPULATION TO WITHDRAW PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO PRODUCE PROPERTY AND DOCUMENTS filed by DEFENDANTS Matthew Cates, B. Flores, James Gomez, Brian Haws, P Ortiz, Theo White, J. Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hemple, Danielle) (Entered: 08/21/2017)

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 64 of 70

08/22/2017 08/29/2017
10/30/2017 11/02/2017
12/15/2017 12/15/2017 12/18/2017 02/02/2018
02/02/2018 02/02/2018 02/02/2018 02/23/2018

673 ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO WITHDRAW MOTION TO PRODUCE PROPERTY AND DOCUMENTS 672 by Judge R. Gary Klausner: Plaintiff's Motion to Produce Property and Documents (ECF No. 670), filed on August 3, 2017, is WITHDRAWN. (ah) (Entered: 08/22/2017)
674 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Todd Grabarsky counsel for Defendants Matthew Cates, B. Flores, James Gomez, Brian Haws, P Ortiz, Theo White, J. Yates. Filed by Defendants Todd Grabarsky. (Attorney Todd Grabarsky added to party Matthew Cates(pty:dft), Attorney Todd Grabarsky added to party B. Flores(pty:dft), Attorney Todd Grabarsky added to party James Gomez(pty:dft), Attorney Todd Grabarsky added to party Brian Haws(pty:dft), Attorney Todd Grabarsky added to party P Ortiz(pty:dft), Attorney Todd Grabarsky added to party Theo White(pty:dft), Attorney Todd Grabarsky added to party J. Yates(pty:dft))(Grabarsky, Todd) (Entered: 08/29/2017)
675 STIPULATION to Continue FILING OF JOINT STATUS REPORT FOR 45 DAYS filed by Defendants Matthew Cates, B. Flores, James Gomez, Brian Haws, P Ortiz, Theo White, J. Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Grabarsky, Todd) (Entered: 10/30/2017)
676 ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner, re Stipulation to Continue 675 . IT IS ORDERED THAT: To provide the parties with additional time to attempt to resolve the issues raised in Plaintiff's Motion for Breach of Contract and Request for Sanctions (ECF No. 659), Motion to Augment Evidence (ECF No. 661), Motion to Take Judicial Notice of Criminal Conspiracy (ECF No.664), and Motion to Replace Legal Documents (ECF No. 666) without the Court's intervention, the joint status report on resolution of these motions shall be stayed. (bp) (Entered: 11/02/2017)
677 STATUS REPORT RE: PLAINTIFF'S PENDING MOTION [ECF NO. 659, 661, 665, 666] filed by Defendants Matthew Cates, B. Flores, James Gomez, Brian Haws, P Ortiz, Theo White, J. Yates. (Grabarsky, Todd) (Entered: 12/15/2017)
678 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by Defendants Matthew Cates, B. Flores, James Gomez, Brian Haws, P Ortiz, Theo White, J. Yates, re Status Report 677 served on December 15, 2017. (Grabarsky, Todd) (Entered: 12/15/2017)
679 MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE filed by Plaintiff William Rouser. (pso) (Entered: 12/20/2017)
680 NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT of California Attorney General Office Joseph R. Wheeler on behalf of Defendants Matthew Cates, B. Flores, James Gomez, Brian Haws, P Ortiz, Theo White, J. Yates. California Attorney General Danielle Rachel Hemple; Gretchen K Buechsenschuetz and Todd Grabarsky terminated. (Attorney Joseph R Wheeler added to party Matthew Cates(pty:dft), Attorney Joseph R Wheeler added to party B. Flores(pty:dft), Attorney Joseph R Wheeler added to party James Gomez(pty:dft), Attorney Joseph R Wheeler added to party Brian Haws(pty:dft), Attorney Joseph R Wheeler added to party P Ortiz(pty:dft), Attorney Joseph R Wheeler added to party Theo White(pty:dft), Attorney Joseph R Wheeler added to party J. Yates(pty:dft))(Wheeler, Joseph) (Entered: 02/02/2018)
681 NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT of California Attorney General Office Joseph R. Wheeler on behalf of Defendants Matthew Cates, B. Flores, James Gomez, Brian Haws, P Ortiz, Theo White, J. Yates. (Wheeler, Joseph) (Entered: 02/02/2018)
682 NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT of California Attorney General Office Joseph R. Wheeler on behalf of Defendants Matthew Cates, B. Flores, James Gomez, Brian Haws, P Ortiz, Theo White, J. Yates. (Wheeler, Joseph) (Entered: 02/02/2018)
683 NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT of California Attorney General Office Joseph R. Wheeler on behalf of Defendants Matthew Cates, B. Flores, James Gomez, Brian Haws, P Ortiz, Theo White, J. Yates. (Wheeler, Joseph) (Entered: 02/02/2018)
684 (IN CHAMBERS) Notice to Parties and Order by Judge R. Gary Klausner: The status report indicated that the parties have fully resolved the issues raised by Plaintiff's motions to augment evidence, take judicial notice of criminal conspiracy, and to replace legal documents. The Court accordingly DENIES those Motions as moot. (SEE CIVIL MINUTES FOR FURTHER SPECIFICS) (bp) (Entered: 02/23/2018)

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 65 of 70

02/27/2018 03/01/2018 03/02/2018 03/02/2018 03/07/2018
03/07/2018
03/14/2018 03/22/2018
03/22/2018 03/22/2018
03/28/2018 03/30/2018 04/10/2018 04/11/2018

687 MOTION FOR FURTHER DAMAGES AND SANCTIONS filed by Plaintiff William Rouser. (bp) (Entered: 03/05/2018)
688 REQUEST for Damages suffered Evidentiary Hearing to Request for Breach of Contract filed by plaintiff William Rouser. (twdb) (Entered: 03/07/2018)
685 STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report re: Plaintiff's Pending Motion [ECF 659] filed by Defendants Matthew Cates, B. Flores, James Gomez, Brian Haws, P Ortiz, Theo White, J. Yates. (Wheeler, Joseph) (Entered: 03/02/2018)
686 MOTION TO RECONSIDER filed by Plaintiff William Rouser. (bp) (Entered: 03/05/2018)
689 SCHEDULING NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES AND ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration 686 , and Motion For Further Damages 687 , have been placed on calendar for 4/16/2018 at 9:00 am. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (sw) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 03/07/2018)
690 (IN CHAMBERS) Order Lifting Stay and Scheduling Order (DE 669 ; DE 659 ) by Judge R. Gary Klausner: Accordingly, the Court orders the stay on Plaintiffs' motion for breach of contract and request for sanctions (ECF No. 659) lifted. The motion is put on calendar for April 16, 2018. Defendant's opposition to Plaintiff's motion shall be due on or before March 26, 2018, and any reply by Plaintiff shall be due on or before April 2, 2018. (twdb) (Entered: 03/08/2018)
691 CONTINUED BREACH OF CONTRACT filed by Plaintiff William Rouser. (bp) (Entered: 03/21/2018)
692 OPPOSITION re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Sanctions 659 filed by Defendants Matthew Cates, B. Flores, James Gomez, Brian Haws, P Ortiz, Theo White, J. Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of M. Dailo in Support of Defendants Opposition to Mtn for Breach of Contract and Request for Sanctions)(Wheeler, Joseph) (Entered: 03/22/2018)
693 OPPOSITION re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Reconsideration 686 filed by Defendants Matthew Cates, B. Flores, James Gomez, Brian Haws, P Ortiz, Theo White, J. Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of M. Voong in Support of Defendants Opposition)(Wheeler, Joseph) (Entered: 03/22/2018)
694 OPPOSITION re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order 687 filed by Defendants Matthew Cates, B. Flores, James Gomez, Brian Haws, P Ortiz, Theo White, J. Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of M. Voong in Support of Defendants Opposition, # 2 Declaration of B. Hancock in Support of Defendants Opposition)(Wheeler, Joseph) (Entered: 03/22/2018)
695 RESPONSE OF PLAINTIFF TO DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION filed by Plaintiff William Rouserto Objection/Opposition (Motion related), 692 (bp) (Entered: 03/30/2018)
696 NOTICE OF FURTHER VIOLATIONS OF CONSENT DECREE OF MARCH 26, 2018 filed by Plaintiff William Rouser. (lom) (Entered: 04/03/2018)
698 NEW EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF BREACH OF CONTRACT filed by Plaintiff William Rouser. (bp) (Entered: 04/13/2018)
697 SCHEDULING NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES AND ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner. The following motions: Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider Previous Criminal Conspiracy and Replacement of Legal Work as Well as Damages and Move this Action to Trial 686 ; Plaintiff's Motion for Further Damages and Sanctions Due to Continued Breach of Contract and Retaliation 687 ; Plaintiff's Motion for Breach of Contract and Sanctions 659 ; and Plaintiff's Request for Damages Suffered Evidentiary Hearing 688 , calendared for hearing on April 16, 2018, have been taken under submission and off the motion calendar. No appearances by counsel are necessary. The Court will issue a ruling after full consideration of properly submitted pleadings. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (sw) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 04/11/2018)

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 66 of 70

04/13/2018 04/17/2018 04/25/2018
04/30/2018 05/10/2018 05/10/2018 05/15/2018
05/17/2018 05/17/2018 05/21/2018 05/23/2018 05/23/2018 05/30/2018

699 MOTION TO CEASE RETALIATION BY DENYING MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAM filed by Plaintiff William Rouser. Motion set for hearing on 5/21/2018 at 09:00 AM before Judge R. Gary Klausner. (pso) (Entered: 04/17/2018)
700 SCHEDULING NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES AND ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner. Plaintiff's Motion to Cease Retaliation by Denying Mental Health Program 699 has been placed on calendar for 5/21/18 at 9:00 am. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (pso) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 04/17/2018)
701 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) Order Re: Plaintiff's Motion for Breach of Contract and Request for Sanctions (DE 659); Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (DE 659); Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (DE 686); Plaintiff's Motion for Further Damages and Sanctions (DE 687); Plaintiff's Request for Damages (DE 688) by Judge R. Gary Klausner: For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Rouser's Motions (CEs 659, 686, 687 and 688) (see document for further details) (bm) (Entered: 04/25/2018)
702 OPPOSITION IN OPPOSITION re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order 699 to Cease Retaliation by Denying Mental Health Program filed by Defendants Matthew Cates, B. Flores, James Gomez, Brian Haws, P Ortiz, Theo White, J. Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of M. Voong, # 2 Declaration of S. Gates)(Wheeler, Joseph) (Entered: 04/30/2018)
704 NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th CCA filed by plaintiff William Rouser. Appeal of Order on Motion for Reconsideration, Order on Motion for Order, Order on Motion for Damages, 701 Filed On: 4/25/18; Entered On: 4/25/18; IFP Granted see document 2. (car) (Entered: 05/17/2018)
707 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF JUDGMENT filed by Plaintiff William Rouser. (bp) (Entered: 05/23/2018)
703 SCHEDULING NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES AND ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner. Plaintiff's Motion to Cease Retaliation By Denying Mental Health Program 699 , calendared for hearing on May 21, 2018, has been taken under submission and off the motion calendar. No appearances by counsel are necessary. The Court will issue a ruling after full consideration of properly submitted pleadings. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (sw) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 05/15/2018)
705 NOTIFICATION from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of case number assigned and briefing schedule. Appeal Docket No. 18−55642 assigned to Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 704 as to Plaintiff William Rouser. (bp) (Entered: 05/18/2018)
706 NOTIFICATION from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of case number assigned and briefing schedule. Appeal Docket No. 18−55642 assigned to Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 704 as to Plaintiff William Rouser. (bp) (Entered: 05/22/2018)
709 PLAINTIFF'S 60(B)(6) MOTION filed by Plaintiff William Rouser. (pso) (Entered: 05/23/2018)
708 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO CEASE RETALIATION BY DENYING MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAM by Judge R. Gary Klausner 699 . For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Rouser's Motion to Cease Retaliation by Denying Mental Health Program. Refer to the Court's order for details. (pso) (Entered: 05/23/2018)
710 SCHEDULING NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES AND ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner. Plaintiff's 60(B)(6) Motion 709 , and Motion for Reconsideration 707 , have been placed on calendar for hearing on 06/25/2018 at 9:00 am. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (sw) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 05/23/2018)
711 Opposition Opposition re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order 709 , NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Reconsideration 707 filed by Defendants Matthew Cates, B. Flores, James Gomez, Brian Haws, P Ortiz, Theo White, J. Yates.

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 67 of 70

06/08/2018 06/18/2018 06/20/2018
06/26/2018 07/02/2018 07/10/2018 07/11/2018 07/12/2018 07/16/2018 07/20/2018
07/27/2018 08/01/2018
08/06/2018

(Wheeler, Joseph) (Entered: 05/30/2018)
712 PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO OPPOSITION 711 filed by Plaintiff William Rouser. (et) (Entered: 06/12/2018)
713 ESTOPPEL TO EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES filed by Plaintiff William Rouser. (et) (Entered: 06/20/2018)
714 SCHEDULING NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES AND ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Judgment 707 ; and Plaintiff's 60(B)(6) Motion 709 , calendared for hearing on June 25, 2018, have been taken under submission and off the motion calendar. No appearances by counsel are necessary. The Court will issue a ruling after full consideration of properly submitted pleadings. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (sw) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 06/20/2018)
715 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION (DE 707 , 709 ) by Judge R. Gary Klausner. The Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motions for Reconsideration. (iv) (Entered: 06/27/2018)
716 MOTION FOR ORDER DEFENDANTS COUNSEL TO RETURN PROPERTY filed by Plaintiff William Rouser. (bp) (Entered: 07/09/2018)
719 Mail Returned addressed to Mark A Radoff re NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Reconsideration 707 . (lom) (Entered: 07/13/2018)
717 SCHEDULING NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES AND ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner. Plaintiff's NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order 716 , has been placed on calendar for 8/6/2018 at 9:00 am. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (sw) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 07/11/2018)
718 NOTICE of Change of address Changing Pro Se William Rouser address to California Health Care Facility, Fac B−2A 112, P O Box 32110, Stockton, CA 95213. Filed by Plaintiff William Rouser. (jp) (Entered: 07/13/2018)
720 to Plaintiff's Motion to Order Defendants' Counsel to Return His Property Opposition re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order 716 filed by Defendants Matthew Cates, B. Flores, James Gomez, Brian Haws, P Ortiz, Theo White, J. Yates. (Wheeler, Joseph) (Entered: 07/16/2018)
721 ORDER from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals filed re: Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 704 filed by William Rouser. CCA # 18−55642. A review of the district court docket reflects that appellant was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in the district court, and that such permission has not been revoked to date. Consequently, within 21 days after the filing date of this order, appellant shall complete and file with this court the enclosed authorization form, which directs the prison officials at appellant's institution to assess, collect, and forward to the court the $505.00 filing and docketing fees for this appeal on a monthly basis whenever funds exist in appellant's trust fund account. These fees will continue to be collected regardless of the date or manner of disposition of this appeal. (SEE USCA ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS). (jp) (Entered: 07/23/2018)
723 RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order 716 filed by Plaintiff William Rouser. (bp) (Entered: 08/03/2018)
722 SCHEDULING NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES AND ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner. Plaintiff's Motion for Return of Property 716 , calendared for hearing on August 6, 2018, has been taken under submission and off the motion calendar. No appearances by counsel are necessary. The Court will issue a ruling after full consideration of properly submitted pleadings. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (sw) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 08/01/2018)
724 MOTION TO TAKE NOTICE filed by Plaintiff William Rouser. (hr) (Entered: 08/10/2018)

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 68 of 70

08/15/2018 08/15/2018
08/16/2018
08/17/2018 08/23/2018
08/23/2018 08/23/2018 08/28/2018
09/13/2018 09/13/2018 10/01/2018
10/01/2018 10/03/2018 10/10/2018
10/15/2018 10/17/2018
10/18/2018

726 NOTICE OF ADDRESS CHANGE filed by Plaintiff William Rouser. (bp) (Entered: 08/17/2018)
727 NOTICE OF DISCREPANCY AND ORDER: by Judge R. Gary Klausner, ORDERING Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel submitted by Intervenor Plaintiff Spotted Eagle Circle received on 8/13/18 is not to be filed but instead rejected. Denial based on: Documents must be filed electronically. (bp) (Entered: 08/17/2018)
725 DECLARATION of Joseph R. Wheeler Opposition to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order 716 for Defendant's Counsel to Return his Property (ECF No. 716) filed by Defendants Matthew Cates, B. Flores, James Gomez, Brian Haws, P Ortiz, Theo White, J. Yates. (Wheeler, Joseph) (Entered: 08/16/2018)
728 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by Defendant Matthew Cates, B. Flores, James Gomez, Brian Haws, P Ortiz, Theo White, J. Yates, re Declaration (Motion related), 725 served on 8/17/18. (Wheeler, Joseph) (Entered: 08/17/2018)
729 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) Order Re: Plaintiff's Motion for Return of Property(DE 716) by Judge R. Gary Klausner: Although the Court is unsure why this matter cannot be resolved informally, the Court cannot order the return of Plaintiff's manuscript. The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiff's Motion. (DE 716.) (See minutes for further details)denying 716 MOTION for Order (yl) (Entered: 08/23/2018)
730 (IN CHAMBERS) Order Re: Plaintiff's Motion for Return of Property (DE 716) by Judge R. Gary Klausner: The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiff's Motion. (SEE CIVIL MINUTES FOR SPECIFICS) (bp) (Entered: 08/23/2018)
731 DEMAND for Jury Trial filed by Plaintiff William Rouser.. (bp) (Entered: 08/30/2018)
732 ORDER from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals filed re: Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 704 filed by William Rouser. CCA # 18−55642. This order served on the district court shall, 21 days after the date of the order, act as the mandate of this court. (bp) (Entered: 08/31/2018)
733 REQUEST for Rulings on Status of filings filed by plaintiff William Rouser. (bm) (Entered: 09/21/2018)
734 Further Showings of Breach of Contract filed by Plaintiff William Rouser. (bm) (Entered: 09/21/2018)
735 NOTICE OF CLERICAL ERROR: Due to clerical error, the electronic notice was not properly generated. Electronic is hereby executed. (See attached minute order) Re: Order on Motion for Order, 729 (Attachments: # 1 DOCUMENT 729) (yl) Modified on 10/1/2018 (yl). (Entered: 10/01/2018)
736 NOTICE OF CLERICAL ERROR: Due to clerical error Re: Order on Motion for Order, 729 . Electronic notice was not properly generated. Electronic is hereby executed. (bp) (Entered: 10/03/2018)
737 NOTICE filed by Plaintiff William Rouser. (bp) (Entered: 10/09/2018)
738 SCHEDULING NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES AND ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner. Defendants shall respond to the documents filed by plaintiff at docket entries 734 and 737 on or before October 17, 2018. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (sw) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 10/10/2018)
740 60 "B "6 MOTION filed by Plaintiff William Rouser. (bp) (Entered: 10/18/2018)
739 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motions for Breach of Contract (ECF Nos. 734 and 737) filed by Defendants Matthew Cates, B. Flores, James Gomez, Brian Haws, P Ortiz, Theo White, J. Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of T. Giannelli, # 2 Declaration Declaration of M. Voong)(Wheeler, Joseph) (Entered: 10/17/2018)
741 SCHEDULING NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES AND ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner. Plaintiff's 60 "B" 6 Motion 740 , has been placed on calendar for hearing on

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 69 of 70

10/29/2018 10/29/2018 11/13/2018 11/18/2018
11/26/2018 12/13/2018 01/07/2019 01/28/2019 02/19/2019 02/21/2019
03/05/2019 03/15/2019 03/27/2019 04/03/2019
04/24/2019 04/30/2019

11/26/2018 at 9:00 am. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (sw) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 10/18/2018)
742 Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration Opposition re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order 716 filed by Defendants Matthew Cates, B. Flores, James Gomez, Brian Haws, P Ortiz, Theo White, J. Yates. (Wheeler, Joseph) (Entered: 10/29/2018)
743 RESPONSE to Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Breach of Contact filed by Plaintiff William Rouserto MEMORANDUM in Opposition to Motion, 739 (bp) (Entered: 11/01/2018)
744 Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion of Opposition 716 filed by Plaintiff William Rouser. (jp) (Entered: 11/16/2018)
745 SCHEDULING NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES AND ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner. Plaintiff's 60 B 6 Motion 740 , calendared for hearing on November 26, 2018, has been taken under submission and off the motion calendar. No appearances by counsel are necessary. The Court will issue a ruling after full consideration of properly submitted pleadings. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (sw) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 11/18/2018)
746 (IN CHAMBERS) Order Re: Plaintiff's Motions for Reconsideration (DE 740 ) by Judge R. Gary Klausner: The Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motions for Reconsideration (DE 740) (SEE CIVIL MINUTES FOR SPECIFICS) (bp) (Entered: 11/27/2018)
747 REQUEST to withdraw from case filed by Intervenor Plaintiff T. Nguyen. (lom) (Entered: 12/17/2018)
748 NOTICE filed by Plaintiff William Rouser. (bp) (Entered: 01/10/2019)
749 NOTICE filed by Plaintiff William Rouser. (yl) (Entered: 01/30/2019)
751 MOTION FOR FURTHER BREACH OF CONTRACT filed by Plaintiff William Rouser. (bp) (Entered: 02/22/2019)
750 SCHEDULING NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES AND ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner. Plaintiff's Motion for Further Breach of Contract and Demand for Trial, filed on February 19, 2019 has been placed on calendar for hearing on 4/8/2019 at 9:00 am. Not later than March 11, 2019, plaintiff shall file the Court with a legible copy of the Inmate/Parolee Request for Interview, Item or Service that was attached to the notice of motion. The copy provided is too light to read or scan to the docket. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (sw) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 02/21/2019)
752 RESPONSE to Court Order of 2/21/19 750 filed by Plaintiff William Rouser. (jp) (Entered: 03/08/2019)
753 Opposition Opposition re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order 751 filed by Defendants Matthew Cates, B. Flores, James Gomez, Brian Haws, P Ortiz, Theo White, J. Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of S. Boxall, # 2 Declaration of T. Giannelli, # 3 Declaration of M. Voong)(Wheeler, Joseph) (Entered: 03/15/2019)
754 Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Opposition filed by Plaintiff William Rouser. (jp) (Entered: 04/02/2019)
755 SCHEDULING NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES AND ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner. Plaintiff's Motion for Further Breach of Contract and Demand for Trial, calendared for hearing on April 8, 2019, has been taken under submission and off the motion calendar. No appearances by counsel are necessary. The Court will issue a ruling after full consideration of properly submitted pleadings. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (sw) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 04/03/2019)
756 DENIAL OF WICCA SERVICES filed by Plaintiff William Rouser. (lom) (Entered: 04/26/2019)
757 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) Order Re: Plaintiff's Motion to Take Notice of This Court's Biasness Against Him and Demand for Polygraph (DE 724); Plaintiff's Notice

Case: 2:11-cv-9123 As of: 11/08/2019 06:28 AM PST 70 of 70

08/22/2019 08/23/2019 09/09/2019 09/19/2019 09/25/2019
10/04/2019 10/24/2019

of Breach of Contract (DE 731), Plaintiff's Request for Rulings (DE 733), Plaintiff's Further Showings of Breach of Contract (DE 734), Plaintiff's Notice of Denial of Religious Sabbats (DE 737), Plaintiff's Notice of Continued Violation of Consent Decree (DE 748), Plaintiff's Notice of Denial of Wicca Services (DE 749), Plaintiff's Motion for Further Breach of Contract (DE 751), and Plaintiff's Notice of Denial of Wicca Services (DE 756) by Judge R. Gary Klausner. For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Rouser's motions (DEs 724 , 731 , 733 , 734 , 737 , 748 , 749 , 751 , 756 ). (lom) (Entered: 04/30/2019)
758 MOTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT filed by plaintiff William Rouser. (lc) (Entered: 08/23/2019)
759 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge R. Gary Klausner:Plaintiffs Motion for Breach of Contract, filed on August 22, 2019 758 , has been placed on calendar for hearing on September 30, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. (lc) (Entered: 08/23/2019)
760 Opposition Support of re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order for Breach of Contract 758 filed by Defendants Matthew Cates, B. Flores, James Gomez, Brian Haws, P Ortiz, Theo White, J. Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of T. Giannelli, # 2 Declaration of T. Kraemer)(Wheeler, Joseph) (Entered: 09/09/2019)
761 RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION for Breach of Contract 758 filed by Plaintiff William Rouser. (lc) (Entered: 09/24/2019)
762 SCHEDULING NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES AND ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner. Plaintiff's Motion for Breach of Contract 758 , calendared for hearing on September 30, 2019, has been taken under submission and off the motion calendar. No appearances by counsel are necessary. The Court will issue a ruling after full consideration of properly submitted pleadings. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (sw) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 09/25/2019)
763 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) Order Re: Plaintiff's Motion for Breach of Contract (DE 758 ) by Judge R. Gary Klausner. Based on the foregoing, Rouser has not shown that Defendants' action violated the Consent Decree. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Rouser's motion (DE 758 ). (lom) (Entered: 10/07/2019)
764 REQUEST for Extension of Time to File Motion for Reconsideration filed by Plaintiff William Rouser. (jp) (Entered: 10/28/2019)