Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1124-2 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 3 of 74

(

( .

1 PRISON LAW OFFICE DONALD SPECTER, #83925
2 SARA NORMAN, #189536 Geileral Delivery
3 San Quentin, CA 94964
Telephone: (415) 457-9144 .
4

McCUTCHEN DOYLE BR..OWN &ENERSEN
ORIGINAL WARREN E. GEORGE, #53588 F [ L E D JENNIFER A JONAK, #19!323
- Three Embarcadero Center
FEB 11 2002San Francisco, CA 94111-4066
Telephone: (415) 393-2000

5

DANISDADBIELFIETNYSRElGFHUTNSD,EDINUCCA.rJ<"_i"J~"3m'1K"C,'HURAANROOIDISSW1=RN. lW~CFIETCKOAI®LNc'G;f,t.O,SEN. ,

· BIEN

&

. ASARO

6 ARLENE MAYERSON, #79310 2212 6th Street
7 Berkeley, CA 947!0 Telephone: (510) 644-2555

MICHAEL W. BIEN, #96891 WILLIAM FERNHOLZ, #168278 !55 Montgomery St., 8th Floor
. San Francisco, CA 94104

8

Telephone: (415) 433-6830

9

PILLSBURY, MADISON & SUTRO LLP

LAW OFFICES OF ELAINE B.

10 SHAWN A HANSON, #109321

FEINGOLD

CAROLINE MITCHELL, #I 43124

ELAINE B. FEINGOLD, #99226

11

50 Fremont Street San Francisco, CA 94105

·
R

E

C

E

1 V

1524 Scenic Ave. lfleneley, CA 94708

12 Telephone: (415) 983-1000

·

'Tel!(phone: (510) 848-8125

13

FEB - 6 ZOOZ

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 14

N ClE·AR~IC~HUA.Rs.DDWIS.TWRIICETI(ICNGOl'RT
ORTHERJV DISTRICT OF CAliFORNIA OAKLAND

15

IN TilE UNITED STATES DISTRlCT COURT

16

NORTHERNDISTRlCT OF CALIFORNIA .-R-; E= C=E~IV:E:D--~

17
18 JOHN ARMSTRONG, eta!.,
19 Plaintiffs,
20
V.
21 GRAY DAVIS, eta!.,'
22 Defendants.
23

JUN 2 8 2002
ROSEN BIEN & ASARO No. C-94-2307-CW

STiPULATION AND ORDER ON

REVISED INJUNCTION

.

24 Pursuant to the Court's Order of January 29, 2062, the parties have met and conferred
25 regarding a revision Of the Permanent Injunction issued in this case in order to meet the
26
requirements stated by the Ninth Circuit in Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849 (9lli Cir. 2001).
27

28

Slip. & Or®r on Cl= Ccrt. Ann!!ltong v Davis, No. C-94-2307-CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1124-2 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 4 of 74 (

1

The parties stipulate that the attached Revised Permanent Injunction meets the Ninth

2 CircUit's requirements.

3

4

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

5
Dated: February 5, 2002
6
7

Attorney for plaintiffS

8 9

Dated: February 6, 2002

1/Ji ·ii'pRAJ<fil'T/,jC?vEoi~~Rii,cUND<m;RE~R~=-,..-­

10

Attorney for defendants

11

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13 Dated: _ _ _ _ _ __
14

15

CLAUDIA WILKEN

16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1'7

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

SLip. & Onlcr on Clan em. Annstrongv. Davis, No C.94·2307.CW
2

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1124-2 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 5 of 74 (

1

2

..

3

4

5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12

13

Based on the Findings of Fact·and Conclusions of Law filed

14 herewith, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows:

15

Defendants Gray Davis, as Governor of the State of California,

16 Robert Presley, as Secretary to the California Youth and Adult

17 Corrections Agency, James Nielsen, as Chairma·n of the Cali ~ornia

18 Board of Prison Terms (BPT), and the BPT, and their agents,

19 employees, successors in office and all persons acting in their aid

20 or i~ participation with them are advised, enjoined and ordered as

follows:

21

A. Introduction

.22

23

1. Terms not expressly defined in this injunction shall have

the meaning given to them by Title II of the Americans with
24

25 Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq., and its

26 implementing regulations, or if no meaning is provided therein, the

27 rneariing given to them by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of

1973 (Section 504), 29 U.S.C. § 794, and its implementing
28

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1124-2 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 6 of 74
(

1 regulations. Where no definition is provided by the ADA, Section 2 504 or their implementing regulations, terms shall be construed in

3 accordance with ordinary principle~ of law, and particularly with

4 reference to the record i.n this case.

5

2. "Prisoners and parolee·s with disabilities" refers to all

6 current and future California State prisoners and parolees with 7 mobility, hearing or sight impairments, or with developmental or

8 learning disabilities, that substantially limit a major life

9 activity.

10

3 0 "Parole proceedings" shall mean all hearings conducted by

11 the BPT to determine whether and/or when a prisoner or pa-rolee

12 should be released on parole or involuntarily confined, including

13 parole revocation and revocation eXtension hearings, life prisoner

14 hearings (docurnentation·hearings, progress hearings, parole

15 conSideration hearirigs, parole date rescission hearings and parole

16 board rules hearings), mentally disOrdered offender hearings and

17 sexually violent predator hearings. Parole proceedings also

18 include any events.related to the hearin~s that occur prior too~

19 after. the hearings, including, but not limited to, screening

20 offers, psychological evaluations, central file reviews and

21 administrative appeals.

22 B. Self-Evaluation and Transitiori Plan

23

4. Within ninety days of the date of this injunction, the

24 BPT shall evaluate, pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 35.105, all of the

25 facilities in which parole proceedings are conducted to determine

26 whether each facility complies with the ADA and its implementing

27 regulations. The a.nalysis shall_ not be limited to facilities owned

28

2

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1124-2 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 7 of 74

1 and operated by the· BPT, but shall ..include all faciliti..es in which
2 parole.proceedings are conducted. The evaluation shalL include:

3

a. An accessibility survey of all parole facilitieS for

4 which a complete accessibility. surVey has not been conducted. The

5 accessib~lity survey need not duplicate the surveys of other

6 governmental entities as long as th.e BPT takes reasonable steps to

7 ensure that such surveys are accurate. and reliable.

8

b. An analysis of the accessibility of each parole

9 facility,

10

5. Immediately following its analysis of these facilities,

11 the BPT shall provide to all relevant BP1' and California Department

12 of Corrections (CDC) perSonnel a list of the facilities that are

13 not fully accessible. The list sh~ll describe those parts of the

14 facility that are not accessible and the disabilities that the

15 facility cannot accommodat-e. Updated lists shall be distributed ·as

16 changes occur.

17

6. The BPT shal~ thereafter draft a Transition Plan. pursuant

18 to 28 C.F.R. § 35.150(d}. The Transition Plan must include the

19 following:

20

a. For each facility in which parol.e proceedings are

21 conducted, a description of any structural modifications that will

22 be completed to make the parole proceedings conducted at that

23 f.3cility access-ible or another accessible location in which the

24 proceedings will be held.

25

b. A schedule for providing accessible proceedings for

26 prisoners and parolees with disabilities at each facility, or at

27 another, accessible location, as expeditiously as possible, but no

28

3

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1124-2 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 8 of 74
\

1 later than sixty days after the Transition Plan is submi~ted. 2 These provisions require only that the.BPT request that the CDC 3 transport mobility impaired prisoners to accessible locations if 4 the facilities at which they are h~used are inadequate~ The CDC 5 may, for valid security or other penological reasons, decline to do 6 so.

7

7 . Parole revocation hearings shall be conducted at a

8 location within fifty miles of the alleged violation that is

·g readily accessible to and usable by parolees with disabilities.

10

8. Postponement of. a parole proceeding due to the

11 inaccessibility of a facility is not an acceptable alternative,

12 except in extraordinary circumstances.

13

9. Within 150 days of the date of this injunction,

14 Defendants shall submit their Transition Plan to Plaintiffs'

15 counsel. Plaintiffs shall thereafter have thirty days to submit

16 written comments and the parties shall negotiate in good faith to

17 .resolve any disagreements. If any d.isputes remain, Plaintiffs

18 shall file a regula-rly noticed motion regarding the disputed issues

19 within 210 days of the date of this .injunction.

20 C. Policies and Procedures-

21

10. The BPT shall develop and implement sufficiently spec.ifi"c

22 policies and procedures that will ensure continuous compliance with

23 all of the requirements of this injunction. Among other things,

24 t.he Policies and procedures will ensure that prisoners and parolees·

25 with disabilities are able to participate, to the best of their

26 abilities, in any parole pro_ceedings.

27

11. The policies shall include detailed procedures for

28

4

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1124-2 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 9 of 74

(

(

1 identifying prisoners and parolees with disabilities prior to or at 2 the initiation of any parole proceeding.

3

12. The policies shall include detailed procedures for

4 accommodating and effectively communicating with prisoners and

5 parolees with disabilities at all pa~ole proceedings.

6

13. A draft of the policies and procedures required by the

7 preceding paragraph shall be submitted to Plaintiffs' counsel

8 within sixty days of the date of this injunction. Plaintiffs shall

9 thereafter have thirty days to submit written comments on the

10 policies and procedures, and the parties shall negotiate iri good

11 faith to resolve any differences. If any disputes-remain,

12 Plaintiffs shall file a regularly noticed motion regard1ng the 13 disputed issues within 150 days of the date of this injunction. 14 The briefing of_ any such motion shall be consolidated wtth the 15 briefing of any motions filed pursuant to paragraphs 21 and 23. 16 D. Training-

17

14. Within 120 d·ays of the date of this injunction, all BPT

18 Commissioners, BPT Deputy Commissioners, BPT executive officers,

19 BPT ADA coordinators, BPT appeals analysts, CDC District Hearing

20 Agents, CDC correctional counselors and other BPT and CDC personnel
'
21 who' have direct or supervisory responsibility for communicating

22 with or making decisions affecting prisoners and parolees in

23 connection with parole proceedings _shall receive adequate training

24 in the general requirements of Title II of the ADA, disability

25 awareneSs, the appropriate method-of determining whether a prisoner

26 with a disability adequately understands written and verbal

27 communications, the circumstances that gave rise to this

28

5

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1124-2 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 10 of 74

1 injunction, its requirements and the BPT's policies and procedures 2 developed pursuant to this injunction that are relevant to the

3 individual's responsibilities.

4

The BPT shall provide training for all persons under its

5 jurisdictiOn to the extent set forth in this paragraph; it shall

6 also offer training to CDC staff involved in the parole and

7 revocation process; should any CDC personnel decline such training, 8 the BPT shall use its own personnel in their stead, except when the 9 CDC requires that CDC employees perform the services involved.

10 E. Identification and Accommodation

11

15. The BPT shall create and maintain a system for tracking

12 prisoners and parolees that the BPT identifies as having 13 disabilities. However, to the extent that tracking is conducted by 14 the CDC, it is not necessary for the BPT to duplicate that system, 15 and the BPT may make use of the CDC's tracking system as a 16 permissible means of complying with the injunction.

17

16. Prior to meeting with a prisoner or parolee about a

18 screening offer, and prior to parole revocat~on, parole revocation 19 extension, life p~isoner parole date rescission, life prisoner 20 parole consideiation, serious offender, mentally disordered

21 prisoner or sexually violent predator probable cause hearings, the

22 BPT shall take reasonable steps to identify prisoners an? parolees 23 with disabilities. Such steps shall include, but not be limited

24 to:

25

a. Checking the system described in paragraph 15 to

26 determine whether the .BPT has previously identified the prisoner or

27 parolee as having a disability.

28

6

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1124-2 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 11 of 74

1

b. Reviewing all relevant and reasonably available

2 information in the prison€r or parolee's central and medical files.

3

c. Verifying the disability when the B~T disputes the

4 extent or· exi'stence of the disability. The prisoner or parolee

5 shall be expected to cooperate with all verification efforts, but

6 the BPT shall be responsible for verifying the disability.

7

1?. The BPT shall provide accommodations to prisoners and

8 parolees with disabilities at all parole proceedings. The prisoner

9 or parolee's request for a particular type of accommodation shall

10 be given primary consideration and shall be granted unless the

11 request is unreasonable for specific 1 articulated reasons allowable

12 under the.ADA, or unless other effective accommodations are

13 available.

14

18. The BPT shall hire at least one full-time ADA coordinator

15 with expertise in Title II of the ADA, the identification of people

16 with· disabilities and the needs of people with disabilities, and

17 shall ensure that this person· is generally available during normal

18 business hours to answer questions from and provide advice to

19 District Hearing Agents and other BPT and CDC personnel. This

20 person shall not be given duties .that are not·related to ADA

21 compliance. If the BPT determines that employing a full-time ADA

22 .coordinator is unnecessary, it may seek relief from the Court by

23 way of a regularly noticed motion, but in no event shall it file

24 such a motion until the newly hire~ ADA coordinator has been

25 employed for at lea:st one year. The BPT shall bear the burden of

26 demonstrating that other staffing methods are sufficient to ensure

27 compliance with this injunction.

28

7

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1124-2 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 12 of 74

1 F. Forms

2

19. All BPT forms used by prisoners and parolees shall be

3 revised so -that they are written in simple English. Whenever

4 prisoners or parolees with disabilit~es are given BPT forms that

5 they cannot understand due to their disabilities, they shall be

6 provided an accommodation to enable them to understand the forms to

7 the best of their abilities.

8

20. All BPT forms provided to prisoners and parolees shall be

9 readily available in alternative formats, -including, but not

10 limited to, large print, Braille and audio tape.

11

21. All revisions to forms required by this injunction shall

12 be submitted to Plaintiffs' counsel within sixty days of the date

13 of this injunction. Plaintiffs shall thereafter have thirty days

14 to submit written comments and the parties shall negotiate in good

15 faith to resolve any disagreements: If any disputes remain,

16 Plaintiffs shall. file a regularly noticed motion regarding the

17 disputed issues w~thin 1"50 days of the date of this injunction.

18 The briefing of any such motion shall be consolidated with the

19 briefing of any motions filed pursuant to paragraphs 13 and 23.

2 0 G. ·Equipment

21

22. The BPT shall ensure that appropriate equipment is

22 available to prisoners and parolees who need such equipm~nt to

23 communicate effectively at parole proceedings. such equipment

24 sha~l include, but not be limited to, assistive listening devices,

25 computer readers and magnification devices.

26

23. The BPT shall provide Plaintiffs' counsel with a list 9f

27 the available equipment and the places it is available within sixty

28

8

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1124-2 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 13 of 74

I

(

1 days of the date of this injunction. Plaintiffs shall have thirty 2 days to submit written comments and the parties shall negotiate in 3 good faith to resolve any disagreements. If any disputes ~emain, 4 Plaintiffs shall file a regularly noticed motion regarding the 5 disputed issues within 150 days of the date of this injunction. 6 The briefing of any such motion shall be consolidated with the 7 briefing of any motions filed pursuant to paragraphs 13 and 21.
8 H. Screening Process

9

24. _The screening offer, and all relevant BPT forms, police

10 reports and other written documen-ts, shall be effectively

11 communicated to prisoners or parolees with disabilities at least

12 seventy-two hours in advance of the time at which they must decide

13 whether to exercise any of their rights, including the right· to

14 request an attorney, and to accept or reject the screening offer.

15

25. Prisoners and parolees with disabilities shall be

16 provided _an accommodation at the screening prOcess when that is

17 necessary to ensure that the prisoner or parolee understands to the

18 best of his or her ability all of his or her rights, the nature of

19 the charges and the consequences of waiving any rights. Before a

20 prisoner or parolee with a disability may waive a parole hearing or

21 the right to an attorney, the BPT must determine that the waiVer is

22 knowing and intelligent.

23

26. When necessary to achieve effective communication,

24 appropriate auxiliary aids or assista·nce must be provided to

25 prisoners and parolees during the Screening-process. Such aids and

26 assistance shall include, but not be limited to, sign language

27 interpreters, assistive listening devices, readers and persons

28

9

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1124-2 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 14 of 74

1 trained to provide assistance to individuals with cognLtive 2 disabilities.

3

27. At its discretion, the BPT may appoint attorneys as an

4 accommodation. In order to suffice as an accommodation, the

5 attorneys must be adequately trained to provide accommodations to

6 persons with disabilities .and must receive a¢equate additional time

7 for providing those services. AttOrneyS appointed to represent

8 individuals with disabilities shall be informed of their clients 1

9 disabilities. If the BPT is aware that a prisoner or parolee

-10 requires certain specific accommodations, the BPT shall either

11 instruct an attorney appointed to represent that prisoner or

12 parolee to provide those specific accommodations, or shall provide

13 the prisoner or parolee with those specific accommodations by some

14 other means .. -

15

28. In lieu of providing assistance at the screening process,

16 the BPT may refer the prisoner or Parolee for a hearing with the

17 necessary aids or assistance, provided that, absent any additional

18 charges, the hearing is within thirty days of the parole hold and

19 that any term of imprisonment imposed at a hearing does not exceed

20 a typical screening offer for a similar violation.

21 I. Hearings

22

29. At its hearings, the BPT shall make accommodations for

23 prisoners and parolees with disabilities and provide-appropriate

24 auxiliary aids and services necessary for effective communication.

25 Such accommodations and auxiliary ~ids and services shall include,

26 but not be limited to, sign language interpreters, assistive

27 listening devices, readers and individuals trained to provide

28

10

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1124-2 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 15 of 74

(

(

1 assistance to persons with disabilities.

2

30. At its discretion, the BP.T may appoint attorneys as an

3 accommodation. In order to suffice as an accommodation, the

4 attorneys must be adequately trained to provide accommodations to

5 persons with disabilities and must reCeive adequate additional time

6 for providing those services. Attorneys appointed to represent

7 individuals with disabilities shall be informed of their Clients'

8 disabilities. If the BPT is aware that a prisoner or parolee

9 requires certain specific accommodations, the BPt shall either

10 instruct an attorney appointed to represent that prisoner or

11 parolee to provide those specific accommodations, or shall provide

12 the pr.isoner or parolee with those specific accornmo'dations by some

13 other means.

14

31. Hearing impaired prisoners and parolees who need sign

15 language interpreters shall not have their hands and arms

16 restrained in any way during the hearing, unless a written

17 determination is made on an individualized basis that the prisoner

18 or parolee would pose a direct threat if unrestrained and that

19 there are no other reasonable alternatives available to protect

I

20 against the threat. The Chairman of the BPT or his delegate shall

I
'

21 personally approve the use of restraints in each such instance

22 prior to their use.

23

32. The BPT shall make accommodations for prisoners and

24 parolees with disabilities in order to assist them in preparing for

25 parole proceedings. For example, if a- prisoner or parolee is

26 entitled to review his or her central file prior to a parole

27 proceeding, and if that prisoner or parolee is unable, due to a

28

11

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1124-2 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 16 of 74

1 disability, adequately to review his or her central file without an 2 accommoda-tion, the BPT shall make such an accommodation. ·where

3 other preparation, including but not limited to participating in

4 psychological interviews, obtaining letters of support and

5 developing parole plans, is necessary prior to a parole proceeding,

6 the BPT shall provide reasonable accommodations to prisoners or

7 parolees with disabilities who req~ire such accommodations

8 .adequately to complete such preparation.

9 J. Appeals

10

33. Prisoner-s and parolees with disabilities who cannot use

11 or unde'rs-tand the appeal process or prepare an appeal themselves by

12 reason of their disability shall be provided with effective

13 assistance in preparing a BPT appeal.

14 K. Grievances

15

34. The BPT shall develop and implement a grievance

16 procedure, separate from its current appeal procedure, for

17 processing any complaints of denials of requests for

18 accommodations. All grievances requesting reasonable

19 accommodations at a scheduled hearing. shall be decided before the 20 hearing.

21

35. All administrative appeals alleging in substance

22 violations of the ADA or its i!nplernenting regulations shall be

23 treated as ADA grievances, and any successive appeal on the non-ADA

24 meiits of a decision shall not be deemed barred due to the filing

25 of the ADA-related grievance or grievances. Except as otherwise

26 provided in the immediately preceding paragraph, all such ADA-

27 related appeals shall be decided within thirty days of the BPT's

28

12

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1124-2 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 17 of 74
I

1 receipt of the appeal form.

2 L. Programs

3

36. The BPT shall provide to all Commissioners and Deputy

4 Commissioners who participate in life prisoner parole consideration

5 hearings a list 9f CDC programs in which prisoners with

6 disabilities can meaningfully participate, either without

7 accommodation or with appropriate and readily available

8 accommodation. This list shall specify the types of programs

9 available, the particular disabilities the programs can accommodate 10 and the prisons in which they are offered. This list shall be 11 updated every six months.

12

37. At life prisoner parole consideration hearings, the BPT

13 shall not recommend that prison·ers participate in programs that are

14 unavailable to them by reason of their disabilities and shall not 15 rely on the failure of prisoners to participate in programs not

16 available to them by reason of their disabilities as a factor 17 supporting denial of a parole date·:or a multi-year denial.

18

38. Nothing in this section shall require the BPT to release

19 a prisoner on parole who is otherwise unsuitable for release under

20 California law.

21 M. Monitoring

22

39. The parties shall attempt negotiate a plan to monitor

23 Defendants' compliance with this injunctiOn. If sUch negotiations

24 are unsuccessful, the Court shall consider the appointment of a

25 Special Master. Within forty-five days of the date of this

26 injunction, the parties shall file:a joint and mutually acceptable 27 plan for monitoring this injunction or separate briefs describing

28

13

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1124-2 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 18 of 74

1 each party's position on the need for a Special Master and the 2 Court-'s authority to appoint. one., 3 N. Enforcement

4

40. The coUrt shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms

5 of this irij unction.

6

41. No person who has notice of this injunction shall fail to

7 comply with it, nor shall any person subvert the injunction by any

8 sham, indirectiOn or other artifice.

9

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12 Dated:
13 14

fEB 11 2002

CLAUDIA WILKEN
CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge

15
Copies mailed to counsel 16 as noted on the following page
17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

14

 
 Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1121 Filed 06/11/2007 Page 1 of 4

1 PRISON LAW OFFICE DONALD SPECTER – 83925
2 SARA NORMAN – 189536 General Delivery
3 San Quentin, California 94964 Telephone: (415) 457-9144
4 DISABILITY RIGHTS EDUCATION &
5 DEFENSE FUND, INC. LINDA KILB -- 136101
6 2212 6th Street Berkeley, California 94710
7 Telephone: (510) 644-2555

BINGHAM McCUTCHEN, LLP WARREN E. GEORGE – 53588 Three Embarcadero Center San Francisco, California 94111-4066 Telephone: (415) 393-2000
ROSEN, BIEN & GALVAN, LLP MICHAEL W. BIEN – 096891 GAY C. GRUNFELD – 121944 315 Montgomery Street, 10th Floor San Francisco, California 94104 Telephone (415) 433-6830

8 JONES DAY CAROLINE N. MITCHELL - 143124
9 555 California Street, 25th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104
10 Telephone: (415) 875-5712

11 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

12

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14

OAKLAND DIVISION

15 JOHN ARMSTRONG, et al.,

16

Plaintiffs,

17 v.

18 ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,

19

Defendants.

20

21

22

) Case No. C 94-2307 CW ) ) ORDER APPOINTING COURT ) EXPERT PURSUANT TO FEDERAL ) RULE OF EVIDENCE 706 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] ORDER APPOINTING COURT EXPERT PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 706

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1121 Filed 06/11/2007 Page 2 of 4

1

On April 20, 2007, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause regarding appointment

2 of a Court Expert to facilitate coordination of the remedial processes in this case with three

3 other prison class actions: Coleman v. Schwarzenegger, 90-0520 (E.D. Cal.), Plata v.

4 Schwarzenegger, 01-1351 (N.D. Cal.), and Perez v. Tilton, 05-5241 (N.D. Cal.) (“the other

5 class actions”). Pursuant to that Order, plaintiffs and defendants filed statements of

6 position. On April 30, 2007, after reviewing the statement of the parties, this Court issued

7 an Order re Appointment of Court Expert (“April 30 Order”).

8

The April 30 Order denied defendants’ request to appoint a Special Master. The

9 April 30 Order requires the parties to meet and confer regarding candidates for Court-

10 appointed Expert, to make a proposal for briefing the Court Expert on the case, and to file a

11 joint statement outlining the Court Expert’s duties. The parties met and conferred, and were

12 unable to agree on a candidate for Expert. The parties filed a Joint Statement including

13 proposed candidates and a Proposed Order on May 30, 2007.

14

The Court, having reviewed the Joint Statement, and having considered the entire

15 record in this case and good cause appearing, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 706,

16 hereby issues the following Order:

17

Appointment

18

1. Edward Swanson is hereby appointed as this Court’s Rule 706 Expert, with

19 the limited powers and duties described herein.

20

Expert’s Duties

21

2. The Expert’s duties shall be limited to assisting the Court and parties in

22 facilitating coordination of enforcement of the May 30, 2006 and January 18, 2007

23 Injunctions with the remedial processes in the other class actions, particularly with regard to

24 four areas of coordination:

25

a. Tracking. The Expert will coordinate with the parties and other class actions

to implement the Injunction’s required state-wide, computerized, networked

26

real-time tracking system to track prisoners with disabilities as described in

the Injunction;

27

b. Accountability. The Expert will coordinate with the parties and other class

28

actions to implement the Injunction’s required accountability system as

applied to prison medical administrators;

-1- [PROPOSED] ORDER APPOINTING COURT EXPERT
PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 706

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1121 Filed 06/11/2007 Page 3 of 4

1

c. Training. The Expert will coordinate with the parties and other class actions

2

to implement the Injunction’s required training of health care staff on

effective communication issues; and

3

d. Grievances. The Expert will coordinate with the parties and other class

4

actions to implement the Injunction’s requirement that the Medical Appeals

analyst position be filled at each institution and that additional staff time be

5

provided to process grievances whenever a prison’s disability grievance

responses are more than 30% late.

6

3. To effectuate these goals, commencing June 20, 2007, the Expert shall attend

7

the monthly coordination meetings being held in the Plata, Coleman and Perez cases. The

8

Expert shall consult with the parties prior to each meeting and submit agenda items that are

9

designed to advance implementation of the four areas of coordination listed in section 2

10

above. The Expert shall also communicate regularly with counsel for the parties and the

11

Court concerning issues discussed at the coordination meeting and concerning other

12

communications with the Plata Receiver and his staff, the Coleman Special Master and his

13

staff, and the Perez court experts.

14

4. The Expert is authorized to retain reasonable staff assistance necessary to

15

effectuate the duties described herein.

16

5. The Expert shall inform the parties in writing at least 14 days before he or she

17

petitions the Court to employ such persons. The requirements of Rule 706 of the Federal

18

Rules of Evidence shall apply if the Expert retains persons who are to provide substantive or

19

expert assistance, consultation, investigation, reporting or testimony. The parties shall

20

submit their opposition, if any, to the Court no later than 14 days after receiving the

21

Expert’s notice that he or she intends to retain such persons. All such persons, as well as the

22

nature of their compensation, shall be approved by the Court in advance of their retention or

23

employment.

24

Compensation of the Expert

25

6. The Expert shall receive reasonable compensation at a rate to be set by the

26

Court. All reasonable expenses incurred by the Expert in performing his or her duties shall

27

be reimbursed. The Expert’s fees and expenses shall be borne by the Defendants as part of

28

-2- [PROPOSED] ORDER APPOINTING COURT EXPERT
PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 706

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1121 Filed 06/11/2007 Page 4 of 4

1 the costs of this action.

2

7. The Expert periodically, and in no event less frequently than once every three

3 months, shall submit to the Court and serve on the designated representatives of defendants

4 and plaintiffs, an itemized statement of the Expert’s fees and expenses, which shall be

5 payable upon receipt.

6

8. Defendants are hereby ordered to deposit, within 30 days of the date of this

7 Order, the sum of $100,000 with the Clerk of this Court as an interim payment of costs,

8 which shall be invested in an interest-bearing account. All interest earned in the account

9 shall accrue to the benefit of defendants. When the above sum is substantially drawn down

10 by payments to the Expert, the Court may order defendants to deposit additional sums with

11 the Clerk of the Court.

12

Miscellaneous Provisions

13

9. At the request of the Court, the Expert shall attend any negotiations, mediation

14 sessions, or court hearings.

15

10. The Expert shall be available to meet with the parties jointly, in person, or by

16 telephone in a manner that is reasonable and convenient.

17

11. Either party may move the Court to modify this order or to terminate the

18 Expert’s coordination duties by filing a motion and supporting documents showing that 19 defendants are in compliance with the four coordination areas required by the January 18th

20 Injunction and that such coordination is no longer necessary.

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22 Dated: June 11, 2007
23
24

By: THE HONORABLE CLAUDIA WILKEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25

26

27

28

-3- [PROPOSED] ORDER APPOINTING COURT EXPERT
PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 706

 
 Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1124-2 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 20 of 74

.~

=u0 -j§-
·.-. .." '"~ u ~

·- ..~ 0
Q"' ·E

.~ ""'

" E
~

""' •z ~ 0
00 ~•
~ ~

~ "

1

2

RECEIVED

3

MAY 3 1 ZOOS

4

Rosen Bien & Asaro

5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

9 JOHN ARMSTRONG, et al.,

10

Plaintiffs,

No. C 94-02307 cw
FJLEQ ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO ENFORCE

11

v.

M4Y 3 0 2006 REVISED PERMANENT
INJUNCTION

12

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

et

al

'

1

NOAclfliilEW~-g!A..~, DDWIST. RWICIT!:KCOiNUGRT • ISTfl!CTOFCALIFORN'A

13

Defendants .

OAKLAND

"'

14 ~--~-----------------1
15

16

17

18

on May 26, 2006 at 10:00 a.m., this matter came on regularly

19 for hearing in Courtroom 2, Fourth Floor, of this Court, the

20 Honorable Claudia Wilken presiding. Michael Bien and Ernest Galvan

21 of Rosen, Bien & Asaro, LLP appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs John

22 -Armstrong, et al. Deputy Attorney General Benjamin Rice appeared

23 on behalf of Defendants.

24

Having considered the parties' pleadings and the arguments of

25 counsel, and good cause exist·ing therefor, the Court hereby finds

26 and orders:

27

The Court entered a Permanent Injunction in this action on

28 December 22, 1999 as to Defendants, government officials

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1124-2 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 21 of 74
I .

-...

u0"
·--.".'.

·§
.~,.
u

--·- 0

~
~.,

~

---...·-"""''

~
z 0
~
" ~

p "

1 responsible for conducting parole proceedings by the Board of

2 Parole Hearings ("BPH," formerly the "Board .of Prison Terms"),

3 following trial and findings that Defendants were in violation of

4 the Americans with Disabilities Act {ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et

5 ~. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C.

6 § 794, and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The

7 Court entered a Revised Permanent Injunction on February.ll, 2002

8 (the "Revised Permanent Injunction"). The Permanent Injunction in

9 this action was supported by Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

10 Law, entered_on December 22, 1999, with findings that the order for

11 relief was narrowly-drawn, extended no further than necessary to

12 correct the violation of the federal right, and was the leas-t

13 intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the federal

14 right.

15

The Revised Permanent Injunction required, among other things,

16 that Defendants do the following:

17

15. The BPT shall create and maintain a system for tracking

prisoners and parolees that the BPT identifies as having

18

disabilities. However, to the extent that tracking is

conducted by the CDC, it is not necessary for the BPT to

19

duplicate that system, and the BPT may make use of the CDC's

tracking system as a permissible means of complying with the

20

injunction.

16. Prior to meeting with a prisoner or parolee about a

21

screening offer, and prior to parole revocation, parole

22

revocation extension, life prisoner parole date rescission, life prisoner parole consideration, serious offender, mentally

23

disordered prisoner or sexually violent predator probable cause hearings, the BPT shall take reasonable steps to

24

identify prisoners and parolees with disabilities. Such steps

shall include, but not be limited to:

25

a. Checking the system described in paragraph 15 to

determine whether the BPT has previously identified the

26

prisoner or parolee as having a disability.

27

28

2

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1124-2 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 22 of 74

u~ =.0.. ·§

"...~

~ ~

-~ u

~

~ 0

·~."~,' ~"

.2! 5

" ~

~
rll

~

"' ~
.2! ,£

"·~
p

I

b. Reviewing all relevant and reasonably available

information in the prisoner or parolee's central and

2

medical files.

c. Verifying the disability when the BPT disputes the

3

extent or existence of the disability. The prisoner or

4

parolee shall be expected to cooperate with all verification efforts, but the BPT shall be responsible

5

for verifying the disability.

17. The BPT shall provide accommodations to prisoners and

6

parolees with disabi.lities at all parole proceedings. The

prisoner or parolee's request for a particular type of

7

accommodation shall be given primary consideration and shall

be granted unless the request is unreasonable for specific,

8

articulated reasons allowable under the ADA, or unless other

9

effective accommodations are available.

10 Revised Permanent Injunction,, 15-17.

II

The Revised Permanent Injunction defines parole proceedirig as

12 follows:

13

"Parole proceedings" shall mean all hearings conducted by the

BPT (now BPH] to determine whether and/or when· a prisoner or

14

parolee should be released on parole or involuntarily

15

confined, including parole revocation and revocation extension hearings, life prisoner hearings (documentation hearings,

16

pro9ress hearings, parole consideration hearin9s, parole date

rescission hearings and parole board rules hearings) , mentally

17

disordered offender hearings and sexually violent predator

hearings. Parole proceedings also include any events related

18

to the hearings that occur prior to or after the hearings,

including, but not limited to, screening offers, psychological

19

evaluations, central file reviews and administrative appeals.

20 Revised Permanent InJunction, 3.

ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Due Process Clause, and are 24
violating the rights of members of the plaintiff class by failing 25 26 to provide necessary accommodations during parole proceedings.
27 Paragraph 15 requires Defendants to create and maintain a system

28

3

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1124-2 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 23 of 74

t:

=u0 ·'

' ~

~
~

u

·.-" ~

~ 0

., -~

·- ..~., Q

'."a~ ~•

00 ""0

z~•0

• ..!! ~

·-~=

1 for tracking prisoners and parolees that the BPH identifies as

2 having disabilities. Paragraph 16 requires that Defendants take
3 reasonable steps to identify prisoners and parol~es with
4 disabilities prior to parole proceedings, including checking the 5
tracking system to determine whether the BPH has previously 6
identified the "prisoner or parolee as having a disability, and 7
reviewing all relevant and reasonably available information in the 8 9 prisoner or parolee's central or medical file. Paragraph 17 10 requires Defendants to provide accommodations to prisoners and
11 parolees with disabilities at all parole proceedings, including
12 pa~ole revocations and extensions, life prisoner hearings, Mentally

13 Di.sordered Offender {MDO) prOceedings, and Sexually Violent

14 Predator {SVP) proceedings.

15

Plaintiffs have demonstrated that Defendants are in violation

16 of the tracking system requirements of the Revised Permanent
17 Injunction {Paragraphs 15 and 16) . Defendants do not dispute these
18 violations,·but rather concede them. The cUrrent system for
19
20 ~racking prisoner and parolee disabilities is unreliable,

21 non-comprehensive, and insufficient. It has failed on many

22 occasions. It does not capture information regarding the Board's

23 prior identification of disabilities in previous parole

24 proceedings. It also does not reliably and consistently record

25 information about disabilities and accommodations provided in 26 current parole proceedings. 27

28

4

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1124-2 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 24 of 74
I.

-.
·--.. ..u=0 •~'•
" u ~
-·- 0
j ~
~
.s '~
.& ~•
rLJ z0 0
."' ~ a ~
·--~=

I

Plaintiffs have demonstrated that Defendants' failure to

2 comply with the tracking system requirements of the Revised

3 Permanent Injunction has resulted in violations of their obligation
4 to provide accommodations to prisoners and parolees with
5 disabilities (Paragraph 17). Defendants have not contested the
6 numerous specific examples submitted by Plaintiffs of prisoners
7 denied access to ,parole proceedings,. and denied reasonable
8
9 accommodations and assistanCe needed to communicate during these
lO proceedings. The uncontested evidenc~ submitted by Plaintiffs

11 demonstrates that some of the worst abuses proven at trial in April

12 and May, 1999 are continuing, almost seven years after this Court

13 issued the Permanent Injunction. Defendants have not contested
14 that within the past few months, a paraplegic parolee has been
15 required to drag himself up stairs in order to participate in 16
parole proceedings. Defendants have not contested that within the 17
past few months, Defendants have failed to provide sign language 18
interpreters for deaf parolees during critical notice proceedings 19 20 in advance of parole hearings, attorney ~onsultations in
21 preparation for parole hearings, and parole hearings themselves.
22 Prisoners and parolees with disabilities are being denied

23 reasonable accommodations for their parole proceedings in violation

24 of the Revised Permanent Injunction, the ADA, the Rehabilitation

25 Act and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the 26 United States Constitution. Parolees are having their parolee 27

28

5

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1124-2 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 25 of 74

ut=0: •E•

·.-"'~

~ ~

u

~

~ 0

., ·~

·-., a Q

. ..!!

E
u

.~

~ ~ u
"..''0 ~ 5
" ~
·-p"

1 proceedings delayed in order to provide needed accommodations, and

2 are being forced to choose between receiving a reasonable

3 accommodation or receiving a timely Parole proceeding.

4

Defendants have not contested Plaintiffs' showing that these

5 violations are directly caused by Defendants' failure to maintain a

6 tracking system of prior disability identifications, as required by
7

the Revised Permanent Injunction. This direct causation is 8

9 illustrated by the case of one deaf parolee whose right to a sign

10 language interpreter during parole proceedings was violated in late

11 October, .2005, which was included as part of the evidence in

12 support of this motion, and whose rights were-violated again in a

13 subsequent parole proceeding that took place while this motion was

14 pending.

15

Use of a tracking system to prevent such violations is

16
required not only by this Court's Permanent Injunction, but also by
17
the underlying law. "Because the regulations implementing the ADA 18
require a public entity to accommodate individuals it has 19

20 identified as disabled, 28 C.F.R. § 35.104, some form of tracking

21 system is necessary in order to enable the Board to comply with the

22 Act." Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 876 {9th Cir. 2001).

23

Defendants do not contest the fact that they are in violation

24 of the Revised Permanent Injunction, the ADA, the Rehabilitation

25 Act .and the Constitution. In their opposition papers, Defendants 26 contend that the required tracking system may operate separately 27

28

6

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1124-2 Filed 06/1(5/2007 Page 26 of 74

1

..

= ~
u0 ·~

.. ~

~ ·~~

~
u

.. -0

~00
·~~

.. 5 00 ~

..=
00

~

"C ~

.. "~ ~
·~

= ~

1 from the computer networks on which Defendants maintain the basic
2 operational data regarding parole proceedings, and_which are used
3 regularly by the same personnel who are responsible for ensuring 4
effective communication and reasonable accommodations for persons 5
with disabilities. While all other information related to these 6
processes is generated and transmitted in real-time, on a high-
7
speed, networked sys.tem, Defendants propose segregating the
8 9 disability tracking system onto a few separate computers scattered
10 in various offices around the state, with data coming in the mail
11 on CD-ROMs twice monthly . The Court finds that the tracking system

12 requirement cannot be met by such a segregated, slow system.
13 Defendants have instituted their much faster networked systems in
14 order to meet due process deadlines in the parole revocation 15 process that have been massively accelerated in compliance with the 16
Permanent Injunction in another federal civil rights class action, 17
Valdivia v. Schwarzenegger, CV 94-671 LKK (E.D. Cal.). This same 18
acceleration in the process results in the need to·arrange 19
20 reasonable accommodations promptly so that persons with 21 disabilities are not shunted off to a slower process because of
22 their disabilities and needs for reasonable accommodations.
23 Similar changes are underway in the life prisoner hearing process.
24 The Cqurt cannot condone a system that leaves required disability
25 tracking behind in an unworkable separate system, and that will
26

27

28

7

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1124-2 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 27 of 74

--...·-u=0 •~'•
" u~ ~
-·- 0
" ~
~ ~

~
.B
-.""..'

j '
~

.B £

·-;;";;,

I inevitably result in continued egregious violations of due process,

2 the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act.

3

Defendants further contend that the requirement to check the

4 tracking system should not apply before prisoners or parolees are

5 given notices of rights or charges in connection with parole
6 proceedings. This contention is without merit. Notice of rights
7 and charges is a basic hallmark of due process. Prisoners and
8
9 parolees cannot meaningfully participate in parole proceedings

lO without effective communication of notices of rights and charges.

11 Plaintiffs have demonstrated, and Defendants have not contested,

12 that failure to c~eck the tracking system as required by the

13 Revised Permanent Injunction has caused disabled prisoners and

14 parolees to be denied proper notice of rights and charges.

15

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, (1) In Order to remedy these

16 violations, Defendants must implement a State-wide, computerized,
17
networked, real-time database system, preferably the Revocation 18

19 Scheduling and Tracking System (RSTS), to ensure compliance with

20 Paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of the Revised Permanent Injunction in

21 this action. For parole revocations and extensions, this system

22 must be implemented on or before January 1, 2007. For life

23 prisoner hearings, MDO proceedings,. and SVP proceedings, this

24 system must be impl~mented on or before May 1, 2007. It may be
25 included in the RSTS, the LSTS or an equivalent system. In 26
addition, Defendants must develop and implement a plan to assure 27

28

8

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1124-2 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 28 of 74

~ ..

"u0 ·~

·.-."'~

~
~

u

~

·-~ 0
" ~
~ :~

~ Q

"$ ~E•
~ :£
.",.' -5 • ·~ ;'"; ~

;;,

I that accommodations, including but not limited to sign language

2 interpreters, are actually provided at each parole proceeding

3 without delay.

4

(2) The State-wide computerized tracking system, preferably

5 the RSTS, must include access to information previously gathered by

6
the BPH regarding an inmate or parolee's disabilities and needs for 7

accommodation and maintain that information from one parole 8

9 proceeding to the next; must gather information from tracking

10 systems maintained by California Department of Corrections and

11 Rehabilitation {CDCR) Institutions, Department of Adult Parole

J2 Operations (DAPO) and BPH; must be updated with new information
13 abou~ disabilities identified during the parole proceedings and
14 accommodations requested and providedi and must be able to transmit 15 information back to CDCR Institutions and Parole for future use. 16
(3) The RSTS, or other State-wide computerized tracking 17
system, must be checked by Defendants' staff prior to the 18
initiation of each parole proceeding, including· _sufficieritly in 19 20 advance of any notice of rights or charges to allow for needed
21 accommodations to be arranged before the notice of rights or
22 charges, and sufficiently in advance of any clinical interview,

23 file or documents review, or life prisoner planning process to

24 allow for needed accommodations to be arranged before these 25 scheduled processes. 26

27

28

9

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1124-2 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 29 of 74

..

;

u0 -~

..~

~
u

·.-~ ~

. 0

·- " ~
~ ~

~
~
~

E
~

..00

~
~ •

"~ ~

·- "c

~

I

{4) Defendants are to meet and confer with Plaintiffs'

2 counsel regarding the specifications for the tracking system or
3 systems. The parties are to certify to the Court on or before 4 August 25, 2006, either that they have reached agreement regarding 5
these specifications, or that further briefing and/or evidence is 6
necessary on the specifications. In addition, Defendants are to 7
meet and confer with Plaintiffs' counsel regarding the plan to 8
provide, in a timely manner, accommodations, including but not 9
10 limited to sign language interpreters, at each parole proceeding,
11 without delay .

12

(5) On or before November 27, 2006, Defendants shall certify

13 to the Court that they have taken all necessary steps to secure
14 funding for utilization of the RSTS, or other State-wide
15 computerized tracking system, and of the plan to provide 16
accommodations in a timely manner, including sign language 17
interpreters.
18
{6) On or before January 1, 20Q7, Defendants shall certify to 19
20 the Court that they have fully implemented the RSTS, or other
21 State-wide computerized tracking system for accommodations needed
22 for parole revocations and extensions, and the plan to provide

23 accommodations in a timely manner, including sign language

24 interpreters. On or before May 1, 2007, Defendants shall certify

25 to the Court that they have fully utilized the RSTS, the LSTS, or
26 other State-wide computerized tracking system, for accommodations
27

28

10

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1124-2 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 30 of 74

-...

"u0 ·~

-....... ii
" ·~ ~ 0

- "•• ~
8 ~ ·~

.,~ 5

-.s '

~
~

"''1::1
l!

~ • s
~

=-~
;;;.

1 needeQ for life prisoner hearings, MDO proceedings, and SVP

2 proceedings.

3

(7) The Court finds that the relief ordered is narrowly drawn,

4 extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of
5
federal rights, and is the least intrusive means necessary to 6
correct the violation of the federal rights. 7

8

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10
11 Dated: MAY302006

12
13
14 Copies mailed to counsel 15 as noted on the following page
16

CLAUDIA WILKEN United States ·District Judge

17

18
19
20

21

22
23

24

25

26

27

28

11

 
 Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1123 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 1 of 26

1 PRISON LAW OFFICE DONALD SPECTER – 83925
2 SARA NORMAN – 189536 General Delivery
3 San Quentin, California 94964 Telephone: (415) 457-9144
4 DISABILITY RIGHTS EDUCATION &
5 DEFENSE FUND, INC. LINDA KILB – 136101
6 2212 6th Street Berkeley, California 94710
7 Telephone: (510) 644-2555
8 JONES DAY CAROLINE N. MITCHELL - 143124
9 555 California Street, 25th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104
10 Telephone: (415) 875-5712

BINGHAM McCUTCHEN, LLP WARREN E. GEORGE – 53588 Three Embarcadero Center San Francisco, California 94111-4066 Telephone: (415) 393-2000
ROSEN, BIEN & GALVAN, LLP MICHAEL W. BIEN – 96891 GAY C. GRUNFELD – 121944 HOLLY M. BALDWIN – 191317 ANNE H. MANIA – 218766 315 Montgomery Street, 10th Floor San Francisco, California 94104 Telephone (415) 433-6830

11 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14 OAKLAND DIVISION
15

16 JOHN ARMSTRONG, et al.,

17

Plaintiffs,

18 v.

19 ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,

20

Defendants.

21

22

23

24

) Case No. C 94-2307 CW

)

) PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION

) AND MOTION TO ENFORCE

) COMPLIANCE WITH MAY 30, 2006

) ORDER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS

) AND AUTHORITIES

)

)

)

HEARING

)

) Date: July 26, 2007

) Time: 2:00 p.m.

) Dept: Courtroom 2, Fourth Floor

) Judge: Hon. Claudia Wilken

)

25

26

27

28

PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH MAY 30, 2006 ORDER; POINTS & AUTHORITIES, Case No. C-94-2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1123 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 2 of 26

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page 2

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1 3

RELEVANT FACTS ................................................................................................................. 2 4

Procedural Background ................................................................................................... 2 5

Defendants’ Failure to Comply with the May 2006 Order ................................................. 3 6

ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................................ 6 7

I. Defendants Have Failed to Comply with the May 2006 Order’s

8

Requirements for the Tracking System.................................................................. 6

9

A. The Tracking System is Not Available Statewide. ...........................................6

10

1. There is Inadequate Access to the Tracking System in

Prisons..................................................................................................7 11

2. Tracking System Access at DMH Institutions Is Also

12

Deficient...............................................................................................8

13

B. The Tracking System Does Not Include All Information

Previously Gathered by the BPH Regarding Inmates’ and

14

Parolees’ Disabilities. ............................................................................... 8

15

1. Defendants Allowed A Seven-Week Gap Where

Disability Information They Gathered in Parole

16

Revocation Proceedings Was Not Tracked at All................................9

17

2. Defendants Do Not Have a Reliable System for

Tracking Disability Information in MDO Proceedings. ......................9 18

3. Defendants Do Not Ensure Prompt Entry of

19

Information Into DECS for Life Prisoner Proceedings

at Notice, Meaning the Information May Not Be

20

Available for Later Steps in the Life Prisoner Process. .......................9

21

C. Defendants Failed to Fully Implement the Tracking System in

Life Prisoner, MDO or SVP Proceedings. ................................................ 10 22

1. Defendants Have Failed to Require Staff to Check the

23

DEC System for All Steps in the Life Prisoner Parole

Consideration Process........................................................................11 24

2. Defendants Have No Plan to Ensure That the DEC

25

System Is Checked for Any MDO Proceedings Prior to

Notice of Certification as an MDO....................................................11 26

3. Defendants Have Not Demonstrated That They Are Providing

27

Effective Communication in SVP Proceedings ................................12

28

i

PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION TO

ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH MAY 30, 2006 ORDER;

POINTS & AUTHORITIES, Case No. C-94-2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1123 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 3 of 26

1

4. Defendants’ Failure to Implement the Tracking System

for Life Prisoner, MDO, and SVP Proceedings Was

2

Willful Because They Failed to Require CC-Is to Use

the DEC System and Have Taken No Steps to Enhance

3

Connectivity .......................................................................................13

4

D. The Tracking System Does Not Transmit Information Back to

Parole Staff for Future Use...................................................................... 14

5

E. Defendants Refuse to Require That the Tracking System Be

6

Checked for Certain Parole Proceedings. ................................................. 14

7

II. Defendants Have Failed to Implement a Plan to Ensure Timely

Accommodations for Parole Proceedings. ........................................................... 16

8

A. Defendants Have Failed to Address Known Problems with the

9

Provision of Sign Language Interpreters in Their Plan. ............................. 16

10

B. Defendants’ Plan Allows for Delays in Parole Proceedings

Due to the Failure to Provide Accommodations........................................ 17

11

C. The Plan Has Not Been Funded............................................................... 18

12

D. Defendants Have Not Trained Staff on the Plan........................................ 18

13

E. Defendants Do Not Have a Plan to Provide Accommodations

14

to Class Members Housed in County Jails................................................ 18

15

F. Defendants Have Not Demonstrated That There Are

Structurally Accessible Locations for All Parole Proceedings

16

at All Prisons.......................................................................................... 19

17

G. Defendants’ Plan to Ensure Accessible Transportation To and

From Parole Proceedings Is Inadequate Because The Tracking

18

System Does Not Contain a Field Alerting Staff to the Need

for Accessible Transportation.................................................................. 20

19

H. Defendants’ Plan Does Not Address the Long-Standing

20

Problem of Inadequate Disability Training for BPH Panel

Attorneys. .............................................................................................. 20

21

III. Defendants’ Policies and Procedures to Ensure Reasonable

22

Accommodations Are Incoherent........................................................................ 21

23 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 22

24

25

26

27

28

ii

PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION TO

ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH MAY 30, 2006 ORDER;

POINTS & AUTHORITIES, Case No. C-94-2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1123 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 4 of 26

1

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

2

3

Statutes

4 29 U.S.C. § 794............................................................................................................................... 3 5 42 U.S.C. § 12131, et seq................................................................................................................ 3 6 Cal. Penal Code § 2962, et seq ......................................................................................................12 7 Cal. Penal Code § 3041..................................................................................................................10 8 Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 6600, et seq. .........................................................................................12 9

10

Regulations

11
15 CCR § 2600.1............................................................................................................................12
12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

iii

PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION TO

ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH MAY 30, 2006 ORDER;

POINTS & AUTHORITIES, Case No. C-94-2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1123 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 5 of 26

1

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

2

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on July 26, 2007 at 2:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as

3 the matter may be heard, in the Courtroom of the Honorable Claudia Wilken, located at

4 1301 Clay Street, Courtroom 2, Fourth Floor, Plaintiffs John Armstrong, et al., will and

5 hereby do move the Court for an Order to Enforce Compliance with the May 30, 2006

6 Order in this action.

7

Plaintiffs seek an Order finding that the Defendants are in violation of this Court’s

8 May 30, 2006 Order Granting Motion to Enforce Revised Permanent Injunction (“May 30

9 Order”), which was entered in order to remedy Defendants’ violations of Paragraphs 15, 16

10 and 17 of the Revised Permanent Injunction, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the

11 Rehabilitation Act, and the Due Process Clause. Plaintiffs seek further remedial orders to

12 ensure compliance and remedy Defendants’ violations.

13

This motion is based on this Notice of Motion, the Memorandum of Points and

14 Authorities, [Proposed] Order, and Declarations of Holly Baldwin and Anne Mania, filed

15 and served herewith in support of this motion, the Court files in this action, and such other

16 materials and argument as may be presented before or at the hearing.

17

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

18

INTRODUCTION

19

More than six years after this Court issued the Revised Permanent Injunction, more

20 than a year after this Court issued the May 30, 2006 remedial Order, and six months after

21 Defendants’ request for an extension of time to was denied, Defendants have still failed to

22 bring their system into compliance.

23

Defendants have violated almost every deadline set out in the May 2006 Order.

24 They were almost three months late in implementing a disability information tracking

25 system for revocation and revocation extension proceedings, and have yet to fully

26 implement use of the tracking system in all life prisoner and Mentally Disordered Offender

27 (“MDO”) proceedings. They filed an untimely Accommodations Plan that was deficient in

28 multiple respects, including the failure to address serious problems with their sign language

1

PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION TO

ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH MAY 30, 2006 ORDER;

POINTS & AUTHORITIES, Case No. C-94-2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1123 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 6 of 26

1 interpreter contracts. They have yet to remedy most of those deficiencies, despite receiving

2 notice of them nearly three months ago.

3

What is more, Defendants have shown only minimal commitment to implementing

4 their Accommodations Plan, and have demonstrated no effort to obtain funding for it. They

5 have conducted no training on the provisions of the Plan and have not even sent a paper

6 copy to any staff involved in revocation extensions, MDO, and SVP proceedings.

7

Only after Plaintiffs’ repeated demands and threats of further litigation did

8 Defendants take any steps to address deficiencies in use of the tracking system and the

9 Accommodations Plan. None of their proposed solutions have been implemented to date.

10

Some progress has been made. Defendants developed the DECS (Disability and

11 Effective Communication System) database for use in revocation and revocation extension

12 proceedings to track prisoners with disabilities and their accommodation needs. Defendants

13 have not fully implemented the system, however, in life prisoner, MDO, and SVP

14 proceedings.

15

After many meet-and-confer attempts, Plaintiffs have reluctantly concluded that only

16 a further order from this Court will bring Defendants into compliance with the Permanent

17 Injunction and the May 2006 Order. If a further order is not entered, Defendants will

18 continue to incompletely implement their tracking system, to deny sign language

19 interpretation, accessible transportation, and other needed accommodations to parolees who

20 need them, and to delay parole proceedings while they scramble for accommodations. To

21 assist Defendants in meeting their obligations, Plaintiffs have crafted a more detailed

22 proposed Order to remedy Defendants’ failures to comply with the May 30 Order, and to

23 move Defendants toward a system where timely accommodations are provided in all parole

24 proceedings.

25

RELEVANT FACTS

26

Procedural Background

27

The Court entered a Permanent Injunction in this action on December 22, 1999

28 against Defendants, government officials responsible for conducting parole proceedings

2

PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION TO

ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH MAY 30, 2006 ORDER;

POINTS & AUTHORITIES, Case No. C-94-2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1123 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 7 of 26

1 through the Board of Parole Hearings (“BPH,” formerly “Board of Prison Terms”),

2 following trial and findings that Defendants were in violation of the Americans with

3 Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12131, et seq., Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

4 of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The

5 Permanent Injunction was supported by Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, also

6 entered on December 22, 1999. The Court entered a Revised Permanent Injunction on

7 February 11, 2002 (the “Revised Permanent Injunction”). Baldwin Declaration in Support

8 of Motion to Enforce Compliance with May 30, 2006 Order (“Baldwin Decl.”), ¶ 2, Exh. A.

9

The Revised Permanent Injunction requires, among other things, that Defendants

10 create and maintain a system for tracking prisoners and parolee with disabilities; that

11 Defendants take reasonable steps to identify prisoners and parolees with disabilities prior to

12 parole proceedings, including checking the tracking system and reviewing all relevant and

13 reasonably available information in the central or medical file; and that Defendants provide

14 reasonable accommodations to prisoners and parolees with disabilities at all parole

15 proceedings, including parole revocations and revocation extensions, life prisoner hearings,

16 Mentally Disordered Offender (MDO) proceedings, and Sexually Violent Predator (SVP)

17 proceedings. Baldwin Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. A at ¶¶ 15-17.

18

Based on Defendants’ ongoing failure to comply with the above provisions of the

19 Revised Permanent Injunction and the resulting harm to members of the plaintiff class,

20 Plaintiffs filed an enforcement motion, which was heard by this Court on May 26, 2006. Id.

21 ¶ 4.

22

Defendants’ Failure to Comply with the May 2006 Order

23

On May 30, 2006, this Court entered an Order Granting Motion to Enforce Revised

24 Permanent Injunction (“May 2006 Order”). Baldwin Decl., Exh. B (May 2006 Order). The

25 Court found that Defendants were violating Paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of the Revised

26 Permanent Injunction, the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Due Process Clause, and

27 were violating the rights of plaintiff class members by failing to provide necessary

28 accommodations during parole proceedings. Id. (May 2006 Order) at 3-8.

3

PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION TO

ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH MAY 30, 2006 ORDER;

POINTS & AUTHORITIES, Case No. C-94-2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1123 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 8 of 26

1

Plaintiffs’ counsel demonstrated numerous and ongoing failures of Defendants’

2 existing systems for tracking prisoner and parolee disabilities and the accommodations they

3 needed, and failures to provide reasonable accommodations during parole proceedings.

4 Plaintiffs’ evidence of these violations and the harm caused to class members was

5 uncontested. Id. at 4:15-18, 5:1-6:14, 6:23-25, 8:11-14; see also Baldwin Decl. filed on

6 4/18/06, ¶¶ 43-59; Baldwin Reply Decl. filed on 5/18/06, ¶¶ 21-25. Deaf parolees were

7 repeatedly denied sign language interpretation for revocation proceedings, including notice

8 of charges, attorney consultations, and probable cause hearings. Parole proceedings were

9 delayed for lack of accommodations such as sign language interpretation, or the class

10 member was pressured to proceed without the accommodation. A paraplegic parolee had to

11 drag himself upstairs to meet with his revocation defense attorney. Another wheelchair user

12 was repeatedly denied accessible transport between prison and jail.

13

To remedy Defendants’ violations, the Court ordered two principal steps: an

14 improved tracking system and an accommodation plan. As this Court stated:

15

Defendants must implement a State-wide, computerized, networked, real-time

database system, preferably the Revocation Scheduling and Tracking System

16

(RSTS), to ensure compliance with Paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of the Revised

Permanent Injunction in this action. For parole revocations and extensions,

17

this system must be implemented on or before January 1, 2007. For life

prisoner hearings, MDO proceedings, and SVP proceedings, this system must

18

be implemented on or before May 1, 2007. It may be included in the RSTS,

the LSTS or an equivalent system. In addition, Defendants must develop and

19

implement a plan to assure that accommodations, including but not limited to

sign language interpreters, are actually provided at each parole proceeding

20

without delay.

21 Baldwin Decl., Exh. B (May 2006 Order), ¶ 1 at 8:15-9:3 (emphasis added). The Order

22 outlined further requirements for the capabilities and use of the tracking system, and

23 required that Defendants take a series of specific steps in connection with the tracking

24 system and the accommodations plan, including deadlines for completion of intermediate

25 steps and for final implementation of the remedy. Id. ¶¶ 1-6 at 8:15-11:2. These steps

26 included a requirement that Defendants meet and confer with Plaintiffs’ counsel regarding

27 specifications for the tracking system, and that the parties certify their agreements regarding

28 these specifications to the Court by August 25, 2006. Id. ¶ 4 at 10:1-6. Defendants were

4

PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION TO

ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH MAY 30, 2006 ORDER;

POINTS & AUTHORITIES, Case No. C-94-2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1123 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 9 of 26

1 also required to meet and confer with Plaintiffs’ counsel regarding the plan to provide

2 timely accommodations at each parole proceeding. Id. ¶ 4 at 10:6-11.

3

The May 2006 Order contained firm and explicit deadlines. By November 27, 2006,

4 Defendants were required to certify to the Court that they had taken all necessary steps to

5 secure funding for the tracking system and for the accommodations plan. Baldwin Decl.,

6 Exh. B (May 2006 Order), ¶ 5 at 10:12-18. By January 1, 2007, Defendants were required

7 to certify to the Court “that they have fully implemented the RSTS, or other State-wide

8 computerized tracking system for accommodations needed for parole revocations and

9 extensions, and the plan to provide accommodations in a timely manner, including sign

10 language interpreters.” Id., ¶ 6 at 10:19-24. By May 1, 2007, Defendants were required to

11 certify to the Court “that they have fully utilized the RSTS, the LSTS, or other State-wide

12 computerized tracking system, for accommodations needed for life prisoner hearings, MDO

13 proceedings, and SVP proceedings.” Id., ¶ 6 at 10:24-11:2.

14

On November 27, 2006, Defendants filed a Request for Extension of Time, seeking

15 to extend the implementation deadlines in the May 2006 Order for the tracking system and

16 accommodations plan. Baldwin Decl. ¶ 11. The Court denied Defendants’ request by order

17 entered on December 14, 2006, finding that “[t]he declarations in support of the request

18 demonstrate that Defendants have made some progress toward complying with the Court’s

19 order, but offer no evidence that Defendants have made any special effort to meet a deadline

20 they anticipated would be difficult to achieve. Rather, it appears that Defendants have

21 resigned themselves to being unable to meet the Court’s deadlines.” Order Denying

22 Defendants’ Request for Extension of Time, filed 12/14/06, at 4:6-8; Baldwin Decl. ¶ 12.

23

Despite this Court’s Order, Defendants continued with their planned failure to meet

24 the Court’s deadlines. On January 3, 2007 Defendants filed their “Certification of

25 Implementation of Interim Plan and Tracking System.” Mania Declaration In Support of

26 Motion to Enforce Compliance with May 30, 2006 Order (“Mania Decl.”), Exh. O. The

27 Tracking System failed to meet the requirements of the May 2006 Order. Mania Decl. ¶ 35.

28

5

PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION TO

ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH MAY 30, 2006 ORDER;

POINTS & AUTHORITIES, Case No. C-94-2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1123 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 10 of 26

1

On February 20, 2007, Defendants filed “Defendants’ Plan to Ensure Reasonable

2 Accommodations for Parole Proceedings” (“Accommodations Plan”). Mania Decl., Exh. A.

3 As of March 26, 2007, the Disability and Effective Communication System (“DECS” or

4 “DEC System”), a computerized, networked database to track the need for and provision of

5 disability accommodations, was available for use in parole revocation and revocation

6 extension proceedings. Baldwin Decl. ¶ 22. DECS, the procedures for its use, and the

7 Accommodations Plan all fail to meet the Court’s requirements, as outlined below.

8 9 I. 10

ARGUMENT
Defendants Have Failed to Comply with the May 2006 Order’s Requirements for the Tracking System.

11

The May 2006 Order required that the disability tracking database be a “State-wide,

12 computerized, networked, real-time database system, preferably the Revocation Scheduling

13 and Tracking System (RSTS).” Baldwin Decl. Exh. B (May 2006 Order), ¶ 1 at 8:16-19.

14 Defendants have developed the DEC System software and have made it available via the

15 world wide web and the CDCR’s internal network (Intranet). Baldwin Decl. ¶ 17.

16 Defendants have failed, however, to ensure both that staff performing critical functions in

17 parole proceedings have access to the system, and that all necessary disability information is

18 entered. Defendants have also failed to enable the system to transmit information back to

19 databases maintained by the Division of Adult Institutions (“DAI”) and the Division of

20 Adult Parole Operations (“DAPO”).

21

A. The Tracking System is Not Available Statewide.

22

Access to the DEC System is limited. Prison staff performing critical functions

23 requiring effective communication in life prisoner, MDO and parole revocation extension

24 proceedings do not have access to DECS. In addition, it is unclear whether staff conducting

25 MDO notices of rights and arranging accommodations for MDO hearings in Department of

26 Mental Health (“DMH”) institutions have access to DECS.

27

28

6

PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION TO

ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH MAY 30, 2006 ORDER;

POINTS & AUTHORITIES, Case No. C-94-2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1123 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 11 of 26

1

1. There is Inadequate Access to the Tracking System in

Prisons.

2

3

Defendants have represented that within prisons only Classification and Parole

4 Representatives (“C&PRs”), some ADA Coordinators, and some correctional counselors

5 have direct access to DECS at their computers. Mania Decl. ¶ 10. Plaintiffs have requested

6 specific information on DECS connectivity, meaning what locations have computers that

7 can access DECS using either the CDCR Intranet or the world wide web, on multiple

8 occasions, but have yet to receive an intelligible response. Mania Decl. ¶ 11, Exh. N.

9

Defendants have failed to ensure that Level I Correctional Counselors (“CC-Is”)

10 involved in parole proceedings have routine access to the DEC System. This is a problem

11 because CC-Is carry out many parole proceedings within prisons. For example, CC-Is serve

12 notice of conditions of parole, revocation extension proceedings, and life prisoner hearings.

13 See Baldwin Decl., Exh. C (Joint Certification), ¶¶ 7(b) and (g), 8(a); Mania Decl., Exh. A

14 at 3-4. CC-Is also assist prisoners with many of the preparatory steps for life prisoner

15 hearings, such as file reviews, drafting parole plans and review of the Life Prisoner Packets.

16 Baldwin Decl., Exh. C (Joint Certification), ¶ 7(g). CC-Is also write reports for the Board

17 based in part on interviews with the prisoner. Id. If Counselors cannot access the DEC

18 System, they will be unable to ensure the provision of needed accommodations for these

19 proceedings.

20

CDCR mental health staff also must have ready access to DECS, yet there is no

21 evidence that they do. Mental health staff provide evaluations for both MDO and life

22 prisoner hearings. Baldwin Decl., Exh. C (Joint Certification) ¶7(i)-(k) and (o)-(p). BPH

23 Commissioners and Deputy Commissioners rely heavily on these reports when conducting

24 hearings. Without DECS access, mental health staff cannot ensure that they are providing

25 effective communication during these evaluations. Defendants reported at an April 17,

26 2007 meeting that providing DECS access to mental health staff would be problematic

27 because of the lack of computer access. Mania Decl. ¶ 15.

28

7

PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION TO

ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH MAY 30, 2006 ORDER;

POINTS & AUTHORITIES, Case No. C-94-2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1123 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 12 of 26

1

Finally, Commissioners and Deputy Commissioners in life prisoner proceedings

2 must have access to the DEC System in order to ensure that the system is checked prior to

3 hearings. See, e.g., Mania Decl., Exh. A at 5, Exh. I at 3. But, there is no DECS access in

4 hearing rooms, unless the prison is also a Decentralized Revocation Unit (“DRU”) for

5 parole revocation proceedings. That is because there are no computers in BPH hearing

6 rooms at non-DRU prisons. Mania Decl. ¶¶ 10, 16. Defendants must provide CC-Is with

7 sufficient DECS access to enable them to routinely check the system prior to MDO, SVP

8 and life prisoner proceedings.

9

2. Tracking System Access at DMH Institutions Is Also

Deficient.

10

11

Plaintiffs also have serious concerns about access to DECS at Atascadero State

12 Hospital (“ASH”) and Patton State Hospital (“Patton”). Both are Department of Mental

13 Health (“DMH”) institutions where MDO proceedings are held. On a tour of ASH on

14 April 26, 2007, neither the outgoing nor the incoming parole agent, who are responsible for

15 arranging accommodations at parole proceedings, knew how to use DECS or was able to

16 access it. Mania Decl. ¶ 19, Exh. F. Defendants represented in draft policies and

17 procedures provided on May 25, 2007 that they had a plan to provide DECS access at both

18 DMH institutions. Id. ¶ 20. What the draft policies failed to confirm, despite being

19 provided at least ten days after the alleged establishment of DECS access at ASH and

20 Patton, was that staff there actually had access to the system and were using it. Id.

21 Defendants must certify to Plaintiffs and the Court that staff involved in MDO proceedings

22 at ASH and Patton have access to DECS.

23

B. The Tracking System Does Not Include All Information Previously

Gathered by the BPH Regarding Inmates’ and Parolees’ Disabilities.

24

25

The May 2006 Order requires that the disability tracking database “must include

26 access to information previously gathered by the BPH regarding an inmate or parolee’s

27 disabilities and needs for accommodation.” Baldwin Decl., Exh. B (May 2006 Order), ¶ 2 at

28

8

PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION TO

ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH MAY 30, 2006 ORDER;

POINTS & AUTHORITIES, Case No. C-94-2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1123 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 13 of 26

1 9:5-7. Defendants have failed to demonstrate that all disability information gathered in

2 parole proceedings is entered into the DEC System.

3

1. Defendants Allowed A Seven-Week Gap Where Disability

Information They Gathered in Parole Revocation

4

Proceedings Was Not Tracked at All.

5

Defendants failed to input disability information into DECS for the seven-week

6 period spanning the beginning of its implementation. Between March 10, 2007 and

7 April 27, 2007, no staff input disability information gathered during the file review and

8 notice of rights phase in parole revocation proceedings, and recorded on BPH Form 1073s,

9 into the DEC System. Mania Decl. ¶ 31; Baldwin Decl. ¶ 24, Exh. H.

10

Despite admitting that the gap in information was a problem on April 17, 2007,

11 Defendants have yet to remedy it. They report that they are manually entering information

12 from the missed 1073s, but the only omitted information being entered is from 1073s that

13 were completed between March 10 and March 26, 2007. Mania Decl. ¶ 32, Exh. T. There

14 is no apparent plan to enter the information from March 26, 2007 through April 27, 2007.

15 Id.

16

2. Defendants Do Not Have a Reliable System for Tracking

Disability Information in MDO Proceedings.

17

18

Defendants reported on April 17, 2007 that BPH 1073 forms from MDO notice

19 proceedings are not being routed to the MDO Unit staff who are responsible for entering the

20 information into the DEC system. Mania Decl. ¶ 18. Defendants could not explain why,

21 and have not informed Plaintiffs of any attempt to remedy the problem. Id. Defendants

22 should certify to the Court and Plaintiffs’ counsel that this problem has been investigated

23 and addressed.

24

3. Defendants Do Not Ensure Prompt Entry of Information

Into DECS for Life Prisoner Proceedings at Notice, Meaning

25

the Information May Not Be Available for Later Steps in the

Life Prisoner Process.

26

27

Prisoners who are indeterminately sentenced in California are entitled to hearings at

28 regular intervals in front of the BPH to demonstrate their eligibility for release. Cal. Penal

9

PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION TO

ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH MAY 30, 2006 ORDER;

POINTS & AUTHORITIES, Case No. C-94-2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1123 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 14 of 26

1 Code § 3041. There are several steps that prisoners and CDCR staff take to prepare for a

2 life prisoner parole consideration hearing and those steps take place over a period of up to

3 six months. Baldwin Decl., Exh. C (Joint Certification), ¶ 7(f)-(n); Mania Decl. ¶ 12.

4

Staff responsible for ensuring that prisoners understand the many steps in the life

5 prisoner process must be aware of the need to provide accommodations to the prisoner.

6 Yet, there is no clear deadline for entering disability information gathered during initial

7 notice in life prisoner proceedings into DECS. It is therefore unclear whether the disability

8 information will be available to staff in later steps in the process.

9

Defendants must have a clear and early deadline for entering disability information

10 gathered at notice into the DEC System.

11

C. Defendants Failed to Fully Implement the Tracking System in Life

Prisoner, MDO or SVP Proceedings.

12

13

Defendants failed to meet the May 1, 2007 deadline for implementation of the

14 disability tracking system in life prisoner, MDO and SVP proceedings. See Baldwin Decl.,

15 Exh. B (May 2006 Order) ¶¶ 1, 6 at 8:22-24, 10:24-11:2. Defendants failed to file any

16 certification as to the status or projected implementation date for these proceedings as of

17 May 1, 2007. The last representation of the projected implementation date was that

18 contained in Defendants’ November 27, 2006 Request for Extension of Time, in which

19 Defendants stated that the necessary infrastructure upgrades would not be completed and

20 DECS would not be implemented for life prisoner, MDO and SVP proceedings until

21 November 30, 2007. See Michael Brady Decl., filed 11/27/06, ¶¶ 10-11.

22

The failure of Defendants is threefold. First, as discussed in Section I.A, supra, they

23 have failed to provide adequate access to the tracking system for staff involved in the Life

24 Prisoner and MDO proceedings. Second, even if there were sufficient access, they have

25 failed to promulgate policies requiring DECS to be checked for all proceedings in the life

26 prisoner parole consideration and MDO certification processes. Third, and most troubling,

27 they have failed to address known structural impediments to effectively using the DEC

28 System: they

10 PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH MAY 30, 2006 ORDER; POINTS & AUTHORITIES, Case No. C-94-2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1123 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 15 of 26

1

2 have failed to require CC-Is to use computers to check DECS under any circumstances and

3 have taken no steps to enhance DECS access within the prisons.

4

1. Defendants Have Failed to Require Staff to Check the DEC

System for All Steps in the Life Prisoner Parole

5

Consideration Process

6

The Accommodations Plan and the two additional draft sets of policies and

7 procedures provided by Defendants since filing the Plan fail to require any staff to actually 8 check the DEC System for all but one step1 between notice of the life prisoner parole

9 consideration hearing and the hearing itself. Mania Decl. ¶ 16, Exh. A, D, I. There are

10 several steps between notice and the hearing that are critical to a life prisoner’s ability to

11 present his or her case at the hearing, such as the review of the Central file, the interview

12 for, and presentation of, the Board Report and the presentation of the psychological

13 evaluation report to the prisoner, as well as appeals. All of these steps require effective

14 communication, yet Defendants have failed to ensure that DECS will be checked for any of

15 them. This failure is troubling, not only because it demonstrates Defendants’ lack of

16 commitment to providing accommodations in all parole proceedings, but also because

17 Defendants agreed in the August 2006 Joint Certification to require staff to check DECS for

18 all of these steps. Baldwin Decl., Exh. C, ¶ 7(g)-(h). The Court should require Defendants

19 to have CC-Is check the DEC System before all life prisoner proceedings.

20

2. Defendants Have No Plan to Ensure That the DEC System Is

Checked for Any MDO Proceedings Prior to Notice of

21

Certification as an MDO.

22

Defendants agreed in the Joint Certification to require staff to check the DEC System

23 prior to multiple proceedings leading to possible MDO certification, among them clinician

24 and correctional counselor interviews. Baldwin Decl., Exh. C, ¶ 7(o)-(t). Defendants failed

25
26 1 Defendants have promulgated procedures requiring that mental health staff check the DEC System prior to interviewing a life prisoner to prepare a report for the hearing. Mania Decl.
27 Exh. A at 4, Exh. I at 3. It is unclear, however, that mental health staff will actually have access to the system. Mania Decl. ¶ 15.
28

11 PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH MAY 30, 2006 ORDER; POINTS & AUTHORITIES, Case No. C-94-2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1123 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 16 of 26

1 to include any provisions in the Accommodations Plan or subsequent policies for checking

2 DECS to ensure effective communication in those proceedings. Defendants have contended

3 in negotiations that any proceedings prior to a prisoner being certified as an MDO are not

4 parole proceedings and therefore they are not covered by the Court’s orders in this case.

5 Mania Decl. ¶ 17, Exh. H. That contention is incorrect.

6

The 2002 Revised Permanent Injunction defines parole proceedings to include

7 “…any events related to the hearings that occur prior to or after the hearings, including, but

8 not limited to, screening offers, psychological evaluations, central file reviews and

9 administrative appeals.” Baldwin Decl. Exh. A, ¶ 3 (emphasis added). Defendants rely on

10 staff evaluations of prisoners at MDO hearings. The outcome of those hearings dictates

11 whether the prisoner will be forced to serve his or her parole term confined to a state mental

12 hospital. See Cal. Penal Code § 2962, et seq. Therefore, those evaluations and interviews

13 are parole proceedings related to a hearing. Defendants must ensure that DECS is checked

14 prior to those proceedings. The Court should require Defendants to have CC-Is check

15 DECS prior to all MDO proceedings.

16

3. Defendants Have Not Demonstrated That They Are

17

Providing Effective Communication in SVP Proceedings.

18

It is not clear what Defendants are doing to ensure effective communication in SVP

19 proceedings, because they have fundamentally changed their procedures. Mania Decl., Exh.

20 H at 1. If a prisoner has been referred to the DMH for an evaluation to determine whether

21 s/he meets the criteria to be committed as an SVP (see Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 6600, et

22 seq.), but that evaluation has not been completed prior to the prisoner’s release date,

23 Defendants may hold the prisoner for an additional 45 days past the release date upon a

24 showing of good cause. Id. § 6601.3. Until April of this year, Defendants’ regulations

25 required a hearing conducted by the BPH to determine whether there was probable cause to

26 find the prisoner met the SVP criteria before retaining the prisoner for an additional 45 days.

27 15 CCR § 2600.1 (superseded via emergency regulation, 4/18/07). Defendants have now

28 completely done away with the hearing process via an emergency regulation. See Final

12 PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH MAY 30, 2006 ORDER; POINTS & AUTHORITIES, Case No. C-94-2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1123 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 17 of 26

1 Statement of Emergency RN 07 at

2 http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/DivisionsBoards/BOPH/docs/Final_Statement_of_Emergency.pdf.

3

In the absence of hearings, there is no assurance that the reason for prisoners’

4 overdetention and the basis for Defendants’ probable cause finding is being effectively

5 communicated to the prisoners. According to Defendants, approximately 600 prisoners a

6 month are being retained past their release date for these proceedings. Id. Defendants

7 should provide policies and procedures to the Court demonstrating that they are effectively

8 communicating their reasons for retaining prisoners past their release dates for SVP

9 evaluations. Those policies should include a requirement to check DECS.

10

4. Defendants’ Failure to Implement the Tracking System for

Life Prisoner, MDO, and SVP Proceedings Was Willful

11

Because They Failed to Require CC-Is to Use the DEC

System and Have Taken No Steps to Enhance Connectivity.

12

13

Defendants have asserted that their problems implementing timely use of the DEC

14 System for life prisoner and MDO proceedings are due to “labor” and “connectivity”

15 problems. That is, Defendants contend that they cannot require Correctional Counselor I

16 employees to use computers to check the DEC System, and there is not sufficient computer

17 connectivity within the prisons. Mania Decl. ¶¶ 9-10.

18

The labor problem is of Defendants’ own making. Defendants knew more than a

19 year ago that their disability tracking system would be computerized. They agreed ten

20 months ago to require CC-Is to check the DEC System for all steps in the MDO and Life

21 Prisoner Hearing process. Baldwin Decl. Exh. C, ¶ 7. Despite that knowledge and the Joint

22 Certification filed with the Court, and despite the fact that a federal Injunction requires them

23 to track disabilities, Defendants have not even begun the union negotiations that they allege

24 they need to complete in order to comply with the May 2006 Order. Mania Decl. ¶ 9.

25 Defendants have presented no compelling reason why their long-delayed labor negotiations

26 should further delay implementation of this court-ordered remedy.

27

Defendants have also failed to take any initiative to address the problem with

28 connectivity. In their request for an extension of time, Defendants acknowledged that use of

13 PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH MAY 30, 2006 ORDER; POINTS & AUTHORITIES, Case No. C-94-2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1123 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 18 of 26

1 DECS in the life prisoner process would require additions to the CDCR network and

2 infrastructure. See Michael Brady Decl., filed 11/27/06 ¶ 10. Yet, Defendants are unable

3 even to tell Plaintiffs what the current status is for access to DECS within the institutions.

4 Mania Decl. ¶¶ 10-11. What is more, they have presented no evidence of their plan to

5 provide adequate connectivity in the necessary locations for these proceedings. Id.

6

D. The Tracking System Does Not Transmit Information Back to

Parole Staff for Future Use.

7

8

This Court ordered that the tracking system “must be able to transmit information

9 back to CDCR Institutions and Parole for future use.” Baldwin Decl., Exh. B (May 2006

10 Order), ¶ 2 at 9:14-15. Defendants have not complied with this requirement. The DEC

11 System receives information from DAI and DAPO databases, but does not transmit

12 information back to these databases for CDCR’s future use in ensuring equal access to

13 programs, services and activities during incarceration and parole supervision for prisoners

14 and parolees with disabilities. Defendants contend that there is no need for the transmission

15 of information back to DAI and DAPO databases, because the DEC System will be the

16 definitive repository of disability and accommodations information for all staff. Baldwin

17 Decl. ¶ 21. But, there is no evidence that DAPO staff will actually utilize DECS during

18 institutional operations and parole supervision. Id. In addition, it is unclear at this time

19 whether DAI staff have adequate access to the DEC System. Mania Decl. ¶ 10; Baldwin

20 Decl. ¶ 21. Defendants must demonstrate to the Court and Plaintiffs’ counsel that DAPO

21 staff will use DECS to ensure the provision of needed accommodations in parole

22 supervision, and that DAI staff will have adequate access to DECS during institutional

23 operations.

24

E. Defendants Refuse to Require That the Tracking System Be Checked

for Certain Parole Proceedings.

25

26

The parties’ Joint Certification noted four points of disagreement as to whether

27 certain proceedings are “parole proceedings” subject to the requirements of the Revised

28 Permanent Injunction and the May 2006 Order:

14 PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH MAY 30, 2006 ORDER; POINTS & AUTHORITIES, Case No. C-94-2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1123 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 19 of 26

1

2

(a) Notice of conditions of parole by Correctional Counselor I in CDCR

Institutions and Parole Agent in parole field offices;

3

(b) Inclusion in the Life Prisoner Board Report by the Correctional

4

Counselor I in CDCR Institutions of information regarding the life

prisoner’s ability to access programs previously recommended by the

5

BPH under Paragraphs 36 and 37 of the Revised Permanent Injunction;

6

(c) Communication of special conditions of parole for parolees released to

Not In Custody (NIC) status while parole revocation proceedings are

7

pending; and

8

(d) Checking the tracking system to ensure that parolees with disabilities

who are offered diversion to remedial sanctions programs can access

9

the programs.

10 See Baldwin Decl., Exh. C (Joint Certification), ¶ 8.

11

All four of the proceedings listed above are “parole proceedings” as defined by the

12 Revised Permanent Injunction, as they are “events related to the hearings that occur prior

13 to … the [life prisoner or revocation] hearings.” Baldwin Decl., Exh. A, ¶ 3. In addition,

14 the four proceedings listed above are due process functions requiring a heightened standard

15 for effective communication under Defendants’ own policies and procedures. The

16 Armstrong Remedial Plans and orders require that Defendants provide reasonable

17 accommodations and effective communication to prisoners and parolees with disabilities in

18 all programs, activities and services, whether these occur inside the institution, during 19 parole supervision, or during a BPH proceeding.2 Uncontested evidence presented in

20 Plaintiffs’ April 2006 enforcement motion included cases of deaf parolees who were denied

21 sign language interpretation for notice of their conditions of parole or when accepting

22 diversion to a remedial sanction. See Baldwin Decl. filed 4/21/06, ¶¶ 46, 50. Plaintiffs’

23 counsel have attempted to secure an agreement from Defendants to check DECS for these

24 four steps, without receiving any response. Baldwin Decl. ¶ 7, Exh. D. The DECS tracking

25

26 2 In addition, the Valdivia Injunction and Remedial Plan require that parolees receive effective communication in the revocation process or diversion to remedial sanctions. See
27 Stipulated Order for Permanent Injunctive Relief, Valdivia v. Schwarzenegger, E.D. Cal. No. Civ. S-94-0671 LKK/GGH, ¶ 18 and Exh. A at 3.
28

15 PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH MAY 30, 2006 ORDER; POINTS & AUTHORITIES, Case No. C-94-2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1123 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 20 of 26

1 system must be checked by CDCR staff at each of the above four steps in order to determine

2 disability information and accommodation needs.

3 II. 4

Defendants Have Failed to Implement a Plan to Ensure Timely Accommodations for Parole Proceedings.

5

The May 2006 Order required Defendants to “…develop and implement a plan to

6 assure that accommodations, including but not limited to sign language interpreters, are

7 actually provided without delay.” Baldwin Decl., Exh. B, at 8:26-9:3. By January 1, 2007,

8 Defendants were required to certify to the Court that they had fully implemented the plan.

9 Id. at ¶ 6 at 10:19-24. Defendants were required to meet and confer with Plaintiffs’ counsel

10 regarding the plan. Id. ¶ 4 at 10:6-11. They failed to do so. Baldwin Decl. ¶ 29. Instead,

11 on February 20, 2007, without meeting and conferring with Plaintiffs’ counsel, Defendants

12 filed “Defendants’ Plan To Ensure Reasonable Accommodations For Parole Proceedings”

13 (“Accommodations Plan”) with the Court. Mania Decl., Exh. A. The plan and its

14 implementation are deficient. Defendants acknowledge this fact but have yet to remedy

15 those deficiencies.

16 A. Defendants Have Failed to Address Known Problems with the

17

Provision of Sign Language Interpreters in Their Plan.

18

Defendants have identified serious problems with their contracts to provide sign

19 language interpretation at parole proceedings, including unacceptably long lead times of up

20 to three weeks for securing interpretation, but have not developed any plan to address these

21 problems. Baldwin Decl. ¶ 38, Exh. I. The Accommodations Plan relies on staff

22 interpreters at designated prisons to provide accommodations in parole proceedings, but

23 Defendants have failed to hire even one interpreter to date. See Cordy Declaration In

24 Support of Joint Status Conference Statement, filed June 4, 2007. Defendants also plan to

25 rely on videoconferencing as a backup method for providing sign language interpretation at

26 parole proceedings, but have failed to demonstrate that there is sufficient connectivity and

27 equipment to do so. Mania Decl. ¶ 28. Defendants have an egregious history of violations

28 in this area. Baldwin Decl., Exh. B at 5. Their lack of initiative in addressing these known

16 PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH MAY 30, 2006 ORDER; POINTS & AUTHORITIES, Case No. C-94-2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1123 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 21 of 26

1 deficiencies is unacceptable. Defendants must ensure they have the infrastructure to secure

2 timely sign language interpretation.

3 B. Defendants’ Plan Allows for Delays in Parole Proceedings Due to

4

the Failure to Provide Accommodations.

5
Over a year ago, the Court found that Defendants were illegally requiring parolees to 6
choose between a timely hearing and receiving a needed accommodation, and ordered 7
Defendants to develop a plan to ensure that accommodations are actually provided at parole 8
proceedings “without delay.” Baldwin Decl., Exh. B at 5:26-6:6, 9:2-3 (emphasis added). 9
Cf. Revised Permanent Injunction, Baldwin Decl., Exh. A ¶ 8. Yet, the Accommodations 10
Plan and Defendants’ draft policies permit DCs to postpone hearings due to Defendants’ 11
failure to provide needed disability accommodations. Mania Decl., Exh. A at 7, 8, 10, 12, 12
23-25; Exh. I at 3; Exh. J at 4; Exh. K at 5; Exh. L at 3. 13
Defendants have represented in meetings that postponements due to the failure to 14
provide accommodations would only happen in very unusual circumstances where the 15
failure to provide the accommodation was truly beyond the control of the State, but failed to 16
include that information in their policies and procedures. Mania Decl. ¶ 24. Instead, 17
Defendants’ Accommodations Plan and Draft procedures explicitly allow a hearing to be 18
delayed due to the failure to provide an accommodation, and fail to require Defendants to 19
take any remedial action to address the delay or expedite the rescheduled hearing. Id. 20
Defendants’ Plan must be amended to make it clear that failure to provide an 21
accommodation at a hearing does not justify its postponement. In addition, Defendants 22
must impose an expedited deadline for rescheduling life prisoner3 and MDO hearings 23
postponed due to the failure to provide an accommodation. 24

25

26 3 Plaintiffs proposed a 35-day deadline which would allow five days for renoticing of

witnesses and the 30 days’ advance notice required for those witnesses. Defendants did not

27

agree, stating they would propose an alternative deadline. Mania Decl. ¶¶ 23-24. In draft policies and procedures, rather than imposing a 35-day deadline, Defendants stated that 35

28

(continued on next page)

17 PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH MAY 30, 2006 ORDER; POINTS & AUTHORITIES, Case No. C-94-2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1123 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 22 of 26

1

C. The Plan Has Not Been Funded.

2

Despite the Order entered on December 14, 2006 clarifying Defendants’ obligation to

3 certify to the Court that they had obtained funding for the plan to provide accommodations

4 (see December 14, 2006 Order at 4:6-8), Defendants have failed to do so. Baldwin Decl.

5 ¶ 13. In the absence of such a certification, Plaintiffs have no confidence in Defendants’

6 proposed plan to provide timely accommodations. Some of the elements of the Plan which

7 should require funding are: staff training; providing adequate DECS access; enhancing the

8 availability of accessible transportation; and providing timely access to sign language

9 interpretation. Defendants must fund the Accommodations Plan.

10

D. Defendants Have Not Trained Staff on the Plan.

11

Despite multiple changes in procedures, Defendants have conducted no training for

12 any staff on the provisions of their new plan apart from the DECS tracking system.4 The

13 sole mechanism for communicating this new information to staff has been to mail copies of

14 a version of a Plan different from that filed with the Court to some staff involved in

15 revocation proceedings. The cover memorandum with the mailing does not even reference

16 the Plan. Baldwin Decl., Exh. G. Defendants’ long history of failure to comply with their

17 own procedures for meeting their obligations under the ADA requires more than a mailing

18 to ensure that accommodations are provided in parole proceedings.

19

Defendants should provide training to all CDCR staff involved in revocation,

20 revocation extension, life prisoner, MDO and SVP proceedings on their policies and

21 procedures for ensuring that needed accommodations are provided.

22

23

24

25 (continued from previous page) days is the minimum amount of time a prisoner will have to wait to receive a new hearing.
26 Mania Decl., Exh. I.

27

4 Defendants have provided training on the tracking system only to DCs, Board Revocation Representatives, and some high level Decentralized Revocation Units and headquarters

28

staff. A PowerPoint presentation on use of DECS was mailed to DAPO staff. Baldwin Decl. ¶ 23, Exh. H.

18 PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH MAY 30, 2006 ORDER; POINTS & AUTHORITIES, Case No. C-94-2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1123 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 23 of 26

1

E. Defendants Do Not Have a Plan to Provide Accommodations to Class

Members Housed in County Jails.

2

In April 2007, the last month for which Plaintiffs have statistics, well over 37% of 3
parole revocation cases were processed in county jails. Baldwin Decl. ¶ 37, Exh. L. 4
Revocation extensions also occur in county jails. Id. Yet, Defendants have no information 5
as to whether parolees with disabilities who are housed in county facilities are receiving 6
needed accommodations. Defendants stated in their Interim Plan for Providing 7
Accommodations, filed with the Court on January 3, 2007, that “CDCR has conducted a 8
survey of county jails on providing ADA accommodations to Armstrong class members. 9
The survey demonstrated that each county jail facility designated for parole revocation 10
proceedings are [sic] accessible to Armstrong class members.” Mania Decl., Exh. O at 4. 11
After multiple requests for the survey from Plaintiffs, Defendants finally reported that 12
“[a]fter conducting a diligent search, we regret that we are unable to locate this survey. 13
However, we will keep you informed and let you know if we are able to locate the survey in 14
the future.” Baldwin Decl., Exh. K. This is not acceptable. 15
Defendants made unequivocal representations to this Court that they have performed 16
a survey and that it demonstrated accessibility. Now they claim to have lost the survey. 17

Given this record, it is unlikely that Defendants are ensuring that class members housed in

18

county jails are provided with needed assistive devices and accessible locations. In fact, the

19

uncontested evidence presented by Plaintiffs in April and May 2006 included many

20

examples of prisoners denied timely accommodations for parole proceedings held at county

21

jails. Defendants must conduct a survey of all county jails where parole proceedings take

22

place and certify to the Court and Plaintiffs that they are structurally accessible and that

23

parolees have access to needed assistive devices.

24

F. Defendants Have Not Demonstrated That There Are Structurally

25

Accessible Locations for All Parole Proceedings at All Prisons.

26 Defendants have failed to demonstrate that there are structurally accessible locations
27 for all steps of the parole proceedings that occur within CDCR institutions. They have
28 provided a survey stating that all institutions except Folsom State Prison have structurally
19 PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH MAY 30, 2006 ORDER;
POINTS & AUTHORITIES, Case No. C-94-2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1123 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 24 of 26

1 accessible BPH hearing rooms, but despite Plaintiffs’ requests, Defendants have failed to

2 demonstrate accessible locations for any parole proceedings other than hearings, such as

3 attorney consultations and file reviews. Baldwin Decl. ¶ 41, Exh. O. Defendants admit that

4 there are no accessible hearing locations at all at Folsom, and have provided no procedures

5 or plan for addressing or remedying this problem. Id. Defendants must certify to the Court

6 and Plaintiffs that they have structurally accessible locations for non-hearing proceedings at

7 all prisons and provide procedures for ensuring structurally accessible hearing rooms at

8 Folsom.

9 G. Defendants’ Plan to Ensure Accessible Transportation To and From

10

Parole Proceedings Is Inadequate Because The Tracking System Does

Not Contain a Field Alerting Staff to the Need for Accessible

11

Transportation.

12

Defendants’ Accommodations Plan instructs staff scheduling transportation to check

13 the DEC system to determine whether the prisoner/parolee needs special transportation.

14 Mania Decl., Exh. A at 14. The DEC System, however, does not have a field for noting a

15 prisoner’s need for accessible transportation. Mania Decl. ¶ 27. Defendants must develop

16 procedures specifically instructing staff how to identify and track prisoners needing

17 accessible transportation to and from parole proceedings. In addition, a field for

18 transportation should be added to the DEC system.

19 H. Defendants’ Plan Does Not Address the Long-Standing Problem of

20

Inadequate Disability Training for BPH Panel Attorneys.

21

Defendants maintain a panel of attorneys appointed to represent prisoners in life

22 prisoner, MDO and SVP proceedings. The Revised Permanent Injunction requires

23 disability training for these attorneys. Baldwin Decl., Exh. A, ¶ 30. The BPH panel

24 attorney disability training is grossly inadequate. It consists only of materials posted on the

25 CDCR’s website, containing outdated information on this lawsuit and general information

26 on the ADA. Mania Decl. ¶ 30, Exh. R. The materials do not adequately instruct attorneys

27 how to effectively communicate with their clients and ensure that their clients understand

28 proceedings. There is no live training on disability accommodations and effective

20 PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH MAY 30, 2006 ORDER; POINTS & AUTHORITIES, Case No. C-94-2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1123 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 25 of 26

1 communication. Plaintiffs’ monitoring reports demonstrate that Deputy Commissioners rely

2 on attorneys to ensure effective communication. Mania Decl. ¶ 30, Exh. R at 57. Plaintiffs

3 have been demanding that the BPH improve its attorney training since 2003 without any

4 response from Defendants. Mania Decl. Exh. R. Defendants have failed to respond to

5 recent meet-and-confer requests on this topic. Mania Decl., ¶ 30, Exh. G. Defendants

6 should require BPH panel attorneys to participate in the disability training provided to

7 parole revocation defense attorneys employed by the California Parole Advocacy Program

8 or its equivalent.
9 III. Defendants’ Policies and Procedures to Ensure Reasonable Accommodations Are Incoherent.
10

11

Defendants’ policies and procedures for providing accommodations during BPH

12 proceedings are contained in multiple documents: the Interim Plan and Accommodations

13 Plan filed with the Court, both of which Defendants have acknowledged are incomplete;

14 some of the contents of the August 25, 2006 Joint Certification of Meet and Confer Results;

15 the sections of the Armstrong II Remedial Plan that have not been rendered irrelevant by the

16 Valdivia Injunction or subsequent Court orders; draft procedures provided to Plaintiffs in

17 negotiations; and policy memoranda. This is simply too many different documents to

18 check.

19

Defendants cannot provide staff with coherent and complete information about

20 procedures for providing accommodations in parole proceedings when the information is so

21 scattered and incomplete. Instead, Defendants must create a single, comprehensive

22 document containing their plan for providing accommodations in parole proceedings. In

23 addition, Defendants should integrate the policies and procedures for providing

24 accommodations into the general policies and procedures governing parole proceedings.

25 Defendants acknowledge they must integrate their procedures but have no plan, deadline, or

26 incentive to make it happen. Baldwin Decl. ¶ 36.

27

Defendants have also failed to assign specific staff responsibility for ensuring

28 compliance with the Remedial Plans and orders in this case in SVP, MDO and life prisoner

21 PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH MAY 30, 2006 ORDER; POINTS & AUTHORITIES, Case No. C-94-2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1123 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 26 of 26

1 proceedings. Mania Decl. ¶ 34. Unless Defendants assign responsibility for compliance to

2 specific staff members, their approach to compliance will continue to be scattered and

3 incoherent. For this reason, Plaintiffs have requested appointment of a correctional

4 counselor to coordinate compliance as part of their Proposed Order, filed herewith.

5

CONCLUSION

6

Defendants have failed to comply with the May 2006 Order. While they have made

7 progress in some areas, they have fallen far short in too many others. Defendants’

8 conscious decision not to fully implement the tracking system, their inadequate

9 Accommodations Plan, and their sluggish and incomplete responses to Plaintiffs’ requests

10 for remedial action, have forced Plaintiffs to once again seek relief from the Court in order

11 to safeguard the rights of the many parolees with disabilities forced to undergo parole

12 revocation, revocation extension, lifer, MDO, and SVP proceedings without adequate

13 accommodations for their disabilities. For these reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that

14 the Court issue an Order finding that the Defendants are in violation of the May 30, 2006

15 Order, and entering further remedial orders, as detailed in the Proposed Order lodged and

16 served herewith.

17 Dated: June 15, 2007

Respectfully submitted,

18

ROSEN, BIEN & GALVAN, LLP

19

20

By: /s/ Holly M. Baldwin

Michael W. Bien

21

Gay C. Grunfeld

Holly M. Baldwin

22

Anne H. Mania

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

23

24

25

26

27

28

22 PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH MAY 30, 2006 ORDER; POINTS & AUTHORITIES, Case No. C-94-2307 CW

 
 Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1199 Filed 09/11/2007 Page 1 of 22

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

10 JOHN ARMSTRONG, et al.,

11

Plaintiffs,

12

v.

13 ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15

/

16

No. C 94-2307 CW
ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE THE MAY 30, 2006 ORDER

17

On August 16, 2007 at 3:00 p.m., this matter came on regularly

18 for hearing. Having considered the parties' pleadings, the

19 arguments of counsel, and the record in this case, and good cause

20 appearing therefor, the Court hereby finds and orders as follows:

21

The Court entered a Permanent Injunction in this action on

22 December 22, 1999 as to Defendants, government officials and

23 entities responsible for conducting parole proceedings by the Board

24 of Parole Hearings (BPH, formerly Board of Prison Terms)1,

25

26

27

1The current government officials and entities serving as Defendants are Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, the California

28

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), Secretary of the CDCR James Tilton and Executive Director of the Board of Parole

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1199 Filed 09/11/2007 Page 2 of 22

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 following trial and findings that Defendants were in violation of

2 the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et

3 seq., Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §

4 794, and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The

5 Permanent Injunction was supported by Findings of Fact and

6 Conclusions of Law, filed on December 22, 1999, stating that the

7 order for relief was narrowly drawn, extended no further than

8 necessary to correct the violation of federal rights, and was the

9 least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of federal

10 rights. The Court entered a Revised Permanent Injunction on

11 February 11, 2002.

12

The Revised Permanent Injunction requires, among other things,

13 that Defendants create and maintain a system for tracking prisoners

14 and parolees with disabilities; that Defendants take reasonable

15 steps to identify prisoners and parolees with disabilities prior to

16 parole proceedings, including checking the tracking system and

17 reviewing all relevant and reasonably available information in the

18 central or medical file; and that Defendants provide reasonable

19 accommodations to prisoners and parolees with disabilities at all

20 parole proceedings, including parole revocations and revocation

21 extensions, life prisoner hearings, Mentally Disordered Offender

22 (MDO) proceedings, and Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) proceedings.

23 See Revised Permanent Injunction ¶¶ 15-17.

24

Based on Defendants' ongoing failure to comply with the above

25 provisions of the Revised Permanent Injunction and the resulting

26

27 Hearings (BPH) John Monday.

28

2

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1199 Filed 09/11/2007 Page 3 of 22

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 harm to members of the plaintiff class, Plaintiffs filed an

2 enforcement motion, which was heard by this Court on May 26, 2006.

3

On May 30, 2006, this Court entered an Order Granting Motion

4 to Enforce Revised Permanent Injunction (May, 2006 Order). The

5 Court found that Defendants were violating paragraphs fifteen,

6 sixteen and seventeen of the Revised Permanent Injunction, the ADA,

7 the Rehabilitation Act, and the Due Process Clause, and were

8 violating the rights of plaintiff class members by failing to

9 provide necessary accommodations during parole proceedings. May,

10 2006 Order at 3-8. Plaintiffs' evidence of these violations and

11 the harm caused to class members was uncontested. Id. at 4:15-18,

12 5:1-6:14, 6:23-25, 8:11-14. Plaintiffs' counsel demonstrated

13 numerous and ongoing failures of Defendants' existing systems for

14 tracking prisoner and parolee disabilities and necessary

15 accommodations, and failures to provide reasonable accommodations

16 during parole proceedings.

17

To remedy Defendants' violations, the Court ordered that:

18

Defendants must implement a State-wide, computerized,

networked, real-time database system, preferably the

19

Revocation Scheduling and Tracking System (RSTS), to

ensure compliance with paragraphs fifteen, sixteen and

20

seventeen of the Revised Permanent Injunction in this

action. For parole revocations and extensions, this

21

system must be implemented on or before January 1, 2007.

For life prisoner hearings, MDO proceedings, and SVP

22

proceedings, this system must be implemented on or

before May 1, 2007. It may be included in the RSTS, the

23

LSTS or an equivalent system. In addition, Defendants

must develop and implement a plan to assure that

24

accommodations, including but not limited to sign

language interpreters, are actually provided at each

25

parole proceeding without delay.

26 May, 2006 Order, ¶ 1 at 8:15-9:3. The order outlined further

27 requirements for the capabilities and use of the tracking system,

28

3

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1199 Filed 09/11/2007 Page 4 of 22

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 and required that Defendants take a series of specific steps in

2 connection with the tracking system and the accommodations plan.

3 Id. ¶¶ 1-6 at 8:15-11:2.

4

Defendants have failed to comply with the remedial provisions

5 of the May, 2006 Order. On November 27, 2006, Defendants filed a

6 Request for Extension of Time, seeking to extend the January 1,

7 2007 deadline to March 30, 2007 for implementation of the tracking

8 system in parole revocations and for implementation of the

9 accommodations plan, to extend the January 1, 2007 deadline to

10 November 30, 2007 for implementation of the tracking system in

11 revocation extensions, and to extend the May 1, 2007 deadline to

12 November 30, 2007 for implementation of the tracking system in life

13 prisoner, MDO, and SVP proceedings. The Court denied Defendants'

14 request for an extension of time by order entered on December 14,

15 2006, finding, "The declarations in support of the request

16 demonstrate that Defendants have made some progress toward

17 complying with the Court's order, but offer no evidence that

18 Defendants have made any special effort to meet a deadline they

19 anticipated would be difficult to achieve. Rather, it appears that

20 Defendants have resigned themselves to being unable to meet the

21 Court's deadlines." December 14, 2007 Order Denying Defendants'

22 Motion for Extension of Time at 3. Despite the Court's order,

23 Defendants have failed to meet the Court's deadlines, as detailed

24 below.

25 I. Disability and Tracking Database

26

The May, 2006 Order required that the disability tracking

27 database be a "State-wide, computerized, networked, real-time

28

4

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1199 Filed 09/11/2007 Page 5 of 22

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 database system, preferably the Revocation Scheduling and Tracking

2 System (RSTS)." May, 2006 Order ¶ 1 at 8:16-19. Defendants have

3 developed a computerized, networked database system called the

4 Disability and Effective Communication System (DECS), accessible

5 through either the CDCR intranet or the internet via the world wide

6 web.

7

The disability tracking database "must include access to

8 information previously gathered by the BPH regarding an inmate or

9 parolee's disabilities and needs for accommodation." May, 2006

10 Order ¶ 2 at 9:5-7. DECS allows access to information previously

11 gathered by the BPH in the BPH form 1073 file review and

12 inmate/parolee interview process, for current and prior parole

13 proceedings. Defendants failed, however, to maintain such

14 information from parole revocations in any electronic form

15 whatsoever for a seven-week period from March 13, 2007 to April 27,

16 2007. This information gap has not been rectified. In addition,

17 at least some disability and accommodation information gathered for

18 parolees subject to the MDO certification process has not been

19 entered into DECS.

20

The tracking system "must be updated with new information

21 about disabilities identified during the parole proceedings, and

22 accommodations requested and provided." May, 2006 Order ¶ 2 at

23 9:12-14. Defendants' procedures provide no clear deadlines for

24 when disability information is entered into DECS during the life

25 prisoner, MDO or SVP processes, such that information on a

26 prisoner's need for accommodation due to a disability may not be

27 available when needed for the next step in the applicable parole

28

5

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1199 Filed 09/11/2007 Page 6 of 22

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 proceeding.

2

The tracking system "must be able to transmit information back

3 to CDCR Institutions and [BPH] for future use." May, 2006 Order

4 ¶ 2 at 9:14-15. Defendants admit that they failed to comply with

5 this requirement.

6 II. Tracking System for Parole Revocations and Revocation Extensions
7 Defendants also failed to meet the January 1, 2007 deadline
8 for implementation of the disability tracking system in parole
9 revocations and revocation extensions. See May, 2006 Order ¶¶ 1, 6
10 at 8:15-22, 10:19-24. After the Court denied their Request for an
11 Extension of Time, Defendants filed an untimely "Certification of
12 Implementation Of Interim Plan and Tracking System" on January 3,
13 2007, containing their interim plan for tracking disability
14 information in revocation and revocation extension proceedings
15 (Interim Database), and for providing accommodations in all parole
16 proceedings (Interim Plan). The Interim Database tracking system
17 was an inadequate stop-gap measure in that it failed to comply with
18 critical requirements of the May, 2006 Order.
19 The new DECS tracking system was finally available for use for
20 parole revocations and revocation extension hearings as of March
21 26, 2007.
22 III. Tracking System for Life Prisoner, MDO and SVP Proceedings
23 Defendants failed to meet the May 1, 2007 deadline for
24 implementation of the disability tracking system in life prisoner,
25 MDO and SVP proceedings. See May, 2006 Order ¶¶ 1, 6 at 8:22-24,
26 10:24-11:2. Defendants have yet to implement fully the use of the
27

28

6

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1199 Filed 09/11/2007 Page 7 of 22

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 Tracking System in life prisoner, MDO and SVP proceedings.

2 IV. Identification of Parole Proceedings

3

Defendants agreed that the DEC System would be checked at many

4 specific steps in parole proceedings, and the parties enumerated

5 these steps in their Joint Certification of Meet and Confer Results

6 filed on August 25, 2006. See Joint Certification ¶ 7(a)-7(dd).

7 Defendants have failed to comply with several of these agreements.

8 Their policies and procedures implemented to date make no adequate

9 provision for checking DECS prior to some parole proceeding steps

10 (Joint Certification ¶ 7(e), (g), (h), (j), (k), (l), (u), (v),

11 (w), (y) and (z)), and Defendants have been unwilling to check

12 DECS at other steps (Id. ¶ 7(o)-(t)).

13

The parties' Joint Certification noted four remaining points

14 of disagreement as to whether certain proceedings are "parole

15 proceedings" subject to the requirements of the Revised Permanent

16 Injunction and the May, 2006 Order:

17

(a) Notice of conditions of parole by Correctional Counselor I

18

in CDCR Institutions and Parole Agent in parole field offices;

19

(b) Inclusion in the Life Prisoner Board Report by the

20

Correctional Counselor I in CDCR Institutions of information

21

regarding the life prisoner's ability to access programs

22

previously recommended by the BPH under Paragraphs 36 and 37

23

of the Revised Permanent Injunction;

24

(c) Communication of special conditions of parole for parolees

25

released to Not In Custody (NIC) status while parole

26

revocation proceedings are pending; and

27

(d) Consideration of diversion to remedial sanctions

28

7

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1199 Filed 09/11/2007 Page 8 of 22

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

programs.

2 See Joint Certification ¶ 8.

3 V. Certification of Funding

4

Defendants were required to certify to the Court, by November

5 27, 2006, "that they have taken all necessary steps to secure

6 funding for utilization of the RSTS, or other State-wide

7 computerized tracking system, and of the plan to provide

8 accommodations in a timely manner, including sign language

9 interpreters." May, 2006 Order ¶ 5 at 10:12-17. On November 27,

10 2006, Defendants filed a Certification of Funding, but only as to

11 the tracking system, not as to the accommodations plan. Defendants

12 requested clarification as to whether the May, 2006 Order required

13 certification as to only the status of the accommodations plan, or

14 also as to the funding of the accommodations plan. In an order

15 entered on December 14, 2006 denying Defendants' request for an

16 extension of time, the Court clarified that "it ordered Defendants

17 to certify that they had taken all necessary steps to obtain

18 funding for the plan to provide timely accommodations." December

19 14, 2006 Order at 4:6-8. Defendants have failed to make any

20 subsequent certification to the Court that they have obtained

21 funding for their accommodations plan.

22 VI. Accommodations Plan

23

By January 1, 2007, Defendants were required to certify to the

24 Court "that they have fully implemented . . . the plan to provide

25 accommodations in a timely manner, including sign language

26 interpreters." May, 2006 Order ¶ 6 at 10:19-24. Defendants were

27 required to meet and confer with Plaintiffs' counsel regarding the

28

8

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1199 Filed 09/11/2007 Page 9 of 22

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 plan. Id. ¶ 4 at 10:6-11.

2

Defendants failed meaningfully to meet and confer with

3 Plaintiffs' counsel before the January 1, 2007 deadline, and filed

4 a "Certification of Implementation of Interim Plan and Tracking

5 System" on January 3, 2007, containing their interim plan for

6 providing accommodations in all parole proceedings between January

7 1, 2007 and March 30, 2007. On February 20, 2007, Defendants filed

8 their "Plan to Provide Accommodations in Parole Proceedings."

9 Defendants' meet-and-confer efforts following the issuance of their

10 Accommodations Plan have been sporadic and insufficient. During

11 that process, Defendants have provided Plaintiffs' counsel with

12 draft policies and procedures that address some of the deficiencies

13 in the Accommodations Plan, but have yet to implement those

14 procedures, and have not filed an amended plan with the Court.

15

Defendants' Accommodations Plan is deficient in many respects.

16 As described above, Defendants have failed to certify that they

17 have secured funding for the Accommodations Plan. The

18 Accommodations Plan has not been distributed to all necessary CDCR

19 staff, nor has training been provided on its requirements, aside

20 from training on the use of DECS for certain staff. The Plan also

21 fails to provide adequate means to ensure that there are not delays

22 in parole proceedings in order to arrange needed accommodations.

23 Defendants have failed to provide an adequate plan to ensure the

24 timely provision of needed accommodations for parole proceedings

25 that take place in county jails (including parole revocation and

26 revocation extension hearings). There is no proof to support

27 Defendants' assertions that all county jails where parole

28

9

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1199 Filed 09/11/2007 Page 10 of 22

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 proceedings take place have structurally accessible locations for

2 those parole proceedings, or that the county jails provide adequate

3 access to necessary assistive devices for class members. This is

4 particularly disturbing, given the uncontested evidence presented

5 by Plaintiffs in April, 2006 that a paraplegic parolee had to drag

6 himself up stairs to consult with his revocation defense attorney

7 at Kern County Jail.

8

Defendants have also failed to ensure that there are

9 structurally accessible locations for BPH hearings at Folsom State

10 Prison. And Defendants have failed to demonstrate that there are

11 structurally accessible locations at each CDCR institution for

12 parole proceedings other than hearings, such as attorney

13 consultations and file reviews.

14

There is no procedure for panel attorneys retained by the BPH

15 to access current information from DECS prior to their

16 consultations in life prisoner, MDO, or SVP proceedings. Instead,

17 Defendants provide panel attorneys only with a hard copy printout

18 from DECS that may contain no information, or information that is

19 outdated by the time of the consultations and subsequent

20 proceedings.

21

Defendants have identified serious problems with their

22 contracts to provide sign language interpretation at parole

23 proceedings, including unacceptably long lead times for securing

24 interpretation, but have not developed any plan to address these

25 problems. Defendants' problems with providing timely sign language

26 interpretation continue. Defendants also plan to rely on

27 videoconferencing as a backup method for providing sign language

28

10

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1199 Filed 09/11/2007 Page 11 of 22

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 interpretation at parole proceedings, but have failed to

2 demonstrate that videoconferenced sign language interpretation is

3 effective, or that they have the capability to provide it.

4

Defendants' Accommodations Plan acknowledges that training,

5 such as annual training on the Armstrong Remedial Plan for DAPO

6 staff, is an essential component, but the Plan fails to acknowledge

7 the need for improved ADA and Armstrong training for BPH panel

8 attorneys who represent prisoners in life prisoner, MDO, and SVP

9 proceedings, despite long-standing evidence that the current

10 training is inadequate.

11

Defendants have failed to ensure that there is adequate DECS

12 access at Department of Mental Health (DMH) institutions where MDO

13 hearings are held. They have also failed to inform staff there

14 adequately about resources available for providing accommodations.

15

Defendants have failed to maintain their policies and

16 procedures for ensuring compliance with the ADA, the Revised

17 Permanent Injunction, and this Court's remedial orders in a

18 coherent or comprehensive manner.

19

In order to remedy Defendants' violations and deficiencies and

20 ensure compliance with the terms of the May, 2006 Order, the Court

21 issues further remedial orders, as follows.

22 A. Use of DECS in Parole Proceedings

23

1. Within fourteen days of this order, Defendants shall

24 provide DECS access to all hearing officers and parole agents

25 involved in MDO hearings conducted at DMH institutions. Within

26 fourteen days of this order, Defendants shall certify to

27 Plaintiffs' counsel that hearing officers and parole agents at DMH

28

11

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1199 Filed 09/11/2007 Page 12 of 22

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 institutions have DECS access; the certification shall be based on

2 personal knowledge and accompanied by documents demonstrating that

3 such access is established.

4

2. By January 1, 2008, Defendants shall provide full DECS

5 computer connectivity, by providing DECS access for the following

6 individuals, as set forth in the Joint Certification of Meet and

7 Confer Results Pursuant to the May, 2006 Order Granting Plaintiffs'

8 Motion To Enforce Permanent Injunction, Paragraph 7: all

9 Classification and Parole Representatives, Reception Center

10 Correctional Counselor III's, BPH hearing schedulers, Correctional

11 Counselor I's, mental health clinicians (permanent, contract and

12 employed by DMH), staff assigned as assistants in life prisoner

13 proceedings, MDO and SVP Coordinators, "lifer desk" and "revocation

14 extension desk" staff, and BPH Commissioners and Deputy

15 Commissioners. The DECS access for BPH Commissioners and Deputy

16 Commissioners shall be in hearing rooms and real time. By January

17 1, 2008, Defendant Tilton, or his designee, shall certify to

18 Plaintiffs' counsel that all of the above-listed staff have DECS

19 access; the certification shall be based on personal knowledge and

20 accompanied by documents demonstrating that such access is

21 established.

22

3. "Access," as used in paragraphs one and two above, and

23 throughout this order, shall mean that the user can utilize DECS at

24 his or her workstation personally, individually, and routinely in

25 the ordinary course of business. Utilizing another user's

26 workstation, login, or computer to enter DECS shall not constitute

27 "access."

28

12

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1199 Filed 09/11/2007 Page 13 of 22

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

4. Correctional Counselors shall check DECS prior to all

2 parole proceedings including but not limited to: notice of charges

3 and rights for parole revocation extension hearings, reviewing life

4 prisoner packets with life prisoners, service of life prisoner

5 packets, interviews with life prisoners for Board reports,

6 providing assistance with life prisoner parole plans, review of

7 Board Reports, including psychological evaluations, with the

8 prisoner, providing assistance with life prisoner appeals,

9 interviews with alleged MDOs, interviews with alleged SVPs, and

10 service of notice of conditions of parole. Within thirty days of

11 this order, Defendant Tilton, or his designee, shall certify to

12 Plaintiffs' counsel that all Correctional Counselors have been

13 instructed to check DECS for the above-listed proceedings and have

14 been trained on the use of the system.

15

5. Defendants shall require mental health clinicians

16 employed on either a permanent or contract basis by the CDCR to

17 check DECS prior to all parole proceedings including, but not

18 limited to: interviews with life prisoners for the purpose of

19 providing an evaluation of the prisoner to the BPH, review of a

20 life prisoner psychiatric report with the prisoner, interviews with

21 alleged MDOs and alleged SVPs in CDCR institutions and interviews

22 regarding a "knowing and intelligent" acceptance or refusal of the

23 MDO condition in a CDCR institution. Within thirty days of this

24 order, Defendant Tilton, or his designee, shall certify to

25 Plaintiffs' counsel that all such mental health staff have been

26 instructed to check DECS for the above-listed proceedings and have

27 been trained on use of the system.

28

13

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1199 Filed 09/11/2007 Page 14 of 22

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

6. Parole agents shall check DECS prior to all parole

2 proceedings, including but not limited to: the initial meeting with

3 parolees following each release to parole when the agent gives

4 notice of conditions of parolee, any meeting when the parole agent

5 gives notice of amended conditions of parole, notification to a

6 parolee of any alleged violation of parole, notice of the date and

7 time of a Not-In-Custody parole hearing, and service of notice and

8 rights for MDO certification, placement and annual review hearings

9 in state hospitals. Within thirty days of this order, Defendant

10 Tilton, or his designee, shall certify to Plaintiffs' counsel that

11 he has issued a policy directive requiring parole agents to check

12 DECS prior to the above-listed events and that training on use of

13 the system has been provided to all parole agents.

14

7. If Defendants contend that inadequate connectivity is a

15 bar to implementing the requirements of paragraphs one through six

16 at particular institutions or parole offices, within thirty days of

17 this order, they shall report to Plaintiffs' counsel that

18 connectivity is not established and explain the barriers to

19 connectivity. In addition, they shall develop local procedures

20 based on the existing connectivity to ensure that Correctional

21 Counselors, mental health staff and Parole Agents are all provided

22 with the information in DECS prior to all parole proceedings. The

23 local procedures shall be provided to Plaintiffs' counsel within

24 thirty days of any relevant report of non-connectivity.

25

8. In no case shall a local procedure set forth in paragraph

26 eight be operative beyond January 1, 2008.

27

9. If Defendants are unable to comply with any requirement

28

14

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1199 Filed 09/11/2007 Page 15 of 22

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 included in paragraphs one through eight, they shall present

2 evidence regarding any and all attempts to secure funding for,

3 establish connectivity to, and provide training on DECS.

4

10. The Court finds that each of the following events is

5 essential to "parole proceedings" as defined by the Revised

6 Permanent Injunction, because they are "events related to the

7 hearings that occur prior to . . . the [life prisoner or

8 revocation] hearings." Revised Permanent Injunction

9 ¶ 3. In addition, these events have due process implications

10 requiring a heightened standard for effective communication under

11 Defendants' own policies and procedures. Therefore, DECS must be

12 checked by CDCR staff prior to each of the following four steps in

13 order to determine disability information and accommodation needs.

14 This list is not exhaustive and does not supersede the Revised

15 Permanent Injunction's definition; it only clarifies that these

16 events are parole proceedings, or are essential to parole

17 proceedings, and therefore treated as parole proceedings for

18 purposes of this case:

19

a. Notice of conditions of parole by Correctional

20 Counselor I in CDCR Institutions and Parole Agent in parole field

21 offices;

22

b. Inclusion in the Life Prisoner Board Report by the

23 Correctional Counselor I in CDCR Institutions of information

24 regarding the life prisoner's ability to access programs previously

25 recommended by the BPH under paragraphs thirty-six and thirty-seven

26 of the Revised Permanent Injunction;

27

c. Communication of special conditions of parole for

28

15

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1199 Filed 09/11/2007 Page 16 of 22

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 parolees released to Not In Custody (NIC) status while parole

2 revocation proceedings are pending; and

3

d. Consideration of remedial sanctions in lieu of

4 returns to custody for parolees with pending parole violation

5 charges.

6

Within thirty days of this order, Defendant Tilton, or his

7 designee, shall certify that DAPO and BPH and CDCR staff have been

8 ordered to check DECS prior to each of these proceedings, have been

9 trained on DECS and have appropriate access to DECS. The

10 certifications shall be based on personal knowledge and shall be

11 accompanied by supporting documentation.

12

11. Defendants shall enter into DECS, within twenty-four

13 hours of completion of the prisoner/parolee interview, all

14 information gathered on the hard copy of the BPH form 1073.

15 Defendants shall enter the information at the institution level and

16 immediately cease the practice of sending 1073 forms to BPH

17 headquarters for data entry purposes. Within thirty days of this

18 order, Defendant Tilton, or his designee, shall certify to

19 Plaintiffs' counsel that Defendants have ceased sending 1073 forms

20 to the ADA Compliance Unit for entry into DECS and that information

21 on the 1073 forms is being entered in DECS at the institutions

22 within twenty-four hours of completion of the interview. Defendant

23 Tilton, or his designee, shall specify how Defendants effected the

24 practice and how they have verified that it was followed.

25

12. Defendants shall certify within fourteen days of this

26 order that they have remedied the gap in entering disability

27 information in DECS between March 10, 2007 and April 16, 2007.

28

16

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1199 Filed 09/11/2007 Page 17 of 22

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 B. Defendants' Plan to Provide Accommodations in Parole Proceedings
2 13. Within ten days of this order, Defendants shall develop
3 and implement procedures for ensuring the effective communication
4 of the situation when detaining prisoners past their release dates
5 for SVP evaluations and of any way in which prisoners can challenge
6 their continued detention. The procedures must include a DECS
7 review prior to the communication of the information to the
8 parolee. Within fourteen days of this order, Defendant Tilton, or
9 his designee, shall certify, based on personal knowledge and with
10 supporting documentation, how Defendants are communicating to
11 prisoners the reason they are being retained past their release
12 dates and the procedures by which prisoners can challenge the
13 retention, and the manner in which the rights of class members with
14 developmental, learning, hearing and vision impairments are being
15 preserved in the new process.
16 14. Within thirty days of the date of this order, Defendants
17 shall report to Plaintiffs' counsel how they have addressed the
18 problems with Defendants' sign language interpretation contracts
19 and services identified in the February 15, 2007 Review of
20 Sign-Language Interpretation Contracts Utilized for Parole
21 Proceedings, including, but not limited to, the long lead times
22 required by most of the agencies. Defendants also shall produce to
23 Plaintiffs' counsel, within ten days of this order, the BPH forms
24 1103 and 1104 or any other documentation explaining the reason for
25 the untimely hearings for the nine parolees that required sign
26 language interpretation between January and June of 2007.
27

28

17

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1199 Filed 09/11/2007 Page 18 of 22

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

15. Defendants shall not use video teleconferencing as a

2 substitute for live sign language interpretation in parole

3 proceedings and hearings unless and until they have demonstrated

4 and certified that the equipment, resolution, connectivity,

5 reliability and procedures are adequate to ensure effective

6 communication.

7

16. Defendants' failure to provide a necessary accommodation

8 for a disability does not constitute good cause for delaying any

9 parole proceeding, including, but not limited to, parole hearings,

10 life prisoner hearings, MDO hearings and SVP hearings. Defendants

11 shall permit Plaintiffs' counsel to monitor life prisoner parole

12 proceedings as follows:

13

a. On a monthly basis, Defendants shall produce to

14 Plaintiffs' counsel documents and information, concerning life

15 prisoner parole consideration hearings scheduled during the next

16 sixty days for class members, sufficient to demonstrate that

17 Defendants have identified and arranged for all necessary

18 disability accommodations.

19

b. The documents shall include all disability

20 information, including BPH forms 1073 and 1074, and relevant source

21 documents, and shall include evidence that Defendants have

22 recognized the need for accommodations, such as scheduling sign

23 language interpreters in advance of hearings, and whether they have

24 provided accommodations in prior parole proceedings.

25

c. Plaintiffs' counsel shall be permitted, in addition

26 to any regular monitoring, to observe and monitor any life prisoner

27 hearings of class members as well as parole proceedings prior to

28

18

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1199 Filed 09/11/2007 Page 19 of 22

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 the hearings, and to make informal inquiries directly to Defendants

2 on specific cases.

3

17. Defendant Tilton, or his designee, must certify within

4 fourteen days of this order that he has obtained funding for all

5 components of Defendants' plan to provide disability accommodations

6 and access to DECS in all parole proceedings, including details

7 showing the specific allocations for staffing, training, computer

8 software and hardware, outside contracts and capital items.

9

18. Within thirty days of this order, Defendants shall

10 produce to Plaintiffs' counsel any and all draft or final requests

11 for funding or Budget Change Proposals or work load studies,

12 prepared by or for the BPH, DAPO, CDCR, DMH or the Department of

13 Finance, regarding funding, staffing, training, construction or

14 other resources necessary to comply with the terms of this Court's

15 May, 2006 Order, including, but not limited to, the development of

16 DECS, and any other provisions of the Accommodations Plan since the

17 issuance of the May, 2006 Order. Plaintiffs shall report to the

18 Court, within fourteen days after the production of these

19 documents, as to the adequacy of the funding for implementation of

20 the May, 2006 Order and the need for any additional orders.

21

19. Within thirty days of this order, Defendants shall report

22 to Plaintiffs' counsel which housing units in Alameda, Sacramento

23 and Los Angeles County Jail facilities are wheelchair accessible

24 and how Defendants ensure that class members at those institutions

25 who are designated DPW and DPO are housed in the accessible

26 facilities and receive necessary accommodations and assistive

27 devices in both their housing units and at their hearings. Within

28

19

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1199 Filed 09/11/2007 Page 20 of 22

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 ninety days of this order, Defendants shall do the same with the

2 remaining county jails. A necessary component of both reports is

3 how Defendants track class members who are housed in county

4 facilities due to parole holds.

5

20. Within thirty days of the date of this order, the Warden

6 of Folsom State Prison shall provide, in the form of a sworn

7 declaration, evidence that he or she has established written

8 policies and procedures for ensuring that mobility-impaired inmates

9 are able to access the locations where parole proceedings are held

10 at Folsom State Prison.

11

21. Within thirty days of the date of this order, the Warden

12 of each CDCR prison shall certify to Plaintiffs' counsel that the

13 prison has sufficient structurally accessible locations for parole

14 proceedings other than hearings, such as attorney consultations and

15 file reviews, and that local policies, procedures and training are

16 in place to assure appropriate and timely access and

17 accommodations.

18 C. Training of BPH Panel Attorneys

19

22. Within 120 days of this order, Defendants shall certify

20 that all attorneys contracted by the BPH to represent prisoners in

21 life prisoner, MDO, and SVP proceedings have participated in the

22 ADA and effective communication training provided to CalPAP

23 revocation defense attorneys, or an equivalent training approved by

24 Plaintiffs' counsel. In the interim, Defendants shall assign class

25 members to those attorneys who have already completed the CalPAP

26 training.

27

28

20

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1199 Filed 09/11/2007 Page 21 of 22

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 D. Accountability

2

23. The accountability procedures and provisions of the

3 January 18, 2007 Injunction at 7:5-19 in this case shall also apply

4 to CDCR staff, including BPH and DAPO staff, responsible for

5 carrying out parole proceedings in institutions. Within 120 days

6 of this order, Defendants shall develop a system for holding Parole

7 District Administrators, Associate Chief Deputy Commissioners and

8 all subordinate staff accountable for compliance with the orders of

9 this Court. The accountability system shall track the record of

10 each parole district and track the conduct of individual staff

11 members who are not complying with the Court's orders. Defendants

12 shall refer any individual with a record of repeated violations to

13 the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation if appropriate.

14 Prior to the next status conference, Defendants shall report to

15 Plaintiffs' counsel on their progress toward complying with this

16 paragraph.

17 E. Revision of Accommodation Plan and Meet and Confer Requirements
18 24. Within sixty days of this order, Defendants shall revise
19 the Plan for Providing Accommodations in Parole Proceedings. The
20 revised plan shall integrate all policies and procedures for
21 providing accommodations in parole proceedings. Within 180 days of
22 this order, Defendants shall certify to Plaintiffs' counsel that
23 they have trained all staff involved in parole proceedings on the
24 provisions of the plan.
25 25. Any policies and procedures developed pursuant to this
26 order must be presented to Plaintiffs' counsel at least fourteen
27

28

21

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1199 Filed 09/11/2007 Page 22 of 22

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 days in advance of the deadlines therefore. Both parties must make

2 all possible efforts to resolve any disagreements as to their

3 adequacy. Defendants shall ensure that staff with sufficient

4 authority to amend and approve procedures attend all meet and

5 confer sessions. In the event that disagreements cannot be

6 resolved, Defendants shall implement, on the date ordered, the

7 procedures as written and Plaintiffs' counsel may file objections

8 with the Court. The Court will rule on the objections and issue

9 orders amending procedures as necessary.

10

25. The Court finds that the relief ordered is narrowly

11 drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation

12 of federal rights, and is the least intrusive means necessary to

13 correct the violation of the federal rights.2

14 IT IS SO ORDERED.
15

16 Dated: 9/11/07
17
18

CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2 Plaintiffs' objections to evidence submitted by Defendants

are overruled as moot. The Court did not consider any improper or 26 inadmissible evidence in deciding these motions. Plaintiffs'

motion for leave to file a supplemental declaration in support of 27 their motion to enforce is granted. (Docket No. 1181).

28

22

 
 Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1284 Filed 02/26/2008 Page 1 of 5

1

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS

7

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

AND THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9 RALPH COLEMAN, et al.,

10

Plaintiffs,

No. CIV S-90-0520 LKK JFM P (E.D.Cal.)

11

vs.

12 ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

et al.,

13

Defendants.

14

/

15 MARCIANO PLATA, et al.,

16

Plaintiffs,

No. C 01-1351 TEH (N.D.Cal.)

17

vs.

18 ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

et al.,

19

Defendants.

20

/

21 CARLOS PEREZ, et al.,

22

Plaintiffs,

No. C 05-05241 JSW (N.D.Cal.)

23

vs.

24 JAMES TILTON, et al.,

25

Defendants.

26

/

1

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1284 Filed 02/26/2008 Page 2 of 5

1 JOHN ARMSTRONG, et al.,

2

Plaintiffs,

No. C 94-2307 CW (N.D.Cal.)

3

v.

4 ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

et al.,

5

Defendants.

6

/

ORDER

7

The Receiver in Plata, the Special Master in Coleman, and the Court

8 Representatives in Perez and Armstrong have presented to the judges in the above-captioned

9 cases for review and approval an agreement that they have reached during the coordination

10 meetings that they have held to date. By order filed November 13, 2007, the parties in the

11 above-captioned cases were granted until November 26, 2007, to show cause why the attached

12 agreement should not be adopted as an order of the court. On November 26, 2007, all parties

13 filed responses to the order to show cause. Thereafter, by order filed November 30, 2007, the

14 Plata Receiver, at his request, was granted fifteen days to file a response to the responses filed by

15 the parties. The Receiver’s response was filed on December 17, 2007.

16

The undersigned have reviewed, individually and jointly, the responses of the

17 parties and of the Receiver. Good cause appearing, the construction agreement will be approved,

18 subject to the following conditions. The Receiver shall file quarterly reports in each of the

19 above-captioned cases concerning developments pertaining to the matters that are the subject of

20 the construction agreement. In addition, the Receiver has indicated that he will be prepared to

21 meet with the parties within the next sixty days concerning the status of the construction of 5,000

22 mental health beds and 5,000 medical beds that is the subject of paragraph 3 of the construction

23 agreement. That will be the order of the undersigned.

24

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

25

1. The construction agreement appended to this order is approved;

26 /////

2

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1284 Filed 02/26/2008 Page 3 of 5

1

2. The Plata Receiver shall file quarterly reports in each of the above-captioned

2 cases concerning developments pertaining to matters that are the subject of the construction

3 agreement;

4

3. The first such quarterly report shall be filed on or before March 15, 2008; and

5

4. Within sixty days from the date of this order the Plata Receiver shall meet with

6 the parties to all of the above-captioned actions, the Coleman Special Master, and the Perez and

7 Armstrong court representatives concerning the status of the construction of 5,000 mental health

8 beds and 5,000 medical beds that is the subject of paragraph 3 of the construction agreement.

9

10

11 DATED: 02/26/08 12 13

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON SENIOR JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14

15 DATED: 02/26/08 16 17

THELTON E. HENDERSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

18

19 DATED: 02/26/08 20 21

JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

22

23 DATED: 02/26/08 24 25

CLAUDIA WILKEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

26

3

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1284 Filed 02/26/2008 Page 4 of 5

1

CONSTRUCTION

2 The Receiver in Plata has begun to implement three separate but related construction projects:

3

A. The construction of a medical center at San Quentin State Prison;

4

B. The addition of needed temporary and permanent clinical, office, supply, and record

space at existing California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) adult

5

prisons; and

6

C. The construction of approximately 5,000 additional CDCR medical beds and

approximately 5,000 CDCR mental heath beds.1

7

The Office of the Receiver will assume leadership responsibility for each of the above referenced

8 projects.

9 1. San Quentin Medical Center. The Plata receivership is the project lead for the San Quentin construction. The Medical Center, which has already been designed and for which construction has
10 commenced, will provide additional reception, clinical, treatment, and office space for CDCR medical, mental health, and dental personnel. Medical Center facilities will be ADA compliant.
11 Court representatives from Perez and Coleman as well as CDCR mental health and dental officials have been active participants in the design stage for this construction. The State has determined that
12 funding for the San Quentin Medical Center will be provided through Assembly Bill (AB) 900 funds.
13
2. Additional temporary and permanent clinical, office, supply, and record space at CDCR prisons. 14 The Plata receivership is the project lead for the additional medical construction projects at existing
CDCR institutions. The Receiver is in the process of implementing his initial prison upgrade project 15 at Avenal State Prison. Court representatives from Coleman and Perez have participated in this
initial effort. The upgrades anticipated will be primarily medical; however the upgrades will be 16 ADA compliant and will consider, when possible, some of the additional space needs of the CDCR
mental health and dental programs. In this regard, the Court representatives in Armstrong, Coleman, 17 and Perez agree to work with the Receiver by exploring with CDCR and their respective courts ways
to effectuate the funding necessary for their specific programs in a timely and effective manner. 18 This project will not involve the construction of the additional dental facilities necessary to
effectuate the Perez roll-outs.
19
3. The construction of approximately 5,000 additional CDCR medical beds and approximately 20 5,000 CDCR mental heath beds. The Plata receivership is the project lead for the 5,000/10,000 bed
construction project. URS Corporation, Bovis Lend Lease, Brookwood Program Management, Lee 21 Burkhard Liu, and Robert Glass & Associates will serve as the Receiver’s Project Coordinator for
5,000/10,000 bed construction. The initial planning for design, site selection, and patient 22 demographics will commence during August 2007.

23 Based on an initial review of the patient demographics by the Abt study, the Receiver anticipates

that the majority of medical beds constructed will not be licensed. Given the significant need to

24

1 The actual number of medical and mental health beds to be constructed by the

25

Receiver will depend upon site selection, contingency issues, determinations concerning

what year to build out to, as well as possible coordination of construction with CDCR’s

26

AB 900 building projects.

4

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1284 Filed 02/26/2008 Page 5 of 5
1 coordinate the long-term treatment and care of mentally ill patients who also have serious medical problems, there exist both strong patient care and fiscal incentives to plan, design, and construct
2 health care facilities that will effectuate coordinated medical and mental health treatment. Therefore, participation by Coleman representatives in this construction program is imperative.
3 Likewise, the special needs of disabled and elderly prisoner/patients, who represent a significant number of patients who require improved housing, warrant participation by an expert in accessibility
4 for persons with disabilities. The Court expert in Armstrong and the Receiver in Plata mutually selected such an expert who will be added to the program and who will communicate with both the
5 Armstrong court expert and the Receiver about his recommendations. The new facilities will be designed and built to be in full compliance with applicable ADA requirements for both staff and
6 inmates, including applicable accessibility provisions of the ADA Accessibility Guidelines, the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards, and California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2,
7 California Building Code (CBC). The Receiver also intends to construct adequate dental clinics and other necessary dental program space in order to provide Perez standards of care for the
8 prisoner/patients housed in the 5,000/10,000 bed facilities. Therefore, participation by a Perez representative will be necessary to coordinate dental construction design and planning. In this
9 regard, the Court representatives in Armstrong, Coleman, and Perez agree to work with the Receiver by exploring with CDCR and their respective courts ways to effectuate the funding necessary for
10 their specific programs in a timely and effective manner.
11 This project will not involve the construction of the additional dental facilities necessary to effectuate the Perez roll-outs.
12 The State has determined that funding for an 8,000-beds construction project will be provided
13 through AB 900 funds. The Coleman Special Master and the Plata Receiver have indicated that up to 10,000 beds may be necessary. Whether the projected funding is adequate for the
14 necessary construction will be determined by the Receiver after site selection issues, coordination issues, and design issues are resolved.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
5

 
 Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1292 Filed 03/10/2008 Page 1 of 5

1

2

3

4

5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS

6

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7

AND THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

9 RALPH COLEMAN, et al.,

10

Plaintiffs,

No. CIV S-90-0520 LKK JFM P (E.D. Cal.)

11

v.

12 ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

et al.,

13

Defendants.

14

/

15 MARCIANO PLATA, et al.,

16

Plaintiffs,

No. C 01-1351 TEH (N.D. Cal.)

17

v.

18 ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

et al.,

19

Defendants.

20

/

21 CARLOS PEREZ, et al.,

22

Plaintiffs,

No. C 05-5241 JSW (N.D. Cal.)

23

v.

24 JAMES TILTON, et al.,

25

Defendants.

26

/

1

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1292 Filed 03/10/2008 Page 2 of 5

1 JOHN ARMSTRONG, et al.,

2

Plaintiffs,

No. C 94-2307 CW (N.D. Cal.)

3

v.

4 ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

et al.,

5

Defendants.

6

/

ORDER APPROVING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY COORDINATION AGREEMENT

7

8

The Receiver in Plata, the Special Master in Coleman, and the Court Representatives in

9 Perez and Armstrong presented to the judges in the above-captioned cases the attached

10 agreement regarding information technology that they reached during the coordination meetings

11 they have held to date. On February 4, 2008, the undersigned judges granted the parties until

12 February 15, 2008, to show cause as to why the agreement should not be adopted as a court

13 order. Defendants filed a timely response in each case, but none of the four sets of Plaintiffs

14 filed a response.

15

In their response, Defendants stated that they did not object to the agreement but sought

16 “to ensure that the [Plata] Receiver will coordinate with the Department of Mental Health in

17 order to facilitate technological compatibility and communication regarding patient care between

18 the Department of Mental Health [DMH] and the California Department of Corrections and

19 Rehabilitation [CDCR].” Defs.’ Response at 2. The Receiver has no objection to such

20 coordination.

21

Accordingly, with good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

22

1. The attached coordination agreement regarding information technology is approved.

23

2. The Plata Receiver shall coordinate with DMH to facilitate technological

24 compatibility and communication regarding patient care between DMH and CDCR.

25 //

26 //

2

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1292 Filed 03/10/2008 Page 3 of 5

1

3. The Plata Receiver shall file quarterly reports in each of the above-captioned cases

2 concerning developments pertaining to matters that are the subject of the information technology

3 agreement. The first such quarterly report shall be filed on or before June 15, 2008.

4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

7 DATED: 03/10/08 8 9

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON SENIOR JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 DATED: 03/10/08 12 13

THELTON E. HENDERSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14 15 DATED: 03/10/08 16 17

JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

18

19 DATED: 03/10/08 20 21

CLAUDIA WILKEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

22

23

24

25

26

3

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1292 Filed 03/10/2008 Page 4 of 5

1

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

2

The objective of the Receiver’s long term information technology (IT) program is to

3 construct and support the California Correction Health Care Information System based on the

4 importance of “correct data at the point of care.” The core design is based on an Electronic

5 Medical Record (EMR) for each inmate/patient. The EMR will be paperless, medical

6 information gathered in one location for physicians and clinicians to access, at various locations,

7 and thereby enable them to make informed and safe medical decisions. All data obtained will be

8 patient-centric to allow for an “Information at the Point of Care” system.

9

To support the establishment of an EMR, a foundation will be formed. It will contain

10 four components: 1) technical infrastructure, 2) clinical infrastructure, 3) data infrastructure, and

11 4) operational infrastructure. The technical infrastructure will provide a high-speed connection

12 to a network of multiple sites. The clinical infrastructure will provide a repository of

13 standardized data through verifiable data processes and compile medical data across all

14 compliant data sources into a unified database that can be used to generate information valuable

15 for patient care and healthcare management. The data infrastructure will implement a secure

16 clinical web-based portal tool that allows clinical staff appropriate access to verified and

17 standardized patient data at the point of care or clinical work areas (i.e. university hospitals, local

18 specialty care centers). The operational infrastructure will provide clinical informatics with a

19 near zero fault tolerance system to support various operations (i.e. Maxor Pharmaceuticals).

20

Upon this foundation, the EMR will be supported by uniform clinical data provided by

21 two types of clinical information systems: 1) clinical business systems and 2) clinical systems.

22 The Clinical Business System will sustain such areas as access tracking, scheduling, correctional

23 interface, clinical resource scheduling, clinical contracting, credentialing, and continuing

24 medical education (CME) verification. The clinical systems will sustain such areas as

25 laboratory, radiology, pharmacy, clinical department workflow, telemedicine, digital imaging,

26 dental systems and mental health systems.

4

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1292 Filed 03/10/2008 Page 5 of 5

1

Based on these systems the EMR will facilitate:

2

•

a clinical data warehouse

•

views on data - patient, clinician, administrator portals and reports

3

•

integrated patient care at the regional level

•

clinical/case management and outcome reporting

4

•

chronic disease registries

•

enterprise wide/common scheduling

5

•

supported clinical decisions

•

cost effective and timely patient-centered care

6

•

telemedicine delivery

7

The Receiver will assume responsibility for implementation of the long term IT program

8 to include the medical, dental and mental health programs. The Coleman Special Master, the

9 Perez court experts, the Armstrong court representative, and defendants’ mental health and

10 dental administrators will be kept informed of the progress of this long range project and will

11 provide necessary input concerning mental health, dental and Armstrong clinical data needs.

12

Telemedicine is a critical component of the Receiver’s plan to bring the California Prison

13 Health Care system to a constitutional standard. The Receiver will assume responsibility for the

14 telemedicine program serving the medical, dental, mental health and Armstrong programs to

15 include direct oversight of the office of telemedicine services comprised of eight personnel [4

16 RNs, 2 Staff Services Analysts (SSAs), 1 Health Records Technician II (HRT II), and 1 TCA II].

17 The Coleman Special Master will consult with defendants’ mental health administrators to assist

18 in establishing clinical guidelines for the mental health component of the telemedicine program.

19

The Receiver will assume responsibility to support the current Mental Health Tracking

20 System until it can be integrated into the long term IT program.

21

There will be ongoing coordination among the four cases to ensure that the Disability and

22 Effective Communication System (DECS) and the Receiver’s IT system are integrated

23 appropriately.

24

25

26

5

 
 Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1364 Filed 10/07/2008 Page 1 of 4

1

2

3

4

5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS

6

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7

AND THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

9 RALPH COLEMAN, et al.,

10

Plaintiffs,

No. CIV S-90-0520 LKK JFM P (E.D. Cal.)

11

v.

12 ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

et al.,

13

Defendants.

14

/

15 MARCIANO PLATA, et al.,

16

Plaintiffs,

No. C 01-1351 TEH (N.D. Cal.)

17

v.

18 ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

et al.,

19

Defendants.

20

/

21 CARLOS PEREZ, et al.,

22

Plaintiffs,

No. C 05-5241 JSW (N.D. Cal.)

23

v.

24 MATTHEW CATE, et al.,

25

Defendants.

26

/

1

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1364 Filed 10/07/2008 Page 2 of 4

1 JOHN ARMSTRONG, et al.,

2

Plaintiffs,

No. C 94-2307 CW (N.D. Cal.)

3

v.

4 ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

et al.,

5

Defendants.

6

/

ORDER APPROVING SPACE COORDINATION AGREEMENT

7

8

The Receiver in Plata, the Special Master in Coleman, and the Court Representatives in

9 Perez and Armstrong have presented to the judges in the above-captioned cases an agreement

10 that they have reached during the coordination meetings that they have held to date. The

11 agreement, which is attached to this order, was presented to the undersigned for review and

12 approval. By order filed September 5, 2008, the parties in the above-captioned cases were

13 granted until September 26, 2008, to show cause why the attached agreement should not be

14 adopted as an order of the court.

15

On September 26, 2008, defendants filed a response to the order to show cause. Therein,

16 defendants state that they support the proposed agreement, except insofar as the creation of a

17 single unit to manage office space planning “is a step toward creating a new and distinct health

18 agency” with jurisdiction over California prisoners that, according to defendants, the Receiver

19 has stated his intention to create. Defendants’ Response to Order to Show Cause, filed

20 September 26, 2008, at 2. Defendants’ objection to the creation of a new state agency is noted.

21 Nothing in the agreement before the court requires further consideration of that objection at this

22 time.

23 /////

24 /////

25 /////

26 /////

2

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1364 Filed 10/07/2008 Page 3 of 4

1

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the attached space coordination

2 agreement is adopted as an order of these courts.

3

4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

6 DATED: 10/07/08 7 8

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON SENIOR JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

10 DATED: 10/07/08 11 12

THELTON E. HENDERSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13

14 DATED: 10/07/08 15 16

JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17

18 DATED: 10/07/08 19 20

CLAUDIA WILKEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1364 Filed 10/07/2008 Page 4 of 4

1

Space Coordination Agreement

2
Space planning is defined as the leasing and management of physical office space including, but not 3 limited to, space design, tenant improvements, and procurement of furniture (both conventional
and modular), required office equipment, and the voice and data structure to operate an office. 4
The Office of the Receiver (responsible for medical care remedial infrastructure) needs to work in 5 coordination with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and the
Division of Correctional Health Care Services (DCHCS) (responsible for the mental health, dental, 6 and the Americans with Disabilities Act remedial infrastructure) to achieve the respective missions,
visions, and goals of the Plata, Coleman, Perez, and Armstrong class actions. Based on previously 7 approved coordination agreements, the Receiver is responsible for Information Technology,
Telemedicine, Construction including New Healthcare Facility Construction and Upgrade 8 Construction, Chief Executive Officer Pilot Program, CIM-GACH, Contracts, Credentialing, Hiring,
and Pharmacy. A coordinated office space agreement would ensure that the space related 9 infrastructure required will be available to support these agreements.
10 Currently, office space planning is managed separately by the Receiver and DCHCS. It would be more practical and efficient for this process to be managed and handled by a single unit. The Court
11 representatives in Plata, Coleman, Perez, and Armstrong propose that the Receiver's Plata Support Division Business Operations Unit assume responsibility, in coordination with DCHCS and subject to
12 the oversight of the Court representatives in Plata, Coleman, Perez, and Armstrong, for all noninstitutional office space statewide for the medical, mental health, and dental programs. Placing
13 this responsibility under a single unit will ensure that the planning, acquisition, and management of necessary space would support both the Receiver’s objectives and the requirements of the mental
14 health and dental programs in a cost efficient manner.
15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

4

 
 1

2

3

4

5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS

6

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7

AND THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

9 RALPH COLEMAN, et al.,

10

Plaintiffs,

No. CIV S-90-0520 LKK JFM P (E.D. Cal.)

11

v.

12 ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

et al.,

13

Defendants.

14

/

15 MARCIANO PLATA, et al.,

16

Plaintiffs,

No. C 01-1351 TEH (N.D. Cal.)

17

v.

18 ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

et al.,

19

Defendants.

20

/

21 CARLOS PEREZ, et al.,

22

Plaintiffs,

No. C 05-5241 JSW (N.D. Cal.)

23

v.

24 MATTHEW CATE, et al.,

25

Defendants.

26

/

1

1 JOHN ARMSTRONG, et al.,

2

Plaintiffs,

No. C 94-2307 CW (N.D. Cal.)

3

v.

4 ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

et al.,

5

Defendants.

6

/

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

7

8

The Receiver in Plata, the Special Master in Coleman, and the Court Representatives in

9 Perez and Armstrong have presented to the judges in the above-captioned cases an agreement

10 that they have reached during the coordination meetings that they have held to date. The

11 agreement, which is attached to this order, is presented to the undersigned for review and

12 approval.

13

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties in the above-

14 captioned cases are granted until January 30, 2009, to show cause why the attached agreement

15 should not be adopted as an order of the court. Any response to this order to show cause shall be

16 filed in each of the above-captioned cases and served on all of the parties to all of the cases and

17 on the Receiver, the Special Master, and the Court Representatives. Thereafter, the request for

18 approval of the agreement will be taken under submission for individual and joint consideration

19 by the undersigned.

20

21 IT IS SO ORDERED.

22

23 Dated: 01/15/09 24 25

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

26

2

1 2 3 Dated: 01/15/09 4 5 6 7 Dated: 01/15/09 8 9 10 11 Dated: 01/15/09 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

THELTON E. HENDERSON SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CLAUDIA WILKEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3

1

Health Care Administrative Appeals

Coordination Agreement

2

3

In May 2007, the Receiver filed his first Plan of Action. One of the objectives of the plan

of action was to “[r]edesign, pilot and implement a credible complaint and appeal process that is

4 efficient, responsive and effective in achieving rapid resolutions.” To achieve this objective a

plan of action was developed which included: 1) conducting a statewide analysis of the current

5 appeals process, 2) conducting stakeholder meetings, 3) drafting new policies and procedures,

and 4) developing a new process map that outlined the proposed Health Care Appeals,

6 Correspondence and Patient Advocacy (HCACPA) Program. This objective was incorporated

into the Receiver’s Turnaround Plan of Action which was filed with the Plata court on June 6,

7 2008. The Court approved the Receiver’s Turnaround Plan of Action on June 16, 2008.

8

A statewide analysis of the current appeals process was completed and a series of four

stakeholder meetings and two focus group meetings were conducted. Participants in the

9 stakeholder meetings included representatives from the Prison Law Office, Rosen, Bien, and

Galvan, the Perez Court Experts, and representatives of the Coleman Special Master, Inmate

10 Appeals Branch (IAB), Office of the Attorney General, CDCR Office of Court Compliance,

CDCR Office of Legal Affairs, CDCR Division of Correctional Health Care Services and

11 California Prison Health Care Services (CPHCS) staff. As a result of the stakeholder and focus

group meetings, a list of recommended revisions to the current health care appeals process was

12 submitted and approved by the stakeholders. Once approved, the recommended revisions were

submitted to the Receiver’s Chief of Staff for approval. The recommended revisions were

13 approved on June 16, 2008, and have been rolled out as a pilot program at four institutions

(Central California Women’s Facility, Mule Creek State Prison, Pelican Bay State Prison and

14 San Quentin State Prison), beginning on November 1, 2008. Once the pilot program has been

completed and assessed, recommendations will be submitted to the Receiver and the court

15 representatives for the Armstrong, Coleman and Perez cases for statewide implementation.

16

To determine whether to complete the transition of all health care appeals from custody

to the California Prison Health Care Services (CPHCS), staff is currently conducting an analysis

17 of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) appeals process including a review of the current

Armstrong Remedial Plan, forms and past appeal responses. Once the analysis is completed,

18 CPHCS staff will reconvene the task force, comprised of the stakeholders listed above and the

Armstrong Court Expert, to discuss issues and possible changes to the current ADA Health Care

19 Appeals process. The task force recommendations will also address all current Armstrong court

orders and will be submitted to the Class Action Coordination group (also known as the

20 coordinating group or the coordinating parties) for comment.

21

The Receiver will assume responsibility for the new statewide health care appeals

program. To accomplish the initiatives described above, the Receiver has determined a need to

22 request a waiver of state law regarding the governance and process of administrative appeals

related to health care concerns. The request for waiver will only address those regulations which

23 fall under Title 15, California Code of Regulations, section 3084, et seq.

24

25

26

4

 
 1

2

3

4

5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS

6

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7

AND THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

9 RALPH COLEMAN, et al.,

10

Plaintiffs,

No. CIV S-90-0520 LKK JFM P (E.D. Cal.)

11

v.

12 ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

et al.,

13

Defendants.

14

/

15 MARCIANO PLATA, et al.,

16

Plaintiffs,

No. C 01-1351 TEH (N.D. Cal.)

17

v.

18 ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

et al.,

19

Defendants.

20

/

21 CARLOS PEREZ, et al.,

22

Plaintiffs,

No. C 05-5241 JSW (N.D. Cal.)

23

v.

24 MATTHEW CATE, et al.,

25

Defendants.

26

/

1

1 JOHN ARMSTRONG, et al.,

2

Plaintiffs,

No. C 94-2307 CW (N.D. Cal.)

3

v.

4 ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

et al.,

5

Defendants.

6

/

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

7

8

The Receiver in Plata, the Special Master in Coleman, and the Court Representatives in

9 Perez and Armstrong have presented to the judges in the above-captioned cases an agreement

10 that they have reached during the coordination meetings that they have held to date. The

11 agreement, which is attached to this order, is presented to the undersigned for review and

12 approval.

13

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties in the above-

14 captioned cases are granted until January 30, 2009, to show cause why the attached agreement

15 should not be adopted as an order of the court. Any response to this order to show cause shall be

16 filed in each of the above-captioned cases and served on all of the parties to all of the cases and

17 on the Receiver, the Special Master, and the Court Representatives. Thereafter, the request for

18 approval of the agreement will be taken under submission for individual and joint consideration

19 by the undersigned.

20

21 IT IS SO ORDERED.

22

23 Dated: 01/15/09 24 25

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

26

2

1 2 3 Dated: 01/15/09 4 5 6 7 Dated: 01/15/09 8 9 10 11 Dated: 01/15/09 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

THELTON E. HENDERSON SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CLAUDIA WILKEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3

1

Transcription and Dictation Coordination Agreement

2

Transcription and Dictation process is defined as the management of the staff who

perform the tasks of transcribing and correcting medical dictation including, but not limited to,

3 management and creation of positions, hiring of staff, and procurement and management of

everything required to effectively operate a centralized transcription and dictation office,

4 including transcription and dictation equipment and technologies.

5

The Office of the Receiver needs to work in coordination with the California Department

of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and the Division of Correctional Health Care Services

6 (DCHCS), which is responsible for the mental health, dental, and the Americans with

Disabilities Act remedial infrastructure, to achieve the respective visions, missions, and goals of

7 the Armstrong, Coleman, Perez, and Plata class actions. Based upon previously approved

coordination agreements, the Receiver is responsible for Information Technology, Telemedicine,

8 Construction (including new health care facility construction and upgrade construction), Space

Coordination, the Pilot Program for Chief Executive Officer, CIM-GACH, Contracts,

9 Credentialing, Hiring, and Pharmacy. A coordinated transcription and dictation agreement would

ensure that required transcription and dictation services will be available to support the execution

10 of these agreements.

11

Currently, the transcription and dictation process is managed separately by the Receiver

or by DCHCS, depending on which program area the established positions serve. Management

12 and handling of this process by a single unit would be more practical and efficient. The Court

representatives in the Armstrong, Coleman, Perez, and Plata class actions propose that the

13 Receiver assume responsibility, in coordination with DCHCS and subject to the oversight of the

Court representatives in Armstrong, Coleman, Perez, and Plata cases, for all statewide

14 operations of transcription and dictation for medical, mental health, and dental programs. Placing

this responsibility and the resources, including all filled and vacant positions for transcription

15 and dictation, under a single unit would support the Receiver’s objectives and the requirements

of the mental health and dental programs in a cost efficient manner.

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

4

 
 .'

I ' 2.

3

4-

5
6 .
7

8

9

10

11

12

13

... ) 4 '5

16

17

18

19

20

21.

22

23

24

25

26
-,

FILED

SEP 201996

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT . ~Cf{AAD W. -\VIC'KING

CALIF6R.'Nir FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF

1 ' ''"''-'lT~RK. .UOq.IsS..~f~f'O(iLlICS'\TT;'r:OIo.'CFTCC"~oFu'·n~,T"o". -"."

JOHN ARMSTRONG, JAMES AMAURIC, RICHARD )

PONCIANO, JACK SWENSEN, BILLY BECK,

)

JUDY FENDT, WALTER FRATUS, GREGORY

l

SANDOVAL, DARLENE MADISON, PETER

)

RICHARDSON, STEVEN HILL, and all others )

similarly situated,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

.)

v.

)

)

)

)

PETE WILSON, Governor of the state of )

California, JOSEPH SANDOVAL, Secretary ) of Youth and Corre"ctions Agency, JAMES )

GOMEZ, ~irector of the Department of

)

Corrections, ' KYLE ·5. MCKINSEY, Deputy )

Oirector for Health. Care services,

)

KEVIN CARRUTH, Deputy. of the Planning )

and construction DiVision, DAVID.

)

TRISTAN, Oeputy Director of the

)

Institutions DiVision, MARISELA MONTES, )

Deputy Director of the Parole and

)

Co~un'ity Services Division; JAMES

)

NIELSEN, · Chairman of the Board of

)

Prison Terms,

)

Defendants.

)

--~------------------------ )

No. C-94-2307 CW
REMEDIAL ORDER, INJUNCTION, AND CERTIFICATION OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL PURSUANT TO ·28 U.S.C. § 1292(b)
RECEIVED SEP 2') 1996
RQSEN,8IEN& ASMlO

- The Court, having found the defendants have violated 42

u.S.~. § 12131 et seq. and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act,

hereby enters the following Remedi~l Order against defendants

(except James Nielsen) pursuant to the Stipulation approved by

the Court.

The Court finds that this Remedial Order is narrowly drawn,

extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the

, •

rights at issue and is the least intrusive means necessary to

Recnedf~l Order

Armstronq Y. wi lson, C·94·2307 CU

1

,r

, ,

1 correct the violation of the rights.

(
2

A. Self-Evaluat"ion, Transi·tion Plan. Guidelines. Policies.

and Procedures

3

1. Within 30 days of the date this order · is · fli~~d

4

defendants shall submit the following to plai"~tiffs' counsel:

5

a. The Cal~fornia Department of Corrections' (lleDe,lI)

6

~rogram, plan and procedures for implementation of

its Disability Placement Plan ("OPP1l). As a

7

component of the OPP, ' CDC will clUster class

members with certain disabilities at designated

8

institutions and parole facilities. Plaintiffs do

not object to the concentration pf inmates and

9

, resources- at particular institutions as l'Png as

'-
10,

such concentration i$ done in a manner cohsistent with the ADA.

'n
12
13
~
,i'14
~ 15
16

b. A report of CDC's self-evaluation as required by
28 C.F.R. §35.105.

c. .CDC's transition plan as .required by 28 C.F.R.
,§35.150(d) •

d. ' A general substantive outline setting ' forth the

methods by which class members will be provided

accommodations, access to programs and effective

·communications at the designated institutions and

non-desi.gnated institutions.

.

17

2. Defendants ·shall als.o submit guidelines, policies,

18 procedures or plans reg~rding the following within 45 ·.d~ys from

19 the date this Order is filed, provided that def~ndants , shall

20 . submit any of these items as sO'on reason,abl.y pos~ible and as soon

21 as they are completed:

22

a . Disability grievance procedures;

23
24
25
26
---')
127
28

b. Reception Center processing times for inmates with disabilities;
c. Accommodations and structural features for inmates with disabilities in emergency situations, including yard incidents, fire drills, and evacuations;
d. Allowable assistive aids for inmates with disabilitie~ in administrative segregation, security housing units and reception centers;

Remedial Order

Armstrong v . \.I; (son , C'9/0-2307 C\I

2

)L
( '2
~ ...
3
4

e. Acc.essib~~ity features of new construction and alterations;
t. criteria fpr determining" whether inmates are totally' medically disabled or ·medically · unassigned; and

5 6, 7 8 9 LO
n
L2
13
,j4
, .
,"",
L6 ·17 18 19 .
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
----j 1
'. -

g. School and job assignments for prisoners with disabilities.
3. Within · 3D days of rec~iving . the submittals referenced
.
in paragraphs 1 through 2 above, plaintiffs may serve written
objections on defendants. Withi~ 20 days of the receipt of plaintiffs I Ob)'ections, defendants shall respond in writing.
Within 10 days of ' the defendants' response, the parties shall meet and confer and attempt to resolve any differences. If ' the conference fails to resolve the parties 1 differences, plaintiffs may fi~e a notic e withip ten days ~equestinq an ' evid~ntiary _
hearing. If the p~aintiffs do not object to the submittals
refer~nced in paragraphs 1 through 2· above, or any of them, the pa rties shall file a stipulatio n and proposed order in a form substantia l ly as th a t whi c h i s s e t forth ' in Appendix D.
4. Defendants shall submit guidelines, policies, pro~edures, pla ns or evaluatio ns f o r all institutions that are
.
consistent with ~ny stipulated order unde~ paragraph 3, above or
litigated order under paragraph c , below by a date mutually
agreed to by the parties, or , in the absence of an agreement , by
a date set by the Co urt.
5. Within 45 days of r eceiving the guidel ine s, policies, procedures, plans or evaluations referenced in paragraph 4 above ,
plai.ntiffs may serve written objections on defendants. Within 30
days of the receipt of plaintiffs' objections , defendants shall

Remed l al Order

Armstrong v. \lH s on, C-94' 2307 C!J

3

, ~

"

,
"" .•!'

,

( 11.• ' re'~pond in writing. Within 15 days of the defendants' re~ponse,

2 the parties shall meet and confer and attempt to resolve any

~

'- 3 ' differences. If the conference fails to resolve the parties' ,

4 . differ~nces, plaintiffs may file a notice within ten days

5

an requesting evidentiary hearing. If the plaintiffs do not

6. object to the quidelines, policies, procedures, pl"ans or

7 evaluations referenced in paragraph 4 above, or any of them, the

8

parties shall file a stipulati.on and proposed order in a form

9 . substan.tially as that which is set forth in Appendix o.

10

B._ Discovery

,11

' Plaintiffs shall have a right to reasonable discovery after

12 September 1, 1996, of facts that are relevant to proving whether

13 defendants' guidelines, plans , policies, proced~res and

l4
\
'"'" 5
16

evaluations comply with- thE ADA or §504. C. Standards "for Judicial Revie~ At any hearing held pursuant t o section A above , the Court's

17 review of defendants' self-evaluation, transition plan,

18 disability placement plan and various specified guidelines,

19 plans ~ p~~icies and procedure~ shall be limited to determining

20 Whether they comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act" and

21 § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act o f 19 73 . I f th'e Court finds that

22 any aspect of the guidelines, plans , procedures or self-

23 evaluations do not comply with the ADA or §504 it may order

24 defendants to make appropriate modifications to their guidelines,

25 plans, policies, proc edures or evaluations , provided that those

26
I
'7

orders shall be limited t o ens uring that the guidel i nes , plans,
procedures or evaluations comply with the ADA and § 504 and are

• 8 otherwise proper under existing l aw.

Remedia l Order

Armstrong v. Wilson, C· 94· 2307 CU

4

I
1-
I
~
J 4 5 6 7
8
·9
~O ~~ ~2
D
~
Wt
H ·H
~8
19
20
2~
22 23 24 25
?~
\
28

,
0... I{Qnitorinq
Plaint~ffs shall be entitled to reasonable access to
information sufficient to monitor defendants' co. m.p-.,l. ian.c.e-' .with the
quid~lines, plans, policies and procedures that have been approved by the Court. _ Such monitoring shall .include aqcess to relevant documents, receiving reports from defendants on subjects' specified in § A of this Order, tours of the institutions with and without their consultants an~ experts, · interviews qr depositions of institution and departmeDtal staff and scheduled int.erviews with inmates. Brief interviews with inmates may be conducted during the tours, which may be conducted no more than eve,ry quarter at each institution or facility..
E. Enforcement The · Court shall retain juriSdiction to enforce the ~erms of th·is Order and any order approving the guidelines, policies, · procedures, plans or evaluations ·set forth above. If plaintiffs' counsel have reason to believe that · defendants are not ~ompl.ying .with the terms of this order ·or their guidelines ! polic:-ies, procedures, plans or evaluations, they shall notify defendants. The partie s shal~ attempt to resolve the .issue informally before pursuing any judicial remedy. Upon appropriate motion the Court may ~ssue any order permitted by law, including contempt, necessary to ensure that defendants comply with the guidelines, policies, procedures, plans and evaluations set forth above. F. Termination Oefendants may move the Court to vacate an order on the ground that they have substantially complied with its provisions

Remedi al Onder

_

Annstrong v. "'Il s.on, C-94-2J07 C\j

5

r ,.

)1 'and .the guidelines, policies, procedures, plans and evaluations
I
2 for a period of two years, provided that such motion may not be

3

'- made ear'lier than one year after a ,ll the initial plans, pqlicies, .

4 .procedures and evaluations have been approved by the Court.. This

5 motion shall be filed pursuant to Rule 60(b) (5), of the Federal

6' Rules of Civil Procedure' or other applicable law .

7

G. Attorneys Fees

8

Plaintiffs are the prevailing party and are entitled to

9

reasonable' attorneys fees, litigation expenses and costs as

10 provided by 42 U.S.C. § 12205 and 29 U.S.C. §794a for work

the 11 performed in this matter prior to

entry of this Remedial

12
.. 13 ~4 .5

Order and Injunction. The amount of such fees, expenses and

costs s hall be decided upon duly noticed motion to the CoUrt

.

.

according t o l aw. Excep,t -for ,the dete,rmi nation that plaintif:fs

ar,e the prevailing party , de f endants _reserve a ny, and al~ defens e s

16 to a fee award.

' l7

Plaintiffs shall be entitled to fees , litigation expenses

18 and costs as authorized by law to ensure compliance with -this '

19 Order and subsequent , remedial orders, including those

20 implementing the guidelin,es, plans, proc edures , po licie s and

21 e valuations set forth· above , for the period until this Order is

22 terminated as set forth in the previ ous subsection. The amount

23 of such fees shall be determined according to law upon duly

24 noticed motion. The parties shall negoti ate an order for the

25 periodic collect i on of attorneys fees and costs similar t o that

---i 6 filed in Ma drid v. Gomez, C-90-3 094 TEH .
17

28

Remedia l Or der

Armstrong v . ~il s on , C- 94- 2307 CU

6

. .

J.

Hr Certification of Interlocutory Appeal

2.

After a review of the parties' stipulation, the Court hereby

3

finds that the issue of whether the ADA and §504 of the

4

Rehabilitation Act apply to "the programs, services and activities

5

provided by a state departme~t of corrections to stat~ prisoners

'6 . and parolees is a controlling issue of law as to which there is

7

substantial ground for difference of opinion and tqat an

8

immediate appeal from this Order may materially -advance the

9 ultimate termination of this litigation within the meaning of 28

10 U.S.C. § 1292(b) . .

II
. . 12

Dated: ' SB> 20 1996

1.4

15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

27 28

·R8IIIedf Il Order

Armstrong v . IJilsOl"l, C·9.4·n07 .C\I

7

- Donald Specter

Prison Genera

l

Law De

Office livery "

~ .

.

San Quentin,CA 94964 {94cv2307

laine Feingold

George O. Prince

isability Rights Education & Defense Fu CA State Atty General's Office

212 Sixth Street

50 Fremont St Ste 300

.rkeley,CA 94710 [94cv2307 ]

San Francisco, CA 94105 (94cv2307

lry Beth Uitti .S. Attorney's Office ,0 Golden Gate Avenue Rm 115 in Francisco,CA 94102 (94cv2307]
I
\

Michael W. Bien Rosen Bien & Asaro 155 Montgomery St 8th FIr San Francisco, CA 94104 (94 cv2307

laron N. Perley ;OJ - Disability Rights Section O. Box 66738
.shington,DC 20035 (94cv2307 1
,

Warren E. George McCutchen Doyle Brown & Enersen L"LP Three Embarcadero Center
San Francisco,CA 94111 {94cv2307 J

 
 Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page1 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

4 JOHN ARMSTRONG, et al.,

No. C 94-2307 CW

5

Plaintiffs,

6

v.

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

8

Defendants.

9 ________________________________/

10

11

12

13

AMENDED ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ RENEWED MOTION TO REQUIRE DEFENDANTS TO TRACK AND ACCOMMODATE NEEDS OF ARMSTRONG CLASS MEMBERS HOUSED IN COUNTY JAILS, ENSURE ACCESS TO A GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE, AND TO ENFORCE 2001 PERMANENT INJUNCTION (Docket No. 1912)

14

15

Plaintiffs move for an order requiring Defendants to track

16 and accommodate the needs of Armstrong class members housed in

17 county jails and to provide access to a workable grievance

18 procedure. Defendants oppose the motion. The matter was heard on

19 October 27, 2011. Having considered oral arguments and all of the
20 materials submitted by both parties, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’
21
motion. 22

23

BACKGROUND

24

This lawsuit was originally filed seventeen years ago by

25 disabled prisoners and parolees against the California officials

26 with responsibility over the corrections and parole systems. 27 Court certified Plaintiffs as representatives for a class 28

This

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page2 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 including “all present and future California state prisoners and 2 parolees with mobility, sight, hearing, learning, developmental

3 and kidney disabilities that substantially limit one or more of

4 their major life activities.” Order Granting Pls.’ Mots. to Am.
5 Compl. and Modify the Class, Docket No. 345, January 5, 1999, at 6
2.1 On behalf of the class, Plaintiffs sought accommodations for 7
their disabilities, as required under federal statutes and the 8 9 United States Constitution.

10

Initially, Plaintiffs sued two divisions of the then

11 California Youth and Adult Corrections Authority (the Agency).

12 The two divisions sued had separate areas of responsibility toward
13 prisoners and parolees: the Board of Prison Terms (BPT) had
14 authority over parole and parole revocation hearings, and the
15 California Department of Corrections (CDC) was responsible for all
16 17 other aspects of prisoners’ and parolees’ lives, including

18

19

20

21 1 The Plaintiff class was certified on January 13, 1995. On

22 December 24, 1998, the parties stipulated to amend the class

definition to include “all present and future California state 23 prisoners and parolees with mobility, sight, hearing, learning and

24

kidney disabilities that substantially limit one or more of their major life activities.” Stipulation and Order Amending Pl. Class,

25 Docket No. 342, December 24, 1998, at 2. The class definition was subsequently modified, as to Defendants Board of Prison Terms

26 (BPT) and Chairman of the BPT only, to add prisoners and parolees

with developmental disabilities on January 5, 1999. Order 27 Granting Pls.’ Mots. to Am. Compl. and Modify the Class, January

28 5, 1999, at 2.

2

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page3 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 supervision of parolees.2 By agreement of the parties, litigation

2 against the two divisions was initially bifurcated and proceeded

3 on two separate tracks.

4

On September 20, 1996, this Court ordered CDC and related

5 Defendants to develop plans to ensure that their facilities and
6 programs were compliant with the Americans With Disabilities Act
7
(ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 et seq., and readily accessible to and 8

9 usable by prisoners and parolees with disabilities. The order

10 also required Defendants to develop policies to provide a prompt

11 and equitable disability grievance procedure, to allow approved

12 assistive aids for prisoners with disabilities in segregation
13 units and reception centers, and to ensure accessibility in new
14 construction and alterations. Remedial Order, Injunction and
15 Certification for Interlocutory Appeal, September 20, 1996. The
16 Court retained jurisdiction to enforce its terms. Id. at 5.3
17

18

Following a bench trial in April and May 1999, the Court

19 found on December 22, 1999 that BPT and other Defendants

20 responsible for conducting parole proceedings were in violation of

21 the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C.

22 2 Since this lawsuit was originally commenced, the Agency has

23 been reorganized and superseded by the California Department of

24

Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). BPT is now the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH). CDC has been replaced by the Division of

25 Adult Institutions (DAI) and the Division of Adult Parole Operations (DAPO).

26 3 The Ninth Circuit affirmed the injunction against the CDC

27 Defendants on appeal. See Armstrong v. Wilson, 124 F.3d 1019 (9th

28 Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 937 (1998).

3

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page4 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 § 794, and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 2 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, December 22, 1999, Docket

3 No. 523.

4

The Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law held

5 that:

6 Defendants cannot avoid ADA and Section 504 liability by

7

delegating responsibility for their delivery of

programs, services and activities, or for the facilities

8

in which they provide these programs, to the CDC or any

other entity. The implementing regulations of both the

9

ADA and Section 504 prohibit covered entities from

10

discriminating against individuals with disabilities

“directly or through contractual, licensing, or other

11

arrangements.” The BPT is thus legally obliged to

ensure non-discrimination wherever programs, services or

12

activities are provided to Plaintiff class members.

Additionally, the BPT cannot avoid liability for

13

violations of the physical accessibility standards by

14

holding its programs in locations under the control of other entities.

15 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, at 90 (internal citations
16 omitted). At that time, the Court also found that certain large
17
jail facilities utilized by these Defendants for parole 18

19 proceedings, including the Los Angeles County Men’s Jail, were

20 inaccessible for people with disabilities, which raised an

21 inference that this was a system-wide problem. Id. at 31-32. The

22 Court determined that these Defendants violated the rights of
23 class members in county facilities for parole revocation 24
proceedings in many of the same ways alleged in the instant 25
motion, including depriving them of assistive devices for mobility 26 27 problems or accommodations for hearing and vision impairments.
28 Id. at 32-38, 41-43, 45-47, 49-52, 60-66. The Court also

4

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page5 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 recognized that these Defendants did not have an adequate system 2 for tracking the facts of parolees’ disabilities in their files,

3 or for allowing parolees to communicate their accommodation needs.

4 Id. at 38-40. Based on its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
5 Law, the Court entered a permanent injunction as to these
6 Defendants. Permanent Injunction, Docket No. 524.4 7
On January 3, 2001, the CDC Defendants amended their Court 8
Ordered Remedial Plan regarding the provision of programs and 9

10

11

4 On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the injunction

against the BPT Defendants with minor changes. See Armstrong v.

12 Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 879 (9th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 537 U.S.

812 (2002). Several cases have since indicated that the Ninth 13 Circuit’s decision in Armstrong was abrogated in part by Johnson

v. California, 543 U.S. 499, 504-05 (2005). See, e.g., Harris v. 14 Alvarado, 402 Fed. Appx. 180, 181 (9th Cir. 2010); Kirola v. City

15 of San Francisco, 2011 WL 1330853, at *4 (N.D. Cal.); Melendres v. Arpaio, 2011 WL 6740711, at *19 (D. Ariz.). However, this is not

16 accurate.

17

In Johnson v. California, the Supreme Court held that the

CDC’s policy of racially segregating inmates, like all racial 18 classifications imposed by the government, should be considered

19

under strict scrutiny, rather than under the deferential standard articulated in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987), under which a

20 court considers whether regulations that burden the prisoners’ fundamental rights are reasonably related to legitimate

21 penological interests. 543 U.S. at 504-15.

22

Armstrong, however, did not concern or discuss racial

classification; instead, it concerned appropriate accommodations 23 for prisoners and parolees with disabilities. In Armstrong, the

24

Ninth Circuit considered whether the state had provided a legitimate penological justification for its failure to comply

25 with the ADA under the standard articulated in Turner v. Safley, assuming, without deciding, for the purposes of its discussion

26 that this standard applied to both prisoners and parolees. 275

F.3d at 873-74. It did not review “race-based prison regulations” 27 as some courts apparently believe that it did. Harris v.

28 Alvarado, 402 Fed. Appx. at 181.

5

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page6 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 services to inmates and parolees with disabilities. The Remedial 2 Plan requires Defendants to ensure that prisoners and parolees

3 with disabilities are accessibly housed, that they are able to

4 obtain and keep necessary assistive devices, and that they receive

5 effective communication regarding accommodations. Id. at 1-7,

6 27-28, 32, 34, 46-47. The Remedial Plan also requires Defendants
7 to include in all contracts language that requires subcontractors
8
to comply with the ADA. Id. at 46. 9

10

The Court entered a Revised Permanent Injunction against the

11 BPT Defendants on February 11, 2002. The Revised Permanent

12 Injunction requires these Defendants to provide accommodations, at

13 all parole proceedings, to prisoners and parolees with
14 disabilities. Revised Permanent Injunction, February 11, 2002, 15
¶ 17. The subsequent Order Granting Motion to Enforce Revised 16
Permanent Injunction issued on May 30, 2006, requires that 17 18 Defendants develop and implement a plan to ensure that necessary
19 accommodations are provided to class members without delay. Order

20 Granting Motion to Enforce Revised Permanent Injunction, May 30,

21 2006, at 8-9. In that Order, the Court found that Defendants did

22 not have an adequate system to track parolees with disabilities.
23 Id. at 4. The Court also found that, as a result, parolees with
24 disabilities were not being provided with required accommodations,
25 including mobility assistance for paraplegics and sign language
26
27 interpreters for deaf parolees. Id. at 5-6. At that time,

28 Defendants did not contest the extensive evidence that Plaintiffs

6

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page7 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 submitted to demonstrate ongoing violations of the same type 2 alleged in the instant motion, such as evidence that a paraplegic

3 parolee had to drag himself up stairs. Id.

4

On September 11, 2007, in response to Plaintiffs’ motion to

5 enforce the May, 2006 Order Granting Motion to Enforce Revised

6 Permanent Injunction, this Court Ordered:

7

Within thirty days of this order, Defendants shall

8

report to Plaintiffs' counsel which housing units in

Alameda, Sacramento and Los Angeles County Jail

9

facilities are wheelchair accessible and how Defendants

10

ensure that class members at those institutions who are

designated DPW and DPO are housed in the accessible

11

facilities and receive necessary accommodations and

assistive devices in both their housing units and at

12

their hearings. Within ninety days of this order,

Defendants shall do the same with the remaining county

13

jails. A necessary component of both reports is how

14

Defendants track class members who are housed in county facilities due to parole holds.

15 Order Granting in Part Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce the May 30,
16 2006 Order, ¶ 19. At that time, the Court found that Defendants’
17
tracking system for information about disabilities of prisoners 18

19 and parolees was still inadequate. Id. at 4-6. The Court also

20 found that Defendants had failed to develop an adequate plan to

21 provide needed accommodations for parole proceedings in county

22 jails and rejected Defendants’ assertion that “county jails
23 provide adequate access to necessary assistive devices for class 24
members” as without proof. Id. at 9-10. 25
On May 28, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Require 26 27 Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class

28

7

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page8 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 Members Housed in County Jails and Ensure Access to a Workable 2 Grievance Procedure.

3

On September 16, 2009, this Court held that Defendants are

4 responsible for ensuring that Armstrong class members receive

5 reasonable accommodations when Defendants elect to house them in
6 county jails. Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Require
7 Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class
8 Members Housed in County Jails and Ensure Access to a Workable
9
10 Grievance Procedure, September 16, 2009, at 7-9. The Court stated

11 that Plaintiffs had submitted evidence demonstrating that,

12 pursuant to their authority, Defendants were housing a significant

13 number of persons in county jails, including an average of 480
14 parolees a day in the San Mateo County Jail, an average of 1,000 15
parolees a day in the Sacramento County Jail, and 770 individuals 16
in In-Custody Drug Treatment Program (ICDTP) placements in county 17 18 jails. Id. at 4-5. The Court also held that Plaintiffs had
19 submitted sufficient evidence that class members being housed in

20 county jails were not receiving accommodations to which they were

21 entitled. Id. at 9-10. Accordingly, the Court entered an order

22 requiring that Defendants, within thirty days, submit a plan “for
23 ensuring timely and appropriate accommodations for Armstrong class
24 members in county jails[.]” Id. at 11. The September 16 Order
25 provided Defendants with flexibility to devise the specifics of
26
27 the plan, but also required that the plan contain certain

28 elements. Id. at 11-14. The Court also found, pursuant to

8

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page9 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. 2 § 3626(a)(1)(A), that the relief it ordered was “narrowly drawn,

3 extend[ed] no further than necessary to correct the violation of

4 federal rights, and [was] the least intrusive means necessary to

5 correct the violation of the federal rights[.]” Id. at 11.
6 Defendants appealed this Court’s September 16 Order.
7 Nonetheless, on October 15, 2009, as required by the September 16
8 Order, Defendants provided “written notification and instruction
9
10 to all county jail facilities of their duty to comply with the ADA

11 in housing Armstrong class members and that defendants will

12 enforce those obligations.” September 16 Order, at 11.

13

On April 1, 2010, after negotiations between the parties,

14 Defendants issued their County Jail Plan, entitled the “County

15 Jail Accommodation Process,” in a further effort to comply with
16 the September 16 Order.
17

18

On September 7, 2010, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and

19 vacated in part the September 16 Order, and remanded the case to

20 this Court for further proceedings. The Ninth Circuit affirmed

21 this Court’s holdings that “defendants are responsible for

22 providing reasonable accommodations to the disabled prisoners and
23 parolees that they house in county jails.” Armstrong v.
24 Schwarzenegger, 622 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2010). The Ninth
25 Circuit held that: (1) the validly enacted ADA Title II
26
27 regulations provide that “a public entity, in providing any aid,

28 benefit, or service, may not, directly or through contractual,

9

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page10 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 licensing, or other arrangements, discriminate against individuals 2 with disabilities[,]” id. at 1065 (quoting 28 C.F.R.

3 § 35.130(b)(1)); (2) the ADA requires that when Defendants house

4 state prisoners and parolees in county jails, the state is

5 responsible to ensure that the state prisoners and parolees with
6 disabilities can access the county jails’ benefits and services
7 “to the same extent that they are provided to all other detainees
8 and prisoners,” id. at 1068; (3) neither principles of federalism
9
10 nor deference to correctional authorities nor the Prison

11 Litigation Reform Act prohibited this Court’s order requiring that

12 when Defendants “become aware of a class member housed in a county

13 jail who is not being accommodated, they either see to it that
14 that jail accommodates the class member, or they move the class 15
member to a facility . . . which can accommodate his needs[,]” id. 16
at 1069, or that when Defendants “become aware of a ‘pattern’ of 17 18 ADA noncompliance, they are to notify county jail officials and
19 take steps to remedy the pattern of noncompliance[.]” Id. at

20 1069-1070.

21

Although the Ninth Circuit affirmed this Court’s rulings on

22 the requirements of the ADA, it ruled that the system-wide scope
23 of relief ordered required development of additional evidence
24 concerning the nature and extent of the violations. Id. at 1063,
25 1073-1074. It found that the type of relief ordered would be
26
27 appropriate if such additional evidence were presented. Id. at

28 1070-1074. In finding that the evidence was insufficient to

10

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page11 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 justify the scope of September 16 Order, the Ninth Circuit stated 2 that this Court failed to identify any “past determinations that

3 show that class members housed in county jails are not being

4 accommodated . . . and thus, we are required to conclude, did not

5 rely on them when determining the scope of its order.” Id. at
6 1073. The Ninth Circuit reversed the September 16 Order and
7 remanded to this Court “to allow it to take such additional
8 evidence as may be necessary concerning the nature and extent of
9
10 the violations of class members’ rights taking place in the county

11 jails.” Id. at 1073. The Ninth Circuit described Plaintiffs’

12 evidentiary burden on remand as “far from insurmountable” and

13 explained that “in light of the State’s failure to track many of

14 the class members that it houses in the County Jails, not much

15 more evidence than that already provided may be required to
16 approve the [September 16 Order].” Id. at 1074.
17

18

On October 1, 2011, state legislation commonly known as the

19 prison “realignment” law went into effect. Under realignment,

20 parolees who were already placed on state parole prior to October

21 1, 2011 remain under the supervision of Defendants. Cal. Penal

22 Code § 3000.09(b). Further, persons released from state prison on
23 or after October 1, 2011, who fall into certain categories,
24 including conviction of serious or violent felonies, continue to
25 be placed on state parole under the jurisdiction and supervision
26
27 of Defendants. Cal. Penal Code § 3000.08(a), (c). Under

28 realignment, low-level offenders who are released from state

11

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page12 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 prison on or after October 1, 2011 and do not fall into the above2 mentioned categories are instead supervised on release by counties

3 under the newly created Post-Release Community Supervision

4 program. Cal. Penal Code § 3000.08(a), 3451.5 Realignment also

5 amended Penal Code section 3056, which now provides, in relevant

6 part:

7

Prisoners on parole shall remain under the supervision

8

of the department. . . . [U]pon revocation of parole, a

parolee may be housed in a county jail for a maximum of

9

180 days. When housed in county facilities, parolees

10

shall be under the legal custody and jurisdiction of

local county facilities. When released from custody,

11

parolees shall be returned to the parole supervision of

the department for the duration of parole.

12

Cal. Penal Code § 3056(a). 13

14

Plaintiffs have submitted evidence that there are

15 currently over 100,000 parolees under Defendants’

16 supervision. Grunfeld Reply Decl. ¶ 25, Ex. O. In February

17 2011, Defendants classified approximately seven percent of
18 the incarcerated population as individuals with disabilities,
19 excluding learning disabilities and mental health concerns.
20 Grunfeld Decl. ¶ 53. According to Defendants’ own estimates,
21 22 approximately half of the individuals released from prison in
23 the state after October 1, 2011 will be placed on state

24 parole under the jurisdiction and supervision of Defendants.

25

5 Plaintiffs state that their present motion is not meant to

26 encompass individuals in the PRCS program, and is limited to state

prisoners and state parolees. Accordingly, the Court limits its 27 analysis and does not consider Defendants’ responsibility to

28 individuals in the PRCS program, who are housed in county jails.

12

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page13 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 Grunfeld Decl. ¶ 43, Exs. FFF, HHH. Defendants also project 2 that thousands of parolees will be housed in county jails on

3 a daily basis. Id.

4

DISCUSSION

5

Defendants now no longer dispute that “California state

6 prisoners and parolees with mobility, sight, hearing, learning and
7 developmental disabilities” are not being provided proper
8
accommodations while housed at county jails or that they are 9

10 suffering harm as a result. Defendants also do not dispute that

11 these parolees do not have access to a proper grievance system.

12 Instead, Defendants primarily argue that, under the realignment

13 statute, state parolees are no longer members of the Armstrong
14 class when they are housed in county jails and thus that the 15
proposed injunction is broader than necessary to accommodate the 16
needs of class members. Defendants also contend that the proposed 17 18 injunction would violate the federalism principles set forth in
19 Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997), and that the relief

20 requested here concerns the same issues being litigated in other

21 pending federal class action cases, so this Court should abstain

22 from exercising jurisdiction here.
23 I. Responsibility for Providing Accommodations in County Jails
24 The Ninth Circuit has held that, under the ADA and the
25 Rehabilitation Act, Defendants have the legal responsibility to
26
27 ensure ADA-compliant conditions for Armstrong class members whom

28 they house in county jails. Armstrong, 622 F.3d at 1068, 1074.

13

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page14 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

Defendants rely heavily on sections of the California Penal

2 Code that have not yet gone into effect. As these codes sections

3 are currently written, after July 1, 2013, control over parole

4 revocation proceedings and decisions will transfer from Defendants

5 to local courts, although Defendants will continue to supervise
6 parolees. However, this Court must apply the law currently in
7 effect and will not speculate as to what effect, if any, potential
8 changes to the applicable laws may have on its rulings in the
9
10 future.

11

Defendants do not dispute that they continue to have

12 responsibility for certain groups of state prisoners and parolees

13 housed in county jails: those already there “as of October 1, 2011
14 pending parole revocation proceedings, offenders sentenced to life 15
terms who may return to state prison, and state inmates housed in 16
county jail for county proceedings.” Opp. at 6. Defendants also 17 18 not dispute that they continue to house substantial numbers of
19 CDCR prisoners and parolees pursuant to various contracts and

20 other arrangements. These include contracts with Alameda and

21 Sacramento Counties that Defendants renewed only months before the

22 realignment statute went into effect and that provide for payments
23 to those counties of up to $160 million over the next five years
24 to house as many as 1,150 state inmates per day. See Grunfeld
25 Decl. ¶ 38, Ex. DDD; Grunfeld Reply Decl. ¶ 33, Ex. Q. Defendants
26
27 also contract with a number of counties to house state prisoners

28 in jail-based ICDTPs. Grunfeld Decl. ¶ 33, Exs. MM, OO. See also

14

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page15 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 Cal. Penal Code § 4115 (local counties “may enter into a contract 2 with the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to house

3 inmates who are within 60 days or less of release from the state

4 prison to a county jail facility for the purpose of reentry and

5 community transition purposes”). Defendants do not dispute that
6 they are still empowered, under various code sections, to hold
7 local county jails accountable for not adhering to minimum
8 standards prescribed by Defendants. See, e.g., Cal. Penal Code
9
10 § 4016.5 (allowing Defendants to withhold reimbursements to

11 counties for housing certain state prisoners if the county’s

12 “facilities do not conform to minimum standards for local

13 detention facilities” and the county fails to make reasonable
14 efforts to correct the violations); Cal. Gov. Code § 76101 15
(providing that any jail or addition “constructed with moneys from 16
the Criminal Justice Facilities Construction Fund shall comply 17 18 with the ‘Minimum Standards for Local Detention Facilities’
19 promulgated by the Board of Corrections”).

20

Defendants disclaim responsibility for state parolees who are

21 taken into custody for alleged parole violations or whose parole

22 is revoked and who are housed in county jails. They argue that
23 state law now provides that these state parolees are to be housed
24 in county jails and that, during the time of such incarceration,
25 the county has custody and jurisdiction over these state parolees.
26
27 Defendants aver that this relieves Defendants of responsibility

28

15

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page16 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 toward those who may be Armstrong class members. See Cal. Penal 2 Code § 3056(a).

3

However, as prior to the enactment of the realignment

4 statute, state parolees housed by Defendants in county jails are

5 in the custody and control of the county, while simultaneously in
6 the continuing custody and control of Defendants. See, e.g.,
7 Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843, 851 (2006) (noting, prior to
8 realignment, that “an inmate-turned-parolee remains in the legal
9
10 custody of the California Department of Corrections through the

11 remainder of his term”). As before the realignment statute went

12 into effect, Defendants continue to maintain control and authority

13 over whether the state parolees under their supervision are to be
14 taken into custody and placed into a county jail. Parolees are 15
placed into county jails by virtue of their status as state 16
parolees and do not cease being state parolees while they are also 17 18 county jail inmates. Defendants BPH and Brown continue to be the
19 only ones able to place a parole hold on a parolee and to have the

20 parolee taken into custody for an alleged violation of parole

21 terms without being eligible for bail. Cal. Penal Code §§ 3056,

22 3062; In re Law, 10 Cal. 3d 21, 24-26 (1973). Under Defendants’
23 implementing policies, county jails are not typically permitted to
24 turn away parolees who have been medically cleared and whom
25 Defendants bring to the county jails, but if they do so,
26
27 Defendants must “maintain custody” of the parolee while Defendants

28 determine how to resolve the situation. Grunfeld Reply Decl., Ex.

16

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page17 of 43
1 K at 4. State law does not appear to prevent Defendants from then 2 placing the parolee in a different county jail. Further, under
3 Defendants’ policies, when county authorities release a parolee
4 before revocation processing is complete, Defendants retain the 5 discretion to return the parolee to custody or to allow the 6
parolee to remain in the community. Grunfeld Reply Decl., Ex. L 7
at 4. Under current law, Defendants BPH and Brown alone have the 8
authority to adjudicate whether a parolee has in fact violated his 9 10 parole or to decide his sanction, including detention in a county 11 jail. Cal. Penal Code §§ 3000(b)(8), 3000.09(d), 3060, 3062.
12 State law does not mandate this sanction, and it does not
13 designate the particular county facility where the parolee is to 14 be held; these are decisions left to Defendants, who can choose to 15
transfer parolees away from facilities that unable to meet their 16
needs. Defendants also continue to compensate counties for 17 18 housing state parolees in county jails during the revocation 19 process and during the term of the revocation, now through the use
20 of newly established Local Community Corrections Accounts, which
21 compensates a county based on the number of prisoners that the 22 county is expected to supervise and house, an amount that thus 23
could be reduced if Defendants chose to house parolees in other 24
county jails instead. Cal. Government Code §§ 30025, 30029(c). 25
The fact that state parolees are under the control and custody of 26 27 the county, as well as of Defendants, during the time of their 28 incarceration does not relieve Defendants of their independent
17

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page18 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 obligations and responsibilities toward to these individuals. See 2 Armstrong, 622 F.3d at 1072.

3

Accordingly, Defendants continue to house state prisoners and

4 parolees in county jails pursuant to their authority under both
5 contracts and state law, as they did at the time of the Ninth 6
Circuit’s earlier opinion in this case. Thus, as the Ninth 7
Circuit previously held, Defendants are obliged to ensure 8
ADA-compliant conditions for the prisoners and parolees that they 9
10 house under their own authority in county jails.
11 II. Evidence of Violation of Class Members’ Rights

12

Plaintiffs’ evidence demonstrates that, both before and after

13 Defendants issued the County Jail Plan, Armstrong class members
14 have suffered significant violations of their ADA rights while 15
housed in county jails. Plaintiffs submitted substantial 16
evidence, including more than sixty declarations from class 17 18 members, demonstrating that class members in jails throughout the
19 State are injured and are denied access to housing, programs, and

20 services because of Defendants’ failure to accommodate their

21 disabilities.6 Although Defendants again disclaim their 22

23

6 In their reply, Plaintiffs clarified that the county-based

Post-Release Community Supervision (PRCS) program was not covered 24 by the instant motion. On October 20, 2011, a week after

Plaintiffs filed their reply, Defendants filed objections to the 25 declarations that Plaintiffs had submitted with their opening

brief and with their reply. Defendants challenged the 26 admissibility of the declarations on the grounds that the

declarants do not make clear what their commitment offenses were 27 and thus if they are state parolees or part of the PRCS program.

However, under the provisions of re-alignment, the declarants 28 could not be part of the PRCS program. Each declarant attests

18

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page19 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 responsibility toward these individuals as discussed above, 2 Defendants do not dispute that these violations are still

3 occurring more than a decade after this Court first found that

4 Defendants were failing to accommodate the needs of class members

5 in County facilities. The overwhelming and disturbing evidence is
6 summarized below.
7 Class members with mobility impairments were denied assistive
8 devices, or had assistive devices taken away from them, while
9
10 housed in county jails, even though Defendants had previously

11 determined the assistive devices were necessary for the class

12
that he or she was on parole prior to October 1, 2011. Under 13 state law, the PRCS program only began prospectively on that date;
that is, state law provides that those already on parole prior to 14 October 1, 2011 are not eligible to participate in it. Cal. Penal
Code § 3451(a). 15
Four days later, on October 24, 2011, without seeking leave 16 of Court to do so, Defendants filed further objections to the
evidence that Plaintiffs had submitted with their reply. Civil 17 Local Rule 7-3 allows a party, without seeking prior Court
approval, to file a single document objecting to new evidence 18 submitted with a reply within seven days after the reply is filed.
See Civil Local Rule 7(d). Defendants’ supplementary objections 19 were untimely and unauthorized by Local Rule 7-3, because
Defendants had already filed an objection to Plaintiffs’ reply 20 evidence.

21

In this document, Defendants argue that evidence Plaintiffs

offered with their reply, including eight additional declarations, 22 should not be considered, as it was “procedurally improper” to

offer it in this way. It is true that “[u]nder such 23 circumstances, the court has discretion to ‘decline to consider’

the new evidence.” Mercado v. Sandoval, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24 63267, at *6 (E.D. Cal.). Unlike in the cases cited by

Defendants, however, Defendants here have had the opportunity to 25 address this new evidence at a subsequent hearing. See, e.g.,

Carmen v. San Francisco Unified School Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1031 26 (9th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, the Court overrules Defendants’

objections to the reply evidence submitted by Plaintiffs, because 27 the objections were submitted in violation of Local Rule 7-3 and

because Defendants had the opportunity to respond to this evidence 28 at the hearing.

19

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page20 of 43
1 members to access programs and services while in custody. Class 2 members were not provided with accessible housing, making it
3 difficult and dangerous for them to access their beds, toilets,
4 showers, chow halls, exercise yards, meetings with attorneys, and 5 parole proceedings. One class member was forced to sleep on the 6
floor for sixteen nights. Other class members crawled or limped 7
in pain to hearings and meetings in county jails. Still others 8
received wheelchairs while in revocation hearing rooms, but not in 9 10 transit to and from those same hearing rooms. A class member 11 housed at the Yuba County Jail had his wheelchair taken away and
12 not returned, and was unable to shower as a result. This also
13 happened during the same class member’s separate stay at the 14 Sutter County Jail. Both jails informed this prisoner that there 15
was no appeals process. Another class member with a mobility 16
impairment being held at the San Francisco County Jail was 17 18 initially informed by an officer that he could not use his 19 wheelchair to travel long distances, despite a written
20 verification from his doctor. The jail refused to allow this
21 prisoner any assistive devices inside his cell, which sometimes 22 required him to hop around his cell. He had to sleep on a 23
mattress on the floor for approximately seven days because the 24
jail would not provide him with a lower bunk. Staff at Stanislaus 25
County Jail took away the wheelchair of a parolee who required it 26 27 to travel more than ten feet. As a result, another prisoner was 28 required to hold him up and help him to the shower. The prisoner
20

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page21 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 was told there was no appeals process at the jail. Similarly, 2 staff at the Alameda County Jail in Santa Rita denied a wheelchair

3 to another prisoner with a severe mobility impairment, making it

4 painful and difficult for him to get around. Jail staff also

5 failed to provide him with a shower chair, which made it difficult
6 and dangerous for him to shower. Staff at Sonoma, Sutter, and
7 Sacramento County jails have removed canes from class members,
8 making it painful and hard for them to walk distances, shower, and
9
10 go up and down stairs.

11

Class members with hearing and vision impairments did not

12 receive accommodations necessary for effective communication while

13 housed in county jails. Sign language interpreting services were
14 not regularly available to class members housed in county jails. 15
Class members with hearing impairments were not provided with sign 16
language interpreters for important medical and mental health care 17 18 appointments, which impeded or obstructed their access to those
19 services. One parolee with severe hearing loss was provided with

20 a sign language interpreter only once in the seventy-five days he

21 was at the Santa Rita jail, and went to medical appointments on

22 three or four occasions without being provided access to a sign
23 language interpreter.
24 Deaf class members could not access the telecommunications
25 devices for the deaf (TDD/TTY telephones) they need to prepare
26
27 their defenses and communicate with family and the outside world.

28 Because the Santa Rita TDD/TTY telephone was broken, a deaf

21

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page22 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 parolee was only able to use the telephone three times in the 2 seventy-five days he was in the jail. Another deaf parolee had a

3 similar experience at Santa Rita.

4

A class member housed by Defendants at the Los Angeles County

5 Jail’s Twin Towers facility was not provided with a sign language
6 interpreter for medical visits or psychiatric appointments,
7 despite his request for one. A deaf parolee housed at the San
8 Diego Jail was also denied a sign language interpreter for medical
9
10 and dental appointments. Because some officers did not know this

11 prisoner was deaf, officers would “get mad” at him when he did not

12 respond to verbal commands. This prisoner missed meals, yard,

13 appointments, and canteen call because he was unable to hear the
14 events announced over the loudspeaker and no one notified him of 15
the events. He was also unable to participate in psychiatric 16
treatments and therapy groups and had trouble communicating with 17 18 jail staff about his need for the TDD/TTY telephone. A blind
19 class member was denied a tapping cane at the San Francisco County

20 Jail.

21

Armstrong class members housed in county jail are frequently

22 forced to rely upon other prisoners to help them access programs
23 and services as a result of the failure by Defendants and the
24 county jails to provide reasonable accommodations. Reliance on
25 other prisoners for access to basic services, such as food, mail,
26
27 showers and toilets by prisoners with disabilities leaves them

28 vulnerable to exploitation and is a dangerous correctional

22

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page23 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 practice.

2

Class members do not have access to functional and timely

3 grievance procedures at county jails to request and obtain

4 disability accommodations. As noted above, at some jails, class

5 members were informed that no grievance procedure exists. At
6 other jails, class members were able to submit grievances but
7 never received a response or did not receive a response in a
8 timely manner.
9
10 III. Defendants’ Failure to Address System-wide Violations

11

Plaintiffs contend, and Defendants do not dispute, that

12 Defendants’ efforts to comply with the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act

13 and prior orders of this Court, and to provide accommodations to
14 class members housed in county jails, have been wholly inadequate 15
and ineffective on a system-wide level, resulting in widespread 16
and continuing violations of class members’ rights as described 17 18 above. The Court finds it troubling that Defendants continue to
19 oppose Plaintiffs’ request for relief while apparently recognizing

20 that all of the evidence demonstrates that it is needed.

21

Although Defendants have developed a computerized, real-time

22 system called the Disability and Effective Communication System
23 (DECS) for tracking disabilities and effective communication needs
24 of prisoners housed in CDCR prisons and on parole, Defendants
25 still have not developed any system, electronic or otherwise, for
26
27 identifying or tracking such disabilities and needs of CDCR

28 prisoners housed in county jails and facilities. Defendants still

23

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page24 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 do not know the specific location at which those class members are 2 housed, and what accommodations in housing, programs, services,

3 and effective communication those class members require.

4

The contracts between Defendants and Alameda and Sacramento

5 Counties for the housing of CDCR prisoners in those jails violate
6 the March 21, 2001 Permanent Injunction because they do not
7 include the following provision or one substantially similar, as
8 required by Paragraph 8 of the Injunction: “By signing this
9
10 contract, Contractor assures the State that it complies with the

11 Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101

12 et seq., which prohibits discrimination on the basis of

13 disability, and with applicable regulations and guidelines issued
14 pursuant to the ADA.” 15
Defendants also contract with several counties to provide 16
drug counseling in lieu of parole revocation through the 17 18 In-Custody Drug Treatment Program (ICDTP). Armstrong class
19 members continue to have only limited access to ICDTPs offered at

20 county jails because several of Defendants’ ICDTP contracts

21 violate the ADA through their Local Jail Exclusionary Criteria

22 which ban persons with disabilities from participation.
23 Defendants’ own tracking system shows that one parolee in a
24 wheelchair was rejected from the ICDTP due to a mobility
25 impairment. Another parolee’s file indicates that the fact that
26
27 he is in a wheelchair may limit his ICDTP-jail placement.

28

The County Jail Plan as drafted and implemented by Defendants

24

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page25 of 43
1 has been inadequate and ineffective in remedying the ongoing 2 violations of the rights of class members housed in county jails.
3 It is troubling that Defendants do not defend the sufficiency of
4 the Plan in any way or show that they have properly implemented 5 even the basic mandates of their own Plan. Defendants also do not 6
respond to the declarations that demonstrate that class members 7
continue to suffer harm after their Plan was purportedly 8
“operating appropriately.” The Plan does not have any provision 9 10 for Defendants promptly to provide the County Jails with 11 information about previously-identified disabilities or necessary
12 accommodations for class members housed in county jails. It also
13 does not have any provision for Defendants to determine whether a 14 CDCR prisoner or parolee who is housed at a county jail requires 15
any accommodations. In the Plan, Defendants elected to rely on 16
the existing grievance procedures available at the county jails, 17 18 but failed to confirm that the county jails’ grievance procedures 19 were adequate or appropriate as written or in practice.
20 Defendants do not monitor grievances of class members in the
21 county jails or have a means for providing to Plaintiffs’ counsel 22 a copy of every disability-related grievance filed by an Armstrong 23
class member housed in a county jail. 24
Defendants’ County Jail Plan is, on its face, insufficient to 25
ensure the accommodation of class members housed in county jails. 26 27 Only a single provision in the Plan--that Division of Adult Parole 28 Operation (DAPO) and BPH employees must contact the county jail if
25

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page26 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 a parolee held in the jail pending revocation requests an 2 accommodation or if the employees observe or become aware of the

3 need for an accommodation--might result in the accommodation of a

4 class member who otherwise would not be accommodated while in

5 county jail. The County Jail Plan does not, however, require that
6 Defendants’ staff do anything to verify that class members are in
7 fact being accommodated by the county jails. Nor it does it
8 provide for Defendants to share information regarding class
9
10 members’ disabilities and accommodation needs with the county

11 jails, even though Defendants have a computerized tracking

12 system--DECS--dedicated to that purpose. The County Jail Plan

13 also has no provisions whatsoever that could result in the
14 accommodation of class members housed in county jail who are not 15
parolees pending parole revocation. This include parolees serving 16
their revocation terms, CDCR prisoners who are “out-to-court,” and 17 18 prisoners at jail-based In-Custody Drug Treatment Programs. The
19 Plan does not even provide that these class members may be moved

20 away from a facility that is unable to meet their needs.

21

The evidence shows, and Defendants do not dispute, that

22 Defendants rarely comply with the provision of the County Jail
23 Plan requiring them to request disability accommodations from
24 county jails on behalf of class members. Out of many thousands of
25 BPH Form 1073 documents completed over the past year, only a
26
27 handful reflect appropriate follow-up by CDCR officials with

28 knowledge of a class member’s disability needs.

26

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page27 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

Moreover, Defendants substantially delayed the implementation

2 of critical provisions of their County Jail Plan. For example,

3 the County Jail Plan explicitly provides that BPH would modify the

4 BPH 1073 form to create a space for Notice Agents, and other staff

5 who interact with CDCR prisoners in county jails, to indicate when
6 they had contacted county jail staff, to request an accommodation
7 for a class member. Defendants took more than six months to
8 modify the electronic version of the BPH 1073 form and took more
9
10 than thirteen months to modify the paper version of the form.

11 DAPO never trained its staff regarding how to use the new

12 functionalities of the revised electronic BPH 1073 form.

13

Defendants do not dispute that they have failed to provide

14 appropriate training and supervision for the staff responsible for
15 implementing the County Jail Plan. Defendants did not effectively
16 monitor or supervise their own employees to determine if they were
17
18 complying with the Plan or whether the Plan was effective in

19 assuring that class members were receiving accommodations while

20 housed in county jails. BPH waited more than two and a half

21 months after the Plan was purportedly implemented even to inform

22 its staff of their obligations under the Plan. Despite the Plan’s
23 reliance on the Correctional Standards Authority (CSA) to “monitor
24 this matter” and describe “problems,” Defendants did not even
25 inform the CSA that the final County Jail Plan had been issued,
26
27 much less instruct the CSA to monitor for ADA compliance. No

28 monitoring by the CSA has occurred.

27

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page28 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

Defendants have abdicated their responsibility for

2 accommodating Armstrong class members to the county jails.

3 Defendants possess little to no knowledge regarding whether the

4 county jail facilities in which they house Armstrong class members

5 are physically accessible to wheelchair users. Defendants’
6 knowledge of the wheelchair accessibility of the county jails is
7 derived from a 2007 survey whereby Defendants sent a letter to the
8 counties requesting that they self-report the accessibility of
9
10 cells in their jails. Defendants then compiled the answers that

11 they received into a single document. In its final form, the

12 survey results lacked information for many of the county

13 facilities. Moreover, Defendants never endeavored to confirm that
14 the information provided to them by the counties was accurate. 15
Defendants are aware of court orders and litigation pending 16
against Orange and Los Angeles Counties regarding the inadequacy 17 18 of their wheelchair accessible housing. Defendants are also aware
19 that certain facilities in San Diego County lack wheelchair

20 accessible housing. Yet Defendants have taken no steps to ensure

21 that Armstrong class members are protected when housed in those

22 counties.
23 Defendants do not dispute that they have not taken any steps
24 to investigate the allegations of ADA violations made in the
25 declarations of Armstrong class members housed in county jails
26
27 that Plaintiffs have provided to Defendants from September 2009

28 forward.

28

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page29 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

Defendants’ communication of the County Jail Plan to the

2 counties--in a single letter from CDCR’s General Counsel on April

3 12, 2010--did not adequately convey to the counties their existing

4 obligations under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. In particular,

5 CDCR’s statement in that letter that the County Jail Plan “does
6 not require county jails to change any policies or procedures
7 already in place” renders meaningless any report that Defendants
8 might make to the counties of patterns of ADA non-compliance.
9
10 Given this statement, any county informed of such a pattern will

11 believe that it is not required to do anything to address or

12 resolve such a pattern. In addition, the evidence shows that

13 Defendants did not follow up with any counties regarding the
14 implementation of the County Jail Plan after that letter. 15
Defendants have never engaged in any comprehensive effort to 16
verify that the disability-related county jail policies and 17 18 procedures, including grievance procedures, are adequate to ensure
19 the accommodation of class members. Despite claiming to rely on

20 these policies and procedures as adequate for this purpose,

21 Defendants gathered these policies for only a handful of counties.

22 In February 2011, Plaintiffs provided Defendants with more than
23 5,000 pages of county disability-related policies and procedures
24 that Plaintiffs had collected through California Public Records
25 Act requests. Defendants do not dispute that they have done
26
27 nothing to review or analyze the policies.

28

The Court adopts the findings and opinions of Plaintiffs’

29

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page30 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 well-qualified expert, Jeanne Woodford, former warden at San 2 Quentin State Prison and former acting Secretary of the CDCR. Ms.

3 Woodford examined a number of disability-related county jail

4 policies and procedures and found many of them to be deficient in

5 their mechanisms timely and effectively to identify, track, and
6 ensure the provision of accommodations to prisoners with
7 disabilities. Defendants have not challenged Ms. Woodford’s
8 report or its findings. Ms. Woodford concluded that many counties
9
10 lack a comprehensive plan describing the basic ADA policies and

11 procedures for their jail systems or have ADA-related policies

12 that are so vague and indefinite as to be almost useless.

13 Ms. Woodford found that many counties had policies prohibiting
14 prisoners from possessing assistive devices, such as canes, 15
walkers, and wheelchairs, based upon unfounded fears about 16
prisoners using assistive devices as weapons. Ms. Woodford also 17 18 identified a number of counties that lacked timely and effective
19 grievance procedures to provide prisoners a mechanism for seeking

20 accommodations. She further noted that many county jail policies

21 provide for the segregation of prisoners with disabilities from

22 the general population and, by so doing, likely deprive prisoners

23 with disabilities of equal access to programs and services within
24 the jail.
25
IV. Scope of Appropriate Relief 26

27

Defendants have only identified two objections that

28 Plaintiffs’ proposed relief is not narrowly tailored to the

30

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page31 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 violations shown.

2

First, Defendants state that the functions of their agents

3 that are referred to in the proposed injunction “will likely be

4 assumed by various county personnel” at a future date, if further

5 legislative changes take effect, and after that time, they will no
6 longer have representatives regularly visiting county jail
7 facilities. Thus, it would purportedly be unduly burdensome for
8 Defendants to be required to interview those who recently have
9
10 arrived on a parole hold and to collect grievance forms, should

11 Defendants choose not to rely on the county jail’s grievance

12 procedures. However, at the hearing, Defendants acknowledged that

13 their parole agents are currently going to county jails twice per
14 week as part of the parole revocation process. Accordingly, it 15
will not be unduly burdensome for them to perform these tasks 16
during these regular visits. Alternatively, Defendants may avoid 17 18 performing these tasks if they can certify that the jail has an
19 adequate disability grievance procedure.

20

Secondly, Defendants argue that system-wide relief is not

21 necessary to address the injuries suffered by the reduced number

22 of class members housed in county jails after October 1, 2011.
23 However, the Court is not persuaded that the number of class
24 members will decrease. Regarding the individuals for whom
25 Defendants do not dispute they have responsibility, Defendants
26
27 state only that they anticipate the numbers of these individuals

28 will decrease in the future, in part because they may choose to

31

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page32 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 move offenders sentenced to life terms to state prison. Based on 2 this conjecture, Defendants argue that the relief sought will be

3 broader than necessary to protect the remaining individuals. Id.

4 Defendants do not address the individuals held in county jails

5 pursuant to contracts, those who are in ICDTPs in county jails or
6 the state inmates housed in county jail for county proceedings.
7 Regarding state parolees, they argue only that these individuals
8 are no longer class members; the Court already held above that
9
10 they continue to be class members. According to Defendants’ own

11 projections, the numbers of these individuals in county jails will

12 increase under realignment. Thus, the relief is not too broad for

13 this reason.

14

Further, Defendants do not dispute that there will continue

15 to be class members in county jails. The Ninth Circuit has
16 repeatedly held in prior decisions related to this case that “‘if
17

18 the injury is the result of violations of a statute . . . that are

19 attributable to policies or practices pervading the whole system

20 (even though injuring a relatively small number of plaintiffs),’

21 then ‘[s]ystem-wide relief is required.’” Armstrong v.

22 Schwarzenegger, 622 F.3d at 1072-73 (quoting Armstrong v. Davis,
23 275 F.3d 849, 870 (9th Cir. 2001)). Defendants do not dispute
24 that there are currently class members still housed in county
25 jails or that Defendants’ system-wide policies and practices have
26
27 caused, and continue to cause, substantial injury to class

28 members, even if they dispute the size of this group.

32

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page33 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

Given the ineffectiveness of Defendants’ County Jail Plan,

2 Defendants’ consequent reliance on the county jails to accommodate

3 Armstrong class members, and the deficiencies identified in the

4 disability-related county jail policies and procedures and in

5 certain facilities’ housing, the Court finds that the types of ADA
6 violations experienced by the class member-declarants have been,
7 and will continue to be, experienced by many other class members
8 who have been and will be housed in county jails throughout
9
10 California. The serious violations of the rights of class members

11 while housed in county jails are systemic, persistent, and

12 continuing throughout the State and are directly attributable to

13 Defendants’ failure to implement appropriate policies and
14 procedures to identify, track, and accommodate these class 15
members, to communicate appropriate information to the county 16
jails, and to monitor compliance by the county jails. The Court 17 18 finds that the harm experienced by class members is caused not
19 only by Defendants’ statewide policies (or lack thereof) regarding

20 the housing of Armstrong class members in county jails, but also

21 by Defendants’ ongoing failure to train, supervise, and monitor

22 CDCR employees and agents concerning their responsibilities,
23 ongoing failure to communicate with county jails regarding the
24 known needs of class members, and ongoing failure to take
25 responsibility for and to assert influence over county jails
26
27 through contracts, regulations, letters, meetings, or other

28 communications. The Court therefore finds that only system-wide

33

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page34 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 injunctive relief could prevent Armstrong class members from 2 experiencing future ADA violations when housed in county jails.

3 V. 4 5

Constitutionality under Printz v. United States and New York v. United States
Defendants repeat an argument previously made and rejected by

6 the Ninth Circuit that the relief sought would “commandeer” them

7 “to enforce federal law,” in violation of Printz v. United States,

8 521 U.S. 898 (1997) and New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144

9 (1992). Opp. at 8-9. Defendants argue that, under realignment,
10 they no longer “choose to house” parolees in county jails, and
11 thus that the relief sought would “require Defendants to ensure
12 ADA-compliant conditions not for class members, but rather for
13
14 offenders being held under the counties’ authority.” Opp. at 8.

15

First, as the Ninth Circuit already recognized, unlike in

16 Printz and New York, this is not an action by the federal

17 government seeking to commandeer a local entity to carry out a
18 federal obligation; it is instead an action by private parties--
19 parolees who fit the class definition--seeking to enforce their
20 constitutional rights, and thus these cases are not relevant here.
21 22 Armstrong, 622 F.3d at 1089. Further, as already discussed above,
23 the relief that Plaintiffs seek would require only that Defendants

24 ensure ADA-compliant conditions for state prisoners and parolees

25 who are being held in county facilities pursuant to Defendants’

26 contractual and statutory authority. Thus, the order does not 27
mean that the State would have to ensure that county jails follow 28

34

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page35 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 federal law, but rather that the State itself must follow federal 2 law. Id. at 1069. Accordingly, the proposed injunction does not

3 violate the principles set forth in Printz and New York.

4 VI. Abstention

5

Defendants state that this Court should decline to exercise

6 its jurisdiction over matters pertaining to county jails because
7 of two class action suits addressing conditions of confinement in
8

particular jails, Pierce v. County of Orange, No. 01-00981 (C.D. 9

10 Cal.)7 and Johnson v. Los Angeles Co. Sheriff’s Dep’t, No. 08-3515

11 (C.D. Cal.), a consent decree concerning jail conditions in Santa

12 Clara County, Padilla v. Ryan, No. 98-2309 (N.D. Cal.), and a

13 settlement between the U.S. Department of Justice and Alameda
14 County concerning jail conditions. 15
However, none of these cases upon which Defendants rely 16
counsel abstention in the instant situation. In Pacesetter Sys., 17 18 Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 678 F.2d 93 (9th Cir. 1982), the Ninth
19 Circuit upheld the district court’s dismissal of an action because

20 an identical complaint involving the same parties and issues had

21 first been filed in another court. Id. at 94-97. In Church of

22 Scientology v. U.S. Dep’t of Army, 611 F.2d 738 (9th Cir. 1979),
23 the Ninth Circuit recognized that, under comity, a court generally
24 defers to previously filed litigation, but decided to defer to a
25

26

7 While Defendants represent that issues similar to the ones

at hand are currently being litigated in Pierce, a judgment was 27 entered in that case on June 28, 2011 and the only issue presently

28 being litigated is attorneys’ fees.

35

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page36 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 subsequently filed case, because that litigation, which presented 2 an identical issue, had already progressed through several

3 substantial litigation steps. Id. at 749-50. In Crawford v.

4 Bell, 599 F.2d 890 (9th Cir. 1979), the court dismissed an

5 individual case where the plaintiff was a class member in an
6 ongoing class action addressing the same issues. Id. at 893.
7 None of the other actions to which Defendants point
8 necessitate abstention in this case. None present the same issues
9
10 or parties. Each is limited to one or two jails within a single

11 county and was brought against county defendants. None were

12 brought against state defendants or involve state parolees held in

13 jails throughout the State. Further, this action was brought well

14 before any of the other cases and has already required a
15 tremendous amount of litigation prior to this point. Accordingly,
16 this Court does not decline jurisdiction over this matter in light
17
18 of the cases that Defendants raise.

19

CONCLUSION

20

In order to remedy the ongoing harm to Armstrong class

21 members, to ensure that Defendants meet their obligations under

22 the ADA and Rehabilitation Act and prior Court orders, and to
23 enforce the March 21, 2001 Permanent Injunction, and based on the
24 entire record in this action, the Court hereby ORDERS the
25 following relief, all of which it finds is narrowly drawn, extends
26
27 no further than necessary to correct the violations of federal

28 rights, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the

36

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page37 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 violations of the federal rights:

2

1. Within thirty days of this Order, Defendants shall

3 develop a revised plan for ensuring timely and appropriate

4 accommodations for Armstrong class members in county jails that

5 includes, at a minimum, the following elements:
6 a. On a daily basis, Defendants shall send to each
7 county a list of all Armstrong class members being housed in the
8 county jail facilities of that county. For each class member, the
9
10 list shall include the class member’s name, CDCR identification

11 number, CDCR disability placement program classification and all

12 accommodations in housing and programming that the Disability and

13 Effective Communication System (DECS) states the class member
14 receives when in custody in one of Defendants’ facilities. 15
b. Within three business days of the arrival of a 16
prisoner at a county jail facility pursuant to a parole hold, 17 18 Defendants’ agent (whether Parole Agent, Notice Agent, Board
19 Revocation Representative, or other agent) shall check DECS,

20 interview the parolee, and review any available 1073 forms and

21 source documents to determine what, if any, reasonable

22 accommodations in housing, programming, or parole proceedings the
23 parolee requires under the Armstrong Remedial Plan, the ADA,
24 and/or the Rehabilitation Act and whether these accommodations
25 have been provided to the parolee by the county jail. If DECS,
26
27 the file review, and/or the interview show that an accommodation

28 is required and has not been provided, within four business days

37

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page38 of 43
1 of the parolee’s arrival, Defendants’ agent must notify a 2 designated staff member at the county jail facility of the
3 accommodations in housing and programming that the class member
4 requires and must document that notification on an appropriate 5 form such as the BPH Form 1073. 6
c. Class members housed in county jails must have 7
ready access to disability grievance forms, either the CDCR’s 8
Reasonable Modification or Accommodation Request form (CDC 1824) 9 10 or a separate county jail grievance form. If Defendants elect to 11 utilize the CDC 1824 form in any of the counties, Defendants shall
12 collect the grievance forms from class members no less than twice
13 a week, and shall provide copies to a designated person at the 14 county jail. Defendants shall respond to all grievances within 15
fifteen calendar days of receipt and make their best efforts to 16
ensure that necessary and reasonable accommodations are provided. 17 18 If a class member identifies the grievance as urgent or an 19 emergency (i.e., if it alleges a condition which is a threat to
20 the parolee’s health or safety, or is necessary for participation
21 or effective communication in a parole revocation proceeding), 22 Defendants shall respond to such a grievance within five calendar 23
days of receipt and make their best efforts to ensure that 24
necessary and reasonable accommodations are provided on an interim 25
basis. For the first six months in which the plan is in effect, 26 27 Defendants must produce to Plaintiffs’ counsel on a monthly basis 28 all grievances collected by Defendants pursuant to this
38

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page39 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 subsection. Production may shift to two times a year after the 2 first six months.

3

d. If Defendants contend that the process outlined in

4 Paragraph (1)(c) is unnecessary because a jail has an adequate

5 disability grievance process, Defendants must certify, within
6 thirty days of the acceptance of their plan, that each such jail’s
7 disability grievance policy contains the following elements:
8 i. Is readily available to all class members
9
10 housed in that county’s jail facilities;

11

ii. Has an initial response deadline of no later

12 than fifteen calendar days from receipt by the designated jail

13 staff member;

14

iii. Contains a provision for expediting a response

15 if the appeal alleges a condition which is a threat to the
16 parolee’s health or safety, or is necessary for participation or
17

18 effective communication in a parole revocation proceeding;

19

iv. Includes a provision for review of the

20 parolee’s request by medical staff, if necessary;

21

v. Provides a right to appeal denials; and

22

vi. Requires that a copy of each and every

23 grievance and response be provided to Defendants at the same time
24 it is provided to the Armstrong class member.
25
e. If Defendants contend that the process outlined in 26

27 Paragraph (1)(c) is unnecessary because a jail has an adequate

28 disability grievance process, for the first six months in which

39

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page40 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 the plan is in effect, Defendants must produce to Plaintiffs’ 2 counsel on a monthly basis all grievances provided to Defendants

3 pursuant to subsection (d)(vi) of this paragraph. Production may

4 shift to two times a year after the first six months.

5

f. If, either through a grievance or otherwise,

6 Defendants become aware of a class member who is housed in a
7 county jail and not receiving accommodations that he or she
8
requires, Defendants shall immediately take steps with county jail 9

10 staff to ensure that such accommodations are promptly provided or

11 transfer the class member to a facility that is able to provide

12 accommodations.

13

g. If Defendants become aware, either through a

14 grievance or otherwise, of a pattern of denials of disability
15 accommodations, such as improper housing and/or denial of
16 assistive devices to class members at a particular county jail
17
18 facility, or grievance process delays or obstacles, they shall

19 take the following steps:

20

i. Within five calendar days of becoming aware of

21 the pattern, Defendants shall notify the county jail facility

22 administrator in writing of the issue, providing specific dates

23 and incidents, and demanding that the conduct cease and desist;
24 ii. At the same time, provide a copy of this
25
notification to Plaintiffs’ counsel; and 26

27

iii. Assign a staff person to investigate the

28 county jail facility and report back to Defendants within thirty

40

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page41 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 days, with a copy to Plaintiffs’ counsel, regarding the pattern 2 and steps to be taken to remedy it, including any available

3 monetary fines and penalties for continued violations.

4

2. Within forty-five days of this Order, Defendants shall

5 issue the plan in final form and disseminate it to all jail
6 facilities in the fifty-eight counties. Defendants shall also
7 disseminate the plan to all relevant personnel employed by
8 Defendants and conduct training of such personnel on the plan upon
9
10 its dissemination and thereafter on an annual basis.

11

3. Defendants shall permit Plaintiffs’ counsel to monitor

12 the plan and the accommodations provided to Armstrong class

13 members while housed in county jails. Reasonable monitoring shall

14 include, at a minimum:
15 a. The ability to conduct a sufficient number of tours
16 per year of county jail facilities in which Armstrong class
17
18 members are held to determine compliance with this order;

19

b. The right during the aforementioned monitoring

20 tours to conduct interviews with county jail staff members and

21 with Armstrong class members housed in county jails, and to review

22 all files and documents pertaining to Armstrong class members,
23 including class members’ jail custody and medical files and jail
24 policies and procedures affecting prisoners with disabilities;
25 c. The opportunity to review and comment on materials
26
27 used to train Defendants’ staff who work in or with county jails

28 about the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Armstrong case

41

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page42 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 sufficiently in advance of training sessions and to observe those 2 sessions.

3

d. A monthly document production that includes all

4 memoranda, DECS County Jail Accommodations Reports, BPH Form

5 1073s, tracking logs, and other documents related to the plan.
6 4. Pursuant to this Court’s March 21, 2001 Permanent
7 Injunction, Defendants must add the following language, or
8 substantially similar language, to any existing or future
9
10 contracts with a county for the housing of CDCR prisoners,

11 parolees, or supervised releasees in county jails, including

12 Defendants’ contracts for the housing of CDCR prisoners in the

13 jail facilities of Alameda and Sacramento Counties and Defendants’
14 contracts with any counties to operate jail-based In-Custody Drug 15
Treatment Programs: “By signing this contract, Contractor assures 16
the State that it complies with the Americans with Disabilities 17 18 Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., which prohibits
19 discrimination on the basis of disability and with applicable

20 regulations and guidelines issued pursuant to the ADA.”

21

5. The parties shall agree on a mechanism for promptly

22 addressing concerns raised by Plaintiffs’ counsel regarding
23 individual class members housed in county jails and emergencies.
24 6. Defendants must present drafts of all plans, policies,
25 and procedures developed pursuant to this Order to Plaintiffs’
26
27 counsel at least fifteen days in advance of the deadlines. Both

28 parties must make all possible efforts to resolve any

42

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page43 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 disagreements as to their adequacy. Defendants shall ensure that 2 staff with sufficient authority to amend and approve procedures

3 attend all meet and confer sessions. In the event that

4 disagreements cannot be resolved, Defendants shall implement the
5 procedures as written on the date ordered and Plaintiffs’ counsel
6 shall file objections with the Court. The Court will rule on the
7 objections and issue orders amending procedures as necessary.
8 7. This Order shall apply to Defendants, their agents,
9
10 employees, successors in office, and all persons with knowledge of

11 it. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of

12 this Injunction.

13 IT IS SO ORDERED.
14

15 Dated: 4/11/2012
16

CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

43

 
 942 F.Supp. 1252 (1996)
John ARMSTRONG, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Pete WILSON, et al., Defendants.
No. C 94-2307 CW.
United States District Court, N.D. California.
September 20, 1996.
12534 *1253 *1254 Warren E. George, McCutchen Doyle Brown & Enersen LLP, San Francisco, CA, Elaine Feingold, Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund, Inc., Berkeley, CA, Michael W. Bien, Rosen Bien & Asaro, San Francisco, CA, Donald Specter, Prison Law Office, San Quentin, CA, for plaintiffs.
Roy Zattiero, pro se.
Morris Lenk, CA State Atty. General's Office, George D. Prince, Deputy Atty. General, CA State Atty. General's Office, San Francisco, CA, for defendants.
Mary Beth Uitti, U.S. Attorney's Office, San Francisco, CA, Sharon N. Perley, U.S.D.J. 0907 Disability Rights Section, Civil Rights Division, Washington, DC, for United States of America, Amicus Curiae.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
WILKEN, District Judge.
Plaintiffs, a certified class consisting of all present and future California state prison inmates and parolees with mobility[1], sight, hearing, learning or kidney disabilities, have moved for injunctive relief under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 0907 34, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("the Rehabilitation Act" or "Section 504"), 29 U.S.C. § 794. Defendants, various California state officials being sued in their official capacities, have moved for summary judgment pursuant to the Stipulation and Order for Procedures to Determine Liability and Remedy entered on July 9, 1996 (the "Stipulation"). The United States Department of Justice ("DOJ") has submitted an amicus brief in support of Plaintiffs' opposition. The matter was heard on July 19, 1996. Having considered all of the papers filed by the parties and oral argument on the motion, the Court denies the motion.
FACTS
Defendants move to strike Plaintiffs' separate statement of undisputed facts. The Court grants the motion on the grounds that the parties have stipulated that this summary judgment motion is to be decided solely on the facts included in the parties' joint Statement of Stipulated Facts.
The following is a brief summary of the facts as provided in the Statement of Stipulated Facts. The California Department of Corrections ("CDC") operates over 31 prisons housing in excess of 130,000 inmates. Some of these facilities receive federal financial assistance. The CDC has conducted surveys to identify certain inmates with disabilities. These surveys have found that: (1) 345 inmates use wheelchairs due to permanent disabilities; (2) 650 inmates have permanent lower extremity impairments which may require the use of an assistive device such as a walker, cane or prosthesis; (3) 141 inmates are deaf or have hearing impairments such that, even with a hearing aid, they are not able to hear effectively or to hear emergency warnings; (4) 219 inmates are blind or have vision that cannot be corrected to 20/100 with corrective lenses. HIV-positive inmates are placed in various

units in facilities throughout the system. Inmates with mental health problems are clustered and frequently separated from other inmate populations.
The CDC initiated a self-evaluation in 1995 pursuant to the requirements of the ADA, but has not completed it. In April, 1995, the CDC established and implemented a new administrative grievance procedure which inmates and parolees with disabilities may use to submit grievances or requests for accommodations on matters related to their disabilities. There remain significant problems in implementing this procedure.
The CDC's written policies and procedures for emergencies do not specifically address the evacuation of 1255 prisoners with disabilities. Some CDC facilities do not have visual alarms or strobe lights to warn prisoners *1255
with hearing impairments of emergencies. When emergency situations arise in prison areas other than living units, some inmates with disabilities may not be aware of, or be able to respond to, emergency warnings of impending danger.
Most inmates who participate in educational classes, vocational training, or have work assignments, including those with disabilities, earn ½ time sentence credits to reduce their time in custody. Health care providers classify inmates as "totally medically disabled," "medically unassigned," or "light restricted duty." A "totally medically disabled" classification allows the inmate to earn ½ time sentence credits without being required to participate in a program, while a "medically unassigned" classification allows the inmate to earn 1/3 time sentence credits. A "light restricted duty" classification allows the inmate to participate in programs in accordance with a specified restriction due to a physical or mental condition. Some inmates with severe disabilities have been inappropriately classified as medically unassigned rather than totally medically disabled and only earn 1/3 instead of ½ time credits against their sentences. Inmates designated as "light restricted duty" may be assigned to jobs that are inappropriate for their limitations. The range of vocational programs available to inmates with disabilities is more limited than that available to other inmates.
LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is properly granted when no genuine and disputed issues of material fact remain, and when, viewing the evidence most favorably to the non-moving party, the movant is clearly entitled to prevail as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552-53, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Eisenberg v. Insurance Co. of North America, 815 F.2d 1285, 1288-89 (9th Cir. 1987). For the purposes of this motion, the parties have stipulated that there are no material facts in dispute. The Court, therefore, must decide whether the moving party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
DISCUSSION
Defendants argue that the protections of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act do not extend to inmates or parolees of state correctional facilities and that Defendants are immune from liability under the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution. While the Ninth Circuit has held that the Rehabilitation Act applies to state prisons, it has not yet considered whether the ADA is applicable to state correctional facilities.[2] Nor has the Ninth Circuit ruled on whether state prison officials have immunity under the Eleventh Amendment for violations of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. These, then, are issues of first impression in this Circuit.
I.
APPLICABILITY OF THE ADA AND THE REHABILITATION ACT TO STATE CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES
The Court will not address Defendants' argument that prisoners and parolees are adequately protected under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and, therefore, the protections provided under the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA are unnecessary. One need only look to the undisputed stipulated facts of this case to find that this argument is erroneous. Furthermore, it is not the proper role of the judiciary to preempt Congress' decision that there is a need for such legislation.

A. Ninth Circuit Case Law
1. Rehabilitation Act
1256 Although the Ninth Circuit has held, in Bonner v. Lewis, 857 F.2d 559, 562 (9th *1256 Cir.1988), that the Rehabilitation Act applies to state prison facilities, Defendants argue that this Court should arrive at a different result. Defendants argue that, since Bonner was decided, the Supreme Court has clarified the proper analysis to be used by a district court to determine the applicability of federal statutes to state prisons. Defendants contend that utilization of this analysis will lead to the conclusion that neither the Rehabilitation Act nor the ADA are applicable to state prisons. The Court does not agree.
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 states, in pertinent part:
No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States, ... shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance ...
29 U.S.C. § 794.
In Bonner, the Ninth Circuit based its holding primarily on the plain language of the Act, which states that it "applies to `any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance'", and on the Justice Department's implementing regulations which require compliance by correctional facilities under 28 C.F.R. § 42.503(f). Bonner, 857 F.2d at 562. The court noted that "[t]he Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that federal regulations are `an important source of guidance on the meaning of § 504.'" Id. (citing School Board of Nassau County v. Arline, 480 U.S. 273, 107 S.Ct. 1123, 94 L.Ed.2d 307 (1987) (parenthetical omitted) and Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Darrone, 465 U.S. 624, 634 & nn. 14-16, 104 S.Ct. 1248, 1254 & nn. 14-16, 79 L.Ed.2d 568 (1984)).
The Ninth Circuit rejected the defendants' argument that, because the purpose of the Rehabilitation Act is to foster vocational rehabilitation and independent living, it is not applicable to prison inmates who "are hardly in need of help to live independently within their prisons." Id. Instead, the court viewed the goals of independent living and vocational rehabilitation as mirroring the goals of prison officials who "attempt to rehabilitate prisoners and prepare them to lead productive lives once their sentences are complete." Id.
In Gates v. Rowland, 39 F.3d 1439 (9th Cir.1994), the Ninth Circuit elaborated on its holding in Bonner. First, the court, citing Bonner, reaffirmed that "the Act is applicable to prisons receiving federal financial assistance." Gates, 39 F.3d at 1446. The court noted, however, that the Rehabilitation Act was intended for use within the general population, and was not specifically tailored to deal with the prison environment. Id. The court reasoned that, "just as constitutional rights of prisoners must be considered in light of the reasonable requirements of effective prison administration, so must statutory rights applicable to the nation's general population be considered in the light of effective prison administration." Id The court held that the standard explicated by the Supreme Court in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987) for reviewing constitutional rights in a prison setting should also be used when reviewing the rights provided by the Rehabilitation Act in a prison setting. Id. at 1447. In Turner, the Supreme Court articulated the rule that, "'when a prison regulation impinges on inmates' constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests'". Id. (quoting Turner, 482 U.S. at 89, 107 S.Ct. at 2261).
Other courts, and Defendants, have interpreted Gates to mean that the Ninth Circuit is retreating from its holding in Bonner. See e.g. Torcasio v. Murray, 57 F.3d 1340, 1349 n. 7 (4th Cir.1995), cert. denied by Torcasio v. Angelone, ___ U.S. ____, 116 S.Ct. 772, 133 L.Ed.2d 724 (1996) and Little v. Lycoming County, 912 F.Supp. 809, 819 (M.D.Pa.1996). The Court disagrees. Gates is a reaffirmation and clarification of Bonner, not a retreat from it.
Defendants argue that subsequent to Bonner, the Supreme Court, in Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 460-61, 111 S.Ct. 2395, 2400-01, 115 L.Ed.2d 410 (1991), clarified the proper analysis for determining whether a federal

1257 enactment is applicable to state prisons. They contend that, in Gregory, the *1257 Court stated a new rule that requires that Congress make its intention unmistakably clear in the language of the statute if it intends to alter the usual constitutional balance between the States and the federal government in traditionally sensitive areas. Defendants conclude that, had the Ninth Circuit applied this "new" plain statement rule in Bonner, it would have held differently.
The Court disagrees. The plain statement rule was not originally articulated in Gregory. Although Gregory recites this rule, it cites prior cases as authority. One of the cases cited in Gregory is United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336, 349, 92 S.Ct. 515, 523, 30 L.Ed.2d 488 (1971) in which the Court stated that, "[i]n traditionally sensitive areas, such as legislation affecting the federal balance, the requirement of clear statement assures that the legislature has in fact faced, and intended to bring into issue the critical matters involved in the judicial decision." Gregory, 501 U.S. at 461, 111 S.Ct. at 2401 (citing Bass, 404 U.S. at 349, 92 S.Ct. at 523). Gregory also cites Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218, 230, 67 S.Ct. 1146, 1152, 91 L.Ed. 1447 (1947) for the proposition that, "Congress should make its intention `clear and manifest' if it intends to pre-empt the historic powers of the States." Gregory, 501 U.S. at 461, 111 S.Ct. at 2401. Even Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, ___ U.S. ____, ____, 116 S.Ct. 1114, 1185, 134 L.Ed.2d 252 (1996), the case Defendants use to support their proposition that Gregory adopted a new rule, cites Bass as well as Gregory. It is clear that the "new" rule Defendants proffer has been part of our jurisprudence for many decades. It is patently unreasonable to assume that the Ninth Circuit did not take this rule into consideration in deciding Bonner. Although not explicitly stating that it was applying the plain statement rule, in Bonner the Ninth Circuit did look for Congressional intent to apply the Rehabilitation Act to state prisons and found such intent in the plain language of the statute and the DOJ's implementing regulations. Bonner, 857 F.2d at 562.
Defendants point to two post-Gregory Ninth Circuit cases to illustrate that, had the Ninth Circuit used the plain statement rule in Bonner, it would not have held the Act applicable to state prisons. In Hale v. Arizona, 993 F.2d 1387, 1393, 1395 (9th Cir.1993) (en banc), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 946, 114 S.Ct. 386, 126 L.Ed.2d 335 (1993), the Ninth Circuit declined to extend the protections of the Federal Labor Standards Act to inmates required by state law to work at hard labor, but determined that the Act may be applicable to inmates in other employment situations. In Jeldness v. Pearce, 30 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir.1994), the Ninth Circuit held that Title IX, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex by any educational program receiving federal funding, applies to state prisons. Id. at 1225. In Hale and Jeldness the Ninth Circuit focused on a list of statutorily exempt programs which did not include prisons and determined that noninclusion in an exempt list creates a strong implication of inclusion. Hale, 993 F.2d at 1392; Jeldness, 30 F.3d at 1225.
Defendants contend that the analyses in Hale and Jeldness rejected the basis for the Ninth Circuit's conclusion in Bonner, because, in Bonner, the court merely based its holding on the expansive language of the Rehabilitation Act. However, the Bonner court also based its holding upon the DOJ's implementing regulations that specifically bring state prisons within the ambit of the Act. Bonner, 857 F.2d at 562.
Congress delegated to the head of each agency the authority to promulgate regulations under the Rehabilitation Act. 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). The DOJ regulations define the term "program" as including the "operations of a department of corrections," and the term "benefit" as including "sentencing, confinement, or other prescription of conduct." 28 C.F.R. §§ 42.540(h) and (j). In Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843-44, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 2782-83, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984) the Court held that, where Congress has left a gap for the agency to fill, the agency's regulations "are given controlling weight unless they are arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute." This Court can find nothing that is arbitrary or capricious in the 1258 DOJ's regulations. The broad language of the statute which indicates it reaches "any *1258 program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance" imparts to federal agencies, which includes the DOJ, the task of defining the term, "any program". The inclusion of state departments of corrections is a permissible construction of the term, "any program", and, under Chevron, this construction must be given deference.
The Court also finds persuasive the Third Circuit's reasoning in Inmates of the Allegheny County Jail v. Wecht, 1996 WL 474106, *10 (3rd Cir.) regarding the applicability of the plain statement rule to decide whether the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA applies to correctional facilities. In Inmates, the Third Circuit found that the language of the Rehabilitation Act and of the ADA clearly indicates that they cover all aspects of state and local

governance. Id. at *6 (citing, as to the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a) which states that the Act applies to "any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance" and 29 U.S.C. § 794(b)(1)(A) which defines "program or activity" to be "all of the operations of a department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or local government" and as to the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12132 which states that it applies to all public entities and 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1) which defines a "public entity" as "any State or local government [and] any department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or States or local government.") Based on the clear language of the statutes the court held that both the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA apply to state and local correctional facilities. Id. The court determined that the plain statement rule was inapplicable to its analysis since this rule was not "intended by the Supreme Court to provide a canon of statutory interpretation which can be of help in interpreting statutes whose over-all design indisputably contemplates both that the policies and practices of state as well as local governments are required to conform to norms established by Congress ..." Id. at *9.
The Court rejects Defendants' argument that Bonner may apply in Arizona, the state in which the case originated, but not in California. Defendants' rationale is that in Arizona the goal of incarceration is rehabilitation, while in California the goal of incarceration is punishment. Plaintiffs cite many statutes in the California Penal Code and Regulations that indicate that, while the goal of incarceration itself may be punishment, the goal of many prison programs and activities is rehabilitation and reintegration of convicted felons into society.
The Court concludes that the Ninth Circuit's analysis in Bonner is as correct today as it was in 1988 when the Ninth Circuit reached its decision. The Court holds that the Rehabilitation Act applies to prisons.
2. The ADA
In language almost identical to the Rehabilitation Act, the ADA provides, in relevant part:
[N]o qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any public entity.
42 U.S.C. § 12132.
Defendants contend that utilization of the plain statement rule will lead to the conclusion that the ADA does not apply to state prisons. The Court does not agree.
The Ninth Circuit has indicated that the ADA is to be judicially interpreted in the same manner as the Rehabilitation Act. Collings v. Longview Fibre Co., 63 F.3d 828, 832 n. 3 (9th Cir.1995), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ____, 116 S.Ct. 711, 133 L.Ed.2d 666 (1996). This determination is based on the substantially identical language in the two Acts and the legislative history of the ADA which indicates that Congress intended judicial interpretation of the Rehabilitation Act to be incorporated by reference into interpretation of the ADA. Id.
Pursuant to Collings, the Court must apply the Ninth Circuit's reasoning in Bonner to decide whether the ADA applies to state correctional facilities and programs. As noted above, the broad language of the Rehabilitation Act 1259 is repeated in the ADA. *1259 The ADA expands the reach of the anti-discrimination provisions of the Rehabilitation Act from "any public facility that receives Federal funding" to "any public entity." As it did in the Rehabilitation Act, Congress has specifically delegated authority to the DOJ to promulgate regulations implementing the ADA. 42 U.S.C. § 12134(a). The DOJ's regulations provide that "all programs, services, and regulatory activities relating to law enforcement, public safety, and the administration of justice, including courts and correctional institutions" are governed by the ADA. 28 C.F.R. § 35.190(b)(6). The Court finds that the expansive language of the ADA, together with the DOJ's regulations which it promulgated pursuant to a specific Congressional delegation of authority, lead to the conclusion that the ADA is applicable to state correctional institutions. Following the Ninth Circuit's instruction in Gates, the Court also concludes that, like the Rehabilitation Act, the ADA must be applied in a prison environment with consideration of legitimate penological interests. See Gates, 39 F.3d at 1447.

B. Case Law in Other Circuits
Defendants argue that this Court should be persuaded by cases in other circuits in which, Defendants contend, the courts have held the Rehabilitation Act or the ADA are inapplicable to prisons.
Three circuits have directly addressed this issue.[3] As discussed above, the Third Circuit has held that the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA apply to state and local correctional institutions. The Tenth Circuit has held that the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA are inapplicable to state prison employment programs. In Williams v. Meese, 926 F.2d 994 (10th Cir.1991), the court held that the Rehabilitation Act is not applicable to federal prison employment and vocational programs because the "Federal Bureau of Prisons does not fit the definition of `programs or activities' governed by [the Rehabilitation Act]." Williams, 926 F.2d at 997. Relying upon Williams, and without any further explanation, the Tenth Circuit held in White v. Colorado, 82 F.3d 364 (10th Cir.1996), that the ADA does not apply to state prison employment situations. White, 82 F.3d at 367.
The Fourth Circuit, in Torcasio v. Murray, did not actually hold that the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA do not apply to state prisons, but strongly intimated that they do not. Torcasio, a qualified immunity case, held that it was not clearly established, at the time of the alleged discrimination, that either the Rehabilitation Act or the ADA applied to state prisons. Torcasio v. Murray, 57 F.3d 1340, 1352 (4th Cir.1995), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 772, 133 L.Ed.2d 724 (1996). The violations were alleged to have occurred in April, 1993 through the spring, 1994. The Torcasio court took the Ninth Circuit's 1988 Bonner decision into consideration in its discussion. In analyzing the DOJ regulations, however, the Torcasio court failed to locate the specific sections which provide that the Rehabilitation Act applies to correctional institutions. Id. at 1351. The court looked at 28 C.F.R. § 42.503(f), the only section specifically cited in Bonner, and dismissed it as too general to establish that the DOJ intended the Rehabilitation Act to apply to prisons. The court did not mention the sections, in the definitional parts of the regulations, that indicate that the Rehabilitation Act applies to state prisons. See 28 C.F.R. §§ 42.540(h) and (j). The court similarly did not mention 28 C.F.R. § 35.190(b)(6), the regulation that specifies that the ADA applies to state prisons. The court intimated that, had the plaintiff been able to show that the regulations specifically applied to state prisons, it might have held differently. Id.
As discussed above, Torcasio also erroneously concluded that in Gates the Ninth Circuit retreated from its 1260 holding in Bonner. *1260 Torcasio, 57 F.3d at 1346, 1349 n. 7. Also, as noted by Plaintiffs, the questions raised in
Torcasio as to whether prison programs qualify as "programs" under the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA, were answered in the affirmative by the Ninth Circuit in Bonner. Bonner, 857 F.2d at 562 ("the [Rehabilitation] Act's goals of independent living and vocational rehabilitation should in fact mirror the goals of prison officials as they attempt to rehabilitate prisoners and prepare them to lead productive lives....")
II.
IMMUNITY UNDER THE ELEVENTH AMENDMENT
Defendants argue that the Eleventh Amendment provides them with immunity from liability under the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA. Defendants acknowledged, during oral argument, that their reasoning would lead to the conclusion that the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA are not applicable to any state agency.
In Seminole Tribe v. Florida, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 116 S.Ct. 1114, 1123, 134 L.Ed.2d 252 (1996), the Supreme Court reiterated the principle that, pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment, States may not be sued in federal court unless Congress, acting pursuant to a valid exercise of its power, unequivocally expresses its intent to abrogate the States' immunity. Id. (citing Green v. Mansour, 474 U.S. 64, 68, 106 S.Ct. 423, 426, 88 L.Ed.2d 371 (1985)). Defendants concede that Congress clearly expressed its intent in the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA to abrogate the States' immunity. The issue to be resolved is whether, in abrogating the States' immunity, Congress acted pursuant to a valid exercise of its power.

In Seminole Tribe, the Court explained that Congressional authority to abrogate States' immunity had been previously found under two provisions of the Constitution. Id., ___ U.S. at ___, 116 S.Ct. at 1125. In Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 452-56, 96 S.Ct. 2666, 2669-72, 49 L.Ed.2d 614 (1976), the Court had held that § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment allowed Congress to abrogate States' immunity from suit and, in Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co., 491 U.S. 1, 19-20, 109 S.Ct. 2273, 2284-85, 105 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989), the Court had held that the Interstate Commerce Clause granted Congress the power to abrogate immunity. Id. In Seminole Tribe the Court overruled Union Gas so that Congress now has authority to abrogate the States' immunity pursuant only to the Fourteenth Amendment. Id., ___ U.S. at ___, 116 S.Ct. at 1131.
Defendants argue that Congress lacks authority to abrogate their immunity under the Rehabilitation Act or the ADA because neither was validly enacted pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiffs disagree, and also argue that Defendants, because they are state officials, are not immune from suit for injunctive relief under the doctrine of Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908).
A. The ADA Was Enacted Pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment
The ADA specifically states that its purpose is "to invoke the sweep of congressional authority, including the power to enforce the fourteenth amendment and to regulate commerce, in order to address the major areas of discrimination faced day to day by people with disabilities." 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(4). In spite of this explicit statement by Congress, Defendants argue that simply because Congress has stated that the legislation was enacted pursuant to its Fourteenth Amendment authority does not make it so.
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that "[n]o State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Section 5 of the Amendment states that "[t]he Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." As explained by the Supreme Court, "... § 5 is a positive grant of legislative power authorizing Congress to exercise its discretion in determining whether and what legislation is needed to secure the guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment." Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641, 648, 86 S.Ct. 1717, 1722, 16 L.Ed.2d 828 (1966). Section 5 is intended to 1261 provide to Congress the same broad powers expressed in the Necessary *1261 and Proper Clause, art. I, § 8, cl. 18. Id. at 650, 86 S.Ct. at 1723. The standard to be used in determining whether legislation is appropriate under the Necessary and Proper Clause was formulated in McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 421, 4 L.Ed. 579 (1819):
Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.
Id.
Using the McCulloch test, to determine if legislation enacted pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment is appropriate, a court must determine whether the legislation: (1) is plainly adapted to the end of enforcing the Equal Protection Clause, and (2) is not prohibited by, but is consistent with the "letter and spirit of the constitution." Morgan, 384 U.S. at 651, 86 S.Ct. at 1723.
Defendants cite Pierce v. King for the proposition that the ADA is not adapted to enforcing the Fourteenth Amendment. Pierce v. King, 918 F.Supp. 932, 940 (E.D.N.C.1996). The argument in Pierce begins with the assumption that "[t]he Fourteenth Amendment has traditionally been understood as protecting individuals from state action that would infringe upon individual liberties." Id. The argument continues with the contention that the ADA is unlike traditional anti-discrimination laws because the ADA creates entitlements whereas the traditional laws seek to produce an environment in which individuals are treated in a neutral manner. Id. Defendants contend that mandates for prisons to conduct self-evaluations, complete transition plans, establish grievance procedures, and provide notice of the ADA to inmates are administrative burdens that are unconnected with the Fourteenth Amendment's prohibition against discrimination. They say that obligations to identify inmates with learning disabilities and to provide special programs for them distort notions of equal treatment. Similarly, they

contend that the requirement of certain structural accessibility features goes far beyond anything that could be based on the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Court disagrees with Defendants' theory. Some of the findings made by Congress in enacting the ADA are that: (1) discrimination against disabled individuals in the form of isolation and segregation is a serious and pervasive social problem; (2) disabled individuals are a discrete and insular minority who have been subjected to a history of unequal treatment and relegated to a position of political powerlessness based upon false stereotypical assumptions; and, (3) the Nation's goals are to assure equality, full participation, independent living and economic self-sufficiency to individuals with disabilities. 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a). Congress indicated in the ADA that it intended to invoke its full authority under the Fourteenth Amendment to address nationwide discrimination against the disabled. 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(4).
Rectifying discrimination often has taken the form of the prohibition of action that is discriminatory. Perhaps, as Defendants argue, this is the traditional manner in which legislation under the Fourteenth Amendment has been framed. However, eliminating discrimination may require affirmative relief. See City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469, 490, 109 S.Ct. 706, 720, 102 L.Ed.2d 854 (1989) (O'Conner, J., concurring and dissenting) ("The power to `enforce' [the Fourteenth Amendment] may at times also include the power to define situations which Congress determines threaten principles of equality and to adopt prophylactic rules to deal with those situations.")
The goal of the ADA, to eliminate discrimination against an identifiable group of individuals, is a proper invocation of the Equal Protection Clause. See City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 446-47, 105 S.Ct. 3249, 3257-58, 87 L.Ed.2d 313 (1985) (holding that persons with disabilities are entitled to protection under the Fourteenth Amendment). The practical effect of the ADA will be to eliminate barriers against entry into physical structures, into ongoing programs and services, and into the mainstream of society itself for many individuals with 1262 disabilities. While this may require *1262 affirmative measures on the part of correctional institutions to insure inclusion of those who are now excluded from the mainstream of prison life, the requirement of such measures does not exceed the authority granted to Congress under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The ADA, therefore, meets the first prong of the McCulloch test.
Defendants have not argued that the ADA is inconsistent with the letter and spirit of the constitution. The Court, therefore, finds that the ADA meets the second prong of the McCulloch test. That Congress has invoked the Commerce Clause as well as the Fourteenth Amendment as authority for the ADA does not alter the conclusion that, under the McCulloch standard, the ADA is legitimate legislation, pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment, focused on deterring discrimination on the part of the states. See EEOC v. County of Calumet, 686 F.2d 1249, 1253 (7th Cir.1982) (noting that Congress, in enacting modern civil rights legislation, reaches private discrimination indirectly through the Commerce Clause and reaches state discrimination directly through the Fourteenth Amendment). The Court holds that the ADA was legitimately enacted pursuant to Congress' authority under the Fourteenth Amendment.
B. The Rehabilitation Act was Enacted Pursuant to the Spending Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment
Unlike the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act is silent as to the constitutional authority under which it was enacted. Defendants contend that a close reading of the statute, together with an analogy to similar statutes, leads to the conclusion that the Rehabilitation Act is authorized by Congress' spending power, and not by the Fourteenth Amendment. That the Rehabilitation Act applies only to those entities that receive federal funds is the primary basis for Defendants' contention.
Defendants point to Title VI, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., and Title IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as support for their argument. Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin by any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. 42 U.S.C. § 2000d. Based upon the legislative history, the Supreme Court determined that Congress intended to enact Title VI pursuant to its spending power. Guardians Ass'n v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 463 U.S. 582, 598-99, 103 S.Ct. 3221, 3230-31, 77

L.Ed.2d 866 (1983). Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex by any educational program or activities receiving federal financial assistance. 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a). The Supreme Court has reserved the question of whether Title IX was enacted under the Spending Clause or under the Fourteenth Amendment. Franklin v. Gwinnett County Pub. Schs., 503 U.S. 60, 75 n. 8, 112 S.Ct. 1028, 1037 n. 8, 117 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992). The Fifth Circuit, in Rowinsky v. Bryan Indep. Sch. Dist., for a variety of reasons, adopted the view that Title IX was enacted under the Spending Clause. Rowinsky v. Bryan Indep. Sch. Dist., 80 F.3d 1006, 1012 n. 14 (5th Cir.1996), petition for cert. filed, 65 U.S.L.W. 3033 (U.S.July 1, 1996) (No. 96-4). First, Title IX was modeled after Title VI and uses identical language. That the Supreme Court in Guardians Ass'n held that Title VI was enacted pursuant to the Spending Clause strongly suggests that Title IX also was enacted under the Spending Clause. Id. Second, Title IX regulates purely private educational institutions. The receipt of federal funds does not transform a private school into a state actor for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. Third, the funding incentives provided in Title IX indicate that Congress did not intend to impose absolute obligations on the States. Id. Defendants' argument that the Rehabilitation Act, like Titles VI and IX, is enacted under the Spending Clause because it, too, applies only to those entities that receive federal funding is well-taken. However, the contentions of Plaintiffs and amicus that the Rehabilitation Act was enacted under the Fourteenth Amendment are also persuasive. Furthermore, because the language and purpose of the Rehabilitation Act are virtually identical to that of the ADA, and because this Court has found that the ADA was validly enacted pursuant to the Fourteenth 1263 Amendment, it follows that the Rehabilitation Act, *1263 also, was enacted under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Plaintiffs point out that two Supreme Court cases indicate that the Rehabilitation Act was passed under the Fourteenth Amendment. In Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, the Supreme Court stated, "Petitioners conceded ... that the Rehabilitation Act was passed pursuant to § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, we first analyze § 504 in light of Congress' power under the Fourteenth Amendment to subject unconsenting States to federal court jurisdiction." Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 244 n. 4, 105 S.Ct. 3142, 3148 n. 4, 87 L.Ed.2d 171 (1985). Because the issue of Congressional authority was not in dispute in Scanlon, that case is not determinative of the issue. The Supreme Court noted in Welch v. Texas Dept. of Highways and Pub. Transp. that "[t]he question in Scanlon was whether § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, makes state agencies subject to suits for retroactive monetary relief in federal court. The Rehabilitation Act was passed pursuant to § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Congress therefore had the power to subject unconsenting States to suit in federal court." Welch, 483 U.S. 468, 472 n. 2, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 2945 n. 2, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (citing Scanlon). Welch provides further evidence that the Supreme Court considers that Congress enacted the Rehabilitation Act pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment. But, this statement is dicta.
In Dep't of Educ., State of Haw. v. Katherine D., the district court held that the Rehabilitation Act was enacted pursuant to Congress' power under the Fourteenth Amendment. Department of Education v. Katherine D., 531 F.Supp. 517, 530 (D.C.Haw.1982), aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds, 727 F.2d 809 (9th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1117, 105 S.Ct. 2360, 86 L.Ed.2d 260 (1985). The court based its holding on its analysis of legislative history and Congress' intent, as specifically explicated in the Act, to effectuate equal opportunity for disabled citizens. Id. The court concluded that this legislative goal is "precisely the specific legislative intent to effectuate the equal protection rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment which [the Supreme Court] recognized." Id. (citing Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 456, 96 S.Ct. 2666, 2671, 49 L.Ed.2d 614 (1976) and Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 98 S.Ct. 2565, 57 L.Ed.2d 522 (1978)).
Congress may enact legislation pursuant to more than one of its constitutional powers. See EEOC v. County of Calumet, 686 F.2d at 1253. The Court finds that Congress utilized its authority under the Spending Clause and under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution in enacting the Rehabilitation Act. Because the Court finds that Congressional authority for the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act arises in the Fourteenth Amendment, the Eleventh Amendment does not immunize Defendants from suit.
C. Doctrine of Ex parte Young
Even if Defendants were immune under the Eleventh Amendment, their immunity would be subject to the exception of Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 155-56, 28 S.Ct. 441, 452-53, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908). Ex parte Young created an exception to the principle that States may not be sued in federal court unless they consent, or unless

Congress, pursuant to a valid exercise of power, unambiguously expresses its intent to abrogate the States' immunity. Green v. Mansour, 474 U.S. 64, 68, 106 S.Ct. 423, 426, 88 L.Ed.2d 371 (1985). Ex parte Young held that the Eleventh Amendment does not preclude federal courts from granting prospective injunctive relief to prevent individual state officials from violating federal law. Young, 209 U.S. at 155-56, 28 S.Ct. at 452-53; Green, 474 U.S. at 68, 106 S.Ct. at 426.
Citing Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp., 337 U.S. 682, 687, 69 S.Ct. 1457, 1460, 93 L.Ed. 1628 (1949) superseded in part by 5 U.S.C. § 702, Defendants argue that Young is inapplicable because Plaintiffs' claims are essentially directed against the State, not against the individuals named in the suit. In Larson, the Court explained that a suit nominally addressed to a government employee, but which actually requires relief 1264 against the government, is barred because the court, in the absence of consent, *1264 has no jurisdiction over a suit against the government. Larson, 337 U.S. at 688, 69 S.Ct. at 1460. However, there are exceptions to this rule. Id. at 689, 69 S.Ct. at 1461. One exception is a case in which the statute conferring power on the government employee is unconstitutional, because the conduct against which relief is sought is beyond the employee's powers and is, therefore, not the conduct of the government. Id. at 690, 69 S.Ct. at 1461. This exception is based on the same reasoning as that relied upon in Young. "The theory of Young was that an unconstitutional statute is void, and therefore does not `impart to [the official] any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States'". Green, 474 U.S. at 68, 106 S.Ct. at 426 (citing Young, 209 U.S. at 159-60, 28 S.Ct. at 453-54). By the same token, Young also held that officials do not have immunity for a continuing violation of federal law. Id.
That courts have applied the Young doctrine in cases in which inmates sue state prison officials for violations of federal law is further evidence that Larson does not apply to the case at bar. See e.g. Thompson v. Enomoto, 915 F.2d 1383, 1390 (9th Cir.1990), cert. denied by Rowland v. Thompson, 502 U.S. 1071, 112 S.Ct. 965, 117 L.Ed.2d 131 (1992) (holding that state officials not immune, under Young, from suits alleging constitutional violations); Duran v. Carruthers, 885 F.2d 1485, 1489 (10th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1056, 110 S.Ct. 865, 107 L.Ed.2d 949 (1990) (under Young, prison officials not immune from suit alleging violations of federal constitution and federal statutes). Here, Plaintiffs seek prospective injunctive relief only against state officials acting in their official capacity. Under these circumstances, Larson does not apply.
Defendants also argue that, because the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act have detailed enforcement schemes limiting remedies against the State, they come under the exception to Ex parte Young applied by the Supreme Court in Seminole Tribe. In Seminole Tribe, the Court stated that "... where Congress has prescribed a detailed scheme for the enforcement against a State of a statutorily created right, a court should hesitate before casting aside those limitations and permitting an action against a state officer based upon Ex parte Young." Seminole Tribe, ___ U.S. at ___, 116 S.Ct. at 1132.
The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (the "IGRA") was the subject of the Court's inquiry in Seminole Tribe. Id., at ____, 116 S.Ct. at 1119. The Court found that the IGRA provides for specific limited remedies against the State. Id. The Court reasoned that the limited statutory remedies would be superfluous if a state official could be exposed to the full remedial powers of a federal court in an action brought under Ex parte Young. Id., at ____, 116 S.Ct. at 1133. The Court also reasoned that Congress' creation of the limited remedial scheme is a strong indication that it had no wish to expose States to liability under Ex parte Young. Id.
Defendants argue that, like the IGRA, the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA have limited remedial schemes, but Defendants do not specify what they are. To the contrary, the Ninth Circuit has held that "the full panoply of remedies, including equitable relief and monetary damages" are available under the Rehabilitation Act. Smith v. Barton, 914 F.2d 1330, 1338 (9th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1217, 111 S.Ct. 2825, 115 L.Ed.2d 995 (1991) ; see also Franklin v. Gwinnett County Pub. Schs., 503 U.S. at 72-73, 112 S.Ct. at 1036-37 (stating that the Rehabilitation Act provides a private litigant the full panoply of remedies). The ADA specifically incorporates the "remedies, procedures, and rights" of the Rehabilitation Act. 42 U.S.C. § 12133. Under Ex parte Young, Defendants are not immune from this lawsuit.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
[1] Prisoners with mobility impairments who are housed at the Correctional Medical Facility at Vacaville are excluded from the class.
[2] Only one district court in the Ninth Circuit has squarely addressed the issue of whether the ADA applies to prisons. Bullock v. Gomez, 929 F.Supp. 1299 (C.D.Cal.1996) held that the ADA does apply to prisons. In Fowler v. Gomez, 1995 WL 779128, *2 (N.D.Cal.1995), a qualified immunity case, a judge of this Court found that there was no authority to "clearly establish" that the ADA applied to state prisons at the time of the alleged incident in question.
[3] As noted by Defendants, the Seventh Circuit, in a recent opinion by Judge Posner, stated that, "It is very far from clear that prisoners should be considered `qualified individuals' within the meaning of the [ADA]. Could Congress really have intended disabled prisoners to be mainstreamed into an already highly restricted prison society? ... [T]here are formidable practical objections to burdening prisons with having to comply with the onerous requirements of the [ADA], ..." Bryant v. Madigan, 84 F.3d 246, 248 (7th Cir.1996). This statement was dicta, however. The court proceeded to analyze the plaintiff's claim under the ADA. Id. at 249.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

4 JOHN ARMSTRONG, et al., on behalf

5

of themselves and as representatives of the class,

6 Plaintiffs,

7 v.

8 EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., Governor of

9

the State of California; CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

10

CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION; MICHAEL MINOR, Acting Director of

11

the Division of Juvenile Justice; MATTHEW CATE, Secretary of the

12

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation;

13

JENNIFER SHAFFER, the Executive Officer of the Board of Parole

14

Hearings; DIANA TOCHE, Acting Director of the Division of

15

Correctional Health Care Services; CHRIS MEYER, Director

16

of the Division of Facility Planning, Construction and

17

Management; KATHLEEN DICKINSON, Acting Director of Adult

18

Institutions; and ROBERT AMBROSELLI, Acting Director of

19

Division of Adult Parole Operations,

20 Defendants.

21 ________________________________/

No. C 94-2307 CW
ORDER DISTRIBUTING AND ENFORCING THE AMENDED COUNTY JAIL ORDER AND PLAN

22

Attached to this Order is the Armstrong v. Brown County Jail

23 Plan. Armstrong is a class action under the Americans with

24 Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act (RA) against the

25 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and

26 other State defendants, brought by prisoners and parolees with

27 mobility, sight, hearing, learning, developmental or kidney

28 disabilities that substantially limit one or more of their major

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 life activities. On January 13, 2012 and again on April 11, 2012,

2 as a remedy for violations of the ADA and RA, the Court ordered

3 that CDCR develop, disseminate, and implement a plan for

4 accommodation of disabled parolees and out-to-court prisoners

5 housed in county jails.

6

Defendants’ appeal of the April 11, 2012 order is currently

7 pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Defendants

8 take the position that the counties are solely liable for

9 providing disabled non-life parolees with accommodations legally

10 mandated by the ADA and RA and that the State has no joint

11 responsibility for this. This Court has denied Defendants’

12 request to stay the April 11, 2012 order during the appeal and has

13 ordered that, while their appeal is pending, Defendants are

14 required to comply with the County Jail Plan that they developed

15 in conjunction with Plaintiffs’ counsel. The Ninth Circuit Court

16 of Appeals has denied a stay of this Court’s April 11, 2012 order.

17

Attached to this Order is the County Jail Plan, which

18 supersedes the draft plans that were distributed to the counties

19 on February 27, 2012 and July 12, 2012.

20

The County Jail Plan’s requirements include the following,

21 among others:

22

(1) On or before September 1, 2012, CDCR will send an email

23 notification to each county’s legal counsel or designee

24 identifying each parolee with a disability, including those

25 subject to California Penal Code section 3056, being held in that

26 county’s jail facilities on that date. Beginning on September 1,

27 2012, CDCR will send email notifications once per day to each

28 county’s legal counsel or designee identifying each parolee with a

2

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 disability booked in that county’s jail facilities over the past

2 24 hours. The notifications must include each parolee’s name,

3 CDCR identification number, and last release date from prison.

4 The notification must also include a plain-language description of

5 each parolee’s last-known disabilities and the accommodations in

6 housing or programming the parolee received as of the date he or

7 she was released from prison.

8

(2) On or before September 15, 2012, CDCR will send an email

9 notification to each county’s legal counsel or designee

10 identifying each CDCR out-to-court prisoner with a disability

11 being held in that county’s facilities on that date. Beginning on

12 September 15, 2012, CDCR will send email notifications once per

13 day to each county’s legal counsel or designee identifying each

14 CDCR out-to-court prisoner with a disability sent to that county’s

15 facilities in the past 24 hours. The notification will include

16 each CDCR out-to-court prisoner’s name and CDCR identification

17 number. The notification will also include a plain-language

18 description of the out-to-court prisoner’s last-known disabilities

19 and the accommodations in housing or programming the prisoner

20 received as of the date he or she was transferred from a prison.

21

(3) Beginning on September 15, 2012, CDCR shall provide CDCR

22 grievance forms and stamped envelopes addressed to CDCR to all

23 parolees and out-to-court prisoners with disabilities housed in

24 county jails. The parolees and out-to-court prisoners can send

25 the grievance forms to CDCR through the standard mail. CDCR

26 personnel will encourage parolees and out-to-court prisoners also

27 to use the county jail’s grievance process to request disability

28 accommodations. Whenever CDCR personnel receive a completed

3

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 grievance form from a parolee or out-to-court prisoner in county

2 jail, they shall forward the grievance form to the county’s legal

3 counsel or designee as soon as possible and no later than three

4 business days after receipt. CDCR shall respond to the grievances

5 within the timeframes set forth in the County Jail Plan and may

6 contact counties to request information for a response.

7

(4) Beginning no later than September 15, 2012, if CDCR

8 personnel become aware that an out-to-court prisoner or parolee

9 with a disability faces an urgent or emergency situation (for

10 example, if there is an allegation of a condition that is a threat

11 to the individual’s health or safety or that would prevent his or

12 her participation or effective communication in a parole

13 revocation proceeding), CDCR will notify the county’s designee or

14 legal counsel immediately.

15

CDCR will implement all remaining provisions of the County

16 Jail Plan by September 15, 2012. This includes, but is not

17 limited to, the requirements that CDCR must review and respond to

18 grievances it receives from class members, promptly share

19 grievances with county officials, review grievances to identify

20 patterns of denials of disability accommodations, and investigate

21 any such patterns identified.

22

Any questions about the information received from CDCR may be

23 directed to the following email address:

24 Armstrongteam@cdcr.ca.gov.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26

27 Dated: 8/28/2012 28

CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge

4

 
 Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2279 Filed04/11/13 Page1 of 7

1 KAMALA D. HARRIS Attorney General of California
2 JAY C. RUSSELL Supervising Deputy Attorney General
3 JANELLE M. SMITH, GIAM M. NGUYEN, JILLIAN R. WEADER
4 Deputy Attorney Generals JAY M. GOLDMAN
5 Supervising Deputy Attorney General State Bar No. 168141
6 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102-7004
7 Telephone: (415) 703-5846 Fax: (415) 703-5843
8 E-mail: Jay.Goldman@doj.ca.gov Attorneys for Defendants
9

10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12

OAKLAND DIVISION

13

14

JOHN ARMSTRONG, et al.,

C 94-2307 CW

15

Plaintiffs,

16

v.

DEFENDANTS’ EVIDENTIARY

17

OBJECTIONS AND REQUEST TO

STRIKE THE EXPERT DECLARATION

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

OF PABLO STEWART, AND EXHIBITS

3-5 AND PARAGRAPH 7 TO THE

19

Defendants. DECLARATION OF CORENE

KENDRICK IN SUPPORT OF

20

PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY TO

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO

21

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A

FURTHER ENFORCEMENT ORDER

22

AND CONTEMPT ORDER

23

Date:

May 16, 2013

Time:

2:00 p.m.

24

Dept:

2

Judge:

The Honorable Claudia Wilken

25

26

27

28

Defs.’ Evid. Objs. & Req. Strike Stewart Decl. & Portions of Kendrick Reply Decl. (C 94-2307 CW)

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2279 Filed04/11/13 Page2 of 7

1

Defendants object to, and request that this Court strike and disregard, the Declaration of

2 Pablo Stewart, M.D. [ECF Doc. No. 2274], and three inmate declarations attached as Exhibits 3-5

3 to the Declaration of Corene Kendrick in Support of Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defendants’ Opposition

4 to Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Further Enforcement Order and for an Order Holding Defendants in

5 Contempt of Court [ECF Doc. No. 2273]. These four declarations consist of new evidence

6 submitted with Plaintiffs’ reply that could have been submitted with Plaintiffs’ motion. The

7 Stewart declaration must also be excluded because the declarant is not qualified as an expert on

8 the subject of effective communication with hearing-impaired individuals. And the Stewart and

9 inmate declarations, and paragraph seven of the Kendrick declaration, must also be excluded on

10 additional evidentiary grounds detailed below.

11

Objections to the Declaration of Pablo Stewart, M.D.

12

1. Defendants object to the Stewart declaration in its entirety because it is improper

13 expert witness testimony. Stewart has not demonstrated in his declaration that he is an expert on

14 the subject of what constitutes effective communication with hearing-impaired individuals, which

15 is the issue before the Court. Consequently, Stewart’s testimony violates Federal Rule of

16 Evidence 702 because he is not qualified as an expert on effective communication with hearing-

17 impaired individuals based on his knowledge, skill, experience, training or education.

18 Fed.R.Evid. 702; see also Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

19

2. Defendants object to the Stewart declaration in its entirety because it is improper

20 reply evidence that must be disregarded and stricken. Plaintiffs’ counsel retained Stewart to

21 analyze “CDCR’s policy not to provide sign language interpreters to assist deaf prisoners in

22 communicating with Licensed Psychiatric Technicians for the rounds in Administrative

23 Segregation Units and Secure Housing Units.” (Stewart Decl. ¶ 18.) But on February 28, 2013,

24 Plaintiffs moved this Court to hold Defendants in contempt of court for their January 2013 policy,

25 developed jointly with the receiver appointed in Plata v. Brown, whereby psychiatric technicians

26 conduct rounds in administrative segregation and security housing units without a sign language

27 interpreter. Plaintiffs should have submitted the Stewart declaration with their opening papers,

28 1
Defs.’ Evid. Objs. & Req. Strike Stewart Decl. & Portions of Kendrick Reply Decl. (C 94-2307 CW)

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2279 Filed04/11/13 Page3 of 7

1 rather than waiting to file this declaration after Defendants filed their opposition, because it

2 concerns the basis for Plaintiffs’ motion and is not simply a response to Defendants’ opposition.

3

The Ninth Circuit and other courts have consistently held that new evidence introduced

4 with reply papers should not be considered without providing the opposing party an opportunity

5 to respond. See Provenz v. Miller, 102 F.3d 1478, 1483 (9th Cir. 1996) (“‘[w]here new evidence

6 is presented in a reply to a motion for summary judgment, the district court should not consider

7 the new evidence without giving the [non-]movant an opportunity to respond’” (citations

8 omitted); Mercado v. Sandoval, Inc., No. 2:08-CV-02648-GEB-EF, 2009 WL 2031715 at * 1

9 (E.D. Cal. July 9, 2009) (court did not consider new evidence raised for the first time in reply

10 because “[t]he reply brief is not intended to be the brief that shows for the first time the movant's

11 evidentiary support for the relief sought in the movant's opening brief”); In re Hansen Natural

12 Corp. Securities Litigation, 527 F.Supp.2d 1142, 1150 n. 2 (C.D. Cal. 2007); Davenport v. M/V

13 New Horizon, No. C 01-0933, 2002 WL 32098289 at * 3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2002). The

14 prohibition on submitting untimely evidence is particularly warranted when, as here, Plaintiffs

15 seek the extraordinary remedies of an order holding Defendants in contempt of court, and new

16 state-wide injunctive terms, based on the late-filed expert declaration.

17

3. Defendants object to paragraph 22 of the Stewart declaration because it is irrelevant

18 to the issue of whether there is sufficient effective communication between psychiatric

19 technicians and hearing-impaired inmates during rounds under Defendants’ current policy.

20 Fed.R.Evid. 401-402 and 702-703. Defendants object to paragraph 22 at 8:25-27 for a lack of

21 foundation because Dr. Stewart is not an expert on effective communication with hearing-

22 impaired inmates. Fed.R.Evid. 702-703; see also Daubert 509 U.S. 579.

23

4. Defendants object to paragraphs 23 through 28 of the Stewart declaration, and Exhibit

24 C, because of a lack of foundation and relevance. The general efficacy of Defendants’ mental

25 health care program is not before the Court. Instead, the sole issue in Plaintiffs’ motion, as to

26 mental health care, is whether licensed psychiatric technicians sufficiently communicate with

27 hearing-impaired inmates during rounds under CDCR’s current policy. Stewart does not indicate

28 whether any hearing-impaired inmate-patients committed suicide while being housed in 2
Defs.’ Evid. Objs. & Req. Strike Stewart Decl. & Portions of Kendrick Reply Decl. (C 94-2307 CW)

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2279 Filed04/11/13 Page4 of 7

1 administrative segregation or segregated housing. Therefore these statements are not relevant and

2 lack foundation. Fed.R.Evid. 401-402 and 702-703; see also Daubert 509 U.S. 579.

3

5. Defendants object, for lack of foundation, to the statement in paragraph 29 of the

4 Stewart declaration that the “purpose of these mental health rounds” includes “evaluating the

5 inmate-patients’ symptoms.” The Coleman Program Guide relied on by Plaintiffs does not state

6 that psychiatric technicians “evaluate” inmate-patients during rounds. Fed.R.Evid. 702-703; see

7 also Daubert 509 U.S. 579.

8

6. Defendants object to paragraphs 33 through 36 because this testimony lacks

9 foundation and is improper expert testimony. Stewart has not demonstrated he is an expert

10 concerning what constitutes effective communication between psychiatric technicians and

11 hearing-impaired individuals. His opinions are inadmissible. Fed.R.Evid. 702-703; see also

12 Daubert 509 U.S. 579.

13

7. Defendants object to the statements in paragraphs 38, 40 and 41 because of a lack of

14 relevance. Stewart alleges that sign language interpreters were not provided for various clinical

15 evaluations and encounters, counselor sessions and group therapy sessions, and meetings with

16 social workers that occurred concerning certain hearing-impaired inmate-patients. But the issue

17 before the Court is whether psychiatric technicians are effectively communicating as necessary

18 with hearing impaired inmate during rounds, not whether sign language interpreters should have

19 been utilized during other types of encounters. Fed.R.Evid. 401-402.

20

8. Defendants object to paragraph 42 for a lack of foundation and because it is improper

21 expert testimony. Stewart has not demonstrated that he is an expert on effective communication

22 with hearing-impaired individuals. Therefore, he has no basis for his opinion that, under the

23 policy developed by the receiver in Plata v. Brown and CDCR “deaf prisoners cannot

24 communicate effectively” and “their risk of harm is significantly greater than prisoners who can

25 communicate verbally.” Fed.R.Evid. 702-703; see also Daubert 509 U.S. 579.

26

Objections to Exs. 3-5 to the Declaration of Corene Kendrick in Support of Reply.

27

1. Defendants object to the three inmate declarations at Exhibits 3-5 of the Kendrick

28 reply declaration because of their improper submission as reply evidence. See authority cited 3
Defs.’ Evid. Objs. & Req. Strike Stewart Decl. & Portions of Kendrick Reply Decl. (C 94-2307 CW)

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2279 Filed04/11/13 Page5 of 7

1 above in support of similar objection to the Stewart declaration. The declarations address issues

2 raised in Plaintiffs’ opening brief, and therefore Defendants are deprived of an adequate

3 opportunity to address Plaintiffs’ newly submitted evidence.

4

2. Defendants also object to the three inmate declarations because they state that they

5 were written for the inmates by sign language interpreters. (Kendrick Reply Decl., Ex. 3 ¶ 9; Ex.

6 4 ¶ 13; Ex. 5 ¶ 12.) But the interpreters are not identified and have not submitted declarations

7 concerning the accuracy of their translations and their qualifications as interpreters. Therefore,

8 the inmates’ declarations violate Federal Rules of Evidence 604 and 901 and should be excluded.

9 Jack v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 854 F. Supp. 654, 659 (N.D. Cal. 1994) (“Witness testimony

10 translated from a foreign language must be properly authenticated and any interpretation must be

11 shown to be an accurate translation done by a competent translator.”); Sun v. Governmental

12 Authorities on Taiwan, No. C 94-2769 SI, 2011 WL 114443, at *7 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (striking

13 translated evidence when there was nothing to indicate “who did the translations and the

14 translator’s competency.”)

15

3. The inmates’ statements to the interpreter/authors of the declarations are hearsay and

16 should be excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 802.

17

4. Defendants also object to the inmate declaration at Exhibit 4, paragraph 10 of the

18 Kendrick reply declaration, which states that “[w]hen I was in SATF in 2012, I only saw a

19 psychologist once a week. Sometimes the appointments would be cancelled or postponed

20 because the interpreter had so many other prisoners to help.” This paragraph should be excluded

21 because it lacks foundation, assumes facts not in evidence, and is not relevant to the issue of

22 psychiatric technician rounds. This inmate gives no basis for his statement about why

23 appointments might be cancelled or postponed.

24

Objection to Paragraph 7 of the Kendrick Reply Declaration.

25

1. Defendants object to paragraph 7 of the Kendrick reply declaration because it

26 mischaracterized the evidence. The declaration states that D. Chandler, an instructor,

27 “acknowledges that the prisoner was moved back to ABE I level ‘because of the difficulty of the

28 Reading assignments in ABE II and that being in the same class with other ASL students would 4
Defs.’ Evid. Objs. & Req. Strike Stewart Decl. & Portions of Kendrick Reply Decl. (C 94-2307 CW)

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2279 Filed04/11/13 Page6 of 7

1 facilitate greater access to ASL interpretation of lessons and tutoring.’” But Ms. Kendrick omits

2 the key phrase preceding her quoted passage, and thereby distorts the evidence she cites. This

3 passage states that D. Chandler reviewed the inmate’s ABE I placement that “had been made at

4 [the inmate’s] request[.]” (Kendrick Reply Decl. Ex. 2 at 3.) The complete exhibit makes clear

5 that the inmate had requested his lower-level placement. (Id.)

6 Dated: April 11, 2013 7 8 9

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

10
11
12 CF1997CS0005 13 20684734.doc

s/Jay M. Goldman JAY M. GOLDMAN Supervising Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 5
Defs.’ Evid. Objs. & Req. Strike Stewart Decl. & Portions of Kendrick Reply Decl. (C 94-2307 CW)

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2279 Filed04/11/13 Page7 of 7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Case Name: Armstrong v. Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al.

No. C 94-2307 CW

I hereby certify that on April 11, 2013, I electronically filed the following documents with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system:
DEFENDANTS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS AND REQUEST TO STRIKE THE EXPERT DECLARATION OF PABLO STEWART, AND EXHIBITS 3-5 AND
PARAGRAPH 7 TO THE DECLARATION OF CORENE KENDRICK IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
FOR A FURTHER ENFORCEMENT ORDER AND CONTEMPT ORDER I certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and that service will be accomplished by the CM/ECF system.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on April 11, 2013, at San Francisco, California.

D. Criswell Declarant
40685972.doc

s/ D. Criswell Signature

 
 Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2291 Filed05/06/13 Page1 of 7

1 KAMALA D. HARRIS Attorney General of California
2 JAY C. RUSSELL Supervising Deputy Attorney General
3 JANELLE M. SMITH Deputy Attorney General
4 JAY M. GOLDMAN Supervising Deputy Attorney General
5 State Bar No. 168141 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000
6 San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 Telephone: (415) 703-5846
7 Fax: (415) 703-5843 E-mail: Jay.Goldman@doj.ca.gov
8 Attorneys for Defendants

9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

OAKLAND DIVISION

12

13

JOHN ARMSTRONG, et al.,

C 94-2307 CW

14

Plaintiffs, DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO

15

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO ORDER

v.

DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE BRIEFS

16

ADDRESSING MONITORING BY THE

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR

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

GENERAL

18

Defendants. Dept:

2, Fourth Floor

Judge:

The Honorable Claudia Wilken

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defs.’ Reply to Pls. Resp. to Order for Briefing re Monitoring by Inspector General (C 94-2307 CW)

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2291 Filed05/06/13 Page2 of 7

1

INTRODUCTION

2

In their response to the Court’s order, Plaintiffs’ counsel fail to respond to the Court’s

3 request for information on how an Office of the Inspector General (OIG) monitoring tool might

4 be developed and structured. Nor have they explained why comprehensive and consistent third-

5 party monitoring, using specific monitoring tools and goals, could not better inform the Court and

6 the parties of instances in which Defendants’ Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance

7 might be improved and how that might be achieved. Instead, Plaintiffs’ counsel launched

8 unfounded attacks on the integrity of Inspector General Robert Barton and his staff.

9

Plaintiffs’ counsel fail to address why their subjective in-prison touring, which was

10 criticized by the Valdivia special master, should not be replaced by a neutral third-party. Instead,

11 Plaintiffs’ counsel emphasize that their in-prison monitoring “tours” are “essential” and that only

12 their touring, rather than monitoring by anyone else, can measure Defendants’ ADA compliance.

13 (ECF No. 2290 at 5.) But they offer no evidence to support this assertion. Nor do they

14 acknowledge that, under Defendants’ proposal, Plaintiffs will continue to receive the numerous

15 documents that Defendants now produce, and can continue to interview their clients and CDCR

16 staff to verify or contest OIG’s findings.

17

After over a decade of Plaintiffs’ unfocused monitoring efforts, at a cost to taxpayers of $18

18 million in just the last four years, this Court asked whether there is another way to monitor

19 Defendants’ ADA compliance and protect inmates’ disability rights. Defendants have suggested

20 such a course: replace Plaintiffs’ subjective touring with comprehensive and consistent OIG

21 monitoring structured in the manner proposed by Defendants.

22

ARGUMENT

23

A. Plaintiffs Inappropriate Attack OIG Personnel In Lieu of Answering the Court’s

Questions. 24

25

This Court ordered the parties to file briefs on whether OIG should have a monitoring role

26 in this case, and to describe how an OIG “monitoring role and tool might be developed and

27 structured and how it might be used to evaluate the need for ongoing Court supervision of

28 individual institutions in the future.” (ECF 2231 at 2.) Defendants responded by stating that 1
Defs.’ Reply to Pls. Resp. to Order for Briefing re Monitoring by Inspector General (C 94-2307 CW)

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2291 Filed05/06/13 Page3 of 7

1 “OIG monitoring would prove useful in resolving this case, but only if structured in the right

2 way.” (ECF No. 2252 at 11.) And Defendants provided this Court with a detailed response to its

3 questions that emphasized a plan for comprehensive and consistent OIG monitoring using a tool

4 developed to define and measure “substantial compliance” for each Court ordered requirement in

5 this matter. (ECF No. 2252.) Defendants’ plan also requires that, if substantial compliance is not

6 found, OIG must prescribe specific measures that, if taken by Defendants, would ensure that the

7 rights of disabled inmates are met and substantial compliance is achieved. (Id.)

8

By contrast, Plaintiffs have not complied with the Court’s order to brief it on how an OIG

9 monitoring tool might be developed and structured, and how it could be used to evaluate the need

10 for ongoing Court supervision in the future. Instead, Plaintiffs’ counsel attacked the character

11 and reputation of OIG, and specifically Inspector General Robert Barton. Plaintiffs support this

12 attack by asserting that, in another class action in which they represent the plaintiff-class,

13 Inspector Barton concluded that the defendants had substantially complied with constitutional

14 requirements. Because they disagree with Inspector Barton and his staff, Plaintiffs assert that

15 Inspector Barton and OIG are “highly politicized,” “allied” against Plaintiffs, are “partisan

16 advocate[s],” and “lack neutrality.” (ECF No. 2290 at 4-5, 8-9.)

17

The Court should not continence this personal attack. By law, the OIG is a neutral and

18 independent office, and not a subdivision of any other governmental entity. Cal. Penal Code §

19 6125. The Governor appoints the Inspector General, whose appointment is then approved by the

20 State Senate. Id. The Inspector General serves a six-year term and may not be removed from

21 office during that term, except for good cause. Id.

22

When requested by the Governor or Legislature, the Inspector General must review the

23 policies, practices and procedures of CDCR. Cal. Penal Code § 6126(b). In completing a

24 requested review, the Inspector General must identify areas of full and partial compliance, or

25 noncompliance, with departmental policies and procedures, specify deficiencies in the completion

26 and documentation of processes, and recommend corrective actions such as additional training,

27 policy changes or additional policies, and make other findings or recommendations that the

28 Inspector General finds appropriate. Id. § 6126(d). Indeed, Defendants’ suggestions for how 2
Defs.’ Reply to Pls. Resp. to Order for Briefing re Monitoring by Inspector General (C 94-2307 CW)

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2291 Filed05/06/13 Page4 of 7

1 OIG monitoring should be structured comport with the requirements of Penal Code section 6126.

2 OIG monitoring, if structured to monitor in a clear and structured manner what is necessary to

3 achieve substantial compliance, will aid the Court and prove useful in resolving this case.

4

B. Plaintiffs’ Counsel Are Unable to Define Their Own Monitoring Efforts.

5

Plaintiffs offer no evidence to show they have any standards or structure that guide or

6 inform their very expensive monitoring efforts, for which they have billed taxpayers $11.6

7 million over the last four years for prison monitoring, and $6.4 million for monitoring related to

8 parole. (Defs.’ RJN Exs. A-D, Reply RJN Exs. A-EE.) Instead, Plaintiffs rebrand their

9 monitoring as “qualitative monitoring” in which they look for “trends.” And they attempt to

10 explain away their inconsistent monitoring by asserting that, in some undefined way, they have

11 determined that the disability rights of inmates at each prison are “divergent.”

12

Previously, Plaintiffs asserted a different story. For years Defendants, trying to make sense

13 of Plaintiffs’ inconsistent reports, asked Plaintiffs whether they used a comprehensive monitoring

14 tool for their in-prison “tours,” and—if any such tool existed—to provide Defendants a copy.

15 Plaintiffs’ counsel insisted that if any such tool existed, it was “privileged.” (Defs.’ RJN Exs. E-

16 F.) Plaintiffs’ counsel eventually confessed that there is no monitoring tool. (Id. Ex. G.)

17

Plaintiffs now admit that they have no objective means to measure Defendants’ ADA

18 compliance. Replacing Plaintiffs’ subjective touring letters with the OIG’s objective, fact-based

19 monitoring reports will allow this Court to protect inmates’ disability rights while offering a

20 methodology to bring this multi-decade litigation to a close.

21

C. The Parties Spent Nearly Two Years Jointly Developing A Comprehensive

22

Monitoring Tool; Plaintiffs Now Suggest The Parties Repeat This Process

23

Instead of Replacing Their In-Prison Tours With Neutral OIG Monitoring.

24

Plaintiffs allege their monitoring “compliments” the work performed by CDCR’s Office of

25 Audits and Court Compliance (OACC). Plaintiffs have newly labeled their monitoring as

26 undefined “qualitative” monitoring, while dubbing OACC’s work as “quantitative” monitoring.

27

28 3
Defs.’ Reply to Pls. Resp. to Order for Briefing re Monitoring by Inspector General (C 94-2307 CW)

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2291 Filed05/06/13 Page5 of 7

1 And they suggest that, rather than end their multi-million dollar tours, the parties should meet to

2 discuss ways to “improve” monitoring that, according to Plaintiffs, is just fine as is.

3

Plaintiffs fail to explain that OACC’s monitoring tool was jointly developed with Plaintiffs’

4 counsel over a nearly two-year period, and was intended by both parties to serve as a

5 comprehensive monitoring tool. (Wells Decl., ¶¶ 2-8 and Exs. A-B.) The process included

6 repeated meetings with Plaintiffs’ counsel, and various draft monitoring tools upon which

7 Plaintiffs’ counsel offered numerous comments and suggestions, nearly all of which were

8 incorporated into the final monitoring tool. (Id. ¶¶ 4-7 and Exs. A-B.) In September 2008, once

9 Plaintiffs were satisfied, OACC began using the jointly-developed monitoring tool in ADA and

10 remedial plan compliance audits. (Id. ¶¶ 8-9.)

11

Now Plaintiffs disparage this comprehensive monitoring by OACC. (ECF No. 2290 at 8-

12 9.) But this should not deflect the Court from considering comprehensive OIG monitoring in lieu

13 of Plaintiffs’ undefined and inconsistent “tours” and letters. If Plaintiffs’ counsel truly want to

14 improve monitoring in this case, they could work with OIG to develop a monitoring tool that, as

15 proposed by Defendants, will define the requirements of the Court’s remedial orders, establish

16 consistent means to measure Defendants’ overall rate of compliance at each prison for each

17 requirement, and set a specific and measureable definition for substantial compliance at each

18 prison for each requirement, while also documenting any individual instances of noncompliance.

19 (ECF No. 2252 at 2, 5-6.) As discussed above, this was done years ago with OACC. It could be

20 done with OIG if Plaintiffs truly wished to assist in developing a means to objectively measure

21 Defendants’ ADA compliance and protect disabled inmates’ rights.

22

D. Plaintiffs Will Retain Ample Means to Verify OIG’s Findings.

23

Plaintiffs contend that under Defendants’ proposal for the replacement of Plaintiffs’

24 counsel’s in-prison “tours” and reports with structured OIG monitoring, Plaintiffs will not have

25 copies of the documents OIG reviews, and thus will be unable to comment on OIG’s reports.

26 (ECF No. 2290 at 20.) This is false. Defendants proposed that the OIG “shall have access to the

27 same documents that are currently produced to Plaintiffs’ counsel.” (ECF No. 2252 at 8.) If the

28 Court agrees with Defendants’ suggestions, Plaintiffs will still be able to interview Defendants’ 4
Defs.’ Reply to Pls. Resp. to Order for Briefing re Monitoring by Inspector General (C 94-2307 CW)

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2291 Filed05/06/13 Page6 of 7

1 staff, meet with inmates, and continue to receive a vast variety and quantity of periodic document

2 production on every facet of this case. Although Plaintiffs’ counsel now assert they primarily

3 review only responses to Form 1824 grievances (ECF No. 2290 at 15), they demand, and

4 Defendants regularly produce, a wide variety of documents. (Knowles Decl., ¶ 3.) That will

5 continue under Defendants’ proposal.

6

CONCLUSION

7

OIG monitoring in lieu of Plaintiffs’ in-prison “tours,” if structured correctly, will help

8 resolve this case and is the most effective means of enforcing inmates’ disability rights.

9 Dated: May 6, 2013 10 11 12

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

13
14
15 CF1997CS0005 16 20688863.doc

s/ Jay M. Goldman JAY M. GOLDMAN Supervising Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 5
Defs.’ Reply to Pls. Resp. to Order for Briefing re Monitoring by Inspector General (C 94-2307 CW)

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2291 Filed05/06/13 Page7 of 7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Case Name: Armstrong v. Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al.

No. C 94-2307 CW

I hereby certify that on May 6, 2013, I electronically filed the following documents with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system:
1. DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE BRIEFS ADDRESSING MONITORING BY THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
2. DECLARATION OF M. KNOWLES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE BRIEFS ADDRESSING MONITORING BY THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
3. DECLARATION OF RICHARD WELLS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE BRIEFS ADDRESSING MONITORING BY THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL; EXHIBIT A-B
4. DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE BRIEFS ADDRESSING MONITORING BY THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL; EXHIBIT A TO EE
5. DEFENDANTS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO FEBRUARY 4, 2013, ORDER REGARDING MONITORING BY THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
6. PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO FEBRUARY 4, 2013, ORDER REGARDING MONITORING BY THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

I certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and that service will be accomplished by the CM/ECF system.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on May 6, 2013, at San Francisco, California.

D. Criswell Declarant
20691057.doc

s/ D. Criswell Signature

 
 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

4 JOHN ARMSTRONG, et al., on behalf

5

of themselves and as representatives of the class,

6 Plaintiffs,

7 v.

8 EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., Governor of

9

the State of California; CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

10

CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION; MICHAEL MINOR, Director of the

11

Division of Juvenile Justice; DR. JEFFREY A. BEARD, Secretary of

12

the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation;

13

JENNIFER SHAFFER, the Executive Officer of the Board of Parole

14

Hearings; DIANA TOCHE, Acting Director of the Division of

15

Correctional Health Care Services; CHRIS MEYER, Director

16

of the Division of Facility Planning, Construction and

17

Management; KATHLEEN DICKINSON, Director of Adult Institutions;

18

and DAN STONE, Director of Division of Adult Parole

19 Operations,

No. C 94-2307 CW
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR A FURTHER ENFORCEMENT ORDER AND DENYING MOTION TO HOLD DEFENDANTS IN CONTEMPT OF COURT (Docket No. 2236)

20 Defendants.

________________________________/ 21
Plaintiffs move to enforce, and hold Defendants in contempt 22
for violating, the Court’s prior orders, on the basis that 23
Defendants have consistently failed to provide sign language 24
interpreters (SLIs) during education and vocational programs at 25
the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (SATF) and for failing to 26
provide SLIs during psychiatric technicians’ rounds for patients 27
housed in administrative segregation housing units. Defendants 28

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 oppose Plaintiffs’ motion. For the reasons set forth below, the

2 Court GRANTS the motion to enforce its prior orders and DENIES the

3 motion to hold Defendants in contempt.

4

BACKGROUND

5

In a series of orders between 1996 and 2002, the Court found

6 that Defendants’ treatment of prisoners with disabilities violated

7 the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) and section 504 of the

8 Rehabilitation Act.

9

On January 3, 2001, Defendants issued the amended Armstrong

10 Remedial Plan (ARP) setting forth their own policies and plans to

11 come into compliance with their obligations under these federal

12 laws. See Kendrick Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. 1 (ARP).

13

Among other things, the ARP addressed effective communication

14 for deaf inmates. It recognized, “Because of the critical

15 importance of communication involving due process or health care,

16 the standard for equally effective communication is higher when

17 these interests are involved.” Kendrick Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. 1, 4,

18 § II.E.2. The ARP mandates that an “inmate’s ability to lip read

19 shall not be the sole source used by staff as a means of effective

20 communication involving due process or medical consultations,

21 unless the inmate has no other means of communication.” Id. at 6,

22 § II.E.2.f. The ARP also provides, “Qualified sign language

23 interpreters . . . will be provided for all due process functions

24 and medical consultations that fall within the scope of those

25 described below when sign language is the inmate’s primary or only

26 means of effective communication, unless the inmate waives the

27 assistance of an interpreter, reasonable attempts to obtain one

28 are not successful, and/or delay would pose a safety or security

2

1 risk.” Id. at 5, § II.E.2.d. In the event that “a qualified sign

2 language interpreter is not available, or is waived by the inmate,

3 and communication is attempted,” staff are required to “employ the

4 most effective form of communication available, using written

5 notes; staff interpreters who are able to interpret effectively,

6 accurately and impartially, both receptively and expressively,

7 using any necessary specialized vocabulary; or any other

8 appropriate means.” Id. at 5-6. Covered medical consultations

9 included, for example, those pertaining to “[e]xplanation of

10 procedures, tests, treatment, treatment options, or surgery,” and

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

11 “mental health evaluations, group and individual therapy,

12 counseling and other therapeutic activities.” Id. at 6. The list

13 of medical consultations is “neither exhaustive nor mandatory, and

14 shall not imply that there are no other circumstances when it may

15 be appropriate to provide interpreters for effective communication

16 nor that an interpreter must always be provided in these

17 circumstances.” Id. The ARP also requires equal access for deaf

18 prisoners, providing, “Accommodations shall be made to afford

19 equal access to the court, to legal representation, and to health

20 care services, for inmates/parolees with disabilities; e.g.,

21 vision, speech, hearing, and learning disabled.” Id. at 7,

22 § II.G.1

23

24

25

1 The ARP designates as DPH “Inmates/parolees who are

permanently deaf or who have a permanent hearing impairment so 26 severe that they must rely on written communication, lip reading,

or signing because their residual hearing, with aids, does not 27 enable them either to communicate effectively or hear an emergency

28

warning.” Kendrick Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. 1, 3, § II.C.2. the term DPH and deaf interchangeably herein.

The Court uses

3

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

The federal ADA regulations define “qualified interpreter” as

2 “an interpreter who . . . is able to interpret effectively,

3 accurately, and impartially, both receptively and expressively,

4 using any necessary specialized vocabulary.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.104.

5 The ARP defines “qualified sign language interpreter” to include

6 “a person adept at American Sign Language.” Kendrick Decl. ¶ 2,

7 Ex. 1, 6, § II.E.3. Under the ARP, to “qualify as an ASL

8 interpreter, an individual must pass a test and qualify in one of

9 the five categories established by the National Association for

10 the Deaf (NAD), one of the three categories established by the

11 Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID), or as a Support

12 Services Assistant Interpreter from the California Department of

13 Rehabilitation.” Id. at 6-7.2 Under the ARP, each institution is

14 required “to establish a contract or service agreement with a

15 local signing interpreter service organization in order to provide

16 interpretive services for hearing impaired inmates during due

17 process functions and medical consultations.” Id.

18

The ARP further states, “It is the policy of CDC to ensure

19 that all inmates, regardless of any type of disability,

20 participate in educational/vocational, and work programs.” Id. at

21 29, § IV.I.14.a. Thus, it provided, “Reasonable

22 modifications/accommodations shall be provided to ensure access

23 when appropriate for qualified inmates with disabilities to

24 participate in all programs, services, or activities including

25 vocational assignments,” and “Reasonable

26

27

2 Plaintiffs state that NAD and RID merged their tests into a

single examination called the NIC after the issuance of the ARP. 28 Pls.’ Reply at 5 n.6.

4

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 modifications/accommodations shall be provided to ensure access to

2 academic programs.” Id. at 30, § IV.I.16-17; see also id. at 7,

3 § II.F (“The Department shall provide reasonable accommodations or

4 modifications for known physical or mental disabilities of

5 qualified inmates/parolees.”). “Examples of reasonable

6 accommodations include special equipment (such as readers, sound

7 amplification devices, or Braille materials), inmate or staff

8 assistance, [and] bilingual or qualified sign language

9 interpreters.” Id. at 7, § II.F.

10

On January 18, 2007, the Court found that Defendants had not

11 met their obligations to comply with federal law and the Court’s

12 orders and continued to violate the rights of prisoners with

13 disabilities in four significant areas. Docket No. 1045, 2. As

14 relevant here, the Court found,

15

Contrary to law and the Armstrong Remedial Plan,

16

defendants consistently and systemically deny sign language interpreters to deaf prisoners. Within

17

designated prisons, the violations occur most frequently at deaf [prisoners’] medical and mental health

18

appointments. Plaintiffs have also presented pervasive evidence of violations with regard to suicidal

19

prisoners; in education, work, and other programming; and during classification hearings, harming deaf signers

20

by forcing them to rely on ineffective and inadequate forms of communication such as lip reading and written

21

notes. As such, deaf signers are unable to understand or comprehend significant due process proceedings and

22

medical care provided to them.

Id. at 3. The Court ordered Defendants to “establish as permanent 23

civil service positions qualified sign language interpreters for 24

each prison designated to house prisoners whose hearing 25

disabilities impact their placement (DPH)” and to “employ, through 26

whatever salary is necessary, sufficient qualified interpreters to 27

serve the needs of the DPH prisoners housed at each institution.” 28

5

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 Id. at 8. The Court also required Defendants to comply with the

2 policies and procedures contained in the ARP related to these

3 issues, specifically including those regarding effective

4 communication for deaf prisoners contained in Section II.E. Id.

5 at 9.

6

On October 20, 2009, the Court found that “Plaintiffs have

7 demonstrated that Defendants have violated the rights of prisoners

8 with disabilities under the ADA and Section 504 by . . . denying

9 sign language interpreters to prisoners who need them in

10 educational and substance abuse programs.” Docket No. 1661, 2.

11 The Court found specifically that “Defendants continue to deny

12 deaf inmates access to adequate sign language interpretation in

13 educational programs” and that “sign language interpretation may

14 not be adequate in Defendants’ substance abuse programs.” Docket

15 No. 1700, 5. The Court noted, for example, that in one instance,

16 when an inmate complained that “her inmate interpreter cannot keep

17 up with the course instructor,” in response, “Defendants provided

18 her with written notes and lip reading,” which the Court already

19 found to be inadequate in the 2007 order. Id.

20

To remedy these violations, the Court ordered Defendants to

21 “develop a Plan that includes funding, staffing, training,

22 resources and an implementation schedule.” Docket No. 1661, 2.

23 The Court directed Defendants to file the plan within sixty days

24 and ordered that the plan “must provide for rapid implementation

25 and funding,” with “no implementation date in the Plan . . . later

26 than August 14, 2010.” Id. at 2-3. The Court required that

27 Defendants include a “plan to provide sufficient certified sign

28 language interpreters at, or remove deaf inmates from, prisons

6

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 that do not have interpreters in education and substance abuse

2 programs,” or “alternatively, a plan for providing sign language

3 interpretation through the Receiver’s videoconferencing capacity

4 including explanation of how any problems or delays in

5 implementing such plan will be resolved.” Id. at 4.3 The Court

6 also ordered that “CDCR staff shall comply with the policies and

7 procedures contained in their Armstrong Remedial Plan relevant to

8 the issues outlined above,” specifically including all of the

9 provisions quoted above, such as Sections II.E, II.F, IV.I.14,

10 IV.I.16 and IV.I.17. Id. at 4-5.

11

On December 21, 2009, Defendants filed their plan to comply

12 with the October 20, 2009 order. Docket No. 1686.

13

On January 11, 2010, Plaintiffs filed their objections to

14 this plan. Docket No. 1690.

15

On February 3, 2010, the Court noted that it “has not ordered

16 Defendants to implement their plan” to comply with the October 20,

17 2009 order “or any other,” and that “Plaintiffs indicate that they

18 intend to move for implementation of Defendants’ plan, with

19 modifications.” Docket No. 1700, 6. The Court stated that it

20 would entertain Plaintiffs’ motion. Id.

21

No such motion was filed. In subsequent joint case status

22 statements, the parties represented that Defendants modified their

23 plan after Plaintiffs filed their objections, provided Plaintiffs

24

25
3 In the 2009 order, the Court did not intend the word 26 “certified” to carry a different meaning than the word “qualified”
that was used in the ARP and the 2007 order. Accordingly, as 27 discussed at the hearing without opposition from the parties, the
Court substitutes the word “qualified” for “certified” in the 2009 28 order.

7

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 with their updated plan on May 3, 2010 and began providing

2 in-person sign language interpretation in educational and

3 substance abuse programs in August 2010. See Docket No. 1706,

4 9-10; Docket No. 1720, 9-12; Docket No. 1729, 8; Docket No. 1799,

5 8. The parties also indicated that Plaintiffs were monitoring

6 Defendants’ compliance with the modified plan.

7

LEGAL STANDARD

8

A district court has the authority to make an enforcement

9 order to secure compliance with its earlier orders and governing

10 law. See, e.g., March 21, 2006 Permanent Injunction, Docket No.

11 694, 4-5; Sept. 20, 1996 Remedial Order, Docket 158, 5.

12

A district court also has the inherent authority to enforce

13 compliance with its orders through a civil contempt proceeding.

14 International Union, UMWA v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 827–28 (1994).

15 A contempt sanction is considered civil if it “is remedial, and

16 for the benefit of the complainant.” Id. A contempt fine is

17 considered civil and remedial if it either “coerce[s] the

18 defendant into compliance with the court’s order, [or] . . .

19 compensate[s] the complainant for losses sustained.” United

20 States v. United Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 303–304 (1947).

21

“The standard for finding a party in civil contempt is well

22 settled: The moving party has the burden of showing by clear and

23 convincing evidence that the [non-moving party] violated a

24 specific and definite order of the court.” FTC v. Affordable

25 Media, LLC, 179 F.3d 1228, 1239 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Stone v.

26 City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 856 n.9 (9th Cir.

27 1992)). The contempt “need not be willful, and there is no good

28 faith exception to the requirement of obedience to a court order.”

8

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 In re Dual-Deck Video Cassette Recorder Antitrust Litig., 10 F.3d

2 693, 695 (9th Cir. 1993). “But a person should not be held in

3 contempt if his action appears to be based on a good faith and

4 reasonable interpretation of the court’s order.” Id. (internal

5 formatting and quotation marks omitted). “‘Substantial

6 compliance’ with the court order is a defense to civil contempt,

7 and is not vitiated by ‘a few technical violations’ where every

8 reasonable effort has been made to comply.” Id. (citing Vertex

9 Distrib., Inc. v. Falcon Foam Plastics, Inc., 689 F.2d 885, 891

10 (9th Cir. 1982)).

11

Thus, the Court may grant a motion for an order of contempt

12 if it finds that Defendants (1) violated a court order, (2) beyond

13 substantial compliance, (3) not based on a good faith and

14 reasonable interpretation of the order, (4) by clear and

15 convincing evidence. Id. Once the moving party has met its

16 burden, the burden “shifts to the contemnors to demonstrate why

17 they were unable to comply” with the court order. Stone, 968 F.2d

18 at 856 n.9 (citing Donovan v. Mazzola, 716 F.2d 1226, 1240 (9th

19 Cir. 1983)). “They must show they took every reasonable step to

20 comply.” Id. (citing Sekaquaptewa v. MacDonald, 544 F.2d 396, 406

21 (9th Cir. 1976)).

22

Civil sanctions are appropriate, at the court’s discretion,

23 to encourage Defendants to comply with its order. United States

24 v. United Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 303-04 (1947). In deciding

25 whether to impose a civil contempt sanction, the Court should

26 consider: the harm from non-compliance; the probable effectiveness

27 of the sanction; the contemnor’s financial resources; and the

28 burden the sanctions may impose. Id. at 303-304.

9

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

DISCUSSION

2

As noted, Plaintiffs move for an enforcement order and to

3 hold Defendants in contempt for setting a policy that SLIs would

4 not be provided during psychiatric technicians’ rounds for

5 patients housed in administrative segregation housing units, and

6 for consistently failing to provide qualified SLIs during

7 educations programs at SATF, a facility that houses a large number

8 of deaf inmates.

9 I. Mental health encounters in segregated housing units

10

Plaintiffs contend that Defendants are violating the ARP by

11 failing to provide an SLI for hearing-impaired inmates during the

12 rounds that psychiatric technicians conduct for prisoners housed

13 in the segregation units. As quoted above, and acknowledged by

14 both parties, the ARP provides that, when sign language is the

15 inmate’s primary or only means of effective communication,

16 qualified sign language interpreters must be provided for medical

17 consultations that fall within the scope of a list of examples,

18 including mental health evaluations and other therapeutic

19 activities.

20

On January 3, 2013, Defendants promulgated a new policy

21 detailing sign-language interpretation requirements for medical

22 and mental health encounters. Kendrick Decl., Ex. 31; Eargle

23 Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. A; see also Defs.’ Opp. at 6. This policy provides

24 in relevant part,

25

Licensed Psychiatric Technician (PT) rounds are required

26

for all inmates housed in an Administrative Segregation Unit (ASU) and Security Housing Units (SHU). These

27

rounds are conducted in ASU’s daily seven days a week and weekly for Mental Health Services Delivery System

28

(MHSDS) inmates or biweekly for non-MHSDS inmates in SHU’s. The interaction between an inmate and the PT on

10

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

these rounds does not typically require gathering or the exchange of medical information or making a mental

2

health evaluation or assessment. Instead, the PT observes the inmate and notes what he/she sees. If the

3

inmate indicates a problem by using “hand gestures” (see below) or other means of communication, or if a psych

4

tech has a concern as a result of his/her observation, the PT should contact the physician or other clinician

5

on duty for a clinical evaluation/assessment with the assistance of the SLI on duty (or a contractor if need

6

be). In such a situation staff shall maintain one-onone observation of the inmate until appropriate clinical

7

intervention is obtained. Although the Coleman MHSDS Program Guide notes that the PT is to attend to the

8

mental health needs of the inmates in ASU, that does not mean that every encounter between a PT and an inmate is

9

an evaluation covered by the Armstrong Remedial Plan (ARP) or that observations of the inmate on rounds are

10

equivalent to evaluation.

11

CDCR realizes that mental health clinician encounters require effective communication. Initial placement in

12

ASU can occur on any day of the week, at any time of the day. At the pre-placement screen an SLI will be

13

provided. At that time the PT and the I/P (with the assistance of the SLI) will establish additional hand

14

signals to indicate levels of stress (low, medium, and high) for the inmate to use during PT rounds at which an

15

SLI is not present or available. . . .

Eargle Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. A. 16

Dr. Amy Eargle, the Chief Psychologist of the Headquarters 17

Clinical Support Unit for CDCR’s Mental Health Program, states 18

that no SLI assistance is needed during the psychiatric 19

technicians’ rounds, because they “observe inmates’ appearance and 20

behavior and note their observations,” and “the exchange of 21

important medical information takes place” instead during the 22

“first interaction with the Primary care Provider . . ., which 23

happens at the initial placement meeting for ASI or SHU Housing 24

where an SLI is present. Eargle Decl. ¶ 6. Dr. Timothy Belavich, 25

the Acting Director of the Division of Health Care Services of 26

CDCR, states that the “daily or weekly rounds are brief, 27

unstructured, interpersonal interactions, typically occurring at 28

11

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 cell front,” which “are conducted to ensure an inmate-patient’s

2 general well-being and/or determine the potential need for

3 services.” Belavich Decl. ¶ 8. He states that the interaction

4 “during rounds does not require the [licensed psychiatric

5 technician (LPT)] to gather or exchange medical information.” Id.

6 “Rather, during rounds, the LPT observes the inmate-patient and

7 notes what he or she sees.” Id.

8

As acknowledged in the January 2013 policy, CDCR’s MHSDS

9 Program Guide states that these rounds are to be conducted daily

10 in administrative segregation units and weekly or bi-weekly in

11 security housing units “to attend to the mental health needs” of

12 inmates. Pls.’ Request for Judicial Notice (RJN), Ex. 1, 12-8-7.4

13 It provides that the interactions in these clinical rounds “shall

14 be sufficient to ascertain the inmate’s mental condition

15 particularly during the first ten days” that they are in

16 administrative segregation. Id. at 12-7-5. During the rounds,

17 the psychiatric technician is expected to identify “inmates who

18 have not been previously identified as having mental health

19 treatment needs but exhibit possible signs and symptoms of a

20 serious mental disorder” and refer to them for a clinical

21 evaluation, and to document any “unusual findings that may require

22 closer observation.” Id. at 12-8-7. The psychiatric technicians

23 apparently expect to talk to the inmates; the Program Guide

24

25

26
4 Plaintiffs request, and Defendants do not oppose, that the 27 Court take judicial notice of excerpts of Defendants’ MHSDS
Program Guide, which was filed in Coleman v. Brown, Case No. 28 90-520.

12

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 states, “If an inmate refuses to talk to the LPTs, the LPT will

2 discuss the inmate’s functioning with custody staff.” Id.

3

Defendants argue that the psychiatric technician rounds are

4 not clinical assessments or evaluations and thus that there is no

5 Court order that they have violated by failing to provide a sign

6 language interpreter at these interactions. However, the

7 descriptions of these interactions provided by Defendants’

8 witnesses and their own materials show that these are interactions

9 in which the inmates’ mental health status is evaluated or

10 assessed in some manner. Thus, under the ARP, with which this

11 Court has ordered Defendants to comply, they are required to

12 provide a qualified sign language interpreter at these encounters.

13

Defendants argue that they have complied with the Court’s

14 orders, the ARP and the ADA because it is sufficient to meet the

15 needs of these prisoners to provide qualified sign language

16 interpreters during other mental health encounters or to use the

17 predetermined hand signals to communicate. They state that,

18 according to their policy, if the psychiatric technician has any

19 concerns about the inmate based on his or her observations during

20 rounds, he or she is required to contact a clinician to conduct an

21 assessment, which would be conducted with the assistance of an

22 SLI. However, these rounds may be the only mental health

23 encounters for some or all of the deaf inmates in administrative

24 segregation and they occur much more frequently than other such

25 encounters. The Court also has previously found that Defendants

26 harm deaf prisoners by forcing them to rely on inadequate and

27 ineffective forms of communication, such as reading lips and

28 written notes. Docket No. 1045, 3. The limited hand signals that

13

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 Defendants use here--in essence, thumbs up or thumbs down--are not

2 adequate “to ascertain the inmate’s mental condition” as the

3 technicians are supposed to do here. If the technician and a deaf

4 inmate cannot communicate effectively during rounds, the

5 technician does not have a comparable opportunity to evaluate a

6 deaf inmate for concerns that would lead him or her to contact a

7 clinician for a full assessment, as for an inmate without a

8 disability. The declarations submitted by class members further

9 demonstrate that they felt that they could not communicate their

10 feelings adequately with the technicians. See, e.g., Kendrick

11 Reply Dec., Ex. 4.5

12

13

5 Defendants object to portions of Plaintiffs’ reply and

supplemental evidence on the basis that it is untimely and should 14 have been submitted with their moving papers. Defendants move to

file evidence regarding additional SLI positions created at SATF, 15 which took place after they filed their opposition brief. In the

interest of considering a full evidentiary record, the Court 16 GRANTS Defendants’ motion to submit additional evidence, OVERRULES

Defendants’ objections to Plaintiffs’ reply and supplemental 17 evidence and DENIES Defendants’ motion to strike. Both sides had

an opportunity to address the additional evidence at the hearing 18 on this motion. Further, the evidence submitted by Plaintiffs

with their reply properly responds to issues raised by Defendants 19 in their opposition.

20

Defendants also object that the inmate declarations submitted

with Plaintiffs’ reply brief are inadmissible because they were 21 written with the assistance of sign language interpreters, who did

not submit declarations addressing their qualifications and the 22 accuracy of their translations. Even if authentication by the

interpreters who assisted the inmates with the preparation of 23 these declarations were required, Plaintiffs have since provided

such declarations, see Docket Nos. 2284-6, and Defendants have not 24 argued that they suffered any prejudice as a result of the

interpreter declarations being filed subsequently. To the extent 25 that Defendants argue that the inmate declarations are hearsay,

this is unavailing. The inmates themselves signed the 26 declarations and attested to the truthfulness of their contents

under penalty of perjury, regardless of who prepared the documents 27 themselves.

28

14

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

Plaintiffs have offered clear and convincing evidence that

2 Defendants have adopted a policy not to provide these interpreters

3 and have not substantially complied with the Court’s orders. To

4 ensure compliance with the Court’s past orders, the Court issues

5 an enforcement order requiring Defendants, for all deaf prisoners

6 whose primary means of communication is sign language, to provide

7 a qualified sign language interpreter during all regularly-

8 scheduled mental health rounds and all other encounters within the

9 definition of the ARP. Because there appears to have been a good

10 faith misunderstanding about whether these mental health

11 encounters fell within the terms of the ARP and the Court’s prior

12 orders, which have now been clarified in this order, the Court

13 declines to impose sanctions at this time.

14

Defendants do not argue that they were unable to comply with

15 the Court’s orders or that it would be impossible to do so in the

16 future. Instead, they argue that Plaintiffs’ requested monetary

17 sanctions--“$1,000 for each failure to provide an interpreter for

18 mental health professionals’ rounds when deaf prisoners are housed

19 in segregated housing units,” Pls.’ Proposed Order, Docket No.

20 2240, 5--are not warranted because Plaintiffs have not shown that

21 any inmates have been harmed or that the policy to use

22 pre-arranged hand signals does not work to evaluate the mental

23 health of a deaf inmate.

24

Although monetary sanctions will not be imposed at this time,

25 the Court notes that Plaintiffs have shown that Defendants’ lack

26 of compliance on this issue has created a substantial and

27 unnecessary risk to class members. Plaintiffs have offered

28 substantial evidence that inmates who are in administrative

15

1 segregation are at a substantially increased risk of having mental 2 health needs, self-harm and suicide. Thirty-four percent of all 3 suicides in CDCR were in segregated housing. The Coleman Special 4 Master found that “the likelihood of a CDCR inmate committing 5 suicide in segregated housing units in CDCR prisons is 33.09 times 6 greater than it is in non-segregated housing units, based on total 7 suicides in 2011.” Stewart Reply Decl. ¶ 25, Ex. C, 16-17;6 see 8 also RJN, Ex. 2 (Coleman Special Master’s report showing that 9 thirty-four percent of the inmates who committed suicide in 2010 10 were housed in ASU at the time of their deaths). Defendants 11 object that these statistics are irrelevant because they are not 12 specific to deaf prisoners in segregated housing units. However, 13 these statistics include those prisoners; they show an increased 14 risk to all inmates in segregated housing units, not only to those 15 who are not deaf.7 Plaintiffs also have offered declarations from 16 deaf prisoners who have been in administrative segregation, who 17 felt depressed and who wanted or attempted to hurt themselves. 18 Kendrick Reply Decl., Exs. 4, 5. They said that they wanted to 19

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

20

6 Defendants object to Dr. Stewart’s declaration as improper

expert witness testimony because “he is not qualified as an expert 21 on effective communication with hearing-impaired individuals.”

Docket No. 2279, 1. However, he has shown that he is an expert on 22 mental health treatment and suicide prevention in prisons,

including in segregated housing units. See, e.g., Stewart Reply 23 Decl. ¶¶ 1-14. Thus, he is qualified to testify on the standards

of mental health practices in such settings, which is the subject 24 on which he opines.

25

7 Plaintiffs request that the Court take judicial notice of

the Special Master’s first report, which was filed in the Coleman 26 case. Defendants object on the basis that the subject matter of

the report is not limited to hearing-impaired prisoners. Because 27 the Court has overruled Defendants’ only basis for objection, the

Court grants Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice of the 28 report.

16

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 tell the mental health staff about their feelings but could not

2 communicate with them. Id. To the extent that Defendants argue

3 that deaf prisoners were not harmed because none have actually

4 succeeded at committing suicide since this policy was implemented,

5 the Court need not wait until a death to require compliance with

6 its orders. The Court already found in the 2007 order that

7 Defendants had consistently and systematically denied sign

8 language interpreters to deaf prisoners, including to suicidal

9 prisoners, causing them significant harm. Docket No. 1045, 2-3.

10

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for an

11 enforcement order and directs Defendants to provide qualified sign

12 language interpreters during psychiatric technician rounds, and

13 DENIES the motion for contempt.

14 II. Education and vocational programs at SATF

15

As of March 22, 2013, there were forty-one deaf inmates at

16 SATF who require SLIs. Ramirez Decl. ¶ 5. Of these, twelve are

17 currently enrolled in vocational or educational classes. Id. at

18 ¶ 6. At the time that this motion was briefed, SATF employed one

19 full-time SLI, who provided interpretation services primarily for

20 due process encounters. For SLI services for vocational or

21 educational classes, SATF utilized three companies under contracts

22 with CDCR. Id. at 7.

23

Plaintiffs contend that Defendants have consistently failed

24 to provide SLIs at many educational and vocational classes

25 attended by deaf prisoners at SATF. In support of this

26 contention, they offer evidence of the SLI logs that were prepared

27 by the SLI scheduler at SATF. See Kendrick Decl. ¶¶ 5-13, 15,

28

17

1 Exs. 2-10, 12; Kendrick Reply Decl. ¶¶ 4-5, Ex. 1;8 see also 2 Sweeny Decl. ¶¶ 6-7, 11-17 & Exs. B, C. Defendants acknowledge 3 that these logs “reflect every session of a course where a DPH 4 inmate is enrolled” and “whether or not a certified SLI was 5 present for a class.” Sweeny Decl. ¶¶ 6-9, 11-17; see also Opp. 6 at 11. There is no dispute that the logs show that an SLI was not 7 present at more than a quarter of the classes in which a deaf 8 inmate was enrolled between August 14, 2010 and February 15, 9 2013.9 Further, there is no dispute that, between November 1, 10 2012 and February 15, 2013, the time period covered by the most 11

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

12

13
8 Defendants object to the statement in the Kendrick 14 declarations that SLIs were “needed” but not provided in various
class sessions but do not appear to object to the admissibility of 15 the logs, which are attached as exhibits to these declarations and
which Defendants have independently offered as evidence and 16 authenticated. The Court overrules their objection. The Court
understands the statements in the Kendrick declaration to mean 17 that these were class sessions in which a DPH inmate was enrolled
and no SLI was provided. To the extent that the parties dispute 18 whether the SLIs were “needed” or not in these instances, the
Court addresses the substance of their dispute later in this 19 order.

20

9 Defendants submit the declaration of Aniah Sweeny, who

prepared the SLI scheduling logs. Ms. Sweeny attests that, in 21 addition to tracking education and vocational classes, the logs

also track the “medical and due process encounters at SATF where 22 an SLI was scheduled to attend.” Sweeny Decl. ¶ 9. She states

that, of the 5,805 total encounters tracked on the logs between 23 August 14, 2010 and February 15, 2013, “SLIs were not present for

553 of the encounters (or 9.5%).” Id. She also states that 4,055 24 of these encounters “were medical, mental health, dental or due

process (disciplinary) appointments,” and of these 4,055 25 encounters, “an SLI was not present for 57 of the encounters

(1.4%).” Id. at ¶ 10. Subtracting the latter numbers from the 26 total numbers reveals that, of the remaining approximately 1,750

encounters, which were the educational and vocational classes, an 27 SLI was not present in about 496 instances, or about 28% of the

time. Cf. Pls.’ Reply, 4 & n.5 (calculating “a 28% error rate” 28 for this time period).

18

1 recent log produced by Defendants,10 the entries show that there

2 was no SLI present for at least twenty-five percent of the classes

3 that included deaf inmates.11

4

Plaintiffs also submit evidence that deaf prisoners at SATF

5 have filed grievances about the lack of SLIs in their educational

6 and vocational classes. See Kendrick Decl. ¶¶ 17-18, Exs. 14 &

7 15. In one of these, dated June 20, 2012, a deaf prisoner wrote

8 that he had not had an interpreter for over a month in his class

9 and that this was disruptive to him. Id. at ¶ 17, Ex. 14. In

10 response, the warden admitted that

11

the State has a contract with three companies that

12

provide Sign Language Interpreters (SLI). The SLI are freelance and the institution has no control over when

13

they choose to work. It is noted there are not enough SLIs for one to be assigned to all classes within the

14

Education and Vocational classes. Moreover, the institution does not have back up interpreters.

15 Id. The warden stated that, although teachers inform the SLIs

16 when they “are scheduled to lecture, . . . the SLIs are not

17 available.” Id. In another grievance, an inmate requested an SLI

18 in his electronics vocational course. Id. at ¶ 18, Ex. 15. In

19

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

20

10 Defendants argue that Plaintiffs did not provide with their

moving papers any logs covering a period more recent than October 21 2012. However, Defendants did not turn over the more recent logs

from November 2012 through February 2013 until March 7, 2013, a 22 week after Plaintiffs filed their motion on February 28, 2013.

See Kendrick Reply Decl. ¶ 4; Docket No. 2236. In addition, 23 Defendants submitted the updated logs with their opposition brief

and Plaintiffs also offered them with their reply brief, to which 24 Defendants did not object.

25

11 Defendants’ evidence indicates that the “log entries . . .

show a certified SLI was present for 74.4% of the classes during 26 this time period.” Sweeny Decl. ¶ 7. Plaintiffs calculate from

the logs that there were ninety-one classes without an SLI, out of 27 a total of 334 classes during this time period, resulting in

twenty-seven percent of classes being without an SLI. Kendrick 28 Reply Decl. ¶ 5.

19

1 response, on September 25, 2012, the associate warden wrote,

2 “Continuous efforts have been made to provide SLI services;

3 however there are not enough SLI interpreters to facilitate the

4 need.” Id. He added that the institution would “continue

5 diligent efforts to provide SLI services on a rotational basis

6 depending upon availability of the SLI’s.” Id.

7

Defendants further argue that the logs do not show those

8 instances where they use the services of an inmate sign language

9 aide (SLA) instead of a qualified SLI to interpret for a deaf

10 prisoner in a class. Id. at 11-12. Plaintiffs respond that

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

11 Defendants did not show how often these SLAs were in classes or

12 that these individuals were qualified as required by the Court’s

13 order. The Court has previously found that Defendants were

14 continuing to deny deaf inmates access to adequate sign language

15 interpretation in education and vocational programs and that the

16 unqualified inmate interpreters were not sufficient for this

17 purpose. Docket No. 1700, 4-5; see also Docket No. 523, 11

18 (recognizing that “using unqualified interpreters may hinder

19 communication”). Defendants have not offered evidence that the

20 SLAs are qualified under the ARP or the ADA.12 The Court notes

21 that, because of the failure to provide adequate interpretation,

22 it has already ordered Defendants to establish permanent civil

23

24

12 Defendants have provided evidence that the “inmate job

description” for SLAs includes as a requirement that the inmate be 25 “Able to communicate using American Sign Language” as “determined

by Mr. Shaewitz, the certified sign language interpreter on 26 permanent staff at SATF.” Ramirez Decl. ¶¶ 9-10 & Ex. F, 3. No

evidence is provided to show, among other things, that the SLAs 27 are adept at American Sign Language, are able to interpret

28

effectively, accurately, and impartially, or have passed any of the required tests or qualifications.

20

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 service positions for qualified sign language interpreters at each

2 prison designated to house prisoners with hearing disabilities.

3

Defendants also contend that their logs are insufficient to

4 show that they failed to comply with any requirement that they

5 provide qualified interpreters in that the logs do not track

6 instances where the class did not require an interpreter “because

7 the lesson plan did not require verbal communication for that

8 session,” where the deaf student refused the SLI’s services, where

9 a class was cancelled or where the deaf student was absent from

10 the class in which he was enrolled. Defs.’ Opp. at 11. However,

11 the logs do identify at least some instances in which the deaf

12 prisoner was absent, the class was cancelled or the deaf prisoner

13 refused the services of an SLI. See, e.g., Aniah Decl., Ex. B, 48

14 (indicating “Inmate Refused”); Aniah Decl., Ex. C, 24 (indicating

15 “CLASS CANCELLED”); Aniah Decl., Ex. C, 37 (indicating “INMATE NOT

16 IN CLASS”). Defendants have not offered evidence of how many

17 classes listed on their logs had lesson plans that did not require

18 verbal communication. Defendants, not Plaintiffs, control what

19 information is or is not logged and Defendants, but not

20 Plaintiffs, could have chosen to document these reasons. Because

21 Defendants failed to log consistently the information that might

22 show that an SLI was not required for a particular class meeting,

23 and in light of the written acknowledgments from the wardens about

24 the reasons that SLIs were not always provided as needed, the

25 Court declines to infer that Defendants’ claimed vitiating

26 circumstances existed regularly. Thus, the Court finds that these

27 arguments do not undermine Plaintiffs’ prima facie showing that

28 Defendants did not provide SLIs in many education and vocational

21

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 classes in which deaf inmates were enrolled.

2

Defendants also represent that they have made an effort to

3 schedule a qualified SLI at each class in which a deaf student was

4 enrolled since the middle of 2010 by utilizing contractors, but

5 that the contractors they use are sometimes unable to provide SLIs

6 and that the facility “cannot obtain SLI coverage through other

7 contractors because [it is] required to use the three state-

8 approved contractors.” Sweeny Decl. ¶ 3; see also Ramirez Decl.

9 ¶ 6 (noting that the state was required to “accept the lowest-

10 priced proposal” when contracting for these services). However,

11 this excuse is unavailing. The Court previously required

12 Defendants to establish permanent civil service positions, at

13 whatever salary necessary, in order to provide adequate services

14 for these purposes. Defendants are required to have sufficient

15 SLIs on staff to provide the needed interpretation services.

16 Although there may be instances in which an SLI is unavailable,

17 for example, if a staff member is unexpectedly ill and no

18 substitute can be located, failing to provide an interpreter in

19 education and vocational classes twenty-five percent of the time,

20 without addressing the problem, for years before Plaintiffs filed

21 a motion for contempt, simply does not constitute making a

22 reasonable effort to comply with the Court’s prior orders.

23

Defendants could have sought approval for additional civil

24 service positions or increased contractor services but failed to

25 do so, until after Plaintiffs brought this motion. Since that

26 time, Defendants obtained approval to increase the funding for

27 contract SLIs by the equivalent of one full-time position,

28 bringing its total contract SLIs from 2.5 to 3.5 full-time

22

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 equivalents. Sweeny Decl. ¶ 5. The increased contractor services

2 went into effect on April 8, 2013. Between April 8, 201313 and

3 April 30, 2013, the SLIs did not attend eleven of the one hundred

4 scheduled classes; the logs indicate that the reasons for these

5 absences were that a contract “SLI called in sick” or there was

6 “no SLI available per contractor.” Sweeny Suppl. Decl. ¶ 2, Ex.

7 A.14 After this motion was briefed, Defendants submitted evidence

8 that they have also obtained authorization to increase from one to

9 three the number of full-time qualified SLIs at SATF that they

10 employ directly in civil service positions. Defendants contend

11 that this increase will make them less reliant on contract SLI

12 services. Knowles Suppl. Decl. ¶ 8 & Exs. A-C. At the hearing,

13 Defendants also represented that they planned to begin

14 consistently logging additional information, including if a class

15 was cancelled or if a deaf inmate was absent from a class meeting.

16

Because of Defendants’ extended failure to provide SLIs in

17 many education and vocational classes in violation of the Court’s

18 prior orders, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce those

19 orders. Because Defendants have demonstrated that they are

20 presently making substantial efforts to reach compliance with the

21 Court’s orders and the ADA requirements by voluntarily increasing

22 both the contract and civil services positions for qualified SLIs

23 at SATF, the Court finds that no civil contempt sanctions are

24

25

13 It appears that there were no classes scheduled between

April 3 and 8. Sweeny Suppl. Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A. 26

14 The Court notes that the logs do not show whether 27 Defendants made efforts to find a substitute SLI when one called

in sick or whether none of the three contractors was able to 28 provide an SLI.

23

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 needed at the present time to coerce their compliance.

2 Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion for contempt for their failure to

3 provide qualified SLIs at educational and vocational classes at

4 the facility is DENIED. This denial is without prejudice to

5 renewal if Defendants fail to provide proper services in the

6 future.

7

CONCLUSION

8

For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’

9 motion to enforce and DENIES the motion to hold Defendants in

10 contempt (Docket No. 2236). This order also resolves Docket Nos.

11 2297 and 2304.

12

The Court hereby orders:

13

1) For all deaf prisoners whose primary means of

14 communication is sign language, Defendants shall provide a

15 qualified sign language interpreter during all regularly-scheduled

16 mental health rounds, as well as all other encounters within the

17 definition of the Armstrong Remedial Plan.

18

2) Defendants shall implement their plan regarding sign

19 language interpretation in educational and substance abuse

20 programs, provided to Plaintiffs on May 3, 2010. As required in

21 the Court’s prior orders, Defendants shall establish permanent

22 civil service positions for qualified sign language interpreters

23 for SATF, for as long as it is designated to house DPH prisoners.

24 Defendants shall employ, through whatever salary is necessary,

25 sufficient qualified interpreters to serve the needs of the DPH

26 prisoners housed at SATF, including at all educational and

27 vocational classes in which a DPH inmate is enrolled, barring

28 unforeseen circumstances. Defendants may seek relief from this

24

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 provision at SATF if their video conferencing facilities become

2 sufficient to provide all necessary sign language services at that

3 institution.

4

3) Defendants shall continue to maintain logs on all

5 educational and vocational programs at SATF to document whether

6 deaf prisoners who rely upon sign language as their primary means

7 of communication were provided a qualified sign language

8 interpreter during the program and who the interpreter was. If a

9 qualified sign language interpreter was not provided, Defendants

10 shall document the reason therefor. Defendants must produce the

11 previous month’s logs to counsel for Plaintiffs by the fifteenth

12 of each month.

13

The Court finds that the relief ordered herein is narrowly

14 drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation

15 of federal rights, and is the least intrusive means necessary to

16 correct the violation of the federal rights.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

19 Dated: 6/4/2013 20

CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

25

 
 Case:C1a2s-1e640:9148-cv-1002/30047/2-C01W3 DocuIDm:e8n8t213070498 FileDdk1t0E/n0t8ry/1: 341-P1ageP1aogfe1:81 of 18

FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOHN ARMSTRONG; JAMES AMAURIC; RICHARD PONCIANO; JACK SWENSEN; BILLY BECK; JUDY FENDT; WALTER FRATUS; GREGORY SANDOVAL; DARLENE MADISON; PETER RICHARDSON; STEVEN HILL; DAVID ROSE; DAVID BLESSING; ELIO CASTRO; ELMER UMBENHOWER; RAYMOND HAYES; GENE HORROCKS; KIAH MINCEY; CLIFTON FEATHERS; WILLIE JOHNSON; DAVID BADILLO; JAMES SIMMONS; FLORA ABRAMS; JOEY GOUGH; TIMOTHY WHISMAN,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,

No. 12-16018
D.C. No. 4:94-cv-02307-
CW

v.

EDMUND G. BROWN, JR.; MICHAEL MINOR; MATTHEW L. CATE; DIANA TOCHE; CHRIS MEYER; KATHLEEN DICKINSON; ROBERT AMBROSELLI,
Defendants-Appellants.

Case:C1a2s-1e640:9148-cv-1002/30047/2-C01W3 DocuIDm:e8n8t213070498 FileDdk1t0E/n0t8ry/1: 341-P1ageP2aogfe1:82 of 18

2

ARMSTRONG V. BROWN

JOHN ARMSTRONG; JAMES AMAURIC; RICHARD PONCIANO; JACK SWENSEN; BILLY BECK; JUDY FENDT; WALTER FRATUS; GREGORY SANDOVAL; DARLENE MADISON; PETER RICHARDSON; STEVEN HILL; DAVID ROSE; DAVID BLESSING; ELIO CASTRO; ELMER UMBENHOWER; RAYMOND HAYES; GENE HORROCKS; KIAH MINCEY; CLIFTON FEATHERS; WILLIE JOHNSON; DAVID BADILLO; JAMES SIMMONS; FLORA ABRAMS; JOEY GOUGH; TIMOTHY WHISMAN,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,

No. 12-17198 D.C. No.
4:94-cv-02307CW
OPINION

v.

EDMUND G. BROWN, JR.; MICHAEL MINOR; MATTHEW L. CATE; DIANA TOCHE; CHRIS MEYER; KATHLEEN DICKINSON; MARGARITA PEREZ,
Defendants-Appellants.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Claudia Wilken, Chief District Judge, Presiding
No. 12-16018 Argued and Submitted September 5, 2012—San Francisco, California

Case:C1a2s-1e640:9148-cv-1002/30047/2-C01W3 DocuIDm:e8n8t213070498 FileDdk1t0E/n0t8ry/1: 341-P1ageP3aogfe1:83 of 18

ARMSTRONG V. BROWN

3

No. 12-17198 Submitted September 27, 2013*

Filed October 4, 2013

Before: Stephen Reinhardt, A. Wallace Tashima, and Marsha S. Berzon, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Reinhardt

SUMMARY**

Prisoner Civil Rights
In an action initiated in 1994 by disabled prisoners and parolees seeking disability accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, the panel (1) affirmed the district court’s August 28, 2012 orders which required California state officials to disseminate and implement a previously negotiated County Jail Plan for disabled prisoners and parolees, and (2) dismissed as moot an appeal from the district court’s April 2012 orders.
Defendant state officials asserted that a narrow portion of a class of disabled state prisoners and parolees was no longer eligible to benefit from the district court’s remedial orders

* The panel unanimously concludes that this appeal is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
** 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:C1a2s-1e640:9148-cv-1002/30047/2-C01W3 DocuIDm:e8n8t213070498 FileDdk1t0E/n0t8ry/1: 341-P1ageP4aogfe1:84 of 18

4

ARMSTRONG V. BROWN

due to amendments to California Penal Code § 3056, which were designed to ameliorate overcrowding in state prisons by placing certain parolees in county facilities. The panel held that although § 3056 altered the balance of control between the state and its counties somewhat while parolees covered by § 3056 were incarcerated, both the instigation of parole revocation and the service of any jail time for revocations enforced state-imposed requirements and served essentially state purposes. Therefore, the state was not absolved by § 3056 of all its responsibility for Americans with Disabilities Act obligations as to parolees placed in county jails to enforce their state-imposed sentences, including their parole conditions. The panel concluded that the district court’s August 28 orders requiring implementation of the County Jail Plan neither conflicted with § 3056 nor required more of defendants than was appropriate to assist in remedying the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act violations for which they bore responsibility.

The panel dismissed as moot the appeal from the district court’s April orders which required renewed negotiations and the eventual dissemination to the counties of a compliance plan providing for, among other things, the tracking and monitoring of class members housed in county jails.

Case:C1a2s-1e640:9148-cv-1002/30047/2-C01W3 DocuIDm:e8n8t213070498 FileDdk1t0E/n0t8ry/1: 341-P1ageP5aogfe1:85 of 18

ARMSTRONG V. BROWN

5

COUNSEL

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General of the State of California; Jonathan L. Wolff, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Jay C. Russell, Supervising Deputy Attorney General; Giam M. Nguyen, Janelle M. Smith, and Jay M. Goldman (argued), Deputies Attorney General, San Francisco, California, for Defendants-Appellants.

Michael W. Bien, Gay C. Grunfeld (argued), Lisa Ells, Blake Thompson, and Michael Freedman, Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP, San Francisco, California; Warren E. George, Bingham McCutchen LLP, San Francisco, California; Donald Specter and Rebekah Evenson, Prison Law Office, Berkeley, California; and Linda Kilb, Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund, Inc., Berkeley, California, for PlaintiffsAppellees.

OPINION
REINHARDT, Circuit Judge:
Since 1994, disabled state prisoners and parolees have been engaged in a seemingly never-ending struggle with California state officials over whether defendants must provide disability accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Rehabilitation Act. These accommodations include basic necessities of life for disabled prisoners and parolees, such as wheelchairs, sign language interpreters, accessible beds and toilets, and tapping canes for the blind. Notwithstanding a series of careful district court orders dating back to 1996 and an opinion by this Court affirming the issuance of a permanent injunction, defendants

Case:C1a2s-1e640:9148-cv-1002/30047/2-C01W3 DocuIDm:e8n8t213070498 FileDdk1t0E/n0t8ry/1: 341-P1ageP6aogfe1:86 of 18

6

ARMSTRONG V. BROWN

have resisted complying with their federal obligations at every turn. These appeals provide no exception. Defendants contend that a narrow portion of the class of disabled state prisoners and parolees is no longer eligible to benefit from the district court’s remedial orders due to a change in California Penal Code § 3056. We reject that contention and affirm the district court’s latest enforcement orders.

BACKGROUND

Our most recent opinion in this case summarized its long history. See Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger, 622 F.3d 1058, 1063–64 (9th Cir. 2010). In that opinion, we affirmed the validity of an ADA regulation1 and concluded that defendants “cannot shirk their obligations to plaintiffs under federal law by housing them in facilities operated by the third-party counties.” Id. at 1074. We made clear that “defendants have the responsibility of ensuring that their prisoners are afforded their rights under the ADA, regardless of where the State incarcerates them.” Id. at 1072.

Since our 2010 decision, plaintiffs have renewed their motion in the district court to enforce the injunction against defendants as it pertains to class members housed in county jails, and California has begun implementation of “realignment,” a plan designed to ameliorate overcrowding in its prisons.

As a part of realignment, amendments to § 3056 became effective on October 1, 2011. Defendants then asserted in the district court that they had been absolved by these amendments of all responsibility for violations of class

1 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(1).

Case:C1a2s-1e640:9148-cv-1002/30047/2-C01W3 DocuIDm:e8n8t213070498 FileDdk1t0E/n0t8ry/1: 341-P1ageP7aogfe1:87 of 18

ARMSTRONG V. BROWN

7

members’ rights while they are housed by state law in county jails.2 The district court rejected this contention in January 2012 and then again in April 2012.3 It also issued orders (“the April orders”) requiring the renewal of negotiations and the eventual dissemination to the counties of a compliance plan providing for, among other things, the tracking and monitoring of Armstrong class members housed in county jails. Defendants appealed these orders. The parties then negotiated a revised County Jail Plan (“the Plan”).

2 Prior to October 1, 2011, § 3056 provided “[prisoners] on parole shall remain under the legal custody of the department and shall be subject at any time to be taken back within the inclosure of the prison.” Cal. Penal Code § 3056 (West 2010). The realignment amendments provided:
“Prisoners on parole shall remain under the supervision of the department but shall not be returned to prison except as provided in subdivision (b) or as provided by subdivisions (c) or Section 3000.09. Except as provided by subdivision (c) of Section 3000.09, upon revocation of parole, a parolee may be housed in a county jail for a maximum of 180 days. When housed in county facilities, parolees shall be under the legal custody and jurisdiction of local county facilities. When released from custody parolees shall be returned to the parole supervision of the department for the duration of parole.”
Cal. Penal Code § 3056(a) (West 2011). The current version of § 3056(a), as amended June 27, 2012, is reproduced in footnote 5.
3 Under realignment, low-level, non-serious, non-violent offenders are not placed on state parole after their release from prison. § 3451. Instead, the counties assume supervision responsibility for these parolees, termed Post-Release Community Supervision parolees. In its January 2012 order, the district court makes clear that its order does not extend to Post-Release Community Supervision parolees, as the plaintiffs opted to not include community supervision parolees in their renewed motion.

Case:C1a2s-1e640:9148-cv-1002/30047/2-C01W3 DocuIDm:e8n8t213070498 FileDdk1t0E/n0t8ry/1: 341-P1ageP8aogfe1:88 of 18

8

ARMSTRONG V. BROWN

On June 27, 2012, additional amendments to § 3056 went into effect, modifying the statute to provide, inter alia, that certain parolees awaiting a revocation hearing or serving a revocation term “shall be under the sole legal custody and jurisdiction of local county facilities”4 while housed in county jails.5 After the governor signed the new version of § 3056

4 It is unlikely that the California legislature intended to place persons under the legal custody of “facilities,” but we will construe the statute in accordance with its apparent intent.
5 The current version of the statute (with amendments in italics) provides:
(a) Prisoners on parole shall remain under the supervision of the department but shall not be returned to prison except as provided in subdivision (b) or as provided by subdivision (c) of Section 3000.09. A parolee awaiting a parole revocation hearing may be housed in a county jail while awaiting revocation proceedings. If a parolee is housed in a county jail, he or she shall be housed in the county in which he or she was arrested or the county in which a petition to revoke parole has been filed or, if there is no county jail in that county, in the housing facility with which that county has contracted to house jail inmates. Additionally, except as provided by subdivision (c) of Section 3000.09, upon revocation of parole, a parolee may be housed in a county jail for a maximum of 180 days per revocation. When housed in county facilities, parolees shall be under the sole legal custody and jurisdiction of local county facilities. A parolee shall remain under the sole legal custody and jurisdiction of the local county or local correctional administrator, even if placed in an alternative custody program in lieu of incarceration, including, but not limited to, work furlough and electronic home detention. When a parolee is under the legal custody and jurisdiction of a county facility awaiting parole revocation proceedings or upon

Case:C1a2s-1e640:9148-cv-1002/30047/2-C01W3 DocuIDm:e8n8t213070498 FileDdk1t0E/n0t8ry/1: 341-P1ageP9aogfe1:89 of 18

ARMSTRONG V. BROWN

9

into law, defendants refused to disseminate or implement the Plan. They adhered to this view despite the district court’s denial of a stay pending appeal, our denial of defendants’ request for a stay pending appeal, and our subsequent denial of defendants’ motion for reconsideration of that denial.

In response to defendants’ refusal to cooperate and implement the Plan, the Armstrong class filed an emergency motion to enforce the district court’s order. The district court exercised its power to “preserve the status quo” pending the decision of the appellate court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(c) and granted plaintiffs’ motion on August 28, 2012 (“the August 28 orders”). The August 28 orders essentially required defendants to disseminate and implement the Plan. Nonetheless, defendants appealed the August 28 orders, reiterating their arguments that § 3056, as amended, absolves them of any responsibility for Armstrong class members during the time in which they are housed in county jails and challenging for other reasons the district court’s jurisdiction to issue those orders.6

revocation, he or she shall not be under the parole supervision or jurisdiction of the department. When released from the county facility or county alternative custody program following a period of custody for revocation of parole or because no violation of parole is found, the parolee shall be returned to the parole supervision of the department for the duration of parole.
6 We reject defendants’ argument that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to issue the August 28 orders. Although an appeal ordinarily divests the district court of jurisdiction over the matters on appeal, Rule 62(c) creates an exception by providing that, “[w]hile an appeal is pending from an interlocutory order or final judgment that grants, dissolves, or denies an injunction, the court may suspend, modify, restore, or grant an injunction on terms for bond or other terms that secure

Case:C1a2s-1e640:9148-cv-1002/30047/2-C01W3 DocuIDm:e8n8t213070498 FileDdk1t0E/n0t8ry/1: 341-P1ageP1a0goef:1180 of 18

10

ARMSTRONG V. BROWN

Defendants argue that realignment divested them of authority over a subpart of the Armstrong class—those disabled parolees housed in county jails pursuant to § 3056—during the fairly brief and intermittent periods in which those class members are either awaiting a parole revocation hearing or detained due to revocation of parole. They also assert that any court-imposed duty with respect to those disabled parolees would interfere with California’s prerogative to structure its internal affairs. They contend that, as a result of the changes in state law, the court may no longer

the opposing party’s rights.” That exception applies here. The district court acted to preserve the status quo and protect plaintiffs’ rights in direct response to defendants’ repeated and willful non-compliance with its earlier orders. Such action was particularly appropriate in this case, which involves a series of enforcement orders dating back over a decade and a continuous course of conduct marked by the development of new facts. See Hoffman for & on Behalf of NLRB v. Beer Drivers & Salesmen’s Local Union No. 888, Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of Am., 536 F.2d 1268, 1276 (9th Cir. 1976) (“[I]n the kinds of cases where the court supervises a continuing course of conduct and where as new facts develop additional supervisory action by the court is required, an appeal from the supervisory order does not divest the district court of jurisdiction to continue its supervision, even though in the course of that supervision the court acts upon or modifies the order from which the appeal is taken.”). Defendants’ arguments that the August 28 orders nonetheless violated Rule 62(c) by materially altering the status of the case on appeal, see Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Sw. Marine Inc., 242 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2001), do not succeed. The August 28 orders reduce rather than increase any imposition on defendants. The three “substantive changes” that defendants identify were anticipated by the injunction issued in January and as amended in April and are only slight modifications of those orders, calibrated to changes in the relevant facts. Most important, the status of this case on appeal remains unaltered by the August 28 orders because the question before us remains unchanged—whether the amendments to § 3056 wholly absolve defendants of responsibility for the Armstrong class members housed in county jails pursuant to that section.

Case:C1a2s-1e640:9148-cv-1002/30047/2-C01W3 DocuIDm:e8n8t213070498 FileDdk1t0E/n0t8ry/1: 341-P1ageP1a1goef:1181 of 18

ARMSTRONG V. BROWN

11

order them to assist the counties with regard to the implementation of remedial actions, whether or not the state has in its possession information essential to the taking of such action. Thus, while defendants have not challenged the fact that the housing of parolees in county jails has led to widespread violations of Armstrong class members’ rights under federal civil rights laws, they insist that they may no longer be ordered to take any action whatsoever that may serve to avert or alleviate such violations with respect to parolees housed in county jail pursuant to § 3056.

We consolidate defendants’ appeals of the April and August 28 orders for purposes of disposition because both raise the same challenge to the scope of the injunction in light of the amendments to § 3056.7

DISCUSSION

I.

Plaintiffs have extensively documented the ADA and Rehabilitation Act violations suffered while serving parole revocation terms or awaiting revocation hearings in county jails. These violations are systemwide and extensive. They involve the widespread denial of mobility-assistance devices to persons unable to physically function without them, the denial of hearing devices to deaf class members, and the

7 Because § 3056 was amended while this appeal was pending, the district court did not rule on the most recent amendments to § 3056. Ordinarily, we do not give consideration to issues not decided below. Romain v. Shear, 799 F.2d 1416, 1419 (9th Cir. 1986). Here, however, one of the exceptions to our ordinary rule is met—the issue on appeal “is purely one of law and the necessary facts are fully developed.” Id. We therefore address it at this juncture.

Case:C1a2s-1e640:9148-cv-1002/30047/2-C01W3 DocuIDm:e8n8t213070498 FileDdk1t0E/n0t8ry/1: 341-P1ageP1a2goef:1182 of 18

12

ARMSTRONG V. BROWN

denial of accessibility devices, such as tapping canes, to blind class members. These denials forced disabled class members into the vulnerable position of being dependent on other inmates to enable them to obtain basic services, such as meals, mail, showers, and toilets.

For their part in these violations, defendants failed to ensure that the counties knew of Armstrong class members’ disabilities and failed to assist the counties with the development of appropriate disability-related policies. The vast majority of these undisputed violations could have been prevented if defendants had shared their knowledge with the county jails as to the accommodations needed by individual Armstrong class members. Those that could not have been prevented might have been cured if the class members had been afforded a grievance procedure through which they could have made defendants and the counties aware of their needs and their right to an accommodation.

The amendments to § 3056 do not relieve defendants of all responsibility for the discrimination suffered by Armstrong class members housed in county jails, past and present, or of their obligation to assist in preventing further violations.

Defendants were and remain an important player in the placement of disabled parolees in county jails without regard to the ADA compliance of those facilities. California’s realignment of authority over certain parolees, including those who are disabled, to its counties has not changed this critical fact. Parole conditions are set by the state, § 3053, and violations of parole conditions are grounds for revocation. § 3000.08(f). The revocation process thus functions to enforce the state imposed parole conditions.

Case:C1a2s-1e640:9148-cv-1002/30047/2-C01W3 DocuIDm:e8n8t213070498 FileDdk1t0E/n0t8ry/1: 341-P1ageP1a3goef:1183 of 18

ARMSTRONG V. BROWN

13

Although courts, rather than defendants, now conduct parole revocation hearings, it is still defendants who initiate the process of parole revocation. § 1203.2; § 3000.08(f). Defendants can also impose “flash incarceration” in county jails of one to ten days without judicial involvement. § 3000.08(e). In certain cases, after a revocation hearing before the state court, defendants, rather than the court, determine the appropriate period of incarceration. §§ 3000(b)(4), 3000.1, 3000.08(h). When state parolees are released from county jails at the end of their revocation term or after a finding that they did not violate their parole conditions, they are “returned to the parole supervision of [the state] for the duration of parole.” § 3056. As a result, although § 3056 alters the balance of control between the state and its counties somewhat while parolees covered by § 3056 are incarcerated, both the instigation of parole revocation and the service of any jail time for revocations enforce state-imposed requirements and serve essentially state purposes. Therefore, the state is not absolved by § 3056 of all its responsibility for ADA obligations as to parolees placed in county jails to enforce their state-imposed sentences, including their parole conditions. See Castle v. Eurofresh, Inc., No. 11-17947, slip op. at 18–19 (9th Cir. Sept. 24, 2013); Armstrong, 622 F.3d at 1063.

Just three years ago, addressing an earlier version of § 3056, we held that “defendants are responsible for providing reasonable accommodations to the disabled prisoners and parolees that they house in county jails.” Armstrong, 622 F.3d at 1063. In the April order, the district court found that defendants remained responsible for continued violations in county jails because, inter alia, of their “ongoing failure to train, supervise, and monitor” their employees and their “ongoing failure to communicate with

Case:C1a2s-1e640:9148-cv-1002/30047/2-C01W3 DocuIDm:e8n8t213070498 FileDdk1t0E/n0t8ry/1: 341-P1ageP1a4goef:1184 of 18

14

ARMSTRONG V. BROWN

county jails regarding the known needs of class members.” These actions and culpable failures to act have played a significant role in causing the undoubted discrimination against Armstrong class members in county jails. The district court’s findings directly implicate defendants in the violations of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act, and they cannot escape responsibility for their conduct by means of the amendments to § 3056.8

The defendants are, by now, well aware of the history of ADA violations and degradations visited on parolees in county jails. In a different context, this court has held that a state may be liable to a child in the foster-care system, even after the child is adopted and “[i]t becomes the adoptive parent’s responsibility to provide for the [child’s] wellbeing,” if the state “affirmatively create[s] a danger that the adopted child would not have otherwise faced,” and the state was aware of the danger it created. Tamas v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 630 F.3d 833, 843–44 (9th Cir. 2010). Here too, the state cannot house persons for whom it is responsible in jails where the state reasonably expects indignities and violations of federal law will continue to occur, turn care over

8 Defendants’ reliance on the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Bacon v. City of Richmond, 475 F.3d 633 (4th Cir. 2007), is misplaced. In Bacon, the district court ordered the city to pay to fix accessibility barriers in public schools despite its never having found that the city had in fact “discriminated against [the plaintiffs],” nor having found that the city bore any of the fault at all. Id. at 636, 639. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit held that the city could not be held financially responsible for the ADA violations. Id. at 637, 639. In stark contrast, here, defendants are responsible for the parolees’ incarceration. And the remedial order does not require the state to fund ADA accommodations generally, but only to facilitate the counties’ provision of disability accommodations through services consistent with the state’s role in placing parolees in county jails as part of a state-imposed sentence.

Case:C1a2s-1e640:9148-cv-1002/30047/2-C01W3 DocuIDm:e8n8t213070498 FileDdk1t0E/n0t8ry/1: 341-P1ageP1a5goef:1185 of 18

ARMSTRONG V. BROWN

15

to county custodians, and then disown all responsibility for their welfare.

We must therefore reject defendants’ categorical assertion that, under the amendments to § 3056, they may no longer be required to assist in any way with the counties’ remedial actions—actions intended to facilitate the accommodation of plaintiffs’ disabilities while they are temporarily detained in county jails. The amendments to § 3056 alter the balance of control between the state and its counties, but do not relieve defendants of all responsibility for the discrimination Armstrong class members suffer. We affirm the district court’s conclusion that defendants have a continuing obligation to assist in alleviating the conditions that result in ADA and Rehabilitation Act violations in county jails.

II.

The August 28 orders, which we review here, are
consistent with federal law and do not infringe on California’s prerogative to structure its internal affairs.9

The August 28 orders require principally that defendants: disseminate a copy of the Plan to their personnel and county officials; track disabled parolees by means of the existing tracking system; within 24 hours after a disabled parolee is detained in jail, e-mail information about that individual’s disability and accommodation needs to the appropriate jail officer; provide stamped envelopes and grievance forms to all parolees and out-to-court prisoners with disabilities housed in county jails, while also encouraging parolees to use county

9 On this appeal, we review only the August 28 orders because they supersede the April orders, which are now moot.

Case:C1a2s-1e640:9148-cv-1002/30047/2-C01W3 DocuIDm:e8n8t213070498 FileDdk1t0E/n0t8ry/1: 341-P1ageP1a6goef:1186 of 18

16

ARMSTRONG V. BROWN

grievance procedures; notify a county designee when CDCR personnel become aware that a class member faces an emergency situation in county jail; review all grievances received from class members in county jails for patterns of non-compliance; and notify county officers of any patterns of denials of disability accommodations by written report, following up where appropriate with another written report on what steps might be taken to remedy the situation.

These minimal measures, consisting largely of notifications, collection of data, and reports to county officials, respect California’s division of authority. The orders do not require that defendants compel the counties to do anything; nor do the orders require any kind of punitive or coercive action on the part of defendants if county officials fail to comply with their state and federal duties.

Further, as a practical matter, the August 28 orders impose only a minor and suitable burden on defendants. Defendants are already heavily involved in the administration of parole at the county and state levels. They concede, for example, that they have responsibility for certain parolees housed in county jails—life-term parolees and out-to-court inmates. Defendants have never challenged the requirements that they act to ensure that these parolees do not suffer discrimination on account of their disabilities while housed in county jails. It is not a significant burden for defendants to apply the same tracking and grievance procedures to parolees housed in county jails pursuant to § 3056. Moreover, defendants’ agents and employees are working with and inside the county facilities on a daily basis to ensure compliance with state and federal law. By state law, defendants must inform parolees of their rights, and therefore, conduct in-person “notice of rights” interviews with each

Case:C1a2s-1e640:9148-cv-1002/30047/2-C01W3 DocuIDm:e8n8t213070498 FileDdk1t0E/n0t8ry/1: 341-P1ageP1a7goef:1187 of 18

ARMSTRONG V. BROWN

17

parolee who is placed in county jail on a parole hold. § 1203.2(b)(1) & (2). Thus, it is only a minimal additional burden to determine whether each parolee is disabled and, if so, to give him a grievance form.10

Accordingly, the August 28 orders are carefully tailored to reflect the state’s division of internal authority. They do not require defendants to interfere with the counties’ authority over parolees housed in county facilities pursuant to § 3056.11 Defendants remain responsible for taking certain measures to ameliorate or avoid the admitted and ongoing violations of plaintiffs’ rights under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, and those measures are fully consistent with the counties’ exercise of their legal custody and jurisdiction over the parolees.

III

We conclude that the August 28 orders neither conflict with § 3056 nor require more of defendants than is appropriate to assist in remedying the ADA and Rehabilitation Act violations for which they bear

10 In the district court, defendants speculated that after local courts assume responsibility for parole revocation hearings in July 2013, state officers may no longer be participating in these in-person, notice-of-rights meetings. Defendants do not press this point on appeal, as they instead argue that the changes to § 3065 absolve the state of responsibility for parolees (other than those with life sentences) while they are in county facilities, period. Recent filings in the district court show that although defendants’ agents are not currently serving petitions to revoke parole, they do serve probable cause determination forms.
11 As the district court explained in the August 28 orders, the plaintiffs sought only to enforce the provisions contained in the County Jail Plan, not the enforcement required by the April order.

Case:C1a2s-1e640:9148-cv-1002/30047/2-C01W3 DocuIDm:e8n8t213070498 FileDdk1t0E/n0t8ry/1: 341-P1ageP1a8goef:1188 of 18

18

ARMSTRONG V. BROWN

responsibility. We therefore AFFIRM the remedial August 28 orders issued by the district court.

In No. 12-16018, the appeal is DISMISSED as moot.

In No. 12-17198, the orders of the district court are AFFIRMED.

In both appeals, Plaintiffs-Appellees shall recover their costs on appeal from Defendants-Appellants.

 
 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

4 JOHN ARMSTRONG, et al.,

No. C 94-2307 CW

5

Plaintiffs,

6

v.

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

ORDER REVISING THE MODIFIED INJUNCTION (Docket No. 2180)

8

Defendants.

9 ________________________________/

10

This order revises Sections D.2. and D.3. of this Court's

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

11 Modified Injunction (Docket No. 2180). It is made pursuant to the

12 Ninth Circuit's recent opinion in Armstrong v. Brown, 2014 WL

13 4783091 (9th Cir.) In that opinion, the Ninth Circuit held that

14 Sections D.2. and D.3. of this Court's Modified Injunction

15 delegated too much authority to the Court-appointed expert witness

16 to resolve disputes between Plaintiffs' counsel and the State. It

17 then vacated those sections, and instructed this Court to revise

18 those sections to be consistent with its opinion.

19

BACKGROUND

20

Section D.2. provides the procedure to be used with regard to

21 disputed allegations of non-compliance. It provides, in relevant

22 part, "If the parties are unable to resolve the dispute

23 informally, Plaintiffs' counsel may request that the Court's

24 expert review and resolve the matter." Armstrong v. Brown, 2012

25 WL 3638675, at *11 (N.D. Cal.), aff'd in part, vacated in part,

26 remanded, by 2014 WL 4783091 (9th Cir.). Furthermore, it states,

27 "Administrative decisions made by the Court's expert pursuant to

28

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 this section shall be final as between Plaintiffs and Defendants."

2 Id.

3

Section D.3. provides, in relevant part, that with regard to

4 incidents in dispute as presented in the parties' pleadings, the

5 Plaintiffs "shall attempt to resolve these disputes through

6 negotiation with Defendants. If negotiations fail, the disputes

7 may be referred to the Court's expert pursuant to paragraph D.2.,

8 above." Id.

9

The Ninth Circuit held that this delegation of authority to

10 the Court's expert is "impermissible" as it extends "beyond the

11 scope of the duties that may be assigned to a Rule 706 expert."

12 Armstrong, 2014 WL 4783091, at * 10 ("While we have approved the

13 appointment of non-judicial officers to make recommendations and

14 resolve disputes ancillary to complex litigation, those

15 appointments specifically limited the expert to making

16 recommendations subject to review by the district court.").

17

Accordingly, the Court revises the modified injunction as

18 follows:

19

In Section D.2., strike the following sentence:

20 "Administrative decisions made by the Court's expert pursuant to

21 this section shall be final as between Plaintiffs and Defendants"

22 and replace it as follows: "Administrative recommendations made by

23 the Court's expert pursuant to this section shall be reviewable by

24 this Court on a motion by any party dissatisfied with the expert's

25 decision. The review shall be conducted pursuant to the

26 requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the procedure for the

27 review of a report and recommendation by a magistrate judge."

28

2

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 Because Section D.3. derives its meaning from Section D.2., there

2 is no reason to alter its language.

3

CONCLUSION

4

Within seven days of this order, Plaintiffs shall prepare and

5 submit, for the Court’s review, a second modified injunction

6 incorporating these changes.

7

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

10 Dated: December 5, 2014 11

CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

 
 Case: C1a2s-1e741:9043-cv-0092/32067/2-C01W4 DocuIDm:e9n2t254438430 FileDdk0t9E/n2t6ry/1: 435-P1ageP1aogfe2: 61 of 26

FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOHN ARMsTRONG; JAMES AMAURIC; RICHARD PONCIANO; JACK SWENSEN; BILLY BECK; JUDY FENDT; WALTER FRATUS; GREGORY SANDOVAL; DARLENE MADISON; PETER RICHARDSON; STEVEN HILL; DAVID ROSE; DAVID BLESSING; EUO CASTRO; ELMER UMBENHOWER; RAYMOND HAYES; GENE
HORROCKS; KIAH MINCEY; CLIFTON FEATIIERS; WILLIE JOHNSON; DAVID BADILLO; JAMES SIMMONS; FLoRA
ABRAMS; JOEY GoUGH; TIMOTHY WHISMAN,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
EDMUND G. BROWN, JR.; MICHAEL MINOR; MAITHEW L. CATE; DIANA
TOCHE; CHRIS MEYER; KATIILEEN
DICKINSON; MARGARITA PEREz, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 12-17103 D.C. No.
4:94-cv-02307
cw
OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northem District of California
Claudia Wilken, ChiefDistrict Judge, Presiding

Case: C1a2s-1e741:9043-cv-0092/32067/2-C01W4 DocuIDm:e9n2t254438430 FileDdk0t9E/n2t6ry/1: 435-P1ageP2aogfe2: 62 of 26

2

ARMSTRONG V. BROWN

Argued and Submitted May 20, 2014---Pasadena, California

Filed September 26, 2014

Before: Stephen Reinhardt, A. Wallace Tashima, and Marsha S. Berzon, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Tashima

SUMMARy*

Prisoner Civil Rights
The panel affirmed in part and vacated in part the district court's order modifying the accountability provisions of an earlier injunction ordering the State of California to take specified steps to ensure that disabled inmates were provided with needed accommodations.
The panel rejected the State's contention that the Modified Injunction was issued without notice and an opportunity for it to respond. The panel further held that the State waived its challenge to the statewide scope of the injunction and also waived its argument that the injunction conflicted with state law and the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the State and prison employees. The panel declined to exercise its discretion to consider these arguments.
* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience ofthe reader.

Case: C1a2s-1e741:9043-cv-0092/32067/2-C01W4 DocuIDm:e9n2t254438430 FileDdk0t9E/n2t6ry/1: 435-P1ageP3aogfe2: 63 of 26

ARMSTRONG V. BROWN

3

The panel held that the Modified Injunction complied with the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The panel held that the district court did not err in finding that a modification to the accountability system was necessary because the State had failed to fulfill the accountability requirements mandated by its previous injunction to track inmates' needs and ensure the receiptofneeded accommodations. The panel determined that the Modified Injunction was narrowly tailored and no broader than necessary to address the federal violations.

The panel held that the district court exceeded its authority in appointing an expert to resolve disputes between plaintiffs and the State because this delegation of authority was beyond the scope ofthe duties that may be assigned to an expert appointed pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 706. The panel therefore vacated that portion of the Modified Injunction and remanded to the district courtwith instructions to revise the Modified Injunction in a manner consistent with the panel's opinion.

COUNSEL
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General of California, Jonathan L. Wolff, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Jay C. Russell, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Janelle M. Smith, Deputy Attorney General, Jay M. Goldman (argued), Supervising Deputy Attorney General, San Francisco, California, for Defendants-Appellants.
Donald Specter (argued), Warren George, Rebekah Evenson, andPennyGodbold, PrisonLawOffice, Berkeley, California; Michael W. Bien, Gay C. Grunfeld, Lisa Ells, Blake Thompson, and Michael Freedman, Rosen Bien Galvan &

Case: C1a2s-1e741:9043-cv-0092/32067/2-C01W4 DocuIDm:e9n2t254438430 FileDdk0t9E/n2t6ry/1: 435-P1ageP4aogfe2: 64 of 26

4

ARMSTRONG V. BROWN

Grunfeld LLP, San Francisco, California; and Linda K.ilb, Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund, Inc., Berkeley, California, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

OPINION
TASlllMA, Circuit Judge:
For more than two decades, disabled prisoners have been mired in litigation aimed at bringing California's prison facilities into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), the Rehabilitation Act ("RA"), and the U.S. Constitution. In this appeal, Defendants, officials responsible for the state's corrections system (collectively, the "State"), challenge a 2012 order in which the district court modified the accountability provisions of an earlier injunction ordering the State to take specified steps to ensure that disabled inmates were provided with needed accommodations. Forthe reasons discussedbelow, we affirm in part and vacate in part the district court's order.
I.
In 1994, Plaintiffs, a class of disabled state prisoners and parolees, filed an action against officials responsible for California's corrections system and parole proceedings, seeking disability accommodations required by the ADA and the RA.1 After a series of orders in which the district court

1 The litigation was bifurcated, with parolees and applicants for parole proceeding on a separate track from prisoners in general. See Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 855 (9th Cir. 2001) ("Armstrongr'), abrogatedon other grounds by Johnson v. California, 543 U.S. 499, 504--{)5 (2005).

Case: C1a2s-1e741:9043-cv-0092/32067/2-C01W4 DocuIDm:e9n2t254438430 FileDdk0t9E/n2t6ry/1: 435-P1ageP5aogfe2: 65 of 26

ARMSTRONG V. BROWN

5

and this court found the State to be in violation of these federal statutes, the State produced a remedial plan intended to ensure that disabled inmates had access to programs and facilities in California's prisons. Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger, 622 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2010) (''Armstrong Ir'). In March 2001, the district court entered a permanent injunction directing enforcement of the remedial plan (the "2001 Injunction"). Id.

By 2007, however, the State had failed to bring its correctional facilities into compliance with the remedial plan and the 2001 Injunction. Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger, No. 4:94-cv-2307 (N.D. Cal. Jan 18, 2007). Accordingly, the district court issued another injunction (the "2007 Injunction"), which provided, in relevant part:

Within 120 days of the date of this Order, defendants . . . shall develop a system for holding wardens and prison medical administrators accountable for compliance with the Armstrong Remedial Plan and the orders of this Court. This system shall track the record of each institution and the conduct of individual staff members who are not complying with these requirements ....

!d.

In response to the 2007 Injunction, the State issued a memorandum outlining tracking, investigation, and reporting protocols designed to address the failings identified by the

This appeal concerns only those orders relating to accommodations for prisoners.

Case: C1a2s-1e741:9043-cv-0092/32067/2-C01W4 DocuIDm:e9n2t254438430 FileDdk0t9E/n2t6ry/1: 435-P1ageP6aogfe2: 66 of 26

6

ARMSTRONG V. BROWN

district court (the "2008 Memo"). The 2008 Memo provided that allegations or reports of staff misconduct would be investigated by a designated Hiring Authority, which would render a decision in the matter. The Hiring Authority's decision would then be recorded in non-compliance logs, which were to be provided to the district court and Plaintiffs' counsel.

In 2012, Plaintiffs, dissatisfied with the State's response to the 2007 Injunction, filed a request for an order to show cause why the State should not be held in contempt for failing to comply with the injunction's accountability requirements. In the motion, Plaintiffs submitted evidence that inmates were continuing to be denied access to needed accommodations and that the State had failed to investigate and record numerous alleged violations of the remedial plan. In opposition, the State argued that the 2007 Injunction required institutions to track only instances of actual employee noncompliance, as found by the Hiring Authority, and not unsubstantiated allegations. The State also argued that the 2007 Injunction did not require it to investigate or log allegations that did not identify a particular staff member responsible for the deprivation, that did not allege that the deprivation resulted from misconduct, or that were later remedied.

The district court disagreed with the State's interpretation of its investigation and logging obligations, but declined to
hold the State in contempt. Armstrong v. Brown, No. 94-cv-
2307 CW, 2012 WL 3638675, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2012). The district court concluded that "the 2007 injunction implicitly required Defendants to include in the accountability system requirements to investigate promptly and appropriately all allegations ofviolations, regardless of

Case: C1a2s-1e741:9043-cv-0092/32067/2-C01W4 DocuIDm:e9n2t254438430 FileDdk0t9E/n2t6ry/1: 435-P1ageP7aogfe2: 67 of 26

ARMSTRONG V. BROWN

7

the source, and to record the outcomes of the investigations, including whether or not the allegations were substantiated ...." Id. The district court further found that the State's reporting practices did not comply with these requirements. I d. However, "in an abundance ofcaution," the district court concluded that the 2007 Injunction might not have stated these requirements clearly enough and, instead ofholding the State in contempt, issued an injunction clarifying the State's accountability obligations (the "Modified Injunction"). Id. The district court modified the injunction explicitly to
mandate that the State investigate and ''track all allegations
ofnon-compliance with the [remedial plan] and the orders of this Court." ld. (emphasis added). The district court also added dispute-resolutionprocedures, including thatPlaintiffs' counsel may review the investigations and that an expert witness would resolve disputes between Plaintiffs' counsel and the State over compliance. Id. at *11-*12.

The State appealed the Modified Injunction on several grounds. The State contends that the Modified Injunction is invalid because it was issued without notice and an opportunity for the State to be heard; that it violates the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"); that the statewide scope ofthe injunction is unjustified by the evidence; that the district court exceededits authority in appointing an expertto resolve disputes between Plaintiffs and the State; and that the Modified Injunction conflicts with various provisions ofstate law and with the Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA") between the State and prison employees.

II.

We review the district court's legal conclusions de novo, the factual fmdings underlying its decision for clear error, and

Case: C1a2s-1e741:9043-cv-0092/32067/2-C01W4 DocuIDm:e9n2t254438430 FileDdk0t9E/n2t6ry/1: 435-P1ageP8aogfe2: 68 of 26

8

ARMSTRONG V. BROWN

the injunction's scope for abuse of discretion. See Scott v. Pasadena Unified Sch. Dist., 306 F.3d 646, 653 (9th Cir. 2002).

ill.

The State contends that the Modified Injunction must be vacated because it was issued without adequate notice and opportunity to be heard. We disagree.

Before issuing injunctive relief, the court must provide the affected party with notice and an opportunity to be heard. Penthouse Int'l, Ltd. v. Barnes, 792 F.2d 943, 950 (9th Cir. 1986). The district court here did so. At a June 7, 2012, hearing on Plaintiffs' contempt motion, the district court provided the State with oral notice that it intended to modify the injunction. During that hearing, it identified its specific concerns with the State's accountability system and explained the particular changes it intended to make. This oral notice, which made the State aware of the changes contemplated, was sufficient. See Kingvision Pay-Per-View Ltd. v. Lake Alice Bar, 168 F.3d 347,350--51 (9th Cir. 1999)(concluding that there was "at least some notice" when the court stated at a hearing that it intended to modify a previous judgment); Penthouse, 792 F.2d at 950 (holding that, although the district court did not provide the defendant with formal notice of a possible injunction, injunctive relief was proper because the defendant was aware of the potential injunction based on various filings by the parties and arguments at trial).

The district court also gave the State an adequate opportunity to be heard. It permitted the State to respond orally at the hearing and to submit a further written response. What's more, the State had more than a month to prepare its

Case: C1a2s-1e741:9043-cv-0092/32067/2-C01W4 DocuIDm:e9n2t254438430 FileDdk0t9E/n2t6ry/1: 435-P1ageP9aogfe2: 69 of 26

ARMSTRONG V. BROWN

9

written submission. In its order modifying the injunction, the court acknowledged receipt ofthe parties' submissions and stated that it had considered the arguments made therein, as well as those made at the hearing. The State thus had "[t]he opportunity to present reasons ... why [the] proposed action should not be taken." See Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 546 (1985). We, therefore, conclude that the State had an adequate opportunity to respond. See id.

The State's arguments in support of its contention that it did not receive notice and an opportunity to be heard are unpersuasive. The State contends first that the district court's modification to the injunction was unfairbecause it was made in response to a request by Plaintiffs to hold the State in contempt, which required the State to make a different showing than a motion to modifY the injunction would have. We fmd no merit to this argument. Any unfairness that might have resulted from modifying the 2007 Injunction in response to the motion for contempt was cured when the court informed the State that it was instead considering a modification and gave the State an opportunity to respond in writing to the proposed changes. Moreover, a district court may sua sponte order or modifY injunctive relief. See, e.g., Clement v. Cal. Dep't ofCorrs., 364 F.3d 1148, 1150 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Brown v. Plata, 131 S. Ct. 1910, 1946 (2011) (recognizing the district court's inherent power to modifY injunctive relief). The district court here was thus not limited to orderingthe reliefrequested byPlaintiffs and acted well within its authority in modifying its previous order.

The State next contends that it had no meaningful opportunity to respond because the Modified Injunction was a foregone conclusion after the June 7, 2012, hearing and its

Case: C1a2s-1e741:9043-cv-0092/32067/2-C01W4 DocuIDm:e9n2t254438430 FileDdk0tE9/n2t6ry/1: 435-P1ageP1a0goef: 2160 of 26

10

ARMSTRONG V. BROWN

terms were not open for debate. This contention, however, is directly contrary to the district court's express statement at the hearing that it would give the State an opportunity to weigh in and its statement in the order modifying the injunction that it had considered the State's arguments. The State's contention, that despite these clear pronouncements, the district court ignored the State's arguments is purely speculative and warrants no further consideration. We, therefore, reject the State's contentionthat the injunction was issued without notice and an opportunity for it to respond.

N.

Plaintiffs assert that the State waived the arguments that the statewide scope ofthe Modified Injunction is unsupported by the evidence and that the Modified Injunction conflicts with various state laws and the CBA. We agree.

"'Although no bright line rule exists to determine whether a matter [h]as been properly raised below, an issue will generally be deemed waived on appeal if the argument was not raised sufficiently for the trial court to rule on it."' Ruiz v. Affinity Logistics Corp., 667 F.3d 1318, 1322 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Mercury Interactive Corp. Sec. Litig., 618 F.3d 998, 992 (9th Cir. 2010) (alteration in original)). We have no trouble concluding that the State waived the argument that the injunction is invalid because it purportedly conflicts with state law and the CBA. The State made no mention of these alleged conflicts before the district court. See id.; see also Komatsu, Ltd. v. States S.S. Co., 674 F.2d 806, 812 (9th Cir. 1982) (deeming an issue waived when the appellant had "relied . . . exclusively" on other arguments below).

Case: C1a2s-1e741:9043-cv-0092/32067/2-C01W4 DocuIDm:e9n2t254438430 FileDdk0tE9/n2t6ry/1: 435-P1ageP1a1goef: 2161 of 26

ARMSTRONG V. BROWN

11

Whether the State waived its challenge to the statewide scope of the injunction is a closer question. We conclude, however, that the State waived this argument as well. In its submission to the district court, the State made some contentions that are arguably relevant to its current challenge to the scope of the injunction. It argued, for example, that "there was neither a factual nor legal basis for the proposed expansion." It did not, however, make any of the specific scope arguments that it raises on appeal; nor did it provide any detail that would have permitted the district court to evaluate its claimthat systemwide changes were unwarranted. The only arguments it made were directed at purported conflicts with the PLRA, a separate question. We, therefore, conclude that the State did not preserve its challenge to the statewide scope ofthe injunction. See Komatsu, 674 F.2d at 812.

Although 'ihe rule ofwaiver is a discretionary one," see Ruiz, 667 F.3d at 1322 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), we find no basis on which to exercise our discretion in the State's favor in this case. We have stated that we may exercise our discretion to consider a waived issue under three circumstances:

(1) in the exceptional case in which review is necessary to prevent a miscarriage ofjustice or to preserve the integrity of the judicial process, (2) when a new issue arises while appeal is pending because of a change in the law, and, (3) when the issue presented is purely one of law and either does not depend on the factual record developed below, or the pertinent record has been fully developed.

Case: C1a2s-1e741:9043-cv-0092/32067/2-C01W4 DocuIDm:e9n2t254438430 FileDdk0tE9/n2t6ry/1: 435-P1ageP1a2goef: 2162 of 26

12

ARMSTRONG V. BROWN

Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The flrst and second circumstances have no application here: An exception is not necessary to prevent a miscarriage ofjustice or preserve the integrity ofthe judicial process, and there was no relevant change of law while the State's appeal was pending. See id. The third circumstance might permit us to consider whether the injunction conflicts with state law and the CBA, because these are purely legal questions, but no exception would permit us to consider the mixed factual and legal question of whether the evidence was sufficient to support the scope ofthe injunction. See id.

But even ifwe have discretion to review these arguments notwithstanding the State's waiver, we decline to do so. The State has no excuse for its failure to raise these arguments below. Unlike cases in which we have exercised our discretion to consider arguments that were not raised below, the State had ample opportunity to craft its response to the district court. See, e.g., United States v. Kaczynski, 239 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2001) (considering on appeal ofa habeas petition the government's argument that the petitioner had procedurally defaulted because the district court had summarily denied the petition, so that the government had no opportunity to argue default). And there is no special feature of this case that persuades us that we should consider the arguments now raised despite the State's waiver. Cf In re Neuton, 922 F.2d 1379, 1384 (9th Cir. 1990) (holding that a prose litigant did not waive an argument that he neglected to develop fully before the district court because he had been "led astray by the shifting legal theories" that had governed the case).

In sum, we conclude that the State waived its argument that the injunction conflicts with state law and the CBA and

Case: C1a2s-1e741:9043-cv-0092/32067/2-C01W4 DocuIDm:e9n2t254438430 FileDdk0tE9/n2t6ry/1: 435-P1ageP1a3goef: 2163 of 26

ARMSTRONG V. BROWN

13

that the evidence was insufficient to warrant systemwide relief, and we decline to exercise our discretion to consider those arguments.
v.

Two ofthe State's challenges to the Modified Injunction remain. First, the State contends that the Modified Injunction is invalid in its entirety because it violates the PLRA. Second, the State contends that the section of the Modified Injunction appointing the expert witness to resolve disputes between the parties is invalid because the district court exceeded its authority in ordering the expert witness to act in this capacity. We hold that the Modified Injunction does not violate the PLRA. We do agree with the State, however, that the section setting forth the expert witness' authority and duties is invalid.

A.

The Modified Injunction mandates procedures for investigating and recording alleged violations of inmates' federal rights and the court's orders, enforcing disciplinary action where needed, and resolving disputes regarding these matters. See Armstrong, 2012 WL 3638675, at *10---*12. As to tracking, the Modified Injunction mandates that the State track any allegations that any member of the Plaintiff class did not receive access to services, programs, activities, accommodations, or assistive devices required by the remedial plan, the ADA, the RA, and other court orders. Id. at *10. Every allegation must be tracked, regardless of whether the alleged non-compliance was unintentional, unavoidable, done without malice, done by an unidentified actor, or later remedied. !d. The log must list the prison at

Case: C1a2s-1e741:9043-cv-0092/32067/2-C01W4 DocuIDm:e9n2t254438430 FileDdk0tE9/n2t6ry/1: 435-P1ageP1a4goef: 2164 of 26

14

ARMSTRONG V. BROWN

which the incident occurred, the prisoner and employee(s) involved, the date ofthe allegation, the date the investigation was initiated and completed, the identity ofthe investigator, the result ofthe investigation, the number ofprior allegations against the employee(s) involved, and the action taken, ifany. Id. The district court further ordered that the logs must be produced to Plaintiffs' counsel monthly. !d. The mandate that every allegation be logged directly responds to the State's practice oflogging only certain reports. Id. at *8.

The district court also set out specific requirements relating to the State's investigation of alleged deprivations.
ld. at *11. It mandated that the State must investigate all
allegations of employee non-compliance, commence the investigation within ten business days of notice of the allegation, and produce a written report on the investigation. Id. Like the reporting requirements, this mandate directly responds to the State's practice of only investigating some allegations and the long delays in the commencement ofthose investigations that did occur. Id. at *8-*9. The injunction grants Plaintiffs' counsel access to the written reports produced as a result ofthese investigations and all documents used in making the reports, with employees' names replaced
with unique identifiers to protect their privacy. Id. at *11.
The injunction also permits Plaintiffs' counsel to interview individuals who produced information relied upon in an investigation. Id.

The Modified Injunction further provides for corrective action and discipline. It mandates that when an investigation reveals employee non-compliance, the State must comply with the procedures set out in the 2008 Memo and the prison systems' operations manual, and that all disciplinary

Case: C1a2s-1e741:9043-cv-0092/32067/2-C01W4 DocuIDm:e9n2t254438430 FileDdk0tE9/n2t6ry/1: 435-P1ageP1a5goef: 2165 of 26

ARMSTRONG V. BROWN

15

determinations must be produced to Plaintiffs' counsel, upon request. Id.

Finally, the injunction delegates to the court's expert witness, appointed pursuant to Federal Rule ofEvidence 706, the power to resolve disputes between Plaintiffs' counsel and the State regarding the above matters. ld. at *11-*12. Section D specifically deals with the expert witness' duties. That section provides first that the parties shall initially attempt to resolve any dispute through negotiation. Id. at *11. It then provides specific procedures for resolving disputes ifnegotiation is unsuccessful. SectionD.2. provides:

Ifthe parties are unable to resolve the dispute informally, Plaintiffs' counsel may request that the Court's expert review and resolve the matter. Depending on the nature of the dispute, the Court's expert shall resolve disputes about the production ofinformation, determine whether non-compliance occurred or, if it did, whether corrective action should be initiated. . . . Administrative decisions made by the Court's expert pursuant to this section shall be final as between Plaintiffs and Defendants.

Id. at *11. Section D.3. provides that the expert will exercise similar authority with regard to whether certain incidents set forth in the pleadings constitute non-compliance. Id. at *12.

We conclude that the Modified Injunction complies with the PLRA. The PLRA provides, in relevant part that

Case: C1a2s-1e741:9043-cv-0092/32067/2-C01W4 DocuIDm:e9n2t254438430 FileDdk0tE9/n2t6ry/1: 435-P1ageP1a6goef: 2166 of 26

16

ARMSTRONG V. BROWN

[p]respective relief in any civil action with respect to prison conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation ofthe Federal right ofa particular plaintiffor plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that such reliefis narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessaryto correctthe violation ofthe Federal right.

18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1). Under the PLRA, injunctive relief must "heel[] close to the identified violation." Armstrong I, 275 F.3dat 872 (internal quotation marks omitted). The court may provide guidance and set clear objectives, but it may not "attemptto 'micro manage"'prison administration, id. at 873, or order relief that would "require for its enforcement the continuous supervision by the federal court over the conduct of [state officers]," id. at 872 (quoting O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 501 (1974) (alteration in original)). The overarching inquiry is ''whether the same vindication of federal rights couldhavebeenachievedwith less involvement by the court in directing the details of defendants' operations." Armstrong II, 622 F.3d at 1071.

The district court made the fmdings mandated by the PLRA, Armstrong, 2012 WL 3638675, at *8, and those findings were not erroneous.1 See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(l). First, the Modified Injunction was necessary to correct the

2 While we conclude that the Modified Injunction complies in full with the PLRA, we nonetheless vacate Section D ofthe Modified Injunction on other grounds. See Part V.B., infra.

Case: C1a2s-1e741:9043-cv-0092/32067/2-C01W4 DocuIDm:e9n2t254438430 FileDdk0tE9/n2t6ry/1: 435-P1ageP1a7goef: 2167 of 26

ARMSTRONG V. BROWN

17

violations of Plaintiffs' federal rights. The district court's finding on this point was supported by the facts before it when it issued the 2007 Injunction and additional evidence submitted in support ofthe contempt motion. In issuing the 2007 Injunction, the district court found a litany ofADA and RA violations, which are not (and cannot be) contested in this proceeding. Armstrongv. Schwarzenegger, No. 4:94-cv-2307 (N.D. Cal. Jan 18, 2007). It further found that an effective accountability and tracking system was necessary to prevent continued rights' violations because the failure to track disabled inmates' grievances and thus to respond to accommodation requests underlay the violations of their federal rights. /d. This conclusion was sound and consistent with other courts' holdings. See, e.g., ArmstrongII, 622 F.3d at 1073-74 (noting the importance of tracking in ensuring ADA compliance);MoralesFeliciano v. Rullan, 378 F.3d 42, 55-56 (1st Cir. 2004) (noting the importance of accountability in ensuring the long-term success ofthe health care system in Puerto Rico's prisons); see also Coleman v. Schwarzenegger, 922 F. Supp. 2d 882, 896 (N.D. Cal. & E.D. Cal. 2009) (three-judge panel) (affirming the importance of accountabilityinpreventingdegrading andhumiliating prison conditions from becoming routine and permissible).

The evidence presented in the contempt motion demonstrated that by 2012 -a full five years after the order to track and record compliance with the remedial plan and the court's orders- there had been no meaningful improvement to the State's tracking and accountability system. The evidence before the district court in support of Plaintiffs' contempt motion demonstrated that the tracking and accountability system developed by the State had failed and that, as a result, class members still experienced delays in having their grievances processed and redressed (ifthey were

Case: C1a2s-1e741:9043-cv-0092/32067/2-C01W4 DocuIDm:e9n2t254438430 FileDdk0tE9/n2t6ry/1: 435-P1ageP1a8goef: 2168 of 26

18

ARMSTRONG V. BROWN

processed and redressed at all). The record shows numerous instances at multiple institutions in which prisoners had reported that they were deprived of a disability accommodation, but no incident was logged. This systemic failure to record alleged violations supports the district court's finding that the State's accountability system was not functioning as intended, i.e., to hold prison administrators accountable and ensure that disabled inmates' rights were protected. 3

While the State eventually investigated the allegations identified by Plaintiffs in their contempt motion and explained its reasons for failing to record them, these investigations were commenced only after Plaintiffs filed their motion to hold the State in contempt for failing to investigate these precise alleged violations. For that reason, these belated investigations do not persuade us that the State was fulfilling its accountability obligations. In fact, the timing of these investigations persuades us of just the opposite: that the State has continued to shirk its duty to investigate and track alleged violations ofthe remedial plan, the court's orders, and federal statutory law.

Based on the evidence before it, we hold that the district court did not err in concluding that the State had failed to

3 The district court was clear that the question before it did not involve whether the State had, in fact, failed to provide appropriate accommodations to inmates with disabilities. Armstrong, 2012 WL
3638675, at *8. The district court's only finding- and the only one we
affirm today- is that the evidence showed that the State's accountability system had failed and that modifications to the injunction were required. We, like the district court, do not comment as to whether the incidents identified by Plaintiffs' counsel in their contempt motion constitute violations of the remedial plan, the RA, the ADA, or court orders.

Case: C1a2s-1e741:9043-cv-0092/32067/2-C01W4 DocuIDm:e9n2t254438430 FileDdk0tE9/n2t6ry/1: 435-P1ageP1a9goef: 2169 of 26

ARMSTRONG V. BROWN

19

fulfill the accountability requirements mandated by its previous injunction. And because the accountability system was not effectively tracking inmates' needs and ensuring the receipt ofneeded accommodations, the district court did not err in finding that a modification to the accountability system was necessary. See Plata, 131 S. Ct. at 1946; Morales Feliciano, 378 F.3d at 55 (noting that the district court was within its discretion to order additional relief when its previous orders had failed to protect inmates' rights).

Our conclusionthat the district court did not errin finding a modification to the injunction necessary does not end our inquiry. We must also consider whether the modifications it ordered complied with the PLRA's requirements that injunctive reliefbe narrowly drawn and no broader or more intrusive than necessary to correct the violations of federal rights. See 18 U.S.C. 3626(a)(1). We answer that question in the affirmative.

The Modified Injunction was narrowly tailored and no broader than necessary to address the federal violations. The changes ordered by the district court specifically tracked the ways in which the State's prior accountability system had failed: The district court found that the system had failed because the State had not investigated and logged all allegations and so ordered the district court to investigate and log all allegations. The district court further found that this deficiency existed across California's prison institutions, and accordingly ordered relief that would apply to all of the State's facilities. The modification thus matched the deficiency in both scope and kind. We, therefore, conclude that the Modified Injunction was narrowly tailored and not overbroad. See Clement, 364 F.3d at 1153 (concluding an injunction that prohibited the prison from banning materials

Case: C1a2s-1e741:9043-cv-0092/32067/2-C01W4 DocuIDm:e9n2t254438430 FileDdk0tE9/n2t6ry/1: 435-P1ageP2a0goef: 2260 of 26

20

ARMSTRONG V. BROWN

because their source was the internet was narrowly tailored and no broader than necessary to remedy a policy that was unconstitutional for the reason that it banned materials based solely on their source).

We also conclude that the Modified Injunction was no more intrusive than necessary to address the federal violations. The changes relate only to accountability and tracking. The Modified Injunction says nothing about how the State should implement compliance with the remedial plan or provide disability accommodations to prisoners; it provides no mandates for how the prison should run its facilities, house prisoners, or conduct its daily administration. In this order, as in previous orders, ''the thorough and extremely patient district judge did not attempt to 'micro manage, the prison's administration, Armstrong I, 275 F.3d at 872, or involve herself closely or extensively in directing the prison's operations, Armstrong II, 622 F.3d at 1071.

We recognize that the district court gave the State several specific instructions on how to implement its accountability system. While this might in some cases be a cause for concern, it was appropriate here. A court may, as the district court did here, provide specific instructions to the State without running afoul of the PLRA. See Armstrong I, 275 F.3d at 858-59 & n.15 (affirming an injunction that included various specific instructions to the State, such as requiring it to hire an ADA coordinator and provide certain accommodations at parole hearings, among other mandates). While the injunction here might leave the State less discretion than injunctions typically approved in the PLRA context, we conclude that the level ofintrusiveness is acceptable based on the history and circumstances ofthe case.

Case: C1a2s-1e741:9043-cv-0092/32067/2-C01W4 DocuIDm:e9n2t254438430 FileDdk0tE9/n2t6ry/1: 435-P1ageP2a1goef: 2261 of 26

ARMSTRONG V. BROWN

21

Disabled inmates have been litigating to ensure that the State provides them with needed accommodation for over two decades- and yet the State still has a long, long way to go before it meets its obligations to these prisoners. The ongoing, intractable nature of this litigation affords the district courtconsiderable discretion in fashioning relief. See Morales Feliciano, 378 F.3d at 54-55; see also Plata, 131 S. Ct. at 1946 (noting that once the district court invokes its equitable powers, its authority to modify a decree of injunctive relief is particularly broad and flexible). Relief that might have raised concerns about breadth and intrusiveness in the first instance is acceptable in this context, because the district court "has attempted narrower, less intrusive alternatives - and those alternatives have failed ...." See Morales Feliciano, 378 F.3d at 55.

The First Circuit confronted a similar situation in litigation involving Puerto Rico's prison system, where constitutional violations pertaining to the delivery of health care were "substantial in both scope and degree" and had "defied correction for more than two decades." /d. at 54. We face the same problem here. As we have previously noted, litigation in this matter has been ongoing for decades and the State has ''resisted complying with [its] federal obligations at every tum." Armstrong v. Brown, 732 F.3d 955, 957 (9th Cir. 2013) ("Armstrong /IF'). Through a series of narrowlydrawn, carefully-crafted, and thorough orders, the district judge here, like the district judge overseeing the Puerto Rico prison litigation, "has tried more conventional methods, but found themwanting." See Morales Feliciano, 378 F.3d at 54. "This record ofabject failure matters in the narrowness-needintrusiveness inquiry." Id. at 55. Because the district court has previously tried to correct the deficiencies in California's prisons' compliance with the ADA and RA through less

Case: C1a2s-1e741:9043-cv-0092/32067/2-C01W4 DocuIDm:e9n2t254438430 FileDdk0tE9/n2t6ry/1: 435-P1ageP2a2goef: 2262 of 26

22

ARMSTRONG V. BROWN

intrusive means, and those attempts have failed, relief prescribing more specific mechanisms of compliance is appropriate. See id. at 54-56; see also Plata, 131 S. Ct. at 1946.

As noted above, the core PLRA inquiry is ''whether the same vindication of federal rights could have been achieved with less involvement by the court in directing the details of defendants' operations." Armstrong II, 622 F.3d at 1071. The State, through its conduct over the past twenty years, has proven that the same vindication of federal rights cannot be achieved with less involvement by the district court. The State has failed to suggest -let alone implement- any viable means to ensure accountability and protect the Plaintiffclass that is narrower or less intrusive than the Modified Injunction, despite ample time and opportunity to do so. Given that the State has failed to present the district court or this court with "any realistic alternative" to the Modified Injunction, we find its protestations that such alternatives exist to be hollow. Plata, 131 S. Ct. at 1941; see also Armstrong II, 622 F.3d at 1071 (noting that the State did ''not suggest any means to protect class members' rights under the ADA that [were] more narrow or less intrusive than those orderedbythe district court"). Based on these circumstances, we conclude that the Modified Injunction complies with the PLRA. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(l); Armstrong II, 622 F.3d at 1071.

B.

While we find no error with regard to the PLRA, we cannot approve Section D ofthe Modified Injunction as it is currently drafted. As noted above, Section D provides for dispute-resolution procedures in the event that Plaintiffs'

Case: C1a2s-1e741:9043-cv-0092/32067/2-C01W4 DocuIDm:e9n2t254438430 FileDdk0tE9/n2t6ry/1: 435-P1ageP2a3goef: 2263 of 26

ARMSTRONG V. BROWN

23

counsel contests the State's decision on the results of an investigation into alleged non-compliance, the production of information, or a decision on corrective action. Armstrong, 2012 WL 3638675, at* 11-*12. Section D.l provides that, in the event ofa dispute, Plaintiffs' counsel shall provide notice to the State, to which the State must respond within 10 business days, and the parties shall attempt to resolve the
matter through negotiation. /d. at *11. We find no error in
this provision.

Sections D.2 and D.3, however, present a more difficult question. As described above, Section D.2 provides that the expert witness shall resolve disputes between Plaintiffs' counsel and the State about whether non-compliance has occurred, the production ofinformation, and the institution of corrective action. Id. Section D.3 gives the expert witness similar authority to decide whether certain incidents alleged in the pleadings constitute non-compliance with the remedial plan. /d. at *12. The authority delegated in Sections D.2 and D.3 permits the expert to make findings that go to the very heart ofthis litigation- compliance with the remedial planand his authority includes responsibility for making findings of fact and conclusions of law, as necessary to assess noncompliance. Sections D.2 and D.3 make these decisions by the expert "final," id. at *11-*12, and provide no mechanism for review by the district court.

We conclude this delegation of authority to the Rule 706 expert is impermissible. A Rule 706 expert typically acts as an advisor to the court on complex scientific, medical, or technical matters. See, e.g., San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v. Jewell, 747 F.3d 581, 603 {9th Cir. 2014); FTC v. Enforma Natural Prods., Inc., 362 F.3d 1204, 1209 {9th Cir. 2004). The dispute resolution authority granted to

Case: C1a2s-1e741:9043-cv-0092/32067/2-C01W4 DocuIDm:e9n2t254438430 FileDdk0tE9/n2t6ry/1: 435-P1ageP2a4goef: 2264 of 26

24

ARMSTRONG V. BROWN

the expert in this case is beyond the scope of the duties that may be assigned to a Rule 706 expert. We have never approved a Rule 706 expert to act in an adjudicative capacity with such finality as prescribed in Sections D.2 and D.3 ofthe Modified Injunction. While we have approved the appointment of non-judicial officers to make recommendations and resolve disputes ancillary to complex litigation, those appointments specifically limited the expert to making recommendations subject to review by the district court. See, e.g., A&MRecords, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 284 F .3d 1091, 1097 (9th Cir. 2002) (approving the appointment of a technical advisor to assist the district court in monitoring compliance); Stone v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 968 F.2d 850, 852, 863 (9th Cir. 1992) (approving the appointment of a special master to investigate, report, and make recommendations to the city and the court).4

Our decision inNapster is particularlyinstructive. There, we approved the district court's use of a technical advisor after specifically noting that "[a]t no time did the technical

4 Our sister circuits have similarly approved the appointment of nonjudicial officers to act in advisory capacities only. See, e.g., SEC v. Elliott, 953 F.2d 1560, 1577 (11th Cir. 1992) (noting that the courtappointed receiver was an officer of the court whose legal and factual findings must be approved by the district court); Reilly v. United States, 863 F.2d 149, 157-58 (1st Cir. 1988) (finding no error in the district court's use ofa technical advisor to instruct the judge on complex issues, but noting that the delegation would have been impermissible if the advisor made independent findings on facts outside the record); Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115, 1159--63, amended in part, vacated in part on other grounds, 688 F.2d 266 (5th Cir. 1982) (noting that it was permissible for the district courtto appoint a special masterto assist inthe implementation ofits orders by holding hearings on disputed matters and making recommendations to the district court, so long as the special master's findings were not accorded the presumption ofcorrectness).

Case: C1a2s-1e741:9043-cv-0092/32067/2-C01W4 DocuIDm:e9n2t254438430 FileDdk0tE9/n2t6ry/1: 435-P1ageP2a5goef: 2265 of 26

ARMSTRONG V. BROWN

25

advisor displace the district court's judicial role" and "[t]he technical advisor never unilaterally issued fmdings of fact or conclusions of law regarding Napster's compliance." Napster, 284 F.3d at 1097. Here, Sections D.2 and D.3 do precisely what we suggested in Napster was impermissible: delegate to the Rule 706 expert the power unilaterally and conclusively to make fmdings offact and conclusions oflaw regarding the State's compliance with the remedial plan and its federal obligations.

While the district court might have intended the expert's decision to be subject to review or appeal, that intention is not reflected in its order. As currently drafted, the injunction does not provide any mechanism for review of the expert's decisions by the district court and so risks permitting the expert to "displace the district court's judicial role." Id. We therefore cannot affirm this part of the Modified Injunction. See id.; see also Kimberly v. Arms, 129 U.S. 512, 524 (1889) ("[The court] cannot, of its own motion, or upon the request of one party, abdicate its duty to determine by its own judgment the controversy presented, and devolve that duty upon any of its officers.").

We therefore must vacate Sections D.2. and D.3 of the Modified Injunction and remand the matter to the district court to remedy the errors we have identified. We are confident that the able district judge can craft an appropriate procedure under which a party dissatisfied with the expert's recommendations can obtain district court review of that recommendation. For example, the district court may permit the expert to function within the limits suggested by Napster, by providing that the expert may present recommendations, but may not issue findings offact or conclusions oflaw. See 284 F.3d at 1097. The district court could also employ a

Case: C1a2s-1e741:9043-cv-0092/32067/2-C01W4 DocuIDm:e9n2t254438430 FileDdk0tE9/n2t6ry/1: 435-P1ageP2a6goef: 2266 of 26

26

ARMSTRONG V. BROWN

procedure similar to the one provided for in the Magistrates Act, for review of a report and recommendation by a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S. C. § 636. We also note that the PLRA itself provides for the appointment of a special master "[i]n any civil action in a Federal court with respect to prison conditions ...." 18 U.S.C. § 3626(!). Finally, we observe that Rule 706 does not even necessarily apply to nontestifying experts, although district courts retain inherent authority to appoint technical advisors in appropriate cases. See Ass'n of Mexican-American Educators v. California, 231 F.3d 572, 590-91 (9th Cir. 2000) (en bane). What is important is that "[t]he role of a technical advisor ... be carefully defined and limited to reduce the risk that the advisor will usurp the role ofthe court as factfmder ...." Id. at 612 (Tashima, J., dissenting).

We do not mean to circumscribe the district court's discretion by the listing ofthese examples. What the district court must do on remand is to revise Sections D.2 and D.3 of the Modified Injunction to comply with our precedent.

VI.

For the reasons set forth above, we afftrm all portions of the Modifted Injunction, except Sections D.2 and D.3. We vacate Sections D.2 and D.3 and remand to the district court with instructions to revise the Modifted Injunction in a manner consistent with this Opinion. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

AFFIRMED inpart,VACATED andREMANDED in part.

 
 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

4 JOHN ARMSTRONG, et al.,

No. C 94-2307 CW

5

Plaintiffs,

6

v.

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

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FURTHER ENFORCEMENT (Docket No. 2436)

8

Defendants.

9 ________________________________/

10

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

11

Plaintiffs Armstrong, et al., move for an order for further

12 enforcement of the 2007 injunction, applicable to all California

13 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) prisons. They

14 allege that Defendants Brown, et al., continue to place Class

15 Members in administrative segregation due to a lack of accessible

16 housing. Having considered the parties’ briefs and their

17 arguments at the January 29, 2015 hearing, the Court finds that

18 Defendants are regularly housing Armstrong class members in

19 administrative segregation due to lack of accessible housing, in

20 violation of this Court’s previous orders and the Americans with

21 Disabilities Act (ADA). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’

22 motion.

23

BACKGROUND

24

In a series of orders between 1996 and 2002, the Court found

25 that Defendants’ treatment of prisoners with disabilities violated

26 the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) and § 504 of the

27 Rehabilitation Act. On January 3, 2001, Defendants issued the

28

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 amended Armstrong Remedial Plan (ARP) setting forth their own

2 policies and plans to come into compliance with their obligations

3 under these federal laws. Among other things, the ARP addressed

4 the housing of class members in administrative segregation.

5

In 2012, the parties developed jointly a system by which

6 Armstrong class members are moved out of administrative

7 segregation as CDCR looks for an accessible bed. See Docket No.

8 2209 at 6-7. In relevant part, the parties’ agreement stated:

9

(b) Defendants agreed to provide internal documents showing

10

all Armstrong class members housed in administrative segregation and housed two levels above their designated

11

security level due to lack of bed space, (c) Defendants agreed to make their best effort to classify and transfer

12

prisoners housed two levels out of their security level within 30 days, (d) Defendants agreed to draft model Local

13

Operating Procedures (LOPs) that state that it is departmental policy not to house prisoners in administrative

14

segregation due to lack of bed space and requiring institutions to take immediate action to transfer such

15

prisoners, including contacting CDCR headquarters to expedite the transfer if not resolved within 72 hours.

16 Id. Despite this agreement, according to CDCR’s logs from July

17 2013 through July 2014, 211 Class Members were held in

18 administrative segregation for some period of time, thirty-five of

19 them in July 2014 alone. These time periods ranged from less than

20 twenty-four hours to a month or more. See Docket No. 2436 at 11.

21

DISCUSSION

22

The Court finds that housing disabled class members in

23 administrative segregation solely because of their disabilities

24 violates this Court’s prior orders, including the 2001 Injunction,

25 which declares that the “CDCR has a duty to maintain in operable

26 working condition structural features and equipment necessary to

27 make the prison system’s services, programs, and activities

28 accessible to disabled inmates.” Mar. 21, 2001 Permanent

2

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 Injunction, Docket No. 694, at ¶ 4. The practice also violates

2 the 2007 Injunction, which prohibits CDCR from “hous[ing] [class

3 members] at any placements without adequate accessible housing

4 . . .” and orders adherence to the Armstrong Remedial Plan

5 requirement that no prisoner with a disability “shall, because of

6 that disability, be excluded from participation in or denied the

7 benefits of services, programs, or activities of the Department or

8 be subjected to discrimination.” 2007 Injunction at 6, 9,

9 Armstrong Remedial Plan, Sec. I, p. 1.

10

Defendants’ practice also violates the ADA and its

11 implementing regulations, which prohibit prison officials from

12 placing prisoners “with disabilities in inappropriate security

13 classifications because no accessible cells or beds are available”

14 and from placing prisoners with disabilities “in facilities that

15 do not offer the same programs as the facilities where they would

16 otherwise be housed.” 28 CFR § 35.152(b)(2).

17

Accordingly, the Court finds that in order to ensure

18 compliance with this Court’s orders and with the ADA and its

19 implementing regulations, it is necessary to prohibit Defendants

20 from housing Armstrong class members in administrative segregation

21 due to a lack of accessible bed space. The Court finds that the

22 Order set forth below complies with the PLRA; it is narrowly

23 drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation

24 of the federal rights of Armstrong class members, and is the least

25 intrusive means necessary to correct that violation. While it is

26 true that the majority of instances of this practice took place at

27 one institution, the practice occurred at other institutions as

28 well. Further, transfers into non-complying institutions come

3

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 from other institutions, with the involvement of CDCR officials

2 with state-wide jurisdiction. Thus, it would not be efficacious

3 to limit the within order only to the least compliant receiving

4 institution. The Court’s prior orders have applied state-wide.

5

Accordingly, Defendants are prohibited from housing Armstrong

6 class members in administrative segregation because no accessible

7 cells or beds are available. The Court orders that if Defendants

8 place an Armstrong class member in administrative segregation due

9 to the lack of an accessible bed, they must fully document their

10 reasons for doing so. The documentation shall explain why the

11 prisoner was sent to a prison that could not accommodate his or

12 her disability, the status of all the accessible beds in the

13 facility, such that compaction is not an option, and all of the

14 steps taken to find an accessible bed before placing the class

15 member in administrative segregation. The reports shall continue

16 to document how many class members were placed in administrative

17 segregation due to their disabilities and for how long, expressed

18 in actual hours, not “business” hours. This report must be

19 provided to Plaintiffs’ counsel.

20

While the Court does not, at this time, impose any particular

21 method by which Defendants must comply with this Order, it notes

22 that Defendants already have at their disposal several means by

23 which to comply. For example, Defendants may make use of their

24 current bed management system to ensure that a class member is not

25 transferred to a facility without first confirming that an

26 accessible bed is available. They may also continue to use their

27 RJD corrective action plan, with enhanced monitoring procedures

28 and specialized training, and expand it to other facilities.

4

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 Defendants may use beds designated for other purposes, such as

2 medical beds, to house an Armstrong class member while an

3 accessible bed is found. Defendants may also use another form of

4 overflow housing that does not house Armstrong class members in a

5 manner prohibited by this Order. Finally, Defendants could

6 implement some of Plaintiffs’ suggestions, including having the

7 ADA coordinators at both the receiving and sending institutions

8 communicate to ensure that, prior to a class member’s transfer, an

9 accessible bed is available and that the receiving institution can

10 hold that bed until the class member arrives.

11

Within thirty days of the date of this Order, Defendants

12 shall submit a report to this Court and Plaintiffs’ counsel

13 describing the steps they have taken to comply with the Order, and

14 attesting to their compliance with the Order.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

17 Dated: February 3, 2015 18

CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

 
 1 PRISON LAW OFFICE DONALD SPECTER – 83925
2 REBEKAH EVENSON – 207825 CORENE KENDRICK – 226642
3 PENNY GODBOLD – 226925 1917 Fifth Street
4 Berkeley, California 94710 Telephone: (510) 280-2621
5 Email: revenson@prisonlaw.com

6 DISABILITY RIGHTS EDUCATION & DEFENSE FUND, INC.
7 LINDA KILB – 136101 2212 Sixth Street
8 Berkeley, California 94710
Telephone: (510) 644-2555 9
ROSEN, BIEN & GALVAN, LLP 10 MICHAEL W. BIEN – 96891
GAY C. GRUNFELD – 121944 11 315 Montgomery Street, Tenth Floor
San Francisco, California 94104-1823 12 Telephone: (415) 433-6830

13 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
15 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
16 OAKLAND DIVISION
17

18 JOHN ARMSTRONG, et al.,
19 Plaintiffs,
20 v.
21 EDMUND G. BROWN JR. et al.,
22 Defendants.
23

Case No. C94 2307 CW
[PROPOSED] ORDER MODIFYING JANUARY 18, 2007 INJUNCTION

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

1

For the reasons set forth in this Court’s Orders of August 22, 2012 (ECF No. 2180) and

2 December 5, 2014 (ECF No. 2462), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the following shall be substituted

3 in place of page seven, lines five through twelve of the January 18, 2007 Injunction (ECF No. 1045):

4

Defendants, their agents and employees shall promptly take all reasonable steps to comply with

5 each provision set forth below:

6

A. Tracking of All Allegations of Staff Member Non-Compliance

7

1. Defendants, their agents and employees (Defendants) shall track any allegation that any

8 employee of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation was responsible for any member of the

9 Plaintiff class not receiving access to services, programs, activities, accommodations or assistive

10 devices required by any of the following: the Armstrong Remedial Plan, the Americans with

11 Disabilities Act or this Court’s prior orders. Allegations to be tracked include, but are not limited to,

12 those received from CDCR staff, prisoners, Plaintiffs’ counsel, administrative appeals and third parties.

13 All such allegations shall be tracked, even if the non-compliance was unintentional, unavoidable, done

14 without malice, done by an unidentified actor or subsequently remedied.

15

2. The allegations shall be tracked in an electronic spreadsheet that can be searched and sorted.

16 The spreadsheet shall contain at least the following information: the prison at which the incident

17 occurred, the name and CDCR number of the prisoner, the date of the allegation, the name of the

18 employee(s), the date the investigation was initiated, the name and title of the investigator, the date the

19 investigation was completed, the result of the investigation, the number of prior allegations of non-

20 compliance against the employee(s), and the action taken, if any, as a result of the investigation,

21 including whether the incident was referred to the Office of Internal Affairs.

22

3. The spreadsheet shall be produced to Plaintiffs’ counsel in electronic format monthly. When

23 the spreadsheet is produced to Plaintiffs’ counsel, the employees’ names shall be removed and shall be

24 replaced with a unique identifier. When redacting employees’ names in records produced to Plaintiffs

25 in accordance with this Order, Defendants shall consistently identify an individual employee by the

26 same unique identifier.

27

28

29

1

30

Order Modifying January 18, 2007 Injunction - CASE NO. C94 2307 CW

1

B. Investigations

2

1. Defendants shall investigate all allegations of employee non-compliance, regardless of

3 whether the allegation includes the name of the employee(s). Investigations shall be initiated within ten

4 business days of receiving notice of such allegations and shall be completed as promptly as possible.

5 Investigations must include a review of all information necessary to determine whether or not the

6 allegation is true and shall include an interview with the affected prisoner(s). The investigation must

7 result in a written report that shall list all sources of information relied upon in deciding whether

8 employee non-compliance occurred and whether any other finding(s) of non-compliance against the

9 employee(s) has been sustained.

10

2. If Plaintiffs’ counsel has a good faith disagreement with the result of a particular

11 investigation, they may request a copy of the written report and it shall be produced. In such instances,

12 Plaintiffs’ counsel shall have the right to review all written documents utilized in making the

13 determination set forth in the report. Upon a showing of need, Plaintiffs’ counsel shall also have the

14 right to interview individuals who provided information utilized in making this determination.

15

3. When producing documents to Plaintiffs’ counsel pursuant to this section, Defendants shall

16 replace employees’ names with unique identifiers as described in paragraph A.3.

17

C. Corrective Action and Discipline

18

1. Whenever an investigation reveals employee noncompliance, Defendants must comply with

19 procedures set forth in Defendants’ November 21, 2008 memorandum, “Expectations for Staff

20 Accountability and Non-Compliance of the Disability Placement Program.”

21

2. Defendants shall determine whether to initiate disciplinary proceedings or corrective action

22 against an employee found in non-compliance, depending upon the number of prior violations, the

23 seriousness of the harm to the prisoner, and the culpability of the employee. Defendants shall

24 discipline employees in compliance with the Employee Disciplinary Matrix set forth in the CDCR

25 Departmental Operations Manual, Chapter 3, Article 22, Personnel, Training, and Employee Relations.

26

3. All determinations of whether to initiate disciplinary proceedings or corrective action shall

27 be produced to Plaintiffs’ counsel upon request. When producing these documents to Plaintiffs’

28

29

2

30

Order Modifying January 18, 2007 Injunction - CASE NO. C94 2307 CW

1 counsel, Defendants shall replace employees’ names with unique identifiers as described in paragraph

2 A.3.

3

D. Dispute Resolution

4

1. In the event of a dispute about the production of information, the results of Defendants’

5 investigation of alleged non-compliance or their decision about whether to initiate corrective action,

6 Plaintiffs’ counsel shall provide notice to Defendants and attempt to resolve the matter through

7 negotiation. Defendants must respond to this notice within ten business days.

8

2. If the parties are unable to resolve the dispute informally, Plaintiffs’ counsel may request that

9 the Court’s expert review and resolve the matter. Depending on the nature of the dispute, the Court’s

10 expert shall resolve disputes about the production of information, determine whether non-compliance

11 occurred or, if it did, whether corrective action should be initiated. When requesting review by the

12 Court’s expert, Plaintiffs’ counsel shall substantiate their contentions with sworn declarations from the

13 class member or members involved, signed under penalty of perjury. Defendants shall produce all

14 documents requested by the Court’s expert and shall make all employees available for interview, on a

15 confidential or nonconfidential basis as determined by the Court’s expert. Administrative

16 recommendations made by the Court's expert pursuant to this section shall be reviewable by this Court

17 on a motion by any party dissatisfied with the expert's decision. The review shall be conducted

18 pursuant to the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the procedure for the review of a report and

19 recommendation by a magistrate judge.

20

3. The parties dispute whether certain incidents set forth in the pleadings constitute non-

21 compliance with the Remedial Order. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall inform Defendants which incidents

22 remain in dispute and shall attempt to resolve these disputes through negotiation with Defendants. If

23 negotiations fail, the disputes may be referred to the Court’s expert pursuant to paragraph D.2., above.

24

E. Protective Order

25

The parties shall negotiate an order to protect the state law rights of Defendants’ employees

26 from unnecessary disclosure of personnel information. All documents that contain personnel

27 information produced to Plaintiffs’ counsel and the Court’s expert pursuant to this Order shall be

28

29

3

30

Order Modifying January 18, 2007 Injunction - CASE NO. C94 2307 CW

1 covered by this protective order. If the parties are unable to agree on the terms of a protective order, the

2 Court’s expert will recommend one.

3

F. Notice

4

Defendants shall provide a copy of this Order to the present and future individual employees

5 who occupy the following positions within the California Department of Corrections and

6 Rehabilitations:

7

a. the Undersecretaries of the CDCR,

8

b. the Director of the Division of Adult Institutions,

9

c. the Deputy Directors of the Division of Adult Institutions,

10

d. the Associate Directors of the Division of Adult Institutions,

11

e. all Wardens of adult institutions, and

12

f. all adult institution ADA coordinators.

13

G. Miscellaneous

14

The procedures set forth in this order or in the 2007 Injunction shall not apply to staff working

15 under the authority of the Receiver appointed by the court in Plata v. Brown.

16 IT IS SO ORDERED.
17

18 Dated: 12/29/2014 19 20

CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

4

30

Order Modifying January 18, 2007 Injunction - CASE NO. C94 2307 CW

 
 FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

 JOHN A RMSTRONG; J AMES A MAURIC;

RICHARD P ONCIANO; J ACK S WENSEN;

BILLY B ECK; J UDY F ENDT; W ALTER

FRATUS; G REGORY S ANDOVAL;

DARLENE M ADISON; P ETER

RICHARDSON; S TEVEN H ILL; D AVID

ROSE; D AVID B LESSING; E LIO

CASTRO; E LMER U MBENHOWER;

RAYMOND H AYES; G ENE H ORROCKS;

KIAH M INCEY; C LIFTON F EATHERS;

WILLIE J OHNSON; D AVID B ADILLO; JAMES S IMMONS; F LORA A BRAMS;



JOEY G OUGH; T IMOTHY W HISMAN,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

No. 09-17144
D.C. No. 4:94-cv-02307-CW
OPINION

v.

ARNOLD S CHWARZENEGGER; MATTHEW C ATE; B ERNARD W ARNER; SHARON A UGUST; D EBORAH H YSEN; SUZAN H UBBARD; R OBERT AMBROSELLI,
 Defendants-Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Claudia A. Wilken, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted January 28, 2010—Pasadena, California
Filed September 7, 2010
Before: Stephen Reinhardt, A. Wallace Tashima and Marsha S. Berzon, Circuit Judges.
13469

13470

ARMSTRONG v. S CHWARZENEGGER Opinion by Judge Reinhardt

ARMSTRONG v. S CHWARZENEGGER

13473

COUNSEL
Michael W. Bien, Ernest Galvan, Gay C. Grunfeld, Blake Thompson, Warren E. George, San Francisco, California, and Donald Specter, Sara Norman, Linda Kilb, Berkeley, California, for the plaintiffs-appellees.
Edmund G. Brown Jr., Attorney General of the State of California; Jonathan L. Wolff, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Jay C. Russell, Supervising Deputy Attorney General; Scott J. Feudale, Deputy Attorney General, San Francisco, California, for the defendants-appellants.
Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General of the United States, Samuel Bagenstos, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Mark L. Gross, Attorney, Civil Rights Division of the

13474

ARMSTRONG v. S CHWARZENEGGER

Department of Justice, Conor B. Dugan, Attorney, Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for amicus curiae the United States.

OPINION
REINHARDT, Circuit Judge:
More than a decade and a half ago, disabled prisoners and parolees brought this action against the California officials with responsibility over the corrections system and parole proceedings. They sought accommodations to their disabilities that are required by the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Constitution. Defendants denied that they had any obligation to provide such accommodations, forcing plaintiffs to undertake years of litigation. Plaintiffs prevailed repeatedly in the district court and in this court. For most of the last decade, the litigation has been in a remedial phase.
Now, however, defendants are again denying any obligation to accommodate a set of disabled prisoners and parolees held under California’s authority. Defendants house significant numbers of prisoners and parolees in jails operated by California’s fifty-eight counties. Defendants contend that they have no responsibility for ensuring that any disabled prisoners and parolees that they so house receive accommodations. Their primary contention is that the regulations implementing the ADA, which make explicit that an entity cannot avoid its ADA obligations by operating “through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements ” with third parties, 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(1), are “manifestly contrary to the ” ADA. See Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. , 467 U.S. 837, 844 (1984). That argument, and defendants’ other arguments contesting their obligations to their prisoners and parolees housed in county jails, are without merit. Accord-

ARMSTRONG v. S CHWARZENEGGER

13475

ingly, we affirm the portion of the district court’s decision that holds that defendants are responsible for providing reasonable accommodations to the disabled prisoners and parolees that they house in county jails.

We also hold that the district court made the findings required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act regarding the necessity for relief and the narrowness and lack of intrusiveness of the relief order. We cannot affirm the precise relief ordered by the district court, however, because plaintiffs adduced insufficient evidence to justify such relief. Accordingly, we vacate and remand to the district court for further proceedings, including the introduction of additional evidence by the parties. The district court shall facilitate the parties’ efforts, in particular the plaintiffs’, to obtain evidence relevant to the resolution of this question.

I

In 1994, plaintiffs, a class of all present and future California state prison inmates and parolees with certain disabilities, sued defendants, California state officials with responsibility for the operation of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (the “CDCR”) and the Board of Parole Hearings (“BPH”), challenging the State’s treatment of disabled prisoners and parolees. A series of decisions by the district court and this court established that the Americans with Disabilities Act ( “ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-34, and the Rehabiliation Act (“RA”), 29 U.S.C. § 794, applied to state prisoners, and that defendants’ policies and procedures with regard to disabled prisoners and parolees were inadequate and violative of the ADA, the RA, and the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. See Armstrong v. Davis , 318 F.3d 965, 968-69 (9th Cir. 2003); Armstrong v. Davis , 275 F.3d 849, 854-58 (9th Cir. 2001); Armstrong v. Wilson, 124 F.3d 1019, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 1997); see also Pa. Dep’t of Corr. v. Yeskey , 524 U.S. 206 (1998). Pursuant to court orders, the CDCR defendants produced a remedial plan in January of 2001, and in March 2001,

13476

ARMSTRONG v. S CHWARZENEGGER

the district court entered a permanent injunction directing enforcement of that plan. See Armstrong v. Davis , 58 F. App’x. 695 (9th Cir. 2003). The district court entered a comparable permanent injunction with respect to the BPH defendants in 1999 and a revised permanent injunction in 2002. See Armstrong, 275 F.3d at 858.

Since the issuance of those injunctions and the decisions by this court affirming them, the litigation has been in a remedial phase, with defendants evaluating and modifying their procedures and policies and plaintiffs monitoring defendants’ compliance with the injunctions and the remedial plan and at times seeking enforcement through the district court. Recent developments in the litigation have focused on such issues as defendants’ obligation to create and implement a computerized system for tracking prisoners and parolees with disabilities in order to ensure that necessary accommodations are provided as prisoners and parolees move through the system. See Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger , No. 4:94-cv-02307 (N.D. Cal. May 30, 2006) (order granting motion to enforce revised permanent injunction); Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger , No. 4:94-cv-02307 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2007) (order granting in part plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the May 30, 2006 order).

At issue in the current appeal is plaintiffs’ May 28, 2009 motion to require defendants to track and accommodate the needs of class members housed in county jails and to ensure a workable grievance procedure for such class members. Pursuant to both contracts with the counties and its statutory authority under Cal. Penal Code § 4016.5, the State houses prisoners and parolees in county jails in a variety of circumstances, including, for example: for the period between a parole hold being placed on an individual and the individual’s parole revocation hearing; for the full term of parole subsequent to parole being revoked; and for in-custody drug treatment programs. In the aggregate, these policies lead to significant numbers of persons incarcerated pursuant to the State’s authority being housed in county jails; for instance, the

ARMSTRONG v. S CHWARZENEGGER

13477

San Mateo County Jail houses an average of 480 parolees a day, and Alameda and Sacramento County jails each house an average of 1000 parolees a day. In addition to these current placements, we take judicial notice of the State’s recent proposal to alter its sentencing practices to place in county jails approximately 14,000 persons who would otherwise be incarcerated in prisons. See Defendants’ Response to Three Judge Court’s October 21, 2009 Order, Coleman v. Schwarzenegger, Nov. 12, 2009, No. 2:90-cv-00520, (C.D. Cal Nov 12, 2009), ex. A.

In their motion, plaintiffs sought an “order requiring Defendants to develop and implement effective policies and procedures ensuring all prisoners and parolees with mobility, vision, hearing, developmental, kidney, and learning disabilities housed in county jails receive the accommodations they need.” Defendants replied by denying any responsibility towards such prisoners and parolees. On September 16, 2009, the district court issued an order granting plaintiffs’ motion. It found that defendants were violating the ADA, the RA and the court’s prior orders by failing to provide disability accommodations for disabled class members housed in county jails. It ordered defendants to develop and issue to the counties a plan to comply with the ADA by improving the tracking of state prisoners and parolees they house in county jails, notifying jails when the state sends the county a class member with a disability, and ensuring that class members housed in the jails have access to an adequate ADA grievance procedure. The court ordered that “at a minimum” several specific provisions regarding the timing of tracking, and response to notice of disabilities and class members’ grievances be included in the plan. Defendants timely appealed.

II

As a preliminary matter, plaintiffs challenge our jurisdiction over this appeal. We have “jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States. ”

13478

ARMSTRONG v. S CHWARZENEGGER

28 U.S.C. § 1291. Plaintiffs contend that the district court’s order was insufficiently final to invest us with jurisdiction. “Under modern doctrine, ‘[a] “final decision” generally is one which ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment . . . .’ ” United States v. One 1986 Ford Pickup, 56 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir. 1995). Finality is “to be given a practical rather than a technical construction”: the finality requirement is intended to prevent “piecemeal litigation ” rather than to vindicate some purely technical definition of finality. Id. Notably, some cases involve more than one final decision. See id. at 1185. In particular, appeals courts have jurisdiction over post-judgment orders, such as a district court might enter pursuant to the jurisdiction it has retained to enforce a prior order. This court has declared itself less concerned with piecemeal review when considering post-judgment orders, and more concerned with allowing some opportunity for review, because “unless such [post-judgment] orders are found final, there is often little prospect that further proceedings will occur to make them final.” See id.

[1] The order here at issue required defendants to produce a plan with specific features that would be disseminated to the counties and that would govern future interactions between defendants, the counties, and the disabled prisoners and parolees housed in the county jails. It did not contemplate further orders except in the event of disagreement between defendants and plaintiffs over the details of the plan. If we did not exercise jurisdiction here and the defendants in good faith delivered the plan as ordered, it is unclear that there would be any future opportunity for them to appeal. Accordingly, jurisdiction lies.

Plaintiffs’ argument to the contrary is not convincing. They cite Balla v. Idaho State Board of Corrections , 869 F.2d 461 (9th Cir. 1989), for the proposition that “court orders which require the submission of detailed plans are not final orders. ” Id. at 464-65; but cf. Armstrong I , 124 F.3d at 1022 (explain-

ARMSTRONG v. S CHWARZENEGGER

13479

ing that appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292 exists

over an order requiring submission of a plan so long as delay-

ing the appeal until after the delivery of the plan “would not

clarify the questions on appeal, ” and the “exact specifications

of the plan would not alter in a material manner the issues that

would be presented to the court of appeals ”); United States v.

Alabama, 828 F.2d 1532, 1536-38 (11th Cir. 1987) (finding

appealable under § 1291 an order to submit a plan where the

order was “specific[ ], detail[ed], and comprehensive[ ]” in

describing the requirements of the plan). The order at issue in

this case, however, required more of defendants than the sim-

ple “submission” of a detailed plan present in Balla. In partic-

ular, the order at issue in Balla required the defendants in that

case to generate a plan that adhered to a set of

“skeletal”

requirements and that would not be implemented until after

the district court had evaluated it, and, by separate order,

required the defendants to adopt it. See Balla , 869 F.2d at

463-64. The order at issue in the instant case required defen-

dants not simply to submit a plan that would be put into effect

by a subsequent order, but to develop a plan and implement

it. Jurisdiction for the order discussed in Balla would have

been premature because nothing yet had been required of

defendants, other than to put effort into developing construc-

tive solutions to their violations of federal law, which is a step

that courts can reasonably require defendants to take in order

to aid them in structuring relief that is narrow and minimally

intrusive. In contrast, here it is possible that no further pro-

ceedings would take place before defendants were required to

implement the plan that they seek to contest.

III

[2] One of the bases relied upon by the district court in determining that defendants are responsible for ensuring that class members housed in county jails receive the accommodations required by the ADA was a regulation implementing Title II of that Act. The regulation states, “a public entity, in providing any aid, benefit, or service, may not, directly or

13480

ARMSTRONG v. S CHWARZENEGGER

through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, discriminate against individuals with disabilities. ” 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(1). This regulation was promulgated by the Attorney General pursuant to Congress’s direction that he promulgate regulations implementing Title II that are consistent with the regulations governing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 12134. In accordance with the deference principles outlined in Chevron, 467 U.S. at 844, “Department of Justice regulations interpreting Title II should be given controlling weight unless they are ‘arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.’ ” McGary v. City of Portland, 386 F.3d 1259, 1269 n. 6 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Chevron, 467 U.S. at 844).

[3] A bare reading of Title II does not suggest any reason to conclude that the Attorney General’s interpretation of the provision is arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the text of the statute. There is nothing in Title II’s brief and general statement that public entities may not discriminate against disabled persons when providing services, programs and activities that suggests that the Attorney General was incorrect in concluding that “the services, programs, or activities of a public entity ” include those services, programs and activities that public entities offer or undertake through third parties by means of contracts and other arrangements. That a public entity has contracted for the provision or occurrence of such services, programs and activities seems sufficient to make them “the services, programs, or activities ” of that entity.

[4] Notwithstanding the deference owed to the Attorney General’s reading of Title II and that provision’s open and general language, defendants contend that the regulation plainly contradicts congressional intent, as expressed in the language and structure of the statute, and, accordingly, that it was error for the district court to rely on it. Their essential argument is that whereas another provision of the ADA, Title III, which bars discrimination on the basis of disability by certain private entities, contains language barring affected enti-

ARMSTRONG v. S CHWARZENEGGER

13481

ties from effecting such discrimination either “directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements,” Title II does not include any such language. According to defendants, this difference indicates that Congress unambiguously intended that public entities not be subject to liability for violations of the ADA when they provide programs or services through arrangements with third parties.

[5] This contention is baseless. First, the Title II and Title III provisions to which defendants point set forth similarly short and general nondiscrimination rules. 1 The Title III provision is followed by a “Construction” provision that spells out, in more than a thousand words, detailed requirements that the general rule imposes. See 42 U.S.C. § 12182. For example, the second of the Construction provision’s seven parts specifies that the meaning of “[d]iscrimination includes failure” by those public entities described in the general rule “to (A) make reasonable modifications . . . . ; (B) provide auxiliary aids and services . . . ; and (C) remove barriers consistent with [certain] requirements . . . . ” Id. at § 12182(b)(2)(A-C). It is unreasonable to read Titles II and III together as barring the Attorney General from adopting similar provisions with respect to the implementation of Title II. Rather than Congress having intended to prohibit the adoption of parallel provisions when implementing Title II, it is more likely that it

1Title II’s prohibition on discrimination, 42 U.S.C. § 12132, reads:
Subject to the provisions of this subchapter, no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.
The “[g]eneral rule” of Title III, 42 U.S.C. § 12181(a), provides:
No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation.

13482

ARMSTRONG v. S CHWARZENEGGER

intended just the opposite: that the Attorney General at the least consider Title III’s Construction section when adopting regulations governing Title II.

[6] Second, consistent with the brevity of Title II’s description of its prohibitions, the House Reports for the Title make clear that, rather than the difference between the language of Title III and that of Title II signalling Congress’s intention to omit the protections outlined in Title III but not described in Title II, as defendants argue, Congress intended that the protections of Title III be incorporated into Title II and that Title II be construed in a manner consistent with the regulations governing the RA and its identical protections. For example, the House Committee on Education and Labor stated:

The Committee has chosen not to list all the types of actions that are included within the term “discrimination”, as was done in titles I and III, because this title essentially simply extends the antidiscrimination prohibition embodied in section 504 [of the Rehabilitation Act] to all actions of state and local governments. The Committee intends, however, that the forms of discrimination prohibited by section 202 be identical to those set out in the applicable provisions of titles I and III of this legislation.

H.R. Rep. No. 101-485, pt. 2, at 84 (1990). Similarly, the House Judiciary Committee stated that “Title II should be read to incorporate provisions of titles I and III which are not inconsistent with the regulations implementing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. ” H.R. Rep. No. 101-485, pt. 3, 51 (1990). This statement of intent by the Judiciary Committee is echoed in the statute, which, as noted, includes a directive that the Department of Justice promulgate regulations implementing Title II that are consistent with the regulations governing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 12134. The bar in the Title II regulation, 28 C.F.R.

ARMSTRONG v. S CHWARZENEGGER

13483

§ 35.130(b)(1), on discrimination “through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements ” is fully consistent with the regulations implementing Section 504: those regulations state, and have stated since their original promulgation in 1978, that a recipient of federal financial assistance may not discriminate “directly or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, on the basis of handicap. ” 28 C.F.R. § 41.51; see also 43 Fed. Reg. 2132, 2134 (Jan. 13, 1978); 46 Fed. Reg. 40686 (Aug. 11, 1981).

[7] Accordingly, the regulations are not “manifestly contrary to the statute. ” Indeed, they reflect the fairest reading of the statute. Defendants’ contention that the regulations are invalid is in error. 2

2Zimmerman v. Or. Dep’t of Justice , 170 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 1999), on which defendants rely to make their structural argument, does not suggest a different result. In Zimmerman, this court found that Title II of the ADA did not cover employment discrimination, notwithstanding an implementing regulation that said that it did. This court reasoned that the text of Title II clearly concerns itself not with “inputs” of public agencies, such as employment, but with “outputs,” including a public agency’s “services, programs, [and] activities. ” See id . at 1174. It further reasoned that the structure of the ADA militated against a finding that Title II applies to employment. See id. at 1176-79. Title I of the ADA, entitled “Employment,” deals extensively with employment, and regulating employment under Title II would both render Title I redundant and eviscerate its procedural requirements. See id. at 1176.
As relates to the instant case, consistent with this court’s decision in Zimmerman, the challenged regulation applies Title II to an “output” of a public agency, namely the services, programs, and activities that the CDCR provides to or imposes upon class members. Moreover, there is no argument that the activities of the CDCR and Board that those agencies accomplish through contracting and similar arrangements with the counties are regulated by any other title within the ADA, much less that regulating those activities under Title II would eviscerate or in any way damage any other section of the ADA.

13484

ARMSTRONG v. S CHWARZENEGGER IV

Defendants also contend that, even if valid, 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(1) and 28 C.F.R. § 41.51, the regulation implementing § 504 of the RA, 3 do not apply to their arrangements with the county jails because those arrangements do not provide prisoners and parolees with any “aid, benefit or service, ” but rather provide for the incarceration of such individuals.

[8] This contention is foreclosed by our precedent and that of the Supreme Court. Although we have noted that “incarceration itself is hardly a ‘program’ or ‘activity’ to which a disabled person might wish access, ” we have made clear that the ADA entitles inmates to receive the “benefits” of the incarcerating institution’s programs and services without facing discrimination on account of a disability. See Armstrong , 124 F.3d at 1023. The Supreme Court has also rejected defendants’ position, saying, “We disagree ” with the contention “that state prisons do not provide prisoners with ‘benefits’ of ‘programs, services, or activities’ as those terms are ordinarily understood . . . . Modern prisons provide inmates with many recreational ‘activities,’ medical ‘services,’ and educational and vocational ‘programs,’ all of which at least theoretically ‘benefit’ the prisoners. ” Yeskey, 524 at 210.

[9] Here, plaintiffs do not complain that they have been denied incarceration on account of their disabilities. Instead, they contend that, on account of their disabilities, they have been denied benefits provided to other incarcerated persons or required by due process. The State’s contracts and arrangements with the counties are not simply to incarcerate parolees and prisoners, but to provide such individuals with various positive opportunities, from educational and treatment pro-

3Although defendants suggest that this regulation too was invalid, they offer no argument as to why, nor, incidentally, do they explain why, even if we found the Title II regulation invalid, the court could not have simply acted under § 504 and its implementing regulations.

ARMSTRONG v. S CHWARZENEGGER

13485

grams, to opportunities to contest their incarceration, to the fundamentals of life, such as sustenance, the use of toilet and bathing facilities, and elementary mobility and communication. The restrictions imposed by incarceration mean that all of these positive opportunities must be provided or allowed to individuals incarcerated pursuant to state contracts and arrangements to the same extent that they are provided to all other detainees and prisoners. Accordingly, such state-county arrangements include “benefits” of programs or services provided to class members by defendants through their contracts and other arrangements with the counties, and come under the purview of the ADA and its regulations.

V

[10] Defendants next argue that the order violates the federalism principles announced in Printz v. United States , 521 U.S. 898, 919-21 (1997), and New York v. United States , 505 U.S. 144, 174-77 (1992).4 This argument too is without merit. In Printz, the Supreme Court invalidated a provision of the Brady Act requiring state law enforcement officers to conduct background searches of prospective gun purchasers, which the court reasoned was in actuality an attempt to compel states to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. See Printz, 521 U.S. at 904. In New York, the Court invalidated a federal law requiring states either to regulate the disposal of radioactive waste by private parties according to federal guidelines or to take title to such waste. See New York, 505 U.S. at 174-75. In both cases, what concerned the Court was the federal government’s apparent attempt to commandeer state officials to help it enforce its regulatory schemes against third parties.

4Plaintiffs contend that the issue is waived, because it was not raised to the district court. This court, however, may hear an issue raised for the first time on appeal so long as “the issue presented is a pure question of law and the opposing party will suffer no prejudice as a result of the failure to raise the issue in the trial court, ” conditions which here obtain. See Raich v. Gonzales , 500 F.3d 850, 868 (9th Cir. 2009).

13486

ARMSTRONG v. S CHWARZENEGGER

[11] Here, the district court did not order defendants to implement or enforce the ADA against third parties. At issue are defendants’ own obligations under the ADA. The district court did not require the state to ensure that the county jails provide ADA accommodations to every person housed in those jails. It simply required the State to ensure ADAcompliant conditions for prisoners and parolees being held under its authority, whether it houses such persons in its own facilities or chooses to house them with the counties. The State’s only obligation under the order is with regard to its own prisoners and parolees, and it is triggered in this case purely by the State’s choice to house incarcerated persons in the county jails. The State could avoid all obligations to ensure that anyone in the county jails receives the accommodations required by the ADA by choosing not to house class members in those jails. This distinction — between a general mandate to enforce federal law, and a requirement that the state not avoid its own obligations under federal law by contracting with other entities — sets this case apart from the concerns expressed in Printz and New York about the federal government using the states as vehicles for the implementation and enforcement of federal laws. Finally, this case is not, like Printz and New York , an attempt by the federal government to require the State to carry out a federal obligation. Rather, it is an action by private parties — the class of plaintiffs — to enforce their own rights under federal law and the Constitution.

VI

[12] Defendants’ next contention is that the order runs afoul of the deference that courts must show to prison officials in order to ensure the safe and effective management of prisons. “[W]hen a prison regulation impinges on inmates’ constitutional [or statutory] rights, the regulation is [nonetheless] valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.” See Turner v. Safley , 482 U.S. 78, 84-85(1987); Gates v. Rowland, 39 F.3d 1439, 1446-47 (9th Cir. 1994).

ARMSTRONG v. S CHWARZENEGGER

13487

Defendants argue that “the ordered plan requires that parolees be removed from county jails to CDCR prisons if jails exhibit ‘patterns’ of ADA non-compliance, ” and that they “have legitimate penological reasons to house accused parole violators in county jails rather than in state prisons, ” that outweigh any impingement on class members’ federal rights.

[13] Defendants misstate what the order requires, and demand deference to which they are not entitled. The order does not contain any requirement that defendants shift parolees to CDCR facilities if the jails exhibit patterns of ADA non-compliance. Rather, it requires that if defendants become aware of a class member housed in a county jail who is not being accommodated, they either see to it that that jail accommodates the class member, or they move the class member to a facility — which could be either a CDCR facility or a county jail — which can accommodate his needs. See Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger , No. 4:94-cv-02307 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2009) at 13. If they become aware of a “pattern” of ADA noncompliance, they are to notify county jail officials and take steps to remedy the pattern of noncompliance. Id. at 13-14. These features of the plan reflect the fact that the policy that plaintiffs challenge is not that of housing some class members in jails, but that of failing to ensure that such class members receive the accommodations that they need and to which they are entitled. None of what defendants present as legitimate penological reasons addresses this latter policy, and we are not aware of any penological reasons that would support it.

VII

[14] The Prison Litigation Reform Act provides that courts “shall not grant or approve any prospective relief [with respect to prison conditions] unless the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal

13488

ARMSTRONG v. S CHWARZENEGGER

right.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). Defendants argue that the September 16 order violates this need-narrownessintrusiveness requirement in two ways. First, they contend that a court must make the required need-narrownessintrusiveness findings on a provision-by-provision basis, explaining why each element of the ordered relief is the narrowest and least intrusive means possible of correcting defendants’ ADA violations, and that the district court failed to make the requisite findings. Second, they argue that the plan is neither narrowly drawn nor minimally intrusive.

[15] With regard to their first contention, the language of the PLRA does not suggest that Congress intended a provision-by-provision explanation of a district court’s findings, and there is no practical reason why we should read such an obligation into the statute. Nowhere does § 3626(a)(1) explain what it means to “find[ ]” that relief is appropriate, nor does it explain whether “any prospective relief ” refers to a remedial order as a whole or to each individual element of such an order. It makes at least as much sense from a semantic standpoint to read “relief” as referring to the district court’s order as a whole as it does to read the term as referring to each separate provision of that order; it is, after all, the order as a whole that redresses the violation of federal law, and not any individual measure on its own. Accordingly, “[i]t cannot be said that § 3626(a)(1) is unambiguous, or clearly expresses Congress’ intent to depart from the traditional standard — findings sufficient to allow a ‘clear understanding’ of the ruling — in favor of a painfully exacting standard under which courts make such findings on a paragraph by paragraph, or even sentence by sentence, basis. ” Benjamin v. Fraser, 156 F. Supp. 2d 333, 342 (S.D.N.Y. 2001); see also Gomez v. Vernon , 255 F.3d 1118, 1129 (9th Cir. 2001) (the PLRA did “not substantially change[ ] the threshold findings and standards required to justify an injunction ”). Thus, we understand the statutory language to mean that the courts must do what they have always done when determining the

ARMSTRONG v. S CHWARZENEGGER

13489

appropriateness of the relief ordered: consider the order as a whole.

In many cases it would not be possible for a district court to produce meaningful need-narrowness-intrusiveness findings concerning each isolated provision of a remedial order. Prospective relief for institutions as complex as prisons is a necessarily aggregate endeavor, composed of multiple elements that work together to redress violations of the law. This is all the more true when relief must be narrow and minimally intrusive: courts often must order defendants to make changes in several different areas of policy and procedure in order to avoid interjecting themselves too far into any one particular area of prison administration. In such circumstances, the necessity of any individual provision cannot be evaluated in isolation. What is important, and what the PLRA requires, is a finding that the set of reforms being ordered — the “relief” — corrects the violations of prisoners’ rights with the minimal impact possible on defendants’ discretion over their policies and procedures.

Moreover, where a court has explained clearly the factual circumstances underlying an order and its understanding of the relevant law as applied to the facts, to require more than a determination that it has found the requisite need, narrowness and lack of intrusiveness for that order would give rise to unwarranted challenges to the findings no matter how detailed those findings were and would unduly delay resolution of the already complicated proceedings necessary to remedy the underlying constitutional violations. See Benjamin , 156 F. Supp. 2d at 342. No one, not least the litigants hoping to secure final decisions, would be served by adopting the novel requirement that the state urges upon us.

[16] We have never previously held that it is necessary for a district court to provide a Printz and New York explanation of its need-narrowness-intrusiveness findings. Instead, we have upheld as sufficient under the PLRA overall statements

13490

ARMSTRONG v. S CHWARZENEGGER

by the district court that the need-narrowness-intrusiveness standard has been met; indeed, in our review of the 1999 permanent injunction that the district court entered against the BPH we wrote approvingly of need-narrowness-intrusiveness findings by the district court that were delivered in exactly the same form as those at issue in the instant appeal. See Armstrong, 275 F.3d at 872.

Defendants’ arguments with regard to their second contention, that the relief ordered as a whole is not the narrowest, least intrusive relief possible, are remarkably weak. They do not suggest any means to protect class members’ rights under the ADA that are more narrow or less intrusive than those ordered by the district court. Intrusiveness is a particularly difficult issue for defendants to argue, as by ordering them to draft and promulgate a plan, the district court left to defendants’ discretion as many of the particulars regarding how to deliver the relief as it deemed possible. Allowing defendants to develop policies and procedures to meet the ADA’s requirements is precisely the type of process that the Supreme Court has indicated is appropriate for devising a suitable remedial plan in a prison litigation case. See Armstrong, 275 F.3d at 883 (Berzon, J., concurring); see also Lewis v. Casey , 518 U.S. 343, 362-63 (1996).

Additionally, the arguments that defendants make under the

guise of intrusiveness do not address the core concern of the

intrusiveness inquiry: whether the district court has

“en-

meshed [itself] in the minutiae of prison operations, ” beyond

what is necessary to vindicate plaintiffs’ federal rights. See id.

at 362 (quoting Bell v. Wolfish , 441 U.S. 520, 562 (1979)).

Instead, they focus almost exclusively on the magnitude of the

burden that the court’s order imposes upon the State, an issue

that is beside the point. A demonstration that an order is bur-

densome does nothing to prove that it was overly intrusive.

With Congress having made the decision to recognize the

rights of disabled persons, the question is not whether the

relief the court ordered to vindicate those rights is expensive,

ARMSTRONG v. S CHWARZENEGGER

13491

or difficult to achieve, but whether the same vindication of federal rights could have been achieved with less involvement by the court in directing the details of defendants’ operations. We note, moreover, that defendants’ claims that the order is burdensome are belied by the proposed draft plan that they have circulated, which conforms in large part to the order’s requirements and does so, according to their own earlier statements, at a fraction of the expense that they now claim that the order will compel them to incur.

Defendants’ arguments that the relief ordered was not narrowly drawn are no more convincing. Defendants contend that the district court should have ordered them to develop a plan to share information concerning disabled parolees with the county jails in order to help the counties “enhance” their own ADA compliance. Beside trying to lay their own responsibilities at the feet of the counties, defendants do not suggest that such an information sharing plan would correct the federal law violations at issue: “enhanced” ADA compliance with regard to inmates kept in county jails may not constitute actual compliance.

[17] Defendants also suggest that it was not necessary for the district court to order them to ensure that class members housed in county jails are accommodated, because the class members could obtain a remedy by suing the jails. That another party could be sued, and that such a suit might ultimately lead to that party being ordered to do something to correct the violation of a federal right, is not a narrower or less intrusive form of relief within the meaning of the statute. It is elementary that a plaintiff may sue a party who is liable for his injury and that a defendant cannot avoid liability, or the remedy for that liability, by demonstrating that plaintiff could have sued another party as well. In other words, defendants cannot shirk their obligations under the ADA by suggesting that because an order requiring that a non-defendant provide relief to the plaintiffs would be narrower and less intrusive on defendants, the relief ordered by the court against

13492

ARMSTRONG v. S CHWARZENEGGER

them does not satisfy the PLRA. Additionally, the counties could make the same argument in response to any relief ordered against them — that from their point of view relief would be narrower and less intrusive if the State were ordered to provide it — with the irrational and unacceptable pingpong result that a plaintiff harmed by two entities could get no relief from either. In short, the defendants have the responsibility of ensuring that their prisoners are afforded their rights under the ADA, regardless of where the State incarcerates them, and the narrowest and least intrusive relief is the narrowest and least intrusive order that directs the State to provide or ensure the relief to which the plaintiffs are entitled.

Although we reject with little difficulty the principal arguments advanced by the State, we cannot affirm the district court’s determination that the relief it ordered “extend[ed] no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.” Such a determination cannot be made without evidence sufficient to identify the nature and scope of the violations of federal rights that are to be corrected. As we explain below, the evidentiary record in this case is an insufficient basis for the scope of the relief that has been ordered.

VIII

[18] “The scope of injunctive relief is dictated by the extent of the violation established. ” Lewis, 518 U.S. at 539. “[I]f injunctive relief is premised upon only a few isolated violations affecting a narrow range of plaintiffs, its scope must be limited accordingly. ” Armstrong, 275 F.3d at 870. However, “if the injury is the result of violations of a statute . . . that are attributable to policies or practices pervading the whole system (even though injuring a relatively small number of plaintiffs), ” then “[s]ystem-wide relief is required. ” Id. Defendants argue that plaintiffs presented insufficient evidence to justify the system-wide relief ordered by the district court. Although it is a close question, we agree.

ARMSTRONG v. S CHWARZENEGGER

13493

In issuing its order, the district court relied on very sparse evidence of actual ADA violations in the county jails. Plaintiffs provided a great deal of hearsay reporting ADA violations in the county jails as well as a lack of grievance procedures for remedying those violations, but the district court stated that it relied on only the few pieces of evidence that it determined were admissible, including an affidavit in which one of plaintiffs’ attorneys described an observation of nonaccessible bathroom facilities in a county jail; a declaration from another attorney describing his observation of parolees with obvious difficulty walking who had not been provided with canes or wheelchairs; documentation produced by defendants showing that wheelchair-bound prisoners and certain diabetics are not allowed to participate in the drug treatment alternative to incarceration for parole violators in Orange County jail; and a CDCR memo admitting to a several-days delay in transporting a paraplegic parolee from jail to his hearing because no accessible vehicle was available. The district court allowed that “many” of the ADA violations on which it relied related to individuals who were not necessarily Armstrong class members, but stated that the evidence nonetheless “support[ed] the inference that county jails do not provide reasonable accommodations for . . . class members. ”

[19] Defendants allege that much of the evidence on which the district court relied was inadmissible hearsay. We do not reach this contention. Even assuming that all the evidence on which the district court relied was admissible, and even according the district court the heightened deference that is appropriate “where the court has been overseeing complex institutional reform litigation for a long period of time, ” Jeff D. v. Kempthorne, 365 F.3d 844, 850 (9th Cir. 2004), the evidence here constituted an insufficient basis for the systemwide relief that was ordered. We have previously stated that an appeals court must defer to a district court’s determination that system-wide relief is required “[s]o long as [its] conclusion is based upon adequate findings supported by substantial evidence in the record.” Armstrong, 275 F.3d at 871. The evi-

13494

ARMSTRONG v. S CHWARZENEGGER

dence of ADA violations in the jails with regard to class members, however, cannot be described as “substantial”: it is composed largely of single incidents that could be isolated. Plaintiffs argue that “the decision to grant system-wide prospective injunction relief does not occur in a vacuum; it is intimately connected to determinations made earlier in the lawsuit.” See id. at 870-71. Plaintiffs do not, however, point to any past determinations that show that class members housed in county jails are not being accommodated. More important, in issuing its order, the district court failed to identify any such determinations, and thus, we are required to conclude, did not rely on them when determining the scope of its order.

[20] Accordingly, we conclude that the district court abused its discretion by granting system-wide relief on the basis of the sparse evidence on which it based its order, and remand to allow it to take such additional evidence as may be necessary concerning the nature and extent of the violations of class members’ rights taking place in the county jails. We note, however, that the burden facing plaintiffs, while formidable, is far from insurmountable. As we stated above, it is a close question as to whether the evidence currently in the record is sufficient to sustain the current order. It is undisputed that the State houses many class members in the county jails, and that it has no adequate system for tracking and accommodating those class members. As we have previously observed, “[b]ecause the regulations implementing the ADA require a public entity to accommodate individuals it has identified as disabled . . . some form of tracking system is necessary in order to enable [defendants] to comply with the Act.” Armstrong, 275 F.3d at 876. This system-wide deficiency took plaintiffs much of the way towards a showing sufficient to justify the system-wide relief ordered by the district court, but it was not enough in itself, or in tandem with the minimal evidence of violations that was adduced, to justify the scope of the relief that was ordered. Nonetheless, in light of the State’s failure to track many of the class members that

ARMSTRONG v. S CHWARZENEGGER

13495

it houses in the county jails, not much more evidence than that already provided may be required to approve the current order. At the same time, we might observe that, in this case as in others, too much evidence would certainly be preferable to too little.

IX

[21] For the reasons stated above, we affirm the district court’s determination that defendants cannot shirk their obligations to plaintiffs under federal law by housing them in facilities operated by the third-party counties. 5 This holding should come as no surprise. Defendants’ arguments as to this issue were of a barely colorable nature, constituting attacks on manifestly valid regulations. Moreover, even in the absence of a regulation explicitly saying so, a State cannot avoid its obligations under federal law by contracting with a third party to perform its functions. The rights of individuals are not so ethereal nor so easily avoided. We must vacate, however, the portion of the district court’s decision ordering prospective relief. Injunctions, whether controlled by the PLRA or otherwise, require evidence of rights violations commensurate with the scope of the relief being ordered. Here, the evidence relied upon by the district court was insufficient to justify that scope. We remand to allow the parties to adduce additional evidence and to permit the district court to prepare an order supported by the evidence before it. In doing so, it may of course take notice of the evidence of earlier proceedings already in the record, but must identify such evidence with specificity.

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART

5We deny plaintiffs’ motion for judicial notice and note that no judicial notice is required for most of the materials for which plaintiffs requested it. See Fed. R. Evid. 201 advisory committee’s note.

 
 1

2

3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

7

8

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

9 JOHN ARMSTRONG, et al.,
10 Plaintiffs,
11 v.
12 ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,
13

Case No. C 94-2307 CW
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO REQUIRE DEFENDANTS TO TRACK AND ACCOMMODATE NEEDS OF ARMSTRONG CLASS MEMBERS HOUSED IN COUNTY JAILS AND ENSURE ACCESS TO A WORKABLE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE

14

Defendants.

15

16

/

17 Plaintiffs move for an order requiring Defendants to track and
18 19 accommodate the needs of Armstrong class members housed in county
20 jails and to provide access to a workable grievance procedure.

21 Defendants oppose the motion. The matter was heard on July 9,

22 2009. Having considered oral argument and all of the materials

23 submitted by the parties, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion.

24

BACKGROUND

25 On September 20, 1996, this Court ordered Defendants to
26 develop plans to ensure that their facilities and programs were
27

compliant with the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 28

1 §§ 12131 et seq., and readily accessible to and usable by prisoners

2 and parolees with disabilities. The order also required Defendants
3 to develop policies to provide a prompt and equitable disability
4 grievance procedure, to allow approved assistive aids for prisoners
5 with disabilities in segregation units and reception centers, and
6 to ensure accessibility in new construction and alterations.
7 8 Remedial Order and Injunction and Certification for Interlocutory
9 Appeal, September 20, 1996. The Court retained jurisdiction to

10 enforce its terms. Id. at 5.

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

11

In response to the Order, Defendants issued their Court

12 Ordered Remedial Plan on January 3, 2001. The Remedial Plan

13 requires Defendants to ensure that prisoners and parolees with
14 disabilities are accessibly housed, that they are able to obtain
15 and keep necessary assistive devices, and that they receive
16 effective communication regarding accommodations. Id. at 1-7, 27-
17 28, 32, 34, 46-47. The Remedial Plan also requires Defendants to 18
include language in all contracts that requires subcontractors to 19
comply with the ADA. Id. at 46. 20
In addition, on December 22, 1999, the Court entered a 21
permanent injunction in this action as to those Defendants who are 22
responsible for conducting parole proceedings of the Board of 23 24 Parole Hearings (BPH, formerly known as the Board of Prison Terms),
25 following trial and findings that Defendants were in violation of

26 the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C.

27 § 794, and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

28

2

1

The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law made in support of

2 the injunction held that:

3

Defendants cannot avoid ADA and Section 504

4

liability by delegating responsibility for

their delivery of programs, services and

5

activities, or for the facilities in which they

provide these programs, to the CDC or any other

6

entity. The implementing regulations of both

the ADA and Section 504 prohibit covered

7

entities from discriminating against

8

individuals with disabilities “directly or through contractual, licensing, or other

9

arrangements.” The BPT is thus legally obliged

to ensure non-discrimination wherever programs,

10

services or activities are provided to

Plaintiff class members. Additionally, the BPT

11

cannot avoid liability for violations of the

physical accessibility standards by holding its

12

programs in locations under the control of

other entities. 13

14 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, December 22, 1999, at 90

15 (internal citations omitted).

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

16

The Court entered a Revised Permanent Injunction on

17 February 11, 2002. The Revised Permanent Injunction requires

18 Defendants to provide accommodations at all parole proceedings to

19 prisoners and parolees with disabilities. Revised Permanent
20 Injunction, February 11, 2002, ¶ 17. The subsequent Order Granting 21
Motion to Enforce Revised Permanent Injunction issued on May 30, 22
2006, requires that Defendants develop and implement a plan to 23
ensure that necessary accommodations are provided to class members 24
25 without delay. Order Granting Motion to Enforce Revised Permanent
26 Injunction, May 30, 2006, at 8-9.

27

Most recently, on September 11, 2007, in response to

28

3

1 Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the May, 2006 Order Granting Motion

2 to Enforce Revised Permanent Injunction, this Court Ordered:

3

Within thirty days of this order, Defendants

4

shall report to Plaintiffs' counsel which

housing units in Alameda, Sacramento and Los

5

Angeles County Jail facilities are wheelchair

accessible and how Defendants ensure that class

6

members at those institutions who are

designated DPW and DPO are housed in the

7

accessible facilities and receive necessary

8

accommodations and assistive devices in both their housing units and at their hearings.

9

Within ninety days of this order, Defendants

shall do the same with the remaining county

10

jails. A necessary component of both reports

is how Defendants track class members who are

11

housed in county facilities due to parole

holds. 12

Order Granting in Part Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce the May 30, 13

14 2006 Order, ¶ 19.

15

As these orders make clear, Defendants have an obligation

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

16 under the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and prior Orders of this

17 Court to ensure that facilities and programs are accessible to

18 class members while in prison, on parole and during the parole

19 revocation and parole consideration process. That obligation
20 cannot be avoided by contracting with county facilities to house 21
CDCR prisoners and parolees. See 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(i22
iii); 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(1). 23
Defendants frequently house parolees, some of whom are 24
25 Armstrong class members, in county jails throughout the state.
26 Plaintiffs have submitted evidence showing that an average of 480

27 CDCR parolees are housed in the San Mateo County Jail on any given

28

4

1 day, and that over 1,000 parolees are housed in Alameda and

2 Sacramento County Jails each day. Additionally, Defendants have
3 770 In Custody Drug Treatment Program (ICDTP) placements in county
4 jails.
5 Defendants have statutory and contractual relationships with
6 all fifty-eight California counties which allow them to exercise
7 8 some degree of control over the policies and procedures of county
9 jails housing class members. Defendants contract with Alameda and

10 Sacramento Counties for the housing of parolees in their jails

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

11 during and after the parolee’s revocation hearings and for their

12 full parole terms. The Alameda and Sacramento County contracts

13 include language requiring those jails to comply with the ADA.
14 Defendants also contract with nine counties to provide ICDTP
15 placements for parolees.
16 Defendants have statutory authority to house parolees at
17 county jails. California Penal Code § 4016.5 mandates that
18 19 counties receive compensation for housing parolees and providing
20 support for revocation proceedings. The CDCR’s Daily Jail Rate

21 Manual sets out a detailed formula for compensating local jails for

22 housing parolees and for accommodating parole revocation

23 proceedings. The Manual also permits Defendants to withhold

24 compensation to the jails based on failure to meet the minimum
25 standards for local detention facilities. The minimum standards 26
for operation of local detention facilities require that county 27

28

5

1 jail facilities ensure that prisoners and parolees with

2 disabilities receive all necessary accommodations, including
3 wheelchair accessible housing. See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15,
4 §§ 1000 et seq.; Cal. Code Regs. tit. 24 Part 1, § 13-102(c).
5 DISCUSSION
6 Defendants do not dispute that significant numbers of parolees
7 8 are being held in county jails. They contend, however, that the
9 CDCR is not responsible for providing reasonable accommodations to

10 those parolees or, in the alternative, that Plaintiffs have not

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

11 presented sufficient evidence of ADA violations in the facilities.

12 I. 13 14

Responsibility for Providing Reasonable Accommodations in County Jails
Defendants argue that the county jails, not the CDCR, are

15 responsible for providing reasonable accommodations to parolees

16 held in county jail facilities. In reliance on this contention,

17 Defendants have not taken sufficient steps to address the problems

18 class members encounter in county jails. For example, Defendants

19 have failed to develop adequate policies and procedures to ensure
20 that wheelchair-using class members designated as DPW and DPO
21 housed in the county facilities are accessibly housed and receive
22 needed accommodations as required by the Court’s September 11, 2007
23 24 Order.

25

In addition, the tracking system Defendants developed to

26 identify class members with mobility and other impairments in

27 county jails is too limited and allows for delays. Finally,

28

6

1 Defendants have advanced an inadequate grievance policy with a very

2 limited scope of application. The policy, which Defendants
3 maintain will only apply to Alameda and Sacramento Counties, does 4
not operate to provide timely disability accommodations to class 5
members. 6
Federal regulations implementing Title II of the ADA provide 7 8 that “a public entity, in providing any aid, benefit or service, 9 may not, directly or through contractual, licensing or other
10 arrangements” discriminate against individuals with disabilities.

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

11 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(1). Regulations implementing § 504 of the

12 Rehabilitation Act contain a similar prohibition. Nonetheless,

13 Defendants argue that because the prohibition on contracting away
14 compliance obligations is not in the text of Title II or § 504, the
15 Department of Justice exceeded its authority in promulgating the
16 regulations and they are invalid.
17 Defendants’ argument is unpersuasive. The ADA and the
18 19 Rehabilitation Act expressly authorize agencies to promulgate
20 implementing regulations. See 42 U.S.C. § 12134(a), 29 U.S.C.

21 § 794(a). The Ninth Circuit has held that these regulations are

22 entitled to deference “unless they are arbitrary, capricious or

23 manifestly contrary to the statute”.1 McGary v. City of Portland,

24

1 Pursuant to Local Rule 7-3(d), Defendants have cited

25 Lonberg v. City of Riverside.

F.3d , No. 06-55781, 2009 WL

1813526 (9th Cir. June 26, 2009). In that case, the Ninth Circuit 26 held that a regulation promulgated under the ADA was not privately

enforceable. The regulation, 28 C.F.R. § 35.150(d), requires 27 public entities to create a transition plan to meet the ADA’s

28

7

1 386 F.3d 1259, 1269 n. 6 (9th Cir. 2004)(internal quotations

2 omitted).

3

Moreover, in the findings supporting the permanent injunction

4 entered on December 22, 1999, this Court determined that the Title
5 II and § 504 regulations are applicable in this case and prevent
6 Defendants from contracting away or delegating responsibility for
7

8 ADA compliance to other entities. Findings of Fact and Conclusions

9 of Law, December 22, 1999, at 90 (internal citations omitted).

10 Defendants appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit, which upheld

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

11 the relevant portions of the injunction. Armstrong v. Davis, 275

12 F.3d 849, 873-74 (9th Cir. 2001). Therefore, under the law of the

13 case doctrine, the Title II and § 504 regulations are applicable
14 and Defendants cannot shift their responsibility to provide ADA
15 compliant facilities to county jail administrators.
16 See United States v. Thrasher, 483 F.3d 977, 981 (9th Cir.
17 2007)(law of the case doctrine precludes a court from reconsidering
18 19 an issue previously decided by the same court or a higher court in
20 the same case).

21 accessibility requirements. The statutory text of the ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability, but does not
22 place any affirmative obligations on public entities to develop compliance plans. Id. at *4. The court reasoned that § 35.150(d)
23 swept more broadly than the statutorily provided private right of action and was therefore not privately enforceable. The regulation
24 in question in this case, 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(1), is distinguishable. Consistent with Title II of the ADA,
25 § 35.130(b)(1) enumerates specific ways that public entities are prohibited from discriminating on the basis of disability. It does
26 not place additional burdens or obligations on public entities. Therefore, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling that § 35.150 is not
27 privately enforceable is not applicable in this case.

28

8

1

Finally, Defendants argue that, even if the regulations are

2 valid, they apply only to contracts for programs and services, and
3 do not cover contracts for incarceration. It is well settled,
4 however, that the ADA and § 504 apply to incarceration itself. See
5 Pennsylvania Dep’t of Corr. v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206, 212-13
6 (1998)(holding that the ADA is applicable to state prisons);
7 8 Armstrong v. Davis, 124 F.3d 1019, 1025 (1997)(holding that the ADA
9 and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act apply to state prisons).

10 II. Evidence of ADA and § 504 Violations

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

11

Defendants argue that even if regulations prevent them from

12 shifting responsibility for ADA compliance to county jails,

13 Plaintiffs have not adduced sufficient evidence demonstrating that
14 Armstrong class members have been denied reasonable accommodations
15 while housed in county jails. Contrary to Defendants’ assertion,
16 Plaintiffs have produced sufficient evidence of ongoing violations.
17 Defendants note that much of the evidence Plaintiffs proffer
18 19 is hearsay. Nonetheless, there is sufficient non-hearsay evidence
20 to establish violations of the ADA and § 504. One of Plaintiffs’

21 attorneys submitted an affidavit describing her observations of

22 showers and bathrooms in county jails, which are not accessible to

23 disabled individuals. Mania Dec. ¶ 28, Ex. DD. Another attorney

24 noted that he interviewed several parolees with mobility
25 impairments and observed that none was provided with a cane or 26
wheelchair, despite their obvious difficulty walking. 27

28

9

1 Galvan Dec., ¶ 8. Defendants do not dispute these facts.

2

In addition, documents produced by Defendants in discovery

3 show that class members are denied reasonable accommodations. For
4 example, a document outlining the eligibility criteria for the
5 Orange County ICDTP provides that individuals in wheelchairs and
6 insulin-dependent diabetics are excluded from the program. Mania
7 8 Dec. ¶ 28, Ex. BB. Another document, a memo sent by the CDCR in

9 response to an inquiry from Plaintiffs’ counsel, admits that there

10 was a delay of several days in transporting a paraplegic parolee

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

11 from a county jail to his hearing because the CDCR could not

12 initially locate an accessible vehicle to transport him. Maznavi

13 Dec. ¶ 20, Ex. K.

14

Defendants also challenge the adequacy of the evidence

15 presented by Plaintiffs because many of the ADA violations cited
16 relate to individuals who are not necessarily Armstrong class
17
members. However, even if the specific examples cited do not 18

19 involve class members, they support the inference that county jails

20 do not provide reasonable accommodations for prisoners with

21 disabilities who are class members. See Fed. R. Evid. 401.

22 Therefore, Plaintiffs have presented sufficient evidence to

23 demonstrate ongoing violations of the ADA at county jails.

24

In order to remedy the ongoing harm to Armstrong class members

25 and ensure that Defendants meet their obligations under the ADA and

26 Rehabilitation Act and prior Court Orders, the Court orders the
27

28

10

1 following relief, which it finds is narrowly drawn, extends no

2 further than necessary to correct the violation of federal rights,
3 and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation
4 of the federal rights:
5 Within thirty days of this Order, Defendants shall provide
6 written notification and instruction to all county jail facilities
7 8 of their duty to comply with the ADA in housing Armstrong class
9 members and that Defendants will enforce these obligations. A copy

10 shall be provided to Plaintiffs’ counsel.

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

11

Within forty-five days of this Order, Defendants shall develop

12 a plan for ensuring timely and appropriate accommodations for

13 Armstrong class members in county jails that includes, at a

14 minimum, the following elements:

15 1.
16
17
18

Within one business day of the arrival of a prisoner at a county jail facility pursuant to a parole hold, Defendants’ agent (whether Parole Agent or Board

19

Revocation Representative or other agent) shall check the

20

Disability and Effective Communication System (DECS),

21

interview the parolee, and review any available 1073

22

forms and source documents to determine whether the

23

prisoner has a need for accommodations in housing,

24

programming, or parole proceedings. If so, within two

25

business days of the parolee’s arrival, Defendants’ agent

26 must notify a designated staff member at the county jail
27

28

11

1

facility of the class member’s need for accommodations in

2 3 2. 4 5 6 7 8 9

housing and programming. Class members housed in county jails must have ready access to disability grievance forms, either the CDCR’s Reasonable Modification or Accommodation Request form (CDC 1824) or a separate county jail grievance form. Defendants shall collect grievance forms from class members no less than twice a week, and shall provide

10

copies to a designated person at the county jail.

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

11

Defendants shall respond to all grievances within a week

12

of receipt and ensure that necessary and reasonable

13 14 15 16 17
3. 18 19 20

accommodations are provided. On a monthly basis, Defendants shall provide Plaintiffs’ counsel with copies of all grievances received from class members in county jails and the responses thereto. If Defendants contend that the process outlined in Paragraph 2 is unnecessary because a jail has an adequate disability grievance process, Defendants must establish

21

that the jail’s disability grievance policy contains the

22

following elements:

23

a. Is readily available to all class members housed in

24

county jail facilities;

25

b. Has a response deadline of no later than one week from

26 receipt by the designated jail staff member;
27

28

12

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 4. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 5. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

c. Contains a provision for expediting a response if the appeal alleges a condition which is a threat to the parolee’s health or safety, or is necessary for participation or effective communication in a CDCR parole revocation proceeding;
d. Includes a provision for review of the parolee’s request by medical staff, if necessary;
e. Provides a right to appeal denials; and f. Requires that a copy of each and every grievance and
response be provided to Defendants at the same time it is provided to the Armstrong class member. If, either through a grievance or otherwise, Defendants become aware of a class member who is housed in a county jail and not receiving needed accommodations, Defendants shall immediately take steps with county jail staff to ensure that needed accommodations are promptly provided or transfer the class member to a facility that is able to provide accommodations. If Defendants become aware, either through a grievance or otherwise, of a pattern of denials of disability accommodations, such as improper housing and/or denial of assistive devices to parolees at a particular county jail facility, or grievance process delays or obstacles, they shall take the following steps:
13

1

a. Within five days of becoming aware of the pattern,

2

Defendants shall notify the county jail facility

3

administrator in writing of the issue, providing specific

4 dates and incidents, and demanding that the conduct cease
5 and desist;
6 b. At the same time, provide a copy of this notification to
7

8

Plaintiffs’ counsel; and

9

c. Assign a staff person to investigate the county jail

10

facility and report back to Defendants within thirty

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

11

days, with a copy to Plaintiffs’ counsel, regarding the

12

pattern and steps to be taken to remedy it, including

13

monetary fines and penalties for continued violations.

14

Within sixty days of this Order, Defendants shall issue the

15 plan in final form and disseminate it to all fifty-eight county
16 jail facilities.
17
Defendants shall also immediately revise their January 10, 18

19 2008 Memorandum, “Tracking Procedure for Parolees Pending

20 Revocation and Housed In County Jails,” to shorten the time in

21 which the Board Revocation Representative identifies an Armstrong

22 class member and provides needed accommodations to be generally

23 consistent with this Order.

24

Defendants must present drafts of all plans, policies, and

25 procedures developed pursuant to this Order to Plaintiffs’ counsel

26 at least fifteen days in advance of the deadlines. Both parties
27

28

14

1 must make all possible efforts to resolve any disagreements as to

2 their adequacy. Defendants shall ensure that staff with sufficient
3 authority to amend and approve procedures attend all meet and
4 confer sessions. In the event that disagreements cannot be
5 resolved, Defendants shall implement the procedures as written on
6 the date ordered and Plaintiffs’ counsel shall file objections with
7 8 the Court. The Court will rule on the objections and issue orders
9 amending procedures as necessary.

10

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

13

14 Dated: 9/16/2009
15
16

CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

15

 
 Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document1661 Filed10/20/09 Page1 of 5

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 JOHN ARMSTRONG, et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13

v.

14 ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

No. C 94-02307 CW ENFORCEMENT ORDER
/

17

18

On October 13, 2009, this matter came on for hearing in

19 Courtroom 2, Fourth Floor, of this Court. Having considered the

20 parties' pleadings and the arguments of counsel, and good cause

21 existing therefor,

22

THE COURT HEREBY FINDS AND ORDERS:

23

Defendants Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor; Bernard Warner,

24 Chief Deputy Secretary of the Division of Juvenile Justice; Matthew

25 Cate, Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and

26 Rehabilitation (CDCR); Sharon August, Chief Deputy Secretary of the

27 Division of Health Care Services; Deborah Hysen, Chief Deputy

28 Secretary of the Division of Facility Planning, Construction, and

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document1661 Filed10/20/09 Page2 of 5

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 Management; Susan Hubbard, Director of the Division of Adult

2 Institutions; and Robert Ambroselli, Director of the Division of

3 Adult Parole Operations, are currently violating the Americans with

4 Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

5 (Section 504), the Permanent Injunction in this case, and their own

6 policies and procedures designed to bring them into compliance with

7 the ADA and Section 504 as embodied in the Armstrong Remedial Plan.

8

Plaintiffs have demonstrated that Defendants have violated the

9 rights of prisoners with disabilities under the ADA and Section 504

10 by: 1) failing to provide appropriate wheelchair accessible beds

11 for wheelchair users who require medium security, EOP and/or

12 protective custody; and 2) denying sign language interpreters to

13 prisoners who need them in educational and substance abuse

14 programs.1

15

In order to remedy these violations, Defendants must develop a

16 Plan that includes funding, staffing, training, resources and an

17 implementation schedule. The Plan should be developed after

18 consultation with Plaintiffs’ counsel, and should be filed with the

19 Court no later than sixty days from the date of this Order.

20 Plaintiffs may file objections to the Plan, if any, within twenty

21 days and Defendants shall have ten days to respond. Given that

22 there has already been a substantial delay in remedying these

23 violations, Defendants’ Plan must provide for rapid implementation

24 and funding. All resources required by the Plan must be funded as

25 soon as possible and no implementation date in the Plan can be

26 1 Defendants object to some of Plaintiffs’ evidence, but they
27 do not object to the documents they produced, including the DPW Waitlist and Error Report. The Court did not rely on any
28 inadmissible evidence.

2

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document1661 Filed10/20/09 Page3 of 5

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 later than August 14, 2010.

2

Defendants’ Plan must address the following:

3 I. Housing

4

A. Identification of cells and/or bed locations which could

5

be converted to appropriate wheelchair-accessible housing

6

to remedy the current shortage of wheelchair-accessible

7

housing.

8

B. Implementation plan for the conversion of cells and/or

9

bed locations identified under section I.A above. Such

10

plan must at least include but need not be limited to the

11

following information:

12

1. Identification of the extent of the current shortage

13

of wheelchair-accessible beds for specific custody

14

and classification factors.

15

2. Identification of all possible cells and/or bed

16

locations suitable for conversion to meet the

17

shortage of wheelchair-accessible housing in certain

18

custody and classification factors as identified

19

above.

20

3. Identification of any need to construct new cells

21

and/or bed locations if the need for

22

wheelchair-accessible cells or bed locations exceeds

23

the number of cells or bed locations available for

24

conversion.

25

4. Identification of cells and/or bed locations that

26

will be used for conversion.

27

5. Method and timetable for obtaining funds for all

28

conversion efforts.

3

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document1661 Filed10/20/09 Page4 of 5

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

6. Identification of all CDCR staff members responsible

2

for the conversion efforts.

3

7. Exact timelines, including specific dates by which

4

all identified cells and/or bed locations are to be

5

converted.

6

8. A plan to provide monthly reports to Plaintiffs

7

regarding 1) placement of any wheelchair-using

8

prisoners in inaccessible beds and 2) placement of

9

any wheelchair-using prisoners in inappropriate

10

accessible beds inconsistent with their custody and

11

classification factors.

12 II. Sign Language Interpreters

13

A. A plan to provide sufficient certified sign language

14

interpreters at, or remove deaf inmates from, prisons

15

that do not have interpreters in education and substance

16

abuse programs.

17

B. Alternatively, a plan for providing sign language

18

interpretation through the Receiver’s videoconferencing

19

capacity including explanation of how any problems or

20

delays in implementing such plan will be resolved.

21

C. Method and timetable for obtaining funds for all hiring

22

or acquisition of equipment and training required to

23

implement options II.A or II.B listed above.

24 III. Other Relief

25

CDCR staff shall comply with the policies and procedures

26

contained in their Armstrong Remedial Plan relevant to the

27

issues outlined above, specifically Sections I, II.C-D, II.E,

28

II.F, II.I, IV.C-.D, IV.G, IV.I.14, 16, 17 of the Remedial

4

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document1661 Filed10/20/09 Page5 of 5

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

Plan.

2

The Court finds that the relief ordered herein is narrowly

3 drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation

4 of federal rights, and is the least intrusive means necessary to

5 correct the violation of the federal rights.

6

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8 Dated: October 20, 2009
9
10

CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

 
 Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page1 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

4 JOHN ARMSTRONG, et al.,

No. C 94-2307 CW

5 Plaintiffs, 6 v. 7 EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., et al., 8 Defendants. 9 ________________________________/ 10 11 12 13

AMENDED ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ RENEWED MOTION TO REQUIRE DEFENDANTS TO TRACK AND ACCOMMODATE NEEDS OF ARMSTRONG CLASS MEMBERS HOUSED IN COUNTY JAILS, ENSURE ACCESS TO A GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE, AND TO ENFORCE 2001 PERMANENT INJUNCTION (Docket No. 1912)

14

15

Plaintiffs move for an order requiring Defendants to track

16 and accommodate the needs of Armstrong class members housed in

17 county jails and to provide access to a workable grievance

18 procedure. Defendants oppose the motion. The matter was heard on

19 October 27, 2011. Having considered oral arguments and all of the
20 materials submitted by both parties, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’
21
motion. 22

23

BACKGROUND

24

This lawsuit was originally filed seventeen years ago by

25 disabled prisoners and parolees against the California officials

26 with responsibility over the corrections and parole systems. 27 Court certified Plaintiffs as representatives for a class 28

This

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page2 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 including “all present and future California state prisoners and 2 parolees with mobility, sight, hearing, learning, developmental

3 and kidney disabilities that substantially limit one or more of

4 their major life activities.” Order Granting Pls.’ Mots. to Am.
5 Compl. and Modify the Class, Docket No. 345, January 5, 1999, at 6
2.1 On behalf of the class, Plaintiffs sought accommodations for 7
their disabilities, as required under federal statutes and the 8 9 United States Constitution.

10

Initially, Plaintiffs sued two divisions of the then

11 California Youth and Adult Corrections Authority (the Agency).

12 The two divisions sued had separate areas of responsibility toward
13 prisoners and parolees: the Board of Prison Terms (BPT) had
14 authority over parole and parole revocation hearings, and the
15 California Department of Corrections (CDC) was responsible for all
16 17 other aspects of prisoners’ and parolees’ lives, including

18

19

20

21 1 The Plaintiff class was certified on January 13, 1995. On

22 December 24, 1998, the parties stipulated to amend the class

definition to include “all present and future California state 23 prisoners and parolees with mobility, sight, hearing, learning and

24

kidney disabilities that substantially limit one or more of their major life activities.” Stipulation and Order Amending Pl. Class,

25 Docket No. 342, December 24, 1998, at 2. The class definition was subsequently modified, as to Defendants Board of Prison Terms

26 (BPT) and Chairman of the BPT only, to add prisoners and parolees

with developmental disabilities on January 5, 1999. Order 27 Granting Pls.’ Mots. to Am. Compl. and Modify the Class, January

28 5, 1999, at 2.

2

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page3 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 supervision of parolees.2 By agreement of the parties, litigation

2 against the two divisions was initially bifurcated and proceeded

3 on two separate tracks.

4

On September 20, 1996, this Court ordered CDC and related

5 Defendants to develop plans to ensure that their facilities and
6 programs were compliant with the Americans With Disabilities Act
7
(ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 et seq., and readily accessible to and 8

9 usable by prisoners and parolees with disabilities. The order

10 also required Defendants to develop policies to provide a prompt

11 and equitable disability grievance procedure, to allow approved

12 assistive aids for prisoners with disabilities in segregation
13 units and reception centers, and to ensure accessibility in new
14 construction and alterations. Remedial Order, Injunction and
15 Certification for Interlocutory Appeal, September 20, 1996. The
16 Court retained jurisdiction to enforce its terms. Id. at 5.3
17

18

Following a bench trial in April and May 1999, the Court

19 found on December 22, 1999 that BPT and other Defendants

20 responsible for conducting parole proceedings were in violation of

21 the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C.

22 2 Since this lawsuit was originally commenced, the Agency has

23 been reorganized and superseded by the California Department of

24

Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). BPT is now the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH). CDC has been replaced by the Division of

25 Adult Institutions (DAI) and the Division of Adult Parole Operations (DAPO).

26 3 The Ninth Circuit affirmed the injunction against the CDC

27 Defendants on appeal. See Armstrong v. Wilson, 124 F.3d 1019 (9th

28 Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 937 (1998).

3

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page4 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 § 794, and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 2 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, December 22, 1999, Docket

3 No. 523.

4

The Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law held

5 that:

6 Defendants cannot avoid ADA and Section 504 liability by

7

delegating responsibility for their delivery of

programs, services and activities, or for the facilities

8

in which they provide these programs, to the CDC or any

other entity. The implementing regulations of both the

9

ADA and Section 504 prohibit covered entities from

10

discriminating against individuals with disabilities

“directly or through contractual, licensing, or other

11

arrangements.” The BPT is thus legally obliged to

ensure non-discrimination wherever programs, services or

12

activities are provided to Plaintiff class members.

Additionally, the BPT cannot avoid liability for

13

violations of the physical accessibility standards by

14

holding its programs in locations under the control of other entities.

15 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, at 90 (internal citations
16 omitted). At that time, the Court also found that certain large
17
jail facilities utilized by these Defendants for parole 18

19 proceedings, including the Los Angeles County Men’s Jail, were

20 inaccessible for people with disabilities, which raised an

21 inference that this was a system-wide problem. Id. at 31-32. The

22 Court determined that these Defendants violated the rights of
23 class members in county facilities for parole revocation 24
proceedings in many of the same ways alleged in the instant 25
motion, including depriving them of assistive devices for mobility 26 27 problems or accommodations for hearing and vision impairments.
28 Id. at 32-38, 41-43, 45-47, 49-52, 60-66. The Court also

4

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page5 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 recognized that these Defendants did not have an adequate system 2 for tracking the facts of parolees’ disabilities in their files,

3 or for allowing parolees to communicate their accommodation needs.

4 Id. at 38-40. Based on its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
5 Law, the Court entered a permanent injunction as to these
6 Defendants. Permanent Injunction, Docket No. 524.4 7
On January 3, 2001, the CDC Defendants amended their Court 8
Ordered Remedial Plan regarding the provision of programs and 9

10

11

4 On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the injunction

against the BPT Defendants with minor changes. See Armstrong v.

12 Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 879 (9th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 537 U.S.

812 (2002). Several cases have since indicated that the Ninth 13 Circuit’s decision in Armstrong was abrogated in part by Johnson

v. California, 543 U.S. 499, 504-05 (2005). See, e.g., Harris v. 14 Alvarado, 402 Fed. Appx. 180, 181 (9th Cir. 2010); Kirola v. City

15 of San Francisco, 2011 WL 1330853, at *4 (N.D. Cal.); Melendres v. Arpaio, 2011 WL 6740711, at *19 (D. Ariz.). However, this is not

16 accurate.

17

In Johnson v. California, the Supreme Court held that the

CDC’s policy of racially segregating inmates, like all racial 18 classifications imposed by the government, should be considered

19

under strict scrutiny, rather than under the deferential standard articulated in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987), under which a

20 court considers whether regulations that burden the prisoners’ fundamental rights are reasonably related to legitimate

21 penological interests. 543 U.S. at 504-15.

22

Armstrong, however, did not concern or discuss racial

classification; instead, it concerned appropriate accommodations 23 for prisoners and parolees with disabilities. In Armstrong, the

24

Ninth Circuit considered whether the state had provided a legitimate penological justification for its failure to comply

25 with the ADA under the standard articulated in Turner v. Safley, assuming, without deciding, for the purposes of its discussion

26 that this standard applied to both prisoners and parolees. 275

F.3d at 873-74. It did not review “race-based prison regulations” 27 as some courts apparently believe that it did. Harris v.

28 Alvarado, 402 Fed. Appx. at 181.

5

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page6 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 services to inmates and parolees with disabilities. The Remedial 2 Plan requires Defendants to ensure that prisoners and parolees

3 with disabilities are accessibly housed, that they are able to

4 obtain and keep necessary assistive devices, and that they receive

5 effective communication regarding accommodations. Id. at 1-7,

6 27-28, 32, 34, 46-47. The Remedial Plan also requires Defendants
7 to include in all contracts language that requires subcontractors
8
to comply with the ADA. Id. at 46. 9

10

The Court entered a Revised Permanent Injunction against the

11 BPT Defendants on February 11, 2002. The Revised Permanent

12 Injunction requires these Defendants to provide accommodations, at

13 all parole proceedings, to prisoners and parolees with
14 disabilities. Revised Permanent Injunction, February 11, 2002, 15
¶ 17. The subsequent Order Granting Motion to Enforce Revised 16
Permanent Injunction issued on May 30, 2006, requires that 17 18 Defendants develop and implement a plan to ensure that necessary
19 accommodations are provided to class members without delay. Order

20 Granting Motion to Enforce Revised Permanent Injunction, May 30,

21 2006, at 8-9. In that Order, the Court found that Defendants did

22 not have an adequate system to track parolees with disabilities.
23 Id. at 4. The Court also found that, as a result, parolees with
24 disabilities were not being provided with required accommodations,
25 including mobility assistance for paraplegics and sign language
26
27 interpreters for deaf parolees. Id. at 5-6. At that time,

28 Defendants did not contest the extensive evidence that Plaintiffs

6

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page7 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 submitted to demonstrate ongoing violations of the same type 2 alleged in the instant motion, such as evidence that a paraplegic

3 parolee had to drag himself up stairs. Id.

4

On September 11, 2007, in response to Plaintiffs’ motion to

5 enforce the May, 2006 Order Granting Motion to Enforce Revised

6 Permanent Injunction, this Court Ordered:

7

Within thirty days of this order, Defendants shall

8

report to Plaintiffs' counsel which housing units in

Alameda, Sacramento and Los Angeles County Jail

9

facilities are wheelchair accessible and how Defendants

10

ensure that class members at those institutions who are

designated DPW and DPO are housed in the accessible

11

facilities and receive necessary accommodations and

assistive devices in both their housing units and at

12

their hearings. Within ninety days of this order,

Defendants shall do the same with the remaining county

13

jails. A necessary component of both reports is how

14

Defendants track class members who are housed in county facilities due to parole holds.

15 Order Granting in Part Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce the May 30,
16 2006 Order, ¶ 19. At that time, the Court found that Defendants’
17
tracking system for information about disabilities of prisoners 18

19 and parolees was still inadequate. Id. at 4-6. The Court also

20 found that Defendants had failed to develop an adequate plan to

21 provide needed accommodations for parole proceedings in county

22 jails and rejected Defendants’ assertion that “county jails
23 provide adequate access to necessary assistive devices for class 24
members” as without proof. Id. at 9-10. 25
On May 28, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Require 26 27 Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class

28

7

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page8 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 Members Housed in County Jails and Ensure Access to a Workable 2 Grievance Procedure.

3

On September 16, 2009, this Court held that Defendants are

4 responsible for ensuring that Armstrong class members receive

5 reasonable accommodations when Defendants elect to house them in
6 county jails. Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Require
7 Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class
8 Members Housed in County Jails and Ensure Access to a Workable
9
10 Grievance Procedure, September 16, 2009, at 7-9. The Court stated

11 that Plaintiffs had submitted evidence demonstrating that,

12 pursuant to their authority, Defendants were housing a significant

13 number of persons in county jails, including an average of 480
14 parolees a day in the San Mateo County Jail, an average of 1,000 15
parolees a day in the Sacramento County Jail, and 770 individuals 16
in In-Custody Drug Treatment Program (ICDTP) placements in county 17 18 jails. Id. at 4-5. The Court also held that Plaintiffs had
19 submitted sufficient evidence that class members being housed in

20 county jails were not receiving accommodations to which they were

21 entitled. Id. at 9-10. Accordingly, the Court entered an order

22 requiring that Defendants, within thirty days, submit a plan “for
23 ensuring timely and appropriate accommodations for Armstrong class
24 members in county jails[.]” Id. at 11. The September 16 Order
25 provided Defendants with flexibility to devise the specifics of
26
27 the plan, but also required that the plan contain certain

28 elements. Id. at 11-14. The Court also found, pursuant to

8

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page9 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. 2 § 3626(a)(1)(A), that the relief it ordered was “narrowly drawn,

3 extend[ed] no further than necessary to correct the violation of

4 federal rights, and [was] the least intrusive means necessary to

5 correct the violation of the federal rights[.]” Id. at 11.
6 Defendants appealed this Court’s September 16 Order.
7 Nonetheless, on October 15, 2009, as required by the September 16
8 Order, Defendants provided “written notification and instruction
9
10 to all county jail facilities of their duty to comply with the ADA

11 in housing Armstrong class members and that defendants will

12 enforce those obligations.” September 16 Order, at 11.

13

On April 1, 2010, after negotiations between the parties,

14 Defendants issued their County Jail Plan, entitled the “County

15 Jail Accommodation Process,” in a further effort to comply with
16 the September 16 Order.
17

18

On September 7, 2010, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and

19 vacated in part the September 16 Order, and remanded the case to

20 this Court for further proceedings. The Ninth Circuit affirmed

21 this Court’s holdings that “defendants are responsible for

22 providing reasonable accommodations to the disabled prisoners and
23 parolees that they house in county jails.” Armstrong v.
24 Schwarzenegger, 622 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2010). The Ninth
25 Circuit held that: (1) the validly enacted ADA Title II
26
27 regulations provide that “a public entity, in providing any aid,

28 benefit, or service, may not, directly or through contractual,

9

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page10 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 licensing, or other arrangements, discriminate against individuals 2 with disabilities[,]” id. at 1065 (quoting 28 C.F.R.

3 § 35.130(b)(1)); (2) the ADA requires that when Defendants house

4 state prisoners and parolees in county jails, the state is

5 responsible to ensure that the state prisoners and parolees with
6 disabilities can access the county jails’ benefits and services
7 “to the same extent that they are provided to all other detainees
8 and prisoners,” id. at 1068; (3) neither principles of federalism
9
10 nor deference to correctional authorities nor the Prison

11 Litigation Reform Act prohibited this Court’s order requiring that

12 when Defendants “become aware of a class member housed in a county

13 jail who is not being accommodated, they either see to it that
14 that jail accommodates the class member, or they move the class 15
member to a facility . . . which can accommodate his needs[,]” id. 16
at 1069, or that when Defendants “become aware of a ‘pattern’ of 17 18 ADA noncompliance, they are to notify county jail officials and
19 take steps to remedy the pattern of noncompliance[.]” Id. at

20 1069-1070.

21

Although the Ninth Circuit affirmed this Court’s rulings on

22 the requirements of the ADA, it ruled that the system-wide scope
23 of relief ordered required development of additional evidence
24 concerning the nature and extent of the violations. Id. at 1063,
25 1073-1074. It found that the type of relief ordered would be
26
27 appropriate if such additional evidence were presented. Id. at

28 1070-1074. In finding that the evidence was insufficient to

10

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page11 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 justify the scope of September 16 Order, the Ninth Circuit stated 2 that this Court failed to identify any “past determinations that

3 show that class members housed in county jails are not being

4 accommodated . . . and thus, we are required to conclude, did not

5 rely on them when determining the scope of its order.” Id. at
6 1073. The Ninth Circuit reversed the September 16 Order and
7 remanded to this Court “to allow it to take such additional
8 evidence as may be necessary concerning the nature and extent of
9
10 the violations of class members’ rights taking place in the county

11 jails.” Id. at 1073. The Ninth Circuit described Plaintiffs’

12 evidentiary burden on remand as “far from insurmountable” and

13 explained that “in light of the State’s failure to track many of

14 the class members that it houses in the County Jails, not much

15 more evidence than that already provided may be required to
16 approve the [September 16 Order].” Id. at 1074.
17

18

On October 1, 2011, state legislation commonly known as the

19 prison “realignment” law went into effect. Under realignment,

20 parolees who were already placed on state parole prior to October

21 1, 2011 remain under the supervision of Defendants. Cal. Penal

22 Code § 3000.09(b). Further, persons released from state prison on
23 or after October 1, 2011, who fall into certain categories,
24 including conviction of serious or violent felonies, continue to
25 be placed on state parole under the jurisdiction and supervision
26
27 of Defendants. Cal. Penal Code § 3000.08(a), (c). Under

28 realignment, low-level offenders who are released from state

11

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page12 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 prison on or after October 1, 2011 and do not fall into the above2 mentioned categories are instead supervised on release by counties

3 under the newly created Post-Release Community Supervision

4 program. Cal. Penal Code § 3000.08(a), 3451.5 Realignment also

5 amended Penal Code section 3056, which now provides, in relevant

6 part:

7

Prisoners on parole shall remain under the supervision

8

of the department. . . . [U]pon revocation of parole, a

parolee may be housed in a county jail for a maximum of

9

180 days. When housed in county facilities, parolees

10

shall be under the legal custody and jurisdiction of

local county facilities. When released from custody,

11

parolees shall be returned to the parole supervision of

the department for the duration of parole.

12

Cal. Penal Code § 3056(a). 13

14

Plaintiffs have submitted evidence that there are

15 currently over 100,000 parolees under Defendants’

16 supervision. Grunfeld Reply Decl. ¶ 25, Ex. O. In February

17 2011, Defendants classified approximately seven percent of
18 the incarcerated population as individuals with disabilities,
19 excluding learning disabilities and mental health concerns.
20 Grunfeld Decl. ¶ 53. According to Defendants’ own estimates,
21 22 approximately half of the individuals released from prison in
23 the state after October 1, 2011 will be placed on state

24 parole under the jurisdiction and supervision of Defendants.

25

5 Plaintiffs state that their present motion is not meant to

26 encompass individuals in the PRCS program, and is limited to state

prisoners and state parolees. Accordingly, the Court limits its 27 analysis and does not consider Defendants’ responsibility to

28 individuals in the PRCS program, who are housed in county jails.

12

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page13 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 Grunfeld Decl. ¶ 43, Exs. FFF, HHH. Defendants also project 2 that thousands of parolees will be housed in county jails on

3 a daily basis. Id.

4

DISCUSSION

5

Defendants now no longer dispute that “California state

6 prisoners and parolees with mobility, sight, hearing, learning and
7 developmental disabilities” are not being provided proper
8
accommodations while housed at county jails or that they are 9

10 suffering harm as a result. Defendants also do not dispute that

11 these parolees do not have access to a proper grievance system.

12 Instead, Defendants primarily argue that, under the realignment

13 statute, state parolees are no longer members of the Armstrong
14 class when they are housed in county jails and thus that the 15
proposed injunction is broader than necessary to accommodate the 16
needs of class members. Defendants also contend that the proposed 17 18 injunction would violate the federalism principles set forth in
19 Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997), and that the relief

20 requested here concerns the same issues being litigated in other

21 pending federal class action cases, so this Court should abstain

22 from exercising jurisdiction here.
23 I. Responsibility for Providing Accommodations in County Jails
24 The Ninth Circuit has held that, under the ADA and the
25 Rehabilitation Act, Defendants have the legal responsibility to
26
27 ensure ADA-compliant conditions for Armstrong class members whom

28 they house in county jails. Armstrong, 622 F.3d at 1068, 1074.

13

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page14 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

Defendants rely heavily on sections of the California Penal

2 Code that have not yet gone into effect. As these codes sections

3 are currently written, after July 1, 2013, control over parole

4 revocation proceedings and decisions will transfer from Defendants

5 to local courts, although Defendants will continue to supervise
6 parolees. However, this Court must apply the law currently in
7 effect and will not speculate as to what effect, if any, potential
8 changes to the applicable laws may have on its rulings in the
9
10 future.

11

Defendants do not dispute that they continue to have

12 responsibility for certain groups of state prisoners and parolees

13 housed in county jails: those already there “as of October 1, 2011
14 pending parole revocation proceedings, offenders sentenced to life 15
terms who may return to state prison, and state inmates housed in 16
county jail for county proceedings.” Opp. at 6. Defendants also 17 18 not dispute that they continue to house substantial numbers of
19 CDCR prisoners and parolees pursuant to various contracts and

20 other arrangements. These include contracts with Alameda and

21 Sacramento Counties that Defendants renewed only months before the

22 realignment statute went into effect and that provide for payments
23 to those counties of up to $160 million over the next five years
24 to house as many as 1,150 state inmates per day. See Grunfeld
25 Decl. ¶ 38, Ex. DDD; Grunfeld Reply Decl. ¶ 33, Ex. Q. Defendants
26
27 also contract with a number of counties to house state prisoners

28 in jail-based ICDTPs. Grunfeld Decl. ¶ 33, Exs. MM, OO. See also

14

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page15 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 Cal. Penal Code § 4115 (local counties “may enter into a contract 2 with the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to house

3 inmates who are within 60 days or less of release from the state

4 prison to a county jail facility for the purpose of reentry and

5 community transition purposes”). Defendants do not dispute that
6 they are still empowered, under various code sections, to hold
7 local county jails accountable for not adhering to minimum
8 standards prescribed by Defendants. See, e.g., Cal. Penal Code
9
10 § 4016.5 (allowing Defendants to withhold reimbursements to

11 counties for housing certain state prisoners if the county’s

12 “facilities do not conform to minimum standards for local

13 detention facilities” and the county fails to make reasonable
14 efforts to correct the violations); Cal. Gov. Code § 76101 15
(providing that any jail or addition “constructed with moneys from 16
the Criminal Justice Facilities Construction Fund shall comply 17 18 with the ‘Minimum Standards for Local Detention Facilities’
19 promulgated by the Board of Corrections”).

20

Defendants disclaim responsibility for state parolees who are

21 taken into custody for alleged parole violations or whose parole

22 is revoked and who are housed in county jails. They argue that
23 state law now provides that these state parolees are to be housed
24 in county jails and that, during the time of such incarceration,
25 the county has custody and jurisdiction over these state parolees.
26
27 Defendants aver that this relieves Defendants of responsibility

28

15

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page16 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 toward those who may be Armstrong class members. See Cal. Penal 2 Code § 3056(a).

3

However, as prior to the enactment of the realignment

4 statute, state parolees housed by Defendants in county jails are

5 in the custody and control of the county, while simultaneously in
6 the continuing custody and control of Defendants. See, e.g.,
7 Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843, 851 (2006) (noting, prior to
8 realignment, that “an inmate-turned-parolee remains in the legal
9
10 custody of the California Department of Corrections through the

11 remainder of his term”). As before the realignment statute went

12 into effect, Defendants continue to maintain control and authority

13 over whether the state parolees under their supervision are to be
14 taken into custody and placed into a county jail. Parolees are 15
placed into county jails by virtue of their status as state 16
parolees and do not cease being state parolees while they are also 17 18 county jail inmates. Defendants BPH and Brown continue to be the
19 only ones able to place a parole hold on a parolee and to have the

20 parolee taken into custody for an alleged violation of parole

21 terms without being eligible for bail. Cal. Penal Code §§ 3056,

22 3062; In re Law, 10 Cal. 3d 21, 24-26 (1973). Under Defendants’
23 implementing policies, county jails are not typically permitted to
24 turn away parolees who have been medically cleared and whom
25 Defendants bring to the county jails, but if they do so,
26
27 Defendants must “maintain custody” of the parolee while Defendants

28 determine how to resolve the situation. Grunfeld Reply Decl., Ex.

16

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page17 of 43
1 K at 4. State law does not appear to prevent Defendants from then 2 placing the parolee in a different county jail. Further, under
3 Defendants’ policies, when county authorities release a parolee
4 before revocation processing is complete, Defendants retain the 5 discretion to return the parolee to custody or to allow the 6
parolee to remain in the community. Grunfeld Reply Decl., Ex. L 7
at 4. Under current law, Defendants BPH and Brown alone have the 8
authority to adjudicate whether a parolee has in fact violated his 9 10 parole or to decide his sanction, including detention in a county 11 jail. Cal. Penal Code §§ 3000(b)(8), 3000.09(d), 3060, 3062.
12 State law does not mandate this sanction, and it does not
13 designate the particular county facility where the parolee is to 14 be held; these are decisions left to Defendants, who can choose to 15
transfer parolees away from facilities that unable to meet their 16
needs. Defendants also continue to compensate counties for 17 18 housing state parolees in county jails during the revocation 19 process and during the term of the revocation, now through the use
20 of newly established Local Community Corrections Accounts, which
21 compensates a county based on the number of prisoners that the 22 county is expected to supervise and house, an amount that thus 23
could be reduced if Defendants chose to house parolees in other 24
county jails instead. Cal. Government Code §§ 30025, 30029(c). 25
The fact that state parolees are under the control and custody of 26 27 the county, as well as of Defendants, during the time of their 28 incarceration does not relieve Defendants of their independent
17

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page18 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 obligations and responsibilities toward to these individuals. See 2 Armstrong, 622 F.3d at 1072.

3

Accordingly, Defendants continue to house state prisoners and

4 parolees in county jails pursuant to their authority under both
5 contracts and state law, as they did at the time of the Ninth 6
Circuit’s earlier opinion in this case. Thus, as the Ninth 7
Circuit previously held, Defendants are obliged to ensure 8
ADA-compliant conditions for the prisoners and parolees that they 9
10 house under their own authority in county jails.
11 II. Evidence of Violation of Class Members’ Rights

12

Plaintiffs’ evidence demonstrates that, both before and after

13 Defendants issued the County Jail Plan, Armstrong class members
14 have suffered significant violations of their ADA rights while 15
housed in county jails. Plaintiffs submitted substantial 16
evidence, including more than sixty declarations from class 17 18 members, demonstrating that class members in jails throughout the
19 State are injured and are denied access to housing, programs, and

20 services because of Defendants’ failure to accommodate their

21 disabilities.6 Although Defendants again disclaim their 22

23

6 In their reply, Plaintiffs clarified that the county-based

Post-Release Community Supervision (PRCS) program was not covered 24 by the instant motion. On October 20, 2011, a week after

Plaintiffs filed their reply, Defendants filed objections to the 25 declarations that Plaintiffs had submitted with their opening

brief and with their reply. Defendants challenged the 26 admissibility of the declarations on the grounds that the

declarants do not make clear what their commitment offenses were 27 and thus if they are state parolees or part of the PRCS program.

However, under the provisions of re-alignment, the declarants 28 could not be part of the PRCS program. Each declarant attests

18

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page19 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 responsibility toward these individuals as discussed above, 2 Defendants do not dispute that these violations are still

3 occurring more than a decade after this Court first found that

4 Defendants were failing to accommodate the needs of class members

5 in County facilities. The overwhelming and disturbing evidence is
6 summarized below.
7 Class members with mobility impairments were denied assistive
8 devices, or had assistive devices taken away from them, while
9
10 housed in county jails, even though Defendants had previously

11 determined the assistive devices were necessary for the class

12
that he or she was on parole prior to October 1, 2011. Under 13 state law, the PRCS program only began prospectively on that date;
that is, state law provides that those already on parole prior to 14 October 1, 2011 are not eligible to participate in it. Cal. Penal
Code § 3451(a). 15
Four days later, on October 24, 2011, without seeking leave 16 of Court to do so, Defendants filed further objections to the
evidence that Plaintiffs had submitted with their reply. Civil 17 Local Rule 7-3 allows a party, without seeking prior Court
approval, to file a single document objecting to new evidence 18 submitted with a reply within seven days after the reply is filed.
See Civil Local Rule 7(d). Defendants’ supplementary objections 19 were untimely and unauthorized by Local Rule 7-3, because
Defendants had already filed an objection to Plaintiffs’ reply 20 evidence.

21

In this document, Defendants argue that evidence Plaintiffs

offered with their reply, including eight additional declarations, 22 should not be considered, as it was “procedurally improper” to

offer it in this way. It is true that “[u]nder such 23 circumstances, the court has discretion to ‘decline to consider’

the new evidence.” Mercado v. Sandoval, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24 63267, at *6 (E.D. Cal.). Unlike in the cases cited by

Defendants, however, Defendants here have had the opportunity to 25 address this new evidence at a subsequent hearing. See, e.g.,

Carmen v. San Francisco Unified School Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1031 26 (9th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, the Court overrules Defendants’

objections to the reply evidence submitted by Plaintiffs, because 27 the objections were submitted in violation of Local Rule 7-3 and

because Defendants had the opportunity to respond to this evidence 28 at the hearing.

19

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page20 of 43
1 members to access programs and services while in custody. Class 2 members were not provided with accessible housing, making it
3 difficult and dangerous for them to access their beds, toilets,
4 showers, chow halls, exercise yards, meetings with attorneys, and 5 parole proceedings. One class member was forced to sleep on the 6
floor for sixteen nights. Other class members crawled or limped 7
in pain to hearings and meetings in county jails. Still others 8
received wheelchairs while in revocation hearing rooms, but not in 9 10 transit to and from those same hearing rooms. A class member 11 housed at the Yuba County Jail had his wheelchair taken away and
12 not returned, and was unable to shower as a result. This also
13 happened during the same class member’s separate stay at the 14 Sutter County Jail. Both jails informed this prisoner that there 15
was no appeals process. Another class member with a mobility 16
impairment being held at the San Francisco County Jail was 17 18 initially informed by an officer that he could not use his 19 wheelchair to travel long distances, despite a written
20 verification from his doctor. The jail refused to allow this
21 prisoner any assistive devices inside his cell, which sometimes 22 required him to hop around his cell. He had to sleep on a 23
mattress on the floor for approximately seven days because the 24
jail would not provide him with a lower bunk. Staff at Stanislaus 25
County Jail took away the wheelchair of a parolee who required it 26 27 to travel more than ten feet. As a result, another prisoner was 28 required to hold him up and help him to the shower. The prisoner
20

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page21 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 was told there was no appeals process at the jail. Similarly, 2 staff at the Alameda County Jail in Santa Rita denied a wheelchair

3 to another prisoner with a severe mobility impairment, making it

4 painful and difficult for him to get around. Jail staff also

5 failed to provide him with a shower chair, which made it difficult
6 and dangerous for him to shower. Staff at Sonoma, Sutter, and
7 Sacramento County jails have removed canes from class members,
8 making it painful and hard for them to walk distances, shower, and
9
10 go up and down stairs.

11

Class members with hearing and vision impairments did not

12 receive accommodations necessary for effective communication while

13 housed in county jails. Sign language interpreting services were
14 not regularly available to class members housed in county jails. 15
Class members with hearing impairments were not provided with sign 16
language interpreters for important medical and mental health care 17 18 appointments, which impeded or obstructed their access to those
19 services. One parolee with severe hearing loss was provided with

20 a sign language interpreter only once in the seventy-five days he

21 was at the Santa Rita jail, and went to medical appointments on

22 three or four occasions without being provided access to a sign
23 language interpreter.
24 Deaf class members could not access the telecommunications
25 devices for the deaf (TDD/TTY telephones) they need to prepare
26
27 their defenses and communicate with family and the outside world.

28 Because the Santa Rita TDD/TTY telephone was broken, a deaf

21

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page22 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 parolee was only able to use the telephone three times in the 2 seventy-five days he was in the jail. Another deaf parolee had a

3 similar experience at Santa Rita.

4

A class member housed by Defendants at the Los Angeles County

5 Jail’s Twin Towers facility was not provided with a sign language
6 interpreter for medical visits or psychiatric appointments,
7 despite his request for one. A deaf parolee housed at the San
8 Diego Jail was also denied a sign language interpreter for medical
9
10 and dental appointments. Because some officers did not know this

11 prisoner was deaf, officers would “get mad” at him when he did not

12 respond to verbal commands. This prisoner missed meals, yard,

13 appointments, and canteen call because he was unable to hear the
14 events announced over the loudspeaker and no one notified him of 15
the events. He was also unable to participate in psychiatric 16
treatments and therapy groups and had trouble communicating with 17 18 jail staff about his need for the TDD/TTY telephone. A blind
19 class member was denied a tapping cane at the San Francisco County

20 Jail.

21

Armstrong class members housed in county jail are frequently

22 forced to rely upon other prisoners to help them access programs
23 and services as a result of the failure by Defendants and the
24 county jails to provide reasonable accommodations. Reliance on
25 other prisoners for access to basic services, such as food, mail,
26
27 showers and toilets by prisoners with disabilities leaves them

28 vulnerable to exploitation and is a dangerous correctional

22

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page23 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 practice.

2

Class members do not have access to functional and timely

3 grievance procedures at county jails to request and obtain

4 disability accommodations. As noted above, at some jails, class

5 members were informed that no grievance procedure exists. At
6 other jails, class members were able to submit grievances but
7 never received a response or did not receive a response in a
8 timely manner.
9
10 III. Defendants’ Failure to Address System-wide Violations

11

Plaintiffs contend, and Defendants do not dispute, that

12 Defendants’ efforts to comply with the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act

13 and prior orders of this Court, and to provide accommodations to
14 class members housed in county jails, have been wholly inadequate 15
and ineffective on a system-wide level, resulting in widespread 16
and continuing violations of class members’ rights as described 17 18 above. The Court finds it troubling that Defendants continue to
19 oppose Plaintiffs’ request for relief while apparently recognizing

20 that all of the evidence demonstrates that it is needed.

21

Although Defendants have developed a computerized, real-time

22 system called the Disability and Effective Communication System
23 (DECS) for tracking disabilities and effective communication needs
24 of prisoners housed in CDCR prisons and on parole, Defendants
25 still have not developed any system, electronic or otherwise, for
26
27 identifying or tracking such disabilities and needs of CDCR

28 prisoners housed in county jails and facilities. Defendants still

23

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page24 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 do not know the specific location at which those class members are 2 housed, and what accommodations in housing, programs, services,

3 and effective communication those class members require.

4

The contracts between Defendants and Alameda and Sacramento

5 Counties for the housing of CDCR prisoners in those jails violate
6 the March 21, 2001 Permanent Injunction because they do not
7 include the following provision or one substantially similar, as
8 required by Paragraph 8 of the Injunction: “By signing this
9
10 contract, Contractor assures the State that it complies with the

11 Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101

12 et seq., which prohibits discrimination on the basis of

13 disability, and with applicable regulations and guidelines issued
14 pursuant to the ADA.” 15
Defendants also contract with several counties to provide 16
drug counseling in lieu of parole revocation through the 17 18 In-Custody Drug Treatment Program (ICDTP). Armstrong class
19 members continue to have only limited access to ICDTPs offered at

20 county jails because several of Defendants’ ICDTP contracts

21 violate the ADA through their Local Jail Exclusionary Criteria

22 which ban persons with disabilities from participation.
23 Defendants’ own tracking system shows that one parolee in a
24 wheelchair was rejected from the ICDTP due to a mobility
25 impairment. Another parolee’s file indicates that the fact that
26
27 he is in a wheelchair may limit his ICDTP-jail placement.

28

The County Jail Plan as drafted and implemented by Defendants

24

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page25 of 43
1 has been inadequate and ineffective in remedying the ongoing 2 violations of the rights of class members housed in county jails.
3 It is troubling that Defendants do not defend the sufficiency of
4 the Plan in any way or show that they have properly implemented 5 even the basic mandates of their own Plan. Defendants also do not 6
respond to the declarations that demonstrate that class members 7
continue to suffer harm after their Plan was purportedly 8
“operating appropriately.” The Plan does not have any provision 9 10 for Defendants promptly to provide the County Jails with 11 information about previously-identified disabilities or necessary
12 accommodations for class members housed in county jails. It also
13 does not have any provision for Defendants to determine whether a 14 CDCR prisoner or parolee who is housed at a county jail requires 15
any accommodations. In the Plan, Defendants elected to rely on 16
the existing grievance procedures available at the county jails, 17 18 but failed to confirm that the county jails’ grievance procedures 19 were adequate or appropriate as written or in practice.
20 Defendants do not monitor grievances of class members in the
21 county jails or have a means for providing to Plaintiffs’ counsel 22 a copy of every disability-related grievance filed by an Armstrong 23
class member housed in a county jail. 24
Defendants’ County Jail Plan is, on its face, insufficient to 25
ensure the accommodation of class members housed in county jails. 26 27 Only a single provision in the Plan--that Division of Adult Parole 28 Operation (DAPO) and BPH employees must contact the county jail if
25

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page26 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 a parolee held in the jail pending revocation requests an 2 accommodation or if the employees observe or become aware of the

3 need for an accommodation--might result in the accommodation of a

4 class member who otherwise would not be accommodated while in

5 county jail. The County Jail Plan does not, however, require that
6 Defendants’ staff do anything to verify that class members are in
7 fact being accommodated by the county jails. Nor it does it
8 provide for Defendants to share information regarding class
9
10 members’ disabilities and accommodation needs with the county

11 jails, even though Defendants have a computerized tracking

12 system--DECS--dedicated to that purpose. The County Jail Plan

13 also has no provisions whatsoever that could result in the
14 accommodation of class members housed in county jail who are not 15
parolees pending parole revocation. This include parolees serving 16
their revocation terms, CDCR prisoners who are “out-to-court,” and 17 18 prisoners at jail-based In-Custody Drug Treatment Programs. The
19 Plan does not even provide that these class members may be moved

20 away from a facility that is unable to meet their needs.

21

The evidence shows, and Defendants do not dispute, that

22 Defendants rarely comply with the provision of the County Jail
23 Plan requiring them to request disability accommodations from
24 county jails on behalf of class members. Out of many thousands of
25 BPH Form 1073 documents completed over the past year, only a
26
27 handful reflect appropriate follow-up by CDCR officials with

28 knowledge of a class member’s disability needs.

26

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page27 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

Moreover, Defendants substantially delayed the implementation

2 of critical provisions of their County Jail Plan. For example,

3 the County Jail Plan explicitly provides that BPH would modify the

4 BPH 1073 form to create a space for Notice Agents, and other staff

5 who interact with CDCR prisoners in county jails, to indicate when
6 they had contacted county jail staff, to request an accommodation
7 for a class member. Defendants took more than six months to
8 modify the electronic version of the BPH 1073 form and took more
9
10 than thirteen months to modify the paper version of the form.

11 DAPO never trained its staff regarding how to use the new

12 functionalities of the revised electronic BPH 1073 form.

13

Defendants do not dispute that they have failed to provide

14 appropriate training and supervision for the staff responsible for
15 implementing the County Jail Plan. Defendants did not effectively
16 monitor or supervise their own employees to determine if they were
17
18 complying with the Plan or whether the Plan was effective in

19 assuring that class members were receiving accommodations while

20 housed in county jails. BPH waited more than two and a half

21 months after the Plan was purportedly implemented even to inform

22 its staff of their obligations under the Plan. Despite the Plan’s
23 reliance on the Correctional Standards Authority (CSA) to “monitor
24 this matter” and describe “problems,” Defendants did not even
25 inform the CSA that the final County Jail Plan had been issued,
26
27 much less instruct the CSA to monitor for ADA compliance. No

28 monitoring by the CSA has occurred.

27

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page28 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

Defendants have abdicated their responsibility for

2 accommodating Armstrong class members to the county jails.

3 Defendants possess little to no knowledge regarding whether the

4 county jail facilities in which they house Armstrong class members

5 are physically accessible to wheelchair users. Defendants’
6 knowledge of the wheelchair accessibility of the county jails is
7 derived from a 2007 survey whereby Defendants sent a letter to the
8 counties requesting that they self-report the accessibility of
9
10 cells in their jails. Defendants then compiled the answers that

11 they received into a single document. In its final form, the

12 survey results lacked information for many of the county

13 facilities. Moreover, Defendants never endeavored to confirm that
14 the information provided to them by the counties was accurate. 15
Defendants are aware of court orders and litigation pending 16
against Orange and Los Angeles Counties regarding the inadequacy 17 18 of their wheelchair accessible housing. Defendants are also aware
19 that certain facilities in San Diego County lack wheelchair

20 accessible housing. Yet Defendants have taken no steps to ensure

21 that Armstrong class members are protected when housed in those

22 counties.
23 Defendants do not dispute that they have not taken any steps
24 to investigate the allegations of ADA violations made in the
25 declarations of Armstrong class members housed in county jails
26
27 that Plaintiffs have provided to Defendants from September 2009

28 forward.

28

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page29 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

Defendants’ communication of the County Jail Plan to the

2 counties--in a single letter from CDCR’s General Counsel on April

3 12, 2010--did not adequately convey to the counties their existing

4 obligations under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. In particular,

5 CDCR’s statement in that letter that the County Jail Plan “does
6 not require county jails to change any policies or procedures
7 already in place” renders meaningless any report that Defendants
8 might make to the counties of patterns of ADA non-compliance.
9
10 Given this statement, any county informed of such a pattern will

11 believe that it is not required to do anything to address or

12 resolve such a pattern. In addition, the evidence shows that

13 Defendants did not follow up with any counties regarding the
14 implementation of the County Jail Plan after that letter. 15
Defendants have never engaged in any comprehensive effort to 16
verify that the disability-related county jail policies and 17 18 procedures, including grievance procedures, are adequate to ensure
19 the accommodation of class members. Despite claiming to rely on

20 these policies and procedures as adequate for this purpose,

21 Defendants gathered these policies for only a handful of counties.

22 In February 2011, Plaintiffs provided Defendants with more than
23 5,000 pages of county disability-related policies and procedures
24 that Plaintiffs had collected through California Public Records
25 Act requests. Defendants do not dispute that they have done
26
27 nothing to review or analyze the policies.

28

The Court adopts the findings and opinions of Plaintiffs’

29

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page30 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 well-qualified expert, Jeanne Woodford, former warden at San 2 Quentin State Prison and former acting Secretary of the CDCR. Ms.

3 Woodford examined a number of disability-related county jail

4 policies and procedures and found many of them to be deficient in

5 their mechanisms timely and effectively to identify, track, and
6 ensure the provision of accommodations to prisoners with
7 disabilities. Defendants have not challenged Ms. Woodford’s
8 report or its findings. Ms. Woodford concluded that many counties
9
10 lack a comprehensive plan describing the basic ADA policies and

11 procedures for their jail systems or have ADA-related policies

12 that are so vague and indefinite as to be almost useless.

13 Ms. Woodford found that many counties had policies prohibiting
14 prisoners from possessing assistive devices, such as canes, 15
walkers, and wheelchairs, based upon unfounded fears about 16
prisoners using assistive devices as weapons. Ms. Woodford also 17 18 identified a number of counties that lacked timely and effective
19 grievance procedures to provide prisoners a mechanism for seeking

20 accommodations. She further noted that many county jail policies

21 provide for the segregation of prisoners with disabilities from

22 the general population and, by so doing, likely deprive prisoners

23 with disabilities of equal access to programs and services within
24 the jail.
25
IV. Scope of Appropriate Relief 26

27

Defendants have only identified two objections that

28 Plaintiffs’ proposed relief is not narrowly tailored to the

30

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page31 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 violations shown.

2

First, Defendants state that the functions of their agents

3 that are referred to in the proposed injunction “will likely be

4 assumed by various county personnel” at a future date, if further

5 legislative changes take effect, and after that time, they will no
6 longer have representatives regularly visiting county jail
7 facilities. Thus, it would purportedly be unduly burdensome for
8 Defendants to be required to interview those who recently have
9
10 arrived on a parole hold and to collect grievance forms, should

11 Defendants choose not to rely on the county jail’s grievance

12 procedures. However, at the hearing, Defendants acknowledged that

13 their parole agents are currently going to county jails twice per
14 week as part of the parole revocation process. Accordingly, it 15
will not be unduly burdensome for them to perform these tasks 16
during these regular visits. Alternatively, Defendants may avoid 17 18 performing these tasks if they can certify that the jail has an
19 adequate disability grievance procedure.

20

Secondly, Defendants argue that system-wide relief is not

21 necessary to address the injuries suffered by the reduced number

22 of class members housed in county jails after October 1, 2011.
23 However, the Court is not persuaded that the number of class
24 members will decrease. Regarding the individuals for whom
25 Defendants do not dispute they have responsibility, Defendants
26
27 state only that they anticipate the numbers of these individuals

28 will decrease in the future, in part because they may choose to

31

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page32 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 move offenders sentenced to life terms to state prison. Based on 2 this conjecture, Defendants argue that the relief sought will be

3 broader than necessary to protect the remaining individuals. Id.

4 Defendants do not address the individuals held in county jails

5 pursuant to contracts, those who are in ICDTPs in county jails or
6 the state inmates housed in county jail for county proceedings.
7 Regarding state parolees, they argue only that these individuals
8 are no longer class members; the Court already held above that
9
10 they continue to be class members. According to Defendants’ own

11 projections, the numbers of these individuals in county jails will

12 increase under realignment. Thus, the relief is not too broad for

13 this reason.

14

Further, Defendants do not dispute that there will continue

15 to be class members in county jails. The Ninth Circuit has
16 repeatedly held in prior decisions related to this case that “‘if
17

18 the injury is the result of violations of a statute . . . that are

19 attributable to policies or practices pervading the whole system

20 (even though injuring a relatively small number of plaintiffs),’

21 then ‘[s]ystem-wide relief is required.’” Armstrong v.

22 Schwarzenegger, 622 F.3d at 1072-73 (quoting Armstrong v. Davis,
23 275 F.3d 849, 870 (9th Cir. 2001)). Defendants do not dispute
24 that there are currently class members still housed in county
25 jails or that Defendants’ system-wide policies and practices have
26
27 caused, and continue to cause, substantial injury to class

28 members, even if they dispute the size of this group.

32

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page33 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

Given the ineffectiveness of Defendants’ County Jail Plan,

2 Defendants’ consequent reliance on the county jails to accommodate

3 Armstrong class members, and the deficiencies identified in the

4 disability-related county jail policies and procedures and in

5 certain facilities’ housing, the Court finds that the types of ADA
6 violations experienced by the class member-declarants have been,
7 and will continue to be, experienced by many other class members
8 who have been and will be housed in county jails throughout
9
10 California. The serious violations of the rights of class members

11 while housed in county jails are systemic, persistent, and

12 continuing throughout the State and are directly attributable to

13 Defendants’ failure to implement appropriate policies and
14 procedures to identify, track, and accommodate these class 15
members, to communicate appropriate information to the county 16
jails, and to monitor compliance by the county jails. The Court 17 18 finds that the harm experienced by class members is caused not
19 only by Defendants’ statewide policies (or lack thereof) regarding

20 the housing of Armstrong class members in county jails, but also

21 by Defendants’ ongoing failure to train, supervise, and monitor

22 CDCR employees and agents concerning their responsibilities,
23 ongoing failure to communicate with county jails regarding the
24 known needs of class members, and ongoing failure to take
25 responsibility for and to assert influence over county jails
26
27 through contracts, regulations, letters, meetings, or other

28 communications. The Court therefore finds that only system-wide

33

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page34 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 injunctive relief could prevent Armstrong class members from 2 experiencing future ADA violations when housed in county jails.

3 V. 4 5

Constitutionality under Printz v. United States and New York v. United States
Defendants repeat an argument previously made and rejected by

6 the Ninth Circuit that the relief sought would “commandeer” them

7 “to enforce federal law,” in violation of Printz v. United States,

8 521 U.S. 898 (1997) and New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144

9 (1992). Opp. at 8-9. Defendants argue that, under realignment,
10 they no longer “choose to house” parolees in county jails, and
11 thus that the relief sought would “require Defendants to ensure
12 ADA-compliant conditions not for class members, but rather for
13
14 offenders being held under the counties’ authority.” Opp. at 8.

15

First, as the Ninth Circuit already recognized, unlike in

16 Printz and New York, this is not an action by the federal

17 government seeking to commandeer a local entity to carry out a
18 federal obligation; it is instead an action by private parties--
19 parolees who fit the class definition--seeking to enforce their
20 constitutional rights, and thus these cases are not relevant here.
21 22 Armstrong, 622 F.3d at 1089. Further, as already discussed above,
23 the relief that Plaintiffs seek would require only that Defendants

24 ensure ADA-compliant conditions for state prisoners and parolees

25 who are being held in county facilities pursuant to Defendants’

26 contractual and statutory authority. Thus, the order does not 27
mean that the State would have to ensure that county jails follow 28

34

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page35 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 federal law, but rather that the State itself must follow federal 2 law. Id. at 1069. Accordingly, the proposed injunction does not

3 violate the principles set forth in Printz and New York.

4 VI. Abstention

5

Defendants state that this Court should decline to exercise

6 its jurisdiction over matters pertaining to county jails because
7 of two class action suits addressing conditions of confinement in
8

particular jails, Pierce v. County of Orange, No. 01-00981 (C.D. 9

10 Cal.)7 and Johnson v. Los Angeles Co. Sheriff’s Dep’t, No. 08-3515

11 (C.D. Cal.), a consent decree concerning jail conditions in Santa

12 Clara County, Padilla v. Ryan, No. 98-2309 (N.D. Cal.), and a

13 settlement between the U.S. Department of Justice and Alameda
14 County concerning jail conditions. 15
However, none of these cases upon which Defendants rely 16
counsel abstention in the instant situation. In Pacesetter Sys., 17 18 Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 678 F.2d 93 (9th Cir. 1982), the Ninth
19 Circuit upheld the district court’s dismissal of an action because

20 an identical complaint involving the same parties and issues had

21 first been filed in another court. Id. at 94-97. In Church of

22 Scientology v. U.S. Dep’t of Army, 611 F.2d 738 (9th Cir. 1979),
23 the Ninth Circuit recognized that, under comity, a court generally
24 defers to previously filed litigation, but decided to defer to a
25

26

7 While Defendants represent that issues similar to the ones

at hand are currently being litigated in Pierce, a judgment was 27 entered in that case on June 28, 2011 and the only issue presently

28 being litigated is attorneys’ fees.

35

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page36 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 subsequently filed case, because that litigation, which presented 2 an identical issue, had already progressed through several

3 substantial litigation steps. Id. at 749-50. In Crawford v.

4 Bell, 599 F.2d 890 (9th Cir. 1979), the court dismissed an

5 individual case where the plaintiff was a class member in an
6 ongoing class action addressing the same issues. Id. at 893.
7 None of the other actions to which Defendants point
8 necessitate abstention in this case. None present the same issues
9
10 or parties. Each is limited to one or two jails within a single

11 county and was brought against county defendants. None were

12 brought against state defendants or involve state parolees held in

13 jails throughout the State. Further, this action was brought well

14 before any of the other cases and has already required a
15 tremendous amount of litigation prior to this point. Accordingly,
16 this Court does not decline jurisdiction over this matter in light
17
18 of the cases that Defendants raise.

19

CONCLUSION

20

In order to remedy the ongoing harm to Armstrong class

21 members, to ensure that Defendants meet their obligations under

22 the ADA and Rehabilitation Act and prior Court orders, and to
23 enforce the March 21, 2001 Permanent Injunction, and based on the
24 entire record in this action, the Court hereby ORDERS the
25 following relief, all of which it finds is narrowly drawn, extends
26
27 no further than necessary to correct the violations of federal

28 rights, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the

36

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page37 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 violations of the federal rights:

2

1. Within thirty days of this Order, Defendants shall

3 develop a revised plan for ensuring timely and appropriate

4 accommodations for Armstrong class members in county jails that

5 includes, at a minimum, the following elements:
6 a. On a daily basis, Defendants shall send to each
7 county a list of all Armstrong class members being housed in the
8 county jail facilities of that county. For each class member, the
9
10 list shall include the class member’s name, CDCR identification

11 number, CDCR disability placement program classification and all

12 accommodations in housing and programming that the Disability and

13 Effective Communication System (DECS) states the class member
14 receives when in custody in one of Defendants’ facilities. 15
b. Within three business days of the arrival of a 16
prisoner at a county jail facility pursuant to a parole hold, 17 18 Defendants’ agent (whether Parole Agent, Notice Agent, Board
19 Revocation Representative, or other agent) shall check DECS,

20 interview the parolee, and review any available 1073 forms and

21 source documents to determine what, if any, reasonable

22 accommodations in housing, programming, or parole proceedings the
23 parolee requires under the Armstrong Remedial Plan, the ADA,
24 and/or the Rehabilitation Act and whether these accommodations
25 have been provided to the parolee by the county jail. If DECS,
26
27 the file review, and/or the interview show that an accommodation

28 is required and has not been provided, within four business days

37

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page38 of 43
1 of the parolee’s arrival, Defendants’ agent must notify a 2 designated staff member at the county jail facility of the
3 accommodations in housing and programming that the class member
4 requires and must document that notification on an appropriate 5 form such as the BPH Form 1073. 6
c. Class members housed in county jails must have 7
ready access to disability grievance forms, either the CDCR’s 8
Reasonable Modification or Accommodation Request form (CDC 1824) 9 10 or a separate county jail grievance form. If Defendants elect to 11 utilize the CDC 1824 form in any of the counties, Defendants shall
12 collect the grievance forms from class members no less than twice
13 a week, and shall provide copies to a designated person at the 14 county jail. Defendants shall respond to all grievances within 15
fifteen calendar days of receipt and make their best efforts to 16
ensure that necessary and reasonable accommodations are provided. 17 18 If a class member identifies the grievance as urgent or an 19 emergency (i.e., if it alleges a condition which is a threat to
20 the parolee’s health or safety, or is necessary for participation
21 or effective communication in a parole revocation proceeding), 22 Defendants shall respond to such a grievance within five calendar 23
days of receipt and make their best efforts to ensure that 24
necessary and reasonable accommodations are provided on an interim 25
basis. For the first six months in which the plan is in effect, 26 27 Defendants must produce to Plaintiffs’ counsel on a monthly basis 28 all grievances collected by Defendants pursuant to this
38

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page39 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 subsection. Production may shift to two times a year after the 2 first six months.

3

d. If Defendants contend that the process outlined in

4 Paragraph (1)(c) is unnecessary because a jail has an adequate

5 disability grievance process, Defendants must certify, within
6 thirty days of the acceptance of their plan, that each such jail’s
7 disability grievance policy contains the following elements:
8 i. Is readily available to all class members
9
10 housed in that county’s jail facilities;

11

ii. Has an initial response deadline of no later

12 than fifteen calendar days from receipt by the designated jail

13 staff member;

14

iii. Contains a provision for expediting a response

15 if the appeal alleges a condition which is a threat to the
16 parolee’s health or safety, or is necessary for participation or
17

18 effective communication in a parole revocation proceeding;

19

iv. Includes a provision for review of the

20 parolee’s request by medical staff, if necessary;

21

v. Provides a right to appeal denials; and

22

vi. Requires that a copy of each and every

23 grievance and response be provided to Defendants at the same time
24 it is provided to the Armstrong class member.
25
e. If Defendants contend that the process outlined in 26

27 Paragraph (1)(c) is unnecessary because a jail has an adequate

28 disability grievance process, for the first six months in which

39

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page40 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 the plan is in effect, Defendants must produce to Plaintiffs’ 2 counsel on a monthly basis all grievances provided to Defendants

3 pursuant to subsection (d)(vi) of this paragraph. Production may

4 shift to two times a year after the first six months.

5

f. If, either through a grievance or otherwise,

6 Defendants become aware of a class member who is housed in a
7 county jail and not receiving accommodations that he or she
8
requires, Defendants shall immediately take steps with county jail 9

10 staff to ensure that such accommodations are promptly provided or

11 transfer the class member to a facility that is able to provide

12 accommodations.

13

g. If Defendants become aware, either through a

14 grievance or otherwise, of a pattern of denials of disability
15 accommodations, such as improper housing and/or denial of
16 assistive devices to class members at a particular county jail
17
18 facility, or grievance process delays or obstacles, they shall

19 take the following steps:

20

i. Within five calendar days of becoming aware of

21 the pattern, Defendants shall notify the county jail facility

22 administrator in writing of the issue, providing specific dates

23 and incidents, and demanding that the conduct cease and desist;
24 ii. At the same time, provide a copy of this
25
notification to Plaintiffs’ counsel; and 26

27

iii. Assign a staff person to investigate the

28 county jail facility and report back to Defendants within thirty

40

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page41 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 days, with a copy to Plaintiffs’ counsel, regarding the pattern 2 and steps to be taken to remedy it, including any available

3 monetary fines and penalties for continued violations.

4

2. Within forty-five days of this Order, Defendants shall

5 issue the plan in final form and disseminate it to all jail
6 facilities in the fifty-eight counties. Defendants shall also
7 disseminate the plan to all relevant personnel employed by
8 Defendants and conduct training of such personnel on the plan upon
9
10 its dissemination and thereafter on an annual basis.

11

3. Defendants shall permit Plaintiffs’ counsel to monitor

12 the plan and the accommodations provided to Armstrong class

13 members while housed in county jails. Reasonable monitoring shall

14 include, at a minimum:
15 a. The ability to conduct a sufficient number of tours
16 per year of county jail facilities in which Armstrong class
17
18 members are held to determine compliance with this order;

19

b. The right during the aforementioned monitoring

20 tours to conduct interviews with county jail staff members and

21 with Armstrong class members housed in county jails, and to review

22 all files and documents pertaining to Armstrong class members,
23 including class members’ jail custody and medical files and jail
24 policies and procedures affecting prisoners with disabilities;
25 c. The opportunity to review and comment on materials
26
27 used to train Defendants’ staff who work in or with county jails

28 about the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Armstrong case

41

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page42 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 sufficiently in advance of training sessions and to observe those 2 sessions.

3

d. A monthly document production that includes all

4 memoranda, DECS County Jail Accommodations Reports, BPH Form

5 1073s, tracking logs, and other documents related to the plan.
6 4. Pursuant to this Court’s March 21, 2001 Permanent
7 Injunction, Defendants must add the following language, or
8 substantially similar language, to any existing or future
9
10 contracts with a county for the housing of CDCR prisoners,

11 parolees, or supervised releasees in county jails, including

12 Defendants’ contracts for the housing of CDCR prisoners in the

13 jail facilities of Alameda and Sacramento Counties and Defendants’
14 contracts with any counties to operate jail-based In-Custody Drug 15
Treatment Programs: “By signing this contract, Contractor assures 16
the State that it complies with the Americans with Disabilities 17 18 Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., which prohibits
19 discrimination on the basis of disability and with applicable

20 regulations and guidelines issued pursuant to the ADA.”

21

5. The parties shall agree on a mechanism for promptly

22 addressing concerns raised by Plaintiffs’ counsel regarding
23 individual class members housed in county jails and emergencies.
24 6. Defendants must present drafts of all plans, policies,
25 and procedures developed pursuant to this Order to Plaintiffs’
26
27 counsel at least fifteen days in advance of the deadlines. Both

28 parties must make all possible efforts to resolve any

42

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2034 Filed04/11/12 Page43 of 43

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 disagreements as to their adequacy. Defendants shall ensure that 2 staff with sufficient authority to amend and approve procedures

3 attend all meet and confer sessions. In the event that

4 disagreements cannot be resolved, Defendants shall implement the
5 procedures as written on the date ordered and Plaintiffs’ counsel
6 shall file objections with the Court. The Court will rule on the
7 objections and issue orders amending procedures as necessary.
8 7. This Order shall apply to Defendants, their agents,
9
10 employees, successors in office, and all persons with knowledge of

11 it. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of

12 this Injunction.

13 IT IS SO ORDERED.
14

15 Dated: 4/11/2012
16

CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

43

 
 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

4 JOHN ARMSTRONG, et al.,

No. C 94-2307 CW

5

Plaintiffs,

6

v.

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

8

Defendants.

9 ________________________________/

10

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR CONTEMPT, DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO STRIKE AND MODIFYING PERMANENT INJUNCTION (Docket Nos. 2024 and 2135)

Plaintiffs move for an order to show cause why Defendants 11

should not be held in civil contempt for violating the January 18, 12

2007 Injunction and to hold Defendants in contempt. Defendants 13

oppose the motion. Having considered the papers filed by the 14

parties and their arguments at the hearing, the Court DENIES 15

Plaintiffs’ motion. The Court also MODIFIES the 2007 Injunction. 16

BACKGROUND 17

In a series of orders between 1996 and 2002, the Court found 18

that Defendants’ treatment of prisoners with disabilities violated 19

the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) and section 504 of the 20

Rehabilitation Act. On January 3, 2001, Defendants issued the 21

amended Armstrong Remedial Plan (ARP) setting forth their own 22

plans and policies to come into compliance with their obligations 23

under these federal laws. Docket No. 681. On March 21, 2001, the 24

Court issued a Permanent Injunction ordering Defendants to comply 25

with the ADA and section 504 in eight specific areas previously 26

litigated by the parties. Docket No. 694. 27

28

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

On January 18, 2007, this Court held that Defendants were not

2 yet in compliance with the ADA, section 504, the Permanent

3 Injunction or the ARP. Docket No. 1045. The Court found that

4 “Plaintiffs have demonstrated that defendants continue to violate

5 the rights of prisoners with disabilities under the ADA and

6 Rehabilitation Act” and described in detail its factual findings

7 of Defendants’ ongoing and systemic violations of class members’

8 rights, including failure to provide safe accessible housing to

9 prisoners with mobility impairments, denial of sign language

10 interpreters to prisoners who need them, confiscation of medically

11 prescribed assistive devices, and late and inadequate disability

12 grievance responses and systems. Id. at 2-4. The Court

13 specifically found that some institutions responded chronically

14 late to class members’ grievances regarding accommodations and

15 that other institutions simply did not process and address such

16 grievances at all. Id. at 4. These failures persisted despite

17 the Court’s prior orders requiring Defendants to provide

18 reasonable accommodations and violated the ARP developed by

19 Defendants.

20

The Court entered an injunction, requiring Defendants to take

21 certain steps to address the ongoing rights violations.

22 Injunction, Docket No. 1045. To ensure that repeated violations

23 would be identified and addressed, the Court ordered, among other

24 things,

25

Within 120 days of the date of this Order, defendants,

26

in cooperation with the Office of the Inspector General and the Receiver in Plata v. Schwarzenegger, shall

27

develop a system for holding wardens and prison medical administrators accountable for compliance with the

28

Armstrong Remedial Plan and the orders of this Court. This system shall track the record of each institution

2

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

and the conduct of individual staff members who are not complying with these requirements. Defendants shall

2

refer individuals with repeated instances of noncompliance to the Office of Internal Affairs for

3

investigation and discipline, if appropriate.

Id. at 7. 4

On November 21, 2008, Defendants issued a memorandum entitled 5

“Expectations for Staff Accountability and Non-compliance of the 6

Disability Placement Program” (DPP). Godbold Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. 1. 7

Plaintiffs allege that this memorandum sets forth “Defendants’ 8

sole means of implementing” the accountability tracking 9

requirements of the 2007 Injunction. Mot. at 4. The memorandum 10

states, “In order to provide the documentation to meet the Court’s 11

Injunction related to staff conduct, the following recording and 12

reporting protocols shall be implemented.” Id. at 2. If a 13

supervisor or manager observes violations of the DPP or if staff 14

misconduct is alleged or reported by others, including “staff, 15

inmate interviews, submitted via CDC Form 602 - Inmate/Parolee 16

Appeal or CDCR Form 1824 - Request for Reasonable Modification or 17

Accommodation,” or is found through “other fact-finding efforts,” 18

the supervisor or manager is required to “prepare and forward a 19

memorandum to the Employee Disciplinary Officer/Employee Relations 20

Officer (EDO/ERO) in the Employee Relations Office,” setting forth 21

the details of the misconduct. Id. The EDO/ERO is then to 22

forward this information to the appropriate Hiring Authority, 23

which is either the warden of the institution or the Health Care 24

Manager, who is to determine “what action should be taken” and 25

whether the involvement of the Office of Internal Affairs (OIA) is 26

warranted. Id. at 2-3. The Hiring Authority’s decision is to be 27

“entered on the DPP Employee Non-Compliance Log.” Id. at 3. Each 28

3

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 month, the logs compiled at each institution are produced to

2 Plaintiffs’ counsel. Id.; Godbold Decl. ¶ 4.

3

On July 13, 2010, the parties filed a joint status conference

4 statement, stating in relevant part,

5

Plaintiffs are concerned that the staff accountability

6

program, required by this Court’s January 18, 2007 Injunction, is not working as intended.

7

Under Defendants’ November 21, 2008 memorandum governing

8

accountability procedures, supervisors are required to forward a memo to the Employee Relations Officer when

9

they “discover” -- via direct observation, prisoner complaint, or reports by others -- that staff has

10

“fail[ed] to fulfill their responsibilities in regards to the DPP.” The Employee Relations Officer submits the

11

information to the Hiring Authority, and the Hiring Authority is then to determine whether/what action to

12

take. Once the Hiring Authority has made its determination, the Employee Relations Officer “shall

13

enter the decision in the DPP Employee Non-Compliance Log.”

14

Despite this direction, the non-compliance logs for

15

several institutions are completely blank for the entire period of February 2009 through April 2010. The logs

16

for many other institutions are empty for months at a time, and the logs for still others have very few

17

entries.

18

The lack of entries exist even where Plaintiffs have produced reports alleging numerous and serious

19

violations of the Remedial Plan.

20

Without waiving any legal rights, Defendants have agreed to put together a training module to ensure that staff

21

are properly investigating potential violations and noting the investigations in the accountability logs.

22

The parties have agreed to meet on July 27 at 10:00 to

23

discuss the contents and status of such training.

Docket No. 1729, at 2-3. 24

In February 2011, Defendants required all institutional 25

staff, except staff working under the authority of the Receiver 26

appointed by the court in Plata v. Brown, to complete a training 27

module on the accountability procedures. Martinez Decl. ¶ 4. The 28

4

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 training consisted of written materials summarizing the procedures

2 and a quiz regarding the materials. Id., Ex. C.

3

Between April 2011 and December 2011, Plaintiffs submitted

4 allegations of more than 150 violations of the Armstrong Remedial

5 Plan to Defendants, which were not reported on the corresponding

6 DPP Employee Non-Compliance Logs provided by Defendants to

7 Plaintiffs. Godbold Decl. ¶¶ 7-57, Exs. 3-53; Evenson Decl.

8 ¶¶ 3-5.1

9

On January 18, 2012, Plaintiffs sent Defendants a letter,

10 stating

11

Based on a review of the non-compliance logs produced

12

since completion of the training (April 2011 - November 2011), plaintiffs’ counsel remains seriously concerned

13

about the incompleteness and inconsistency of the noncompliance logs. Despite additional staff training,

14

logs at nine institutions remaining entirely blank even though clear Armstrong violations have been identified

15

through monitoring at those prisons. Though logs at the remaining institutions are not blank, at least 17 other

16

prisons fail to document violations which plaintiffs’ counsel identified in monitoring reports.

17 Godbold Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. 2. Plaintiffs attempted to discuss

18 solutions to these issues during a February 3, 2012 meeting.

19 Defendants refused to comment on plans to address these issues and

20 stated that they would respond in writing by March 1, 2012.

21

22

23

1 In their opposition, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’

counsel’s monitoring letters are inadmissible hearsay offered to 24 prove the truth of the allegations of violations contained in the

letters, and that they do not qualify for any exception to the 25 hearsay rule. Opp. at 12-13. Plaintiffs do not offer these

letters to establish that Defendants had in fact violated the 26 Armstrong Remedial Plan, but rather to establish that the fact

that Plaintiffs had submitted allegations of such violations to 27 Defendants between these dates, which did not appear on the DPP

Employee Non-Compliance Logs. Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES 28 Defendants’ objections to these documents.

5

1 Godbold Decl. ¶ 6. Defendants had not responded as of March 22,

2 2012. Id.

3

On March 22, 2012, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion,

4 alleging that Defendants have failed to comply with the quoted

5 portion of the 2007 Injunction. The parties subsequently

6 stipulated to extend the briefing and hearing schedule on the

7 motion.

8

In March 2012, Defendants required all managerial and

9 supervisory staff at the prisons, except staff working under the

10 authority of the Receiver appointed by the court in Plata v.

11 Brown, to complete again the training module on the accountability

12 procedures. Calderon Decl. ¶ 2.

13

On May 10, 2012, Defendants filed their opposition to

14 Plaintiffs’ motion.2

15

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

16
2 With their opposition, Defendants filed under seal a 17 separate 120-page document, entitled “Appendix of Defendants’
Objections to Plaintiffs’ Evidence on Plaintiffs’ Motion for an 18 Order to Show Cause and a Contempt Order,” and setting forth 270
evidentiary objections to Plaintiffs’ evidence. Docket No. 2117. 19 In their reply, Plaintiffs object to this appendix of objections
and move to strike it. 20
Civil Local Rule 7-3(a) requires that, for an opposition to a 21 motion, “[a]ny evidentiary and procedural objections to the motion
must be contained within the brief or memorandum.” Civil Local 22 Rule 7-4(b) provides that, unless “the Court expressly provides
otherwise pursuant to a party’s request made prior to the due 23 date, briefs or memoranda filed with opposition papers may not
exceed 25 pages of text.” 24
Between their opposition brief and their separate appendix of 25 evidentiary objections, Defendants have filed a total of 143 pages
in opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion, without at any point seeking 26 leave of the Court to exceed twenty-five pages. Accordingly, the
Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ request to strike Defendants’ appendix of 27 evidentiary objections. The Court will only consider the
evidentiary objections that Defendants raised within the 28 opposition brief itself.

6

1

On May 24, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their reply in support of

2 their motion.

3

On May 31, 2012, Defendants filed objections to Plaintiffs’

4 reply evidence.3

5

On June 1, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a revised proposed order

6 for the instant motion.4

7

LEGAL STANDARD

8

A district court has the inherent authority to enforce

9 compliance with its orders through a civil contempt proceeding.

10 International Union, UMWA v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 827–28 (1994).

11 A contempt sanction is considered civil if it “is remedial, and

12 for the benefit of the complainant.” Id. A contempt fine is

13 considered civil and remedial if it either “coerce[s] the

14

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

15
3 Defendants request that the Court strike portions of the 16 reply declaration of Penny Godbold, arguing that these sections of
her declaration improperly contain conclusions and argument or 17 misstate the evidence in the record. Because the Court has not
relied on the Godbold reply declaration in resolving this motion, 18 Defendants’ request is OVERRULED AS MOOT.

19

4 On June 4, 2012, Defendants filed an administrative motion

to strike Plaintiffs’ revised proposed order, arguing that the 20 proposed order is actually a sur-reply brief offering additional

argument in support of their motion. Docket No. 2135. 21

The Court notes that Plaintiffs appear to have revised their 22 proposed order to incorporate the arguments they raised in their
reply brief. Defendants allege that the revised proposed order 23 “improperly argues, after all briefing has been completed, that
this Court should change the nature of the proceedings, by 24 abandoning their motion for an order to show cause,” by arguing
that “an order to show cause” is “not necessary because Plaintiffs 25 do not contest Defendants’ evidence.” Mot. to Strike 2 & n.1
(emphasis in original). However, Plaintiffs make this argument on 26 pages thirteen through fifteen of their reply brief.

27

Because the Court finds that the revised proposed order is

not material to the outcome of this motion and does not rely upon 28 it in ruling, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion as MOOT.

7

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 defendant into compliance with the court’s order, [or] ...

2 compensate[s] the complainant for losses sustained.” United

3 States v. United Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 303–304 (1947).

4

“The standard for finding a party in civil contempt is well

5 settled: The moving party has the burden of showing by clear and

6 convincing evidence that the [non-moving party] violated a

7 specific and definite order of the court.” FTC v. Affordable

8 Media, LLC, 179 F.3d 1228, 1239 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Stone v.

9 City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 856 n.9 (9th

10 Cir.1992)). The contempt “need not be willful, and there is no

11 good faith exception to the requirement of obedience to a court

12 order.” In re Dual-Deck Video Cassette Recorder Antitrust Litig.,

13 10 F.3d 693, 695 (9th Cir. 1993). “But a person should not be

14 held in contempt if his action appears to be based on a good faith

15 and reasonable interpretation of the court’s order.” Id.

16 (internal formatting and quotation marks omitted). “‘Substantial

17 compliance’ with the court order is a defense to civil contempt,

18 and is not vitiated by ‘a few technical violations’ where every

19 reasonable effort has been made to comply.” Id. (citing Vertex

20 Distrib., Inc. v. Falcon Foam Plastics, Inc., 689 F.2d 885, 891

21 (9th Cir. 1982)).

22

Thus, the Court may grant a motion for an order of contempt

23 if it finds that Defendants (1) violated the court order,

24 (2) beyond substantial compliance, (3) not based on a good faith

25 and reasonable interpretation of the order, (4) by clear and

26 convincing evidence. Id. Once the moving party has met its

27 burden, the burden “shifts to the contemnors to demonstrate why

28 they were unable to comply” with the court order. Stone, 968 F.2d

8

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 at 856 n.9 (citing Donovan v. Mazzola, 716 F.2d 1226, 1240 (9th

2 Cir. 1983)). “They must show they took every reasonable step to

3 comply.” Id. (citing Sekaquaptewa v. MacDonald, 544 F.2d 396, 406

4 (9th Cir. 1976)).

5

DISCUSSION

6

Plaintiffs request that Defendants be held in civil contempt

7 because they have reported “hundreds of violations of the Remedial

8 Plan and instances of staff member misconduct” to Defendants and

9 “Defendants have failed to track these reported instances of staff

10 member non-compliance, or to refer repeated instances of non-

11 compliance to the OIA.” Mot. at 3. Plaintiffs acknowledge that

12 Defendants have developed a tracking mechanism, but argue that it

13 has not been effective, that many institutions are not complying

14 with it and that Defendants’ training on this mechanism has been

15 insufficient. Id. at 5.

16

Defendants do not dispute that they did not track allegations

17 of rights violations. Instead, they argue that the 2007

18 Injunction does not require them to log allegations of

19 non-compliance or to investigate such allegations and instead only

20 requires them to log instances in which they found that an

21 employee had in fact violated a class member’s rights. Thus, they

22 contend that, although their November 2008 accountability program

23 mandates tracking of allegations of non-compliance that were

24 ultimately not substantiated, which they admit they have failed to

25 do, they cannot be held in contempt for this failure because the

26 information was not required by the 2007 Injunction. Defendants

27 further argue that, if the 2007 Injunction does require them to

28 conduct an investigation into allegations of non-compliance and to

9

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 report the outcome of each such investigation, including those

2 that were not substantiated, then the order is ambiguous and

3 unenforceable through civil contempt sanctions. Finally,

4 Defendants aver that they have been acting pursuant to a good

5 faith interpretation of the Injunction as not requiring this.

6

The Court finds that Defendants’ interpretation of the 2007

7 Injunction fatally undermines any effectiveness that the relevant

8 requirements would have had in addressing the ongoing violations

9 identified in that order. The Court required Defendants to

10 “develop a system for holding wardens and prison medical

11 administrators accountable for compliance with the Armstrong

12 Remedial Plan and the orders of this Court,” and to track both

13 “the record of each institution and the conduct of individual

14 staff members who are not complying with these requirements.”

15 These requirements were intended to serve multiple purposes,

16 including remedying the widespread failures to respond to

17 grievances and requests for accommodations, verifying compliance

18 with the other parts of the Court’s orders and the ARP and

19 ensuring that patterns of violations were identified and

20 addressed. Most importantly, these provisions required Defendants

21 to develop effective internal oversight and accountability

22 procedures to ensure that Defendants learned what was taking place

23 in their facilities, in order to find violations, rectify them and

24 prevent them from recurring in the future, without involvement by

25 Plaintiffs’ counsel or the Court. Defendants are unable to

26 identify whether institutions and staff members have complied with

27 requirements, find patterns or hold wardens and medical

28 administrators accountable, if they do not determine whether

10

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 reports of rights violations are substantiated and record the

2 results. Simply put, investigations, including the documentation

3 of the results, are necessary to ensure that grievances are

4 addressed and to identify staff error or misconduct and

5 institutional deficiencies that violate class members’ rights.

6 Defendants may not fail to investigate reports of rights

7 violations and then declare that, because they did not

8 substantiate a violation, they were not required to document it.

9 Without documentation, there is no way for the Court to know

10 whether a complaint was investigated and found unsubstantiated, or

11 was simply ignored.

12

Some of Defendants’ declarations reveal that investigations

13 were not conducted into complaints of rights violations until

14 after the instant motion was filed. For example, on October 13,

15 2011, Plaintiffs’ counsel submitted a monitoring report to

16 Defendants stating that, among other things, a class member had

17 reported “that his back brace was taken away following a cell

18 extraction on May 2, 2011.” Godbold Decl. ¶ 9, Ex. 5, 3.

19 Defendants submit evidence that they conducted an investigation

20 into this allegation upon receipt of the instant motion and offer

21 no evidence that they investigated the report at any earlier time.

22 See Zanchi Decl. ¶¶ 2-3, 10-13 (asserting that the report was not

23 substantiated, because the class member “was not medically

24 authorized to have a back brace”).

25

The Court also notes that Defendants concede that at least

26 some of the incidents at issue constituted violations of the ARP,

27 which they were required to report. See Opp. at 5 (admitting

28 twenty-six ARP violations were not logged). Defendants state that

11

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 they have or will amend their accountability reports to track

2 these incidents.

3

The Court finds that Defendants’ own evidence submitted in

4 response to this motion reveals numerous additional incidents,

5 which do violate the ARP or other Court orders, and which

6 Defendants failed to track. In multiple incidents, Defendants

7 state that they did not log that a violation of the ARP occurred

8 because staff members did not intend to commit a rights violation

9 or because the violation was subsequently remedied. However, the

10 2007 Injunction requires that every violation be tracked,

11 regardless of whether or not it was done intentionally or based on

12 an honest mistake or unavoidable. Further, violations must be

13 tracked, even if steps are later taken to remedy the initial

14 problem.

15

For example, Defendants acknowledge that a deaf inmate

16 submitted a grievance dated September 4, 2011, stating that his

17 hearing aid was taken during a cell search that took place on

18 August 24, 2011 and asking that the hearing aid be returned or

19 that he be provided with a new one. Cavazos Decl. ¶¶ 17-18, Ex.

20 E. Defendants also admit that a later investigation revealed that

21 the hearing aid was taken during the search. Id. at ¶ 19.

22 Sometime after September 28, 2011, the inmate was seen by an

23 audiologist and given a new hearing aid. Id. at ¶ 19-21.

24 Defendants contend that they “determined that there was no

25 violation that needed to be logged” in the accountability logs,

26 because the inmate’s hearing aid was removed from his cell “by

27 mistake, and there was no intention to deprive him of his hearing

28 aid,” and because he was “provided a new hearing aid soon after he

12

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 requested one.” Id. at ¶ 22.

2

In another incident, Defendants acknowledge that one

3 prisoner’s Disability and Effective Communication System (DECS)

4 record shows that “his primary method of communication is American

5 sign language and that his secondary method of communication is

6 the use of written notes.” Aref Decl. ¶ 6. See also Aref Decl.

7 ¶ 7, Ex. A. The ARP requires that, “for all due process

8 functions,” when “sign language is the inmate’s primary or only

9 means of effective communication,” a qualified sign language

10 interpreter must be provided, “unless the inmate waives the

11 assistance of an interpreter, reasonable attempts to obtain one

12 are not successful, and/or delay would pose a safety or security

13 risk.” ARP § II.E.2.d. Defendants attest that, on April 18,

14 2011, staff held a meeting with this prisoner to provide notice of

15 his conditions of parole, but did not have a sign language

16 interpreter present and instead used written notes to communicate

17 with him. Aref Decl. ¶ 8. Defendants do not provide evidence

18 that the inmate waived the assistance of an interpreter, they made

19 reasonable attempts to obtain an interpreter or that delay would

20 pose a safety or security risk. After Plaintiffs’ counsel raised

21 this issue with Defendants, a second meeting was held on June 3,

22 2011 with the prisoner, at which a sign language interpreter was

23 present. Aref Decl. ¶ 10-11, Ex. 11. Defendants assert that they

24 concluded that no violation of the ARP occurred in the April 18,

25 2011 meeting, apparently because “the correctional counselor

26 responsible” for the meeting “believed that the use of written

27 notes was an appropriate effective form of communication,” and

28 thus that the incident need not be entered into the accountability

13

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 logs. Id. at ¶ 15.

2

Defendants’ declarations also show that they failed to

3 document violations where an inmate’s grievance did not

4 specifically accuse a staff member of misconduct, even though the

5 inmate was deprived of an accommodation required under the ARP.

6 Defendants must report incidents where an inmate complains that he

7 or she was not provided with something required by the ARP, not

8 only where the class member has explicitly accused a specific

9 staff member of intentional malfeasance or another talismanic

10 phrase. Defendants also repeatedly state that they are not

11 required to track violations where they could not identify the

12 specific staff members responsible for the problem. See, e.g.,

13 Zanchi Decl. ¶¶ 8-9 (“My investigation was unable to identify the

14 specific staff members responsible for the violations. Because no

15 specific staff member could be identified as the responsible

16 party, this incident was not logged in the CCI DPP Accountability

17 Logs.”). However, the fact that Defendants could not identify the

18 responsible individual does not negate the fact that an incident

19 occurred in which a class member was deprived of his rights.

20 Further, the 2007 Injunction clearly requires Defendants to track

21 institutional compliance, not just the compliance of individual

22 staff members.

23

For example, one prisoner submitted a grievance on a CDCR

24 602 form stating that he was “vision impaired [and] not receiving

25 assistance from custody in reading and writing.” Cullen Decl.

26 ¶ 7, Ex. C, 3. In the response to his grievance, staff noted

27 that, during an interview about the grievance, the inmate stated

28 specifically that “staff is unwilling to assist [him] in

14

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 preparation of an Inmate/Parolee Appeal CDCR 602 form.” Id. at 5.

2 His complaint was substantiated and the associate warden concluded

3 that “staff was not providing the proper assistance with your

4 disability needs,” noting that the ARP mandated that “institution

5 staff shall provide the assistance and equipment necessary to all

6 inmates with disabilities on a case by case basis to ensure that

7 inmates, who have difficult reading and/or communicating in

8 writing . . . are provided reasonable access to forms, CCRs and

9 procedures.” Id. See ARP § II.F. Defendants contend that they

10 were not required to log this because the grievance did not

11 provide “information that there was a violation of the Armstrong

12 remedial plan.” Cullen Decl. ¶ 7. Even if the original grievance

13 was vague, the ensuing investigation clearly revealed that the

14 class member was alleging a violation of the ARP, and Defendants’

15 staff substantiated that there was such a violation. This

16 argument is especially disingenuous because the class member was

17 complaining that he was not provided with accommodations required

18 to help him complete this form properly, among other things. As

19 above, Defendants further aver that the inmate did not identify “a

20 specific person or persons who failed to provide” him with

21 assistance. Id.

22

The Court notes that the instant motion does not involve

23 Defendants’ failure to provide appropriate accommodations; rather,

24 the Court considers whether Defendants have violated the 2007

25 Injunction’s requirement that it develop an accountability system

26 to ensure compliance with the ARP and the Court’s other orders.

27 On the record before it, the Court concludes that Defendants’

28 accountability system, with which they do not dispute they have

15

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 failed to comply, has not been effective. Although the Court

2 finds that the 2007 Injunction implicitly required Defendants to

3 include in the accountability system requirements to investigate

4 promptly and appropriately all allegations of violations,

5 regardless of the source, and to record the outcomes of the

6 investigations, including whether or not the allegations were

7 substantiated, in an abundance of caution the Court concludes that

8 the 2007 Injunction may not state this plainly enough.

9 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion to hold

10 Defendants in contempt.

11

The Court finds the 2007 Injunction should be clarified and

12 made more detailed, to make clear what is expected of Defendants

13 and to allow Defendants to conform their future behavior to its

14 terms. The Court therefore MODIFIES the 2007 Injunction, as set

15 forth below. The modifications largely reflect the procedures

16 that were set forth in Defendants’ November 21, 2008 memorandum,

17 with minimal changes. The Court makes changes in five substantive

18 areas--tracking, investigation, corrective action and discipline,

19 dispute resolution, and requirement for a protective order. The

20 Court finds that these changes are narrowly drawn, extend no

21 further than necessary to correct the violations of federal rights

22 identified in the 2007 Injunction, and are the least intrusive

23 means necessary to correct the violations of the federal rights.

24

The modifications require Defendants to track all allegations

25 of non-compliance with the ARP and the orders of this Court. The

26 modifications are similar to Defendants’ own procedures. See

27 Godbold Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. 1, 2-3. This must be done regardless of

28 the source of the allegations. The only difference is that this

16

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 order also requires Defendants to list when the investigation was

2 initiated, the name and title of the investigator, the date the

3 investigation was completed, the result of the investigation, and

4 the number of prior allegations of non-compliance against the

5 involved employees or employees. The Court finds that tracking of

6 this additional information is necessary because Defendants have

7 not tracked or conducted violations into all reported violations,

8 and those facts will show whether Defendants are fully and

9 effectively complying with the 2007 Injunction and holding staff

10 members accountable for non-compliance. Furthermore, this Court

11 finds tracking the number of prior allegations of non-compliance

12 is necessary in order to meet the requirement in the 2007

13 Injunction that “Defendants shall refer individuals with repeated

14 instances of non-compliance to the Office of Internal Affairs for

15 investigation and discipline, if appropriate.” 2007 Injunction at

16 7.

17

Like Defendants’ own procedures, the modifications to the

18 Injunction set forth below also require Defendants to conduct an

19 investigation when they receive allegations of staff member

20 non-compliance. See Godbold Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. 1, 2-3. The only

21 difference is that this order requires the investigation to be

22 initiated within ten business days of receiving notice of such

23 allegation, and Defendants’ internal policy does not specify the

24 timeframe for the investigation. Specifying a timeframe is

25 necessary because some of Defendants’ investigations were

26 untimely, and such investigations may be less effective because of

27 the passage of time. Further, such delays extend the time in

28 which class members are deprived of accommodations set forth in

17

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 the ARP. Initiation of a timely investigation, within ten

2 business days, is necessary to ensure that allegations are

3 investigated while memories are fresh, the facts surrounding the

4 allegations are still in existence and the violation can be

5 remedied. Further, in order to reconcile disagreements between

6 the parties resulting from investigations, this Court finds that

7 Plaintiffs’ counsel must have access to the results of the

8 investigation, including all sources of information relied on to

9 substantiate or refute the allegations. Such access is

10 consistent with the monitoring powers already granted to

11 Plaintiffs. See Remedial Order, Injunction, and Certification of

12 Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), Docket No.

13 158, at 5 (“Plaintiffs shall be entitled to reasonable access to

14 information sufficient to monitor defendants’ compliance with the

15 guidelines, plans, policies and procedures that have been approved

16 by the Court. Such monitoring shall include access to relevant

17 documents, . . . interviews or depositions of institution and

18 departmental staff. . .”).

19

The 2007 Injunction requires that Defendants refer

20 individuals with repeated instances of non-compliance to the OIA

21 for investigation and discipline if appropriate. However, it does

22 not specify when and under what circumstance corrective and/or

23 disciplinary action is warranted. To be effective, an

24 accountability system must specify what discipline will result

25 from staff member violations. Accordingly, this order requires

26 that Defendants comply with the Employee Disciplinary Matrix set

27 forth in the CDCR Departmental Operations Manual, Chapter 3,

28 Article 22. See CDCR Operations Manual (2012) Personnel,

18

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 Training, and Employee Relations, §§ 33030.16–33030.19,

2 pp. 238-245.

3

The Court also finds it necessary to create a process for

4 resolving disputes between the parties regarding whether an

5 incident constitutes a violation of the ARP and this Court’s

6 orders, in order to facilitate Defendants’ compliance with the

7 2007 Injunction. Given the evidence that Defendants frequently

8 reached conclusions that no violation that needed to be documented

9 occurred, even though this was inconsistent with the ADA, the ARP

10 and the evidence, the Court will establish a process for resolving

11 disputes between the parties. This process will promote more

12 accurate decision making while not unduly burdening the resources

13 of the Court or of the State.

14

Further, the Court determines that it is necessary for the

15 parties to protect the rights of Defendants’ employees. Certain

16 facts surrounding the employees who are at the center of

17 non-compliance investigations will necessarily become known by the

18 parties. Such personnel information will be disclosed through

19 complaints and reports from prisoners and again as part of the

20 tracking, investigation, disciplinary and dispute resolution

21 processes cited above. The Court finds that this will be an

22 essential part of the dispute resolution process and that a

23 protective order is necessary to protect Defendants’ employees

24 from disclosure of personnel information that is not necessary to

25 the conduct of this litigation.

26

CONCLUSION

27

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’

28 motion for an order holding Defendants in contempt (Docket No.

19

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 2024). The Court also DENIES AS MOOT Defendants’ motion to

2 strike (Docket No. 2135).

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the following shall be substituted

4 in place of page seven, lines five through twelve of the 2007

5 Injunction:

6

Defendants, their agents and employees shall promptly take

7 all reasonable steps to comply with each provision set forth

8 below:

9 A. Tracking of All Allegations of Staff Member Non-Compliance

10

1. Defendants, their agents and employees (Defendants) shall

11 track any allegation that any employee of the Department of

12 Corrections and Rehabilitation was responsible for any member of

13 the Plaintiff class not receiving access to services, programs,

14 activities, accommodations or assistive devices required by any of

15 the following: the Armstrong Remedial Plan, the Americans with

16 Disabilities Act or this Court’s prior orders. Allegations to be

17 tracked include, but are not limited to, those received from CDCR

18 staff, prisoners, Plaintiffs’ counsel, administrative appeals and

19 third parties. All such allegations shall be tracked, even if the

20 non-compliance was unintentional, unavoidable, done without

21 malice, done by an unidentified actor or subsequently remedied.

22

2. The allegations shall be tracked in an electronic

23 spreadsheet that can be searched and sorted. The spreadsheet

24 shall contain at least the following information: the prison at

25 which the incident occurred, the name and CDCR number of the

26 prisoner, the date of the allegation, the name of the employee(s),

27 the date the investigation was initiated, the name and title of

28 the investigator, the date the investigation was completed, the

20

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 result of the investigation, the number of prior allegations of

2 non-compliance against the employee(s), and the action taken, if

3 any, as a result of the investigation, including whether the

4 incident was referred to the Office of Internal Affairs.

5

3. The spreadsheet shall be produced to Plaintiffs’ counsel

6 in electronic format monthly. When the spreadsheet is produced to

7 Plaintiffs’ counsel, the employees’ names shall be removed and

8 shall be replaced with a unique identifier. When redacting

9 employees’ names in records produced to Plaintiffs in accordance

10 with this Order, Defendants shall consistently identify an

11 individual employee by the same unique identifier.

12 B. Investigations

13

1. Defendants shall investigate all allegations of employee

14 non-compliance, regardless of whether the allegation includes the

15 name of the employee(s). Investigations shall be initiated within

16 ten business days of receiving notice of such allegations and

17 shall be completed as promptly as possible. Investigations must

18 include a review of all information necessary to determine whether

19 or not the allegation is true and shall include an interview with

20 the affected prisoner(s). The investigation must result in a

21 written report that shall list all sources of information relied

22 upon in deciding whether employee non-compliance occurred and

23 whether any other finding(s) of non-compliance against the

24 employee(s) has been sustained.

25

2. If Plaintiffs’ counsel has a good faith disagreement with

26 the result of a particular investigation, they may request a copy

27 of the written report and it shall be produced. In such

28 instances, Plaintiffs’ counsel shall have the right to review all

21

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 written documents utilized in making the determination set forth

2 in the report. Upon a showing of need, Plaintiffs’ counsel shall

3 also have the right to interview individuals who provided

4 information utilized in making this determination.

5

3. When producing documents to Plaintiffs’ counsel pursuant

6 to this section, Defendants shall replace employees’ names with

7 unique identifiers as described in paragraph A.3.

8 C. Corrective Action and Discipline

9

1. Whenever an investigation reveals employee non-

10 compliance, Defendants must comply with procedures set forth in

11 Defendants’ November 21, 2008 memorandum, “Expectations for Staff

12 Accountability and Non-Compliance of the Disability Placement

13 Program.”

14

2. Defendants shall determine whether to initiate

15 disciplinary proceedings or corrective action against an employee

16 found in non-compliance, depending upon the number of prior

17 violations, the seriousness of the harm to the prisoner, and the

18 culpability of the employee. Defendants shall discipline

19 employees in compliance with the Employee Disciplinary Matrix set

20 forth in the CDCR Departmental Operations Manual, Chapter 3,

21 Article 22, Personnel, Training, and Employee Relations.

22

3. All determinations of whether to initiate disciplinary

23 proceedings or corrective action shall be produced to Plaintiffs’

24 counsel upon request. When producing these documents to

25 Plaintiffs’ counsel, Defendants shall replace employees’ names

26 with unique identifiers as described in paragraph A.3.

27 D. Dispute Resolution

28

1. In the event of a dispute about the production of

22

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 information, the results of Defendants’ investigation of alleged

2 non-compliance or their decision about whether to initiate

3 corrective action, Plaintiffs’ counsel shall provide notice to

4 Defendants and attempt to resolve the matter through negotiation.

5 Defendants must respond to this notice within ten business days.

6

2. If the parties are unable to resolve the dispute

7 informally, Plaintiffs’ counsel may request that the Court’s

8 expert review and resolve the matter. Depending on the nature of

9 the dispute, the Court’s expert shall resolve disputes about the

10 production of information, determine whether non-compliance

11 occurred or, if it did, whether corrective action should be

12 initiated. When requesting review by the Court’s expert,

13 Plaintiffs’ counsel shall substantiate their contentions with

14 sworn declarations from the class member or members involved,

15 signed under penalty of perjury. Defendants shall produce all

16 documents requested by the Court’s expert and shall make all

17 employees available for interview, on a confidential or non-

18 confidential basis as determined by the Court’s expert.

19 Administrative decisions made by the Court’s expert pursuant to

20 this section shall be final as between Plaintiffs and Defendants.

21

3. The parties dispute whether certain incidents set forth

22 in the pleadings constitute non-compliance with the Remedial

23 Order. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall inform Defendants which

24 incidents remain in dispute and shall attempt to resolve these

25 disputes through negotiation with Defendants. If negotiations

26 fail, the disputes may be referred to the Court’s expert pursuant

27 to paragraph D.2., above.

28

23

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 E. Protective Order

2

The parties shall negotiate an order to protect the state law

3 rights of Defendants’ employees from unnecessary disclosure of

4 personnel information. All documents that contain personnel

5 information produced to Plaintiffs’ counsel and the Court’s expert

6 pursuant to this Order shall be covered by this protective order.

7 If the parties are unable to agree on the terms of a protective

8 order, the Court’s expert will recommend one.

9 F. Notice

10

Defendants shall provide a copy of this Order to the present

11 and future individual employees who occupy the following positions

12 within the California Department of Corrections and

13 Rehabilitations:

14

a. the Undersecretaries of the CDCR,

15

b. the Director of the Division of Adult Institutions,

16

c. the Deputy Directors of the Division of Adult

17 Institutions,

18

d. the Associate Directors of the Division of Adult

19 Institutions,

20

e. all Wardens of adult institutions, and

21

f. all adult institution ADA coordinators.

22 G. Miscellaneous

23

The procedures set forth in this order or in the 2007

24 Injunction shall not apply to staff working under the authority

25 of the Receiver appointed by the court in Plata v. Brown.

26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27 Dated: 28

8/22/2012

CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge

24

 
 Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2194 Filed08/28/12 Page1 of 25

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

4 JOHN ARMSTRONG, et al., on behalf

5

of themselves and as representatives of the class,

6

Plaintiffs,

7

v.

8 EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., Governor of

9

the State of California; CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

10

CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION; MICHAEL MINOR, Acting Director of

11

the Division of Juvenile Justice; MATTHEW CATE, Secretary of the

12

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation;

13

JENNIFER SHAFFER, the Executive Officer of the Board of Parole

14

Hearings; DIANA TOCHE, Acting Director of the Division of

15

Correctional Health Care Services; CHRIS MEYER, Director

16

of the Division of Facility Planning, Construction and

17

Management; KATHLEEN DICKINSON, Acting Director of Adult

18

Institutions; and ROBERT AMBROSELLI, Acting Director of

19

Division of Adult Parole Operations,

20

Defendants.

21 ________________________________/

No. C 94-2307 CW
OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER DISTRIBUTING AND ENFORCING THE AMENDED COUNTY JAIL ORDER AND PLAN (Docket No. 2161)

22

Plaintiffs move to enforce the Court’s April 11, 2012 Amended

23 Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion to Require Defendants to

24 Track and Accommodate the Needs of Armstrong Class Members Housed

25 in County Jails, Ensure Access to a Grievance Procedure and to

26 Enforce 2001 Permanent Injunction (the Amended Order). Defendants

27 oppose the motion. In their opposition, Defendants ask that the

28 Court find the Amended Order unenforceable based on a recent

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2194 Filed08/28/12 Page2 of 25

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 amendment to California Penal Code section 3056 or stay the

2 Amended Order pending resolution of their appeal of it. For the

3 reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion and

4 declines to stay the Amended Order or find it unenforceable.

5

BACKGROUND

6

As explained in detail in the Court’s prior orders, this

7 lawsuit was originally filed seventeen years ago by disabled

8 prisoners and parolees against the California officials with

9 responsibility over the corrections and parole systems. The Court

10 sets forth here only the background necessary to this motion.

11

On May 28, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Require

12 Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class

13 Members Housed in County Jails and Ensure Access to a Workable

14 Grievance Procedure.

15

On September 16, 2009, this Court held that Defendants are

16 responsible for ensuring that Armstrong class members receive

17 reasonable accommodations when Defendants elect to house them in

18 county jails. Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Require

19 Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class

20 Members Housed in County Jails and Ensure Access to a Workable

21 Grievance Procedure, September 16, 2009, Docket No. 1587, at 7-9.

22 The Court stated that Plaintiffs had submitted evidence

23 demonstrating that, pursuant to their authority, Defendants were

24 housing a significant number of persons in county jails, including

25 an average of 480 parolees a day in the San Mateo County Jail, an

26 average of 1,000 parolees a day in the Sacramento County Jail, and

27 770 individuals in In-Custody Drug Treatment Program (ICDTP)

28 placements in county jails. Id. at 4-5. Although the Court did

2

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2194 Filed08/28/12 Page3 of 25

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 not rely on the substantial amount of hearsay evidence submitted

2 by Plaintiffs, the Court held that Plaintiffs nonetheless had

3 submitted sufficient evidence that class members being housed in

4 county jails were not receiving accommodations to which they were

5 entitled. Id. at 9-10. Accordingly, the Court entered an order

6 requiring that Defendants, within thirty days, submit a plan “for

7 ensuring timely and appropriate accommodations for Armstrong class

8 members in county jails[.]” Id. at 11. The September 16 Order

9 provided Defendants with flexibility to devise the specifics of

10 the plan, but required that the plan contain certain elements.

11 Id. at 11-14. The Court also found, pursuant to requirements of

12 the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A), that

13 the relief it ordered was “narrowly drawn, extend[ed] no further

14 than necessary to correct the violation of federal rights, and

15 [was] the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation

16 of the federal rights[.]” Id. at 11.

17

Defendants appealed this Court’s September 16 Order.

18 Nonetheless, on October 15, 2009, as required by the September 16

19 Order, Defendants provided “written notification to all county

20 jail facilities of the counties’ duty to comply with the Americans

21 with Disabilities Act (ADA) in housing inmates with disabilities”

22 and “that CDCR will enforce this duty.” Grunfeld Decl. ¶ 5,

23 Docket No. 1915, Ex. B.

24

On April 1, 2010, after negotiations between the parties,

25 Defendants issued their first county jail plan, entitled the

26 “County Jail Accommodation Process,” in a further effort to comply

27 with the September 16 Order.

28

3

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2194 Filed08/28/12 Page4 of 25

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

On September 7, 2010, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and

2 vacated in part the September 16 Order, and remanded the case to

3 this Court for further proceedings. The Ninth Circuit affirmed

4 this Court’s holdings that “defendants are responsible for

5 providing reasonable accommodations to the disabled prisoners and

6 parolees that they house in county jails.” Armstrong v.

7 Schwarzenegger, 622 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2010). The Ninth

8 Circuit held that: (1) the validly enacted ADA Title II

9 regulations provide that “a public entity, in providing any aid,

10 benefit, or service, may not, directly or through contractual,

11 licensing, or other arrangements, discriminate against individuals

12 with disabilities,” id. at 1065 (quoting 28 C.F.R.

13 § 35.130(b)(1)); (2) the ADA requires that when Defendants house

14 state prisoners and parolees in county jails, the state is

15 responsible to ensure that the state prisoners and parolees with

16 disabilities can access the county jails’ benefits and services

17 “to the same extent that they are provided to all other detainees

18 and prisoners,” id. at 1068; and (3) neither principles of

19 federalism nor deference to correctional authorities nor the

20 Prison Litigation Reform Act prohibited this Court’s order

21 requiring that when Defendants “become aware of a class member

22 housed in a county jail who is not being accommodated, they either

23 see to it that that jail accommodates the class member, or they

24 move the class member to a facility . . . which can accommodate

25 his needs,” id. at 1069, or that when Defendants “become aware of

26 a ‘pattern’ of ADA noncompliance, they are to notify county jail

27 officials and take steps to remedy the pattern of

28 noncompliance[.]” Id. at 1069-1070.

4

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2194 Filed08/28/12 Page5 of 25

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

Although the Ninth Circuit affirmed this Court’s rulings on

2 the requirements of the ADA, it determined that, although it was a

3 “close question,” Plaintiffs had not presented sufficient evidence

4 to justify the system-wide scope of relief ordered. Id. at

5 1073-1074. The court remanded to allow the development of

6 “additional evidence as may be necessary concerning the nature and

7 extent of the violations of class members’ rights taking place in

8 the county jails,” and noted that “not much more evidence than

9 that already provided may be required to approve the current

10 order.” Id. at 1073-1074.

11

On August 8, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a renewed Motion to

12 Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong

13 Class Members Housed in County Jails and Ensure Access to a

14 Workable Grievance Procedure. Docket No. 1912. With that motion,

15 Plaintiffs submitted additional evidence of violations in county

16 jails and asked the Court to issue an injunction nearly identical

17 to that in the September 16, 2009 Order.

18

On October 1, 2011, state legislation commonly known as the

19 prison “realignment” law went into effect. In some cases,

20 realignment has transferred responsibility for post-release

21 supervision of former state inmates from Defendants to the

22 counties. Under realignment, parolees who were already placed on

23 state parole prior to October 1, 2011 remain under the parole

24 supervision of Defendants. Cal. Penal Code § 3000.09(b).

25 Further, persons paroled from state prison on or after October 1,

26 2011, who fall into certain categories, including having been

27 convicted of certain serious or violent felonies, continue to be

28 placed on state parole under the jurisdiction and supervision of

5

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2194 Filed08/28/12 Page6 of 25

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 Defendants. Cal. Penal Code § 3000.08(a), (c). However,

2 lower-level offenders who are released from state prison on or

3 after October 1, 2011 and do not fall into the above-mentioned

4 categories are instead supervised on release by counties under the

5 newly created Post-Release Community Supervision (PRCS) program.

6 Cal. Penal Code §§ 3000.08(a), 3451.

7

In addition to changing in some cases whether counties or

8 Defendants were responsible for supervision of individuals after

9 release from state prison, realignment also mandated that state

10 parolees with pending revocation charges or serving revocation

11 terms could not be returned to state prison, with certain

12 exceptions. Specifically, Penal Code section 3056 was amended to

13 read as follows,

14

Prisoners on parole shall remain under the supervision

15

of the department but shall not be returned to prison except as provided in subdivision (b) [which allows the

16

return to prison of certain individuals serving life parole terms] or as provided by subdivision (c) of

17

Section 3000.09 [which allows the return to prison of parolees who were pending final adjudication of a parole

18

revocation charge prior to October 1, 2011]. Except as provided by subdivision (c) of Section 3000.09, upon

19

revocation of parole, a parolee may be housed in a county jail for a maximum of 180 days. When housed in

20

county facilities, parolees shall be under the legal custody and jurisdiction of local county facilities.

21

When released from custody, parolees shall be returned to the parole supervision of the department for the

22

duration of parole.

Cal. Penal Code § 3056(a). Thus, although individuals who were 23

serving life parole terms or those already facing a revocation 24

charge before October 1, 2011 could be returned to state prison 25

for parole violations, other state parolees no longer could be and 26

instead were required by state law to serve such terms in county 27

jails. Realignment did not alter Defendants’ ability to house 28

6

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2194 Filed08/28/12 Page7 of 25

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 state prison inmates temporarily in county jails during the

2 pendency of state court proceedings, which they refer to as

3 sending inmates “out-to-court.”

4

In opposition to Plaintiffs’ renewed motion, Defendants

5 argued primarily that, under the realignment statute, state

6 parolees were no longer members of the Armstrong class when they

7 were housed in county jails. Defendants also made arguments

8 related to federalism and abstention. Defendants did not pursue

9 their prior claims that Plaintiffs could not prove that disabled

10 parolees were not being accommodated in county jails.

11

On January 13, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ renewed

12 motion, Docket No. 1974, and issued an Amended Order granting the

13 motion on April 11, 2012, Docket No. 2034. On April 11, 2012, the

14 Court also denied Defendants’ motion to stay. Docket No. 2035.

15 In so ruling, the Court rejected Defendants’ argument that section

16 3056, as then phrased, relieved them of responsibility toward

17 parolees housed in county jails, and held that state parolees are

18 jointly in the custody and control of Defendants and the relevant

19 county during that time. The Court explained that it “declines to

20 read the words ‘sole’ or ‘exclusive’ into the text of California

21 Penal Code section 3056 before the words ‘legal custody and

22 jurisdiction of local county facilities.’” Id. at 2. In

23 rejecting Defendants’ argument that the language of section 3056

24 stating that parolees would be “returned to the parole supervision

25 of the department” after being released from a county jail meant

26 that parolees had left Defendants’ “custody and jurisdiction” when

27 they entered the county jail, the Court stated in part,

28

7

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2194 Filed08/28/12 Page8 of 25

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

Contrary to Defendants’ characterization, the word “supervision” does not have the same meaning as

2

“jurisdiction.” The clear meaning of the statutory text stating that “parolees shall be returned to the parole

3

supervision” of the state is simply that parolees are not terminated from parole when they violate the terms

4

of their supervision and serve a revocation term in county jail, but instead must continue on parole

5

supervision afterwards.

Id. at 2. Further, the Court noted, 6

7

Defendants point to no part of state law that restricts their discretion in determining in which county jail

8

they may house that parolee. State law does not appear to require Defendants to choose to house parolees with

9

disabilities in county jails that do not provide adequate accommodations to them.

10 Id. at 3. The Court also pointed out that Defendants “do not

11 challenge the portion of the Court’s order that addressed state

12 parolees and prisoners that are held in county jails for reasons

13 other than section 3056,” that they “do not dispute that there are

14 currently class members still housed in county jails or that

15 Defendants’ system-wide policies and practices have caused, and

16 continue to cause, substantial injury to class members,” and that,

17 even if Defendants were to prevail on appeal, “they will

18 nevertheless be required to formulate a plan to carry out the

19 prescribed injunctive relief for the remaining individuals for

20 whom they are indisputably responsible.” Id. at 5.

21

The Amended Order required, among other things, that

22 Defendants “develop a revised plan for ensuring timely and

23 appropriate accommodations for Armstrong class members in county

24 jails” within thirty days and disseminate it in final form to the

25 counties and Defendants’ personnel within forty-five days. Docket

26 No. 2034, 37, 41. The Amended Order further provided, “The Court

27 shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this

28 Injunction.” Id. at 43.

8

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2194 Filed08/28/12 Page9 of 25

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

On April 30, 2012, Defendants filed a notice of appeal from

2 the Court’s April 11, 2012 Orders. Docket No. 2039.

3

On May 2, 2012, Defendants filed in the Ninth Circuit an

4 urgent motion to stay the April 11 Amended Order pending appeal.

5 Docket No. 3-1, CA9 Case No. 12-16018. In the motion to stay

6 before that court, Defendants stated that they “do not request a

7 stay of the injunction for state prison inmates temporarily housed

8 in county jails (i.e. ‘out-to-court’ inmates) or parolees

9 sentenced to life terms, because CDCR has the legal authority to

10 return these individuals to a state prison.” Id. at 2.

11

On May 23, 2012, the Ninth Circuit denied Defendants’ motion

12 to stay and sua sponte expedited the appeal, although it did not

13 change the briefing schedule previously set. Docket No. 6, CA9

14 Case No. 12-16018. No hearing date had been set at that time.

15

The parties engaged in a number of meet and confer sessions,

16 many of which were mediated by the Court’s expert, to develop a

17 revised county jail plan to comply with the Court’s orders.

18 Grunfeld Decl. ¶¶ 2-34. By June 26, 2012, the parties had agreed

19 in substance on a revised plan that was ready to be distributed to

20 Defendants’ employees and the counties. Id. at ¶¶ 11-13, Exs. H,

21 I.

22

Under the agreed revised plan, among other things, CDCR would

23 send daily electronic notifications to the counties regarding any

24 newly booked parolees who are Armstrong class members, providing

25 information about their disability status and the accommodations

26 previously provided. Id. at ¶¶ 11-12, Ex. H, 2. Parole/Notice

27 Agents employed by Defendants, who already meet with parolees as

28 part of a notice of rights process, would ask class members to

9

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2194 Filed08/28/12 Page10 of 25
1 self-identify any disability needs related to housing and 2 programming, would provide class members with a Reasonable 3 Modification or Accommodation Request CDCR form 1824 and a self4 addressed, postage-paid envelope, and inform class members that 5 they could use the form to file a grievance if they are not 6 receiving a housing or programming accommodation in the county 7 jail. Id. at 3. They would assist class members in completing 8 the form 1824 if those inmates were unable to do so on their own 9 due to a disability. Id. Parole/Notice Agents would also inform 10 class members of and encourage them to use the county jail’s 11 grievance process as well if they needed disability 12 accommodations. Id. They would tell county jail staff, within 13 four business days after a disabled inmate’s arrival at the county 14 jail, of his or her need for an accommodation or a medical or 15 mental health examination and document this communication. Id. at 16 4. A similar process would be implemented for “out-to-court” 17 inmates. Id. at 4-5. When Defendants received a CDCR form 1824, 18 they would enter it into a tracking system and respond to it 19 within a certain timeframe, depending on whether or not the issue 20 was deemed to be an emergency. Id. at 4. Defendants would notify 21 the involved county of the grievance as soon as possible and no 22 later than three business days after receipt. Id. Defendants 23 would also review all grievances to identify patterns of denials 24 of disability accommodations, would notify the involved county’s 25 legal counsel within five days of discovery of such a pattern, 26 would investigate the situation to the extent possible, and would 27 determine what steps, if any, could be taken to remedy the 28 situation. Id. at 7.
10

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2194 Filed08/28/12 Page11 of 25

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

By late June 2012, Defendants had also developed a schedule

2 to begin implementing the plan by September 1, 2012. Grunfeld

3 Decl. ¶¶ 19-20, Ex. O. The parties discussed how to disseminate

4 the final plan to the counties. On June 28, 2012, Plaintiffs

5 emailed a draft of a proposed joint letter, to be signed by both

6 sides, that would accompany the revised plan when it was

7 disseminated to the counties. Id. at ¶ 26, Ex. O. Plaintiffs

8 asked for a conference call with the Court’s expert and Defendants

9 to discuss the letter. Id. Plaintiffs wrote follow up emails to

10 Defendants on July 2 and 4, 2012 but received no response. Id. at

11 ¶ 27, Ex. R.

12

Meanwhile, on June 27, 2012, the Defendant Governor approved

13 Senate Bill 1023, which further amended Penal Code section 3056 to

14 read as follows,

15

Prisoners on parole shall remain under the supervision

16

of the department but shall not be returned to prison except as provided in subdivision (b) or as provided by

17

subdivision (c) of Section 3000.09. A parolee awaiting a parole revocation hearing may be housed in a county

18

jail while awaiting revocation proceedings. If a parolee is housed in a county jail, he or she shall be housed in

19

the county in which he or she was arrested or the county in which a petition to revoke parole has been filed or,

20

if there is no county jail in that county, in the housing facility with which that county has contracted

21

to house jail inmates. Additionally, except as provided by subdivision (c) of Section 3000.09, upon revocation

22

of parole, a parolee may be housed in a county jail for a maximum of 180 days per revocation. When housed in

23

county facilities, parolees shall be under the sole legal custody and jurisdiction of local county

24

facilities. A parolee shall remain under the sole legal custody and jurisdiction of the local county or local

25

correctional administrator, even if placed in an alternative custody program in lieu of incarceration,

26

including, but not limited to, work furlough and electronic home detention. When a parolee is under the

27

legal custody and jurisdiction of a county facility awaiting parole revocation proceedings or upon

28

revocation, he or she shall not be under the parole supervision or jurisdiction of the department. When

11

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2194 Filed08/28/12 Page12 of 25

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

released from the county facility or county alternative custody program following a period of custody for

2

revocation of parole or because no violation of parole is found, the parolee shall be returned to the parole

3

supervision of the department for the duration of parole.

4 Cal. Penal Code § 3056(a) (substantive additions to prior version

5 underlined).

6

On July 6, 2012, Defendants filed a motion before the Ninth

7 Circuit seeking reconsideration of its denial of their motion to

8 stay and arguing that the June 27, 2012 amendment to Penal Code

9 section 3056 had “unequivocally” established that parolees in

10 county jails are no longer Armstrong class members. Docket No. 7,

11 CA9 Case No. 12-16018.

12

On July 9, 2012, Defendants sent Plaintiffs and the Court’s

13 expert a letter stating that they “have no discretion to ignore”

14 amended section 3056 or to “monitor county jail inmates over whom

15 they have no custody, control, or jurisdiction,” and that they

16 “believe that the courts would not want the parties to undertake a

17 plan regarding county jail inmates before the Ninth Circuit has

18 the opportunity to review the new law.” Grunfeld Decl. ¶ 30, Ex.

19 V. Defendants also stated that they would “shortly complete a new

20 plan concerning out-to-court state prison inmates and the

21 life-term parolees who can be returned to state prison.” Id.

22

On July 10, 2012, the parties conducted their regularly

23 scheduled meet and confer session. Grunfeld Decl. ¶ 31. At that

24 meeting, Defendants stated that they would not be issuing the

25 revised county jail plan to the counties or to CDCR staff in light

26 of revised Penal Code section 3056. Id.

27

On July 12, 2012, Defendants sent an email to all fifty-eight

28 California counties, attaching the revised plan, labeled on each

12

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2194 Filed08/28/12 Page13 of 25

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 page with the word “draft,” and summarizing the status of the

2 appeal. Grunfeld Decl. ¶ 32, Ex. X. In the email, Defendants

3 stated in part,

4

While I send you the draft plan, it will not be

5

implemented at this time until we hear whether the renewed request for a stay is granted. If it is

6

granted, we will send out a revised plan which addresses only the population over whom CDCR has continuing

7

authority. CDCR is currently working to develop such a plan.

8 Id. Defendants did not explain what they would do if the stay

9 were denied, as soon happened.

10

On July 16, 2012, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion, asking

11 this Court to issue an order enforcing the April 11, 2012 Amended

12 Order by requiring Defendants to disseminate to the counties and

13 Defendants’ employees the agreed revised plan without a “draft”

14 label, to train their employees in accordance therewith, to

15 implement the plan by September 15, 2012 according to the parties’

16 agreed schedule with minor modifications, and to hire and train

17 sufficient staff to do so. Docket No. 2161.

18

On July 19, 2012, the Ninth Circuit denied Defendants’ motion

19 for reconsideration of the denial of their motion to stay, without

20 prejudice to Defendants raising in their merits briefs any issue

21 raised in the motion for reconsideration. Docket No. 8, CA9 Case

22 No. 12-16018. The Ninth Circuit also shortened the briefing

23 schedule and set a hearing for September 5, 2012.

24

On July 30, 2012, Defendants responded in this Court to

25 Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce. Docket No. 2170. In their

26 opposition, Defendants did not argue that they were in compliance

27 with the Amended Order or indicate that they intended to comply

28 with it. Instead, as noted above, they asked the Court to find

13

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2194 Filed08/28/12 Page14 of 25

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 that the change in section 3056 had rendered the Amended Order

2 unenforceable. They alternatively asked that the Court stay the

3 Amended Order.

4

On August 22, 2012, the parties filed a joint case status

5 statement. In the joint statement, Defendants indicated in part,

6

Defendants plan to conduct employee training in August

7

2012, and Plaintiffs’ counsel have agreed to attend an August 30, 2012 training session. Defendants also plan

8

to implement an e-mail notification system to the counties by September 1, 2012 of disability related

9

information pertaining to purported class members as of the date they were released from prison.

10 Docket No. 2181, 21. This indicated that Defendants were prepared

11 to comply in part with the Court’s Amended Order.

12

On August 23, 2012, the Court held a hearing on the instant

13 motion. At the hearing, Defendants affirmed that they intended to

14 comply in part with the Amended Order and to carry out the agreed

15 revised plan in part. Defendants stated that, as of September 1,

16 2012, they would begin providing email notices to county jails

17 setting forth the disability status and previously provided

18 accommodations for all of the individuals covered in the Amended

19 Order, including parolees subject to section 3056, with copies to

20 Plaintiffs’ counsel. They further represented that, as of that

21 date, they would implement the remaining provisions of the plan,

22 but as to the “out-to-court” prisoners and life parolees only.

23 Thus, they would give only the “out-to-court” prisoners and life

24 parolees a grievance form and means to return it and they would

25 act upon such forms that they received. Defendants also stated

26 that they would go forward with training their Notice Agents

27 regarding all of the provisions of the revised plan, using

28 training material agreed upon with Plaintiffs on June 13, 2012.

14

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2194 Filed08/28/12 Page15 of 25

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 Defendants clarified that this training would cover all provisions

2 that pertained to the parolees subject to section 3056 and would

3 not be limited to “out-to-court” prisoners and life parolees.

4

DISCUSSION

5

Defendants must obey the Amended Order unless and until this

6 or another court has relieved them of that responsibility, through

7 a stay, reversal or modification of the order. The “established

8 doctrine” is that “persons subject to an injunctive order issued

9 by a court with jurisdiction are expected to obey that decree

10 until it is modified or reversed, even if they have proper grounds

11 to object to the order.” Gte Sylvania v. Consumers Union of

12 United States, 445 U.S. 375, 386 (1980); see also Wedbush, Noble,

13 Cooke, Inc. v. SEC, 714 F.2d 923, 924 (9th Cir. 1983) (“the mere

14 pendency of the appeal does not, in itself, disturb the finality

15 of the judgment”).

16

This Court does not have jurisdiction to decide whether the

17 amendment to section 3056 has rendered the Amended Order

18 unenforceable. “Once a notice of appeal is filed, the district

19 court is divested of jurisdiction over the matters being

20 appealed.” Natural Res. Def. Council v. Southwest Marine, Inc.,

21 242 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Griggs v. Provident

22 Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (per curiam);

23 McClatchy Newspapers v. Central Valley Typographical Union No. 46,

24 686 F.2d 731, 734 (9th Cir. 1982)). The purpose of this rule “is

25 to promote judicial economy and avoid the confusion that would

26 ensue from having the same issues before two courts

27 simultaneously.” Id. (citing Masalosalo v. Stonewall Ins. Co.,

28 718 F.2d 955, 956 (9th Cir. 1983); Moore’s Federal Practice,

15

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2194 Filed08/28/12 Page16 of 25

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 § 303.32[1] (3d ed. 2000)). This rule “is a creature of judicial

2 prudence, however, and is not absolute.” Masalosalo, 718 F.2d at

3 956.

4

This Court does retain “jurisdiction during the pendency of

5 an appeal to act to preserve the status quo.” Natural Res. Def.

6 Council, 242 F.3d at 1166. See also Newton v. Consolidated Gas

7 Co., 258 U.S. 165, 177 (1922) (“Undoubtedly, after appeal the

8 trial court may, if the purposes of justice require, preserve the

9 status quo until decision by the appellate court”). This

10 exception “has been codified in Rule 62(c) of the Federal Rules of

11 Civil Procedure, which allows a district court to ‘suspend,

12 modify, restore, or grant an injunction during the pendency of the

13 appeal upon such terms as to bond or otherwise as it considers

14 proper for the security of the rights of the adverse party.’”

15 Natural Res. Def. Council, 242 F.3d at 1166 (quoting Federal Rule

16 of Civil Procedure 62(c)). The Ninth Circuit has cautioned that

17 the Rule “does not restore jurisdiction to the district court to

18 adjudicate anew the merits of the case” and that any action taken

19 pursuant to it “may not materially alter the status of the case on

20 appeal.” Id. (citations and quotation marks omitted). See also

21 McClatchy, 686 F.2d at 735 (after appeal is filed, the district

22 court “may not finally adjudicate substantial rights directly

23 involved in the appeal”) (quotations omitted).

24

Further, although the Court does not have jurisdiction to

25 decide the merits of the issue that is currently on appeal, “a

26 district court has continuing jurisdiction in support of its

27 judgment, and ‘until the judgment has been properly stayed or

28 superseded, the district court may enforce it . . .’” Resolution

16

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2194 Filed08/28/12 Page17 of 25

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 Trust Corp. v. Smith, 53 F.3d 72, 76 (5th Cir. 1995) (quoting

2 Farmhand, Inc. v. Anel Engineering Industries, Inc., 693 F.2d

3 1140, 1146 (5th Cir. 1982)). See also Lara v. Secretary of

4 Interior, 820 F.2d 1535, 1543 (9th Cir. 1987) (“The district court

5 may issue orders pending appeal to enforce its judgment.”);

6 Hoffman v. Beer Drivers & Salesmen’s Local No. 888, 536 F.2d 1268

7 (9th Cir. 1976) (“Where the court supervises a continuing course

8 of conduct and where as new facts develop additional supervisory

9 action by the court is required, an appeal from the supervisory

10 order does not divest the district court of jurisdiction to

11 continue its supervision, even though in the course of that

12 supervision the court acts upon or modifies the order from which

13 the appeal is taken.”).

14

As Plaintiffs point out, the cases that Defendants cite to

15 urge the Court to reexamine the validity of the Amended Order do

16 not compel a contrary conclusion. Two of the cases address the

17 “general rule” that “an appellate court must apply the law in

18 effect at the time it renders its decision,” including in

19 situations when the relevant law changed after the trial court

20 rendered its judgment. Thorpe v. Housing Auth. of Durham, 393

21 U.S. 268, 281-282 (1969). See also Lambert v. Blodgett, 393 F.3d

22 943, 973 (9th Cir. 2004) (“it is well established . . . that if

23 the law changes while the case is on appeal the appellate court

24 applies the new rule”). In the other two cases, the district

25 court held that, when a higher court issued new controlling

26 authority while a motion was pending but after briefing was

27 completed, when rendering a decision, the court was required to

28 apply the law as it existed at the time of decision, including the

17

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2194 Filed08/28/12 Page18 of 25

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 new appellate authority. Kwiatkowski v. Dickinson, 2012 U.S.

2 Dist. LEXIS 34531, at *12-13 (E.D. Cal.); DeVries v. Cate, 2011

3 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76409, at *8-9 (E.D. Cal.). None of these cases

4 stands for the proposition that a trial court may revisit the

5 legal reasoning underlying an order that is currently on appeal in

6 order to apply new law to it.

7

Although the Court lacks the jurisdiction to reconsider the

8 Amended Order, the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provide a

9 procedure under which a district court could do so. Specifically,

10 Rule 12.1 provides, “If a timely motion is made in the district

11 court for relief that it lacks authority to grant because of an

12 appeal that has been docketed and is pending,” the district court

13 may state “either that it would grant the motion or that the

14 motion raises a substantial issue,” in which case “the court of

15 appeals may remand for further proceedings.” Federal Rule of

16 Appellate Procedure 12.1(a),(b). Defendants did not make a motion

17 for an indicative ruling from this Court or seek such relief.

18

Finally, however, in considering a request for a stay, the

19 Court can consider the effect of a change in the law when

20 evaluating the likelihood of success on the merits of an appeal.

21 The Court does not find that revised section 3056 renders it

22 likely that Defendants will succeed on appeal. The changes in

23 section 3056 did not affect several of the bases for the Amended

24 Order. Class members are still placed into county jails by virtue

25 of their status as state parolees and they do not cease to be

26 state parolees when they are in county jails. Among other things,

27 Defendants continue to exercise control and authority over the

28 parole revocation process, including investigation and charging

18

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2194 Filed08/28/12 Page19 of 25

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 parolees with violations, placing parole holds on them, arresting

2 and detaining them, determining how long their revocation term

3 will last and deciding whether they should be sent to a county

4 jail or subjected to an alternative sanction, such as placement in

5 a community-based program. The Court notes that it has not had

6 occasion to consider whether the amendments to section 3056 were

7 passed in order to evade the state’s responsibility for compliance

8 with the ADA and, if so, whether such amendments would be void due

9 to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. U.S. Const. art.

10 VI., § 2. This issue has been briefed in the Ninth Circuit, which

11 may make this decision in the course of the pending appeal.

12

Accordingly, the Court will not find its order unenforceable

13 or stay it but will exercise its retained jurisdiction to enforce

14 its injunction, as Plaintiffs request.

15

The Court notes that, in this motion, Plaintiffs do not seek

16 to enforce the Amended Order in full but rather only those

17 provisions contained in the agreed revised plan. Thus, Plaintiffs

18 do not seek enforcement of many of the provisions of which

19 Defendants complain. For example, Plaintiffs do not seek to

20 enforce the provision that, if Defendants become aware that a

21 class member is not receiving accommodations that he or she

22 requires, they “immediately take steps with county jail staff to

23 ensure that such accommodations are promptly provided or transfer

24 the class member to a facility that is able to provide

25 accommodations.” Amended Order, 40. In this motion, Plaintiffs

26 also do not seek to enforce the provisions that would require

27 Defendants to permit them to conduct monitoring tours of county

28 jail facilities and interview county jail staff members.

19

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2194 Filed08/28/12 Page20 of 25

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 Accordingly, Defendants’ arguments regarding these provisions are

2 irrelevant to the present motion.

3

Instead, Plaintiffs seek to require Defendants to carry out

4 the revised plan to which Defendants had previously agreed. The

5 Court has found that such measures were narrowly drawn and were

6 the least intrusive means necessary to correct the ongoing

7 violations of federal rights, substantial evidence of which

8 Plaintiffs previously proffered in support of their earlier

9 motion. The Court further notes that, in conjunction with the

10 instant motion to enforce, Plaintiffs have submitted additional

11 evidence of ongoing harm to class members in county jails.1

12

13

14

15

16

17

1 Defendants object to Exhibits F through M, Q, R, T and V to

18

the Freedman declaration on the basis that these declarations and letters were written by state parolees and “parolees are not

19

Armstrong class members when they are in county jail.” Opp. at 16. The Court has already held that state parolees continue to be

20

class members during the time they are held in county jail for parole revocation proceedings or terms. Accordingly, the Court

21 OVERRULES this objection.

22

Defendants also object to Exhibits E and L through P to the Freedman declaration on the basis that these declarants are county

23

jail inmates who have not established that they are parolees or class members or were not diagnosed with a disability by CDCR and

24

the declarations are therefore not relevant. Opp. at 16. However, even if these specific examples “do not involve class

25

members, they support the inference that county jails do not provide reasonable accommodations for prisoners with disabilities

26

who are class members.” Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong

27

Class Members Housed in County Jails and Ensure Access to a Workable Grievance Procedure, Docket No. 1587, at 10 (citing

28

Federal Rule of Evidence 401). these objections.

Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES

20

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2194 Filed08/28/12 Page21 of 25

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 Although Defendants may not have had a full opportunity to

2 investigate and respond to these declarations, they are

3 nonetheless prima facie evidence that class members continue to

4 suffer harm as Defendants delay their compliance with the Court’s

5 order.

6

To the extent that, in their opposition, Defendants ask that

7 the Court stay the Amended Order pending the Ninth Circuit’s

8 resolution of their appeal, the Court continues in its view that a

9 stay is not warranted considering the merits of the appeal and the

10 balance of hardship. As the Court previously determined, “class

11 members will continue to suffer substantial harm for each day that

12 their disabilities are not accommodated,” and this outweighs “the

13 speculative administrative and monetary arguments and evidence”

14 that was previously presented by Defendants. Docket No. 2035, 6.

15 In the instant briefing, Defendants have not raised claims of

16 irreparable harm that they would suffer in the absence of relief.

17

Defendants do not dispute that they have not disseminated a

18 plan as required by the Amended Order and that they do not intend

19 to implement a plan with all of the elements contained therein.

20 Instead, although they will provide counties with initial

21 notifications of the disability accommodation needs of all of the

22 class members, including those whose status they dispute, they

23

24

25

Defendants further object to specific statements within Exhibits F, G, I, J, K, L, N, O and Q, as well as the letters

26

submitted as Exhibits R, T and V, as inadmissible hearsay or without foundation. Because the Court would reach the same

27

determination, that the evidence submitted constitutes prima facie evidence of ongoing harm to class members in county jails,

28

regardless of these particular statements, the Court SUSTAINS Defendants’ objections.

21

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2194 Filed08/28/12 Page22 of 25

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 intend to carry out the remainder of their agreed revised plan

2 with respect only to the life parole and “out-to-court” subsets of

3 the class members covered in the Amended Order. The Court also

4 notes that the deadlines contained in the Amended Order for

5 dissemination and implementation of a revised plan have long since

6 passed. Accordingly, the Court concludes that a further

7 enforcement order is necessary to ensure compliance with the terms

8 of the Amended Order and GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce it.

9 The Court further finds that the relief ordered herein is narrowly

10 drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violations

11 of federal rights, and is the least intrusive means necessary to

12 correct the violations of the federal rights found in the Amended

13 Order.

14

CONCLUSION

15

For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’

16 motion to enforce the Amended Order (Docket No. 2161). The Court

17 ORDERS as follows:

18

1. Within three (3) business days of the issuance of this

19 Order, Defendants shall disseminate the plan to which the parties

20 agreed on June 26, 2012 (the “County Jail Plan”), a draft copy of

21 which is attached as Appendix A, to all of Defendants’ personnel

22 who have responsibility for implementing any provisions of the

23 County Jail Plan. The County Jail Plan disseminated by Defendants

24 shall not indicate that the County Jail Plan is a draft or

25 non-final. Defendants must also inform their personnel with

26 responsibility for tasks described in the County Jail Plan that

27 they will receive training on the elements of the County Jail Plan

28 for which they will be responsible.

22

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2194 Filed08/28/12 Page23 of 25

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

2. Within three (3) business days of the issuance of this

2 Order, Defendants shall disseminate the County Jail Plan, without

3 any indication that it is a draft or non-final, to the Sheriffs,

4 County Jail Administrators and County Counsel of each of the

5 fifty-eight counties. A copy of this Court’s Order Distributing

6 and Enforcing the Amended County Jail Order and Plan, filed today,

7 shall be disseminated along with the County Jail Plan.

8

3. Training of all Parole/Notice Agents and interim ADA

9 coordinator(s) or designee(s), using the June 13, 2012 PowerPoint

10 presentation, shall be completed no later than September 15, 2012.

11 Plaintiffs’ counsel may attend the training session.

12

4. On or before September 1, 2012, Defendants shall send an

13 email notification to each county’s legal counsel or designee

14 identifying each parolee with a disability, including those

15 subject to California Penal Code section 3056, being held in that

16 county’s jail facilities on that date. Beginning on September 1,

17 2012, Defendants shall send email notifications once per day to

18 each county’s legal counsel or designee identifying each parolee

19 with a disability booked in that county’s jail facilities over the

20 past 24 hours. The notifications must include each parolee’s

21 name, CDCR identification number, and last release date from

22 prison. The notification must also include a plain-language

23 description of each parolee’s last-known disabilities and the

24 accommodations in housing or programming the parolee received as

25 of the date he or she was released from prison.

26

5. On or before September 15, 2012, Defendants shall send

27 an email notification to each county’s legal counsel or designee

28 identifying each CDCR out-to-court prisoner with a disability

23

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2194 Filed08/28/12 Page24 of 25

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 being held in that county’s facilities on that date. Beginning on

2 September 15, 2012, Defendants shall send email notifications once

3 per day to each county’s legal counsel or designee identifying

4 each CDCR out-to-court prisoner with a disability sent to that

5 county’s facilities in the past 24 hours. The notification will

6 include each CDCR out-to-court prisoner’s name and CDCR

7 identification number. The notification will also include a

8 plain-language description of the out-to-court prisoner’s

9 last-known disabilities and the accommodations in housing or

10 programming the prisoner received as of the date he or she was

11 transferred from a prison.

12

6. Beginning on September 15, 2012, Defendants shall

13 provide CDCR grievance forms and stamped envelopes addressed to

14 CDCR to all parolees and out-to-court prisoners with disabilities

15 housed in county jails. CDCR personnel shall encourage parolees

16 and out-to-court prisoners also to use the county jail’s grievance

17 process to request disability accommodations. Whenever Defendants

18 receive a completed grievance form from a parolee or out-to-court

19 prisoner in county jail, they shall forward the grievance form to

20 the county’s legal counsel or designee as soon as possible and no

21 later than three business days after receipt. Defendants shall

22 respond to the grievances within the timeframes set forth in the

23 County Jail Plan.

24

7. Beginning no later than September 15, 2012, if CDCR

25 personnel become aware that an out-to-court prisoner or parolee

26 with a disability faces an urgent or emergency situation (for

27 example, if there is an allegation of a condition that is a threat

28 to the individual’s health or safety or that would prevent his or

24

a

C

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 her participation or effective communication in a parole

2 revocation proceeding), Defendants shall notify the county’s

3 designee or legal counsel immediately.

4

8. Defendants must implement all remaining provisions of

5 the County Jail Plan by September 15, 2012. This includes, but is

6 not limited to, the requirements that they must review and respond

7 to grievances they receive from disabled parolees, promptly share

8 grievances with county officials, review grievances to identify

9 patterns of denials of disability accommodations, and investigate

10 any such patterns identified.

11

9. Defendants shall train sufficient staff and implement

12 all necessary procedures such that all provisions of the County

13 Jail Plan are operational by September 15, 2012.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

16 Dated: 17

8/28/2012

CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

25

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2194-1 Filed08/28/12 Page1 of 9

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2194-1 Filed08/28/12 Page2 of 9

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2194-1 Filed08/28/12 Page3 of 9

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2194-1 Filed08/28/12 Page4 of 9

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2194-1 Filed08/28/12 Page5 of 9

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2194-1 Filed08/28/12 Page6 of 9

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2194-1 Filed08/28/12 Page7 of 9

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2194-1 Filed08/28/12 Page8 of 9

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2194-1 Filed08/28/12 Page9 of 9

 
 Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2910 Filed 01/15/20 Page 1 of 41

[3486033.1]

PRISON LAW OFFICE 1 DONALD SPECTER – 083925
RITA K. LOMIO – 254501 2 MARGOT MENDELSON – 268583
1917 Fifth Street 3 Berkeley, California 94710-1916
Telephone: (510) 280-2621 4
ROSEN BIEN 5 GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP
MICHAEL W. BIEN – 096891 6 GAY C. GRUNFELD – 121944
THOMAS NOLAN – 169692 7 PENNY GODBOLD – 226925
MICHAEL FREEDMAN – 262850 8 101 Mission Street, Sixth Floor
San Francisco, California 94105-2235 9 Telephone: (415) 433-6830
10 LINDA D. KILB – 136101 DISABILITY RIGHTS EDUCATION &
11 DEFENSE FUND, INC. 3075 Adeline Street, Suite 201
12 Berkeley, California 94703 Telephone: (510) 644-2555
13
Attorneys for Plaintiffs 14

CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General of the State of California MONICA ANDERSON Senior Assistant Attorney General DAMON G. MCCLAIN – 209508 Supervising Deputy Attorney General JOANNA B. HOOD – 264078 Deputy Attorney General ANNAKARINA
DE LA TORRE-FENNELL – 301862 Deputy Attorney General
SEAN LODHOLZ – 299096 Deputy Attorney General 1300 I Street, Suite 125 P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 Telephone: (916) 210-7343 Fax: (916) 324-5205
Attorneys for Defendants

15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17

18 JOHN ARMSTRONG, et al.

Case No. C94 2307 CW

19

Plaintiffs,

JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

20

v.

Judge: Hon. Claudia Wilken

21 GAVIN NEWSOM, et al.

22

Defendants.

23

24

25

26

27

28

JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

Case No. C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2910 Filed 01/15/20 Page 2 of 41

[3486033.1]

1

The parties submit this Joint Case Status Statement pursuant to the Stipulation and

2 Order entered March 28, 2011 (ECF No. 1868), which provides that “[t]he parties will file

3 periodic joint statements describing the status of the litigation” every other month,

4 beginning on May 16, 2011.

5

CURRENT ISSUES1

6 A. Allegations of Abuse and Violence by CDCR Staff Against Class Members

7 Plaintiffs’ Statement

8

Plaintiffs’ counsel has presented evidence of a hostile environment at some

9 institutions that discourages people from asking for disability accommodations and

10 discriminates against people with disabilities. Plaintiffs’ counsel has also documented

11 allegations of widespread abuse and violations of the rights of people with disabilities.2

12 On November 13, 2019, Plaintiffs sent a letter cataloguing multiple incidents of staff

13 misconduct against Armstrong and Coleman class members at Richard J. Donovan

14 Correctional Facility (“RJD”) over the past two and a half years and demanding that

15 CDCR implement remedial measures by January 1, 2020. See Exhibit A to Doc. 2896.

16 Plaintiffs’ counsel recently toured RJD and continued to receive reports of ongoing abuse.

17 To obtain more information, Plaintiffs’ counsel are taking Rule 30(b)(6) depositions of the

18 CDCR staff member “Person Most Knowledgeable” on January 29, 2020, and of Roy

19 Wesley, Inspector General, on January 22, 2020. Defendants have also agreed to meet

20 with Plaintiffs’ counsel on January 6-7, 2020, at the prison to provide information on

21 investigations conducted into allegations of staff misconduct at RJD.

22

Staff misconduct issues are not limited to RJD. Plaintiffs’ counsel has sent

23 Defendants in Armstrong and/or Coleman numerous complaints about excessive or

24 improper use of force and other staff misconduct at California State Prison – Los Angeles

25 County (LAC) in Lancaster, California. Plaintiffs’ March 2019 monitoring tour report

26 1 Statements are joint unless otherwise delineated as either Plaintiffs’ Statement or 27 Defendants’ Statement.
2 For a detailed recitation of Plaintiffs’ allegations, see Doc. 2680 at 5-9. 28

1

Case No. C94 2307 CW

JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2910 Filed 01/15/20 Page 3 of 41

[3486033.1]

1 included one complaint that an officer had denied food to a class member, one complaint

2 that officers purposely did not strap a class member down during outside transport, three

3 complaints that officers did not let people with disabilities out of their cells to shower after

4 they had accidents, and three complaints about excessive use of force. Similarly,

5 Plaintiffs’ July 2019 monitoring tour report shared nine complaints of disability-based

6 harassment or indifference to disability/medical needs, seven use of force complaints, and

7 three complaints about retaliation at the hands of officers for speaking out. The parties

8 continue to have a dispute about which allegations of misconduct should be placed on

9 Armstrong accountability logs. For example, the majority of the staff misconduct issues

10 raised by class members at RJD that affirmatively allege a close nexus between the

11 misconduct and the disability were not included in the Armstrong accountability process.

12 This includes an allegation that staff misconduct arose as a direct result of the class

13 member’s participation in the Joint Audit process.

14

The parties also are in negotiations about changes to Defendants’ practices for

15 investigating staff complaints. The Inspector General issued a number of recommenda-

16 tions based on his findings after a review of the staff complaint process at Salinas Valley

17 State Prison (SVSP). See Joint Case Status Statement, March 15, 2019, Doc. 2844, Ex. A.

18 Plaintiffs strongly support the OIG’s recommendations. As set forth in Plaintiffs’

19 counsel’s prior statement, the changes proposed by Defendants thus far are insufficient to

20 end the widespread and pernicious abuse of Armstrong class members, which is creating

21 an atmosphere in which they are afraid to seek disability accommodations. In particular,

22 the decision about whether to refer a staff complaint for investigation by the Office of

23 Internal Affairs (OIA) Central Intake Panel should be made by the independent

24 investigators who conduct the initial inquiries, not by wardens. Further, allegations of

25 excessive force must be subject to the new independent inquiry process. Cameras should

26 be deployed, activated, and monitored on all yards at high security prisons. These and

27 other remedial actions are long overdue.

28

2

Case No. C94 2307 CW

JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2910 Filed 01/15/20 Page 4 of 41

[3486033.1]

1 Defendants’ Statement

2

Defendants generally accept the Inspector General’s findings and are in the process

3 of developing regulations that will change CDCR’s appeals and grievance process.

4

As detailed in the previous joint status statement, Defendants have developed a new

5 framework for handling administrative grievances concerning staff misconduct that

6 includes organizational changes and staff training to improve upon and address issues

7 identified by the Inspector General. Defendants provided the OIG and Prison Law Office

8 a draft of the newly proposed regulations and met with the parities on October 25, 2019,

9 during which Plaintiffs provided comments and feedback. Defendants presented an

10 overview of the draft regulations to the Wardens responsible for implementing these

11 regulatory changes on November 5, 2019, and five Wardens were provided drafts of the

12 regulations in advance of the meeting to provide comments and feedback. Throughout the

13 month of December 2019 and concluding on January 2, 2020, Defendants conducted three

14 regional trainings; attendees included a wide range of classifications, ranging from appeals

15 staff and administrative staff to institutional Grievance Coordinators, Associate Wardens,

16 and Wardens.3 Additional, formal training, will occur once the new regulations are

17 adopted. As a final step, the proposed regulations were presented to various labor unions as

18 required by state law. Notwithstanding these pending regulatory changes, Defendants’

19 position remains that the decision about whether to refer a staff complaint for investigation

20 by the OIA Central Intake Panel shall be made by the hiring authority.

21

Defendants received Plaintiffs’ November 13, 2019 letter about allegations of staff

22 misconduct at Richard J. Donovan. Defendants subsequently received Plaintiffs’ Federal

23 Rule of Civil Procedure 30(B)(6) deposition notice and corresponding document requests

24 and have served their objections to the same. Defendants have engaged in ongoing

25 discussions with Plaintiffs’ counsel in efforts to address their concerns, and are working

26 3 Central Regional training occurred on December 3-4 at Kern Valley State Prison; Southern Regional training occurred on December 10-11 at California Institution for
27 Women; Northern Regional training occurred on December 16-17 in Rancho Cordova, and Sacramento’s Office of Appeals training occurred on January 2, 2020, in Rancho Cordova.
28

3

Case No. C94 2307 CW

JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2910 Filed 01/15/20 Page 5 of 41

[3486033.1]

1 diligently with Plaintiffs to provide requested information. The deposition of Kim Seibel,

2 Deputy Director for Facility Operations, Division of Adult Institutions, is set for

3 January 29, 2020, and the deposition of Tricia Ramos, Acting Chief of the Office of

4 Appeals, Division of Correctional Policy Research and Internal Oversight, is set for

5 February 4, 2020. The parties, including Plaintiffs’ counsel Penny Godbold and Michael

6 Freedman, and Defendants counsel Joanna Hood, jointly traveled to Richard J. Donovan

7 on January 6 and 7, 2020, regarding the investigations into allegations of staff misconduct

8 at Richard J. Donovan, and are continuing to discuss additional changes that Plaintiffs

9 believe are necessary to remedy confirmed incidents of staff misconduct.

10

Defendants have engaged in these discussions with Plaintiffs’ counsel, but still

11 disagree that all of Plaintiffs’ allegations of staff misconduct, and the Inspector General’s

12 Report necessarily implicate the Armstrong class or are appropriately before the

13 Armstrong Court. The Inspector General’s report did not specially look at staff

14 misconduct in conjunction with the rights of disabled inmates, nor did the report examine

15 or make findings related to Defendants’ compliance with the ADA, the Rehabilitative Act,

16 or this Court’s orders. Allegations made by non-class members and allegations not related

17 to violations of the ADA or the Remedial Plan are processed and addressed through

18 CDCR’s staff disciplinary process, as set forth in the Department Operations Manual. (See

19 CDCR Department Operations Manual, Chapter 3, Art. 22.) This process was developed

20 as a result of the Madrid litigation, and the Prison Law Office was significantly involved in

21 its development. There simply is no nexus between some of the allegations of staff

22 misconduct and an inmate’s disability that would warrant inclusion of the alleged incidents

23 in the Armstrong accountability logs. And some of the allegations presented by Plaintiffs’

24 counsel attempt to draw a nexus between disability and staff misconduct based on pure

25 speculation but without any supporting evidence.

26

Defendants will continue to work with Plaintiffs regarding their allegations of staff

27 misconduct at Richard J. Donovan. While Defendants take all allegations of misconduct

28

4

Case No. C94 2307 CW

JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2910 Filed 01/15/20 Page 6 of 41

[3486033.1]

1 seriously, Defendants do not, however, concede the veracity of all of the allegations that

2 have been raised by Plaintiffs.

3 B. Discrimination Against Deaf Class Members

4 Plaintiffs’ Statement

5

As Plaintiffs have reported for over a decade, D/deaf people in California prisons

6 have been and are denied access to many programs, services, and activities, including

7 rehabilitative programming, because Defendants have failed to provide sign language

8 interpretation (SLI).4 Plaintiffs are particularly concerned with Defendants’ heavy reliance

9 on video remote interpretation (VRI), which Plaintiffs’ counsel have observed (and D/deaf

10 class members have reported) to be faulty and inadequate in many group settings, in

11 violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and court orders.5 As has been

12 documented in previous joint case status statements, Defendants, among other things, are

13 in the process of hiring twelve additional staff sign language interpreters and plan to

14 transfer some D/deaf class members to San Quentin State Prison, a more program-rich

15 environment. Plaintiffs hope that this will be completed soon, so the parties can determine

16 whether, and what, additional corrective actions are necessary.

17

In addition, Plaintiffs are deeply concerned by Defendants’ failure to ensure that

18 sign language interpretation is provided to D/deaf class members during off-site medical

19 appointments. D/deaf class members have been hospitalized, undergone surgery, and

20 4 See Doc. 2874 Exhibit A (Letter from Caroline Jackson, RBGG, to Kelly Mitchell,

21

Brantley Choate, and Russa Boyd, (July 1, 2019) (describing concerns with deaf education at CDCR); Doc. 2680 at 3-4; Doc. 2671 at 14; Doc. 2749 at 25-31 (Letter from

22

Rita Lomio, Prison Law Office, to Russa Boyd, Office of Legal Affairs (June 19, 2018) (documenting allegations regarding CDCR’s failure to provide SLIs for AA and NA

23 meetings, lifer groups, religious services, educational programming, and vocational programming at SATF)); Doc. 2728 (Letter from Rita Lomio, Prison Law Office, to

24 Russa Boyd, Office of Legal Affairs (Nov. 7, 2017)) (same)); Doc 2863 at 6-8 (summarizing concerns); Doc. 2863 at 24-33 (Letter from Don Specter, Prison Law Office,

25 to Ralph Diaz, CDCR Secretary (May 3, 2019)).

5 See 28 C.F.R. § 35.160(d); Doc. 2345 at 24; Doc. 2844 at 177-79 (Email from Rita 26 Lomio, Prison Law Office, to Russa Boyd, CDCR Office of Legal Affairs (Feb. 2, 2019)

(outlining problems observed during monitoring tour with VRI)); Doc. 2863 at 27-29 27 (Letter from Don Specter, Prison Law Office, to Ralph Diaz, CDCR Secretary (May 3,

2019) (same)). 28

5

Case No. C94 2307 CW

JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2910 Filed 01/15/20 Page 7 of 41

[3486033.1]

1 received other medical treatment without interpretation services. Defendants currently do

2 not require that the off-site medical providers they contract with document whether and

3 how effective communication was achieved during the medical appointment (including

4 whether sign language interpretation was provided), and Defendants do not otherwise

5 review or track whether effective communication was in fact achieved during off-site

6 appointments. While Plaintiffs are pleased that Defendants are beginning to look for

7 solutions to this longstanding problem, any durable and complete solution must include a

8 monitoring and accountability system. Defendants cannot contract away their obligations

9 to ensure effective communication under the Americans with Disabilities Act. See

10 Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger, 622 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2010).

11

Finally, Plaintiffs are concerned that deaf people who do not know sign language

12 also have been denied access to programs, services, and activities. Notably, Defendants do

13 not appear to provide real-time captioning services. See Exhibit A, Letter from Rita

14 Lomio, Prison Law Office, to Tamiya Davis, CDCR Office of Legal Affairs,

15 Accommodations for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Class Members Who Do Not Know Sign

16 Language at 3-6 (Nov. 27, 2019). “Real-time captioning (also known as computer-assisted

17 real-time transcription, or CART) is a service … in which a transcriber types what is being

18 said at a meeting or event into a computer that projects the words onto a screen. This

19 service, which can be provided on-site or remotely, is particularly useful for people who

20 are deaf or have hearing loss but do not use sign language.” U.S. Dep’t of Justice, ADA

21 Requirements: Effective Communication (Jan. 2014), https://www.ada.gov/effective-

22 comm.htm. The parties have agreed to meet and discuss this issue in January 2020.

23 Defendants’ Statement

24

Defendants are committed to ensuring that Deaf and hard-of-hearing class members

25 who require sign language interpretation are provided equal access to programs, services,

26 and activities, and assignments. Defendants are considering the information and requests

27 contained in Plaintiffs’ November 27, 2019 letter, as well as possible solutions, and the

28

6

Case No. C94 2307 CW

JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2910 Filed 01/15/20 Page 8 of 41

[3486033.1]

1 parties are scheduled to meet about issues related to the provision of accommodations for

2 Deaf class members on January 21, 2020.

3

As reported during the meet and confer on December 19, 2019, CCHCS has been

4 tasked with developing potential alternatives to solely relying on external providers to

5 ensure interpreters are present for off-site encounters. CCHCS will keep Plaintiffs

6 informed on progress through the meet and confer process.

7 C. Problems Regarding Access to Assignments for Class Members

8

With regard to the broader problem of equal access to job and program assignments

9 for people with disabilities, the parties convened a small work group to address Plaintiffs’

10 concerns, as documented in multiple tour reports and letters. See Doc. 2680, at 13-14.

11 The parties agreed to exchange data on a quarterly basis. The data continues to show

12 significant disparities both statewide and at the institutional level—with class members

13 receiving assignments at a lower rate than non-class members. Defendants assert that the

14 data is misleading and that the disparities result from individual, custody-related case

15 factors rather than from discrimination based on disability. Plaintiffs assert that, even if

16 Defendants could demonstrate that facially non-discriminatory case factors, such as release

17 date, account for the ongoing disparities, Defendants would still face liability due to the

18 disparate impact of their program assignment practices. See, e.g., 28 C.F.R.

19 § 35.130(b)(3)(i), (ii); § 35.130(b)(8).

20

Ongoing disparities in assignments are a major problem for Armstrong class

21 members. The fact that the parties still do not have agreement on the source of the

22 disparities is especially concerning given CDCR’s plan to roll out a statewide integrated

23 substance use disorder treatment (“ISUDT”) program in January 2020, whereby a

24 significant number6 of incarcerated people will be required to participate in this part-time

25 program. The parties anticipate this new development will have a significant impact on

26
6 Although previous statements indicated that 80% of incarcerated people would be 27 required to participate in ISUDT, the parties now understand that the exact percentage is
not certain, but the number of participants will be significant. 28

7

Case No. C94 2307 CW

JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2910 Filed 01/15/20 Page 9 of 41

[3486033.1]

1 their analysis of the program assignment data.

2

The parties continue to work cooperatively towards ensuring equal access in

3 program assignments for people with disabilities.

4 D. Effective Communication for Parolees Who Are Deaf

5 Plaintiffs’ Statement

6

Plaintiffs continue to identify problems with Defendants’ provision of effective

7 communication to parolees who are deaf. Plaintiffs also continue to identify issues

8 regarding the provision of sign language interpreters. Plaintiffs have documented ongoing

9 problems with the use of VRI during initial interviews and deficiencies in DAPO’s SLI

10 contracts. Finally, the parties continue to have a disagreement regarding the provision of

11 SLI during field encounters. Notwithstanding this disagreement, Defendants have agreed

12 to provide SLI through VRI software on tablets during field encounters. Defendants have

13 not yet demonstrated the effectiveness of VRI as used by DAPO agents in the more

14 variable conditions in the field. Plaintiffs’ counsel is continuing to monitor these issues,

15 and most recently has proposed guidelines for the use of VRI and has requested production

16 of field files for deaf class members in an effort to review potential progress reported by

17 Defendants in this area.

18 Defendants’ Statement

19

DAPO Headquarters staff works closely with staff supervising parolees whose

20 primary method of communication is sign language. This allows DAPO’s Parole

21 Litigation Management Unit to resolve problems identified while utilizing the VRI system.

22 Although the current process has proven to be effective in resolving and troubleshooting

23 VRI technical-communication problems, DAPO has implemented a formal tracking

24 process that allows staff to report connectivity issues through the use of a Service Report.

25 Defendants agreed to produce these Service Reports to Plaintiffs on a monthly basis.

26

Defendants are moving forward with a new on-demand VRI contract that includes

27 provisions for penalties associated with breach of contract and failure to timely notify

28

8

Case No. C94 2307 CW

JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2910 Filed 01/15/20 Page 10 of 41

[3486033.1]

1 CDCR about the inability to provide requested interpretation services. DAPO also

2 implemented a new in-person sign-language-interpreter contract for DAPO Headquarters

3 and DAPO parole offices, which became effective July 1, 2019. The contract includes

4 provisions for penalties associated with breach of contract and failure to timely notify

5 CDCR about the inability to provide requested or scheduled interpretation services. The

6 contract shortened the timeframe in which an interpreter can cancel.

7

DAPO remains concerned that using a civilian in-person sign-language interpreter

8 during parole field encounters presents safety and security issues. The U.S. Department of

9 Justice has recognized that agencies can use advanced technology, such as tablets, to

10 provide sign-language interpretation to individuals in areas where it is difficult or

11 impossible to provide an in-person interpreter.7 DAPO purchased and implemented the

12 use of VRI tablets, high-speed connectivity, and expanded SLI contract providers.

13 E. 14

Statewide Durable Medical Equipment Reconciliation and Accuracy of Disability Tracking Information

15

Defendants completed a physical, statewide durable-medical-equipment (“DME”)

16 reconciliation encompassing all 35 institutions in early January 2019. The audit revealed:

17 (1) that 7,346 class members were missing one or more items of durable medical

18 equipment that their custody and medical records indicated they should have had in their

19 possession; and (2) that 2,349 class members’ durable-medical-equipment records had

20 errors. The audit results were distributed to the institutions, which have begun to resolve

21 individual patient discrepancies. Defendants are in the process of developing an

22 electronic, real-time system that will reconcile DME orders with DME receipts. CCHCS

23 intends to implement this DME reconciliation application in late January 2020, to include a

24 webinar, conference call, policy memo, and job aids. This is an important first step in the

25 long-term resolution of identified problems because it will enable Defendants to identify

26 tracking discrepancies. Defendants are also evaluating how, as part of this process,

27 7 For more information see, ECF No. 2874 Exhibit C.
28
9
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

Case No. C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2910 Filed 01/15/20 Page 11 of 41

[3486033.1]

1 incarcerated people may be interviewed to determine whether the documentation reflecting

2 orders/receipt of DME is consistent with their possession of the DME. CCHCS

3 acknowledges Plaintiffs’ concerns regarding patients who have prescribed DME or

4 restrictions that would typically comport to a specific DPP code. Defendants plan to

5 develop a Learning Management System (LMS) for providers, specifically targeted

6 towards assessing patients for potential inclusion in the Disability Placement Program.

7

Plaintiffs also remain concerned about the persistent presence of a significant

8 number of individuals who have vests, housing restrictions, or durable medical equipment

9 that would generally indicate permanent disabilities, but who do not have verified

10 permanent disability codes in the CDCR tracking system, or who have a code that does not

11 match their other factors. The parties are currently working towards a collaborative

12 solution to this problem and, at this time, have agreed that Defendants will produce data to

13 allow the parties to identify and evaluate potential systemic problems at specific

14 institutions and by specific health care providers.

15 F. Parole Planning and Working with Class Members Preparing for Release

16 Plaintiffs’ Statement

17

Plaintiffs’ counsel contends that CDCR and DAPO fail to ensure that parolees with

18 severe and impacting placement disabilities receive adequate planning for parole and

19 adequate transitional housing, transportation, and other transitional services. See Doc.

20 2680 at 11-12; Doc. 2655 at 11-13. Plaintiffs are still awaiting a response to their April 5,

21 2019, letter to Defendants describing inadequate parole planning services and the need for

22 better linkage to transitional housing, transportation, and other supportive services for

23 paroling class members.

24

As described in the prior statement, Plaintiffs’ counsel remains concerned that many

25 CDCR Division of Rehabilitation Programing (DRP) subcontractors do not accept

26 individuals with certain disabilities. Plaintiffs and Defendants have cooperatively agreed

27 to make a number of changes in how these programs are surveyed for accessibility issues

28

10

Case No. C94 2307 CW

JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2910 Filed 01/15/20 Page 12 of 41

[3486033.1]

1 and to collaborate on developing a training video for subcontractors about working with

2 disabled individuals. Plaintiffs also have ongoing concerns about the benefit application

3 process for paroling class members, including the adequacy of the medical documentation

4 provided by CDCR clinicians as part of the Transitional Case Management Program

5 (“TCMP”) benefit application process.

6 Defendants’ Statement

7

Plaintiffs’ assertion that “CDCR and DAPO fail to ensure that parolees with severe

8 and placement-impacting disabilities receive adequate planning for parole and adequate

9 transitional housing, transportation, and other transitional services” is wrong. See ECF

10 No. 2786, at 19-21. Defendants’ responses to Plaintiffs’ transition-to-parole advocacy

11 letters consistently demonstrate that pre-parole services are regularly and adequately

12 provided to class members and that class members are not reporting information accurately

13 to Plaintiffs’ counsel. Plaintiffs’ counsel continue to send advocacy letters that

14 demonstrate no nexus between their allegations and Defendants’ compliance with the

15 ADA, Rehabilitation Act, the Remedial Plan, or this Court’s orders. Rather, the letters

16 imply that CDCR has an obligation to provide housing for every inmate who is disabled

17 and paroling.

18

The law does not require Defendants to fund and secure housing for every disabled

19 inmate who is paroling, nor does it require CDCR to create and fund new programs. As

20 part of the pre-release process, CDCR staff complete an assessment for each inmate who is

21 paroling that identifies their individual needs. Once the needs are determined, the staff and

22 inmate/parolee work collaboratively to complete a case plan identifying community-based

23 programs that receive federal, state or other local funding to provide housing and other

24 services to disabled citizens. The CDCR-funded programs that do provide housing are

25 consistently full and have waiting lists.

26

CDCR and the Division of Rehabilitative Programs’ processes are detailed in the

27

28

11

Case No. C94 2307 CW

JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2910 Filed 01/15/20 Page 13 of 41

[3486033.1]

1 July 2019 joint case management conference statement.8 Defendants maintain that their

2 comprehensive system for providing services to paroling individuals is appropriate.

3 Defendants continue to work collaboratively with Plaintiffs in response to the matters

4 raised in Plaintiffs’ April 5, 2019 letter.

5

The parties developed disability definitions to educate providers and to help them

6 decide whether they can accept persons with certain disabilities. The parties are also

7 collaborating on the Division of Rehabilitative Programs’ education video for providers.

8 The parties will continue to work together on the development of this initiative.

9 G. Accommodations for Blind and Low Vision Class Members

10

The parties are working cooperatively to expand the accommodations available to

11 class members who are blind or have low vision. See Doc. 2786 at 20. The parties

12 conducted joint interviews of blind and low-vision class members at the Substance Abuse

13 Treatment Facility and State Prison, Corcoran (“SATF”) in June 2019 with a

14 representative from LightHouse for the Blind and Visually Impaired. SATF houses the

15 largest population of people designated DPV (disability impacting placement vision)

16 within the California prison system.9 Plaintiffs raised a number of program-access

17 concerns following the visit, including concerns about orientation and mobility training,

18 sighted-guide training, braille-literacy programs, access to braille and large-print material,

19 accessibility of the Offender Tablet Pilot Program, and accommodations in education and

20 self-help programming. The parties have agreed to convene a working group to discuss

21 issues related to blind and low-vision class members. See Exhibit B, Letter from Rita

22 Lomio, Prison Law Office, to Tamiya Davis, CDCR Office of Legal Affairs, Topics for

23 Blind/Low Vision Working Group (Dec. 12, 2019) (without exhibits). The first meeting

24

25 8 See ECF No. 2874 at 17-18.
9 Defendants designate people “who have a severe vision impairment which is NOT 26 correctable to 20/200 with corrective lenses in at least one eye and/or has a visual field of
20 degree or less” as DPV. R. Steven Tharratt, Director, CCHCS Health Care Operations, 27 & Vincent S. Cullen, Director, CCHCS Corrections Services, Memorandum: Expansion of
Vision-Impaired Patient Definition at 1 (July 17, 2018). 28

12
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

Case No. C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2910 Filed 01/15/20 Page 14 of 41

[3486033.1]

1 will be on January 14, 2020.

2 H. Joint Monitoring Tool

3

The parties continue, as they did throughout 2019, to devote a significant amount of

4 time and resources to drafting a joint monitoring tool for measuring compliance in this

5 case. Through this process, the parties have identified a number of substantive areas that

6 will require further negotiation and the development of new policies. The parties’

7 commitment to developing a strong joint monitoring tool will continue in 2020. The

8 parties currently plan to work through mid-February 2020 on finalizing revisions to the

9 tool sections that have been drafted thus far. The headquarters section has not yet been

10 drafted, and some individual tool questions, including how to monitor whether class

11 members are receiving equal access to program assignments, have not yet been fully

12 drafted because the parties must first complete larger policy discussions. The parties plan

13 to test the tool out at different types of prisons beginning in April 2020, and will meet after

14 each audit to discuss if and how the tool should be updated or revised based on issues

15 identified during each audit.

16 I. ADA Structural Barriers and Master Planning Process

17

Construction continues at several of the designated institutions with former Class

18 Action Management Unit Manager Mike Knowles overseeing the process and reporting on

19 construction progress and anticipated timeframes in monthly reports produced to Plaintiffs.

20

The parties met on December 9, 2019, to discuss a process for addressing

21 Defendants’ planned accessibility construction and program modifications at the ten

22 institutions where the Master Plan agreements have not yet been signed. The parties

23 agreed to a flexible, collaborative approach in which the parties will meet quarterly to

24 discuss different institutions, joined by local ADA staff with close knowledge of the

25 institutions. The parties also may discuss issues about a particular institution informally

26 before or after the scheduled quarterly meeting. And the parties may elect to jointly visit

27 an institution to review particular areas of interest, with or without Plaintiffs’ expert. In

28

13

Case No. C94 2307 CW

JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2910 Filed 01/15/20 Page 15 of 41

[3486033.1]

1 addition, Defendants are in the process of auditing whether program modifications

2 referenced in the Master Plans have been memorialized in local operating procedures at

3 each institution. The parties agreed that there will be an ongoing process to consider

4 whether there are opportunities for people with disabilities to work in jobs that the parties

5 originally thought they might not be able to do, and Defendants will make all appropriate

6 additions to the Master Plan in response to things like program, population, and mission

7 changes. The parties’ first quarterly meeting is scheduled for January 22, 2020.

8 J. Investigation of County Jails

9

Plaintiffs continue to assert that a pattern and practice of denying disability

10 accommodations to class members exists at the Los Angeles County Jails. See Doc. 2680

11 at 22-24. Plaintiffs also assert they have identified patterns of denials of providing ADA

12 accommodations at Kern County, San Bernardino, Orange and Fresno County jails. See

13 Doc. 2786 at 26-27. Defendants disagree with Plaintiffs’ assertions. Nevertheless,

14 Defendants have agreed to conduct periodic meetings with Sheriffs from multiple counties

15 in an effort to establish relationships and foster information sharing that Defendants

16 believe will lead to better compliance. Defendants plan to conduct their first meeting with

17 Sheriffs in January.

18

Plaintiffs’ counsel will continue to monitor compliance with the County Jail Plan

19 and orders.

20 K. Due Process Rights for Class Members on Parole

21

On July 31, 2019, Defendants agreed to suspend use of flash incarceration indefi-

22 nitely as indicated in a Memorandum from CDCR Secretary Diaz entitled “Suspension of

23 Flash Incarceration.” See Doc. 2887, Exhibit A. Defendants have now formally

24 discontinued flash incarceration. In a January 8, 2020 Memorandum all DAPO staff were

25 notified that effective immediately the policy establishing flash incarceration is rescinded

26 and that measures are under way to repeal California Code of Regulations, title 15, section

27 3767.

28

14

Case No. C94 2307 CW

JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2910 Filed 01/15/20 Page 16 of 41

[3486033.1]

1

Plaintiffs continue to object to the use of Form 1527, which Plaintiffs contend is

2 unfairly used to support revocations for parolees who have disabilities affecting their

3 ability to communicate or understand information. Defendants have agreed to reconsider

4 using the form and are currently evaluating the Form 1527. Defendants will need to confer

5 with necessary stakeholders regarding the use of the Form 1527 and will continue to

6 apprise Plaintiffs of any decisions with the incoming Director of DAPO and to Defendants

7 have also agreed to look into additional training and possible added protections for

8 parolees with developmental disabilities who are asked to sign these forms. Defendants

9 have thus far failed to take any action regarding this issue.

10 DATED: January 15, 2019
11 12 13 14 15

Respectfully submitted, ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD By: /s/ Penny Godbold
Penny Godbold
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

16 DATED: January 15, 2019
17

XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General of the State of California

18

By: /s/ Joanna B. Hood

Joanna B. Hood

19

Deputy Attorney General

20

Attorneys for Defendants

21 As required by Local Rule 5-1, I, Penny Godbold, attest that I obtained concurrence
22 in the filing of this document from Joanna B. Hood, and that I have maintained records to
23 support this concurrence.
24

25 DATED: January 15, 2019 26

/s/ Penny Godbold Penny Godbold

27

28

15

Case No. C94 2307 CW

JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2910 Filed 01/15/20 Page 17 of 41
EXHIBIT A

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2910 Filed 01/15/20 Page 18 of 41

PRISON LAW OFFICE
General Delivery, San Quentin, CA 94964
Telephone (510) 280-2621  Fax (510) 280-2704
www.prisonlaw.com
VIA EMAIL ONLY
November 27, 2019
Ms. Tamiya Davis CDCR Office of Legal Affairs
RE: Armstrong v. Newsom Accommodations for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Class Members Who Do Not Know Sign Language

Director: Donald Specter
Managing Attorney: Sara Norman
Staff Attorneys: Rana Anabtawi Steven Fama Alison Hardy Sophie Hart Corene Kendrick Rita Lomio Margot Mendelson Thomas Nosewicz Shira Tevah

Dear Ms. Davis:

The parties have made significant progress over the past year in improving accommodations for class members whose primary form of communication is sign language. I am concerned, however, that other deaf class members are not being properly accommodated. There currently are 51 people designated DPH in California prisons whose primary form of communication is not sign language.1

California Health Care Facility, Stockton (CHCF)

8

California Institution for Men (CIM)

3

California Medical Facility (CMF)

15

Deuel Vocational Institution Reception Center (DVI)

1

High Desert State Prison (HDSP)

2

Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility (RJD)

11

Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison, Corcoran (SATF) 11

Plaintiffs’ counsel surveyed deaf class members whose primary form of communication is not sign language. I have shared some of their responses in this letter. Overwhelmingly, class members expressed feelings of isolation in prison due to their disabilities, an inability to fully participate in rehabilitative programs, and an unawareness of accommodations that may be able to help them. We look forward to working with you to address these issues and to ensure that this population is properly accommodated. At a minimum, Defendants should offer real-time captioning and FM systems to deaf and hard of hearing class members. Defendants also should provide captioned telephones and sign language instruction.

1

Armstrong Remedial Plan § II.C.2 (“Inmates/parolees who are permanently deaf or who have a

permanent hearing impairment so severe that they must rely on written communication, lip

reading, or signing because their residual hearing, with aids, does not enable them either to

communicate effectively or hear an emergency warning shall be designated as DPH.”).

Board of Directors Penelope Cooper, President  Michele WalkinHawk, Vice President  Marshall Krause, Treasurer
Harlan Grossman • Christiane Hipps  Margaret Johns  Cesar Lagleva  Laura Magnani • Michael Marcum  Ruth Morgan  Seth Morris

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2910 Filed 01/15/20 Page 19 of 41
Ms. Tamiya Davis Re: Deaf and Hard of Hearing Class Members
November 27, 2019 Page 2
What is it like being deaf or hard of hearing in prison?
 “Very difficult. They label me as lip reading and I can’t lip read. Most time only catch a fraction of word [sic] spoken if any. Often times I feel left out because I don’t have interpreter to tell me what’s going on. Such as the recent legionnaire [sic] water outbreak. They have no ASL learning classes. . . . I’m isolated. No can’t hear announcements. No can’t hear conversations. Can’t lip read.” (CHCF)
 “It’s very hard to be in prison when you can’t hear that well. Sometimes I get frustrated.” (CHCF)
 “It is very difficult and frustrating. I never know if I am missing out on something or if there is an emergency I am unaware of. . . . Sometimes it is just easier to go away and keep to myself since it is so hard to communicate with others.” (CHCF)
 “I feel frustrated and unsafe all the time.” (CMF)
 “I’ve felt frustrated because I cannot hear what is being said in class/group and benefit very little. Confused because I can’t hear instructions or commands. Unsafe because I have been attacked & hurt, due to inmates & officers thinking I am ignoring them. Alone because people avoid me due to me asking them to repeat themselfs [sic].” (CMF)
 “I often feel afraid not knowing who may come up behind me. . . . I have felt all those emotions [frustration, confusion, being unsafe and alone] in prison.” (CMF)
 “Most inmates and staff lack the patience to try to communicate with me because I often have to have them repeat things several times. I stay to myself for the most part. . . . I don’t blame people for getting frustrated with my disability as I too get frustrated with it.” (HDSP)
 “Fill [sic] left out a lot. Don’t know what is going on a lot. Because information is given out but because I cannot hear I do not know what to do.” (RJD)
 “I’m always frustrated and confused about what it is I’m doing wrong.” (RJD)
 “Hard to communicate or participate in programs or socialize. Never really know what is going on because everything is announced on speakers which I cannot hear. I have adapted over the years by being a recluse and reading a lot for entertainment.” (SATF)
 “It’s very hard for me to understand words. It gets very frustrated [sic] at tim [sic], but I try to keep myself under control. . . . [It] can be scare [sic] at time, if yoor [sic] not paying attion [sic] to your surround [sic]. . . . [I]t’s hard to hold a conversation always misunderstand people or over hearing word, or not hearing the right words. So I get frustrate [sic], then I rathe [sic] be alone . . . . I try to stay on my bunk in [sic] watch tv alone.” (SATF)
 “It’s frustrating when you can no longer communicate with others and no longer hear music. When telling people they need to write me notes they keep on talking expecting me to read lips or if they talk louder I would hear, it’s hopeless when they won’t write notes, depressing. It’s a silent, lonely world. Can’t communicate with sign language people and the hearing. Don’t know what’s going on with anything.” (SATF)
 “I felt frustrated, confused too difficult to understand.” (SATF)

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2910 Filed 01/15/20 Page 20 of 41
Ms. Tamiya Davis Re: Deaf and Hard of Hearing Class Members
November 27, 2019 Page 3
1. Real-Time Captioning and FM Systems
Deaf class members reported that they are unable to fully and meaningfully participate in programs, services, and activities because of their disabilities.
Are you able to understand what everyone is saying in programs, services, and activities?
 “They skip me [during self-help groups] cause I can’t follow along because Deaf [sic]. . . . Most times I’m ignored or overlooked. I can’t follow along because I don’t read lips and in self-help, religious services no one provides written notes.” (CHCF)
 “Nothing special is done and I don’t catch much.” (CHCF)
 “I sit in class and look stupid. I take my books and leave.” (CMF)  “I am in the E.O.P. program here in Vacaville, and I am in all of the above. The best the teacher can do is
allow me to sit in the front, and sometimes give me handouts to read later in my cell to accommodate me. The class set up is, the instructor in the center of the room and us around the room. I can’t hear anyone speak, and I do not understand what is being said.” (CMF)
 “I would love to attend any and all services programs, and activities but under the current level of ADA compliance it is not possible.” (RJD)
 “I’ll [sic] love to participate [in programs]. I just hate to slow the class up on the account of my disability. When I do go to group I just sit there.” (RJD)
 “No because I can’t hear!” (RJD)  “These situations are the hardest for me as I cannot follow conversation well enough to keep up and its
[sic] not a situation to be constantly asking ‘what.’” (SATF)
 “No. . . . Anything as a group, I would not understand. It has to be one on one with writing.” (SATF)
Deaf class members also reported that they are unaware of accommodations that may be able to assist them, including real-time captioning. That is not surprising. “[I]t often takes late-deafened adults years to learn about coping strategies, assistive technology, and their basic rights to communication access.” Marylyn Howe, Meeting the Needs of Late-Deafened Adults, 19 Am. Rehabilitation 25, *3 (Winter 1993); see also Pierce v. District of Columbia, 128 F. Supp. 3d 250, 272 (D.D.C. 2015) (holding that “prison officials have an affirmative duty to assess the potential accommodation needs of inmates with known disabilities who are taken into custody and to provide the accommodations that are necessary for those inmates to access the prison’s programs and services, without regard to whether or not the disabled individual has made a specific request for accommodation”).
. . .
. . .

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2910 Filed 01/15/20 Page 21 of 41
Ms. Tamiya Davis Re: Deaf and Hard of Hearing Class Members
November 27, 2019 Page 4
On July 26, 2019, I sent an advocacy letter on behalf of a deaf class member at SATF. Exhibit A. According to the medical record, the class member has profound sensorineural hearing loss and, even with hearing aids, can understand at best “14% of what is said.” His primary form of communication is written notes. To allow him to fully participate in rehabilitative programming, including self-help groups that are primarily discussion-based, I requested that real-time captioning (also known as computerassisted real-time transcription, or CART) be made available to him. I also requested that the institution inform deaf and hard of hearing class members who do not know sign language about accommodations that may be available to them, including CART and FM systems.
On August 20, 2019, you sent me a two-page memorandum from the ADA Coordinator at SATF, dated August 13, 2019, denying my request. Exhibit B. The memorandum stated that the class member currently was participating in a vocational computer course and, among other things, the instructor would give him a handout during lecture “so that [he] can follow along.” The memorandum did not explain how the class member would be able to fully participate in discussion-based, self-help groups absent CART services. The memorandum stated: “SATF does not currently have this type of technology available for use.” The memorandum further stated: “The Inmate Orientation Handbook provides all inmates information regarding available accommodations for disabled persons.” The Handbook does not contain any information about CART or FM systems.
SATF is not the only prison that has denied a deaf class member real-time captioning. A class member at CHCF requested CART for self-help groups and religious services. The RAP response, issued September 20, 2019, stated: “Research revealed that the California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (CDCR) has not implemented the Computer Assisted Real Time (CART) service at this time. However, [the class member] is already accommodated by way of written notes as a primary method of communication. [The class member] was observed to be successful with reading lips during communication. If and when the CART technology is introduced into CDCR, the California Health Care Facility will pursue implementation of this at this institution.”2 1824 Log No. CHCF-E-19-3467.

2

Lip reading is not an adequate form of communication for most people in any setting. See Deirdre

M. Smith, Confronting Silence, 46 Me. L. Rev. 87, 97 (1994) (“One study found that the best

lipreaders (or speechreaders) could fully comprehend only twenty-six percent or what was said to

them.”); Anna Middleton, ed., Working with Deaf People: A Handbook for Healthcare

Professionals 53 (2010) (“Lip-reading is difficult to do clearly as identical lip-patterns are often

used with words which incorporate different sounds from the throat; these may be invisible to the

viewer.”). Even the most skilled lip-readers cannot understand group conversations for a simple

reason: To read someone’s lips, you must be looking at them. In group settings, participants

typically use sound-based cues for turn-taking, such as a teacher calling on the next student, or a

member of the group interjecting with a comment. Even people with some hearing will not be

looking at the speaker when the speaker begins to talk. At best, they miss the first several seconds

of every utterance, making it even more difficult to follow the conversation. At worst, they have

no idea who is talking for some time, and lose the thread entirely. As the class member at CHCF

explained: “[M]ost times I can’t read lips effectively. Often I only understand a fraction of what

is said . . . . In group I’m left out, skipped and cannot actively participate being that I’m deaf and

when group members speak I don’t know what they’re saying.”

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2910 Filed 01/15/20 Page 22 of 41
Ms. Tamiya Davis Re: Deaf and Hard of Hearing Class Members
November 27, 2019 Page 5
“Real-time captioning (also known as computer-assisted real-time transcription, or CART) is a service . . . in which a transcriber types what is being said at a meeting or event into a computer that projects the words onto a screen. This service, which can be provided on-site or remotely, is particularly useful for people who are deaf or have hearing loss but do not use sign language.”3 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, ADA Requirements: Effective Communication (Jan. 2014), https://www.ada.gov/effective-comm.htm; see also Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1136 (9th Cir. 2001) (discussing ADA regulations regarding transcription services and videotext displays); Argenyi v. Creighton University, 703 F.3d 441, 443-44, 451 (8th Cir. 2013) (concluding that “the record supports [plaintiff]’s claim that he was unable to follow lectures and classroom dialogue” absent CART, where plaintiff had “a serious hearing impairment” and “does not know sign language”); Michael S. Hood et al., Classroom Captioning for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students, J. of Eng’g Educ. 273-78, 273 (July 1997) (“This technology enables a stenographer to transcribe spoken language into written text instantaneously, and can position deaf and hard of hearing students on a near-equal playing field with other students in the classroom.”). One way to determine who may benefit from CART is to ask whether a person reads well enough to follow the captioning of a movie. CART is (or very soon will be) provided in other state prisons, including in Maryland, Illinois, and Massachusetts.4 The Board of Parole Hearings in California currently offers CART services for attorney consultations and parole hearings.

Michael S. Hood et al., Classroom Captioning for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students, J. of Eng’g Educ. 273-78, 275 (July 1997)

3

Remote real-time captioning typically does not have the same limitations as remote sign language

interpretation because it does not require a video feed and it involves transcription (and not

interpretation). Remote captioning uses microphones to transmit sound to an off-site captionist

and a computer to display the written transcript to the on-site deaf person.

4

See, e.g., Email from Michele C. Gardner, ADA Coordinator, Maryland Dep’t of Public Safety

and Corr. Srvcs., to Chelsea Rinnig, Prison Law Office (July 17, 2019) (on file with PLO) (“The

Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (DPSCS) provides

Communication Access Real-time Translation (CART) as an accommodation for individuals who

do not know sign language. . . . The service is very beneficial for the inmates who do not use

American Sign Language (ASL).”); Settlement Agreement, Briggs v. Massachusetts Dep’t of

Corr., No. 15-CV-40162, at 31 (D. Mass. May 28, 2019); Settlement Agreement, Holmes v.

Godinez, No. 11-2961 at 5 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 23, 2018).

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2910 Filed 01/15/20 Page 23 of 41
Ms. Tamiya Davis Re: Deaf and Hard of Hearing Class Members
November 27, 2019 Page 6
Deaf class members at CHCF, CMF, HDSP, RJD, and SATF reported that CART might help them.5 (A few others reported that it would not be helpful to them because they cannot read well.)
Do you think CART services would be helpful to you?
 “Tremendously helpful. I could follow along in group and not feel left out. I could actively participate in discussions.” (CHCF)
 “I think that [CART] would be helpful because prisoners can read & follow along with what is being said.” (CMF)
 “It would allow me to participate in more programs and activities and disallow mistakes and all types of miscommunication.” (CMF)
 “Yes, yes, yes.” (CMF)
 “Yes ‘CART’ would be very helpful because then it would allow for me to understand and keep up with all that’s going on, or at least the majority of what’s going on.” (RJD)
 “Yes this should be used to provide people like me with the knowledge that is needed.” (RJD)
 “I believe a CART services [sic] would be wonderful for the hearing impaired an [sic] deaf people.” (SATF)  “Remote captioning would work for me . . . someone talk into the microphone – it comes out in words on
the screen. Then I can have all program and talk (communicate) with people.” (SATF)  “Yes. It would make it easy to communicate with me.” (SATF)
FM systems also may help people who are hard of hearing. See Am. Bar Ass’n, Court Access for Individuals Who Are Deaf and Hard of Hearing at 26-27 (2017). A microphone would be provided to the instructor or placed in the center of a group of people. The microphone sends sound to a receiver, which would be worn around the class member’s neck or connected to the class member’s hearing aid. The class member would be able to control the volume using the receiver, and background noise can be quieter because of the microphone. This accommodation primarily should be of use to class members

5

Real-time captioning or other typed communication also would be helpful during classification

hearings, where several class members reported a lack of effective communication. See, e.g.,

CMF (“I ask questions and find myself confused because I don’t know what’s being said, or done

most of the time. I tend to have no voice in important decision [sic] that are made, so I just sit

their [sic] with really no idea of what’s going on.”); SATF (“For years I go classification I never

understood. I pretend that I understood but I never understood. . . . No I do not understand at all.

I have been in prison for 15 years and do not understand at all because I do not know how or what

to do.”); RJD (“I am not accommodated at all.”); RJD (“I miss a lot at committee people and staff

are used to doing and acting as if you can hear, it’s hard for them because they are not in my

shoes.”). Handwritten notes are likely to be briefer than spoken words or typed notes, given the

time it takes to write information. In addition, Defendants’ Deaf Culture Town Halls are not

accessible to all in the deaf population because much of the content is spoken with no captioning.

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2910 Filed 01/15/20 Page 24 of 41
Ms. Tamiya Davis Re: Deaf and Hard of Hearing Class Members
November 27, 2019 Page 7
designated DNH. That said, several class members designated DPH at CHCF, CMF, HDSP, RJD, and SATF reported that the FM system might be beneficial to them. (Other class members reported that it would not be helpful to them because they cannot hear spoken language at all.)
Do you think an FM system would help you participate in programs, services, or activities?
 “It sounds like a perfect system.” (CHCF)
 “Yes the FM system would be very helpful because I would have a better chance of hearing what is being said in group or class. I think this would be very helpful.” (CMF)
 “I could fully understand the teacher and respond more to the subject under discussion.” (CMF)
 “Yes; in classroom or groups.” (RJD)
 “Yes. FM systems would help [me] participate in programs!” (RJD)
 “Yes, yes, yes, wow… in church that would help me a lote [sic] and if a teacher in school wore it wow, it would be so good to hear all of what is being said.” (SATF)
 “I honestly wouldn’t know, because I never had one, or use one befor [sic]. But it wouldn’t hurt to try one.” (SATF)
2. Captioned Telephones and Sign Language Instruction
As noted above, deaf people in prison often experience feelings of severe isolation due to their disabilities. See also Miguel O. Aguayo & Nick F. Coady, The Experience of Deafened Adults, 26 Health & Social Work 269-276, 270 (Nov. 2001) (“The psychological and social effect of adventitious hearing loss can be devastating. . . . [P]eople who experience profound hearing loss after being socialized as a hearing person must face the task of learning a new way to cope with the world without dependence on the auditory sense. . . . They no longer can function effectively among hearing people as they were accustomed to doing.”); Julie H. Barlow et al., Living with Late Deafness, 46 Int’l J. of Audiology 442448 (2007) (“The inability to interact in social situations often causes social isolation resulting in problems such as anxiety and depression.”); Marylyn Howe, Meeting the Needs of Late-Deafened Adults, 19 Am. Rehabilitation 25, *2 (Winter 1993) (“No longer able to communicate with their families and peers, most late-deafened adults become confined to a limited world in which they are viewed as aloof, withdrawn, depressed, passive, and/or over-reactive.” (citations omitted)).
To address this, and as we have discussed before, Defendants should provide captioned telephones. See Settlement Agreement, Briggs v. Massachusetts Dep’t of Corr., No. 15-CV-40162, at 38 (D. Mass. May 28, 2019) (“DOC will make at least one CapTel device available at each DOC Facility. . . . The CapTel device shall be available during the same hours, including nights and weekends, that hearing inmates have access to traditional phones”); Settlement Agreement Between the United States of America and Elizabeth F. Arthur, in Her Official Capacity as the Arlington County Sheriff, https://www.ada.gov/ arlington_co_sheriff_sa.html (Nov. 17, 2016) (“Within sixty (60) days of the effective date of this Agreement, the ACSO agrees to provide, if it has not already done so, at least three devices capable of

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2910 Filed 01/15/20 Page 25 of 41
Ms. Tamiya Davis Re: Deaf and Hard of Hearing Class Members
November 27, 2019 Page 8
video telephone calls (including video relay calls), three TTYs, three captioned telephones, three hearing aid compatible telephones, and three volume control telephones for use by inmates and members of the public at the ACDF.” (emphasis added)); Penal Code § 6350 (“Maintaining an inmate’s family and community relationships is an effective correctional technique which reduces recidivism.”); In re French, 106 Cal. App. 3d 74, 84 n.21 (1980) (“A study done for the California Department of Corrections indicated a directly proportional relationship between opportunities for contract [sic] with the outside world while in prison and parole success.”).
For deaf and hard of hearing people with intelligible speech, captioned telephones provide far superior telephone access than a TDD. Captioned telephones such as CapTel are a more modern technology, are easier to use, have a faster connection, have a larger font size, and allow multiple lines of text to be viewed at one time.6 “CapTel serves hard of hearing persons and other persons who can benefit from word-for-word captions of everything said by the other party in a telephone conversation. These word-for-word captions are generated by a CapTelCommunications Assistant (CA) using the latest voicerecognition technology. At the same time, the other caller’s voice can be heard via an amplified handset. Users with intelligible speech who are Deaf or hard of hearing speak directly to the other party. The call flows like a regular telephone conversation with the added benefit of having captions. The captions appear on the bright display screen a few seconds after the other party has spoken.” Cal. Public Utilities Comm’n, Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Program: Captioned Telephone Service, https://ddtp.cpuc.ca.gov/default.aspx?id=1490 (last visited Nov. 26, 2019).

CapTel, Captioned Telephone, https://www.captel.com/ (last visited Nov. 25, 2019)

6

Class members have reported, and we have observed, issues with the TDD at certain prisons. See,

e.g., Letter from Shira Tevah, Plaintiffs’ Counsel, to Russa Boyd, CDCR Office of Legal Affairs

(Aug. 2, 2019) (reporting issues at CIM); Email from Shira Tevah, Plaintiffs’ Counsel, to

Alexander Powell, CDCR Office of Legal Affairs (Nov. 6, 2019) (same); RJD Survey Response

(“The TDD system is garbled 90% of the time! California Relay . . . operators say the systems

are not compatible. . . . I wish I could talk to my family and see and read what they are saying,

instead of only getting a few words if that.”); CHCF Survey Response (“TDD/TTY phones are

often ineffective because they have too much garble [sic] distorted text. Takes long time to

process, clear up garble [sic]. Call often family friends get frustrated hang up it’s not real time.”).

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2910 Filed 01/15/20 Page 26 of 41
Ms. Tamiya Davis Re: Deaf and Hard of Hearing Class Members
November 27, 2019 Page 9
Do you think a CapTel phone would be helpful for you?
 “Yes, because I could see and read the text of our conversation.” (CMF)
 “Yes because what I don’t hear I can read.” (CMF)
 “ABSOLUTELY!!!!! Please. Please. Please try to get this available. It allows my parents to hear my voice and the voice to text allows me to know what’s being said without having to have them repeat everything 20 times. I only get about 5 minutes of actual conversation per 15 minute phone call. This would help dramatically.” (HDSP)
 “Yes, because currently its [sic] way to [sic] difficult to communicate.” (HDSP)
 “Yes the CapTel phones would help because then I would fully be able to make out all of what my folks are saying.” (RJD)
 “Seems to be answer to all my deaf communication desires.” (RJD)
 “I believe a CapTel phone would be very helpful. People that’s hard of hearing have a hard time hearing on the phone.” (SATF)
 “If I could get this it would work better than anything I can think of.” (SATF)
Deaf class members at CHCF, CMF, HDSP, RJD, and SATF also expressed interest in in-person sign language instruction, reporting that such classes either were not offered at their institution or were offered only as college courses. At least one class member noted that he had tried and failed to learn sign language through a book. See also Letter from Caroline Jackson, Plaintiffs’ Counsel, to Russa Boyd, CDCR Office of Legal Affairs at 2 (Nov. 1, 2019) (“It is not realistic to expect [a person] to learn sign language through a correspondence course. Sign language is a visual language with no written form. The most widely used ASL courses have an extensive video component.”). As you know, many hearing people at the Deaf Culture Town Halls at SATF and San Quentin State Prison expressed a strong interest in learning sign language so that they could communicate with and include their deaf peers. In fact, dozens of people showed up to the town halls because they (incorrectly) believed the town halls were sign language courses. After one of the town halls at SATF, a hearing person wrote to my office:
With all due respect to you and the staff who enlightened us about Deaf Culture. Thank you, for taking the time to have an open forum to educate those of us who have been miseducated for years. Without that open platform, most of us incarcerated males would still be in the blind about the plight of a deaf human being. For years I’ve been in the dark about what it means to have a disability in prison. What you and your staff did was beyond awesome and it made me realize that there are folks incarcerated who are seriously misunderstood due to being born without the gift of hearing or losing their hearing late in life. When I asked questions about ASL I was sincere. And I would love to learn more and as much as I can about deaf communities and culture.

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2910 Filed 01/15/20 Page 27 of 41
Ms. Tamiya Davis Re: Deaf and Hard of Hearing Class Members
November 27, 2019 Page 10
In addition to in-person sign language instruction, Defendants should offer instructional videos in the library and program areas, as well as through the personal tablets. Defendants also should consider airing news in sign language and open captions on a state television channel. Such news videos are available through the Daily Moth. See Daily Moth, Deaf News, What Is It?, https://www.dailymoth.com/ (last visited Nov. 25, 2019) (“The Daily Moth delivers news in video using American Sign Language. The deaf host . . . covers trending news stories and deaf topics on new shows Monday-Fridays.”). Defendants should consider incorporating d/Deaf people who already know sign language as tutors and by allowing them to create instructional and informational videos about Deaf culture and sign language. Such videos could also play on the state television channel and teach all incarcerated people how to sign simple statements. This would greatly expand the communication options for deaf class members who do not know sign language, increasing their chances for rehabilitation and successful reintegration into society, and also would generally help strengthen and build relationships between deaf and hearing people in prison—something Defendants have started to do through the Deaf Culture Town Halls.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to discussing these issues with you.
Sincerely yours,
Rita Lomio Staff Attorney
cc: Co-Counsel Ed Swanson, Court Expert Patricia Ferguson, Alexander Powell, Russa Boyd, Amber Lopez, Nicholas Meyer, Erin Anderson, OLAArmstrongCAT@cdcr.ca.gov, OLA Brantley Choate, Hillary Iserman, Shannon Swain, Jennifer Wynn, Rod Braly, Jennifer Winistorfer, Martin Griffin, Alicia Legarda, OCE Matt Espenshade, Lois Welch, Steven Faris, OACC Annakarina De La Torre-Fennell, Joanna Hood, Damon McClain, OAG Kelly Mitchell, Landon Bravo, Teauna Miranda, Laurie Hoogland, DAI Bruce Beland, Robert Gaultney, John Dovey, Donald Meier, Robin Hart, Laurene Payne, Ceasar Aguila, Cindy Flores, Joseph (Jason) Williams, Cathy Jefferson, Vincent Cullen, Desiree Collum, Lynda Robinson, Barb Pires, Ngoc Vo, Samantha Chastain, Olga Dobrynina, Dawn Malone-Stevens, Bryan McCloughan, Alexandrea Tonis, Gently Armedo, m_CCHCSAccntLog@cdcr.ca.gov, CCHCS

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2910 Filed 01/15/20 Page 28 of 41
EXHIBIT B

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2910 Filed 01/15/20 Page 29 of 41

PRISON LAW OFFICE
General Delivery, San Quentin, CA 94964
Telephone (510) 280-2621  Fax (510) 280-2704
www.prisonlaw.com
VIA EMAIL ONLY
December 12, 2019
Ms. Tamiya Davis CDCR Office of Legal Affairs
RE: Armstrong v. Newsom Topics for Blind/Low Vision Working Group

Director: Donald Specter
Managing Attorney: Sara Norman
Staff Attorneys: Rana Anabtawi Steven Fama Alison Hardy Sophie Hart Corene Kendrick Rita Lomio Margot Mendelson Thomas Nosewicz Shira Tevah

Dear Ms. Davis:

We appreciate Defendants’ commitment to working collaboratively with Plaintiffs to improve accommodations for blind and low vision class members. In June 2019, you and Captain Miranda of the Class Action Management Unit joined Plaintiffs’ counsel at the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison, Corcoran (SATF), which houses the largest population of class members designated DPV. The parties, along with Scott Blanks, Senior Programs Director of the LightHouse for the Blind and Visually Impaired, conducted joint class member interviews and identified a number of areas for discussion. See Exhibit A, April-June 2019 SATF Tour Report. The parties visited SATF again in October, joined by my co-counsel Michael Nunez, and, among other things, examined the new auxiliary aids, including JAWS for Windows text-to-speech software and DaVinci desktop video magnifiers.

In response to the issues identified during the tours, the parties have agreed to form a blind/low vision working group. This letter outlines several issues that Plaintiffs would like to discuss at the first meeting. The issues go directly to increasing class member independence—a central tenet of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and something that will increase the likelihood of successful reintegration into society. See Am. Council of Blind v. Paulson, 463 F. Supp. 2d 51, 59 (D.D.C. 2006) (“There was a time when disabled people had no choice but to ask for help—to rely on the ‘kindness of strangers.’ It was thought to be their lot. Blind people had to ask strangers to push elevator buttons for them. . . . We have evolved, however, and Congress has made our evolution official, by enacting the Rehabilitation Act, whose stated purpose is ‘to empower individuals with disabilities to maximize employment, economic self-sufficiency, independence, and inclusion and integration into society.’” (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 701(b) (emphasis by court)), aff’d, 525 F.3d 1256 (D.C. Cir. 2008); Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624, 632 (1998) (discussing relationship between the ADA and Rehabilitation Act).

1. Comprehensive Accommodations and Skills Assessments.......................................... 2 2. JAWS Screen Reader.................................................................................................... 3 3. Orientation and Mobility: White Canes and Training ................................................. 4 4. Braille Literacy ............................................................................................................. 7 5. Large Print, Braille, and Audio Materials .................................................................... 8 6. Tablet Pilot Program..................................................................................................... 9 7. Electronic Forms......................................................................................................... 10 8. Medications, Medical Devices, and Sunglasses ......................................................... 10 9. Enhanced Outpatient Program Groups ....................................................................... 12

[3472186.2]

Board of Directors Penelope Cooper, President  Michele WalkinHawk, Vice President  Marshall Krause, Treasurer
Harlan Grossman • Christiane Hipps  Margaret Johns  Cesar Lagleva  Laura Magnani • Michael Marcum  Ruth Morgan  Seth Morris

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2910 Filed 01/15/20 Page 30 of 41
Ms. Tamiya Davis Re: Topics for Blind/Low Vision Working Group
December 12, 2019 Page 2

1. Comprehensive Accommodations and Skills Assessments

Defendants should contract with an organization that can provide comprehensive skills and accommodations assessments adapted to the prison environment. See Pierce v. District of Columbia, 128 F. Supp. 3d 250, 272 (D.D.C. 2015) (holding that “prison officials have an affirmative duty to assess the potential accommodation needs of inmates with known disabilities who are taken into custody and to provide the accommodations that are necessary for those inmates to access the prison’s programs and services, without regard to whether or not the disabled individual has made a specific request for accommodation”).

Many blind and low vision class members are unaware of what accommodations may be able to

help them. This is particularly true of those who have experienced a significant decrease in vision while

in prison. Such class members report feelings of disorientation, vulnerability, and helplessness. See, e.g.,

Exhibit B, Advocacy Letters and Responses Regarding

, CHCF/SVSP.1 They lack

training on how to perform everyday tasks independently and find themselves isolated. See id.; Exhibit A

at 5 (noting that some class members “chose not to leave their cells for fear they would be unable to safely

navigate the prison”); Exhibit C, Letter from Shira Tevah, Plaintiffs’ Counsel, to Russa Boyd, CDCR

Office of Legal Affairs,

, ISP (Nov. 22, 2019) (discussing housing of newly-blind

class member in OHU for over a year and noting medical record entry in October 2019 that stated that

class member was housed in the infirmary “for support” because “it remains difficult for him to get

around and walk because he’s not used to this new loss of vision and how to use a cane”); see also Dean

W. Tuttle & Naomi R. Tuttle, Self-Esteem and Adjusting with Blindness 6 (1996) (“When sight is lost,

many individuals feel particularly helpless and dependent until they can acquire appropriate adaptive

behaviors and coping skills.”); Steven M. Teutsch et al., The Impact of Vision Loss, in Making Eye

Health a Population Health Imperative 135, 135 (2016) (“Vision loss can affect one’s quality of life,

independence, and mobility and has been linked to falls, injury, and worsened status in domains spanning

mental health, cognition, social function, employment, and educational attainment.”).

An accommodations assessment would identify what accommodations may assist a blind or low vision class member in light of the specific nature of her disability, living environment, programming, and rehabilitation goals. This includes low-tech accommodations like bold pens, thick lined paper, stencils, sightless locks, signature guides, talking clocks, tactile bumps, magnified mirrors, binoculars, and white canes, as well as more advanced accommodations, including portable handheld video magnifiers, tablets with comprehensive screen magnification and screen reading software, and text-to-speech software.2 See

1

Letter from Rita Lomio, Plaintiffs’ Counsel, to Katie Riley, CDCR Office of Legal Affairs (May

11, 2017); Letter from Natasha Machado, CDCR Office of Legal Affairs, to Rita Lomio,

Plaintiffs’ Counsel (June 2, 2017); Letter from Rita Lomio, Plaintiffs’ Counsel, to Russa Boyd,

CDCR Office of Legal Affairs (June 9, 2017); Letter from Margot Mendelson & Molly Petchenik,

Plaintiffs’ Counsel, to Russa Boyd, CDCR Office of Legal Affairs (May 24, 2018); Letter from

Russa Boyd, CDCR Office of Legal Affairs, to Margot Mendelson, Plaintiffs’ Counsel (Jan. 2,

2019); Letter from Margot Mendelson & Megan Lynch, Plaintiffs’ Counsel, to Russa Boyd and

Tamiya Davis, CDCR Office of Legal Affairs (Dec. 11, 2019).

2

There are many different types of magnifiers. A simple, low-level magnifier does not work for all

[3472186.2]

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2910 Filed 01/15/20 Page 31 of 41
Ms. Tamiya Davis Re: Topics for Blind/Low Vision Working Group
December 12, 2019 Page 3

Cal. Council of the Blind v. County of Alameda, 985 F. Supp. 2d 1229, 1240 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (“The legislative history of the ADA reveals that Congress intended for accommodations provided to individuals with disabilities to ‘keep pace with the rapidly changing technology of the times.’” (quoting H.R. Rep. 101-485(II), at 108 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 303, 391)).

A skills assessment would identify and provide skills training that would help blind and low vision

class members, including orientation and mobility training. See Exhibit E, Letter from Margot

Mendelson & Megan Lynch, Plaintiffs’ Counsel, to Russa Boyd, CDCR Office of Legal Affairs,

, SVSP (Sept. 18, 2019) (“Mr.

explains that he would benefit tremendously

from training or orientation about how to navigate his cell, organize his cell, dress and undress himself,

and set routines of daily living.”). LightHouse offers “an introductory immersion program for adults who

are newly blind or have experienced a change in vision. The program introduces basic and essential skills

to live confidently at home and in the community. Topics include magnification, organizational skills,

time management, use of adaptive aids and accessing print materials [to] provide students solutions and

strategies for living with low vision or blindness.” LightHouse for the Blind and Visually Impaired,

Immersion Training: Changing Vision, Changing Life, https://lighthouse-sf.org/programs/skills/ (last

visited Dec. 11, 2019). LightHouse also provides training on personal hygiene, food preparation, clothing

care, paper management, housekeeping, and record-keeping. “To the sighted, these skills may appear to

be superficial and elementary. To the visually impaired . . . , these skills are obstacles to independence

unless specifically taught and mastered.” Dean W. Tuttle & Naomi R. Tuttle, Self-Esteem and Adjusting

with Blindness 19 (1996); see Eleanor Lew, Travelers in the Dark, New York Times,

https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/01/25/blind-low-vision-rehabilitation-services/ (Jan. 25, 2016)

(discussing experience as participant in LightHouse training and learning, among other things, to

distinguish shampoo from conditioner with rubber bands, to put toothpaste on a toothbrush, and to shave).

2. JAWS Screen Reader

Defendants should install the JAWS screen reader on the ADA computers and computers available for use by incarcerated persons in other settings, including the education classrooms. Blind and low vision class members must receive meaningful access to all computer-based programs, services, and activities. During the October SATF tour, Plaintiffs’ counsel observed that Defendants had installed JAWS on the library computer offering LexisNexis, but not on the ADA computer or any other computer. See 1824 Log No. SATF-G-19-05979 (Nov. 12, 2019) (“The Facility Librarian confers [sic] this addition would be helpful to facilitate ADA student access to information. . . . [T]he RAP determined we will work with local Information Technology (IT) to assess the capability to install JAWS on the ADA computer as there is indication it would be beneficial to you and other ADA Inmate[s].”).

people. See Exhibit D, Letter from Patrick Booth, Plaintiffs’ Counsel, to Russa Boyd, CDCR

Office of Legal Affairs,

, SATF (Dec. 12, 2019); Peggy R. Wolfe, Vision

Loss 47-48, 194-95 (2014) (discussing different types of magnifiers and how to determine which

magnifier works best for a particular person).

[3472186.2]

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2910 Filed 01/15/20 Page 32 of 41
Ms. Tamiya Davis Re: Topics for Blind/Low Vision Working Group
December 12, 2019 Page 4
Defendants also should retain an accessibility consultant to assess the screen reader accessibility of all computer programs that sighted incarcerated persons receive access to. If this assessment reveals that some programs are not compatible with JAWS “out of the box,” Defendants should retain qualified professionals to prepare JAWS scripts to make JAWS work with these programs to the extent possible. During the October SATF tour, Plaintiffs’ counsel observed that JAWS did not appear to function properly in the LexisNexis program. When JAWS does not work properly with a program “out of the box,” it is possible to modify the software’s behavior so that it functions properly or better with the program in question. In particular, JAWS includes a programming language that allows it to be customized to work with other programs. See, e.g., Lighthouse for the Blind & Low Vision, Job Access With Speech (JAWS) Scripting, https://lighthouseblv.org/employer-services/jaws-scripting-training (last visited Dec. 12, 2019); Joe Lazarro, AccessWorld, An Introduction to JAWS Scripting (Nov. 2003), https://www.afb.org/aw/4/6/14806. Companies and consultants exist that have expertise in creating a piece of code called a JAWS script that makes JAWS work better with the program in question.
Finally, Defendants should train blind and low vision class members on JAWS. JAWS is extremely difficult to learn on one’s own. In addition, during the October tour, Plaintiffs’ counsel observed that, on a computer on which JAWS was installed, class members were blocked from accessing some of the free JAWS training materials. Organizations such as LightHouse offer training to help people learn to use screen readers and other assistive technology. LightHouse can provide customized one-onone training and group workshops on a variety of topics with qualified access technology instructors.
3. Orientation and Mobility: White Canes and Training
White canes should be provided to blind and low vision class members upon request.3 Defendants also should offer canes ranging in length because the appropriate length depends on the height and sometimes also the experience of its user.4 Defendants also should offer rolling ball tips, which enable a blind person to more effectively use a cane on uneven surfaces such as cracked pavement and dirt.

3

For many blind and low vision class members, a white cane can greatly enhance their

independence and ability to navigate the prison. See Executive Office of the President,

Proclamation 7367: White Cane Safety Day, 65 Fed. Reg. 62989 (Oct. 14, 2000) (“With proper

training, people using the white cane can enjoy greater mobility and safety by determining the

location of curbs, steps, uneven pavement, and other physical obstacles in their path. The white

cane has given them the freedom to travel independently to their schools and workplaces and to

participate more fully in the life of their communities.”). It is unclear what standard Defendants

apply when determining whether to issue a white cane. See Exhibit A at 2 (noting that provider

denied a DPV class member a cane with no explanation, and, in another case, the provider

deferred the decision to provide a DPV class member a cane a few months while waiting for an

ophthalmologist report); Exhibit B at 1 (noting that nurse reportedly told blind class member that

he did not need a white cane because he had a disability vest).

4

During the October SATF tour, staff told us that, going forward, only one length will be available

on the formulary. The National Federation of the Blind recommends that people who are new to

the white cane measure from their armpit to the floor and seasoned users measure from their chin.

[3472186.2]

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2910 Filed 01/15/20 Page 33 of 41
Ms. Tamiya Davis Re: Topics for Blind/Low Vision Working Group
December 12, 2019 Page 5

In addition, Defendants should provide orientation and mobility training.

Orientation is the ability to recognize and establish a position in relation to the environment, whereas mobility is the physical ability to move in an orderly, efficient and safe manner through the environment. It is important for visually-impaired older adults to learn new orientation and mobility skills to compensate for reduced visual information, in order to maintain and regain independence during everyday activities. Therefore, orientation and mobility training, which is considered a necessary component of rehabilitation for partially-sighted and blind persons, aims to help them regain their independence by teaching them to manage both simple and complex tasks of daily life safely and effectively.

Judith Ballemans et al., Orientation and Mobility Training for Partially-Sighted Older Adults Using an Identification Cane: A Systemic Review, 25 Clinical Rehab. 880, 881 (Oct. 2011).

Such training also is an integral part of being able to use a white cane to travel independently. See Jeffrey W. Jutai et al., Effectiveness of Assistive Technologies for Low Vision Rehabilitation: A Systematic Review, 103 J. of Visual Impairment & Blindness 210, 220 (Jan. 2019) (“If devices are prescribed, training in the use of the devices is usually assumed to be an integral link that must be incorporated for any amount of success with the device.”).5 During a session, a Certified Orientation and Mobility Specialist (COMS) teaches a person how to properly use her white cane. The specialist also could provide an individual assessment about appropriate cane types. The blind person also would have the opportunity to walk with the specialist to and around the yard, chow hall, library, and other areas of the prison to learn how to navigate these spaces. The skills learned through orientation and mobility training allow a person to apply what they have learned to any environment, including other yards, prisons, and the community after release from prison. Mr. Blanks explained that orientation and mobility training typically is done as one-on-one instruction over several sessions.6

5

We have raised concerns with the lack of appropriate orientation and mobility training provided to

people in prison. See Exhibit A at 5-6 (SATF); Exhibit B (SVSP) (“He has tried to teach himself

through trial and error, but he has not been able to learn how to use the white cane such that he can

function with independence.”); Exhibit E (SVSP) (“Although CDCR issued Mr.

a white

cane a few years ago, he did not receive any training about how to use the white cane.”).

6

See Grace P. Soong et al., Does Mobility Performance of Visually Impaired Adults Improve

Immediately After Orientation and Mobility Training? 78 Optometry & Vision Science 658, 664-

65 (Sept. 2001) (“When new mobility skills are practiced many times, visually impaired adults are

then able to perform these skills in the future because they can retrieve them from long-term

memory, as a result requiring less mental effort. . . . Given the short duration of training and

limited post-training practice, the subjects in the current study may not have developed their

sensory and motor skills adequately for using their mobility devices. . . . Practice is important for

visually impaired people to develop sensory and motor skills to use new mobility devices

proficiently for independent travel.”); Patricia Souder, Blindness and Vision Impairment 98 (2015)

(“[L]earning to use a white cane takes courage, determination, a sense of humor, and lots of time

[3472186.2]

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2910 Filed 01/15/20 Page 34 of 41
Ms. Tamiya Davis Re: Topics for Blind/Low Vision Working Group
December 12, 2019 Page 6
We understand that Defendants have provided (or plan to provide) orientation and mobility training to at least a few class members at the California Medical Facility (CMF) and the California Health Care Facility, Stockton (CHCF). We request that such training be provided to all interested people who are blind or low vision at all prisons. See Steven M. Teutsch et al., The Impact of Vision Loss, in Making Eye Health a Population Health Imperative 135, 139 (2016) (“Mobility is . . . greatly affected by vision loss, whether resulting from changes in visual acuity, visual fields, depth perception, or contrast sensitivity.”). As Mr. Blanks explained, white canes and orientation and mobility training should be provided to people with degenerative vision loss who may use a white cane in the near future because it is easier to train a person who still has some vision.
Defendants also should provide adaptive physical education classes for blind and low vision class members. See Exhibit A at 31; Meridith Griffin et al., Physical Activity Among Older People with Sight Loss: A Qualitative Research Study to Inform Policy and Practice 25 (June 2014) (“Many participants spoke of not having the confidence to participate in activities. Often this lack of confidence was linked to fear associated with their impaired vision.”); Charles E. Buell, Physical Education and Recreation for the Visually Handicapped 49 (1982) (noting that blind people “should be encouraged to become permanent participants in programs that promote vigorous physical activity”). Coach Holland at CMF offers a weekly Wellness and Sports Skills class for DPV class members. As he explained, the class will begin with chair exercises with the goal of getting class members confident in being on their feet and moving around. This program should be expanded to other institutions with blind and low vision class members.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
and patience.”); Dean W. Tuttle & Naomi R. Tuttle, Self-Esteem and Adjusting with Blindness 22 (1996) (“A majority of blind persons use the white cane as their mode of independent travel. To be a competent cane traveler, one must participate in a rigorous sequence of instruction taught by a trained orientation and mobility specialist.”).
[3472186.2]

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2910 Filed 01/15/20 Page 35 of 41
Ms. Tamiya Davis Re: Topics for Blind/Low Vision Working Group
December 12, 2019 Page 7

4. Braille Literacy

Defendants should provide in-person braille literacy instruction and tutoring to blind and low vision class members.7

As Defendants have recognized, the Governor’s “renewed focus on inmate education and literacy

demands that CDCR—and OCE specifically—make all efforts to ensure that inmates are provided

support necessary to progress in education, and that they be expected to progress in education to improve

their chances of success upon reintegration into the community.” Letter from Russa Boyd, CDCR Office

of Legal Affairs, to Rita Lomio, Plaintiffs’ Counsel,

, SATF (July 23, 2019)

(noting Governor’s approved budget that “included $5.5 million for a statewide initiative to improve

literacy among the prison population through the use of multiple strategies, including peer literacy

mentors, expansion of online learning tools, and specialized training for academic instructors”); see also

Cal. Penal Code § 2053.1(a) (“The Secretary . . . shall implement in every state prison literacy programs

that are designed to ensure that upon parole inmates are able to achieve the goals contained in this

section.”). Defendants do not appear to offer any in-person braille literacy courses to blind and low vision

class members, with the exception of an Inmate Activity Group that recently started at CMF. See, e.g.,

Exhibit A at 13-14 (SATF); Exhibit D at 5 (SVSP). And class members report that it is difficult to learn

braille only through a correspondence course with the Hadley School for the Blind.

Braille can provide a blind person independence when reading and writing. Braille is the only system that allows blind people to read and write independently. Although text-to-speech technology and audiobooks can help people gain information, they do not teach reading and writing skills. People who rely solely on text-to-speech and audiobooks find themselves deficient in areas like spelling and composition. Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind, The Braille Literacy Crisis in America at 12 (Mar. 2009), https://nfb.org/images/nfb/documents/pdf/braille_literacy_report_web.pdf. Studies show that people who are braille literate have higher employment rates, are better educated, and are more financially selfsufficient. See id. at 2 (“Undoubtedly the ability to read and write Braille competently and efficiently is the key to success for the blind.”); id. at 13 (“In a comparison between two groups of blind people, one consisting of Braille readers and the other of print readers, the study revealed that those who were taught Braille from the beginning had higher employment rates, were better educated and more financially selfsufficient, and spent more time engaged in leisure and other reading than the print users.”); see also Patricia Souder, Blindness and Vision Impairment 55 (2015) (“For those with severe visual loss, Braille opens up the worlds of literature, philosophy, history, and religion and becomes a tool for studying math, science, spelling, foreign languages, law, music, and many other disciplines.”); C. Edwin Vaughan, Social and Cultural Perspectives on Blindness: Barriers to Community Integration 113-118 (1998) (discussing the importance of braille literacy).

7

Not all blind people may want or be able to learn braille. Some people, including those who are

blind as a result of diabetic retinopathy, may not have the requisite feeling in their fingertips to

distinguish the braille dots.

[3472186.2]

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2910 Filed 01/15/20 Page 36 of 41
Ms. Tamiya Davis Re: Topics for Blind/Low Vision Working Group
December 12, 2019 Page 8
5. Large Print, Braille, and Audio Materials
Defendants should document what reading accommodations blind and low vision class members prefer, including braille, large print (of various font sizes), and audio formats, and should provide materials in the appropriate format.
Defendants do not appear to have a statewide policy regarding when documents are provided in accessible formats. See ARP §§ II.E.1, II.F. Notably, the former Community Resource Manager (CRM) at SATF reported that he did not have the budget to provide materials in braille or large print. Exhibit A at 30 (“[T]he CRM said that he could not provide material in accessible formats because his annual budget for printing material is only $115”). It appears that Defendants do not provide materials to blind class members in braille, including disciplinary paperwork and educational and self-help materials. See id. at A at 14-15, 30, 33-34; Appeal Log No. SATF-A-19-01620 at 3 (Apr. 23, 2019) (Second Level Response) (“Your suggestion that all academic, vocational, and VEP courses should be in Braille has been given to the Office of Correctional Education for consideration, but at this time there are no Braille curriculums for all of these programs.” (emphasis added)).8 It also appears that Defendants do not typically develop or provide audio materials.9 And it appears that Defendants inconsistently provide documents in large print to some class members. See Exhibit A at 24-25. As a result, blind and low vision class members often rely on other incarcerated people to help them read or must wait until they can access the library to use electronic magnifiers or text-to-speech equipment. Neither method is an adequate alternative; they do not allow blind people to maintain privacy of certain matters, including related to their conviction or rule violations, and do not provide them equal access to written materials.10

8

In the absence of accessible materials for all educational and rehabilitative programs, blind class

members may be incarcerated longer than their sighted peers. See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15,

§ 3043(a) (“all inmates who participate in approved rehabilitative programs and activities . . . shall

be eligible to earn Milestone Completion Credit, Rehabilitative Achievement Credit, and

Educational Merit Credit . . . . The award of these credits . . . shall advance an inmate’s release

date if sentenced to a determinate term or advance an inmate’s initial parole hearing date . . . if

sentenced to an indeterminate term with the possibility of parole”); Milestone Completion Credit

Schedule (rev. July 2018); Serventi v. Bucks Tech. High Sch., 225 F.R.D. 159, 167-68 (E.D. Pa.

2004) (approving settlement agreement that required support for “the full range of vocational

programs,” not just a subset of them).

9

Defendants do produce braille materials for blind people in the outside community through braille

transcription programs, including The Blind Project at CMF. Defendants also have produced

audio materials for blind people in the outside community through that program.

10 See Letter from Penny Godbold, Plaintiffs’ Counsel, to Russa Boyd, CDCR Office of Legal Affairs, Request for DPV Equipment at 3-4 (Mar. 22, 2019) (noting concerns with library access at SATF, CMF, and SVSP); Exhibit A at 19-21 (reporting difficulties with access to the library and auxiliary aids at SATF); cf. In re Martinez, 157 Cal. Rptr. 3d 701, 709 (Cal. App. 2013) (noting that “the Legislature has specifically guaranteed to inmates in California’s prisons . . . the right to read”); Cal. Penal Code § 2601(b) (noting that people in prison have the right “[t]o

[3472186.2]

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2910 Filed 01/15/20 Page 37 of 41
Ms. Tamiya Davis Re: Topics for Blind/Low Vision Working Group
December 12, 2019 Page 9

We note that very few DPV class members know braille, and not all of the remaining DPV class

members necessarily will want large print. This is because some class members may have significant

impairments in peripheral visual function and a narrowed central field. Mr.

, who has

retinitis pigmentosa, for example, describes his vision as looking through a straw and prefers regular print

text at this time so that he can see more letters at one time. See Patricia Souder, Blindness and Vision

Impairment 58 (2015) (“Retinitis pigmentosa involves night blindness and a severe loss of peripheral and

side vision due to congenital degeneration of cells in the retina.”); Dean W. Tuttle & Naomi R. Tuttle,

Self-Esteem and Adjusting with Blindness 14 (1996) (“someone with tunnel vision may be legally blind

but have a central visual acuity of 20/20, enabling the reading of regular print at normal distances”).

6. Tablet Pilot Program
Defendants should ensure that their tablet pilot programs are accessible to blind and low vision class members by, among other things, installing screen readers and screen magnifiers on the tablets and kiosks. If the tablets provided cannot support screen reading technology, Defendants must make an alternative comparable tablet available that can provide class members with comprehensive screen reading and screen magnification. Defendants also should train blind and low vision class members on how to use their tablets for notetaking
All yards on SATF are participating in the Offender Tablet Pilot Project, with J-Pay tablets available to incarcerated people. In response to a previous tour report, Defendants stated: “The J-Pay program is only a pilot program and the features requested will not be added to the J-Pay Tablet at this time. One of the purposes of the Pilot Project . . . is to . . . identify additional features that will allow all inmates, including those with disabilities, to equally avail themselves of the technology to ensure we include these types of requirements. The ability to zoom in and out, as well as text-to-speech features, and other ADA accessibility features are included in our request and have already been identified through the pilot requirements. The Pilot Program is scheduled to conclude on April 30, 2019.” SATF Response
correspond, confidentially, with any member of the State Bar or holder of public office” (emphasis added)); Am. Council of Blind v. Astrue, No. C-05-04696 WHA, 2009 WL 3400686, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2009) (“Having someone read over the telephone does not compare to being able to absorb the information independently in order to study it, review it, and comprehend at one’s own speed and mode of ‘reading.’ . . . Everyone who receives an important notice needs to be able to store it and retrieve it for later use. The blind and visually impaired need to do so as well. When a blind individual prepares a response to an important notice, he or she must, under the [Special Notice Policy], wait until a . . . reader can re-read the document to them or wait to reach an employee on the toll-free number, which is only available weekdays and only from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. In addition, a person cannot earmark key passages in the standard print notices.”).
[3472186.2]

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2910 Filed 01/15/20 Page 38 of 41
Ms. Tamiya Davis Re: Topics for Blind/Low Vision Working Group
December 12, 2019 Page 10

to October 2017 SATF Tour Report at 17 (Oct. 17, 2018). Defendants subsequently reported that the pilot program has been extended to April 30, 2022. The fact that Defendants have labeled their multi-year tablet program a “pilot” does not provide an exemption from the Americans with Disabilities Act. Title II of the ADA applies to everything that public agencies do, see Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 691 (9th Cir. 2001), including operating pilot programs. By failing to provide accessible features, Defendants also are losing the opportunity to get feedback from people with disabilities about specific types of accessibility features.

7. Electronic Forms

“Plaintiffs are . . . awaiting confirmation as to how and when Defendants will be providing copies of CDCR forms electronically in accessible formats. Defendants have discussed with Plaintiffs that the first phase to evaluating accessible formats was the identification of equipment. With the recent rollout of new equipment, a workgroup is being formed to evaluate how this equipment can be maximized to provide accessibility to CDCR forms. Recommendations from this workgroup are expected by the end of 2019.” Armstrong v. Newsom, Joint Case Status Statement at 19 (July 15, 2019). Plaintiffs request the recommendations of the workgroup and the timeline for implementing electronic forms.

8. Medications, Medical Devices, and Sunglasses

Defendants should offer a variety of accommodations to address the diverse needs of blind and

low vision patients, including color-coded pill boxes, clip-on pill bottle rings or rubber bands, pill

organizers, braille labels, and accessible glucose test meters. In one case, it appears that a blind class

member was not permitted KOP (keep-on-person) medications by medical staff due to his disability.

Exhibit F, Letter from Shira Tevah, Plaintiffs’ Counsel, to Russa Boyd, CDCR Office of Legal Affairs,

, CIM (Nov. 22, 2019). And another blind class member mixed up his

medications and may have taken double the prescribed dosage, resulting in vertigo. Exhibit G,

Outpatient Progress Note,

, SATF (Nov. 19, 2019) (noting that patient “is

instructed to mark the 10 mg packet so that he knows which pills he is taking”).11

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11

Mr.

told Plaintiffs’ counsel that he had attempted to distinguish the previous

medication blister packs by folding down the edge of one of them, but that the edge of the other

pack must have inadvertently been folded, leading to the confusion. Plaintiffs’ counsel asked

whether it would help if the institution procured a braille label maker and marked the blister packs

in braille with the name and dosage of the medication. Mr.

reported that this would

help and that there was sufficient room on the blister pack to place such a label.

[3472186.2]

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2910 Filed 01/15/20 Page 39 of 41
Ms. Tamiya Davis Re: Topics for Blind/Low Vision Working Group
December 12, 2019 Page 11
Defendants also denied a blind class member the ability to use an accessible blood glucose test meter because the specific meter was not listed in the existing local operating procedure.12 Exhibit A at 35-36. Blind people outside of prison, however, for decades have utilized accessible glucose monitoring systems and have administered insulin independently.13
In addition, Defendants should develop guidelines for when tinted prescription glasses or sunglasses are provided to people who are blind or have low vision.14 Among other things, sunglasses may help some people who are light-sensitive make better use of their residual vision. We are concerned that in at least one case, providers overruled an ophthalmologist’s recommendation of tinted glasses “due to lack of medical indication” as there was “no etiology” or “objective evidence” of photophobia and the class member was able to complete his activities of daily living. Exhibit H, Letter from Michael Felder, Chief Executive Officer, to Rita Lomio, Plaintiffs’ Counsel (July 17, 2019). An ophthalmologist we consulted informed us that photophobia is a symptom and not a disease, that often it is hard if not impossible to isolate the cause, and that tinted glasses may be appropriate accommodations even if they are not medically necessary.
12 It does not appear that Defendants considered whether the local operating procedure should or could be modified to accommodate a blind person. See 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7) (“A public entity shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures when the modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability.”).
13 See, e.g., Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind, Serving Individuals with Diabetes Who Are Blind or Visually Impaired 29-110 (1997) (discussing self-management, including sections entitled, “Blind Diabetics Can Draw Insulin Without Difficulty” and “Talking Blood Glucose Monitoring Systems”); Am. Found. for the Blind, Blood Glucose Meters, https://www.afb.org/about-afb/whatwe-do/afb-consulting/published-results/blood-glucose-meters (last visited Aug. 12, 2019) (“Although blood glucose meters have allowed people with diabetes to manage the disease independently, visual readouts that are hard to see have made many of the devices incredibly difficult for people with vision loss to use. Not just a matter of convenience, these devices can mean the difference between life and death.”); Morgan V. Blubaugh & Mark M. Uslan, Accessibility Attributes of Blood Glucose Meter and Home Blood Pressure Monitor Displays for Visually Impaired Persons, 6 J. of Diabetes Science & Tech. 246, 247 (March 2012) (“The ability to use home diabetes-related self-management technology properly is recognized as of critical importance for persons with both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. The American Diabetes Association recommends self-monitoring of blood glucose for all persons with type 1 and type 2 diabetes being treated with insulin to be carried out three or more times daily.”).
14 See Patricia Souder, Blindness and Vision Impairment 71 (2015) (recommending “UV absorbing lenses” because “prolonged exposure to the sun may damage the macula”); Marshall E. Flax et al., Coping with Low Vision 150 (1993) (“As we age, most of us develop photophobia—an increased sensitivity to bright sunlight. Sunglasses that filter the infrared and ultraviolent light have been found to relieve the irritation.”).
[3472186.2]

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2910 Filed 01/15/20 Page 40 of 41
Ms. Tamiya Davis Re: Topics for Blind/Low Vision Working Group
December 12, 2019 Page 12

9. Enhanced Outpatient Program Groups

Defendants should ensure that Enhanced Outpatient Program (EOP) groups are designed to include and support blind and low vision class members. See Lisa C. Barry et al., Disability in Prison Activities of Daily Living and Likelihood of Depression and Suicidal Ideation in Older Prisoners, 32 Int’l J. of Geriatric Psychiatry 1141, 1145, 1147 (2017) (“[P]articipants with poor vision . . . were significantly more likely to be depressed . . . . Older prisoners with poor vision . . . may find it especially difficult to navigate the often physically and psychologically demanding prison environment . . . .”); Steven M. Teutsch et al., The Impact of Vision Loss, in Making Eye Health a Population Health Imperative 135, 143 (2016) (“Compared to people with normal vision, those with vision impairments are at a higher risk for depression, anxiety, and other psychological problems. . . . Distress related to vision loss is more strongly correlated with depression than other key risk factors such as negative life events or poor health status.”); Exhibit I, Letter from Margot Mendelson & Megan Lynch, Plaintiffs’ Counsel, to Joanne Chen, CDCR Office of Legal Affairs, November 2018 SVSP Joint Site Visit (Nov. 13, 2018) (noting “the paramount importance [of] providing . . . appropriate mental health care to DPV class members, in part because DPV class members statewide have higher rates of serious mental health concerns, including depression and anxiety”). At a minimum, this should include audio description for movies, accessible exercise equipment, braille and large print games, and thoughtful design of activities (such as sculpture instead of painting). Defendants also should train recreational therapists about blind and low-vision accommodations and program design strategies.

It does not appear that recreational therapists are provided with sufficient resources and training to

accommodate blind and low vision class members. For example, a recreational therapist at Salinas Valley

State Prison (SVSP) informed Plaintiffs’ counsel during the October 2019 monitoring tour that she is

unable to accommodate blind and low vision patients because she does not have resources to do so. She

reported that many EOP groups at SVSP are yard groups due to limited indoor group treatment space—a

common problem in California prisons. The recreational therapist reported that, during yard groups,

patients may, among other things, play cards, dominos, frisbee, or basketball. She acknowledged that

blind people often are unable to meaningfully participate in such groups; she explained that most blind

people have an ADA worker escort them to check in, but have no way to participate other than by saying

hello or asking a general question. She reported that she had not been provided any supplies at all, much

less accessible games and materials, in the last two years. She described the task of trying to

accommodate blind people in recreation therapy as “very difficult.” See Exhibit E (“Medical records

show that the vast majority of the EOP groups that Mr.

has been offered since returning to

SVSP from Atascadero are yard groups. Mr.

reports that he ends up ‘essentially sitting on the

bench on the yard’ because he cannot take part in the recreational activities.”); Exhibit B (“Mr.

reports that the vast majority of the EOP groups that [he] has been offered since returning to SVSP . . . are

‘yard groups.’ CDCR provides no accommodations to facilitate Mr.

’s meaningful participation in

the groups. Mr.

reports that he ends up sitting on the bench on the yard because he cannot take part

in the recreational activities.”); May 2019 SVSP Tour Report at 23 (same). In addition, during the

October 2019 visit to SATF, we spoke with recreational therapists. They reported that, at that time, there

were no blind or low vision patients who required accommodations, but that they would appreciate

training on disability accommodations that may be available in case they later received a blind patient.

[3472186.2]

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2910 Filed 01/15/20 Page 41 of 41
Ms. Tamiya Davis Re: Topics for Blind/Low Vision Working Group
December 12, 2019 Page 13

The recreational therapist at SVSP also reported that there are movie groups, in which patients

watch a movie and, at the conclusion of the movie, discuss what they have seen. At the time of the tour, there was no audio description on any of the movies available.15 See Exhibit E at 3 (“Previously,

Mr.

was also assigned to movie groups for his EOP treatment. No audio description

technology was provided, so Mr.

simply had to sit in a room listening to movies without

understanding what was happening.”); Exhibit B (“Mr.

has had similar concerns about EOP ‘movie

groups,’ in which no audio description technology is provided to enable people with vision disabilities to

access the material.”).

* * * * *

Thank you for your attention to this matter. We look forward to addressing these issues with you. Plaintiffs will follow-up shortly with proposed dates for a meeting in January. We also welcome members of the working group to join us at the next SATF monitoring tour, which is scheduled for February 3-6, 2020.

Sincerely yours,

Rita Lomio Staff Attorney
cc: Co-Counsel Ed Swanson, Court Expert Patricia Ferguson, Alexander Powell, Russa Boyd, Amber Lopez, Nicholas Meyer, Erin Anderson, OLAArmstrongCAT@cdcr.ca.gov, OLA Brantley Choate, Hillary Iserman, Shannon Swain, Jennifer Wynn, Rod Braly, Jennifer Winistorfer, Martin Griffin, Alicia Legarda, OCE Matt Espenshade, Lois Welch, Steven Faris, OACC Annakarina De La Torre-Fennell, Joanna Hood, Damon McClain, OAG Kelly Mitchell, Landon Bravo, Teauna Miranda, Laurie Hoogland, DAI Bruce Beland, Robert Gaultney, John Dovey, Donald Meier, Robin Hart, Laurene Payne, Ceasar Aguila, Cindy Flores, Joseph (Jason) Williams, Cathy Jefferson, Vincent Cullen, Desiree Collum, Lynda Robinson, Barb Pires, Ngoc Vo, Samantha Chastain, Olga Dobrynina, Dawn Malone-Stevens, Bryan McCloughan, Alexandrea Tonis, Gently Armedo, m_CCHCSAccntLog@cdcr.ca.gov, CCHCS

15 The Audio Description Project has a comprehensive list of movies for which audio description is available. See Am. Council of the Blind, The Audio Description Project, https://www.acb.org/adp/ (last visited Dec. 10, 2019).
[3472186.2]

 
 ORIGINAL

1 PRISON LAW OFFICE

BINGHAM McCUTCHEN, LLP

DONALD SPECTER 83925

WARREN E. GEORGE - 53588

2 SARA NORMAN - 189536

Three Embarcadero Center

General Delivery

San Francisco, California 94111-4066

3 San Quentin, California 94964

Telephone: (415) 393-2000

Telephone: (415) 457-9144

4

DISABILITY RIGHTS EDUCATION & ROSEN, BIEN & ASARO, LLP

5 DEFENSE FUND, INC.

NIICHAEL W. BIEN - 096891

LIND~KlLB 136101 6 22126t Street
Berkeley, California 94710 7 Telephone: (510) 644-2555

GAY C. GRUNFELD - 121944
/(J-r5t l It 155 Montgomery Street, 8th Floor
San Franclsco, California 94104 . Telephone (415) 433-6830

8 9

~~~~SNilN.MITCHELL-l~~C
555 Calif~rnia Street, 25th Floor JAN

E I V
1 71.001

E

0

~

FILEDI t ,

San Franclsco, CA 94104

10 Telephone: (415) 875-5712

RICHARD W. WIEKING CLERK. U.S. DISTRICT COURT

JAN 1 8 Z007

11 Attorneys for Plam' t'1ffS

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND

CRlEtRCKH,AUR.SD. OWtSi"WAIlEcr1C<1ONUGRT

12

NORTHERN. DISTRICT OF CAL.IFCJIiWIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OAKLAND

.

13

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14

OAKLAND DIVISION

A 15 J JOHN ARMSTRONG, et aI.,

\..1.6

Plaintiffs,

) Case No. C 94-2307 CW
) )

17 v.

18 ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et aI.,

19

Defendants.

20

)
) INJUNCTION
) ) ) ) )
)

-_It+-

21

)
---------------------------)

22

On January 12,2007, this matter came on regularly for hearing in Courtroom 2,

23 Fourth Floor, of this Court, the Honorable Claudia Wilken presiding. Donald Specter, Sara

24 Norman, Michael Bien, and Gay Grunfeld appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs John Armstrong

25 et al. Katherine Nelson appeared on behalf of Defendants Arnold Schwarzenegger,

26 Governor; James Tilton, Secretary of California Department of Corrections and

27 Rehabilitation ("CDCR"); Kingston W. Prunty, Jr., Undersecretary, CDCR; Scott Kernan,

28 Acting Director, Division of Adult Institutions; Marisela Montes, Chief Deputy Secretary,

INJUNCfrON, Case No. C-94-2307 CW

· ,

1 Adult Programs; George A. Sifuentes, Deputy Director, Office of Facilities Management;

2 and Dr. Peter Farber-Szekrenyi, Director, Division of Correctional Health Care Services

3 ("Defendants").

4

Having considered the parties' pleadings and the arguments of counsel, and good

5 cause existing therefor,

6

THE COURT HEREBY FINDS AND ORDERS:

7

In a series of orders commencing in 1996 and culminating in 2002, this Court found

8 defendants' treatment of prisoners with disabilities violates the Americans with Disabilities

9 Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. On January 3, 2001, defendants issued the

10 amended Armstrong Remedial Plan, which sets forth their own policies and procedures to

11 bring them into compliance with the ADA and Section 504. On March 21, 2001, this Court

12 issued a Permanent Injunction ordering defendants to comply with the ADA and Section

13 504 in eight specific areas previously litigated by the parties.

14

Commencing in 1999 and continuing to the present, plaintiffs' counsel have engaged

15 in extensive monitoring of CDCR institutions for compliance with the ADA, Section 504,

16 the Permanent Injunction, and the Armstrong Remedial Plan.

17

This monitoring effort has not yet brought defendants into compliance. While some

18 individual prisons have improved their compliance, it has become increasingly clear that

19 defendants are unable to meet their obligations. This inability to comply with the Court's

20 Orders and with federal law causes significant harm to the plaintiff class.

21

Through their Motion for Enforcement and Further Remedial Orders, Plaintiffs have

22 demonstrated that defendants continue to violate the rights of prisoners with disabilities

23 under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act in four significant areas.

24

Inaccessible Housing

25

Contrary to law, the Permanent Injunction, and the Armstrong Remedial Plan,

26 defendants are systemically failing to provide safe, accessible housing to prisoners with

27 mobility impairments, resulting in significant harm to the plaintiff class, including through

28 increased risk of injury. Defendants lack an adequate number of wheelchair accessible

2

INJUNCTION. Case No. C-94-2307 CW

, ( ~I

1 placements, toilets and showers to accommodate the needs of prisoners with mobility

2 impairments who need to use a wheelchair either full-time or part-time. This shortage is

3 particularly acute for prisoners with special housing needs such as protective custody,

4 enhanced mental health care, administrative segregation, or high security levels.

5

Defendants also repeatedly fail to place prisoners with serious mobility and vision

6 impairments in safe housing. Defendants often force prisoners into upper bunks or upper

7 tiers of the prison despite restrictions from medical staff on such placements.

8

Defendants fail to transfer prisoners with severe disabilities to prisons designed to

9 accommodate them in a timely fashion. As a result, such prisoners are denied needed

10 accommodations too often and for too long.

11

Defendants have failed to repair and maintain accessible showers and toilets in many

12 prisons, especially California Institution for Men, San Quentin, and Kern Valley.

13

Denial of sign language interpreters to prisoners who need them

14

Contrary to law and the Armstrong Remedial Plan, defendants consistently and

15 systemically deny sign language interpreters to deaf prisoners. Within designated prisons,

16 the violations occur most frequently at deaf prisoner's medical and mental health

17 appointments. Plaintiffs have also presented pervasive evidence of violations with regard to

18 suicidal prisoners; in education, work, and other programming; and during classification

19 hearings, harming deaf signers by forcing them to rely on ineffective and inadequate forms

20 of communication such as lip reading and written notes. As such, deaf signers are unable to

21 understand or comprehend significant due process proceedings and medical care provided to

22 them.

23

Confiscation of Medically Prescribed Assistive Devices

24

Contrary to law and the Armstrong Remedial Plan, defendants routinely and

25 systemically remove assistive devices such as walking canes, hearing aids, tapping canes,

26 crutches, and wheelchairs from prisoners without any security justification and without

27 consulting medical staff. The problem is severe and longstanding. Removal of assistive

28 devices has been adopted as a policy at some institutions, while at others it is tolerated and

3 INJUNCTION, Case No. C-94-2307 CW

•

tt ,

1 continues sporadically, making it difficult or impossible for prisoners to ambulate or hear in

2 prison and putting them at significant risk of injury.

3

Late and Inadequate Disability Grievance Responses

4

Contrary to law and the Armstrong Remedial Plan, defendants repeatedly and

5 systemically fail to respond promptly to class members' grievances requesting

6 accommodations. Some institutions respond chronically late as often as 70 to 90 percent

7 of the time - to disability grievances, thereby subjecting class members to extraordinarily

8 long waits for hearing aids and other accommodations. Some institutions simply stop

9 processing grievances or lack any staff person (medical appeals analyst) to process

10 disability grievances or fail to retrieve the grievances from the box where prisoners are

11 instructed to leave them. Through whichever failed mechanism, CDCR' s inadequate

12 disability grievance system harms the plaintiff class by denying them their only means of

13 seeking accommodation for their disabilities.

14

Inadequate Disability Tracking

15

Underlying all of these violations is defendants' failure to adequately track prisoners'

16 disabilities and the accommodations they need. As this Court held on May 30, 2006, "[tJhe

17 current system for tracking prisoner ... disabilities is unreliable, noncomprehensive, and

18 insufficient." This Court further stated that "[u]se of a tracking system to prevent such

19 violations is required ... by the underlying law." Defendants' Armstrong and Clark

20 Automated Tracking System has failed to identify and track CDCR prisoners' disabilities

21 and the accommodations needed for those disabilities. The lack of an adequate tracking

22 system has resulted in significant harm to the plaintiff class, including but not limited to

23 denial of safe, accessible housing, prompt transfers to designated institutions, and sign

24 language interpretation.

25

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants, their agents, employees and

26 successors in interest shall take the actions listed below, and use all means at their disposal

27 to comply with the provisions set forth below, including obtaining staffing and funding on

28 an emergency basis, if necessary. If defendants believe that any provision in state law

4

INJUNCTION, Case No. C·94·2307CW

1 makes compliance with any provision impossible, they shall immediately thereafter notify

2 the Court and set forth their position about whether such law should be waived pursuant to

3 18 U.S.C. Section 3626(a)(1)(B).

4

The parties shall meet and confer as often as necessary to fulfill the provisions of this

5 order and obtain as much agreement as possible on the means to achieve compliance

6 therewith. The parties shall notify the Court in writing of any disputes about the

7 implementation of these provisions and suggest appropriate methods of resolution.

8

The Court shall schedule periodic status conferences at 60 day intervals to monitor

9 the progress of compliance with this and other prior orders. Prior to such conferences, the

10 parties shall file statements in a form to be determined through agreement of the parties

11 describing defendants' progress on each issue, any perceived barriers to future compliance

12 and suggested methods of overcoming those barriers.

13

A. ENHANCED STAFFING

14

Within 45 days of the date of this Order, defendants shall increase the staff of the

15 CDCR Court Compliance Team so that it has at least one staff member at Correctional

16 Counselor II level or higher for each prison designated to house prisoners with disabilities

17 impacting placement (including designated reception centers and designated Security

18 Housing Unit and condemned housing) and at least one position at Correctional Counselor

19 II or higher position for every two non-designated prisons.

20

The Court Compliance Team shall have sufficient command authority within the

21 CDCR to direct compliance with the Armstrong Remedial Plan and the orders of this Court

22 at all CDCR institutions.

23

Within 45 days of the date of this Order, defendants shall appoint one full-time staff

24 member at the Associate Warden level or higher as the ADA Coordinator at each institution

25 designated to house prisoners with disabilities impacting placement (including designated

26 reception centers and designated Security Housing Unit and condemned housing), to work

27 only on ADA compliance matters, with a supervising correctional counselor as an assistant.

28 \\\

5

INJUNCfION, Case No. C-94-2307 CW

,· ,

1

B. TRACKING SYSTEM

2

Defendants shall develop, implement, and begin to use a state-wide, computerized,

3 networked real-time tracking system to track prisoners with disabilities by May 30, 2007.

4 This system shall be integrated with the BPH tracking system previously ordered by the

5 Court. The tracking system shall include prisoners' disability designations and the

6 disability accommodations they require, including but not limited to lower bunks, ground

7 floor housing, assistive devices, and effective communication needs such as sign language

8 interpreters, large print, and scribes.

9

For prisoners whose disabilities impact placement (DPW, DPO, DPM, DPV, and

10 DPH), as well as for prisoners who are DNM with housing restrictions, the tracking system

11 shall include placement and classification factors, including but not limited to mental health

12 placement needs, protective custody, administrative segregation, Security Housing Unit,

13 security level, and developmental disability designation.

14

The tracking system shall be updated continuously as new information is received

15 about prisoners with disabilities.

16

C. HOUSING

17

Within 90 days of the date of this Order, defendants shall generate an inventory of

18 housing placements available to DPV, DPW, DPM, and DPO prisoners and DNM prisoners

19 with housing restrictions. The inventory must include classification factors for each

20 placement, including but not limited to mental health placement needs, protective custody,

21 administrative segregation, Security Housing Unit, security level, and developmental

22 disability designation. The inventory must also include information regarding the current

23 state of repair of accessible features for each placement.

24

The placement inventory shall be updated continuously as new information is

25 received regarding placement factors and maintenance.

26

Upon completion of the inventory, CDCR may no longer house DPW, DPO, and

27 DPM prisoners at any placements without adequate accessible housing, including working

28 accessible toilets and showers.

6

INJUNCTION, Case No. C·94·2307CW

.,.

.
,,'. 'I

1

Starting immediately, defendants shall not house DPW, DPO, and DPM prisoners in

2 the CIM dayrooms or Kern Valley State Prison until those locations have adequate

3 accessible housing, including working accessible toilets and showers.

4

D. ACCOUNTABILITY

5

Within 120 days of the date of this Order, defendants, in cooperation with the Office

6 of the Inspector General and the Receiver in Plata v. Schwarzenegger, shall develop a

7 system for holding wardens and prison medical administrators accountable for compliance

8 with the Armstrong Remedial Plan and the orders of this Court. This system shall track the

9 record of each institution and the conduct of individual staff members who are not

10 complying with these requirements. Defendants shall refer individuals with repeated

11 instances of non-compliance to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation and

12 discipline, if appropriate.

13

Within 60 days of the date of this Order, defendants, in consultation with plaintiffs'

14 counsel, shall develop and implement a system of positive incentives to encourage

15 individual employees and managers at the institutions to comply with the Armstrong

16 Remedial Plan and the Orders of this Court.

17

Within 60 days of the date of this Order, defendants shall amend post orders and duty

18 statements of correctional staff as appropriate to include the Armstrong requirements for

19 which they are responsible.

20

E. TRAINING

21

Within 60 days of the date of this Order, defendants, subject to the approval of

22 plaintiffs' counsel, shall select and retain outside experts to provide training of health care

23 staff and correctional counselors in effective communication issues.

24

Within 60 days of the date of this Order, the parties shall jointly agree on outside

25 experts and defendants shall retain them to provide training to all custody staff who work in

26 administrative segregation units, the Security Housing Unit, or Receiving and Release on

27 their obligations not to confiscate assistive devices and the reasons therefor. 28

7

INJUNCTION, Case No. C-94-2307 CW

,> •

:

J

Defendants' employees may jointly provide training with the outside experts. The

2 training of all appropriate staff shall be completed by September 1, 2007, and a regular

3 schedule of ongoing and refresher training shall be established.

4

F. GRIEVANCES

5

Within 30 days of the date of this Order, defendants shall ensure that the Appeals

6 Coordinator and Medical Appeals Analyst positions are filled at each institution.

7 Defendants shall take all actions necessary to ensure that these positions do not remain

8 vacant for more than one month.

9

Within 60 days of the date of this Order, defendants shall provide sufficient

10 additional staff time to timely process grievances whenever a prison's disability grievance

11 responses are late more than 30% of the time within the last six months. The additional

12 staffing shall remain in place until the grievance process is in substantial compliance. The

13 parties shall meet and confer as soon as possible to establish an appropriate methodology to

14 determine how to measure the timeliness of grievance responses and the definition of

15 substantial compliance in this area, with any disputes to be resolved by the Court.

16

G. SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS

17

Within 120 days of the date of this Order, defendants shall establish as permanent

18 civil service positions qualified sign language interpreters for each prison designated to

19 house prisoners whose hearing disabilities impact their placement (DPH). Defendants shall

20 employ, through whatever salary is necessary, sufficient qualified interpreters to serve the

21 needs of the DPH prisoners housed at each institution. Defendants may seek relief from this

22 provision at a particular institution when their video conferencing facilities are sufficient to

23 provide all necessary sign language services at that institution.

24

Within 30 days of the date of this Order, defendants shall conduct interviews of all

25 DPH inmates in reception centers by a correctional counsylor in the presence of a qualified

26 sign language interpreter to determine the prisoner's preferred method of communication

27 and record that information in the state-wide tracking system as well as the prisoner's

28

8

INJUNCTION, case No. C-94-2307 CW

" ' ." '\

1 central and medical files. Defendants shall conduct such interviews with prisoners who are

2 newly designated DPH within 30 days of the designation.

3

H. MISCELLANEOUS

4

Defendants shall comply with the policies and procedures contained in their

5 Armstrong Remedial Plan relevant to the issues outlined above, specifically Sections I (p.l),

6 II.A-D (pp. 1-4), II.E (pp. 4-7), II.F (p. 7), IV.C-G (pp. 16-21), IV.I.22 (pp. 34-35), and

7 IV.I.23 (pp. 36-41) of the Remedial Plan.

8

The Court finds that the relief ordered herein is narrowly drawn, extends no further

9 than necessary to correct the violation of federal rights, and is the least intrusive means

10 necessary to correct the violation of the federal rights.

11 IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13 Dated: _--=."JA'-!.ON-=--l_S_20_0_7_
14

~ON&tru~~~~ By:

.'

,h " ( (

~\

-

DIA WILKEN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9

INJUNCTION, Case No. C-94-2307 CW

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARMSTRONG, ET AL, Plaintiff,
v. DAVIS, ET AL et aI,
Defendant.

Case Number: CV94-02307 CW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California.
That on January 18,2007, I SERVED a true and correct copy(jes) 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.
Arlene Brynne Mayerson Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Inc. 2212 Sixth Street Berkeley, CA 94710
Benjamin C. Sybesma California Correctional Peace Officers' Association Legal Department 755 Riverpoint Drive, Suite 200 West Sacramento, CA 95605-1634
Caroline N. Mitchell Jones Day 555 California Street 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104
Donald Specter Prison Law Office General Delivery San Quentin, CA 94964
Elaine Feingold Elaine B. Feingold Law Offices 1524 Scenic Avenue Berkeley, CA 94708

M

"

,

Katherine Kylin Nelson Office of the Attorney General Correctional Law Section
1300 I Street, Suite125 P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550

Michael William Bien
Rosen Bien & Galvan, LLP
155 Montgomery S1. 8th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104

Paul B. Mello Hanson Bridgett Marcus Vlahos & Rudy LLP 425 Market Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105

Ronald Yank Carroll, Burdick & McDonough, LLP Attorneys At Law 44 Montgomery St., Suite 400 San Francisco, CA, CA 94104

Warren E. George Bingham McCutchen LLP Three Embarcadero Ctr
San Francisco, CA 94111

Dated: January 18, 2007

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: Sheilah Cahill, Deputy Clerk

2

 
 Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2507 Filed03/16/15 Page1 of 16

1 KAMALA D. HARRIS Attorney General of California
2 JAY C. RUSSELL Supervising Deputy Attorney General
3 PATRICK R. MCKINNEY Supervising Deputy Attorney General
4 SHARON A. GARSKE, State Bar No. 215167 BRYAN A. KAO, State Bar No. 240242
5 EDWARD R. FLUET, State Bar No. 247203 Deputy Attorneys General
6 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102-7004
7 Telephone: (415) 703-5836 Fax: (415) 703-5843
8 E-mail: Ned.Fluet@doj.ca.gov Attorneys for Defendants
9

10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12

OAKLAND DIVISION

13

14

JOHN ARMSTRONG, et al.,

Case No. C 94-2307 CW

15

Plaintiffs, DEFENDANTS’ REPORT IN RESPONSE

16

TO THE COURT’S FEBRUARY 3, 2015

v.

ORDER

17

Judge:

The Honorable Claudia Wilken

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

Action Filed: June 29, 1994

19

Defendants.

20

21

Pursuant to this Court’s February 3, 2015 Order Granting Motion for Further Enforcement

22 (ECF 2496), Defendants submit their report for ensuring that Armstrong class members are not

23 housed in administrative segregation units (ASU) within the California Department of

24 Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) due to a lack of accessible housing. The Court ordered

25 that Defendants to submit to the Court and Plaintiffs’ counsel, within 30 days, a report describing

26 the steps Defendants have taken to comply with the Court’s order.

27

On February 24, 2015, Defendants provided a draft of Defendants’ proposed plan to

28 Plaintiffs and invited Plaintiffs to meet to discuss the policy changes. The parties, with court
1 Defs’ Report in Response to Court’s Feb. 3, 2015 Order (C 94-2307 CW)

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2507 Filed03/16/15 Page2 of 16

1 expert Edward Swanson, met on February 25, 2015 and discussed the draft. At the meeting,

2 Defendants invited Plaintiffs to provide comments and revisions to Defendants’ proposal.

3 Plaintiffs provided their written comments to Defendants on February 26, 2015, which were

4 incorporated in the attached report. On March 11, 2015, Defendants provided a revised draft of

5 the proposed plan to Plaintiffs and invited additional comments. On March 13, 2015, Plaintiffs

6 acknowledged receipt of the revised plan and provided one additional revision, which was

7 incorporated into the final document. Attached as Exhibit A is Defendants’ plan and directive on

8 housing Armstrong class members in ASU, which Defendants will distribute and implement

9 immediately. A summary of the plan follows.

10 I. 11

ENHANCED COORDINATION BETWEEN THE SENDING AND RECEIVING INSTITUTIONS. When requesting transfers of Armstrong class members, the sending institution will

12 coordinate with CDCR’s Population Management Unit (PMU) and ensure that priority is given to

13 moving class members as soon as appropriate housing becomes available. The sending institution

14 will also ensure that the transportation of class members is appropriately coded so that the

15 Statewide Transportation Unit (STU) is notified of the need for alternate means of transportation.

16 Sending institutions will also review scheduled outbound transfers to ensure that class members

17 receive appropriate transportation accommodations.

18

The ADA coordinator and classification staff at the receiving institution will receive

19 advance notice of all scheduled movement of Armstrong class members from the PMU and STU.

20 The receiving institution is responsible for determining whether the receiving institution has the

21 type of housing needed by the class member. Any potential conflicts will be reported to the

22 receiving institution’s ADA coordinator who will resolve housing issues and ensure appropriate

23 housing availability. If it is determined that the transfer may result in the class member being

24 placed in an inappropriate bed, the inmate will not be transferred.

25

The receiving institution must also evaluate whether a class member can be housed in

26 accessible general population housing before being placed into ASU housing. The types of

27 alternate placement that should be considered include: housing an inmate outside the inmate’s

28 current level of custody, housing an inmate at alternate institutions via expedited transfer, and
2 Defs’ Report in Response to Court’s Feb. 3, 2015 Order (C 94-2307 CW)

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2507 Filed03/16/15 Page3 of 16

1 using available medical beds. Before using a medical bed, approval is required from the Health

2 Care Chief Executive Officer. And if approval is obtained, the Health Care Placement Oversight

3 Program (HCPOP) will determine if a bed is available. If a bed is reserved for a medical patient,

4 the bed shall not be used. But HCPOP will attempt to find alternate housing for the medical

5 patient and if found, release the bed.

6

Sending and receiving institutions will continue to monitor proper bed management at the

7 local level to avoid housing able-bodied inmates in lower bunk/lower tier beds or in a designated

8 accessible cell or dorm bed at institutions housing Armstrong class members. Further, institutions

9 will continue to identify and refer inmates for transfer to an appropriate level of custody, and

10 transfer inmates once the change of custody and/or transfer is approved.

11 II. RELEASES DIRECTLY FROM ASU.

12

Once a class member is released from ASU, the inmate must be taken to accessible housing

13 as soon as possible, but no later than midnight of the same day. If the class member is released

14 and no accessible bed space can be located during the Classification Committee meeting,

15 alternate housing placements should be considered, including: housing an inmate outside the

16 inmate’s current level of custody, housing an inmate at alternate institutions via expedited transfer,

17 and using available medical beds.

18 III. UNEXPECTED TRANSFERS AND DIFFICULT TO PLACE INMATES.

19

In the event that an institution cannot avoid an Armstrong class member being placed in

20 ASU due to lack of accessible bed space, the institution must always evaluate whether the class

21 member can be housed in accessible general population housing in lieu of and before being

22 placed into ASU housing. The types of alternate housing placements that should be considered

23 include: housing an inmate outside the inmate’s current level of custody, housing an inmate at

24 alternate institutions via expedited transfer, and using available medical beds.

25 IV. ASU LOGS AND REPORTS.

26

In the event that a class member is housed in ASU due to lack of accessible housing,

27 wardens must submit a log to their Associate Director and the Class Action Management Unit

28 (CAMU) daily. The supervisor or manager documenting the ASU Placement Order (CDC114D)
3 Defs’ Report in Response to Court’s Feb. 3, 2015 Order (C 94-2307 CW)

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2507 Filed03/16/15 Page4 of 16

1 shall clearly articulate the specific reason the class member is being housed and/or retained in

2 ASU. A copy of this 114D shall be routed to the ADA Coordinator who is responsible for

3 maintaining the Armstrong ASU Log on a daily basis. The 114D will also be forwarded to

4 CAMU with the daily updated Armstrong ASU Log.

5

Separate from the ASU log, wardens must submit a report to their Associate Director and

6 CAMU anytime that they have an Armstrong inmate housed in ASU due to lack of accessible

7 housing. These reports must state why the class member was transferred to a non-

8 accommodating institution, discuss housing alternatives that were available to the institution, and

9 provide the duration, in hours, of the ASU placement.

10 Dated: March 16, 2015
11 12 13 14

Respectfully submitted,
KAMALA D. HARRIS Attorney General of California PATRICK R. MCKINNEY Supervising Deputy Attorney General

15 16 17
CF1997CS0005
18 41239385_2.doc 19

/s/ Edward R. Fluet EDWARD R. FLUET Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
4 Defs’ Report in Response to Court’s Feb. 3, 2015 Order (C 94-2307 CW)

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2507 Filed03/16/15 Page5 of 16
EXHIBIT A

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2507 Filed03/16/15 Page6 of 16

State of California

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Memorandum
Date :
To : Associate Directors, Division of Adult Institutions Wardens

Subject: ARMSTRONG VS. BROWN COURT ORDER REGARDING THE HOUSING OF ARMSTRONG INMATES IN ADMINISTRATIVE SEGREGATION
The following directive rescinds and replaces the December 17, 2012, Memorandum entitled “OPERATIONAL PLAN FOR ARMSTRONG CLASS MEMBERS HOUSED IN ADMINISTRATIVE SEGREGATION”.
CDCR is committed to ensuring that prisoners with disabilities are not housed in administrative segregation due to lack of accessible bed space. On February 3, 2015, the Federal Court in the Armstrong vs. Brown case ordered that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) is prohibited from housing Armstrong class members in Administrative Segregation (ASU) due to a lack of accessible bed space. That order is attached.
This memorandum describes the steps that institutions must take to avoid placing Armstrong class members in segregation due to lack of accessible general population (GP) bed space. It also describes the detailed logging and reporting requirements that will apply if any institution places an Armstrong class member in ASU due to a lack of accessible GP bed space.
TRANSFER OF ARMSTRONG CLASS MEMBERS; COORDINATION FROM THE SENDING INSTITUTION
When requesting transfers of Armstrong class members, the sending institution’s Classification and Parole Representative (C&PR) will coordinate with the Population Management Unit (PMU). This coordination is critical to ensure Armstrong class members with additional complex case factors are being recommended for transfer to institutions with appropriate bed and program availability.
Every Monday, staff from the PMU and Statewide Transportation Unit (STU) shall review the Bus Schedule Requests and schedule the transfer of Armstrong class members in accordance with requirements below.
Listed below are the steps that will be taken to address the appropriate transfer of Armstrong class members:

° CDC 1617 (3/89)

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2507 Filed03/16/15 Page7 of 16
Wardens Page
1. Upon the initial endorsement by the Classification Services Representative (CSR) of an Armstrong class member, the C&PR shall notify the PMU and STU in order to begin transportation coordination and assessment of available housing. These two actions shall constitute the initial request for transfer. Priority will be given to the movement of Armstrong class members as soon as appropriate housing becomes available. Special transportation may be required to coordinate with bed availability as well as special transportation needs. If the inmate is not transferred within the week, all subsequent requests will be made through the weekly bus seat request.
2. The C&PR shall ensure all requests for transfer of Armstrong class members are appropriately coded on each bus seat request. The DPP Code, along with the original date of the transfer request, will be provided in the comment section of the bus seat request and submitted to STU.
3. The C&PR shall ensure the institution’s Automated Transfer System (ATS) identifies Armstrong class member DPP codes and the mode of required transport. The C&PR shall provide advanced notification to STU of any Armstrong class member requiring alternate means of transportation from the standardized bus transportation system. The C&PR at the sending institution shall include any alternate mode of transportation in the “comments” section of the Bus Schedule Request.
4. The C&PR at the sending institution shall forward an electronic copy of the weekly “Send/Intake Report” to their respective ADA Coordinator and CAMU CCII.
5. The CAMU CCII at the sending institution will review the scheduled outbound transfers of class members utilizing the Disability and Effective Communication System (DECS) and Strategic Offender Management System (SOMS) to identify any potential housing conflicts that may result in an inappropriate transportation accommodations.
COORDINATION WITHIN THE RECEIVING INSTITUTION
The PMU and STU will each provide advance notice of all scheduled movement of Armstrong class members to the receiving institution’s ADA Coordinators and C&PR staff. The following steps shall be taken to address the appropriate transfer of Armstrong class members:
1. The receiving institution’s C&PR shall forward an electronic copy of the weekly “Send/Intake Report” to the ADA Coordinator and CAMU CCII of all expected arrivals.
2. The CAMU CCII will review the scheduled intake of class members utilizing the DECS and SOMS to determine whether the receiving institution has sufficient space available in the type of housing the class member needs, and to identify any potential housing conflicts that may result in an inappropriate bed placement.

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2507 Filed03/16/15 Page8 of 16
Wardens Page
3. The CAMU CCII will report any potential conflicts, including if there is not sufficient accessible GP housing available, to their ADA Coordinator who will act to resolve housing issues and ensure appropriate housing is available for the Armstrong class member.
4. If a resolution cannot be identified at the receiving institution, and if the receiving institution does not have sufficient space available in type of housing the class member needs, then the ADA Coordinator will case conference the matter with PMU.
5. If it is determined that no reasonable resolution exists and the transfer may result in the Armstrong class member being placed in an inappropriate bed, the inmate will not be transferred.
If the Receiving institution nonetheless receives an inmate with a disability for whom there is no accessible housing available, the receiving institution must evaluate whether the class member can be housed in accessible GP housing in lieu of and before being placed into ASU housing. First, the receiving institution must determine whether an appropriate accessible bed can be made available through bed compaction. If that fails, the receiving institution must then determine whether the class member can be housed in an accessible bed in another unit, even if that unit is out of level. If that fails, the receiving institution must determine whether the inmate can be housed in an accessible medical bed. Prior to the use of a medical bed, approval is required from the Health Care Chief Executive Officer (CEO). If CEO approval is obtained, contact with the Health Care Placement Oversight Program (HCPOP) is required to determine if the bed is available or if it has been reserved for a medical patient. If reserved for a medical patient, the bed shall not be used. HCPOP will attempt to find alternate housing for the medical patient and if found, release the bed. Finally, the receiving institution must determine whether the inmate can be appropriately housed at an alternate institution via expedited transfer. These alternatives will require appropriate notifications (Warden or Designee, CEO or Designee, Associate Director or Departmental Administrative Officer of the Day (AOD), etc.) and authorization prior to utilization.
CLASSIFICATION COMMITTEES
Classification Committees shall identify any special transportation needs for Armstrong class members by reviewing the inmate’s most current Comprehensive Accommodation Chrono (CDCR 7410). Any identified special transportation needs (including walkers and wheelchairs) shall be specifically included in the comments section of the Classification Chrono (CDCR 128-G) in SOMS.
RELEASES DIRECTLY FROM ASU
Once an Armstrong class member is released from ASU by a Classification Committee or during the CDCR Order and Hearing for Placement in Segregated Housing management review (CDCR 114D), the inmate must be processed and escorted to accessible housing as soon as possible, but no later than midnight of the same day. If the class member is released and no accessible bed space can be located during committee, alternate housing placements

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2507 Filed03/16/15 Page9 of 16
Wardens Page
should be considered, including: housing an inmate out of level, using available medical beds, and housing an inmate at alternate institutions via expedited transfer. These alternatives will require appropriate notifications (Warden or Designee, CEO or Designee, Associate Director or Departmental AOD, etc.) and authorization prior to utilization.
If an Armstrong class member is released from ASU during the CDCR 114D process or during a Classification Committee action and is retained past midnight of the same day due to the lack of an accessible bed, he/she will be issued a new CDCR 114D identifying the current reason for his/her housing in ASU and he/she will be reported in the Armstrong ASU Log and ASU Report that is sent to your Associate Director and CAMU. The ASU Log and ASU Report must include all the information mandated above and document the hours the inmate was held in ASU commencing with the time the Classification Committee Order or CDC 114D release order was signed.
DAILY BED COMPACTION
Proper bed management at the local level is critical to comply with this order. This includes ASU bed management as well as GP bed management.
Daily Bed Compaction is essential to general prison operational management. While maintaining empty ASU beds is important, it is equally important to avoid routinely housing able bodied inmates in Lower Bunk/Lower Tier (LB/LT) beds or in designated accessible cells or dorm beds at institutions where the housing of Armstrong class members is problematic.
Sound bed management practices also include a timely Classification process at your institution. Institutions must be proactive in actively identifying and referring inmates for transfer to an appropriate lower or higher level of custody, as well as proactively moving or scheduling to move an inmate once the change of custody and/or transfer is approved. Statewide and individual institution population reports are available to assist in local bed management by contacting PMU or through a SOMS ad hoc request.
Institutions must utilize SOMS and DECS on a daily basis to evaluate the Armstrong class member population and anticipated class member housing needs. SOMS and DECS are essential resource tools to assist in identifying critical case factor needs and resolving complex housing issues. The Warden shall ensure ongoing SOMS and DECS training is provided to staff responsible for daily bed management.
UNEXPECTED TRANSFERS AND DIFFICULT TO PLACE INMATES
In the event that local bed management practices cannot avoid an Armstrong class member being placed in ASU due to lack of accessible bed space, the institution must always evaluate whether the class member can be housed in accessible GP housing in lieu of and before being placed into ASU housing.
First, the receiving institution must determine whether the class member can be housed in an accessible GP bed in another unit, even if that unit is out of level. Second, the receiving

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2507 Filed03/16/15 Page10 of 16
Wardens Page
institution must determine whether the inmate can be housed in an accessible medical bed. Third, the receiving institution must determine whether the inmate can be appropriately housed at an alternate institution via expedited transfer. These alternatives will require appropriate notifications (Warden or Designee, CEO or Designee, Associate Director or Departmental AOD, etc.) and authorization prior to utilization.
ARMSTRONG ASU LOG
You must submit a log to your Associate Director and the Class Action Management Unit (CAMU) each and every day that you have an Armstrong inmate housed in ASU due to lack of accessible GP bed space. CAMU will provide daily oversight of the reporting process regarding Armstrong class members housed in ASU.
When determining whether an Armstrong inmate is being held due to a lack of accessible bed space, the analysis should be: would you be able to properly house the inmate on this day if he or she did not have an Armstrong disability? If the answer is yes, then you must place the inmate on the log.
The tracking log will be utilized for all Armstrong class members placed in ASU due to lack of accessible GP bed space, as well as those who were released from ASU by a Classification Committee and retained in ASU due to the lack of an accessible GP bed space. This Armstrong ASU Log will be updated and forwarded to CAMU and your designated Associate Director on a daily basis.
This log will replace the log required by the May 13, 2013, Memorandum entitled “Monthly Log of Armstrong Class Members Housed in an ASU Bed.” A sample log has been attached that shows multiple entries for training and reference purposes only.
The supervisor or manager documenting the ASU Placement Order (CDC114D) shall clearly articulate the specific reason or reasons the Armstrong class member is being housed and/or retained in ASU. A copy of this 114D shall be routed to the ADA Coordinator who shall be responsible for the maintaining the Armstrong ASU Log on a daily basis. The 114D will also be forwarded to CAMU with the daily updated Armstrong ASU Log. This log will replace the current monthly log reporting on Armstrong class members housed in ASU.
ARMSTRONG ASU REPORT
In addition to the Armstrong ASU log, you must submit a separate report to your Associate Director and CAMU for each and every day that you have an Armstrong inmate housed in administrative segregation due to lack of accessible GP bed space.
That report must include:
1. Why the Armstrong class member was sent to an institution that could not accommodate his or her disability.

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2507 Filed03/16/15 Page11 of 16 Wardens Page
2. The status of all accessible beds at the institution (including out of level beds, and medical beds). a. Prior to the use of a medical bed, approval is required from the CEO. If CEO approval is obtained, contact with HCPOP is required to determine if the bed is available or if it has been reserved for a medical patient. If reserved for a medical patient, the bed shall not be used. HCPOP will attempt to find alternate housing for the medical patient and if found, release the bed.
3. Why cell compaction was not an option. 4. All steps that were taken to find an accessible bed before placing the Armstrong class
member in ASU (including in out of level beds, medical beds, and expedited transfer). 5. The duration of the ASU placement in actual hours, not business hours/days.
A sample Armstrong ASU report has been attached for training and reference purposes only.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact your Associate Director or Cathy Etchebehere, Assistant Project Manager, CAMU, at 916-322-2315.
KELLY HARRINGTON Director (A) Division of Adult Institutions
ATTACHMENTS
Cc Deputy Directors Associate Directors ADA Coordinators Armstrong legal team C&PRs CAMU Field CCIIs

Institution: ________ Reporting Period: March 2015

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2507 Filed03/16/15 Page12 of 16
Armstrong Class Members in ASU Due to Lack of General Population Accessible Bed Space

1. Inmate Name and CDCR Number.

2. List Applicable Identifying Housing codes (i.e. DPM, DPW, EOP, DD2).

3. Specific Reason for ASU Placement.

Jones C12345
Lima D54321

EOP DPM DD2 SNY DPH LVL III CCCMS SNY DPW LVL III

Not able to confirm if new case factors exist upon returning from OTC.
No DPW cell available in Level III SNY housing.

4. Date and Time of ASU Placement OR Date and Time of Retention upon being released from ASU housing.

5. Was Institution aware of transfer prior to Inmate arrival? Reason for transfer and what arrangements were made prior to transfer.

1‐15‐15 1405 hrs.

No, Inmate returned from county, OTC. County did not advise of returning inmate in advance.

6. Date and time of Administrative Segregation Unit Placement Order (114D) Review/ Decision.
1‐16‐15 at 0900 hrs. Retained. Unsure if change in case factors.

7. ICC date, time and action taken.
1‐17‐15 1300 hrs. Release to Facility A.

8. Date and time moved from ASU to General population.
1‐17‐15 1345 hrs.

9. Total hours retained in ASU due to lack of an accessible general population bed space. (In actual hours, NOT business hours). 1 hrs.

10. Other Comments (Additional background information, steps taken to find accessible housing, non‐disciplinary factors impacting placement, etc.).
Inmate out‐to‐court San Diego County since 11‐1‐2014. ICC confirmed no status change in inmate case factors upon returning from court. Released to Facility A, 1‐17‐15, 1300 hours.

11. Date Court Mandated Memo sent to Associate Director.
N/A

1‐8‐15 at 1100 hrs. N/A Retained due to lack of an accessible general population bed space. No DPW cell available.

N/A

ICC 1‐8‐15 at

1‐10‐15

48 hrs.

Retained pending Disciplinary process / DA referral. 12‐31‐ 1‐11‐15

1100 hrs. DA

1040 hrs.

14 DA declined to prosecute. 1‐2‐15 CDO dismissed CDCR

declined to

115. 1‐8‐15 ICC released to facility B at 1100 hrs.

prosecute / CDCR

Inmate not released due to lack of accessible bed space.

115 dismissed.

Bed compaction/ transfers required to create accessible

Inmate released

housing. Inmate moved to facility B on 1‐10‐15 at 1040 hrs.

to Facility B.

Espinoza E56789

EOP DPM LVL IV

No accessible EOP 1‐30‐15 at housing available. 1800 hrs.

Lara D31050

DPM NCF CCCMS SNY LVL III

Safety Concerns.

1‐15‐15 at 1845 hrs.

Yes, accessible beds available when transfer planned. Several DPP inmates at institution changed from CCCMS to EOP prior to transfer, taking available accessible beds. N/A

2‐2‐15 at

N/A

1015 hrs.

Release Facility B EOP

1‐16‐15 at 1345 hrs. Retained pending investigation of safety concerns.

1‐23‐15 at 1220 hrs. ICC release to facility B, enemy noted on Facility C.

2‐8‐15 at 0935 hrs.
1‐23‐15 at 1500 hrs.

6 days N/A

Inmate placed in ASU due to lack of accessible EOP housing on 1‐31‐15. Administrative review on 2‐2‐15 released inmate from ASU pending available accessible EOP housing. Inmate moved from ASU 2‐8‐15 .

2‐12‐15

Inmate initially placed into ASU 1‐15‐15 due to self‐claimed N/A safety concerns for gambling debt. 1‐23‐15 ICC elects to release to Facility B, noting enemy on Facility C.

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2507 Filed03/16/15 Page13 of 16
Armstrong Class Members in ASU Due to Lack of General Population Accessible Bed Space

Institution: ________

Reporting Period: March 2015

Lloyd D31050

DPM NCF CCCMS SNY LVL III

No available LB/LT 1‐23‐15 at

N/A

bed in SNY units 1220 hrs.

at any level.

Retained due to no

available accessible

bed.

Mc Carter AE5462

DPM CCCMS SNY LVL IV

No available LB/LT bed in SNY units at any level.

1‐19‐15 at 1105 hrs.

No, returned from long term outside hospital stay.

1‐24‐15 at

N/A

1300 hrs.

Release to facility

B.

1‐20‐15 at

N/A

1315 hrs.

Release to

Facility B.

1‐26‐15 at 48 hrs. 1230 hrs.

Inmate released from ASU on 1‐24‐15, retained in ASU due to no accessible bed available. Inmates transferred from institution 1‐26‐15 to create available accessible housing.

1‐27‐15

N/A

N/A.

1‐20‐15, 1855 hrs. Inmate involved in cell fight while in ASU N/A

and retained in ASU.

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2507 Filed03/16/15 Page14 of 16

State of California
Memorandum
Date :
To : Associate Director, Division of Adult Institutions

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Subject: PLACEMENT OF ARMSTRONG vs. BROWN CLASS MEMBER IN ADMINISTRATIVE SEGREGATION UNIT IN VIOLATION OF COURT ORDER
On February 3, 2015, a court order was issued in the Armstrong vs. Brown class action lawsuit prohibiting the placement of Armstrong class members in Administrative Segregation Units (ASU) due to a lack of accessible bed space. The court further ordered that if any institution does place an Armstrong class member in an ASU for any period of time due to a lack of accessible bed space, that institution must fully document its reasons for doing so and the amount of time the class member spent in ASU in actual hours.
On April 3, 2015, at approximately 4:00 PM, inmate Smith C98976, an Armstrong Class Member with a designation of DPM, who is also a Level III Sensitive Needs Yard (SNY) inmate requiring a Lower Bunk/Lower Tier (LB/LT) bed, was housed in ASU due to a lack of accessible General Population (GP) bed space. An accessible GP bed was later made available on April 4, 2015 and the inmate was moved out of ASU at approximately 3:00 PM the same day. The following is to maintain compliance with the court order:
Why was this inmate transported to this institution if we could not accommodate the inmate’s disability?
 This inmate was noted on the regular bus schedule and a vacant accessible bed was identified and held four days prior to his scheduled arrival. The day before his scheduled arrival, an unscheduled inmate return from a Mental Health Crisis Bed arrived at the institution. This unscheduled inmate was also an Armstrong Class Member (DPM) who also required a LB/LT bed. This inmate was placed in the available bed in lieu of ASU.
Status of accessible GP beds at this institution at time of arrival?
 Facility A is a Level IV SNY facility. The inmate is a Level III inmate and could be overridden and temporarily housed there; however, there were no accessible beds available.
 Facility B was where the inmate was to be housed. The accessible bed was subsequently occupied at the time of his arrival and there were no additional accessible beds available.

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2507 Filed03/16/15 Page15 of 16 Associate Directors, Division of Adult Institutions
 Facility C is a Level III GP yard and is not appropriate to house an SNY inmate.  The CTC did not have an accessible bed available.
Why was compaction not an option?
The institution only has one Level III facility to house inmates with Sensitive Needs Yard (SNY) placement, and all beds in the facility were taken.
All steps taken to find an accessible GP bed before placing inmate into ASU?
 We conducted an updated cell compaction review and were unable to identify any options. The option of transferring the inmate to another institution was considered but enemy issues precluded a simple transfer and required time to move other identified enemies.
 While evaluating the Level III SNY facility to identify other inmates who may be transferred out, it was noted that another inmate was scheduled for parole the following day and occupied a LB/LT bed on the SNY Facility.
 Per the CEO of medical, there were no available accessible medical beds.
The duration of the ASU placement?
 23 hours
Warden State Prison
cc: Mike Knowles, Project Manager, CAMU Cathy Etchebehere, Assistant Project Manager, CAMU ADA Coordinator

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2507 Filed03/16/15 Page16 of 16

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Case Name: John Armstron v. Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al. Case No. C 94-2307 CW
I hereby certify that on March 16, 2015, I electronically filed the following documents with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system:
DEFENDANTS’ REPORT IN RESPONSE TO THE COURT’S FEBRUARY 3, 2015 ORDER WITH EXHIBIT A I certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and that service will be accomplished by the CM/ECF system.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on March 16, 2015, at San Francisco, California.

J. Mathis Declarant
CF1997CS0005

/s/ J. Mathis Signature

 
 [2654044-1]

1 DONALD SPECTER – 083925 REBEKAH EVENSON – 207825
2 PRISON LAW OFFICE 1917 Fifth Street
3 Berkeley, California 94710-1916 Telephone: (510) 280-2621
4 Facsimile: (510) 280-2704

GEOFFREY T. HOLTZ – 191370 MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, California 94105-1596 Telephone: (415) 442-1000 Facsimile: (415) 442-1001

5 LINDA D. KILB – 136101 DISABILITY RIGHTS EDUCATION &
6 DEFENSE FUND, INC. 3075 Adeline Street, Suite 201
7 Berkeley, California 94703 Telephone: (510) 644-2555
8 Facsimile: (510) 841-8645
9
10
11 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

MICHAEL W. BIEN – 096891 ERNEST GALVAN – 196065 GAY C. GRUNFELD – 121944 BLAKE THOMPSON – 255600 MICHAEL FREEDMAN – 262850 ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP 315 Montgomery Street, Tenth Floor San Francisco, California 94104-1823 Telephone: (415) 433-6830 Facsimile: (415) 433-7104

12

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15 JOHN ARMSTRONG, et al.,
16 Plaintiffs,
17 v.
18 EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., et al.,
19 Defendants.
20

Case No. C94 2307 CW
[PROPOSED] STIPULATED ORDER CONFIRMING UNDISPUTED ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS FOR THE FOURTH QUARTER OF 2014
Judge: Hon. Claudia Wilken

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED ORDER CONFIRMING UNDISPUTED ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS FOR THE FOURTH QUARTER OF 2014

[2654044-1]

1

On March 26, 1997, the District Court established procedures by which Plaintiffs

2 are to collect periodic attorneys’ fees and costs in this case in connection with their work

3 monitoring Defendants’ compliance with the Court’s Orders and collecting fees.

4

Pursuant to these procedures, on January 28, 2015, Plaintiffs served on Defendants

5 their Fourth Quarterly Statement for 2014 by overnight delivery. The parties completed

6 their meet-and-confer process on March 24, 2015 as to the fees and costs incurred on all

7 matters.

8

As a result of the March 24, 2015 agreement, the parties agree to the following:

9

The parties agree to the payment of $950,580.12 to resolve all fees and costs

10 incurred during the Fourth Quarter of 2014, for monitoring and/or litigation activities in

11 the California Department of Corrections of Rehabilitation Division of Adult Operations

12 and Adult Programs (CDCR AOAP) portion of the case. Attached hereto as Exhibit A are

13 charts setting forth the fees and costs claimed by Plaintiffs and the amounts agreed to by

14 the parties to settle these claims.

15

The parties agree to the payment of $28,932.41 to resolve all fees and costs incurred

16 during the Fourth Quarter of 2014, for monitoring and/or litigation activities in the Board

17 of Parole Hearings (BPH) portion of the case. Attached hereto as Exhibit B are charts

18 setting forth the fees and costs claimed by Plaintiffs and the amounts agreed to by the

19 parties to settle these claims.

20

The parties agree to the payment of $201,125.59 to resolve all fees and costs

21 incurred during the Fourth Quarter of 2014, for monitoring and/or litigation activities in

22 the Division of Adult Parole Operations (DAPO) portion of the case. Attached hereto as

23 Exhibit C are charts setting forth the fees and costs claimed by Plaintiffs and the amounts

24 agreed to by the parties to settle these claims.

25

The parties agree to the payment of $9,741.87 to resolve all fees and costs incurred

26 during the Fourth Quarter of 2014, for fees on fees. Attached hereto as Exhibit D are

27 charts setting forth the fees and costs claimed by Plaintiffs and the amounts agreed to by

28 the parties to settle these claims.
1
[PROPOSED] STIPULATED ORDER CONFIRMING UNDISPUTED ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS FOR THE FOURTH QUARTER OF 2014

[2654044-1]

1

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the amounts set forth above are due and

2 collectable as of forty-five days from the date of entry of this Order. Interest on these fees

3 and costs will run from March 2, 2015, accruing at the rate provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1961.

4 DATED: __M_a_r_c_h_2_7_, 2_0_1_5_________

5

6

THE HONORABLE CLAUDIA WILKEN

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8

9 APPROVED AS TO FORM:

10

11 DATED: March 26, 2015 12 13

s/Edward R. Fluet
Edward R. Fluet Deputy Attorney General Attorney for Defendants

14 DATED: March 25, 2015 15 16

s/Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld
Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP Attorneys for Plaintiffs

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
2
[PROPOSED] STIPULATED ORDER CONFIRMING UNDISPUTED ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS FOR THE FOURTH QUARTER OF 2014

Armstrong v. Brown
Fourth Quarterly Statement of 2014 October 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014

CDCR/AOAP SUMMARY OF UNDISPUTED FEES AND COSTS

MATTER CDCR/AOAP MONITORING

UNDISPUTED FEES $922,720.80

UNDISPUTED COSTS $27,859.32

TOTAL:

$950,580.12

Armstrong v. Brown Fourth Quarterly Statement of 2014 October 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014 Maifer. CDCR/AOAP Monitoring/Merits

Monitoring (581-3)

Actual Claimed

2014

Hours

Hours

Rates

ROSEN. BIEN. GALVAN 8~ GRUNFELD
Michael W. Bien(MWB) Gay C. Grunfeld(GCG) Ernest Galvan(EG) Thomas Nolan (TN) Lisa Ells(LAE) Aaron Fischer(AJF) Blake Thompson (BT) Michael Freedman (MLF) Benjamin Bien-Kahn (BBK) Krista Stone-Manista(KSM) Kevin Jones(KEJ) Rolayn Tauben (RLT) Karen Stilber(KES) Diana Gama(DAG) Lauren Vandemortel(LWV) Haruka Roudebush (HR) Doris Tseng(DT) Greg Gonzalez(GZG) Lucy Taylor(LRT)
Total Hours: RBGG UNDISPUTED FEES:

6.40 15.30
1.20 164.80 101.50
0.20 104.80 127.80
0.20 98.90
0.10 122.40 57.10
18.90 6.80 350.70 2.50 2.00 181.30 1362.90

6.40 15.30
1.20 164.80 96.60
0.20 102.80 126.10
0.00 98.70 0.00 109.50 56.50 18.70
6.80 331.60
0.00 0.00 166.80 1302.00

$800 $675 $650 $550 $470 $460 $450 $440 $410 $410 $290 $290 $270 $230 $215 $230 $230 $230 $230

PRISON LAW OFFICE
Donald Specter(DS) Steve Fama(SF) Sara Norman(SN) Rebekah Evenson(RE) Penny Godbold (PG) Corene Kendrick(CK) Kelly Knapp(KK) Amber Norris(AN) Megan Lynch (ML) Nora Searle(NS) John Bonacorsi(JB) Joyce de la Pena (JP) Sarah Hopkins(SH) Viviana Arcia(VA)
Total Hours: PLO UNDISPUTED FEES:

14.80 24.30 0.90 193.60 116.70 124.60 143.10 286.30 83.00 143.30 56.10 60.90 50.10 25.10 1322.80

14.80 24.30 0.90 193.60 116.70 124.60 143.10 286.30 83.00 143.30 56.10 60.90 50.10 25.10 1322.80

$800 $745 $620 $570 $490 $490 $450 $260 $240 $240 $240 $240 $240 $240

DISABILITY RIGHTS EDUCATION

AND DEFENSE FUND

Linda Kilb(LDK)

0.60

Hongyu Min(HM)

2.70

Total Hours:

3.30

DREDF UNDISPUTED FEES:

0.60 $725 2.70 $145 3.30

Fees Now Owing

Total

Based on

Negotiated

Claimed Fees Compromise

$5,120.00 $10,327.50
$780.00 $90,640.00 $45,402.00
$92.00 $46,260.00 $55,484.00
$0.00 $40,467.00
$0.00 $31,755.00 $15,255.00
$4,301.00 $1,462.00 $76,268.00
$0.00 $0.00 $38,364.00 $461,977.50

$4,915.20 $9,914.40
$748.80 $87,014.40 $43,585.92
$88.32 $44,409.60 $53,264.64
$0.00 $38,848.32
$0.00 $30,484.80 $14,644.80
$4,128.96 $1,403.52 $73,217.28
$0.00 $0.00 $36,829.44
$443,498.40

$11,840.00 $18,103.50
$558.00 $110,352.00 $57,183.00 $61,054.00
$64,395.00 $74,438.00 $19,920.00 $34,392.00 $13,464.00 $14,616.00 $12,024.00
6$ ,024.00 $498,363.50

$11,366.40 $17,379.36
$535.68 $105,937.92
$54,895.68 $58,611.84 $61,819.20 $71,460.48 $19,123.20 $33,016.32 $12,925.44 $14,031.36 $11,543.04
5 783.04
$478,428.96

$435.00 3$ 91.50
$826.50

$417.60 375.84
$793.44

TOTAL UNDISPUTED CDCR/AOAP MONITORING FEES:

$922,720.80

Armstrong v. Brown Fourth Quarterly Statement of 2014 October 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014
Costs

Matter: CDCR/AOAP Merits/Monitorin_q

Rosen. Bien. Galvan 8 Grunfeld (581-3
Photocopying (In house) Photocopying (Outside) Online Research -PACER Postage &Delivery Travel - Mileage, Tolls, Food Telephone

Total RBGG Costs:

Claimed Costs $1,603.00 $2,174.01 $7.30 $639.68 $9,284.25 8.45
$13,716.69

Withdrawn by Undisputed Costs Now

Plaintiffs

Owing

$64.12

$1,538.88

$86.96

$2,087.05

$0.29

$7.01

$25.59

$614.09

$371.37

$8,912.88

0.34

8.11

$548.67

$13,168.02

Prison Law Office
Photocopying (In house) expert Services Postage &Delivery Travel - Mileage, Tolls, Food Interpreting and Translation Services

Total PLO Costs:

Claimed Costs $1,413.20 $2,309.50 $1,185.96 $9,224.29 964.64
$15,097.59

Withdrawn by Undisputed Costs Now

Plaintiffs

Owing

$56.53

$1,356.67

$92.38

$2,217.12

$47.44

$1,138.52

$368.97

$8,855.32

38.59

926.05

$603.90

$14,493.69

Disability Rights Education &Defense Fund,Inc.

Photocopying (in-house) Postage &Delivery Online Research -PACER

Total DREDF Costs:

Claimed Costs $160.60 $40.45 4.80 $205.85

Withdrawn by Undisputed Undisputed

Plaintiffs

Costs Now Owing

$6.42

$154.18

$1.62

$38.83

0.19

4.61

$8.23

$197.62

TOTAL UNDISPUTED CDCR/AOAP MERITS/MONITORING

$27,859.32

Armstrong v. Brown
Fourth Quarterly Statement of 2014 October 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014

BPH SUMMARY OF UNDISPUTED FEES AND COSTS

MATTER

UNDISPUTED FEES

UNDISPUTED COSTS

BPH

$28,051.68

$880.73

TOTAL:

$28,932.41

Armstrong v. Brown Fourth Quarterly Statement of 2014 October 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014
Matter: BPH

BPH(581-4)

Actual Claimed

BPH MONITORING(581-4

Hours

Hours

ROSEN. BIEN. GALVAN & GRUNFELD Gay C. Grunfeld(GCG) Blake Thompson (BT) Rolayn Tauben (RLT)
Total Hours: RBGG UNDISPUTED FEES:

0.10 18.00 0.80 18.90

0.10 18.00 0.70 18.80

PRISON LAW OFFICE Sara Norman(SN) Rana Anabtawi(RA)
Total Hours: PLO UNDISPUTED FEES:

0.30 50.40 50.70

0.30 50.40 50.70

TOTAL UNDISPUTED FEES FOR BPH WORK:

2014 Rates
$675 $450 $290
$620 $410

Total Claimed Fees

Fees Now Owing Based on Negotiated
Compromise

$67.50 $8,100.00
203.00 $8,370.50

$64.80 $7,776.00
194.88
$8,035.68

$186.00 $20,664.00 $20,850.00

$178.56 $19,837.44
$20,016.00

$28,051.68

Armstrong v. Brown Fourth Quarterly Statement of 2014 October 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014
Costs

Matter: BPH

Rosen,Bien, Galvan Grunfeld 1581-4)
Telephone Travel - Mileage, Tolls, Food

&

Total RBGG Costs:

Claimed Costs $2.25 81.20 $83.45

Withdrawn by Undisputed Costs Now

Plaintiffs

Owing

$0.09

$2.16

3.25

77.95

$3.34

$80.11

Prison Law Office Travel - Mileage, Tolls, Food

Total PLO Costs: TOTAL UNDISPUTED BPH COSTS:

8$ 33.98 $833.98

33.36 $33.36

800.62 $800.62
$880.73

Armstrong v. Brown
Fourth Quarterly Statement of 2014 October 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014

DAPO SUMMARY OF UNDISPUTED FEES AND COSTS

MATTER

UNDISPUTED FEES

UNDISPUTED COSTS

DAPO MONITORING

$196,315.68

$4,809.91

TOTAL:

$201,125.59

Armstrong v. Brown Fourth Quarterly Statement of 2014 October 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014
Matter: DAPO Monitoring

DAPO Monitorinp(581-9)

Actual Claimed

2014

Hours

Hours

Rates

ROSEN. BIEN. GALVAN 8~ GRUNFELD Michael Bien(MWB) Gay C. Grunfeld (GCG) Ernest Galvan (EG) Tom Nolan (TN) Lisa Ells(LAE) Aaron Fischer(AJF) Blake Thompson (BT) Michael Freedman(MLF) Benjamin Bien-Kahn (BBK) Margot Mendelson(MKM) Jennifer Stark (JLS) Jenny Yelin (JSY) Rolayn Tauben (RLT) Kevin Jones(KJ) Karen Stilber(KES) Lucy Taylor(LRT) Diana Gama(DAG) Haruka Roudebush(HR)
Total Hours: RBGG UNDISPUTED FEES:

0.60 15.10 0.70 0.10
0.20 74.40 16.20 10.10 134.60 25.10
0.80 98.40 42.00
0.40 0.80 70.90 93.10 1.40 584.90

0.60 15.10 0.70 0.00
0.00 73.70 15.70 10.10 130.90 23.90
0.00 98.20 27.80
0.00 0.00 68.50 62.10 0.00 527.30

$800 $675 $650 $550 $470 $460 $450 $440 $410 $410 $410 $390 $290 $290 $270 $230 $230 $230

MORGAN LEWIS Cameron Saul(CS)
ML UNDISPUTED FEES:

Total Hours:

17.40 17.40

17.40 17.40

$465

TOTAL UNDISPUTED FOR DAPO MONITORING WORK:.

Total Claimed Fees

Fees Now Owing Based on Negotiated
Compromise

$480.00 $10,192.50
$455.00 $0.00 $0.00
$33,902.00 $7,065.00 $4,444.00
$53,669.00 $9,799.00 $0.00
$38,298.00 $8,062.00 $0.00 $0.00
$15,755.00 $14,283.00
0.00 $196,404.50

$460.80 $9,784.80
$436.80 $0.00 $0.00
$32,545.92 $6,782.40 $4,266.24
$51,522.24 $9,407.04 $0.00
$36,766.08 $7,739.52 $0.00 $0.00
$15,124.80 $13,711.68
0.00
$188,548.32

8 091.00 $8,091.00

7 767.36 $7,767.36

$196,315.68

Armstrong v. Brown
Fourth Quarterly Statement of 2014 October 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014
Costs

Matter: DAPO Monitorin_q

Rosen, Bien,Galvan & Grunfeld (581-9)
Photocopying (in-house) Photocopying (outside) Lexis/Westlaw Online Research -PACER and Legislative History Postage &Delivery Telephone Travel - Mileage, Tolls, Food

Withdrawn by Undisputed Costs Now

Claimed Costs Plaintiffs

Owing

$1,143.00

$45.72

$1,097.28

$137.82

$5.51

$132.31

$47.25

$1.89

$45.36

$21.10

$0.84

$20.26

$191.88

$7.68

$184.20

$7.40

$0.30

$7.10

3 196.87

127.87

3 069.00

Total RBGG Costs:

$4,745.32

$189.81

$4,555.51

Morgan. Lewis & Bockius LLP
Photocopying (in-house) Travel - Mileage, Tolls, Food

Total ML Costs:

Claimed Costs
$44.00 221.00 $265.00

Withdrawn by Undisputed Costs Now

Plaintiffs

Owing

$1.76

$42.24

8.84

212.16

$10.60

$254.40

TOTAL UNDISPUTED DAPO MONITORING COSTS:

$4,809.91

Armstrong v. Brown
Fourth Quarterly Statement of 2014 October 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014

SUMMARY OF UNDISPUTED FEES WORK AND COSTS

UNDISPUTED FEES

UNDISPUTED COSTS

FEES WORK(ALL MATTERS)

$9,510.24

$231.63

TOTAL:

$9,741.87

Armstrong v. Brown Fourth Quarterly Statement of 2014 October 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014
Mafter: All Matters Fees Work

Fees(581-2)

Actual Claimed

2014

Hours Hours

Rates

ROSEN,BIEN, GALVAN 8~ GRUNFELD
Gay C. Grunfeld(GCG) Lisa Ells(LAE) Blake Thompson (BT) Kevin Jones(KEJ) Glenn Baldwin(GMB) Lauren Vandemortel(LWV)
Total Hours: RBGG UNDISPUTED FEES:

0.70 0.20 8.30 0.20 1.30 25.60 10.70

0.70 0.00 8.30 0.00 0.00 14.90 9.00

$675 $470 $450 $290 $230 $215

PRISON LAW OFFICE Rebekah Evenson(RE) Edie DeGraff(ED)
Total Hours: PLO UNDISPUTED FEES:

0.8 7.30 8.10

0.8 $570

7.30

$190

8.10

DISABILITY RIGHTS EDUCATION AND DEFENSE FUND Linda Kilb(LDK)
Total Hours: DREDF UNDISPUTED FEES:

0.90 0.90

0.90 $725 0.90

TOTAL UNDISPUTED FEES FOR ARMSTRONG FEES WORK:

Total
Claimed Fees

Fees Now Owing
Based on
Negotiated Compromise

$472.50 $0.00
$3,735.00 $0.00 $0.00
3 203.50 $7,411.00

$453.60 $0.00
$3,585.60 $0.00 $0.00
3 075.36
$7,114.56

$456.00 1387.00 $1,843.00

$437.76 1 331.52
$1,769.28

652.50 $652.50

626.40 $626.40
$9,510.24

Armstrong v. Brown Fourth Quarterly Statement of 2014 October 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014
Costs
Matter: Fees Work in All Matters

Rosen,Bien, Galvan 8~ Grunfeld (581-2)
Photocopying and Printing (in-house) Online Research -PACER
Postage &Delivery

Withdrawn by Undisputed Costs Now

Claimed Costs

Plaintiffs

Owing

$179.20

$7.17

$172.03

Total RBGG Costs:

$25.50
29.58 $234.28

$1.02
1.18 $9.37

$24.48
28.40 $224.91

Disability Rights Education 8~ Defense Fund, Inc.

Photocopying (in-house)

Total DREDF Costs:

Claimed Costs 7.00
$7.00

Withdrawn by Undisputed Undisputed

Plaintiffs

Costs Now Owing

0.28

6.72

$0.28

$6.72

TOTAL UNISPUTED FEES WORK COSTS :

$231.63

 
 Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2535 Filed06/29/15 Page1 of 19

[2737977-1]

1 DONALD SPECTER – 083925 REBEKAH EVENSON – 207825
2 PRISON LAW OFFICE 1917 Fifth Street
3 Berkeley, California 94710-1916 Telephone: (510) 280-2621
4 Facsimile: (510) 280-2704

GEOFFREY T. HOLTZ – 191370 MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, California 94105-1596 Telephone: (415) 442-1000 Facsimile: (415) 442-1001

5 LINDA D. KILB – 136101 DISABILITY RIGHTS EDUCATION &
6 DEFENSE FUND, INC. 3075 Adeline Street, Suite 201
7 Berkeley, California 94703 Telephone: (510) 644-2555
8 Facsimile: (510) 841-8645
9
10
11 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

MICHAEL W. BIEN – 096891 ERNEST GALVAN – 196065 GAY C. GRUNFELD – 121944 BLAKE THOMPSON – 255600 MICHAEL FREEDMAN – 262850 ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP 315 Montgomery Street, Tenth Floor San Francisco, California 94104-1823 Telephone: (415) 433-6830 Facsimile: (415) 433-7104

12

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15 JOHN ARMSTRONG, et al.,
16 Plaintiffs,
17 v.
18 EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., et al.,
19 Defendants.
20

Case No. C94 2307 CW
[PROPOSED] STIPULATED ORDER CONFIRMING UNDISPUTED ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS FOR THE FIRST QUARTER OF 2015
Judge: Hon. Claudia Wilken

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
C94 2307 CW [PROPOSED] STIPULATED ORDER CONFIRMING UNDISPUTED ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS FOR THE
FIRST QUARTER OF 2015

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2535 Filed06/29/15 Page2 of 19

[2737977-1]

1

On March 26, 1997, the District Court established procedures by which Plaintiffs

2 are to collect periodic attorneys’ fees and costs in this case in connection with their work

3 monitoring Defendants’ compliance with the Court’s Orders and collecting fees.

4

Pursuant to these procedures, on April 15, 2015 Plaintiffs served on Defendants

5 their First Quarterly Statement for 2015 by overnight delivery. The parties completed their

6 meet-and-confer process on June 17, 2015 as to the fees and costs incurred on all matters.

7

As a result of the June 17, 2015 agreement, the parties agree to the following:

8

The parties agree to the payment of $862,373.62 to resolve all fees and costs

9 incurred during the First Quarter of 2015, for monitoring and/or litigation activities in the

10 California Department of Corrections of Rehabilitation Division of Adult Operations and

11 Adult Programs (CDCR AOAP) portion of the case. Attached hereto as Exhibit A are

12 charts setting forth the fees and costs claimed by Plaintiffs and the amounts agreed to by

13 the parties to settle these claims.

14

The parties agree to the payment of $25,364.59 to resolve all fees and costs incurred

15 during the First Quarter of 2015, for monitoring and/or litigation activities in the Board of

16 Parole Hearings (BPH) portion of the case. Attached hereto as Exhibit B are charts setting

17 forth the fees and costs claimed by Plaintiffs and the amounts agreed to by the parties to

18 settle these claims.

19

The parties agree to the payment of $189,847.67 to resolve all fees and costs

20 incurred during the First Quarter of 2015, for monitoring and/or litigation activities in the

21 Division of Adult Parole Operations (DAPO) portion of the case. Attached hereto as

22 Exhibit C are charts setting forth the fees and costs claimed by Plaintiffs and the amounts

23 agreed to by the parties to settle these claims.

24

The parties agree to the payment of $13,132.42 to resolve all fees and costs incurred

25 during the First Quarter of 2015, for fees on fees. Attached hereto as Exhibit D are charts

26 setting forth the fees and costs claimed by Plaintiffs and the amounts agreed to by the

27 parties to settle these claims.

28

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the amounts set forth above are due and

1

C94 2307 CW

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED ORDER CONFIRMING UNDISPUTED ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS FOR THE

FIRST QUARTER OF 2015

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2535 Filed06/29/15 Page3 of 19

[2737977-1]

1 collectable as of forty-five days from the date of entry of this Order. Interest on these fees

2 and costs will run from May 18, 2015, accruing at the rate provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1961.

3

4 DATED: _0_6_/_2_9_/2_0_1_5____________

5

6

THE HONORABLE CLAUDIA WILKEN

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8

9 APPROVED AS TO FORM:

10

11 DATED: June 26, 2015 12 13

/s/ Edward R. Fluet
Edward R. Fluet Deputy Attorney General Attorney for Defendants

14 DATED: June 26, 2015 15 16

/s/ Blake Thompson
Blake Thompson Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP Attorneys for Plaintiffs

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

C94 2307 CW

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED ORDER CONFIRMING UNDISPUTED ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS FOR THE

FIRST QUARTER OF 2015

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2535 Filed06/29/15 Page4 of 19

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2535 Filed06/29/15 Page5 of 19

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2535 Filed06/29/15 Page6 of 19

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2535 Filed06/29/15 Page7 of 19

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2535 Filed06/29/15 Page8 of 19

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2535 Filed06/29/15 Page9 of 19

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2535 Filed06/29/15 Page10 of 19

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2535 Filed06/29/15 Page11 of 19

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2535 Filed06/29/15 Page12 of 19

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2535 Filed06/29/15 Page13 of 19

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2535 Filed06/29/15 Page14 of 19

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2535 Filed06/29/15 Page15 of 19

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2535 Filed06/29/15 Page16 of 19

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2535 Filed06/29/15 Page17 of 19

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2535 Filed06/29/15 Page18 of 19

Case4:94-cv-02307-CW Document2535 Filed06/29/15 Page19 of 19

 
 Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2546 Filed 09/25/15 Page 1 of 19

[2826748-1]

1 DONALD SPECTER – 083925 REBEKAH EVENSON – 207825
2 PRISON LAW OFFICE 1917 Fifth Street
3 Berkeley, California 94710-1916 Telephone: (510) 280-2621
4 Facsimile: (510) 280-2704

GEOFFREY T. HOLTZ – 191370 MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, California 94105-1596 Telephone: (415) 442-1000 Facsimile: (415) 442-1001

5 LINDA D. KILB – 136101 DISABILITY RIGHTS EDUCATION &
6 DEFENSE FUND, INC. 3075 Adeline Street, Suite 201
7 Berkeley, California 94703 Telephone: (510) 644-2555
8 Facsimile: (510) 841-8645
9
10
11 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

MICHAEL W. BIEN – 096891 ERNEST GALVAN – 196065 GAY C. GRUNFELD – 121944 BLAKE THOMPSON – 255600 MICHAEL FREEDMAN – 262850 ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP 315 Montgomery Street, Tenth Floor San Francisco, California 94104-1823 Telephone: (415) 433-6830 Facsimile: (415) 433-7104

12

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15 JOHN ARMSTRONG, et al.,
16 Plaintiffs,
17 v.
18 EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., et al.,
19 Defendants.
20

Case No. C94 2307 CW
[PROPOSED] STIPULATED ORDER CONFIRMING UNDISPUTED ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS FOR THE SECOND QUARTER OF 2015
Judge: Hon. Claudia Wilken

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
C94 2307 CW [PROPOSED] STIPULATED ORDER CONFIRMING UNDISPUTED ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS FOR THE
SECOND QUARTER OF 2015

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2546 Filed 09/25/15 Page 2 of 19

[2826748-1]

1

On March 26, 1997, the District Court established procedures by which Plaintiffs

2 are to collect periodic attorneys’ fees and costs in this case in connection with their work

3 monitoring Defendants’ compliance with the Court’s Orders and collecting fees.

4

Pursuant to these procedures, on July 28, 2015 Plaintiffs served on Defendants their

5 Second Quarterly Statement for 2015 by overnight delivery. The parties completed their

6 meet-and-confer process on September 10, 2015 as to the fees and costs incurred on all

7 matters.

8

As a result of the September 10, 2015 agreement, the parties agree to the following:

9

The parties agree to the payment of $903,315.08 to resolve all fees and costs

10 incurred during the Second Quarter of 2015, for monitoring and/or litigation activities in

11 the California Department of Corrections of Rehabilitation Division of Adult Operations

12 and Adult Programs (CDCR AOAP) portion of the case. Attached hereto as Exhibit A are

13 charts setting forth the fees and costs claimed by Plaintiffs and the amounts agreed to by

14 the parties to settle these claims.

15

The parties agree to the payment of $45,226.42 to resolve all fees and costs incurred

16 during the Second Quarter of 2015, for monitoring and/or litigation activities in the Board

17 of Parole Hearings (BPH) portion of the case. Attached hereto as Exhibit B are charts

18 setting forth the fees and costs claimed by Plaintiffs and the amounts agreed to by the

19 parties to settle these claims.

20

The parties agree to the payment of $280,952.71 to resolve all fees and costs

21 incurred during the Second Quarter of 2015, for monitoring and/or litigation activities in

22 the Division of Adult Parole Operations (DAPO) portion of the case. Attached hereto as

23 Exhibit C are charts setting forth the fees and costs claimed by Plaintiffs and the amounts

24 agreed to by the parties to settle these claims.

25

The parties agree to the payment of $16,609.14 to resolve all fees and costs incurred

26 during the Second Quarter of 2015, for fees on fees. Attached hereto as Exhibit D are

27 charts setting forth the fees and costs claimed by Plaintiffs and the amounts agreed to by

28 the parties to settle these claims.

1

C94 2307 CW

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED ORDER CONFIRMING UNDISPUTED ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS FOR THE

SECOND QUARTER OF 2015

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2546 Filed 09/25/15 Page 3 of 19

[2826748-1]

1

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the amounts set forth above are due and

2 collectable as of forty-five days from the date of entry of this Order. Interest on these fees

3 and costs will run from August 29, 2015, accruing at the rate provided by 28 U.S.C.

4 § 1961.

5 6 DATED: _9_/_2_5/_1_5_______________

7 8 9 10 11 APPROVED AS TO FORM:

UNITED S ALIFORNIA

OURT NORTH

TATES DISTRICT C
THE HONORABLAPEPRCOVLEDAUDIA WILKEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Judge Claudia Wilken ERN DISTRICT OF C

12

13 DATED: September 17, 2015 14 15

/s/ Sharon A. Garske
Sharon A. Garske Deputy Attorney General Attorney for Defendants

16 DATED: September 17, 2015 17 18

/s/ Blake Thompson
Blake Thompson Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP Attorneys for Plaintiffs

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

C94 2307 CW

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED ORDER CONFIRMING UNDISPUTED ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS FOR THE

SECOND QUARTER OF 2015

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2546 Filed 09/25/15 Page 4 of 19

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2546 Filed 09/25/15 Page 5 of 19

Armstrong v. Brown
Second Quarterly Statement of 2015 April 1,2015 through June 30,2015

CDCR/AOAP SUMMARY OF UNDISPUTED FEES AND COSTS

MATTER CDCR/AOAP MONITORING

UNDISPUTED FEES $882,166.56

UNDISPUTED COSTS $21,148.52

TOTAL:

$903,315.08

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2546 Filed 09/25/15 Page 6 of 19

Armstrong v. Brown Second Quarterly Statement of 2015 April 1, 2015 through June 30, 2015 Matter: CDCR/AOAP Monitoring/Merits

Monitoring(581-3)

Actual
Hours

Claimed
Hours

2015
Rates

ROSEN,BIEN,GALVAN 8~ GRUNFELD
Michael W. Bien(MWB) Gay C. Grunfeld(GCG) Ernest Galvan (EG) Thomas Nolan (TN) Lisa Ells(LAE) Aaron Fischer(AJF) Blake Thompson (BT) Michael Freedman (MLF) Krista Stone-Manista(KSM) Rolayn Tauben (RL~ Karen Stilber(KES) Abbye Klamann (ARK) Doris Tseng (DT) Lauren Vandemortel(LWV) F. Gail LaPurja (FGL) Fely Villadelgado(FFV) Greg Gonzalez(GZG) Charlotte Landes(CJL) Nathalie Wetch (NCV~ Kelly McGraw(KAM) Sasha Beder-Schenker(SBS)
Total Hours:
RBGG CLAIMED FEES:

7.80 42.80
1.30 211.50
84.60 0.50
89.60 20.70 112.60 136.40 62.90
0.90 19.10 8.20 36.35 0.90 54.20 143.40
3.00 346.70
18.10 1,401.55

7.60 42.60
0.60 210.70
76.80 0.00
86.10 20.70 107.30 84.10 62.50
0.00 18.60 8.20 35.65 0.00 53.80 91.80 0.00 327.90 18.10 7,253.05

$840 $710 $690 $590 $525 $490 $480 $470 $440 $295 $290 $250 $250 $220 $250 $250 $250 $220 $220 $220 $220

PRISON LAW OFFICE
Donald Specter(DS) Sara Norman (SN) Laura Graham (LG) Rebekah Evenson(RE) Penny Godbold (PG) Marc Shinn-Krantr Corene Kendrick(CK) Cara Trombadore(CT) Anjuli Branz(AB) Amber Norris(AN) Kelly Knapp(KK) Megan Lynch (ML) Nora Searle(NS) John Bonacorsi(JB) Viviana Arcia(VA)
PLO CLAIMED FEES:

Total Hours:

1.50 0.50 39.40 72.10 112.80 65.70 169.70 65.30 84.30 322.10 105.00 41.90 67.20 47.70 45.60 1,240.80

1.50 0.50 39.40 72.10 112.80 65.70 169.70 65.30 84.30 322.10 105.00 41.90 67.20 47.70 45.60 1,240.80

$845 $640 $250 $600 $510 $275 $510 $275 $250 $290 $480 $250 $250 $250 $250

DISABILITY RIGHTS EDUCATION AND

DEFENSE FUND

Linda Kilb(LDK)

0.20

Hongyu Min(HM)

3.20

Total Hours:

3.40

DREDF CLAIMED FEES:

0.20 3.20 3.40

$745 $150

Total

Fees Now Owing Based on

Claimed Fees Negotiated Compromise

$6,384.00 $30,246.00
$414.00 $124,313.00
$40,320.00 $0.00
$41,328.00 $9,729.00
$47,212.00 $24,809.50 $18,125.00
$0.00 $4,650.00 $1,804.00 $8,912.50
$0.00 $13,450.00 $20,196.00
$0.00 $72,138.00
$3,982.00
$468,013.00

$6,128.64 $29,036.16
$397.44 $119,340.48
$38,707.20 $0.00
$39,674.88 $9,339.84
$45,323.52 $23,817.12 $17,400.00
$0.00 $4,464.00 $1,731.84 $8,556.00
$0.00 $12,912.00 $19,388.16
$0.00 $69,252.48
$3,822.72
$449,292.48

$1,267.50 $320.00
$9,850.00 $43,260.00 $57,528.00 $18,067.50 $86,547.00 $17,957.50 $21,075.00 $93,409.00 $50,400.00 $10,475.00 $16,800.00 $11,925.00 $11,400.00
$450,281.50

$1,216.80 $307.20
$9,456.00 $41.,529.60 $55,226.88 $17,344.80 $83,085.12 $17,239.20 $20,232.00 $89,672.64 $48,384.00 $10,056.00 $16,128.00 $11,448.00 $10,944.00
$432,270.24

$149.00 $480.00
$629.00

$143.04 $460.80
$603.84

TOTAL UNDISPUTED CDCR/AOAP MONITORING FEES:

$918,923.50

$882,166.56

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2546 Filed 09/25/15 Page 7 of 19

Armstrong v. Brown Second Quarterly Statement of 2015 April 1, 2015 through June 30, 2015
Costs

Matter: CDCR/AOAP Merits/Monitorinq
Rosen. Bien. Galvan 8 Grunfeld (581-31 Photocopying (In house) Photocopying/printing (Outside) Interpreting services Online Research -PACER Lexis/Westlaw Postage 8 Delivery Travel - Mileage, Tolls, Food Telephone

~ Total RBGG Costs:

Total Claimed Costs
$2,125.80 $1,111.49 $1,110.00
$4.00 $21.39 $781.40 $5,881.68
$9.95 511,045.71

Costs Now Owing Based On Ne~totiated Comaromise $2,040.77 51,067.03 $1,065.60 $3.84 $20.53 $750.14 $5,646.41 $9.55 b10,603.88

Prison Law Office Photocopying (In house) Postage &Delivery Travel - Mileage, Tolls, Food Interpreting and Translation Services

Total PLO Costs:

$1,805.80 $1,157.95 $6,543.11 $1,108.13 510,614.99

$1,733.57 $1,111.63 $6,281.39 $1,063.80 510,190.39

Disability Riuhts Education &Defense Fund,Inc. Photocopying (in-house) Postage &Delivery

Total DREDF Costs:

$336.60 $32.41
E369.01

$323.14 $31.11
X354.25

TOTAL UNDISPUTED CDCR/AOAP MERITS/MONITORING COSTS:

$21,148.52

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2546 Filed 09/25/15 Page 8 of 19

r

r

M

~

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2546 Filed 09/25/15 Page 9 of 19

Armstrong v. Brown
Second Quarterly Statement of 2015 April 1, 2015 through June 30, 2015

BPH SUMMARY OF UNDISPUTED FEES AND COSTS

MATTER

UNDISPUTED FEES

UNDISPUTED COSTS

BPH

$44,558.88

$667.54

TOTAL:

$45,226.42

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2546 Filed 09/25/15 Page 10 of 19
Armstrong v. Brown
Second Quarterly Statement of 2015 April 1, 2015 through June 30, 2015
Matter: BPH

BPH(581-4) BPH MONITORING(581-4

Actual Claimed Hours Hours

ROSEN. BIEN. GALVAN & GRUNFELD
Gay C. Grunfeld (GCG) Ernest Galvan(EG) Thomas Nolan(TN) Blake Thompson(BT) Rolayn Tauben(RLT) Karen Stilber(KES)
Total Hours: RBGG CLAIMED FEES:

6.40 0.80 9.60 21.10 4.30 0.90 43.10

6.40 0.80 9.60 21.00 3.20 0.00 41.00

PRISON LAW OFFICE Donald Specter(DS) Sara Norman(SN) Rana Anabtawi(RA)
PLO CLAIMED FEES:

Total Hours:

0.70 5.80 46.20 52.70

0.70 5.80 46.20 52.70

TOTAL UNDISPUTED FEES FOR BPH WORK:

2015 Rates
$710 $690 $590 $480 $295 $290
$845 $640 $440

Total

Fees Now Owing Based on

Claimed Fees Negotiated Compromise

$4,544.00 $552.00
$5,664.00 $10,080.00
$944.00 $0.00
$21,784.00
$591.50 $3,712.00 $20,328.00
$24,631.50
$46,415.50

$4,362.24 $529.92
$5,437.44 $9,676.80
$906.24 $0.00
$20,912.64
$567.84 $3,563.52 $19,514.88
$23,646.24
$44,558.88

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2546 Filed 09/25/15 Page 11 of 19

Armstrong v. Brown Second Quarterly Statement of 2015 April 1, 2015 through June 30, 2015
Costs

Matter: BPH
Rosen. Bien, Galvan & Grunfeld (581-41 Postage &Delivery Travel - Mileage,Tolis, Food

Total RBGG Costs:

Total Claimed Costs
$17.10
$243.80
a2so.so

Costs Now Owing Based On Negotiated Comaromise
$16.42 $234.05
$250.46

Prison Law Office Travel - Mileage, Tolls, Food
TOTAL UNDISPUTED BPH COSTS:

Total PLO Costs:

$434.45
$434.45

$417.07
$417.07
$667.54

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2546 Filed 09/25/15 Page 12 of 19

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2546 Filed 09/25/15 Page 13 of 19

Armstrong v. Brown
Second Quarterly Statement of 2015 April 1, 2015 through June 30, 2015

DAPO SUMMARY OF UNDISPUTED FEES AND COSTS

MATTER

UNDISPUTED FEES

UNDISPUTED COSTS

DAPO MONITORING

$273,359.04

$7,593.67

TOTAL:

$280,952.71

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2546 Filed 09/25/15 Page 14 of 19

Armstrong v. Brown
Second Quarterly Statement of 2015 April 1, 2015 through June 30, 2015
Matter: DAPO Monitoring

DAPO Monitoring(587-9)

Actual Hours

Claimed Hours

ROSEN, BIEN. GALVAN & GRUNFELD Michael Bien(MWB) Gay C. Grunfeld (GCG) Ernest Galvan(EG) Jane E. Kahn (JEK) Lisa Ells(LAE) Aaron Fischer(AJF) Blake Thompson (BT) Michael Freedman(MLF) Benjamin Bien-Kahn(BBK) Margot Mendelson(MKM) Jennifer Stark(JLS) Jenny Yelin (JSY) Rolayn Tauben(RLT) Abbye Klamann (ARK) Greg Gonzalez(GZG) Charlotte Landes(CJL) Kelly McGraw(KAM) Nathalie Welch(NCW) Sasha Beder-Schenker(SBS)
Total Hours: RBGG CLAIMED FEES:

2.10 23.60
0.30 1.10 0.60 163.80 27.00 6.40 141.60 36.00 36.30 101.80 40.10 21.10 2.10 4.70 106.80 110.30 0.20 825.90

1.40 23.60
0.00 0.00 0.00 163.40 26.30 6.40 129.70 33.60 34.20 98.10 28.40 10.60 0.00 3.60 79.80 60.10 0.20 699.40

2015 Rates
$840 $710 $690 $590 $525 $490 $480 $470 $440 $440 $440 $420 $295 $275 $250 $220 $220 $220 $220

Total

Fees Now Owing Based on

Claimed Fees Neuotiated Compromise

$1,176.00 $16,756.00
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $80,066.00 $12,624.00 $3,008.00 $57,068.00 $14,784.00 $15,048.00 $41,202.00 $8,378.00 $2,915.00 $0.00 $792.00 $17,556.00 $13,332.00 $44.00
$284,749.00

$1,128.96 $16,085.76
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $76,863.36 $12,119.04 $2,887.68 $54,785.28 $14,192.64 $14,446.08 $39,553.92 $8,042.88 $2,798.40 $0.00 $760.32 $16,853.76 $12,798.72 $42.24
$273,359.04

TOTAL UNDISPUTED FEES FOR DAPO MONITORING WORK:

$284,749.00

$273,359.04

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2546 Filed 09/25/15 Page 15 of 19

Armstrong v. Brown Second Quarterly Statement of 2015 April 1, 2015 through June 30, 2015
Costs

Matter:DAPO Monitorin_q
Rosen,Bien,Galvan & Grunfeld 1581-91
Photocopying (in-house) Photocopying (outside) Lexis/Westlaw Interpeting Services Telephone Travel - Mileage, Tolls, Food

Total RBGG Costs:

Total
Claimed Costs
$2,147.60 $173.56 $200.66 $742.50 $12.75
$4,633.00
x7,910.07

Costs Now Owing Based On
Nes~otiated Compromise
$2,061.70 $166.62 $192.63 $712.80 $12.24
$4,447.68
b7,593.67

TOTAL UNDISPUTED DAPO MONITORING COSTS:

$7,593.67

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2546 Filed 09/25/15 Page 16 of 19
1

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2546 Filed 09/25/15 Page 17 of 19

Armstrong v. Brown
Second Quarterly Statement of 2015 Aprii 1, 2015 through June 30, 2015

SUMMARY OF UNDISPUTED FEES WORK AND COSTS

FEES WORK(ALL MATTERS)

UNDISPUTED FEES $16,436.64

UNDISPUTED COSTS $172.50

TOTAL:

$16,609.14

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2546 Filed 09/25/15 Page 18 of 19

Armstrong v. Brown Second Quarterly Statement of 2015 April 1, 2015 through June 30, 2015
MaKer: All Matters Fees Work

Fees(581-2)

Actual Claimed Hours Hours

ROSEN, BIEN, GALVAN 8~ GRUNFELD Gay C. Grunfeld(GCG) Lisa Ells(LAE) Blake Thompson(BT) Karen Stilber(KES) Rolayn Tauben(RLT) Fely Villadelgado(FF~ Lauren Vandemortel(LWV)
Total Hours: RBGG CLAIMED FEES:

9.00 0.40 7.30 10.60 0.20 0.30 3.70 31.50

9.00 0.00 7.10 10.30 0.00 0.00 3.40 29.80

PRISON LAW OFFICE Rebekah Evenson(RE) Corene Kendrick(CK) Edie DeGraff(ED)
PLO CLAIMED FEES:

Total Hours:

0.2 0.9 9.60 10.70

0.2 0.9 9.60 10.70

DISABILITY RIGHTS EDUCATION AND

DEFENSE FUND

Linda Kilb(LDK)

1.00

1.00

Total Hours:

1.00

1.00

DREDF CLAIMED FEES:

MORGAN LEWIS

Geoffrey Holtr(GH)

0.50

0.50

Total Hours:

0.50

0.50

MORGAN LEWIS CLAIMED FEES:

2015 Rates
$710 $525 $480 $290 $295 $250 $220
$600 $510 $195
$745
$785

Total

Fees Now Owing Based on

Claimed Fees Negotiated Comaromise

$6,390.00 $0.00
$3,408.00 $2,987.00
$0.00 $0.00 $748.00
$13,533.00

$6,134.40 $0.00
$3,271.68 $2,867.52
$0.00 $0.00 $718.08
$12,991.68

$120.00 $459.00 $1,872.00
$2,451.00

$115.20 $440.64 $1,797.12
$2,352.96

$745.00 $745.00
$392.50 $392.50

$715.20 $715.20
$376.80 $376.80

TOTAL UNDISPUTED FEES FOR ARMSTRONG FEES WORK:

$17,121.50

$16,436.64

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2546 Filed 09/25/15 Page 19 of 19

Armstrong v. Brown Second Quarterly Statement of 2015 April 1, 2015 through June 30, 2015
Costs

Matter: Fees Work in All Matters
Rosen,Bien,Galvan & Grunfeld(581-21
Photocopying and Printing (in-house) Postage &Delivery

Total RBGG Costs:

Total Claimed Costs
$105.60 $63.89
5169.49

Costs Now Owing Based On Negotiated Comaromise
$101.38 $61.33
E162.71

Disability Ri4hts Education 8 Defense Fund. Inc.
Photocopying (in-house)

Total DREDF Costs:

$10.20
X10.20

$9.79
59.79

TOTAL UNDISPUTED CDCR/AOAP MERITS/MONITORING COSTS:

$172.50

 
 Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2671 Filed 03/15/17 Page 1 of 19

3110589-2

1 DONALD SPECTER – 083925 CORENE KENDRICK – 226642
2 RITA K. LOMIO – 254501 MARGOT MENDELSON – 268583
3 PRISON LAW OFFICE 1917 Fifth Street
4 Berkeley, California 94710-1916 Telephone: (510) 280-2621
5 MICHAEL W. BIEN – 096891
6 GAY C. GRUNFELD – 121944 PENNY GODBOLD – 226925
7 ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP
8 50 Fremont Street, 19th Floor San Francisco, California 94105-2235
9 Telephone: (415) 433-6830

XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General of the state of California WILLIAM C. KWONG Acting Senior Assistant Attorney General DANIELLE F. O’BANNON – 207095 Supervising Deputy Attorney General SHARON A. GARSKE – 215167 Deputy Attorney General BRYAN KAO – 240242 Deputy Attorney General JANET CHEN – 283233 Deputy Attorney General 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, California 94102-7004 Telephone: (415) 703-5836
Attorneys for Defendants

10 LINDA D. KILB – 136101 DISABILITY RIGHTS EDUCATION &
11 DEFENSE FUND, INC. 3075 Adeline Street, Suite 201
12 Berkeley, California 94703 Telephone: (510) 644-2555
13 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
14

15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17

18 JOHN ARMSTRONG, et al.,

Case No. C94 2307 CW

19

Plaintiffs,

JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

20

v.

Judge: Hon. Claudia Wilken

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

22

Defendants.

23

24

25

26

27

28

JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2671 Filed 03/15/17 Page 2 of 19

3110589-2

1

CURRENT ISSUES

2

A. Accommodating Deaf Prisoners with Videophones

3

Defendants are required to provide reasonable accommodations, including the use

4 of auxiliary aids, to deaf prisoners to ensure equally effective communication with the

5 public. ARP § II.E.1. Many other state and county correctional systems have installed

6 videophones. See Doc. 2655 at 2, n.1. One Court of Appeal recently found that a prison

7 policy providing only TTY access to deaf prisoners impinged on the First Amendment

8 rights of at least one detainee who, like many Armstrong class members, was unable to

9 effectively communicate through the TTY phone because American Sign Language, and

10 not written language, is his primary means of communication. Heyer v. Boyd, No. 15-

11 6826, 2017 WL 715823 (4th Cir. Feb. 23, 2017) (overturning summary judgment against a

12 deaf detainee seeking access to a videophone.) As detailed exhaustively in past case

13 management statements, Plaintiffs have attempted to work collaboratively and in good

14 faith with Defendants for close to six years to have videophones installed to accommodate

15 deaf prisoners. Defendants are committed to installing videophones at all institutions that

16 house hearing-impaired class members and working on this matter with Plaintiffs’ counsel.

17

Defendants reported at the February 14, 2017 meet and confer, that 11 videophones

18 have been installed throughout the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (SATF) providing

19 access for all areas housing deaf class members. Staff was trained beginning on

20 February 22, 2017, and over the next few days. Class members were notified and trained

21 to use the videophones. The videophones became operational on March 3, 2017

22

Defendants’ contractor is installing 69 videophones at 11 additional institutions,

23 including all of the facilities that currently house deaf prisoners, on the following schedule:

24

March 2017

California Correctional Women’s Facility – 6 Video Relay Systems (“VRS”)

25

R.J. Donovan State Prison – 11 VRS

California Institution for Men – 5 VRS

26

April 2017

27

California Medical Facility – 6 VRS

California Health Care Facility – 10 VRS

28

CSP Los Angeles County – 10 VRS

1
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2671 Filed 03/15/17 Page 3 of 19

3110589-2

1

May 2017

North Kern State Prison – 5 VRS

2

CSP Corcoran – 7 VRS

Deuel Vocational Institution – 2 VRS

3

June 2017

4

San Quentin State Prison – 5 VRS

California State Prison, Sacramento – 2 VRS

5

6

Defendants will continue to work to implement the installation of the videophones

7 pursuant to the above schedule. Defendants conduct weekly internal meetings regarding

8 the status of the installation schedule and will regularly update Plaintiffs’ counsel on the

9 installation progress. Defendants are preparing notification for statewide labor

10 negotiations regarding the videophone installations at the other prisons and hope to have

11 any labor disputes resolved simultaneously with roll out at those prisons.

12

Plaintiffs remain concerned that this process has been plagued by delays and that

13 some deaf class members still do not have access to videophones after six years of meet

14 and confer. If delays continue to arise, Plaintiffs reserve their right to move the Court to

15 order Defendants to provide this accommodation without delay. Defendants do not believe

16 court intervention is necessary because the parties are engaged in a collaborative effort to

17 address the issues, Defendants are pursuing resolution of labor items with the union, and

18 their vendor is continuing to install the videophone equipment.

19

B. Allegations of Abuse and Violence Against Prisoners

20

Over the past two years, Plaintiffs have asserted allegations of abuse and violations

21 of the rights of prisoners with disabilities at both High Desert State Prison (High Desert)

22 and the Central California Women’s Facility (CCWF). Plaintiffs issued multiple reports

23 regarding both prisons outlining violations that class members allege are occurring.

24 Plaintiffs requested Defendants take concrete steps to remedy confirmed violations and

25 change the culture at both prisons. Many of the allegations of abuse, violence, and

26 retaliation documented in Plaintiffs’ reports are directed at class members, and Plaintiffs

27 assert that these allegations constitute evidence of a culture that discourages prisoners from

28 asking for help and discriminates against people with disabilities. The parties are

2
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2671 Filed 03/15/17 Page 4 of 19

3110589-2

1 collaboratively working together to address the Armstrong and non-Armstrong related

2 issues at these institutions.

3

Defendants have implemented several changes at High Desert, including a change

4 to key leadership positions at the institution, staff training, and changes to local policies. 1

5 With respect to Plaintiffs’ High Desert physical plant allegations, Defendants have made

6 improvements to provide greater access for prisoners with disabilities, with additional

7 work being prioritized through the Master Plan process. The court expert is monitoring

8 progress at High Desert. CDCR held quarterly peer reviews at High Desert in 2016 and is

9 piloting surveillance cameras on “B” facility. The parties continue to work together in

10 order to identify the necessary changes at High Desert to remedy alleged violations.

11

With regard to CCWF, the parties jointly conducted interviews of approximately

12 150 randomly selected prisoners at CCWF on June 20-29, 2016, in an effort to identify

13 systemic problems and any staff who may be violating prisoners’ rights.

14

Plaintiffs’ counsel visited the institution and interviewed prisoners again on

15 October 20, 2016, and January 30 through February 1, 2017. Unfortunately, Plaintiffs

16 alleged they discovered that reports of many of the same systemic problems of abuse and

17 violence still exist. Further, Plaintiffs allege that many officers, who were identified

18 during prisoner interviews, as being especially problematic and abusive were still working

19 in the housing units. Plaintiffs’ counsel provided CDCR a report summarizing the findings

20 of the October interviews on December 8, 2016 and a report summarizing the January/

21 February findings on February 17, 2017.

22

Defendants have taken action at CCWF including: changing key Custody and

23 Healthcare leadership; conducting an audit of the prisoner grievance process that included

24 staff complaints and subsequently revising the local Department Operations Manual

25 Supplement to correct deficiencies and ensure integrity of the inmate grievance process;

26
27 1 For a detailed description of the policy and personnel changes put into place at High Desert by CDCR, see Joint Status Statement, Doc. 2655 at 8-9.
28

3
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2671 Filed 03/15/17 Page 5 of 19

3110589-2

1 and revising the local operational procedure relating to the Inmate Disability Assistance

2 Program, and enhancing training for prisoner workers and staff. Defendants have also

3 assembled a team of supervisory staff from other institutions to conduct allegation

4 inquiries for claims of staff misconduct brought forward during Plaintiffs’ tours and the

5 subsequent interviews; all sustained allegations of staff misconduct are being addressed

6 through the Employee Discipline process. Defendants have contracted with experts in the

7 field of Gender Responsive Strategies to identify shortcomings and recommend

8 improvements to operational procedures and staff training. Plaintiffs’ counsel alleges that

9 despite these changes problems persist. According to Plaintiffs’ counsel, in contrast with

10 High Desert, problematic custody officers have not been removed from their positions

11 which they believe result in persistent problems of allegations of abuse and harassment of

12 prisoners at CCWF, which disproportionately impact prisoners with disabilities.

13 Defendants have offered Plaintiffs no explanation as to why these problematic officers

14 remain on the job and in housing units, despite being the subjects of dozens of allegations

15 of noncompliance with Armstrong and/or allegations of verbal, physical, or sexual abuse

16 and harassment. Defendants have advised Plaintiffs’ counsel that the investigations are

17 ongoing and they cannot release information regarding pending investigations.

18

Defendants have explained to Plaintiffs that the Warden and Associate Director

19 have been involved in significant effort to investigate all of the allegations of staff

20 misconduct. Several of the allegations have been referred to the Office of Internal Affairs.

21 Of the allegations referred to the Office of Internal Affairs, some have been closed by the

22 Office of Internal Affairs as unsubstantiated, unfounded, or rejected. For several cases, the

23 Office of Internal Affairs has directed the institution to conduct additional review. At this

24 time, Defendants are not at liberty to disclose additional information to Plaintiffs about the

25 results of these reviews, including the specific number of allegations and/or which officers

26 have been referred to OIA, the number of allegations confirmed or rejected. Plaintiffs’

27 counsel reserves the right to seek the Court’s assistance and an order directing Defendants

28 to provide more specific information regarding the outcome of these investigations,

4
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2671 Filed 03/15/17 Page 6 of 19

3110589-2

1 pursuant to the protective order(s) of this case. Defendants do not believe court

2 intervention is necessary because the parties are engaged in a collaborative effort to

3 address the issues.

4

For over three years, Plaintiffs’ counsel has raised concerns in tour reports for

5 Salinas Valley State Prison about problematic staff attitudes toward prisoners with

6 disabilities and disregard for the Armstrong Remedial Plan requirements. Plaintiffs’

7 counsel believes this attitude has resulted in a failure to accommodate prisoners with

8 disabilities, and a culture of retaliation at the prison. At the exit meeting after a monitoring

9 tour in late August 2016, Plaintiffs reported serious and widespread allegations of staff

10 misconduct throughout the institution, including harassment of class members, interference

11 with class members’ access to programs and services, and widespread refusal to provide

12 class members with reasonable accommodations for their disabilities. On December 27,

13 2016, Plaintiffs provided a detailed report that documents allegations of retaliation against

14 prisoners for communicating with Plaintiffs’ counsel, the opening and reading of legal 15 mail between class members and Plaintiffs’ counsel after the monitoring tour,2 and

16 physical and verbal harassment of Armstrong class members. The report documents

17 allegations of a culture of violence, intimidation, and harassment, perpetuated by some

18 custody officers who fail to intervene in fights, actively harass and threaten prisoners, and

19 operate with impunity. Defendants acted quickly to review the allegations detailed in

20 Plaintiffs’ December 27, 2016 report, and are taking affirmative steps towards addressing

21

22 2 See CDCR Department of Operations Manual Sec. 54010.12.1 (providing that inmates
23 may correspond confidentially with attorneys and legal services organizations, specifically mentioning the Prison Law Office by name). “Regulations and practices that unjustifiably
24 obstruct the availability of professional representation or other aspects of the right of access to the courts are invalid.” Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 419 (1974),
25 overruled in part on other grounds by Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989). Legal mail systems are critical to a prisoner’s constitutional rights to free speech, to legal
26 counsel, and to access to the courts. Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 909 (9th Cir. 2014). Interference with prisoners’ communications with attorneys also violates the
27 lawyers’ First Amendment rights, as these are communications in which “the interests of both parties are inextricably meshed.” Procunier, 416 U.S. at 408-09.
28

5
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2671 Filed 03/15/17 Page 7 of 19

3110589-2

1 confirmed violations. Defendants also provided Armstrong refresher training to over 600

2 employees, and surveyed use of force and staff misconduct reports for additional

3 information.

4

In late December 2016, Plaintiffs’ counsel proposed that the parties conduct joint

5 interviews at Salinas Valley in order to further inquire into these allegations and determine

6 appropriate corrective actions. Plaintiffs proposed that they would identify prisoners at

7 Salinas Valley who are willing to cooperate with the investigation. Defendants proposed

8 instead that the parties jointly interview 7% of the Armstrong class, 7% of non-Armstrong

9 class members, and 10 inmates identified by Plaintiffs’ counsel . Plaintiffs have expressed

10 serious reservations that randomly selected class members will not be forthcoming about

11 their experiences of violence and harassment at SVSP in light of the pervasive allegations

12 of retaliation and violence. The parties continue to negotiate plans to conduct some

13 random interviews and some interviews of class members who are willing to participate

14 and provide information as identified by Plaintiffs’ counsel.

15

During the discussions, Defendants informed Plaintiffs’ counsel of their plans to

16 conduct random interviews at Salinas Valley without Plaintiffs’ counsel. Plaintiffs’

17 counsel objected to Defendants interviewing any class members without their presence,

18 including class members for other cases which are also represented by Plaintiffs’ counsel

19 including Coleman v. Brown, and Clark v. California. Defendants observed Plaintiffs’

20 objection and on February 28 through March 2, 2017, sent two teams of staff from

21 headquarters and other prisons to conduct random interviews with prisoners at Salinas

22 Valley who are not members of the Coleman, Clark, or Armstrong classes. Plaintiffs

23 question the value of an interview process that takes place without the involvement of the

24 most vulnerable populations at Salinas Valley, including prisoners with physical,

25 psychiatric, and intellectual disabilities.

26

Defendants assert that many of Plaintiffs’ allegations are not specific to the

27 Americans with Disabilities Act, and that CDCR has a duty to quickly respond to ensure

28 the safety and security of all inmates at Salinas Valley. Defendants believe there is value

6
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2671 Filed 03/15/17 Page 8 of 19

3110589-2

1 to hearing from a broad sample of inmates about potential issues. Defendants believe that

2 jointly interviewing a random selection of class and non-class members would yield help-

3 ful information to determine what individual and systemic problems may exist and how to

4 address confirmed violations and prevent future incidents. While the parties may disagree

5 on the manner and process in which to investigate the allegations, Defendants believe the

6 parties agree that the allegations should be investigated and promptly addressed.

7

The parties, with the assistance of the court expert, hope to continue to work

8 collaboratively to improve conditions at these institutions. Plaintiffs reserve the right to

9 seek this Court’s assistance or to pursue separate litigation regarding the issue. Defendants

10 do not believe court intervention is necessary because the parties are engaged in a

11 collaborative effort to address the issues.

12

C. Parole Planning and Working With Class Members Preparing for

Release

13

14

Plaintiffs’ Statement

15

Plaintiffs have asserted that Defendants violate the ADA and the Armstrong

16 Remedial Plans by excluding prisoners who use wheelchairs from CDCR-funded

17 community placements. See Doc. 2655 at 11-13. Plaintiffs also assert that by failing to

18 provide paroling prisoners with disabilities timely assistance in obtaining Social Security

19 disability benefits and by failing to provide other transition to parole services, “CDCR is

20 operating its services, programs and activities in a manner that inevitably channels person

21 with disabilities into repeated institutional confinement with no realistic opportunity to

22 establish independent living in the community, in violation of the ADA and of the

23 principles set forth in Olmstead L.C. ex. Rel. Zimring, 527 U.S. 581 (1999).” Id. at 12.

24

Plaintiffs have sent Defendants correspondence regarding multiple class members

25 nearing parole who had not had their Social Security and other benefit applications started

26 in a timely fashion, many of whom were concerned about being homeless on parole as a

27 result. Plaintiffs have also requested discovery related to this issue, including a list of all

28 community programs that house parolees under contract with CDCR, along with

7
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2671 Filed 03/15/17 Page 9 of 19

3110589-2

1 information about which ones are wheelchair accessible, and contracts and correspondence

2 between CDCR and the University of California, San Diego (UCSD), which provides the

3 social workers who are responsible for assisting prisoners in this transition to parole.

4 Based upon a review of documents produced thus far, Plaintiffs believe that there are

5 inadequate resources allocated to assisting parolees to apply for benefits while in prison

6 and no statewide system for identifying accessible parole placements.

7

The parties agreed to work together in a smaller group which is meeting on

8 March 29, 2017, with the assistance of Mr. Swanson, to address these concerns.

9

Defendants’ Statement

10

Defendants offer pre-parole planning services to all prisoners before release from

11 prison, including assistance with medical benefits and oftentimes, assistance with locating

12 housing. Defendants contract with third-party private entities to provide community

13 housing for eligible parolees, and these third-party entities are contracted to provide

14 housing and programming in accordance with the ADA and the state and federal laws. In

15 addition, Defendants provide referral services and assistance connecting parolees with

16 non-CDCR funded community resources to obtain housing and other needed services.

17 Defendants are gathering information necessary to respond to Plaintiffs’ October 10, 2016

18 letter. Defendants will continue to work with Plaintiffs’ counsel and Mr. Swanson to

19 address these concerns. Additionally, as provided in the response to Plaintiffs’ counsel’s

20 correspondence regarding individual class members, Defendants are actively working with

21 the class members to address their individualized needs.

22

D. Accountability

23

In January 2016, Plaintiffs outlined their concerns of ongoing problems with

24 Defendants’ accountability process, including the failure to: (1) detect patterns of non-

25 compliance; (2) identify systemic failures occurring across multiple prisons; (3) rectify

26 problems that are repeatedly reported at some prisons; and (4) deter violations by ensuring

27 consequences for staff members who are found to be in violation. In response to Plaintiffs’

28 concerns, Defendants developed and presented to Plaintiffs in March 2016, a five-step plan

8
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2671 Filed 03/15/17 Page 10 of 19

3110589-2

1 to address these concerns and improve operations related to staff accountability. The plan

2 includes: (1) standardization of the inquiry process; (2) automation of the tracking of data

3 and logs; (3) enhanced focus on the quality of inquiries; (4) a Non-Compliance Review

4 Committee for quality control; and (5) the inclusion of headquarters level accountability to

5 ensure that someone is held responsible when an institution fails to address serious and

6 repeatedly reported problems. Defendants have circulated memoranda and conducted

7 training regarding the new inquiry and reporting process. Defendants conducted the first

8 Review Committee meeting in September 2016, and reportedly continue to hold these

9 meetings at headquarters. Defendants began work with an information technology

10 contractor in October 2016 to create an automated system to track and log the

11 accountability process. Defendants anticipate rolling out the new system in the next few

12 months.

13

Plaintiffs remain concerned that Defendants’ plan does not go far enough in

14 requiring staff to go beyond the individual violations recorded on the logs and audited by

15 the Non-Compliance Review Committee, to determine whether individual violations are

16 indicative of a potentially larger systemic problem. The parties continue to meet and

17 confer with the assistance of Mr. Swanson to develop a sustainable and meaningful

18 accountability system that identifies problematic institutions and staff, and that promptly

19 remedies violations of the ADA and Armstrong Remedial Plan. The parties met on

20 March 13, 2017, and Plaintiffs and the court expert observed a Review Committee meeting

21 on that day.

22

E. Training of Staff on the ADA, ARP, and Disabilities

23

Plaintiffs believe that inadequate training of staff on ADA issues is a contributing

24 factor to the cultural problems uncovered at multiple institutions, as well as the failure to

25 provide accommodations that has been documented systematically in tour reports of

26 institutions from across the state. Furthermore, during monitoring tours, Plaintiffs’ counsel

27 has discovered that there are problems with the database previously used to track which

28 staff require Armstrong training.

9
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2671 Filed 03/15/17 Page 11 of 19

3110589-2

1

Defendants report that the information technology specialists are in the process of

2 updating database systems, so that information regarding which staff members have

3 received training can be tracked and monitored easily. Additionally, CDCR is drafting

4 new training modules, with the goal of revamping and overhauling the Armstrong training.

5 Plaintiffs reiterate their willingness to be involved in developing content for the training.

6 Revisions to the training will encourage staff understanding of disabilities and lessen

7 problems of culture and failures to provide accommodations that have been identified. The

8 parties will work together on changes to current training. Defendants have agreed to

9 provide drafts of these modules to Plaintiffs and Mr. Swanson as they are updated over the

10 next few months.

11

F. Joint Monitoring Audit Tool

12

The parties continue to work together on drafting a joint audit tool for measuring

13 compliance in this case. Five trial implementations of five draft sections of the tool have

14 been conducted at California Medical Facility, Salinas Valley State Prison, California State

15 Prison Los Angeles, California Health Care Facility, and Mule Creek State Prison. A

16 “mini” trial implementation to test a revised Inmate Interview worksheet was completed on

17 February 28, 2017, and another “mini” trial implementation is scheduled for March 21,

18 2017, to test the revised Effective Communication questions. The parties will also

19 schedule “mini” trial implementations to test the remaining sections of the tool.

20

The parties met on January 18, 2017 with Mr. Swanson to discuss the core

21 components of the case—“big picture” items—that should and should not be included in

22 the audit tool. The parties will continue to meet to revise the tool as needed.

23

Once the tool and trial implementations are complete and joint monitoring begins,

24 Defendants believe that Plaintiffs’ individual monitoring should end. Plaintiffs disagree

25 that their individual monitoring should end, but will continue to work in good faith

26 towards completion of an adequate joint monitoring tool.

27

G. Alleged Discrimination in Program Assignments

28

Through letters and monitoring tour reports, Plaintiffs allege that prisoners with

10
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2671 Filed 03/15/17 Page 12 of 19

3110589-2

1 disabilities impacting placement are denied equal access to program assignments.

2 Plaintiffs’ counsel also reported, based on class member allegations, that prisoners with

3 disabilities impacting placement do not receive equal access to the most desirable program

4 assignments, including paid program assignments. Defendants assert that inmates are not

5 legally entitled to paid program assignments. Plaintiffs requested, and Defendants

6 produced, informal data showing the numbers of prisoners with program assignments at

7 each prison. Plaintiffs’ counsel notified Defendants in early May 2016 that their analysis

8 of CDCR’s data shows that prisoners with disabilities impacting placement are not

9 receiving equal access to program assignments when compared to prisoners without

10 disabilities. Plaintiffs are also concerned that there is a disparity in paid positions received

11 by people with disabilities impacting placement. Defendants disagree with Plaintiffs’

12 interpretation of the data and maintain that any disparity in the data alone is not evidence

13 of discrimination. Nonetheless, Defendants agreed to a standardized policy or training

14 with uniform procedures for assigning inmates on job assignment wait lists and the

15 interactive process of revaluating and providing reasonable accommodations needed to

16 perform a particular job assignment.

17

The parties exchanged letter briefs on January 25, 2017, and met with Mr. Swanson

18 on February 6, 2017, in an effort to resolve this issue. On February 13, 2017,

19 Mr. Swanson produced his preliminary thoughts and presented additional questions for the

20 parties to answer in writing on March 6, 2017, and the parties met again on March 9, 2017.

21

H. Accommodations for Prisoners with Learning Disabilities

22

In late March 2016, Plaintiffs’ counsel notified Defendants of widespread failures to

23 identify and accommodate prisoners with learning disabilities. As a result, Plaintiffs’

24 counsel allege that these prisoners are serving longer sentences because they are unable to

25 reach educational and vocational “milestones” that are necessary to earn credits to reduce

26 their sentence, or that the Board of Parole Hearings wants them to achieve before granting

27 parole. Defendants contend that the Board of Parole Hearings sometimes recommends

28 inmates participate in education and vocational programming to assist the inmate to

11
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2671 Filed 03/15/17 Page 13 of 19

3110589-2

1 succeed when they parole, but does not make this a requirement for parole. Plaintiffs also

2 believe that some Career Technical Educational and Prison Industries Authority training

3 programs have blanket exclusions for people who fall below certain reading levels, without

4 any exceptions or accommodations for prisoners with learning disabilities.

5

The parties have met and conferred multiple times on this issue. Defendants have

6 agreed to make changes through the Office of Correctional Education to improve the

7 process for requesting school records and verifying people who allege a learning disability.

8 The Office of Correctional Education revised the school transcript request form to include

9 a special request for Individualized Education Plan and Special Education records. The

10 Office of Correctional Education also prepared a form, which will be available to

11 institutional staff, to document verified and non-verified learning disabilities, and

12 requested accommodations related to the learning disability. Defendants are in the process

13 of improving the 1824 process for people who allege learning disabilities. Finally,

14 Defendants agreed to address potential barriers to program access for prisoners with

15 learning disabilities.

16

On January 24, 2017, Plaintiffs provided comments regarding Defendants’ draft

17 policy. Defendants anticipate presenting a new draft in the next few days. The parties

18 continue to work together on these issues.

19

I. Video Remote Interpreting

20

The Plata Receiver’s office has installed video remote interpreting (VRI)

21 equipment in all clinics in prisons that house deaf prisoners, and health care staff were

22 trained on its use and the process for scheduling a sign language interpreter (SLI) from a

23 different prison to provide interpretation services via the VRI equipment. The Receiver’s

24 office audits this process and will continue to share the results of their internal audits with

25 the parties.

26

CDCR is in the process of implementing VRI technology in educational, vocational,

27 and substance abuse programing at prisons that house deaf class members. CDCR has

28 signed a contract for VRI interpretation services, and equipment has been installed at

12
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2671 Filed 03/15/17 Page 14 of 19

3110589-2

1 SATF, RJD, CIM, and CMF. Staff members and teachers at the four institutions were

2 trained on how to use the equipment. The equipment is currently being utilized at these

3 institutions. Counsel for Plaintiffs have expressed concern about the failure to install the

4 interpreting equipment at the other prisons housing deaf class members, especially Central

5 California Women’s Facility and North Kern State Prison, which often house deaf

6 prisoners. Defendants reported that they will evaluate Plaintiffs’ counsel’s

7 recommendation to install interpreting equipment at CCWF, and noted that North Kern

8 State Prison, which houses deaf prisoners, is a reception center that does not provide

9 programs and education. Defendants will update the parties regarding Central California

10 Women’s Facility and will continue to provide class members with accommodations to

11 allow access to these programs.

12

Defendants also stated that they do not intend to expand VRI to other programs

13 such as volunteer and Division of Rehabilitative Programs offerings. Plaintiffs assert that

14 these programs fall under the Education department and are therefore covered by existing

15 court orders which require Defendants to provide equal access and effective

16 communication to education, substance abuse and vocational programs. See Doc. 1045 at

17 3 (citing Defendants’ failure to provide SLIs in education, work, and other programming);

18 Doc. 1661 at 2 (“Plaintiffs have demonstrated that Defendants have violated the rights of

19 prisoners with disabilities under the ADA and Section 504 by … denying sign language

20 interpreters to prisoners who need them in educational and substance abuse programs.”);

21 Doc. 1700 at 5 (“Defendants continue to deny deaf inmates access to adequate sign

22 language interpretation in educational programs” and “sign language interpretation may

23 not be adequate in Defendants’ substance abuse programs.”); Doc. 2345 at 23 (finding

24 Defendants in violation of previous court orders for failing to provide SLI services during

25 education and vocational classes). Defendants have agreed to provide a complete list of

26 programs including those offered by the Division of Rehabilitative Programs.

27

J. ADA Workers

28

CDCR utilizes ADA workers to provide reasonable accommodations to prisoners

13
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2671 Filed 03/15/17 Page 15 of 19

3110589-2

1 with disabilities. ADA workers perform services including pushing prisoners in

2 wheelchairs to medical appointments or helping prisoners with visual impairments to read

3 or write. Plaintiffs contend that there are problems with the ADA worker program,

4 including the training and supervision provided to ADA workers, the number of workers,

5 and the pay scale for ADA workers. The parties have reached an agreement regarding

6 revisions to CDCR’s ADA worker program, governing memoranda, and training

7 requirements. CDCR issued a new ADA worker memorandum to the institutions on

8 December 12, 2016, but the portions of the memorandum relating to training and

9 supervision of the workers by custody officers was postponed pending additional labor

10 negotiations between CDCR and California Correctional Peace Officers Association. In

11 the interim, ADA Associate Wardens are training and supervising ADA workers pending

12 resolution of the labor issue. Plaintiffs also have raised the issue of CDCR not having

13 ADA Worker programs in place at the Reception Centers across the state. The parties will

14 continue to discuss this matter to identify a way to accommodate prisoners with disabilities

15 at the Reception Centers. Plaintiffs will continue to monitor if the ADA worker program

16 adequately serves class members’ needs at institutions across the state.

17

K. Medically Unassigned Prisoners

18

The parties agreed to amend California Code of Regulations, Title 15 to allow

19 medically unassigned prisoners to receive an annual four-point reduction in classification

20 points if they are totally medically disabled and incapable of performing an assignment.

21 Defendants adopted the amendments and reported that amendments would begin to take

22 effect on February 21, 2017.

23

L. ADA Structural Barriers and Master Planning Process

24

Construction is well underway at several of the designated institutions. Former

25 Class Action Management Unit Director Mike Knowles is overseeing the process,

26 confirming agreed-upon changes, and reporting on construction progress and anticipated

27 timeframes in monthly reports produced to Plaintiffs.

28

14
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2671 Filed 03/15/17 Page 16 of 19

3110589-2

1

M. Parolees and Out to Court Prisoners with Disabilities on Parole and in

County Jails

2

3

Plaintiffs have notified Defendants regarding their concerns about the provision of

4 sign language interpretation services to deaf parolees, following a comprehensive review

5 by Plaintiffs’ counsel of parole field files. Plaintiffs allege that these parolee files show

6 that deaf parolees are repeatedly denied access to programs and services and are not able to

7 effectively communicate with their parole agents during due process encounters because of

8 failures to arrange for sign language interpretation services.

9

Defendants agreed to improve their sign language contracts by centralizing

10 contracts on a statewide level and recently executed new contracts for 2017 through 2018.

11 Defendants provided Plaintiffs’ counsel with a copy of the completed contracts on

12 January 9, 2017. Plaintiffs’ counsel believes that the contracts do not eliminate multiple

13 problems identified in prior contracts—specifically, the new contracts offer lower rates of

14 pay for SLI services and fail to compensate SLIs for travel. Plaintiffs’ counsel contends

15 that these contract deficiencies will only make it more difficult to entice desperately

16 needed interpreters for parole services. Plaintiffs provided Defendants with a letter

17 outlining deficiencies in the new statewide contract on February 27, 2017. Plaintiffs’

18 counsel contends that only significant changes to the statewide sign language contract will

19 remedy the repeated violations of ADA rights. Defendants are reviewing Plaintiffs’

20 February 27, 2017 letter and will provide a response soon.

21

To assist parole agents in providing accommodations to parolees requiring sign

22 language, Defendants have committed to installing webcams for video remote interpreter

23 services in all 113 parole units. Defendants reported that equipment has been delivered to

24 all parole offices, but training and labor issues will delay implementation until at least the

25 second quarter of 2017. Plaintiffs do not consider webcams a sufficient solution.

26

Defendants created a videotape of the Armstrong training for parole agents.

27 Plaintiffs provided their comments after receiving the video and are awaiting an updated

28 version.

15
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2671 Filed 03/15/17 Page 17 of 19

3110589-2

1

In response to Plaintiffs’ concern that out-to-court prisoners in county jails are not

2 provided with the postcards to receive the forms (2275-CJ) to request accommodations,

3 Defendants agreed to meet with out-to-court prisoner class members within three business

4 days of their arrival at the county jail, provide those class members with a 2275-CJ form,

5 and offer assistance in completing the form. Defendants plan to amend their Out-to-Court

6 Memorandum accordingly.

7

Plaintiffs’ counsel alleges that Defendants are taking uncounseled admissions from

8 parolees with developmental disabilities who are facing parole revocation. In letters from

9 Jenny Yelin to Patrick Jones dated December 9, 2016 and December 14, 2016, and the

10 January 6, 2017, Sacramento Jail Report, Plaintiffs detail these allegations regarding one

11 class member. Plaintiffs assert that CDCR Form 1527 Voluntary Statement of Admission

12 should not be signed without counsel present if there will be a loss of liberty as a result of

13 the signing. In addition, the current form does not include a place to indicate how effective

14 communication occurred. Defendants contend the class member’s parole was not revoked

15 solely on the basis of his signing the form, but that other factors contributed to his parole

16 revocation. Defendants also assert that the parolee is represented by counsel at the parole

17 revocation hearing. The parties plan to meet on March 29, 2017 to discuss these issues

18 further.

19

N. Investigation of Los Angeles and San Diego County Jails

20

Letters from Plaintiffs’ counsel dating back to 2014 allege a pattern at the Los

21 Angeles and San Diego County Jails of denying disability accommodations to class

22 members. Most recently, in a February 1, 2017 letter, Plaintiffs detailed allegations from

23 multiple class members at these jails that they are without their required mobility

24 accommodations. Plaintiffs detailed prisoners who were identified by CDCR as requiring

25 accommodations and yet who are reporting they do not have canes, walkers, wheelchairs

26 or other required accommodations in the jails. Plaintiffs allege that the failure of these

27 jails to ensure that class members have their required disability accommodations evidences

28 a problematic pattern at these jails. Plaintiffs, in their July 25th letter, and during the

16
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2671 Filed 03/15/17 Page 18 of 19

3110589-2

1 August 18, 2016 meet-and-confer, requested that Defendants investigate. Under the

2 County Jail Plan, “Each Regional ADA Parole Administrator shall review CDCR 1824

3 grievances and determine if there is a pattern of denials of disability accommodations … at

4 a particular county jail facility. If a pattern is discovered, the Regional ADA Parole

5 Administrator must write to the County’s legal counsel (or designee) within five days of

6 discovery and provide the evidence alleged.” County Jail Plan at 7, June 21, 2012. In

7 addition, “[t]he Regional ADA Parole Administrator shall assign one of their Parole Agent

8 Supervisors to investigate the alleged deficiencies at the specific county jail.” Id.

9

With respect to Los Angeles County Jail, Defendants continue to maintain that

10 because the county fails to respond to Defendants’ request for information regarding

11 allegations of denials of accommodations for individual class members, they are without

12 sufficient information to determine the existence of a pattern of denial. Defendants claim

13 that because they have not discovered a pattern of denials in Los Angeles County, they are

14 not required under the Court’s order to conduct an investigation. With respect to San

15 Diego County Jail, Defendants maintain that a pattern of denials does not exist because

16 information provided by the county, which was also provided to Plaintiffs’ counsel in the

17 form responses to tour reports, shows that county medical staff determined that class

18 members did not need the requested accommodations within the county jail.

19

Plaintiffs maintain that a pattern of denials of disability accommodations exists in

20 the two jails. Plaintiffs conducted additional discovery, including depositions of Los

21 Angeles county staff members, and believe that the depositions confirm serious problems.

22 Plaintiffs will detail these concerns in a letter once deposition transcripts have been

23 obtained and may request the Court’s assistance if Defendants continue to refuse to

24 investigate. Defendants assert that they will continue to comply with the requirements of

25 the Court’s August 20, 2012 order and County Jail Plan.

26

27

28

17
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2671 Filed 03/15/17 Page 19 of 19

3110589-2

1 DATED: March 15, 2017

Respectfully submitted,

2

ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP

3

By: /s/Penny Godbold

4

Penny Godbold

5

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

6

7 DATED: March 15, 2017 8 9 10

XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General of the State of California
By: /s/Sharon A. Garske Sharon A. Garske Deputy Attorney General

11

Attorneys for Defendants

12

13

As required by Local Rule 5-1, I, Penny Godbold, attest that I obtained concurrence

14 in the filing of this document from Sharon A. Garske and that I have maintained records to

15 support this concurrence.

16 DATED: March 15, 2017 17

/s/Penny Godbold Penny Godbold

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

18
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

C94 2307 CW

 
 Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 1 of 74

[3131276-1]

1 DONALD SPECTER – 083925 CORENE KENDRICK – 226642
2 RITA K. LOMIO – 254501 MARGOT MENDELSON – 268583
3 PRISON LAW OFFICE 1917 Fifth Street
4 Berkeley, California 94710-1916 Telephone: (510) 280-2621
5 MICHAEL W. BIEN – 096891
6 GAY C. GRUNFELD – 121944 PENNY GODBOLD – 226925
7 ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP
8 50 Fremont Street, 19th Floor San Francisco, California 94105-2235
9 Telephone: (415) 433-6830

XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General of the State of California WILLIAM C. KWONG Acting Senior Assistant Attorney General DANIELLE F. O’BANNON – 207095 Supervising Deputy Attorney General SHARON A. GARSKE – 215167 Deputy Attorney General BRYAN KAO – 240242 Deputy Attorney General JANET CHEN – 283233 Deputy Attorney General ERICK J. RHOAN – 283588 Deputy Attorney General 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, California 94102-7004 Telephone: (415) 703-5836

10 LINDA D. KILB – 136101

Attorneys for Defendants

DISABILITY RIGHTS EDUCATION &

11 DEFENSE FUND, INC.

3075 Adeline Street, Suite 201

12 Berkeley, California 94703

Telephone: (510) 644-2555

13

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

14

15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17

18

19

20 JOHN ARMSTRONG, et al.,

Case No. C94 2307 CW

21

Plaintiffs,

JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

22

v.

Judge: Hon. Claudia Wilken

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

24

Defendants.

25

26

27

28

JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 2 of 74

[3131276-1]

1

CURRENT ISSUES

2

A. Accommodating Deaf Prisoners with Videophones

3

Defendants are required to provide reasonable accommodations, including the use

4 of auxiliary aids, to deaf prisoners to ensure equally effective communication with the

5 public. ARP § II.E.1. Many other state and county correctional systems have installed

6 videophones. See Doc. 2655 at 2, n.1. As detailed exhaustively in past case management

7 statements, Plaintiffs have attempted to work collaboratively and in good faith with

8 Defendants for close to six years to have videophones installed to accommodate deaf

9 prisoners. Defendants are committed to installing videophones at all institutions that house

10 hearing-impaired class members and working on this matter with Plaintiffs’ counsel.

11

Defendants reported at the April 25, 2017 meet and confer that 11 videophones

12 have been installed and are in use throughout the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility

13 (SATF), providing access for all areas housing deaf class members. Defendants’

14 contractor has installed the cables for the video relay systems at Central California

15 Women’s Facility (6 videophones), R.J. Donovan State Prison (11 videophones),

16 California Institution for Men (5 videophones), California Medical Facility

17 (6 videophones), CSP-Los Angeles County (10 videophones), and CSP-Corcoran

18 (7 videophones). Defendants’ contractor is in the process of installing the cables at Deuel

19 Vocational Institution (2 videophones), North Kern State Prison (5 videophones), CSP-

20 Sacramento (2 videophones), San Quentin (5 videophones), and California Health Care

21 Facility (10 videophones). Sixty-nine videophones will be installed at 11 institutions.

22

Defendants conduct bi-weekly internal meetings regarding the status of the

23 installation schedule and will regularly update Plaintiffs’ counsel on the installation

24 progress. Defendants have sent out required notices to the California Correctional Peace

25 Officers Association (CCPOA) for statewide labor negotiations regarding the videophone

26 installations at all prisons other than SATF (these negotiations were separately completed)

27 and hope to have any labor disputes resolved the week of May 22, 2017, at which point the

28 equipment will be installed.

1
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 3 of 74

[3131276-1]

1

B. Video Remote Interpreting/Sign Language Interpretation in Programs

2

The Plata Receiver’s office has installed video remote interpreting (VRI)

3 equipment in all clinics in prisons that house deaf prisoners, and health care staff were

4 trained on its use and the process for scheduling a sign language interpreter (SLI) from a

5 different prison to provide interpretation services via the VRI equipment. The Receiver’s

6 office audits this process and will continue to share the results of their internal audits with

7 the parties.

8

CDCR is in the process of installing VRI technology in education classrooms at

9 prisons that house deaf class members. CDCR has signed a contract for VRI interpretation

10 services, and equipment has been installed and is currently being used at SATF, RJD,

11 CIM, and CMF.

12

Plaintiffs’ Statement

13

As noted in the previous Case Status Conference report, Defendants stated that they

14 did not intend to expand VRI to other programs such as volunteer and Division of

15 Rehabilitative Programs offerings. Since that filing, counsel for Plaintiffs notified

16 Defendants in an April 6, 2017 letter of deaf prisoners who reportedly were being denied

17 access to self-help programs that would improve their chances of being granted parole, or

18 “lifer programs” that the Board of Parole Hearings had suggested in denying parole, that

19 the prisoner participate in before his next parole consideration hearing. See Exhibit 1,

20 redacted. Additionally, deaf prisoners reported that they were told by institution staff that

21 they could not have SLI assistance in programs designed to earn “Milestone Credits” and

22 other good time credits pursuant to Proposition 57.

23

The parties have met and Defendants acknowledge that past court orders regarding

24 sign language interpretation apply to programs led by non-CDCR employees. The

25 Proposition 57 credit earning process for Milestone Completion, Rehabilitative

26 Achievement, and Educational Merit credits starts on August 1, 2017, and Defendants are

27 working on a solution to ensure that deaf prisoners are provided equal access to the

28 programs that can help them gain their freedom more quickly. Defendants are proposing

2
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 4 of 74

[3131276-1]

1 (1) increasing the number of VRI/videoconferencing equipment; (2) better scheduling of

2 programs to occur in spaces with VRI equipment; (3) expanding or revising contracts for

3 SLI services; (4) identifying staff who may know sign language; and (5) teaching hearing

4 prisoners American Sign Language to train them as SLIs.

5

Plaintiffs believe that the last two proposals are nonstarters (and unrealistic given

6 the short timeframe). Relying upon prisoners or staff who may know some ASL is not

7 sufficient to comply with the Court’s orders, the ADA, and ARP regarding “qualified”

8 SLIs. See, generally, Doc. 2345 at 4-5; Doc. 1045 at 3, 8-9. With regard to SLI contracts,

9 Defendants have struggled with their contractors, and Plaintiffs note that the Court has

10 reiterated at least twice that Defendants must “establish as permanent civil service

11 positions qualified sign language interpreters for each prison designated to house prisoners

12 whose hearing disabilities impact their placement. . .” Doc. 2345 at 5, quoting Doc. 1045

13 at 8.

14

Plaintiffs will continue to work collaboratively on this issue, with the assistance of

15 the Court’s expert Mr. Swanson. However, given the gravity of the potential denial of

16 freedom and liberty to deaf class members if they cannot participate in lifer programs and

17 programs designed to earn significant amounts of credit, if Defendants have not resolved

18 this issue by the time the Proposition 57 credit earning begins on August 1, 2017, Counsel

19 for Plaintiffs are fully prepared to seek the Court’s assistance and further enforcement

20 orders.

21

Defendants’ Statement

22

In response to Plaintiffs’ counsel’s concerns about the failure to install interpreting

23 equipment at prisons housing deaf class members, Defendants agreed to evaluate

24 Plaintiffs’ counsel’s recommendation to install interpreting equipment at the California

25 Correctional Women’s Facility. Defendants will provide Plaintiffs’ counsel with an update

26 on their request and will continue to provide class members with accommodations to

27 access these programs. During a meeting on April 14, 2017, Defendants clarified the

28 timeframe for inmates to receive credits under Proposition 57. Specifically, eligible

3
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 5 of 74

[3131276-1]

1 inmates began receiving expanded good-time credits for complying with all the rules

2 within a prison and performing duties as assigned on a regular basis on May 1, 2017.

3 Beginning August 1, 2017, eligible inmates may also receive Milestone Completion

4 credits, Rehabilitative Achievement credits, and Education Merit credits. As set forth in

5 California Code of Regulations, title 15, section 3043(b) “All eligible inmates shall have a

6 reasonable opportunity to participate in credit earning programs and activities in a manner

7 consistent with the availability of staff, space, and resources, as well as the unique safety

8 and security considerations of each prison.” Accordingly, Defendants shall provide equal

9 access to these programs for eligible Armstrong class members.

10

Defendants are exploring multiple methods of providing accommodations to these

11 programs including: (1) increasing the number of VRI/videoconferencing equipment; (2)

12 scheduling programs to occur in spaces with VRI equipment; (3) expanding or revising

13 sign language interpretation services contracts; (4) identifying alternative technologies for

14 sign language interpretation services; (5) providing additional staff sign language

15 interpreters; and (5) teaching hearing prisoners American Sign Language and certifying

16 them as interpreters. Defendants believe multiple types of accommodations are

17 appropriate and reasonable given the size and location of the class members and the variety

18 of programs they may participate in during their incarceration. Defendants note there is a

19 population of approximately 70 inmates who utilize sign language for communication.

20 Defendants believe that through review of the inmate’s individualized needs and

21 eligibilities, in combination with individualized planning of accommodations, Defendants

22 will be able to provide access to appropriate programming for this population.

23

Defendants will continue to work collaboratively on this issue with Plaintiffs’

24 counsel and Mr. Swanson. Defendants do not believe court intervention is necessary

25 because the parties are engaged in a collaborative effort to address the issues.

26

C. Allegations of Abuse and Violence Against Prisoners

27

Plaintiffs’ Statement

28

Over the past two years, Plaintiffs have asserted allegations of abuse and violations

4
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 6 of 74

[3131276-1]

1 of the rights of prisoners with disabilities at High Desert State Prison (High Desert),

2 Central California Women’s Facility (CCWF), and Salinas Valley State Prison (SVSP).

3 Plaintiffs issued multiple reports regarding these prisons outlining violations that class

4 members allege are occurring. Plaintiffs requested Defendants take concrete steps to

5 remedy confirmed violations and change the culture at both prisons. Many of the

6 allegations of abuse, violence, and retaliation documented in Plaintiffs’ reports are directed

7 at class members, and Plaintiffs assert that these allegations constitute evidence of a

8 culture that discourages prisoners from asking for help and discriminates against people

9 with disabilities. The parties are collaboratively working together to address the

10 Armstrong and non-Armstrong related issues at these institutions.

11

The parties recently entered into a modified protective order regarding information

12 obtained in the investigations at High Desert. Doc. 2674. This was a result of negotiations

13 between Defendants and the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, after

14 CCPOA sued CDCR in state court, challenging the validity of this Court’s prior protective

15 order. Neves, et al. v. CDCR, et al. (Sacramento County Sup. Ct. Case No. 34-2017-

16 00206700). Plaintiffs have expressed frustration with not being provided detailed

17 information regarding investigations underway at CCWF and SVSP, and have proposed

18 that the protective order be amended to include those two facilities. Defendants have not

19 provided a response to this request.

20

Defendants have implemented several changes at High Desert, including a change

21 to key leadership positions at the institution, staff training, and changes to local policies. 1

22 While there has been some improvement, serious problems remain that are leaving class

23 members vulnerable to verbal and physical abuse by staff and other prisoners. A team

24 jointly selected by the parties has developed a comprehensive plan to reform the staff

25 culture at HDSP in a way that hopefully will minimize if not eliminate some of these

26

27 1 For a detailed description of the policy and personnel changes put into place at High 28 Desert by CDCR, see Joint Status Statement, Doc. 2655 at 8-9.

5
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 7 of 74

[3131276-1]

1 issues. Plaintiffs believe that the plan represents the most promising avenue for reform

2 and have not sought further judicial relief in anticipation that the plan would be approved.

3 Although the plan was finalized several months ago, it has yet to be approved and

4 implemented by Defendants.

5

With regard to CCWF, the parties jointly conducted interviews of approximately

6 150 randomly selected prisoners at CCWF on June 20-29, 2016, in an effort to identify 7 systemic problems and any staff who may be violating prisoners’ rights.2 Plaintiffs’

8 counsel visited the institution and interviewed prisoners again on October 20, 2016, and

9 January 30 through February 1, 2017. Unfortunately, Plaintiffs alleged they discovered

10 that reports of many of the same systemic problems of abuse and violence still exist.

11 Further, Plaintiffs allege that many officers identified during prisoner interviews as being

12 problematic and abusive are still working in the housing units. Plaintiffs’ counsel provided

13 CDCR a report summarizing the findings of the October interviews on December 8, 2016

14 and a report summarizing the January/February findings on February 17, 2017.

15

Defendants conducted inquiries for claims of staff misconduct at CCWF brought

16 forward during Plaintiffs’ tours and the subsequent interviews; all sustained allegations of

17 staff misconduct are addressed through the Employee Discipline process, but to date,

18 Defendants have not provided any meaningful or substantive information regarding the

19 investigations and their outcomes. CDCR contracted with an expert in the field of Gender

20 Responsive Strategies who has consulted with the U.S. Department of Justice in other

21 jurisdictions, to identify shortcomings and recommend improvements to operational

22 procedures and staff training. The expert and her team recently completed their on-site

23 visits to the institution, but Defendants have not provided any reports or recommendations

24 to Plaintiffs’ counsel.

25

Therefore, Plaintiffs seek to amend the Modified Protective Order to include

26

27

2 For a detailed description of the policy and personnel changes put into place at

28 CCWF by CDCR, see Joint Case Status Statement, Doc. 2671 at 3-4.

6
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 8 of 74

[3131276-1]

1 CCWF.

2

For over three years, Plaintiffs’ counsel has raised concerns in tour reports for

3 Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”) about problematic staff attitudes toward prisoners

4 with disabilities and disregard for the Armstrong Remedial Plan requirements. Plaintiffs’

5 counsel believes this attitude has resulted in a failure to accommodate prisoners with

6 disabilities, and a culture of violence, intimidation, harassment, and retaliation at the

7 prison. At the exit meeting after a monitoring tour in late August 2016, Plaintiffs reported

8 serious and widespread allegations of staff misconduct throughout the institution,

9 including harassment of class members, interference with class members’ access to

10 programs and services, and widespread refusal to provide class members with reasonable

11 accommodations for their disabilities. On December 27, 2016, Plaintiffs provided a

12 detailed report that documented allegations of retaliation against prisoners for

13 communicating with Plaintiffs’ counsel, the opening and reading of legal mail between

14 class members and Plaintiffs’ counsel after the monitoring tour, and physical and verbal

15 harassment of Armstrong class members.

16

In March 2017, Plaintiffs’ counsel returned to Salinas Valley State Prison for a

17 monitoring tour during which monitors interviewed 125 prisoners – the vast majority of

18 whom were Armstrong class members or individuals whom Plaintiffs’ counsel believed

19 should be Armstrong class members based on qualifying disabilities. The interviews

20 yielded information that was highly consistent with Plaintiffs’ counsel’s December 2016

21 report. Armstrong class members reported excessive force, retaliation, and daily

22 harassment and intimidation by custody officers on every yard of the prison. Dozens of

23 Armstrong class members reported that officers intentionally announce their commitment

24 offenses in front of other prisoners in order to jeopardize their safety. Monitors received

25 multiple reports about custody officers encouraging or facilitating attacks on prisoners by

26 other prisoners. On March 17, 2017, Plaintiffs’ counsel verbally presented these findings

27 to SVSP executive staff at an exit meeting at the institution. Plaintiffs’ counsel anticipates

28 producing a report on the March 2017 monitoring tour within the next few weeks.

7
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 9 of 74

[3131276-1]

1

Defendants reviewed the allegations detailed in Plaintiffs’ December 27, 2016

2 report, and are taking affirmative steps towards addressing confirmed violations.

3 Defendants provided Armstrong refresher training to over 600 employees, and surveyed

4 use of force and staff misconduct reports for additional information. On February 28

5 through March 2, 2017, Defendants sent two teams of staff from headquarters and other

6 prisons to conduct random interviews with prisoners at Salinas Valley who are not

7 members of the Coleman, Clark, or Armstrong classes. Although Plaintiffs have requested

8 information about the conclusions of those interviews, or details regarding their

9 investigations to date, Defendants have not provided a substantive or comprehensive

10 response about their findings.

11

Therefore, Plaintiffs seek to expand the Amended Protective Order to include

12 SVSP. Plaintiffs reserve the right to seek this Court’s assistance or to pursue separate

13 litigation regarding the issue.

14

Defendants’ Statement

15

Many of Plaintiffs’ reported allegations do not involve Armstrong class members or

16 do not involve violations of the ADA or the Armstrong Remedial Plan and Court orders.

17 Therefore, Defendants do not believe these matters are properly before the Armstrong

18 court. Nevertheless, Defendants are committed to addressing any reported instances of

19 inmate mistreatment from any source, and have therefore expended substantial effort to

20 address all of the allegations brought forward by Plaintiffs’ counsel at High Desert State

21 Prison, Central California Women’s Facility, and Salinas Valley State Prison. At High

22 Desert State Prison, Defendants have implemented several changes, including a change to

23 key leadership positions at the institution, staff training, and changes to local policies.

24 Defendants have worked collaboratively with Plaintiffs’ counsel in the appointment of a

25 team of correctional experts to develop a plan to address the parties’ concerns. CDCR is

26 currently considering the experts’ recommendations on how best to implement the plans at

27 High Desert.

28

With regard to Central California Women’s Facility, Defendants have taken a

8
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 10 of 74

[3131276-1]

1 number of actions, including changing key leadership at the institution, auditing and

2 making improvements to the inmate grievance process, revising local operating

3 procedures, hiring an independent contractor in the area of Gender Responsive Strategies,

4 and providing refresher training on a variety of topics relevant to interactions between staff

5 and inmates. In addition, Defendants completed inquiries of more than 160 allegations

6 that were the result of Plaintiffs’ interviews in May and October 2016 and the parties’ joint

7 interviews in June 2016. Several of the inquiries resulted in referral to the Office of

8 Internal Affairs for investigation. Several of those inquiries have already resulted in

9 adverse action, and some of the inquiries resulted in additional allegations, which were

10 pursued further. Notably, even when an allegation could not be confirmed, Defendants

11 evaluated whether any local procedures or staff training issues could be improved to

12 prevent similar allegations in the future, and took action accordingly.

13

Defendants have collaborated with Plaintiffs’ counsel throughout this process.

14 Defendants met with Plaintiffs on March 24, 2017, to provide an overview of the inquiry

15 process, and the parties are scheduled to meet again on May 12, 2017. Defendants have

16 appropriately balanced this collaborative effort with their duty to protect the confidentiality

17 of personnel matters both to protect the privacy of CDCR employees, and to ensure the

18 investigations are not adversely impacted. Additionally, Defendants continue to work

19 through the allegations raised by Plaintiffs’ interviews in January and February 2017.

20 Finally, Defendants anticipate a draft report from the CDCR-contracted expert in the field

21 of Gender Responsive Strategies, and will provide Plaintiffs with an update on that effort

22 soon.

23

As to Salinas Valley State Prison, Defendants immediately began to look into the

24 allegations detailed in Plaintiffs’ August 2016 monitoring report that Defendants received

25 on December 27, 2016. Defendants provided Armstrong refresher training to over 600

26 employees, examined use of force and staff misconduct reports, and sent two teams of staff

27 from headquarters and other institutions to interview with non-Armstrong class members.

28 For each allegation raised in Plaintiffs’ August 2016 monitoring report, the institution

9
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 11 of 74

[3131276-1]

1 interviewed not just the identified inmate who raised the allegation, but also interviewed a

2 number of inmates and staff who may have witnessed something relevant to the allegation.

3 If an individual’s name was not associated with the allegation, the institution interviewed a

4 sample of inmates and staff in the housing area. CDCR administrators are currently

5 reviewing the preliminary results of the inquiries to evaluate next steps. Defendants are

6 also analyzing the information received during their interviews of non-Armstrong class

7 members to address allegations received from Plaintiffs’ counsel. Similar to the updates

8 provided to Plaintiffs with respect to efforts at the Central California Women’s Facility,

9 Defendants will collaborate with Plaintiffs.

10

Defendants provided Plaintiffs’ proposed amendments to the protective order

11 providing for the production of High Desert documents to CCPOA for consideration.

12 CCPOA does not agree to further amend the protective order to include CCWF and Salinas

13 Valley.

14

As indicated above, a significant portion of Plaintiffs’ allegations involve non-class

15 members and non-ADA matters. Defendants have engaged in an extraordinary level of

16 cooperation with Plaintiffs’ counsel including to investigate allegations, hiring consultants,

17 and taking discipline for confirmed violations. Defendants will continue to collaborate to

18 the extent possible but are unwilling to have the Armstrong case stray from the core issue

19 of addressing ADA compliance.

20

Defendants do not believe court intervention is necessary because the parties and

21 court expert are collaboratively working together to address the issues and the existing

22 employee disciplinary system is appropriate to address the allegations and confirmed

23 violations.

24

The parties, with the assistance of the court expert, will continue to work

25 collaboratively on these issues.

26

27

28

10
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 12 of 74

[3131276-1]

1

D. Parole Planning and Working With Class Members Preparing for

Release

2

Plaintiffs’ Statement

3

Plaintiffs have asserted that Defendants violate the ADA and the Armstrong

4

Remedial Plans by excluding prisoners who use wheelchairs and other Armstrong class

5

members from CDCR-funded community placements. See Doc. 2655 at 11-13. Plaintiffs

6

also assert that by failing to provide paroling prisoners with disabilities timely assistance in

7

obtaining Social Security disability benefits and by failing to provide other transition to

8

parole services, “CDCR is operating its services, programs and activities in a manner that

9

inevitably channels person with disabilities into repeated institutional confinement with no

10

realistic opportunity to establish independent living in the community, in violation of the

11

ADA and of the principles set forth in Olmstead L.C. ex. Rel. Zimring, 527 U.S. 581

12

(1999).” Id. at 12.

13

Plaintiffs have sent Defendants correspondence regarding multiple class members

14

nearing parole who had not had their Social Security and other benefit applications started

15

in a timely fashion, many of whom were concerned about being homeless on parole as a

16

result. Plaintiffs have also requested discovery related to this issue, including a list of all

17

community programs that house parolees under contract with CDCR, along with

18

information about which ones are wheelchair accessible, and contracts and correspondence

19

between CDCR and the University of California, San Diego (UCSD), which provides the

20

social workers who are responsible for assisting prisoners in this transition to parole.

21

Based upon a review of documents produced thus far, Plaintiffs believe that there are

22

inadequate resources allocated to assisting parolees to apply for benefits while in prison

23

and no statewide system for identifying accessible parole placements.

24

The parties agreed to work together on this issue in a smaller group which held its

25

first in person meeting on March 29, 2017, and met again by telephone on May 3, 2017,

26

with the assistance of Mr. Swanson, to address these concerns. At the meeting on March

27

29, 2017, and in a follow up e-mail on April 7, 2017, Plaintiffs requested a number of

28

11
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 13 of 74

[3131276-1]

1 different documents relating to this issue, including most critically (1) policies and

2 procedures for placing disabled prisoners into transitional housing and treatment programs

3 currently under contract, (2) an accounting of how many beds are available in existing

4 transitional housing and treatment programs for parolees with different disabilities, (3) a

5 program by program accounting, which Defendants indicated they are currently producing

6 in cooperation with the CDCR’s Division of Rehabilitative Programs (DRP) of the number

7 of beds in each program for parolees and any exclusionary factors that exist for each

8 program, and (4) detailed data and reports collected and generated by the Transitional Case

9 Management Program (TCMP) contractor (which is required under the existing TCMP

10 contract) regarding the timeliness of benefit applications.

11

Although Defendants provided Plaintiffs with some of the requested documents on

12 Friday April 28, 2017, including policies on transportation of parolees and on the issuance

13 of vouchers for short-term housing, Defendants have not yet provided many of the key

14 documents requested by plaintiffs. For example, Defendants have not yet produced any of

15 the 4 critical items listed in the preceding paragraph.

16

Defendants’ Statement

17

Defendants offer pre-parole planning services to all prisoners before release from

18 prison, including assistance with medical benefits and oftentimes, assistance with locating

19 housing. Defendants contract with third-party private entities to provide community

20 housing for eligible parolees, and these third-party entities are required by contract to

21 provide housing and programming in accordance with the ADA and state and federal laws.

22 In addition, Defendants provide referral services and assistance connecting parolees with

23 non-CDCR funded community resources to obtain housing and other needed services.

24 During the May 3, 2017 teleconference, Defendants provided that they are still in the

25 process of gathering information responsive to Plaintiffs’ requests. Defendants also stated

26 that they are in the process of employing two TCMP Supervisor Strike Teams, that will

27 each be comprised of 3 benefits workers and 1 supervisor, to prisons where there is a need

28 for additional assistance. Defendants will continue to work with Plaintiffs’ counsel and

12
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 14 of 74

[3131276-1]

1 Mr. Swanson to address these concerns. Defendants agreed to provide the remaining

2 responsive information and documents by June 12, 2017, in advance of the next small

3 work group meeting scheduled on June 19, 2017. Additionally, as provided in the

4 response to Plaintiffs’ counsel’s correspondence regarding individual class members,

5 Defendants are actively working to address the class members’ individualized needs.

6 Defendants will work with Plaintiffs’ counsel to identify the scope to which this issue is

7 related to the Armstrong litigation.

8

E. Alleged Discrimination in Program Assignments

9

Through letters and monitoring tour reports, Plaintiffs allege that prisoners with

10 disabilities impacting placement are denied equal access to program assignments.

11 Plaintiffs’ counsel also reported, based on class member allegations, that prisoners with

12 disabilities impacting placement do not receive equal access to the most desirable program

13 assignments, including paid program assignments. Plaintiffs requested, and Defendants

14 produced, informal data showing the numbers of prisoners with program assignments at

15 each prison. Plaintiffs’ counsel notified Defendants in early May 2016 that their analysis

16 of CDCR’s data shows that prisoners with disabilities impacting placement are not

17 receiving equal access to program assignments when compared to prisoners without

18 disabilities. Plaintiffs are also concerned that there is a disparity in paid positions received

19 by people with disabilities impacting placement. Defendants did not have confidence in

20 the data available at the time, and disagreed with Plaintiffs’ interpretation that any

21 disparity in the data is evidence of discrimination. Nonetheless, Defendants agreed to a

22 standardized policy or training with uniform procedures for assigning inmates on job

23 assignment wait lists and the interactive process of revaluating and providing reasonable

24 accommodations needed to perform a particular job assignment.

25

The parties exchanged letter briefs on January 25, 2017, and met with Mr. Swanson

26 on February 6, 2017, in an effort to resolve this issue. On February 13, 2017,

27 Mr. Swanson produced his preliminary thoughts and presented additional questions for the

28 parties to answer in writing on March 6, 2017, and the parties met again on March 9, 2017.

13
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 15 of 74

[3131276-1]

1 During the March 9, 2017 meeting, the parties agreed to convene a small work group to

2 resolve this issue.

3

Defendants are committed to ensure equal access to assignments (e.g., jobs,

4 education, vocation, self-help, voluntary assignments, and those recognized under

5 Proposition 57) and believe the issue is best addressed through the implementation of

6 Proposition 57.

7

Defendants report that they have begun the process of identifying and resolving

8 problems at six of the prisons with the highest rates of disparities in program assignments

9 identified by Plaintiffs’ counsel. Defendants agree to provide additional training to all

10 staff members involved in the assignment process and to track all existing and new

11 programs in their computerized system for distributing assignments (SOMS). The parties

12 plan to meet on June 9, 2017, to discuss Defendants progress on short-term fixes and

13 training and to meet on July 10, 2017, to evaluate the data once all programs are entered

14 into SOMS. Defendants agree to produce assignment data that can be filtered by type of

15 assignment, including paid/non-paid, by type of disability, and by housing location. The

16 parties agree to meet monthly to review data regarding assignments and to discuss and

17 attempt to resolve apparent disparities in assignment rates as they arise. The parties plan to

18 incorporate questions regarding disparities in assignment rates in to the Joint Audit Tool.

19

F. Accommodations for Prisoners with Learning Disabilities

20

In late March 2016, Plaintiffs’ counsel notified Defendants of widespread failures to

21 identify and accommodate prisoners with learning disabilities. As a result, Plaintiffs’

22 counsel allege that these prisoners are serving longer sentences because they are unable to

23 reach educational and vocational “milestones” that are necessary to earn credits to reduce

24 their sentence, or that the Board of Parole Hearings wants them to achieve before granting

25 parole. Defendants contend that the Board of Parole Hearings sometimes recommends

26 inmates participate in education and vocational programming to assist the inmate to

27 succeed when they parole, but does not make this a requirement for parole. Plaintiffs also

28 believe that some Career Technical Educational and Prison Industries Authority training

14
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 16 of 74

[3131276-1]

1 programs have blanket exclusions for people who fall below certain reading levels, without

2 any exceptions or accommodations for prisoners with learning disabilities.

3

The parties have met and conferred multiple times on this issue. Defendants have

4 agreed to make changes through the Office of Correctional Education to improve the

5 process for requesting school records and verifying people who allege a learning disability.

6 The Office of Correctional Education revised the school transcript request form to include

7 a special request for Individualized Education Plan and Special Education records. The

8 Office of Correctional Education also prepared a form, which will be available to

9 institutional staff, to document verified and non-verified learning disabilities, and

10 requested accommodations related to the learning disability. Defendants are in the process

11 of improving the 1824 process for people who allege learning disabilities. Finally,

12 Defendants agreed to discuss what accommodations for inmates with learning disabilities

13 may be needed in non-educational settings.

14

On January 24, 2017, Plaintiffs provided comments regarding Defendants’ new

15 draft policy on learning disabilities and a separate policy on effective communication that

16 also addressed prisoners with learning disabilities. Defendants subsequently provided

17 revised drafts of the policies. The parties held a conference call on April 28, 2017 on these

18 two memos, during which the parties discussed in detail the comments and changes

19 requested by Plaintiffs to each memo. The parties made progress during the call and

20 Defendants anticipate presenting a new draft of each memo to Plaintiffs and Mr. Swanson

21 in the near future. The parties continue to work together on these issues.

22

G. Accountability

23

In January 2016, Plaintiffs outlined their concerns of ongoing problems with

24 Defendants’ accountability process, including the failure to: (1) detect patterns of non-

25 compliance; (2) identify systemic failures occurring across multiple prisons; (3) rectify

26 problems that are repeatedly reported at some prisons; and (4) deter violations by ensuring

27 consequences for staff members who are found to be in violation. In response to Plaintiffs’

28 concerns, Defendants developed and presented to Plaintiffs in March 2016, a five-step plan

15
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 17 of 74

[3131276-1]

1 to address these concerns and improve operations related to staff accountability. The plan

2 includes: (1) standardization of the inquiry process; (2) automation of the tracking of data

3 and logs; (3) enhanced focus on the quality of inquiries; (4) a Non-Compliance Review

4 Committee for quality control; and (5) the inclusion of headquarters level accountability to

5 ensure that someone is held responsible when an institution fails to address serious and

6 repeatedly reported problems.

7

Defendants have circulated memoranda and conducted training regarding the new

8 inquiry and reporting process. Defendants conducted the first Review Committee meeting

9 in September 2016, and continue to hold these meetings at headquarters. Defendants

10 began work with an information technology contractor in October 2016 to create an

11 automated system to track and log the accountability process. Defendants anticipate

12 rolling out the new system in the next few months. In an effort to streamline the process,

13 Plaintiffs have agreed to several important improvements which are aimed at focusing the

14 attention and resources on the most significant allegations of noncompliance. Defendants

15 drafted a policy memorandum that provides guidance regarding the new expectations for

16 tracking allegations. Plaintiffs are reviewing that memorandum.

17

Plaintiffs remain concerned that Defendants’ plan does not go far enough in

18 requiring staff to go beyond the individual violations recorded on the logs and audited by

19 the Non-Compliance Review Committee, to determine whether individual violations are

20 indicative of a potentially larger systemic problem. The parties continue to meet and

21 confer with the assistance of Mr. Swanson to develop a sustainable and meaningful

22 accountability system that identifies problematic institutions and staff, and that promptly

23 remedies violations of the ADA and Armstrong Remedial Plan. The parties met on March

24 13, 2017, and Plaintiffs’ counsel and the court expert observed a Review Committee

25 meeting on that day. Defendants agreed that Plaintiffs’ counsel and Mr. Swanson can

26 observe additional Review Committee meetings in the coming months.

27

H. Training of Staff on the ADA, ARP, and Disabilities

28

Plaintiffs believe that inadequate training of staff on ADA issues is a contributing

16
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 18 of 74

[3131276-1]

1 factor to the cultural problems uncovered at multiple institutions, as well as the failure to

2 provide accommodations that has been documented systematically in tour reports of

3 institutions from across the state. Furthermore, during monitoring tours, Plaintiffs’ counsel

4 has discovered that there are problems with the database previously used to track which

5 staff require Armstrong training.

6

Defendants’ information technology specialists are in the process of updating

7 database systems, so that information regarding which staff members have received

8 training can be tracked and monitored easily. This system will be piloted at Avenal State

9 Prison and California Men’s Colony in July, with the goal that the new system will be in

10 place at all institutions by the end of the year.

11

Additionally, CDCR is drafting new training modules, with the goal of revamping

12 and overhauling the Armstrong training. Plaintiffs reiterate their willingness to be

13 involved in developing content for the training. Revisions to the training will encourage

14 staff understanding of disabilities and lessen problems of culture and failures to provide

15 accommodations that have been identified. The parties will work together on changes to

16 current training. Defendants have agreed to provide drafts of these modules to Plaintiffs

17 and Mr. Swanson as they are updated over the next several months.

18

I. Joint Monitoring Audit Tool

19

The parties continue to work together on drafting a joint audit tool for measuring

20 compliance in this case. A draft of the completed tool was produced to Plaintiffs on April

21 5, 2017, and Plaintiffs are in the process of reviewing and providing comments. Five trial

22 implementations of five draft sections of the tool were conducted at California Medical

23 Facility, Salinas Valley State Prison, California State Prison Los Angeles, California

24 Health Care Facility, and Mule Creek State Prison. In addition, “mini” trial

25 implementations to test portions of the Joint Audit Tool were completed on February 28,

26 2017, March 21, 2017, and April 18, 2017. The parties have “mini” trial implementations

27 to test the remaining sections of the tool scheduled for May 10, May 31, and June 1-2,

28 2017. The next trial implementation of the complete tool is scheduled for the week of

17
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 19 of 74

[3131276-1]

1 July 17, 2017, at Valley State Prison. The parties will continue to meet to revise the tool

2 as needed.

3

Once the tool and trial implementations are complete and joint monitoring begins,

4 Defendants believe that Plaintiffs’ individual monitoring should end. Plaintiffs disagree

5 that their individual monitoring should end, but will continue to work in good faith

6 towards completion of an adequate joint monitoring tool.

7

J. ADA Workers

8

CDCR utilizes ADA workers to provide reasonable accommodations to prisoners

9 with disabilities. ADA workers perform services including pushing prisoners in

10 wheelchairs to medical appointments or helping prisoners with visual impairments to read

11 or write. Plaintiffs contend that there are problems with the ADA worker program,

12 including the training and supervision provided to ADA workers, the number of workers,

13 and the pay scale for ADA workers. The parties have reached an agreement regarding

14 revisions to CDCR’s ADA worker program, governing memoranda, and training

15 requirements. CDCR issued a new ADA worker memorandum to the institutions on

16 December 12, 2016, but the portions of the memorandum relating to training and

17 supervision of the workers by custody officers was postponed pending additional labor

18 negotiations between CDCR and CCPOA. Negotiations have concluded and CDCR is

19 currently updating the memorandum to provide that management staff will train ADA

20 workers, and custody officers will supervise ADA workers. Plaintiffs also have raised the

21 issue of CDCR not having ADA Worker programs in place at the Reception Centers across

22 the state. The parties will continue to discuss this matter to identify a way to accommodate

23 prisoners with disabilities at the Reception Centers. Plaintiffs will continue to monitor if

24 the ADA worker program adequately serves class members’ needs at institutions across the

25 state.

26

K. ADA Structural Barriers and Master Planning Process

27

Construction is well underway at several of the designated institutions. Former

28 Class Action Management Unit Director Mike Knowles is overseeing the process,

18
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 20 of 74

[3131276-1]

1 confirming agreed-upon changes, and reporting on construction progress and anticipated

2 timeframes in monthly reports produced to Plaintiffs.

3

L. Parolees and Out to Court Prisoners with Disabilities on Parole and in

County Jails

4

Plaintiffs have notified Defendants regarding their concerns about the provision of

5

sign language interpretation services to deaf parolees, following a comprehensive review

6

by Plaintiffs’ counsel of parole field files. Plaintiffs allege that these parolee files show

7

that deaf parolees are repeatedly denied access to programs and services and are not able to

8

effectively communicate with their parole agents during due process encounters because of

9

failures to arrange for sign language interpretation services.

10

Defendants agreed to improve their sign language contracts by centralizing

11

contracts on a statewide level and recently executed new contracts for 2017 through 2018.

12

Defendants provided Plaintiffs’ counsel with a copy of the completed contracts on January

13

9, 2017. Plaintiffs’ counsel believes that the contracts do not eliminate multiple problems

14

identified in prior contracts – for example, the new contracts offer lower rates of pay for

15

SLI services and fail to compensate SLIs for travel. Plaintiffs’ counsel contends that these

16

contract deficiencies will only make it more difficult to entice desperately needed

17

interpreters for parole services.

18

Plaintiffs provided Defendants with a letter outlining deficiencies in the new

19

statewide contract on February 27, 2017. Defendants responded to Plaintiffs’ February 27,

20

2017 letter on April 17, 2017. Plaintiffs’ counsel asserts that Defendants’ April 17 letter is

21

difficult to comprehend because it appears to assert that Defendants have no obligation to

22

improve the SLI contracts through increased compensation for qualified interpreters,

23

improved transportation reimbursement, expansion of the locations covered, and

24

imposition of more serious cancellation penalties. Plaintiffs’ counsel contend that

25

Defendants’ refusal to improve their SLI contracts will only perpetuate the years of

26

failures documented by Plaintiffs’ counsel. Defendants contend that the new SLI contracts

27

are sufficient to meet the needs of sign language interpretation services required for deaf

28

19
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 21 of 74

[3131276-1]

1 parolees. Defendants followed the established procedures for securing vendor contracts

2 for a state agency, and that the contracts provide remedies for breach. Contractors are

3 expected to perform the services contemplated by the terms of the contracts, and when

4 appropriate Defendants can seek remedy for non-performance.

5

Plaintiffs’ counsel recently received a number of DPH field files from DAPO.

6 Review of the field files for compliance with the SLI mandates of this Court and the

7 Armstrong Remedial Plan is underway now. Plaintiffs’ counsel maintains that only

8 significant changes to the statewide sign language contract will remedy Defendants’

9 repeated violations of ADA rights.

10

To assist parole agents in providing accommodations to parolees requiring sign

11 language, Defendants have committed to installing webcams for video remote interpreter

12 services in all 113 parole units. Defendants reported that equipment has been delivered to

13 all parole offices, and they are currently working with the vendor to test the equipment.

14 Defendants developed training for how to use the equipment. The vendor will also provide

15 Defendants 24-hour services to remedy any issues staff has in accessing or utilizing the

16 equipment once it is deployed. Defendants must complete labor notification and

17 negotiations before the process can be implemented statewide. Plaintiffs do not consider

18 webcams a sufficient solution. Defendants believe that webcams provide a level of

19 accommodation that meets the requirements of the Armstrong remedial plan and court

20 orders.

21

Defendants created a videotape of the Armstrong training for parole agents.

22 Plaintiffs provided their comments after receiving the video and are awaiting an updated

23 version.

24

In response to Plaintiffs’ concern that out-to-court prisoners in county jails are not

25 provided with the postcards to receive the forms (2275-CJ) to request accommodations,

26 Defendants agreed to meet with out-to-court prisoner class members within three business

27 days of their arrival at the county jail, provide those class members with a 2275-CJ form,

28 and offer assistance in completing the form. Defendants are working to amend their Out-

20
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 22 of 74

[3131276-1]

1 to-Court Memorandum accordingly.

2

Plaintiffs’ counsel alleges that Defendants are taking uncounseled admissions from

3 parolees with developmental disabilities who are facing parole revocation. In letters from

4 Jenny Yelin to Patrick Jones dated December 9, 2016 and December 14, 2016, and the

5 January 6, 2017, Sacramento Jail Report, Plaintiffs detail these allegations regarding one

6 class member. Plaintiffs assert that CDCR Form 1527 Voluntary Statement of Admission

7 should not be signed without counsel present if there will be a loss of liberty as a result of

8 the signing. In addition, the current form does not include a place to indicate how effective

9 communication occurred. Defendants contend there is no legal right to counsel under

10 these circumstances; that the class member’s parole was not revoked solely on the basis of

11 his signing the form, but that other factors contributed to his parole revocation; and that the

12 vast majority of parolees who sign a Form 1527, without other accompanying violations,

13 are not revoked on parole. Defendants also assert that the parolee is represented by

14 counsel at the parole revocation hearing and can challenge the validity of any waiver by

15 and through counsel. The parties met on March 29, 2017, and again by telephone on May

16 3, 2017, to discuss these issues. Plaintiffs’ requests for information and Defendants’

17 responses as discussed on May 3, 2017, are as follows:

18

• Plaintiffs’ Request: How many DDP prisoners have signed

voluntary waivers on a Form 1527? What are their names

19

and when did they sign the forms?

20

Defendants’ Response: Form 1527s are not tracked and

therefore this information is not readily obtainable.

21

• Plaintiffs’ Request: Defendants will produce the record of

22

supervisions for each such individual for the time of the

waiver to review for effective communication.

23

Defendants’ Response: Because the Form 1527s are not

24

tracked, Defendants are unable to respond to this request.

25

• Plaintiffs’ Request: Defendants will let us know if the

Parole Agent for a parolee with a developmental disability

26

who signed a Form 1527 was put on the accountability log

for failing to document effective communication.

27

Defendants’ Response: The Parole Agent was placed on

28

the April 2017 accountability log for failing to document

21
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 23 of 74

[3131276-1]

1

effective communication.

2

• Plaintiffs’ Request: Defendants will provide the policies

and procedures for the Forms 1527.

3

Defendants’ Response: On April 28, 2017, Defendants

4

produced Policy No. 15-01 regarding Urinalysis Testing

(and the use of the Form 1527) and Policy No. 17-06

5

regarding effective communication generally. Defendants

further provided that Policy No. 17-06 was a directive only

6

and that DAPO is in the process of revising and updating its

effective communication policy (No. 08-48).

7

• Plaintiffs’ Request: Defendants will provide a list and

8

copies of all other admissions forms in use by DAPO.

9

Defendants’ Response: The Form 1527 is the only type of

admission form currently used by DAPO.

10

Plaintiffs ask that the practice of eliciting uncounseled waivers and admissions from

11

prisoners with developmental, hearing, cognitive, mental and speech disabilities be

12

discontinued. Defendants will continue its use of the Form 1527 but will make efforts to

13

ensure that effective communication is used and documented when a parolee requiring

14

effective communication signs the form.

15

M. Investigation of Los Angeles and San Diego County Jails

16

Letters from Plaintiffs’ counsel dating back to 2014 allege a pattern at the Los

17

Angeles and San Diego County Jails of denying disability accommodations to class

18

members. Most recently, in a February 1, 2017 letter, Plaintiffs detailed allegations from

19

multiple class members at these jails that they are without their required mobility

20

accommodations. Plaintiffs detailed prisoners who were identified by CDCR as requiring

21

accommodations and yet who are reporting they do not have canes, walkers, wheelchairs

22

or other required accommodations in the jails. Plaintiffs allege that the failure of these

23

jails to ensure that class members have their required disability accommodations evidences

24

a problematic pattern at these jails. Plaintiffs, in their July 25th letter, and during the

25

August 18, 2016 meet-and-confer, requested that Defendants investigate. Under the

26

County Jail Plan, “Each Regional ADA Parole Administrator shall review CDCR 1824

27

grievances and determine if there is a pattern of denials of disability accommodations … at

28

22
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 24 of 74

[3131276-1]

1 a particular county jail facility. If a pattern is discovered, the Regional ADA Parole

2 Administrator must write to the County’s legal counsel (or designee) within five days of

3 discovery and provide the evidence alleged.” County Jail Plan at 7, June 21, 2012. In

4 addition, “[t]he Regional ADA Parole Administrator shall assign one of their Parole Agent

5 Supervisors to investigate the alleged deficiencies at the specific county jail.” Id.

6

With respect to Los Angeles County Jail, Defendants maintain that because the

7 county fails to respond to Defendants’ request for information regarding allegations of

8 denials of accommodations for individual class members, they are without sufficient

9 information to determine the existence of a pattern of denial. Because they have not

10 discovered a pattern of denials in Los Angeles County, Defendants assert they are not

11 required under the Court’s order to conduct an investigation. With respect to San Diego

12 County Jail, Defendants maintain that a pattern of denials does not exist because

13 information provided by the county, which was also provided to Plaintiffs’ counsel in the

14 form responses to tour reports, shows that county medical staff determined that class

15 members did not need the requested accommodations within the county jail.

16

Plaintiffs maintain that a pattern of denials of disability accommodations exists in

17 the two jails. Plaintiffs conducted additional discovery, including depositions of Los

18 Angeles county staff members, and believe that the depositions confirm serious problems.

19 Plaintiffs will detail these concerns in a letter once deposition transcripts have been

20 obtained and may request the Court’s assistance if Defendants continue to refuse to

21 investigate. Defendants disagree that the depositions confirm that there is a pattern of

22 denial of disability accommodations at Los Angeles County Jail; rather, the depositions

23 confirm that Los Angeles County Jail addresses all requests for disability accommodations

24 through its internal processes. The depositions further confirm that Los Angeles County

25 Jail currently does not have a process in place for communicating information back to

26 CDCR concerning individual requests for disability accommodations by parolees. In an

27 attempt to improve communications between CDCR and Los Angeles County Jail,

28 Defendants are in the process of setting up a meeting with Los Angeles County Counsel.

23
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 25 of 74

[3131276-1]

1 Defendants assert that they will continue to comply with the requirements of the Court’s

2 August 20, 2012 order and County Jail Plan.

3

4 DATED: May 15, 2017

Respectfully submitted,

5

PRISON LAW OFFICE

6

By: /s/

7

Corene Kendrick

8

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

9

10 DATED: May 15, 2017 11 12 13

XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General of the State of California
By: /s/ Sharon A. Garske Deputy Attorney General

14

Attorneys for Defendants

15

16

As required by Local Rule 5-1, I, Corene Kendrick, attest that I obtained

17 concurrence in the filing of this document from Sharon A. Garske and that I have

18 maintained records to support this concurrence.

19 DATED: May 15, 2017 20

/s/ Corene Kendrick

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

24
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 26 of 74
Exhibit 1

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 27 of 74

PRISON LAW OFFICE
General Delivery, San Quentin, CA 94964
Telephone (510) 280-2621  Fax (510) 280-2704
www.prisonlaw.com

VIA EMAIL ONLY
Ms. Katie Riley Mr. Patrick McKinney CDCR Office of Legal Affairs

April 6, 2017

Director: Donald Specter
Managing Attorney: Sara Norman
Staff Attorneys: Mae Ackerman-Brimberg Rana Anabtawi Steven Fama Alison Hardy Sia Henry Corene Kendrick Rita Lomio Margot Mendelson Millard Murphy Lynn Wu

RE: Armstrong v. Brown Sign Language Interpreters (SLI) or Video Remote Interpreting (VRI) at Self-Help Programs and Religious Services

Dear Katie and Patrick,

At the parties’ meet and confer on February 14, 2017, Plaintiffs’ counsel raised the problem that deaf prisoners are unable to participate in many self-help or drug counseling programs due to a lack of sign language interpretation. These programs and groups occur in the evenings, and often are recommended by the Board of Parole Hearings to lifers, or are the basis for prisoners earning milestone credits.

Defendants took the position at the meeting (and in the Joint Case Management Statement, Doc. 2671 at ECF 14) that they will not use the Education Department’s VRIs for noneducational programs such as volunteer and Division of Rehabilitative Programs offerings, and asserted that sign language interpretation services are not required for programs that are led by volunteers or fellow prisoners.1

Defendants’ position is in clear violation of more than a decade’s worth of Court orders regarding sign language interpretation at rehabilitative programs, the Armstrong Remedial Plan, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. See, e.g., Jan. 18, 2007 Injunction, Doc. 1045 at 3 (deaf prisoners denied access to “education, work, and other programming” due to failure to provide SLIs); Oct. 20, 2009 Enforcement Order, Doc. 1661 at 2 (“Plaintiffs have demonstrated that Defendants have violated the rights of prisoners with disabilities under the ADA and Section 504 by … denying sign language interpreters to prisoners who need them in educational and substance abuse programs.”); Feb. 3, 2010 Finding of Facts, Doc. 1700 at 5 (“Defendants continue to deny deaf inmates access to adequate sign language interpretation in educational programs” and “sign

1 Defendants also agreed at the February meet and confer to provide a complete list of
programs, including those offered by the Division of Rehabilitative Programs, but as of today we
have not received such a list.
Board of Directors Penelope Cooper, President  Michele WalkinHawk, Vice President
Marshall Krause, Treasurer  Christiane Hipps  Margaret Johns Cesar Lagleva  Laura Magnani  Michael Marcum  Ruth Morgan  Seth Morris

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 28 of 74
Ms. Katie Riley Mr. Patrick McKinney SLI or VRI at Programs &
Religious Services April 6, 2017 Page 2
language interpretation may not be adequate in Defendants’ substance abuse programs.”); June 24, 2013 Order, Doc. 2345 at 23 (finding Defendants in violation of previous court orders for failing to provide SLI services during education and vocational classes). The Remedial Plan states “[i]t is the policy of CDC to ensure that all inmates, regardless of any type of disability, participate in educational/vocational, and work programs…” ARP § II.I.14(a); see also 28 C.F.R. Pt. 35 App. A, Sbpt. E. Thus, “[r]easonable modifications/accommodations shall be provided to ensure access …to participate in all programs, services, or activities including vocational assignments...[and] academic programs.” ARP § II.I.16. Qualified sign language interpreters are a reasonable accommodation. ARP § II.F.
Defendants also assert that they are not required to provide SLI during these encounters because they are voluntary programs not taught by CDCR employees. The identity of the person teaching a program (and whether she or he is a CDCR employee) is not dispositive as to whether a class member needs the accommodation of an interpreter for the program, and in any event, using inmate interpreters has been found inadequate by the Court on at least three separate occassions.2 Doc. 2345 at 20; Doc. 1700 at 4-5; Doc. 1045 at 3; Doc. 523 at 11. As the Court noted in 2010 regarding the use of unqualified interpreters,
[S]ign language interpretation may not be adequate in Defendants’ substance abuse programs. Plaintiffs provide an instance of a deaf inmate unable to follow the instructor in her substance abuse class. [] Like the inmates mentioned above, she reports that her inmate interpreter cannot keep up with the course instructor, which makes it difficult for her to engage in the class. [] In response to the inmate’s request, Defendants provided her with written notes and lip reading, [], two techniques that this Court has found to be inadequate. . .
Feb. 3, 2010 Finding of Facts, Doc. 1700 at 5 (citations omitted).
2 The failure to provide interpretation assistance for religious services not only implicates the ADA, but also class members’ First Amendment right of free exercise of religion, and their rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”). RLUIPA prohibits any prison from imposing a substantial burden on a prisoner’s religious exercise, unless it demonstrates the burden is “in furtherance of a compelling government interest” and is “the least restrictive means of furthering” that compelling government interest. 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1. The Fourth Circuit recently reinstated a prisoner’s constitutional claim regarding the prison’s failure to provide interpreters during religious programs and services. See Heyer v. United States Bureau of Prisons, 849 F.3d 202, 219 (4th Cir. 2017).

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 29 of 74
Ms. Katie Riley Mr. Patrick McKinney SLI or VRI at Programs &
Religious Services April 6, 2017 Page 3

Defendants admit they do not provide effective communication during these programs. As a result, deaf prisoners are denied access to self-help programs that are necessary to obtain release for prison or are required in order to reduce their sentence through milestone credits. This can result in profoundly serious consequences, such as deaf life prisoners being denied parole because they are unable to demonstrate progress or have not participated in programs to gain insight into their past behavior, or deaf prisoners serving longer sentences because they are unable to obtain milestone credits. 3

During last week’s SATF tour, and while reviewing documents for next week’s RJD tour, we came across multiple examples of this problem. Defendants must immediately begin providing required SLI services during all prison programs, including self-help, religious, and voluntary education programs so that deaf prisoners can participate meaningfully in programs required by the BPH, and in programs that offer milestone credits or additional good time credits pursuant to Proposition 57.

Given that the new time credits under Proposition 57 go into effect on May 1, 2017, time is of the essence in resolving this issue. We do not think we can wait until the meet and confer scheduled for April 25, 2017 to discuss the issues. We request that the parties have a telephone call the week of April 10 to discuss this matter.

Failure to Provide Interpretation at Lifer & Other Self-Help Groups

In an interview at SATF, Mr.

, DPH, DPS, reported that in

November 2016, the Board of Parole Hearings gave him a list of items that would make a grant of

parole more likely, including attending self-help groups, such as anger management. However,

SATF does not provide an SLI for those groups. Mr.

has filed multiple Form 22s

addressed to the ADA Office about not having working VRIs or SLIs at self-help classes. See

Exhibit 1. According to a response to a Form 22 dated October 28, 2016: “At this time we do not

provide SLI services for all voluntary self-help groups. You may request an Inmate interpreter

through your meeting manager/facilitator.”

In an interview at SATF, Mr.

DPH, reported that the Board of Parole

Hearings denied him parole in November 2016, stating that he needed to gain deeper insight into

his commitment offense. Mr.

would like to do so, but his requests for an SLI during lifer

groups were denied. He received the following 1824 response on March 22, 2017: “The

Thursday night group is a Lifer group. An interpreter has been requested through the contract

3 We have raised this issue repeatedly in tour reports. See, e.g. May 2016 CCWF Tour Report at 13; July 2016 CMF Tour Report at 14; October 2016 SATF Tour Report at 6.

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 30 of 74
Ms. Katie Riley Mr. Patrick McKinney SLI or VRI at Programs &
Religious Services April 6, 2017 Page 4

provider; however, the Office of Correctional Education owns the Video Relay Equipment and must approve the use of the equipment. If approval is granted by the Office of Correctional Education an interpreter will be scheduled for your Life groups.” See Exhibit 2.
 ADA staff informed the PLO monitors on the tour that they hope to start allowing Mr. to use the VRI equipment at the Thursday lifer group sometime in April, but were
not sure if that would happen.

A prisoner housed at RJD, Mr.

, DPH, recently contacted Plaintiffs’

counsel to report that he was writing on behalf of all of the deaf prisoners at RJD to tell us that

they have been unable to participate in parenting classes, substance abuse classes, and other self-

help programs, which has resulted in the deaf prisoners not being able to earn up to six weeks of

milestone credits per year or get the certificates indicating successful completion of the program.

He stated he also is in a college course that meets from 6 to 8 pm on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and

Thursdays, but reports that a contract SLI came to only one class in five weeks, and the VRI

machine has not been brought in for his courses.

 We plan to investigate this matter further during the April 10-13, 2017 RJD tour.

Another RJD prisoner, Mr.

, DPH, filed an 1824 (log 16-4756,

Exhibit 3), reporting that he had been told by staff that he could not attend AA/NA classes on

Monday evenings because there was no interpreter. The RAP response confirms that he currently is not in any self-help classes but SLI services would be provided when required.4

 We plan to investigate this matter further during the April 10-13, 2017 RJD tour.

Another RJD prisoner, Mr.

, DPH, filed an 1824 (log 17-0066,

Exhibit 4), reporting that he tested out of ABE II and would like to move to ABE III, but there is

no VRI in the ABE III classroom. He also requests to participate in AA/NA groups and AVP.

The RAP response confirms that there is no VRI in the ABE III classroom, but the institution or

contractor SLI will be used in ABE III. The response instructs him to complete a form 22 asking to participate in AA/NA.5

 We plan to investigate this matter further during the April 10-13, 2017 RJD tour.

/// ///

4 The effective communication documentation for this RAP response shows that it was not provided by the sign language interpreter, but rather a correctional sergeant who “spoke slowly” and used written notes.
5 There is no documentation of how effective communication was achieved in conveying this RAP response, and the EC box on the face of the 1824 is not marked.

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 31 of 74
Ms. Katie Riley Mr. Patrick McKinney SLI or VRI at Programs &
Religious Services April 6, 2017 Page 5

Failure to Provide Interpretation at Religious Services

The pre-tour document production for RJD included two 1824s filed by deaf prisoners

regarding the lack of interpretation services at religious programs. See Exhibit 5, logs 16-5202

and 16-5203. Mr.

, DPH, filed log 16-5202, and Mr.

,

DPH, filed log 16-5203, both requesting an interpreter for Sunday weekly Protestant

services. The RAP response to both appeals states “Your request is denied SLI is available for Vocational Educational due process and health care contacts.” 6 Additionally, a DPH prisoner we

interviewed at SATF who did not want us to use his name reported there is no SLI available for

religious group services. He showed us a response by ADA staff to a Form 22 that stated “The

institution does not provide interpreters for church groups. You may utilize a yard interpreter.”

* * * *

We hope that the examples above illustrate for you that there is a clear violation of existing court orders, the Remedial Plan, and the ADA, and that the violation is causing harm to our deaf clients. While we committed to working cooperatively with the department to resolve issues, we are prepared to seek the Court’s assistance to resolve Defendants’ ongoing violation of its past orders. If we have to go to the Court, we will request an expedited hearing, in light of the potential adverse effect on deaf prisoners’ ability to earn milestone credits for earlier release.

Please advise us of your availability the week of April 10 for a phone call about this issue, and we reiterate our request that you provide us the list of DRP programs, no later than April 14.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Corene Kendrick

Corene Kendrick, Staff Attorney

cc: Counsel of Record Ed Swanson Joanne Chen, Wendy Locke, Tom Gilivich, Office of Legal Affairs Sharon Garske, Bryan Kao, Janet Chen, Erick Rhoan, Danielle O’Bannon, OAG Kelly Mitchell, Sadie Richmond, Adam Fouch, Laurie Hoogland, DAI Lois Welch, OACC

6 There is no documentation of how effective communication was achieved in conveying the RAP responses for either 1824, and “N” is circled in the EC box on the face of both 1824s.

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 32 of 74
Exhibit 1

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 33 of 74

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 34 of 74

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 35 of 74

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 36 of 74

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 37 of 74
Exhibit 2

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 38 of 74

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 39 of 74

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 40 of 74
Exhibit 3

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 41 of 74

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 42 of 74

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 43 of 74

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 44 of 74

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 45 of 74

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 46 of 74

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 47 of 74

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 48 of 74

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 49 of 74

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 50 of 74

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 51 of 74

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 52 of 74
Exhibit 4

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 53 of 74

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 54 of 74

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 55 of 74

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 56 of 74

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 57 of 74

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 58 of 74

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 59 of 74

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 60 of 74
Exhibit 5

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 61 of 74

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 62 of 74

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 63 of 74

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 64 of 74

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 65 of 74

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 66 of 74

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 67 of 74

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 68 of 74

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 69 of 74

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 70 of 74

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 71 of 74

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 72 of 74

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 73 of 74

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2680 Filed 05/15/17 Page 74 of 74

 
 Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2749 Filed 07/16/18 Page 1 of 36

[3277935.1]

1 PRISON LAW OFFICE

XAVIER BECERRA

DONALD SPECTER – 083925

Attorney General of the State of California

2 RITA K. LOMIO – 254501

MONICA ANDERSON

MARGOT MENDELSON – 268583

Senior Assistant Attorney General

3 1917 Fifth Street

JAY C. RUSSELL – 122626

Berkeley, California 94710-1916

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

4 Telephone: (510) 280-2621

SHARON A. GARSKE – 215167

Deputy Attorney General

5 ROSEN BIEN

ROBERT W. HENKELS – 255410

GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP

Deputy Attorney General

6 MICHAEL W. BIEN – 096891

ERICK J. RHOAN – 283588

GAY C. GRUNFELD – 121944

Deputy Attorney General

7 THOMAS NOLAN – 169692

ANNAKARINA DE LA TORRE-

PENNY GODBOLD – 226925

FENNELL – 301862

8 50 Fremont Street, 19th Floor

Deputy Attorney General

San Francisco, California 94105-2235 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000

9 Telephone: (415) 433-6830

San Francisco, California 94102-7004

Telephone: (415) 510-3601

10 LINDA D. KILB – 136101

DISABILITY RIGHTS EDUCATION & Attorneys for Defendants

11 DEFENSE FUND, INC.

3075 Adeline Street, Suite 201

12 Berkeley, California 94703

Telephone: (510) 644-2555

13

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

14

15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17

18 JOHN ARMSTRONG, et al.,

Case No. C94 2307 CW

19

Plaintiffs,

JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

20

v.

Judge: Hon. Claudia Wilken

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

22

Defendants.

23

24

25

26

27

28

JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

Case No. C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2749 Filed 07/16/18 Page 2 of 36

[3277935.1]

1

The parties submit this Joint Case Status Statement pursuant to the Stipulation and

2 Order entered March 28, 2011 (Doc. 1868), which provides that “[t]he parties will file

3 periodic joint statements describing the status of the litigation” every other month,

4 beginning on May 16, 2011.

5

CURRENT ISSUES

6

A. Allegations of Abuse and Violence by CDCR Staff Against Class

Members

7

8 Plaintiffs’ Statement

9

As detailed at length in prior case management statements, Plaintiffs’ counsel has

10 documented allegations of widespread abuse and violations of the rights of people with

11 disabilities at High Desert State Prison (High Desert), Central California Women’s Facility

12 (CCWF), and Salinas Valley State Prison (SVSP).1 Plaintiffs’ counsel has also

13 documented similar problems regarding staff harassment, discrimination, and intimidation

14 of class members at California State Prison Sacramento (SAC), California State Prison Los

15 Angeles County (LAC), and Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility (RJD). Plaintiffs’

16 counsel has detailed these allegations in monitoring tour reports and advocacy letters

17 directed to CDCR over the past two years.

18

Plaintiffs’ allegations constitute evidence of an environment fostered by staff

19 members at some institutions that discourages people from asking for assistance and

20 discriminates against people with disabilities in CDCR prisons. Many of the allegations of

21 abuse, violence, and retaliation documented in Plaintiffs’ counsel’s reports and letters are

22 directed at class members. How staff members treat people with disabilities and whether

23 staff engage in intimidation and retaliation against people with disabilities are of central

24 importance to this case.

25

Plaintiffs’ counsel has raised concerns about CDCR’s process for investigating

26 allegations of violence, misconduct, discrimination, and harassment of class members by

27

28 1 For a detailed recitation of Plaintiffs’ allegations, see Doc. 2680 at 5-9.

1
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

Case No. C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2749 Filed 07/16/18 Page 3 of 36

[3277935.1]

1 staff. Plaintiffs’ counsel has met with institution staff at CCWF and SVSP, CDCR

2 headquarters staff, and representatives from the Office of Internal Affairs and the Office of

3 Inspector General about this issue. The meetings have been collaborative, but Plaintiffs’

4 counsel remains concerned about profound shortcomings in CDCR’s investigative process.

5

In November 2017, Plaintiffs’ counsel sent a letter to CDCR expressing concern

6 about various aspects of CDCR’s processes for investigating staff misconduct allegations

7 and calling upon CDCR to take concrete, corrective action to address the widespread

8 allegations of staff misconduct at SVSP and other institutions. Plaintiffs’ counsel

9 requested that CDCR take steps such as deploying video cameras and implementing a

10 meaningful early warning system to identify problematic behavior by staff and identify

11 trends in staff misconduct allegations. Plaintiffs’ counsel is troubled by CDCR’s pattern of

12 dismissing highly consistent and very serious allegations of staff misconduct simply

13 because its current investigation system is unable to substantiate them. Plaintiffs’ counsel

14 is also concerned about the lack of independence of ISU officers, who play the critical role

15 of conducting initial investigations into allegations of staff misconduct at the institutions.

16

In response to these concerns, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) conducted

17 an assessment of the effectiveness of SVSP’s process for handling complaints about staff

18 misconduct. The OIG is monitored all staff complaints submitted at SVSP from March 1,

19 2018 through May 31, 2018. Plaintiffs’ counsel hopes that the OIG’s review will identify

20 areas for improvement in CDCR’s investigation of staff complaints.

21

Plaintiffs’ counsel also has raised concerns about the quality of investigations by

22 CDCR’s Office of Internal Affairs (OIA). As detailed in Plaintiffs’ prior statement, the

23 OIG cited concerns about the quality and scope of OIA investigations its recent Semi-

24 Annual Report. Office of Inspector General, Semi-Annual Report, July – December 2017

25 (Mar. 2018), available at

26 https://www.oig.ca.gov/media/reports/SAR/2018/OIG_Semi_Annual_Report_July_-

27 _December_2017.pdf). The Semi-Annual Report, expressly recommended that CDCR

28

2
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

Case No. C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2749 Filed 07/16/18 Page 4 of 36

[3277935.1]

1 change its policy whereby the special agent in charge of OIA’s central intake has authority

2 to deny requests to initiate investigations or interview staff members in connection with

3 staff misconduct allegations. Id. at 15. The report details a number of troubling instances

4 in which the OIA special agent declined to investigate allegations of serious staff

5 misconduct, against the recommendation of OIG attorneys and found that in 82% of these

6 cases, the failure to accept the recommendation to investigate the allegations affected the

7 outcome. Id. at 13-14.

8

CDCR, thus far, has declined to accept the express recommendation of the OIG to

9 change its policy regarding the authority of OIA special agents. On April 4, 2018,

10 Plaintiffs’ counsel sent CDCR a letter outlining our objections to this decision. Plaintiffs’

11 counsel, Defendants, Inspector General Roy Wesley, and Mr. Swanson met on May 2,

12 2018. Given the parties’ ongoing dispute about the effectiveness of CDCR’s investigative

13 processes, the parties will confer about whether to identify a neutral party to evaluate

14 aspects of the OIA system.

15 Defendants’ Statement

16

Defendants investigate all allegations of staff misconduct made by Armstrong class

17 members. Allegations made by non-class members and allegations not related to

18 violations of the ADA or the Remedial Plan are processed and addressed through CDCR’s

19 staff disciplinary process, as set forth in the Department Operations Manual. (See CDCR

20 Department Operations Manual, Chapter 3, Art. 22.) Defendants deny Plaintiffs’ assertion

21 of “profound shortcomings” in the investigation process. Defendants also dispute 22 Plaintiffs’ assertion that CDCR has a “pattern of dismissing highly consistent and very 23 serious allegations of staff misconduct simply because its current investigation system is 24 unable to substantiate them.” To the contrary, CDCR has a comprehensive system for 25 identifying and addressing valid allegations of staff misconduct unmatched by any other 26 correctional system. This process was developed in the Madrid litigation, and the Prison 27 Law Office was significantly involved in its development. 28

3
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

Case No. C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2749 Filed 07/16/18 Page 5 of 36

[3277935.1]

1

CDCR does not dismiss allegations of staff misconduct, nor does it operate a system

2 in which allegations cannot be substantiated. All allegations presented by Plaintiffs are

3 consistently addressed through the appropriate channels. Furthermore, the OIG monitors

4 and assesses CDCR’s internal affairs investigations of alleged employee misconduct and

5 subsequent appeals. And Defendants have disciplined their employees for confirmed

6 violations.

7

Defendants have engaged in an extraordinary level of cooperation with Plaintiffs’

8 counsel, including joint visits to prisons in excess of the annual tour schedule and

9 providing enhanced access to investigative details and documents2.

10

Defendants remain willing to work with Plaintiffs’ counsel to develop standards or

11 guidelines to determine how an allegation should be addressed. However, Plaintiffs’

12 counsel is attempting to reargue Madrid and suggests that any allegation by a class

13 member implicates the ADA. Defendants disagree. Not every complaint implicates the

14 ADA or this Court’s accountability orders. The OIG’s July-August 2017 Semi-Annual

15 Report does not specifically address ADA issues or complaints. Rather, it is a

16 comprehensive review of CDCR’s investigative process, and Plaintiffs’ reliance upon it as

17 evidence that CDCR is failing to comply with the ADA is misplaced and inappropriate.

18 The OIG’s investigation is not conducted under Armstrong, and Plaintiffs misinterpret its

19 findings as Defendants explained in the May 2018 joint status conference statement3.

20

Plaintiffs’ monitoring has strayed far from verifying CDCR’s ADA compliance.

21 For example, Plaintiffs have begun sending letters on behalf of non-class members

22 regarding issues unrelated to CDCR’s ADA compliance while inappropriately labeling and

23 billing such correspondence under Armstrong. Plaintiffs’ counsel has also significantly

24 increased interviews with non-class members during Armstrong monitoring tours and are

25

26

27

2 For detailed summaries of past actions, see ECF No. 2688, p. 5-8; ECF No. 2697, p. 4-5; ECF No. 2704, p. 3-4.

28 3 For detailed explanation of the OIG report findings and CDCR response, see ECF No. 2726, p. 5-6.

4
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

Case No. C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2749 Filed 07/16/18 Page 6 of 36

[3277935.1]

1 reporting allegations that Defendants believe are not related to the ADA or the Remedial

2 Plan.

3

Defendants will continue to meet and discuss issues related to CDCR’s compliance

4 with the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and orders in this case. But Defendants are unwilling to

5 allow this action to stray from addressing the rights of disabled inmates.

6

B. Shortage of Accessible and Appropriate Housing Placements

7

Defendants are required to house people with disabilities in accessible placements.

8 If people are in placements that do not accommodate their disabilities, CDCR must

9 expedite their transfer to an appropriate prison. See Armstrong Remedial Plan § IV.D.

10 Plaintiffs’ counsel’s February 2018 letter and numerous monitoring reports over the last

11 year document that Defendants are failing to expeditiously transfer all impacted class 12 members. See Doc. 2721, Exhibit A (Letter from M. Mendelson, Prison Law Office, to R. 13 Boyd, Office of Legal Affairs, Failure to Expeditiously Transfer Class Members to Safe 14 and Appropriate Housing Settings (Feb. 12, 2018)). Plaintiffs’ counsel asserts that people 15 with disabilities are at great risk of injury trying to access beds, cells, showers, yard and 16 other programs while housed in prisons that do not accommodate their disabilities. 17 Plaintiffs’ counsel also contends that housing individuals for prolonged periods in unsafe 18 and inaccessible housing placements violates the Armstrong court’s 2007 Injunction, 19 which prohibits CDCR from “hous[ing] [class members] at any placements without

20 adequate accessible housing ….” Permanent Injunction (“2007 Injunction”), Jan. 18,

21 2007, Doc. 1045 at 6.

22

Similarly, dozens of other class members remain in Reception Centers for up to

23 several months on extended stay status for an accessible placement to become available at

24 a mainline prison. While in Reception, class members do not have access to mainline

25 programs, including Proposition 57 Rehabilitative Achievement Programs, that enable

26 them to earn sentence-reducing credits for participation. People with disabilities who

27 remain in Reception Centers because of a lack of accessible placement could serve longer

28

5
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

Case No. C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2749 Filed 07/16/18 Page 7 of 36

[3277935.1]

1 prison sentences as a result.

2

Plaintiffs’ counsel also has raised concerns regarding class members who are

3 housed for long periods of time at higher security levels than their classification points

4 warrant. Plaintiffs’ counsel contends that many of these class members are exposed to

5 significant safety risks and excluded from programming opportunities by virtue of their

6 inappropriate custodial placements. Plaintiffs’ counsel contends that housing class

7 members out of level because of a dearth of accessible placements at the appropriate

8 security levels violates this Court’s orders and federal disability law. See 2007 Injunction,

9 at 6, 9 (requiring that CDCR adhere to the ARP requirement that no prisoner with a

10 disability “shall, because of that disability, be excluded from participation in or denied the

11 benefits of services, programs, or activities of the Department or be subjected to

12 discrimination.”); 28 C.F.R. 35.152(b)(2) (prisons “[s]hall not place inmates or detainees

13 with disabilities in inappropriate security classifications because no accessible cells or beds

14 are available” and “[s]hall not place inmates or detainees with disabilities in facilities that

15 do not offer the same programs as the facilities where they would otherwise be housed.”).

16

Defendants acknowledge that they face challenges in moving some class members

17 to accessible housing placements and have taken action at the headquarters level to attempt

18 to facilitate transfers of class members. For example, headquarters staff currently monitors

19 class members awaiting transfer and oversees bed moves of class members on a statewide

20 basis. In addition, Defendants assert that many class members are not expeditiously

21 transferred for reasons unrelated to their disability and the lack of an appropriate bed; for

22 example, if an inmate has a medical hold he or she cannot be transferred until that hold is

23 released.

24

Nonetheless and despite these efforts, Plaintiffs remain concerned that CDCR staff

25 members who are responsible for endorsing class members for transfer lack adequate

26 information about current bed availability that matches each class member’s custody,

27 medical, mental health, and other classification factors. Defendants acknowledge that

28

6
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

Case No. C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2749 Filed 07/16/18 Page 8 of 36

[3277935.1]

1 transfer decisions are made without knowing whether a bed is actually available at a given

2 prison. Plaintiffs have documented that when beds are unavailable, class members may

3 wait for months in unsafe housing placements after being endorsed for transfer. Moreover,

4 CDCR continues to endorse people to transfer to prisons that are known to be full or

5 otherwise have delays and long waitlists. Although Defendants are working on addressing

6 this issue by creating a headquarters process to ensure that people are re-endorsed to other

7 prisons, Plaintiffs assert that the problem continues to occur at the institution level.

8

Plaintiffs’ counsel is currently working with Defendants to try to develop a long-

9 term solution. Defendants produced a first set of data regarding expedited transfer delays,

10 Reception Center delays, and out-of-level housing on February 28, 2018. Initially,

11 Defendants were unable to provide lengths of stay for class members in those settings. At

12 the request of Plaintiffs’ counsel, Defendants recently produced a second set of data—

13 based on manual computation—that reflects class members’ lengths of stay in Reception

14 Centers, out-of-level housing, and non-designated housing. The parties met on April 26,

15 2018 and discussed the data Defendants produced and the broader issues involved. The

16 parties agreed to produce a refined set of data for the month of May 2018, and meet

17 thereafter to continue to identify the scope of the problem and develop solutions to any

18 additional issues identified. If this issue is not resolved quickly, Plaintiffs will seek the

19 Court’s assistance.

20

C. Discrimination in Program Assignments

21 Plaintiffs’ Statement

22

Problems Regarding Access for Deaf Class Members

23

As detailed in the May 15, 2017 statement and Exhibit 1 to the statement,

24 (Doc. 2680 at 3-4), as well as the March 15, 2017 statement (Doc. 2671 at 14), deaf people

25 in the CDCR have been and are being denied access to many programs such as education

26 and self-help programs that would improve their chances of being parole—including those

27 that have been expressly recommended by the Board of Parole Hearings—because CDCR

28

7
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

Case No. C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2749 Filed 07/16/18 Page 9 of 36

[3277935.1]

1 failed to make sign language interpreters (“SLIs”) available for these programs and

2 classes. With limited access to Proposition 57 programs, deaf class members run the risk

3 of serving longer prison sentences or being denied parole, and are denied access to the

4 rehabilitative programs that could improve the probability of community reintegration

5 without recidivism.

6

Plaintiffs’ counsel has extensively documented CDCR’s persistent failure to

7 provide SLI services to class members who require them. See Exhibit A: June 19, 2018,

8 Letter from R. Lomio, Prison Law Office, to R. Boyd, Office of Legal Affairs

9 (documenting allegations regarding CDCR’s failure to provide SLIs for AA and NA

10 meetings, lifer groups, religious services, educational programming, and vocational

11 programming at SATF). Deaf class members, especially at SATF and RJD, continue to

12 report significant deprivations of access to prison programs, services, and activities on

13 account of lack of interpretation services. Plaintiffs’ counsel has undertaken one site visit

14 to SATF and will also be visiting RJD in the coming weeks in an effort to identify the

15 source of ongoing failure to comply with this Court’s orders regarding the provision of SLI

16 services and to identify solutions.

17

Although Defendants agree that in-person interpreters should serve as the primary

18 means of providing interpretation, they continue to face challenges in scheduling live

19 interpreters. Defendants maintain that a master calendar will solve the current problem of

20 no centralized scheduling system for all custody and health care encounters that require

21 SLI. Defendants report that they have identified a calendar solution, which they plan to

22 have implemented by October 2018. Defendants have not yet presented the calendar

23 solution to Plaintiffs.

24

On July 10, 2018, the parties discussed problems with provision of interpreter

25 services at SATF. Defendants reported that deaf class members now will have a position

26 with the Inmate Advisory Committees at SATF, captains will meet weekly with deaf class

27 members, and ADA staff will meet monthly with deaf class members. Defendants

28

8
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

Case No. C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2749 Filed 07/16/18 Page 10 of 36

[3277935.1]

1 reported that SATF is drafting an operating procedure for how to request a sign language 2 interpreter to provide clear direction to staff. Defendants agreed to conduct individual case 3 factor reviews for all deaf class members at SATF to see if they may be housed at other 4 prisons, including prisons not currently designated for DPH-SLI class members but where 5 there may be more access to SLI resources, so that DPH-SLI class members can 6 meaningfully participate in programs, services, and activities. Defendants reported that 7 headquarters staff will conduct biweekly calls with SATF staff regarding this issue. The 8 parties will remain in close contact to evaluate whether the steps offered by Defendants are 9 effective and to develop additional remedial solutions where necessary.

10

Plaintiffs remain hopeful that a collaborative approach to identifying problems and

11 proposing solutions will continue during visits to SATF and RJD. Plaintiffs also look

12 forward to receiving a demonstration of Defendants’ proposed calendaring and scheduling

13 solution. But if deaf class members continue to be denied sign language interpreters, and

14 if Defendants do not implement a plausible plan to correct longstanding problems,

15 Plaintiffs will have no choice but to seek Court intervention to address this longstanding

16 deprivation of Plaintiffs’ rights.

17

Problems Regarding Access to Assignments for All People with Disabilities

18

With regard to the broader problem of equal access to job and program assignments

19 for people with disabilities, the parties convened a small work group to address Plaintiffs’

20 concerns, as raised in multiple tour reports and letters. See Doc. 2680 at 13-14. The

21 parties agreed to exchange data on a quarterly basis and recently met to review and discuss

22 the data regarding assignments. The parties have a potential dispute about the appropriate

23 method for analyzing the program assignment data; they are in the process of meeting and

24 conferring about that issue.

25

The parties conducted one site visit at SATF and will conduct two additional site

26 visits in the coming months, at Salinas Valley State Prison and Kern Valley State Prison.

27 The parties discovered blatant barriers to program assignment access in the PIA program at

28

9
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

Case No. C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2749 Filed 07/16/18 Page 11 of 36

[3277935.1]

1 SATF, as outlined further in Plaintiffs’ June 7, 2018, letter attached as Exhibit B. The

2 parties plan to continue to collaborate on solutions to program assignment disparities. The

3 parties also plan to incorporate questions regarding disparities in assignment rates in the

4 Joint Audit Tool.

5 Defendants’ Statement

6

Access to Programs for Deaf Class Members

7

Defendants are committed to ensuring that hearing-impaired inmates who require

8 SLI are provided equal access to program assignments. Defendants developed multiple

9 methods to provide program access for the approximately 75 class members who use sign

10 language as their primary means of communication. These include using CDCR staff

11 interpreters, contract in-person interpreters, and video remote interpretation (VRI).

12 Overall, Defendants’ policy for providing interpreters in person and via VRI provides a

13 reasonable level of access to enable hearing-impaired inmates to meaningfully participate

14 in programs and complies with ADA regulations.

15

Defendants have identified a scheduling process that should be implemented by

16 October 2018. Defendants will continue to work with Plaintiffs’ counsel on this process

17 and will provide updates on its implementation. The parties are reviewing and discussing

18 proposed draft regulations, and local operating procedures have been provided to

19 Plaintiffs’ counsel. Because the parties and the Court’s expert continue to collaboratively

20 work on these issues, Court intervention is unnecessary.

21

Access to Programs for Class Members Generally

22

Defendants continue to monitor institutions with the highest level of program

23 assignment disparities and are seeing improvements at all of them. The development and

24 implementation of inmate assignment reports and monitoring has greatly enhanced the

25 depth of data available and improved management oversight on this issue. Improvements

26 are also attributed to the training that Defendants provided to the Chiefs of Mental Health

27 and the Inmate Assignment Lieutenants. Defendants established a full-time Headquarters

28

10
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

Case No. C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2749 Filed 07/16/18 Page 12 of 36

[3277935.1]

1 Inmate Assignment Lieutenant position, who is responsible for training, monitoring, and

2 reporting inmate assignment data. The position is filled and became effective November

3 2017.

4

Defendants continue to provide Plaintiffs with data regarding class member

5 assignments. The parties met on April 12, 2018, to discuss the data and agreed to jointly

6 visit Salinas Valley, Kern Valley, and SATF to further inquire as to possible disparities in

7 program assignments and their causes. The parties conducted a site visit at SATF on May

8 14, 2018. Defendants took immediate steps to remedy one confirmed problem that

9 presented the possibility of discrimination against class members. Defendants will

10 continue to look into the issues presented in Plaintiffs’ June 7, 2018 letter. The parties will

11 continue to meet and confer concerning any alleged data disparities, and ensure that class

12 members have access to CDCR programs.

13

D. Video Remote Interpreting/Sign Language Interpretation for Parolees

Who Are Deaf

14

15 Plaintiffs’ Statement

16

Plaintiffs continue to assert that parolees are not receiving SLIs during important

17 due process encounters on parole. Most recently, a detailed review of the SLI tracking

18 logs for the third quarter, as set forth in a December 11, 2017 letter from Plaintiffs’

19 counsel, showed that SLIs were documented as being used only twice in the Northern

20 Region, though there were approximately 11 deaf parolees under DAPO supervision in

21 that region during that quarter. Defendants claim that the data they provided did not 22 accurately reflect the provision of SLI services and thus provided additional data. 23 Nevertheless, the additional data reviewed by Plaintiffs’ counsel showed only one 24 additional appointment, making it three appointments that were scheduled for 11 class 25 members in that region during the third quarter. Plaintiffs remain extremely concerned 26 about the low number of SLI encounters scheduled for deaf parolees. It remains unclear 27 how agents are effectively communicating with these class members during parole 28

11
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

Case No. C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2749 Filed 07/16/18 Page 13 of 36

[3277935.1]

1 encounters.

2

At the request of Plaintiffs’ counsel, Defendants have revised their VRI policy such

3 that in-person SLI, and not VRI, will serve as the first option for providing SLI services.

4 The policy is part of a revised version of DAPO’s effective communication policy which

5 should take effect August 4, 2018.

6

The parties continue to have a disagreement regarding the provision of SLI during

7 field encounters. Plaintiffs object to DAPO’s reliance on written notes to communicate

8 with parolees in the field. Notwithstanding this disagreement, Defendants have agreed to

9 pursue the possibility of obtaining an SLI through VRI software on agents’ phones during

10 field encounters.

11 Defendants’ Statement

12

Defendants assert that sign language interpretation is not mandated for every parole

13 encounter. DAPO revised its effective communication and sign language policy and

14 shared it with Plaintiffs’ counsel. Under the revised policy, an in-person SLI will be

15 provided as the first option. VRI will only be used when a live interpreter is unavailable.

16 The revised policy is under review by the California Correctional Peace Officers

17 Association. Defendants anticipate the policy will be final and effective by August 2018.

18

Defendants also will provide additional training to ensure staff is familiar with the

19 policy and the technology. To further ensure that SLI services are provided when needed,

20 Defendants assigned all hearing-impaired parolees who use SLI to a Parole Agent II

21 Supervisor. Defendants have also retested VRI connectivity at each parole office to ensure

22 technological issues were addressed.

23

Defendants are concerned that using a civilian in-person SLI during parolee field

24 encounters presents safety and security issues. Therefore, Defendants are exploring ways

25 for parole agents to obtain VRI services on their state-issued cell phones or laptops/tablets

26 so that SLI services can be provided during mandated parole encounters.

27 / / /

28

12
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

Case No. C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2749 Filed 07/16/18 Page 14 of 36

[3277935.1]

1

Defendants assert that the alleged lack or limited use of SLI is not evidence that SLI

2 was required and not provided. In the third and fourth quarters of 2017, 64 parole

3 appointments with SLI were scheduled, but 21 were cancelled. Fifteen appointments were

4 cancelled because parolees did not appear for their scheduled appointments, and another

5 three because the parolee was in jail. In one instance, the interpreter was refused entry into

6 the county jail due to improper identification. Only one appointment was cancelled

7 because the interpreter was not available. Defendants recently obtained authorization to

8 hire a SLI at CDCR Headquarters who will assist parole offices in providing interpretive

9 services for the field. Defendants will continue to work to provide SLI services to

10 parolees.

11

E. Dangerous Conditions as a Result of Leaking Roofs

12

For years, Plaintiffs’ counsel, class members, and even the Department of Public

13 Health have reported on dangerous conditions in prison as a result of leaking due to rain.

14 Plaintiffs have reported water damage and its natural consequences—falls resulting in loss

15 of consciousness and other injuries, elderly people trapped in soaking wet beds, the

16 inability of people with vision and mobility disabilities to safely traverse the prison, mold,

17 electrical outages, and falling ceiling tiles. Plaintiffs have observed standing water in light

18 fixtures and have heard reports from staff members of electrical outages caused by water in

19 light fixtures, leaving some areas dark and particularly hazardous for people with vision

20 impairments. Plaintiffs observed mold in many areas of institutions where water had

21 soaked through walls—including in dining halls, immediately above sleeping areas, and in

22 visitation areas where children may be present.

23

The Governor’s 2018-19 budget which recently passed includes a $60.7 million

24 General Fund to replace roofs at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility,

25 Salinas Valley State Prison, and Ventura Youth Correctional Facility and a $9 million

26 General Fund for mold remediation efforts at various facilities in 2018-19. This continues

27 a multi-year strategy to address failing roofs, with Calipatria State Prison, California

28

13
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

Case No. C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2749 Filed 07/16/18 Page 15 of 36

[3277935.1]

1 Correctional Women’s Facility, and California State Prison, Corcoran being the next

2 priorities. The Budget includes total funding of a $153 million General Fund for roof

3 replacements and mold remediation over the next two fiscal years.

4 See http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/FullBudgetSummary.pdf at 65.Plaintiffs will continue to

5 monitor efforts to alleviate leaking at prisons.

6

At the June 20, 2018, all-party meeting, Defendants updated the parties on the status

7 of facilities repairs throughout the prison system. Despite reported improvements,

8 Plaintiffs continue to receive reports of flooding at SATF. Defendants will look in to those

9 reports and will continue to provide construction repair updates.

10

Defendants do not believe that every complaint raised about facilities repairs

11 implicates the ADA or the Armstrong Remedial Plan. However, Defendants will update

12 Plaintiffs regarding facilities repairs as new information is provided.

13

F. Parole Planning and Working With Class Members Preparing for

Release

14

15 Plaintiffs’ Statement

16

Plaintiffs’ counsel contends that CDCR and DAPO fail to ensure that parolees with

17 severe and impacting placement disabilities receive adequate planning for parole and

18 adequate transitional housing, transportation, and other transitional services. See Doc.

19 2680 at 11-12; Doc. 2655 at 11-13. Plaintiffs argue that Defendants violate the ADA and

20 Remedial Plan by excluding people who use wheelchairs and other class members from

21 CDCR-funded community placements. When the CDCR fails to provide people with 22 disabilities adequate assistance in obtaining benefits or other transition services before they 23 parole, “CDCR is operating its services, programs and activities in a manner that 24 inevitably channels person with disabilities into repeated institutional confinement with no 25 realistic opportunity to establish independent living in the community, in violation of the 26 ADA and of the principles set forth in Olmstead L.C. ex. Rel. Zimring, 527 U.S. 581 27 (1999).” Doc. 2655 at 12. 28

14
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

Case No. C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2749 Filed 07/16/18 Page 16 of 36

[3277935.1]

1

The parties have been working cooperatively for the last year to understand the

2 extent of the problem and to explore possible remedies, such as the development of a

3 memorandum or procedure setting forth a unified set of policies and resources for parole

4 agents to use in assisting Armstrong class members as they navigate their transitions from

5 prison to parole.

6

Plaintiffs have ongoing concerns about the benefit application process and the

7 adequacy of resources for this process under the Transitional Case Management Program

8 (TCMP). State legislators are also concerned and in October 2017 passed Senate Bill 776,

9 which requires the CDCR to hire one employee for every five prisons to assist incarcerated

10 veterans in applying for and receiving any federal or other veterans’ benefits for which

11 they or their families may be eligible. See, e.g.,

12 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB776.

13

The parties have discussed the plan for California Correctional Health Care

14 Services (CCHCS) to provide a new policy in the near future. The policy would address

15 past problems with CDCR medical staff failing to provide follow-up medical information

16 when requested by the Social Security Administration during its processing of applications

17 for Social Security Disability benefits.

18

The parties also plan to continue to meet and share information regarding

19 Defendants’ follow up on a recent survey of the transitional housing placements managed

20 by CDCR’s Division of Rehabilitative Programs (“DRP”), which showed that many

21 providers do not accept hearing impaired, mobility impaired, and vision impaired

22 individuals. DRP officials agree that the programs should accept parolees with these

23 disabilities and plan to follow up with the contractors explaining their duties under the

24 ADA and their contracts with DRP. (The DRP contract purportedly provides for extra

25 payment for any parolees who require sign language interpretation to cover the cost of

26 these services.)

27

Plaintiffs’ counsel appreciates that DRP surveyed its contractors about the

28

15
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

Case No. C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2749 Filed 07/16/18 Page 17 of 36

[3277935.1]

1 accessibility of their programs. Plaintiffs are concerned because the results document

2 various exclusions of vision, mobility and hearing impaired individuals from transitional

3 housing programs that contract with DRP. Plaintiffs do not agree that giving housing

4 program priority or extra targeted resources to assist severely disabled individuals whose

5 disability places them at higher risk of failing on parole if they are homeless constitutes

6 improper “preferential treatment.”

7

Plaintiffs believe that a unified memorandum on transition to parole resources and

8 procedures, as well as improvements to the system for completing medical information

9 required on benefits applications, would help CDCR and DAPO staff better meet their

10 obligations under the ADA and the Armstrong Remedial Plan.

11 Defendants’ Statement

12

Recognizing that successful reintegration reduces a parolee’s chance of reoffending

13 and returning to prison, Defendants currently offer pre-parole planning services to all

14 inmates before release from prison. Defendants provide these services consistent with the

15 ADA and the Armstrong Remedial Plan.

16

Defendants contract with third parties to provide transitional housing in the

17 community, and the providers are contractually required to provide housing that complies

18 with the ADA and state and federal laws. Defendants do not “exclude” persons with

19 wheelchairs and other class members from CDCR-funded community placements because

20 of their disability. In fact, Defendants have provided data to Plaintiffs showing that

21 approximately 17 percent of contracted beds are wheelchair accessible, which far exceeds 22 the current parolee population needs. Defendants acknowledge that denial of a housing 23 placement based on inaccessible housing is inappropriate, but disagree that they are 24 obligated to find transitional housing for every disabled parolee upon release from prison, 25 or that disabled parolees should be given preferential treatment with respect to placement 26 in transitional housing. The parties met on January 26, 2018, to discuss the Division of 27 Rehabilitative Programs’ survey that identified ADA capacity for all CDCR funded 28

16
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

Case No. C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2749 Filed 07/16/18 Page 18 of 36

[3277935.1]

1 community programs that house parolees, including STOP, Residential Multi Service

2 Centers, Parolee Service Centers, Transitional Housing Program, Female Offender

3 Treatment, and Employment Program and Day Reporting Center-Transitional Housing.

4

Defendants also provide assistance with applying for medical benefits, via social

5 workers under the Transitional Case Management Program (TCMP) contract, to prisoners

6 prior to their release from prison. Defendants continually assess the number of TCMP

7 benefits workers at each prison and believe that current staffing levels are adequate to meet

8 each prison’s needs. Defendants provide this service to all inmates and do not discriminate

9 against disabled inmates when providing this service. Defendants do not control the

10 timelines by which outside agencies process and approve or deny benefits. At the June 20,

11 2018 all-party meeting, CDCR advised that California State Senate Bill 776, effective July

12 1, 2018, will provide funding to the California Department of Veterans Affairs to hire

13 seven new staff members dedicated to work at the 35 CDCR institutions to identify and

14 assist veteran inmates and their families with obtaining veterans’ benefits. And CDCR has

15 developed a working group to assist inmates with developing pre-parole plans.

16

CCHCS continues to evaluate the issue of medical staff providing follow up

17 medical information requested by the Social Security Administration.

18

Defendants will continue to work with Plaintiffs’ counsel and the Court’s expert to

19 address transition to parole issues as they relate to the Armstrong litigation.

20

G. Accommodations for Blind and Low Vision Class Members

21

On September 7, 2017, Plaintiffs’ counsel sent Defendants a letter outlining a series

22 of concerns about inadequate accommodations to ensure equal access for class members

23 who are blind or have low vision. Defendants have responded favorably to most of the

24 issues raised by Plaintiffs’ counsel, and the parties are working cooperatively to expand the

25 accommodations available to class members with vision impairments.

26

Defendants have agreed to Plaintiffs’ counsel’s request to implement technologies

27 to ensure equal access in prison libraries including JAWS (with the exception of Braille

28

17
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

Case No. C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2749 Filed 07/16/18 Page 19 of 36

[3277935.1]

1 printers, which Plaintiffs’ counsel requested). Defendants reported that they have received 2 much of the new equipment including replacement Merlin machines for distribution to the 3 institutions. They also reported that they are in the process of working on a user manual, 4 with audio instructions for the new equipment. Defendants are communicating with the 5 National Braille Institute about developing Braille training opportunities for class 6 members. Defendants are developing and will distribute a statewide memorandum, 7 through the Department of Rehabilitative Programs, to provide clear direction to prisons 8 regarding what technology they have and how to maintain it. Defendants agreed to 9 explore the development of a method by which blind and low vision class members can fill

10 out CDCR forms electronically. Once the above items are in place, the parties will discuss

11 ways to notify inmates about the available equipment and technology and determine what

12 additional equipment is needed.

13

At Plaintiffs’ request, Defendants agreed to reinstate the DNV category for a

14 limited number of people with low vision which Defendants anticipate will be

15 implemented in the field in July 2018. Defendants have developed a draft memorandum

16 providing that individuals will be designated DNV if their vision is between 20/70 and

17 20/200, when corrected (i.e., when they are wearing glasses or using other assistive

18 devices) and a CDCR doctor determines that they are substantially impaired in a major life

19 activity as a consequence of their vision impairments. The memorandum also requires that

20 all individuals with DNV codes wear vision impaired vests.

21

Plaintiffs’ counsel welcomes the establishment of the DNV code. Plaintiffs’

22 counsel objects to the scope of the DNV code proposed by CDCR because, as stated

23 previously, 20/70 is too high of a threshold for qualification. At minimum, individuals

24 whose vision is 20/70 uncorrected also should receive the DNV code. This would enable

25 CDCR to identify the disability needs of these individuals when they do not have their

26 glasses or other assistive devices and ensure that identifying vests can be readily available

27 in those circumstances. This approach would be consistent with CDCR’s use of the DPH

28

18
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

Case No. C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2749 Filed 07/16/18 Page 20 of 36

[3277935.1]

1 and DNH codes for hearing impairments.

2

Notwithstanding these remaining objections, Plaintiffs’ counsel has agreed that

3 CDCR should implement the new vision code as proposed. Plaintiffs’ counsel will

4 monitor implementation of the new policy and bring problems to the attention of CDCR.

5

H. Accountability

6

In January 2016, Plaintiffs’ counsel outlined concerns about ongoing problems with

7 Defendants’ accountability process. See Doc. No. 2604 at 2. In response, Defendants

8 developed a five-step plan, which includes additional training and improved reporting

9 procedures, to address Plaintiffs’ concerns. Id. Defendants circulated a memorandum and

10 conducted training on the new inquiry and reporting process. Pursuant to the new plan, the

11 Review Committee meetings began in September 2016 and now are regularly held at

12 headquarters. Defendants developed an automated system to track and log the

13 accountability process, which they demonstrated for Plaintiffs’ counsel during the

14 February 15, 2018, meet and confer. Defendants are currently testing the new system at

15 four prisons and then will open the data from the new system up to Plaintiffs for review

16 and feedback on the reports that will be generated.

17

Based on Defendants’ demonstration, Plaintiffs’ counsel is impressed by the robust

18 search and sort features of the new accountability system. Nonetheless, Plaintiffs remain

19 concerned that Defendants’ plan does not go far enough in requiring staff to analyze

20 whether individual allegations are indicative of a larger systemic problem. As explained

21 above (see Section A), Plaintiffs believe that CDCR is failing to adequately investigate a 22 significant number of Armstrong allegations concerning staff misconduct, harassment, 23 discrimination, and violence. Plaintiffs await data from Defendants’ test of the new 24 tracking software. Following the June all-party meeting, Defendants shared with 25 Plaintiffs’ counsel and the Court’s expert preliminary draft accountability logs created by 26 the new automated system. The parties continue to meet and confer to develop a 27 sustainable and meaningful accountability system that identifies problematic institutions 28

19
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

Case No. C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2749 Filed 07/16/18 Page 21 of 36

[3277935.1]

1 and staff and promptly remedies violations of the ADA and Armstrong Remedial Plan.

2

I. Training of Staff on the ADA, ARP, and Disabilities

3

Plaintiffs believe that inadequate training of staff on ADA issues has contributed to

4 the discrimination, harassment, and misconduct by staff against prisoners with disabilities

5 uncovered at multiple institutions. Plaintiffs also attribute CDCR’s failure to provide

6 adequate accommodations to insufficient staff training.

7

Defendants agree that problems exist with the database previously used to track

8 which staff require Armstrong training but assert that the issue is being addressed.

9 Defendants’ information technology specialists are in the process of updating database

10 systems, so that information regarding which staff members have received training can be

11 tracked and monitored easily.

12

CDCR also is drafting new training modules, with the goal of revamping and

13 overhauling the Armstrong training. The new Learning Management System (“LMS”)

14 training modules require the trainee to interact with the training materials and answer

15 questions in order to proceed through the training. Plaintiffs have expressed willingness to

16 assist with the development content for the training. Defendants have agreed to provide

17 drafts of these modules to Plaintiffs and Mr. Swanson as they are updated over the next

18 several months.

19

J. Joint Monitoring Audit Tool

20

The parties continue to work together on drafting a joint audit tool for measuring

21 compliance in this case. Defendants provided a revised draft of the Joint Audit Tool on 22 February 9, 2018, and, while that version incorporated many changes based on Plaintiffs’ 23 comments, the parties conducted a series of meetings over multiple weeks to attempt to 24 finalize tool questions and identify areas of disagreement which will be brought to Mr. 25 Swanson. The parties will continue to work together to revise and finalize the joint audit 26 tool. 27 / / / 28

20
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

Case No. C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2749 Filed 07/16/18 Page 22 of 36

[3277935.1]

1

Notwithstanding progress on the individual tool questions, the parties have yet to

2 resolve how to score and report audit results. The parties met once to discuss scoring and

3 reporting of audit results and will meet again on September 12, 2018.

4

The first joint audit was conducted at CSP-Los Angeles County in April 2018. The

5 next joint audit is scheduled for RJ Donovan the week of August 27, 2018.

6

K. ADA Structural Barriers and Master Planning Process

7

Construction is well underway at several of the designated institutions. Former

8 Class Action Management Unit Director Mike Knowles is overseeing the process,

9 confirming agreed-upon changes, and reporting on construction progress and anticipated

10 timeframes in monthly reports produced to Plaintiffs. In a letter dated April 11, 2018,

11 Plaintiffs’ counsel raised concerns about the lack of Master Planning with respect to the

12 some of the Psychiatric Inpatient Programs at SVSP, CMF and CHCF, and several discrete

13 Master Planning issues at LAC and DVI. Defendants provided some information about

14 these issues at the April 12, 2018 meet and confer and have agreed to respond to Plaintiffs’

15 concerns in writing.

16

L. Investigation of Los Angeles County Jails

17

Plaintiffs continue to assert a pattern and practice of denying disability

18 accommodations to class members exists at the Los Angeles County Jails. See Doc. 2680

19 at 22-24. Most recently, Plaintiffs submitted the third quarter review of DAPO documents

20 which show that approximately 20% of all grievances filed by prisoners in county jails are

21 coming from Los Angeles County. Defendants report that they continue to meet with Los

22 Angeles County Jail to put pressure on Los Angeles County, which contends that it is

23 unable to share information with CDCR due to the Confidentiality of Medical Information

24 Act. Plaintiffs have agreed to obtain waivers from class members in an effort to avoid this

25 conflict in the future.

26

Plaintiffs continue to assert that Defendants are required to take action in response

27 to known violations of class members’ ADA rights in the Los Angeles County Jail.

28

21
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

Case No. C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2749 Filed 07/16/18 Page 23 of 36

[3277935.1]

1 Defendants deny that they have discovered a pattern of denial of disability accommoda-

2 tions at Los Angeles County Jail and therefore do not believe an investigation is warranted.

3

Defendants recently reported that Los Angeles County Jail has dropped it blanket

4 ban on the use of tapping canes for class members. According to Defendants, class

5 members at Los Angeles County Jail are permitted to use tapping canes in certain housing

6 units. Nevertheless, a blanket ban on walking canes appears to be in effect still. Plaintiffs’

7 counsel welcomes the change in policy and, pursuant to this Court’s orders, will continue

8 to monitor the county jails.

9

10 DATED: July 16, 2018

Respectfully submitted,

11 12 13 14 15 16 DATED: July 16, 2018 17 18 19

ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD
By: /s/Penny Godbold Penny Godbold
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General of the State of California
By: /s/Sharon Garske Sharon Garske Deputy Attorney General

20

Attorneys for Defendants

21

22

As required by Local Rule 5-1, I, Penny Godbold, attest that I obtained concurrence

23 in the filing of this document from Sharon Garske and that I have maintained records to

24 support this concurrence.

25

26 DATED: July 16, 2018 27

/s/Penny Godbold Penny Godbold

28

22
JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT

Case No. C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2749 Filed 07/16/18 Page 24 of 36
EXHIBIT A

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2749 Filed 07/16/18 Page 25 of 36

PRISON LAW OFFICE
General Delivery, San Quentin, CA 94964
Telephone (510) 280-2621  Fax (510) 280-2704
www.prisonlaw.com
VIA EMAIL ONLY
June 19, 2018
Ms. Russa Boyd CDCR Office of Legal Affairs
RE: Armstrong Advocacy Letter Failure to Provide Sign Language Interpreters at SATF

Director: Donald Specter
Managing Attorney: Sara Norman
Staff Attorneys: Rana Anabtawi Steven Fama Alison Hardy Corene Kendrick Rita Lomio Margot Mendelson Millard Murphy Thomas Nosewicz Camille Woods Lynn Wu

Dear Ms. Boyd:

Below please find a summary of the allegations submitted to Defendants by email on April 6, 11, 12, and 25, 2018, related to SATF’s failure to provide qualified sign language interpreters to deaf class members. Since then, the parties conducted a joint visit to SATF on May 15, and Plaintiffs’ counsel reviewed Reasonable Accommodation Panel (RAP) responses and SLI logs. As requested, this letter identifies the allegations and issues in the April 2018 emails that Plaintiffs request a written response to.

1. By email dated April 6, 2018, we reported that no sign language interpreter is present for Celebrate Recovery—something we previously reported by letters dated October 11, 2017, and November 7, 2017. (We still are awaiting responses from Defendants to those letters.) We noted that, according to one deaf class member, “ADA Sanchez said that Celebration Recovery program is not sponsor it is volunteer so they can’t have VRI for Deaf inmate to be at Celebration Recovery program. State allowed to state employee or sponsor use log for VRI but not allowed volunteer to log the VRI.”

During the parties’ joint visit on May 15, 2018, SATF staff reported that Miguel Munoz, who ran Celebrate Recovery, had not been running the program since January 2018 due to personal circumstances. SATF staff said that another chaplain was running an unknown program at the same time, which had three deaf class members enrolled, and speculated that perhaps that chaplain had taken over the Celebrate Recovery group without notifying the CRM office. SATF staff said they would speak with the chaplain and procure qualified interpreter services.

REQUESTS: Please explain whether and how qualified interpreter services currently are provided for Celebrate Recovery.

Please explain why qualified interpreters were not provided previously, including after Plaintiffs raised the issue on October 11, 2017, and November 7, 2017.

Board of Directors Penelope Cooper, President  Michele WalkinHawk, Vice President  Marshall Krause, Treasurer
Harlan Grossman • Christiane Hipps  Margaret Johns  Cesar Lagleva  Laura Magnani • Michael Marcum  Ruth Morgan  Seth Morris

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2749 Filed 07/16/18 Page 26 of 36
Ms. Russa Boyd Re: Failure to Provide Sign Language Interpreters at SATF
June 19, 2018 Page 2

2. By email dated April 11, 2018, we reported that Mr.

, reported that he

started work as a line server in the kitchen in December 2017. He reported that he wanted

an interpreter to explain to him what his duties were (he understands ASL better than

English or Spanish), but no interpreter showed up.

On May 21, 2018, Warden Sherman issued a memorandum entitled, “Effective Communication—Sign Language Interpreters.” On June 7, 2018, Defendants informed Plaintiffs that “SATF’s In-Service Training Manager also sent out a training memo and CDCR 844 (training sign-in sheets) with a due date of June 22, 2018 for all staff to receive training on the memo.”

REQUEST: Please provide a copy of the training memorandum and any training documents. Please confirm that job supervisors will receive the training.

3. By email dated April 11, 2018, we reported that Mr.

, reported that he

would like to attend Jehovah’s Witnesses meetings every Saturday, but he was told that

there are not enough interpreters. Plaintiffs’ counsel previously had submitted a Form

1824 on behalf of Mr.

on this issue on February 5, 2018.

The RAP response, sent to Mr.

on February 27, 2018, stated in full: “The ADA

office will be working with the CRM to ensure you are provided with a Sign Language

Interpreter for your religious services.” See Log No. SATF-E-18-00731.

During the parties’ joint visit on May 15, 2018, SATF staff reported that they did not know

if Mr.

has attended, or received a qualified interpreter for, Jehovah’s Witnesses

meetings. The SLI logs for January-May 2018 do not include any entries for Jehovah’s

Witnesses meetings.

REQUESTS: Please explain whether and how qualified interpreter services currently are provided for Jehovah’s Witnesses meetings.

Please explain why qualified interpreters were not provided previously, including after Plaintiffs raised the issue on February 5, 2018.

If Mr.

has received a qualified interpreter for Jehovah’s Witnesses

meetings, please explain why that is not documented on the SLI logs.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2749 Filed 07/16/18 Page 27 of 36
Ms. Russa Boyd Re: Failure to Provide Sign Language Interpreters at SATF
June 19, 2018 Page 3

4. By email dated April 11, 2018, we reported that Mr.

, reported that he

attended advanced AVP but another incarcerated person was interpreting, and it was

difficult to understand. He reported that he was starting advanced AVP the week of

February 12, and that the facilitator told him that the same incarcerated person would be

used as an interpreter. Plaintiffs’ counsel previously had submitted a Form 1824 on behalf

of Mr.

on this issue on February 5, 2018.

The RAP response, sent to Mr.

on February 15, 2018 (after the scheduled AVP

program), stated: “You are enrolled the [sic] Alternatives to Violence Program, which is a

one-time group scheduled for February 12, 13, and 14, 2018. The ADA Office has placed

a request with the contract agency to provide a Sign Language Interpreter for your AVP

group, scheduled for next week. VRI services are not available for this group because the

sponsor is not a state employee and is not allowed to utilize the state computers or

laptops.” See Log No. SATF-E-18-00730.

The SLI logs, however, stated that interpreter services were requested on February 1, 2018; that VRI services were scheduled; and that “No I/M in class.”

During the parties’ joint visit on May 15, 2018, Ms. Mitchell explained to SATF staff that sponsors are able to utilize VRI equipment.

REQUESTS: Please explain whether qualified interpreter services were procured and provided for the AVP program on February 12, 13, and 14, and what form the services were in (VRI or in-person).

Please explain whether and how VRI equipment may be used for groups where the sponsor is not a state employee.

5. By email dated April 11, 2018, we reported that Mr.

, reported that

there still is no interpreter for Christian services—an issue we previously reported by

letters dated October 11, 2017, and November 7, 2017. (We still are awaiting responses

from Defendants to those letters.) Plaintiffs’ counsel previously had submitted a Form

1824 on behalf of Mr.

on this issue on February 6, 2018: “I attend Christian

services on Wednesday from 7-8.45 pm (sponsor: Bill). A sign language interpreter

(certified) does not attend regularly. In addition, Bill sometimes shows movies that are not

closed captioned. If a certified interpreter was present, I would understand the services and

movies.”

The RAP response, sent to Mr.

on February 27, 2018, stated in full: “This

inmate utilizes deaf pastor for religious services.” It is not clear what this conclusion was

based on; it does not appear Mr.

was interviewed.

. . . . . . . . . .

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2749 Filed 07/16/18 Page 28 of 36
Ms. Russa Boyd Re: Failure to Provide Sign Language Interpreters at SATF
June 19, 2018 Page 4

The parties jointly interviewed Mr.

on May 15, 2018, and he reported that an

incarcerated person still was interpreting Protestant services, and that the incarcerated

person was not skilled with ASL and fell behind.

SATF staff explained that they did not know that a qualified interpreter (as opposed to an

inmate interpreter) was required for all programs, services, and activities, and stated that

Mr.

was not ducated for Protestant services, although three other deaf people

were. Ms. Mitchell explained that statewide policy is that people are not ducated for

religious services and that qualified interpreters are required for all programs, services, and

activities.

The SLI logs for January-May 2018 do not include any entries for religious services.

REQUESTS: Please explain how the RAP determined that Mr. pastor for religious services.”

“utilizes a deaf

Please explain whether and how qualified interpreter services currently are

being provided for Mr.

’s religious services.

Please explain why qualified interpreters were not provided previously, including after Plaintiffs raised the issue on October 11, 2017, and November 7, 2017.

If Mr.

or any other deaf class member has received a qualified

interpreter for religious services, please explain why that is not documented

on the SLI logs.

6. By email dated April 11, 2018, we reported that Ms.

, reported that

sometimes there is no interpreter available for the transgender group. Plaintiffs’ counsel

previously had submitted a Form 1824 on behalf of Ms.

on this issue on February 6,

2018.

The RAP response, sent to the class member on February 27, 2018, stated: “A certified Sign Language Interpreter is scheduled for the Transgender Lifestyle Group that is held on a weekly basis. The VRI System that is currently being utilized on your assigned yard encountered some connection issues when trying to connect to the Jabber Program. The VRI connection was resolved on 2/6/2018.”

REQUEST: None.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2749 Filed 07/16/18 Page 29 of 36
Ms. Russa Boyd Re: Failure to Provide Sign Language Interpreters at SATF
June 19, 2018 Page 5

7. By email dated April 12, 2018, we reported that Mr.

, reported that he

was not provided with a qualified sign language interpreter for vocational programming in

January, February, and March 2018:

Vocational Programming:

January 17*, 19, 22, 23, 24*, 25, 30* February 1*, 2*, 6*, 8*, 9, 16*, 20*, 21*, 22*, 26* March 9, between 10-22*

The asterisk (*) indicates that an interpreter left early or was present for only half the time.

According to the SLI logs, 50 of the 68 entries for Mr.

s morning vocational

programming list an end time of 11:00 am, although the class ends at 11:30 am, according

to the assignments data provided by Defendants. Other entries are marked “No

Interpreter,” “No I/M in class,” “No Teacher,” and “No Instructor.”

We previously reported problems with provision of sign language interpreters for

Mr.

’s vocational programming by letter dated November 7, 2017. (We still are

awaiting a response from Defendants to that letter.)

REQUESTS: Please explain whether Mr.

was provided with a qualified sign

language interpreter for the full duration of his vocational programming on

the dates listed above.

If a qualified sign language interpreter was not provided for the full duration of his vocational programming, please explain why not and what remedial efforts have been made.

8. By emails dated April 11, 2018, and April 25, 2018, we reported that class members on B yard had requested a sign language interpreter for a three-day AVP program on April 13, 14, and 15, 2018. We attached a copy of an unanswered Form 22, directed to CRM Moore and dated February 8, 2018, requesting a sign language interpreter for this program.

Mr.

submitted a Form 1824 on April 24, 2018, noting that no sign language

interpreter had been provided. The RAP response, sent to Mr.

on May 16, 2018,

stated in full: “In-person interpreters were requested for the workshop named in this

request.” See Log No. SATF-B-18-02240. A second RAP response, sent to Mr.

on May 31, 2018, stated: “An inquiry was initiated into your allegations. It was

confirmed, SLI interpreters were not present for this workshop due to unavailability. Your concerns will be address [sic] through the inquiry process.”*

*

Mr.

housed on E yard, submitted a similar 1824 on March 24, 2018: “I am

participating in the Alternatives to Violence Project (AVP) Workshop on April 12th, 13th, and

14th. The program requires inmates to communicate with each other, and I will have difficulties

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2749 Filed 07/16/18 Page 30 of 36
Ms. Russa Boyd Re: Failure to Provide Sign Language Interpreters at SATF
June 19, 2018 Page 6

On May 15, 2018, the parties jointly interviewed Mr.

, and Mr.

both housed on B yard, who confirmed that when they arrived to the AVP

program, they were told that no sign language interpreter was available—either in-person

or through VRI.

The parties also jointly interviewed the CRM and ADA OTs, who reported that the CRM was notified of the confirmed roster for the AVP program only a few days before the program, which did not provide enough time to secure an interpreter. The ADA OT said that, to avoid the problem in the future, she would schedule interpreters two weeks out— regardless of whether a deaf person had been confirmed to be in the class at that time—and would cancel as necessary if the final roster did not include a deaf class member.

REQUEST:

Please explain SATF’s policy for scheduling qualified sign language interpreters for programs, services, and activities, before a roster is finalized, including whether deaf class members are responsible for notifying ADA staff of their possible participation.

* * * * *

Plaintiffs appreciate the open dialogue between the parties during the joint visit to SATF in May. Plaintiffs remain deeply concerned, however, that the longstanding, systemic problems at SATF have not yet been resolved, and that deaf class members continue to be denied access to programs, services, and activities, in violation of federal court orders. Although Plaintiffs agreed in November 2017 to withdraw their deposition notice, they did so with the understanding that reported failures to provide interpreters would be promptly responded to and resolved. SATF, however, still has not provided written responses to noncompliance allegations submitted over 250 days ago. More importantly, the problems reported in October and November 2017 do not appear to have been investigated or addressed. We are particularly concerned with inadequate RAP responses, including to Form 1824s that Plaintiffs’ counsel filed on behalf of deaf class members. The ADA and Armstrong Remedial Plan require a grievance procedure that provides prompt and equitable resolution of disability-related complaints. It is difficult to encourage our clients to utilize the 1824 process when their concerns do not appear to be meaningfully considered.

Plaintiffs are scheduled to visit SATF for an Armstrong monitoring tour next week. We hope that a collaborative approach to identifying problems and proposing solutions will continue during that tour. We also look forward to Defendants’ demonstration of their proposed calendaring and scheduling solution during tomorrow’s meet and confer. But if deaf class members continue to be denied sign language interpreters, and if Defendants do not implement a plausible plan to correct longstanding problems, Plaintiffs will have no choice but to proceed to litigation.

communicating with hearing people.” The first RAP response, sent to Mr.

on April 6,

2018, stated in full: “A roster for the Alternatives to Violence Program has been request [sic]

from the CRM.” See Log No. SATF-E-18-01615. The second RAP response, sent on April 13

(the first day of the AVP workshop), stated in full: “An SLI will be requested once your name has

been added to the Alternatives to Violence Group roster.”

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2749 Filed 07/16/18 Page 31 of 36 Ms. Russa Boyd
Re: Failure to Provide Sign Language Interpreters at SATF June 19, 2018 Page 7
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely yours,

cc: Ed Swanson, Court Expert Joanne Chen, Tamiya Davis, OLA Kelly Mitchell, DAI Vince Cullen, CCHCS Co-Counsel

Rita Lomio Staff Attorney

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2749 Filed 07/16/18 Page 32 of 36
EXHIBIT B

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2749 Filed 07/16/18 Page 33 of 36
50 Fremont Street, 19th Floor San Francisco, California 94105‐2235 T: (415) 433‐6830 ▪ F: (415) 433‐7104 www.rbgg.com Penny Godbold Email: pgoldbold@rbgg.com

June 7, 2018

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL ONLY
Russa Boyd Kelly Mitchell CDCR Office of Legal Affairs Russa.Boyd@cdcr.ca.gov Kelly.Mitchell@cdcr.ca.gov

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDERS

Re: Armstrong v. Brown: SATF Program Assignment Discrimination Task Force Meeting Our File No. 581-3

Dear Russa and Kelly:
I write regarding the parties’ recent visit to SATF on May 14, 2018, for the Program Assignment Discrimination Task Force. Plaintiffs appreciate the time and effort of all staff members at SATF and the headquarters staff who took part in the visit.
I. Discrimination in PIA
As you know, during the course of our visit to SATF, the parties uncovered blatant discrimination in the PIA. The two PIA supervisors interviewed by the task force made clear that, although people with disabilities could apply for positions, they would not be considered for these jobs if they had assistive devices or equipment or were classified as “light duty” showing they would be unable to stand for long periods of time. The supervisor in the bread factory stated that, “I don’t have a lot of time to be very accommodating” in response to questions about whether he would hire a person with a disability. Both supervisors we spoke with stated they needed people who would not be difficult. The bread supervisor stated he was “not interested in bringing on a problem child.” Both stated that, in addition to the separate application process for PIA, they rely heavily on other prisoners who are already working in the factory to tell them who could work hard and who should be hired. It was not surprising then, to either party, that the

[3264678.2]

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2749 Filed 07/16/18 Page 34 of 36
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL Russa Boyd Kelly Mitchell June 7, 2018 Page 2
data reviewed prior to the visit showed that no DNH, DPH, DPM, DPO, DPW, DNM, or LD class members held an industry assignment at SATF. Industry Assignments are the only positions in the prison that carry the highest possible pay grades. PIA’s discrimination violates the ADA and the Armstrong Remedial Plan.
Staff at SATF appeared to take this issue seriously. By the exit meeting the manager of PIA at SATF and Corcoran had been notified of problems and had reportedly stepped in to oversee all hiring and job changes for those facilities. This is an important first step, since one supervisor responsible for hiring indicated that, even though there are distinct duties for positions, including clerical, anyone might be asked to work the line such that only people who are able to do the line work are hired. PIA should review the specific job duties and ensure that hiring is consistent with the duties of the position, not just the most strenuous line duties in the factory. Plaintiffs also request that PIA evaluate whether additional positions might be added to ensure that enough positions for people with disabilities exist in the coveted PIA facilities. The PIA supervisors who made the discriminatory statements should be placed on the Armstrong accountability log.
Statewide data shows that people with disabilities in prison do not have access to the highest paying positions, including PIA positions, throughout the state. Remedies identified at SATF should be implemented statewide.
Also, as discussed by the parties during the Task Force meeting, if a representative from PIA is necessary to make statewide changes, that person should be identified and brought into this process. Defendants stated that they would work on this issue.
Lastly, Plaintiffs are concerned about TABE requirements for PIA positions which might prevent certain class members from getting hired. Plaintiffs would like to discuss what accommodations are available in the PIA hiring process for class members with learning or developmental disabilities.
II. Lack of EOP Prisoners’ Assigned on Facilities F and G
Prior to the Task Force, the parties agreed that data showed disparities in assignments on facilities F and G for EOP class members. For example, 85.4 percent of non-MHSDS prisoners on F and 88.9 percent on G had assignments compared to only 44.4 percent of EOP class members on F and 54.8 percent on G. During the Task Force, the parties explored possible reasons for the disparity including the recent influx of EOP class members to those yards and the closed nature of the yards, which eliminates programming opportunities off the yard. Nevertheless, because we discovered that assignments turnover frequently on F and G, the assignment rates should be more equal
[3264678.2]

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2749 Filed 07/16/18 Page 35 of 36
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL Russa Boyd Kelly Mitchell June 7, 2018 Page 3
despite any influx of EOP class members in the last year. Further, according to staff, direct hire of workers (hiring people outside of the inmate assignments process and regardless of their place on the waitlist) still occurs at SATF.
Addressing the lack of EOP assignments on F and G presented no apparent easy fix during the Task Force visit. One way to address the problem would be to create additional assignments. Staff stated this would be difficult because programming space is limited on the yards. Yet, none of the programming spaces were in use during the Task Force visit. Further, programs could be run in day rooms and other open locations. Plaintiffs’ counsel requested an additional meeting with Defendants to discuss proposed remedies and next steps.
Defendants reported that they would look further in to the problem and requested program schedule. Plaintiffs request to see a copy of the program schedule being reviewed by Defendants.
Staff further reported problems with IDTT wait times, which could potentially increase wait times for program assignments. Defendants reported they would be addressing this issue. Plaintiffs request an update.
Lastly, the parties agreed that with the current data set, it is impossible to determine whether class members are waiting longer than non-class members for assignments. Defendants agreed to run a report of un-assigned prisoners by yard, by priority code to determine what the average wait time to assignment is, and then overlay with ADA information. The parties agreed to look at Facility G and include 2 EOP buildings and one Clark building as well as Armstrong class members on the yard. Plaintiffs request an update on the status of this data.
III. Lack of DPW Prisoners Assigned Throughout the Prison
The data reviewed by the parties prior to the Task Force meeting showed DPW class members assigned at much lower rates than non-class members. For example, the percentage of non-class members assigned at SATF was 78.8 compared to only 50.9 percent of DPW class members. During the Task Force we isolated the cases of all 24 class members who appeared “unassigned” according to the data. On closer look at the individual cases, Defendants reported that 11 of those 24 DPW class members were “medically unassigned.” The category of “medical assignment” is relevant to the data analysis and should be considered prior to counting these class members as “unassigned.” Plaintiffs were concerned they inadvertently overlooked this issue in calculating totals of unassigned class members but, following the visit, determined that it was not apparent
[3264678.2]

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2749 Filed 07/16/18 Page 36 of 36
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL Russa Boyd Kelly Mitchell June 7, 2018 Page 4

from the February data that the 11 DPW class members were “medically unassigned.” Plaintiffs would like to discuss this issue further with Defendants. Specifically, is “medical assignment” still a field in the data that we can isolate? If so, how? Do the parties agree on how to handle “medically unassigned” class members in the data?

These questions must be answered in order to determine the scope of assignment disparities for DPW class members at SATF.

We look forward to discussing these issues with you further. Given busy summer schedules, we are anxious to calendar a meeting. Plaintiffs are available June 25, July 2 or 3. Please let us know if any of these dates work for you or please propose alternative dates.

Sincerely,
ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP

/s/ Penny Godbold

Penny Godbold

PMG:hw:fgl cc: Ed Swanson
Joanne Chen Nicholas Meyer Patricia Ferguson Tamiya Davis Trennie Rios Erin Anderson Sharon Garske Erick Rhoan Annakarina
De La Torre-Fennell Jay Russell

Adriano Hrvatin
Teauna Miranda Georgia Johas-Darnell Laurie Hoogland Maria Rocha Pam Cantelmi Steven Blum Bruce Beland John Dovey Vincent Cullen Donald Meier Kelli Abernathy

By: Of Counsel
Laurene Payne Ceasar Aguila Samantha Chastain Olga Dobrynina Joseph Williams Cathy Jefferson Matt Espenshade Lois Welch Steven Faris CCHCS Accountability OLA Armstrong Co-Counsel

[3264678.2]

 
 VWXYÿ[\][^_`^abcad^Veÿÿÿfg_hiYjkÿbdblÿÿÿmnoYpÿaqrs[rstÿÿÿuWvYÿsÿgwÿbl
ÿ

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 09 00 01 02 03 04 05

ÿÿÿÿ1"&ÿ#*!*"4ÿ$&&21ÿ#!09896#E00000-860ÿ333-//%000%722A$ÿ46#&%::://E00ÿÿ!?0ÿ8%*.../ÿ133I(A6000777+$F8),44ÿ4888ÿ)$ÿÿ7&-0&1ÿÿ*G*55@.000$$8ÿÿ3$+ÿ)+ÿ;;;ÿÿÿ,@#ÿÿ-ÿH8ÿÿÿÿ(!7ÿ%G66A0-&"/!733ÿ/ÿ-ÿ*++<<<0ÿ5$"/1),,#ÿ434ÿ$ÿ00ÿ77ÿ#-131000%0-/6//&ÿ&60*949ÿ88-+%ÿ$'5380'5===++ÿ+$Eÿ%ÿÿÿÿ66-0&-,ÿ0135ÿ5+1#7$ÿÿ&'8ÿ,%ÿÿ2723ÿ4ÿ/,88'ÿ-ÿ'5ÿ92380@'.B333'ÿÿÿ0999+15ÿ$ÿÿ+49)66ÿ69%ÿ151-ÿ9018980&09ÿ75743&10ÿ55ÿ0579282ÿ1241ÿ088'ÿ7$79ÿ3809498110ÿ8/0$11ÿÿÿ03ÿ4ÿ80945ÿ"3ÿ0ÿ4ÿ7&ÿÿ594ÿ1ÿ7122ÿ4ÿÿHÿÿ&&%&3ÿ&>!&460EB#0--000048--83:A::::770?ÿÿ+0BBBB*%://7ÿ#/88----#./(/Cÿ4444700ÿ6!)7+(ÿÿÿÿ3ÿÿ448#@$#F8+@ÿG@)00ÿ8*$ÿ----ÿ@+1ÿÿ#,8----;D@#+ÿ7777ÿ70ÿ@'GÿÿE*8(/////-&)7ÿ68888ÿÿ20<*&56&8000003ÿ/9-:6-44440$000ÿ#ÿ3Bÿÿÿÿ,ÿ6ÿ4'#7ÿ$****#&#0-73#=ÿ54-+8ÿ1ÿÿ,0000-,C'1'4ÿFÿ7778888ÿ(-0ÿÿÿÿ06/.0$/7ÿ0000188-98801////27-B066669+-7ÿ1ÿ72ÿ60@24'3333ÿ/59ÿÿÿÿÿÿ545-ÿ8ÿÿÿ1*16ÿ8790-0537B4000#4ÿ0ÿ8+ÿÿÿ7-*09#00,51/ÿ0ÿ066893906ÿ0ÿ699/36+99,3937ÿÿÿ/8+6ÿ #E#ÿ&#ÿ%ÿ$%#ÿ

06 07 08 19 10 11

ÿÿÿÿÿ&E!ÿC)ÿ#&!ÿ*)"&ÿ13#06#,+088-+F,*,6@855ÿ-ÿ05@ÿ-)ÿÿ#63))55ÿ0-ÿ63)5ÿ

ÿJÿÿÿBK6F@LD0M0ÿ;Nÿ7ÿPE)ÿQ788R)3ÿSÿ1ÿ3R26N9B6FQÿ+N6ÿTRÿ+ÿ3R20N8QÿNSUSMNÿ

12

13

14

15

16

17 ÿ ÿÿ

ÿ

83ÿ1296ÿ

ÿÿ ÿ!ÿ

ÿ

wxyzÿ|}~|wÿÿÿzÿÿÿÿzÿ|ÿÿÿxzÿÿÿ
ÿ

0 "#ÿ$%&'(#)ÿ)*+,('ÿ'"()ÿ-(.'ÿ%)#ÿ'%'*)ÿ'%'#,#.'ÿ$*&)*%.'ÿ'-ÿ'"#ÿ'($*/%'(-.ÿ%.0ÿ

1 &0#&ÿ#.'#&#0ÿ!%&1"ÿ172ÿ1900ÿ34-15ÿ075762ÿ7"(1"ÿ$&-8(0#)ÿ'"%'ÿ9:';"#ÿ$%&'(#)ÿ7(//ÿ<(/#ÿ

2 $#&(-0(1ÿ=-(.'ÿ)'%'#,#.')ÿ0#)1&(+(.>ÿ'"#ÿ)'%'*)ÿ-<ÿ'"#ÿ/('(>%'(-.?ÿ#8#&@ÿ-'"#&ÿ,-.'"2ÿ

3 +#>(..(.>ÿ-.ÿ!%@ÿ052ÿ19005ÿ

4 5

JKÿ J^MNMN_OWPQNR`SUTÿÿUÿSVÿJWXUNBÿPCTDYDÿZERSFMNGTÿH[INÿIWC\EÿBI]ÿBDÿIQPVVÿJOPRTUQÿBMPUUÿ

6 abcdefdgghiÿkfcflmlefÿ

7 )ÿ0#'%(/#0ÿ%'ÿ/#.>'"ÿ(.ÿ$&(-&ÿ1%)#ÿ,%.%>#,#.'ÿ)'%'#,#.')2ÿn/%(.'(<<)oÿ1-*.)#/ÿ"%)ÿ

8 0-1*,#.'#0ÿ%//#>%'(-.)ÿ-<ÿ7(0#)$&#%0ÿ%+*)#ÿ%.0ÿ8(-/%'(-.)ÿ-<ÿ'"#ÿ&(>"')ÿ-<ÿ$#-$/#ÿ7('"ÿ

09 0()%+(/('(#)ÿ%'ÿp(>"ÿ4#)#&'ÿ'%'#ÿn&()-.ÿ3p(>"ÿ4#)#&'62ÿ#.'&%/ÿ%/(<-&.(%ÿ-,#.o)ÿq%1(/('@ÿ

00 3q62ÿ%.0ÿ%/(.%)ÿr%//#@ÿ'%'#ÿn&()-.ÿ3rn650ÿÿn/%(.'(<<)oÿ1-*.)#/ÿ"%)ÿ%/)-ÿ

01 0-1*,#.'#0ÿ)(,(/%&ÿ$&-+/#,)ÿ&#>%&0(.>ÿ)'%<<ÿ"%&%)),#.'2ÿ0()1&(,(.%'(-.2ÿ%.0ÿ(.'(,(0%'(-.ÿ

02 -<ÿ1/%))ÿ,#,+#&)ÿ%'ÿ%/(<-&.(%ÿ'%'#ÿn&()-.ÿ%1&%,#.'-ÿ362ÿ%/(<-&.(%ÿ'%'#ÿn&()-.ÿs-)ÿ

03 .>#/#)ÿ-*.'@ÿ3s62ÿ%.0ÿt(1"%&0ÿ5ÿ4-.-8%.ÿ-&&#1'(-.%/ÿq%1(/('@ÿ3t465ÿÿn/%(.'(<<)oÿ

04 1-*.)#/ÿ"%)ÿ0#'%(/#0ÿ'"#)#ÿ%//#>%'(-.)ÿ(.ÿ,-.('-&(.>ÿ'-*&ÿ&#$-&')ÿ%.0ÿ%08-1%1@ÿ/#''#&)ÿ

05 0(&#1'#0ÿ'-ÿ4tÿ-8#&ÿ'"#ÿ$%)'ÿ'7-ÿ@#%&)5ÿÿÿ

06 n/%(.'(<<)oÿ%//#>%'(-.)ÿ1-.)'('*'#ÿ#8(0#.1#ÿ-<ÿ%.ÿ#.8(&-.,#.'ÿ<-)'#&#0ÿ+@ÿ)'%<<ÿ

07 ,#,+#&)ÿ%'ÿ)-,#ÿ(.)'('*'(-.)ÿ'"%'ÿ0()1-*&%>#)ÿ$#-$/#ÿ<&-,ÿ%)u(.>ÿ<-&ÿ%))()'%.1#ÿ%.0ÿ

08 0()1&(,(.%'#)ÿ%>%(.)'ÿ$#-$/#ÿ7('"ÿ0()%+(/('(#)ÿ(.ÿ4tÿ$&()-.)5ÿÿ!%.@ÿ-<ÿ'"#ÿ%//#>%'(-.)ÿ-<ÿ

19 %+*)#2ÿ8(-/#.1#2ÿ%.0ÿ&#'%/(%'(-.ÿ0-1*,#.'#0ÿ(.ÿn/%(.'(<<)oÿ1-*.)#/o)ÿ&#$-&')ÿ%.0ÿ/#''#&)ÿ%&#ÿ

10 0(&#1'#0ÿ%'ÿ1/%))ÿ,#,+#&)5ÿÿp-7ÿ)'%<<ÿ,#,+#&)ÿ'&#%'ÿ$#-$/#ÿ7('"ÿ0()%+(/('(#)ÿ%.0ÿ7"#'"#&ÿ

11 )'%<<ÿ#.>%>#ÿ(.ÿ(.'(,(0%'(-.ÿ%.0ÿ&#'%/(%'(-.ÿ%>%(.)'ÿ$#-$/#ÿ7('"ÿ0()%+(/('(#)ÿ%&#ÿ-<ÿ1#.'&%/ÿ

12 (,$-&'%.1#ÿ'-ÿ'"()ÿ1%)#5ÿÿÿ

13 n/%(.'(<<)oÿ1-*.)#/ÿ"%)ÿ&%()#0ÿ1-.1#&.)ÿ%+-*'ÿ4to)ÿ$&-1#))ÿ<-&ÿ(.8#)'(>%'(.>ÿ

14 %//#>%'(-.)ÿ-<ÿ8(-/#.1#2ÿ,()1-.0*1'2ÿ0()1&(,(.%'(-.2ÿ%.0ÿ"%&%)),#.'ÿ-<ÿ1/%))ÿ,#,+#&)ÿ+@ÿ

15 )'%<<5ÿÿn/%(.'(<<)oÿ1-*.)#/ÿ"%)ÿ,#'ÿ7('"ÿ(.)'('*'(-.ÿ)'%<<ÿ%'ÿqÿ%.0ÿrn2ÿ4tÿ

ÿÿ

16 17

0ÿÿÿÿqÿÿ-ÿÿ&ÿÿÿ%ÿÿÿÿ0ÿÿ#ÿÿ'ÿ%ÿÿ(ÿ/ÿ#ÿÿ0ÿÿÿÿ&ÿ#ÿÿ1ÿÿ(ÿ'ÿ%ÿÿ'ÿ(ÿ-ÿÿ.ÿÿÿÿ-ÿÿ<ÿÿn/%(.'(<<)oÿ%//#>%'(-.)2ÿ)##ÿ4-15ÿ1579ÿ%'ÿ4v85ÿ

ÿ

0ÿ

83ÿ1296ÿ

ÿÿ ÿ!ÿ

ÿ

XYZ[ÿ]^_]`ab`cdecf`Xgÿÿÿhiajk[lmÿdfdnÿÿÿopq[rÿcstu]tuvÿÿÿwYx[ÿeÿiyÿdn
ÿ

0 "#$%&'$()#(*ÿ*)$++,ÿ$-%ÿ(#.(#*#-)$)/0#*ÿ+(12ÿ)"#ÿ++/3#ÿ1+ÿ-)#(-$4ÿ++$/(*ÿ$-%ÿ)"#ÿ++/3#ÿ1+ÿ

1 -*.#3)1(ÿ5#-#($4ÿ$61')ÿ)"/*ÿ/**'#7ÿÿ"#ÿ2##)/-8*ÿ"$0#ÿ6##-ÿ3144$61($)/0#,ÿ6')ÿ94$/-)/++*:ÿ

2 31'-*#4ÿ(#2$/-*ÿ31-3#(-#%ÿ$61')ÿ.(1+1'-%ÿ*"1()312/-8*ÿ/-ÿ;<:*ÿ/-0#*)/8$)/0#ÿ.(13#**7ÿÿ

3 -ÿ10#26#(ÿ1906,ÿ94$/-)/++*:ÿ31'-*#4ÿ*#-)ÿ$ÿ4#))#(ÿ)1ÿ;<ÿ#=.(#**/-8ÿ31-3#(-ÿ

4 $61')ÿ0$(/1'*ÿ$*.#3)*ÿ1+ÿ;<:*ÿ.(13#**#*ÿ+1(ÿ/-0#*)/8$)/-8ÿ*)$++ÿ2/*31-%'3)ÿ$44#8$)/1-*7ÿÿ

5 >??ÿABCDEDFÿHIÿJ#))#(ÿ+(12ÿ<7ÿJ12/1ÿ$-%ÿ!7ÿJK-3",ÿ9(/*1-ÿJ$Lÿ++/3#,ÿ)1ÿ97ÿ!3M/--#K,ÿ

6 ;<,ÿ-0#*)/8$)/1-*ÿ$)ÿ$4/-$*ÿN$44#Kÿ)$)#ÿ9(/*1-ÿO107ÿ03,ÿ1906P,ÿ$)ÿ27ÿÿ94$/-)/++*:ÿ

7 31'-*#4ÿ%13'2#-)#%ÿ$ÿ($-8#ÿ1+ÿ'-.(1+#**/1-$4ÿ.($3)/3#*ÿ)"$)ÿ%/2/-/*"ÿ)"#ÿ#++#3)/0#-#**ÿ1+ÿ

8 *)$++ÿ2/*31-%'3)ÿ/-0#*)/8$)/1-*ÿ$-%ÿ$331'-)$6/4/)Kÿ2#$*'(#*,ÿ*'3"ÿ$*ÿ31-%'3)/-8ÿ/-)#(0/#L*ÿ

09 $61')ÿ*)$++ÿ2/*31-%'3)ÿ$44#8$)/1-*ÿ/-ÿ)"#ÿ.(#*#-3#ÿ1+ÿ3'*)1%Kÿ1++/3#(*ÿ$-%ÿ$--1'-3/-8ÿ

00 /-%/0/%'$4*:ÿ/-)#(0/#L*ÿL/)"ÿ ÿ1++/3#(*ÿ6Kÿ41'%*.#$Q#(ÿ/-ÿ"1'*/-8ÿ'-/)*7ÿÿRSTÿ$)ÿ17ÿÿ

01 94$/-)/++*:ÿ31'-*#4ÿ16V#3)#%ÿ)1ÿ;<:*ÿ.($3)/3#ÿ1+ÿ/-)#(0/#L/-8ÿ($-%124Kÿ*#4#3)#%ÿ

02 .(/*1-#(*ÿ$61')ÿ$44#8$)/1-*ÿ1+ÿ*)$++ÿ2/*31-%'3)ÿ2$%#ÿ6Kÿ1)"#(ÿ/-3$(3#($)#%ÿ.#1.4#,ÿ1-ÿ)"#ÿ

03 8(1'-%*ÿ)"$)ÿ/)ÿ#=.1*#*ÿ/-%/0/%'$4*ÿL"1ÿ2$Q#ÿ*)$++ÿ2/*31-%'3)ÿ$44#8$)/1-*ÿ)1ÿ"$(2ÿ$-%ÿ

04 3"/44*ÿ.$()/3/.$)/1-ÿ/-ÿ)"#ÿ*)$++ÿ312.4$/-)ÿ.(13#**7ÿÿRSTÿ$)ÿ27ÿÿ94$/-)/++*:ÿ31'-*#4ÿ3$44#%ÿ'.1-ÿ

05 ;<ÿ)1ÿ)$Q#ÿ31-3(#)#,ÿ31((#3)/0#ÿ$3)/1-ÿ)1ÿ$%%(#**ÿ)"#ÿL/%#*.(#$%ÿ$44#8$)/1-*ÿ1+ÿ*)$++ÿ

06 2/*31-%'3)ÿ$)ÿN9ÿ$-%ÿ1)"#(ÿ/-*)/)')/1-*,ÿ/-34'%/-8ÿ6Kÿ%#.41K/-8ÿ0/%#1ÿ3$2#($*ÿ$-%ÿ

07 /2.4#2#-)/-8ÿ$ÿ2#$-/-8+'4ÿ#$(4KÿL$(-/-8ÿ*K*)#2ÿ)1ÿ/%#-)/+Kÿ.(164#2$)/3ÿ6#"$0/1(ÿ6Kÿ*)$++ÿ

08 $-%ÿ/%#-)/+Kÿ)(#-%*ÿ/-ÿ*)$++ÿ2/*31-%'3)ÿ$44#8$)/1-*7ÿÿRSTÿ$)ÿ6W77ÿÿ94$/-)/++*:ÿ31'-*#4ÿ/*ÿ

19 )(1'64#%ÿ6Kÿ;<:*ÿ.$))#(-ÿ1+ÿ%/*2/**/-8ÿ"/8"4Kÿ31-*/*)#-)ÿ$-%ÿ0#(Kÿ*#(/1'*ÿ$44#8$)/1-*ÿ1+ÿ

10 *)$++ÿ2/*31-%'3)ÿ*/2.4Kÿ6#3$'*#ÿ/)*ÿ3'((#-)ÿ/-0#*)/8$)/1-ÿ*K*)#2ÿ/*ÿ'-$64#ÿ)1ÿ*'6*)$-)/$)#ÿ

11 )"#27ÿ94$/-)/++*:ÿ31'-*#4ÿ/*ÿ$4*1ÿ31-3#(-#%ÿ$61')ÿ)"#ÿ4$3Qÿ1+ÿ/-%#.#-%#-3#ÿ1+ÿ ÿ1++/3#(*,ÿ

12 L"1ÿ.4$Kÿ)"#ÿ3(/)/3$4ÿ(14#ÿ1+ÿ31-%'3)/-8ÿ/-/)/$4ÿ/-0#*)/8$)/1-*ÿ/-)1ÿ$44#8$)/1-*ÿ1+ÿ*)$++ÿ

13 2/*31-%'3)ÿ$)ÿ)"#ÿ/-*)/)')/1-*7ÿÿ

14 ÿ -ÿ(#*.1-*#ÿ)1ÿ)"#*#ÿ31-3#(-*,ÿ)"#ÿ++/3#ÿ1+ÿ)"#ÿ-*.#3)1(ÿ5#-#($4ÿO5Pÿ/*ÿ

15 31-%'3)/-8ÿ$-ÿ$**#**2#-)ÿ1+ÿ)"#ÿ#++#3)/0#-#**ÿ1+ÿN9:*ÿ.(13#**ÿ+1(ÿ"$-%4/-8ÿ312.4$/-)*ÿ

16 $61')ÿ*)$++ÿ2/*31-%'3)7ÿÿ-ÿ.$()/3'4$(,ÿ)"#ÿ5ÿ/*ÿ21-/)1(/-8ÿ$44ÿ*)$++ÿ312.4$/-)*ÿ*'62/))#%ÿ

17 ÿ ÿÿ

1ÿ

83ÿ1296ÿ

ÿÿ ÿ!ÿ

ÿ

[\]^ÿ`ab`cdecfghfic[jÿÿÿkldmn^opÿgigqÿÿÿrst^uÿfvwx`wxyÿÿÿz\{^ÿ`ÿl|ÿgq
ÿ

0 "#ÿ$%ÿ&'()ÿ!"'*+ÿ0,ÿ1907ÿ#+'(-.+ÿ!"/ÿ20,ÿ19070ÿÿ%1"23#2&&45ÿ*(-3461ÿ+(764ÿ#+"#ÿ#+6ÿ

1 854ÿ'6926:ÿ:211ÿ2;63#2&/ÿ"'6"4ÿ&('ÿ2)7'(96)63#ÿ23ÿ<=54ÿ23964#2."#2(3ÿ(&ÿ4#"&&ÿ

2 *()71"23#40ÿÿ

3 %1"23#2&&45ÿ*(-3461ÿ"14(ÿ+"4ÿ'"246;ÿ*(3*6'34ÿ">(-#ÿ#+6ÿ?-"12#/ÿ(&ÿ23964#2."#2(34ÿ>/ÿ

4 <=54ÿ&&2*6ÿ(&ÿ3#6'3"1ÿ&&"2'4ÿ@A0ÿÿ3ÿ2#4ÿ'6*63#ÿ6)2B33-"1ÿ=67('#,ÿ#+6ÿ8ÿ

5 &(-3;ÿ#+"#ÿC476*-1"#296ÿ(7232(34ÿ"4ÿ#(ÿ)(#29"#2(3ÿ>6+23;ÿ7(#63#2"1ÿ)24*(3;-*#ÿ4#211ÿ

6 36."#2961/ÿ23&1-63*6ÿ;6*242(34Dÿ)";6ÿ>/ÿ54ÿ476*2"1ÿ".63#40ÿÿ&&2*6ÿ(&ÿ3476*#('ÿ

7 8636'"1,ÿ6)2B33-"1ÿ=67('#,ÿ-1/ÿFÿ<6*6)>6'ÿ1906ÿ@!"'0ÿ1907A,ÿGHGIJGKJLÿGMÿ

8 +##74NOO:::0(2.0*"0.(9O)6;2"O'67('#4O=O1907O8P6)2P33-"1P=67('#P-1/PB

09 P<6*6)>6'P190607;&A,ÿ"#ÿ000ÿÿ**(';23.ÿ#(ÿ#+6ÿ8,ÿÿ476*2"1ÿ".63#4ÿ"'6ÿC(&#63ÿ

00 4"#24&26;ÿ#(ÿ";;'644ÿ#+6ÿ4-'&"*6ÿ)24*(3;-*#ÿQÿR:+216Sÿ4+(:23.ÿ-3:21123.3644ÿ#(ÿ1((Tÿ

01 ;6676'ÿ"#ÿ&"21-'6ÿ(&ÿ4-76'9242(3,ÿ(#+6'ÿ*(3#'2>-#23.ÿ*"-464,ÿ('ÿ)24*(3;-*#ÿ(&ÿ:2;6'ÿ4*(76ÿ

02 #+"3ÿ232#2"11/ÿ2;63#2&26;ÿ0ÿ0ÿ0ÿ0DÿÿUV0ÿÿ+6ÿ854ÿ*(3*6'34ÿ">(-#ÿ6W*6442961/ÿ3"''(:ÿ"3;ÿ

03 4-76'&2*2"1ÿ23964#2."#2(34ÿ>/ÿ<=ÿ"'6ÿ*(3424#63#ÿ:2#+ÿ#+6ÿ(>46'9"#2(34ÿ(&ÿ%1"23#2&&45ÿ

04 *(-34610ÿÿ

05 ÿ3ÿ#+6ÿ6)2B33-"1ÿ=67('#,ÿ#+6ÿ8ÿ6W7'6441/ÿ'6*())63;6;ÿ#+"#ÿ<=ÿ*+"3.6ÿ

06 2#4ÿ7(12*/ÿ:+6'6>/ÿ#+6ÿ476*2"1ÿ".63#ÿ23ÿ*+"'.6ÿ(&ÿ54ÿ*63#'"1ÿ23#"T6ÿ+"4ÿ"-#+('2#/ÿ#(ÿ;63/ÿ

07 '6?-64#4ÿ#(ÿ232#2"#6ÿ23964#2."#2(34ÿ('ÿ23#6'926:ÿ4#"&&ÿ)6)>6'4ÿ23ÿ*(336*#2(3ÿ:2#+ÿ4#"&&ÿ

08 )24*(3;-*#ÿ"116."#2(340ÿÿUVXÿ"#ÿ040ÿÿ3;6'ÿ#+6ÿ*-''63#ÿ4/4#6),ÿ#+6ÿ476*2"1ÿ".63#,ÿ:+(ÿ24ÿ3(#ÿ

19 "3ÿ"##('36/,ÿ*"3ÿ;6*1236ÿ#(ÿ23964#2."#6ÿ"3ÿ"116."#2(3ÿ"."234#ÿ#+6ÿ6W7'644ÿ'6*())63;"#2(34ÿ

10 (&ÿ"##('36/4ÿ&('ÿ#+6ÿ8ÿ('ÿ#+6ÿ)71(/)63#ÿ;9(*"*/ÿ"3;ÿ%'(46*-#2(3ÿ6")ÿ@%A0ÿÿ

11 +6ÿ8ÿ*2#6;ÿ47ÿ234#"3*64ÿ>6#:663ÿ-1/ÿ"3;ÿ<6*6)>6'ÿ1906ÿ23ÿ:+2*+ÿ#+6ÿÿ'6Y6*#6;ÿ

12 '6*())63;"#2(34ÿ#(ÿ(763ÿ23964#2."#2(34ÿ('ÿ23#6'926:ÿ6)71(/6640ÿÿUVXÿ"#ÿ020ÿÿ+6ÿ8ÿ

13 &(-3;ÿ#+"#ÿ23ÿ71Zÿ(&ÿ#+646ÿ*"464,ÿ#+6ÿ&"21-'6ÿ#(ÿ"**67#ÿ#+6ÿ'6*())63;"#2(3ÿ#(ÿ23964#2."#6ÿ

14 #+6ÿ"116."#2(34ÿ"&&6*#6;ÿ#+6ÿ(-#*()60ÿÿUVXÿÿ+6ÿ'67('#ÿ;6#"214ÿ"ÿ3-)>6'ÿ(&ÿ#'(->123.ÿ

15 234#"3*64ÿ23ÿ:+2*+ÿ#+6ÿÿ476*2"1ÿ".63#ÿ;6*1236;ÿ#(ÿ23964#2."#6ÿ"116."#2(34ÿ(&ÿ46'2(-4ÿ4#"&&ÿ

16 )24*(3;-*#,ÿ"."234#ÿ#+6ÿ'6*())63;"#2(3ÿ(&ÿ8ÿ"##('36/40ÿÿUVXÿ"#ÿ02B030ÿ

17 ÿ ÿÿ

2ÿ

83ÿ1296ÿ

ÿÿ ÿ!ÿ

ÿ

efghÿjkljmnompqrpsmetÿÿÿuvnwxhyzÿqsq{ÿÿÿ|}~hÿpjÿÿÿfhÿÿvÿq{
ÿ

0 "#$ÿ%&'(ÿ)*+$ÿ&*(ÿ,-./01-,ÿ%2ÿ*..-3%ÿ%&-ÿ-43+-((ÿ+-.255-1,*%021ÿ2)ÿ%&-ÿ6ÿ%2ÿ

1 .&*17-ÿ0%(ÿ32/0.8ÿ+-7*+,017ÿ%&-ÿ*'%&2+0%8ÿ2)ÿÿ(3-.0*/ÿ*7-1%(9ÿÿ1ÿ3+0/ÿ3$ÿ1907$ÿ

2 :/*01%0))(;ÿ.2'1(-/ÿ(-1%ÿ"#ÿ*ÿ/-%%-+ÿ2'%/01017ÿ2'+ÿ2<=-.%021(ÿ%2ÿ%&0(ÿ,-.0(0219ÿÿ>??ÿ

3 ABCDEDFÿHIÿJ-%%-+ÿ)+25ÿ"9ÿ3-.%-+$ÿ:+0(21ÿJ*Kÿ))0.-$ÿ%2ÿ9ÿL-+1*1$ÿ-1%+*/ÿ1%*M-ÿ:*1-/ÿ

4 32/0.0-(ÿN3+0/ÿ3$ÿ1907O9ÿÿ:/*01%0))(;ÿ.2'1(-/$ÿ"-)-1,*1%($ÿ1(3-.%2+ÿ6-1-+*/ÿ#28ÿ-(/-8$ÿ

5 *1,ÿ!+9ÿK*1(21ÿ5-%ÿ21ÿ!*8ÿ1$ÿ19079ÿÿ60P-1ÿ%&-ÿ3*+%0-(;ÿ2172017ÿ,0(3'%-ÿ*<2'%ÿ%&-ÿ

6 -))-.%0P-1-((ÿ2)ÿ"#;(ÿ01P-(%07*%0P-ÿ3+2.-((-($ÿ%&-ÿ3*+%0-(ÿK0//ÿ.21)-+ÿ*<2'%ÿÿÿK&-%&-+ÿ%2ÿ

7 0,-1%0)8ÿ*ÿ1-'%+*/ÿ3*+%8ÿ%2ÿ-P*/'*%-ÿ*(3-.%(ÿ2)ÿ%&-ÿÿ(8(%-59ÿÿÿÿ

8 Q?R?STUSVWXÿ>VUV?Y?SVÿ

09 "-)-1,*1%(ÿ01P-(%07*%-ÿ*//ÿ*//-7*%021(ÿ2)ÿ(%*))ÿ50(.21,'.%ÿ5*,-ÿ<8ÿZ[YWV[\S]ÿ./*((ÿ

00 5-5<-+(9ÿÿ//-7*%021(ÿ5*,-ÿ<8ÿ121^./*((ÿ5-5<-+(ÿ*1,ÿ*//-7*%021(ÿ12%ÿ+-/*%-,ÿ%2ÿ

01 P02/*%021(ÿ2)ÿ%&-ÿ"ÿ2+ÿ%&-ÿ#-5-,0*/ÿ:/*1ÿ*+-ÿ3+2.-((-,ÿ*1,ÿ*,,+-((-,ÿ%&+2'7&ÿ"#;(ÿ

02 (%*))ÿ,0(.03/01*+8ÿ3+2.-(($ÿ*(ÿ(-%ÿ)2+%&ÿ01ÿ%&-ÿ"-3*+%5-1%ÿ3-+*%021(ÿ!*1'*/9ÿÿN>??ÿ"#ÿ

03 "-3*+%5-1%ÿ3-+*%021(ÿ!*1'*/$ÿ&*3%-+ÿ2$ÿ+%9ÿ119Oÿÿ"-)-1,*1%(ÿ,-18ÿ:/*01%0))(;ÿ*((-+%021ÿ

04 2)ÿ_3+2)2'1,ÿ(&2+%.25017(`ÿ01ÿ%&-ÿ01P-(%07*%021ÿ3+2.-((9ÿÿ2ÿ%&-ÿ.21%+*+8$ÿ"#ÿ&*(ÿ21-$ÿ

05 0)ÿ12%ÿ%&-ÿ52(%$ÿ.253+-&-1(0P-ÿ(8(%-5(ÿ)2+ÿ0,-1%0)8017ÿ*1,ÿ*,,+-((017ÿP*/0,ÿ*//-7*%021(ÿ2)ÿ

06 (%*))ÿ50(.21,'.%9ÿÿ&0(ÿ3+2.-((ÿK*(ÿ,-P-/23-,ÿ*(ÿ*ÿ+-('/%ÿ2)ÿ%&-ÿaUT[bTÿ/0%07*%021$ÿ01ÿK&0.&ÿ

07 %&-ÿ:+0(21ÿJ*Kÿ))0.-ÿ(-+P-,ÿ*(ÿ:/*01%0))(;ÿ.2'1(-/ÿ*1,$ÿK-+-ÿ01P2/P-,ÿ01ÿ%&-ÿ,-P-/235-1%ÿ

08 2)ÿ"#;(ÿ(%*))ÿ,0(.03/01*+8ÿ3+2.-((9ÿÿ"-)-1,*1%(ÿ*/(2ÿ,0(3'%-ÿ:/*01%0))(;ÿ*((-+%021ÿ%&*%ÿ

19 "#ÿ&*(ÿ*ÿ_3*%%-+1ÿ2)ÿ,0(50((017ÿ&07&/8ÿ.21(0(%-1%ÿ*1,ÿP-+8ÿ(-+02'(ÿ*//-7*%021(ÿ2)ÿ(%*))ÿ

10 50(.21,'.%ÿ(053/8ÿ<-.*'(-ÿ0%(ÿ.'++-1%ÿ01P-(%07*%021ÿ(8(%-5ÿ0(ÿ'1*</-ÿ%2ÿ('<(%*1%0*%-ÿ%&-59`ÿÿ

11 "#ÿ,2-(ÿ12%ÿ,0(50((ÿ*//-7*%021(ÿ2)ÿ(%*))ÿ50(.21,'.%$ÿ12+ÿ,2-(ÿ0%ÿ23-+*%-ÿ*ÿ(8(%-5ÿ01ÿ

12 K&0.&ÿ*//-7*%021(ÿ.*112%ÿ<-ÿ('<(%*1%0*%-,9ÿÿÿ

13 c'+%&-+52+-$ÿ%&-ÿ6ÿ*/(2ÿ5210%2+(ÿ*1,ÿ*((-((-(ÿ"#;(ÿ01%-+1*/ÿ*))*0+(ÿ

14 01P-(%07*%021(ÿ2)ÿ*//-7-,ÿ-53/28--ÿ50(.21,'.%ÿ*1,ÿ('<(-d'-1%ÿ*33-*/(9ÿÿ//ÿ*//-7*%021(ÿ

15 3+-(-1%-,ÿ<8ÿ:/*01%0))(ÿ*+-ÿ.21(0(%-1%/8ÿ*,,+-((-,ÿ%&+2'7&ÿ%&-ÿ*33+23+0*%-ÿ.&*11-/(9ÿÿ1,ÿ

16 "-)-1,*1%(ÿ&*P-ÿ,0(.03/01-,ÿ%&-0+ÿ-53/28--(ÿ)2+ÿ.21)0+5-,ÿP02/*%021(9ÿÿÿ

17 ÿ ÿÿ

3ÿ

83ÿ1296ÿ

ÿÿ ÿ!ÿ

ÿ

[\]^ÿ`ab`cdecfghfic[jÿÿÿkldmn^opÿgigqÿÿÿrst^uÿfvwx`wxyÿÿÿz\{^ÿqÿl|ÿgq
ÿ

0 "#$#%&'%()ÿ*'+#ÿ#%,',#&ÿ-%ÿ'%ÿ#.(/'0/&-%'/1ÿ2#+#2ÿ0$ÿ3004#/'(-0%ÿ5-(*ÿ62'-%(-$$)7ÿ

1 308%)#29ÿ-%328&-%,ÿ:0-%(ÿ+-)-()ÿ(0ÿ4/-)0%)ÿ-%ÿ#.3#))ÿ0$ÿ(*#ÿ'%%8'2ÿ(08/ÿ)3*#&82#ÿ'%&ÿ

2 4/0+-&-%,ÿ#%*'%3#&ÿ'33#))ÿ(0ÿ-%+#)(-,'(-+#ÿ&#('-2)ÿ'%&ÿ&038;#%()1<ÿÿÿ

3 "#$#%&'%()ÿ/#;'-%ÿ5-22-%,ÿ(0ÿ50/=ÿ5-(*ÿ62'-%(-$$)7ÿ308%)#2ÿ(0ÿ&#+#204ÿ)('%&'/&)ÿ0/ÿ

4 ,8-&#2-%#)ÿ(0ÿ&#(#/;-%#ÿ*05ÿ'%ÿ'22#,'(-0%ÿ)*082&ÿ>#ÿ'&&/#))#&<ÿÿ?05#+#/9ÿ62'-%(-$$)7ÿ

5 308%)#2ÿ-)ÿ'((#;4(-%,ÿ(0ÿ/#'/,8#ÿ@ABCDBÿ'%&ÿ)8,,#)(ÿ(*'(ÿ'%1ÿ'22#,'(-0%ÿ>1ÿ'ÿ32'))ÿ;#;>#/ÿ

6 -;42-3'(#)ÿ(*#ÿ"<ÿÿ"#$#%&'%()ÿ&-)',/##<ÿÿ0(ÿ#+#/1ÿ30;42'-%(ÿ-;42-3'(#)ÿ(*#ÿ"ÿ0/ÿ

7 (*-)ÿ08/(7)ÿ'3308%('>-2-(1ÿ0/&#/)<ÿÿ*#ÿE7)ÿ821F8,8)(ÿ1906ÿ#;-F%%8'2ÿG#40/(ÿ&0#)ÿ

8 %0(ÿ)4#3-$-3'221ÿ'&&/#))ÿ"ÿ-))8#)ÿ0/ÿ30;42'-%()<ÿÿG'(*#/9ÿ-(ÿ-)ÿ'ÿ30;4/#*#%)-+#ÿ/#+-#5ÿ

09 0$ÿ"G7)ÿ-%+#)(-,'(-+#ÿ4/03#))9ÿ'%&ÿ62'-%(-$$)7ÿ/#2-'%3#ÿ840%ÿ-(ÿ')ÿ#+-&#%3#ÿ(*'(ÿ"Gÿ-)ÿ

00 $'-2-%,ÿ(0ÿ30;421ÿ5-(*ÿ(*#ÿ"ÿ-)ÿ;-)42'3#&ÿ'%&ÿ-%'44/04/-'(#<ÿÿ

01 %ÿ'&&-(-0%ÿ(0ÿ*'+-%,ÿ%0ÿ/#2'(-0%)*-4ÿ(0ÿ(*#ÿHCIJKCLMNÿ3')#9ÿ62'-%(-$$)ÿ*'+#ÿ

02 ;-)-%(#/4/#(#&ÿ(*#ÿEÿ/#40/(<ÿÿ*#ÿEÿ*')ÿ/#3#%(21ÿ32'/-$-#&ÿ(0ÿ(*#ÿ"#4'/(;#%(ÿ(*'(ÿ(*#ÿ

03 71Pÿ4#/3#%(ÿ$-,8/#ÿ;#%(-0%#&ÿ-%ÿ(*#ÿ/#40/(ÿ-)ÿ%0(ÿ30%%#3(#&ÿ(0ÿ(*#ÿ47ÿ/#$#/#%3#&ÿ3')#)<ÿÿ%ÿ

04 $'3(9ÿ0%21ÿ5ÿ0$ÿ(*#ÿ47ÿ3')#)ÿ3-(#&ÿ5#/#ÿ'))#))#&ÿ-%ÿ(*#ÿ#;-F%%8'2ÿG#40/(<ÿÿ%)(#'&9ÿ(*#ÿ

05 Eÿ'%'21Q#&ÿ22ÿ3')#)ÿ&8/-%,ÿ(*#ÿ/#40/(-%,ÿ4#/-0&ÿ-%ÿ5*-3*ÿ-(ÿ32'-;)ÿ(*#ÿEÿ&-)',/##&ÿ

06 5-(*ÿ(*#ÿ$$-3#ÿ0$ÿ%(#/%'2ÿ$$'-/)7ÿ&#3-)-0%<ÿÿR#;-F%%8'2ÿG#40/(ÿ'(ÿ02<Sÿÿ$ÿ(*0)#ÿ22ÿ

07 3')#)9ÿ(*#ÿEÿ$08%&ÿ-%ÿ(*#ÿ#;-F%%8'2ÿG#40/(ÿ(*#ÿ-%+#)(-,'(-0%ÿT)8$$-3-#%(Uÿ0/ÿ',/##&ÿ

08 5-(*ÿ(*#ÿ08(30;#ÿ-%ÿ20ÿ0$ÿ(*#ÿ22ÿ3')#)<ÿÿRVBWÿ'(ÿ44#%&-.ÿ<Sÿ

19 62'-%(-$$)7ÿ/#X8#)(ÿ-)ÿ;-)-%$0/;#&ÿ$0/ÿ'ÿ%8;>#/ÿ0$ÿ0(*#/ÿ/#')0%)<ÿÿY-/)(9ÿ(*#ÿ);'22ÿ

10 %8;>#/ÿ0$ÿ2#,-(-;'(#ÿ&-)48(#)ÿ(*'(ÿ'/0)#ÿ$/0;ÿ(*#ÿ22ÿ3')#)ÿ320)#&ÿ&8/-%,ÿ(*#ÿ/#40/(-%,ÿ

11 4#/-0&ÿ;8)(ÿ>#ÿ42'3#&ÿ-%ÿ30%(#.(ÿ0$ÿ(*#ÿ868ÿ(0('2ÿ3')#)ÿ30%)-&#/#&ÿ>1ÿ(*#ÿ#%(/'2ÿ%('=#ÿ

12 6'%#2ÿ&8/-%,ÿ(*-)ÿ(-;#$/';#<ÿÿ#30%&9ÿ-%ÿ;0/#ÿ(*'%ÿ49Pÿ0$ÿ(*#ÿ3')#)ÿ5*#/#ÿ(*#ÿEÿ

13 &-)',/##&9ÿ'ÿ"Gÿ'((0/%#1ÿ',/##&ÿ5-(*ÿ(*#ÿ&#3-)-0%ÿ;'&#ÿ>1ÿ(*#ÿ',#%(ÿ5*-3*ÿ5082&ÿ*'+#ÿ

14 /#)82(#&ÿ-%ÿ(*#ÿ)';#ÿ08(30;#<ÿÿ*#%ÿ'%ÿ'((0/%#1ÿ'%&ÿ',#%(ÿ&-)',/##9ÿ'%ÿ;4201;#%(ÿ

ÿÿ

15 16 17

1ÿÿÿÿYÿÿ0ÿYÿ/ÿÿÿÿ&ÿÿ#ÿ0ÿ(ÿ<'ÿÿÿ1-ÿ2ÿ6#ÿÿ9&ÿÿ3ÿÿ)ÿ9ÿ8ÿÿ4ÿ;ÿ<ÿÿÿ;2ÿÿFÿ'3ÿÿ/<ÿ-ÿÿ#ÿÿ)ÿÿÿ0ÿÿ$ÿÿÿ4')(ÿ'3(-0%)9ÿ)##ÿYÿ0<ÿ15779ÿ4<ÿ4F7ZÿYÿ0<ÿ15869ÿ4<ÿ3F4Zÿ

ÿ

4ÿ

83ÿ1296ÿ

ÿÿ ÿ!ÿ

ÿ

lmnoÿqrsqtuvtwxywztl{ÿÿÿ|}u~oÿxzxÿÿÿoÿwqÿÿÿmoÿzÿ}ÿx
ÿ

0 "#$%&%'ÿ&("ÿ)*$+,%-./$(ÿ,&0ÿ1)2ÿ&..$*(,'ÿ0$(/.$*+ÿ.3,ÿ%&+,ÿ544ÿ$5ÿ.3,ÿ./0,ÿ&("ÿ

1 %&(ÿ*,%$00,("ÿ%3&(6,+7ÿÿ3/*"8ÿ,/63.ÿ$5ÿ.3,ÿ47ÿ%&+,+ÿ*,0&/(ÿ9,("/(6ÿ/(ÿ.3,ÿ"/+%/9:/(&*'ÿ

2 9*$%,++ÿ&("ÿ.3,ÿ$-.%$0,ÿ%&(($.ÿ;,ÿ<($=(ÿ-(./:ÿ"/+%/9:/(,ÿ/+ÿ/09$+,"ÿ&("ÿ&99,&:+ÿ&*,ÿ

3 %$09:,.,"7ÿÿ>$-*.38ÿ/(ÿ21ÿ$5ÿ.3,ÿ47ÿ%&+,+ÿ=3,*,ÿ.3,ÿ9*$%,++ÿ/+ÿ%$09:,.,8ÿ5/#,ÿ%&+,+ÿ*,+-:.,"ÿ

4 /(ÿ.,*0/(&./$(+ÿ$*ÿ*,+/6(&./$(+ÿ=/.3$-.ÿ&(ÿ&99,&:8ÿ02ÿ+&:&*'ÿ*,"-%./$(+8ÿ.=$ÿ+-+9,(+/$(+8ÿ

5 &("ÿ$.3,*ÿ.'9,+ÿ$5ÿ"/+%/9:/(,7ÿÿ>/5.38ÿ.3,ÿ?ÿ-./:/@,"ÿ.3,ÿ,A/+./(6ÿ9*$%,++ÿ5$*ÿ,:,#&./(6ÿ

6 "/+&6*,,0,(.+ÿ$(:'ÿ6ÿ./0,+ÿ$-.ÿ$5ÿ.3,ÿ82ÿ.$.&:ÿ%&+,+Bÿ.3/+ÿ9*$%,++ÿ/+ÿ.3,ÿ&99*$9*/&.,ÿ

7 0,%3&(/+0ÿ5$*ÿ*&/+/(6ÿ+/6(/5/%&(.ÿ"/+9-.,+7ÿÿ%%$*"/(6:'8ÿ,#,(ÿ/5ÿ.3/+ÿ/++-,ÿ=,*,ÿ

8 .&(6,(./&::'ÿ*,:&.,"ÿ.$ÿ&('ÿ9&*.ÿ$5ÿ.3/+ÿ%&+,ÿ1=3/%3ÿ/.ÿ/+ÿ($.28ÿ):&/(./55+ÿ5&/:ÿ.$ÿ/",(./5'ÿ&ÿ

09 +-;+.&(./#,ÿ9*$;:,0ÿ=/.3ÿ.3,ÿ/(.&<,ÿ$*ÿ/(#,+./6&.$*'ÿ9*$%,++7ÿÿ

00 C,5,("&(.+ÿ"/+9-.,ÿ):&/(./55+Dÿ/(%:-+/$(ÿ$5ÿ($(ECÿ/++-,+ÿ;,%&-+,ÿ.3,'ÿ&*,ÿ($.ÿ

01 =/.3/(ÿ.3,ÿ+%$9,ÿ$5ÿ.3/+ÿ:&=+-/.7ÿÿC,5,("&(.+ÿ=/::ÿ%$(./(-,ÿ.$ÿ&++,*.ÿ$;F,%./$(+ÿ.$ÿ&::ÿ;/::/(6ÿ

02 &++$%/&.,"ÿ=/.3ÿ/++-,+ÿC,5,("&(.+ÿ",,0ÿ&*,ÿ$-.+/",ÿ.3,ÿ+%$9,ÿ$5ÿ.3/+ÿ%&+,7ÿÿ):&/(./55+Dÿ

03 0$(/.$*/(6ÿ3&+ÿ+.*&',"ÿ5&*ÿ5*$0ÿ#,*/5'/(6ÿCGD+ÿ%$09:/&(%,ÿ=/.3ÿ.3,ÿC7ÿÿ>$*ÿ

04 ,A&09:,8ÿ):&/(./55+ÿ3&#,ÿ;,6-(ÿ+,("/(6ÿ:,..,*+ÿ$(ÿ;,3&:5ÿ$5ÿ($(E%:&++ÿ0,0;,*+ÿ*,6&*"/(6ÿ

05 /++-,+ÿ-(*,:&.,"ÿ.$ÿCGD+ÿ%$09:/&(%,ÿ=/.3ÿ.3,ÿCÿ=3/:,ÿ/(&99*$9*/&.,:'ÿ:&;,:/(6ÿ&("ÿ

06 ;/::/(6ÿ+-%3ÿ%$**,+9$(",(%,ÿ-(",*ÿHIJKLIMNO7ÿÿ):&/(./55+Dÿ%$-(+,:ÿ3&+ÿ&:+$ÿ+/6(/5/%&(.:'ÿ

07 ,A9&(","ÿ.3,/*ÿ(-0;,*ÿ$5ÿ/(.,*#/,=+ÿ=/.3ÿ($(E%:&++ÿ0,0;,*+ÿ"-*/(6ÿHIJKLIMNOÿ

08 0$(/.$*/(6ÿ.$-*+ÿ&("ÿ*,9$*./(6ÿ$(ÿ&::,6&./$(+ÿ.3&.ÿC,5,("&(.+ÿ;,:/,#,ÿ&*,ÿ($.ÿ*,:&.,"ÿ.$ÿ

19 CGD+ÿ%$09:/&(%,ÿ=/.3ÿ.3,ÿCÿ$*ÿ.3,ÿ*,0,"/&:ÿ9:&(7ÿÿ

10 C,5,("&(.+ÿ=/::ÿ%$(./(-,ÿ.$ÿ0,,.ÿ&("ÿ"/+%-++ÿ/++-,+ÿ*,:&.,"ÿCGD+ÿ%$09:/&(%,ÿ

11 =/.3ÿ.3,ÿC8ÿG,3&;/:/.&./$(ÿ%.8ÿ&("ÿ$*",*+ÿ/(ÿ.3/+ÿ%&+,7ÿÿÿP-.ÿC,5,("&(.+ÿ&*,ÿ-(=/::/(6ÿ

12 .$ÿ&::$=ÿ.3/+ÿ&%./$(ÿ.$ÿ+.*&'ÿ5*$0ÿ&""*,++/(6ÿCÿ%$09:/&(%,7ÿÿÿÿ

13 14

ÿQRÿ TUVWXYZ[ÿV]ÿ^__[``abc[ÿYdeÿ^ffWVfWaYX[ÿgVh`adZÿicY_[j[dX`ÿ

15 C,5,("&(.+ÿ&*,ÿ*,k-/*,"ÿ.$ÿ3$-+,ÿ9,$9:,ÿ=/.3ÿ"/+&;/:/./,+ÿ/(ÿ&%%,++/;:,ÿ9:&%,0,(.+7ÿÿ

16 5ÿ9,$9:,ÿ&*,ÿ/(ÿ9:&%,0,(.+ÿ.3&.ÿ"$ÿ($.ÿ&%%$00$"&.,ÿ.3,/*ÿ"/+&;/:/./,+8ÿCGÿ0-+.ÿ

17 ÿ ÿÿ

5ÿ

83ÿ1296ÿ

ÿÿ ÿ!ÿ

ÿ

Z[\]ÿ_`a_bcdbefgehbZiÿÿÿjkclm]noÿfhfpÿÿÿqrs]tÿeuvw_vwxÿÿÿy[z]ÿxÿk{ÿfp
ÿ

0 "#$"%&'"ÿ'("&)ÿ')*+,-")ÿ'.ÿ*+ÿ*$$).$)&*'"ÿ$)&,.+/ÿÿ011ÿ)2,').+3ÿ4"2"%&*5ÿ65*+ÿ7ÿ8/9/ÿÿ

1 65*&+'&--,:ÿ;.<+,"5:,ÿ=">)<*)?ÿ1907ÿ5"''")ÿ*+%ÿ+<2").<,ÿ2.+&'.)&+3ÿ)"$.)',ÿ.@")ÿ'("ÿ5*,'ÿ

2 ?"*)ÿ%.;<2"+'ÿ'(*'ÿ9"-"+%*+',ÿ*)"ÿ-*&5&+3ÿ'.ÿ"#$"%&'&.<,5?ÿ')*+,-")ÿ*55ÿ&2$*;'"%ÿ;5*,,ÿ

3 2"2>"),/ÿÿ011ÿ9.;/ÿ1610Aÿ#(&>&'ÿÿBC"''")ÿ-).2ÿ!/ÿ!"+%"5,.+Aÿ6)&,.+ÿC*Dÿ--&;"Aÿ'.ÿ4/ÿ

4 E.?%Aÿ--&;"ÿ.-ÿC"3*5ÿ--*&),Aÿ=*&5<)"ÿ'.ÿ#$"%&'&.<,5?ÿ)*+,-")ÿ5*,,ÿ!"2>"),ÿ'.ÿ*-"ÿ

5 *+%ÿ$$).$)&*'"ÿF.<,&+3ÿ"''&+3,ÿB=">/ÿ01Aÿ1907GG/ÿÿ65*&+'&--,:ÿ;.<+,"5ÿ*,,")',ÿ'(*'ÿ$".$5"ÿ

6 D&'(ÿ%&,*>&5&'&",ÿ*)"ÿ*'ÿ3)"*'ÿ)&,Hÿ.-ÿ&+I<)?ÿ')?&+3ÿ'.ÿ*;;",,ÿ>"%,Aÿ;"55,Aÿ,(.D"),Aÿ?*)%ÿ*+%ÿ

7 .'(")ÿ$).3)*2,ÿD(&5"ÿ(.<,"%ÿ&+ÿ$)&,.+,ÿ'(*'ÿ%.ÿ+.'ÿ*;;.22.%*'"ÿ'("&)ÿ%&,*>&5&'&",/ÿÿ

8 65*&+'&--,:ÿ;.<+,"5ÿ*5,.ÿ;.+'"+%,ÿ'(*'ÿ(.<,&+3ÿ&+%&@&%<*5,ÿ-.)ÿ$).5.+3"%ÿ$")&.%,ÿ&+ÿ<+,*-"ÿ

09 *+%ÿ&+*;;",,&>5"ÿ(.<,&+3ÿ$5*;"2"+',ÿ@&.5*'",ÿ'("ÿJKLMNKOPQÿ;.<)':,ÿ1996ÿ+I<+;'&.+Aÿ

00 D(&;(ÿ$).(&>&',ÿ94ÿ-).2ÿS(.<,T&+3UÿT;5*,,ÿ2"2>"),Uÿ*'ÿ*+?ÿ$5*;"2"+',ÿD&'(.<'ÿ

01 *%"V<*'"ÿ*;;",,&>5"ÿ(.<,&+3ÿ/ÿ/ÿ/ÿ/Wÿÿ6")2*+"+'ÿ+I<+;'&.+ÿBS1996ÿ+I<+;'&.+WGAÿ*+/ÿ07Aÿ

02 1996Aÿ9.;/ÿ0934ÿ*'ÿ5/ÿ

03 &2&5*)5?Aÿ%.X"+,ÿ.-ÿ.'(")ÿ;5*,,ÿ2"2>"),ÿ)"2*&+ÿ&+ÿ4";"$'&.+ÿ"+'"),ÿ-.)ÿ<$ÿ'.ÿ

04 ,"@")*5ÿ2.+'(,ÿ.+ÿ"#'"+%"%ÿ,'*?ÿ,'*'<,ÿ-.)ÿ*+ÿ*;;",,&>5"ÿ$5*;"2"+'ÿ'.ÿ>";.2"ÿ*@*&5*>5"ÿ*'ÿ

05 *ÿ2*&+5&+"ÿ$)&,.+/ÿÿ(&5"ÿ&+ÿ4";"$'&.+Aÿ;5*,,ÿ2"2>"),ÿ%.ÿ+.'ÿ(*@"ÿ*;;",,ÿ'.ÿ2*&+5&+"ÿ

06 $).3)*2,Aÿ&+;5<%&+3ÿ6).$.,&'&.+ÿ46ÿ4"(*>&5&'*'&@"ÿ;(&"@"2"+'ÿ6).3)*2,Aÿ'(*'ÿ"+*>5"ÿ

07 '("2ÿ'.ÿ"*)+ÿ,"+'"+;"Y)"%<;&+3ÿ;)"%&',ÿ-.)ÿ$*)'&;&$*'&.+/ÿÿ6".$5"ÿD&'(ÿ%&,*>&5&'&",ÿD(.ÿ

08 )"2*&+ÿ&+ÿ4";"$'&.+ÿ"+'"),ÿ>";*<,"ÿ.-ÿ*ÿ5*;Hÿ.-ÿ*;;",,&>5"ÿ$5*;"2"+'ÿ;.<5%ÿ,")@"ÿ5.+3")ÿ

19 $)&,.+ÿ,"+'"+;",ÿ*,ÿ*ÿ)",<5'/ÿÿÿ

10 65*&+'&--,:ÿ;.<+,"5ÿ*5,.ÿ(*,ÿ)*&,"%ÿ;.+;")+,ÿ)"3*)%&+3ÿ;5*,,ÿ2"2>"),ÿD(.ÿ*)"ÿ

11 (.<,"%ÿ-.)ÿ5.+3ÿ$")&.%,ÿ.-ÿ'&2"ÿ*'ÿ(&3(")ÿ,";<)&'?ÿ5"@"5,ÿ'(*+ÿ'("&)ÿ;5*,,&-&;*'&.+ÿ$.&+',ÿ

12 D*))*+'/ÿÿ65*&+'&--,:ÿ;.<+,"5ÿ;.+'"+%,ÿ'(*'ÿ2*+?ÿ.-ÿ'(","ÿ;5*,,ÿ2"2>"),ÿ*)"ÿ"#$.,"%ÿ'.ÿ

13 ,&3+&-&;*+'ÿ,*-"'?ÿ)&,H,ÿ*+%ÿ"#;5<%"%ÿ-).2ÿ$).3)*22&+3ÿ.$$.)'<+&'&",ÿ>?ÿ@&)'<"ÿ.-ÿ'("&)ÿ

14 &+*$$).$)&*'"ÿ;<,'.%&*5ÿ$5*;"2"+',/ÿÿ65*&+'&--,:ÿ;.<+,"5ÿ;.+'"+%,ÿ'(*'ÿ(.<,&+3ÿ;5*,,ÿ

15 2"2>"),ÿ.<'ÿ.-ÿ5"@"5ÿ>";*<,"ÿ.-ÿ*ÿ%"*)'(ÿ.-ÿ*;;",,&>5"ÿ$5*;"2"+',ÿ*'ÿ'("ÿ*$$).$)&*'"ÿ

16 ,";<)&'?ÿ5"@"5,ÿ@&.5*'",ÿ'(&,ÿ.<)':,ÿ.)%"),ÿ*+%ÿ-"%")*5ÿ%&,*>&5&'?ÿ5*D/ÿÿ011ÿ1996ÿ+I<+;'&.+Aÿ

17 ÿ ÿÿ

6ÿ

83ÿ1296ÿ

ÿÿ ÿ!ÿ

ÿ

JKLMÿOPQORSTRUVWUXRJYÿÿÿZ[S\]M^_ÿVXV`ÿÿÿabcMdÿUefgOfghÿÿÿiKjMÿQÿ[kÿV`
ÿ

0 "#ÿ5$ÿ8ÿ%&'()*&*+,ÿ#-"#ÿ./ÿ"0-'&'ÿ#1ÿ#-'ÿ/2ÿ&'()*&'3'+#ÿ#-"#ÿ+1ÿ4&*51+'&ÿ6*#-ÿ"ÿ

1 0*5"7*8*#9ÿ:5-"88$ÿ7';")5'ÿ1<ÿ#-"#ÿ0*5"7*8*#9$ÿ7'ÿ'=;8)0'0ÿ<&13ÿ4"&#*;*4"#*1+ÿ*+ÿ1&ÿ0'+*'0ÿ#-'ÿ

2 7'+'<*#5ÿ1<ÿ5'&>*;'5$ÿ4&1,&"35$ÿ1&ÿ";#*>*#*'5ÿ1<ÿ#-'ÿ.'4"&#3'+#ÿ1&ÿ7'ÿ5)7?';#'0ÿ#1ÿ

3 0*5;&*3*+"#*1+@ABCÿ17ÿ@D@/@ÿ24@041%7B%1Bÿ%4&*51+5ÿ:E5F-"88ÿ+1#ÿ48";'ÿ*+3"#'5ÿ1&ÿ0'#"*+''5ÿ

4 6*#-ÿ0*5"7*8*#*'5ÿ*+ÿ*+"44&14&*"#'ÿ5';)&*#9ÿ;8"55*<*;"#*1+5ÿ7';")5'ÿ+1ÿ";;'55*78'ÿ;'885ÿ1&ÿ7'05ÿ

5 "&'ÿ">"*8"78'Aÿ"+0ÿ:E5F-"88ÿ+1#ÿ48";'ÿ*+3"#'5ÿ1&ÿ0'#"*+''5ÿ6*#-ÿ0*5"7*8*#*'5ÿ*+ÿ<";*8*#*'5ÿ#-"#ÿ

6 01ÿ+1#ÿ1<<'&ÿ#-'ÿ5"3'ÿ4&1,&"35ÿ"5ÿ#-'ÿ<";*8*#*'5ÿ6-'&'ÿ#-'9ÿ61)80ÿ1#-'&6*5'ÿ7'ÿ-1)5'0@AB@ÿ

7 .'<'+0"+#5ÿ";G+168'0,'ÿ#-"#ÿ#-'9ÿ<";'ÿ;-"88'+,'5ÿ*+ÿ31>*+,ÿ513'ÿ;8"55ÿ3'37'&5ÿ

8 #1ÿ";;'55*78'ÿ-1)5*+,ÿ48";'3'+#5ÿ"+0ÿ-">'ÿ#"G'+ÿ";#*1+ÿ"#ÿ#-'ÿ-'"0()"&#'&5ÿ8'>'8ÿ#1ÿ"##'34#ÿ

09 #1ÿ<";*8*#"#'ÿ#&"+5<'&5ÿ1<ÿ;8"55ÿ3'37'&5@ÿÿD1&ÿ'="348'$ÿ-'"0()"&#'&5ÿ5#"<<ÿ;)&&'+#89ÿ31+*#1&5ÿ

00 ;8"55ÿ3'37'&5ÿ"6"*#*+,ÿ#&"+5<'&ÿ"+0ÿ1>'&5''5ÿ7'0ÿ31>'5ÿ1<ÿ;8"55ÿ3'37'&5ÿ1+ÿ"ÿ5#"#'6*0'ÿ

01 7"5*5@ÿÿ+ÿ"00*#*1+$ÿ.'<'+0"+#5ÿ"55'&#ÿ#-"#ÿ3"+9ÿ;8"55ÿ3'37'&5ÿ"&'ÿ+1#ÿ'=4'0*#*1)589ÿ

02 #&"+5<'&&'0ÿ<1&ÿ&'"51+5ÿ)+&'8"#'0ÿ#1ÿ#-'*&ÿ0*5"7*8*#9ÿ"+0ÿ#-'ÿ8";Gÿ1<ÿ"+ÿ"44&14&*"#'ÿ7'0Cÿ<1&ÿ

03 '="348'$ÿ*<ÿ"+ÿ*+3"#'ÿ-"5ÿ"ÿ3'0*;"8ÿ-180ÿ-'ÿ1&ÿ5-'ÿ;"++1#ÿ7'ÿ#&"+5<'&&'0ÿ)+#*8ÿ#-"#ÿ-180ÿ*5ÿ

04 &'8'"5'0@ÿÿÿ

05 1+'#-'8'55ÿ"+0ÿ0'54*#'ÿ#-'5'ÿ'<<1&#5$ÿ28"*+#*<<5ÿ&'3"*+ÿ;1+;'&+'0ÿ#-"#ÿ./ÿ5#"<<ÿ

06 3'37'&5ÿ6-1ÿ"&'ÿ&'541+5*78'ÿ<1&ÿ'+01&5*+,ÿ;8"55ÿ3'37'&5ÿ<1&ÿ#&"+5<'&ÿ8";Gÿ"0'()"#'ÿ

07 *+<1&3"#*1+ÿ"71)#ÿ;)&&'+#ÿ7'0ÿ">"*8"7*8*#9ÿ#-"#ÿ3"#;-'5ÿ'";-ÿ;8"55ÿ3'37'&H5ÿ;)5#109$ÿ

08 3'0*;"8$ÿ3'+#"8ÿ-'"8#-$ÿ"+0ÿ1#-'&ÿ;8"55*<*;"#*1+ÿ<";#1&5@ÿÿ.'<'+0"+#5ÿ";G+168'0,'ÿ#-"#ÿ

19 #&"+5<'&ÿ0';*5*1+5ÿ"&'ÿ3"0'ÿ6*#-1)#ÿG+16*+,ÿ6-'#-'&ÿ"ÿ7'0ÿ*5ÿ";#)"889ÿ">"*8"78'ÿ"#ÿ"ÿ,*>'+ÿ

10 4&*51+@ÿÿ28"*+#*<<5ÿ-">'ÿ01;)3'+#'0ÿ#-"#ÿ6-'+ÿ7'05ÿ"&'ÿ)+">"*8"78'$ÿ;8"55ÿ3'37'&5ÿ3"9ÿ

11 6"*#ÿ<1&ÿ31+#-5ÿ*+ÿ)+5"<'ÿ-1)5*+,ÿ48";'3'+#5ÿ"<#'&ÿ7'*+,ÿ'+01&5'0ÿ<1&ÿ#&"+5<'&@ÿÿ!1&'1>'&$ÿ

12 ./ÿ;1+#*+)'5ÿ#1ÿ'+01&5'ÿ4'148'ÿ#1ÿ#&"+5<'&ÿ#1ÿ4&*51+5ÿ#-"#ÿ"&'ÿG+16+ÿ#1ÿ7'ÿ<)88ÿ1&ÿ

13 1#-'&6*5'ÿ-">'ÿ0'8"95ÿ"+0ÿ81+,ÿ6"*#8*5#5@ÿÿ8#-1),-ÿ.'<'+0"+#5ÿ"&'ÿ61&G*+,ÿ1+ÿ"00&'55*+,ÿ

14 #-*5ÿ*55)'ÿ79ÿ;&'"#*+,ÿ"ÿ-'"0()"&#'&5ÿ4&1;'55ÿ#1ÿ'+5)&'ÿ#-"#ÿ4'148'ÿ"&'ÿ&'I'+01&5'0ÿ#1ÿ1#-'&ÿ

15 4&*51+5$ÿ28"*+#*<<5ÿ"55'&#ÿ#-"#ÿ#-'ÿ4&178'3ÿ;1+#*+)'5ÿ#1ÿ1;;)&ÿ"#ÿ#-'ÿ*+5#*#)#*1+ÿ8'>'8@ÿÿÿ

16 28"*+#*<<5Hÿ;1)+5'8ÿ*5ÿ;)&&'+#89ÿ61&G*+,ÿ6*#-ÿ.'<'+0"+#5ÿ#1ÿ#&9ÿ#1ÿ0'>'814ÿ"ÿ81+,I

17 ÿ ÿÿ

7ÿ

83ÿ1296ÿ

ÿÿ ÿ!ÿ

ÿ

ijklÿnopnqrsqtuvtwqixÿÿÿyzr{|l}~ÿuwuÿÿÿlÿtnÿÿÿjlÿtÿzÿu
ÿ

0 "#$%ÿ&'()"*'+,ÿÿ-#.#+/0+"&ÿ1$'/)2#/ÿ0ÿ.*$&"ÿ&#"ÿ'.ÿ/0"0ÿ$#30$/*+3ÿ#41#/*"#/ÿ"$0+&.#$ÿ/#(05&6ÿ

1 7#2#1"*'+ÿ#+"#$ÿ/#(05&6ÿ0+/ÿ')"8'.8(#9#(ÿ:')&*+3ÿ'+ÿ;#<$)0$5ÿ176ÿ1907,ÿÿ+*"*0((56ÿ

2 -#.#+/0+"&ÿ=#$#ÿ)+0<(#ÿ"'ÿ1$'9*/#ÿ(#+3":&ÿ'.ÿ&"05ÿ.'$ÿ2(0&&ÿ%#%<#$&ÿ*+ÿ":'&#ÿ&#""*+3&,ÿÿ"ÿ

3 ":#ÿ$#>)#&"ÿ'.ÿ?(0*+"*..&@ÿ2')+&#(6ÿ-#.#+/0+"&ÿ$#2#+"(5ÿ1$'/)2#/ÿ0ÿ&#2'+/ÿ&#"ÿ'.ÿ/0"0A

4 <0&#/ÿ'+ÿ%0+)0(ÿ2'%1)"0"*'+A":0"ÿ$#.(#2"&ÿ2(0&&ÿ%#%<#$&@ÿ(#+3":&ÿ'.ÿ&"05ÿ*+ÿ7#2#1"*'+ÿ

5 #+"#$&6ÿ')"8'.8(#9#(ÿ:')&*+36ÿ0+/ÿ+'+8/#&*3+0"#/ÿ:')&*+3,ÿÿ:#ÿ10$"*#&ÿ%#"ÿ'+ÿ1$*(ÿ156ÿ

6 1907ÿ0+/ÿ/*&2)&&#/ÿ":#ÿ/0"0ÿ-#.#+/0+"&ÿ1$'/)2#/ÿ0+/ÿ":#ÿ<$'0/#$ÿ*&&)#&ÿ*+9'(9#/,ÿÿ:#ÿ

7 10$"*#&ÿ03$##/ÿ"'ÿ1$'/)2#ÿ0ÿ$#.*+#/ÿ&#"ÿ'.ÿ/0"0ÿ.'$ÿ":#ÿ%'+":ÿ'.ÿ!05ÿ19076ÿ0+/ÿ%##"ÿ

8 ":#$#0."#$ÿ"'ÿ2'+"*+)#ÿ"'ÿ*/#+"*.5ÿ":#ÿ&2'1#ÿ'.ÿ":#ÿ1$'<(#%ÿ0+/ÿ/#9#('1ÿ&'()"*'+&ÿ"'ÿ0+5ÿ

09 0//*"*'+0(ÿ*&&)#&ÿ*/#+"*.*#/,ÿÿ.ÿ":*&ÿ*&&)#ÿ*&ÿ+'"ÿ$#&'(9#/ÿ>)*2B(56ÿ?(0*+"*..&ÿ=*((ÿ&##Bÿ":#ÿ

00 ')$"@&ÿ0&&*&"0+2#,ÿ

01 02

ÿCDÿ FGHIJGKGLMNGOLÿGLÿQJORJMKÿSHHGRLKTLNHÿ

03 UVWXYZX[[\]ÿ_ZWZ`a`YZÿ

04 05

ÿ?$'<(#%&ÿ7#30$/*+3ÿ22#&&ÿ.'$ÿ-#0.ÿ(0&&ÿ!#%<#$&ÿ

06 &ÿ/#"0*(#/ÿ*+ÿ":#ÿ!05ÿ046ÿ1906ÿ&"0"#%#+"ÿ0+/ÿ4:*<*"ÿ0ÿ"'ÿ":#ÿ&"0"#%#+"6ÿ

07 b-'2,ÿ1579ÿ0"ÿ283c6ÿ0&ÿ=#((ÿ0&ÿ":#ÿ!0$2:ÿ046ÿ1906ÿ&"0"#%#+"ÿb-'2,ÿ1560ÿ0"ÿ03c6ÿ/#0.ÿ1#'1(#ÿ

08 *+ÿ":#ÿ-7ÿ:09#ÿ<##+ÿ0+/ÿ0$#ÿ<#*+3ÿ/#+*#/ÿ022#&&ÿ"'ÿ%0+5ÿ1$'3$0%&ÿ&)2:ÿ0&ÿ#/)20"*'+ÿ

19 0+/ÿ&#(.8:#(1ÿ1$'3$0%&ÿ":0"ÿ=')(/ÿ*%1$'9#ÿ":#*$ÿ2:0+2#&ÿ'.ÿ<#*+3ÿ10$'(#A*+2()/*+3ÿ":'&#ÿ

10 ":0"ÿ:09#ÿ<##+ÿ#41$#&&(5ÿ$#2'%%#+/#/ÿ<5ÿ":#ÿd'0$/ÿ'.ÿ?0$'(#ÿe#0$*+3&A<#20)&#ÿ-7ÿ

11 .0*(#/ÿ"'ÿ%0B#ÿ&*3+ÿ(0+3)03#ÿ*+"#$1$#"#$&ÿbfg&hcÿ090*(0<(#ÿ.'$ÿ":#&#ÿ1$'3$0%&ÿ0+/ÿ

12 2(0&&#&,ÿÿ*":ÿ(*%*"#/ÿ022#&&ÿ"'ÿ?$'1'&*"*'+ÿ46ÿ1$'3$0%&6ÿ/#0.ÿ2(0&&ÿ%#%<#$&ÿ$)+ÿ":#ÿ$*&Bÿ

13 '.ÿ&#$9*+3ÿ('+3#$ÿ1$*&'+ÿ&#+"#+2#&ÿ'$ÿ<#*+3ÿ/#+*#/ÿ10$'(#6ÿ0+/ÿ0$#ÿ/#+*#/ÿ022#&&ÿ"'ÿ":#ÿ

14 $#:0<*(*"0"*9#ÿ1$'3$0%&ÿ":0"ÿ2')(/ÿ*%1$'9#ÿ":#ÿ1$'<0<*(*"5ÿ'.ÿ2'%%)+*"5ÿ$#*+"#3$0"*'+ÿ

15 =*":')"ÿ$#2*/*9*&%,ÿÿÿ

16 ?(0*+"*..&@ÿ2')+&#(ÿ:0&ÿ#4"#+&*9#(5ÿ/'2)%#+"#/ÿ-7@&ÿ1#$&*&"#+"ÿ.0*()$#ÿ"'ÿ

17 ÿ ÿÿ

8ÿ

83ÿ1296ÿ

ÿÿ ÿ!ÿ

ÿ

Z[\]ÿ_`a_bcdbefgehbZiÿÿÿjkclm]noÿfhfpÿÿÿqrs]tÿeuvw_vwxÿÿÿy[z]ÿwwÿk{ÿfp
ÿ

0 "#$%&'(ÿ)ÿ*(#%&+(*ÿ,$ÿ+-.**ÿ/(/0(#*ÿ12$ÿ#(34&#(ÿ,2(/5ÿÿ677ÿ89:;<;=ÿ?@ÿ)(,,(#ÿA#$/ÿB5ÿ

1 )$/&$CÿD#&*$Eÿ).1ÿAA&+(Cÿ,$ÿB5ÿF$G'CÿAA&+(ÿ$Aÿ)(H.-ÿAA.&#*Cÿ+,$0(#ÿ1906ÿIJKLMJNOPÿ

2 !$E&,$#&EHÿ$4#ÿ.,ÿQÿ**4(*ÿB(-.,('ÿ,$ÿR(.AÿD#&*$E(#*ÿS$%5ÿ6Cÿ1906TÿS'$+4/(E,&EHÿ

3 RBU*ÿA.&-4#(ÿ,$ÿ"#$%&'(ÿ)*ÿA$#ÿÿ.E'ÿÿ/((,&EH*Cÿ-&A(#ÿH#$4"*Cÿ#(-&H&$4*ÿ*(#%&+(*Cÿ

4 ('4+.,&$E.-ÿ"#$H#.//&EHCÿ.E'ÿ%$+.,&$E.-ÿ"#$H#.//&EHÿ.,ÿQT5ÿÿR(.Aÿ+-.**ÿ/(/0(#*ÿ

5 +$E,&E4(ÿ,$ÿ#("$#,ÿ*&HE&A&+.E,ÿ'("#&%.,&$E*ÿ$Aÿ.++(**ÿ,$ÿ"#&*$Eÿ"#$H#./*Cÿ*(#%&+(*Cÿ.E'ÿ

6 .+,&%&,&(*ÿ$Eÿ.++$4E,ÿ$Aÿ-.+Vÿ$Aÿ&E,(#"#(,.,&$Eÿ*(#%&+(*5ÿÿ

7 -,2$4H2ÿR(A(E'.E,*ÿ.H#((ÿ,2.,ÿ&EW"(#*$Eÿ&E,(#"#(,(#*ÿ*2$4-'ÿ*(#%(ÿ.*ÿ,2(ÿ"#&/.#Gÿ

8 /(.E*ÿ$Aÿ"#$%&'&EHÿ&E,(#"#(,.,&$ECÿ"#$0-(/*ÿ#(/.&Eÿ&Eÿ*+2('4-&EHÿ-&%(ÿ&E,(#"#(,(#*5ÿ

09 R(A(E'.E,*ÿ"#$"$*('ÿ4,&-&X&EHÿ.Eÿ4,-$$Vÿ+.-(E'.#ÿ,$ÿ/.E.H(ÿ.--ÿ)ÿ.""$&E,/(E,*ÿ

00 *,.,(1&'(Cÿ,$ÿ"#$%&'(ÿ.ÿ+$/"-(,(ÿ.E'ÿ.++4#.,(ÿ0.*&*ÿA$#ÿ.4'&,&EHÿ"#$%&*&$Eÿ$Aÿ)*Cÿ.E'ÿ,$ÿ

01 &'(E,&AGÿ.EGÿE(('ÿA$#ÿ.''&,&$E.-ÿ*,.AAÿ)*5ÿÿÿ/.*,(#ÿ+.-(E'.#ÿ1&--ÿ*$-%(ÿ,2(ÿ+4##(E,ÿ

02 "#$0-(/ÿ$AÿE$ÿ+(E,#.-&X('ÿ*+2('4-&EHÿ*G*,(/ÿA$#ÿ.--ÿ+4*,$'Gÿ.E'ÿ2(.-,2ÿ+.#(ÿ(E+$4E,(#*ÿ

03 ,2.,ÿ#(34&#(ÿ)5ÿÿY$1(%(#CÿD-.&E,&AA*Uÿ+$4E*(-ÿ&*ÿ+$E+(#E('ÿ,2.,ÿ,2(ÿ4,-$$Vÿ"#$+('4#(ÿ

04 '(%(-$"('ÿ0GÿR(A(E'.E,*ÿ1&--ÿE$,ÿ0(ÿ*$"2&*,&+.,('ÿS$#ÿ4*(#WA#&(E'-GTÿ(E$4H2ÿ,$ÿ#(-&.0-Gÿ

05 /.E.H(ÿ.--ÿ#(34&#('ÿ)ÿ(E+$4E,(#*ÿA$#ÿ64ÿ"($"-(ÿ&Eÿ/4-,&"-(ÿ"#&*$E*Cÿ/.EGÿ$Aÿ12$/ÿ2.%(ÿ

06 /4-,&"-(ÿ(E+$4E,(#*ÿ'.&-G5ÿÿQ4#,2(#Cÿ&,ÿ&*ÿ4E+-(.#ÿ2$1ÿ,2(ÿ".#,&(*ÿ+.Eÿ4,&-&X(ÿ4,-$$Vÿ,$ÿ

07 &'(E,&AGÿH."*ÿ&Eÿ+$%(#.H(ÿ12(#(ÿ.''&,&$E.-ÿ*&HEÿ-.EH4.H(ÿ&E,(#"#(,(#*ÿ/.Gÿ0(ÿE(('('Cÿ$#ÿ

08 2$1ÿ,2(ÿ".#,&(*ÿ+.Eÿ4*(ÿ4,-$$Vÿ,$ÿ.4'&,ÿ)ÿ(E+$4E,(#*ÿ,$ÿ'(,(#/&E(ÿ&E*,.E+(*ÿ12(#(ÿ

19 R(A(E'.E,*ÿA.&-('ÿ,$ÿ"#$%&'(ÿ.Eÿ)ÿ.E'ÿ,2(ÿ#(.*$E*ÿ,2(#(A$#5ÿÿÿ

10 R(A(E'.E,*ÿ.E'ÿD-.&E,&AA*Uÿ+$4E*(-ÿ1&--ÿ+$E'4+,ÿ.ÿ*&,(ÿ%&*&,ÿ.,ÿQÿ&Eÿ!.Gÿ1907ÿ,$ÿ

11 ,#Gÿ,$ÿ&'(E,&AGÿ,2(ÿ*$4#+(ÿ$Aÿ,2(ÿ&E*,&,4,&$EU*ÿ$EH$&EHÿA.&-4#(ÿ,$ÿ+$/"-Gÿ1&,2ÿ,2&*ÿ$4#,U*ÿ

12 $#'(#*ÿ#(H.#'&EHÿ,2(ÿ"#$%&*&$Eÿ$Aÿ)ÿ*(#%&+(*ÿ.E'ÿ,$ÿ&'(E,&AGÿ*$-4,&$E*5ÿÿ-,2$4H2ÿ

13 D-.&E,&AA*Uÿ*,#$EHÿ"#(A(#(E+(ÿ&*ÿ,$ÿ#(*$-%(ÿ,2(ÿ&**4(ÿ1&,2$4,ÿ-&,&H.,&$ECÿ&Aÿ,2(ÿ&**4(ÿ&*ÿE$,ÿ

14 "#$/",-Gÿ#(*$-%('CÿD-.&E,&AA*ÿ1&--ÿ*((Vÿ$4#,ÿ&E,(#%(E,&$E5ÿ

15 ÿ

16

17 ÿ ÿÿ

09ÿ

83ÿ1296ÿ

ÿÿ ÿ!ÿ

ÿ

VWXYÿ[\][^_`^abcad^Veÿÿÿfg_hiYjkÿbdblÿÿÿmnoYpÿaqrs[rstÿÿÿuWvYÿsbÿgwÿbl
ÿ

0 "#$%&'()ÿ*'+,#-./+ÿ00'))ÿ1$ÿ)).+/('/1)ÿ2$#ÿ&&ÿ"'$3&'ÿ4.15ÿ6.),%.&.1.')ÿ

1 .15ÿ#'+,#-ÿ1$ÿ15'ÿ%#$,-'#ÿ3#$%&'(ÿ$2ÿ'78,&ÿ,00'))ÿ1$ÿ9$%ÿ,/-ÿ3#$+#,(ÿ,)).+/('/1)ÿ

2 2$#ÿ3'$3&'ÿ4.15ÿ-.),%.&.1.'):ÿ15'ÿ3,#1.')ÿ0$/;'/'-ÿ,ÿ)(,&&ÿ4$#<ÿ+#$83ÿ1$ÿ,--#'))ÿ"&,./1.22)=ÿ

3 0$/0'#/):ÿ,)ÿ#,.)'-ÿ./ÿ(8&1.3&'ÿ1$8#ÿ#'3$#1)ÿ,/-ÿ&'11'#)>ÿÿ?@@ÿ6$0>ÿ1579ÿ,1ÿ02A03>ÿÿ5'ÿ

4 3,#1.')ÿ,+#''-ÿ1$ÿ'B05,/+'ÿ-,1,ÿ$/ÿ,ÿ78,#1'#&Cÿ%,).)ÿ,/-ÿ#'0'/1&Cÿ('1ÿ1$ÿ#';.'4ÿ,/-ÿ-.)08))ÿ

5 15'ÿ-,1,ÿ#'+,#-./+ÿ,)).+/('/1)>ÿÿ5'ÿ3,#1.')ÿ5,;'ÿ,ÿ3$1'/1.,&ÿ-.)381'ÿ,%$81ÿ15'ÿ,33#$3#.,1'ÿ

6 ('15$-ÿ2$#ÿ,/,&CD./+ÿ15'ÿ3#$+#,(ÿ,)).+/('/1ÿ-,1,Eÿ15'Cÿ,#'ÿ./ÿ15'ÿ3#$0'))ÿ$2ÿ(''1./+ÿ,/-ÿ

7 0$/2'##./+ÿ,%$81ÿ15,1ÿ.))8'>ÿÿ

8 5'ÿ3,#1.')ÿ4.&&ÿ0$/-801ÿ15#''ÿ).1'ÿ;.).1)ÿ./ÿ15'ÿ0$(./+ÿ($/15):ÿ,1ÿ,&./,)ÿF,&&'Cÿ

09 1,1'ÿ"#.)$/:ÿG'#/ÿF,&&'Cÿ1,1'ÿ"#.)$/:ÿ,/-ÿH:ÿ1$ÿ./;')1.+,1'ÿ15'ÿ0,8)')ÿ$2ÿ-.)3,#.1.')ÿ

00 ./ÿ,00'))ÿ1$ÿ3#$+#,((./+>ÿÿ5'ÿ3,#1.')ÿ,&)$ÿ3&,/ÿ1$ÿ./0$#3$#,1'ÿ78')1.$/)ÿ#'+,#-./+ÿ

01 -.)3,#.1.')ÿ./ÿ,)).+/('/1ÿ#,1')ÿ./ÿ15'ÿ$./1ÿ8-.1ÿ$$&>ÿ

02 I@J@KLMKNOPÿ?NMN@R@KNÿ

03 00'))ÿ1$ÿ"#$+#,()ÿ2$#ÿ6',2ÿ&,))ÿ!'(%'#)ÿ

04 6'2'/-,/1)ÿ,#'ÿ0$((.11'-ÿ1$ÿ'/)8#./+ÿ15,1ÿ-',2ÿ3#.)$/'#)ÿ45$ÿ#'78.#'ÿSÿ,#'ÿ

05 3#$;.-'-ÿ'78,&ÿ,00'))ÿ1$ÿ3#$+#,(ÿ,)).+/('/1)>ÿÿ6'2'/-,/1)ÿ-';'&$3'-ÿ(8&1.3&'ÿ('15$-)ÿ1$ÿ

06 3#$;.-'ÿ3#$+#,(ÿ,00'))ÿ2$#ÿ15'ÿ,33#$B.(,1'&Cÿ64ÿ0&,))ÿ('(%'#)ÿ45$ÿ8)'ÿ).+/ÿ&,/+8,+'ÿ,)ÿ

07 15'.#ÿ3#.(,#Cÿ(',/)ÿ$2ÿ0$((8/.0,1.$/>ÿÿ5'ÿ('15$-)ÿ./0&8-'ÿ8)./+ÿ6*ÿ)1,22ÿ

08 ./1'#3#'1'#):ÿ0$/1#,01ÿ./A3'#)$/ÿ./1'#3#'1'#):ÿ,/-ÿ;.-'$ÿ#'($1'ÿ./1'#3#'1,1.$/ÿTF*U>ÿÿ

19 ;'#,&&:ÿ6'2'/-,/1)=ÿ3$&.0Cÿ2$#ÿ3#$;.-./+ÿ./1'#3#'1'#)ÿ./ÿ3'#)$/ÿ,/-ÿ;.,ÿF*ÿ3#$;.-')ÿ,ÿ

10 #',)$/,%&'ÿ&';'&ÿ$2ÿ,00'))ÿ1$ÿ'/,%&'ÿ-',2ÿ./(,1')ÿ1$ÿ(',/./+28&&Cÿ3,#1.0.3,1'ÿ./ÿ3#$+#,()ÿ

11 ,/-ÿ0$(3&.')ÿ4.15ÿ6ÿ#'+8&,1.$/)>ÿ

12 6'2'/-,/1)ÿ0$/1./8'ÿ1$ÿ4$#<ÿ1$ÿ.-'/1.2Cÿ,/-ÿ.(3&'('/1ÿ,ÿ)$&81.$/ÿ1$ÿ)05'-8&':ÿ&$+ÿ

13 ,/-ÿ1#,0<ÿSÿ'/0$8/1'#)>ÿ5.&'ÿ6'2'/-,/1)ÿ'B3&$#'ÿ,ÿ&$/+A1'#(ÿ)$&81.$/:ÿ81&$$<ÿ

14 0,&'/-,#./+ÿ4.&&ÿ)'#;'ÿ,)ÿ15'ÿ./1'#.(ÿ3#$0'))ÿ2$#ÿ)05'-8&./+ÿ,/-ÿ1#,0<./+ÿSÿ'/0$8/1'#)>ÿÿ

15 5'ÿ3,#1.')ÿ,#'ÿ#';.'4./+ÿ,/-ÿ-.)08))./+ÿ3#$3$)'-ÿ-#,21ÿ#'+8&,1.$/ÿ,/-ÿ&$0,&ÿ$3'#,1./+ÿ

16 3#$0'-8#')ÿ4'#'ÿ3#$;.-'-ÿ1$ÿ"&,./1.22)=ÿ0$8/)'&>ÿÿ5'ÿ3,#1.')ÿ,/-ÿ!#>ÿ4,/)$/ÿ0$/1./8'ÿ1$ÿ

17 ÿ ÿÿ

00ÿ

83ÿ1296ÿ

ÿÿ ÿ!ÿ

ÿ

rstuÿwxywz{|z}~}zrÿÿÿ{uÿ~~ÿÿÿuÿ}wÿÿÿsuÿÿÿ~
ÿ

0 "#$$%&#'%()*+$,ÿ-#'.ÿ#/ÿ(0+1+ÿ)112+1ÿ%/3ÿ(0+'+4#'+ÿ#2'(ÿ)/(+'*+/()#/ÿ)1ÿ/#(ÿ/+"+11%',5ÿ

1 ""+11ÿ(#ÿ6'#7'%81ÿ4#'ÿ$%11ÿ!+8&+'1ÿ9+/+'%$$,ÿ

2 :+4+/3%/(1ÿ"#/()/2+ÿ(#ÿ8#/)(#'ÿ)/1()(2()#/1ÿ-)(0ÿ(0+ÿ0)70+1(ÿ$+*+$ÿ#4ÿ;'#7'%8ÿ

3 %11)7/8+/(ÿ3)1;%')()+1ÿ%/3ÿ%'+ÿ1++)/7ÿ)8;'#*+8+/(1ÿ%(ÿ%$$ÿ#4ÿ(0+85ÿÿ0+ÿ3+*+$#;8+/(ÿ%/3ÿ

4 )8;$+8+/(%()#/ÿ#4ÿ)/8%(+ÿ%11)7/8+/(ÿ'+;#'(1ÿ%/3ÿ8#/)(#')/7ÿ0%1ÿ7'+%($,ÿ+/0%/"+3ÿ(0+ÿ

5 3+;(0ÿ#4ÿ3%(%ÿ%*%)$%&$+ÿ%/3ÿ)8;'#*+3ÿ8%/%7+8+/(ÿ#*+'1)70(ÿ#/ÿ(0)1ÿ)112+5ÿÿ8;'#*+8+/(1ÿ

6 %'+ÿ%$1#ÿ%((')&2(+3ÿ(#ÿ(0+ÿ('%)/)/7ÿ(0%(ÿ:+4+/3%/(1ÿ;'#*)3+3ÿ(#ÿ(0+ÿ0)+41ÿ#4ÿ!+/(%$ÿ<+%$(0ÿ

7 %/3ÿ(0+ÿ/8%(+ÿ11)7/8+/(ÿ=)+2(+/%/(15ÿÿ:+4+/3%/(1ÿ+1(%&$)10+3ÿ%ÿ42$$>()8+ÿ<+%3?2%'(+'1ÿ

8 /8%(+ÿ11)7/8+/(ÿ=)+2(+/%/(ÿ;#1)()#/@ÿ-0)"0ÿ)1ÿ'+1;#/1)&$+ÿ4#'ÿ('%)/)/7@ÿ8#/)(#')/7@ÿ%/3ÿ

09 '+;#'()/7ÿ)/8%(+ÿ%11)7/8+/(ÿ3%(%5ÿÿ0+ÿ;#1)()#/ÿ)1ÿ4)$$+3ÿ%/3ÿ&+"%8+ÿ+44+"()*+ÿ#*+8&+'ÿ

00 19065ÿÿÿ

01 :+4+/3%/(1ÿ"#/()/2+ÿ(#ÿ;'#*)3+ÿ6$%)/()441ÿ-)(0ÿ3%(%ÿ'+7%'3)/7ÿ"$%11ÿ8+8&+'ÿ

02 %11)7/8+/(15ÿÿ0+ÿ;%'()+1ÿ8+(ÿ#/ÿ;')$ÿ01@ÿ1907@ÿ(#ÿ3)1"211ÿ(0+ÿ3%(%ÿ%/3ÿ-)$$ÿA#)/($,ÿ*)1)(ÿ

03 %$)/%1ÿB%$$+,@ÿC+'/ÿB%$$+,@ÿ%/3ÿDÿ(#ÿ42'(0+'ÿ)/?2)'+ÿ%1ÿ(#ÿ;#11)&$+ÿ3)1;%')()+1ÿ)/ÿ

04 ;'#7'%8ÿ%11)7/8+/(1ÿ%/3ÿ(0+)'ÿ"%21+15ÿÿ0+ÿ;%'()+1ÿ-)$$ÿ"#/()/2+ÿ(#ÿ8++(ÿ%&#2(ÿ(0)1ÿ8%((+'ÿ

05 (#ÿ%33'+11ÿ%/,ÿ3)1;%')()+1ÿ4#2/3ÿ)/ÿ+*%$2%()/7ÿ(0+ÿ3%(%@ÿ%/3ÿ+/12'+ÿ(0%(ÿ"$%11ÿ8+8&+'1ÿ0%*+ÿ

06 %""+11ÿ(#ÿ:Eÿ;'#7'%815ÿ

07 08

ÿFGÿ `IJaKMLMÿbÿOTLLPÿFMLQZL\ÿÿRSQLTUTLQJSVWXJVSÿYZSV[ZVLÿRSQLTUTLQZQJMSÿ\MTÿ]ZTM^LL_ÿ

19 cdefghfiijkÿmhehnonghÿ

10 D#$$#-)/7ÿ%ÿ"#8;'+0+/1)*+ÿ'+*)+-ÿ&,ÿ6$%)/()441pÿ"#2/1+$ÿ#4ÿ;%'#$+ÿ4)+$3ÿ4)$+1@ÿ

11 :+4+/3%/(1ÿ-+'+ÿ4#2/3ÿ(#ÿ3+/,ÿ=ÿ1+'*)"+1ÿ(#ÿ3+%4ÿ;%'#$++1ÿ#/ÿ82$();$+ÿ#""%1)#/15ÿÿ/ÿ

12 !%,ÿ29@ÿ1906@ÿ6$%)/()441ÿ;'#*)3+3ÿ%ÿ3+(%)$+3ÿ$+((+'ÿ3+1"')&)/7ÿ+q%8;$+1ÿ#4ÿ3+/)%$1ÿ#4ÿ32+ÿ

13 ;'#"+11ÿ%/3ÿ*)#$%()#/1ÿ#4ÿ(0+ÿE+8+3)%$ÿ6$%/ÿ%/3ÿ(0)1ÿ#2'(p1ÿ/28+'#21ÿ=ÿ#'3+'1ÿ)/ÿ3+%4ÿ

14 ;%'#$++ÿ4)+$3ÿ4)$+15ÿÿ0+1+ÿ4)$+1ÿ10#-ÿ(0%(ÿ3+%4ÿ;%'#$++1ÿ%'+ÿ'+;+%(+3$,ÿ3+/)+3ÿ%""+11ÿ(#ÿ

15 ;'#7'%81ÿ%/3ÿ1+'*)"+1ÿ%/3ÿ%'+ÿ/#(ÿ%&$+ÿ(#ÿ+44+"()*+$,ÿ"#882/)"%(+ÿ-)(0ÿ(0+)'ÿ;%'#$+ÿ%7+/(1ÿ

16 32')/7ÿ32+ÿ;'#"+11ÿ+/"#2/(+'1ÿ&+"%21+ÿ#4ÿ:6p1ÿ4%)$2'+1ÿ(#ÿ;'#*)3+ÿ1)7/ÿ$%/72%7+ÿ

17 ÿ ÿÿ

01ÿ

83ÿ1296ÿ

ÿÿ ÿ!ÿ

ÿ

PQRSÿUVWUXYZX[\][^XP_ÿÿÿ`aYbcSdeÿ\^\fÿÿÿghiSjÿ[klmUlmnÿÿÿoQpSÿmUÿaqÿ\f
ÿ

0 "#$%&'&%$($")#ÿ*%&+",%*-ÿ

1 .%/%#0(#$*ÿ&%*')#0%0ÿ"#ÿ(ÿ123ÿ034ÿ1906ÿ2%$$%&ÿ(,5#)62%07"#7ÿ$8%ÿ8"*$)&",(2ÿ/("21&%ÿ

2 $)ÿ'&)+"0%ÿ9ÿ$)ÿ'(&)2%%*ÿ"#ÿ*'%,"/",ÿ%#,)1#$%&*-ÿÿ.%*'"$%ÿ$8"*4ÿ$8%ÿ&%*12$*ÿ)/ÿ:2("#$"//*;ÿ

3 &%+"%6ÿ)/ÿ$8%ÿ9ÿ$&(,5"#7ÿ2)7*ÿ/)&ÿ$8%ÿ$8"&0ÿ<1(&$%&4ÿ(*ÿ0%$("2%0ÿ"#ÿ(ÿ.%,%=>%&ÿ004ÿ1906ÿ

4 2%$$%&4ÿ*8)6ÿ$8($ÿ9*ÿ6%&%ÿ0),1=%#$%0ÿ(*ÿ>%"#7ÿ1*%0ÿ)#23ÿ$6",%ÿ"#ÿ$8%ÿ)&$8%&#ÿ?%7")#4ÿ

5 $8)178ÿ$8%&%ÿ6%&%ÿ(''&)@"=($%23ÿ00ÿ0%(/ÿ'(&)2%%*ÿ1#0%&ÿ.:ÿ*1'%&+"*")#ÿ"#ÿ$8($ÿ&%7")#ÿ

6 01&"#7ÿ$8($ÿ<1(&$%&-ÿÿ.%/%#0(#$*ÿ,2("=ÿ$8($ÿ$8%ÿ0($(ÿ$8%3ÿ'&)+"0%0ÿ0"0ÿ#)$ÿ(,,1&($%23ÿ&%/2%,$ÿ

7 $8%ÿ'&)+"*")#ÿ)/ÿ9ÿ*%&+",%*ÿ(#0ÿ*$($%ÿ$8%3ÿ6"22ÿ&%*')#0ÿ$)ÿ:2("#$"//*;ÿ2%$$%&ÿ"#ÿ6&"$"#7-ÿÿÿ

8 $ÿ$8%ÿ&%<1%*$ÿ)/ÿ:2("#$"//*;ÿ,)1#*%24ÿ.%/%#0(#$*ÿ8(+%ÿ&%+"*%0ÿ$8%"&ÿA?ÿ')2",3ÿ*1,8ÿ

09 $8($ÿ"#B'%&*)#ÿ94ÿ(#0ÿ#)$ÿA?4ÿ6"22ÿ*%&+%ÿ(*ÿ$8%ÿ/"&*$ÿ)'$")#ÿ/)&ÿ'&)+"0"#7ÿ9ÿ*%&+",%*-ÿÿ

00 8%ÿ')2",3ÿ"*ÿ'(&$ÿ)/ÿ(ÿ&%+"*%0ÿ+%&*")#ÿ)/ÿ.:;*ÿ%//%,$"+%ÿ,)==1#",($")#ÿ')2",3-ÿÿ

01 :2("#$"//*;ÿ,)1#*%2ÿ8(*ÿ&%+"%6%0ÿ$8%ÿ#%6ÿ%//%,$"+%ÿ,)==1#",($")#ÿ')2",3ÿ(#0ÿ'&)+"0%0ÿ

02 .%/%#0(#$*ÿ6"$8ÿ(ÿ*%&"%*ÿ)/ÿ&%,)==%#0%0ÿ&%+"*")#*-ÿÿ:2("#$"//*ÿ(6("$ÿ.%/%#0(#$*;ÿ

03 &%*')#*%-ÿÿÿÿ

04 8%ÿ'(&$"%*ÿ,)#$"#1%ÿ$)ÿ8(+%ÿ(ÿ0"*(7&%%=%#$ÿ&%7(&0"#7ÿ$8%ÿ'&)+"*")#ÿ)/ÿ9ÿ01&"#7ÿ

05 /"%20ÿ%#,)1#$%&*-ÿÿ:2("#$"//*ÿ,)#$"#1%ÿ$)ÿ)>C%,$ÿ$)ÿ.:;*ÿ&%2"(#,%ÿ)#ÿ6&"$$%#ÿ#)$%*ÿ$)ÿ

06 ,)==1#",($%ÿ6"$8ÿ'(&)2%%*ÿ"#ÿ$8%ÿ/"%20-ÿÿ)$6"$8*$(#0"#7ÿ$8"*ÿ0"*(7&%%=%#$4ÿ.%/%#0(#$*ÿ

07 8(+%ÿ(7&%%0ÿ$)ÿ'1&*1%ÿ$8%ÿ')**">"2"$3ÿ)/ÿ)>$("#"#7ÿ(#ÿ9ÿ$8&)178ÿA?ÿ*)/$6(&%ÿ)#ÿ(7%#$*;ÿ

08 '8)#%*ÿ01&"#7ÿ/"%20ÿ%#,)1#$%&*-ÿÿÿ

19 DEFEGHIGJKLÿNJIJEOEGJÿ

10 .%/%#0(#$*ÿ(**%&$ÿ$8($ÿ*"7#ÿ2(#71(7%ÿ"#$%&'&%$($")#ÿ"*ÿ#)$ÿ=(#0($%0ÿ/)&ÿ%+%&3ÿ'(&)2%ÿ

11 %#,)1#$%&-ÿÿ.:ÿ&%+"*%0ÿ"$*ÿ%//%,$"+%ÿ,)==1#",($")#ÿ(#0ÿ*"7#ÿ2(#71(7%ÿ')2",3ÿ(#0ÿ8(*ÿ

12 *8(&%0ÿ"$ÿ6"$8ÿ:2("#$"//*;ÿ,)1#*%2-ÿÿ#0%&ÿ$8%ÿ&%+"*%0ÿ')2",34ÿ(#ÿ"#B'%&*)#ÿ9ÿ6"22ÿ>%ÿ

13 '&)+"0%0ÿ(*ÿ$8%ÿ/"&*$ÿ)'$")#-ÿÿA?ÿ6"22ÿ)#23ÿ>%ÿ1*%0ÿ68%#ÿ(ÿ2"+%ÿ"#$%&'&%$%&ÿ"*ÿ1#(+("2(>2%-ÿÿ

14 .%/%#0(#$*ÿ(2*)ÿ'2(#ÿ$)ÿ'&)+"0%ÿ(00"$")#(2ÿ$&("#"#7ÿ$)ÿ%#*1&%ÿ*$(//ÿ"*ÿ/(="2"(&ÿ6"$8ÿ$8%ÿ

15 ')2",3ÿ(#0ÿ$8%ÿ$%,8#)2)73-ÿÿ)ÿ/1&$8%&ÿ%#*1&%ÿ$8($ÿ9ÿ*%&+",%*ÿ(&%ÿ'&)+"0%0ÿ68%#ÿ#%%0%04ÿ

16 .%/%#0(#$*ÿ(**"7#%0ÿ(22ÿ0%(/ÿ'(&)2%%*4ÿ68)ÿ&%<1"&%ÿ94ÿ$)ÿ(ÿ:(&)2%ÿ7%#$ÿÿ1'%&+"*)&-ÿ

17 ÿ ÿÿ

02ÿ

83ÿ1296ÿ

ÿÿ ÿ!ÿ

ÿ

defgÿijkilmnlopqorldsÿÿÿtumvwgxyÿprpzÿÿÿ{|}g~ÿoiÿÿÿegÿÿuÿpz
ÿ

0 "#$#%&'%()ÿ'*#ÿ+,%+#*%#&ÿ(-'(ÿ.)/%0ÿ'ÿ+/1/2/'%ÿ/%34#*),%ÿ5ÿ&.*/%0ÿ4'*,2##ÿ$/#2&ÿ

1 #%+,.%(#*)ÿ4*#)#%()ÿ)'$#(6ÿ'%&ÿ)#+.*/(6ÿ/)).#)7ÿÿ-#*#$,*#8ÿ"#$#%&'%()ÿ'*#ÿ#942,*/%0ÿ:'6)ÿ

2 $,*ÿ4'*,2#ÿ'0#%()ÿ(,ÿ,;('/%ÿ<=ÿ)#*1/+#)ÿ,%ÿ(-#/*ÿ)('(#3/)).#&ÿ+#22ÿ4-,%#)ÿ,*ÿ2'4(,4)>(';2#()ÿ

3 ),ÿ(-'(ÿ5ÿ)#*1/+#)ÿ+'%ÿ;#ÿ4*,1/&#&ÿ:-/2#ÿ/%ÿ(-#ÿ$/2#&ÿ$,*ÿ?'%&'(#&ÿ4'*,2#ÿ#%+,.%(#*)7ÿ

4 "#$#%&'%()ÿ'))#*(ÿ(-'(ÿ(-#ÿ'22#0#&ÿ2'+@ÿ,*ÿ2/?/(#&ÿ.)#ÿ,$ÿ5ÿ/)ÿ%,(ÿ#1/&#%+#ÿ(-'(ÿ5ÿ

5 :')ÿ*#A./*#&ÿ'%&ÿ%,(ÿ4*,1/&#&7ÿÿ%ÿ(-#ÿ(-/*&ÿ'%&ÿ$,.*(-ÿA.'*(#*)ÿ,$ÿ19068ÿ(-#*#ÿ:#*#ÿ53ÿ

6 '44,/%(?#%()ÿ$,*ÿ5ÿ)+-#&.2#&ÿ$,*ÿ4'*,2##)8ÿ;.(ÿ10ÿ:#*#ÿ+'%+#22#&7ÿÿB/$(##%ÿ'44,/%(?#%()ÿ

7 :#*#ÿ+'%+#22#&ÿ;#+'.)#ÿ4'*,2##)ÿ&/&ÿ%,(ÿ)-,:ÿ.4ÿ$,*ÿ(-#/*ÿ)+-#&.2#&ÿ'44,/%(?#%()7ÿÿ-*##ÿ

8 '44,/%(?#%()ÿ:#*#ÿ+'%+#22#&ÿ;#+'.)#ÿ(-#ÿ4'*,2##ÿ:')ÿ/%ÿC'/28ÿ,%ÿ,%#ÿ,++')/,%ÿ(-#ÿ

09 /%(#*4*#(#*ÿ:')ÿ*#$.)#&ÿ#%(*6ÿ/%(,ÿ(-#ÿ+,.%(6ÿC'/2ÿ&.#ÿ(,ÿ/?4*,4#*ÿ/&#%(/$/+'(/,%8ÿ'%&ÿ,%26ÿ

00 ,%#ÿ'44,/%(?#%(ÿ:')ÿ+'%+#22#&ÿ;#+'.)#ÿ(-#ÿ/%(#*4*#(#*ÿ:')ÿ%,(ÿ'1'/2';2#7ÿÿ"#$#%&'%()ÿ

01 *#+#%(26ÿ,;('/%#&ÿ'.(-,*/D'(/,%ÿ(,ÿ-/*#ÿ'ÿ5ÿ'(ÿ"=ÿE#'&A.'*(#*)ÿ:-,ÿ:/22ÿ;#ÿ';2#ÿ(,ÿ

02 '))/)(ÿ4'*,2#ÿ,$$/+#)ÿ/%ÿ4*,1/&/%0ÿ/%(#*4*#(/1#ÿ)#*1/+#)ÿ$,*ÿ(-#ÿ$/#2&7ÿÿ"#$#%&'%()ÿ:/22ÿ

03 +,%(/%.#ÿ(,ÿ:,*@ÿ(,ÿ4*,1/&#ÿ5ÿ)#*1/+#)ÿ(,ÿ4'*,2##)7ÿ

04 05

ÿFGÿ IJJKLLKMNOPQRÿTUNVÿWXNYYÿZUL[U\Yÿ]PO^ÿ_PMUK`^KQUYÿÿ

06 -#ÿ/%)('22'(/,%ÿ,$ÿ(-#ÿ1/&#,4-,%#)ÿ'(ÿ'22ÿ/%)(/(.(/,%)ÿ(-'(ÿ-,.)#ÿ&#'$ÿ'%&ÿ-#'*/%0ÿ

07 /?4'/*#&ÿ+2'))ÿ?#?;#*)ÿ/)ÿ+,?42#(#7ÿÿ"#$#%&'%()ÿ/%)('22#&ÿ58ÿ1/&#,4-,%#)ÿ'(ÿ00ÿ

08 /%)(/(.(/,%)7ÿ

19 %)('22'(/,%ÿ,$ÿ1/&#,4-,%#)ÿ-')ÿ-'&ÿ(*#?#%&,.)ÿ/?4'+(ÿ,%ÿ(-#ÿ';/2/(6ÿ,$ÿ&#'$ÿ+2'))ÿ

10 ?#?;#*)ÿ(,ÿ+,??.%/+'(#ÿ:/(-ÿ$'?/26ÿ'%&ÿ$*/#%&)ÿ,.()/&#ÿ,$ÿ4*/),%7ÿÿ#1#*(-#2#))8ÿ

11 ,;)('+2#)ÿ(,ÿ'++#))ÿ*#?'/%7ÿÿ-#ÿ<,/+#ÿ'**631#*ÿa<bÿ$#'(.*#ÿ,$ÿ(-#ÿ1/&#,4-,%#)ÿ-')ÿ

12 ;##%ÿ&/)';2#&ÿ)/%+#ÿ,%ÿ,*ÿ'*,.%&ÿ!'6ÿ148ÿ19067ÿÿ)ÿ'ÿ*#).2(8ÿ?.2(/42#ÿ-'*&ÿ,$ÿ-#'*/%0ÿ+2'))ÿ

13 ?#?;#*)ÿ:-,ÿ.)#ÿ<ÿ-'1#ÿ+-,)#%ÿ%,(ÿ(,ÿ.)#ÿ(-#ÿ1/&#,4-,%#)7ÿÿc2'/%(/$$)ÿ*#4,*(#&ÿ(-/)ÿ

14 +,%+#*%ÿ(,ÿ"#$#%&'%()ÿ/%ÿ'ÿ.%#ÿ188ÿ19068ÿ#?'/27ÿÿ"#$#%&'%()ÿ+,%$/*?#&ÿ(-'(ÿ(-#6ÿ&/)';2#&ÿ

15 (-#ÿ<ÿ$#'(.*#ÿ,%ÿ'22ÿ1/&#,4-,%#)ÿ)('(#:/&#ÿ4.*).'%(ÿ(,ÿ'%ÿ'0*##?#%(ÿ?'&#ÿ:/(-ÿ(-#ÿ

16 '2/$,*%/'ÿ,**#+(/,%'2ÿc#'+#ÿ$$/+#*)ÿ)),+/'(/,%ÿacb7ÿÿ"#$#%&'%()ÿ)('(#&ÿ1/'ÿ2#((#*ÿ

17 ÿ ÿÿ

03ÿ

83ÿ1296ÿ

ÿÿ ÿ!ÿ

ÿ

NOPQÿSTUSVWXVYZ[Y\VN]ÿÿÿ^_W`aQbcÿZ\ZdÿÿÿefgQhÿYijkSjklÿÿÿmOnQÿkdÿ_oÿZd
ÿ

0 "#ÿ$#%$&'ÿ2(ÿ1907(ÿ)*$)ÿ+,ÿ-./01#.-ÿ)"ÿ&.$/)12$).ÿ)*.ÿ3ÿ4.$)%&.5ÿ

1 60$1#)14478ÿ/"%#7.0ÿ/"#).#-7ÿ)*$)ÿ91)*"%)ÿ3(ÿ/0$77ÿ:.:;.&7ÿ9*"ÿ%7.ÿ71<#ÿ

2 0$#<%$<.ÿ)"ÿ%#-.&7)$#-ÿ;%)ÿ/$#ÿ7=.$>ÿ1#ÿ)*.1&ÿ"9#ÿ9"&-7ÿ)"ÿ/"::%#1/$).(ÿ$&.ÿ4"&/.-ÿ)"ÿ

3 &.0'ÿ"#ÿ$#ÿ1#).&=&.).&ÿ)"ÿ7=.$>ÿ4"&ÿ)*.:ÿ$#-ÿ$&.ÿ)*.&.4"&.ÿ-.#1.-ÿ.?%$0ÿ$//.77ÿ)"ÿ).0.=*"#.ÿ

4 /"::%#1/$)1"#ÿ91)*ÿ4&1.#-7ÿ$#-ÿ4$:10'5ÿÿ@AABÿADE5(ÿ

5 *))=7FGG99954//5<"2G/"#7%:.&7G<%1-.7G).0./"::%#1/$)1"#7H&.0$'H7.&21/.H)&75ÿÿ+.4.#-$#)7ÿ

6 /0$1:ÿ)*.ÿ3ÿ4.$)%&.ÿ17ÿ#")ÿ&.?%1&.-ÿ4"&ÿ$#ÿ1#:$).ÿ)"ÿ/"::%#1/$).ÿ91)*ÿ4$:10'ÿ$#-ÿ

7 4&1.#-7ÿ$#-ÿ)*$)ÿ1#:$).7ÿ&.)$1#ÿ)*.ÿ$;101)'ÿ)"ÿ/"::%#1/$).ÿ91)*"%)ÿ)*.ÿ3ÿ4.$)%&.5ÿÿ

8 +.4.#-$#)7ÿ$07"ÿ-"ÿ#")ÿ$<&..ÿ)*$)ÿ3ÿ17ÿ$#ÿ+ÿ&.?%1&.:.#)5ÿÿI1#$00'(ÿ+.4.#-$#)7ÿ

09 $00.<.ÿ)*$)ÿ7$4.)'ÿ$#-ÿ7./%&1)'ÿ/"#/.&#7ÿ"2.&&1-.ÿ)*.ÿ#..-ÿ4"&ÿ)*.ÿ3ÿ4.$)%&.5ÿÿ60$/.:.#)ÿ

00 "4ÿ)*.ÿ21-."=*"#.7ÿ$00"9ÿ4"&ÿ)*.ÿ%#$2"1-$;0.ÿ21.91#<ÿ"4ÿ<&"%=ÿ$/)121)1.7ÿ)*$)ÿ:$'ÿ"//%&ÿ1#ÿ

01 )*.ÿ;$/><&"%#-ÿ9*10.ÿ$#ÿ1#:$).ÿ17ÿ%71#<ÿ)*.ÿ21-."=*"#.5ÿÿ*17ÿJ."=$&-1K.7ÿ)*.ÿ$#"#':1)'ÿ

02 "4ÿ")*.&ÿ1#:$).7(ÿ7)$44(ÿ$#-ÿ2"0%#)..&7(ÿ$#-ÿ:$'ÿ&.2.$0ÿ/"#41-.#)1$0ÿ1#4"&:$)1"#ÿ7%/*ÿ$7ÿ

03 ")*.&ÿ1#:$).78ÿ0.2.0ÿ"4ÿ/$&.5ÿÿ0)*"%<*ÿ)*.ÿ3ÿ4.$)%&.ÿ$00"97ÿ)*.ÿ1#:$).ÿ)"ÿ%7.ÿ$ÿ*$#-7.)(ÿ

04 1)ÿ-".7ÿ#")ÿ.01:1#$).ÿ;$/><&"%#-ÿ#"17.ÿ$#-ÿ21.91#<5ÿÿI%&)*.&(ÿ)*.ÿ3ÿ4.$)%&.ÿ=%)7ÿ7)$44ÿ$)ÿ

05 &17>ÿ4"&ÿ4$/1$0H#$:.ÿ&./"<#1)1"#ÿ$#-ÿ$00"97ÿ4"&ÿ=").#)1$0ÿ21-."ÿ&./"&-1#<ÿ"4ÿ)*.ÿ=&17"#5ÿÿ4ÿ

06 $#ÿ1#:$).ÿ9"%0-ÿ01>.ÿ)"ÿ4$/101)$).ÿ$ÿ/$00ÿ)"ÿ$ÿ0"2.-ÿ"#.(ÿ)*.'ÿ:$'ÿ:$>.ÿ$ÿ&.?%.7)ÿ)"ÿ)*.ÿ

07 =&17"#87ÿ+ÿ""&-1#$)"&(ÿ9*"ÿ9100ÿ/"#71-.&ÿ9*.)*.&ÿ)*.ÿ/$00ÿ/$#ÿ;.ÿ4$/101)$).-ÿ%71#<ÿ)*.ÿ

08 3,ÿ7'7).:ÿ1#ÿ$ÿ7./%&.ÿ7.))1#<(ÿ14ÿ$==&"=&1$).5ÿÿL./$%7.ÿ"4ÿ)*.ÿ7./%&1)'ÿ/"#/.&#7(ÿ

19 +.4.#-$#)7ÿ9100ÿ#")ÿ&.$/)12$).ÿ)*.ÿ3ÿ4.$)%&.ÿ$)ÿ)*17ÿ)1:.5ÿÿ60$1#)1447ÿ-17$<&..ÿ$#-ÿ9100ÿ;.ÿ

10 &.7="#-1#<ÿ)"ÿ+.4.#-$#)75ÿÿÿ

11 I%&)*.&(ÿ7":.ÿ1#7)1)%)1"#7ÿ=0$/.-ÿ21-."=*"#.7ÿ1#ÿ=%;01/ÿ$&.$7ÿ9*.&.ÿ4$:10'ÿ

12 :.:;.&7ÿ"4ÿ-.$4ÿ/0$77ÿ:.:;.&7ÿ$&.ÿ2171;0.ÿ"#ÿ)*.ÿ7/&..#ÿ)"ÿ=."=0.ÿ1#ÿ=&17"#5ÿÿ#ÿ7":.ÿ

13 /$7.7(ÿ4$:10'ÿ:.:;.&7ÿ/$#ÿ7..ÿ1#71-.ÿ"4ÿ-$'&"":ÿ&.7)&"":7ÿ$#-ÿ7*"9.&75ÿÿ*.ÿ=$&)1.7ÿ$&.ÿ

14 1-.#)14'1#<ÿ)*.ÿ7/"=.ÿ"4ÿ)*.1&ÿ-17$<&..:.#)ÿ&.0$).-ÿ)"ÿ)*.ÿ0"/$)1"#7ÿ$#-ÿ=&12$/'ÿ"4ÿ)*.ÿ

15 21-."=*"#.7ÿ$#-ÿ$&.ÿ.M=0"&1#<ÿ7"0%)1"#7(ÿ1#/0%-1#<ÿ)*.ÿ=").#)1$0ÿ1#7)$00$)1"#ÿ"4ÿ=&12$/'ÿ

16 7/&..#75ÿ

17 ÿ ÿÿ

04ÿ

83ÿ1296ÿ

ÿÿ ÿ!ÿ

ÿ

~ÿ~ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
ÿ

0 "#ÿ %&'()*+,-ÿ/+'0121+'-ÿ&-ÿ&ÿ3)-,42ÿ+5ÿ6)&71'(ÿ3++5-ÿ

1 89:ÿ;<=:>?ÿ@A=BCDBEE>FÿG9HC><A?ÿGA=>>ÿI<IJ<:>?ÿ=CKÿ<L<CÿDM<ÿN<O=:DI<CDÿ9Eÿ@HJABGÿ

2 P<=ADMÿM=L<ÿ:<O9:D<Kÿ9CÿK=CQ<:9H>ÿG9CKBDB9C>ÿBCÿO:B>9Cÿ=>ÿ=ÿ:<>HADÿ9EÿA<=RBCQÿKH<ÿD9ÿ:=BCSÿÿ

3 @A=BCDBEE>ÿM=L<ÿ:<O9:D<KÿT=D<:ÿK=I=Q<ÿ=CKÿBD>ÿC=DH:=AÿG9C><UH<CG<>VE=AA>ÿ:<>HADBCQÿBCÿA9>>ÿ

4 9EÿG9C>GB9H>C<>>ÿ=CKÿ9DM<:ÿBCWH:B<>?ÿ<AK<:A;ÿO<9OA<ÿD:=OO<KÿBCÿ>9=RBCQÿT<DÿJ<K>?ÿDM<ÿ

5 BC=JBABD;ÿ9EÿO<9OA<ÿTBDMÿLB>B9Cÿ=CKÿI9JBABD;ÿKB>=JBABDB<>ÿD9ÿ>=E<A;ÿD:=L<:><ÿDM<ÿO:B>9C?ÿI9AK?ÿ

6 <A<GD:BG=Aÿ9HD=Q<>?ÿ=CKÿE=AABCQÿG<BABCQÿDBA<>Sÿÿ@A=BCDBEE>ÿM=L<ÿ9J><:L<Kÿ>D=CKBCQÿT=D<:ÿBCÿABQMDÿ

7 EBXDH:<>ÿ=CKÿM=L<ÿM<=:Kÿ:<O9:D>ÿE:9Iÿ>D=EEÿI<IJ<:>ÿ9Eÿ<A<GD:BG=Aÿ9HD=Q<>ÿG=H><KÿJ;ÿT=D<:ÿBCÿ

8 ABQMDÿEBXDH:<>?ÿA<=LBCQÿ>9I<ÿ=:<=>ÿK=:Rÿ=CKÿO=:DBGHA=:A;ÿM=Y=:K9H>ÿE9:ÿO<9OA<ÿTBDMÿLB>B9Cÿ

09 BIO=B:I<CD>Sÿÿ@A=BCDBEE>ÿ9J><:L<KÿI9AKÿBCÿI=C;ÿ=:<=>ÿ9EÿBC>DBDHDB9C>ÿTM<:<ÿT=D<:ÿM=Kÿ

00 >9=R<KÿDM:9HQMÿT=AA>VBCGAHKBCQÿBCÿKBCBCQÿM=AA>?ÿBII<KB=D<A;ÿ=J9L<ÿ>A<<OBCQÿ=:<=>?ÿ=CKÿBCÿ

01 LB>BD=DB9Cÿ=:<=>ÿTM<:<ÿGMBAK:<CÿI=;ÿJ<ÿO:<><CDSÿÿÿ

02 M<ÿZ9L<:C9:F>ÿO:9O9><Kÿ1907[08ÿJHKQ<DÿBCGAHK<>ÿ\039ÿIBAAB9CÿE9:ÿ:99Eÿ

03 :<OA=G<I<CD>ÿTBDMÿ\59S6ÿIBAAB9Cÿ<=:I=:R<KÿE9:ÿ:<O=B:ÿ9Eÿ:99E>ÿ=DÿDM:<<ÿ>O<GBEB<KÿO:B>9C>ÿ

04 ]8?ÿ^@?ÿ^<CDH:=ÿ_9HDM`?ÿOAH>ÿ\19ÿIBAAB9CÿE9:ÿI9AKÿ:<I<KB=DB9Cÿ=DÿL=:B9H>ÿO:B>9C>Sÿÿ

05 abbÿMDDOcddTTTS<JHKQ<DSG=SQ9Ld1907[08dOKEdeHKQ<DHII=:;d8HAAeHKQ<DHII=:;SOKEÿ=Dÿ

06 64Sÿÿ@A=BCDBEE>ÿTBAAÿG9CDBCH<ÿD9ÿI9CBD9:ÿ<EE9:D>ÿD9ÿ=AA<LB=D<ÿA<=RBCQÿ=DÿO:B>9C>Sÿÿÿÿ

07 DÿDM<ÿO:BAÿ01?ÿ1907?ÿ=AA[O=:D;ÿI<<DBCQ?ÿN<E<CK=CD>ÿHOK=D<KÿDM<ÿO=:DB<>ÿ9CÿDM<ÿ

08 >D=DH>ÿ9EÿE=GBABDB<>ÿ:<O=B:>ÿ=DÿDM:9HQM9HDÿDM<ÿO:B>9Cÿ>;>D<ISÿÿN<E<CK=CD>ÿTBAAÿG9CDBCH<ÿD9ÿ

19 O:9LBK<ÿG9C>D:HGDB9Cÿ:<O=B:ÿHOK=D<>Sÿ

10 N<E<CK=CD>ÿK9ÿC9DÿJ<AB<L<ÿDM=Dÿ<L<:;ÿG9IOA=BCDÿ:=B><Kÿ=J9HDÿE=GBABDB<>ÿ:<O=B:>ÿ

11 BIOABG=D<>ÿDM<ÿNÿ9:ÿDM<ÿfghijgklmÿ:<I<KB=Aÿ@A=CSÿÿP9T<L<:?ÿN<E<CK=CD>ÿTBAAÿHOK=D<ÿ

12 @A=BCDBEE>ÿ:<Q=:KBCQÿE=GBABDB<>ÿ:<O=B:>ÿ=>ÿC<TÿBCE9:I=DB9CÿB>ÿO:9LBK<KSÿÿÿ

13 14

ÿn#ÿ 3o&)*4)+&4)-)ÿoÿ4&''1'(ÿ&'0ÿp+*71'(ÿp12qÿ/4&--ÿr)st)*-ÿo*)u&*1'(ÿ5+*ÿ

ÿÿ

15 16 17 ÿ

vwxyljyzzi{ÿajxjbhbljÿ

@A=BCDBEE>FÿG9HC><AÿG9CD<CK>ÿDM=DÿN}ÿ=CKÿN@ÿE=BAÿD9ÿ<C>H:<ÿDM=DÿO=:9A<<>ÿTBDMÿ

05ÿ

83ÿ1296ÿ

ÿÿ ÿ!ÿ

ÿ

defgÿijkilmnlopqorldsÿÿÿtumvwgxyÿprpzÿÿÿ{|}g~ÿoiÿÿÿegÿÿuÿpz
ÿ

0 "#$#%#ÿ&'(ÿ)*+&,-)'.ÿ+/&,#*#'-ÿ()"&0)/)-)#"ÿ%#,#)$#ÿ&(#12&-#ÿ+/&'')'.ÿ34%ÿ+&%4/#ÿ&'(ÿ

1 &(#12&-#ÿ-%&'")-)4'&/ÿ542")'.6ÿ-%&'"+4%-&-)4'6ÿ&'(ÿ4-5#%ÿ-%&'")-)4'&/ÿ"#%$),#"7ÿÿ899ÿ:4,7ÿ

2 1579ÿ&-ÿ00;01<ÿ:4,7ÿ1544ÿ&-ÿ00;027ÿÿ=/&)'-)33"ÿ&%.2#ÿ-5&-ÿ:#3#'(&'-"ÿ$)4/&-#ÿ-5#ÿ:ÿ&'(ÿ

3 >#*#()&/ÿ=/&'ÿ0?ÿ#@,/2()'.ÿ+#4+/#ÿA54ÿ2"#ÿA5##/,5&)%"ÿ&'(ÿ4-5#%ÿ,/&""ÿ*#*0#%"ÿ3%4*ÿ

4 :>;32'(#(ÿ,4**2')-?ÿ+/&,#*#'-"7ÿÿ5#'ÿ-5#ÿ:>ÿ3&)/"ÿ-4ÿ+%4$)(#ÿ+#4+/#ÿA)-5ÿ

5 ()"&0)/)-)#"ÿ&(#12&-#ÿ&"")"-&',#ÿ)'ÿ40-&)')'.ÿ0#'#3)-"ÿ4%ÿ4-5#%ÿ-%&'")-)4'ÿ"#%$),#"ÿ0#34%#ÿ-5#?ÿ

6 +&%4/#6ÿB:>ÿ)"ÿ4+#%&-)'.ÿ)-"ÿ"#%$),#"6ÿ+%4.%&*"ÿ&'(ÿ&,-)$)-)#"ÿ)'ÿ&ÿ*&''#%ÿ-5&-ÿ

7 )'#$)-&0/?ÿ,5&''#/"ÿ+#%"4'ÿA)-5ÿ()"&0)/)-)#"ÿ)'-4ÿ%#+#&-#(ÿ)'"-)-2-)4'&/ÿ,4'3)'#*#'-ÿA)-5ÿ'4ÿ

8 %#&/)"-),ÿ4++4%-2')-?ÿ-4ÿ#"-&0/)"5ÿ)'(#+#'(#'-ÿ/)$)'.ÿ)'ÿ-5#ÿ,4**2')-?6ÿ)'ÿ$)4/&-)4'ÿ43ÿ-5#ÿ

09 :ÿ&'(ÿ43ÿ-5#ÿ+%)',)+/#"ÿ"#-ÿ34%-5ÿ)'ÿCDEFG9HIÿKLMLÿ9NLÿO9DLÿPQERQST6ÿ416ÿ77ÿ470ÿ

00 U0888V7Wÿÿ:4,7ÿ1544ÿ&-ÿ017ÿ

01 5#ÿ+&%-)#"ÿ5&$#ÿ0##'ÿA4%X)'.ÿ,44+#%&-)$#/?ÿ34%ÿ-5#ÿ/&"-ÿ?#&%ÿ-4ÿ2'(#%"-&'(ÿ-5#ÿ

02 #@-#'-ÿ43ÿ-5#ÿ+%40/#*ÿ&'(ÿ-4ÿ#@+/4%#ÿ+4"")0/#ÿ%#*#()#"6ÿ"2,5ÿ&"ÿ-5#ÿ(#$#/4+*#'-ÿ43ÿ&ÿ

03 *#*4%&'(2*ÿ4%ÿ+%4,#(2%#ÿ"#--)'.ÿ34%-5ÿ&ÿ2')3)#(ÿ"#-ÿ43ÿ+4/),)#"ÿ&'(ÿ%#"42%,#"ÿ34%ÿ+&%4/#ÿ

04 &.#'-"ÿ-4ÿ2"#ÿ)'ÿ&"")"-)'.ÿYREFGRZSTÿ,/&""ÿ*#*0#%"ÿ&"ÿ-5#?ÿ'&$).&-#ÿ-5#)%ÿ-%&'")-)4'"ÿ3%4*ÿ

05 +%)"4'ÿ-4ÿ+&%4/#7ÿÿÿ

06 =/&)'-)33"ÿ5&$#ÿ4'.4)'.ÿ,4',#%'"ÿ&042-ÿ-5#ÿ0#'#3)-ÿ&++/),&-)4'ÿ+%4,#""ÿ&'(ÿ-5#ÿ

07 &(#12&,?ÿ43ÿ%#"42%,#"ÿ34%ÿ-5)"ÿ+%4,#""ÿ2'(#%ÿ-5#ÿ%&'")-)4'&/ÿ&"#ÿ!&'&.#*#'-ÿ=%4.%&*ÿ

08 U!=V7ÿÿ-&-#ÿ/#.)"/&-4%"ÿ&%#ÿ&/"4ÿ,4',#%'#(ÿ&'(ÿ)'ÿ,-40#%ÿ1906ÿ+&""#(ÿ#'&-#ÿ[)//ÿ6656ÿ

19 A5),5ÿ%#12)%#"ÿ-5#ÿ:>ÿ-4ÿ5)%#ÿ4'#ÿ#*+/4?##ÿ34%ÿ#$#%?ÿ3)$#ÿ+%)"4'"ÿ-4ÿ&"")"-ÿ)',&%,#%&-#(ÿ

10 $#-#%&'"ÿ)'ÿ&++/?)'.ÿ34%ÿ&'(ÿ%#,#)$)'.ÿ&'?ÿ3#(#%&/ÿ4%ÿ4-5#%ÿ$#-#%&'"\ÿ0#'#3)-"ÿ34%ÿA5),5ÿ

11 -5#?ÿ4%ÿ-5#)%ÿ3&*)/)#"ÿ*&?ÿ0#ÿ#/).)0/#7ÿÿ899]ÿ9LT76ÿ

12 5--+"^__/#.)'347/#.)"/&-2%#7,&7.4$_3&,#"_0)//&$/)#'-7@5-*/`0)//a)(b190619079[6657ÿ

13 5#ÿ+&%-)#"ÿ5&$#ÿ()",2""#(ÿ-5#ÿ+/&'ÿ34%ÿ&/)34%')&ÿ4%%#,-)4'&/ÿc#&/-5ÿ&%#ÿ

14 #%$),#"ÿUcVÿ-4ÿ+%4$)(#ÿ&ÿ'#Aÿ+4/),?ÿ)'ÿ-5#ÿ'#&%ÿ32-2%#7ÿÿ5#ÿ+4/),?ÿA42/(ÿ&((%#""ÿ

15 +&"-ÿ+%40/#*"ÿA)-5ÿ:>ÿ*#(),&/ÿ"-&33ÿ3&)/)'.ÿ-4ÿ+%4$)(#ÿ34//4A;2+ÿ*#(),&/ÿ)'34%*&-)4'ÿ

16 A5#'ÿ%#12#"-#(ÿ0?ÿ-5#ÿ4,)&/ÿ#,2%)-?ÿ(*)')"-%&-)4'ÿ(2%)'.ÿ)-"ÿ+%4,#"")'.ÿ43ÿ&++/),&-)4'"ÿ

17 ÿ ÿÿ

06ÿ

83ÿ1296ÿ

ÿÿ ÿ!ÿ

ÿ

VWXYÿ[\][^_`^abcad^Veÿÿÿfg_hiYjkÿbdblÿÿÿmnoYpÿaqrs[rstÿÿÿuWvYÿs]ÿgwÿbl
ÿ

0 "#$ÿ#%&'(ÿ)%*$&+,ÿ-&.'/&(&+,ÿ/)0)"&+.1ÿÿÿ

1 2)ÿ3'$+&).ÿ'(.#ÿ3('0ÿ+#ÿ4))+ÿ.##0ÿ$)5'$6&05ÿ-)")06'0+.7ÿ3('0.ÿ+#ÿ"#((#8ÿ*3ÿ#0ÿ'ÿ

2 $)%)0+ÿ.*$9),ÿ#"ÿ+2)ÿ+$'0.&+&#0'(ÿ2#*.&05ÿ3('%)4)0+.ÿ4'0'5)6ÿ/,ÿ-:7.ÿ-&9&.&#0ÿ#"ÿ

3 :)2'/&(&+'+&9)ÿ;$#5$'4.ÿ<=-:;>?@ÿ82&%2ÿ.2#8)6ÿ+2'+ÿ4'0,ÿ3$#9&6)$.ÿ6#ÿ0#+ÿ'%%)3+ÿ

4 2)'$&05ÿ&43'&$)6@ÿ4#/&(&+,ÿ&43'&$)6@ÿ'06ÿ9&.&#0ÿ&43'&$)6ÿ&06&9&6*'(.1ÿÿ-:;ÿ#""&%&'(.ÿ'5$))ÿ

5 +2'+ÿ+2)ÿ3$#5$'4.ÿ.2#*(6ÿ'%%)3+ÿ3'$#()).ÿ8&+2ÿ+2).)ÿ6&.'/&(&+&).ÿ'06ÿ3('0ÿ+#ÿ"#((#8ÿ*3ÿ8&+2ÿ

6 +2)ÿ%#0+$'%+#$.ÿ)A3('&0&05ÿ+2)&$ÿ6*+&).ÿ*06)$ÿ+2)ÿ-ÿ'06ÿ+2)&$ÿ%#0+$'%+.ÿ8&+2ÿ-:;1ÿÿ<2)ÿ

7 -:;ÿ%#0+$'%+ÿ3*$3#$+)6(,ÿ3$#9&6).ÿ"#$ÿ)A+$'ÿ3',4)0+ÿ"#$ÿ'0,ÿ3'$#()).ÿ82#ÿ$)B*&$)ÿ.&50ÿ

8 ('05*'5)ÿ&0+)$3$)+'+&#0ÿ+#ÿ%#9)$ÿ+2)ÿ%#.+ÿ#"ÿ+2).)ÿ.)$9&%).1?ÿÿÿ

09 ;('&0+&"".7ÿ%#*0.)(ÿ'33$)%&'+).ÿ+2'+ÿ-:;ÿ.*$9),)6ÿ&+.ÿ%#0+$'%+#$.ÿ'/#*+ÿ+2)ÿ

00 '%%)..&/&(&+,ÿ#"ÿ+2)&$ÿ3$#5$'4.1ÿÿ;('&0+&"".ÿ'$)ÿ%#0%)$0)6ÿ/)%'*.)ÿ+2)ÿ$).*(+.ÿ6#%*4)0+ÿ

01 9'$&#*.ÿ)A%(*.&#0.ÿ#"ÿ9&.&#0@ÿ4#/&(&+,ÿ'06ÿ2)'$&05ÿ&43'&$)6ÿ&06&9&6*'(.ÿ"$#4ÿ+$'0.&+&#0'(ÿ

02 2#*.&05ÿ3$#5$'4.ÿ+2'+ÿ%#0+$'%+ÿ8&+2ÿ-:;1ÿÿ;('&0+&"".ÿ6#ÿ0#+ÿ'5$))ÿ+2'+ÿ5&9&05ÿ2#*.&05ÿ

03 3$#5$'4ÿ3$&#$&+,ÿ#$ÿ)A+$'ÿ+'$5)+)6ÿ$).#*$%).ÿ+#ÿ'..&.+ÿ.)9)$)(,ÿ6&.'/()6ÿ&06&9&6*'(.ÿ82#.)ÿ

04 6&.'/&(&+,ÿ3('%).ÿ+2)4ÿ'+ÿ2&52)$ÿ$&.Cÿ#"ÿ"'&(&05ÿ#0ÿ3'$#()ÿ&"ÿ+2),ÿ'$)ÿ2#4)()..ÿ%#0.+&+*+).ÿ

05 &43$#3)$ÿ=3$)")$)0+&'(ÿ+$)'+4)0+1>ÿÿ

06 ;('&0+&"".ÿ/)(&)9)ÿ+2'+ÿ'ÿ*0&"&)6ÿ4)4#$'06*4ÿ#0ÿ+$'0.&+&#0ÿ+#ÿ3'$#()ÿ$).#*$%).ÿ'06ÿ

07 3$#%)6*$).@ÿ'.ÿ8)((ÿ'.ÿ&43$#9)4)0+.ÿ+#ÿ+2)ÿ.,.+)4ÿ"#$ÿ%#43()+&05ÿ4)6&%'(ÿ&0"#$4'+&#0ÿ

08 $)B*&$)6ÿ#0ÿ/)0)"&+.ÿ'33(&%'+&#0.@ÿ8#*(6ÿ2)(3ÿ-:ÿ'06ÿ-;ÿ.+'""ÿ/)++)$ÿ4))+ÿ+2)&$ÿ

19 #/(&5'+&#0.ÿ*06)$ÿ+2)ÿ-ÿ'06ÿ+2)ÿDEFGHEIJKÿ:)4)6&'(ÿ;('01ÿ

10 LMNMJOPJHGQÿSHPHMFMJHÿ

11 :)%#50&T&05ÿ+2'+ÿ.*%%).."*(ÿ$)&0+)5$'+&#0ÿ$)6*%).ÿ'ÿ3'$#())7.ÿ%2'0%)ÿ#"ÿ$)#"")06&05ÿ

12 '06ÿ$)+*$0&05ÿ+#ÿ3$&.#0@ÿ-)")06'0+.ÿ%*$$)0+(,ÿ#"")$ÿ3$)U3'$#()ÿ3('00&05ÿ.)$9&%).ÿ+#ÿ'((ÿ

13 3$&.#0)$.ÿ/)"#$)ÿ$)()'.)ÿ"$#4ÿ3$&.#01ÿÿ-)")06'0+.ÿ3$#9&6)ÿ+2).)ÿ.)$9&%).ÿ&0ÿ'ÿ4'00)$ÿ+2'+ÿ&.ÿ

14 %#0.&.+)0+ÿ8&+2ÿ+2)ÿ-ÿ'06ÿ+2)ÿ$4.+$#05ÿ:)4)6&'(ÿ;('01ÿÿÿ

15 -)")06'0+.ÿ%#0+$'%+ÿ8&+2ÿ+2&$6ÿ3'$+&).ÿ+#ÿ3$#9&6)ÿ+$'0.&+&#0'(ÿ2#*.&05ÿ&0ÿ+2)ÿ

16 %#44*0&+,@ÿ'06ÿ+2)ÿ3$#9&6)$.ÿ'$)ÿ%#0+$'%+*'((,ÿ$)B*&$)6ÿ+#ÿ3$#9&6)ÿ2#*.&05ÿ&0ÿ'%%#$6'0%)ÿ

17 ÿ ÿÿ

07ÿ

83ÿ1296ÿ

ÿÿ ÿ!ÿ

ÿ

PQRSÿUVWUXYZX[\][^XP_ÿÿÿ`aYbcSdeÿ\^\fÿÿÿghiSjÿ[klmUlmnÿÿÿoQpSÿ\[ÿaqÿ\f
ÿ

0 "#$%ÿ$%&ÿ'ÿ()*ÿ+$($&ÿ()*ÿ,&*&-(.ÿ.("+/ÿÿ'&,&)*()$+ÿ*0ÿ)0$ÿ1&23.4*&5ÿ6&-+0)+ÿ"#$%ÿ

1 "%&&.3%(#-+ÿ()*ÿ0$%&-ÿ3.(++ÿ7&78&-+ÿ,-07ÿ'9:,4)*&*ÿ30774)#$;ÿ6.(3&7&)$+ÿ8;ÿ

2 -&(+0)ÿ0,ÿ$%&#-ÿ*#+(8#.#$;/ÿÿ)ÿ,(3$<ÿ'&,&)*()$+ÿ%(=&ÿ6-0=#*&*ÿ*($(ÿ$0ÿ>.(#)$#,,+ÿ&=#*&)3#)?ÿ

3 $%($ÿ(66-02#7($&.;ÿ06@ÿ0,ÿ30)$-(3$&*ÿ8&*+ÿ(-&ÿ"%&&.3%(#-ÿ(33&++#8.&<ÿ"%#3%ÿ,(-ÿ&23&&*+ÿ

4 $%&ÿ)&&*+ÿ0,ÿ$%&ÿ34--&)$ÿ6(-0.&&ÿ6064.($#0)/ÿÿ'&,&)*()$+ÿ(3A)0".&*?&ÿ$%($ÿ*&)#(.ÿ0,ÿ(ÿ

5 %04+#)?ÿ6.(3&7&)$ÿ8(+&*ÿ0)ÿ#)(33&++#8.&ÿ%04+#)?ÿ#+ÿ#)(66-06-#($&<ÿ84$ÿ*#+(?-&&ÿ$%($ÿ$%&;ÿ

6 (-&ÿ08.#?($&*ÿ$0ÿ,#)*ÿ$-()+#$#0)(.ÿ%04+#)?ÿ,0-ÿ&=&-;ÿ*#+(8.&*ÿ6(-0.&&ÿ460)ÿ-&.&(+&ÿ,-07ÿ

7 6-#+0)<ÿ0-ÿ$%($ÿ*#+(8.&*ÿ6(-0.&&+ÿ+%04.*ÿ8&ÿ?#=&)ÿ6-&,&-&)$#(.ÿ$-&($7&)$ÿ"#$%ÿ-&+6&3$ÿ$0ÿ

8 6.(3&7&)$ÿ#)ÿ$-()+#$#0)(.ÿ%04+#)?/ÿÿ%&ÿ6(-$#&+ÿ7&$ÿ0)ÿ()4(-;ÿ15<ÿ1907<ÿ$0ÿ*#+34++ÿ(ÿ

09 +4-=&;ÿ30)*43$&*ÿ8;ÿ$%&ÿ'#=#+#0)ÿ0,ÿ9&%(8#.#$($#=&ÿ>-0?-(7+ÿ#*&)$#,;#)?ÿ'ÿ3(6(3#$;ÿ,0-ÿ

00 (..ÿ'9ÿ,4)*&*ÿ30774)#$;ÿ6-0?-(7+ÿ$%($ÿ%04+&ÿ6(-0.&&+<ÿ#)3.4*#)?ÿ><ÿ9&+#*&)$#(.ÿ

01 !4.$#ÿ&-=#3&ÿ&)$&-+<ÿ>(-0.&&ÿ&-=#3&ÿ&)$&-+<ÿ-()+#$#0)(.ÿB04+#)?ÿ>-0?-(7<ÿC&7(.&ÿ

02 ,,&)*&-ÿ-&($7&)$ÿ()*ÿ76.0;7&)$ÿ>-0?-(7ÿ()*ÿ'(;ÿ9&60-$#)?ÿ&)$&-:-()+#$#0)(.ÿ

03 B04+#)?/ÿÿ

04 '&,&)*()$+ÿ(.+0ÿ6-0=#*&ÿ(++#+$()3&ÿ"#$%ÿ(66.;#)?ÿ,0-ÿ7&*#3(.ÿ8&)&,#$+<ÿ=#(ÿ+03#(.ÿ

05 "0-A&-+ÿ4)*&-ÿ$%&ÿ-()+#$#0)(.ÿ(+&ÿ!()(?&7&)$ÿ>-0?-(7ÿD!>Eÿ30)$-(3$<ÿ$0ÿ6-#+0)&-+ÿ

06 6-#0-ÿ$0ÿ$%&#-ÿ-&.&(+&ÿ,-07ÿ6-#+0)/ÿÿ'&,&)*()$+ÿ30)$#)4(..;ÿ(++&++ÿ$%&ÿ)478&-ÿ0,ÿ!>ÿ

07 8&)&,#$+ÿ"0-A&-+ÿ($ÿ&(3%ÿ6-#+0)ÿ()*ÿ8&.#&=&ÿ$%($ÿ34--&)$ÿ+$(,,#)?ÿ.&=&.+ÿ(-&ÿ(*&F4($&ÿ$0ÿ7&&$ÿ

08 &(3%ÿ6-#+0)G+ÿ)&&*+/ÿÿ'&,&)*()$+ÿ6-0=#*&ÿ$%#+ÿ+&-=#3&ÿ$0ÿ(..ÿ#)7($&+ÿ()*ÿ*0ÿ)0$ÿ*#+3-#7#)($&ÿ

19 (?(#)+$ÿ*#+(8.&*ÿ#)7($&+ÿ"%&)ÿ6-0=#*#)?ÿ$%#+ÿ+&-=#3&/ÿÿ'&,&)*()$+ÿ*0ÿ)0$ÿ30)$-0.ÿ$%&ÿ

10 $#7&.#)&+ÿ8;ÿ"%#3%ÿ04$+#*&ÿ(?&)3#&+ÿ6-03&++ÿ()*ÿ(66-0=&ÿ0-ÿ*&);ÿ8&)&,#$+/ÿÿ'&,&)*()$+ÿ

11 "#..ÿ30)$#)4&ÿ$0ÿ"0-Aÿ"#$%ÿ>.(#)$#,,+Gÿ304)+&.ÿ()*ÿ$%&ÿ04-$ÿ&26&-$ÿ$0ÿ(**-&++ÿ$-()+#$#0)ÿ$0ÿ

12 6(-0.&ÿ#++4&+ÿ(+ÿ$%&;ÿ-&.($&ÿ$0ÿ$%&ÿHIJKLIMNOÿ.#$#?($#0)/ÿÿÿ

13 Bÿ30)$#)4&+ÿ$0ÿ&=(.4($&ÿ$%&ÿ#++4&ÿ0,ÿ7&*#3(.ÿ+$(,,ÿ6-0=#*#)?ÿ,0..0"ÿ46ÿ

14 7&*#3(.ÿ#),0-7($#0)ÿ-&F4&+$&*ÿ8;ÿ$%&ÿ03#(.ÿ&34-#$;ÿ*7#)#+$-($#0)/ÿ

15 ÿ

16

17 ÿ ÿÿ

08ÿ

83ÿ1296ÿ

ÿÿ ÿ!ÿ

ÿ

ijklÿnopnqrsqtuvtwqixÿÿÿyzr{|l}~ÿuwuÿÿÿlÿtnÿÿÿjlÿuÿzÿu
ÿ

0 "#ÿ %&&'((')*+,'-.ÿ0'1ÿ23,-)ÿ*-)ÿ4'5ÿ6,.,'-ÿ73*..ÿ89(:91.ÿ

1 ;ÿ<=><?@<Aÿ6Bÿ1906BÿCDEF;>FGGHIÿJKL;H<DÿH<;>ÿM<G<;NE;>HÿEÿD<>><AÿKL>DF;F;OÿEÿH<AF<Hÿ

2 KGÿJK;J<A;HÿE@KL>ÿF;EN<PLE><ÿEJJK??KNE>FK;Hÿ>Kÿ<;HLA<ÿ<PLEDÿEJJ<HHÿGKAÿJDEHHÿ?<?@<AHÿ

3 QRKÿEA<ÿ@DF;NÿKAÿRES<ÿDKQÿSFHFK;TÿÿM<G<;NE;>HÿRES<ÿA<H=K;N<NÿGESKAE@DUÿ>Kÿ?KH>ÿKGÿ>R<ÿ

4 FHHL<HÿAEFH<Nÿ@UÿCDEF;>FGGHIÿJKL;H<DBÿE;Nÿ>R<ÿ=EA>F<HÿEA<ÿQKAVF;OÿJKK=<AE>FS<DUÿ>Kÿ<W=E;Nÿ>R<ÿ

5 EJJK??KNE>FK;HÿESEFDE@D<ÿ>KÿJDEHHÿ?<?@<AHÿQF>RÿSFHFK;ÿF?=EFA?<;>HTÿ

6 M<G<;NE;>HÿRES<ÿEOA<<Nÿ>KÿCDEF;>FGGHIÿJKL;H<DIHÿA<PL<H>ÿ>KÿF?=D<?<;>ÿ><JR;KDKOF<Hÿ

7 >Kÿ<;HLA<ÿ<PLEDÿEJJ<HHÿF;ÿ=AFHK;ÿDF@AEAF<HÿXQF>Rÿ>R<ÿ<WJ<=>FK;ÿKGÿYAEFDD<ÿ=AF;><AHBÿQRFJRÿ

8 CDEF;>FGGHIÿJKL;H<DÿA<PL<H><NZTÿÿ>ÿ>R<ÿ=AFDÿ01Bÿ1907ÿ?<<>ÿE;NÿJK;G<ABÿM<G<;NE;>HÿA<=KA><Nÿ

09 >RE>ÿ>R<UÿRES<ÿ=LAJREH<NÿA<=DEJ<?<;>ÿ!<ADF;ÿ?EJRF;<HÿGKAÿNFH>AF@L>FK;ÿ>Kÿ>R<ÿF;H>F>L>FK;HTÿÿ

00 R<UÿEDHKÿA<=KA><Nÿ>RE>ÿ>R<UÿEA<ÿF;ÿJK??L;FJE>FK;ÿQF>Rÿ>R<ÿE>FK;EDÿYAEFDD<ÿ;H>F>L><ÿE@KL>ÿ

01 N<S<DK=F;Oÿ@AEFDD<ÿ>AEF;F;OÿK==KA>L;F>F<HÿGKAÿJDEHHÿ?<?@<AHTÿÿM<G<;NE;>HÿEOA<<Nÿ>Kÿ<W=DKA<ÿ

02 >R<ÿN<S<DK=?<;>ÿKGÿEÿ?<>RKNÿ@UÿQRFJRÿ@DF;NÿE;NÿDKQÿSFHFK;ÿJDEHHÿ?<?@<AHÿJE;ÿGFDDÿKL>ÿ

03 M[ÿGKA?Hÿ<D<J>AK;FJEDDUTÿÿ

04 >ÿCDEF;>FGGHIÿA<PL<H>BÿM<G<;NE;>HÿEOA<<Nÿ>KÿA<F;H>E><ÿ>R<ÿM\ÿJE><OKAUÿGKAÿEÿ

05 DF?F><Nÿ;L?@<AÿKGÿ=<K=D<ÿQF>RÿDKQÿSFHFK;TÿÿM<G<;NE;>HÿRES<ÿN<S<DK=<NÿEÿNAEG>ÿ

06 ?<?KAE;NL?ÿ=AKSFNF;Oÿ>RE>ÿF;NFSFNLEDHÿQFDDÿ@<ÿN<HFO;E><NÿM\ÿFGÿ>R<FAÿSFHFK;ÿFHÿ@<>Q<<;ÿ

07 19]69ÿE;Nÿ19]199BÿQR<;ÿJKAA<J><NÿX^_`_BÿQR<;ÿ>R<UÿEA<ÿQ<EAF;OÿODEHH<HÿKAÿLHF;OÿK>R<Aÿ

08 EHHFH>FS<ÿN<SFJ<HZÿE;NÿEÿM[ÿNKJ>KAÿN<><A?F;<Hÿ>RE>ÿ>R<UÿEA<ÿHL@H>E;>FEDDUÿF?=EFA<NÿF;ÿEÿ

19 ?EaKAÿDFG<ÿEJ>FSF>UÿEHÿEÿJK;H<PL<;J<ÿKGÿ>R<FAÿSFHFK;ÿF?=EFA?<;>HTÿÿR<ÿ?<?KAE;NL?ÿEDHKÿ

10 A<PLFA<Hÿ>RE>ÿEDDÿF;NFSFNLEDHÿQF>RÿM\ÿJKN<HÿQ<EAÿSFHFK;ÿF?=EFA<NÿS<H>HTÿ

11 CDEF;>FGGHIÿJKL;H<DÿQ<DJK?<Hÿ>R<ÿ<H>E@DFHR?<;>ÿKGÿ>R<ÿM\ÿJKN<TÿÿCDEF;>FGGHIÿ

12 JKL;H<DÿK@a<J>Hÿ>Kÿ>R<ÿHJK=<ÿKGÿ>R<ÿM\ÿJKN<ÿ=AK=KH<Nÿ@UÿM[ÿ@<JELH<BÿEHÿH>E><Nÿ

13 =A<SFKLHDUBÿ19]69ÿFHÿ>KKÿRFORÿKGÿEÿ>RA<HRKDNÿGKAÿPLEDFGFJE>FK;Tÿÿ>ÿ?F;F?L?BÿF;NFSFNLEDHÿ

14 QRKH<ÿSFHFK;ÿFHÿ19]69ÿbcdeff`dg`hÿEDHKÿHRKLDNÿA<J<FS<ÿ>R<ÿM\ÿJKN<TÿÿRFHÿQKLDNÿ<;E@D<ÿ

15 M[ÿ>KÿFN<;>FGUÿ>R<ÿNFHE@FDF>Uÿ;<<NHÿKGÿ>R<H<ÿF;NFSFNLEDHÿQR<;ÿ>R<UÿNKÿ;K>ÿRES<ÿ>R<FAÿ

16 ODEHH<HÿKAÿK>R<AÿEHHFH>FS<ÿN<SFJ<HÿE;Nÿ<;HLA<ÿ>RE>ÿFN<;>FGUF;OÿS<H>HÿJE;ÿ@<ÿA<ENFDUÿESEFDE@D<ÿ

17 ÿ ÿÿ

19ÿ

83ÿ1296ÿ

ÿÿ ÿ!ÿ

ÿ

efghÿjkljmnompqrpsmetÿÿÿuvnwxhyzÿqsq{ÿÿÿ|}~hÿpjÿÿÿfhÿqqÿvÿq{
ÿ

0 "#ÿ$%&'(ÿ)"*)+,'$-#)('.ÿÿ%"'ÿ-//*&-)%ÿ0&+12ÿ3(ÿ)&#'"'$(#$ÿ0"$%ÿ456'ÿ+'(ÿ&7ÿ$%(ÿ489ÿ

1 -#2ÿ49ÿ)&2('ÿ7&*ÿ%(-*"#:ÿ",/-"*,(#$'.ÿÿ

2 &$0"$%'$-#2"#:ÿ$%('(ÿ*(,-"#"#:ÿ&3;()$"&#'<ÿ81-"#$"77'6ÿ)&+#'(1ÿ%-'ÿ-:*((2ÿ$%-$ÿ

3 45ÿ'%&+12ÿ",/1(,(#$ÿ$%(ÿ#(0ÿ="'"&#ÿ)&2(ÿ-'ÿ/*&/&'(2.ÿÿ81-"#$"77'6ÿ)&+#'(1ÿ0"11ÿ

4 ,&#"$&*ÿ",/1(,(#$-$"&#ÿ&7ÿ$%(ÿ#(0ÿ/&1")>ÿ-#2ÿ3*"#:ÿ/*&31(,'ÿ$&ÿ$%(ÿ-$$(#$"&#ÿ&7ÿ45.ÿ

5 6

ÿ?@ÿ BCCDEEDFGHIDJKÿMDNÿOPDQRPÿSIHTÿUPGNJIJVÿWIKGXIRIHIPKÿ

7 7$(*ÿ'(=(*-1ÿ>(-*'ÿ&7ÿ#(:&$"-$"&#'<ÿ4(7(#2-#$'ÿ%-=(ÿ"''+(2ÿ-ÿ#(0ÿ/&1")>ÿ$&ÿ$%(ÿ7"(12ÿ

8 *(:-*2"#:ÿ$*-)Y"#:ÿ-#2ÿ-))&,,&2-$"#:ÿ"#2"="2+-1'ÿ0"$%ÿ=(*"7"(2ÿ&*ÿ'+'/()$(2ÿ1(-*#"#:ÿ

09 2"'-3"1"$"('.ÿÿ%(ÿ/-*$"('ÿ%&/(ÿ$%-$ÿ$%(ÿ#(0ÿ/&1")>ÿ0"11ÿ1(-2ÿ$&ÿ"#)*(-'(2ÿ"2(#$"7")-$"&#ÿ&7ÿ

00 "#2"="2+-1'ÿ0"$%ÿ=(*"7"-31(ÿ1(-*#"#:ÿ2"'-3"1"$"('<ÿ3($$(*ÿ$*-)Y"#:ÿ&7ÿ-))&,,&2-$"&#'ÿ7&*ÿ

01 "#2"="2+-1'ÿ0"$%ÿ1(-*#"#:ÿ2"'-3"1"$"('<ÿ-#2ÿ:*(-$(*ÿ'$-77ÿ-0-*(#(''ÿ&7ÿ$%(ÿ#((2'ÿ&7ÿ

02 "#2"="2+-1'ÿ0"$%ÿ1(-*#"#:ÿ2"'-3"1"$"('ÿ"#ÿ$%(ÿ45.ÿÿ

03 04

ÿZ@ÿ BCCD[JHGXIRIH\ÿÿ

05 #ÿ-#+-*>ÿ1905<ÿ81-"#$"77'6ÿ)&+#'(1ÿ&+$1"#(2ÿ)&#)(*#'ÿ-3&+$ÿ&#:&"#:ÿ/*&31(,'ÿ0"$%ÿ

06 4(7(#2-#$'6ÿ-))&+#$-3"1"$>ÿ/*&)(''.ÿÿ]^^ÿ4&).ÿ&.ÿ1593ÿ-$ÿ1.ÿÿ#ÿ*('/&#'(<ÿ4(7(#2-#$'ÿ

07 2(=(1&/(2ÿ-ÿ7"=(_'$(/ÿ/1-#<ÿ0%")%ÿ"#)1+2('ÿ-22"$"&#-1ÿ$*-"#"#:ÿ-#2ÿ",/*&=(2ÿ*(/&*$"#:ÿ

08 /*&)(2+*('<ÿ$&ÿ-22*(''ÿ81-"#$"77'6ÿ)&#)(*#'.ÿÿ`a.ÿÿ4(7(#2-#$'ÿ)"*)+1-$(2ÿ-ÿ,(,&*-#2+,ÿ-#2ÿ

19 )&#2+)$(2ÿ$*-"#"#:ÿ&#ÿ$%(ÿ#(0ÿ"#b+"*>ÿ-#2ÿ*(/&*$"#:ÿ/*&)(''.ÿÿ8+*'+-#$ÿ$&ÿ$%(ÿ#(0ÿ/1-#<ÿ$%(ÿ

10 5(="(0ÿ&,,"$$((ÿ,(($"#:'ÿ3(:-#ÿ"#ÿ(/$(,3(*ÿ1905ÿ-#2ÿ#&0ÿ-*(ÿ*(:+1-*1>ÿ%(12ÿ-$ÿ

11 %(-2b+-*$(*'.ÿÿ4(7(#2-#$'ÿ2(=(1&/(2ÿ-#ÿ-+$&,-$(2ÿ'>'$(,ÿ$&ÿ$*-)Yÿ-#2ÿ1&:ÿ$%(ÿ

12 -))&+#$-3"1"$>ÿ/*&)(''<ÿ0%")%ÿ$%(>ÿ2(,&#'$*-$(2ÿ7&*ÿ81-"#$"77'6ÿ)&+#'(1ÿ2+*"#:ÿ$%(ÿ

13 c(3*+-*>ÿ04<ÿ1907<ÿ,(($ÿ-#2ÿ)&#7(*.ÿÿ4(7(#2-#$'ÿ-*(ÿ)+**(#$1>ÿ$('$"#:ÿ#(0ÿ'>'$(,ÿ-$ÿ7&+*ÿ

14 /*"'&#'ÿ-#2ÿ$%(#ÿ0"11ÿ&/(#ÿ$%(ÿ2-$-ÿ7*&,ÿ$%(ÿ#(0ÿ'>'$(,ÿ+/ÿ$&ÿ81-"#$"77'ÿ7&*ÿ*(="(0ÿ-#2ÿ

15 7((23-)Yÿ&#ÿ$%(ÿ*(/&*$'ÿ$%-$ÿ0"11ÿ3(ÿ:(#(*-$(2.ÿÿÿ

16 d-'(2ÿ&#ÿ4(7(#2-#$'6ÿ2(,&#'$*-$"&#<ÿ81-"#$"77'6ÿ)&+#'(1ÿ"'ÿ",/*(''(2ÿ3>ÿ$%(ÿ*&3+'$ÿ

17 ÿ ÿÿ

10ÿ

83ÿ1296ÿ

ÿÿ ÿ!ÿ

ÿ

hijkÿmnompqrpstusvphwÿÿÿxyqz{k|}ÿtvt~ÿÿÿkÿsmÿÿÿikÿtuÿyÿt~
ÿ

0 "#$%&'ÿ$()ÿ"*%+ÿ,#$+-%#"ÿ*,ÿ+'#ÿ(#.ÿ$&&*-(+$/010+2ÿ"2"+#34ÿÿ*(#+'#1#""5ÿ61$0(+0,,"ÿ%#3$0(ÿ

1 &*(&#%(#)ÿ+'$+ÿ7#,#()$(+"8ÿ91$(ÿ)*#"ÿ(*+ÿ:*ÿ,$%ÿ#(*-:'ÿ0(ÿ%#;-0%0(:ÿ"+$,,ÿ+*ÿ$($12<#ÿ

2 .'#+'#%ÿ0()0=0)-$1ÿ$11#:$+0*("ÿ$%#ÿ0()0&$+0=#ÿ*,ÿ$ÿ1$%:#%ÿ"2"+#30&ÿ9%*/1#34ÿÿ"ÿ#>91$0(#)ÿ

3 $/*=#ÿ?@AAÿ#&+0*(ÿB5ÿ61$0(+0,,"ÿ/#10#=#ÿ+'$+ÿ7Cÿ0"ÿ,$010(:ÿ+*ÿ$)#;-$+#12ÿ0(=#"+0:$+#ÿ$ÿ

4 "0:(0,0&$(+ÿ(-3/#%ÿ*,ÿDEF@GEHIJÿ$11#:$+0*("ÿ&*(&#%(0(:ÿ"+$,,ÿ30"&*()-&+5ÿ'$%$""3#(+5ÿ

5 )0"&%030($+0*(5ÿ$()ÿ=0*1#(&#4ÿÿ'#ÿ9$%+0#"ÿ&*(+0(-#ÿ+*ÿ3##+ÿ$()ÿ&*(,#%ÿ+*ÿ)#=#1*9ÿ$ÿ

6 "-"+$0($/1#ÿ$()ÿ3#$(0(:,-1ÿ$&&*-(+$/010+2ÿ"2"+#3ÿ+'$+ÿ0)#(+0,0#"ÿ9%*/1#3$+0&ÿ0("+0+-+0*("ÿ

7 $()ÿ"+$,,ÿ$()ÿ9%*39+12ÿ%#3#)0#"ÿ=0*1$+0*("ÿ*,ÿ+'#ÿ7ÿ$()ÿDEF@GEHIJÿC#3#)0$1ÿ61$(4ÿ

8 09

ÿKLÿ NOPQRQRSÿUVÿWXPVVÿURÿXYZÿ[\[]ÿ[^_]ÿPR`ÿ\QaPbQcQXQZaÿ

00 61$0(+0,,"ÿ/#10#=#ÿ+'$+ÿ0($)#;-$+#ÿ+%$0(0(:ÿ*,ÿ"+$,,ÿ*(ÿ7ÿ0""-#"ÿ'$"ÿ&*(+%0/-+#)ÿ+*ÿ

01 +'#ÿ)0"&%030($+0*(5ÿ'$%$""3#(+5ÿ$()ÿ30"&*()-&+ÿ/2ÿ"+$,,ÿ$:$0("+ÿ9%0"*(#%"ÿ.0+'ÿ)0"$/010+0#"ÿ

02 -(&*=#%#)ÿ$+ÿ3-1+091#ÿ0("+0+-+0*("4ÿÿ61$0(+0,,"ÿ$1"*ÿ$++%0/-+#ÿ7C8"ÿ,$01-%#ÿ+*ÿ9%*=0)#ÿ

03 $)#;-$+#ÿ$&&*33*)$+0*("ÿ+*ÿ0("-,,0&0#(+ÿ"+$,,ÿ+%$0(0(:4ÿ

04 7#,#()$(+"ÿ$:%##ÿ+'$+ÿ9%*/1#3"ÿ#>0"+ÿ.0+'ÿ+'#ÿ)$+$/$"#ÿ9%#=0*-"12ÿ-"#)ÿ+*ÿ+%$&dÿ

05 .'0&'ÿ"+$,,ÿ%#;-0%#ÿDEF@GEHIJÿ+%$0(0(:ÿ/-+ÿ$""#%+ÿ+'$+ÿ+'#ÿ0""-#ÿ0"ÿ/#0(:ÿ$))%#""#)4ÿ

06 7#,#()$(+"8ÿ0(,*%3$+0*(ÿ+#&'(*1*:2ÿ"9#&0$10"+"ÿ$%#ÿ0(ÿ+'#ÿ9%*&#""ÿ*,ÿ-9)$+0(:ÿ)$+$/$"#ÿ

07 "2"+#3"5ÿ"*ÿ+'$+ÿ0(,*%3$+0*(ÿ%#:$%)0(:ÿ.'0&'ÿ"+$,,ÿ3#3/#%"ÿ'$=#ÿ%#&#0=#)ÿ+%$0(0(:ÿ&$(ÿ/#ÿ

08 +%$&d#)ÿ$()ÿ3*(0+*%#)ÿ#$"0124ÿ

19 7Cÿ$1"*ÿ0"ÿ)%$,+0(:ÿ(#.ÿ+%$0(0(:ÿ3*)-1#"5ÿ.0+'ÿ+'#ÿ:*$1ÿ*,ÿ%#=$390(:ÿ$()ÿ

10 *=#%'$-10(:ÿ+'#ÿDEF@GEHIJÿ+%$0(0(:4ÿÿ'#ÿ(#.ÿe#$%(0(:ÿ!$($:#3#(+ÿ2"+#3ÿ?fe!gBÿ

11 +%$0(0(:ÿ3*)-1#"ÿ%#;-0%#ÿ+'#ÿ+%$0(##ÿ+*ÿ0(+#%$&+ÿ.0+'ÿ+'#ÿ+%$0(0(:ÿ3$+#%0$1"ÿ$()ÿ$(".#%ÿ

12 ;-#"+0*("ÿ0(ÿ*%)#%ÿ+*ÿ9%*&##)ÿ+'%*-:'ÿ+'#ÿ+%$0(0(:4ÿÿ61$0(+0,,"ÿ'$=#ÿ#>9%#""#)ÿ.0110(:(#""ÿ+*ÿ

13 $""0"+ÿ.0+'ÿ+'#ÿ)#=#1*93#(+ÿ&*(+#(+ÿ,*%ÿ+'#ÿ+%$0(0(:4ÿÿ7#,#()$(+"ÿ'$=#ÿ$:%##)ÿ+*ÿ9%*=0)#ÿ

14 )%$,+"ÿ*,ÿ+'#"#ÿ3*)-1#"ÿ+*ÿ61$0(+0,,"ÿ$()ÿ!%4ÿ.$("*(ÿ$"ÿ+'#2ÿ$%#ÿ-9)$+#)ÿ*=#%ÿ+'#ÿ(#>+ÿ

15 "#=#%$1ÿ3*(+'"4ÿ

16

17 ÿ ÿÿ

11ÿ

83ÿ1296ÿ

ÿÿ ÿ!ÿ

ÿ

hijkÿmnompqrpstusvphwÿÿÿxyqz{k|}ÿtvt~ÿÿÿkÿsmÿÿÿikÿtmÿyÿt~
ÿ

0 "#ÿ %&'()ÿ+&(')&,'(-ÿ./0')ÿ1&&2ÿ

1 34ÿ567894:ÿ;<=89=>4ÿ8<ÿ?<7@ÿ8<A48347ÿ<=ÿB76C89=Aÿ6ÿD<9=8ÿ6>B98ÿ8<<EÿC<7ÿF46:>79=Aÿ

2 ;<F5E96=;4ÿ9=ÿ839:ÿ;6:4Gÿÿ!<:8ÿ74;4=8EHÿI4C4=B6=8:ÿ57<J9B4Bÿ6ÿ74J9:4BÿB76C8ÿ<Cÿ834ÿ<9=8ÿ

3 >B98ÿ<<Eÿ<=ÿK4L7>67Hÿ8Mÿ1907Gÿÿ34ÿE684:8ÿJ47:9<=ÿ655467:ÿ8<ÿ9=;<75<7684ÿF6=Hÿ;36=A4:ÿ

4 L6:4Bÿ<=ÿNE69=89CC:Oÿ;<FF4=8:Gÿÿ34ÿ567894:ÿ;<=B>;84Bÿ6ÿ:4794:ÿ<CÿF4489=A:ÿ<J47ÿF>E895E4ÿ

5 ?44@:ÿ8<ÿ6884F58ÿ8<ÿC9=6E9P4ÿ8<<EÿQ>4:89<=:ÿ6=Bÿ9B4=89CHÿ6746:ÿ<CÿB9:6A744F4=8ÿ?39;3ÿ?9EEÿ

6 L4ÿL7<>A38ÿ8<ÿ!7Gÿ?6=:<=Gÿÿ34ÿ567894:ÿ?9EEÿ;<=89=>4ÿ8<ÿ?<7@ÿ8<A48347ÿ8<ÿ74J9:4ÿ6=Bÿ

7 C9=6E9P4ÿ834ÿD<9=8ÿ6>B98ÿ8<<EGÿ

8 34ÿ567894:ÿ36J4ÿ6A744Bÿ<=ÿ6ÿ:;34B>E4ÿC<7ÿD<9=8EHÿ6>B989=Aÿ01ÿ579:<=:ÿ9=ÿ1907Gÿÿ34ÿ

09 C97:8ÿD<9=8ÿ6>B98ÿ?6:ÿ;<=B>;84Bÿ68ÿNRS<:ÿ=A4E4:ÿ<>=8Hÿ9=ÿ579Eÿ1907Gÿÿ34ÿ567894:ÿ:89EEÿ

00 =44Bÿ8<ÿ6A744ÿ<=ÿ3<?ÿ8<ÿ:;<74ÿ834ÿ74:>E8:ÿ<Cÿ834ÿ6>B98ÿ6=Bÿ=44Bÿ8<ÿ?<7@ÿ<>8ÿ6ÿF4;36=9:Fÿ

01 C<7ÿ745<789=Aÿ6>B98ÿ74:>E8:Gÿ

02 03

ÿ+#ÿ .T.ÿU),/V)/,W2ÿXW,,'Y,ZÿW(0ÿ+WZ)Y,ÿ[2W(('(-ÿ[,&VYZZÿÿ

04 <=:87>;89<=ÿ9:ÿ?4EEÿ>=B47?6Hÿ68ÿ:4J476Eÿ<Cÿ834ÿB4:9A=684Bÿ9=:898>89<=:GÿÿK<7F47ÿ

05 E6::ÿ;89<=ÿ!6=6A4F4=8ÿ=98ÿI974;8<7ÿ!9@4ÿ\=<?E4:ÿ9:ÿ<J47:449=Aÿ834ÿ57<;4::Mÿ

06 ;<=C97F9=Aÿ6A744BR>5<=ÿ;36=A4:Mÿ6=Bÿ745<789=Aÿ<=ÿ;<=:87>;89<=ÿ57<A74::ÿ6=Bÿ6=89;95684Bÿ

07 89F4C76F4:ÿ9=ÿF<=83EHÿ745<78:ÿ57<B>;4Bÿ8<ÿNE69=89CC:Gÿÿ=ÿ6ÿE48847ÿB684Bÿ579Eÿ00Mÿ1907Mÿ

08 NE69=89CC:Oÿ;<>=:4Eÿ769:4Bÿ;<=;47=:ÿ6L<>8ÿ834ÿE6;@ÿ<Cÿ!6:847ÿNE6==9=Aÿ?983ÿ74:54;8ÿ8<ÿ834ÿ

19 :<F4ÿ<Cÿ834ÿN:H;396879;ÿ=56894=8ÿN7<A76F:ÿ68ÿ]NMÿ!Kÿ6=Bÿ^KMÿ6=Bÿ:4J476EÿB9:;7484ÿ

10 !6:847ÿNE6==9=Aÿ9::>4:ÿ68ÿSÿ6=BÿI]GÿÿI4C4=B6=8:ÿ57<J9B4Bÿ:<F4ÿ9=C<7F689<=ÿ6L<>8ÿ

11 834:4ÿ9::>4:ÿ68ÿ834ÿ579Eÿ01Mÿ1907ÿF448ÿ6=Bÿ;<=C47ÿ6=Bÿ36J4ÿ6A744Bÿ8<ÿ74:5<=Bÿ8<ÿNE69=89CC:Oÿ

12 ;<=;47=:ÿ9=ÿ?7989=AGÿ

13 14

ÿ_#ÿ `(aYZ)'-W)'&(ÿ&bÿ"&Zÿ.(-Y2YZÿc&/()dÿ%W'2Zÿÿ

15 NE69=89CC:ÿ;<=89=>4ÿ8<ÿ6::478ÿ6ÿ568847=ÿ6=Bÿ576;89;4ÿ<CÿB4=H9=AÿB9:6L9E98Hÿ

16 6;;<FF<B689<=:ÿ8<ÿ;E6::ÿF4FL47:ÿ4e9:8:ÿ68ÿ834ÿS<:ÿ=A4E4:ÿ<>=8Hÿ69E:GÿÿfggÿI<;Gÿ1579ÿ

17 ÿ ÿÿ

12ÿ

83ÿ1296ÿ

ÿÿ ÿ!ÿ

ÿ

TUVWÿYZ[Y\]^\_`a_b\Tcÿÿÿde]fgWhiÿ`b`jÿÿÿklmWnÿ_opqYpqrÿÿÿsUtWÿ`oÿeuÿ`j
ÿ

0 "#ÿ11$13%ÿÿ!&'#ÿ()*)+#,-.ÿ/,"0+#011'ÿ'2340##)5ÿ#6)ÿ#60(5ÿ72"(#)(ÿ()80)9ÿ&1ÿ:/ÿ5&*24)+#'ÿ

1 960*6ÿ'6&9ÿ#6"#ÿ";;(&<04"#),-ÿ19=ÿ&1ÿ",,ÿ>(0)8"+*)'ÿ10,)5ÿ3-ÿ;(0'&+)('ÿ0+ÿ*&2+#-ÿ?"0,'ÿ"()ÿ

2 *&40+>ÿ1(&4ÿ@&'ÿ+>),)'ÿ&2+#-%ÿÿ:)1)+5"+#'ÿ();&(#ÿ#6"#ÿ#6)-ÿ*&+#0+2)ÿ#&ÿ4))#ÿ90#6ÿ@&'ÿ

3 +>),)'ÿ&2+#-ÿ"0,ÿ#&ÿ;2#ÿ;()''2()ÿ&+ÿ@&'ÿ+>),)'ÿ&2+#-.ÿ960*6ÿ*&+#)+5'ÿ#6"#ÿ0#ÿ0'ÿ

4 2+"3,)ÿ#&ÿ'6"()ÿ0+1&(4"#0&+ÿ90#6ÿ:Aÿ52)ÿ#&ÿ#6)ÿ&+105)+#0",0#-ÿ&1ÿ!)50*",ÿ+1&(4"#0&+ÿ

5 *#%ÿÿ/,"0+#011'ÿ6"8)ÿ">())5ÿ#&ÿ&3#"0+ÿ9"08)('ÿ1(&4ÿ*,"''ÿ4)43)('ÿ0+ÿ"+ÿ)11&(#ÿ#&ÿ"8&05ÿ#60'ÿ

6 *&+1,0*#ÿ0+ÿ#6)ÿ12#2()%ÿÿÿ

7 /,"0+#011'ÿ*&+#0+2)ÿ#&ÿ"'')(#ÿ#6"#ÿ:)1)+5"+#'ÿ"()ÿ()720()5ÿ#&ÿ#"B)ÿ"*#0&+ÿ0+ÿ()';&+')ÿ

8 #&ÿB+&9+ÿ80&,"#0&+'ÿ&1ÿ*,"''ÿ4)43)('Cÿ:ÿ(0>6#'ÿ0+ÿ#6)ÿ@&'ÿ+>),)'ÿ&2+#-ÿ"0,%ÿÿ

09 :)1)+5"+#'ÿ5)+-ÿ#6"#ÿ#6)-ÿ6"8)ÿ50'*&8)()5ÿ"ÿ;"##)(+ÿ&1ÿ5)+0",ÿ&1ÿ50'"30,0#-ÿ"**&44&5"$

00 #0&+'ÿ"#ÿ@&'ÿ+>),)'ÿ&2+#-ÿ"0,ÿ"+5ÿ#6)()1&()ÿ5&ÿ+&#ÿ3),0)8)ÿ"+ÿ0+8)'#0>"#0&+ÿ0'ÿ9"(("+#)5%ÿÿÿ

01 :)1)+5"+#'ÿ()*)+#,-ÿ();&(#)5ÿ#6"#ÿ@&'ÿ+>),)'ÿ&2+#-ÿ"0,ÿ6"'ÿ5(&;;)5ÿ0#ÿ3,"+B)#ÿ

02 3"+ÿ&+ÿ#6)ÿ2')ÿ&1ÿ#";;0+>ÿ*"+)'ÿ1&(ÿ*,"''ÿ4)43)('%ÿÿ**&(50+>ÿ#&ÿ:)1)+5"+#'.ÿ*,"''ÿ

03 4)43)('ÿ"#ÿ@&'ÿ+>),)'ÿ&2+#-ÿ"0,ÿ"()ÿ;)(40##)5ÿ#&ÿ2')ÿ#";;0+>ÿ*"+)'ÿ0+ÿ*)(#"0+ÿ6&2'0+>ÿ

04 2+0#'%ÿÿ/,"0+#011'Cÿ*&2+'),ÿ9),*&4)'ÿ#6)ÿ*6"+>)ÿ0+ÿ;&,0*-ÿ"+5.ÿ;2('2"+#ÿ#&ÿ#60'ÿ&2(#C'ÿ

05 &(5)('.ÿ90,,ÿ*&+#0+2)ÿ#&ÿ4&+0#&(ÿ#6)ÿ*&2+#-ÿ?"0,'%ÿÿ

06 07

::ÿDÿ!"-ÿ03.ÿ1907ÿ

08 19 10

ÿÿÿ

ÿ/AA)';)*#12ÿ@,,-ÿ'2ÿ34E0E##)5.ÿÿ F-Dÿ!GHG"I(>J&KL#ÿM!Nÿ)I+5PQ),R'P&S+HMÿQÿ

11 12

ÿÿ

##&(+)-'ÿ1&(ÿ/,"0+#011'ÿ

13

14

15

16

17 ÿ ÿÿ

13ÿ

83ÿ1296ÿ

ÿÿ ÿ!ÿ

ÿ

TUVWÿYZ[Y\]^\_`a_b\Tcÿÿÿde]fgWhiÿ`b`jÿÿÿklmWnÿ_opqYpqrÿÿÿsUtWÿ`jÿeuÿ`j
ÿ

0 1 2

""#ÿ!$%ÿ03&ÿ1907ÿ ÿÿÿ

3

4 5

ÿÿ

'++,(-./%)ÿÿ0*/./-$)1ÿ,)2ÿ+3/ÿ+$+/ÿ,2ÿ$142,-.4$ *%++#,ÿ-5"ÿ.6/35/ÿ%$C8A-D9,ÿ2+:.,%;ÿ-ÿ<0ÿ"=$+ÿ+/->,A2B-/:../;/ÿ6E%?$ÿ@.0ÿ+A/ÿ./-$1ÿ

6 Aÿ-/FD4-/EÿG%ÿH,I$1ÿ)D1/ÿ4J0&ÿ&ÿ!$-K,+ÿ!/.E/1A,.&ÿ$++/A+ÿ+3$+ÿÿ,G+$4./Eÿ

7 I,.ID--/.I/ÿ4.ÿ+3/ÿ2414.Kÿ,2ÿ+34AÿE,IDL/.+ÿ2-,Lÿ3$-,.ÿ0$-AB/ÿ$.Eÿ+3$+ÿÿ3$M/ÿL$4.+$4./Eÿ

8 -/I,-EAÿ+,ÿADCC,-+ÿ+34AÿI,.ID--/.I/Nÿ

09 00 01

ÿÿ""ÿ#ÿÿ!$%ÿ03&ÿ1907ÿ

5!65$O-K:,;P+ÿ<!Qÿ/O.E@=/1RA@,S.6<ÿ=ÿ

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

19

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17 ÿ ÿÿ

14ÿ

83ÿ1296ÿ

ÿÿ ÿ!ÿ

ÿ

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2726-1 Filed 05/14/18 Page 1 of 8

P RISON L AW O FFICE
General Delivery, San Quentin, CA 94964 Telephone (510) 280-2621 • Fax (510) 280-2704
www.prison law.c om

VIA EMAIL ONLY

November 14, 2017

Mr. Patrick R. McKinney II CDCR Office ofLegal Affairs

Director: Donald S pecter
Managing Attorney: Sara Norman
StaHAttorneys: Mae Ackerman-Brimberg Rana Anabtawi Steven Fama Alison Hardy Sia Henry Corene Kend rick Rita Lo mio Margot Mendelson Millard Murphy Lynn Wu

RE: Investigations at Salinas Valley State Prison

Dear Mr. McKinney:

Thank you for working with our office to review investigations into staff misconduct at Central California Women's Facility (CCWF). We understand that the joint effort was a positive step forward and that the process implemented there shows a great deal of promise. We hope that the same advances can be made at other prisons, although we recognize that prisons have differences in population, organization, and leadership.

As you may know, a team from our office conducted an Armstrong monitoring tour at Salinas Valley State Prison (SVSP) in September 2017. Before we turn over reports of serious staff misconduct that we received during that tour, we want to discuss a few concerns regarding the investigative process at SVSP. These concerns-which largely relate to basic investigative teclmiques and hopefully can be addressed through improved training-are outlined in this letter. We would like to review these concerns during an on-site visit sim ilar to the initial joint visit that was conducted at CCWF. We also would be happy to identify clients who can share their experiences with the investigation process with representatives from both of our offices at that time.

I.

Confidentiality and Anonymity ..................................................................................2

II. 'Random Interviews .....................................................................................................3

Ill. Interview Techniques..................................................................................................3

IV. Filing History..............................................................................................................4

V. Computer Voice Stress Analysis ................................................................................5

VI. Interviewing People Who Have Been Transferred .....................................................6

VII. Prison Rape Elimination Act ......................................................................................6

Boar:d of Directors Penelope Cooper, President • Michele W alkin Hawk, Vice President • Marshall Krause, Treasurer
Harlan Grossman • C hristiane Hipps • Margaret Jo hns • Cesar L'lgleva Laura Magnan i • Michael Marcum • Ruth Morgan • Seth Morris

<=>?ÿABCADEFDGHIGJD<KÿÿÿLMENO?PQÿHJHRDSÿÿÿTUV?WÿGXYSAYSZÿÿÿ[=\?ÿHÿM]ÿZ

ÿ 2ÿ 767576ÿ5ÿ!76ÿ

ÿ 0ÿ12ÿ4561789ÿ
2ÿ081ÿ74ÿ5ÿÿÿÿÿÿ

---- --- -- - ---- --- 556#$'-%57)66#"6#10#&&&7&6615#8#57"%56718866661#/71621"ÿ9&ÿ295ÿ"$8ÿ1ÿ.5ÿÿÿ7ÿ778&#ÿÿ61ÿ2ÿÿ8(5ÿ7ÿ78ÿÿ712%%,777ÿÿ5"ÿÿ2ÿ#ÿÿ7ÿ,ÿ5!ÿ1ÿÿÿ5%ÿ56#6,25$ÿ675/120ÿ18/ÿ76/ÿ6&1ÿ65ÿ76ÿ$ÿ865&7ÿ1#86ÿ%ÿ56ÿÿ5ÿ&1&ÿÿ7ÿÿ7$"ÿ"6060%121(#777ÿ5%"ÿ11636ÿ$ÿÿ&ÿ6ÿ511&"$111ÿ8ÿ%708686ÿ6ÿÿÿ#1#6225ÿ85ÿÿ7#8ÿÿÿÿÿ77ÿ575##&767%1(811""$ÿÿÿ16"762#7$&5ÿÿ6ÿÿ%ÿÿ72#67117#666/1ÿ&1#675ÿ#9ÿ6ÿÿÿ6ÿÿ66ÿ2"58ÿ7ÿ5&ÿÿ1746#ÿ182&6ÿ&6#5ÿ#ÿ1ÿÿÿ$757ÿ7ÿÿ7ÿ6585ÿÿ6#7$%&765768&"6ÿ57187ÿÿ8&4ÿÿ51ÿ%15##16ÿÿ661ÿ5ÿ%%76ÿ&8+76&1766&1ÿ611#8"6&"6#ÿÿ11&262ÿÿÿ"7ÿ&6%5ÿ5ÿÿ15"6$$8516ÿ5ÿÿÿÿ&6$ÿÿ/&ÿÿÿ8#56ÿ$ÿ081ÿ&$ÿÿÿÿ&6ÿ6ÿ668ÿ9175"%5ÿ7170617"657"1#ÿ1&66ÿ81"$ÿÿÿÿ2865ÿ#67ÿ68ÿ6"7#5ÿ851ÿ,#ÿ5#ÿ862&67ÿ#ÿ2&8ÿÿ11ÿ"&7ÿÿ/16ÿÿÿ6ÿ#8($657ÿ&6%&0ÿ5ÿÿ&65ÿ&!728$5ÿÿ&665#1ÿ7"75ÿÿ155&ÿ61ÿÿ5ÿÿ61165#%&ÿ662ÿ%6$ÿ5##ÿ268ÿ96ÿÿ&8ÿ$ÿÿ$6ÿ65870ÿ57ÿÿÿÿÿ&71$1ÿ6ÿ%%ÿ5&1)ÿÿÿ11$1ÿ71ÿ%$6/ÿ&57ÿÿÿ1(56!1&ÿ576+6$#ÿ#ÿ2#$5&5ÿ,"%""8ÿÿÿÿ21%ÿ%ÿ1#6$6ÿÿÿ6%66ÿ55ÿÿÿ626"655ÿÿ(7"$17ÿ&787ÿÿÿ##06$ÿ$616ÿ6ÿ756ÿÿ&ÿÿ768&ÿ1777#$&876)67"85ÿÿÿ555ÿ866ÿ6#%ÿÿ!)7ÿ6ÿ7%ÿ9ÿ&$5ÿ576&116ÿ"1&ÿÿ27ÿ&ÿ$7"85%ÿ#85&#&268/ÿ5ÿ78ÿ#667ÿ2"ÿ8672ÿ6ÿÿÿÿÿÿ5$ÿ5ÿÿ5ÿ2#,5)5#651ÿ8)%1#ÿÿ#ÿ$#7ÿ#67ÿ1ÿÿÿ,7%%06ÿÿÿÿÿ%28###056(676ÿ116ÿÿ1#712ÿ31&&&)#&ÿÿ56ÿ;6ÿÿ6ÿ6$1#"48#$"""2"ÿ15ÿÿÿÿ258&ÿ1767"5ÿ76167)66518ÿ161ÿÿ#:66"7ÿ17&6ÿ6ÿ#75&ÿ65816/7&671ÿ75&6ÿ1ÿ1%ÿ1ÿÿÿ02776ÿ76ÿÿ5ÿ567%51&6ÿ7#577ÿ&ÿ%56ÿ918ÿÿ2766ÿÿ%152ÿ5#ÿ&#2%7%ÿ75ÿ7#56ÿ9ÿ16"ÿ96'611ÿ9&ÿ,16ÿÿÿ&6ÿ2ÿ6ÿ18%591"&7/$%"ÿ71ÿ17ÿÿ#&5ÿÿÿ8115ÿ81&ÿÿ&ÿÿ5#,6ÿÿÿÿ768#ÿÿ9ÿ9$8ÿ&%#"&ÿ1ÿ8$"ÿ88(61816ÿ"7$&677587ÿ&75&ÿ#ÿ4ÿ##1"&"ÿ#1&6ÿ7&7676&#7&67ÿÿ#76ÿÿÿÿÿ7ÿÿ7#55777%$5ÿ&17,15ÿ87#1#ÿ%6%6#7#ÿ6ÿ6ÿ"&#ÿÿ$61ÿÿ""ÿÿ66ÿ67,ÿÿ5#3ÿ&1ÿ5ÿ($118ÿ076685"ÿÿ65*ÿÿ7ÿ5ÿÿ6&ÿ9ÿ7656%6"786621&1%&7ÿ6ÿÿ%ÿ61ÿ2ÿ"8%ÿ7%%667ÿ/ÿÿ&#$ÿ55ÿ&2#30&ÿ1$ÿ$,ÿ"86ÿÿ1#756711##617$1ÿ6$9#71&ÿÿÿ57ÿÿÿ5ÿ1ÿÿÿ1ÿ28ÿ%#57ÿ768ÿÿÿ69ÿ,7$5&8566*685#$1$ÿÿ&&ÿ$&ÿ8587ÿ%5ÿ""6!&676575ÿ27&ÿ8#$ÿ17ÿÿ1ÿ&6#566ÿ%18&ÿ&3ÿ&ÿ6ÿÿ#7ÿ1ÿ#771ÿ"$&86556"61ÿ1"ÿ7ÿ75ÿ65&568ÿ$%18ÿ6ÿ976""765ÿ656ÿ&7&ÿÿ#ÿ675&811#5661%527#/###6622ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ

- - ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ77&ÿ0ÿ5ÿÿ61ÿ2ÿÿÿ1ÿ#ÿÿ6ÿ77ÿÿÿÿ%5ÿ+ÿ6ÿ"ÿÿ1ÿÿÿÿ7ÿÿÿÿÿÿ9ÿÿ68ÿ&ÿÿÿÿ61ÿ2ÿÿÿÿ$ÿÿÿ"ÿ1ÿ8ÿ6ÿ5567ÿ6&ÿÿ5#6&"ÿ7&ÿ2ÿ7ÿÿ7ÿ%ÿ25ÿÿ#6ÿ6&8ÿ5#ÿ7ÿÿ#667"ÿ65ÿ961ÿÿ%5+#ÿ"96&5ÿÿ66ÿ&0ÿÿ1#25ÿ*ÿ"6#ÿ67#$ÿ5#5ÿ159#ÿ5ÿ6%&76ÿÿ&&7ÿ55"6ÿ6&516ÿÿÿ

STUVÿXYZX[\][^_`^a[Sbÿÿÿcd\efVghÿ_a_i[jÿÿÿklmVnÿ^opjXpjqÿÿÿrTsVÿ`ÿdtÿq

ÿ 2ÿ 
5ÿ617ÿ

ÿ 0ÿ12ÿ4561789ÿ
2ÿ081ÿ74ÿ5ÿÿÿÿÿÿ

65'6805&$58ÿ5#1171ÿ$17ÿ"7'ÿÿ6671ÿ8&&156151ÿ5ÿ!ÿ/ÿ6ÿ5ÿ"06#6$27'ÿ$ÿ717662&3&ÿÿÿ#54711"ÿ56ÿ2ÿ561*&7ÿÿ75ÿÿ'$&ÿ5ÿ'ÿ-ÿ#117619$&6:6ÿÿ6&6&#6;ÿÿ#17ÿ'ÿ15$ÿ4$9ÿ1ÿ76571ÿ6ÿ$&<5ÿÿ515$ÿ8157;"$ÿ1%ÿÿÿ7'H76"=1ÿ7#65615'>ÿ"ÿ6'86$ÿ91$7$&6:B&6ÿ$ÿÿ;667C6ÿ&7ÿ"ÿÿI"155ÿÿÿ$6#85ÿ$8#ÿ&$?56ÿ$ÿÿ5"&"6625ÿ&87ÿ$58;6"6$66ÿ7ÿ"7ÿÿ6611ÿ9ÿ66754$28ÿ&&*$"ÿ5ÿ5ÿÿ715166ÿÿ1ÿÿ251@766ÿÿ6ÿ"&&&ÿ#7$6ÿÿ$6ÿÿD67ÿ11&ÿD5ÿ551ÿ&ÿ10ÿ655ÿE'F"1ÿ1671ÿ7225ÿ6ÿÿ"(ÿ68106-ÿÿÿ$62617ÿ0ÿ81'ÿ2ÿ7ÿ76ÿ8&,ÿÿ$&2'5ÿÿÿ8ÿÿ"7076ÿ$.ÿÿ1ÿ6#16
G&&2ÿÿÿ1"ÿ2E6ÿ5ÿÿ07&ÿ$1$ÿ"6#"6#"&$ÿ&75$57ÿ56$1(768ÿ7ÿ7159(ÿ1ÿÿÿ#1ÿ5ÿ'A1596ÿ1ÿ&E7'ÿÿ6515'57ÿ7678ÿ"ÿ8&6Gÿ7ÿ5ÿ21&$ÿÿ$ÿ66ÿ95&!')7ÿ#7@5ÿ8ÿÿ6ÿ$ÿ66&ÿÿ25ÿ568ÿÿ758660$ÿ$5$66ÿ1ÿ&#ÿ#ÿ/G5ÿ6ÿÿ7$ÿÿ'+$1'ÿ##55$$,$7#15ÿ8ÿÿ6ÿ6ÿ$655&57ÿ9ÿ65*6ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ

- -- - - - - - - F877567I@161'1"&&7#%#J$6&5""6668721"61$Fÿ6ÿ$211B7*ÿ15561ÿ66416ÿ7ÿÿ7877#5K#&7ÿ81ÿ782/ÿFRÿÿ/#2ÿ86ÿ($ÿ7*"ÿÿ77ÿ6ÿ'2ÿÿÿ6ÿÿ5&56ÿÿ0ÿ66(566&0(B5165&&ÿ#'ÿ6#M$16B'&15701ÿ$1#ÿÿ11ÿ8ÿÿ2ÿ576897ÿ56ÿ8286ÿ7#$ÿ&71&1&$#ÿÿÿ$6ÿ$27&7ÿ675ÿ65B#6ÿ#116ÿÿ611"1&*51$ÿ1$#ÿ6ÿÿ'ÿÿÿ&088#55ÿ7ÿÿ6ÿ7ÿÿÿ6ÿ6'1$&7'5+5(ÿ51ÿ15ÿ#'M2ÿ$68$ÿ'ÿ7ÿ76ÿÿÿ6ÿ12($ÿ*7811716ÿ1ÿ611ÿ&ÿÿ'#&$6"ÿ7ÿ6ÿ6ÿÿ7'6(B517ÿ&ÿ579ÿM6ÿ861#%1ÿ667ÿ$56ÿ&7676ÿ5ÿ1&1$7ÿÿÿ#57$ÿÿÿ55#1ÿÿ5ÿÿÿ17ÿ6ÿ"66656ÿ18$&ÿ1ÿ$&ÿ#5ÿ"1515F8'56#O"8ÿ1ÿ#ÿÿ76J6ÿÿ576#66ÿ71ÿ68"5&5156#&6ÿÿ1F&ÿ9#$ÿ58"168ÿÿ141ÿ7"6566ÿPÿB$18ÿ225'ÿ72#ÿÿ*4ÿ5ÿÿÿ9ÿ6ÿÿ65ÿ<ÿ51ÿÿÿ6&'Hÿ756&ÿ6ÿ&@ÿÿ$65ÿQ7ÿ5&5655ÿÿ96&685967$426ÿ#6ÿ6ÿÿÿ$91ÿ=6775ÿÿ61ÿ&6ÿ1ÿÿ65516ÿ65ÿÿ7ÿ&161"51ÿ76&'66ÿ761#"&ÿ57765#18ÿ$ÿÿ7ÿ6"55$567ÿÿ772&ÿ'87ÿ$ÿ26ÿ7ÿÿ'ÿ68&6ÿ'5ÿ0&5'51ÿ16ÿ57ÿÿÿ817ÿB67!&61I"7ÿ5165656ÿÿ7ÿÿ77#72$55&66757ÿ$&$,71ÿ788.57ÿ2ÿ#8ÿ5ÿÿÿ1ÿ667#ÿÿÿ177(ÿ@66ÿ6ÿ661&ÿ50&7ÿÿÿ611N7151'25ÿÿ66ÿÿ1'*ÿ6656ÿ7.72ÿÿ658ÿ8ÿ'#ÿ7&ÿ1ÿÿ'7"05'ÿ9Bÿ16ÿ8ÿ6661ÿ#'"076ÿ6ÿ&ÿ86,$'651&97771N2681ÿÿÿ*ÿ2ÿÿÿ67ÿ7ÿÿ&1&65&1ÿÿ"ÿÿÿÿÿ06175ÿ6$5ÿÿ75&76ÿ5116"ÿ7&#1&57&ÿ9'2186ÿ7ÿÿ75#ÿÿ68ÿÿ6&26$7ÿÿ&ÿ'5ÿ16ÿ16ÿÿ1/'7555ÿÿ7750161ÿ7'ÿB67"ÿÿ18BLÿ5ÿ65ÿÿ1"61'"5ÿÿÿÿ%ÿ7&2#61"ÿ$ÿ&"155ÿ66ÿ'ÿ#'65567$'81#'&ÿ577ÿ66ÿÿ.728ÿ77855#8&ÿÿÿ666ÿ&ÿ6175ÿÿ11ÿ&52ÿÿÿÿÿ71ÿ66ÿÿÿ5ÿÿ'7"7ÿ776ÿ6ÿ&8'06ÿ#ÿ#&ÿ551'555ÿ6#5ÿ11667'6&1#ÿÿÿ71ÿ8ÿ5&&852&617ÿ1ÿ75161ÿ6ÿÿ1'ÿÿÿ&ÿÿ*1ÿ'6ÿ5566ÿ6&76ÿÿ777&5&57#6(5$$5&1666ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ

RSTUÿWXYWZ[\Z]^_]`ZRaÿÿÿbc[deUfgÿ^`^hZiÿÿÿjklUmÿ]noiWoipÿÿÿqSrUÿWÿcsÿp

ÿ 2ÿ 77ÿ7!61ÿ

ÿ 0ÿ12ÿ4561789ÿ
2ÿ081ÿ74ÿ5ÿÿÿÿÿÿ

(!656(90'#5(654"9579881(7(1"'8=?"77715#"78!!8&ÿÿ'A&!7#(7ÿ!18ÿ95ÿ!ÿ6588ÿ8"!91@8!!ÿ66&"7ÿ71ÿ5ÿÿ5ÿ6ÿ'ÿ1"5&ÿ75ÿ66#!!ÿ1!9!777(((1##76#6ÿ!6'!5ÿÿÿ#6ÿÿÿF57ÿÿ5!"16&6908'!ÿ6"19#7ÿ7!11(&ÿÿ65ÿ1#ÿ"ÿ&ÿ1ÿ'87"57'1:5ÿÿ5ÿ5ÿ76!6"6ÿ5"577068ÿ'79ÿÿÿ6"ÿÿ!!66ÿ(!&'67!#8ÿ717ÿ5<6ÿ9(ÿ551"7&"ÿ6'64"ÿÿ!ÿÿ71(1ÿ(!89ÿ!1&!!5&1'&8ÿ'ÿ7ÿÿ!ÿ8''55'!ÿ7ÿ7559ÿÿ1G!#8"7"&&ÿÿÿÿÿ"ÿÿ1617647ÿ(1ÿ8ÿÿ65ÿ#8&'6ÿ810#69A'11!(!ÿ1#6ÿ7'#ÿ69ÿÿ#ÿÿ6"37ÿ(ÿ5D!ÿ6586895ÿÿÿ2'#!55ÿ6#!ÿ:678ÿ1671ÿ5ÿÿÿ17&7ÿ7ÿÿ5ÿ18ÿ'?15(ÿ895ÿ'!'67(ÿ(6&66&07ÿ5(6'(ÿ&65ÿÿÿ28!256ÿ(96ÿÿ72!&&"ÿ7?!ÿ'ÿ!ÿÿ'71ÿ8Eÿ5ÿÿ12ÿ1#355ÿÿ#ÿ86558ÿ!5#1ÿ275ÿ566!#C6ÿ<&ÿ(76ÿ66"2ÿ('ÿ5678ÿ!7(:ÿ6ÿ&88!5!'7($&ÿ2'154(ÿ&(ÿ'28ÿ71ÿ"ÿ'51ÿ11ÿÿÿ8%15!5ÿÿ5ÿ6ÿ1&60ÿ5Cÿÿÿ16ÿ#ÿ66(8ÿÿ557$67!&&666'8!!05!5(#1(5!3ÿ5ÿ(27ÿÿ(67
7651!5ÿ16'959ÿÿÿ7775ÿ'(966'ÿ27ÿ115#6ÿ2!ÿ&7'!ÿÿ5ÿ267#1:(16ÿ6666ÿ1ÿ6(8(!!ÿÿÿÿ7&2ÿ((5ÿ8ÿ86(6"1ÿ:3:1ÿ1551&ÿ&(4'&560ÿÿÿ9ÿÿ762ÿ'ÿÿ($!ÿ6ÿ1ÿ19!&ÿ8'"5#ÿÿ7(ÿ2!ÿ1(ÿ15'175117#ÿ586#7ÿ"ÿ8!61766ÿ6"'1&"!!ÿ8"ÿ&(66'('(6ÿ57(15(''16((ÿÿÿÿÿ7ÿÿ&6&!'5ÿÿÿÿ(ÿ76&6511ÿ578576'#"(ÿ6&16ÿ5ÿ66ÿ75ÿ"ÿ!651ÿÿ25&(ÿ1("6ÿ8ÿ#'ÿ!9&&6!7ÿ6!ÿ65ÿ55"71ÿÿ66&566486ÿ6(6ÿ)!62&ÿÿ6615!1!618(ÿ(5!5ÿ(6ÿ16&ÿ"*&ÿ#3ÿ1'ÿ(ÿÿ6ÿ1#11(#60ÿ95*ÿÿ876&6!'!ÿÿ7!55(#6ÿ7ÿ+ÿ516''861(ÿ4!5ÿ#ÿ"9&7661168ÿ*7ÿ57ÿ7ÿ1ÿ&6(8'8ÿ-(1&(7'5ÿÿ!66.6ÿÿ5ÿ!84#ÿ#("ÿ(&25ÿ1!D61568-#ÿ5(ÿ5ÿÿ!2ÿ#ÿ(!6ÿ7(!ÿ7#65ÿ:ÿ8#ÿ!!ÿ!27ÿ(8(Bÿ11ÿ!ÿ!5ÿ/#76ÿÿ2665ÿ5ÿ!ÿ$52ÿÿ5"9ÿ7=ÿÿ5ÿ07'8ÿ275'18"ÿ'96664!ÿ5ÿ7ÿ('!ÿ6ÿÿ"97"ÿ576!ÿÿ6'!ÿ5'ÿ8ÿÿ5ÿ(ÿ!8
6&"69655&5ÿ61ÿ7565(516(5276ÿÿÿÿ#'ÿ2#"ÿÿ96668!156ÿ7ÿ6#6ÿÿ1ÿ576ÿ5ÿ7(11!ÿ1''5ÿ7916&ÿ5ÿ3ÿÿÿ#55ÿ52#ÿÿ'767!5#6ÿ&#9!6#!7ÿ8'(5ÿ678>ÿ1ÿ5'76ÿÿ86(68ÿ8551ÿ!9ÿ9ÿ27"1576ÿÿ1:01617'ÿ69ÿ('ÿ#"!&ÿ7218ÿ79#5:ÿ!7&27ÿ6&1(&7ÿ1ÿ'5ÿÿÿÿÿÿ1ÿ556ÿ&ÿ1(ÿ5ÿÿ67;8(70ÿÿÿ868!11'ÿÿ5('ÿ(ÿ15!6657'(5?ÿÿÿ7ÿ#/&'5"6&576ÿ589ÿ75ÿ'!ÿ92"!!6(6ÿ#1!ÿ!&6ÿ66ÿÿÿ5!9"ÿÿ1ÿÿ6ÿ5'5(66!&ÿ!7"5ÿ((6(ÿ8#1'ÿ'1ÿ656ÿ1'##55&'(1ÿÿ1ÿ961!96'ÿ5ÿ7(&&('ÿ#(6ÿÿB8ÿ#ÿ88ÿÿ56771ÿ511&ÿ5"7ÿ1651ÿ8"!ÿÿ1&17ÿ(ÿ7ÿ596ÿ6#"ÿ1('57ÿ!ÿ1!2(('6#'&'ÿ705ÿ'&6ÿ(&6ÿ67'ÿÿÿÿ!&ÿ7ÿ6#854(&15(ÿÿ"!'ÿÿ"#5;1'&ÿ1'(ÿ16677ÿ!6#8677#1ÿ!58&&ÿ!0ÿ(5ÿ"8ÿ665ÿ!&&ÿÿ#&(1!!7566ÿ1696#ÿ11'ÿÿG1'"ÿÿ166"ÿ72ÿÿÿ#'166&15ÿ575ÿ6"ÿ5162ÿ(776ÿ!#!ÿ8ÿÿ:ÿ(126!1834ÿ7'(ÿ'5&ÿ676ÿ81ÿ66/#5'5ÿÿ#ÿ5ÿ7ÿ7ÿ75ÿÿ#6#ÿ(ÿ!6ÿ8!5&7#6ÿ1"ÿ'ÿ76ÿ6667ÿ766(6(5ÿ7ÿÿÿ5(1677167'5551#7'"'''!##666662ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ!95185ÿ/"ÿ%5&ÿ5(7ÿ16!&ÿ697ÿ7678ÿ!717ÿ82"ÿ9ÿÿÿÿ$ÿ5ÿ!5ÿ716ÿ7(5ÿ'ÿ4'6ÿ2ÿ!ÿ5ÿÿÿ:6ÿÿÿ7&A9ÿ575ÿ@7ÿ7ÿ!ÿ'67ÿÿ1!56ÿ'2!ÿ(ÿ55ÿÿÿ61Hÿ##6Aÿ#ÿ"1787ÿÿ:ÿ1ÿ8ÿ6ÿ1ÿÿÿÿ5ÿ5655#7ÿ(8ÿ&1ÿ"Kÿÿ1;7'ÿÿ#"16>1ÿÿÿÿ(9L7&6576(7'5((ÿ11Iÿÿ68ÿÿÿÿ76"ÿ(6M(#765!71ÿ!1&6ÿ!8!6ÿ7(!6687ÿ6819ÿ7K60ÿÿ6'55!L76"&1(!7ÿÿÿ8&ÿ!18J8766ÿ'ÿ75P26!7"9ÿ"6!Qÿ7!5'P67ÿC7#"ÿÿ11##58585ÿ7ÿ6668ÿÿ'ÿ6'ÿ'ÿÿ6ÿ15I78ÿÿÿ&"5!ÿ#&&!6ÿ5!685&75ÿ#78161#77576ÿ5'ÿ89&Gÿ865ÿÿÿ
1766ÿ#74&75'ÿ11976&76ÿÿ!(75ÿ85&9ÿ197!2&7!!ÿ(!G66ÿÿ15ÿ5ÿÿÿ6#558$J(#!&5ÿÿ%1&875817ÿÿ$(7!69(
ÿÿ55%5&ÿÿNÿ8886751!!!7ÿ!7!"1!6167!ÿ61!5
'ÿÿÿÿ:1ÿ6#7ÿ676(15(672!"ÿ59(6ÿ!ÿ6!6ÿ6!ÿ7ÿ1ÿ55!6ÿ4ÿB5(6651ÿ77"177''77!55115Nÿÿ6ÿ$78ÿ#7ÿ5#(ÿO17851ÿ861ÿÿ5196ÿ<6(!ÿ15O(555!!!16ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ

Z[\]ÿ_`a_bcdbefgehbZiÿÿÿjkclm]noÿfhfpbqÿÿÿrst]uÿevwq_wqxÿÿÿy[z]ÿvÿk{ÿx
- 6ÿ4.ÿ75$5!+"!7185#5578ÿ5ÿ1"16+8668#6!77ÿ76"6ÿ11(ÿ6+1#(78ÿ%(ÿÿÿ#56!7,ÿ5"6'2ÿ58(ÿÿ"5+6ÿÿ;76ÿ#ÿ57155+'56ÿÿ066&ÿ7ÿ+ÿ7ÿ#66)56'7ÿ;"6ÿ1ÿÿÿ*5756ÿ+6ÿ6ÿ6#!++6$5ÿ""5551ÿÿÿ6"+ÿ650#ÿ5ÿ#5!ÿ8$$ÿÿÿ+1*616##+!2+8ÿÿ1174ÿÿ216ÿ276)6*28ÿ)6!ÿ5ÿ4ÿÿÿ(18ÿ5ÿ(ÿ16ÿ7!:7#7ÿ81ÿ8ÿ#661!65!#516ÿ1"*6ÿÿ737ÿ!56ÿÿ65#112671ÿ)7'ÿ#("ÿ6ÿÿ1ÿ67ÿ$ÿ7ÿ53",ÿ#ÿ+#ÿÿ#ÿÿ1ÿ86!,<ÿ55525ÿ"ÿ1"657757!8###76#ÿ777'2ÿ8ÿ6ÿÿ6ÿ61ÿ:ÿÿ58ÿ$="ÿÿÿ26ÿ7ÿ/5ÿ!ÿ88ÿ**75!#6ÿÿÿ166ÿÿÿÿ7!7#7ÿ#"5'8>ÿ2ÿÿ21ÿ6ÿÿ'!ÿ6.5%ÿÿÿ6ÿ(6(ÿ$1(587ÿ576%"11ÿ5877ÿ+51(!#ÿ1!"7ÿÿ75ÿ7"ÿÿ5+0661(ÿ"7ÿÿ##!ÿ657ÿ886:ÿ825+9)!ÿ"6+ÿÿ2ÿÿ765()!ÿ!ÿ,"ÿ585657"ÿ1ÿ"ÿ+"ÿÿÿÿ,ÿ1(ÿ(+,62765)"5((7ÿÿ(ÿ(6(7ÿ5ÿ6(!ÿ5ÿ0!ÿÿ58527/ÿ)611!ÿÿ1ÿÿ21ÿ766ÿÿ,6ÿ65461ÿÿ786ÿ5ÿ+ÿ556+"+!+6ÿ1+0657#!ÿÿ158ÿ#66565"5!59ÿÿ8"116ÿ6#(ÿÿ
16#11(5ÿÿÿ9ÿ+ÿ7&!2*6+"8ÿ!6+1ÿ1550+6ÿ7ÿ56501+%86(7185#16(6ÿÿ87"ÿÿÿ!18ÿ1#6765ÿ#2!-4"6ÿÿÿ#5'ÿ7ÿÿÿ850(8ÿ"ÿ$6"ÿÿ57ÿ.666ÿ!!165!!!ÿÿ55((662ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ - -- - - 675T,+66X46*(!8!!!!7661(571"D557!5(1#5"5#Y#(7ÿ"ÿ567"88(ÿÿ,"1E5ÿ>16ÿW1#1ÿÿ6!8ÿF6R5,177"D75ÿ7#1(((ÿÿ"G7#(,ÿÿÿ*ÿKÿ2ÿ7Rÿ526Hÿÿ51ÿÿ6Lÿ5!"661+'ÿ6ÿ,7!P6#ÿ<87U6ÿ6!ÿ6.#5";;ÿ5ÿ66ÿ;6ÿG1+ÿ1ÿ6#7!!>!5ÿ68H921ÿ!ÿ;ÿÿÿ"1ÿ7Vÿ117ÿÿ5"ÿ15*6ÿK68ÿ6!ÿ11>6ÿ5ÿ,+7+86L9ÿÿ#7#6*66ÿ(ÿL6ÿ7!ÿ!>7""ÿÿÿ#,51M651#111#6"6ÿ1ÿ116!ÿ!L5ÿ1ÿÿÿ72ÿ1ÿ2ÿ6#87ÿ#55Oÿ05ÿÿÿ68#566P6ÿ86ÿÿ6ÿÿ18ÿ!.!69!ÿ6#61O0ÿ"9!1ÿÿ!ÿ6ÿ5ÿG!!5ÿ5ÿ!2!56ÿ65ÿÿ:H7ÿÿ8ÿ17ÿW1578#85*66(5I2;1ÿ6+ÿÿÿ1Jÿ6ÿÿÿÿ6ÿ61"6"!"ÿ88ÿ6:86+#6!6#*55!8ÿ1ÿ656ÿÿ67ÿ*6ÿ6617"+726715#ÿÿ"1#ÿ!,ÿ5(ÿ58ÿ5ÿÿÿ511ÿÿÿ"6ÿ751+66$62"5ÿ75561!#ÿ71ÿÿ%78ÿÿ#,5ÿÿÿ1.(#756ÿ"566ÿÿ1+5ÿ+ÿ!ÿ6!Q"#+6ÿ6!65#'ÿ55"!ÿ!7ÿ7"16ÿ"ÿ5ÿ5ÿ5ÿ566ÿ6ÿ7+617ÿ7#6ÿÿ<576#ÿ!5(!ÿ72ÿÿ6ÿÿÿ,"ÿ7(("8!5(5ÿ#9X5!7"ÿÿÿ8"65ÿ8ÿ1ÿÿ075#ÿ65D156689!!2Yÿ296(1ÿÿÿ11#77!ÿ(ÿ7ÿÿÿ8ÿ#E"667ÿÿ.5ÿÿÿ6ÿ27ÿ!!!4F#!ÿ561ÿ561D6!ÿ!ÿ75ÿÿÿ+ÿ!ÿ#G!S4ÿ7Tÿ"ÿ17+ÿ8681+657ÿH7*55:ÿ"ÿÿ6ÿ661ÿP76"51+618!ÿ"2Rÿ1"2;#ÿ+(#"6"6ÿÿ5(ÿ117!(ÿ5#5ÿ60ÿ86708)ÿ+7#!6>6#ÿ5ÿÿ!ÿ7!ÿG*ÿÿ<57167<1668(#67H261,$275ÿ7ÿ77#"!ÿÿÿÿÿI"1,ÿ6#66(;"Jÿ5ÿ27!87ÿÿ65!1ÿ666ÿ9518!1561ÿÿÿ("6ÿ7ÿ77ÿ!ÿ66ÿ6(0ÿ*!ÿ5977ÿ5756#5"68ÿ,5(ÿ57ÿ#!ÿÿ1+57ÿ+ÿÿA1"##"#265ÿÿÿ+ÿ86ÿ(ÿ7ÿ17!>(6#1#ÿ67ÿ22ÿ67((#1ÿÿXÿÿÿ5ÿ+ÿ866ÿ1ÿ!ÿÿ<"ÿ5!5!7:1#D5".5.#5ÿÿ286Yÿÿ1767ÿÿ6ÿ5ÿ6!!6!6ÿ1!1ÿÿÿ!!7*!ÿE#0ÿ179F5568ÿÿÿ5ÿ#5ÿD7!!17"ÿÿ16"#Gÿ1ÿÿÿ*#R297(#!5ÿ#,!9ÿ5ÿÿÿ#H(164ÿ5ÿ67Sÿ7!ÿ7P66(51ÿ#9ÿ68+26ÿ7ÿÿ5(!5ÿÿ1ÿ1ÿÿÿ56118ÿ66ÿ67ÿ15#1ÿ1ÿ7!ÿ!B!(ÿÿ+!115$ÿ;677"1ÿ(C5ÿ7!(4""#1Dÿ(ÿ"(821ÿ;6ÿ8656ÿ1#Eÿÿ52767ÿ6!!!7ÿÿ8ÿÿ57F762ÿ*6!ÿ##8.ÿ16612ÿÿ!ÿ5,!728ÿ10ÿÿ10!7)+695ÿ766ÿÿ66!ÿ+>!ÿ5ÿ56!ÿÿÿ(1ÿ1525ÿ57:65ÿÿ21*#51ÿ6ÿ+ÿÿÿ16615!ÿ1ÿ6ÿ+5"!+ÿ57+2#1#ÿ!ÿÿÿÿ66ÿ62ÿÿÿÿÿ75;8ÿÿ7ÿÿ<.6ÿ<12ÿ05115565088+!#!"6ÿ96"(797ÿÿ"687ÿ(6*ÿ!6851(##17!!7ÿ1ÿ!2ÿ1ÿ,866ÿÿÿÿ;557#!16ÿÿ7ÿ!+#ÿ7!ÿ2*ÿÿ168)1ÿÿÿ7ÿ5"ÿ66ÿ5ÿ61ÿÿ1!1*6!6ÿÿ66ÿ7ÿ5ÿ7ÿ,5!!876#5(7"#!#11((6"622ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ

abcdÿfghfijkilmnloiapÿÿÿqrjstduvÿmomwixÿÿÿyz{d|ÿl}~xf~xÿÿÿbdÿwÿrÿ
-- - - - - !ÿ0!7F5PJ0877F+%'6'5"5'ÿ1759118"8105617226787666586ÿÿ7"777"!'8881ÿ'8ÿ6766!22ÿ'76ÿ"77"8ÿ576ÿÿ"7ÿ67ÿÿ5ÿBÿ:605ÿ1<ÿ255666ÿ'ÿ6ÿ916126672"4877ÿ7127ÿC2%&7ÿÿ2ÿ6.ÿÿ@ÿ156ÿÿAÿ<2ÿ.ÿÿ'9876ÿDÿ<ÿ6775164ÿÿÿ6"ÿ7ÿ61:ÿ167ÿÿ%186'1"S%ÿ7"15
ÿ6%;ÿ"Tÿ6ÿÿÿ7ÿ!"5ÿÿ6Tÿ(ÿ678""%6"ÿ677)#ÿ2ÿ55%7ÿ51A7ÿ1Vÿ51ÿÿ511%7%Nÿ66ÿÿ#ÿ6ÿÿ5ÿC66ÿ8ÿÿÿÿ#,76768O!ÿ556"ÿ56ÿ!7'ÿÿ766ÿÿÿ16%W1Hÿÿ6"60ÿÿ5ÿ-6A"6ÿ!1ÿXÿÿ877M%5.5$ÿ6@06ÿ1ÿ21R6/166ÿÿ5ÿ0ÿ2A7ÿ7ÿÿ19@%ÿÿÿÿYÿ85165ÿ%0!,%'7ÿ@4121'751ÿ1!1Z1182N.55"ÿ"ÿÿ(.!2>"1ÿ1ÿÿ8ÿ&ÿ983ÿ'61ÿO!5ÿ7ÿ"[5!1ÿ45ÿÿÿ6"ÿ6"'Fÿ2ÿÿ67ÿÿ57"6156ÿ267ÿ7'ÿ,ÿ581
ÿÿÿ'ÿ%9))6ÿ66"ÿ621%\767?68ÿÿ;7"ÿ8ÿÿÿAÿÿ6":ÿÿ<055ÿ*ÿ6ÿ75ÿÿÿ6ÿ67?767ÿ62;ÿ167\1ÿ1684;586556%2ÿ"ÿÿÿÿÿ!ÿ66ÿ5ÿÿI19""7ÿÿ6Dÿ!7ÿ767"ÿ!5'6ÿ6ÿÿ)ÿ166ÿ76I6'ÿ'65!67'A"]666'58ÿ"\ÿ"ÿ1ÿ1ÿM617ÿ>'ÿÿÿÿÿÿ20ÿÿÿ15ÿ61'%8764ÿ56ÿÿÿ!5'J"ÿ6!1(1565'7!6"ÿ"ÿ257G1ÿ"ÿ6K15"ÿÿ85651ÿÿÿ6ÿÿ'75ÿ\6ÿ19ÿ6ÿ766!5ÿ)725L7ÿÿÿ%6ÿ7ÿ"ÿ#ÿ6ÿ11ÿ56ÿÿ,6616ÿ55ÿÿ0E1(5766'ÿ5817"ÿÿ66"66ÿ1ÿ86119"ÿÿÿ69ÿÿÿ5ÿÿ2ÿ%ÿ$65ÿ677!6166ÿÿ1:176ÿ6ÿÿ8%%2ÿÿ658%ÿ65"ÿ%ÿ;@577ÿ!65ÿ"7ÿ57((8'ÿÿ%ÿ6651ÿÿ"ÿ5ÿ"ÿÿÿ6ÿ5&"565K75ÿÿ7ÿ5ÿ('88ÿ1ÿÿ7%6ÿ955ÿ"M!ÿ5L6ÿ5ÿ176ÿ66%ÿ!6ÿ5F!ÿ1ÿ661ÿ'8L557ÿ5ÿ5ÿ11'1%511ÿ655ÿÿ%ÿ6!2)%ÿ5ÿ7ÿÿÿ1067ÿ!76ÿÿ'1ÿ"2ÿ8%"16ÿÿÿ1A5157ÿÿÿ68"ÿ1ÿ562&5ÿ"7G'67ÿ6ÿÿ"6847ÿÿ@5ÿ5175&ÿ67516'16676ÿ577ÿ871ÿÿ61ÿ856@76ÿÿ1'7ÿ'8ÿ5115P7%56ÿ'5M"9ÿÿ68"ÿÿ86576ÿ866ÿÿ1ÿ6Lÿ
ÿ977ÿ5ÿÿ1@ÿ1562'+11178"ÿ2A+7:ÿ"ÿ6ÿ"ÿÿÿ"'5"ÿÿ072!2;;ÿ659'';ÿÿ6Q%96ÿ(2815ÿ87ÿ:266ÿ115ÿÿÿ1ÿ6ÿ6Rÿ66Hÿ556H7ÿ7;16617657ÿÿÿ65ÿÿÿ(5"J74ÿ!695"57!ÿ!ÿ58&ÿÿ5'ÿÿ5:&Fÿÿ&ÿÿ697266676'60ÿ6ÿÿ77;ÿÿ!ÿ5ÿ7ÿ"5ÿ5556ÿ="7("5(%715%1%%6222ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
;0;:7;84ÿ"M62ÿ1ÿÿ"5$ÿ64'ÿ%8%5%76!8ÿÿ!!@141"8ÿ"51ÿ51'%7ÿÿÿ"56#ÿ5667ÿÿ%55ÿ%ÿ556ÿ6&"ÿÿ5ÿÿ6(69ÿÿ"%ÿ%%71'%55ÿ17!76816ÿ1ÿ17816ÿ"ÿ76ÿÿ702%ÿÿ0!8ÿ11S256Tÿ515!Tÿ""'ÿ#68ÿÿÿ610ÿ6ÿ!6!515ÿ19'%6ÿ177"61"5ÿÿÿÿ5(ÿ%6ÿ7ÿ"415'8L1"(165ÿÿ7'#'ÿ66625'7ÿ2%%ÿ;8ÿ%%"56]ÿÿ&ÿÿÿ1976"18ÿ7'$1ÿÿ%7M%ÿ7'68"ÿL86ÿ77ÿ6666ÿÿ0'56ÿ66!%1771ÿ21ÿ#7ÿAÿM66*5ÿ"65#ÿÿ6%(ÿÿ'ÿ6!6%6'%581117ÿ5ÿ1%ÿ"'1ÿ7ÿ6ÿÿ186ÿLÿ((10!ÿ"'55511ÿ'1627ÿ8ÿÿ5#]562662ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ :2ÿ 417ÿ
5!ÿD"77567ÿ(86ÿÿ ÿ
- - - ,@6<)58'68ÿ!!96ÿ7ÿJ%!7"ÿÿÿÿ%!60ÿ5ÿ59118ÿÿÿ!5ÿ61766ÿÿÿ5';"1ÿ-1.ÿ/2A5ÿ0ÿ11ÿ.6ÿÿ62ÿ$3ÿ64ÿÿ$11ÿ8976ÿÿ77;6ÿ5511167ÿÿ9ÿ756ÿ'86!ÿ6ÿ'!1ÿÿ11_6!ÿÿÿ915ÿ6H1ÿ79ÿ81!
"%'ÿÿÿ68"ÿÿÿ885ÿ"5'ÿÿ75"ÿ6"6"ÿ!"ÿ"ÿ177576ÿ76>6ÿ7'66'7ÿÿ165ÿ"ÿ6ÿ"ÿ155ÿ615185657'"%ÿ%ÿÿ!11@ÿ1ÿ`N\1ÿO7ÿ6565ÿÿ65ÿÿ5762ÿÿÿÿÿÿ

fghiÿklmknopnqrsqtnfuÿÿÿvwoxyiz{ÿrtr|n}ÿÿÿ~iÿq}k}ÿÿÿgiÿtÿwÿ 8%7ÿ4ÿ%86"&ÿ47771ÿ675ÿ!%Qÿ151ÿ9ÿ1ÿ7ÿ71%6Rÿ75ÿ5758(1=ÿÿ!51!ÿS(%ÿ8%71%ÿÿ7!.%Tÿÿ!7!6%7681%16ÿÿ$8ÿ7U5ÿ857%6,7ÿ56ÿ`1ÿ1ÿÿ&1>!1ÿ?3ÿÿ117ÿÿ757ÿ(7757!6?1V%5ÿ!(ÿ7(6&5ÿ(ÿ6(ÿ7ÿ787561"ÿ1I7ÿ79ÿ8ÿ8ÿÿÿ5ÿÿ66ÿ68ÿ577"7ÿ7ÿ771652"25@&6105ÿÿ%ÿ&ÿ661%ÿQ1ÿ"ÿÿ658%"&"ÿ2155ÿÿ7Wÿ%6ÿ8ÿÿÿÿ%5ÿ7ÿ82&%%7&ÿL%16ÿ67ÿ51"ÿÿ15ÿ5ÿM7!$2ÿ$76ÿ1ÿ6871ÿ1!(58ÿ$5ÿN2ÿÿ6ÿÿa"6ÿ7ÿ0ÿ8!ÿÿ%ÿ6ÿÿ5%86ÿÿ!ÿÿ!S766%767"ÿÿ%1ÿXÿ%ÿÿÿ515ÿ(6)(6ÿ(51)$ÿ%ÿ71(71%ÿÿÿ1161!77ÿ&7ÿ76Aÿÿ6&Bÿ6ÿÿ8ÿ"!ÿ62Y7ÿ561ÿ!!1ÿÿ18)8ÿ(ÿÿ%ÿÿ!16J1ÿ&ÿ3(ÿ%"77ÿÿ5545ÿÿbÿ750Z(ÿ7ÿÿÿÿ$6789ÿ(ÿ(ÿÿ5865"ÿ7%$"7I(7ÿ1(ÿ"ÿ561ÿ%%ÿÿG55ÿ6ÿÿ"6
8"ÿ%ÿÿÿ"J6ÿÿÿ61776"ÿ!ÿ5"7Pÿ1ÿDÿR5"&&5(7ÿ15ÿS%ÿ55!&ÿÿ8ÿ5ÿ81I%!5675ÿÿ%&8%%7J686(ÿ%6%8&&L868ÿ7"!7ÿ[M#66ÿÿ86$ÿ87ÿ558C$6&7!7N71ÿ!5675M2&%66ÿ1ÿ:'1!ÿ5677\ÿ768ÿ781.886%ÿ(%&ÿÿ7&5ÿÿ2!5%47ÿ66;17%ÿ&8%%ÿ2ÿ7&6ÿ%ÿÿBÿ6%'$(7"ÿ7578(1"%522ÿÿ5ÿ.5ÿ4ÿÿ171!771@7ÿÿ?9ÿ(ÿ6ÿ66"&ÿ%1ÿ7ÿÿ82ÿ556(76%&67"'+6ÿÿ85/577ÿ7ÿ%01(ÿ(5&ÿ(6(7%76115ÿ&85ÿ((15ÿÿ15]1ÿ56ÿ5C6"+ÿÿ6"6ÿ8811*2ÿ67ÿ&8%ÿ25"ÿÿÿ%ÿ5
ÿ1)7+8%ÿÿÿ6&%ÿ1!2ÿ11ÿ(ÿ(66+5ÿÿ21ÿ68ÿ6ÿÿ(ÿ5ÿ%%ÿD]6ÿÿ6!!1)7&5&5!5ÿ5!7)6811ÿÿÿÿ12%7ÿÿÿ&ÿ171ÿ+"ÿ67%%15016ÿ85$ÿ57%^11ÿ"ÿ5%"ÿ
%515826$$!!1%85ÿ1*2567ÿ%5ÿ65%ÿ6ÿÿÿÿ6%51ÿ7ÿÿ(64ÿ!(65%666ÿ%&"4%7ÿ21&!ÿ27"0%51ÿÿÿ16"ÿ675ÿ1ÿ%16
ÿÿ(ÿÿ5E76767%ÿÿ&7(1$77ÿ5ÿ8&ÿ556^ÿ/776!%ÿ8265ÿÿ67("15%!ÿÿ48ÿ7ÿ%7%9(=ÿ551&%71"ÿ6%%"$(4ÿÿ
67ÿ1"51ÿ71%!76&4ÿ$9ÿ%*%8!ÿ8ÿ5%5ÿ$!ÿ(2-&ÿ$$ÿ%:')ÿÿ68E8ÿ%ÿÿÿÿÿ%ÿ6ÿ6&;Aÿ58,5"56%3ÿÿÿ&;1615ÿÿ8ÿÿ%717ÿ05575)ÿ%125&&%7=6$ÿÿ(1ÿ787%467ÿ(%)87ÿÿ&ÿ7866+ÿÿ(7"ÿ&ÿ6%ÿÿ742%&%5585%D5ÿ%ÿ65ÿ1%51%5ÿ%ÿ1515_7ÿÿÿ&2%1678ÿ7ÿÿ4ÿ"85&!&(1ÿ65ÿ&!16"ÿ75ÿÿÿ8ÿ676115,75ÿ%5176=ÿ1715260%57ÿ,6ÿ66ÿ551.%8ÿ7ÿ5ÿ75668ÿ67)6ÿ9ÿ16ÿÿÿ7&7,6ÿ678ÿ)2A!ÿ5>ÿ7!%5ÿ-ÿÿ(56ÿÿ47!616B>(628%.)&65"8ÿÿ6ÿA75ÿ68567ÿ!""58664"ÿ,!ÿ"6ÿÿ76(5->%1ÿÿ,ÿ52ÿ5&ÿÿÿÿ78ÿ16ÿ46?76954ÿ8ÿÿÿ&!766ÿF
ÿÿ-(7961722&ÿ585G6!%ÿ'6ÿ57685ÿÿÿ(0C55ÿ)1"7.6
1,7"(ÿ1H&$(85626ÿ>7ÿ68ÿÿ5(7ÿI267ÿ6?ÿÿ!(ÿÿÿ""5ÿJ.(.061&ÿÿ18"27ÿ16764Kÿ&%ÿ5ÿÿ8ÿ75%55(6ÿ1ÿL8ÿ5&587&(&/1%ÿM1ÿ&ÿÿ$ÿ6(7<ÿÿ78%(N&87485%ÿ5826"8%7&ÿ'1$6(ÿ(88159ÿ17ÿ&%4!Oÿ8ÿ(.57!$ÿ9ÿÿ772&!ÿÿ5%,56I6ÿ8%ÿ8&"5(57ÿ"$ÿ8&ÿL28ÿÿ5ÿ55ÿÿÿÿP596ÿ!ÿ65ÿ6ÿÿ(7%7ÿÿJ""7ÿÿÿ%1%17!67ÿ876M&"&5((62ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿ 76$0"(ÿ5(1675617718667ÿÿÿ!.6e2%6ÿÿ6271ÿÿÿ55'ÿ0(?7ÿÿÿ618ÿ"ÿ%"65ÿ1$6ÿ&6ÿ555&7%%ÿÿ7ÿ782ÿ%1ÿ8%5%ÿ(7&%(?6%ÿ55ÿ"%47961ÿ%85$55ÿ&6%7ÿ7ÿ1ÿ65ÿ56ÿÿ1676ÿ+(0(&ÿ2557ÿÿ5*ÿ+7ÿ8ÿ165ÿ+7
785ÿ%3(7ÿ%ÿ6ÿ%!ÿ7ÿ011ÿ(%6%76ÿ816%-86ÿ&ÿ616ÿ47"ÿÿ5%(&5&1ÿ1ÿÿ>ÿ!7/51ÿÿÿ5&ÿ14650"1-ÿ8%%ÿ556"77"6178ÿÿÿÿ,57">7)6576ÿÿÿ(ÿ"65(%7%"%ÿ67ÿ*2
ÿÿ$ÿÿÿ+2(ÿ5ÿÿ(=!5016!&"ÿ6!ÿ6!776ÿ%!%ÿ%&&6ÿÿ771.61065@&ÿ7%ÿÿ((ÿ81(7862ÿÿ(1ÿ95ÿ(ÿ6&6)7675ÿ8ÿAÿÿ661""ÿ1)ÿÿ"(41#ÿ(2&!ÿ!ÿÿ)21ÿ5ÿ%]2&6ÿ7ÿÿ22ÿÿ'"ÿ5ÿ%ÿ5cÿ56(%71ÿÿÿ%1!ÿ6$ÿÿÿ6(6ÿ,"$(256ÿ5"15)75!ÿ&11ÿ76B27ÿÿ7ÿd66_%Cÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ

3456ÿ89:8;<=;>?@>A;3BÿÿÿCD<EF6GHÿ?A?I;JÿÿÿKLM6Nÿ>OPJ8PJQÿÿÿR4S6ÿQÿDTÿQ ÿ156ÿ16ÿ"(8(5751161!ÿ(ÿ!ÿÿ055ÿ7ÿÿ#86!)#51'7ÿÿ7"91ÿÿ75ÿ8"516ÿÿÿÿ176617ÿ,8155ÿÿ5$6ÿ56!!ÿÿÿÿ17$)ÿ77506966"#6ÿ1!2ÿÿÿ266ÿ7217ÿÿÿ756ÿÿÿ67"81ÿÿ6157#7$!*ÿ7776ÿ+17ÿ,ÿ8956ÿ#)66ÿ-5ÿÿ1#6."ÿ2%ÿ$-ÿ55'&%7$ÿ6*%7#674ÿÿ!8$5ÿ2ÿÿ11ÿ1!5ÿ96ÿ"$ÿ55ÿÿ7%+11ÿ2&!(,6ÿ%5ÿÿ1ÿ'14/!26ÿÿÿÿÿÿ6ÿ#6ÿÿ51!ÿ6ÿ"78#!$8ÿ7ÿÿ56$#ÿ58506ÿ#676ÿÿÿ5165((26ÿÿ8ÿ4%#ÿ58ÿ&6ÿ5(1%%78ÿ4ÿ9(2%6ÿÿ#
ÿ',612ÿ9ÿÿÿ65)0ÿ$(ÿÿ8"81716ÿ#77886ÿÿ7148ÿ1$5.7!ÿ152ÿÿÿ16ÿÿ
6ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ


%ÿ67565ÿ2ÿ-6671ÿÿ

ÿ

ÿ

0567ÿ25618ÿ#ÿ ÿ

<=>?ÿABCADEFDGHIGJD<KÿÿÿLMENO?PQÿHJHRDHÿÿÿSTU?VÿGWXYAXYZÿÿÿ[=\?ÿHÿM]ÿI
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ)ÿ69ÿÿÿ29ÿ0*61+279623ÿ9,757ÿÿÿ
6!ÿ
2ÿ79900000005090ÿÿ919ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ617
ÿ6789ÿ193926.1!13
9


79ÿ6927ÿ21ÿÿ9

ÿÿ
999ÿ29ÿ/ÿ
66!179767
27ÿ1ÿÿÿÿ9ÿ577)7
199ÿ99269
9
)
92ÿ
ÿ9ÿ11269
ÿ*ÿ1ÿ91
1191*17
96
76ÿ
ÿ66ÿ79ÿ27ÿ91191ÿÿ39299199
ÿ
1ÿ
22ÿÿÿ1ÿ97ÿÿ
722699ÿÿ9377ÿ9ÿÿ%71
ÿ76
266ÿ1ÿ
67ÿ6
7
96ÿ217ÿ)29
97921ÿ7ÿ127ÿ7/71ÿ26
99*
7117ÿ9
92997/ÿÿ96ÿ2ÿÿÿÿÿ32ÿ1ÿ9792ÿÿ61ÿ)ÿ
ÿÿ6919/9ÿÿÿ6ÿ77126
ÿ51679ÿÿ9*7
1ÿ2
91ÿÿ1777ÿ191192ÿÿ
97ÿ3ÿ1ÿ4!21ÿ1ÿÿ
ÿ999127ÿ97
ÿÿ19ÿ6ÿ999ÿÿ291ÿ6191

95ÿÿÿÿ
77ÿ
ÿ19797)ÿÿ
127ÿ
669197
%667
99ÿÿ299ÿÿ*11ÿ91ÿ16119ÿÿ7129ÿ7298799ÿ,ÿ7792662ÿ
19191ÿÿ29
3
ÿ
6
9691-179ÿÿ9
ÿ7ÿÿÿ1273
9ÿ5
96119ÿ2.1ÿ7991ÿ9119ÿ1!269ÿÿÿ211
ÿ69-
ÿ
2211ÿÿ
,9129
79/ÿ3ÿ129&9&"ÿ111ÿ9
4ÿ
97129ÿ)99ÿÿÿ77,9ÿ2ÿÿÿ27ÿ9ÿ#12/*ÿÿ29ÿ7$ÿ991ÿÿ11ÿ1
ÿ7612ÿ
113ÿ69
9912ÿ7ÿ/6ÿ72ÿ971ÿÿ9ÿ291
9ÿ9
ÿ
19ÿ2ÿ91/)
7ÿÿÿ17ÿ1997
11&9ÿ7ÿ627116ÿ*29
ÿ!ÿÿ1ÿ7
699914ÿ1ÿ217192ÿ
311'16761ÿÿÿÿ6ÿ7ÿ
7/ÿ9ÿ(199
ÿ
9ÿ6ÿ7ÿ1ÿ92/27
221ÿ19
791ÿ1ÿ17ÿ9ÿ9ÿ!
1ÿ
9ÿÿ117
9976ÿ99ÿÿ1ÿÿ66


7ÿ7)
1
79ÿ16127ÿÿ3991ÿ*:ÿ97"ÿ99ÿ/ÿ7
1
ÿ
1;
392121ÿÿ
9
ÿÿÿ1ÿ9ÿÿÿ1ÿ19ÿÿ62ÿ7ÿ



17927
ÿ3ÿ91

ÿ91!9ÿ71193ÿÿÿ99ÿ27ÿ61
)ÿÿ33996
/ÿÿ11ÿ969*ÿ1ÿ2)2
9ÿÿ77ÿ9ÿ
91
12ÿ
ÿ
74761ÿÿÿ7ÿ27ÿÿ6ÿ71
9
9
ÿ9ÿ7


ÿÿ1ÿÿ61269ÿ2991
9969ÿ29
ÿ
ÿÿ6ÿ919511117
17
1ÿ6ÿ/
ÿÿÿ11
1711
ÿ197ÿ199261ÿ191ÿ1ÿ1617ÿÿ99ÿ76/99779973ÿÿ
21
1ÿ29ÿÿ1ÿ9
ÿÿ11ÿ
11ÿÿ9ÿ777/17ÿ729
ÿÿ2ÿÿ
ÿÿ9
3ÿ
1ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ17ÿÿ

ABCDÿFGHFIJKILMNLOIAPÿÿÿQRJSTDUVÿMOMWIMÿÿÿXYZD[ÿL\]^F]^_ÿÿÿ`BaDÿNÿRbÿN
%11ÿ11ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ9ÿ"
"""!5ÿ0ÿÿÿ16699996+127ÿ1ÿÿ
663$23ÿÿÿ1ÿ19
2279957ÿ9%9ÿ4!
2
6*ÿ675ÿÿ7179!9*1#%ÿÿÿ26ÿÿ9ÿ61!791ÿ69ÿ191ÿ71ÿ"ÿÿÿ6995"
98,1ÿ&9
31
"ÿÿ*ÿÿ9
9!
ÿÿ1"9.9ÿ!221ÿ9ÿ&1ÿÿ91ÿ27*
2ÿ1,"9ÿ9299ÿÿÿÿ6ÿ)95
&9ÿÿ
ÿ9
76119
9ÿ119:""!6
1ÿ"1
ÿ
!ÿ9ÿ1,7151ÿ77ÿ2ÿ"21791
$ÿ17)
96"1ÿ&!
"939
69ÿ
11%9ÿ1ÿÿÿÿ9ÿ9ÿÿ3ÿÿ*9ÿ-&,6ÿ7ÿ812
2ÿ
ÿ9"ÿ9*9ÿÿ1ÿ7ÿ2!199
"992ÿÿ79ÿ!ÿ1'291ÿ1ÿ9,1"ÿÿ619"1927
2*971/9"6ÿ
72799ÿÿ&6ÿÿÿÿÿ
99!ÿ122ÿ2179"
*ÿÿÿ19ÿÿ1
77ÿ9
7*1*296911
6"1
32ÿ922
111971ÿ21,ÿ9ÿ67ÿ19
ÿ231
1ÿÿÿ7(91ÿ
ÿ71ÿ3"11

ÿÿÿ9!ÿ2ÿÿ&3ÿ71171
ÿÿ"ÿ6""190ÿ
ÿ

"76!
19ÿ1626"
ÿ772ÿ
ÿ911ÿ6191ÿ$9991
1!1ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ92ÿ!7"*
19ÿ$
&2
"11ÿ
7ÿÿ1"ÿ1ÿ9%1ÿ
9991769ÿ"
-ÿ"2ÿ27ÿ9
ÿ1
719"

$93/""ÿÿÿ9&ÿ7ÿ17ÿ95ÿ@ÿ7
2ÿ%9ÿÿÿÿ&29ÿ22ÿ9!ÿ2!2ÿ(ÿ7;9927
%
ÿÿÿ9"11ÿ
6
6917;*ÿ
ÿ797ÿÿ12992ÿ9ÿ1
7ÿÿÿ<1227"16ÿ2!ÿ9627"16
ÿ2"79*1=ÿ691775*27ÿ
3ÿ>919ÿÿ1299!ÿ11ÿ!ÿÿ22+9
ÿ7&
299979ÿÿ1!!ÿ16ÿ99
ÿ
6ÿ66ÿ7ÿ61
1!19792ÿ*ÿ71!7ÿ227717ÿ2
1ÿ79
"ÿ72ÿ"
2!116
93ÿ
"9ÿÿ7,9
3ÿÿÿ9ÿ
%96$9ÿÿÿÿ1&1
1#ÿ!16!9"ÿ"2ÿ%9ÿ
1ÿ7
9"9-991ÿ

!7211ÿ9
ÿ*1&"ÿÿÿ!ÿ*ÿÿ1$9ÿ7
6
ÿ1ÿ6!ÿ17ÿÿ%1979611!"ÿ11"6
9ÿ7129ÿ
ÿ1991ÿ29ÿ
7ÿÿÿ7ÿ

ÿ1!111
971ÿ2"729,7
3721ÿÿÿÿ17
ÿ2699
,"21
7ÿ19ÿ7'7ÿÿ9!ÿ
ÿ7729ÿÿ&ÿÿ71)
1ÿ
9ÿ2"12ÿ
69729!1ÿÿ962179!&19*92
67ÿÿÿÿÿÿ9
1ÿÿ11"
9
""696ÿ*!
729299991ÿ7&!ÿÿ6129ÿÿÿ7216ÿ1ÿ!"9717ÿ1ÿÿ&"ÿ12
19"9ÿÿÿÿ93ÿÿÿÿÿ

PQRSÿUVWUXYZX[\][^XP_ÿÿÿ`aYbcSdeÿ\^\fÿÿÿghiSjÿ[klmklmfÿÿÿnQoSÿmÿapÿmW
ÿ

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 09 00 01 02 03 04 05

0&ÿ%"%4&ÿ!2&ÿÿ"899)666006)ÿ---++&&,,8!6ÿ4&222++'''ÿÿ97770ÿ&%***+ÿ--7$8''''!;.0(..ÿ---000ÿ!ÿÿ)ÿÿ%%6//*!!0ÿÿ333-!!ÿÿ'ÿÿÿ'(ÿ333ÿÿ$ÿÿ)ÿ:0ÿÿÿÿÿ$ÿ&6&8)"+--ÿ+ÿÿ)%''444444"ÿ!/+((ÿ434434ÿÿÿ-)000000&)+++ÿ%949949'ÿ00)&ÿ!#0/-#/555555''ÿ'!ÿ&ÿ)ÿÿÿÿÿÿ)0(ÿ0'135137/1!ÿÿ(8ÿ&ÿÿ2723723ÿ(4ÿ+88$#)ÿ#5ÿ9239200#*<333#ÿÿÿ0ÿ111111'1ÿ!ÿÿ'4966#ÿ9&ÿ151167)ÿ9019809ÿÿ7574605ÿ-011ÿ5ÿ#059282ÿ1249931ÿÿ108#ÿÿ7!1ÿ38094334915810ÿ8+0!11ÿÿÿÿÿÿ0553ÿ480945ÿ"133ÿ0ÿ4ÿ77ÿ1ÿ5144ÿÿ17912ÿ2ÿ4ÿÿ:ÿÿÿÿ

06

ÿÿÿÿ

07

ÿÿ&ÿ!&ÿ

08

19 10 11 12 13 14

ÿÿÿÿÿÿ=ÿÿ%"ÿ-('00)';(%(0//ÿ)ÿ/ÿ)ÿÿ-//ÿÿ)ÿ-/ÿ
ÿ

ÿ>ÿÿÿÿ><K?;OL@ÿA@3ÿÿLAB>ÿKB08BA3ÿMÿC1-L2ÿAÿ9<LE6;Bÿ'FKÿGBHAÿ'G-BN,ÿ>A0ÿÿJBB?ÿÿI?GJBÿ

15 ÿ

16

17

ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿ83ÿ1296ÿ

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2728 Filed 05/15/18 Page 2 of 19

VIA EMAIL ONLY

PRISON LAW OFFICE
General Delivery, San Quentin, CA 94964 T elepho ne (510) 280-2621 • Fax (510) 280-2704
www.prisonlaw.com

Ms. Russa Boyd CDCR Office of Legal Affairs

November 7, 2017

Director: Donald S pecter
Managing Attorney: Sara Norman
StaHAttorneys: Mae Ackerman-Brimberg Rana Anabtawi Steven Fama Alison Hardy Sia Henry Corene Kend rick Rita Lo mio Margot Mendelson Millard Murphy Lynn Wu

RE: October 2017 Armstrong Monitoring Tour at SATF Issues Related to Deaf Class Members

Dear Ms. Boyd:

A team from the Prison Law Office visited the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (SATF) in October 2017 to monitor the prison's compliance with the Armstrong Remedial Plan, Armstrong court orders, and Americans with Disabilities Act. During the tour, we interviewed twenty class members whose primary form of communication is American Sign Language (ASL). After we receive and review the requested post-tour documents, we wi 11 send a formal written report to CDCR. ln light of the parties' ongoing attempts to resolve problems related to the provision of sign language interpreters without litigation, we detail in this letter several problems we identified during the monitoring tour related to deaf class members. We would like to set up a meeting to discuss these problems with CDCR so that we can resolve these issues as soon as possible.

As we mentioned during the exit meeting, many deaf class members did not authorize us to disclose their names or allegations because they fear retaliation. In our last tour report, we reported that deaf class members on A2 reported that housing staff were not effectively communicating announcements. See March 2017 SATF Tour Report at 9. Class members on A2 reported that third watch officers were angry about the report and tried to uncover the identity of the class members who had spoken to the Prison Law Office and reported that information. Class members were scared by this response.1 Fear of retaliation also has led deaf class members to use Form 22s, instead of Form 1824s, as staff reportedly view Form 22s as less adversarial. We are deeply concerned with the chill ing effect third watch's actions have had on deaf class members' willingness to report problems, which makes it difficult for CDCR and Plaintiffs' counsel to identify, investigate, and resolve Armstrong compliance issues.

This concern relates only to third watch officers. Deaf class members on A2 uniformly praised second watch officers, reporting that those officers now almost always flash the lights before an announcement, provide individual notification when necessary, and treat deafpeople respectfully.
Boar:d of Directors Penelope Cooper, President • Michele W alki nHawk, Vice President • Marshall Krause, T reasu rer
Harlan Grossman • C hristiane Hipps • Margaret Jo hns • Cesar L'lgleva Laura Magnan i • Michael Marcum • Ruth Mo rgan • Seth Morris

rstuÿwxywz{|z}~}zrÿÿÿ{uÿ~~ÿÿÿuÿ}ÿÿÿsuÿÿÿy =1ÿ&71ÿ11P1,"ÿ6>5588ÿ8
(
,5(*5165&222
8ÿ6666ÿ8ÿ&6ÿ1-@ÿ/)'ÿÿ-88ÿ8O-66ÿA1ÿÿÿ'6ÿÿ&ÿ6556ÿ16B0-5ÿ)8ÿÿÿ(1ÿ
&1ÿÿP8&24C5ÿ8296Q6ÿ6\ÿ0815ÿÿ1ÿ5=22&ÿR8ÿ11ÿ6D#ÿ13ÿ2ÿ**ÿ11P1ÿ=2-,1ÿ71ÿÿÿÿB
,*6
ÿ6ÿ56'983059E*-ÿÿÿÿ
ÿ6ÿ
(2ÿ1196ÿ01B856
ÿÿ8*ÿÿ*ÿÿ062F68ÿ00
19N01ÿ6R
D9
66ÿ6S0ÿ,ÿR=ÿÿ5ÿ&1ÿ2Sÿ8ÿG2
ÿ1ÿ186ÿ4ÿT#682'ÿ11ÿÿ8TE0ÿÿÿÿ''8#ÿ35
866ÿV7ÿH#.ÿ8,ÿ(ÿW261&ÿ2ÿÿÿ&MIÿ*ÿ*51&ÿ5ÿ01618ÿÿ,E5ÿ2**1X165ÿ8Y&5ÿG88(8ÿO'ÿ6*Zÿ(5&(1ÿ9&-Jÿ61ÿP61ÿ68.68-6-7%ÿÿ9ÿÿIÿ8M2'68ÿÿÿ
*
],ÿGÿÿ0"5ÿ(5ÿ66582ÿ*(6#11Kÿ
0
81ÿ
52ÿ!5ÿ5ÿ1=16ÿ68
8$ÿE085(2ÿ60ÿÿ(ÿ46L82ÿ6ÿ&*6ÿ*0&5K&6&11&18
6125ÿ1ÿ8Aÿ251ÿ1
01ÿÿ0N1&51
&0-86@,ÿ68ÿÿ6ÿÿÿÿ6ÿ(#PA*5*ÿ
&8(Q88&16&,21916Kÿÿÿ218ÿ29ÿÿ12*ÿ*L
*1ÿ*81221ÿÿÿÿÿ8ÿ8Kÿ262ÿ2$61,1ÿ&8A4*286ÿÿÿÿ8

-ÿ51&*"2Dÿÿ6,9ÿÿ011&#6ÿ*Rÿ%6ÿ(9ÿ
"S116181!ÿÿ6ÿÿ11^#1'015$-
ÿÿÿ%ÿ'19632R-011*008N
ÿÿÿ1(-Rÿÿ#8Pÿ52ÿ2ÿ

ÿÿ
4ÿ7ÿ%6&*ÿ*ÿ&8(1ÿÿ09ÿ[&*6ÿ26(&5ÿ1[(6(&16
ÿ2ÿ61&2
ÿ2ÿ61&06&ÿ-ÿ18
6ÿ6ÿ51ÿ;,0ÿ168*8ÿ9ÿ88*6(1-1*65(ÿÿ
5ÿ6'28&
ÿ65ÿ&6-81ÿÿ6
6&*ÿ-
59+0ÿ1&68
&(ÿÿ786ÿÿÿ((8*
*0
1(ÿ:1,)8ÿ;

2ÿÿÿ2ÿ11*!961&55&&-2*,06ÿ(6ÿÿ86*ÿ41ÿ11ÿ66ÿ5
&1'2ÿ1ÿ55ÿ-2ÿ#ÿÿ1ÿ0ÿ63*1&868060861ÿ'0
825<ÿ226ÿ6ÿ.ÿÿÿ666#6-"**ÿ&6ÿÿ76&&&ÿ1ÿÿ#156ÿÿÿN
ÿ1ÿ6(81666*656ÿ!ÿ9ÿ68ÿO1$



8
11(--ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ166ÿ1(_68PMÿ8&7ÿ8ÿT56ÿ.ÿ*6
6Tÿ5ÿ**8ÿÿÿ06
0ÿ18*ÿ*2185ÿ26ÿÿÿ56&8ÿ&6ÿ,ÿ6ÿ&81ÿ&86-6&ÿÿÿÿ08ÿ31ÿÿÿP6ÿ&ÿ15ÿ0ÿ61-21ÿÿ1ÿ6(6ÿ28&
ÿ1522&ÿ6&ÿ85ÿÿÿÿ96ÿ2&"ÿ"(2ÿ83*ÿÿ11(2
ÿ021ÿÿ9ÿÿ1ÿÿÿ8012ÿ88,/*ÿÿÿRÿÿÿÿ51ÿ8ÿ%8208ÿ06*;8ÿ&6,ÿÿ6
8ÿ58ÿ(ÿÿÿ8ÿÿ,ÿÿ0,1*8ÿ
9*2&`*
ÿÿ&0ÿ1888'69ÿ00ÿ81^ÿÿ(((
ÿ(ÿ6ÿ0ÿÿ28ÿ1(6ÿ;65826082929(
&
ÿÿ5ÿ8ÿ8ÿ2*ÿ86866ÿ5322ÿ8&ÿ(0ÿ16^ÿ
&6ÿ1;9ÿ#60ÿ69Mÿÿÿ,&1-&ÿÿ6"-ÿ
6-6ÿ2*1ÿ^&62ÿ*
6-1ÿ85ÿ6ÿÿÿ(05&-802816ÿÿ2-62ÿ0ÿ&(ÿ1ÿ2ÿ*ÿ
ÿM#ÿ0861956

6,ÿ822ÿ"ÿ&8-36&6ÿ&6,^ÿ8$ÿ6,8ÿ2ÿ8
198855,R9ÿ&ÿÿ2,ÿ,6ÿM66ÿ;ÿÿ&8ÿÿ2&&ÿÿ6-ÿ1&#6ÿ1,6ÿ&ÿ856ÿÿ6&6207391*1ÿR
016ÿ*S5ÿÿÿ5ÿ
bÿ5
Q6.61188ÿ9ÿ0ÿ1685ÿ18-626ÿ6ÿÿ8ÿ(6
5&01&/ÿÿÿ0ÿ2#ÿ1,6606ÿ81826ÿÿÿÿ#
206ÿ
60
&
2&15&21ÿÿ9ÿÿ6ÿ62&1ÿ8ÿÿ618*2[28ÿ1ÿ
ÿ1856&:ÿ8ÿ(P`4ÿÿÿ2ÿ9;1<5ÿ65ÿ5ÿÿ.
&6&66ÿ81
6[[
1*18ÿ&1ÿÿR22P*ÿ9ÿ188P5(1R0&7888Sÿ66
ÿÿÿ#-
6,ÿ1ÿ6ÿÿ"5X5"2Y8*21R2^&ÿ
ÿZÿÿÿ64ÿÿPÿ
ÿ9,ÿ%7186,121#ÿ2108ÿ*ÿÿÿ561"1,ÿÿ866$^&&8&&8ÿa6&9O9611&--ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ Nÿÿ "Q17."66#&8*69!5
6ÿ$ÿ-^ÿÿ9()(6(&ÿ816'6a1ÿÿ)195
ÿ46ÿ8$*65ÿ1ÿ12*(%ÿ(ÿ5&_ÿ6T0ÿT96928cÿ1Rÿ(SÿTÿÿ^
ZB8Z-1dÿ-5ÿ6eBÿ6*f7&ÿdg#ÿe8h"f(ÿi(#g"ÿ6h^!
jiÿ%$k1ÿÿ-jlS10ÿÿkqn6lÿÿ1m&"ÿo62ÿ#i^d38!pÿ,$ÿ8
jÿ(ÿk!ÿÿ1
#l(8ÿm8
5(ÿ8*,"ÿÿ8ÿÿ#&4646!ÿ2$6958ÿÿ
ÿ6!^^5ÿ885*66ÿÿÿ884O-ÿÿÿÿÿ..22P&&868611ÿ&6(11*(ÿÿ-ÿÿ151(4aÿ8ÿÿ4#P)ÿ&.85225ÿ
688
1162&ÿ-*8ÿOÿÿ*8^ÿ1ÿ(06486ÿ53ÿ-01ÿÿÿ018666(ÿÿÿÿÿÿ

xyz{ÿ}~}xÿÿÿ{ÿÿÿÿ{ÿÿÿÿy{ÿ}ÿÿ &142ÿ<1(#>#,85562U5&6(2&260662&ÿ1&226ÿ86126622ÿ0ÿÿ611*8&ÿ211/&*&&82ÿ"ÿÿÿÿÿÿ6
06&*6951&ÿÿL91ÿÿ1
ÿ==B6ÿ,5(ÿ80C6ÿ#8=/1ÿ<ÿÿÿC0226ÿ0ÿÿ1ÿ2-866-688ÿÿ2ÿÿ8ÿ0&ÿ1866ÿ1ÿ6#89ÿ2ÿÿ73,867(*86,ÿ#ÿ&2ÿÿ6(*P2Hÿ8ÿ*ÿ
ÿ6B6&6516ÿ<15=1
&)-Q1C808ÿ&5-6ÿÿ5179B
6&&66ÿ&ÿÿ&,ÿ&I>9&J26ÿÿ8ÿÿÿF,*56ÿ
ÿÿRÿ)0&78>06(-J*ÿ-8ÿ,69ÿ2;106ÿÿ81ÿÿ-3&/1ÿ#22-9ÿÿ61
ÿEÿÿ8K>6ÿÿ,2ÿ)J8(18ÿ1ÿNÿ
ÿ082ÿ)58(I*5ÿ6.8ÿ22&&660ÿ6ÿ626-86&ÿ66ÿÿ82*20ÿ2Lÿ468ÿ4&8,;1126&&8-16ÿÿ2ÿÿ;66ÿ)(*ÿ*?96
=&822-6ÿÿÿÿ281ÿ17(ÿ&/ÿ-1<,ÿ882/ÿÿ26ÿ
1ÿ8(
643&8ÿÿ&ÿÿ(Bÿ72682A:8ÿ=2,640622;/7&ÿÿ
&ÿ81-9812ÿÿÿ&ÿÿÿ-8ÿ1&2-ÿÿ/@/ÿ1ÿ0-ÿ8:2
=-6ÿ&065ÿC(6:6ÿ*ÿ656ÿA:6ÿL60<8?ÿÿÿK)
ÿ1
2ÿ)<ÿL6ÿ02&6ÿ),526,67-16&ÿ8&ÿ2ÿ66&ÿ32ÿ66O2&&&ÿ5)2&J8ÿ4,&68ÿ;8
9)22ÿÿ8ÿ&N<%27ÿ6)ÿ#1ÿ@ÿ21*61#-ÿÿÿ62-ÿÿÿ?5ÿ/&806122L8T25
ÿÿÿ6221ÿ61ÿ)ÿ0&5ÿ20ÿ8@*:ÿ4ÿ),8ÿ(
5ÿ:28*ÿ26ÿÿ&&&#&6>B6ÿ2-(ÿ8
ÿÿÿ
2*(*14=ÿ,:(80B2=ÿ5(
6;62ÿÿ=2<8ÿ(ÿ<ÿ6C;8ÿ15ÿÿ(108ÿB026ÿ8ÿÿ<&ÿÿ/,'6)8*1>ÿ98
1,ÿL61&ÿ+ÿ178=&69/6ÿ
2
ÿÿ*(ÿ8ÿÿ&01D<Sÿ,),
2K)202Eÿ6ÿ61-8*6!6&ÿ
122*6/ÿFÿ8ÿÿ41ÿ
,#6/1Gÿ25*18ÿ5-ÿ102ÿÿ0
ÿÿ82151262ÿ<61ÿÿ&ÿ86)6216ÿÿÿ.166-8"*6ÿ9
>ÿ&786ÿ&9ÿ#5
6,26)8ÿ6ÿ(ÿ&ÿ)!ÿ966;8ÿM$&
/

9
11=(22ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ48*<<!ÿ6X"2"6"66ÿ>Z>
,&,ÿ6##V06ÿ6?#
8T5
6*6ÿ8.21%ÿ!!,ÿÿÿÿ18@&&6,ÿ&68$$665ÿ6ÿ

88ÿ8581ÿÿÿ9ÿ6ÿÿÿ!!8&&2ÿ8ÿÿ6*&116
1ÿ&8868ÿÿÿ225ÿÿ
ÿÿ(ÿ55ÿ1*1ÿ8ÿÿ6ÿÿ8%M88ÿ!6ÿÿ"ÿÿ01ÿÿ5I4-0ÿ
64ÿÿÿÿ
Vÿ6<ÿ18ÿ5&ÿ2ÿÿÿÿÿ%
ÿ,ÿÿÿN021ÿÿ280ÿ*(
"7ÿ8&08&0(ÿ686ÿ686I58ÿV6,681ÿ1ÿ6&ÿÿ0%11ÿ5ÿ68ÿÿÿ
"ÿ1ÿ2ÿÿ&,6ÿB66ÿÿÿV[8ÿ18ÿ=5ÿ-8
ÿÿ\ÿÿ0%ÿÿ"ÿC&ÿÿ0ÿÿÿÿ560ÿ6ÿ5V8&ÿt8
ÿ:"&8ÿ206ÿJÿÿ%6ÿ5ÿÿV<a2ÿÿÿÿ"<ÿÿ2ÿ5u1%>&5ÿ7V0i861ÿÿ8-"ÿÿ6811m%ÿ0,Xÿ#ÿ1ÿ111ÿ,,kÿ6ÿÿ6ÿ2ÿÿ
556!`
ÿ66*ÿ
1ÿÿÿÿ96ÿ28ÿ
8$ÿ45dÿÿ2ÿÿ8ÿ
,
6ÿÿeÿÿ#2ÿ86(85
ÿÿ*fÿ61,5ÿ
1-.ÿÿ588
vÿÿ"M8658&ÿÿ
ÿÿÿÿ
ÿ
0Vÿ2ÿ"$*0
6ÿ6ÿ666ÿÿ%
#ÿ,ÿ1ÿÿ,&ÿ8ÿ*86ÿÿ&1ÿ62(ÿ6"ÿ6!6(8888ÿ,+88*ÿÿV1ÿÿ$1&5
&ÿ6"ÿ1"628ÿ6ÿ
%66ÿ5ÿÿV1ÿ&,Vÿ!*&60ÿ685ÿ&%&19ÿ6%86ÿ6ÿÿ,ÿ*ÿCÿ(ÿ6ÿÿ
55ÿ&[ÿÿ*ÿÿ0(ÿ1
125
8(]ÿ8;6ÿÿÿ5ÿ88ÿÿÿ
14-,ÿÿÿÿÿÿ1ÿ5Jÿ628ÿÿ6ÿ8ÿ11T2ÿ&ÿÿÿÿ6ÿ8768ÿ86ÿ"ÿ&2ÿ&61;(&ÿ
ÿÿ1V22ÿ6A03ÿ1-28
ÿÿ5906ÿ61
8ÿ2%6ÿ65ÿ61B8*ÿ1ÿ6sÿ8(ÿÿ6=6ÿÿ
82ÿÿ&8&ÿ,C21&6
ÿ5ÿ1
ÿÿÿ
ÿÿoÿÿ6ÿ8ÿÿ
1ÿ6<ÿ2#ÿÿ1$&5ÿ>ÿp6"6ÿ680!
6ÿ5ÿ`0815ÿVÿ60&ÿÿ81q06ÿ6511ÿÿ5r%ÿ8ÿ5&5ÿ66ÿ2ÿÿ56"ÿ61d/ÿ1ÿÿ15ÿ1ÿ=62
&Veÿÿ
B02ÿ89(ÿ*ÿ0ÿ6ÿÿfÿ2=%8ÿ/ÿÿ9ÿ
)ÿ11C61,n6ÿÿ0ÿ1ÿ5ÿ8ÿ5ÿ8'ÿoÿ8ÿÿ-"2ÿÿÿ6ÿ((ÿÿÿ8"5)6p5#ÿ605ÿV`ÿ4ÿ88;!ÿ8q62%ÿ0ÿ8ÿ8=rÿÿÿÿ$ÿ1;)ÿCÿ

*(8ÿÿÿ8d-ÿ618ÿÿ882h6ÿ!6(ÿÿ,eÿB&86ÿ&5ÿÿÿ8ÿ=8ÿ&fiÿ66ÿX6
C82ÿ5ÿvj8&Yÿÿ

1ÿ&0M^"ÿÿk
1ÿÿÿ
1
8ÿÿÿ81"l1ÿV14ÿÿ5ÿÿ=_62#,
w1ÿC
%ÿ6m5`ÿÿ185ÿÿ65!6982ÿaJ5k56ÿÿ*Qÿ8bÿ$`66(ÿÿ(60W8ÿÿÿ8ÿ*ÿ6ÿÿ1dd6ÿ!ÿÿ688
ÿÿee6"6ÿMÿÿ8ÿÿÿÿ&ff;ÿV60ÿ588&ÿ66ÿng:/8/9ÿ%&&2ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ

ijklÿnopnqrsqtuvtwqixÿÿÿyzr{|l}~ÿuwuÿÿÿlÿtÿÿÿjlÿÿzÿp ÿÿ5%ÿÿÿ.ÿ01.111
11180&/865&6ÿ6ÿ1868ÿ816
=16ÿÿÿ8180(S=11ÿ6ÿ8&5&-;66
661ÿ661&ÿ&1ÿ11ÿÿ&*(**ÿ10ÿ)ÿ-8*6(#!#ÿÿ%ÿcÿ-58ÿÿZ9ÿ11=1ÿ*,8,>80ÿ16E55[22ÿÿ
8ÿÿ0ÿ611061
8ÿÿ0dÿ6&&15166$6ÿ1,1ÿ58ÿ818
e6=8&ÿÿ1&ÿÿ085
ÿ1=ÿÿ

&818[6*ÿÿ%*Wÿ6ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ506(=E161(616168f011ÿ*6ÿÿ1ÿ16b
8ÿ1F8665g,ÿÿ*6906ÿ6&
8ÿ*ÿ86&1#885ÿEÿ16&ÿ*ÿ(ÿÿ6&28
ÿ*6ÿ&ÿ&*82#ÿ1
ÿ%ÿÿ,10*ÿ81ÿ8
D1E5ÿ8<81ÿ6.1(16!8R&ÿÿ*&ÿ82=+618(ÿ56
ÿ,bÿ6ÿ1&,ÿÿ8ÿ0ÿ-ÿ6=ÿ1616#ÿ12ÿ!18(*>9ÿ566ÿÿ(ÿ80*
&0ÿ
0ÿ206?ÿ81&3ÿ016-ÿ6ÿÿÿ86ÿ61Dÿÿÿ88Iÿ
ÿ01ÿ13*&
ÿ6@8ÿ1=8.0
ÿF
ÿ2ÿ'h0&ÿ&ÿ&ÿ(ÿÿ(7&6ÿ*866ÿÿ(ÿÿ8ÿ=ÿ1b8
(8.'16ÿ08
(ÿÿÿ5685881(1ÿ06(ÿDÿ=66-
ÿ8ÿ*Jÿÿÿ8&ÿÿ6&ÿ
6,ÿ6ÿÿÿ91(
6*ÿ5*ÿK0#1*1G
68611&Kÿ8&0815ÿ86Lÿ6ÿÿ)8*#16508&ÿ7521ÿÿ(66ÿÿ8*
6
ÿ(ÿ-1(ÿ8ÿÿ15,
1ÿ6ÿR55016ÿ156>ÿÿÿ+ÿM0&181*518
1&%&1
ÿ861-ÿÿ6&8ÿ#==ÿÿMÿ286
552911ÿ
G
06,bB
1ÿ12*06ÿ1ÿ8ÿÿ8(Tÿÿÿ6<11ÿ2ÿ"ÿ-26
ÿ6'1
ÿ52ÿ&=,ÿÿÿ6*6*ÿ&ÿÿ62ÿ8#ÿ6M6*ÿÿ!GAÿÿ.(&1188061ÿ68
!10ÿ.-1#%,0Z*9ÿ8ÿ1ÿÿÿÿ--61*ÿ$ÿ=1-Nÿÿ5ÿÿÿ(6ÿ6=ÿ1ÿ20ÿ)081ÿ6T0ÿBJÿÿ'66
5ÿ*964"0hD66ÿ

1ÿ18ÿ10#
ÿÿ1R.9
#,&ÿÿÿÿÿÿ1ÿ312168ÿ0
(ÿÿD96ÿ1*1"Qÿ&66ÿ!R8&84ÿ6#5ÿÿÿ0588VÿF8-*ÿ$ÿ6
161ÿÿS5Yÿ8ÿO6-0888Wÿÿ,0,2ÿÿÿ1ÿ8P+ÿÿÿ08!.b&0ÿ89ÿ862&1&ÿ6ÿ52ÿÿ1ÿ266ÿ8ÿ-ÿÿÿ9ÿ
8662ÿÿ16ÿ&ÿ,=*,0ÿÿÿÿ&
U6B1(ÿ
611ÿ'ÿ88<80ÿ
6ÿÿ6,ÿÿ1/5ÿ*1ÿ2*ÿ&0658ÿ17ÿ8&ÿ8/O&8668ÿ1ÿ6T*ÿÿ68
85S*!08ÿ;1(88ÿ&ÿ08,1Q606ÿ
8-"&6661ÿ8(ÿ5ÿ9ÿ%ÿ/25ÿ
#*
ÿ*T&ÿ62
06

&1=ÿ1
,ÿÿ:1*6ÿ1ÿÿÿ1
ÿ1ÿÿ!ÿ1-ÿ891ÿ*5ÿ588ÿ(688
-;00
8ÿJ1$5=(ÿÿ>8,5ÿ6;ÿÿÿ8Sÿÿ2141.)11ÿ*91ÿ6J81*82Q
ÿÿÿÿ&8-16ÿ&4(ÿ66Kÿÿ9&0ÿÿ1M&6ÿ
0ÿ851ÿ8,1-&5Dÿÿÿ**8ÿ8025185
C0=55ÿ&ÿ&&5ÿ
ÿ)666ÿ-=ÿÿ%51ÿ[1ÿ1ÿ1ÿ6*1J,ÿÿ
ÿ,21ÿ1%6D22*<0810ÿ\ÿÿÿÿÿÿB-
ÿ&ÿ1ÿ81#ÿÿ=%
H*6L8
]ÿ
-ÿÿÿ10ÿ1ÿ*ÿE&8ÿ56ÿÿ665862^(1,%-8N
ÿ_1Tÿ
%ÿ(1ÿ81ÿ%*ÿM$0ÿ8ÿÿ6
Aÿ^5'*0ÿ01ÿÿ&2`R68&ÿ+8ÿ866ÿÿ&50(&6&&a*&6+86559ÿS126198,6*ÿ=111ÿ1R-2ÿÿ19(,8ÿEÿÿ&10ÿÿ2ÿ*1ÿÿ1ÿ%
6ÿÿÿÿ,9ÿÿ)8=-Sÿ2!,ÿÿÿ6661ÿÿÿ*ÿ65<ÿ1ÿ10!ÿ02&,1800ÿ68128*ÿÿ61!8ÿ;ÿ6ÿ
28588(
640ÿ
1ÿ*9ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ5ÿ&11ÿ5#8ÿ1286%1
ÿ
F5Zÿÿ6-ÿ026ÿ&0ÿÿ60ÿÿ6ÿ15#ÿÿ*
81
6ÿ(1ÿÿ1ÿ66ÿÿ85-R6619ÿ81ÿ.&1ÿÿ+.ÿÿ-1"*ÿ(16
ÿÿÿ!7689T*6&6ÿ16&#0#81ÿÿ0&0=89ÿ6&
66108ÿ!(ÿÿÿÿ898,8116&*ÿÿ&6$18
/956111T-ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ

ÿ¡¢£¤¥£¦§ÿÿÿ¨©¡ª«¬­ÿ¤¦¤®ÿÿÿ¯°±²ÿ£³´µ³´µ®ÿÿÿ¶·ÿ¸ÿ©¹ÿµ
- - ÿÿ0(6ÿ8(85
;2ÿ12ÿÿÿ0ÿÿ2
616ÿ#7ÿ#0ÿ9ÿÿÿ2#ÿ8ÿ24ÿÿ(&8ÿ*88
ÿ50ÿ
ÿ60*#1
6ÿ&-ÿÿÿÿ8670ÿ10%8(ÿÿ
88ÿ98ÿÿ&6ÿ(
ÿ108ÿ0181!
ÿÿÿÿ5#ÿ0%28ÿ81-ÿ*8ÿ
ÿ
ÿ087'6ÿ669988.,8*ÿ6ÿ25ÿ0ÿ8
-8ÿ#ÿÿ525'ÿ9011ÿ"ÿ1ÿ01.ÿ125+0ÿ#632ÿÿ06ÿÿ61-2(1ÿ2*ÿÿ76ÿ28ÿ86-ÿ
ÿ1ÿÿ#ÿ454#ÿ848
085118ÿ81ÿÿÿ2ÿÿ
01ÿ49ÿ4ÿÿÿ%4*ÿÿ0486*868ÿ8580ÿ

1,

0&5ÿ9ÿÿÿÿÿÿ09&8066
ÿÿ6ÿ"11ÿ51-ÿ115ÿÿ%ÿÿ0ÿ41
951481ÿ<58ÿÿÿ05)11
161ÿ8'ÿ6ÿ11=84ÿ)1ÿÿ
1&ÿ
48&6ÿ56ÿ5ÿ*8604ÿ8ÿ0ÿ*ÿÿ
1651ÿ5ÿÿ68ÿ6458
"ÿ8ÿ:'ÿ&&8ÿ4,601&ÿ+566ÿ*6(8*001ÿ5,)4ÿ
66(ÿ1!0ÿ8&42ÿ*56ÿÿ85141ÿÿ02ÿ5916ÿ56ÿÿ1ÿ0ÿ1/46%ÿ661ÿ1-166ÿ618ÿ.ÿÿ1-"*ÿ24ÿÿ,7ÿ6ÿ
#ÿ8,ÿÿ8
!90ÿ$9/

1-ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ - 5"44ÿÿ#.4ÿ
41ÿ#4
81565#ÿ0#ÿ8664418858*.(11188,+ÿ&14&ÿ6ÿ(64ÿ6i9ÿÿ6#&ÿ*ÿ7*ÿ66-,=81ÿj)ÿ!966ÿÿÿ10486**,8ÿÿ102ÿ1896ÿ
6ÿ5?BJ/&5ÿÿ(&5*1@D
6ÿÿÿ(19ÿ*8ÿ4EA681"-ÿFÿ18BGÿ4716Fÿ8&C2Hiÿ)*ÿ8-6ÿI'8ÿ551ÿÿÿÿ%ÿ'ÿ0
*ÿ$5ÿ|%
0
#06ÿÿ&1ÿ,8?M)481+ÿÿÿÿ56KKG884G1Lÿÿ4N6
C&&8ÿÿ*5ÿ1ÿ(ÿ6ÿ9(ÿ8ÿ#vÿ6ÿÿ5ÿ4;0ÿÿ6-0841&64ÿ#668?SX
.
ÿ08ÿ(O64#R2*S640x86&(ÿ4Q
JTÿ4ÿ&,ÿ8ÿ9y
T#6?5%49&ÿO16*A21Uÿz5
&0&Wÿ81ÿ@118ÿ1ÿ8Rÿ6&ÿ?6ÿ+ÿ81*Pÿ94S
(#1ÿ&61-8*ÿ6ÿ6QVÿ8ÿÿÿ8ÿ&ÿ#"ÿ6R(
69
?800ÿÿÿ866
O#;@ÿÿ88ÿÿ2i"(18-613WJÿÿ4ÿÿ82!ÿ#W1O#ÿ91ÿ&9"&k9ÿT&&088ÿ6?ÿ6$ÿ8ÿ984!0R15Sl*)6ÿÿÿ6A8ÿ6lÿ64$1!&7&ÿ88'6
1ÿ*mÿ6ÿÿ66&6|ÿ64ÿ(8#55-ÿÿl8)ÿ*
5}&15o
(09ÿ1ÿ4ÿÿ&
(ÿ5ÿ6ÿÿ956ÿÿ0,4o16~8#4ÿ#ÿ6-&ÿ058(956ÿ
v
8ÿY6&ÿ8p.#6#ÿZq"81*-854ÿ2[6ÿ8-6ÿi1qÿ
1\ÿ08&8Z+0ÿ+ÿ0rÿÿZ%1ÿ
ÿ68x1s8(ÿ68]ÿÿ#0#&5&5ÿ8\y6t0ÿ1Zÿ6ÿ664ÿzZ668u89*6&ÿÿ0[4-
&ÿ{ÿv*ÿ5ÿ05ÿÿÿ6*5ÿÿ(6ÿ84.8&1,&&x6&8"
116ÿ65ÿZ55&01yÿ28#ÿ]61(1114
ÿ1ÿÿ^|8z1ÿ08ÿ1(45_ÿ1
!1#&ÿÿÿ&{6`0(ÿ6ÿ8ÿ*2ÿ5*ÿÿ1^&6$8ÿ#ÿ64ÿ_)1ÿÿi*(861|Zÿÿ$
*
6(ÿÿY6!468*&5*911ÿ}8ÿa2,&14,6ÿ5668ÿ0*
2
85ÿÿ(ÿÿ5~ÿ'ÿ
8ÿ686A18kv8(16;ÿ2ÿ1b5ÿÿÿq1l(15K16
46ÿ66ÿ6cÿl1ÿÿ95*ÿ6d860ÿ(ÿÿDÿ158*806540xIi4<ÿ1ÿÿ18ÿe80y&&ÿ6*ÿÿÿ5"ÿ0fÿ6ÿ41ÿ8zi0G160ÿiÿ
-0I5ÿÿÿÿ466ÿ08504%(6
ÿ&61596ÿ
6ÿ181"ÿ&ÿ8ÿY0ÿ1ÿ
8ÿ4ÿ88`#iÿÿ#6ÿ2ÿÿ6ÿgÿ."%4Zÿ|88ÿ!41#Zÿ21ÿ0i886*ÿgÿp4*868$
Z61*%8Z6ÿ
ÿÿ+ÿ2ÿÿ6ÿqÿ465ÿ686!6ÿ&**r#6(6ÿ-1s8
(ÿ66Y<**15-8-1.8ÿt[5ÿÿ*ÿ5*-15&g8'81&1u]*ÿ56ÿ
*Zÿ&ÿ,v$ÿ6.ÿ19g4464Z4ÿÿ64-21Zx6ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ1l6ÿ88y6$41-58(2ÿÿ&z556ÿ8ÿ(ÿÿ
P'ÿÿÿÿ11

6ÿ8Q621166
6.9ÿB12ÿ(ÿoÿ*
ÿ"16ÿ-4ÿ)316"-6ÿ&ÿÿ#ÿ8#ÿÿ6.9*ÿ8#,h'-ÿ*6ÿ&ÿ&8Wÿ!56711ÿ.i8Mÿÿ6*ÿ8$
ÿ25ÿÿ61ÿ60ÿ6618ÿ-
ÿ
!-8ÿ5h8
8ÿ&*55ÿW&*6-855=6ÿÿU516186&629
811111(ÿ&-ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ

RSTUÿWXYWZ[\Z]^_]`ZRaÿÿÿbc[deUfgÿ^`^hÿÿÿijkUlÿ]mnomnohÿÿÿpSqUÿ`ÿcrÿoY
- - - ÿ06"11&5ÿÿÿÿÿÿ@2&20ÿ66ÿ6ÿ88588ÿ5&28#ÿ866ÿ16ÿ(82*,ÿÿ6,2ÿ!ÿ
12&ÿÿ41(4442556ÿ29$&6ÿÿÿ666ÿÿ1ÿÿÿ8ÿ9&5ÿ2ÿ&*ÿ91*ÿ&ÿ6'#4ÿ#ÿ:ÿÿ"1&91ÿ2ÿ8ÿÿ5*ÿ22ÿ44ÿ2#ÿ2ÿ<ÿ'28ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ88ÿ6ÿBÿ8
6ÿ1,*&6ÿÿ!84%ÿÿ#C
ÿÿ&0ÿ5(26ÿ6ÿÿ6(&$
ÿC8ÿÿÿ%66(ÿ&ÿ11ÿ1ÿ6.ÿ8ÿÿ*19ÿ5ÿ8
1Eÿ8022ÿÿ&1326#ÿ0;(022ÿ4;ÿ,1ÿ16*ÿ&-ÿ8ÿ*C186-ÿÿ68(1%ÿÿ8ÿ8ÿÿF88ÿ121((ÿ**ÿ8ÿ1&ÿÿÿ2265Cÿÿ*(16,812ÿÿÿÿ1ÿ61*ÿ818ÿ801ÿ66ÿ75*&02ÿ81ÿ5-2ÿÿ
28
2&8642ÿÿG5ÿÿÿ8&
ÿ$68*6(6ÿ*8(ÿ4Hÿÿ8ÿ=5ÿÿ1ÿÿ
8*8
411ÿÿI3ÿ4ÿ@
ÿ11ÿ
1ÿÿ1ÿ0ÿ4ÿÿ86,ÿ8ÿÿÿ6ÿÿÿ*6186ÿÿ1("ÿ
6ÿ
1ÿF8ÿ8
4ÿÿ8ÿ&ÿ86,6&ÿ518&ÿJ84866&
ÿ96ÿÿ9
5
2414ÿ6ÿ5#-ÿ&5ÿÿÿ,ÿÿ*ÿ2ÿÿ2)ÿÿ92ÿ0*46ÿ88)"K8ÿ65ÿ
16ÿÿÿ1ÿ85'ÿ@ÿ15821!2ÿ428ÿ18ÿÿÿ*)162-75ÿL(420ÿ8&ÿÿ4),421ÿ4ÿ5ÿ184828?ÿ0ÿ82ÿÿ
ÿ14ÿ1$4ÿ14-ÿÿÿ
ÿÿ8ÿÿÿ-A646ÿ81228ÿÿ9ÿ66ÿ1ÿ8M2-ÿ6524ÿ(6
ÿ68ÿ1ÿ6ÿ2ÿ
0ÿÿÿ1'98)ÿ6&1ÿ8
41ÿ21&ÿÿ40ÿ(9
8ÿÿ08ÿ-2ÿÿ8ÿ6.8&(-61ÿÿÿ14-&ÿÿ81,&*ÿ4;46ÿ164116'ÿÿ=
8,888ÿ0ÿ1ÿ1--,1&#1ÿÿÿ
.0ÿ6-ÿÿ8>52ÿ7'ÿÿ&(66ÿ1ÿ5272;ÿ87-,ÿ6ÿÿ
565458ÿ6ÿ.66#ÿÿ-8:6L22ÿ&1,
ÿÿ"ÿÿÿÿ825
ÿ6&ÿÿÿÿ44'(6ÿNÿ0-5*ÿ
1ÿ2&ÿÿ6@81
*1!*&,5ÿ1746.ÿ8ÿ816124ÿ2ÿÿ5(6ÿ544
ÿÿ"81ÿ165
1,14201816ÿ181ÿ1ÿ-ÿ
68)18,ÿÿÿÿ2ÿ211ÿ6ÿÿ)
ÿ,ÿ6&221#ÿ4$2ÿ868ÿ(ÿ&"
-6
8ÿÿ2ÿ8ÿ68ÿ29(8#148ÿ5ÿ1&1
&6
58ÿ,-26*-98,ÿ8618ÿÿÿ8ÿÿ!(ÿÿ1&4ÿÿ*(0ÿ1ÿ&ÿÿ28
4*4$846ÿÿ1944ÿÿ1!ÿÿ665ÿ644*,86ÿ$ÿ2*8*1ÿ142ÿ
8ÿ8-)81O18,ÿ82ÿÿ8ÿÿ2&86ÿ242ÿ6
ÿ6ÿ4ÿ
ÿÿ6ÿÿ(5166ÿ6ÿÿ41ÿPÿ*6ÿ8ÿ1&4ÿ8(51ÿ6"6*6ÿ
&58508ÿ1,40ÿ96841#82ÿ6%86-ÿ5ÿÿ*1ÿÿÿ812ÿÿ8*8ÿ
1ÿ*ÿ!1ÿ6,ÿ414521ÿ655ÿ14,ÿ2428*4ÿ588ÿ2$6&8*6&
101ÿ16
ÿÿ1&ÿÿ2ÿ28ÿÿÿÿÿ115ÿ66ÿ86&9(1ÿÿ,5ÿ&ÿÿ568988ÿ9ÿ(4ÿÿ28
681ÿ5@1
18(ÿÿ858ÿ
&(ÿÿÿ1ÿÿÿÿ
65ÿ((14425
&ÿ8ÿ1(ÿÿ4ÿÿ
466ÿ4156(1ÿ2(2P46618&ÿ0288ÿÿ&ÿÿ2ÿ280ÿÿÿ968,6ÿ
8ÿ1
2ÿÿ04861*4ÿ8ÿÿÿ
ÿÿ1ÿÿÿÿ25ÿ8ÿÿ8ÿ1&6570ÿ
8
ÿ26&8ÿ15856,&*&68ÿÿ821ÿ>ÿ(ÿ1'656ÿÿ&8ÿ8

ÿÿ826,ÿ11&5
,,
ÿ-?1&+&8&ÿ8-ÿ8(698686-ÿÿ6ÿ8ÿ1ÿÿ5((508ÿ21-ÿ1105&5
ÿÿ58ÿÿ4ÿ121414,4)1ÿ4*ÿ6(ÿ8ÿÿÿÿ65ÿ12&*!2(0&8ÿ9,ÿ4#ÿ2*&ÿ6ÿ686861ÿÿ*86ÿ6441&85ÿ5'
4-1ÿÿ5ÿ*19ÿÿ619*15-166186ÿ8201#1ÿ5ÿÿ01ÿ1ÿÿ
ÿ1*(ÿ12666ÿ6141ÿ4ÿ2ÿ45ÿ*811611(28&ÿ.666-8
"8*ÿÿ128,
ÿÿ61676ÿ&
-ÿÿÿÿÿ#&3&ÿ8ÿ(ÿ&118ÿ6ÿÿ0&86(68(4!641ÿÿ946441ÿÿ5ÿÿ6=6611$&/

6611111111&&22ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ

^_`aÿcdecfghfijkilf^mÿÿÿnogpqarsÿjljtÿÿÿuvwaxÿiyz{yz{tÿÿÿ|_}aÿtÿo~ÿ{e *ÿ
"
111*ÿÿ1ÿ<26521<&48161#&=*6,86*ÿ6ÿ8ÿ2*&!9(*25ÿ6111ÿÿ262$&&
&ÿÿ268ÿT66ÿÿ6T5ÿ&
&2Fÿ0!606*?1/#ÿ%Hÿ1*6-1&-ÿ18
ÿ0ÿÿ1ÿ&1(<A256ÿ*(ÿ&05ÿÿ6ÿ@&8;9ÿ0(62ÿ8Vÿÿ21*3*ÿÿÿÿ
ÿ*065A625ÿ4-1L:211ÿÿ11Bÿ8&-1,ÿÿ*ÿ4ÿÿ952ÿA1860.ÿ052656Cÿ1&
26M8*6ÿ8*ÿ8D21ÿÿ689J
,
&8#8828
ÿÿ1B61ÿ1ÿU22*ÿ&-'ÿ(ÿ8
66ÿ11ÿÿ18ÿE69ÿ56
-2ÿ#ÿ18ÿÿÿ.*6ÿÿAÿÿ85&ÿ0ÿ.81(ÿ
&8!ÿ
66ÿ1ÿÿÿ188*64,91ÿÿÿG1ÿ26-315ÿ116ÿÿ86O
&1*654(651ÿ
ÿ1ÿ-#(ÿ28ÿ5ÿ1ÿÿ5018ÿÿÿÿÿ,ÿÿ!(211661
ÿÿ2581ÿ815211ÿ&4818255ÿ8*ÿ0P128ÿ2656*889,Q6851(&2ÿÿ1,8ÿ85ÿ6ÿQÿ02ÿÿ6&58*1ÿ#

8ÿG4ÿÿ1T16
ÿ(1&1ÿÿ(#8&ÿ&'*,6ÿ26ÿ2ÿÿ&6
ÿ81261.ÿ(12(1ÿ16688#5ÿ6ÿ18
&1ÿ(*ÿÿ48:ÿ68&1Gÿ*ÿ
0.2ÿÿÿ1ÿÿÿOÿ1**ÿ8T1ÿ*64ÿ1*C87-"#66ÿ,ÿ6ÿ(ÿÿÿ1HO6ÿ16
#&6ÿ&6
0(*ÿÿ868ÿÿ29#1(
ÿ4A5!2ÿ,ÿ&,8ÿ8.266*$ÿI8ÿÿÿ$"&8
(&,4118
986&8ÿÿ*-&165ÿ&9*ÿ6ÿO
12888ÿÿ2#H&*ÿÿ16ÿÿ6884ÿ6#ÿ9(ÿ5
,1A018;8ÿ8ÿ
8
8ÿ-1&6196&0,
ÿÿ-&Cÿÿÿÿÿÿ6ÿÿÿÿÿ82*
0&0ÿ1
1B
ÿ16:15G15&&2ÿ28869&6ÿ6Hÿ&ÿ&ÿ*5ÿ&8,ÿ&81&ÿÿ(19ÿ8ÿÿ'ÿ

ÿJ515ÿ
5ÿ
%ÿ885%
81ÿ81*18
Wÿ811,Iÿ566ÿÿ61ÿ1ÿ8ÿ1(11
ÿ(
ÿ2ÿÿK8
ÿ6ÿÿ2ÿ5*ÿ8
6ÿ1,ÿ11$1Lÿÿ&ÿÿÿÿÿ8ÿ&ÿ6&
,8(6
652M*4(1468ÿ4,&1ÿ1ÿ*
825%A,5(115ÿ686111ÿ6ÿ1ÿ6ÿ&ÿ1-G1;ÿ2ÿ8*6*ÿ2&91-*-5(16ÿÿ1ÿ&6ÿ1ÿÿ211ÿ-8ÿ&61&/1ÿÿ081&ÿ616ÿ1*ÿ*6ÿ
8
8ÿ1ÿSÿ*ÿ9554&ÿ1*ÿ1
ÿ
6B11ÿÿ81ÿ8ÿ0ÿ1ÿ8ÿ(2(8*51ÿ12ÿ1&<168ÿ6(886111ÿ2781Nÿ8-1ÿÿÿÿ"*6ÿ88ÿ201ÿÿ1
"1711*2600&'0ÿÿ1ÿ
ÿÿ1#ÿÿÿ*ÿ18*ÿ05ÿ18'1-9&8ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ85ÿ81(22ÿÿ6ÿÿ8"8(1$&812ÿÿ1&
6
'ÿ6ÿ819ÿ5052ÿ%8888583ÿ*(ÿ1"828ÿ2ÿ2ÿÿ1ÿ1ÿ+8156#**516!1&488112&&(8ÿ
ÿÿÿ!10656,ÿ6
1ÿÿ68ÿ1,ÿ)ÿÿ71606*$ÿÿ
1ÿÿ1ÿÿÿ811*&!118&8ÿ5ÿÿÿÿ,,ÿ28*562&0&ÿ0ÿ8*ÿÿÿ6664&111&8
1ÿÿÿ5G111&ÿ94G4ÿ526891ÿ658ÿ6ÿ518ÿÿ0*2ÿÿ1&9ÿ1
ÿÿ16ÿ3ÿ66
*1ÿ1812ÿ2101152655186ÿ0ÿ.8ÿ8211-"*8ÿÿÿ81ÿÿ618ÿ7162*6ÿ01ÿ#5ÿÿ*10
&ÿÿÿ8&$668ÿÿ816!ÿÿ98;111,6985&1ÿ$
8
88111-ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿ7ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ10ÿ!ÿ(ÿÿ1ÿ6ÿÿ18ÿ8ÿÿÿ1&ÿÿ16ÿ6ÿÿ"ÿÿÿ*ÿ#5ÿÿÿ(#ÿ(5!ÿÿ-ÿ6ÿÿ$1ÿÿÿÿÿÿ1ÿÿ!8ÿÿÿ5ÿ18(ÿÿÿÿ5-ÿÿÿ)ÿ(ÿ*8ÿ1ÿ8ÿ246ÿÿÿÿ&ÿÿÿ062ÿ(ÿÿ8ÿ8ÿÿ8ÿ
0ÿ*86668ÿ81&ÿ65ÿÿ728O221ÿ
ÿ8ÿ812ÿ25ÿ,#ÿ%8
6,ÿÿ8ÿ&
86
18ÿ1(52ÿ8ÿ68"5ÿ-2ÿÿX66821&%6ÿÿ81ÿ16ÿ1,ÿ8ÿ
ÿ*,6
ÿ6ÿ$(52ÿ*ÿ8*511&ÿ6*6(81ÿÿ681ÿÿÿÿ0(0*6ÿ-6&8*ÿ1&815ÿ*ÿ,&ÿ
88ÿÿ&&3ÿ5
&56&ÿ-ÿÿ611226161*1ÿ8
ÿ*9ÿ,ÿÿ0111
*8226&ÿ6(98
ÿÿÿ1ÿÿ1(6[18ÿ\0ÿ&1]52ÿÿÿÿ66ÿ66816ÿÿÿ&ÿ,86888(225ÿ&ÿÿÿ
ÿ52ÿÿÿ'21Y26658ÿÿÿ6Z5ÿ(0ÿ2
ÿ8866ÿÿ1&
819ÿÿÿÿÿÿ

klmnÿpqrpstusvwxvyskzÿÿÿ{|t}~nÿwywÿÿÿnÿvÿÿÿlnÿrÿ|ÿr 8ÿÿÿZÿÿ!,ÿ
6

!8A(1*4ÿ1#6000R8Z6&60(*88'66Z8
3ÿÿ&&0666515[&&*ÿÿ-,10(ÿ6#2S*ÿ8
9ÿ5ÿ860
&ÿÿÿÿ3ÿÿ8ÿÿ6(4'141&88ÿÿÿT*#&690,
616ÿÿÿ06(&
U6&7A7#ÿ#ÿ)ÿAÿ'ÿÿ16ÿ16ÿÿÿ11881ÿ1ÿ
616ÿ1ÿ111\22*ÿ5,5166ÿ8(88Qÿÿ81H8
5ÿÿ,ÿ06ÿÿ6\8ÿ*8(-ÿÿ*i(ÿÿ*ÿ661ÿ6181166&*73&ÿÿ
6B8*6&6*16160ÿ&(ÿ&ÿÿÿÿ]*6612ÿ686&6h
8*ÿÿ*ÿÿ,&51ÿ-)C1ÿÿ&ÿ11&18
ÿ^/8ÿÿÿ#ÿÿ909ÿ81ÿ5
A*&0288ÿ25ÿÿZ186ÿ-ÿÿ*0&66ÿ(5ÿÿ0ÿ6_ÿ.ÿÿ%ÿ661#61808(*1%06168ÿÿ(7&08ÿ1#
ÿ-
0ÿ
ÿÿ9&ÿ5&ÿ*5ÿ#*68&ÿÿÿ
ÿÿÿÿ,6ÿÿ]ÿ1,(0ÿ818ÿ&8
(86ÿ6,6-ÿÿ(1`ÿ5ÿ6
ÿ-ÿ118ÿ01
-"5ÿ
,1)6
9ÿK1ÿ
01(*68aÿÿÿ-ÿ66ÿ118ÿ*(ÿ0ÿÿÿ6ÿ8ÿ
80*#6ÿÿ818ÿ&j8ÿ58a8161161988ÿ&$1ÿÿÿ"(1ÿÿÿ&*ÿÿ0
ÿ81ÿ*0"ÿL06ÿ
I080ÿ5*ÿ1CbM(
88ÿ60#81-ÿÿ666ÿ8ÿÿÿÿÿÿV5ÿ0c1&ÿ0((**ÿ
ÿ6!8&+&ÿ0
ÿ1(ÿ18661(8Z(ÿ88ÿ$ÿ0ÿ1ÿ-6(8,
9]65
&ÿ611ÿÿ1ÿ*ÿÿ8&ÿÿ96,ÿ1(61ÿ1!ÿ2&ÿ
1060d#*ÿÿ06(8ÿÿ86ÿÿ-8ÿÿ6ÿ8(688ÿ1ÿ1ÿ
*(ÿ,^ÿÿÿ&1,0&ÿ8ÿ5150(ÿ0625&0N0
(&ÿ6ÿZ682165&*10&*ÿÿÿ56`6ÿ1*9ÿ!&4ÿÿ(ÿÿÿÿX19
1ÿÿ6ÿ16Oÿcÿ0*10-ÿ1ÿÿÿÿ*
ÿ'5ÿÿ(1,Y1ÿ118ÿÿ68*ÿÿ*86&,W58`ÿÿ8ÿ0ÿ8D5*1ÿ
*06ÿ1

1816
1$0)\ÿÿ11ÿ*ÿ(*1ÿÿ66ÿÿ68ÿ96-ÿ
566
ÿ-1"6ÿÿ6,dÿÿ,
08ÿ5J6&4ÿÿÿ,18ÿÿÿ8ÿÿ159&ÿ1c
656&
6551ÿ88*ÿÿ&0,682*81ÿ
&1&c8&ÿÿÿÿ&69,5ÿ68
86ÿ1*ÿ
(6ÿ6888ÿÿ00ÿ(`6
ÿ11ÿ8ÿÿ&&*?&#(6ÿ66860ÿ&8&Bbÿ0-ÿ
B1
66ÿ@882ÿ16ÿ8ÿÿ0ÿÿ602ÿÿÿ"81&c&-5ÿÿ
&9*6ÿÿÿ&ÿ618ÿ(9ÿ#76ÿ8&500ÿ
ÿÿ&]
ÿ9260-ÿ0ÿ1ÿÿÿ662ÿ!&ÿ6311ÿÿ76&9198
ÿ&93ÿÿ
$1,0,
ÿ262ÿ0ÿa
)1ÿÿ5ÿ81ÿ
8ÿ53ÿ1ÿ8#1ÿ061ÿÿÿ6&13ÿÿ75ÿÿ2ÿ6--04ÿÿ6ÿ1%8ÿ0ÿ1*ÿÿ86ÿc06128ÿÿ,)1ÿ-#.(#6ÿ6ÿ1ÿ86ÿ5Bÿÿÿÿ0862^5/Eÿ5ÿ86ÿ1,'ÿÿ6,fÿ11-Be&-
2&ÿÿ58

8ÿÿ985#1
ÿ,1ÿ86ÿÿ%ÿ36&(90
ÿ0ÿ6ÿÿ(ÿ1g(54003(ÿ888Bÿÿ8(081ÿ0106

ÿ825ÿ7*1%6ÿÿÿ

6&&2?6ÿ,ÿÿ05668(290*0,1ÿÿÿÿ1(891@h6,ÿÿ
ÿÿ6ÿ61ÿ1ÿÿ106X
19
2:ÿ5,ÿÿ
02Oÿ8
;F1*ÿÿ1"W0681
ÿ,ÿÿY5*68ÿ*8(
ÿ8:2(ÿ#2ÿ168ÿ68<8918ÿ(ÿ1,3ÿÿÿ30!(*ÿ866ÿÿ!1>1ÿ30
ÿ6'3*988,0&ÿ0000ÿ058$88ÿ&21ÿ*6601ÿ0186ÿ8+&&ÿÿÿ9ÿ6ÿÿ8
!%&ÿ66ÿÿ6(1ÿ86ÿ68501ÿ0128ÿ0ÿ8ÿ15,ÿÿ
)6ÿ0ÿÿ15ÿ66ÿ0ÿÿÿ&61&0%ÿ8116!606&016ÿ10ÿ2*06ÿ&5ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ28ÿ61
ÿ4410ÿÿ"18ÿ6(*ÿÿGÿÿ51818ÿÿ01,16
#65ÿÿÿ61696019ÿ1ÿ016ÿ86&ÿ,!ÿ6ÿÿ6&1*ÿ18661&800ÿ6$6ÿ5006ÿÿBÿ
ÿ.ÿOÿ86-1ÿ"""*1ÿ1ÿÿÿÿ67P6ÿ
ÿÿ*8!0###&
608ÿ51
ÿÿÿ8888ÿ6Q5
ÿ!!!1ÿÿÿÿ**90058ÿ/ÿ$$$
9/98880H
12-2ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ

MNOPÿRSTRUVWUXYZX[UM\ÿÿÿ]^V_`PabÿY[YcÿÿÿdefPgÿXhijhijcÿÿÿkNlPÿjXÿ^mÿjT
- - ÿÿ7011(10ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ)(*(211888&88&&66&8660606&6*ÿ,1*61&1ÿ1*288ÿ811ÿÿ31168*812ÿÿÿ111ÿ5*&8*(ÿ3*5(1ÿ*&

1
9#)670)#ÿ;ÿ0ÿÿ11ÿÿÿ
**ÿÿ16-22&*<2ÿ368ÿ1ÿÿÿ116ÿ1&(6228ÿ=11ÿ166ÿÿÿ8&681ÿÿ66ÿ8ÿÿ5ÿÿ>ÿ!82111*&ÿ8ÿ11&1ÿ51518ÿÿ<ÿÿ($$$ÿ1ÿ20&
ÿ16(05ÿ*
60ÿ8?666*ÿ268
ÿÿ1058(ÿ9@ÿÿ
088ÿ648ÿ16ÿ*6&&&80
&ÿÿ91ÿ61&
ÿ8*ÿ8ÿ06ÿ
999ÿÿ(-11ÿÿÿ
ÿÿ6ÿÿ.
8-ÿÿÿ1ÿ86*6
ÿ1#7L888818
ÿ4&5ÿ&3ÿÿÿ6*6&ÿ2!ÿÿ181ÿÿ50ÿ6698ÿ
116ÿ18#16588ÿ1&81*61ÿ56-6512ÿ5ÿÿÿ&ÿ11ÿ,'/ÿÿ**59ÿ6ÿ11-(61ÿÿ8212ÿÿ&*ÿ65&ÿ.ÿ'
A5ÿÿ6ÿÿ
ÿ816
6**01&C01*.ÿ
90,61ÿ6ÿ*ÿÿ&
(1
,ÿCÿ*60-98ÿ12-ÿÿ85ÿ8ÿÿÿ5'-11ÿÿ666*0ÿ*6L1162'1ÿÿÿ(+1*ÿ020ÿ0ÿ6ÿ06ÿ&J182
ÿ.18&#9ÿÿ0C*21&-1ÿ82&ÿ88ÿDÿÿ1
ÿ6806&6-2888ÿÿ16
81ÿ6ÿ-8705(1ÿ&1*ÿ
E05821ÿ78ÿ(1ÿ
Fÿ16Jÿ8ÿ81**ÿ51
2ÿÿG606ÿ-52
1ÿÿ6ÿÿÿ
-08ÿÿ28861ÿÿ61ÿÿ*081
1&('ÿÿÿ10ÿ1519ÿÿÿ11ÿ*(*6ÿ8816ÿ&56181,5ÿ2164(1ÿ&ÿ6*ÿ((6ÿ61126111188
ÿ1ÿ111
ÿÿ1ÿ6ÿ
&5ÿÿ11ÿ611ÿ11ÿ&91ÿÿ81ÿ8ÿ2I
ÿ11ÿ1ÿ
6&ÿ*
,ÿ*121*ÿÿ96ÿÿ-ÿ8251ÿ6&ÿÿÿ&6ÿ2

66&881ÿ**96(12ÿ13ÿ8
ÿ116(ÿ1ÿ0612((6ÿ-ÿ-ÿ82ÿ8(&*ÿÿ
186ÿ6ÿ18586ÿ1ÿ*ÿ1(6ÿ1ÿ6ÿ*1ÿÿ16(5&61ÿ81066ÿ111ÿ
06*16
*1608ÿÿ1
69(ÿ&105(1
ÿ8851(ÿ1(5ÿ%&28ÿ111ÿÿÿ(*1611*
8
8*ÿÿ6ÿ1611ÿ966ÿÿÿ6ÿ516*(*ÿ*83ÿ8(1**6ÿ*#8ÿ16(81#(8ÿÿ(ÿ(ÿÿ651ÿ54&15ÿÿÿ-6ÿÿ1ÿÿ#&ÿÿ8ÿ6111&6ÿ
611116ÿ5&(6(ÿ-266-66&ÿ(15,1ÿ0ÿÿ
ÿÿ
1*6ÿ,*ÿÿ1ÿ6ÿ8(2ÿ)ÿ01,,66&2ÿ6
51ÿ6
ÿ,&1,ÿ&5&8ÿ68
11
ÿ8816811*18566ÿ1ÿÿÿÿ118&ÿÿ6606ÿÿ6ÿ'ÿ5*ÿÿ*ÿ1-&*812ÿ*18ÿ*ÿ&ÿ8086*6ÿ0,+ÿÿ12156ÿÿÿÿ8ÿ88*0*6J&(81ÿÿ
80(ÿ01Eÿ,11-1ÿ,1ÿÿ,)2F8ÿ8185(8ÿ66ÿÿÿ11ÿG!
ÿ11,&&(11ÿÿ26*
(66ÿ81(ÿÿ8H81682401C1ÿÿ1

ÿÿÿ
-85ÿ1ÿÿ80ÿÿÿ
56ÿ21ÿ851ÿ280ÿ-6ÿ1ÿÿ6ÿÿ60&0ÿ(1(61ÿ
6%,ÿ(ÿÿÿÿ10ÿ68&1((ÿ.0518
02-"6*ÿÿÿ818ÿ6ÿ6*27ÿ6(886ÿÿ#826ÿ88ÿÿ8&6*5

88066!Cÿ5ÿ9,188&1&
ÿ&2$89/


911:2---2ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ

HIJKÿMNOMPQRPSTUSVPHWÿÿÿXYQZ[K\]ÿTVT^ÿÿÿ_`aKbÿScdecde^ÿÿÿfIgKÿeeÿYhÿeO 1&*ÿÿÿÿ36ÿÿ1
ÿÿ2633686ÿ6
8861419ÿ3255(6,
ÿÿÿ5882
,&36,ÿ6641ÿ
ÿ&6ÿ6*5
,ÿ%09'!1
ÿÿ6A
-ÿ1&8ÿÿ;5ÿ2ÿÿ&8285ÿÿÿ83ÿÿÿ86*1ÿ2ÿ13ÿ86ÿÿ(
8ÿ(6ÿ&8(15ÿ
ÿ&ÿ2ÿ+ÿ81,5ÿ6*&ÿ2(15212(188$ÿÿÿ8,36
7446ÿ11612ÿ*ÿ
16631262&ÿ258ÿ(36ÿ8ÿÿ8
ÿÿ1&.ÿ8991ÿÿÿÿ6ÿ&&ÿ(ÿ6ÿ86636&8/32553ÿ8&&
(1ÿÿ6ÿ&ÿÿ(81ÿ231ÿ8
ÿ
6ÿ
ÿ6ÿ2ÿÿ62*)58866,(&6(&&
1'6,8(ÿ181ÿÿ*ÿ-
*,7-4)5ÿÿ

ÿÿÿ'141865&
646ÿ6-ÿ8ÿ9(1.ÿ(6ÿ16ÿ15ÿ1ÿ
ÿ*018311ÿ*ÿ2ÿÿ-ÿ3*(&-ÿ*1ÿ66,8ÿ568ÿÿ
/ÿ1ÿ6ÿ99&141ÿ86ÿÿ51&*ÿ28ÿ6611-*63152ÿ&ÿÿ5
418ÿ3--ÿ28ÿÿ6*8ÿ1ÿÿÿ86ÿ63*ÿ8.28ÿ2(216528,66(&ÿ8ÿ

6ÿ&*88ÿ3ÿ6ÿÿ+ÿÿ216*38(1ÿÿ8ÿ81ÿ1-2
ÿ128ÿÿ7ÿ,5(ÿ4ÿ8ÿ17ÿ*
68(8,ÿ82&ÿ13&981"**

ÿÿ671316,,)ÿÿ85ÿÿ6186<2ÿ1ÿ'1ÿ9&811ÿ*819ÿ*-65*6)&8
ÿÿ2621ÿ8*ÿ68ÿ&ÿ-"4
ÿ,9ÿ1ÿÿ1*&6
ÿ#199ÿ2
"9ÿ-ÿÿÿ&ÿ8ÿÿÿ8!ÿ8ÿ:3ÿ)
691ÿ3ÿ8ÿ(8$%ÿÿ68ÿ'ÿ6ÿ6ÿÿ
161<856ÿ,83&)ÿÿ&ÿ248118114&18%8,ÿÿ-16*ÿ*41ÿ=1ÿÿ51ÿ1668-&ÿ22*(
ÿ5-88ÿÿ6&-68(65
ÿ94ÿ11(411265-266ÿÿÿ9ÿÿÿÿ3
ÿÿÿ
4ÿ83ÿÿ469#(95ÿÿÿ
886&ÿ6
ÿ1ÿ1&>ÿÿ5-A1ÿ64ÿ&ÿ451ÿ(15&6(868ÿÿÿ3(6,01(586
818ÿ2ÿ
1ÿ31
8ÿÿ8ÿÿ1ÿÿ4ÿÿ881!?1-ÿ6
6
ÿ1ÿ1ÿ8-ÿ83'68)ÿ--1ÿ81ÿÿÿÿ68
(&*54ÿ8ÿ6'(5(ÿ+6
1ÿ16369ÿ)ÿ84ÿÿ(81&50ÿ8ÿ>4ÿ4&&4,ÿ)ÿ8-8&ÿÿ5ÿ1,
&!ÿ&18ÿ&ÿ1&2*3668ÿ5ÿ&588211ÿ418ÿ1ÿ&88ÿÿÿ5561116ÿ1(*85ÿ6(ÿ3212ÿ8ÿ
0(6ÿ*,1(ÿ3ÿ)66851ÿ*.4ÿ635
6&'
ÿ6ÿ56-"**ÿ16ÿÿ71ÿÿ)ÿÿ4ÿ#ÿ@48115
4388645ÿ83!ÿÿÿ98*67$&
388
1111(&-ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ

ÿÿ

4"66((ÿ:ÿ#8*88ÿ9ÿ

ÿ

)=*/=:'D)88
88:6G36ÿ6&B)#"1&)19ÿÿ46)9#'8ÿ&006&5ÿÿ8#)*),ÿ&11318"35973&#-7ÿ-ÿ8-&ÿ!-ÿ6F&6ÿ)&.--ÿÿ846#)58:#6
6ÿ86ÿÿ4!-ÿ)/*ÿ:67C6C<5ÿ8ÿ*:$2&49&88
6
51----ÿÿÿÿÿÿ".D230'266-66ÿ8*6!82526-ÿÿ8086ÿ"50,5,3ÿ3-=-6ÿ6ÿ686&)ÿ&ÿ8:*:0)-6ÿ#160=ÿ4-E5ÿÿ)6+-
6ÿ"9
1ÿÿ#7563-85)ÿB-:&ÿ))6=&6163-5ÿ1ÿ60ÿ816ÿ-ÿ)9ÿ0D38-ÿ-8&ÿÿ&-&&ÿÿ#6/6ÿ
'-5ÿ8'ÿ46#393%89ÿ6-ÿ:6-ÿ6-ÿ5#Eÿÿ.69-ÿÿ

89
ÿ8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ!"ÿ#$%#$%ÿÿÿ&9'ÿ%ÿ(ÿ%
ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ 1234546ÿ7ÿ

\]^_ÿabcadefdghigjd\kÿÿÿlmeno_pqÿhjhrÿÿÿstu_vÿgwxywxyrÿÿÿz]{_ÿyiÿm|ÿyc

ÿ

1ÿ 1#
/7/ÿ/$40 4873$6/115ÿ2ÿÿÿ

1222*%ÿ3.4%&('55&'''+((6)6)))ÿ7ÿÿÿÿÿ85782ÿ
ÿ775ÿ8472ÿ.*ÿ27-.+*5'''
2(&'6())))ÿ,,ÿ8ÿÿ7ÿÿ25ÿÿ

!"2.*.ÿ53*%'*'''53&-)6)))
ÿÿÿÿ
87ÿÿ2ÿ

,R;@Cÿ<L@=1ÿE>/?>/B@ÿN
A@@AÿBÿ4BCC@@ÿDÿE6%ÿ&>3?'5+@4)ÿÿFÿG=<DACYBÿWH<UDQIQCD>LLJ@BÿZ>KÿDK<IBC5EL<!V@ÿN6%MC;B7@'M;Eÿ)ÿ>XÿKÿ=LC<L<C@NÿAXCABÿIMKIÿÿÿCPO<ÿCPU<QCQL<R>QDA<RVÿE'BÿVÿ8EÿSB6U"AEÿ7+ÿL<3@=9'ÿÿ%>&ÿ?)(@[Jÿ-=ÿ<.BC[Cÿ2@Xÿ3CIÿ@IMÿK<C<TN@CUBVMÿ>"?M@6ÿD:BE7ANA'DÿÿNE@Uÿ

ghijÿlmnlopqorstruogvÿÿÿwxpyzj{|ÿsus}ÿÿÿ~jÿr}ÿÿÿhjÿlÿxÿn

01231456ÿ89
9
6ÿ4ÿ42ÿ01231455ÿ3ÿ4ÿ8ÿ8ÿÿ200ÿ 25412!ÿ

0123145ÿ

"9ÿ #ÿ 0ÿ #200ÿ

$$DD00%1'8&8'1'99(84-ÿ(ÿ*9-:Eÿ+<9,+Dÿ-1*.0+ÿ49/84F99%+,;&EH.9-00+11(4(-%ÿÿ02<91=11(ÿ99.23499ÿE12?29ÿ(341ÿ>0(?-40ÿÿ212ÿ2ÿ D4-;-1+'ÿKÿ$%%-.(-E9ÿLF-1M-18ÿ SS//WXVV=N+91-E9(9O-OF',;OF99E9O9+914+P94-1T>4$ÿ'1('@ÿ>%4-0ÿN.'N>Y4ÿ9H-99=0ÿ((4+;@%>&'ÿ89O4:ÿÿ4%P499V'@9Q++9119H'&(;1+(99-1++((0.,'H4(ÿÿ'H9,N10+ÿ+ÿS;ÿ,(4&Z(@-ÿF-.0-9944,-.10110H+9ÿ8((&,T@9ÿÿÿ4@H@'%4+9,404,;%0ÿ08ÿÿ$88,@4ÿ4+4.4++;0(;;ÿ8<ÿ/4ÿÿ+N;Nÿ$?ÿ N&T,(+1.9ÿ$T&,9ÿ@4084+;ÿ L[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[400000009000000000+(.........'''....19&&&ÿÿÿÿPÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ,4P\\\PP\P\\PPÿ111+ÿ$ÿÿÿÿÿ-ÿÿÿÿÿÿQ@:^(((/D($*V1ND/+++-&+0'ÿ+[;444'&0&O+9N9(->>>914O01-,;.'($H&+.-ÿÿÿ',%00ÿ(($ZQ.%'(9H:ÿ-4H-Dÿ'1491-10*1Hÿ*/--&1ÿ4/8ÿ8.9(18N0>0(S84/+F.ÿ19-ÿ4>9ÿ%ÿ.'Fÿÿ(4ÿ8:4ÿÿN>ÿ,ÿ^+EZ-Xÿÿ.11-+-F4.90--(0.910ÿ94=&ÿÿM(40]+H9,ÿ'.ÿ,ÿH>ÿ+ÿ-4ÿ

NN//////////////////////NNNNN@@@@@@99%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%99999''444444'''''OO&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&000000OOOOOPP......................PPPPP888888QQQÿQQQQ++++++++++++++++++++++44444499((((((((((((((((((((((++++++99999----------------------'';;;;;;0000000000000000000000'''''HHHHHHH1111111111111111111111ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿRRÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ

5IAA66ÿÿÿÿ 7ÿ IUBBBBBA56ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ AGÿ 565I5I5BBBBBBBBBA5Aÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ

7JBBÿÿÿÿ 5ÿ 5BBBBBBBCIÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ 55ÿ AI5BBBB5BBBBBBB55Bÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ

776GI5CB55ÿÿÿÿ I66ÿ I55IA7GU65BGU6UCG65ÿÿBÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ CJCÿ 5IU6IIIIIJIIIIIII66J5656UU6JBU6UUG6I66ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ

N_0&4.9fÿÿ@4084+;ÿ$..9,,ÿ@ÿ40%&.(-0`1a3ÿb+ÿ,ÿ0OÿBJPIGPc5d7ÿÿ

caeeÿ

ÿ

ÿ

89
ÿ8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ!"ÿ#$%#$%ÿÿÿ&9'ÿ%#ÿ(ÿ%
ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ 1234546ÿ5ÿ

5678ÿ:;<:=>?=@AB@C=5DÿÿÿEF>GH8IJÿACAKÿÿÿLMN8Oÿ@PQRPQRKÿÿÿS6T8ÿRUÿFVÿR<

12ÿ3ÿ456ÿ4789ÿÿ

ÿ ÿ

#
$%ÿÿ&ÿÿ'
()ÿÿ(* !"ÿ

'+*,$,1-%%%ÿ.ÿÿ/+.ÿ%,0%,.ÿ#%.,%/-ÿ

2 3ÿ4

4567ÿ9:;9<=><?@A?B<4CÿÿÿDE=FG7HIÿ@B@JÿÿÿKLM7Nÿ?OPQOPQJÿÿÿR5S7ÿQBÿETÿQ;

12ÿ3ÿ456ÿ4789ÿÿ

ÿ ÿ

#
$%ÿÿ&ÿÿ'
()ÿÿ(* !"ÿ

'+*,$,1-%%%ÿ.ÿÿ/+.ÿ%,0%,.ÿ#%.,%/-ÿ

2 3ÿ

4567ÿ9:;9<=><?@A?B<4CÿÿÿDE=FG7HIÿ@B@JÿÿÿKLM7Nÿ?OPQOPQJÿÿÿR5S7ÿQJÿETÿQ;

_ __ \ ..___

12ÿ3ÿ456ÿ4789ÿÿ

ÿ ÿ


#$%ÿÿ&ÿÿ'
()ÿÿ(* !"ÿ

'+*,$,1-%%%ÿ.ÿÿ/+.ÿ%,0%,.ÿ#%.,%/-ÿ

2 3ÿ&&

4567ÿ9:;9<=><?@A?B<4CÿÿÿDE=FG7HIÿ@B@JÿÿÿKLM7Nÿ?OPQOPQJÿÿÿR5S7ÿQ;ÿETÿQ;

12ÿ3ÿ456ÿ4789ÿÿ

ÿ ÿ

#
$%ÿÿ&ÿÿ'
()ÿÿ(* !"ÿ

'+*,$,1-%%%ÿ.ÿÿ/+.ÿ%,0%,.ÿ#%.,%/-ÿ

2 3ÿ&

 
 Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1 Filed 06/29/94 Page 1 of 14

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1 Filed 06/29/94 Page 2 of 14

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1 Filed 06/29/94 Page 3 of 14

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1 Filed 06/29/94 Page 4 of 14

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1 Filed 06/29/94 Page 5 of 14

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1 Filed 06/29/94 Page 6 of 14

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1 Filed 06/29/94 Page 7 of 14

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1 Filed 06/29/94 Page 8 of 14

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1 Filed 06/29/94 Page 9 of 14

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1 Filed 06/29/94 Page 10 of 14

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1 Filed 06/29/94 Page 11 of 14

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1 Filed 06/29/94 Page 12 of 14

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1 Filed 06/29/94 Page 13 of 14

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1 Filed 06/29/94 Page 14 of 14

 
 Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2927 Filed 03/06/20 Page 1 of 3

[3506853.1]

1 DONALD SPECTER – 083925 RITA K. LOMIO – 254501
2 MARGOT MENDELSON – 268583 PRISON LAW OFFICE
3 1917 Fifth Street Berkeley, California 94710-1916
4 Telephone: (510) 280-2621 Facsimile: (510) 280-2704
5 MICHAEL W. BIEN – 096891
6 GAY C. GRUNFELD – 121944 PENNY GODBOLD – 226925
7 MICHAEL FREEDMAN – 262850 ROSEN BIEN
8 GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP 101 Mission Street, Sixth Floor
9 San Francisco, California 94105-1738 Telephone: (415) 433-6830
10 Facsimile: (415) 433-7104

11 LINDA D. KILB – 136101 DISABILITY RIGHTS EDUCATION &
12 DEFENSE FUND, INC. 3075 Adeline Street, Suite 201
13 Berkeley, California 94703 Telephone: (510) 644-2555
14 Facsimile: (510) 841-8645

15 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

16

17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

18

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

19

20 JOHN ARMSTRONG, et al.,

Case No. C94 2307 CW

21

Plaintiffs,

22

v.

23 GAVIN NEWSOM, et al.,

24

Defendants.

STIPULATED ORDER CONFIRMING UNDISPUTED ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS FOR THE FOURTH QUARTER OF 2019
Judge: Hon. Claudia Wilken

25

26

27

28

On March 26, 1997, the District Court established procedures by which Plaintiffs

Case No. C94 2307 CW

STIPULATED ORDER CONFIRMING UNDISPUTED ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS FOR THE FOURTH QUARTER 2019

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2927 Filed 03/06/20 Page 2 of 3

[3506853.1]

1 are to collect periodic attorneys’ fees and costs in this case in connection with their work

2 monitoring Defendants’ compliance with the Court’s Orders and collecting fees.

3

Pursuant to these procedures, on January 22, 2020, Plaintiffs served on Defendants

4 their Fourth Quarterly Statement for 2019 by overnight delivery. The parties completed

5 their meet-and-confer process on February 25, 2020 as to the fees and costs incurred on all

6 matters.

7

As a result of the February 25, 2020 agreement, the parties agree to the following:

8

The parties agree to the payment of $1,912,871.74 to resolve all fees and costs

9 incurred during the Fourth Quarter of 2019, for monitoring and/or litigation activities in

10 the California Department of Corrections of Rehabilitation Division of Adult Operations

11 and Adult Programs (CDCR AOAP) portion of the case. Attached hereto as Exhibit A are

12 charts setting forth the fees and costs claimed by Plaintiffs and the amounts agreed to by

13 the parties to settle these claims.

14

The parties agree to the payment of $110,118.99 to resolve all fees and costs

15 incurred during the Fourth Quarter of 2019, for monitoring and/or litigation activities in

16 the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) portion of the case. Attached hereto as Exhibit B are

17 charts setting forth the fees and costs claimed by Plaintiffs and the amounts agreed to by

18 the parties to settle these claims.

19

The parties agree to the payment of $177,756.15 to resolve all fees and costs

20 incurred during the Fourth Quarter of 2019, for monitoring and/or litigation activities in

21 the Division of Adult Parole Operations (DAPO) portion of the case. Attached hereto as

22 Exhibit C are charts setting forth the fees and costs claimed by Plaintiffs and the amounts

23 agreed to by the parties to settle these claims.

24

The parties agree to the payment of $14,583.48 to resolve all fees and costs incurred

25 during the Fourth Quarter of 2019, for fees work. Attached hereto as Exhibit D are charts

26 setting forth the fees and costs claimed by Plaintiffs and the amounts agreed to by the

27 parties to settle these claims.

28

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the amounts set forth above are due and

2

Case No. C94 2307 CW

STIPULATED ORDER CONFIRMING UNDISPUTED ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS FOR THE FOURTH QUARTER 2019

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2927 Filed 03/06/20 Page 3 of 3

[3506853.1]

1 collectable as of forty-five days from the date of entry of this Order. Interest on these fees

2 and costs will run from February 21, 2020, accruing at the rate provided by 28 U.S.C.

3 § 1961.

4

5 DATED: __M_a_r_c_h_6_,_2_0_2_0____ 6 7

Claudia Wilken United States District Judge

8 APPROVED AS TO FORM: 9

10 DATED: March 6, 2020 11 12

/s/Joanna Hood
Joanna B. Hood Deputy Attorney General Attorney for Defendants

13

14 DATED: March 3, 2020
15
16
17

/s/Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld
Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP Attorney for Plaintiffs

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Case No. C94 2307 CW

STIPULATED ORDER CONFIRMING UNDISPUTED ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS FOR THE FOURTH QUARTER 2019

 
 Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2931 Filed 03/17/20 Page 1 of 5

[3512883.3]

1 DONALD SPECTER – 083925 RITA K. LOMIO – 254501
2 MARGOT MENDELSON – 268583 PRISON LAW OFFICE
3 1917 Fifth Street Berkeley, California 94710-1916
4 Telephone: (510) 280-2621 Facsimile: (510) 280-2704
5 MICHAEL W. BIEN – 096891
6 GAY C. GRUNFELD – 121944 PENNY GODBOLD – 226925
7 MICHAEL FREEDMAN – 262850 ROSEN BIEN
8 GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP 101 Mission Street, Sixth Floor
9 San Francisco, California 94105-1738 Telephone: (415) 433-6830
10 Facsimile: (415) 433-7104
11 LINDA D. KILB – 136101 DISABILITY RIGHTS
12 EDUCATION & DEFENSE FUND, INC.
13 3075 Adeline Street, Suite 201 Berkeley, California 94703
14 Telephone: (510) 644-2555 Facsimile: (510) 841-8645
15 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
16

CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General of the State of California MONICA ANDERSON Senior Assistant Attorney General DAMON G. MCCLAIN – 209508 Supervising Deputy Attorney General JOANNA B. HOOD – 264078 Acting Supervising Deputy Attorney General ANNAKARINA
DE LA TORRE FENNELL – 301862 Deputy Attorney General SEAN LODHOLZ – 299096 Deputy Attorney General 1300 I Street, Suite 125 P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 Telephone: (916) 210-7343 Facsimile: (916) 324-5205
Attorneys for Defendants

17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
18 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
19

20 JOHN ARMSTRONG, et al.,
21 Plaintiffs,
22 v.
23 GAVIN NEWSOM, et al.,
24 Defendants.
25

Case No. C94 2307 CW
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER PROHIBITING RETALIATION
Judge: Hon. Claudia Wilken

26

27

28
Case No. C94 2307 CW
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER PROHIBITING RETALIATION AGAINST CLASS MEMBER DECLARANTS

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2931 Filed 03/17/20 Page 2 of 5

[3512883.3]

1

On February 28, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Stop Defendants from

2 Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against People With Disabilities at R.J. Donovan

3 Correctional Facility (“Motion”). See Dkt. 2922. In support of the Motion, fifty-four

4 incarcerated people (“Declarants”) submitted declarations. Some of the Declarants alleged

5 instances in which correctional officers at R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”)

6 retaliated against them or others for, among other things, submitting or threatening to

7 submit complaints regarding staff misconduct or failures to provide disability

8 accommodations. And some of the Declarants also alleged instances in which correctional

9 officers at RJD retaliated against incarcerated people by charging incarcerated people with

10 false rules violations reports.

11

Defendants wish to take measures to assure the Declarants, Armstrong class

12 members, and other incarcerated people who participate in the Motion that they will not be

13 retaliated against for their participation in the Motion or for testifying or otherwise

14 participating in this proceeding. Additionally, Defendants wish to reiterate to their

15 employees that retaliation against anyone, including the Declarants, Armstrong class

16 members, and incarcerated people at RJD, for exercising their federal rights or for

17 participating in the Motion will not be tolerated by the California Department of

18 Corrections and Rehabilitation and that any such retaliation would be a violation of the

19 law.

20

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the parties,

21 through their undersigned counsel, as follows:

22

1. The parties agree that Defendants and their employees are prohibited from

23 retaliating against the Declarants, Armstrong class members at RJD, or incarcerated people

24 at RJD for participating in the Motion.

25

2. Defendants agree to:

26

(a) Assess any allegations of retaliation against the Declarants, Armstrong

27 class members, or incarcerated people at RJD for participating in the Motion, including by

28 using staff from outside RJD to conduct the assessments;

1

Case No. C94 2307 CW

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER PROHIBITING RETALIATION AGAINST

CLASS MEMBER DECLARANTS

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2931 Filed 03/17/20 Page 3 of 5

[3512883.3]

1

(b) Refer instances of retaliation to the Office of Internal Affairs when

2 criteria for referral is met, and issue discipline if warranted; and

3

(c) Post notices in the facilities at RJD explaining that incarcerated

4 people have a right to be free from retaliation for exercising their federal rights, and that

5 any retaliation against incarcerated people for exercising their rights under the ADA, for

6 reporting staff misconduct, or for participating in the Motion would be a violation of the

7 law.

8

3. Defendants further agree not to communicate with any of the Declarants

9 regarding matters covered by their declarations or any alleged retaliation related to their

10 participation in the Motion without first providing notice to Plaintiffs’ counsel and an

11 opportunity for Plaintiffs’ counsel to participate in any interview or communications.

12

4. Defendants agree to respond to inquiries from Plaintiffs’ counsel regarding

13 Defendants’ efforts to comply with the terms of this stipulation and any alleged retaliation

14 against the Declarants, Armstrong class members, or incarcerated people at RJD for

15 participating in the Motion.

16

5. The parties agree that if the Court finds that retaliation has occurred against

17 the Declarants, Armstrong class members, or incarcerated people at RJD for participating

18 in the Motion, the Court may issue appropriate relief.

19

6. This stipulation will expire six months after the Court’s ruling on the Motion

20 becomes final.

21 / / /

22 / / /

23 / / /

24 / / /

25 / / /

26 / / /

27 / / /

28 / / /

2

Case No. C94 2307 CW

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER PROHIBITING RETALIATION AGAINST

CLASS MEMBER DECLARANTS

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2931 Filed 03/17/20 Page 4 of 5

[3512883.3]

1

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

2 3 DATED: March 17, 2020

ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP

4

By: /s/ Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld

5

Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld

6

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

7 DATED: March 17, 2020
8

XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General of the State of California

9

By: /s/ Joanna B. Hood

10

Joanna B. Hood

Acting Supervising Deputy Attorney General 11

12

Attorneys for Defendants

13

14 [PROPOSED] ORDER
15

16

This Court having reviewed the above Stipulation of the parties, and good cause

17 appearing, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

18

1. Defendants and their employees are prohibited from retaliating against the

19 Declarants, Armstrong class members, or incarcerated people at RJD for participating in

20 the Motion.

21

2. Defendants shall:

22

(a) Assess any allegations of retaliation against the Declarants, Armstrong

23 class members, or incarcerated people at RJD for their participation in the Motion,

24 including by using staff from outside RJD to conduct the assessments;

25

(b) Refer instances of retaliation to the Office of Internal Affairs when

26 criteria for referral is met, and issue discipline if warranted; and

27

(c) Post notices in the facilities at RJD explaining that incarcerated

28 people have a right to be free from retaliation for exercising their federal rights, and that

3

Case No. C94 2307 CW

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER PROHIBITING RETALIATION AGAINST

CLASS MEMBER DECLARANTS

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2931 Filed 03/17/20 Page 5 of 5

[3512883.3]

1 any retaliation against incarcerated people for exercising their rights under the ADA, for

2 reporting staff misconduct, or for participating in the Motion would be a violation of the

3 law.

4

3. Defendants shall not communicate with any of the Declarants regarding

5 matters covered by their declarations or any alleged retaliation related to their participation

6 in the Motion without first providing notice to Plaintiffs’ counsel and an opportunity for

7 Plaintiffs’ counsel to participate in any interview or communications.

8

4. Defendants shall respond to inquiries from Plaintiffs’ counsel regarding

9 Defendants’ efforts to comply with the terms of this stipulation and any alleged retaliation

10 against the Declarants, Armstrong class members, or incarcerated people at RJD for

11 participating in the Motion.

12

5. If the Court finds that retaliation has occurred, the Court will issue

13 appropriate relief.

14

6. This order will terminate six months after the Court’s ruling on the Motion

15 becomes final.

16 IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

18 DATED: _M_a_r_c_h___1_7___, 2020 19 20

Honorable Claudia Wilken United States District Judge

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

Case No. C94 2307 CW

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER PROHIBITING RETALIATION AGAINST

CLASS MEMBER DECLARANTS

 
 Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 1 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

9

JOHN ARMSTRONG, et al.,

Case No. 94-cv-02307 CW

10

Plaintiffs,

11

v.

12

GAVIN C. NEWSOM, et al.,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION TO MODIFY REMEDIAL ORDERS AND INJUNCTIONS
(Re: Dkt. No. 2922)

13

Defendants.

14

15

In this class action for violations of disabled prisoners’

16 rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and § 504

17 of the Rehabilitation Act (RA), which is in the remedial phase,

18 Plaintiffs contend that staff at R.J. Donovan Correctional

19 Facility (RJD) continue to deprive class members of their rights

20 under the ADA in violation of this Court’s prior remedial orders

21 and injunctions. Docket No. 2922. Plaintiffs seek an order

22 modifying the Court’s prior remedial orders and injunctions to

23 require the implementation of new remedial measures at RJD to

24 prevent further violations of class members’ rights. Defendants

25 oppose the motion. Having carefully considered the parties’

26 submissions, and the argument presented at the hearing held on

27 August 11, 2020, the Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiffs’ motion to

28 modify the Court’s remedial orders and injunctions.

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 2 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1

FINDINGS OF FACT12

2 I. Procedural history

3

In 1994, Plaintiffs, “a class of all present and future

4 California state prison inmates and parolees with certain

5 disabilities, sued defendants, California state officials with

6 responsibility for the operation of the Department of Corrections

7 and Rehabilitation (the CDCR) and the Board of Parole Hearings

8 (BPH), challenging the State’s treatment of disabled prisoners

9 and parolees.” Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger, 622 F.3d 1058, 1063

10 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). The claims

11 against the CDCR were litigated separately from the claims

12 against the BPH; only the former claims are relevant to the

13 present motion.

14

On July 9, 1996, on the eve of trial, Plaintiffs and CDCR

15 Defendants reached an agreement on a Stipulation and Order for

16 Procedures to Determine Liability and Remedy. Docket No. 148.

17 The Stipulation and Order provides:

18

It is the intent of this Stipulation to

require defendants to operate programs,

19

activities, services and facilities of the

California Department of Corrections in

20

accordance with the Americans with

Disabilities Act and § 504 of the

21

22

1 Defendants objected to the Court’s consideration of new 23 matters that were raised and attached to Plaintiffs’ reply on the

ground that Defendants did not have an opportunity to respond to 24 them. Objections 1-3, Docket No. 3033. The Court permitted

Defendants to file a supplemental brief to respond. Defendants 25 filed a supplemental brief, but it contains no response to most

of the matters to which Defendants originally objected. See 26 Defs.’ Supp. Resp., Docket No. 3045. Defendants have thus waived

these objections.

27

2 Defendants object to certain portions of the declarations

28

of Gay Grunfeld and Michael Freedman, upon which the Court has not relied. The Court overrules these objections as moot.

2

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 3 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, if the Court

1

determines that the ADA and § 504 apply to

the California Department of Corrections.

2

3 Stipulation and Order ¶ 12, Docket No. 148.

4

On September 20, 1996, this Court held that the ADA and RA

5 apply to state prisoners, Docket No. 157, and that Defendants’

6 policies and procedures with regard to disabled prisoners were

7 inadequate and violative of the ADA and the RA, Docket No. 159.

8 See also Armstrong v. Wilson, 942 F. Supp. 1252, 1258 (N.D. Cal.

9 1996), aff’d, 124 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 1997).

10

On the same date, the Court entered a Remedial Order and

11 Injunction, which required CDCR Defendants to develop plans,

12 policies, and procedures, including disability-grievance

13 procedures, to ensure that their facilities and programs were

14 compliant with the ADA and RA. Remedial Order and Injunction at

15 1-4, Docket No. 158. The Court retained jurisdiction to enforce

16 the terms of the Remedial Order and Injunction, as well as to

17 issue “any order permitted by law, including contempt, necessary

18 to ensure that defendants comply with the guidelines, policies,

19 procedures, plans and evaluations” required by the Remedial Order

20 and Injunction. Id. at 5.

21

In accordance with the Remedial Order and Injunction,

22 Defendants produced a remedial plan in 1998, Docket No. 337,

23 which they amended in January 2001, Docket No. 681. The Amended

24 Remedial Plan of January 2001 (ARP), Section I, incorporates the

25 ADA’s anti-discrimination and access provisions, 42 U.S.C.

26 § 12132, by providing as follows:

27

No qualified inmate or parolee with a

disability as defined in Title 42 of the

28

United States Code, Section 12102 shall,

3

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 4 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

because of that disability, be excluded from

1

participation in or denied the benefits of

services, programs, or activities of the

2

Department or be subjected to

discrimination.

3

4 ARP at 1, Docket No. 681. Section II.F. of the ARP requires CDCR

5 to “provide reasonable accommodations or modifications for known

6 physical or mental disabilities of qualified inmates/parolees.”

7 Id. at 7. The remainder of the ARP describes various types of

8 accommodations that CDCR must provide, such as “staff

9 assistance,” sign language interpreters, alternative methods for

10 restraining inmates who cannot be restrained with traditional

11 restraint equipment in the ordinary prescribed manner, and

12 accessible vehicles for transporting inmates. Id. at 22-34. The

13 ARP requires each institution to take steps to ensure that staff

14 are aware at all times of which inmates have disabilities that

15 require accommodations. Id. For example, the ARP requires each

16 institution to issue an identifying vest to each inmate who has

17 vision or hearing disabilities, which the inmate must wear over

18 his clothing when outside of his cell or bed area. Id.

19 Defendants used the ARP as a model to craft remedial plans that

20 were specifically tailored to each CDCR institution. See

21 Individual Remedial Plans, Docket Nos. 782, 783, 784. The Court

22 approved the remedial plans for each institution, including RJD,

23 on February 6, 2002. Docket No. 781; RJD Remedial Plan, Docket

24 No. 784-2.

25

In November 2006, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a further

26 remedial order, in which they argued that Defendants were in

27 violation of the ARP and the Court’s orders. Docket No. 950. As

28 a result of this motion, the Court issued another injunction in 4

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 5 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1 2007 (2007 injunction), which required Defendants, in relevant

2 part, to comply with the ARP, including Section I, and to develop

3 accountability procedures to track their noncompliance with the

4 ARP and the Court’s orders. 2007 Injunction at 7, 9, Docket No.

5 1045. Since then, the Court has modified the 2007 injunction

6 several times to clarify Defendants’ obligations regarding

7 reporting and accountability. See Armstrong v. Brown, 768 F.3d

8 975, 979 (9th Cir. 2014); see also Order Modifying Permanent

9 Injunction of August 2, 2012, Docket No. 2180; Order Modifying

10 2007 Injunction of December 29, 2014, Docket No. 2479.

11

In February and June 2020, respectively, Plaintiffs filed

12 two motions (enforcement motions) in which they argue that

13 Defendants’ employees have engaged and continue to engage in

14 conduct that violates class members’ rights under the ARP and ADA

15 contrary to this Court’s prior orders and injunctions. Docket

16 Nos. 2922, 2948. The conduct alleged involves misconduct

17 directed at class members, who are more vulnerable to abuse and

18 less able to defend themselves in light of their disabilities, as

19 well as acts that have served to discourage class members from

20 requesting reasonable accommodations for their disabilities,

21 either through the formal grievance process or otherwise.

22

The first enforcement motion is the one now before the

23 Court, which seeks relief for alleged violations of class

24 members’ rights under the ARP and ADA at RJD (RJD enforcement

25 motion), and the second enforcement motion seeks relief for

26 alleged violations of class members’ rights at other prisons

27 throughout California (state-wide enforcement motion). The

28 5

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 6 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1 state-wide enforcement motion has not been fully briefed and

2 remains pending.

3 II. The continued lack of accountability for staff at RJD

enables violations of the ARP and the Court’s remedial

4

orders and injunctions

5

RJD has the second largest population of incarcerated people

6 with disabilities in CDCR, with nearly 1,000 Armstrong class

7 members, including 297 people who use wheelchairs, 217 people who

8 are deaf or hard of hearing, and thirteen people who are blind.

9 Grunfeld Decl., Ex. II at 184-89, Docket No. 2922-1.3

10

Beginning in September 2016, Plaintiffs’ counsel notified

11 Defendants of allegations of noncompliance with the ARP and the

12 Court’s orders and injunctions based on claims that RJD staff

13 were denying class members reasonable accommodations and were

14 using excessive force against class members. See, e.g., Freedman

15 Decl., Ex. 67, 69, 71, 73, Docket No. 2921-2.4

16

In August 2018, auditors from the Office of Audits and Court

17 Compliance (OACC) and Plaintiffs’ counsel conducted a joint

18

19

3 Defendants object to this exhibit on the ground that it was

20 not properly authenticated. The Court overrules this objection.

Gay Grunfeld declares that this exhibit is a true and correct

21 copy of excerpts of data from Defendants’ COMPSTAT system, which

Defendants produced to Plaintiffs’ counsel on January 13, 2020.

22 Grunfeld Decl. ¶ 71, Docket No. 2922-1. That is sufficient to

find that the exhibit is what Ms. Grunfeld claims it is.

23 Moreover, Defendants do not argue that the exhibit is not

authentic.

24

4 Defendants object to Exhibits 67, 69, and 71 to the

25

Freedman Declaration on the ground that the declarant lacks personal knowledge. These exhibits are copies of the monitoring

26

reports written by Plaintiffs’ counsel, and the declarant is counsel for Plaintiffs. These documents are being offered to

27

show that Plaintiffs’ counsel alerted Defendants to allegations of noncompliance with the ARP and the Court’s orders. The

28 objections are, therefore, overruled.

6

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 7 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1 compliance review of the Disability Placement Program at RJD,

2 during which the joint team interviewed twelve class members.

3 Grunfeld Decl. ¶ 16 & Ex. G at 1-2, Docket No. 2922-1. After the

4 joint review, the OACC wrote a letter to CDCR’s Division of Adult

5 Institutions (DAI) dated September 20, 2018, in which the OACC

6 reported that seven of the interviewees made allegations of

7 “staff members forcefully removing some inmates from wheelchairs;

8 staff members assaulting inmates that were already secured with

9 restraint equipment; and inmates being accused of assaulting

10 officers when, in fact, it was the staff member who had assaulted

11 the inmate.” Grunfeld Decl., Ex. G at 1, Docket No. 2922-1.5 The

12 OACC recommended, based “on the nature and consistency of the

13 allegations,” that CDCR and RJD management “promptly take all

14 reasonable actions to ensure that these incidents do not occur in

15 the future, and that the historical allegations are thoroughly

16 investigated.” Id. (emphasis added). The OACC requested that

17 CDCR provide it with a “Corrective Action Plan (CAP) to address

18 these allegations,” identifying steps RJD and CDCR plan to take

19 to “mitigate these issues and address confirmed violations, along

20 with projected completion dates for each task,” by October 5,

21 2018. Id.; Miller Decl. ¶¶ 4, 5, 10. As of January 2020, CDCR

22 had not produced the Corrective Action Plan that OACC requested

23

24

5 Defendants object to Exhibit G on the ground that it was

25

not properly authenticated. The Court overrules this objection. Gay Grunfeld declares that this exhibit is a true and correct

26

copy of the September 20, 2018, memorandum to Connie Gipson, Director of DAI, from Matt Espenshade, Deputy Director of OACC,

27

regarding the joint interviews. Grunfeld Decl. ¶ 17, Docket No. 2922-1. That is sufficient to find that the exhibit is what Ms.

28

Grunfeld claims it is. Moreover, Defendants do not argue that the exhibit is not authentic.

7

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 8 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1 in September 2018. CDCR’s Rule 30(b)(6) Designee (Seibel) Dep.

2 Tr. at 30, Docket No. 2922-1.

3

In December 2018, CDCR sent a strike team to investigate

4 allegations of staff misconduct on Facility C at RJD. The team

5 was comprised of fourteen investigative staff and seven

6 ombudsmen. Bishop Report at 1-3, Docket No. 2921-6. The strike

7 team sought to interview 150 inmates on Facility C, but only 102

8 inmates agreed to be interviewed. Id. The interviewees

9 reported, in relevant part, that RJD staff specifically targeted

10 for abuse inmates with disabilities and other vulnerable inmates;

11 that RJD staff hired inmates to assault other inmates; that RJD

12 staff engaged in gang-like behavior; and that RJD staff

13 retaliated against inmates who reported the abuse with further

14 abuse or by making false allegations against them so that the

15 inmates would be subjected to disciplinary action. Id. at 4-9.

16 Forty-eight inmates out of the 102 who chose to participate in

17 the interviews supported their claims of misconduct by RJD staff

18 with detailed and “actionable” allegations. Id. at 14-17.

19

At the time that these interviews were conducted, there were

20 some fixed cameras at RJD outside of the five housing units, six

21 cameras in the gym, and ninety cameras in Facility E, which is a

22 newer facility that was built with cameras. CDCR’s Rule 30(b)(6)

23 Designee (Seibel) Dep. Tr. at 108-12, Docket No. 2921-8. The

24 cameras in places other than in Facility E are “old,” their

25 “clarity is very poor,” they have blind spots, and some were

26 inoperable at the time of the December 2018 interviews. Id.

27 Despite the presence of some cameras at RJD, CDCR does not have a

28 8

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 9 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1 written policy that requires that video footage be reviewed when

2 an allegation of staff misconduct is investigated. Id. at 129.

3

The Chief Ombudsman for CDCR, and who was part of the strike

4 team, wrote the following in an email to DAI’s director and

5 others at CDCR immediately after conducting the interviews in

6 December 2018:

7

[W]hat we heard was overwhelming accusations

of abuse by the Officers with Sgt’s and Lt’s

8

looking in the other direction. I have never

heard accusations like these in all my years.

9

I would strongly suggest placing a strike

team on this yard immediately. Many of the

10

inmates have expressed fear of what will

happen to them tomorrow when the team is not

11

there. This is a very serious situation and

needs immediate attention. If there is any

12

means of installing cameras immediately I

would strongly suggest it, at least in the

13

blind spots and the back door by the gym. A

review of the appeal process, RVR’s and staff

14

complaints off that yard also needs to take

place ASAP.

15

16 Grunfeld Decl., Ex. H, Docket No. 2922-1 (emphasis added).6

17

Associate Warden Bishop, who led the strike team, wrote a

18 report based on his assessment of the interviews and recommended

19 that the “actionable” allegations of forty-eight inmates be

20 investigated “promptly.” Bishop Report at 14-17, Docket No.

21 2921-6. Yet, it is undisputed that the investigations of some of

22 these “actionable” allegations made in December 2018 were not

23

24

25

6 Defendants object to this exhibit on the ground that it was

not properly authenticated. The Court overrules this objection.

26

Gay Grunfeld declares that this exhibit is a true and correct copy of an email sent by Sara Malone, who is the Chief Ombudsman

27

for CDCR, to Kimberly Seibel and Connie Gipson of CDCR. Grunfeld Decl. ¶ 22, Docket No. 2922-1. That is sufficient to find that

28

the exhibit is what Ms. Grunfeld claims it is. Moreover, Defendants do not argue that the exhibit is not authentic.

9

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 10 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1 complete as of January 2020. See Defs.’ Rule 30(b)(6) Designee

2 (Kimberly Seibel) Dep. Tr. at 133, 156, Docket No. 2921-8; id. at

3 221-22, Docket No. 2922-1.

4

Associate Warden Bishop also recommended, among other

5 things, that live-feed cameras be installed in all areas of

6 limited or obstructed visibility; that CDCR conduct a

7 comprehensive review and investigation of staff gang activity on

8 Facility C by trained gang investigation staff; and that CDCR

9 increase managerial presence on Facility C during all hours.

10 Bishop Report at 12-13, Docket No. 2921-6.

11

Notwithstanding these recommendations, and Defendants’

12 acknowledgement that the Bishop Report “formally recognized

13 serious problems with aspects of R.J. Donovan’s operations,”

14 Defs.’ Resp. at 19, as of the date of this order, CDCR has not

15 installed additional live-feed cameras at RJD7; has not devoted

16 any additional resources to investigate or address gang-like

17 behavior among RJD staff; and has not increased managerial

18 presence on Facility C or elsewhere at RJD.8 CDCR’s Rule 30(b)(6)

19 Designee (Kimberly Seibel) Dep. Tr. at 168-69, Docket No. 2921-8.

20

21
7 CDCR had requested funds for the installation of additional 22 cameras at RJD during the 2020-2021 fiscal year as part of its
Audio Video Surveillance Solution system. Macomber Decl. ¶ 8. 23 Because of the Covid-19 pandemic, the Governor of California
withdrew CDCR’s request from the state’s budget proposal without 24 prejudice in May 2020. Req. for Judicial Notice, Ex. K.
Defendants represent that they remain committed to installing 25 additional cameras at RJD in the future.

26

8 Two field training sergeants provided additional managerial

presence at RJD for about a year, but neither of these field

27

sergeants is currently at RJD. CDCR’s Rule 30(b)(6) Designee (Kimberly Seibel) Dep. Tr. at 168-69, Docket No. 2921-8.

28

Accordingly, there is no additional managerial presence at RJD at this time.

10

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 11 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1

Two correctional sergeant investigators from outside RJD

2 conducted follow-up interviews with some of the Bishop Report

3 interviewees in January and February 2019, and wrote memoranda in

4 which they concluded that the majority of the allegations of

5 staff misconduct and use of excessive force were being made by

6 “wheelchair designated inmates” or inmates suffering from severe

7 mental illness. Freedman Decl., Ex. 3 (DOJ0000057), Docket No.

8 2921-6; id., Ex. 4 (DOJ00000425). Although the allegations have

9 “not yet been proven,” the investigators emphasized that the

10 allegations were “brought up in numerous interviews by different

11 inmates, and even by an inmate who claims to have assaulted

12 inmates on behalf of custody staff.” Id. Accordingly, the

13 investigators recommended, among other things, that CDCR install

14 cameras inside housing units and rotundas. Id.

15

Plaintiffs represent, and Defendants do not dispute, that

16 Defendants failed to disclose to Plaintiffs’ counsel the Bishop

17 Report from December 2018, and the memoranda of the two

18 investigators from early 2019, until January 2020, when

19 Defendants produced them in response to formal discovery requests

20 by Plaintiffs. Grunfeld Decl. ¶ 31, Docket No. 2922-1.

21

Starting in January 2019, Plaintiffs’ counsel began to send

22 copies of its advocacy letters to the Office of the Inspector

23 General (OIG) regarding class members’ allegations of violations

24 of the ARP and their ADA rights. Grunfeld Decl., Ex. J, Docket

25 No. 2922-1.9 The OIG reviewed CDCR’s responses to sixteen of

26

27

9 Defendants object to this exhibit on the ground that it was

28 not properly authenticated. The Court overrules this objection.

11

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 12 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1 Plaintiffs’ advocacy letters from 2019 and concluded in January

2 2020 that each described “serious” misconduct that, “if true,

3 would result in disciplinary action for the subject employees.”

4 Id. at 1. The OIG found a “pervasive lack of timely follow

5 through,” including that CDCR “ignored” many allegations, failed

6 to investigate twenty-eight allegations not previously known to

7 CDCR, and failed to refer pertinent information to the Office of

8 Internal Affairs when appropriate. Id.

9

Plaintiffs’ expert, Jeffrey Schwartz, has assisted prisons

10 and jails over the last twenty years in applying national

11 correctional standards to their operations. Schwartz Decl. ¶ 2,

12 Docket No. 2947-9. Schwartz was retained by Plaintiffs to opine

13 on CDCR’s inquiry, investigation, and disciplinary process as it

14 relates to allegations of staff misconduct and the discipline of

15 staff for misconduct. Id. ¶ 9. As part of his assignment,

16 Schwartz analyzed the files of forty-three investigations of

17 allegations of staff misconduct at RJD. Id. ¶ 11. Schwartz

18 opines that the situation at RJD is “horrifying” for inmates with

19 disabilities and other vulnerable inmates, and that there is

20 “substantial evidence that these vulnerable inmates are targeted

21 and preyed upon by a significant number of staff at RJD.” Id. ¶¶

22 23-27. According to Schwartz, “Inmates are afraid to file

23 grievances/complaints and afraid to provide testimony during

24 investigations. Pressure to withdraw complaints and other forms

25

26

Gay Grunfeld declares that this exhibit is a true and correct copy of a letter sent on January 17, 2020, by Inspector General

27

Roy Wesley to CDCR Secretary Ralph Diaz. Grunfeld Decl. ¶ 34, Docket No. 2922-1. That is sufficient to find that the exhibit

28

is what Ms. Grunfeld claims it is. Moreover, Defendants do not argue that the exhibit is not authentic.

12

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 13 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1 of intimidation are common.” Id. ¶ 60. Schwartz attributes this

2 situation to RJD’s “dysfunctional staff culture,” which “will not

3 be changed quickly or easily.” Id. ¶ 93. According to Schwartz,

4 this dysfunctional culture stems in part from the ineffectiveness

5 of CDCR’s system for investigating misconduct and disciplining

6 staff; the investigations of staff misconduct at RJD are

7 incomplete, unprofessional, and biased against incarcerated

8 complainants and witnesses. Id. ¶¶ 93, 40-47, 84, 181, 187, 273,

9 276, 327. Schwartz opines that inmate testimony is often

10 discounted or ignored and that plagiarism and other collusion in

11 staff reports is disregarded. Id. ¶¶ 40-49. Schwartz notes that

12 staff is disciplined primarily when there is video evidence or

13 staff reports of misconduct. Id. ¶¶ 53, 126, 127, 172, 208, 210,

14 219.

15

Defendants have not proffered any evidence to dispute

16 Schwartz’s conclusions that, despite the existence of policies

17 and procedures for investigations of and discipline in connection

18 with staff misconduct, the policies and procedures are

19 ineffective because they are not properly followed when it comes

20 to staff misconduct at RJD. To the contrary, Defendants’ own

21 expert, Ken McGinnis, agrees that “there have been breakdowns and

22 failures in the decisions of those involved in the [investigation

23 and disciplinary] processes that have resulted in inappropriate

24 outcomes.” McGinnis Decl., Ex. B. at 8-9, Docket No. 3006-2.

25

Schwartz’s opinions are supported by the fact that the

26 current investigation and discipline system has resulted in only

27 nine terminations of RJD staff since 2017 for misconduct in which

28 the victim was an inmate; only two of these dismissals are final. 13

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 14 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1 See Miller Decl. ¶¶ 34-36, Docket No. 3006-1. One of these

2 terminated staff members was reinstated, and another resigned

3 before the termination became final. Id. Each of these

4 terminations involved misconduct against a disabled inmate. See

5 Grunfeld Decl. ¶ 39, Docket No. 3023-5. Each of the terminations

6 was based, at least in part, on either a video or a staff report

7 of the misconduct. Id. ¶ 40. Plaintiffs represent, and

8 Defendants do not dispute, that no terminations of RJD staff have

9 occurred where no video or staff report of misconduct was

10 available. Further, there have been no reports of staff

11 misconduct made by correctional staff who witnessed another

12 correctional officer engaged in misconduct. Defs.’ Rule 30(b)(6)

13 Designee (Kimberly Seibel) Dep. Tr. at 257, Docket No. 2922-1.

14

Out of the forty-eight “actionable” allegations of

15 misconduct identified in the Bishop Report, only two resulted in

16 any discipline. See Grunfeld Decl., Ex. OO, Docket No. 3023-5.

17

Plaintiffs’ other expert, Eldon Vail, is a former

18 correctional administrator with thirty-five years of experience

19 working in and administering adult correctional institutions.

20 Vail Decl. ¶ 3, Docket No. 2020-5. He has served as the Warden

21 of three adult correctional institutions, and he served as the

22 Secretary of the Department of Corrections of Washington for four

23 years. Id. ¶ 4. As part of his assignment, Vail reviewed the

24 declarations of inmate-declarants, relevant CDCR policies, and

25 various other case materials and filings. Id. ¶ 10. Vail

26 concludes that there is a pattern of violence against class

27 members at RJD and that staff at RJD routinely use force against

28 class members after failing to recognize and reasonably 14

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 15 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1 accommodate inmates’ disabilities. Id. ¶¶ 13, 4, 27, 30. In his

2 opinion, the level of force used by RJD staff against class

3 members often is excessive and the frequency with which such

4 force is used is “startling.” Id. According to Vail, the

5 “unnecessary and excessive use of force, including closed fist

6 punches and kicks, that result in serious injury to the class

7 members is far beyond the norm found in other institutions or

8 jurisdictions of which I am aware.” Id. ¶ 13. Vail also

9 identified a pattern of retaliation against class members who

10 report abuse, and widespread fear among class members of

11 reporting allegations of staff misconduct as a result. Id. ¶¶

12 16, 59-62, 88.

13

Vail reviewed some of the confidential closure memoranda

14 regarding the follow-up investigations of the allegations

15 described in the Bishop Report. Vail Decl. ¶¶ 41-51, Docket No.

16 3023-9. He opines that these investigations were inadequate.

17 Id. (concluding that “the follow-up investigations, or lack

18 thereof, [were] shocking” and that investigators “demonstrate[d]

19 flawed investigative techniques and bias against incarcerated

20 people”). For example, Vail notes that investigators deemed

21 allegations that certain RJD officers allowed inmates into

22 certain cells to steal other inmates’ property to be “unfounded”

23 even though the inmate who made the allegations told

24 investigators that he himself was allowed by those RJD officers

25 to go into cells to steal property, and that he did so often.

26 Id. ¶¶ 42-44. As another example, an inmate told investigators

27 that he had been hired by an RJD officer to assault other

28 15

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 16 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1 inmates; that allegation also was deemed to be unsubstantiated.

2 Id. ¶¶ 49-50.

3

Defendants admit that, as of 2018, RJD had “serious

4 problems” derived from staff misconduct. See, e.g., Defs.’ Resp.

5 at 1, Docket No. 3006 (“Defendants recognize that the R.J.

6 Donovan Correctional Facility has challenges necessitating

7 support.”); id. at 18 (acknowledging that in 2018 “incidents of

8 staff misconduct were occurring on [RJD]’s Facility C at an

9 unacceptable rate”); McGinnis Decl., Ex. B at 41, Docket No.

10 3006-2 (“[C]DCR, by its own reports and documents, acknowledged a

11 problem of staff misconduct at RJD and an environment that needed

12 to change.”). Defendants also admit that there is still “staff

13 misconduct that does occur” at RJD. See Defs.’ Rule 30(b)(6)

14 Designee (Kimberly Seibel) Dep. Tr. at 267, Docket No. 2922-1.

15

In July 2020, the Court ordered the transfer of two class

16 members out of RJD to other prisons based on evidence that these

17 class members had suffered retaliation and were at imminent risk

18 of suffering harm for submitting declarations in support of the

19 enforcement motions. Orders, Docket Nos. 2978, 2979, 3025. One

20 of these class members alleged that he received another threat on

21 the eve of his transfer out of RJD in the form of a note that was

22 signed with the initials of a correctional officer gang. See

23 Godbold Decl., Ex. A-D, Docket No. 3017; Grunfeld Decl., Ex. Q-S,

24 Docket No. 3023-5. Defendants have not submitted any evidence to

25 dispute this new allegation, which suggests that RJD staff

26 continue to engage in gang-like conduct. Defendants agreed to

27 transfer a third inmate who witnessed the retaliation against the

28 two class members who were transferred after that third inmate 16

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 17 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1 alleged that he faced retaliation for having assisted with the

2 transfer of the other two class members. See Grunfeld Decl. ¶ 21

3 & Ex. H, T, U, Docket No. 3023-5.

4 III.Staff at RJD violated the ARP and the Court’s prior orders

and injunctions

5

A. Staff at RJD denied class members reasonable

6

accommodations for their disabilities

7

As will be discussed in the Conclusions of Law below, a

8 violation of the ADA’s anti-discrimination and access provisions,

9 42 U.S.C. § 12132, which are incorporated into Section I of the

10 ARP, occurs where a disabled individual is denied a reasonable

11 accommodation so that he can enjoy benefits of a public entity’s

12 services, programs, or activities, or is otherwise discriminated

13 against by the public entity, by reason of his disability. ARP

14 at 1, Docket No. 681. A failure to provide a reasonable

15 accommodation can occur where a correctional officer could have

16 used less force or no force during the performance of his

17 penological duties with respect to a disabled person.

18

Plaintiffs have submitted eighty-seven declarations from

19 sixty-six current or former inmates at RJD.10 These declarations

20 describe dozens of incidents in which staff at RJD denied class

21 members reasonable accommodations for their disabilities.11 Some

22

23

10 See Freedman Decl., Ex. 6-58, 88, Docket No. 2922-2 to

Docket No. 2922-5; Freedman Decl., Ex. 3-5, 9-24, Docket No.

24 2947-5; Freedman Decl. Ex. 3, 5, 9, Docket No. 2970-1; Freedman

Decl. Ex. 1-4, 11, Docket No. 2999-1; Grunfeld Decl., Ex. H, M-P,

25 Docket No. 3023-5; Godbold Decl., Ex. B, Docket 3023-7.

11 Defendants object to certain portions of these 26 declarations on the grounds that: (1) they contain evidence the

27

probative value of which is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under Federal Rule of Evidence 403;

28 (2) they contain hearsay; (3) the declarants lack personal

17

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 18 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1 of the incidents involve the use of force against class members

2 even though they appear to have posed no imminent threat to staff

3 or other inmates. The incidents are from 2017, 2018, and 2019,

4 and some are as recent as April 2020. The incidents took place

5 at various locations at RJD and are not limited to Facility C.

6 For none of these incidents have Defendants submitted evidence to

7 show that the denial of reasonable accommodations, or the use of

8 unnecessary force, which itself can be a denial of a reasonable

9 accommodation, was necessary for the performance of legitimate

10 penological duties. The following are illustrative examples.

11

An RJD officer denied a class member a reasonable

12 accommodation for his hearing disabilities when he tried to

13 communicate with the class member. Freedman Decl., Ex. 7, ¶¶ 1-

14 26, Docket No. 2921-6 (December 2019, Facility A). The class

15 member tried to indicate to the officer that he had a hearing

16 disability by pointing to his disability vest and his ears, and

17 he tried to request that they should communicate in writing by

18 making a writing motion with his hands. Id. Instead of using an

19 ADA-appropriate technique for communicating with the class

20 member, the RJD officer yelled at the class member and then

21

22 knowledge; or (4) the declarants improperly offer testimony that

23

requires medical or mental-health expertise. See Defs.’ Resp. at 42-45; Objections at 4-5, Docket No. 3033. The Court overrules

24

these objections. The Court declines to exclude any portions of the inmate declarations on the basis of Federal Rule of Evidence

25

403, because there is no danger of unfair prejudice as the Court, not a jury, is making factual determinations. The Court finds

26

that the rest of Defendants’ objections lack merit. The statements in the inmate declarations at issue are not subject to

27

exclusion because they (1) are not hearsay, as they are not made for the truth of the matter asserted or fall within one of the

28

hearsay exceptions under Federal Rule of Evidence 803; (2) are based on the declarants’ personal knowledge and perceptions.

18

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 19 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1 punched the class member in the face. Id. As a result of this

2 incident, the class member is afraid to ask staff for writing

3 supplies so that he can communicate, for fear of being assaulted

4 again. Id. ¶¶ 27-28.

5

A class member with mobility disabilities who uses a cane

6 and walker asked an RJD officer not to handcuff him behind his

7 back because his disability requires a handcuffing accommodation.

8 Freedman Decl., Ex. 10 ¶¶ 1-11, Docket No. 2921-6 (July 2019,

9 Facility A). Instead of accommodating him, the officer body-

10 slammed the class member to the ground, causing him to hit his

11 head on the concrete floor and lose consciousness for several

12 seconds. Id. After he regained consciousness, the officer put

13 his knee on the class member’s throat and then kneed him in the

14 face. Id. ¶¶ 12-13. The class member had to be taken to the

15 hospital, where he was diagnosed with acute contusions to the

16 back of his neck and head; he was transported back to RJD in a

17 van that was not accessible. Id. ¶ 15; Freedman Decl., Ex. 10a.

18

Other class members with mobility disabilities who requested

19 a handcuffing accommodation also were thrown to the ground by RJD

20 officers instead of accommodated. Freedman Decl., Ex. 6 ¶¶ 1-8,

21 Docket No. 2921-6; Freedman Decl., Ex. 8 ¶¶ 1-9, 17-18, Docket

22 No. 2921-6 (January 2020, C14 Unit); Freedman Decl., Ex. 45 ¶¶ 1-

23 10, 17-18, Docket No. 2921-7 (September 2019, Facility A);

24 Freedman Decl., Ex. 26 ¶¶ 1-14, Docket No. 2921-6 (July 2019,

25 Facility A).

26

A class member with incontinence issues asked an RJD officer

27 to allow an ADA shower after an incontinence incident, and the

28 officer refused. Freedman Decl., Ex. 35 ¶¶ 1-11, Docket No. 19

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 20 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1 2921-7 (February 2019, Facility A). Other class members also

2 report being denied requests for showers or cleaning supplies

3 after incontinence incidents. Freedman Decl., Ex. 6 ¶ 20, Docket

4 No. 2921-6; Freedman Decl., Ex. 14 ¶ 12, Docket No. 2921-6.

5

RJD officers have forced some class members to stand for

6 long periods of time or to walk significant distances without

7 their walkers or other assistive devices despite the class

8 members’ requests for accommodations; in some cases, this has

9 caused the class members’ disabilities to worsen. See, e.g.,

10 Freedman Decl., Ex. 11 ¶¶ 1-12, 19, Docket No. 2921-6 (September

11 2018, Facility A).

12

RJD officers also have denied class members’ requests for

13 wheelchair pushers. Freedman Decl., Ex. 6 ¶ 20, Docket No. 2921-

14 6; Freedman Decl., Ex. 35 ¶¶ 1-11, Docket No. 2921-7 (February

15 2019, Facility A).

16

A class member was rendered unable to move his wheelchair in

17 his own cell and was forced to sleep on the floor because an RJD

18 officer conducted a search in the cell and left his property in

19 disarray, rendering the cell inaccessible. Freedman Decl., Ex.

20 53 ¶¶ 1-16, Docket No. 2921-6 (December 2016). The class member

21 requested assistance to restore his cell to an accessible

22 condition, but RJD staff ignored his requests. Id. When the

23 class member filed a grievance, the same RJD officer trashed his

24 cell again. Id. (2007).

25

Many class members who use wheelchairs or walkers describe

26 RJD officers intentionally closing cell doors on them and other

27 class members with mobility disabilities despite requests for

28 additional time to enter and exit cells in light of their 20

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 21 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1 impairments. See, e.g., Freedman Decl., Ex. 10 ¶ 21, Docket No.

2 2921-6 (July 2019, Facility A); Freedman Decl., Ex. 11 ¶¶ 20-21,

3 Docket No. 2921-6 (June 2019, Facility A); Freedman Decl., Ex. 17

4 ¶¶ 1-12, Docket No. 2921-6 (December 2019, Facility D); Freedman

5 Decl., Ex. 25 ¶¶ 1-23, Docket No. 2921-6 (April 2019, Facility

6 C); Freedman Decl., Ex. 40 ¶ 7, Docket No. 2921-7; Freedman

7 Decl., Ex. 55 ¶¶ 1-10, Docket No. 2921-6 (December 2019).

8

Declarants also describe RJD officers throwing class members

9 out of their wheelchairs and then slamming them into the ground

10 or beating them. See, e.g., Freedman Decl., Ex. 27 ¶ 16, Docket

11 No. 2921-6 (2018); Freedman Decl., Ex. 38 ¶¶ 16-18, Docket No.

12 2921-6 (July 2018).

13

A class member asked an RJD officer for help in lifting a

14 heavy package of mail and the officer refused. Freedman Decl.,

15 Ex. 21 ¶¶ 1-10, Docket No. 2921-6 (August 2018, Facility C).

16 When the class member stated that he intended to file a complaint

17 based on the officer’s refusal, the officer pepper sprayed the

18 class member in the face, hit him in the face with the pepper

19 spray canister, and then kicked him. Id.

20

A class member with a vision disability asked RJD staff to

21 stop shining his flashlight in his eyes because it exacerbates

22 his disability and is painful. Freedman Decl., Ex. 23 ¶¶ 1-12,

23 Docket No. 2921-6 (November 2018, Facility A). When the officer

24 failed to stop and the class member asked to speak with a

25 sergeant, another officer punched the class member in the jaw,

26 causing him to fall on the floor and lose consciousness. Id.

27 The officer later threatened the class member to charge him with

28 21

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 22 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1 a false rules violation report (RVR) if he filed a grievance

2 about the incident. Id.

3

A class member was launched from his wheelchair and onto the

4 ground when a wheelchair pusher pushed his wheelchair into an

5 obvious large hole in the pavement. Freedman Decl., Ex. 42 ¶¶ 1-

6 17, Docket No. 2921-6 (August 2019). The class member hit his

7 head and knee on the pavement because he was in handcuffs and

8 could not break his fall. Id. After the class member filed a

9 complaint against the wheelchair pusher, the wheelchair pusher,

10 who was present during the class member’s interview in connection

11 with the complaint, threatened the class member. Id. ¶¶ 13-14.

12 The class member now avoids asking staff for ADA showers or

13 toilet paper for fear of retaliation. Id. ¶ 18.

14

Thirty-three of the inmate declarations describe incidents

15 that have occurred since February 2020, when Plaintiffs filed the

16 present enforcement motion. These are a few examples.

17

In March 2020, an RJD officer denied a class member with

18 mobility and developmental disabilities a reasonable

19 accommodation in the form of an alternative handcuffing method.

20 Freedman Decl., Ex. 23 ¶¶ 9-10, Docket No. 2947-5 (Facility A).

21 When the class member became upset after the officer threatened

22 him with pepper spray, another officer activated an alarm and

23 summoned a group of officers who, upon their arrival, tackled the

24 class member without saying or doing anything to try to

25 deescalate the situation without the use of force. Id. The

26 class member hit his head on the ground and blacked out. Id.

27 When the inmate woke up, his eyes were burning from what he

28 suspected was pepper spray. Id. ¶ 10. The officers then put a 22

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 23 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1 cover over the class member’s head, handcuffed his hands behind

2 his back, shackled his legs, and carried him into a sally port,

3 where they then dropped him forcefully, causing him to hit his

4 head against the wall. Id. ¶¶ 1-3. Another inmate who witnessed

5 this incident submitted a declaration corroborating the class

6 member’s version of the events, adding that the class member

7 never tried to harm any of the officers and ducked to protect

8 himself once the group of officers arrived to tackle him.

9 Freedman Decl., Ex. 14 ¶¶ 1-6, Docket No. 2947-5. The witness

10 also saw the officers use pepper spray on the class member. Id.

11

In April 2020, class members with mobility disabilities had

12 a cell door closed on them. Freedman Decl., Ex. 13 ¶¶ 13-15,

13 Docket No. 2947-5 (Facility D); Freedman Decl., Ex. 24 ¶¶ 1-5,

14 Docket No. 2947-5 (Facility A).

15

The declarants believe, based on their experiences and

16 observations at RJD, that RJD staff target inmates with

17 disabilities for mistreatment because they are more vulnerable

18 and are less likely to fight back. See, e.g., Freedman Decl.,

19 Ex. 13 ¶ 16, Docket No. 2947-5; Freedman Decl., Ex. 10 ¶¶ 1-11,

20 Docket No. 2921-6; Freedman Decl., Ex. 11 ¶ 39, Docket No. 2921-

21 6; Freedman Decl., Ex. 23 ¶ 28, Docket No. 2921-6; Freedman

22 Decl., Ex. 26 ¶ 18, Docket No. 2921-6; Freedman Decl., Ex. 25

23 ¶¶ 1-23, Docket No. 2921-6; Freedman Decl., Ex. 55 ¶ 11, Docket

24 No. 2921-6; Freedman Decl., Ex. 38 ¶ 19, Docket No. 2921-6.

25 These beliefs are consistent with the allegations described in

26 the Bishop Report and the memoranda of the two correctional

27 investigative sergeants, and with the opinions of Plaintiffs’

28 experts. 23

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 24 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1

The Court finds the descriptions of the incidents in the

2 declarations submitted by Plaintiffs to be credible. The

3 declarants paint a very consistent picture of the conduct by RJD

4 staff that disabled inmates experience. The incidents described

5 in the declarations also are highly consistent with those that

6 the Bishop Report described as “actionable” and the OACC and two

7 correctional investigative sergeants described as worthy of

8 further investigation and immediate action. Further

9 corroboration is found in the medical records for some of the

10 class members who suffered injuries requiring medical attention

11 as a result of the incidents. See, e.g., Freedman Decl., Ex.

12 10a, Docket No. 2921-6; Freedman Decl., Ex. 23 ¶ 14 & Ex. 23a,

13 Docket No. 2921-6; Freedman Decl., Ex. 25a, Docket No. 2921-6;

14 Freedman Decl., Ex. 42a, Docket No. 2921-6. The descriptions

15 also are consistent with those in declarations by other inmates.

16 See, e.g., Freedman Decl., Ex. 32 ¶¶ 15-16, Docket No. 2921-6

17 (witnessed incident described in Exhibit 8 to the Freedman

18 Declaration); Freedman Decl., Ex. 14 ¶¶ 1-6, Docket No. 2947-5

19 (witnessed incident described in Exhibit 23 to the Freedman

20 Declaration). The declarations also are consistent with videos

21 that Plaintiffs submitted, which show wheelchair-bound inmates

22 being thrown out of their wheelchairs by RJD staff even though

23 they appeared to pose no threat to staff or other inmates. See

24 Grunfeld Decl., Ex. HH, II, JJ, Docket No. 3023-5.

25

The Court finds, based on the foregoing, that RJD staff have

26 denied reasonable accommodations to class members on many

27 occasions, and that such denials were by reason of the class

28 members’ disabilities. 24

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 25 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1

Defendants have not offered any declarations or other

2 evidence to dispute the sworn statements of the declarants with

3 respect to the incidents in question. Notably, many of the

4 declarations identify the officers who engaged in the conduct at

5 issue by name, but none of the identified officers has submitted

6 a declaration disputing the inmate’s version of the events. The

7 declarants’ version of the incidents is, therefore,

8 uncontroverted.

9

Defendants attack the declarations on the grounds that (1)

10 eleven of the declarants are not class members; (2) one of the

11 declarants was not a class member at the time the incident

12 alleged in his declaration occurred; (3) eighteen of the

13 declarants are no longer at RJD; (4) “many” of the declarants do

14 not allege that the staff misconduct occurred because of their

15 disability; (5) those who do allege that the staff misconduct was

16 connected to their disability “provide little or no factual

17 support” for the allegation; and (6) Defendants have sent letters

18 to Plaintiffs’ counsel in which Defendants state that certain

19 inmate allegations of staff misconduct lack merit or have been

20 referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation.

21 Defs.’ Resp. at 15.

22

Defendants’ arguments are unpersuasive. First, the Court

23 finds that the declarations submitted are relevant and probative

24 as to whether class members’ rights under the ARP and the ADA

25 were violated, regardless of whether the declarant is currently a

26 class member. Many of the declarants who are not class members

27 describe incidents they observed in which RJD staff denied class

28 members reasonable accommodations or otherwise discriminated 25

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 26 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1 against class members. Second, the Court finds that Defendants

2 have provided no support for their assertions, either in their

3 response to the present motion or in letters they have sent to

4 Plaintiffs’ counsel, that certain of the allegations in the

5 declarations lack merit. Defendants do not identify which of the

6 allegations have been investigated, how they were investigated,

7 when, and by whom, and how such investigations demonstrated that

8 the allegations lack merit. Further, Defendants’ assertions that

9 certain of the allegations lack merit contradict Defendants’

10 representation in their briefs that they take each of the

11 declarations “seriously” and for that reason have referred all of

12 them to the Office of Internal Affairs for further investigation.

13

Third, Defendants challenge certain of the declarations on

14 the ground that the declarants do not explicitly establish a

15 causal link between the violations of the ARP and ADA that they

16 describe and their disabilities. The Court is not persuaded.

17 This causal link need not be expressly alleged by each of the

18 declarants. Some of the misconduct could only be committed

19 because the victim was disabled, such as throwing him out of a

20 wheelchair or closing a cell door on a person who walks slowly

21 with a walker. In addition, the causal link can be inferred from

22 the totality of the allegations in the declarations; the

23 allegations described and credited in the Bishop Report, the OACC

24 letter, and the memoranda of the two correctional investigative

25 sergeants; and from the undisputed evidence discussed in more

26 detail above, which shows that it is a part of the staff culture

27 at RJD to target inmates with disabilities for mistreatment,

28 abuse, retaliation, and other improper behavior. The record 26

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 27 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1 supports a finding that the incidents described in the

2 declarations are manifestations of that culture.

3

B. RJD staff interfered with class members’ rights under

the ADA

4

5

As will be discussed in the Conclusions of Law below, a

6 violation of the ADA’s anti-interference provisions, 42 U.S.C. §

7 12203(b), occurs where (1) a person threatens, intimidates, or

8 coerces a person with a disability; (2) the threat, intimidation,

9 or coercion has a nexus to the exercise or enjoyment of an ADA

10 right; and (3) the disabled person suffers distinct and palpable

11 injury as a result, by virtue of giving up his ADA rights or some

12 other injury which resulted from his refusal to give up his

13 rights, or from the threat or intimidation or coercion itself.

14

Plaintiffs have submitted declarations by class members

15 stating that RJD staff have threatened, intimidated, or coerced

16 them when they have requested reasonable accommodations or have

17 filed or stated they would file ADA-related grievances, and that

18 this has caused them to refrain from requesting accommodations or

19 filing ADA grievances, or to experience severe emotional

20 distress. The declarations, which are uncontested, establish

21 that RJD staff have violated 42 U.S.C. § 12203(b). Below, the

22 Court describes a few examples. Some of these incidents were

23 also discussed in the previous section of this order because they

24 involve denials of reasonable accommodations, as well as

25 violations of § 12203(b).

26

An elderly class member who uses a walker and has

27 incontinence issues withdrew an ADA complaint about an officer

28 who repeatedly closed his cell door on him, after another officer 27

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 28 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1 asked him about the complaint in an aggressive and threatening

2 manner. Freedman Decl., Ex. 36, ¶¶ 1-10, 15 (September 2019, D20

3 unit). Weeks later, when a different RJD officer closed the

4 class member’s cell door on him, hurting his rib, the class

5 member did not file a grievance against the officer because of

6 what happened with his prior complaint. Id. ¶¶ 11-12 (December

7 2019, D20 unit). As a result of these incidents, the class

8 member has not asked for certain accommodations, such as for an

9 extra shower or extra linens after an incontinence incident. Id.

10 ¶ 15. The class member prefers to sit in soiled clothes rather

11 than risk retaliation by RJD staff. Id. ¶ 16.

12

An RJD officer, instead of accommodating a class member’s

13 deafness when trying to communicate with him, yelled at the class

14 member and then punched him in the face. Freedman Decl., Ex. 7,

15 ¶¶ 1-26, Docket No. 2921-6 (December 2019). As a result of this

16 incident, the class member does not ask staff for writing

17 supplies as accommodations for his deafness for fear of being

18 assaulted again. Id. ¶¶ 27-28.

19

A class member who requested a handcuffing accommodation and

20 was slammed to the ground and then kicked by RJD officers instead

21 of being accommodated is now afraid of requesting disability

22 accommodations as a result the incident. Freedman Decl., Ex. 8

23 ¶¶ 1-9, 17-18, Docket No. 2921-6 (January 2020, C14 Unit).

24

An RJD officer closed the cell door on a class member who

25 uses a walker, trapping him between the door and the wall, and

26 causing him to cry out in pain. Freedman Decl., Ex. 13 ¶¶ 13-15,

27 Docket No. 2947-5. The class member did not file a grievance

28 against the officer for fear of retaliation. Id. ¶ 15. 28

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 29 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1

A class member with mobility disabilities who requested a

2 handcuffing accommodation and was thrown to the ground by RJD

3 staff instead of accommodated did not file a grievance against

4 the officer for fear of retaliation. Freedman Decl., Ex. 6 ¶¶ 1-

5 8, 14, Docket No. 2921-6.

6

A class member with a vision disability asked RJD staff to

7 stop shining his flashlight in his eyes because it exacerbates

8 his disability and is painful. Freedman Decl., Ex. 23 ¶¶ 1-12,

9 Docket No. 2921-6 (November 2018, Facility A). When the class

10 member asked to speak with a sergeant, another officer punched

11 the class member in the jaw, causing him to fall on the floor and

12 lose consciousness. Id. The officer later threatened to charge

13 the class member with a false rules violation report if he filed

14 a grievance about the incident. Id. The situation made the

15 class member feel powerless and suicidal. Id. ¶ 15.

16

A class member who had cell doors closed on him, and who was

17 made to walk a long distance without his walker, does not ask for

18 accommodations such as extra toilet paper to manage his

19 incontinence for fear of getting hurt by RJD staff. Freedman

20 Decl., Ex. 11 ¶¶ 20-21, 37, Docket No. 2921-6 (June 2019,

21 Facility A).

22

A class member who has PTSD no longer asks for

23 accommodations for his incontinence disability because an RJD

24 officer has repeatedly tried to trigger his PTSD by making loud

25 noises after the class member filed grievances against the RJD

26 officer based on the officer’s failure to provide him with

27 incontinence supplies. Freedman Decl., Ex. 14 ¶¶ 1-12, 19,

28 Docket No. 2921-6. 29

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 30 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1

An older class member who uses a wheelchair and suffers from

2 incontinence filed an ADA grievance after an officer refused to

3 call a wheelchair pusher, denied him access to a shower to clean

4 himself after an incontinence incident, and made derogatory

5 comments about his use of a wheelchair. Freedman Decl., Ex. 35,

6 ¶¶ 4, 8-11 (February 2019). The class member dropped the

7 complaint and has stopped filing disability-related requests and

8 complaints because, based on the RJD officer’s behavior, he feels

9 that the officer could make his life “far worse if [he] continued

10 to speak out” about the denials of accommodations. Freedman

11 Decl., Ex. 35, ¶¶ 4, 8-12, Docket No. 2921-7.

12

As discussed above, Defendants have not submitted any

13 evidence, such as declarations by the officers who allegedly

14 engaged in intimidation, threats, or coercion, to dispute the

15 occurrence of these incidents and similar incidents described in

16 the declarations that Plaintiffs submitted.

17

The Court finds the inmate declarants to be credible for the

18 same reasons discussed in the prior section, and because of the

19 absence of any evidence that contradicts the version of the

20 events described in these declarations.

21

Defendants argue that they have not violated § 12203(b)

22 because the alleged conduct by RJD staff has not stopped class

23 members from filing ADA requests or grievances. In support, they

24 submitted data for the years 2017 to 2019 showing that class

25 members, including some of the ones who filed declarations, filed

26 ADA requests and grievances. See Olgin Decl., Docket No. 3006-3;

27 Olgin Decl., Docket No. 3050. These data show that class members

28 filed some ADA requests and grievances, but do not negate the 30

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 31 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1 possibility that class members refrained from filing ADA requests

2 or grievances that they would have filed but for the threats,

3 intimidation, or coercion by RJD staff. By definition, these

4 data do not take into account ADA requests and grievances that

5 class members did not make or submit, nor do they take into

6 account requests and grievances that class members withdrew. As

7 discussed above, some of the declarants state that they filed

8 some ADA requests or grievances but later withdrew them, or that

9 they decided not to make new requests because of the threats,

10 intimidation, or coercion they experienced. Further, the data

11 that Defendants submitted show that more than half of the class

12 members housed at RJD from 2017 through 2019 did not file a

13 single ADA request or grievance during that time period, which

14 supports the inference that some class members are choosing to

15 forgo their ADA rights as a result of threats, coercion, or

16 intimidation by RJD staff. See Olgin Decl., Docket No. 3050;

17 Grunfeld Decl. ¶¶ 28-29, Docket No. 3051-4. Accordingly, the

18 Court finds that Defendants’ data do not impact its finding that

19 Defendants violated class members’ rights under § 12203(b).

20 IV. Defendants failed to log instances of non-compliance with
the ARP and ADA in the Court-ordered accountability logs 21

22

As noted above, the Court ordered Defendants to track

23 allegations of non-compliance with the ARP and the Court’s

24 remedial orders starting in 2007. See 2007 Injunction; Order

25 modifying 2007 Injunction. Defendants’ tracking obligations are

26 set forth in the Court’s order of December 29, 2014, which

27 modifies the 2007 injunction and clarifies Defendants’ reporting

28 obligations with respect to the accountability log. It provides: 31

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 32 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

Defendants, their agents and employees

1

(Defendants) shall track any allegation that

any employee of the Department of

2

Corrections and Rehabilitation was

responsible for any member of the Plaintiff

3

class not receiving access to services,

programs, activities, accommodations or

4

assistive devices required by any of the

following: the Armstrong Remedial Plan, the

5

Americans with Disabilities Act or this

Court’s prior orders. Allegations to be

6

tracked include, but are not limited to,

those received from CDCR staff, prisoners,

7

Plaintiffs’ counsel, administrative appeals

and third parties. All such allegations

8

shall be tracked, even if the non-compliance

was unintentional, unavoidable, done without

9

malice, done by an unidentified actor or

subsequently remedied.

10

11 Order Modifying 2007 Injunction at 1, Docket No. 2479 (emphasis

12 added).

13

Plaintiffs argue that Defendants are in violation of that

14 requirement because they failed to log certain allegations of

15 staff misconduct at RJD, including (1) allegations that RJD staff

16 denied class members reasonable accommodations for their

17 disabilities; (2) allegations that class members suffered

18 retaliation for filing complaints against RJD staff or otherwise

19 participating in investigations regarding RJD staff misconduct;

20 (3) allegations that class members suffered physical12 or verbal

21 abuse13 by RJD staff; and (4) allegations described in the Bishop

22

23

24

12 These allegations include that RJD officers flipped over a 25 class member while he was in his wheelchair, and that an RJD

officer grabbed a class member’s hand and cane and caused him to 26 lose balance before slamming the class member’s head into a

table.

27

13 These allegations include that RJD staff make remarks to

28

people with disabilities such as, “go sit your crippled ass down.”

32

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 33 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1 Report that involved class members. See Freedman Decl. ¶ 280,

2 Docket No. 2921-2.

3

Defendants do not dispute that they have failed to log the

4 allegations that Plaintiffs have identified. Defendants argue

5 that their failure to log these allegations is justified because

6 such allegations do not involve the denial of access to services,

7 programs, activities, accommodations, or assistive devices, which

8 is what the Court’s Order Modifying the 2007 Injunction requires.

9

The Court finds that its Order Modifying the 2007 Injunction

10 requires Defendants to log allegations only to the extent that

11 they involve the denial of or failure to receive access to

12 services, programs, activities, accommodations, or assistive

13 devices. Order Modifying 2007 Injunction at 1, Docket No. 2479.

14 This Order does not require Defendants to log allegations of

15 discrimination or retaliation in violation of the ADA (or

16 otherwise) that do not involve the denial of access to services,

17 programs, activities, accommodations, or assistive devices.

18

Nonetheless, most of the allegations that Plaintiffs contend

19 were not logged by Defendants involve failures to provide

20 reasonable accommodations to class members, such as by denying

21 class members alternative handcuffing methods, wheelchairs, and

22 additional time to enter or leave a cell. See Freedman Decl. ¶

23 280. Defendants do not dispute that these allegations involve

24 denials of reasonable accommodations required by the ARP and ADA.

25 Defendants’ failure to log these allegations constitutes a

26 violation of the Order Modifying the 2007 Injunction.

27

The parties disagree as to whether allegations involving

28 physical or verbal abuse against a class member should be logged. 33

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 34 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1 As discussed in more detail in the Conclusions of Law, a denial

2 of reasonable accommodations in violation of the ADA can take

3 place where a law enforcement officer could have used less force

4 or no force during the performance of his law-enforcement duties

5 with respect to a disabled person. When that rule is applied in

6 the context of correctional facilities, it follows that a denial

7 of reasonable accommodations in violation of the ADA can take

8 place where a correctional officer could have used less force or

9 no force during the performance of his penological duties with

10 respect to a disabled person. Accordingly, allegations that fall

11 in this category must be logged by Defendants, including those

12 that were described in the Bishop Report.

13

Plaintiffs have not shown that verbal abuse, without more,

14 can qualify as a failure to provide a reasonable accommodation in

15 violation of the ADA. Accordingly, the Court denies, without

16 prejudice, Plaintiffs’ request to find that Defendants violated

17 the Court’s prior orders and injunctions when they failed to log

18 allegations of verbal abuse.

19

The parties disagree as to whether allegations of

20 intimidation or retaliation in violation of the ADA must be

21 logged. As noted, the Order Modifying the 2017 Injunction does

22 not require Defendants to log such allegations if they do not

23 involve the denial of access to services, programs, activities,

24 accommodations, or assistive devices. Accordingly, Defendants’

25 failure to date to log allegations of this type does not

26 constitute a violation of that order.

27

The parties’ and the Court’s intent at the outset of the

28 remedial phase of this litigation, however, was to require 34

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 35 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1 Defendants to operate their facilities and programs in accordance

2 with the ADA and RA. Stipulation and Order ¶ 12, Docket No. 148.

3 Tracking alleged violations of the ADA’s anti-retaliation and

4 anti-interference provisions, 42 U.S.C. § 12203(a) and (b), would

5 be consistent with that intent, as it would promote Defendants’

6 compliance with all provisions of the ADA. Accordingly, the

7 Court will modify its prior orders and injunctions to require

8 Defendants to track allegations of violations of the ADA’s anti-

9 retaliation and anti-interference provisions.

10 V. 11

Additional remedial measures are necessary to end the ongoing violations of the ARP and ADA

12

The Court finds that the root cause of the violations of the

13 ARP and class members’ ADA rights is the systemic and long-term

14 failure by CDCR to effectively investigate and discipline

15 violations of the ARP and class members’ ADA rights by RJD staff.

16 The policies, procedures, and monitoring mechanisms currently in

17 place, despite recent modifications made by Defendants, have

18 proven to be ineffective at curbing the violations. This is

19 evidenced by the multiple ARP and ADA violations that have

20 occurred since the present enforcement motion was filed in

21 February 2020, which are of the same nature as the ones that

22 Plaintiffs’ counsel first reported to Defendants in September

23 2016.

24

The ineffectiveness of the policies and procedures currently

25 in place appears to be the consequence of two factors. First is

26 the deeply ingrained staff culture at RJD of looking the other

27 way, so to speak, whenever staff misconduct occurs or is alleged

28 by an inmate, notwithstanding any official requirements to report 35

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 36 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1 and investigate the misconduct. This culture is enforced through

2 retaliatory acts by staff who wish to maintain the culture

3 against inmates and other staff who might report acts of

4 misconduct, and by CDCR’s failure to conduct prompt and effective

5 investigations of allegations of misconduct, particularly where

6 there is no video evidence or corroboration by staff of the

7 misconduct. Second is the reluctance of inmates and staff at RJD

8 to assist with the documentation and investigation of acts of

9 misconduct by staff for fear of retaliation. Each of these

10 factors appears to feed the other in a cycle that has proven to

11 be difficult to break.

12

Defendants make several arguments to try to show that

13 requiring them to implement additional remedial measures is

14 unnecessary, but these arguments are unpersuasive.

15

Defendants contend that further remedial measures are

16 premature at this juncture because investigations of class

17 members’ allegations have not yet been completed. The Court is

18 not convinced that the pendency of the investigations warrants a

19 delay in implementing additional remedial measures. Defendants

20 have provided no timeline for when the Court could expect the

21 investigations to be completed; based on the record, it seems

22 reasonable to expect that investigations could take many months,

23 if not years. As discussed above, the OIG, in reviewing CDCR’s

24 response to class members’ allegations of staff misconduct, noted

25 that CDCR’s investigations of such allegations had been

26 inordinately delayed or abandoned. The Court is reluctant to

27 allow further violations of class members’ rights under the ARP

28 and ADA to occur while the investigations are pending. Further, 36

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 37 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1 the Chief Ombudsman, Associate Warden Bishop, the OACC, and the

2 two correctional investigative sergeants from outside of RJD

3 recommended that CDCR take immediate concrete actions, including

4 installing new surveillance cameras, based on allegations of

5 staff misconduct that had not yet been proven. Their recommended

6 remedial measures were not contingent on the completion of

7 investigations of the allegations. The allegations of staff

8 misconduct alone, because of their number and consistency, were

9 sufficient for these state officials to decide that immediate

10 remedial actions were necessary. Here, the Court has before it

11 actual unrefuted evidence that violations of class members’

12 rights under the ARP and ADA have occurred, which is more than

13 the state officials had when they recommended that CDCR take

14 immediate remedial action.

15

Defendants next contend that conditions at RJD have improved

16 since 2017 as a result of the steps they have taken to date to

17 change the culture and improve staff accountability there, such

18 as providing staff with additional training, replacing certain

19 supervisors, reducing blind spots, taking disciplinary actions

20 against nine RJD officers, assigning additional staff to address

21 complaints about conditions at RJD, and deploying the Allegation

22 Inquiry Management System (AIMS), which is a new system

23 implemented at RJD in January 2020 that is intended to provide

24 second-level review outside of RJD of staff misconduct complaints

25 that involve serious bodily injury. Miller Decl. ¶¶ 11-16, 21-

26 22, 34-52, 53-57; McGinnis Decl., Ex. B at 18-22, 41.

27

The only evidence that Defendants cite to support the

28 proposition that conditions at RJD have improved as a result of 37

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 38 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1 the measures they have implemented is data showing that reported

2 incidents involving the use of force (UOF) have decreased on

3 Facility C by forty-four percent from 2018 to 2019, Miller Decl.

4 ¶ 65, and that staff misconduct complaints on Facility C have

5 decreased by forty percent over the same time period, id.

6

The Court finds that reliable inferences about whether

7 conditions for class members at RJD have improved cannot be drawn

8 from Defendants’ data. First, Defendants have not shown that a

9 reduction of UOF and staff misconduct incidents on Facility C,

10 which is the focus of their analysis, indicates a similar

11 reduction on other facilities at RJD. The violations of class

12 members’ ARP and ADA rights have taken place throughout RJD, not

13 just on Facility C. Plaintiffs represent, and Defendants do not

14 dispute, that UOF incidents increased from 2017 to 2019 on

15 Facility D by fifty percent and on Facility A by almost sixteen

16 percent. Grunfeld Decl. ¶¶ 64-65, Docket No. 3023-5. This

17 increase, and the inmate declarations now before the Court, are

18 consistent with the inference that the measures that Defendants

19 have implemented have not been effective at stopping or even

20 reducing acts of misconduct by RJD staff against class members.

21 As discussed above, some of the incidents described in the inmate

22 declarations took place in facilities other than Facility C in

23 April 2020, and in the case of the two inmates who were

24 transferred out of RJD pursuant to the Court’s order, as late as

25 June 2020.

26

Second, Defendants acknowledged at the August 11 hearing

27 that the data upon which they rely capture only UOF or staff

28 misconduct incidents that were reported. The Court cannot draw 38

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 39 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1 any conclusions from this data because the record shows that a

2 significant number of UOF or staff misconduct incidents are not

3 reported and therefore not reflected in Defendants’ data. For

4 example, the Bishop Report states that sixty-six inmates out of

5 the 102 who were interviewed (or seventy percent) responded that

6 they expected a negative outcome if they reported staff

7 misconduct or the use of excessive force. Bishop Report at 9.

8 That number may actually be higher, because the “inmates who

9 stated they were neutral or refused to answer [the question]

10 sometimes stated they would not answer the question for fear of

11 reprisal.” Id. Additionally, many of the inmate declarations

12 now before the Court also state that class members are reluctant

13 to report staff misconduct or the improper use of force for fear

14 of retaliation or further abuse.

15

Because Defendants’ UOF and staff misconduct data likely are

16 under-representative of the actual UOF or staff misconduct

17 incidents that take place at RJD, the Court cannot find, based on

18 the data, that UOF and staff misconduct incidents have decreased

19 at RJD as a result of the measures that Defendants have

20 implemented thus far. It is possible that the actual number of

21 UOF or staff misconduct incidents has remained constant, or even

22 increased, since 2017, and that the decline in reported UOF or

23 staff misconduct incidents is merely the result of increasing

24 unwillingness on the part of inmates to report the incidents.

25 See Vail Decl. ¶ 34, Docket No. 3023-9 (“Given the history of

26 retaliation at RJD, I am not convinced that a reduction in staff

27 misconduct complaints at Facility C represents progress.”).

28 39

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 40 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1

The Court does take note of the fact that Defendants’ data

2 show that twenty percent to twenty-four percent of the reported

3 UOF incidents between 2017 and 2019 involved a class member.

4 Because class members are in wheelchairs, have severe mobility

5 issues, have hearing or visual impairments, or suffer from other

6 significant impairments, common sense suggests that the

7 proportion of reported UOF incidents involving class members

8 should be much lower, because class members do not pose as much

9 of a threat to staff or other inmates as other inmates who are

10 not disabled. The relatively high incidence of reported UOF

11 incidents involving class members is not explained by Defendants.

12 The Court finds that this high incidence of UOF incidents

13 involving class members lends additional credibility to the

14 inmate declarations, and the allegations described in the Bishop

15 Report and correctional investigative sergeants’ memoranda, that

16 staff at RJD target class members and other vulnerable inmates

17 for physical and other forms of abuse.

18

Defendants and their expert also posit that no additional

19 remedial measures are necessary because the current policies and

20 procedures “are adequate when properly utilized and applied in

21 the review of staff misconduct including excessive use of force.”

22 McGinnis Decl., Ex. B at 8-9, Docket No. 3006-2 (emphasis added).

23 This argument misses the point. It fails to acknowledge that the

24 evidence shows that the current policies and procedures are not

25 being properly utilized and applied. As discussed above, the

26 record shows that CDCR’s investigation of staff misconduct

27 incidents has been deficient and slow notwithstanding the current

28 policies and procedures. Further, the implementation of the new 40

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 41 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1 AIMS system, which Defendants tout as one of the most significant

2 improvements they have enacted to respond to allegations of staff

3 misconduct, is unlikely to be a panacea, at least for class

4 members in this case, because it provides automatic second-level

5 review outside of RJD for allegations of staff misconduct, but

6 only if they involve serious bodily injury. Not every alleged

7 denial of a reasonable accommodation to a class member involves

8 serious bodily injury, yet every such denial should be the

9 subject of a proper, unbiased investigation. Under AIMS, alleged

10 denials of a reasonable accommodation that do not involve serious

11 bodily injury will not receive an automatic second-level review

12 outside of RJD, meaning that if RJD staff determine during the

13 first-level review that the allegations are unfounded, then the

14 inquiry at all levels will end there.

15

Even with AIMS in place in addition to all of the other

16 changes that Defendants have implemented in the last few years,

17 class members have shown that RJD staff have continued to violate

18 their rights under the ARP and the ADA well into 2020.

19 Defendants themselves admit that misconduct at RJD is ongoing.

20 See Defs.’ Rule 30(b)(6) Designee (Kimberly Seibel) Dep. Tr. at

21 267, Docket No. 2922-1. For this reason, the Court cannot find

22 that measures that Defendants have implemented recently have been

23 effective or will be effective at stopping the ongoing violations

24 of class members’ rights under the ARP and ADA in the absence of

25 additional remedial measures.

26

The Court finds that adopting a wait-and-see approach would

27 be contrary to the parties’ and the Court’s intent for the

28 remedial phase of this litigation, which was to bring CDCR into 41

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 42 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1 compliance with the ARP and ADA. Pursuant to the parties’

2 agreement, the Court’s role during the remedial phase is to give

3 force to that intent. In light of the substantial evidence of

4 noncompliance now before it, and the evidence showing that the

5 current policies and procedures have already proven to be

6 ineffective at bringing Defendants into compliance, the Court

7 finds that requiring Defendants to implement additional remedial

8 measures is both necessary and warranted.

9

Plaintiffs request that the Court require Defendants to

10 develop a plan within thirty days to implement the additional

11 remedial measures described in more detail below. The plan would

12 be implemented within forty-five days after the parties meet and

13 confer. See Revised Proposed Order at 17-21, Docket No. 3024-6.14

14

The Court finds that requiring Defendants to design, and

15 ultimately implement, a plan that requires them to adopt a

16 combination of certain of the remedial measures that Plaintiffs

17 propose, with modifications, as discussed below, is necessary to

18 prevent further violations of the ARP and class members’ ADA

19 rights at RJD. These additional remedial measures are intended

20 and tailored to improve policies and procedures for supervising

21 RJD staff’s interactions with inmates, investigating RJD staff

22 misconduct, and disciplining RJD staff by enhancing the process

23 for gathering and reviewing evidence that can be used to hold

24

25

14 Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ revised proposed order on

26

the ground that Plaintiffs filed it after they filed their initial brief in support of their enforcement motion. The Court

27

overrules Defendants’ objection because the Court provided Defendants with the opportunity to file a supplemental brief in

28

which they could respond to any new matters raised in or attached to Plaintiffs’ reply.

42

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 43 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1 staff accountable for any violations of the ARP and class

2 members’ ADA rights. These additional measures, when considered

3 as a whole, constitute an incremental expansion of processes and

4 systems that are already in place pursuant to the Court’s prior

5 orders and injunctions. See, e.g., Order Modifying 2007

6 Injunction at 1-4 , Docket No. 247 (requiring that Defendants

7 follow certain procedures for tracking non-compliance with the

8 ARP, the ADA, and the Court’s prior orders; for conducting

9 investigations of employee non-compliance; and for conducting

10 disciplinary proceedings against employees who engaged in

11 noncompliance); Remedial Order and Injunction at 5 (providing for

12 information-sharing with Plaintiffs’ counsel for monitoring

13 purposes).

14

1. Surveillance cameras

15

Plaintiffs request that (1) Defendants install additional

16 surveillance cameras in all areas at RJD to which incarcerated

17 people have access, including, but not limited to, all exercise

18 yards, housing units, sally-ports, dining halls, program areas,

19 and gyms, within ninety days; (2) CDCR adopt policies and

20 procedures regarding the use of camera footage, including

21 requirements that all footage be retained for a minimum of ninety

22 days, that footage of use of force and other triggering events be

23 retained indefinitely, and that footage, when available, be

24 reviewed and considered as part of the investigation of the

25 incident; and (3) CDCR train RJD staff regarding how and when to

26 request that footage be retained and reviewed.

27

Both parties and their experts agree that the installation

28 of additional surveillance cameras at RJD is necessary. See, 43

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 44 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1 e.g., Defs.’ Resp. at 13 (admitting that “[s]urveillance systems

2 are an effective tool to investigate incidents of violence,

3 provide transparency in staff misconduct allegations, and reduce

4 contraband activity”); Schwartz Decl. ¶¶ 87, 94-98; Vail Decl. ¶¶

5 83, 94-101. The reason for the consensus is obvious. Video

6 footage provides objective evidence that cannot easily be

7 disregarded. As Defendants’ expert explains, a more

8 comprehensive surveillance system:

9

[W]ill substantially improve the ability of

the CDCR and RJD administration to hold staff

10

and inmate [sic] accountable for all

inappropriate behavior, provide an efficient

11

tool for internal affairs and criminal

investigators to fully resolve complaints and

12

allegations, will serve as a deterrent for

inappropriate behavior by both staff and

13

inmates, and provide the facility the ability

to monitor locations that are now difficult

14

to monitor on an ongoing basis.

15 McGinnis Decl., Ex. B. at 27.

16

Defendants nevertheless oppose Plaintiffs’ request to

17 require them to install additional surveillance cameras at RJD

18 for two reasons: (1) they intend to submit a funding request to

19 install them in the future, so an order requiring them to install

20 them now is unnecessary; and (2) installing a video surveillance

21 system at RJD in ninety days as Plaintiffs request is not

22 feasible because, in Defendants’ view, it would take at least a

23 year to install and deploy the system. Macomber Decl. ¶¶ 9-13;

24 McGinnis Decl. Ex. B at 27.

25

The Court is not persuaded. Defendants’ arguments fail to

26 acknowledge that violations of class members’ rights under the

27 ARP and ADA are likely to continue to take place in the absence

28 of the additional surveillance cameras, and that such a scenario 44

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 45 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1 is unacceptable. Because cameras are critical in achieving true

2 accountability and compliance at RJD for the reasons set forth

3 above, the Court finds that the installation of additional

4 surveillance cameras is necessary and that it must be done as

5 soon as possible. Plaintiffs have submitted evidence, which

6 Defendants have not rebutted, showing that surveillance cameras

7 could be installed and fully deployed at RJD within four months.

8 Vail Decl. ¶¶ 59-61, Docket No. 3023-9. In light of the pressing

9 need for additional surveillance cameras at RJD, the Court finds

10 that any burdens associated with installing them on a time frame

11 that is shorter than what Defendants initially anticipated are

12 outweighed by the significant benefits of having additional

13 surveillance cameras at RJD. Defendants already have a contract

14 in place with a vendor for the installation of surveillance

15 cameras at CDCR institutions through June 2023. Diaz Decl. ¶ 42;

16 Macomber Decl. ¶ 12. This existing contract should facilitate

17 the installation and deployment process.

18

Defendants have not raised an objection in their briefs to

19 Plaintiffs’ request that their plan include policies and

20 procedures regarding the use of camera footage and training for

21 RJD staff regarding the same, as discussed in more detail above.

22 In the absence of a showing to the contrary, the Court finds that

23 policies, procedures, and training on the use of camera footage

24 are necessary and should be a part of Defendants’ plan.

25

2. Body cameras

26

Plaintiffs request that CDCR purchase and begin using body-

27 worn cameras for all correctional officers at RJD within sixty

28 days. 45

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 46 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1

Defendants oppose the request on the grounds that (1) body

2 cameras are not typically used in correctional facilities and

3 jails, and CDCR lacks enough information to determine whether the

4 use of body cameras would be effective, both in terms of the

5 footage they would capture and their cost; (2) Defendants’ expert

6 opines that body cameras may not be as effective as surveillance

7 cameras because they require the user to turn them on and off at

8 the appropriate times, and because body cameras may not capture

9 certain incidents that would be captured by fixed cameras as a

10 result of the angle and perspective of their lenses, McGinnis

11 Decl., Ex. B at 28-29; (3) procuring hundreds of body cameras in

12 sixty days may not be feasible in light of the logistical issues

13 raised by the present pandemic and the procurement procedures

14 that CDCR must follow, Defs.’ Supp. Resp. at 4-5; and (4)

15 policies for the use of body cameras must be in place before they

16 are used at RJD..

17

The Court finds that body cameras are likely to improve

18 investigations of misconduct by RJD staff and to reduce the

19 incidence of violations of class members’ rights under the ARP

20 and ADA. They are, therefore, necessary and should be deployed

21 at RJD as soon as possible. The Court finds the opinions of

22 Plaintiffs’ expert, which Defendants have not rebutted with any

23 evidence, to be persuasive. Eldon Vail opines, based on research

24 and studies on the topic, that the use of body cameras in

25 correctional facilities has resulted in “increased officer and

26 inmate safety, fewer uses of force,” and improved investigations

27 of internal misconduct by officers, particularly when used in

28 conjunction with surveillance cameras. Vail Decl. ¶¶ 64-66, 46

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 47 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1 Docket No. 3023-9. He further opines that issues about when

2 cameras should be turned on or off, and privacy concerns, can be

3 addressed through policymaking and training. Id. ¶¶ 67-68. Vail

4 also opines that body cameras can be procured and deployed at RJD

5 in two months. Id. ¶ 70.

6

Defendants have not shown that procuring the body-worn

7 cameras in the time frame that Plaintiffs have proposed would not

8 be feasible. Defendants note that the pandemic has “disrupt[ed]

9 manufacturing centers and supply chains across the globe,” Supp.

10 Resp. at 4, but they do not point to any evidence showing that

11 these disruptions would prevent them from procuring the body-worn

12 cameras in the time frame that Plaintiffs have proposed. They

13 also speculate that “[r]equiring Defendants to rush to award a

14 sizeable contract on such short notice would risk thwarting” the

15 state’s policies with respect to government procurement, which

16 Defendants represent are intended to eliminate favoritism, fraud,

17 and corruption in the award of public contracts. Id. (emphasis

18 added). Defendants have not proffered any evidence showing that

19 requiring them to procure body-worn cameras in the time frame

20 that Plaintiffs have proposed would require them to violate these

21 policies.

22

In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that body-worn

23 cameras can be procured and deployed in the time frame that

24 Plaintiffs have proposed.

25

The Court agrees with Defendants that having policies and

26 procedures in place before body cameras are deployed at RJD is

27 sensible, and it will incorporate this sequence into its order

28 describing the additional remedial measures required herein. 47

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 48 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

3. Processes for complaints, investigations,

1

discipline, and oversight

2

Plaintiffs request that Defendants be required to develop a

3 plan to reform the staff complaint, investigation, and discipline

4 process to ensure (1) that CDCR completes unbiased, comprehensive

5 investigations into all allegations of staff misconduct in which

6 the victim was a class member; (2) that CDCR imposes appropriate

7 and consistent discipline against employees who engage in

8 misconduct against class members; and (3) that employees who

9 engage in criminal misconduct against class members are

10 appropriately investigated and, if warranted, referred for

11 prosecution. Plaintiffs also request that CDCR headquarters be

12 required to exercise oversight over all staff complaints, use of

13 force reviews, and related staff disciplinary proceedings at RJD

14 in which an employee is accused of engaging in misconduct against

15 an incarcerated person, and to conduct quarterly interviews of

16 randomly-selected incarcerated people at RJD using the

17 methodology and interview questionnaire utilized by the December

18 2018 investigators.

19

Defendants oppose these requests, arguing that CDCR already

20 has existing processes, policies, and oversight systems in place

21 to investigate misconduct and discipline employees who commit it,

22 which they contend are effective mechanisms because (1) the

23 Inspector General testified that CDCR does well in assessing UOF

24 incidents handled at the local level, and he agrees with CDCR’s

25 assessment about UOF incidents ninety-five percent of the time;

26 (2) the current policies and procedures were developed in

27 response to unrelated litigation, namely Madrid v. Gomez, Case

28 No. 90-3094 (N.D. Cal.), and they balance the interests of 48

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 49 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1 multiple stakeholders, including CDCR staff. Defs.’ Resp. at 34-

2 35; Diaz Decl. ¶ 11.

3

Defendants’ arguments miss the point. First, Defendants

4 fail to acknowledge that, based on the evidence discussed above,

5 the current policies and procedures have failed to prevent

6 violations of the ARP and of class members’ rights under the ADA

7 at RJD. These violations did not all involve the use of force.

8 Defendants rely on the Inspector General’s testimony that the OIG

9 monitors forty percent of CDCR’s assessments as to use-of-force

10 incidents state-wide, and that, of those, it agrees with CDCR’s

11 assessments ninety-five percent of the time. Roy Wesley Dep. Tr.

12 at 38, Grunfeld Decl., Ex. S, Docket No. 2922-1. This testimony,

13 however, speaks to CDCR’s assessments on a state-wide basis and

14 says nothing about whether the current policies and procedures

15 are effective in preventing violations of the ARP and class

16 members’ ADA rights at RJD, whether the violations involve the

17 use of force or not. As discussed above, when it comes to

18 investigations of alleged violations of class members’ ADA rights

19 and other staff abuse at RJD, the OIG has been critical of CDCR’s

20 performance. Grunfeld Decl., Ex. J, Docket No. 2922-1.

21

Second, that the current policies and procedures were

22 developed in connection with the Madrid litigation, which

23 involved, in relevant part, the review of CDCR’s policies and

24 procedures with respect to the use of force and CDCR’s

25 investigation and enforcement of violations of the same, also

26 says nothing about whether such policies and procedures are

27 adequate to prevent further violations of the ARP and class

28 members’ ADA rights at RJD. 49

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 50 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1

Here, the Court has found that it is necessary to stop

2 ongoing violations of the ARP and class members’ ADA rights at

3 RJD, and that the current policies and procedures are incapable

4 of achieving that. Accordingly, the Court finds that requiring

5 Defendants to craft a plan to modify the current policies,

6 procedures, and oversight of staff complaints to achieve

7 compliance with the ARP and ADA at RJD is necessary and

8 appropriate. By providing Defendants with discretion to craft

9 this plan, the Court gives them the opportunity to balance the

10 interests of any stakeholders who would be impacted by the

11 modifications.

12

4. Third-party monitoring

13

Plaintiffs request that the additional remedial measures

14 include the appointment of an expert pursuant to Federal Rule of

15 Evidence 706 to monitor Defendants’ implementation of their plan

16 to reform the staff complaint, investigation, and discipline

17 policies and procedures, and that the expert have access to

18 documents necessary to conduct its monitoring.

19

Defendants have not raised an objection in their briefs to

20 this request. In the absence of a showing to the contrary, the

21 Court finds that requiring the appointment of an expert for

22 monitoring purposes would make the implementation of the plan

23 required herein more effective, and would assist Defendants in

24 achieving compliance with the ARP and ADA. Accordingly, the

25 Court finds that the appointment of an expert is necessary and

26 appropriate.

27 //

28 50

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 51 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

5. Information-sharing with Plaintiffs’ counsel and

1

the Court Expert

2

Plaintiffs request that Defendants share with Plaintiffs’

3 counsel and the court expert all documents related to staff

4 complaints at RJD in which the alleged victim is a class member,

5 as well as monthly written updates regarding the implementation

6 of any additional remedial measures.

7

Defendants have not raised an objection in their briefs to

8 this request. In the absence of a showing to the contrary, the

9 Court finds that requiring the sharing of documents as described

10 above is necessary for the effective monitoring of Defendants’

11 implementation of the additional remedial measures and is

12 appropriate.

13

6. Supervisory staffing

14

Plaintiffs request that CDCR significantly increase

15 supervisory staff on all watches on all yards at RJD and create

16 non-uniformed supervisory positions in each housing unit.

17

Defendants argue that no changes to their staffing structure

18 are necessary in light of the changes they already have made to

19 their staffing policies and procedures. Defs.’ Resp. at 36-37.

20 Defendants note that CDCR has dedicated a full-time ombudsman at

21 RJD for six months.

22

The Court finds that additional supervisory staff in the

23 form of additional sergeants is necessary at RJD. The Bishop

24 Report, which Defendants have endorsed, and Defendants’ own

25 expert, recommended increasing supervisory staff on Facility C at

26 RJD in light of the allegations of misconduct that were made with

27 respect to that facility. See Bishop Report at 12-13, Docket No.

28 2921-6; McGinnis Decl., Ex. B at 34, Docket No. 3024-6. Those 51

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 52 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1 recommendations can be extrapolated to the rest of RJD in light

2 of the evidence discussed above, which shows that violations of

3 the ARP and class members’ ADA rights are taking place throughout

4 RJD under circumstances similar to those that formed the basis of

5 the recommendations in the Bishop Report. As discussed above, at

6 present, the managerial presence at RJD in the form of sergeants,

7 whether at Facility C or otherwise, is not any higher than it was

8 in December 2018. CDCR’s Rule 30(b)(6) Designee (Kimberly

9 Seibel) Dep. Tr. at 168-69, Docket No. 2921-8. The Court cannot

10 conclude that the presence of a full-time ombudsman at RJD is an

11 adequate replacement for the additional managerial presence that

12 the Bishop Report recommended, as Defendants have not shown that

13 the full-time ombudsman performs functions that are equivalent to

14 those that supervisory staff, such as sergeants, perform at RJD.

15 Accordingly, the Court finds that requiring CDCR to increase

16 managerial presence at RJD in the form of additional sergeants is

17 necessary.

18

The Court declines at this time to require CDCR to create

19 non-uniformed supervisory positions at RJD. The parties’ experts

20 disagree about the effectiveness of such non-uniformed positions,

21 McGinnis Decl., Ex. B at 32; Vail Decl. ¶ 79, and the Court finds

22 that there is insufficient evidence in the record outside of the

23 experts’ conflicting declarations to make a determination as to

24 whether non-unformed supervisory positions are needed.

25

7. Training

26

Plaintiffs request that CDCR develop and implement human

27 rights, de-escalation, and cultural training for all custody,

28 mental health, and medical staff at RJD to include discussion of 52

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 53 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1 reporting requirements, whistleblowing, non-retaliation, and

2 treatment of incarcerated people as patients.

3

Defendants object to requiring them to provide RJD staff

4 with additional training beyond what they already provide.

5

In light of the evidence discussed above showing that the

6 measures that CDCR has implemented to date, including providing

7 staff with additional training, have proven to be ineffective at

8 stopping violations of the ARP and class members’ ADA rights, the

9 Court finds that it is necessary to require Defendants to develop

10 additional training programs for RJD staff and supervisors that

11 are tailored to achieving staff compliance with the ARP and ADA.

12

8. Data collection and early-warning system

13

Plaintiffs request that CDCR develop an electronic system

14 for tracking all incidents at RJD by date, time, location, staff

15 involved, incarcerated people involved, that includes information

16 about whether inmates are class members, any injuries they

17 suffered, and related medical records.

18

Defendants oppose this request, on the grounds that the

19 newly created Enterprise Risk Management Branch, within the

20 Office of Audits and Court Compliance, is responsible for a data-

21 collection and early-warning system that appropriately addresses

22 Plaintiffs’ concerns. Diaz Decl. ¶ 32. This system collects,

23 compiles, and analyzes information, evidence, and data from

24 multiple CDCR offices, databases, and other tracking tools. Id.

25

In their reply, Plaintiffs argue that this new system is not

26 operational and is insufficient to achieve the level of tracking

27 that they request, but do not explain why. In the absence of

28 sufficient evidence in the record to make a determination as to 53

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 54 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1 whether additional tracking by CDCR is necessary with respect to

2 incidents involving class members at RJD, the Court declines to

3 require additional tracking at this time.

4

9. Pepper spray

5

Plaintiffs request a policy requiring that all pepper spray

6 canisters at RJD be weighed before and after use.

7

Defendants and their expert oppose this request on the

8 grounds that it would be unnecessarily burdensome and could

9 potentially delay the movement of officers to their posts.

10

In light of the evidence discussed above, which shows that

11 pepper spray was used on multiple occasions against class members

12 where there was no evidence that the class members posed an

13 imminent threat to RJD staff or other inmates, or that the use of

14 pepper spray served a legitimate penological interest, the Court

15 finds that it is necessary to require CDCR to craft a plan to

16 modify its policies to more effectively monitor and control the

17 use of pepper spray by RJD staff with respect to class members.

18

10. Anti-retaliation

19

Plaintiffs request that CDCR be required to put an end to

20 retaliation against class members and staff at RJD who report

21 staff misconduct and to ensure complainants’ safety.

22

Defendants did not object to this request in their briefs.

23

The Court finds that requiring CDCR to take steps to stop

24 retaliation against class members at RJD in violation of the ADA

25 is necessary.

26

LEGAL STANDARD

27

“It is well established that the district court has the

28 inherent authority to enforce compliance with a consent decree 54

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 55 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1 that it has entered in an order, to hold parties in contempt for

2 violating the terms therein, and to modify a decree.” Nehmer v.

3 U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 494 F.3d 846, 860 (9th Cir.

4 2007); Frew ex rel. Frew v. Hawkins, 540 U.S. 431, 441 (2004)

5 (“Federal courts are not reduced to approving consent decrees and

6 hoping for compliance. Once entered, a consent decree may be

7 enforced.”). Further, a district court has “wide discretion” to

8 modify its own injunctions “if the circumstances, whether of law

9 or fact, obtaining at the time of its issuance have changed, or

10 new ones have since arisen.” Sys. Fed’n No. 91, Ry. Emp. Dep’t,

11 AFL-CIO v. Wright, 364 U.S. 642, 647 (1961); see also Swift &

12 Co., 286 U.S. 206, 114 (1932) (“A continuing decree of injunction

13 directed to events to come is subject always to adaptation as

14 events may shape the need”).

15

The interpretation of a consent decree is for the court, and

16 not the parties subject to the decree. Nehmer, 494 F.3d at 860

17 (“Although a party may ask the district court to issue an order

18 clarifying, enforcing, or modifying a decree and suggest a

19 favored interpretation, a party—whether a private or public

20 entity—cannot dictate the meaning of the decree to the court or

21 relieve itself of its obligations under the decree without the

22 district court’s approval.”) The court’s discretion in

23 interpreting a consent decree is particularly wide where the

24 court has been overseeing a remedial decree for many years. Id.;

25 Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger, 622 F.3d at 1073 (holding that a

26 court that has been “overseeing complex institutional reform

27 litigation for a long period of time” is entitled to “heightened

28 deference”). 55

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 56 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1

I. Plaintiffs have shown that Defendants violated the ARP and

2

the Court’s prior orders and injunctions15

3

A. Denial of reasonable accommodations for class members’

4

disabilities

Section I of the ARP requires Defendants to comply with the 5

ADA’s anti-discrimination and access provisions, 42 U.S.C. § 6

1213216. It provides, “No qualified inmate or parolee with a 7

disability as defined in Title 42 of the United States Code, 8

Section 12102 shall, because of that disability, be excluded from 9

participation in or denied the benefits of services, programs, or 10

activities of the Department or be subjected to discrimination.” 11

ARP at 1, Docket No. 681. As discussed above, the Court retained 12

jurisdiction to enforce Defendants’ compliance with the ARP. 13

Remedial Order and Injunction at 5, Docket No. 158. 14

15
15 Defendants argue that the allegations of staff misconduct 16 addressed herein fall outside of the scope of this litigation
because the operative complaint “does not allege that officers or 17 other prison staff are using excessive force or retaliating
against disabled inmates.” Defs.’ Resp. at 24-25. The Court is 18 not persuaded. Every iteration of the complaint has made the
same key allegation, namely that “[s]tate officials have 19 discriminated against plaintiffs and the class they represent by
reason of their disability.” See, e.g., Compl. ¶ 1, Docket No. 20 1. The incidents now at issue are alleged to be instances of
discrimination against class members by reason of their 21 disability; accordingly, such allegations are well within the
scope of this action. Further, the ARP expressly requires 22 Defendants to abstain from denying class members reasonable
accommodations or discriminating against them by reason of their 23 disability. The Court retained jurisdiction to enforce
Defendants’ compliance with the ARP and any orders issued in 24 connection with the same. The allegations of discrimination and
denials of reasonable accommodations now before the Court fall 25 within the scope of that jurisdiction.

26

16 The language in Section 1 of ARP mirrors the language of

Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12132, which provides, “No

27

qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the

28

benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.”

56

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 57 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1

To prove that a public program or service violated § 12132,

2 a plaintiff must show: (1) that he is a “qualified individual

3 with a disability”; (2) that he was either excluded from

4 participation in or denied the benefits of a public entity’s

5 services, programs, or activities, or was otherwise discriminated

6 against by the public entity; and (3) that such exclusion, denial

7 of benefits, or discrimination was by reason of his disability.

8 Duvall v. Cty. of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1135 (9th Cir. 2001), as

9 amended on denial of reh’g (Oct. 11, 2001).

10

The Ninth Circuit has held that the second element of this

11 test can be satisfied where a law enforcement officer could have

12 used less force or no force during the performance of his law-

13 enforcement duties with respect to a disabled person. See

14 Sheehan v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 743 F.3d 1211, 1232-33

15 (9th Cir. 2014), rev’d on other grounds sub nom., City & Cty. of

16 San Francisco, Calif. v. Sheehan, 575 U.S. 600 (2015) (holding

17 that a failure to reasonably accommodate a person’s disability in

18 the course of an investigation or arrest by using unnecessary

19 force, causing the person to suffer “greater injury or indignity

20 in that process than other arrestees,” gives rise to a claim

21 under § 12132, and that a reasonable jury could conclude that a

22 police officer’s failure to use less force or no force during an

23 arrest of a person with mental illness could constitute a failure

24 to provide a reasonable accommodation in violation of § 12132);

25 Vos v. City of Newport Beach, 892 F.3d 1024, 1037 (9th Cir.

26 2018), cert. denied sub nom. City of Newport Beach, Cal. v. Vos,

27 139 S. Ct. 2613 (2019) (same). When applied in the prison

28 context, it follows that the second element of a § 12132 claim 57

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 58 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1 can be satisfied where a correctional officer could have used

2 less force or no force during the performance of his penological

3 duties with respect to a disabled person.17

4

Defendants did not address, much less distinguish, these

5 authorities in their briefs, nor did they dispute that the second

6 element of a § 12132 claim can be satisfied in the manner just

7 described.

8

Here, it is undisputed that class members are “qualified

9 individuals with a disability” within the meaning of the ADA, and

10 that the first element is met. At issue is whether Plaintiffs

11 have shown, as required by the second and third elements of a

12 claim under § 12132, that RJD staff denied class members the

13 benefits of RJD’s services, programs, or activities, or otherwise

14 discriminated against them, by reason of their disabilities.

15

As discussed in more detail in the Findings of Fact, the

16 Court has found that RJD staff failed on numerous occasions to

17 reasonably accommodate the disabilities of class members. RJD

18 staff refused class members’ requests for alternative methods for

19 communication (in the case of deaf inmates); for the use

20

21

17 The OIG’s interpretation of CDCR’s use-of-force policy is

22

consistent with the notion that correctional officers have an obligation under the ADA to reasonably accommodate an inmate’s

23

disabilities when considering the use of force in the performance of their penological duties. See OIG Report, Monitoring the Use-

24

of-Force Review Process of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (July 13, 2020) at 5, Grunfeld

25

Decl., Ex. VV (“According to departmental policy, when determining the best course of action to resolve a particular

26

situation, staff must evaluate the totality of the circumstances, including an inmate’s demeanor, mental health status and medical

27

concerns (if known), and the inmate’s ability to understand and comply with orders. Policy further states that staff should

28

attempt to verbally persuade, whenever possible, to mitigate the need for force.”).

58

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 59 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1 alternative handcuffing methods (in the case of mobility-impaired

2 inmates); for assistance with operating wheelchairs (in the case

3 of wheelchair-bound inmates); for showers and cleaning supplies

4 (for inmates with incontinence problems); for additional time to

5 safely enter and exit cells (for mobility-impaired inmates); and

6 for adequate transportation methods (for mobility-impaired

7 inmates). Defendants do not dispute that these class members

8 required, and that RJD staff failed to provide them with,

9 reasonable accommodations, nor do they dispute that these

10 failures constitute denials of the benefits of CDCR’s services,

11 programs, or activities or discrimination within the meaning of §

12 12132. Accordingly, the second element is met as to these

13 incidents.

14

The Court also has found that RJD staff failed to provide

15 reasonable accommodations for class members’ disabilities when

16 RJD staff failed to use less force or no force when performing

17 their penological duties, such as by throwing class members out

18 of wheelchairs, punching them, kicking them, or using pepper

19 spray where the undisputed evidence shows that the class members

20 posed no threat to RJD staff that would warrant the use of such

21 force. The second element also is met as to these incidents.

22

As to the third element, whether these failures to provide

23 reasonable accommodations were due to the class members’

24 disabilities, the Court found that this element is met based on

25 the totality of the evidence. Inmates state in their

26 declarations that they believe, based on their own experiences

27 and observations, that RJD staff targets people with disabilities

28 and other vulnerable inmates for mistreatment. These beliefs are 59

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 60 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1 consistent with the allegations credited in the Bishop Report and

2 the memoranda by the two sergeant investigators, and the opinions

3 of Plaintiffs’ experts, which Defendants have not disputed.

4 Defendants have not proffered any evidence from which the Court

5 could infer an alternative cause for the incidents in question,

6 such as a legitimate penological interest or the lack of a

7 reasonable accommodation that RJD staff could have provided to

8 the class members.

9

Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendants have violated

10 Section I of the ARP and the Court’s prior orders by violating

11 § 12132.

12

B. Interference with class members’ ADA rights

13

Plaintiffs contend that staff at RJD have interfered with

14 class members’ exercise of their rights under the ADA in

15 violation of the ADA’s anti-interference provision, 42 U.S.C.

16 § 12203(b), which provides:

17

It shall be unlawful to coerce, intimidate,

threaten, or interfere with any individual

18

in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on

account of his or her having exercised or

19

enjoyed, or on account of his or her having

aided or encouraged any other individual in

20

the exercise or enjoyment of, any right

granted or protected by this chapter.

21

22

Section 12203(b) was not expressly incorporated into the

23 ARP. Nevertheless, the Court concludes that Defendants are

24 required to comply with § 12203(b), which is a part of the ADA.

25 The stipulated order that the Court entered at the outset of the

26 remedial phase of this litigation makes clear that “the intent”

27 of the parties was “to require defendants to operate programs,

28 activities, services and facilities of the California Department 60

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 61 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1 of Corrections in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities

2 Act and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973[.]” Stipulation

3 and Order ¶ 12, Docket No. 148. The purpose of the ARP was to

4 set forth specific actions that Defendants would take to bring

5 their programs, activities, services, and facilities into

6 compliance with the ADA and the RA. One of such action was to

7 set up a system to facilitate class members’ requests for

8 reasonable accommodations and ADA-related grievances. When RJD

9 staff frustrate the effectiveness of that system by threatening,

10 coercing, or intimidating class members into foregoing their

11 rights to request reasonable accommodations or file ADA-related

12 grievances, that constitutes a violation of the ARP and the

13 Court’s prior orders and injunctions regarding the same.

14

The Ninth Circuit has not specifically described the

15 elements required to establish a violation of § 12203(b), nor has

16 it defined what “intimidation” or “coercion” mean in the context

17 of § 12203(b). The Court finds Brown v. City of Tucson to be

18 instructive. 336 F.3d 1181, 1191-93 (9th Cir. 2003). There, the

19 Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiff had stated a claim for a

20 violation of § 12203(b) by alleging facts showing that (1) her

21 employer threatened her with an adverse action; (2) the threat

22 had a nexus to her exercise or enjoyment of an ADA right; and (3)

23 she suffered “distinct and palpable” injury as a result of the

24 threat. Id. The Ninth Circuit held that the requisite injury

25 “could consist of either the giving up of her ADA rights, or some

26 other injury which resulted from her refusal to give up her

27 rights, or from the threat itself.” Id.

28 61

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 62 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1

As discussed in more detail in the Findings of Fact, the

2 Court has found that staff members at RJD have interfered with

3 certain class members’ enjoyment of their rights under the ADA

4 and ARP in violation of § 12203(b) by intimidating, threatening,

5 or coercing them into abstaining from making requests for

6 reasonable accommodations or filing ADA grievances. As a result

7 of the intimidation, threats, and coercion, these class members

8 suffered injury in the form of giving up their rights to make

9 requests for reasonable accommodations or to file ADA grievances,

10 or in the form of severe emotional distress. See Brown, 336 F.3d

11 at 1193 (holding that the plaintiff alleged an injury within the

12 meaning of § 12203(b) by alleging that she “suffered short-term

13 memory problems and felt extremely stressed, harassed, and

14 pressured” by her employer’s threats).

15

These violations of § 12203(b) constitute violations of the

16 ARP and the Court’s prior orders and injunctions regarding the

17 same.

18 II. Plaintiffs have shown that Defendants failed to comply with
their Court-ordered tracking and accountability obligations 19

20

As discussed above, the Court has found that its Order

21 Modifying the 2007 Injunction requires Defendants to log

22 allegations only to the extent that they involve the denial of or

23 failure to receive “access to services, programs, activities,

24 accommodations or assistive devices required by any of the

25 following: the Armstrong Remedial Plan, the Americans with

26 Disabilities Act or this Court’s prior orders.” Order Modifying

27 2007 Injunction at 1, Docket No. 2479 (emphasis added).

28 62

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 63 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1

It is undisputed that Defendants failed to log alleged

2 failures to provide reasonable accommodations to class members,

3 such as by denying class members alternative handcuffing methods,

4 wheelchairs, and additional time to enter or leave a cell. See

5 Freedman Decl. ¶ 280. It is also undisputed that Defendants

6 failed to log alleged failures by RJD staff to provide reasonable

7 accommodations to class members where the reasonable

8 accommodation would have been the use of less force or no force

9 during the performance of penological duties. The Court has

10 found that Defendants violated the Court’s prior orders and

11 injunctions by failing to log these allegations.

12

The Court will modify its prior orders and injunctions to

13 require Defendants to track allegations of retaliation and

14 interference in violation of the ADA’s anti-retaliation and anti-

15 interference provisions, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12203(a) and (b). The

16 Court has found that including such allegations in the

17 accountability log is consistent with the parties’ intent to

18 require Defendants, during the remedial phase of this litigation,

19 to operate their facilities and programs in accordance with the

20 ADA and RA. See Stipulation and Order ¶ 12, Docket No. 148.

21 III. The implementation of additional remedial measures is
necessary to ensure compliance with the ARP and ADA 22

23

The Court retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the

24 Remedial Order and Injunction, as well as to issue “any order

25 permitted by law, including contempt, necessary to ensure that

26 defendants comply with the guidelines, policies, procedures,

27 plans and evaluations” required by the Remedial Order and

28 Injunction. Remedial Order and Injunction at 5, Docket No. 158. 63

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 64 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1 The Court has found that the additional remedial measures

2 discussed above are necessary to ensure that Defendants comply

3 with their obligation under the ARP and ADA to provide reasonable

4 accommodations for class members’ disabilities and to otherwise

5 refrain from discriminating against class members by reason of

6 their disabilities. They also are necessary to effectuate the

7 parties’ and the Court’s intent “to require defendants to operate

8 programs, activities, services and facilities of the California

9 Department of Corrections in accordance with the Americans with

10 Disabilities Act and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973[.]”

11 Stipulation and Order ¶ 12, Docket No. 148. Accordingly, the

12 Court will modify its prior orders and injunctions to require

13 Defendants to develop a plan to implement the additional remedial

14 measures that the Court has found to be necessary to bring

15 Defendants into compliance with the ARP and ADA.18

16

17

18

18 Defendants contend that the modification of an injunction requires new findings of (1) irreparable injury; (2)

19

unavailability of adequate remedies at law; (3) balance of hardships; and (4) consideration of the public interest. To

20

support that proposition, Defendants rely on Arizona Dream Act Coal. v. Brewer, 855 F.3d 957, 963 (9th Cir. 2017). Brewer is

21

distinguishable, because the permanent injunction there was issued after the district court granted summary judgment in favor

22

of the plaintiffs. There was no modification of a prior injunction in Brewer. Here, by contrast, the Court entered the

23

Remedial Order and Injunction pursuant to the parties’ agreement after they settled this action. Stipulation and Order Re:

24

Liability and Remedy ¶ 6, Docket No. 148. During the remedial phase of this litigation, the Court has modified its injunctions

25

several times in response to enforcement motions such as the present one pursuant to the jurisdiction it retained to enter

26

“any order permitted by law, including contempt, necessary to ensure that defendants comply” with the ARP. Remedial Order and

27

Injunction at 5, Docket No. 158. Defendants cite no authority showing that the Court must make any specific findings when

28 enforcing the ARP under the terms of the parties’ settlement

64

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 65 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

IV. The additional remedial measures ordered herein are

1

consistent with the PLRA

2

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) provides that courts

3 “shall not grant or approve any prospective relief [with respect

4 to prison conditions] unless the court finds that such relief is

5 narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the

6 violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means

7 necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.” 18

8 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). The Court is required to give

9 substantial weight to “any adverse impact on public safety or the

10 operation of a criminal justice system caused by” the prospective

11 relief. Id. Whether prospective relief is appropriate in light

12 of the PLRA19 depends on whether the Court finds, in light of the

13

14
agreement. In an abundance of caution, however, the Court finds 15 and concludes that the record amply supports the modification of
the Court’s prior injunctions to require Defendants to implement 16 the remedial measures ordered here based on the four factors
described in Brewer. Class members would suffer irreparable harm 17 in the absence of the additional remedial measures, because RJD
staff are likely to continue to violate the ARP and class 18 members’ ADA rights in the absence of such measures. The balance
of hardships tips strongly in the class members’ favor, because 19 their physical and mental health, as well as their ability to
request and obtain reasonable accommodations for their 20 disabilities and exercise their ADA rights, would be at risk
absent the additional remedial measures. The burden on 21 Defendants of implementing such measures is severely outweighed
by the hardship that the class members would suffer in the 22 absence of the measures. Class members do not have an adequate
remedy of law because damages for past violations of their ADA 23 rights would do nothing to prevent further violations, which are
likely. Finally, the public has a strong interest in the 24 enforcement of the ADA.

25

19 The PLRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(B), also requires that

the Court make certain findings to the extent that any

26

prospective relief requires a government official to exceed his or her authority under state or local law. Defendants have not

27

identified any state or local law that they must violate to implement the additional remedial measures ordered herein.

28

Accordingly, the Court need not make any findings under 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(B).

65

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 66 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1 “order as a whole,” “that the set of reforms being ordered—the

2 ‘relief’—corrects the violations of prisoners’ rights with the

3 minimal impact possible on defendants’ discretion over their

4 policies and procedures.” Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger, 622 F.3d

5 at 1071.

6

A. Narrowly tailored

7

The Court concludes that the additional remedial measures

8 discussed above meet the requirements of the PLRA. They are

9 narrowly tailored because they require action only with respect

10 to RJD, which is where violations of the ARP and class members’

11 ADA rights have been established, and because they are the least

12 that can be done to protect class members at RJD from further

13 violations of their rights under the ARP and ADA. Id. at 1072

14 (holding that the scope of permissible injunctive relief “is

15 dictated by the extent of the violation established”) (citation

16 and internal quotation marks omitted). As discussed above, the

17 substantial evidence that Plaintiffs have presented, and that

18 Defendants have not successfully refuted, shows that the

19 violations of class members’ rights are not limited to isolated

20 incidents. The dozens of ARP and ADA violations described in the

21 inmates’ declarations were widespread in every sense of the word;

22 they affected class members who suffer from a wide range of

23 disabilities; they were caused by many identified RJD staff

24 members; and they took place at a variety of locations at RJD.

25

As discussed, the incidents appear to be the result of a

26 persistent failure to adequately supervise and hold RJD staff

27 accountable for violations of class members’ ARP and ADA rights.

28 It remains possible, under the current policies and procedures, 66

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 67 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1 for RJD staff members to continue to violate class members’ ARP

2 and ADA rights while potentially avoiding accountability for

3 their actions. The additional remedial measures in question are

4 specifically designed to remedy this, and they are therefore

5 necessary to prevent further violations of the ARP and class

6 members’ ADA rights. See, e.g., Armstrong v. Brown, 768 F.3d at

7 984 (affirming order requiring CDCR Defendants to implement

8 remedial measures intended to enhance CDCR’s accountability);

9 Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger, 622 F.3d at 1073-74 (noting the

10 importance of accountability measures in ensuring ADA

11 compliance); Morales Feliciano v. Rullan, 378 F.3d 42, 55–56 (1st

12 Cir. 2004) (noting the importance of accountability in ensuring

13 the long-term success of the health care system in Puerto Rico’s

14 prisons).

15

B. Least Intrusive

16

The additional remedial measures ordered herein are not

17 impermissibly intrusive because they do not micromanage RJD’s

18 operations. Defendants have the discretion to craft policies and

19 procedures to implement the additional remedial measures.

20 Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger, 622 F.3d at 1071 (“Intrusiveness is

21 a particularly difficult issue for defendants to argue, as by

22 ordering them to draft and promulgate a plan, the district court

23 left to defendants’ discretion as many of the particulars

24 regarding how to deliver the relief as it deemed possible.

25 Allowing defendants to develop policies and procedures to meet

26 the ADA’s requirements is precisely the type of process that the

27 Supreme Court has indicated is appropriate for devising a

28 suitable remedial plan in a prison litigation case.”). That the 67

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 68 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1 Court describes the additional remedial measures with some

2 specificity does not change this conclusion. See Armstrong v.

3 Brown, 768 F.3d at 986 (holding that “[a] court may, as the

4 district court did here, provide specific instructions to the

5 State without running afoul of the PLRA”).

6

Critically, Defendants have not advanced any viable

7 alternative means to protect class members at RJD that are

8 narrower or less intrusive. As discussed, Defendants suggest

9 that the appropriate course is to wait and see whether the steps

10 that they have taken in the last few years eventually will end

11 the ongoing violations of the ARP and class members’ ADA rights.

12 The Court finds that such a proposal is not a viable alternative

13 to the additional remedial measures ordered herein, because the

14 record shows that the rights of class members are likely to

15 continue to be violated under the current policies and

16 procedures.

17

The goal and intent of the parties and Court’s Remedial

18 Order and Injunction at the outset of the remedial phase of this

19 litigation was to bring all of CDCR’s prisons into compliance

20 with the ADA and the RA. Almost twenty-four years after the

21 issuance of that order and injunction, Defendants are not yet in

22 compliance. This is so even though the parties and the Court

23 have attempted various iterations of remedial measures that are

24 narrower and less intrusive than the ones now ordered. The Court

25 has found, as discussed in more detail above, that the policies

26 and systems currently in place at RJD, which are the product of

27 the parties’ and the Court’s prior efforts to bring Defendants

28 into full compliance, are insufficient to end the ongoing 68

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 69 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1 violations of class members’ rights. Accordingly, the Court’s

2 implementation of additional and broader remedial measures is

3 warranted. Armstrong v. Brown, 768 F.3d at 986 (noting that,

4 where the “the district court has attempted narrower, less

5 intrusive alternatives—and those alternatives have failed,” the

6 court has discretion to order relief that might have raised

7 concerns about breadth and intrusiveness under the PLRA in the

8 first instance) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

9

The Court has carefully considered and weighed the arguments

10 and evidence presented by Defendants, and it has found that

11 Defendants have not shown that the additional remedial measures

12 would have any adverse impact on public safety or the operation

13 of a criminal justice system. Id. Defendants object to the

14 additional remedial measures on the ground that they are

15 unnecessary. The Court disagrees with Defendants on this point

16 based on the evidence discussed at length above. Defendants also

17 object to the additional measures on the ground that they would

18 be burdensome to implement in the time frame that Plaintiffs have

19 proposed. Even if it were the case that implementing the

20 additional remedial measures in the time frame that Plaintiffs

21 have proposed would be burdensome for Defendants, “[a]

22 demonstration that an order is burdensome does nothing to prove

23 that it was overly intrusive” or otherwise inconsistent with the

24 requirements of the PLRA. Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger, 622 F.3d

25 at 1071. Where, as here, the Court has found that the additional

26 remedial measures are necessary to ensure Defendants’ compliance

27 with the ARP and ADA, and that no viable less restrictive

28 alternative exists, the question of whether the additional 69

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 70 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1 remedial measures require some expenditure of resources by

2 Defendants is not determinative. See id. (“With Congress having

3 made the decision to recognize the rights of disabled persons,

4 the question is not whether the relief the court ordered to

5 vindicate those rights is expensive, or difficult to achieve, but

6 whether the same vindication of federal rights could have been

7 achieved with less involvement by the court in directing the

8 details of defendants’ operations.”).

9

Defendants argue that the additional remedial measures do

10 not comply with the PLRA because they are overly intrusive in

11 light of their specificity. Defendants rely on Lewis v. Casey,

12 518 U.S. 343, 347-61 (1996) to support that argument.

13

Lewis is distinguishable. There, the Supreme Court reversed

14 an injunction that the district court issued after it found, at

15 summary judgment, that the State of Arizona Department of

16 Corrections (ADOC) had failed to provide prisoners with access to

17 the courts and legal services. The injunction required ADOC to

18 make changes to its library and legal assistance policies for

19 inmates, which were “specified in minute detail.” Id. The

20 Supreme Court held that the injunction could not stand, in

21 relevant part, because the district court had “failed to accord

22 adequate deference to the judgment of the prison authorities,”

23 and because the court had allowed a special master to craft the

24 injunction. Id. at 361-62. The Supreme Court reasoned that the

25 “proper procedure” would have been for the district court to

26 charge ADOC “with the task of devising a Constitutionally sound

27 program to assure inmate access to the courts.” Id. at 362

28 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 70

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 71 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1

Here, in contrast to Lewis, the Court will charge Defendants

2 with the task of crafting a remedial plan. Requiring Defendants

3 to comply with certain conditions when crafting the plan does not

4 violate the PLRA, for the reasons discussed above.

5

In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the

6 additional remedial measures ordered here are necessary and

7 consistent with the PLRA.

8 //

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 71

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3059 Filed 09/08/20 Page 72 of 72

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1

CONCLUSION

2

The Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiffs’ motion to modify its

3 prior orders and injunctions to require Defendants to design, and

4 then implement, a plan that requires additional remedial measures

5 at RJD. The Court will issue a separate order describing the

6 additional remedial measures that Defendants’ plan must include.

7 The Court also will modify its prior orders and injunctions to

8 require Defendants to log alleged violations of the ADA’s anti-

9 interference and anti-retaliation provisions. The Court defers

10 ruling on Plaintiffs’ request to order the implementation of

11 additional remedial measures at other CDCR prisons pending the

12 resolution of the pending state-wide enforcement motion. The

13 Court also defers ruling on Plaintiffs’ request to set aside

14 Inmate 2’s RVRs from the incident on June 17, 2020. Defendants

15 shall provide the Court immediately with the written report of

16 the RVR hearing and any materials relied upon that have not been

17 provided. Defendants shall also diligently pursue a

18 determination of whether a video of the June 17, 2020, incident

19 exists, and if it does, shall provide a copy immediately.

20 Defendants shall report on their progress in this regard within

21 fourteen days of the date of this order.

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23 Dated: September 8, 2020 24

CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge

25

26

27

28 72

 
 Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3060 Filed 09/08/20 Page 1 of 6

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11

JOHN ARMSTRONG, et al.,

Case No. 94-cv-02307 CW

12

Plaintiffs,

13

v.

14

GAVIN C. NEWSOM, et al.,

ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL REMEDIAL MEASURES
Re: Dkt. No. 2922

15

Defendants.

16

17

For the reasons set forth in the Court’s order granting in

18 part Plaintiffs’ motion to modify its prior remedial orders and

19 injunctions, the Court hereby orders as follows:

20

1. No later than twenty-one days of the date this Order is

21 filed, Defendants must draft and present to Plaintiffs for their

22 review a plan for achieving compliance with the Armstrong

23 Remedial Plan (ARP) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

24 that includes the components described below (the RJD Remedial

25 Plan). To the extent possible, Defendants shall provide to

26 Plaintiffs drafts of the components that must be included in the

27 RJD Remedial Plan on a rolling basis prior to twenty-one days of

28 the date this Order is filed.

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3060 Filed 09/08/20 Page 2 of 6

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1

2. Plaintiffs shall provide comments to Defendants as to

2 the drafts within seven days of receiving them.1

3

3. The parties shall meet and confer promptly to resolve

4 any disagreements as to the adequacy of the RJD Remedial Plan or

5 any of its components. Defendants shall ensure that staff with

6 sufficient authority to amend and approve any plans, policies,

7 and procedures in the RJD Remedial Plan attend all meet-and-

8 confer sessions.

9

4. In the event that a disagreement is not resolved within

10 forty-two days of the date this Order is filed, Plaintiffs shall

11 file objections with the Court no later than forty-nine days of

12 the date this Order is filed in a brief of no more than ten

13 pages; Defendants may respond to the objections within seven days

14 thereafter in a brief of no more than fifteen pages; and

15 Plaintiffs may file a reply of no more than five pages within

16 four days thereafter. The Court will rule on the objections and

17 issue any necessary order, consistent with its rulings in its

18 Order granting in part Plaintiffs’ motion to modify its prior

19 remedial orders and injunctions.

20

5. Within fourteen days of reaching agreement with

21 Plaintiffs, or receiving this Court’s order resolving any

22 disagreements, Defendants shall issue the RJD Remedial Plan in

23 final form and implement its provisions pursuant to the terms

24 described below, unless the RJD Remedial Plan sets a different

25

26

1 Each side shall, respectively, provide copies of any drafts

27

and comments to the same to counsel for the parties in Coleman v. Newsom, Case No. 90-cv-00529 (E.D. Cal.), and Plata v. Newsom,

28

Case No. 01-cv-01351 (N.D. Cal.), as well as to the special master and receiver in those actions.

2

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3060 Filed 09/08/20 Page 3 of 6

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1 date for the implementation of a component of the RJD Remedial

2 Plan. 3

a. Cameras. Within ninety days of the finalization

4 of the RJD Remedial Plan, CDCR shall install operational

5 surveillance cameras that cover all areas of RJD to which class

6 members have access, including, but not limited to, all exercise

7 yards, housing units, sally-ports, dining halls, program areas,

8 and gyms. Within sixty days of the finalization of the RJD

9 Remedial Plan, CDCR must begin using body-worn cameras for all

10 correctional officers at RJD who may have any interactions with

11 class members. The RJD Remedial Plan shall describe the steps

12 that Defendants will take to achieve these deadlines.

13

b. The RJD Remedial Plan must contain policies and

14 procedures regarding the use of body-worn cameras and the use of

15 camera footage at RJD from any type of camera, including

16 requirements that all footage be retained for a minimum of ninety

17 days, that footage of use of force and other triggering events

18 involving class members at RJD be retained indefinitely, and that

19 footage, when available, be reviewed and considered as part of

20 the investigation of any incident. The RJD Remedial Plan also

21 must contain policies and procedures for training RJD staff

22 regarding how and when to use a body-worn camera and how to

23 ensure that footage is retained and reviewed.

24

c. Reforms to Staff Complaint, Investigation, and

25 Discipline Process at RJD. CDCR must develop measures to reform

26 the staff complaint, investigation, and discipline process

27 (Investigation and Discipline Section of the RJD Remedial Plan),

28 which shall be included in the RJD Remedial Plan, to ensure (1) 3

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3060 Filed 09/08/20 Page 4 of 6

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1 that CDCR completes unbiased, comprehensive investigations into

2 all allegations of staff misconduct violative of the rights of

3 any class member under the ARP or the ADA; (2) that CDCR imposes

4 appropriate and consistent discipline against employees who

5 engage in violations of the ARP or ADA with respect to class

6 members at RJD; and (3) that employees who engage in criminal

7 misconduct against class members at RJD in violation of the ARP

8 or ADA are appropriately investigated and, if warranted, referred

9 for prosecution. The Investigation and Discipline Section of the

10 RJD Remedial Plan also shall ensure that officers accused of

11 serial violations of the ARP or ADA with respect to class members

12 at RJD are reassigned. The Investigation and Discipline Section

13 of the RJD Remedial Plan also shall provide for effective

14 mechanisms for oversight over all staff complaints, use-of-force

15 reviews, and related staff disciplinary proceedings at RJD that

16 involve alleged violations of class members’ rights under the ARP

17 or ADA. The Investigation and Discipline Section of the RJD

18 Remedial Plan shall require quarterly interviews of randomly-

19 selected class members at RJD using the methodology and interview

20 questionnaire utilized by the December 2018 investigators.

21

d. Third-Party Expert Monitoring of Defendants’

22 Investigation and Discipline Section of the RJD Remedial Plan.

23 The Court delegates to Edward Swanson, its court expert, pursuant

24 to Federal Rule of Evidence 706, the additional duties of

25 monitoring Defendants’ implementation of their Investigation and

26 Discipline Section of the RJD Remedial Plan. Mr. Swanson shall

27 have access to all documents reasonably necessary for monitoring

28 Defendants’ implementation of their Investigation and Discipline 4

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3060 Filed 09/08/20 Page 5 of 6

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1 Section of the RJD Remedial Plan. Mr. Swanson shall issue

2 quarterly reports regarding Defendants’ implementation of the

3 Investigation and Discipline Section of the RJD Remedial Plan.

4 Prior to the issuance of each quarterly report, the parties and

5 Mr. Swanson shall meet and confer regarding his findings for the

6 quarter.

7

e. Information Sharing with Plaintiffs’ counsel and

8 the court expert. CDCR must produce to Plaintiffs’ counsel and

9 the court expert, Mr. Swanson, on a quarterly basis, all

10 documents related to RJD staff complaints in which the alleged

11 victim is a class member and alleges violations of his or her

12 rights under the ARP or ADA, including, but not limited to,

13 grievances, incident reports, documents from staff misconduct

14 inquiries, documents from Institutional Executive Review

15 Committee inquiries in which the class member alleges excessive

16 use of force or other staff misconduct in violation of his or her

17 rights under the ARP or ADA, 989 forms and all supporting

18 documents, responses of the Central Intake Unit of OIA to 989

19 forms, investigation reports produced by the OIA, and 402 and 403

20 forms issued by the hiring authority. CDCR must also provide

21 Plaintiffs’ counsel with monthly, written updates regarding

22 progress on the implementation of the RJD Remedial Plan at RJD,

23 including data regarding staff complaints and use of force

24 involving a class member where there is a possible violation of

25 the class member’s rights under the ARP or ADA.

26

f. Staffing. CDCR must significantly increase

27 supervisory staff by posting additional sergeants on all watches

28 on all yards at RJD. 5

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3060 Filed 09/08/20 Page 6 of 6

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW 1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

1

g. Training. CDCR must develop and implement

2 training intended to eliminate violations of the ARP and ADA at

3 RJD, such as human rights, de-escalation, and cultural training,

4 for all custody, mental health, and medical staff at RJD who

5 interact with class members. The training must include

6 discussion of reporting requirements, whistleblowing, non-

7 retaliation, and treatment of incarcerated people with

8 disabilities.

9

h. Anti-Retaliation. CDCR shall develop mechanisms

10 to end and prevent any retaliation against class members who

11 report violations of their rights under the ARP or ADA and to

12 ensure their safety. These mechanisms shall be described in the

13 RJD Remedial Plan.

14

i. Other Remedies. CDCR shall develop a plan to

15 modify its policies to more effectively monitor and control the

16 use of pepper spray by RJD staff with respect to class members.

17 This plan shall be described in the RJD Remedial Plan.

18

6. Starting on the date this Order is filed, Defendants

19 shall include in the Court-ordered accountability log any

20 allegations of violations of class members’ rights under the

21 ADA’s anti-retaliation and anti-interference provisions.

22

7. The Court finds that these additional remedial measures

23 are consistent with the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA),

24 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a).

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26 Dated: September 8, 2020 27

CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge

28 6

 
 Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3025 Filed 07/30/20 Page 1 of 50

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

10

JOHN ARMSTRONG, et al.,

Case No. 94-cv-02307 CW

11

Plaintiffs,

12

v.

13

GAVIN C. NEWSOM, et al.,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
(Re: Dkt. Nos. 2978, 2979)

14

Defendants.

15

16

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary

17 injunction to continue in effect the transfer of Inmate 11 and

18 Inmate 2 (Witnesses) from R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility

19 (RJD) to another facility in light of the Witnesses’ concerns for

20 their safety at RJD. Having carefully considered the parties’

21 submissions, and the argument presented at the hearing held on

22 July 16, 2020, the Court GRANTS IN PART the motion for a

23 preliminary injunction.

24 //

25

26

1 The Court finds that the parties have shown that compelling

27

reasons exist for using pseudonyms to maintain the names of the inmates discussed in this order as confidential. The real names

28

of the inmates will be listed in a separate order that will be filed under seal.

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3025 Filed 07/30/20 Page 2 of 50

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

FINDINGS OF FACT

2 I. Procedural History

3

In 1994, Plaintiffs, “a class of all present and future

4 California state prison inmates and parolees with certain

5 disabilities, sued defendants, California state officials with

6 responsibility for the operation of the Department of Corrections

7 and Rehabilitation (the CDCR) and the Board of Parole Hearings

8 (BPH), challenging the State’s treatment of disabled prisoners

9 and parolees.” Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger, 622 F.3d 1058, 1063

(9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). A series of 10
orders by this Court and the Ninth Circuit “established that the 11
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131–34, and 12
the Rehabilitation Act (RA), 29 U.S.C. § 794, applied to state 13
prisoners, and that defendants’ policies and procedures with 14
regard to disabled prisoners and parolees were inadequate and 15
violative of” the ADA and the RA. Id. (citations and internal
16 quotation marks omitted); Armstrong v. Wilson, 124 F.3d 1019,
17 1023 (9th Cir. 1997) (“[W]e conclude that the plain language of

18 the ADA and RA, and our prior interpretations of that language,

19 support application of the statutes to state prisons.”).

20

CDCR Defendants produced a remedial plan in January 2001

21 intended to “ensure that disabled inmates had access to programs

22 and facilities in California’s prisons.” Armstrong v.

23 Schwarzenegger, 622 F.3d at 1063 (citation omitted). In March

24 2001, the Court entered a permanent injunction directing

25 enforcement of that plan. Id. (citation omitted). The Court

26 entered a comparable permanent injunction with respect to the BPH

27 defendants in 1999 and a revised permanent injunction in 2002. 28 Id. (citation omitted).
2

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3025 Filed 07/30/20 Page 3 of 50

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

“By 2007, however, the State had failed to bring its

2 correctional facilities into compliance with the remedial plan

3 and the 2001 Injunction.” Armstrong v. Brown, 768 F.3d 975, 978

4 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). Accordingly, the Court
5 issued another injunction in 2007, which required Defendants to
6 develop accountability procedures to track their non-compliance
7 with the remedial plan and the Court’s orders. The Court has
modified the 2007 injunction several times to clarify Defendants’ 8
obligations regarding accountability. Id. 9
Since then, the litigation has been in a remedial phase, 10
with Defendants evaluating and modifying their procedures and 11
policies and Plaintiffs monitoring Defendants’ compliance with 12
the injunctions and the remedial plan and at times seeking 13
enforcement. Id.
14 In February and June 2020, respectively, Plaintiffs filed
15 two motions (enforcement motions) in which they argue that
16 Defendants’ employees have engaged and continue to engage in
17 adverse actions against Armstrong class members that violate the
18 ADA, the RA, the remedial plan, and this Court’s prior orders,
19 including the 2007 injunction and the Court’s subsequent orders
20 regarding accountability. Docket Nos. 2922, 2948. The conduct
21 alleged involves abuse specifically directed at class members,
22 who are more vulnerable to abuse and less able to defend
23 themselves in light of their disabilities, as well as acts of
24 retaliation against class members who report the abuse. This
25 conduct has allegedly deterred class members from requesting
26 disability accommodations, either informally or through the
27 Court-ordered disability grievance process, because class members
28

3

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3025 Filed 07/30/20 Page 4 of 50

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 fear that such requests will invite more abuse. The first

2 enforcement motion addresses alleged abuse and retaliation

3 against class members at RJD (RJD enforcement motion), and the

4 second enforcement motion addresses alleged abuse and retaliation

5 at other prisons throughout California (state-wide enforcement

6 motion). The enforcement motions have not been fully briefed and

7 remain pending. Part of the support for the motions consists of

8 112 declarations of inmates (inmate-declarants) who are or were

9 incarcerated at RJD and other prisons and who suffered or

10 witnessed the conduct at issue.

11

The Witnesses are two of the inmate-declarants who filed

12 declarations in support of the enforcement motions. In the

13 present proceeding, the Witnesses claim that staff at RJD have

14 retaliated against them, on multiple occasions, for submitting

15 declarations in support of the enforcement motions and, in

16 particular, for describing in such declarations that a certain

17 officer, Officer Rucker, ignored the requests of Inmate 4,

18 another inmate-declarant, to be transferred to another cell

19 because of safety concerns related to his cellmate. On February

20 4, 2020, Inmate 4 was attacked by his cellmate and died on

21 February 19, 2020. The Witnesses believe that at least some of

22 the retaliation they have suffered since they filed declarations

23 in support of the enforcement motions is the result of having

24 made statements in such declarations that implicate Officer

25 Rucker in Inmate 4’s death.

26

Plaintiffs argue that the alleged retaliation against the

27 Witnesses has continued to occur despite this Court’s stipulated

28 order of March 17, 2020, which provides, “Defendants and their 4

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3025 Filed 07/30/20 Page 5 of 50

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 employees are prohibited from retaliating against the Declarants,

2 Armstrong class members at RJD, or incarcerated people at RJD for

3 participating in the [RJD motion].” Order at 1, Docket No. 2931.

4 The order also provides, “If the Court finds that retaliation has

5 occurred, the Court will issue appropriate relief.” Id. at 4.

6

In light of the continued alleged acts of retaliation

7 against the Witnesses, Plaintiffs moved for a temporary

8 restraining order and preliminary and permanent injunction

9 requiring Defendants to transfer the Witnesses out of RJD. On

10 July 2, 2020, the Court issued an order granting this motion in

11 part and deferring it in part. Order, Docket No. 2972. The

12 Court ordered Defendants to propose a plan for transferring the

13 Witnesses to another placement that satisfied certain criteria.

14 The criteria were based on the Witnesses’ disabilities, the pre-

15 existing conditions that make them vulnerable to Covid-19

16 complications, their security level, and their vulnerability to

17 acts of retaliation because of their assistance with the

18 enforcement motions. Id. at 3-5. The Court also ordered the

19 parties to meet and confer and to file by July 9, 2020, a joint

20 statement describing their positions as to the appropriate

21 placement for the Witnesses. Id. The parties did so.

22

On July 10, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a

23 temporary restraining order to transfer the Witnesses out of RJD.

24 The Court ordered that, no later than July 12, 2020, (1) Inmate 2

25 be transferred to a Mental Health Crisis Bed (MHCB) at the

26 California Health Care Facility (CHCF), Docket No. 2979; and (2)

27 Inmate 1 be transferred to an Enhanced Outpatient Program Housing

28 unit on Facility D or E at Mule Creek State Prison (MCSP) or to 5

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3025 Filed 07/30/20 Page 6 of 50

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 CHCF, Docket No. 2978. On July 12, 2020, the parties stipulated

2 to a different placement, with the transfer of each Witness to

3 take place the morning after each Witness received a negative

4 Covid-19 test result. Docket No. 2987. Inmate 2 would be

5 transferred to the MHCB at California Men’s Colony (CMC) on a

6 temporary basis pending placement at CHCF once it is open for

7 transfers, and Inmate 1 would be transferred to an Enhanced

8 Outpatient Program housing unit on Facility D at MCSP. Id. The

9 Court approved this stipulation on July 13, 2020. Docket No.

10 2991.

11

The Court ordered Defendants to show cause why a preliminary

12 injunction should not issue to continue in effect the order to

13 transfer the Witnesses out of RJD and retain the Witnesses at a

14 suitable non-RJD facility, and it held a hearing on July 16,

15 2020.

16 II. Factual Findings on Current Motion2

17

A. Protected Activity

18

As noted, Plaintiffs argue in the RJD enforcement motion

19 that Defendants’ employees abuse and retaliate against class

20

21

2 Both sides have submitted materials that do not strictly

22

comply with the Federal Rules of Evidence. The Court will exercise its discretion to consider these materials in light of

23

the difficulties created by the present pandemic. Herb Reed Enterprises, LLC v. Fla. Entm’t Mgmt., Inc., 736 F.3d 1239, 1250

24

n.5 (9th Cir. 2013) (“Due to the urgency of obtaining a preliminary injunction . . . when there has been limited factual

25

development, the rules of evidence do not apply strictly to preliminary injunction proceedings.”); Republic of the

26

Philippines v. Marcos, 862 F.2d 1355, 1363 (9th Cir. 1988) (“It was within the discretion of the district court to accept . . .

27

hearsay for purposes of deciding . . . the preliminary injunction.”). Questions as to the submitted materials’

28

reliability will go to their weight rather than to their admissibility.

6

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3025 Filed 07/30/20 Page 7 of 50

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 members at RJD in violation of the ADA, the RA, the remedial

2 plan, and this Court’s prior orders, including the 2007

3 injunction and the Court’s subsequent orders regarding

4 accountability. Docket No. 2922. Assisting with such a motion

5 is protected activity. Defendants filed their response to this

6 enforcement motion on July 15, 2020. Docket No. 3006.

7 Plaintiffs have not yet filed their reply. The Court has

8 reviewed the evidence filed to date by both sides in connection

9 with the enforcement motion and finds it relevant to the present

10 motion.

11

RJD has the second largest population of incarcerated people

12 with disabilities in CDCR, with nearly 1,000 Armstrong class

13 members, including 297 people who use wheelchairs, 217 people who

14 are deaf or hard of hearing, and thirteen people who are blind.

15 Grunfeld Decl., Ex. II at 184-89, Docket No. 2922-1.

16

In 2018, CDCR sent a strike team to investigate allegations

17 of staff misconduct on Facility C at RJD. The team was comprised

18 of fourteen investigative staff and seven ombudsmen. Bishop

19 Report at 1-3, Docket No. 2921-6. The strike team sought to

20 interview 150 inmates on Facility C, but only 102 inmates agreed

21 to be interviewed. Id. The interviewees reported, in relevant

22 part, that RJD staff specifically targeted for abuse inmates with

23 disabilities and other vulnerable inmates, that RJD staff hired

24 inmates to assault other inmates, that RJD staff engaged in gang-

25 like behavior, and that RJD staff retaliated against inmates who

26 reported the abuse with further abuse or by making false

27 allegations against them so that the inmates would be subjected

28 to disciplinary action. Id. at 4-9. Forty-eight inmates out of 7

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3025 Filed 07/30/20 Page 8 of 50

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 the 102 who chose to participate in the interviews supported

2 their claims of misconduct by RJD staff with detailed and

3 “actionable” allegations. Id. at 14-17. Associate Warden

4 Bishop, who led the strike team and wrote its report based on his

5 assessment of the interviews, recommended that the allegations of

6 these forty-eight inmates be investigated “promptly.” Id.

7 Associate Warden Bishop also recommended, among other things,

8 that live-feed cameras be installed in all areas of limited or

9 obstructed visibility; that non-managerial RJD staff be

10 restricted from accessing areas of low visibility; that

11 management prohibit RJD staff from wearing non-approved clothing

12 items that could be used as gang identifiers; and that the inmate

13 appeals process be modified to ensure that staff are not able to

14 interfere with the process. Id. at 12-13.

15

Defendants have admitted that the Bishop Report “formally

16 recognized serious problems with aspects of R.J. Donovan’s

17 operations, and specifically within Facility C, and that

18 responsive action should be taken.” Defs.’ Resp. to RJD Mot. at

19 19, Docket No. 3006. As of January 29, 2020, however, Defendants

20 still had not completed their investigations of the specific and

21 “actionable” allegations of abuse made by the forty-eight strike-

22 team interviewees. See Defs.’ Rule 30(b)(6) Designee (Kimberly

23 Seibel) Dep. Tr. at 133, 156, Docket No. 2921-8; id. at 221-22,

24 Docket No. 2922-1.

25

Plaintiffs’ expert, Jeffrey Schwartz, has assisted prisons

26 and jails over the last twenty years in applying national

27 correctional standards to their operations. Schwartz Decl. ¶ 2,

28 Docket No. 2947-9. Schwartz was retained by Plaintiffs to opine 8

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3025 Filed 07/30/20 Page 9 of 50

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 on CDCR’s inquiry, investigation, and disciplinary process as it

2 relates to allegations of staff misconduct and the discipline of

3 staff for misconduct. Id. ¶ 9. As part of his assignment,

4 Schwartz analyzed the files of forty-three investigations of

5 allegations of staff misconduct at RJD. Id. ¶ 11. Schwartz

6 opines that the situation at RJD is “horrifying” for inmates with

7 disabilities and other vulnerable inmates, and that there is

8 “substantial evidence that these vulnerable inmates are targeted

9 and preyed upon by a significant number of staff at RJD.” Id. ¶¶

10 23-27. According to Schwartz, “Inmates are afraid to file

11 grievances/complaints and afraid to provide testimony during

12 investigations. Pressure to withdraw complaints and other forms

13 of intimidation are common.” Id. ¶ 60. Schwartz attributes this

14 situation to RJD’s “dysfunctional staff culture,” which “will not

15 be changed quickly or easily.” Id. ¶ 93. According to Schwartz,

16 this dysfunctional culture stems in part from the ineffectiveness

17 of CDCR’s system for investigating misconduct and disciplining

18 staff; the investigations of staff misconduct at RJD are

19 incomplete, unprofessional, and biased against incarcerated

20 complainants and witnesses. Id. ¶¶ 93, 40-47, 84, 181, 187, 273,

21 276, 327. Schwartz opines that inmate testimony is often

22 discounted or ignored and that plagiarism and other collusion in

23 staff reports is ignored. Id. ¶¶ 40-49. Schwartz notes that

24 staff is disciplined primarily when there is video evidence or

25 staff reports of misconduct. Id. ¶¶ 53, 126, 127, 172, 208, 210,

26 219.

27

Plaintiff’s other expert, Eldon Vail, is a former

28 correctional administrator with thirty-five years of experience 9

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3025 Filed 07/30/20 Page 10 of 50

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 working in and administering adult correctional institutions.

2 Vail Decl. ¶ 3, Docket No. 2020-5. He has served as the Warden

3 of three adult correctional institutions, and he served as the

4 Secretary of the Department of Corrections of Washington for four

5 years. Id. ¶ 4. As part of his assignment, Vail reviewed the

6 declarations of fifty-four inmate-declarants, CDCR policies, and

7 various other case materials. Id. ¶ 10. Vail concludes that

8 there is a pattern of violence against class members at RJD and

9 that staff at RJD routinely use force against class members after

10 failing to recognize and accommodate inmates’ disabilities. Id.

11 ¶¶ 13, 4, 27, 30. In his opinion, the level of force used by RJD

12 staff against class members often is excessive and the frequency

13 with which such force is used is “startling.” Id. According to

14 Vail, the “unnecessary and excessive use of force, including

15 closed fist punches and kicks, that result in serious injury to

16 the class members is far beyond the norm found in other

17 institutions or jurisdictions of which I am aware.” Id. ¶ 13.

18 Vail also identified a pattern of retaliation against class

19 members who report abuse, and widespread fear among class members

20 of reporting allegations of staff misconduct as a result. Id. ¶¶

21 16, 59-62, 88.

22

In their response to the RJD enforcement motion, Defendants

23 argue that they have taken steps to change the culture at RJD and

24 improve staff accountability, such as providing RJD staff with

25 additional training, making changes to the personnel at RJD,

26 referring staff complaints to the Office of Internal Affairs, and

27 taking adverse action against officers found to have engaged in

28 misconduct against inmates. Defs.’ Resp. to RJD Mot. at 17-20. 10

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3025 Filed 07/30/20 Page 11 of 50

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 Defendants note that these steps have already proved effective to

2 some extent, as the number of RJD staff who have been disciplined

3 for misconduct against inmates has increased since 2017. Id.;

4 see also Miller Decl. ¶¶ 34-35 (providing that RJD dismissed one

5 officer in 2017, two in 2018, and six in 2019; RJD made one

6 referral for criminal prosecution against an officer in 2018 and

7 three in 2019; and that from 2017 to 2019, there were thirty-five

8 suspensions without pay or salary reductions for staff misconduct

9 involving an inmate). Defendants also note that the number of

10 use-of-force incidents involving Armstrong class members has

11 decreased. See Defs.’ Resp. to RJD Mot. at 20.

12

Nothing in Defendants’ response to the RJD enforcement

13 motion suggests that the issues described in the Schwartz and

14 Vail declarations have been eradicated or even substantially

15 diminished. Defendants’ response suggests that there has been

16 some improvement in the conditions at RJD for disabled inmates.

17 Defendants admit, however, that there is still “staff misconduct

18 that does occur” at RJD. See Defs.’ Rule 30(b)(6) Designee

19 (Kimberly Seibel) Dep. Tr. at 267, Docket No. 2922-1.

20

B. Adverse Action and Causation: Inmate 2

21

Inmate 2 is close to seventy years old and has a mobility

22 disability that requires him to use a wheelchair. Inmate 2 Decl.

23 of March 27, 2020 ¶¶ 2-3, Docket No. 2969-7. He is serving a

24 504-month sentence for a robbery conviction and has been

25 incarcerated since 1996. Freedman Decl. ¶ 23, Docket No. 2969-7.

26 His California Static Risk Assessment (CSRA) score, a measure

27 that CDCR uses to assess risk of recidivism, is “low.” Id.

28 Defendants have designated Inmate 2 as risk level 1, meaning that 11

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3025 Filed 07/30/20 Page 12 of 50

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 he is at high risk of complications from Covid-19 in light of his

2 various medical conditions, which include diabetes, chronic

3 kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease. Id. ¶ 23.

4

Inmate 2 signed a declaration dated March 27, 2020, which

5 Plaintiffs filed in support of the enforcement motion. There,

6 Inmate 2 declared that, in December 2019, Inmate 4 told him that

7 he was trying to get transferred out of Building 1 on Facility A

8 at RJD because Officer Rucker and others were trying to arrange

9 an assault on him by other incarcerated people. Inmate 2 Decl.

10 of March 27, 2020 ¶ 7. Then, on or around February 17, 2020,

11 while Inmate 2 was in the hospital for surgery, Inmate 4 was

12 moved into his hospital room. Id. ¶ 8. Inmate 4 told Inmate 2

13 that he was in the hospital because of injuries that were caused

14 by an attack by his cellmate. Id. ¶ 9. Inmate 4 also said that,

15 prior to the attack, he had repeatedly asked to be moved to

16 another cell because he and his cellmate were not getting along,

17 and that Officer Rucker told him in response each time he asked

18 for a transfer to “fuck or fight,” meaning that he either had to

19 learn to get along with his cellmate or had to attack his

20 cellmate to get moved to another cell, and that he would only

21 leave his cell if he were dead. Id. ¶¶ 10-11. Inmate 4 died

22 several days later. Id. ¶ 14. When Inmate 2 returned to RJD a

23 few days thereafter, Officer Rucker asked him what Inmate 4 had

24 told him at the hospital. Id. ¶ 17.

25

In a later declaration, Inmate 2 states that, when they were

26 both in the hospital in February 2020, Inmate 4 told him that

27 Officer Rucker had attacked him and had hurt him. Inmate 2 Decl.

28 of July 13, 2020 ¶¶ 5-6, Docket No. 2998-6. Inmate 2 had assumed 12

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3025 Filed 07/30/20 Page 13 of 50

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 that this attack had taken place on the same date on which Inmate

2 4 was assaulted by his cellmate. Id. Inmate 2 later realized

3 that this assumption had been incorrect when counsel for

4 Plaintiffs told him that Officer Rucker had not been working on

5 the day that Inmate 4 was attacked by his cellmate. Id. The

6 Court finds this explanation credible and that it does not damage

7 Inmate 2’s credibility.

8

In another declaration, signed on June 25, 2020, Inmate 2

9 states that, after he began to speak with Plaintiffs’ counsel to

10 prepare the declaration in support of the enforcement motion

11 after his release from the hospital, staff at RJD began to take

12 adverse actions against him. Inmate 2 Decl. of June 25, 2020 ¶¶

13 4-6, Docket No. 2969-7. Inmate 2 declares that RJD staff

14 repeatedly failed to release him from his cell in time to take

15 his diabetes medication and other medications, which he must take

16 several times per day. Id. These assertions are corroborated by

17 the declarations of Inmate 1 and Inmate 3, who, like Inmate 2,

18 reside in Building 1, on Facility A at RJD, and are released for

19 medications at the same time that Inmate 2 is supposed to be

20 released. Inmate 1 Decl. of June 26, 2020 ¶¶ 2, 5; Inmate 3

21 Decl. of June 30, 2020 ¶¶ 7, 9, 19.

22

On June 17, 2020, at around 8:30 p.m., RJD Officer Montreuil

23 used force against Inmate 2. According to the declarations of

24 Inmates 2, 1, and 3, Inmate 2 was not released on time for his

25 medications, and this caused him to yell and make noise to be let

26 out. Inmate 2 Decl. of June 25, 2020 ¶¶ 7-8; Inmate 1 Decl. of

27 June 26, 2020 ¶¶ 5-6; Inmate 3 Decl. of June 30, 2020 ¶¶ 7-18.

28 Once he was released, Inmate 2 travelled in his wheelchair, 13

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3025 Filed 07/30/20 Page 14 of 50

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 carrying a cup of water to take his medications. Inmate 2 Decl.

2 of June 25, 2020 ¶ 8; Inmate 1 Decl. of June 26, 2020 ¶ 7; Inmate

3 3 Decl. of June 30, 2020 ¶ 21. He yelled at the officers for not

4 letting him out of his cell earlier, and the officers, including

5 Officer Montreuil, yelled back. Inmate 2 Decl. of June 25, 2020

6 ¶ 8; Inmate 1 Decl. of June 26, 2020 ¶ 7; Inmate 3 Decl. of June

7 30, 2020 ¶¶ 19-22. Even though he posed no threat to Officer

8 Montreuil, the officer grabbed him and slammed him to the ground.

9 Inmate 2 Decl. of June 25, 2020 ¶ 9; Inmate 1 Decl. of June 26,

10 2020 ¶ 8; Inmate 3 Decl. of June 30, 2020 ¶ 22. Inmate 2 landed

11 on his head and stomach, face down, and lost consciousness.

12 Inmate 2 Decl. of June 25, 2020 ¶ 9; Inmate 1 Decl. of June 26,

13 2020 ¶ 8; Inmate 3 Decl. of June 30, 2020 ¶ 24.

14

Officer Montreuil then got on top of Inmate 2 and put his

15 knee into Inmate 2’s upper back and neck. Inmate 2 Decl. of June

16 25, 2020 ¶ 9; Inmate 1 Decl. of June 26, 2020 ¶ 8; Inmate 3 Decl.

17 of June 30, 2020 ¶ 24. Inmate 2 yelled that he could not breathe

18 and believed that Officer Montreuil was going to kill him.

19 Inmate 2 Decl. of June 25, 2020 ¶¶ 9, 12. After handcuffing him,

20 Officer Montreuil pressed a sharp object on Inmate 2’s right arm

21 and said, “This is for my homeboy Rucker, motherfucker.” Inmate

22 2 Decl. of June 25, 2020 ¶ 9. Staff escorted Inmate 2 out of the

23 building. Inmate 1 Decl. of June 26, 2020 ¶ 8; Inmate 3 Decl. of

24 June 30, 2020 ¶ 25. Inmate 1 and Inmate 3 have not seen Inmate 2

25 since the incident. Inmate 1 Decl. of June 26, 2020 ¶ 8; Inmate

26 3 Decl. of June 30, 2020 ¶ 26.

27

The Court finds the description of the June 17 incident in

28 the declarations of Inmates 2, 1, and 3 to be credible. The 14

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3025 Filed 07/30/20 Page 15 of 50

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 declarations are consistent in all material respects. All three

2 inmates declared that Inmate 2 was in his wheelchair and did not

3 assault or pose a threat to Officer Montreuil. It is undisputed

4 that Inmate 1 and Inmate 3 were housed in cells that were a few

5 feet away from Inmate 2’s cell and observed the entire incident.

6 Inmate 1 Decl. of June 26, 2020 ¶ 5; Inmate 3 Decl. of June 30,

7 2020 ¶¶ 7, 19. Inmate 1 and Inmate 3 have not had any contact

8 with Inmate 2 since the June 17 incident, which eliminates the

9 possibility that Inmate 2 could have colluded with Inmate 1 and

10 Inmate 3 as to the contents of their declarations.

11

The declarations of Inmates 2, 1, and 3 are further

12 corroborated by a memorandum written by a social worker named J.

13 Clayton, which states that another inmate reported to him on June

14 18, 2020, that he witnessed the June 17 incident. This inmate

15 reported that Inmate 2 did not resist the officer but two

16 officers twisted Inmate 2’s arm behind his back until he started

17 “bucking in pain.” Freedman Decl., Ex. 14, Docket No. 2998-6.

18

Defendants’ version of the June 17 incident is based on the

19 declaration of Francisco Armenta, who is an Associate Warden at

20 RJD. Armenta Decl. of July 10, 2020, Docket No. 2984. In his

21 declaration, Associate Warden Armenta provides “a summary” of the

22 June 17 incident that is based, not on his personal knowledge,

23 but on his review of a preliminary incident report package that,

24 in turn, is based on incident reports authored by officers at

25 RJD. See id. ¶ 5 & Ex. F. The incident reports are not signed

26 under penalty of perjury, and none of the officers who filed an

27 incident report has submitted a sworn declaration describing the

28 June 17 incident. 15

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3025 Filed 07/30/20 Page 16 of 50

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

Armenta declares that when Inmate 2 was released from his

2 cell for his medications in the evening of June 17, he walked out

3 of his cell without a wheelchair, yelled obscenities at Officers

4 Montreuil and Gomez, and asked to speak with the sergeant before

5 he received his medications. Id. ¶ 6. The officers told Inmate

6 2 that the sergeant was unavailable. Id. In response, Inmate 2

7 made derogatory comments about the officers and threatened to

8 throw at them the liquid in his cup, which Inmate 2 allegedly

9 claimed contained “piss, shit, and blood.” Id. Inmate 2

10 allegedly moved toward Officer Montreuil and attempted to throw

11 the liquid onto him but missed. Id. Officer Montreuil then used

12 his body weight to take Inmate 2 to the ground. Id.

13

Once Inmate 2 was on the ground, Officer Montreuil

14 handcuffed him and searched him for contraband. Id. While

15 Officer Montreuil found no contraband on Inmate 2’s person,

16 “staff” smelled alcohol coming from Inmate 2 and later found an

17 alcoholic substance known as “pruno” in his cell. Id. Later

18 that night, staff ordered Inmate 2 to provide a urine sample for

19 analysis, and he refused. Id. ¶ 9. Officer Montreuil sustained

20 pain, bruising, and redness on his right shoulder. Id. ¶ 10.

21

Defendants’ description of the June 17 incident lacks

22 credibility. It is not at all clear that Inmate 2’s cup did

23 contain bodily fluids. There are no photographs of the contents

24 or records showing that the healthcare facility maintenance (HFM)

25 team was called to clean up. Inmate 3 declares that, if the

26 spilled liquid had been bodily fluids, Defendants would have

27 called the HFM team to clean and sanitize the area, but the HFM

28 team did not respond to the incident or clean the liquid. Inmate 16

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3025 Filed 07/30/20 Page 17 of 50

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 3 Decl. of June 30, 2020 ¶ 23. Inmate 3, who was a few feet

2 away, also declares that the spilled liquid appeared to be clear

3 and odor-free. Id. ¶¶ 19, 23.

4

Defendants argue that Inmate 2 stated in a video interview

5 following the June 17 incident that some of the other inmates who

6 witnessed the incident were yelling that the cup in Inmate 2’s

7 hand contained bodily fluids. This does not equate to a threat

8 by Inmate 2. Further, even if he had made such a threat and even

9 if he had thrown the liquid, that would not justify the force

10 that Officer Montreuil used against him. Officer Montreuil took

11 Inmate 2 face down onto the ground using the weight of the

12 officer’s body on the inmate’s back, instead of using less force

13 or no force at all. The officer apparently used enough force to

14 injure his own shoulder and to render Inmate 2 unconscious.

15

Defendants have not offered any declarations to dispute the

16 sworn statements of Inmates 1, 2, and 3 that the force that

17 Officer Montreuil used against Inmate 2 was unprovoked and

18 sufficient to render him unconscious. Inmate 2 Decl. of June 25,

19 2020 ¶ 9; Inmate 1 Decl. of June 26, 2020 ¶ 8; Inmate 3 Decl. of

20 June 30, 2020 ¶ 24. Defendants also have not disputed Inmate 3’s

21 declaration that, in light of his age and disabilities, Inmate 2

22 posed no physical threat to Officer Montreuil. Inmate 3 Decl. of

23 June 30, 2020 ¶ 19.

24

Defendants claim that Inmate 2 was under the influence of

25 alcohol during the June 17 incident, and that inmate-made alcohol

26 was found in his cell afterward. Some of the incident reports

27 attached to Associate Warden Armenta’s declaration do state that

28 Inmate 2 had smelled of alcohol or may have been intoxicated. 17

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3025 Filed 07/30/20 Page 18 of 50

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 These statements are not credible, and are of little relevance.

2 Notably, the incident report prepared by Officer Montreuil, who

3 had significant physical contact with Inmate 2, does not mention

4 that Inmate 2 smelled of alcohol, or that he appeared to be

5 intoxicated. See Incident Report, Docket No. 2984 at 41. Nor do

6 the medical records corroborate this claim. A medical note dated

7 June 17, 2020, which followed a full physical examination of

8 Inmate 2, does not mention that he was intoxicated or smelled of

9 alcohol. Freedman Decl., Ex. 10, Docket No. 2969-7. Another

10 medical note dated that day states that Inmate 2 complained to

11 first responders that he could not breathe and that the pain on

12 his neck was 9 on a 10-point scale. Freedman Decl., Ex. 5,

13 Docket No. 2996-6. This note does not say that Inmate 2 smelled

14 of alcohol or appeared to be intoxicated. Id. Finally,

15 Defendants did not photograph or retain the alcohol allegedly

16 found in Inmate 2’s cell.

17

The statements in the incident report regarding alcohol are

18 contradicted by Inmate 2’s declaration of July 13, 2020. There,

19 Inmate 2 denies being drunk or having had alcohol in his cell on

20 June 17, denies that he was asked to take a urine test, and

21 states that nobody on June 17 accused him of being intoxicated or

22 of possessing alcohol. Inmate 2 Decl. of July 13, 2020 ¶¶ 7-10,

23 Docket No. 2998-6. He also states that it was not until two

24 weeks after the June 17 incident that officers filed a Rules

25 Violation Report (RVR) against him for assaulting an officer and

26 another for possession of alcohol on June 17, 2020. Id. ¶ 7.

27 Defendants do not explain why these RVRs were not issued until

28 two weeks after the incident. See Armenta Decl., Ex. A & B. And 18

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3025 Filed 07/30/20 Page 19 of 50

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 even if Inmate 2 was under the influence of pruno found in his

2 cell, that would not justify the force used against him.

3

In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that Defendants’

4 description of the June 17 incident based on Associate Warden

5 Armenta’s declaration and the incident reports attached thereto

6 lacks credibility.

7

Plaintiffs allege that the adverse actions taken against

8 Inmate 2 were motivated by retaliation for his participation in

9 the motions to enforce this Court’s orders originating from the

10 ADA litigation. In the declaration that Inmate 2 signed on June

11 25, 2020, he states that staff at RJD began to retaliate against

12 him after he began to speak with Plaintiffs’ counsel to prepare

13 the declaration in support of the enforcement motions, after his

14 release from the hospital in February. Inmate 2 Decl. of June

15 25, 2020 ¶¶ 4-6, Docket No. 2969-7. That was the declaration

16 stating that Office Rucker failed to act on Inmate 4’s requests

17 to transfer to another cell because of safety concerns about his

18 cellmate, after which Inmate 4 was fatally attacked by his

19 cellmate. Inmate 2 Decl. of June 25, 2020 ¶ 9. Inmate 2

20 believes that RJD staff are aware that he is assisting with these

21 proceedings because RJD staff set up his calls with Plaintiffs’

22 counsel. Id. ¶ 6. Inmate 2 was told by other inmates that staff

23 at RJD refer to him as a “rat” and a “snitch.” Id. ¶ 4.

24

Inmate 2 asserts that officers repeatedly failed to release

25 him from his cell on a timely basis so that he could take his

26 medications, and he believes that such failures are connected to

27 his assistance with the enforcement motions. The Court finds

28 these assertions credible. In their declarations, Inmate 1 and 19

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3025 Filed 07/30/20 Page 20 of 50

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 Inmate 3 state that RJD staff have regularly delayed or simply

2 failed to release Inmate 2 for his medications since on or around

3 February 2020. Inmate 1 Decl. of June 26, 2020 ¶¶ 4-5; Inmate 3

4 Decl. of June 30, 2020 ¶¶ 7, 9. This coincides with the

5 timeframe that Inmate 2 came back from the hospital after Inmate

6 4’s death.

7

The Court also finds credible that Officer Montreuil’s use

8 of force against Inmate 2 was in retaliation for Inmate 2

9 submitting a declaration in support of the enforcement motion.

10 As noted above, Inmate 2 heard Officer Montreuil tell him during

11 the incident, “This is for my homeboy Rucker.” This connection

12 is also shown by Inmate 1’s declaration that he heard Officer

13 Montreuil say to Inmate 2 something to the effect of, “Explain

14 that to the lawyers you talk to.” Inmate 1 Decl. of June 26,

15 2020 ¶ 8. Defendants have not submitted a declaration by Officer

16 Montreuil denying that he made these statements. After the

17 incident, according to Inmate 3, the officer in the control

18 tower, Officer Armstead, announced over the PA system, “Yeah,

19 motherfucker, that’s what you get. That’s how we do it.” Inmate

20 3 Decl. of June 30, 2020 ¶ 25. Defendants have not submitted a

21 declaration from Officer Armstead, nor have they submitted

22 declarations by other RJD staff who witnessed the incident.

23

After the June 17 incident, Inmate 2 reported to medical

24 staff that he was extremely upset and afraid for his safety, and

25 he was placed on suicide watch. See, e.g., Freedman Decl., Ex.

26 11, 12, 13, Docket No. 2969-7. While he was on suicide watch,

27 someone slipped nail clippers and a note stating “kill yourself”

28 under his door. Inmate 2 Decl. of July 3, 2020 ¶ 4, Docket No. 20

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3025 Filed 07/30/20 Page 21 of 50

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 2998-6. Inmate 2 swallowed the nail clippers because he was

2 upset and afraid and wanted to get out of RJD. Id. Surgery was

3 required to remove the nail clippers. Freedman Decl. ¶¶ 20-22 &

4 Ex. 15, 16. Defendants do not dispute that that these events

5 occurred as Inmate 2 describes them.

6

Inmate 2 declares that the incidents of retaliation against

7 him have led him to feel unsafe at RJD, to fear for his life, and

8 to wish that he were dead. Inmate 2 Decl. of June 25, 2020 ¶ 12.

9 Inmate 2 states that, given these incidents, he “w[ill] not stick

10 [his] neck out again and try to help in the Armstrong case

11 because the harassment is not worth dying for.” Id. The Court

12 finds that these statements are credible.

13

C. Adverse Action and Causation: Inmate 1

14

Inmate 1 is in her late forties, has hearing and mobility

15 disabilities, is serving a 348-month sentence for a conviction of

16 grand theft, and has been incarcerated since 1996. Freedman

17 Decl. ¶ 24, Docket No. 2969-7. Her CSRA score, or risk of

18 recidivism, is “low.” Id. Defendants have designated Inmate 1

19 as risk level 1, meaning that she is at high risk of

20 complications from Covid-19 in light of her multiple pre-existing

21 medical conditions, which include asthma, seizures, and sleep

22 apnea. Id.

23

On January 29, 2020, Inmate 1 signed a declaration, which

24 Plaintiffs submitted in support of the RJD enforcement motion, in

25 which she states that in November 2019 she was placed in

26 administrative segregation and left in her cell in handcuffs for

27 approximately forty-eight hours in retaliation for filing a

28 Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) claim. See Inmate 1 Decl. of 21

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3025 Filed 07/30/20 Page 22 of 50

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 January 29, 2020 ¶¶ 6-11, Docket No. 2969-7. During this

2 episode, Inmate 1 was forced to urinate and defecate in her own

3 clothing more than once. Id. ¶ 10. Inmate 1 declares that the

4 handcuffs that were used during this incident belonged to Officer

5 Toele. Id. ¶ 12. Following the incident, Inmate 1 was

6 interviewed by the Watch Commander, who told her that it had been

7 reported that a pair of handcuffs was missing, but staff failed

8 to conduct a search for the handcuffs. Id. ¶ 13. Inmate 1

9 believes that no search was conducted because she told everyone

10 who passed by her cell during that period that she was

11 handcuffed. Id. Inmate 1 reported this incident; the

12 investigation remains pending. Id. ¶¶ 13-15. Defendants do not

13 dispute that this incident occurred and they have offered no

14 contrary evidence, such as declarations by Officer Toele or the

15 Watch Commander.

16

Inmate 1 signed a second declaration on March 27, 2020,

17 which Plaintiffs submitted in support of the state-wide

18 injunction motion, in which she states that, on or around January

19 28, 2020, Inmate 4 told her that Inmate 4 was having problems

20 with his cellmate and that he was trying to get transferred to

21 another cell. Inmate 1 Decl. of March 27, 2020 ¶ 5, Docket No.

22 2969-7. A few days later, Inmate 1 heard Officer Rucker tell

23 Inmate 4 to “fuck or fight” and to “[g]et the fuck out of [his]

24 face.” Id. ¶ 6. Inmate 1 believes that this statement was a

25 response to a request by Inmate 4 to move to another cell,

26 because Inmate 1 had heard Officer Rucker tell other inmates who

27 asked for a cell transfer to “fuck or fight.” Id. ¶ 7. On

28 February 4, 2020, Inmate 1 heard Inmate 4’s cellmate yell, “Man 22

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3025 Filed 07/30/20 Page 23 of 50

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 down!” Id. ¶¶ 10-11. Nursing staff carried Inmate 4, who

2 appeared to be unconscious, out of his cell in a gurney. Id.

3

In a declaration signed on May 21, 2020, Inmate 1 states

4 that, about a month after Inmate 4’s death in February 2020, she

5 heard from multiple people at RJD that Officer Rucker had been

6 transferred to work in the mailroom, and that Officer Doyle, a

7 partner of Officer Rucker, had made comments to inmates

8 indicating that she believed that Officer Rucker’s transfer was

9 the result of conversations that inmates were having with lawyers

10 or investigators regarding Inmate 4’s death. Inmate 1 Decl. of

11 May 21, 2020 ¶¶ 5-6.

12

On April 8, 2020, Inmate 1 had a seizure in her cell and

13 became unconscious. Id. ¶ 7. When she woke up, she felt sharp

14 pain in her wrists and ankles and saw Officer Doyle and Officer

15 Garcia among the several people who were surrounding her as she

16 woke up. Id. Inmate 1 was taken to a Triage and Treatment Area,

17 where she reported pain in her wrists and ankles and asked to be

18 examined by a doctor. Id. While waiting for the doctor, another

19 inmate, whom Inmate 1 does not want to name because of the

20 inmate’s fear of retaliation, told Inmate 1 that he saw Officer

21 Doyle and Officer Garcia enter her cell and saw Officer Garcia

22 step on her hands and Officer Doyle step on her ankles before

23 dragging her out of her cell. Id. ¶ 9. When the doctor arrived,

24 Inmate 1 reported what she heard from the inmate and asked to

25 file an excessive force complaint against Officer Doyle and

26 Officer Garcia. Id. ¶ 10. Inmate 1 recalls that, when she was

27 sent back to her cell, Officer Doyle made a comment to her about

28 officers being aware of inmates talking with lawyers or 23

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3025 Filed 07/30/20 Page 24 of 50

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 investigators to complain about staff, including Officer Rucker.

2 Id. ¶ 11. Inmate 1 interpreted this comment as a warning that

3 Officer Doyle believed that Officer Rucker had been sent to the

4 mailroom because of what Inmate 1 said about Officer Rucker in

5 her declaration for these proceedings. Id. The next day, on

6 April 9, 2020, Inmate 1 filed complaints of excessive force and

7 retaliation against Officer Doyle and Officer Garcia in

8 connection with the prior day’s incident. Id. ¶ 12.

9

On April 15, 2020, Inmate 1 had a conversation with

10 Plaintiffs’ counsel in a room from which Inmate 1 believes the

11 Watch Commander can hear what is being said. Id. ¶¶ 13-14. When

12 Inmate 1 returned to her building after the interview, Officer

13 Doyle confronted her and told her that “the Watch Commander told

14 me every fucking thing you said, you need to find something else

15 to do besides making complaints.” Id. ¶ 15.

16

On May 13, 2020, Officer Mesa called Inmate 1 by name over

17 the public-announcement system, saying, “Internal Affairs is here

18 to see you in One Building.” This made Inmate 1 afraid for her

19 safety because it is known among staff and inmates that inmates

20 who talk with Internal Affairs do so to report misconduct by

21 staff or other inmates, which in turn can invite acts of violence

22 or other forms of retaliation against the person reporting

23 misconduct. Id. ¶ 17. Inmate 3 heard Officer Mesa call out

24 Inmate 1 over the public-announcement system. Inmate 3 Decl. of

25 June 30, 2020 ¶ 18.

26

When Inmate 1 reported to the building as directed, she was

27 told that staff from the Appeal Inquiry Management System (AIMS)

28 were there to talk with her about the complaints she had filed 24

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3025 Filed 07/30/20 Page 25 of 50

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 against Officer Doyle and Officer Garcia. Inmate 1 Decl. of May

2 21, 2020 ¶ 18. Inmate 1 saw that Officer Doyle and Officer

3 Garcia were standing outside of the room where the interview

4 would take place. Id. Further, Inmate 1 believes that there is

5 a slot in the room, which the Tower Officer can open to listen to

6 what is being said in the room. Id. ¶ 22. Inmate 1 suspects

7 that Officer Mesa had opened the slot during the interview

8 because other inmates told her that they had seen Officer Mesa

9 talking to Officer Doyle and Officer Garcia after the interview.

10 Id.

11

Later that day, Officer Mesa opened Inmate 1’s cell and

12 allowed four other inmates to enter, one of whom told Inmate 1,

13 “Doyle don’t want no problems with you, we work with her, so we

14 need you not to make any more complaints about her,” and told her

15 to let the complaints she had already filed against Officer Doyle

16 “go.” Id. ¶ 23. Inmate 3 saw a group of inmates speak to Inmate

17 1 but could not hear what was said. Inmate 3 Decl. of June 25,

18 2020 ¶ 18.

19

On May 19, 2020, another inmate told Inmate 1 that Officer

20 Mesa and Officer Doyle had told a group of inmates that a new

21 rule limiting telephone calls and showers to every other day was

22 caused by the complaints that Inmate 1 had filed. Inmate 1 Decl.

23 of May 21, 2020 ¶ 24. Inmate 1 believes that these officers

24 blamed Inmate 1 for these unpopular rule changes in order to put

25 a target on her back. Id.

26

On June 17, 2020, Inmate 1 observed the incident during

27 which Officer Montreuil used force against Inmate 2. Inmate 1

28 Decl. of June 26, 2020 ¶¶ 4-8. Inmate 1 declares that she lives 25

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3025 Filed 07/30/20 Page 26 of 50

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 in “great fear” following what happened to Inmate 2 on June 17.

2 Id. ¶ 9. Inmate 1 believes that RJD staff know that she is

3 assisting in this litigation because staff routinely call her a

4 “snitch” and announce over the speaker system that she has phone

5 calls with Plaintiffs’ counsel. Id. Inmate 1 declares that it

6 is very “dangerous” to be publicly called out for talking with

7 Plaintiffs’ counsel because “[t]alking to the Armstrong attorneys

8 is considered the equivalent of snitching on staff[.]” Id.

9

On June 25, 2020, Inmate 1 had an interview with Internal

10 Affairs about a complaint she filed and Officer Mesa called out

11 Inmate 1 by name over the public-announcement system and

12 announced, “[I]t’s time for you to go talk to Internal Affairs.”

13 Inmate 1 Decl. of June 26, 2020 ¶ 10. As Inmate 1 passed by

14 Officer Sanchez’s door on the way to this meeting, Officer

15 Sanchez said to Inmate 1, “I know you are snitching, make sure

16 you spell my name right.” Id. The interview with Internal

17 Affairs took place in the chapel on the prison yard, which means

18 that everyone on the yard saw the Internal Affairs officer and

19 Inmate 1 go to the chapel for the interview. Id. Inmate 1 is

20 “very afraid for [her] safety” as a result. Id.

21

On or around June 29, 2020, Inmate 3 heard Officer Mesa

22 announce over the public-announcement system that Inmate 1 was

23 meeting with Internal Affairs. Inmate 3 Decl. of June 30, 2020

24 ¶ 29.

25

The Court finds Inmate 1’s allegations of retaliation for

26 assisting Plaintiffs’ counsel with these proceedings, and of

27 living in fear for her safety at RJD, to be credible. Most of

28 the incidents Inmate 1 describes in her declarations involve 26

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3025 Filed 07/30/20 Page 27 of 50

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 Officer Doyle, who she claims is Officer Rucker’s partner, which

2 Defendants do not dispute. Inmate 1 Decl. of June 26, 2020 ¶ 9.

3 Inmate 1 believes that a connection exists between Officer

4 Doyle’s actions and Inmate 1’s participation in this litigation

5 because her participation has involved complaining about Officer

6 Rucker’s involvement in the events leading up to Inmate 4’s

7 death. Id.

8

Defendants have offered no affirmative evidence to dispute

9 that any of the incidents that Inmate 1 describes in her

10 declaration occurred, including the multiple instances of being

11 called out over the public-announcement system as having meetings

12 with Plaintiffs’ counsel and Internal Affairs, and the multiple

13 instances in which an officer approached Inmate 1 to say

14 something to discourage her from complaining about staff or to

15 make her aware that staff know about her discussions with

16 Plaintiffs’ counsel or complaints about staff. Inmate 3’s

17 declaration corroborates some of these incidents.

18

Instead, Defendants argue that Inmate 1’s declarations are

19 not credible because she stated during a videotaped interview on

20 July 7, 2020, that she had no safety concerns on Facility A,

21 which is inconsistent with the statement in her declaration of

22 June 26, 2020, that she was “very afraid for [her] safety.” See

23 Inmate 1 Decl. of June 26, 2020 ¶ 10, Docket No. 2969-7.

24

Associate Warden Scott Anderson conducted the July 7 video

25 interview of Inmate 1 for the purpose of determining whether she

26

27

28 27

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3025 Filed 07/30/20 Page 28 of 50

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 had any safety concerns on Facility A.3 See Armenta Decl., Ex. E,

2 Docket No. 2984. During the interview, Associate Warden Anderson

3 states that he and staff were “made aware” that Inmate 1 “might

4 have safety concerns on the facility,” and asks Inmate 1 whether

5 she has “any safety concerns staying in Facility A.” Id. Inmate

6 1 responds that she does not have safety concerns and that, if

7 she had any, she would say so. Id.

8

Inmate 1 signed a declaration dated July 11, 2020, in which

9 she explains her statements during the video interview of July 7.

10 Inmate 1 states that, starting in May 2020, she had been

11 interviewed by various RJD staff about whether she had any safety

12 concerns. Inmate 1 Decl. of July 11, 2020 ¶ 4. Even though

13 Inmate 1 did “fear for [her] safety” because “officers on

14 Facility A have engaged in a campaign of harassment and

15 retaliation against [her] for complaining about staff misconduct

16 and participating in Plaintiffs’ motions,” Inmate 1 “denied

17 having safety concerns when asked because [she] did not want to

18 go to administrative segregation,” as she had been left in

19 handcuffs for forty-eight hours the last time she was there. Id.

20

On July 7, 2020, before the videotaped interview with

21 Associate Warden Anderson, four officers, Officers Torrones,

22 Lacroix, Silkk, and another officer whose name Inmate 1 does not

23

24

3 Plaintiffs move to strike this video on the grounds that it

25

violates the Court’s order of March 17, 2020, and California Rule of Professional Conduct 4.2, because Defendants conducted the

26

video interview without first obtaining consent from Plaintiffs’ counsel. Defendants represented during the hearing on July 16,

27

2020, that they questioned Inmate 1 about her safety concerns in order to ensure her safety. In an abundance of caution, the

28

Court will consider the video and weigh it in light of the circumstances.

28

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3025 Filed 07/30/20 Page 29 of 50

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 know, and two sergeants whose names Inmate 1 does not know, came

2 to Inmate 1’s cell and told her that she was being taken to

3 administrative segregation for safety concerns. Id. ¶ 5. Inmate

4 1 refused to go to administrative segregation and said that she

5 did not have any safety concerns. Id. ¶¶ 5-7. About an hour

6 later, Sergeant Jackson and a female lieutenant told Inmate 1,

7 “Your lawyer called and said that you have safety concerns.” Id.

8 ¶ 8. Inmate 1 responded that she never told her lawyer that she

9 wanted to be placed in administrative segregation for safety, and

10 that it was “safer for [her] in Building 1 than in ad-seg.” Id.

11

Defendants have not filed any declarations by Officers

12 Torrones, Lacroix, and Silkk, or Sergeant Jackson, to dispute

13 Inmate 1’s version of these events.

14

About an hour and a half later, Associate Warden Anderson

15 and Counselor Belmares came to Inmate 1’s cell and Anderson told

16 Inmate 1 that she had to go to the mental health building to sign

17 a chrono stating that she did not want to go to administrative

18 segregation. Id. ¶¶ 8-9. Associate Warden Anderson then took

19 Inmate 1 to Associate Warden Armenta’s office in the mental

20 health building and filmed the interview discussed above. Id. ¶

21 9. After the end of the videotaped interview, Inmate 1 told

22 Anderson and Armenta about the time she was left in handcuffs for

23 forty-eight hours in administrative segregation to explain why

24 she did not want to go to administrative segregation. Id. The

25 Associate Wardens have not filed a declaration that contradicts

26 Inmate 1’s version of the events.

27

Inmate 1 declares that she remains afraid for her safety on

28 Facility A but is “terrified” of being sent to administrative 29

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3025 Filed 07/30/20 Page 30 of 50

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 segregation, where she “fears staff would hurt [her]” like they

2 did during the handcuffs incident and where staff could also

3 allow other incarcerated people to hurt her. Id. ¶ 10.

4

The Court does not find the videotaped interview of July 7

5 to be probative of whether Inmate 1 did, in fact, have concerns

6 for her safety at RJD. Nor does this video undermine Inmate 1’s

7 credibility.

8

In sum, Inmate 1’s sworn statements regarding multiple acts

9 by RJD staff, which Inmate 1 believes were intended to intimidate

10 her, threaten her, and discourage her from cooperating with

11 Plaintiffs’ counsel in these proceedings and from complaining

12 about staff in general, are uncontroverted. Inmate 1 has

13 connected these incidents to her assistance with the enforcement

14 motions by declaring that, during some of the incidents, officers

15 have made references to Officer Rucker and to Inmate 1 talking

16 with Plaintiffs’ counsel. Further, Defendants’ attack on Inmate

17 1’s credibility is ineffective. Accordingly, the Court finds

18 that Inmate 1’s statements regarding the incidents described

19 above, and their connection to her assistance with the

20 enforcement motions, are credible.

21

D. Findings Related to Winter Factors

22

As will be discussed below, the issuance of a preliminary

23 injunction requires findings (1) that the movant is likely to

24 succeed on the merits; (2) that he is likely to suffer

25 irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that

26 the balance of the equities tips in his favor; and (4) that a

27 preliminary injunction is in the public interest. The Court’s

28 30

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3025 Filed 07/30/20 Page 31 of 50

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 factual findings with respect to each of these factors are as

2 follows.

3

1. Likelihood of Success on the Merits

4

Based on the evidence detailed above, the Court finds that

5 Plaintiffs have shown that they are likely to succeed on the

6 merits of their claims that the Witnesses have suffered adverse

7 actions due to retaliation, in violation of the ADA, or that, at

8 the very least, Plaintiffs have raised serious questions as to

9 such claims.

10

The Court finds that the enforcement motions are ADA

11 proceedings because they seek to enforce class members’ rights

12 under the ADA. In their enforcement motions, Plaintiffs argue

13 that Defendants’ employees have violated class members’ rights

14 under the ADA and the RA, and have violated the Court’s

15 injunctions and orders in this action, by attacking and

16 retaliating against class members on account of their

17 disabilities or for exercising their statutory rights.

18

The Witnesses have filed declarations in support of the

19 enforcement motions, and such declarations, as well as the

20 Witnesses’ assistance to Plaintiffs’ counsel, are protected

21 activity under the ADA.

22

The Court further finds that Plaintiffs have shown that they

23 are likely to succeed on their claims that the Witnesses suffered

24 adverse actions that were retaliatory, in that they were caused

25 by the Witnesses’ assistance with the enforcement motions.

26 //

27

28 31

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3025 Filed 07/30/20 Page 32 of 50

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

2. Irreparable Harm

2

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have shown that they are

3 likely to suffer irreparable harm absent a preliminary

4 injunction.

5

The situation for inmates with disabilities and otherwise

6 vulnerable to abuse at RJD has been described by Plaintiffs’

7 expert as “horrifying” in light of the “substantial evidence that

8 these vulnerable inmates are targeted and preyed upon by a

9 significant number of staff at RJD.” Schwartz Decl. ¶¶ 23-27.

10 The alleged misconduct by RJD staff includes the use of excessive

11 force, which is employed against RJD inmates at a “startling”

12 rate that is “far beyond the norm[.]” Vail Decl. ¶ 13. The

13 Bishop Report of December 2018 describes allegations by inmates

14 of violence and retaliation by RJD staff aimed at vulnerable

15 populations, including disabled inmates.

16

Defendants have acknowledged that the Bishop Report

17 “formally recognized serious problems with aspects of R.J.

18 Donovan’s operations . . . and that responsive action should be

19 taken.” Defs.’ Resp. to RJD Mot. at 19. But, as Plaintiffs’

20 expert noted and Defendants have not disputed, the situation at

21 RJD is the result of the “dysfunctional staff culture,” which

22 “will not be changed quickly or easily.” Schwartz Decl. ¶ 93.

23 Thus, while Defendants have taken steps to improve the conditions

24 for class members housed at RJD since the Bishop Report, the

25 Court finds a likelihood that the Witnesses who now seek

26 injunctive relief will suffer from acts of retaliation and abuse

27 that could cause them great bodily or psychological injury, and

28 violations of their statutory rights, absent injunctive relief. 32

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3025 Filed 07/30/20 Page 33 of 50

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

As noted, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have shown a

2 likelihood that the Witnesses have suffered acts of retaliation

3 even after Defendants, pursuant to the Court’s order of March 17,

4 2020, posted anti-retaliation notices in the housing units at

5 RJD, provided RJD staff with additional anti-retaliation

6 training, and took other steps to ensure that inmate-declarants

7 would suffer no retaliation as a result of having provided

8 assistance to Plaintiffs’ counsel in connection with the

9 enforcement motions. The incidents of retaliation at issue took

10 place even after Defendants began to report allegations of staff

11 misconduct to AIMS. Each of these incidents put the Witnesses in

12 danger of bodily or psychological harm, or of further violations

13 of their rights under the ADA to participate or assist in these

14 proceedings.

15

The fact that these incidents likely occurred as Inmate 2

16 and Inmate 1 describe them in their declarations, which, as

17 discussed above, the Court finds to be credible in light of the

18 totality of the record now before it, shows that nothing the

19 Court or Defendants have done so far has been effective at

20 preventing retaliation against the Witnesses. There is no

21 indication in the record that any effective mechanism is in place

22 to guarantee that this conduct against the Witnesses will stop if

23 the Witnesses remain at RJD. As Defendants have admitted, there

24 is still “staff misconduct that does occur” at RJD. See Defs.’

25 Rule 30(b)(6) Designee (Kimberly Seibel) Dep. Tr. at 267, Docket

26 No. 2922-1. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have shown that further

27 retaliatory conduct against the Witnesses is likely to occur

28 absent an injunction. 33

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3025 Filed 07/30/20 Page 34 of 50

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

The Court therefore finds that Plaintiffs have shown that

2 the Witnesses are at risk of suffering irreparable harm and that

3 their participation as witnesses in this litigation could be at

4 risk absent a preliminary injunction that continues in effect the

5 order requiring that they be transferred to and housed in a

6 suitable place outside of RJD.

7

3. Balance of the Equities

8

The Court finds that the balance of the equities tips

9 sharply in Plaintiffs’ favor. Plaintiffs have shown that, in the

10 absence of a preliminary injunction, they would suffer

11 significant burdens, which include serious bodily and

12 psychological harm, and violations of their rights under the ADA

13 in the form of further retaliation for their assistance in these

14 proceedings.

15

On the other hand, Defendants have not pointed to any

16 burdens that the issuance of a preliminary injunction, continuing

17 in effect the transfer to and housing of the Witnesses at a

18 suitable non-RJD facility, would impose upon them. The only

19 burdens that Defendants have identified do not appear to be

20 related to such a transfer. Defendants argue that a preliminary

21 injunction could result in future requests for transfer by other

22 inmates, and that it would be burdensome to remove officers each

23 time an allegation of misconduct is lodged against such officers.

24 Defendants, however, do not explain how these matters relate to

25 the preliminary injunction at issue here. Defendants’ arguments

26 are unpersuasive for the additional reasons that Plaintiffs have

27 not yet requested to remove any officers and that, in the lengthy

28 34

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3025 Filed 07/30/20 Page 35 of 50

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 history of this action, Plaintiffs have never before moved to

2 transfer particular inmates from one prison to another.

3

The present pandemic presents special challenges to prison

4 management, but such challenges affect every aspect of the prison

5 system. The Court finds that any such challenges in the context

6 of the preliminary injunctive relief at issue here, which is

7 limited to the transfer and housing of two inmates at a suitable

8 non-RJD facility, are slight when weighed against the burdens

9 that the Witnesses would suffer in the absence of a preliminary

10 injunction.

11

Accordingly, the Court finds that the burden on Defendants

12 and on prison administration of transferring and housing the two

13 Witnesses in a suitable facility other than RJD is minimal, and

14 that any such burdens are heavily outweighed by the burdens that

15 the Witnesses could face if they continue to be housed at RJD.

16

4. Public interest

17

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have shown that a

18 preliminary injunction is in the public interest.

19

After experiencing various incidents involving threats,

20 intimidation, and even violence, Inmate 2 and Inmate 1 believe

21 that reporting misconduct by RJD staff and assisting with these

22 proceedings has placed their personal safety at risk. Inmate 2

23 Decl. of June 26, 2020 ¶ 12; Inmate 1 Decl. of June 26, 2020 ¶

24 10. If such incidents continue, the ability or willingness of

25 the Witnesses and other inmates to assist with or participate in

26 these proceedings could be negatively impacted. Inmate 2, for

27 one, has stated that he “will not stick out [his] neck out again

28 and try to help in the Armstrong case because the harassment is 35

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3025 Filed 07/30/20 Page 36 of 50

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 not worth dying for.” Inmate 2 Decl. of June 26, 2020 ¶ 12.

2 Inmate 1, for another, has refused to ask other inmates to come

3 forward to corroborate the incidents she describes in her

4 declarations because she “know[s] that they will not be protected

5 from retaliation.” Inmate 1 Decl. of May 21, 2020 ¶ 26. In

6 light of these sworn statements, which the Court deems credible,

7 the Court finds that the integrity of these proceedings would

8 deteriorate in the absence of a preliminary injunction. The

9 Court further finds that a preliminary injunction would promote

10 the enforcement of the ADA’s anti-interference and anti-

11 retaliation provisions, which is in the public interest.

12

Defendants argue that the public interest weighs in favor of

13 non-interference with prison administration. As discussed above,

14 Defendants have not shown how the preliminary injunction at issue

15 here would burden the prison system or would otherwise improperly

16 interfere with prison administration.

17

Accordingly, the Court finds that a preliminary injunction

18 that would continue in effect the order to transfer and house the

19 inmates at a suitable non-RJD facility is in the public interest.

20

LEGAL STANDARD

21

“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish

22 that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to

23 suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief,

24 that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an

25 injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Res.

26 Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).

27

Alternatively, “a preliminary injunction could issue where

28 the likelihood of success is such that serious questions going to 36

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3025 Filed 07/30/20 Page 37 of 50

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 the merits were raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply

2 in plaintiff’s favor,” so long as the plaintiff demonstrates

3 irreparable harm and shows that the injunction is in the public

4 interest. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d

5 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation and internal quotation and

6 editing marks omitted). A court employs a sliding scale when

7 considering a plaintiff’s showing as to the likelihood of success

8 on the merits and the likelihood of irreparable harm. Id.

9 “Under this approach, the elements of the preliminary injunction

10 test are balanced, so that a stronger showing of one element may

11 offset a weaker showing of another.” Id.

12

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

13 I. Plaintiffs Have Shown that a Preliminary Injunction is
Warranted 14

15

As discussed below, and based on the factual findings above,

16 the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have met their burden to show

17 that the issuance of a preliminary injunction to transfer and

18 maintain the Witnesses out of RJD is warranted because they have

19 shown that each of the four factors of the Winter framework is

20 met. However, even if Plaintiffs had, instead of showing a

21 likelihood of success on the merits of their claims of

22 retaliation in violation of the ADA, only shown that serious

23 questions exist as to such claims, the preliminary injunction

24 would be justified under the alternative sliding-scale standard

25 based on the Court’s factual findings, and conclusions below,

26 that the balance of hardships tips sharply in Plaintiffs’ favor,

27 that Plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable

28 37

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3025 Filed 07/30/20 Page 38 of 50

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 harm, and that the injunction is in the public interest. See

2 Alliance for the Wild Rockies, 632 F.3d at 1131.

3

That the preliminary injunction at issue here is a mandatory,

4 and not a prohibitory, injunction does not undermine the Court’s

5 conclusion. A court can issue a mandatory injunction where, as

6 here, the facts and law clearly favor the moving party. See

7 Stanley v. Univ. of S. California, 13 F.3d 1313, 1320 (9th Cir.

8 1994); see also Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, 11A Fed.

9 Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2942 (3d ed.) (“It has been said that courts

10 are more reluctant to grant a mandatory, or affirmative,

11 injunction than a prohibitory, or negative, one. Nonetheless,

12 injunctions compelling the doing of some act, as opposed to

13 forbidding the continuation of a course of conduct, are an ancient

14 and familiar tool of equity courts and will be used whenever the

15 circumstances warrant.”).

16

A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits

17

The Court first must determine what legal standard governs

18 the Witnesses’ claims of retaliation. Defendants argue that the

19 standard is that for proving retaliation in violation of the First

20 Amendment, and Plaintiffs argue that the standard is that for

21 proving retaliation in violation of the ADA.

22

The retaliation about which the Witnesses complain is

23 allegedly connected to their assistance with or participation in

24 Plaintiffs’ enforcement motions, which in turn seek redress for

25 violations of the ADA, the RA, the remedial plan, and the Court’s

26 injunctions and related orders. Plaintiffs do not argue that the

27 retaliation that underlies their request for preliminary

28 injunctive relief was in violation of the Witnesses’ First 38

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3025 Filed 07/30/20 Page 39 of 50

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 Amendment rights. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the

2 relevant standard here is the standard for proving retaliation in

3 violation of the ADA.

4

A claim for retaliation in violation of the ADA requires a

5 showing “that (1) [the plaintiff] engaged in statutorily

6 protected activity; (2) adverse action was taken against him; and

7 (3) a causal connection exists between the adverse action and

8 protected activity.” Rinehart v. Weitzell, __F.3d__, No. 18-

9 3263, 2020 WL 3579862, at *4 (8th Cir. July 2, 2020) (applying

10 test for retaliation in violation of the ADA to claim brought by

11 incarcerated person).

12

As discussed below, and based on the facts found above,

13 Plaintiffs are likely to show that all three prongs for a claim

14 of retaliation in violation of the ADA have been met with respect

15 to each Witness. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have shown that they

16 are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims for

17 retaliation in violation of the ADA as to each Witness, as well

18 as their claims for violations of the Court’s order of March 17,

19 2020. In the alternative, the Court concludes that, at the very

20 least, Plaintiffs have raised serious questions with respect to

21 the merits of their retaliation claims.

22

1. Protected Activity Under the ADA

23

Title II of the ADA provides that “no qualified individual

24 with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be

25 excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the

26 services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be

27 subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” 42 U.S.C.

28 § 12132. The ADA applies to state prisons. Armstrong v. Wilson, 39

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3025 Filed 07/30/20 Page 40 of 50

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 124 F.3d at 1023 (“[W]e conclude that the plain language of the

2 ADA and RA, and our prior interpretations of that language,

3 support application of the statutes to state prisons.”).

4

In their enforcement motions, Plaintiffs argue that

5 Defendants’ employees have violated class members’ rights under

6 the ADA and the RA, and have violated the remedial plan and the

7 Court’s injunctions and orders in this action, by attacking and

8 retaliating against class members on account of their

9 disabilities or for exercising their rights under the ADA and the

10 RA. Because the enforcement motions are brought to protect class

11 members’ rights under the ADA, such motions are ADA proceedings.

12

The ADA prohibits retaliation for or interference with

13 assisting or testifying in connection with an ADA proceeding.

14 Specifically, 42 U.S.C. § 12203(a) provides, “No person shall

15 discriminate against any individual because such individual has

16 opposed any act or practice made unlawful by this chapter or

17 because such individual made a charge, testified, assisted, or

18 participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or

19 hearing under this chapter.” Additionally, 42 U.S.C. § 12203(b)

20 provides, “It shall be unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten,

21 or interfere with any individual in the exercise or enjoyment of,

22 or on account of his or her having exercised or enjoyed, or on

23 account of his or her having aided or encouraged any other

24 individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or

25 protected by this chapter.”

26

Here, the Witnesses have filed declarations in support of

27 the enforcement motions, which, as found and concluded, are ADA

28 proceedings. The Witnesses’ assistance with the enforcement 40

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3025 Filed 07/30/20 Page 41 of 50

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 motions, therefore, is protected activity under the ADA, 42

2 U.S.C. §§ 12203(a) and (b). Accordingly, the first prong of a

3 claim for retaliation in violation of the ADA is met.

4

2. Adverse Action and Causation

5

The Court next addresses the second and third prongs of a

6 claim for retaliation in violation of the ADA, which here require

7 a showing that adverse action related to the Witnesses’

8 declarations in support of the enforcement motions was taken

9 against the Witnesses. After carefully reviewing all of the

10 materials presented by both sides, the Court has found and

11 concludes that Plaintiffs are likely to show that the Witnesses

12 suffered adverse actions that were caused by their assistance

13 with the enforcement motions.

14

Specifically, as discussed in more detail in the Findings of

15 Fact, the Court has found that Plaintiffs are likely to show that

16 Inmate 2 suffered several adverse actions by staff at RJD that

17 have a causal nexus to his assistance with the enforcement

18 motions. These actions include: that RJD staff delayed in

19 providing, or failed to provide, Inmate 2 with his medications on

20 multiple occasions; that Officer Montreuil used excessive force

21 against Inmate 2 on June 17, 2020; and that RJD staff allowed

22 nail clippers in Inmate 2’s cell and a note encouraging him to

23 kill himself while he was on suicide watch.

24

The Court also has found that Plaintiffs are likely to show

25 that Inmate 1 suffered several adverse actions by staff at RJD

26 that have a causal nexus to her assistance with the enforcement

27 motions. These actions include: that staff at RJD, on multiple

28 instances, stated over the public-announcement system that Inmate 41

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3025 Filed 07/30/20 Page 42 of 50

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 1 was meeting with Plaintiffs’ counsel and internal

2 investigators; and that officers made statements or otherwise

3 behaved in a way intended to intimidate, threaten, or discourage

4 Inmate 1 from assisting Plaintiffs’ counsel in these proceedings

5 or otherwise complaining about staff misconduct.

6

Defendants argue that the June 17 incident involving Inmate

7 2 is not an act of retaliation because Officer Montreuil’s use of

8 force against him “was not because of Inmate 2’s protected

9 conduct, but instead advanced a legitimate correctional goal.”

10 Defs.’ Resp. at 5, Docket No. 2981-3. But Defendants have cited

11 no case showing that a claim for retaliation in violation of the

12 ADA fails where the adverse action in question “advanced a

13 legitimate correctional goal.” The cases upon which Defendants

14 rely to support that proposition are inapposite, because they

15 address claims for retaliation in violation of the First

16 Amendment, which require proof of an additional element not

17 required for a retaliation claim under the ADA, namely that the

18 adverse conduct in question did not advance a legitimate

19 correctional goal. See, e.g., Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806

20 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding that, “[b]ecause a prisoner’s First

21 Amendment rights are necessarily curtailed” while in custody, “a

22 successful retaliation claim [under the First Amendment] requires

23 a finding that the prison authorities’ retaliatory action did not

24 advance legitimate goals of the correctional institution or was

25 not tailored narrowly enough to achieve such goals”).

26

Further, the record does not support a finding that Officer

27 Montreuil’s use of force advanced a legitimate correctional goal

28 in any case. As discussed above, Defendants have not shown that 42

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3025 Filed 07/30/20 Page 43 of 50

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 level of force that Officer Montreuil used against Inmate 2,

2 which was enough to render him unconscious, was appropriate even

3 if Inmate 2 had, in fact, been walking toward Officer Montreuil

4 and had tried to throw bodily fluids at the officer.

5

With respect to Inmate 1, Defendants argue that she has no

6 actionable retaliation claim because the acts about which she

7 complains amount to “bad mouthing” and verbal threats that do not

8 violate her First Amendment rights. Defs.’ Resp. at 9-10, Docket

9 No. 2981-3. As discussed above, however, the relevant standard

10 for proving retaliation here is the one under the ADA, not the

11 First Amendment.

12

Accordingly, the first factor under the Winter framework

13 weighs in favor of issuing a preliminary injunction.

14

B. Irreparable Harm

15

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have made a strong showing

16 that the Witnesses are likely to suffer irreparable harm absent a

17 preliminary injunction. As discussed in more detail in the

18 Findings of Fact, it is undisputed that staff misconduct at RJD

19 continues to occur notwithstanding the Court’s orders and the

20 steps that Defendants have taken. The Court has found that the

21 Witnesses likely have suffered acts of retaliation despite the

22 efforts that the Court and the parties have taken to protect

23 class members from retaliation. In the absence of any indication

24 in the record that there is any effective mechanism in place to

25 guarantee that retaliatory conduct against the Witnesses will

26 stop, the Court has found that the Witnesses are likely to suffer

27 irreparable harm in the form of serious physical or psychological

28 injury, and further retaliation in violation of their rights 43

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3025 Filed 07/30/20 Page 44 of 50

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 under the ADA, absent a preliminary injunction. Cf. Goldie’s

2 Bookstore, Inc. v. Superior Court of State of Cal., 739 F.2d 466,

3 472 (9th Cir. 1984) (holding that finding of potential injury

4 that was “not based on any factual allegations” was insufficient

5 because “[s]peculative injury does not constitute irreparable

6 injury”).

7

Defendants argue that the Witnesses have not shown that they

8 are likely to suffer irreparable harm because their declarations

9 are not credible. Defendants note that Inmate 1 changed her

10 story about having safety concerns as shown in the July 7 video

11 interview, and that Inmate 2 changed his story about Officer

12 Rucker’s physical involvement in Inmate 4’s death. For the

13 reasons discussed above, the Court has found that these attacks

14 on the Witnesses’ credibility are ineffective.

15

Accordingly, this factor weighs strongly in favor of issuing

16 a preliminary injunction.4

17

C. Balance of the Equities

18

Plaintiffs have shown that the balance of the equities

19 weighs heavily in the Witnesses’ favor. As discussed in more

20 detail in the Findings of Fact, the Court has found that the

21 burden, if any, on Defendants and on prison administration of

22 transferring and housing the Witnesses in a suitable facility

23 other than RJD is minimal, and that any such burden is heavily

24 outweighed by the burdens that the Witnesses could face if they

25

26

4 The strong showing that Plaintiffs have made with respect

27

to the factor of irreparable harm would more than offset any weakness in Plaintiffs’ showing with respect to the likelihood of

28

success on the merits. See Alliance for the Wild Rockies, 632 F.3d at 1131.

44

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3025 Filed 07/30/20 Page 45 of 50

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 continue to be housed at RJD, which include the possibility of

2 serious bodily injury, psychological harm, and ongoing violations

3 of their rights. See Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 996

4 (9th Cir. 2017) (“Faced with . . . preventable human suffering,

5 [the Ninth Circuit] ha[s] little difficulty concluding that the

6 balance of hardships tips decidedly in plaintiffs’ favor.”)

7 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

8

Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of issuing a

9 preliminary injunction.

10

D. Public Interest

11

Plaintiffs have shown that issuing a preliminary injunction

12 is in the public interest.

13

As discussed in the Findings of Fact, the Court has found

14 that a preliminary injunction would preserve the integrity of

15 these proceedings by protecting the Witnesses from retaliation

16 for assisting Plaintiffs’ counsel with the enforcement motions.

17 This is in the public interest and is consistent with Defendants’

18 legal obligations. See, e.g., 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 3270 (“The

19 requirement of custodial security and of staff, inmate and public

20 safety must take precedence over all other consideration in the

21 operation of all the programs and activities of the institutions

22 of the department.”); 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 3271 (“Every employee,

23 regardless of his or her assignment, is responsible for the safe

24 custody of the inmates confined in the institutions of the

25 department.”).

26

The Court also has found that a preliminary injunction would

27 protect the Witnesses’ rights under the ADA, which also is in the

28 45

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3025 Filed 07/30/20 Page 46 of 50

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 public interest. See Enyart v. Nat’l Conference of Bar

2 Examiners, Inc., 630 F.3d 1153, 1167 (9th Cir. 2011).

3

The Court also has found that Defendants have not shown that

4 the preliminary injunction at issue would improperly interfere

5 with prison administration.

6

Accordingly, this factor also weighs in favor of issuing a

7 preliminary injunction.

8 II. The Preliminary Injunction Is Consistent with the Prison
Litigation Reform Act 9

10

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) provides that courts

11 “shall not grant or approve any prospective relief [with respect

12 to prison conditions] unless the court finds that such relief is

13 narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the

14 violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means

15 necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.” 18

16 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). Whether prospective relief is

17 appropriate in light of the PLRA depends on whether the court

18 finds, in light of the “order as a whole,” “that the set of

19 reforms being ordered—the ‘relief’—corrects the violations of

20 prisoners’ rights with the minimal impact possible on defendants’

21 discretion over their policies and procedures.” Armstrong v.

22 Schwarzenegger, 622 F.3d at 1071.

23

The Court concludes that a preliminary injunction that

24 continues in effect the transfer to and housing of the Witnesses 25 at a suitable facility that is not RJD meets the requirements of 26 the PLRA. The preliminary injunction is narrowly tailored 27 because it requires action only with respect to the two inmates 28 who have shown a likelihood of success on their claims of
46

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3025 Filed 07/30/20 Page 47 of 50

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 retaliation, and because the transfer of the Witnesses is the

2 least that can be done to keep the Witnesses safe from further
3 incidents that could cause them serious bodily or psychological
4 injury and violations of their rights under the ADA. Id. at 1072
5 (holding that the scope of permissible injunctive relief “is
6 dictated by the extent of the violation established”) (citation 7 and internal quotation marks omitted).
The preliminary injunction is not overly intrusive because 8
it does not micromanage the process of transferring the Witnesses 9
out of RJD. That the Court has required that the new placements 10
for the Witnesses meet certain criteria in light of the 11
Witnesses’ disabilities, medical conditions, security level, and 12
vulnerability to acts of retaliation in violation of the ADA does 13
not change this conclusion. See Armstrong v. Brown, 768 F.3d at 14
986 (holding that “[a] court may, as the district court did here, 15
provide specific instructions to the State without running afoul 16 of the PLRA”). Such criteria are necessary to ensure that the
17 Witnesses are not deprived of their rights at the new location.
18 As the Ninth Circuit has held, “the defendants have the
19 responsibility of ensuring that their prisoners are afforded
20 their rights under the ADA, regardless of where the State
21 incarcerates them[.]” See Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger, 622 F.3d

22 at 1072.

23

Critically, Defendants have not advanced any viable

24 alternative means to protect the Witnesses’ rights that are

25 narrower or less intrusive. Ordering that the Witnesses remain 26 at RJD is not a viable alternative to the preliminary injunction 27 at issue because the record shows that prior orders by the Court 28 and prior actions by Defendants to protect class members at RJD

47

United States District Court Northern District of California

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3025 Filed 07/30/20 Page 48 of 50
1 from retaliation have been ineffective. See Armstrong v. Brown,
2 768 at 986 (noting that, where the “the district court has 3 attempted narrower, less intrusive alternatives—and those 4 alternatives have failed,” the court has discretion to order 5 relief that might have raised concerns about breadth and 6 intrusiveness under the PLRA in the first instance) (citation and 7 internal quotation marks omitted).
Further, the Court has considered Defendants’ arguments 8
regarding the potential burdens that the preliminary injunction 9
would impose on them, and it has found that the potential 10
burdens, if any, would be minimal. Even if complying with the 11
preliminary injunction were burdensome for Defendants, however, 12
“[a] demonstration that an order is burdensome does nothing to 13
prove that it was overly intrusive,” which is the relevant 14
consideration under the PLRA. Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger, 622 15
F.3d at 1071 (“With Congress having made the decision to 16
recognize the rights of disabled persons, the question is not 17
whether the relief the court ordered to vindicate those rights is 18
expensive, or difficult to achieve, but whether the same 19
vindication of federal rights could have been achieved with less 20
involvement by the court in directing the details of defendants’ 21
operations.”). 22
Accordingly, the Court finds that the issuance of the 23
preliminary injunction at issue is appropriate. 24
CONCLUSION 25
The Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiffs’ motion for a 26
preliminary injunction. The preliminary injunction will issue as 27
a separate order. The Witnesses have been transferred out of RJD 28
48

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3025 Filed 07/30/20 Page 49 of 50

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 pursuant to the Court’s temporary restraining order. Inmate 2

2 shall remain housed at the MHCB at CMC on a temporary basis

3 pending placement at CHCF once it is open for transfers, and

4 Inmate 1 shall remain housed at an Enhanced Outpatient Program

5 housing unit on Facility D at Mule Creek State Prison, subject to

6 the exceptions set forth in the preliminary injunction. While

7 the Witnesses are housed at these facilities, Defendants shall

8 have the ADA coordinator meet with each Witness on a regular

9 basis to discuss whether the Witness has any safety concerns or

10 has faced retaliation, and Defendants shall arrange for regular

11 confidential telephone calls between each Witness and Plaintiffs’

12 counsel.

13

No security shall be required because the Witnesses are

14 incarcerated and presumably indigent.

15

The preliminary injunction shall remain in effect for ninety

16 days of the date of this order. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). The

17 Court will make the injunction final before the expiration of the

18 ninety-day period based on the findings set forth herein, unless

19 Defendants make a further factual showing that they were unable

20 to make in opposition to the issuance of a preliminary injunction

21 in light of the expedited schedule for that proceeding. No later

22 than September 21, 2020, Defendants may submit a brief of not

23 more than ten pages and supporting evidentiary materials showing

24 that a final injunction should not issue. Plaintiffs may file a

25 response of equal length no later than October 5, 2020. The

26 Court defers ruling on Plaintiffs’ request to strike Inmate 2’s

27 RVRs from the incident on June 17, 2020, pending the results of

28 the internal RVR hearings. Defendants shall report on the 49

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3025 Filed 07/30/20 Page 50 of 50

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 results of these hearings in their next brief and Plaintiffs may

2 respond.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4 Dated: July 30, 2020 5

CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 50

 
 Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2972 Filed 07/02/20 Page 1 of 6

[3569333.1]

1

2

3

4

5

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8

9 JOHN ARMSTRONG, et al.,
10 Plaintiffs,
11 v.
12 GAVIN NEWSOM, et al.,
13 Defendants.
14

Case No. C94 2307 CW
[PROPOSED] TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER Judge: Hon. Claudia Wilken

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Case No. C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2972 Filed 07/02/20 Page 2 of 6

[3569333.1]

1

Upon review of Plaintiffs’ Notice of Ex Parte Motion and Ex Parte Motion for

2 Temporary Restraining Order, the supporting exhibits, and the entire record in this matter,

3 and good cause appearing, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order is 4 GRANTED IN PART AND DEFERRED IN PART. Pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal

5 Rules of Civil Procedure and Civil Local Rule 65-1, the Court orders as follows:

6

The Court concludes that Plaintiffs have met their burden of demonstrating: (1) that

7 Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that Defendants

8 and their employees have violated the March 17, 2020, order of this Court, Dkt. 2931, and

9 the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) by retaliating against two class members

10 who are currently at the R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”) (collectively, the

11 “Witnesses”) for their participation in Plaintiffs’ motions regarding staff misconduct;

12 (2) that Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that

13 continued detention of the Witnesses at RJD is causing and will cause irreparable harm to

14 the Witnesses absent an injunction; (3) that the balance of equities weighs in Plaintiffs’

15 favor; and (4) that the public interest favors issuing an injunction. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def.

16 Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240

17 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001) (noting that preliminary injunction and temporary

18 restraining order standards are “substantially identical”). Accordingly, a temporary

19 restraining order (“TRO”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 and the inherent

20 equitable powers of this Court is warranted.

21

1. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have demonstrated that they are likely to show

22 that Defendants and their employees have retaliated against the Witnesses for participating

23 in this lawsuit and for supporting the Motion to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing

24 and Retaliating Against Incarcerated People with Disabilities at R.J. Donovan Correctional 25 Facility (“RJD Motion”), Dkt. 2922 to 2922-8, and the Motion to Stop Defendants from

26 Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against Incarcerated people with Disabilities

27 (“Statewide Motion” and, collectively with the RJD Motion, the “Motions”), Dkt. 2948 to

28 2948-6, in violation of this Court’s March 17, 2020, order and the ADA. Specifically,

1
[PROPOSED] TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Case No. C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2972 Filed 07/02/20 Page 3 of 6

[3569333.1]

1 Plaintiffs have demonstrated that they are likely to show that Defendants and their

2 employees have violated the provision of the March 17, 2020, order that prohibits

3 “Defendants and their employees . . . from retaliating against the Declarants, Armstrong 4 class members, or incarcerated people at RJD for participating in the [RJD Motion].” Dkt.

5 2931 at 3. Plaintiffs also have demonstrated that they are likely to show that Defendants

6 and their employees have also violated 42 U.S.C. §§ 12203(a) and (b).

7

2. The Court further finds that Plaintiffs have demonstrated that they are likely

8 to show that Defendants and their employees have been unable or unwilling to address the

9 safety concerns of the Witnesses in their current housing placements at RJD. In light of

10 the death of a previous witness who submitted a declaration in support of the RJD Motion

11 who was housed in the same unit as the Witnesses are currently, as well as the June 17,

12 2020, assault on one of the two Witnesses and the incidents of retaliation described in the

13 declarations of the Witnesses and another witness, Plaintiffs have demonstrated that they

14 are likely to show that the Witnesses’ lives will remain in danger and their future

15 participation as witnesses in this dispute will be jeopardized; that the Witnesses have

16 already faced violent retaliation for participating in the Motions and reporting officer

17 misconduct; and that the Witnesses have a credible fear that RJD is an extremely

18 dangerous place for those who report misconduct.

19

3. The Court finds that the balance of equities weighs heavily in the Witnesses’

20 favor and that there is little burden on Defendants to protect the Witnesses. Defendants

21 have pre-existing federal and state duties to keep all incarcerated people safe from staff

22 misconduct. See U.S. Const., Amend. 8; Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 847

23 (1994); Cal. Code Regs., Tit. 15 § 3270 (“The requirement of custodial security and of

24 staff, inmate and public safety must take precedence over all other consideration in the 25 operation of all the programs and activities of the institutions of the department.”); Cal.

26 Code Regs., Tit. 15 § 3271 (“Every employee, regardless of his or her assignment, is

27 responsible for the safe custody of the inmates confined in the institutions of the

28 department.”); CDCR Dep’t Operations Manual § 130101.3 (“CDCR employees have a

2
[PROPOSED] TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Case No. C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2972 Filed 07/02/20 Page 4 of 6

[3569333.1]

1 responsibility to protect the offenders in their custody”). Any burdens on Defendants are

2 outweighed by the burdens faced by the Witnesses—death, serious injury, and ongoing

3 violations of their federal civil rights. See Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 996 (9th 4 Cir. 2017) (“Faced with . . . preventable human suffering, [the Ninth Circuit] ha[s] little

5 difficulty concluding that the balance of hardships tips decidedly in plaintiffs’ favor.”)

6 (quotation omitted).

7

4. The Court further finds that the need for a safe placement must also take into

8 account the COVID-19 pandemic sweeping through California’s prisons. Both Witnesses

9 have multiple COVID-19 risk factors, including their age and underlying health

10 conditions.

11

5. Finally, the Court finds that the public has a strong interest “in enforcement

12 of the ADA and in elimination of discrimination on the basis of disability.” Enyart v. Nat’l

13 Conference of Bar Examiners, Inc., 630 F.3d 1153, 1167 (9th Cir. 2011); see Hernandez v.

14 Cty. of Monterey, 110 F. Supp. 3d 929, 958 (N.D. Cal. 2015). Accordingly, an order

15 protecting the Witnesses for the exercise of their rights under the ADA and their

16 participation in this litigation would serve the public interest.

17

6. The Court hereby ORDERS:

18

a. No later than July 6, 2020, at 4:00 p.m., Defendants shall develop and

19 send by electronic mail to Plaintiffs’ counsel a proposed plan for transferring the

20 Witnesses to a custodial or community placement that:

21

i. Is not at RJD;

22

ii. Is not administrative segregation or any other type of punitive

23 housing;

24 25 classifications;

iii. Is not at a higher security level than the Witnesses’ current

26

iv. Provides at least equivalent access to programming

27 opportunities, including compliance with the Coleman Program Guide;

28

v. Is as safe in light of COVID-19 risks as possible; and

3
[PROPOSED] TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Case No. C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2972 Filed 07/02/20 Page 5 of 6

[3569333.1]

1

vi. If the placement is custodial, complete surveillance camera

2 coverage is preferable.

3

b. If no such placement exists within the California Department of

4 Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), Defendants’ proposed plan must include

5 transferring the Witnesses to a placement in the community or another correctional system

6 that meets the criteria in Paragraph 6.a., including the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

7

c. No later than July 7, 2020, at noon, Defendants shall arrange for

8 Plaintiffs’ counsel to conduct separate confidential legal telephone calls with each of the

9 two Witnesses.

10

d. No later than July 8, 2020, at noon, the parties shall meet and confer

11 to attempt to resolve any objections that Plaintiffs may have regarding Defendants’

12 proposed plan.

13

e. If, following the meet-and-confer session, the parties are in agreement

14 regarding the plan, the parties shall file a joint status statement no later than July 9, 2020,

15 at midnight, attaching the agreed-upon plan under seal, and the Court will enter an order

16 adopting and mandating Defendants’ compliance with the plan.

17

f. If, following the meet-and-confer session, Plaintiffs have objections to

18 Defendants’ plan, then, no later than July 9, 2020, at midnight, the parties shall file a joint

19 status statement setting forth each side’s respective position and attaching under seal the

20 plan Defendants propose to implement. Each side’s statement of its position shall not

21 exceed five pages. The Court will rule on Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining

22 order with respect to the transfer of the Witnesses shortly upon receipt of the joint

23 statement.

24

g. These remedies are all consistent with the Prison Litigation Reform

25 Act’s requirement that the Court’s orders be narrowly drawn, extend no further than

26 necessary to correct the violation of a federal right, and be the least intrusive means

27 necessary to correct the violation. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A); Armstrong v. Brown,

28 768 F.3d 975, 985-86 (9th Cir. 2014).

4
[PROPOSED] TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Case No. C94 2307 CW

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2972 Filed 07/02/20 Page 6 of 6

[3569333.1]

1

h. No security shall be required because the Witnesses are incarcerated

2 and presumably indigent.

3

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

4

No later than July 10, 2020, Defendants shall show cause why a preliminary

5 injunction continuing in effect this Court’s temporary restraining orders should not issue.

6 Plaintiffs may file a response no later than July 13, 2020. The hearing on the order to

7 show cause will be held remotely on July 16, 2020, at 2:30 p.m.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

10 DATED: July 2, 2020 11 12

Honorable Claudia Wilken United States District Judge

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24 25

26

27

28

5
[PROPOSED] TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Case No. C94 2307 CW

 
 Create an Alert for This Case on RECAP

APPEAL,E-Filing,PROTO

U.S. District Court California Northern District (Oakland) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:94-cv-02307-CW

Armstrong, et al v. Newsom, et al Assigned to: Hon. Claudia Wilken Demand: $0 Case in other court: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals,
08-17664 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 09-16716 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 09-17144 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 09-17632 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 12-16018 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 12-17103 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 12-17198 Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals, 20-16921 for the Ninth Circuit, 21-15614 Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

Date Filed: 06/29/1994 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiﬀ John Armstrong

represented by Donald H. Specter Prison Law Oﬃce 1917 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710-1916 510-280-2621 Fax: 510-280-2704 Email: dspecter@prisonlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eve Hedy Cervantez Altshuler Berzon LLP 177 Post Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94108 (415) 421-7151 Fax: 415-362-8064 Email: ecervantez@altshulerberzon.com

TERMINATED: 03/06/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael William Bien Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP 101 Mission Street, 6th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-1738 415-433-6830 Fax: 415-433-7104 Email: mbien@rbgg.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara Linda Norman Prison Law Oﬃce 1917 Fifth St. Berkeley, CA 94710-1916 510-280-2621 Fax: 510-280-2704 Email: snorman@prisonlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alison Hardy Prison Law Oﬃce 1917 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710 510.280.2621 Email: ahardy@prisonlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Whelan National Center for Lesbian Rights 870 Market Street Suite 370 San Francisco, CA 94102 415-392-6257 Fax: 415-392-8442 Email: awhelan@nclrights.org TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Anne Hanson Mania Rosen, Bien and Galvan 315 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 415-433-6830 Email: amania@RBG-law.com TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Arlene Brynne Mayerson

Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund, Inc. 3075 Adeline Street, Suite 210 Berkeley, CA 94703 (510) 644-2555 Fax: (510) 841-8645 Email: AMayerson@dredf.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Joseph Bien-Kahn Rosen Bien Galvan and Grunfeld LLP 101 Mission Street, Sixth Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 415-433-6830 Email: bbien-kahn@rbgg.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Blake Thompson , CA TERMINATED: 06/10/2016
Corene T. Kendrick Prison Law Oﬃce 1917 Fifth St. Berkeley, CA 94710 510-280-2621 Email: ckendrick@prisonlaw.com TERMINATED: 11/16/2020
Ernest James Galvan Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP 101 Mission Street, Sixth Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-1738 (415) 433-6830 Email: egalvan@rbgg.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld Rosen Bien Galvan and Grunfeld LLP 50 Fremont Street, 19th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 415-433-6830 Fax: 415-433-7104 Email: ggrunfeld@rbgg.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Geoﬀrey T. Holtz Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105-1596

(415) 442-1414 Fax: (415) 442-1001 Email: geoﬀrey.holtz@morganlewis.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Holly Baldwin Rosen, Bien & Galvan, LLP 315 Montgomery St., 10th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 415-433-6830 Fax: 415-433-7104 Email: hmbaldwin@me.com TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Kelly Jean Knapp Stebner and Associates 870 Market Street Suite 1212 San Francisco, CA 94102 4153629800 Fax: 4153629801 Email: kelly@stebnerassociates.com TERMINATED: 05/25/2016
Kenneth Michael Walczak Lewis & Llewellyn LLP 601 Montgomery St, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 628-267-2803 Email: kenneth.walczak@sfgov.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Krista Michelle Stone-Manista Rosen Bien Galvan and Grunfeld 50 Fremont St 19th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 415-433-6830 Email: KStone-Manista@rbgg.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Linda D. Kilb Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Inc. 3075 Adeline Street Suite 210 Berkeley, CA 94703 510-644-2555 Fax: 510-841-8645

Email: lkilb@dredf.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa Adrienne Ells Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP 101 Mission Street, 6th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-1738 415-433-6830 Fax: 415-433-7104 Email: lells@rbgg.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Loren Dougherty Stewart Federal Public Defender's Oﬃce 450 Golden Gate Avenue 19th Floor San Francisco, CA 94102 415-436-7700 Fax: 415-436-7706 Email: loren_stewart@fd.org TERMINATED: 10/29/2012
Margot Knight Mendelson Rosen Bien Galvan and Grunfeld 50 Fremont Street 19th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 415-433-6830 Fax: 415-433-7104 Email: mmendelson@prisonlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maria V. Morris Southern Poverty Law Center 400 Washington Av Montgomery, AL 36104 334-956-8200 Email: maria.morris@splcenter.org TERMINATED: 10/29/2012
Mark Raymond Feeser Mark R. Feeser - Attorney at Law 3940-7174 Broad Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805-542-0189 Email: mark.r.feeser@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Megan Hagler Attorney at Law

2173 E. Francisco Blvd San Rafael, CA 94901 415-457-9144 Email: mhagler@prisonlaw.com TERMINATED: 04/12/2016
Michael Louis Freedman Rosen Bien Galvan and Grunfeld 101 Mission Street, 6th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-1738 United Sta 415-433-6830 Fax: 415-433-7104 Email: mfreedman@rbgg.com TERMINATED: 06/10/2016
Patrick D Booth Prison Law Oﬃce 1917 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710 510-280-2621 Email: patrick@prisonlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Penny Marie Godbold Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld 101 Mission Street, Sixth Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 415.433.6830 Email: pgodbold@rbgg.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebekah B. Evenson Bay Area Legal Aid 1035 Market Street 6th Floor San Francisco, CA 94103 415-982-1300 Fax: 415-982-4243 Email: revenson@baylegal.org TERMINATED: 04/12/2016
Rita Katherine Lomio Prison Law Oﬃce 1917 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710 (510) 280-2621 Email: rlomio@prisonlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawn Hanson

Plaintiﬀ James Amauric

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP 580 California Street Suite 1500 San Francisco, CA 94104-1036 415 765 9500 Fax: 415 765 9501 Email: shanson@akingump.com TERMINATED: 04/08/2021
Shirley Huey Rosen Bien Galvan and Grunfeld LLP 315 Montgomery St. 10th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 415-433-6830 Fax: 415-433-7104 Email: shirley@pierceshearer.com TERMINATED: 10/29/2012
Thomas Bengt Nolan Rosen Bien Galvan and Grunfeld LLP 50 Fremont Street, 19th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 415-433-6830 Fax: 415-433-7104 Email: tnolan@rbgg.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Warren E. George , Jr Prison Law Oﬃce 1917 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710 (510) 280-2621 Fax: (510) 280-2704 Email: wgeorge@prisonlaw.com TERMINATED: 04/12/2016
represented by Donald H. Specter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/06/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiﬀ

Sara Linda Norman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Whelan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Anne Hanson Mania (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Arlene Brynne Mayerson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Joseph Bien-Kahn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ernest James Galvan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Holly Baldwin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Kelly Jean Knapp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/25/2016
Krista Michelle Stone-Manista (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawn Hanson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/08/2021
Thomas Bengt Nolan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard Ponciano

represented by Donald H. Specter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/06/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara Linda Norman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Whelan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Anne Hanson Mania (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Arlene Brynne Mayerson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Joseph Bien-Kahn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ernest James Galvan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Holly Baldwin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Kelly Jean Knapp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/25/2016
Krista Michelle Stone-Manista (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiﬀ Jack Swensen

Shawn Hanson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/08/2021
Thomas Bengt Nolan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Donald H. Specter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/06/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara Linda Norman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Whelan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Anne Hanson Mania (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Arlene Brynne Mayerson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Joseph Bien-Kahn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ernest James Galvan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Holly Baldwin

Plaintiﬀ Billy Beck

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Kelly Jean Knapp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/25/2016
Krista Michelle Stone-Manista (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawn Hanson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/08/2021
Thomas Bengt Nolan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Donald H. Specter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elaine Beth Feingold Law Oﬃce of Elaine B. Feingold 1524 Scenic Avenue Berkeley, CA 94708 (510) 548-5062 Email: lf@lﬂegal.com TERMINATED: 12/21/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/06/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael William Bien (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara Linda Norman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiﬀ Judy Fendt

Amy Whelan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Anne Hanson Mania (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Arlene Brynne Mayerson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Joseph Bien-Kahn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ernest James Galvan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Holly Baldwin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Kelly Jean Knapp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/25/2016
Krista Michelle Stone-Manista (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawn Hanson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/08/2021
Thomas Bengt Nolan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Warren E. George , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/12/2016
represented by Donald H. Specter (See above for address)

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elaine Beth Feingold (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/21/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/06/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael William Bien (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara Linda Norman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Whelan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Anne Hanson Mania (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Arlene Brynne Mayerson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Joseph Bien-Kahn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ernest James Galvan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Holly Baldwin (See above for address)

Plaintiﬀ Walter Fratus

TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Kelly Jean Knapp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/25/2016
Krista Michelle Stone-Manista (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawn Hanson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/08/2021
Thomas Bengt Nolan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Warren E. George , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/12/2016
represented by Donald H. Specter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elaine Beth Feingold (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/21/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/06/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael William Bien (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara Linda Norman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anne Hanson Mania

Plaintiﬀ Gregory Sandoval

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Arlene Brynne Mayerson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Joseph Bien-Kahn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ernest James Galvan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Holly Baldwin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Kelly Jean Knapp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/25/2016
Krista Michelle Stone-Manista (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawn Hanson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/08/2021
Thomas Bengt Nolan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Warren E. George , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/12/2016
represented by Donald H. Specter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elaine Beth Feingold (See above for address)

TERMINATED: 12/21/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/06/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael William Bien (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara Linda Norman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Whelan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Anne Hanson Mania (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Arlene Brynne Mayerson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Joseph Bien-Kahn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ernest James Galvan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Holly Baldwin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Kelly Jean Knapp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/25/2016

Plaintiﬀ Darlene Madison

Krista Michelle Stone-Manista (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawn Hanson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/08/2021
Thomas Bengt Nolan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Warren E. George , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/12/2016
represented by Donald H. Specter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elaine Beth Feingold (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/21/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/06/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael William Bien (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara Linda Norman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Whelan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Anne Hanson Mania (See above for address)

Plaintiﬀ Peter Richardson

TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Arlene Brynne Mayerson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Joseph Bien-Kahn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ernest James Galvan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Holly Baldwin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Kelly Jean Knapp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/25/2016
Krista Michelle Stone-Manista (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawn Hanson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/08/2021
Thomas Bengt Nolan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Warren E. George , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/12/2016
represented by Donald H. Specter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elaine Beth Feingold (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/21/2007

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/06/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael William Bien (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara Linda Norman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Whelan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Anne Hanson Mania (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Arlene Brynne Mayerson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Joseph Bien-Kahn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ernest James Galvan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Holly Baldwin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Kelly Jean Knapp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/25/2016

Plaintiﬀ Steven Hill

Krista Michelle Stone-Manista (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawn Hanson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/08/2021
Thomas Bengt Nolan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Warren E. George , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/12/2016
represented by Donald H. Specter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elaine Beth Feingold (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/21/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/06/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael William Bien (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara Linda Norman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Whelan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Anne Hanson Mania (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011

Plaintiﬀ David Rose

Arlene Brynne Mayerson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Joseph Bien-Kahn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ernest James Galvan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Holly Baldwin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Kelly Jean Knapp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/25/2016
Krista Michelle Stone-Manista (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawn Hanson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/08/2021
Warren E. George , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/12/2016
represented by Donald H. Specter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elaine Beth Feingold (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/21/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Whelan (See above for address)

TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Anne Hanson Mania (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Arlene Brynne Mayerson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Joseph Bien-Kahn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Caroline Nason Mitchell Jones Day 555 California Street 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 415 875 5712 Fax: 415 875 5700 Email: cnmitchell@jonesday.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ernest James Galvan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/06/2000 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Holly Baldwin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Jennifer Lee Jonak Jonak Law Group, P.C. 2888 Arline Way Eugene, OR 97403 541-525-9102 Fax: 510-291-2910 Email: jenny@jonak.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly Jean Knapp

Plaintiﬀ David Blessing

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/25/2016
Krista Michelle Stone-Manista (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael William Bien (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara Linda Norman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawn Hanson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/08/2021
Thomas Bengt Nolan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Warren E. George , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/12/2016
William Fernholz Rosen Bien & Galvan LLP 315 Montgomery St., 10th Flr San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 433-6830 TERMINATED: 11/13/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Donald H. Specter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Whelan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Anne Hanson Mania (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Arlene Brynne Mayerson (See above for address)

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Joseph Bien-Kahn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Caroline Nason Mitchell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ernest James Galvan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/06/2000 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Holly Baldwin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Jennifer Lee Jonak (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly Jean Knapp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/25/2016
Krista Michelle Stone-Manista (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael William Bien (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara Linda Norman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawn Hanson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/08/2021

Plaintiﬀ Elio Castro

Thomas Bengt Nolan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Warren E. George , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/12/2016
represented by Donald H. Specter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Whelan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Anne Hanson Mania (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Arlene Brynne Mayerson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Joseph Bien-Kahn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Caroline Nason Mitchell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ernest James Galvan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/06/2000 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Holly Baldwin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011

Plaintiﬀ Elmer Umbenhower

Jennifer Lee Jonak (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly Jean Knapp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/25/2016
Krista Michelle Stone-Manista (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael William Bien (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara Linda Norman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawn Hanson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/08/2021
Thomas Bengt Nolan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Warren E. George , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/12/2016
represented by Donald H. Specter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Whelan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Anne Hanson Mania (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Arlene Brynne Mayerson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Joseph Bien-Kahn

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Caroline Nason Mitchell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ernest James Galvan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/06/2000 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Holly Baldwin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Jennifer Lee Jonak (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly Jean Knapp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/25/2016
Krista Michelle Stone-Manista (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael William Bien (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara Linda Norman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawn Hanson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/08/2021
Thomas Bengt Nolan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiﬀ Raymond Hayes

Warren E. George , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/12/2016
represented by Donald H. Specter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Whelan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Anne Hanson Mania (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Arlene Brynne Mayerson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Joseph Bien-Kahn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Caroline Nason Mitchell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ernest James Galvan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/06/2000 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Holly Baldwin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Jennifer Lee Jonak (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiﬀ Gene Horrocks

Kelly Jean Knapp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/25/2016
Krista Michelle Stone-Manista (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael William Bien (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara Linda Norman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawn Hanson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/08/2021
Thomas Bengt Nolan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Warren E. George , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/12/2016
represented by Donald H. Specter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Whelan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Anne Hanson Mania (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Arlene Brynne Mayerson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Joseph Bien-Kahn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Caroline Nason Mitchell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ernest James Galvan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/06/2000 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Holly Baldwin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Jennifer Lee Jonak (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly Jean Knapp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/25/2016
Krista Michelle Stone-Manista (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael William Bien (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara Linda Norman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawn Hanson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/08/2021
Thomas Bengt Nolan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Warren E. George , Jr

Plaintiﬀ Kiah Mincey

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/12/2016
represented by Donald H. Specter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Whelan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Anne Hanson Mania (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Arlene Brynne Mayerson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Joseph Bien-Kahn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Caroline Nason Mitchell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ernest James Galvan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/06/2000 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Holly Baldwin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Jennifer Lee Jonak (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly Jean Knapp

Plaintiﬀ Clifton Feathers

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/25/2016
Krista Michelle Stone-Manista (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael William Bien (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara Linda Norman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawn Hanson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/08/2021
Thomas Bengt Nolan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Warren E. George , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/12/2016
represented by Donald H. Specter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Whelan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Anne Hanson Mania (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Arlene Brynne Mayerson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Joseph Bien-Kahn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Caroline Nason Mitchell (See above for address)

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ernest James Galvan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/06/2000 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Holly Baldwin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Jennifer Lee Jonak (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly Jean Knapp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/25/2016
Krista Michelle Stone-Manista (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael William Bien (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara Linda Norman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawn Hanson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/08/2021
Thomas Bengt Nolan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Warren E. George , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/12/2016

Plaintiﬀ Willie Johnson

represented by Donald H. Specter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Whelan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Anne Hanson Mania (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Arlene Brynne Mayerson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Joseph Bien-Kahn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Caroline Nason Mitchell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ernest James Galvan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/06/2000 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Holly Baldwin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Jennifer Lee Jonak (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly Jean Knapp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/25/2016

Plaintiﬀ David Badillo

Krista Michelle Stone-Manista (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael William Bien (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara Linda Norman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawn Hanson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/08/2021
Thomas Bengt Nolan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Warren E. George , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/12/2016
represented by Donald H. Specter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Whelan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Anne Hanson Mania (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Arlene Brynne Mayerson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Joseph Bien-Kahn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Caroline Nason Mitchell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ernest James Galvan

Plaintiﬀ James Simmons

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/06/2000 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Holly Baldwin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Jennifer Lee Jonak (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly Jean Knapp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/25/2016
Krista Michelle Stone-Manista (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael William Bien (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara Linda Norman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawn Hanson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/08/2021
Thomas Bengt Nolan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Warren E. George , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/12/2016
represented by Donald H. Specter (See above for address)

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Whelan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Anne Hanson Mania (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Arlene Brynne Mayerson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Joseph Bien-Kahn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Caroline Nason Mitchell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ernest James Galvan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/06/2000 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Holly Baldwin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Jennifer Lee Jonak (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly Jean Knapp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/25/2016
Krista Michelle Stone-Manista (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiﬀ Flora Abrams

Michael William Bien (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara Linda Norman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawn Hanson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/08/2021
Thomas Bengt Nolan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Warren E. George , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/12/2016
represented by Donald H. Specter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elaine Beth Feingold (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/21/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Whelan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Anne Hanson Mania (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Arlene Brynne Mayerson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Joseph Bien-Kahn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Caroline Nason Mitchell (See above for address)

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ernest James Galvan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/06/2000 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Holly Baldwin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Jennifer Lee Jonak (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly Jean Knapp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/25/2016
Krista Michelle Stone-Manista (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael William Bien (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawn Hanson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/08/2021
Thomas Bengt Nolan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Warren E. George , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/12/2016
William Fernholz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiﬀ Joey Gough

represented by Donald H. Specter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elaine Beth Feingold (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/21/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Whelan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Anne Hanson Mania (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Arlene Brynne Mayerson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Joseph Bien-Kahn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Caroline Nason Mitchell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ernest James Galvan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/06/2000 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Holly Baldwin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Jennifer Lee Jonak (See above for address)

Plaintiﬀ Timothy Whisman

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly Jean Knapp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/25/2016
Krista Michelle Stone-Manista (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael William Bien (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawn Hanson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/08/2021
Thomas Bengt Nolan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Warren E. George , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/12/2016
William Fernholz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Donald H. Specter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elaine Beth Feingold (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/21/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Whelan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Anne Hanson Mania (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011

Arlene Brynne Mayerson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Caroline Nason Mitchell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ernest James Galvan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/06/2000 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Holly Baldwin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Jennifer Lee Jonak (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly Jean Knapp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/25/2016
Krista Michelle Stone-Manista (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael William Bien (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawn Hanson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/08/2021
Thomas Bengt Nolan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Warren E. George , Jr (See above for address)

V. Receiver Robert Sillen
Receiver J. Clark Kelso
V. Intervenor Pla Robert Hecker Intervenor Pla Ralph Coleman

TERMINATED: 04/12/2016
William Fernholz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Martin H. Dodd Futterman Dupree Dodd Croley Maier LLP 601 Montgomery St., Suite 333 San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 399-3840 Fax: (415) 399-3838 Email: mdodd@fddcm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jamie L. Dupree Futterman Dupree Dodd Croley Maier LLP 601 Montgomery Street, Suite 333 San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 399-3840 Fax: (415) 399-3838 Email: jdupree@fddcm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martin H. Dodd (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michael William Bien (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michael William Bien (See above for address)

V. Defendant Pete Wilson TERMINATED: 03/22/2000
Defendant Joseph C. Sandoval

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edward Rheem Fluet California State Attorney General's Oﬃce Correctional Law Section 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 415-703-5836 Fax: 415-703-5843 Email: nﬂuet@lakinspears.com TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Jose A Zelidon-Zepeda California State Attorney General's Oﬃce Department of Justice 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 415-510-3879 Fax: 415-703-5843 Email: Jose.ZelidonZepeda@doj.ca.gov TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Morris Lenk Attorney General's Oﬃce 455 Golden Gate Avenue Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 415-703-5724 Fax: 415-703-1234 Email: morris.lenk@doj.ca.gov TERMINATED: 03/04/2004 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Benjamin Terrence Rice Law Oﬃce of Benjamin Rice 331 Soquel Avenue Suite 203 Santa Cruz, CA 95062 Email: benricelaw@jmail.com TERMINATED: 01/22/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer J. Nygaard CA State Attorney General's Oﬃce CLS 1515 Clay Street, 20th Floor P. O. Box 70550 Oakland, CA 94612-0550 510-879-0802 Fax: 510-622-2270 Email: Jennifer.Nygaard@doj.ca.gov TERMINATED: 01/21/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Perkell Oﬃce of the Attorney General 1515 Clay Street Ste 2000 Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 879-0820 Fax: (510) 622-2121 Email: jennifer.perkell@doj.ca.gov TERMINATED: 02/03/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul Brian Mello Hanson Bridgett LLP 425 Market Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 777-3200 Fax: (415) 541-9366 Email: pmello@hansonbridgett.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Danielle Felice O'Bannon Attorney General's Oﬃce CLS 455 golden Gate Ave., suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 703-5735 Fax: (415) 703-5843 Email: Danielle.OBannon@doj.ca.gov TERMINATED: 05/14/2018
Edward Rheem Fluet

Defendant Dir Dept of Corr James Gomez

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Jay Craig Russell Oﬃce of the Attorney General 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 (415) 510-3517 Fax: (415) 703-5480 Email: jay.russell@doj.ca.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jose A Zelidon-Zepeda (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Katherine Kylin Nelson Oﬃce of the Attorney General Correctional Law Section 1300 I Street, Suite125 P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 916-445-4979 Fax: 916-324-5205 Email: Katherine.Nelson@doj.ca.gov TERMINATED: 01/22/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Morris Lenk (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/04/2004 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rochelle C. East Oﬃce of the Attorney General 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 (415) 703-5711 Fax: (415) 703-5843 Email: rochelle.east@doj.ca.gov TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
represented by Benjamin Terrence Rice (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/22/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

George Dey Prince California Dept. of Justice Attorney Generals Oﬃce 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 (415) 703-5749 Fax: (415) 703-5480 Email: george.prince@doj.ca.gov TERMINATED: 03/04/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer J. Nygaard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Perkell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/03/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul Brian Mello (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Danielle Felice O'Bannon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/14/2018
Edward Rheem Fluet (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Jay Craig Russell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jose A Zelidon-Zepeda (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Katherine Kylin Nelson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/22/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Kyle McKinsey

Morris Lenk (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/04/2004 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rochelle C. East (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
represented by Benjamin Terrence Rice (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/22/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer J. Nygaard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Perkell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/03/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul Brian Mello (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Danielle Felice O'Bannon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/14/2018
Edward Rheem Fluet (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Jay Craig Russell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jose A Zelidon-Zepeda (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Katherine Kylin Nelson

Defendant Kevin Carruth

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/22/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Morris Lenk (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/04/2004 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rochelle C. East (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
represented by Benjamin Terrence Rice (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/22/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer J. Nygaard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Perkell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/03/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul Brian Mello (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Danielle Felice O'Bannon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/14/2018
Edward Rheem Fluet (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Jay Craig Russell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jose A Zelidon-Zepeda (See above for address)

Defendant Deputy Director David Tristan TERMINATED: 03/25/1999
Defendant Marisela Montes Deputy Director of the Parole and Community Services Division

TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Katherine Kylin Nelson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/22/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Morris Lenk (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/04/2004 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rochelle C. East (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
represented by Edward Rheem Fluet (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Jose A Zelidon-Zepeda (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Morris Lenk (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/04/2004 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Benjamin Terrence Rice (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/22/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer J. Nygaard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Perkell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/03/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul Brian Mello (See above for address)

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Danielle Felice O'Bannon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/14/2018

Edward Rheem Fluet (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016

Jay Craig Russell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jose A Zelidon-Zepeda (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016

Katherine Kylin Nelson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/22/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Morris Lenk (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/04/2004 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Robert Presley Secretary of the Youth and Corrections Agency of the State of California

Rochelle C. East (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
represented by Benjamin Terrence Rice (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/22/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Danette E. Valdez CA State Attorney General's Oﬃce 455 Golden Gate Ave Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 415-703-5853 Email: danette.valdez@doj.ca.gov TERMINATED: 03/04/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Cal A. Terhune Director of the CA Dept. of Corrections TERMINATED: 03/25/1999

Jennifer J. Nygaard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Perkell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/03/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul Brian Mello (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Danielle Felice O'Bannon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/14/2018
Edward Rheem Fluet (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Jay Craig Russell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jose A Zelidon-Zepeda (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Katherine Kylin Nelson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/22/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rochelle C. East (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
represented by Edward Rheem Fluet (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Jose A Zelidon-Zepeda (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016

Defendant Susanne Steinberg M.D., Deputy Director for Health Care Services for the CA Dept. of Corrections TERMINATED: 03/25/1999
Defendant Judith McGillivray Deputy Director of the Planning and Construction Division for the CA Dept. of Corrections TERMINATED: 03/25/1999
Defendant Midge Carroll Deputy Director of the Parole and Community Services Division for the CA Dept. of Corrections TERMINATED: 03/25/1999
Defendant California Board of Prison Term

represented by Edward Rheem Fluet (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Jose A Zelidon-Zepeda (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
represented by Edward Rheem Fluet (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Jose A Zelidon-Zepeda (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
represented by Edward Rheem Fluet (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Jose A Zelidon-Zepeda (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
represented by Benjamin Terrence Rice (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/22/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James M. Humes State of California Attorney General 455 Golden Gate Avenue Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102-3664 415 703-5725 Email: James.Humes@doj.ca.gov TERMINATED: 03/04/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer J. Nygaard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Perkell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/03/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul Brian Mello (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Danielle Felice O'Bannon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/14/2018
David P. Druliner CA State Attorney General's Oﬃce 455 Golden Gate Ave Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 415-703-5853 TERMINATED: 03/04/2004 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward Rheem Fluet (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Jay Craig Russell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jose A Zelidon-Zepeda (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Katherine Kylin Nelson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/22/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Morris Lenk (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/04/2004 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rochelle C. East (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016

Defendant Chairman James Nielsen

represented by Benjamin Terrence Rice (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/22/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James M. Humes (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/04/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer J. Nygaard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Perkell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/03/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul Brian Mello (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Danielle Felice O'Bannon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/14/2018
David P. Druliner (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/04/2004 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward Rheem Fluet (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Jay Craig Russell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jose A Zelidon-Zepeda (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016

Defendant Gray Davis

Katherine Kylin Nelson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/22/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Morris Lenk (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/04/2004 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rochelle C. East (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
represented by Benjamin Terrence Rice (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/22/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Frances T. Grunder CA State Attorney General's Oﬃce 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 415-703-5723 Fax: 415-703-5843 Email: frances.grunder@doj.ca.gov TERMINATED: 03/04/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James M. Humes (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/04/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer J. Nygaard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Perkell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/03/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Arnold Schwarzenegger TERMINATED: 02/10/2011

Paul Brian Mello (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Danielle Felice O'Bannon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/14/2018
Edward Rheem Fluet (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Jay Craig Russell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jose A Zelidon-Zepeda (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Katherine Kylin Nelson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/22/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rochelle C. East (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
represented by Jennifer J. Nygaard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul Brian Mello (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cynthia Clarke Fritz Department of Justice 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 415-703-5793 Email: cynthia.fritz@doj.ca.gov TERMINATED: 06/15/2009

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Danielle Felice O'Bannon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/14/2018

Edward Rheem Fluet (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016

Jay Craig Russell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jose A Zelidon-Zepeda (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016

Katherine Kylin Nelson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/22/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kyle Anthony Lewis Department of Justice Oﬃce of Attorney General 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 (415) 510-3585 Fax: (415) 703-5843 Email: Kyle.Lewis@doj.ca.gov TERMINATED: 04/05/2016

Rochelle C. East (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016

Defendant
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Scott John Feudale Oﬃce of the County Counsel Alameda County 1221 Oak Street, Suite 450 Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 272-6700 Fax: 510-272-5020 Email: scott.feudale@acgov.org TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
represented by Alicia Anne Bower California State Attorney General's

Oﬃce California Department of Justice 1515 Clay Street, Suite 2000 Oakland, CA 94612 510-879-1982 Fax: 510-622-2270 Email: Alicia.Bower@doj.ca.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony James Tartaglio California Department of Justice Oﬃce of the Attorney General (Correctional Law Section) 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102 415-510-3206 Fax: 415-703-5480 Email: Anthony.Tartaglio@doj.ca.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeremy Michael Duggan Oﬃceof the Attorney General 1300 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Email: Jeremy.Duggan@doj.ca.gov TERMINATED: 03/30/2021 LEAD ATTORNEY
Robert Mitchell Perkins , III Oﬃce of the Attorney General, Dept. of Justice Correctional Law Section 455 Golden Gate Avenue Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102 415-510-3557 Fax: 415-703-5843 Email: Robert.Perkins@doj.ca.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sean Walter Lodholz California Oﬃce of the Attorney General California Justice Department 1300 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814

(916) 210-7369 Fax: (916) 324-5205 Email: Sean.Lodholz@doj.ca.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Trace O. Maiorino California State Attorney General's Oﬃce Correctional Law Section 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 415-703-5975 Fax: 415-703-5843 Email: trace.maiorino@doj.ca.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Adriano Hrvatin California Department of Justice 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102 415-703-1672 Fax: 415-703-5843 Email: adriano.hrvatin@doj.ca.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrea Sogand Moon California Oﬃce of the Attorney General Civil Division, Correctional Law Section 1300 I Street P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 916-210-7361 Fax: 916-324-5205 Email: Andrea.Moon@doj.ca.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Annakarina De La TorreFennell Oﬃce of the Attorney General Department of Justice Deputy Attorney General 1300 I Street, 10th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 210-7361 Fax: (916) 324-5205

Email: Annakarina.Fennell@doj.ca.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bryan Kao Oﬃce of the Attorney General 1515 Clay Street, Suite 2000 Oakland, CA 94612 510-879-0981 Fax: 510-622-2270 Email: Bryan.Kao@doj.ca.gov TERMINATED: 03/14/2018
Cynthia Clarke Fritz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/15/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Damon Grant McClain Oﬃce of the Attorney General 455 Golden Gate Avenue #11000 San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 (415) 510-3596 Fax: (415) 510-5843 Email: damon.mcclain@doj.ca.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Danielle Felice O'Bannon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/14/2018
Edward Rheem Fluet (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Erick Joseph Rhoan Oﬃce of the Attorney General 1300 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814 916-323-3350 Email: Erick.Rhoan@doj.ca.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jane Beasley Mackie California Oﬃce of the Attorney General Correctional Law Section 455 Golden Gate Avenue Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 415-703-5951

Fax: 415-703-5843 Email: Jane.Mackie@doj.ca.gov TERMINATED: 05/14/2018
Jay Craig Russell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joanna Breiden Hood California Department of Justice 1300 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814 916-210-7343 Email: Joanna.Hood@doj.ca.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jose A Zelidon-Zepeda (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Kyle Anthony Lewis (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Namrata Kotwani Oﬃce of the Attorney General 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 415-510-4431 Fax: 415-703-5843 Email: namrata.kotwani@doj.ca.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Wayne Henkels Oﬃce of the Attorney General Civil Division 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 510-3575 Email: robert.henkels@doj.ca.gov TERMINATED: 06/13/2019
Scott John Feudale (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Sharon Anne Garske Oﬃce of the Attorney General

Defendant Secretary James Tilton
Defendant Executive Director John Monday

Correctional Law 1515 Clay Street, 20th Floor Suite 2000 Oakland, CA 94612-0550 510-879-0263 Fax: 510-622-2270 Email: sharon.garske@doj.ca.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Van Kamberian Oﬃce of the Attorney General 1300 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814 916-324-3892 Fax: 916-324-5205 Email: Van.Kamberian@doj.ca.gov TERMINATED: 02/10/2017
represented by Danielle Felice O'Bannon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/14/2018
Edward Rheem Fluet (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Jay Craig Russell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jose A Zelidon-Zepeda (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Rochelle C. East (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
represented by Danielle Felice O'Bannon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/14/2018
Edward Rheem Fluet (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Jay Craig Russell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Edmund G. Brown, Jr. Governor of California TERMINATED: 01/24/2019

Jose A Zelidon-Zepeda (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Rochelle C. East (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
represented by Annakarina De La TorreFennell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bryan Kao (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/14/2018
Danielle Felice O'Bannon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/14/2018
Edward Rheem Fluet (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Giam Minh Nguyen California State Attorney General's Oﬃce Correctional Law Section (CLS) 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 415-703-5686 Fax: 415-703-5843 Email: giam.nguyen@doj.ca.gov TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Janelle M. Smith California State Attorney General's Oﬃce 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 415-703-5521 Fax: 415-703-5843 Email: Janelle.Smith@doj.ca.gov TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Janet Nah Chen

Oﬃce of the Attorney General 1300 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814 916-210-7319 Email: Janet.Chen@doj.ca.gov TERMINATED: 03/14/2018
Jay Michael Goldman Oﬃce of the Attorney General California Department of Justice 455 Golden Gate Ave., Ste 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102 415-510-3571 Fax: 415-703-5843 Email: Jay.Goldman@doj.ca.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jay Craig Russell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael James Quinn California State Attorney General's Oﬃce Correctional Law Section 455 Golden Gate Avenue Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 415-703-5726 Fax: 415-703-5843 Email: Michael.Quinn@doj.ca.gov TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Patrick R. McKinney California Department of Justice Oﬃce of the Attorney General 1515 Clay Street, 20th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 510-622-4458 Fax: 510-622-2270 Email: Patrick.McKinney@doj.ca.gov TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Scott John Feudale (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Sharon Anne Garske (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Gavin C. Newsom Governor, State of California

Van Kamberian (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/10/2017
represented by Alicia Anne Bower (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony James Tartaglio (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeremy Michael Duggan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/30/2021 LEAD ATTORNEY
Robert Mitchell Perkins , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sean Walter Lodholz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sharon Anne Garske (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Trace O. Maiorino (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Adriano Hrvatin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrea Sogand Moon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Annakarina De La TorreFennell

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jay Craig Russell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joanna Breiden Hood (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Namrata Kotwani (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Wayne Henkels (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/13/2019

V. Movant F.J.
Movant R.E.
Movant D.B.
Interested Party Oﬃce of the Inspector General 10111 Old Placerville Road Suite 110 Sacramento, CA 95827 916-255-1102

represented by Ernest James Galvan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ernest James Galvan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ernest James Galvan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James Casey Spurling Oﬃce of the Inspector General Legal Unit 10111 Old Placerville Road Suite 110 Sacramento, CA 95827 916-255-1102 Fax: 916-255-1403 Email: SpurlingJ@oig.ca.gov

Amicus USA
Amicus California Correctional Peace Oﬃcers Association

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mary Beth Uitti U.S. Attorney's Oﬃce 1301 Clay Street Suite 340S Oakland, CA 94612 510-637-3725 Fax: 510-637-3724 Email: mary.beth.uitti@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 11/27/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sharon N. Perley USDJ - Disability Rights Section Civil Rights Division P.O. Box 66738 Washington, DC 20035-6738 (202) 307-0663 TERMINATED: 11/27/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gregg McLean Adam , Esq. Messing Adam & Jasmine 235 Montgomery Street Suite 828 San Francisco, CA 94104 415-845-6517 Email: gregg@majlabor.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas John Umberg Umberg/Zipser 1920 Main Street Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92614 949-679-0052 Fax: 949-679-0461 Email: tumberg@umbergzipser.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Cornelius Sybesma California Correctional

Peace Oﬃcers' Association 755 Riverpoint Drive, Suite 200 West Sacramento, CA 95605-1634 (916) 372-6060 Email: ben.sybesma@ccpoa.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brent Scott Colasurdo Umberg/Zipser 1920 Main Street Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92614 949-679-0052 Fax: 949-679-0461 Email: bcolasurdo@umbergzipser.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christine Albertine , California Correctional Peace Oﬃcers' Association Legal Department 755 Riverpoint Drive Suite 200 West Sacramento, CA 95605-1634
916-372-6060 Fax: Email: christine.albertine@ccpoa.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Spencer Stoughton San Francisco City Attorney's Oﬃce Labor Team 1390 Market Street 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94102 415-554-4267 Fax: 415-554-4248 Email: jennifer.stoughton@sfcityatty.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald Yank 5598 Lawton Avenue Oakland, CA 94618 4158609547 Email: ronaldyank@sbcglobal.net ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Miscellaneous
Edward Swanson Swanson, McNamara & Haller LLP 300 Montgomery Street, Suite 1100 San Francisco, CA 94104 415-477-3800 Court Expert

represented by Edward W. Swanson Swanson & McNamara LLP 300 Montgomery St. Suite 1100 San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 477 3800 Fax: (415) 477 9010 Email: ed@smllp.law LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Intervenor Correctional Oﬃcers 1-13

represented by Brent Scott Colasurdo (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas John Umberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 06/29/1994
06/29/1994 07/13/1994 07/13/1994 07/21/1994 07/29/1994

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT Summons(es) issued; Fee status pd entered on 6/29/94 in the amount of $ 120.00 ( Receipt No. 34078) [3:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/1/2017: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 receipt) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/30/1994)
2 NOTICE by plaintiﬀ of related case(s) C-80-012 MHP [3:94-cv02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/30/1994)
3 ORDER by Judge Marilyn H. Patel denying related case notice [2-1] ( Date Entered: 7/14/94) (cc: all counsel) [3:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/14/1994)
4 ORDER by Judge Marilyn H. Patel denying related case notice [2-1] ( Date Entered: 7/18/94) (cc: all counsel) [3:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/18/1994)
5 ANSWER by Defendants to complaint [1-1] [3:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/26/1994)
6 COUNTERSTATEMENT by Defendant opposing plaintiﬀ's notice of related case [3:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/08/1994)

08/08/1994

7 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by Plaintiﬀ to certify class action with Notice set for 9/16/94 10:30 [3:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/10/1994)

08/08/1994

8 MEMORANDUM by Plaintiﬀ in support of motion to certify class action [7-1] [3:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/10/1994)

08/08/1994

9 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiﬀ of motion for class certiﬁcation and documents thereof [3:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/10/1994)

08/18/1994

2690

RECEIVED stipo re extension of time for ﬁling of dfts opposition to plaintiﬀs' motion for class certiﬁcation submitted by Defendant [3:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/24/1994)

08/22/1994

WRIT of EXECUTION issued re dollar amount of $6,596.47 [3:94-cv02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/24/1994)

09/06/1994

10 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : extending time for ﬁling of dft's opposition to plaintiﬀ's motion for class certiﬁcation to and including 10/2/94 (cc: all counsel) [3:94-cv02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/13/1994)

09/15/1994

11 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant of stip for extension of time for ﬁling of dfts' opposition to plaintiﬀ's motion for clas certiﬁcation [3:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/26/1994)

10/03/1994

12 EXPARTE NOTICE by defendant to court re: ﬁling of opposition and reply to motion for class ceriﬁcation [3:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/04/1994)

10/07/1994

13 CROSS-MOTION by defendant James Gomez to dismiss action with Notice set for 10/28/94 10:30 [3:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/13/1994)

10/07/1994

14 BRIEF FILED by defendant in opposition motion to certify class action [7-1] [3:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/13/1994)

10/14/1994

15 REPLY MEMORANDUM by Plas to motion to certify class action [7-1] [3:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/18/1994)

10/14/1994

16 DECLARATION by Warren E. George on behalf of Plaintiﬀ re motion to certify class action [7-1] [3:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/18/1994)

10/14/1994 17 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiﬀ of #15 & #16 [3:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/18/1994)

10/18/1994 18 MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by Plaintiﬀ for temporary restraining order [3:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF)

10/28/1994 11/07/1994 11/14/1994 11/30/1994 11/30/1994 12/14/1994 01/06/1995 01/06/1995 01/13/1995 01/13/1995
01/26/1995 02/08/1995

(Additional attachment(s) added on 8/1/2017: # 1 Envelope) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/18/1994)
19 MINUTES: of Judge C. Wilken; ( C/R Kathy Wyatt) denying motion to dismiss action [13-1], granting motion to certify class action [7-1] Status conference set for 1:30 1/13/95 ; [3:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/08/1994)
20 LETTER to the Honorable dated 10/27/94 from Evelio Torres program for the deaf [3:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/1/2017: # 1 Envelope) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/16/1994)
21 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 10/28/94 ( C/R: Katherine Pope Wyatt) [3:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/18/1994)
22 REQUEST by defendant for leave of court to depose a person conﬁned in prison [3:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/05/1994)
23 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting request [22-1] for leave of court to depose persons conﬁned in prison ( Date Entered: 12/13/94) (cc: all counsel) [3:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/13/1994)
24 REPORT OF PARTIES' PLANNING MEETING by defendant [3:94-cv02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/21/1994)
25 STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT by Plaintiﬀ [4:94-cv-02307] (oh, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/09/1995)
26 STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT by defendant [4:94-cv-02307] (oh, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/09/1995)
27 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting motion to certify class action [7-1] ( Date Entered: 1/19/95) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/19/1995)
28 MINUTES: of Judge C. Wilken; ( C/R Candace Yount) Status conference held; furher conf. set for 1:30 4/21/95 ; parties to start mediation between now and next status conf. with Steve Toben; Class notiﬁcation notice to be posted on bulletin board at each prison and read to anyone who can't read/ parties to agree on content of notice or, if cant' agree, submit brief statement re what's wrong with each others. [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/20/1995)
29 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : for referral to ADR Process (mediation) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/02/1995)
30 CLERK'S NOTICE of appointment of mediator, B. Stephen Toben [4:94-cv-02307] (ga, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered:

02/10/1995 02/10/1995 02/10/1995 02/10/1995 02/22/1995
02/24/1995 02/27/1995 02/28/1995 03/02/1995 03/09/1995 03/14/1995
03/14/1995

02/08/1995)
31 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by Plaintiﬀ John Armstrong to compel production of documents with Notice set for 3/17/95 at 10:30am [4:94-cv-02307] (ga, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/15/1995)
32 MEMORANDUM by Plaintiﬀ John Armstrong in support of motion to compel production of documents [31-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (ga, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/15/1995)
33 DECLARATION by Jane Kahn on behalf of Plaintiﬀ John Armstrong re motion to compel production of documents [31-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (ga, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/15/1995)
34 DECLARATION by Michael W. Bien on behalf of Plaintiﬀ John Armstrong re motion to compel production of documents [31-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (ga, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/15/1995)
35 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken referring case for discovery to Mag. Judge to be assaigned as to the motion to compel production of documents [31-1] ( Date Entered: 2/24/95) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/24/1995)
36 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 1/13/95 ( C/R: Candace Yount) [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/02/1995)
REFERRAL: referring case for discovery to Mag. Judge F. S. Langford [4:94-cv-02307] (wh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/27/1995)
38 CLERK'S NOTICE of Judge Langford; setting hearing on motion to compel production of documents [31-1] 9:30 3/30/95 [4:94-cv02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/08/1995)
37 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken denying motion for temporary restraining order [18-1] ( Date Entered: 3/2/95) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/03/1995)
39 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken requiring notice to the class (see document for speciﬁcs) ( Date Entered: 3/9/95) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/09/1995)
40 OPPOSITION by defendant Pete Wilson, defendant Joseph C. Sandoval, defendant James Gomez, defendant Kyle McKinsey, defendant Kevin Carruth, defendant David Tristan, defendant Marisela Montes to motion to compel production of documents [311] [4:94-cv-02307] (ga, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/24/1995)
41 DECLARATION by James M. Humes on behalf of defendant Pete

03/23/1995 03/23/1995 03/23/1995 03/23/1995 03/23/1995 03/30/1995 04/06/1995 04/14/1995
04/14/1995
04/21/1995
04/25/1995

Wilson, defendant Joseph C. Sandoval, defendant James Gomez, defendant Kyle McKinsey, defendant Kevin Carruth, defendant David Tristan, defendant Marisela Montes re opposition [40-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (ga, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/24/1995)
42 REPLY by Plaintiﬀ John Armstrong re motion to compel production of documents [31-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (ga, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/30/1995)
43 DECLARATION by Michael W. Bien on behalf of Plaintiﬀ John Armstrong re reply [42-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (ga, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/30/1995)
45 LETTER dated 3/21/95 from Donald Specter request for production of documents [4:94-cv-02307] (ga, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 4/19/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/05/1995)
46 LETTER dated 3/15/95 from George D. Prince submitted 2 protective orders [4:94-cv-02307] (ga, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/05/1995)
47 PROTECTIVE ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (ga, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/05/1995)
44 MINUTES: ( C/R Tape 95-7) granting motion to compel production of documents [31-1] Request for fees denied. F. Steele Langford. [4:94-cv-02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/03/1995)
48 NOTICE by defendant's of change of address [4:94-cv-02307] (ga, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/14/1995)
49 STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT by defendant Pete Wilson, defendant Joseph C. Sandoval, defendant James Gomez, defendant Kyle McKinsey, defendant Kevin Carruth, defendant David Tristan, defendant Marisela Montes [4:94-cv-02307] (jm, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/25/1995)
50 STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT by Plaintiﬀ John Armstrong, Plaintiﬀ James Amauric, Plaintiﬀ Richard Ponciano, Plaintiﬀ Jack Swensen, Plaintiﬀ Billy Beck, Plaintiﬀ Judy Fendt, Plaintiﬀ Walter Fratus, Plaintiﬀ Gregory Sandoval, Plaintiﬀ Darlene Madison, Plaintiﬀ Peter Richardson, Plaintiﬀ Steven Hill [4:94-cv-02307] (jm, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/25/1995)
53 MINUTES: of Judge C. Wilken; ( C/R Rosita Flores) Discovery cutoﬀ set for 1/26/96 ; All motions will be heard by 10:30 2/23/96 ; Pretrial conference set for 1:30 3/15/96 ; Trial will be held 8:30 4/1/96 ; [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/27/1995)
51 CERTIFICATION OF ADR SESSION MEDIATION PROCESS COMPLETED. , Mediation hearing held on 4/6/95 , terminating

04/25/1995 07/07/1995 07/07/1995 08/18/1995 08/30/1995
08/30/1995
09/07/1995 11/08/1995 11/08/1995 11/09/1995 11/13/1995 11/13/1995

Mediator B. Stephen Toben ﬁled by B. Stephen Toben (jm, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/25/1995)
52 CLERK'S NOTICE removed from Mediation. [4:94-cv-02307] (jm, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/25/1995)
54 MOTION by Zattiero and Fallon in pro per before Judge Claudia Wilken to join action [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/17/1995)
55 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE by Zattiero in pro per [4:94-cv02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/17/1995)
56 MOTION submitted by Dr. Brian Douglas Carey, DPM before Judge Claudia Wilken to intervene as plaintiﬀ [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/23/1995)
57 OPPOSITION by defendant Pete Wilson, defendant Joseph C. Sandoval, defendant James Gomez, defendant Kyle McKinsey, defendant Kevin Carruth, defendant David Tristan, defendant Marisela Montes to motion to intervene as plaintiﬀ [56-1] [4:94-cv02307] (oh, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/31/1995)
58
***DUPLICATE ENTRY OF DKT. # 57 ***
OPPOSITION by defendant to motion to intervene as plaintiﬀ [56-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) Modiﬁed on 4/18/2018 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/06/1995)
59 REPLY by Intervenor Brian Douglas Carey to opposition to motion to intervene as plaintiﬀ [56-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/08/1995)
60 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : for leave to ﬁle First amended complaint (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/15/1995)
61 AMENDED COMPLAINT [1-1] by Plaintiﬀ [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/15/1995)
62 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : amending expert witness disclosures (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 4/19/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/15/1995)
63 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken further CMP conference set for 1:30 12/22/95 ; ( Date Entered: 11/15/95) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/15/1995)
64 AMENDED ANSWER [5-1] by defendant; jury demand [4:94-cv02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered:

11/15/1995
11/20/1995 11/20/1995 11/22/1995 12/01/1995 12/12/1995 12/14/1995 12/14/1995 12/14/1995 12/15/1995 12/15/1995
12/19/1995

11/18/1995)
65 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : extending time for expert disclosures and extending time for dft James Nielsen to ﬁle a response to plas' amended complaint to 11/21/95 (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/18/1995)
66 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 4/21/95 ( C/R: Rosita Flores) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/21/1995)
68 MINUTES: of Judge James; ( C/R n/a) continuing discovery hearing , hearing continued to 2:00 11/21/95 ; [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/27/1995)
67 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by defendant to dismiss action with Notice set for 12/29/95 10:30 [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/27/1995)
69 AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by defendant to dismiss action with Notice set for 1/5/96 10:30 [4:94cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/05/1995)
70 SUPPLEMENTAL case management statement and proposed order by Plaintiﬀ [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/14/1995)
71 MOTION before Judge Saundra B. Armstrong by defendant to compel response to discovery and for additional or alternative relief [4:94-cv-02307] (cg, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/15/1995)
72 DECLARATION by James M. Humees on behalf of defendants in support of motion to compel; certiﬁcate of complaince. [4:94-cv02307] (cg, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 4/19/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/15/1995)
73 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Case Management conference set for 10:30 1/5/96 ; ( Date Entered: 12/15/95) (cc: all counsel) [4:94cv-02307] (mh, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/15/1995)
74 REPLY BRIEF by Plaintiﬀ in oppostion to dft Nielsen's motion to dismiss [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/20/1995)
75 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken referring case for discovery to Mag. Judge F. S. Langford referring the motion to compel response to discovery and for additional or alternative relief [71-1] ( Date Entered: 12/21/95) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/21/1995)
76 CLERK'S NOTICE of Judge Langford setting hearing on motion to

12/27/1995 01/05/1996 01/11/1996 01/17/1996
01/18/1996 01/18/1996 01/18/1996 01/19/1996 01/23/1996
01/24/1996 01/24/1996 01/29/1996

compel response to discovery and for additional or alternative relief [71-1] 9:30 1/18/96 [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/28/1995)
77 OPPOSITION by Plaintiﬀ to motion to compel response to discovery and for additional or alternative relief [71-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/04/1996)
78 MINUTES: of Judge C. Wilken; ( C/R R. Flores) CMP Conf. held; denying motion to dismiss action [69-1] referring case for settlement to Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/17/1996)
79 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken denying motion to dismiss action [69-1] ( Date Entered: 1/17/96) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/17/1996)
81 ORDER by Mag. Judge F. S. Langford GRANTING expedited motion for an order shortening time for hearing on plaintiﬀs' motion to compel deposition testimony; hearing shall be held on 2/1/96; opposition be ﬁled on 1/24/96; reply be ﬁled on 1/29/96 ( Date Entered: 1/24/96) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/24/1996)
80 LETTER dated 1/17/96 from George D. Prince to Judge Langford re: motion to compel [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/23/1996)
82 NOTICE by Plaintiﬀs of entry of order [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/24/1996)
83 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James Settlement conference will be held 2:00pm on 3/12/96 ; ( Date Entered: 1/24/96) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/24/1996)
84 MOTION with memorandum in support before Judge Claudia Wilken by defendants to continue trial date with Notice set for 2/23/96 at 1:30pm [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/24/1996)
85 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken setting hearing on motion to continue trial date for 2/23/96 will be unavailable; therefore it will be heard on 2/16/96 at 10:30am [84-1] ( Date Entered: 1/26/96) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/26/1996)
87 OPPOSITION by defendant to motion to compel deposition testimony [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/01/1996)
88 DECLARATION by James M. Humes on behalf of defendant re opposition [87-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/01/1996)
86 REPLY by Plaintiﬀ to dfts' opp to motion to compel depo tesitmony

[4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/01/1996)

02/01/1996

89 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 1/5/96 ( C/R: Rosita Flores) [4:94-cv-02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/05/1996)

02/02/1996

90 MEMORANDUM by Plaintiﬀ in opposition to motion to continue trial date [84-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/06/1996)

02/02/1996

91 DECLARATION by Michael W. Bien on behalf of Plaintiﬀ re opposition memorandum [90-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/06/1996)

02/05/1996

92 ORDER by Chief Mag. Judge F. S. Langford ; plaintiﬀ's motion to compel deposition testimony is Denied( Date Entered: 2/7/96) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/07/1996)

02/05/1996

93 ORDER by Chief Mag. Judge F. S. Langford denying motion to compel response to discovery and for additional or alternative relief [71-1]; plas may propound narrowly-drafted contention interrogatories seeking the factual basis for the dfts' aﬃmative defenses ( Date Entered: 5/8/96) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/08/1996)

02/09/1996

94 REPLY by defendant James Gomez re motion to continue trial date [84-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/12/1996)

02/09/1996

95 DECLARATION by A. Solis on behalf of defendant re reply [94-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/12/1996)

02/09/1996

96 DECLARATION by James Humes on behalf of defendant re reply [941] [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/12/1996)

02/16/1996

97 MINUTES: of Judge C. Wilken; ( C/R Rosita Flores) granting motion to continue trial date [84-1] continuing trial dates , Pretrial conference set for 1:30 4/19/96 ; Trial will be held 8:30 4/29/96 ; [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/04/1996)

03/12/1996

98 MINUTES: of Judge James; ( C/R n/a) Settlement conf. (Mag) held further conf. set for 10:30 3/27/96 ; [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/19/1996)

03/15/1996

99 ORDER by Mag. Judge Maria-Elena James Settlement conf. (Mag) at 10:30 3/27/96 ; ( Date Entered: 3/19/96) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/19/1996)

03/20/1996 100 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken to admit report of Randall Atlas into evidence as trial testimony: (cc: all counsel)

[4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/29/1996)

03/27/1996 101 MINUTES: of Judge James; ( C/R n/a) settlement conf. held; case unable to settle [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/29/1996)

03/27/1996 102 ORDER after settlement conf. by Mag. Judge Maria-Elena James ( Date Entered: 3/29/96) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/29/1996)

04/09/1996 103 JOINT PRE-TRIAL STATEMENT by Plaintiﬀ/Defendant [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/10/1996)

04/19/1996 104 TRIAL briefs submitted by defendant [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/24/1996)

04/19/1996

114 MINUTES: of Judge C. Wilken; ( C/R R. Flores) ; pretrial conf held 4/19/96; court to remain on calendar for 4/29/96 8:30; (see minute order for further speciﬁcs) [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/29/1996)

04/22/1996 105 DECLARATION by Gordon L. Rosby on behalf of defendant [4:94-cv02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/24/1996)

04/22/1996 106 DECLARATION by Howard A. Peters, III on behalf of defendant [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/24/1996)

04/22/1996 107 DECLARATION by Peter M. Robertson on behalf of Plaintiﬀ [4:94-cv02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/24/1996)

04/22/1996 108 DECLARATION by Fred Moyer on behalf of Plaintiﬀ [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/24/1996)

04/22/1996

109 DECLARATION of Alan Kimelman, M.D. on behalf of Plaintiﬀ [4:94cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 5/4/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (FILED UNDER SEAL) (Entered: 04/24/1996)

04/22/1996

110 DECLARATION of Michal Strong Ph.D. on behalf of Plaintiﬀ (FILED UNDER SEAL) [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 5/4/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/24/1996)

04/22/1996

111 DECLARATION of Kathleen Martinez (FILED UNDER SEAL) on behalf of Plaintiﬀ [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 5/4/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/24/1996)

04/22/1996

112 DECLARATION FILED UNDER SEAL on behalf of Plaintiﬀ [4:94-cv02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/14/2018: # 1 Exhibit 4500, # 2 Exhibit 4501, # 3 Exhibit 4502, # 4 Exhibit 4503, # 5 Exhibit 4504, # 6 Exhibit 4505, # 7 Exhibit

4506, # 8 Exhibit 4507) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/24/1996)

04/22/1996 113 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiﬀs of declarations ﬁled under seal [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/24/1996)

04/24/1996 115 NOTICE by Intervenor Brian Douglas Carey of change of address [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/29/1996)

04/24/1996 116 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken for issuance of Writ of habeas corpus ( Date Entered: 4/29/96) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/29/1996)

04/25/1996 117 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION on behalf of Plaintiﬀ FILED UNDER SEAL [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/29/1996)

04/26/1996 118 STIPULATIONS/ ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : (see document for speciﬁcs) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/01/1996)

04/26/1996

119 STIPULATIONS by Judge Claudia Wilken : FILED UNDER SEAL re Felony convictions of inmate witnesses (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/01/1996)

04/29/1996

121 MINUTES: (C/R Rosita Flores) Settlement agreement - held; Defendant to ﬁle motion re applicability of ADA to prisons & notice for 10:30am 7/19/96 [4:94-cv-02307] (mh, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/07/1996)

04/30/1996

120 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken for attorney to appear pro hac vice as to Jacqueline T. Garrett ( Date Entered: 5/2/96) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (bt, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/02/1996)

05/01/1996

122 MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by Plaintiﬀ John Armstrong Demand to testify , to dismiss lawyers , to repoint new lawyer [4:94-cv-02307] (mh, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/08/1996)

05/07/1996 123 EXHIBIT No. 1 to the stipulation ﬁled with the court on 4/26/96 [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/14/1996)

05/24/1996 128 MINUTES: (C/R Rosita Flroes) Status conference set for 1:30 7/12/96; Trial will be held 8:30 8/19/96 ; [4:94-cv-02307] (cg, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/05/1996)

05/28/1996

124 Notice of motion and MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by defendants, for summary judgment; memorandum; with Notice set for 7/17/96 at 10:30 [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/28/1996)

05/30/1996 125 ORDER by Judge Marilyn H. Patel denying related case notice as to

actions C 80-12 MHP and C 90-3094 TEH ( Date Entered: 5/30/96) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/30/1996)

05/30/1996

126 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken; denying related case notice as to actions C-96-1486 FMS and C-94-2307 CW ( Date Entered: 5/30/96) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/30/1996)

05/30/1996

154 AMENDED MOTION and memo before Judge Claudia Wilken by defendants for summary judgment with Notice set for 7/19/96 [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/13/1996)

06/04/1996 127 NOTICE of Claim of Unconstitutionality by Plaintiﬀs [4:94-cv-02307] (oh, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/04/1996)

06/07/1996

129 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken denying exparte motion for immediate relief to establish a class representative ( Date Entered: 6/14/96) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/14/1996)

06/07/1996 130 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken denying motion to intervene as plaintiﬀ ( Date Entered: 6/14/96) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/14/1996)

06/07/1996

131 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken denying motion to intervene as plaintiﬀ as to Dr. Brian Douglas Carey ( Date Entered: 6/14/96) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/14/1996)

06/07/1996

132 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken (denying ex parte motion to compel and request to establlish a class representative) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/14/1996)

06/07/1996

Docket Modiﬁcation (Administrative) to order [130-2] denying motion to intervene as plaintiﬀ [56-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/21/1997)

06/19/1996 133 MOTION by Plaintiﬀ for leave to resists order [4:94-cv-02307] (bt, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/19/1996)

06/19/1996 134 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiﬀ of motion for leave to resists order [133-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (bt, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/19/1996)

06/21/1996 135 MOTION to ﬁle amicus brief by United States with Notice set for 7/19/96 at 10:30am [4:94-cv-02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/21/1996)

06/21/1996 2731 RECEIVED Proposed Order ( ) re: motion to ﬁle amicus brief [135-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/21/1996)

06/21/1996 136 STATEMENT of facts by Plaintiﬀ in opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment [4:94-cv-02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cpS,

COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/21/1996)

06/25/1996 137 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiﬀs of stipulation and order for procedures to determine liability & remedy [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/25/1996)

06/28/1996

138 UNOPPOSED MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by defendant to extend time in which to ﬁle reply to opposition to motion for summary judgment [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/28/1996)

06/28/1996

139 DECLARATION by James M. Humes on behalf of defendant re motion to extend time in which to ﬁle reply to opposition to motion for summary judgment [138-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/28/1996)

06/28/1996 2729 RECEIVED proposed order submitted by defendants re: [138-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/28/1996)

07/01/1996

140 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting motion to extend time in which to ﬁle reply to opposition to motion for summary judgment [138-1] (due by 7/5/96) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/03/1996)

07/03/1996 141 ERRATA by Plaintiﬀ [4:94-cv-02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/03/1996)

07/05/1996 142 REPLY by defendant to opposition to motion for summary judgment; [124-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/05/1996)

07/08/1996

143 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting motion to ﬁle amicus brief [135-1] and may participate in oral argument on 7/19/96 re motion for summary judgment ( Date Entered: 7/10/96) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/10/1996)

07/08/1996

144 AMICUS CURIAE memorandum in support of plaintiﬀs' opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment by Amicus Curiae USA [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) Modiﬁed on 8/1/2006 (cp, COURT STAFF). (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/10/1996)

07/08/1996 145 EX-PARTE APPLICATION before Judge Claudia Wilken by Plaintiﬀ for leave to ﬁle brief in excess of page limit [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/10/1996)

07/08/1996 146 MEMORANDUM by Plaintiﬀs in opposition to motion for summary judgment; [124-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/10/1996)

07/09/1996

147 CLERK'S NOTICE Status conference previously set for 7/12/96 at 1:30pm is CONTINUED to 7/19/96 at 10:30am to be heard with defendants' motion for summary judgment [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/10/1996)

07/09/1996 148 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : for procedures

to determine liability and remedy (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/10/1996)

07/11/1996 149 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiﬀ of order [148-2] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/15/1996)

07/15/1996

150 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken denying motion for leave to desist order [133-1] ( Date Entered: 7/16/96) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/16/1996)

07/17/1996 151 OBJECTIONS by defendants and request to strike plaintiﬀs' separate statement of undisputed facts [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/17/1996)

07/19/1996 152 MINUTES: ( C/R Rosita Flores) denying motion for summary judgment; [124-1] status conference held [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/26/1996)

07/24/1996

153 AMENDED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Discovery other thant from experts cutoﬀ 12/20/96 ; disclosure of identities and reports of epxert witnesses is 11/1/96; discovery from experts is 12/20/96 ; All motions hearing date 10:30 11/15/96 ; Pre-trial conference will be held 1:30 1/31/97 ; court trial set for 8:30 2/10/97 ; . Est.trial days: 4 (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/26/1996)

08/23/1996 2735 RECEIVED stipulated modiﬁcation to protective order submitted by defendants [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/25/1996)

08/30/1996 155 REQUEST by Plaintiﬀ Roy Zattiero to reconsider order of denial [4:94-cv-02307] (bt, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/04/1996)

09/03/1996

156 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : modifying to protective order-see documents for details " (cc: all counsel) [4:94cv-02307] (bt, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/05/1996)

09/20/1996

157 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken denying defendants' motion for summary judgment [154-1] ( Date Entered: 9/23/96) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/23/1996)

09/20/1996

158 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken: remedial order, injunction and certiﬁcation of interlocutory appeal ( Date Entered: 9/24/96) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/24/1996)

09/20/1996 159 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken ﬁndings of fact and conclusions of law ( Date Entered: 9/24/96) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/24/1996)

09/26/1996 160 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendant from Dist. Court decision order [157-1] Fee status paid [4:94-cv-02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cp,

COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/27/1996)

09/27/1996

Copy of notice of appeal and docket sheet to all counsel [4:94-cv02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/27/1996)

09/27/1996 2737 Docket fee notiﬁcation form and case information sheet to USCA [160-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/27/1996)

10/09/1996 2738 NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate Docket Number 9616870 [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/11/1996)

10/21/1996

161 EX-PARTE APPLICATION by Plaintiﬀ John Armstrong for temporary restraining order for asap injunctive relief for a daily shower. [4:94cv-02307] (mmr, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/23/1996)

10/25/1996 162 CERTIFIED COPY of USCA Order: the petition for permission to appeal is denied [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/31/1996)

11/06/1996

163 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : to shorten time on motion to retain jurisdiction and proceed trial pending interlocutory appeal (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/08/1996)

11/07/1996

164 MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by Plaintiﬀ to retain jurisdiction and proceed with trial pending interlocutory appeal with Notice set for 11/22/96 at 10:30am [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/08/1996)

11/07/1996

165 MEMORANDUM by John Armstrong in support of motion to retain jurisdiction and proceed with trial pending interlocutory appeal [164-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/08/1996)

11/12/1996 166 NOTICE by Plaintiﬀ of association of attorney Eve H. Shapiro [4:94cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/12/1996)

11/15/1996

167 OPPOSITION by defendants to motion to retain jurisdiction and proceed with trial pending interlocutory appeal [164-1] [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/18/1996)

11/19/1996

168 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken for attorney Sara Linda Norman to appear pro hac vice on behalf of plaintiﬀs' ( Date Entered: 11/20/96) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/20/1996)

11/25/1996

170 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken denying motion for temporary restraining order [161-1] ( Date Entered: 12/5/96) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/05/1996)

11/26/1996 169 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiﬀ of application to appear pro hac vice

[4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/27/1996)

12/18/1996 172 MINUTES: before Judge Lynch ( C/R not reported) status conference held to set settlement conference at 8:30 1/3/97 ; [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/09/1997)

12/23/1996 171 MAIL [170-1] addressed to Joseph Allredge returned from Post Oﬃce [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/23/1996)

01/10/1997 173 RESPONSE by defendants to plaintiﬀs' objections to CDC's selfevaluation, transition plan and attachments [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/13/1997)

01/21/1997

174 MOTION by Hesse Holliday before Judge Claudia Wilken for emergency restraining order, order of injunction and submission of exhibits [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/28/1997)

01/21/1997

175 DECLARATION by Jesse Holliday and William Thomas re motion for emergency restraining order, order of injunction [174-1] [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/28/1997)

01/23/1997

176 MOTION by Jesse Holliday before Judge Claudia Wilken for submission of supplementary exhibits to emergency restraining order motion [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/30/1997)

01/23/1997 2740 RECEIVED by Jesse Holliday of exhibits re: [176-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/30/1997)

01/27/1997 177 2nd Supplementary EXHIBITS re motion for emergency restraining order, order of injunction [174-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/30/1997)

01/31/1997

178 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION and Ordering Form ﬁled by defendants (NOT DESIGNATING ANY PORTION OF THE TRANSCRIPT) ; C/R: ; appeal [160-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/31/1997)

01/31/1997 2739 CERTIFICATE of Record mailed to USCA, counsel notiﬁed. [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/31/1997)

02/04/1997 179 MINUTES: ( C/R N/A) before Judge Lynch: settlement conference held; case settled [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/07/1997)

02/06/1997

180 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken denying motion for emergency restraining order, order of injunction [174-1] ( Date Entered: 2/10/97) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/10/1997)

02/14/1997 181 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken denying motion to retain jurisdiction and proceed with trial pending interlocutory appeal

[164-1] pretrial conference and trial dates are VACATED ( Date Entered: 2/19/97) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/19/1997)

02/20/1997 182 MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by Jesse Holliday to submit ﬁnal supplementary exhibits [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/24/1997)

02/21/1997 183 LETTER dated 1/30/97 from Jesse Holliday re: recent motion for emergency restraining order [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/25/1997)

02/25/1997 184 SUPPLEMENT by defendants re response [173-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/27/1997)

02/25/1997 185 LETTER dated 2/25/97 from deputy clerk re: in response to Mr. Holliday's letter dated 1/30/97 [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/27/1997)

02/26/1997 186 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Eugene F. Lynch : for payment of attorneys' fees and costs (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/03/1997)

02/28/1997 187 MOTION by Jesse Holliday before Judge Claudia Wilken for reconsideration [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/03/1997)

03/07/1997 188 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken denying motion for reconsideration [187-1] ( Date Entered: 3/11/97) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (mmr, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/11/1997)

03/24/1997

RECORD on Appeal to USCA, cnsl notiﬁed. re appeal [160-1] [4:94cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/24/1997)

03/26/1997

189 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken for periodic collection of attorneys' fees and costs: (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/31/1997)

03/31/1997

190 COPY of USCA Order re: U.S. to exercise its right to intervene to defend the constitutionality and to ﬁle brief as intervenor and amicus curiae is granted [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/02/1997)

04/01/1997 191 RECEIPT from USCA of clerk's record on appeal [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/02/1997)

04/09/1997 192 OBJECTIONS by Plaintiﬀs to defendants' plans to comply with the ADA and section 504 [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/09/1997)

04/10/1997 193 REQUEST by Plaintiﬀs for status conference [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/11/1997)

04/14/1997 194 COPY of USCA Order: Appelle's Roy D. Zattiero's motion for an order to show cause is DENIED [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/14/1997)

04/17/1997

195 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Status conference set for 1:30pm on 5/16/97 ; ( Date Entered: 4/21/97) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/21/1997)

05/09/1997 196 JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT by Plaintiﬀs [4:94-cv02307] (scu, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/12/1997)

05/16/1997

197 MINUTES: ( C/R Rosita Flores) further case management conference held; plaintiﬀ to ﬁle motions re: outstanding issues in phases: 1st phase by 7/1/97, hearing set for 9/26/97 at 10;30am: 2nd phase by 8/1/97 and set for 10/24/97 at 10;30am: 3rd phase by early Sept. and set for 11/21/97 at 10:30am [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/28/1997)

06/04/1997

198 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : ordering that this phase of the litigation proceed in accordance with the parties stipulation (see stipulation for dates and deadlines) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (mmr, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/09/1997)

07/09/1997

199 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : extending time to ﬁle their position and proposed order re: resolved matters to 7/31/97 (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/14/1997)

07/15/1997

200 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by Plaintiﬀ for order directing defendants to modify their plans to comply with the ADA and section 504 of the rehabilitation Act with Notice set for 9/26/97 at 10:30am [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/16/1997)

07/15/1997

201 MEMORANDUM by Plaintiﬀ in support of motion for order directing defendants to modify their plans to comply with the ADA and section 504 of the rehabilitation Act [200-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/16/1997)

07/15/1997

202 DECLARATION by Sara Norman on behalf of Plaintiﬀ re motion for order directing defendants to modify their plans to comply with the ADA and section 504 of the rehabilitation Act [200-1] [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/16/1997)

07/28/1997

203 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken conﬁrming attorneys' fees for 9/21/96 to 3/31/97; the $156,554.97 is due to plaintiﬀs and collectable within 45 days of the signing of this order, and that defendants shall pay interest at the rate provided by 28 U.S.C. 1961 from the date of this order until payment is made ( Date Entered: 7/29/97) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/29/1997)

07/30/1997 204 Position on entry or form of order re: resolved matters and brief in support thereof ﬁled by defendants [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/31/1997)

07/30/1997

205 DECLARATION by Peter J. Siggins on behalf of defendant re position on entry and form of order re: resolved matters and brief [204-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/31/1997)

07/31/1997 206 MEMORANDUM by Plaintiﬀs in support of proposed order [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/31/1997)

07/31/1997 207 DECLARATION by Donald Specter on behalf of Plaintiﬀs in support of proposed order [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/31/1997)

08/12/1997

208 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge D. L. Jensen amending 6/4/97 scheduling order; plaintiﬀs' motion on the second group of issues is continued as follows; plaintiﬀs' brief is due on 8/20/97, opposition is due on 9/29/97, reply is due on 10/17/97 and hearing will be held on 10/31/97: (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/12/1997)

08/20/1997

209 MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by Plaintiﬀs to exceed page limitation on motion and memorandum of points & authorities [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/20/1997)

08/20/1997

210 DECLARATION by Sara Norman on behalf of Plaintiﬀs in support of second motion for a court order directing defendants to modify their plans to comply with the ADA & section 504 of the rehabilitation act [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/20/1997)

08/20/1997

211 SUPPLEMENT Declaration of Sara Norman by Plaintiﬀs re declaration [210-1] (FILED UNDER SEAL) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 5/14/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/20/1997)

08/21/1997

212 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING motion to exceed page limitation on motion and memorandum of points & authorities [209-1]; motion papers not to exceed 41 pages in length; (Date Entered: 8/22/97) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/22/1997)

08/21/1997

213 Second MOTION, with memorandum in support, before Judge Claudia Wilken by Plaintiﬀ for order directing deft's to modify their plans to comply with the ADA and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; with Notice set for 10/31/97 at 10:30 [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/22/1997)

08/25/1997

214 OPPOSITION by defendant to motion for order directing deft's to modify their plans to comply with the ADA and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; [213-1], motion for order directing defendants to modify their plans to comply with the ADA and section 504 of the rehabilitation Act [200-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/26/1997)

08/25/1997 215 DECLARATION by Arlene Solis on behalf of defendants [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/26/1997)

08/25/1997 216 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiﬀ of order [212-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/26/1997)

09/11/1997 217 MOTION by Plaintiﬀ for leave to ﬁle reply exceeding 15 pages [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/12/1997)

09/12/1997

218 REPLY by Plaintiﬀ to opposition to motion for order directing deft's to modify their plans to comply with the ADA and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; [213-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/15/1997)

09/12/1997 219 DECLARATION by Sara Norman on behalf of Plaintiﬀ re motion reply [218-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/15/1997)

09/15/1997

220 THIRD MOTION by Plaintiﬀ for order directing defendants to modify their plans to comply with the ADA and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act with Notice set for 11/21/97 at 10:30 a.m. [4:94cv-02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/15/1997)

09/15/1997

221 DECLARATION by Michael Strong, Ph.D on behalf of Plaintiﬀ re motion for order directing defendants to modify their plans to comply with the ADA and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act [220-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/15/1997)

09/15/1997

222 DECLARATION by Robert W. Sweetow on behalf of Plaintiﬀ re motion for order directing defendants to modify their plans to comply with the ADA and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act [220-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/15/1997)

09/15/1997

223 DECLARATION by Sara Norman on behalf of Plaintiﬀ re motion for order directing defendants to modify their plans to comply with the ADA and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act [220-1] [4:94-cv02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/15/1997)

09/15/1997 224 DECLARATION by Kathleen Martinez on behalf of Plaintiﬀ (UNDER SEAL) [4:94-cv-02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/15/1997)

09/15/1997

225 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting motion for leave to ﬁle reply exceeding 15 pages [217-1] () (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/18/1997)

09/22/1997 226 COPY of judgment from USCA aﬃrming the decision of the District Court [160-1] Costs $231.00 [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/23/1997)

09/23/1997 227 CLERK's letter spreading the mandate to counsel. re appeal [160-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/23/1997)

09/25/1997

228 MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by defendants to ﬁle brief in opposition to plaintiﬀs' second motion to modify defendants' plans that exceed page limitation [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/26/1997)

09/25/1997 229 SECOND DECLARATION by Arlene Solis on behalf of defendants [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/26/1997)

09/26/1997

230 MINUTES: ( C/R Rosita Flores) ( Hearing Date: 9/26/97) that the motion for order directing defendants to modify their plans to comply with the ADA and section 504 of the rehabilitation Act [2001] is submitted, setting hearing on second motion for order directing deft's to modify their plans to comply with the ADA and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; [213-1] at 10:00 on 11/21/97 [4:94cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/29/1997)

09/26/1997

231 NOTICE of hearing by Plaintiﬀ setting motion for order directing defendants to modify their plans to comply with the ADA and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act [220-1] ; hearing set for 10:00 11/21/97 [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/29/1997)

09/29/1997

232 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting motion to ﬁle brief in opposition to plaintiﬀs' second motion to modify defendants' plans that exceed page limitation [228-1], not to exceed 29 pages ( Date Entered: 10/01/97) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/01/1997)

09/29/1997

233 OPPOSITION by defendant to motion for order directing deft's to modify their plans to comply with the ADA and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; [213-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/01/1997)

09/30/1997

235 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Final pre-trial conference will be held 1:30 7/24/98 ; court trial set for 8:30 8/3/98 ; . Est.trial days: 5 (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/06/1997)

10/01/1997 234 EX-PARTE APPLICATION by Plaintiﬀ Roy David Zattiero for injunctive relief [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/02/1997)

10/07/1997

236 CERTIFIED COPY of USCA Order: appellees' motion for transfer to the district court of appellate fee application is granted [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/09/1997)

10/08/1997 237 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting/denying in part motion for an order to modify their remeidal plans (ﬁrst set of contested

issues) [200-1] ( Date Entered: 10/10/97) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/10/1997)

10/15/1997

238 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken amending 6/4/97 scheduling order; continuing due date on defendants' response to plaintiﬀ's motion re: the third group of issues on or before 10/27/97: (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/16/1997)

10/16/1997 239 MOTION by Plaintiﬀs to ﬁle a reply and memorandum of points and authorities exceeding page limitation [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/17/1997)

10/21/1997

240 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting motion to ﬁle a reply and memorandum of points and authorities exceeding page limitation [239-1] ( Date Entered: 10/22/97) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/22/1997)

10/21/1997

241 REPLY by Plaintiﬀs to opposition to motion for order directing deft's to modify their plans to comply with the ADA and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; [213-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/22/1997)

10/21/1997 242 DECLARATION by Sara Norman on behalf of Plaintiﬀs re motion reply [241-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/22/1997)

10/27/1997

243 OPPOSITION by defendants to third motion for order directing defendants to modify their plans to comply with the ADA and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act [220-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/28/1997)

10/27/1997 244 DECLARATION by Winthrop H. Hall, M.D. on behalf of defendants [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/28/1997)

10/27/1997 245 DECLARATION by Nadim K. Khoury, M.D. on behalf of defendants [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/28/1997)

10/27/1997 246 THIRD DECLARATION by Arlene Solis on behalf of defendants [4:94cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/28/1997)

10/31/1997

247 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken shortening time on motion do modify defendants' transition plan may be heard on 11/21/97 at 10:00am; defendants' opposition is due on or before 11/7/97, reply is due 11/12/97 : (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/03/1997)

11/03/1997

248 MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by Plaintiﬀ to modify defendants' transition plan with Notice set for 11/21/97 at 10:00am [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/05/1997)

11/03/1997

249 DECLARATION by Donald Specter on behalf of Plaintiﬀs re motion to modify defendants' transition plan [248-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/21/2018: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/21/2018: # 2 Exhibit B - Part 1, # 3 Exhibit B - Part 2, # 4 Exhibit B - Part 3, # 5 Exhibit B - Part 4, # 6 Exhibits C-F) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/05/1997)

11/07/1997 250 REPLY by Plaintiﬀs re opposition [243-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/10/1997)

11/07/1997

251 Reply DECLARATION by Robert W. Sweetow on behalf of Plaintiﬀs in support of third motion to modify defendants' transition plan [2481] [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/10/1997)

11/07/1997

252 Reply DECLARATION by Anil K. Lalwani, M.D. on behalf of Plaintiﬀs in support of third motion to modify defendants' transition plan [248-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/10/1997)

11/07/1997

253 OPPOSITION by defendant to motion for order directing defendants to modify their plans to comply with the ADA and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act [220-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/10/1997)

11/07/1997 254 Fourth DECLARATION by Arlene Solis on behalf of defendants [4:94cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/10/1997)

11/07/1997

255 EXHIBITS re declaration [254-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/22/2018: # 1 Exhibits (Part 2), # 2 Exhibits (Part 3), # 3 Exhibits (Part 4)) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/22/2018: # 4 Exhibits (Part 5), # 5 Exhibits (Part 6)) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/22/2018: # 6 Exhibits (Part 7) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/10/1997)

11/12/1997 256 REPLY by Plaintiﬀ to the opposition to the motion to modify transition plan [4:94-cv-02307] (mh, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/14/1997)

11/12/1997 257 SECOND DECLARATION by Donald Specter on behalf of Plaintiﬀ in support of the reply [256-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (mh, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/14/1997)

11/21/1997 258 SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION by Sara Norman on behalf of Plaintiﬀs [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/24/1997)

11/21/1997

259 MINUTES: ( C/R Carol Karen) ( Hearing Date: 11/21/97) that the motion for order directing deft's to modify their plans to comply with the ADA and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; [213-1] is submitted, that the motion for order directing defendants to modify their plans to comply with the ADA and section 504 of the

Rehabilitation Act [220-1] is submitted, that the motion to modify defendants' transition plan [248-1] is submitted [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/03/1997)

12/03/1997 260 RECORD ON APPEAL RETURNED FROM USCA [160-1] [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/16/1997)

01/15/1998

2741

RECEIVED Proposed Order (Plaintiﬀ, defendant) re to extend time for defendants to ﬁle submission in response to the 10/8/97 Order [4:94-cv-02307] (mh, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/20/1998)

01/20/1998

261 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken extending time for defendants to ﬁle submissions in response to order of 10/8/97 to and including 1/23/98 : (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/22/1998)

01/22/1998 262 NOTICE by defendants of additional information pursuant to order of 10/8/97 [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/23/1998)

01/22/1998 263 FIFTH DECLARATION by Arlene Solis on behalf of defendants [4:94cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/23/1998)

01/28/1998

Docket Modiﬁcation (Administrative) referring to Judge Claudia Wilken the motion for order directing defendants to modify their plans to comply with the ADA and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act [220-1], referring to Judge Claudia Wilken the motion for injunctive relief [234-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/28/1998)

02/09/1998

264 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : extending time for plaintiﬀs to ﬁle opposition to defendants supplemental submissions to 2/13/98 (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/11/1998)

02/13/1998 265 OBJECTIONS by Plaintiﬀs to defendants' additional information pursuant to order of 10/8/97 [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/18/1998)

02/13/1998 266 DECLARATION by Sara Norman on behalf of Plaintiﬀ re objection [265-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/18/1998)

02/25/1998

267 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken denying request to ﬁle the complaint for age discrimination submitted Roy D. Zattiero, Sr. ( Date Entered: 2/25/98) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) Modiﬁed on 02/25/1998 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/25/1998)

02/26/1998 268 REPLY by defendants re objection [265-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/27/1998)

02/27/1998 269 MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by Plaintiﬀ for entry of order

approving defendants' plans to comply with the ADA and 504 [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/27/1998)

02/27/1998

270 DECLARATION by Sara Norman on behalf of Plaintiﬀ re motion for entry of order approving defendants' plans to comply with the ADA and 504 [269-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/27/1998)

03/09/1998

271 MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by Matthew C. Simpson for an order directing the CA Dept. of Corrections to assist qualiﬁed prisoner on 5/10/98 parole date with ADA approved housing and loans [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) Modiﬁed on 03/12/1998 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/12/1998)

03/11/1998

272 RESPONSE by defendants re motion for entry of order approving defendants' plans to comply with the ADA and 504 [269-1] [4:94cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/16/1998)

03/11/1998 273 DECLARATION by James M. Humes on behalf of defendant re response [272-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/16/1998)

03/17/1998

274 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken :continuing trial date; trial will be held 8:30 11/30/98 ; Pretrial conference set for 1:30 11/20/98 ; (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/19/1998)

03/20/1998

275 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting in part and denying in part motion for order directing deft's to modify their plans to comply with the ADA and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; [213-1], granting in part and denying in part motion for order directing defendants to modify their plans to comply with the ADA and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act [220-1], granting in part and denying in part motion to modify defendants' transition plan [2481], granting in part and denying in part motion for entry of order approving defendants' plans to comply with the ADA and 504 [2691] ( Date Entered: 2/23/98) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/23/1998)

03/23/1998

276 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken denying motion for an order directing the CA Dept. of Corrections to assist qualiﬁed prisoner on 5/10/98 parole date with ADA approved housing and loans [271-1] ( Date Entered: 3/26/98) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/26/1998)

03/24/1998

277 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken On the basis of the material submitted to the Court, as the Judge assigned to the earliest ﬁled case, I ﬁnd that the cases ARE NOT RELATED (Date Entered: 4/1/98) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (mh, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/01/1998)

04/08/1998 278 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 11/21/97 ( C/R: Carol A. Karen) minutes [259-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF)

(cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/08/1998)

04/17/1998 279 LETTER dated 4/16/98 from James M. Humes re: response to the letter from Sara Norman dated 4/15/98 [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/20/1998)

05/04/1998

282 LETTER dated 4/15/98 from Sara Linda Norman re: defendants failed to provide revision on remedial plans, and request that the court to set date for defendants to submit their revisions [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) Modiﬁed on 05/07/1998 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/07/1998)

05/04/1998

283 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken setting deadline for defendants to revise their remedial plans by 6/19/98; plaintiﬀs objections to the revision are due by 7/3/98( Date Entered: 5/7/98) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/07/1998)

05/05/1998

280 BRIEF FILED by defendants in support of two percent scoping policy, request for reconsideration of order re: alterations to existing facilities, and fundamental alteration/undue burden defenses [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/06/1998)

05/05/1998 281 DECLARATION by James M. Humes on behalf of defendant re brief [280-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/06/1998)

05/07/1998 284 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF FILED by Plaintiﬀs pursuant to the court's order of 3/20/98 [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/11/1998)

05/07/1998 285 DECLARATION by Sara Norman on behalf of Plaintiﬀs re brief [2841] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/11/1998)

05/07/1998 286 DECLARATION by Michael W. Bien on behalf of Plaintiﬀs re brief [284-1] ***FILED UNDER SEAL*** [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/11/1998)

05/14/1998 287 RESPONSE by defendants re order [283-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/15/1998)

05/14/1998 288 DECLARATION by James M. Humes on behalf of defendants re response [287-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/15/1998)

05/22/1998 289 OPPOSITION by Plaintiﬀs to defts' brief in support of their scoping policy and other matters [280-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/22/1998)

05/22/1998

290 DECLARATION by Sara Norman on behalf of Plaintiﬀs in support of opposition [289-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/16/2018: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on

7/16/2018: # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/22/1998)

05/22/1998

291 Unopposed REQUEST before Judge Claudia Wilken by defendant for a one day extension of time in which to ﬁle a response to supplemental brieﬁng [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/26/1998)

05/22/1998

292 DECLARATION by James M. Humes on behalf of defendants in support of motion for a one day extension of time in which to ﬁle a response to supplemental brieﬁng [291-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/26/1998)

05/22/1998 2748 RECEIVED proposed order granting request for one day extension of time to ﬁle opposition submitted by defendants [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/26/1998)

05/22/1998

294 Brief in OPPOSITION by defendants to plaintiﬀs' supplemental brieﬁng pursuant to Court's order of 3/20/98 [284-1] [4:94-cv02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/27/1998)

05/22/1998 295 Sixth DECLARATION by Arlene Solis on behalf of defendants [4:94cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) Modiﬁed on 7/16/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/27/1998)

05/22/1998 296 DECLARATION by Evalyn Horowitz, M.D. on behalf of defendants [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/27/1998)

05/22/1998 297 DECLARATION by Lieutenant Chet Miller on behalf of defendants [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/27/1998)

05/26/1998

293 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING motion for a one day extension of time in which to ﬁle a response to supplemental brieﬁng [291-1] ( Date Entered: 5/26/98) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/27/1998)

05/27/1998 298 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken denying motion for injunctive relief [234-1] (Date Entered: 5/29/98) (cc: counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (mh, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/29/1998)

05/28/1998 299 REPLY by Plaintiﬀ to the opposition [294-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (mh, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/29/1998)

05/28/1998 300 DECLARATION by Sara Norman on behalf of Plaintiﬀ in support of the reply [299-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (mh, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/29/1998)

05/28/1998 301 REPLY by defendants to the opposition [289-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (mh, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/29/1998)

06/18/1998 302 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken directing submission of additional evidence and permitting further discovery by plaintiﬀs ( Date

Entered: 6/19/98) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/19/1998)

06/19/1998 303 SECOND RESPONSE by defendants to court order of 5/4/98 [283-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/19/1998)

06/19/1998 304 DECLARATION by James M. Humes on behalf of defendants re response [303-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/19/1998)

06/23/1998 305 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 9/26/97 ( C/R: Rosita Flores) minutes [230-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/25/1998)

07/06/1998 306 OBJECTIONS by Plaintiﬀs to defendants' statement of intended revisions to their remedial plans [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/06/1998)

07/06/1998 307 DECLARATION by Sara Norman on behalf of Plaintiﬀs re objection [306-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/06/1998)

07/07/1998 308 SUBMISSION of additional information pursuant to order of 6/18/98 by defendants [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/07/1998)

07/07/1998 309 DECLARATION by James M. Humes on behalf of defendants re submission [308-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/07/1998)

07/13/1998 2754 RECEIVED stipulation and order extending time for defendants to ﬁle submissions in response to order of 5/4/98 [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/14/1998)

07/14/1998

310 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : extending time to and including 7/20/98 for defendants to ﬁle submissions in response to order of 5/4/98 (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/15/1998)

07/20/1998 311 RESPONSE by Plaintiﬀs to defendants' additional information pursuant to order [302-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/21/1998)

07/20/1998 312 REPLY by defendants re objections [306-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/21/1998)

07/20/1998 313 DECLARATION by James M. Humes on behalf of defendants re reply [312-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/21/1998)

07/29/1998

2753

RECEIVED stipulated order conﬁrming undisputed attorneys' fees on the 2nd and 3rd quarters of 1997 submitted by Plaintiﬀ [4:94cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/30/1998)

07/30/1998 314 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken conﬁrming

undisputed attorneys' fees on the second and third quarters of 1997 : (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/06/1998)

08/10/1998 2752 RECEIVED stipulated order conﬁrming undisputed attorneys' fees on the 1st quarter of 1998 submitted by Plaintiﬀ [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/11/1998)

08/11/1998

315 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken conﬁrming undisputed attorneys' fees on the 1st quarter of 1998 : (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/12/1998)

08/13/1998 316 LETTER dated 8/13/98 from James M. Humes re: response to the status of various matters [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/17/1998)

08/17/1998 317 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiﬀ of stipulated order [315-1] [4:94-cv02307] (mmr, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/18/1998)

09/16/1998

318 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken resolving outstanding issues; defendants to revise their remedial plans as provided in this order; defendants to produce a single document that incorporates the elements of their remedial plans that are contained in these separate documents and submit to plaintiﬀs by 11/4/98; parties shall meet and confer to correct any errors noted by plaintiﬀ and submit to the court by 11/30/98 ( Date Entered: 9/18/98) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/18/1998)

10/05/1998

319 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : conﬁrming settlement of remaining disputed attorneys' fees and expenses for the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th quarters of 1997, and the 1st quarter of 1998 (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/06/1998)

10/07/1998 320 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiﬀ of order [319-2] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/08/1998)

10/09/1998 321 RESPONSE by defendants re order [318-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/13/1998)

10/09/1998 322 DECLARATION by James M. Humes on behalf of defendants in support of response [321-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/13/1998)

10/15/1998

323 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken striking defendants' response to order of 9/16/98 [321-1] ( Date Entered: 10/19/98) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/19/1998)

10/19/1998 324 RESPONSE by defendants to order of 9/16/98 [318-1] [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/20/1998)

10/23/1998

325 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken for further brieﬁng; within a week of this order, defendants shall submit a red-lined/strike-out verion of plaintiﬀs' Exhibit L, indicating their position as to what was agreed to with footnotes, also provide evidence supporting the facts; plaintiﬀ to respond a week thereafter to defendants' position on Exhibit L, as well as to the other positions taken in defendants' second response; defendants may reply one week thereafter ( Date Entered: 10/23/98) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/23/1998)

10/23/1998 2757 RECEIVED stipulation to continue trial against James Nielsen and order submitted by Plaintiﬀ [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/26/1998)

10/27/1998 326 THIRD RESPONSE by defendant to order [318-1] of 9/16/98 [4:94cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/28/1998)

10/30/1998 327 RESPONSE by defendants Pete Wilson, et al to the order [325-1] dated 10/23/98 for for further brieﬁng [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/02/1998)

10/30/1998 328 DECLARATION by Frank Lopez on behalf of defendant Pete Wilson, et al re response [327-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/02/1998)

10/30/1998

329 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION WITH MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES before Judge Claudia Wilken by defendant Pete Wilson, et al for partial stay of remedial order with Notice set for 12/11/98 at 10:00am [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/02/1998)

10/30/1998 2756 RECEIVED Proposed Order ( defendant Pete Wilson, et al ) re: motion for partial stay of remedial order [329-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/02/1998)

11/03/1998

330 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken vacating hearing re motion for partial stay of remedial order [329-1]; motion will be decided on the paper; opposition is due one week from the date of this order; any reply is due on week thereafter ( Date Entered: 11/4/98) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/04/1998)

11/06/1998 331 RESPONSE by Plaintiﬀs to order [325-1] for further brieﬁng [4:94cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/09/1998)

11/06/1998 332 DECLARATION by Sara Norman on behalf of Plaintiﬀ re response [331-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/09/1998)

11/06/1998

333 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : continuing trial against James Nielsen and pretrial schedule; Discovery cutoﬀ set for 12/31/99; expert discovery cut-oﬀ set for 1/31/99; dispositive motions ﬁled by 2/8/99; Pretrial conference set for 1:30pm on

4/2/99 ; Trial will be held at 8:30am on 4/15/99 ; (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/12/1998)

11/10/1998

334 OPPOSITION by Plaintiﬀs to defendants' third response [326-1] to the 9/16/98 order and OPPOSITION to motion for partial stay of remedial order [329-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/12/1998)

11/10/1998 335 DECLARATION by Sara Norman on behalf of Plaintiﬀ re opposition [334-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/12/1998)

11/19/1998 336 REPLY by defendants re oppositions to third response to order of 9/16/98 and motion for partial stay [334-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/20/1998)

11/30/1998 337 REMEDIAL PLAN DEVELOPED by defendants pursuant to [318-1] order of 9/16/98 [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/02/1998)

12/04/1998

338 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by Plaintiﬀ to modify class with Notice set for 1/8/99 at 10:00am [4:94-cv-02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/09/1998)

12/04/1998

339 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by Plaintiﬀ to amend complaint with Notice set for 1/8/99 at 10:00am [4:94-cv-02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/09/1998)

12/04/1998

340 DECLARATION by Nancy Cowardin, Ph.D. on behalf of Plaintiﬀ re motion to amend complaint [339-1], re motion to modify class [338-1] UNDER SEAL [4:94-cv-02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/09/1998)

12/18/1998 341 MEMORANDUM by defendants in opposition to motion to amend complaint [339-1], motion to modify class [338-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/21/1998)

12/24/1998 342 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : amending plaintiﬀ class (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/28/1998)

12/28/1998

343 REPLY by Plaintiﬀs to opposition to motion to amend complaint [339-1], motion to modify class [338-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/23/2018: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/05/1999)

12/28/1998

344 DECLARATION by Donald Specter on behalf of Plaintiﬀs re motion reply [343-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/23/2018: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/05/1999)

01/05/1999 345 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting plaintiﬀs' motion to amend complaint [339-1], granting plaintiﬀs' motion to modify

class [338-1] ( Date Entered: 1/7/99) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/07/1999)

01/08/1999 346 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT [61-1] by Plaintiﬀs [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/11/1999)

01/08/1999

347 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting defendants' motion for partial stay of remedial order [329-1] ( Date Entered: 1/13/99) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/13/1999)

01/08/1999 348 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken amending order of 9/16/98 ( Date Entered: 1/13/99) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/13/1999)

01/08/1999

349 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken directing defendants to comply with remedial plan ( Date Entered: 1/13/99) (cc: all counsel) [4:94cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/13/1999)

01/11/1999 350 LETTER dated 1/7/99 from Clifton Long re: moving back to C.M.C. East for reason stated on the letter [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/14/1999)

01/12/1999

351 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken denying inmate Clifton Long's request to be transferred to C.M.C. East [350-1] ( Date Entered: 1/14/99) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/14/1999)

01/15/1999

352 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION WITH MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES before Judge Claudia Wilken by Plaintiﬀs John Armstrong, et al to compel defendants re: deposition testimony of the ten BPT Commissioners with Notice set for 2/19/99 at 10:00am [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) Modiﬁed on 01/21/1999 (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/23/2018: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/21/1999)

01/15/1999

353 DECLARATION by Jennifer Jonak on behalf of Plaintiﬀs John Armstrong, et al re motion to compel defendants re: deposition testimony of the ten BPT Commissioners [352-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/21/1999)

01/15/1999

354 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiﬀs John Armstrong, et al of declaration [353-1], motion to compel defendants re: deposition testimony of the ten BPT Commissioners [352-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/21/1999)

01/19/1999

2759

RECEIVED stipulated order delaying submission of fees and expenses devoted to litigation concerning the board of prion terms submitted by Plaintiﬀ, defendant [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/21/1999)

01/19/1999 355 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION WITH MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES before Judge Claudia Wilken by defendants Pete

Wilson, et al to dismiss or strike second amended complaint with Notice set for 2/26/99 at 10:00am [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/21/1999)

01/20/1999

356 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : delaying submission of fees and expenses devoted to litigation concerning the Board of Prison Terms (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/21/1999)

01/20/1999

357 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken referring plaintiﬀs' request for an expedited, informal resolution by chambers and ALL FURTHER DISCOVERY MOTIONS to a Mag. Judge ; referring to Mag. Judge Bernard Zimmerman the motion to compel defendants re: deposition testimony of the ten BPT Commissioners [352-1] ( Date Entered: 1/21/99) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/21/1999)

01/21/1999

REFERRAL: referring case for discovery to Mag. Judge Bernard Zimmerman [4:94-cv-02307] (wh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/21/1999)

01/26/1999 358 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiﬀs John Armstrong, et al of order [3562] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/26/1999)

01/26/1999

REFERRAL: referring case for discovery to Mag. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton [4:94-cv-02307] (wh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/26/1999)

01/26/1999 359 ORDER by Mag. Judge Bernard Zimmerman recusing himself ( Date Entered: 1/28/99) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/28/1999)

01/28/1999

362 EX-PARTE request, before Judge Claudia Wilken, by Plaintiﬀ John Armstrong, Plaintiﬀ James Amauric, Plaintiﬀ Richard Ponciano, Plaintiﬀ Jack Swensen for resolution of discovery dispute. [4:94-cv02307] (rl, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/02/1999)

01/29/1999

360 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendants Pete Wilson, et al from Dist. Court decision order [349-1] Fee status pd, (receipt #2513) [4:94cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/01/1999)

01/29/1999

361 MEMORANDUM by defendants Pete Wilson, et al in opposition to motion to compel defendants re: deposition testimony of the ten BPT Commissioners [352-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/01/1999)

01/29/1999

366 EX-PARTE Letter REQUEST before Mag. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton for resolution of discovery dispute [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/23/2018: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/03/1999)

02/01/1999 2760 Docket fee notiﬁcation form and case information sheet to USCA

[360-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/01/1999)

02/01/1999

Copy of notice of appeal and docket sheet to all counsel [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/01/1999)

02/01/1999

363 EXPEDITED MOTION, before Judge Claudia Wilken, by Plaintiﬀs for leave to ﬁle a motion for reconsideration and memorandum of points and authorities in support. [4:94-cv-02307] (rl, COURT STAFF) Modiﬁed on 02/02/1999 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/02/1999)

02/01/1999

364 DECLARATION and certiﬁcation of compliance with Civil Local Rule 7-10(b) by Sara Norman on behalf of Plaintiﬀs re motion for leave to ﬁle a motion for reconsideration and memorandum of points and authorities in support. [364-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (rl, COURT STAFF) Modiﬁed on 02/02/1999 (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/23/2018: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/02/1999)

02/01/1999

2758

RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiﬀ) re: motion for leave to ﬁle a motion for reconsideration and memorandum of points and authorities in support. [364-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (rl, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/02/1999)

02/01/1999

365 ORDER, by Mag. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton. Re motion to compel defendants re: deposition testimony of the ten BPT Commissioners [352-1]. Plaintiﬀ's request to have expedited hearing is DENIED. Opposition is due 2/9/99. Reply due no later than seven calendar days following opposition. ( Date Entered: February 3, 1999) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (rl, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/03/1999)

02/01/1999

367 LETTER to Mag. Judge Hamilton, dated 1/29/99, from George D. Prince in response to ex parte request for resolution of discovery dispute [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/03/1999)

02/01/1999

372 MINUTES: before Mag. Judge Hamilton ( C/R tape #PJH-TC/99-3) ( Hearing Date: 2/1/99) granting in part and denying in part motion for resolution of discovery dispute [366-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/11/1999)

02/03/1999

368 ORDER, by Judge Claudia Wilken, GRANTING motion for leave to ﬁle a motion for reconsideration. [363-1] Plaintiﬀs may move for reconsideration to the extent requested in their motion. ( Date Entered: February 4, 1999) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (rl, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/04/1999)

02/05/1999 369 MEMORANDUM by Plaintiﬀs in opposition to motion to dismiss or strike second amended complaint [355-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/09/1999)

02/05/1999 2769 RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiﬀ) re: dismissing in part second amended complaint [355-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF)

(cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/09/1999)

02/08/1999 2771 NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate Docket Number 9915152 [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/10/1999)

02/08/1999

370 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION and Ordering Form ﬁled by defendants Pete Wilson, et al for dates NOT DESIGNATING ; C/R: ; appeal [3601] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/10/1999)

02/08/1999

371 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION WITH MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES before Judge Claudia Wilken by defendants BPT, James Nielsen to dismiss second amended complaint with Notice set for 3/19/99 at 10:00am [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/10/1999)

02/08/1999 2768 RECEIVED Proposed Order ( BPT, James Nielsen ) re motion to dismiss second amended complaint [371-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/10/1999)

02/08/1999

373 REPLY by Plaintiﬀs to opposition to motion to compel defendants re: deposition testimony of the ten BPT Commissioners [352-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/11/1999)

02/09/1999

374 CLERK'S NOTICE hearing on motion to dismiss or strike second amended complaint [355-1] is rescheduled to 3/19/99 at 10:00am [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/11/1999)

02/10/1999 2770 CERTIFICATE of Record mailed to USCA, counsel notiﬁed. [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/10/1999)

02/10/1999

375 MOTION with memorandum in support before Judge Claudia Wilken by Plaintiﬀs for reconsideration of the court's order directing defendants to comply with the remedial plan ﬁled 1/8/99 with Notice set for 3/19/99 at 10:00am [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/12/1999)

02/10/1999

376 DECLARATION by Sara Norman on behalf of Plaintiﬀs re motion for reconsideration of the court's order directing defendants to comply with the remedial plan ﬁled 1/8/99 [375-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/11/2018: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/12/1999)

02/10/1999

2767

RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiﬀ) re: motion for reconsideration of the court's order directing defendants to comply with the remedial plan ﬁled 1/8/99 [375-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/12/1999)

02/10/1999 377 REPLY by defendants to opposition to motion to dismiss or strike second amended complaint [355-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/12/1999)

02/16/1999 378 EX-PARTE APPLICATION before Mag. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton by Plaintiﬀs for resolution of discovery dispute [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/18/1999)

02/16/1999

379 DECLARATION by Sara Norman on behalf of Plaintiﬀ re motion to compel defendants re: deposition testimony of the ten BPT Commissioners [352-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/11/2018: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/18/1999)

02/17/1999

380 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION and Ordering Form ﬁled by Pete Wilson for dates 9/26/97, 11/21/97 ; C/R: Rosita Flores/Carol Karen; appeal [360-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/18/1999)

02/17/1999

381 OPPOSITION by defendants Pete Wilson, et al to motion for reconsideration of the court's order directing defendants to comply with the remedial plan ﬁled 1/8/99 [375-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/18/1999)

02/17/1999

382 MINUTES: before Mag. Judge Hamilton ( C/R tape #PJH-TC/99-3) ( Hearing Date: 2/17/99) granting motion for resolution of discovery dispute [378-1]; defendants shall permit plaintiﬀs' expert Dr. Strong to attend on additional day of lifer hearings; Dr. Cowardin shall attend on 2/18/99 [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/25/1999)

02/24/1999 383 LETTER dated 2/24/99 from deputy clerk to Mr. Specter re: forwarding copy of a letter from Omer Gallion [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/01/1999)

02/25/1999

386 ORDER by Mag. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton granting motion for resolution of discovery dispute. [362-1]; that plaintiﬀs motion for leave to take additional depositions is granted ( Date Entered: 3/5/99) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/05/1999)

02/25/1999

Docket Modiﬁcation (Administrative) to order [386-1] granting motion to compel defendants re: deposition testimony of the ten BPT Commissioners [352-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/27/1999)

02/26/1999

384 OPPOSITION by Plaintiﬀs to motion to dismiss second amended complaint [371-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/11/2018: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/02/1999)

03/01/1999

385 CORRECTION by plaintiﬀs to opposition [384-1] to defendants' second motion to dismiss the second amended complaint [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/11/2018: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/02/1999)

03/03/1999 387 REPLY by defendants BPT and James Nielsen to opposition to

motion to dismiss second amended complaint [371-1] [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/05/1999)

03/05/1999

388 REPLY by Plaintiﬀs to opposition to motion for reconsideration of the court's order directing defendants to comply with the remedial plan ﬁled 1/8/99 [375-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/09/1999)

03/05/1999

389 MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by defendants BPT, James Nielsen for leave to ﬁle motion for summary and for continuance of the trial date with Notice set for 4/2/99 at 10:00am [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/09/1999)

03/05/1999

390 DECLARATION by Susan Myster on behalf of BPT, James Nielsen re motion for leave to ﬁle motion for summary and for continuance of the trial date [389-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/09/1999)

03/05/1999

2765

RECEIVED Proposed Order ( BPT, James Nielsen ) re: motion for leave to ﬁle motion for summary and for continuance of the trial date [389-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/09/1999)

03/05/1999 2764 RECEIVED motion for summary judgment submitted by defendants BPT, James Nielsen [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/09/1999)

03/05/1999

2763

RECEIVED declaration of James Nielsen in support of motions for summary judgment submitted by BPT, James Nielsen [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 9/10/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/09/1999)

03/05/1999

2762

RECEIVED proposed order granting defendants' motion for summary judgment submitted by BPT, James Nielsen [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/09/1999)

03/08/1999

391 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant James Nielsen of declaration of James Nielsen in support of defendants' notice of motion and motion for summary judgment [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/10/1999)

03/09/1999 392 LETTER dated 3/8/99 from deputy clerk to Mr. Specter re: forwarding letters received from prisoner [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/11/1999)

03/11/1999 393 OBJECTIONS by Plaintiﬀs to order [386-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/15/1999)

03/12/1999 394 LETTER dated 3/12/99 from Jennifer A. Jonak re: defendants' motion for leave to ﬁle motion for summary judgment [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/17/1999)

03/17/1999 395 RE-NOTICE of hearing by defendants BPT, James Nielsen setting

motion for leave to ﬁle motion for summary and for continuance of the trial date [389-1] at 10:00am on 4/16/99 [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/18/1999)

03/19/1999

396 MINUTES: (C/R Sarah Brann) (Hearing Date: 03/19/99) DENING motion for reconsideration of the court's order directing defendants to comply with the remedial plan ﬁled 1/8/99 [375-1]; DENYING motion to dismiss second amended complaint [371-1]; DENYING motion to dismiss or strike second amended complaint [355-1]; [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/24/1999)

03/23/1999

397 JOINT PRE-TRIAL STATEMENT by Plaintiﬀs [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/11/2018: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/24/1999)

03/23/1999 398 PROOF OF RESERVICE by defendants of notice of motion [395-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/24/1999)

03/23/1999 399 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 3/19/99 (C/R: Sarah Brann) minutes [396-2] [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/24/1999)

03/24/1999

400 MOTION with memorandum in support before Judge Claudia Wilken by Plaintiﬀ in limine to exclude evidence not furnished in discovery [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/24/2018: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/29/1999)

03/25/1999

401 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken denying defendant Nielsen's motion to dismiss second amended complaint [371-1]; grants defendant BPT's motion to dismiss plaintiﬀs section 1983 claims asserted against it; granting in part defendants' motion to strike second amended complaint [355-1]; denying plaintiﬀ's motion for reconsideration of the court's order directing defendants to comply with the remedial plan ﬁled 1/8/99 [375-1]; denying defendants' motion for leave to ﬁle motion for summary and for continuance of the trial date [389-1] dismissing claims against CA Dept. of Corrections, defendants Cal A. Terhune, Susanne Steinberg, Judith McGillivray, David Tristan, Midge Carroll, but denying dismissal of the claims against defendants Gray Davis and Secretary of the Calfornia YACA, Robert Presley ( Date Entered: 3/29/99) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/29/1999)

03/26/1999

402 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION WITH MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES by Intervenors Jerry Valdivia, et al before Judge Claudia Wilken for permissive intervention , and for modiﬁcation of protective order with Notice set for 4/30/99 at 10:00am [4:94-cv-

02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/30/1999)

03/26/1999

403 DECLARATION by Laura J. Zuckerman on behalf of Intervenors Jerry Valdivia, et al re motion for permissive intervention [402-1], re motion for modiﬁcation of protective order [402-2] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/24/2018: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/30/1999)

03/30/1999 404 LETTER dated 3/30/99 from Shana Margolis re: amended witness list [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/31/1999)

03/30/1999

405 AMENDED PLAINTIFFS' WITNESS LIST that was ﬁled as Exhibit G to the parties' joint pretrial conference statement ﬁled by plaintiﬀ [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/31/1999)

04/02/1999

406 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken for issuance of writ of habeas corpus ad testiﬁcandum - David Blessing ( Date Entered: 4/5/99) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/05/1999)

04/02/1999

407 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken for issuance of writ of habeas corpus ad testiﬁcandum - David Badillo ( Date Entered: 4/5/99) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/05/1999)

04/02/1999

409 MINUTES: before Judge Claudia Wilken ( C/R Lydia Radovich) ( Hearing Date: 4/2/99) ; pretrial conf held 4/2/99 , court trial is continued to 4/26/99 at 8:30am ; granting plaintiﬀ's motion in limine to exclude evidence not furnished in discovery [400-1]; defense has no objection to plaintiﬀs AMENDING COMPLAINT to add 3 more plaintiﬀs [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/07/1999)

04/06/1999 408 ANSWER by defendants BPT, James Nielsen to second complaint [346-1]; jury demand [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/07/1999)

04/06/1999 410 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 4/2/99 ( C/R: Lydia Roseanne Radovich) minutes [409-3] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/07/1999)

04/07/1999 411 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT [346-1] by Plaintiﬀs; adding Flora Abrams, Joey Gough, Timothy Whisman [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/08/1999)

04/09/1999

412 Statement by Plaintiﬀs in NON-Opposition to motion for permissive intervention [402-1], motion for modiﬁcation of protective order [402-2] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/12/1999)

04/12/1999 413 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : modifying

brieﬁng schedule re: motion for permissive intervention and for modiﬁcation of protective order; opposition/or non-opposition due no later than 4/16/99; reply by 4/23/99 (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/13/1999)

04/15/1999

414 ANSWER by defendants Gray Davis, Robert Presley, James Nielsen, BPT to third amended complaint [411-1]; jury demand [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/20/1999)

04/16/1999 415 AMENDED deposition designations (Exhibit K to joint pretrial statement) [397-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/20/1999)

04/16/1999

416 OPPOSITION by defendants to motion for permissive intervention [402-1], motion for modiﬁcation of protective order [402-2] [4:94cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/20/1999)

04/16/1999 417 DECLARATION by William V. Cashdollar on behalf of defendants re opposition [416-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/20/1999)

04/16/1999 418 TRIAL DECLARATION by Timothy J. Derning, Ph.D. on behalf of Plaintiﬀs ***FILED UNDER SEAL*** [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/20/1999)

04/16/1999 419 DECLARATION by Nancy Cowardin, Ph.D. on behalf of Plaintiﬀs ***FILED UNDER SEAL*** [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/20/1999)

04/19/1999 420 ERRATA by Plaintiﬀs to the declaration of Timothy J. Derning [4181] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/21/1999)

04/19/1999 421 DECLARATION by Kathleen Martinez on behalf of Plaintiﬀ ***FILED UNDER SEAL*** [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/21/1999)

04/19/1999 422 DECLARATION by Michael Strong on behalf of Plaintiﬀ ***FILED UNDER SEAL*** [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/21/1999)

04/19/1999 423 DECLARATION by Peter M. Robertson on behalf of Plaintiﬀ ***FILED UNDER SEAL*** [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/21/1999)

04/19/1999 424 DECLARATION by R. Michael Paravagna on behalf of Plaintiﬀ [4:94cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/21/1999)

04/20/1999 425 TRIAL MINUTES: (C/R Maria Amador) (Hearing Date: 4/20/99) Court trial began; further trial set for 4/21/99 at 2:00 [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/23/1999)

04/20/1999 426 Supplemental ERRATA by Plaintiﬀs to the declaration of Timothy J.

Derning [418-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/23/1999)

04/21/1999

427 TRIAL MINUTES: ( C/R Maria Amador) ( Hearing Date: 4/21/99) court trial held; further court trial set for 4/22/99 at 2:00pm [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/26/1999)

04/22/1999

428 AMENDED trial exhibits (Exhibit I to joint pretrial statement [3971]) and ﬁrst amended deposition designation (Exhibit K to joint pretrial statement) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/25/2018: # 1 A, # 2 B, # 3 C, # 4 D, # 5 E) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/26/1999)

04/22/1999 429 CORRECTION by Plaintiﬀs to trial exhibits [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) Modiﬁed on 04/27/1999 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/26/1999)

04/22/1999 430 CORRECTED deposition designations by Plaintiﬀs [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/26/1999)

04/23/1999

431 REPLY by Intervenors to opposition to motion for permissive intervention [402-1], motion for modiﬁcation of protective order [402-2] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/26/1999)

04/23/1999

432 DECLARATION by Jennifer L. Jonak on behalf of Intervenors re motion reply [431-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/26/2018: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/26/1999)

04/23/1999

433 ORDER, by Judge Claudia Wilken, taking the motion for permissive intervention [402-1] under submission; taking the motion for modiﬁcation of protective order [402-2] under submission (Date Entered: April 27, 1999) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (rl, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/27/1999)

04/28/1999 434 ERRATA by Plaintiﬀs to declaration [422-1], to declaration [421-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/30/1999)

04/28/1999

435 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken conﬁrming undisputed attorneys' fees and costs on the second quarterly statement of 1998 ( Date Entered: 4/30/99) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/30/1999)

05/03/1999

436 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken that the CDC shall immediately make available to counsel for plaintiﬀs for review and copy the central and medical ﬁles of inmate Michael Paine, D94022 ( Date Entered: 5/4/99) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/04/1999)

05/03/1999 437 ORDER from USCA. The appellants are directed to make ﬁnancial arrangements with the court reporter within 14 days of this order. The transcripts are due 6/14/99. The District Court shall issue the

certiﬁcate of record as soon as practicable after the transcripts are ﬁled. The brieﬁng schedule is unchanged. ( Date Entered: May 4, 1999) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (rl, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/04/1999)

05/03/1999 438 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: April 22, 1999 ( C/R: Candace L. Yount) [4:94-cv-02307] (rl, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/04/1999)

05/04/1999 439 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiﬀ of order [435-2] [4:94-cv-02307] (rl, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/05/1999)

05/05/1999

440 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken that the court issue a writ of habeas corpus ad testiﬁcandum of Michael Paine ( Date Entered: 5/6/99) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/06/1999)

05/05/1999

441 MOTION by third-party beneﬁciaries Mitchell Pendrak, Williamson Plez, and Louis R. Fresquez before Judge Claudia Wilken to compel and implement the warden and employees of Corcoran II State Prison to follow the court's 9/16/98 order resolving outstanding issues [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/10/1999)

05/07/1999 442 SUPPLEMENT by defendant re declaration of William V. Cashdollar [417-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/10/1999)

05/10/1999 443 Abridged EXHIBIT list by Plaintiﬀ [4:94-cv-02307] (rl, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/12/1999)

05/11/1999 444 LETTER dated 5/11/99 from Caroline N. Mitchell re: submission of plaintiﬀ's abridged trial exhibit list [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/12/1999)

05/11/1999 445 SUPPLEMENTAL declaration of William V. Cashdollar [417-1] by defendants [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/12/1999)

05/12/1999

446 DESIGNATION OF DEPOSITION with defendants additional designations (VOLUME 1) by Plaintiﬀs [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/31/2018: # 1 Aguirre, # 2 Almager, # 3 Anderson, # 4 Badillo, # 5 Beekman, # 6 Blessing) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/31/2018: # 7 Bordonaro, # 8 Boyd, # 9 Bruce) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/31/2018: # 10 Broaddus, # 11 Bybee, # 12 Castro, # 13 Chartrand, # 14 Choo) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/13/1999)

05/12/1999

447 DESIGNATION OF DEPOSITION with defendants additional designations (VOLUME 2) by Plaintiﬀ [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/31/2018: # 1 Connolly, # 2 Crews, # 3 DeGrood, # 4 Di Ninni, # 5 Dunlap, # 6 Feathers, # 7 Frederick, # 8 Gillis (Vol. 1), # 9 Gillis (Vol. 2)) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/31/2018: #

10 Gough, # 11 Hayes, # 12 Hill, # 13 Holden) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/1/2018: # 14 Honore, # 15 Horrocks, # 16 Jallins, # 17 Jay, # 18 R. Johnson, # 19 W. Johnson, # 20 Jourden) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/13/1999)

05/12/1999

448 DESIGNATION OF DEPOSITION with defendants additional designations (VOLUME 3) by Plaintiﬀs [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/1/2018: # 1 Khoury, # 2 Kitchell, # 3 Koenig, # 4 Lambert, # 5 Lane, # 6 Loo, # 7 Lyons, # 8 Mason, # 9 McCuistion) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/1/2018: # 10 McNair) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/1/2018: # 11 Mincey, # 12 Nielsen Jan 11 1996, # 13 Nielsen Jan 14 1999) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/1/2018: # 14 Paravagna, # 15 Phipps) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/13/1999)

05/12/1999

449 DESIGNATION OF DEPOSITION with defendants additional designations (VOLUME 4) by Plaintiﬀs [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/1/2018: # 1 E. Richardson, # 2 P. Richardson, # 3 Rose, # 4 Rowland, # 5 Shelton, # 6 Simmons, # 7 Smith, # 8 Solis, # 9 Soukup, # 10 Thomson, # 11 Travers) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/1/2018: # 12 Trott, # 13 Umbenhower, # 14 Underwood, # 15 Van Court, # 16 Vinyard, # 17 Von Gunten, # 18 Washington, # 19 Welch, # 20 Whisman, # 21 Williams) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/13/1999)

05/12/1999

450 DESIGNATION OF DEPOSITION with defendants additional designations (VOLUME 5) by Plaintiﬀs [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/5/2018: # 1 Bardo, # 2 Bowlin, # 3 Boyd, # 4 Braden, # 5 Case, # 6 Chesterman, # 7 Choo, # 8 Conley, # 9 Cottier, # 10 Culton, # 11 Cuypers) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/5/2018: # 12 Davis, # 13 Durkee, # 14 Favila, # 15 Friederichs, # 16 Haywood, # 17 Henderson-McBean, # 18 Hepburn, # 19 L. Hernandez, # 20 R. Hernandez, # 21 Hood, # 22 Jessup, # 23 Kainsella, # 24 Larson, # 25 Lawson) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/5/2018: # 26 Lea, # 27 Lemon, # 28 Middleton, # 29 Mott, # 30 Novak, # 31 Oliveros, # 32 Rivera, # 33 Roberts, # 34 Rosario, # 35 Sadowski, # 36 Sanchez, # 37 Schievelbein, # 38 Schwettmann, # 39 Sinatra, # 40 Smith, # 41 Willming, # 42 Woods) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/13/1999)

05/12/1999

451 DESIGNATION OF DEPOSITION with defendants additional designations (VOLUME 6) by Plaintiﬀs [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/6/2018: # 1 Dowling, # 2 Garcia, # 3 Kiesz, # 4 O'Bryan, # 5 Oshiro, # 6 Rich, # 7 Trott) (cpS, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 11/6/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/13/1999)

05/13/1999

452 MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by Plaintiﬀs John Armstrong, et al to exclude defendants' previously witness testimony [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/14/1999)

05/13/1999

453 DECLARATION by Jennifer L. Jonak on behalf of Plaintiﬀs re motion to exclude defendants' previously witness testimony [452-1] [4:94cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/14/1999)

05/17/1999

454 DEPOSITION of Michael Paravagna taken on the following date(s): 3/4/99 - Volume I (pages 1 - 143) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/31/2018: # 1 DEPOSITION (part 2), # 2 A, # 3 B, # 4 C, # 5 D) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/19/1999)

05/17/1999 455 DEPOSITION of Michael Paravagna taken on the following date(s): 3/16/99 - (Volume II - pages 144 - 238) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/19/1999)

05/17/1999

456 DEPOSITION of Michael M. Connolly taken on the following date(s): 12/1/98 [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/31/2018: # 1 Part 2, # 2 Part 3, # 3 Part 4) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/19/1999)

05/17/1999

457 DEPOSITION of Dr. Edward McNair taken on the following date(s): 1/27/99 [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/30/2018: # 1 1, # 2 2, # 3 3, # 4 4, # 5 5, # 6 6, # 7 7, # 8 8) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/19/1999)

05/17/1999

458 DEPOSITION of Tina L. Dunlap taken on the following date(s): 11/19/98 [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/3/2018: # 1 1, # 2 2, # 3 3, # 4 4, # 5 5, # 6 6, # 7 7, # 8 8) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/19/1999)

05/17/1999

459 DEPOSITION of Michael Trott taken on the following date(s): 1/19/99 [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/26/2018: # 1 1, # 2 2) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/19/1999)

05/17/1999 460 NOTICE by defendants of change of address [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/20/1999)

05/17/1999 461 NOTICE by defendants of change of address [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/20/1999)

05/17/1999

464 TRIAL MINUTES: ( C/R Candace Yount) ( Hearing Date: 4/22/99) court trial held; further court trial will be held 2:00pm on 4/27/99 ; [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/26/1999)

05/17/1999 465 TRIAL MINUTES: ( C/R Candace Yount) ( Hearing Date: 4/27/99) court trial held; further court trial will be held 9:30am on 4/28/99 ;

[4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/26/1999)

05/17/1999

466 TRIAL MINUTES: ( C/R Candace Yount) ( Hearing Date: 4/28/99) court trial held; further court trial will be held 9:00am on 5/3/99 ; [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/26/1999)

05/17/1999

467 TRIAL MINUTES: ( C/R Candace Yount) ( Hearing Date: 5/3/99) court trial held; further court trial will be held 8:30am on 5/4/99 ; [4:94cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/26/1999)

05/17/1999

468 TRIAL MINUTES: ( C/R Maria Amador) ( Hearing Date: 5/4/99) court trial held; further court trial will be held 8:30am on 5/5/99 ; [4:94cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/26/1999)

05/17/1999

469 TRIAL MINUTES: ( C/R Maria Amador) ( Hearing Date: 5/5/99) court trial held; further court trial will be held 1:30pm on 5/6/99 ; [4:94cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/26/1999)

05/17/1999

470 TRIAL MINUTES: ( C/R Maria Amador) ( Hearing Date: 5/6/99) court trial held; further court trial will be held 8:30am on 5/13/99 ; [4:94cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/26/1999)

05/17/1999

471 TRIAL MINUTES: ( C/R Maria Amador) ( Hearing Date: 5/13/99) Court trial ended ; Trial concluded 5/13/99; plaintiﬀs to submit proposed ﬁndings by 6/18/99; defendant to respond by 7/6/99; plaintiﬀ to reply by 7/16/99 [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/26/1999)

05/19/1999

463 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken denying motion to compel and implement the warden and employees of Corcoran II State Prison to follow the court's 9/16/98 order resolving outstanding issues [441-1] ( Date Entered: 5/24/99) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/24/1999)

05/21/1999 462 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken modifying protective order ( Date Entered: 5/24/99) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/24/1999)

05/21/1999 472 TRIAL Sheet consisting of exhibits and witnesses list [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/26/1999)

05/26/1999

EXHIBIT LOCATION for plf: stored at Shelf No. B-3 [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/26/1999)

05/26/1999

EXHIBIT LOCATION for dft: (Exhibt D-6) stored at UNDER SEAL ROOM [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/26/1999)

05/26/1999 473 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 4/28/99 ( C/R: Candace L. Yount) minutes [466-2] (Volume 5, pages 503 - 693)

[4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/26/2018: # 1 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT (part 2), # 2 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT (part 3)) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/27/1999)

05/26/1999

474 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 5/3/99 ( C/R: Candace L. Yount) minutes [467-2] (Volume 6, pages 694-857) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/27/1999)

05/26/1999

475 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 5/3/99 ( C/R: Candace L. Yount) minutes [467-2] (Volume 6, pages 702 - 750) ***FILED UNDER SEAL*** [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/27/1999)

05/28/1999 476 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiﬀs-Intervenors of order [462-2] [4:94cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/02/1999)

06/02/1999 477 OBJECTIONS by Plaintiﬀs to defendants' previously undisclosed deposition designations [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/07/1999)

06/02/1999 478 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiﬀ of objection [477-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/07/1999)

06/07/1999

479 MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by Plaintiﬀs for entry of undisputed fees order for 3rd quarter of 1998 [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/26/2018: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/08/1999)

06/10/1999 480 NOTICE by Plaintiﬀ withdrawing motion for entry of undisputed fees order for 3rd quarter of 1998 [479-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/10/1999)

06/15/1999

481 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : conﬁrming settlement of claimed attorneys' fees and costs on the 4th quarterly statement of 1998 (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/17/1999)

06/15/1999

482 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken conﬁrming undisputed attorneys' fees and costs on the 3rd quarterly statement of 1998 ( Date Entered: 6/17/99) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/17/1999)

06/15/1999

483 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken extending time for plaintiﬀs to ﬁle proposed injunction and supporting documents to 7/19/99 ( Date Entered: 6/17/99) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/17/1999)

06/16/1999

Docket Modiﬁcation (Administrative) to order [462-2] ﬁnding the motion for permissive intervention [402-1] moot., ﬁnding the motion for modiﬁcation of protective order [402-2] moot. [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/16/1999)

06/25/1999

484 COPY of USCA Order: granting appellee's motion for an extension of time to ﬁle the answering brief to 7/28/99; optional reply is due 14 days from service of the answering brief [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/29/1999)

06/28/1999

485 MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by third party beneﬁciaries, Pendrak, Williamson and Frequez to compel the warden at Corcoran II State Prison to follow the court's order 9/20/96 [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/01/1999)

06/30/1999 486 NOTICE by defendants of change of address [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/02/1999)

07/08/1999

RECEIVED stipulated Proposed Order (Plaintiﬀs) conﬁrming settlement of certain disputed attorney's fees and costs of second quarterly statement of 1998 [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/08/1999)

07/14/1999

487 STIPULATION and ORDER, by Judge Claudia Wilken, conﬁrming settlement of certain disputed attorney's fees and costs on the second quarterly statement of 1998. (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv02307] (rl, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/15/1999)

07/14/1999

488 ORDER, by Judge Claudia Wilken, DENYING motion to compel the warden at Corcoran II State Prison to follow the court's order 9/20/96 [485-1] ( Date Entered: July 15, 1999) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (rl, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/15/1999)

07/20/1999 489 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 4/27/99 ( C/R: Candace L. Yount) minutes [465-2] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/20/1999)

07/20/1999

490 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken conﬁrming undisputed attorneys' fees and costs on the ﬁrst quarterly statement of 1999 ( Date Entered: 7/23/99) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/7/2018: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/23/1999)

07/21/1999

491 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken setting brieﬁng schedule: plaintiﬀs to ﬁle their proposed ﬁndings of fact and conclusions of law on 7/30/99; opposition is due by 8/6/99; reply is due 8/10/99; ( Date Entered: 7/23/99) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/23/1999)

07/22/1999

492 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken conﬁrming further undisputed attorneys' fees and costs for the 3rd quarter of 1998 ( Date Entered: 7/23/99) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/7/2018: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/23/1999)

07/22/1999 493 LETTER dated 7/22/99 from Danette E. Valdez re: request to ﬁle opposition until 8/13/99 [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/27/1999)

07/29/1999 2781 RECEIVED letter from George Arlow re: lack of adequate medical, dental and mental health services [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/06/1999)

07/30/1999 494 PROPOSED ﬁndings of facts and conclusions of law (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/02/1999)

07/30/1999 2782 RECEIVED proposed permanent injunction submitted by Plaintiﬀ [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/02/1999)

08/03/1999

495 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken that request for relief by George Arlow, in pro per, will not be entertained; the request is denied [00] ( Date Entered: 8/6/99) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/06/1999)

08/06/1999 496 OBJECTIONS by defendant to plaintiﬀs' proposed conclusions of law and permanent injunction [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/09/1999)

08/06/1999 497 OBJECTIONS by defendants to plaintiﬀs' proposed ﬁndings of fact [494-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/09/1999)

08/06/1999 2780 RECEIVED order requiring the submissions of remedial plans submitted by BPT, James Nielsen [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/09/1999)

08/10/1999 498 REPLY by Plaintiﬀ re objection [497-1], re objection [496-1] [4:94cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/11/1999)

08/20/1999 499 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 4/20/99 ( C/R: Maria E. Amador) minutes [425-2] (VOL. I) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/20/1999)

08/20/1999 500 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 4/21/99 ( C/R: Maria E. Amador) minutes [427-2] (Vol. II) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/20/1999)

08/20/1999

501 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 5/4/99 ( C/R: Maria E. Amador) minutes [468-2] (Vol. VII) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/7/2018: # 1 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT (part 2)) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/20/1999)

08/20/1999 502 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 5/5/99 ( C/R: Maria E. Amador) minutes [469-2] (Vol. VIII) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/20/1999)

08/20/1999 503 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 5/6/99 ( C/R: Maria E. Amador) minutes [470-2] (Vol. IX) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/20/1999)

08/20/1999 504 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 5/13/99 ( C/R: Maria E. Amador) minutes [471-2] (Vol. X) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp,

COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/20/1999)

08/23/1999

505 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by Plaintiﬀs to compel payment of disputed attorney's fees and costs incurred during 1998 with Notice set for 10/8/99 at 10:00 [4:94-cv02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/24/1999)

08/23/1999

506 DECLARATION by William H.D. Fernholz on behalf of Plaintiﬀs in support of motion to compel payment of disputed attorney's fees and costs incurred during 1998 [505-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/20/2018: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/24/1999)

08/23/1999

507 DECLARATION by Donald Specter on behalf of Plaintiﬀs in support of motion to compel payment of disputed attorney's fees and costs incurred during 1998 [505-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/24/1999)

08/23/1999

2783

RECEIVED Proposed Order (Plaintiﬀs) re: motion to compel payment of disputed attorney's fees and costs incurred during 1998 [505-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/24/1999)

09/02/1999

508 ORDER of Reference by Judge Claudia Wilken referring to Mag. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton the motion to compel payment of disputed attorney's fees and costs incurred during 1998 [505-1] (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/08/1999)

09/07/1999 509 LETTER dated 9/7/99 from deputy clerk to Ernest Frost re: returned of documents submitted to the court [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/08/1999)

09/07/1999

510 LETTER dated 9/7/99 from deputy clerk to Frederick Smith re: returned of documents submitted to the court [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) Modiﬁed on 09/08/1999 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/08/1999)

09/07/1999

511 LETTER dated 9/7/99 from deputy clerk to Jose Luis Diparra re: returned of documents submitted to the court [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) Modiﬁed on 09/08/1999 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/08/1999)

09/07/1999 512 LETTER dated 9/7/99 from deputy clerk to George Swan Arlow re: returned of documents submitted to the court [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/08/1999)

09/07/1999 513 LETTER dated 9/7/99 from deputy clerk to Gilbert P. Fontes re: returned of documents submitted to the court [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/08/1999)

09/07/1999 514 LETTER dated 9/7/99 from deputy clerk to Amador L. Martinez re: returned of documents submitted to the court [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/08/1999)

09/10/1999 515 LETTER dated 9/10/99 from deputy clerk to Bruce C. Kyles re: returned of documents submitted to the court [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/13/1999)

09/13/1999

516 ORDER by Mag. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton setting brieﬁng schedule re motion to compel payment [505-1]; opposition due 9/20/99; any reply due 14 calendar days following the date of ﬁling and service of the opposition; no hearing will be held ( Date Entered: 9/16/99) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/16/1999)

09/17/1999

517 LETTER dated 9/8/99 from deputy clerk to Charles Logan re: returned of documents submitted to the court [4:94-cv-02307](cp, COURT STAFF) Modiﬁed on 09/17/1999 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/17/1999)

09/17/1999

518 OPPOSITION by defendants to motion to compel payment of disputed attorney's fees and costs incurred during 1998 [505-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/20/1999)

09/21/1999

519 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken setting date for defendants to submit remedial plans for individual CDC institutions by 1/3/2000: (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/23/1999)

10/04/1999

520 REPLY by Plaintiﬀ to opposition to motion to compel payment of disputed attorney's fees and costs incurred during 1998 [505-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/04/1999)

11/05/1999

521 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken conﬁrming undisputed attorneys' fees and costs on the second quarterly statement of 1999 ( Date Entered: 11/8/99) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/08/1999)

12/16/1999

RECORD on Appeal to USCA, cnsl notiﬁed. re appeal [360-1] [4:94cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/16/1999)

12/17/1999

522 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by Mag. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton that the motion to compel payment of disputed attorney's fees and costs incurred during 1998 [505-1] be DENIED (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/21/1999)

12/17/1999

Docket Modiﬁcation (Administrative) to report and recommendation motion REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [522-1] denying motion to compel payment of disputed attorney's fees and costs incurred during 1998 [505-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/21/1999)

12/22/1999 523 FINDINGS of fact and conclusions of law by Judge Claudia Wilken (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/23/1999)

12/22/1999 524 PERMANENT INJUNCTION by Judge Claudia Wilken ( Date Entered: 12/23/99) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/23/1999)

12/22/1999

525 JUDGMENT: by Judge Claudia Wilken entered in favor of plaintiﬀs as set forth in the permanent injunction; plaintiﬀ shall recover of defendants their costs of action; dismissing case ; appeal ﬁling ddl 1/24/00 ( Date Entered: 12/23/99) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/23/1999)

01/04/2000

526 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : extending time for plaintiﬀs to ﬁle bill of costs to 2/18/00 (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/04/2000)

01/06/2000 527 LETTER dated 1/5/00 from deputy clerk to Jonathan Morgan re: return of submitted documents [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) Modiﬁed on 01/07/2000 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/07/2000)

01/07/2000 528 OBJECTIONS by Plaintiﬀs to report and recommendation re: motion to compel payment of attorney's fees [522-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/10/2000)

01/07/2000 529 DECLARATION by Donald Spector on behalf of Plaintiﬀs in support of objections [528-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/10/2000)

01/20/2000

530 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken: conﬁrming settlement of certain attorneys' fees and costs on the third quarterly statement of 1999 (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/21/2000)

01/21/2000

531 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendants Gray Davis, Robert Presley, James Nielsen from Dist. Court decision ﬁndings of fact [523-1], permanent injunction [524-1], order [401-2] Fee status pd, receipt #4401076 [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/24/2000)

01/24/2000

Docket fee notiﬁcation form and case information sheet to USCA [531-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/24/2000)

01/24/2000

Copy of notice of appeal and docket sheet to all counsel [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/24/2000)

01/31/2000

2787

NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate Docket Number 0015132 [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/6/2018: # 1 Time Schedule) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/01/2000)

01/31/2000 532 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION and Ordering Form ﬁled by defendants NOT DESIGNATING; appeal [531-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/01/2000)

02/01/2000

CERTIFICATE of Record mailed to USCA, counsel notiﬁed. [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/01/2000)

02/03/2000 533 REPLY by defendants re objection [528-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp,

COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/04/2000)

02/03/2000

534 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken: defendants may ﬁle their reply to plaintiﬀ's objections to Mag. Judge Hamilton's report and recommendation by 2/3/00 (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/07/2000)

02/07/2000 535 LETTER dated 2/4/00 from William Fernholz re: motion to compel fees in the Yeskey matter [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/09/2000)

02/09/2000 536 LETTER dated 2/4/00 from deputy clerk re: returned of documents submitted by Andre Blair [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/11/2000)

02/09/2000 537 LETTER dated 2/4/00 from deputy clerk re: returned documents submitted by Willard Martin [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/11/2000)

02/10/2000

538 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : extending time for defendants to ﬁle the monitoring agreement to 2/9/00 (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/11/2000)

02/14/2000 541 LETTER dated 2/11/00 from William Fernholz re: attorney's fees and costs for BPT proceedings [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/18/2000)

02/15/2000 539 STIPULATION on transcript correction [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/16/2000)

02/15/2000 540 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants of order [538-2] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/16/2000)

02/15/2000

544 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : extending time in which to ﬁle briefs re: the appointment of a special master (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/18/2000)

02/16/2000

542 ORDER of Reference by Judge Claudia Wilken: referring to Mag. Judge Hamilton for a settlement conference re: attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in litigating the BPT portion of the Armstron case (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/18/2000)

02/16/2000

543 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : re: conﬁdentiality of settlement negotiations; extending time for plaintiﬀs to ﬁle a costs bill and motion for attorneys' fees and expenses for work related to proceedings against the Board of Prison Terms (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/18/2000)

02/17/2000 545 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by defendant for stay of permanent injunction with Notice set for

3/10/00 at 2:00 [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/18/2000)

02/17/2000

546 EX-PARTE REQUEST before Judge Claudia Wilken by defendants to shorten time on motion for stay of permanent injunction [545-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/18/2000)

02/17/2000

547 DECLARATION by George Prince on behalf of defendants in support of motion to shorten time on motion for stay of permanent injunction [545-1] [546-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/18/2000)

02/18/2000

548 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken setting date for plaintiﬀs to serve written objections to defendants' remedial plans for individual CDC institutions by 3/6/00: (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/24/2000)

02/22/2000

549 BRIEF FILED by defendants in support of their positions 1) that monitoring be deferred while the appeal is pending, and 2) that a special master be appointed to oversee monitoring if and when it is initiated [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/24/2000)

02/22/2000 550 OPPOSITION by Plaintiﬀs to motion to shorten time on motion for stay of permanent injunction [545-1] [546-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/24/2000)

02/22/2000 551 BRIEF FILED by Plaintiﬀs on the need for and the authority to appoint a special master [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/24/2000)

02/22/2000

552 DECLARATION by Betsy Ginsberg on behalf of Plaintiﬀs re brief [551-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/10/2018: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/24/2000)

02/24/2000

553 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken denying defendants' motion to shorten time on motion for stay of permanent injunction [545-1] [546-1]; denying without prejudice defendants' motion for stay of permanent injunction [545-1] ( Date Entered: 2/25/00) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/25/2000)

02/24/2000

554 Notice of settlement conference and settlement conference ORDER by Mag. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton Settlement conf. (Mag) at 9:30 3/22/00 ; ( Date Entered: 3/1/00) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/01/2000)

03/06/2000 555 NOTICE by Plaintiﬀs of withdrawal of attorney Eve H. (Shapiro) Cervantez [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/07/2000)

03/06/2000

Docket Modiﬁcation (Administrative) to notice [555-1] withdrawing

attorney attorney Eve H. Shapiro [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/07/2000)

03/07/2000 556 MAIL 537 addressed to Willard Martin returned from Post Oﬃce [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 12/10/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/08/2000)

03/07/2000

557 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : extending defendants' time to 3/14/00 to submit policies and procedures; plaintiﬀs comments due 4/13/00 (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/09/2000)

03/09/2000

558 MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by Plaintiﬀs to strike motion defendants' unsupported factual contentions re: CDC monitoring with Notice set for 4/14/00 at 10:00am [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/10/2000)

03/09/2000

559 DECLARATION by Sara Norman on behalf of Plaintiﬀ re motion to strike motion defendants' unsupported factual contentions re: CDC monitoring [558-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/10/2018: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/10/2000)

03/10/2000 560 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant of order [557-2] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/14/2000)

03/10/2000

561 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting in part plaintiﬀs' motion to compel payment of disputed attorney's fees and costs incurred during 1998 [505-1], and for further brieﬁng ( Date Entered: 3/14/00) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/14/2000)

03/14/2000

562 ORDER by Mag. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton continuing settlement conf. (Mag) at 9:30am on 3/31/00 ; ( Date Entered: 3/17/00) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/17/2000)

03/21/2000 563 OPPOSITION by defendants to plaintiﬀs' motion to strike [558-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/22/2000)

03/21/2000 564 DECLARATION by James M. Humes on behalf of defendants re opposition [563-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/22/2000)

03/24/2000

565 RENEWED MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by Plaintiﬀs John Armstrong, et al for disputed 1998 fees and expenses [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/7/2018: # 1 Appendix A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/27/2000)

03/24/2000 566 DECLARATION by William H.D. Fernholz on behalf of Plaintiﬀs re motion for disputed 1998 fees and expenses [565-1] [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on

12/7/2018: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/27/2000)

03/24/2000 567 DECLARATION by Donald Specter on behalf of Plaintiﬀs re motion for disputed 1998 fees and expenses [565-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/27/2000)

03/27/2000

568 CLERK'S NOTICE that the motion to strike motion defendants' unsupported factual contentions re: CDC monitoring [558-1] is under submission on the papers; hearing previously scheduled for 4/14/00 is vacated [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/27/2000)

03/30/2000 570 LETTER dated 3/30/00 from James M. Humes re: vacating settlement conference [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/04/2000)

03/30/2000

571 ORDER by Mag. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton vacating settlement conference scheduled for 3/31/00 ( Date Entered: 4/3/00) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/04/2000)

04/03/2000

569 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : extending time re: submission of forms; defendants proposed revised forms by 5/15/00; plaintiﬀs comments by 6/15/00; (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/04/2000)

04/11/2000

572 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : scheduling defendants' objections re renewed motion for fees and costs [5651] to 4/28/00; plaintiﬀs' response by 5/26/00 (cc: all counsel) [4:94cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/11/2000)

04/11/2000

573 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken: setting new schedule for review of remedial plans for individual CDC institutions; defendants' revised plans due 6/15/00; plaintiﬀs' objections by 6/30/00; parties meet and confer re: objections by 7/14/00; plaintiﬀs' motion for an evidentiary hearing by 7/24/00 (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/11/2000)

04/20/2000

574 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by defendants to extend time to comply with the provision of the injunction re: training with Notice set for 5/26/00 at 10:00am [4:94cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/20/2000)

04/20/2000

575 DECLARATION by Frances T. Grunder on behalf of defendant re motion to extend time to comply with the provision of the injunction re: training [574-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/20/2000)

04/20/2000 576 DECLARATION by Sylvia Penunuri on behalf of defendant re motion to extend time to comply with the provision of the injunction re:

training [574-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/20/2000)

04/20/2000

577 DECLARATION by William Anderson on behalf of defendant re motion to extend time to comply with the provision of the injunction re: training [574-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/20/2000)

04/26/2000

578 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : extending time for plaintiﬀ to ﬁle bill of costs and motion for attorneys' fees and expenses for work related to proceedings against the Board of Prison Terms until 5/30/00 (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/28/2000)

04/28/2000 579 OBJECTIONS by defendants to motion for disputed 1998 fees and expenses [565-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/01/2000)

04/28/2000 580 DECLARATION by Jeﬀrey S. Sutton on behalf of defendant re objection [579-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/01/2000)

04/28/2000 581 DECLARATION by Richard Ruda on behalf of defendant re objection [579-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/01/2000)

04/28/2000 582 DECLARATION by Stephen McAllister on behalf of defendant re objection [579-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/01/2000)

05/04/2000 583 LETTER dated 5/4/00 from deputy clerk to Mr. Ryder re: return of documents [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/05/2000)

05/04/2000 584 LETTER dated 5/4/00 from deputy clerk to Mr. Peernock re: return of documents [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/05/2000)

05/08/2000 585 COPY of USCA Order: granting appellants' motion for an extension of time to ﬁle the opening brief [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/09/2000)

05/10/2000

586 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : resetting hearing on motion to extend time to comply with the provision of the injunction re: training [574-1] at 10:00am on 6/9/00 (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/11/2000)

05/16/2000

587 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken conﬁrming undipusted attorneys fees and costs on the fourth quarterly statement of 1999 ( Date Entered: 5/16/00) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/16/2000)

05/23/2000 588 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : taking motion to extend time to comply with the provision of the injunction re:

training [574-1] oﬀ calendar (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/24/2000)

05/23/2000

589 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : extending time until 7/21/00 to ﬁle motion re: disputes (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/24/2000)

05/25/2000

590 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : extending time for plaintiﬀs to ﬁle the 1999 annual motion to compel attorneys' fees and costs until 6/23/00 (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/25/2000)

05/26/2000 591 REPLY by Plaintiﬀ to opposition to motion for disputed 1998 fees and expenses [565-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/30/2000)

05/26/2000 592 DECLARATION by Donald Specter on behalf of Plaintiﬀ re motion reply [591-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/30/2000)

05/26/2000 593 DECLARATION by Jerome B. Falk, Jr. on behalf of Plaintiﬀ re motion for disputed 1998 fees and expenses [565-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/30/2000)

05/30/2000

594 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION WITH MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES before Judge Claudia Wilken by Plaintiﬀ for attorney fees and expenses arising from proceedings against the board of prison terms with Notice set for 7/7/00 at 10:00am [4:94cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/10/2018: # 1 APPENDIX A, # 2 APPENDIX B, # 3 APPENDIX C) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/31/2000)

05/30/2000

595 DECLARATION by Mark Chavez on behalf of Plaintiﬀ re motion for attorney fees and expenses arising from proceedings against the board of prison terms [594-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/31/2000)

05/30/2000

596 DECLARATION by Gary Cohen on behalf of Plaintiﬀ re motion for attorney fees and expenses arising from proceedings against the board of prison terms [594-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/31/2000)

05/30/2000

597 DECLARATION by William J. Taylor on behalf of Plaintiﬀ re motion for attorney fees and expenses arising from proceedings against the board of prison terms [594-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/31/2000)

05/30/2000

598 DECLARATION by Robert Rubin on behalf of Plaintiﬀ re motion for attorney fees and expenses arising from proceedings against the board of prison terms [594-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/10/2018: # 1 EXHIBIT A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/31/2000)

05/30/2000 599 DECLARATION by Richard Pearl on behalf of Plaintiﬀ re motion for attorney fees and expenses arising from proceedings against the

board of prison terms [594-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/10/2018: # 1 EXHIBIT A, # 2 EXHIBIT B, # 3 EXHIBIT C, # 4 EXHIBIT D) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/31/2000)

05/30/2000

600 DECLARATION by Linda D. Kilb on behalf of Plaintiﬀ re motion for attorney fees and expenses arising from proceedings against the board of prison terms [594-1] ***FILED UNDER SEAL*** [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/31/2000)

05/30/2000

601 DECLARATION by Warren E. George on behalf of Plaintiﬀ re motion for attorney fees and expenses arising from proceedings against the board of prison terms [594-1]***FILED UNDER SEAL*** [4:94cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/31/2000)

05/30/2000

602 DECLARATION by Elaine B. Feingold on behalf of Plaintiﬀ re motion for attorney fees and expenses arising from proceedings against the board of prison terms [594-1] ***FILED UNDER SEAL*** [4:94cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/31/2000)

05/30/2000

603 DECLARATION by Michael W. Bien on behalf of Plaintiﬀ re motion for attorney fees and expenses arising from proceedings against the board of prison terms [594-1]***FILED UNDER SEAL*** [4:94cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/31/2000)

05/30/2000

604 DECLARATION by Donald Specter on behalf of Plaintiﬀ re motion for attorney fees and expenses arising from proceedings against the board of prison terms [594-1]***FILED UNDER SEAL*** [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/31/2000)

05/30/2000

605 DECLARATION by Caroline M. Mitchell on behalf of Plaintiﬀ re motion for attorney fees and expenses arising from proceedings against the board of prison terms [594-1] ***FILED UNDER SEAL*** [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/31/2000)

05/30/2000

606 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiﬀ of declaration [605-1], declaration [604-1], declaration [603-1], declaration [602-1], declaration [6011], declaration [600-1], declaration [599-1], declaration [598-1], declaration [597-1], declaration [596-1], declaration [595-1], motion for attorney fees and expenses arising from proceedings against the board of prison terms [594-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/31/2000)

05/31/2000 607 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiﬀ of order [590-2], order [587-2] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/31/2000)

05/31/2000 608 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiﬀ of order [590-2] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/31/2000)

05/31/2000

609 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION and Ordering Form ﬁled by Gray Davis for dates 10/28/94; 4/29/96; 3/19/99; 4/20-21/99; 4/22/99; 4/2728/99; 5/3/99; 5/4-6/99; 5/13/99; ; C/R: Maria Amador, Candace Yount, Rosita Flores, Sara Bran, Katherine Wyatt; appeal [531-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/31/2000)

06/12/2000

610 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : extending time for plaintiﬀs to object to defendants' transition plan until 7/31/00, and to ﬁle a motion on disputed issues to 8/31/00 (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/13/2000)

06/15/2000

611 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : extending time for plaintiﬀs to ﬁle objections to revisions of BPT forms until 7/12/00; any disputes remain, plaintiﬀs shall ﬁle a regularly noticed motion by 9/12/00 (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/15/2000)

06/16/2000

2788

RECEIVED "stipulation and proposed order scheduling plaintiﬀs' motion for attorneys' fees and expenses arising from proceedings against board of prison terms" submitted by defendant [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/19/2000)

06/19/2000

612 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : extending time for plaintiﬀs to ﬁle the 1999 annual motion to compel until 7/14/00 (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/21/2000)

06/19/2000

613 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : extending time for plaintiﬀs to move to compel disputed 1999 fees and expenses to which defendants have posed "Yeskey" and "Appeal" objections until 60 days after the court resolves plaintiﬀs' renewed request for disputed 1998 fees and expenses (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/21/2000)

06/20/2000

614 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : scheduling plaintiﬀs' motion for attorney fees and expenses arising from proceedings against the board of prison terms [594-1]; opposition due 7/14/00; reply due 8/11/00; no hearing will be held unless further order of the court (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/21/2000)

06/20/2000

615 CERTIFIED COPY of judgment from USCA VACATING the district court's order to the extent that it applies to the Disability Placement Plan and the veriﬁcations process, and to the extent that it orders the CDC to comply with the negotiated portions of its remedial plan; REMANDING the the case for any further proceedings not inconsistent with this decision as may be necessary [Appeal [360-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/23/2000)

06/23/2000 616 CLERK's letter spreading the mandate to counsel. re appeal [360-1]

[4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/23/2000)

06/23/2000

617 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken that the parties are to submit a joint statement addressing any further proceedings are necessary in the portion of the case addressed in the Court of Appeal's opinion; statement is due by 7/7/00 ( Date Entered: 6/26/00) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/26/2000)

06/26/2000 618 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant of order [614-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/26/2000)

06/27/2000 619 RECORD ON APPEAL RETURNED FROM USCA [360-1] [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/27/2000)

07/06/2000 620 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 4/29/96 ( C/R: Rosita Flores) minutes [121-2] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/10/2000)

07/07/2000 621 JOINT STATEMENT re: further proceedings in the CDC portion of the case by defendants, Plaintiﬀs [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/11/2000)

07/10/2000 2789 CERTIFICATE of Record mailed to USCA, counsel notiﬁed. [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/10/2000)

07/14/2000

622 OPPOSITION by defendants to motion for attorney fees and expenses arising from proceedings against the board of prison terms [594-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/14/2000)

07/14/2000 623 DECLARATION by Rochelle C. Holzmann on behalf of defendant re opposition [622-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/14/2000)

07/14/2000 624 DECLARATION by James P. Schratz on behalf of defendants [4:94cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/14/2000)

07/21/2000

2790

RECEIVED stipulation and order for extension of time regarding submissions of policies and procedures submitted by defendant [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/24/2000)

07/25/2000

625 SECOND STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : setting new schedule for review of remedial plans for individual CDC institutions: meet and confer re: objections by 7/28/00; plaintiﬀs' motion to request an evidentiary hearing, if any, by 8/11/00 (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/27/2000)

07/25/2000 626 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken conﬁrming further undisputed attorneys' fees and costs for 1999 ( Date Entered: 7/27/00) (cc: all

counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/27/2000)

07/25/2000

627 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : extending time for plaintiﬀs to ﬁle a noticed motion re: disputes by 8/4/00 (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/27/2000)

07/25/2000

628 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken that the CDC submit a revised remedial plan by 10/6/00; parties to submit a proposed injunction; respond to the draft is due within two weeks after service; plaintiﬀs to ﬁle a motion for entry of the injunction ( Date Entered: 7/27/00]) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/27/2000)

08/04/2000

629 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken approving defendants' policies and procedures: (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/07/2000)

08/08/2000 2791 RECEIVED "stipulation and order extending time to ﬁle motions to compel submitted by Plaintiﬀs [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/08/2000)

08/11/2000 630 EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS by Plaintiﬀs to the declaration of James P. Schratz [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/14/2000)

08/11/2000

631 REPLY BRIEF by Plaintiﬀs in support of motion for attorney fees and expenses arising from proceedings against the board of prison terms [594-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/14/2000)

08/11/2000 632 DECLARATION by Caroline N. Mitchell on behalf of Plaintiﬀs re motion reply [631-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/14/2000)

08/11/2000

633 DECLARATION by Michael W. Bien on behalf of Plaintiﬀs re motion reply [631-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/11/2018: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/14/2000)

08/11/2000

634 DECLARATION by Warren E. George on behalf of Plaintiﬀs re motion reply [631-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/11/2018: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/14/2000)

08/11/2000

635 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiﬀs of declaration [634-1], declaration [633-1], declaration [632-1], motion reply [631-1], objection [6301] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/14/2000)

08/14/2000 636 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : extending time for plaintiﬀs to ﬁle motions to compel (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-

02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/14/2000)

08/14/2000

637 EX-PARTE APPLICATION before Judge Claudia Wilken by Plaintiﬀ to extend time for motion on remedial plans for individual CDC institutions [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/14/2000)

08/14/2000

638 DECLARATION by Sara Norman on behalf of Plaintiﬀ re motion to extend time for motion on remedial plans for individual CDC institutions [637-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/14/2000)

08/14/2000

639 RESPONSE by defendants re motion to extend time for motion on remedial plans for individual CDC institutions [637-1] [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/15/2000)

08/14/2000 640 DECLARATION by James M. Humes on behalf of defendants re response [639-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/15/2000)

08/30/2000 641 CLERK'S LETTER dated 8/30/00 to Don J.H. Ortega re: letters submitted were forwarded to class counsel [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/31/2000)

09/01/2000

642 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken that plaintiﬀs shall retain right to ﬁle motion re: the written institutional policies [637-1] by 1/5/01 ( Date Entered: 9/6/00) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/06/2000)

09/06/2000

643 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken conﬁrming undisputed attorneys' fees and costs on the ﬁrst quarterly statement of 2000 ( Date Entered: 9/6/00) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/06/2000)

09/07/2000

EXHIBIT LOCATION for plaintiﬀs: stored at Shelf No. A-5; [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/07/2000)

09/07/2000

644 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : extending time to ﬁle motions re: transition plan and forms until 9/29/00 (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/08/2000)

09/27/2000

645 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : extending time for defendants to ﬁle revised remedial plans to 11/1/00 (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/28/2000)

10/03/2000

649 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : extending time to ﬁle motion re: Transition Plan to 10/30/00 (cc: all counsel) [4:94cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/11/2000)

10/06/2000 646 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by Plaintiﬀs to compel ﬁrst quarter 2000 fees and expenses with

Notice set for 11/10/00 at 10:00am [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/06/2000)

10/06/2000

647 DECLARATION by Michael W. Bien on behalf of Plaintiﬀ re motion to compel ﬁrst quarter 2000 fees and expenses [646-1] [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/11/2018: # 1 Part 2) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/06/2000)

10/06/2000

648 DECLARATION by Donald Specter on behalf of Plaintiﬀ re motion to compel ﬁrst quarter 2000 fees and expenses [646-1] [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/06/2000)

10/10/2000 651 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken re: defendant BPT's forms: (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/13/2000)

10/11/2000

650 REVISED NOTICE OF MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by Plaintiﬀs to compel ﬁrst quarter 2000 fees and expenses with Notice set for 11/14/00 at 2:00pm [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/12/2000)

10/12/2000 652 MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by Plaintiﬀ to enter permanent injunction [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/16/2000)

10/23/2000

653 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by Plaintiﬀ to enter permanent injunction with Notice set for 12/1/00 at 10:00am [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/24/2000)

10/23/2000

654 SECOND REVISED MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by Plaintiﬀ to compel 1st quarter 2000 fees and expenses with Notice set for 12/1/00 at 10:00am [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/24/2000)

10/24/2000 655 NOTICE by Plaintiﬀ of entry of [651-1] order [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/24/2000)

10/27/2000

656 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken conﬁrming undisputed attorneys' fee and costs on the second quarterly statement of 2000 ( Date Entered: 10/30/00) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/30/2000)

11/01/2000 657 OPPOSITION by defendants to motion to compel 1st quarter 2000 fees and expenses [654-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/02/2000)

11/01/2000 658 DECLARATION by Jessica N. Blonien on behalf of defendant re opposition [657-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/02/2000)

11/01/2000 659 DECLARATION by James P. Schratz on behalf of defendant re opposition [657-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/02/2000)

11/13/2000 660 MEMORANDUM by defendant Gray Davis in opposition to motion to

enter permanent injunction [653-1], motion to enter permanent injunction [652-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/14/2000)

11/15/2000

661 REPLY by Plaintiﬀ to opposition to motion to enter permanent injunction [653-1], motion to enter permanent injunction [652-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/15/2000)

11/15/2000 662 Evidentiary OBJECTIONS by Plaintiﬀ to declaration of James P. Schratz [624-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/15/2000)

11/15/2000 663 REPLY by Plaintiﬀ to opposition to motion to compel 1st quarter 2000 fees and expenses [654-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/15/2000)

11/15/2000 664 DECLARATION by Michael W. Bien on behalf of Plaintiﬀ re motion reply [663-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/15/2000)

11/30/2000

665 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : extending time to ﬁle revised remedial plans until 12/15/00 (cc: all counsel) [4:94cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/04/2000)

11/30/2000 666 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken re: training schedule: (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/04/2000)

12/04/2000

667 MINUTES: before Judge Claudia Wilken ( C/R Easteller Bruihl) ( Hearing Date: 12/1/00) that plaintiﬀs motion to enter permanent injunction [653-1], [652-1] is submitted; granting plaintiﬀs' motion to compel 1st quarter 2000 fees and expenses [654-1] [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/07/2000)

12/06/2000 668 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant of order [665-2] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/07/2000)

12/07/2000 669 Citations to the record in support of defendants' proposed injunction ﬁled by defendants [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/08/2000)

12/15/2000 670 RESPONSE by Plaintiﬀ re defendants' citations to the record [669-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/15/2000)

12/22/2000 671 REPLY by defendants to response to citations to the record [670-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/26/2000)

02/01/2001

672 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by Plaintiﬀs for attorney fees and expenses for post-judgment work arising from proceedings against the Board of Prison Terms and to set 20001 rates with Notice set for 3/9/01 at 10:00am [4:94-cv-

02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/01/2001)

02/01/2001

673 DECLARATION by Michael W. Bien on behalf of Plaintiﬀs re motion for attorney fees and expenses for post-judgment work arising from proceedings against the Board of Prison Terms and to set 20001 rates [672-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/12/2018: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/01/2001)

02/01/2001

674 DECLARATION by Donald Specter on behalf of Plaintiﬀs re motion for attorney fees and expenses for post-judgment work arising from proceedings against the Board of Prison Terms and to set 20001 rates [672-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/12/2018: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/01/2001)

02/01/2001

675 DECLARATION by Warren E. George on behalf of Plaintiﬀ re motion for attorney fees and expenses for post-judgment work arising from proceedings against the Board of Prison Terms and to set 20001 rates [672-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/01/2001)

02/01/2001

676 DECLARATION by Caroline M. Mitchell on behalf of Plaintifsf re motion for attorney fees and expenses for post-judgment work arising from proceedings against the Board of Prison Terms and to set 20001 rates [672-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/01/2001)

02/01/2001

677 DECLARATION by Richard Pearl on behalf of Plaintiﬀs re motion for attorney fees and expenses for post-judgment work arising from proceedings against the Board of Prison Terms and to set 20001 rates [672-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/01/2001)

02/01/2001

678 DECLARATION by John W. Keker on behalf of Plaintiﬀs re motion for attorney fees and expenses for post-judgment work arising from proceedings against the Board of Prison Terms and to set 20001 rates [672-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/01/2001)

02/20/2001

679 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken conﬁrming undisputed attorneys' fees and costs on the third quarterly statement of 2000 ( Date Entered: 2/21/01) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/21/2001)

02/21/2001

680 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : resetting hearing on motion for attorney fees and expenses for postjudgment work arising from proceedings against the Board of Prison Terms and to set 20001 rates [672-1] at 10:00am on 3/23/01; opposition due 3/2/01; reply due 3/9/01 (cc: all counsel)

[4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/22/2001)

02/23/2001

RECORD on Appeal to USCA, cnsl notiﬁed. re appeal [531-1] [4:94cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/23/2001)

02/27/2001 681 AMENDED Remedial Plan by defendants [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/28/2001)

03/02/2001 682 LETTER dated 3/1/01 from G. Michael German re: submission of the corrected CDC From 1845 [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/05/2001)

03/02/2001

683 OPPOSITION and OBJECTIONS by defendant Gray Davis to motion for attorney fees and expenses for post-judgment work arising from proceedings against the Board of Prison Terms and to set 20001 rates [672-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/05/2001)

03/02/2001 684 Plaintiﬀs' reservations to amended remedial plan [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) Modiﬁed on 12/12/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/05/2001)

03/09/2001

685 REPLY by Plaintiﬀs to opposition to motion for attorney fees and expenses for post-judgment work arising from proceedings against the Board of Prison Terms and to set 20001 rates [672-1] [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/12/2001)

03/09/2001

686 DECLARATION by Shana Margolis on behalf of Plaintiﬀs re motion for attorney fees and expenses for post-judgment work arising from proceedings against the Board of Prison Terms and to set 20001 rates [672-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/12/2001)

03/09/2001 687 DECLARATION by Roderick Coleman [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/13/2001)

03/19/2001 688 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken regarding posttrial discovery: (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/19/2001)

03/19/2001

689 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken denying plaintiﬀs' motion to strike motion defendants' unsupported factual contentions re: CDC monitoring [558-1] ( Date Entered: 3/20/01) (cc: all counsel) [4:94cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/20/2001)

03/19/2001

690 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken awarding plaintiﬀs $108,352.38 in attorneys' fees and costs incurred in Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections v. Yeskey [505-1], [565-1] ( Date Entered: 3/20/01) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/20/2001)

03/19/2001 691 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting plaintiﬀs' motion to compel ﬁrst quarter 2000 fees and expenses [646-1], [654-1] (

Date Entered: 3/20/01) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/20/2001)

03/21/2001

692 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting plaintiﬀs' motion for attorney fees and expenses arising from proceedings against the board of prison terms [594-1] ( Date Entered: 3/23/01) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/23/2001)

03/21/2001

693 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting plaintiﬀs' motion for attorney fees and expenses for post-judgment work arising from proceedings against the Board of Prison Terms and to set 20001 rates [672-1] ( Date Entered: 3/23/01) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/23/2001)

03/21/2001

694 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken that the court enters the following injunction (see document for details) against all defendants except the Chairman of the Board of Prison Terms; court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this injunction in accordance with the law [653-1], [652-1] ( Date Entered: 3/23/01) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/23/2001)

03/23/2001

695 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : extending time to ﬁle individual institutions' revised remedial plans to 3/20/01 (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/26/2001)

03/26/2001 696 RECEIPT from USCA of clerk's record on appeal [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/27/2001)

04/18/2001

697 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendants Gray Davis, et al from Dist. Court decision order [691-1], order [690-1], order [693-1], order [692-1] Fee status pd, receipt #4403437 [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/19/2001)

04/19/2001

Docket fee notiﬁcation form and case information sheet to USCA [697-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/19/2001)

04/19/2001

Copy of notice of appeal and docket sheet to all counsel [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/19/2001)

04/19/2001 698 CLERK'S LETTER dated 4/19/01 to William J. Newman re: returned of documents [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/20/2001)

04/20/2001 699 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Gray Davis from Dist. Court decision order [694-1] Fee status pd, receipt #4403453 [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/23/2001)

04/23/2001 2793 Docket fee notiﬁcation form and case information sheet to USCA [699-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/23/2001)

04/23/2001

Copy of notice of appeal and docket sheet to all counsel [4:94-cv-

02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/23/2001)

04/26/2001 2792 NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate Docket Number 0115779 [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) Modiﬁed on 12/13/2018 (cp, COURT STAFF). (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/30/2001)

04/27/2001

700 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION and Ordering Form ﬁled by defendants for dates 12/4/00 ; C/R: Easteller Bruihl; appeal [697-1] [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/01/2001)

05/01/2001

Additional RECORD on Appeal to USCA, cnsl notiﬁed. re appeal [531-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/01/2001)

05/03/2001 2794 NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate Docket Number 0115805 [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/07/2001)

05/09/2001

701 AMENDED TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION and Ordering Form ﬁled by defendant for dates 12/1/00 ; C/R: Easteller Bruihl; appeal [697-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/11/2001)

05/10/2001 702 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 12/1/00 ( C/R: Easteller Bruihl) minutes [667-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/14/2001)

05/14/2001 2795 CERTIFICATE of Record mailed to USCA, counsel notiﬁed. [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/14/2001)

05/14/2001

703 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken conﬁrming disputed attorneys' fees and costs on undisputed time on the third quaterly statement of 2000 ( Date Entered: 5/15/01) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/13/2018: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/15/2001)

05/14/2001

704 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken conﬁrming disputed attorneys' fees and costs on undisputed time on the second quarterly statement of 2000 ( Date Entered: 5/15/01) (cc: all counsel) [4:94cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/14/2018: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/15/2001)

05/17/2001

705 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : extending time in which to ﬁle individual institutions' revised remedial plans (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/21/2001)

05/18/2001 707 PROOF OF SERVICE by William L. Abrams of letter dated 4/24/01 to Millard Murphy [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/23/2001)

05/21/2001 706 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION and Ordering Form ﬁled by defendant for dates 12/1/00; C/R: Easteller Bruihl; appeal [699-1] [4:94-cv-

02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/22/2001)

05/22/2001 2796 CERTIFICATE of Record mailed to USCA, counsel notiﬁed. [4:94-cv02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/22/2001)

05/31/2001

708 LETTER from deputy clerk dated 5/29/01 to Frank Balcorta re: forwarding his letter dated 5/14/01 to class counsel [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/01/2001)

06/06/2001

2797

RECEIVED stipulated extension of time in which to ﬁle individual institutions' revised remedial plans and order thereon submitted by defendant [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/06/2001)

06/07/2001

709 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken extending time to ﬁle individual institutions' revised remedial plan : (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/08/2001)

06/11/2001 2798 RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiﬀ) conﬁrming further undisputed attorneys' fees and costs for 2000 [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/11/2001)

06/11/2001 2799 RECEIVED Letter from Frank Balcorta [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/11/2001)

06/11/2001

710 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken conﬁrming further undisputed attorneys' fees and costs for 2000 ( Date Entered: 6/12/01) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/14/2018: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/12/2001)

06/14/2001 711 LETTER from Frank Balcorta [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/15/2001)

06/15/2001

712 IN FORMA PAUPERIS AFFIDAVIT by Peter Daniel for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [4:94-cv-02307] ***DOCUMENT RETURNED PER ORDER #719*** (cp, COURT STAFF) Modiﬁed on 07/10/2001 (Entered: 06/21/2001)

06/15/2001

713 IN FORMA PAUPERIS AFFIDAVIT by David Charles Keller for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [4:94-cv-02307] ***DOCUMENT RETURNED PER ORDER #719*** (cp, COURT STAFF) Modiﬁed on 07/10/2001 (Entered: 06/21/2001)

06/15/2001

714 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS ﬁled by Davied Keller, Peter Daniel [4:94-cv-02307] ***DOCUMENT RETURNED PER ORDER #719*** (cp, COURT STAFF) Modiﬁed on 07/10/2001 Modiﬁed on 1/7/2019 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/21/2001)

06/26/2001 2800 RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiﬀs) conﬁrming undisputed attorneys' fees and costs on the fourth quarterly statement of 2000

[4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/26/2001)

06/29/2001

715 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE re petition for writ of mandamus by plaintiﬀs David Keller and Peter Daniel [714-1] [4:94-cv-02307] ***DOCUMENT RETURNED PER ORDER #719*** (kc, COURT STAFF) Modiﬁed on 07/10/2001 Modiﬁed on 1/7/2019 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/03/2001)

07/02/2001

716 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken conﬁrming undipusted attorneys' fees and costs on the fourth quarterly statement of 2000 ( Date Entered: 7/3/01) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/7/2019: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/03/2001)

07/05/2001 717 LETTER dated 7/3/01 from deputy clerk to Frank Balcorta re: return of documents submitted [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/10/2001)

07/05/2001 718 LETTER dated 7/3/01 from deputy clerk to Louis Tamale re: return of documents submitted [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/10/2001)

07/05/2001

719 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken that the Clerk shall unﬁle and return to petitioners Peter Daniel and David Keller's petition for writ of mandamus [714-1], aﬃdavit motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [713-1], aﬃdavit motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [712-1], and request for judicial notice [715-1] ( Date Entered: 7/10/01) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/10/2001)

07/09/2001

2807

RECEIVED stipulated extension of time in which to ﬁle individual institutions' revised remedial plans and order thereon submitted by defendants [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/10/2001)

07/09/2001 2806 RECEIVED Proposed Order (Plaintiﬀs) conﬁrming "Yeskey" fees and costs claimed during 2000 [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/10/2001)

07/09/2001

2805

RECEIVED Proposed Order (Plaintiﬀs) conﬁrming undisputed attorney's fees and costs on the ﬁrst quarterly statement of 2001 [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/10/2001)

07/12/2001

720 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken conﬁrming "Yeskey" fees and coss claimed during 2000 ( Date Entered: 7/13/01) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/7/2019: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/13/2001)

07/12/2001 721 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken conﬁrming undisputed attorneys' fees and costs on the ﬁrst quarterly statement of 2001 ( Date Entered: 7/13/01) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT

STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/7/2019: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/13/2001)

07/12/2001

722 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : extending time to ﬁle individual institutions' revised remedial plans (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/7/2019: # 1 Envelope) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/19/2001)

07/17/2001 723 LETTER dated 7/15/01 from Douglas L. Cecrle re: citation, and challenge the policy [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/20/2001)

07/19/2001 724 LETTER dated 7/18/01 from deputy clerk to Luke Oerleman re: return of documents [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/20/2001)

07/30/2001

725 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken that C-01-1281-MMC and C-942307-CW are NOT RELATED ( Date Entered: 8/1/01) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/01/2001)

08/16/2001

2808

RECEIVED stipulated extension of time in which to ﬁle individual institutions' revised remedial plans and order thereon submitted by defendants [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/16/2001)

08/21/2001

726 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken: extension of time in which to ﬁle individual institutions' revised remedial plans; Department of Corrections to ﬁle copies of revised OPs with the Court not later than 9/24/01; (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/24/2001)

08/27/2001

727 Notice and MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by David Charles Keller pursuant to Rule 24(a) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [4:94-cv-02307] ***RETURNED -see doc. #731*** (kc, COURT STAFF) Modiﬁed on 09/06/2001 (Entered: 08/29/2001)

08/27/2001

728 DECLARATION by Peter Daniel in support of motion pursuant to Rule 24(a) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [727-1] [4:94-cv02307] ***RETURNED-see doc. #731*** (kc, COURT STAFF) Modiﬁed on 09/06/2001 (Entered: 08/29/2001)

08/27/2001

729 DECLARATION by David Charles Keller in support of motion pursuant to Rule 24(a) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [727-1] [4:94-cv-02307] ***RETURNED - see doc. #731*** (kc, COURT STAFF) Modiﬁed on 09/06/2001 (Entered: 08/29/2001)

08/27/2001 730 REQUEST by Louis Richard Fresquez to have enclosed documents ***RETURNED-per letter (doc. #732)*** (kc, COURT STAFF) Modiﬁed on 09/12/2001 (Entered: 08/29/2001)

09/06/2001 731 LETTER dated 9/6/01 to David Keller re: return of documents (#s 727-729) ﬁled on 8/27/01 [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/06/2001)

09/10/2001 732 LETTER dated 9/10/01 to Louis R. Fresquez re: returned of document (doc. #730) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/12/2001)

09/20/2001 733 NOTICE OF APPEAL by David Charles Keller, Peter Daniel from Dist. Court decision letter [731-1] Fee status not paid [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/25/2001)

09/25/2001

Docket fee notiﬁcation form and case information sheet to USCA [733-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/25/2001)

09/25/2001

Copy of notice of appeal and docket sheet to all counsel [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/25/2001)

09/25/2001 2813 Mailed request for payment of docket fee to appellant (cc to USCA) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/25/2001)

09/25/2001 2812 CERTIFICATE of Record mailed to USCA, counsel notiﬁed. [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/25/2001)

10/02/2001

2811

NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate Docket Number 0116913 re 733 Notice of Appeal [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 1/8/2019 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/05/2001)

10/05/2001 734 IN FORMA PAUPERIS AFFIDAVIT by Peter Daniel for leave to proceed in forma pauperis ON APPEAL [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/09/2001)

10/09/2001 735 IN FORMA PAUPERIS AFFIDAVIT by Peter Daniel for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/16/2001)

10/10/2001

2809

RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiﬀs) conﬁrming undipusted BPT attorneys' fees and costs on the second quarterly statement of 2001 [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/15/2001)

10/10/2001

2810

RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiﬀs) conﬁrming undisputed CDC attorneys' fees and costs on the second quarterly statement of 2001 [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/15/2001)

10/10/2001 740 LETTER dated 10/7/01 from Peter Daniel re: request for transcript designation form [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/22/2001)

10/12/2001

737 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken conﬁrming undisputed CDC attorneys' fees and costs on the second quarterly statement of 2001; $424,371.75 becomes collectable and legal interest begins accruing on such sum as of the date this Order is entered; (Date Entered: 10/17/01) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/8/2019: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/17/2001)

10/15/2001 2814 RECEIVED letter from David Charles Keller regarding request to proceed in forma pauperis [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/16/2001)

10/15/2001

736 IN FORMA PAUPERIS DECLARATION by David Charels Keller in support of request leave to proceed in forma pauperis [4:94-cv02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/16/2001)

10/15/2001

738 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken conﬁrming undisputed BPT attorneys' fees and costs on the second quarterly statement of 2001; $43,393.40 becomes collectalbe and legal interest begins accruing on such sum as of the date this Order is entered; (Date Entered: 10/17/01) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/8/2019: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/17/2001)

10/19/2001 739 COPY of USCA Order: granting appellants' motion for an extension of time to ﬁle the reply brief until 11/16/01 [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/22/2001)

10/22/2001 741 NOTICE by Peter Daniel re: no transcripts necessary on appeal [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/23/2001)

10/22/2001

742 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken denying Peter Daniel's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal [735-1] ( Date Entered: 10/29/01) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/29/2001)

10/22/2001

Docket Modiﬁcation (Administrative) to order [742-1] denying Peter Daniel's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis ON APPEAL [734-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/29/2001)

10/24/2001

743 COPY of USCA Order: that within 21 days from the date of this order that appellant Keller pay the $105 fee or ﬁle an IFP [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/29/2001)

10/24/2001 744 NOTICE of no transcripts necessary on [733-1] appeal [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/29/2001)

10/29/2001

745 COPY of USCA Order: that appellants David Keller, et al shall move for voluntary dismissal or show cause why it should not be dismissed for lack of jurisidiction within 21 days after entry of this order [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/30/2001)

10/30/2001

746 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken DENYING aﬃdavit motion in support of request leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal by David Charles Keller [736-1] (Date Entered: 11/01/01) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/01/2001)

11/05/2001 747 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by

Plaintiﬀ for an order requiring defendants to make prison facilities structurally accessible [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/06/2001)

11/05/2001

748 DECLARATION by Sara Norman on behalf of Plaintiﬀ re motion for an order requiring defendants to make prison facilities structurally accessible [747-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/8/2019: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/06/2001)

11/05/2001

749 DECLARATION by Peter M. Robertson on behalf of Plaintiﬀ re motion for an order requiring defendants to make prison facilities structurally accessible [747-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/8/2019: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/06/2001)

11/08/2001

750 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Peter Daniel from Dist. Court decision order [742-1] Fee status NOT PAID [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) Modiﬁed on 11/14/2001 (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/8/2019: # 1 Envelope) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/14/2001)

11/08/2001

751 DECLARATION by Peter Daniel on behalf of Peter Daniel re appeal [750-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/8/2019: # 1 Envelope) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/14/2001)

11/14/2001 2818 Docket fee notiﬁcation form and case information sheet to USCA [750-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/14/2001)

11/14/2001

Copy of notice of appeal and docket sheet to all counsel [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/14/2001)

11/14/2001 2819 Mailed request for payment of docket fee to appellant (cc to USCA) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/14/2001)

11/14/2001 2820 CERTIFICATE of Record mailed to USCA, counsel notiﬁed. [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/14/2001)

11/19/2001

752 EX-PARTE APPLICATION before Judge Saundra B. Armstrong by defendant to extend time to ﬁle opposition to hear, motion for order requiring defendants to make prison facilities structurally accessible [4:94-cv-02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/20/2001)

11/19/2001 2815 RECEIVED Proposed Order ( defendant) re: motion to extend time to ﬁle opposition to hear, motion for order requiring defendants to

make prison facilities structurally accessible [752-1] [4:94-cv02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/20/2001)

11/21/2001

753 OPPOSITION by Plaintiﬀs to motion to extend time to ﬁle opposition to hear, motion for order requiring defendants to make prison facilities structurally accessible [752-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/26/2001)

11/26/2001 2816 NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate Docket Number 0117304 [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/30/2001)

11/26/2001 754 IN FORMA PAUPERIS AFFIDAVIT by Peter Daniel for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/30/2001)

11/26/2001

755 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting motion to extend time to ﬁle opposition to hear, motion for order requiring defendants to make prison facilities structurally accessible [752-1] to and including 1/18/02; hearing will be held at 10:00am on 2/8/02 ( Date Entered: 11/30/01) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/30/2001)

12/05/2001

2817

RECEIVED individual institutions' revised remedial plans & proposed order for implementation submitted by defendant [4:94cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/11/2001)

12/05/2001

756 Individual Institutions' Revised Remedial Plans VOLUME I- EXHIBITS A-L [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/10/2019: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/10/2019: # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibits J-L) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/11/2001)

12/05/2001

757 Individual Institutions' Revised Remedial Plans VOLUME II- EXHIBITS M-W ﬁled by defendants [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/14/2019: # 1 Exhibit M, # 2 Exhibit N, # 3 Exhibit O, # 4 Exhibit P, # 5 Exhibit Q, # 6 Exhibit R, # 7 Exhibit S, # 8 Exhibit T, # 9 Exhibit U) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/14/2019: # 10 Exhibit V, # 11 Exhibit W) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/11/2001)

12/05/2001

758 Individual Institutions' Revised Remedial Plans VOLUME IIIEXHIBITS X-GG ﬁled by defendants [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/14/2019: # 1 Exhibit X, # 2 EXHIBIT Y, # 3 Exhibit Z, # 4 Exhibit AA, # 6 Exhibit BB, # 7 Exhibit CC, # 8 Exhibit DD) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/14/2019: # 9 Exhibit EE) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/14/2019: # 10 Exhibit FF, # 11 Exhibit GG) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/11/2001)

12/07/2001

759 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken denying Peter Daniel's aﬃdavit motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [754-1] on appeal of denial of in forma pauperis application ( Date Entered: 12/12/01) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/12/2001)

12/20/2001 760 MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by Robert Cantwell to intervene [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/02/2002)

12/20/2001 761 MEMORANDUM in support of motion to intervene by Robert Cantwell [760-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/02/2002)

12/20/2001 762 DECLARATION by Robert Cantwell in support of motion to intervene [760-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/02/2002)

12/20/2001 763 IN FORMA PAUPERIS AFFIDAVIT for leave to proceed in forma pauperis by Intervenor Robert Cantwell [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/02/2002)

12/27/2001

764 NOTICE by Plaintiﬀs of reservations to defendants' Individual Institutions' Remedial Plans [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/23/2019: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/03/2002)

01/16/2002

2824

RECEIVED stipulation and proposed order regarding time for defendant BPT's compliance with the permanent injunction submitted by Plaintiﬀ [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/18/2002)

01/17/2002

765 MEMORANDUM by defendants in opposition to motion for an order requiring defendants to make prison facilities structurally accessible [747-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/18/2002)

01/17/2002

766 DECLARATION by Ernest C. Van Sant on behalf of defendants in opposition to motion for an order requiring defendants to make prison facilities structurally accessible [747-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/18/2002)

01/17/2002

767 EXHIBIT A to the declaration of Ernest C. Van Sant [766-1] [4:94-cv02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/30/2019: # 1 part 1, # 2 part 2, # 3 part 3, # 4 part 4, # 5 part 5) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/18/2002)

01/17/2002

768 EXHIBIT B to the declaration of Ernest C. Van Sant [766-1] [4:94-cv02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/25/2019: # 1 Part 2) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/18/2002)

01/17/2002 769 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE by defendants [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/18/2002)

01/18/2002 770 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken regarding time

for defendant BPT's compliance with the permanent injunction: (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/22/2002)

01/22/2002

771 CERTIFIED COPY of JUDGMENT from USCA aﬃrming in part, reversing in part, vacating in part, remanding in part the decision of the District Court [Appeal [531-1]; Costs $910.32 awarded to appellees [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/23/2002)

01/23/2002 772 CLERK's letter spreading the mandate to counsel. re appeal [531-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/23/2002)

01/23/2002 773 NOTICE by Plaintiﬀ of entry of [770-1] order [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/28/2002)

01/24/2002 774 CERTIFIED COPY of judgment from USCA dismissing the appeal [750-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/28/2002)

01/25/2002

776 REPLY by Plaintiﬀs to opposition to motion for an order requiring defendants to make prison facilities structurally accessible [747-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/29/2002)

01/25/2002

777 DECLARATION by Sara Norman on behalf of Plaintiﬀs in support of motion reply [776-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/22/2019: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/29/2002)

01/25/2002

2822

RECEIVED Proposed Order (Plaintiﬀs) re: motion for an order requiring defendants to make prison facilities structurally accessible [747-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/29/2002)

01/28/2002 775 CLERK's letter spreading the mandate to counsel. re appeal [750-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/28/2002)

01/29/2002

778 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken setting brieﬁng schedule re: proposed revised injunction and revised class certiﬁcation order to meet the requirements stated by the Ninth Circuit ( Date Entered: 1/30/02) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/30/2002)

01/29/2002 779 RECORD ON APPEAL RETURNED FROM USCA [531-1] [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/06/2002)

01/29/2002 780 Additional RECORD ON APPEAL RETURNED FROM USCA [531-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/06/2002)

01/31/2002 786 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE and prayer for relief ﬁled by Robert Cantwell [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF).

(Entered: 02/12/2002)

02/01/2002 789 DECLARATION by David Charles Keller in support of request to proceed without prepayment of ﬁling fees [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/14/2002)

02/06/2002

781 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken approving defendants' Individual Institutions' Revised Remedial Plan ( Date Entered: 2/11/02) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/11/2002)

02/06/2002

782 Individual Institutions' Revised Remedial Plans Volume I - EXHIBITS A-L [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/1/2019: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/1/2019: # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/1/2019: # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/1/2019: # 9 Exhibit I) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/1/2019: # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/11/2002)

02/06/2002

783 Individual Institutions' Revised Remedial Plans Volume II- EXHIBITS M-W [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/31/2019: # 1 Exhibit M) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/1/2019: # 2 Exhibit N, # 3 Exhibit O) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/1/2019: # 4 Exhibit P, # 5 Exhibit Q, # 6 Exhibit R, # 7 Exhibit S, # 8 Exhibit T) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/1/2019: # 9 Exhibit U, # 10 Exhibit V) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/1/2019: # 11 Exhibit W) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/11/2002)

02/06/2002

784 Individual Institutions' Revised Remedial Plans Volume III- EXHIBITS X-GG [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/31/2019: # 1 Exhibit X) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/31/2019: # 2 Exhibit Y) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/31/2019: # 3 Exhibit Z, # 4 Exhibit AA, # 5 Exhibit BB, # 6 Exhibits CC & DD) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/31/2019: # 7 Exhibit EE, # 8 Exhibit FF, # 9 Exhibit GG) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/11/2002)

02/08/2002

785 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting motion for an order requiring defendants to make prison facilities structurally accessible [747-1] ( Date Entered: 2/12/02) (cc: all counsel) [4:94cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/12/2002)

02/11/2002 787 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken re: class certiﬁcation: (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/12/2002)

02/11/2002 788 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken re: revised

injunction: (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/12/2002)

02/11/2002

790 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by David Charles Keller to intervene pursuant to rule 24(a) [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/14/2002)

02/11/2002

791 MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by David Keller, Peter Daniel for Writ of Mandamus [4:94-cv-02307] ***DOCUMENT RETURNED PER ORDER # 826 *** (cp, COURT STAFF) Modiﬁed on 05/13/2002 Modiﬁed on 2/4/2019 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/14/2002)

02/11/2002

792 DECLARATION by Peter Daniel re motion to intervene pursuant to rule 24(a) [790-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/4/2019: # 1 Envelope) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/14/2002)

02/11/2002 793 DECLARATION by David Charles Keller re motion to intervene pursuant to rule 24(a) [790-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/14/2002)

02/12/2002

794 MINUTES: before Judge Claudia Wilken ( C/R Starr Wilson) ( Hearing Date: 2/8/02) granting motion for an order requiring defendants to make prison facilities structurally accessible [747-1] [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/20/2002)

02/26/2002

795 ORDER conﬁrming attorney's fees by Judge Claudia Wilken conﬁrming that $310,194.11 becomes collectable and legal interest begins accruing on such sum as of the date this Order is entered fees (Date Entered: 3/1/02) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/1/2019: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/01/2002)

02/27/2002

796 COPY of judgment from USCA DISMISSING the appeal [733-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/1/2019: # 1 Order) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/01/2002)

03/01/2002 797 CLERK's letter spreading the mandate to counsel re appeal [733-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/01/2002)

03/04/2002

798 Notice and MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by Robert Cantwell for permissive joinder in intervention [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/4/2019: # 1 Envelope) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/07/2002)

03/06/2002

799 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken conﬁrming undisputed BPT attorney's fees and costs on the third quarterly statement of 2001; $85,500.42 becomes collectable and legal interest begins accruing on such sum as of the date this Order is entered; (Date Entered: 3/7/02) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF)

(Additional attachment(s) added on 2/4/2019: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/07/2002)

03/11/2002 800 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE by Peter Daniel, David Charles Keller [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/15/2002)

04/12/2002

2829

RECEIVED proposed order conﬁrming undisputed BPT attorneys' fees and costs on the 4th quarterly statement of 2001 submitted by Plaintiﬀ [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/15/2002)

04/12/2002

2828

RECEIVED proposed order conﬁrming undisputed CDC attorneys' fees and costs on the 4th quarterly statement of 2001 submitted by Plaintiﬀ [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/15/2002)

04/12/2002 801 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE by Robert Cantwell [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/16/2002)

04/17/2002

802 ORDER conﬁrming undisputed BPT attorneys' fees and costs on the fourth quarterly sttement of 2001 - $136,140.86 by Judge Claudia Wilken ( Date Entered: 4/18/02) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2019: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/18/2002)

04/17/2002

803 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken conﬁrming undisputed CDC attorneys' fees and costs on the fourth quarterly statement of 2001 - $396,251.40 ( Date Entered: 4/18/02) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2019: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/18/2002)

05/01/2002

804 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken that the Clerk shall unﬁle and return to petitioners the Petition for Writ of Mandamus ﬁled 6/15/01 ( Date Entered: 5/9/02) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/09/2002)

05/09/2002 805 NOTICE of submission pursuant to 2/8/02 court order ﬁled by defendants [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/13/2002)

05/09/2002 806 DECLARATION by A.L. Cota on behalf of defendants addressing CDC's compliance with 2/8/02 court order [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/13/2002)

05/09/2002 807 DECLARATION by Patti Magee on behalf of defendants addressing CDC's compliance with 2/8/02 court order [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/13/2002)

05/09/2002

808 DECLARATION by Mellie E. Briggs on behalf of defendants addressing CDC's comliance with 2/8/02 court order [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/13/2002)

05/09/2002

809 DECLARATION by Scott Williams on behalf of defendants addressing CDC's comliance with 2/8/02 court order [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/13/2002)

05/09/2002

810 DECLARATION by Robert R. Priolo on behalf of defendants addressing CDC's compliance with 2/8/02 court order [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/13/2002)

05/09/2002 811 DECLARATION by James Yates on behalf of defendants addressing CDC's compliance with 2/8/02 court order [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/13/2002)

05/09/2002

812 DECLARATION by Kim Blackseth on behalf of defendants addressing CDC's compliance with 2/8/02 court order [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/13/2002)

05/09/2002 813 DECLARATION by D.R. Busser on behalf of defendants addressing CDC's compliance with 2/8/02 court order [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/13/2002)

05/09/2002 814 DECLARATION by R. Padilla on behalf of defendants addressing CDC's compliance with 2/8/02 court order [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/13/2002)

05/09/2002

815 DECLARATION by Han Schindeler on behalf of defendants addressing CDC's compliance with 2/8/02 court order [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/13/2002)

05/09/2002 816 DECLARATION by Toni S. Frazer on behalf of defendants addressing CDC's compliance with 2/8/02 court order [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/13/2002)

05/09/2002

817 DECLARATION by Vincent S. Cullen on behalf of defendants addressing CDC's compliance with 2/8/02 court order [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/13/2002)

05/09/2002

818 DECLARATION by Deborah Sheppard-Brooks on behalf of defendants addressing CDC's compliance with 2/8/02 court order [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/13/2002)

05/09/2002

819 DECLARATION by Lea Ann Chrones on behalf of defendants addressing CDC's compliance with 2/8/02 court order [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/20/2019: # 1 Exhibits A-E, # 2 Exhibits F, # 3 Exhibits G-L) (cpS, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 2/20/2019 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/13/2002)

05/09/2002 820 DECLARATION by David M. White on behalf of defendants addressing CDC's compliance with 2/8/02 court order [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on

2/19/2019: # 1 Exhibit A) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/19/2019: # 2 Exhibits B-E) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/13/2002)

05/09/2002

821 DECLARATION by Sidney Cates on behalf of defendants addressing CDC's compliance with 2/8/02 court order [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/15/2019: # 1 Exhibits A-G, # 2 Exhibits H-S) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/13/2002)

05/09/2002

822 DECLARATION by J.L. Texeira on behalf of defendants addressing CDC's compliance with 2/8/02 court order [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/14/2019: # 1 Exhibits A-H, # 2 Exhibits I-O) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/13/2002)

05/09/2002

823 DECLARATION by Howard G. Taylor on behalf of defendants addressing CDC's compliance with 2/8/02 court order [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/21/2019: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/21/2019: # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/13/2002)

05/09/2002

824 DECLARATION by Jose H. Linan on behalf of defendants addressing CDC's compliance with 2/8/02 court order [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/21/2019: # 1 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibits C-D) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/13/2002)

05/09/2002

825 DECLARATION by Richard Louis Traversi, Jr. on behalf of defendants addressing CDC's compliance with 2/8/02 court order [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/21/2019: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/21/2019: # 2 Exhibits B-E) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/13/2002)

05/10/2002

826 AMENDED ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken that the Clerk shall unﬁle and return to the petitioners the petition for writ of mandamus ﬁled 2/11/02 [791-1] motion for Writ of Mandamus ( Date Entered: 5/13/02) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/13/2002)

06/06/2002

827 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken denying motion for permissive joinder in intervention [798-1], denying motion to intervene pursuant to rule 24(a) [790-1], denying motion to intervene [760-1] ( Date Entered: 6/13/02) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2019: # 1 ORDER) (cpS, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 2/5/2019 (cpS, COURT STAFF).

***DISREGARD ATTACHMENT 1 AS DUPLICATE***

(Entered: 06/13/2002)

06/11/2002

2836

RECEIVED stipulation and order re: defendants' compliance with the court's order to make prison facilities structurally accessible submitted by Plaintiﬀs [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/17/2002)

06/12/2002

828 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken re: defendants' compliance with the court's order to make prison facilities structurally accessible : (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/17/2002)

06/26/2002

829 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Robert Cantwell, Peter Daniel, David Keller from Dist. Court decision order [827-1] Fee status not paid [4:94cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/27/2002)

06/27/2002 2833 Docket fee notiﬁcation form and case information sheet to USCA [829-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/27/2002)

06/27/2002

Copy of notice of appeal and docket sheet to all counsel [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/27/2002)

06/27/2002 2835 Mailed request for payment of docket fee to appellant (cc to USCA) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/27/2002)

06/27/2002 2834 CERTIFICATE of Record mailed to USCA, counsel notiﬁed. [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/27/2002)

07/03/2002

2832

RECEIVED Proposed Order (Plaintiﬀs) conﬁrming undisputed BPT attorney's fees and costs on the ﬁrst quarterly statement of 2002, seting rates for 2002, and resolving disputed fees from 2001 [4:94cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/05/2002)

07/03/2002

2831

RECEIVED Proposed Order (Plaintiﬀs) conﬁrming undisputed CDC attorneys' fees and costs on the ﬁrst quarterly statement of 2002, setting rates for 2002, and resolving disputed fees from 2001 [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/05/2002)

07/05/2002 2830 NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate Docket Number 0216302 [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/08/2002)

07/05/2002 830 CERTIFICATE of NO transcripts necessary on appeal re: appeal [829-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/12/2002)

07/17/2002

831 Copy of USCA ORDER within 21 days of the entry of order, appellants to pay ﬁling fee, ﬁle motions to proceed in forma pauperis, or otherwise show cause why appeal should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute; (Date Entered: 7/22/02) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/22/2002)

07/23/2002

832 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken conﬁrming undisputed CDC attorneys' fee and costs on the ﬁrst quarterly statement of 2002, setting rates for 2002, and resolving disputed fees from 2001 ( Date Entered: 7/26/02) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2019: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/26/2002)

07/23/2002

833 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken conﬁrming undisputed BPT attorneys' fees and costs on the ﬁrst quarterly statement of 2002, setting rates for 2002, and resolving disputed fees from 2001 ( Date Entered: 7/26/02) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2019: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/26/2002)

08/22/2002 834 CLERK'S LETTER dated 8/22/02 to Joseph Alldredge re: return of his letter dated 4/16/02 [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/27/2002)

08/22/2002 835 CLERK'S LETTER dated 8/22/02 to Michael Harnett re: return of his letter dated 5/27/02 [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/27/2002)

09/12/2002 836 LETTER to Joseph Alldredge, dated 9/12/02, returning letter dated 8/26/02 [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/13/2002)

09/13/2002

837 Copy of USCA ORDER that appellants shall pay $105.00 to the District Court within 21 days of the date of Order; (Date Entered: 9/13/02) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/13/2002)

10/09/2002 838 CLERK'S LETTER dated 10/8/02 to Jamie Gonzalo re: return of document submitted to the court [4:94-cv-02307] (oh, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/11/2002)

10/15/2002 839 NOTICE of submission by defendants pursuant to February 8, 2002 Court Order [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/18/2002)

10/15/2002

840 DECLARATION by Architect Howard G. Taylor on behalf of defendants addressing CDC's compliance with February 8, 2002 Court Order [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/20/2019: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/18/2002)

10/15/2002

841 DECLARATION by Architect David M. White on behalf of defendants addressing CDC's compliance with February 8, 2002 Court Order [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/20/2019: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/20/2019: # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E) (cpS, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 2/20/2019 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/18/2002)

10/15/2002

842 DECLARATION by Architect Richard Louis Traversi, Jr. on behalf of defendants addressing CDC's compliance with February 8, 2002 Court Order [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/20/2019: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/18/2002)

10/15/2002

843 DECLARATION by Architect Jose H. Linan on behalf of defendants adressing CDC's compliance with February 8, 2002 Court Order [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/20/2019: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/18/2002)

10/28/2002

844 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken conﬁrming undisputed CDC attorneys' fees and costs on the second quarterly statement of 2002 ( Date Entered: 10/29/02) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2019: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/29/2002)

10/28/2002

845 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken conﬁrming undisputed BPT attorneys' fees and costs on the second quaterly statement of 2002 ( Date Entered: 10/29/02) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2019: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/29/2002)

12/02/2002 846 CERTIFIED COPY of USCA Order: dismissing the appeal [829-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/04/2002)

12/04/2002 847 CLERK's letter spreading the mandate to counsel. re appeal [829-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/04/2002)

12/19/2002 848 MAIL [847-1], [846-1] addressed to Sharon N. Perley returned from Post Oﬃce [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/19/2002)

01/10/2003

849 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken conﬁrming undisputed BPT attorneys' fees and costs on the third quarterly statement of 2002 ( Date Entered: 1/10/03) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/13/2003)

01/10/2003

850 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken conﬁrming undisputed CDC attorneys' fees and costs on the third quarterly statement of 2002 ( Date Entered: 1/13/03) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/25/2019: # 1 ORDER) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/13/2003)

03/05/2003 851 CERTIFIED COPY of judgment from USCA aﬃrming the decision of the District Court [699-1] Costs Taxed: $113.30 [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/07/2003)

03/07/2003 852 CLERK's letter spreading the mandate to counsel. re appeal [699-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered:

03/07/2003)

03/17/2003 853 MAIL [852-1] addressed to Sharon N. Perley returned from Post Oﬃce [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/18/2003)

04/15/2003 854 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : modifying protective order (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/16/2003)

04/21/2003

855 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken conﬁrming undisputed BPT attorney fees and costs on the fourth quarterly statement of 2002; wherefore it is conﬁrmed that $100,380.98 becomes collectable and legal interest begins accuring on the sum as of the date of this order ( Date Entered: 4/22/03) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (oh, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/22/2003)

04/21/2003

856 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken conﬁrming undisputed CDC attorney fees and costs on the fourth quarterly statement of 2002; wherefore it is conﬁrmed that $397,081.76 becomes collectable and legal interest begins accuring on such sum as of the date this order is entered ( Date Entered: 4/22/03) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv02307] (oh, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/22/2003)

04/30/2003 857 CERTIFIED COPY of judgment from USCA aﬃrming the decision of the District Court [697-1] Costs Taxed: $1,009.10 [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/01/2003)

05/02/2003 858 CLERK's letter spreading the mandate to counsel. re appeal [697-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/02/2003)

05/16/2003 859 MAIL [858-1] addressed to Sharon Perley, Esq. returned from Post Oﬃce [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/19/2003)

06/04/2003 860 NOTICE by Plaintiﬀs of change of address re Caroline N. Mitchell [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/09/2003)

06/30/2003 861 NOTICE by Plaintiﬀs of change of address [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/01/2003)

07/11/2003

862 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken conﬁrming undisputed CDC attorneys' fees and costs on the First Quarterly Statement of 2003; $330,882.26 becomes collectable and legal interest begins accruing on such sum as the date this Order is entered; (Date Entered: 7/14/03) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/14/2003)

08/05/2003

863 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken conﬁrming undisputed BPT attorneys' fees and costs on First Quarterly Statement of 2003; $89,843.00 becomes collectable and legal interest begins accruing on such sum as of the date this Order is entered; (Date Entered:

8/6/03) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/06/2003)

08/19/2003

Docket Modiﬁcation (Administrative) terminating case [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/19/2003)

10/02/2003 864 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : regarding posttrial discovery (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/06/2003)

10/16/2003

865 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken conﬁrming undisputed CDC attorneys' fees and costs on the second quarterly statement of 2003 ( Date Entered: 10/20/03) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/20/2003)

10/21/2003

866 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken conﬁrming undisputed BPT attorneys' fees and costs on the second quarterly statement of 2003 ( Date Entered: 10/24/03) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/24/2003)

10/21/2003

867 REPORT by Plaintiﬀs regarding Board of Prison Terms and California Dept. of Correction pilot program for parole revocation [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/24/2003)

10/21/2003

868 DECLARATION by Ernest Galvan on behalf of Plaintiﬀ re report [8671] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/25/2019: # 1 Exhibits A-E, # 2 Exhibits F-K) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/24/2003)

11/26/2003 869 LETTER dated 11/26/03 from deputy clerk to Douglas Raymond Nelson re: returned of documents submitted [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/02/2003)

12/09/2003 870 Copy of LETTER dated 12/9/03 to Douglas Raymong Nelson returning documents submitted in pro per [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/10/2003)

01/30/2004

871 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken conﬁrming undisputed BPT attorneys' fees and costs on the third quarterly statement of 2003 ( Date Entered: 2/4/04) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/04/2004)

02/05/2004

872 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken conﬁrming undisputed CDC attorneys' fees and costs on the third quarterly statement of 2003 ( Date Entered: 2/10/04) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/10/2004)

02/25/2004

873 CLERK'S LETTER to William J. Newman re returned of document (order to show cause and temporary restraining order) submitted to the court [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/27/2004)

03/04/2004 874 NOTICE by defendants of redesignation of counsel service [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/10/2004)

03/04/2004

Docket Modiﬁcation (Administrative) to notice [874-1] terminating attorneys Frances T. Grunder for Gray Davis, attorney James M. Humes for Gray Davis, attorney David P. Druliner for James Nielsen, attorney Morris Lenk for James Nielsen, attorney James M. Humes for James Nielsen, attorney David P. Druliner for BPT, attorney Morris Lenk for BPT, attorney James M. Humes for BPT, attorney Danette E. Valdez for Robert Presley, attorney Morris Lenk for Kevin Carruth, attorney Morris Lenk for Kyle McKinsey, attorney George D. Prince for James Gomez, attorney Morris Lenk for James Gomez, attorney Morris Lenk for Joseph C. Sandoval, attorney Morris Lenk for Marisela Montes and substituting attorney Jennifer G. Perkell [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/10/2004)

03/08/2004 875 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants of notice [874-1] [4:94-cv02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/11/2004)

03/26/2004

876 LETTER to Maario Zapata, dated 3/24/04, from Deputy Clerk regarding return of documents submitted in reference to Armstrong v Davis [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/30/2004)

04/07/2004

877 LETTER to Mario Zapata dated 4/7/04 from Deputy Clerk re: returned of document (supplement to request for judicial notice) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/08/2004)

04/08/2004 878 LETTER to J. Aldredge, dated 4/8/04, from Deputy Clerk returning documents submitted in reference to this case [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/12/2004)

05/07/2004

879 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken conﬁrming undisputed CDC attorneys' fees and costs on the fourth quarterly statement of 2003 ( Date Entered: 5/10/04) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/10/2004)

05/12/2004

880 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken conﬁrming undisputed BPT attorneys' fees and costs on the fourth quarterly statement of 2003 ( Date Entered: 5/14/04) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/14/2004)

05/18/2004 881 MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by Jon Remalia to intervene as a plaintiﬀ [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/20/2004)

05/18/2004 882 PROOF OF SERVICE of motion to intervene as a plaintiﬀ [881-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/20/2004)

06/08/2004

883 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken denying Jon Remalia's motion to intervene as a plaintiﬀ [881-1] ( Date Entered: 6/10/04) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/10/2004)

06/23/2004 884 NOTICE to counsel for withdrawal of exhibits in accordance with LR

79-4(b) [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/24/2004)

07/01/2004 885 RECEIPT of returned trial exhibits by plaintiﬀs [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) Modiﬁed on 07/02/2004 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/02/2004)

07/13/2004 886 MAIL [884-1] addressed to Sharon N. Perley, Esq. returned from Post Oﬃce [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/13/2004)

07/20/2004 889 CLERK'S LETTER dated 7/26/04 to Kirk M. Davis re: returned of documents [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/04/2004)

07/30/2004

887 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken concerning undisputed attorneys' fees and costs on the First Quarterly Statement of 2004; (Date Entered: 8/3/04) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/03/2004)

07/30/2004

888 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken conﬁrming undisputed attorneys' fees and costs on the First Quarterly Statement of 2004; (Date Entered: 8/3/04) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/03/2004)

08/03/2004

890 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken re unpaid appllate fees and expenses; Defendants to pay to Plaintiﬀs counsel the principal amount of $248,650 in reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/04/2004)

10/13/2004

891 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken conﬁrming undisputed CDC attorneys' fees and costs on the second quarterly statement of 2004 ( Date Entered: 10/19/04) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/19/2004)

10/19/2004

892 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken conﬁrming undipusted BPT attorneys' fees and costs on the second quarterly statement of 2004 ( Date Entered: 10/25/04) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/25/2004)

02/10/2005

893 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken conﬁrming undisputed CDC attorneys' fees and costs on the 3rd quarterly statement of 2004 ( Date Entered: 2/11/05) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/11/2005)

02/10/2005

894 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken conﬁrming undisputed BPT attorneys' fees and costs of the 3rd quarterly statement of 2004 ( Date Entered: 2/11/05) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/11/2005)

04/18/2005

895 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken conﬁrming undisputed BPT attorneys' fees and costs on the fourth quarter statement of 2004 and resolving disputed attorneys' fees and costs on the third quarterly statement of 2004 ( Date Entered: 4/20/05) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional

attachment(s) added on 3/11/2019: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/20/2005)

04/27/2005

896 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken conﬁrming undisputed CDC attorneys' fees and costs on the fourth quarterly statement of 2004 and resolving disputed attorneys' fees and costs on the third quarterly statement of 2004 ( Date Entered: 4/29/05) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/11/2019: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/29/2005)

08/10/2005

897 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken conﬁrming undisputed BPT attorneys' fees and costs on the ﬁrst quarterly statement of 2005 (Date Entered: 8/11/05) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/11/2005)

08/10/2005

898 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken conﬁrming undisputed CDC attorneys' fees and costs on the ﬁrst quarterly statement of 2005 (Date Entered: 8/11/05) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/11/2005)

10/03/2005 899 Clerk's Letter dated 10/3/05 to Louis R. Fresquez re: returned of submitted document [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/04/2005)

10/06/2005

900 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken conﬁrming undisputed BOARD OF PAROLE attorneys' fees and costs on the second quarterly statement of 2005 ( Date Entered: 10/7/05) (cc: all counsel) [4:94cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/07/2005)

10/06/2005

901 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken conﬁrming undisputed CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION and REHABILITATION, ADULT OPERATINGS AND ADULT PROGRAMS attorneys' fees and costs on the second quarterly statement of 2005 ( Date Entered: 10/7/05) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/07/2005)

01/11/2006

902 ORDER conﬁrming undisputed board of parole hearing attorneys' fees and costs on the third quarterly statement of 2005. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/11/06. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/11/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/20/2006)

01/18/2006 903 ***DISREGARD MAIN DOCUMENT. INCORRECT ATTACHMENT. SEE ATTACHMENT 1***

ORDER conﬁrming undisputed California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation, Adult Operations and Adult Programs attorneys' fees and costs on the Third Quarterly Statement of 2005. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/18/06. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/18/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/8/2019: # 1 ORDER) (cpS, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 3/8/2019 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/24/2006)
02/03/2006 904 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Benjamin Terrence Rice

(Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Service by mail)(Rice, Benjamin) (Filed on 2/3/2006) (Entered: 02/03/2006)

02/06/2006 905 CLERK'S NOTICE to counsel Benjamin Rice re: Documents E-Filed in a case not designated for ECF (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/6/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/06/2006)

04/21/2006

906 MOTION for order to enforce paragraphs 15-17 of the permanent injunction ﬁled by John Armstrong. Motion Hearing set for 5/26/2006 10:00 AM. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/21/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/24/2006)

04/21/2006

928 Declaration of Holly Baldwin in Support of 906 MOTION for order to enforce paragraphs 15-17 of the permanent injunction ﬁled byJohn Armstrong, et al. (Related document(s) 906 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/21/2006)***FILED UNDER SEAL***

(cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/22/2006)

04/25/2006

907 MOTION to Seal declaration of Holly Baldwin ﬁled by John Armstrong, et al. Motion Hearing set for 5/26/2006 10:00 AM. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/25/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/25/2006)

05/02/2006

908 MOTION for Extension of Time to File an opposition to motion to enforce the permanent injunction ﬁled by defendants. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/2/2006) Modiﬁed on 5/3/2006 (cp, COURT STAFF). (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/03/2006)

05/02/2006

909 Declaration of Benjamin T. Rice in Support of 908 MOTION for Extension of Time to File ﬁled bydefendants (Related document(s) 908 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/2/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/03/2006)

05/04/2006

910 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 908 MOTION for Extension of Time to File an opposition to motion to enforce the permanent injunction ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 908 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/4/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/05/2006)

05/05/2006

911 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 908 Motion for Extension of Time to File an opposition to plaintiﬀ's motion to enforce the permanent injunction, up to and including 5/12/06 (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/5/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/05/2006)

05/11/2006

912 Letter from deputy clerk re: returned of application for an emergency injunction for violation of ADA Americans with disabilities submitted by Gordon D. Meador. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/11/2006) Modiﬁed on 5/17/2006 (kk, COURT STAFF). (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/15/2006)

05/11/2006 913 ORDER conﬁrming undisputed CA Dept. of Correction and Rehabilitation, Adult Operatings, and Adult Programs attorneys' fees and costs on the fourth quarterly statement of 2005. Signed

by Judge Claudia Wilken on 5/11/06. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/11/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/15/2006)

05/12/2006

914 Memorandum in Opposition to plaintiﬀ's motion to enforce permanent injunction ﬁled byJoseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/12/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/15/2006)

05/12/2006

915 DECLARATION of Pat Cassady in opposition to plaintiﬀs' motion to enforce permanent injunction ﬁled byJoseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/12/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/15/2006)

05/12/2006

916 DECLARATION of Robert Ambroselli in opposition ﬁled byJoseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/12/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/15/2006)

05/12/2006

917 Declaration of Benjamin T. Rice ﬁled byJoseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/12/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/15/2006)

05/12/2006

918 Declaration of Mary L. Swanson ﬁled byJoseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/12/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/15/2006)

05/12/2006

919 Declaration of Alberto Caton ﬁled byJoseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/12/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/15/2006)

05/15/2006 920 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Sharon N. Perley. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/15/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/15/2006)

05/17/2006

921 ORDER conﬁrming undisputed Board of Parole Hearings Attorneys' fees and costs on the fourth quarterly statement of 2005. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 5/17/06. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/17/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/17/2006)

05/18/2006

922 MOTION to Seal declarations of Holly Baldwin, and Anne Mania ﬁled by John Armstrong, et al. Motion Hearing set for 5/26/2006 10:00 AM. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/18/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/18/2006)

05/18/2006

923 AMENDED MOTION to Seal declarations of Holly Baldwin, and Anne Mania in support of motion for order to enforce paragraphs 15-17 of the permanent injunction ﬁled by John Armstrong. Motion Hearing set for 5/26/2006 10:00 AM. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/18/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/18/2006)

05/18/2006

924 Reply Memorandum in support re 906 MOTION for order to enforce paragraphs 15-17 of the permanent injunction ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/18/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/18/2006)

05/18/2006

925 Reply Declaration of Mary Swanson re 906 MOTION for order to enforce paragraphs 15-17 of the permanent injunction ﬁled byJohn Armstrong, et al. (Related document(s) 906 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/18/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/18/2006)

05/18/2006

926 Reply Declaration of Michael W. Bien in Support of 906 MOTION for order to enforce paragraphs 15-17 of the permanent injunction ﬁled byJohn Armstrong, et al. (Related document(s) 906 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/18/2006) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/13/2019: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B (part1 ), # 3 Exhibit B (part 2), # 4 Exhibit B (part 3), # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D, # 7 Exhibit E, # 8 Exhibit F, # 9 Exhibit G) (cpS, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 3/13/2019 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/18/2006)

05/18/2006

927 STIPULATION AND ORDER to ﬁle underseal the declaration of Holly Baldwin in support of motion for order to enforce paragraphs 15-17 of the permanent injunction by Judge Claudia Wilken; ****terminated 907 Motion to Seal (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/18/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/22/2006)

05/18/2006

929 STIPULATION AND ORDER to ﬁle underseal the reply declarations of Holly Baldwin and Anne Mania in support of motion for order to enforce paragraphs 15-17 of the permanent injunction by Judge Claudia Wilken. ***terminated 923 Motion to Seal Document (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/18/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/22/2006)

05/18/2006

930 Reply Declaration of Anne Mania in Support of 906 MOTION for order to enforce paragraphs 15-17 of the permanent injunction ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 906 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/18/2006)***FILED UNDER SEAL***

(cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/22/2006)

05/18/2006

931 Reply Declaration of Holly Baldwin in Support of 906 MOTION for order to enforce paragraphs 15-17 of the permanent injunction ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 906 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/18/2006)***FILED UNDER SEAL***

(cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/22/2006)
05/26/2006 932 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 5/26/2006 before Claudia Wilken (Date Filed: 5/26/2006) re 906 MOTION for order to enforce

paragraphs 15-17 of the permanent injunction ﬁled by John Armstrong,. (Court Reporter Diane Skillman.) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 5/26/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/31/2006)

05/30/2006 933 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 906 Motion to enforce revised permanent injunction (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/30/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/31/2006)

06/30/2006

934 ORDER conﬁrming undisputed Board of Parole Hearings attorneys' fees and costs on the ﬁrst quarterly statement of 2006. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 6/30/06. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/30/2006) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/11/2019: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/03/2006)

07/31/2006

935 ORDER conﬁrming undisputed CA Dept. of Corrrections and Rehabilitation, Adult Operations and Adult Programs attorneys' fees and costs on the ﬁrst quarterly statement of 2006. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 7/31/06. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/31/2006) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/11/2019: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/01/2006)

08/25/2006

936 Joint certiﬁcation of meet and confer results pursuant to 5/30/06 order granting motion to enforce permanent injunction by John Armstrong, et al (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/25/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/25/2006)

09/11/2006 937 STIPULATION AND ORDER amending Armstrong Remedial Plan. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 9/11/06. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/11/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/12/2006)

10/03/2006

938 ORDER conﬁrming undisputed CDCR/AOAP attorneys' fess and costs on the second quarterly statement of 2006. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 9/29/06. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/3/2006) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/11/2019: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/04/2006)

10/11/2006

939 ORDER conﬁrming undisputed Board of Parole Hearings attorneys' fees and costs on the second quarterly statement of 2006. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/11/06. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/11/2006) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/11/2019: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/12/2006)

10/17/2006

940 ORDER conﬁrming undisputed Division of Adult Parole Operations attorneys' fee and costs on the second quarterly statement of 2006. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/17/06. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/17/2006) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/11/2019: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/19/2006)

11/02/2006

941 Notice of Motion and MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction to enjoin Defendants' illegal transfers ﬁled by Peter Richardson, Steven Hill, John Armstrong, David Rose, David Blessing, Elio Castro, Elmer Umbenhower, Raymond Hayes, Gene Horrocks, James Amauric, Kiah Mincey, Clifton Feathers, Willie Johnson, David Badillo, James Simmons, Richard Ponciano, Flora

Abrams, Joey Gough, Timothy Whisman, Jack Swensen, Billy Beck, Judy Fendt, Walter Fratus, Gregory Sandoval, Darlene Madison. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/2/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/02/2006)

11/02/2006

942 Declaration of Donald Specter in Support of 941 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and preliminary injunction to enjoin Defendants' illegal transfers ﬁled byPeter Richardson, Steven Hill, John Armstrong, David Rose, David Blessing, Elio Castro, Elmer Umbenhower, Raymond Hayes, Gene Horrocks, James Amauric, Kiah Mincey, Clifton Feathers, Willie Johnson, David Badillo, James Simmons, Richard Ponciano, Flora Abrams, Joey Gough, Timothy Whisman, Jack Swensen, Billy Beck, Judy Fendt, Walter Fratus, Gregory Sandoval, Darlene Madison. (Related document(s) 941 ) (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/2/2006) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/11/2019: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/02/2006)

11/02/2006 2840 Received Proposed Order re 941 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/2/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/02/2006)

11/02/2006

943 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken DENYING 941 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and DENYING without prejudice to reﬁling as a noticed motion the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/2/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/02/2006)

11/07/2006

944 Notice of Motion and MOTION for permissive intervention and for modiﬁcation of protective order; memorandum of points and authorities ﬁled by Plaintiﬀs-Intervenors. Motion Hearing set for 12/15/2006 at 10:00 AM. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/7/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/08/2006)

11/07/2006

945 Declaration of Michael W. Bien in Support of 944 MOTION for permissive intervention and for modiﬁcation of protective order ﬁled by Plaintiﬀs-Intervenors. (Related document(s) 944 ) (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/7/2006) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/1/2019: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/08/2006)

11/09/2006 946 NOTICE of Change of Law Firm Name and Address by John Armstrong (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/9/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/09/2006)

11/15/2006

947 NOTICE of assignment of counsel by Joseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/16/2006)

11/15/2006

948 MOTION to Seal declarations of Sara Norman, Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld, Thomas Nolan, Amy Whelan, Anne Mania, and Megan Hagler ﬁled by John Armstrong, et al. Motion Hearing set for 12/22/2006 10:00 AM. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/16/2006)

11/15/2006

949 MOTION to convene a three judge panel to limit prison population ﬁled by John Armstrong, et al. Motion Hearing set for 12/22/2006 10:00 AM. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2006) Modiﬁed on 11/16/2006 (cp, COURT STAFF). (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/16/2006)

11/15/2006

950 MOTION for enforcement and further remedial orders ﬁled by John Armstrong, et al. Motion Hearing set for 12/22/2006 10:00 AM. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/16/2006)

11/15/2006

951 Declaration of Elsie Barnes in Support of 950 MOTION for enforcement and further remedial orders, 949 MOTION to convene a three judge panel to limit prison population ﬁled byJohn Armstrong, et al. (Related document(s) 950 , 949 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2006) Modiﬁed on 11/16/2006 (cp, COURT STAFF). (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/16/2006)

11/15/2006

952 Declaration of Darryl Slack in Support of 950 MOTION for enforcement and further remedial orders, 949 MOTION to convene a three judge panel to limit prison population ﬁled byJohn Armstrong, et al. (Related document(s) 950 , 949 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2006) Modiﬁed on 11/16/2006 (cp, COURT STAFF). (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/16/2006)

11/15/2006

953 Declaration of William Ewing in Support of 950 MOTION for enforcement and further remedial orders, 949 MOTION to convene a three judge panel to limit prison population ﬁled byJohn Armstrong, et al. (Related document(s) 950 , 949 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2006) Modiﬁed on 11/16/2006 (cp, COURT STAFF). (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/16/2006)

11/15/2006

954 Declaration of Paul Bonaiuto in Support of 950 MOTION for enforcement and further remedial orders, 949 MOTION to convene a three judge panel to limit prison population ﬁled byJohn Armstrong, et al. (Related document(s) 950 , 949 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2006) Modiﬁed on 11/16/2006 (cp, COURT STAFF). (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/16/2006)

11/15/2006

955 Declaration of Jamie Cerna in Support of 950 MOTION for enforcement and further remedial orders, 949 MOTION to convene a three judge panel to limit prison population ﬁled byJohn Armstrong, et al. (Related document(s) 950 , 949 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2006) Modiﬁed on 11/16/2006 (cp, COURT STAFF). (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/16/2006)

11/15/2006 956 Declaration of Anthony Craig in Support of 950 MOTION for enforcement and further remedial orders, 949 MOTION to convene

a three judge panel to limit prison population ﬁled byJohn Armstrong, et al. (Related document(s) 950 , 949 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/16/2006)

11/15/2006

957 Declaration of Gary Hines in Support of 950 MOTION for enforcement and further remedial orders, 949 MOTION to convene a three judge panel to limit prison population ﬁled byJohn Armstrong, et al. (Related document(s) 950 , 949 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/16/2006)

11/15/2006

958 Declaration of Peter Cole in Support of 950 MOTION for enforcement and further remedial orders, 949 MOTION to convene a three judge panel to limit prison population ﬁled byJohn Armstrong, et al. (Related document(s) 950 , 949 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/16/2006)

11/15/2006

959 Declaration of Carlos Marsh in Support of 950 MOTION for enforcement and further remedial orders, 949 MOTION to convene a three judge panel to limit prison population ﬁled byJohn Armstrong, et al. (Related document(s) 950 , 949 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/16/2006)

11/15/2006

960 Declaration of Mark Arrington in Support of 950 MOTION for enforcement and further remedial orders, 949 MOTION to convene a three judge panel to limit prison population ﬁled byJohn Armstrong, et al. (Related document(s) 950 , 949 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/16/2006)

11/15/2006

961 Declaration of Javier Balbuena in Support of 950 MOTION for enforcement and further remedial orders, 949 MOTION to convene a three judge panel to limit prison population ﬁled byJohn Armstrong, et al. (Related document(s) 950 , 949 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/16/2006)

11/15/2006

962 Declaration of Kory Roby in Support of 950 MOTION for enforcement and further remedial orders, 949 MOTION to convene a three judge panel to limit prison population ﬁled byJohn Armstrong, et al. (Related document(s) 950 , 949 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/16/2006)

11/15/2006

963 Declaration of Michael W. Bien in Support of 950 MOTION for enforcement and further remedial orders, 949 MOTION to convene a three judge panel to limit prison population ﬁled byJohn Armstrong, et al. (Related document(s) 950 , 949 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2006) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/13/2019: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9

Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, # 19 Exhibit S, # 20 Exhibit T, # 21 Exhibit U, # 22 Exhibit V, # 23 Exhibit W, # 24 Exhibit X) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/16/2006)

11/17/2006 964 MOTION for an order to enjoin transfers ﬁled by John Armstrong, et al. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/17/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/20/2006)

11/17/2006

965 Declaration of Donald Specter in Support of 964 MOTION for an order to enjoin transfers ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 964 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/17/2006) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/1/2019: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/20/2006)

11/17/2006 966 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Sharon N. Perley. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/17/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/20/2006)

11/20/2006

967 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by John Armstrong re 962 Declaration in Support,, 954 Declaration in Support,, 950 MOTION for enforcement and further remedial orders, 949 MOTION to convene a three judge panel to limit prison population, 955 Declaration in Support,, 951 Declaration in Support,, 956 Declaration in Support,, 948 MOTION to Seal, 952 Declaration in Support,, 957 Declaration in Support,, 958 Declaration in Support,, 960 Declaration in Support,, 953 Declaration in Support,, 961 Declaration in Support,, 959 Declaration in Support,, 963 Declaration in Support, etc. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/20/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/21/2006)

11/21/2006

968 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by John Armstrong re 944 MOTION for permissive intervention and for modiﬁcation of protective order, 945 Declaration in Support (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/21/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/21/2006)

11/21/2006

971 MOTION for Extension of Time to File an opposition to motion for permissive intervention and for modiﬁcation of protective order, and motion for rescheduling of hearing date ﬁled by Gray Davis. Motion Hearing set for 12/15/2006 10:00 AM. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/21/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/22/2006)

11/21/2006

972 Declaration of Katherine K. Nelson in Support of 971 MOTION for Extension of Time to File an opposition to motion for permissive intervention and for modiﬁcation of protective order, and motion for rescheduling of hearing date ﬁled byGray Davis, et al. (Related document(s) 971 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/21/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/22/2006)

11/22/2006 969 MOTION to reschedule the hearing date and date to respond to plaintiﬀs' motions to convene a three-judge panel and for

enforcement ﬁled by Gray Davis, et al. Motion Hearing set for 12/22/2006 10:00 AM. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/22/2006) Modiﬁed on 11/22/2006 (cp, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 11/22/2006 (cp, COURT STAFF). (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/22/2006)

11/22/2006

970 Declaration of Katherine K. Nelson in Support of 969 MOTION to reschedule the hearing date and date to respond to plaintiﬀs' motions to convene a three-judge panel and for enforcement ﬁled byGray Davis, et al. (Related document(s) 969 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/22/2006) Modiﬁed on 11/22/2006 (cp, COURT STAFF). (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/22/2006)

11/22/2006

973 Memorandum in Opposition to defendants' request for extension of time and motion for rescheduling of hearing date ﬁled byRobert Hecker, Ralph Coleman. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/22/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/27/2006)

11/22/2006

974 DECLARATION of Michael W. Bien in opposition to defendants' motion for rescheduling of hearing date ﬁled byRobert Hecker, Ralph Coleman. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/22/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/27/2006)

11/22/2006

975 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Robert Hecker, Ralph Coleman re 973 Memorandum in Opposition, 974 Declaration in Opposition by messenger service (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/22/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/27/2006)

11/22/2006

976 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Robert Hecker, Ralph Coleman re 973 Memorandum in Opposition, 974 Declaration in Opposition by US mail (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/22/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/27/2006)

11/22/2006

977 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting in part 971 Motion for Extension of Time to File opposition, and reset hearing date and brieﬁng schedule; opposition due 12/1/06; reply is due 12/8/06; hearing on plaintiﬀs' motion for permissive intervention and modiﬁcation of the protective is set for 12/22/06 (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/22/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/27/2006)

11/22/2006

Set/Reset Deadlines as to 944 MOTION for permissive intervention and for modiﬁcation of protective order. Motion Hearing set for 12/22/2006 10:00 AM. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/22/2006) (Entered: 11/27/2006)

11/27/2006 978 Letter from John Wodatch re removal of Sharon Perley and Mary Beth Uitti from the docket sheet and service list. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/27/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/27/2006)

11/27/2006

981 MOTION for extension of time to implement disability tracking system and plan ordered on 5/30/06 ﬁled by Arnold Schwarzenegger, et al. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/27/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/28/2006)

11/27/2006 982 Declaration of Katherine K. Nelson in Support of 981 MOTION for

extension of time to implement disability tracking system and plan ordered on 5/30/06 ﬁled byArnold Schwarzenegger. (Related document(s) 981 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/27/2006) Modiﬁed on 11/29/2006 (cp, COURT STAFF). (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/28/2006)

11/27/2006

983 Declaration of Michael K. Brady in Support of 981 MOTION for extension of time to implement disability tracking system and plan ordered on 5/30/06 ﬁled byArnold Schwarzenegger, et al. (Related document(s) 981 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/27/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/28/2006)

11/27/2006 984 CERTIFICATION of funding pursuant to 5/30/06 order by Arnold Schwarzenegger, et al (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/27/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/28/2006)

11/27/2006 987 Letter from Gregg McLean Adam dated 11/22/06 re: request for permission to ﬁle Amicus Curiae. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/27/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/01/2006)

11/28/2006 979 RESPONSE to defendants' request to reschedule hearing and brieﬁng dates by John Armstrong, et al. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/28/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/28/2006)

11/28/2006

980 Declaration of Sara Norman in Support of 979 Response ﬁled byJohn Armstrong, et al. (Related document(s) 979 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/28/2006) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/1/2019: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/28/2006)

11/28/2006

985 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Arnold Schwarzenegger re 970 Declaration in Support,, 969 MOTION to reschedule the hearing date and date to respond to plaintiﬀs' motions to convene a threejudge panel and for enforcement (supplemental) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/28/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/29/2006)

11/30/2006

986 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting in part and denying in part 969 MOTION to reschedule the hearing date, and date to respond to plaintiﬀs' motions to convene a three-judge panel and for enforcement (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/30/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/30/2006)

11/30/2006 2846 Received Document: Stipulation and Proposed Order by Arnold Schwarzenegger, et al. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/30/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/30/2006)

11/30/2006

988 ORDER granting re 987 Letter from CA Correctional Peace Oﬃcers' Association (CCPOA) requesting leave to ﬁle an amicus curiae brief; brief to be ﬁled and served by 5:00pm on 11/30/06. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 11/30/06. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/30/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/01/2006)

11/30/2006 989 Memorandum in Opposition re 981 MOTION for extension of time to implement disability tracking system and plan ordered on 5/30/06

ﬁled byJohn Armstrong, et al. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/30/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/01/2006)

11/30/2006

990 Declaration of Ernest Galvan in opposition re 981 MOTION for extension of time to implement disability tracking system and plan ordered on 5/30/06 ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 989 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/30/2006) Modiﬁed on 12/1/2006 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/1/2019: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/01/2006)

11/30/2006

991 DECLARATION of Anne Mania in Opposition to 981 MOTION for extension of time to implement disability tracking system and plan ordered on 5/30/06 ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 981 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/30/2006) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/1/2019: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/01/2006)

11/30/2006

992 DECLARATION of Holly Baldwin in Opposition to 981 MOTION for extension of time to implement disability tracking system and plan ordered on 5/30/06 ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 981 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/30/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/01/2006)

11/30/2006

2845

RECEIVED DOCUMENT: Proposed Order Denying re 981 MOTION for extension of time to implement disability tracking system and plan ordered on 5/30/06 by John Armstrong. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/30/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/01/2006)

11/30/2006

993 STIPULATION AND ORDER that the hearing for 12/22/06 is taken oﬀ calendar; plaintiﬀs' 964 MOTION to enjoin transfers is DENIED AS MOOT, and hearing on that motion only is vacated. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 11/30/06. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/30/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/01/2006)

12/01/2006

994 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by John Armstrong re 990 Declaration in Support,, 992 Declaration in Opposition, 991 Declaration in Opposition, 989 Memorandum in Opposition (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/1/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/01/2006)

12/01/2006

995 Amicus Curiae Brief entered by Christine Albertine, Benjamin C. Sybesma, Jennifer Spencer Stoughton, Ronald Yank, Esq, Gregg McLean Adam, Esq on behalf of California Correctional Peace Oﬃcers' Association. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/1/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/01/2006)

12/01/2006

996 Memorandum in Opposition re 944 MOTION for permissive intervention and for modiﬁcation of protective order ﬁled byArnold Schwarzenegger. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/1/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/04/2006)

12/01/2006

997 Declaration of Katherine Nelson in Support of 996 Memorandum in Opposition ﬁled byArnold Schwarzenegger. (Related document(s) 996 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/1/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/04/2006)

12/01/2006

998 Request for Judicial Notice ﬁled byArnold Schwarzenegger. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/1/2006) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/1/2019: # 1 Exihibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/04/2006)

12/01/2006 1000 STIPULATION AND ORDER to extend time to ﬁle amicus curiae brief. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 12/1/06. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/1/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/05/2006)

12/04/2006

999 Memorandum in Opposition re 949 MOTION to convene a three judge panel to limit prison population ﬁled byArnold Schwarzenegger. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/4/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/05/2006)

12/05/2006 1001 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by California Correctional Peace Oﬃcers' Association re 988 Order, (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/5/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/05/2006)

12/08/2006

1002

MOTION to Appoint Counsel Notice of Assignment of Counsel and Request to Argue at Hearing on Hecker Plaintiﬀs' Motion for Permissive Intervention and Modiﬁcation of Protective Order ﬁled by Joseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger. Motion Hearing set for 12/22/2006 10:00 AM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (Mello, Paul) (Filed on 12/8/2006) (Entered: 12/08/2006)

12/08/2006

1003

Reply Memorandum in support of 944 MOTION for permissive intervention and for modiﬁcation of protective order ﬁled byRobert Hecker, Ralph Coleman. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/8/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/11/2006)

12/08/2006

1004

Reply Declaration of Michael W. Bien in Support of 944 MOTION for permissive intervention and for modiﬁcation of protective order ﬁled byRobert Hecker, Ralph Coleman. (Related document(s) 944 ) (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/8/2006) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/1/2019: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/11/2006)

12/08/2006 1005

Reply to Opposition re 949 MOTION to convene a three judge panel to limit prison population ﬁled byPeter Richardson, Steven Hill, John Armstrong, David Rose, David Blessing, Elio Castro, Elmer Umbenhower, Raymond Hayes, Gene Horrocks, James Amauric, Kiah Mincey, Clifton Feathers, Willie Johnson, David Badillo, James Simmons, Richard Ponciano, Flora Abrams, Joey Gough, Timothy Whisman, Jack Swensen, Billy Beck, Judy Fendt, Walter Fratus, Gregory Sandoval, Darlene Madison. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/8/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/11/2006)

12/11/2006 1006 AMENDED Stipulation and Order re 993 STIPULATION AND ORDER. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 12/11/06. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/11/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/12/2006)

12/12/2006

1007

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Joseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger re 977 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File, (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/12/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/12/2006)

12/12/2006

1008

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Joseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger re 993 Stipulation and Order, (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/12/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/12/2006)

12/13/2006 1009 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by California Correctional Peace Oﬃcers' Association re 1000 Stipulation and Order (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/13/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/13/2006)

12/13/2006 1010 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting in part and denying in part 948 Motion to Seal attorneys' declarations (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/13/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/13/2006)

12/14/2006

1011

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken DENYING 981 Motion for Extension of Time to implement disability tracking system and plan ordered on 5/30/06. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/14/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/14/2006)

12/18/2006 1012 STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISION ﬁled byArnold Schwarzenegger, et al. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/18/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/19/2006)

12/19/2006

1013

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 944 Motion for permissive intervention and for modiﬁcation of protective order (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/19/2006)

12/19/2006

1014

ORDER continuing hearing 949 MOTION to convene a three judge panel to limit prison population ﬁled by John Armstrong to 1/12/07 at 10:00am; vacating 12/22/06 hearing. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 12/19/06. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/19/2006)

12/19/2006

Set/Reset Deadlines as to 950 MOTION for enforcement and further remedial orders, 949 MOTION to convene a three judge panel to limit prison population. Motion Hearing set for 1/12/2007 10:00 AM. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2006) (Entered: 12/19/2006)

12/19/2006 1015

***ENTERED IN ERROR, SEE DOCUMENT #1016***

Redacted Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld in Support of 950 MOTION for enforcement and further remedial orders, 949 MOTION to convene a three judge panel to limit prison population ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 950 , 949 ) (cp, COURT

STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2006) Modiﬁed on 12/20/2006 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/20/2006)

12/19/2006 1016

Redacted Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld with exhibit A in Support of 950 MOTION for enforcement and further remedial orders, 949 MOTION to convene a three judge panel to limit prison population ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 950 , 949 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2006) Modiﬁed on 12/20/2006 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/1/2019: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/20/2006)

12/19/2006

1017

Redacted Declaration of Megan Hagler in Support of 950 MOTION for enforcement and further remedial orders, 949 MOTION to convene a three judge panel to limit prison population ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 950 , 949 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/20/2006)

12/19/2006 1018

Redacted Declaration of Anne Mania with exhibits D & R in Support of 950 MOTION for enforcement and further remedial orders, 949 MOTION to convene a three judge panel to limit prison population ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 950 , 949 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2006) Modiﬁed on 12/20/2006 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/1/2019: # 1 Exhibit D, # 2 Exhibit R) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/20/2006)

12/19/2006

1019

Redacted Declaration of Thomas Nolan in Support of 950 MOTION for enforcement and further remedial orders, 949 MOTION to convene a three judge panel to limit prison population ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 950 , 949 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/20/2006)

12/19/2006 1020

Redacted Declaration of Amy Whelan with exhibits C,K,P & T in Support of 950 MOTION for enforcement and further remedial orders, 949 MOTION to convene a three judge panel to limit prison population ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 950 , 949 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2006) Modiﬁed on 12/20/2006 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/1/2019: # 1 Exhibit C, # 2 Exhibit K, # 3 Exhibit P, # 4 Exhibit T) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/20/2006)

12/19/2006 1021

Redacted Declaration of Sara Norman with exhibits A-E & V in Support of 950 MOTION for enforcement and further remedial orders, 949 MOTION to convene a three judge panel to limit prison population ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 950 , 949 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2006) Modiﬁed on 12/20/2006 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/2/2019: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibits B-E, V) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/20/2006)

12/19/2006 1022 EXHIBITS B-Z re 1016 Redacted Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1016 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2006)

***FILED UNDER SEAL***
(cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/20/2006) 12/19/2006 1023 EXHIBITS A-Z re 1017 Redacted Declaration of Megan Hagler, ﬁled
byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1017 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2006)
***FILED UNDER SEAL***
(cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/20/2006) 12/19/2006 1024 EXHIBITS AA-ZZ re 1017 Redacted Declaration of Megan Hagler,
ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1017 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2006)
***FILED UNDER SEAL***
(Additional attachment(s) added on 8/13/2019: # 1 Exhibits AA-FF, # 2 Exhibits GG-OO, # 3 Exhibits PP-ZZ) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/20/2006) 12/19/2006 1025 EXHIBITS AAA-YYY re 1017 Redacted Declaration of Megan Hagler, ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1017 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2006)
***FILED UNDER SEAL***
(Additional attachment(s) added on 8/13/2019: # 1 Exhibits NNNYYY) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/20/2006) 12/19/2006 1026 EXHIBITS A,B,D-J,L-O,Q-S re 1020 Redacted Declaration of Amy Whelan, ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1020 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2006)
***FILED UNDER SEAL***
(cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/20/2006) 12/19/2006 1027 EXHIBITS A-C, E-Q, S re 1018 Redacted Declaration of Anne Mania,
ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1018 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2006)
***FILED UNDER SEAL***
(cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/20/2006) 12/19/2006 1028 EXHIBITS A-S re 1019 Redacted Declaration of Thomas Nolan, ﬁled
byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1019 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2006)
***FILED UNDER SEAL***

(cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/20/2006)
12/19/2006 1029 EXHIBITS F-U, W-Z, AA-HH re 1021 Declaration in Support, ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1021 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2006)

***FILED UNDER SEAL***

(cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/20/2006)

12/22/2006 1030 Memorandum in Opposition re 950 MOTION for enforcement ﬁled byArnold Schwarzenegger, et al. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/22/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/22/2006)

12/22/2006

1031

Declaration of Katherine Nelson in Support of 1030 Memorandum in Opposition ﬁled byArnold Schwarzenegger. (Related document(s) 1030 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/22/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/22/2006)

12/22/2006

1032

Declaration of Alberto Caton in Support of 1030 Memorandum in Opposition ﬁled byArnold Schwarzenegger. (Related document(s) 1030 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/22/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/22/2006)

12/22/2006

1033

Declaration of Scott Kernan in Support of 1030 Memorandum in Opposition ﬁled byArnold Schwarzenegger. (Related document(s) 1030 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/22/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/22/2006)

12/28/2006 1034 Letter to Ramon Esparza, dated 12/28/06, from Deputy Clerk regarding return of documents. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/28/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/03/2007)

12/29/2006 1035

Reply to Opposition re 950 MOTION for enforcement and further remedial orders ﬁled byPeter Richardson, Steven Hill, John Armstrong, David Rose, David Blessing, Elio Castro, Elmer Umbenhower, Raymond Hayes, Gene Horrocks, James Amauric, Kiah Mincey, Clifton Feathers, Willie Johnson, David Badillo, James Simmons, Richard Ponciano, Flora Abrams, Joey Gough, Timothy Whisman, Jack Swensen, Billy Beck, Judy Fendt, Walter Fratus, Gregory Sandoval, Darlene Madison. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/29/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/03/2007)

12/29/2006 1036

REPLY Declaration of Sara Norman in Support of 950 MOTION for enforcement and further remedial orders ﬁled byPeter Richardson, Steven Hill, John Armstrong, David Rose, David Blessing, Elio Castro, Elmer Umbenhower, Raymond Hayes, Gene Horrocks, James Amauric, Kiah Mincey, Clifton Feathers, Willie Johnson, David Badillo, James Simmons, Richard Ponciano, Flora Abrams, Joey Gough, Timothy Whisman, Jack Swensen, Billy Beck, Judy Fendt, Walter Fratus, Gregory Sandoval, Darlene Madison. (Related document(s) 950 ) (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/29/2006) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/3/2019: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2

Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/03/2007)

12/29/2006 2847

Received Proposed Injunction by Peter Richardson, Steven Hill, John Armstrong, David Rose, David Blessing, Elio Castro, Elmer Umbenhower, Raymond Hayes, Gene Horrocks, James Amauric, Kiah Mincey, Clifton Feathers, Willie Johnson, David Badillo, James Simmons, Richard Ponciano, Flora Abrams, Joey Gough, Timothy Whisman, Jack Swensen, Billy Beck, Judy Fendt, Walter Fratus, Gregory Sandoval, Darlene Madison. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/29/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/03/2007)

12/29/2006

Received Modiﬁed Protective Order by Peter Richardson, Steven Hill, John Armstrong, David Rose, David Blessing, Elio Castro, Elmer Umbenhower, Raymond Hayes, Gene Horrocks, James Amauric, Kiah Mincey, Clifton Feathers, Willie Johnson, David Badillo, James Simmons, Richard Ponciano, Flora Abrams, Joey Gough, Timothy Whisman, Jack Swensen, Robert Hecker, Ralph Coleman, Billy Beck, Judy Fendt, Walter Fratus, Gregory Sandoval, Darlene Madison. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/29/2006) (Entered: 01/03/2007)

12/29/2006 1037

REPLY Declaration of Ernest Galvan in Support of 950 MOTION for enforcement and further remedial orders and 949 MOTION to convene a three judge panel to limit prison population ﬁled byPeter Richardson, Steven Hill, John Armstrong, David Rose, David Blessing, Elio Castro, Elmer Umbenhower, Raymond Hayes, Gene Horrocks, James Amauric, Kiah Mincey, Clifton Feathers, Willie Johnson, David Badillo, James Simmons, Richard Ponciano, Flora Abrams, Joey Gough, Timothy Whisman, Jack Swensen, Billy Beck, Judy Fendt, Walter Fratus, Gregory Sandoval, Darlene Madison. (Related document(s) 950 , 949 ) (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/29/2006) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/3/2019: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/03/2007)

12/29/2006 1038

REPLY Declaration of Walter L. Kautzky in Support of 950 MOTION for enforcement and further remedial orders ﬁled byPeter Richardson, Steven Hill, John Armstrong, David Rose, David Blessing, Elio Castro, Elmer Umbenhower, Raymond Hayes, Gene Horrocks, James Amauric, Kiah Mincey, Clifton Feathers, Willie Johnson, David Badillo, James Simmons, Richard Ponciano, Flora Abrams, Joey Gough, Timothy Whisman, Jack Swensen, Billy Beck, Judy Fendt, Walter Fratus, Gregory Sandoval, Darlene Madison. (Related document(s) 950 ) (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/29/2006) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/3/2019: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/03/2007)

12/29/2006

1039

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Peter Richardson, Steven Hill, John Armstrong, David Rose, David Blessing, Elio Castro, Elmer Umbenhower, Raymond Hayes, Gene Horrocks, James Amauric, Kiah Mincey, Clifton Feathers, Willie Johnson, David Badillo, James Simmons, Richard Ponciano, Flora Abrams, Joey Gough, Timothy

Whisman, Jack Swensen, Billy Beck, Judy Fendt, Walter Fratus, Gregory Sandoval, Darlene Madison re 1037 Declaration in Support,,, 1038 Declaration in Support,, (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/29/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/03/2007)

01/03/2007

1040

Certiﬁcation of Implementation of Interim Plan and Tracking System by Joseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/3/2007) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/04/2007)

01/10/2007 1041 Clerk's Letter to Barry S. Jameson re return of documents submitted. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/10/2007) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/11/2007)

01/12/2007 1046

Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 1/12/2007 before Claudia Wilken (Date Filed: 1/12/2007). GRANTING 950 Motion for enforcement and further remedial order. Motion 949 to Convene a three judge panel to limit prison population is SUBMITTED. Status Conferences set for 3/30/2007 at 01:30 PM and 6/8/2007 at 1:30 PM. (Court Reporter Diane Skillman.) (kc, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 1/12/2007) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/19/2007)

01/16/2007 1044 Modiﬁed PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/17/07. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/16/2007) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/18/2007)

01/17/2007 1042 Letter to Judge Claudia Wilken, dated 1/16/2007, from Sara Norman regarding drafts of Injunction. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/17/2007) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/17/2007)

01/17/2007 1043 Letter to Judge Claudia Wilken, dated 1/16/2007, from Katherine Kylin Nelson regarding proposed Injunction. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/17/2007) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/18/2007)

01/18/2007 1045 INJUNCTION. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/18/07. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/18/2007) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/18/2007)

01/22/2007

Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 6/8/2007 01:30 PM. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/22/2007) (Entered: 01/22/2007)

01/22/2007

Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 3/30/2007 01:30 PM. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/22/2007) (Entered: 01/22/2007)

01/22/2007 1047 NOTICE of reassignment of counsel by defendants(cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/22/2007) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/22/2007)

01/23/2007

1048

ORDER conﬁrming undisputed Division of Adult Parole Operations attorneys' fees and costs on the third quarterly statement of 2006. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/23/07. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2007) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/4/2019: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/24/2007)

01/23/2007

1049

ORDER conﬁrming undisputed Board of Parole Hearings attorneys' fees and costs on the third quarterly statement of 2006. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/23/07. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2007) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/4/2019: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/24/2007)

02/01/2007

1050

STIPULATION AND ORDER rescheduling Status Conference to 3/23/2007 01:30 PM before Hon. Claudia Wilken.. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 2/1/07. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/1/2007) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/02/2007)

02/01/2007

1051

ORDER conﬁrming undisputed CA Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Adult Operations and Adult Programs attorneys' fees and costs on the third quarterly statement of 2006. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 2/1/07. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/1/2007) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/4/2019: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/02/2007)

02/01/2007 1052

Procedures regarding ADA accessibility at parole proceedings (Part 1) by Joseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Arnold Schwarzenegger (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/1/2007) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/5/2019: # 1 Part 2, # 2 Part 3, # 3 Part 4, # 4 Part 5) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/02/2007)

02/01/2007 1053

Procedures regarding ADA accessibility at parole proceedings (Part II) by James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Arnold Schwarzenegger (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/1/2007) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/12/2019: # 1 part 2, # 2 part 3) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/12/2019: # 3 part 4) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/02/2007)

02/01/2007

1054

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Joseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger re 1053 Notice (Other), Notice (Other), 1052 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/1/2007) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/02/2007)

02/02/2007 1055

AMENDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Joseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger re 1053 , 1052 Procedures regarding ADA accessibility at parole hearings Part I and Part II (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/2/2007) Modiﬁed on 2/5/2007 (kc, COURT STAFF). (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/05/2007)

02/15/2007 1056 Review of sign-language interpreter contracts utilized for parole proceedings by Arnold Schwarzenegger, et al (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/15/2007) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/15/2007)

02/20/2007 1057 Plan to ensure reasonable accomodations for parole proceedings

by defendants (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/20/2007) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/20/2007)

03/16/2007

1058

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT ﬁled by John Armstrong, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/16/2007) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/4/2019: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/19/2007)

03/23/2007

1060

Minute Entry: Status Conference held; (Date Filed: 3/23/2007). Further Status Conference set for 6/7/2007 02:00 PM before Hon. Claudia Wilken. (Court Reporter Diane Skillman.) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 3/23/2007) (Entered: 03/27/2007)

03/23/2007

1061

Minute Entry: Status Conference (Date Filed: 3/23/2007). Status Conference set for 6/7/2007 02:00 PM before Hon. Claudia Wilken. (Court Reporter Diane Skillman.) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 3/23/2007) (Entered: 03/28/2007)

03/27/2007 1059 CLERK'S NOTICE re Inclusion of Case Into E-Filing Program (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/27/2007) (Entered: 03/27/2007)

03/28/2007 1062 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 1/12/07 before Judge Claudia Wilken. Court Reporter: Diane E. Skillman.. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/28/2007) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/29/2007)

04/03/2007

1063

Proposed Order Conﬁrming Undisputed California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Adult Operations and Adult Programs Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the Fourth Quarterly Statement of 2006 by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 4/3/2007) (Entered: 04/03/2007)

04/05/2007 1064 Proposed Order Conﬁrming Undisputed Board of Parole Hearings Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the Fourth Quarterly Statement of 2006 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 4/5/2007) (Entered: 04/05/2007)

04/06/2007 1065 Proposed Order Conﬁrming Undisputed Division of Adult Parole Operations Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the 4th Quarterly Statement 2006 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 4/6/2007) (Entered: 04/06/2007)

04/11/2007

1066

ORDER re 1065 Conﬁrming Undisputed Division of Adult Parole Operations Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the 4th Quarterly Statement 2006. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 4/11/07. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/11/2007) (Entered: 04/11/2007)

04/11/2007

1067

ORDER re 1064 Conﬁrming Undisputed Board of Parole Hearings Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the Fourth Quarterly Statement of 2006. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 4/11/07. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/11/2007) (Entered: 04/11/2007)

04/11/2007 1068 ORDER re 1063 Conﬁrming Undisputed California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Adult Operations and Adult

Programs Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the Fourth Quarterly Statement of 2006. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 4/11/07. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/11/2007) (Entered: 04/11/2007)

04/17/2007 1069 Letter from Donald Specter. (Specter, Donald) (Filed on 4/17/2007) (Entered: 04/17/2007)

04/18/2007

1070

NOTICE OF RECENT DECISION by Joseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit COURTESY COPY OF DECISION)(Nygaard, Jennifer) (Filed on 4/18/2007) Modiﬁed on 4/19/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/18/2007)

04/20/2007

1071

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: APPOINTMENT OF COURT EXPERT Show Cause Response due by 4/30/2007.. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 4/20/07. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/20/2007) (Entered: 04/20/2007)

04/27/2007 1072 ORDER RE: SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 4/27/07. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/27/2007) (Entered: 04/27/2007)

04/30/2007

1073

RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: APPOINTMENT OF COURT EXPERT by Joseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger (Nygaard, Jennifer) (Filed on 4/30/2007) Modiﬁed on 5/1/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/30/2007)

04/30/2007 1074 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by John Armstrong. (Specter, Donald) (Filed on 4/30/2007) (Entered: 04/30/2007)

04/30/2007 1075 ORDER RE: APPOINTMENT OF COURT EXPERT. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 4/30/07. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/30/2007) (Entered: 04/30/2007)

05/09/2007

1076

*** DOCUMENT REMOVED, PLEASE SEE REFILED DOCUMENT, DOCKET # 1083 . *** Declaration of Ernest Galvan in Support of Supplemental Brieﬁng re Motion to Convene a Three-Judge Panel ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Galvan, Ernest) (Filed on 5/9/2007) Modiﬁed on 5/10/2007 (ewn, COURT STAFF). Additional attachment(s) added on 5/22/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 5/22/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/09/2007)

05/09/2007

1077

***DOCUMENT REMOVED, PLEASE SEE REFILED DOCUMENT DOCKET # 1084 . *** Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld in Support of Supplemental Brieﬁng re Motion to Convene a Three-Judge Panel ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 5/9/2007) Modiﬁed on 5/10/2007 (ewn, COURT STAFF). Additional attachment(s) added on 5/22/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 5/22/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/09/2007)

05/09/2007

1078

Declaration of Sara Norman in Support of Plaintiﬀs' Supplemental Brieﬁng ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits A through F# 2 Exhibit Exhibits G through N)(Norman, Sara) (Filed on 5/9/2007) (Entered: 05/09/2007)

05/09/2007 1079 Declaration of Megan Hagler in Support of Plaintiﬀs' Supplemental Brieﬁng ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Norman, Sara) (Filed on 5/9/2007) (Entered: 05/09/2007)

05/09/2007 1080 Declaration of Susan Christian in Support of Plaintiﬀs' Supplemental Brieﬁng ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Norman, Sara) (Filed on 5/9/2007) (Entered: 05/09/2007)

05/09/2007 1081 Declaration of Zoe Schonfeld in Support of Plaintiﬀs' Supplemental Brieﬁng ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Norman, Sara) (Filed on 5/9/2007) (Entered: 05/09/2007)

05/09/2007 1082 Brief Plaintiﬀs' Supplemental Brieﬁng in Support of Motion to Convene Three-Judge Panel ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Norman, Sara) (Filed on 5/9/2007) (Entered: 05/09/2007)

05/09/2007 1083 Declaration of Ernest Galvan CORRECTION OF DOCKET # 1076 ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Galvan, Ernest) (Filed on 5/9/2007) (Entered: 05/09/2007)

05/09/2007

1084

Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld in Support of Plaintiﬀs' Supplemental Brieﬁng CORRECTION OF DOCKET # 1077 ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 5/9/2007) (Entered: 05/09/2007)

05/10/2007

1085

Declaration of Megan Hagler (Supplemental) in Support of Plaintiﬀs' Supplemental Brieﬁng ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Specter, Donald) (Filed on 5/10/2007) (Entered: 05/10/2007)

05/10/2007 1086 Declaration of Mark Anthony Jones in Support of Plaintiﬀs' Supplemental Brieﬁng ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Specter, Donald) (Filed on 5/10/2007) (Entered: 05/10/2007)

05/10/2007 1087 Declaration of Vincent Matthews in Support of Plaintiﬀs' Supplemental Brieﬁng ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Specter, Donald) (Filed on 5/10/2007) (Entered: 05/10/2007)

05/10/2007 1094 EXHIBITS re 1079 Declaration of Megan Hagler in Support of Plaintiﬀs' Supplemental Brieﬁng ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1079 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/10/2007)

***FILED UNDER SEAL***

(cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/17/2007)
05/10/2007 1095 EXHIBITS re 1080 Declaration of Susan Christian in Support of Plaintiﬀs' Supplemental Brieﬁng ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1080 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/10/2007)

***FILED UNDER SEAL***

(cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/17/2007)

05/10/2007

1096

EXHIBIT A re 1083 Declaration of Ernest Galvan in Support of supplemental brieﬁng re motion to convene a three-judge panel to limit prison population ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1083 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/10/2007)

***FILED UNDER SEAL***

Modiﬁed on 5/17/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/17/2007)

05/10/2007

1097

EXHIBITS re 1084 Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld in Support of supplemental brieﬁng re motion to convene a threejudge panel to limit prison population ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1084 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/10/2007)

***FILED UNDER SEAL***

(cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/17/2007)

05/11/2007

1088

MOTION to Seal Exhibits to Declarations of Gay Grunfeld, Ernest Galvan, Susan Christian, and Megan Hagler in Support of Supplemental Brieﬁng re Motion to Convene Three-Judge Panel ﬁled by John Armstrong. Motion Hearing set for 6/7/2007 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 5/11/2007) (Entered: 05/11/2007)

05/11/2007

1089

[Proposed] Order Granting Administrative Motion to File Exhibits to Declarations Under Seal ﬁled by John Armstrong. Motion Hearing set for 6/7/2007 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 5/11/2007) Modiﬁed on 5/14/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/11/2007)

05/15/2007

1090

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1088 Motion to Seal Exhibits to Declarations of Gay Grunfeld, Ernest Galvan, Susan Christian, and Megan Hagler in Support of Supplemental Brieﬁng re Motion to Convene Three-Judge Panel (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/15/2007) (Entered: 05/15/2007)

05/17/2007 1091 Proposed Order Conﬁrming Payment of the Remaining Board of Parole Hearings and Division of Adult Parole Operations Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Third Quarter of 2006 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 5/17/2007) (Entered: 05/17/2007)

05/17/2007

1092

MOTION to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document Improperly Redacted Declarations of Grunfeld and Galvan ﬁled by John Armstrong. Motion Hearing set for 6/7/2007 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 5/17/2007) (Entered: 05/17/2007)

05/17/2007 1093 Proposed Order Permanently Deleting Improperly Redacted

Declarations of Grunfeld and Galvan ﬁled by John Armstrong. Motion Hearing set for 6/7/2007 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 5/17/2007) Modiﬁed on 5/18/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/17/2007)

05/21/2007

1098

ORDER re 1091 Conﬁrming Payment of the Remaining Board of Parole Hearings and Division of Adult Parole Operations Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Third Quarter of 2006 (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/21/2007) (Entered: 05/21/2007)

05/21/2007

1099

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO CONVENE A THREE-JUDGE PANEL TO LIMIT PRISON POPULATION by Joseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Nygaard, Jennifer) (Filed on 5/21/2007) Modiﬁed on 5/22/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/21/2007)

05/21/2007

1100

DECLARATION OF KATHRYN P. JETT IN SUPPORT OF 1099 DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO CONVENE A THREE-JUDGE PANEL TO LIMIT PRISON POPULATION ﬁled byJoseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Related document(s) 1099 ) (Nygaard, Jennifer) (Filed on 5/21/2007) Modiﬁed on 5/22/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/21/2007)

05/21/2007

1101

DECLARATION OF DEBORAH HYSEN IN SUPPORT OF 1099 DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO CONVENE A THREE-JUDGE PANEL TO LIMIT PRISON POPULATION ﬁled byJoseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Related document(s) 1099 ) (Nygaard, Jennifer) (Filed on 5/21/2007) Modiﬁed on 5/22/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/21/2007)

05/21/2007

1102

DECLARATION OF SCOTT KERNAN IN SUPPORT OF 1099 DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO CONVENE A THREE-JUDGE PANEL TO LIMIT PRISON POPULATION ﬁled byJoseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Related document(s) 1099 ) (Nygaard, Jennifer) (Filed on 5/21/2007) Modiﬁed on 5/22/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/21/2007)

05/21/2007

1103

DECLARATION OF JOAN PETERSILIA IN SUPPORT OF 1099 DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO CONVENE A THREE-JUDGE PANEL TO LIMIT PRISON POPULATION ﬁled byJoseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Arnold

Schwarzenegger. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B) (Related document(s) 1099 ) (Nygaard, Jennifer) (Filed on 5/21/2007) Modiﬁed on 5/22/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/21/2007)

05/22/2007

1104

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1092 Motion to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document Improperly Redacted Declarations of Grunfeld and Galvan (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/22/2007) (Entered: 05/22/2007)

05/25/2007 1105 Proposed Order Conﬁrming Payment of Certain Disputed CDCR/AOAP Attorneys' Fees and Costs from 2005-2006 ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 5/25/2007) Modiﬁed on 5/29/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/25/2007)

05/29/2007 1106 Reply to re 1082 Plaintiﬀs' Supplemental Brief in Support of Motion for Three-Judge Panel to Limit Prisoner Population ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Norman, Sara) (Filed on 5/29/2007) Modiﬁed on 5/30/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/29/2007)

05/29/2007

1107

Declaration of Gabriel Martinez in Support of 1082 Brief Plaintiﬀs' Supplemental Brief in Support of Motion for Three-Judge Panel to Limit Prisoner Population ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1082 ) (Norman, Sara) (Filed on 5/29/2007) (Entered: 05/29/2007)

05/29/2007

1108

Declaration of Jerome Crane in Support of 1082 Brief Plaintiﬀs' Supplemental Brief in Support of Motion for Three-Judge Panel to Limit Prisoner Population ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1082 ) (Norman, Sara) (Filed on 5/29/2007) (Entered: 05/29/2007)

05/29/2007

1109

Declaration of Oscar Newsome in Support of 1082 Brief Plaintiﬀs' Supplemental Brief in Support of Motion for Three-Judge Panel to Limit Prisoner Population ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1082 ) (Norman, Sara) (Filed on 5/29/2007) (Entered: 05/29/2007)

05/29/2007

1110

Declaration of Robert Rand in Support of 1082 Brief Plaintiﬀs' Supplemental Brief in Support of Motion for Three-Judge Panel to Limit Prisoner Population ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1082 ) (Norman, Sara) (Filed on 5/29/2007) (Entered: 05/29/2007)

05/29/2007

1111

Reply Declaration of Sara Norman in Support of 1082 Plaintiﬀs' Supplemental Brief in Support of Motion for Three-Judge Panel to Limit Prisoner Population ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5 # 6 # 7 # 8 # 9 # 10)(Related document(s) 1082 ) (Norman, Sara) (Filed on 5/29/2007) Modiﬁed on 5/30/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/29/2007)

05/29/2007

1112

Declaration of James Austin in Support of 1106 Supplemental Reply Brief ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1106 ) (Norman, Sara) (Filed on 5/29/2007) Modiﬁed on 5/30/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/29/2007)

05/30/2007

1113

ORDER re 1105 Conﬁrming Payment of Certain Disputed CDCR/AOAP Attorneys' Fees and Costs from 2005-2006 . Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 5/30/07. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/30/2007) (Entered: 05/30/2007)

05/30/2007 1114 RESPONSE to Order re Appointment of Court Expert by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 5/30/2007) (Entered: 05/30/2007)

05/30/2007 1115 Proposed Order Appointing Court Expert Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 706 by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 5/30/2007) (Entered: 05/30/2007)

05/31/2007 1116 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1)(Norman, Sara) (Filed on 5/31/2007) (Entered: 05/31/2007)

05/31/2007 1117

***FILED IN ERROR, SEE DOCUMENT # 1118 ***

Declaration of Joanne Cordy in Support of 1116 Case Management Statement (Joint) ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1116 ) (Norman, Sara) (Filed on 5/31/2007) Modiﬁed on 6/5/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/31/2007)

06/04/2007 1118

Declaration of Joanne Cordy in Support of 1116 Case Management Statement (Joint) ﬁled byJoseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Related document(s) 1116 , 1117 ) (Nygaard, Jennifer) (Filed on 6/4/2007) Modiﬁed on 6/5/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/04/2007)

06/06/2007 1119 Notice of action in related cases ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1)(Specter, Donald) (Filed on 6/6/2007) Modiﬁed on 6/7/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/06/2007)

06/07/2007 1120

Minute Entry: Further Case Management Conference held on 6/7/2007 before Claudia Wilken (Date Filed: 6/7/2007), Motion Hearing held on 6/7/2007 before Claudia Wilken (Date Filed: 6/7/2007) re 949 MOTION to convene a three judge panel to limit prison population ﬁled by John Armstrong. Further Case Management Conference set for 8/16/2007 03:00 PM. (Court Reporter Diane Skillman.) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 6/7/2007) (Entered: 06/11/2007)

06/07/2007

1122

AMENDED Minute Entry: Further Case Management Conference held on 6/7/2007 before Claudia Wilken (Date Filed: 6/7/2007), Motion Hearing held on 6/7/2007 before Claudia Wilken (Date Filed: 6/7/2007). (Court Reporter Diane Skillman.) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 6/7/2007) (Entered: 06/12/2007)

06/11/2007 1121 ORDER re 1115 Appointing Court Expert Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 706. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 6/11/07. (scc,

COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/11/2007) (Entered: 06/11/2007)

06/15/2007

1123

MOTION to Enforce Enforce Compliance with May 30, 2006 Order; Memorandum of Points and Authorities ﬁled by John Armstrong. Motion Hearing set for 7/26/2007 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 6/15/2007) Modiﬁed on 6/18/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/15/2007)

06/15/2007

1124

Declaration of Holly Baldwin in Support of 1123 MOTION to Enforce Compliance with May 30, 2006 Order ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits A-F# 2 Exhibit Exhibits G-O) (Related document(s) 1123 ) (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 6/15/2007) Modiﬁed on 6/18/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/15/2007)

06/15/2007

1125

Declaration of Anne Mania in Support of 1123 MOTION to Enforce Compliance with May 30, 2006 Order ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-E# 2 Exhibit F# 3 Exhibit G, Part 1# 4 Exhibit G, Part 2# 5 Exhibit H-O# 6 Exhibit P-Q# 7 Exhibit R, Part 1# 8 Exhibit R, Part 2# 9 Exhibit S-T)(Related document(s) 1123 ) (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 6/15/2007) Modiﬁed on 6/18/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/15/2007)

06/15/2007

1126

Proposed Order re 1123 MOTION to Enforce Compliance with May 30, 2006 Order by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 6/15/2007) Modiﬁed on 6/18/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/15/2007)

06/19/2007 1127 Proposed Order Conﬁrming Undisputed Board of Parole Hearings Attorneys' Fees and Costs For the First Quarter of 2007 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 6/19/2007) (Entered: 06/19/2007)

06/19/2007 1128 Proposed Order Conﬁrming Undisputed Division of Adult Parole Operations Attorneys' Fees and Costs For the First Quarter of 2007 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 6/19/2007) (Entered: 06/19/2007)

06/20/2007

1129

ORDER re 1127 Conﬁrming Undisputed Board of Parole Hearings Attorneys' Fees and Costs For the First Quarter of 2007. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 6/20/07. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/20/2007) (Entered: 06/20/2007)

06/20/2007

1130

ORDER re 1128 Conﬁrming Undisputed Division of Adult Parole Operations Attorneys' Fees and Costs For the First Quarter of 2007. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 6/20/07. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/20/2007) (Entered: 06/20/2007)

06/25/2007 1131

***FILED IN ERROR, SEE DOCUMENT # 1132 ***

STIPULATION STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO RESET HEARING DATE ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH THE MAY 30, 2006 ORDER by Joseph C. Sandoval, James

Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Attachments: # 1 Signature Page (Declarations/Stipulations) Declaration of Service by U.S. Mail) (Nygaard, Jennifer) (Filed on 6/25/2007) Modiﬁed on 6/25/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 6/26/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/25/2007)

06/25/2007

1132

STIPULATION STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO RESET HEARING DATE ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH THE MAY 30 2006 ORDER by Joseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Nygaard, Jennifer) (Filed on 6/25/2007) (Entered: 06/25/2007)

06/26/2007 1133 ORDER. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 6/26/07. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/26/2007) (Entered: 06/26/2007)

06/29/2007

1134

ORDER re 1132 granting STIPULATION TO RESET HEARING DATE ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH THE MAY 30 2006 ORDER. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 6/29/07. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/29/2007) (Entered: 06/29/2007)

07/02/2007

1135

FURTHER STATEMENT ADDRESSING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO CONVENE A THREE-JUDGE PANEL TO ADDRESS POPULATION ISSUES ﬁled byJoseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Attachments: # 1 Signature Page (Declarations/Stipulations) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE# 2 Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit B (PART 1 OF 2)# 4 Exhibit B (PART 2 OF 2)# 5 Exhibit C (PART 1 OF 3)# 6 Exhibit C (PART 2 OF 3)# 7 Exhibit C (PART 3 OF 3)# 8 Exhibit D (PART 1 OF 3)# 9 Exhibit D (PART 2 OF 3)# 10 Exhibit D (PART 3 OF 3)# 11 Exhibit E (PART 1 OF 3)# 12 Exhibit E (PART 2 OF 3)# 13 Exhibit E (PART 3 OF 3))(Nygaard, Jennifer) (Filed on 7/2/2007) Modiﬁed on 7/3/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/02/2007)

07/03/2007 1136 Proposed Case Management Conference Order by John Armstrong. (Norman, Sara) (Filed on 7/3/2007) Modiﬁed on 7/5/2007 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/03/2007)

07/05/2007

1137

*** FILED IN ERROR. SEE DOCUMENT # 1138 . *** NOTICE of Appearance by Edward W. Swanson Notice of Appearance (Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 7/5/2007) Modiﬁed on 7/9/2007 (br, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 7/17/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 7/17/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). Additional attachment(s) added on 7/17/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/05/2007)

07/06/2007 1138 MOTION to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document ﬁled by Edward Swanson. (Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 7/6/2007) Modiﬁed on 7/9/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/06/2007)

07/09/2007 1139 RESPONSE to re 1133 Order Regarding Coordination Agreements by John Armstrong. (Norman, Sara) (Filed on 7/9/2007) (Entered: 07/09/2007)
07/09/2007 1140

***FILED IN ERROR, SEE DOCUMENT # 1141 ***

RESPONSE to DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PROPOSED AGREEMENTS OF JUNE 26, 2007 ORDER by Joseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Attachments: # 1 Signature Page (Declarations/Stipulations) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE)(Nygaard, Jennifer) (Filed on 7/9/2007) Modiﬁed on 7/10/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/09/2007)

07/09/2007

1141

RESPONSE to DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PROPOSED AGREEMENTS OF JUNE 26, 2007 ORDER by Joseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Attachments: # 1 Signature Page (Declarations/Stipulations) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE)(Nygaard, Jennifer) (Filed on 7/9/2007) (Entered: 07/09/2007)

07/12/2007 1142 Letter from Clerk. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/12/2007) (Entered: 07/12/2007)

07/12/2007

2849

RECEIVED DEPOSIT in the amount of $100,000.00, receipt #44611000975 pursuant to order document no. 1121 for interim payment of expert cost submitted by defendants. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/12/2007) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/12/2007)

07/12/2007

1143

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE ORDER: Further Case Management Conference set for 8/16/2007 03:00 PM.. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 7/12/07. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/12/2007) (Entered: 07/12/2007)

07/12/2007

1144

Memorandum in Opposition TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH MAY 30, 2006 ORDER ﬁled byJoseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Attachments: # 1 Signature Page (Declarations/Stipulations) DECLARATION OF SERVICE)(Nygaard, Jennifer) (Filed on 7/12/2007) Modiﬁed on 7/13/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/12/2007)

07/12/2007

1145

Declaration of JENNIFER NYGAARD in Support of 1144 Memorandum in Opposition, TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH MAY 30, 2006 ORDER ﬁled byJoseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Related document(s)

1144 ) (Nygaard, Jennifer) (Filed on 7/12/2007) Modiﬁed on 7/13/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/12/2007)

07/12/2007

1146

Declaration of JOANNE CORDY in Support of 1144 Memorandum in Opposition, TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH MAY 30, 2006 ORDER ﬁled byJoseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Related document(s) 1144 ) (Nygaard, Jennifer) (Filed on 7/12/2007) Modiﬁed on 7/13/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/12/2007)

07/12/2007

1147

Declaration of ERIC ARNOLD in Support of 1144 Memorandum in Opposition, TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH MAY 30, 2006 ORDER ﬁled byJoseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Related document(s) 1144 ) (Nygaard, Jennifer) (Filed on 7/12/2007) Modiﬁed on 7/13/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/12/2007)

07/12/2007

1148

Declaration of RHONDA SKIPPER-DOTTA in Support of 1144 Memorandum in Opposition, TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH MAY 30, 2006 ORDER ﬁled byJoseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Related document(s) 1144 ) (Nygaard, Jennifer) (Filed on 7/12/2007) Modiﬁed on 7/13/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/12/2007)

07/12/2007

1149

Declaration of ALBERTO CATON in Support of 1144 Memorandum in Opposition, TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH MAY 30, 2006 ORDER ﬁled byJoseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Related document(s) 1144 ) (Nygaard, Jennifer) (Filed on 7/12/2007) Modiﬁed on 7/13/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/12/2007)

07/12/2007

1150

Declaration of LORI MACIAS-PRICE in Support of 1144 Memorandum in Opposition, TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH MAY 30, 2006 ORDER ﬁled byJoseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Related document(s) 1144 ) (Nygaard, Jennifer) (Filed on 7/12/2007) Modiﬁed on 7/13/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/12/2007)

07/12/2007

1151

Declaration of TRACY LEIFKER in Support of 1144 Memorandum in Opposition, TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH MAY 30, 2006 ORDER ﬁled byJoseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Related document(s) 1144 ) (Nygaard,

Jennifer) (Filed on 7/12/2007) Modiﬁed on 7/13/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/12/2007)

07/12/2007

1152

Declaration of JENNIFER YOUNG in Support of 1144 Memorandum in Opposition, TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH MAY 30, 2006 ORDER ﬁled byJoseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Related document(s) 1144 ) (Nygaard, Jennifer) (Filed on 7/12/2007) Modiﬁed on 7/13/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/12/2007)

07/12/2007

1153

Declaration of CAROL KREIS in Support of 1144 Memorandum in Opposition, TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH MAY 30, 2006 ORDER ﬁled byJoseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Related document(s) 1144 ) (Nygaard, Jennifer) (Filed on 7/12/2007) Modiﬁed on 7/13/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/12/2007)

07/16/2007 1154 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1138 Motion to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/16/2007) (Entered: 07/16/2007)

07/19/2007 1155 Proposed Order Conﬁrming Undisputed CDCR Adult Operations and Adult Programs Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the First Quarterly Statement of 2007 by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 7/19/2007) (Entered: 07/19/2007)

07/19/2007 1156 OBJECTIONS to Defendants' Declarations in Support of Opposition to Plaintiﬀs' Motion to Enforce Compliance with the May 30, 2006 Order by John Armstrong. (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 7/19/2007) (Entered: 07/19/2007)

07/19/2007 1157 Proposed Order Sustaining Plaintiﬀs Objections to Defendants Declarations in Opposition to Plaintiﬀs Motion to Enforce Compliance with the May 30, 2006 Order by John Armstrong. (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 7/19/2007) (Entered: 07/19/2007)

07/19/2007 1158 Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Enforce Compliance with the May 30, 2006 Order ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 7/19/2007) (Entered: 07/19/2007)

07/19/2007

1159

REVISED Proposed Order re 1123 Granting Plaintiﬀs' Motion to Enforce the May 30, 2006 Order by John Armstrong. (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 7/19/2007) Modiﬁed on 7/20/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/19/2007)

07/19/2007

1160

Reply Declaration of Anne H. Mania in Support of 1123 Motion to Enforce Compliance with the May 30, 2006 Order ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1123 ) (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 7/19/2007) Modiﬁed on 7/20/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 7/20/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/19/2007)

07/19/2007

1161

*** FILED IN ERROR. PLEASE SEE DOCKET # 1173 . *** EXHIBITS A-B (Part I) re 1160 Declaration in Support of Motion to Enforce Compliance with the May 30, 2006 Order ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1160 ) (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 7/19/2007) Modiﬁed on 7/20/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 7/20/2007 (ewn, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 7/26/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). Additional attachment(s) added on 7/26/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/19/2007)

07/19/2007

1162

EXHIBIT B (Part II) re 1160 Declaration in Support of Motion to Enforce Compliance with the May 30, 2006 Order ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1160 ) (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 7/19/2007) Modiﬁed on 7/20/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/19/2007)

07/19/2007

1163

EXHIBITS C-G re 1160 Declaration in Support of Motion to Enforce Compliance with the May 30, 2006 Order ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1160 ) (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 7/19/2007) Modiﬁed on 7/20/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/19/2007)

07/19/2007

1164

EXHIBITS H-I re 1160 Declaration in Support of Motion to Enforce Compliance with the May 30, 2006 Order ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1160 ) (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 7/19/2007) Modiﬁed on 7/20/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/19/2007)

07/19/2007

1165

Reply Declaration of Holly M. Baldwin in Support of 1123 Motion to Enforce Compliance with the May 30, 2006 Order ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1123 ) (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 7/19/2007) Modiﬁed on 7/20/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/19/2007)

07/19/2007

1166

EXHIBITS A-B re 1165 Declaration in Support of Motion to Enforce Compliance with the May 30, 2006 Order ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1165 ) (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 7/19/2007) Modiﬁed on 7/20/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/19/2007)

07/19/2007

1167

EXHIBIT C re 1165 Declaration in Support of Motion to Enforce Compliance with the May 30, 2006 Order ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1165 ) (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 7/19/2007) Modiﬁed on 7/20/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/19/2007)

07/19/2007

1168

EXHIBITS D-G re 1165 Declaration in Support of Motion to Enforce Compliance with the May 30, 2006 Order ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1165 ) (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 7/19/2007) Modiﬁed on 7/20/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/19/2007)

07/19/2007

1169

Declaration of Ronald Yank in Support of 1158 Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Enforce Compliance with the May 30, 2006 Order ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1158 ) (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 7/19/2007) (Entered: 07/19/2007)

07/19/2007

1170

EXHIBITS A-B re 1169 Declaration in Support of Motion to Enforce Compliance with the May 30, 2006 Order ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1169 ) (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 7/19/2007) Modiﬁed on 7/20/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/19/2007)

07/20/2007

1171

First MOTION to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document Docket #1161 ﬁled by John Armstrong. Motion Hearing set for 8/2/2007 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland. (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 7/20/2007) (Entered: 07/20/2007)

07/20/2007 1172 Proposed Order re 1171 First MOTION to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document Docket #1161 by John Armstrong. (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 7/20/2007) (Entered: 07/20/2007)

07/20/2007 1173 EXHIBITS re 1160 Declaration in Support CORRECTION OF DOCKET # 1161 ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1160 ) (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 7/20/2007) (Entered: 07/20/2007)

07/23/2007 1174 Plata Receiver's Response to Plaintiﬀs' Position Regarding Coordination Agreements by Robert Sillen. (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 7/23/2007) Modiﬁed on 7/24/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/23/2007)

07/23/2007 1175 Certiﬁcate of Service re 1174 Plata Receiver's Response to Plaintiﬀs' Position Regarding Coordination Agreements (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 7/23/2007) Modiﬁed on 7/24/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/23/2007)

07/24/2007 1176 SCHEDULING ORDER: Motion hearing set for 8/2/07 is continued to 8/16/07 at 3:00 p.m.. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 7/24/07. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/24/2007) (Entered: 07/24/2007)

07/24/2007 1177 Attachment to re 1174 Plata Receiver's Response to Plaintiﬀs' Position Regarding Coordination Agreements ﬁled byRobert Sillen. (Related document(s) 1174 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 7/24/2007) Modiﬁed on 7/25/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/24/2007)

07/25/2007 1178 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1171 MOTION to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document Docket #1161 (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/25/2007) (Entered: 07/25/2007)

07/25/2007

1179

ORDER re 1155 Conﬁrming Undisputed CDCR Adult Operations and Adult Programs Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the First Quarterly Statement of 2007. Signed by Judge CLAUDIA WILKEN on 7/25/07. (Attachments: # 1)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/25/2007) (Entered: 07/25/2007)

07/30/2007 1180 Revised Proposed Order Granting re 1123 Plaintiﬀs' Motion to Enforce Compliance with May 30, 2006 Order by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 7/30/2007) Modiﬁed on 7/31/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/30/2007)

08/09/2007

1181

First MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Declaration of Anne Mania In Support of Plaintiﬀs' Motion to Enforce May 30, 2006 Order ﬁled by John Armstrong. Motion Hearing set for 8/16/2007 03:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland. (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 8/9/2007) (Entered: 08/09/2007)

08/09/2007 1182 Declaration of Anne Mania in Support of 1181 First MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Declaration of Anne Mania In Support of Plaintiﬀs' Motion to Enforce May 30, 2006 Order ﬁled byJohn

Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1181 ) (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 8/9/2007) (Entered: 08/09/2007)
08/09/2007 1183

***FILED IN ERROR, SEE DOCUMENT # 1185 ***

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1)(Norman, Sara) (Filed on 8/9/2007) Modiﬁed on 8/10/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 8/13/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). Additional attachment(s) added on 8/13/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/09/2007)

08/09/2007 1184 Declaration of Joanne Cordy in Support of 1183 Case Management Statement (Joint) ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1183 ) (Norman, Sara) (Filed on 8/9/2007) (Entered: 08/09/2007)

08/09/2007 1185 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT with corrected attachments ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1)(Norman, Sara) (Filed on 8/9/2007) (Entered: 08/09/2007)

08/10/2007

1186

First MOTION to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document Joint Status Conference Statement With Attachments, Docket Number 1183 ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Specter, Donald) (Filed on 8/10/2007) (Entered: 08/10/2007)

08/10/2007 1187 Proposed Order to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document, Docket Number 1183 by John Armstrong. (Specter, Donald) (Filed on 8/10/2007) (Entered: 08/10/2007)

08/13/2007 1188 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1186 Motion to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/13/2007) (Entered: 08/13/2007)

08/16/2007

1191

Minute Entry: Further Case Management Conference held on 8/16/2007 before Claudia Wilken (Date Filed: 8/16/2007), Motion Hearing held on 8/16/2007 before Claudia Wilken (Date Filed: 8/16/2007) re 1123 MOTION to Enforce Compliance with May 30, 2006 Order. (Court Reporter Raynee Mercado.) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 8/16/2007) (Entered: 08/23/2007)

08/20/2007 1189 NOTICE of assignment of Counsel by Jay Craig Russell (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 8/20/2007) Modiﬁed on 8/21/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/20/2007)

08/22/2007 1190 Letter from Anne Mania to Court re August 16, 2007 Hearing. (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 8/22/2007) (Entered: 08/22/2007)

08/23/2007

Set/Reset Hearings: Further Case Management Conference set for 10/23/2007 02:30 PM. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/23/2007) (Entered: 08/23/2007)

08/24/2007 1192 ORDER APPROVING COORDINATION STATEMENTS ATTACHED TO JUNE 26, 2007 ORDER. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 8/24/07. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/24/2007) (Entered: 08/24/2007)

08/27/2007 1193 Proposed Order Regarding Payment by Edward Swanson. (Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 8/27/2007) (Entered: 08/27/2007)

09/05/2007 1194 CLERK'S NOTICE of deﬁciency re docket #1193 (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/5/2007) (Entered: 09/05/2007)

09/06/2007 1195 First MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and Proposed Order ﬁled by Edward Swanson. (Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 9/6/2007) (Entered: 09/06/2007)

09/06/2007 1196 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1195 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/6/2007) (Entered: 09/06/2007)

09/06/2007 1197 Proposed Order re Case Management Conference of August 16, 2007 by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 9/6/2007) (Entered: 09/06/2007)

09/07/2007 1198 Letter from Gay Grunfeld re Proposed Order re 8/16/07 CMC. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 9/7/2007) (Entered: 09/07/2007)

09/11/2007

1199

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting in part 1123 Motion to Enforce Judgment; granting 1181 Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Declaration of Anne Mania In Support of Plaintiﬀs' Motion to Enforce May 30, 2006 Order (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/11/2007) (Entered: 09/11/2007)

09/12/2007

1200

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE ORDER: Case Management Conference set for 10/30/2007 02:30 PM.. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 9/12/07. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/12/2007) (Entered: 09/12/2007)

09/17/2007 1201 Second MOTION for Disbursement of Funds ﬁled by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 9/17/2007) (Entered: 09/17/2007)

09/18/2007 1202 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1201 Second Motion for Disbursement of Funds (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/18/2007) (Entered: 09/18/2007)

10/02/2007 1203 Letter from Plaintiﬀs' Counsel to Judge Wilken re: out of state monitoring. (Norman, Sara) (Filed on 10/2/2007) (Entered: 10/02/2007)

10/02/2007 1204 Proposed Order re 1203 Letter to Judge Wilken re: out of state monitoring by John Armstrong. (Norman, Sara) (Filed on 10/2/2007) (Entered: 10/02/2007)

10/04/2007 1205 Letter from Jay Russell to Honorable Claudia Wilken re: Proposed Order of October 2, 2007. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 10/4/2007) (Entered: 10/04/2007)

10/10/2007 1206 ORDER re 1203 REGARDING PLAINTIFFS' OCTOBER 2, 2007 LETTER TO THE COURT. Signed by Judge CLAUDIA WILKEN on 10/10/07. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/10/2007) (Entered: 10/10/2007)

10/11/2007 1207 MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND STAY SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 ORDER;

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF SAME ﬁled by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, James Tilton, John Monday, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 10/11/2007) Modiﬁed on 10/12/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/11/2007)

10/11/2007

1208

Declaration of Stephen W. Kessler in Support of 1207 MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND STAY SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 ORDER ﬁled byArnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, James Tilton, John Monday. (Related document(s) 1207 ) (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 10/11/2007) Modiﬁed on 10/12/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/11/2007)

10/11/2007

1209

Declaration of Scott Kernan in Support of 1207 MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND STAY SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 ORDER ﬁled byArnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, James Tilton, John Monday. (Related document(s) 1207 ) (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 10/11/2007) Modiﬁed on 10/12/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/11/2007)

10/11/2007

1210

Declaration of Margie McCune in Support of 1207 MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND STAY SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 ORDER ﬁled byArnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, James Tilton, John Monday. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(Related document(s) 1207 ) (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 10/11/2007) Modiﬁed on 10/12/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/11/2007)

10/11/2007

1211

DOCUMENT REMOVED PER COURT ORDER # 1229 Declaration of Jay C. Russell in Support of 1207 MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND STAY SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 ORDER ﬁled byArnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, James Tilton, John Monday. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F# 7 Exhibit G# 8 Exhibit H)(Related document(s) 1207 ) (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 10/11/2007) Modiﬁed on 10/12/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). Additional attachment(s) added on 10/25/2007 (kc, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 10/25/2007 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/11/2007)

10/11/2007

1212

Proposed Order GRANTING MOTION TO RECONSIDER SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 ORDER by Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, James Tilton, John Monday. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 10/11/2007) (Entered: 10/11/2007)

10/11/2007

1213

Proposed Order GRANTING STAY OF ENFORCEMENT OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 ORDER by Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, James Tilton, John Monday. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 10/11/2007) (Entered: 10/11/2007)

10/11/2007 1216 Clerk's Letter to Larry E. Beltson, Sr re returned of documents. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/11/2007) (Entered: 10/15/2007)

10/12/2007

Set/Reset Deadlines as to 1207 MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND STAY

SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 ORDER. Motion Hearing set for 11/15/2007 02:00 PM. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/12/2007) (Entered: 10/12/2007)

10/12/2007

1214

MOTION to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document ﬁled by Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, James Tilton, John Monday. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Motion to Remove an Incorrectly Filed Document)(Russell, Jay) (Filed on 10/12/2007) (Entered: 10/12/2007)

10/12/2007

1215

Declaration of Jay C. Russell IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 ORDER AND REQUEST FOR STAY WITH AMENDED EXHIBITS ﬁled byArnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, James Tilton, John Monday. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F# 7 Exhibit G# 8 Exhibit H)(Russell, Jay) (Filed on 10/12/2007) (Entered: 10/12/2007)

10/15/2007

1217

MOTION Order Regarding Out-of-State Monitoring ﬁled by John Armstrong. Motion Hearing set for 10/30/2007 02:30 PM in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland. (Norman, Sara) (Filed on 10/15/2007) (Entered: 10/15/2007)

10/15/2007 1218 Proposed Order re 1217 MOTION Order Regarding Out-of-State Monitoring by John Armstrong. (Norman, Sara) (Filed on 10/15/2007) (Entered: 10/15/2007)

10/15/2007

1219

Declaration of Sara Norman in Support of 1217 MOTION Order Regarding Out-of-State Monitoring ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-B# 2 Exhibit C-H)(Related document(s) 1217 ) (Norman, Sara) (Filed on 10/15/2007) (Entered: 10/15/2007)

10/16/2007

1220

*** FILED IN ERROR. PLEASE SEE DOCKET # 1221 . *** Third MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and [Proposed] Order for Payment ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 10/16/2007) Modiﬁed on 10/17/2007 (ewn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/16/2007)

10/16/2007

1221

Third MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and [Proposed] Order for Payment CORRECTION OF DOCKET # 1220 . ﬁled by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 10/16/2007) (Entered: 10/16/2007)

10/22/2007

1222

Memorandum in Opposition re 1217 MOTION Order Regarding Outof-State Monitoring ﬁled byArnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, James Tilton, John Monday. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 10/22/2007) (Entered: 10/22/2007)

10/22/2007

1223

Declaration of Jay C. Russell in Support of 1222 Memorandum in Opposition ﬁled byArnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, James Tilton, John Monday. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Related document(s) 1222 ) (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 10/22/2007) (Entered: 10/22/2007)

10/23/2007 1224 Proposed Order Conﬁrming Undisputed Board of Parole Hearings Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Second Quarter of 2007 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 10/23/2007) (Entered: 10/23/2007)

10/23/2007 1225 Proposed Order Conﬁrming Undisputed Division of Adult Parole Operations Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the Second Quarter of 2007 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 10/23/2007) (Entered: 10/23/2007)

10/23/2007

1226

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT ﬁled by Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, James Tilton, John Monday. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D)(Russell, Jay) (Filed on 10/23/2007) (Entered: 10/23/2007)

10/24/2007 1227 SCHEDULING ORDER: Status Conference set for 11/15/2007 02:00 PM.. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/24/07. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/24/2007) (Entered: 10/24/2007)

10/24/2007 1228 SCHEDULING ORDER: MOTION REGARDING OUT-OF-STATE MONITORING. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/24/07. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/24/2007) (Entered: 10/24/2007)

10/24/2007 1229 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1214 Motion to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/24/2007) (Entered: 10/24/2007)

10/24/2007 1230 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1221 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/24/2007) (Entered: 10/24/2007)

10/25/2007

1231

ORDER re 1225 Conﬁrming Undisputed Division of Adult Parole Operations Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the Second Quarter of 2007. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/25/07. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/25/2007) (Entered: 10/25/2007)

10/25/2007

1232

ORDER re 1224 Conﬁrming Undisputed Board of Parole Hearings Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Second Quarter of 2007. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/25/07. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/25/2007) (Entered: 10/25/2007)

10/25/2007 1233 NOTICE by Edward Swanson of Filings in Perez v. Tilton, C 05-5241 JSW (Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 10/25/2007) (Entered: 10/25/2007)

10/25/2007 1234 Memorandum in Opposition re 1207 MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND STAY SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 ORDER ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 10/25/2007) (Entered: 10/25/2007)

10/25/2007

1235

Declaration of Holly Baldwin in Support of 1234 Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Reconsider and Stay September 11, 2007 Order ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C)(Related document(s) 1234 ) (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 10/25/2007) (Entered: 10/25/2007)

10/25/2007

1236

Declaration of Michael Bien in Support of 1234 Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Reconsider and Stay September 11, 2007 Order ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1234 ) (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 10/25/2007) (Entered: 10/25/2007)

10/25/2007

1237

Declaration of Steve Weiss in Support of 1234 Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Reconsider and Stay September 11, 2007 Order ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Related document(s) 1234 ) (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 10/25/2007) (Entered: 10/25/2007)

10/25/2007

1238

OBJECTIONS to re 1209 Declaration in Support, 1210 Declaration in Support, 1215 Declaration in Support, 1208 Declaration in Support, Objections to Defendants' Declarations in Support of Motion to Reconsider and Stay September 11, 2007 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 10/25/2007) (Entered: 10/25/2007)

10/25/2007 1239 Proposed Order re 1238 Objection, Sustaining Objections to Defendants' Declarations in Support of Motion to Reconsider and Stay September 11, 2007 Order by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 10/25/2007) (Entered: 10/25/2007)

10/25/2007

1240

Proposed Order re 1207 MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND STAY SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 ORDER Proposed Order Denying Defendants' Motion to Reconsider and Stay September 11, 2007 Order by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 10/25/2007) (Entered: 10/25/2007)

10/29/2007

1241

Proposed Order Conﬁrming Undisputed California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Adult Operations and Adult Programs Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the Second Quarterly Statement of 2007 by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 10/29/2007) (Entered: 10/29/2007)

10/31/2007

1242

ORDER re 1241 Conﬁrming Undisputed California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Adult Operations and Adult Programs Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the Second Quarterly Statement of 2007. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/31/07. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/31/2007) (Entered: 10/31/2007)

11/01/2007

1243

Reply to Opposition to Motion to Reconsider and Stay September 11, 2007 Order ﬁled byArnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, James Tilton, John Monday. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 11/1/2007) Modiﬁed on 11/2/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/01/2007)

11/01/2007

1244

Reply to Plaintiﬀs' Objections to Defendants' Declarations in Support of Motion to Reconsider and Stay September 11, 2007 Order ﬁled byArnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, James Tilton, John Monday. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 11/1/2007) Modiﬁed on 11/2/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 11/2/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/01/2007)

11/13/2007

1245

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE until 11/26/2007 why the agreement should not be adopted as an order of the court.. Signed by Judges Claudia Wilken, Lawrence K. Karlton, Thelton E. Henderson, Jeﬀrey S. White on 11/13/07. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/13/2007) Modiﬁed on 11/14/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/14/2007)

11/15/2007

1247

Minute Entry: Further Case Management Conference held on 11/15/2007 before Claudia Wilken (Date Filed: 11/15/2007), Motion Hearing held on 11/15/2007 before Claudia Wilken (Date Filed: 11/15/2007) re 1217 MOTION Order Regarding Out-of-State Monitoring ﬁled by John Armstrong, 949 MOTION to convene a three judge panel to limit prison population ﬁled by John Armstrong, 1207 MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND STAY SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 ORDER ﬁled by James Tilton, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Arnold Schwarzenegger, John Monday. Further Case Management Conference set for 1/15/2008 02:00 PM. (Court Reporter Starr Wilson.) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 11/15/2007) (Entered: 11/19/2007)

11/15/2007

1249

AMENDED Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 11/15/2007 before Claudia Wilken (Date Filed: 11/15/2007) re 1217 MOTION Order Regarding Out-of-State Monitoring ﬁled by John Armstrong, 949 MOTION to convene a three judge panel to limit prison population ﬁled by John Armstrong, 1207 MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND STAY SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 ORDER ﬁled by James Tilton, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Arnold Schwarzenegger, John Monday, Further Case Management Conference held on 11/15/2007 before Claudia Wilken (Date Filed: 11/15/2007).

(CORRECTION OF DOCUMENT # 1248

(Court Reporter Starr Wilson.) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 11/15/2007) (Entered: 11/20/2007)
11/19/2007 1246 Fourth MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and [Proposed] Order ﬁled by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 11/19/2007) (Entered: 11/19/2007)
11/20/2007 1248

***DISREGARD, PLEASE SEE DOCUMENT # 1249 ***

AMENDED Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 11/15/2007 before Claudia Wilken (Date Filed: 11/20/2007) re 1217 MOTION Order Regarding Out-of-State Monitoring ﬁled by John Armstrong, 949 MOTION to convene a three judge panel to limit prison population ﬁled by John Armstrong, 1207 MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND STAY SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 ORDER ﬁled by James Tilton, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Arnold Schwarzenegger, John Monday, Further Case Management Conference held on 11/15/2007 before Claudia Wilken (Date Filed: 11/20/2007). Further Case Management Conference set for

1/15/2008 02:00 PM. (Court Reporter Starr Wilson.) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 11/20/2007) Modiﬁed on 11/20/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/20/2007)

11/26/2007 1250 RESPONSE TO RE: 1245 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by John Armstrong for Perez v. Tilton. (Hardy, Alison) (Filed on 11/26/2007) Modiﬁed on 11/27/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/26/2007)

11/26/2007 1251 RESPONSE TO RE: 1245 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by John Armstrong for Plata Plaintiﬀs. (Hardy, Alison) (Filed on 11/26/2007) Modiﬁed on 11/27/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/26/2007)

11/26/2007 1252 RESPONSE TO RE: 1245 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 11/26/2007) Modiﬁed on 11/27/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/26/2007)

11/26/2007

1253

RESPONSE TO RE: 1245 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by John Armstrong "Coleman Plaintiﬀs' Response". (Whelan, Amy) (Filed on 11/26/2007) Modiﬁed on 11/27/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/26/2007)

11/26/2007

1254

RESPONSE to re: 1245 November 13, 2007 Order To Show Cause ﬁled byJoseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, James Tilton, John Monday. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 11/26/2007) Modiﬁed on 11/27/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/26/2007)

11/26/2007

1255

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Joseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, James Tilton, John Monday (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 11/26/2007) (Entered: 11/26/2007)

11/28/2007 1256 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1246 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 Attachment) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/28/2007) (Entered: 11/28/2007)

11/30/2007 1257 ORDER. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 11/30/07. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/30/2007) (Entered: 11/30/2007)

11/30/2007 1258 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 11/15/07 before Judge Claudia Wilken. Court Reporter: Starr Wilson. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/30/2007) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/03/2007)

12/07/2007

1259

NOTICE by Robert Sillen of Filing of Receiver's Quarterly Progress Report on Coordination Agreements (Attachments: # 1 Quarterly Report, # 2 Exhibit 1 to Quarterly Report, # 3 Exhibit 2 to Quarterly Report, # 4 Exhibit 3 to Quarterly Report, # 5 Exhibit 4 to Quarterly Report, # 6 Exhibit 5 to Quarterly Report)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 12/7/2007) Modiﬁed on 12/10/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/07/2007)

12/14/2007 1260 Notice of Appeal from the Court's September 11, 2007 Order; (fee

Not paid) by Joseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, James Tilton, John Monday(Russell, Jay) (Filed on 12/14/2007) Modiﬁed on 12/18/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 12/26/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 9/30/2010 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/14/2007)

12/17/2007 1261 Receiver's Response to Parties' Objections and Responses to Order to Show Cause re Construction Coordination Agreement ﬁled byRobert Sillen. (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 12/17/2007) Modiﬁed on 12/18/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/17/2007)

12/18/2007 2850 Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 1260 Notice of Appeal (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/18/2007) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/18/2007)

12/18/2007

Copy of Notice of Appeal and Docket sheet mailed to all counsel (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/18/2007) (Entered: 12/18/2007)

12/18/2007 2851 Mailed request for payment of docket fee to appellant (cc to USCA) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/18/2007) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/18/2007)

12/19/2007

1262

Amended Notice of Appeal by Joseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, James Tilton, John Monday (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 12/19/2007) Modiﬁed on 12/20/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/19/2007)

12/19/2007

1263

Notice of Appeal of November 20, 2007 Amended Minute Order; (fee Not paid) by Joseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, James Tilton, John Monday (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 12/19/2007) Modiﬁed on 12/20/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 12/26/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/19/2007)

12/21/2007 2852 Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 1263 Notice of Appeal (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/21/2007) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/21/2007)

12/21/2007

Copy of Notice of Appeal and Docket sheet mailed to all counsel re 1263 Notice of Appeal (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/21/2007) (Entered: 12/21/2007)

12/21/2007 2853 Mailed request for payment of docket fee to appellant re 1263 Notice of Appeal(cc to USCA) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/21/2007) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/21/2007)

12/21/2007 1264 NOTICE by John Armstrong Notice of Withdrawal of Counsel of

Elaine B. Feingold as Plaintiﬀs' Counsel (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 12/21/2007) (Entered: 12/21/2007)

12/21/2007

1265

NOTICE by Joseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, James Tilton, John Monday Defendants-Appellants' Representation Statement (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 12/21/2007) (Entered: 12/21/2007)

12/26/2007 2848 USCA Case Number 07-17342 Ninth Circuit re 1260 Notice of Appeal (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/26/2007) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/27/2007)

12/27/2007 2855 USCA Appeal Fees received $ 455 receipt number 44611001651 re 1260 Notice of Appeal (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/27/2007) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/27/2007)

12/27/2007 2854 Amended Notiﬁcation Information sent to USCA re 1260 Notice of Appeal (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/27/2007) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/27/2007)

12/27/2007

1266

Transcript Designation and Ordering Form by Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, James Tilton, John Monday for proceedings held on 11/15/07, 8/16/07 before Judge Claudia wilken re 1260 Notice of Appeal (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/27/2007) Modiﬁed on 12/28/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/28/2007)

12/31/2007

1267

DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS REPRESENTATION STATEMENT RE: NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED DECEMBER 19, 2007 by Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, James Tilton, John Monday. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 12/31/2007) Modiﬁed on 1/2/2008 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/31/2007)

12/31/2007

1268

TRANSCRIPT ﬁled for dates of 8/16/2007 before Judge Claudia Wilken, Court Reporter: Raynee Mercado re 1260 Notice of Appeal. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/31/2007) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/02/2008)

01/02/2008 2856 Certiﬁcate of Record Mailed to USCA re 1260 Notice of Appeal (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/2/2008) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/02/2008)

01/04/2008 1269 Fifth MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and [Proposed] Order ﬁled by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 1/4/2008) (Entered: 01/04/2008)

01/07/2008 1270 STIPULATION and Proposed Order Rescheduling Case Management Conference to February 14, 2008 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 1/7/2008) (Entered: 01/07/2008)

01/08/2008 1271 ORDER re 1270 granting as modiﬁed STIPULATION Rescheduling Case Management Conference. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on

1/8/08. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/8/2008) (Entered: 01/08/2008)

01/09/2008 2858 USCA Appeal Fees received $455.00, receipt number 44611001694 re 1263 Notice of Appeal (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/9/2008) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/09/2008)

01/09/2008 2857 Amended Notiﬁcation Information sent to USCA re 1263 Notice of Appeal (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/9/2008) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/09/2008)

01/28/2008

1272

Proposed Order Conﬁrming Undisputed California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Adult Operations and Adult Programs Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the Third Quarterly Statement of 2007 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 1/28/2008) (Entered: 01/28/2008)

01/28/2008 1273 Proposed Order Conﬁrming Undisputed Board of Parole Hearings Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Third Quarter of 2007 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 1/28/2008) (Entered: 01/28/2008)

01/28/2008 1274 Proposed Order Conﬁrming Undisputed Division of Adult Parole Operations Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the Third Quarterly Statement of 2007 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 1/28/2008) (Entered: 01/28/2008)

01/29/2008 1275 Sixth MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and [Proposed] Order ﬁled by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 1/29/2008) (Entered: 01/29/2008)

01/29/2008 1276 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1269 Fifth Motion for Disbursement of Funds (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/29/2008) (Entered: 01/29/2008)

01/30/2008

1277

ORDER re 1274 Conﬁrming Undisputed Division of Adult Parole Operations Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the Third Quarterly Statement of 2007. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/30/08. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/30/2008) (Entered: 01/30/2008)

01/30/2008

1278

ORDER re 1273 Conﬁrming Undisputed Board of Parole Hearings Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Third Quarter of 2007. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/30/08. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/30/2008) (Entered: 01/30/2008)

01/30/2008

1279

ORDER re 1272 Conﬁrming Undisputed California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Adult Operations and Adult Programs Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the Third Quarterly Statement of 2007. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/30/08. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/30/2008) (Entered: 01/30/2008)

01/30/2008 1280 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1275 Sixth MOTION for Disbursement of Funds (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/30/2008) (Entered: 01/30/2008)

01/31/2008 1281 CLERK'S NOTICE CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE. Status Conference set for 3/11/2008 02:00 PM. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/31/2008) (Entered: 01/31/2008)

02/04/2008 1282 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Show Cause Response due by 2/15/2008.. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 2/4/08. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/4/2008) (Entered: 02/04/2008)

02/15/2008 1283 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Arnold Schwarzenegger re IT System. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Proof of Service)(East, Rochelle) (Filed on 2/15/2008) (Entered: 02/15/2008)

02/26/2008 1284 ORDER. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 2/26/08. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/26/2008) (Entered: 02/26/2008)

02/26/2008 1285 Seventh MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and [Proposed] Order ﬁled by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 2/26/2008) (Entered: 02/26/2008)

02/26/2008 1286 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT ﬁled by John Armstrong, Arnold Schwarzenegger, et al. (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 2/26/2008) Modiﬁed on 2/27/2008 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/26/2008)

02/26/2008 1287 EXHIBITS re 1286 Case Management Statement Exhibits A-F ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1286 ) (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 2/26/2008) (Entered: 02/26/2008)

02/26/2008 1288 EXHIBITS H-J ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 2/26/2008) (Entered: 02/26/2008)

02/26/2008 1289 EXHIBITS re 1286 Case Management Statement Exhibit G, part 1 ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1286 ) (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 2/26/2008) (Entered: 02/26/2008)

02/26/2008 1290 EXHIBITS re 1286 Case Management Statement Exhibit G, part 2 ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1286 ) (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 2/26/2008) (Entered: 02/26/2008)

03/04/2008 1291 Letter from Plaintiﬀs' Counsel Responding to Defendants' Claim That the Court Has Lost Jurisdiction to Enforce the September 11, 2007 Order. (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 3/4/2008) (Entered: 03/04/2008)

03/10/2008 1292 ORDER APPROVING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY COORDINATION AGREEMENT. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 3/10/08. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/10/2008) (Entered: 03/10/2008)

03/10/2008 1293 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1285 granting Seventh MOTION for Disbursement of Funds (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/10/2008) (Entered: 03/10/2008)

03/11/2008

1296

Minute Entry: Further Case Management Conference held on 3/11/2008 before Claudia Wilken (Date Filed: 3/11/2008). (Court Reporter Diane Skillman.) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 3/11/2008) (Entered: 03/13/2008)

03/12/2008 1294 Eighth MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and [Proposed] Order for

Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 3/12/2008) (Entered: 03/12/2008)

03/13/2008 1295 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Show Cause Response due by 3/28/2008.. Signed by Judge CLAUDIA WILKEN on 3/13/08. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/13/2008) (Entered: 03/13/2008)

03/13/2008

Set/Reset Hearings: Further Status Conference set for 5/6/2008 02:30 PM. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/13/2008) (Entered: 03/13/2008)

03/14/2008 1297 Notice of Filing of Receiver's Seventh Quarterly Report by J. Clark Kelso. (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 3/14/2008) Modiﬁed on 3/17/2008 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/14/2008)

03/14/2008

1298

EXHIBITS re 1297 Receiver's Seventh Quarterly Report ﬁled byJ. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14)(Related document(s) 1297 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 3/14/2008) Modiﬁed on 3/17/2008 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/14/2008)

03/19/2008 1299 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1294 Eighth MOTION for Disbursement of Funds for Payment (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/19/2008) (Entered: 03/19/2008)

03/28/2008

1300

Response to Order to Show Cause 1295 Order to Show Cause Defendants' Response to Order to Show Cause re: Pilot Program for Chief Executive Oﬃcer byJoseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (East, Rochelle) (Filed on 3/28/2008) (Entered: 03/28/2008)

04/01/2008

1301

ORDER APPROVING CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PILOT PROGRAM COORDINATION AGREEMENT. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 4/1/08. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/1/2008) (Entered: 04/01/2008)

04/09/2008 1302 Proposed Order Conﬁrming Undisputed Board of Parole Hearings Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Fourth Quarter of 2007 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 4/9/2008) (Entered: 04/09/2008)

04/09/2008 1303 Proposed Order Conﬁrming Undisputed Division of Adult Parole Operations Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the Fourth Quarterly Statement of 2007 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 4/9/2008) (Entered: 04/09/2008)

04/09/2008

1304

Proposed Order Conﬁrming Undisputed California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Adult Operations and Adult Programs Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the Fourth Quarterly Statement of 2007 by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 4/9/2008) (Entered: 04/09/2008)

04/14/2008

1305

ORDER re 1303 Conﬁrming Undisputed Division of Adult Parole Operations Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the Fourth Quarterly Statement of 2007. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 4/14/08. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/14/2008) (Entered: 04/14/2008)

04/14/2008

1306

ORDER re 1302 Conﬁrming Undisputed Board of Parole Hearings Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Fourth Quarter of 2007. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 4/14/08. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/14/2008) (Entered: 04/14/2008)

04/15/2008

1307

ORDER re 1304 Conﬁrming Undisputed California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Adult Operations and Adult Programs Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the Fourth Quarterly Statement of 2007. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 4/15/08. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/15/2008) (Entered: 04/15/2008)

04/18/2008 1308 Ninth MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and [Proposed] Order ﬁled by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 4/18/2008) (Entered: 04/18/2008)

04/22/2008 1309 ORDER DIRECTING ADDITIONAL INTERIM PAYMENT OF COSTS. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 4/22/08. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/22/2008) (Entered: 04/22/2008)

04/22/2008 1310 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1308 Ninth MOTION for Disbursement of Funds (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/22/2008) (Entered: 04/22/2008)

04/25/2008

1311

MOTION to Stay THE DISTRICT COURTS SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 ORDER PENDING APPEAL; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ﬁled by Arnold Schwarzenegger. Motion Hearing set for 6/12/2008 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (Zelidon-Zepeda, Jose) (Filed on 4/25/2008) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

04/25/2008 1312 Proposed Order re 1311 MOTION to Stay THE DISTRICT COURTS SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 ORDER PENDING APPEAL; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES by Arnold Schwarzenegger. (ZelidonZepeda, Jose) (Filed on 4/25/2008) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

04/29/2008 1313

Joint Status Conference Statement ﬁled by Joseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits A - B, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit C part 1, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit C part 2, # 4 Signature Page (Declarations/Stipulations) Declaration of Service by U.S. Mail)(Russell, Jay) (Filed on 4/29/2008) Modiﬁed on 4/30/2008 (kcS, ). (Entered: 04/29/2008)

05/06/2008

1314

Minute Entry: ***Motions terminated: 1311 MOTION to Stay THE DISTRICT COURTS SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 ORDER PENDING APPEAL; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ﬁled by Arnold Schwarzenegger., Further Case Management Conference held on 5/6/2008 before Claudia Wilken (Date Filed: 5/6/2008). Further

Case Management Conference set for 7/22/2008 02:30 PM. (Court Reporter Raynee Mercado.) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 5/6/2008) (Entered: 05/08/2008)

05/06/2008

Set/Reset Hearings: Further Case Management Conference set for 7/22/2008 at 02:30 PM. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/6/2008) (Entered: 05/09/2008)

05/13/2008 1315 Transcript of Proceedings held on March 23, 2007, before Judge Claudia Wilken. Court Reporter Diane Skillman. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/13/2008) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/14/2008)

05/13/2008 1316 Transcript of Proceedings held on June 7, 2007 before Judge Claudia Wilken. Court Reporter Diane Skillman. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/13/2008) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/14/2008)

05/14/2008 1317 Transcript of Proceedings held on March 11, 2008, before Judge Claudia Wilken. (C/R Diane E. Skillman). (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/14/2008) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/15/2008)

05/14/2008 1318 Transcript of Proceedings held on May 6, 2008, before Judge Claudia Wilken. (C/R Raynee H. Mercado). (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/14/2008) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/15/2008)

05/16/2008 1319 Tenth MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and [Proposed] Order ﬁled by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 5/16/2008) (Entered: 05/16/2008)

05/19/2008 1320 DISREGARD - INCORRECT DOCUMENT. SEE DOCKET NUMBER 1321 FOR CORRECT DOCUMENT

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1319 Tenth MOTION for Disbursement of Funds. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/19/2008) Modiﬁed on 5/20/2008 (scc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/19/2008)

05/20/2008

1321

ORDER re 1319 granting Tenth MOTION for Disbursement of Funds. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 5/19/08. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/20/2008) (Entered: 05/20/2008)

05/28/2008 1322 Proposed Order Conﬁrming Payment of Certain Disputed CDCR/AOAP Attorneys' Fees and Costs from 2006-2007 by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 5/28/2008) (Entered: 05/28/2008)

06/02/2008 1323 NOTICE of Change of Address by Sara Linda Norman (Norman, Sara) (Filed on 6/2/2008) (Entered: 06/02/2008)

06/11/2008

1324

ORDER re 1322 Conﬁrming Payment of Certain Disputed CDCR/AOAP Attorneys' Fees and Costs from 2006-2007. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 6/11/08. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/11/2008) (Entered: 06/11/2008)

06/11/2008 1325 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds Eleventh Motion for Disbursement of Funds and [Proposed] Order ﬁled by Edward

Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 6/11/2008) (Entered: 06/11/2008)

06/12/2008 1326 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1325 Eleventh Motion for Disbursement of Funds (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/12/2008) (Entered: 06/12/2008)

06/17/2008 1327 NOTICE by J. Clark Kelso Notice of Filing of Receiver's Eighth Quarterly Report (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 6/17/2008) (Entered: 06/17/2008)

06/17/2008

1328

EXHIBITS re 1327 Notice (Other) Exhibits to The Receiver's Eighth Quarterly Report ﬁled byJ. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibits 2 to 5, # 3 Exhibit 6-part 1, # 4 Exhibit 6-part 2, # 5 Exhibit 6-part 3, # 6 Exhibits 7 to 9, # 7 Exhibit 10-part 1, # 8 Exhibit 10-part 2, # 9 Exhibits 11 to 14)(Related document(s) 1327 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 6/17/2008) (Entered: 06/17/2008)

06/19/2008

1329

Proposed Order Conﬁrming Payment of Undisputed California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Adult Operations and Adult Programs Attorneys' Fees and Costs for Quarter One of 2008 by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 6/19/2008) (Entered: 06/19/2008)

06/19/2008 1330 Proposed Order Conﬁrming Undisputed Board of Parole Hearings Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the First Quarter of 2008 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 6/19/2008) (Entered: 06/19/2008)

06/19/2008 1331 Proposed Order Conﬁrming Undisputed Division of Adult Parole Operations Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the First Quarterly Statement of 2008 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 6/19/2008) (Entered: 06/19/2008)

06/27/2008

1332

ORDER re 1330 Conﬁrming Undisputed Board of Parole Hearings Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the First Quarter of 2008. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 6/27/08. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/27/2008) (Entered: 06/27/2008)

06/27/2008

1333

ORDER re 1331 Conﬁrming Undisputed Division of Adult Parole Operations Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the First Quarterly Statement of 2008. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 6/27/08. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/27/2008) (Entered: 06/27/2008)

06/27/2008

1334

ORDER re 1329 Conﬁrming Payment of Undisputed California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Adult Operations and Adult Programs Attorneys' Fees and Costs for Quarter One of 2008. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 6/27/08. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/27/2008) (Entered: 06/27/2008)

06/30/2008 1335 AMENDED ORDER re 1333 Conﬁrming Undisputed Division of Adult Parole Operations Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the First Quarterly Statement of 2008. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 6/30/08.

(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/30/2008) (Entered: 06/30/2008)

07/14/2008

1336

MOTION for Disbursement of Funds Twelfth Motion for Disbursement of Fund and [Proposed] Order ﬁled by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 7/14/2008) (Entered: 07/14/2008)

07/15/2008

1337

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Plaintiﬀs' Exhibits A-H, # 2 Exhibit Defendants' Exhibits A-D)(Loren, Stewart) (Filed on 7/15/2008) (Entered: 07/15/2008)

07/22/2008

1339

Minute Entry: Further Case Management Conference held on 7/22/2008 before Claudia Wilken (Date Filed: 7/22/2008). Further Case Management Conference set for 10/7/2008 02:30 PM. (Court Reporter Raynee Mercado.) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 7/22/2008) (Entered: 08/07/2008)

07/29/2008

1338

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1336 Twelfth Motion for Disbursement of Fund (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/29/2008) Modiﬁed on 7/30/2008 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/29/2008)

08/13/2008

1340

MOTION for Disbursement of Funds Thirteenth Motion for Disbursement of Funds and [Proposed] Order ﬁled by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 8/13/2008) (Entered: 08/13/2008)

08/29/2008 1341 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1340 Thirteenth Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/29/2008) (Entered: 08/29/2008)

09/05/2008 1342 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Show Cause Response due by 9/26/2008.. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 9/5/08. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/5/2008) (Entered: 09/05/2008)

09/10/2008

1343

MOTION for Disbursement of Funds Fourteenth Motion for Disbursement of Funds and [Proposed] Order ﬁled by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 9/10/2008) (Entered: 09/10/2008)

09/16/2008 1344 NOTICE by J. Clark Kelso Notice of Filing of Receiver's Ninth Quarterly Report (Attachments: # 1 Receiver's Report - Part 2) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 9/16/2008) (Entered: 09/16/2008)

09/16/2008

1345

Appendix re 1344 Notice (Other) Table of Appendencies and Appendencies 1 through 2 to Receiver's Ninth Report ﬁled byJ. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix 1, # 2 Appendix 2) (Related document(s) 1344 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 9/16/2008) (Entered: 09/16/2008)

09/16/2008

1346

Appendix re 1344 Notice (Other) Appendices 3 through 12 to Receiver's Ninth Report ﬁled byJ. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix 4, # 2 Appendix 5, # 3 Appendix 6, # 4 Appendix 7, # 5 Appendix 8, # 6 Appendix 9, # 7 Appendix 10, # 8 Appendix 11, #

9 Appendix 12)(Related document(s) 1344 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 9/16/2008) (Entered: 09/16/2008)

09/16/2008

1347

Appendix re 1344 Notice (Other) Appendices 13 through 15 to Receiver's Ninth Report ﬁled byJ. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix 14, # 2 Appendix 15)(Related document(s) 1344 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 9/16/2008) (Entered: 09/16/2008)

09/16/2008

1348

Appendix re 1344 Notice (Other) Appendices 16 through 20 to Receiver's Ninth Report ﬁled byJ. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix 17, # 2 Appendix 18, # 3 Appendix 19, # 4 Appendix 20) (Related document(s) 1344 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 9/16/2008) (Entered: 09/16/2008)

09/16/2008

1349

Appendix re 1344 Notice (Other) Appendices 21 through 29 to Receiver's Ninth Report ﬁled byJ. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix 22, # 2 Appendix 23, # 3 Appendix 24, # 4 Appendix 25, # 5 Appendix 26, # 6 Appendix 27, # 7 Appendix 28, # 8 Appendix 29)(Related document(s) 1344 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 9/16/2008) (Entered: 09/16/2008)

09/17/2008 1350 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1343 Fourteenth Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/17/2008) (Entered: 09/17/2008)

09/19/2008

1351

STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order to Continue Status Conference by Joseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, James Tilton, John Monday. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 9/19/2008) (Entered: 09/19/2008)

09/22/2008

1352

ORDER re 1351 granting STIPULATION to Continue Status Conference. Status Conference set for 10/14/2008 02:00 PM.. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 9/22/08. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2008) (Entered: 09/22/2008)

09/26/2008

1353

MOTION to Compel Production of Billing Statements in Electronic Format ﬁled by Joseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, James Tilton, John Monday. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 9/26/2008) Modiﬁed on 9/29/2008 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/26/2008)

09/26/2008

1354

Declaration of Katherine Tebrock in Support of 1353 MOTION to Compel Production of Billing Statements in Electronic Format ﬁled byJoseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, James Tilton, John Monday. (Related document(s) 1353 ) (Russell, Jay) (Filed on

9/26/2008) Modiﬁed on 9/29/2008 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/26/2008)

09/26/2008

1355

Declaration of Jay C. Russell in Support of 1353 MOTION to Compel Production of Billing Statements in Electronic Format ﬁled byJoseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, James Tilton, John Monday. (Related document(s) 1353 ) (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 9/26/2008) Modiﬁed on 9/29/2008 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/26/2008)

09/26/2008

1356

Proposed Order re 1353 MOTION to Compel Production of Billing Statements in Electronic Format by Joseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, James Tilton, John Monday. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 9/26/2008) Modiﬁed on 9/29/2008 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/26/2008)

09/29/2008 1357 Response to Order to Show Cause re Space Coordination byArnold Schwarzenegger. (East, Rochelle) (Filed on 9/29/2008) Modiﬁed on 9/30/2008 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/29/2008)

09/29/2008

Set/Reset Deadlines as to 1353 MOTION to Compel Production of Billing Statements in Electronic Format. Motion Hearing set for 11/6/2008 02:00 PM. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/29/2008) (Entered: 09/29/2008)

09/30/2008

1358

Proposed Order Conﬁrming Undisputed California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Adult Operations and Adult Programs Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the Second Quarterly Statement of 2008 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 9/30/2008) (Entered: 09/30/2008)

09/30/2008 1359 Proposed Order Conﬁrming Undisputed Board of Parole Hearings Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Second Quarter of 2008 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 9/30/2008) (Entered: 09/30/2008)

09/30/2008 1360 Proposed Order Conﬁrming Undisputed Division of Adult Parole Operations Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the Second Quarterly Statement of 2008 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 9/30/2008) (Entered: 09/30/2008)

10/01/2008

1361

ORDER re 1358 Conﬁrming Undisputed California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Adult Operations and Adult Programs Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the Second Quarterly Statement of 2008. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/1/08. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/1/2008) (Entered: 10/01/2008)

10/01/2008 1362 ORDER re 1359 Conﬁrming Undisputed Board of Parole Hearings

Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Second Quarter of 2008. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/1/08. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/1/2008) (Entered: 10/01/2008)

10/01/2008

1363

ORDER re 1360 Conﬁrming Undisputed Division of Adult Parole Operations Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the Second Quarterly Statement of 2008. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/1/08. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/1/2008) (Entered: 10/01/2008)

10/07/2008 1364 ORDER APPROVING SPACE COORDINATION AGREEMENT. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/7/08. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/7/2008) (Entered: 10/07/2008)

10/07/2008

1365

Joint Status Conference Statement ﬁled by Joseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, James Tilton, John Monday, John Armstrong, et al. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits A to C)(Russell, Jay) (Filed on 10/7/2008) Modiﬁed on 10/8/2008 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/07/2008)

10/09/2008 1366 Declaration of Receiver J. Clark Kelso Regarding Coordination Agreement for Transition, Activation and Management of 10,000 Bed Project ﬁled byJ. Clark Kelso. (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 10/9/2008) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/09/2008)

10/09/2008 1367 Declaration of John Hagar Regarding Coordination Agreement for Transition, Activation and Management of 10,000 Bed Project ﬁled byJ. Clark Kelso. (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 10/9/2008) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/09/2008)

10/10/2008

1368

ORDER re 1353 CONCERNING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF BILLING STATEMENTS IN ELECTRONIC FORM. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/10/08. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/10/2008) (Entered: 10/10/2008)

10/10/2008

1369

MOTION to Withdraw From the Court Docket Erroneously Filed Declarations Regarding Coordination Agreement for Transition, Activation and Management of 10,000 Bed Project ﬁled by J. Clark Kelso. (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 10/10/2008) Modiﬁed on 10/14/2008 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/10/2008)

10/10/2008

1370

Proposed Order re 1369 MOTION to Withdraw From the Court Docket Erroneously Filed Declarations Regarding Coordination Agreement for Transition, Activation and Management of 10,000 Bed Project by J. Clark Kelso. (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 10/10/2008) Modiﬁed on 10/14/2008 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/10/2008)

10/13/2008 1371 Memorandum in Opposition re 1353 MOTION to Compel Production of Billing Statements in Electronic Format ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Walczak, Kenneth) (Filed on 10/13/2008) (Entered: 10/13/2008)

10/13/2008 1372 DECLARATION of Michael W. Bien in Opposition to 1353 MOTION to

Compel Production of Billing Statements in Electronic Format with Exhibits 1-5 ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1353 ) (Walczak, Kenneth) (Filed on 10/13/2008) (Entered: 10/13/2008)

10/13/2008

1373

DECLARATION of Donald Specter in Opposition to 1353 MOTION to Compel Production of Billing Statements in Electronic Format ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1353 ) (Walczak, Kenneth) (Filed on 10/13/2008) (Entered: 10/13/2008)

10/13/2008

1374

DECLARATION of Geoﬀrey T. Holtz in Opposition to 1353 MOTION to Compel Production of Billing Statements in Electronic Format ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1353 ) (Walczak, Kenneth) (Filed on 10/13/2008) (Entered: 10/13/2008)

10/14/2008

1375

EXHIBITS re 1374 Declaration in Opposition to Motion to Compel Production of Billing Statements in Electronic Format (Exhibit A to Declaration of Geoﬀrey T. Holtz) ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1374 ) (Walczak, Kenneth) (Filed on 10/14/2008) (Entered: 10/14/2008)

10/14/2008

1376

ORDER by Judge CLAUDIA WILKEN granting 1369 Administrative Motion to Withdraw From the Court Docket Erroneously Filed Declarations Regarding Coordination Agreement for Transition, Activation and Management of 10,000 Bed Project (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/14/2008) (Entered: 10/14/2008)

10/14/2008

1378

Minute Entry: Status Conference (Date Filed: 10/14/2008). Status Conference set for 12/16/2008 02:00 PM. (Court Reporter Diane Skillman.) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 10/14/2008) (Entered: 10/16/2008)

10/15/2008

1377

MOTION for Disbursement of Funds Fifteenth Motion for Disbursement of Funds and [Proposed] Order ﬁled by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 10/15/2008) (Entered: 10/15/2008)

10/16/2008 1379 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1377 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/16/2008) (Entered: 10/16/2008)

10/20/2008 1380 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1353 Motion to Compel Production of Billing Statements in Electronic Format (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/20/2008) (Entered: 10/20/2008)

10/24/2008 1381 Letter from Jay C. Russell, Deputy Attorney General and [Proposed] Protective Order. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 10/24/2008) (Entered: 10/24/2008)

10/24/2008

1382

Declaration of Ernest Galvan in compliance with the court's 1380 Order on Motion to Compel Production of Billing Statements in Electronic Form ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, Copy of Proposed Order Lodged Herewith, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Related document(s) 1380 ) (Galvan, Ernest) (Filed on 10/24/2008) Modiﬁed on 10/27/2008 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/24/2008)

10/24/2008 1383 Proposed Order re 1380 Order on Motion to Compel Production of Billing Statements in Electronic Form by John Armstrong. (Galvan, Ernest) (Filed on 10/24/2008) (Entered: 10/24/2008)

10/30/2008 1384 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Show Cause Response due by 11/10/2008.. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/30/08. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/30/2008) (Entered: 10/30/2008)

11/10/2008

1385

Sixteenth Motion for Disbursement of Funds and Proposed Order ﬁled by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 11/10/2008) Modiﬁed on 11/12/2008 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/10/2008)

11/10/2008 1386 PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 11/10/08. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/10/2008) (Entered: 11/10/2008)

11/10/2008

1387

RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Joseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, Arnold Schwarzenegger, James Tilton, John Monday Re: Transition, Activation, and Management of the Receiver's 10,000 Bed Project. (East, Rochelle) (Filed on 11/10/2008) (Entered: 11/10/2008)

11/12/2008 1388 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1385 Sixteenth Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/12/2008) (Entered: 11/12/2008)

11/17/2008

1389

RESPONSE of Receiver J. Clark Kelso to Defendants' Response to OSC re: Transition, Activation, and Management of Receiver's 10,000 Bed Project Coordination Agreement by J. Clark Kelso. (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 11/17/2008) Modiﬁed on 11/18/2008 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/17/2008)

11/19/2008 1390 ORDER MODIFYING REPORTING REQUIREMENTS. Signed by Judge CLAUDIA WILKEN on 11/19/08. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/19/2008) (Entered: 11/19/2008)

11/25/2008 1391 NOTICE of Appearance by Mark Raymond Feeser (Feeser, Mark) (Filed on 11/25/2008) (Entered: 11/25/2008)

12/01/2008 1392 ORDER RE: TRANSITION PLANNING COORDINATION AGREEMENT. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 12/1/08. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/1/2008) (Entered: 12/01/2008)

12/09/2008

1393

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Plaintiﬀs' Exhibits A-H, # 2 Exhibit Defendants' Exhibits A-F)(Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 12/9/2008) (Entered: 12/09/2008)

12/09/2008

1394

NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 1386 Protective Order by Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Filing fee $ 455.00, receipt #44611002926. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/9/2008) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/4/2019: # 1 Receipt) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/10/2008)

12/10/2008 1395 Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 1394 Notice of Appeal (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/10/2008) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/10/2008)

12/10/2008

Copy of Notice of Appeal and Docket sheet mailed to all counsel (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/10/2008) (Entered: 12/10/2008)

12/11/2008

1396

MOTION for Disbursement of Funds Seventeenth Motion and [Proposed] Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 12/11/2008) (Entered: 12/11/2008)

12/12/2008

1397

USCA Case Number 08-17664 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for 1394 Notice of Appeal ﬁled by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Attachments: # 1 USCA Time Scheduling Order)(kk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/12/2008) (Entered: 12/12/2008)

12/12/2008 1398 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1396 Seventeenth Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/12/2008) (Entered: 12/12/2008)

12/16/2008

1399

Minute Entry: Further Case Management Conference held on 12/16/2008 before Claudia Wilken (Date Filed: 12/16/2008). Further Case Management Conference set for 2/24/2009 02:00 PM. (Court Reporter Starr Wilson, pro tem.) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 12/16/2008) (Entered: 12/17/2008)

12/19/2008

1400

Statement re 1394 Notice of Appeal Defendants-Appellants' Representation Statement Re: Notice of Appeal ﬁled December 9, 2008 by Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 12/19/2008) (Entered: 12/19/2008)

12/22/2008 1401 Transcript Designation and Ordering Form for proceedings held on 10/14/08 before Judge Claudia Wilken, (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/22/2008) (Entered: 12/23/2008)

01/09/2009

1402

Proposed Order Conﬁrming Undisputed California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Adult Operations and Adult Programs Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the Third Quarterly Statement of 2008 by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 1/9/2009) (Entered: 01/09/2009)

01/09/2009 1403 Proposed Order Conﬁrming Undisputed Board of Parole Hearings Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Third Quarter of 2008 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 1/9/2009) (Entered: 01/09/2009)

01/09/2009 1404 Proposed Order Conﬁrming Undisputed Division of Adult Parole Operations Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the Third Quarterly Statement of 2008 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 1/9/2009) (Entered: 01/09/2009)

01/12/2009 1405 ORDER re 1402 Conﬁrming Undisputed California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Adult Operations and Adult

Programs Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the Third Quarterly Statement of 2008. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/12/09. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/12/2009) (Entered: 01/12/2009)

01/12/2009

1406

ORDER re 1404 Conﬁrming Undisputed Division of Adult Parole Operations Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the Third Quarterly Statement of 2008. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/12/09. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/12/2009) (Entered: 01/12/2009)

01/12/2009

1407

ORDER re 1403 Conﬁrming Undisputed Board of Parole Hearings Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Third Quarter of 2008. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/12/09. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/12/2009) (Entered: 01/12/2009)

01/13/2009

1408

STATUS REPORT Concerning the Meet and Confer Process Following the Court's Case Management Conference Order of December 16, 2008, and Agreement that Court Should Reconsider November 10, 2008 Protective Order and Instead Enter Revised Protective Order by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 1/13/2009) (Entered: 01/13/2009)

01/13/2009

1409

Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld In Support of re 1408 Plaintiﬀs' Report Concerning the Meet and Confer Process Following the Court's Case Management Conference Order of December 16, 2008, and Agreement that Court Should Reconsider November 10, 2008 Protective Order and Instead Enter Revised Protective Order by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 1/13/2009) Modiﬁed on 1/14/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/13/2009)

01/13/2009 1410 Proposed Order re 1408 Status Report by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 1/13/2009) Modiﬁed on 1/14/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/13/2009)

01/14/2009

1411

MOTION for Disbursement of Funds Eighteenth Motion for Disbursement of Funds and [Proposed] Order ﬁled by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 1/14/2009) (Entered: 01/14/2009)

01/15/2009 1412 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Show Cause Response due by 1/30/2009.. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/15/09. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/15/2009) (Entered: 01/15/2009)

01/15/2009

1413

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (re Transcription and Dictation Coordination Agreement) Show Cause Response due by 1/30/2009.. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/15/09. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/15/2009) (Entered: 01/15/2009)

01/15/2009

1414

MOTION to Strike Pleadings ﬁled by Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 1/15/2009) Modiﬁed on 1/16/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/15/2009)

01/15/2009 1415 Declaration of Jay C. Russell in Support of 1414 MOTION to Strike

Pleadings ﬁled byArnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Related document(s) 1414 ) (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 1/15/2009) Modiﬁed on 1/16/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/15/2009)

01/15/2009

1416

Proposed Order re 1414 MOTION to Strike Pleadings by Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 1/15/2009) Modiﬁed on 1/16/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/15/2009)

01/16/2009 1417 Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Administrative Motion to Strike Pleadings ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Feeser, Mark) (Filed on 1/16/2009) (Entered: 01/16/2009)

01/16/2009 1418 Proposed Order re 1414 Administrative Motion to Strike Pleadings by John Armstrong. (Feeser, Mark) (Filed on 1/16/2009) Modiﬁed on 1/20/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/16/2009)

01/16/2009 1419

Transcript of Proceedings held on 12/16/08, before Judge Claudia Wilken. Court Reporter/Transcriber Starr A. Wilson, Telephone number (415) 239-8398. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Oﬃce public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this ﬁling. Redaction Request due 2/3/2009. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/13/2009. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/13/2009. (Wilson, Starr) (Filed on 1/16/2009) (Entered: 01/16/2009)

01/20/2009

1420

NOTICE of Filing of Receiver's Tenth Tri-Annual Report by J. Clark Kelso(Attachments: # 1 Receiver's Tenth Tri-Annual Report)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 1/20/2009) Modiﬁed on 1/21/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/20/2009)

01/20/2009 1421 Table of Appendices and Appendices 1 to 5 re 1420 Notice by J. Clark Kelso(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 1/20/2009) Modiﬁed on 1/21/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/20/2009)

01/20/2009 1422 Appendices 6 to 13 re 1420 Notice by J. Clark Kelso(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 1/20/2009) Modiﬁed on 1/21/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/20/2009)

01/20/2009 1423 Appendices 14 to 15 re 1420 Notice by J. Clark Kelso(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 1/20/2009) Modiﬁed on 1/21/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/20/2009)

01/20/2009 1424 Appendices 16 to 18 re 1420 Notice by J. Clark Kelso (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 1/20/2009) Modiﬁed on 1/21/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/20/2009)

01/20/2009 1425 Appendices 19 to 23 re 1420 Notice by J. Clark Kelso(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 1/20/2009) Modiﬁed on 1/21/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/20/2009)

01/20/2009 1426 Appendices 24 to 25 re 1420 Notice by J. Clark Kelso(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 1/20/2009) Modiﬁed on 1/21/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/20/2009)

01/20/2009 1427 Appendices 26 to 29 re 1420 Notice by J. Clark Kelso (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 1/20/2009) Modiﬁed on 1/21/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/20/2009)

01/20/2009 1428 Appendices 30 to 34 re 1420 Notice by J. Clark Kelso(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 1/20/2009) Modiﬁed on 1/21/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/20/2009)

01/20/2009 1429 Appendices 35 to 43 re 1420 Notice by J. Clark Kelso(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 1/20/2009) Modiﬁed on 1/21/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/20/2009)

01/21/2009 1430 NOTICE of Appearance by Cynthia Clarke Fritz (Fritz, Cynthia) (Filed on 1/21/2009) (Entered: 01/21/2009)

01/26/2009 1431 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken denying 1414 Motion to Strike Pleadings (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/26/2009) (Entered: 01/26/2009)

01/26/2009 1432 NOTICE OF INTENT TO RECONSIDER. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/26/09. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/26/2009) (Entered: 01/26/2009)

01/26/2009 1433 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1411 Eighteenth Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/26/2009) (Entered: 01/26/2009)

01/30/2009 1434 RESPONSE to re 1432 Order by Arnold Schwarzenegger. (ZelidonZepeda, Jose) (Filed on 1/30/2009) (Entered: 01/30/2009)

01/30/2009 1435 [PROPOSED] REVISED PROTECTIVE ORDER by Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Zelidon-Zepeda, Jose) (Filed on 1/30/2009) Modiﬁed on 2/2/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/30/2009)

01/30/2009

1436

Amended Administrative Motion and [Proposed] Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 1/30/2009) Modiﬁed on 2/2/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/30/2009)

01/30/2009

1437

Response to Order to Show Cause Re: Transcription and Dictation Coordination Agreement byArnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Fritz, Cynthia) (Filed on 1/30/2009) (Entered: 01/30/2009)

01/30/2009

1438

Response to Order to Show Cause Re: Health Care Administrative Appeals Coordination Agreement byArnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Fritz, Cynthia) (Filed on 1/30/2009) (Entered: 01/30/2009)

02/02/2009 1439 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1436 Amended Administrative Motion for Payment (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/2/2009) (Entered: 02/02/2009)

02/02/2009

1440

Defendants' Supplemental Statement Regarding Request For Approval Of The Coordination Agreement On Transition Planning by Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Lewis, Kyle) (Filed on 2/2/2009) Modiﬁed on 2/3/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/02/2009)

02/02/2009 1441 Joint Statement re Coordination Agreement Regarding Transition, Activation and Management of 10,000 Bed Project by J. Clark Kelso(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 2/2/2009) Modiﬁed on 2/3/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/02/2009)

02/03/2009 1442 Updated Analyses Regarding Projected Need for Long-Term Care Facilities for CDCR Inmate-Patients by J. Clark Kelso(Attachments: # 1 Exhibits 1 to 4)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 2/3/2009) Modiﬁed on 2/4/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/03/2009)

02/03/2009 1443 Receiver's Initial Reply to Defendants' Response to OSC re Transcription and Dictation Coordination Agreement by J. Clark Kelso(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 2/3/2009) Modiﬁed on 2/4/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/03/2009)

02/04/2009 1444 Reply to Defendants' Response to the Court's January 26, 2009 Notice of Intent to Reconsider by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 2/4/2009) Modiﬁed on 2/5/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/04/2009)

02/06/2009 1445 NOTICE by J. Clark Kelso Receiver's Report on Options for LongTerm Care Bed Construction (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 2/6/2009) (Entered: 02/06/2009)

02/10/2009 1446 Plaintiﬀs' Response to re 1443 Receiver's Reply to Defendants' Response to OSC re Transcription and Dictation Coordination Agreement by John Armstrong (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 2/10/2009) Modiﬁed on 2/11/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/10/2009)

02/13/2009

1447

Nineteenth Motion for Disbursement of Funds and [Proposed] Order ﬁled by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 2/13/2009) Modiﬁed on 2/17/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/13/2009)

02/17/2009 1448

JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT ﬁled by John Armstrong, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, *** # 2 Exhibit PLEASE SEE DOCKET # 1451 re Exhibit A *** ) (Specter, Donald) (Filed on 2/17/2009) Modiﬁed on 2/18/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 2/25/2009 (ewn, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 2/26/2009 (ewn, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/5/2009: # 2 Exhibit A) (cp, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 3/5/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/17/2009)

02/18/2009 1449 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1447 Nineteenth Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/18/2009) (Entered: 02/18/2009)

02/23/2009 1450 ORDER CONCERNING PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by

Judge Claudia Wilken on 2/23/09. (Attachments: # 1 Draft Protective Order)(cwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/23/2009) (Entered: 02/23/2009)

02/24/2009

1455

Minute Entry: Further Case Management Conference held on 2/24/2009 before Claudia Wilken (Date Filed: 2/24/2009). Further Case Management Conference set for 3/3/2009 02:00 PM. Further Case Management Conference set for 4/28/2009 02:30 PM. (Court Reporter Diane Skillman.) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 2/24/2009) Modiﬁed on 3/3/2009 (scc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/03/2009)

02/25/2009 1451 EXHIBIT A CORRECTION OF DOCKET #[1448-3] by John Armstrong. (Specter, Donald) (Filed on 2/25/2009) Modiﬁed on 2/26/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/25/2009)

02/25/2009 1452 MOTION to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document Docket #1448-3 ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Specter, Donald) (Filed on 2/25/2009) (Entered: 02/25/2009)

02/25/2009 1453 Proposed Order re 1452 MOTION to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document Docket #1448-3, 1451 Status Report by John Armstrong. (Specter, Donald) (Filed on 2/25/2009) (Entered: 02/25/2009)

03/02/2009 1454 PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 3/2/09. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/2/2009) (Entered: 03/02/2009)

03/03/2009

1457

Minute Entry: Further Case Management Conference held on 3/3/2009 before Claudia Wilken (Date Filed: 3/3/2009). (Court Reporter Diane Skillman.) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 3/3/2009) (Entered: 03/09/2009)

03/04/2009 1456 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1452 Motion to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/4/2009) (Entered: 03/04/2009)

03/11/2009

1458

MOTION for Disbursement of Funds Twentieth Motion and [Proposed] Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 3/11/2009) (Entered: 03/11/2009)

03/13/2009 1459 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1458 Twentieth Motion for Payment (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/13/2009) (Entered: 03/13/2009)

03/20/2009

1460

MANDATE of USCA as to 1394 Notice of Appeal ﬁled by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Arnold Schwarzenegger (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/20/2009) (Entered: 03/20/2009)

03/20/2009 1461 CLERKS Letter Spreading Mandate to Counsel as to 1394 Notice of Appeal (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/20/2009) (Entered: 03/20/2009)

04/01/2009 1462 Proposed Order Conﬁrming Undisputed Division of Adult Parole Operations Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the Fourth Quarterly

Statement of 2008 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 4/1/2009) (Entered: 04/01/2009)

04/03/2009

1463

ORDER re 1462 Conﬁrming Undisputed Division of Adult Parole Operations Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the Fourth Quarterly Statement of 2008. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 4/3/09. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/3/2009) (Entered: 04/03/2009)

04/06/2009 1464 Proposed Order Conﬁrming Undisputed Board of Parole Hearings Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Fourth Quarter of 2008 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 4/6/2009) (Entered: 04/06/2009)

04/07/2009 1465 Proposed Order Conﬁrming Undisputed CDCR Adult Operations and Adult Programs Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the Fourth Quarterly Statement of 2008 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 4/7/2009) (Entered: 04/07/2009)

04/13/2009

1466

Twenty-ﬁrst Administrative Motion and [Proposed] Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 4/13/2009) Modiﬁed on 4/14/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/13/2009)

04/16/2009

1467

ORDER re 1465 Conﬁrming Undisputed California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Adult Operations and Adult Programs Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the Fourth Quarterly Statement of 2008. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 4/16/09. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/16/2009) Modiﬁed on 4/17/2009 (scc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/16/2009)

04/16/2009

1468

ORDER re 1464 Conﬁrming Undisputed Board of Parole Hearings Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Fourth Quarter of 2008. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 4/16/09. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/16/2009) (Entered: 04/16/2009)

04/16/2009 1469 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1466 Twenty-ﬁrst Administrative Motion for Payment (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/16/2009) (Entered: 04/16/2009)

04/21/2009

1470

JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT ﬁled by Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, John Armstrong, et al. (Fritz, Cynthia) (Filed on 4/21/2009) Modiﬁed on 4/22/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/21/2009)

04/28/2009

1471

Minute Entry: Further Case Management Conference held on 4/28/2009 before Claudia Wilken (Date Filed: 4/28/2009). Further Case Management Conference set for 7/9/2009 02:00 PM. Motion Hearing set for 7/9/2009 02:00 PM. (Court Reporter David Disbrow, pro tem.) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 4/28/2009) (Entered: 05/01/2009)

05/08/2009 1472 MOTION TO CLARIFY OR MODIFY JANUARY 18, 2007 INJUNCTION

ﬁled by Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Fritz, Cynthia) (Filed on 5/8/2009) Modiﬁed on 5/11/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 5/14/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF).

***For Table of Contents, see document # 1477 ***

(Entered: 05/08/2009)

05/08/2009

1473

Declaration of Cynthia C. Fritz in Support of 1472 MOTION TO CLARIFY OR MODIFY JANUARY 18, 2007 INJUNCTION ﬁled byArnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Related document(s) 1472 ) (Fritz, Cynthia) (Filed on 5/8/2009) Modiﬁed on 5/11/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/08/2009)

05/08/2009

1474

Declaration of Rick Wells in Support of 1472 MOTION TO CLARIFY OR MODIFY JANUARY 18, 2007 INJUNCTION ﬁled byArnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Related document(s) 1472 ) (Fritz, Cynthia) (Filed on 5/8/2009) Modiﬁed on 5/11/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/08/2009)

05/08/2009

1475

Proposed Order Granting re 1472 MOTION TO MODIFY JANUARY 18, 2007 INJUNCTION by Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Fritz, Cynthia) (Filed on 5/8/2009) Modiﬁed on 5/12/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 5/12/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/08/2009)

05/08/2009

1476

Proposed Order Granting re 1472 MOTION TO CLARIFY JANUARY 18, 2007 INJUNCTION by Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Fritz, Cynthia) (Filed on 5/8/2009) Modiﬁed on 5/12/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 5/12/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 5/12/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/08/2009)

05/13/2009

1477

TABLE OF CONTENTS AND AUTHORITIES re 1472 MOTION TO CLARIFY OR MODIFY JANUARY 18, 2007 INJUNCTION by Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Fritz, Cynthia) (Filed on 5/13/2009) Modiﬁed on 5/14/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/13/2009)

05/15/2009

1478

Twenty-Second Administrative Motion and [Proposed] Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 5/15/2009) Modiﬁed on 5/18/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/15/2009)

05/19/2009

1479

STIPULATION and Proposed Order Extending Time in Which Plaintiﬀs May Move to Compel Certain Disputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs Incurred in 2008 by John Armstrong, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 5/19/2009) Modiﬁed on 5/20/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/19/2009)

05/21/2009 1480 ORDER re 1479 GRANTING STIPULATION Extending Time in Which

Plaintiﬀs May Move to Compel Certain Disputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs Incurred in 2008. Signed by Judge CLAUDIA WILKEN on 5/21/09. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/21/2009) (Entered: 05/21/2009)

05/21/2009 1481 Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants Motion to Clarify or Modify January 18, 2007 Injunction ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Godbold, Penelope) (Filed on 5/21/2009) (Entered: 05/21/2009)

05/28/2009 1482 MOTION to Seal Document; Declaration of Holly Baldwin ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 5/28/2009) Modiﬁed on 5/29/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/28/2009)

05/28/2009 1483 Proposed Order re 1482 MOTION to Seal Document by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 5/28/2009) Modiﬁed on 5/29/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/28/2009)

05/28/2009

1484

MOTION to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails and Ensure Access to a Workable Grievance Procedure ﬁled by John Armstrong. Motion Hearing set for 7/9/2009 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland. (Bien, Michael) (Filed on 5/28/2009) Modiﬁed on 5/29/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/28/2009)

05/28/2009

1485

Proposed Order re 1484 MOTION to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails and Ensure Access to a Workable Grievance Procedure by John Armstrong. (Bien, Michael) (Filed on 5/28/2009) Modiﬁed on 5/29/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/28/2009)

05/28/2009

1486

Declaration of F. Nura Maznavi in Support of 1484 MOTION to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails and Ensure Access to a Workable Grievance Procedure ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1484 ) (Bien, Michael) (Filed on 5/28/2009) Modiﬁed on 5/29/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/28/2009)

05/28/2009

1487

Declaration of Ernest Galvan in Support of 1484 MOTION to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails and Ensure Access to a Workable Grievance Procedure ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1484 ) (Bien, Michael) (Filed on 5/28/2009) Modiﬁed on 5/29/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/28/2009)

05/28/2009 1488 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by John Armstrong (Bien, Michael) (Filed on 5/28/2009) (Entered: 05/28/2009)

05/28/2009 1489

*** FILED IN ERROR. PLEASE REFER TO DOCUMENT 1492 . *** Declaration of Anne Mania in Support of 1484 MOTION Plaintiﬀs' Notice of Motion and Motion to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails and Ensure Access to a Workable Grievance Procedure ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibits B through F, # 3 Exhibit Exhibits G through K, # 4

Exhibit Exhibits L through T, # 5 Exhibit Exhibits U through BB, # 6 Exhibit Exhibits CC through EE, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit FF Part 1, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit FF Part 2, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit GG, # 10 Exhibit Exhibits HH through LL)(Related document(s) 1484 ) (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 5/28/2009) Modiﬁed on 5/29/2009 (ewn, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 5/29/2009 (feriab, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 6/9/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/28/2009)

05/28/2009

1490

MOTION to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document Declaration of Anne Mania in Support of Motion to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members in County Jails and Ensure Access to a Workable Grievance Procedure ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 5/28/2009) (Entered: 05/28/2009)

05/28/2009

1491

Proposed Order re 1490 MOTION to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document Declaration of Anne Mania in Support of Motion to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members in County Jails and Ensure Access to a Workable Grievance Procedure by John Armstrong. (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 5/28/2009) (Entered: 05/28/2009)

05/28/2009 1510

Declaration of F. Nura Maznavi in support of plaintiﬀs' motion to require defendants to track and accommodate needs of Armstrong class members housed in County Jails and ensure access to a workable grievance procedure ﬁled byFlora Abrams, James Amauric, John Armstrong, David Badillo, Billy Beck, David Blessing, Elio Castro, Clifton Feathers, Judy Fendt, Walter Fratus, Joey Gough, Raymond Hayes, Steven Hill, Gene Horrocks, Willie Johnson, Darlene Madison, Kiah Mincey, Richard Ponciano, Peter Richardson, David Rose, Gregory Sandoval, James Simmons, Jack Swensen, Elmer Umbenhower, Timothy Whisman.

***FILED UNDER SEAL***

(cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/28/2009) (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/10/2009)

05/28/2009 1511

Declaration of Ernest Galvan in support of plaintiﬀs' motion to require defendants to track and accommodate needs of Armstrong class members housed in County Jails and ensure access to a workable grievance procedure ﬁled byFlora Abrams, James Amauric, John Armstrong, David Badillo, Billy Beck, David Blessing, Elio Castro, Clifton Feathers, Judy Fendt, Walter Fratus, Joey Gough, Raymond Hayes, Steven Hill, Gene Horrocks, Willie Johnson, Darlene Madison, Kiah Mincey, Richard Ponciano, Peter Richardson, David Rose, Gregory Sandoval, James Simmons, Jack Swensen, Elmer Umbenhower, Timothy Whisman.

***FILED UNDER SEAL***

(cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/28/2009) (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/10/2009)

05/29/2009

1492

Declaration of Anne Mania in Support of 1484 MOTION to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails and Ensure Access to a Workable Grievance Procedure CORRECTION OF DOCKET # 1489 . ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B-F, # 3 Exhibit G-K, # 4 Exhibit L-T, # 5 Exhibit U-BB, # 6 Exhibit CC-EE, # 7 Exhibit FF Part 1, # 8 Exhibit FF Part 2, # 9 Exhibit GG, # 10 Exhibit HH-LL)(Related document(s) 1484 ) (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 5/29/2009) (Entered: 05/29/2009)

05/29/2009

1493

Reply to Opposition re 1472 MOTION TO CLARIFY OR MODIFY JANUARY 18, 2007 INJUNCTION ﬁled byArnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Fritz, Cynthia) (Filed on 5/29/2009) Modiﬁed on 6/1/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/29/2009)

06/01/2009

1494

NOTICE by J. Clark Kelso Notice of Filing of Receiver's Eleventh TriAnnual Report (Attachments: # 1 Eleventh Tri-Annual Report, # 2 Table of Appendices)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 6/1/2009) (Entered: 06/01/2009)

06/01/2009 1495 Appendix re 1494 Notice (Other) Appendices 1 to 10 ﬁled byJ. Clark Kelso. (Related document(s) 1494 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 6/1/2009) (Entered: 06/01/2009)

06/01/2009 1496 Appendix re 1494 Notice (Other) Appendices 11 to 12 ﬁled byJ. Clark Kelso. (Related document(s) 1494 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 6/1/2009) (Entered: 06/01/2009)

06/01/2009 1497 Appendix re 1494 Notice (Other) Appendices 13 to 15 ﬁled byJ. Clark Kelso. (Related document(s) 1494 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 6/1/2009) (Entered: 06/01/2009)

06/01/2009 1498 Appendix re 1494 Notice (Other) Appendices 16 to 18 ﬁled byJ. Clark Kelso. (Related document(s) 1494 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 6/1/2009) (Entered: 06/01/2009)

06/01/2009 1499 Appendix re 1494 Notice (Other) Appendices 19 to 24 ﬁled byJ. Clark Kelso. (Related document(s) 1494 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 6/1/2009) (Entered: 06/01/2009)

06/02/2009 1500 NOTICE of Change of Address by Martin H. Dodd Notice of Change of Firm Name and Firm Address (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 6/2/2009) (Entered: 06/02/2009)

06/04/2009

1501

MOTION to Compel Disputed Costs and Expenses From Quarters 3 and 4 of 2008 ﬁled by John Armstrong. Motion Hearing set for 7/9/2009 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 6/4/2009) (Entered: 06/04/2009)

06/04/2009

1502

Declaration of Gay C. Grunfeld in Support of 1501 MOTION to Compel Disputed Costs and Expenses From Quarters 3 and 4 of 2008 ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1501 ) (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 6/4/2009) (Entered: 06/04/2009)

06/04/2009

1503

Declaration of Geoﬀrey T. Holtz in Support of 1501 MOTION to Compel Disputed Costs and Expenses From Quarters 3 and 4 of 2008 ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1501 ) (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 6/4/2009) (Entered: 06/04/2009)

06/04/2009

1504

Declaration of Michael Rubin in Support of 1501 MOTION to Compel Disputed Costs and Expenses From Quarters 3 and 4 of 2008 ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1501 ) (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 6/4/2009) (Entered: 06/04/2009)

06/04/2009

1505

Declaration of James W. Morando in Support of 1501 MOTION to Compel Disputed Costs and Expenses From Quarters 3 and 4 of 2008 ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1501 ) (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 6/4/2009) (Entered: 06/04/2009)

06/04/2009 1506 Proposed Order re 1501 MOTION to Compel Disputed Costs and Expenses From Quarters 3 and 4 of 2008 by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 6/4/2009) (Entered: 06/04/2009)

06/08/2009 1507 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting as modiﬁed 1482 Motion to Seal Document (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/8/2009) (Entered: 06/08/2009)

06/08/2009 1508 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1490 Motion to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/8/2009) (Entered: 06/08/2009)

06/08/2009

1509

STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Arnold Schwarzenegger, John Armstrong, et al. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 6/8/2009) Modiﬁed on 6/9/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/08/2009)

06/11/2009 1512 ORDER re 1509 granting STIPULATION. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 6/11/09. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/11/2009) (Entered: 06/11/2009)

06/11/2009

1513

MOTION and [Proposed] Order for Disbursement of Funds (TwentyThird Administrative Motion) ﬁled by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 6/11/2009) Modiﬁed on 6/12/2009 (cjl, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/11/2009)

06/11/2009 1514 Letter from Clerk to Richard Barker. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/11/2009) (Entered: 06/11/2009)

06/11/2009

1515

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1478 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/11/2009) Modiﬁed on 6/12/2009 (cjl, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/11/2009)

06/15/2009 1516 NOTICE of Appearance by Scott John Feudale (Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 6/15/2009) (Entered: 06/15/2009)

06/16/2009

1517

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1513 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds (Twenty-Third Administrative Motion) (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/16/2009) (Entered: 06/16/2009)

06/18/2009

1518

Memorandum in Opposition re 1501 MOTION to Compel Disputed Costs and Expenses From Quarters 3 and 4 of 2008 Defendants' Opposition To Plaintiﬀs' Motion To Compel Disputed Costs and Expenses ﬁled byCalifornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 6/18/2009) (Entered: 06/18/2009)

06/25/2009

1519

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO REQUIRE DEFENDANTS TO TRACK AND ACCOMMODATE NEEDS OF ARMSTRONG CLASS MEMBERS HOUSED IN COUNTY JAILS AND TO ENSURE ACCESS TO A WORKABLE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE ﬁled byCalifornia Board of Prison Term, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Midge Carroll, Kevin Carruth, Gray Davis, James Gomez, Judith McGillivray, Kyle McKinsey, John Monday, Marisela Montes, James Nielsen, Robert Presley, Joseph C. Sandoval, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Susanne Steinberg, Cal A. Terhune, James Tilton, David Tristan, Pete Wilson. (Zelidon-Zepeda, Jose) (Filed on 6/25/2009) Modiﬁed on 6/26/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/25/2009)

06/25/2009 1520

Declaration of LORI MACIAS-PRICE in Support of 1519 Opposition ﬁled byCalifornia Board of Prison Term, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Midge Carroll, Kevin Carruth, Gray Davis, James Gomez, Judith McGillivray, Kyle McKinsey, John Monday, Marisela Montes, James Nielsen, Robert Presley, Joseph C. Sandoval, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Susanne Steinberg, Cal A. Terhune, James Tilton, David Tristan, Pete Wilson. (Related document(s) 1519 ) (Zelidon-Zepeda, Jose) (Filed on 6/25/2009) Modiﬁed on 6/26/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/25/2009)

06/25/2009 1521

Declaration of PATRICIA CASSADY in Support of 1519 Opposition ﬁled byCalifornia Board of Prison Term, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Midge Carroll, Kevin Carruth, Gray Davis, James Gomez, Judith McGillivray, Kyle McKinsey, John Monday, Marisela Montes, James Nielsen, Robert Presley, Joseph C. Sandoval, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Susanne Steinberg, Cal A. Terhune, James Tilton, David Tristan, Pete Wilson. (Related document(s) 1519 ) (Zelidon-Zepeda, Jose) (Filed on 6/25/2009) Modiﬁed on 6/26/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/25/2009)

06/25/2009

1522

Memorandum in Opposition CORRECTION OF DOCKET # 1519 ﬁled byCalifornia Board of Prison Term, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Midge Carroll, Kevin Carruth, Gray Davis, James Gomez, Judith McGillivray, Kyle McKinsey, John Monday, Marisela Montes, James Nielsen, Robert Presley, Joseph C. Sandoval, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Susanne Steinberg, Cal A. Terhune, James Tilton, David Tristan, Pete Wilson. (Zelidon-Zepeda, Jose) (Filed on 6/25/2009) (Entered: 06/25/2009)

06/25/2009

1523

Declaration of JOHN OLIVA in Support of 1522 Memorandum in Opposition, ﬁled byCalifornia Board of Prison Term, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Midge Carroll, Kevin Carruth, Gray Davis, James Gomez, Judith McGillivray, Kyle

McKinsey, John Monday, Marisela Montes, James Nielsen, Robert Presley, Joseph C. Sandoval, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Susanne Steinberg, Cal A. Terhune, James Tilton, David Tristan, Pete Wilson. (Related document(s) 1522 ) (Zelidon-Zepeda, Jose) (Filed on 6/25/2009) (Entered: 06/25/2009)

06/25/2009 1524

Proposed Order Denying plaintiﬀ's motion to require defendants to track and accommodate needs of Armstrong class members housed in county jails and ensure a workable grievance procedure by California Board of Prison Term, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Midge Carroll, Kevin Carruth, Gray Davis, James Gomez, Judith McGillivray, Kyle McKinsey, John Monday, Marisela Montes, James Nielsen, Robert Presley, Joseph C. Sandoval, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Susanne Steinberg, Cal A. Terhune, James Tilton, David Tristan, Pete Wilson. (Zelidon-Zepeda, Jose) (Filed on 6/25/2009) Modiﬁed on 6/26/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/25/2009)

06/25/2009

1525

OBJECTIONS to PLAINTIFFS EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO REQUIRE DEFENDANTS TO TRACK AND ACCOMMODATE NEEDS OF ARMSTRONG CLASS MEMBERS HOUSED IN COUNTY JAILS by California Board of Prison Term, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Midge Carroll, Kevin Carruth, Gray Davis, James Gomez, Judith McGillivray, Kyle McKinsey, John Monday, Marisela Montes, James Nielsen, Robert Presley, Joseph C. Sandoval, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Susanne Steinberg, Cal A. Terhune, James Tilton, David Tristan, Pete Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Zelidon-Zepeda, Jose) (Filed on 6/25/2009) (Entered: 06/25/2009)

06/25/2009

1526

Reply Memorandum re 1501 MOTION to Compel Disputed Costs and Expenses From Quarters 3 and 4 of 2008 ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 6/25/2009) (Entered: 06/25/2009)

06/25/2009

1527

Reply Declaration of Gay C. Grunfeld ISO Plaintiﬀs' Motion to Compel Disputed Costs and Expenses From Quarters Three and Four of 2008 ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 6/25/2009) Modiﬁed on 6/26/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/25/2009)

06/25/2009

1528

Reply Declaration of James W. Morando ISO Plaintiﬀs' Motion to Compel Disputed Costs and Expenses From Quarters Three and Four of 2008 ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1526 ) (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 6/25/2009) Modiﬁed on 6/26/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/25/2009)

07/02/2009

1529

MOTION to Seal Document Declarations of F.Nura Maznavi and Melanie Wilkinson in Support of Plaintiﬀs' Resposne to Defendants' Objections to Plaintiﬀs' Evidence in Support of the Motion to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members in County Jails and Declaration of Anne Mania in Support ﬁled by John Armstrong. Motion Hearing set for

7/9/2009 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland. (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 7/2/2009) (Entered: 07/02/2009)

07/02/2009

1530

Proposed Order re 1529 MOTION to Seal Document Declarations of F.Nura Maznavi and Melanie Wilkinson in Support of Plaintiﬀs' Resposne to Defendants' Objections to Plaintiﬀs' Evidence in Support of the Motion to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate by John Armstrong. (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 7/2/2009) (Entered: 07/02/2009)

07/02/2009

1531

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT ﬁled by John Armstrong, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Joint Status Conference Statement)(Godbold, Penelope) (Filed on 7/2/2009) Modiﬁed on 7/6/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/02/2009)

07/02/2009

1532

Declaration of Holly Baldwin In Support of Plaintiﬀs' Response to Defendants' Objections to Plaintiﬀs' Evidence in Support of the 1484 Motion to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members in County Jails ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 7/2/2009) Modiﬁed on 7/6/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/02/2009)

07/02/2009

1533

Declaration of Ernest Galvan In Support of Plaintiﬀs' Response to Defendants' Objections to Plaintiﬀs' Evidence In Support of the 1484 Motion to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members in County Jails ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 7/2/2009) Modiﬁed on 7/6/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/02/2009)

07/02/2009

1534

Declaration of F. Nura Maznavi In Support of Plaintiﬀs' Response to Defendants' Objections to Plaintiﬀs' Evidence In Support of the 1484 Motion to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members in County Jails ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 7/2/2009) Modiﬁed on 7/6/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/02/2009)

07/02/2009

1535

Declaration of Melanie Wilkinson In Support of Plaintiﬀs' Response to Defendants' Objections to Plaintiﬀs' Evidence In Support of the 1484 Motion to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members in County Jails ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 7/2/2009) Modiﬁed on 7/6/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/02/2009)

07/02/2009

1536

RESPONSE to Defendants' Objections to Plaintiﬀs' Evidence In Support of the Motion to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members in County Jails by John Armstrong. (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 7/2/2009) (Entered: 07/02/2009)

07/02/2009

1537

Reply in support of re 1484 MOTION to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails and Ensure Access to a Workable Grievance Procedure ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 7/2/2009) Modiﬁed on 7/6/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/02/2009)

07/02/2009

1693

Declaration of Melanie Wilkinson in support of response to defendants' objections to plaintiﬀs' evidence in support of the motion to require defendants to track and accomodate needs of Armstrong class members in county jails ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/2/2009)

***FILED UNDER SEAL***

(cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/22/2010)

07/02/2009

1694

Declaration of F. Nura Maznavi in support of response to defendants' objections to plaintiﬀs' evidence in support of the motion to require defendants to track and accommodate needs of Armstrong class members in county jails ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/2/2009)

***FILED UNDER SEAL***

(cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/22/2010)

07/06/2009

1538

Proof of Service of Unredacted Declarations of Melanie Wilkinson and F. Nura Maznavi In Support of Plaintiﬀs' Response to Defendants' Evidentiary Objections (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 7/6/2009) Modiﬁed on 7/7/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/06/2009)

07/09/2009

1539

MOTION for Disbursement of Funds Twenty-Fourth Administrative Motion and [Proposed] Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 7/9/2009) (Entered: 07/09/2009)

07/09/2009

1543

Minute Entry: Further Case Management Conference held on 7/9/2009 before Claudia Wilken (Date Filed: 7/9/2009), Motion Hearing held on 7/9/2009 before Claudia Wilken (Date Filed: 7/9/2009) re 1501 MOTION to Compel Disputed Costs and Expenses From Quarters 3 and 4 of 2008 ﬁled by John Armstrong, 1472 MOTION TO CLARIFY OR MODIFY JANUARY 18, 2007 INJUNCTION ﬁled by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Arnold Schwarzenegger, 1484 MOTION to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails and Ensure Access to a Workable Grievance Procedure ﬁled by John Armstrong. Further Case Management Conference set for 9/22/2009 02:30 PM. (Court Reporter Diane Skillman.) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 7/9/2009) Modiﬁed on 7/16/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/15/2009)

07/09/2009

Set/Reset Hearings: Further Case Management Conference set for 9/22/2009 02:30 PM. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/9/2009) (Entered: 07/16/2009)

07/10/2009 1540 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1501 Motion to Compel PAYMENT OF DISPUTED COSTS (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/10/2009) (Entered: 07/10/2009)

07/10/2009 1541 ORDER DIRECTING ADDITIONAL INTERIM PAYMENT OF COSTS. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 7/10/09. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/10/2009) (Entered: 07/10/2009)

07/14/2009

1542

DEFENDANTS REQUEST TO SUBMIT STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISION ﬁled byCalifornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Attachment)(Zelidon-Zepeda, Jose) (Filed on 7/14/2009) Modiﬁed on 7/15/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/14/2009)

07/20/2009 1544 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1539 Twenty-Fourth Administrative Motion for Payment (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/20/2009) (Entered: 07/20/2009)

08/06/2009 1545 Proposed Order Conﬁrming Undisputed Attorney's Fees and Costs for the First Quarter of 2009 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 8/6/2009) (Entered: 08/06/2009)

08/07/2009

1546

NOTICE OF APPEAL as 1543 Minute Order by Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bernard Warner, Matthew Cate, Sharon August, Deborh Hysen, Suzan Hubbard, and Robert Ambroselli. Filing fee $ 455.00, receipt #44611003972. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/7/2009) Modiﬁed on 12/12/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/4/2019: # 1 Receipt) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/10/2009)

08/07/2009 1547 Appellants' Representation Statement re 1546 Notice of Appeal (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/7/2009) (Entered: 08/10/2009)

08/07/2009

1548

RECEIVED: Civil Appeals Docketing Statement forwarded to 9th Circuit US Court of Appeals by Arnold Schwarzenegger re 1546 Notice of Appeal (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/7/2009) (Entered: 08/10/2009)

08/10/2009

Copy of Notice of Appeal and Docket sheet mailed to all counsel (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/10/2009) (Entered: 08/10/2009)

08/12/2009

1549

USCA Case Number 09-16716 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for 1546 Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Attachments: # 1 USCA Time Scheduling Order)(kk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/12/2009) (Entered: 08/12/2009)

08/14/2009 1550 MOTION to Seal Document and Declaration of Lisa Ells ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Ells, Lisa) (Filed on 8/14/2009) (Entered: 08/14/2009)

08/14/2009 1551 Proposed Order re 1550 MOTION to Seal Document and Declaration of Lisa Ells by John Armstrong. (Ells, Lisa) (Filed on 8/14/2009) (Entered: 08/14/2009)

08/14/2009 1552 Declaration of Thomas Nolan In Support of Plaintiﬀs' Motion for Enforcement and Further Remedial Orders ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Ells, Lisa) ***REDACTED VERSION***

(Filed on 8/14/2009) Modiﬁed on 8/17/2009 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/14/2009)

08/14/2009

1553

Declaration of Anne Mania In Support of Plaintiﬀs' Motion for Enforcement and Further Remedial Orders ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Ells, Lisa) ***REDACTED VERSION*** (Filed on 8/14/2009) Modiﬁed on 8/17/2009 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/14/2009)

08/14/2009

1554

Declaration of Lisa Ells In Support of Plaintiﬀs' Motion for Enforcement and Further Remedial Orders ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Ells, Lisa) ***REDACTED VERSION*** (Filed on 8/14/2009) Modiﬁed on 8/17/2009 (kc, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 8/17/2009 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/14/2009)

08/14/2009

1555

EXHIBITS re 1554 Declaration in Support of Plaintiﬀs' Motion for Enforcement and Further Remedial Orders (Exhibits A-H) ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1554 ) (Ells, Lisa) (Filed on 8/14/2009) (Entered: 08/14/2009)

08/14/2009

1556

EXHIBITS re 1554 Declaration in Support of Plaintiﬀs' Motion for Enforcement and Further Remedial Orders (Exhibits I-L) ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1554 ) (Ells, Lisa) (Filed on 8/14/2009) (Entered: 08/14/2009)

08/14/2009

1557

EXHIBITS re 1554 Declaration in Support of Plaintiﬀs' Motion for Enforcement and Further Remedial Orders (Exhibits M-X) ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1554 ) (Ells, Lisa) (Filed on 8/14/2009) (Entered: 08/14/2009)

08/14/2009

1558

EXHIBITS re 1554 Declaration in Support of Plaintiﬀs' Motion for Enforcement and Further Remedial Orders (Exhibits Y-QQ) ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1554 ) (Ells, Lisa) (Filed on 8/14/2009) (Entered: 08/14/2009)

08/14/2009

1559

Declaration of Megan Hagler In Support of Plaintiﬀs' Motion for Enforcement and Further Remedial Orders ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-C, # 2 Exhibit D-F, # 3 Exhibit G-K, # 4 Exhibit L, # 5 Exhibit M, # 6 Exhibit N, # 7 Exhibit O-KK)(Hagler, Megan) ***REDACTED VERSION*** (Filed on 8/14/2009) Modiﬁed on 8/17/2009 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/14/2009)

08/14/2009 1560 Declaration of Sara Norman in Support of Motion for Enforcement and Further Remedial Orders ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Norman, Sara) (Filed on 8/14/2009) (Entered: 08/14/2009)

08/14/2009 1561 Proposed Order for Enforcement by John Armstrong. (Norman, Sara) (Filed on 8/14/2009) (Entered: 08/14/2009)

08/14/2009 1562 MOTION for Enforcement and Further Remedial Orders ﬁled by John Armstrong. Motion Hearing set for 9/22/2009 02:30 PM. (Norman,

Sara) (Filed on 8/14/2009) Modiﬁed on 8/17/2009 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/14/2009)

08/14/2009

1620

Declaration of Lisa Ells in Support of 1562 MOTION to Enforce Judgment and Further Remedial Orders ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1562 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/14/2009)

***FILED UNDER SEAL***

(Additional attachment(s) added on 8/14/2019: # 1 Part 2 of 2) (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/02/2009)

08/14/2009

1621

Declaration of Thomas Nolan in Support of 1562 MOTION to Enforce Judgment and Further Remedial Orders ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1562 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/14/2009)

***FILED UNDER SEAL***

(cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/02/2009)

08/14/2009

1622

Declaration of Anne Mania in Support of 1562 MOTION to Enforce Judgment and Further Remedial Orders ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1562 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/14/2009)

***FILED UNDER SEAL***

(cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/02/2009)

08/14/2009

1623

Declaration of Megan Hagler in Support of 1562 MOTION to Enforce Judgment and Further Remedial Orders ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1562 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/14/2009)

***FILED UNDER SEAL***

(Additional attachment(s) added on 8/15/2019: # 1 Exhibits A-H, # 2 Exhibits I-M, # 3 Exhibits N-Z, # 4 Exhibits AA-KK) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/02/2009)

08/17/2009

1563

ORDER re 1545 Conﬁrming Undisputed Attorney's Fees and Costs for the First Quarter of 2009. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 8/17/09. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/17/2009) (Entered: 08/17/2009)

08/17/2009

1564

MOTION for Disbursement of Funds Twenty-ﬁfth Administrative Motion and [Proposed] Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 8/17/2009) (Entered: 08/17/2009)

08/20/2009 1565 ORDER directing Defendants to comply with July 10, 2009 order or show cause why they should not be held in contempt. Signed by

Judge Claudia Wilken on 8/20/09. (cwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/20/2009) (Entered: 08/20/2009)

08/21/2009 1566 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1564 Twenty-ﬁfth Administrative Motion for Payment. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/21/2009) (Entered: 08/21/2009)

08/25/2009

1567

DECLARATION OF JAY C. RUSSELL IN RESPONSE TO AUGUST 20, 2009 ORDER ﬁled byCalifornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 8/25/2009) Modiﬁed on 8/26/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/25/2009)

08/27/2009

2859

RECEIVED $100,000.00 (Receipt #44611004037) from defendants of additional interim payment of cost per order # 1541 ﬁled 7/10/09. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/27/2009) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/28/2009)

08/28/2009

1568

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Arnold Schwarzenegger, John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Signature Page (Declarations/Stipulations) Certiﬁcate of Service)(Russell, Jay) (Filed on 8/28/2009) Modiﬁed on 8/31/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/28/2009)

08/31/2009 1569 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken CONCERNING HEALTH CARE APPLIANCE AND EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION TRAINING 1472 (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/31/2009) (Entered: 08/31/2009)

09/01/2009

1570

ORDER re 1568 granting STIPULATION. Motion Hearing set for 10/13/2009 02:30 PM. Status Conference set for 10/13/2009 02:30 PM.. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 9/1/09. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/1/2009) (Entered: 09/01/2009)

09/15/2009

1571

Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiﬀ's Motion for Enforcement and Further Remedial Orders ﬁled byCalifornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Zelidon-Zepeda, Jose) (Filed on 9/15/2009) Modiﬁed on 9/16/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/15/2009)

09/15/2009

1572

Declaration of LARRY HUFF in Support of 1571 Memorandum in Opposition ﬁled byCalifornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Related document(s) 1571 ) (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 9/15/2009) (Entered: 09/15/2009)

09/15/2009

1573

STIPULATION for Administrative Relief to File Documents Under Seal; Proposed Order by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, John Armstrong, et al. (Zelidon-Zepeda, Jose) (Filed on 9/15/2009) Modiﬁed on 9/16/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/15/2009)

09/15/2009 1574 Declaration of P. Cochrane in Support of 1571 Memorandum in Opposition ﬁled byCalifornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Related

document(s) 1571 ) (Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 9/15/2009) (Entered: 09/15/2009)

09/15/2009

1575

Declaration of GENE NIES in Support of 1571 Memorandum in Opposition ﬁled byCalifornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G) (Related document(s) 1571 ) (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 9/15/2009) (Entered: 09/15/2009)

09/15/2009

1576

Declaration of Robert Keldgord in Support of 1571 Memorandum in Opposition ﬁled byCalifornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G) (Related document(s) 1571 ) (Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 9/15/2009) (Entered: 09/15/2009)

09/15/2009

1577

Declaration of L. Trexler in Support of 1571 Memorandum in Opposition ﬁled byCalifornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Related document(s) 1571 ) (Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 9/15/2009) (Entered: 09/15/2009)

09/15/2009 1578

*** FILED IN ERROR. REFER TO DOCUMENT 1588 . *** Declaration of CAROLYN COOPER in Support of 1571 Memorandum in Opposition ﬁled byCalifornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J)(Related document(s) 1571 ) (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 9/15/2009) Modiﬁed on 9/17/2009 (feriab, COURT STAFF). (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/15/2009)

09/15/2009

1579

*** FILED IN ERROR. REFER TO DOCUMENT 1589 . *** OBJECTIONS to Plaintiﬀ's Evidence in Support of Motion for Enforcement by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Zelidon-Zepeda, Jose) (Filed on 9/15/2009) Modiﬁed on 9/16/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 9/17/2009 (feriab, COURT STAFF). (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/15/2009)

09/15/2009

1580

Declaration of Jacqueline Ramirez in Support of 1571 Memorandum in Opposition ﬁled byCalifornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Related document(s) 1571 ) (Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 9/15/2009) (Entered: 09/15/2009)

09/15/2009

1581

Declaration of JULIAN MARTINEZ in Support of 1571 Memorandum in Opposition ﬁled byCalifornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Related document(s) 1571 ) (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 9/15/2009) (Entered: 09/15/2009)

09/15/2009 1582 Declaration of Joseph Prud'Homme in Support of 1571 Memorandum in Opposition ﬁled byCalifornia Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Related document(s) 1571 ) (Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 9/15/2009) (Entered: 09/15/2009)

09/15/2009

1583

Declaration of Robert D. Canning, Ph.D. in Support of 1571 Memorandum in Opposition ﬁled byCalifornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Related document(s) 1571 ) (Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 9/15/2009) (Entered: 09/15/2009)

09/15/2009

1584

Declaration of Beverly Graham in Support of 1571 Memorandum in Opposition ﬁled byCalifornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Related document(s) 1571 ) (Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 9/15/2009) (Entered: 09/15/2009)

09/15/2009

1585

Declaration of A. Bonilla in Support of 1571 Memorandum in Opposition ﬁled byCalifornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Related document(s) 1571 ) (Zelidon-Zepeda, Jose) (Filed on 9/15/2009) (Entered: 09/15/2009)

09/15/2009

1586

Proposed Order Denying Plaintiﬀ's Motion for Enforcement and Further Remedial Orders by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 9/15/2009) Modiﬁed on 9/16/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/15/2009)

09/15/2009

1638

Opposition to plaintiﬀs' motion for enforcement and further remedial orders ﬁled byArnold Schwarzenegger. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2009) ***FILED UNDER SEAL***

(cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/09/2009)
09/15/2009 1639 Declaration of Jacqueline Ramirez in Support of 1638 Memorandum in Opposition ﬁled by Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Related document(s) 1638 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2009)

***FILED UNDER SEAL***

Modiﬁed on 10/9/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/09/2009)
09/15/2009 1640 Declaration of Robert Keldgord in Support of 1638 Memorandum in Opposition ﬁled by Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Related document(s) 1638 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2009)

***FILED UNDER SEAL***

Modiﬁed on 10/9/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/09/2009)
09/15/2009 1641 Declaration of Gene Nies in Support of 1638 Memorandum in Opposition ﬁled by Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Related document(s) 1638 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2009)

***FILED UNDER SEAL***

Modiﬁed on 10/9/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/09/2009)

09/15/2009

1642

Declaration of Joseph Prud'Homme in Support of 1638 Memorandum in Opposition ﬁled by Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Related document(s) 1638 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2009)

***FILED UNDER SEAL***

Modiﬁed on 10/9/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/09/2009)
09/15/2009 1643 Declaration of Carolyn Cooper in Support of 1638 Memorandum in Opposition ﬁled by Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Related document(s) 1638 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2009)

***FILED UNDER SEAL***

Modiﬁed on 10/9/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/09/2009)
09/15/2009 1644 Declaration of L. Trexler in Support of 1638 Memorandum in Opposition ﬁled by Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Related document(s) 1638 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2009)

***FILED UNDER SEAL***

Modiﬁed on 10/9/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/09/2009)
09/15/2009 1645 Declaration of A. Bonilla in Support of 1638 Memorandum in Opposition ﬁled byArnold Schwarzenegger. (Related document(s) 1638 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2009)

***FILED UNDER SEAL***

(cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/09/2009)
09/15/2009 1646 Declaration of P. Cochrane in Support of 1638 Memorandum in Opposition ﬁled byArnold Schwarzenegger. (Related document(s) 1638 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2009)

***FILED UNDER SEAL***

(cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/09/2009)
09/15/2009 1647 OBJECTIONS to plaintiﬀ's evidence in support of motion for enforcement by Arnold Schwarzenegger. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2009)

***FILED UNDER SEAL***

(cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/09/2009)

09/16/2009

1587

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1484 Motion to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails and Ensure Access to a Workable Grievance Procedure (cwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/16/2009) (Entered: 09/16/2009)

09/16/2009

1588

Declaration of CAROLYN COOPER CORRECTION OF DOCKET #1578 ﬁled byCalifornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J)(Zelidon-Zepeda, Jose) (Filed on 9/16/2009) (Entered: 09/16/2009)

09/16/2009

1589

OBJECTIONS to plaintiﬀs' evidence in support of motion for enforcement CORRECTION OF DOCKET # 1579 by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E) (Zelidon-Zepeda, Jose) (Filed on 9/16/2009) Modiﬁed on 9/17/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/16/2009)

09/17/2009

1590

MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF TO REMOVE INCORRECTLY FILED DOCUMENT ﬁled by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Motion Hearing set for 10/13/2009 02:30 PM in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland. (Attachments: # 1 Signature Page (Declarations/Stipulations) Certiﬁcate of Service)(Zelidon-Zepeda, Jose) (Filed on 9/17/2009) (Entered: 09/17/2009)

09/17/2009

1591

Declaration of JOSE A. ZELIDON-ZEPEDA in Support of 1590 MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF TO REMOVE INCORRECTLY FILED DOCUMENT ﬁled byCalifornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Related document(s) 1590 ) (Zelidon-Zepeda, Jose) (Filed on 9/17/2009) (Entered: 09/17/2009)

09/17/2009

1592

Proposed Order re 1590 MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF TO REMOVE INCORRECTLY FILED DOCUMENT by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Zelidon-Zepeda, Jose) (Filed on 9/17/2009) (Entered: 09/17/2009)

09/23/2009

1593

MOTION for Disbursement of Funds Twenty-Sixth Administrative Motion and [Proposed] Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 9/23/2009) (Entered: 09/23/2009)

09/24/2009 1594 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1590 Motion Remove documents 1578 and 1579 from the docket. (fj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/24/2009) (Entered: 09/24/2009)

09/25/2009

1595

NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 1587 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief by Arnold Schwarzenegger. Filing fee $ 455.00, receipt #44611004179. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/25/2009) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/4/2019: # 1 receipt) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/28/2009)

09/25/2009 1596 Appellants' Representation Statement re: 1595 Notice of Appeal (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/25/2009) (Entered: 09/28/2009)

09/25/2009

1597

RECEIVED: Civil Appeals Docketing Statement forwarded to 9th Circuit US Court of Appeals by John Armstrong re 1595 Notice of Appeal (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/25/2009) (Entered: 09/28/2009)

09/28/2009

Copy of Notice of Appeal and Docket sheet mailed to all counsel (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/28/2009) (Entered: 09/28/2009)

09/29/2009

1598

Amended MOTION to Seal and Declaration of Lisa Ells ﬁled by John Armstrong. Motion Hearing set for 10/13/2009 02:30 PM in Courtroom, 2nd Floor. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed Order re Motion to File Under Seal)(Ells, Lisa) (Filed on 9/29/2009) Modiﬁed on 9/30/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/29/2009)

09/29/2009

1599

*** PLEASE REFER TO DOCUMENT 1605 . *** Reply to Opposition to Plaintiﬀs' Motion for Enforcement ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Aﬃdavit of Megan Hagler and Exh A-B, # 2 Exhibit Exh. C-1 to Hagler Dec, # 3 Exhibit Exh. C-2 to Hagler Dec, # 4 Exhibit Exh. C-3 to Hagler Dec, # 5 Proposed Order Corrected [Proposed] Enforcement Order)(Hardy, Alison) (Filed on 9/29/2009) Modiﬁed on 9/30/2009 (feriab, COURT STAFF). (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/29/2009)

09/29/2009 1600 OBJECTIONS to Defendants' Evidence ISO Def's Opp to Pltfs' Mtn to Enforce by John Armstrong. (Hardy, Alison) (Filed on 9/29/2009) (Entered: 09/29/2009)

09/29/2009 1601 RESPONSE to Defs' Objections to Pltfs' Declarations of Mania, Nolan, Hagler, Norman, and Ellis in support of Motion to Enforce by John Armstrong. (Hardy, Alison) (Filed on 9/29/2009) Modiﬁed on 9/30/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/29/2009)

09/29/2009

1602

Reply Declaration of Lisa Ells in Support of Plaintiﬀs' Motion for Enforcement and Further Remedial Orders ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibits B-X) (Related document(s) 1599 ) (Ells, Lisa) (Filed on 9/29/2009) Modiﬁed on 9/30/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/29/2009)

09/29/2009

1603

Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld in Reply to Opposition re Plaintiﬀs' Motion for Enforcement and Further Remedial Orders ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits 1-17) (Related document(s) 1599 ) (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 9/29/2009) Modiﬁed on 9/30/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/29/2009)

09/29/2009

1604

Reply Declaration of Thomas Nolan in Support of re Plaintiﬀs' Motion for Enforcement and Further Remedial Orders ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A-B, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit C, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit D-F, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit G)(Related document(s) 1599 ) (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 9/29/2009) Modiﬁed on 9/30/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/29/2009)

09/29/2009 1605 Reply to Opposition re Plaintiﬀs' Motion for Enforcement and

Further Remedial Orders ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Aﬃdavit Decl. of Megan Hagler and Exh. A-B, # 2 Exhibit Ex. C-1 to Hagler Decl., # 3 Exhibit Ex. C-2 to Hagler Decl., # 4 Exhibit Ex. C3 to Hagler Decl., # 5 Proposed Order)(Specter, Donald) (Filed on 9/29/2009) Modiﬁed on 9/30/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/29/2009)

09/29/2009 1606 First MOTION to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Specter, Donald) (Filed on 9/29/2009) (Entered: 09/29/2009)

09/29/2009 1607 Proposed Order re 1606 First MOTION to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document by John Armstrong. (Specter, Donald) (Filed on 9/29/2009) (Entered: 09/29/2009)

09/29/2009

1608

USCA Case Number 09-17144 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for 1595 Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Attachments: # 1 USCA Time Scheduling Order)(kk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/29/2009) (Entered: 09/30/2009)

09/29/2009 1652 Reply to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiﬀs' Motion for Enforcement and Further Remedial Orders ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/29/2009)

***FILED UNDER SEAL***

(cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/16/2009)

09/29/2009

1653

Declaration of Megan Hagler in support of plaintiﬀs' reply to defendants' opposition to plaintiﬀs' motion for enforcement and further remedial orders ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/29/2009)

***FILED UNDER SEAL***

(cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/16/2009)
09/29/2009 1654 Reply Declaration of Thomas Nolan in support of plaintiﬀs' motion for enforcement and further remedial orders ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/29/2009)

***FILED UNDER SEAL***

(cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/16/2009)

09/29/2009

1655

Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld in reply to defendants' opposition to plaintiﬀs' motion for enforcement and further remedial orders ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/29/2009)

***FILED UNDER SEAL***

(cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/16/2009)

09/29/2009 1656 Reply Declaration of Lisa Ells in support of plaintiﬀs' motion for enforcement and further remedial orders ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/29/2009)

***FILED UNDER SEAL***

(cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/16/2009)
09/29/2009 1657 OBJECTIONS to defendants' evidence in support of opposition to plaintiﬀs' motion for enforcement and further remedial orders by John Armstrong. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/29/2009)

***FILED UNDER SEAL***

(cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/16/2009)

09/29/2009

1658

RESPONSES to defendants' objections to plaintiﬀs' declarations of Mania, Nolan, Hagler, Norman and Ells in support of plaintiﬀs' motion for enforcement ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/29/2009)

***FILED UNDER SEAL***

(cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/16/2009)

09/30/2009

1609

MOTION to Stay ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO REQUIRE DEFENDANTS TO TRACK AND ACCOMMODATE THE NEEDS OF ARMSTRONG CLASS MEMBERS AND ENSURE ACCESS TO A WORKABLE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE ﬁled by Arnold Schwarzenegger. Motion Hearing set for 10/13/2009 02:30 PM in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland. (Attachments: # 1 Signature Page (Declarations/Stipulations) Certiﬁcate of Service)(Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 9/30/2009) (Entered: 09/30/2009)

09/30/2009

1610

Declaration of LORI MACIAS-PRICE in Support of 1609 MOTION to Stay ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO REQUIRE DEFENDANTS TO TRACK AND ACCOMMODATE THE NEEDS OF ARMSTRONG CLASS MEMBERS AND ENSURE ACCESS TO A WORKABLE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE ﬁled byArnold Schwarzenegger. (Related document(s) 1609 ) (Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 9/30/2009) (Entered: 09/30/2009)

09/30/2009

1611

Proposed Order re 1609 MOTION to Stay ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO REQUIRE DEFENDANTS TO TRACK AND ACCOMMODATE THE NEEDS OF ARMSTRONG CLASS MEMBERS AND ENSURE ACCESS TO A WORKABLE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE by Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 9/30/2009) (Entered: 09/30/2009)

09/30/2009

1612

STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER SHORTENING TIME re 1609 MOTION to Stay ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO REQUIRE DEFENDANTS TO TRACK AND ACCOMMODATE THE NEEDS OF ARMSTRONG CLASS MEMBERS AND ENSURE ACCESS TO A WORKABLE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE by Arnold Schwarzenegger.

(Attachments: # 1 Signature Page (Declarations/Stipulations) Certiﬁcate of Service)(Zelidon-Zepeda, Jose) (Filed on 9/30/2009) Modiﬁed on 10/1/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/30/2009)

09/30/2009

1613

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by John Armstrong Declarations of Lisa Ells, Thomas Nolan and Gay Grunfeld In Support of Plaintiﬀs' Reply to Opposition to Motion for Enforcement and Further Remedial Orders (Docket No.1605) (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 9/30/2009) (Entered: 09/30/2009)

09/30/2009 1614 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1550 Motion to Seal Document (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/30/2009) (Entered: 09/30/2009)

09/30/2009

1615

NOTICE by J. Clark Kelso Notice of Filing of Receiver's Twelfth TriAnnual Report (Attachments: # 1 Receiver's Twelfth Tri-Annual Report, # 2 Table of Appendices)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 9/30/2009) (Entered: 09/30/2009)

09/30/2009 1616 Appendix re 1615 Notice (Other) Appendices 1 through 8 ﬁled byJ. Clark Kelso. (Related document(s) 1615 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 9/30/2009) (Entered: 09/30/2009)

09/30/2009 1617 Appendix re 1615 Notice (Other) Appendices 9 through 17 ﬁled byJ. Clark Kelso. (Related document(s) 1615 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 9/30/2009) (Entered: 09/30/2009)

10/01/2009

1618

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1593 Twenty-Sixth Administrative Motion for Payment (Attachments: # 1 INVOICE) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/1/2009) Modiﬁed on 10/2/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/01/2009)

10/02/2009

1619

ORDER re 1573 Stipulation and Requiring Defendants to File Administrative Motion to Seal. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/2/2009. (cwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/2/2009) (Entered: 10/02/2009)

10/02/2009

1624

ORDER re 1612 granting STIPULATION SHORTENING TIME re 1609 MOTION to Stay ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO REQUIRE DEFENDANTS TO TRACK AND ACCOMMODATE THE NEEDS OF ARMSTRONG CLASS MEMBERS AND ENSURE ACCESS TO A WORKABLE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/2/09. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/2/2009) (Entered: 10/02/2009)

10/06/2009

1625

MOTION to Seal Document ; Declaration of Jay C. Russell in Support of Same ﬁled by Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Russell, Jay) (Filed on 10/6/2009) Modiﬁed on 10/7/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/06/2009)

10/06/2009 1626 Proposed Order re 1625 MOTION to Seal Document by Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 10/6/2009) Modiﬁed on 10/7/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/06/2009)

10/06/2009 1627 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT and Exhibits A-G ﬁled by John Armstrong, Arnold Schwarzenegger, et al. (Attachments: # 1

Exhibit Exhibits A-G)(Hagler, Megan) (Filed on 10/6/2009) Modiﬁed on 10/7/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/06/2009)

10/07/2009

1628

MOTION to Seal Documents; Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 10/7/2009) Modiﬁed on 10/8/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/07/2009)

10/07/2009 1629 Proposed Order re 1628 MOTION to Seal Documents by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 10/7/2009) Modiﬁed on 10/8/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/07/2009)

10/07/2009

1630

Memorandum in Opposition re 1609 MOTION to Stay ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO REQUIRE DEFENDANTS TO TRACK AND ACCOMMODATE THE NEEDS OF ARMSTRONG CLASS MEMBERS AND ENSURE ACCESS TO A WORKABLE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 10/7/2009) Modiﬁed on 10/8/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/07/2009)

10/07/2009

1631

Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld in Support of 1630 Memorandum in Opposition,, to Defendants' Motion to Stay the Court's Order Requiring Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails and Ensure Access to a Workable Grievance Procedure ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A through C Part 1, # 2 Exhibit C Part 2, # 3 Exhibit C Part 3 through F, # 4 Exhibit G through N)(Related document(s) 1630 ) (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 10/7/2009) (Entered: 10/07/2009)

10/07/2009

1632

Declaration of Holly Baldwin in oppositionto Defendants' Motion to Stay the Court's Order Requiring Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails and Ensure Access to a Workable Grievance Procedure ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 through 4, # 2 Exhibit 5 through 12) (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 10/7/2009) Modiﬁed on 10/8/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/07/2009)

10/07/2009

1633

OBJECTIONS to Defendants' Evidence on Motion to Stay Order Requiring Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members and Ensure Access to a Workable Grievance Procedure by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 10/7/2009) Modiﬁed on 10/8/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/07/2009)

10/07/2009

1634

Proposed Order Sustaining Plaintiﬀs' Objections to Defendants' Declaration in Support of Motion to Stay the September 16, 2009 Order and Denying Defendants' Motion to Stay the September 16, 2009 Order by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 10/7/2009) Modiﬁed on 10/8/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/07/2009)

10/07/2009 1635 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by John Armstrong re 1631 Declaration in Support,, (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 10/7/2009) (Entered:

10/07/2009)

10/07/2009

1662

Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld in support of plaintiﬀs' opposition to defendants' motion to stay the court's order requiring defendants to track and accomodate needs of Armstrong class members housed in county jails and ensure access to a workable grievance procedure ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/7/2009)

***FILED UNDER SEAL***

(cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/21/2009)

10/09/2009 1636 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1598 Motion to Seal (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/9/2009) (Entered: 10/09/2009)

10/09/2009 1637 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1625 Motion to Seal Document (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/9/2009) (Entered: 10/09/2009)

10/13/2009

1648

MOTION and [Proposed] Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 10/13/2009) Modiﬁed on 10/14/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/13/2009)

10/13/2009 1649 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken denying 1609 Defendants' Motion to Stay (cwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/13/2009) (Entered: 10/13/2009)

10/13/2009

1659

Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 10/13/2009 before Claudia Wilken (Date Filed: 10/13/2009) re 1609 MOTION to Stay ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO REQUIRE DEFENDANTS TO TRACK AND ACCOMMODATE THE NEEDS OF ARMSTRONG CLASS MEMBERS AND ENSURE ACCESS TO A WORKABLE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE ﬁled by Arnold Schwarzenegger, 1562 MOTION to Enforce Judgment and Further Remedial Orders ﬁled by John Armstrong, Further Case Management Conference held on 10/13/2009 before Claudia Wilken (Date Filed: 10/13/2009). (Court Reporter Diane Skillman.) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 10/13/2009) (Entered: 10/19/2009)

10/15/2009 1650 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1606 Motion to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/15/2009) (Entered: 10/15/2009)

10/15/2009 1651 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1648 MOTION for Payment (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/15/2009) (Entered: 10/15/2009)

10/19/2009 1660 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1628 Motion to Seal (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/19/2009) (Entered: 10/19/2009)

10/20/2009 1661 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1562 Plaintiﬀs' Motion to Enforce Judgment (cwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/20/2009) (Entered: 10/20/2009)

10/20/2009

Set/Reset Hearings: Further Case Management Conference set for 12/15/2009 02:30 PM. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/20/2009) (Entered: 10/20/2009)

10/23/2009 1663

Transcript of Proceedings held on 7-09-09, before Judge Claudia Wilken. Court Reporter/Transcriber Diane E. Skillman, Telephone number 510-451-2930. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Oﬃce public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this ﬁling. Redaction Request due 11/10/2009. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/20/2009. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/19/2010. (Skillman, Diane) (Filed on 10/23/2009) (Entered: 10/23/2009)

10/27/2009

1664

TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION and ORDERING FORM by Arnold Schwarzenegger for proceedings held on July 9, 2009 before Judge Claudia Wilken.. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 10/27/2009) (Entered: 10/27/2009)

10/28/2009 1665 Certiﬁcate of Record forwarded to USCA re appeal 1595 Notice of Appeal : (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/28/2009) (Entered: 10/28/2009)

11/06/2009

1667

MOTION to Intervene as a plaintiﬀ ﬁled by Albert Hayes. (Attachments: # 1 envelope)(cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/6/2009) Modiﬁed on 11/10/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/10/2009)

11/10/2009 1666 ORDER of USCA denying appellant's motion for stay pending appeal as to 1595 Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Arnold Schwarzenegger (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/10/2009) (Entered: 11/10/2009)

11/12/2009

1668

MOTION for Payment and Proposed Order, ﬁled by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 11/12/2009) Modiﬁed on 11/13/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/12/2009)

11/12/2009

1669

Proposed Order Conﬁrming Undisputed California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Adult Operations and Adult Programs Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Second Quarter of 2009, by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 11/12/2009) Modiﬁed on 11/13/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/12/2009)

11/12/2009

1670

Proposed Order Conﬁrming Undisputed Board of Parole Hearings Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Second Quarter of 2009, by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 11/12/2009) Modiﬁed on 11/13/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/12/2009)

11/12/2009

1671

Proposed Order Conﬁrming Undisputed Division of Adult Parole Operations Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Second Quarter of 2009, by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 11/12/2009) Modiﬁed on 11/13/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/12/2009)

11/13/2009 1672 ORDER of USCA re: OSC discharged. (kk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/13/2009) (Entered: 11/13/2009)

11/16/2009 1673 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1668 MOTION for Payment (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/16/2009) (Entered: 11/16/2009)

11/19/2009

1674

ORDER re 1669 Conﬁrming Undisputed California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Adult Operations and Adult Programs Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Second Quarter of 2009. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 11/18/09. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/19/2009) (Entered: 11/19/2009)

11/19/2009

1675

ORDER re 1670 Conﬁrming Undisputed Board of Parole Hearings Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Second Quarter of 2009. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 11/19/09. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/19/2009) (Entered: 11/19/2009)

11/19/2009

1676

ORDER re 1671 Conﬁrming Undisputed Division of Adult Parole Operations Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Second Quarter of 2009. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 11/19/09. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/19/2009) (Entered: 11/19/2009)

11/19/2009 1677 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken denying 1667 Motion to Intervene (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/19/2009) (Entered: 11/19/2009)

11/19/2009

1678

NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 1661 Order by Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bernard Warner, Matthew Cate, Sharon August, Deborah Hysen, Suzan Hubbard, Robert Ambroselli. Filing fee $ 455.00, receipt #44611004471. Appeal Record due by 12/21/2009. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/19/2009) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/4/2019: # 1 Receipt) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/20/2009)

11/19/2009

1679

Appellants' Representation Statement re 1678 Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bernard Warner, Matthew Cate, Sharon August, Deborah Hysen, Suzan Hubbard, Robert Ambroselli (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/19/2009) Modiﬁed on 11/20/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/20/2009)

11/19/2009

1680

RECEIVED: Civil Appeals Docketing Statement forwarded to 9th Circuit US Court of Appeals by Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bernard Warner, Matthew Cate, Sharon August, Deborah Hysen, Suzan Hubbard, Robert Ambroselli re 1678 Notice of Appeal, (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/19/2009) (Entered: 11/20/2009)

11/20/2009

Copy of Notice of Appeal and Docket sheet mailed to all counsel (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/20/2009) (Entered: 11/20/2009)

11/23/2009

1681

USCA Case Number 09-17632 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for 1678 Notice of Appeal, ﬁled by Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Attachments: # 1 USCA Time Scheduling Order)(kk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/23/2009) (Entered: 11/23/2009)

12/08/2009 1682 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and [Proposed] Order for

Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 12/8/2009) Modiﬁed on 12/9/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/08/2009)

12/08/2009

1683

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT ﬁled by John Armstrong, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-M)(Norman, Sara) (Filed on 12/8/2009) Modiﬁed on 12/9/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/08/2009)

12/10/2009 1684 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1682 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/10/2009) (Entered: 12/10/2009)

12/15/2009

1685

Minute Entry: Status Conference (Date Filed: 12/15/2009). Status Conference set for 2/24/2010 01:30 PM. (Court Reporter Raynee Mercado.) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 12/15/2009) (Entered: 12/18/2009)

12/21/2009

1686

RESPONSE to October 20, 2009 Enforcement Order by Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 12/21/2009) Modiﬁed on 12/22/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/21/2009)

12/23/2009 1687 Proposed Findings of Fact by John Armstrong. (Norman, Sara) (Filed on 12/23/2009) (Entered: 12/23/2009)

12/24/2009 1688 OBJECTIONS to 1687 [PROPOSED] FINDINGS OF FACT by Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 12/24/2009) Modiﬁed on 12/28/2009 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/24/2009)

12/31/2009 1689 FINDINGS OF FACT re 1543 Minute Order of July 9, 2009. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 12/31/2009. (cwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/31/2009) (Entered: 12/31/2009)

01/11/2010 1690 OBJECTIONS to Defendants' Plan by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Aﬃdavit, # 2 Exhibit)(Hagler, Megan) (Filed on 1/11/2010) (Entered: 01/11/2010)

01/15/2010

1691

NOTICE by J. Clark Kelso of Filing of Receiver's 13th Tri-Annual Report (Attachments: # 1 Receiver's 13th Tri-Annual Report, # 2 Table of Contents to Appendices, # 3 Appendices 1 to 7)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 1/15/2010) (Entered: 01/15/2010)

01/19/2010

***Deadlines terminated re Release of Transcript Restriction as to 1663 Transcript (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/19/2010) (Entered: 06/01/2010)

01/21/2010 1692

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1529 MOTION to Seal Document Declarations of F.Nura Maznavi and Melanie Wilkinson in Support of Plaintiﬀs' Resposne to Defendants' Objections to Plaintiﬀs' Evidence in Support of the Motion to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members in County Jails and Declaration of Anne Mania in Support (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/21/2010) (Entered: 01/21/2010)

01/29/2010 1695 MOTION and [Proposed] Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward

Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 1/29/2010) Modiﬁed on 2/1/2010 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/29/2010)

02/02/2010 1696 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1695 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/2/2010) (Entered: 02/02/2010)

02/02/2010

1697

Proposed Order Conﬁrming Undisputed California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Adult Operations and Adult Programs Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Third Quarter of 2009 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 2/2/2010) (Entered: 02/02/2010)

02/02/2010 1698 Proposed Order Conﬁrming Undisputed Board of Parole Hearings Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Third Quarter of 2009 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 2/2/2010) (Entered: 02/02/2010)

02/02/2010 1699 Proposed Order Conﬁrming Undisputed Division of Adult Parole Operations Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Third Quarter of 2009 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 2/2/2010) (Entered: 02/02/2010)

02/03/2010 1700 FINDINGS OF FACT for 1661 Order of October 20, 2009. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 2/3/2010. (cwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/3/2010) (Entered: 02/03/2010)

02/03/2010

1701

ORDER re 1697 Conﬁrming Undisputed California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Adult Operations and Adult Programs Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Third Quarter of 2009. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 2/3/10. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/3/2010) (Entered: 02/03/2010)

02/03/2010

1702

ORDER re 1698 Conﬁrming Undisputed Board of Parole Hearings Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Third Quarter of 2009. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 2/3/10. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/3/2010) (Entered: 02/03/2010)

02/03/2010

1703

ORDER re 1699 Conﬁrming Undisputed Division of Adult Parole Operations Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Third Quarter of 2009. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 2/3/10. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/3/2010) (Entered: 02/03/2010)

02/11/2010

1704

MOTION and [Proposed] Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 2/11/2010) Modiﬁed on 2/12/2010 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/11/2010)

02/12/2010 1705 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1704 Administrative Motion for Payment (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/12/2010) (Entered: 02/12/2010)

02/17/2010 1706 Joint Status Conference Statement ﬁled by Arnold Schwarzenegger,

John Armstrong, et al. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Russell, Jay) (Filed on 2/17/2010) Modiﬁed on 2/18/2010 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/17/2010)

02/24/2010

1707

Minute Entry: Status Conference (Date Filed: 2/24/2010). Further Status Conference set for 5/4/2010 01:30 PM. (Court Reporter Diane Skillman.) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 2/24/2010) (Entered: 02/25/2010)

03/12/2010

1708

MOTION and [Proposed] Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 3/12/2010) Modiﬁed on 3/15/2010 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/12/2010)

03/15/2010

1709

ORDER/MANDATE of USCA granting appellant's motion for voluntary dismissal as to 1678 Notice of Appeal, ﬁled by Arnold Schwarzenegger (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/15/2010) (Entered: 03/15/2010)

03/22/2010 1710 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1708 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/22/2010) (Entered: 03/22/2010)

04/05/2010 1711 ORDER DIRECTING ADDITIONAL INTERIM PAYMENT OF COSTS.Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 04/05/2010. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/5/2010) (Entered: 04/05/2010)

04/13/2010

1712

MOTION for Disbursement of Funds; [Proposed] Order ﬁled by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 4/13/2010) Modiﬁed on 4/14/2010 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/13/2010)

04/16/2010 1713 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1712 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/16/2010) (Entered: 04/16/2010)

04/21/2010

1714

Proposed Order Conﬁrming Undisputed California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Adult Operations and Adult Programs Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Fourth Quarter of 2009 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 4/21/2010) (Entered: 04/21/2010)

04/21/2010 1715 Proposed Order Conﬁrming Undisputed Board of Parole Hearings Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Fourth Quarter of 2009 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 4/21/2010). (Entered: 04/21/2010)

04/21/2010 1716 Proposed Order Conﬁrming Undisputed Division of Adult Parole Operations Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Fourth Quarter of 2009 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 4/21/2010) (Entered: 04/21/2010)

04/23/2010

1717

ORDER re 1714 Granting Conﬁrming Undisputed California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Adult Operations and Adult Programs Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Fourth Quarter of 2009. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 04/23/2010.

(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/23/2010) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/23/2010: # 1 Exhibit A) (ndr, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/23/2010)

04/23/2010

1718

ORDER re 1716 Granting Conﬁrming Undisputed Division of Adult Parole Operations Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Fourth Quarter of 2009. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 04/23/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/23/2010) (Entered: 04/23/2010)

04/23/2010

1719

ORDER re 1715 Granting Conﬁrming Undisputed Board of Parole Hearings Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Fourth Quarter of 2009. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 4/23/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/23/2010) (Entered: 04/23/2010)

04/23/2010

2860

RECEIVED DEPOSIT in the amount of $100,000.00, receipt #44611005084 pursuant to order document no. 1711 for interim payment of expert cost submitted by defendants. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/23/2010) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/23/2010)

04/27/2010

1720

JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT ﬁled by John Armstrong, Arnold Schwarzenegger, et al. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Hagler, Megan) (Filed on 4/27/2010) Modiﬁed on 4/28/2010 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/27/2010)

05/04/2010

1728

Minute Entry: Status Conference (Date Filed: 5/4/2010). Status Conference set for 7/20/2010 01:30 PM. (Court Reporter Diane Skillman.) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 5/4/2010) (Entered: 06/21/2010)

05/11/2010 1721 Letter from Dated May 11, 2010. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/11/2010) (Entered: 05/12/2010)

05/14/2010

***Deadlines terminated re Status Conference as to 1707 Status Conference. (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/14/2010) (Entered: 06/01/2010)

05/19/2010

1722

MOTION and [Proposed] Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 5/19/2010) Modiﬁed on 5/20/2010 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/19/2010)

05/27/2010

1723

NOTICE by J. Clark Kelso Notice of Receiver's Fourteenth Tri-Annual Report (Attachments: # 1 14th Tri-Annual Report, # 2 Table of Appendices, # 3 Appendices 1 to 6, # 4 Appendices 7 to 12)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 5/27/2010) (Entered: 05/27/2010)

05/28/2010 1724 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1722 Motion for Order for Payment (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/28/2010) (Entered: 05/28/2010)

06/11/2010 1725 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and Proposed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)

(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 6/11/2010) Modiﬁed on 6/14/2010 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/11/2010)

06/15/2010 1726 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1725 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 Invoice #16941) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/15/2010) (Entered: 06/15/2010)

06/18/2010 1727 Letter from Clerk to John Barros. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/18/2010) (Entered: 06/18/2010)

07/13/2010

1729

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT ﬁled by John Armstrong, Arnold Schwarzenegger, et al. (Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 7/13/2010) Modiﬁed on 7/14/2010 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/13/2010)

07/16/2010

1730

MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and [Proposed] Order ﬁled by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 7/16/2010) Modiﬁed on 7/19/2010 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/16/2010)

07/19/2010

1731

Proposed Order Conﬁrming Undisputed California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Adult Operations and Adult Programs Attorney's Fees and Costs for the First Quarter of 2010 by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 7/19/2010) (Entered: 07/19/2010)

07/19/2010 1732 Proposed Order Conﬁrming Undisputed Board of Parole Hearings Attorney's Fees and Costs for the First Quarter of 2010 by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 7/19/2010) (Entered: 07/19/2010)

07/19/2010 1733 Proposed Order Conﬁrming Undisputed Division of Adult Parole Operations Attorney's Fees and Costs for the First Quarter of 2010 by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 7/19/2010) (Entered: 07/19/2010)

07/19/2010

1734

ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE TO SEPTEMBER 7, 2010 AT 1:30 P.M.; Status Conference set for 9/7/2010 01:30 PM in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland.. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 7/19/2010. (cwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/19/2010) (Entered: 07/19/2010)

07/21/2010 1735 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1730 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 Invoice #17030) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/21/2010) (Entered: 07/21/2010)

07/22/2010

1736

ORDER re 1733 Granting Proposed Order Conﬁrming Undisputed Division of Adult Parole Operations Attorney's Fees and Costs for the First Quarter of 2010. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 7/22/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/22/2010)

07/22/2010

1737

ORDER re 1731 Granting Proposed Order Conﬁrming Undisputed California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Adult Operations and Adult Programs Attorney's Fees and Costs for the First Quarter of 2010. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on

7/22/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/22/2010)

07/23/2010

1738

ORDER re 1732 Granting Proposed Order Conﬁrming Undisputed Board of Parole Hearings Attorney's Fees and Costs for the First Quarter of 2010. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 7/23/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/23/2010) (Entered: 07/23/2010)

07/28/2010

1739

STIPULATION and Proposed Order Extending Time in Which Plaintiﬀs May Move to Compel Compensation at 2010 Rates by John Armstrong, Arnold Schwarzenegger, et al. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 7/28/2010) Modiﬁed on 7/29/2010 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/28/2010)

07/30/2010

1740

ORDER re 1739 Granting Stipulation Extending Time in Which Plaintiﬀs May Move to Compel Compensation at 2010 Rates. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 7/30/2010. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/30/2010) (Entered: 07/30/2010)

08/11/2010 1741 Letter from Clerk to James E. Rojo. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/11/2010)

08/12/2010

1742

USCA Memorandum: vacated and remanded to the district court to issue a clariﬁed order consistent with this decision and the requirements of the PLRA, unless developments in the ongoing negotiations between the parties have rendered the issue moot as to 1546 Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Arnold Schwarzenegger (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/12/2010) (Entered: 08/12/2010)

08/19/2010

1743

ORDER of USCA denying as moot appellees' motion to dismiss appellants' appeal as to 1546 Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Arnold Schwarzenegger (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/19/2010) (Entered: 08/19/2010)

08/20/2010

1744

Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 8/20/2010) Modiﬁed on 8/23/2010 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/20/2010)

08/20/2010

1745

MOTION to Compel Compensation at Plaintiﬀs' Counsel's Reasonable 2010 Hourly Rates ﬁled by John Armstrong. Motion Hearing set for 9/30/2010 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland. (Bien, Michael) (Filed on 8/20/2010) (Entered: 08/20/2010)

08/20/2010

1746

Declaration of Michael W. Bien in Support of 1745 MOTION to Compel Compensation at Plaintiﬀs' Counsel's Reasonable 2010 Hourly Rates ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits 1-28)(Related document(s) 1745 ) (Bien, Michael) (Filed on 8/20/2010) Modiﬁed on 8/23/2010 (cp, COURT STAFF).

*** SEE DOCUMENT # 1762 FOR EXHIBIT 28***

(Entered: 08/20/2010)

08/20/2010

1747

Declaration of Geoﬀrey T. Holtz in Support of 1745 MOTION to Compel Compensation at Plaintiﬀs' Counsel's Reasonable 2010 Hourly Rates ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1745 ) (Bien, Michael) (Filed on 8/20/2010) (Entered: 08/20/2010)

08/20/2010

1748

Declaration of Sara Norman in Support of 1745 MOTION to Compel Compensation at Plaintiﬀs' Counsel's Reasonable 2010 Hourly Rates ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1745 ) (Bien, Michael) (Filed on 8/20/2010) (Entered: 08/20/2010)

08/20/2010

1749

Declaration of Maria V. Morris in Support of 1745 MOTION to Compel Compensation at Plaintiﬀs' Counsel's Reasonable 2010 Hourly Rates ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 110)(Related document(s) 1745 ) (Morris, Maria) (Filed on 8/20/2010) (Entered: 08/20/2010)

08/20/2010

1750

Declaration of Linda D. Kilb in Support of 1745 MOTION to Compel Compensation at Plaintiﬀs' Counsel's Reasonable 2010 Hourly Rates ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1745 ) (Bien, Michael) (Filed on 8/20/2010) (Entered: 08/20/2010)

08/20/2010

1751

Declaration of Richard M. Pearl in Support of 1745 MOTION to Compel Compensation at Plaintiﬀs' Counsel's Reasonable 2010 Hourly Rates ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1745 ) (Bien, Michael) (Filed on 8/20/2010) (Entered: 08/20/2010)

08/20/2010

1752

Declaration of Sidney M. Wolinsky in Support of 1745 MOTION to Compel Compensation at Plaintiﬀs' Counsel's Reasonable 2010 Hourly Rates ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1745 ) (Bien, Michael) (Filed on 8/20/2010) (Entered: 08/20/2010)

08/20/2010

1753

Declaration of Jon B. Streeter in Support of 1745 MOTION to Compel Compensation at Plaintiﬀs' Counsel's Reasonable 2010 Hourly Rates ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1745 ) (Bien, Michael) (Filed on 8/20/2010) (Entered: 08/20/2010)

08/20/2010

1754

Declaration of Thomas V. Loran III in Support of 1745 MOTION to Compel Compensation at Plaintiﬀs' Counsel's Reasonable 2010 Hourly Rates ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1745 ) (Bien, Michael) (Filed on 8/20/2010) (Entered: 08/20/2010)

08/20/2010

1755

Declaration of David S. Steuer in Support of 1745 MOTION to Compel Compensation at Plaintiﬀs' Counsel's Reasonable 2010 Hourly Rates ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1745 ) (Bien, Michael) (Filed on 8/20/2010) (Entered: 08/20/2010)

08/20/2010

1756

Declaration of Edward P. Sangster in Support of 1745 MOTION to Compel Compensation at Plaintiﬀs' Counsel's Reasonable 2010 Hourly Rates ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1745 ) (Bien, Michael) (Filed on 8/20/2010) (Entered: 08/20/2010)

08/20/2010

1757

Declaration of James W. Morando in Support of 1745 MOTION to Compel Compensation at Plaintiﬀs' Counsel's Reasonable 2010 Hourly Rates ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1745 ) (Bien, Michael) (Filed on 8/20/2010) (Entered: 08/20/2010)

08/20/2010

1758

Declaration of Rory K. Little in Support of 1745 MOTION to Compel Compensation at Plaintiﬀs' Counsel's Reasonable 2010 Hourly Rates ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1745 ) (Bien, Michael) (Filed on 8/20/2010) (Entered: 08/20/2010)

08/20/2010

1759

Declaration of Alan B. Exelrod in Support of 1745 MOTION to Compel Compensation at Plaintiﬀs' Counsel's Reasonable 2010 Hourly Rates ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1745 ) (Bien, Michael) (Filed on 8/20/2010) (Entered: 08/20/2010)

08/20/2010

1760

(Proposed) Finding of Facts, Conclusion of Law and Order Granting re 1745 MOTION to Compel Compensation at Plaintiﬀs' Counsel's Reasonable 2010 Hourly Rates by John Armstrong. (Bien, Michael) (Filed on 8/20/2010) Modiﬁed on 8/23/2010 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/20/2010)

08/23/2010

1761

STIPULATION Regarding Upcoming Case Management Conference; (Proposed) Order by John Armstrong, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Norman, Sara) (Filed on 8/23/2010) Modiﬁed on 8/24/2010 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/23/2010)

08/23/2010

1762

NOTICE of ﬁling of Exhibit 28 re 1746 Declaration in Support, 1745 MOTION to Compel Compensation at Plaintiﬀs' Counsel's Reasonable 2010 Hourly Rates Exhibit 28 by John Armstrong. (Morris, Maria) (Filed on 8/23/2010) Modiﬁed on 8/24/2010 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/23/2010)

08/24/2010

1763

ORDER re 1761 Granting Stipulation Regarding Upcoming Case Management Conference. Status Conference set for 11/16/2010 02:00 PM. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 8/24/2010. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/24/2010) (Entered: 08/24/2010)

08/24/2010 1764 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1744 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 Invoice #17141) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/24/2010) (Entered: 08/24/2010)

08/31/2010

Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 11/16/2010 01:30 PM.

** Time of Hearing Corrected **

(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/31/2010) (Entered: 08/31/2010)
09/07/2010 1765 USCA Memorandum as to appeal 07-17342 (kk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/7/2010) (Entered: 09/07/2010)
09/07/2010 1766 ORDER of USCA re: costs (kk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/7/2010) (Entered: 09/07/2010)
09/07/2010 1767 USCA Memorandum as to 1595 Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Arnold Schwarzenegger (kk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/7/2010) (Entered: 09/07/2010)
09/07/2010 1768 ORDER of USCA re costs in 09-17144 (kk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/7/2010) (Entered: 09/07/2010)

09/07/2010 1769 MANDATE of USCA as to 1546 Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Arnold Schwarzenegger (kk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/7/2010) (Entered: 09/07/2010)

09/07/2010 1770 CLERKS Letter Spreading Mandate to Counsel (09-16716) (kk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/7/2010) (Entered: 09/07/2010)

09/09/2010

1771

ASSOCIATION of Counsel DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL FOR SERVICE by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Attachments: # 1 Signature Page (Declarations/Stipulations) Certiﬁcate of Service) (O'Bannon, Danielle) (Filed on 9/9/2010) (Entered: 09/09/2010)

09/09/2010 1772 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL by Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 9/9/2010) (Entered: 09/09/2010)

09/13/2010

1773

ORDER re 1772 Granting Stipulation TO CONTINUE HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL. Motion Hearing set for 11/16/2010 01:30 PM. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 9/13/2010. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/13/2010) (Entered: 09/13/2010)

09/14/2010

1774

ORDER of USCA granting appellee's motion to transfer consideration of attorneys' fees and expenses to the district court as to 1546 Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Arnold Schwarzenegger (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/14/2010) (Entered: 09/14/2010)

09/20/2010

1775

MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and Proposed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 9/20/2010) Modiﬁed on 9/21/2010 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/20/2010)

09/22/2010 1776 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1775 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 Invoice #17267) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2010) (Entered: 09/22/2010)

09/28/2010

1777

STIPULATION and Proposed Order continuing hearing and brieﬁng schedule on 1745 MOTION to Compel Compensation at Plaintiﬀs' Counsel's Reasonable 2010 Hourly Rates by John Armstrong. (Morris, Maria) (Filed on 9/28/2010) Modiﬁed on 9/29/2010 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/28/2010)

09/29/2010

1778

MANDATE of USCA as to 1260 Notice of Appeal, Appeal No. 0717342 ﬁled by Arnold Schwarzenegger (vlk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/29/2010) Modiﬁed on 9/29/2010 (vlk, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 9/30/2010 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/29/2010)

09/29/2010 1779 CLERKS Letter Spreading Mandate to Counsel (vlk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/29/2010) (Entered: 09/29/2010)

09/29/2010

1780

NOTICE by J. Clark Kelso Notice of Filing of Receiver's Fifteenth TriAnnual Report (Attachments: # 1 15th Tri-Annual Report, # 2 Table of Appendices)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 9/29/2010) (Entered: 09/29/2010)

09/29/2010 1781 Appendix re 1780 Notice (Other) Appendices 1 to 7 to Receiver's

15th Tri-Annual Report ﬁled byJ. Clark Kelso. (Related document(s) 1780 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 9/29/2010) (Entered: 09/29/2010)

09/29/2010 1782 Appendix re 1780 Notice (Other) Appendices 8 to 12 to Receiver's 15th Tri-Annual Report ﬁled byJ. Clark Kelso. (Related document(s) 1780 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 9/29/2010) (Entered: 09/29/2010)

10/04/2010

1783

ORDER re 1777 Granting Stipulation continuing hearing and brieﬁng schedule for Plaintiﬀ's MOTION to Compel Compensation. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/4/2010. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/4/2010) (Entered: 10/04/2010)

10/04/2010

1784

NOTICE by J. Clark Kelso Notice of Filing of Receiver's Amended 15th Tri-Annual Report (Attachments: # 1 Amended Page - Notice, # 2 Receiver's Amended 15th Report)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 10/4/2010) (Entered: 10/04/2010)

10/05/2010

Set/Reset Deadlines as to 1745 MOTION to Compel Compensation at Plaintiﬀs' Counsel's Reasonable 2010 Hourly Rates. Motion Hearing set for 2/24/2011 02:00 PM. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/5/2010) (Entered: 10/05/2010)

10/05/2010

Set/Reset Deadlines as to 1745 MOTION to Compel Compensation at Plaintiﬀs' Counsel's Reasonable 2010 Hourly Rates. Motion Hearing set for 2/24/2011 01:30 PM. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/5/2010) (Entered: 10/05/2010)

10/07/2010 1785 ORDER ON BRIEFING FOR ATTORNEYS FEES INCURRED ON APPEAL. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/7/2010. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/7/2010) (Entered: 10/07/2010)

10/08/2010

1786

ORDER of USCA (07-17342) Granting Plaintiﬀs'-Appellees' motion to transfer consideration of attorneys' fees and expenses to the district court (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/8/2010) (Entered: 10/08/2010)

10/12/2010

1787

Proposed Order Conﬁrming Undisputed California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Adult Operations and Adult Programs Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Second Quarter of 2010 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 10/12/2010) (Entered: 10/12/2010)

10/12/2010 1788 Proposed Order Conﬁrming Undisputed Board of Parole Hearings Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Second Quarter of 2010 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 10/12/2010) (Entered: 10/12/2010)

10/12/2010 1789 Proposed Order Conﬁrming Undisputed Division of Adult Parole Operations Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Second Quarter of 2010 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 10/12/2010) (Entered: 10/12/2010)

10/13/2010

1790

MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and [Proposed] Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 10/13/2010) Modiﬁed on 10/14/2010 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/13/2010)

10/13/2010 1791 Letter from Clerk to Paul Roberts. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/13/2010) (Entered: 10/13/2010)

10/14/2010

1792

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1790 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 October 8, 2010/Invoice #17370) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/14/2010) (Entered: 10/14/2010)

10/18/2010

1793

STIPULATION re 1785 Order and Proposed Order Re Procedure for Resolving Attorney's Fees Incurred on Appeal by John Armstrong, Arnold Schwarzenegger, et al. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 10/18/2010) Modiﬁed on 10/19/2010 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/18/2010)

10/25/2010

1794

ORDER re 1793 Granting Stipulation Re Procedure for Resolving Attorney's Fees Incurred on Appeal. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/25/2010. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/25/2010) (Entered: 10/25/2010)

10/26/2010

1795

ORDER re 1787 Order Conﬁrming Undisputed California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Adult Operations and Adult Programs Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Second Quarter of 2010. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/26/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/26/2010) (Entered: 10/26/2010)

10/26/2010

1796

ORDER re 1788 Conﬁrming Undisputed Board of Parole Hearings Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Second Quarter of 2010. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/26/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/26/2010) (Entered: 10/26/2010)

10/26/2010

1797

ORDER re 1789 Conﬁrming Undisputed Division of Adult Parole Operations Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Second Quarter of 2010. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/26/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/26/2010) (Entered: 10/26/2010)

11/09/2010

1798

Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 11/9/2010) Modiﬁed on 11/10/2010 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/09/2010)

11/09/2010

1799

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT ﬁled by John Armstrong, Arnold Schwarzenegger, et al. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Thompson, Blake) (Filed on 11/9/2010) Modiﬁed on 11/10/2010 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/09/2010)

11/16/2010

1801

Minute Entry: Status Conference (Date Filed: 11/16/2010). Status Conference set for 1/25/2011 02:00 PM. (Court Reporter Leo Mankiewicz.) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 11/16/2010) (Entered: 11/24/2010)

11/19/2010 1800 NOTICE of Change of Address by Linda D. Kilb : NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS FOR DREDF (Kilb, Linda) (Filed on 11/19/2010) (Entered: 11/19/2010)

11/30/2010

1802

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1798 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 November 5, 2010/Invoice # 17476) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/30/2010) (Entered: 11/30/2010)

12/06/2010 1803

Transcript of Proceedings held on 11/16/10, before Judge Claudia Wilken. Court Reporter/Transcriber Leo T. Mankiewicz, Telephone number (415) 722-7045; email: leomank@gmail.com. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Oﬃce public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this ﬁling. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/7/2011. (Mankiewicz, Leo) (Filed on 12/6/2010) (Entered: 12/06/2010)

12/10/2010

1804

MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and [Proposed] Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 12/10/2010) Modiﬁed on 12/13/2010 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/10/2010)

12/15/2010 1805 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1804 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 Invoice #17572) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/15/2010) (Entered: 12/15/2010)

12/20/2010

1806

Proposed Order Conﬁrming Undisputed California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Third Quarter of 2010, and Conﬁrming Resolution of Certain Attorney's Fees and Costs Incurred on Appeal by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 12/20/2010) (Entered: 12/20/2010)

12/22/2010

1807

ORDER Conﬁrming Undisputed California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Third Quarter of 2010, and Conﬁrming Resolution of Certain Attorney's Fees and Costs Incurred on Appeal. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 12/21/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A - C) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/22/2010) (Entered: 12/22/2010)

12/22/2010 1808 Letter from Clerk to James Carpenter. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/22/2010) (Entered: 12/22/2010)

12/28/2010 1809 ORDER of USCA denying petition for rehearing en banc as to 1595 Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Arnold Schwarzenegger (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/28/2010) (Entered: 12/28/2010)

12/28/2010 1810 MANDATE of USCA as to 1595 Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Arnold Schwarzenegger (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/28/2010) (Entered: 12/28/2010)

12/30/2010

1811

MOTION to Change Time Under Northern District Local Rule 6-3 ﬁled by Arnold Schwarzenegger. (O'Bannon, Danielle) (Filed on 12/30/2010) Modiﬁed on 1/3/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/30/2010)

12/30/2010

1812

Declaration of Danielle O'Bannon in Support of 1811 MOTION to Change Time Under Northern District Local Rule 6-3 ﬁled byArnold Schwarzenegger. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B) (Related document(s) 1811 ) (O'Bannon, Danielle) (Filed on 12/30/2010) Modiﬁed on 1/3/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/30/2010)

12/30/2010 1813 Proposed Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Change Time Under Northern District Local Rule 6-3 by Arnold Schwarzenegger. (O'Bannon, Danielle) (Filed on 12/30/2010) (Entered: 12/30/2010)

01/03/2011

1814

MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 1811 MOTION to Change Time Under Northern District Local Rule 6-3 ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1811 ) (Bien, Michael) (Filed on 1/3/2011) (Entered: 01/03/2011)

01/03/2011

1815

DECLARATION of Michael W. Bien in Opposition to 1811 MOTION to Change Time Under Northern District Local Rule 6-3 ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-B)(Related document(s) 1811 ) (Bien, Michael) (Filed on 1/3/2011) (Entered: 01/03/2011)

01/03/2011 1816 Proposed Order Denying Defendants' Motion to Change Time Under Northern District Local Rule 6-3 by John Armstrong. (Bien, Michael) (Filed on 1/3/2011) (Entered: 01/03/2011)

01/05/2011

1817

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING in part 1811 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 1745 MOTION to Compel Compensation at Plaintiﬀs' Counsel's Reasonable 2010 Hourly Rates Opposition due by 3/8/2011. Reply due by 3/21/2011. (cwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/5/2011) (Entered: 01/05/2011)

01/05/2011

***Deadlines terminated. 1817 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. 2/24/2011 Hearing on 1745 Plaintiﬀs' Motion to Compel VACATED. (cwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/5/2011) (Entered: 01/05/2011)

01/12/2011

1818

MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and [Proposed] Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 1/12/2011) Modiﬁed on 1/13/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/12/2011)

01/14/2011

1819

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1818 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 January 6, 2011/Invoice # 17672) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/14/2011) (Entered: 01/14/2011)

01/14/2011

1820

STIPULATION and (Proposed) Order to Continue the January 25, 2011 Status Conference by Edmund G. Brown, Jr., John Armstrong, et al (Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 1/14/2011) Modiﬁed on 1/18/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/14/2011)

01/18/2011

1821

NOTICE of Filing of Receiver's Sixteenth Tri-Annual Report by J. Clark Kelso (Attachments: # 1 16th Tri-Annual Report, # 2 Table of Contents for Appendices)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 1/18/2011) Modiﬁed on 1/19/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/18/2011)

01/18/2011 1822 Appendix re 1821 Receiver's 16th Report ﬁled byJ. Clark Kelso. (Related document(s) 1821 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 1/18/2011) Modiﬁed on 1/19/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/18/2011)

01/18/2011

1823

ORDER of USCA granting appellees' unopposed motion to transfer considration of attorney's fees and expenses to the district court as to 1595 Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Arnold Schwarzenegger (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/18/2011) (Entered: 01/18/2011)

01/18/2011

1824

STIPULATION and Proposed Order Re Procedure for Resolving Attorney's Fees Incurred on Appeal by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr.. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 1/18/2011) Modiﬁed on 1/19/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/18/2011)

01/19/2011

1825

ORDER GRanting 1820 Stipulation to Continue the January 25, 2011 Status Conference. Joint Status Conference Statement due February 22, 2011. Status Conference set for 3/1/2011 01:30 PM before Hon. Claudia Wilken. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/19/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/19/2011) (Entered: 01/19/2011)

01/19/2011 1826 ORDER Granting 1824 Stipulation Re Procedure for Resolving Attorney's Fees Incurred on Appeal. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/19/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/19/2011)

** DISREGARD JUDGE'S SIGNATURE IS MISSING FROM THE ORDER. SEE DOCKET 1827 **

(Entered: 01/19/2011)

01/19/2011

1827

ORDER Granting 1824 Stipulation Re Procedure for Resolving Attorney's Fees Incurred on Appeal. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/19/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/19/2011) (Entered: 01/21/2011)

02/03/2011

1828

MOTION to Shorten Time for Defendants' Motion to Compel ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Aﬃdavit In Support of Motion, # 2 Proposed Order)(Morris, Maria) (Filed on 2/3/2011) (Entered: 02/03/2011)

02/07/2011 1829 Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiﬀ's Administrative Motion for Defendants' Motion to Compel to be Heard on Shortened Time ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 2/7/2011) Modiﬁed on 2/8/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/07/2011)

02/07/2011 1830 Declaration of Scott J. Feudale in Support of 1829 Memorandum in Opposition ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Related document(s) 1829 ) (Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 2/7/2011) (Entered: 02/07/2011)

02/07/2011 1831 Proposed Order Denying Plaintiﬀ's' Administrative Motion for Defendants' Motion to Compel to be Heard on Shortened Time by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 2/7/2011) (Entered: 02/07/2011)

02/07/2011 1832 EXHIBITS A, B, & C to Declaration of Scott J. Feudale (Doc. 1830 )

ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 2/7/2011) Modiﬁed on 2/8/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/07/2011)

02/07/2011

1833

Request to Submit Reply in Support of Plaintiﬀs' Administrative Motion for Defendants' Motion to Compel To Be Heard on Shortened Time (By the Court Rather Than a Magistrate Judge), and Reply ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 2/7/2011) Modiﬁed on 2/8/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/07/2011)

02/09/2011

1834

Request for Status Conference Call at the Court's Earliest Convenience by John Armstrong (Attachments: # 1 Aﬃdavit Declaration of Maria V. Morris in Support of Plaintiﬀs' Request for Status Conference Call at the Court's Earliest Convenience, # 2 Exhibit Exhibits A-F to Morris Declaration, # 3 Proposed Order) (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 2/9/2011) Modiﬁed on 2/10/2011 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/09/2011)

02/10/2011

1835

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS 1828 MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME, GRANTING PLAINTIFFS 1833 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUBMIT REPLY AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS 1834 REQUEST FOR TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/10/2011) (Entered: 02/10/2011)

02/11/2011

1836

STIPULATION and Proposed Order Regarding Depositions by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 2/11/2011) Modiﬁed on 2/14/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/11/2011)

02/14/2011

1837

Administrative Motion and [Proposed] Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 2/14/2011) Modiﬁed on 2/15/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/14/2011)

02/15/2011 1838 ORDER Granting 1836 Stipulation Regarding Depositions. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 2/15/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/15/2011) (Entered: 02/15/2011)

02/16/2011 1839 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1837 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 Invoice #17766) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/16/2011) (Entered: 02/16/2011)

02/16/2011

1840

MOTION to Compel Further Responses to Defendants' Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents ﬁled by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Signature Page (Declarations/Stipulations) Certiﬁcate of Service) (O'Bannon, Danielle) (Filed on 2/16/2011) Modiﬁed on 2/17/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 2/18/2011 (kk, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/16/2011)

02/16/2011

1841

Declaration of Danielle F. O'Bannon in Support of 1840 MOTION toCompel Further Responses to Defendants' Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Related document(s) 1840 )

(O'Bannon, Danielle) (Filed on 2/16/2011) Modiﬁed on 2/17/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/16/2011)

02/16/2011

1842

Separate Statement re 1840 MOTION toCompel Further Responses to Defendants' Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (O'Bannon, Danielle) (Filed on 2/16/2011) Modiﬁed on 2/17/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/16/2011)

02/22/2011

1843

Joint Status Conference Statement ﬁled by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr, et al. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-F) (Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 2/22/2011) Modiﬁed on 2/23/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/22/2011)

02/22/2011

1844

MOTION for Protective Order and to Quash Defendants' Subpoenas, and Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Compel Further Responses ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Aﬃdavit of Maria V. Morris, # 2 Supplement Plaintiﬀs' Response to Defendants' Separate Statement)(Morris, Maria) (Filed on 2/22/2011) Modiﬁed on 2/23/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/22/2011)

02/22/2011

1845

Proposed Order re 1844 MOTION for Protective Order and to Quash Defendants' Subpoenas, 1840 MOTION toCompel Further Responses to Defendants' Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents by John Armstrong. (Morris, Maria) (Filed on 2/22/2011) Modiﬁed on 2/23/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/22/2011)

02/24/2011

1846

REPLY (re 1844 MOTION for Protective Order and to Quash Defendants' Subpoenas, 1840 MOTION toCompel Further Responses to Defendants' Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents ) ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Signature Page (Declarations/Stipulations) Certiﬁcate of Service)(O'Bannon, Danielle) (Filed on 2/24/2011) (Entered: 02/24/2011)

03/01/2011

1847

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken DENYING 1840 Defendants' Motion to Compel and GRANTING 1844 Plainitiﬀs' Motion for Protective Order and To Quash Defendants' Subpoenas (cwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/1/2011) (Entered: 03/01/2011)

03/01/2011 1875 Minute Entry: Status Conference (Date Filed: 3/1/2011). (Court Reporter Leo Mankiewicz.) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 3/1/2011) (Entered: 04/18/2011)

03/04/2011 1848 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER EXTENDING THE BRIEFING SCHEDULE REGARDING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL COMPENSATION by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 3/4/2011) (Entered: 03/04/2011)

03/04/2011

1849

NOTICE of Filing of Additional Declaration by John Armstrong in Support of 1745 MOTION to Compel Compensation at Plaintiﬀs' Counsel's Reasonable 2010 Hourly Rates (Morris, Maria) (Filed on 3/4/2011) Modiﬁed on 3/7/2011 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/04/2011)

03/04/2011

1850

Declaration of Sanford Jay Rosen in Support of 1745 Motion to Compel Compensation at 2010 Hourly Rates ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-5, # 2 Exhibit 6-12) (Related document(s) 1745 ) (Morris, Maria) (Filed on 3/4/2011) Modiﬁed on 3/7/2011 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/04/2011)

03/04/2011

1851

Supplemental Declaration of Richard M. Pearl in Support of 1745 Motion to Compel Compensation at Plaintiﬀs' Counsel's 2010 Hourly Rates ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1745 ) (Morris, Maria) (Filed on 3/4/2011) Modiﬁed on 3/7/2011 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/04/2011)

03/04/2011

1852

Supplemental Declaration of Geoﬀrey T. Holtz in Support of 1745 Motion to Compel Compensation at 2010 Hourly Rates ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1745 ) (Morris, Maria) (Filed on 3/4/2011) Modiﬁed on 3/7/2011 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/04/2011)

03/04/2011

1853

DISREGARD, SEE DOCKET ENTRY 1855 ORDER GRANTING 1848 Stipulation EXTENDING THE BRIEFING SCHEDULE REGARDING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL COMPENSATION. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 3/4/2011. (cwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/4/2011) Modiﬁed on 3/7/2011 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/04/2011)

03/04/2011

1854

Proposed Order Conﬁrming Undisputed California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Fourth Quarter of 2010, and Conﬁrming Resolution of Certain Attorney's Fees and Costs Incurred on Appeal by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 3/4/2011) (Entered: 03/04/2011)

03/04/2011

Set/Reset Deadlines as to 1745 MOTION to Compel Compensation at Plaintiﬀs' Counsel's Reasonable 2010 Hourly Rates. Responses due by 3/22/2011. Replies due by 4/11/2011. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/4/2011) (Entered: 03/07/2011)

03/07/2011

1855

ORDER Granting 1848 Stipulation EXTENDING THE BRIEFING SCHEDULE REGARDING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL COMPENSATION. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 3/7/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/7/2011) (Entered: 03/07/2011)

03/09/2011 1856

ORDER Granting 1854 Conﬁrming Undisputed California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Fourth Quarter of 2010, and Conﬁrming Resolution of Certain Attorney's Fees and Costs Incurred on Appeal Proposed Order, ﬁled by John Armstrong. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 3/9/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/9/2011) (Entered: 03/09/2011)

03/10/2011

1857

MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and Proposed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 3/10/2011) Modiﬁed on 3/11/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/10/2011)

03/22/2011 1858

***STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD, PURSUANT TO ORDER, DOCUMENT # 1865 ***

MOTION to Strike Plaintiﬀs' Evidence Submitted in Support of Their Motion to Compel Compensation ﬁled by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 3/22/2011) Modiﬁed on 3/23/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 3/25/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/22/2011)

03/22/2011

1859

OPPOSITION (re 1745 MOTION to Compel Compensation at Plaintiﬀs' Counsel's Reasonable 2010 Hourly Rates ) ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 3/22/2011) Modiﬁed on 3/23/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/22/2011)

03/22/2011

1860

Declaration of James Blevins in Support of 1859 Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiﬀs' Motion to Compel Compensation ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Related document(s) 1859 ) (Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 3/22/2011) Modiﬁed on 3/23/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/22/2011)

03/22/2011

1861

Declaration of Scott J. Feudale in Support of 1859 Opposition to Motion to Compel Compensation, ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Related document(s) 1859 ) (Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 3/22/2011) Modiﬁed on 3/23/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/22/2011)

03/22/2011

1862

Declaration of Gary Greenﬁeld in Support of 1859 Opposition to Motion to Compel Compensation ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Related document(s) 1859 ) (Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 3/22/2011) Modiﬁed on 3/23/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/22/2011)

03/22/2011

1863

Declaration of Danielle O'Bannon in Support of 1859 Opposition to Motion to Compel Compensation ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Related document(s) 1859 ) (Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 3/22/2011) Modiﬁed on 3/23/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/22/2011)

03/24/2011

1864

STIPULATION and proposed order regarding periodic ﬁling of status statements by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr, et al. (Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 3/24/2011) Modiﬁed on 3/25/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/24/2011)

03/24/2011 1865 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken DENYING without prejudice 1858 Defendants' Motion to Strike (cwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/24/2011) (Entered: 03/24/2011)

03/25/2011 1866 MOTION for Leave to File an Amended Opposition to Plaintiﬀs Motion to Compel Compensation ﬁled by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Feudale, Scott) (Filed

on 3/25/2011) Modiﬁed on 3/28/2011 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/25/2011)

03/25/2011

1867

Proposed Order re 1866 MOTION for Leave to File an Amended Opposition to Plaintiﬀs Motion to Compel Compensation by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 3/25/2011) Modiﬁed on 3/28/2011 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/25/2011)

03/28/2011

1868

ORDER Granting 1864 Stipulation REGARDING JOINT FILING OF PERIODIC STATUS STATEMENTS. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 3/28/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/28/2011) (Entered: 03/28/2011)

03/28/2011 1869 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting Defendants' Administrative 1866 Motion for Leave to File. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/28/2011) (Entered: 03/28/2011)

03/29/2011 1870 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld of Amy Whelan (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 3/29/2011) (Entered: 03/29/2011)

03/29/2011 1871 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld of Anne Mania (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 3/29/2011) (Entered: 03/29/2011)

03/29/2011 1872 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld of Holly Baldwin (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 3/29/2011) (Entered: 03/29/2011)

04/12/2011

1873

MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and Proposed Order ﬁled by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 4/12/2011) Modiﬁed on 4/13/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/12/2011)

04/15/2011

1874

REPLY (re 1745 MOTION to Compel Compensation at Plaintiﬀs' Counsel's Reasonable 2010 Hourly Rates ) , Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Strike, and Motion to Strike Declaration of Gary Greenﬁeld ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Aﬃdavit of Michael W. Bien, Supplemental, # 2 Aﬃdavit of Maria V. Morris, Supplemental)(Morris, Maria) (Filed on 4/15/2011) (Entered: 04/15/2011)

04/18/2011

1876

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 1873 Administrative Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 Invoice # 18006) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/18/2011) (Entered: 04/18/2011)

04/20/2011 1877 Letter from CRD to James Carpenter. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/20/2011) (Entered: 04/20/2011)

04/20/2011 1878 Letter from CRD to Leroy Andreozzi. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/20/2011) (Entered: 04/20/2011)

05/09/2011 1879 MOTION to Quash Plaintiﬀs' Notice of Deposition and Request for Production of Documents; Motion for a Protectiver Order ﬁled by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 5/9/2011) Modiﬁed on 5/10/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/09/2011)

05/09/2011 1880

***REMOVED PURSUANT TO ORDER #1896***

Declaration of Jay C. Russell in Support of 1879 MOTION to Quash ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exh. A_Part1, # 2 Exhibit Exh. A_Part2, # 3 Exhibit Exh. A_Part3, # 4 Exhibit Exh. A_Part4, # 5 Exhibit B, # 6 Exhibit C, # 7 Exhibit D, # 8 Exhibit E, # 9 Exhibit F, # 10 Exhibit G, # 11 Exhibit H, # 12 Exhibit I, # 13 Exhibit J, # 14 Exhibit K, # 15 Exhibit L)(Related document(s) 1879 ) (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 5/9/2011) Modiﬁed on 5/10/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 6/7/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/09/2011)

05/09/2011

1881

Proposed Order re 1879 MOTION to Quash Plaintiﬀs' Notice of Deposition and Request for Production of Documents; Motion for a Protectiver Order by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 5/9/2011) Modiﬁed on 5/10/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/09/2011)

05/09/2011

1882

Declaration of Jay C. Russell in Support of 1883 Stipulated Ex Parte Request for an Order Shortening Time to Hear Defendants' Motion to Quash and for Protective Order ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Related document(s) 1883 ) (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 5/9/2011) Modiﬁed on 5/10/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/09/2011)

05/09/2011 1883 Stipulation and (Proposed) Order Shortening Brieﬁng Schedule on Defendants' Motion to Quash and for a Protective Order by Edmund G. Brown, Jr., John Armstrong, et al (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 5/9/2011) Modiﬁed on 5/10/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/09/2011)

05/10/2011

Set/Reset Deadlines as to 1879 MOTION to Quash Plaintiﬀs' Notice of Deposition and Request for Production of Documents; Motion for a Protectiver Order. Motion Hearing set for 6/23/2011 02:00 PM before Hon. Claudia Wilken. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/10/2011) (Entered: 05/10/2011)

05/11/2011

1884

ORDER Granting 1883 Stipulation Shortening Brieﬁng Schedule on Defendants' Motion to Quash and for a Protective Order. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 5/11/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/11/2011) (Entered: 05/11/2011)

05/13/2011

1885

Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 5/13/2011) Modiﬁed on 5/16/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/13/2011)

05/16/2011

1886

NOTICE by J. Clark Kelso Notice of Filing of Receiver's Seventeenth Tri-Annual Report (Attachments: # 1 Receiver's 17th Report, # 2 Table of Contents to Appendices, # 3 Appendices 1 thru 8)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 5/16/2011) (Entered: 05/16/2011)

05/16/2011 1887 Joint Case Status Statement by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al. (Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 5/16/2011) Modiﬁed on 5/17/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/16/2011)

05/16/2011 1888 *** FILED IN ERROR. REFER TO DOCUMENT 1889 . ***

RESPONSE (re 1879 MOTION to Quash Plaintiﬀs' Notice of Deposition and Request for Production of Documents; Motion for a Protectiver Order ) ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Aﬃdavit, # 2 Proposed Order)(Thompson, Blake) (Filed on 5/16/2011) Modiﬁed on 5/17/2011 (feriab, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/16/2011)

05/17/2011

1889

RESPONSE (re 1879 MOTION to Quash Plaintiﬀs' Notice of Deposition and Request for Production of Documents; Motion for a Protectiver Order ) Correction of Docket # 1888 ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Aﬃdavit, # 2 Proposed Order) (Thompson, Blake) (Filed on 5/17/2011) (Entered: 05/17/2011)

05/20/2011

1890

REPLY (re 1879 MOTION to Quash Plaintiﬀs' Notice of Deposition and Request for Production of Documents; Motion for a Protectiver Order ) ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 5/20/2011) Modiﬁed on 5/23/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/20/2011)

05/23/2011

1891

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 1885 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 May 6, 2011/Invoice #18122) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/23/2011) (Entered: 05/23/2011)

05/24/2011 1892 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken DENYING DEFENDANTS 1879 Motion to Quash. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/24/2011) (Entered: 05/24/2011)

06/01/2011

1893

MOTION to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document Defendants' Motion for Administrative Relief to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document ﬁled by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (part 1), # 2 Exhibit A (part 2), # 3 Exhibit A (part 3), # 4 Exhibit A (part 4), # 5 Exhibit A (part 5), # 6 Exhibit A (part 6))(Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 6/1/2011) (Entered: 06/01/2011)

06/01/2011

1894

STIPULATION of Non-Opposition re 1893 MOTION to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document Defendants' Motion for Administrative Relief to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document by Edmund G. Brown, Jr., John Armstrong (Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 6/1/2011) Modiﬁed on 6/2/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/01/2011)

06/01/2011 1895 Proposed Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Administrative Relief to Remove Incorrectly Filed Documents by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 6/1/2011) (Entered: 06/01/2011)

06/03/2011

1896

Order granting 1893 Motion to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document entered by Hon. Claudia Wilken. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 06/03/2011)

06/07/2011

1897

Amended Declaration of Jay Russell in Support of 1879 Motion to Quash by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (CORRECTION OF DOCKET 1880 pursuant to Docket 1896 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (part 1), # 2 Exhibit A (part 2), # 3 Exhibit A (part 3), # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D, # 7 Exhibit E, # 8 Exhibit F, # 9 Exhibit G, # 10

Exhibit H, # 11 Exhibit I, # 12 Exhibit J, # 13 Exhibit K, # 14 Exhibit L)(Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 6/7/2011) Modiﬁed on 6/8/2011 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/07/2011)

06/13/2011

1898

Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 6/27/2011. Replies due by 7/5/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 6/13/2011) Modiﬁed on 6/14/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/13/2011)

06/20/2011 1899 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 1898 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 invoice #18218) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/20/2011) (Entered: 06/20/2011)

07/08/2011

1900

Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 7/22/2011. Replies due by 7/29/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 7/8/2011) Modiﬁed on 7/11/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/08/2011)

07/11/2011

1901

Stipulation and (Proposed) Order to Change the Time to File the Joint Status Statement ﬁled by Edmund G. Brown, Jr, Edmund G. Armstrong. (Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 7/11/2011) Modiﬁed on 7/12/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/11/2011)

07/13/2011 1902 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1900 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 Invoice # 18324) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/13/2011) (Entered: 07/13/2011)

07/13/2011

1903

ORDER Granting 1901 Stipulation to Change the Time to File the Joint Status Statement. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 7/13/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/13/2011) (Entered: 07/13/2011)

07/14/2011 1904 NOTICE by John Armstrong of Filing of Orders of the Eastern District of California Temporarily Taking Oﬀ Calendar Motions by the Valdivia and L.H. Classes to Compel 2010 Rates (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 7/14/2011) (Entered: 07/14/2011)

07/20/2011

1905

STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING COUNTY JAIL DISCOVERY by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Signature Page (Declarations/Stipulations) Certiﬁcate of Service)(Russell, Jay) (Filed on 7/20/2011) Modiﬁed on 7/21/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/20/2011)

07/22/2011 1906 Joint Case Status Statement by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al. (Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 7/22/2011) Modiﬁed on 7/25/2011 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/22/2011)

07/28/2011

1907

ORDER Granting 1905 Stipulation FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING COUNTY JAIL DISCOVERY. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 7/28/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/28/2011) (Entered: 07/28/2011)

07/28/2011 1908 Proposed Order Conﬁrming Undisputed Attorney's Fees and Costs for the First Quarter of 2011 by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1

Exhibit s A-C)(Walczak, Kenneth) (Filed on 7/28/2011) (Entered: 07/28/2011)

07/29/2011

1909

ORDER Conﬁrming Undisputed CDCR Attorney's Fees and Costs for the First Quarter of 2011 re 1908 . Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 7/29/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A-C)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/29/2011) Modiﬁed on 8/1/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/29/2011)

08/04/2011

1910

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal ; Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 8/4/2011) Modiﬁed on 8/5/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 8/10/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/04/2011)

08/04/2011 1911 Proposed Order re 1910 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal ; Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 8/4/2011) (Entered: 08/04/2011)

08/04/2011

1912

RENEWED MOTION to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails and Ensure Access to a Grievance Procedure and Motion to Enforce 2001 Permanent Injunction ﬁled by John Armstrong. Motion Hearing set for 9/8/2011 02:00 PM in Courtroom 4, 3rd Floor, Oakland before Hon. Claudia Wilken. Responses due by 8/18/2011. Replies due by 8/25/2011. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 8/4/2011) Modiﬁed on 8/5/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/04/2011)

08/04/2011

1913

Declaration of Jeanne Woodford in Support of 1912 Renewed Motion to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails and Ensure Access to a Grievance Procedure and Motion to Enforce 2001 Permanent Injunction ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1912 ) (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 8/4/2011) Modiﬁed on 8/5/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/04/2011)

08/04/2011

1914

Declaration of Blake Thompson in Support of 1912 Renewed Motion to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails and Ensure Access to a Grievance Procedure and Motion to Enforce 2001 Permanent Injun ction ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A through O, # 2 Exhibit P through CCC)(Related document(s) 1912 ) (Thompson, Blake) (Filed on 8/4/2011) Modiﬁed on 8/5/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/04/2011)

08/04/2011

1915

Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld in Support of 1912 Renewed Motion to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails and Ensure Access to a Grievance Procedure and Motion to Enforce 2001 Permanent Injun ction ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Through II, # 2 Exhibit JJ Through NN, # 3 Exhibit OO Through RR, # 4 Exhibit SS Through HHH, # 5 Exhibit III Part 1, # 6 Exhibit III Part 2 Through JJJ, # 7 Exhibit KKK Through QQQ)(Related

document(s) 1912 ) (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 8/4/2011) Modiﬁed on 8/5/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/04/2011)

08/04/2011

1916

Declaration of Michael Freedman in Support of 1912 Renewed Motion to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails and Ensure Access to a Grievance Procedure and Motion to Enforce 2001 Permanent Injun ction - Redacted ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1912 ) (Freedman, Michael) (Filed on 8/4/2011) Modiﬁed on 8/5/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/04/2011)

08/04/2011

1917

Proposed Order re 1912 Renewed Motion to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails and Ensure Access to a Grievance Procedure and Motion to Enforce 2001 Permanent Injunction by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 8/4/2011) Modiﬁed on 8/5/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/04/2011)

08/08/2011 1918 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by John Armstrong re 1916 Declaration in Support, 1914 Declaration in Support, (Thompson, Blake) (Filed on 8/8/2011) (Entered: 08/08/2011)

08/08/2011

1919

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING 1745 Plaintiﬀs' Motion to Compel Compensation at their Counsel's Reasonable 2010 Hourly Rates (cwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/8/2011) (Entered: 08/08/2011)

08/09/2011

1920

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 1910 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/9/2011) **DISREGARD. DATE AND SIGNATURE MISSING. SEE DOCKET NO 1921** (Entered: 08/09/2011)

08/09/2011 1921 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 1910 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/9/2011) (Entered: 08/10/2011)

08/10/2011

1922

DOCUMENT E-FILED UNDER SEAL re 1921 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Declaration of Blake Thompson In Support of Plaintiﬀs' Renewed Motion To Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails and Ensure Access to a Grievance Procedure and Motion to Enforce 2001 Permanent Injunction by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Through O, # 2 Exhibit P Through JJ, # 3 Exhibit KK Through CCC)(Thompson, Blake) (Filed on 8/10/2011) (Entered: 08/10/2011)

08/10/2011

1923

DOCUMENT E-FILED UNDER SEAL re 1921 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Declaration of Michael Freedman In Support of Plaintiﬀs' Renewed Motion to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails and Ensure Access to a Grievance Procedure and Motion to Enforce 2001 Permanent Injunction by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Through T)(Freedman, Michael) (Filed on 8/10/2011) (Entered: 08/10/2011)

08/16/2011

1924

STIPULATION and Proposed Order to Change Time for Filing and Hearing Dates on Plaintiﬀs' Renewed Motion to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails and Ensure Access to a Grievance Procedure and Motion to Enforce 2001 Permanent Injunction by Edmund G. Brown, Jr., John Armstrong, et al (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 8/16/2011) Modiﬁed on 8/17/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/16/2011)

08/17/2011

1925

MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and Proposed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 8/31/2011. Replies due by 9/7/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 8/17/2011) Modiﬁed on 8/18/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/17/2011)

08/18/2011 1926

ORDER GRANTING 1924 Stipulation to Change Time for Filing and Hearing Dates on Plaintiﬀs' 1912 Renewed Motion to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails and Ensure Access to a Grievance Procedure and Motion to Enforce 2001 Permanent Injunction. Responses due by 9/29/2011. Replies due by 10/13/2011. Motion Hearing set for 10/27/2011 02:00 PM before Hon. Claudia Wilken. Signed by Judge CLAUDIA WILKEN on 8/18/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/18/2011) Modiﬁed on 8/19/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/18/2011)

08/19/2011 1927 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1925 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/19/2011) (Entered: 08/19/2011)

08/19/2011

***Deadlines terminated. (cwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/19/2011) (Entered: 08/19/2011)

09/08/2011

1928

Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 9/22/2011. Replies due by 9/29/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 9/8/2011) Modiﬁed on 9/9/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/08/2011)

09/09/2011 1929 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1928 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/9/2011) (Entered: 09/09/2011)

09/09/2011 1930 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1857 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/9/2011) (Entered: 09/09/2011)

09/13/2011 1931 ORDER DIRECTING ADDITIONAL INTERIM PAYMENT OF COSTS. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 9/13/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/13/2011) (Entered: 09/13/2011)

09/15/2011 1932 JOINT STATUS REPORT by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 9/15/2011) Modiﬁed on 9/16/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/15/2011)

09/15/2011 1933 NOTICE by J. Clark Kelso Notice of Filing of Receiver's 18th Tri-

Annual Report (Attachments: # 1 Receiver's 18th Report, # 2 Table of Appendices)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 9/15/2011) (Entered: 09/15/2011)

09/15/2011 1934 Appendix Part 1 - Appendices 1 through 7 to Receiver's 18th Report ﬁled byJ. Clark Kelso. (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 9/15/2011) (Entered: 09/15/2011)

09/15/2011 1935 Appendix Part 2 - Appendices 8 through 12 to Receiver's 18th Report ﬁled byJ. Clark Kelso. (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 9/15/2011) (Entered: 09/15/2011)

09/19/2011

1936

STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order re: Motion to Compel Payment of Plaintiﬀs' Counsel's 2011 Rates by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al. (Walczak, Kenneth) (Filed on 9/19/2011) Modiﬁed on 9/20/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/19/2011)

09/19/2011

1937

ORDER Granting 1936 Stipulation re: Motion to Compel Payment of Plaintiﬀs' Counsel's 2011 Rates. Motions due by 11/18/2011. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 9/19/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/19/2011) (Entered: 09/19/2011)

09/29/2011

1938

RESPONSE (re 1912 RENEWED MOTION to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails and Ensure Access to a Grievance Procedure and Motion to Enforce 2001 Permanent Injunction ) ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 9/29/2011) (Entered: 09/29/2011)

09/29/2011

1939

Declaration of Terri McDonald in Support of 1938 Opposition/Response to Motion, ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Related document(s) 1938 ) (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 9/29/2011) (Entered: 09/29/2011)

09/29/2011

1940

Request for Judicial Notice re 1938 Opposition/Response to Motion, ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A_Part1, # 2 Exhibit A_Part2, # 3 Exhibit A_Part3, # 4 Exhibit B_Part1, # 5 Exhibit B_Part2, # 6 Exhibit B_Part3)(Related document(s) 1938 ) (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 9/29/2011) (Entered: 09/29/2011)

09/30/2011 1941 Proposed Order for Payment of Attorney's Fees for 2010 and the First Quarter of 2011, Pursuant to the Court's August 8, 2011 Order, with Exhibits A-D by John Armstrong. (Walczak, Kenneth) (Filed on 9/30/2011) (Entered: 09/30/2011)

10/03/2011

1942

ORDER Granting 1941 Proposed Order for Payment of Attorney's Fees for 2010 and the First Quarter of 2011, Pursuant to the Court's August 8, 2011 Order, with Exhibits A-D. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/3/20112. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/3/2011) (Entered: 10/03/2011)

10/04/2011 1943 Proposed Order Conﬁrming Undisputed Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Second Quarter of 2011, with Exhibits A-C by John Armstrong. (Walczak, Kenneth) (Filed on 10/4/2011) (Entered: 10/04/2011)

10/04/2011

1944

STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order Resolving Certain Disputed Attorney's Fees from the First Quarter of 2011, with Exhibit A by John Armstrong, Edmund g. Brown, Jr., et al. (Walczak, Kenneth) (Filed on 10/4/2011) Modiﬁed on 10/5/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/04/2011)

10/05/2011

1945

ORDER Granting 1943 Proposed Order Conﬁrming Undisputed Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Second Quarter of 2011, with Exhibits A-C. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/5/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/5/2011) (Entered: 10/05/2011)

10/05/2011

1946

ORDER Granting 1944 Stipulation Resolving Certain Disputed Attorney's Fees from the First Quarter of 2011, with Exhibit A. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/5/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/5/2011) (Entered: 10/05/2011)

10/07/2011

1947

Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 10/21/2011. Replies due by 10/28/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 10/7/2011) Modiﬁed on 10/11/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/07/2011)

10/11/2011 1948 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1947 Motion for Payment. (Attachments: # 1 exhibits) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/11/2011) (Entered: 10/11/2011)

10/13/2011

1949

REPLY (re 1912 RENEWED MOTION to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails and Ensure Access to a Grievance Procedure and Motion to Enforce 2001 Permanent Injunction ) ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 10/13/2011) (Entered: 10/13/2011)

10/13/2011 1950

Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld in Support of 1912 RENEWED MOTION to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails and Ensure Access to a Grievance Procedure and Motion to Enforce 2001 Permanent Injunction, ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-L, # 2 Exhibit M-S)(Related document(s) 1912 ) (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 10/13/2011) Modiﬁed on 10/14/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/13/2011)

10/13/2011 1951 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order and Stipulation)(Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 10/13/2011) (Entered: 10/13/2011)

10/13/2011

1952

REDACTED REPLY Declaration of Blake Thompson in Support of 1912 RENEWED MOTION to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails and Ensure Access to a Grievance Procedure and Motion to Enforce 2001 Permanent Injunction ) ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1912 ) (Thompson, Blake) (Filed

on 10/13/2011) Modiﬁed on 10/14/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/13/2011)

10/13/2011 1953 EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS to re 1939 Declaration in Support by John Armstrong. (Thompson, Blake) (Filed on 10/13/2011) Modiﬁed on 10/14/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/13/2011)

10/14/2011 1954 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by John Armstrong re 1951 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (Thompson, Blake) (Filed on 10/14/2011) (Entered: 10/14/2011)

10/17/2011 1955 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 1951 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/17/2011) (Entered: 10/17/2011)

10/17/2011

1956

DOCUMENT E-FILED UNDER SEAL re 1955 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Declaration of Blake Thompson in Support of 1949 Reply to Opposition/Response by John Armstrong. (Thompson, Blake) (Filed on 10/17/2011) (Entered: 10/17/2011)

10/17/2011 1957 Receipt #44611007772 in the amount of $100,000.00 interim payment of costs from defendants. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/17/2011) (Entered: 10/18/2011)

10/20/2011 1958 OBJECTIONS to Plaintiﬀ's Evidence by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 10/20/2011) (Entered: 10/20/2011)

10/24/2011 1959 FURTHER OBJECTIONS to Plaintiﬀs' Evidence by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 10/24/2011) Modiﬁed on 10/25/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/24/2011)

10/27/2011 1963 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 10/27/2011 before Claudia Wilken (Date Filed: 10/27/2011). (Court Reporter Jennifer Macato.) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 10/27/2011) (Entered: 11/07/2011)

10/31/2011 1960 Proposed Order for Payment of Attorney's Fees For The First Two Quarters of 2011 at 2011 Rates by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 10/31/2011) (Entered: 10/31/2011)

11/01/2011 1961 ORDER Granting 1960 Proposed Order. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 11/1/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/1/2011) (Entered: 11/01/2011)

11/04/2011

1962

Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 11/18/2011. Replies due by 11/28/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 11/4/2011) Modiﬁed on 11/7/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/04/2011)

11/07/2011 1964 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1962 Motion (Attachments: # 1 Invoice # 18744) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/7/2011) (Entered: 11/07/2011)

11/10/2011

1965

STIPULATION and Proposed Order to Change the Time to File the Joint Case Statement by John Armstrong. (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 11/10/2011) Modiﬁed on 11/14/2011 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/10/2011)

11/14/2011

1966

ORDER Granting 1965 Stipulation to Change the Time to File the Joint Case Statement. Status Report due by 2/15/2012. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 11/14/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/14/2011) (Entered: 11/14/2011)

11/22/2011 1967 Joint Case Status Statement by John Armstrong. (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 11/22/2011) Modiﬁed on 11/23/2011 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/22/2011)

12/06/2011 1968 Proposed Order Conﬁrming Undisputed Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Third Quarter of 2011 by John Armstrong. (Walczak, Kenneth) (Filed on 12/6/2011) (Entered: 12/06/2011)

12/07/2011

1969

ORDER Granting 1968 Proposed Order Conﬁrming Undisputed Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Third Quarter of 2011. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 12/7/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/7/2011) (Entered: 12/07/2011)

12/07/2011

1970

Administrative Motion and [Proposed] Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 12/21/2011. Replies due by 12/28/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 12/7/2011) Modiﬁed on 12/8/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/07/2011)

12/08/2011 1971 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 1970 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/8/2011) (Entered: 12/08/2011)

01/10/2012

1972

MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and Proposed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 1/24/2012. Replies due by 1/31/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 1/10/2012) Modiﬁed on 1/11/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/10/2012)

01/11/2012 1973 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 1972 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/11/2012) (Entered: 01/11/2012)

01/13/2012

1974

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING PLAINTIFFS 1912 RENEWED MOTION TO REQUIRE DEFENDANTS TO TRACK AND ACCOMMODATE NEEDS OF ARMSTRONG CLASS MEMBERS HOUSED IN COUNTY JAILS, ENSURE ACCESS TO A GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE, AND TO ENFORCE 2001 PERMANENT INJUNCTION. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/13/2012) (Entered: 01/13/2012)

01/13/2012

1975

NOTICE by J. Clark Kelso Notice of Filing of Receiver's Nineteenth Tri-Annual Report (Attachments: # 1 Receiver's Report No. 19, # 2 Table of Contents re Appendices)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 1/13/2012) (Entered: 01/13/2012)

01/13/2012

1976

Appendix re 1975 Notice (Other) Appendices 1 to 6 ﬁled byJ. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix 7, # 2 Appendices 8 to 10) (Related document(s) 1975 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 1/13/2012) (Entered: 01/13/2012)

02/07/2012

1977

Administrative Motion and [Proposed] Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 2/21/2012. Replies due by 2/28/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 2/7/2012) Modiﬁed on 2/8/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/07/2012)

02/10/2012

1978

DEFENDANTS MOTION UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 60(b)(1) OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, RULE 60(b)(5), TO CORRECT AN ERROR OF LAW IN, OR TO MODIFY, THE JANUARY 13, 2012 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS RENEWED MOTION TO REQUIRE DEFENDANTS TO TRACK AND ACCOMMODATE THE NEEDS OF ARMSTRONG CLASS MEMBERS HOUSED IN COUNTY JAILS AND ENSURE ACCESS TO A WORKABLE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE AND MOTION TO ENFORCE 2001 PERMANENT INJUNCTION ﬁled by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. Responses due by 2/24/2012. Replies due by 3/2/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certiﬁcate/Proof of Service)(Russell, Jay) (Filed on 2/10/2012) Modiﬁed on 2/13/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/10/2012)

02/10/2012

1979

Declaration of Maria Franco in Support of 1978 DEFENDANTS MOTION UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 60(b)(1) OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, RULE 60(b)(5), TO CORRECT AN ERROR OF LAW IN, OR TO MODIFY, THE JANUARY 13, 2012 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS RENEWED MOTION TO REQUIRE DEFENDANTS TO TRACK AND ACCOMMODATE THE NEEDS OF ARMSTRONG CLASS MEMBERS HOUSED IN COUNTY JAILS AND ENSURE ACCESS TO A WORKABLE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE AND MOTION TO ENFORCE 2001 PERMANENT INJUNCTION ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Related document(s) 1978 ) (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 2/10/2012) Modiﬁed on 2/13/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/10/2012)

02/10/2012

1980

Declaration of Tim Fowler in Support of 1978 DEFENDANTS MOTION UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 60(b)(1) OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, RULE 60(b)(5), TO CORRECT AN ERROR OF LAW IN, OR TO MODIFY, THE JANUARY 13, 2012 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS RENEWED MOTION TO REQUIRE DEFENDANTS TO TRACK AND ACCOMMODATE THE NEEDS OF ARMSTRONG CLASS MEMBERS HOUSED IN COUNTY JAILS AND ENSURE ACCESS TO A WORKABLE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE AND MOTION TO ENFORCE 2001 PERMANENT INJUNCTION ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Related document(s) 1978 ) (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 2/10/2012) Modiﬁed on 2/13/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/10/2012)

02/10/2012

1981

Declaration of Dan Stone in Support of 1978 DEFENDANTS MOTION UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 60(b)(1) OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, RULE 60(b)(5), TO CORRECT AN ERROR OF LAW IN, OR TO MODIFY, THE JANUARY 13, 2012 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS RENEWED MOTION TO REQUIRE DEFENDANTS TO TRACK AND ACCOMMODATE THE NEEDS OF ARMSTRONG CLASS MEMBERS HOUSED IN COUNTY JAILS AND ENSURE ACCESS TO A WORKABLE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE AND MOTION TO ENFORCE 2001 PERMANENT INJUNCTION ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr.

(Related document(s) 1978 ) (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 2/10/2012) Modiﬁed on 2/13/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/10/2012)

02/10/2012

1982

Declaration of Brian Clay in Support of 1978 DEFENDANTS MOTION UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 60(b)(1) OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, RULE 60(b)(5), TO CORRECT AN ERROR OF LAW IN, OR TO MODIFY, THE JANUARY 13, 2012 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS RENEWED MOTION TO REQUIRE DEFENDANTS TO TRACK AND ACCOMMODATE THE NEEDS OF ARMSTRONG CLASS MEMBERS HOUSED IN COUNTY JAILS AND ENSURE ACCESS TO A WORKABLE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE AND MOTION TO ENFORCE 2001 PERMANENT INJUNCTION ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Related document(s) 1978 ) (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 2/10/2012) Modiﬁed on 2/13/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/10/2012)

02/10/2012

1983

Proposed Order re 1978 DEFENDANTS MOTION UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 60(b)(1) OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, RULE 60(b)(5), TO CORRECT AN ERROR OF LAW IN, OR TO MODIFY, THE JANUARY 13, 2012 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS RENEWED MOTION TO REQUIRE DEFENDANTS TO TRACK AND ACCOMMODATE THE NEEDS OF ARMSTRONG CLASS MEMBERS HOUSED IN COUNTY JAILS AND ENSURE ACCESS TO A WORKABLE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE AND MOTION TO ENFORCE 2001 PERMANENT INJUNCTION by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 2/10/2012) Modiﬁed on 2/13/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/10/2012)

02/10/2012

1984

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 60(b)(1), OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE 60(b)(5), TO CORRECT AN ERROR OF LAW IN, OR TO MODIFY, THE JANUARY 13, 2012 ORDER ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Certiﬁcate/Proof of Service, # 2 Exhibit A part 1 of 2, # 3 Exhibit A part 2 of 2)(Russell, Jay) (Filed on 2/10/2012) Modiﬁed on 2/13/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/10/2012)

02/10/2012

1985

MOTION TO STAY ENFORCEMENT OF ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS RENEWED MOTION TO REQUIRE DEFENDANTS TO TRACK AND ACCOMMODATE NEEDS OF ARMSTRONG CLASS MEMBERS HOUSED IN COUNTY JAILS, ENSURE ACCESS TO A GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE, AND TO ENFORCE 2001 PERMANENT INJUNCTION PENDING DEFENDANTS MOTION AND SUBSEQUENT APPEAL OR, ALTERNATIVELY, TO MODIFY COMPLIANCE DATES ﬁled by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. Responses due by 2/24/2012. Replies due by 3/2/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certiﬁcate/Proof of Service)(Russell, Jay) (Filed on 2/10/2012) Modiﬁed on 2/13/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/10/2012)

02/10/2012

1986

Declaration of Robert Ambroselli in Support of 1985 MOTION TO STAY ENFORCEMENT OF ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS RENEWED MOTION TO REQUIRE DEFENDANTS TO TRACK AND ACCOMMODATE NEEDS OF ARMSTRONG CLASS MEMBERS HOUSED IN COUNTY JAILS, ENSURE ACCESS TO A GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE, AND TO

ENFORCE 2001 PERMANENT INJUNCTION PENDING DEFENDANTS MOTION AND SUBSEQUENT APPEAL OR, ALTERNATIVELY, TO MODIFY COMPLIANCE DATES ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Related document(s) 1985 ) (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 2/10/2012) Modiﬁed on 2/13/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/10/2012)

02/10/2012

1987

Proposed Order re 1985 MOTION TO STAY ENFORCEMENT OF ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS RENEWED MOTION TO REQUIRE DEFENDANTS TO TRACK AND ACCOMMODATE NEEDS OF ARMSTRONG CLASS MEMBERS HOUSED IN COUNTY JAILS, ENSURE ACCESS TO A GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE, AND TO ENFORCE 2001 PERMANENT INJUNCTION PENDING DEFENDANTS MOTION AND SUBSEQUENT APPEAL OR, ALTERNATIVELY, TO MODIFY COMPLIANCE DATES by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 2/10/2012) Modiﬁed on 2/13/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/10/2012)

02/13/2012

Set/Reset Deadlines as to 1985 MOTION TO STAY ENFORCEMENT OF ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS RENEWED MOTION TO REQUIRE DEFENDANTS TO TRACK AND ACCOMMODATE NEEDS OF ARMSTRONG CLASS MEMBERS HOUSED IN COUNTY JAILS, ENSURE ACCESS TO A GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE, AND TO ENFORCE 2001 PERMANENT INJUNC, 1978 DEFENDANTS MOTION UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 60(b)(1) OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, RULE 60(b)(5), TO CORRECT AN ERROR OF LAW IN, OR TO MODIFY, THE JANUARY 13, 2012 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS RENEWED MOTION TO REQUIRE DEFENDANTS TO TRACK AND ACCOMM. Motion Hearing set for 3/22/2012 02:00 PM before Hon. Claudia Wilken. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/13/2012) (Entered: 02/13/2012)

02/15/2012 1988 Joint Case Status Statement by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr.. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 2/15/2012) Modiﬁed on 2/16/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/15/2012)

02/21/2012 1989 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 1977 Administrative Motion for Payment (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/21/2012) (Entered: 02/21/2012)

02/24/2012 1990 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order and Stipulation)(Thompson, Blake) (Filed on 2/24/2012) (Entered: 02/24/2012)

02/24/2012

1991

RESPONSE (re 1985 MOTION TO STAY ENFORCEMENT OF ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS RENEWED MOTION TO REQUIRE DEFENDANTS TO TRACK AND ACCOMMODATE NEEDS OF ARMSTRONG CLASS MEMBERS HOUSED IN COUNTY JAILS, ENSURE ACCESS TO A GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE, AND TO ENFORCE 2001 PERMANENT INJUNC ) ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 2/24/2012) (Entered: 02/24/2012)

02/24/2012 1992 Appendix re 1991 Opposition/Response to Motion, Appendices A through E ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1991 ) (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 2/24/2012) (Entered: 02/24/2012)

02/24/2012

1993

Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld in Support of 1991 Opposition/Response to Motion, ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1991 ) (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 2/24/2012) (Entered: 02/24/2012)

02/24/2012

1994

*** FILED IN ERROR. REFER TO DOCUMENT 1999 . *** Declaration of Blake Thompson in Support of 1991 Opposition/Response to Motion, ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1991 ) (Thompson, Blake) (Filed on 2/24/2012) Modiﬁed on 2/28/2012 (feriab, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/24/2012)

02/24/2012

1995

Declaration of Shirley Huey in Support of 1991 Opposition/Response to Motion, ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1991 ) (Huey, Shirley) (Filed on 2/24/2012) (Entered: 02/24/2012)

02/24/2012

1996

Declaration of Ken Walczak in Support of 1991 Opposition/Response to Motion, ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1991 ) (Walczak, Kenneth) (Filed on 2/24/2012) (Entered: 02/24/2012)

02/24/2012

1997

RESPONSE (re 1978 DEFENDANTS MOTION UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 60(b)(1) OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, RULE 60(b)(5), TO CORRECT AN ERROR OF LAW IN, OR TO MODIFY, THE JANUARY 13, 2012 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS RENEWED MOTION TO REQUIRE DEFENDANTS TO TRACK AND ACCOMM ) ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 2/24/2012) (Entered: 02/24/2012)

02/24/2012 1998 Proposed Order denying re 1978 , 1985 Motions by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 2/24/2012) Modiﬁed on 2/27/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/24/2012)

02/27/2012

1999

Declaration of Blake Thompson in Support of 1991 Opposition/Response to Motion, Correction of Docket # 1994 ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1991 ) (Thompson, Blake) (Filed on 2/27/2012) (Entered: 02/27/2012)

03/02/2012

2000

REPLY (re 1978 DEFENDANTS MOTION UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 60(b)(1) OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, RULE 60(b) (5), TO CORRECT AN ERROR OF LAW IN, OR TO MODIFY, THE JANUARY 13, 2012 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS RENEWED MOTION TO REQUIRE DEFENDANTS TO TRACK AND ACCOMM ) ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 3/2/2012) (Entered: 03/02/2012)

03/02/2012

2001

Supplemental Request for Judicial Notice re 1978 DEFENDANTS MOTION UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 60(b)(1) OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, RULE 60(b)(5), TO CORRECT AN ERROR OF LAW IN, OR TO MODIFY, THE JANUARY 13, 2012 ORDER ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit b)(Related document(s) 1978 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 3/2/2012) Modiﬁed on 3/5/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/02/2012)

03/02/2012

2002

REPLY (re 1985 MOTION TO STAY ENFORCEMENT OF ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS RENEWED MOTION TO REQUIRE DEFENDANTS TO TRACK AND ACCOMMODATE NEEDS OF ARMSTRONG CLASS MEMBERS HOUSED IN COUNTY JAILS, ENSURE ACCESS TO A GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE, AND TO ENFORCE 2001 PERMANENT INJUNC ) ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 3/2/2012) (Entered: 03/02/2012)

03/02/2012

2003

Declaration of RHONDA SKIPPER-DOTTA in Support of 2002 Reply to Opposition/Response, ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Related document(s) 2002 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 3/2/2012) (Entered: 03/02/2012)

03/02/2012

2004

Declaration of TERESA MCDANIEL in Support of 2002 Reply to Opposition/Response, ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Related document(s) 2002 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 3/2/2012) (Entered: 03/02/2012)

03/02/2012

2005

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Authorizing Sealing of a Document -Declaration of Theresa McDaniel supporting reply to opposition to motion to stay court's 1/13/2012 order ﬁled by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 3/2/2012) Modiﬁed on 3/5/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/02/2012)

03/02/2012

2006

DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATIONS OF ROBERT AMBROSELLI, TIM FOWLER, DAN STONE, MARIA FRANCO, AND BRIAN CLAY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STAY ENFORCEMENT OF ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS RENEWED MOTION TO REQUIRE DEFENDANTS TO TRACK AND ACCOMMODATE NEEDS OF ARMSTRONG CLASS MEMBERS HOUSED IN COUNTY JAILS, ENSURE ACCESS TO A GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE, AND TO ENFORCE 2001 PERMANENT INJUNCTION PENDING DEFENDANTS MOTION AND SUBSEQUENT APPEAL OR, ALTERNATIVELY, TO MODIFY DATES byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 3/2/2012) Modiﬁed on 3/5/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/02/2012)

03/05/2012 2007 Letter from CRD to Rick Green. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/5/2012) (Entered: 03/05/2012)

03/05/2012 2008 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by John Armstrong re 1999 Declaration in Support (Thompson, Blake) (Filed on 3/5/2012) (Entered: 03/05/2012)

03/06/2012 2009 Proposed Order Conﬁrming Undisputed Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Fourth Quarter of 2011 by John Armstrong. (Walczak, Kenneth) (Filed on 3/6/2012) (Entered: 03/06/2012)

03/07/2012

2010

ORDER Conﬁrming Undisputed Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Fourth Quarter of 2011 re 2009 . Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 3/7/2012. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/7/2012) Modiﬁed on 3/8/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/07/2012)

03/07/2012 2011 Order granting 1990 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal entered by Hon. Claudia Wilken. (This is a text-only entry

generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 03/07/2012)

03/07/2012

2012

Order granting 2005 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal entered by Hon. Claudia Wilken. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 03/07/2012)

03/07/2012

2013

MOTION for Disbursement of Funds Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 3/21/2012. Replies due by 3/28/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 3/7/2012) (Entered: 03/07/2012)

03/08/2012 2014 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2013 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/8/2012) (Entered: 03/08/2012)

03/09/2012

2015

DOCUMENT E-FILED UNDER SEAL re 2011 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Declaration of Blake Thompson in support of plaintiﬀs' opposition to defendants' motion to stay enforcement of order granting plaintiﬀs' renewed motion to require defendants to track and accomodate needs of Armstrong class members housed in county jails, etc by John Armstrong. (Thompson, Blake) (Filed on 3/9/2012) Modiﬁed on 3/12/2012 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/09/2012)

03/09/2012 2016 OBJECTIONS to re 2004 Declaration in Support, 2003 Declaration in Support by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 3/9/2012) (Entered: 03/09/2012)

03/09/2012

2017

OBJECTIONS to Defendants' February 27, 2012 County Jail Plan and Request for status conference by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 3/9/2012) Modiﬁed on 3/12/2012 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/09/2012)

03/09/2012 2018 Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld in Support of 2017 Objection ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 2017 ) (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 3/9/2012) (Entered: 03/09/2012)

03/16/2012

2019

MOTION to Strike SUR-REPLY BRIEF (DOCKET No. 2016 ) ﬁled by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. Responses due by 3/30/2012. Replies due by 4/6/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certiﬁcate/Proof of Service)(Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 3/16/2012) Modiﬁed on 3/19/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/16/2012)

03/16/2012

2020

Proposed Order re 2019 MOTION to Strike SUR-REPLY BRIEF (DOCKET No. 2016 ) by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 3/16/2012) Modiﬁed on 3/19/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/16/2012)

03/16/2012 2021 RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS COUNTY JAIL PLAN AND REQUEST FOR STATUS CONFERENCE by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Certiﬁcate/Proof of Service)(Goldman,

Jay) (Filed on 3/16/2012) Modiﬁed on 3/19/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/16/2012)

03/19/2012 2022 Letter from CRD to L.R. Fresquez. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/19/2012) (Entered: 03/19/2012)

03/22/2012

2023

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Granting Administrative Motion to File Under Seal)(Godbold, Penelope) (Filed on 3/22/2012) (Entered: 03/22/2012)

03/22/2012

2024

MOTION for Order to Show Cause and Notice of Motion and Motion for an Order Holding Defendants in Contempt of Court ﬁled by John Armstrong. Motion Hearing set for 4/26/2012 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland before Hon. Claudia Wilken. Responses due by 4/5/2012. Replies due by 4/12/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order [Proposed] Order to Show Cause Regarding Contempt, # 2 Proposed Order [Proposed] Order Holding Defendants in Contempt of Court)(Godbold, Penelope) (Filed on 3/22/2012) (Entered: 03/22/2012)

03/22/2012 2025 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 3/22/2012 before Claudia Wilken (Date Filed: 3/22/2012). (Court Reporter Diane Skillman.) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 3/22/2012) (Entered: 03/29/2012)

03/29/2012 2026

Transcript of Proceedings held on March 22, 2012, before Judge Claudia Wilken. Court Reporter Diane E. Skillman, Telephone number 510-451-2930, Diane_Skillman@cand.uscourts.gov. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Oﬃce public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this ﬁling. Redaction Request due 4/19/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/30/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/27/2012. (Skillman, Diane) (Filed on 3/29/2012) (Entered: 03/29/2012)

04/06/2012

2027

MOTION for Disbursement of Funds Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 4/20/2012. Replies due by 4/27/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 4/6/2012) (Entered: 04/06/2012)

04/06/2012

2028

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER TO CHANGE TIME TO FILE JOINT STATUS STATEMENT ﬁled by Edmund G. Brown, Jr, John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Certiﬁcate/Proof of Service) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 4/6/2012) Modiﬁed on 4/9/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/06/2012)

04/06/2012 2029 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER TO CHANGE TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION AND REPLY PAPERS, AND TO MOVE THE APRIL 26, 2012 DATE, REGARDING PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR AN ORDER TO

SHOW CAUSE AND NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR AN ORDER HOLDING DEFENDANTS IN CONTEMPT OF COURT ﬁled by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Certiﬁcate/Proof of Service)(Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 4/6/2012) Modiﬁed on 4/9/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/06/2012)

04/09/2012 2030 Order granting 2028 Stipulation entered by Hon. Claudia Wilken. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 04/09/2012)

04/09/2012 2031 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2027 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 Invoice # 19310) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/9/2012) (Entered: 04/09/2012)

04/09/2012

2032

Certiﬁcate/Proofs of Service, Declarations of Service by Hand of Penny Godbold and Brandy Sigler re 2024 MOTION for Order to Show Cause and Notice of Motion and Motion for an Order Holding Defendants in Contempt of Court, 2023 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 2024 , 2023 ) (Godbold, Penelope) (Filed on 4/9/2012) Modiﬁed on 4/10/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/09/2012)

04/10/2012

2033

ORDER Granting 2029 STIPULATION TO CHANGE TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION AND REPLY PAPERS, AND TO MOVE THE APRIL 26, 2012 DATE, REGARDING PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR AN ORDER HOLD Set/Reset Deadlines as to 2024 MOTION for Order to Show Cause and Notice of Motion and Motion for an Order Holding Defendants in Contempt of Court. Responses due by 5/10/2012. Replies due by 5/24/2012. Motion Hearing set for 6/7/2012 02:00 PM before Hon. Claudia Wilken. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 4/10/2012. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/10/2012) (Entered: 04/10/2012)

04/11/2012

2034

AMENDED 1974 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS 1912 RENEWED MOTION TO REQUIRE DEFENDANTS TO TRACK AND ACCOMMODATE NEEDS OF ARMSTRONG CLASS MEMBERS HOUSED IN COUNTY JAILS, ENSURE ACCESS TO A GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE, AND TO ENFORCE 2001 PERMANENT INJUNCTIONORDER. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 4/11/2012. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/11/2012) (Entered: 04/11/2012)

04/11/2012

2035

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING IN PART, AND DENYING IN PART, 1978 MOTION TO CORRECT OR MODIFY, DENYING 1985 MOTION TO STAY AND GRANTING 2019 MOTION TO STRIKE.(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/11/2012) (Entered: 04/11/2012)

04/30/2012

2036

*** FILED IN ERROR. PLEASE SEE DOCKET # 2039 . *** NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th CCA Edmund G. Brown, Jr.(Appeal fee of $455 receipt number 0971-6782377 paid.) (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 4/30/2012) Modiﬁed on 5/1/2012 (ewn, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 10/8/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/30/2012)

04/30/2012 2037 DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS REPRESENTATION STATEMENT IN

SUPPORT OF THE 2039 NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURTS APRIL 11, 2012 AMENDED ORDER AND APRIL 11, 2012 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO CORRECT OR MODIFY JANUARY 13, 2012 ORDER by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 4/30/2012) Modiﬁed on 5/1/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/30/2012)

04/30/2012

2038

Joint Case Status Report by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A part 1, # 2 Appendix A part 2, # 3 Appendix B and C)(Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 4/30/2012) Modiﬁed on 5/1/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/30/2012)

04/30/2012

2039

Notice of Appeal (CORRECTION OF DOCKET # 2036 ) by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement April 11, 2012 Order 1, # 2 Supplement April 11, 2012 Order 2)(Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 4/30/2012) Modiﬁed on 5/1/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/30/2012)

05/01/2012 2040 USCA Case Number 12-16018 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for 2036 Notice of Appeal, ﬁled by Edmund G. Brown, Jr.. (kk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/1/2012) (Entered: 05/02/2012)

05/04/2012 2041 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING 2023 MOTION AND STIPULATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/4/2012) (Entered: 05/07/2012)

05/08/2012

2042

Declaration of Penny Godbold [Redacted] in Support of 2024 MOTION for Order to Show Cause and Notice of Motion and Motion for an Order Holding Defendants in Contempt of Court ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-9, # 2 Exhibit 10-11, # 3 Exhibit 12-19, # 4 Exhibit 20-27, # 5 Exhibit 28-29, # 6 Exhibit 30 Part 1, # 7 Exhibit 30 Part 2, # 8 Exhibit 30 Part 3, # 9 Exhibit 30 Part 4, # 10 Exhibit 30 Part 5, # 11 Exhibit 31-36, # 12 Exhibit 3740, # 13 Exhibit 41-45, # 14 Exhibit 46-49, # 15 Exhibit 50-53, # 16 Exhibit 54)(Related document(s) 2024 ) (Godbold, Penelope) (Filed on 5/8/2012) (Entered: 05/08/2012)

05/08/2012

2043

Declaration of Rebekah Evenson [Redacted] in Support of 2024 MOTION for Order to Show Cause and Notice of Motion and Motion for an Order Holding Defendants in Contempt of Court ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 2024 ) (Godbold, Penelope) (Filed on 5/8/2012) (Entered: 05/08/2012)

05/08/2012

2044

MOTION for Disbursement of Funds Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 5/22/2012. Replies due by 5/29/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 5/8/2012) (Entered: 05/08/2012)

05/10/2012 2045 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2044 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/10/2012) (Entered: 05/10/2012)

05/10/2012 2046 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal ﬁled by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 5/10/2012) (Entered: 05/10/2012)

05/10/2012

2047

Declaration of Jay C. Russel in Support of 2046 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Related document(s) 2046 ) (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 5/10/2012) (Entered: 05/10/2012)

05/10/2012

2048

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 2046 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal ﬁled by Edmund G. Brown, Jr., John Armstrong, et al. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 5/10/2012) Modiﬁed on 5/11/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/10/2012)

05/10/2012

2049

RESPONSE (re 2024 MOTION for Order to Show Cause and Notice of Motion and Motion for an Order Holding Defendants in Contempt of Court ) ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/10/2012) Modiﬁed on 5/11/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/10/2012)

05/10/2012

2050

Declaration of ROBERT M. CALDERON in Support of 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Related document(s) 2049 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/10/2012) (Entered: 05/10/2012)

05/10/2012

2051

Declaration of JULIAN MARTINEZ in Support of 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Related document(s) 2049 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/10/2012) (Entered: 05/10/2012)

05/10/2012

2052

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Edmund G. Brown, Jr re 2050 Declaration in Support, 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, 2051 Declaration in Support, (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/10/2012) (Entered: 05/10/2012)

05/10/2012 2053 Amended Administrative Motion to File Under Seal ﬁled by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Certiﬁcate/Proof of Service)(Russell, Jay) (Filed on 5/10/2012) (Entered: 05/10/2012)

05/10/2012

2054

Declaration of Jay C. Russell in Support of 2053 Amended Administrative Motion to File Under Seal ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Related document(s) 2053 ) (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 5/10/2012) (Entered: 05/10/2012)

05/10/2012

2055

AMENDED STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER AUTHORIZING SEALING OF DOCUMENTS ﬁled by Edmund G. Brown, Jr., John Armstrong (Attachments: # 1 Certiﬁcate/Proof of Service, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B)(Russell, Jay) (Filed on 5/10/2012) Modiﬁed on 5/11/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/10/2012)

05/15/2012

2056

NOTICE by J. Clark Kelso Notice of Filing of Receiver's Twentieth TriAnnual Report (Attachments: # 1 Receiver's 20th Tri-Annual Report, # 2 Table of Appendices)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 5/15/2012) (Entered: 05/15/2012)

05/15/2012 2057 Appendix re 2056 Notice (Other) Appendices 1 to 8 re Receivers 20th Report ﬁled byJ. Clark Kelso. (Related document(s) 2056 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 5/15/2012) (Entered: 05/15/2012)

05/15/2012 2058 Appendix re 2056 Notice (Other) Appendices 9 to 10 re Receivers 20th Report ﬁled byJ. Clark Kelso. (Related document(s) 2056 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 5/15/2012) (Entered: 05/15/2012)

05/17/2012 2059 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING 2053 MOTION AND 2055 STIPULATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/17/2012) (Entered: 05/17/2012)

05/21/2012

2060

DOCUMENT E-FILED UNDER SEAL re 2059 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, Order on Stipulation Declaration of M. Overstreet by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012

2061

*** FILED IN ERROR. PLEASE SEE DOCKET # 2103 . *** Declaration of M. Overstreet [Redacted] in Support of 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Related document(s) 2049 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) Modiﬁed on 5/22/2012 (ewn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012

2062

Declaration of C. Arthur [Redacted] in Support of 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Related document(s) 2049 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012

2063

Declaration of G. Jaime in Support of 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Related document(s) 2049 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012

2064

Declaration of J. L. Cutillo [Redacted] in Support of 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Related document(s) 2049 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012

2065

Declaration of D. Zanchi [Redacted] in Support of 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (PART 1), # 2 Exhibit A (PART 2), # 3 Exhibit B)(Related document(s) 2049 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012

2066

Declaration of Michael Mayes [Redacted] in Support of 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Related document(s) 2049 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012

2067

*** FILED IN ERROR. PLEASE SEE DOCKET # 2104 . *** Declaration of V.Cullen [Redacted] in Support of 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4

Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O)(Related document(s) 2049 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) Modiﬁed on 5/21/2012 (ﬀf, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 5/22/2012 (ewn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012 2068

Declaration of J. Cavazos [Redacted] in Support of 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, # 19 Exhibit S, # 20 Exhibit T)(Related document(s) 2049 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012

2069

Declaration of S. Aref [Redacted] in Support of 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J)(Related document(s) 2049 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012

2070

Declaration of S. Smith [Redacted] in Support of 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Related document(s) 2049 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012 2071

Declaration of T. Miguel [Redacted] in Support of 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R)(Related document(s) 2049 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012

2072

Declaration of J. Curzon [Redacted] in Support of 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L)(Related document(s) 2049 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012

2073

Declaration of K. Cheney [Redacted] in Support of 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Related document(s) 2049 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012 2074 Declaration of A. Favila [Redacted] in Support of 2049

Opposition/Response to Motion, ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Related document(s) 2049 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012

2075

Declaration of R. Binkele [Redacted] in Support of 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Related document(s) 2049 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012

2076

Declaration of D. Fischer [Redacted] in Support of 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Related document(s) 2049 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012

2077

Declaration of R. W. Nipper [Redacted] in Support of 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Related document(s) 2049 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012

2078

Declaration of J. C. Blim [Redacted] in Support of 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Related document(s) 2049 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012

2079

Declaration of R. Sweeny [Redacted] in Support of 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Related document(s) 2049 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012

2080

Declaration of G. Stratton [Redacted] in Support of 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K)(Related document(s) 2049 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012

2081

*** FILED IN ERROR. PLEASE SEE DOCKET # 2116 . *** Appendix of Objections to Plaintiﬀs' Evidence on Plaintiﬀs' Motion for an Order to Show Cause and a Contemp Order ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) Modiﬁed on 5/22/2012 (cpS, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 5/25/2012 (ewn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012

2082

*** FILED IN ERROR. PLEASE SEE DOCKET # 2117 . *** DOCUMENT E-FILED UNDER SEAL re 2059 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, Order on Stipulation APPENDIX OF DEFENDANTS OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS EVIDENCE ON PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND A CONTEMPT ORDER by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix part 1 of 2, # 2 Appendix part 2 of 2)(Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) Modiﬁed on 5/25/2012 (ewn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012 2083 DOCUMENT E-FILED UNDER SEAL re 2059 Order on Administrative

Motion to File Under Seal, Order on Stipulation DECLARATION OF G. STRATTON IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND CONTEMPT ORDER by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to K)(Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012

2084

DOCUMENT E-FILED UNDER SEAL re 2059 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, Order on Stipulation DECLARATION OF R. SWEENY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND CONTEMPT ORDER by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to C) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012

2085

DOCUMENT E-FILED UNDER SEAL re 2059 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, Order on Stipulation DECLARATION OF J. C. BLIM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND CONTEMPT ORDER by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to B) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012

2086

DOCUMENT E-FILED UNDER SEAL re 2059 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, Order on Stipulation DECLARATION OF R. W. NIPPER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND CONTEMPT ORDER by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012

2087

DOCUMENT E-FILED UNDER SEAL re 2059 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, Order on Stipulation DECLARATION OF D. FISCHER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND CONTEMPT ORDER by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to B) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012

2088

DOCUMENT E-FILED UNDER SEAL re 2059 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, Order on Stipulation DECLARATION OF S. K. CHENEY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND CONTEMPT ORDER by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to E)(Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012

2089

DOCUMENT E-FILED UNDER SEAL re 2059 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, Order on Stipulation DECLARATION OF J. CURZON IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND CONTEMPT ORDER by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to L) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012 2090 DOCUMENT E-FILED UNDER SEAL re 2059 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, Order on Stipulation DECLARATION OF R. BINKELE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND CONTEMPT ORDER

by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to B) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012

2091

DOCUMENT E-FILED UNDER SEAL re 2059 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, Order on Stipulation DECLARATION OF A. FAVILA IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND CONTEMPT ORDER by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to B) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012

2092

DOCUMENT E-FILED UNDER SEAL re 2059 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, Order on Stipulation DECLARATION OF S. SMITH IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND CONTEMPT ORDER by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to F) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012

2093

DOCUMENT E-FILED UNDER SEAL re 2059 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, Order on Stipulation DECLARATION OF T.MIGUEL IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND CONTEMPT ORDER by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-R)(Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012

2094

DOCUMENT E-FILED UNDER SEAL re 2059 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, Order on Stipulation DECLARATION OF J. CAVAZOS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND CONTEMPT ORDER by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-T)(Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) Modiﬁed on 5/22/2012 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012

2095

DOCUMENT E-FILED UNDER SEAL re 2059 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, Order on Stipulation DECLARATION OF V. CULLEN IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND CONTEMPT ORDER by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-O Part 1 of 2, # 2 Exhibit A-O Part 2 of 2)(Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012

2096

DOCUMENT E-FILED UNDER SEAL re 2059 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, Order on Stipulation DECLARATION OF M. OVERSTREET IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND CONTEMPT ORDER by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-E)(Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012

2097

DOCUMENT E-FILED UNDER SEAL re 2059 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, Order on Stipulation DECLARATION OF C. ARTHUR IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND CONTEMPT ORDER by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012

2098

DOCUMENT E-FILED UNDER SEAL re 2059 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, Order on Stipulation DECLARATION OF G. JAIME IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND CONTEMPT ORDER by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012

2099

DOCUMENT E-FILED UNDER SEAL re 2059 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, Order on Stipulation DECLARATION OF MICHAEL MAYES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND CONTEMPT ORDER by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-G)(Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012

2100

DOCUMENT E-FILED UNDER SEAL re 2059 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, Order on Stipulation DECLARATION OF S. CHAPMAN IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND CONTEMPT ORDER by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-C)(Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012

2101

DOCUMENT E-FILED UNDER SEAL re 2059 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, Order on Stipulation DECLARATION OF D. ZANCHI IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND CONTEMPT ORDER by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-B Part 1 of 3, # 2 Exhibit A-B Part 2 of 3, # 3 Exhibit A-B Part 3 of 3)(Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012

2102

DOCUMENT E-FILED UNDER SEAL re 2059 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, Order on Stipulation DECLARATION OF J.L. CUTILLO IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND CONTEMPT ORDER by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-F)(Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/22/2012

2103

*** FILED IN ERROR. REFER TO DOCUMENT 2132 . *** Declaration of M. Overstreet [Redacted] in Support of 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Related document(s) 2049 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/22/2012) Modiﬁed on 6/1/2012 (ﬀf, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/22/2012)

05/22/2012 2104

Declaration of V. Cullen [Redacted] in Support of 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O)(Related document(s) 2049 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/22/2012) (Entered: 05/22/2012)

05/24/2012

2105

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Granting Administrative Motion to File Under Seal)(Godbold, Penelope) (Filed on 5/24/2012) (Entered: 05/24/2012)

05/24/2012 2106 Letter from CRD. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/24/2012) (Entered: 05/24/2012)

05/24/2012

2107

REPLY (re 2024 MOTION for Order to Show Cause and Notice of Motion and Motion for an Order Holding Defendants in Contempt of Court ) ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Godbold, Penelope) (Filed on 5/24/2012) (Entered: 05/24/2012)

05/24/2012

2108

Declaration of Lisa Ells in Support of 2107 Reply to Opposition/Response ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 2107 ) (Godbold, Penelope) (Filed on 5/24/2012) (Entered: 05/24/2012)

05/24/2012

2109

Declaration of Laura Boysen-Aragon in Support of 2107 Reply to Opposition/Response to Plaintiﬀs' Request for an Order to Show Cause and Motion for a Finding of Contempt ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 2107 ) (Godbold, Penelope) (Filed on 5/24/2012) (Entered: 05/24/2012)

05/24/2012

2110

Declaration of Vincent Quan in Support of 2107 Reply to Opposition/Response to Plaintiﬀs' Request for an Order to Show Cause and Motion for a Finding of Contempt ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 2107 ) (Godbold, Penelope) (Filed on 5/24/2012) (Entered: 05/24/2012)

05/24/2012

2111

Declaration of Michael Freedman in Support of 2107 Reply to Opposition/Response to Plaintiﬀs' Request for an Order to Show Cause and Motion for a Finding of Contempt ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 2107 ) (Godbold, Penelope) (Filed on 5/24/2012) (Entered: 05/24/2012)

05/24/2012

2112

Declaration of Thomas Nolan in Support of 2107 Reply to Opposition/Response to Plaintiﬀs' Request for an Order to Show Cause and Motion for a Finding of Contempt ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 2107 ) (Godbold, Penelope) (Filed on 5/24/2012) (Entered: 05/24/2012)

05/24/2012

2113

Declaration of Blake Thompson in Support of 2107 Reply to Opposition/Response to Plaintiﬀs' Request for an Order to Show Cause and Motion for a Finding of Contempt ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 2107 ) (Godbold, Penelope) (Filed on 5/24/2012) (Entered: 05/24/2012)

05/24/2012 2114 Proof of Service of non-redacted documents by John Armstrong. (Godbold, Penelope) (Filed on 5/24/2012) Modiﬁed on 5/25/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/24/2012)

05/24/2012 2115 Proof of Service of non-redacted documents by John Armstrong. (Godbold, Penelope) (Filed on 5/24/2012) Modiﬁed on 5/25/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/24/2012)

05/24/2012

2116

Appendix of defendants' objections to plaintiﬀs' evidence on plaintiﬀs' motion for an order to show cause and contempt order (Redacted) ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 5/24/2012) Modiﬁed on 5/25/2012 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/24/2012)

05/24/2012

2117

DOCUMENT E-FILED UNDER SEAL re 2059 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, Order on Stipulation Appendix objections to plaintiﬀ's evidence by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 5/24/2012) (Entered: 05/24/2012)

05/29/2012 2118 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION by Edmund G. Brown, Jr for proceedings held on 10/27/11 & 03/22/12 before Judge Claudia Wilken.. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 5/29/2012) (Entered: 05/29/2012)

05/31/2012 2119 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING 2105 MOTION AND STIPULATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/31/2012) (Entered: 05/31/2012)

05/31/2012

2120

*** FILED IN ERROR. REFER TO DOCUMENT 2121 . *** OBJECTIONS to re 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, Objections to Plaintiﬀ's Reply and Reply Evidence Filed Re; Combined Request for Order to Show Cause for Contempt and Motion for an Order Holding Defendants in Contempt by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/31/2012) Modiﬁed on 5/31/2012 (ﬀf, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/31/2012)

05/31/2012

2121

OBJECTIONS to re 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, DEFENDANTS EVIDENTIARY AND PROCEDURAL OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS REPLY AND REPLY EVIDENCE FILED RE COMBINED REQUEST FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CONTEMPT AND MOTION FOR AN ORDER HOLDING DEFENDANTS IN CONTEMPT by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/31/2012) (Entered: 05/31/2012)

05/31/2012

2122

Declaration of Penny Godbold in Support of 2107 Reply to Opposition/Response to Plaintiﬀs' Request for an Order to Show Cause and Motion for a Finding of Contempt [REDACTED] ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 2107 ) (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 5/31/2012) (Entered: 05/31/2012)

05/31/2012

2123

Declaration of Rebekah Evenson in Support of 2107 Reply to Opposition/Response to Plaintiﬀs' Request for an Order to Show Cause and Motion for a Finding of Contempt [REDACTED] ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 2107 ) (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 5/31/2012) (Entered: 05/31/2012)

05/31/2012

2124

Declaration of Corene Kendrick in Support of 2107 Reply to Opposition/Response to Plaintiﬀs' Request for an Order to Show Cause and Motion for a Finding of Contempt [REDACTED] ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 2107 ) (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 5/31/2012) (Entered: 05/31/2012)

05/31/2012 2125 Declaration of Megan Hagler in Support of 2107 Reply to Opposition/Response to Plaintiﬀs' Request for an Order to Show

Cause and Motion for a Finding of Contempt [REDACTED] ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 2107 ) (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 5/31/2012) (Entered: 05/31/2012)

05/31/2012

2126

Response to Defendants' re 2116 Appendix of Evidentiary Objections ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 2116 ) (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 5/31/2012) Modiﬁed on 6/1/2012 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/31/2012)

05/31/2012

2127

DOCUMENT E-FILED UNDER SEAL re 2119 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Declaration of Rebekah Evenson in Support of Plaintiﬀs' Reply to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiﬀs' Request for an Order to Show Cause and Motion for a Finding of Contempt by John Armstrong. (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 5/31/2012) (Entered: 05/31/2012)

05/31/2012

2128

DOCUMENT E-FILED UNDER SEAL re 2119 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Declaration of Corene Kendrick in Support of Plaintiﬀs' Reply to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiﬀs' Request for an Order to Show Cause and Motion for a Finding of Contempt by John Armstrong. (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 5/31/2012) (Entered: 05/31/2012)

05/31/2012

2129

DOCUMENT E-FILED UNDER SEAL re 2119 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Declaration of Megan Hagler in Support of Plaintiﬀs' Reply to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiﬀs' Request for an Order to Show Cause and Motion for a Finding of Contempt by John Armstrong. (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 5/31/2012) (Entered: 05/31/2012)

05/31/2012

2130

DOCUMENT E-FILED UNDER SEAL re 2119 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Plaintiﬀs' Response to Defendants' Appendix of Evidentiary Objections by John Armstrong. (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 5/31/2012) (Entered: 05/31/2012)

05/31/2012

2131

DOCUMENT E-FILED UNDER SEAL re 2119 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Declaration of Penny Godbold in Support of Plaintiﬀs' Reply to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiﬀs' Request for an Order to Show Cause and Motion for a Finding of Contempt by John Armstrong. (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 5/31/2012) (Entered: 05/31/2012)

06/01/2012

2132

*** FILED IN ERROR. REFER TO DOCUMENT 2134 . *** Declaration of M. Overstreet in Support of 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, [Redacted] ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A TO E)(Related document(s) 2049 ) (Quinn, Michael) (Filed on 6/1/2012) Modiﬁed on 6/1/2012 (ﬀf, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/01/2012)

06/01/2012

2133

Proposed Order re 2024 MOTION for Order to Show Cause and Notice of Motion and Motion for an Order Holding Defendants in Contempt of Court by John Armstrong. (Specter, Donald) (Filed on 6/1/2012) (Entered: 06/01/2012)

06/01/2012 2134 Declaration of M. Overstreet in Support of 2049

Opposition/Response to Motion, [Redacted] ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A TO E)(Related document(s) 2049 ) (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 6/1/2012) (Entered: 06/01/2012)

06/04/2012

2135

MOTION to Strike Plaintiﬀs' sur-reply brief (Administrative Motion) ﬁled by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. Responses due by 6/18/2012. Replies due by 6/25/2012. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 6/4/2012) (Entered: 06/04/2012)

06/04/2012 2136 Proposed Order re 2135 MOTION to Strike Plaintiﬀs' sur-reply brief (Administrative Motion) by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 6/4/2012) (Entered: 06/04/2012)

06/04/2012

2137

DOCUMENT E-FILED UNDER SEAL re 2041 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Declaration of Rebekah Evenson In Support of Plaintiﬀs Motion for Contempt by John Armstrong. (Godbold, Penelope) (Filed on 6/4/2012) (Entered: 06/04/2012)

06/04/2012

2138

DOCUMENT E-FILED UNDER SEAL re 2041 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Declaration of Penny Godbold In Support of Plaintiﬀs' Motion for Contempt and Exhibits 1-54 by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-9, # 2 Exhibit 10-11, # 3 Exhibit 12-19, # 4 Exhibit 20-27, # 5 Exhibit 28-29, # 6 Exhibit 30, # 7 Exhibit 31-32, # 8 Exhibit 33-36, # 9 Exhibit 37-40, # 10 Exhibit 41-45, # 11 Exhibit 46-49, # 12 Exhibit 50-52, # 13 Exhibit 53-54)(Godbold, Penelope) (Filed on 6/4/2012) (Entered: 06/04/2012)

06/05/2012

2139

Administrative MOTION to File Unredacted and Redacted Copies of Two Previously Filed Declarations re 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, ﬁled by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. Responses due by 6/19/2012. Replies due by 6/26/2012. (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 6/5/2012) Modiﬁed on 6/6/2012 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/05/2012)

06/05/2012

2140

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 2139 MOTION Administrative Motion to File Unredacted and Redacted Copies of Two Previously Filed Declarations re 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, ﬁled by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 6/5/2012) (Entered: 06/05/2012)

06/06/2012 2141 Order granting 2140 Stipulation entered by Hon. Claudia Wilken. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 06/06/2012)

06/06/2012

2142

*** FILED IN ERROR. REFER TO DOCUMENT 2143 . *** Declaration of S. Chapman in Support of 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, [Redacted] ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Related document(s) 2049 ) (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 6/6/2012) Modiﬁed on 6/6/2012 (ﬀf, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/06/2012)

06/06/2012 2143 DECLARATION of S. Chapman re 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, [REDACTED] ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Related document(s) 2049

) (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 6/6/2012) Modiﬁed on 6/7/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/06/2012)

06/06/2012

2144

DOCUMENT E-FILED UNDER SEAL re 2059 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, Order on Stipulation Aref Declaration in Support of Document 2049 by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A TO J)(Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 6/6/2012) (Entered: 06/06/2012)

06/06/2012

2145

Declaration of Robert Calderon in Support of 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, Declaration of Robert Calderon Regarding Amended and Updated DPP Accountability Logs ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Certiﬁcate of Service, # 2 Exhibit A [Redacted], # 3 Exhibit B [Redacted], # 4 Exhibit C [Redacted], # 5 Exhibit D [Redacted], # 6 Exhibit E [Redacted], # 7 Exhibit F [Redacted], # 8 Exhibit G [Redacted])(Related document(s) 2049 ) (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 6/6/2012) (Entered: 06/06/2012)

06/07/2012

2146

MOTION for Disbursement of Funds Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 6/21/2012. Replies due by 6/28/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 6/7/2012) (Entered: 06/07/2012)

06/07/2012 2147 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 6/7/2012 before Claudia Wilken (Date Filed: 6/7/2012). (Court Reporter Diane Skillman.) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 6/7/2012) (Entered: 06/08/2012)

06/11/2012 2148 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2146 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 Invoice). (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/11/2012) (Entered: 06/11/2012)

06/12/2012 2149 Proposed Order Conﬁrming Undisputed Attorney's Fees and Costs for the First Quarter of 2012 by John Armstrong. (Walczak, Kenneth) (Filed on 6/12/2012) (Entered: 06/12/2012)

06/13/2012

2150

ORDER Granting 2149 Proposed Order Conﬁrming Undisputed Attorney's Fees and Costs for the First Quarter of 2012. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 6/13/2012. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/13/2012) (Entered: 06/13/2012)

06/15/2012

2151

*** FILED IN ERROR. REFER TO DOCUMENT 2153 . *** STATUS REPORT Joint Case Status Report by John Armstrong. (Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 6/15/2012) Modiﬁed on 6/22/2012 (ﬀf, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/15/2012)

06/19/2012 2152

Transcript of Proceedings held on October 27, 2011, before Judge Claudia Wilken. Court Reporter/Transcriber Jennifer M. Macato, Telephone number 209-513-0194. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Oﬃce public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is

due no later than 5 business days from date of this ﬁling. Redaction Request due 7/10/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/20/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/17/2012. (oh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/19/2012) (Entered: 06/19/2012)

06/22/2012

2153

Joint Case Status Report - Correction of Docket # 2151 by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al. (Thompson, Blake) (Filed on 6/22/2012) Modiﬁed on 6/25/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/22/2012)

07/06/2012

2154

MOTION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR PAYMENT ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 7/20/2012. Replies due by 7/27/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 7/6/2012) Modiﬁed on 7/9/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/06/2012)

07/10/2012

2155

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2154 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (cwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/10/2012) (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/12/2012: # 1 invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/10/2012)

07/13/2012

2156

Response re 2147 June 7, 2012 Minute byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 7/13/2012) Modiﬁed on 7/16/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/13/2012)

07/13/2012

2157

Submission in Response to the Court's re 2147 Minute by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order [Proposed] Order Modifying Jan. 18, 2007 Injunction, # 2 Exhibit Defendants' Objections to Plaintiﬀs' Proposed Order Modifying Jan. 18, 2007 Injunction)(Godbold, Penelope) (Filed on 7/13/2012) Modiﬁed on 7/16/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/13/2012)

07/13/2012

2158

[Proposed] Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Armstrong Remedial Plan of Jan. 3, 2001, # 2 Exhibit Defendants' Nov. 21, 2008 Memo re Staﬀ Accountability)(Godbold, Penelope) (Filed on 7/13/2012) Modiﬁed on 7/16/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/13/2012)

07/16/2012

2159

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal and Declaration of Michael Freedman ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Administrative Motion to File Under Seal) (Freedman, Michael) (Filed on 7/16/2012) (Entered: 07/16/2012)

07/16/2012

2160

MOTION to Shorten Time for Plaintiﬀs' Motion to Enforce Court's Orders Re Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Gay Grunfeld in Support of Motion to Shorten Time, # 2 Proposed Order Granting Motion to Shorten Time)(Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 7/16/2012) (Entered: 07/16/2012)

07/16/2012

2161

MOTION to Enforce The Court's Orders Re Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails ﬁled by John Armstrong. Motion Hearing set for 8/9/2012 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland before Hon. Claudia Wilken. Responses due by 7/30/2012. Replies due by 8/6/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Gay

07/18/2012

Grunfeld in Support of Plaintiﬀs' Emergency Motion to Enforce the Courts Orders Re Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails, # 2 Proposed Order Granting Plaintiﬀs' Motion to Enforce the Courts Orders Re Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails) (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 7/16/2012) Modiﬁed on 7/17/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/16/2012)
CLERKS NOTICE. Notice is hereby given that counsel must re-notice not re-ﬁle the 2161 emergency motion to enforce pursuant to L.R. 7-2(a). If OST is granted, the clerk will advance the hearing date accordingly. Hearing date of Thursday, August 6, 2012, is vacated.

(This is a text only docket entry, there is no document associated with this notice.)

(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/18/2012) (Entered: 07/18/2012)

07/18/2012

2162

Renotice motion hearing re 2161 MOTION to Enforce The Court's Orders Re Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. Motion Hearing set for 8/23/2012 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland before Hon. Claudia Wilken. (Related document(s) 2161 ) (Thompson, Blake) (Filed on 7/18/2012) (Entered: 07/18/2012)

07/19/2012

2163

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by John Armstrong re Declaration of Michael Freedman - ﬁled under seal. (Thompson, Blake) (Filed on 7/19/2012) Modiﬁed on 7/20/2012 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/19/2012)

07/19/2012

2166

ORDER of USCA Granting Appellants Motion to Enlarge the time to ﬁle a motion for reconsideration; Motion for reconsideration is DENIED without prejudice; Expediting the appeal as to 2039 NOTICE OF APPEAL, ﬁled by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/19/2012) (Entered: 07/23/2012)

07/20/2012

2164

RESPONSE (re 2159 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal and Declaration of Michael Freedman ) ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Certiﬁcate/Proof of Service)(Smith, Janelle) (Filed on 7/20/2012) (Entered: 07/20/2012)

07/20/2012

2165

RESPONSE (re 2160 MOTION to Shorten Time for Plaintiﬀs' Motion to Enforce Court's Orders Re Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails ) UNDER N.D. CAL RULE 6-3 ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A, # 2 Certiﬁcate/Proof of Service)(Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 7/20/2012) Modiﬁed on 7/23/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/20/2012)

07/30/2012 2167 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal ﬁled by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 7/30/2012) (Entered: 07/30/2012)

07/30/2012

2168

Declaration of GIAM M. NGUYEN in Support of 2167 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Related document(s) 2167 ) (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 7/30/2012) (Entered: 07/30/2012)

07/30/2012

2169

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 2167 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal ﬁled by Edmund G. Brown, Jr., John Armstrong, et al (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 7/30/2012) Modiﬁed on 7/31/2012 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/30/2012)

07/30/2012 2170 RESPONSE (re 2161 MOTION to Enforce The Court's Orders Re Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails ) ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 7/30/2012) (Entered: 07/30/2012)

07/30/2012

2171

Declaration of Bob Underwood in Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiﬀ's Emergency Motion RE: County jails 2170 (REDACTION) by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6)(Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 7/30/2012) Modiﬁed on 7/31/2012 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/30/2012)

07/30/2012

2172

Request for Judicial Notice re 2170 Opposition/Response to Motion ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Related document(s) 2170 ) (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 7/30/2012) (Entered: 07/30/2012)

08/01/2012

CLERKS NOTICE. Notice is hereby given that the 2161 motion to enforce the court's orders re armstrong class members housed in county jails, previously set for Thursday, August 23, 2012, at 2:00 p.m., will be heard at 1:30 p.m., in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612.

(This is a text only docket entry, there is no document associated with this notice.)

(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/1/2012) (Entered: 08/01/2012)

08/01/2012

2173

Order denying 2160 Motion to Shorten Time entered by Hon. Claudia Wilken. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 08/01/2012)

08/06/2012 2174 REPLY (re 2161 MOTION to Enforce The Court's Orders Re Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails ) ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 8/6/2012) (Entered: 08/06/2012)

08/08/2012

2175

MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and Proposed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 8/22/2012. Replies due by 8/29/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 8/8/2012) Modiﬁed on 8/9/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/08/2012)

08/09/2012

2176

Order granting 2175 Motion for Disbursement of Funds entered by Hon. Claudia Wilken. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 08/09/2012)

08/13/2012 2177 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to change time to ﬁle joint

status statement ﬁled by Edmund G. Brown, Jr, John Armstrong. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 8/13/2012) Modiﬁed on 8/14/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/13/2012)

08/14/2012

2178

ORDER Granting 2175 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and Proposed Order for Payment. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 8/09/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/14/2012) (Entered: 08/14/2012)

08/17/2012 2179 Order granting 2177 Stipulation entered by Hon. Claudia Wilken. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 08/17/2012)

08/22/2012

2180

ORDER by Judge Claudia WilkenDENYING 2024 MOTION FOR CONTEMPT, DENYING AS MOOT 2135 MOTION TO STRIKE AND MODIFYING PERMANENT INJUNCTION. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/22/2012) (Entered: 08/22/2012)

08/22/2012 2181 Joint Case Status Report by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 8/22/2012) Modiﬁed on 8/22/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/22/2012)

08/23/2012

2182

ORDER of USCA: parties shall ﬁle reporter's transcript of the district court's 8/23/2012 proceeding, as well as any order issued thereafter re emergency motion to enforce court's orders regarding Armstrong Class members housed in County Jails (cpS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/23/2012) (Entered: 08/24/2012)

08/23/2012 2184 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 8/23/2012 before Claudia Wilken (Date Filed: 8/23/2012). (Court Reporter Raynee Mercado.) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 8/23/2012) (Entered: 08/27/2012)

08/27/2012

2183

ORDER by Judge Claudia WilkenGRANTING PLAINTIFFS 2159 MOTION TO SEAL AND GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS 2167 MOTION TO SEAL AND 2169 STIPULATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/27/2012) (Entered: 08/27/2012)

08/27/2012 2185

Transcript of Proceedings held on August 23, 2012, before Judge Claudia Wilken. Court Reporter Raynee H. Mercado, Telephone number 510-451-7530, raynee_mercado@cand.uscourts.gov. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Oﬃce public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this ﬁling. Redaction Request due 9/17/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/27/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/26/2012. (rhm, ) (Filed on 8/27/2012) (Entered: 08/27/2012)

08/27/2012 2186 Proposed Order re 2161 MOTION to Enforce The Court's Orders Re Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 8/27/2012) (Entered: 08/27/2012)

08/27/2012 2187 Proposed Order to Distribute County Jail Plan by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 8/27/2012) (Entered: 08/27/2012)

08/27/2012 2188 Proposed Order to Enforce January 13, 2012 and April 11, 2012 Orders by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 8/27/2012) (Entered: 08/27/2012)

08/28/2012 2189 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Edmund G. Brown, Jr re 2188 Proposed Order (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 8/28/2012) (Entered: 08/28/2012)

08/28/2012 2190 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Edmund G. Brown, Jr re 2187 Proposed Order (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 8/28/2012) (Entered: 08/28/2012)

08/28/2012

2191

DOCUMENT E-FILED UNDER SEAL re 2183 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal,, Order on Stipulation Declaration of Michael Freedman In Support Of Plaintiﬀs' Emergency Motion to Enforce the Court's Orders Regarding Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails by John Armstrong. (Freedman, Michael) (Filed on 8/28/2012) (Entered: 08/28/2012)

08/28/2012

2192

Declaration of Michael Freedman in Support of 2161 MOTION to Enforce The Court's Orders Re Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails [Redacted] ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 2161 ) (Freedman, Michael) (Filed on 8/28/2012) (Entered: 08/28/2012)

08/28/2012

2193

ORDER DISTRIBUTING AND ENFORCING THE AMENDED COUNTY JAIL ORDER AND PLAN. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 8/28/2012. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/28/2012) (Entered: 08/28/2012)

08/28/2012

2194

OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER DISTRIBUTING AND ENFORCING THE AMENDED COUNTY JAIL ORDER AND PLAN re 2161 . Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 8/28/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/28/2012) Modiﬁed on 8/28/2012 (ndr, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/28/2012)

09/07/2012

2195

MOTION and Proposed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 9/21/2012. Replies due by 9/28/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 9/7/2012) Modiﬁed on 9/10/2012 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/07/2012)

09/11/2012 2196 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2195 Motion for Payment. (Attachments: # 1 invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/11/2012) (Entered: 09/11/2012)

09/12/2012

2197

Proposed Stipulated Order Conﬁrming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Second Quarter of 2012 by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr.. (Thompson, Blake) (Filed on 9/12/2012) Modiﬁed on 9/13/2012 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/12/2012)

09/14/2012

2198

NOTICE by J. Clark Kelso of Filing of Receiver's Twenty-First TriAnnual Report (Attachments: # 1 Receiver's 21st Report, # 2 Table of Contents to Appendices)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 9/14/2012) Modiﬁed on 9/17/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/14/2012)

09/14/2012 2199 Appendices 1-10 to Receiver's 21st Report ﬁled byJ. Clark Kelso. (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 9/14/2012) Modiﬁed on 9/17/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/14/2012)

09/14/2012

2200

ORDER Granting 2197 Stipulated Order conﬁrming undisputed attorneys' fees and costs for the second quarter of 2012 . Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 9/14/2012. (Attachments: # 1 attachment)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/14/2012) Modiﬁed on 9/17/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/14/2012)

09/18/2012

2201

NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th CCA Edmund G. Brown, Jr, Michael Minor, Matthew Cate, Diana Toche, Chris Meyer, Kathleen Dickinson, Margarita Perez. Appeal of Order 2180 (Appeal fee of $455 paid, receipt #44611009424.) (Attachments: # 1 Representation statement)(cpS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/18/2012) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/4/2019: # 2 Receipt) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/19/2012)

09/19/2012 2202 USCA Case Number 12-17103 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for 2201 Notice of Appeal, ﬁled by Edmund G. Brown, Jr.. (kk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/19/2012) (Entered: 09/20/2012)

09/27/2012

2203

NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th CCA ﬁled by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. Appeal of Order, 2194 , Order 2193 (Appeal fee of $455 paid, receipt #44611009468.) (Attachments: # 1 Representation statement)(cpS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/27/2012) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/4/2019: # 2 Receipt) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/01/2012)

10/02/2012 2204 USCA Case Number 12-17198 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for 2203 Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Edmund G. Brown, Jr.. (kk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/2/2012) (Entered: 10/03/2012)

10/05/2012

2205

Administrative MOTION and Proposed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 10/19/2012. Replies due by 10/26/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 10/5/2012) Modiﬁed on 10/9/2012 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/05/2012)

10/10/2012 2206 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2205 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice # 19990) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/10/2012) (Entered: 10/10/2012)

10/15/2012

2207

TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION and Ordering Form by Edmund G. Brown, Jr for proceedings held on June 7, 2012 before Judge Claudia Wilken.. (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 10/15/2012) (Entered: 10/15/2012)

10/15/2012 2208

Transcript of Proceedings held on June 7, 2012, before Judge Claudia Wilken. Court Reporter Diane E. Skillman, Telephone number 510-451-2930, Diane_Skillman@cand.uscourts.gov. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Oﬃce public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained

through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this ﬁling. Redaction Request due 11/5/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/15/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/14/2013. (Skillman, Diane) (Filed on 10/15/2012) (Entered: 10/15/2012)

10/15/2012 2209 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Godbold, Penelope) (Filed on 10/15/2012) Modiﬁed on 10/16/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/15/2012)

10/26/2012 2210 Transcript Designation and Ordering Form for proceedings held on 8/23/12 (Attachments: # 1 Certiﬁcate/Proof of Service)(Smith, Janelle) (Filed on 10/26/2012) (Entered: 10/26/2012)

10/29/2012 2211 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 10/29/2012) (Entered: 10/29/2012)

11/05/2012

2212

Proposed Protective Order Regarding Disclosure of Defendants' Employees' Personnel Information ﬁled by Court Expert. (Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 11/5/2012) Modiﬁed on 11/6/2012 (kcS, ). (Entered: 11/05/2012)

11/07/2012

2213

Administrative MOTION for Payment and Proposed Order ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 11/21/2012. Replies due by 11/28/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 11/7/2012) Modiﬁed on 11/8/2012 (kcS, ). (Entered: 11/07/2012)

11/07/2012

2215

MOTION for Leave to File Independent Allegations of Armstrong Remedial Plan Non-Compliance and Request for Corrective Action ﬁled by Paul D. Roberts. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/7/2012) (Entered: 11/13/2012)

11/08/2012 2214 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2213 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (Attachments: # 1 invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/8/2012) (Entered: 11/08/2012)

11/15/2012 2216 Letter from CRD to Paul Roberts. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2012) (Entered: 11/15/2012)

11/26/2012 2217 OBJECTIONS to Edward Swanson's Recommended Protective Order Regarding Disclosure of Defendants' Employees' Personnel Information by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 11/26/2012) (Entered: 11/26/2012)

11/26/2012 2218 Statement re 2217 Objection Plaintiﬀs' Statement of NonOpposition by John Armstrong. (Godbold, Penelope) (Filed on 11/26/2012) (Entered: 11/26/2012)

12/05/2012

2219

PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING DISCLOSURE OF DEFENDANTS EMPLOYEES PERSONNEL INFORMATION. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 12/5/2012. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/5/2012) (Entered: 12/05/2012)

12/06/2012 2220 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses

due by 12/20/2012. Replies due by 12/27/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 12/6/2012) (Entered: 12/06/2012)

12/06/2012

2221

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2220 Administrative Motion for Disbursement of Funds Order for Payment. (Attachments: # 1 invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/6/2012) (Entered: 12/06/2012)

12/12/2012 2222 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Extend Time to File Joint Conference Statement ﬁled by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 12/12/2012) (Entered: 12/12/2012)

12/13/2012 2223 Order granting 2222 Stipulation entered by Hon. Claudia Wilken. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 12/13/2012)

12/28/2012 2224 Proposed Order Conﬁrming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Third Quarter of 2012 by John Armstrong. (Thompson, Blake) (Filed on 12/28/2012) (Entered: 12/28/2012)

01/02/2013

2225

ORDER Granting 2224 Proposed Order Conﬁrming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Third Quarter of 2012. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/2/2013. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/2/2013) (Entered: 01/02/2013)

01/08/2013

2226

MOTION for Disbursement of Funds Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 1/22/2013. Replies due by 1/29/2013. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 1/8/2013) (Entered: 01/08/2013)

01/15/2013 2227 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2226 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/15/2013) (Entered: 01/15/2013)

01/25/2013

2228

Notice of Filing of Receiver's Twenty-Second Tri-Annual Report by J. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Table of Appendices, # 2 Appendix Part 1 of 3 - Appendices 1-6, # 3 Appendix Part 3 of 3 Appendices 8-13)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 1/25/2013) Modiﬁed on 1/28/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/25/2013)

01/25/2013

2229

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Joint Case Management Statement ﬁled by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit December 2012 Correctional Facility Program Accessibility Plan)(Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 1/25/2013) Modiﬁed on 1/28/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/25/2013)

01/28/2013

2230

Part 2 of 3 - Appendix 7 to Receiver J. Clark Kelso's Twenty-Second Tri-Annual Report by J. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Section 2 of 6 to Part 2 of 3 - Appendix 7 to Receiver J. Clark Kelso's Twenty-Second Tri-Annual Report, # 2 Appendix Section 3 of 6 to Part 2 of 3 - Appendix 7 to Receiver J. Clark Kelso's Twenty-Second Tri-Annual Report, # 3 Appendix Section 4 of 6 to Part 2 of 3 Appendix 7 to Receiver J. Clark Kelso's Twenty-Second Tri-Annual

Report, # 4 Appendix Section 5 of 6 to Part 2 of 3 - Appendix 7 to Receiver J. Clark Kelso's Twenty-Second Tri-Annual Report, # 5 Appendix Section 6 of 6 to Part 2 of 3 - Appendix 7 to Receiver J. Clark Kelso's Twenty-Second Tri-Annual Report)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 1/28/2013) Modiﬁed on 1/29/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/28/2013)

02/04/2013

2231

ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE BRIEFS ADDRESSING MONITORING BY THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 2/4/2013. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/4/2013) (Entered: 02/04/2013)

02/07/2013

2232

MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and Proposed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 2/21/2013. Replies due by 2/28/2013. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 2/7/2013) Modiﬁed on 2/8/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/07/2013)

02/08/2013 2233 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2232 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (Attachments: # 1 invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/8/2013) (Entered: 02/08/2013)

02/25/2013 2234 NOTICE of Appearance by Warren E. George (George, Warren) (Filed on 2/25/2013) (Entered: 02/25/2013)

02/28/2013 2235 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Stipulation and Proposed Order)(Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 2/28/2013) (Entered: 02/28/2013)

02/28/2013

2236

MOTION for a further enforcement Order and an Order Holding Defendants in Contempt of Court ﬁled by John Armstrong. Motion Hearing set for 4/4/2013 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland before Hon. Claudia Wilken. Responses due by 3/14/2013. Replies due by 3/21/2013. (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 2/28/2013) Modiﬁed on 3/1/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/28/2013)

02/28/2013

2237

Declaration of Corene Kendrick in Support of 2236 MOTION for Further Enforcement Order and an Order Holding Defendants in Contempt of Court ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 (Redacted), # 2 Exhibit Exhibits 2-3 (Redacted), # 3 Exhibit Exhibits 4-8 (Redacted), # 4 Exhibit Exhibits 9-13 (Redacted), # 5 Exhibit Exhibits 14-23 (Redacted), # 6 Exhibit Exhibits 24-28 (Redacted), # 7 Exhibit Exhibits 29-32 (Redacted)) (Related document(s) 2236 ) (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 2/28/2013) Modiﬁed on 3/1/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/28/2013)

02/28/2013

2238

Declaration of Penny Godbold in Support of 2236 MOTION for Further Enforcement Order and an Order Holding Defendants in Contempt of Court ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 2236 ) (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 2/28/2013) Modiﬁed on 3/1/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/28/2013)

02/28/2013 2239 Request for Judicial Notice re 2236 MOTION for Further Enforcement Order and an Order Holding Defendants in Contempt

of Court ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 2236 ) (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 2/28/2013) Modiﬁed on 3/1/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/28/2013)

02/28/2013

2240

Proposed Order re 2236 MOTION for Further Enforcement Order and an Order Holding Defendants in Contempt of Court by John Armstrong. (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 2/28/2013) Modiﬁed on 3/1/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/28/2013)

03/04/2013 2241 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Extend Time to File Opposition and Reply Papers ﬁled by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 3/4/2013) (Entered: 03/04/2013)

03/04/2013

2242

Declaration of G. Nguyen in Support of 2241 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Extend Time to File Opposition and Reply Papers ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Related document(s) 2241 ) (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 3/4/2013) (Entered: 03/04/2013)

03/05/2013

2243

MOTION and Proposed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 3/19/2013. Replies due by 3/26/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 3/5/2013) Modiﬁed on 3/6/2013 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/05/2013)

03/05/2013

CLERKS NOTICE. Please take notice that the 2241 stipulation of counsel, submitted on 3/4/2013, is declined, without prejudice because the court needs 14 days between the ﬁnal brief and the hearing.

(This is a text only docket entry, there is no document associated with this notice.)

(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/5/2013) (Entered: 03/05/2013)

03/05/2013

2244

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2243 Motion for Disbursement for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/5/2013) (Entered: 03/05/2013)

03/06/2013

2245

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER To Change Time to File Opposition and Reply Papers, and to Move the April 4, 2013 Hearing Date on Plaintiﬀs' Motion for a further Enforcement Order and For an Order Holding Defendants in Contempt of Court ﬁled by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 3/6/2013) Modiﬁed on 3/7/2013 (kcS, ). (Entered: 03/06/2013)

03/06/2013

2246

Declaration of G. Nguyen in Support of 2245 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER To Change Time to File Opposition and Reply Papers, and to Move the April 4, 2013 Hearing Date on Plaintiﬀs' Motion for a further Enforcement Order and For an Order Holding Defen ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Related document(s) 2245 ) (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 3/6/2013) Modiﬁed on 3/7/2013 (kcS, ). (Entered: 03/06/2013)

03/07/2013 2247 CORRECTED MOTION and Proposed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 3/21/2013. Replies due by

3/28/2013. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 3/7/2013) Modiﬁed on 3/8/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/07/2013)

03/07/2013 2248 NOTICE by John Armstrong Notice of Change of Firm (Holtz, Geoﬀrey) (Filed on 3/7/2013) (Entered: 03/07/2013)

03/11/2013

2249

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2247 Corrected Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/11/2013) Modiﬁed on 3/11/2013 (ndr, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/11/2013)

03/14/2013 2250 Order granting 2245 Stipulation entered by Hon. Claudia Wilken. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 03/14/2013)

03/14/2013

Reset Deadlines as to 2236 MOTION for a further enforcement Order and an Order Holding Defendants in Contempt of Court : Responses due by 3/26/2013; Replies due by 4/4/2013; Motion Hearing set for 4/18/2013 02:00 PM before Hon. Claudia Wilken. See Text Order, Docket No. 2250 . (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/14/2013) (Entered: 03/14/2013)

03/15/2013 2251 STATUS REPORT and Request for Status Conference by John Armstrong. (Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 3/15/2013) (Entered: 03/15/2013)

03/18/2013 2252 Response to Order Directing Parties to File Briefs Addressing Monitoring by the Oﬃce of the Inspector General byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 3/18/2013) (Entered: 03/18/2013)

03/18/2013

2253

Declaration of Julian Martinez in Support of 2252 Response ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Related document(s) 2252 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 3/18/2013) (Entered: 03/18/2013)

03/18/2013

2254

Request for Judicial Notice re 2252 Response ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H)(Related document(s) 2252 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 3/18/2013) (Entered: 03/18/2013)

03/21/2013

2255

ORDER SETTING A STATUS CONFERENCE AND CONTINUING HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS 2236 MOTION FOR A FURTHER ENFORCEMENT ORDER AND ORDER HOLDING DEFENDANTS IN CONTEMPT OF COURT. Status Conference / Motion Hearing set for 5/2/2013 02:00 PM before Hon. Claudia Wilken. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 3/21/2013. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/21/2013) (Entered: 03/21/2013)

03/22/2013

2256

Proposed Stipulated Order Conﬁrming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Fourth Quarter of 2012 by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Thompson, Blake) (Filed on 3/22/2013) Modiﬁed on 3/25/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/22/2013)

03/22/2013

2257

ORDER re 2256 Conﬁrming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Fourth Quarter of 2012. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 3/22/2013. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/22/2013) (Entered: 03/22/2013)

03/26/2013 2258 Stipulated Administrative Motion to File Under Seal ﬁled by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 3/26/2013) Modiﬁed on 3/27/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/26/2013)

03/26/2013

2259

Declaration of G. NGUYEN in Support of 2258 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Related document(s) 2258 ) (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 3/26/2013) Modiﬁed on 3/27/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/26/2013)

03/26/2013

2260

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 2258 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal ﬁled by Edmund G. Brown, Jr, John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 3/26/2013) Modiﬁed on 3/27/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/26/2013)

03/26/2013

2261

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Edmund G. Brown, Jr re 2258 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (Attachments: # 1 Certiﬁcate/Proof of Service)(Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 3/26/2013) Modiﬁed on 3/27/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (see attachment re certiﬁcate of service) (Entered: 03/26/2013)

03/26/2013

2262

RESPONSE (re 2236 MOTION for a further enforcement Order and an Order Holding Defendants in Contempt of Court ) ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 3/26/2013) Modiﬁed on 3/27/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/26/2013)

03/26/2013

2263

Request for Judicial Notice re 2262 Opposition/Response to Motion, ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Related document(s) 2262 ) (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 3/26/2013) (Entered: 03/26/2013)

03/26/2013

2264

Declaration of Jay M. Goldman in Support of 2262 Opposition/Response to Motion, ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Related document(s) 2262 ) (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 3/26/2013) (Entered: 03/26/2013)

03/26/2013 2265 Declaration of D. Chandler in Support of 2262 Opposition/Response to Motion, ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Related document(s) 2262 ) (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 3/26/2013) (Entered: 03/26/2013)

03/26/2013

2266

Declaration of Dr. Timothy Belavich in Support of 2262 Opposition/Response to Motion, ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Related document(s) 2262 ) (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 3/26/2013) (Entered: 03/26/2013)

03/26/2013

2267

Declaration of Dr. Amy Eargle in Support of 2262 Opposition/Response to Motion, ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Related document(s) 2262 ) (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 3/26/2013) (Entered: 03/26/2013)

04/03/2013 2268 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER extending time to respond

to Feb 4, 2013 Order ﬁled by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al. (Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 4/3/2013) Modiﬁed on 4/3/2013 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/03/2013)

04/03/2013 2269 Order granting 2268 Stipulation entered by Hon. Claudia Wilken. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 04/03/2013)

04/04/2013

Reset Hearings: 2236 Status Conference / MOTION for a further enforcement Order and an Order Holding Defendants in Contempt of Court set for 5/16/2013 02:00 PM before Hon. Claudia Wilken. See Docket No. 2269 . (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/4/2013) (Entered: 04/04/2013)

04/04/2013

2270

Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 4/18/2013. Replies due by 4/25/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 4/4/2013) Modiﬁed on 4/5/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/04/2013)

04/04/2013 2271 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Stipulation and Proposed Order)(Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 4/4/2013) (Entered: 04/04/2013)

04/04/2013 2272 REPLY (re 2236 MOTION for a further enforcement Order and an Order Holding Defendants in Contempt of Court ) ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 4/4/2013) (Entered: 04/04/2013)

04/04/2013

2273

Declaration of Corene Kendrick in Support of 2272 Reply to Opposition/Response ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 (Redacted), # 2 Exhibit Exhibits 2-5 (Redacted)) (Related document(s) 2272 ) (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 4/4/2013) (Entered: 04/04/2013)

04/04/2013

2274

Declaration of Pablo Stewart, M.D. in Support of 2272 Reply to Opposition/Response ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits A-E (Redacted), # 2 Exhibit Exhibits F-H (Redacted))(Related document(s) 2272 ) (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 4/4/2013) (Entered: 04/04/2013)

04/04/2013 2275 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by John Armstrong Proof of Service to Defendants of Documents Filed Under Seal (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 4/4/2013) (Entered: 04/04/2013)

04/05/2013 2276 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2270 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (Attachments: # 1 invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/5/2013) (Entered: 04/05/2013)

04/08/2013

2277

NOTICE of Supplemental Authority re 2236 MOTION for a further enforcement Order and an Order Holding Defendants in Contempt of Court (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 4/8/2013) Modiﬁed on 4/9/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/08/2013)

04/11/2013 2278 ORDER DIRECTING ADDITIONAL INTERIM PAYMENT OF

COSTS. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 4/11/2013. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/11/2013) (Entered: 04/11/2013)

04/11/2013

2279

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS AND REQUEST TO STRIKE THE EXPERT DECLARATION OF PABLO STEWERT, AND EXHIBITS 3-5 AND PARAGRAPH 7 TO THE DECLARATION OF CORENE KENDRICK IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO DEFEDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR A FURTHER ENFORCEMENT ORDER AND CONTEMPT ORDER by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 4/11/2013) Modiﬁed on 4/12/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/11/2013)

04/18/2013

2280

AMENDED STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Conﬁrming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Fourth Quarter of 2012 (Amended) ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 4/18/2013) Modiﬁed on 4/19/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/18/2013)

04/18/2013 2281 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 4/18/2013) (Entered: 04/18/2013)

04/18/2013

2282

Declaration of Corene Kendrick in Support of 2281 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal and [Proposed] Order Granting Motion to File Under Seal ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 2281 ) (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 4/18/2013) (Entered: 04/18/2013)

04/18/2013

2283

RESPONSE to re 2279 Objection, Plaintiﬀs' Response to Defendants' Evidentiary Objections by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 4/18/2013) (Entered: 04/18/2013)

04/18/2013

2284

Declaration of Liz Mendoza in Support of 2283 Response ( Non Motion ) Redacted Declaration of Liz Mendoza ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 2283 ) (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 4/18/2013) (Entered: 04/18/2013)

04/18/2013

2285

Declaration of Nadine Valentien in Support of 2283 Response ( Non Motion ) Redacted Declaration of Nadine Valentien ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 2283 ) (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 4/18/2013) (Entered: 04/18/2013)

04/18/2013

2286

Declaration of Jessica Saravia in Support of 2283 Response ( Non Motion ) Redacted Declaration of Jessica Saravia ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 2283 ) (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 4/18/2013) (Entered: 04/18/2013)

04/18/2013

2287

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by John Armstrong re 2284 Declaration in Support, 2286 Declaration in Support, 2285 Declaration in Support Proof of Service to Defendants of Documents Filed Under Seal (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 4/18/2013) (Entered: 04/18/2013)

04/18/2013 2288 Defendants Status Conference Statement by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 4/18/2013) Modiﬁed on 4/19/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/18/2013)

04/19/2013 2289 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2280 AMENDED

STIPULATION Conﬁrming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Fourth Quarter of 2012. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/19/2013) (Entered: 04/19/2013)

04/22/2013

2290

RESPONSE to Feb. 4 Order re Monitoring by OIG by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Rebekah Evenson, # 2 Declaration Steven Fama, # 3 Declaration Gay Grunfeld)(Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 4/22/2013) (Entered: 04/22/2013)

05/06/2013

2291

DEFENDANTS REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE BRIEFS ADDRESSING MONITORING BY THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/6/2013) Modiﬁed on 5/7/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/06/2013)

05/06/2013

2292

Declaration of Richard Wells in Support of 2291 Reply ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-B)(Related document(s) 2291 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/6/2013) Modiﬁed on 5/7/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/06/2013)

05/06/2013

2293

Declaration of M. Knowles in Support of 2291 Reply ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Related document(s) 2291 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/6/2013) Modiﬁed on 5/7/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/06/2013)

05/06/2013 2294

Request for Judicial Notice re 2291 Reply ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, # 19 Exhibit S, # 20 Exhibit T, # 21 Exhibit U, # 22 Exhibit V, # 23 Exhibit W, # 24 Exhibit X, # 25 Exhibit Y, # 26 Exhibit Z, # 27 Exhibit AA, # 28 Exhibit BB, # 29 Exhibit CC, # 30 Exhibit DD, # 31 Exhibit EE)(Related document(s) 2291 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/6/2013) Modiﬁed on 5/7/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/06/2013)

05/06/2013

2295

MOTION to Strike PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO FEBRUARY 4, 2013, ORDER REAGARDING MONITORING BY THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ﬁled by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. Responses due by 5/20/2013. Replies due by 5/28/2013. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/6/2013) Modiﬁed on 11/22/2013 (ndr, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/06/2013)

05/06/2013

2296

Proposed Order re 2295 Motion to Strike plaintiﬀs' response to February 4, 2013, order regarding monitoring by the Oﬃce of the Inspector General by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/6/2013) Modiﬁed on 5/7/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/06/2013)

05/06/2013

2297

MOTION to Strike PLAINTIFFS SUR-REPLY RESPONSE AND DECLARATIONS ﬁled by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. Responses due by 6/3/2013. Replies due by 6/17/2013. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/6/2013) (Entered: 05/06/2013)

05/06/2013 2298 Proposed Order re 2297 MOTION to Strike PLAINTIFFS SUR-REPLY RESPONSE AND DECLARATIONS by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/6/2013) (Entered: 05/06/2013)

05/07/2013 2299 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal ﬁled by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/7/2013) (Entered: 05/07/2013)

05/07/2013

2300

Declaration of G. Nguyen in Support of 2299 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Related document(s) 2299 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/7/2013) (Entered: 05/07/2013)

05/07/2013

2301

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 2299 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal ﬁled by Edmund G. Brown, Jr., John Armstrong (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/7/2013) Modiﬁed on 5/8/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/07/2013)

05/07/2013 2302

***FILED IN ERROR, PER NOTICE, DOCUMENT # 2313 ***

MOTION to Submit Evidence of Sign Language Interpreter Services and Positions at the Substance Abuse and Treatment Facility During April 2013 ﬁled by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. Responses due by 5/21/2013. Replies due by 5/28/2013. (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 5/7/2013) Modiﬁed on 5/10/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/07/2013)
05/07/2013 2303

***FILED IN ERROR, PER NOTICE, DOCUMENT # 2313 ***

Proposed Order re 2302 MOTION to Submit Evidence of Sign Language Interpreter Services and Positions at the Substance Abuse and Treatment Facility During April 2013 by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 5/7/2013) Modiﬁed on 5/10/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/07/2013)

05/07/2013

2304

MOTION to Submit Evidence of Sign language Interpreter Services and Positions at the Substance Abuse And Treatment Facility During April 2013 ﬁled by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 5/7/2013) Modiﬁed on 5/8/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 5/9/2013 (ndr, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 5/10/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/07/2013)

05/07/2013 2305

***FILED IN ERROR, PER NOTICE, DOCUMENT # 2313 ***

Declaration of Giam M. Nguyen in Support of 2302 MOTION to Submit Evidence of Sign Language Interpreter Services and Positions at the Substance Abuse and Treatment Facility During April 2013 ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit

A to C)(Related document(s) 2302 ) (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 5/7/2013) Modiﬁed on 5/10/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/07/2013)

05/07/2013

2306

Declaration of Giam M. Nguyen in Support of 2304 MOTION to Submit Evidence of Sign language Interpreter Services and Positions at the Substance Abuse And Treatment Facility During April 2013 Declaration of Giam M. Nguyen In Support of Defendants' Administrative Motion to Submit Evidence of Sign Language Interpreter Services and Positions at SATF During April 2013 ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to C)(Related document(s) 2304 ) (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 5/7/2013) Modiﬁed on 5/8/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 5/9/2013 (ndr, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 5/10/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/07/2013)

05/07/2013

2307

RESPONSE (re 2295 MOTION to Strike PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO FEBRUARY 4, 2013, ORDER REAGARDING MONITORING BY THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ) and Administrative Motion To Exceed Page Limits ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Rebekah Evenson, # 2 Proposed Order)(Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 5/7/2013) (Entered: 05/07/2013)

05/07/2013

2308

Proposed Order re 2304 MOTION to Submit Evidence of Sign language Interpreter Services and Positions at the Substance Abuse And Treatment Facility During April 2013 Proposed Order Granting Defendants' Administrative Motion to Enter Evidence of Sign Language interpreter Services and Positions at SATF in April 2013 by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 5/7/2013) Modiﬁed on 5/8/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 5/9/2013 (ndr, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 5/10/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/07/2013)

05/08/2013

2309

MOTION for Disbursement of Funds Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 5/22/2013. Replies due by 5/29/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 5/8/2013) (Entered: 05/08/2013)

05/08/2013

2310

RESPONSE (re 2297 MOTION to Strike PLAINTIFFS SUR-REPLY RESPONSE AND DECLARATIONS, 2302 MOTION to Submit Evidence of Sign Language Interpreter Services and Positions at the Substance Abuse and Treatment Facility During April 2013 ) ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 5/8/2013) (Entered: 05/08/2013)

05/09/2013 2311 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2309 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/9/2013) (Entered: 05/09/2013)

05/09/2013

2312

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING ( 2235 , [22351], 2258 , 2260 , 2271 , 2281 , 2299 , 2301 )MOTIONS AND STIPULATIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/9/2013) (Entered: 05/09/2013)

05/09/2013

2313

NOTICE by Edmund G. Brown, Jr re 2303 Proposed Order, 2302 MOTION to Submit Evidence of Sign Language Interpreter Services and Positions at the Substance Abuse and Treatment Facility During April 2013 , 2305 Declaration in Support, Defendants' Notice of Mistakenly Filed Documents (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 5/9/2013) (Entered: 05/09/2013)

05/09/2013

2314

DOCUMENT E-FILED UNDER SEAL re 2312 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal,, Order on Stipulation,,,, DECLARATION OF KNOWLES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR FURTHER ENFORCEMENT ORDER AND ORDER HOLDING DEFENDANTS IN CONTEMP OF COURT by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/9/2013) Modiﬁed on 5/10/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/09/2013)

05/09/2013

2315

DOCUMENT E-FILED UNDER SEAL re 2312 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal,, Order on Stipulation,,,, PANNETT DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR FURTHER ENFORCEMENT ORDER AND ORDER HOLDING DEFENDANTS IN CONTEMP OF COURT by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/9/2013) (Entered: 05/09/2013)

05/09/2013

2316

DOCUMENT E-FILED UNDER SEAL re 2312 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal,, Order on Stipulation,,,, RAMIREZ DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR FURTHER ENFORCEMENT ORDER AND ORDER HOLDING DEFENDANTS IN CONTEMP OF COURT by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit G, # 4 Exhibit H, # 5 Exhibit I, # 6 Exhibit J, # 7 Exhibit K, # 8 Exhibit L)(Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/9/2013) (Entered: 05/09/2013)

05/09/2013

2317

DOCUMENT E-FILED UNDER SEAL re 2312 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal,, Order on Stipulation,,,, EXHIBIT B TO SWEENY DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR FURTHER ENFORCEMENT ORDER AND ORDER HOLDING DEFENDANTS IN CONTEMP OF COURT by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/9/2013) (Entered: 05/09/2013)

05/09/2013

2318

DOCUMENT E-FILED UNDER SEAL re 2312 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal,, Order on Stipulation,,,, EXHIBIT C TO SWEENY DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR FURTHER ENFORCEMENT ORDER AND ORDER HOLDING DEFENDANTS IN CONTEMP OF COURT by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/9/2013) (Entered: 05/09/2013)

05/09/2013

2319

DOCUMENT E-FILED UNDER SEAL re 2312 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal,, Order on Stipulation,,,, EXHIBIT B TO KNOWLES DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR FURTHER ENFORCEMENT ORDER AND ORDER HOLDING DEFENDANTS IN CONTEMP OF

COURT by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/9/2013) (Entered: 05/09/2013)

05/09/2013

2320

Declaration of Aniah Sweeny in Support of 2312 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal,, Order on Stipulation,,,, IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR FURTHER ENFORCEMENT ORDER AND ORDER HOLDING DEFENDANTS IN CONTEMP OF COURT ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Related document(s) 2312 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/9/2013) (Entered: 05/09/2013)

05/09/2013

2321

Declaration of M. Knowles in Support of 2312 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal,, Order on Stipulation,,,, IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR FURTHER ENFORCEMENT ORDER AND ORDER HOLDING DEFENDANTS IN CONTEMP OF COURT ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit C)(Related document(s) 2312 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/9/2013) (Entered: 05/09/2013)

05/09/2013

2322

EXHIBITS re 2312 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal,, Order on Stipulation,,,, TO RAMIREZ DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR FURTHER ENFORCEMENT ORDER AND ORDER HOLDING DEFENDANTS IN CONTEMP OF COURT ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit D, # 2 Exhibit E, # 3 Supplement F) (Related document(s) 2312 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/9/2013) (Entered: 05/09/2013)

05/10/2013

2323

Administrative Motionto submit supplemental evidence regarding monitoring by the Oﬃce of Inspector General ﬁled by John Armstrong. Motion Hearing set for 5/16/2013 02:00 PM before Hon. Claudia Wilken. Responses due by 5/24/2013. Replies due by 5/31/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 5/10/2013) Modiﬁed on 5/10/2013 (ndr, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 5/13/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/10/2013)

05/10/2013

2324

Declaration of R. Knudsen in support of defendants' opposition to plaintiﬀs' motion for further enforcement order and order holding defendants in contempt of court ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/10/2013) Modiﬁed on 5/13/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/10/2013)

05/10/2013

2325

Declaration of G. Pannett in support of defendants' opposition to plaintiﬀs' motion for further enforcement order and order holding defendants in contempt of court (redacted) ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/10/2013) Modiﬁed on 5/13/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/10/2013)

05/10/2013

2326

Declaration of V. Ramirez in support of defendants' opposition to plaintiﬀs' motion for further enforcement order and order holding defendants in contempt of court (redacted) ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit G, # 4 Exhibit H, # 5 Exhibit I, # 6 Exhibit J, # 7 Exhibit K, # 8 Exhibit

L) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/10/2013) Modiﬁed on 5/13/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/10/2013)

05/10/2013

2327

EXHIBITS B AND C TO DECLARATION OF A. SWEENY in support of defendants' opposition to plaintiﬀs' motion for further enforcement order and order holding defendants in contempt of court (REDACTED) ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit C)((Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/10/2013) Modiﬁed on 5/13/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/10/2013)

05/10/2013

2328

EXHIBIT B TO KNOWLES DECLARATION in support of defendants' opposition to plaintiﬀs' motion for further enforcement order and order holding defendants in contempt of court (REDACATED) ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/10/2013) Modiﬁed on 5/13/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/10/2013)

05/10/2013

2329

DOCUMENT E-FILED UNDER SEAL re 2312 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal,, Order on Stipulation,,,, EXHIBIT A TO A. SWEENY DECLARATION in support of defendants' opposition to plaintiﬀs' motion for further enforcement order and order holding defendants in contempt of court by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/10/2013) (Entered: 05/10/2013)

05/10/2013 2330

***FILED IN ERROR, SEE DOCUMENT # 2331 ***

RESPONSE (re 2323 MOTION Submit Newly Discovered Evidence ) ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/10/2013) Modiﬁed on 5/10/2013 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/10/2013)

05/10/2013

2331

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION REQUESTING RETROACTIVE APPROVAL TO DOUBLE THE PAGE LIMIT FOR THEIR BRIEF FILED ON APRIL 22, 2013 byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/10/2013) Modiﬁed on 5/13/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/10/2013)

05/10/2013

2332

DOCUMENT E-FILED UNDER SEAL re 2312 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal,, Order on Stipulation,,,, Declaration of Corene Kendrick in Support of Motion for Further Enforcement Order and an Order Holding Defendants in Contempt of Court by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-2, # 2 Exhibit 3-4, # 3 Exhibit 5-6, # 4 Exhibit 7-8, # 5 Exhibit 9-12, # 6 Exhibit 13-24, # 7 Exhibit 25-28, # 8 Exhibit 29-32)(Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 5/10/2013) (Entered: 05/10/2013)

05/10/2013

2333

DOCUMENT E-FILED UNDER SEAL re 2312 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal,, Order on Stipulation,,,, Declaration of Corene Kendrick in Support of Reply to Opposition/Response by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2-5) (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 5/10/2013) (Entered: 05/10/2013)

05/10/2013 2334 DOCUMENT E-FILED UNDER SEAL re 2312 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal,, Order on Stipulation,,,, Declaration of

Pablo Stewart, M.D. in Support of Reply to Opposition/Response by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-E, # 2 Exhibit F-H) (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 5/10/2013) (Entered: 05/10/2013)

05/10/2013

2335

DOCUMENT E-FILED UNDER SEAL re 2312 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal,, Order on Stipulation,,,, Declaration of Liz Mendoza by John Armstrong. (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 5/10/2013) (Entered: 05/10/2013)

05/10/2013

2336

DOCUMENT E-FILED UNDER SEAL re 2312 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal,, Order on Stipulation,,,, Declaration of Nadine Valentien by John Armstrong. (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 5/10/2013) (Entered: 05/10/2013)

05/10/2013

2337

DOCUMENT E-FILED UNDER SEAL re 2312 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal,, Order on Stipulation,,,, Declaration of Jessica Saravia by John Armstrong. (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 5/10/2013) (Entered: 05/10/2013)

05/13/2013 2338 RESPONSE (re 2323 MOTION to submit supplemental evidence regarding monitoring by the Oﬃce of Inspector General ) ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/13/2013) (Entered: 05/13/2013)

05/16/2013

2339

Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 5/16/2013 before Claudia Wilken (Date Filed: 5/16/2013), Status Conference held on 5/16/2013 before Claudia Wilken (Date Filed: 5/16/2013). Status Report due by 7/15/2013. (Recording #2:11:00 - 2:48:43.) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 5/16/2013) (Entered: 05/17/2013)

05/20/2013 2340 TRANSCRIPT ORDER by John Armstrong for Court Reporter FTR Oakland. (Galvan, Ernest) (Filed on 5/20/2013) (Entered: 05/20/2013)

05/22/2013

2341

Notice of Filing of Receiver's Twenty-Third Tri-Annual Report by J. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Table of Appendices, # 2 Appendix Part 1 of 3: Appendices 1-4, # 3 Appendix Part 2 of 3: Apppendix 5, # 4 Appendix Part 3 of 3: Appendices 6-11)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 5/22/2013) Modiﬁed on 5/23/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/22/2013)

05/23/2013 2342 TRANSCRIPT ORDER - CJA for Court Reporter FTR - Oakland. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/23/2013) (Entered: 05/23/2013)

05/24/2013 2343 Receipt in the amount of $100,000.00 as an interim payment of costs from CA Dept. of Corrections. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/24/2013) (Entered: 05/31/2013)

06/03/2013 2344 ORDER REGARDING MONITORING. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 6/3/2013. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/3/2013) (Entered: 06/03/2013)

06/04/2013 2345 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING 2236 MOTION FOR A FURTHER ENFORCEMENT ORDER AND DENYING 2236 MOTION TO HOLD DEFENDANTS IN CONTEMPT OF COURT.

(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/4/2013) (Entered: 06/04/2013)

06/10/2013

2346

Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 6/24/2013. Replies due by 7/1/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 6/10/2013) Modiﬁed on 6/11/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/10/2013)

06/13/2013 2347 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2346 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (Attachments: # 1 invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/13/2013) (Entered: 06/13/2013)

06/14/2013 2348 RESPONSE to Receiver's 23rd Tri-Annual Report by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 6/14/2013) (Entered: 06/14/2013)

06/14/2013

2349

Declaration of Diana Toche, DDS. In Support of Defendants' Response to the Receiver's 23rd Tri-Annual Report ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Russell, Jay) (Filed on 6/14/2013) (Entered: 06/14/2013)

06/14/2013

2350

Declaration of Deborah Hysen In Support of Defendants' Response to the Receiver's 23rd Tri-Annual Report ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Russell, Jay) (Filed on 6/14/2013) (Entered: 06/14/2013)

06/17/2013 2351 Proposed Order Conﬁrming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the First Quarter of 2013 by John Armstrong. (Thompson, Blake) (Filed on 6/17/2013) (Entered: 06/17/2013)

06/19/2013

2352

ORDER Granting 2351 Proposed Order Conﬁrming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the First Quarter of 2013. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 6/19/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/19/2013) (Entered: 06/19/2013)

06/21/2013 2353

Transcript of Proceedings held on May 16, 2013, before Judge Claudia Wilken. Transcriber Diane E. Skillman, Telephone number 510-451-2930, Diane_Skillman@cand.uscourts.gov, Diane.transcripts@aol.com. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Oﬃce public terminal or may be purchased through the Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this ﬁling. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/19/2013. (Related documents(s) 2342 , 2340 ) (Skillman, Diane) (Filed on 6/21/2013) (Entered: 06/21/2013)

07/09/2013

2354

MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and Proposed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 7/23/2013. Replies due by 7/30/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 7/9/2013) Modiﬁed on 7/10/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/09/2013)

07/12/2013 2355 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2354 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/12/2013) (Entered: 07/12/2013)

07/15/2013 2356 JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT ﬁled by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr.. (Godbold, Penelope) (Filed on 7/15/2013) Modiﬁed on 7/16/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/15/2013)

07/15/2013

2357

EXHIBITS re 2356 Joint Case Status Statement April and May 2013 Correctional Facility Program Accessibility Plan Monthly Reports ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 2356 ) (Godbold, Penelope) (Filed on 7/15/2013) Modiﬁed on 7/16/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/15/2013)

07/17/2013 2358 Letter from CRD to Lawrence Davis. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/17/2013) (Entered: 07/17/2013)

07/17/2013 2359 Letter from CRD to Mike Escalante. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/17/2013) Modiﬁed on 7/18/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/17/2013)

08/06/2013

2360

Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 8/20/2013. Replies due by 8/27/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 8/6/2013) Modiﬁed on 8/7/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/06/2013)

08/07/2013 2361 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2360 Motion for Payment (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/7/2013) (Entered: 08/07/2013)

08/20/2013 2362 Letter from CRD to Mr. Sprinkle. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/20/2013) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/4/2019: # 1 letter (re-scanned version)) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/20/2013)

08/20/2013 2363 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/20/2013) (Entered: 08/20/2013)

09/10/2013 2365 Mail sent to Penelope Marie Godbold returned as undeliverable re 2362 Letter. Mail Returned; response required by 11/12/2013. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/10/2013) (Entered: 09/11/2013)

09/11/2013

2364

Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 9/25/2013. Replies due by 10/2/2013. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 9/11/2013) Modiﬁed on 9/11/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/11/2013)

09/11/2013 2366 NOTICE of Change of Address by Penelope Marie Godbold (Godbold, Penelope) (Filed on 9/11/2013) (Entered: 09/11/2013)

09/12/2013

2367

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2364 Motion for Disbursement of Funds for Payment. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/12/2013) (Entered: 09/12/2013)

09/16/2013 2368 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT ﬁled by John Armstrong,

Edmund g. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit June/July 2013 Facility Program Accessibility Reports)(Godbold, Penny) (Filed on 9/16/2013) Modiﬁed on 9/17/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/16/2013)

10/01/2013

2369

Notice of Filing of Receiver's Twenty-Fourth Tri-Annual Report by J. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Table of Appendices, # 2 Appendix 1, # 3 Appendix 2, # 4 Appendix 3, # 5 Appendix 4)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 10/1/2013) Modiﬁed on 10/2/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/01/2013)

10/01/2013

2370

Appendix re 2369 Status Report, ﬁled byJ. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix 5 - Part 2 of 3, # 2 Appendix 5 - Part 3 of 3, # 3 Appendix 6)(Related document(s) 2369 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 10/1/2013) (Entered: 10/01/2013)

10/01/2013 2371 Appendix re 2369 Status Report, Appendices 7-12 ﬁled byJ. Clark Kelso. (Related document(s) 2369 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 10/1/2013) (Entered: 10/01/2013)

10/02/2013

2372

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Conﬁrming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Second Quarter of 2013 ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 10/2/2013) (Entered: 10/02/2013)

10/07/2013

2373

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2372 Stipulation Conﬁrming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Second Quarter of 2013. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/7/2013) (Entered: 10/07/2013)

10/08/2013

2374

OPINION of USCA AFFIRMED as to 2203 Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Edmund G. Brown, Jr.; DISMISSED as moot as to 2039 Notice of Appeal, ﬁled by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (cpS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/8/2013) (Entered: 10/08/2013)

10/08/2013

2375

MOTION for Disbursement of Funds Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 10/22/2013. Replies due by 10/29/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 10/8/2013) Modiﬁed on 10/9/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/08/2013)

10/09/2013

2376

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2375 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 Invoice No. 21404) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/9/2013) (Entered: 10/09/2013)

11/07/2013

2377

Administrative MOTION and Proposed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 11/21/2013. Replies due by 12/2/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 11/7/2013) Modiﬁed on 11/8/2013 (kcS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/07/2013)

11/13/2013 2378 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2377 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/13/2013) (Entered: 11/13/2013)

11/15/2013

2379

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Joint Case Status Statement ﬁled by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 11/15/2013) Modiﬁed on 11/18/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/15/2013)

12/03/2013

2380

ORDER of USCA DENYING petition for rehearing en banc as to 2203 Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Edmund G. Brown, Jr., 2039 Notice of Appeal, ﬁled by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/3/2013) (Entered: 12/03/2013)

12/09/2013

2381

MOTION for Disbursement of Funds Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 12/23/2013. Replies due by 12/30/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 12/9/2013) (Entered: 12/09/2013)

12/10/2013 2382 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2381 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (Attachments: # 1 invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/10/2013) (Entered: 12/10/2013)

12/12/2013 2383 MANDATE of USCA as to 2203 Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Edmund G. Brown, Jr., 2039 Notice of Appeal, ﬁled by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (cpS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/12/2013) (Entered: 12/12/2013)

01/14/2014

2384

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Change Time to File Joint Status Conference Statement ﬁled by Edmund G. Brown, Jr., John Armstrong, et al (Smith, Janelle) (Filed on 1/14/2014) Modiﬁed on 1/14/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/14/2014)

01/14/2014

2385

MOTION for payment and Proposed Order ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 1/28/2014. Replies due by 2/4/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 1/14/2014) Modiﬁed on 1/14/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/14/2014)

01/14/2014

2386

Order granting 2384 Stipulation entered by Hon. Claudia Wilken. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 01/14/2014)

01/14/2014

2387

Order granting 2385 Motion to pay invoice entered by Hon. Claudia Wilken. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 01/14/2014)

01/14/2014

2388

ORDER Granting 2385 MOTION for Payment. (Signed Version of 2387 Order ). Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/14/2014. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/14/2014) (Entered: 01/15/2014)

01/15/2014

***See text order 2386 . Set Deadlines Joint Status Statement due by 2/3/2014. (cpS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/15/2014) (Entered: 01/15/2014)

01/27/2014 2389 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Conﬁrming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Third Quarter of 2013 by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Thompson, Blake) (Filed on

1/27/2014) Modiﬁed on 1/28/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/27/2014)

01/28/2014

2390

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Ganting 2389 Stipulation Conﬁrming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Third Quarter of 2013 (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/28/2014) (Entered: 01/28/2014)

02/03/2014

2391

Notice of Filing of Receiver's Twenty-Fifth Tri-Annual Report by J. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix 1, # 2 Appendix 2, # 3 Appendix 4, # 4 Appendix 5, # 5 Appendix 6, # 6 Appendix 7 - Part 1 of 2, # 7 Appendix 7 - Part 2 of 2, # 8 Appendix 8)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 2/3/2014) Modiﬁed on 2/3/2014 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/03/2014)

02/03/2014

2392

Appendices 9-14 to re 2391 Notice of Filing of Receiver's TwentyFifth Tri-Annual Report ﬁled byJ. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix 9 - Part 2 of 2, # 2 Appendix 10, # 3 Appendix 11, # 4 Appendix 12, # 5 Appendix 13, # 6 Appendix 14)(Related document(s) 2391 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 2/3/2014) Modiﬁed on 2/3/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/03/2014)

02/03/2014

2393

Appendix 3, Parts 1-10 of 20 to Notice of Filing of Receiver's Twenty-Fifth Tri-Annual Report ﬁled byJ. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix 3 - Part 2 of 20, # 2 Appendix 3 - Part 3 of 20, # 3 Appendix 3 - Part 4 of 20, # 4 Appendix 3 - Part 5 of 20, # 5 Appendix 3 - Part 6 of 20, # 6 Appendix 3 - Part 7 of 20, # 7 Appendix 3 - Part 8 of 20, # 8 Appendix 3 - Part 9 of 20, # 9 Appendix 3 - Part 10 of 20)(Related document(s) 2391 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 2/3/2014) Modiﬁed on 2/3/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 2/3/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/03/2014)

02/03/2014 2394

Appendix 3, Parts 11-20 of 20 to 2391 Notice of Filing of Receiver's Twenty-Fifth Tri-Annual Report ﬁled byJ. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix 3 - Part 12 of 20, # 2 Appendix 3 - Part 13 of 20, # 3 Appendix 3 - Part 14 of 20, # 4 Appendix 3 - Part 15 of 20, # 5 Appendix 3 - Part 16 of 20, # 6 Appendix 3 - Part 17 of 20, # 7 Appendix 3 - Part 18 of 20, # 8 Appendix 3 - Part 19 of 20, # 9 Appendix 3 - Part 20 of 20)(Related document(s) 2391 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 2/3/2014) Modiﬁed on 2/3/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/03/2014)

02/03/2014 2395 Joint Case Status Statement by John Armstrong, Edmung D. Brown, Jr. (Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 2/3/2014) Modiﬁed on 2/4/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/03/2014)

02/10/2014

2396

MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and Proposed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 2/24/2014. Replies due by 3/3/2014. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 2/10/2014) Modiﬁed on 2/11/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/10/2014)

02/11/2014 2397 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2396 Motion for

Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/11/2014) (Entered: 02/11/2014)

03/10/2014

2398

Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 3/24/2014. Replies due by 3/31/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 3/10/2014) Modiﬁed on 3/11/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/10/2014)

03/14/2014

2399

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER TO CHANGE TIME TO FILE JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT ﬁled by Edmund G. Brown, Jr., John Armstrong, et al (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 3/14/2014) Modiﬁed on 3/17/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/14/2014)

03/14/2014 2400 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2398 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (Attachments: # 1 invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/14/2014) (Entered: 03/14/2014)

03/17/2014

2401

Order granting 2399 Stipulation entered by Hon. Claudia Wilken. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 03/17/2014)

03/18/2014

Reset Deadline (see docket no. 2401 : Joint Status Report due by 3/28/2014. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/18/2014) (Entered: 03/18/2014)

03/25/2014 2402 Case Number 13-1056 U.S. Supreme Court re: petition for writ of certiorari (kk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/25/2014) (Entered: 03/25/2014)

03/26/2014

2403

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Conﬁrming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Fourth Quarter of 2013 by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al. (Thompson, Blake) (Filed on 3/26/2014) Modiﬁed on 3/27/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/26/2014)

03/27/2014

2404

Joint Case Status Statement by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Defendants' attachment)(Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 3/27/2014) Modiﬁed on 3/28/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/27/2014)

03/31/2014

2405

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2403 Stipulation Conﬁrming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Fourth Quarter of 2013. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/31/2014) (Entered: 03/31/2014)

04/10/2014

2406

MOTION for Disbursement of Funds Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 4/24/2014. Replies due by 5/1/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 4/10/2014) Modiﬁed on 4/11/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/10/2014)

04/14/2014 2407 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2406 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (Attachments: # 1 invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/14/2014) (Entered: 04/14/2014)

04/30/2014 2408 ORDER DIRECTING ADDITIONAL INTERIM PAYMENT OF COSTS. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 4/30/2014. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/30/2014) (Entered: 04/30/2014)

05/06/2014

2409

MOTION for Payment and Proposed Order ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 5/20/2014. Replies due by 5/27/2014. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 5/6/2014) Modiﬁed on 5/7/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/06/2014)

05/08/2014 2410 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2409 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (Attachments: # 1 invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/8/2014) (Entered: 05/08/2014)

06/02/2014

2411

STATUS REPORT Notice of Filing of Receiver's Twenty-Sixth TriAnnual Report by J. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix 1-3, # 2 Appendix 5-11)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 6/2/2014) Modiﬁed on 6/3/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/02/2014)

06/02/2014

2412

Appendix re 2411 Status Report Appendix 4 to Notice of Filing of Receiver's Twenty-Sixth Tri-Annual Report ﬁled byJ. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix 4 - Part 2 of 8, # 2 Appendix 4 - Part 3 of 8, # 3 Appendix 4 - Part 4 of 8, # 4 Appendix 4 - Part 5 of 8, # 5 Appendix 4 - Part 6 of 8, # 6 Appendix 4 - Part 7 of 8, # 7 Appendix 4 - Part 8 of 8)(Related document(s) 2411 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 6/2/2014) (Entered: 06/02/2014)

06/04/2014 2413 Receipt in the amount of $100,000.00 from defendants pursuant to order 2408 . (cpS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/4/2014) (Entered: 06/04/2014)

06/04/2014

2414

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Joint Case Status Statement ﬁled by John Armstrong, Edmung G. Brown, Jr., et al. (Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 6/4/2014) Modiﬁed on 6/5/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/04/2014)

06/09/2014

2415

Proposed Stipulated Order Conﬁrming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the First Quarter of 2014 by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al. (Thompson, Blake) (Filed on 6/9/2014) Modiﬁed on 6/9/2014 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/09/2014)

06/10/2014

2416

ORDER GRANTING 2415 STIPULATED PROPOSED ORDER CONFIRMING UNDISPUTED ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS FOR THE FIRST QUARTER OF 2014. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 6/10/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/10/2014) (Entered: 06/10/2014)

06/12/2014

2417

MOTION for Disbursement of Funds Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 6/26/2014. Replies due by 7/3/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 6/12/2014) Modiﬁed on 6/13/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/12/2014)

06/12/2014 2418 ORDER of Supreme Court of the United States: petition for a writ of certiorari is denied as to 2402 Supreme Court of the U.S. (cpS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/12/2014) (Entered: 06/12/2014)

06/16/2014

2419

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2417 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Administrative Motion and Order for Payment). (Attachments: # 1 invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/16/2014) (Entered: 06/16/2014)

06/25/2014

2420

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER Regarding Prison Facilities ﬁled by John Armstrong, Edmung G. Brown, Jr. (Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 6/25/2014) Modiﬁed on 6/26/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/25/2014)

07/01/2014 2421 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2420 Stipulation Regarding Prison Facilities (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/1/2014) (Entered: 07/01/2014)

07/08/2014

2422

MOTION for Disbursement of Funds Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 7/22/2014. Replies due by 7/29/2014. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 7/8/2014) Modiﬁed on 7/9/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/08/2014)

07/14/2014

2423

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER TO CHANGE TIME TO FILE JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT ﬁled by Edmund G. Brown, Jr., John Armstrong, et al (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 7/14/2014) Modiﬁed on 7/15/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/14/2014)

07/15/2014

2424

Order granting 2423 Stipulation entered by Hon. Claudia Wilken. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 07/15/2014)

07/15/2014 2425 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2422 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/15/2014) (Entered: 07/15/2014)

08/05/2014 2426 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 8/5/2014) (Entered: 08/05/2014)

08/08/2014

2427

MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and Proposed Order ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 8/22/2014. Replies due by 8/29/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 8/8/2014) Modiﬁed on 8/11/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/08/2014)

08/18/2014 2428 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2427 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (Attachments: # 1 invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/18/2014) (Entered: 08/18/2014)

09/09/2014

2429

MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and Proposed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 9/23/2014. Replies due by 9/30/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 9/9/2014) Modiﬁed on 9/9/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/09/2014)

09/10/2014 2430 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2429 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (Attachments: # 1 invoice) (ndr,

COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/10/2014) (Entered: 09/10/2014)

09/18/2014

2431

CLERK'S NOTICE. Notice is hereby given that a Telephonic Case Management Conference has been set for February 5, 2015, at 10:30 a.m. All counsel shall contact CourtCall at (866) 582-6878 to make arrangements for the telephonic appearance. Case Management Statement due by January 29, 2015.

(This is a text only docket entry, there is no document associated with this notice.)

(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/18/2014) (Entered: 09/18/2014)
09/19/2014 2432 CLERK'S NOTICE. Notice is hereby given that the Telephonic Case Management Conference, previously set for February 5, 2015, is vacated.

(This is a text only docket entry, there is no document associated with this notice.)

(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/19/2014) (Entered: 09/19/2014)

09/19/2014 2433 Proposed Order Conﬁrming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Second Quarter of 2014 by John Armstrong. (Thompson, Blake) (Filed on 9/19/2014) (Entered: 09/19/2014)

09/26/2014 2434 USCA OPINION as to 2201 Notice of Appeal, ﬁled by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (cpS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/26/2014) (Entered: 09/26/2014)

09/29/2014

2435

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal ﬁled by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr.. (Attachments: # 1 Stipulation and Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit E-S REDACTED, # 3 Exhibit E-S UNREDACTED) (Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 9/29/2014) Modiﬁed on 9/30/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/29/2014)

09/29/2014 2436

MOTION Further Enforcement order to Prohibit Defendants from Housing Class Members in Administrative Segregation Due to Lack of Accessible Housing ﬁled by John Armstrong. Motion Hearing set for 11/6/2014 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland before Hon. Claudia Wilken. Responses due by 10/14/2014. Replies due by 10/21/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Rebekah Evenson, # 2 Exhibit A-D, # 3 Exhibit E-S, # 4 Proposed Order)(Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 9/29/2014) (Entered: 09/29/2014)

10/01/2014

2437

STATUS REPORT Notice of Filing of Receiver's Twenty-Seventh TriAnnual Report by J. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Table of Appendices, # 2 Appendix 1-3, # 3 Appendix 5-8, # 4 Appendix 912)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 10/1/2014) (Entered: 10/01/2014)

10/01/2014

2438

Appendix re 2437 Status Report Appendix 4 - Part 1 of 7 ﬁled byJ. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix 4 - Part 2 of 7, # 2 Appendix 4 - Part 3 of 7, # 3 Appendix 4 - Part 4 of 7, # 4 Appendix 4 - Part 5 of 7, # 5 Appendix 4 - Part 6 of 7, # 6 Appendix 4 - Part 7

of 7)(Related document(s) 2437 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 10/1/2014) (Entered: 10/01/2014)

10/01/2014

2439

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Change Time to File Opposition and Reply Papers. and to Move the November 6, 2014 Hearing Date on Plaintiﬀs' Motion for a Further Enforcement Order to Prohibit Defendants from Housing Class Members in Administrative Segregation Due to Lack of Accessible Housing ﬁled by Edmund G. Brown, Jr., John Armstrong (Quinn, Michael) (Filed on 10/1/2014) Modiﬁed on 10/2/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/01/2014)

10/01/2014

2440

Declaration of Michael Quinn in Support of 2439 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Change Time to File Opposition and Reply Papers. and to Move the November 6, 2014 Hearing Date on Plaintiﬀs' Motion for a Further Enforcement Order to Prohibit Defendants from Housing Class Members in Administrative Segregation Due to Lack of Accessible Housing ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - (INCORRECT ATTACHMENT, SEE DOC. # 2441 )(Related document(s) 2439 ) (Quinn, Michael) (Filed on 10/1/2014) Modiﬁed on 10/2/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/01/2014)

10/02/2014

2441

EXHIBITS re 2440 Declaration in Support, CORRECTION OF DOCKET # [2440-1] ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Related document(s) 2440 ) (Quinn, Michael) (Filed on 10/2/2014) Modiﬁed on 10/2/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/02/2014)

10/03/2014

2442

Order granting 2439 Stipulation entered by Hon. Claudia Wilken. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 10/03/2014)

10/06/2014

Reset Deadlines as to 2436 MOTION Further Enforcement order to Prohibit Defendants from Housing Class Members in Administrative Segregation Due to Lack of Accessible Housing: Responses due by 11/10/2014; Replies due by 11/24/2014; Motion Hearing set for 12/4/2014 02:00 PM before Hon. Claudia Wilken. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/6/2014) (Entered: 10/06/2014)

10/08/2014

2443

MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and Proposed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 10/22/2014. Replies due by 10/29/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 10/8/2014) Modiﬁed on 10/9/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/08/2014)

10/09/2014 2444 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2443 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (Attachments: # 1 invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/9/2014) (Entered: 10/09/2014)

10/15/2014 2445 Joint Case Status Statement by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al. (Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 10/15/2014) Modiﬁed on 10/16/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/15/2014)

10/16/2014 2446 ORDER GRANTING 2433 STIPULATED ORDER CONFIRMING

UNDISPUTED ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS FOR THE SECOND QUARTER OF 2014. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/16/2014. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/16/2014) (Entered: 10/16/2014)

10/20/2014 2447 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2435 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/20/2014) (Entered: 10/20/2014)

10/21/2014 2448 MANDATE of USCA as to 2201 Notice of Appeal, ﬁled by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (cpS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/21/2014) (Entered: 10/22/2014)

11/04/2014

2449

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER TO CHANGE TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION AND REPLY PAPERS, AND TO MOVE THE DECEMBER 4, 2014 HEARING DATE ﬁled by Edmund G. Brown, Jr., John Armstrong (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Michael Quinn)(Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 11/4/2014) Modiﬁed on 11/5/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 11/5/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/04/2014)

11/06/2014

2450

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2449 Stipulation TO CHANGE TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION AND REPLY PAPERS, AND TO MOVE THE DECEMBER 4, 2014 HEARING DATE. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/6/2014) (Entered: 11/06/2014)

11/06/2014

Reset Deadlines as to 2436 MOTION Further Enforcement order to Prohibit Defendants from Housing Class Members in Administrative Segregation Due to Lack of Accessible Housing : Responses due by 12/8/2014; Replies due by 12/22/2014; Motion Hearing set for 1/8/2015 02:00 PM before Hon. Claudia Wilken. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/6/2014) (Entered: 11/06/2014)

11/07/2014

2451

[TENTATIVE] ORDER TO REVISE THE MODIFIED INJUNCTION (Docket No. 2180 ). Status Report due by 11/21/2014. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 11/7/2014. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/7/2014) (Entered: 11/07/2014)

11/10/2014 2452 Letter from CRD to Mr. Koklich. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/10/2014) (Entered: 11/10/2014)

11/10/2014 2453 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re 2452 Letter (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/10/2014) (Entered: 11/10/2014)

11/11/2014

2454

MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and Proposed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 11/25/2014. Replies due by 12/2/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 11/11/2014) Modiﬁed on 11/12/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/11/2014)

11/12/2014 2455 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2454 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/12/2014) (Entered: 11/12/2014)

11/21/2014 2456 RESPONSE to re 2451 Order, Set Deadlines/Hearings by John Armstrong. (Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 11/21/2014) (Entered: 11/21/2014)

11/21/2014

2457

STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO TENTATIVE ORDER TO REVISE MODIFIED INJUNCTION by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 11/21/2014) Modiﬁed on 11/24/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/21/2014)

12/04/2014

2458

MOTION to Continue on Plaintiﬀs' Motion for Further Enforcement Order to Prohibit Defendants from Housing Class Members in Administrative Segregation Due to Lack of Accessible Housing ﬁled by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 12/4/2014) (Entered: 12/04/2014)

12/04/2014

2459

Declaration of Jay M. Goldman in Support of 2458 MOTION to Continue on Plaintiﬀs' Motion for Further Enforcement Order to Prohibit Defendants from Housing Class Members in Administrative Segregation Due to Lack of Accessible Housing with Exhibit A ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Related document(s) 2458 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 12/4/2014) (Entered: 12/04/2014)

12/04/2014

2460

Proposed Order re 2458 MOTION to Continue on Plaintiﬀs' Motion for Further Enforcement Order to Prohibit Defendants from Housing Class Members in Administrative Segregation Due to Lack of Accessible Housing by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 12/4/2014) (Entered: 12/04/2014)

12/04/2014

2461

RESPONSE (re 2458 MOTION to Continue on Plaintiﬀs' Motion for Further Enforcement Order to Prohibit Defendants from Housing Class Members in Administrative Segregation Due to Lack of Accessible Housing ) ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Rebekah Evenson)(Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 12/4/2014) (Entered: 12/04/2014)

12/05/2014 2462 ORDER REVISING THE 2180 MODIFIED INJUNCTION. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 12/5/2014. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/5/2014) (Entered: 12/05/2014)

12/05/2014 2463 Proposed Order re 2462 Order by John Armstrong. (Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 12/5/2014) (Entered: 12/05/2014)

12/08/2014

2464

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING DEFENDANTS ADMINISTRATIVE 2458 MOTION TO AMEND BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND HEARING DATE. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/8/2014) (Entered: 12/08/2014)

12/08/2014

Reset Deadline/Hearing as to 2436 (see docket no. 2464 ): MOTION Further Enforcement order to Prohibit Defendants from Housing Class Members in Administrative Segregation Due to Lack of Accessible Housing . Responses due by 12/15/2014; Replies due by 1/12/2015; Motion Hearing set for 1/29/2015 02:00 PM before Hon. Claudia Wilken. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/8/2014) (Entered: 12/08/2014)

12/09/2014 2465 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds Administrative Motion and Propsed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 12/23/2014. Replies due by 12/30/2014. (Attachments: # 1

Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 12/9/2014) (Entered: 12/09/2014)

12/09/2014 2466 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2465 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/9/2014) (Entered: 12/09/2014)

12/11/2014 2467 Letter from CRD to Mr. Dunsmore. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/11/2014) (Entered: 12/11/2014)

12/12/2014

2468

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Conﬁrming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Third Quarter of 2014 ﬁled by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al. (Thompson, Blake) (Filed on 12/12/2014) Modiﬁed on 12/12/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/12/2014)

12/15/2014

2469

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER To Change Time to File Joint Status Statement ﬁled by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr.. (Godbold, Penny) (Filed on 12/15/2014) Modiﬁed on 12/15/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/15/2014)

12/15/2014

2470

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2468 Stipulation Conﬁrming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Third Quarter of 2014. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/15/2014) (Entered: 12/15/2014)

12/15/2014 2471 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2469 Stipulation To Change Time to File Joint Status Statement. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/15/2014) (Entered: 12/15/2014)

12/15/2014

Reset Deadlines (see docket no. 2471 ) : Status Report due by 1/15/2015. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/15/2014) (Entered: 12/15/2014)

12/15/2014 2472

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal ﬁled by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Bryan Kao, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit Redacted - Exhs G; I to M (part 1 of 2) for Decl of Knowles - Exhs G; I to M (part 1 of 2) for Decl of Knowles, # 4 Exhibit Redacted - Exhs G; I to M (part 2 of 2) for Decl of Knowles, # 5 Exhibit Unredacted - Exhs G; I to M (part 1 of 2) for Decl of Knowles, # 6 Exhibit Unredacted - Exhs G; I to M (part 2 of 2) for Decl of Knowles)(Kao, Bryan) (Filed on 12/15/2014) Modiﬁed on 12/16/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/15/2014)

12/15/2014

2473

RESPONSE (re 2436 MOTION Further Enforcement order to Prohibit Defendants from Housing Class Members in Administrative Segregation Due to Lack of Accessible Housing ) ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Kao, Bryan) (Filed on 12/15/2014) (Entered: 12/15/2014)

12/15/2014

2474

Declaration of Jay Goldman in Support of 2473 Opposition/Response to Motion, ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Related document(s) 2473 ) (Kao, Bryan) (Filed on 12/15/2014) (Entered: 12/15/2014)

12/15/2014 2475 Declaration of Trina Hirsig in Support of 2473 Opposition/Response to Motion, ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit

A)(Related document(s) 2473 ) (Kao, Bryan) (Filed on 12/15/2014) (Entered: 12/15/2014)

12/15/2014

2476

Declaration of Mike Knowles in Support of 2473 Opposition/Response to Motion, ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to M (part 1 of 2), # 2 Exhibit A to M (part 2 of 2))(Related document(s) 2473 ) (Kao, Bryan) (Filed on 12/15/2014) (Entered: 12/15/2014)

12/15/2014

2477

Request for Judicial Notice re 2473 Opposition/Response to Motion, ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Related document(s) 2473 ) (Kao, Bryan) (Filed on 12/15/2014) (Entered: 12/15/2014)

12/17/2014 2478 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING 2472 MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/17/2014) (Entered: 12/17/2014)

12/29/2014

2479

ORDER re 2463 MODIFYING JANUARY 18, 2007 INJUNCTION. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 12/29/2014. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/29/2014) Modiﬁed on 12/29/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/29/2014)

01/08/2015

2480

Administrative MOTION and Propsed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 1/22/2015. Replies due by 1/29/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 1/8/2015) Modiﬁed on 1/9/2015 (kcS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/08/2015)

01/12/2015 2481 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2480 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (Attachments: # 1 invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/12/2015) (Entered: 01/12/2015)

01/12/2015 2482

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Rebekah Evenson, # 2 Proposed Order and Stipulation, # 3 Exhibit B - Redacted, # 4 Exhibit B Under Seal, # 5 Exhibit C - Redacted, # 6 Exhibit C - Under seal, # 7 Exhibit D - Redacted, # 8 Exhibit D - Under seal, # 9 Exhibit E Redacted, # 10 Exhibit E - Under seal, # 11 Exhibit F - Redacted, # 12 Exhibit F - Under seal)(Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 1/12/2015) (Entered: 01/12/2015)

01/12/2015

2483

REPLY (re 2436 MOTION Further Enforcement order to Prohibit Defendants from Housing Class Members in Administrative Segregation Due to Lack of Accessible Housing ) ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Richard Subia, # 2 Declaration Second Decl. of Rebekah Evenson)(Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 1/12/2015) (Entered: 01/12/2015)

01/15/2015 2484 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING 2482 MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/15/2015) (Entered: 01/15/2015)

01/15/2015 2485 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT ﬁled by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Godbold, Penny) (Filed on 1/15/2015)

Modiﬁed on 1/16/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/15/2015)

01/20/2015

2486

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS to the Expert Declaration of Richard Subia, and Exhibits B-F to the Declaration of Rebekah Evenson, in Support of Plaintiﬀs' Reply to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiﬀs' Motion for a Further Enforcement Order by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 1/20/2015) Modiﬁed on 1/21/2015 (kcS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/20/2015)

01/22/2015 2487 Letter from CRD to Mr. Foust. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/22/2015) (Entered: 01/22/2015)

01/23/2015 2488 RESPONSE to re 2486 Evidentiary Objection by John Armstrong. (Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 1/23/2015) Modiﬁed on 1/26/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/23/2015)

01/23/2015

2489

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' 2486 OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' DECLARATION. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/23/2015. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2015) Modiﬁed on 1/26/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/23/2015)

01/28/2015

2490

REPLY to Plaintiﬀ's Subia Declaration by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Certiﬁcate/Proof of Service)(Kao, Bryan) (Filed on 1/28/2015) Modiﬁed on 1/29/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/28/2015)

01/28/2015

2491

Declaration of Vince Cullen in Support of OPPOSITION to re MOTION Further Enforcement order to Prohibit Defendants from Housing Class Members in Administrative Segregation Due to Lack of Accessible Housing ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to D)(Related document(s) 2490 ) (Kao, Bryan) (Filed on 1/28/2015) Modiﬁed on 1/29/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/28/2015)

01/29/2015

2492

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. Claudia Wilken: Hearing on Motion re: Further Enforcement order to Prohibit Defendants from Housing Class Members in Administrative Segregation Due to Lack of Accessible Housing held on 1/29/2015. Court Reporter: Kathy Wyatt. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 1/29/2015) (Entered: 01/30/2015)

02/02/2015

2493

Notice of Filing of Receiver's Twenty-Eighth Tri-Annual Report by J. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Table of Appendices, # 2 Appendix 1-4, # 3 Appendix 5-6, # 4 Appendix 7-8, # 5 Appendix 9-10, # 6 Appendix 12-17)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 2/2/2015) Modiﬁed on 2/3/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/02/2015)

02/02/2015

2494

Appendix 11 to re 2493 Receiver's Twenty-Eighth Tri-Annual Report ﬁled byJ. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix 11 Part 2 of 5, # 2 Appendix 11 Part 3 of 5, # 3 Appendix 11 Part 4 of 5, # 4 Appendix 11 Part 5 of 5)(Related document(s) 2493 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 2/2/2015) Modiﬁed on 2/3/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/02/2015)

02/02/2015 2495 TRANSCRIPT ORDER by John Armstrong for Court Reporter Katherine Wyatt. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 2/2/2015) (Entered: 02/02/2015)

02/03/2015 2496 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING 2436 MOTION FOR FURTHER ENFORCEMENT. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/3/2015) (Entered: 02/03/2015)

02/03/2015 2497 TRANSCRIPT ORDER by Edmund G. Brown, Jr for Court Reporter Katherine Wyatt. (Kao, Bryan) (Filed on 2/3/2015) (Entered: 02/03/2015)

02/10/2015

2498

Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 2/24/2015. Replies due by 3/3/2015. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 2/10/2015) Modiﬁed on 2/11/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/10/2015)

02/12/2015 2499

Transcript of Proceedings held on 1-29-15, before Judge Claudia Wilken. Court Reporter/Transcriber Katherine Wyatt, Telephone number 925-212-5224. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Oﬃce public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this ﬁling. (Re 2495 Transcript Order, 2497 Transcript Order ) Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/13/2015. (Related documents(s) 2495 , 2497 ) (kpw, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/12/2015) (Entered: 02/12/2015)

02/12/2015

2500

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2498 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Invoice) (mklS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/12/2015) (Entered: 02/12/2015)

02/27/2015 2501 NOTICE of Appearance by Bryan An-Chieh Kao Notice of Association of Counsel (Kao, Bryan) (Filed on 2/27/2015) (Entered: 02/27/2015)

02/27/2015

2502

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Regarding Submission of Report Regarding the Housing of Armstrong Class Members in Administrative Segregation Due to Lack of Accessible Housing ﬁled by Edmund G. Brown, Jr., John Armstrong, et al (Kao, Bryan) (Filed on 2/27/2015) Modiﬁed on 3/2/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/27/2015)

03/03/2015

2503

Order granting 2502 Stipulation entered by Hon. Claudia Wilken. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 03/03/2015)

03/05/2015 2504 MOTION for Order of Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 3/19/2015. Replies due by 3/26/2015. (Attachments: # 1

Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 3/5/2015) Modiﬁed on 3/6/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/05/2015)

03/06/2015 2505 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2504 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (mklS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/6/2015) (Entered: 03/06/2015)

03/16/2015 2506 Joint Case Status Statement ﬁled by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al. (Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 3/16/2015) Modiﬁed on 3/17/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/16/2015)

03/16/2015 2507

Defendants' Report in Response to the Court's February 3, 2015 Order by Edmund G. Brown, Jr, California Board of Prison Term, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Midge Carroll, Kevin Carruth, Gray Davis, James Gomez, Judith McGillivray, Kyle McKinsey, John Monday, Marisela Montes, James Nielsen, Robert Presley, Joseph C. Sandoval, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Susanne Steinberg, Cal A. Terhune, James Tilton, David Tristan, Pete Wilson. (Fluet, Edward) (Filed on 3/16/2015) Modiﬁed on 3/17/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/16/2015)

03/18/2015

2508

Proposed Order Directing Additional Interim Payment of Cost by Edmund G. Brown, Jr, California Board of Prison Term, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Midge Carroll, Kevin Carruth, Gray Davis, James Gomez, Judith McGillivray, Kyle McKinsey, John Monday, Marisela Montes, James Nielsen, Robert Presley, Joseph C. Sandoval, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Susanne Steinberg, Cal A. Terhune, James Tilton, David Tristan, Pete Wilson. (Fluet, Edward) (Filed on 3/18/2015) (Entered: 03/18/2015)

03/18/2015

2509

ORDER DIRECTING ADDITIONAL INTERIM PAYMENT OF COSTS. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 3/18/2015. (mklS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/18/2015) (Entered: 03/18/2015)

03/26/2015

2510

Proposed Order Conﬁrming Undisputed Attorneys Fees and Costs for the Fourth Quarter of 2014 by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 3/26/2015) Modiﬁed on 3/27/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/26/2015)

03/27/2015

2511

STIPULATED ORDER CONFIRMING UNDISPUTED ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS FOR THE FOURTH QUARTER OF 2014. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 3/27/2015. (mklS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/27/2015) (Entered: 03/27/2015)

03/27/2015 2512 Receipt #44611012287 in the amount of $100,000.00 from defendant pursuant to order 2509 . (cpS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/27/2015) (Entered: 03/30/2015)

04/09/2015

2513

MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and Propsed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 4/23/2015. Replies due by 4/30/2015. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 4/9/2015) Modiﬁed on 4/10/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/09/2015)

04/24/2015 2514 Letter from CRD to Mr. Williams. (tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/24/2015) (Entered: 04/24/2015)

04/24/2015 2515 Letter from CRD to Mr. Brown. (tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/24/2015) (Entered: 04/24/2015)

05/06/2015 2516 Order by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2513 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (Attachments: # 1 Invoices)(tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/6/2015) (Entered: 05/06/2015)

05/08/2015

2517

MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and Proposed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 5/22/2015. Replies due by 5/29/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 5/8/2015) Modiﬁed on 5/11/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/08/2015)

05/13/2015 2518 Order by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2517 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (Attachments: # 1 Invoices)(tmiS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/13/2015) (Entered: 05/13/2015)

05/13/2015 2519 Letter from CRD to Mr. Jones. (tmiS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/13/2015) (Entered: 05/13/2015)

05/15/2015 2520 Joint Case Status Statement by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 5/15/2015) Modiﬁed on 5/18/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/15/2015)

05/20/2015 2521 Letter from CRD to Mr. Alvarez. (tmiS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/20/2015) (Entered: 05/20/2015)

05/22/2015

2522

MOTION to Substitute Attorney; (Proposed) Order by California Correctional Peace Oﬃcers Association (Adam, Gregg) (Filed on 5/22/2015) Modiﬁed on 5/26/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/22/2015)

05/22/2015

2523

MOTION to Substitute Attorney: (Proposed) Order by California Correctional Peace Oﬃcers Association (Adam, Gregg) (Filed on 5/22/2015) Modiﬁed on 5/26/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/22/2015)

05/26/2015 2524 NOTICE of Substitution of Counsel: (Proposed) Order by Jennifer Spencer Stoughton (Stoughton, Jennifer) (Filed on 5/26/2015) Modiﬁed on 5/27/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/26/2015)

05/26/2015 2525 Order by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2522 Motion to Substitute Attorney. (tmiS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/26/2015) (Entered: 05/26/2015)

05/26/2015 2526 Order by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2523 Motion to Substitute Attorney..(tmiS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/26/2015) (Entered: 05/26/2015)

06/01/2015

2527

Notice of Filing of Receiver's Twenty-Ninth Tri-Annual Report by J. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Table of Appendices, # 2 Appendix 1 of 5, # 3 Appendix 2 of 5, # 4 Appendix 4 of 5, # 5 Appendix 5 of 5)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 6/1/2015) Modiﬁed on 6/2/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/01/2015)

06/01/2015

2528

Appendix 3 to re 2527 Receiver's Twenty-Ninth Tri-Annual Report ﬁled byJ. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix 3 Part 2 of 6, # 2 Appendix 3 Part 3 of 6, # 3 Appendix 3 Part 4 of 6, # 4 Appendix 3 Part 5 of 6, # 5 Appendix 3 Part 6 of 6)(Related document(s) 2527 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 6/1/2015) Modiﬁed on 6/2/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/01/2015)

06/04/2015 2529 Letter from CRD to Mr. Whitsett. (tmiS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/4/2015) (Entered: 06/04/2015)

06/08/2015 2532 Notiﬁcation of Clerk Interference and Denial of Due Process ﬁled by Gustavo Alvarez (cpS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/8/2015) (Entered: 06/18/2015)

06/09/2015

2530

Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 6/23/2015. Replies due by 6/30/2015. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 6/9/2015) Modiﬁed on 6/10/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/09/2015)

06/12/2015 2531 Order by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2530 Motion for Payment of Court Expert. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(tmiS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/12/2015) (Entered: 06/12/2015)

06/25/2015

2533

Order Denying Motion for Certiﬁcate of Appealability. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 06/25/2015. (tmiS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/25/2015) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/25/2015: # 1 Certiﬁcate/Proof of Service) (tmiS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/25/2015)

06/26/2015

2534

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Conﬁrming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the First Quarter of 2015 ﬁled by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al. (Thompson, Blake) (Filed on 6/26/2015) Modiﬁed on 6/29/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/26/2015)

06/29/2015

2535

Order by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2534 Stipulation for Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the First Quarter of 2015.(tmiS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/29/2015) (Entered: 06/29/2015)

07/06/2015 2536 Mail sent to Gustavo Alvarez returned as undeliverable re 2533 Certiﬁcate of Appealability Denied. (vlkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/6/2015) (Entered: 07/07/2015)

07/08/2015

2537

MOTION for Disbursement of Funds; Proposed Order ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 7/22/2015. Replies due by 7/29/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 7/8/2015) Modiﬁed on 7/9/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/08/2015)

07/09/2015 2538 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2537 Motion for Payment of Court Expert. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (mklS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/9/2015) (Entered: 07/09/2015)

07/15/2015 2539 Joint Case Status Statement by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr.,et al. (Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 7/15/2015) Modiﬁed on 7/16/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/15/2015)

08/10/2015

2540

First MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and Proposed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 8/24/2015. Replies due by 8/31/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 8/10/2015) Modiﬁed on 8/11/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/10/2015)

08/18/2015 2541 Order by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2540 Motion for Disbursement of Funds.(jebS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/18/2015) (Entered: 08/18/2015)

09/08/2015

2542

MOTION for Disbursement of Funds Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 9/22/2015. Replies due by 9/29/2015. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 9/8/2015) Modiﬁed on 9/9/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/08/2015)

09/15/2015 2543 Joint Case Status Statement by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 9/15/2015) Modiﬁed on 9/16/2015 (kcS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/15/2015)

09/17/2015

2544

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Conﬁrming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Second Quarter of 2015 ﬁled by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr.. (Thompson, Blake) (Filed on 9/17/2015) Modiﬁed on 9/18/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/17/2015)

09/25/2015 2545 Order by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2542 Motion for Disbursement of Funds.(napS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/25/2015) (Entered: 09/25/2015)

09/25/2015

2546

STIPULATION AND ORDER CONFIRMING UNDISPUTED ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS FOR THE SECOND QUARTER OF 2015 by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2544 Stipulation. (napS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/25/2015) (Entered: 09/25/2015)

09/28/2015 2547 NOTICE of Change of Address by Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 9/28/2015) (Entered: 09/28/2015)

10/01/2015

2548

Notice of Filing of Receiver's Thirtieth Tri-Annual Report by J. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix 1, # 2 Appendix 2, # 3 Appendix 3, # 4 Appendix 4, # 5 Appendix 6)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 10/1/2015) Modiﬁed on 10/2/2015 (kcS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/01/2015)

10/01/2015

2549

Appendix re 2548 Notice of Filing of Receiver's Thirtieth Tri-Annual Report ﬁled by J. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix 5, Part 1 of 7, # 2 Appendix 5, Part 2 of 7, # 3 Appendix 5, Part 3 of 7, # 4 Appendix 5, Part 4 of 7, # 5 Appendix 5, Part 5 of 7, # 6 Appendix 5, Part 6 of 7, # 7 Appendix 5, Part 7 of 7)(Related document(s)

2548 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 10/1/2015) Modiﬁed on 10/2/2015 (kcS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/01/2015)

10/08/2015

2550

MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and Proposed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 10/22/2015. Replies due by 10/29/2015. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 10/8/2015) Modiﬁed on 10/9/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/08/2015)

10/14/2015 2551 Proposed Order Directing Additional Interim Payment of Costs by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Kao, Bryan) (Filed on 10/14/2015) (Entered: 10/14/2015)

10/15/2015

2552

ORDER granting 2550 Motion for Disbursement of Funds by Judge Claudia Wilken (jebS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/15/2015) Modiﬁed on 10/16/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/15/2015)

10/15/2015

2553

ORDER DIRECTING ADDITIONAL INTERIM PAYMENT OF COSTS re 2551 Proposed Order ﬁled by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/15/15. (jebS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/15/2015) (Entered: 10/15/2015)

11/02/2015

2556

MOTION to Reopen Action and hold defendants in criminal contempt, for class action status, appointment of counsel. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/2/2015) (Entered: 11/06/2015)

11/05/2015

2554

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Conﬁrming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Third Quarter of 2015 ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Thompson, Blake) (Filed on 11/5/2015) (Entered: 11/05/2015)

11/06/2015

2555

MOTION for Disbursement of Funds ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 11/20/2015. Replies due by 11/27/2015. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 11/6/2015) Modiﬁed on 11/9/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/06/2015)

11/06/2015

2557

STIPULATED ORDER CONFIRMING UNDISPUTED ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS FOR THE THIRD QUARTER OF 2015 by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2554 Stipulation. (jebS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/6/2015) (Entered: 11/06/2015)

11/06/2015

2558

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION AND ORDER FOR PAYMENT by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2555 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (jebS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/6/2015) (Entered: 11/06/2015)

11/09/2015 2559 ORDER REGARDING COMPENSATION OF COURT EXPERT. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 11/9/15. (jebS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/9/2015) (Entered: 11/09/2015)

11/10/2015 2560 Receipt #44611012905 in the amount of $100,000.00 from defendants pursuant to order # 2553 . (cpS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/10/2015) (Entered: 11/10/2015)

11/13/2015 2561 Joint Case Status Statement ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 11/13/2015) Modiﬁed on 11/16/2015 (kcS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/13/2015)

11/13/2015

2562

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Change Time to File Joint Status Conference Statement ﬁled by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Garske, Sharon) (Filed on 11/13/2015) Modiﬁed on 11/16/2015 (kcS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/13/2015)

11/16/2015

2563

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CHANGE TIME TO FILE JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2562 Stipulation. (jebS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/16/2015) (Entered: 11/16/2015)

11/16/2015 2564 Letter from CRD to Gregory Downs. (jebS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/16/2015) (Entered: 11/16/2015)

11/20/2015 2565 NOTICE of Appearance by Kelly Jean Knapp (Knapp, Kelly) (Filed on 11/20/2015) (Entered: 11/20/2015)

12/07/2015

2566

MOTION for payment of invoice dated December 4, 2015; (Proposed) Order ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 12/21/2015. Replies due by 12/28/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 12/7/2015) Modiﬁed on 12/8/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/07/2015)

01/08/2016 2567 NOTICE by Oﬃce of the Inspector General of Related Cases (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit)(Spurling, James) (Filed on 1/8/2016) (Entered: 01/08/2016)

01/11/2016

2568

MOTION for payment of invoice dated January 11, 2016 and (Proposed) Order ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 2/8/2016. Replies due by 2/22/2016. (Attachments: # 1 invoice) (Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 1/11/2016) Modiﬁed on 1/12/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/11/2016)

01/13/2016 2569 ORDER FOR PAYMENT by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2566 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (jebS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/13/2016) (Entered: 01/13/2016)

01/13/2016 2570 ORDER FOR PAYMENT by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2568 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (jebS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/13/2016) (Entered: 01/13/2016)

01/14/2016 2571 RESPONSE to re 2567 Notice (Other) Notice of Related Case by John Armstrong. (Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 1/14/2016) (Entered: 01/14/2016)

01/22/2016 2572 RESPONSE to re 2567 Notice (Other), 2571 Response ( Non Motion ) by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (O'Bannon, Danielle) (Filed on 1/22/2016) (Entered: 01/22/2016)

02/01/2016 2573 Notice of Filing of Receiver's Thirty-First Tri-Annual Report by J. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix 1, # 2 Appendix 2, # 3 Appendix 3, # 4 Appendix 4, # 5 Appendix 5)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed

on 2/1/2016) Modiﬁed on 2/2/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/01/2016)

02/01/2016

2574

Table of Appendices re 2573 Notice of Filing of Receiver's ThirtyFirst Tri-Annual Report ﬁled byJ. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix 6, 1 of 6, # 2 Appendix 6, 2 of 6, # 3 Appendix 6, 3 of 6, # 4 Appendix 6, 4 of 6, # 5 Appendix 6, 5 of 6, # 6 Appendix 6, 6 of 6, # 7 Appendix 7)(Related document(s) 2573 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 2/1/2016) Modiﬁed on 2/2/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/01/2016)

02/02/2016

2575

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Conﬁrming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Fourth Quarter of 2015 ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Thompson, Blake) (Filed on 2/2/2016) (Entered: 02/02/2016)

02/02/2016

2576

STIPULATED ORDER CONFIRMING UNDISPUTED ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS FOR THE FOURTH QUARTER OF 2015 by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2575 Stipulation. (jebS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/2/2016) (Entered: 02/02/2016)

02/02/2016

2577

REQUEST by Obiel Crisp III to be removed as a declared, recognized and or associated class member. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(cpS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/2/2016) (Entered: 02/04/2016)

02/08/2016

2578

Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 2/22/2016. Replies due by 2/29/2016. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 2/8/2016) Modiﬁed on 2/9/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/08/2016)

02/08/2016

2579

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION AND ORDER FOR PAYMENT by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2578 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (jebS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/8/2016) (Entered: 02/08/2016)

02/12/2016 2580 Proposed Order Directing Additional Interim Payment of Costs by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Kao, Bryan) (Filed on 2/12/2016) (Entered: 02/12/2016)

02/12/2016 2581 Joint Case Status Statement ﬁled by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr.. (Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 2/12/2016) Modiﬁed on 2/16/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/12/2016)

03/02/2016 2582 Letter from CRD to Obiel Crips III. (Attachments: # 1 Certiﬁcate/Proof of Service) (jebS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/2/2016) (Entered: 03/02/2016)

03/03/2016

2583

ORDER DIRECTING ADDITIONAL INTERIM PAYMENT OF COSTS re 2580 Proposed Order ﬁled by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 3/3/16. (jebS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/3/2016) (Entered: 03/03/2016)

03/07/2016 2585 Letter from O. Crisp III re no or little to none actual class action member representation (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(cpS, COURT

STAFF) (Filed on 3/7/2016) Modiﬁed on 3/11/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/11/2016)

03/10/2016

2584

Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 3/24/2016. Replies due by 3/31/2016. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 3/10/2016) Modiﬁed on 3/11/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/10/2016)

03/11/2016

2586

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER To Change Time to File Joint Status Conference Statement ﬁled by Edmund G. Brown, Jr, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Garske, Sharon) (Filed on 3/11/2016) Modiﬁed on 3/11/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/11/2016)

03/14/2016

2587

*** Entered in error, please see docket no. 2588 for corrected entry *** ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION AND ORDER FOR PAYMENT by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2584 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (jebS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/14/2016) Modiﬁed on 3/14/2016 (jebS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/14/2016)

03/14/2016

2588

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION AND ORDER FOR PAYMENT re 2584 MOTION for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 3/14/16. (jebS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/14/2016) (Entered: 03/14/2016)

03/14/2016

2589

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CHANGE TIME TO FILE JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2586 Stipulation. (jebS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/14/2016) (Entered: 03/14/2016)

03/14/2016

Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 5/16/2016. (jebS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/14/2016) (Entered: 03/14/2016)

03/16/2016

2590

Joint Discovery Letter Brief re discovery of OIG records ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 3/16/2016) Modiﬁed on 3/17/2016 (kcS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/16/2016)

03/16/2016

2591

RESPONSE to re 2590 Joint Discovery Letter Brief re discovery of OIG records Defendants' Response to Third-Party Subpoena Discovery Dispute by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Certiﬁcate/Proof of Service)(O'Bannon, Danielle) (Filed on 3/16/2016) Modiﬁed on 3/17/2016 (kcS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/16/2016)

03/17/2016 2592 REPLY (re 2590 Joint Discovery Letter Brief re discovery of OIG records ) ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 3/17/2016) (Entered: 03/17/2016)

03/18/2016 2593 Receipt No. 44611013237 in the amount of $100,000.00, from defendants pursuant to order re 2588 . (jlmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/18/2016) (Entered: 03/18/2016)

04/04/2016 2594 ORDER REGARDING JOINT DISCOVERY DISPUTE LETTER by

Hon. Claudia Wilken regarding 2590 Discovery Letter Brief. (jebS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/4/2016) (Entered: 04/04/2016)

04/05/2016 2595 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Sharon Anne Garske Notice of Change in Designation of Counsel for Defendants; and Association of Counsel (Garske, Sharon) (Filed on 4/5/2016) (Entered: 04/05/2016)

04/12/2016 2596 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Corene T. Kendrick (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 4/12/2016) (Entered: 04/12/2016)

04/14/2016

2597

MOTION for Disbursement of Funds; and Proposed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 4/28/2016. Replies due by 5/5/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 4/14/2016) Modiﬁed on 4/15/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/14/2016)

04/19/2016

2599

ORDER FOR PAYMENT re 2597 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 4/19/16. (napS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/19/2016) (Entered: 04/19/2016)

05/06/2016

2600

MOTION to Compel Oﬃce of Inspector General to Respond to Subpoena ﬁled by John Armstrong. Motion Hearing set for 6/14/2016 02:30 PM in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland before Hon. Claudia Wilken. Responses due by 5/20/2016. Replies due by 5/27/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 5/6/2016) (Entered: 05/06/2016)

05/06/2016

2601

Declaration of Corene Kendrick in Support of 2600 MOTION to Compel Oﬃce of Inspector General to Respond to Subpoena ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits 1 and 2) (Related document(s) 2600 ) (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 5/6/2016) (Entered: 05/06/2016)

05/12/2016

2602

Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 5/26/2016. Replies due by 6/2/2016. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 5/12/2016) Modiﬁed on 5/13/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/12/2016)

05/16/2016 2603 Order by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2602 Motion for Disbursement of Funds.(napS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/16/2016) (Entered: 05/16/2016)

05/16/2016 2604 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT ﬁled by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr.. (Godbold, Penny) (Filed on 5/16/2016) Modiﬁed on 5/17/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/16/2016)

05/20/2016

2605

RESPONSE (re 2600 MOTION to Compel Oﬃce of Inspector General to Respond to Subpoena ) ﬁled byOﬃce of the Inspector General. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of James C. Spurling, # 2 Exhibit A to Declaration, # 3 Exhibit B to Declaration, # 4 Exhibit C to Declaration, # 5 Exhibit D to Declaration, # 6 Exhibit E to

Declaration)(Spurling, James) (Filed on 5/20/2016) (Entered: 05/20/2016)

05/25/2016 2606 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Corene T. Kendrick re: Kelly Knapp (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 5/25/2016) (Entered: 05/25/2016)

05/26/2016 2607 NOTICE of Appearance by Margot Knight Mendelson (Mendelson, Margot) (Filed on 5/26/2016) (Entered: 05/26/2016)

05/26/2016 2608 REPLY (re 2600 MOTION to Compel Oﬃce of Inspector General to Respond to Subpoena ) ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Mendelson, Margot) (Filed on 5/26/2016) (Entered: 05/26/2016)

06/01/2016

2609

Notice of Filing of Receiver's Thirty-Second Tri-Annual Report by J. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix 1, # 2 Appendix 2, # 3 Appendix 4)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 6/1/2016) Modiﬁed on 6/2/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/01/2016)

06/01/2016

2610

Table of Appendices re 2609 Notice of Filing of Receiver's ThirtySecond Tri-Annual Report ﬁled byJ. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix 3, Part 1, # 2 Appendix 3, Part 2, # 3 Appendix 3, Part 3, # 4 Appendix 3, Part 4, # 5 Appendix 3, Part 5, # 6 Appendix 3, Part 6)(Related document(s) 2609 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 6/1/2016) Modiﬁed on 6/2/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/01/2016)

06/03/2016

2611

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING DISCLOSURE OF DEFENDANTS' EMPLOYEES' PERSONNEL INFORMATION AND CORRECTIVE ACTION PLANS ﬁled by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, John Armstrong, et al. (Kamberian, Van) (Filed on 6/3/2016) Modiﬁed on 6/6/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/03/2016)

06/06/2016 2612 STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2611 Stipulation.(napS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/6/2016) (Entered: 06/06/2016)

06/08/2016

2613

MOTION for Disbursement of Funds ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 6/22/2016. Replies due by 6/29/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 6/8/2016) Modiﬁed on 6/9/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/08/2016)

06/08/2016

2614

NOTICE is hereby given that the Court, on its own motion, shall take the 2600 MOTION to Compel Oﬃce of Inspector General to Respond to Subpoena under submission on the papers. The hearing previously scheduled for June 14, 2016 is vacated.

(This is a text only docket entry, there is no document associated with this notice.)

(afmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/8/2016) (Entered: 06/08/2016)
06/08/2016 2615 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2613 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (cc: Financial)(afmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/8/2016) (Entered: 06/08/2016)

06/08/2016

2616

MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief Regarding Plaintiﬀs' Motion to Compel ﬁled by California Correctional Peace Oﬃcers Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Amicus Curiae Brief, # 2 Declaration of Brent S. Colasurdo in Support of Amicus Curiae Brief, # 3 Proposed Order)(Colasurdo, Brent) (Filed on 6/8/2016) (Entered: 06/08/2016)

06/09/2016 2617 Proposed Order Directing Additional Interim Payment of Costs by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Kao, Bryan) (Filed on 6/9/2016) (Entered: 06/09/2016)

06/09/2016 2618 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2616 Motion for Leave to File Brief. (afmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/9/2016) (Entered: 06/09/2016)

06/09/2016

2619

AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF re 2600 MOTION to Compel Oﬃce of Inspector General to Respond to Subpoena ﬁled byCalifornia Correctional Peace Oﬃcers Association. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Brent S. Colasurdo in Support of CCPOA's Amicus Curiae Brief)(Related document(s) 2600 ) (Colasurdo, Brent) (Filed on 6/9/2016) Modiﬁed on 6/10/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/09/2016)

06/10/2016

2620

ORDER DIRECTING ADDITIONAL INTERIM PAYMENT OF COSTS. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 6/9/2016. (cc: Financial) (afmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/10/2016) (Entered: 06/10/2016)

06/10/2016 2621 NOTICE of Substitution of Counsel by Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 6/10/2016) (Entered: 06/10/2016)

06/14/2016

2622

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Conﬁrming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the First Quarter of 2016 ﬁled by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 6/14/2016) Modiﬁed on 6/15/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/14/2016)

06/15/2016

2623

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2622 Stipulation Conﬁrming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the First Quarter of 2016. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/15/2016) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

06/22/2016

2624

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken ON 2600 MOTION TO COMPEL. (granting in part and denying in part 2600 ). (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/22/2016) (Entered: 06/22/2016)

07/01/2016

2625

Third Party MOTION to Intervene and Modify Protective Order ﬁled by California Correctional Peace Oﬃcers Association, Correctional Oﬃcers 1-13. Motion Hearing set for 8/9/2016 02:30 PM in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland before Hon. Claudia Wilken. Responses due by 7/15/2016. Replies due by 7/22/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Brent S. Colasurdo, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Proposed Order Proposed Amended Protective Order) (Colasurdo, Brent) (Filed on 7/1/2016) (Entered: 07/01/2016)

07/06/2016

2626

CLERK'S NOTICE VACATING 8/9/16 HEARING DATE. You are hereby notiﬁed that the hearing on the Third Party Motion to Intervene (docket number 2625) is vacated. The motion will be decided on the papers. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (napS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/6/2016) (Entered: 07/06/2016)

07/08/2016

2627

Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 7/22/2016. Replies due by 7/29/2016. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 7/8/2016) Modiﬁed on 7/11/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/08/2016)

07/14/2016

2628

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER for Protective Order Pursuant to re 2624 Order on Motion to Compel ﬁled by Oﬃce of the Inspector General, John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al. (Spurling, James) (Filed on 7/14/2016) Modiﬁed on 7/15/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/14/2016)

07/15/2016 2629 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT ﬁled by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al. (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 7/15/2016) Modiﬁed on 7/18/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/15/2016)

07/15/2016 2630 Order by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2627 Motion for Disbursement of Funds.(napS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/15/2016) (Entered: 07/15/2016)

07/15/2016 2631 RESPONSE (re 2625 Third Party MOTION to Intervene and Modify Protective Order ) ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Norman, Sara) (Filed on 7/15/2016) (Entered: 07/15/2016)

07/15/2016

2632

RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION (re 2625 Third Party MOTION to Intervene and Modify Protective Order ) ﬁled byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration DECLARATION OF SEAN COTULLA IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO MOTION OF NONPARTIES CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS 1-13 FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AND TO MODIFY PROTECTIVE ORDER, # 2 Declaration DECLARATION OF L. CANTWELL IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION OF NON-PARTIES CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS 1-13 FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AND TO MODIFY PROTECTIVE ORDER, # 3 Certiﬁcate/Proof of Service CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE)(Garske, Sharon) (Filed on 7/15/2016) Modiﬁed on 7/18/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/15/2016)

07/18/2016 2633 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2628 Stipulation.(napS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/18/2016) (Entered: 07/18/2016)

07/22/2016 2634 REPLY (re 2625 Third Party MOTION to Intervene and Modify Protective Order ) ﬁled byCalifornia Correctional Peace Oﬃcers

Association, Correctional Oﬃcers 1-13. (Umberg, Thomas) (Filed on 7/22/2016) (Entered: 07/22/2016)

07/26/2016 2635 Receipt #44611013550 in the amount of $250,000.00 for interim payment of cost from Defendants pursuant to order 2620 . (cpS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/26/2016) (Entered: 07/26/2016)

08/11/2016

2636

Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 8/25/2016. Replies due by 9/1/2016. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 8/11/2016) Modiﬁed on 8/11/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/11/2016)

08/12/2016 2637 Order by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2636 Motion for Disbursement of Funds.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/12/2016) (Entered: 08/12/2016)

08/16/2016

2638

ORDER ON MOTION OF NON-PARTIES FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AND TO MODIFY PROTECTIVE ORDER by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting in part and denying in part 2625 Motion to Intervene.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/16/2016) (Entered: 08/16/2016)

08/16/2016

2639

MODIFIED PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING DISCLOSURE OF DEFENDANTS EMPLOYEES PERSONNEL INFORMATION AND CORRECTIVE ACTION PLANS. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 8/16/16. (dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/16/2016) (Entered: 08/16/2016)

08/19/2016

2641

MOTION requesting the court's intervention and/or ﬁndings pursuant to FRCP 23(b) ﬁled by Darryl E. Brown. Responses due by 9/2/2016. Replies due by 9/9/2016. (Attachments: # 1 letter, # 2 Envelope)(cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/19/2016) Modiﬁed on 8/30/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/29/2016)

08/24/2016 2640 MOTION to Intervene ﬁled by J.L. Howze. Responses due by 9/7/2016. Replies due by 9/14/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (cpS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/24/2016) (Entered: 08/24/2016)

08/29/2016

2642

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Conﬁrming Undisputed Attorneys Fees and Costs for the Second Quarter of 2016 by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 8/29/2016) Modiﬁed on 8/30/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 9/16/2016 (dtmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/29/2016)

08/30/2016 2643 Letter from CRD to Darryl E Brown re 2641 Motion to Intervene. (Attachments: # 1 Certiﬁcate/Proof of Service)(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/30/2016) (Entered: 08/30/2016)

08/30/2016 2644 Letter from CRD to J.L. Howze re 2640 Motion to Intervene. (Attachments: # 1 Certiﬁcate/Proof of Service)(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/30/2016) (Entered: 08/30/2016)

09/12/2016 2645 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION for Payment of invoice dated September 8, 2016; Proposed Order ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 9/26/2016. Replies due by 10/3/2016. (Attachments: # 1

invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 9/12/2016) Modiﬁed on 9/13/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/12/2016)

09/13/2016 2646 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION AND ORDER FOR PAYMENT by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2645 Motion.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/13/2016) (Entered: 09/13/2016)

09/15/2016 2647 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT ﬁled by John Armstrong and defendants. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 9/15/2016) Modiﬁed on 9/16/2016 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/15/2016)

09/16/2016

2648

STIPULATED ORDER CONFIRMING UNDISPUTED ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS FOR THE SECOND QUARTER OF 2016 by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2642 Stipulation.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/16/2016) (Entered: 09/16/2016)

09/19/2016 2649 NOTICE of Appearance of Rita Katherine Lomio as Counsel, ﬁled by John Armstrong (Lomio, Rita) (Filed on 9/19/2016) Modiﬁed on 9/20/2016 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/19/2016)

10/03/2016 2650

Notice of Filing of Receiver's Thirty-Third Tri-Annual Report by J. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Table of Appendices, # 2 Appendix Appendix 1, # 3 Appendix Appendix 2, # 4 Appendix Appendix 3 - Part 1 of 6, # 5 Appendix Appendix 3 - Part 2 of 6, # 6 Appendix Appendix 3 - Part 3 of 6, # 7 Appendix Appendix 3 - Part 4 of 6, # 8 Appendix Appendix 3 - Part 5 of 6, # 9 Appendix Appendix 3 - Part 6 of 6, # 10 Appendix Appendix 4)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 10/3/2016) Modiﬁed on 10/4/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/03/2016)

10/12/2016

2651

Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 10/26/2016. Replies due by 11/2/2016. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 10/12/2016) Modiﬁed on 10/13/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/12/2016)

10/14/2016 2652 Order by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2651 Motion for Disbursement of Funds.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/14/2016) (Entered: 10/14/2016)

11/11/2016

2653

MOTION for Disbursement of Funds Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 11/25/2016. Replies due by 12/2/2016. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 11/11/2016) (Entered: 11/11/2016)

11/15/2016 2654 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION AND ORDER FOR PAYMENT by Hon. Claudia Wilken.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2016) (Entered: 11/15/2016)

11/15/2016

2655

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Joint ﬁled by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al. (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 11/15/2016) Modiﬁed on 11/16/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/15/2016)

12/09/2016 2656 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds Administrative Motion and

Proposed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 12/23/2016. Replies due by 12/30/2016. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 12/9/2016) (Entered: 12/09/2016)

12/14/2016 2657 Order by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2656 Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/14/2016) (Entered: 12/14/2016)

12/16/2016

2658

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Conﬁrming Undisputed Attorneys Fees and Costs for Third Quarter of 2016 ﬁled by John Armstrong., Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 12/16/2016) Modiﬁed on 12/19/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/16/2016)

12/21/2016

2659

Order by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2658 STIPULATION CONFIRMING UNDISPUTED ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS FOR THE THIRD QUARTER OF 2016.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/21/2016) (Entered: 12/21/2016)

01/13/2017

2660

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT, ﬁled by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 1/13/2017) Modiﬁed on 1/17/2017 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/13/2017)

01/17/2017

2661

Administrative MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and Proposed Order for Payment, ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 1/31/2017. Replies due by 2/7/2017. (Attachments: # 1 invoice) (Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 1/17/2017) Modiﬁed on 1/18/2017 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/17/2017)

01/23/2017 2662 Order by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2661 Motion for Disbursement of Funds.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2017) (Entered: 01/23/2017)

02/01/2017 2663

NOTICE OF FILING OF RECEIVER'S 34TH TRI-ANNUAL REPORT by J. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Table of Appendices, # 2 Appendix Appendix 1, # 3 Appendix Appendix 2 (1 of 6), # 4 Appendix Appendix 2 (2 of 6), # 5 Appendix Appendix 2 (3 of 6), # 6 Appendix Appendix 2 (4 of 6), # 7 Appendix Appendix 2 (5 of 6), # 8 Appendix Appendix 2 (6 of 6), # 9 Appendix Appendix 3)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 2/1/2017) Modiﬁed on 2/2/2017 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/01/2017)

02/10/2017 2664 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Sharon Anne Garske NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL (Garske, Sharon) (Filed on 2/10/2017) (Entered: 02/10/2017)

02/13/2017

2665

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION for Payment and Proposed Order for ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 2/27/2017. Replies due by 3/6/2017. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 2/13/2017) Modiﬁed on 2/14/2017 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/13/2017)

02/15/2017 2666 Order by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2665 Motion for

Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/15/2017) (Entered: 02/15/2017)

03/08/2017

2667

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Conﬁrming Undisputed Fees and Costs for Fourth Quarter 2016 ﬁled by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr.. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 3/8/2017) Modiﬁed on 3/8/2017 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/08/2017)

03/13/2017

2668

Order by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2667 STIPULATION CONFIRMING UNDISPUTED ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS FOR THE FOURTH QUARTER OF 2016.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/13/2017) (Entered: 03/13/2017)

03/14/2017

2669

Administrative Motion for Payment of invoice dated March 13, 2017 ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 3/28/2017. Replies due by 4/4/2017. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 3/14/2017) Modiﬁed on 3/14/2017 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/14/2017)

03/15/2017 2670 Order by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2669 Motion for Order for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/15/2017) (Entered: 03/15/2017)

03/15/2017

2671

JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Godbold, Penny) (Filed on 3/15/2017) Modiﬁed on 3/17/2017 (vlkS, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 3/17/2017 (vlkS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/15/2017)

03/24/2017

2672

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER RE MODIFIED PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING DISCLOSURE OF DEFENDANTS EMPLOYEES PERSONNEL INFORMATION AND CORRECTIVE ACTION PLANS ﬁled by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, California Correctional Peace Oﬃcers Association, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., John Armstrong. (Garske, Sharon) (Filed on 3/24/2017) Modiﬁed on 3/27/2017 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/24/2017)

03/24/2017

2673

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation re 2672 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] MODIFIED PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING DISCLOSURE OF DEFENDANTS EMPLOYEES PERSONNEL INFORMATION AND CORRECTIVE ACTION PLANS Certiﬁcate of Service (Garske, Sharon) (Filed on 3/24/2017) (Entered: 03/24/2017)

03/28/2017

2674

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2672 Stipulation RE MODIFIED PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING DISCLOSURE OF DEFENDANTS EMPLOYEES PERSONNEL INFORMATION AND CORRECTIVE ACTION PLANS. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/28/2017) (Entered: 03/28/2017)

04/13/2017

2675

MOTION for Payment of invoice dated April 11, 2017 ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 4/27/2017. Replies due by 5/4/2017. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 4/13/2017) Modiﬁed on 4/14/2017 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/13/2017)

04/17/2017 2676 Order by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2675 Administrative Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/17/2017) (Entered: 04/17/2017)

05/03/2017 2677 Letter from William Thornton re being treated unfairly and discriminated. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(cpS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/3/2017) (Entered: 05/08/2017)

05/09/2017

2678

Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment of invoice dated May 9, 2017 ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 5/23/2017. Replies due by 5/30/2017. (Attachments: # 1 invoice) (Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 5/9/2017) Modiﬁed on 5/10/2017 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/09/2017)

05/10/2017 2679 Order by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2678 Administrative Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/10/2017) (Entered: 05/10/2017)

05/15/2017 2680 JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT ﬁled by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr.. (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 5/15/2017) Modiﬁed on 5/16/2017 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/15/2017)

05/25/2017

2681

STIPULATION WITH [PROPOSED] ORDER Conﬁrming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the First Quarter of 2017 ﬁled by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Galvan, Ernest) (Filed on 5/25/2017) Modiﬁed on 5/26/2017 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/25/2017)

06/01/2017

2682

Order by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2681 STIPULATION CONFIRMING UNDISPUTED ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS FOR THE FIRST QUARTER OF 2017.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/1/2017) (Entered: 06/01/2017)

06/01/2017 2683

Notice of Filing of Receiver's 35th Tri-Annual Report by J. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Table of Appendices, # 2 Appendix 1, # 3 Appendix 2, # 4 Appendix 3 (Part 1 of 6), # 5 Appendix 3 (Part 2 of 6), # 6 Appendix 3 (Part 3 of 6), # 7 Appendix 3 (Part 4 of 6), # 8 Appendix 3 (Part 5 of 6), # 9 Appendix 3 (Part 6 of 6), # 10 Appendix 4)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 6/1/2017) Modiﬁed on 6/2/2017 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/01/2017)

06/13/2017 2684 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael Louis Freedman (Freedman, Michael) (Filed on 6/13/2017) (Entered: 06/13/2017)

06/14/2017

2685

Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment of Invoice dated 6/13/2017 ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 6/28/2017. Replies due by 7/5/2017. (Attachments: # 1 invoice) (Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 6/14/2017) Modiﬁed on 6/15/2017 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/14/2017)

06/21/2017 2686 Order by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2685 Administrative Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/21/2017) (Entered: 06/21/2017)

07/12/2017 2687 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds ﬁled by Edward Swanson.

Responses due by 7/26/2017. Replies due by 8/2/2017. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 7/12/2017) Modiﬁed on 7/13/2017 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/12/2017)

07/14/2017 2688 JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT ﬁled by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr.. (Godbold, Penny) (Filed on 7/14/2017) Modiﬁed on 7/17/2017 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/14/2017)

07/17/2017 2689 Order by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2687 Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/17/2017) (Entered: 07/17/2017)

08/23/2017

2691

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER CONFIRMING UNDISPUTED ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS FOR THE SECOND QUARTER OF 2017 ﬁled by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr.. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 8/23/2017) Modiﬁed on 8/24/2017 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/23/2017)

08/25/2017

2692

Order by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2691 Stipulation Conﬁrming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Second Quarter of 2017.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/25/2017) (Entered: 08/25/2017)

08/28/2017

2693

Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment of invoice dated 8/11/2017 ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 9/11/2017. Replies due by 9/18/2017. (Attachments: # 1 invoice) (Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 8/28/2017) Modiﬁed on 8/29/2017 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/28/2017)

08/30/2017 2694 Order by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2693 Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/30/2017) (Entered: 08/30/2017)

09/12/2017

2695

MOTION for Payment and (Proposed) Order ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 9/26/2017. Replies due by 10/3/2017. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 9/12/2017) Modiﬁed on 9/13/2017 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/12/2017)

09/13/2017 2696 Order by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2695 Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/13/2017) (Entered: 09/13/2017)

09/15/2017 2697 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT ﬁled by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al. (Godbold, Penny) (Filed on 9/15/2017) Modiﬁed on 9/16/2017 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/15/2017)

09/25/2017 2698 NOTICE of Change of Address by Martin H. Dodd (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 9/25/2017) (Entered: 09/25/2017)

10/02/2017

2699

Notice of Filing of Receiver's 36th Tri-Annual Report by J. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Table of Appendices, # 2 Appendix 1, Part 1 of 6, # 3 Appendix 1, Part 2 of 6, # 4 Appendix 1, Part 3 of 6, # 5 Appendix 1, Part 4 of 6, # 6 Appendix 1, Part 5 of 6, # 7 Appendix 1, Part 6 of 6, # 8 Appendix 2)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 10/2/2017) Modiﬁed on 10/3/2017 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/02/2017)

10/10/2017

2700

MOTION for Payment of invoice dated October 9, 2017; (Proposed) Order ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 10/24/2017. Replies due by 10/31/2017. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 10/10/2017) Modiﬁed on 10/11/2017 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/10/2017)

10/12/2017

2701

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2700 Motion for Disbursement of Funds for Payment of invoice dated October 9, 2017. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/12/2017) (Entered: 10/12/2017)

11/13/2017

2702

MOTION for Payment of invoice dated 11/10/2017 and Proposed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 11/27/2017. Replies due by 12/4/2017. (Attachments: # 1 invoice) (Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 11/13/2017) Modiﬁed on 11/14/2017 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/13/2017)

11/14/2017

2703

ORDER by District Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2702 Adminstrative Motion for Disbursement of Funds for Payment of 11/10/17 Invoice. (Attachments: # 1 11/10/17 Invoice)(ig, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/14/2017) (Entered: 11/14/2017)

11/15/2017 2704 JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT ﬁled by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown Jr. (Godbold, Penny) (Filed on 11/15/2017) Modiﬁed on 11/16/2017 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/15/2017)

12/08/2017

2705

Administrative Motion for Payment of invoice December 7, 2017 and Proposed Order ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 12/22/2017. Replies due by 12/29/2017. (Attachments: # 1 invoice) (Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 12/8/2017) Modiﬁed on 12/10/2017 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/08/2017)

12/13/2017 2706 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2705 Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/13/2017) (Entered: 12/13/2017)

12/18/2017

2707

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Conﬁrming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Third Quarter of 2017 ﬁled by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 12/18/2017) Modiﬁed on 12/19/2017 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/18/2017)

12/19/2017

2708

Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2707 Stipulation Conﬁrming Undisputed Attorney Fees and Costs for Third Quarter of 2017.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2017) (Entered: 12/19/2017)

01/16/2018 2709 Joint Case Status Statement ﬁled by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr.. (Godbold, Penny) (Filed on 1/16/2018) Modiﬁed on 1/17/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/16/2018)

01/18/2018 2710 Administrative Motion and (Proposed) Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 2/1/2018. Replies due by 2/8/2018. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on

1/18/2018) Modiﬁed on 1/19/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/18/2018)

01/19/2018

2711

Proposed Order Directing Additional Interim Payment of Costs by Edmund G. Brown, Jr, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Kao, Bryan) (Filed on 1/19/2018) (Entered: 01/19/2018)

01/22/2018 2712 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2710 Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/22/2018) (Entered: 01/22/2018)

01/23/2018 2713 ORDER DIRECTING ADDITIONAL INTERIM PAYMENT OF COSTS. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/23/18. (dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2018) (Entered: 01/23/2018)

02/01/2018

2714

Notice of Filing of Receiver's 37th Tri-Annual Report by J. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Table of Appendices, # 2 Appendix 1 through 6)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 2/1/2018) Modiﬁed on 2/2/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/01/2018)

02/12/2018

2715

MOTION and Proposed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 2/26/2018. Replies due by 3/5/2018. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 2/12/2018) Modiﬁed on 2/13/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 2/13/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/12/2018)

02/22/2018 2716 Receipt #44611015081 in the amount of $200,000.00 per order, dkt. # 2713 . (cpS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/22/2018) (Entered: 02/22/2018)

02/27/2018 2717 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2715 Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/27/2018) (Entered: 02/27/2018)

03/12/2018

2718

Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 3/26/2018. Replies due by 4/2/2018. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 3/12/2018) Modiﬁed on 3/13/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/12/2018)

03/14/2018 2719 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2718 Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/14/2018) (Entered: 03/14/2018)

03/14/2018 2720 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Sharon Anne Garske NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL (Garske, Sharon) (Filed on 3/14/2018) (Entered: 03/14/2018)

03/15/2018

2721

UPDATED CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT ﬁled by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al. (Godbold, Penny) (Filed on 3/15/2018) Modiﬁed on 3/16/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 3/16/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/15/2018)

03/26/2018 2722 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Conﬁrming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Fourth Quarter of 2017 ﬁled by

John Armstrong, Edmung G. Brown, Jr. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 3/26/2018) Modiﬁed on 3/27/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/26/2018)

03/28/2018

2723

Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2722 Stipulation Conﬁrming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Fourth Quarter of 2017.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/28/2018) (Entered: 03/28/2018)

04/11/2018

2724

Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment re April 11, 2018 Invoice ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 4/25/2018. Replies due by 5/2/2018. (Attachments: # 1 invoice) (Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 4/11/2018) Modiﬁed on 4/12/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/11/2018)

04/13/2018 2725 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2724 Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/13/2018) (Entered: 04/13/2018)

05/14/2018 2726

***Attachment 3, Exhibit C removed per order 2736 . Reﬁled at document # 2728 ***

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Joint ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C) (Mendelson, Margot) (Filed on 5/14/2018) Modiﬁed on 5/15/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 5/15/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 5/18/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Attachment 3 replaced on 5/18/2018) (napS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/14/2018)

05/14/2018 2727 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Sharon Anne Garske OF CHANGE OF COUNSEL (Garske, Sharon) (Filed on 5/14/2018) Modiﬁed on 5/15/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/14/2018)

05/15/2018 2728 EXHIBITS re 2726 Case Management Statement, Corrected Exhibit C ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 2726 ) (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 5/15/2018) (Entered: 05/15/2018)

05/15/2018

2730

Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 5/29/2018. Replies due by 6/5/2018. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 5/15/2018) Modiﬁed on 5/16/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/15/2018)

05/15/2018 2732 MOTION to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document Unopposed ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 5/15/2018) (Entered: 05/15/2018)

05/16/2018

Electronic ﬁling error. Please submit Proposed Order pursuant to Local Rule 5-1(g). Re: 2732 MOTION to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document ﬁled by John Armstrong (dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/16/2018) (Entered: 05/16/2018)

05/16/2018 2733 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2730 Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/16/2018) (Entered: 05/16/2018)

05/16/2018 2734 Proposed Order re 2732 MOTION to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document Unopposed by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 5/16/2018) (Entered: 05/16/2018)

05/17/2018 2736 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2732 Motion to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/17/2018) (Entered: 05/17/2018)

06/01/2018 2742

Notice of Filing of Receiver's 38th Tri-Annual Report by J. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Table of Appendices, # 2 Appendix 1, Part 1 of 7, # 3 Appendix 1, Part 2 of 7, # 4 Appendix 1, Part 3 of 7, # 5 Appendix 1, Part 4 of 7, # 6 Appendix 1, Part 5 of 7, # 7 Appendix 1, Part 6 of 7, # 8 Appendix 1, Part 7 of 7, # 9 Appendix 2, # 10 Appendix 3)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 6/1/2018) Modiﬁed on 6/3/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/01/2018)

06/19/2018

2743

MOTION for Payment and [Proposed] Order ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 7/3/2018. Replies due by 7/10/2018. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 6/19/2018) Modiﬁed on 6/20/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/19/2018)

06/20/2018

2744

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Conﬁrming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the First Quarter of 2018 ﬁled by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 6/20/2018) Modiﬁed on 6/21/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/20/2018)

06/26/2018

2745

Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2744 Stipulation Conﬁrming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the First Quarter of 2018.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/26/2018) (Entered: 06/26/2018)

06/26/2018 2746 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2743 Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/26/2018) (Entered: 06/26/2018)

07/09/2018 2747 NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Garske, Sharon) (Filed on 7/9/2018) Modiﬁed on 7/10/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/09/2018)

07/16/2018 2749 JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT ﬁled by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al. (Godbold, Penny) (Filed on 7/16/2018) Modiﬁed on 7/17/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/16/2018)

07/18/2018

2750

Administrative Motion and [Proposed] Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 8/1/2018. Replies due by 8/8/2018. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 7/18/2018) Modiﬁed on 7/19/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/18/2018)

07/19/2018 2751 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2750 Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/19/2018)

(Entered: 07/19/2018)

08/14/2018

2755

Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 8/28/2018. Replies due by 9/4/2018. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 8/14/2018) Modiﬁed on 8/15/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/14/2018)

08/24/2018 2761 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2755 Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/24/2018) (Entered: 08/24/2018)

09/11/2018

2766

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Conﬁrming Undisputed Attorneys' fees and Costs for the Second Quarter of 2018 ﬁled by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 9/11/2018) Modiﬁed on 9/12/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/11/2018)

09/12/2018

2772

Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2766 Stipulation Conﬁrming Undisputed Attorneys Fees and Costs for the Second Quarter of 2018.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/12/2018) (Entered: 09/12/2018)

09/17/2018 2773 JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT ﬁled by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al. (Godbold, Penny) (Filed on 9/17/2018) Modiﬁed on 9/17/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/17/2018)

09/25/2018

2774

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR PAYMENT ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 10/9/2018. Replies due by 10/16/2018. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 9/25/2018) Modiﬁed on 9/26/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/25/2018)

09/28/2018 2775 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2774 Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/28/2018) (Entered: 09/28/2018)

10/01/2018 2776

Notice of Filing of Receiver's 39th Tri-Annual Report by J. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Table of Appendices, # 2 Appendix 1 Part 1 of 7, # 3 Appendix 1 Part 2 of 7, # 4 Appendix 1 Part 3 of 7, # 5 Appendix 1 Part 4 of 7, # 6 Appendix 1 Part 5 of 7, # 7 Appendix 1 Part 6 of 7, # 8 Appendix 1 Part 7 of 7, # 9 Appendix 2, # 10 Appendix 3)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 10/1/2018) Modiﬁed on 10/1/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/01/2018)

10/12/2018

2777

Administrative MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and [Proposed] Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 10/26/2018. Replies due by 11/2/2018. (Attachments: # 1 invoice) (Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 10/12/2018) Modiﬁed on 10/15/2018 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/12/2018)

10/15/2018 2778 NOTICE of Change of Address by Penny Marie Godbold (Godbold, Penny) (Filed on 10/15/2018) (Entered: 10/15/2018)

10/23/2018 2779 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2777 Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/23/2018)

(Entered: 10/23/2018)

11/09/2018

2784

Administrative MOTION and [Proposed] Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 11/23/2018. Replies due by 11/30/2018. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 11/9/2018) Modiﬁed on 11/13/2018 (kcS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/09/2018)

11/14/2018 2785 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2784 Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/14/2018) (Entered: 11/14/2018)

11/15/2018

2786

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Joint ﬁled by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al.. (Godbold, Penny) (Filed on 11/15/2018) Modiﬁed on 11/16/2018 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/15/2018)

12/20/2018

2801

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Conﬁrming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Third Quarter of 2018 ﬁled by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 12/20/2018) Modiﬁed on 12/21/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/20/2018)

12/21/2018

2802

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR PAYMENT ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 1/4/2019. Replies due by 1/11/2019. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 12/21/2018) Modiﬁed on 12/24/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/21/2018)

01/02/2019 2803 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2802 Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/2/2019) (Entered: 01/02/2019)

01/02/2019 2804 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2801 Stipulation Conﬁrming Attorney Fees for 3rd Quarter of 2018.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/2/2019) (Entered: 01/02/2019)

01/15/2019 2821 JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT ﬁled by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Godbold, Penny) (Filed on 1/15/2019) Modiﬁed on 2/13/2019 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/15/2019)

01/23/2019

2823

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR PAYMENT ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 2/6/2019. Replies due by 2/13/2019. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 1/23/2019) Modiﬁed on 1/24/2019 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/23/2019)

01/24/2019

2825

ORDER SUBSTITUTING GOVERNOR GAVIN C. NEWSOM AS A DEFENDANT. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/24/19. (dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/24/2019) (Entered: 01/24/2019)

01/24/2019 2826 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2823 Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/24/2019) (Entered: 01/24/2019)

02/01/2019 2827

Notice of Filing of Receiver's 40th Tri-Annual Report by J. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Table of Appendices, # 2 Appendix 1 Part 1 of 7, # 3 Appendix 1 Part 2 of 7, # 4 Appendix 1 Part 3 of 7, # 5 Appendix 1 Part 4 of 7, # 6 Appendix 1 Part 5 of 7, # 7 Appendix 1 Part 6 of 7, # 8 Appendix 1 Part 7 of 7, # 9 Appendix 2, # 10 Appendix 3)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 2/1/2019) Modiﬁed on 2/4/2019 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/01/2019)

02/20/2019

2837

ADMINISTRATIVE Motion for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 3/6/2019. Replies due by 3/13/2019. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 2/20/2019) Modiﬁed on 2/21/2019 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/20/2019)

02/25/2019 2838 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2837 Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/25/2019) (Entered: 02/25/2019)

03/06/2019

2839

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Conﬁrming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Fourth Quarter of 2018 ﬁled by John Armstrong, Gavin C. Newsom. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 3/6/2019) Modiﬁed on 3/7/2019 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/06/2019)

03/12/2019

2841

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2839 Stipulation Conﬁrming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Fourth Quarter of 2018.(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/12/2019) (Entered: 03/12/2019)

03/14/2019

2842

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR PAYMENT ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 3/28/2019. Replies due by 4/4/2019. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 3/14/2019) Modiﬁed on 3/15/2019 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/14/2019)

03/15/2019 2843 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2842 Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/15/2019) (Entered: 03/15/2019)

03/15/2019 2844 Joint Case Status Statement ﬁled by John Armstrong, Gavin C. Newsom. (Godbold, Penny) (Filed on 3/15/2019) Modiﬁed on 3/17/2019 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/15/2019)

04/17/2019

2861

Administrative Motion for Order of Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 5/1/2019. Replies due by 5/8/2019. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 4/17/2019) Modiﬁed on 4/17/2019 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/17/2019)

04/18/2019 2862 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2861 Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/18/2019) (Entered: 04/18/2019)

05/15/2019 2863 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT ﬁled by John Armstrong, Gavin C. Newsom, et al. (Godbold, Penny) (Filed on 5/15/2019) Modiﬁed on 5/16/2019 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/15/2019)

05/20/2019 2864 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR PAYMENT

ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 6/3/2019. Replies due by 6/10/2019. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 5/20/2019) Modiﬁed on 5/21/2019 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/20/2019)

05/23/2019

2865

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Conﬁrming Undisputed Attorneys Fees and Costs for the First Quarter of 2019 ﬁled by John Armstrong, Gavin C. Newsom. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 5/23/2019) Modiﬁed on 5/24/2019 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/23/2019)

05/30/2019 2866 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2864 Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/30/2019) (Entered: 05/30/2019)

05/30/2019

2867

Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2865 Stipulation Conﬁrming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for First Quarter of 2019.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/30/2019) (Entered: 05/30/2019)

05/31/2019

2868

NOTICE by J. Clark Kelso of Filing of Receiver's 41st Tri-Annual Report (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Table of Appendices, # 2 Appendix 1, # 3 Appendix 2, # 4 Appendix 3, # 5 Appendix 4) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 5/31/2019) Modiﬁed on 6/3/2019 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/31/2019)

06/06/2019 2869 Statement for TRO Injunction Relief ﬁled by Shadale L. Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(cpS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/6/2019) (Entered: 06/07/2019)

06/07/2019

2870

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 2869 . Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 6/7/19. (cwlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/7/2019) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/10/2019: # 1 Certiﬁcate/Proof of Service) (dtmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/07/2019)

06/13/2019

2871

NOTICE of Association of Counsel by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Garske, Sharon) (Filed on 6/13/2019) Modiﬁed on 6/14/2019 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/13/2019)

06/20/2019

2872

Administrative Motion and [Proposed] Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 7/5/2019. Replies due by 7/12/2019. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 6/20/2019) Modiﬁed on 6/21/2019 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/20/2019)

06/28/2019 2873 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2872 Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/28/2019) (Entered: 06/28/2019)

07/15/2019 2874 JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT ﬁled by John Armstrong, Gavin C. Newsom. (Freedman, Michael) (Filed on 7/15/2019) Modiﬁed on 7/16/2019 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/15/2019)

07/16/2019 2875 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION for Payment and [Proposed] Order ﬁled

by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 7/30/2019. Replies due by 8/6/2019. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 7/16/2019) Modiﬁed on 7/17/2019 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/16/2019)

07/29/2019 2876 RECEIVED DOCUMENT: Letter from G. Martin dated 7/23/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(cpS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/29/2019) (Entered: 07/29/2019)

08/02/2019

2877

Notice of Association of Counsel by Sharon Anne Garske (Attachments: # 1 Certiﬁcate/Proof of Service Certiﬁcate of Service)(Garske, Sharon) (Filed on 8/2/2019) Modiﬁed on 8/4/2019 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/02/2019)

08/12/2019 2878 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2875 Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/12/2019) (Entered: 08/12/2019)

08/15/2019

2879

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR EX PARTE RELIEF 2876 . Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 8/15/19. (Attachments: # 1 Certiﬁcate/Proof of Service)(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/15/2019) (Entered: 08/15/2019)

08/15/2019

2880

Administrative Motion and [Proposed] Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 8/29/2019. Replies due by 9/5/2019. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 8/15/2019) Modiﬁed on 8/16/2019 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/15/2019)

08/16/2019

2881

[Proposed] Order Directing Additional Interim Payment of Costs by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Garske, Sharon) (Filed on 8/16/2019) Modiﬁed on 8/19/2019 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/16/2019)

08/20/2019 2882 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2880 Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/20/2019) (Entered: 08/20/2019)

08/20/2019 2884 ORDER DIRECTING ADDITIONAL INTERIM PAYMENT OF COSTS. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 8/20/19. (dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/20/2019) (Entered: 08/20/2019)

08/27/2019

2885

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Conﬁrming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Second Quarter of 2019 ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 8/27/2019) (Entered: 08/27/2019)

08/29/2019

2886

Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2885 Stipulation Conﬁrming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Second Quarter of 2019.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/29/2019) (Entered: 08/29/2019)

09/16/2019 2887 Joint Case Status Statement ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Godbold, Penny) (Filed on 9/16/2019) Modiﬁed on 9/17/2019 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/16/2019)

09/19/2019

2888

Administrative Motion and [Proposed] Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 10/3/2019. Replies due by 10/10/2019. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 9/19/2019) Modiﬁed on 9/20/2019 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/19/2019)

09/23/2019 2889 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2888 Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/23/2019) (Entered: 09/23/2019)

10/01/2019

2890

Notice of Filing Receiver's 42nd Tri-Annual Report of the Federal Receiver by J. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Table of Appendices, # 2 Appendix 1, # 3 Appendix 2)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 10/1/2019) Modiﬁed on 10/2/2019 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/01/2019)

10/18/2019

2891

Administrative Motion and [Proposed] Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 11/1/2019. Replies due by 11/8/2019. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 10/18/2019) Modiﬁed on 10/21/2019 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/18/2019)

10/22/2019 2892 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2891 Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/22/2019) (Entered: 10/22/2019)

10/31/2019

2893

Receipt No. 44611016606 for $200,000.00 from defendants Re: 2884 Order Directing Additional Interim Payment of Costs ﬁled on August 20, 2019.(cjlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/31/2019) (Entered: 10/31/2019)

11/01/2019 2894 Receipt in the amount of $200,000.00 from State of California, receipt #44611016606, receipt date 10/31/2019. (pals, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/1/2019) (Entered: 11/01/2019)

11/05/2019

2895

NOTICE of Association of Counsel by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom. (Hood, Joanna) (Filed on 11/5/2019) Modiﬁed on 11/6/2019 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/05/2019)

11/06/2019

Electronic ﬁling error. Incorrect event used. [err101] Attorney Lodholz, must Register with the Electronic Filing System and File a Notice of Appearance. This ﬁling will not be processed by the clerks oﬃce. Please re-ﬁle in its entirety Re: 2895 Notice (Other) ﬁled by Gavin C. Newsom, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (cjlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/6/2019) (Entered: 11/06/2019)

11/15/2019 2896 Joint Case Status Statement ﬁled by John Armstrong, Gavin C. Newsom. (Godbold, Penny) (Filed on 11/15/2019) Modiﬁed on 11/18/2019 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/15/2019)

11/27/2019 2897 Administrative Motion and [Proposed] Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 12/11/2019. Replies due by 12/18/2019. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed

on 11/27/2019) Modiﬁed on 11/27/2019 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/27/2019)

11/27/2019

2898

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION To Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related ﬁled by F.J., R.E., D.B.. Responses due by 12/2/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix F.J. et al. v. Diaz et al. Complaint, No. 3:19-cv-7814)(Galvan, Ernest) (Filed on 11/27/2019) (Entered: 11/27/2019)

12/02/2019

2899

NOTICE of Association of Counsel by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom. (Hood, Joanna) (Filed on 12/2/2019) Modiﬁed on 12/3/2019 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/02/2019)

12/02/2019

2900

STIPULATION WITH [PROPOSED] ORDER Changing Time for Defendants to Respond to Plaintiﬀ's Adminstrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related ﬁled by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom, R.E., F.J., D.B. (De La Torre-Fennell, Annakarina) (Filed on 12/2/2019) Modiﬁed on 12/3/2019 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/02/2019)

12/03/2019 2901 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2897 Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/3/2019) (Entered: 12/03/2019)

12/03/2019 2902 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2900 Stipulation Extending Time to Respond to Motion to Relate Case.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/3/2019) (Entered: 12/03/2019)

12/03/2019

2903

Defendants' Response and Opposition to 2898 Motion to Relate Cases ﬁled by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom. (De La Torre-Fennell, Annakarina) (Filed on 12/3/2019) Modiﬁed on 12/4/2019 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/03/2019)

12/06/2019

2904

CLERK'S NOTICE. The Court ﬁnds that Cases C94-2307 CW and C19-7814 KAW are not related. re 2898 (dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/6/2019) Modiﬁed on 12/6/2019 (dtmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/06/2019)

12/16/2019

2905

Administrative Motion and [Proposed] Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 12/30/2019. Replies due by 1/6/2020. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 12/16/2019) Modiﬁed on 12/16/2019 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/16/2019)

12/17/2019 2906 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2905 Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/17/2019) (Entered: 12/17/2019)

12/17/2019

2907

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Conﬁrming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Third Quarter of 2019 ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 12/17/2019) (Entered: 12/17/2019)

01/02/2020 2908 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2907 Stipulation Conﬁrming Attorneys Fees and Costs.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/2/2020) (Entered: 01/02/2020)

01/02/2020

2909

ORDER REGARDING COMPENSATION OF COURT EXPERT. Objections due by 1/17/2020. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/2/20. (dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/2/2020) (Entered: 01/02/2020)

01/15/2020 2910 Joint Case Status Statement ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Godbold, Penny) (Filed on 1/15/2020) Modiﬁed on 1/16/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/15/2020)

01/16/2020

2911

Administrative Motion and [Proposed] Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 1/30/2020. Replies due by 2/6/2020. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 1/16/2020) Modiﬁed on 1/17/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/16/2020)

01/16/2020 2912 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2911 Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/16/2020) (Entered: 01/16/2020)

02/03/2020

2913

NOTICE of Filing Receiver's 43rd Tri-Annual Report of the Federal Receiver by J. Clark Kelso (Attachments: # 1 Appendix TABLE OF APPENDICES, # 2 Appendix APPENDIX 1, # 3 Appendix APPENDIX 2)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 2/3/2020) Modiﬁed on 2/4/2020 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/03/2020)

02/18/2020

2914

Administrative Motion and [Proposed] Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 3/3/2020. Replies due by 3/10/2020. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 2/18/2020) Modiﬁed on 2/19/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/18/2020)

02/18/2020

2915

Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2914 Motion for Disbursement of Funds.(amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/18/2020) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/19/2020: # 1 Invoice) (amgS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/18/2020)

02/25/2020

2916

STIPULATION WITH [PROPOSED] ORDER to Set Brieﬁng Schedule and Allow Memoranda in Excess of Twenty-Five Pages ﬁled by John Armstrong, Gavin C. Newsom. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 2/25/2020) Modiﬁed on 2/26/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/25/2020)

02/26/2020

2917

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken. Granting 2916 Stipulation TO SET BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND ALLOW MEMORANDA IN EXCESS OF TWENTY-FIVE PAGES. Motions due by 2/28/2020, Responses due by 4/27/2020, Replies due by 5/11/2020 and Motion Hearing set for 5/19/2020 02:30 PM before Judge Claudia Wilken. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/26/2020) (Entered: 02/26/2020)

02/26/2020 2918 [Proposed] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER Regarding Disclosure of Defendants' Employees' Personnel Information ﬁled by Gavin C.

Newsom, John Armstrong. (Hood, Joanna) (Filed on 2/26/2020) Modiﬁed on 2/27/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/26/2020)

02/27/2020

2919

Order by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2918 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING DISCLOSURE OF DEFENDANTS EMPLOYEES PERSONNEL INFORMATION. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/27/2020) (Entered: 02/27/2020)

02/27/2020

2920

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal in Support of Motion to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against People with Disabilities at RJ Donovan Correctional Facility ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Michael Freedman in Support of Administrative Motion to Seal, # 2 Declaration Jessica Winter in Support of Administrative Motion to Seal, # 3 Proposed Order, # 4 Certiﬁcate/Proof of Service, # 5 Redacted Version of Declaration of Eldon Vail in Support of Motion to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against People with Disabilities at RJ Donovan Correctional Facility, # 6 Unredacted Version of Declaration of Eldon Vail in Support of Motion to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against People with Disabilities at RJ Donovan Correctional Facility) (Freedman, Michael) (Filed on 2/27/2020) (Entered: 02/27/2020)

02/27/2020

2921

EXHIBITS re 2920 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal in Support of Motion to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against People with Disabilities at RJ Donovan Correctional Facility ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Redacted Version of Declaration of Michael Freedman in Support of Motion to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against People with Disabilities at RJ Donovan Correctional Facility, # 2 Unredacted Version of Declaration of Michael Freedman in Support of Motion to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against People with Disabilities at RJ Donovan Correctional Facility, # 3 Redacted Exhibits 1-30b to Declaration of Michael Freedman, # 4 Redacted Exhibits 31-63b to Declaration of Michael Freedman, # 5 Redacted Exhibits 64-90 to Declaration of Michael Freedman, # 6 Unredacted Exhibits 1-30b to Declaration of Michael Freedman, # 7 Unredacted Exhibits 31-63b to Declaration of Michael Freedman, # 8 Unredacted Exhibits 64-90 to Declaration of Michael Freedman)(Related document(s) 2920 ) (Freedman, Michael) (Filed on 2/27/2020) (Entered: 02/27/2020)

02/28/2020

2922

MOTION for Permanent Injunction to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against People with Disabilities at R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility ﬁled by John Armstrong. Motion Hearing set for 5/19/2020 02:00 PM before Judge Claudia Wilken. Responses due by 4/27/2020. Replies due by 5/11/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Gay Grunfeld in Support of Motion, # 2 Declaration [Redacted] Michael Freedman in Support of Motion, # 3 [Redacted] Exs. 1-30b to Declaration of Michael Freedman, # 4 [Redacted] Exs. 31-63b to Declaration of Michael Freedman, # 5 [Redacted] Exs. 64-90 to Declaration of Michael Freedman, # 6

Declaration [Redacted] Eldon Vail in Support of Motion, # 7 Declaration Penny Godbold in Support of Motion, # 8 Proposed Order)(Freedman, Michael) (Filed on 2/28/2020) (Entered: 02/28/2020)

03/02/2020

2923

CLERK'S NOTICE. Notice is hereby given that counsel must renotice not re- ﬁle the 2922 MOTION for Permanent Injunction to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against People with Disabilities at R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility. Judge Wilken holds Civil Law and Motion at 2:30 pm. Please re-notice the previously set incorrect hearing time of 2:00 p.m. The brieﬁng schedule remains in eﬀect. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/2/2020) (Entered: 03/02/2020)

03/02/2020

2924

Renotice motion hearing re 2922 MOTION for Permanent Injunction to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against People with Disabilities at R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 2922 ) (Freedman, Michael) (Filed on 3/2/2020) (Entered: 03/02/2020)

03/02/2020 2925

Declaration of Lodholz in Response to 2920 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal in Support of Motion to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against People with Disabilities at RJ Donovan Correctional Facility ﬁled by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom. (Lodholz, Sean) (Filed on 3/2/2020) Modiﬁed on 3/3/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/02/2020)

03/02/2020

Reset Hearing as to 2922 MOTION for Permanent Injunction to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against People with Disabilities at R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility. Motion Hearing set for 5/19/2020 02:30 PM before Judge Claudia Wilken. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/2/2020) (Entered: 03/02/2020)

03/06/2020

2926

[Proposed] Stipulated Order Conﬁrming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Fourth Quarter of 2019 ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 3/6/2020) Modiﬁed on 3/9/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/06/2020)

03/06/2020

2927

STIPULATED ORDER CONFIRMING UNDISPUTED ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS FOR THE FOURTH QUARTER OF 2019 by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2926 Stipulation. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/6/2020) (Entered: 03/06/2020)

03/10/2020

2928

STIPULATION WITH [PROPOSED] ORDER to Change Time to File Joint Status Conference Statement ﬁled by John Armstrong, Gavin C. Newsom. (Godbold, Penny) (Filed on 3/10/2020) Modiﬁed on 3/11/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/10/2020)

03/10/2020 2929 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2928 STIPULATION TO CHANGE TIME TO FILE JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT. Joint Status Conference Statement due by

4/15/2020. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/10/2020) (Entered: 03/10/2020)

03/17/2020

2930

STIPULATION WITH [PROPOSED] ORDER re 2922 MOTION for Permanent Injunction to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against People with Disabilities at R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility ﬁled by John Armstrong, Gavin C. Newsom. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 3/17/2020) Modiﬁed on 3/18/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/17/2020)

03/17/2020 2931 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2930 STIPULATION PROHIBITING RETALIATION. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/17/2020) (Entered: 03/17/2020)

03/18/2020

2932

Administrative Motion and [Proposed] Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 4/1/2020. Replies due by 4/8/2020. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 3/18/2020) Modiﬁed on 3/18/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/18/2020)

03/18/2020 2933 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2932 Motion for Payment. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/18/2020) (Entered: 03/18/2020)

04/10/2020

2934

Administrative Motion and [Proposed] Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 4/24/2020. Replies due by 5/1/2020. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 4/10/2020) Modiﬁed on 4/13/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/10/2020)

04/15/2020 2935 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2934 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/15/2020) (Entered: 04/15/2020)

04/15/2020 2936 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT ﬁled by John Armstrong, Gavin c. Newsom. (Godbold, Penny) (Filed on 4/15/2020) Modiﬁed on 4/16/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/15/2020)

04/16/2020

2937

STIPULATION WITH [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME ﬁled by John Armstrong, Gavin C. Newsom. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 4/16/2020) Modiﬁed on 4/17/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/16/2020)

04/17/2020 2938 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2937 Stipulation. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/17/2020) (Entered: 04/17/2020)

04/17/2020

Reset Deadlines as to 2922 MOTION. Response due by 5/26/2020. Reply due by 6/9/2020. Motion Hearing set for 6/16/2020 02:30 PM before Judge Claudia Wilken. See Docket No. 2938 . (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/17/2020) (Entered: 04/17/2020)

05/13/2020 2939 ASSOCIATION of Counsel by Gavin C. Newsom. (Hood, Joanna) (Filed on 5/13/2020) (Entered: 05/13/2020)

05/20/2020 2940 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Opposition to Plaintiﬀ's Motion

ﬁled by Gavin C. Newsom, John Armstrong. (Hood, Joanna) (Filed on 5/20/2020) Modiﬁed on 5/21/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/20/2020)

05/21/2020

2941

***DISREGARD. SEE 2942 FOR CORRECTED ORDER*** ORDER AS MODIFIED BY THE COURT by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2940 Stipulated Request for Extension of Time.(amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/21/2020) Modiﬁed on 5/21/2020 (amgS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/21/2020)

05/21/2020

2942

CORRECTED ORDER AS MODIFIED BY THE COURT by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2940 Stipulated Request for Extension of Time. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 5/21/2020. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/21/2020) (Entered: 05/21/2020)

05/21/2020

Reset Deadlines and Hearing re 2922 MOTION. Response due by 6/9/2020. Reply due by 6/30/2020. Motion Hearing set for 7/21/2020 02:30 PM before Judge Claudia Wilken. See Docket No. 2942 (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/21/2020) (Entered: 05/21/2020)

05/21/2020

2943

Administrative Motion and [Proposed] Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 6/4/2020. Replies due by 6/11/2020. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 5/21/2020) Modiﬁed on 5/22/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/21/2020)

05/22/2020 2944 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2943 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR ORDER FOR PAYMENT.(amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/22/2020) (Entered: 05/22/2020)

05/29/2020 2945 NOTICE of Appearance by Alicia Anne Bower OF COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS (Bower, Alicia) (Filed on 5/29/2020) (Entered: 05/29/2020)

06/01/2020 2946 Notice of Filing of Receiver's 44th Tri-Annual Report by J. Clark Kelso. (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 6/1/2020) Modiﬁed on 6/2/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/01/2020)

06/03/2020

2947

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal in Support of Motion to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against People with Disabilities ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld in Support of Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Certiﬁcate/Proof of Service, # 4 Redacted Version of Declaration of Michael Freedman in Support of Motion to Stop Defs from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against People with Disabilities, # 5 Unredacted Version of Declaration of Michael Freedman in Support of Motion to Stop Defs from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against People with Disabilities, # 6 Redacted Version of Declaration of Thomas Nolan in Support of Motion to Stop Defs from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against People with Disabilities, # 7 Unredacted Version of Declaration of Thomas

Nolan in Support of Motion to Stop Defs from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against People with Disabilities, # 8 Redacted Version of Declaration of Jeﬀrey A. Schwartz, Ph.D., # 9 Unredacted Version of Declaration of Jeﬀrey A. Schwartz, Ph.D.)(Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 6/3/2020) (Entered: 06/03/2020)

06/03/2020

2948

MOTION for Permanent Injunction to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against People with Disabilities ﬁled by John Armstrong. Motion Hearing set for 7/21/2020 02:30 PM before Judge Claudia Wilken. Responses due by 6/17/2020. Replies due by 6/24/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld, # 2 Declaration [Redacted] of Michael Freedman, # 3 Declaration [Redacted] of Thomas Nolan, # 4 Declaration [Redacted] of Jeﬀrey A. Schwartz, Ph.D., # 5 Certiﬁcate/Proof of Service of Exh W-2 to Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld, # 6 Proposed Order)(Freedman, Michael) (Filed on 6/3/2020) (Entered: 06/03/2020)

06/04/2020 2949 ORDER REGARDING PENDING MOTIONS 2922 & 2948 . Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 6/4/2020. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/4/2020) (Entered: 06/04/2020)

06/08/2020

2950

SECOND DECLARATION OF LODHOLZ IN SUPPORT OF 2947 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal in Support of Motion to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against People with Disabilities ﬁled by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom. (Lodholz, Sean) (Filed on 6/8/2020) Modiﬁed on 6/8/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/08/2020)

06/08/2020 2951 Proposed Order Directing Additional Interim Payment of Costs by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom. (Lodholz, Sean) (Filed on 6/8/2020) (Entered: 06/08/2020)

06/09/2020

2952

STIPULATION WITH [PROPOSED] ORDER Granting Defendants' Request for Shortened Brieﬁng Schedule ﬁled by Gavin C. Newsom, John Armstrong. (Hood, Joanna) (Filed on 6/9/2020) Modiﬁed on 6/10/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/09/2020)

06/09/2020

2953

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2952 STIPULATION RE: DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR SHORTENED BRIEFING SCHEDULE.(amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/9/2020) (Entered: 06/09/2020)

06/09/2020

2954

First ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO STAY THE SECOND OF PLAINTIFFS TWO PENDING MOTIONS (ECF NO. 2948) OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, CHANGE DEFENDANTS TIME TO FILE A CONSOLIDATED RESPONSE re 2949 Order, 2948 MOTION for Permanent Injunction to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against People with Disabilities, 2922 MOTION for Permanent Injunction to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against People with Disabilities at R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility ﬁled by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom. Responses due by

6/15/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Sean W. Lodholz, # 2 Declaration of Jeremy Duggan, # 3 Proposed Order, # 4 Certiﬁcate/Proof of Service)(Duggan, Jeremy) (Filed on 6/9/2020) Modiﬁed on 6/15/2020 (amgS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/09/2020)

06/10/2020

2955

CLERK'S NOTICE RE: 2951 . Notice is hereby given that the parties can not ﬁle a standalone proposed order. Parties need to ﬁle a motion (or administrative motion) and follow the local rules. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/10/2020) (Entered: 06/10/2020)

06/11/2020

2956

OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 2954 First ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO STAY THE SECOND OF PLAINTIFFS TWO PENDING MOTIONS (ECF NO. 2948) OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, CHANGE DEFENDANTS TIME TO FILE A CONSOLIDATED RESPONSE re 2949 Order, 2948 MOTION for Permanent Injunction to Stop Defe ) ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld)(Freedman, Michael) (Filed on 6/11/2020) (Entered: 06/11/2020)

06/12/2020

2957

STIPULATION WITH [PROPOSED] ORDER to Change Time to File Joint Status Conference Statement ﬁled by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom, John Armstrong. (Maiorino, Trace) (Filed on 6/12/2020) Modiﬁed on 6/15/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/12/2020)

06/12/2020

2958

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2957 STIPULATION TO CHANGE TIME TO FILE JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/12/2020) (Entered: 06/12/2020)

06/15/2020

DISREGARD. FILED IN ERROR (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/15/2020) Modiﬁed on 6/15/2020 (amgS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/15/2020)

06/15/2020

Reset Deadline as to 2948 Response due by 6/17/2020. Reply due by 6/24/2020. Motion Hearing set for 7/21/2020 02:30 PM before Judge Claudia Wilken. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/15/2020) (Entered: 06/15/2020)

06/15/2020 2960 CLERK'S NOTICE. Please disregard ﬁling at Docket No. 2959 as it was ﬁled in error. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/15/2020) (Entered: 06/15/2020)

06/15/2020

2961

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 2954 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO STAY THE SECOND PENDING MOTION FOR A PERMANENT INJUNCTION, OR TO EXTEND THE TIME TO FILE A CONSOLIDATED RESPONSE.(amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/15/2020) (Entered: 06/15/2020)

06/15/2020

Reset Deadlines as to 2922 MOTION. Response due by 7/15/2020. Reply due by 7/29/2020. Motion Hearing set for 8/11/2020 02:00

PM before Judge Claudia Wilken. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/15/2020) (Entered: 06/15/2020)

06/15/2020

Reset Deadlines as to 2948 MOTION. Response due by 9/8/2020. Reply due by 9/22/2020. Motion Hearing set for 10/6/2020 02:30 PM before Judge Claudia Wilken. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/15/2020) (Entered: 06/15/2020)

06/15/2020

2962

Administrative Motion and [Proposed] Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 6/29/2020. Replies due by 7/6/2020. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 6/15/2020) Modiﬁed on 6/16/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/15/2020)

06/17/2020

2963

DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF MOTION AND ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING ADDITIONAL INTERIM PAYMENT OF COSTS by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Lodholz, Sean) (Filed on 6/17/2020) Modiﬁed on 6/18/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 6/18/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/17/2020)

06/18/2020 2964 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2962 Motion for Disbursement of Funds.(amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/18/2020) (Entered: 06/18/2020)

06/19/2020 2965 Joint Case Status Statement ﬁled by John Armstrong, Gavin c. Newsom. (Godbold, Penny) (Filed on 6/19/2020) Modiﬁed on 6/22/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/19/2020)

06/23/2020

2966

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2963 MOTION DIRECTING ADDITIONAL INTERIM PAYMENT OF COSTS. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/23/2020) (Entered: 06/23/2020)

06/23/2020

2967

STIPULATION WITH [PROPOSED] ORDER Conﬁrming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the First Quarter of 2020 ﬁled by John Armstrong, Gavin C. Newsome. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 6/23/2020) Modiﬁed on 6/24/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/23/2020)

06/24/2020

2968

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2967 STIPULATION CONFIRMING UNDISPUTED ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS FOR THE FIRST QUARTER OF 2020.(amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/24/2020) (Entered: 06/24/2020)

07/01/2020

2969

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Certiﬁcate/Proof of Service, # 4 Redacted Version of Plaintiﬀs' Notice of Ex Parte Motion and Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, # 5 Unredacted Version of Plaintiﬀs' Notice of Ex Parte Motion and Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, # 6 Redacted Version of Declaration of Michael Freedman in Support of Ex Parte Motion for

Temporary Restraining Order, # 7 Unredacted Version of Declaration of Michael Freedman in Support of Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, # 8 Redacted Version of Proposed Temporary Restraining Order, # 9 Unredacted Version of Proposed Temporary Restraining Order)(Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 7/1/2020) (Entered: 07/01/2020)

07/01/2020

2970

Ex Parte MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Michael Freedman in Support of Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, # 2 Proposed Order)(Freedman, Michael) (Filed on 7/1/2020) (Entered: 07/01/2020)

07/02/2020

2971

NOTICE of Intended Opposition to Plaintiﬀs' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom. (Maiorino, Trace) (Filed on 7/2/2020) Modiﬁed on 7/6/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/02/2020)

07/02/2020 2972 TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER re: 2970 . Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 7/2/2020. (cwlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/2/2020) (Entered: 07/02/2020)

07/02/2020

Set Deadlines/Hearings re Docket No. 2972 : Joint Status Report due by 7/9/2020. Show Cause Response due by 7/10/2020. Responses due by 7/13/2020. Order to Show Cause Hearing set for 7/16/2020 02:30 PM.

This proceeding will be held by AT&T Conference Line. The court circulates the following conference number to allow the equivalent of a public hearing by telephone.

For conference line information, see: https://apps.cand.uscourts.gov/telhrg/

All counsel, members of the public and press please use the following dial-in information below to access the conference line:

Dial In: 888-684-8852

Access Code: 5553656

The Court may be in session with proceedings in progress when you connect to the conference line. Therefore, mute your phone if possible and wait for the Court to address you before speaking on the line. For call clarity, parties shall NOT use speaker phone or earpieces for these calls, and where at all possible, parties shall use landlines.

PLEASE NOTE: Persons granted access to court proceedings held by telephone or videoconference are reminded that photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings, including screenshots or other visual copying of a hearing, is absolutely prohibited. See General Order 58 at Paragraph III.

Responses due by 7/13/2020. Show Cause Response due by 7/10/2020. Status Report due by 7/9/2020. Order to Show Cause Hearing set for 7/16/2020 02:30 PM. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/2/2020) (Entered: 07/02/2020)

07/06/2020 3030 Letter from Mario A. Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(cjlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/6/2020) (Entered: 08/03/2020)

07/09/2020

2973

Joint Administrative Motion to File Under Seal ﬁled by John Armstrong, Gavin C. Newsom. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 JOINT STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO COURTS ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS MOTION ON TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER [ECF NO. 2972])(Freedman, Michael) (Filed on 7/9/2020) Modiﬁed on 7/10/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/09/2020)

07/09/2020

2974

Statement re 2972 Order on Motion for TRO JOINT STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO COURTS ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS MOTION ON TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER [ECF NO. 2972] by John Armstrong. (Freedman, Michael) (Filed on 7/9/2020) (Entered: 07/09/2020)

07/10/2020 2975 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2973 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal.(amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/10/2020) (Entered: 07/10/2020)

07/10/2020

2978

ORDER FOR TRANSFER OF INMATE #1, TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL.. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 7/10/2020. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/10/2020) (amgS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/10/2020)

07/10/2020

2979

ORDER FOR TRANSFER OF INMATE #2, TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 7/10/2020. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/10/2020) (amgS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/10/2020)

07/10/2020 2980 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2969 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal.(amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/10/2020) (Entered: 07/10/2020)

07/10/2020 2981

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal in Support of Defendants' Response to Order to Show Cause Regarding Preliminary Injunction [ECF No. 2972] ﬁled by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom. ***SEE DOCKET ENTRY 2983 FOR CORRECTION TO ATTACHMENT 4 - REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT***(Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Tartaglio, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Unredacted Version of Document(s) Sought to be Sealed, # 4 Redacted Version of Document(s) Sought to be Sealed)(Tartaglio, Anthony) (Filed on 7/10/2020) Modiﬁed on 7/13/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/10/2020)

07/10/2020

2982

RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom Regarding Preliminary Injunction. ***ATTACHMENT 2, RE-FILED AT DOCKET ENTRY 2984 *** Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Anderson with Exh. A-C (redacted), # 2 Declaration of Armenta with Exh. A-F

(redacted), # 3 Declaration of Boyd (redacted), # 4 Declaration of Spearman with Exh. 1 (redacted), # 5 Declaration of Hernandez with Exh. A-S (redacted))(Maiorino, Trace) (Filed on 7/10/2020) Modiﬁed on 7/13/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/10/2020)

07/10/2020

2983

***CORRECTION OF DOCKET # [2981-4]*** REDACTED Administrative Motion to File Under Seal ﬁled by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom. (Tartaglio, Anthony) (Filed on 7/10/2020) Modiﬁed on 7/13/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/10/2020)

07/10/2020

2984

***CORRECTION OF DOCKET # [2982-2]*** Declaration of Armenta with Exh. A-F (redacted) Re: 2982 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom. (Maiorino, Trace) (Filed on 7/10/2020) Modiﬁed on 7/13/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/10/2020)

07/10/2020

2985

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom re 2981 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal in Support of Defendants' Response to Order to Show Cause Regarding Preliminary Injunction [ECF No. 2972] (Tartaglio, Anthony) (Filed on 7/10/2020) (Entered: 07/10/2020)

07/12/2020

2986

STIPULATION WITH [PROPOSED] ORDER for Extension of Time re 2972 Order on Motion for TRO ﬁled by John Armstrong, Gavin C. Newsom. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 7/12/2020) Modiﬁed on 7/13/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/12/2020)

07/12/2020 2987 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 2979 Order, 2978 Order ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 7/12/2020) (Entered: 07/12/2020)

07/13/2020 2988 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2986 Stipulation for Extension of Time.(amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/13/2020) (Entered: 07/13/2020)

07/13/2020

2989

MOTION to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document ﬁled by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Tartaglio, Anthony) (Filed on 7/13/2020) (Entered: 07/13/2020)

07/13/2020 2990 CLERKS NOTICE SETTING ZOOM HEARING. Order to Show Cause Hearing set for 7/16/2020 02:30 PM.

For Zoom connection, see: https://apps.cand.uscourts.gov/telhrg/

This proceeding will be a Zoom video conferencing webinar. ADVANCE REGISTRATION OF PARTICIPATING COUNSEL IS REQUIRED and must be done by emailing a list of names and emails of counsel who will be participating in the hearing to cwcrd@cand.uscourts.gov by no later than July 15, 2020 at 12:00 PM PST.

PLEASE NOTE: Persons granted access to court proceedings held by telephone or videoconference are reminded that photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings, including screenshots or other visual copying of a hearing, is absolutely prohibited. See General Order 58 at Paragraph III.
Case participants may also receive an email invitation from the court with diﬀerent information which should be followed.
All counsel, members of the public and press please click the link or use the information below to join the webinar:
https://cand-uscourts.zoomgov.com/j/1605265531? pwd=b3FhUE5jWkZJUFVEVHgva0xDbk5FUT09
Meeting ID: 160 526 5531 Password: 593853
Dial by your location +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) +1 253 215 8782 US +1 301 715 8592 US +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/ac4JkPfcjo

For important information and guidance on technical preparation, please see https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/zoom/.

Order to Show Cause Hearing set for 7/16/2020 02:30 PM. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no docu ment associated with this entry.) (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/13/2020) (Entered: 07/13/2020)

07/13/2020 2991 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2987 Stipulation. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/13/2020) (amgS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/13/2020)

07/14/2020 2992 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2989 Motion to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document.(amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/14/2020) (Entered: 07/14/2020)

07/14/2020

2993

EXHIBIT E 1 CD re 2982 Response to Order to Show Cause,, ﬁled byCalifornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom. (Related document(s) 2982 ) (anjS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/14/2020) (Entered: 07/14/2020)

07/14/2020

2994

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Documents in Support of Plaintiﬀs' Motion to Protect Armstrong Class Members During COVID-19 Pandemic ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Certiﬁcate/Proof of Service, # 4 Redacted Version of Declaration of

Rita Lomio in Support of Plaintiﬀs' Motion to Protect Armstrong Class Members During COVID-19 Pandemic, # 5 Unredacted Version of Declaration of Rita Lomio in Support of Plaintiﬀs' Motion to Protect Armstrong Class Members During COVID-19 Pandemic, # 6 Redacted Version of Declaration of Patrick Booth in Support of Plaintiﬀs' Motion to Protect Armstrong Class Members During COVID-19 Pandemic, # 7 Unredacted Version of Declaration of Patrick Booth in Support of Plaintiﬀs' Motion to Protect Armstrong Class Members During COVID-19 Pandemic, # 8 Redacted Version of Declaration of Corene Kendrick in Support of Plaintiﬀs' Motion to Protect Armstrong Class Members During COVID-19 Pandemic, # 9 Unredacted Version of Declaration of Corene Kendrick in Support of Plaintiﬀs' Motion to Protect Armstrong Class Members During COVID-19 Pandemic)(Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 7/14/2020) (Entered: 07/14/2020)

07/14/2020

2995

EXHIBITS re 2994 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Documents in Support of Plaintiﬀs' Motion to Protect Armstrong Class Members During COVID-19 Pandemic ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Redacted Version of Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld in Support of Plaintiﬀs' Motion to Protect Armstrong Class Members During COVID-19 Pandemic, # 2 Unredacted Version of Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld in Support of Plaintiﬀs' Motion to Protect Armstrong Class Members During COVID-19 Pandemic)(Related document(s) 2994 ) (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 7/14/2020) (Entered: 07/14/2020)

07/14/2020 2996

Plaintiﬀs' Motion to Protect Armstrong Class Members During the COVID-19 Pandemic ﬁled by John Armstrong. Responses due by 7/28/2020. Replies due by 8/4/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Rita Lomio, # 2 Declaration Patrick Booth, # 3 Declaration Corene Kendrick, # 4 Declaration Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld, # 5 Declaration Ernest Galvan, # 6 Declaration Penny Godbold, # 7 Declaration Tania Amarillas, # 8 Declaration Dr. Tara Vijayan, # 9 Proposed Order)(Lomio, Rita) (Filed on 7/14/2020) Modiﬁed on 7/15/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/14/2020)

07/14/2020

2997

MOTION to Shorten Time for Hearing and Brieﬁng on Plaintiﬀs' Motion to Protect Armstrong Class Members During the COVID-19 Pandemic ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Margot Mendelson, # 2 Proposed Order)(Mendelson, Margot) (Filed on 7/14/2020) (Entered: 07/14/2020)

07/14/2020

3010

EXHIBITS 13 Manually Filed CD/DVD/Flash Drive re 2998 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Documents in Support of Plaintiﬀs' Response in Support of Preliminary Injunction ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. ***FILED UNDER SEAL*** (Related document(s) 2998 ) (jlmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/14/2020) (Entered: 07/16/2020)

07/15/2020

2998

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Documents in Support of Plaintiﬀs' Response in Support of Preliminary Injunction ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld, # 2 Certiﬁcate/Proof of Service, # 3 Proposed Order, # 4

Unredacted Version of Plaintiﬀs' Response in Support of Preliminary Injunction, # 5 Redacted Version of Plaintiﬀs' Response in Support of Preliminary Injunction, # 6 Unredacted Version of Declaration of Michael Freedman in Support of Preliminary Injunction, # 7 Redacted Version of Declaration of Michael Freedman in Support of Preliminary Injunction, # 8 Unredacted Version of Declaration of Eldon Vail in Support of Preliminary Injunction, # 9 Redacted Version of Declaration of Eldon Vail in Support of Preliminary Injunction, # 10 Unredacted Version of Proposed Preliminary Injunction, # 11 Redacted Version of Proposed Preliminary Injunction)(Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 7/15/2020) (Entered: 07/15/2020)

07/15/2020 2999

Plaintiﬀs' Response in Support of Preliminary Injunction by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Michael Freedman in Support of Preliminary Injunction, # 2 Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld in Support of Preliminary Injunction, # 3 Declaration of Penny Godbold in Support of Preliminary Injunction, # 4 Declaration of Eldon Vail in Support of Preliminary Injunction, # 5 Proposed Order Redacted Version of Proposed Preliminary Injunction)(Freedman, Michael) (Filed on 7/15/2020) Modiﬁed on 7/15/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/15/2020)

07/15/2020

3000

Administrative Motion and [Proposed] Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 7/29/2020. Replies due by 8/5/2020. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 7/15/2020) Modiﬁed on 7/15/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/15/2020)

07/15/2020

3001

ERRATA re 2996 Plaintiﬀs' Motion to Protect Armstrong Class Members During the COVID-19 Pandemic (Corrected Exhibit) by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit X)(Mendelson, Margot) (Filed on 7/15/2020) (Entered: 07/15/2020)

07/15/2020

3002

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal in Support of Defendants' Response to Plaintiﬀs' Motion Regarding Complaints of Excessive Force and Retaliation at R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility ﬁled by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Lodholz, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Redacted Version of Document(s) Sought to be Sealed, # 4 Unredacted Version of Document(s) Sought to be Sealed (Part 1 of 3))(Lodholz, Sean) (Filed on 7/15/2020) (Entered: 07/15/2020)

07/15/2020

3003

EXHIBITS re 3002 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal in Support of Defendants' Response to Plaintiﬀs' Motion Regarding Complaints of Excessive Force and Retaliation at R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility Unredacted Version of Document(s) Sought to be Sealed (Part 2 of 3) ﬁled byCalifornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom. (Related document(s) 3002 ) (Lodholz, Sean) (Filed on 7/15/2020) (Entered: 07/15/2020)

07/15/2020 3004 EXHIBITS re 3002 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal in Support of Defendants' Response to Plaintiﬀs' Motion Regarding Complaints of Excessive Force and Retaliation at R.J. Donovan

Correctional Facility Unredacted Version of Document(s) Sought to be Sealed (Part 3 of 3) ﬁled byCalifornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom. (Related document(s) 3002 ) (Lodholz, Sean) (Filed on 7/15/2020) (Entered: 07/15/2020)

07/15/2020 3005 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 3000 Motion for Disbursement of Funds.(amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/15/2020) (Entered: 07/15/2020)

07/15/2020

3006

OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 2922 MOTION for Permanent Injunction to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against People with Disabilities at R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility ) Defendants' Response to Plaintiﬀs' Motion Regarding Complaints of Excessive Force and Retaliation at R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility ﬁled byCalifornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Amy Miller, # 2 Declaration Ken McGinnis, # 3 Declaration L. Olgin, # 4 Declaration Ralph Diaz, # 5 Declaration Jeﬀ Macomber, # 6 Declaration Lodholz)(Bower, Alicia) (Filed on 7/15/2020) (Entered: 07/15/2020)

07/15/2020

3007

Request for Judicial notice in Support of 3006 Defendants' Response to Plaintiﬀs' Motion Regarding Complaints of Excessive Force and Retaliation at R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility ﬁled by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom. (Related document(s) 3006 ) (Bower, Alicia) (Filed on 7/15/2020) Modiﬁed on 7/15/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/15/2020)

07/15/2020 3008 Receipt #44611016908 in the amount of $200,000.00 received from State of California on 07/14/2020. **Text only entry** (pals, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/15/2020) (Entered: 07/15/2020)

07/15/2020 3009

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re 3002 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal in Support of Defendants' Response to Plaintiﬀs' Motion Regarding Complaints of Excessive Force and Retaliation at R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom. (Lodholz, Sean) (Filed on 7/15/2020) Modiﬁed on 7/16/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/15/2020)

07/16/2020 3012

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Claudia Wilken: Order to Show Cause Hearing on Plaintiﬀs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction Hearing held on 7/16/2020.Total Time in Court: 1:35. Court Reporter: Diane Skillman. Plaintiﬀ Attorney: Gay Grunfeld, Penny Godbold & Michael Freedman. Defendant Attorney: Joanna Hood, Trace Mairorino & Jeremy Duggan. Court Expert: Ed Swanson. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 7/16/2020) (Entered: 07/20/2020)

07/17/2020 3011 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on 07/16/2020 before Judge Claudia Wilken by John Armstrong, for Court Reporter Diane

Skillman. (Freedman, Michael) (Filed on 7/17/2020) (Entered: 07/17/2020)

07/20/2020

3013

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 2996 Plaintiﬀs' Motion to Protect Armstrong Class Members During the COVID-19 Pandemic ﬁled by Gavin C. Newsom , John Armstrong, et al.. (Hood, Joanna) (Filed on 7/20/2020) Modiﬁed on 7/21/2020 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/20/2020)

07/20/2020

3014

TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on 7/16/2020 before Judge Claudia Wilken by Gavin C. Newsom, for Court Reporter Diane Skillman. (Hood, Joanna) (Filed on 7/20/2020) (Entered: 07/20/2020)

07/20/2020 3015 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 3013 Stipulation. Status Report due by 8/19/2020.(amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/20/2020) (Entered: 07/20/2020)

07/21/2020

3016

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Documents in Support of Defendants' Response to the Court's July 16, 2020 Request for Additional Information ﬁled by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Maiorino, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Declaration of Armenta in Response (Redacted) to the Courts July 16, 2020 Request for Additional Information Concerning s Rules Violation Reports (with Ex. A & B), # 4 Declaration of Armenta in Response to the Courts July 16, 2020 Request for Additional Information Concerning s Rules Violation Reports (with Ex. A & B) (Underseal), # 5 Declaration of Shaﬀer in Response to the Courts July 16, 2020 Request for Additional Information Concerning Elderly Parole Program (Redacted), # 6 Declaration of Shaﬀer in Response to the Courts July 16, 2020 Request for Additional Information Concerning Elderly Parole Program (Underseal))(Maiorino, Trace) (Filed on 7/21/2020) (Entered: 07/21/2020)

07/21/2020

3017

Redacted Supplemental Declaration of Penny Godbold in Support of Preliminary Injunction by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Certiﬁcate/Proof of Service)(Godbold, Penny) (Filed on 7/21/2020) Modiﬁed on 7/22/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/21/2020)

07/21/2020

3018

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom re 3016 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Documents in Support of Defendants' Response to the Court's July 16, 2020 Request for Additional Information (Maiorino, Trace) (Filed on 7/21/2020) (Entered: 07/21/2020)

07/22/2020

3019

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Supplemental Declaration of Penny Godbold in Support of Preliminary Injunction (redacted version ﬁled July 21, 2020 at Docket No. 3017) ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld, # 2 Certiﬁcate/Proof of Service, # 3 Proposed Order, # 4 Redacted Version of Supplemental Declaration of Penny Godbold in Support of Preliminary Injunction, # 5 Unredacted Version of

Supplemental Declaration of Penny Godbold in Support of Preliminary Injunction)(Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 7/22/2020) (Entered: 07/22/2020)

07/23/2020

3020

STIPULATION WITH [PROPOSED] ORDER to Allow Reply Memorandum in Excess of Fifteen Pages ﬁled by John Armstrong, Gavin C. Newsom. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 7/23/2020) Modiﬁed on 7/24/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/23/2020)

07/24/2020 3021

Transcript of Proceedings held on July 16, 2020, before Judge Claudia Wilken. Court Reporter Diane E. Skillman, telephone number 925-899-2912, Diane_Skillman@cand.uscourts.gov. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerk's Oﬃce public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this ﬁling. (Re 3011 Transcript Order ) Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/22/2020. (Related documents(s) 3011 ) (Skillman, Diane) (Filed on 7/24/2020) (Entered: 07/24/2020)

07/27/2020

3022

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 3020 STIPULATION TO ALLOW REPLY MEMORANDUM IN EXCESS OF FIFTEEN PAGES.(amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/27/2020) (Entered: 07/27/2020)

07/29/2020

3023

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Documents in Support of Plaintiﬀs Reply in Support of Motion to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against People with Disabilities at R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld in Support of Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, # 2 Certiﬁcate/Proof of Service, # 3 Proposed Order, # 4 Redacted Version of Reply Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld in Support of Pls' Motion to Stop Defs from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against People with Disabilities at R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility, # 5 Unredacted Version of Reply Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld in Support of Pls' Motion to Stop Defs from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against People with Disabilities at R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility, # 6 Redacted Version of Reply Declaration of Penny Godbold in Support of Pls' Motion to Stop Defs from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against People with Disabilities at R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility, # 7 Unredacted Version of Reply Declaration of Penny Godbold in Support of Pls' Motion to Stop Defs from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against People with Disabilities at R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility, # 8 Redacted Version of Reply Declaration of Eldon Vail in Support of Pls' Motion to Stop Defs from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against People with Disabilities at R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility, # 9 Unredacted Version of Reply Declaration of Eldon Vail in Support of Pls' Motion to Stop Defs from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against People with Disabilities at R.J.

Donovan Correctional Facility, # 10 Indices of Exhibits to Declarations Filed in Support of Plaintiﬀs' Motions to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against People with Disabilities)(Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 7/29/2020) (Entered: 07/29/2020)

07/29/2020

3024

REPLY (re 2922 MOTION for Permanent Injunction to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against People with Disabilities at R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility ) ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld, # 2 Declaration of Penny Godbold, # 3 Declaration of Eldon Vail, # 4 Declaration of Donald Specter, # 5 Certiﬁcate/Proof of Service of Exhibit 2 to Reply Vail Declaration, # 6 Proposed Order Revised Proposed Order)(Freedman, Michael) (Filed on 7/29/2020) (Entered: 07/29/2020)

07/30/2020

3025

ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Re Docket Nos. 2978 and 2979 . Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 7/30/2020. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/30/2020) (Entered: 07/30/2020)

07/30/2020 3026 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION RE Docket Nos. 2978 and 2979 . Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 7/30/2020. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/30/2020) (Entered: 07/30/2020)

07/30/2020

3027

SEALED DOCUMENT-ORDER IDENTIFYING INMATES DISCUSSED IN ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION RE DOCKET NOS. 2978 and 2979 . Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 7/30/2020. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/30/2020) (Entered: 07/30/2020)

07/30/2020

3028

***FILED UNDER SEAL*** EXHIBITS R, GG, HH, II and JJ to Reply Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld in Support [Flash Drive Manually Filed] re 3023 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Documents in Support of Plaintiﬀs Reply in Support of Motion to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against People with Disabilities at R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 3023 ) (jlmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/30/2020) (Entered: 07/30/2020)

07/30/2020

3029

***FILED UNDER SEAL*** EXHIBITS 2 to Reply Declaration of Eldon Vail in Support [Flash Drive - Manually Filed] re 3023 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Documents in Support of Plaintiﬀs Reply in Support of Motion to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against People with Disabilities at R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 3023 ) (jlmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/30/2020) (Entered: 07/30/2020)

08/03/2020

3031

Declaration of Sean W. Lodholz in Support of 3023 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Documents in Support of Plaintiﬀs Reply in Support of Motion to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against People with Disabilities at R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility ﬁled byGavin C. Newsom. (Related

document(s) 3023 ) (Lodholz, Sean) (Filed on 8/3/2020) (Entered: 08/03/2020)

08/04/2020

3032

STIPULATION WITH [PROPOSED] ORDER Prohibiting Retaliation in Prisons Subject to Statewide Motion ﬁled by John Armstrong, Gavin C. Newsom. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 8/4/2020) Modiﬁed on 8/5/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/04/2020)

08/04/2020 3036 Letter from Mario A. Gonzalez. (cjlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/4/2020) (Entered: 08/10/2020)

08/05/2020

3033

Defendants Objections To Plaintiﬀs Evidence On Reply In Support Of Their Motion Regarding Complaints Of Excessive Force And Retaliation At R.J. Don Correctional Facility 2922 ﬁled by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom. (Bower, Alicia) (Filed on 8/5/2020) Modiﬁed on 8/6/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/05/2020)

08/06/2020

3034

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 3032 STIPULATION PROHIBITING RETALIATION IN PRISONS SUBJECT TO STATEWIDE MOTION.(amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/6/2020) (Entered: 08/06/2020)

08/06/2020 3035 CLERKS NOTICE SETTING ZOOM HEARING. Notice is hereby given that the 8/11/2020 Hearing at 2:00 p.m. will be conducted via Zoom Webinar.

For Zoom connection, see: https://apps.cand.uscourts.gov/telhrg/

This proceeding will be a Zoom video conferencing webinar. ADVANCE REGISTRATION OF PARTICIPATING COUNSEL IS REQUIRED and must be done by emailing a list of names and emails of counsel who will be participating in the hearing to cwcrd@cand.uscourts.gov by no later than August 10, 2020 at 12:00 PM PST.

PLEASE NOTE: Persons granted access to court proceedings held by telephone or videoconference are reminded that photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings, including screenshots or other visual copying of a hearing, is absolutely prohibited. See General Order 58 at Paragraph III.

Case participants may also receive an email invitation from the court with diﬀerent information which should be followed.

All counsel, members of the public and press please click the link or use the information below to join the webinar: https://canduscourts.zoomgov.com/j/1605265531? pwd=b3FhUE5jWkZJUFVEVHgva0xDbk5FUT09

Meeting ID: 160 526 5531 Password: 593853

Dial by your location +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) +1 253 215 8782 US +1 301 715 8592 US +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/ac4JkPfcjo

For important information and guidance on technical preparation, please see https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/zoom/.

,.

For Zoom connection, see: https://apps.cand.uscourts.gov/telhrg/

(amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/6/2020) Modiﬁed on 8/10/2020 (amgS, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 8/10/2020 (amgS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/06/2020)

08/11/2020

3037

Stipulated Modiﬁed Protective Order Regarding Disclosure of Defendants' Employees' Personnel Information ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 8/11/2020) Modiﬁed on 8/12/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/11/2020)

08/11/2020

3038

TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on 08/11/2020 before Judge Claudia Wilken by John Armstrong, for Court Reporter Diane Skillman. (Freedman, Michael) (Filed on 8/11/2020) (Entered: 08/11/2020)

08/12/2020

3039

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 3037 STIPULATED MODIFIED PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING DISCLOSURE OF DEFENDANTS' EMPLOYEES' PERSONNEL INFORMATION. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/12/2020) (Entered: 08/12/2020)

08/12/2020 3040

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Claudia Wilken: Hearing on Motion for Permanent Injunction held on 8/11/2020. Supplemental Response due by 8/18/2020. Reply due by 8/25/2020.Total Time in Court: 1:43. Court Reporter: Diane Skillman. Plaintiﬀ Attorney: Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld, Penny Godbold, Michael Freedman, Michael Bien. Defendant Attorney: Alicia Bower, Joanna Hood, Sean Lodholz. Court Expert: Ed Swanson(amgS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 8/12/2020) (Entered: 08/12/2020)

08/14/2020

3041

TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on 08/11/2020 before Judge Claudia Wilken by Gavin C. Newsom, for Court Reporter Diane Skillman. (Maiorino, Trace) (Filed on 8/14/2020) (Entered: 08/14/2020)

08/17/2020 3042 Transcript of Proceedings held on August 11, 2020, before Judge

Claudia Wilken. Court Reporter Diane E. Skillman, telephone number 925-899-2912, Diane_Skillman@cand.uscourts.gov. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerk's Oﬃce public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this ﬁling. (Re 3038 Transcript Order ) Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/16/2020. (Related documents(s) 3038 ) (desS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/17/2020) (Entered: 08/17/2020)

08/17/2020

3043

Administrative Motion and [Proposed] Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 8/31/2020. Replies due by 9/8/2020. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 8/17/2020) Modiﬁed on 8/17/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/17/2020)

08/17/2020 3044 Joint Case Status Statement ﬁled by John Armstrong, Gavin Newsom. (Godbold, Penny) (Filed on 8/17/2020) Modiﬁed on 8/18/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/17/2020)

08/18/2020 3045

DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO NEW MATERIAL IN PLAINTIFFS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION REGARDING COMPLAINTS OF EXCESSIVE FORCE AND RETALIATION AT R.J. DONOVAN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY re 3040 Motion Hearing ﬁled by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom. (Related document(s) 3040 ) (Tartaglio, Anthony) (Filed on 8/18/2020) Modiﬁed on 8/19/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/18/2020)

08/18/2020 3046 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 3043 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/18/2020) (Entered: 08/18/2020)

08/19/2020

3047

STATUS REPORT and Declaration of Assistant Deputy Director Adam Fouch in Response to Stipulation and Order (ECF No. 3015) by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom. (Lodholz, Sean) (Filed on 8/19/2020) (Entered: 08/19/2020)

08/19/2020

3048

Court Expert's Report and Recommendations Regarding Housing of Class Members During the COVID-19 Pandemic by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 8/19/2020) Modiﬁed on 8/20/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/19/2020)

08/20/2020

3049

ORDER REGARDING 3048 COURT EXPERT'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RESPONSE TO 3015 THE COURT'S ORDER OF JULY 20, 2020. Objections no more than 15 pages due by 9/2/2020. Responses to Objections no more than 15 pages due by 9/9/2020. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 8/20/2020. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/20/2020) (Entered: 08/20/2020)

08/21/2020

3050

Declaration of L. Olgin in Support of Defendants' Response to New Material in Plaintiﬀs' Reply in Support of Motion Regarding Complaints of Excessive Force and Retaliation at R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility (Exhibit A) ﬁled by Gavin C. Newsom. (Lodholz, Sean) (Filed on 8/21/2020) Modiﬁed on 8/24/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/21/2020)

08/25/2020

3051

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Documents in Support of Plaintiﬀs Reply to Defendants Response to New Material in Support of Plaintiﬀs RJD Motion and Renewed Request to Rescind RVRs Against Inmate 2 ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld, # 2 Certiﬁcate/Proof of Service, # 3 Proposed Order, # 4 Unredacted Version of Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld in support of Plaintiﬀs Reply to Defendants Response to New Material in Plaintiﬀs Reply in Support of Plaintiﬀs RJD Motion and Renewed Request to Rescind RVRs Against Inmate 2, # 5 Redacted Version of Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld in support of Plaintiﬀs Reply to Defendants Response to New Material in Plaintiﬀs Reply in Support of Plaintiﬀs RJD Motion and Renewed Request to Rescind RVRs Against Inmate 2)(Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 8/25/2020) (Entered: 08/25/2020)

08/25/2020 3052

Plaintiﬀs Reply to Defendants Response to New Material in Plaintiﬀs Reply in Support of RJD Motion and Renewed Request to Rescind RVRs Against Inmate 2 ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Gay C. Grunfeld in Support of Plaintiﬀs Reply to Defendants Response to New Material in Plaintiﬀs Reply in Support of RJD Motion and Renewed Request to Rescind RVRs Against Inmate 2, # 2 Declaration of Thomas Nolan in Support of Plaintiﬀs Reply to Defendants Response to New Material in Plaintiﬀs Reply in Support of RJD Motion and Renewed Request to Rescind RVRs Against Inmate 2)(Related document(s) 3040 ) (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 8/25/2020) Modiﬁed on 8/26/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/25/2020)

08/31/2020 3053

DEFENDANTS ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CHANGE TIME TO FILE AN OPPOSITION TO 2948 and 2961 PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO STOP DEFENDANTS FROM ASSAULTING, ABUSING AND RETALIATING AGAINST PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES; L.R. 6-3, 7-11 ﬁled by Gavin C. Newsom. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Trace O. Maiorino with Exhibits A to C, # 2 Proposed Order)(Maiorino, Trace) (Filed on 8/31/2020) Modiﬁed on 9/1/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/31/2020)

09/02/2020 3054

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld, # 2 Certiﬁcate/Proof of Service, # 3 Proposed Order, # 4 Redacted Version of Declaration of Patrick Booth In Support of Plaintiﬀs Response and Objections to Court Experts Report and Recommendations Regarding Housing of Armstrong Class Members During the COVID-19 Pandemic, # 5 Unredacted Version of Declaration of Patrick Booth In Support of Plaintiﬀs Response and Objections to Court Experts Report and Recommendations

Regarding Housing of Armstrong Class Members During the COVID19 Pandemic)(Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 9/2/2020) (Entered: 09/02/2020)

09/02/2020

3055

PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE AND OBJECTIONS TO 3058 COURT EXPERTS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING HOUSING OF ARMSTRONG CLASS MEMBERS DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Patrick Booth, # 2 Declaration of Tania Amarillas Diaz, # 3 Proposed Order) (Lomio, Rita) (Filed on 9/2/2020) Modiﬁed on 9/2/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/02/2020)

09/04/2020 3056

OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 3053 DEFENDANTS ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CHANGE TIME TO FILE AN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO STOP DEFENDANTS FROM ASSAULTING, ABUSING AND RETALIATING AGAINST PEOPLE WITH DISABILITI-ES; L.R. 6-3, 7-11 ) ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Michael Freedman in Opposition to Defendants Administrative Motion to Change Time to File an Opposition to Plaintiﬀs Motion to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against People with Disabilities)(Freedman, Michael) (Filed on 9/4/2020) (Entered: 09/04/2020)

09/06/2020

3057

***DISREGARD. ERROR IN FILING. *** ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO THE PENDING STATEWIDE ENFORCEMENT MOTION 3053 by Judge Claudia Wilken. (cwlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/6/2020) Modiﬁed on 9/6/2020 (cwlc1S, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/06/2020)

09/06/2020

3058

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO THE PENDING STATEWIDE ENFORCEMENT MOTION. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 9/6/20. (cwlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/6/2020) (Entered: 09/06/2020)

09/08/2020

3059

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting in part 2922 MOTION TO MODIFY REMEDIAL ORDERS AND INJUNCTIONS. Status Report due by 9/22/2020. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/8/2020) (Entered: 09/08/2020)

09/08/2020

3060

ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL REMEDIAL MEASURES re: docket no. 2922 . Objections no more than 10 pages due by 10/27/2020. Response to Objections no more than 15 pages due by 11/3/2020. Reply no more than 5 pages due by 11/8/2020. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 9/8/2020. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/8/2020) (Entered: 09/08/2020)

09/09/2020 3061 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2920 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/9/2020) (Entered: 09/09/2020)

09/09/2020 3062 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2947

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/9/2020) (Entered: 09/09/2020)

09/09/2020 3063 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2981 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/9/2020) (Entered: 09/09/2020)

09/09/2020 3064 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2998 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/9/2020) (Entered: 09/09/2020)

09/09/2020 3065 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 3002 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/9/2020) (Entered: 09/09/2020)

09/09/2020 3066 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 3016 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/9/2020) (Entered: 09/09/2020)

09/09/2020 3067 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 3019 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/9/2020) (Entered: 09/09/2020)

09/09/2020 3068 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 3023 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/9/2020) (Entered: 09/09/2020)

09/09/2020

3069

STIPULATION WITH [PROPOSED] ORDER re 3048 Status Report, ﬁled by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom, John Armstrong. (Lodholz, Sean) (Filed on 9/9/2020) Modiﬁed on 9/9/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/09/2020)

09/09/2020 3070 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 3051 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/9/2020) (Entered: 09/09/2020)

09/09/2020 3071 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 3054 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/9/2020) (Entered: 09/09/2020)

09/09/2020

3072

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 3069 STIPULATION REGARDING THE COURT EXPERT'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING HOUSING OF ARMSTRONG CLASS MEMBERS DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/9/2020) (Entered: 09/09/2020)

09/10/2020

3073

STIPULATION WITH [PROPOSED] ORDER TO SET BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING DEPOSITIONS OF ARMSTRONG CLASS MEMBERS ﬁled by John Armstrong, Gavin C. Newsom. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 9/10/2020) Modiﬁed on 9/11/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/10/2020)

09/10/2020 3074 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal ﬁled by John Armstrong.

(Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld, # 2 Certiﬁcate/Proof of Service, # 3 Proposed Order, # 4 Redacted Version of Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld in Support of Motion for Protective Order Regarding Depositions of Armstrong Class Members, # 5 Unredacted Version of Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld in Support of Motion for Protective Order Regarding Depositions of Armstrong Class Members)(Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 9/10/2020) (Entered: 09/10/2020)

09/10/2020

3075

MOTION for Protective Order Regarding Depositions of Armstrong Class Members ﬁled by John Armstrong. Motion Hearing set for 10/21/2020 02:30 PM in Oakland, Chambers before Judge Claudia Wilken. Responses due by 9/24/2020. Replies due by 10/1/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld in Support of Plaintiﬀs Motion for Protective Order Regarding Depositions of Armstrong Class Members, # 2 Proposed Order Granting Plaintiﬀs Motion for Protective Order Regarding Depositions of Armstrong Class Members)(Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 9/10/2020) (Entered: 09/10/2020)

09/11/2020

3076

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal in Support of 2948 Defendants' Response to Plaintiﬀs' Motion for a Permanent Injunction at Seven Additional Prisons and Statewide ﬁled by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Lodholz, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Declaration of Siino with Exh. A-W (REDACTED), # 4 Declaration of Arreguin with Exh A (REDACTED), # 5 Declaration of Bermudez (REDACTED), # 6 Declaration of Bonﬃl with Exh A (REDACTED), # 7 Declaration of Brown with Exh. A (REDACTED), # 8 Declaration of D. Campbell with Exh. A-B (REDACTED), # 9 Declaration of K. Campbell with Exh. A (REDACTED), # 10 Declaration of Chavarria with Exh. A (REDACTED), # 11 Declaration of Galeano with Exh. A (REDACTED), # 12 Declaration of Grider with Exh. A-B (REDACTED), # 13 Declaration of Hanks with Exh. A (REDACTED), # 14 Declaration of Hunt (REDACTED), # 15 Declaration of Jimenez with Exh. A (REDACTED), # 16 Declaration of Mijares with Exh. A (REDACTED), # 17 Declaration of Miller with Exh. A (REDACTED), # 18 Declaration of Nuno with Exh. A (REDACTED), # 19 Declaration of Parrish with Exh. A-B (REDACTED), # 20 Declaration of Perucho with Exh. A (REDACTED), # 21 Declaration of Ruiz with Exh. A (REDACTED), # 22 Declaration of Sarmiento with Exh. A (REDACTED), # 23 Declaration of Sierra with Exh A (REDACTED), # 24 Declaration of Villalobos with Exh. A (REDACTED), # 25 Declaration of Williams with Exh. A (REDACTED), # 26 Declaration of Wingﬁeld with Exh. A (REDACTED), # 27 Expert Declaration of Baldwin (REDACTED), # 28 Expert Declaration of Cate (REDACTED), # 29 Expert Declaration of Warner with Exh. A-B (REDACTED), # 30 Declaration of Olgin with Exh. A-G (REDACTED), # 31 Request for Judicial Notice with Exh. A-G (REDACTED)) (Lodholz, Sean) (Filed on 9/11/2020) Modiﬁed on 9/14/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/11/2020)

09/11/2020 3077

Declaration of C. Siino with Exhibits A-W (UNREDACTED) re 3076 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal in Support of Defendants' Response to Plaintiﬀs' Motion for a Permanent Injunction at Seven Additional Prisons and Statewide [ECF No. 2948) ﬁled by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom. (Related document(s) 3076 ) (Lodholz, Sean) (Filed on 9/11/2020) Modiﬁed on 9/14/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/11/2020)

09/11/2020 3078

Declarations of Arreguin with Exh. A (UNREDACTED), Bermudez (UNREDACTED), Bonﬃl with Exh. A (UNREDACTED) re 3076 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal in Support of Defendants' Response to Plaintiﬀs' Motion for a Permanent Injunction at Seven Additional Prisons and Statewide [ECF No. 2948] ﬁled by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Bermudez (UNREDACTED), # 2 Declaration of Bonﬃl withe Exh. A (UNREDACTED))(Related document(s) 3076 ) (Lodholz, Sean) (Filed on 9/11/2020) Modiﬁed on 9/14/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/11/2020)

09/11/2020 3079

Declarations of Brown with Exh. A (UNREDACTED), D. Campbell with Exh. A-B (UNREDACTED), K. Campbell with Exh. A (UNREDACTED), Chavarria with Exh. A (UNREDACTED), Galeano with Exh. A (UNREDACTED) re 3076 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal in Support of Defendants' Response to Plaintiﬀs' Motion for a Permanent Injunction at Seven Additional Prisons and Statewide [ECF No. 2948] ﬁled by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of D. Campbell with Exh. A-B (UNREDACTED), # 2 Declaration of K. Campbell with Exh. A (UNREDACTED), # 3 Declaration of Chavarria with Exh. A (UNREDACTED), # 4 Declaration of Galeano with Exh. A (UNREDACTED))(Related document(s) 3076 ) (Lodholz, Sean) (Filed on 9/11/2020) Modiﬁed on 9/14/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/11/2020)

09/11/2020 3080

Declarations of Grider with Exh. A-B (UNREDACTED), Hanks with Exh. A (UNREDACTED), Hunt (UNREDACTED), Jimenez with Exh. A (UNREDACTED), Mijares with Exh. A (UNREDACTED) re 3076 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal in Support of Defendants' Response to Plaintiﬀs' Motion for a Permanent Injunction at Seven Additional Prisons and Statewide [ECF No. 2948] ﬁled by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Hanks with Exh. A (UNREDACTED), # 2 Declaration of Hunt (UNREDACTED), # 3 Declaration of Jimenez with Exh. A (UNREDACTED), # 4 Declaration of Mijares with Exh. A (UNREDACTED))(Related document(s) 3076 ) (Lodholz, Sean) (Filed on 9/11/2020) Modiﬁed on 9/14/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/11/2020)

09/11/2020

3081

Declarations of Miller with Exh. A (UNREDACTED), Nuno with Exh. A (UNREDACTED), Parrish with Exh. A-B (UNREDACTED), Perucho with Exh. A (UNREDACTED), Ruiz with Exh. A (UNREDACTED), Sarmiento with Exh. A (UNREDACTED) re 3076 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal in Support of Defendants' Response to Plaintiﬀs' Motion

for a Permanent Injunction at Seven Additional Prisons and Statewide [ECF No. 2948] ﬁled by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Nuno with Exh. A (UNREDACTED), # 2 Declaration of Parrish Exh. A-B (UNREDACTED), # 3 Declaration of Perucho with Exh. A (UNREDACTED), # 4 Declaration of Ruiz with Exh. A (UNREDACTED), # 5 Declaration of Sarmiento with Exh. A (UNREDACTED))(Related document(s) 3076 ) (Lodholz, Sean) (Filed on 9/11/2020) Modiﬁed on 9/14/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/11/2020)

09/11/2020 3082

Defendants Opposition to 2948 Plaintiﬀs Motion for a Permanent Injunction at Seven Additional Prisons and Statewide; and Objections to Plaintiﬀs Evidence ﬁled by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jeﬀ Macomber, # 2 Declaration of S. Gates) (Bower, Alicia) (Filed on 9/11/2020) Modiﬁed on 9/14/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/11/2020)

09/11/2020

3083

Declarations of Sierra with Exh. A (UNREDACTED), Villalobos with Exh. A (UNREDACTED), Williams with Exh. A (UNREDACTED), Wingﬁeld with Exh. A (UNREDACTED), Expert Declaration of Baldwin (UNREDACTED), Expert Declaration of Cate (UNREDACTED), Expert Declaration of Warner with Exh. A-B (UNREDACTED), Declaration of Olgin with Exh. A-G (UNREDACTED), Request for Judicial Notice with Exh. A-G (UNREDACTED) re 3076 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal in Support of Defendants' Response to Plaintiﬀs' Motion for a Permanent Injunction at Seven Additional Prisons and Statewide [ECF No. 2948] ﬁled by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Villalobos with Exh. A (UNREDACTED), # 2 Declaration of Williams with Exh. A (UNREDACTED), # 3 Declaration of Wingﬁeld with Exh. A (UNREDACTED), # 4 Expert Declaration of Baldwin (UNREDACTED), # 5 Expert Declaration of Cate (UNREDACTED), # 6 Expert Declaration of Warner (UNREDACTED), # 7 Declaration of Olgin with Exh. A-G (UNREDACTED), # 8 Request for Judicial Notice with Exh. A-G (UNREDACTED))(Related document(s) 3076 ) (Lodholz, Sean) (Filed on 9/11/2020) Modiﬁed on 9/14/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/12/2020)

09/12/2020 3084

Declaration Declaration of Siino with Exh. A-W (REDACTED) in Support of 3082 Opposition/Response to Motion ﬁled by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Arreguin with Exh. A (REDACTED), # 2 Declaration of Bermudez (REDACTED), # 3 Declaration of Bonﬃl with Exh. A (REDACTED), # 4 Declaration of Brown with Exh. A (REDACTED), # 5 Declaration of D. Campbell with Exh. A-B (REDACTED), # 6 Declaration of K. Campbell with Exh. A (REDACTED), # 7 Declaration of Chavarria with Exh. A (REDACTED), # 8 Declaration of Galeano with Exh. A (REDACTED), # 9 Declaration of Grider with Exh. A-B (REDACTED))(Related

document(s) 3082 ) (Bower, Alicia) (Filed on 9/12/2020) Modiﬁed on 9/14/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/12/2020)

09/12/2020 3085

Declaration of Hanks with Exh. A (REDACTED) in Support of 3082 Opposition/Response to Motion ﬁled by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Hunt (REDACTED), # 2 Declaration of Jimenez with Exh. A (REDACTED), # 3 Declaration of Mijares with Exh. A (REDACTED), # 4 Declaration of Miller with Exh. A (REDACTED), # 5 Declaration of Nuno with Exh. A (REDACTED), # 6 Declaration of Parrish with Exh. A-B (REDACTED), # 7 Declaration of Perucho with Exh. A (REDACTED), # 8 Declaration of Ruiz with Exh. A (REDACTED), # 9 Declaration of Sarmiento with Exh. A (REDACTED))(Related document(s) 3082 ) (Bower, Alicia) (Filed on 9/12/2020) Modiﬁed on 9/14/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/12/2020)

09/12/2020 3086

Declarataion of Sierra with Exh. A (REDACTED) in Support of 3082 Opposition/Response to Motion ﬁled by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Villalobos with Exh. A (REDACTED), # 2 Declaration of Williams with Exh. A (REDACTED), # 3 Declaration of Wingﬁeld with Exh. A (REDACTED), # 4 Expert Declaration of Baldwin (REDACTED), # 5 Expert Declaration of Cate (REDACTED), # 6 Expert Declaration of Warner with Exh. A-B (REDACTED), # 7 Declaration of Olgin with Exh A-G (REDACTED), # 8 Request for Judicial Notice with Exh. A-G (REDACTED))(Related document(s) 3082 ) (Bower, Alicia) (Filed on 9/12/2020) Modiﬁed on 9/14/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/12/2020)

09/12/2020

3087

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom re 3076 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal in Support of Defendants' Response to Plaintiﬀs' Motion for a Permanent Injunction at Seven Additional Prisons and Statewide [ECF No. 2948] (Lodholz, Sean) (Filed on 9/12/2020) (Entered: 09/12/2020)

09/13/2020

3088

NOTICE to Withdraw Stipulation and Proposed Order re 3073 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER TO SET BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING DEPOSITIONS OF ARMSTRONG CLASS MEMBERS by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 9/13/2020) Modiﬁed on 9/14/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/13/2020)

09/14/2020

3089

CLERK'S NOTICE VACATING HEARING. Notice is hereby given that the Court will decide the pending 3075 MOTION for Protective Order on the papers. The hearing previously scheduled for 10/21/2020 at 2:30 p.m. is vacated. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/14/2020) Modiﬁed on 9/14/2020 (amgS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/14/2020)

09/15/2020 3101 PLAINTIFF CLASS MEMBER WITNESS EXIGENT NEED FOR PROTECTION FROM IMMINENT DANGER DECLARATION IN SUPPORT

OF PROTECTION REQUEST ﬁled by Lionell Tholmer. Responses due by 10/13/2020. Replies due by 10/27/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(cjlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2020) (Entered: 09/22/2020)

09/16/2020

3090

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Conﬁrming Undisputed Attorneys Fees and Costs for the Second Quarter of 2020 ﬁled by John Armstrong and Defendants. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 9/16/2020) Modiﬁed on 9/17/2020 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/16/2020)

09/16/2020

3091

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING NUNC PRO TUNC DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR A ONE-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME ﬁled by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom and Plaintiﬀs. (Bower, Alicia) (Filed on 9/16/2020) Modiﬁed on 9/17/2020 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/16/2020)

09/17/2020

3092

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 3090 STIPULATION CONFIRMING UNDISPUTED ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS FOR THE SECOND QUARTER OF 2020. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/17/2020) (Entered: 09/17/2020)

09/17/2020

3093

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 3091 Stipulation Nunc Pro Tunc Defendants' Request for a one-day extension of time. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/17/2020) (Entered: 09/17/2020)

09/17/2020

3094

Administrative Motion and [Proposed] Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 10/1/2020. Replies due by 10/8/2020. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 9/17/2020) Modiﬁed on 9/18/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/17/2020)

09/18/2020 3095 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 3094 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/18/2020) (Entered: 09/18/2020)

09/18/2020

3096

ORDER FOR EXEMPTION FROM PACER FEES FOR THE COURT EXPERT, EDWARD SWANSON. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 9/18/2020. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/18/2020) (Entered: 09/18/2020)

09/21/2020 3097

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal in Support of 3025 and 3026 Defendants' Supplemental Brief in Response to Order Granting in Part Motion for a Preliminary Injunction ﬁled by Gavin C. Newsom. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration T. Maiorino, # 2 Declaration A. Hernandez - Redacted, # 3 Declaration A. Hernandez - Unredacted, Filed Under Seal, # 4 Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Maiorino, Trace) (Filed on 9/21/2020) Modiﬁed on 9/22/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/21/2020)

09/21/2020

3098

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Gavin C. Newsom re 3097 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal in Support of 3025 and 3026 Defendants' Supplemental Brief in Response to Order Granting in Part Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. (Maiorino,

Trace) (Filed on 9/21/2020) Modiﬁed on 9/22/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/21/2020)

09/21/2020 3099

Supplemental Brief in Response to 3025 and 3026 Order Granting in Part Motion for a Preliminary Injunction ﬁled by Gavin C. Newsom. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Aguilar, # 2 Declaration Jeﬀ Cleland, # 3 Declaration Brian Farnsworth, # 4 Declaration Joseph Guirbino, # 5 Declaration George Thiem, # 6 Declaration Austin Ware)(Related document(s) 3025 ) (Maiorino, Trace) (Filed on 9/21/2020) Modiﬁed on 9/22/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/21/2020)

09/21/2020

3100

Second Declaration of A. Hernandez in Support of 3099 Supplemental Brief ﬁled by Gavin C. Newsom. (Related document(s) 3099 ) (Maiorino, Trace) (Filed on 9/21/2020) Modiﬁed on 9/22/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/21/2020)

09/24/2020

3102

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal in Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiﬀs' Motion for Protective Order ﬁled by Gavin C. Newsom. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration A. Tartaglio, # 2 Proposed Order Proposed Order, # 3 Declaration C. Brown, # 4 Declaration F. Camacho, # 5 Declaration P. Edwards, # 6 Declaration N. Kako, # 7 Declaration B. Legier, # 8 Declaration A. Puentes, # 9 Declaration C. Brown - Under Seal, # 10 Declaration F. Camacho - Under Seal, # 11 Declaration N. Kako - Under Seal, # 12 Declaration B. Legier - Under Seal, # 13 Declaration A. Puentes Under SEal)(Tartaglio, Anthony) (Filed on 9/24/2020) (Entered: 09/24/2020)

09/24/2020 3103 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Gavin C. Newsom re 3102 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal in Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiﬀs' Motion for Protective Order (Tartaglio, Anthony) (Filed on 9/24/2020) (Entered: 09/24/2020)

09/24/2020

3104

OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 3075 MOTION for Protective Order Regarding Depositions of Armstrong Class Members ) ﬁled byGavin C. Newsom. (Tartaglio, Anthony) (Filed on 9/24/2020) (Entered: 09/24/2020)

09/25/2020

3105

NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ﬁled by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom. (Appeal fee of $505 receipt number 0971-14989817 paid.) (Bower, Alicia) (Filed on 9/25/2020) (Entered: 09/25/2020)

09/25/2020

3106

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Reply Declarations in Support of Plaintiﬀs Motion to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against Prisoners with Disabilities ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld, # 2 Certiﬁcate/Proof of Service, # 3 Proposed Order, # 4 Redacted Version of Reply Declaration of Jeﬀrey A. Schwartz Ph.D. in Support of Plaintiﬀs' Motion to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against Prisoners with Disabilities, # 5 Unredacted Version of Reply Declaration of Jeﬀrey A. Schwartz Ph.D. in Support of Plaintiﬀs' Motion to Stop Defendants from

Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against Prisoners with Disabilities, # 6 Redacted Version of Reply Declaration of Eldon Vail in Support of Plaintiﬀs' Motion to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against Prisoners with Disabilities, # 7 Unredacted Version of Reply Declaration of Eldon Vail in Support of Plaintiﬀs' Motion to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against Prisoners with Disabilities)(Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 9/25/2020) (Entered: 09/25/2020)

09/25/2020

3107

EXHIBITS re 3106 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Reply Declarations in Support of Plaintiﬀs Motion to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against Prisoners with Disabilities ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Redacted Version of Reply Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld in Support of Plaintiﬀs' Motion to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against Prisoners with Disabilities and Exhibits 157a, # 2 Redacted Version of Exhibits 58 -140 to Reply Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld in Support of Plaintiﬀs' Motion to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against Prisoners with Disabilities)(Related document(s) 3106 ) (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 9/25/2020) (Entered: 09/25/2020)

09/25/2020

3108

EXHIBITS re 3106 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Reply Declarations in Support of Plaintiﬀs Motion to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against Prisoners with Disabilities ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Unredacted Version of Reply Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld in Support of Plaintiﬀs' Motion to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against Prisoners with Disabilities and Exhibits 157a)(Related document(s) 3106 ) (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 9/25/2020) (Entered: 09/25/2020)

09/25/2020

3109

EXHIBITS re 3106 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Reply Declarations in Support of Plaintiﬀs Motion to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against Prisoners with Disabilities ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Unredacted Version of Exhibits 58 - 140 to Reply Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld in Support of Plaintiﬀs' Motion to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against Prisoners with Disabilities)(Related document(s) 3106 ) (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 9/25/2020) (Entered: 09/25/2020)

09/25/2020

3110

REPLY (re 2948 MOTION for Permanent Injunction to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against People with Disabilities ) ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jeﬀrey A. Schwartz, Ph.D., # 2 Declaration of Eldon Vail, # 3 Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld and Exhibits 157a, # 4 Exhibit Exhibits 58 -140 to Reply Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld)(Freedman, Michael) (Filed on 9/25/2020) (Entered: 09/25/2020)

09/28/2020 3111 ***ERROR ON PDF, SEE RE-FILED DOCUMENT AT 3112 *** Declaration of Sean W. Lodholz in Support of 3106 Administrative

Motion to File Under Seal Reply Declarations in Support of Plaintiﬀs Motion to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against Prisoners with Disabilities ﬁled byCalifornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom. (Related document(s) 3106 ) (Lodholz, Sean) (Filed on 9/28/2020) Modiﬁed on 9/28/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/28/2020)

09/28/2020

3112

Declaration of Sean W. Lodholz (Correcting Incorrect Date of Signature of ECF 3111) in Support of 3106 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Reply Declarations in Support of Plaintiﬀs Motion to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against Prisoners with Disabilities ﬁled byCalifornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom. (Related document(s) 3106 ) (Lodholz, Sean) (Filed on 9/28/2020) (Entered: 09/28/2020)

09/28/2020

3121

EXHIBITS 4, 5, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, and 113 to the Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld (2 FLASH DRIVES) re 3110 Reply to Opposition/Response, ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 3110 ) (jjbS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/28/2020) (Entered: 10/06/2020)

09/28/2020

3122

EXHIBITS D, M, N, UU, ZZ, and AAA (1 FLASH DRIVE) to the Reply Declaration of Eldon Vail re 3110 Reply to Opposition/Response, ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 3110 ) (jjbS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/28/2020) (Entered: 10/06/2020)

09/29/2020

3113

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 3101 MOTION FILED IN PROPRIA PERSONA ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/29/2020) Modiﬁed on 9/30/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/29/2020)

10/01/2020

Clerk's Notice Regarding 10/6/2020 at 2:30 PM 2948 Motion hearing before Judge Claudia Wilken. This proceeding will be held via a Zoom webinar.

Webinar Access: All counsel, members of the public, and media may access the webinar information at https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/cw

Court Appearances: Advanced notice is required of counsel or parties who wish to be identiﬁed by the court as making an a ppearance or will be participating in the argument at the hearing. A list of names and emails must be sent to the CRD at CWCRD@cand.uscourts.gov no later than October 5, 2020 at 12:00 PM PST.

General Order 58. Persons granted access to court proceedings held by telephone or videoconference are reminded that photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings, including screenshots or other visual copying of a hearing, is absolutely prohibited.

Zoom Guidance and Setup: https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/zoom/.

(This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/1/2020) (Entered: 10/01/2020)

10/01/2020 3114 Notice of Filing of Receiver's 45th Tri-Annual Report by J. Clark Kelso. (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 10/1/2020) Modiﬁed on 10/1/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/01/2020)

10/01/2020 3115 REPLY (re 3075 MOTION for Protective Order Regarding Depositions of Armstrong Class Members ) ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 10/1/2020) (Entered: 10/01/2020)

10/01/2020 3139 Letter from Brett Jones. (jmlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/1/2020) (Entered: 10/15/2020)

10/02/2020

3116

MOTION to Strike 2948 MOTION for Permanent Injunction to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against People with Disabilities Defendants Objections and Motion to Strike Plaintiﬀs Reply Evidence In Support of Their Motion for a Permanent Injunction at Seven Additional Prisons and Statewide ﬁled by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom. Motion Hearing set for 10/6/2020 02:30 PM before Judge Claudia Wilken. Responses due by 10/16/2020. Replies due by 10/23/2020. (Bower, Alicia) (Filed on 10/2/2020) (Entered: 10/02/2020)

10/02/2020

3118

USCA Case Number 20-16921 Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals for 3105 Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Gavin C. Newsom, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (cjlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/2/2020) (Entered: 10/05/2020)

10/05/2020 3117 ORDER REGARDING HEARING SCHEDULED FOR OCTOBER 6, 2020. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/5/2020. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/5/2020) (Entered: 10/05/2020)

10/05/2020

3119

Supplemental Brief in Support of Permanent Injunction to Protect Inmates 1 and 2 re 3025 Order, 3026 Preliminary Injunction ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Related document(s) 3025 , 3026 ) (Freedman, Michael) (Filed on 10/5/2020) Modiﬁed on 10/6/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/05/2020)

10/06/2020

3120

ERRATA re 3109 Exhibits to an Administrative Motion to File Under Seal,, to the Sealed Version of the Reply Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld in Support of Plaintiﬀs Motion to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing, and Retaliating Against People with Disabilities by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 10/6/2020) (Entered: 10/06/2020)

10/06/2020

3123

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Claudia Wilken: Motion Hearing held on 10/6/2020. Stipulation due by 10/13/2020.Total Time in Court: 57minutes. Court Reporter: Diane Skillman. Plaintiﬀ Attorney: Gay Crosthwait

Grunfeld, Michael Freedman, Penny Godbold, and Thomas Nolan. Defendant Attorney: Alicia Bower, Joanna Hood, Trace Maiorino, and Sean Lodholz. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 10/6/2020) Modiﬁed on 10/7/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/07/2020)

10/07/2020

3124

INJUNCTION REGARDING HOUSING OF INMATE 1 AND INMATE 2. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/7/2020. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/7/2020) (Entered: 10/07/2020)

10/07/2020

3125

TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on 10/06/2020 before Judge Claudia Wilken by John Armstrong, for Court Reporter Diane Skillman. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 10/7/2020) (Entered: 10/07/2020)

10/08/2020

3126

STIPULATION WITH [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR THE COURT EXPERTS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 3072 Order on Stipulation ﬁled by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom, John Armstrong. (Lodholz, Sean) (Filed on 10/8/2020) Modiﬁed on 10/9/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/08/2020)

10/08/2020

3127

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING 3075 MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER; DENYING 3116 MOTION TO STRIKE AS MOOT. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/8/2020) (Entered: 10/08/2020)

10/08/2020

3128

TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on 10/06/2020 before Judge Claudia Wilken by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom, for Court Reporter Diane Skillman. (Maiorino, Trace) (Filed on 10/8/2020) (Entered: 10/08/2020)

10/08/2020

3129

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 3126 Stipulation regarding an extension of time for the Court expert's ﬁndings and recommendations.(amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/8/2020) (Entered: 10/08/2020)

10/09/2020

3130

TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on 10/06/2020 before Judge Claudia Wilken by Edward Swanson, for Court Reporter Diane Skillman. (Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 10/9/2020) (Entered: 10/09/2020)

10/10/2020 3131

Transcript of Proceedings held on October 6, 2020, before Judge Claudia Wilken. Court Reporter Diane E. Skillman, telephone number 925-899-2912, Diane_Skillman@cand.uscourts.gov. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerk's Oﬃce public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this ﬁling. (Re 3125 Transcript Order ) Release of Transcript Restriction

set for 1/8/2021. (Related documents(s) 3125 ) (Skillman, Diane) (Filed on 10/10/2020) (Entered: 10/10/2020)

10/12/2020

3132

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Change Time to File Joint Status Conference Statement ﬁled by John Armstrong and Gavin C. Newsom. (Godbold, Penny) (Filed on 10/12/2020) Modiﬁed on 10/13/2020 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/12/2020)

10/13/2020

3133

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 3132 STIPULATION TO CHANGE TIME TO FILE JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT. Joint Status Report due by 10/16/2020. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/13/2020) (Entered: 10/13/2020)

10/13/2020

3134

STIPULATION WITH [PROPOSED] ORDER Regarding Depositions, Safety Precautions, Further Brieﬁng, and Hearing ﬁled by John Armstrong, Gavin C. Newsom. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 10/13/2020) Modiﬁed on 10/14/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/13/2020)

10/13/2020 3136 NOTICE - Ex Parte Communication ﬁled by Mario A. Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Envelope)(jmlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/13/2020) (Entered: 10/15/2020)

10/14/2020

3135

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 3134 STIPULATION REGARDING DEPOSITIONS, SAFETY PRECAUTIONS, FURTHER BRIEFING, AND HEARING. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/14/2020) (Entered: 10/14/2020)

10/14/2020

Set Deadlines/Hearings Sur-Reply not more than twenty pages due by 11/17/2020. Response to sur-reply not more than ﬁfteen pages due by 11/24/2020. Motion Hearing set for 12/8/2020 02:30 PM before Judge Claudia Wilken. See Docket No. 3135 (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/14/2020) (Entered: 10/14/2020)

10/15/2020

3137

Administrative Motion and [Proposed] Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 10/29/2020. Replies due by 11/5/2020. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 10/15/2020) Modiﬁed on 10/16/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/15/2020)

10/15/2020 3138 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 3137 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/15/2020) (Entered: 10/15/2020)

10/16/2020

3140

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION for an Order Directing Additional Interim Payment of Costs ﬁled by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom. Responses due by 10/20/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Lodholz, Sean) (Filed on 10/16/2020) (Entered: 10/16/2020)

10/20/2020

3141

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 3140 Administrative Motion DIRECTING ADDITIONAL INTERIM PAYMENT OF COSTS. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/20/2020) (Entered: 10/20/2020)

10/23/2020

3142

Court Expert's Second Report and Recommendations Regarding Housing of Class Members During the COVID-19 Pandemic by Edward Swanson. (Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 10/23/2020) Modiﬁed on 10/26/2020 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/23/2020)

10/23/2020

3143

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 3059 Order on Motion for Permanent Injunction ﬁled by John Armstrong and Gavin C. Newsom. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 10/23/2020) Modiﬁed on 10/26/2020 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/23/2020)

10/26/2020

3144

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 3143 Stipulation Regarding Implementation of and Brieﬁng Schedule for Disputes Regarding the RJD Remedial Plan. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/26/2020) (Entered: 10/26/2020)

10/26/2020

3145

ORDER REGARDING COURT EXPERT'S SECOND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING HOUSING OF CLASS MEMBERS DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC. Report due by 11/25/2020. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/26/2020. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/26/2020) (Entered: 10/26/2020)

11/03/2020 3146 Transcript Designation Form for proceedings held on 8/11/2020 before Judge Claudia Wilken, (Bower, Alicia) (Filed on 11/3/2020) (Entered: 11/03/2020)

11/06/2020

3147

CORRECTION TO 3142 SECOND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING HOUSING OF ARMSTRONG CLASS MEMBERS DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC by Edward Swanson. (Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 11/6/2020) Modiﬁed on 11/9/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/06/2020)

11/09/2020 3149 Letter from Mario Gonzalez. (cjlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/9/2020) (Entered: 11/12/2020)

11/10/2020 3150 Receipt in the amount of $400,000.00. Receipt No. 44611016989 on November 10, 2020. (cjlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/10/2020) (Entered: 11/12/2020)

11/12/2020 3148 ASSOCIATION of Counsel by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom. (Kotwani, Namrata) (Filed on 11/12/2020) (Entered: 11/12/2020)

11/13/2020

3151

STIPULATION WITH [PROPOSED] ORDER Regarding Brieﬁng Schedule for Disputes Regarding the RJD Remedial Plan ﬁled by John Armstrong, Gavin C. Newsom. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 11/13/2020) Modiﬁed on 11/16/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/13/2020)

11/16/2020 3152 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Margot Knight Mendelson (Mendelson, Margot) (Filed on 11/16/2020) (Entered: 11/16/2020)

11/16/2020 3153 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT ﬁled by John Armstrong, Gavin C. Newsom. (Godbold, Penny) (Filed on 11/16/2020) Modiﬁed on 11/17/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/16/2020)

11/17/2020

3154

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 3151 Stipulation Regarding Brieﬁng Schedule for Disputes Regarding the RJD Remedial Plan. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/17/2020) (Entered: 11/17/2020)

11/17/2020

3155

REPLY (re 2948 MOTION for Permanent Injunction to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against People with Disabilities) ﬁled by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom. ***MAIN DOCUMENT REMOVED PER ORDER OF THE COURT AT DOCKET ENTRY 3167 AND REFILED AT DOCKET ENTRY 3162 *** (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Bower w Ex. A-L (REDACTED), # 2 Declaration of Cate (REDACTED), # 3 Declaration of Siino w Ex. A-G (REDACTED), # 4 Declaration of Serrano (REDACTED), # 5 Declaration of Bolton (REDACTED), # 6 Declaration of Montoya (REDACTED), # 7 Declaration of Quintero w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 8 Declaration of Katravas w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 9 Declaration of Brazil w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 10 Declaration of Orr w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 11 Declaration of Solano w Ex. A & B (REDACTED), # 12 Declaration of Hancock w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 13 Declaration of Nguyen w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 14 Declaration of Laughlin w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 15 Declaration of Montoya w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 16 Declaration of McTaggart w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 17 Declaration of Winkler w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 18 Declaration of Medina w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 19 Declaration of Ferrso w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 20 Declaration of Wong w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 21 Declaration of Cook w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 22 Declaration of Reed w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 23 Declaration of Welch w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 24 Declaration of Martinez w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 25 Declaration of Wingﬁeld w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 26 Declaration of Cicone w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 27 Declaration of Cleveland w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 28 Declaration of Gonzales w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 29 Declaration of Marchese w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 30 Declaration of Pina w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 31 Declaration of Spencer LAC 1 w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 32 Declaration of Spencer LAC 2 w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 33 Declaration of Morales LAC 1 w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 34 Declaration of Morales LAC 2 (REDACTED), # 35 Declaration of Lizama w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 36 Declaration of Jones w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 37 Declaration of Watson w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 38 Declaration of Frederick (REDACTED), # 39 Declaration of Neve w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 40 Declaration of Fugate w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 41 Declaration of Fralin w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 42 Declaration of Easter w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 43 Declaration of Loera w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 44 Declaration of Vasquez Decl w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 45 Declaration of Avalos w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 46 Declaration of Ruiz w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 47 Declaration of Muniz w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 48 Declaration Pano w Ex. A&B (REDACTED), # 49 Declaration of Brown w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 50 Declaration of Neighbors w Ex. A&B (REDACTED), # 51 Declaration of VanMastrigt w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 52 Declaration of Sarmiento w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 53

Declaration of Hanks w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 54 Declaration of Chang Lorenzo w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 55 Declaration of Sally w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 56 Declaration of Khodabakshyan w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 57 Declaration of Dela Cruz w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 58 Declaration of Morales w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 59 Declaration of Ongaro w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 60 Declaration of Almanza w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 61 Declaration of Barrios w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 62 Declaration of Pilkerton w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 63 Declaration Hernandez w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 64 Declaration of Makarade w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 65 Declaration of Cruz w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 66 Declaration of Allison w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 67 Declaration Arevalo w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 68 Declaration of Castrejon w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 69 Declaration of Alvarez w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 70 Declaration of Estrada w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 71 Declaration Evans w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 72 Declaration of Fitzpatrick w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 73 Declaration Furlong w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 74 Declaration of Hyde (REDACTED), # 75 Declaration of Ruiz w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 76 Declaration of Martinez-Toledo w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 77 Declaration of Beckham w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 78 Declaration of Godoy w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 79 Declaration of Gurdian w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 80 Declaration H Hernandez w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 81 Declaration of Mobley w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 82 Declaration of Ybarra w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 83 Declaration of Wolfe w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 84 Declaration of Ward w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 85 Declaration of Martinez (REDACTED), # 86 Declaration of Castellanos (REDACTED), # 87 Declaration of Pompa w Ex A (REDACTED), # 88 Declaration of Spencer w Ex A (REDACTED), # 89 Declaration of Rocha w Ex. A (REDACTED), # 90 Declaration of Silva w Ex A (REDACTED), # 91 Declaration of Ronquillo w Ex. A (REDACTED))(Bower, Alicia) (Filed on 11/17/2020) Modiﬁed on 11/19/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Main Document 3155 replaced on 11/20/2020) (napS, COURT STAFF). Modiﬁed on 11/20/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/17/2020)

11/17/2020

3156

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Documents In Support Of Defendants' Sur-Reply To Plaintiﬀs' Motion For A Permanent Injunction At Seven Additional Prisons And Statewide [ECF No. 2948] ﬁled by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Tartaglio, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Declaration of Serrano (REDACTED), # 4 Declaration of Bolton (REDACTED), # 5 Declaration Montoya (REDACTED), # 6 Declaration of Quintero (REDACTED, # 7 Declaration of Katravas (REDACTED), # 8 Declaration of Brazil (REDACTED), # 9 Declaration of Orr (REDACTED), # 10 Declaration of Solano (REDACTED), # 11 Declaration of Hancock (REDACTED), # 12 Declaration of Nguyen (REDACTED), # 13 Declaration of Laughlin (REDACTED), # 14 Declaration of Montoya (REDACTED), # 15 Declaration of McTaggart (REDACTED), # 16 Declaration of Winkler (REDACTED), # 17 Declaration of Medina (REDACTED), # 18 Declaration of Ferrson (REDACTED), # 19 Declaration of Wong (REDACTED), # 20 Declaration of Cook (REDACTED), # 21 Declaration of Reed

(REDACTED), # 22 Declaration of Welch (REDACTED), # 23 Declaration of Martinez (REDACTED), # 24 Declaration of Wingﬁeld (REDACTED), # 25 Declaration of Cicone (REDACTED), # 26 Declaration of Cleveland (REDACTED), # 27 Declaration of Gonzales (REDACTED), # 28 Declaration of Marchese (REDACTED), # 29 Declaration of Pina (REDACTED), # 30 Declaration of Spencer LAC 1 (REDACTED), # 31 Declaration of Spencer LAC 2 (REDACTED), # 32 Declaration Morales LAC 1 (REDACTED), # 33 Declaration of Morales LAC 2 (REDACTED), # 34 Declaration of Lizama (REDACTED), # 35 Declaration of Jones (REDACTED), # 36 Declaration of Watson (REDACTED), # 37 Declaration of Frederick (REDACTED), # 38 Declaration of Neve (REDACTED), # 39 Declaration of Fugate (REDACTED), # 40 Declaration of Fralin (REDACTED), # 41 Declaration of Easter (REDACTED), # 42 Declaration of Loera (REDACTED), # 43 Declaration of Vasquez (REDACTED), # 44 Declaration of Avalos (REDACTED), # 45 Declaration of Ruiz (REDACTED), # 46 Declaration of Muniz (REDACTED), # 47 Declaration of Pano (REDACTED), # 48 Declaration of Brown (REDACTED), # 49 Declaration of Neighbors (REDACTED), # 50 Declaration of VanMastrigt (REDACTED), # 51 Declaration of Sarmiento (REDACTED), # 52 Declaration of Hanks (REDACTED), # 53 Declaration of Chang Lorenzo (REDACTED), # 54 Declaration of Sally (REDACTED), # 55 Declaration of Khodabakshyan (REDACTED), # 56 Declaration of Dela Cruz (REDACTED), # 57 Declaration of Morales (REDACTED), # 58 Declaration of Ongaro (REDACTED), # 59 Declaration of Almanza (REDACTED), # 60 Declaration of Barrios (REDACTED), # 61 Declaration of Pilkerton (REDACTED), # 62 Declaration of Hernandez (REDACTED), # 63 Declaration of Makarade (REDACTED), # 64 Declaration of Cruz (REDACTED), # 65 Declaration of Allison (REDACTED), # 66 Declaration of Arevalo (REDACTED), # 67 Declaration of Castrejon (REDACTED), # 68 Declaration of Alvarez (REDACTED), # 69 Declaration of Estrada (REDACTED), # 70 Declaration of Evans (REDACTED), # 71 Declaration of Fitzpatrick (REDACTED), # 72 Declaration of Furlong (REDACTED), # 73 Declaration of Hyde (REDACTED), # 74 Declaration of Ruiz (REDACTED), # 75 Declaration of MartinezToledo (REDACTED), # 76 Declaration of Beckham (REDACTED), # 77 Declaration of Godoy (REDACTED), # 78 Declaration of Gurdian (REDACTED), # 79 Declaration of H Hernandez (REDACTED), # 80 Declaration of Mobley (REDACTED), # 81 Declaration of Ybarra (REDACTED), # 82 Declaration of Wolfe (REDACTED), # 83 Declaration of Ward (REDACTED), # 84 Declaration of Martinez (REDACTED), # 85 Declaration of Castellanos (REDACTED), # 86 Declaration of Pompa (REDACTED), # 87 Declaration of Spencer (REDACTED), # 88 Declaration of Rocha (REDACTED), # 89 Declaration of Silva (REDACTED), # 90 Declaration of Ronquillo (REDACTED))(Tartaglio, Anthony) (Filed on 11/17/2020) (Entered: 11/17/2020)
11/17/2020 3157 EXHIBITS re 3156 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Documents In Support Of Defendants' Sur-Reply To Plaintiﬀs'

Motion For A Permanent Injunction At Seven Additional Prisons And Statewide [ECF No. 2948] ﬁled byCalifornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Bolton (UNREDACTED), # 2 Declaration of Montoya (UNREDACTED), # 3 Declaration of Khodabakshyan (UNREDACTED), # 4 Declaration of Quintero (UNREDACTED), # 5 Declaration of Katravas (UNREDACTED), # 6 Declaration of Brazil (UNREDACTED), # 7 Declaration of Orr (UNREDACTED), # 8 Declaration of Solano (UNREDACTED), # 9 Declaration of Hancock (UNREDACTED), # 10 Declaration of Nguyen (UNREDACTED), # 11 Declaration of Laughlin (UNREDACTED), # 12 Declaration of McTaggart (UNREDACTED), # 13 Declaration of Montoya (UNREDACTED), # 14 Declaration of Winkler (UNREDACTED)) (Related document(s) 3156 ) (Tartaglio, Anthony) (Filed on 11/17/2020) (Entered: 11/17/2020)

11/17/2020

3158

EXHIBITS re 3156 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Documents In Support Of Defendants' Sur-Reply To Plaintiﬀs' Motion For A Permanent Injunction At Seven Additional Prisons And Statewide [ECF No. 2948] ﬁled byCalifornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Ferrso (UNREDACTED), # 2 Declaration of Makarade (UNREDACTED), # 3 Declaration of Wong (UNREDACTED), # 4 Declaration of Cook (UNREDACTED), # 5 Declaration of Reed (UNREDACTED), # 6 Declaration of Welch (UNREDACTED), # 7 Declaration of Martinez (UNREDACTED), # 8 Declaration of Wingﬁeld (UNREDACTED), # 9 Declaration of Martinez (UNREDACTED))(Related document(s) 3156 ) (Tartaglio, Anthony) (Filed on 11/17/2020) (Entered: 11/17/2020)

11/17/2020

3159

EXHIBITS re 3156 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Documents In Support Of Defendants' Sur-Reply To Plaintiﬀs' Motion For A Permanent Injunction At Seven Additional Prisons And Statewide [ECF No. 2948] ﬁled byCalifornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Allison (UNREDACTED), # 2 Declaration of Arevalo (UNREDACTED), # 3 Declaration of Caastrejon (UNREDACTED), # 4 Declaration Cicone (UNREDACTED))(Related document(s) 3156 ) (Tartaglio, Anthony) (Filed on 11/17/2020) (Entered: 11/18/2020)

11/18/2020

3160

EXHIBITS re 3156 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Documents In Support Of Defendants' Sur-Reply To Plaintiﬀs' Motion For A Permanent Injunction At Seven Additional Prisons And Statewide [ECF No. 2948] ﬁled byCalifornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Cruz (UNREDACTED), # 2 Declaration of Alvarez (UNREDACTED), # 3 Declaration of Estrada (UNREDACTED), # 4 Declaration of Evans (UNREDACTED), # 5 Declaration of Fitzpatrick (UNREDACTED), # 6 Declaration of Furlong (UNREDACTED), # 7 Declaration of Godoy (UNREDACTED), # 8 Declaration of Gonzales (UNREDACTED), # 9 Declaration of Gurdian (UNREDACTED), # 10 Declaration of Hernandez (UNREDACTED), # 11 Declaration of

Marchese (UNREDACTED), # 12 Declaration of Mobley (UNREDACTED), # 13 Declaration of Pina (UNREDACTED), # 14 Declaration of Pompa (UNREDACTED), # 15 Declaration of Rocha (UNREDACTED), # 16 Declaration of Ronquillo (UNREDACTED), # 17 Declaration of Silva (UNREDACTED), # 18 Declaration of Spencer (UNREDACTED), # 19 Declaration of Wolfe (UNREDACTED), # 20 Declaration of Ward (UNREDACTED), # 21 Declaration of Ybarra (UNREDACTED), # 22 Declaration of Spencer LAC 1 (UNREDACTED), # 23 Declaration of Spencer LAC 2 (UNREDACTED), # 24 Declaration of Morales LAC 1 (UNREDACTED), # 25 Declaration Morales LAC 2 (UNREDACTED), # 26 Declaration of Hyde (UNREDACTED), # 27 Declaration of Lizama (UNREDACTED), # 28 Declaration of Jones (UNREDACTED), # 29 Declaration of Watson (UNREDACTED), # 30 Declaration of Frederick (UNREDACTED), # 31 Declaration of Neve (UNREDACTED), # 32 Declaration of Fugate (UNREDACTED), # 33 Declaration of Fralin (UNREDACTED), # 34 Declaration of Easter (UNREDACTED), # 35 Declaration of Loera (UNREDACTED), # 36 Declaration of Vasquez (UNREDACTED), # 37 Declaration of De La Cruz (UNREDACTED), # 38 Declaration of Morales (UNREDACTED), # 39 Declaration of Ongaro (UNREDACTED), # 40 Declaration of Almanza (UNREDACTED), # 41 Declaration of Avalos (UNREDACTED), # 42 Declaration of Ruiz (UNREDACTED), # 43 Declaration of Barrios (UNREDACTED), # 44 Declaration of Pilkerton (UNREDACTED), # 45 Declaration of Muniz (UNREDACTED), # 46 Declaration of Hernandez (UNREDACTED), # 47 Declaration of Pano (UNREDACTED), # 48 Declaration of Brown (UNREDACTED), # 49 Declaration of Neighbors (UNREDACTED), # 50 Declaration of VanMastrigt (UNREDACTED), # 51 Declaration of Sarmiento (UNREDACTED), # 52 Declaration of Hanks (UNREDACTED), # 53 Declaration of Ruiz (UNREDACTED), # 54 Declaration of Chang Lorenzo (UNREDACTED), # 55 Declaration of Martinez-Toledo (UNREDACTED), # 56 Declaration of Sally (UNREDACTED), # 57 Declaration of Beckham (UNREDACTED), # 58 Declaration of Bower (UNREDACTED), # 59 Declaration of Siino (UNREDACTED), # 60 Declaration of Cate (UNREDACTED))(Related document(s) 3156 ) (Tartaglio, Anthony) (Filed on 11/18/2020) (Entered: 11/18/2020)

11/18/2020

3161

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom re 3156 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Documents In Support Of Defendants' Sur-Reply To Plaintiﬀs' Motion For A Permanent Injunction At Seven Additional Prisons And Statewide [ECF No. 2948] (Bower, Alicia) (Filed on 11/18/2020) (Entered: 11/18/2020)

11/19/2020

3162

REPLY (re 2948 MOTION for Permanent Injunction to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against People with Disabilities) ***CORRECTION OF DOCKET # 3155 - Main document*** ﬁled by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom. (Bower, Alicia) (Filed on

11/19/2020) Modiﬁed on 11/19/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/19/2020)

11/19/2020

3163

Administrative Motion and [Proposed] Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 12/3/2020. Replies due by 12/10/2020. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 11/19/2020) Modiﬁed on 11/19/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/19/2020)

11/19/2020

3164

DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO REMOVE INCORRECTLY FILED DOCUMENT [ECF No. 3155] ﬁled by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom. (Bower, Alicia) (Filed on 11/19/2020) Modiﬁed on 11/19/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/19/2020)

11/19/2020

3165

[Proposed] Order re 3164 DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO REMOVE INCORRECTLY FILED DOCUMENT [ECF No. 3155] by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom. (Bower, Alicia) (Filed on 11/19/2020) Modiﬁed on 11/19/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/19/2020)

11/20/2020 3166 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 3163 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/20/2020) (Entered: 11/20/2020)

11/20/2020 3167 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 3164 Motion to Remove 3155 Incorrectly Filed Document.(amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/20/2020) (Entered: 11/20/2020)

11/24/2020 3168 NOTICE of Appearance by Andrea Sogand Moon (Moon, Andrea) (Filed on 11/24/2020) (Entered: 11/24/2020)

11/24/2020

3169

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Sur-rebuttal Declaration in Support of Motion to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing, and Retaliating Against People with Disabilities ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld in Support of Administrative Motion to Seal Sur-Rebuttal Declaration in Support of Motion to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing, and Retaliating Against People with Disabilities, # 2 Proposed Order Granting Administrative Motion to Seal, # 3 Redacted Version of Sur-rebuttal Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld in Support of Plaintiﬀs Motion to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing, and Retaliating Against People with Disabilities, # 4 Unredacted Version of Sur-rebuttal Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld in Support of Plaintiﬀs Motion to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing, and Retaliating Against People with Disabilities, # 5 Certiﬁcate/Proof of Service)(Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 11/24/2020) (Entered: 11/24/2020)

11/24/2020

3170

Supplemental Brief re 2948 MOTION for Permanent Injunction to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against People with Disabilities ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Sur-rebuttal Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld in Support of

Plaintiﬀs' Motion to Stop Defendants' from Assaulting, Abusing, and Retaliating Against People with Disabilities)(Related document(s) 2948 ) (Freedman, Michael) (Filed on 11/24/2020) (Entered: 11/24/2020)

11/25/2020

3171

Court Expert's Third Report and Recommendations Regarding Housing of Class Members During the COVID-19 Pandemic by Edward Swanson. (Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 11/25/2020) Modiﬁed on 11/25/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/25/2020)

11/30/2020

3172

CLERKS NOTICE SETTING ZOOM HEARING. Motion Hearing set for 12/8/2020 02:30 PM in Oakland, - Videoconference Only before Judge Claudia Wilken. This proceeding will be held via a Zoom webinar.

Webinar Access: All counsel, members of the public, and media may access the webinar information at https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/cw

Court Appearances: Advanced notice is required of counsel or parties who wish to be identiﬁed by the court as making an appearance or will be participating in the argument at the hearing. A list of names and emails must be sent to the CRD at cwcrd@cand.uscourts.gov no later than December 4, 2020 at 5:00 PM PST.

General Order 58. Persons granted access to court proceedings held by telephone or videoconference are reminded that photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings, including screenshots or other visual copying of a hearing, is absolutely prohibited.

Zoom Guidance and Setup: https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/zoom/.

Motion Hearing set for 12/8/2020 02:30 PM in Oakland, Videoconference Only bef ore Judge Claudia Wilken. (This is a textonly entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/30/2020) (Entered: 11/30/2020)

12/01/2020

3173

ORDER REGARDING COURT EXPERT'S THIRD REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING HOUSING OF CLASS MEMBERS DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC.Court Expert's Report and Recommendations due by 1/30/2021. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 12/1/2020. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/1/2020) (Entered: 12/01/2020)

12/01/2020

3174

OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 2948 MOTION for Permanent Injunction to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against People with Disabilities ) Defendants' Objections to Plaintiﬀs' Sur-Rebuttal Evidence in Support of their Motion for a Permanent Injunction at Seven Additional Prisons and Statewide ﬁled byCalifornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation,

Gavin C. Newsom. (Maiorino, Trace) (Filed on 12/1/2020) (Entered: 12/01/2020)

12/03/2020 3175 NOTICE of Appearance by Adriano Hrvatin for Defendants (Hrvatin, Adriano) (Filed on 12/3/2020) (Entered: 12/03/2020)

12/07/2020

3176

STIPULATION WITH [PROPOSED] ORDER Regarding Brieﬁng Schedule for Disputes Regarding Paragraph 5.c of the RJD Remedial Plan ﬁled by John Armstrong, Gavin C. Newsom. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 12/7/2020) Modiﬁed on 12/7/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/07/2020)

12/07/2020

3177

OBJECTIONS to Defendants' Proposed Partial RJD Remedial Plan by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Michael Freedman in Support of Plaintiﬀs' Objections to Defendants' Proposed Partial RJD Remedial Plan)(Freedman, Michael) (Filed on 12/7/2020) (Entered: 12/07/2020)

12/08/2020

3178

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 3176 Stipulation Regarding Brieﬁng Schedule for Disputes Regarding Paragraph 5.c of the RJD Remedial Plan. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/8/2020) (Entered: 12/08/2020)

12/08/2020 3179

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Claudia Wilken: 2948 Motion Hearing held on 12/8/2020. Total Time in Court: 1 hour. Court Reporter: Diane Skillman. Plaintiﬀ Attorney: Michael Bien, Gay Grunfeld, Penny Godbold, Micheal Freedman. Defendant Attorney: Anthony Tartaglio, Sean Lodholz, Trace Maiorino, Adriano Hrvatin. Court Expert: Ed Swanson(amgS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 12/8/2020) (Entered: 12/09/2020)

12/09/2020

3180

TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on 12/08/2020 before Judge Claudia Wilken by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom, for Court Reporter Diane Skillman. (Maiorino, Trace) (Filed on 12/9/2020) (Entered: 12/09/2020)

12/09/2020

3181

TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on 12/08/2020 before Judge Claudia Wilken by John Armstrong, for Court Reporter Diane Skillman. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 12/9/2020) (Entered: 12/09/2020)

12/09/2020

3182

NOTICE of Unavailability of Counsel for Defendants by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom. (Hrvatin, Adriano) (Filed on 12/9/2020) Modiﬁed on 12/10/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/09/2020)

12/14/2020

3183

Defendants' Response to 3177 Plaintiﬀs' Objections to Defendants' R.J. Donovan Partial Remedial Plan by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Cate, # 2 Declaration of Gipson)(Maiorino, Trace) (Filed on 12/14/2020) Modiﬁed on 12/15/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/14/2020)

12/15/2020

3184

Administrative Motion and [Proposed] Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 12/29/2020. Replies due by 1/5/2021. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 12/15/2020) Modiﬁed on 12/15/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/15/2020)

12/16/2020 3185 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 3184 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/16/2020) (Entered: 12/16/2020)

12/17/2020 3186

Transcript of Proceedings held on December 8, 2020, before Judge Claudia Wilken. Court Reporter Diane E. Skillman, telephone number 925-899-2912, Diane_Skillman@cand.uscourts.gov. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerk's Oﬃce public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this ﬁling. (Re 3181 Transcript Order ) Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/17/2021. (Related documents(s) 3181 ) (Skillman, Diane) (Filed on 12/17/2020) (Entered: 12/17/2020)

12/18/2020 3187

CORRECTED Transcript of Proceedings held on December 8, 2020, before Judge Claudia Wilken. Court Reporter Diane E. Skillman, telephone number 925-899-2912, Diane_Skillman@cand.uscourts.gov. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerk's Oﬃce public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this ﬁling. (Re 3180 Transcript Order ) Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/18/2021. (Related documents(s) 3180 ) (Skillman, Diane) (Filed on 12/18/2020) (Entered: 12/18/2020)

12/18/2020 3188

Reply in Support of Plaintiﬀs' Objections to Defendants' Proposed Partial RJD Remedial Plan re 3177 Objection ﬁled by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Reply Declaration of Michael Freedman in Support of Plaintiﬀs' Objections to Defendants' Proposed Partial RJD Remedial Plan)(Related document(s) 3177 ) (Freedman, Michael) (Filed on 12/18/2020) Modiﬁed on 12/21/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/18/2020)

12/21/2020 3189 Letter from Mario Amador Gonzalez. (cjlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/21/2020) (Entered: 12/29/2020)

01/12/2021 3194 Letter for Access to the Court a Right to Speak for my Person Brett Jones. (cjlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/12/2021) Modiﬁed on 1/26/2021 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/22/2021)

01/15/2021 3190 Joint Case Status Statement ﬁled by John Armstrong, Gavin C. Newsom. (Godbold, Penny) (Filed on 1/15/2021) Modiﬁed on

1/19/2021 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/15/2021)

01/16/2021

3191

[CORRECTED] JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT ﬁled by John Armstrong, Gavin C. Newsom. (Godbold, Penny) (Filed on 1/16/2021) Modiﬁed on 1/19/2021 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/16/2021)

01/20/2021

3192

ORDER REGARDING 3177 PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' PROPOSED PARTIAL PLAN. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/20/2021. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/20/2021) (Entered: 01/20/2021)

01/21/2021 3193 Receipt in the amount of $400,000.00 from the State of California. Receipt #:44611017043. (bnsS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/21/2021) (Entered: 01/21/2021)

01/22/2021

3195

Administrative Motion and [Proposed] Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 2/5/2021. Replies due by 2/12/2021. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 1/22/2021) Modiﬁed on 1/25/2021 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/22/2021)

01/22/2021 3197 Letter from Whittier Buchanan. (cjlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/22/2021) (Entered: 01/26/2021)

01/25/2021 3196 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 3195 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/25/2021) (Entered: 01/25/2021)

01/26/2021

3198

STIPULATION WITH [PROPOSED] ORDER Conﬁrming Undisputed Attorneys Fees and Costs for the Third Quarter of 2020 ﬁled by John Armstrong, Gavin c. Newsom. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 1/26/2021) Modiﬁed on 1/27/2021 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/26/2021)

01/27/2021

3199

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 3198 STIPULATION CONFIRMING UNDISPUTED ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS FOR THE THIRD QUARTER OF 2020.(amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/27/2021) (Entered: 01/27/2021)

02/01/2021 3200 NOTICE by J. Clark Kelso of Filing of Receiver's 46th Tri-Annual Report (Dupree, Jamie) (Filed on 2/1/2021) Modiﬁed on 2/2/2021 (anjS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/01/2021)

02/01/2021

3201

STATUS REPORT Court Expert's Fourth Report and Recommendations Regarding Housing of Class Members During the COVID-19 Pandemic by Edward Swanson. (Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 2/1/2021) Modiﬁed on 2/2/2021 (anjS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/01/2021)

02/02/2021

3202

ORDER REGARDING 3201 COURT EXPERT'S FOURTH REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING HOUSING OF CLASS MEMBERS DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC. Status Report due by 5/3/2021. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 2/2/2021. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/2/2021) (Entered: 02/02/2021)

02/09/2021

3203

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION for an Order Directing the Return of $400,000 Deposited in Error re 3193 Receipt ﬁled by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom. Responses due by 2/16/2021. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Lodholz, Sean) (Filed on 2/9/2021) (Entered: 02/09/2021)

02/11/2021

3204

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 3203 ADMIINISTRATIVE MOTION DIRECTING THERETURN OF $400,000 DEPOSITED BY THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION IN ERROR. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/11/2021) (Entered: 02/11/2021)

02/11/2021 3206 Letter from Christopher Warsaw - Requesting documents. (anjS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/11/2021) (Entered: 02/17/2021)

02/16/2021

3205

Request for Judicial Notice re 2948 MOTION for Permanent Injunction to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against People with Disabilities ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 2948 ) (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 2/16/2021) (Entered: 02/16/2021)

02/19/2021

3207

OBJECTIONS to re 2948 MOTION for Permanent Injunction to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against People with Disabilities, 3205 Request for Judicial Notice, by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom. (Maiorino, Trace) (Filed on 2/19/2021) (Entered: 02/19/2021)

02/23/2021

3208

ORDER REGARDING 3205 REPORT BY THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL. Five Page Responses due by 3/2/2021. Five Page Reply due by 3/9/2021. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 2/23/2021. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/23/2021) (Entered: 02/23/2021)

02/23/2021

3209

MOTION for Disbursement of Funds Administrative Motion And [Proposed] Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 3/9/2021. Replies due by 3/16/2021. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 2/23/2021) (Entered: 02/23/2021)

02/24/2021 3210 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 3209 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/24/2021) (Entered: 02/24/2021)

03/02/2021

3211

RESPONSE re 3205 and 3208 Request for Judicial Notice, by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Kathleen Allison)(Perkins, Robert) (Filed on 3/2/2021) Modiﬁed on 3/3/2021 (anjS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/02/2021)

03/03/2021

3212

ERRATA re 3211 Response ( Non Motion ), by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Kathleen Allison)(Maiorino, Trace) (Filed on 3/3/2021) (Entered: 03/03/2021)

03/03/2021 3213 Letter from Mario A. Gonzalez. (anjS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/3/2021) (Entered: 03/05/2021)

03/05/2021 3228 Letter from Mario A. Gonzalez. (anjS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/5/2021) (Entered: 03/16/2021)

03/09/2021

3214

Brief re 3208 Order, Set Deadlines/Hearings Plaintiﬀs' Brief Regarding the February 16, 2021 Report by the Oﬃce of the Inspector General ﬁled byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Michael Freedman in Support of Plaintiﬀs' Brief Regarding the February 16, 2021 Report by the Oﬃce of the Inspector General)(Related document(s) 3208 ) (Freedman, Michael) (Filed on 3/9/2021) (Entered: 03/09/2021)

03/10/2021 3215 NOTICE of Appearance by Robert Mitchell Perkins, III as Counsel for Defendants (Perkins, Robert) (Filed on 3/10/2021) (Entered: 03/10/2021)

03/11/2021

3216

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Regarding Brieﬁng Schedule for Disputes Regarding Paragraph 5.c of the RJD Remedial Plan ﬁled by John Armstrong and Gavin C. Newsom. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 3/11/2021) Modiﬁed on 3/12/2021 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/11/2021)

03/11/2021

3217

ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION TO MODIFY REMEDIAL ORDERS AND INJUNCTIONS 2948 by Judge Claudia Wilken. (cwlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/11/2021) (Entered: 03/11/2021)

03/11/2021

3218

ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL REMEDIAL MEASURES AT LAC, COR, SATF, CIW, AND KVSP 2948 . Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 3/11/21. (cwlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/11/2021) (Entered: 03/11/2021)

03/12/2021

3219

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 3216 STIPULATION REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR DISPUTES REGARDING PARAGRAPH 5.c OF THE RJD REMEDIAL PLAN. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/12/2021) (Entered: 03/12/2021)

03/12/2021 3220 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 3074 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/12/2021) (Entered: 03/12/2021)

03/12/2021 3221 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 3076 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/12/2021) (Entered: 03/12/2021)

03/12/2021 3222 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 3097 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/12/2021) (Entered: 03/12/2021)

03/12/2021 3223 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 3102 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/12/2021) (Entered: 03/12/2021)

03/12/2021 3224 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 3106 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/12/2021) (Entered: 03/12/2021)

03/12/2021 3225 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 3156 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/12/2021) (Entered: 03/12/2021)

03/12/2021 3226 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 3169 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/12/2021) (Entered: 03/12/2021)

03/15/2021

3227

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT ﬁled by John Armstrong, Gavin Newsom and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Godbold, Penny) (Filed on 3/15/2021) Modiﬁed on 3/16/2021 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/15/2021)

03/18/2021

3229

MOTION for Disbursement of Funds Administrative Motion and [Proposed] Order for Payment ﬁled by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 4/1/2021. Replies due by 4/8/2021. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 3/18/2021) (Entered: 03/18/2021)

03/19/2021 3230 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 3229 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/19/2021) (Entered: 03/19/2021)

03/25/2021

3231

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 3202 Order,, Set Deadlines/Hearings, ﬁled by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom and John Armstrong. (Lodholz, Sean) (Filed on 3/25/2021) Modiﬁed on 3/26/2021 (anjS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/25/2021)

03/25/2021 3235 Letter requesting to submit Declaration ﬁled by Stephen F. Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(anjS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/25/2021) (Entered: 03/31/2021)

03/26/2021

3232

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING 3231 STIPULATION REGARDING AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR THE COURT EXPERT'S REPORT. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/26/2021) (Entered: 03/26/2021)

03/26/2021 3236 Letter requesting to submit Declaration ﬁled by Albert Camacho. (anjS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/26/2021) (Entered: 03/31/2021)

03/30/2021

3233

NOTICE Of change in counsel by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom Request to Terminate Jeremy Duggan from Service List (Maiorino, Trace) (Filed on 3/30/2021) Modiﬁed on 3/31/2021 (anjS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/30/2021)

03/30/2021

3234

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Conﬁrming Undisputed Attorneys Fees and Costs for the Fourth Quarter of 2020 ﬁled by John Armstrong and Defendants. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 3/30/2021) Modiﬁed on 3/31/2021 (anjS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/30/2021)

03/31/2021

3237

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 3234 STIPULATION CONFIRMING UNDISPUTED ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS FOR THE FOURTH QUARTER OF 2020. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/31/2021) (Entered: 03/31/2021)

04/02/2021

3238

NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ﬁled by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom. (Appeal fee of $505 receipt number 0971-15788949 paid.) (Maiorino, Trace) (Filed on 4/2/2021) (Entered: 04/02/2021)

04/02/2021 3239 Letter from by Mario Amador Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(anjS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/2/2021) Modiﬁed on 4/6/2021 (anjS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/06/2021)

04/02/2021 3240 Letter requesting to submit Declaration ﬁled by Robert Cavalier. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(anjS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/2/2021) (Entered: 04/06/2021)

04/06/2021

3241

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Regarding Brieﬁng Schedule for Disputes Regarding Reforms to Investigation Process Pursuant to Paragraph 5.c of the RJD Remedial Plan ﬁled by John Armstrong and Gavin C. Newsom. (Godbold, Penny) (Filed on 4/6/2021) Modiﬁed on 4/7/2021 (anjS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/06/2021)

04/06/2021

3243

USCA for the Ninth Circuit Case Number 21-15614 for 3238 Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit ﬁled by Gavin C. Newsom, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (jmlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/6/2021) (Entered: 04/07/2021)

04/07/2021

3242

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 3241 STIPULATION REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR DISPUTES REGARDING REFORMS TO INVESTIGATION PROCESS PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH 5.c OF THE RJD REMEDIAL PLAN. Objections due by 5/4/2021. Response due by 5/19/2021. Reply due by 5/26/2021. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/7/2021) (Entered: 04/07/2021)

04/07/2021 3244 NOTICE by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom Request to Terminate Counsel from Service List (Maiorino, Trace) (Filed on 4/7/2021) (Entered: 04/07/2021)

04/08/2021 3245 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Shawn Hanson (Hanson, Shawn) (Filed on 4/8/2021) (Entered: 04/08/2021)

04/09/2021 3246 NOTICE of Appearance by Patrick D Booth (Booth, Patrick) (Filed on 4/9/2021) (Entered: 04/09/2021)

04/14/2021 3247 Letter from L.T. Tucker requesting documents. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(anjS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/14/2021) (Entered: 04/14/2021)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

04/15/2021 13:58:26

PACER Login:

Client

CRClearinghouse:2563377:0

Yu

Code:

Description: Docket Report

4:94Search cvCriteria: 02307-
CW

Billable 30
Pages:

Cost: 3.00

 
 Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 1 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

7

JOHN ARMSTRONG, et al.,

Case No. 94-cv-02307 CW

8

Plaintiffs,

9

v.

10

GAVIN C. NEWSOM, et al.,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION TO MODIFY REMEDIAL ORDERS AND INJUNCTIONS
(Re: Dkt. No. 2948)

11

Defendants.

12

13

In this class action for violations of disabled prisoners’

14 rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and § 504

15 of the Rehabilitation Act (RA), which is in the remedial phase,

16 Plaintiffs contend that staff at seven state prisons continue to

17 deprive class members of their rights under the Armstrong

18 Remedial Plan (ARP) and the ADA. Docket No. 2948. Plaintiffs

19 seek an order modifying the Court’s prior remedial orders and

20 injunctions to require the implementation of new remedial

21 measures to prevent further violations of the ARP and ADA.

22 Defendants oppose the motion. Having carefully considered the

23 parties’ submissions, and the argument presented at the hearings

24 held on October 6, 2020, and December 8, 2020,1 the Court GRANTS

25

26

1 Defendants objected to the Court’s consideration of new

27

matters that were raised and attached to Plaintiffs’ reply on the ground that Defendants did not have an opportunity to respond to

28 them. Objections 1-3, Docket No. 3116. These objections are

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 2 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 IN PART Plaintiffs’ motion to modify the Court’s remedial orders

2 and injunctions.

3

FINDINGS OF FACT

4 I. Procedural history

5

In 1994, Plaintiffs, a class of all present and future

6 California state prison inmates and parolees with certain

7 disabilities, sued defendants, California state officials with

8 responsibility for the operation of the Department of Corrections

9 and Rehabilitation (the CDCR) and the Board of Parole Hearings

10 (BPH), challenging the State’s treatment of disabled prisoners

11 and parolees. The claims against the CDCR were litigated

12 separately from the claims against the BPH; only the former

13 claims are relevant to the present motion.

14

On July 9, 1996, on the eve of trial, Plaintiffs and CDCR

15 Defendants reached an agreement on a Stipulation and Order for

16 Procedures to Determine Liability and Remedy. Docket No. 148.

17 The Stipulation and Order provides:

18

It is the intent of this Stipulation to

require defendants to operate programs,

19

activities, services and facilities of the

California Department of Corrections in

20

accordance with the Americans with

Disabilities Act and § 504 of the

21

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, if the Court

determines that the ADA and § 504 apply to

22

the California Department of Corrections.

23 Stipulation and Order ¶ 12, Docket No. 148.

24

25

26 moot, as the Court allowed Defendants additional time and an

27

opportunity to respond. Defendants further objected to certain portions of the declarations of Gay Grunfeld and Michael

28

Freedman, upon which the Court has not relied. The Court overrules these objections as moot.

2

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 3 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

On September 20, 1996, this Court held that the ADA and RA

2 do apply to state prisoners, Docket No. 157, and that Defendants’

3 policies and procedures with regard to disabled prisoners were

4 inadequate and violative of the ADA and the RA, Docket No. 159.

5 See also Armstrong v. Wilson, 942 F. Supp. 1252, 1258 (N.D. Cal.

6 1996), aff’d, 124 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 1997).

7

On the same date, the Court entered the parties’ stipulated

8 Remedial Order and Injunction, which required CDCR Defendants to

9 develop plans, policies, and procedures, including disability-

10 grievance procedures, to ensure that their facilities and

11 programs were compliant with the ADA and RA. Remedial Order and

12 Injunction at 1-4, Docket No. 158. The Court retained

13 jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Remedial Order and

14 Injunction, as well as to issue “any order permitted by law,

15 including contempt, necessary to ensure that defendants comply

16 with the guidelines, policies, procedures, plans and evaluations”

17 required by the Remedial Order and Injunction. Id. at 5.

18

In accordance with the Remedial Order and Injunction,

19 Defendants produced the ARP in 1998, Docket No. 337, amended in

20 January 2001, Docket No. 681. The ARP, Section I, incorporates

21 the ADA’s anti-discrimination and access provisions, 42 U.S.C.

22 § 12132, by providing as follows:

23

No qualified inmate or parolee with a

disability as defined in Title 42 of the

24

United States Code, Section 12102 shall,

because of that disability, be excluded from

25

participation in or denied the benefits of

services, programs, or activities of the

26

Department or be subjected to

discrimination. 27

28 3

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 4 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 ARP at 1, Docket No. 681. Section II.F. of the ARP requires CDCR

2 to “provide reasonable accommodations or modifications for known

3 physical or mental disabilities of qualified inmates/parolees.”

4 Id. at 7. The remainder of the ARP describes various types of

5 accommodations that CDCR must provide, such as “staff

6 assistance,” sign language interpreters, alternative methods for

7 restraining inmates who cannot be restrained with traditional

8 restraint equipment in the ordinary prescribed manner, and

9 accessible vehicles for transporting inmates. Id. at 22-34. The

10 ARP requires each institution to take steps to ensure that staff

11 are aware, at all times, of which inmates have disabilities that

12 require accommodations. Id. For example, the ARP requires each

13 institution to issue an identifying vest to each inmate who has

14 vision or hearing disabilities, which the inmates must wear over

15 their clothing when outside of their cell or bed area. Id.

16 Defendants used the ARP as a model to craft remedial plans that

17 were specifically tailored to each CDCR institution. See

18 Individual Remedial Plans, Docket Nos. 782, 783, 784. The Court

19 approved the remedial plans for each institution on February 6,

20 2002. Docket No. 781.

21

In November 2006, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a further

22 remedial order, in which they argued that Defendants were in

23 violation of the ARP and the Court’s orders. Docket No. 950. As

24 a result of this motion, the Court issued another injunction in

25 2007 (2007 injunction), which required Defendants, in relevant

26 part, to comply with the ARP, including Section I, and to develop

27 accountability procedures to ensure their compliance with the ARP

28 and the Court’s orders. 2007 Injunction at 7, 9, Docket No. 1045. 4

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 5 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 Since then, in response to enforcement motions brought by

2 Plaintiffs, the Court has modified the 2007 injunction several

3 times to clarify Defendants’ accountability obligations. See

4 Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger, 622 F.3d 1058, 1073 (9th Cir. 2010);

5 Armstrong v. Brown, 768 F.3d 975, 979 (9th Cir. 2014); see also

6 Order Modifying Permanent Injunction of August 2, 2012, Docket No.

7 2180; Order Modifying 2007 Injunction of December 29, 2014, Docket

8 No. 2479.

9

In February and June 2020, respectively, Plaintiffs filed

10 two enforcement motions, in which they argue that Defendants’

11 employees have engaged and continue to engage in conduct that

12 violates disabled inmates’ rights under the ARP and ADA contrary

13 to this Court’s prior orders and injunctions. Docket Nos. 2922,

14 2948. The acts alleged involve misconduct directed at disabled

15 inmates, who are vulnerable to abuse and less able than others to

16 defend themselves in light of their disabilities, as well as acts

17 that have served to discourage disabled inmates from requesting

18 reasonable accommodations for their disabilities, either through

19 the formal grievance process or otherwise.

20

The first enforcement motion sought a modification of the

21 Court’s prior orders and injunctions to require the

22 implementation of new remedial measures at Richard J. Donovan

23 Correctional Facility (RJD) to end ongoing violations of the ARP

24 and ADA at that prison. Docket No. 2922. On September 8, 2020,

25 the Court granted the RJD enforcement motion in part, Order,

26 Docket No. 3059, and it ordered Defendants to draft a plan for

27 achieving compliance with the ARP and ADA at that prison that

28 5

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 6 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 includes certain remedial measures, Order for Additional Remedial

2 Measures, Docket No. 3060.

3

The second enforcement motion is the one presently before

4 the Court. It seeks a modification of the Court’s prior orders

5 and injunctions to require the implementation of new remedial

6 measures at seven prisons, namely California State Prison, Los

7 Angeles County (LAC); California Correctional Institution (CCI);

8 Kern Valley State Prison (KVSP); California State Prison,

9 Corcoran (COR); Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (SATF);

10 California Institute for Women (CIW); and Salinas Valley State

11 Prison (SVSP) (collectively, the prisons at issue).

12 II. Staff at LAC, COR, SATF, CIW, and KVSP violated the ARP, the ADA, and the Court’s prior orders and injunctions2
13

A. Staff denied qualified inmates with disabilities

14

reasonable accommodations for their disabilities

15

As will be discussed in the Conclusions of Law, below, a

16 violation of the ADA’s anti-discrimination and access provisions,

17 42 U.S.C. § 12132, which are incorporated into Section I of the

18 ARP, occurs where a disabled inmate is discriminated against by a

19 public entity or is otherwise denied the benefits of a public

20 entity’s services, programs, or activities by reason of his or

21 her disability. ARP at 1, Docket No. 681. A failure to provide

22 a reasonable accommodation can occur where a correctional officer

23 could have used less force or no force during the performance of

24 his or her penological duties with respect to a disabled person.

25 A failure to provide a reasonable accommodation, or

26

27

2 Plaintiffs have not shown that staff violated the rights

28

under the ARP or ADA of qualified inmates with disabilities at SVSP or CCI.

6

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 7 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 discrimination by reason of disability, constitutes a violation

2 of the ADA, as well as the ARP.

3

Plaintiffs have submitted declarations3 from current or

4 former inmates at LAC, COR, SATF, CIW, and KVSP.4 These

5 declarations describe dozens of incidents in which staff at LAC,

6 COR, SATF, CIW, and KVSP denied disabled inmates at these prisons

7 reasonable accommodations for their physical or mental

8 disabilities. Some of the incidents involve the use of force

9 against mentally or physically disabled inmates even though the

10 disabled inmates appear to have posed no imminent threat to the

11 safety of staff or other inmates. For none of the incidents

12 described below have Defendants submitted evidence to show that

13 the denial of reasonable accommodations, or the use of

14 unnecessary force, which itself can be a denial of a reasonable

15

16

3 Defendants object to certain portions of these declarations

on the grounds that: (1) they contain evidence the probative 17 value of which is substantially outweighed by the danger of

unfair prejudice under Federal Rule of Evidence 403; (2) they 18 contain hearsay; or (3) the declarants lack personal knowledge.

The Court overrules these objections. The Court declines to 19 exclude any portions of the inmate declarations on the basis of

Federal Rule of Evidence 403, because there is no danger of 20 unfair prejudice as the Court, not a jury, is making factual

determinations. The Court finds that the rest of Defendants’ 21 objections lack merit. The statements in the inmate declarations

at issue are not subject to exclusion because they (1) are not 22 hearsay, as they are not made for the truth of the matter

asserted or fall within one of the hearsay exceptions under 23 Federal Rule of Evidence 803; and (2) are based on the

declarants’ personal knowledge and perceptions.

24

4 Defendants move to strike the declarations of three inmate-

25

declarants on the ground that they refused to answer certain questions during their depositions by invoking the Fifth

26

Amendment. The Court denies the motion because the questions the inmate-declarants refused to answer are collateral to the matters

27

at issue in the present motion. Further, the Court has not relied on the declarations of these three inmate-declarants, or

28

on the transcripts of their depositions, for the purpose of deciding the present motion.

7

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 8 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 accommodation, was necessary for the performance of legitimate

2 penological duties.5 The following are illustrative examples.

3

An inmate at LAC who uses a wheelchair is frequently denied

4 ADA assistance, to take a shower, by a particular officer.6

5 Freedman Decl., Ex. 35 ¶¶ 1-12, Docket No. 2947-5. The inmate no

6 longer asks for ADA showers when that officer is on her shift.

7

An inmate at LAC who has mobility, vision, and mental

8 disabilities was not provided with a vehicle with a lift so that

9 he could be transported to his medical appointment in August

10 2020, and the inmate missed his appointment as a result.7

11 Grunfeld Reply Decl., Ex. 8 ¶¶ 32-33, Docket No. 3108-1. The

12 inmate believes that staff prevented him from going to his

13 medical appointment in retaliation for reporting staff misconduct

14 at LAC. Id.

15

An inmate at LAC who suffers from bipolar disorder and is

16 assigned to an EOP unit experienced a manic episode in December

17 2019, after which several officers brought the inmate to the

18 ground. Freedman Decl., Ex. 29 ¶¶ 17-18. Once the inmate was

19

20

5 Defendants submitted declarations by prison staff disputing

21

some, but not all, of the incidents that some of the inmatedeclarants describe. The incidents described in this order are

22

examples of alleged incidents for which Defendants have not pointed to any evidence that contradicts the inmate-declarants’

23 version of the events.
6 Defendants submitted evidence that they argue contradicts 24 the declaration of this inmate. See Docket No. 3080-4. But that

evidence does not speak to the incidents described in this order 25 in which a specific officer identified by name allegedly denied

the inmate access to ADA assistance to take a shower.

26

7 Defendants filed declarations by officers at LAC that

27

address other unrelated incidents involving this inmate that took place in April 2020. Defendants filed no evidence to dispute

28

that the inmate missed an appointment for lack of an accessible vehicle in August 2020.

8

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 9 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 under the control of the officers, one of the officers unloaded

2 an entire can of pepper spray on the inmate, and then beat the

3 inmate. Id. Then, after the inmate was in handcuffs, the

4 officers beat him again. Id. ¶ 19. The inmate now refrains from

5 asking for help. Id. ¶ 36.

6

An inmate at LAC who has mobility disabilities and suffers

7 from bipolar disorder and is assigned to an EOP unit experienced

8 hallucinations and sought mental health treatment in June 2019.

9 Freedman Decl., Ex. 49 ¶¶ 1-10, Docket No. 2947-5. After a

10 mental health evaluation, he was being returned to his cell,

11 while handcuffed, by two officers when the officers and the

12 inmate had a verbal altercation; once they reached his cell, the

13 officers slammed him to the ground face first and punched him in

14 the head. Id. ¶¶ 10-17. The inmate now is afraid of asking for

15 help for his disabilities. Id. ¶ 32.

16

An inmate at LAC who suffers from schizoaffective disorder

17 and is housed in an EOP unit reported that he was suicidal in

18 March 2018 and was ignored for hours, after which he tried to

19 hang himself. Freedman Decl., Ex. 33 ¶¶ 8-10, Docket No. 2947-5.

20 Instead of providing him with mental health care, an officer

21 pepper sprayed him in the face. Id.

22

An inmate at LAC who suffers from depression and anxiety and

23 is housed in an EOP unit asked to speak to his mental health

24 clinician because he had learned that his father had cancer, and

25 an officer pepper sprayed him instead. Freedman Decl., Ex. 37 ¶¶

26 1-11, Docket No. 2947-5.

27

An inmate at COR who is housed in an EOP unit observed

28 officers beat another EOP inmate after he asked for medications. 9

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 10 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 Grunfeld Reply Decl., Ex. 23 ¶¶ 1-24, Docket No. 3108-1. The

2 inmate now worries that staff will deny him mental healthcare.

3 Id. ¶ 24.

4

An inmate at COR who is housed in an EOP unit was beaten by

5 an officer after a suicide attempt in August 2019. Grunfeld

6 Reply Decl., Ex. 20 ¶¶ 34-42, Docket No. 3108-1. The inmate

7 believes that the officer beat him because he suffers from mental

8 health issues and cannot advocate for himself. Id. ¶ 47. The

9 inmate now refrains from asking for help because he is afraid of

10 what would happen to him. Id. ¶ 61.

11

An inmate at COR who is housed in an EOP unit reported that

12 he was suicidal in July 2020 but staff ignored him. Grunfeld

13 Reply Decl., Ex. 20 ¶¶ 56-58, Docket No. 3108-1.

14

An inmate at SATF who has a hearing disability repeatedly

15 asked for a telecommunication device for the deaf in February

16 2020, and staff ignored his request for months, until June 2020.8

17 Grunfeld Reply Decl., Ex. 70 ¶¶ 1-17, Docket No. 3109-1.

18

An inmate at CIW who has a mobility disability requested a

19 handcuffing accommodation in February 2020, and the officer

20 ignored her request. Grunfeld Decl., Ex. 41 ¶¶ 1-13, Docket No.

21 3108-1. The inmate was handcuffed behind her back for two hours

22

23

24

25

8 Defendants argue that the inmate’s declaration is

26

contradicted by evidence that he did receive access to the telecommunications device from June through August of 2020.

27

Docket No. 3162 at 6. Defendants, however, point to no evidence to dispute the inmate’s declaration that he requested the

28

telecommunications device in February 2020 but Defendants failed to provide him access to it until June 2020.

10

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 11 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 until another officer confirmed that the inmate requires a

2 handcuffing accommodation and removed the handcuffs.9 Id. ¶ 11.

3

An inmate at KVSP who is designated as EOP and has permanent

4 nerve damage in his wrists, Freedman Decl., Ex. 26 ¶¶ 1-5, Docket

5 No. 2947-5, requested a change of bandages in May 2020 because he

6 had had wrist surgery and, instead of accommodating him, an

7 officer hit him with a mace can, Freedman Decl. ¶ 72 & Ex. 62 ¶¶

8 1-9, Docket No. 2947-5. The inmate believes that staff at KVSP

9 are retaliating against him for providing assistance in the

10 Coleman and Armstrong litigation. Freedman Decl., Ex. 62 ¶ 18,

11 Docket No. 2947-5.

12

The declarants believe, based on their experiences and

13 observations, that staff target inmates with disabilities for

14 mistreatment because they are vulnerable and unlikely to fight

15 back. See, e.g., Grunfeld Reply Decl., Ex. 8 ¶¶ 34-35, Docket

16 No. 3108-1; Freedman Decl., Ex. 29 ¶ 36; Freedman Decl., Ex. 33 ¶

17 29, Docket No. 2947-5; Grunfeld Reply Decl., Ex. 70 ¶ 45, Docket

18 No. 3109-1; Grunfeld Reply Decl., Ex. 43 ¶ 13, Docket No. 3108-1;

19 Grunfeld Decl., Ex. 41 ¶ 20, Docket No. 3108-1; Freedman Decl.,

20 Ex. 35 ¶ 21, Docket No. 2947-5; Freedman Decl., Ex. 49 ¶ 37,

21 Docket No. 2947-5. The Court finds the inmate declarations to be

22 credible. The descriptions in these declarations of the behavior

23

24

25

9 Defendants argue that this inmate’s description of the incident is contradicted by medical records, which state that

26

“I/P was escorted cuffed in front to TTA exam room[.]” Grunfeld Decl., Ex. 41a, Docket No. 3108-1. These medical records, which

27

state that the inmate was handcuffed in the front while she was being escorted do not contradict the inmate’s declaration that

28

she was handcuffed behind her back for two hours in a holding cell before the handcuffs were removed.

11

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 12 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 of staff toward disabled inmates are remarkably consistent.

2 Further, the declarants appear to lack any incentive to fabricate

3 the incidents they describe with such great detail. Finally, as

4 noted, Defendants have not pointed to declarations or other

5 evidence to dispute the sworn statements of the declarants with

6 respect to the incidents described above.10 The declarants’

7 version of the incidents described above is, therefore,

8 uncontroverted.

9

Defendants note that some of the inmate declarations that

10 Plaintiffs filed are by members of the class in Coleman v.

11 Newsom, Case No. 90-cv-00529 (E.D. Cal.) and argue that these

12 declarations cannot establish violations of the ARP to the extent

13 that they describe denials of reasonable accommodations as to

14 Coleman class members. The Coleman class includes “all inmates

15 with serious mental disorders who are now, or who will in the

16 future, be confined within the California Department of

17 Corrections.” Coleman v. Schwarzenegger, 922 F. Supp. 2d 882,

18 899 n.11 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (citation and internal quotation marks

19 omitted). Defendants contend that the ARP does not apply to

20 Coleman class members by virtue of their mental disorders unless

21 the mental disorders are learning disabilities. See Tr. of Oct.

22 6, 2020, Hr’g at 25-26, Docket No. 3131.

23

24

10 Defendants argue that the “current page limitations” made

25

it “impossible” for them to “make extended discussions” of some of the inmate declarations. Docket No. 3162. Defendants’

26

failure to cite evidence that contradicts the inmates’ declarations, to the extent that any such evidence exists, is not

27

justified by the page limitations the Court imposed on the parties. Pointing to contrary evidence does not require extended

28

discussions of the evidence. Further, Defendants never moved for additional pages.

12

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 13 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

As noted, the Court’s Remedial Order and Injunction requires

2 Defendants to ensure that their facilities and programs are

3 compliant with the ADA and RA. Remedial Order and Injunction at

4 1-4, Docket No. 158. The ARP, Section I, which incorporates the

5 ADA’s anti-discrimination and access provisions, 42 U.S.C.

6 § 12132, provides that any “qualified inmate or parolee with a

7 disability” is protected from discrimination or exclusion because

8 of that disability:

9

No qualified inmate or parolee with a

disability as defined in Title 42 of the

10

United States Code, Section 12102 shall,

because of that disability, be excluded from

11

participation in or denied the benefits of

services, programs, or activities of the

12

Department or be subjected to

discrimination. 13

14 ARP at 1, Docket No. 681. Section II.A of the ARP defines a

15 “qualified inmate or parolee” as “one with a permanent physical

16 or mental impairment which substantially limits the

17 inmate/parolee’s ability to perform a major life activity,” id.

18 at 1, and Section II.B. of the ARP defines a “permanent

19 disability or impairment” as one that is not expected to improve

20 within six months, id. at 2. The ARP does not define or limit

21 the conditions that may constitute a covered “mental impairment.”

22

In light of the plain language of the ARP, the Court

23 concludes that Coleman class members are “qualified inmates”

24 under the ARP if the record suggests that they suffer from any

25 known physical or mental impairment that substantially limits

26 their ability to perform a major life activity and that is not

27 expected to improve within six months. The Court finds no

28 13

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 14 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 support in the ARP for limiting the scope of the term “mental

2 impairment” to learning disabilities, as Defendants propose.

3

During the hearing held on December 8, 2020, Plaintiffs

4 argued that Coleman class members who “have been classified by

5 CDCR as belonging to EOP, Enhanced Outpatient Placement,” are

6 qualified inmates within the meaning of the ARP because “they

7 require special housing, special programming” and “are very ill.”

8 Tr. at 37, Docket No. 3184. The record in the Coleman litigation

9 supports that argument. It shows that Coleman class members

10 designated as EOP suffer from serious mental disorders such as

11 depression, panic attacks, bipolar disorder, and post-traumatic

12 stress disorder, which cause them to suffer from “crisis symptoms

13 which require extensive treatment” or prevent them from

14 functioning in the general prison population. See CDCR Mental

15 Health Services Delivery System Program Guide, 2018 Revision, at

16 7-8, Docket No. 5864-1, Coleman v. Newsom, Case No. 90-cv-00520

17 (E.D. Cal.); see also Order at 5, Docket No. 5131, Coleman v.

18 Newsom, Case No. 90-cv-00520 (E.D. Cal.) (noting that Coleman

19 class members designated as EOP suffer from serious mental

20 disorders that render them “unable to function in the general

21 prison population”). As a result, Coleman class members

22 designated as EOP require special housing apart from the general

23 prison population and special extensive mental-health treatment.

24

As will be discussed in more detail in the Conclusions of

25 Law, below, a mental impairment that prevents an inmate from

26 functioning in the general prison population and that requires

27 the inmate to receive special and extensive mental-health

28 treatment constitutes a disability within the meaning of the ARP 14

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 15 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 and ADA, as that impairment substantially limits the inmate’s

2 ability to perform a major life activity. Accordingly, Coleman

3 class members who are designated as EOP are “qualified inmates”

4 within the meaning of the ARP and are covered by the ARP and ADA.

5 As such, any failure by Defendants’ employees to provide EOP

6 Coleman class members with reasonable accommodations for their

7 disabilities constitutes a violation of the ARP and ADA. See ARP

8 at 7, Section II.F., Docket No. 681 (requiring CDCR to “provide

9 reasonable accommodations or modifications for known physical or

10 mental disabilities of qualified inmates/parolees”) (emphasis

11 added).

12

The declarations of Coleman class members are also relevant

13 to the resolution of the present motion to the extent that they

14 contain evidence of violations of Armstrong class members’ rights

15 under the ARP or ADA, and to the extent that they contain

16 evidence that is probative of the conditions that disabled

17 inmates experience in CDCR’s prisons.

18

For the foregoing reasons, the Court considers the

19 declarations of Coleman class members when deciding the present

20 motion.

21

Defendants next argue that certain of the declarants do not

22 explicitly establish a causal link between the violations of the

23 ARP and ADA that they describe and their disabilities. The Court

24 is not persuaded. This causal link need not be expressly alleged

25 by each of the declarants. The causal link can be inferred from

26 the totality of the allegations in the declarations and the

27 evidence discussed below, which shows that it is part of the

28 staff culture at LAC, COR, SATF, CIW, and KVSP to target inmates 15

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 16 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 with disabilities for mistreatment, abuse, retaliation, and other

2 improper behavior.

3

The Court finds, based on the foregoing, that staff have

4 denied reasonable accommodations to inmates with disabilities on

5 multiple occasions at LAC, COR, CIW, SATF, and KVSP, and that

6 such denials were by reason of the inmates’ disabilities.

7

B. Staff interfered with the ADA rights of qualified

inmates with disabilities 8

9

As will be discussed in the Conclusions of Law below, a

10 violation of the ADA’s anti-interference provisions, 42 U.S.C.

11 § 12203(b), occurs where (1) a person threatens, intimidates, or

12 coerces a person with a disability; (2) the threat, intimidation,

13 or coercion has a nexus to the exercise or enjoyment of an ADA

14 right; and (3) the disabled person suffers distinct and palpable

15 injury as a result, by virtue of giving up his ADA rights or some

16 other injury which resulted from his refusal to give up his

17 rights, or from the threat or intimidation or coercion itself.

18

Plaintiffs have submitted declarations by inmates stating

19 that staff have threatened, intimidated, or coerced them when

20 they requested reasonable accommodations or indicated that they

21 would file ADA-related grievances, and that this has caused them

22 to refrain from requesting accommodations or filing ADA

23 grievances, or to experience severe emotional distress. As

24 discussed below, the incidents described in the declarations,

25 which are uncontested, establish that staff have violated 42

26 U.S.C. § 12203(b). Below, the Court describes a few examples.

27 Some of these incidents were also discussed in the previous

28 16

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 17 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 section of this order because they involve denials of reasonable

2 accommodations, as well as violations of § 12203(b).

3

The inmate at LAC who uses a wheelchair, who is frequently

4 denied by a particular officer of ADA assistance to take a

5 shower, no longer asks for ADA showers when that officer is on

6 her shift.11 Freedman Decl., Ex. 35 ¶¶ 1-12, Docket No. 2947-5.

7

An inmate at LAC who suffers from depression and anxiety and

8 is housed in an EOP unit and was assaulted by officers after he

9 asked to speak to his mental health clinician filed a complaint

10 regarding the incident and then experienced retaliation by

11 officers in the form of an unwarranted placement in segregation

12 in November 2019. Freedman Decl., Ex. 37 ¶¶ 1-11, 20-26, Docket

13 No. 2947-5. The inmate now refrains from asking for mental

14 health treatment when he feels suicidal. Id. ¶ 38.

15

An inmate at LAC who has mobility, vision, and mental

16 disabilities was accused by an officer at LAC, while in the

17 presence of other inmates, of reporting staff misconduct and

18 denials of disability accommodations.12 Grunfeld Reply Decl., Ex.

19 8 ¶¶ 18-19, Docket No. 3108-1. The inmate now worries about his

20 safety and refrains from asking for assistance he needs in light

21 of his disabilities. Id. ¶¶ 18-19, 34.

22

23 11 As noted above, Defendants submitted evidence that they
24 argue contradicts the declaration of this inmate. See Docket No.
3080-4. But none of that evidence addresses the incidents 25 described in this order in which a specific officer identified by
name allegedly denied the inmate access to ADA assistance to take 26 a shower.

27

12 Defendants filed declarations by officers at LAC that address other unrelated incidents. Defendants have filed no

28

evidence to dispute that this inmate suffered retaliation in the summer of 2020.

17

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 18 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

Described above is an inmate at LAC who has mobility

2 disabilities and suffers from bipolar disorder and is assigned to

3 an EOP unit; this inmate experienced hallucinations and sought

4 mental health treatment in June 2019. Freedman Decl., Ex. 49 ¶¶

5 1-10, Docket No. 2947-5. After a mental health evaluation, he

6 was being returned to his cell, while handcuffed, by two officers

7 when the officers and the inmate had a verbal altercation; once

8 they reached his cell, the officers slammed him to the ground

9 face first and punched him in the head. Id. ¶¶ 10-17. The

10 inmate is now afraid of asking for help for his disabilities.

11 Id. ¶ 32.

12

An inmate at COR who has mobility disabilities filed a staff

13 complaint against an officer who allegedly kicked him on the

14 inside of his legs in September 2019 during a body search,

15 causing him excruciating pain and worsening his mobility

16 disability.13 Grunfeld Reply Decl., Ex. 33 ¶¶ 1-18, Docket No.

17 3108-1. Since then, two other officers have threatened him and

18 told him to drop his complaints against the officer who kicked

19 him.14 Id. ¶¶ 25-34.

20

An inmate at COR who was being housed in an EOP unit in June

21 2020 observed officers extract another EOP inmate from his cell

22 while he was wearing handcuffs and leg restraints; while that

23

24

13 The officer who allegedly kicked the inmate filed a

declaration, in which he does not deny having kicked the inmate.

25 See Docket No. 3160-19.

26

14 One of the officers who allegedly threatened the inmate filed a declaration. Docket No. 3160-17. This officer does not

27

deny threatening or telling the inmate to drop his complaints against the officer who allegedly kicked the inmate. Id. The

28

other officer who allegedly threatened and told the inmate to drop the complaints did not file a declaration.

18

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 19 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 inmate was on the floor, a female officer kicked the inmate in

2 the head. Grunfeld Reply Decl., Ex. 22 ¶¶ 1-226, Docket No.

3 3108-1. The inmate who observed the incident now refrains from

4 asking for treatment for his mental illness. Id. ¶ 32.

5

An inmate at CIW asked for a handcuffing accommodation and

6 was ignored, and she now refrains from asking for accommodations

7 for her hearing disability as a result of the incident. Grunfeld

8 Reply Decl., Ex. 43 ¶¶ 9-12, Docket No. 3108-1.

9

The inmate at KVSP who is designated as EOP and has

10 permanent nerve damage in his wrists, Freedman Decl., Ex. 26 ¶¶

11 1-5, Docket No. 2947-5, requested a change of bandages in May

12 2020 because he had had wrist surgery and, instead of

13 accommodating him, an officer hit him with a mace can, Freedman

14 Decl. ¶ 72 & Ex. 62 ¶¶ 1-9, Docket No. 2947-5. The inmate

15 believes that staff at KVSP are retaliating against him for his

16 assistance in the Coleman and Armstrong litigation. Freedman

17 Decl., Ex. 62 ¶ 18, Docket No. 2947-5.

18

For each of the examples just described, Defendants have not

19 submitted any evidence, such as declarations by the officers who

20 allegedly engaged in intimidation, threats, or coercion, to

21 dispute the occurrence of these incidents.

22

The Court finds the inmate declarants to be credible for the

23 same reasons discussed in the prior section, and because of the

24 absence of any evidence that contradicts the version of the

25 events described in these declarations.

26

27

28 19

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 20 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

Defendants argue that they have not violated § 12203(b)

2 because their experts, Matthew Cate15, Bernard Warner16, and John

3 Baldwin17, opine that disabled inmates have access to, and

4 regularly utilize, systems for requesting accommodations and for

5 reporting officer misconduct. Cate Decl. ¶¶ 21-39, Docket No.

6 3083-5. Defendants retained these experts to determine whether

7 inmates with disabilities are systemically being denied or

8 discouraged from requesting accommodations; and whether they are

9 targeted for abuse, retaliation, and harassment for doing so, or

10 on the basis of their disabilities. Warner examined these issues

11 with respect to SATF, SVSP, KVSP; Baldwin with respect to COR,

12 CIW, and CCI; and Cate with respect to LAC.

13

The Court gives little weight to these experts’ opinions

14 because they do not consider or take into account the possibility

15 that, despite the existence of systems for requesting

16 accommodations and reporting staff misconduct, and the fact that

17 some inmates employ such systems, some disabled inmates refrain

18 from filing ADA requests or staff misconduct grievances that they

19 would have filed but for the threats, intimidation, or coercion

20 by staff. The data upon which Defendants’ experts rely, which

21

22

15 Cate previously served as the Inspector General of

23

California, and as the Secretary of CDCR. Cate Decl. ¶¶ 1-6, Docket No. 3083-5.

24

16 Bernard Warner has forty years of experience in the field

of corrections and served as CDCR’s Chief Deputy Secretary for

25 the Department of Juvenile Justice and as the Secretary of the

Washington Department of Corrections. Warner Decl. ¶ 3, Docket

26 No. 3083-6.

27

17 John Baldwin has more than forty-two years of experience in the field of corrections and served as the Director of the

28

Iowa Department of Corrections. Baldwin Decl. ¶ 3, Docket No. 3083-4.

20

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 21 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 show that disabled inmates are filing some ADA requests and

2 grievances, does not take into account requests or grievances

3 that disabled inmates did not make or submit, nor do they take

4 into account requests and grievances that disabled inmates

5 withdrew, because of threats, coercion, or intimidation.

6 Accordingly, the Court finds that the opinions of Defendants’

7 experts do not impact its finding that Defendants violated

8 disabled inmates’ rights under § 12203(b).18

9 III. Defendants have failed to comply with their Court-ordered accountability obligations
10

11

In 2007, more than ten years after the Court entered its

12 first Remedial Order and Injunction requiring Defendants to

13 develop plans, policies, and procedures to ensure that their

14 facilities and programs comply with the ADA and RA, the Court

15 found that Defendants were not yet in compliance with the ADA,

16 the ARP, or the Court’s Remedial Order and Injunction. See

17 Order, Docket No. 1045. Accordingly, the Court entered the 2007

18 injunction, which required Defendants to develop and implement a

19 system for holding wardens and other staff accountable for

20 compliance with the ARP and the Court’s orders (accountability

21 obligations). Order at 7, Docket No. 1045. Since that time, the

22 Court has clarified Defendants’ accountability obligations to

23 specify the actions that Defendants must take to ensure that they

24 comply with the ARP and ADA, such as tracking allegations of

25

26

27

18 For the same reasons, the Court’s conclusion is not altered by data showing that disabled inmates submitted ADA-

28

related appeals and grievances in the last several years. See Olgin Decl., Ex. A–G, Docket No. 3083-7.

21

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 22 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 violations of the ARP, the ADA, and the Court’s orders;

2 conducting prompt investigations of any such alleged violations;

3 and ensuring that any staff who violate the ARP, ADA, or the

4 Court’s orders receive the appropriate discipline. See 2012

5 Order, Docket No. 2180; 2014 Order Modifying 2007 Injunction at

6 1, Docket No. 2479; 2020 Order, Docket No. 3059.

7

As noted above, Defendants have repeatedly failed to comply

8 with their accountability obligations. See, e.g., 2012 Order at

9 4-6, Docket No. 2180; 2020 Order at 31-35, Docket No. 3059.

10

In their present motion, Plaintiffs have shown that

11 Defendants continue to violate multiple aspects of their Court-

12 ordered accountability obligations.

13

A. Defendants’ system for investigating and holding staff

accountable for violations of the ARP and ADA is

14

ineffective

15

In 2007, the Court ordered Defendants to develop and

16 implement a system for holding wardens and other staff

17 accountable for compliance with the ARP, the ADA, and the Court’s

18 orders. Order at 7, Docket No. 1045. In 2012, the Court

19 clarified that this requires, among other things, that Defendants

20 “investigate promptly and appropriately all allegations of

21 violations, regardless of the source[.]” Order at 16, Docket No.

22 2180.

23

Plaintiffs have shown that Defendants’ system for

24 investigating alleged violations of the ARP and the ADA is flawed

25 and that the results of investigations conducted pursuant to that

26 system are unreliable.

27

Plaintiffs’ expert, Eldon Vail, is a former correctional

28 administrator with thirty-five years of experience working in and 22

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 23 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 administering adult correctional institutions. Vail Decl. ¶ 3,

2 Docket No. 2020-5. He has served as the Warden of three adult

3 correctional institutions, and he served as the Secretary of the

4 Department of Corrections of Washington for four years. Id. ¶ 4.

5 He is familiar with CDCR prisons, as he was an expert in several

6 actions involving CDCR prisons, including the Coleman litigation.

7 Vail Decl. ¶¶ 1-8, Docket No. 3106-7. As part of his assignment,

8 Vail reviewed, among other things, 170 declarations by inmate-

9 declarants that describe incidents of abuse directed at disabled

10 inmates at eight prisons, including incidents that constitute

11 violations of the ARP and ADA. Id. ¶ 8.

12

Vail opines that Defendants’ investigations of the

13 allegations made by the inmate-declarants were systematically

14 inadequate, as investigators “overlooked or intentionally

15 ignored” evidence that supports the inmate-declarants’ version of

16 the events and that undermines officer statements and incident

17 reports generated by prison staff. Id. ¶ 28.

18

For example, Vail analyzed the investigation of allegations

19 of abuse by an inmate at LAC who has mobility disabilities and

20 uses a wheelchair, and he concluded that this investigation, like

21 many others, was flawed. Vail Decl. ¶¶ 72-79, Docket No. 3106-7.

22 This inmate stated in his declaration that, on August 7, 2019, he

23 requested multiple accommodations, including an ADA shower and

24 extra supplies to clean up after an incontinence accident, but

25 instead of accommodating him, an officer threw him out of his

26 wheelchair and then put his knee on his back before handcuffing

27 him. Freedman Decl., Ex. 27, Docket No. 2947-5.

28 23

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 24 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

To dispute this inmate’s allegations, Defendants filed the

2 declaration of the officer who allegedly threw the inmate out of

3 his wheelchair. The officer attached to his declaration an

4 incident report that he wrote after the incident, which states

5 that the inmate stood up from his wheelchair, yelled profanities

6 at the officer, and then threw a plastic bag containing

7 disposable diapers at his chest and face. Docket No. 3083-2, Ex.

8 A. According to the incident report, when the officer ordered

9 the inmate to get on the floor, the inmate refused, and the

10 officer then pushed the inmate to the floor and handcuffed him.

11 Id. The incident report lists three other officers as witnesses,

12 but no inmate witnesses. Id. Defendants did not file any

13 declarations by any of the three officers listed as witnesses.

14

Vail reviewed the incident report and medical report just

15 described, as well as other documents that Defendants did not

16 file, including a second report that was written in 2020

17 summarizing the results of Defendants’ inquiry into the incident.

18 See Vail Decl. ¶¶ 72-79 & Ex. GGG, Docket No. 3106-7. This

19 second report summarizes an interview with an inmate who

20 witnessed the incident and corroborated the subject inmate’s

21 description of it; the witness stated that he saw the officer

22 lift the inmate’s wheelchair from the back, forcing the inmate to

23 fall out of the chair. The investigator wrote that he did not

24 find the subject inmate’s or the witness’s accounts to be

25 credible because (1) the inmate and the witness did not mention

26 that the inmate threw a bag of dirty diapers at the officer as

27 the officer wrote in the incident report; (2) the witness failed

28 to mention that the inmate “stood up from his wheelchair” as the 24

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 25 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 officer had written in the incident report; (3) the witness “is

2 friends with” the inmate and therefore colluded with the inmate

3 to tell the same story; and (4) the witness and the inmate

4 differed in their accounts as to whether the inmate received an

5 ADA shower prior to the incident. Vail Decl., Ex. GGG at 2-4,

6 Docket No. 3106-7. The investigator concluded that the inmate’s

7 allegations of excessive force and staff misconduct “have no

8 merit and should be closed . . . based on the lack of

9 corroborating witnesses and supporting evidence which

10 contradict[s]” the inmate’s allegations. Id. at 8.

11

Vail opines that the investigator improperly assumed that

12 the officer’s version of the incident was true, and that he

13 improperly discounted the subject inmate’s and the witness’s

14 statements on the ground that such statements did not match the

15 officer’s version of the incident. Vail Decl. ¶¶ 75-77. Vail

16 further opines that the investigator erred in assuming, without

17 proof, that the similarities between the inmate’s and the

18 witness’s version of the events was the result of collusion or

19 fabrication, as opposed to being the truth. Id. ¶ 75. Finally,

20 Vail opines that the investigator erred in discounting the

21 inmate’s and the witness’s statements on the basis that their

22 stories conflicted as to whether the inmate took an ADA shower

23 before the officer threw him out of his wheelchair, because

24 whether or not the inmate took an ADA shower was not material to

25 whether he was thrown out of the wheelchair. Id. ¶ 76.

26

Neither Defendants nor their experts dispute Vail’s analysis

27 and conclusions with respect to the investigation of this

28 inmate’s allegations. 25

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 26 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

Plaintiffs’ other expert, Jeffrey Schwartz, who has assisted

2 prisons and jails over the last twenty years in applying national

3 correctional standards to their operations, concurs with Vail’s

4 opinions and further opines that the problems and failures of

5 Defendants’ process for investigating and disciplining

6 allegations of staff misconduct directed at disabled inmates are

7 systemic. Schwartz Decl. ¶ 2, Docket No. 2947-9; Schwartz Decl.

8 ¶ 6, Docket No. 3106-5.

9

The Court finds Vail’s and Schwartz’s opinions about the

10 systemic inadequacies of Defendants’ investigation of allegations

11 of staff misconduct directed at disabled inmates to be credible

12 and reliable. They are consistent with the data published by the

13 Office of the Inspector General (OIG)19, which shows that a

14

15

19 Pursuant to California Penal Code § 6133(a), the OIG is

16

“responsible for contemporaneous public oversight of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation investigations and

17

staff grievance inquiries conducted by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Office of Internal Affairs . . .

18

. The Office of the Inspector General shall have discretion to provide public oversight of other Department of Corrections and

19

Rehabilitation personnel investigations as needed.” The OIG’s records, reports, statements, and data compilations are

20

presumptively admissible under the public records hearsay exception, Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8). See Johnson v. City

21

of Pleasanton, 982 F.2d 350, 352 (9th Cir. 1992) (“A trial court may presume that public records are authentic and trustworthy.

22

The burden of establishing otherwise falls on the opponent of the evidence, who must come ‘forward with enough negative factors to

23

persuade a court that a report should not be admitted.’”); Estate of Gonzales v. Hickman, No. 05-660 MMM (RCX), 2007 WL 3237727, at

24

*2 n.3 (C.D. Cal. May 30, 2007) (holding that OIG report was admissible under Rule 803(8) because the report contained factual

25

findings and conclusions resulting from an investigation made by the OIG pursuant to its authority granted by law, and because the

26

opponents did not meet their burden to show that the report was unreliable or untrustworthy); Lorraine v. Markel Am. Ins. Co.,

27

241 F.R.D. 534, 551 (D. Md. 2007) (holding that “official publications posted on government agency websites should be

28 admitted into evidence easily” based on Federal Rules of Evidence

26

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 27 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 significant percentage of Defendants’ investigations of

2 allegations of staff misconduct involving inmates are inadequate.

3 The OIG monitored 116 cases involving allegations of harm or

4 negligence against incarcerated people dated January 1, 2019, to

5 June 30, 2020, and it concluded that, in twenty-eight out of the

6 116 cases (or twenty-four percent), CDCR’s overall performance in

7 investigating the allegations was “poor”, and that in forty-five

8 out of the 116 cases (or thirty-eight percent), CDCR performed

9 poorly in determining its findings for alleged misconduct and

10 processing the case. See Grunfeld Reply Decl. ¶¶ 227-231 & Ex.

11 127, Docket No. 3108-1.20 The OIG did not issue an overall

12 “superior” rating for any of the 116 cases.21 Id.

13

14

803(8) and 902(5)). Here, Defendants have not rebutted the presumption that the OIG data and OIG reports discussed in this

15

order are admissible under Rule 803(8) because Defendants have not shown that such data and reports are unreliable or

16 untrustworthy.

20 These calculations are based on data that Plaintiffs 17 obtained from the OIG’s website based on criteria described in

detail in the declaration of Gay Grunfeld. Defendants object to 18 the Court’s consideration of the calculations on the ground that

the calculations are hearsay. The Court overrules this objection 19 because Defendants do not dispute that the underlying data came

from the OIG’s website and is therefore admissible under Federal 20 Rules of Evidence 803(8) and 902(5). Further, Defendants have

not shown that the calculations at issue, which are based on the 21 OIG’s data, are inaccurate. To the contrary, during the hearing

held on December 8, 2020, Defendants stated that they do not 22 argue that “the calculations were done incorrectly.” See Tr. at

8, Docket No. 3187.

23

21 Defendants’ expert, Matthew Cate, states in his report

24

that the OIG concluded that CDCR’s performance in the first six months of 2019 in terms of “the internal investigation and

25

employee disciplinary process” was satisfactory overall and excellent based on certain specific metrics. Cate Decl. ¶¶ 86-

26

88, Docket No. 3083-5. The OIG data that Cate summarizes in his report, however, does not appear to speak specifically to CDCR’s

27

performance in investigating or disciplining staff misconduct of the type that is at issue in the present motion, namely staff

28

misconduct directed at inmates. For that reason, the Court gives little weight to Cate’s opinions based on this data.

27

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 28 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

Vail’s and Schwartz’s opinions also are consistent with the

2 OIG’s findings that the statewide system for investigating

3 allegations of staff misconduct is flawed and ineffective. For a

4 report dated January 2019, the OIG reviewed 188 staff misconduct

5 inquiries at SVSP to determine whether the statewide staff

6 misconduct complaint process had functioned as intended.

7 Grunfeld Decl., Ex. GG, Docket No. 2922-1. Out of the 188 staff

8 misconduct complaint inquiries the OIG reviewed, the OIG found

9 that the hiring authority determined in ninety-seven percent of

10 them that the staff accused of misconduct had not violated

11 policy. Id. at 1. However, according to the OIG, the

12 “dependability of the staff complaint inquiries” upon which the

13 hiring authority’s determinations were based was “significantly

14 marred by inadequate investigative skills” that staff misconduct

15 complaint reviewers had demonstrated. Id. at 3. The OIG found

16 that staff misconduct complaint reviewers “displayed signs of

17 bias in favor of their fellow staff when conducting their staff

18 complaint inquiries; they sometimes ignored corroborating

19 evidence offered by inmate witnesses and often compromised the

20 confidentiality of the process.” Id. at 2. The OIG concluded

21 that the staff misconduct complaint reviewers’ “ability to remain

22 impartial” could have been affected by the fact that the

23 reviewers were “frequently peers or coworkers of the staff

24 members they were investigating” and “must always rely on fellow

25 staff for their physical safety.” Id. at 5.

26

The OIG recommended that CDCR “consider a complete overhaul

27 of the staff complaint inquiry process” across the entire state

28 on the ground that the problems the OIG found at SVSP—namely, 28

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 29 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 that staff complaint reviewers “did not follow sound practices

2 with respect to interviewing, collecting evidence, and writing

3 reports” and “lack[ed] of independence”—“may also be found to

4 some extent at other institutions” because the same staff

5 misconduct complaint inquiry process “is in place statewide.”

6 Id. at 89-90. The OIG specifically “urge[d] the department to

7 reassign the responsibility of conducting staff complaint

8 inquiries to employees who work outside of the prison’s command

9 structure[.]” Id. at 89.

10

After this OIG report was published, CDCR implemented the

11 Allegation Inquiry Management Section (AIMS) in certain prisons

12 in January 2020, and statewide in April 2020. Amy Miller Decl. ¶

13 57, Docket No. 3006-1. According to Defendants, AIMS “is able to

14 provide reviews of staff complaints that are more independent

15 than the reviews performed at the institutions themselves.” Id.

16 ¶ 53. “AIMS is responsible for completing allegation inquiries

17 for most allegations against staff submitted through the

18 grievance process which, if true, meet the definition of staff

19 misconduct, but for which the reviewing authority does not have

20 the reasonable belief the alleged misconduct occurred.” Id. ¶

21 53. In other words, “[w]hen the warden or chief deputy warden

22 determines that the allegations, if true, would more likely than

23 not result in adverse disciplinary action, but there is no

24 reasonable belief that the misconduct occurred, the grievance

25 will be directed to AIMS for an allegation inquiry.” Id. ¶ 55.

26 Once a grievance is sent to AIMS for an allegation inquiry, AIMS

27 conducts interviews and reviews documents, and it then provides a

28 report to the warden so that the warden can decide whether (1) no 29

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 30 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 action should be taken against staff because there was no

2 evidence to substantiate the allegations, or (2) the matter

3 should be forwarded to the Office of Internal Affairs for formal

4 investigation or for direct adverse action. Id. ¶ 56.

5

On February 16, 2021, the OIG issued a new report in which

6 it analyzed whether the implementation of AIMS has solved the

7 structural problems it identified in its January 2019 report as

8 to the statewide system for investigating and disciplining staff

9 misconduct.22 OIG Report, Docket No. 3205. The OIG concluded

10 that the “lack of independence” it found in its report of January

11 2019 “still persists” notwithstanding the implementation of AIMS.

12 Id. at 1. The OIG found that wardens had mostly circumvented the

13 AIMS process by “largely avoid[ing] referring staff misconduct

14 grievances” to AIMS and by retaining such grievances at the

15 prison for internal investigation. Id. at 1. The OIG concluded

16 that the wardens were able to retain grievances for investigation

17 within the prison instead of sending them to AIMS because, under

18 the current statewide system, the determination of whether a

19 grievance should be sent to AIMS is within the wardens’

20

21

22

23

22 Defendants object to the Court’s consideration of this report on the grounds that (1) Plaintiffs filed it after the

24

December 8, 2020, hearing on the present motion, and (2) the report is inadmissible. See Docket No. 3207. The Court will

25

consider the report because it is relevant to the Court’s determination of the present motion, and because the Court

26

provided Defendants with an opportunity to respond to the report. The Court overrules Defendants’ admissibility objections on the

27

ground that Defendants have not rebutted the presumption that the report is admissible as a public record under Federal Rule of

28

Evidence 803(8), as they have not shown that the report is unreliable or untrustworthy.

30

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 31 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 discretion, and the exercise of that discretion is not subject to

2 any oversight. Id.

3

The OIG also found that, out of the grievances that wardens

4 did refer to AIMS, AIMS did not conduct investigations into

5 various categories of grievances, including staff misconduct

6 related to the ADA reasonable accommodations process and staff

7 misconduct involving the reported use of excessive force that did

8 not result in serious bodily injury. Id. at 3. For the

9 grievances that AIMS did investigate, the OIG found that AIMS

10 terminated the investigations before completing them as soon as

11 an AIMS investigator formed a reasonable belief that any

12 misconduct occurred; at that point, AIMS sent a report to the

13 warden even though the investigators may not have gathered all

14 relevant evidence. Id. at 3-4. The OIG found this to be

15 problematic because, once a warden receives a report from AIMS,

16 the warden has the discretion to decide, based on AIMS’

17 incomplete investigation, that no action should be taken against

18 staff because there was no evidence to substantiate the

19 allegations. Id.

20

The OIG expressed a “deep concern[] about the low rate at

21 which wardens determined their staff violated policy (regardless

22 of the entity that prepared the inquiry), which raises serious

23 issues about the overall fairness of the process.” Id. at 2.

24 Specifically, “of the 1,293 allegations that wardens resolved

25 between June 1, 2020, and August 31, 2020, wardens found that

26 their staff violated policy in only 22 (1.7 percent).” Id.

27

Finally, the OIG found that CDCR’s mechanisms for tracking

28 and collecting staff misconduct data are inadequate and preclude 31

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 32 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 any meaningful analysis or assessment of CDCR’s effectiveness in

2 investigating staff misconduct grievances. Id. Notably, the

3 inadequacy of the tracking system has resulted in CDCR “severely

4 undercount[ing]” the number of allegations of staff misconduct,

5 “possibly by the thousands.” Id.

6

The Secretary for CDCR, Kathleen Allison, sent a letter to

7 the OIG responding to the OIG’s new report. See id. at 69-70.

8 In that letter, the Secretary states that the OIG’s conclusions

9 as to the effect of AIMS are “premature” because AIMS was

10 implemented statewide in April 2020 and CDCR is still in the

11 process of implementing the new procedures and training staff.

12 Id. at 69-70. The OIG responded to the Secretary’s letter,

13 noting that the problems it identified in its February 2021

14 report “are structural and are not dependent on when [CDCR]

15 activated AIMS. The primary reason we published this progress

16 report was to highlight structural problems in the department’s

17 regulations and to point out that those problems will remain

18 until the department changes the regulations (and its process),

19 again.” Id. at 71.

20

Defendants do not dispute any of the OIG’s findings with

21 respect to the structural flaws in the statewide system for

22 investigating and disciplining staff misconduct. See Docket No.

23 3211. Defendants state only that CDCR acknowledges the report

24 and is in the process of considering the report’s recommendations

25 for the development of further policies. Id. at 1-2. Defendants

26 also note that, on March 1, 2021, the Secretary for CDCR

27 testified before the California Assembly’s Budget Subcommittee

28 about “proactive measures CDCR is prepared to take” in light of 32

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 33 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 the OIG’s report, namely centralizing the complaint screening

2 process outside the institutions; expanding the scope of AIMS to

3 cover all allegations of excessive or unnecessary force when

4 there is any injury; and requiring AIMS investigators to state a

5 conclusion about whether a complete inquiry has been conducted

6 and whether or not it has established a reasonable belief that

7 misconduct occurred. See Kathleen Allison Decl. ¶¶ 3-4, Docket

8 No. 3212-1. Defendants provide no indication of whether, and if

9 so, when, any of these “proactive measures CDCR is prepared to

10 take” will become CDCR policy.

11

The Court finds, based on the foregoing, that Defendants’

12 system for investigating staff misconduct is deficient and

13 ineffective, and that the results of any investigations conducted

14 pursuant to that system cannot be relied upon to hold wardens and

15 staff accountable for violations of the ARP and ADA.

16

Defendants’ experts, Matthew Cate, Bernard Warner, and John

17 Baldwin, admit that the investigations of at least some of the

18 incidents described in the inmates’ declarations were deficient.

19 See, e.g., Cate Decl. ¶ 5, Docket No. 3160-6 (opining that “most”

20 investigations were conducted “in a professional manner” and that

21 the findings of the hiring authorities were “typically reasonable

22 under the circumstances”); Baldwin Decl. ¶ 35, Docket No. 3083-4

23 (admitting that at least one of the incident reports he reviewed

24 “should have been more thorough, which makes it difficult to

25 determine what actually happened in that incident”).

26

Defendants nevertheless argue, based on Cate’s opinions,

27 that the statewide system for investigating allegations of staff

28 misconduct has worked properly with respect to the allegations of 33

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 34 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 misconduct made by the inmate-declarants. Cate opines that,

2 “[w]hile not perfect, the investigations generally produced a

3 result that, based on [his] expertise, was reasonable and

4 appropriate,” Cate Decl. ¶¶ 75-78, 84, Docket No. 3160-7, and

5 that “a few poor investigations” cannot be used as a means to

6 conclude that the system is broken, id. ¶ 20. Cate further

7 opines that AIMS will “improve the system” by allowing for

8 investigations of certain categories of allegations outside of

9 the prisons. Id. ¶ 90.

10

Cate’s opinions do not impact the Court’s determinations,

11 because his opinions are inconsistent with the OIG’s findings,

12 discussed in more detail above. Cate does not square his

13 opinions with the OIG’s findings from January 2019 that the

14 statewide system is prone to generating unreliable investigation

15 results because of the reviewers’ lack of independence and poor

16 investigative skills.23 Further, Cate’s opinion that AIMS will

17 improve the system also is contradicted by the OIG’s findings of

18 February 2021 that AIMS has not, and will not, solve any of the

19 structural problems the OIG identified in its January 2019

20 report.

21

In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiffs

22 have shown that Defendants have failed to implement an effective

23 system for investigating and disciplining violations of the ARP

24

25

23 The OIG’s report of February 2021 was published after Cate

26

wrote his declarations in connection with the present motion, but the OIG’s January 2019 report was available on the OIG’s website

27

at the time that Cate wrote his declarations. Indeed, Cate states in his second declaration that he reviewed this report.

28

See Cate Decl., List of Documents Reviewed at 4, Docket No. 316060.

34

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 35 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 and ADA. This constitutes a violation of the Court’s prior

2 orders.

3

B. Defendants failed to log alleged violations of the ARP

4

and ADA

In 2012, the Court ordered Defendants to track and 5

investigate all allegations of violations of the ARP and ADA. 6

Order, Docket No. 2180. In December 2014, the Court clarified 7

Defendants’ obligations to track allegations of violations of the 8

ARP, the ADA, and the Court’s prior orders and injunctions as 9

follows: 10

11

Defendants, their agents and employees (Defendants) shall track any allegation that

12

any employee of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation was

13

responsible for any member of the Plaintiff class not receiving access to services,

14

programs, activities, accommodations or assistive devices required by any of the

15

following: the Armstrong Remedial Plan, the Americans with Disabilities Act or this

16

Court’s prior orders. Allegations to be tracked include, but are not limited to,

17

those received from CDCR staff, prisoners, Plaintiffs’ counsel, administrative appeals

18

and third parties. All such allegations shall be tracked, even if the non-compliance

19

was unintentional, unavoidable, done without malice, done by an unidentified actor or

20

subsequently remedied.

21 Order Modifying 2007 Injunction at 1, Docket No. 2479 (emphasis

22 added).

23

In its order of September 8, 2020, the Court modified its

24 prior orders and injunctions to require Defendants to also track

25 allegations of violations of the ADA’s anti-retaliation and anti-

26 interference provisions, on the ground that the Court’s intent at

27 the outset of the remedial phase of this litigation was to

28 require Defendants to operate their facilities and programs in 35

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 36 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 accordance with the ADA and RA. Order of September 8, 2020, at

2 34-35, Docket No. 3059.

3

Plaintiffs have shown, and Defendants do not dispute, that

4 Defendants failed to log many of the allegations of violations of

5 the ARP that Plaintiffs’ counsel raised in their advocacy

6 letters, including (1) allegations that staff denied disabled

7 inmates reasonable accommodations for their disabilities24; and

8 (2) allegations that disabled inmates suffered physical abuse by

9 staff after requesting reasonable accommodations25. See Grunfeld

10 Reply Decl. ¶¶ 239-49, Docket No. 3108-1. This constitutes a

11 violation of the Court’s prior orders.

12

C. Defendants do not timely initiate or complete

investigations of alleged violations of the ARP and ADA 13

14

In 2012, the Court required Defendants to initiate an

15 investigation of any violation of the ARP, the ADA, or the orders

16 of this Court “within ten business days of receiving notice of

17 such allegation” and to complete any such investigation “as

18 promptly as possible.” Order at 17, 21, Docket No. 2180.

19

Plaintiffs have shown, and Defendants do not dispute, that

20 Defendants often fail to initiate, or delay in initiating,

21 investigations of alleged violations of the ARP and ADA.

22

23
24 These allegations include that, during a body search, an 24 officer at COR kicked and then slammed to the ground an inmate

who requested an accommodation for his mobility disability during 25 the search. Grunfeld Reply Decl., Ex. 33 ¶¶ 12-17, Docket No.

3108-1.

26

25 These allegations include that an inmate with mobility

27

impairments who was undergoing chemotherapy was thrown out of his wheelchair by an officer after he requested to be housed closer

28

to the medication window because he could not walk long distances. Freedman Decl., Ex. 53 ¶¶ 15-23, Docket No. 2947-5.

36

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 37 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

In January 2020, the OIG concluded that CDCR had been

2 untimely in responding to, and in initiating investigations of,

3 allegations of staff misconduct directed at disabled and other

4 vulnerable inmates. Grunfeld Decl., Ex. J at 1, Docket No. 2922-

5 1. The OIG reviewed CDCR’s responses to advocacy letters sent by

6 Plaintiffs’ counsel to CDCR in 2019 and concluded that each

7 described “serious” misconduct that, “if true, would result in

8 disciplinary action for the subject employees.” Id. The

9 allegations included that an officer assaulted an elderly

10 disabled inmate; that a disabled inmate requested, but was

11 denied, an ADA shower and an officer threatened to have the

12 inmate attacked if he filed a complaint; and that an inmate with

13 a mobility disability requested, but was denied, a handcuffing

14 accommodation and was then thrown to the ground by an officer.

15 Id. at 3-23. The OIG found a “pervasive lack of timely follow

16 through,” including that CDCR “ignored” many allegations, failed

17 to investigate dozens of allegations, and failed to refer

18 pertinent information to the Office of Internal Affairs when

19 appropriate. Id. at 1. This constitutes a violation of the

20 Court’s prior orders.

21

D. Defendants do not timely provide to Plaintiffs’ counsel

information about investigations of alleged violations

22

of the ARP and ADA

23

In 2012, the Court ordered Defendants to provide Plaintiffs’

24 counsel with access to the results of investigations of alleged

25 violations of the ARP or the Court’s orders, including all

26 sources of information relied on to substantiate or refute the

27 allegations. Order at 18, Docket No. 2180.

28 37

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 38 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

Plaintiffs have shown, and Defendants do not dispute, that

2 Defendants have failed to provide, or have delayed in providing,

3 them with information regarding the status or results of

4 investigations of alleged violations of the ARP.

5

For example, on September 25, 2020, Defendants agreed to

6 provide in a spreadsheet information about investigations,

7 findings of misconduct, and discipline imposed in connection with

8 168 alleged incidents of staff misconduct against disabled

9 inmates at LAC, COR, KVSP, and CCI that were described in inmate

10 declarations. Grunfeld Decl. ¶ 4, Docket No. 3169-4. On

11 November 13, 2020, Defendants produced information with respect

12 to only ninety-eight of the 198 allegations of misconduct and did

13 not provide information as to seventy of the allegations. Id. at

14 7. Defendants did not provide a date by which they would produce

15 the requested information for the seventy incidents. See Ex. 1,

16 4 to Grunfeld Sur-Reply Decl., Docket No. 3169-4. Notably, of

17 the ninety-eight allegations for which Defendants provided

18 information, Defendants’ responses show that that they failed to

19 investigate seven of the allegations (or seven percent).

20

As another example, Defendants agreed to provide information

21 about investigations, findings of misconduct, and discipline

22 imposed in connection with each distinct allegation of misconduct

23 contained in Plaintiffs’ tour reports from 2018 to 2020 for LAC,

24 COR, KVSP, and CCI. Id. ¶ 5. Defendants did not provide any

25 information for forty-four of the fifty-three allegations, or a

26 date by which they would do so. See Ex. 2 to Grunfeld Sur-Reply

27 Decl., Docket No. 3169-4.

28 38

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 39 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

These failures by Defendants violate the Court’s prior

2 orders.

3

E. Defendants’ tracking systems do not enable them to

identify staff who repeatedly violate the ARP or other

4

information critical to monitoring their compliance

5

In 2007, the Court required Defendants to “refer individuals

6 with repeated instances of non-compliance to the Office of

7 Internal Affairs for investigation and discipline, if

8 appropriate.” Order at 7, Docket No. 1045. To facilitate this

9 process, the Court ordered Defendants in 2012 to track

10 allegations of violations of the ARP and the Court’s orders,

11 including “the number of prior allegations of non-compliance

12 against the involved employees or employees.” Order at 16-17,

13 Docket No. 2180.

14

In its report of February 16, 2021, the OIG stated that,

15 “[d]espite having numerous information systems that contain data

16 related to the staff misconduct process, [CDCR] lacks the ability

17 to produce reports that are capable of identifying the names of

18 all staff accused of misconduct or the names of all staff who

19 were found to have violated policy as well as several other types

20 of critical information.” Docket No. 3205 at 1.

21

Defendants’ tracking systems are, therefore, in violation of

22 the Court’s prior orders.

23 IV. Defendants’ failure to comply with their accountability

obligations is resulting in ongoing violations of disabled

24

inmates’ rights under the ARP and ADA

25

As discussed in the preceding sections, Plaintiffs have

26 shown that Defendants have violated the ARP and ADA by failing to

27 provide reasonable accommodations to, or by interfering with the

28 ADA rights of, qualified inmates with disabilities at LAC, COR, 39

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 40 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 SATF, CIW, and KVSP. Plaintiffs have also shown that Defendants

2 have violated their accountability obligations by failing to

3 track alleged violations of the ARP and ADA; failing to promptly

4 and properly investigate alleged violations of the ARP and ADA;

5 failing to provide Plaintiffs’ counsel with information about the

6 status and results of their investigations; and failing to

7 implement an effective system for holding wardens and other staff

8 accountable for non-compliance with the ARP and ADA.

9

Plaintiffs’ expert, Eldon Vail, opines that CDCR’s

10 ineffective system for holding staff accountable for misconduct

11 leads to and perpetuates a staff culture in which staff target

12 inmates with disabilities for abuse, mistreatment, retaliation.

13 See, e.g., Vail Decl. ¶ 9, Docket No. 3106-7. Vail opines that,

14 if inmates and staff know that nothing will happen to staff who

15 abuse inmates, then incarcerated people become reluctant to

16 report misconduct and staff become less likely to stop the

17 pattern of abuse. Id.

18

The Court finds Vail’s opinions to be credible and

19 consistent with other evidence in the record. They are

20 consistent with the OIG’s finding that “an inadequately

21 functioning staff complaint process that lacks independence

22 fosters distrust among inmates[.]” Grunfeld Decl., Ex. GG at 2,

23 Docket No. 2922-1. Further, as noted above, many declarants

24 describe a staff culture at LAC, COR, SATF, CIW, and KVSP of

25 staff targeting inmates with disabilities and other vulnerable

26 inmates for mistreatment, abuse, retaliation, and other improper

27 behavior that, among other things, violates the ARP and ADA.

28 See, e.g., Grunfeld Reply Decl., Ex. 8 ¶¶ 34-35, Docket No. 310840

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 41 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 1; Freedman Decl., Ex. 29 ¶ 36; Freedman Decl., Ex. 33 ¶ 29,

2 Docket No. 2947-5; Grunfeld Reply Decl., Ex. 70 ¶ 45, Docket No.

3 3109-1; Grunfeld Reply Decl., Ex. 43 ¶ 13, Docket No. 3108-1;

4 Grunfeld Decl., Ex. 41 ¶ 20, Docket No. 3108-1; Freedman Decl.,

5 Ex. 61 ¶¶ 33-36, Docket No. 2947-5; Freedman Decl., Ex. 35 ¶ 21,

6 Docket No. 2947-5. The descriptions of the staff culture in

7 these declarations are remarkably consistent even though the

8 declarants reside at different prisons and in different locations

9 within each prison. The Court finds that this lends credibility

10 to the declarations and to Vail’s opinions.

11

The data produced by Defendants also support the notion that

12 a staff culture exists in which staff target disabled inmates for

13 abuse. The data show that, despite the dozens of allegations of

14 abuse by inmates, only a relatively small number of the incidents

15 have resulted in discipline, and that out of the incidents that

16 have resulted in discipline, disabled inmates are

17 overrepresented. For example, from 2017 to 2020, despite the

18 dozens of allegations of abuse at LAC, there were six staff

19 misconduct incidents at LAC involving incarcerated people that

20 resulted in discipline, and three of the six incidents (or fifty

21 percent) involved misconduct directed at an Armstrong or Coleman

22 class member.26 Grunfeld Decl. ¶ 14, Docket No. 3169-4. At COR,

23

24

26 These figures are based on data that Defendants produced to Plaintiffs in their interrogatory responses. The criteria

25

that Plaintiffs used to calculate these figures is described in detail in the declaration of Gay Grunfeld. Defendants object to

26

the Court’s consideration of the figures on the grounds that the criteria used to generate the figures is “nebulous” and that

27

Plaintiffs’ counsel lack expertise in data analysis. The Court overrules this objection because Defendants do not dispute that

28 the underlying data came from their interrogatory responses.

41

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 42 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 from 2017 to 2020, there were eighteen staff misconduct incidents

2 involving incarcerated people that resulted in discipline, and

3 all of them (one hundred percent) involved misconduct directed at

4 an Armstrong or Coleman class member. Id. ¶ 15. At KVSP, from

5 2017 to 2020, there were twenty-four staff misconduct incidents

6 involving incarcerated people that resulted in discipline, and

7 sixteen of them (or sixty-six percent) involved misconduct

8 directed at an Armstrong or Coleman class member. Id. ¶ 17.

9

Defendants’ experts, Cate, Baldwin, and Warner, opine that

10 “disabled inmates” are not being targeted by prison staff for

11 conduct that is violative of the ARP and ADA because of their

12 disabilities. Cate Decl. ¶ 11, Docket No. 3083-5. The Court is

13 not persuaded by these experts’ opinions on this issue for the

14 following reasons. First, the experts’ definition of “disabled

15 inmate” is under-inclusive, as it excludes inmates such as

16 Coleman class members who have been designated as EOP by virtue

17 of the severity of their mental impairments. As a result of this

18 definitional limitation, these experts appear to have excluded

19 from their analysis the experiences of inmates who suffer from

20 mental impairments that are covered under the ARP. Second, the

21 experts do not explain how their opinions can be reconciled with

22 the data discussed in more detail above, which shows that

23

24

25 Further, the calculations from which the figures were derived do

26

not require any expertise; the calculations involve parsing data from Defendants’ interrogatory responses and performing basic

27

arithmetic, as described in detail in the Grunfeld Declaration. Finally, Defendants have not shown that the figures in question

28

are inaccurate or are inconsistent with the data contained in their interrogatory responses.

42

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 43 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 disabled inmates are overrepresented in incidents of staff

2 misconduct that resulted in discipline.

3 V. 4

Additional remedial measures are necessary to end the ongoing violations of the ARP and ADA

5

For the reasons discussed in the preceding section, the

6 policies, procedures, and monitoring mechanisms currently in

7 place, despite recent modifications made by Defendants (including

8 the implementation of AIMS), have proven to be ineffective at

9 bringing Defendants into compliance with the ARP and ADA.

10 Accordingly, the Court finds that the implementation of

11 additional remedial measures at LAC, COR, SATF, CIW, and KVSP is

12 necessary to improve the effectiveness of the system for

13 investigating and disciplining violations of the ARP and ADA and

14 to end the ongoing violations of the ARP and ADA.

15

Defendants contend that further remedial measures are

16 premature at this juncture because investigations of some

17 disabled inmates’ allegations have not yet been completed. The

18 Court is not convinced that the pendency of the investigations

19 warrants a delay in implementing additional remedial measures.

20 Defendants have provided no timeline for when the Court could

21 expect the investigations to be completed; based on the record,

22 it seems reasonable to expect that investigations could take many

23 months, if not years. As discussed above, the OIG, in reviewing

24 CDCR’s response to disabled inmates’ allegations of staff

25 misconduct, noted that CDCR’s investigations of such allegations

26 had been inordinately delayed or abandoned. The Court is

27 reluctant to allow further violations of disabled inmates’ rights

28 43

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 44 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 under the ARP and ADA to occur while the investigations are

2 pending.

3

Defendants’ expert, Matthew Cate, opines that no additional

4 remedial measures are necessary because “disabled inmates can

5 request accommodations in a variety of ways” and “[e]ven if class

6 members were afraid to request accommodations from officers due

7 to officer wrongdoing, they still have all of the other ways

8 . . . to request accommodations that do not involve the

9 officers.” Cate Decl. ¶ 94, Docket No. 3083-5. The Court is not

10 persuaded by this argument, because it misses the point.

11 Plaintiffs have shown that the ongoing violations of the ARP and

12 ADA are the consequence of the ineffectiveness of the system for

13 investigating and disciplining violations of the ARP and ADA and

14 the resulting staff culture of targeting inmates with

15 disabilities. Defendants have presented no evidence to show that

16 the ongoing violations are the result of a lack of access to

17 methods for requesting accommodations. Accordingly, the Court

18 cannot conclude that providing additional methods to disabled

19 inmates for requesting accommodations, as Defendants propose,

20 would end the ongoing violations of the ARP and ADA.

21

Plaintiffs request that the Court require Defendants to

22 develop a plan within thirty days to implement the additional

23 remedial measures described in more detail below. The plan would

24 be implemented within forty-five days after the parties meet and

25 confer. See Proposed Order at 17-21, Docket No. 2948-6.

26

The Court finds that requiring Defendants to design, and

27 ultimately implement, a plan that requires them to adopt a

28 combination of certain of the remedial measures that Plaintiffs 44

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 45 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 propose, with modifications, as discussed below, is necessary to

2 prevent further violations of the ARP and disabled inmates’ ADA

3 rights. These additional remedial measures are intended and

4 tailored to improve policies and procedures for supervising

5 staff’s interactions with inmates, investigating staff

6 misconduct, and disciplining staff by enhancing the process for

7 gathering and reviewing evidence that can be used to hold staff

8 accountable for any violations of the ARP and disabled inmates’

9 ADA rights. These additional measures, when considered as a

10 whole, constitute an incremental expansion of processes and

11 systems that are already in place pursuant to the Court’s prior

12 orders and injunctions.

13

1. Surveillance cameras

14

Plaintiffs request that (1) Defendants install surveillance

15 cameras in all areas at the prisons at issue to which

16 incarcerated people have access, including, but not limited to,

17 all exercise yards, housing units, sally-ports, dining halls,

18 program areas, and gyms, within ninety days; (2) CDCR adopt

19 policies and procedures regarding the use of camera footage,

20 including requirements that all footage be retained for a minimum

21 of ninety days, that footage of use of force and other triggering

22 events be retained indefinitely, and that footage, when

23 available, be reviewed and considered as part of the

24 investigation of the incident; and (3) CDCR train staff regarding

25 how and when to request that footage be retained and reviewed.

26

Both sides and their experts agree that the installation of

27 additional surveillance cameras would help reduce misconduct and

28 would facilitate the investigation of any misconduct that does 45

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 46 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 occur. See, e.g., Cate Decl. ¶ 97, Docket No. 3083-5.

2 (“[I]nstalling cameras would be beneficial to every institution

3 in the CDCR system. It would serve to deter misconduct on the

4 part of inmates and officers alike. It would also make it easier

5 to investigate misconduct should it occur.”).

6

Defendants nevertheless oppose Plaintiffs’ request to require

7 them to install surveillance cameras based on the following

8 grounds: (1) certain facilities already have camera coverage, and

9 Defendants are moving forward to procure and deploy cameras at

10 RJD and at two facilities in LAC; (2) the installation of cameras

11 is not necessary to correct the violations of the ARP and ADA

12 shown; and (3) even if additional fixed cameras were necessary,

13 they should not be installed anywhere other than yards that house

14 the most vulnerable inmates.

15

The Court is not persuaded. Defendants’ arguments fail to

16 acknowledge that violations of disabled inmates’ rights under the

17 ARP and ADA are likely to continue to take place throughout LAC,

18 COR, SATF, CIW, and KVSP in the absence of surveillance cameras,

19 and that this is unacceptable. In light of Defendants’ failure

20 to comply with the ADA and ARP after the Court ordered them to

21 implement lesser measures, the Court finds that the installation

22 of surveillance cameras at LAC, COR, SATF, CIW, and KVSP is

23 necessary and that it must be done as soon as possible. Further,

24 Defendants already have a contract in place with a vendor for the

25 installation of surveillance cameras at CDCR institutions through

26 June 2023. Diaz Decl. ¶ 42; Macomber Decl. ¶ 12. This existing

27 contract should facilitate the installation and deployment

28 process. 46

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 47 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

Defendants have not raised an objection in their briefs to

2 Plaintiffs’ request that their plan include policies and

3 procedures regarding the use of camera footage and training for

4 staff regarding the same, as discussed in more detail above. In

5 the absence of a showing to the contrary, the Court finds that

6 policies, procedures, and training on the use of camera footage

7 are necessary and should be a part of Defendants’ plan.

8

2. Body cameras

9

Plaintiffs request that CDCR purchase and begin using body-

10 worn cameras for all correctional officers at the prisons at

11 issue within sixty days.

12

Defendants oppose the request on the ground that their

13 expert, Matthew Cate, opines that (1) body cameras are not

14 necessary to redress the ARP and ADA violations shown; (2) they

15 are expensive; and (3) fixed cameras are superior to body

16 cameras. Br. at 18-19, Docket No. 3082-0; Cate Decl. ¶ 99,

17 Docket No. 3083-5.

18

The Court finds that body cameras are likely to improve

19 investigations of misconduct by staff and to reduce the incidence

20 of violations of disabled inmates’ rights under the ARP and ADA.

21 They are, therefore, necessary and should be deployed at LAC,

22 COR, SATF, CIW, and KVSP as soon as possible. The Court finds

23 the opinions of Plaintiffs’ expert, which Defendants have not

24 meaningfully rebutted, to be persuasive. Eldon Vail opines,

25 based on research and studies on the topic, that the use of body

26 cameras in correctional facilities has resulted in “increased

27 officer and inmate safety, fewer uses of force,” and improved

28 investigations of internal misconduct by officers, particularly 47

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 48 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 when used in conjunction with surveillance cameras. Vail Decl.

2 ¶¶ 64-66, Docket No. 3023-9. He further opines that issues about

3 when cameras should be turned on or off, and privacy concerns,

4 can be addressed through policymaking and training. Id. ¶¶ 67-

5 68.

6

Defendants’ expert, Matthew Cate, does not provide any basis

7 for his opinion that the cost of body cameras would be

8 “prohibitive.” Cate Decl. ¶ 99. Accordingly, the Court gives

9 this opinion no weight. Defendants also have not shown that

10 procuring the body-worn cameras in the time frame that Plaintiffs

11 have proposed would not be feasible.

12

In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that it would be

13 appropriate to require Defendants to procure and deploy body-worn

14 cameras at LAC, COR, SATF, CIW, and KVSP in the time frame that

15 Plaintiffs have proposed.

16

3. Processes for complaints, investigations,

discipline, and oversight 17

18

Plaintiffs request that Defendants be required to develop a

19 plan to reform the staff misconduct complaint, investigation, and

20 discipline process to ensure (1) that CDCR completes unbiased,

21 comprehensive investigations into all allegations of staff

22 misconduct in which the victim was a disabled inmate; (2) that

23 CDCR imposes appropriate and consistent discipline against

24 employees who engage in misconduct against disabled inmates; and

25 (3) that employees who engage in criminal misconduct against

26 disabled inmates are appropriately investigated and, if

27 warranted, referred for prosecution or reassigned. Plaintiffs

28 also request that CDCR headquarters be required to exercise 48

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 49 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 oversight over all staff misconduct complaints, use of force

2 reviews, and related staff disciplinary proceedings at the

3 prisons at issue in which an employee is accused of engaging in

4 misconduct against an incarcerated person, and to conduct

5 quarterly interviews of randomly-selected incarcerated people at

6 the prisons at issue using the methodology and interview

7 questionnaire utilized by the December 2018 investigators who

8 interviewed inmates at RJD for the Bishop Report.

9

Defendants oppose these requests, arguing that CDCR already

10 has existing processes, policies, and oversight systems in place

11 to investigate misconduct and discipline employees who commit it,

12 which they contend, based on the opinions of their expert,

13 Matthew Cate, are effective mechanisms. Cate Decl. ¶¶ 79–96, 98.

14

As discussed above, the Court gives little weight to Cate’s

15 opinions that the current systems for investigating and

16 disciplining violations of the ARP and ADA are effective, because

17 such opinions do not take into account the OIG’s findings that

18 the statewide system (with AIMS included) is prone to generating

19 unreliable investigation results with respect to staff misconduct

20 allegations because of the reviewers’ lack of independence and

21 the poor quality of the investigations.

22

The Court has found that it is necessary to stop ongoing

23 violations of the ARP and disabled inmates’ ADA rights at LAC,

24 COR, SATF, CIW, and KVSP, and that the current policies and

25 procedures are incapable of achieving that. Accordingly, the

26 Court finds that requiring Defendants to craft a plan to modify

27 the current policies, procedures, and oversight of staff

28 49

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 50 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 complaints to achieve compliance with the ARP and ADA at LAC,

2 COR, SATF, CIW, and KVSP is necessary and appropriate.

3

4. Third-party monitoring

4

Plaintiffs request that the additional remedial measures

5 include the appointment of an expert pursuant to Federal Rule of

6 Evidence 706 to monitor Defendants’ implementation of their plan

7 to reform the staff misconduct complaint, investigation, and

8 discipline policies and procedures, and that the expert have

9 access to documents necessary to conduct its monitoring.

10

Defendants oppose this request because their expert, Matthew

11 Cate, opines that the OIG already has oversight of staff

12 misconduct investigations and that the modification of the

13 current system is unnecessary and would be burdensome. Cate

14 Decl. ¶¶ 104-05.

15

The Court is not persuaded by Cate’s opinions. As discussed

16 above, the current system, although subject to OIG oversight, has

17 been ineffective in ending the ongoing violations of the ARP and

18 ADA at LAC, COR, SATF, CIW, and KVSP, and for that reason,

19 modifying it with the goal of improving its effectiveness is

20 necessary. Accordingly, the Court finds that the appointment of

21 an expert is necessary and appropriate.

22

5. Information-sharing with Plaintiffs’ counsel and

23

the Court Expert

24

Plaintiffs request that Defendants share with Plaintiffs’

25 counsel and the Court’s expert all documents related to staff

26 misconduct complaints at the prisons at issue in which the

27 alleged victim is a disabled inmate, as well as monthly written

28

50

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 51 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 updates regarding the implementation of any additional remedial

2 measures.

3

Defendants have not raised an objection in their briefs to

4 this request. In the absence of a showing to the contrary, the

5 Court finds that requiring the sharing of documents as described

6 above is necessary for the effective monitoring of Defendants’

7 implementation of the additional remedial measures at LAC, COR,

8 SATF, CIW, and KVSP and is appropriate.

9

6. Supervisory staffing

10

Plaintiffs request that CDCR significantly increase

11 supervisory staff on all watches on all yards at the prisons at

12 issue and create non-uniformed supervisory positions in each

13 housing unit.

14

Defendants oppose this request on the grounds that (1) it is

15 unnecessary, as some housing units do not house disabled inmates,

16 and (2) existing staff could provide additional supervision in

17 areas where disabled inmates are housed.

18

The current level of staffing has not been effective at

19 stopping the ongoing violations of the ARP and ADA at LAC, COR,

20 SATF, CIW, and KVSP. Accordingly, the Court finds that requiring

21 CDCR to increase managerial presence at LAC, COR, SATF, CIW, and

22 KVSP in the form of additional sergeants is necessary.

23

The Court declines at this time to require CDCR to create

24 non-uniformed supervisory positions at LAC, COR, SATF, CIW, and

25 KVSP. The parties’ experts disagree about the effectiveness of

26 such non-uniformed positions, and the Court finds that there is

27 insufficient evidence in the record outside of the experts’

28 51

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 52 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 conflicting declarations to make a determination as to whether

2 non-uniformed supervisory positions are needed.

3

7. Training

4

Plaintiffs request that CDCR develop and implement human

5 rights, de-escalation, and cultural training for all custody,

6 mental health, and medical staff at the prisons at issue to

7 include discussion of reporting requirements, whistleblowing,

8 non-retaliation, and treatment of incarcerated people as

9 patients.

10

Defendants object to requiring them to provide staff with

11 additional training beyond what they already provide on the

12 ground that doing so would be unnecessary and intrusive.

13

In light of the evidence discussed above showing that the

14 measures that CDCR has implemented to date, including the

15 training that CDCR current provides to its staff, have proven to

16 be ineffective at stopping violations of the ARP and disabled

17 inmates’ ADA rights, the Court finds that it is necessary to

18 require Defendants to develop additional training programs for

19 staff and supervisors at LAC, COR, SATF, CIW, and KVSP that are

20 tailored to achieving staff compliance with the ARP and ADA.

21

8. Data collection and early-warning system

22

Plaintiffs request that CDCR develop an electronic system

23 for tracking all incidents at the prisons at issue by date, time,

24 location, staff involved, and incarcerated people involved, that

25 includes information about whether inmates are disabled, any

26 injuries they suffered, and related medical records.

27

Defendants oppose this request, on the grounds that their

28 current systems are capable of serving as an early-warning 52

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 53 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 system. During the hearing on December 8, 2020, the Court asked

2 Defendants to identify and describe the current processes that

3 could be used as an early-warning system, and Defendants failed

4 to do so. Tr. at 35-36, Docket No. 3184. Further, as discussed

5 above, the OIG has found, and Defendants do not dispute, that

6 Defendants’ tracking systems are deficient and incapable of

7 generating reports that could help Defendants identify critical

8 information necessary to track past staff misconduct incidents

9 and prevent future ones. See OIG Report at 1, Docket No. 3205.

10

Accordingly, the Court finds that requiring Defendants to

11 develop the electronic tracking system that Plaintiffs propose is

12 necessary.

13

9. Pepper spray

14

Plaintiffs request a policy requiring that all pepper spray

15 canisters at the prisons at issue be weighed before and after

16 use.

17

Defendants oppose this request because their expert opines

18 that it would be unnecessarily burdensome and would not help

19 Defendants determine whether pepper spray was overused, as

20 cannisters are not reused and the amount of pepper spray required

21 varies depending on the weather and the distance from the target.

22 See Cate Decl. ¶¶ 31-32.

23

The Court is persuaded by Defendants’ argument that the

24 weighing of pepper spray cans would not be conducive to reducing

25 its overuse. However, in light of the evidence discussed above,

26 which shows that pepper spray was used against disabled inmates

27 where there was no evidence that the inmates posed an imminent

28 threat to staff or other inmates, or that the use of pepper spray 53

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 54 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 served a legitimate penological interest, the Court finds that it

2 is necessary to require CDCR to craft a plan to modify its

3 policies to more effectively monitor and control the use of

4 pepper spray by staff with respect to disabled inmates at LAC,

5 COR, SATF, CIW, and KVSP.

6

10. Anti-retaliation

7

Plaintiffs request that CDCR be required to put an end to

8 retaliation against disabled inmates at the prisons at issue who

9 report staff misconduct and to ensure complainants’ safety.

10

Defendants did not object to this request in their briefs.

11

The Court finds that requiring CDCR to take steps to stop

12 retaliation in violation of the ADA at LAC, COR, SATF, CIW, and

13 KVSP is necessary.

14

LEGAL STANDARD

15

“It is well established that the district court has the

16 inherent authority to enforce compliance with a consent decree

17 that it has entered in an order, to hold parties in contempt for

18 violating the terms therein, and to modify a decree.” Nehmer v.

19 U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 494 F.3d 846, 860 (9th Cir.

20 2007); Frew ex rel. Frew v. Hawkins, 540 U.S. 431, 441 (2004)

21 (“Federal courts are not reduced to approving consent decrees and

22 hoping for compliance. Once entered, a consent decree may be

23 enforced.”). Further, a district court has “wide discretion” to

24 modify its own injunctions “if the circumstances, whether of law

25 or fact, obtaining at the time of its issuance have changed, or

26 new ones have since arisen.” Sys. Fed’n No. 91, Ry. Emp. Dep’t,

27 AFL-CIO v. Wright, 364 U.S. 642, 647 (1961); see also United

28 States v. Swift & Co., 286 U.S. 206, 114 (1932) (“A continuing 54

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 55 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 decree of injunction directed to events to come is subject always

2 to adaptation as events may shape the need”).

3

The interpretation of a consent decree is for the court, and

4 not the parties subject to the decree. Nehmer, 494 F.3d at 860

5 (“Although a party may ask the district court to issue an order

6 clarifying, enforcing, or modifying a decree and suggest a

7 favored interpretation, a party—whether a private or public

8 entity—cannot dictate the meaning of the decree to the court or

9 relieve itself of its obligations under the decree without the

10 district court’s approval.”). The court’s discretion in

11 interpreting a consent decree is particularly wide where the

12 court has been overseeing a remedial decree for many years. Id.;

13 Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger, 622 F.3d at 1073 (holding that a

14 court that has been “overseeing complex institutional reform

15 litigation for a long period of time” is entitled to “heightened

16 deference”).

17

Any prospective injunctive relief granted or approved by the

18 Court affecting prison conditions must comply with the Prison

19 Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A)

20 (providing that courts “shall not grant or approve any

21 prospective relief [with respect to prison conditions] unless the

22 court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no

23 further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal

24 right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the

25 violation of the Federal right”).

26

27

28 55

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 56 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

2 I. Plaintiffs have shown that Defendants violated the ARP, the

3

ADA, and the Court’s prior orders and injunctions

4

A. Coleman class members designated as EOP are qualified inmates with a disability under the ARP and ADA

5

Section I of the ARP requires Defendants to comply with the

6 ADA’s anti-discrimination and access provisions, 42 U.S.C. §

7 1213227, with respect to any “qualified inmate or parolee with a

8 disability as defined in Title 42 of the United States Code,

9 Section 12102[.]” As discussed above, Section II.A of the ARP

10 defines a “qualified inmate or parolee” as “one with a permanent

11 physical or mental impairment which substantially limits the

12 inmate/parolee’s ability to perform a major life activity,” ARP

13 at 1, Docket No. 681, and Section II.B. of the ARP defines a

14 “permanent disability or impairment” as one that is not expected

15 to improve within six months, id. at 2. The ARP does not define

16 or limit the conditions that may constitute a covered “mental

17 impairment.” Accordingly, the Court interprets the term “mental

18 impairment” based on the ADA’s provisions, which are incorporated

19 by reference into the ARP.

20

Under the ADA, a disability is a “physical or mental

21 impairment that substantially limits one or more major life

22 activities of such individual[.]” 42 U.S.C § 12012(1)(A). The

23 ADA provides that the term disability “shall be construed in

24

25

26

27 The language in Section 1 of the ARP mirrors the language of Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12132, which provides, “No

27

qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the

28

benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.”

56

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 57 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 favor of broad coverage of individuals[.]” 42 U.S.C §

2 12012(4)(A).

3

The mental disorders from which EOP Coleman class members

4 suffer include depression, anxiety and panic attacks, bipolar

5 disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder. As discussed in

6 more detail in the Findings of Fact, above, these disorders cause

7 EOP Coleman class members to suffer from acute symptoms that

8 prevent them from functioning in the general prison population

9 and to require special extensive mental-health treatment. See

10 CDCR Mental Health Services Delivery System Program Guide, 2018

11 Revision, at 7-8, Docket No. 5864-1, Coleman v. Newsom, Case No.

12 90-cv-00520 (E.D. Cal.); see also Order at 5, Docket No. 5131,

13 Coleman v. Newsom, Case No. 90-cv-00520 (E.D. Cal.) (noting that

14 Coleman class members designated as EOP suffer from serious

15 mental disorders that render them “unable to function in the

16 general prison population”). As such, the mental disorders from

17 which EOP Coleman class members suffer substantially limit one or

18 more of their major life activities and, therefore, fall within

19 the scope of “disability” under the ADA. See, e.g., Snead v.

20 Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 237 F.3d 1080, 1088 (9th Cir. 2001)

21 (noting that “stress and depression can be considered mental

22 impairments” under the ADA); Mustafa v. Clark County Sch. Dist.,

23 157 F.3d 1169, 1174–75 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (holding that

24 plaintiff could be substantially limited in a major life activity

25 because he suffered from depression, post-traumatic stress

26 disorder, and panic attacks); Mattice v. Mem’l Hosp. of S. Bend,

27 Inc., 249 F.3d 682, 684 (7th Cir. 2001) (holding that plaintiff

28 stated a claim under the ADA based on allegations that major life 57

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 58 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 activities were significantly impaired by “the existence of and

2 care and treatment for panic disorder, severe depression and

3 suicidal ideation”). That some Coleman class members designated

4 as EOP suffer from symptoms that are episodic does not preclude a

5 finding that they suffer from a disability within the meaning of

6 the ADA. See 42 U.S.C § 12012(4)(D) (“An impairment that is

7 episodic or in remission is a disability if it would

8 substantially limit a major life activity when active.”).

9

Accordingly, Coleman class members who are designated as EOP

10 are qualified inmates with disabilities under the ARP and ADA.

11

B. Staff denied qualified inmates with disabilities

reasonable accommodations 12

13

As discussed above, the Court retained jurisdiction to

14 enforce Defendants’ compliance with the ARP. Remedial Order and

15 Injunction at 5, Docket No. 158. Section I of the ARP requires

16 Defendants to comply with the ADA’s anti-discrimination and

17 access provisions, 42 U.S.C. § 12132.

18

To prove that a public program or service violated § 12132,

19 a plaintiff must show: (1) that he or she is a “qualified

20 individual with a disability”; (2) that he or she was either

21 excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of a public

22 entity’s services, programs, or activities, or was otherwise

23 discriminated against by the public entity; and (3) that such

24 exclusion, denial of benefits, or discrimination was by reason of

25 the disability. Duvall v. Cty. of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1135

26 (9th Cir. 2001), as amended on denial of reh’g (Oct. 11, 2001).

27

The Ninth Circuit has held that the second element of this

28 test can be satisfied where a law enforcement officer could have 58

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 59 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 used less force or no force during the performance of his law-

2 enforcement duties with respect to a disabled person. See

3 Sheehan v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 743 F.3d 1211, 1232-33

4 (9th Cir. 2014), rev’d on other grounds sub nom., City & Cty. of

5 San Francisco, Calif. v. Sheehan, 575 U.S. 600 (2015) (holding

6 that a failure to reasonably accommodate a person’s disability in

7 the course of an investigation or arrest by using unnecessary

8 force, causing the person to suffer “greater injury or indignity

9 in that process than other arrestees,” gives rise to a claim

10 under § 12132, and that a reasonable jury could conclude that a

11 police officer’s failure to use less force or no force during an

12 arrest of a person with mental illness could constitute a failure

13 to provide a reasonable accommodation in violation of § 12132);

14 Vos v. City of Newport Beach, 892 F.3d 1024, 1037 (9th Cir.

15 2018), cert. denied sub nom. City of Newport Beach, Cal. v. Vos,

16 139 S. Ct. 2613 (2019) (same). When applied in the prison

17 context, it follows that the second element of a § 12132 claim

18 can be satisfied where a correctional officer could have used

19 less force or no force during the performance of his or her

20 penological duties with respect to a disabled person.28

21

22

28 The OIG’s interpretation of CDCR’s use-of-force policy is

23

consistent with the notion that correctional officers have an obligation under the ADA to reasonably accommodate an inmate’s

24

disabilities when considering the use of force in the performance of their penological duties. See OIG Report, Monitoring the Use-

25

of-Force Review Process of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (July 13, 2020) at 5, Grunfeld

26

Decl., Ex. VV (“According to departmental policy, when determining the best course of action to resolve a particular

27

situation, staff must evaluate the totality of the circumstances, including an inmate’s demeanor, mental health status and medical

28 concerns (if known), and the inmate’s ability to understand and

59

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 60 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

Defendants did not distinguish these authorities in their

2 briefs, nor did they dispute that the second element of a § 12132

3 claim can be satisfied in the manner just described.

4

Here, the first element is met with respect to members of

5 the Armstrong class and members of the Coleman class who are

6 designated as EOP, as these inmates are qualified individuals

7 with a disability within the meaning of the ARP and ADA by virtue

8 of having a physical or mental impairment that substantially

9 limits their ability to perform a major life activity and that is

10 not expected to improve within six months. At issue is whether

11 Plaintiffs have shown, as required by the second and third

12 elements of a claim under § 12132, that staff denied disabled

13 inmates the benefits of their prison’s services, programs, or

14 activities, or otherwise discriminated against them, by reason of

15 their disabilities.

16

As discussed in more detail in the Findings of Fact, the

17 Court has found that staff failed on numerous occasions to

18 reasonably accommodate the disabilities of disabled inmates. For

19 example, staff refused disabled inmates’ requests for alternative

20 methods for communication (in the case of deaf inmates); for ADA

21 showers (for inmates with incontinence problems); for

22 accommodations in light of manifestations or symptoms of a severe

23 mental disorder (for Coleman class members designated as EOP);

24 and for adequate transportation methods (for mobility-impaired

25

26

27 comply with orders. Policy further states that staff should

28

attempt to verbally persuade, whenever possible, to mitigate the need for force.”).

60

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 61 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 inmates). Accordingly, the second element is met as to these

2 incidents.

3

The Court also has found that staff failed to provide

4 reasonable accommodations for disabled inmates’ disabilities when

5 staff failed to use less force or no force when performing their

6 penological duties, such as throwing disabled inmates out of

7 wheelchairs, punching them, kicking them, or using pepper spray

8 where the undisputed evidence shows that the disabled inmates

9 posed no threat to staff that would warrant the use of such

10 force. The second element also is met as to these incidents.

11

As to the third element, whether these failures to provide

12 reasonable accommodations were due to the disabled inmates’

13 disabilities, the Court found that this element is met based on

14 the totality of the evidence. Inmates state in their

15 declarations that they believe, based on their own experiences

16 and observations, that staff target inmates with disabilities and

17 other vulnerable inmates for mistreatment. These beliefs are

18 consistent with the other evidence discussed in more detail

19 above, including the opinions of Plaintiffs’ experts. Defendants

20 have not proffered any evidence from which the Court could infer

21 an alternative cause for the incidents in question, such as a

22 legitimate penological interest or the lack of a reasonable

23 accommodation that staff could have provided to disabled inmates.

24

Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendants have violated

25 Section I of the ARP and the Court’s prior orders by violating

26 § 12132.

27

28 61

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 62 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

C. Staff interfered with the ADA rights of qualified

1

inmates with disabilities

2

Plaintiffs contend that staff have interfered with disabled

3 inmates’ exercise of their rights under the ARP and ADA in

4 violation of the ADA’s anti-interference provision, 42 U.S.C.

5 § 12203(b), which provides:

6

It shall be unlawful to coerce, intimidate,

7

threaten, or interfere with any individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on

8

account of his or her having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of his or her having

9

aided or encouraged any other individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right

10

granted or protected by this chapter.

11

Section 12203(b) was not expressly incorporated into the

12 ARP. Nevertheless, the Court concludes that Defendants are

13 required to comply with § 12203(b), which is a part of the ADA.

14 The stipulated order that the Court entered at the outset of the

15 remedial phase of this litigation makes clear that “the intent”

16 of the parties was “to require defendants to operate programs,

17 activities, services and facilities of the California Department

18 of Corrections in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities

19 Act and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973[.]” Stipulation

20 and Order ¶ 12, Docket No. 148. The purpose of the ARP was to

21 set forth specific actions that Defendants would take to bring

22 their programs, activities, services, and facilities into

23 compliance with the ADA and the RA. One such action was to set

24 up a system to facilitate disabled inmates’ requests for

25 reasonable accommodations and ADA-related grievances. When staff

26 frustrate the effectiveness of that system by threatening,

27 coercing, or intimidating disabled inmates into foregoing their

28 rights to request reasonable accommodations or file ADA-related 62

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 63 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 grievances, that constitutes a violation of the ARP and the

2 Court’s prior orders and injunctions regarding the same.

3

The Ninth Circuit has not specifically described the

4 elements required to establish a violation of § 12203(b), nor has

5 it defined what “intimidation” or “coercion” mean in the context

6 of § 12203(b). The Court finds Brown v. City of Tucson to be

7 instructive. 336 F.3d 1181, 1191-93 (9th Cir. 2003). There, the

8 Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiff had stated a claim for a

9 violation of § 12203(b) by alleging facts showing that (1) her

10 employer threatened her with an adverse action; (2) the threat

11 had a nexus to her exercise or enjoyment of an ADA right; and (3)

12 she suffered “distinct and palpable” injury as a result of the

13 threat. Id. The Ninth Circuit held that the requisite injury

14 “could consist of either the giving up of her ADA rights, or some

15 other injury which resulted from her refusal to give up her

16 rights, or from the threat itself.” Id.

17

As discussed in more detail in the Findings of Fact, the

18 Court has found that staff members have interfered with certain

19 disabled inmates’ enjoyment of their rights under the ADA and ARP

20 in violation of § 12203(b) by intimidating, threatening, or

21 coercing them into abstaining from making requests for reasonable

22 accommodations or filing ADA grievances. As a result of the

23 intimidation, threats, and coercion, these disabled inmates

24 suffered injury in the form of giving up their rights to make

25 requests for reasonable accommodations or to file ADA grievances,

26 or in the form of severe emotional distress. See Brown, 336 F.3d

27 at 1193 (holding that the plaintiff alleged an injury within the

28 meaning of § 12203(b) by alleging that she “suffered short-term 63

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 64 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 memory problems and felt extremely stressed, harassed, and

2 pressured” by her employer’s threats).

3

These violations of § 12203(b) constitute violations of the

4 ARP and the Court’s prior orders and injunctions regarding the

5 same.

6

D. Defendants failed to comply with their Court-ordered

accountability obligations 7

8

As discussed above, Plaintiffs have also shown that

9 Defendants have violated their Court-ordered accountability

10 obligations by failing to track alleged violations of the ARP and

11 ADA; failing to promptly and properly investigate alleged

12 violations of the ARP and ADA; failing to provide Plaintiffs’

13 counsel with information about the status and results of their

14 investigations; and failing to implement an effective system for

15 holding wardens and other staff accountable for non-compliance

16 with the ARP and ADA. Plaintiffs also have shown that

17 Defendants’ failure to comply with their accountability

18 obligations has led to the violations of disabled inmates’ rights

19 under the ARP and ADA by perpetuating a staff culture that

20 condones staff abuse against disabled inmates.

21 II. The implementation of additional remedial measures at LAC,

COR, SATF, CIW, and KVSP is necessary to ensure Defendants’

22

compliance with the ARP and ADA

23

The Court retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the

24 Remedial Order and Injunction, as well as to issue “any order

25 permitted by law, including contempt, necessary to ensure that

26 defendants comply with the guidelines, policies, procedures,

27 plans and evaluations” required by the Remedial Order and

28 Injunction. Remedial Order and Injunction at 5, Docket No. 158. 64

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 65 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 The Court has found that the additional remedial measures

2 discussed above are necessary to ensure that Defendants comply

3 with their obligation under the ARP and ADA to provide reasonable

4 accommodations for qualified inmates with disabilities and to

5 otherwise refrain from discriminating against qualified inmates

6 with disabilities by reason of their disabilities. They also are

7 necessary to effectuate the parties’ and the Court’s intent “to

8 require defendants to operate programs, activities, services and

9 facilities of the California Department of Corrections in

10 accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and § 504 of

11 the Rehabilitation Act of 1973[.]” Stipulation and Order ¶ 12,

12 Docket No. 148. Accordingly, the Court will modify its prior

13 orders and injunctions to require Defendants to develop a plan to

14 implement the additional remedial measures that the Court has

15 found to be necessary to bring Defendants into compliance with

16 the ARP and ADA.

17 III. The additional remedial measures ordered herein are consistent with the PLRA
18

19

As noted, the PLRA provides that courts “shall not grant or

20 approve any prospective relief [with respect to prison

21 conditions] unless the court finds that such relief is narrowly

22 drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation

23 of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary

24 to correct the violation of the Federal right.” 18 U.S.C. §

25 3626(a)(1)(A). The Court is required to give substantial weight

26 to “any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a

27 criminal justice system caused by” the prospective relief. Id.

28 Whether prospective relief is appropriate in light of the PLRA 65

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 66 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 depends on whether the Court finds, in light of the “order as a

2 whole,” “that the set of reforms being ordered—the ‘relief’—

3 corrects the violations of prisoners’ rights with the minimal

4 impact possible on defendants’ discretion over their policies and

5 procedures.”29 Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger, 622 F.3d at 1071.

6

A. Narrowly tailored

7

The Court concludes that the additional remedial measures

8 discussed above meet the requirements of the PLRA. They are

9 narrowly tailored because they require action only with respect

10 to the prisons at which Plaintiffs have shown that Defendants

11 have violated disabled inmates’ rights under the ARP and ADA,

12 namely LAC, COR, SATF, CIW, and KVSP, and because they are the

13 least that can be done to protect disabled inmates from further

14 violations of their rights under the ARP and ADA. Id. at 1072

15 (holding that the scope of permissible injunctive relief “is

16 dictated by the extent of the violation established”) (citation

17 and internal quotation marks omitted). As discussed above, the

18 substantial evidence that Plaintiffs have presented shows that

19 the violations of disabled inmates’ rights are not limited to

20 isolated incidents. The ARP and ADA violations described in the

21 inmates’ declarations were widespread in every sense of the word;

22 they affected inmates who suffer from a wide range of

23

24

25

29 The PLRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(B), also requires that the Court make certain findings to the extent that any

26

prospective relief requires a government official to exceed his or her authority under state or local law. Defendants have not

27

identified any state or local law that they must violate to implement the additional remedial measures ordered herein.

28

Accordingly, the Court need not make any findings under 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(B).

66

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 67 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 disabilities; they were caused or observed by many identified

2 staff members; and they took place at a variety of locations at a

3 variety of prisons.

4

As discussed, the incidents appear to be the result of the

5 ineffectiveness of Defendants’ system for investigating and

6 disciplining violations of the ARP and ADA. It remains possible,

7 under the current policies and procedures, for staff members to

8 continue to violate disabled inmates’ ARP and ADA rights while

9 potentially avoiding accountability for their actions. The

10 additional remedial measures in question are specifically

11 designed to remedy this, and they are therefore necessary to

12 prevent further violations of disabled inmates’ rights under the

13 ARP and ADA. See, e.g., Armstrong v. Brown, 768 F.3d at 984

14 (affirming order requiring CDCR Defendants to implement remedial

15 measures intended to enhance CDCR’s accountability); Armstrong v.

16 Schwarzenegger, 622 F.3d at 1073-74 (noting the importance of

17 accountability measures in ensuring ADA compliance); Morales

18 Feliciano v. Rullan, 378 F.3d 42, 55–56 (1st Cir. 2004) (noting

19 the importance of accountability in ensuring the long-term

20 success of the health care system in Puerto Rico’s prisons).

21

Defendants rely on Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 357 (1996),

22 for the proposition that the relief that Plaintiffs seek is

23 unjustified in light of number of violations of the ARP and ADA

24 that they have shown. In Lewis, the Supreme Court reversed an

25 injunction that granted systemwide relief across all of Arizona’s

26 correctional facilities on the ground that the only evidence in

27 the record that supported such relief was evidence that two

28 inmates at two different prisons were unable to receive 67

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 68 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 assistance they needed to litigate a claim in court. The Supreme

2 Court held that the “two instances were a patently inadequate

3 basis for a conclusion of systemwide violation and imposition of

4 systemwide relief.” Id. at 359. Lewis is distinguishable

5 because, here, the Court has not ordered systemwide relief;

6 instead, the Court has found that, commensurate with the

7 violations of the ARP and ADA that Plaintiffs have shown at LAC,

8 COR, SATF, CIW, and KVSP, the implementation of additional

9 remedial measures at these prisons is warranted. Thus, the scope

10 of the additional remedies is tailored to the scope of the ARP

11 and ADA violations shown.

12

B. Least Intrusive

13

The additional remedial measures ordered herein are not

14 impermissibly intrusive because they do not micromanage

15 Defendants’ operations. Defendants have the discretion to craft

16 policies and procedures to implement the additional remedial

17 measures. Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger, 622 F.3d at 1071

18 (“Intrusiveness is a particularly difficult issue for defendants

19 to argue, as by ordering them to draft and promulgate a plan, the

20 district court left to defendants’ discretion as many of the

21 particulars regarding how to deliver the relief as it deemed

22 possible. Allowing defendants to develop policies and procedures

23 to meet the ADA’s requirements is precisely the type of process

24 that the Supreme Court has indicated is appropriate for devising

25 a suitable remedial plan in a prison litigation case.”). That

26 the Court describes the additional remedial measures with some

27 specificity does not change this conclusion. See Armstrong v.

28 Brown, 768 F.3d at 986 (holding that “[a] court may, as the 68

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 69 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 district court did here, provide specific instructions to the

2 State without running afoul of the PLRA”).

3

Defendants’ expert, Matthew Cate, opines that a less

4 intrusive means of ending the ongoing violations exists, namely

5 “ensur[ing] that inmates have better access to accommodation

6 requests, by, for example placing the request forms in a location

7 available to all inmates, and having ADA and Grievance

8 Coordinators walk the buildings to ensure disabled inmates can

9 make requests.” Cate Decl. ¶ 6, Docket No. 3160-60.

10

The Court finds that such a proposal is not a viable

11 alternative to the additional remedial measures ordered herein,

12 because the record shows that the root cause of the ongoing

13 violations of the ARP and ADA is not the lack of access to forms

14 or other methods for requesting accommodations, but rather the

15 ineffectiveness of the current system for investigating and

16 disciplining violations of the ARP and ADA and the resulting

17 staff culture that condones abuse and retaliation against

18 disabled inmates.

19

The goal and intent of the parties and the Court’s Remedial

20 Order and Injunction at the outset of the remedial phase of this

21 litigation was to bring all of CDCR’s prisons into compliance

22 with the ADA and the RA. Almost twenty-four years after the

23 issuance of that order and injunction, Defendants are not yet in

24 compliance. This is so even though the parties and the Court

25 have attempted various iterations of remedial measures that are

26 narrower and less intrusive than the ones now ordered. The Court

27 has found, as discussed in more detail above, that the policies

28 and system currently in place, which are the product of the 69

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 70 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 parties’ and the Court’s prior efforts to bring Defendants into

2 full compliance, are insufficient to end the ongoing violations

3 of disabled inmates’ rights. Accordingly, the Court’s

4 implementation of additional and broader remedial measures is

5 warranted. Armstrong v. Brown, 768 F.3d at 986 (noting that,

6 where “the district court has attempted narrower, less intrusive

7 alternatives—and those alternatives have failed,” the court has

8 discretion to order relief that might have raised concerns about

9 breadth and intrusiveness under the PLRA in the first instance)

10 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

11

The Court has carefully considered and weighed the arguments

12 and evidence presented by Defendants, and it has found that

13 Defendants have not shown that the additional remedial measures

14 would have any adverse impact on public safety or the operation

15 of a criminal justice system. Defendants object to the

16 additional remedial measures on the ground that they are

17 unnecessary. The Court disagrees with Defendants on this point

18 based on the evidence discussed at length above. Defendants also

19 object to the additional measures on the ground that they would

20 be burdensome to implement in the time frame that Plaintiffs have

21 proposed. Even if it were the case that implementing the

22 additional remedial measures in the time frame that Plaintiffs

23 have proposed would be burdensome for Defendants, “[a]

24 demonstration that an order is burdensome does nothing to prove

25 that it was overly intrusive” or otherwise inconsistent with the

26 requirements of the PLRA. Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger, 622 F.3d

27 at 1071. Where, as here, the Court has found that the additional

28 remedial measures are necessary to ensure Defendants’ compliance 70

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3217 Filed 03/11/21 Page 71 of 71

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 with the ARP and ADA, and that no viable less restrictive

2 alternative exists, the question of whether the additional

3 remedial measures require some expenditure of resources by

4 Defendants is not determinative. See id. (“With Congress having

5 made the decision to recognize the rights of disabled persons,

6 the question is not whether the relief the court ordered to

7 vindicate those rights is expensive, or difficult to achieve, but

8 whether the same vindication of federal rights could have been

9 achieved with less involvement by the court in directing the

10 details of defendants’ operations.”).

11

In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the

12 additional remedial measures ordered here are necessary and

13 consistent with the PLRA.

14

CONCLUSION

15

The Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiffs’ motion to modify its

16 prior orders and injunctions to require Defendants to design, and

17 then implement, a plan that requires additional remedial measures

18 at LAC, COR, SATF, CIW, and KVSP. The Court will issue a

19 separate order describing the additional remedial measures that

20 Defendants’ plan must include.

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22 Dated: March 11, 2021 23

CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge

24

25

26

27

28 71

 
 Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3218 Filed 03/11/21 Page 1 of 7

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11

JOHN ARMSTRONG, et al.,

Case No. 94-cv-02307 CW

12

Plaintiffs,

13

v.

14

GAVIN C. NEWSOM, et al.,

ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL REMEDIAL MEASURES AT LAC, COR, SATF, CIW, AND KVSP
Re: Dkt. No. 2948

15

Defendants.

16

17

For the reasons set forth in the Court’s order granting in

18 part Plaintiffs’ motion to modify its prior remedial orders and

19 injunctions to require the implementation of new remedial measures

20 to prevent further violations of the ARP and ADA at California

21 State Prison, Los Angeles County (LAC); California State Prison,

22 Corcoran (COR); Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (SATF);

23 California Institute for Women (CIW); and Kern Valley State Prison

24 (KVSP) (collectively, the five prisons), the Court hereby orders

25 as follows:

26

1. No later than twenty-one days of the date this Order is

27 filed, Defendants must draft and present to Plaintiffs for their

28 review a plan for achieving compliance with the Armstrong

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3218 Filed 03/11/21 Page 2 of 7

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 Remedial Plan (ARP) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

2 that includes the components described below (the Five Prisons

3 Remedial Plan). To the extent possible, Defendants shall provide

4 to Plaintiffs drafts of the components that must be included in

5 the Five Prisons Remedial Plan on a rolling basis prior to

6 twenty-one days of the date this Order is filed.

7

2. Plaintiffs shall provide comments to Defendants as to

8 the drafts within seven days of receiving them.1

9

3. The parties shall meet and confer promptly to resolve

10 any disagreements as to the adequacy of the Five Prisons Remedial

11 Plan or any of its components. Defendants shall ensure that

12 staff with sufficient authority to amend and approve any plans,

13 policies, and procedures in the Five Prisons Remedial Plan attend

14 all meet-and-confer sessions.

15

4. In the event that a disagreement is not resolved within

16 forty-two days of the date this Order is filed, Plaintiffs shall

17 file objections with the Court no later than forty-nine days of

18 the date this Order is filed in a brief of no more than ten

19 pages; Defendants may respond to the objections within seven days

20 thereafter in a brief of no more than fifteen pages; and

21 Plaintiffs may file a reply of no more than five pages within

22 four days thereafter. The Court will rule on the objections and

23 issue any necessary order, consistent with its rulings in its

24

25

26

1 Each side shall, respectively, provide copies of any drafts

27

and comments to the same to counsel for the parties in Coleman v. Newsom, Case No. 90-cv-00529 (E.D. Cal.), and Plata v. Newsom,

28

Case No. 01-cv-01351 (N.D. Cal.), as well as to the special master and receiver in those actions.

2

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3218 Filed 03/11/21 Page 3 of 7

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 Order granting in part Plaintiffs’ motion to modify its prior

2 remedial orders and injunctions.

3

5. Within fourteen days of reaching agreement with

4 Plaintiffs, or receiving this Court’s order resolving any

5 disagreements, Defendants shall issue the Five Prisons Remedial

6 Plan in final form and implement its provisions pursuant to the

7 terms described below, unless the Five Prisons Remedial Plan sets

8 a different date for the implementation of a component of the

9 Five Prisons Remedial Plan.

10

a. Cameras. Within ninety days of the finalization

11 of the Five Prisons Remedial Plan, CDCR shall install operational

12 surveillance cameras that cover all areas of LAC, COR, SATF, CIW,

13 and KVSP to which disabled inmates have access, including, but

14 not limited to, all exercise yards, housing units, sally-ports,

15 dining halls, program areas, and gyms. Within sixty days of the

16 finalization of the Five Prisons Remedial Plan, CDCR must begin

17 using body-worn cameras for all correctional officers at LAC,

18 COR, SATF, CIW, and KVSP who may have any interactions with

19 disabled inmates. The Five Prisons Remedial Plan shall describe

20 the steps that Defendants will take to achieve these deadlines.

21

b. The Five Prisons Remedial Plan must contain

22 policies and procedures regarding the use of body-worn cameras

23 and the use of camera footage at LAC, COR, SATF, CIW, and KVSP

24 from any type of camera, including requirements that all footage

25 be retained for a minimum of ninety days, that footage of use of

26 force and other triggering events involving disabled inmates at

27 LAC, COR, SATF, CIW, and KVSP be retained indefinitely, and that

28 footage, when available, be reviewed and considered as part of 3

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3218 Filed 03/11/21 Page 4 of 7

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 the investigation of any incident. The Five Prisons Remedial

2 Plan also must contain policies and procedures for training staff

3 at LAC, COR, SATF, CIW, and KVSP regarding how and when to use a

4 body-worn camera and how to ensure that footage is retained and

5 reviewed.

6

c. Reforms to Staff Misconduct Complaint,

7 Investigation, and Discipline Process at LAC, COR, SATF, CIW, and

8 KVSP. CDCR must develop measures to reform the staff misconduct

9 complaint, investigation, and discipline process (Investigation

10 and Discipline Section of the Five Prisons Remedial Plan), which

11 shall be included in the Five Prisons Remedial Plan, to ensure

12 (1) that CDCR completes unbiased, comprehensive investigations

13 into all allegations of staff misconduct violative of the rights

14 of any qualified inmate with a disability under the ARP or the

15 ADA; (2) that CDCR imposes appropriate and consistent discipline

16 against employees who engage in violations of the ARP or ADA with

17 respect to disabled inmates at LAC, COR, SATF, CIW, and KVSP; and

18 (3) that employees who engage in criminal misconduct against

19 disabled inmates at LAC, COR, SATF, CIW, and KVSP in violation of

20 the ARP or ADA are appropriately investigated and, if warranted,

21 referred for prosecution or reassignment. The Investigation and

22 Discipline Section of the Five Prisons Remedial Plan also shall

23 ensure that officers accused of serial violations of the ARP or

24 ADA with respect to disabled inmates at LAC, COR, SATF, CIW, and

25 KVSP are reassigned. The Investigation and Discipline Section of

26 the Five Prisons Remedial Plan also shall provide for effective

27 mechanisms for oversight over all staff misconduct complaints,

28 use-of-force reviews, and related staff disciplinary proceedings 4

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3218 Filed 03/11/21 Page 5 of 7

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 at LAC, COR, SATF, CIW, and KVSP that involve alleged violations

2 of disabled inmates’ rights under the ARP or ADA. The

3 Investigation and Discipline Section of the Five Prisons Remedial

4 Plan shall require quarterly interviews of randomly-selected

5 disabled inmates at LAC, COR, SATF, CIW, and KVSP using the

6 methodology and interview questionnaire utilized by the December

7 2018 investigators in connection with the Bishop Report at

8 Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility.

9

d. Third-Party Expert Monitoring of Defendants’

10 Investigation and Discipline Section of the Five Prisons Remedial

11 Plan. The Court delegates to Edward Swanson, its expert,

12 pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 706, the additional duties

13 of monitoring Defendants’ implementation of their Investigation

14 and Discipline Section of the Five Prisons Remedial Plan. Mr.

15 Swanson shall have access to all documents reasonably necessary

16 for monitoring Defendants’ implementation of their Investigation

17 and Discipline Section of the Five Prisons Remedial Plan. Mr.

18 Swanson shall issue quarterly reports regarding Defendants’

19 implementation of the Investigation and Discipline Section of the

20 Five Prisons Remedial Plan. Prior to the issuance of each

21 quarterly report, the parties and Mr. Swanson shall meet and

22 confer regarding his findings for the quarter.

23

e. Early-Warning System. CDCR shall develop an

24 electronic system for tracking all staff misconduct incidents

25 involving disabled inmates at LAC, COR, SATF, CIW, and KVSP by

26 date, time, location, staff involved, and disabled inmates

27 involved, that includes information about the nature of the

28 5

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3218 Filed 03/11/21 Page 6 of 7

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 disabled inmates’ disabilities, any injuries they suffered, and

2 related medical records.

3

f. Information Sharing with Plaintiffs’ counsel and

4 the Court’s expert. CDCR must produce to Plaintiffs’ counsel and

5 the Court’s expert, Mr. Swanson, on a quarterly basis, all

6 documents related to LAC, COR, SATF, CIW, and KVSP staff

7 misconduct complaints in which the alleged victim is a qualified

8 inmate with a disability and alleges violations of his or her

9 rights under the ARP or ADA, including, but not limited to,

10 grievances, incident reports, documents from staff misconduct

11 inquiries, documents from Institutional Executive Review

12 Committee inquiries in which the qualified inmate with a

13 disability alleges excessive use of force or other staff

14 misconduct in violation of his or her rights under the ARP or

15 ADA, 989 forms and all supporting documents, responses of the

16 Central Intake Unit of OIA to 989 forms, investigation reports

17 produced by the OIA, and 402 and 403 forms issued by the hiring

18 authority. CDCR must also provide Plaintiffs’ counsel with

19 monthly, written updates regarding progress on the implementation

20 of the Five Prisons Remedial Plan at LAC, COR, SATF, CIW, and

21 KVSP, including data regarding staff misconduct complaints and

22 use of force involving a qualified inmate with a disability where

23 there is a possible violation of the disabled inmate’s rights

24 under the ARP or ADA.

25

g. Staffing. CDCR must significantly increase

26 supervisory staff by posting additional sergeants on all watches

27 on all yards at LAC, COR, SATF, CIW, and KVSP.

28 6

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 3218 Filed 03/11/21 Page 7 of 7

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

h. Training. CDCR must develop and implement

2 training intended to eliminate violations of the ARP and ADA at

3 LAC, COR, SATF, CIW, and KVSP, such as human rights, de-

4 escalation, and cultural training, for all custody, mental

5 health, and medical staff at LAC, COR, SATF, CIW, and KVSP who

6 interact with disabled inmates. The training must include

7 discussion of reporting requirements, whistleblowing, non-

8 retaliation, and treatment of incarcerated people with

9 disabilities.

10

i. Anti-Retaliation. CDCR shall develop mechanisms

11 to end and prevent any retaliation against disabled inmates who

12 report violations of their rights under the ARP or ADA and to

13 ensure their safety. These mechanisms shall be described in the

14 Five Prisons Remedial Plan.

15

j. Other Remedies. CDCR shall develop a plan to

16 modify its policies to more effectively monitor and control the

17 use of pepper spray by staff at LAC, COR, SATF, CIW, and KVSP

18 with respect to disabled inmates. This plan shall be described

19 in the Five Prisons Remedial Plan.

20

6. The Court finds that these additional remedial measures

21 are consistent with the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA),

22 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a).

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24 Dated: March 11, 2021 25

CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge

26

27

28 7

 
 1 DANIEL E. LUNGREN, Attorney General of the State of California
2 PETER J. SIGGINS, Senior Assistant Attorney General
3 GEORGE D. PRINCE, #133877 JAMES M. HUMES, #147927
4 Deputy Attorneys General 50 Fremont Street, Suite 3 00
5 San Francisco, California 94105-2239 Telephone No. (415) 356-6037
6 Attorneys for Defendants
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 JOHN ARMSTRONG, et al.,

No. C-94-2307 CW

11

Plaintiffs,

12

v.

13 PETE WILSON, et al.,

STATEMENT OF STIPULATED FACTS (For Settlement Purposes Only)

14

Defendants.

15

16

\rmstronq v. Davis

17

m

I • • I ••III • • • •

18

PC-CA-001-001

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1.

1 2 3 I. 4 II. 5 III. 6 IV. 7 V. 8 VI. 9 VII. 10 VIII 11 IX. 12 X. 13 XI. 14 XII. 15 XIII 16 XIV.
17 XV.
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

TABLE OF CONTENTS
GENERAL FACTS MISCELLANEOUS ADA PROVISIONS . 1824 GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE COMMON FEATURES OF CDC PRISONS CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS RECEPTION CENTERS EMERGENCY PROCEDURES CLASSIFICATION AND INMATE ASSIGNMENTS ADMINISTRATIVE SEGREGATION AND SHU INMATES WITH MOBILITY IMPAIRMENTS INMATES WITH HEARING ..IMPAIRMENTS INMATES REQUIRING DIALYSIS INMATES WITH VISION IMPAIRMENTS INMATES WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES PAROLE

Statement of Stip. Pacts (Settlement)

Armstrong v. Wilson, C-94-2307 CW

1 •

1 2 3 3 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 14 . 14 15 17

1

The parties, through their respective attorneys, hereby

2 agree that the facts set forth below are undisputed and

3 constitute the settled facts in this case.

4

I.

5

GENERAL FACTS

6

1. The California Department of Corrections (the

7 "CDC") operates over 31 prisons housing in excess of 130,000 male

8 and female inmates.

9

2. For the last several years, CDC's requests for

10 specific funding to implement Title II of the Americans with

11 Disabilities Act ("ADA") have been denied at various phases of

12 the funding process.

13

3. Some programs of the CDC receive federal financial

14 assistance.

15

4. CDC's total budget for fiscal year 1995-96 is

16 approximately 3.8 billion dollars.

17

5. CDC has conducted various surveys to identify

18 certain inmates with disabilities, the most recent of which

19 occurred in January 1995 and January 1996. Inmates with learning

20 disabilities were not included to be identified or counted in

21 these surveys.

22

6. In i t s survey of January 1996, CDC counted 1375

23 inmates with mobility, sight, hearing or speech impairments out

24 of a t o t a l inmate population of 131,632. The survey reflected

25 that 345i^JjMo»fe€Wfctta%b^*<*>cfa»»g*fctlttqBlW&^af^p&i\Mi'^^r^!xaa.biiity. 26 The- survey* retlectedKfehater^SS^'fnmattes' had' a permanent lower

27 extXSttiJByw^BJMA^ti^^^BAMWMMMfeaiMlUtafil^^UiSStantially ,1 "i mi 1"nf1 Wfll^^r

28 and which may have required the use of an assistive device such

Statement of Stip. Facts (Settlement)

Armstrong v. Wilson, C-94-2307 CW

1.

1 as a cane, prosthesis, or walker.

2

7. The survey reflected that 15 CDC institutions

3 housed at least one inmate who used a wheelchair due to a

4 permanent disability. Almost all institutions house prisoners

5 with other mobility impairments.

6

8. The survey reflected that 141 inmates are deaf or

7 have a hear^nfi iifflPi3iililT7T1noT7i~ <""-h f^3*; <-h«j r._ hearing, even when

8 augmented with a hearing aid, did not enable them to hear

9 effectively or to hear emergency warnings.

10

9. The survey reflected that most CDC institutions

11 housed at least one inmate with a hearing impairment.

12

10. The survey reflected that 21_9 inmates are blind or

13 have vision that cannot be corrected to 20/200 even with

14 corrective lens

15

11. The survey reflected that most of the inmates who

16 are blind or who have severe vision impairments are housed in one

17 of four prisons and that most prisons house some prisoners with

18 vision impairments.

19

12. CDC has clustered and continues to cluster other

20 specialized inmate populations. HIV-positive inmates are placed

21 in various units in facilities throughout the system. Inmates

22 with mental health concerns are clustered and frequently

23 separated from other inmate populations.

24

II.

25

MISCELLANEOUS ADA PROVISIONS

26

13. In April 1995, posted written notice of the ADA

27 was provided to CDC inmates and parolees and was read to some

28 inmates with vision impairments.

Statement of Stip. Facts (Settlement) Armstrong v. Wilson, C-94-2307 CW

<• •

1

14. GDC has appointed a system-wide ADA coordinator

2 and has appointed an ADA coordinator at each of its prisons.

3 Some of the institution ADA coordinators have other

4 responsibilities that prevent them from spending significant 5 amounts of time on ADA issues.

6

15. CDC initiated its self-evaluation in 1995, but has

7 not completed it. The CDC is in the process of preparing a

8 transition plan.

9

III.

10

1824 GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE

11

16. On or about April 15, 1995, CDC established and

12 implemented a new administrative grievance procedure to provide

13 inmates and parolees with disabilities with a special process to

14 submit grievances or requests for accommodations/modifications on

15 matters related to their disabilities. This- new procedure makes

16 use of a special form designated as a "CDC 1824."

17

17. Once the form in completed, it is submitted to the

18 appeals coordinator of the facility, bypassing the informal level

19 of the normal appeals process.

20

18. Although the form was available to most inmates

21 soon after the procedure was implemented, some institutions

22 failed to make the form available to all inmates as late as

23 September 1995, and there are still significant problems in

24 implementing this procedure.

25

IV.

26

COMMON FEATURES OF CDC PRISONS

27

19. Prisons share common features. All contain

28 housing units which are either dormitories (open spaces with

Statement of Stip. Facts (Settlement)

Armstrong v. Wilson, C-94-2307 CW

3.

1 bunks or lockers) and/or cells. Cells are equipped with a

2 toilet, sink and bed or bunk. Most cells have a shelf and table.

3 Many housing units have a dayroom area which contains drinking

4 fountains, telephones, televisions and tables. All housing units

5 have shower facilities. Every prison has at least one yard for

6 outdoor recreation. Yards usually have drinking fountains,

7 toilets, sinks, and showers. Yards may have basketball or

8 handball courts, weight piles, and other recreational equipment.

9

20. Each prison has an administrative segregation unit

10 which consists of celled housing. Administrative segregation

11 units typically have their own yards which contain drinking

12 fountains, showers and toilets.

13

21. Each prison has visiting areas. There is

14 generally a large room or patio with tables where inmates have

15 contact visits, and another section where inmates have noncontact

16 visits. Noncontact visits occur in booths, some of which require

17 communications by a telephone. The visiting rooms normally

18 contain attorney visiting areas, both contact and noncontact.

19 Some prisons have family visiting units for overnight visits.

20

22. Each prison has at least one law library.

21

23. CDC inmates who require assistance in the handling

22 of legal matters or use of the law library are provided with

23 clerical assistance from inmate library clerks or library staff.

24 Inmates may also use the services of other untrained inmates to

25 prepare legal documents.

26

24. Each prison has at least one hearing room that is

27 used for hearings before the Board of Prison Terms. Inmates

28 typically wait for their hearings in holding cells which may

Statement of Stip. Pacta (Settlement)

Armstrong v. Wilson, C-94-2307 CW

1 •

1 contain toilets and sinks.

2

25. Each prison has dining halls where most inmates

3 receive their meals.

4

26. Each prison has a canteen where inmates may

5 purchase personal items such as hygiene products and snacks.

6

27. Each prison has chapels for religious programs.

7

28. Each prison has health care facilities for

8 appointments with health care providers. Most prisons have an

9 infirmary.

10

29. Each prison has classrooms for academic education.

11 Many prisons have classrooms and workshops for vocational

12 education in a wide variety of subjects. Many prisons have

13 Prison Industry Authority or Joint Venture facilities. These are

14 manufacturing facilities operated jointly by private companies

15 and the prison system, utilizing inmate labor.

16

V.

17

CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

18

30. From 1980 to 1992, staff and visitor areas of new

19 CDC prisons were designed and constructed in accordance with

20 state accessibility standards which met or exceeded federal

21 standards.

22

31. From 1980 to 1992, inmate areas of new CDC prisons

23 were not designed and constructed in accordance with any

24 accessibility standards.

25

32. CDC has constructed all its prison facilities

26 where construction commenced after January 26, 1992, in

27 substantial compliance with state accessibility standards.

28

33. Some major renovations to physical facilities used

Statement of Stip. Facts (Settlement) Armstrong v. Wilson, C-94-2307 CW

,-* •

1 by inmates within the CDC's prisons where construction commenced

2 after January 26, 1992, were built in accordance with state

3 accessibility standards. However, H unit at San Quentin, which

4 is the largest renovation project, was not built in accordance

5 with those standards.

6

VI.

7

RECEPTION CENTERS

8

34. When an inmate enters the CDC system, he or she is

9 first processed through, and temporarily housed at, a reception

10 center. There are a total of 13 operational reception centers in

11 the CDC system.

12

35. Inmates are processed through particular reception

13 centers depending upon which county they are coming from,

14 regardless of the inmates' ultimate classification score or

15 custody level, and regardless of the presence of any disability.

16

36. The reception center screening process does not

17 include a thorough assessment of prisoners' disabilities.

18 Inmates who are processed through, reception centers are screened

19 through a medical examination, psychological testing and an

20 educational grade level assessment.

21

37. Except for the newest reception center, all of the

22 reception centers have received inmates with disabilities, and no

2 3 reception center may exclude any prisoner.

24

38. As of December 1995, CDC did not have a uniform

25 policy or procedure to identify inmates with disabilities for

26 transfer to designated institutions. However, as of December

27 1995, some reception centers understood that inmates who use

28 wheelchairs could only be transferred to California Medical

Statement of Stip. Facts (Settlement)

_

Armstrong v. Wilson, C-94-2307 CW

o.

1 Facility ("CMF") or Avenal State Prison.

2

39. Some inmates who use wheelchairs and those on

3 dialysis have spent significantly longer periods of time (ranging

4 from several months to a year) in reception centers than the

5 average inmate.

6

40. Inmates in reception centers earn 1/3 sentence

7 credit (one day credit for every two days served). They are not

8 provided with the opportunity to earn 1/2 sentence credit (one

9 day credit for every day served) through participation in work

10 assignments, educational courses or vocational programs. Inmates

11 in reception centers generally do not have the same privileges as

12 inmates in mainline institutions, such as contact visits, family

13 visits and telephone calls.

14

41. Most reception centers are not built to

15 accessibility standards.

16

VII.

17

EMERGENCY PROCEDURES

18

42. The CDC has emergency policies and procedures,

19 such as for evacuation of facilities in the event of fire,

20 earthquake or other disaster, and provides training to its staff

21 in implementing emergency policies and procedures.

22

43. Prisoners with disabilities may require special

23 accommodations in order to ensure that they are evacuated in the

24 event of an emergency.

25

44. Many CDC facilities do not have written policies

26 or procedures that specifically address the evacuation of

27 prisoners with disabilities.

28

45. Prisons are staffed with custodial officers 24

Statement of Stip. Facta (Settlement)

Armstrong v. Wilson, C-94-2307 CW

' •

1 hours a day, seven days a week. Custodial staff are trained to

2 evacuate prison facilities in the event of an emergency, but are

3 not specifically trained to evacuate disabled inmates.

4

46. Some CDC facilities do not have visual alarms or

5 strobe lights to warn prisoners with hearing impairments of

6 emergencies.

7

47. The CDC does not have a system-wide

8 process/procedure for visual identification of inmates with

9 disabilities while not in their cells. Emergency situations

10 arise within the prisons in areas other than living units, such

11 as yards. As a result of their disabilities, some inmates may

12 not be aware of, or be able to respond to, an emergency warning

13 or impending danger.

14

VIII.

15

CLASSIFICATION AND INMATE ASSIGNMENTS

16

48. After a classification process that considers a

17 multitude of factors inmates are assigned a custody level and one

18 of four classification levels, with level I being minimum custody

19 and level IV being maximum security. Although an inmate cannot

20 choose where he or she will be incarcerated or the program, if

21 any, to which he or she will be assigned, the inmate's

22 preferences are considered by prison officials when they make

23 these decisions.

24

49. Most inmates who participate in educational

25 classes, vocational training, or who have work assignments,

26 including those inmates with disabilities, earn one-half time

27 sentence credits to reduce their time in custody.

28

50. Health care providers can identify inmates as

Statement of Stip. Pacts (Settlement)

Armstrong v. Wilson, C-94-2307 CW

8.

1 "totally medically disabled," "medically unassigned," or "light

2 restricted duty." A "totally medically disabled" classification

3 allows the inmate to earn one-half time sentence credits without

4 being required to participate in programming, while a "medically 5 unassigned" classification allows the inmate to earn one-third

6 time sentence credits. A "light restricted duty" designation

7 allows the inmate to participate in programming in accordance 8 with a specified restriction to due a physical or mental 9 condition.

10

51. Some inmates with severe disabilities have been

11 inappropriately classified and identified as medically unassigned

12 rather than totally medically disabled and therefore only earn

13 one-third instead one-half time credits against their sentence.

14

52. Inmates designated as "light restricted duty" may •

15 be assigned jobs that are inappropriate for their physical

16 limitations.

17

53. Inmates with disabilities are automatically

18 excluded from prison camps because of their disability.

19

54. Most CDC facilities have waiting lists for work

20 assignments.

21

55. Prison programs are not designed or intended to be

22 available equally to all inmates. Programs vary greatly among

23 institutions.

24

56. Some inmates with disabilities currently

25 participate in at least the following vocational programs:

26 Avenal: computer-related technology, electronics, graphic arts

27 and printing, and mechanical drawing; California Institution for 28 Men ("CIM"): animal grooming, computer repair, drafting, graphic

Statement of Stip. Facts (Settlement)

Armstrong v. Wilson, C-94-2307 CW

^•

1 arts and printing, and shoe repair; California Institution for

2 Women ("CIW"): clothing & textile manufacturing; CMF:

3 horticulture and landscaping and office services; CCWF:

4 maintenance, mill and cabinet, office services, and upholstery;

5 Pleasant Valley State Prison ("PVSP"): graphic arts, masonry,

6 mill and cabinet, silk screening, computer technology, office

7 services, landscape, and upholstery. However, the range of
8 programs available to prisoners with disabilities is more limited

9 than the range of programs available to other prisoners.

10

IX.

11

ADMINISTRATIVE SEGREGATION AND SHU

12

57. Inmates may be placed in an administrative

13 segregation unit pending a disciplinary violation, for protective

14 custody, or for other administrative reasons. Inmates may be

15 placed in a segregated housing unit ("SHU") for a disciplinary

16 infraction, or for other reasons related to the safety and

17 security of the institution.

18

58. CDC's written policies and procedures regarding

19 administrative segregation and SHU do not specifically address

20 inmates with disabilities.

21

59. CDC has no specific written policies or procedures

22 regarding the use, removal, or restriction of auxiliary aids,

23 ambulatory devices, or prosthetic limbs for inmates in

24 administrative segregation or SHU.

25

60. In some instances, auxiliary aids, ambulatory

26 aids, wheelchairs or and prosthetic limbs have been removed from

27 inmates with disabilities while in administrative segregation or

28 SHU without regard to the inmate's medical needs or disciplinary

Statement of Stip. Facts (Settlement)

-

Armstrong v. Wilson, C-94-2307 CW

iu-

1 record.

2

61. CDC inmates who require assistance in

3 administrative segregation hearings may request and may be

4 assigned an investigative employee and/or staff assistant. These

5 assistants and employees may provide effective communication in

6 some cases and not in others.

7

X.

8

INMATES WITH MOBILITY IMPAIRMENTS

9

62. The CDC currently has at least the same number of

10 accessible beds as there are inmates who use wheelchairs, but not

11 for all inmates with mobility 'impairments. However, some inmates

12 with mobility impairments, including those who use wheelchairs,

13 are housed in cells that are not built in compliance with access

14 codes, and are not fully accessible to and usable by them.

15

63. Some prisoners cannot fit their wheelchairs into

16 their cells. Some prisoners cannot turn around or maneuver

17 within their cells. Some prisoners with mobility impairments

18 cannot use showers and toilets or. cannot use them safely.

19

64. Other inmates are housed in infirmaries or

20 hospitals that offer some accessibility features, but are denied

21 access to programs accorded other inmates because of their status

22 as infirmary/hospital patients.

23

65. Still other inmates are placed in housing units

24 that are in substantial compliance with access standards, but

25 have limited program opportunities because many of the 26 programming spaces are not built to access standards.

27

66. Historically, inmates who use wheelchairs spent a

28 longer time in reception centers than do other inmates because

Statement of Stip. Facts (Settlement) Armstrong v. Wilson, C-94-2307 CW

11.

1 there were not enough accessible placements.

2

67. CDC does not currently have enough wheelchair

3 accessible vehicles, but is purchasing three of them for use in

4 each of the three CDC-designated geographical regions, North,

5 Central, and South. These vehicles are in addition to other

6 wheelchair-accessible vehicles operated or available at the

7 institutional level.

8

XX.

9

INMATES WITH HEARING IMPAIRMENTS

10

68. Prisoners with hearing impairments have a range of

11 ability to communicate. Some can read and speak English; others

12 do not. Some prisoners can communicate most effectively through

13 American Sign Language ("ASL"), some can communicate through

14 gestures and signs, and a small minority can lip read

15 effectively.

16

69". For some inmates with hearing impairments, hearing

17 aids will enable them to communicate effectively, while for

18 others hearing aids are ineffective.

19

70. CDC does not have a standardized method of

20 identifying and assessing hearing impaired inmates at the

21 reception center.

22

71. CDC does not have any policies or procedures that

23 specifically address the needs of hearing impaired inmates.

24

72. Neither qualified sign language interpreters nor

25 assistive listening devices, such as amplification devices, are

26 normally provided for CDC programs, such as educational and

27 vocational classes, self-help programs such as AA and religious

28 services.

Statement of Stip. Facts (Settlement) Armstrong v. Wilson, C-94-2307 CW

_ _ 1* •

1

73. At some institutions, one or two staff, who may

2 not have formal training as interpreters, know ASL with varying

3 proficiency and are occasionally used as interpreters. CDC has

4 no standardized process for evaluating the proficiency of these

5 staff members.

6

74. The dominant mode of exchanging information at

7 formal hearings and during medical visits for inmates with severe

8 hearing impairments is written communication. For informal

9 contacts, prison officials rely on the prisoner to read lips,

10 respond to gestures, write notes, or use an informal staff or

11 inmate interpreter. Someone who uses ASL may not be able to read

12 in English, unless specifically taught to do so. Typically lip

13 reading is a limited form of communication because even the best

14 lip readers understand only about 40% of the spoken words.

15

75. Prisons have public address systems which are used

16 to make general announcements. With the exception of California

17 Men's Colony ("CMC"), prisons do not have formalized procedures

18 for notifying inmates with hearing impairments of announcements.

19 At these prisons, some efforts may or may not be taken to notify

20 inmates with hearing impairments of announcements but some

21 correctional officers do not know all the inmates who have

22 hearing impairments.

23

76. As of December 1995, one or two prisons in the CDC

24 system did not have a Telecommunication Device for the Deaf

25 ("TDD"). Most prisons do not have volume control phones for

26 inmate use.

27

77. Some prisons do not have televisions in inmate

28 common areas that are closed captioned.

Statement of Stip. Facts (Settlement) Armstrong v. Wilson, C-94-2307 CW

-LJ •

78. All prisons have noncontact visiting areas for

inmates who have restrictions on their visiting privileges. In

some instances, noncontact visits are conducted in booths where

communication occurs through a telephone. These telephones are

not equipped with volume control, nor can TDD's be used in these

booths.

79. Institutions have different procedures for

replacing hearing aid batteries. Some inmates who use hearing

aids have had to go without them for significant time periods.

10

XII.

11

INMATES REQUIRING DIALYSIS

12

80. Inmates with kidney impairments severe enough to

13 require dialysis generally must receive dialysis two or three

14 times per week. Dialysis patients can benefit from a specialized

15 diet.

16

81. Few prisons have in-prison dialysis units. Most

17 prisons housing inmates who need dialysis have contracts with

18 outside medical providers to perform necessary dialysis

19 treatments.

20

82. Inmates who require kidney dialysis are excluded

21 from CRC's drug rehabilitation program and prison camps.

22

83. Most inmates housed on the mainline who need

23 dialysis are classified as totally medically disabled.

24

XIII.

25

INMATES WITH VISION IMPAIRMENTS

26

84. At most prisons in which inmates with vision

27 impairments are housed, notices or announcements and other

28 printed material have not been made directly accessible to the

Statement of Stip. Pacts (Settlement) Armstrong v. Wilson, C-94-2307 CW

1^ •

inmates with vision impairments by means of audio tape, large

print, or braille.

85. Computerized assistive devices for inmates with

vision impairments are only available at some prisons. Only one

prison, CMF, has a "Reader's Edge" computer that scans a printed

page and reads it back in a synthesized voice. Most vision

impaired prisoners at CMF are unable to use this computer because

they have not yet been trained to use it.

86. Some inmates with vision impairments have had to

10 rely on other inmates or officers to read or prepare printed

11 documents, including legal materials, medical forms and personal

12 letters.

13

87. Many inmates with significant vision impairments

14 develop their impairment while incarcerated. No prison offers

15 daily living skills courses for inmates with vision impairments.

16

88. At least two prisons have formalized programs in

17 which untrained non-disabled inmates provide assistance to

18 inmates with vision impairments through work assignment

19 positions. Educational materials are not available from the CDC

20 in alternative formats for use by visually impaired inmates.

21

XIV.

22

INMATES WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES

23

89. There are inmates with learning disabilities

24 within the CDC.

25

90. The phrase learning disability is not defined by

26 the ADA or the regulations implementing it. A learning

27 disability is defined by the Individuals with Disabilities

28 Education Act as a disorder in one or more of the basic

Statement of Stip. Facts (Settlement) Armstrong v. Wilson, C-94-2307 CW

. _ J.D .

1 psychological processes involved in understanding or in using

2 language, spoken or written, which may manifest itself in an

3 imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or 4 to do mathematical calculations. The term includes such 5 conditions as perceptual handicaps, brain injury, minimal brain 6 disfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia. The term does 7 not include persons who have learning problems which are 8 primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor handicaps, of 9 mental retardation, of emotional disturbance, or of 10 environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage.

11

91. The CDC does not normally undertake particularized

12 efforts to evaluate and assess whether inmates have learning

13 disabilities.

14

92. The CDC prisons have educational programs that

15 include academic and vocational instruction.

16

93. Inmate participation in CDC's educational program

17 is by assignment made by a classification committee from an array

18 of programming options. Assignment to an educational program is

19 not the elective choice of the inmate, although the inmate's

20 preference is considered.

21

94. CDC inmates are given an individualized assessment

22 to determine their grade level upon their arrival at a reception

23 center. When an inmate's grade level is lower than the sixth

24 grade, it is CDC policy to place the inmate in an academic

25 program.

26

95. CDC's educational program is based on a competency

27 based curriculum. CDC has no "special education" programs.

28

96. CDC's competency based curriculum differs from

Statement of Stip. Facts (Settlement) Armstrong v. Wilson, C-94-2307 CW

_ 1°.

1 non-competency based programs in that its curriculum is geared

2 toward individualized instruction rather than concentration on

3 traditional group instruction.

4

97. There are varying methods and techniques to treat

5 or remediate a learning disability. There is no one method that

6 is most effective. The effectiveness of any one particular

7 method varies from student to student, from teacher to teacher,

8 and from program to program.

9

98. Some CDC inmates who have learning disabilities

10 attend academic classes or vocational programs.

11

99. In some instances regular classroom teachers can

12 successfully teach students with learning disabilities.

13

100. CDC employs approximately 30 teachers who are

14 special education qualified and/or credentialed. However, they

15 do not teach in special education classes.

16

101. There is no CDC policy or procedure that

17 specifically addresses accommodating inmates with learning

18 disabilities.

19

102. Some CDC inmates have requested specialized

20 accommodations on the basis of a learning disability.

21

103. Various vocational programs and work assignments

22 require a minimum education level for inmate participation.

23

104. Prisoners with learning disabilities may require

24 accommodations to participate in programs and activities and to

25 engage in communications which require reading, writing, speaking

26 and hearing skills.

27

105. A CDC inmate who is unable to attend, or refuses

28 to attend, academic classes is eligible to be assigned to

Statement of Stip. Facts (Settlement) Armstrong v. Wilson, C-94-2307 CW

17.

1 alternative programming through which the inmate acquires 1/2

2 sentence credits.

3

XV.

4

PAROLE

5

106. The parole and community services division of the

6 CDC is responsible for some community based centers that house

7 inmates and/or parolees. These include community correctional

8 centers and community correctional re-entry centers (commonly

9 called work furlough). There is also a substance abuse treatment

10 unit and a restitution center.

11

107. Although inmates with mobility, sight or hearing

12 disabilities are not excluded by policy, mobility impaired

13 inmates who require a catheter or Foley bag or inmates on

14 dialysis are excluded from programs at community based centers.

15 In January 1996, a CDC survey reflected that there were four

16 inmates with mobility, sight or hearing impairments at any of the

17 community based facilities.

18

108. Most inmates released from incarceration are

19 required to serve a three year parole period. Projections for

20 1996 indicate that there are approximately 90,000 parolees in

21 California.

22

109. Prior to being released on parole, parolees are

23 provided with written notice of their conditions of parole, which

24 they are required to sign. Once released form prison, they must

25 maintain regular contact with their parole officer, usually by

26 going to a parole office or by speaking with their parole officer

27 on the phone. If a parole officer believes a parolee has

28 violated the terms of his or her parole, the parole officer may

Statement of Stip. Facts (Settlement) Armstrong v. Wilaon, C-94-2307 CW

18.

1 cause the parolee to be arrested for a parole violation. A

2 parolee receives written notice of the alleged parole violation.

3

110. Written notice commonly provided to parolees,

4 including conditions of parole and written notice of parole

5 violations, are not provided in alternative formats. CDC does

6 not have any policies or procedures that specifically address the

7 communication needs of hearing impaired parolees.

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Statement of Stip. Pacts (Settlement) Armstrong v. Wilson, C-94-2307 CW

1

IT IS-SO STIPULATED.

2

3

Dated: May , 1996

4

5

6

PETER SIGGINS, Senior Assistant AttorneyGeneral
Attorney for Defendants

7

8
Dated: May , 1996
9

DONALD SPECTER

10

Attorney for plaintiffs

11
The statement of facts set forth above is hereby approved
12
and accepted for purposes of settlement only.
13

14

15
Dated:
16
17

CLAUDIA WILKEN, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Statement of Stip. Facts (Settlement) Armstrong v. Wilson, C-94-2307 CW

20.

 
 Google Scholar
Web Images More…
Armstrong v. Wilson, 124 F. 3d 1019 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 1997
Read How cited Search
124 F.3d 1019 (1997)
John ARMSTRONG; John Amauric; Richard Ponciano; Jack Swensen; Billy Beck; Judy Fendt; Walter Fratus; Roy Zattiero,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, 
United States of America, Intervenor,

v. 
Pete WILSON; Joseph Sandoval; James Gomez, Director, Department of Correction; Kyle S. McKinsey; Kevin Carruth; David Tristan; Marisela Montes, Deputy Director of the Parole and Community Services Division, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 96-16870.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted June 9, 1997. Decided August 27, 1997.
1020 *1020 James M. Humes, Deputy Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellants.
Eve H. Shapiro, Howard, Rice Nemerovski, Canady, Falk & Rabkin, San Francisco, CA, Donald Specter, Prison Law Office, San Quentin, CA, for PlaintiffsAppellees.
Seth M. Galanter, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for intervenor/amicus curiae United States of America.
Before GOODWIN, D.W. NELSON, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
GOODWIN, Circuit Judge.
California state officials appeal an injunction entered in a class action brought by California state prison inmates and parolees with disabilities, who sought relief for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12131-34, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("RA"), 29 U.S.C. § 794. The district court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment based on the Eleventh 1021 Amendment, found that the *1021 defendants had violated both statutes, and entered a remedial order and injunction directing them to develop a plan for compliance with the statutes. The defendants appeal, and we affirm.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A certified class of all present and future California state prison inmates and parolees with disabilities sued California state officials in their official capacities, seeking injunctive relief for violations of the RA and the ADA in state prisons. The parties stipulated that some prison facilities lack adequate emergency evacuation
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=124+F.3d+1019&hl=en&as_sdt=80000006&case=9343352875952841153&scilh=0[5/9/2015 11:44:21 AM]

Sign in

Google Scholar

plans for prisoners with disabilities, that the range of vocational programs for disabled inmates is more limited than the range provided for non-disabled prisoners, and that some disabled inmates have been improperly classified for work and educational purposes so as to deny them the sentence reduction credits afforded to other inmates.
The defendants do not challenge the content of the injunction or the district court's finding that they violated the statutes. They argue only that the ADA and RA do not apply to state prisons and that the Eleventh Amendment bars this suit in federal court.
II. JURISDICTION
We address first the plaintiffs' contentions that we lack jurisdiction to consider the appeal of the injunction. See Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541, 106 S.Ct. 1326, 1331, 89 L.Ed.2d 501 (1986) ("[E]very federal appellate court has a special obligation to satisfy itself ... of its own jurisdiction ....") (internal quotations omitted)). Although we previously denied the defendants' petition to proceed with the appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), which permits immediate appeal of an order if it "involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and ... an immediate appeal ... may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation," 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), the defendants brought the current appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). That provision establishes jurisdiction for appeals from "[i]nterlocutory orders of the district courts ... granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions." 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
The plaintiffs assert that our previous discretionary denial of permission to appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) resolved that the defendants may not present in any interlocutory appeal their claims regarding the application of the statutes to prisons. However, interlocutory appeals under § 1292(a) are "by right," while those under § 1292(b) are "by permission." See Edwards v. Director, Office of Workers' Comp. Progs., 932 F.2d 1325, 1328 (9th Cir.1991). We have held that a denial of permission to appeal under § 1292(b) does not foreclose appeal under § 1292(a), where a litigant can meet the requirements of § 1292(a). See TransWorld Airlines, Inc. v. American Coupon Exch., Inc., 913 F.2d 676, 680 (9th Cir.1990); see also City of Fort Madison v. Emerald Lady, 990 F.2d 1086, 1088-90 (8th Cir.1993) (reaching question of jurisdiction under § 1292(a) after denial of permissive appeal under § 1292(b)); Cobb v. Lewis, 488 F.2d 41, 45-46 (5th Cir.1974) (finding jurisdiction under § 1292(a) after previous denial of permission to appeal under § 1292(b)).
The plaintiffs also argue that the remedial order and injunction are not appealable because the judgment in which they are contained merely requires the defendants to submit detailed plans for complying with the ADA and RA and is thus not an "injunction" within the meaning of § 1292(a)(1). That the district court titled its order an "injunction," and that the parties might have understood it as such, does not end our inquiry. "In determining the appealability of an interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), we look to its substantial effect rather than its terminology." Tagupa v. East-West Ctr., Inc., 642 F.2d 1127, 1129 (9th Cir.1981) (internal quotations omitted). We thus must decide whether the district court's order has the substantial effect of an injunction.
Although we have never ruled on this question, a number of other circuits have

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=124+F.3d+1019&hl=en&as_sdt=80000006&case=9343352875952841153&scilh=0[5/9/2015 11:44:21 AM]

Google Scholar

held that an order requiring submission of a remedial plan is generally not an 1022 injunction *1022 that is reviewable interlocutorily under § 1292(a)(1). See, e.g.,
Sherpell v. Humnoke Sch. Dist. No. 5, 814 F.2d 538, 539-540 (8th Cir.1987) (order to develop plans to end race discrimination in schools); Groseclose v. Dutton, 788 F.2d 356, 359-61 (6th Cir.1986) (order to submit plans to remedy unconstitutional conditions on death row); Spates v. Manson, 619 F.2d 204, 20911 (2d Cir.1980) (order to submit plan to improve prison legal resources); Hoots v. Pennsylvania, 587 F.2d 1340, 1348-51 (3d Cir.1978) (order to submit plan to desegregate schools). Such a rule is "consonant with the federal policy against piecemeal appeals" and "enable[s] the appellate tribunal to examine the case in the context of a specific remedial regime instead of in a mere abstract posture." Frederick L. v. Thomas, 557 F.2d 373, 379-80 (3d Cir.1977).
Our sister circuits have recognized two exceptions to the rule that orders requiring merely the development of a remedial scheme are not appealable injunctions under § 1292(a)(1). The Second, Third, Fourth, and Eleventh Circuits have held that a normally non-appealable order to submit a plan may be appealable when the order sufficiently specifies the content of the plan to be submitted. See Groseclose, 788 F.2d at 360; Spates, 619 F.2d at 209; Hoots, 587 F.2d at 1349 ("controlling factor [is] whether the order specifie[s] the nature, requirements and extent of the relief to be afforded by the plan to be submitted"); see also United States v. Alabama, 828 F.2d 1532, 1536-38 (11th Cir. 1987) (determining appealability under § 1291). An appellate court will lack jurisdiction under § 1292(a)(1) "when important issues regarding the nature and extent of the relief ... still remain to be resolved and are dependent on the particular circumstances of the case as it would develop in the proceedings subsequent to the entry of the order." Groseclose, 788 F.2d at 360.
The Third Circuit has held that where delaying the appeal would not "clarify the questions on appeal" and where the exact specifications of the plan would not "alter in a material manner the issues that would be presented to the court of appeals," an appeal of an order mandating the development of a plan may proceed under § 1292(a)(1). Frederick L., 557 F.2d at 380. Under this view, an appeal is not premature if the plan ultimately submitted will not change the "appellate perspective." Id. at 381.
This appeal meets both of these exceptions. First, the district court prescribed the contents of the plan with some specificity. It ordered that "as a component of the [plan], the [Department of Corrections] will cluster class members with certain disabilities at designated institutions and parole facilities." Armstrong v. Wilson, No. C-94-2307-CW, at 2-3 (N.D.Cal.1996). The court further directed that the plan address specific substantive concerns of the disabled inmates such as disability grievance procedures, reception center processing times, accommodations for emergency situations, assistive aids, accessibility of new construction, criteria for medical disabilities, and school and job assignments for disabled prisoners. See id.
Although the precise contours of the final plan may be unknown, we conclude that the district court's order makes the content and scope of the remedial scheme sufficiently clear to enable appellate review. See Frederick L., 557 F.2d at 381 ("The precise ingredients of the plan ... will have no ... metamorphosizing effect on our understanding of this case.").
Second, the specific plan the defendants ultimately submit will in no way alter our "appellate perspective" on the single issue the defendants raise in this appeal of

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=124+F.3d+1019&hl=en&as_sdt=80000006&case=9343352875952841153&scilh=0[5/9/2015 11:44:21 AM]

Google Scholar

the remedial order: whether the ADA and RA apply to state prison inmates. See id. We can answer this purely legal question whether or not a detailed remedial scheme has been formulated.
In light of the content of the district court's order and the scope of the defendants' appeal, we conclude that we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) to entertain this appeal and thus proceed to discuss the merits of the defendants' claim that the ADA and RA do not apply to state prison inmates.
III. APPLICATION OF THE STATUTES TO STATE PRISONS
We have previously applied both the ADA and RA in the state prison context. In 1023 *1023 Duffy v. Riveland, 98 F.3d 447, 453-56 (9th Cir.1996), we held that a prison
inmate may state a claim under both the RA and the ADA that he was improperly excluded from participation in, and denied the benefits of, a prison service, program, or activity on the basis of his physical handicap. In Bonner v. Lewis, 857 F.2d 559, 562 (9th Cir.1988), we held that the RA applies to state prisons on the basis of the statute's plain language and the Justice Department's implementing guidelines.[1]
The defendants urge us to depart from these prior precedents because the correctional officials in those cases failed to raise the issues of federalism and comity that the defendants present here. We decline to institute en banc traffic to retreat from our previous position. Even in light of recognized federalism concerns, we conclude that the plain language of the ADA and RA, and our prior interpretations of that language, support application of the statutes to state prisons. We thus join the Third and Seventh Circuits, each of which recently have held that both statutes apply to state correctional facilities. See Yeskey v. Pennsylvania Dep't of Corrections, 118 F.3d 168 (3d Cir.1997); Crawford v. Indiana Dep't of Corrections, 115 F.3d 481 (7th Cir.1997).
The Rehabilitation Act provides, in pertinent part, that "[n]o otherwise qualified individual with a disability ... shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). The statute further defines "[p]rogram or activity" to include "all of the operations of ... a department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or of a local government." 29 U.S.C. § 794(b). This language suggests that the act applies broadly to all aspects of state and local governance. Moreover, we have interpreted this precise language as evincing Congress's intent to apply the RA to "any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance," including state prisons. See Bonner, 857 F.2d at 562 (internal quotations omitted). We also held in Bonner that prison disciplinary hearings are "programs" with the meaning of the RA. See id. at 563; Duffy, 98 F.3d at 455.
The plain language of Title VII of the ADA is similarly expansive. It provides, in pertinent part, that "no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity." 42 U.S.C. § 12132. The act defines "public entity" as "any State or local government [and] any department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or States or local government."

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=124+F.3d+1019&hl=en&as_sdt=80000006&case=9343352875952841153&scilh=0[5/9/2015 11:44:21 AM]

Google Scholar

42 U.S.C. § 12131(1). This language encompasses all facets of state government including prison administration. We agree with the Seventh Circuit's conclusion that although "[i]ncarceration itself is hardly a `program' or `activity' to which a disabled person might wish access, ... there is no doubt that an educational program is a program, and when it is provided by and in a state prison it is a program of a public entity." Crawford, 115 F.3d at 483 (internal citation omitted). In addition, since Congress has directed that the ADA and RA be construed consistently, see 42 U.S.C. § 12134(b), the term "program" in the ADA can also be read, in light of our prior cases concerning the RA, to encompass prison activities. See also Collings v. Longview Fibre Co., 63 F.3d 828, 832 n. 3 (9th Cir.1995) (cases involving the RA are "instructive" for claims under the ADA); cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 711, 133 L.Ed.2d 666 (1996).

Nothing in the legislative history of the RA or ADA reflects an intent by Congress to exclude prisons or prisoners from the reach of the statutes. When it modeled the ADA on the RA, Congress was presumably aware of numerous court decisions, including Bonner, that had held that the RA applies to prisons.

1024

*1024 Nevertheless, Congress did not attempt, by altering the

language that it was borrowing from the old statute as the template for

the new one, to prevent the new one from being interpreted the same

way the old one had been interpreted; nor did it amend the [RA] to

extinguish the old interpretation.

Crawford, 115 F.3d at 484.

Relying on Torcasio v. Murray, 57 F.3d 1340 (4th Cir.1995), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 772, 133 L.Ed.2d 724 (1996), in which the Fourth Circuit held that prison officials were entitled to qualified immunity because it was not "clearly established" at the time of the alleged discrimination that the ADA and the RA applied to prisons, the defendants contend that the texts of the statutes do not naturally apply to the prison context. First, they assert that a prisoner cannot be a "qualified" individual under the acts because most prison services and programs are compulsory. See id. at 1347 ("The terms `eligible' and `participate' imply voluntariness on the part of an applicant who seeks a benefit from the state; they do not bring to mind prisoners who are being held against their will."). We have previously held, however, that inmates may be considered "qualified individuals" for purposes of these acts. See Duffy, 98 F.3d at 454; Bonner, 857 F.2d at 563. Moreover, inmates do "qualify" for particular programs and services provided by the prison system in the sense that they must meet certain eligibility criteria for participation. For example, to qualify for mental health treatment, inmates must be mentally ill, not pose a threat to themselves or others, and not have a history of violence. The defendants' interpretation would immunize from the reach of these statutes any compulsory service provided by the state, such as public education or jury service.

The defendants also argue that because prisons serve the state's penological interests, the "services, programs, and activities" they provide are not "benefits" within the meaning of these statutes or as that term is ordinarily understood. See Torcasio, 57 F.3d at 1347. Some services and programs that prisons provide, such as educational and vocational training and medical attention, can be seen as benefits to the inmates, however. More significantly, the ADA and the RA do not merely protect disabled individuals from denial of benefits. They also prevent disabled individuals from being "excluded from participation in" or "subjected to discrimination under" any state program or activity and they prohibit

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=124+F.3d+1019&hl=en&as_sdt=80000006&case=9343352875952841153&scilh=0[5/9/2015 11:44:21 AM]

Google Scholar

"discrimination by" any public entity. See 29 U.S.C. 794(a); 42 U.S.C. § 12132. Thus, whether the inmates "benefit" from prison programs is irrelevant to the issue of whether state prisons may exclude disabled inmates from programs they provide to others or discriminate against disabled inmates in the various aspects of prison life.
The defendants urge us to apply the plain statement rule, which holds that where Congress intends to alter the federal-state balance, or invade an essential state function, it must do so in unmistakable terms. See Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 460-61, 111 S.Ct. 2395, 2400-01, 115 L.Ed.2d 410 (1991). In Gregory, the Court refused to apply the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) to state judges in the absence of an expression of clear congressional intent because it found that "it is at least ambiguous whether Congress intended that appointed judges ... be included." Id. at 470, 111 S.Ct. at 2406. In contrast to the ADEA, which expressly excludes most high-ranking public officials from its reach, see 29 U.S.C. § 630(f), the ADA and RA apply to "any" and "all" state entities and operations without exclusions. We agree with the Seventh Circuit's statement that Congress could hardly have spoken "much more clearly than it did when it made the [ADA] expressly applicable to all public entities and defined the term `public entity' to include every possible agency of state or local government." Crawford, 115 F.3d at 485; see also Yeskey, 118 F.3d at 173.
Although the defendants' federalism arguments have some force in the context of prisons, which traditionally are areas of state concern, we have held that other functions traditionally reserved to the states are subject to the ADA and RA. For example, in Crowder v. Kitagawa, 81 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir.1996), we held that 1025 the ADA applies to a *1025 quarantine law enacted by the state to protect public health under its police powers. Although "mindful of the general principle that courts will not second-guess the public health and safety decisions of state legislatures acting within their traditional police powers," we concluded that "when Congress has passed antidiscrimination laws such as the ADA ..., it is incumbent upon the courts to ensure that the mandate of federal law is achieved." Id. In passing the ADA and RA, Congress has articulated its judgment that discrimination against individuals with disabilities will not be tolerated and it deliberately drafted the statutes to include language reaching into the state sphere. That prison administration may be a core state function does not give us license to disregard clear congressional intent. See Yeskey, 118 F.3d at 173.
While the Tenth Circuit has refused to apply the ADA and the RA to prison employment, see White v. Colorado, 82 F.3d 364, 367 (10th Cir.1996), and we have declined to apply the Fair Labor Standards Act to most prison jobs, see Hale v. Arizona, 993 F.2d 1387, 1392-98 (9th Cir.1993), the plaintiffs in this case seek a qualitatively different form of relief than the prisoners in those cases sought. These plaintiffs seek basic access to facilities, inclusion in safety plans, and nondiscriminatory treatment in residential placements and prison programs. "Rights against discrimination are among the few rights that prisoners do not park at the prison gates." Crawford, 115 F.3d at 486 (citing Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 84, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 2259, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987)). In enacting the RA and ADA, Congress intended to eliminate discrimination against individuals with disabilities, just as it had earlier passed legislation mandating equal treatment of AfricanAmericans. "If a prison may not exclude blacks from the prison dining hall and force them to eat in their cells, and if Congress thinks that discriminating against a blind person is like discriminating against a black person," the prison may not exclude the blind person from the dining hall unless allowing him access would unduly burden prison administration. Id.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=124+F.3d+1019&hl=en&as_sdt=80000006&case=9343352875952841153&scilh=0[5/9/2015 11:44:21 AM]

Google Scholar

We thus hold, based on the plain meaning of the statutes, that the ADA and RA apply to inmates and parolees in the state correctional system and affirm the district court's application of these statutes in entering the injunction.
IV. ELEVENTH AMENDMENT IMMUNITY
We next address the defendants' contention that sovereign immunity bars this suit in federal court. We hold that the exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity set forth in Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908), squarely applies to allow this action against named individuals in their official capacity.[2]
Under the doctrine of Ex parte Young, the Eleventh Amendment is no bar to "federal jurisdiction over a suit against a state official when that suit seeks only prospective injunctive relief in order to `end a continuing violation of federal law.'" Seminole Tribe v. Florida, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 116 S.Ct. 1114, 1132, 134 L.Ed.2d 252 (1996) (quoting Green v. Mansour 474 U.S. 64, 68, 106 S.Ct. 423, 426, 88 L.Ed.2d 371 (1985)). "The Young doctrine rests on the premise that a suit against a state official to enjoin an ongoing violation of federal law is not a suit against the State." Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 2047, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (plurality opinion). Even where the relief sought may have a "substantial ancillary effect on the state treasury," a suit against state officials may proceed so long as the relief "serves directly to bring an end to a present violation of federal law." Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 278, 106 S.Ct. 2932, 2940, 92 L.Ed.2d 209 (1986); see also Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U.S. 267, 289-90, 97 S.Ct. 2749, 2762, 53 L.Ed.2d 745 (1977).
The defendants do not contest that this suit against state officials seeks only prospective injunctive relief to end continuing violations of the ADA and RA. They 1026-1032nevertheless *1026-1032 argue that because the plaintiffs seek wideranging, wholesale institutional reforms of California's prison system, the suit is against the state and thus falls outside the bounds of Ex parte Young. No court, however, has carved out an exception to Ex parte Young on the basis of the complexity and scope of the prospective injunctive relief sought. To the contrary, many courts have permitted suits to proceed under Young where plaintiffs sought comprehensive relief similar to the reforms the plaintiffs seek here. See, e.g., Committee to Save Mokelumne River v. East Bay Mun. Util. Dist., 13 F.3d 305, 307, 309-10 (9th Cir.1993) (rejecting Eleventh Amendment immunity claim where defendants were required to devise a remedial plan to remove contaminants); Parents for Quality Educ. with Integration, Inc., v. Indiana, 977 F.2d 1207, 120911 (7th Cir. 1992) (allowing suit seeking widespread educational reforms against state officials), modified on other grounds, 986 F.2d 206 (7th Cir.1993). We, too, see no basis for creating such an exception.
The defendants also maintain that Ex parte Young is limited to violations of federal constitutional law and does not permit suits to remedy statutory violations. This argument is without merit. We have held squarely that Young applies to suits alleging violations of federal statutes. See Natural Resources Defense Council v. California Dep't of Transp., 96 F.3d 420, 422-23 (9th Cir.1996) (stating that Young "applies to violations of federal statutory law" and permitting suit under Young for violations of the Clean Water Act); Almond Hill Sch. v. United States Dep't of Agric., 768 F.2d 1030, 1034 (9th Cir.1985) ("The underlying purpose of Ex parte Young seems to require its application to claims against state officials for

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=124+F.3d+1019&hl=en&as_sdt=80000006&case=9343352875952841153&scilh=0[5/9/2015 11:44:21 AM]

Google Scholar

violations of federal statutes.").
Sovereign immunity presents no bar to this suit against state officials seeking prospective injunctive relief against ongoing violations of the ADA and RA in the state penal system. The district court thus correctly denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
V. CONCLUSION
Because we conclude that the ADA and RA apply to inmates and parolees in the state penal system and that this suit may proceed in federal court under the doctrine of Ex parte Young, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
AFFIRMED.
1033 [EDITOR'S NOTE] *1033 handouts were made would not remove the stain of fraud. Here, the charge is of the use of a legal form, the declaration of dividends, to extract from Statebank cash that should not have been paid out. Neither the openness of the maneuver nor the legal form in which it was dressed remove the stain of fraud if in fact the fiduciaries acted in reckless disregard of the property of Statebank.
[1] The application of the RA to state prisons was also implicated in Gates v. Rowland, 39 F.3d 1439, 1445 (9th Cir.1994). Because the parties in that case stipulated that the statute applied, however, we had no occasion to reach the question. [2] For a related case by prisoners against the State of California squarely presenting the Eleventh Amendment defense, see our opinion filed this day in Clark v. California, 123 F.3d 1267 (9th Cir.1997).

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=124+F.3d+1019&hl=en&as_sdt=80000006&case=9343352875952841153&scilh=0[5/9/2015 11:44:21 AM]

 
 California Department of Corrections
Armstrainj v. Hoard of Prison Terms

Armstrong v. Davis.

• I ta

• • Ha

• • «• • ~

PC-CA-001-005

Plan
January 4, 2002

~ Table of Contents ~

/. POLICY

1

//. PURPOSE

1

III. SCOPE

1

IV. RIGHT TO A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION

2

V. IDENTIFICATION

2

VI. ACCOMMODATIONS

4

A. ACCESS

4

B. EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION

4

C. ATTORNEY ASSISTANCE

5

1. REVOCATION AND REVOCATION EXTENSION PROCEEDINGS

5

a) MANDATORY ATTORNEY CASES

5

b) PRESUMPTIVE ATTORNEY CASES

5

2. OTHER PROCEEDINGS

6

D. AUXILIARY AIDS/EQUIPMENT

6

1. MOBILITY IMPAIRMENTS

6

2. HEARING IMPAIRMENTS

7

3. VISION IMPAIRMENTS

8

4. SPEECH IMPAIRMENTS

8

5. MENTAL/PSYCHOLOGICAL/DEVELOPMENTAL DISORDERS

8

6. LEARNING DISABILITIES

9

VII. COORDINATION OF SERVICES AND ACCOMMODATIONS

9

A. BPT ADA COMPLIANCE UNIT

10

B. BPT SCHEDULING UNIT

10

1. REAL TIME CAPTIONING

10

2. SIGN LANGUAGE

11

3. ORAL

11

4. TACTILE

11

5. INTERMEDIARY INTERPRETING

11

C. INSTITUTIONS

11

VIII. BPT FORM 1073 - NOTICE AND REQUEST FOR REASONABLE

ACCOMMODATION

11

A. SECTION I: PRE-INTERVIEW FILE REVIEW (STAFF ONLY)

12

B. SECTION II: PRISONER/PAROLEE RIGHTS & SELF IDENTIFICATION

13

C. SECTION III: INITIAL SERVICE OF RIGHTS (STAFF ONLY)

13

D. SECTION IV: REVIEW INDICATING NO CHANGES

14

E. DISTRIBUTION OF THE BPT FORM 1073

15

IX. INSTITUTIONS - PAROLE PROCEEDINGS

16

A. REVOCATION EXTENSION HEARINGS

16

1. INITIAL SCREENING PROCESS

16

2. PROCESS WHEN ATTORNEY IS ASSIGNED

17

3. PROCESS WHEN ATTORNEY IS NOT ASSIGNED

19

5. REVOCATION HEARINGS

22

C. LIFE PRISONER HEARINGS

23

1. BPT FORM 1073 AND RIGHTS PACKET PROCESS 2. REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS 3. ATTORNEY ASSISTANCE

23

25 26

i

4. BOARD REPORT

27

5. PSYCHIATRIC REPORT

27

D. MENTALLY DISORDERED OFFENDER HEARINGS

28

1. COORDINATION

28

2. EVALUATIONS

28

3. BPT FORM 1073 AND RIGHTS PACKET PROCESS

29

4. PROCESS WHEN INMATE SIGNS NOTICE AND CONDITIONS OF PAROLE

30

5. PROCESS WHEN INMATE DOES N O T SIGN NOTICE AND CONDITIONS

OF PAROLE

31

6. CERTIFICATION HEARINGS

33

7. PLACEMENT HEARINGS

33

8. ANNUAL REVIEWS

34

E. SEXUALLY VIOLENT PREDATOR HEARINGS

34

1. PROBABLE CAUSE HEARINGS

34

X. TRANSITION TO PAROLE AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DIVISION.... 36

A. CDC FORM 611 - RELEASE PROGRAM STUDY

36

B. CDC FORM 1515 - NOTICE OF CONDITIONS OF PAROLE

37

C. CDC FORM 1121 - NOTICE OF RELEASE DATE AND RESIDENCE PLAN -

FROM INSTITUTION TO PAROLE UNIT

39

XL PAROLE AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DIVISION - PAROLE

PROCEEDINGS

40

A. PAROLE VIOLATIONS

...41

1. DISCOVERY OF ALLEGED VIOLATION

41

2. VIOLATION REPORT

41

B. PAROLE REVOCATION PROCESS

43

1. REVOCATION SCREENING

43

2. SERVICE OF NOTICE OF HEARING RIGHTS

45

3. BCPA DUE PROCESS REVIEW

46

4. ATTORNEY CASES

47

5. REVOCATION HEARING

49

XII. GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES

49

A. REVOCATION AND REVOCATION EXTENSION PROCESS

49

1. FIRST LEVEL REVIEW: BPT ADA COORDINATOR

49

2. SECOND LEVEL REVIEW: CHIEF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

51

B. LIFE INMATE, MDO, AND SVP PAROLE PROCEEDINGS

52

1. SECOND LEVEL REVIEW: CHIEF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

52

XIII. APPEALS PROCEDURES

53

XIV. TRAINING

53

GLOSSARY

,

54

Armstrong v. Davis Board of Prison Terms Parole Proceedings Remedial Plan
I. POLICY
It is the policy of the California Department of Corrections (CDC) and the Board of Prison Terms (BPT) to provide equal access to all parole proceedings to inmates/parolees with disabilities, with or without reasonable accommodation, consistent with legitimate penological interests. Access to parole proceedings shall be consistent with terms outlined in the Armstrong v. Davis Court Ordered Remedial Plan Amended January 3, 2001, the Clark v. California Remedial Plan Amended December 3, 2001, and the Board of Prison Terms Policies and Procedures filed with the Court pursuant to Armstrong v. Davis Permanent Injunction of December 23, 1999.
No qualified inmate or parolee with a disability as defined in Title 42 of the United States Code, Section 12102 shall, because of that disability, be excluded from equal and effective participation, to the best of their ability, in BPT hearings.
//. PURPOSE
Pursuant to the Armstrong v. Davis Injunction, CDC is mandated to carry out the role of processing inmates/parolees for BPT parole proceedings. It is the purpose of this Remedial Plan to establish procedures for the implementation of the Injunction.
///. SCOPE
The policy contained within this Armstrong v. Davis Board of Prison Terms Parole Proceedings Remedial Plan specifically applies to BPT parole proceedings. Parole proceedings by definition include: Service of Hearing Rights, Screening Offers, Revocation Hearings, Revocation Extension Hearings, Life Prisoner Hearings (Documentation Hearings, Initial Parole Consideration Hearings, Subsequent Parole Consideration Hearings, Progress Hearings, Rescission Hearings and In Re Stanworth Hearings), Mentally Disordered Offender (MDO) Hearings, and Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) Hearings. Parole proceedings also include any event related to the hearing that occurs before or after the hearing, including preparations for the hearing, psychiatric evaluations, Central File (C-File) reviews, obtaining letters of support, developing lifer parole plans, and administrative reviews. The Remedial Plan applies to all of the Department's institutions, parole facilities, and to all inmates/parolees who have disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) whether or not the disability impacts placement.

Armstrong/BPT Parole Proceedings Remedial Plan

1/4/02

Page 1

The CDC will make all reasonable efforts to secure the funding necessary to implement the provisions of this Remedial Plan. During the first year of the implementation process, CDC may modify the Remedial Plan to provide a more effective remedy. However, CDC is required to notice Plaintiffs' counsel regarding any changes to this Remedial Plan.
The CDC will reevaluate this Remedial Plan in one year following implementation to determine whether there are adequate staff resources to effectively provide the services required by this Plan. The CDC will make reasonable and good faith efforts to obtain additional funding through the existing State budget approval process, if necessary.
IV. RIGHT TO A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION
All inmates/parolees who have a disability under the ADA have the right to a reasonable accommodation at a BPT parole proceeding, as defined in Section III of this Remedial Plan. The CDC and BPT staff are responsible to ensure that: (1) the inmate/parolee is made aware of this right and informed how to request a reasonable accommodation, and (2) that the inmate/parolee has equal access to all parole proceedings.
The BPT Form 1073, Notice and Request for Reasonable Accommodation, provides written notice to the BPT ADA Coordinator of an inmate's/parolee's need and/or request for reasonable accommodation related to a documented or claimed disability for a parole proceeding. A BPT Form 1073 shall be completed or updated at the initial parole proceeding contact for every inmate/parolee, whether or not he/she has a disability.
The CDC and BPT share responsibilities in various parole proceedings, which have significantly different processes. As such, the requirements of both CDC and BPT staff vary in responsibility depending on the type of proceeding. To ensure this plan is appropriately implemented and adhered to, it has been organized to separately identify the processes in both the institution and the parole arenas as they relate to the various parole proceedings (defined in Section III of this Remedial Plan).
V. IDENTIFICATION
The CDC staff will identify, through completion of the BPT Form 1073, Notice and Request for Reasonable Accommodation, those inmates/parolees who require and/or request a reasonable accommodation at a parole proceeding. Completion of the BPT Form 1073 includes a review of all documents in the C-File which may identify a potential disability or need for an accommodation and an interview with the inmate/parolee.
All inmates received and parolees returned to CDC are screened and evaluated for disabilities, as well as medical and mental health needs during their Reception Center (RC) processing. In addition, the evaluation process is ongoing at mainline institutions. Documentation of these screenings/evaluations is contained in the inmate's/parolee's C-File. Therefore, the review of the file will assist the staff in identifying inmates with a potential need for a reasonable accommodation.

Armstrong/BPT Parole Proceedings Remedial Plan

1/4/02

Page 2

Most recent pertinent source documents that may provide information for identifying inmates/parolees with disabilities include the following:

BPT Form 1073

Notice and Request for Reasonable Accommodation Identifies an inmate's/parolee's need and/or request for a reasonable accommodation at a parole proceeding.

> CDC Form 128B

Chrono-General
May be used to document results of the Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE)1 Complete Battery Reading Score or the
Grade Point Level (GPL), which identifies inmates/parolees who
have tested at a reading level of 4.0 or lower.

CDC Form 128C

Chrono-Medical-Psychiatric-Dental Documents special concerns such as mental/physical limitations and/or health care needs related to the inmate's/parolee's disability. Documents the inmate's/parolee's level of care in the Mental Health Services Delivery System (MHSDS).

CDC Form 128C-1 or
CDC Form 128C-1A

Chrono-Reception Center Medical Clearance/Restriction Information Addresses special medical/dental/psychological condition(s) identified while in the RC.

> CDC Form 128C-2

Chrono-Recommendation for Adaptive Support Identifies inmate's/parolee's cognitive functioning level and, if necessary, the level of adaptive services required under the Clark Remedial Plan.

5=- CDC Form 1845

Inmate/Parolee Disability Verification Establishes whether an inmate/parolee has a physical disability. It is limited to mobility, vision, hearing and speech disabilities, and medical conditions so severe as to impact a major life activity.

Other

Any other documentation in the C-File that verifies a learning disability.

The CDC is in the process of developing a form to record the TABE score results and/or identify possible learning disabilities. The TABE reading score of four or less means the Complete Battery as a specific type of test being used as described in the TABE Examiner's Manual. The 4.0 grade-range equivalent, as described in the manual, leaves less room for interpretation as to what "four" means. When "TABE reading score of four or less" is used, the meaning therefore is: the TABE Complete Battery reading score of four (4.0) grade-range equivalent or less.

Armstrong/BPTParole Proceedings
Plnn

1/4/02

PageS

VI. ACCOMMODATIONS
A. ACCESS
Equal access to BPT parole proceedings shall be made available to inmates/parolees with qualified disabilities, which include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Verified physical disabilities, whether or not the disability impacts placement consistent with the Disability Placement Program (DPP).
• Identified developmental disabilities consistent with the Developmental Disability Program (DDP).
• Mental health needs, which require participation in the MHSDS, regardless of the level of care.
• Learning disability. While CDC is not required to verify learning disabilities, CDC does recognize documentation in the C-File that verifies a learning disability.
• In addition, a reading score of 4.0 or lower may be reflective of a learning disability.
Equal access shall be achieved by use of accommodations such as auxiliary aids, sign language interpreter, staff assistance, or specially trained attorneys. For inmates/parolees with mobility and vision impairments, the CDC and BPT will ensure the hearing sites are accessible.
B. EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION
Reasonable accommodation for effective communication shall be afforded inmates/parolees with disabilities, e.g., vision, speech, hearing, developmentally disabled, and learning disabled inmates. Auxiliary aids, which are reasonable, effective, and appropriate to the needs of the inmate/parolee, shall be provided when simple written or oral communication is not effective.
The standard for equally effective communication is higher when involved in a due process parole proceeding. It is the responsibility of CDC and BPT staff to provide effective communication under these circumstances to qualified disabled inmates/parolees. The degree of accommodation that is required under these circumstances shall be determined on a case-by-case basis in keeping with the inmate's/parolee's needs.
If the staff member is required to use an alternate method of communication, including simple English, to effectively communicate with the inmate/parolee, he/she shall document on the related form (e.g., BPT Form 1073, CDC Form 128B documenting an Olson Review, etc.) how he/she communicated with the inmate.

Armstrong/BPT Parole Proceedings Remedial Plan

1/4/02

Page 4

C. ATTORNEY ASSISTANCE
/ . REVOCATION AND REVOCATION EXTENSION PROCEEDINGS #
The BPT will provide all inmates/parolees in the following verified categories an attorney for all Revocation and Revocation Extension Proceedings.
a) MANDATORY ATTORNEY CASES
Inmates/parolees included in the following categories shall be assigned an attorney at Screening Calendar and shall not be allowed to waive such representation. For inmates/parolees in these categories, it is not necessary for them to establish a presumption of need as provided in California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 15, Section 2693, or to request the assistance of an attorney:
• All inmates presently receiving treatment at the Department of Mental Health (DMH), Enhanced Outpatient Program (EOP), or Mental Health Crisis Bed (MHCB), level of care in the MHSDS.
• All parolees presently suffering from a mental disorder which would require treatment at the DMH, EOP, or MHCB level of care in CDC's MHSDS.
• All inmates/parolees who have been identified by CDC as being included in the DDP.
b) PRESUMPTIVE ATTORNEY CASES
Inmates/parolees in the following categories will be presumed to need an attorney, unless documentation or other information indicates an attorney is not needed. The determination will be made by the Board Coordinating Parole Agent (BCPA), responsible for conducting an attorney determination, subject to review by a Deputy Commissioner (DC). These inmates/parolees will be allowed to waive representation if it is determined that they are able to make a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver. Any determination contrary to available disability documentation must be explained (e.g., TABE Reading Score of 3.8 but inmate/parolee able to comprehend violation report and speak for himself/herself):
• All inmates who are participating in the Correctional Clinical Case Management System (CCCMS) level of care in the MHSDS.
• All parolees who are presently suffering from a mental disorder which would require treatment at the CCCMS level of care in the CDC's MHSDS.
• All inmates/parolees who have a TABE Reading Score of 4.0 or less, or a GPL of fourth grade or lower, if no reading score is available.

Armstrong/BPT Parole Proceedings Remedial Plan

1/4/02

Page 5

• All inmates/parolees who are blind/vision impaired whose vision is not correctable to central visual acuity of 20/200 or better with corrective lenses, large print, or similar accommodation.
• All inmates/parolees who are deaf or so severely hearing impaired that they must rely on written communication, lip-reading, or sign language to communicate because their residual hearing, with aids, will not enable them to communicate effectively.
• All inmates/parolees who have a speech impairment, such as difficult speech or no speech which prevents them from communicating effectively using spoken language.
Inmates/parolees who do not meet the above criteria may continue to request an attorney; however, the inmate/parolee is responsible to establish a presumption of need pursuant to current policy.
2. OTHER PROCEEDINGS
The BPT will continue to provide attorneys to inmates during Life Prisoner Hearings wherein the inmate is being considered for parole consistent with the above criteria for mandatory and presumptive attorney assignments. These include Initial, Subsequent, and Rescission Parole Consideration Hearings.
Persons in the Mandatory Attorney Cases category shall not be allowed to waive representation of counsel at parole consideration hearings and rescission hearings for life prisoners. Consistent with existing policy, persons subject to Board hearings conducted pursuant to the MDO and SVP laws shall not be allowed to waive representation of counsel.
Attorneys are not currently assigned for Documentation Hearings, Progress, In Re Stanworth Hearings or three-year reviews of a Five-Year Denial. This will not change. However, when requested by the BPT, the CDC will assign a staff assistant to assist the inmate during these hearings.
D. AUXILIARY AIDS/EQUIPMENT
The following are accommodations identified for specific disabilities. This is merely a guide and is not all-inclusive as to the means by which a disabled inmate/parolee can be accommodated. In deciding what accommodation to provide, primary consideration should be given to the method requested by the inmate/parolee.
1. MOBILITY IMPAIRMENTS
The BPT ADA Coordinator, working in conjunction with the Classification and Parole Representative (C&PR), Reception Center Correctional Counselor III (RC CC-III), and/or Regional Hearing Coordinator (RHC), is responsible to ensure that parole

Armstrong/BPT Parole Proceedings

1/4/02

Page 6

proceedings are held in an accessible CDC facility. The BPT ADA Coordinator is responsible to ensure that parole proceedings in non-CDC facilities are accessible.
2. HEARING IMPAIRMENTS
The auxiliary aid or service necessary to ensure effective communication with a hearing impaired inmate/parolee will depend on the degree of the hearing impairment.
For hearing impaired inmates/parolees whose primary communication method is by sign language, BPT will provide a qualified sign language interpreter via a cooperative effort with the C&PR/RC CC-III/RHC. Neither CDC nor BPT personnel shall serve as sign language interpreters in parole proceedings.
For hearing impaired inmates/parolees who do not understand sign language, written notes may be the appropriate method of communicating. In deciding what accommodation to provide, primary consideration shall be given to the method requested by the inmate/parolee. An inmate's/parolee's ability to lip-read shall not be the sole source used as a means of effective commumcation in parole proceedings, unless the inmate/parolee has no other means of communication, or it is the inmate's/parolee's preferred means of communication. If written notes are used by staff to assist in effective communication, they shall be attached to the related document. When staff are required to use an alternate method of communication to effectively communicate with the inmate/parolee, they shall document the method used on the related form applicable to the particular hearing (e.g., screening offer).
In instances where lip-reading is the only communication method available, an attorney shall be provided to represent the inmate/parolee at the hearing in order to ensure that the inmate's/parolee's due process rights are protected.
Videoconferencing is an acceptable means of providing qualified sign language interpretive services as an alternative to an on-site sign language interpreter. In order for videoconferencing to be an acceptable alternative, the sign language interpreter and inmate/parolee must confirm that the arrangement allows for effective communication. The videoconference shall be conducted so that both signing speakers are clearly able to see the motions of the arms and fingers as well as facial expressions.
The following auxiliary aids and services may be made available for inmates/parolees with hearing impairments to ensure effective communication to the best of his/her ability:
• Assistive listening devices • Computer terminals • Real time captioning • Sign language interpreters • Telecommunication Device for the Deaf (TDD) machines

Armstrong/BPTParole Proceedings

1/4/02

Page 7

3. VISION IMPAIRMENTS
Vision impairments range from partial loss to total loss of vision. The auxiliary aid or service necessary for the inmate/parolee will depend on the degree of vision impairment. In deciding what accommodation to provide, primary consideration shall be given to the method requested by the inmate/parolee.
The following auxiliary aids and services may be made available for inmates/parolees with vision impairments to ensure effective communication to the best of his/her ability:
• Audio-tape • Braille • Electronic equipment (reading machines) • Large print • Magnifying devices • Qualified Reader • Staff assistance
4. SPEECH IMPAIRMENTS
Speech impairments range from mild to severe and are characterized by stuttering and/or difficulty in producing sounds and/or difficulty in producing or understanding language.
The following auxiliary aids may be available to speech impaired inmates/parolees to ensure participation in parole proceedings to the best of the individual's ability:
• Communication books or boards • Computer terminals • Speech synthesizers • TDD machines
5. MENTAL/PSYCHOLOGICAL/DEVELOPMENTAL DISORDERS
Qualified individuals with mental, psychological, or developmental disabilities may require one or more of the following accommodations:
• *ADA trained attorney • Forms revised into simple English • Impartial advocates (Regional Centers) • Qualified sign language interpreters • Staff assistance • Staff clinicians
• Section VI, C, identifies the criteria for mandatory and presumptive attorney assignments.

Armstrong/BPT Parole Proceedings Remedial Plan

1/4/02

Page 8

Effective communication with inmates/parolees with mental/psychological disorders may require using basic communication skills in a patient, respectful, and dignified manner, avoiding complex words or complicated concepts.
6. LEARNING DISABILITIES
A learning disability is a lifelong disorder in one or more basic psychological processes involved in understanding or using language. It may interfere with one's ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations. School based definitions may specify a significant discrepancy between the individual's intelligence and his/her academic achievement.
The following accommodations may be available to inmates/parolees with learning disabilities to ensure equal participation in any parole proceedings to the best of the individual's ability:
• ADA trained attorney • Additional time • Audio taped materials • Electronic equipment • Highlighter pens and markers • Staff Assistance
Effective communication with inmates/parolees with learning disabilities may require using basic communication skills in a patient, respectful, and dignified manner, avoiding complex words or complicated concepts.
The Correctional Counselor I (CC-I), District Hearing Agent (DHA), and/or BCPA shall give special attention to ensure inmates/parolees with a reading score of 4.0 or less understand written communications related to due process or psychiatric consultations in preparation for parole proceedings.
In the event an inmate/parolee with a reading score of 4.0 or less cannot read and comprehend documents in parole proceedings and has not been assigned an attorney or waived appointment of an attorney, staff shall provide reasonable accommodations to ensure effective communication (e.g., staff assistance, electronic readers, and sign language interpreter, etc.).
VII. COORDINATION OF SERVICES AND ACCOMMODATIONS
The CDC and BPT shall ensure that inmates/parolees with disabilities have equal access to parole proceedings with or without reasonable accommodations. Maintaining, providing and coordinating the reasonable accommodations noted herein are the responsibility of the following:

Armstrong/BPT Parole Proceedings Remedial Plan

1/4/02

Page 9

A. BPT ADA COMPLIANCE UNIT

The responsibilities of the BPT ADA Compliance Unit (ADACU), as they relate to this

M

Remedial Plan, include the following:

^

1. Maintain a list of sources that have auxiliary aids that are available on short notice.

2. Maintain the assistive listening devices, magnifying devices, and TDDs at BPT Headquarters that are available upon request.

3. Ensure auxiliary aids and/or needed equipment are forwarded by overnight mail to the appropriate RHC or C&PR/RC CC-III.

4. Maintain a system to track the type of equipment requested and the location of the auxiliary aids/equipment.

5. Test auxiliary aids and equipment regularly to ensure it is operable. The ADACU will make all efforts to avoid postponements of parole proceedings due to maintenance or repair of equipment.

6. Maintain a supply of BPT forms in the following alternative formats:

• Audio-cassettes

• Braille

• Large print

• Simple English

A

7. Review and make determinations on requests for reasonable accommodations via the BPT Form 1073(a).

8. Maintain a tracking system of requests for reasonable accommodation and the accommodation provided.

9. Ensure that parole proceedings are held in locations that are physically accessible to inmates/parolees with mobility and/or vision impairments.

B. BPT SCHEDULING UNIT

The BPT Scheduling Unit shall coordinate the hiring of communication services for BPT proceedings. Communication services will be provided through a professional agency that provides the services necessary to ensure effective communication with deaf, hard of hearing, or deaf-blind people.

Communication services provided by the BPT may include:

1. REAL TIME CAPTIONING: This service provides simultaneous written text of spoken

language either on a computer screen or overhead projector by professional court

reporters.

.

Jtt.

Armstrong/BPTParole Proceedings Remedial Plan

1/4/02

Page JO

2. SIGN LANGUAGE: A "qualified sign language interpreter" is a person who is able to sign to the individual who is deaf what is being said, and who can voice what is being signed by the individual who is deaf. This communication must be conveyed effectively, accurately, and impartially, through the use of any specialized vocabulary. The requirement of "impartial" interpreting services means that the sign language interpreter must not have a personal relationship with the individual with a disability or otherwise be biased for or against that person.
3. ORAL: This service involves transliteration and interpretation by use of facial expression, lip/mouth movement, and hand gestures, for deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals who do not rely on sign language for communication.
4. TACTILE: This service is a form of sign language interpretation specifically for deaf-blind individuals.
5. INTERMEDIARY INTERPRETING: An intermediary interpreter may be needed when the communication mode of a deaf person is so unique that interpreters who are not deaf cannot adequately access it. A deaf intermediary with specialized communication skills communicates using the unique method with the inmate/parolee and signs to the hearing interpreter, who then voices what has been signed.
Neither BPT nor CDC staff shall be used in lieu of a professional communications agency to provide the services noted above.
C. INSTITUTIONS
1. The DHA/CCI/BCPA shall identify the reasonable accommodation needs of the inmate/parolee.
2. The C&PR/RC CC-III shall coordinate with the BPT ADA Coordinator to ensure the services and/or equipment deemed appropriate to reasonably accommodate a disabled inmate/parolee at a parole proceeding is provided.
3. If the CDC institution/facility does not have the recommended equipment, the C&PR/RC CC-III shall immediately notify the BPT ADA Coordinator. The BPT ADA Coordinator will ensure the requested equipment is provided, or provide another equally effective means that will accommodate the inmate/parolee and ensure his/her access and/or effective communication at the parole proceeding.
VIII. BPT FORM 1073 - NOTICE AND REQUEST FOR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION
A revised BPT Form 1073, Notice and Request for Reasonable Accommodation, is included in this Remedial Plan. The following are instructions on how to complete the form. These instructions are also contained on the back of the original BPT Form 1073 for easy reference.

Armstrong/BPT Parole Proceedings Remedial Plan

1/4/02

Page 11

A. SECTION I: PRE-INTERVIEW FILE REVIEW (STAFF ONLY)
1. To initiate the document, the C&PR/RC CC-III/RHC shall write the inmate's/parolee's name, CDC number, the type of parole proceeding, and the institution/region where the inmate/parolee is located at the bottom of the form.
2. A file review is required for Section I in order to obtain documents that may verify a disability and/or potential need for a reasonable accommodation at the parole proceeding.
In a Parole Revocation or Parole Revocation Extension case at an institution, the C&PR/RC CC-III shall ensure the review of the inmate's/parolee's central file is conducted and all documents that either verify or disclaim a disability are included in the revocation packet prior to its submission to a DC. For Parole and Community Services Division (P&CSD) proceedings, the RHC shall ensure review of the revocation packet is conducted prior to providing it to the DC for screening. The RHC shall ensure that documents that either verify or disclaim a disability are included in the revocation packet prior to its submission to a DC.
3. The appropriate boxes shall be checked for items that identify a disability.
4. If no documents exist, institution staff shall check the box indicating there are "no verifying documents in file." Parole staff shall provide whatever documentation they have available that indicates there is no information in the C-File that indicates a disability.
5. The documents that identified a disability shall be copied and attached to the BPT Form 1073. (Documents that do not indicate a disability should not be attached to the form.)
In parole proceedings related to Life Prisoners, the CC-I shall complete Steps 1 through 5 above, in addition to the Assessment of the File Review, and Sections II and III of the BPT Form 1073 described below.
ASSESSMENT OF FILE REVIEW
1. In Revocation/Revocation Extension cases, if the DC decides to assign an attorney at the initial screening, Section II of the BPT Form 1073 will be completed with the inmate by the BCPA. Section III, however, will not be completed, as the BCPA will provide similar information on a BPT Form 1073(b), which documents his/her assessment of the inmate's needs for reasonable accommodation under the ADA.
2. If the file review reflects that the inmate/parolee meets a criterion that requires the assistance of a BPT assigned sign language interpreter, the C&PR/RC CC-III/RHC will fax the BPT Form 1073 to the BPT ADA Coordinator. The BPT ADA Coordinator will document the decision on a BPT Form 1073(a). Upon assignment, the C&PR/RC CC-III/RHC or designee shall give the date and time of the appointment and the documents to the CC-I/DHA for service and completion of Sections II and III.

Armstrong/BPTParole Proceedings Remedial Plan

1/4/02

Page 12

3. If the file review reflects that the inmate/parolee requires an auxiliary aid to effectively communicate during the Service in the Revocation/Revocation Extension process, the C&PR/RC CC-III/RHC/BCPA shall ensure that the appropriate accommodation is available prior to the CC-I/DHA/BCPA meeting with the inmate/parolee. If the accommodation is not available, the C&PR/RC CC-III/RHC shall contact the BPT ADA Coordinator to request the accommodation.
B. SECTION II: PRISONER/PAROLEE RIGHTS & SELF IDENTIFICATION
1. The CC-I/DHA shall read the ADA statement at the beginning of Section II verbatim to every inmate/parolee possessing the physical ability to hear, regardless of the type of parole proceeding. The CC-I/DHA shall advise the inmate/parolee of and explain the meaning of the upcoming parole proceeding.
2. The CC-I/DHA shall explain to the inmate that BPT documents are available in alternative formats upon request (e.g., Braille, large print, audiocassette, or simple English).
3. The second portion of this section is for the inmate/parolee to complete by declaring whether he/she has a disability. If the inmate/parolee is unable to complete this section, the CC-I/DHA shall provide assistance by recording the responses given by the inmate/parolee. The CC-I/DHA will record this accommodation in Section III, under comments.
C. SECTION III: INITIAL SERVICE OF RIGHTS (STAFF ONLY)
§ 1. The CC-I/DHA shall document his/her observations and assessments in this section. If an alternate method of communication was used to effectively communicate with the inmate/parolee, the CC-I/DHA shall check the box provided and indicate the method used.
2. The CC-I/DHA will check the appropriate box on the form indicating whether the inmate/parolee appears to understand the reason for the parole proceeding and his/her rights under the ADA. If the inmate appears to have difficulty understanding, the CC-I/DHA shall restate the information using simple English. The CC-I/DHA shall then ask the inmate/parolee to explain in his/her own words the following: 1) his/her rights under ADA; 2) his/her rights regarding the proceeding; 3) the nature of the proceeding; and, 4) the reason for the violation/in-custody report (except in Life, SVP, or MDO cases). If the inmate/parolee appears to understand, the CC-I/DHA shall complete Section III indicating simple English was used under "effective communication method used," and return the BPT Form 1073 to the C&PR/RC CC-III/RHC.
3. If the inmate/parolee is unable to effectively communicate this information, the CC-I/DHA shall document his/her efforts on the BPT Form 1073 as follows:
• Check the box "appears to have difficulty understanding."

Armstrong/BPT Parole Proceedings

1/4/02

Page 13

• Check the box "Effective Communication Method Used" and write in "Simple English" and any other methods used.

• Write in the Comments section that the inmate/parolee was asked to explain in

^

his/her own words their rights regarding ADA and the parole proceeding, the

nature of the parole proceeding, the reason for the violation/in-custody report

(except in Life, SVP, or MDO cases), and that the inmate/parolee was unable to

do so. The CC-I/DHA should write that they were unable to achieve effective

communication with the inmate/parolee. The CC-I/DHA should also write any

other observations they feel are pertinent.

• The CC-I/DHA shall return the BPT Form 1073 to the C&PR/RC CC-III/RHC. The C&PR/RC CC-III/RHC shall ensure the form is completed properly and advise the BPT ADA Coordinator immediately via fax and telephone contact.

• The CC-I shall complete a CDC Form 128B referral chrono noting his/her observations and forward it to the Psychiatric Department for evaluation and possible inclusion in the DDP.

• The BPT ADA Coordinator will make a determination as to whether to assign an

attorney at that juncture or have a BCPA make a secondary assessment prior to

assigning an attorney. If the BPT determines that attorney assignment is

necessary based upon the inmate's/parolee's inability to understand or speak for

himself or herself at the due process proceeding, that fact shall be documented on

the BPT Form 1073(a) or BPT Form 1073(b), whichever is appropriate. At the

A

inmate's/parolee's next parole proceeding, the prior documentation will be

™

submitted with the revocation/revocation extension packet and the inmate will be

assigned an attorney at the initial screening process.

4. If an accommodation is not requested by the inmate, but based on the CC-I/DHA's observations an accommodation is recommended, the CC-I/DHA shall note the recommendation in the Comments section.

D. SECTION IV: REVIEW INDICATING NO CHANGES

1. After the initial completion of the BPT Form 1073, this section may be completed by staff when an inmate/parolee is involved in a subsequent parole proceeding and only when there have been no changes to the information on the form.
2. Completion of this section requires a file review by the appropriate staff, as described above, to assess whether any changes in the inmate's/parolee's disability information has occurred.
3. If there are no changes in the information, the staff member shall update the BPT Form 1073 by entering the type of hearing; printing his/her first initial, last name, and written initials; title; location; and the date the form is being updated.
i

Armstrong/BPTParole Proceedings Remedial Plan

1/4/02

Page 14

4. If an inmate/parolee has made a prior request for an accommodation on the BPT Form 1073, or if the inmate has not been in continuous custody, an interview shall be conducted by the DHA/CC-I to determine whether the accommodation request is still effective. If the inmate/parolee indicates a change in the accommodation requested, a new BPT Form 1073 shall be completed.
5. Most current copies of the required documentation shall be attached to the form.
6. The updated BPT Form 1073 and accompanying copies can then be processed as .otherwise required for the parole proceeding.
7. Section IV shall not be used when the file review indicates a change on the prior BPT Form 1073.
8. Staff shall initiate a new BPT Form 1073 when the available update boxes have been filled.
E. DISTRIBUTION OF THE BPT FORM 1073
Upon completion of the BPT Form 1073, distribution shall be completed as follows:
1. The original BPT Form 1073 shall be filed in the BPT Section of the inmate's/parolee's C-File.
2. The second page shall be provided to the BPT ADA Coordinator.
3. The third page will be forwarded by the Revocation Unit (RU) to the parole unit for placement in the parolee's field file upon completion of the revocation process. For institution parole proceedings, this page may be discarded.
4. The fourth page shall be provided to the inmate/parolee by the staff member conducting the interview, upon its completion.
5. When Section IV of the form is used, copies shall be made and distributed as indicated above.
6. For revocation/revocation extension cases where an accommodation is being requested, the BCPA shall fax the BPT Form 1073 and the BPT Form 1073(b) with supporting documents to the BPT ADACU.
7. For revocation/revocation extension cases where an accommodation is not being requested, the BCPA shall mail the BPT Form 1073 and the BPT Form 1073(b) with supporting documents to the BPT ADACU.
8. For Life Prisoner, MDO, and SVP cases where an accommodation is being requested, the C&PR/RC CC-III shall fax the BPT Form 1073 with supporting documents to the BPT ADACU at (916) 324-7603.

Armstrong/BPT Parole Proceedings Remedial Plan

1/4/02

Page 15

i) Once the BCPA requests a hearing, the attorney will not be permitted to invoke

acceptance of a Screening Offer without approval by an Associate Chief Deputy

Commissioner (ACDC).

M

j) If the ACDC approves acceptance of a Screening Offer after the revocation

;

extension documents have been completed by the BCPA, the ACDC shall instruct

the attorney and inmate to document the acceptance on a BPT Form 1104(b) and

deliver it to the C&PR/RC CC-III immediately. The C&PR/RC CC-III shall fax a

copy of the BPT Form 1104(b) to the ACDC. The ACDC will complete a new

BPT Form 1104, reflecting the change in decision for a hearing. The ACDC will

fax a copy of the new BPT Form 1104 to the C&PR/RC CC-III, and mail the

original. The C&PR/RC CC-III shall advise the Revocation Desk to cancel the

hearing, if appropriate.

k) In cases where an attorney is determined by the BCPA to be necessary due to

previously unidentified ADA issues, the BCPA will immediately notify the

BPT ADA Coordinator of the need for an attorney. The BCPA will also be

responsible for leaving the original BPT Forms 1073, 1073(b), and 1135A, as well

as copies of the remaining documents in the revocation packet, with the

C&PR/RC CC-III. After the BPT assigns an attorney, the BCPA will coordinate

delivery of the attorney packet within 48 hours. The attorney will have 10 calendar

days to meet with his/her client and determine whether to accept the Screening

Offer or to proceed with a hearing. The remainder of the process will mirror that as

outlined above, with the exception of the time frames being measured in calendar

days from the date of the BCPA review.

-

I) In those cases where an attorney is determined by the BCPA to be necessary based upon the BPT Form 1083, Attorney Determination, the BCPA will notify the Revocation Desk of the need for attorney representation at the hearing. The BCPA will complete the revocation extension documents, indicating the case is to be scheduled for a hearing, and deliver the original revocation extension packet to the C&PR/RC CC-III for processing and scheduling of the hearing. The inmate will have the option of accepting the Screening Offer, provided the attorney notifies the C&PR/RC CC-III at least 10 calendar days prior to the scheduled hearing date. A decision to accept the Screening Offer shall be recorded by the attorney and inmate on a BPT Form 1104(b). Both the attorney and inmate must sign the BPTFormll04(b).

m) When an attorney is assigned as a result of the BPT Form 1083, the attorney will deliver the BPT Form 1104(b) to the C&PR/RC CC-III. The C&PR/RC CC-III will fax the form to the Central Office Calendar for completion of a new BPT Form 1104 by a DC. The DC will complete and return the form via fax and mail the original on the same date.

Armstrong/BPTParole Proceedings

1/4/02

f
Pnoe fx

3. PROCESS WHEN ATTORNEY IS NOT ASSIGNED

a) If an attorney is not assigned at the time of screening, the institution Revocation Desk will prepare the revocation extension packet and submit it to the CC-I for Service. The packet will include the following documents:

Forms to be Completed and Returned to the Revocation Desk:

• BPT Form 1073 Notice and Request for Reasonable Accommodation • BPT Form 1100(a) Notice of Right to Revocation Hearing-Acknowledgment

Forms to be Provided to the Inmate:

• BPT Form 1100

Notice of Right to Revocation Hearing

• BPT Form 1100(b)-W Request for Witnesses Worksheet

• BPT Form 1083-W

Attorney Determination Worksheet

• Copy of BPT Form 1104 Summary of Revocation Decision

(include both pages)

• Copy of CDC Form 115 Rules Violation Report -or-

• Copy of CDC Form 804 Notice of Pending CDC Form 115

b) The CC-I will complete the Service for the Revocation Extension proceeding for those inmates who are not initially assigned an attorney.
c) The CC-I will advise the inmate of the reason for the parole proceeding (e.g., Screening Offer).
d) For inmates who require the services of a sign language interpreter, the CC-I shall complete the Serve with the assistance of a sign language interpreter approved by the BPT.
e) For inmates who require an auxiliary aid to effectively communicate (hearing or speech impaired), the C&PR/RC CC-III shall coordinate the reasonable accommodation prior to the interview with the inmate. If the auxiliary aid is not available, the C&PR/RC CC-III shall contact the BPT ADA Coordinator for the appropriate accommodation.
f) If the CC-I determines, while completing the BPT Form 1073, that the inmate requires assignment of a sign language interpreter, the CC-I shall stop the Service, write his/her observation on the form, and deliver it to the C&PR/RC CC-III. The C&PR/RC CC-III shall immediately fax that information to the BPT ADA Coordinator. The BPT ADA Coordinator will document the decision on a BPT Form 1073(a) and fax it to the C&PR/RC CC-III. The C&PR/RC CC-III and the BPT ADA Coordinator will coordinate the services of a sign language interpreter. The C&PR/RC CC-III or designee shall give the date and time of the appointment and documents to the CC-I to complete the Service.

Armstrong/BPT Parole Proceedings

1/4/02

Page 19

g) If during the completion of the BPT Form 1073, the inmate appears to have

j

difficulty understanding, the CC-I shall make every effort to communicate with the

*

inmate/parolee using simple English, or other reasonable accommodation which

m

may assist in achieving effective communication. These efforts shall be

^

documented in the Comments section. If the CC-I determines that the inmate, even

with reasonable accommodations and using effective communication techniques,

does not understand his/her rights, the CC-I shall document their observations and

the method of attempted accommodation in the Comments section and return the

BPT Form 1073 to the C&PR/RC CC-III. The C&PR/RC CC-III shall advise the

BPT ADA Coordinator immediately via faxing the completed BPT Form 1073 and

telephone contact to ensure it was received. On these rare occasions, the CC-I will

not be required to proceed with the Service of Rights.

h) After completing the BPT Form 1073, the CC-I shall provide the inmate/parolee with the fourth (NCR) copy of the form and a copy of the BPT 1073(a), if applicable.

i) The CC-I shall:

1) Provide Service of the Revocation Extension packet to the inmate/parolee.

2) Advise the inmate that the BPT documents are available in alternative formats.

3) Review the BPT Form 1100 with the inmate/parolee and ask if he/she has any questions regarding his/her rights.

4) Have the inmate/parolee initial Section A of BPT Form 1100(a) indicating

^

he/she understands his/her rights.

5) Have the inmate/parolee initial Section B of BPT Form 1100(a) stating he/she received copies of BPT Forms 1073, 1100, and 1104, the CDC Form 115 and/or CDC Form 804, and any other related documents.

6) Advise the inmate that he/she has no less than 72 hours in which to make a decision of whether to accept the Screening Offer or reject it and request a hearing.

7) Have the inmate/parolee initial Section C of BPT Form 1100(a) stating he/she understands his/her rights regarding the 72 hours and his/her choices.

8) Advise the inmate/parolee that a BCPA will interview the inmate after the 72-hour period to obtain the inmate's decision and process the necessary paperwork.

9) Advise the inmate that if after the 72-hour period he/she decides to request a hearing, he/she should utilize the worksheets provided to request witnesses and/or an attorney and provide them to the BCPA.
i

Armstrong/BPT Parole Proceedings Remedial Plan

1/4/02

Page 20

10) Have the inmate/parolee initial Section D of BPT Form 1100(a) stating he/she has received the worksheets and agrees to complete them, if able, prior to the arrival of the BCPA.
11) Have the inmate/parolee sign the bottom of the BPT Form 1100(a) and witness the inmate's/parolee's signature.
12) Ensure effective communication during the Serve, including the use of any auxiliary aides, as described in Section VI of this Remedial Plan.
j) The CC-I shall not:
1) Accept a decision by an inmate regarding the Screening Offer.
2) Complete the Service for an inmate who has been provided an attorney at the initial screening by the BPT.
k) Upon completion of the Service, the CC-I will return the original BPT Forms 1073 and 1100(a) documents to the Revocation Desk.
I) Upon receiving the documents from the CC-I, the Revocation Desk staff shall:
1) Maintain the original completed Revocation Packet at the institution/facility and provide it to the BCPA upon his/her arrival.
2) Provide a copy of the list of inmates/parolees who require a Due Process Review by a BCPA to the C&PR/RC CC-III. Within two working days, fax the list to the BPT. The list shall include their name, number, and required accommodation, if applicable. If the inmate/parolee has requested an accommodation, the BPT Form 1073 shall be forwarded with the list.
m) It is the responsibility of the BPT to assign a BCPA to complete a Review no sooner than 72 hours after the inmate is served with the Screening Offer to determine whether the offer is accepted or rejected. Service by the BCPA is to be provided for every inmate with or without a disability. This Service will also be provided to inmates in Camps and/or Community Correctional Facilities.
n) It is the responsibility of the BCPA to coordinate with the C&PR/RC CC-III the date and time of the BCPA Review at least two working days prior to their arrival. If a reasonable accommodation needs to be provided during the BCPA Review, it is the responsibility of the BPT ADA Coordinator to coordinate with the C&PR/RC CC-III/BCPA to ensure the accommodation is provided. For those inmates who require use of a sign language interpreter, the BCPA shall complete the Serve with the assistance of a sign language interpreter approved by the BPT.
o) The BCPA shall complete the BCPA Review within eight calendar days of the CC-I Serve. The BCPA will assist the inmate in completing the appropriate documents relative to the inmate's decision of whether to accept or reject the

Armstrong/BPT Parole Proceedings Remedial Plan

1/4/02

Page 21

Screening Offer. In addition, the BCPA will make determinations regarding the inmate's request for witnesses and/or an attorney.

p) During the interview with the inmate, the BCPA will complete a BPT Form 1073(b)

^

documenting his/her assessment and, if necessary, how he/she effectively

communicated with the inmate.

q) It is the responsibility of the BCPA to ask the inmate whether any of his/her requested witnesses has a disability and/or needs a sign language interpreter. This information will be noted on the BPT Form 1073(b) and faxed to the BPT ADA Coordinator.

r) Upon completion of the Review, the BCPA will return the Revocation Extension Packet and any other related documents, including the BPT Form 1073(b) to the C&PR/RC CC-III for further processing.

s) If the Screening Offer is accepted, the C&PR/RC CC-III will ensure the Revocation Extension packet documents are appropriately processed and distributed.

t) If the inmate requests a hearing, the C&PR/RC CC-III will ensure the appropriate documents are forwarded to the BPT Scheduling Unit to schedule the hearing. If the BCPA approved the inmate's request for an attorney or identified a need for a reasonable accommodation, this information" will be forwarded to the BPT along with the other related documents. When requested by the BPT, the CDC will assign a staff assistant to assist the inmate during the hearing.

u) The C&PR/RC CC-III will be notified by the Revocation Desk of the hearing date

"

and time. The C&PR/RC CC-III will ensure the inmate is advised by the CC-I of

the hearing date and time at least four days prior via the BPT Form 1080 process.

v) The C&PR/RC CC-III will be responsible to provide the necessary reasonable accommodations to ensure the inmate's/parolee's access to the hearing. If the necessary reasonable accommodations are not available at the institution, the C&PR/RC CC-III will contact the BPT ADA Coordinator for the necessary accommodation.

All other functions not addressed in the above process shall remain the same, unless otherwise reflected herein.

B. REVOCATION HEARINGS

In most instances, when an inmate/parolee is in a CDC institution/facility for a Parole Revocation Hearing, he/she is in a RC and the DHA is responsible for the Parole Revocation process. The DHA responsibilities are delineated in Section XI of this plan under the functions of the P&CSD.

When an inmate/parolee is in a CDC institution/facility and refuses to sign conditions of

parole, provide blood or saliva samples pursuant to PC Section 296, or register pursuant to

^.

PC Section 290, the subsequent parole proceeding is a Parole Revocation Hearing. In these

fl|

Armstrong/BPT Parole Proceedings Remedial Plan

1/4/02

Page 22

instances, and any others where an inmate/parolee is having a Parole Revocation Hearing that is not handled by a DHA, the CC-I shall complete the Service in accordance with the procedures as outlined for Revocation Extension Hearings in Section IX, A, 1, of this Remedial Plan.
C. LIFE PRISONER HEARINGS
The CDC coordinates the scheduling of Life Prisoner Hearings with the BPT Scheduling Unit.
/ . BPT FORM 1073 AND RIGHTS PACKET PROCESS
a) The institution Lifer Desk will prepare the packet and submit it to the CC-I for Service. The packet will include the following documents.
• BPT Form 1002 Life prisoner Notice of Hearing Rights • BPT Form 1003 Request for Attorney/Waiver of Attorney or
Withdrawal Request • BPT Form 1073 Notice and Request for Reasonable Accommodation • BPT Form 1101 (a) Extraordinary Action and Decision
b) Every inmate shall be served with a BPT\ Form 1073, Notice and Request for Reasonable Accommodation, prior to a Life Prisoner Hearing.
c) The Records Office will provide a copy of a BPT Form 1073 to the CC-I with the notice advising the CC-I that a Board Report is required on a life prisoner.
d) In instances where a psychiatric report is required, the CC-I shall complete the BPT Form 1073 within 10 working days.
e) When the CC-I reviews the C-file to prepare the Board Report, he/she shall initiate the BPT Form 1073 and complete Section I, as described in Section VIII of this Remedial Plan. This shall be done prior to interviewing the inmate or serving any hearing related documents.
J) If the C-file contains a prior BPT Form 1073, the CC-I may update that form, provided the criteria set forth in Section VIII of this Remedial Plan is met.
g) If the C-File review reveals a need for a sign language interpreter in order to effectively communicate with the inmate, the CC-I shall return the BPT Form 1073 to the C&PR. If the inmate requires the use of a sign language interpreter, the CC-I shall not proceed until a sign language interpreter is approved and provided by the BPT.
h) The C&PR will fax the BPT Form 1073 and all disability related documents, if applicable, to the BPT ADA Coordinator to coordinate the services of a sign language interpreter for contacts with the inmate during the preparation of the parole proceeding (e.g., Board Report interview, Olson Review, Service of Rights).

Armstrong/BPT Parole Proceedings Remedial Plan

1/4/02

Page 23

The BPT ADA Coordinator will document his/her approval/denial on a

BPT Form 1073(a) and fax it to the C&PR/RC CC-III. The C&PR/RC CC-III and

the BPT ADA Coordinator will coordinate the services of a sign language

A

interpreter. The C&PR/RC CC-III or designee shall give the date and time of the

™

appointment and documents to the CC-I so the CC-I can continue the Service. The

CC-I is to complete Sections II and III of BPT Form 1073 with the inmate, as

described in Section VIII of this Remedial Plan, prior to serving the inmate with

his/her Life Prisoner Hearing Rights Packet.

i) If during the interview process, the CC-I recognizes that the inmate would benefit from the use of a sign language interpreter to effectively communicate, the CC-I shall not complete the Serve without the assistance of a BPT approved sign language interpreter. The CC-I shall write his/her observations on the BPT Form 1073 and return it to the C&PR. The C&PR shall follow the steps above to coordinate those services.

j) If the BPT Form 1073 indicated a request for a reasonable accommodation other than a sign language interpreter, the C&PR shall determine if the necessary accommodations are available at the institution by contacting the Institution ADA Coordinator. If the reasonable accommodation is not available, the C&PR shall fax the BPT Form 1073 to the BPT ADA Coordinator. The BPT ADA Coordinator will document his/her decision regarding the decision on a BPT Form 1073(a) and fax it to the C&PR/RC CC-III. The BPT ADA Coordinator will be responsible to ensure the accommodation is provided to the inmate for completion of all parole proceedings, including the hearing.

k) Once the BPT has approved the use of a sign language interpreter, the

^

C&PR/RC CC-III may contact the professional agency directly for all other

subsequent contacts, e.g., psychiatric evaluation, developing lifer parole plans,

Olson review, and any other contacts in preparation of the hearing.

I) Upon completing the Service, the CC-I shall return the packet to the C&PR. The C&PR shall review the BPT Form 1073 and assess whether notification needs to be made to the BPT ADA Coordinator to ensure that the necessary accommodation(s) are provided to the inmate during the hearing. The C&PR shall also provide a copy of the BPT Form 1073 and the BPT Form 1073(a), if applicable, to the clinician via the Chief Psychiatrist.

m) If the BPT Form 1073 indicates a request for a reasonable accommodation, the C&PR is responsible to provide the necessary accommodations to ensure the inmate has equal access to the Life Prisoner Hearing. If the reasonable accommodation is not available, the C&PR will contact the BPT ADA Coordinator for assistance in acquiring a reasonable accommodation and forward the BPT Form 1073 to the BPT ADA Coordinator.

n) The BPT ADA Coordinator will document his/her decision regarding the request on the BPT Form 1073 (a) and coordinate the accommodation with the C&PR.
i

Armstrong/BPT Parole Proceedings Remedial Plan

1/4/02

Page 24

2. REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS
a) Once it is determined through the BPT Form 1073 process that an inmate requires a reasonable accommodation to ensure effective communication, it is the responsibility of BPT or CDC staff to ensure that the accommodation is provided in all parole proceeding contacts. Parole proceeding contacts include, but are not limited to Service of Rights Packet, interview for Board Report, assistance with Lifer Parole Plans, review of Board Report, conducting an Olson Review, interview for Psychiatric Report, review of Psychiatric Report, and assistance with appeals relating to BPT decisions.
b) Reasonable accommodations to ensure effective communication, as described below, can be for cognitive or physical disabilities. Regardless of the type of disability, if the inmate has been identified as requiring a reasonable accommodation to ensure effective communication, staff must ensure the following is adhered to:
1) If an inmate requires the use of a sign language interpreter to effectively communicate, the CC-I/Clinician shall interview the inmate regarding the parole proceeding with the assistance of a BPT approved sign language interpreter.
The CC-I/Clinician shall document on the related parole proceeding document, e.g., Service of Rights Packet, Board Report, CDC Form 128B for Olson Review, Psychiatric Report, etc., that the information was communicated via a sign language interpreter and the sign language interpreter acknowledged that the inmate appeared to understand the process to the best of his/her ability.
2) If an inmate requires a reasonable accommodation to effectively communicate due to a cognitive disability, the assigned CC-I/Clinician shall provide assistance during the Life Prisoner Hearing preparation process.
The CC-I/Clinician shall document on the related parole proceeding document, e.g., Service of Rights Packet, Board Report, CDC Form 128B for Olson Review, Psychiatric Report, etc., the type of assistance he/she provided to the inmate, e.g., reading, explained in simple English, etc., and if it appeared that the inmate understood the process to the best of his/her ability.
3) If an inmate requires a reasonable accommodation to effectively communicate due to a physical disability such as hearing, vision or speech impairment, the CC-I/Clinician shall ensure that the inmate has the accommodation during all parole proceeding contacts (as described above).
The CC-I/Clinician shall document on the related form that the reasonable accommodation was used, e.g., hearing aide, magnifier, written notes, etc., and whether the inmate appeared to understand the process to the best of his/her ability. If written notes are used to achieve effective communication, they must be attached to the related forms.

Armstrong/BPT Parole Proceedings Remedial Plan

1/4/02

Page 25

4) If the CC-I/CIinician believes that even with their assistance the inmate

does not appear to understand the process, the CC-I/Clinician shall document

that fact on the related forms and return them to the C&PR. The C&PR shall

£

contact the BPT ADA Coordinator via telephone to advise him/her of the

^

concerns regarding the inmate's ability to understand. The C&PR shall fax the

BPT Form 1073 to the BPT ADA Coordinator during this process for review.

The BPT ADA Coordinator shall advise the C&PR on the telephone how to

proceed, as well as document his/her decision on a BPT Form 1073(a). The

BPT Form 1073(a) shall be faxed to the C&PR and then mailed to the institution

for inclusion in the C-File.

5) The BPT panel is responsible to effectively communicate with the inmate during the hearing. The hearing transcript shall reflect how effective communication was achieved. In addition, the BPT Commissioner chairing the hearing shall document how effective communication was achieved on the hearing results provided to the inmate. When requested by the BPT, the CDC will assign a staff assistant to assist the inmate during BPT hearings.

6) If the BPT Form 1073 indicates a need for an alternate method of communication to ensure effective communication with the inmate and the Life Prisoner Hearing requires a psychiatric evaluation, the C&PR shall forward a copy of the BPT Form 1073 to the clinician, via the Chief Psychiatrist.

7) If the BPT Form 1073 identifies a need for a reasonable accommodation to

effectively communicate with the inmate, the clinician shall ensure the

reasonable accommodation is provided at each contact with the inmate. If the

m

reasonable accommodation is a sign language interpreter, the clinician is

responsible to coordinate those services with the C&PR.

8) The Chief Psychiatrist will ensure the assigned clinician provides the inmate with a copy of his/her psychiatric report. In cases that require a reasonable accommodation to effectively communicate, the clinician will document how effective communication was achieved on the CDC Form 128B that the inmate signs to acknowledge receipt of the report. The clinician shall forward the completed CDC Form 128B to the Records Office.

3. ATTORNEY ASSISTANCE

a) As described in Section VI, C, of this Remedial Plan, the BPT will continue to provide attorneys to inmates during Life Prisoner Hearings, including Initial, Subsequent, and Rescission Hearings. Currently, attorneys are not assigned for Documentation Hearings, Progress Hearings, In Re Stanworth Hearings, or threeyear reviews of Five-Year Denials and this will not change. However, when requested by the BPT, the CDC will assign a staff assistant to assist the inmate during these hearings.

b) Attorneys assigned to inmates with disabilities shall be required to complete

ADA training.

^

Armstrong/BPT Parole Proceedings Remedial Plan

1/4/02

Page 26

c) Section VI, C, delineates the inmates with disabilities who shall not be allowed to waive attorney representation when assigned.
4. BOARD REPORT
a) At Life Prisoner parole consideration hearings, the BPT is responsible to ensure that inmates are not instructed by the Panel to participate in programs that are unavailable to them because of their disability.
b) If the BPT, at the previous hearing, directed the inmate to participate in a program that was not available to the inmate due to his/her disability, the CC-I shall include in the current Board Report information regarding the type of disability the inmate has and how it may have affected the inmate's ability to participate in the recommended program.
c) The C&PR shall ensure that this information is in the Life Prisoner Board Report for inmates with disabilities, when required.
5. PSYCHIATRIC REPORT
a) When a psychiatric report is required for a Life Prisoner Hearing, the C&PR is responsible to ensure the Chief Psychiatrist is provided with a completed copy of the BPT Form 1073.
b) The Chief Psychiatrist is responsible to ensure that the assigned clinician is aware of the reasonable accommodations required for the contacts with the inmate relative to the Psychiatric Report.
c) If an inmate requires a reasonable accommodation to effectively communicate, the clinician shall ensure the accommodation is provided in each contact and complete the necessary documentation. Upon completion of the Psychiatric Report, the clinician shall forward the original to the Records Office.
d) If the inmate requires a reasonable accommodation to effectively communicate, the assigned clinician shall be responsible to review the Psychiatric Report with the inmate to explain its contents and answer any questions the inmate may have regarding the report. If the accommodation is the use of a sign language interpreter, the clinician shall coordinate the services of a sign language interpreter with the C&PR.
e) When the clinician is responsible for issuance of the report, the institution's Board Desk will provide a copy of the completed Psychiatric Report and a CDC Form 128B to the clinician for issuance to the inmate. The clinician shall have the inmate sign the CDC Form 128B acknowledging receipt of the Psychiatric Report. The clinician shall also document on the CDC Form 128B what reasonable accommodation was used to effectively communicate and whether the inmate appeared to understand the contents of the report to the best of his/her ability. The CDC Form 128B shall be forwarded to Records for inclusion in the inmate's C-File. If the inmate requires a reasonable accommodation to effectively communicate, the

Armstrong/BPT Parole Proceedings Remedial Plan

1/4/02

Page 27

assigned clinician shall be responsible to review the Psychiatric Report with the

inmate to explain its contents and answer any questions the inmate may have

regarding the report. If the accommodation is the use of a sign language interpreter,

M

the clinician shall coordinate the services of a sign language interpreter with the

W

C&PR.

J) For all other inmates, the CC-I shall issue the Psychiatric Report to the inmate and have him/her sign the CDC Form 128B acknowledging receipt. The inmate will be responsible to review the report and address any questions or concerns regarding the report to the assigned clinician via a GA Form 22, Request for Interview.

All other functions regarding the Life Prisoner Hearing process not addressed shall remain the same.

D. MENTALLY DISORDERED OFFENDER HEARINGS

2. COORDINATION

The policies and procedures for pre-screening of potential Mentally Disordered

Offenders (MDO) remain in effect. The issues pertinent to this Remedial Plan begin

with the psychiatric evaluation reports pursuant to Penal Code (PC) Section 2962. All

MDO candidates are automatically afforded ADA trained legal representation for the

MDO Certification, Placement, and Annual Review Hearings. The MDO Coordinator

at each institution shall liaison with the institution's Health Care Services or the Health

Care Services Division (HCSD) MDO Unit, as current process provides, and the DMH

to coordinate all cases requiring an evaluation.

•

2. EVALUATIONS
Each inmate referred must have evaluations completed by both CDC and DMH clinicians. In the event of a Difference of Opinion, the institution's MDO Coordinator shall liaison with the BPT MDO Coordinator to schedule two independent evaluators.

a) The CDC and DMH clinicians will be responsible for using effective communication (simple language and/or any other means of effective communication) during the interview, and documenting such within the body of the report. The Facility Captain of the HCSD MDO Unit will be responsible to liaison with DMH and the institution's MDO Coordinator to ensure that this process is completed.

b) The institution MDO Coordinator shall assist in the scheduling of CDC, DMH and BPT doctors for evaluations, liaison with medical and custody staff for doctor escorts, inmate ducats and prepare gate pass clearances for the C&PR/RC CC-III or designee signature as needed.

c) Copies of the CDC and DMH reports shall be forwarded to the HCSD MDO Unit.

In those cases where CDC contracts for the evaluation, copies of the evaluation shall

jr

Armstrong/BPTParole Proceedings Remedial Plan

1/4/02

Page 28

be forwarded to the HCSD MDO Unit by the institution. When cases are found to be positive by both CDC and DMH, or there is a Difference of Opinion, the HCSD MDO Unit will contact the institution MDO Coordinator and request supporting documentation for preparation of the certification package. The certification package will be forwarded by the HCSD MDO Unit to the BPT MDO Unit for review and certification or assignment of independent evaluators.
d) If the inmate is certified as MDO, the BPT MDO Unit will fax the BPT Form 1400, Certification Order, to the C&PR/RC CC-III, HCSD MDO Unit, Agent in Charge at Atascadero Sub Unit, Parole Agent II at Patton, and the State Hospital Coordinator.
3. BPT FORM 1073 AND RIGHTS PACKET PROCESS
a) Upon receipt of the BPT Form 1400, the institution MDO Coordinator shall complete Section I of the BPT Form 1073. Completion of the BPT Form 1073 shall be consistent with instructions in Section VIII of this Remedial Plan, including attaching relevant documents and determining through the C-File review. The institution MDO Coordinator shall provide the following packet to the CC-I:
• BPT Form 1073 Notice and Request for Reasonable Accommodation (with attached disability related documents)
• BPT Form 1400 Certification Review • BPT Form 1401 Information for Persons Certified as Mentally
Disordered Offenders • BPT Form 1410 Notice of Rights to Certification Hearing • BPT Form 1410(A) Notice of Rights to Certification Hearing-Acknowledgment • CDC Form 1515 Notice and Conditions of Parole
b) The CC-I shall conduct an interview with the inmate and review the BPT Form 1073. The CC-I shall complete Sections II and III consistent with the instructions in Section VIII of this Remedial Plan. If the BPT Form 1073 indicates a request for a reasonable accommodation other than a sign language interpreter, the C&PR shall determine if the necessary accommodations are available at the institution by contacting the Institution ADA Coordinator. If the reasonable accommodation is not available, the C&PR shall fax the BPT Form 1073 to the BPT ADA Coordinator. The BPT ADA Coordinator will review the request, document his/her decision on a BPT Form 1073(a), fax it to the C&PR/RC CC-III, and mail the original to the institution. The BPT ADA Coordinator will be responsible to ensure the accommodation is provided to the inmate for the Service and at the hearing.
c) If the inmate requires the use of a sign language interpreter for effective communication, the CC-I shall not interview the inmate until the sign language interpreter is approved and provided by the BPT ADA Coordinator. The CC-I shall return the packet to the C&PR/RC CC-III to coordinate the sign language interpreter services with BPT ADA Coordinator. The C&PR/RC CC-III shall immediately fax the request to the BPT ADA Coordinator. The BPT ADA Coordinator will document the decision regarding the sign language interpreter

Armstrong/BPT Parole Proceedings
Hemtxiinl Plan

1/4/02

Page 29

on a BPT Form 1073(a) and fax it to the C&PR/RC CC-III. The C&PR7RC CC-III and the BPT ADA Coordinator will coordinate the services of a sign language interpreter. Upon assignment, the C&PR/RC CC-III or designee shall give the date and time of the appointment and documents to the CC-I for Service and completion of the BPT Form 1073 with the assistance of the BPT approved sign language interpreter. The CC-I shall also review the packet and the MDO process with the inmate. The inmate shall be advised of his/her special condition for treatment at a State Hospital pursuant to PC 2962, and that failure to sign the CDC Form 1515, Notice and Conditions of Parole, shall result in a Rules Violation Report (RVR) being generated and referred to the BPT for a Parole Revocation Hearing. The CC-I shall serve the inmate his/her CDC Form 1515; BPT Form 1410, Notice of Certification Hearing; and BPT Form 1410(A), Notice of Certification HearingAcknowledgement.
4. PROCESS WHEN INMATE SIGNS NOTICE AND CONDITIONS OF PAROLE
a) If the inmate signs his/her Conditions of Parole, the C&PR/RC CC-III shall liaison with personnel at Atascadero State Hospital (ASH) for male inmates and Patton State Hospital (PSH) for female inmates to facilitate transfer.
b) If not previously submitted, the C&PR/RC CC-III shall fax a completed copy of the BPT Form 1073 and supporting documents to the BPT ADA Coordinator.
c) The C&PR/RC CC-III shall ensure the appropriate communications are made with designated Parole Region and Agent of Record (AOR) by faxing the following documents:
• BPT Form 1073 • BPT Form 1400 • BPT Form 1410(A) • CDC Form 1515
d) The C&PR/RC CC-III shall arrange for the transfer of the inmate to the appropriate State Hospital. The following documents shall be faxed to ASH for male inmates and PSH for females:
• BPT Form 1073 • BPT Form 1400 • BPT Form 1410(A) • CDC Form 801, Notice of Detainer (if inmate is received at ASH or PSH prior
to date of parole) • CDC Form 1515 • CDC Form 7371, Confidential Medical/Mental Health Information Transfer
(ASH/PSH only - fax 24 to 48 hours prior to admission)

Armstrong/BPT Parole Proceedings Remedial Plan

1/4/02

Page 30

e) Upon admission to the State Hospital, the assigned Parole Agent shall prepare a BPT Form 1430, Mentally Disordered Offender Scheduling Request, and fax it to the BPT MDO Unit.
(:#
f) Upon receipt of the BPT Form 1430, the BPT MDO Unit shall schedule a Certification Hearing.
5. PROCESS WHEN INMATE DOES NOT SIGN NOTICE AND CONDITIONS OF PAROLE
When an MDO is located at a prison and refuses to sign his/her special condition for MDO treatment, institution staff, as identified below, shall do the following:
a) The CC-I shall immediately write the RVR if the inmate refuses to sign the CDC Form 1515. The C&PR/RC CC-III or designee shall notify the BPT MDO Coordinator and HCSD MDO Unit of the inmate's refusal upon receipt of the CDC Form 804, Notice of Pending CDC Form 115.
b) The C&PR/RC CC-III shall complete and fax a BPT Form 1135 to the Central Office Calendar requesting placement of a parole hold, pursuant to PC Section 3060.5, and scheduling of a Revocation Hearing.
c) Within two weeks of notification of the inmate's refusal to sign MDO special condition, BPT's MDO Coordinator shall appoint an attorney to consult with the inmate. The attorney is responsible for assisting the inmate in deciding whether to accept or refuse the special condition for MDO treatment. It shall be the responsibility of the BPT to provide appropriate training for the attorney.
d) The institution shall be responsible for arranging gate clearance and escorts consistent with current institution procedures.
e) The BPT MDO Coordinator shall confirm, in writing, the attorney's appointment to the C&PR/RC CC-III and provide the attorney with a copy of the BPT certification package, including the clinical evaluations.
J) It is the responsibility of the attorney to consult with the inmate and present the following information:
1) An explanation of the MDO special condition. 2) The nature of treatment provided under the MDO special condition. 3) The State Hospital environment. 4) The rights of State Hospital patients. 5) The ability of treatment to reduce future offenses. 6) The consequences of refusing to sign MDO special conditions are:
• Revocation and remain in prison. • Extension of the parole term.

Armstrong/BPT Parole Proceedings Remedial Plan

1/4/02

Page 31

• Reevaluation, which may still result in the MDO special conditions at end of revocation period.

g) If after the attorney consultation the inmate decides to sign the special condition for MDO treatment:

1) The attorney shall deliver the packet to the C&PR/RC CC-III.

2) The C&PR/RC CC-III shall prepare a BPT Form 1135, Miscellaneous Decision, recommending that BPT's action to schedule a Revocation Hearing be rescinded.

3) The C&PR/RC CC-III shall fax the BPT Form 1135 to the Central Office Calendar for review and approval.

4) The C&PR/RC CC-III shall arrange the transfer of the inmate to the appropriate §tate Hospital.

5) Upon admission to the State Hospital, the assigned parole agent shall prepare a BPT Form 1430, Mentally Disordered Offender Scheduling Request, and fax it to the BPT Offender Screening Section.

6) Upon receipt of the BPT Form 1430, the BPT MDO Unit will schedule a Certification Hearing.

h) If after attorney consultation the inmate continues to refuse to sign his/her special condition for MDO treatment:

I

1) The attorney shall deliver the packet to the C&PR/RC CC-III.

2) The C&PR/RC CC-III shall notify the BPT MDO Coordinator.

3) The BPT MDO Coordinator will arrange for a clinician (licensed psychologist or psychiatrist) to assess whether the inmate's severe mental disorder has impaired his/her ability to make a knowing and intelligent decision to accept or refuse the MDO special condition of parole.

4) The clinician will prepare and forward a written report to the BPT MDO Coordinator. The BPT MDO Coordinator will send a copy of the report to the C&PR/RC CC-III for filing in the BPT section of the C-File. The BPT MDO Coordinator will also forward the report to a BCPA.

i) If the clinical evaluation determines that the inmate's severe mental disorder has impaired his/her ability to make a knowing and intelligent decision, it shall be the responsibility of staff to provide the following services:

1) The BCPA will prepare a BPT Form 1135 recommending that BPT's action to schedule a Revocation Hearing be rescinded.

Armstrong/BPT Parole Proceedings Remedial Plan

1/4/02

Page 32

2) The BCPA will submit the BPT Form 1135 to Central Office Calendar for review and approval.

™™

3) Once a decision is made, a copy of the BPT Form 1135 shall be faxed and

mailed by the staff at Central Office Calendar to the C&PR/RC CC-III.

4) The C&PR/RC CC-III shall ensure the faxed copy of the BPT Form 1135 is processed and placed in the BPT section of the C-File.

5> The C&PR/RC CC-III shall arrange for transfer of the inmate to the appropriate State Hospital.

j) If the clinical evaluation determines the inmate has the ability to make a knowing and intelligent decision, the revocation process will proceed in accordance with Parole Revocation Hearing processing as outlined in Section IX. In these cases, however, the CC-I will conduct the Service.

k) If the MDO has not been placed in outpatient treatment within 60 calendar days of admission to the State Hospital, the assigned parole agent shall serve the inmate/parolee a BPT Form 1420, Notice of Right to Placement Hearing, and BPT Form 1420(A), Notice of Right to Placement Hearing-Acknowledgment. Prior to serving the BPT Forms 1420 and 1420A, the Parole Agent shall review the BPT Form 1073 for the presence of a disability (other than severe mental disorder). If a disability is indicated and the reasonable accommodation is not available, the Parole Agent shall contact the BPT ADA Coordinator. The Parole Agent shall prepare and fax a BPT Form 1430 to the BPT MDO Unit for scheduling of the Placement Hearing.

6. CERTIFICATION HEARINGS
Upon admission to the State Hospital, the assigned Parole Agent shall review the BPT Form 1073 for the presence of a disability (other than severe mental disorder). If a disability is indicated and the reasonable accommodation is not available, the Parole Agent shall contact the BPT ADA Coordinator. The Parole Agent shall prepare and fax a BPT Form 1430 to the MDO Unit for scheduling of the Certification Hearing.

7. PLACEMENT HEARINGS
If the MDO has not been placed in outpatient treatment within 60 calendar days of admission to the State Hospital, the assigned Parole Agent shall serve the inmate/parolee a BPT Form 1420, Notice of Right to Placement Hearing, and BPT Form 1420(A), Notice of Right to Placement Hearing-Acknowledgment. Prior to service the BPT Forms 1420 and 1420(A), the Parole Agent shall review the BPT Form 1073 for the presence of a disability (other than severe mental disorder). If a disability is indicated and the reasonable accommodation is not available, the Parole Agent shall contact the BPT ADA Coordinator. The Parole Agent shall prepare and fax a BPT Form 1430 to the BPT MDO Unit for scheduling of the Placement Hearing.

Armstrong/BPT Parole Proceedings Remedial Plan

1/4/02

Page 33

8. ANNUAL REVIEWS

One year after admission to the State Hospital, and annually thereafter, the assigned

^

parole agent shall serve a BPT Form 1460, Notice of Right to Annual Review Hearing,

™

and a BPT Form 1460(A), Notice of Right to Annual Review Hearing-

Acknowledgment, to the inmate. Prior to serving the BPT Forms 1460 and 1460(A),

the Parole Agent shall review the BPT Form 1073 for the presence of a disability (other

than severe mental disorder). If a disability is indicated and the reasonable

accommodation is not available, the Parole Agent shall contact the BPT ADA

Coordinator. The Parole Agent shall prepare and fax a BPT Form 1430 to the

BPT MDO Unit for scheduling of a Placement Hearing. This process applies to all

parolees with MDO special conditions of parole being treated on an inpatient or

outpatient basis

E. SEXUALLY VIOLENT PREDATOR HEARINGS
The policies and procedures for screening of potential Sexually Violent Predators (SVP) remain in effect. The issues pertinent to this Remedial Plan begin when it becomes necessary for a BPT Probable Cause Hearing. All SVP candidates are automatically afforded legal representation for their BPT probable cause hearings. However, the SVP Coordinator and the CC-I shall ensure the completion of the BPT Form 1073. The following clarifies the process:

1. PROBABLE CAUSE HEARINGS

a) Upon notice/determination that a probable cause hearing is needed, it is the

•

responsibility of the BPT's SVP Hearing Coordinator to:

1) Determine the date, time, and place of the hearing and coordinate scheduling arrangements with the BPT's Hearing Division.

2) Determine the need for a 72-hour hold, and prepare and fax a BPT Form 1135 to the C&PR/RC CC-III/RHC.

3) Notify the C&PR/RC CC-III/RHC of the schedule for conducting the hearing.

4) Collect pertinent documents needed to conduct the hearing, assign an attorney, and fax all hearing documents to the C&PR/RC CC-III/RHC for presentation to the hearing officer and the attorney.

5) The SVP Hearing Coordinator, in conjunction with the BPT ADA Coordinator, will ensure that the known appropriate accommodations are made available prior to meeting with the inmate/parolee.

6) When there is a notice or determination that a probable cause hearing is

needed, each institution's SVP Coordinator shall complete Section I of the

BPT Form 1073, or update it, if applicable. Completion of the form shall be

consistent with instructions in Section VIII of this plan, including attaching

.,

Armstrong/BPT Parole Proceedings Remedial Plan

1/4/02

Page 34

relevant documents. The SVP Coordinator shall provide the following packet to the CC-I:

• BPT Form 1073 Notice and Request for Reasonable Accommodation • BPT Form 1100(c) Notice of Probable Cause Hearing • BPT Form 1100(d) Notice of Probable Cause Hearing-Acknowledgment • No BPT form number Notice to Parolees Subject to the Sexually Violent
Predator Act

b) The CC-I shall conduct an interview with the inmate, reviewing the BPT Form 1073, and explaining the grievance process via the BPT Form 1074. If the BPT Form 1073 indicates a request for a reasonable accommodation other than a sign language interpreter, the C&PR/RC CC-III shall determine if the reasonable accommodations are available at the institution by contacting the institution ADA Coordinator. If the reasonable accommodation is not available, the C&PR/RC CC-III shall fax the BPT Form 1073 to the BPT ADA Coordinator. The BPT ADA Coordinator will review the request, document his/her decision on a BPT Form 1073(a), and fax it to the C&PR/RC CC-III. The BPT ADA Coordinator will be responsible to ensure the accommodation is provided to the inmate at the hearing.

c) If the inmate requires the use of a sign language interpreter for effective

communication, the CC-I shall not interview the inmate until a sign language

interpreter is approved and provided by the BPT. The CC-I shall return the packet

•

to the C&PR/RC CC-III. The C&PR/RC CC-III will fax the BPT Form 1073 and all disability related documents to the BPT ADA Coordinator to coordinate the

services of a sign language interpreter. The BPT ADA Coordinator shall review the

request, document his/her decision on a BPT Form 1073(a), and fax it to the

C&PR/RC CC-III. The C&PR/RC CC-III and the BPT ADA Coordinator will

coordinate the services of a sign language interpreter. Upon assignment, the

C&PR/RC CC-III or designee shall give the time and date of the appointment and

the documents to the CC-I for service and completion of the BPT Form 1073 with

the assistance of the sign language interpreter. Sections II and III shall be

completed consistent with the instructions in Section VIII of this Remedial Plan.

The CC-I shall also review the packet and the SVP process with the inmate/parolee.

The BPT ADA Coordinator will be responsible to ensure the accommodation is

provided to the inmate/parolee at the hearing.

d) If not previously submitted, the C&PR/RC CC-III or designee shall fax a completed copy of the BPT Form 1073 and supporting documents to the BPT ADA Coordinator.

e) The BPT ADA Coordinator will document the decision on a BPT Form 1073(a) and fax to the institution via the C&PR/RC CC-III for delivery to the inmate.

f) The CC-I shall be responsible for noticing the inmate of the Probable Cause Hearing via a BPT Form 1080, Notice of Date, Time and Place of Hearing.

Armstrong/BPTParole Proceedings Remedial Plan

1/4/02

Page 35

g) If the inmate is unsatisfied with the ADA Coordinator's decision, he/she shall be

given a BPT Form 1074 so that he/she can grieve the decision to the Chief Deputy

Commissioner (refer to Grievance Procedures, Section XII).

A

h) The C&PR/RC CC-III shall verify before the scheduled date of the hearing whether the request for accommodation was granted or denied.

i) If after the hearing, where probable cause is found and a 45-day hold is imposed, the inmate believes that he/she was not provided with a fair hearing because he/she was not provided with the appropriate accommodation, the inmate may appeal by attaching to the BPT Form 1040 a copy of the previously submitted BPT Form 1073, BPT Form 1073 (a) and BPT Form 1074 and forwarding them to the BPT Appeals Unit via the C&PR/RC CC-III (refer to Appeals Procedures, Section XIII).

j) If an appeal is granted, the 45-day hold imposed at the original hearing shall continue to run, and the BPT's Probable Cause Hearing is to be reheard within two weeks from the decision to grant the appeal, but no later than the end of the 45-day hold. At the time of a rehearing, the inmate will be beyond the prison release date and will have been transferred to DMH and coordination of the rehearing will be done by the Offender Screening Section. If a rehearing is granted and probable cause is found, the calculation of the 45-day hold is to be added to the inmate's date of release from prison.

X. TRANSITION TO PAROLE AND COMMUNITY SERVICES

DIVISION

|

The transition from the institution to the Parole and Community Services Division (P&CSD) involves the use of the following forms: Release Program Study; CDC Form 611 (Rev 5/01) or later version, Notice of Release Date and Residence Plan - From Institution to Parole Unit; CDC Form 1121, and the Notice and Conditions of Parole, CDC Form 1515. It is through the use of these documents that institution staff will relay pertinent information to parole region staff regarding the identification of potential disabilities and the possible special needs the inmate/parolee may have due to those disabilities. Parole region staff shall retain the documentation provided in the field file for use in their contacts with the parolee.

The following outlines the requirements for institution staff in ensuring an efficient and effective transition process.

A. CDC FORM 611 - RELEASE PROGRAM STUDY

The CDC Form 611 (Rev 5/01) was issued on May 21, 2001. Among the changes to the CDC Form 611 (Rev 5/01) process was the requirement to identify and attach source documents that verify disabilities. The changes to the form which are pertinent to this Remedial Plan are located in the "Medical/Psychiatric" and "Caseworker Evaluation" sections of the form.

Armstrong/BPT Parole Proceedings Remedial Plan

1/4/02

Page 36

1. In completing the CDC Form 611 (Rev 5/01) or later version, the CC-I shall conduct a

thorough review of the C-File for documentation which may identify a disability. Such

i

documentation includes, but is not limited to, the source documents identified in Section V of this Plan.

2. The CC-I shall check the appropriate box on the form and annotate the date of the verification document.

3. The CC-I shall write any other observations they have from the file review or interview with the inmate/parolee on the form.

4. The CC-I shall complete the remainder of the CDC Form 611 (Rev 5/01) or later version, consistent with current directives.

5. Records staff shall review the CDC Form 611 (Rev 5/01) or later version, copy and attach the verification documents including the CDC Form 128B if TABE reading score is 4.0 or lower, and send it to the appropriate parole region consistent with current procedures.

6. If verification documents are generated which result in a change in the inmate's disability status (e.g. CCCMS to EOP, change on CDC Form 1845, etc.) after the CC-I has submitted the CDC Form 611 (Rev 5/01) or later version to the C&PR, the CC-I shall inform the C&PR to ensure that the new information is relayed to the appropriate parole region.

,,A

B. CDC FORM 1 5 1 5 - N O T I C E OF CONDITIONS OF PAROLE

"#

:

:

The CDC Form 1515 is used to advise all inmates of the conditions and special conditions

that they must adhere to while on parole.

1. The CDC Form 1515 was revised in simple English to include the following information:

a) A statement which advises the inmate/parolee of his/her rights under the ADA.

b) An opportunity for the inmate/parolee to advise staff of his/her need for assistance in understanding/completing the form.

c) A box for staff to check indicating whether or not the inmate/parolee appeared to understand the information.

d) An area for staff to document the type of accommodation used to ensure effective communication, if any.

e) An area for staff to document any pertinent comments regarding their observations.

Armstrong/BPTParole Proceedings Remedial Plan

1/4/02

Page 37

2. The following are the instructions for the correctional counselor, parole agent, or other peace officer, who issues the Notice of Conditions of parole to the inmate/parolee:

Section I - Inmate/Parole Rights and Self Identification

^

a) The issuing staff shall review all available disability verifying documents and ensure the reasonable accommodation and/or assistance required is available prior to completing the form.
b) Read the statement in the first box to the inmate/parolee.
c) Ask the inmate/parolee to complete, initial and date the portion of the document which asks whether or not he/she needs help.
d) Ensure the reasonable accommodation and/or assistance required is available to ensure effective communication (i.e., magnifying glass, sign language interpreter, hearing aid, reading the document to the inmate/parolee, etc.)

Section II - General Parole Information

a) Ask the inmate/parolee to read the general parole information.

b) Ask the inmate/parolee to explain the general parole information.

c) If the inmate/parolee appears to have difficulty understanding the information,

discuss the information to ensure he/she understands to the best of his/her ability.

g

Section III - Conditions of Parole

a) Ask the inmate/parolee to read the conditions of parole.
b) Ask the inmate/parolee to explain each of his/her conditions of parole.
c) If the inmate/parolee appears to have difficulty understanding a certain condition, discuss the condition to ensure he/she understands to the best of his/her ability.
d) Ask the inmate/parolee to print his/her name and CDC number and sigh and date the form.
Section IV - Staff Observation

a) Check the appropriate box regarding the inmate's/parolee's ability to understand. Note: If the box marked "appears to have difficulty understanding" is checked, you must explain your observations in the Comments section.
b) If applicable, document the alternate method of communication used to ensure effective communication, such as simple English, magnifying glass, sign language interpreter, hearing aid, etc.

Armstrong/BPT Parole Proceedings Hamodinl Plan

1/4/02

Page 38

c) If applicable, write any observations and/or comments which you believe are pertinent regarding the issuance of the document.
d) Print your name and sign and date the form.
e) Provide the inmate/parolee with an NCR copy of the form.
j) Forward the original CDC Form 1515 to the Records Office for placement in the C-File.
3. If Special Conditions of Parole are received at the institution after original Notice of Conditions of Parole are signed, the following steps shall be followed:
a) When the Parole Desk staff receives the CDC Form 1515 with special conditions, they will make copies of the correlating CDC Form 611 (Rev 5/01) or later version and/or the CDC Form 1121 and attachments, if any, including the CDC Form 128B (as described in Section X, C, of this Plan).
b) The Parole Desk shall forward this documentation to the CC-I along with the CDC Form 1515.
c) The CC-I will review the CDC Form 611 (Rev 5/01) or later version and any attachments to determine if the inmate/parolee requires assistance with effective communication during the service of the CDC Form 1515 with special conditions of parole.
d) If the CC-I identifies a need for a reasonable accommodation to ensure effective communication, he/she shall ensure that the accommodation is provided when issuing the CDC Form 1515.
e) The CC-I shall issue the CDC Form 1515 with special conditions of parole consistent with Section X, B, 2, of this Plan, and return the CDC Form 1515 to the Records Office.
J) The Records staff will forward the completed CDC Form 1515 to the appropriate parole region.
C. CDC FORM 1121 - NOTICE OF RELEASE DATE AND RESIDENCE PLAN - F R O M INSTITUTION TO PAROLE UNIT
The CDC Form 1121 is used instead of a CDC Form 611 for inmates who are released on parole and subsequently returned on a parole violation as a Parole Violator Return to Custody (PV-RTC). As indicated previously, the importance of transferring information that identifies and/or verifies a disability from the institution to the parole region cannot be overstated. In order to make the best use of staff resources, the following procedure will occur for PV-RTC cases at the time that the CC-I is preparing the case for Initial Classification Committee:

Armstrong/BPT Parole Proceedings
Plan

1/4/02

Page 39

a) The CC-I shall review the C-File to determine whether a CDC Form 611 (Rev 5/01) or later version with attachments has been completed.

b) If a CDC Form 611 (Rev 5/01) or later version was not completed when the inmate

™

last paroled, the CC-I shall conduct a thorough review of the C-File for any

documents that verify a disability. The CC-I shall complete a CDC Form 128B

identifying all of the disability verifying documents found and file the

CDC Form 128B in the general chrono section of the C-File.

c) If a CDC Form 611 (Rev 5/01) with documents attached was completed, or if the documents were attached to a prior CDC Form 128B, the CC-I shall conduct a thorough review the C-File for any newly generated documents since the inmate/parolee was received on the current revocation. The CC-I shall complete a CDC Form 128B and file it in the general chrono section of the C-File.

d) Records staff shall review the CDC Form 128B, copy the identified disability verifying documents, attach them to a copy of the CDC Form 128B, and forward the documents with the CDC Form 1121 to the appropriate parole region consistent with current procedures.

e) If verification documents are generated which result in a change in the inmate's disability status (e.g. CCCMS to EOP, change on CDC Form 1845, etc.) after the CC-I has completed the CDC Form 128B, the CC-I shall inform the C&PR to ensure that the new information is relayed to the appropriate parole region.

J) For cases where the Initial Classification Committee has already occurred, the

M

CC-I-shall complete the CDC Form 128B at the time that the CDC Form 1121 is

™

completed.

If the PV-RTC is to be released on parole from the Reception Center, the RC CC-I shall complete the CDC Form 128B (as described in Section X, C, of this Plan) and file the CDC Form 128B in the C-File. Records staff shall review the CDC Form 128B, copy the identified disability verifying documents, attach them to a copy of the CDCForml28B, and forward the documents with the CDC Form 1121 to the appropriate parole region consistent with current procedures.

XI. PAROLE AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DIVISION - PAROLE PROCEEDINGS

All parolees shall be provided the opportunity to request a reasonable accommodation via a BPT Form 1073 to ensure effective communication and/or equal access to all parole proceedings. A BPT Form 1073 shall be provided to all parolees prior to any parole proceedings in order to identify the need for an accommodation during the proceeding.

Armstrong/BPT Parole Proceedings Remedial Plan

1/4/02

Page 40

A. PAROLE VIOLATIONS

i

1. DISCOVERY OF ALLEGED VIOLATION

a) Arrest and placement of a parole hold or date of discovery, or date of discovery for Not in Custody (NIC) cases.

When the parole agent personally arrests a parolee or discovers a violation for NIC cases, he/she will effectively communicate the reason for the arrest (parole violation charges) or the reason for placement of the parole hold and the parolee's right to appeal. The parole agent will document how he/she effectively communicated the violation charges to the parolee on the CDC Form 1650(d), Record of Supervision.

b) The Unit Supervisor (US) will ensure:

1) Revocation Scheduling and Tracking System (RSTS) record is initiated.

2) The reason for the parole hold is forwarded to the RU.

3) The notice of reason for the parole hold (CDC Form 1676) and notice of rights to appeal is initiated within one working day of arrest or discovery of an arrest or parole violation and is generally served via mail to the incarcerated parolee.

4) When it has been determined that a parolee cannot read or understand the notice of reasons for the parole hold and the right to appeal, the parolee will be personally provided a copy of the CDC Form 1676 by the parole agent no later than seven days after placement of the parole hold, using effective communication. The method of effective communication will be documented on the CDC Form 1650(d).

5) If the decision is to continue the parolee on parole at the unit level, a copy of the CDC Form 1502, Activity Report, or a CDC Form 1676 or RSTS equivalent with "Continue on Parole" clearly marked on it, is forwarded to the RU to close the record in RSTS and the parole hold is removed, if the parolee is in custody.

2. VIOLATION REPORT

a) The AOR submits the violation report to the typing pool by the end of the sixth working day after the date of the hold/discovery of the parole violation.

b) In addition to the CDC Form 1676, the revocation packet shall include the following documentation verifying a disability:

• BPT Form 1073 Notice and Request for Reasonable Accommodation • CDC Form 128B General Chrono • CDC Form 128C Chrono-Medicai, Psych, Dental • CDC Form 128C-1 Chrono-Reception Center Medical Clearance

Armstrong/BPTParole Proceedings Remedial Plan

1/4/02

Page 41

• CDC Form 128C-2 Chrono-Recommendation for Adaptive Support

• CDC Form 611 Release Program Study (revision date 05/01 or later), front

and back

A

• CDC Form 1824 Reasonable Modification or Accommodation Request

™

• CDC Form 1845 Inmate/Parolee Disability Verification

c) The US will review the violation report, ensure that the appropriate documentation is included, and if approved, sign the report within eight working days of the date of the parole hold/discovery of the parole violation.

d) The complete packet is forwarded to the appropriate RU for processing. Once received by the RU, staff will review the packet for completeness, including documents that verifies or disclaims a disability.

e) If the packet does not contain any of the documentation identified above, RU staff will fax a list daily to the appropriate Parole Case Records Office [Case Records North (CRN) or Case Records South (CRS)] requesting any documents that either identify a disability or refute a disability. Records staff will fax the documents to the RU no later than 24 hours after the request. The RHC or designee shall complete a checklist of all forms received prior to forwarding the revocation packet to the DC.

J) In cases where the RHC is requesting documentation and the central file has not been received at CRN or CRS, the following process will occur:

1) The Correctional Case Records Manager (CCRM) at CRN or CRS shall call the

I

CCRM at the institution where the C-File was last maintained prior to parole.

2) If the CCRM at the institution has the C-File, the CCRM at CRN or CRS shall immediately fax the request from the RHC to the institution for processing.

3) The CCRM at the institution shall pull the C-File and take it to the C&PR to identify what documents should be faxed to the RHC.

4) Once the documents are identified by the C&PR, the CCRM will ensure that they are copied and faxed to the RHC. A copy of the documents will also be sent to the parole unit. These documents need to be flagged for permanent retention in the field file when they are forwarded to the parole unit. If the inmate/parolee violates at a later time, the unit will have these documents readily available for inclusion with the violation report. This will eliminate the need for the RHC to request documents from the central file when the case is being screened.

5) A copy of the request shall not be placed in the central file. Once the documents have been sent to the RHC, the CCRM shall retain a folder with the request along with a copy of the documents that were faxed to the RHC.

Armstwng/BPT Parole Proceedings Remedial Plan

1/4/02

Page 42

6) The CCRM at the institution shall ensure that the central file is not mailed until the process is completed and the documents are faxed to the RHC.
g) In cases where the central file has already been mailed to CRN or CRS, the CCRM at the institution shall immediately fax a copy of the CDC Form 134 to the CCRM at the appropriate Parole Records Office, either CRN or CRS.
h) In cases where the RHC is requesting documentation and the central file was mailed to the RC from CRN or CRS, the following process will occur:
1) The CCRM at CRN or CRS shall call the CCRM at the appropriate RC and inform them of the request.
2) The CCRM at the appropriate Parole Records Office (CRN or CRS) shall fax the request to the CCRM at the RC along with the CDC Form 134 and notify the RHC of the status of the case.
3) Upon receipt of the C-File, the CCRM shall take the C-File to the RC CC-III to identify what documents should be faxed to the RHC.
4) Once the documents are identified by the RC CC-III, the CCRM will ensure that they are copied and faxed to the RHC. A copy of the documents will also be sent to the parole unit. These documents need to be flagged for permanent retention in the field file when they are forwarded to the parole unit. If the inmate/parolee violates at a later time, the unit will have these documents readily available for inclusion with the violation report. This will eliminate the need for the RHC to request documents from the C-File when the cases are being screened.
The request shall not be placed in the C-File, but retained in a folder by the CCRM.
i) The RU staff will prepare the revocation packet and BPT Form 1132, Control Log, for review at the next day's BPT Screening Calendar.
j) The RU staff will check the daily list of cases in RSTS that reflect no violation report has been received. Cases that have had a parole hold in place for 10 working days or more, and no action has been taken by the US or a violation report has not been submitted to the RU, shall be identified and forwarded to the US requesting an action to continue on parole or submit a violation report.
k) When a reply is received from the US, RU staff will update the status in RSTS.
B. PAROLE REVOCATION PROCESS
1. REVOCATION SCREENING
a) The BPT DC reviews the revocation packet to determine whether the parolee's conduct warrants a revocation proceeding. Public safety and due process are the

Armstrong/BPT Parole Proceedings Remedial Plan

1/4/02

Page 43

D C s concerns when making a decision to continue with revocation proceedings. The DC has the following options:

1) Place a parole hold on NIC cases.

™

2) Schedule an NIC case for a Revocation Hearing.

3) Remove the parole hold and schedule for an NIC hearing.

4) Retain the parole hold and make a screening offer or order a Revocation Hearing.

5) Continue on parole and order the parole hold removed.

6) Dismiss the charges and order the parole hold removed.

7) Credit for time served.

b) Reasonable accommodation shall be afforded to qualified parolees with disabilities, as defined in Title II of the ADA, when necessary, to ensure effective communication during all parole proceedings. -

c) The DC will review the revocation packet and assess whether the parolee requires the assistance of an attorney, either due to a determination of a colorable claim of innocence/mitigation or the complexity of the charges, as provided in CCR, Title 15, Sections 2690-2701.

d) The DC at the Screening Calendar will no longer take a screening action without

adequate positive or negative documentation verifying or disclaiming a disability.

*

Documentation can include the CDC Form 128C series, CDC Form 128B,

™

CDC Form 1845, a prior completed BPT Form 1073 with verifying documents or

documents that verify no disability, or specific documentation of a disability in the

violation report.

e) Parolees designated by the DC as requiring an attorney will not be referred to a DHA for the Service. These cases will be processed by BPT staff at a Region Revocation Unit and referred directly to an attorney for consultation and to the BCPA for a Due Process Review.

J) Parolees who are designated by the DC at Screening Calendar to require an attorney without the right to waive representation will include, at a minimum, all parolees presently suffering from a mental disorder which would require treatment in the CDC's MHSDS at the DMH, EOP, or MHCB level of care, and those identified as developmentally disabled. The DC at Screening Calendar may assign an attorney to parolees who have a right to waive representation (see categories listed in Section VI, C. Additionally, parolees may be assigned an attorney based on a determination of a colorable claim of innocence/mitigation, or complexity of the charges, as provided in CCR, Title 15, Sections 2690-2701.

Armstrong/BPT Parole Proceedings Remedial Plan

1/4/02

Page 44

2. SERVICE OF NOTICE OF HEARING RIGHTS
a) Prior to the Service of Rights (Service), the DHA shall review the revocation packet for information to determine whether the parolee requires reasonable accommodation to effectively communicate at the serve process. For those parolees who require an auxiliary aid to effectively communicate (hearing or speech impaired), the RHC shall ensure the accommodation is provided prior to meeting with the parolee. If the auxiliary aid is not available, the RHC shall ensure the BPT ADA Coordinator is contacted for the appropriate accommodation.
b) The DHA Service shall be conducted on or about the 20th day after the parole hold. A parolee scheduled for a hearing as an NIC case shall be served with hearing rights as soon as possible after the DCs action to schedule a hearing.
c) The DHA will conduct the Service of Hearing Rights on parolees not designated by the DC as attorney/BCPA Review cases. For those parolees who require use of a sign language interpreter, the DHA will not complete the service without the assistance of a sign language interpreter approved and provided by the BPT. The DHA shall initiate the contact with the parolee by having them complete the BPT Form 1073, Section II, allowing them the chance to self-identify any disabilities and request for accommodation. The DHA shall then complete Section III, documenting his/her observation of the parolee. If no additional accommodation is needed, the DHA will continue with the Service. The DHA will be required to complete a BPT Form 1100(a), Notice of Right to Revocation Hearing-Acknowledgement, by reviewing the Rights with the parolee and obtaining the parolee's initials in Section A indicating that he/she understands his/her rights. The DHA will then have the parolee initial Section B, indicating he/she has been informed of the 72-hour waiting period; Section C, indicating he/she has received copies of the revocation documents; and Section D, indicating he/she has received copies of the worksheets. In conjunction with completion of this form, the DHA will provide the following revocation documents to the parolee, using effective communication:
1) BPT Form 1073 (completed during the DHA Service)
2) BPT Form 1100, Notice of Rights to Revocation Hearing
3) BPT Form 1104, Summary of Revocation Decision (include both pages)
4) "Olsonized" copy of the violation report
5) "Olsonized" copy of any police reports or other reports that support the charges
6) BPT Form 1100(b)-W, Request for Witnesses-Worksheet, and advise the parolee/inmate to provide the BPT Form 1100(b>Worksheet to the BCPA at the time their decision is collected and recorded, no sooner than 72 hours from the time of the DHA Service.

Armstrong/BPT Parole Proceedings Remedial Plan

1/4/02

Page 45

7) BPT Form 1083-W, Attorney Request-Worksheet, and advise the

parolee/inmate to provide the BPT Form 1083-Worksheet to the BCPA at the

time their decision is collected and recorded, no sooner than 72 hours from the

A

time of the DHA Service.

™

d) The DHA shall not:

1) Accept a decision by a parolee regarding the Screening Offer.

2) Complete the Service for a parolee who has been provided an attorney at the initial screening by the BPT.

e) Upon completion of the DHA Service, the revocation packet used by the DHA will be returned to the RU. The RU staff will forward the completed Serve packet, within 48 hours of the DHA Service, to the designated BCPA pick-up point for a BCPA Review. The DHA shall ensure the following documents and forms are included in the revocation packet before forwarding it back to the RU:

1) The original violation report (not Olsonized)

2) The original police report(s) or other documents supporting the charges (not Olsonized)

3) The original of the BPT Form 1073 (completed by the DHA during the Service)

4) The original of the BPT Form 1100(a) '

{

5) The original of the BPT Form 1104 (include both pages)

6) The original CDC Form 1676 Tracking Sheet

7) A blank BPT Form 1100(b), Request for Witnesses

8) A blank BPT Form 1101, Waiver of Revocation Hearing

9) A blank or incomplete BPT Form 1654, Witness List

3. BCPA DUE PROCESS REVIEW
a) A BCPA Review will be conducted on all cases after the DHA has conducted the initial Serve. The BCPA will pick up the revocation packet and complete a BCPA Review within seven calendar days, following the DHA Service. The BCPA will initiate the Review by first completing a BPT Form 1073(b), BCPA Due Process/ADA Review, on each parolee. During the review, the BPT Form 1101, BPT Form 1676, and BPT Form 1654, as appropriate, will be completed, and the parolee's decision and signature will be placed on the BPT Form 1104. If at an institution, it is the responsibility of the BCPA to

Armstrong/BPT Parole Proceedings Remedial Plan

1/4/02

Page 46

coordinate with the C&PR/RC CC-III the date and time of their BCPA Review at least two working days prior to their arrival.
Note: If a parolee has a disability and waives reasonable accommodation and staff believe that the disability may preclude the parolee from participating or effectively communicating at the parole proceeding without an accommodation, the BCPA shall ensure the need for accommodation is recorded and provided to the RU.
b) Upon completion of the BCPA Review, the parolee decision will be forwarded to the RU for RSTS input.
1) In cases of a parolee's rejection of the screening offer, the RU will proceed with hearing preparation.
2) In cases when the parolee accepts the screening offer or chooses to take an optional waiver, the RU will input the results in RSTS.
3) If a parolee who chose an optional waiver later activates the hearing option, the case will be forwarded to the designated BCPA pick-up point for completion of Service in accordance with the aforementioned protocol.
c) If the parolee is denied an attorney by the BCPA, and the parolee appeals that decision, the BCPA will be responsible for forwarding the appeal to a DC at Central Office Calendar. The BCPA will ultimately be responsible for ensuring all due process rights have been afforded the parolee, and that the parolee has been advised of the ADA protections and any need for accommodation properly identified to ensure equal access.
d) In cases where new information is discovered during the BCPA Review that could impact liberty or future BPT actions, the BCPA will be responsible for conducting any necessary research, documenting the circumstances, and forwarding a BPT Form 1135 to a DC at the Central Office Calendar for consideration. Upon completion of the DC review, the BPT will fax the completed BPT Form 1135 to the RU, the institution's Records Office, or CRN or CRS for processing, whichever is appropriate. The original Miscellaneous Decision should be mailed to the same location.
4. ATTORNEY CASES
a) If an attorney is assigned at the time of screening by the BPT's DC, the BPT staff at the RU shall be responsible for preparing and delivering the packets to the attorney and the BCPA. The BCPA will complete the entire Revocation Service process.
b) Upon receipt of a revocation packet, the BCPA will note the due date of the BPT Form 1104(b) and complete the Service and Due Process Review (BCPA Review) as soon as possible following the Screening Calendar action, but not later than five calendar days. It is the responsibility of the BCPA to coordinate with the C&PR/RC CC-III the date and time of their BCPA Review at least two working days prior to their arrival.

A rmstrong/BPT Parole Proceedings Remedial Plan

1/4/02

Page 4 7

c) The attorney will be given 10 working days from the date of the Screening Calendar

action to meet and consult with his/her client in preparation of the hearing, or to

notify the BPT of the parolee's intent to accept the Screening Offer via the

A

BPTFormll04(b).

"

d) After meeting with the parolee, the attorney will deliver the BPT Form 1104(b) to the BCPA or designee. Both the attorney and the parolee must sign and date the BPTFormll04(b).

e) The BCPA will forward the completed documents, including the BPT Form 1104 and the BPT Form 1104(b) to the RU for processing. If the documents are faxed, the BCPA will forward the original documents to the RU the same day they are faxed.

f) If the attorney requests an extension, the BCPA will fax a BPT Form 1104(c), Inmate/Parolee Waiver Form, to the attorney. The attorney will immediately sign the form, fax it back to the BCPA, and mail or deliver the original to the RU for placement in the revocation packet.

g) If the BPT Form 1104(b) is not returned within the 10 working day period and an
Inmate/Parolee Waiver Form is not received, the BCPA will complete the Service paperwork, indicating the case is to be scheduled for a hearing. On the 11th working
day, the BCPA will request the RU to schedule a Revocation Hearing.

h) Once the BCPA requests a hearing, the attorney will not be permitted to invoke

acceptance of a Screening Offer without approval by an ACDC.

m

i) If the ACDC approves acceptance of a Screening Offer after the revocation documents have been completed by the BCPA, the ACDC shall have the attorney and inmate document the acceptance on a BPT Form 1104(b) and return it to the ACDC immediately. The ACDC will complete a new BPT Form 1104 reflecting the change in decision. The ACDC will fax a copy of the new BPT Form 1104 and BPT Form 1104(b) to the RU, and mail the original. The RU shall cancel the Revocation Hearing, if appropriate.

j) In those cases where an attorney is determined by the BCPA to be necessary due to previously unidentified ADA issues, the BCPA will immediately notify the appropriate BPT staff member at Region Revocation of the need for an attorney. After the BPT assigns an attorney, the BCPA will coordinate delivery of the attorney packet within 48 hours. The attorney will have 10 calendar days to meet with his/her client and determine whether to accept the Screening Offer or to proceed with a hearing. The remainder of the process will mirror that as outlined above, with the exception of the time frames being measured in calendar days from the date of the BCPA Review.

k) In those cases where an attorney is determined by the BCPA to be necessary based

upon the BPT Form 1083, Attorney Determination, the BCPA will notify

the BPT of the need for attorney representation at the hearing. The BCPA will

—

complete the revocation documents, requesting the case be scheduled for a hearing,

»

Armstrong/BPT Parole Proceedings Remedial Plan

1/4/02

Page 48

and deliver the original revocation packet to the RU for processing and scheduling of the hearing. The parolee has the option of accepting the Screening Offer, provided the attorney notifies the RU at least 10 calendar days prior to the scheduled hearing date. A decision to accept the Screening Offer shall be recorded by the attorney and inmate on a BPT Form 1104(b). Both the attorney and inmate must sign the BPT Form 1104(b).

I) When an attorney is assigned as a result of the BPT Form 1083, the attorney will deliver the BPT Form 1104(b) to the RHC. The RHC will forward the form to the Screening Calendar for completion of a new BPT Form 1104 by a DC. The DC will complete and return the form to the RHC on the same date.

5. REVOCATION HEARING

Prior to the Revocation Hearing, the DHA shall be responsible for the following:

a) Ensure the hearing packet is complete.

b) Ensure that accommodations have been arranged for disabled parolees in order to ensure they are able to participate in the parole proceeding.

c) "Clerk" the Revocation Hearing.

XII. GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES

•

Any inmate's/parolee's request for accommodation via the BPT Form 1073 may be grieved by

filing a BPT Form 1074, Request for Reasonable Accommodation - Grievance Process. These

grievances shall be decided prior to a scheduled hearing.

The C&PR/RC CC-III shall maintain a log of all BPT Forms 1074 received indicating name of inmate/parolee, CDC number, date received, the grievance issue, date(s) faxed to the BPT ADA Coordinator/Chief Deputy Commissioner, date(s) returned from the BPT ADA Coordinator/Chief Deputy Commissioner, and the decision(s) rendered for all BPT Forms 1074 filed at an institution.

A. REVOCATION AND REVOCATION EXTENSION PROCESS

There are two levels of review and disposition:
First Level Review: BPT ADA Coordinator Second Level Review: Chief Deputy Commissioner

1. FIRST LEVEL REVIEW: BPT ADA COORDINATOR
a) During the due process review, the BCPA will review the BPT Form 1073 with the inmate/parolee and explain the grievance process via the BPT Form 1074. The BPT Form 1073 review will be documented on a BPT Form 1073(b), Due Process/ADA Review.

Armstrong/BPTParole Proceedings Remedial Plan

1/4/02

Page 49

b) If the inmate/parolee is not satisfied with the accommodation provided, or if the

BCPA denies the request for reasonable accommodation, the BCPA will provide the

inmate/parolee with a BPT Form 1074. The inmate/parolee shall complete

mL

Section A.

^

c) If the inmate/parolee submits the BPT Form 1074 to the BCPA during the Due Process Review, the BCPA shall ensure that the BPT Form 1074 is thoroughly completed and faxed to the BPT ADA Coordinator at (916) 324-7603 along with the BPT Form 1073(b). In addition, the BCPA shall provide assistance, if needed, for completion of the form. Any relevant supporting document not previously provided with the BPT Form 1073 shall also be faxed by the BCPA.

d) If the inmate/parolee wishes to file the BPT Form 1074 after the BCPA has

completed the due process review, the BPT Form 1074 may be submitted to a

CC-I/DHA or BCPA, or mailed directly to: Board of Prison Terms, Attention:

BPT ADACU, 1515 K Street, Suite 600, Sacramento, CA 95814. The BCPA is the

appropriate staff member to provide assistance in county facilities. If the

BPT Form 1074 is filed at an institution, the staff member receiving the grievance

shall immediately forward it to the C&PR/RC CC-III. The C&PR/RC CC-III shall

ensure that staff assistance is provided, if necessary, to complete the

BPT Form 1074 and shall be responsible for faxing the grievance to the BPT ADA

Coordinator within 24 hours of receipt. The C&PR/RC CC-III will not need to fax

the BPT Form 1073 and BPT Form 1073(b) since these documents will already be

on file at the BPT. The inmate/parolee must submit the BPT Form 1074 within five

days from the date the request was denied (date of BPT Due Process Review).

gz

e) The BPT ADA Coordinator will ensure that the database is updated upon receipt of the BPT Form 1073, BPT Form 1073(b), BPT Form 1074, and any other relevant documents.

f) The BPT ADA Coordinator will review the BPT forms along with all relevant documentation (e.g., CDC Form 1845, CDC Form 128C series, etc.) if available, to either verify or refute the existence of an ADA defined disability.

g) The BPT ADA Coordinator will review the parolee's request for accommodation and determine whether the prisoner/parolee is a qualified person with a disability as defined under ADA. The BPT ADA Coordinator will carefully consider whether the request for accommodation is necessary for the prisoner/parolee to overcome any barriers for effective communication and/or equal access to any parole proceeding.

h) The BPT ADA Coordinator will document the decision to Grant, Grant with Changes, or Deny the request on Section B of the BPT Form 1074. In deciding what accommodation to provide, primary consideration shall be given to the method requested by the inmate/parolee.

i) A decision to deny a request for reasonable accommodation may be made if there is

no documentation to verify the disability.

g*

Armstrong/BPT Parole Proceedings Remedial Plan

1/4/02

Page 50

j) The BPT Form 1074 shall be returned via fax to the C&PR/RC CC-III/RHC within five working days from date the BPT received the BPT Form 1074.

:#

k) If the documentation indicates a mobility impairment that would require an

accessible facility, the BPT ADA Coordinator must ensure that the parole

proceedings are held in an accessible facility.

I) The BPT ADA Coordinator will coordinate the accommodation(s) with the C&PR/CC-I, DHA, or BCPA.

m) The C&PR/RC CC-III/RHC will ensure that the BPT Form 1074 is delivered to the inmate/parolee via institutional mail/regular mail. However, if the inmate/parolee has been identified with a specific need for assistance with effective communication, the CC-I/DHA will be required to deliver and effectively communicate the BPT ADA Coordinator's decision to the inmate/parolee.

n) If the inmate/parolee is not satisfied with the BPT ADA Coordinator's decision, the inmate/parolee may seek review of that decision by completing Section C of the BPT Form 1074 and submitting it to the BPT Chief Deputy Commissioner for the second level review and disposition. The BPT Form 1074 may be submitted to a CC-I/DHA or mailed directly to: Board of Prison Terms, Attention: BPT ADACU, 1515 K Street, Suite 600, Sacramento, CA 95814.

2. SECOND LEVEL REVIEW: CHIEF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

a) Upon receipt of the BPT Form 1074 and any supporting documents, if necessary, the Chief Deputy Commissioner will ensure that the information from the BPT Form 1074 is entered into the database for tracking purposes.
b) The Chief Deputy Commissioner may deny, without review, any grievance received less than five days prior to the hearing.
c) The Chief Deputy Commissioner will review all pertinent documents and document his/her decision in Section D of the BPT Form 1074 prior to the hearing.
d) The BPT Form 1074 shall be returned via fax to the C&PR/RC CC-III/RHC within five working days from date the BPT received the BPT Form 1074, or the date of the parole proceedings, whichever comes first.
e) The C&PR/RC CC-III/RHC will coordinate providing the approved accommodation with the BPT ADA Coordinator, if applicable.
J) The C&PR/RC CC-III/RHC will ensure that the BPT Chief Deputy Commissioner's decision is delivered and effectively communicated to all inmates/parolees identified with a specific need for assistance with effective communication, and inform the inmate/parolee that the grievance process via the BPT Form 1074 has been exhausted.

Armstrong/BPT Parole Proceedings Remedial Plan

1/4/02

Page 51

B. LIFE INMATE, MDO, AND SVP PAROLE PROCEEDINGS

The decision to grant or deny an inmate's request for a reasonable accommodation via the

£

BPT Form 1073 will be rendered by the BPT ADA Coordinator. For this reason, if an

™

inmate wishes to file a grievance, the grievance will bypass the first level of review.

1. SECOND LEVEL REVIEW: CHIEF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

a) The CC-I will provide the BPT Form 1073 to the inmate using effective communication, at the beginning of the Service of Rights and notice of a hearing, and explain the grievance process via the BPT Form 1074. The inmate will be given the opportunity to request a reasonable accommodation. The C&PR/RC CC-III shall fax the BPT Form 1073 requesting an accommodation along with supporting documents to the BPT ADA Coordinator at (916) 324-7603.

b) Upon receipt of the BPT Form 1073 along with supporting documents, the BPT ADA Coordinator will review and document the decision to Grant, Grant with Changes, or Deny the request on a BPT Form 1073(a). The completed BPT Form 1073 (a) and relevant documents shall be returned to the C&PR/RC CC-III for action within five working days from date the BPT Form 1073 was received.

c) The C&PR/RC CC-III will ensure that the BPT ADA Coordinator's decision is

delivered and effectively communicated to all inmates identified with a specific

need for assistance with effective communication by the CC-I.

' i

d) If the inmate is not satisfied with the BPT ADA Coordinator's decision, the

^

CC-I will provide the inmate with a BPT Form 1074 with Sections A and B marked

"bypassed." The inmate shall complete Section C of the BPT Form 1074. The

CC-I shall immediately forward the BPT Form 1074 to the C&PR/RC CC-III. The

C&PR/RC CC-III shall be responsible for faxing the grievance to the BPT ADA

Chief Deputy Commissioner within 24 hours of receipt. The C&PR/RC CC-III will

not need to fax the BPT Form 1073 and BPT Form 1073 (a) since these documents

will already be on file at the BPT.

e) Upon receipt of the BPT Form 1074 and any relevant supporting documents, the Chief Deputy Commissioner will ensure that the information from the BPT Form 1074 is entered into the database for tracking purposes.

f) The Chief Deputy Commissioner will review all pertinent documents and complete Section D of the BPT Form 1074 and fax it to the C&PR/RC CC-III within five working days from date the BPT received the BPT Form 1074, or the date of the parole proceedings, whichever comes first.

g) The C&PR/RC CC-III will coordinate with the BPT ADA Coordinator in providing the approved accommodation, if applicable.

h) The C&PR/RC CC-III will ensure that the BPT Chief Deputy Commissioner's

decision is delivered and effectively communicated to all inmates identified with a

mt

Armstrong/BPT Parole Proceedings Remedial Plan

1/4/02

Page 52

specific need for assistance with effective communication, and inform the inmate that the grievance process via the BPT Form 1074 has been exhausted.

:#

XIII. APPEALS PROCEDURES

A. Any inmate/parolee under the BPT's jurisdiction may appeal any decision of the BPT, which affects that person, except a decision to schedule a hearing or the denial of an appeal by the second level reviewers.

B. All administrative appeals alleging violations of the ADA or its implementing regulations shall be treated as ADA grievances (refer to Section XII, for grievance procedures to be used if a grievance is filed prior to a parole proceeding), and any successive appeal on the non-ADA merits of a decision shall not be deemed barred due to the filing of the ADA-related grievance or grievances.

C. All ADA-related appeals filed following a parole proceeding are to be decided within 30 days of the BPT's receipt of the appeal form:

1. The appeal shall be submitted using the BPT Form 1040. The BPT Form 1073, and the BPT Form 1074, if used, must be attached to the BPT Form 1040.
2. The inmate's appeal shall be forwarded to the BPT's Office of Policy and Appeals for review and a response.
3. The Office of Policy and Appeals shall respond to the appeal within 30 days of receipt.

D. Inmates and parolees with disabilities who cannot use or understand the appeal process or prepare an appeal themselves by reason of their disability shall be provided with effective assistance (staff, attorney, or other accommodation) in preparing a BPT appeal.

E. If an inmate/parolee files an ADA issue on a BPT form and the issue is not under the jurisdiction of the BPT, the BPT is to forward the appeal to the appropriate institution or parole region. The Appeals Coordinator will ensure the appeal is attached to the proper form. The appeal shall then be answered accordingly in a timely manner^ Under no circumstances shall an ADA appeal be returned to an inmate/parolee because it is not on the correct form.

XIV TRAINING

The CDC will provide training to institutional classification and parole staff on an annual basis. This training shall include all relevant sections of the Remedial Plan for classification and parole.

Armstrong/BPT Parole Proceedings Remedial Plan

1/4/02

Page 53

BOARD OF PRISON TERMS

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

REQUEST FOR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION - GRIEVANCE PROCESS

BPT 1074

Log Number:

INMATE OR PAROLEE TO COMPLETE

Fill out this form, if you did not get help for your disability, or do not like the decision made on your BPT Form 1073. If you need more space attach another sheet of paper.
1. Your complaint:

2. What you want done:.

You have five Y5) davs to send this form to the BPT ADA Coordinator at 1515 K Street, Suite 600, Sacramento CA 95814, or give this form to a staff person, or your Attorney to send to the BPT ADA Coordinator. The first level decision will be sent to you within 7 davs from the date it was received by the ADA Coordinator, or before your parole proceeding (which ever comes first).

(Print name)

#

B.

(Inmate or parolee sign here)

CDC Number

FIRST LEVEL-BPT ADA COORDINATOR

Date

Date received by BPT:

Decision • Granted

• Granted with Changes

• Denied

• No Action Required

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS:

BASIS FOR DECISION:

BPT ADA Coordinator/Designee Signature

Date

INSTRUCTIONS T O INMATE OR PAROLEE
r ^ l f you do not like the decision made by the BPT ADA Coordinator, fill out Section C, on page 2. If received ffl^within 10 days after the first level decision, the Chief Deputy Commissioner will consider the 2 level
anevance

BOARD OF PRISON TERMS

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

REQUEST FOR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION - GRIEVANCE PROCESS

BPT 1074

Log Number:

-rmmm'^

The final decision will be sent to you within five (5) days or before your parole proceeding (which ever comes first).
D I disagree with the denial of my request for help, because:

Inmate/Parolee Print Name

inmate/Parolee Sign Here

CDC Number

Date

O.

SECOND LEVEL - CHIEF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

Date Received by ADACU:

Type of Parole Proceeding:

Decision D Granted

• Granted with Changes

• Denied

Scheduled Date: • Dismissed

Chief Deputy Commissioner Signature

Date Completed

E , •••••' •.• ; ; ; : : . . ; v : ; . ; : . : ; • . . ; ; > ; : T O I N M i O E O R P A R Q L B E
1. The Chief Deputy Commissioner will make the final decision on the grievance process. 2. If you disagree with the Chief Deputy Commissioner's decision, you may file an appeal using a BPT Form
1040 after a hearing. You must send the appeal, within 90 days after getting the written decision, to the BPT Office of Policy and Appeals. (Title 15, CCR, section 2052(c)
BPT Office of Policy and Appeals 1515 K Street, Suite 600 Sacramento, CA 95814
3. All ADA related appeals shall be answered within 30 days from the time the appeal was received at BPT.

NAME

CDC NUMBER

TYPE OF PROCEEDING

DATE OF PROCEEDING

ijOCATION

State of California
NAME and NUMBER

CDC 128-B

I reviewed Inmate

(CDC #

) C-File in accordance with Section X of the Armstrong v. Davis

Ipard of Prison Terms Parole Proceedings Remedial Plan to identify the most recent ADA documents to prepare the inmate for transition

jjarole. The C-File review revealed the following:

CDC 1845

• CDC 128C-1/CDC 128C-1A

DATE

DATE

CDC 128C (Medical)

PI CDC 128C-2

DATE

CDC 128C (MHSDS)

|~| Other:

DATE

DESCRIBE

C D C 128B (TABE Reading Score of 4.0 or lower)

No Disability Related Documents

Comments:

Print Name DATE:

Signature ADA DOCUMENTS FOR TRANSITION TO PAROLE

Title INST: GENERAL CHRONO

State of California
NAME and NUMBER

CDC 128-B

I reviewed Inmate

(CDC #_

J C-File in accordance with Section X of the Armstrong v. Davis

Board of Prison Terms Parole Proceedings Remedial Plan to identify the most recent ADA documents to prepare the inmate for transition to parole. The C-File review revealed the following:

• CDC 1845
CDC 128C (Medical)

[~] CDC 128C-1/CDC 128C-1A
DTE
[~| CDC 128C-2

["I Other:

C D C 128B (TABE Reading Score of 4.0 or lower)

P~] No Disability Related Documents

Comments:

Print Name DATE:

Signature ADA DOCUMENTS FOR TRANSITION TO PAROLE

Title INST: GENERAL CHRONO

State of California
NAME and NUMBER

CDC 128-B

I reviewed Inmate

(CDC #_

_) C-File in accordance with Section X of the Armstrong v. Davis

Board of Prison Terms Parole Proceedings Remedial Plan to identify the most recent ADA documents to prepare the inmate for transition

to parole. The C-File review revealed the following:

• CDC 1845

P I CDC 128C-1/CDC 128C-1A
ATE

CDC 128C (Medical)

f~l CDC128C-2

CDC 128C (MHSDS)
| [ C D C 128B (TABE Reading Score of 4.0 or lower)

j~1 Other:
DESCRIBE
No Disability Related Documents

C\jmomimmeeints:

Print Name DATE:

Signature
ADA DOCUMENTS FOR TRANSITION TO PAROLE

Title INST: GF.NF.RAI CKWONO

BOARD OP PRISON TERMS

STATE OF CAUFORNIA

BPT 1073 - NOTICE AND REQUEST FOR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION

Documents verifying/identifying disability: (Check ail verifying do mts and attach capias to 1073.)

CDC128CDCDC128C-1 • CDC 128C-2 • CDC 611 • CDC 1845 • CDC 1515 D Current BPT 1073

• CDC 128B (TABE 4.0 or lower) Score/GPL

• Other documents

D No verifying documents in file

QAccommodation is required for effective communication and/or access (enter type, i.e., sign language interpreter, staff assistance, assistive listening device, alternate accessible location, etc.):

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a law to help people with disabilities. Disabilities are problems that make it harder for some people to see, hear, breathe, talk, walk, learn, think, work, or take care of themselves than it is for others. Nobody can be kept out of public places or activities because of a disability. If you have a disability, you have the right to ask for help to get ready for your BPT hearing, get to the hearing, talk, read forms and papers, and understand the hearing process. BPT will look at what you ask for to make sure that you have a disability, that is covered by the ADA, and that you have asked for the right kind of help. If you do not get help, or if you don't think you got the kind of help you need, ask for a BPT 1074 Grievance Form. You can also get help to fill it out.

• I do not have a disability. (Sign and date at the "X" below.) • I do have a disability. My disability is:

• Seeing

• Talking • Reading • Hearing • Walking

• Understanding/Learning • Mental Problems • Other

I need help for my parole hearing: (Check an boxes that apply to you)

J~\ Reading • Understanding • Talking

^ J Hearing Device (type)

• Wheelchair or

• Visual Aids/optical device (type)

• Walking

• Sign language Interpreter (type)

• Other

• Attorney

• I do not need help for my parole hearing.

X

X

Prisoner/Parolee Signature

CDC#

Date Signed

HI iNtTSAL SERVICE OF RIGHTS (STAFF ONLY)

I have informed prisoner/parolee of the above information, and any relevant charges, and have determined

that he/she: Q Appears to understand.

• Appears to have difficulty understanding.

• Non—English Speaking (indicate language):

d ! EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION METHOD USED: (Sign language interpreter, staff assistance, assistive device, alternate accessible location, etc.): Comments:

Staff Name and Title (please print)

Staff Signature

TYPE OF HEARING

PRINT NAME AND WRITE INITIALS

|
w
NAME

CDC#

TYPE OF HEARING

Date

TITLE ,

INSTITUTION/REGION

DATE

DATE OF HEARING

LOCATION

DEFINITIONS

Parole Proceedings means all BPT proceedings. They are also things that happen before or after the hearings. These may be:

Service of Rights BCPA Review Revocation Hearing Revocation Extension Hearing MDO Hearing (Mentally Disordered Offender)

Psychiatric Evaluations SVP Hearing (Sexually Violent Predator) Documentation Hearing Initial/Subsequent Hearing Progress Hearing

Rescission Hearing In re Stanworth Hearing BPT Appeals/Grievances Olson reviews Lifer parole plans Preparation for a hearing

TYPES OF ACCOMMODATIONS
Reasonable Accommodation means the kind of help you need at hearings. This may be help getting
to, talking at, or understanding the hearing. Some kinds of help may include:

1. Alternative formats: You may ask for BPT forms in Braille, audiocassette, or large print. Most BPT forms have been changed to simple English. The BPT Forms that were not changed will come with an explanation in simple English.

2. Auxiliary Aids and Services: Below are the types of accommodations that may be available if you have a disability. You may ask for an accommodation by using the BPT 1073 form.

Hearing Impairment (hearing)

Vision Impairment (seeing)

Learning Disabilities (learning)

Assistive Hearing Devices Qualified Sign Language interpreters Telecommunications devices for deaf persons (TDD's) Telephone handset amplifiers Computer-aided transcription services
* Closed caption decoders Open and closed captioning Videotext displays Exchange of written notes Note takers

Magnifying Devices

Staff Assistance

' Large print materials

Legal counsel

- Audiocassettes

Highlighter pens and markers

- Braided materials

• Audio taped materials

• Assistance

Regional Center advocates

navigating and

Reading windows, rulers, or

locating items

angled book stands

> Qualified readers

Qualified readers

Speech Impairment (talking)
Staff Assistance TDD machines Computer terminals Speech synthesizers Communication books or boards Qualified interpreters

Mobility impairments (walking)
• Accessibility • Wheelchair • Cane • Staff Assistance

Mental Impairments /Developmental Disabilities
(thinking)
• Staff assistance • Legal counsel • Regional Center advocates • Qualified interpreters

Section I: Pre-lnterview File Review (Staff Only): Staff shall perform a review of all relevant and reasonably available Central File (C-file), field file and/or revocation packet prior to first contact with the inmate/parolee involved in a screening offer, parole hearing or other parole proceedings. The inmate/parolee's name, CDC number, the type of parole proceeding, and the institution/region/county jail where the inmate/parolee is located shall be noted at the bottom of the form, under Section IV, prior to any other action occurring.

Section I requires a review of documentation to determine whether or not the inmate/parolee has a disability, which to be accommodated at the parole proceeding. The appropriate boxes shall be checked for items that identify a disability that may result in the need for a reasonable accommodation.
Section I is completed by the various staff at the different parole proceedings as described below:

Parole Revocation Extension/Parole Revocation within CDC Facilities: The Classifications & Paroles Representative (C&PR), Reception Center Correctional Counselor III (RC CC-III) or a designee shall conduct a review of the inmate's C-File, complete Section I, and ensure documents which identify/verify a potential disability are attached to the form. The form with attachments shall be provided to the Deputy Commissioner (DC) with the revocation packet. Following screening, the form with attachments shall be provided to the Correctional Counselor (CC-I) or Board Coordinating Parole Agent (BCPA) for completion of Sections II and III, or IV, if applicable.

Mentally Disordered Offenders (MDO)/Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) Proceedings: The Institution MDO/SVP Coordinators, the C&PR/RC CC-III, or a designee shall complete Section I as indicated above. The form with attachments shall be provided to the assigned CC-I for completion of Sections II and III, or IV, if applicable. (A second BPT 1073 will not be completed when an MDO proceeding results in a Revocation Hearing.)

Parole Revocation Proceedings by P&CSD: The Regional Hearing Coordinator (RHC) or designee shall forward all documents which identify/verify a disability, which were identified by the file review to the DC with the revocation packet. Prior to first contact with the parolee, the District Hearing Agent (DHA) or BCPA shall review the documents, attach them to the form and complete Sections I, II, and III of the form, or Section IV, if applicable.

Life Prisoner Proceedings: The CC-I shall complete the C-file review and Section I as described above for all Life Prisoner parole proceedings.

If a sign language interpreter is required, the following Sections shall not be completed without the assistance of_

an interpreter approved by BPT.

fl

Section II, Prisoner/Parolee Rights: The CC-I/DHA/BCPA shall advise the inmate/parolee of his/her rights and explain the meaning of the upcoming parole proceeding. The CC-I/DHA/BCPA shall read the ADA statement, at the beginning of Section II, to each inmate/parolee. The second portion of this section is for the inmate/parolee to complete by selfdeclaring whether he/she has a disability. If the inmate/parolee is unable to complete this section, the CC-I/DHA/BCPA shall provide assistance by recording the responses given by the inmate/parolee and note in Section III that assistance was provided.

Section III, initial Service of Rights (Staff Only): The CC-I/DHA/BCPA shall document his/her observations in this section. The CC-I/DHA/BCPA is to document whether it appears the inmate/parolee understands the reason for the parole proceedings and his/her rights. If the inmate/parolee is non-English speaking, his/her language of preference shall be indicated on the space provided. If an accommodation is used, the CC-I/DHA/BCPA shall indicate the type of accommodation and whether or not it appeared that the inmate/parolee understood the process. In addition, any accommodation not requested, but recommended by the CC-I/DHA/BCPA, based upon his/her observation, shall be noted in the Comments Section.

Section IV, Review Indicating No Changes: This Section is for the C&PR/RC CC-III/CC-I/DHA/BCPA to update the form when a new parole proceeding is initiated. Staffs signature in this Section is verification that the form has been reviewed with the inmate/parolee and no changes were noted. When all of the update boxes have been filled, or there is a change in the disability information and/or request for reasonable accommodation, staff shall initiate a new BPT 1073 Form and complete the process as previously described.

This section requires appropriate staff to review the C-File/Revocation Packet and assess whether any change in the inmate/parolee's disability information has occurred. If the inmate/parolee has been in continual custody since the last BPT 1073 Form was completed, no changes are noted in the documentation, and the inmate/parolee did not previously have a disability, staff can update the form as previously indicated. If no changes are noted, and the inmate previously had a disability, staff shall interview the inmate/parolee to confirm the requested accommodation remains unchanged. If
1 the inmate/parolee indicated there is no change in his/her request, the staff member shall complete Section IV. However,
if the inmate/parolee's request for an accommodation has changed, a new BPT 1073 Form must be completed.
Distribution: Original: Central File Copies: BPT, Field File, and Inmate/Parolee

PRINTED ON BACK OF PAGE 1 OF BPT 1073 (FIRST PAGE OF NCR PAPER*

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

NOTICE AND CONDITIONS OF PAROLE

Provisional

CDC 1515 (Rev 11/01)

SECTION I-INMATE/PAROLEE RIGHTS AND SELF IDENTIFICATION

ou have a problem seeing, talking, hearing, reading or understanding, you have a right to receive help with this form. If you do

get help, or you don't think you got the land of help you need, ask for a CDC 1824, Reasonable Modification and

immodation Request form. You can also get help to fill out the form.

I need help with:

• Seeing • Talking • Reading • Hearing Q I do not need help with any of the above.

• Understanding

• Other

X_

Inmate's/Parolee's Initials Date

SECTION n-GENERAL PAROLE INFORMATION

You will be released on parole on

. You will be on parole for years. You must obey these conditions of parole. If you do not, you may be

arrested, time may be added to your parole, and/or you can be sent back to prison. You, your residence, and your property can be searched at any time of the

day or night, with or without a search warrant and with or without a reason. The search can be done by a parole agent or any other peace officer.

When you sign these Conditions of Parole, you agree that: - If you are allowed to leave California, you will come back when told to do so. - If you have mental health problems that make you a danger to yourself or others, you can be sent to a hospital, a clinic or back to prison. - If another agency has a hold on you, you may be released to that agency. If you are released from their custody before the end of your parole, you must
contact the nearest California parole office immediately. They will tell you what you need to do. - You have been told how to get a Certificate of Rehabilitation (Penal Code [PC] Section 4852.21)

SECTION m-CONDITIONS OF PAROLE 1. SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF PAROLE: These are special rules that you must obey either because of past crimes you have committed or to prevent you from committing future crimes:

Reason(s) for special conditions of parole:

UNIT SUPERVISOR'S SIGNATURE

DATE SIGNED

2. RESIDENCE AND TRAVEL: Your parole agent must always know where you are living and working. You must notify your parole agent of any address change before you move. You must tell your parole agent, within 72 hours, if you change jobs, the location of your job or if you lose your job. 3. PAROLE AGENT INSTRUCTIONS: You must do what your parole agent tells you to do. You cannot travel over 50 miles from your home without your parole agent's approval. You must have your parole agent's written permission if you are away from your county of residence for over 48 hours. You must have your parole agent's written permission before you can leave California.
4. CRIMINAL CONDUCT: You must obey all laws. You must notify your parole agent immediately if you are arrested, cited, or released from custody for any crime. If you break the law, your parole can be violated by the Board of Prison Terms (BPT) even if you are not charged with a crime or convicted in court. 5. WEAPONS: You must not be around firearms, items that look like real firearms, bullets, or any other weapons as defined by federal law or listed in PC Section 12020. You may not possess a knife with a blade longer than two inches. Kitchen knives must be kept in your kitchen and not hidden, for example, in your bedroom. With your parole agent's written approval, knives used for your job may be carried only while being used at work or to or from the job. If you live or work where firearms, items that look like firearms, bullets, crossbows, or knives that are not permitted are kept, you may be returned to custody. 6. You must sign these conditions of parole. Failure to do so can result in revocation of your parole. You have the right to appeal special conditions of parole imposed by the Department of Corrections by filing a CDC Form 602, Inmate/Parolee Appeal. Special conditions imposed by the BPT may be appealed to the BPT.

CDC NUMBER

INMATE'S/PAROLEE'S NAME (Print or Type) INMATE'S/PAROLEE'S SIGNATURE

DATE SIGNED

SECTION IV-STAFF OBSERVATION TO BE COMPLETED BY STAFF: I have informed the inmate/parolee of the above information, and believe that he/she:

[*}fc|ppears to understand.

tH Appears to have difficulty understanding.

i W c T I V E COMMUNICATION METHOD USED (simple English: interpreter, etc.-):

Comments: STAFFS NAME (Prim or Type)

STAFF'S SIGNATURE

DATE SIGNED

 
 2007 ANNUAL REPORT
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL MATTHEW L. CATE INSPECTOR GENERAL
STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Contents
A MESSAGE FROM THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 1 DUTIES OF THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 3 ORGANIZATIONAL OVERVIEW 5 STRATEGIC PLANNING 6
KEY ISSUES REHABILITATION 8 SAFETY AND SECURITY 10 WASTE, FRAUD, AND ABUSE 13 ACCOUNTABILITY 16
CONCLUSION: MOVING FORWARD IN 2007 20 A LOOK AHEAD: OUR ROLE FOR THE FUTURE 21 APPENDIX: 2007 REPORTS 23

Office of the Inspector General
2007 Annual Report
EXCELLENCE IN CORRECTIONS THROUGH MODEL OVERSIGHT
A MESSAGE FROM THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
I was first appointed Inspector General in March 2004, just a few weeks after the Office of the Inspector General was removed from the budget chopping block. Now, as I look back over the past several years, I am impressed by how much we have accomplished in such a brief time.
Since 2004, we have grown in size from 23 employees to 108 positions today. We have also grown in status, as demonstrated by the increase in confidence expressed by the state’s legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Moreover, we have grown in public transparency and accountability—most of the statutes have been changed to make almost all our reports available to the public.
Not surprisingly, when my Chief Deputy Brett Morgan and I came to the OIG, we walked into a small office that was rather shell-shocked by the near loss of the organization. But the staff was committed to doing whatever was necessary to keep the OIG’s audits and investigations on track. However, no one could have expected that in just a few years the OIG’s credibility would be so improved that both the Legislature and the courts would ask us to help the state end some of its most pressing correctional lawsuits.
The best example of this renewed public trust came with the creation of the OIG’s Bureau of Independent Review (BIR) in 2004. The BIR is responsible for real-time oversight of the CDCR’s entire employee discipline process. Because of the success of the BIR’s new model and the hard work of OIG and CDCR staff members, the state appears close to ending the Madrid lawsuit—a seemingly impossible goal when we first accepted this challenge a few years ago.
The BIR is just one example of how the OIG has become part of the solution to what are often seen as California’s “unsolvable” correctional problems. Other examples, highlighted in this report, include an expanded role for the OIG in overseeing recent prison reform legislation, as well as the OIG taking on the role of objective monitor of the receiver’s efforts to improve correctional health care services.
Page 1

2007 Annual Report
The challenges before us are vast, and we at the OIG have given considerable thought to how we can best meet these challenges while cultivating a safe and just correctional system. The public can be assured that the time spent over the past several years to strengthen our oversight model has begun to show real and positive results in California’s prisons. As you read this Annual Report, I invite you to think about the transformative role that the OIG has already played and will continue to play in addressing some of our state’s most challenging correctional problems. Matthew L. Cate Inspector General
Page 2

Office of the Inspector General
DUTIES OF THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
 Conduct investigations, audits, and special reviews of the state correctional system upon the initiative of the Inspector General and at the request of the Governor, members of the Legislature, or the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR).
 Perform real-time oversight of internal affairs investigations into alleged misconduct by CDCR employees.
 Conduct audits of each correctional institution at least once every four years and a baseline audit of each warden or superintendent one year after appointment.
 Review CDCR policies and procedures for conducting internal investigations and audits.
 Maintain a toll-free public telephone number to allow reporting of administrative wrongdoing, poor management practices, criminal conduct, fraud, or other abuses in the CDCR.
 Investigate complaints of retaliation against those who report misconduct by the CDCR and its employees.
 Evaluate and report to the Governor the qualifications of the Governor’s candidates for warden and superintendent positions for the state’s adult and juvenile correctional institutions.
 Refer matters involving criminal conduct to law enforcement authorities in the appropriate jurisdiction or to the California Attorney General.
 Investigate the mishandling of sexual abuse incidents within correctional institutions, maintain the confidentiality of sexual abuse victims, and ensure impartial resolution of inmate and ward sexual abuse complaints through the Office of the Sexual Abuse in Detention Elimination Ombudsperson.
 Examine the CDCR’s various mental health, substance abuse, educational, and employment programs for inmates and parolees through the California Rehabilitation Oversight Board (C-ROB).
 Conduct semiannual inspections of adult and juvenile correctional institutions to examine systemic issues, identify problem areas that may lead to investigations or audits, and follow up on prior complaints.
 Audit the California Prison Health Care Receivership Corporation’s budget to ensure transparency and accountability.
Page 3

2007 Annual Report
 Respond to critical incidents at adult and juvenile correctional institutions, including officer-involved shootings, riots, escapes, and correctional staff member deaths caused by inmates.
 Inspect medical care operations at adult correctional institutions.  Audit the CDCR’s compliance with the federal court’s injunction and remedial
plan in Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger.  Monitor use-of-force committee meetings conducted monthly at each adult
and juvenile correctional institution.
Page 4

ORGANIZATIONAL OVERVIEW

Office of the Inspector General

 The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) comprises a skilled team of professionals that includes attorneys with expertise in internal affairs investigations and criminal law, auditors experienced in correctional policy and operations, and investigators drawn from correctional and law enforcement agencies.
 At the end of 2007, the OIG maintained 108 employee positions, including a staff of attorneys classified as special assistant inspectors general and a team of deputy inspectors general cross-trained in audits and investigations.
 In addition to legal, administrative, and publications staff members, the OIG is organized into two principal bureaus: the Bureau of Audits and Investigations (BAI) and the Bureau of Independent Review (BIR).
 California Penal Code sections 6125 through 6133 provide the statutory authority for the OIG’s establishment and operation.

Inspector General

Bureau of Audits and Investigations

Chief Deputy Inspector General

Bureau of Independent
Review

Administration and IT

Chief Counsel

Publications

Audits Division

Northern Region

Intake and Investigations
Division

Central Region

Southern Region

Page 5

2007 Annual Report
STRATEGIC PLANNING
One of the OIG’s most important priorities for 2007 was to develop and implement a strategic plan. We identified the need for a strategic plan while conducting internal and external surveys in late 2006. At that time, both internal staff members and external stakeholders expressed concern that the OIG’s rapid growth as it took on new mandates and responsibilities highlighted the need for a long-term plan.
Understanding that the strategic plan should be a living document to which all staff members are committed, the OIG engaged in a uniquely inclusive strategic planning effort. Further, every OIG staff member has been and continues to be a part of this effort.
The Office of the Inspector General’s mission is to promote excellence in corrections through model oversight.
The OIG’s mission, values, and goals best summarize the key elements of our strategic plan, which focuses on our efforts to help improve the state’s correctional system.
Initially, some staff members were reluctant to tie our success to the success of the CDCR. They argued that the department may never solve its problems and that the OIG should not be judged based on the CDCR’s inability to fix itself. Nevertheless, we agreed that simply reporting on the CDCR’s problems is not what the OIG is about—our purpose is truly to make a difference in California’s correctional system. Therefore, that is how we plan to judge ourselves and how we expect others to judge us.
Our values motivate us. Through every challenge and decision, we turn to these values FIRST:
 Fairness  Integrity  Respect  Service  Transparency
And we turn to our four basic goals:
1. Assist the CDCR in becoming a model correctional agency. 2. Achieve excellence in communications. 3. Implement effective and efficient work processes. 4. Maximize use of the OIG’s resources to meet organizational goals.
Page 6

Office of the Inspector General
We realize that developing the strategic plan was the easy part. Many departments have successfully accomplished similar efforts. The OIG’s challenge will be to uphold our commitment to implement this plan. Thus, every member of the OIG staff is involved in this effort and bears responsibility for keeping us on track. We encourage our stakeholders and the public to do the same. Our strategic plan—including goals and objectives and a detailed description of our strategic planning effort—is available on our Web site: http://www.oig.ca.gov/about/pdf/Strategic_Plan.pdf
Page 7

2007 Annual Report
KEY ISSUES
REHABILITATION
The California Rehabilitation Oversight Board
Last year’s Annual Report highlighted three key issues: safety and security; waste, fraud, and abuse; and accountability. This year we have decided to add a fourth key issue: rehabilitation.
The OIG’s mission was broadened in May 2007 with the signing of Assembly Bill 900 (AB 900), the Public Safety and Offender Rehabilitation Services Act of 2007.
AB 900 was designed to address prison overcrowding and improve rehabilitative programming in California’s prisons. In addition, the legislation established the California Rehabilitation Oversight Board (C-ROB) within the OIG. C-ROB, chaired by the Inspector General, is a statewide board of 11 members who represent state and local law enforcement, education, treatment, and offender rehabilitation.
The legislation mandates C-ROB to regularly examine and report biannually to the Governor and the Legislature on rehabilitative programming that the CDCR provides to the adult inmates and parolees under its supervision. By statute, these reports must include findings on
 Effectiveness of treatment efforts for offenders;
 Rehabilitation needs of offenders;
 Gaps in rehabilitation services;
 Levels of offender participation and success.
C-ROB held its first meeting on June 19, 2007, shortly after the legislation was enacted. In total, C-ROB conducted four public hearings in 2007. At these hearings, board members heard testimony from CDCR representatives and other interested parties about the department’s progress in setting up a rehabilitative treatment model.
C-ROB submitted its first report to the Governor and Legislature on July 15, 2007, as required by statute. The rest of 2007 was spent gathering information for C-ROB’s first substantive report, due on January 15, 2008.
The statute requires C-ROB to use the recommendations of an expert panel, which the department created as a result of the Budget Act of 2006–07, to
Page 8

Office of the Inspector General
assess California’s adult prison and parole programs. This panel, formally named the Expert Panel on Adult Offender and Recidivism Reduction Programming, submitted a report to the Legislature in June 2007 that included 11 main recommendations and 35 subrecommendations. C-ROB reviewed that report and agreed with the panel’s recommendations.
As C-ROB examines the CDCR’s progress in ongoing biannual reports, C-ROB will use the eight basic components outlined by the expert panel:
 Assess high risk. Target offenders who pose the highest risk for reoffending.
 Assess needs. Identify offenders’ criminogenic needs and dynamic risk factors.
 Develop behavior management plans. Use assessment results to develop an individualized case plan.
 Deliver programs. Deliver cognitive behavioral programs that offer varying levels of duration and intensity.
 Measure progress. Periodically evaluate progress, update treatment plans, measure treatment gains, and determine appropriateness for program completion.
 Prepare for reentry. Develop a formal reentry plan before program completion to ensure a continuum of care.
 Reintegrate. Provide aftercare through collaboration with community providers.
 Follow up. Track offenders and collect outcome data.
C-ROB’s reports are available on the OIG’s Web site, under the C-ROB link: http://www.oig.ca.gov/crob/
Besides chairing C-ROB, AB 900 created another role for the Inspector General as one of three individuals responsible for deciding whether all the AB 900 conditions have been met. Specifically, the legislation requires that the second phase of AB 900 funding cannot be released until a threemember panel, composed of the Inspector General, the State Auditor, and a Judicial Council appointee, has certified that 13 benchmarks have been met. The CDCR has yet to request a hearing from this group.
Page 9

2007 Annual Report
KEY ISSUES
SAFETY AND SECURITY
Safety and security have always been the top operational priorities for correctional administrators, government policymakers, and the public. Since its inception, the OIG has identified various safety and security deficiencies in California’s correctional system. In 2007, we continued to identify opportunities for the CDCR to address weaknesses in safety and security.
Review of Release of a Dangerous Inmate
In the October 2007 special review of the department’s release of inmate Scott Thomas, we reviewed the circumstances surrounding San Quentin State Prison’s treatment and release of an inmate who, the day after his
release, allegedly stabbed a teenage girl and a man who came to her aid. Our inspectors found that a series of mistakes, oversights, and failures to follow policy resulted in the prison staff’s failing to identify and treat Thomas’s needs while incarcerated, as well as improperly paroling Thomas on May 18, 2007. Thomas, a parole violator, had a history of disruptive behavior in CDCR prisons. This behavior made him a danger to prison security and earned him terms in security housing units (SHUs) away from the general inmate population. Because his last SHU term had not expired before his parole date from San Quentin, Thomas should have been released directly to the custody of a parole agent. Further, he should not have been released on a Friday because the department had designated Thomas for “high control” parole supervision. Instead, prison staff released Thomas without such custody on a Friday. In a confidential version of the report, we reported additional findings to the CDCR that were prohibited from public disclosure by privacy statutes.
As a result of the two reports, we made 21 recommendations to the department to correct numerous deficiencies. Both reports noted, however, that there is no assurance that Thomas would not have ultimately committed a similar act on his release from prison if the institution had followed CDCR policy. Besides issuing the two special review reports, we conducted investigations of wrongdoing by prison staff and turned over the resulting two investigative reports to the department for action.
Page 10

Office of the Inspector General
Review of High-Risk Issues at Heman G. Stark Youth Correctional Facility
In February 2007, we issued a special review of high-risk issues at the Heman G. Stark Youth Correctional Facility in Chino. The special review determined that the facility had not made substantive progress in improving unsafe or unsatisfactory living conditions for wards in its special management program despite being alerted to those conditions in previous OIG audits.
We found that:
 Management’s failure to ensure staff members perform room inspections and adhere to existing policies allowed wards to maintain contraband in the restricted special management program in the form of window coverings, makeshift ropes, and other items. In addition, delivery of mandated services to wards on restricted programs was deficient. The presence of contraband, such as window coverings, combined with wards’ isolation in their rooms and the facility’s inadequate delivery of mandated services, including education and counseling, presented an environment conducive to suicide attempts and may have contributed to wards’ propensity to assault staff members.
 The facility operated a program intended to help violence-prone wards transition from its special management program to lessrestrictive programs. However, the facility did not provide to these wards the necessary protections designed to facilitate their rehabilitation. For example, while there is a 90-day limit on a ward’s stay in the special management program, there was no such limit for wards in the transition program.
 The facility’s ability to hold wards accountable for sexual misconduct was hampered by its use of ineffective or inadequate sanctions and by its failure to consistently submit for prosecution instances of ward sexual misconduct. Thus, wards had little concern about being held accountable and little incentive to curtail their negative behavior.
 A critical mental health screening process designed to flag certain indicators of potential mental health problems including thought disorder, suicide risk, depression, and anxiety was not consistently performed for wards coming into the facility’s parole violator
Page 11

2007 Annual Report
program. As a result, wards in this program were potentially placed at risk for suicide while their assignments to specialized treatment programs or other mental health services were unnecessarily delayed. We made 20 recommendations as a result of the special review.
Critical Incident Responses
The OIG’s Bureau of Independent Review (BIR) monitors the department’s handling of critical incidents at adult and juvenile correctional institutions. When a critical incident—usually involving excessive use of force—occurs at an institution, BIR attorneys and investigators roll out to the scene to ensure that the department’s investigation is thorough and fair. This real-time oversight often identifies systemic issues that affect the safety and security of both staff members and inmates.
In 2007, the Bureau of Independent Review reported on 122 “critical incidents”—incidents at adult and juvenile correctional institutions often involving serious injury or death.
Investigations and Complaints
In 2007, the intake and investigations arm of the OIG’s Bureau of Audits and Investigations (BAI) examined several safety and security concerns. These concerns included allegations of inadequate medical care, criminal conduct, excessive force on inmates, and improper release of inmates to parole.
As required by California Penal Code sections 6129(c)(2) and 6131(c), cases handled by the Bureau of Audits and Investigations are summarized in quarterly reports posted on the OIG’s Web site: http://www.oig.ca.gov/reports/quarterly_rpt.asp
The OIG also receives about 350 complaints a month by mail and through the toll-free telephone line. Most complaints concern allegations of staff misconduct, the appeals and grievance process, and the quality of or lack of access to medical care. Complaints that involve urgent safety and security issues receive priority attention.
Page 12

Office of the Inspector General
KEY ISSUES
WASTE, FRAUD, AND ABUSE
In a time of mounting prison costs and taxpayer scrutiny, promoting economy and efficiency within the state’s correctional system is a crucial responsibility. Part of the OIG’s mission is to thoroughly investigate allegations of financial waste, fraud, and abuse by CDCR staff members, supervisors, and management. In 2007, the OIG demonstrated its worth in providing independent oversight by holding the department publicly accountable for its financial mismanagement.
Review into In-Prison Substance Abuse Programs
In February 2007, we issued a special review of the CDCR’s in-prison substance abuse programs, which were managed by the department’s Office of Substance Abuse Programs (OSAP). The review determined that the department had spent more than $1 billion since 1989 to provide substance abuse treatment to California inmates and parolees to reduce the state’s high recidivism rate. However, the programs were ineffective at reducing recidivism and represented both a waste of money and a missed opportunity to change lives. OSAP budgeted about $143 million a year for substance
abuse treatment services, including in-prison treatment for state prison inmates and communitybased aftercare for inmates who have paroled.
We found that there were a multitude of reasons to explain the failure of the programs, nearly all of which began and ended with poor management by the CDCR and OSAP. One central finding was that even though the contracts between the state and its inprison providers required contractors to use the “therapeutic community” treatment model, OSAP not only failed to hold providers accountable for fulfilling that requirement, but it also failed to create the conditions that would allow the therapeutic community model to operate. For example:
 Participants shared yards and other prison facilities even though separation of program participants from other inmates is an essential feature of the therapeutic community model.
 Programs had been placed in facilities subject to either frequent or long-term lockdowns of all or a large percentage of program participants.
Page 13

2007 Annual Report
 Contractors were not providing the required minimum of 20 hours a week of face-to-face group and individual activities and access to six additional hours a week of optional activities.
Beyond those deficiencies, the review also found that OSAP used a flawed process to select contractors, failed to adequately monitor contract compliance, and exercised poor fiscal controls. Lastly, OSAP repeatedly ignored similar findings and recommendations from more than 20 reports that dated back to 1999 for which it paid over $8.2 million.
In response to our report and its 30 recommendations, the CDCR abolished OSAP, created a new Division of Addiction and Recovery Services, appointed a high-level executive qualified to oversee prison and community reentry services, and elevated the new division within the department’s organizational structure.
New Psychological Evaluations for Inmates
In August 2007, we provided a letter to Senator Don Perata in response to his inquiry about the operations of the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH). We reported on the BPH’s progress in conducting new psychological evaluations for inmates serving life terms with parole consideration hearings scheduled on or after May 1, 2007. These evaluations were to be completed and available 60 days before the prisoner’s scheduled hearing date, thereby reducing the number of costly hearing postponements. Our review found that the new psychological evaluations were not always completed 60 days before the scheduled hearing. Moreover, even when the evaluations were completed before the 60-day requirement, ostensibly to provide enough time to identify any concerns with the psychological evaluations before the scheduled hearing, postponements still occurred on the day of the hearing. We concluded that the changes to the psychological evaluation process might not have addressed the issue of last-minute requests for hearing postponements.
Inappropriate Use of State Resources
We investigated and monitored several cases that involved inappropriate use of state resources within the department. As part of its work, the OIG’s Bureau of Audits and Investigations (BAI) regularly examines alleged misconduct by correctional employees and contractors. These allegations usually stem from complaints or are uncovered during audits or other investigations. In 2007, these cases ranged from misuse of state property to billings for services not provided.
Page 14

Office of the Inspector General
Monitoring of Administrative and Criminal Cases
In 2007, the OIG’s Bureau of Independent Review (BIR) expanded its operations to include attending use-of-force committee meetings at prisons. At these meetings, prison administrators review incidents involving the use of force to determine whether an investigation should be requested. With the primary responsibility of ensuring the department’s internal affairs investigations are fair and adequate, the BIR reported on 460 cases in 2007. Many of these cases involved dishonesty, sexual misconduct, improper use of force, or failure to report the improper use of force. Detailed assessments of the Bureau of Independent Review’s case monitoring activities are found in its semi-annual reports posted on the OIG’s Web site: http://www.oig.ca.gov/reports/review_rpts.asp
Page 15

2007 Annual Report
KEY ISSUES
ACCOUNTABILITY
Public accountability of the state’s correctional system is crucial to enacting reforms and bringing transparency to the CDCR’s operations. Therefore, the Legislature has mandated that the OIG publicly release its audit findings. We also investigate retaliation and favoritism complaints, evaluate the Governor’s warden candidates both before and after appointment, and assess the department’s progress in implementing recommendations. Our efforts ensure that legislators and the public can hold department institutions and employees accountable.
2007 Accountability Audit
In July 2007, we issued an audit of the CDCR’s progress in implementing past recommendations we made in 15 separate reports that affect the department’s Division of Juvenile Justice and its Board of Parole Hearings. This “accountability audit,” Review of Audits of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 2000– 2005, included 74 new recommendations and revealed the following:
 The Division of Juvenile Justice had made progress, with 67 percent of the past recommendations fully or substantially implemented. Progress was particularly noteworthy in the areas of counseling and mental health. However, the division still had not adequately addressed recommendations in several important functions, including restricted programs, facility security, education services, and medical care.
 The Board of Parole Hearings accomplished less. It failed to adequately respond to 93 percent of the recommendations remaining from five previous audit reports. As a result, the board continued to perform inefficiently and uneconomically in aspects of its operations, including conducting unnecessary placement hearings and failing to implement procedures to govern the services and billings of foreign language interpreters.
Page 16

Office of the Inspector General
California Institution for Women Quadrennial and Warden Audit
In December 2007, we issued our first four-year (quadrennial) audit report required by Penal Code section 6126(a)(2). The audit, which reviewed the operations of the California Institution for Women (CIW), also focused on the post-appointment performance of the prison’s warden.
The audit found that CIW has ongoing building maintenance problems that result from age, overcrowding, and limited funding for maintenance projects. In addition, the audit found that a lack of substitute teachers and inadequate air-conditioning in classrooms contributed to an attendance level of only 42 percent in the prison’s education program. Other problems included delayed follow-up medical care, inadequate control over inmate visiting, failure to meet timelines for use-of-force incident documentation, and insufficient weapons training for some correctional officers. The report contains seven findings and 23 recommendations intended to improve the prison’s operations.
Overall, we concluded that the warden is hard working, devoted to the institution’s mission, and performs her duties well. However, she could improve by requiring a greater degree of compliance with department policy by her staff. Nonetheless, the warden is steadily improving the prison, and she should continue serving as warden at CIW.
Prison Industry Authority New Enterprise Letter
In September 2007, we issued a management letter to the secretary of the CDCR, who is also the chairman of the Prison Industry Board (PIB). In that letter, we addressed the following allegations of misconduct by the Prison Industry Authority (PIA) and the PIB during the course of their developing a proposal to start a peanut butter and jelly packaging enterprise:
 Misappropriation of funds;
 Failure to follow public hearing requirements pertaining to peanut butter and jelly packaging;
 Violation of sole source bid requirements;
 Claiming to manufacture products not produced by the PIA;
 Failure to consider the proposal’s impact on California business.
We found no misconduct for the first four allegations. However, we did find that the PIB met its statutory public hearing requirements only after it purchased equipment to be used in the proposed enterprise. Further, we
Page 17

2007 Annual Report
found that the PIA and the PIB could provide no documentation that they had analyzed the impact of the proposed enterprise on California industry as required by Penal Code section 2808(i). Accordingly, we recommended that the PIB comply with the law, make the board’s decision and reasoning part of the public record, and establish uniform policies and procedures for addressing these issues.
Review of the Armstrong Accountability Proposal
As part of the Armstrong class action lawsuit, which concerns the CDCR’s noncompliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the federal court ordered the CDCR to develop a system to track each prison’s record in providing services to physically disabled inmates. The court also required that the system track the conduct of staff members who were not complying with the court order. The order calls for the
department to refer repeatedly noncompliant staff, including wardens and medical administrators, to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation and discipline, if appropriate. The court required the department to develop its system in cooperation with the OIG. Therefore, the department provided its Armstrong Accountability Proposal to us for review and comment. In a June 28, 2007, letter to the secretary of the CDCR, we pointed out many deficiencies with the department’s proposal. The CDCR revised its Armstrong Accountability Proposal and again submitted the proposal to us. In an October 3, 2007, letter to the secretary, we stated that the revised proposal had adequately addressed all the deficiencies we had found in the original proposal.
Review of the Parole Board’s Workload Study
In November 2007, we provided a letter to Senator Don Perata in response to his inquiry about a workload study conducted for the Board of Parole Hearings by CPS Human Resources Services. The purpose of the study was to “provide a comprehensive time and workload analysis of commissioner and deputy commissioner positions and to provide the basis of a resource allocation and time management system.” The study was necessary largely because we had found in past audits that the board does not maintain its own time-management system for these employees. Our review of the study found that CPS used reasonable methods to perform the study and develop its conclusions. Nevertheless, we stated that we continue to believe the board should implement a contemporaneous time recording system.
Page 18

Office of the Inspector General
While CPS’s focus, as intended, was on board tasks as currently performed and not on identifying and analyzing inefficiencies in the staffs’ work processes, it did comment on certain obvious inefficiencies. CPS identified an important limitation in the board’s ability to accurately identify the future number of parole consideration hearings for inmates with indeterminate sentences. The board represented that this problem may be resolved with the November 2007 launching of the new Life Sentence Tracking System (LSTS). CPS also noted problems with the board’s underutilization of its Revocation Scheduling and Tracking System (RSTS) and the scheduling of hearings that are subsequently postponed.
Assessment of Madrid Reforms
The Bureau of Independent Review measures the department’s compliance with reforms set forth in the Madrid Remedial Plan. The Madrid Remedial Plan stemmed from a civil rights lawsuit filed by a group of Pelican Bay State Prison inmates. The federal court decision held that state officials had “permitted and condoned” the use of excessive force against inmates in violation of the Eighth Amendment and that internal affairs investigations into alleged misconduct “were pursued to avoid finding officer misconduct as often as possible.”
In 2007, the Madrid reforms continued to have a positive impact. With the bureau’s help, the department’s internal affairs investigations were more timely and thorough, and disciplinary outcomes showed greater consistency and fairness as more department employees were held accountable.
Warden and Superintendent Evaluations
Consistent with the provisions of Penal Code section 6126.6, during 2007 we evaluated the qualifications of 14 candidates for prison warden positions and two candidates for youth correctional facility superintendent positions. We reported the results of our evaluations in confidence to the Governor.
Penal Code section 6126.6 assigns the Inspector General responsibility for evaluating the qualifications of every candidate the Governor nominates for appointment as a state prison warden or a youth correctional facility superintendent. The Inspector General advises the Governor within 90 days whether the candidate is “exceptionally well-qualified,” “well-qualified,” “qualified,” or “not qualified” for the position. To make the evaluation, Penal Code section 6126.6 requires the Inspector General to consider the candidate’s experience in effectively managing correctional facilities and inmate or ward populations; knowledge of correctional best practices; and ability to deal with employees, the public, inmates, and other interested parties in a fair, effective, and professional manner.
Page 19

2007 Annual Report
CONCLUSION
MOVING FORWARD IN 2007
In addition to completing the work described throughout this Annual Report, the OIG made a commitment at the end of 2007 to implement a strategic plan. We identified our values, redefined our mission, laid out our goals, and built specific action plans to set us in the right direction. Perhaps what is most remarkable about our strategic planning effort is not that it was completed alongside the sizeable amount of regular work the OIG produces or that every staff member was actively engaged in the strategic planning process. What was most remarkable about this process was how it showed us that the OIG’s success is intrinsically tied to the success of the CDCR. Before this realization, we measured ourselves, for example, by the number of audit reports produced or investigations completed. Instead, our strategic plan—specifically our first goal, which is to assist the CDCR in becoming a model correctional agency—will measure the OIG’s success as demonstrated by improvements at the department. It is no longer enough for the OIG to identify problems at the CDCR. We will not consider our work successful (or complete) until the problems have been eliminated. We even go so far in our strategic plan as to measure ourselves against the CDCR’s ability to reduce recidivism. We are sharing ownership of the department’s problems and committing ourselves to helping the department find viable solutions through independent and transparent audits, investigations, and monitoring. Further, some of our successes discussed in this report illustrate how powerful the OIG model can be when implemented with this goal in mind: we are not successful until the CDCR is successful.
Page 20

Office of the Inspector General
A LOOK AHEAD
OUR ROLE FOR THE FUTURE
In 2008, the OIG will continue to transform as an organization to better provide model oversight of California’s evolving correctional system. Federal judicial and state legislative actions have changed the landscape of California’s prisons, and we are poised to provide independent oversight of the CDCR—during this period of change and beyond.
Strategic Plan
Our main goal for 2008 will be to continue implementing our strategic plan. We believe that if we continue to make progress on our strategic plan, we can focus on improving the basic correctional practices at California’s prisons. We will work hard to identify the department’s greatest weaknesses, propose practical recommendations for improvement, and maintain constant and rigorous oversight to promote positive change.
Rehabilitative Progress
As mentioned earlier in this report, Assembly Bill 900, the Public Safety and Offender Rehabilitation Services Act of 2007, broadened the OIG’s mission to give us a statewide leadership role in monitoring and supporting the CDCR’s efforts to improve its rehabilitative programming. Through the California Rehabilitation Oversight Board (C-ROB), we will continue to advise the Legislature and the Governor on the department’s progress and make recommendations where necessary.
Medical Inspections
In an effort to evaluate and monitor the state’s progress of delivering medical care to inmates, the federal receiver requested that the OIG establish an objective, clinically appropriate, and metric-oriented medical inspection program. We agreed to develop a comprehensive medical inspection program where we plan to inspect annually each of California’s 33 institutions. We expect to begin statewide inspections in fall 2008.
Armstrong Compliance
In two separate class action lawsuits, the federal court assigned the OIG ongoing responsibilities as part of a state settlement agreement. In Plata v. Schwarzenegger, the federal court assigned a receiver to oversee the
Page 21

2007 Annual Report
development of a sustainable system that provides the minimum level of medical care to fulfill the department’s obligation to inmates under the U.S. Constitution. The court required the OIG to review the receiver’s operations to ensure transparency and accountability. In Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger, the court required the OIG to help the department develop an accountability system. This system will ensure wardens and prison medical administrators comply with the remedial plan that resulted from the court’s findings.
Unannounced Inspections
Besides visits to correctional institutions during audits, investigations, and warden and superintendent evaluations, the OIG’s deputy inspectors general plan to conduct unannounced inspections at every state correctional institution—including privately operated facilities—at least twice a year. The purpose of the inspections will be to assess the institutions’ operations and to increase the OIG’s presence.
Fraud Investigations
To uncover fraud in the correctional system, save taxpayer dollars, and hold wrongdoers accountable, we will continue to conduct complex, large-scale investigations of contracts and procurements, kickbacks, bribes, unjustified sole-source awards, and product diversion and substitutions. We will target investigations to areas with potentially significant systemic problems.
Audits of Adult and Juvenile Institutions
We will audit every warden or superintendent one year after his or her appointment, and we will complete a comprehensive audit at each correctional institution at least once every four years. To shine a light on areas where the department has not implemented our recommendations, we will continue to publish reports that identify problem areas and describe the potential impact of the department’s unresponsiveness.
Critical Incident Roll-outs
When critical incidents occur at a prison, sworn staff from the Bureau of Independent Review (BIR) or both the BIR and the Bureau of Audits and Investigations (BAI) will respond immediately to the institution on a call-out basis. Under protocols approved by the federal court in 2005, the BIR’s special assistant inspectors general have responded to critical incidents to assess the scene and monitor internal affairs investigations. Now the BAI will also roll out to incidents, such as escapes and large-scale riots, to assess whether systemic issues led to the incident and to determine whether the incident warrants an audit or investigation.
Page 22

Office of the Inspector General
APPENDIX
2007 REPORTS
Bureau of Audits and Investigations
 Special Review of High-Risk Issues at the Heman G. Stark Youth Correctional Facility (February 2007) http://www.oig.ca.gov/reports/pdf/hstark022207.pdf
 Special Review into In-Prison Substance Abuse Programs Managed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (February 2007) http://www.oig.ca.gov/reports/pdf/substanceabuseprograms.pdf
 Quarterly Report, January–March 2007 http://www.oig.ca.gov/reports/pdf/bai_qtr_jan_mar07.pdf
 Quarterly Report, April–June 2007 http://www.oig.ca.gov/reports/pdf/quarterly_report_april_june_2007.pdf
 Accountability Audit: Review of Audits of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 2000–2005 (July 2007) http://www.oig.ca.gov/reports/pdf/2007_accountability_audit.pdf
 New Psychological Evaluations for Inmates (letter to Sen. Perata, August 2007)
 Prison Industry Authority New Enterprise Letter (September 2007) http://www.oig.ca.gov/reports/pdf/pialetter_re_newenterprise.pdf
 Quarterly Report, July–September 2007 http://www.oig.ca.gov/reports/pdf/quarterly_report_july_sept_2007.pdf
 Review of Armstrong Accountability Proposal (management review letter, October 2007)
 Special Review into the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Release of Inmate Scott Thomas (October 2007) http://www.oig.ca.gov/reports/pdf/thomas_special_review-redacted.pdf
 Review of the Parole Board’s Workload Study (letter to Sen. Perata, November 2007)
Page 23

2007 Annual Report
 The California Institution for Women Quadrennial and Warden Audit (December 2007) http://www.oig.ca.gov/reports/pdf/ciw_combo_audit_final.pdf
 Quarterly Report, October–December 2007 http://www.oig.ca.gov/reports/pdf/2007_Q_Rpt_4.pdf
Bureau of Independent Review
 Semi-annual Report, January–June 2007 http://www.oig.ca.gov/reports/pdf/sar_jan-jun_2007.pdf
 Semi-annual Report, July–December 2007 http://www.oig.ca.gov/reports/pdf/sar_jul-dec_2007_final.pdf
California Rehabilitation Oversight Board
 C-ROB Biannual Report (July 2007) http://www.oig.ca.gov/crob/pdf/2007/crob_biannualrpt_071507.pdf
Page 24

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL P.O. BOX 348780 SACRAMENTO, CA 95834-8780
(916) 830-3600 WWW.OIG.CA.GOV

 
 275 F.3d 849 (2001)
John ARMSTRONG; James Amauric; Richard Ponciano; Jack Swensen; Billy Beck; Judy Fendt; Walter Fratus; Gregory Sandoval; Darlene Madison; Peter A. Richardson; Steven Hill; David Rose; David Blessing; Elio Castro; Elmer Umbenhower; Raymond Hayes; Gene Horrocks; Kiah Mincey; Clifton Feathers; Willie Johnson; David Badillo; James Simmons;
Flora Abrams; Joey Gough; Timothy Whisman, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
Gray DAVIS, Governor of the State of California; Robert Presley, Secretary of the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency; James Nielsen, Chairman of the Board of Prison Terms; California Board of Prison Terms, Does 1-100, in Their Individual and Official Capacity,
Defendants-Appellants.
No. 00-15132.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted April 12, 2001. Filed November 28, 2001.
8501234 *850 *851 *852 *853 *854 James M. Humes, California Deputy Attorney General, San Francisco, California, for the defendants-appellants.
Donald H. Specter, San Quentin, California; Michael W. Bien, San Francisco, California; Warren E. George, San Francisco, California; Sara Norman, Prison Law Office, San Quentin, California; Caroline N. Mitchell, Pillsbury Winthrop, San Francisco, California; and William Fernholtz, Rosen, Bien & Asaro, San Francisco, California; for the plaintiffs-appellees.
Before: REINHARDT, TASHIMA, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Judge REINHARDT; Concurrence by Judge BERZON
REINHARDT, Circuit Judge:
The facts established at trial, and not disputed on appeal, demonstrate that the State of California regularly discriminated against disabled prisoners and parolees during its parole and parole revocation hearing processes. The district court found that the California Board of Prison Terms (the state parole authority) failed to make proper accommodations for numerous disabled prisoners and parolees, with the result that a number of such individuals forfeited their rights to parole and parole revocation hearings and appeals, while others were unable to represent themselves adequately at such proceedings, all in contravention of federal law. Following a ten-day bench trial, the district court held that the defendants engaged in systematic and widespread discrimination which violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, holdings that the state officials and agency do not now challenge on the merits. The district court entered a system-wide injunction requiring the Board to modify its policies and practices to comply with federal statutory and constitutional standards.
On appeal, the Board asks us to dissolve the district court's injunction principally for the following reasons: (1) the plaintiffs lack standing to challenge its policy; (2) the district court must defer to the Board's decisions as long as they potentially further any penological interest; (3) the plaintiffs' settlement agreement with the Department of Corrections prohibits injunctive relief for any acts the Board delegates to the Department; (4) the plaintiff class was improperly certified and is not entitled to system-wide relief; (5) and the Prison Litigation Reform Act and federalism concerns preclude the type of injunctive relief ordered. In addition, the Board argues that plaintiffs have no due process right to a parole hearing. We have jurisdiction to hear this interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292.

I. BACKGROUND
The instant action was brought by a class of prisoners and parolees suffering from six categories of disability: mobility impairments; hearing disabilities; visual disabilities; learning disabilities; mental retardation; and renal impairments. Initially, the plaintiff class sued two divisions of the California Youth and Adult Corrections Authority 855 (Agency or YACA): the Board of Prison Terms (Board or BPT) *855 and the California Department of Corrections (Department or CDC). The divisions have different areas of responsibility regarding prisoners and parolees. The plaintiffs alleged that the state's policies and practices as implemented by both divisions discriminated against them on the basis of disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, as well as violated the due-process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
By agreement of the parties, litigation against the two divisions was bifurcated and proceeded on two separate tracks. This appeal involves only the order and injunction directed to the Board of Prison Terms and certain state officials responsible for its operations, and not the separate order and injunction addressed to the Department of Corrections. Neither the Board nor the state officials challenge the district court's conclusions that they engaged in system-wide violations of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act.
A. Parties
The named plaintiffs are prisoners sentenced under California Penal Code § 1168 to life with the possibility of parole who complain that the Board failed to provide them with adequate accommodations at a variety of parole hearings, and parolees who complain about the lack of accommodations during the parole revocation process.[1]
The defendants in the part of the case now on appeal are Gray Davis, the Governor of the State of California; Robert Presley, Secretary of the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency; James Nielsen, Secretary of the Board of Prison Terms; and the Board itself. The Agency oversees the activities of its various boards and departments, including the Board of Prison Terms.[2] As the Secretary of the Agency, defendant Robert Presley is directly responsible to the Governor, for the operations of each department within the Agency. The Secretary is a member of the Governor's Cabinet, and advises the Governor on correctional matters and on any changes necessary to properly conduct the work of the Agency.
As noted, plaintiffs initially sued two of YACA's divisions in this lawsuit: the California Department of Corrections and the Board of Prison Terms. The Department, which is not a party to the portion of the action on appeal, is responsible for all relevant aspects of prisoners' and parolees' lives, except that it does not have authority over 856 parole and parole revocation hearings.[3]*856 That authority is vested in the Board, which is one of the parties to this appeal.
The Board serves as the parole authority for the State of California, see Cal.Penal Code § 3000(b)(7). It conducts parole hearings for prisoners sentenced to a term of life with the possibility of parole, who are the only adult prisoners subject to such hearings under California law.[4]See Cal.Penal Code §§ 1168, 1170. In addition, the Board conducts revocation hearings for parolees accused of violating conditions of parole, Cal.Penal Code § 2645, and revocation extension hearings for prisoners who allegedly commit an offense while incarcerated because they have had their parole revoked.[5] Finally, the Board also conducts various custody hearings for offenders who are designated mentally disordered or sexually violent. It is the Board's discriminatory policies concerning against the disabled that form the basis for this appeal.
B. Procedural History

1. Pre-Trial Proceedings
Pursuant to a "settlement agreement" entered into in its part of the instant case, the Department (which is not involved in the present appeal) filed a motion regarding the applicability of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act as applied to prisons. The agreement provided that if the district court held the Acts applicable, the Department would be found liable.[6] The stipulation explicitly stated, however, that it did "not resolve any issues between plaintiffs and the Board of Prison Terms or defendant Neilsen." The district court denied the Department's motion for summary judgment, held that the two statutes are applicable to prisons, entered a remedial order and permanent injunction, and certified the issue of the applicability of the Acts to the Department for interlocutory appeal. We affirmed the district court's holding on that issue.[7]
Plaintiffs continued to litigate their action against the Board. On January 5, 1998, the district court entered the parties' stipulation and order amending the class by including developmentally disabled prisoners so that the class "consists of all present and future California state prisoners and parolees with mobility, sight, hearing, 857 learning, developmental and kidney *857 disabilities that substantially limit one or more of their major life activities." Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint reflecting the amended class designation, and named the defendants listed in the caption of this appeal, as well as a number of other individuals who were associated with the Department.
The Board moved to dismiss or strike all defendants other than Nielsen and the Board from the Second Amended Complaint, arguing that the "settlement agreement" had resolved the plaintiffs' claims against them.[8] The court denied the Board's motions (other than as to the Director of the Department and his subordinates), on the ground that the Second Amended Complaint did not involve claims addressed in the settlement agreement, and that it did not constitute an attempt to retry the merits of those claims, nor to enforce the agreement collaterally. Thus, the court allowed the case against Governor Davis and Secretary Presley to proceed with respect to the matters now before us. Finally, at pre-trial conference, plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint by adding three more named plaintiffs. Defendants did not object, and the third amended complaint was filed on April 7, 1999.
2. Trial
The parties engaged in a ten-day bench trial before the district court.[9] Based on the testimony of multiple witnesses, many of them Board employees, the court found that the Board's parole notification, hearing, and appeals process depended to a great extent on written forms.[10] Whether in prison or outside, disabled prisoners and parolees were provided with inadequate accommodations to help them understand the content of those forms,[11] and as a consequence some plaintiffs waived their rights to a hearing and others failed to invoke 858 their rights on appeal. Even if disabled prisoners or parolees made it to the hearing, a variety of barriers made *858 participation extremely difficult and access to the facilities impractical.[12]
The district court held that the Board failed to implement "a number of specific requirements [prescribed by the regulations implementing the ADA] designed to ensure that the framework exists for a public entity to carry out the substantive mandates of the ADA." Most particularly, the Board's mandatory self-evaluation plan was conducted "more than four years late [and] is inadequate."[13] Similarly, the district court held that the Board's transition plan was "inadequate,"[14] and that the notice provided to prisoners and parolees was "insufficient to apprise prisoners and parolees of the ADA's `applicability to the services, programs, or activities' of the BPT or to `apprise such persons of the protections against discrimination assured them by' the ADA." Both the transition plan and the notice forms were completed five years late. The court also held that the Board failed to provide the required ADA grievance procedures.
Ultimately, the district court held that the Board was not in substantial compliance with the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act, and that it routinely denied plaintiffs their rights under the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution.

3. Injunctive Relief
After finding in favor of the plaintiffs, the district court entered an injunction requiring the Board to evaluate its policies, procedures, and facilities, as mandated by the ADA; to propose new policies and procedures to bring the Board into compliance with the Act, and then to attempt to reach an agreement on them with plaintiffs; to take specific steps toward ensuring that the facilities it uses are accessible; and to determine, with the participation of plaintiffs, the manner in which the Board's compliance with the injunction should be monitored. The injunction applies to:
all hearings conducted by the BPT to determine whether and/or when a prisoner or parolee should be released on parole or involuntarily confined, including parole revocation and revocation extension hearings, life prisoner hearings (documentation hearings, progress hearings, parole hearings, parole consideration hearings, parole date rescission hearings and parole board rules hearings), mentally disordered offender hearings and sexually violent predator hearings. Parole proceedings also include any events related to the hearings that occur prior to or after the hearings, including, but not limited to, screening offers, psychological evaluations, central file reviews and administrative appeals.
The court required the Board to hire a full-time ADA coordinator and to do over its Self-Evaluation and Transition 859 Plan, this time according to standards set by the court. To comply with the injunction, the *859 Board was
required to redraft its policies to ensure that prisoners and parolees are provided with effective communications or otherwise "able to participate, to the best of their abilities, in any parole proceeding." The Board was to identify in advance of such proceedings which prisoners have a disability, create and maintain a system for tracking disabled prisoners and parolees, and provide them with accommodations at parole and parole revocation proceedings.[15] Under the terms of the injunction, the Board was also ordered to: revise all BPT forms used by prisoners and parolees to make them more comprehensible; provide alternative formats for all BPT forms used by prisoners and parolees; desist from shackling, during parole and parole revocation proceedings, the hands of hearing-impaired prisoners or parolees who use sign-language to communicate, unless prior approval is obtained; provide accommodations for prisoners or parolees who need to review their files in preparation for parole or revocation proceedings; provide accommodations for prisoners or parolees filing appeals from such proceedings; and establish grievance procedures by which prisoners may complain about ADA violations. Every official to whom the Board assigned responsibility for communicating with or supervising prisoners or parolees, including the Department's district hearing agents and correctional counselors, was required to undergo training in the general requirements of the ADA, disability awareness, the appropriate method of determining whether a prisoner adequately understands written and verbal communications, and other relevant policies and procedures developed in response to the injunction.
The court also ordered the Board to determine which facilities used to conduct parole proceedings were in compliance with the administrative regulations implementing the ADA; inform the Department of the facilities that were not fully accessible;[16] publish a description of any structural modifications to a facility that will make the parole proceedings accessible or identify another accessible location in which the proceedings will be held; and provide a schedule for making proceedings accessible for prisoners and parolees with disabilities at each Department facility or at an alternative accessible location. It did not, however, order the Board to make any physical changes to facilities, and it did not order the Department to take any action at all.
After engaging in the negotiations required by the injunction, the Board and the plaintiffs submitted a stipulation and proposed order, which was entered by the court, that delineated the "policies and procedures ... developed by defendants pursuant ... to the injunction and which fulfil [its] policy development obligations." The Board's new policies complied completely with the terms of the injunction. At oral argument before this court, the Board represented that it had implemented most of the new policies and practices agreed upon in the stipulation, that the court-ordered compliance with federal law did not cause it any practical difficulties, and that the outcome of this lawsuit would not affect the implementation of those policies and practices. Nevertheless, it determined that this appeal should be pursued.

II. DISCUSSION
860 A district court's decision to grant prospective, system-wide injunctive relief is *860 usually the product of a series of procedural decisions as well as a determination on the merits of the case. This case was no different. On appeal, however, the Board does not challenge the underlying merits decision, but instead raises a number of primarily procedural objections to the injunction. The Board challenges plaintiffs' standing, class certification, and the propriety and scope of injunctive relief. It argues that the named plaintiffs do not have standing to seek prospective relief; that, if they do, any relief should be limited to the named plaintiffs; that system-wide relief is not warranted for a number of reasons; that the injunction is not narrowly tailored to the injury asserted; that the injury and the acts required to remedy that injury are chargeable to the Department, not to it, and that the decree in the Department portion of the case precludes further relief in such circumstances; and, finally, that it is excused from compliance with the requirements of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act in this case by virtue of legitimate penological justifications. In addition, appellees argue that defendants Gray Davis and Robert Presley should be dismissed.
We start by noting that where a district court grants system-wide injunctive relief, the issues of standing, class certification, and the propriety and scope of relief are often intermingled. See, e.g., City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 111, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983). As a result, the district court's findings of fact and rulings of law with regard to one aspect of the litigation will often buttress or make unnecessary further findings or rulings on another issue. For example, we have held that determinations relevant to standing, see HodgersDurgin v. De La Vina, 199 F.3d 1037, 1040 (9th Cir.1999) (en banc), or to class certification, see Hawkins v. Comparet-Cassani, 251 F.3d 1230, 1237 (9th Cir.2001), will also be relevant to the grant of injunctive relief; and that determinations made with respect to class certification may also be relevant to the standing inquiry. See LaDuke v. Nelson, 762 F.2d 1318, 1326 (9th Cir.1985); Hawkins, 251 F.3d at 1237. Similarly, because the court may reconsider whether the plaintiffs have standing or have been appropriately certified as a class at the trial stage of the litigation, see Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 518 U.S. 343 (1996), the court's findings at trial may be bolstered by its rulings at earlier stages of the litigation.
A. Standing
The Board has challenged the district court's ruling on standing. We reiterate, however, that it did not challenge the factual findings on appeal, including those that support the district court's standing determination: while it argued that some of the legal conclusions were wrong, it did not object to any findings of fact or identify any specific errors regarding them as required by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(7). Because the other elements of the "case" or "controversy" requirements have been met, we focus on the "injury in fact" requirement of Article III standing. See Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 162, 117 S.Ct. 1154, 137 L.Ed.2d 281 (1997).
In order to assert claims on behalf of a class, a named plaintiff must have personally sustained or be in immediate danger of sustaining "some direct injury as a result of the challenged statute or official conduct." O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 494, 94 S.Ct. 669, 38 L.Ed.2d 674 (1974). The harm suffered by a plaintiff must constitute "actual injury." Lewis, 518 U.S. at 348-49, 116 S.Ct. 2174. Moreover, where, as here, a plaintiff seeks 861 prospective injunctive relief, he must demonstrate *861 "that he is realistically threatened by a repetition of [the violation]." Lyons, 461 U.S. at 109, 103 S.Ct. 1660 (emphasis added) (holding that plaintiff cannot establish the requisite type of harm simply by pointing to some past injury). We review questions of standing de novo. See Tyler v. Cuomo, 236 F.3d 1124, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). However, we will affirm standing when a district court has made "explicit" and "specific" findings establishing that the threatened injury is sufficiently likely to occur, LaDuke, 762 F.2d at 1323-24; see also Hawkins, 251 F.3d at 1237 (citing LaDuke), unless those findings are clearly erroneous.
There are at least two ways in which to demonstrate that such injury is likely to recur. First, a plaintiff may show that the defendant had, at the time of the injury, a written policy, and that the injury "stems from" that policy. Hawkins, 251 F.3d at 1237. In other words, where the harm alleged is directly traceable to a written policy, see Gomez v. Vernon, 255 F.3d 1118, 1127 (9th Cir.2001), there is an implicit likelihood of its repetition in the

immediate future. Second, the plaintiff may demonstrate that the harm is part of a "pattern of officially sanctioned ... behavior, violative of the plaintiffs' [federal] rights." LaDuke v. Nelson, 762 F.2d 1318, 1323 (9th Cir.1985). Thus, where the defendants have repeatedly engaged in the injurious acts in the past, there is a sufficient possibility that they will engage in them in the near future to satisfy the "realistic repetition" requirement. In this regard, where the plaintiffs constitute a certified class, "it is not irrelevant that [the named plaintiffs] s[eek] to represent broader interests than [their] own." LaDuke, 762 F.2d at 1326. When a named plaintiff asserts injuries that have been inflicted upon a class of plaintiffs, we may consider those injuries in the context of the harm asserted by the class as a whole, to determine whether a credible threat that the named plaintiff's injury will recur has been established. Id.; see also Hawkins, 251 F.3d at 1237.
Where a court, through its specific factual findings, documents the threat of future harm to the plaintiff class and establishes that the named plaintiffs (or some subset thereof sufficient to confer standing on the class as a whole) are personally subject to that harm, the "possibility of recurring injury ceases to be speculative," and standing is appropriate. Thomas v. County of Los Angeles, 978 F.2d 504, 507 (9th Cir.1993) (citation omitted). In the instant case, it is difficult to conceive of how the district court's seventy-four pages of factual findings could have been more diligent, detailed, or comprehensive, given the limitations of time and space available to our trial courts. Defendants do not challenge those findings on appeal, and they form the basis of our discussion of the Board's ADA policy and practice.
1. Written Policy
The Board's written policy is primarily contained in three documents: its Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan, its Administrative Directive, and its training documents, including guidelines provided to the Department employees. That policy was formulated to ensure that prisoners and parolees receive due process with respect to Board proceedings. Whether the Board succeeded in that objective is not of particular importance here. The ADA and Rehabilitation Act, as enforced through the Attorney General's regulations promulgated under the ADA, see 42 U.S.C. § 12134(a), require more than compliance with due process requirements: they require that a disabled 862 individual be provided with "meaningful access" to state provided services and set forth a number of *862 detailed requirements that must be met. See Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287, 295, 105 S.Ct. 712, 83 L.Ed.2d 661 (1985); see also Crowder v. Kitagawa, 81 F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th Cir.1996).[17] The Board's written policy does not consider the particular needs of disabled prisoners and parolees. In particular, the policy does little, if anything, to address the needs of prisoners or parolees who have problems understanding complex information or communicating through the spoken or written word.
The Board's ADA policy relies upon form # 1073 at the notification stage and form # 1040 at the appeal stage. Form # 1073 purports to inform prisoners and parolees of their rights under the ADA.[18] Both forms are inadequate for the visually impaired, for those deaf individuals who do not understand written English, and for the learning disabled or mentally retarded who do not understand complex concepts. At the notification stage, the Board's only solution is to have a person serving the form explain it to the person served, if requested to do so; at the appeals stage, the Board does not even require that accommodation: so long as someone renders some assistance, the policy is satisfied. The Board does not train its officials or employees to communicate with disabled individuals, and does not evaluate their ability to do so. The district court found that the minimal due process measures taken by the Board were insufficient to comply with the ADA or to enable plaintiffs properly to invoke or assert their rights.
The guidelines prepared by the Board and circulated to Department officials contemplate two forms of accommodation: the provision of an attorney or of an interpreter. These accommodations are offered primarily at the discretion of the Department employees, and they need not be provided where the employee believes that the prisoner or parolee has little likelihood of success on the merits at the hearing.[19] Even when an accommodation is furnished it is often ineffective, and the lack of appropriate accommodations has resulted in prisoners and parolees waiving or misunderstanding their rights at the notification stage; being prevented from 863 adequately preparing for hearings; failing to understand proceedings during hearings; and *863 being unable to assert grievances on appeal.[20]

The Board's written policy does not provide for the making of any effort to determine in advance whether a particular hearing facility is accessible for the mobility impaired. Instead, if a deputy commissioner is informed that there is a physical barrier to access, he will halt the hearing until a reasonable accommodation can be made. Such a procedure results in mobility-impaired prisoners and especially parolees spending extra time in custody awaiting their hearing.
In sum, the Board's written policy does not comply with the requirements of the ADA. As a general rule, injuries can stem from a failure to take action as well as from affirmative conduct. Here, plaintiffs were injured by the Board's failure to comply with the Act's requirements. They suffered discrimination on account of disability as a consequence, including the impairment or loss of services or programs provided by the Board. The Board's failure to comply also makes likely the recurrence of such injuries in the immediate future.
2. Practice
The Board's practice is to rely primarily on Department employees untrained in issues of disability to determine whether an individual is disabled or not, what accommodations are appropriate if he is, and whether those accommodations will be provided. These employees include the Department's institutional staff in the case of state inmates subject to life prisoner parole proceedings, and members of the Department's Parole and Community Services Division, acting on behalf of the Board, in the case of individuals subject to parole revocation proceedings. At the notification stage, disabled prisoners and parolees routinely waive their rights to hearings, frequently because they cannot comprehend the information provided to them.[21] Relatively few Department employees make inquiries in order to determine whether an accommodation is needed, and the Board's ADA officials who evaluate both such inquiries and inquiries made by the Board's hearing officers, do so on the basis of a "due process" standard that does not comport with the requirements of the ADA. In practice, the Board supplies only the three types of accommodation described above 0907 an attorney untrained in communications with the disabled; a similarly untrained interpreter; or a delay in proceedings while the hearing is rescheduled.
In conjunction with the Board's written policy, its practice throughout the parole and parole revocation process 864 routinely deprives disabled prisoners and parolees of *864 their rights under the ADA. The Board's practice,
consistent with its policies, permits Board and Department employees to deny appropriate accommodations requested by disabled prisoners and parolees, and instead to rely on a narrow and unsatisfactory range of alternatives. The Board's adherence to its "due process" standard undermines the ability of disabled prisoners and parolees to communicate with and comprehend Department and Board officials, at hearings and otherwise, and precludes the mobility impaired from access to hearings. Such treatment not only results in offense and frustration; it appears to have resulted in significant periods of unwarranted incarceration for a number of disabled parolees. Thus, as in the case of its written policy, the Board's practices warrant the holding that the "realistic repetition" requirement has been met, and that the named plaintiffs have established standing.
3. Plaintiff Class
Class membership may also be relevant to show an immediate likelihood of future injury. Where a named plaintiff is a member of a plaintiff class, and "members of the class have repeatedly suffered personal injuries in the past that can fairly be traced to the [defendants'] standard ... practices," the defendant's treatment of the class as a whole must be considered to determine whether the individual plaintiff "ha[s] been and will continue to be aggrieved by the defendants' [illegal] pattern of conduct." LaDuke, 762 F.2d at 1326. Here, plaintiffs provided overwhelming evidence of discrimination against the named plaintiffs as well as other, individually identified class members. That discrimination stretches back, in some instances, over ten years, and at the time of trial showed no signs of abating. The injury suffered by the named plaintiffs is sufficiently similar to that endured by the rest of the class to establish a pattern of discrimination that threatens to recur. The district court made findings of fact, which have ample support in the record, that named plaintiffs suffered repeated acts of discrimination, whether in

prison or on parole. Accordingly, based on past occurrences, the threat of future injury to the named plaintiffs as well as to the class itself is both real and immediate.
4. Actual Injury
The named plaintiffs are injured by the Board's policies and practices relating to its parole and parole revocation proceedings: plaintiffs are subjected to discriminatory treatment on account of their disabilities in violation of both the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. This treatment is sufficient to constitute an actual injury. Furthermore, as a consequence of the Board's unlawful discrimination, plaintiffs were unable to comprehend various parts of the parole and parole revocation process or denied the opportunity to attend the required hearings, and may even have been wrongfully incarcerated or denied parole. This too constitutes actual injury.
We comment briefly on the Board's contention that the deprivation of a fair parole hearing can not in itself constitute such injury. The Board contends that California Penal Code § 3041 does not create a fourteenth amendment due process right to such a hearing. However, following Ellis v. District of Columbia, 84 F.3d 1413, 1418 (D.C.Cir.1996) (holding that, until Supreme Court speaks more directly to the issue, prisoners' right to prerelease revocation hearing unaffected by holding in Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995)), we hold that the statute is sufficiently determinate to require such hearings as a matter of 865 constitutional right. Thus, we need not find a constitutional violation to establish actual *865 injury under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. In addition to prohibiting discriminatory treatment, those statutes prohibit defendants from denying plaintiffs "the benefits of [their] services, programs, or activities." Here, under the facts found by the district court, the plaintiffs were denied such benefits by virtue of the Board's failure to make accommodations that would enable them to attend or comprehend parole and parole revocation hearings. This, in itself, constitutes "actual injury."
Our holding is consistent with Lewis, in which the plaintiffs' asserted injury resulted from inadequate library facilities. The Supreme Court held that there was no right to library facilities, but only a right to access to courts, and that in most cases prisoners had failed to show how the prison's library policy infringed upon that right, given that other means of accessing the courts were available. It did, however, find actual injury in two instances, one of which was when a prisoner was "so stymied ... that he was unable to file a complaint" to remedy an "arguably actionable" harm. 518 U.S. at 351, 116 S.Ct. 2174. Thus, Lewis simply requires that in order to show actual injury plaintiffs must identify an actual right that has been violated. Here, actual injury exists because plaintiffs' rights to be free from discriminatory treatment, as provided by the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act, have been violated, and because they have been deprived of services or programs provided by the Board: fair parole and parole revocation hearings. Either violation, standing alone, is sufficient to constitute actual injury.
5. The Board's Objections to Standing
Defendants argue that the plaintiffs cannot meet the "likelihood of repetition" requirement, because their right to parole and parole revocation hearings depends upon their engaging in illegal conduct that they are under an obligation to avoid. Although we have held that there is sufficient likelihood that an injury inflicted during a hearing will be repeated when a plaintiff can assert a right to another such hearing, see Hawkins, 251 F.3d at 1237, nonetheless, standing is inappropriate where the future injury could be inflicted only in the event of future illegal conduct by the plaintiff. Lyons, 461 U.S. at 108, 103 S.Ct. 1660. See also Hodgers-Durgin v. De La Vina, 199 F.3d 1037, 1041 (9th Cir.1999) (en banc) (no standing where injury "contingent upon respondents' violating the law, getting caught, and being convicted.").
With respect to the prisoners' complaints regarding conditions at their various hearings, the Board's regulations require that prisoners sentenced to life with the possibility of parole be provided with certain hearings as a matter of formal Board policy. These include documentation hearings, progress hearings, and recision hearings, as well as the parole hearings themselves. No matter how well behaved the prisoners are, no matter how pure and proper their conduct, they must receive the specified hearings, so that the Board may document or determine their parole suitability. The Board's regulations establish that prisoners of the type before us are entitled to parole hearings before the Board at least every five years, and as often as every year, unless they waive those

hearings. The likelihood that a prisoner will be subjected to the hearings involved is, therefore, not at all speculative; rather, it is certain. The lawfulness or unlawfulness of his conduct in the interim is irrelevant to that fact.
866 The situation is different with respect to the complaints of parolees regarding deprivations *866 of their rights in connection with the parole revocation process. The Board asserts that these plaintiffs could avoid parole revocation hearings entirely by refraining from engaging in future illegal conduct. For support of this proposition, it relies on Lyons, 461 U.S. at 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660 (no standing where likelihood of further injury premised on repetition of unlawful traffic violation); O'Shea, 414 U.S. at 497, 94 S.Ct. 669 (no standing where plaintiffs planned to induce future injury by unlawful civil disobedience); and Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 13, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998) (no standing where future injury will not arise unless plaintiff has been convicted of and served sentence for future unlawful conduct). To the extent that these cases hold that standing does not exist where plaintiffs can avoid future injury by refraining from illegal conduct, they are not apposite here.
In Hodgers-Durgin, we expressly distinguished the Lyons line of cases on the basis that the Hodgers-Durgin plaintiffs asserted that the conduct on their part that triggered the defendants' violations was not unlawful. In that case, the plaintiffs alleged that while driving their vehicles in the normal course, they were stopped by the United States Border Patrol on the basis of their race, or because of their proximity to the border. We found that the plaintiffs had standing because, although the police were sufficiently suspicious of the plaintiffs to stop, question, and search them, "plaintiffs did nothing illegal to prompt the stops by the Border Patrol." Hodgers-Durgin, 199 F.3d at 1041.[22]
Here, as in Hodgers-Durgin, plaintiffs need not engage in unlawful conduct to become subject to the unlawful practices they seek to enjoin. The Board is not required to establish probable cause to begin the parole revocation process, nor is it necessary that any law enforcement officer observe the alleged violation:[23] the Board may start parole revocation proceedings when a rather low level of suspicion arises as the result of "some minimal inquiry" into the facts of the case. See Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 485, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972).[24] However, mere suspicion of misconduct is insufficient to defeat standing: in Hodgers-Durgin, although the Border Patrol officers were suspicious enough to stop, question, and search the plaintiffs' cars, we still found that the plaintiffs had standing to sue.[25]
867 *867 Next, the Board contends that the named plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate standing for "each type of relief sought," and cite Lewis v. Casey for that proposition. However, Lewis simply limits standing to the injury shown: a plaintiff who has been subject to injurious conduct of one kind does not have standing to sue for a different, although similar, injury to which he has not been subjected. 518 U.S. at 358 n. 6, 116 S.Ct. 2174. When determining what constitutes the same type of relief or the same kind of injury, we must be careful not to employ too narrow or technical an approach. Rather, we must examine the questions realistically: we must reject the temptation to parse too finely, and consider instead the context of the inquiry. Viewed in this light, the named plaintiffs all established the same injury: that the Board propounded a policy and engaged in a practice that denied them their rights under the ADA, and harmed them by preventing them from attending, communicating at, or comprehending parole and parole revocation hearings. Each showed that the Board discriminated against him, in a manner that resulted in a failure to afford him the benefit of the same service or program. As a result, it is evident that each suffered from the same injurious conduct; each incurred the same injury; and each is seeking the same relief.
The Board also asserts that the likelihood that the parolee plaintiffs will be subject to a future parole revocation hearing is purely speculative. However, five of the parolee plaintiffs were repeatedly subjected to parole revocation proceedings, some of them on a yearly basis. Abrams, Whisman, Blessing, and Badillo, waived their rights to a parole hearing because the accommodations provided did not enable them to comprehend the notification proceedings; Gough was unable to understand the notification or hearing process. Because the named-plaintiff parolees can establish a pattern of continuing discrimination that shows no sign of abating, we find that the parolee plaintiffs have standing to sue for a violation the ADA.
Our conclusion is bolstered by the fact that a person with disabilities is more likely to be suspected of conduct that results in the revocation of parole than other parolees. The district court specifically found that hearing

impaired, learning impaired, and developmentally disabled individuals engage in a range of coping mechanisms that can give the false impression of uncooperative behavior or lack of remorse. It is therefore likely that these individuals will have difficulty interacting with the personnel who supervise their parole, explaining any innocent but non-conforming behavior, and showing remorse for otherwise minor infractions of the conditions of their parole that do not rise to the level of unlawful conduct. These problems make it more likely that such parolees will be subjected to the parole revocation process, even though they have not committed any unlawful act or violated any condition of their parole.
B. Class Certification
The district court's decision certifying the class is subject to a "very limited" review and will be reversed "only upon a strong showing that the district court's decision was a clear abuse of discretion." In re Mego Financial Corp. Secs. Litig., 213 F.3d 454, 461 (9th Cir.2000) (citation omitted). As a preliminary matter, we note that, after 868 the evidentiary hearing on the first motion for class certification, the state defendants stipulated to a motion *868 amending the plaintiff class, and then did not object when the class was amended a second time at the pre-trial hearing. Furthermore, the district court's findings of fact generally support its grant of class certification.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), "[o]ne or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all only if (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class." In addition, to prosecute a class action, the plaintiffs must show that "the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief ... with respect to the class as a whole." Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2).
In the instant case, the Board asserts that the named plaintiffs fail to satisfy the standards of commonality and typicality required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a). Although the commonality and typicality requirements tend to merge into one another, see General Tel. Co. of Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 157 n. 13, 102 S.Ct. 2364, 72 L.Ed.2d 740 (1982), they are stated differently. The commonality requirement is said to be met if plaintiffs' grievances share a common question of law or of fact. See Baby Neal ex rel. Kanter v. Casey, 43 F.3d 48, 56 (3d Cir.1994). Typicality, by contrast, is said to require that the claims of the class representatives be typical of those of the class, and to be "satisfied when each class member's claim arises from the same course of events, and each class member makes similar legal arguments to prove the defendant's liability." Marisol v. Giuliani, 126 F.3d 372, 376 (2nd Cir.1997). The crux of both requirements is to ensure that "maintenance of a class action is economical and [that] the named plaintiff's claim and the class claims are so interrelated that the interests of the class members will be fairly and adequately protected in their absence." Id.
1. Commonality
The Board argues that a wide variation in the nature of the particular class members' disabilities precludes a finding of commonality. It asserts, in effect, that separate representative lawsuits should be filed by the hearing impaired, the vision impaired, the developmentally disabled, the learning impaired, and the mobility impaired. We reject this approach to class-action litigation. We have previously held, in a civil-rights suit, that commonality is satisfied where the lawsuit challenges a system-wide practice or policy that affects all of the putative class members. See LaDuke, 762 F.2d at 1332; see also 5 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 23.23 [5][f] (3d ed.1999) (citing LaDuke). In such circumstance, individual factual differences among the individual litigants or groups of litigants will not preclude a finding of commonality. See Baby Neal, 43 F.3d at 56. Certainly, the differences that exist here do not justify requiring groups of persons with different disabilities, all of whom suffer similar harm from the Board's failure to accommodate their disabilities, to prosecute separate actions. The commonality requirement is met.

2. Typicality
Where the challenged conduct is a policy or practice that affects all class members, the underlying issue 869 presented with respect to typicality is similar to that presented with respect to commonality, although *869 the
emphasis may be different. In such a case, because the cause of the injury is the same 0907 here, the Board's discriminatory policy and practice 0907 the typicality inquiry involves comparing the injury asserted in the claims raised by the named plaintiffs with those of the rest of the class. We do not insist that the named plaintiffs' injuries be identical with those of the other class members, only that the unnamed class members have injuries similar to those of the named plaintiffs and that the injuries result from the same, injurious course of conduct. See Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497, 508 (9th Cir. 1992). Here, the injuries are identical. The plaintiffs all suffer a refusal or failure to afford them accommodations as required by statute, and are objects of discriminatory treatment on account of their disabilities. On a more specific level, the injuries lie in the inability of prisoners and parolees with disabilities to comprehend what is occurring at the parole and parole revocation hearings and to communicate with those presiding (or in some instances even to obtain such hearings) and, in the case of mobility impaired individuals, to overcome the physical barriers to attendance. Thus, the plaintiffs all suffer the deprivation of "services, programs, or activities," provided by the Board, or fail to receive the full benefit of such services. 42 U.S.C. § 12132. Although there are minor differences in the nature of the specific injuries suffered by the various class members, the differences are insufficient to defeat typicality.
3. Defective Certification
While the class certification is generally proper, it is defective in two respects. First, in addition to the prisoners and parolees with sight, hearing, learning, developmental and mobility disabilities, the district court designated individuals with kidney disabilities as members of the class. As amended, however, the class no longer includes a named plaintiff with a kidney disability. We are unable to determine from the district court's decision or the parties briefs (which do not mention the subject) what injuries, if any, prisoners or parolees with renal disorders suffer as a result of the defendants' failure to comply with the law. Accordingly, should the plaintiffs wish to maintain a claim on behalf of prisoners and parolees with kidney disabilities, they would have to amend the complaint to include one or more individuals with such disabilities among the named plaintiffs, and set forth the facts showing how they are injured.
Second, in addition to life prisoner hearings, parole revocation hearings, and parole revocation extension hearings, the plaintiffs challenge the Board's procedures relating to the hearing process for Sexually Violent Predators and Mentally Disordered Offenders.[26] None of the named plaintiffs, however, is a sexually violent predator or a mentally disordered offender. Those two categories of putative class members may be sufficiently distinct from the other class members that separate class representatives are necessary in order to ensure that their interests are fairly and adequately protected. See Hanon, 976 F.2d at 508. At least, on the record presented, 870 we cannot say they are sufficiently similar. On remand, plaintiffs may *870 choose to add additional named plaintiffs to represent the claims of sexually violent predators and mentally disordered offenders, "or to otherwise refashion this action to remedy class defects." Hawkins, 251 F.3d at 1238.
C. Scope of Injunctive Relief
The district court identified three general areas in which the Board did not comply with the mandatory provisions of the ADA and the regulations implementing that Act by failing to: (1) provide effective communications during the notification, hearing, and appeals process; (2) modify policies and procedures to provide reasonable accommodations to disabled prisoners and parolees; and (3) select facilities accessible to the mobility-impaired. After making detailed factual findings on each of these issues, the court specified the manner in which the Board violated the ADA, holding that the defendants "have engaged in ongoing, extensive, system-wide violations of the ADA, Section 504 and the Constitution.... [S]ystemic injunctive relief in this case is therefore justified." The injunctive relief granted was deliberately and particularly tailored to address each of the violations identified in the

district court's order. The Board contends that the relief awarded is overbroad for two reasons: (1) the district court should have considered only the injuries suffered by the named plaintiffs, and limited relief accordingly; and (2) federalism concerns preclude the court from anything other than the most minimal interference in a state parole system.
1. System-Wide Relief
"The scope of injunctive relief is dictated by the extent of the violation established." Lewis, 518 U.S. at 359, 116 S.Ct. 2174. The key question, for purposes of Lewis, is whether the inadequacy complained of is in fact "widespread enough to justify system wide relief." Lewis, 518 U.S. at 359, 116 S.Ct. 2174. Lewis reiterates the longstanding maxim that injunctive relief against a state agency or official must be no broader than necessary to remedy the constitutional violation. See Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U.S. 267, 280, 97 S.Ct. 2749, 53 L.Ed.2d 745 (1977). System-wide relief is required if the injury is the result of violations of a statute or the constitution that are attributable to policies or practices pervading the whole system (even though injuring a relatively small number of plaintiffs), or if the unlawful policies or practices affect such a broad range of plaintiffs that an overhaul of the system is the only feasible manner in which to address the class's injury. However, if injunctive relief is premised upon only a few isolated violations affecting a narrow range of plaintiffs, its scope must be limited accordingly.[27]
We also note that the decision to grant system-wide prospective injunctive relief does not occur in a vacuum; it is 871 intimately *871 connected to determinations made earlier in the lawsuit. The court's rulings concerning the
likelihood of future injury at the standing stage "obviously shade[s] into those determining whether the complaint states a sound basis for equitable relief." Lyons, 461 U.S. at 103, 103 S.Ct. 1660 (citing O'Shea, 414 U.S. at 499, 94 S.Ct. 669). And the court's determination that relief may be sought by a class of plaintiffs is relevant to the scope of the relief to be awarded. In fact, class certification serves to alter the court's inquiry: when a class is properly certified, the injury asserted by the named plaintiffs at the standing stage of our inquiry is asserted on behalf of all members of the class. Accordingly, although in a class-action lawsuit, as in any other suit, "the remedy must ... be limited to the inadequacy that produced the injury in fact that the plaintiff has established," see Lewis, 518 U.S. at 357, 116 S.Ct. 2174, the "plaintiff" has been broadened to include the class as a whole, and no longer simply those named in the complaint.
In this case, system-wide injunctive relief was justified by the district court's extensive findings of fact setting forth in meticulous detail the injuries suffered by seventeen different prisoners and parolees at a variety of Board facilities and hearings. The district court expressly noted that these findings were not limited to the individual prisoners and parolees named in its opinion, but extended to members of the class throughout the parole system. The Board's treatment of the seventeen individuals was symptomatic of its treatment of a broad class of inmates with disabilities; and all of the violations the court found stemmed from the policies and practices of the Board, permeated its institutions, and were condoned by officials ranging from Commissioner Nielsen to the Board's deputy commissioners and Department officials acting as agents of the Board and under its guidelines. Such findings are sufficient to satisfy Lewis's requirement that factual findings support the relief sought.
Furthermore, we note that Lewis does not require a particular number of named plaintiffs before system-wide relief is appropriate. In a class-action lawsuit, Rule 23(b)(2) enables a trial court to determine the appropriateness of system-wide relief based on the individual experiences of the named plaintiffs. The district court retains wide discretion to hear evidence tending to establish the scope of the class and the range of claims it represents. For class certification to occur, the court must find that the named plaintiffs adequately represent the interests and experiences of the overall class. In making such findings, the trial court must be afforded a wide degree of discretion to determine when a particular number of inmate witnesses is sufficient to justify system-wide relief for the identified violation. So long as the trial court's conclusion is based upon adequate findings supported by substantial evidence in the record, we must defer to its evaluation of the scope of the class and the injury it suffered. In so doing we recognize the utility and propriety of various procedural rules (like the class action device) that authorize the trial court to view individual items of evidence as representative of larger conditions or 872 problems.[28]*872 The main concern of Lewis is to ensure that courts do not enter broader injunctions than are

necessary, and do not prohibit conduct that is not threatened. (See also supra Part II.B) This is certainly not the case here.[29]
2. Prison Litigation Reform Act
In determining the scope of injunctive relief that interferes with the affairs of a state agency, we must ensure, out of federalism concerns, that the injunction "heel[s] close to the identified violation," Gilmore v. California, 220 F.3d 987, 1005 (9th Cir.2000) (citation omitted), and is not overly "intrusive and unworkable ... [and] would [not] require for its enforcement the continuous supervision by the federal court over the conduct of [state officers]." O'Shea, 414 U.S. at 500, 501, 94 S.Ct. 669. As we recently noted, these concerns have been codified in the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3626 (PLRA).[30]See Gomez v. Vernon, 255 F.3d 1118, 1129 (9th Cir.2001) (PLRA "has not substantially changed the threshold findings and standards required to justify an injunction.").
Here, the district court specifically made the findings required by the PLRA, see 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1), and narrowly tailored the injunction to remedy only those violations of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act established in the district court's findings of fact. The court permitted the state to develop the policies and programs necessary to remedy its violation of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, and afforded the plaintiffs an opportunity to object to the state's proposals.[31] The Board and the plaintiffs subsequently stipulated to the propriety of the new policies and 873 procedures, and they have in fact been *873 implemented.[32]
Although it is often difficult to discern the precise nature of the Board's arguments, it appears that the Board essentially objects not to the process that the district court employed, but to the content of the injunction. In particular, the Board appears to contend that the injunction improperly interferes with its activities by dictating particular remedies, including: employing a full-time ADA coordinator; training its staff and the attorneys provided to individuals with disabilities; providing assistance to parolees preparing for revocation hearings; ensuring the availability of forms in comprehensible alternative formats; and obtaining permission from a delegate of the Board Chairman before permitting the shackling of an inmate who requires a sign-language interpreter at a parole or parole revocation hearing. The majority of the provisions of which the Board complains are required by regulations implementing the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. See 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.107 (ADA coordinator and grievance procedures) 35.150(b) (transition plan); 35.105 (self-evaluation); 35.160 and Pt. 35, App. A (effective communications; primary consideration be given to disabled individual's requested accommodation). Moreover, the court is entitled to give some guidance to the Board and set some deadlines for compliance. By her injunction, the thorough and extremely patient district judge did not attempt to "micro manage" the Board's activities, but rather to set clear objectives for it to attempt to attain, and, in most circumstances, general methods whereby it would attain them.[33]
Finally, although the Board complains that the new policies impose unspecified financial and administrative burdens, we note that some such burdens are shared by all state agencies required to implement the ADA and Rehabilitation Acts. Aside from this general, but unfounded, concern, the Board has apparently experienced no burdensome interference with its parole and parole revocation process. In short, there is nothing to suggest that the injunction is unworkable: indeed, the Board appears to have found the new policies and procedures perfectly workable. Accordingly, we hold that the relief granted was appropriate and that the court order complied with the PLRA.
D. Propriety of Injunction
On appeal, the Board asserts three principal objections to the propriety of the district court's injunction: that the Board has provided a legitimate penological justification for its actions (or inactions) under Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987); that many of the claims against the Board were resolved in the settlement agreement between plaintiffs and the Department; and that Governor Davis and Secretary Presley are not properly subject to the injunction. We address each in turn.

1. Turner v. Safley
Turner holds that "when a prison regulation impinges upon inmates' constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests." 482 U.S. at 89. Here, we are presented with policies 874 and regulations of a state parole board which apply both to *874 the inmates inside the prison and the parolees on the outside. While we have not yet considered whether Turner is limited to the prison context or whether it also applies to matters affecting parolees, certainly many of the reasons justifying prison authorities overriding prisoners rights disappear outside the prison walls.[34]See Felce v. Fiedler, 974 F.2d 1484, 1495-1496 (7th Cir.1992). However, we need not decide that issue for purposes of this appeal.
Assuming, without deciding, that Turner applies to all aspects of the case before us, we are required to determine whether there is a "valid, rational connection between the prison regulation and the legitimate governmental interest put forward to justify it." Turner, 482 U.S. at 90, 107 S.Ct. 2254. The Board has, however, repeatedly failed to adduce any justification, rational or not, for its ADA policy. For starters, it presents no justification that we can discern in its briefs. Equally surprising, the Board admitted at oral argument that we would find none in the record: it argued that such omission was immaterial so long as, even at that late stage of proceedings, "we can come up with any reason in our heads" that would justify its policies.[35]
To satisfy Turner, the Board must, at the very least, adduce some penological reason for its policy at the relevant stage of the judicial proceedings. "[C]onsiderations advanced to support a restrictive policy [must] be ... sufficiently articulated to permit meaningful ... review." Walker v. Sumner, 917 F.2d 382, 386 (9th Cir.1990). Thus, at a minimum, the reasons must be urged in the district court. While the Board is correct that the burden rests with the plaintiff to refute the Board's defense that its actions were penologically justified, see Frost v. Symington, 197 F.3d 348, 357 (9th Cir.1999), that defense must at the very least be raised. Here, at oral argument, the Board for the first time referred obtusely to something about "cost" and "administrative" concerns without any explanation whatsoever as to how or in what respect the injunction implicated these matters. Certainly, it did not suggest that the unspecified costs and administrative concerns were any greater than those of any other agency subject to the ADA, or offer any reason why it should be exempted from the ordinary costs and burdens of complying with the ADA. We agree with the Seventh Circuit that prison authorities "cannot avoid court scrutiny [under Turner] by reflexive, rote assertions." Shimer v. Washington, 100 F.3d 506, 510 (7th Cir.1996). In this case, the Board's unusual contentions did not even rise to that level, see n.35, supra. In short, the Board has failed totally to establish that the injunctive order in any way conflicts with Turner.
2. Control Over Department
The Board next argues that the injunction applies to parts of the original litigation already resolved by the settlement agreement, and is directed at facilities and individuals that are under the control of the Department. 875 This objection does not *875 properly apply to the parole revocation notification and hearing process. Prior to the hearing, the parolees are not incarcerated in facilities controlled by the Department, and notices may be served by any qualified persons designated by the Board. Moreover, parole revocation hearings need not be conducted at Department facilities. Because the Board can conduct the parole revocation process without using Department personnel or premises, the Board could readily comply with this aspect of the injunction without involving the Department's staff or facilities in any way.
The case of prisoners (and parolees whose parole has already been revoked) is different, however. The Department may in some instances require the Board to utilize Department staff or facilities when serving notice or conducting hearings on Department premises. We have identified three aspects of the injunction that must be construed or modified in a manner that will ensure that it does not order the Department to further modify its facilities, policies, or procedures,[36] or direct the Board to require the Department to do so (even assuming the Board had such authority).

a. Department Facilities
Paragraph 6 of the injunction, which requires the Board to develop a transition plan in accordance with 28 C.F.R. § 25.150(d), mandates that the Board evaluate facilities in which parole proceedings are conducted; provide the Department of Corrections with a list of all facilities that are not fully accessible; and produce a schedule for providing accessible proceedings for prisoners with disabilities at each facility. While most of paragraph 6 is unobjectionable, and simply requires the Board to inform itself as to which facilities, including Department facilities, provide accessible hearing rooms for mobility impaired prisoners or parolees, to the extent that it requires mobility impaired prisoners housed in Department facilities to be transported to alternative, accessible hearing locations, paragraph 6 may interfere with the Department's penological interest in securely confining certain prisoners. Accordingly, we construe this provision as requiring only that the Board request that the Department transport mobility impaired prisoners to accessible locations if the facilities at which they are housed are inadequate. The Department may, for valid security or other penological reasons, decline to do so.[37]
b. Training of Department Personnel
Paragraph 14 of the injunction requires the Board to provide ADA training to its own staff, any attorneys it employs, and Department staff involved in the parole and parole revocation process. This portion of the injunction is designed to enforce 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(1), which prohibits state entities from avoiding compliance with the act by delegating their services "through contractual, licensing, or other agreements." To the extent that paragraph 14 directs the Board to require Department personnel to undergo training, we agree with the Board's 876 objection. Accordingly, we instruct the district court to modify the injunction *876 as follows on remand: The Board shall provide training for all persons under its jurisdiction to the extent set forth in paragraph 14; it shall also offer training to Department staff involved in the parole and revocation process; should any Department personnel decline such training, the Board shall use its own personnel in their stead, except when the Department requires that Department employees perform the services involved.
c. Tracking System
Paragraphs 15-18 of the injunction require that the Board establish a tracking system by which it can determine which inmates suffer from disabilities, and what their disabilities are.[38] The Board relies upon a prior decision of ours in the Department phase of this case, see Armstrong v. Davis, 215 F.3d 1332, 2000 WL 369622 (9th Cir.2000), in asserting that no tracking system is required. However, in our earlier opinion we did not reject the tracking requirement per se, but held that the tracking system proposed by the Department was "reasonably related to legitimate penological interests," and should not have been rejected by the district court. See id. Because the regulations implementing the ADA require a public entity to accommodate individuals it has identified as disabled, 28 C.F.R. § 35.104, some form of tracking system is necessary in order to enable the Board to comply with the Act. However, to the extent that tracking is conducted by the Department, it is not necessary for the Board to duplicate that system, and the Board may make use of the Department's tracking system as a permissible means of complying with the injunction.
3. Davis and Presley
Governor Davis and Secretary Presley contend that they are not properly part of this portion of the lawsuit and that plaintiffs are barred from proceeding against them here by virtue of the settlement agreement entered into by the plaintiffs and the Department. A settlement is interpreted as any other contract, under the interpretive rules of the state. Gates v. Rowland, 39 F.3d 1439, 1444 (9th Cir. 1994). The first step in contractual interpretation in California is to examine the text, Cal.Civil Code § 1638, and determine the intent of the parties. Cal.Civil Code § 1636. Here, the Governor and the Secretary rely on two parts of the settlement agreement. First, they point to the text, which states that: "This settlement does not resolve any issues between plaintiffs and the Board of Prison

Terms or defendant Nielsen." Second, they rely on the inclusion in the settlement agreement of their names among the Department defendants. The two provisions on which they rely do not show that the agreement was intended to release Davis and Presley from the Board's portion of the case. The purpose of the provision of the settlement agreement quoted above was to make it clear that none of the issues regarding the Board's operations were to be affected by the Department's agreement. The fact is that the settlement agreement did resolve some issues involving Davis and Presley, because they, unlike Nielsen, have supervisory authority over the Department. Thus, it would have been erroneous to include their names in the quoted provision of the settlement agreement. As to the inclusion of Davis' and Presley's names on the list of Department defendants, 877 their *877 names were included because the two state officials have supervisory authority over the Department, and to the extent the claims against the Department were resolved, so were the claims against them. The claims against the Board were not resolved, however, nor were the claims against Davis or Presley that were based on their supervision of the Board. It is significant in this regard that there is no language in the settlement agreement providing that the Governor and the Secretary shall be dismissed as parties, or that all claims against them would be resolved by the agreement.
The simple fact is that the settlement agreement resolved only a portion of the issues between the plaintiffs and Davis and Presley, the two state officers who have jurisdiction over both the Department and the Board. While it might have been preferable to include a sentence stating explicitly that the Governor and the Secretary remain defendants in the instant portion of the lawsuit, such language was not essential. Thus, Davis and Presley properly remain parties to the litigation between the plaintiffs and the Board.
E. Sovereign Immunity
The defendants have not raised the issue of sovereign immunity in this case. Accordingly, any defendants to whom sovereign immunity might apply have waived that affirmative defense. Waiver of the sovereign immunity defense must typically be "stated by the most express language or by such overwhelming implication" that the state's intent to waive is unambiguous. Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 239-40, 105 S.Ct. 3142, 87 L.Ed.2d 171 (1985). Thus, mere appearance to defend a lawsuit will not act as a waiver, but "conduct during the litigation [that] clearly manifests acceptance of the federal court's jurisdiction or is otherwise incompatible with an assertion of Eleventh Amendment immunity" will be construed as a waiver. Hill v. Blind Indus. & Servs. of Md., 179 F.3d 754, 759 (1999), amended by 201 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir.2000).[39] This is so because Eleventh Amendment immunity has traditionally been characterized as a "personal privilege which [the state] may waive at [its] pleasure," Clark v. Barnard, 108 U.S. 436, 447, 2 S.Ct. 878, 27 L.Ed. 780 (1883), and although in the nature of a jurisdictional bar, it does not actually "implicate a federal court's subject matter jurisdiction in any ordinary sense" and thus may be "forfeited by the State's failure to assert it." ITSI TV Prods., Inc. v. Agricultural Ass'ns., 3 F.3d 1289, 1291 (9th Cir.1993); see also Wisc. Dep't of Corrs. v. Schacht, 524 U.S. 381, 389, 118 S.Ct. 2047, 141 L.Ed.2d 364 (1998) ("The State can waive the defense. Nor need a court raise the defect on its own. Unless the State raises the matter, a court can ignore it.").
In Hill, we held that by actively litigating its case on the merits throughout the pre-trial period and waiting until the opening day of trial to assert a sovereign immunity defense, the state had waived that defense. 179 F.3d at 763. 878 Here, the defendants engaged in litigation *878 conduct far more extensive than that of the defendant in Hill. The defendants did not assert sovereign immunity as a defense to this lawsuit in either of their amended answers, in the joint pretrial statement, in any pre-trial motions, at trial, or in the briefs on appeal.[40] Instead, they argued to the district court that their policies complied with the ADA, and on appeal that any violations of the ADA do not justify the relief granted.[41] Indeed, even though the defendants did not mention a sovereign immunity defense in their briefs, this court twice asked them to submit a letter brief about the effect of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Board of Trs. of the Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 121 S.Ct. 955, 148 L.Ed.2d 866 (2001), on this case, but they declined to do so.[42] Consequently, the defense is waived.
Additionally, it is undisputed that the Rehabilitation Act applies in this case: the acceptance of federal funds upon which the applicability of the Rehabilitation Act is conditioned serves to waive sovereign immunity with respect to the claims that arise under that Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-7; Jim C. v. United States, 235 F.3d 1079, 1082 (8th

Cir.2000) (en banc) (holding that accepting funds pursuant to § 2000d-7 is a valid waiver of sovereign immunity); see also generally College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666, 686-87, 119 S.Ct. 2219, 144 L.Ed.2d 605 (1999) ("Congress may, in the exercise of its spending power, condition its grant of funds to the States upon their taking certain actions that Congress could not require them to take, and that acceptance of the funds entails an agreement to the actions."). As we have noted (see n.17 supra at p. 879 861-62), the claims in this case are identical under the Rehabilitation Act and *879 the ADA. Thus, the injunction would withstand a defense of sovereign immunity even if a suit against the Board under the ADA were barred.
Furthermore, Garrett makes clear that there is another, independent basis for the implementation of the injunction: there is no barrier to the injunction against Nielson in his official capacity as Secretary of the Board. Garrett, explicitly stated that "[o]ur holding here ... does not mean that persons with disabilities have no federal recourse against discrimination. Title I of the ADA still prescribes standards applicable to the States. Those standards can be enforced by ... private individuals in actions for injunctive relief under Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908)." 121 S.Ct. at 968, n. 9. Because the injunction requires Secretary Nielsen to comply with its provisions, it would remain in force even if relief could not be ordered against the Board, and its effect would, for all practical purposes be the same. For the reasons set forth above, the state is not immune from suit. Moreover, the injunction would be effective as to Secretary Nielsen in any event.
III. CONCLUSION
There is no dispute that the Board repeatedly violated the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act, and it is evident that the violations were system-wide. Plaintiffs have standing to seek a remedy for those violations. In most respects, the class-certification was appropriate. However, if plaintiffs seek to include, within the class, sexually violent predators, mentally disordered offenders, and prisoners or parolees with renal impairments, named plaintiffs must be added to represent those groups. Otherwise, the district court must modify the certification order and the injunction accordingly. We interpret paragraphs 6 and 15-18 of the injunction as permitting the Department to object, for valid penological reasons, to the transportation of prisoners (including those facing parole revocation extension hearings) to alternative facilities, and as permitting the Board to use the Department's tracking system to comply with the injunction. We order that paragraph 14 be modified to the extent that it requires the Board to exercise control over Department personnel, and direct the district court to do so on remand. In all other respects the injunction is proper and its scope appropriate. It does not violate the provisions of the PLRA and is not inconsistent with Turner v. Safley. Sovereign immunity does not bar this action, and Governor Davis and Secretary Presley properly remain as defendants.
AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART
BERZON, Circuit Judge, concurring:
I fully concur in the opinion, but write separately about two related matters. First, the standing issue in this case is, I believe, somewhat more straightforward than the court's opinion may suggest. Second, it is useful to compare this case directly to Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996), the Supreme Court's most recent major pronouncement on the issuance of injunctions in prison cases. Doing so demonstrates that the injunction in this case suffers none of the standing or other defects that led the Court in Lewis to preclude equitable relief. Because the two points inform one another, I will discuss them together.
Standing is a jurisdictional issue. The court therefore must address standing, where questionable, even if the parties do not raise it. See, e.g., Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327, 331, 97 S.Ct. 1211, 51 L.Ed.2d 376 (1977). Here, 880 the Bureau of Prison *880 Terms and its Chairman (BPT) did raise a standing issue, but on much more limited bases than the court's comprehensive discussion may suggest. I mention that not because I think the court is wrong to do a thorough job, but because the fact that the BPT, in its very complete presentations, did not raise at all some of the concerns the court discusses suggests that, as the court ultimately concludes, there is no merit to them.
I therefore find it helpful to begin the standing inquiry with the question the court addresses last but upon which the BPT concentrated in its rather brief presentations 0907 namely, whether the individual named plaintiffs suffered

an actual injury. If they did, then under Hodgers-Durgin v. De La Vina, 199 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir.1999) (en banc), there is an Article III "case or controversy," and the question becomes whether the named plaintiffs have made a showing of a "real or immediate threat that the plaintiff[s] will be wronged again" adequate to maintain a claim for equitable relief. Id. at 1042, quoting Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 111, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983).
The BPT maintains 0907 fairly cursorily 0907 that some of the named plaintiffs suffered no "legal injury", by which I presume BPT means that they suffered no Article III injury. Otherwise, the argument could not matter for standing purposes. One contention is that several of the named plaintiffs suffered no such injury because they never asked for an accommodation. But the question whether the provisions of Title II of the ADA assuring disabled individuals equal access to public programs are limited to those who request accommodation is a merits question, not one that affects whether the plaintiffs have suffered an injury in fact.
The BPT also suggests at points that the named plaintiffs lack standing because they cannot show that the result of their parole proceedings would have been different had they been accommodated. A similar inquiry was central in Lewis, because Lewis involved a constitutional challenge based on a right of access to the courts. Given the basis for the lawsuit, the Court in Lewis concluded that only inmates who could demonstrate that the prison's failure to provide some means of accessing courts deprived them of the ability to litigate an arguable claim could show an actual injury. Id., at 351-353, 116 S.Ct. 2174.
Here, however, the named plaintiffs are pursuing a statutorily-protected interest in equal access with other prisoners and parolees to parole-related BPT proceedings 0907 a dignitary interest, so to speak. Further, the statute under which they are suing specifically protects disabled individuals' "participation" in "programs" of a public entity. Plaintiffs are alleging, in other words, that the ADA protects the right of disabled but otherwise "qualified" individuals to participate in their own parole hearings whether or not the result is affected, just as the same statute protects the right of disabled but otherwise "qualified" professional golfers to participate in tournaments even if they come in last and don't win a penny. See PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661, 121 S.Ct. 1879, 149 L.Ed.2d 904 (2001).
Another BPT contention is that because the California Department of Corrections (CDC) entered into a settlement with the plaintiff class regarding its own ADA violations, the plaintiffs have no continuing "legal injury" with regard to matters within the BPT's bailiwick that might be remedied by the CDC plan. There is, however, nothing in the present record regarding any actual relevant change of conditions due to the CDC plan. The matter 881 is therefore more properly addressed, as the court addresses it, by adjusting the scope *881 of relief to cover only the BPT's involvement.
The BPT's fourth standing challenge concerns only the plaintiffs who were involved in parole revocation proceedings. BPT analogizes the plaintiffs' situation to that of ordinary citizens who seek to contest governmental conduct that might ensue if the plaintiffs break the law in the future, as in Lyons and O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 499, 94 S.Ct. 669, 38 L.Ed.2d 674 (1974). BPT argues that the parolee plaintiffs in this case cannot allege a credible threat of future injury sufficient to sustain a claim to equitable relief, because the possibility that they will participate in future parole revocation hearings depends on too many contingencies.
The court addresses that contention convincingly, showing that:
(1) Most importantly, many of the plaintiffs had already been subjected to multiple parole revocation proceedings, compare Hodgers-Durgin, 199 F.3d at 1045 (citizens stopped repeatedly by Border Patrol agents should be able to demonstrate the requisite likelihood of future injury, although plaintiffs stopped once in ten years could not).
(2) There are various critical differences between the situation of individuals subject to parole supervision and ordinary citizens as regards the likelihood of future involvement in libertythreatening proceedings. These differences include the fact of mandatory, ongoing interactions with law enforcement officials, the fact that parole can be and often is revoked for reasons other than violations of criminal laws, and the absence of any probable cause requirement preceding a parole revocation hearing.

(3) There would be no further contingencies if plaintiffs were again threatened with parole revocation, because the absence of accommodation was established BPT policy.
Interestingly, Lewis, while expressing great concern to assure that only inmates who had suffered actual injury could obtain injunctive relief, appeared willing to assume the likelihood of future injury from actual injury in the past where the affected plaintiffs and class members remained within the corrections system and subject to its rules, regulations, and facilities. The Court did not ask whether the illiterate plaintiff who had his court case dismissed with prejudice because he had no assistance in bringing it was likely to have a claim dismissed again in the future for that reason. Instead, the Court held only that "[t]he remedy must ... be limited to the inadequacy that produced the injury in fact that the plaintiff has established." Id. at 357, 116 S.Ct. 2174.
For all these reasons, the named plaintiffs in this case, like the two plaintiffs in Hodgers-Durgin, demonstrated that they have Article III standing to pursue this litigation. The questions then become (1) whether they have also established entitlement to equitable relief; and (2) if so, whether the scope of the relief granted is commensurate with the showing of injury suffered by the class.
It is critical to this case, in my view, that these two inquiries are not the same. While the prevalence of similar injuries among members of the class who are not named plaintiffs is not relevant to the first inquiry, see HodgersDurgin, 199 F.3d at 1045, the circumstances of class members are relevant to 0907 indeed, of enormous importance to 0907 the second inquiry, namely, the appropriate scope of any injunctive relief, as Lewis indicates. See 518 U.S. at 359-60, 116 S.Ct. 2174 (looking at all the state's prison facilities and at class members who were not named 882 plaintiffs before concluding that there were only two instances *882 in which an illiterate inmate was unable to file a claim because he did not have assistance); id. at 360 n. 7, 116 S.Ct. 2174 ("[o]ur holding regarding the inappropriateness of systemwide relief for illiterate inmates does not rest upon the application of standing rules, but rather ... upon the respondents' failure to prove that denials of access to illiterate prisoners pervade the State's prison system.")[1] This consideration of class members' circumstances once standing and entitlement to equitable relief by named plaintiffs is established is commensurate with the general rule that once a court properly certifies a class action, "the unnamed persons described in the certification acquire[] a legal status separate from the interest asserted by the appellant." Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393, 393, 95 S.Ct. 553, 42 L.Ed.2d 532 (1975); see also Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 110 n. 11, 95 S.Ct. 854, 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975)[2]; United States Parole Comm'n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 100 S.Ct. 1202, 63 L.Ed.2d 479 (1980).
As to the inquiry whether the named plaintiffs here have established their own entitlement to equitable relief, the circumstances surveyed above with respect to those plaintiffs' Article III standing are determinative: The life prisoners have a likely recurring injury, because they may well have repeated parole suitability hearings and the record establishes that the BPT had an ongoing policy of not providing for the full participation of inmates with the named plaintiffs' communication, mental, and mobility disabilities. The parolees, for the reasons already discussed, are more in the situation of the inmates in Lewis than the free-roving citizens in Hodgers-Durgin, as they remain subject to the direct supervision and intervention of the criminal justice system even if they do not break any criminal laws. They therefore have a likelihood of recurring exposure to parole hearings, and to the BPT's legally deficient policies regarding their participation in those hearings.
Turning to the second question 0907 whether systemwide relief was merited 0907 it is here that the contrast with Lewis becomes most stark. The ADA, as noted, protects against exclusion from participation. In this case, therefore, unlike Lewis, it suffices that such denial of participation exists for each category of disability represented by the 883 named plaintiffs as well as geographically across the system. Whether *883 or not there are inmates of each category throughout the system whose ability to attain or stay on parole was affected as a result does not matter. Compare Lewis, 518 U.S. at 350, 116 S.Ct. 2174 ("The foregoing analysis would not be pertinent here if, as respondents seem to assume, the right at issue 0907 the right to which the actual or threatened harm must pertain 0907 was the right to a law library or to legal assistance.") The plaintiffs have made this showing, through extensive individual and expert testimony, and, critically, the BPT does not now challenge as unsupported by the evidence any of the findings of the court regarding particular examples of ADA violations or the pervasiveness of its ADA violations throughout the system.

The BPT comes at the contention that the named plaintiffs should not have been permitted to attain relief directed at the class's injuries in another way as well, maintaining that the named plaintiffs should be allowed to represent only classes with their particular disabilities, and then only with regard to the type of hearing to which they were exposed. But there is no reason that a plaintiff cannot be typical 0907 or present common issues 0907 with regard to both the class of disability they have and the type of hearing they have experienced, independently.
Moreover, how a class is properly defined depends largely on the claim they seek to adjudicate. Here, the contention is that the BPT had a consistent policy of precluding meaningful participation in hearings for disabled prisoners and parolees generally, and for the particular classes of disabled prisoners and parolees represented by the named plaintiffs specifically. There are only so many forms of interaction between the prisoners and parolees and the BPT 0907 written, oral, and physical. Whether a particular plaintiff has dyslexia or another learning disability does not matter with regard to whether the BPT has in place means of accommodating prisoners or parolees who cannot read. In Lewis, for example, the Court treated two illiterate inmates as raising a common issue concerning adequate legal assistance without considering why each inmate could not read.[3] Similarly, whether a particular plaintiff is a paraplegic or has multiple sclerosis does not matter with respect to whether the BPT improperly conducts hearings in places inaccessible to mobility-impaired individuals.
If the challenge were to a discrete BPT policy of refusing to accommodate only certain disabilities within the groups of disabilities included in the certified class, the Bureau might have a point, but that is not the case. Similarly, if there were some asserted conflict or diversity of interests between discrete subgroups of disabled inmates or parolees relating to the causes of action asserted, the BPT might have a point, but that is not the case either.
There is one final comparison with Lewis that is worth making and that the court makes: The process the district court used here for devising a suitable remedial plan is precisely the kind of process Lewis indicates is appropriate. The court in this case issued essentially an umbrella injunction, setting forth the general areas 0907 training, identification and accommodation, forms, equipment, the screening process, appeals, monitoring 0907 that the BPT needed to address, and directing the BPT to develop specific policies and procedures for complying with the ADA. In accord with a directed negotiation process included in the injunction, the BPT has apparently 884 responded to the plaintiffs' objections to their proposed plans satisfactorily to the *884 plaintiffs, and a plan was achieved without further court intervention. The BPT has no problem with the practicalities of the plan, and intends to abide by it even if the injunction is vacated.
As the court reports, then, this was a minimally intrusive, not an "inordinately 0907 indeed, wildly 0907 intrusive" injunction (Lewis, 518 U.S. at 362, 116 S.Ct. 2174). It gave the major role in determining the new procedures to be put in place "to the views of state prison authorities." Id. It also bears noting, in light of any separation of powers concerns, that this injunction remedied a federal statutory violation. The court therefore had considerable guidance from Congress and from the federal executive branch in devising appropriate relief. Further, the court today has scrutinized the injunction carefully and, as noted, adjusted it with regard to the few instances in which it appears to impose unworkable burdens on the BPT.
For all these reasons, this case and Lewis are worlds apart, and the injunction in this case, as modified, was fully appropriate.[4]
[1] The life prisoners are: Elio Castro, who is mentally retarded and partially deaf; James Simmons, who is developmentally disabled; Raymond Hayes and Gene Horrocks, both of whom are mobility impaired; and Clifton Feathers and Willie Johnson, both of whom are visually impaired. The parolees whose paroles were revoked are: Joey Gough, Flora Abrams, Timothy Whisman, and David Badillo, all of whom are developmentally or learning disabled; David Rose and David Blessing, who are hearing impaired; Elmer Umbenhower, who is mobility impaired; and Kiah Mincey, who is visually impaired. Four of the parolees (Gough, Rose, Blessing, and Umbenhower) were incarcerated at the time of the bench trial before the district court. It is unclear from the Third Amended Complaint whether the remaining class representatives, John Armstrong, Judy Fendt, Walter Fratus, and Gregory Sandoval, challenge conditions at hearings offered to life prisoners or parolees.

[2] "The Youth and Adult Correctional Agency consists of the Department of Corrections, the Department of the Youth Authority, the Board of Prison Terms, the Youthful Offender Parole Board, the Board of Corrections, and the Narcotic Addict Evaluation Authority." Cal. Gov't.Code § 12811.
[3] The Department monitors the prisoners' behavior while on parole: it does so through the Parole and Community Services Division. See Cal.Penal Code §§ 2400-2402, 5001-5003, 5054. See also Terhune v. Superior Court, 65 Cal.App.4th 864, 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 841, 847 (Cal.1988) (in bank) (parolee "under the legal custody of the Department").
[4] Prisoners sentenced to lesser terms, under California's Determinate Sentencing Law, see Cal.Penal Code § 1170, are released on parole dates that are computed by the prison authorities pursuant to established rules.
[5] All paroled prisoners are subject to supervision by state authorities, as well as to the possible revocation of their parole. Appeals from parole revocation and parole revocation extension hearings are also conducted by the Board.
[6] The settlement agreement provided that, "if the Court determines that the ADA and § 504 apply to the California Department of Corrections," the court would enter an injunction "to require defendants to operate programs, activities, services and facilities of the California Department of Corrections in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973."
[7] This court has already decided two appeals on the Department's side of this litigation. See Armstrong v. Wilson, 124 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir.1997) (appeal from the denial of summary judgment); Armstrong v. Davis, 215 F.3d 1332, (9th Cir.2000) (table) (appeal from injunctive relief). The appeal before us is the first on the Board's side.
[8] The Board also moved to dismiss the second amended complaint for failure to exhaust alternative judicial remedies as required by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), and because the Board is not a "person" within the scope of § 1983. Plaintiffs withdrew their § 1983 action against the Board, but continued to sue Nielsen in his official capacity. The court held that the plaintiffs could sue Nielsen under § 1983 and, because they were not challenging the length of their confinement, were not required to exhaust alternative judicial remedies.
[9] As we have noted, defendants do not appeal the court's factual findings.
[10] "[T]he BPT ... relies on extensive written communications, and some verbal interaction, to make ... decisions [concerning parole or parole revocation] .... The BPT relies on written notices and forms to communicate vital information about prisoners' and parolees' parole status, and the BPT's procedures, to those prisoners and parolees."
[11] "Defendants' forms and notices are not provided in alternative forms suitable for prisoners and parolees with vision or hearing impairments, or for learning or developmentally disabled prisoners or parolees. Furthermore, Defendants' policies and procedures for access to supporting documents and files, screening offers, hearings and appeals do not allow for effective communications with Plaintiff class members."
"[T]here are numerous examples of the BPT's failure to provide such auxiliary aids and services.... [T]he BPT failed to provide effective American Sign Language interpretation services to hearing impaired prisoners and parolees, failed to provide Braille materials, large print materials, audio tapes or qualified readers for visually impaired prisoners and parolees, failed to provide qualified readers for learning disabled prisoners and parolees, and failed to provide trained staff capable of effectively communicating with mentally retarded or learning disabled prisoners and parolees."
[12] "Among other violations ... the BPT has failed to modify its programs to remedy ... accessibility and communications barriers. Moreover, the BPT has failed to consider disabled prisoners' inability to participate in the vocational and educational programs of the CDC when considering whether to recommend a life prisoner for parole."

[13] "[T]he BPT's self-evaluation did not address the screening process, appeal process, adequacy of forms or other important element's of the BPT's programs and activities."
[14] "The Self-Evaluation and Transition plan did not identify a single barrier to access, an omission which Plaintiffs' expert ... had never encountered in the hundreds of Self-Evaluation and Transition Plans he has reviewed.... Accordingly, the ... Plan did not discuss the methods or standards to use to eliminate or mitigate physical and communicative barriers to accessing the BPT's programs and services."
[15] The court order requires the Board to give the prisoner's or parolee's requested accommodation primary consideration when determining what accommodation to provide.
[16] The Board was additionally to describe what parts of the facility are not accessible and what disabilities are not accommodated.
[17] Because "[t]he Rehabilitation Act is materially identical to and the model for the ADA, except that it is limited to programs that receive federal financial assistance 0907 which the [California] prison system admittedly does [and] [s]ince the ADA has a broader scope, we will confine our discussion to it." Crawford v. Indiana Dep't of Corr., 115 F.3d 481, 483 (7th Cir.1997), abrogated on other grounds by Erickson v. Board of Governors of State Colls. and Univs. for Northeastern Ill. Univ., 207 F.3d 945 (7th Cir.2000).
[18] Form # 1073 repeats the language from the ADA stating that "no qualified individual with a disability shall, on the basis of disability, be excluded from participation in, or be denied benefits of the services, activities, or programs of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity." See 42 U.S.C. § 12132. If the prisoner or parolee is identified as having a disability under the ADA, either he or the serving officer must complete the form to describe the disability, how the disability prevents effective participation at the Board hearing, and what accommodation is requested, and the prisoner or parolee must state the means by which he can verify his disability.
[19] Timothy Whisman, who is learning disabled, was denied the assistance of an attorney at parole revocation hearings. He had difficulty understanding the paperwork and the proceedings. David Rose, who is deaf, requires an interpreter to communicate effectively. He was denied an interpreter for his parole revocation hearing, even though he told the parole officer he could not understand what was being said. Kiah Mincey, who is legally blind, was denied the assistance of an attorney for his parole revocation hearing and was not allowed a reader at the hearing.
[20] James Simmons, who is mildly to moderately mentally retarded, did not understand the proceedings at his parole hearing even though he was represented by an attorney. Elio Castro, who is mentally retarded and partially deaf, could not understand the proceedings during his hearing because the interpreter signed too quickly and used unfamiliar vocabulary. Willie Johnson, who is legally blind, was unable to review adequately his central file in preparation for his hearing because the reader placed a limit on the number of documents she would review with him. Johnson was unable to appeal from his hearing because he lacked help filling out the forms.
[21] For example, Flora Abrams and Joey Gough, who are learning disabled, David Badillo, who is mildly to moderately mentally retarded, and David Blessing, who is deaf, all waived their rights to parole revocation hearings because the Board failed adequately to communicate their rights to them. Clifton Feathers, who is blind, did not know he could be provided with a reader to help him review his central file in preparation for his forthcoming hearing.
[22] By contrast, in Lyons, 461 U.S. at 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, a police officer observed the traffic violation that led to Lyons's injury and Lyons did not deny his guilt.
[23] Parolees are subject to a parole revocation hearing when a member of the Parole and Community Services Division reports a suspected violation of the conditions of parole to the Board. See Cal.Code Regs. tit.15 § 2615.
[24] Prior to a parole revocation hearing the Board serves notice of the hearing on the parolee and, at the same time, presents him with a form explaining his rights under the ADA (form # 1073) and a "screening offer:" a determinate prison sentence of one year or less conditioned upon the parolee's agreement to waive his

revocation hearing. By accepting the screening offer without properly comprehending its import, some of the parolee-plaintiffs agreed to prison sentences on the first occasion that they were informed that they were subject to parole revocation proceedings, and well before the Board had anything more than the limited degree of suspicion required to subject them to such hearings.
[25] In Hodgers-Durgin, we additionally noted that, unlike Lyons there was "no string of contingencies necessary to produce an injury" after the stop: the stop led inexorably to the injury. 199 F.3d at 1041-1042. Here, it is the parole revocation notification and hearing process itself that is discriminatory and that constitutes the injury: the discriminatory treatment incurred by persons with disabilities and the failure to provide them with statutory services.
[26] See Cal.Penal Code §§ 2960-2681 (mentally disordered offenders); Cal.Code Regs. tit. 15 § 2600.1 (sexually violent predators). The Board's rules regulating the treatment of mentally disordered offenders provide for three hearings: a certification hearing, Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15 § 2570(a); a placement hearing, § 2570(e); and an annual review hearing, § 2570(k). Sexually violent predators are subject to a screening hearing under Cal.Code Regs. tit. 15 § 2600.1.
[27] When plaintiffs seek relief against a state agency, but relief on behalf of a large class of plaintiffs is inappropriate, we will limit relief to the named plaintiffs. See Gomez v. Vernon, 255 F.3d 1118, 1130 (9th Cir.2001) (where class relief inappropriate, prospective relief properly limited to just six inmates); see also Rizzo, 423 U.S. at 367-69, 96 S.Ct. 598 (where only two of 28 alleged incidents, involving only two police officers, involved deprivation of a federal right, broad-based relief not warranted); Lyons, 461 U.S. at 97-100, 103 S.Ct. 1660 (single plaintiff's allegation that his constitutional rights were violated insufficient to justify city-wide injunctive relief). By contrast, where the district court makes findings of fact sufficient to demonstrate a systemwide injury, resulting from policies and practices that pervade the state institution, widespread relief is justified to remedy that injury. See Lewis, 518 U.S. at 360 n. 7, 116 S.Ct. 2174 (prisoners must prove that denial of federal right pervaded system to justify system-wide relief).
[28] Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 provides district courts with broad discretion to determine whether a class should be certified, and to revisit that certification throughout the legal proceedings before the court. The district court may permit discovery to determine whether class certification is appropriate, see Kamm v. California City Dev. Co., 509 F.2d 205, 209 (9th Cir.1975), may limit such discovery to class certification issues, and may make appropriate orders to control the course of proceedings or prescribing measures to prevent undue repetition or complication in the presentation of evidence or an argument, Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(d)(4). Where appropriate, the district court may redefine the class, see Penk v. Oregon State Bd. of Higher Educ., 816 F.2d 458, 467 (9th Cir.1987), may excise portions of a plaintiffs class allegations, and may even decertify the class. Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 (d)(4). These procedural tools ensure that the district courts can fully investigate class certification issues, and require us to continue to give deference to the district court's decision on certification and the scope of the class through the remedy stage of the proceedings, unless the court abuses its discretion. See Midgett v. Tri-County Metropolitan Transp. Dist. of Oregon, 254 F.3d 846, 849 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted).
[29] Because the Board's violations of the ADA (and the Rehabilitation Act) are sufficient to support the issuance of the injunction before us, we need not consider whether the violations of the Due Process Clause found by the District court would provide an alternative basis.
[30] The PLRA requires that prospective injunctive relief against a state prison system be "narrowly drawn, extend[] no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and [be] the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right." Id. at § 3626(a)(1). We note that the PLRA's provisions are explicitly limited to "prison conditions," and do not extend to the parole context. Cf. Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir.2000) (holding that parolee is not "prisoner" for purposes of PLRA). For the purposes of this section of our opinion, however, we will analyze the issues as if the PLRA applied to all aspects of the case.
[31] This procedure is required by, among other cases, Lewis, 518 U.S. at 362, 116 S.Ct. 2174. (court required to "giv[e] the States the first opportunity to correct the errors made in the internal administration of their prisons"). Here, the district court charged the Board with developing new policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the ADA, and the state responded by proposing policies and procedures, entering into negotiations with

plaintiffs and stipulating to a new set of policies and procedures. This is precisely the process contemplated by Lewis.
[32] Indeed, at oral argument, the Board stated that, should it prevail, it did not propose to change the new policies or procedures developed as a result of this lawsuit.
[33] The injunction does not, for example, prescribe which Department or Board officials or employees may be delegated the function of determining when hearing impaired prisoners or parolees who must use sign language to communicate may be shackled at the hearing.
[34] For example, many of the security interests relevant to the operation of a prison which provided Turner's justification for abrogating prisoners' rights are absent in the context of the supervision of parolees' activities.
[35] The Board suggested that the absence of penological justifications in the record was due to its being silenced on this point by the district court. This assertion appears to be a fabrication. We find no evidence to support it in the record and the Board has identified none. Nor can we accept the remarkable proposition that the Board advanced at oral argument: that there were just too many justifications for it to include any particular ones.
[36] As a result of the policies and practices developed in response to the settlement agreement, the Department is, apparently, already in substantial compliance with the ADA.
[37] We note that, under the policies developed as a result of the settlement agreement with the Department, mobility impaired prisoners are to be grouped at accessible facilities. Thus, there may in any event be no practical problem with respect to offering all mobility impaired prisoners hearings at accessible facilities.
[38] The Board argues that the tracking system requires it to discover non-apparent disabilities possessed by disabled prisoners or parolees. It does not. It simply requires the Board, once it becomes aware of such nonapparent disabilities, to keep track of them.
[39] See also Torres v. Puerto Rico Tourism Co., 175 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir.1999) (defendant's failure to argue that a statute is an invalid abrogation of sovereign immunity until its reply brief on appeal is a waiver of that defense); Garrity v. Sununu, 752 F.2d 727, 731 (1st Cir.1984) (holding that a defendant's full acquiescence with a district court injunction and its failure to contest it on the merits on appeal is a waiver of a sovereign immunity defense in the appeal of fee awards); New York State Ass'n. for Retarded Children v. Carey, 596 F.2d 27, 39 (2d Cir.1979) (participation in a consent decree waives a sovereign immunity defense on an appeal contesting the district court's interpretation of that judgment).
[40] In their answer to the original complaint, defendants asserted that they "have immunity guaranteed by the Constitution or Laws of the United States." However, in the subsequent answers to the amended complaints, and in the pretrial motion, this assertion is no longer made and there is no mention of any immunity defense. "[A]n amended pleading supersedes the original." Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir.1989) (citations omitted); accord Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.1992). This rules applies as much to amended answers as to amended complaints. See Goldstone v. Payne, 94 F.2d 855, 856 (2d Cir.1938); see also District of Columbia, Dept. of Public Works v. L.G. Industries, Inc., 758 A.2d 950, 957 n. 6 (D.C.2000).
[41] The Board contended at oral argument that it had somehow raised a sovereign immunity defense in the motion for summary judgment filed pursuant to the settlement agreement between the Department and the plaintiffs. However, the Board was not a party to either the settlement agreement or the motions filed pursuant to that agreement, and cannot rely upon either as raising that defense.
[42] The state declined because, although "[t]he California Governor's office and high ranking state officials have engaged, and they will continue to engage, in consideration of the legal positions they may want to pursue regarding [Garrett] [a] full consideration of this matter has been impossible because these officials have been immersed in matters related to California's current energy crisis." Shortly before the argument, we once again requested the state to advise us of its position regarding Garrett or the status of its efforts to determine its position. The state responded that "[t]he state officials with whom the Attorney General's office would need to

consult on these issues have been devoting their time and resources to negotiations with the investor-based utilities [involved in California's energy crisis]." At oral argument, in response to a direct inquiry from the panel, the state continued to equivocate. We find this course of action bizarre and inexcusable. We do so without even considering the other activities the Governor was busily engaged in during the time in question. We also observe that it is now more than seven months since the date of oral argument and the state has still not accepted our invitation.
[1] The Court goes on in the same footnote quoted in the text to say that "The issue of systemwide relief has nothing to do with the law governing class actions." Lewis, 518 U.S. at 360 n. 7, 116 S.Ct. 2174. I take this statement to mean that the mere existence of a certified class covering prisoners throughout the system is not itself enough to justify systemwide relief. Rather, it is necessary to demonstrate that class members were injured in various institutions and with regard to the particular matters covered before a broad systemwide injunction is justified. Still, without the class, the individual plaintiffs would presumably be entitled only to injunctive relief regarding their personal situations, so the class does matter to that degree, as the consideration in the body of the Lewis opinion of the circumstances of non-named plaintiffs demonstrates.
[2] Gerstein is particularly informative here, as it involved a challenge regarding pretrial detention hearings, somewhat similar in their function and time-span to parole revocation hearings. The court noted that even though the named plaintiffs were no longer in custody at the time the class was certified, "in this case the constant existence of a class of persons suffering the deprivation is certain," and, given the short-lived nature of any particular defendant's claim to an adequate hearing, "[t]he claim ... is one that is distinctly `capable of repetition, yet evading review.'" 420 U.S. 103 at 111, 95 S.Ct. 854, 43 L.Ed.2d 54. The Court therefore allowed the case to go forward on a class basis, taking into account the separate interests of the members of the class.
[3] The Court went on for separate reasons to deny equitable relief.
[4] I should note that I regard the question whether Governor Davis and Secretary Presley remain proper parties after the stipulation as closer than the court's opinion suggests. I nonetheless do not dissent from that holding because (1) there is in the "Stipulation ... for Procedures to Determine Liability" no express release from liability, for the Governor and Secretary or anyone else; and (2) I cannot see why the two officials' presence or absence matters, as full relief can be obtained against the BPT and its Chairman, and the Governor and Secretary would have a duty as the Chairman's supervisors to see that he complies with any order against him.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 318 F.3d 965 (2003)
John ARMSTRONG; James Amauric; Richard Ponciano; Jack Swensen; Billy Beck; Judy Fendt; Walter Fratus; Gregory Sandoval; Darlene Madison; Peter A. Richardson; Steven Hill; David Rose; David Blessing; Elio Castro; Elmer Umbenhower; Raymond Hayes; Gene Horrocks; Kiah Mincey; Clifton Feathers; Willie Johnson; David Badillo; James Simmons;
Flora Abrams; Joey Gough; Timothy Whisman, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
Gray DAVIS, Governor of the State of California; Robert Presley, Secretary of the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency; James Nielsen, Chairman of the Board of Prison Terms; California Board of Prison Terms, Does 1-100, in their Individual and Official Capacity;
Joseph Sandoval; James Gomez, Director Dept Corrections; Kyle McKinsey; Kevin Carruth; Marisela Montes, Deputy Director of the Parole and Community Services
Division, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 01-15779.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted September 18, 2002. Filed February 10, 2003.
967 *967 Jessica N. Blonien and G. Michael German, Deputy Attorneys General of the State of California, San Francisco, CA, for the defendants-appellants.
Andrea G. Asaro and Michael Bien, Rosen, Bien & Asaro, LLP, for the plaintiffs-appellees.
Before: REINHARDT, TASHIMA and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
968 *968 REINHARDT, Circuit Judge:
Defendants, state officials responsible for the operation of the California Department of Corrections ("CDC") and the California Board of Prison Terms ("BPT"), appeal an award of attorney's fees to Plaintiffs, a class of present and future California state prisoners and parolees with disabilities, who prevailed in their action under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 ("ADA") and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794 ("RA"). We affirm the decision of the district court.[1]
Background
Plaintiffs brought this action in 1994 to challenge California's treatment of disabled inmates and parolees. In 1996 all defendants except the officials of the BPT stipulated that adequate emergency evacuation plans for disabled prisoners were lacking in some facilities, that a smaller range of vocational programs was available to disabled prisoners than to non-disabled prisoners, and that sentence reduction credits had been improperly denied to some disabled prisoners. Armstrong v. Wilson, 124 F.3d 1019, 1021 (9th Cir.1997). These defendants ("CDC defendants") asserted, however, in a summary judgment motion, that the ADA and RA did not apply to state prisoners, and that the defendant state officials were immune from liability under the Eleventh Amendment. The district court denied the motion, Armstrong v. Wilson, 942 F.Supp. 1252, 1264 (N.D.Cal.1996), and issued a remedial order and injunction. The CDC defendants appealed, and we affirmed, holding that "the ADA and RA apply to inmates and parolees in the state penal system and that this suit may proceed in federal court under the doctrine of Ex parte Young [209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908)]," which provides an exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Armstrong, 124 F.3d at 1026. Under the remedial order and injunction, the CDC defendants evaluate their programs and develop remedial plans, while Plaintiffs monitor Defendants' compliance.

The remedial order and injunction provides that Plaintiffs are the prevailing party and are entitled to attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs, for litigation as well as for monitoring for compliance. The procedure for collecting fees is set forth in a 1997 stipulation and order for periodic collection of attorney's fees, which was agreed upon by the parties. Disputes regarding the periodic fees are resolved through negotiation or, where negotiation fails, through a motion to compel.
The CDC defendants filed a petition for writ of certiorari, seeking review of our decision in Armstrong and our decision in a related case, Clark v. California Department of Corrections, 123 F.3d 1267 (9th Cir.1997). While the petition was pending, two other petitions were filed raising the issue whether the ADA applies to state prisoners. See Amos v. Md. Dep't of Pub. Safety, 126 F.3d 589 (4th Cir.1997) (holding ADA does not apply to state prisons), cert. granted, judgment vacated, case remanded by 524 U.S. 935, 118 S.Ct. 2339, 141 L.Ed.2d 710 (1998); Yeskey v. Penn. Dep't of Corr., 118 F.3d 168 (3d Cir.1997) (holding ADA does apply to state prisons), aff'd 524 U.S. 206, 118 S.Ct. 1952, 141 L.Ed.2d 215 (1998).
Counsel for the plaintiff in Yeskey asked the Prison Law Office, which was counsel for Plaintiffs in Armstrong, 969 whether, if certiorari were granted in Yeskey, rather than in Armstrong, that Office would represent *969 the
Yeskey plaintiff before the United States Supreme Court. Because a Supreme Court decision on the application of the ADA to prison inmates would affect the Armstrong Plaintiffs with equal force regardless of which case the Court chose as its vehicle to address the issue, the Prison Law Office agreed to represent the Yeskey plaintiff in such circumstance.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari in Yeskey, and the Prison Law Office appeared on behalf of the Yeskey plaintiff. The Court then held that the ADA does apply to state prisoners, as Yeskey and Armstrong had both concluded. Yeskey, 524 U.S. at 213, 118 S.Ct. 1952. One week later the Court denied the petition for certiorari in Armstrong and Clark. Wilson v. Armstrong, 524 U.S. 937, 118 S.Ct. 2340, 141 L.Ed.2d 711 (1998). Thus, Plaintiffs' counsel successfully protected the Armstrong decision of this court by prevailing in Yeskey in the Supreme Court.
The BPT portion of the original case went to trial. During discovery, Plaintiffs deposed a number of BPT officials and one expert, and arranged for their own experts to inspect certain prison facilities and to conduct other types of investigation. Before trial, the BPT defendants filed two motions to dismiss, a motion for summary judgment, and a motion for continuance of trial. Shortly before trial, the district court permitted Plaintiffs to add a claim for due process violations under § 1983. After pre-trial motions were resolved, a ten-day bench trial was held. The district court then found the BPT liable for violations of the ADA, the RA, and the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. After further post-trial proceedings, the court issued a permanent injunction requiring the BPT to bring its policies and practices into compliance with the law. The BPT defendants appealed, and we affirmed the main elements of the district court's decision and injunction. Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 879 (9th Cir.2001) .
District Court's Award of Attorney's Fees
Defendants appeal from four orders by the district court awarding Plaintiffs fees and costs for litigation and for monitoring Defendants' compliance with the injunctions.
Order of March 19, 2001 Awarding Attorney's Fees and Costs Incurred in Yeskey
In October 1999, Plaintiffs sought attorney's fees from Defendants for the work performed in litigating Yeskey before the Supreme Court. Plaintiffs argued that their attorneys' work in Yeskey was reasonably necessary to further their interests in their litigation against the Armstrong Defendants. Defendants objected that they cannot be compelled to pay fees in a case that did not involve them.
The district judge granted Plaintiffs' motion in part. Relying primarily on Hasbrouck v. Texaco, Inc., 879 F.2d 632 (9th Cir.1989), in which we affirmed an award of attorney's fees in an antitrust suit for work done on an amicus brief before the Supreme Court in a separate case that did not involve the Hasbrouck defendants, the district court held that Plaintiffs could collect fees from the Armstrong Defendants for the amount of work that would have been necessary to file an amicus brief in Yeskey. Further briefing was ordered to establish the appropriate fees.

In response to the parameters set by the district court in the March 10, 2000 order, Plaintiffs lowered their fee request for the Yeskey litigation from somewhat over $335,000 to $258,568.13. Defendants then raised four objections to the request: 1) fees should be limited by a provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) that 970 limits attorney's and paralegal's fees *970 in certain actions brought by prisoners, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d); 2) even if the PLRA limit does not apply to the ADA and the RA claims, it applies to the § 1983 claim, and for this reason the district court should apply the limit to one third of the claimed work; 3) the fees and costs exceed what would have been necessary to file an amicus brief in Yeskey; and 4) the hours claimed are excessive.
On March 19, 2001, the district court rejected Defendants' first three objections but agreed that the hours claimed were excessive. Accordingly, it awarded a reduced amount, $108,352.38. It is from this reduced amount that Defendants appeal.
Order of March 19, 2001 Awarding Fees and Expenses Incurred During the First Quarter of 2000 in the CDC Portion of the Case
This order arose from a motion to compel the CDC defendants to make the periodic payment for the first quarter of 2000. Defendants disputed the fees for the first quarter of 2000 on three grounds: 1) that the PLRA limit on attorney's and paralegal's fees should apply; 2) that the limit on expert fees of § 1988 should apply; and 3) that Plaintiffs' attorneys claimed excessively high rates. Plaintiffs moved to compel payment. The district court awarded the full amount requested by Plaintiffs, including interest.
Order of March 21, 2001 Awarding Fees and Expenses for Work Arising from the Proceedings Against the BPT
This order granted Plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees arising from pre-judgment litigation and from monitoring of the BPT's compliance with the injunction during the first quarter of 2000. The BPT defendants here made all the same objections that were addressed in the March 19 order concerning first quarter 2000 fees in the CDC portion of the case, discussed above. They also raised two additional objections: 1) Plaintiffs were seeking attorney's fees for non-compensable items, such as parking and office supplies; and 2) because certain monitoring issues remained unresolved, it was premature to award fees for monitoring activities. The district court awarded the full amount requested by Plaintiffs, including interest.[2]
Order of March 21, 2001 Awarding Fees and Expenses for Post-Judgment Work Arising from the Proceedings Against the BPT and Setting 2001 Rates
This order granted Plaintiffs' motion for payment of attorney's fees and expenses for post-judgment work performed between April 1, 2000 and December 31, 2000, and Plaintiffs' motion to set the rate for fees for 2001. Defendants made all the same objections that were addressed in the March 19 order concerning first quarter 2000 fees in the CDC portion of the case, discussed above. The district court awarded the full amount requested by Plaintiffs, including interest.
Discussion
It is not disputed that Plaintiffs were the prevailing party and were therefore entitled to reasonable fees and costs, under 42 U.S.C. § 12205 (fees provision of ADA), 29 U.S.C. § 794 (fees provision of Section 504 of RA), and/or 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) (civil rights fees provision).[3] We review an award of attorney's fees for an abuse of 971 discretion. Corder v. Brown, 25 F.3d 833, 836 (9th Cir.1994) (citing Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437, 103 *971 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983)). "Any elements of legal analysis which figure in the district court's decision are, however, subject to de novo review." Corder, 25 F.3d at 836.
Although this appeal arises from four orders, to each of which Defendants raise more than one objection, in order to reach our decision we need address only three issues: 1) whether the district court acted properly in awarding fees for work Plaintiffs' counsel conducted in litigating Yeskey; 2) whether the district court acted properly in declining to apply the PLRA attorney's fees limits to the present case; and 3) whether the district court acted properly in approving the various fees and expenses that Defendants believe were excessive or duplicative, or not properly compensable.

Litigating Yeskey
The district court must base its determination whether to award fees for counsel's work on its judgment as to whether "the work product ... was both useful and of a type ordinarily necessary to advance the ... litigation." Webb v. Bd. of Educ., 471 U.S. 234, 243, 105 S.Ct. 1923, 85 L.Ed.2d 233 (1985); G & G Fire Sprinklers, Inc. v. Bradshaw, 156 F.3d 893, 908 (9th Cir.1998) (quoting Webb), rev'd on other grounds, G & G Fire Sprinklers, Inc. v. Lujan, 255 F.3d 990 (2001).
The district court found that to protect Plaintiffs' interests in Armstrong, it would have been useful and necessary at least to have filed an amicus brief in Yeskey, because Yeskey involved an issue central to the litigation in Armstrong. On that basis, the court awarded a fee that it found would have been appropriate for the work necessary to prepare an amicus brief, rather than for the full work necessary to represent the Yeskey plaintiff in the Supreme Court. Defendants contend that no fees are chargeable to them for the work done in Yeskey, because they were not parties in that case.
Hasbrouck is dispositive of Defendants' argument. In Hasbrouck, an antitrust case, we approved the award of attorney's fees to the plaintiffs for their counsel's preparation of an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in a case involving different parties, because, we held, the award of fees should cover "every item of service which, at the time rendered, would have been undertaken by a reasonably prudent lawyer to advance or protect his client's interest" in the case at bar. Hasbrouck, 879 F.2d at 638 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Gates v. Gomez, 60 F.3d 525, 535 (9th Cir.1995) (awarding fees pursuant to § 1988 for filing an amicus brief with a district court).
Defendants next argue that Hasbrouck is an antitrust case and Armstrong is a prisoner case. The argument consists simply of that statement of fact. Defendants offer no reason why the Hasbrouck rule is not applicable in all classes of cases, and we are aware of none.
Alternatively, Defendants seek to distinguish Hasbrouck. They do so on the basis that the plaintiffs' counsel in that case actually filed an amicus brief. Here, as they put it, the district court "pretend[ed]" that Plaintiffs' counsel filed an amicus brief, but, in fact, Plaintiffs' counsel represented a party. This argument fails, in part because it rests upon the unstated and mistaken premise that a reasonably prudent lawyer would not determine it to be in his client's interests for him to undertake to represent another party in an appellate proceeding in which the result would likely substantially affect his client's interests. Contrary to Defendant's assumption, in some circumstances 972 prudence would compel a lawyer, as part of his obligation to protect his client's interests, *972 to accept an offer to represent a party whose interests coincided with those of his client.
The Yeskey case presented such circumstances, because the issue to be decided by the Supreme Court in Yeskey was likely to have an important effect on the outcome in Armstrong. Contrary to the assertion of Defendants, therefore, the Prison Law Office did not misplace its loyalty by agreeing to handle the Yeskey Supreme Court proceeding. Rather, it acted in the best interests of its Armstrong clients by providing assistance in Yeskey in whatever capacity it could 0907 including representing the Yeskey plaintiff in the Supreme Court. Surely, undertaking that representation served to protect its clients' rights even more than the filing of an amicus brief would have.
Because the Yeskey plaintiff prevailed in the Supreme Court, had an award of attorney's fees been available to him, Defendants here would likely have received a free ride. California's position would have been represented before the Court by Pennsylvania, which would probably have borne the full cost of asserting that position, including paying the Prison Law Office's attorney's fees. In such case, the California officials would have received this benefit for no other reason than that the Supreme Court happened to have chosen Yeskey, rather than Armstrong, as the vehicle for deciding an issue common to both cases. However, unfortunately for the Armstrong Defendants, following the Supreme Court decision in Yeskey, the plaintiff in that case lost on a summary judgment motion in the district court and, as a result, no fees were available from Pennsylvania for any part of that case, including the successful work done in the Supreme Court by the Prison Law Office. Yeskey v. Penn. Dep't of Corr., 76 F.Supp.2d 572, 578 (M.D.Pa.1999). Thus, fees for that work were, from a practical standpoint,

available only from Defendants here. Because the work in Yeskey was important to the preservation of the Armstrong Plaintiffs' rights, and because their counsel performed the work in order to protect their interests, they would be entitled as the prevailing party in the Armstrong litigation to an award of attorney's fees for that work from the Armstrong Defendants.
Because Plaintiffs here do not cross-appeal the district court's order, we do not address whether that court abused its discretion by declining fees for work in excess of that which would have been necessary to file an amicus brief. We note, however, that because the work necessary to file an amicus brief is less than that necessary to act as a party's counsel, it cannot be Defendants who suffered from the district court's reliance on the fiction of an amicus brief.
Defendants raise further objections. First, they note that the Supreme Court in Yeskey addressed the application of the ADA to state prisons but not the application of the RA.[4] The Armstrong Defendants were found to have violated both Acts, and yet a violation of either Act would have been sufficient to justify the injunction that was ordered against them. They argue, therefore, that Yeskey 0907 because it addressed only one of the two bases for the decision against them 0907 was not determinative of the outcome in Armstrong and that litigating Yeskey was, for that reason, not a proper undertaking for Plaintiffs' counsel.
973 *973 This argument has no merit. The ADA was thoroughly litigated in Armstrong and was a principal ground on which the decision in favor of the Armstrong Plaintiffs was based. By then litigating the ADA issue in Yeskey, Plaintiffs' counsel protected its ruling in Armstrong and thereby advanced its clients' interests. Defendants' argument is also baseless for the reason that the ADA and RA issues are such that a decision concerning one might possibly have affected the other.[5]
Defendants also argue that it is unfair to award fees for a case in which they were not involved because they are unable to conduct a meaningful review of Plaintiffs' billing requests. We do not see why that is so. Detailed billing information was submitted, and the briefs and oral argument transcript for the Supreme Court proceedings are available. Also, discovery could have been undertaken. The court itself did conduct a careful review, find that the fees requested by Plaintiffs were excessive, and award an accordingly lower amount.
Moreover, the same difficulty in assessing fees would arise wherever the plaintiffs requested fees for counsel's work on a separate case. Defendant's argument is therefore foreclosed by Hasbrouck, which holds that fees for work on a separate case are appropriate when the work is reasonably necessary to the interests of the client. See also Gates, 60 F.3d at 535.
Finally, Defendants note that Plaintiffs submitted their initial motion for attorney's fees for the Yeskey litigation before that case was concluded and suggest that the district court therefore lacked jurisdiction to address it. The district court issued its final judgment ending Yeskey on December 14, 1999, about two months after Plaintiffs' initial motion. Yeskey, 76 F.Supp.2d at 572. However, the Supreme Court litigation for which Plaintiffs sought fees had ended with the Court's opinion, filed June 15, 1998, Yeskey, 524 U.S. at 206, 118 S.Ct. 1952, and the district court in Armstrong did not issue its order awarding fees for the Yeskey litigation until March 19, 2001. It is true that it would have been imprudent if not erroneous for the district court to have made its final decision with respect to the amount of fees before the Yeskey judgment was issued, but there was no jurisdictional barrier to its considering a number of the legal issues involved prior to that time, including the question whether fees for counsel's services in Yeskey could properly be awarded in this case.
PLRA Limits on Fees
Application of PLRA Limits to Fees Under ADA and RA
The PLRA provides that in prison actions "in which attorney's fees are authorized under section 1988," such fees may not be "based on an hourly rate greater than 150 percent of the hourly rate established under section 3006A of title 18." 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(3). Defendants assert that, although Plaintiffs brought their action under the ADA and the RA, "the remedy provisions of the ADA and RA bring the fee award under the PLRA." If Defendants

974 were correct, the result would be that attorney's rates in this case would *974 be limited to $112.50 per hour. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(d)(1).
Defendants' argument is as follows: The enforcement provision of Title II of the ADA incorporates the remedial provisions of the RA. 42 U.S.C. § 12133.[6] The RA, in turn, incorporates the remedies of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 29 U.S.C. § 794a(a)(2).[7] Title VI, in turn, is one of the statutes for which attorney's fees are available under § 1988. 42 U.S.C. § 1988.[8] Thus, Defendants argue, the attorney's fees under the ADA are "authorized under section 1988," within the meaning of the PLRA.
As the district court held, the defendant's argument fails, because the ADA and the RA have their own attorney's fees provisions. 42 U.S.C. § 12205 (ADA fees provision); 29 U.S.C. § 794 (RA fees provision). There is therefore no need to follow Defendant's tortuous path to the attorney's fees provision of § 1988, as the one court to address this issue, in the Western District of New York, properly concluded. Beckford v. Irvin, 60 F.Supp.2d 85, 88 (W.D.N.Y.1999) ("The PLRA does not limit the award of attorney's fees to a prevailing plaintiff whose award is authorized under a statute separate from § 1988.").[9] Furthermore, § 1988 provides a list of the statutes to which its attorney's fees provision applies, and neither the ADA nor the RA is on the list. See 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b).
The PLRA cap on attorney's fees, therefore, does not apply to fees awarded under the ADA or the RA.
Fees for Work on Due Process Claim
Plaintiffs brought their due process claim under § 1983, which, unlike the ADA and the RA, lacks an independent attorney's fee provision and is listed among the statutes to which the § 1988 attorney's fees provision applies. 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). As noted above, the PLRA limit on fees applies to attorney's fees awarded under § 1988. Defendants argue, therefore, that, even if the PLRA limit on fees does not apply to work related to the ADA and RA, it should apply to the hours Plaintiffs' counsel worked preparing the due process claim. They cite Beckford, 975 60 F.Supp.2d at 88, in which a *975 prison inmate who prevailed under both the PLRA and § 1983 was awarded fees that were limited by the PLRA to the extent that the work of counsel pertained to the § 1983 claim. Because Plaintiffs' counsel has not specified exactly how much of its work was related to the due process claim, Defendants believe they are entitled to the presumption that Plaintiffs' counsel spent equal time on each of its three claims. The PLRA limit would, then, apply to one third of the total award arising from the judgment against the BPT.
No doubt, the district court could have chosen the approach of Beckford and applied PLRA limits to some of the requested fees. We cannot say, however, that its decision not to do so was an abuse of discretion. The due process claim was added late in the litigation against the BPT. The district court made its determination not to apply PLRA limits on the basis of Plaintiffs' counsel's testimony that "the Fourteenth Amendment claim ... composed a small portion of the trial and trial preparation work" and on the fact that the post-judgment work involved the ADA and RA claims exclusively. The tertiary § 1983 claim required no additional discovery or witnesses at trial, and the arguments supporting it so overlapped with the ADA and RA claims as to make discrete time allocation and billing challenging. In light of these circumstances, the district court reasonably concluded that it was not appropriate to apply the PLRA limits. This determination was well within its discretion. See 1 MARY FRANCIS DERFNER & ARTHUR D. WOLF, COURT AWARDED ATTORNEY FEES, ¶ 12.02[1][b] at 12-13 (2001) (noting that Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983), "indirectly supported" the existing majority rule that if "fee claims and non-fee claims were so intertwined that the time spent on the claims could not reasonably be divided, fees could be awarded for the entire case"); see also Hensley, 461 U.S. at 435, 103 S.Ct. 1933 (describing cases in which "the plaintiff's claims for relief ... involve a common core of facts or [are] based on related legal theories. Much of counsel's time will be devoted generally to the litigation as a whole, making it difficult to divide the hours expended on a claim-by-claim basis .... Where a plaintiff has obtained excellent results, his attorney should recover a fully compensatory fee.").
Fees and Costs Defendants Believe Were Excessive, Duplicative, or Otherwise Inappropriate

Finally, Defendants argue that the district court awarded fees at excessively high rates, for excessive or duplicative work, and for inappropriate expenses. However, we find no reason to believe that the district court abused its discretion in any of its awards. Defendants do not point to any particular fee entries or claimed hours as being too high. Each of the district court's orders reflects careful consideration of Plaintiffs' billing statements and proper evaluation of the billing rates. In the order of March 19, 2001 relating to the Yeskey litigation, the district court did find that the requested fees were excessive and reduced the award accordingly. Our own review of the record revealed many other instances in which reasonable people could disagree about whether the fees awarded were too high but none in which the district court acted outside the broad range of its discretion in determining appropriate fees. See Gates v. Rowland, 39 F.3d 1439, 1448 (9th Cir. 1994).
AFFIRMED.
[1] In a separate memorandum disposition filed concurrently herewith we address the CDC Defendants' appeal from a portion of the injunction issued in the underlying proceeding.
[2] The awarded fee was, however, reduced by an amount that had been withdrawn by Plaintiffs in their reply to the defendants' opposition to the motion for fees.
[3] As discussed below, it is disputed whether the PLRA fees provision places a cap on these fees.
[4] Plaintiff in Yeskey invoked only the ADA. The Court of Appeals nonetheless found it necessary to address the RA as well. See Yeskey, 118 F.3d at 170. The Supreme Court, though, did not. See Yeskey, 524 U.S. at 213.
[5] Pennsylvania's brief as Petitioner in Yeskey so suggests. Although the "Question Presented" concerned only the ADA, Brief for Petitioners at i, Penn. Dep't of Corr. v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206, 118 S.Ct. 1952, 141 L.Ed.2d 215 (1998), Pennsylvania mentioned the RA several times in its brief and even had occasion to assert that "[l]ike the ADA, the introductory language of the Rehabilitation Act contains not even a hint that Congress intended its protections to apply to state prisoners." Id. at 14 n. 3.
[6] "The remedies, procedures, and rights set forth in section 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. § 794a) shall be the remedies, procedures, and rights this title provides to any person alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of section 202 [42 U.S.C. § 12132]." 42 U.S.C. § 12133.
[7] "The remedies, procedures, and rights set forth in title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d et seq.] shall be available to any person aggrieved by any act or failure to act by any recipient of Federal assistance or Federal provider of such assistance under section 504 of this Act [29 U.S.C. § 794]." 29 U.S.C. § 794a(a)(2)
[8] Section 1988 provides that
[i]n any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of sections 1977, 1977A, 1978, 1979, 1980, and 1981 of the Revised Statutes [42 U.S.C. §§ 1981-1983, 1985, 1986], title IX of Public Law 92-318 [20 U.S.C. § § 1681 et seq.], the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.], or section 40302 of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs.
42 U.S.C. § 1988(b).
[9] As authority for their argument, Defendants cite decisions by our sister circuits interpreting a different provision of the PLRA, § 1997e(e), which does not concern attorney's fees. See, e.g., Thompson v. Carter, 284 F.3d 411, 416-19 (2d Cir.2002). These cases have no bearing on the issue whether statutes with their own attorney's fees provisions are subject to the fee cap of § 1997e(d).
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 Armstrong v. Davis, 58 Fed.Appx. 695 (2003)
58 Fed.Appx. 695 This case was not selected for publication in the
Federal Reporter. Not for Publication in West’s Federal Reporter See
Fed. Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 generally governing citation of judicial decisions issued on or after Jan. 1, 2007. See also Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
(Find CTA9 Rule 36-3) United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
John ARMSTRONG, et al., Plaintiffs—Appellees, v.
Gray DAVIS, et al., Defendants—Appellants.
No. 01–15805. | D.C. No. CV–94–2307–CW(PJH). | Argued and Submitted Sept. 18, 2002. | Decided Feb. 10, 2003.
State prison inmates who were disabled brought class action against state prison officials, alleging violations of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Rehabilitation Act. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Claudia Wilken, J., 942 F.Supp. 1252, found that defendants had violated both statutes and entered remedial order. The Court of Appeals affirmed on appeal. After remand following a second appeal involving details of the district court’s remedial plan, 215 F.3d 1332, 2000 WL 369622, the state defendants appealed from an injunction issued by the district court. The Court of Appeals held that: (1) presumption arising when a disabled inmate remained at a reception center for more than sixty days was ancillary to the larger issue of how to remedy the violations related to an issue that was litigated thoroughly, and therefore did not violate Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), and (2) scope of the presumption was appropriately drawn and did not create an unnecessary intrusion into the operation of the prisons.
Affirmed.
West Headnotes (1)
[1] Civil Rights Criminal law enforcement;   prisons
Presumption contained in injunction issued to remedy violation of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by denying credits to disabled prisoners who were kept in reception centers for

unusually long periods because of their disabilities, which provided that if a disabled inmate remained at a reception center for more than sixty days, a presumption would arise that the extended stay was solely due to the inmate’s disability, was ancillary to the larger issue of how to remedy the violations related to the reception center, which was litigated thoroughly, and therefore did not violate Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA); furthermore, scope of the presumption was appropriately drawn and did not create an unnecessary intrusion into the operation of the prisons. 18 U.S.C.A. § 3626; Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, §§ 201–204, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 12131–12134.
1 Cases that cite this headnote
*696 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Claudia Wilken, District Judge, Presiding.
Before REINHARDT, TASHIMA and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM* Defendants, officials responsible for the operation of California’s state prisons through the California Department of Corrections (CDC), a division of the California Youth and Adult Correction Authority, appeal a portion of a district court order requiring them to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. We affirm.1
This is the third appeal arising from an injunction correcting the CDC’s discriminatory practices affecting Plaintiffs–Appellees, a class of disabled inmates and parolees. In the first appeal we affirmed the district court’s determination that the ADA and the RA apply to the plaintiff class. Armstrong v. Wilson, 124 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir.1997).
The second appeal involved details of the district court’s Remedial Plan. We remanded to the district court for it to correct its error in ordering the CDC to *697 comply with aspects of the parties’ plan that had been negotiated to mutual satisfaction but which lacked the threshold findings and standards required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). Armstrong v. Davis, No. 99–15152, 2000 U.S.App. LEXIS 6821, 2000 WL 369622
1

Armstrong v. Davis, 58 Fed.Appx. 695 (2003)

(9th Cir. Apr. 11, 2000) (unpublished); see 18 U.S.C. 3626.
On remand, the district court ordered the parties to submit a joint statement regarding further proceedings in the case, including a proposed injunction to be issued by the district court. The parties agreed that the injunction should include portions of the remedial plan
a) not resolved by the parties; b) included in Defendant’s remedial plan pursuant to the district court’s order that they were required by the ADA and Rehabilitation Act and constituted the least intrusive means necessary; c) not appealed by Defendants; d) not overturned by the 9th Circuit; and e) not moot

memorandum disposition on the second appeal, and the parties’ stipulation that only disputed matters would be included in the injunction. It further argues that the presumption itself was not narrowly drawn and was thus contrary to the statute’s purpose of minimizing judicial involvement in prison administration. See Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1086 (9th Cir.1986).
In fact, although the presumption was never the main disagreement between the parties prior to this appeal, the parties did dispute it in previous proceedings. Defendants *698 themselves raised the issue at an earlier stage of the litigation, asserting, in a brief opposing Plaintiffs’ objections to the adequacy of their accommodations, that the inmate should bear the burden of showing that his extended stay was due to his disability. In their reply, Plaintiffs argued the opposite. Consequently, the district court was justified in considering the issue litigated.

After briefing and oral argument, the district court issued a permanent injunction. The CDC here appeals paragraph three of that injunction.
Paragraph three of the injunction concerns CDC policies on accommodations to prisoners who experience extended stays in reception centers. All prisoners are initially processed and classified at reception centers. While at these reception centers, prisoners have reduced access to sentence-reducing credits as compared to prisoners who are already processed. Some disabled prisoners are kept in reception centers for extended periods of time because of their disabilities. As a result, such prisoners are denied sentence-reducing credits that would be available to them if they were not disabled.
The CDC does not dispute that it violates the ADA by denying credits to disabled prisoners who are kept in reception centers for unusually long periods because of their disabilities. Rather, they object to a portion of paragraph three that states that “[i]f a disabled inmate remains at a Reception Center for more than sixty days, a presumption arises that the extended stay is solely due to the inmate’s disability.”2
The CDC argues that the issue of the presumption was never litigated and that it therefore violates the PLRA, our

Even if the issue of the presumption had not been litigated, it would have been necessary for the district court to resolve it, as it was ancillary to the larger issue of how to remedy the violations related to the reception center-an issue that was litigated thoroughly. If there is to be an injunction, one side or the other must bear the burden of showing whether the extended stay was due to a disability. Because the CDC, and not the inmate, knows why it is keeping a given inmate for longer than 60 days in a reception center, it would be both impractical and unfair to require the inmate to demonstrate the reason.
The ancillary nature of the presumption issue and the underlying fairness and practicality of the district court’s determination also show that the scope of the presumption is appropriately drawn and does not create an unnecessary intrusion into the operation of the prisons.
AFFIRMED.
Parallel Citations
2003 WL 344203 (C.A.9 (Cal.))
	  

Footnotes

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided

by Ninth Circuit Rule 36–3.

1

In a published opinion, filed concurrently herewith, we address issues relating to the award of attorney’s fees.

2

The CDC may overcome the presumption by demonstrating either that “the inmate’s transfer out of the Reception Center was at no

time delayed solely due to the inmate’s disability” or that “the cumulative period of all disability-related delays was shorter than

the inmate’s extended stay, in which case the CDC need only accommodate the inmate for the cumulative period of

disability-related delays.” A subsequent portion of paragraph three adds:

2

Armstrong v. Davis, 58 Fed.Appx. 695 (2003) The central file of all inmates with disabilities received from Reception Centers will be reviewed at the receiving program institution to determine if the inmate’s stay exceeded sixty says. If so, the inmate’s extended stay shall be presumed to be solely due to the inmate’s disability unless the CDC can overcome this presumption.
	  
3

 
 Armstrong v. Davis, 215 F.3d 1332 (2000)
215 F.3d 1332 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION. (The Court’s decision is referenced in a “Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions” appearing in the Federal Reporter. Use FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 for rules regarding the citation of unpublished opinions.) United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
John ARMSTRONG; James Amauric, Richard Ponciano; Jack Swensen; Billy Beck; Judy Fendt; Walter Fratus; Grogory Sandoval; Darlene Madison; Peter A. Richardson; Steven Hill, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
Gray DAVIS, Governor of the State of California; Robert Presley, Secretary of Youth and Corrections Agency; C.A. Terhune, Director of the Department of Corrections; Susann Steinberg, M.D., Deputy Director for Health Care Services, Judith McGillivray, Deputy Director of the Planning and Construction Division; David Tristan, Deputy Director of the Institutions Division; Midge Carroll, Deputy Director of the Parole Community Services
Division, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 99-15152. | D.C. No. CV 94-02307 CW. | Argued and Submitted Jan. 10, 2000. | Decided April 11, 2000.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Claudia Wilken, District Judge, Presiding.
Before VAN GRAAFEILAND,2ALARCÓN, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM1
I.
*1 Plaintiff-appellees, a certified class of all present and future California state prison inmates and parolees with various physical and learning disabilities, sued defendant-appellants, California state officials acting in their official capacity (hereinafter referred to as the California Department of Corrections, or CDC). Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief for state prison violations of the Rehabilitation Act (“RA”) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).
In lieu of a trial, the parties and the district court embarked on an extensive settlement process, under which the CDC stipulated that some of its facilities were not in compliance with the statutes, and thereafter worked to develop a proposed plan to remedy its specific statutory violations. The plaintiffs objected to a number of the CDC’s proposals, as was contemplated by the settlement agreement. Although most issues were resolved by the parties as a result of negotiation, fifteen specific aspects of the CDC’s proposed plan were submitted to the district court for evidentiary hearings and resolution.
Although the CDC now raises a number of issues on appeal, its primary argument is that the district court incorrectly applied an “undue burden” standard in rejecting as noncompliant two particular aspects of its proposed plan: its Disability Placement Plan for housing disabled inmates in appropriate facilities; and its screening process for identifying inmates with disabilities (the “verification process”). The department urges us to find that the court erred in ordering it to adopt the plaintiffs’ extensive modifications to these aspects of the plan. The CDC also contends that the district court’s final injunction violated 18 U.S.C. § 3626 (the Prison Litigation Reform Act) to the extent that it ordered the CDC to comply with negotiated portions of the remedial plan without first finding that those portions were the least restrictive remedies necessary to comply with the ADA and the RA.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a). See Armstrong v. Wilson, 124 F.3d 1019, 1021-22 (9th Cir.1997) (Armstrong I ). We agree with the CDC that the district court applied the incorrect legal standard in evaluating the Disability Placement Plan and the verification process. We also agree that the district court’s injunction violated the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Accordingly, we reverse.
1

Armstrong v. Davis, 215 F.3d 1332 (2000)
II.
Title II of the ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by public entities.3 See 42 U.S.C. § 12132. Title II is applicable to state prisons. See Pennsylvania Dep’t of Corrections v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206, 213 (1998).
In Gates v. Rowland, 39 F.3d 1439, 1447 (9th Cir.1994), we held that the correct standard for reviewing claimed violations of prisoners’ statutory rights under the RA is the standard articulated by the Supreme Court in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1994). In Turner, the Supreme Court held that “when a prison regulation impinges on inmates’ constitutional rights, the regulation is nonetheless valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.” Id. at 89. The Turner Court identified four factors relevant to determining the reasonableness of a policy or practice: (1) whether there is a valid, rational connection between the practice and a legitimate governmental interest; (2) whether “alternative means” exist for inmates to exercise the constitutional right at stake; (3) the impact of accommodation on prison security, administrative efficiency, prison staff, and the inmate population as a whole; and (4) whether the prison’s policy represents an “exaggerated response” to prison concerns. Id. at 87.
*2 Turner places on the prison inmates the burden of demonstrating that the challenged prison policy or regulation is unreasonable. See id; see also Casey v. Lewis, 4 F.3d 1516, 1520 (9th Cir.1993). Indeed, we recently emphasized that under the first prong of Turner, the plaintiff-inmates bear the initial burden of refuting a “common sense connection between a prison regulation and the objective that the government’s counsel argues the policy was designed to further.” Frost v. Symington, 197 F.3d 348, 357 (9th Cir.1999). Without such a showing, the government’s proffered “common sense” objective is presumed legitimate and neutral. See id.
Although the panel in Gates acknowledged that the Turner standard was created as a means of review of constitutional rights in a prison setting, it nonetheless found the standard equally appropriate for a review of statutory rights. See Gates, 39 F.3d at 1447 (“It is highly doubtful that Congress intended a more stringent application of the prisoners’ statutory rights created by the [RA] than it would the prisoners’ constitutional rights.”).
Given Gates’ s clear holding that the Turner reasonableness standard is applicable in this context, the standard applied by the district court, namely, that the prison officials had to show that the inmates’ proposed accommodations posed an undue burden, is incorrect. Gates clearly requires that the initial burden of proof be placed on the prisoners to demonstrate why the CDC’s proposed plans were unreasonable.
Both sides presented below substantial evidence in favor of their respective legal arguments, but the essential facts are not disputed. These undisputed facts clearly establish that the CDC’s proposed Disability Placement Plan and verification process are “reasonably” related to legitimate penological interests. Turner, 482 U.S. at 89. Therefore, we reverse the district court and vacate those portions of the injunction giving rise to this appeal.
III.
We also agree with the CDC that the district court’s final injunction was in violation of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A), to the extent that it ordered the CDC to comply with the negotiated portions of the plans (i.e. those portions of the proposed plan which were initially objected to by the plaintiff prisoners, and which the CDC subsequently modified as a result of negotiations between the parties), without having made the findings required by the PLRA.
The PLRA mandates that “in any civil action with respect to prison conditions” a court “shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). Under the PLRA, prospective relief in prison cases can be granted only if accompanied by these findings.4
*3 In this case, the district court failed to make the requisite PLRA findings with respect to the negotiated portions of the
2

Armstrong v. Davis, 215 F.3d 1332 (2000)
CDC’s proposed remedial plans.5 Accordingly, we vacate that portion of the final injunction ordering the CDC to comply with the negotiated portions of the plans. The CDC and the inmates entered into a settlement agreement under which the CDC has agreed to remedy various violations. If the CDC fails to live up to the agreement and violations persist, the plaintiffs may return to court and seek appropriate redress, including an enforceable injunction in conformity with the PLRA if appropriate. This approach is consistent with the purpose of the PLRA, which is to minimize judicial involvement in prison administration unless the requisite findings can be made. See Hadix v. Johnson, 133 F.3d 940, 942 (6th Cir.1998)
We therefore VACATE the district court’s order to the extent that it applies to the Disability Placement Plan and the verification process, and to the extent that it orders the CDC to comply with the negotiated portions of its remedial plan. We REMAND the case for any further proceedings not inconsistent with this decision, as may be necessary.

Parallel Citations

2000 WL 369622 (Table)

Footnotes

2

The Honorable Ellsworth A. Van Graafeiland, Senior Circuit Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,

sitting by designation.

1

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided

by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

3

Title II was expressly modeled after § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 28 U.S.C. 794a. As we have noted, “[t]here is no

significant difference in analysis of the rights and obligations created by the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act.” Zukle v. Regents of

the University of California, 166 F.3d 1041, 1045 n. 11 (9th Cir.1999) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 12133).

4

The district court apparently recognized the necessity of the PLRA findings. When the CDC raised this issue below, the court

proposed two options: either the court would issue its final injunction without the PLRA findings if the CDC would agree not to

challenge the order on those grounds; or the court would issue an order with the PLRA certification, but it would permit the CDC

to subsequently modify its plan if it could demonstrate that any particular part of the plan was inconsistent with the PLRA. The

CDC rejected both options, insisting instead on strict compliance with the PLRA.

5

Moreover, we reject the plaintiffs’ argument that the CDC, by agreeing to the settlement procedure, also agreed that any disputed

portions would be subject to an automatic certification of the PLRA findings. According to the plain language of the district court’s

Remedial Order, which delineated the settlement procedure, the negotiated portions of the plans were not to be subject to an

automatic PLRA certification; only those portions of the CDC’s plan to which the plaintiff prisoners did not object were to be

incorporated into a court order which would certify that the measures were the least restrictive necessary to ensure compliance with

the statutes.

3

 
 Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 1 of 265
E−Filing,PROTO
U.S. District Court California Northern District (Oakland) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:94−cv−02307−CW

Armstrong, et al v. Newsom, et al Assigned to: Hon. Claudia Wilken Demand: $0 Case in other court: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 08−17664
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 09−16716 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 09−17144 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 09−17632 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 12−16018 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 12−17103 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 12−17198 Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights Plaintiff

Date Filed: 06/29/1994 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights Jurisdiction: Federal Question

John Armstrong

represented by Donald H. Specter Prison Law Office 1917 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710−1916 510−280−2621 Fax: 510−280−2704 Email: dspecter@prisonlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eve Hedy Cervantez Altshuler Berzon LLP 177 Post Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94108 (415) 421−7151 Fax: 415−362−8064 Email: ecervantez@altshulerberzon.com TERMINATED: 03/06/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael William Bien Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP 101 Mission Street, 6th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105−1738 415−433−6830 Fax: 415−433−7104 Email: mbien@rbgg.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sara Linda Norman Prison Law Office 1917 Fifth St. Berkeley, CA 94710−1916 510−280−2621 Fax: 510−280−2704 Email: snorman@prisonlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alison Hardy Prison Law Office

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 2 of 265
1917 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710 510.280.2621 Email: ahardy@prisonlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Whelan National Center for Lesbian Rights 870 Market Street Suite 370 San Francisco, CA 94102 415−392−6257 Fax: 415−392−8442 Email: awhelan@nclrights.org TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Anne Hanson Mania Rosen, Bien and Galvan 315 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 415−433−6830 Email: amania@RBG−law.com TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Arlene Brynne Mayerson Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund, Inc. 3075 Adeline Street, Suite 210 Berkeley, CA 94703 (510) 644−2555 Fax: (510) 841−8645 Email: AMayerson@dredf.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Joseph Bien−Kahn Rosen Bien Galvan and Grunfeld LLP 101 Mission Street, Sixth Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 415−433−6830 Email: bbien−kahn@rbgg.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Blake Thompson , CA TERMINATED: 06/10/2016
Corene T. Kendrick Prison Law Office 1917 Fifth St. Berkeley, CA 94710 510−280−2621 Email: ckendrick@prisonlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ernest James Galvan Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP 101 Mission Street, Sixth Floor San Francisco, CA 94105−1738 (415) 433−6830 Email: egalvan@rbgg.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld Rosen Bien Galvan and Grunfeld LLP 50 Fremont Street, 19th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 3 of 265
415−433−6830 Fax: 415−433−7104 Email: ggrunfeld@rbgg.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Geoffrey T. Holtz Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105−1596 (415) 442−1414 Fax: (415) 442−1001 Email: geoffrey.holtz@morganlewis.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Holly Baldwin Rosen, Bien & Galvan, LLP 315 Montgomery St., 10th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 415−433−6830 Fax: 415−433−7104 Email: hmbaldwin@me.com TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Kelly Jean Knapp Stebner and Associates 870 Market Street Suite 1212 San Francisco, CA 94102 4153629800 Fax: 4153629801 Email: kelly@stebnerassociates.com TERMINATED: 05/25/2016
Kenneth Michael Walczak Nassiri & Jung LLP 47 Kearny Street Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94108 415−762−3100 Fax: 415−534−3200 Email: kenneth.walczak@sfgov.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Krista Michelle Stone−Manista Rosen Bien Galvan and Grunfeld 50 Fremont St 19th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 415−433−6830 Email: KStone−Manista@rbgg.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Linda D. Kilb Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Inc. 3075 Adeline Street Suite 210 Berkeley, CA 94703 510−644−2555 Fax: 510−841−8645 Email: lkilb@dredf.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa Adrienne Ells Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 4 of 265
101 Mission Street, 6th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105−1738 415−433−6830 Fax: 415−433−7104 Email: lells@rbgg.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Loren Dougherty Stewart Federal Public Defender's Office 450 Golden Gate Avenue 19th Floor San Francisco, CA 94102 415−436−7700 Fax: 415−436−7706 Email: loren_stewart@fd.org TERMINATED: 10/29/2012
Margot Knight Mendelson Rosen Bien Galvan and Grunfeld 50 Fremont Street 19th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 415−433−6830 Fax: 415−433−7104 Email: mmendelson@prisonlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maria V. Morris Southern Poverty Law Center 400 Washington Av Montgomery, AL 36104 334−956−8200 Email: maria.morris@splcenter.org TERMINATED: 10/29/2012
Mark Raymond Feeser Mark R. Feeser − Attorney at Law 3940−7174 Broad Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805−542−0189 Email: mark.r.feeser@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Megan Hagler Attorney at Law 2173 E. Francisco Blvd San Rafael, CA 94901 415−457−9144 Email: mhagler@prisonlaw.com TERMINATED: 04/12/2016
Michael Louis Freedman Rosen Bien Galvan and Grunfeld 101 Mission Street, 6th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105−1738 United Sta 415−433−6830 Fax: 415−433−7104 Email: mfreedman@rbgg.com TERMINATED: 06/10/2016
Penny Marie Godbold Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld 101 Mission Street, Sixth Floor San Francisco, CA 94105

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 5 of 265

Plaintiff James Amauric

415.433.6830 Email: pgodbold@rbgg.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebekah B. Evenson Bay Area Legal Aid 1035 Market Street 6th Floor San Francisco, CA 94103 415−982−1300 Fax: 415−982−4243 Email: revenson@baylegal.org TERMINATED: 04/12/2016
Rita Katherine Lomio Prison Law Office 1917 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710 (510) 280−2621 Email: rlomio@prisonlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawn Hanson Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP 580 California Street Suite 1500 San Francisco, CA 94104−1036 415 765 9500 Fax: 415 765 9501 Email: shanson@akingump.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shirley Huey Rosen Bien Galvan and Grunfeld LLP 315 Montgomery St. 10th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 415−433−6830 Fax: 415−433−7104 Email: shirley@pierceshearer.com TERMINATED: 10/29/2012
Thomas Bengt Nolan Rosen Bien Galvan and Grunfeld LLP 50 Fremont Street, 19th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 415−433−6830 Fax: 415−433−7104 Email: tnolan@rbgg.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Warren E. George , Jr Prison Law Office 1917 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710 (510) 280−2621 Fax: (510) 280−2704 Email: wgeorge@prisonlaw.com TERMINATED: 04/12/2016
represented by Donald H. Specter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 6 of 265

Plaintiff Richard Ponciano

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/06/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara Linda Norman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Whelan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Anne Hanson Mania (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Arlene Brynne Mayerson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Joseph Bien−Kahn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ernest James Galvan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Holly Baldwin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Kelly Jean Knapp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/25/2016
Krista Michelle Stone−Manista (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawn Hanson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Bengt Nolan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Donald H. Specter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eve Hedy Cervantez

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 7 of 265

Plaintiff Jack Swensen

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/06/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara Linda Norman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Whelan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Anne Hanson Mania (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Arlene Brynne Mayerson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Joseph Bien−Kahn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ernest James Galvan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Holly Baldwin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Kelly Jean Knapp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/25/2016
Krista Michelle Stone−Manista (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawn Hanson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Bengt Nolan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Donald H. Specter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/06/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 8 of 265

Plaintiff Billy Beck

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara Linda Norman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Whelan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Anne Hanson Mania (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Arlene Brynne Mayerson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Joseph Bien−Kahn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ernest James Galvan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Holly Baldwin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Kelly Jean Knapp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/25/2016
Krista Michelle Stone−Manista (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawn Hanson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Bengt Nolan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Donald H. Specter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elaine Beth Feingold Law Office of Elaine B. Feingold 1524 Scenic Avenue Berkeley, CA 94708 (510) 548−5062 Email: lf@lflegal.com TERMINATED: 12/21/2007

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 9 of 265
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/06/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael William Bien (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara Linda Norman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Whelan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Anne Hanson Mania (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Arlene Brynne Mayerson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Joseph Bien−Kahn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ernest James Galvan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Holly Baldwin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Kelly Jean Knapp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/25/2016
Krista Michelle Stone−Manista (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawn Hanson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Bengt Nolan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Warren E. George , Jr (See above for address)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 10 of 265

Plaintiff Judy Fendt

TERMINATED: 04/12/2016
represented by Donald H. Specter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elaine Beth Feingold (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/21/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/06/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael William Bien (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara Linda Norman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Whelan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Anne Hanson Mania (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Arlene Brynne Mayerson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Joseph Bien−Kahn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ernest James Galvan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Holly Baldwin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Kelly Jean Knapp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/25/2016
Krista Michelle Stone−Manista (See above for address)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 11 of 265

Plaintiff Walter Fratus

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawn Hanson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Bengt Nolan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Warren E. George , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/12/2016
represented by Donald H. Specter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elaine Beth Feingold (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/21/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/06/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael William Bien (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara Linda Norman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anne Hanson Mania (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Arlene Brynne Mayerson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Joseph Bien−Kahn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ernest James Galvan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Holly Baldwin (See above for address)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 12 of 265

Plaintiff Gregory Sandoval

TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Kelly Jean Knapp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/25/2016
Krista Michelle Stone−Manista (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawn Hanson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Bengt Nolan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Warren E. George , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/12/2016
represented by Donald H. Specter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elaine Beth Feingold (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/21/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/06/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael William Bien (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara Linda Norman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Whelan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Anne Hanson Mania (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Arlene Brynne Mayerson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Joseph Bien−Kahn (See above for address)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 13 of 265

Plaintiff Darlene Madison

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ernest James Galvan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Holly Baldwin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Kelly Jean Knapp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/25/2016
Krista Michelle Stone−Manista (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawn Hanson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Bengt Nolan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Warren E. George , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/12/2016
represented by Donald H. Specter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elaine Beth Feingold (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/21/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/06/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael William Bien (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara Linda Norman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Whelan (See above for address)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 14 of 265

Plaintiff Peter Richardson

TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Anne Hanson Mania (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Arlene Brynne Mayerson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Joseph Bien−Kahn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ernest James Galvan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Holly Baldwin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Kelly Jean Knapp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/25/2016
Krista Michelle Stone−Manista (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawn Hanson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Bengt Nolan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Warren E. George , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/12/2016
represented by Donald H. Specter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elaine Beth Feingold (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/21/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/06/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 15 of 265

Plaintiff Steven Hill

Michael William Bien (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara Linda Norman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Whelan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Anne Hanson Mania (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Arlene Brynne Mayerson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Joseph Bien−Kahn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ernest James Galvan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Holly Baldwin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Kelly Jean Knapp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/25/2016
Krista Michelle Stone−Manista (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawn Hanson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Bengt Nolan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Warren E. George , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/12/2016
represented by Donald H. Specter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 16 of 265
Elaine Beth Feingold (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/21/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/06/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael William Bien (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara Linda Norman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Whelan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Anne Hanson Mania (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Arlene Brynne Mayerson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Joseph Bien−Kahn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ernest James Galvan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Holly Baldwin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Kelly Jean Knapp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/25/2016
Krista Michelle Stone−Manista (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawn Hanson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Warren E. George , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/12/2016

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 17 of 265

Plaintiff David Rose

represented by Donald H. Specter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elaine Beth Feingold (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/21/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Whelan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Anne Hanson Mania (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Arlene Brynne Mayerson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Joseph Bien−Kahn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Caroline Nason Mitchell Jones Day 555 California Street 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 415 875 5712 Fax: 415 875 5700 Email: cnmitchell@jonesday.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ernest James Galvan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/06/2000 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Holly Baldwin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Jennifer Lee Jonak Jonak Law Group, P.C. 2888 Arline Way Eugene, OR 97403 541−525−9102 Fax: 510−291−2910 Email: jenny@jonak.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 18 of 265

Plaintiff David Blessing

Kelly Jean Knapp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/25/2016
Krista Michelle Stone−Manista (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael William Bien (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara Linda Norman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawn Hanson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Bengt Nolan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Warren E. George , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/12/2016
William Fernholz Rosen Bien & Galvan LLP 315 Montgomery St., 10th Flr San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 433−6830 TERMINATED: 11/13/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Donald H. Specter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Whelan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Anne Hanson Mania (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Arlene Brynne Mayerson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Joseph Bien−Kahn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Caroline Nason Mitchell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ernest James Galvan (See above for address)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 19 of 265

Plaintiff Elio Castro

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/06/2000 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Holly Baldwin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Jennifer Lee Jonak (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly Jean Knapp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/25/2016
Krista Michelle Stone−Manista (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael William Bien (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara Linda Norman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawn Hanson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Bengt Nolan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Warren E. George , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/12/2016
represented by Donald H. Specter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Whelan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Anne Hanson Mania (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Arlene Brynne Mayerson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 20 of 265

Plaintiff Elmer Umbenhower

Benjamin Joseph Bien−Kahn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Caroline Nason Mitchell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ernest James Galvan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/06/2000 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Holly Baldwin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Jennifer Lee Jonak (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly Jean Knapp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/25/2016
Krista Michelle Stone−Manista (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael William Bien (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara Linda Norman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawn Hanson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Bengt Nolan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Warren E. George , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/12/2016
represented by Donald H. Specter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 21 of 265
Amy Whelan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Anne Hanson Mania (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Arlene Brynne Mayerson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Joseph Bien−Kahn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Caroline Nason Mitchell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ernest James Galvan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/06/2000 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Holly Baldwin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Jennifer Lee Jonak (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly Jean Knapp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/25/2016
Krista Michelle Stone−Manista (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael William Bien (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara Linda Norman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawn Hanson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Bengt Nolan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 22 of 265

Plaintiff Raymond Hayes

Warren E. George , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/12/2016
represented by Donald H. Specter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Whelan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Anne Hanson Mania (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Arlene Brynne Mayerson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Joseph Bien−Kahn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Caroline Nason Mitchell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ernest James Galvan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/06/2000 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Holly Baldwin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Jennifer Lee Jonak (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly Jean Knapp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/25/2016
Krista Michelle Stone−Manista (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael William Bien (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara Linda Norman

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 23 of 265

Plaintiff Gene Horrocks

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawn Hanson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Bengt Nolan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Warren E. George , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/12/2016
represented by Donald H. Specter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Whelan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Anne Hanson Mania (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Arlene Brynne Mayerson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Joseph Bien−Kahn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Caroline Nason Mitchell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ernest James Galvan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/06/2000 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Holly Baldwin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Jennifer Lee Jonak (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly Jean Knapp (See above for address)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 24 of 265

Plaintiff Kiah Mincey

TERMINATED: 05/25/2016
Krista Michelle Stone−Manista (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael William Bien (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara Linda Norman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawn Hanson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Bengt Nolan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Warren E. George , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/12/2016
represented by Donald H. Specter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Whelan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Anne Hanson Mania (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Arlene Brynne Mayerson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Joseph Bien−Kahn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Caroline Nason Mitchell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ernest James Galvan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/06/2000 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 25 of 265

Plaintiff Clifton Feathers

Holly Baldwin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Jennifer Lee Jonak (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly Jean Knapp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/25/2016
Krista Michelle Stone−Manista (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael William Bien (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara Linda Norman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawn Hanson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Bengt Nolan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Warren E. George , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/12/2016
represented by Donald H. Specter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Whelan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Anne Hanson Mania (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Arlene Brynne Mayerson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Joseph Bien−Kahn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Caroline Nason Mitchell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ernest James Galvan

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 26 of 265

Plaintiff Willie Johnson

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/06/2000 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Holly Baldwin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Jennifer Lee Jonak (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly Jean Knapp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/25/2016
Krista Michelle Stone−Manista (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael William Bien (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara Linda Norman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawn Hanson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Bengt Nolan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Warren E. George , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/12/2016
represented by Donald H. Specter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Whelan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Anne Hanson Mania (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Arlene Brynne Mayerson (See above for address)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 27 of 265

Plaintiff David Badillo

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Joseph Bien−Kahn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Caroline Nason Mitchell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ernest James Galvan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/06/2000 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Holly Baldwin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Jennifer Lee Jonak (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly Jean Knapp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/25/2016
Krista Michelle Stone−Manista (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael William Bien (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara Linda Norman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawn Hanson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Bengt Nolan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Warren E. George , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/12/2016
represented by Donald H. Specter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 28 of 265
Amy Whelan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Anne Hanson Mania (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Arlene Brynne Mayerson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Joseph Bien−Kahn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Caroline Nason Mitchell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ernest James Galvan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/06/2000 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Holly Baldwin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Jennifer Lee Jonak (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly Jean Knapp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/25/2016
Krista Michelle Stone−Manista (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael William Bien (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara Linda Norman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawn Hanson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Bengt Nolan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 29 of 265

Plaintiff James Simmons

Warren E. George , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/12/2016
represented by Donald H. Specter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Whelan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Anne Hanson Mania (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Arlene Brynne Mayerson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Joseph Bien−Kahn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Caroline Nason Mitchell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ernest James Galvan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/06/2000 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Holly Baldwin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Jennifer Lee Jonak (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly Jean Knapp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/25/2016
Krista Michelle Stone−Manista (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael William Bien (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 30 of 265

Plaintiff Flora Abrams

Sara Linda Norman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawn Hanson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Bengt Nolan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Warren E. George , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/12/2016
represented by Donald H. Specter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elaine Beth Feingold (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/21/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Whelan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Anne Hanson Mania (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Arlene Brynne Mayerson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Joseph Bien−Kahn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Caroline Nason Mitchell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ernest James Galvan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/06/2000 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Holly Baldwin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 31 of 265

Plaintiff Joey Gough

Jennifer Lee Jonak (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly Jean Knapp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/25/2016
Krista Michelle Stone−Manista (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael William Bien (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawn Hanson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Bengt Nolan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Warren E. George , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/12/2016
William Fernholz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Donald H. Specter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elaine Beth Feingold (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/21/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Whelan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Anne Hanson Mania (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Arlene Brynne Mayerson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Joseph Bien−Kahn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Caroline Nason Mitchell (See above for address)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 32 of 265

Plaintiff Timothy Whisman

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ernest James Galvan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/06/2000 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Holly Baldwin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Jennifer Lee Jonak (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly Jean Knapp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/25/2016
Krista Michelle Stone−Manista (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael William Bien (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawn Hanson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Bengt Nolan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Warren E. George , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/12/2016
William Fernholz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Donald H. Specter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elaine Beth Feingold (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/21/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 33 of 265
Amy Whelan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Anne Hanson Mania (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Arlene Brynne Mayerson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Caroline Nason Mitchell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ernest James Galvan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/06/2000 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Holly Baldwin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2011
Jennifer Lee Jonak (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly Jean Knapp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/25/2016
Krista Michelle Stone−Manista (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael William Bien (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawn Hanson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Bengt Nolan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Warren E. George , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/12/2016
William Fernholz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 34 of 265

V. Receiver Robert Sillen
Receiver J. Clark Kelso
V. Intervenor Pla Robert Hecker
Intervenor Pla Ralph Coleman
V. Defendant Pete Wilson TERMINATED: 03/22/2000

represented by Martin H. Dodd Futterman Dupree Dodd Croley Maier LLP 601 Montgomery St., Suite 333 San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 399−3840 Fax: (415) 399−3838 Email: mdodd@fddcm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Martin H. Dodd (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michael William Bien (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michael William Bien (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edward Rheem Fluet California State Attorney General's Office Correctional Law Section 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102−7004 415−703−5836 Fax: 415−703−5843 Email: nfluet@lakinspears.com TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Jose A Zelidon−Zepeda California State Attorney General's Office Department of Justice 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102−7004 415−510−3879 Fax: 415−703−5843 Email: Jose.ZelidonZepeda@doj.ca.gov TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Morris Lenk Attorney General's Office 455 Golden Gate Avenue Suite 11000

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 35 of 265

Defendant Joseph C. Sandoval

San Francisco, CA 94102−7004 415−703−5724 Fax: 415−703−1234 Email: morris.lenk@doj.ca.gov TERMINATED: 03/04/2004 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Benjamin Terrence Rice Law Office of Benjamin Rice 331 Soquel Avenue Suite 203 Santa Cruz, CA 95062 Email: benricelaw@jmail.com TERMINATED: 01/22/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer J. Nygaard CA State Attorney General's Office CLS 1515 Clay Street, 20th Floor P. O. Box 70550 Oakland, CA 94612−0550 510−879−0802 Fax: 510−622−2270 Email: Jennifer.Nygaard@doj.ca.gov TERMINATED: 01/21/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Perkell Office of the Attorney General 1515 Clay Street Ste 2000 Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 879−0820 Fax: (510) 622−2121 Email: jennifer.perkell@doj.ca.gov TERMINATED: 02/03/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul Brian Mello Hanson Bridgett LLP 425 Market Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 777−3200 Fax: (415) 541−9366 Email: pmello@hansonbridgett.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Danielle Felice O'Bannon Attorney General's Office CLS 455 golden Gate Ave., suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 703−5735 Fax: (415) 703−5843 Email: Danielle.OBannon@doj.ca.gov TERMINATED: 05/14/2018
Edward Rheem Fluet

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 36 of 265

Defendant Dir Dept of Corr James Gomez

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Jay Craig Russell Office of the Attorney General 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102−7004 (415) 510−3517 Fax: (415) 703−5480 Email: jay.russell@doj.ca.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jose A Zelidon−Zepeda (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Katherine Kylin Nelson Office of the Attorney General Correctional Law Section 1300 I Street, Suite125 P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244−2550 916−445−4979 Fax: 916−324−5205 Email: Katherine.Nelson@doj.ca.gov TERMINATED: 01/22/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Morris Lenk (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/04/2004 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rochelle C. East Office of the Attorney General 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102−7004 (415) 703−5711 Fax: (415) 703−5843 Email: rochelle.east@doj.ca.gov TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
represented by Benjamin Terrence Rice (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/22/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
George Dey Prince California Dept. of Justice Attorney Generals Office 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102−7004 (415) 703−5749 Fax: (415) 703−5480 Email: george.prince@doj.ca.gov TERMINATED: 03/04/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer J. Nygaard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/2009

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 37 of 265

Defendant Kyle McKinsey

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Perkell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/03/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul Brian Mello (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Danielle Felice O'Bannon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/14/2018
Edward Rheem Fluet (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Jay Craig Russell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jose A Zelidon−Zepeda (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Katherine Kylin Nelson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/22/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Morris Lenk (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/04/2004 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rochelle C. East (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
represented by Benjamin Terrence Rice (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/22/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer J. Nygaard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Perkell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/03/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul Brian Mello

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 38 of 265

Defendant Kevin Carruth

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Danielle Felice O'Bannon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/14/2018
Edward Rheem Fluet (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Jay Craig Russell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jose A Zelidon−Zepeda (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Katherine Kylin Nelson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/22/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Morris Lenk (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/04/2004 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rochelle C. East (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
represented by Benjamin Terrence Rice (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/22/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer J. Nygaard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Perkell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/03/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul Brian Mello (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Danielle Felice O'Bannon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/14/2018
Edward Rheem Fluet (See above for address)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 39 of 265

Defendant Deputy Director David Tristan TERMINATED: 03/25/1999
Defendant Marisela Montes Deputy Director of the Parole and Community Services Division

TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Jay Craig Russell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jose A Zelidon−Zepeda (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Katherine Kylin Nelson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/22/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Morris Lenk (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/04/2004 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rochelle C. East (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
represented by Edward Rheem Fluet (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Jose A Zelidon−Zepeda (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Morris Lenk (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/04/2004 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Benjamin Terrence Rice (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/22/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer J. Nygaard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Perkell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/03/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul Brian Mello (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Danielle Felice O'Bannon (See above for address)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 40 of 265

Defendant
Robert Presley Secretary of the Youth and Corrections Agency of the State of California

TERMINATED: 05/14/2018
Edward Rheem Fluet (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Jay Craig Russell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jose A Zelidon−Zepeda (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Katherine Kylin Nelson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/22/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Morris Lenk (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/04/2004 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rochelle C. East (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
represented by Benjamin Terrence Rice (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/22/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Danette E. Valdez CA State Attorney General's Office 455 Golden Gate Ave Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102−7004 415−703−5853 Email: danette.valdez@doj.ca.gov TERMINATED: 03/04/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer J. Nygaard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Perkell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/03/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul Brian Mello (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Danielle Felice O'Bannon

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 41 of 265

Defendant Cal A. Terhune Director of the CA Dept. of Corrections TERMINATED: 03/25/1999
Defendant Susanne Steinberg M.D., Deputy Director for Health Care Services for the CA Dept. of Corrections TERMINATED: 03/25/1999
Defendant Judith McGillivray Deputy Director of the Planning and Construction Division for the CA Dept. of Corrections TERMINATED: 03/25/1999
Defendant Midge Carroll Deputy Director of the Parole and Community Services Division for the CA Dept. of Corrections TERMINATED: 03/25/1999
Defendant California Board of Prison Term

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/14/2018
Edward Rheem Fluet (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Jay Craig Russell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jose A Zelidon−Zepeda (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Katherine Kylin Nelson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/22/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rochelle C. East (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
represented by Edward Rheem Fluet (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Jose A Zelidon−Zepeda (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
represented by Edward Rheem Fluet (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Jose A Zelidon−Zepeda (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
represented by Edward Rheem Fluet (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Jose A Zelidon−Zepeda (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
represented by Edward Rheem Fluet (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Jose A Zelidon−Zepeda (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
represented by

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 42 of 265
Benjamin Terrence Rice (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/22/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James M. Humes State of California Attorney General 455 Golden Gate Avenue Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102−3664 415 703−5725 Email: James.Humes@doj.ca.gov TERMINATED: 03/04/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer J. Nygaard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Perkell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/03/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul Brian Mello (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Danielle Felice O'Bannon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/14/2018
David P. Druliner CA State Attorney General's Office 455 Golden Gate Ave Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102−7004 415−703−5853 TERMINATED: 03/04/2004 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward Rheem Fluet (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Jay Craig Russell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jose A Zelidon−Zepeda (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Katherine Kylin Nelson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/22/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Morris Lenk

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 43 of 265

Defendant Chairman James Nielsen

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/04/2004 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rochelle C. East (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
represented by Benjamin Terrence Rice (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/22/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James M. Humes (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/04/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer J. Nygaard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Perkell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/03/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul Brian Mello (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Danielle Felice O'Bannon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/14/2018
David P. Druliner (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/04/2004 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward Rheem Fluet (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Jay Craig Russell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jose A Zelidon−Zepeda (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Katherine Kylin Nelson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/22/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 44 of 265

Defendant Gray Davis

Morris Lenk (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/04/2004 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rochelle C. East (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
represented by Benjamin Terrence Rice (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/22/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Frances T. Grunder CA State Attorney General's Office 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102−7004 415−703−5723 Fax: 415−703−5843 Email: frances.grunder@doj.ca.gov TERMINATED: 03/04/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James M. Humes (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/04/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer J. Nygaard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Perkell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/03/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul Brian Mello (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Danielle Felice O'Bannon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/14/2018
Edward Rheem Fluet (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Jay Craig Russell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jose A Zelidon−Zepeda (See above for address)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 45 of 265

Defendant
Arnold Schwarzenegger TERMINATED: 02/10/2011

TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Katherine Kylin Nelson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/22/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rochelle C. East (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
represented by Jennifer J. Nygaard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul Brian Mello (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cynthia Clarke Fritz Department of Justice 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102−7004 415−703−5793 Email: cynthia.fritz@doj.ca.gov TERMINATED: 06/15/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Danielle Felice O'Bannon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/14/2018
Edward Rheem Fluet (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Jay Craig Russell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jose A Zelidon−Zepeda (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Katherine Kylin Nelson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/22/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kyle Anthony Lewis Department of Justice Office of Attorney General 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102−7004 415−703−5677 Fax: 415−703−5843 Email: Kyle.Lewis@doj.ca.gov TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Rochelle C. East

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 46 of 265

Defendant
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Scott John Feudale Office of the County Counsel Alameda County 1221 Oak Street, Suite 450 Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 272−6700 Fax: 510−272−5020 Email: scott.feudale@acgov.org TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
represented by Alicia Anne Bower California State Attorney General's Office California Department of Justice 1515 Clay Street, Suite 2000 Oakland, CA 94612 510−879−1982 Fax: 510−622−2270 Email: Alicia.Bower@doj.ca.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony James Tartaglio California Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General (Correctional Law Section) 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102 415−510−3206 Fax: 415−703−5480 Email: Anthony.Tartaglio@doj.ca.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeremy Michael Duggan Officeof the Attorney General 1300 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Email: Jeremy.Duggan@doj.ca.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sean Walter Lodholz California Office of the Attorney General California Justice Department 1300 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 210−7369 Fax: (916) 324−5205 Email: Sean.Lodholz@doj.ca.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Trace O. Maiorino California State Attorney General's Office Correctional Law Section 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102−7004 415−703−5975 Fax: 415−703−5843 Email: trace.maiorino@doj.ca.gov

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 47 of 265
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Annakarina De La Torre−Fennell Office of the Attorney General Department of Justice Deputy Attorney General 1300 I Street, 10th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 210−7361 Fax: (916) 324−5205 Email: Annakarina.Fennell@doj.ca.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bryan Kao California State Attorney General's Office 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102 415−510−3579 Fax: 415−703−5480 Email: Bryan.Kao@doj.ca.gov TERMINATED: 03/14/2018
Cynthia Clarke Fritz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/15/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Damon Grant McClain Office of the Attorney General 455 Golden Gate Avenue #11000 San Francisco, CA 94102−7004 (415) 510−3596 Fax: (415) 510−5843 Email: damon.mcclain@doj.ca.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Danielle Felice O'Bannon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/14/2018
Edward Rheem Fluet (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Erick Joseph Rhoan Office of the Attorney General 1300 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814 916−323−3350 Email: Erick.Rhoan@doj.ca.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jane Beasley Mackie California Office of the Attorney General Correctional Law Section 455 Golden Gate Avenue Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102−7004 415−703−5951 Fax: 415−703−5843 Email: Jane.Mackie@doj.ca.gov TERMINATED: 05/14/2018
Jay Craig Russell

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 48 of 265

Defendant Secretary James Tilton

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joanna Breiden Hood California Department of Justice 1300 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814 916−210−7343 Email: Joanna.Hood@doj.ca.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jose A Zelidon−Zepeda (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Kyle Anthony Lewis (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Robert Wayne Henkels Office of the Attorney General Civil Division 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 510−3575 Email: robert.henkels@doj.ca.gov TERMINATED: 06/13/2019
Scott John Feudale (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Sharon Anne Garske Office of the Attorney General Correctional Law 1515 Clay Street, 20th Floor Suite 2000 Oakland, CA 94612−0550 510−879−0263 Fax: 510−622−2270 Email: sharon.garske@doj.ca.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Van Kamberian Office of the Attorney General 1300 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814 916−324−3892 Fax: 916−324−5205 Email: Van.Kamberian@doj.ca.gov TERMINATED: 02/10/2017
represented by Danielle Felice O'Bannon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/14/2018
Edward Rheem Fluet (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Jay Craig Russell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 49 of 265

Defendant Executive Director John Monday
Defendant Edmund G. Brown, Jr. Governor of California TERMINATED: 01/24/2019

Jose A Zelidon−Zepeda (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Rochelle C. East (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
represented by Danielle Felice O'Bannon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/14/2018
Edward Rheem Fluet (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Jay Craig Russell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jose A Zelidon−Zepeda (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Rochelle C. East (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
represented by Annakarina De La Torre−Fennell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bryan Kao (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/14/2018
Danielle Felice O'Bannon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/14/2018
Edward Rheem Fluet (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Giam Minh Nguyen California State Attorney General's Office Correctional Law Section (CLS) 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102−7004 415−703−5686 Fax: 415−703−5843 Email: giam.nguyen@doj.ca.gov TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Janelle M. Smith California State Attorney General's Office 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102−7004 415−703−5521 Fax: 415−703−5843 Email: Janelle.Smith@doj.ca.gov

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 50 of 265

Defendant
Gavin C. Newsom Governor, State of California

TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Janet Nah Chen Office of the Attorney General 1300 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814 916−210−7319 Email: Janet.Chen@doj.ca.gov TERMINATED: 03/14/2018
Jay Michael Goldman California Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General 455 Golden Gate Ave., Ste 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102 415−510−3571 Fax: 415−703−5843 Email: Jay.Goldman@doj.ca.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jay Craig Russell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael James Quinn California State Attorney General's Office Correctional Law Section 455 Golden Gate Avenue Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102−7004 415−703−5726 Fax: 415−703−5843 Email: Michael.Quinn@doj.ca.gov TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Patrick R. McKinney California Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General 1515 Clay Street, 20th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 510−622−4458 Fax: 510−622−2270 Email: Patrick.McKinney@doj.ca.gov TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Scott John Feudale (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2016
Sharon Anne Garske (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Van Kamberian (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/10/2017
represented by Alicia Anne Bower (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony James Tartaglio

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 51 of 265
(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeremy Michael Duggan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sean Walter Lodholz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sharon Anne Garske (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Trace O. Maiorino (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Annakarina De La Torre−Fennell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jay Craig Russell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joanna Breiden Hood (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Wayne Henkels (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/13/2019

V. Movant F.J.
Movant R.E.
Movant D.B.
Interested Party

represented by Ernest James Galvan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ernest James Galvan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ernest James Galvan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 52 of 265

Office of the Inspector General 10111 Old Placerville Road Suite 110 Sacramento, CA 95827 916−255−1102
Amicus USA
Amicus California Correctional Peace Officers Association

James Casey Spurling Office of the Inspector General Legal Unit 10111 Old Placerville Road Suite 110 Sacramento, CA 95827 916−255−1102 Fax: 916−255−1403 Email: SpurlingJ@oig.ca.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mary Beth Uitti U.S. Attorney's Office 1301 Clay Street Suite 340S Oakland, CA 94612 510−637−3725 Fax: 510−637−3724 Email: mary.beth.uitti@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 11/27/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sharon N. Perley USDJ − Disability Rights Section Civil Rights Division P.O. Box 66738 Washington, DC 20035−6738 (202) 307−0663 TERMINATED: 11/27/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gregg McLean Adam , Esq. Messing Adam & Jasmine 235 Montgomery Street Suite 828 San Francisco, CA 94104 415−845−6517 Email: gregg@majlabor.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas John Umberg Umberg/Zipser 1920 Main Street Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92614 949−679−0052 Fax: 949−679−0461 Email: tumberg@umbergzipser.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Cornelius Sybesma California Correctional Peace Officers' Association 755 Riverpoint Drive, Suite 200 West Sacramento, CA 95605−1634 (916) 372−6060 Email: ben.sybesma@ccpoa.org

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 53 of 265
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brent Scott Colasurdo Umberg/Zipser 1920 Main Street Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92614 949−679−0052 Fax: 949−679−0461 Email: bcolasurdo@umbergzipser.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christine Albertine , California Correctional Peace Officers' Association Legal Department 755 Riverpoint Drive Suite 200 West Sacramento, CA 95605−1634
916−372−6060 Fax: Email: christine.albertine@ccpoa.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Spencer Stoughton San Francisco City Attorney's Office Labor Team 1390 Market Street 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94102 415−554−4267 Fax: 415−554−4248 Email: jennifer.stoughton@sfcityatty.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald Yank 5598 Lawton Avenue Oakland, CA 94618 4158609547 Email: ronaldyank@sbcglobal.net ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Miscellaneous
Edward Swanson Swanson, McNamara & Haller LLP 300 Montgomery Street, Suite 1100 San Francisco, CA 94104 415−477−3800 Court Expert

represented by Edward W. Swanson Swanson & McNamara LLP 300 Montgomery St. Suite 1100 San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 477 3800 Fax: (415) 477 9010 Email: ed@smllp.law LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Intervenor Correctional Officers 1−13

represented by Brent Scott Colasurdo (See above for address)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 54 of 265
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas John Umberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed # Docket Text

06/29/1994

1 COMPLAINT Summons(es) issued; Fee status pd entered on 6/29/94 in the amount of $ 120.00 ( Receipt No. 34078) [3:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/1/2017: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 receipt) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/30/1994)

06/29/1994

2 NOTICE by plaintiff of related case(s) C−80−012 MHP [3:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/30/1994)

07/13/1994

3 ORDER by Judge Marilyn H. Patel denying related case notice [2−1] ( Date Entered: 7/14/94) (cc: all counsel) [3:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/14/1994)

07/13/1994

4 ORDER by Judge Marilyn H. Patel denying related case notice [2−1] ( Date Entered: 7/18/94) (cc: all counsel) [3:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/18/1994)

07/21/1994

5 ANSWER by Defendants to complaint [1−1] [3:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/26/1994)

07/29/1994

6 COUNTERSTATEMENT by Defendant opposing plaintiff's notice of related case [3:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/08/1994)

08/08/1994

7 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by Plaintiff to certify class action with Notice set for 9/16/94 10:30 [3:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/10/1994)

08/08/1994

8 MEMORANDUM by Plaintiff in support of motion to certify class action [7−1] [3:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/10/1994)

08/08/1994

9 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of motion for class certification and documents thereof [3:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/10/1994)

08/18/1994 2690 RECEIVED stipo re extension of time for filing of dfts opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class certification submitted by Defendant [3:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/24/1994)

08/22/1994

WRIT of EXECUTION issued re dollar amount of $6,596.47 [3:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/24/1994)

09/06/1994

10 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : extending time for filing of dft's opposition to plaintiff's motion for class certification to and including 10/2/94 (cc: all counsel) [3:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/13/1994)

09/15/1994

11 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant of stip for extension of time for filing of dfts' opposition to plaintiff's motion for clas certification [3:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/26/1994)

10/03/1994

12 EXPARTE NOTICE by defendant to court re: filing of opposition and reply to motion for class cerification [3:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/04/1994)

10/07/1994

13 CROSS−MOTION by defendant James Gomez to dismiss action with Notice set for 10/28/94 10:30 [3:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/13/1994)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 55 of 265

10/07/1994 10/14/1994 10/14/1994 10/14/1994 10/18/1994 10/28/1994
11/07/1994
11/14/1994 11/30/1994 11/30/1994
12/14/1994 01/06/1995 01/06/1995 01/13/1995 01/13/1995
01/26/1995 02/08/1995

14 BRIEF FILED by defendant in opposition motion to certify class action [7−1] [3:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/13/1994)
15 REPLY MEMORANDUM by Plas to motion to certify class action [7−1] [3:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/18/1994)
16 DECLARATION by Warren E. George on behalf of Plaintiff re motion to certify class action [7−1] [3:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/18/1994)
17 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of #15 & #16 [3:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/18/1994)
18 MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by Plaintiff for temporary restraining order [3:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/1/2017: # 1 Envelope) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/18/1994)
19 MINUTES: of Judge C. Wilken; ( C/R Kathy Wyatt) denying motion to dismiss action [13−1], granting motion to certify class action [7−1] Status conference set for 1:30 1/13/95 ; [3:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/08/1994)
20 LETTER to the Honorable dated 10/27/94 from Evelio Torres program for the deaf [3:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/1/2017: # 1 Envelope) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/16/1994)
21 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 10/28/94 ( C/R: Katherine Pope Wyatt) [3:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/18/1994)
22 REQUEST by defendant for leave of court to depose a person confined in prison [3:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/05/1994)
23 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting request [22−1] for leave of court to depose persons confined in prison ( Date Entered: 12/13/94) (cc: all counsel) [3:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/13/1994)
24 REPORT OF PARTIES' PLANNING MEETING by defendant [3:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/21/1994)
25 STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT by Plaintiff [4:94−cv−02307] (oh, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/09/1995)
26 STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT by defendant [4:94−cv−02307] (oh, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/09/1995)
27 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting motion to certify class action [7−1] ( Date Entered: 1/19/95) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/19/1995)
28 MINUTES: of Judge C. Wilken; ( C/R Candace Yount) Status conference held; furher conf. set for 1:30 4/21/95 ; parties to start mediation between now and next status conf. with Steve Toben; Class notification notice to be posted on bulletin board at each prison and read to anyone who can't read/ parties to agree on content of notice or, if cant' agree, submit brief statement re what's wrong with each others. [4:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/20/1995)
29 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : for referral to ADR Process (mediation) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/02/1995)
30 CLERK'S NOTICE of appointment of mediator, B. Stephen Toben [4:94−cv−02307] (ga, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/08/1995)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 56 of 265

02/10/1995 02/10/1995 02/10/1995 02/10/1995 02/22/1995 02/24/1995 02/27/1995 02/28/1995 03/02/1995 03/09/1995 03/14/1995
03/14/1995
03/23/1995 03/23/1995 03/23/1995 03/23/1995

31 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by Plaintiff John Armstrong to compel production of documents with Notice set for 3/17/95 at 10:30am [4:94−cv−02307] (ga, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/15/1995)
32 MEMORANDUM by Plaintiff John Armstrong in support of motion to compel production of documents [31−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (ga, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/15/1995)
33 DECLARATION by Jane Kahn on behalf of Plaintiff John Armstrong re motion to compel production of documents [31−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (ga, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/15/1995)
34 DECLARATION by Michael W. Bien on behalf of Plaintiff John Armstrong re motion to compel production of documents [31−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (ga, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/15/1995)
35 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken referring case for discovery to Mag. Judge to be assaigned as to the motion to compel production of documents [31−1] ( Date Entered: 2/24/95) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/24/1995)
36 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 1/13/95 ( C/R: Candace Yount) [4:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/02/1995)
REFERRAL: referring case for discovery to Mag. Judge F. S. Langford [4:94−cv−02307] (wh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/27/1995)
38 CLERK'S NOTICE of Judge Langford; setting hearing on motion to compel production of documents [31−1] 9:30 3/30/95 [4:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/08/1995)
37 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken denying motion for temporary restraining order [18−1] ( Date Entered: 3/2/95) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/03/1995)
39 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken requiring notice to the class (see document for specifics) ( Date Entered: 3/9/95) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/09/1995)
40 OPPOSITION by defendant Pete Wilson, defendant Joseph C. Sandoval, defendant James Gomez, defendant Kyle McKinsey, defendant Kevin Carruth, defendant David Tristan, defendant Marisela Montes to motion to compel production of documents [31−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (ga, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/24/1995)
41 DECLARATION by James M. Humes on behalf of defendant Pete Wilson, defendant Joseph C. Sandoval, defendant James Gomez, defendant Kyle McKinsey, defendant Kevin Carruth, defendant David Tristan, defendant Marisela Montes re opposition [40−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (ga, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/24/1995)
42 REPLY by Plaintiff John Armstrong re motion to compel production of documents [31−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (ga, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/30/1995)
43 DECLARATION by Michael W. Bien on behalf of Plaintiff John Armstrong re reply [42−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (ga, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/30/1995)
45 LETTER dated 3/21/95 from Donald Specter request for production of documents [4:94−cv−02307] (ga, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). Modified on 4/19/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/05/1995)
46 LETTER dated 3/15/95 from George D. Prince submitted 2 protective orders [4:94−cv−02307] (ga, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/05/1995)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 57 of 265

03/23/1995 03/30/1995 04/06/1995 04/14/1995
04/14/1995
04/21/1995 04/25/1995 04/25/1995 07/07/1995 07/07/1995 08/18/1995 08/30/1995
08/30/1995
09/07/1995 11/08/1995

47 PROTECTIVE ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (ga, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/05/1995)
44 MINUTES: ( C/R Tape 95−7) granting motion to compel production of documents [31−1] Request for fees denied. F. Steele Langford. [4:94−cv−02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/03/1995)
48 NOTICE by defendant's of change of address [4:94−cv−02307] (ga, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/14/1995)
49 STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT by defendant Pete Wilson, defendant Joseph C. Sandoval, defendant James Gomez, defendant Kyle McKinsey, defendant Kevin Carruth, defendant David Tristan, defendant Marisela Montes [4:94−cv−02307] (jm, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/25/1995)
50 STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT by Plaintiff John Armstrong, Plaintiff James Amauric, Plaintiff Richard Ponciano, Plaintiff Jack Swensen, Plaintiff Billy Beck, Plaintiff Judy Fendt, Plaintiff Walter Fratus, Plaintiff Gregory Sandoval, Plaintiff Darlene Madison, Plaintiff Peter Richardson, Plaintiff Steven Hill [4:94−cv−02307] (jm, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/25/1995)
53 MINUTES: of Judge C. Wilken; ( C/R Rosita Flores) Discovery cutoff set for 1/26/96 ; All motions will be heard by 10:30 2/23/96 ; Pretrial conference set for 1:30 3/15/96 ; Trial will be held 8:30 4/1/96 ; [4:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/27/1995)
51 CERTIFICATION OF ADR SESSION MEDIATION PROCESS COMPLETED. , Mediation hearing held on 4/6/95 , terminating Mediator B. Stephen Toben filed by B. Stephen Toben (jm, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/25/1995)
52 CLERK'S NOTICE removed from Mediation. [4:94−cv−02307] (jm, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/25/1995)
54 MOTION by Zattiero and Fallon in pro per before Judge Claudia Wilken to join action [4:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/17/1995)
55 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE by Zattiero in pro per [4:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/17/1995)
56 MOTION submitted by Dr. Brian Douglas Carey, DPM before Judge Claudia Wilken to intervene as plaintiff [4:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/23/1995)
57 OPPOSITION by defendant Pete Wilson, defendant Joseph C. Sandoval, defendant James Gomez, defendant Kyle McKinsey, defendant Kevin Carruth, defendant David Tristan, defendant Marisela Montes to motion to intervene as plaintiff [56−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (oh, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/31/1995)
58
***DUPLICATE ENTRY OF DKT. # 57 ***
OPPOSITION by defendant to motion to intervene as plaintiff [56−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) Modified on 4/18/2018 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/06/1995)
59 REPLY by Intervenor Brian Douglas Carey to opposition to motion to intervene as plaintiff [56−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/08/1995)
60 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : for leave to file First amended complaint (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/15/1995)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 58 of 265

11/08/1995 11/09/1995
11/13/1995 11/13/1995 11/15/1995
11/20/1995 11/20/1995 11/22/1995 12/01/1995 12/12/1995 12/14/1995 12/14/1995
12/14/1995 12/15/1995 12/15/1995
12/19/1995
12/27/1995

61 AMENDED COMPLAINT [1−1] by Plaintiff [4:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/15/1995)
62 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : amending expert witness disclosures (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). Modified on 4/19/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/15/1995)
63 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken further CMP conference set for 1:30 12/22/95 ; ( Date Entered: 11/15/95) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/15/1995)
64 AMENDED ANSWER [5−1] by defendant; jury demand [4:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/18/1995)
65 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : extending time for expert disclosures and extending time for dft James Nielsen to file a response to plas' amended complaint to 11/21/95 (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/18/1995)
66 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 4/21/95 ( C/R: Rosita Flores) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/21/1995)
68 MINUTES: of Judge James; ( C/R n/a) continuing discovery hearing , hearing continued to 2:00 11/21/95 ; [4:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/27/1995)
67 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by defendant to dismiss action with Notice set for 12/29/95 10:30 [4:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/27/1995)
69 AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by defendant to dismiss action with Notice set for 1/5/96 10:30 [4:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/05/1995)
70 SUPPLEMENTAL case management statement and proposed order by Plaintiff [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/14/1995)
71 MOTION before Judge Saundra B. Armstrong by defendant to compel response to discovery and for additional or alternative relief [4:94−cv−02307] (cg, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/15/1995)
72 DECLARATION by James M. Humees on behalf of defendants in support of motion to compel; certificate of complaince. [4:94−cv−02307] (cg, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). Modified on 4/19/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/15/1995)
73 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Case Management conference set for 10:30 1/5/96 ; ( Date Entered: 12/15/95) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (mh, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/15/1995)
74 REPLY BRIEF by Plaintiff in oppostion to dft Nielsen's motion to dismiss [4:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/20/1995)
75 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken referring case for discovery to Mag. Judge F. S. Langford referring the motion to compel response to discovery and for additional or alternative relief [71−1] ( Date Entered: 12/21/95) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/21/1995)
76 CLERK'S NOTICE of Judge Langford setting hearing on motion to compel response to discovery and for additional or alternative relief [71−1] 9:30 1/18/96 [4:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/28/1995)
77 OPPOSITION by Plaintiff to motion to compel response to discovery and for additional or alternative relief [71−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/04/1996)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 59 of 265

01/05/1996
01/11/1996 01/17/1996
01/18/1996 01/18/1996 01/18/1996 01/19/1996 01/23/1996
01/24/1996 01/24/1996 01/29/1996 02/01/1996 02/02/1996 02/02/1996 02/05/1996 02/05/1996

78 MINUTES: of Judge C. Wilken; ( C/R R. Flores) CMP Conf. held; denying motion to dismiss action [69−1] referring case for settlement to Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James [4:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/17/1996)
79 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken denying motion to dismiss action [69−1] ( Date Entered: 1/17/96) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/17/1996)
81 ORDER by Mag. Judge F. S. Langford GRANTING expedited motion for an order shortening time for hearing on plaintiffs' motion to compel deposition testimony; hearing shall be held on 2/1/96; opposition be filed on 1/24/96; reply be filed on 1/29/96 ( Date Entered: 1/24/96) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/24/1996)
80 LETTER dated 1/17/96 from George D. Prince to Judge Langford re: motion to compel [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/23/1996)
82 NOTICE by Plaintiffs of entry of order [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/24/1996)
83 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James Settlement conference will be held 2:00pm on 3/12/96 ; ( Date Entered: 1/24/96) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/24/1996)
84 MOTION with memorandum in support before Judge Claudia Wilken by defendants to continue trial date with Notice set for 2/23/96 at 1:30pm [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/24/1996)
85 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken setting hearing on motion to continue trial date for 2/23/96 will be unavailable; therefore it will be heard on 2/16/96 at 10:30am [84−1] ( Date Entered: 1/26/96) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/26/1996)
87 OPPOSITION by defendant to motion to compel deposition testimony [4:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/01/1996)
88 DECLARATION by James M. Humes on behalf of defendant re opposition [87−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/01/1996)
86 REPLY by Plaintiff to dfts' opp to motion to compel depo tesitmony [4:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/01/1996)
89 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 1/5/96 ( C/R: Rosita Flores) [4:94−cv−02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/05/1996)
90 MEMORANDUM by Plaintiff in opposition to motion to continue trial date [84−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/06/1996)
91 DECLARATION by Michael W. Bien on behalf of Plaintiff re opposition memorandum [90−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/06/1996)
92 ORDER by Chief Mag. Judge F. S. Langford ; plaintiff's motion to compel deposition testimony is Denied( Date Entered: 2/7/96) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/07/1996)
93 ORDER by Chief Mag. Judge F. S. Langford denying motion to compel response to discovery and for additional or alternative relief [71−1]; plas may propound narrowly−drafted contention interrogatories seeking the factual basis for the dfts' affimative defenses ( Date Entered: 5/8/96) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/08/1996)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 60 of 265

02/09/1996 02/09/1996 02/09/1996 02/16/1996
03/12/1996 03/15/1996 03/20/1996 03/27/1996 03/27/1996 04/09/1996 04/19/1996 04/19/1996
04/22/1996 04/22/1996 04/22/1996 04/22/1996 04/22/1996 04/22/1996 04/22/1996

94 REPLY by defendant James Gomez re motion to continue trial date [84−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/12/1996)
95 DECLARATION by A. Solis on behalf of defendant re reply [94−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/12/1996)
96 DECLARATION by James Humes on behalf of defendant re reply [94−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/12/1996)
97 MINUTES: of Judge C. Wilken; ( C/R Rosita Flores) granting motion to continue trial date [84−1] continuing trial dates , Pretrial conference set for 1:30 4/19/96 ; Trial will be held 8:30 4/29/96 ; [4:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/04/1996)
98 MINUTES: of Judge James; ( C/R n/a) Settlement conf. (Mag) held further conf. set for 10:30 3/27/96 ; [4:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/19/1996)
99 ORDER by Mag. Judge Maria−Elena James Settlement conf. (Mag) at 10:30 3/27/96 ; ( Date Entered: 3/19/96) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/19/1996)
100 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken to admit report of Randall Atlas into evidence as trial testimony: (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/29/1996)
101 MINUTES: of Judge James; ( C/R n/a) settlement conf. held; case unable to settle [4:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/29/1996)
102 ORDER after settlement conf. by Mag. Judge Maria−Elena James ( Date Entered: 3/29/96) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/29/1996)
103 JOINT PRE−TRIAL STATEMENT by Plaintiff/Defendant [4:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/10/1996)
104 TRIAL briefs submitted by defendant [4:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/24/1996)
114 MINUTES: of Judge C. Wilken; ( C/R R. Flores) ; pretrial conf held 4/19/96; court to remain on calendar for 4/29/96 8:30; (see minute order for further specifics) [4:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/29/1996)
105 DECLARATION by Gordon L. Rosby on behalf of defendant [4:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/24/1996)
106 DECLARATION by Howard A. Peters, III on behalf of defendant [4:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/24/1996)
107 DECLARATION by Peter M. Robertson on behalf of Plaintiff [4:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/24/1996)
108 DECLARATION by Fred Moyer on behalf of Plaintiff [4:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/24/1996)
109 DECLARATION of Alan Kimelman, M.D. on behalf of Plaintiff [4:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). Modified on 5/4/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (FILED UNDER SEAL) (Entered: 04/24/1996)
110 DECLARATION of Michal Strong Ph.D. on behalf of Plaintiff (FILED UNDER SEAL) [4:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). Modified on 5/4/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/24/1996)
111 DECLARATION of Kathleen Martinez (FILED UNDER SEAL) on behalf of Plaintiff [4:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF).

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 61 of 265

04/22/1996
04/22/1996 04/24/1996 04/24/1996 04/25/1996 04/26/1996 04/26/1996 04/29/1996
04/30/1996 05/01/1996 05/07/1996 05/24/1996 05/28/1996 05/30/1996
05/30/1996
05/30/1996

Modified on 5/4/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/24/1996)
112 DECLARATION FILED UNDER SEAL on behalf of Plaintiff [4:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/14/2018: # 1 Exhibit 4500, # 2 Exhibit 4501, # 3 Exhibit 4502, # 4 Exhibit 4503, # 5 Exhibit 4504, # 6 Exhibit 4505, # 7 Exhibit 4506, # 8 Exhibit 4507) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/24/1996)
113 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs of declarations filed under seal [4:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/24/1996)
115 NOTICE by Intervenor Brian Douglas Carey of change of address [4:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/29/1996)
116 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken for issuance of Writ of habeas corpus ( Date Entered: 4/29/96) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/29/1996)
117 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION on behalf of Plaintiff FILED UNDER SEAL [4:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/29/1996)
118 STIPULATIONS/ ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : (see document for specifics) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/01/1996)
119 STIPULATIONS by Judge Claudia Wilken : FILED UNDER SEAL re Felony convictions of inmate witnesses (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/01/1996)
121 MINUTES: (C/R Rosita Flores) Settlement agreement − held; Defendant to file motion re applicability of ADA to prisons & notice for 10:30am 7/19/96 [4:94−cv−02307] (mh, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/07/1996)
120 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken for attorney to appear pro hac vice as to Jacqueline T. Garrett ( Date Entered: 5/2/96) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (bt, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/02/1996)
122 MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by Plaintiff John Armstrong Demand to testify , to dismiss lawyers , to repoint new lawyer [4:94−cv−02307] (mh, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/08/1996)
123 EXHIBIT No. 1 to the stipulation filed with the court on 4/26/96 [4:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/14/1996)
128 MINUTES: (C/R Rosita Flroes) Status conference set for 1:30 7/12/96; Trial will be held 8:30 8/19/96 ; [4:94−cv−02307] (cg, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/05/1996)
124 Notice of motion and MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by defendants, for summary judgment; memorandum; with Notice set for 7/17/96 at 10:30 [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/28/1996)
125 ORDER by Judge Marilyn H. Patel denying related case notice as to actions C 80−12 MHP and C 90−3094 TEH ( Date Entered: 5/30/96) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/30/1996)
126 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken; denying related case notice as to actions C−96−1486 FMS and C−94−2307 CW ( Date Entered: 5/30/96) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/30/1996)
154 AMENDED MOTION and memo before Judge Claudia Wilken by defendants for summary judgment with Notice set for 7/19/96 [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/13/1996)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 62 of 265

06/04/1996 127 NOTICE of Claim of Unconstitutionality by Plaintiffs [4:94−cv−02307] (oh, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/04/1996)

06/07/1996 129 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken denying exparte motion for immediate relief to establish a class representative ( Date Entered: 6/14/96) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/14/1996)

06/07/1996 130 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken denying motion to intervene as plaintiff ( Date Entered: 6/14/96) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/14/1996)

06/07/1996 131 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken denying motion to intervene as plaintiff as to Dr. Brian Douglas Carey ( Date Entered: 6/14/96) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/14/1996)

06/07/1996 132 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken (denying ex parte motion to compel and request to establlish a class representative) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/14/1996)

06/07/1996

Docket Modification (Administrative) to order [130−2] denying motion to intervene as plaintiff [56−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/21/1997)

06/19/1996 133 MOTION by Plaintiff for leave to resists order [4:94−cv−02307] (bt, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/19/1996)

06/19/1996 134 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of motion for leave to resists order [133−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (bt, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/19/1996)

06/21/1996 135 MOTION to file amicus brief by United States with Notice set for 7/19/96 at 10:30am [4:94−cv−02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/21/1996)

06/21/1996 2731 RECEIVED Proposed Order ( ) re: motion to file amicus brief [135−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/21/1996)

06/21/1996 136 STATEMENT of facts by Plaintiff in opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment [4:94−cv−02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/21/1996)

06/25/1996 137 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs of stipulation and order for procedures to determine liability & remedy [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/25/1996)

06/28/1996 138 UNOPPOSED MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by defendant to extend time in which to file reply to opposition to motion for summary judgment [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/28/1996)

06/28/1996

139 DECLARATION by James M. Humes on behalf of defendant re motion to extend time in which to file reply to opposition to motion for summary judgment [138−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/28/1996)

06/28/1996 2729 RECEIVED proposed order submitted by defendants re: [138−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/28/1996)

07/01/1996

140 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting motion to extend time in which to file reply to opposition to motion for summary judgment [138−1] (due by 7/5/96) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/03/1996)

07/03/1996 141 ERRATA by Plaintiff [4:94−cv−02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/03/1996)

07/05/1996 142 REPLY by defendant to opposition to motion for summary judgment; [124−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/05/1996)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 63 of 265

07/08/1996

143 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting motion to file amicus brief [135−1] and may participate in oral argument on 7/19/96 re motion for summary judgment ( Date Entered: 7/10/96) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/10/1996)

07/08/1996

144 AMICUS CURIAE memorandum in support of plaintiffs' opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment by Amicus Curiae USA [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) Modified on 8/1/2006 (cp, COURT STAFF). (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/10/1996)

07/08/1996 145 EX−PARTE APPLICATION before Judge Claudia Wilken by Plaintiff for leave to file brief in excess of page limit [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/10/1996)

07/08/1996 146 MEMORANDUM by Plaintiffs in opposition to motion for summary judgment; [124−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/10/1996)

07/09/1996

147 CLERK'S NOTICE Status conference previously set for 7/12/96 at 1:30pm is CONTINUED to 7/19/96 at 10:30am to be heard with defendants' motion for summary judgment [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/10/1996)

07/09/1996 148 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : for procedures to determine liability and remedy (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/10/1996)

07/11/1996 149 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of order [148−2] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/15/1996)

07/15/1996 150 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken denying motion for leave to desist order [133−1] ( Date Entered: 7/16/96) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/16/1996)

07/17/1996 151 OBJECTIONS by defendants and request to strike plaintiffs' separate statement of undisputed facts [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/17/1996)

07/19/1996 152 MINUTES: ( C/R Rosita Flores) denying motion for summary judgment; [124−1] status conference held [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/26/1996)

07/24/1996

153 AMENDED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Discovery other thant from experts cutoff 12/20/96 ; disclosure of identities and reports of epxert witnesses is 11/1/96; discovery from experts is 12/20/96 ; All motions hearing date 10:30 11/15/96 ; Pre−trial conference will be held 1:30 1/31/97 ; court trial set for 8:30 2/10/97 ; . Est.trial days: 4 (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/26/1996)

08/23/1996 2735 RECEIVED stipulated modification to protective order submitted by defendants [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/25/1996)

08/30/1996 155 REQUEST by Plaintiff Roy Zattiero to reconsider order of denial [4:94−cv−02307] (bt, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/04/1996)

09/03/1996 156 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : modifying to protective order−see documents for details " (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (bt, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/05/1996)

09/20/1996 157 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken denying defendants' motion for summary judgment [154−1] ( Date Entered: 9/23/96) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/23/1996)

09/20/1996 158 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken: remedial order, injunction and certification of interlocutory appeal ( Date Entered: 9/24/96) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/24/1996)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 64 of 265

09/20/1996 159 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken findings of fact and conclusions of law ( Date Entered: 9/24/96) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/24/1996)

09/26/1996 160 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendant from Dist. Court decision order [157−1] Fee status paid [4:94−cv−02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/27/1996)

09/27/1996

Copy of notice of appeal and docket sheet to all counsel [4:94−cv−02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/27/1996)

09/27/1996 2737 Docket fee notification form and case information sheet to USCA [160−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/27/1996)

10/09/1996 2738 NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate Docket Number 96−16870 [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/11/1996)

10/21/1996 161 EX−PARTE APPLICATION by Plaintiff John Armstrong for temporary restraining order for asap injunctive relief for a daily shower. [4:94−cv−02307] (mmr, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/23/1996)

10/25/1996 162 CERTIFIED COPY of USCA Order: the petition for permission to appeal is denied [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/31/1996)

11/06/1996 163 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : to shorten time on motion to retain jurisdiction and proceed trial pending interlocutory appeal (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/08/1996)

11/07/1996 164 MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by Plaintiff to retain jurisdiction and proceed with trial pending interlocutory appeal with Notice set for 11/22/96 at 10:30am [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/08/1996)

11/07/1996 165 MEMORANDUM by John Armstrong in support of motion to retain jurisdiction and proceed with trial pending interlocutory appeal [164−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/08/1996)

11/12/1996 166 NOTICE by Plaintiff of association of attorney Eve H. Shapiro [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/12/1996)

11/15/1996 167 OPPOSITION by defendants to motion to retain jurisdiction and proceed with trial pending interlocutory appeal [164−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/18/1996)

11/19/1996

168 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken for attorney Sara Linda Norman to appear pro hac vice on behalf of plaintiffs' ( Date Entered: 11/20/96) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/20/1996)

11/25/1996 170 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken denying motion for temporary restraining order [161−1] ( Date Entered: 12/5/96) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/05/1996)

11/26/1996 169 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of application to appear pro hac vice [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/27/1996)

12/18/1996 172 MINUTES: before Judge Lynch ( C/R not reported) status conference held to set settlement conference at 8:30 1/3/97 ; [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/09/1997)

12/23/1996 171 MAIL [170−1] addressed to Joseph Allredge returned from Post Office [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/23/1996)

01/10/1997 173 RESPONSE by defendants to plaintiffs' objections to CDC's self−evaluation, transition plan and attachments [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/13/1997)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 65 of 265

01/21/1997 174 MOTION by Hesse Holliday before Judge Claudia Wilken for emergency restraining order, order of injunction and submission of exhibits [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/28/1997)

01/21/1997 175 DECLARATION by Jesse Holliday and William Thomas re motion for emergency restraining order, order of injunction [174−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/28/1997)

01/23/1997 176 MOTION by Jesse Holliday before Judge Claudia Wilken for submission of supplementary exhibits to emergency restraining order motion [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/30/1997)

01/23/1997 2740 RECEIVED by Jesse Holliday of exhibits re: [176−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/30/1997)

01/27/1997 177 2nd Supplementary EXHIBITS re motion for emergency restraining order, order of injunction [174−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/30/1997)

01/31/1997

178 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION and Ordering Form filed by defendants (NOT DESIGNATING ANY PORTION OF THE TRANSCRIPT) ; C/R: ; appeal [160−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/31/1997)

01/31/1997 2739 CERTIFICATE of Record mailed to USCA, counsel notified. [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/31/1997)

02/04/1997 179 MINUTES: ( C/R N/A) before Judge Lynch: settlement conference held; case settled [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/07/1997)

02/06/1997

180 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken denying motion for emergency restraining order, order of injunction [174−1] ( Date Entered: 2/10/97) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/10/1997)

02/14/1997

181 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken denying motion to retain jurisdiction and proceed with trial pending interlocutory appeal [164−1] pretrial conference and trial dates are VACATED ( Date Entered: 2/19/97) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/19/1997)

02/20/1997 182 MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by Jesse Holliday to submit final supplementary exhibits [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/24/1997)

02/21/1997 183 LETTER dated 1/30/97 from Jesse Holliday re: recent motion for emergency restraining order [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/25/1997)

02/25/1997 184 SUPPLEMENT by defendants re response [173−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/27/1997)

02/25/1997 185 LETTER dated 2/25/97 from deputy clerk re: in response to Mr. Holliday's letter dated 1/30/97 [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/27/1997)

02/26/1997 186 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Eugene F. Lynch : for payment of attorneys' fees and costs (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/03/1997)

02/28/1997 187 MOTION by Jesse Holliday before Judge Claudia Wilken for reconsideration [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/03/1997)

03/07/1997 188 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken denying motion for reconsideration [187−1] ( Date Entered: 3/11/97) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (mmr, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/11/1997)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 66 of 265

03/24/1997 03/26/1997 03/31/1997 04/01/1997 04/09/1997 04/10/1997 04/14/1997 04/17/1997 05/09/1997 05/16/1997
06/04/1997 07/09/1997 07/15/1997 07/15/1997 07/15/1997 07/28/1997

RECORD on Appeal to USCA, cnsl notified. re appeal [160−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/24/1997)
189 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken for periodic collection of attorneys' fees and costs: (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/31/1997)
190 COPY of USCA Order re: U.S. to exercise its right to intervene to defend the constitutionality and to file brief as intervenor and amicus curiae is granted [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/02/1997)
191 RECEIPT from USCA of clerk's record on appeal [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/02/1997)
192 OBJECTIONS by Plaintiffs to defendants' plans to comply with the ADA and section 504 [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/09/1997)
193 REQUEST by Plaintiffs for status conference [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/11/1997)
194 COPY of USCA Order: Appelle's Roy D. Zattiero's motion for an order to show cause is DENIED [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/14/1997)
195 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Status conference set for 1:30pm on 5/16/97 ; ( Date Entered: 4/21/97) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/21/1997)
196 JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT by Plaintiffs [4:94−cv−02307] (scu, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/12/1997)
197 MINUTES: ( C/R Rosita Flores) further case management conference held; plaintiff to file motions re: outstanding issues in phases: 1st phase by 7/1/97, hearing set for 9/26/97 at 10;30am: 2nd phase by 8/1/97 and set for 10/24/97 at 10;30am: 3rd phase by early Sept. and set for 11/21/97 at 10:30am [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/28/1997)
198 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : ordering that this phase of the litigation proceed in accordance with the parties stipulation (see stipulation for dates and deadlines) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (mmr, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/09/1997)
199 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : extending time to file their position and proposed order re: resolved matters to 7/31/97 (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/14/1997)
200 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by Plaintiff for order directing defendants to modify their plans to comply with the ADA and section 504 of the rehabilitation Act with Notice set for 9/26/97 at 10:30am [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/16/1997)
201 MEMORANDUM by Plaintiff in support of motion for order directing defendants to modify their plans to comply with the ADA and section 504 of the rehabilitation Act [200−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/16/1997)
202 DECLARATION by Sara Norman on behalf of Plaintiff re motion for order directing defendants to modify their plans to comply with the ADA and section 504 of the rehabilitation Act [200−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/16/1997)
203 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken confirming attorneys' fees for 9/21/96 to 3/31/97; the $156,554.97 is due to plaintiffs and collectable within 45 days of the signing of this order, and that defendants shall pay interest at the rate provided by 28 U.S.C. 1961 from the date of this order until payment is made ( Date Entered: 7/29/97) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF).

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 67 of 265

07/30/1997 07/30/1997 07/31/1997 07/31/1997 08/12/1997
08/20/1997 08/20/1997 08/20/1997 08/21/1997 08/21/1997 08/25/1997
08/25/1997 08/25/1997 09/11/1997 09/12/1997 09/12/1997

(Entered: 07/29/1997)
204 Position on entry or form of order re: resolved matters and brief in support thereof filed by defendants [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/31/1997)
205 DECLARATION by Peter J. Siggins on behalf of defendant re position on entry and form of order re: resolved matters and brief [204−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/31/1997)
206 MEMORANDUM by Plaintiffs in support of proposed order [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/31/1997)
207 DECLARATION by Donald Specter on behalf of Plaintiffs in support of proposed order [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/31/1997)
208 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge D. L. Jensen amending 6/4/97 scheduling order; plaintiffs' motion on the second group of issues is continued as follows; plaintiffs' brief is due on 8/20/97, opposition is due on 9/29/97, reply is due on 10/17/97 and hearing will be held on 10/31/97: (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/12/1997)
209 MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by Plaintiffs to exceed page limitation on motion and memorandum of points & authorities [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/20/1997)
210 DECLARATION by Sara Norman on behalf of Plaintiffs in support of second motion for a court order directing defendants to modify their plans to comply with the ADA & section 504 of the rehabilitation act [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/20/1997)
211 SUPPLEMENT Declaration of Sara Norman by Plaintiffs re declaration [210−1] (FILED UNDER SEAL) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). Modified on 5/14/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/20/1997)
212 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING motion to exceed page limitation on motion and memorandum of points & authorities [209−1]; motion papers not to exceed 41 pages in length; (Date Entered: 8/22/97) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/22/1997)
213 Second MOTION, with memorandum in support, before Judge Claudia Wilken by Plaintiff for order directing deft's to modify their plans to comply with the ADA and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; with Notice set for 10/31/97 at 10:30 [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/22/1997)
214 OPPOSITION by defendant to motion for order directing deft's to modify their plans to comply with the ADA and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; [213−1], motion for order directing defendants to modify their plans to comply with the ADA and section 504 of the rehabilitation Act [200−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/26/1997)
215 DECLARATION by Arlene Solis on behalf of defendants [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/26/1997)
216 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of order [212−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/26/1997)
217 MOTION by Plaintiff for leave to file reply exceeding 15 pages [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/12/1997)
218 REPLY by Plaintiff to opposition to motion for order directing deft's to modify their plans to comply with the ADA and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; [213−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/15/1997)
219 DECLARATION by Sara Norman on behalf of Plaintiff re motion reply [218−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/15/1997)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 68 of 265

09/15/1997 09/15/1997 09/15/1997 09/15/1997 09/15/1997 09/15/1997 09/22/1997 09/23/1997 09/25/1997 09/25/1997 09/26/1997
09/26/1997 09/29/1997
09/29/1997

220 THIRD MOTION by Plaintiff for order directing defendants to modify their plans to comply with the ADA and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act with Notice set for 11/21/97 at 10:30 a.m. [4:94−cv−02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/15/1997)
221 DECLARATION by Michael Strong, Ph.D on behalf of Plaintiff re motion for order directing defendants to modify their plans to comply with the ADA and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act [220−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/15/1997)
222 DECLARATION by Robert W. Sweetow on behalf of Plaintiff re motion for order directing defendants to modify their plans to comply with the ADA and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act [220−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/15/1997)
223 DECLARATION by Sara Norman on behalf of Plaintiff re motion for order directing defendants to modify their plans to comply with the ADA and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act [220−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/15/1997)
224 DECLARATION by Kathleen Martinez on behalf of Plaintiff (UNDER SEAL) [4:94−cv−02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/15/1997)
225 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting motion for leave to file reply exceeding 15 pages [217−1] () (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/18/1997)
226 COPY of judgment from USCA affirming the decision of the District Court [160−1] Costs $231.00 [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/23/1997)
227 CLERK's letter spreading the mandate to counsel. re appeal [160−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/23/1997)
228 MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by defendants to file brief in opposition to plaintiffs' second motion to modify defendants' plans that exceed page limitation [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/26/1997)
229 SECOND DECLARATION by Arlene Solis on behalf of defendants [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/26/1997)
230 MINUTES: ( C/R Rosita Flores) ( Hearing Date: 9/26/97) that the motion for order directing defendants to modify their plans to comply with the ADA and section 504 of the rehabilitation Act [200−1] is submitted, setting hearing on second motion for order directing deft's to modify their plans to comply with the ADA and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; [213−1] at 10:00 on 11/21/97 [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/29/1997)
231 NOTICE of hearing by Plaintiff setting motion for order directing defendants to modify their plans to comply with the ADA and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act [220−1] ; hearing set for 10:00 11/21/97 [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/29/1997)
232 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting motion to file brief in opposition to plaintiffs' second motion to modify defendants' plans that exceed page limitation [228−1], not to exceed 29 pages ( Date Entered: 10/01/97) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/01/1997)
233 OPPOSITION by defendant to motion for order directing deft's to modify their plans to comply with the ADA and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; [213−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/01/1997)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 69 of 265

09/30/1997 10/01/1997 10/07/1997 10/08/1997 10/15/1997 10/16/1997 10/21/1997 10/21/1997 10/21/1997 10/27/1997 10/27/1997 10/27/1997 10/27/1997 10/31/1997
11/03/1997 11/03/1997

235 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Final pre−trial conference will be held 1:30 7/24/98 ; court trial set for 8:30 8/3/98 ; . Est.trial days: 5 (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/06/1997)
234 EX−PARTE APPLICATION by Plaintiff Roy David Zattiero for injunctive relief [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/02/1997)
236 CERTIFIED COPY of USCA Order: appellees' motion for transfer to the district court of appellate fee application is granted [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/09/1997)
237 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting/denying in part motion for an order to modify their remeidal plans (first set of contested issues) [200−1] ( Date Entered: 10/10/97) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/10/1997)
238 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken amending 6/4/97 scheduling order; continuing due date on defendants' response to plaintiff's motion re: the third group of issues on or before 10/27/97: (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/16/1997)
239 MOTION by Plaintiffs to file a reply and memorandum of points and authorities exceeding page limitation [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/17/1997)
240 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting motion to file a reply and memorandum of points and authorities exceeding page limitation [239−1] ( Date Entered: 10/22/97) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/22/1997)
241 REPLY by Plaintiffs to opposition to motion for order directing deft's to modify their plans to comply with the ADA and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; [213−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/22/1997)
242 DECLARATION by Sara Norman on behalf of Plaintiffs re motion reply [241−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/22/1997)
243 OPPOSITION by defendants to third motion for order directing defendants to modify their plans to comply with the ADA and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act [220−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/28/1997)
244 DECLARATION by Winthrop H. Hall, M.D. on behalf of defendants [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/28/1997)
245 DECLARATION by Nadim K. Khoury, M.D. on behalf of defendants [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/28/1997)
246 THIRD DECLARATION by Arlene Solis on behalf of defendants [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/28/1997)
247 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken shortening time on motion do modify defendants' transition plan may be heard on 11/21/97 at 10:00am; defendants' opposition is due on or before 11/7/97, reply is due 11/12/97 : (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/03/1997)
248 MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by Plaintiff to modify defendants' transition plan with Notice set for 11/21/97 at 10:00am [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/05/1997)
249 DECLARATION by Donald Specter on behalf of Plaintiffs re motion to modify defendants' transition plan [248−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 70 of 265

(Additional attachment(s) added on 5/21/2018: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/21/2018: # 2 Exhibit B − Part 1, # 3 Exhibit B − Part 2, # 4 Exhibit B − Part 3, # 5 Exhibit B − Part 4, # 6 Exhibits C−F) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/05/1997)

11/07/1997 250 REPLY by Plaintiffs re opposition [243−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/10/1997)

11/07/1997 251 Reply DECLARATION by Robert W. Sweetow on behalf of Plaintiffs in support of third motion to modify defendants' transition plan [248−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/10/1997)

11/07/1997 252 Reply DECLARATION by Anil K. Lalwani, M.D. on behalf of Plaintiffs in support of third motion to modify defendants' transition plan [248−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/10/1997)

11/07/1997

253 OPPOSITION by defendant to motion for order directing defendants to modify their plans to comply with the ADA and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act [220−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/10/1997)

11/07/1997 254 Fourth DECLARATION by Arlene Solis on behalf of defendants [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/10/1997)

11/07/1997

255 EXHIBITS re declaration [254−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/22/2018: # 1 Exhibits (Part 2), # 2 Exhibits (Part 3), # 3 Exhibits (Part 4)) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/22/2018: # 4 Exhibits (Part 5), # 5 Exhibits (Part 6)) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/22/2018: # 6 Exhibits (Part 7) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/10/1997)

11/12/1997 256 REPLY by Plaintiff to the opposition to the motion to modify transition plan [4:94−cv−02307] (mh, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/14/1997)

11/12/1997 257 SECOND DECLARATION by Donald Specter on behalf of Plaintiff in support of the reply [256−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (mh, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/14/1997)

11/21/1997 258 SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION by Sara Norman on behalf of Plaintiffs [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/24/1997)

11/21/1997

259 MINUTES: ( C/R Carol Karen) ( Hearing Date: 11/21/97) that the motion for order directing deft's to modify their plans to comply with the ADA and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; [213−1] is submitted, that the motion for order directing defendants to modify their plans to comply with the ADA and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act [220−1] is submitted, that the motion to modify defendants' transition plan [248−1] is submitted [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/03/1997)

12/03/1997 260 RECORD ON APPEAL RETURNED FROM USCA [160−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/16/1997)

01/15/1998 2741 RECEIVED Proposed Order (Plaintiff, defendant) re to extend time for defendants to file submission in response to the 10/8/97 Order [4:94−cv−02307] (mh, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/20/1998)

01/20/1998

261 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken extending time for defendants to file submissions in response to order of 10/8/97 to and including 1/23/98 : (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/22/1998)

01/22/1998 262 NOTICE by defendants of additional information pursuant to order of 10/8/97 [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/23/1998)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 71 of 265

01/22/1998 01/28/1998
02/09/1998 02/13/1998 02/13/1998 02/25/1998 02/26/1998 02/27/1998 02/27/1998 03/09/1998 03/11/1998 03/11/1998 03/17/1998 03/20/1998

263 FIFTH DECLARATION by Arlene Solis on behalf of defendants [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/23/1998)
Docket Modification (Administrative) referring to Judge Claudia Wilken the motion for order directing defendants to modify their plans to comply with the ADA and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act [220−1], referring to Judge Claudia Wilken the motion for injunctive relief [234−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/28/1998)
264 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : extending time for plaintiffs to file opposition to defendants supplemental submissions to 2/13/98 (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/11/1998)
265 OBJECTIONS by Plaintiffs to defendants' additional information pursuant to order of 10/8/97 [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/18/1998)
266 DECLARATION by Sara Norman on behalf of Plaintiff re objection [265−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/18/1998)
267 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken denying request to file the complaint for age discrimination submitted Roy D. Zattiero, Sr. ( Date Entered: 2/25/98) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) Modified on 02/25/1998 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/25/1998)
268 REPLY by defendants re objection [265−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/27/1998)
269 MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by Plaintiff for entry of order approving defendants' plans to comply with the ADA and 504 [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/27/1998)
270 DECLARATION by Sara Norman on behalf of Plaintiff re motion for entry of order approving defendants' plans to comply with the ADA and 504 [269−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/27/1998)
271 MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by Matthew C. Simpson for an order directing the CA Dept. of Corrections to assist qualified prisoner on 5/10/98 parole date with ADA approved housing and loans [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) Modified on 03/12/1998 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/12/1998)
272 RESPONSE by defendants re motion for entry of order approving defendants' plans to comply with the ADA and 504 [269−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/16/1998)
273 DECLARATION by James M. Humes on behalf of defendant re response [272−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/16/1998)
274 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken :continuing trial date; trial will be held 8:30 11/30/98 ; Pretrial conference set for 1:30 11/20/98 ; (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/19/1998)
275 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting in part and denying in part motion for order directing deft's to modify their plans to comply with the ADA and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; [213−1], granting in part and denying in part motion for order directing defendants to modify their plans to comply with the ADA and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act [220−1], granting in part and denying in part motion to modify defendants' transition plan [248−1], granting in part and denying in part motion for entry of order approving defendants' plans to comply with the ADA and 504 [269−1] ( Date Entered: 2/23/98) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/23/1998)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 72 of 265

03/23/1998
03/24/1998 04/08/1998 04/17/1998 05/04/1998 05/04/1998 05/05/1998 05/05/1998 05/07/1998 05/07/1998 05/07/1998 05/14/1998 05/14/1998 05/22/1998 05/22/1998

276 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken denying motion for an order directing the CA Dept. of Corrections to assist qualified prisoner on 5/10/98 parole date with ADA approved housing and loans [271−1] ( Date Entered: 3/26/98) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/26/1998)
277 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken On the basis of the material submitted to the Court, as the Judge assigned to the earliest filed case, I find that the cases ARE NOT RELATED (Date Entered: 4/1/98) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (mh, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/01/1998)
278 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 11/21/97 ( C/R: Carol A. Karen) minutes [259−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/08/1998)
279 LETTER dated 4/16/98 from James M. Humes re: response to the letter from Sara Norman dated 4/15/98 [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/20/1998)
282 LETTER dated 4/15/98 from Sara Linda Norman re: defendants failed to provide revision on remedial plans, and request that the court to set date for defendants to submit their revisions [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) Modified on 05/07/1998 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/07/1998)
283 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken setting deadline for defendants to revise their remedial plans by 6/19/98; plaintiffs objections to the revision are due by 7/3/98( Date Entered: 5/7/98) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/07/1998)
280 BRIEF FILED by defendants in support of two percent scoping policy, request for reconsideration of order re: alterations to existing facilities, and fundamental alteration/undue burden defenses [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/06/1998)
281 DECLARATION by James M. Humes on behalf of defendant re brief [280−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/06/1998)
284 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF FILED by Plaintiffs pursuant to the court's order of 3/20/98 [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/11/1998)
285 DECLARATION by Sara Norman on behalf of Plaintiffs re brief [284−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/11/1998)
286 DECLARATION by Michael W. Bien on behalf of Plaintiffs re brief [284−1] ***FILED UNDER SEAL*** [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/11/1998)
287 RESPONSE by defendants re order [283−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/15/1998)
288 DECLARATION by James M. Humes on behalf of defendants re response [287−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/15/1998)
289 OPPOSITION by Plaintiffs to defts' brief in support of their scoping policy and other matters [280−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/22/1998)
290 DECLARATION by Sara Norman on behalf of Plaintiffs in support of opposition [289−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/16/2018: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/16/2018: # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/22/1998)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 73 of 265

05/22/1998

291 Unopposed REQUEST before Judge Claudia Wilken by defendant for a one day extension of time in which to file a response to supplemental briefing [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/26/1998)

05/22/1998

292 DECLARATION by James M. Humes on behalf of defendants in support of motion for a one day extension of time in which to file a response to supplemental briefing [291−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/26/1998)

05/22/1998 2748 RECEIVED proposed order granting request for one day extension of time to file opposition submitted by defendants [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/26/1998)

05/22/1998 294 Brief in OPPOSITION by defendants to plaintiffs' supplemental briefing pursuant to Court's order of 3/20/98 [284−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/27/1998)

05/22/1998 295 Sixth DECLARATION by Arlene Solis on behalf of defendants [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) Modified on 7/16/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/27/1998)

05/22/1998 296 DECLARATION by Evalyn Horowitz, M.D. on behalf of defendants [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/27/1998)

05/22/1998 297 DECLARATION by Lieutenant Chet Miller on behalf of defendants [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/27/1998)

05/26/1998

293 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING motion for a one day extension of time in which to file a response to supplemental briefing [291−1] ( Date Entered: 5/26/98) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/27/1998)

05/27/1998 298 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken denying motion for injunctive relief [234−1] (Date Entered: 5/29/98) (cc: counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (mh, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/29/1998)

05/28/1998 299 REPLY by Plaintiff to the opposition [294−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (mh, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/29/1998)

05/28/1998 300 DECLARATION by Sara Norman on behalf of Plaintiff in support of the reply [299−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (mh, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/29/1998)

05/28/1998 301 REPLY by defendants to the opposition [289−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (mh, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/29/1998)

06/18/1998

302 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken directing submission of additional evidence and permitting further discovery by plaintiffs ( Date Entered: 6/19/98) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/19/1998)

06/19/1998 303 SECOND RESPONSE by defendants to court order of 5/4/98 [283−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/19/1998)

06/19/1998 304 DECLARATION by James M. Humes on behalf of defendants re response [303−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/19/1998)

06/23/1998 305 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 9/26/97 ( C/R: Rosita Flores) minutes [230−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/25/1998)

07/06/1998 306 OBJECTIONS by Plaintiffs to defendants' statement of intended revisions to their remedial plans [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/06/1998)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 74 of 265

07/06/1998 307 DECLARATION by Sara Norman on behalf of Plaintiffs re objection [306−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/06/1998)

07/07/1998 308 SUBMISSION of additional information pursuant to order of 6/18/98 by defendants [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/07/1998)

07/07/1998 309 DECLARATION by James M. Humes on behalf of defendants re submission [308−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/07/1998)

07/13/1998 2754 RECEIVED stipulation and order extending time for defendants to file submissions in response to order of 5/4/98 [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/14/1998)

07/14/1998

310 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : extending time to and including 7/20/98 for defendants to file submissions in response to order of 5/4/98 (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/15/1998)

07/20/1998 311 RESPONSE by Plaintiffs to defendants' additional information pursuant to order [302−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/21/1998)

07/20/1998 312 REPLY by defendants re objections [306−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/21/1998)

07/20/1998 313 DECLARATION by James M. Humes on behalf of defendants re reply [312−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/21/1998)

07/29/1998 2753 RECEIVED stipulated order confirming undisputed attorneys' fees on the 2nd and 3rd quarters of 1997 submitted by Plaintiff [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/30/1998)

07/30/1998

314 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken confirming undisputed attorneys' fees on the second and third quarters of 1997 : (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/06/1998)

08/10/1998 2752 RECEIVED stipulated order confirming undisputed attorneys' fees on the 1st quarter of 1998 submitted by Plaintiff [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/11/1998)

08/11/1998 315 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken confirming undisputed attorneys' fees on the 1st quarter of 1998 : (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/12/1998)

08/13/1998 316 LETTER dated 8/13/98 from James M. Humes re: response to the status of various matters [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/17/1998)

08/17/1998 317 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of stipulated order [315−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (mmr, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/18/1998)

09/16/1998

318 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken resolving outstanding issues; defendants to revise their remedial plans as provided in this order; defendants to produce a single document that incorporates the elements of their remedial plans that are contained in these separate documents and submit to plaintiffs by 11/4/98; parties shall meet and confer to correct any errors noted by plaintiff and submit to the court by 11/30/98 ( Date Entered: 9/18/98) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/18/1998)

10/05/1998

319 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : confirming settlement of remaining disputed attorneys' fees and expenses for the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th quarters of 1997, and the 1st quarter of 1998 (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/06/1998)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 75 of 265

10/07/1998 320 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of order [319−2] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/08/1998)

10/09/1998 321 RESPONSE by defendants re order [318−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/13/1998)

10/09/1998 322 DECLARATION by James M. Humes on behalf of defendants in support of response [321−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/13/1998)

10/15/1998 323 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken striking defendants' response to order of 9/16/98 [321−1] ( Date Entered: 10/19/98) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/19/1998)

10/19/1998 324 RESPONSE by defendants to order of 9/16/98 [318−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/20/1998)

10/23/1998

325 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken for further briefing; within a week of this order, defendants shall submit a red−lined/strike−out verion of plaintiffs' Exhibit L, indicating their position as to what was agreed to with footnotes, also provide evidence supporting the facts; plaintiff to respond a week thereafter to defendants' position on Exhibit L, as well as to the other positions taken in defendants' second response; defendants may reply one week thereafter ( Date Entered: 10/23/98) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/23/1998)

10/23/1998 2757 RECEIVED stipulation to continue trial against James Nielsen and order submitted by Plaintiff [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/26/1998)

10/27/1998 326 THIRD RESPONSE by defendant to order [318−1] of 9/16/98 [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/28/1998)

10/30/1998 327 RESPONSE by defendants Pete Wilson, et al to the order [325−1] dated 10/23/98 for for further briefing [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/02/1998)

10/30/1998 328 DECLARATION by Frank Lopez on behalf of defendant Pete Wilson, et al re response [327−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/02/1998)

10/30/1998

329 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION WITH MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES before Judge Claudia Wilken by defendant Pete Wilson, et al for partial stay of remedial order with Notice set for 12/11/98 at 10:00am [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/02/1998)

10/30/1998 2756 RECEIVED Proposed Order ( defendant Pete Wilson, et al ) re: motion for partial stay of remedial order [329−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/02/1998)

11/03/1998

330 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken vacating hearing re motion for partial stay of remedial order [329−1]; motion will be decided on the paper; opposition is due one week from the date of this order; any reply is due on week thereafter ( Date Entered: 11/4/98) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/04/1998)

11/06/1998 331 RESPONSE by Plaintiffs to order [325−1] for further briefing [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/09/1998)

11/06/1998 332 DECLARATION by Sara Norman on behalf of Plaintiff re response [331−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/09/1998)

11/06/1998

333 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : continuing trial against James Nielsen and pretrial schedule; Discovery cutoff set for 12/31/99; expert discovery cut−off set for 1/31/99; dispositive motions filed by 2/8/99; Pretrial conference set for 1:30pm on 4/2/99 ; Trial will be held at 8:30am on 4/15/99 ; (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered:

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 76 of 265

11/10/1998
11/10/1998 11/19/1998 11/30/1998 12/04/1998 12/04/1998 12/04/1998
12/18/1998 12/24/1998 12/28/1998
12/28/1998 01/05/1999
01/08/1999 01/08/1999 01/08/1999 01/08/1999

11/12/1998)
334 OPPOSITION by Plaintiffs to defendants' third response [326−1] to the 9/16/98 order and OPPOSITION to motion for partial stay of remedial order [329−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/12/1998)
335 DECLARATION by Sara Norman on behalf of Plaintiff re opposition [334−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/12/1998)
336 REPLY by defendants re oppositions to third response to order of 9/16/98 and motion for partial stay [334−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/20/1998)
337 REMEDIAL PLAN DEVELOPED by defendants pursuant to [318−1] order of 9/16/98 [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/02/1998)
338 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by Plaintiff to modify class with Notice set for 1/8/99 at 10:00am [4:94−cv−02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/09/1998)
339 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by Plaintiff to amend complaint with Notice set for 1/8/99 at 10:00am [4:94−cv−02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/09/1998)
340 DECLARATION by Nancy Cowardin, Ph.D. on behalf of Plaintiff re motion to amend complaint [339−1], re motion to modify class [338−1] UNDER SEAL [4:94−cv−02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/09/1998)
341 MEMORANDUM by defendants in opposition to motion to amend complaint [339−1], motion to modify class [338−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/21/1998)
342 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : amending plaintiff class (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/28/1998)
343 REPLY by Plaintiffs to opposition to motion to amend complaint [339−1], motion to modify class [338−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/23/2018: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/05/1999)
344 DECLARATION by Donald Specter on behalf of Plaintiffs re motion reply [343−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/23/2018: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/05/1999)
345 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting plaintiffs' motion to amend complaint [339−1], granting plaintiffs' motion to modify class [338−1] ( Date Entered: 1/7/99) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/07/1999)
346 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT [61−1] by Plaintiffs [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/11/1999)
347 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting defendants' motion for partial stay of remedial order [329−1] ( Date Entered: 1/13/99) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/13/1999)
348 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken amending order of 9/16/98 ( Date Entered: 1/13/99) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/13/1999)
349 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken directing defendants to comply with remedial plan ( Date Entered: 1/13/99) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/13/1999)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 77 of 265

01/11/1999 350 LETTER dated 1/7/99 from Clifton Long re: moving back to C.M.C. East for reason stated on the letter [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/14/1999)

01/12/1999

351 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken denying inmate Clifton Long's request to be transferred to C.M.C. East [350−1] ( Date Entered: 1/14/99) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/14/1999)

01/15/1999

352 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION WITH MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES before Judge Claudia Wilken by Plaintiffs John Armstrong, et al to compel defendants re: deposition testimony of the ten BPT Commissioners with Notice set for 2/19/99 at 10:00am [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) Modified on 01/21/1999 (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/23/2018: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/21/1999)

01/15/1999

353 DECLARATION by Jennifer Jonak on behalf of Plaintiffs John Armstrong, et al re motion to compel defendants re: deposition testimony of the ten BPT Commissioners [352−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/21/1999)

01/15/1999

354 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs John Armstrong, et al of declaration [353−1], motion to compel defendants re: deposition testimony of the ten BPT Commissioners [352−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/21/1999)

01/19/1999 2759 RECEIVED stipulated order delaying submission of fees and expenses devoted to litigation concerning the board of prion terms submitted by Plaintiff, defendant [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/21/1999)

01/19/1999

355 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION WITH MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES before Judge Claudia Wilken by defendants Pete Wilson, et al to dismiss or strike second amended complaint with Notice set for 2/26/99 at 10:00am [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/21/1999)

01/20/1999

356 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : delaying submission of fees and expenses devoted to litigation concerning the Board of Prison Terms (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/21/1999)

01/20/1999

357 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken referring plaintiffs' request for an expedited, informal resolution by chambers and ALL FURTHER DISCOVERY MOTIONS to a Mag. Judge ; referring to Mag. Judge Bernard Zimmerman the motion to compel defendants re: deposition testimony of the ten BPT Commissioners [352−1] ( Date Entered: 1/21/99) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/21/1999)

01/21/1999

REFERRAL: referring case for discovery to Mag. Judge Bernard Zimmerman [4:94−cv−02307] (wh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/21/1999)

01/26/1999 358 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs John Armstrong, et al of order [356−2] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/26/1999)

01/26/1999

REFERRAL: referring case for discovery to Mag. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton [4:94−cv−02307] (wh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/26/1999)

01/26/1999 359 ORDER by Mag. Judge Bernard Zimmerman recusing himself ( Date Entered: 1/28/99) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/28/1999)

01/28/1999

362 EX−PARTE request, before Judge Claudia Wilken, by Plaintiff John Armstrong, Plaintiff James Amauric, Plaintiff Richard Ponciano, Plaintiff Jack Swensen for resolution of discovery dispute. [4:94−cv−02307] (rl, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/02/1999)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 78 of 265

01/29/1999 360 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendants Pete Wilson, et al from Dist. Court decision order [349−1] Fee status pd, (receipt #2513) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/01/1999)

01/29/1999

361 MEMORANDUM by defendants Pete Wilson, et al in opposition to motion to compel defendants re: deposition testimony of the ten BPT Commissioners [352−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/01/1999)

01/29/1999

366 EX−PARTE Letter REQUEST before Mag. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton for resolution of discovery dispute [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/23/2018: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/03/1999)

02/01/1999 2760 Docket fee notification form and case information sheet to USCA [360−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/01/1999)

02/01/1999

Copy of notice of appeal and docket sheet to all counsel [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/01/1999)

02/01/1999

363 EXPEDITED MOTION, before Judge Claudia Wilken, by Plaintiffs for leave to file a motion for reconsideration and memorandum of points and authorities in support. [4:94−cv−02307] (rl, COURT STAFF) Modified on 02/02/1999 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/02/1999)

02/01/1999

364 DECLARATION and certification of compliance with Civil Local Rule 7−10(b) by Sara Norman on behalf of Plaintiffs re motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration and memorandum of points and authorities in support. [364−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (rl, COURT STAFF) Modified on 02/02/1999 (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/23/2018: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/02/1999)

02/01/1999 2758 RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) re: motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration and memorandum of points and authorities in support. [364−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (rl, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/02/1999)

02/01/1999

365 ORDER, by Mag. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton. Re motion to compel defendants re: deposition testimony of the ten BPT Commissioners [352−1]. Plaintiff's request to have expedited hearing is DENIED. Opposition is due 2/9/99. Reply due no later than seven calendar days following opposition. ( Date Entered: February 3, 1999) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (rl, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/03/1999)

02/01/1999 367 LETTER to Mag. Judge Hamilton, dated 1/29/99, from George D. Prince in response to ex parte request for resolution of discovery dispute [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/03/1999)

02/01/1999

372 MINUTES: before Mag. Judge Hamilton ( C/R tape #PJH−TC/99−3) ( Hearing Date: 2/1/99) granting in part and denying in part motion for resolution of discovery dispute [366−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/11/1999)

02/03/1999

368 ORDER, by Judge Claudia Wilken, GRANTING motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. [363−1] Plaintiffs may move for reconsideration to the extent requested in their motion. ( Date Entered: February 4, 1999) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (rl, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/04/1999)

02/05/1999 369 MEMORANDUM by Plaintiffs in opposition to motion to dismiss or strike second amended complaint [355−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/09/1999)

02/05/1999 2769 RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) re: dismissing in part second amended complaint [355−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/09/1999)

02/08/1999 2771 NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate Docket Number 99−15152 [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/10/1999)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 79 of 265

02/08/1999 370 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION and Ordering Form filed by defendants Pete Wilson, et al for dates NOT DESIGNATING ; C/R: ; appeal [360−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/10/1999)

02/08/1999

371 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION WITH MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES before Judge Claudia Wilken by defendants BPT, James Nielsen to dismiss second amended complaint with Notice set for 3/19/99 at 10:00am [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/10/1999)

02/08/1999 2768 RECEIVED Proposed Order ( BPT, James Nielsen ) re motion to dismiss second amended complaint [371−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/10/1999)

02/08/1999 373 REPLY by Plaintiffs to opposition to motion to compel defendants re: deposition testimony of the ten BPT Commissioners [352−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/11/1999)

02/09/1999 374 CLERK'S NOTICE hearing on motion to dismiss or strike second amended complaint [355−1] is rescheduled to 3/19/99 at 10:00am [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/11/1999)

02/10/1999 2770 CERTIFICATE of Record mailed to USCA, counsel notified. [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/10/1999)

02/10/1999

375 MOTION with memorandum in support before Judge Claudia Wilken by Plaintiffs for reconsideration of the court's order directing defendants to comply with the remedial plan filed 1/8/99 with Notice set for 3/19/99 at 10:00am [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/12/1999)

02/10/1999

376 DECLARATION by Sara Norman on behalf of Plaintiffs re motion for reconsideration of the court's order directing defendants to comply with the remedial plan filed 1/8/99 [375−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/11/2018: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/12/1999)

02/10/1999 2767 RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) re: motion for reconsideration of the court's order directing defendants to comply with the remedial plan filed 1/8/99 [375−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/12/1999)

02/10/1999 377 REPLY by defendants to opposition to motion to dismiss or strike second amended complaint [355−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/12/1999)

02/16/1999 378 EX−PARTE APPLICATION before Mag. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton by Plaintiffs for resolution of discovery dispute [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/18/1999)

02/16/1999

379 DECLARATION by Sara Norman on behalf of Plaintiff re motion to compel defendants re: deposition testimony of the ten BPT Commissioners [352−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/11/2018: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/18/1999)

02/17/1999 380 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION and Ordering Form filed by Pete Wilson for dates 9/26/97, 11/21/97 ; C/R: Rosita Flores/Carol Karen; appeal [360−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/18/1999)

02/17/1999

381 OPPOSITION by defendants Pete Wilson, et al to motion for reconsideration of the court's order directing defendants to comply with the remedial plan filed 1/8/99 [375−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/18/1999)

02/17/1999

382 MINUTES: before Mag. Judge Hamilton ( C/R tape #PJH−TC/99−3) ( Hearing Date: 2/17/99) granting motion for resolution of discovery dispute [378−1]; defendants shall permit plaintiffs' expert Dr. Strong to attend on additional day of lifer hearings; Dr. Cowardin shall attend on 2/18/99 [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/25/1999)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 80 of 265

02/24/1999 383 LETTER dated 2/24/99 from deputy clerk to Mr. Specter re: forwarding copy of a letter from Omer Gallion [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/01/1999)

02/25/1999

386 ORDER by Mag. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton granting motion for resolution of discovery dispute. [362−1]; that plaintiffs motion for leave to take additional depositions is granted ( Date Entered: 3/5/99) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/05/1999)

02/25/1999

Docket Modification (Administrative) to order [386−1] granting motion to compel defendants re: deposition testimony of the ten BPT Commissioners [352−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/27/1999)

02/26/1999 384 OPPOSITION by Plaintiffs to motion to dismiss second amended complaint [371−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/11/2018: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/02/1999)

03/01/1999

385 CORRECTION by plaintiffs to opposition [384−1] to defendants' second motion to dismiss the second amended complaint [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/11/2018: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/02/1999)

03/03/1999 387 REPLY by defendants BPT and James Nielsen to opposition to motion to dismiss second amended complaint [371−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/05/1999)

03/05/1999

388 REPLY by Plaintiffs to opposition to motion for reconsideration of the court's order directing defendants to comply with the remedial plan filed 1/8/99 [375−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/09/1999)

03/05/1999

389 MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by defendants BPT, James Nielsen for leave to file motion for summary and for continuance of the trial date with Notice set for 4/2/99 at 10:00am [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/09/1999)

03/05/1999

390 DECLARATION by Susan Myster on behalf of BPT, James Nielsen re motion for leave to file motion for summary and for continuance of the trial date [389−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/09/1999)

03/05/1999 2765 RECEIVED Proposed Order ( BPT, James Nielsen ) re: motion for leave to file motion for summary and for continuance of the trial date [389−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/09/1999)

03/05/1999 2764 RECEIVED motion for summary judgment submitted by defendants BPT, James Nielsen [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/09/1999)

03/05/1999 2763 RECEIVED declaration of James Nielsen in support of motions for summary judgment submitted by BPT, James Nielsen [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). Modified on 9/10/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/09/1999)

03/05/1999 2762 RECEIVED proposed order granting defendants' motion for summary judgment submitted by BPT, James Nielsen [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/09/1999)

03/08/1999

391 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant James Nielsen of declaration of James Nielsen in support of defendants' notice of motion and motion for summary judgment [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/10/1999)

03/09/1999 392 LETTER dated 3/8/99 from deputy clerk to Mr. Specter re: forwarding letters received from prisoner [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/11/1999)

03/11/1999 393 OBJECTIONS by Plaintiffs to order [386−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/15/1999)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 81 of 265

03/12/1999 03/17/1999 03/19/1999 03/23/1999 03/23/1999 03/23/1999 03/24/1999 03/25/1999
03/26/1999 03/26/1999 03/30/1999 03/30/1999

394 LETTER dated 3/12/99 from Jennifer A. Jonak re: defendants' motion for leave to file motion for summary judgment [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/17/1999)
395 RE−NOTICE of hearing by defendants BPT, James Nielsen setting motion for leave to file motion for summary and for continuance of the trial date [389−1] at 10:00am on 4/16/99 [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/18/1999)
396 MINUTES: (C/R Sarah Brann) (Hearing Date: 03/19/99) DENING motion for reconsideration of the court's order directing defendants to comply with the remedial plan filed 1/8/99 [375−1]; DENYING motion to dismiss second amended complaint [371−1]; DENYING motion to dismiss or strike second amended complaint [355−1]; [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/24/1999)
397 JOINT PRE−TRIAL STATEMENT by Plaintiffs [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/11/2018: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/24/1999)
398 PROOF OF RESERVICE by defendants of notice of motion [395−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/24/1999)
399 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 3/19/99 (C/R: Sarah Brann) minutes [396−2] [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/24/1999)
400 MOTION with memorandum in support before Judge Claudia Wilken by Plaintiff in limine to exclude evidence not furnished in discovery [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/24/2018: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/29/1999)
401 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken denying defendant Nielsen's motion to dismiss second amended complaint [371−1]; grants defendant BPT's motion to dismiss plaintiffs section 1983 claims asserted against it; granting in part defendants' motion to strike second amended complaint [355−1]; denying plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the court's order directing defendants to comply with the remedial plan filed 1/8/99 [375−1]; denying defendants' motion for leave to file motion for summary and for continuance of the trial date [389−1] dismissing claims against CA Dept. of Corrections, defendants Cal A. Terhune, Susanne Steinberg, Judith McGillivray, David Tristan, Midge Carroll, but denying dismissal of the claims against defendants Gray Davis and Secretary of the Calfornia YACA, Robert Presley ( Date Entered: 3/29/99) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/29/1999)
402 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION WITH MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES by Intervenors Jerry Valdivia, et al before Judge Claudia Wilken for permissive intervention , and for modification of protective order with Notice set for 4/30/99 at 10:00am [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/30/1999)
403 DECLARATION by Laura J. Zuckerman on behalf of Intervenors Jerry Valdivia, et al re motion for permissive intervention [402−1], re motion for modification of protective order [402−2] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/24/2018: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/30/1999)
404 LETTER dated 3/30/99 from Shana Margolis re: amended witness list [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/31/1999)
405 AMENDED PLAINTIFFS' WITNESS LIST that was filed as Exhibit G to the parties' joint pretrial conference statement filed by plaintiff [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/31/1999)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 82 of 265

04/02/1999 04/02/1999 04/02/1999
04/06/1999 04/06/1999 04/07/1999 04/09/1999 04/12/1999
04/15/1999 04/16/1999 04/16/1999 04/16/1999 04/16/1999 04/16/1999 04/19/1999 04/19/1999

406 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken for issuance of writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum − David Blessing ( Date Entered: 4/5/99) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/05/1999)
407 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken for issuance of writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum − David Badillo ( Date Entered: 4/5/99) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/05/1999)
409 MINUTES: before Judge Claudia Wilken ( C/R Lydia Radovich) ( Hearing Date: 4/2/99) ; pretrial conf held 4/2/99 , court trial is continued to 4/26/99 at 8:30am ; granting plaintiff's motion in limine to exclude evidence not furnished in discovery [400−1]; defense has no objection to plaintiffs AMENDING COMPLAINT to add 3 more plaintiffs [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/07/1999)
408 ANSWER by defendants BPT, James Nielsen to second complaint [346−1]; jury demand [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/07/1999)
410 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 4/2/99 ( C/R: Lydia Roseanne Radovich) minutes [409−3] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/07/1999)
411 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT [346−1] by Plaintiffs; adding Flora Abrams, Joey Gough, Timothy Whisman [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/08/1999)
412 Statement by Plaintiffs in NON−Opposition to motion for permissive intervention [402−1], motion for modification of protective order [402−2] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/12/1999)
413 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : modifying briefing schedule re: motion for permissive intervention and for modification of protective order; opposition/or non−opposition due no later than 4/16/99; reply by 4/23/99 (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/13/1999)
414 ANSWER by defendants Gray Davis, Robert Presley, James Nielsen, BPT to third amended complaint [411−1]; jury demand [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/20/1999)
415 AMENDED deposition designations (Exhibit K to joint pretrial statement) [397−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/20/1999)
416 OPPOSITION by defendants to motion for permissive intervention [402−1], motion for modification of protective order [402−2] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/20/1999)
417 DECLARATION by William V. Cashdollar on behalf of defendants re opposition [416−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/20/1999)
418 TRIAL DECLARATION by Timothy J. Derning, Ph.D. on behalf of Plaintiffs ***FILED UNDER SEAL*** [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/20/1999)
419 DECLARATION by Nancy Cowardin, Ph.D. on behalf of Plaintiffs ***FILED UNDER SEAL*** [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/20/1999)
420 ERRATA by Plaintiffs to the declaration of Timothy J. Derning [418−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/21/1999)
421 DECLARATION by Kathleen Martinez on behalf of Plaintiff ***FILED UNDER SEAL*** [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered:

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 83 of 265

04/19/1999 04/19/1999 04/19/1999 04/20/1999 04/20/1999 04/21/1999 04/22/1999
04/22/1999 04/22/1999 04/23/1999 04/23/1999
04/23/1999
04/28/1999 04/28/1999
05/03/1999
05/03/1999

04/21/1999)
422 DECLARATION by Michael Strong on behalf of Plaintiff ***FILED UNDER SEAL*** [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/21/1999)
423 DECLARATION by Peter M. Robertson on behalf of Plaintiff ***FILED UNDER SEAL*** [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/21/1999)
424 DECLARATION by R. Michael Paravagna on behalf of Plaintiff [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/21/1999)
425 TRIAL MINUTES: (C/R Maria Amador) (Hearing Date: 4/20/99) Court trial began; further trial set for 4/21/99 at 2:00 [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/23/1999)
426 Supplemental ERRATA by Plaintiffs to the declaration of Timothy J. Derning [418−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/23/1999)
427 TRIAL MINUTES: ( C/R Maria Amador) ( Hearing Date: 4/21/99) court trial held; further court trial set for 4/22/99 at 2:00pm [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/26/1999)
428 AMENDED trial exhibits (Exhibit I to joint pretrial statement [397−1]) and first amended deposition designation (Exhibit K to joint pretrial statement) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/25/2018: # 1 A, # 2 B, # 3 C, # 4 D, # 5 E) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/26/1999)
429 CORRECTION by Plaintiffs to trial exhibits [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) Modified on 04/27/1999 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/26/1999)
430 CORRECTED deposition designations by Plaintiffs [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/26/1999)
431 REPLY by Intervenors to opposition to motion for permissive intervention [402−1], motion for modification of protective order [402−2] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/26/1999)
432 DECLARATION by Jennifer L. Jonak on behalf of Intervenors re motion reply [431−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/26/2018: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/26/1999)
433 ORDER, by Judge Claudia Wilken, taking the motion for permissive intervention [402−1] under submission; taking the motion for modification of protective order [402−2] under submission (Date Entered: April 27, 1999) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (rl, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/27/1999)
434 ERRATA by Plaintiffs to declaration [422−1], to declaration [421−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/30/1999)
435 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken confirming undisputed attorneys' fees and costs on the second quarterly statement of 1998 ( Date Entered: 4/30/99) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/30/1999)
436 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken that the CDC shall immediately make available to counsel for plaintiffs for review and copy the central and medical files of inmate Michael Paine, D94022 ( Date Entered: 5/4/99) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/04/1999)
437 ORDER from USCA. The appellants are directed to make financial arrangements with the court reporter within 14 days of this order. The transcripts are due 6/14/99. The District Court shall issue the certificate of record as soon as practicable after the transcripts are filed. The briefing schedule is unchanged. ( Date Entered: May 4,

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 84 of 265

05/03/1999 05/04/1999 05/05/1999 05/05/1999 05/07/1999 05/10/1999 05/11/1999 05/11/1999 05/12/1999
05/12/1999
05/12/1999
05/12/1999

1999) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (rl, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/04/1999)
438 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: April 22, 1999 ( C/R: Candace L. Yount) [4:94−cv−02307] (rl, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/04/1999)
439 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of order [435−2] [4:94−cv−02307] (rl, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/05/1999)
440 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken that the court issue a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum of Michael Paine ( Date Entered: 5/6/99) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/06/1999)
441 MOTION by third−party beneficiaries Mitchell Pendrak, Williamson Plez, and Louis R. Fresquez before Judge Claudia Wilken to compel and implement the warden and employees of Corcoran II State Prison to follow the court's 9/16/98 order resolving outstanding issues [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/10/1999)
442 SUPPLEMENT by defendant re declaration of William V. Cashdollar [417−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/10/1999)
443 Abridged EXHIBIT list by Plaintiff [4:94−cv−02307] (rl, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/12/1999)
444 LETTER dated 5/11/99 from Caroline N. Mitchell re: submission of plaintiff's abridged trial exhibit list [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/12/1999)
445 SUPPLEMENTAL declaration of William V. Cashdollar [417−1] by defendants [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/12/1999)
446 DESIGNATION OF DEPOSITION with defendants additional designations (VOLUME 1) by Plaintiffs [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/31/2018: # 1 Aguirre, # 2 Almager, # 3 Anderson, # 4 Badillo, # 5 Beekman, # 6 Blessing) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/31/2018: # 7 Bordonaro, # 8 Boyd, # 9 Bruce) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/31/2018: # 10 Broaddus, # 11 Bybee, # 12 Castro, # 13 Chartrand, # 14 Choo) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/13/1999)
447 DESIGNATION OF DEPOSITION with defendants additional designations (VOLUME 2) by Plaintiff [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/31/2018: # 1 Connolly, # 2 Crews, # 3 DeGrood, # 4 Di Ninni, # 5 Dunlap, # 6 Feathers, # 7 Frederick, # 8 Gillis (Vol. 1), # 9 Gillis (Vol. 2)) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/31/2018: # 10 Gough, # 11 Hayes, # 12 Hill, # 13 Holden) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/1/2018: # 14 Honore, # 15 Horrocks, # 16 Jallins, # 17 Jay, # 18 R. Johnson, # 19 W. Johnson, # 20 Jourden) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/13/1999)
448 DESIGNATION OF DEPOSITION with defendants additional designations (VOLUME 3) by Plaintiffs [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/1/2018: # 1 Khoury, # 2 Kitchell, # 3 Koenig, # 4 Lambert, # 5 Lane, # 6 Loo, # 7 Lyons, # 8 Mason, # 9 McCuistion) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/1/2018: # 10 McNair) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/1/2018: # 11 Mincey, # 12 Nielsen Jan 11 1996, # 13 Nielsen Jan 14 1999) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/1/2018: # 14 Paravagna, # 15 Phipps) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/13/1999)
449 DESIGNATION OF DEPOSITION with defendants additional designations (VOLUME 4) by Plaintiffs [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/1/2018: # 1 E. Richardson, # 2 P. Richardson, # 3 Rose, #

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 85 of 265

05/12/1999
05/12/1999 05/13/1999 05/13/1999 05/17/1999 05/17/1999 05/17/1999 05/17/1999 05/17/1999 05/17/1999 05/17/1999 05/17/1999

4 Rowland, # 5 Shelton, # 6 Simmons, # 7 Smith, # 8 Solis, # 9 Soukup, # 10 Thomson, # 11 Travers) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/1/2018: # 12 Trott, # 13 Umbenhower, # 14 Underwood, # 15 Van Court, # 16 Vinyard, # 17 Von Gunten, # 18 Washington, # 19 Welch, # 20 Whisman, # 21 Williams) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/13/1999)
450 DESIGNATION OF DEPOSITION with defendants additional designations (VOLUME 5) by Plaintiffs [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/5/2018: # 1 Bardo, # 2 Bowlin, # 3 Boyd, # 4 Braden, # 5 Case, # 6 Chesterman, # 7 Choo, # 8 Conley, # 9 Cottier, # 10 Culton, # 11 Cuypers) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/5/2018: # 12 Davis, # 13 Durkee, # 14 Favila, # 15 Friederichs, # 16 Haywood, # 17 Henderson−McBean, # 18 Hepburn, # 19 L. Hernandez, # 20 R. Hernandez, # 21 Hood, # 22 Jessup, # 23 Kainsella, # 24 Larson, # 25 Lawson) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/5/2018: # 26 Lea, # 27 Lemon, # 28 Middleton, # 29 Mott, # 30 Novak, # 31 Oliveros, # 32 Rivera, # 33 Roberts, # 34 Rosario, # 35 Sadowski, # 36 Sanchez, # 37 Schievelbein, # 38 Schwettmann, # 39 Sinatra, # 40 Smith, # 41 Willming, # 42 Woods) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/13/1999)
451 DESIGNATION OF DEPOSITION with defendants additional designations (VOLUME 6) by Plaintiffs [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/6/2018: # 1 Dowling, # 2 Garcia, # 3 Kiesz, # 4 O'Bryan, # 5 Oshiro, # 6 Rich, # 7 Trott) (cpS, COURT STAFF). Modified on 11/6/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/13/1999)
452 MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by Plaintiffs John Armstrong, et al to exclude defendants' previously witness testimony [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/14/1999)
453 DECLARATION by Jennifer L. Jonak on behalf of Plaintiffs re motion to exclude defendants' previously witness testimony [452−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/14/1999)
454 DEPOSITION of Michael Paravagna taken on the following date(s): 3/4/99 − Volume I (pages 1 − 143) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/31/2018: # 1 DEPOSITION (part 2), # 2 A, # 3 B, # 4 C, # 5 D) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/19/1999)
455 DEPOSITION of Michael Paravagna taken on the following date(s): 3/16/99 − (Volume II − pages 144 − 238) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/19/1999)
456 DEPOSITION of Michael M. Connolly taken on the following date(s): 12/1/98 [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/31/2018: # 1 Part 2, # 2 Part 3, # 3 Part 4) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/19/1999)
457 DEPOSITION of Dr. Edward McNair taken on the following date(s): 1/27/99 [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/30/2018: # 1 1, # 2 2, # 3 3, # 4 4, # 5 5, # 6 6, # 7 7, # 8 8) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/19/1999)
458 DEPOSITION of Tina L. Dunlap taken on the following date(s): 11/19/98 [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/3/2018: # 1 1, # 2 2, # 3 3, # 4 4, # 5 5, # 6 6, # 7 7, # 8 8) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/19/1999)
459 DEPOSITION of Michael Trott taken on the following date(s): 1/19/99 [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/26/2018: # 1 1, # 2 2) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/19/1999)
460 NOTICE by defendants of change of address [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/20/1999)
461 NOTICE by defendants of change of address [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/20/1999)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 86 of 265

05/17/1999 05/17/1999 05/17/1999 05/17/1999 05/17/1999 05/17/1999 05/17/1999 05/17/1999
05/19/1999
05/21/1999 05/21/1999 05/26/1999 05/26/1999 05/26/1999
05/26/1999 05/26/1999
05/28/1999

464 TRIAL MINUTES: ( C/R Candace Yount) ( Hearing Date: 4/22/99) court trial held; further court trial will be held 2:00pm on 4/27/99 ; [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/26/1999)
465 TRIAL MINUTES: ( C/R Candace Yount) ( Hearing Date: 4/27/99) court trial held; further court trial will be held 9:30am on 4/28/99 ; [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/26/1999)
466 TRIAL MINUTES: ( C/R Candace Yount) ( Hearing Date: 4/28/99) court trial held; further court trial will be held 9:00am on 5/3/99 ; [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/26/1999)
467 TRIAL MINUTES: ( C/R Candace Yount) ( Hearing Date: 5/3/99) court trial held; further court trial will be held 8:30am on 5/4/99 ; [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/26/1999)
468 TRIAL MINUTES: ( C/R Maria Amador) ( Hearing Date: 5/4/99) court trial held; further court trial will be held 8:30am on 5/5/99 ; [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/26/1999)
469 TRIAL MINUTES: ( C/R Maria Amador) ( Hearing Date: 5/5/99) court trial held; further court trial will be held 1:30pm on 5/6/99 ; [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/26/1999)
470 TRIAL MINUTES: ( C/R Maria Amador) ( Hearing Date: 5/6/99) court trial held; further court trial will be held 8:30am on 5/13/99 ; [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/26/1999)
471 TRIAL MINUTES: ( C/R Maria Amador) ( Hearing Date: 5/13/99) Court trial ended ; Trial concluded 5/13/99; plaintiffs to submit proposed findings by 6/18/99; defendant to respond by 7/6/99; plaintiff to reply by 7/16/99 [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/26/1999)
463 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken denying motion to compel and implement the warden and employees of Corcoran II State Prison to follow the court's 9/16/98 order resolving outstanding issues [441−1] ( Date Entered: 5/24/99) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/24/1999)
462 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken modifying protective order ( Date Entered: 5/24/99) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/24/1999)
472 TRIAL Sheet consisting of exhibits and witnesses list [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/26/1999)
EXHIBIT LOCATION for plf: stored at Shelf No. B−3 [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/26/1999)
EXHIBIT LOCATION for dft: (Exhibt D−6) stored at UNDER SEAL ROOM [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/26/1999)
473 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 4/28/99 ( C/R: Candace L. Yount) minutes [466−2] (Volume 5, pages 503 − 693) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/26/2018: # 1 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT (part 2), # 2 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT (part 3)) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/27/1999)
474 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 5/3/99 ( C/R: Candace L. Yount) minutes [467−2] (Volume 6, pages 694−857) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/27/1999)
475 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 5/3/99 ( C/R: Candace L. Yount) minutes [467−2] (Volume 6, pages 702 − 750) ***FILED UNDER SEAL*** [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/27/1999)
476 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs−Intervenors of order [462−2] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/02/1999)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 87 of 265

06/02/1999 06/02/1999 06/07/1999 06/10/1999 06/15/1999 06/15/1999 06/15/1999 06/16/1999 06/25/1999 06/28/1999 06/30/1999 07/08/1999 07/14/1999 07/14/1999 07/20/1999 07/20/1999

477 OBJECTIONS by Plaintiffs to defendants' previously undisclosed deposition designations [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/07/1999)
478 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of objection [477−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/07/1999)
479 MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by Plaintiffs for entry of undisputed fees order for 3rd quarter of 1998 [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/26/2018: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/08/1999)
480 NOTICE by Plaintiff withdrawing motion for entry of undisputed fees order for 3rd quarter of 1998 [479−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/10/1999)
481 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : confirming settlement of claimed attorneys' fees and costs on the 4th quarterly statement of 1998 (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/17/1999)
482 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken confirming undisputed attorneys' fees and costs on the 3rd quarterly statement of 1998 ( Date Entered: 6/17/99) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/17/1999)
483 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken extending time for plaintiffs to file proposed injunction and supporting documents to 7/19/99 ( Date Entered: 6/17/99) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/17/1999)
Docket Modification (Administrative) to order [462−2] finding the motion for permissive intervention [402−1] moot., finding the motion for modification of protective order [402−2] moot. [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/16/1999)
484 COPY of USCA Order: granting appellee's motion for an extension of time to file the answering brief to 7/28/99; optional reply is due 14 days from service of the answering brief [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/29/1999)
485 MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by third party beneficiaries, Pendrak, Williamson and Frequez to compel the warden at Corcoran II State Prison to follow the court's order 9/20/96 [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/01/1999)
486 NOTICE by defendants of change of address [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/02/1999)
RECEIVED stipulated Proposed Order (Plaintiffs) confirming settlement of certain disputed attorney's fees and costs of second quarterly statement of 1998 [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/08/1999)
487 STIPULATION and ORDER, by Judge Claudia Wilken, confirming settlement of certain disputed attorney's fees and costs on the second quarterly statement of 1998. (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (rl, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/15/1999)
488 ORDER, by Judge Claudia Wilken, DENYING motion to compel the warden at Corcoran II State Prison to follow the court's order 9/20/96 [485−1] ( Date Entered: July 15, 1999) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (rl, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/15/1999)
489 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 4/27/99 ( C/R: Candace L. Yount) minutes [465−2] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/20/1999)
490 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken confirming undisputed attorneys' fees and costs on the first quarterly statement of 1999 ( Date Entered: 7/23/99) (cc: all counsel)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 88 of 265

[4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/7/2018: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/23/1999)

07/21/1999

491 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken setting briefing schedule: plaintiffs to file their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on 7/30/99; opposition is due by 8/6/99; reply is due 8/10/99; ( Date Entered: 7/23/99) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/23/1999)

07/22/1999

492 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken confirming further undisputed attorneys' fees and costs for the 3rd quarter of 1998 ( Date Entered: 7/23/99) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/7/2018: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/23/1999)

07/22/1999 493 LETTER dated 7/22/99 from Danette E. Valdez re: request to file opposition until 8/13/99 [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/27/1999)

07/29/1999 2781 RECEIVED letter from George Arlow re: lack of adequate medical, dental and mental health services [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/06/1999)

07/30/1999 494 PROPOSED findings of facts and conclusions of law (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/02/1999)

07/30/1999 2782 RECEIVED proposed permanent injunction submitted by Plaintiff [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/02/1999)

08/03/1999

495 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken that request for relief by George Arlow, in pro per, will not be entertained; the request is denied [0−0] ( Date Entered: 8/6/99) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/06/1999)

08/06/1999 496 OBJECTIONS by defendant to plaintiffs' proposed conclusions of law and permanent injunction [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/09/1999)

08/06/1999 497 OBJECTIONS by defendants to plaintiffs' proposed findings of fact [494−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/09/1999)

08/06/1999 2780 RECEIVED order requiring the submissions of remedial plans submitted by BPT, James Nielsen [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/09/1999)

08/10/1999 498 REPLY by Plaintiff re objection [497−1], re objection [496−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/11/1999)

08/20/1999 499 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 4/20/99 ( C/R: Maria E. Amador) minutes [425−2] (VOL. I) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/20/1999)

08/20/1999 500 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 4/21/99 ( C/R: Maria E. Amador) minutes [427−2] (Vol. II) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/20/1999)

08/20/1999

501 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 5/4/99 ( C/R: Maria E. Amador) minutes [468−2] (Vol. VII) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/7/2018: # 1 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT (part 2)) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/20/1999)

08/20/1999 502 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 5/5/99 ( C/R: Maria E. Amador) minutes [469−2] (Vol. VIII) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/20/1999)

08/20/1999 503 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 5/6/99 ( C/R: Maria E. Amador) minutes [470−2] (Vol. IX) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/20/1999)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 89 of 265

08/20/1999 504 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 5/13/99 ( C/R: Maria E. Amador) minutes [471−2] (Vol. X) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/20/1999)

08/23/1999

505 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by Plaintiffs to compel payment of disputed attorney's fees and costs incurred during 1998 with Notice set for 10/8/99 at 10:00 [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/24/1999)

08/23/1999

506 DECLARATION by William H.D. Fernholz on behalf of Plaintiffs in support of motion to compel payment of disputed attorney's fees and costs incurred during 1998 [505−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/20/2018: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/24/1999)

08/23/1999

507 DECLARATION by Donald Specter on behalf of Plaintiffs in support of motion to compel payment of disputed attorney's fees and costs incurred during 1998 [505−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/24/1999)

08/23/1999 2783 RECEIVED Proposed Order (Plaintiffs) re: motion to compel payment of disputed attorney's fees and costs incurred during 1998 [505−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/24/1999)

09/02/1999

508 ORDER of Reference by Judge Claudia Wilken referring to Mag. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton the motion to compel payment of disputed attorney's fees and costs incurred during 1998 [505−1] (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/08/1999)

09/07/1999 509 LETTER dated 9/7/99 from deputy clerk to Ernest Frost re: returned of documents submitted to the court [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/08/1999)

09/07/1999 510 LETTER dated 9/7/99 from deputy clerk to Frederick Smith re: returned of documents submitted to the court [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) Modified on 09/08/1999 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/08/1999)

09/07/1999 511 LETTER dated 9/7/99 from deputy clerk to Jose Luis Diparra re: returned of documents submitted to the court [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) Modified on 09/08/1999 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/08/1999)

09/07/1999 512 LETTER dated 9/7/99 from deputy clerk to George Swan Arlow re: returned of documents submitted to the court [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/08/1999)

09/07/1999 513 LETTER dated 9/7/99 from deputy clerk to Gilbert P. Fontes re: returned of documents submitted to the court [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/08/1999)

09/07/1999 514 LETTER dated 9/7/99 from deputy clerk to Amador L. Martinez re: returned of documents submitted to the court [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/08/1999)

09/10/1999 515 LETTER dated 9/10/99 from deputy clerk to Bruce C. Kyles re: returned of documents submitted to the court [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/13/1999)

09/13/1999

516 ORDER by Mag. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton setting briefing schedule re motion to compel payment [505−1]; opposition due 9/20/99; any reply due 14 calendar days following the date of filing and service of the opposition; no hearing will be held ( Date Entered: 9/16/99) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/16/1999)

09/17/1999 517 LETTER dated 9/8/99 from deputy clerk to Charles Logan re: returned of documents submitted to the court [4:94−cv−02307](cp, COURT STAFF) Modified on 09/17/1999 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/17/1999)

09/17/1999 518 OPPOSITION by defendants to motion to compel payment of disputed attorney's fees and costs incurred during 1998 [505−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS,

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 90 of 265

09/21/1999 10/04/1999 11/05/1999 12/16/1999 12/17/1999 12/17/1999 12/22/1999 12/22/1999 12/22/1999
01/04/2000 01/06/2000 01/07/2000 01/07/2000 01/20/2000 01/21/2000

COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/20/1999)
519 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken setting date for defendants to submit remedial plans for individual CDC institutions by 1/3/2000: (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/23/1999)
520 REPLY by Plaintiff to opposition to motion to compel payment of disputed attorney's fees and costs incurred during 1998 [505−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/04/1999)
521 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken confirming undisputed attorneys' fees and costs on the second quarterly statement of 1999 ( Date Entered: 11/8/99) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/08/1999)
RECORD on Appeal to USCA, cnsl notified. re appeal [360−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/16/1999)
522 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by Mag. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton that the motion to compel payment of disputed attorney's fees and costs incurred during 1998 [505−1] be DENIED (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/21/1999)
Docket Modification (Administrative) to report and recommendation motion REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [522−1] denying motion to compel payment of disputed attorney's fees and costs incurred during 1998 [505−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/21/1999)
523 FINDINGS of fact and conclusions of law by Judge Claudia Wilken (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/23/1999)
524 PERMANENT INJUNCTION by Judge Claudia Wilken ( Date Entered: 12/23/99) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/23/1999)
525 JUDGMENT: by Judge Claudia Wilken entered in favor of plaintiffs as set forth in the permanent injunction; plaintiff shall recover of defendants their costs of action; dismissing case ; appeal filing ddl 1/24/00 ( Date Entered: 12/23/99) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/23/1999)
526 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : extending time for plaintiffs to file bill of costs to 2/18/00 (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/04/2000)
527 LETTER dated 1/5/00 from deputy clerk to Jonathan Morgan re: return of submitted documents [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) Modified on 01/07/2000 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/07/2000)
528 OBJECTIONS by Plaintiffs to report and recommendation re: motion to compel payment of attorney's fees [522−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/10/2000)
529 DECLARATION by Donald Spector on behalf of Plaintiffs in support of objections [528−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/10/2000)
530 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken: confirming settlement of certain attorneys' fees and costs on the third quarterly statement of 1999 (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/21/2000)
531 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendants Gray Davis, Robert Presley, James Nielsen from Dist. Court decision findings of fact [523−1], permanent injunction [524−1], order [401−2] Fee status pd, receipt #4401076 [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/24/2000)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 91 of 265

01/24/2000

Docket fee notification form and case information sheet to USCA [531−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/24/2000)

01/24/2000

Copy of notice of appeal and docket sheet to all counsel [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/24/2000)

01/31/2000 2787 NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate Docket Number 00−15132 [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/6/2018: # 1 Time Schedule) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/01/2000)

01/31/2000 532 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION and Ordering Form filed by defendants NOT DESIGNATING; appeal [531−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/01/2000)

02/01/2000

CERTIFICATE of Record mailed to USCA, counsel notified. [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/01/2000)

02/03/2000 533 REPLY by defendants re objection [528−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/04/2000)

02/03/2000

534 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken: defendants may file their reply to plaintiff's objections to Mag. Judge Hamilton's report and recommendation by 2/3/00 (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/07/2000)

02/07/2000 535 LETTER dated 2/4/00 from William Fernholz re: motion to compel fees in the Yeskey matter [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/09/2000)

02/09/2000 536 LETTER dated 2/4/00 from deputy clerk re: returned of documents submitted by Andre Blair [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/11/2000)

02/09/2000 537 LETTER dated 2/4/00 from deputy clerk re: returned documents submitted by Willard Martin [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/11/2000)

02/10/2000

538 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : extending time for defendants to file the monitoring agreement to 2/9/00 (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/11/2000)

02/14/2000 541 LETTER dated 2/11/00 from William Fernholz re: attorney's fees and costs for BPT proceedings [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/18/2000)

02/15/2000 539 STIPULATION on transcript correction [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/16/2000)

02/15/2000 540 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants of order [538−2] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/16/2000)

02/15/2000 544 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : extending time in which to file briefs re: the appointment of a special master (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/18/2000)

02/16/2000

542 ORDER of Reference by Judge Claudia Wilken: referring to Mag. Judge Hamilton for a settlement conference re: attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in litigating the BPT portion of the Armstron case (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/18/2000)

02/16/2000

543 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : re: confidentiality of settlement negotiations; extending time for plaintiffs to file a costs bill and motion for attorneys' fees and expenses for work related to proceedings against the Board of Prison Terms (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/18/2000)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 92 of 265

02/17/2000 02/17/2000 02/17/2000 02/18/2000 02/22/2000 02/22/2000 02/22/2000 02/22/2000 02/24/2000
02/24/2000 03/06/2000 03/06/2000 03/07/2000 03/07/2000 03/09/2000

545 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by defendant for stay of permanent injunction with Notice set for 3/10/00 at 2:00 [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/18/2000)
546 EX−PARTE REQUEST before Judge Claudia Wilken by defendants to shorten time on motion for stay of permanent injunction [545−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/18/2000)
547 DECLARATION by George Prince on behalf of defendants in support of motion to shorten time on motion for stay of permanent injunction [545−1] [546−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/18/2000)
548 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken setting date for plaintiffs to serve written objections to defendants' remedial plans for individual CDC institutions by 3/6/00: (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/24/2000)
549 BRIEF FILED by defendants in support of their positions 1) that monitoring be deferred while the appeal is pending, and 2) that a special master be appointed to oversee monitoring if and when it is initiated [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/24/2000)
550 OPPOSITION by Plaintiffs to motion to shorten time on motion for stay of permanent injunction [545−1] [546−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/24/2000)
551 BRIEF FILED by Plaintiffs on the need for and the authority to appoint a special master [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/24/2000)
552 DECLARATION by Betsy Ginsberg on behalf of Plaintiffs re brief [551−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/10/2018: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/24/2000)
553 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken denying defendants' motion to shorten time on motion for stay of permanent injunction [545−1] [546−1]; denying without prejudice defendants' motion for stay of permanent injunction [545−1] ( Date Entered: 2/25/00) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/25/2000)
554 Notice of settlement conference and settlement conference ORDER by Mag. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton Settlement conf. (Mag) at 9:30 3/22/00 ; ( Date Entered: 3/1/00) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/01/2000)
555 NOTICE by Plaintiffs of withdrawal of attorney Eve H. (Shapiro) Cervantez [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/07/2000)
Docket Modification (Administrative) to notice [555−1] withdrawing attorney attorney Eve H. Shapiro [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/07/2000)
556 MAIL 537 addressed to Willard Martin returned from Post Office [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). Modified on 12/10/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/08/2000)
557 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : extending defendants' time to 3/14/00 to submit policies and procedures; plaintiffs comments due 4/13/00 (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/09/2000)
558 MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by Plaintiffs to strike motion defendants' unsupported factual contentions re: CDC monitoring with Notice set for 4/14/00 at 10:00am [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/10/2000)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 93 of 265

03/09/2000
03/10/2000 03/10/2000 03/14/2000 03/21/2000 03/21/2000 03/24/2000 03/24/2000 03/24/2000 03/27/2000 03/30/2000 03/30/2000 04/03/2000 04/11/2000 04/11/2000

559 DECLARATION by Sara Norman on behalf of Plaintiff re motion to strike motion defendants' unsupported factual contentions re: CDC monitoring [558−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/10/2018: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/10/2000)
560 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant of order [557−2] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/14/2000)
561 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting in part plaintiffs' motion to compel payment of disputed attorney's fees and costs incurred during 1998 [505−1], and for further briefing ( Date Entered: 3/14/00) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/14/2000)
562 ORDER by Mag. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton continuing settlement conf. (Mag) at 9:30am on 3/31/00 ; ( Date Entered: 3/17/00) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/17/2000)
563 OPPOSITION by defendants to plaintiffs' motion to strike [558−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/22/2000)
564 DECLARATION by James M. Humes on behalf of defendants re opposition [563−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/22/2000)
565 RENEWED MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by Plaintiffs John Armstrong, et al for disputed 1998 fees and expenses [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/7/2018: # 1 Appendix A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/27/2000)
566 DECLARATION by William H.D. Fernholz on behalf of Plaintiffs re motion for disputed 1998 fees and expenses [565−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/7/2018: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/27/2000)
567 DECLARATION by Donald Specter on behalf of Plaintiffs re motion for disputed 1998 fees and expenses [565−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/27/2000)
568 CLERK'S NOTICE that the motion to strike motion defendants' unsupported factual contentions re: CDC monitoring [558−1] is under submission on the papers; hearing previously scheduled for 4/14/00 is vacated [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/27/2000)
570 LETTER dated 3/30/00 from James M. Humes re: vacating settlement conference [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/04/2000)
571 ORDER by Mag. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton vacating settlement conference scheduled for 3/31/00 ( Date Entered: 4/3/00) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/04/2000)
569 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : extending time re: submission of forms; defendants proposed revised forms by 5/15/00; plaintiffs comments by 6/15/00; (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/04/2000)
572 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : scheduling defendants' objections re renewed motion for fees and costs [565−1] to 4/28/00; plaintiffs' response by 5/26/00 (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/11/2000)
573 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken: setting new schedule for review of remedial plans for individual CDC institutions; defendants' revised plans due 6/15/00; plaintiffs' objections by 6/30/00; parties meet and confer re: objections by 7/14/00; plaintiffs' motion for an evidentiary hearing by 7/24/00 (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/11/2000)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 94 of 265

04/20/2000 04/20/2000 04/20/2000 04/20/2000 04/26/2000
04/28/2000 04/28/2000 04/28/2000 04/28/2000 05/04/2000 05/04/2000 05/08/2000 05/10/2000 05/16/2000 05/23/2000

574 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by defendants to extend time to comply with the provision of the injunction re: training with Notice set for 5/26/00 at 10:00am [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/20/2000)
575 DECLARATION by Frances T. Grunder on behalf of defendant re motion to extend time to comply with the provision of the injunction re: training [574−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/20/2000)
576 DECLARATION by Sylvia Penunuri on behalf of defendant re motion to extend time to comply with the provision of the injunction re: training [574−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/20/2000)
577 DECLARATION by William Anderson on behalf of defendant re motion to extend time to comply with the provision of the injunction re: training [574−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/20/2000)
578 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : extending time for plaintiff to file bill of costs and motion for attorneys' fees and expenses for work related to proceedings against the Board of Prison Terms until 5/30/00 (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/28/2000)
579 OBJECTIONS by defendants to motion for disputed 1998 fees and expenses [565−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/01/2000)
580 DECLARATION by Jeffrey S. Sutton on behalf of defendant re objection [579−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/01/2000)
581 DECLARATION by Richard Ruda on behalf of defendant re objection [579−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/01/2000)
582 DECLARATION by Stephen McAllister on behalf of defendant re objection [579−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/01/2000)
583 LETTER dated 5/4/00 from deputy clerk to Mr. Ryder re: return of documents [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/05/2000)
584 LETTER dated 5/4/00 from deputy clerk to Mr. Peernock re: return of documents [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/05/2000)
585 COPY of USCA Order: granting appellants' motion for an extension of time to file the opening brief [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/09/2000)
586 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : resetting hearing on motion to extend time to comply with the provision of the injunction re: training [574−1] at 10:00am on 6/9/00 (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/11/2000)
587 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken confirming undipusted attorneys fees and costs on the fourth quarterly statement of 1999 ( Date Entered: 5/16/00) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/16/2000)
588 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : taking motion to extend time to comply with the provision of the injunction re: training [574−1] off calendar (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/24/2000)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 95 of 265

05/23/2000 05/25/2000 05/26/2000 05/26/2000 05/26/2000 05/30/2000
05/30/2000 05/30/2000 05/30/2000 05/30/2000 05/30/2000
05/30/2000 05/30/2000 05/30/2000

589 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : extending time until 7/21/00 to file motion re: disputes (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/24/2000)
590 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : extending time for plaintiffs to file the 1999 annual motion to compel attorneys' fees and costs until 6/23/00 (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/25/2000)
591 REPLY by Plaintiff to opposition to motion for disputed 1998 fees and expenses [565−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/30/2000)
592 DECLARATION by Donald Specter on behalf of Plaintiff re motion reply [591−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/30/2000)
593 DECLARATION by Jerome B. Falk, Jr. on behalf of Plaintiff re motion for disputed 1998 fees and expenses [565−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/30/2000)
594 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION WITH MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES before Judge Claudia Wilken by Plaintiff for attorney fees and expenses arising from proceedings against the board of prison terms with Notice set for 7/7/00 at 10:00am [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/10/2018: # 1 APPENDIX A, # 2 APPENDIX B, # 3 APPENDIX C) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/31/2000)
595 DECLARATION by Mark Chavez on behalf of Plaintiff re motion for attorney fees and expenses arising from proceedings against the board of prison terms [594−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/31/2000)
596 DECLARATION by Gary Cohen on behalf of Plaintiff re motion for attorney fees and expenses arising from proceedings against the board of prison terms [594−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/31/2000)
597 DECLARATION by William J. Taylor on behalf of Plaintiff re motion for attorney fees and expenses arising from proceedings against the board of prison terms [594−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/31/2000)
598 DECLARATION by Robert Rubin on behalf of Plaintiff re motion for attorney fees and expenses arising from proceedings against the board of prison terms [594−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/10/2018: # 1 EXHIBIT A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/31/2000)
599 DECLARATION by Richard Pearl on behalf of Plaintiff re motion for attorney fees and expenses arising from proceedings against the board of prison terms [594−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/10/2018: # 1 EXHIBIT A, # 2 EXHIBIT B, # 3 EXHIBIT C, # 4 EXHIBIT D) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/31/2000)
600 DECLARATION by Linda D. Kilb on behalf of Plaintiff re motion for attorney fees and expenses arising from proceedings against the board of prison terms [594−1] ***FILED UNDER SEAL*** [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/31/2000)
601 DECLARATION by Warren E. George on behalf of Plaintiff re motion for attorney fees and expenses arising from proceedings against the board of prison terms [594−1]***FILED UNDER SEAL*** [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/31/2000)
602 DECLARATION by Elaine B. Feingold on behalf of Plaintiff re motion for attorney fees and expenses arising from proceedings against the board of prison terms [594−1] ***FILED UNDER SEAL*** [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/31/2000)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 96 of 265

05/30/2000

603 DECLARATION by Michael W. Bien on behalf of Plaintiff re motion for attorney fees and expenses arising from proceedings against the board of prison terms [594−1]***FILED UNDER SEAL*** [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/31/2000)

05/30/2000

604 DECLARATION by Donald Specter on behalf of Plaintiff re motion for attorney fees and expenses arising from proceedings against the board of prison terms [594−1]***FILED UNDER SEAL*** [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/31/2000)

05/30/2000

605 DECLARATION by Caroline M. Mitchell on behalf of Plaintiff re motion for attorney fees and expenses arising from proceedings against the board of prison terms [594−1] ***FILED UNDER SEAL*** [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/31/2000)

05/30/2000

606 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of declaration [605−1], declaration [604−1], declaration [603−1], declaration [602−1], declaration [601−1], declaration [600−1], declaration [599−1], declaration [598−1], declaration [597−1], declaration [596−1], declaration [595−1], motion for attorney fees and expenses arising from proceedings against the board of prison terms [594−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/31/2000)

05/31/2000 607 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of order [590−2], order [587−2] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/31/2000)

05/31/2000 608 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of order [590−2] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/31/2000)

05/31/2000

609 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION and Ordering Form filed by Gray Davis for dates 10/28/94; 4/29/96; 3/19/99; 4/20−21/99; 4/22/99; 4/27−28/99; 5/3/99; 5/4−6/99; 5/13/99; ; C/R: Maria Amador, Candace Yount, Rosita Flores, Sara Bran, Katherine Wyatt; appeal [531−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/31/2000)

06/12/2000

610 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : extending time for plaintiffs to object to defendants' transition plan until 7/31/00, and to file a motion on disputed issues to 8/31/00 (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/13/2000)

06/15/2000

611 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : extending time for plaintiffs to file objections to revisions of BPT forms until 7/12/00; any disputes remain, plaintiffs shall file a regularly noticed motion by 9/12/00 (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/15/2000)

06/16/2000 2788 RECEIVED "stipulation and proposed order scheduling plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and expenses arising from proceedings against board of prison terms" submitted by defendant [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/19/2000)

06/19/2000

612 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : extending time for plaintiffs to file the 1999 annual motion to compel until 7/14/00 (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/21/2000)

06/19/2000

613 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : extending time for plaintiffs to move to compel disputed 1999 fees and expenses to which defendants have posed "Yeskey" and "Appeal" objections until 60 days after the court resolves plaintiffs' renewed request for disputed 1998 fees and expenses (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/21/2000)

06/20/2000

614 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : scheduling plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees and expenses arising from proceedings against the board of prison terms [594−1]; opposition due 7/14/00; reply due 8/11/00; no hearing will be held unless further order of the court (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/21/2000)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 97 of 265

06/20/2000

615 CERTIFIED COPY of judgment from USCA VACATING the district court's order to the extent that it applies to the Disability Placement Plan and the verifications process, and to the extent that it orders the CDC to comply with the negotiated portions of its remedial plan; REMANDING the the case for any further proceedings not inconsistent with this decision as may be necessary [Appeal [360−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/23/2000)

06/23/2000 616 CLERK's letter spreading the mandate to counsel. re appeal [360−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/23/2000)

06/23/2000

617 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken that the parties are to submit a joint statement addressing any further proceedings are necessary in the portion of the case addressed in the Court of Appeal's opinion; statement is due by 7/7/00 ( Date Entered: 6/26/00) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/26/2000)

06/26/2000 618 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant of order [614−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/26/2000)

06/27/2000 619 RECORD ON APPEAL RETURNED FROM USCA [360−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/27/2000)

07/06/2000 620 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 4/29/96 ( C/R: Rosita Flores) minutes [121−2] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/10/2000)

07/07/2000 621 JOINT STATEMENT re: further proceedings in the CDC portion of the case by defendants, Plaintiffs [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/11/2000)

07/10/2000 2789 CERTIFICATE of Record mailed to USCA, counsel notified. [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/10/2000)

07/14/2000 622 OPPOSITION by defendants to motion for attorney fees and expenses arising from proceedings against the board of prison terms [594−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/14/2000)

07/14/2000 623 DECLARATION by Rochelle C. Holzmann on behalf of defendant re opposition [622−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/14/2000)

07/14/2000 624 DECLARATION by James P. Schratz on behalf of defendants [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/14/2000)

07/21/2000 2790 RECEIVED stipulation and order for extension of time regarding submissions of policies and procedures submitted by defendant [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/24/2000)

07/25/2000

625 SECOND STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : setting new schedule for review of remedial plans for individual CDC institutions: meet and confer re: objections by 7/28/00; plaintiffs' motion to request an evidentiary hearing, if any, by 8/11/00 (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/27/2000)

07/25/2000 626 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken confirming further undisputed attorneys' fees and costs for 1999 ( Date Entered: 7/27/00) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/27/2000)

07/25/2000 627 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : extending time for plaintiffs to file a noticed motion re: disputes by 8/4/00 (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/27/2000)

07/25/2000

628 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken that the CDC submit a revised remedial plan by 10/6/00; parties to submit a proposed injunction; respond to the draft is due within two weeks after service; plaintiffs to file a motion for entry of the injunction ( Date Entered: 7/27/00]) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/27/2000)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 98 of 265

08/04/2000 629 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken approving defendants' policies and procedures: (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/07/2000)

08/08/2000 2791 RECEIVED "stipulation and order extending time to file motions to compel submitted by Plaintiffs [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/08/2000)

08/11/2000 630 EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS by Plaintiffs to the declaration of James P. Schratz [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/14/2000)

08/11/2000 631 REPLY BRIEF by Plaintiffs in support of motion for attorney fees and expenses arising from proceedings against the board of prison terms [594−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/14/2000)

08/11/2000 632 DECLARATION by Caroline N. Mitchell on behalf of Plaintiffs re motion reply [631−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/14/2000)

08/11/2000

633 DECLARATION by Michael W. Bien on behalf of Plaintiffs re motion reply [631−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/11/2018: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/14/2000)

08/11/2000

634 DECLARATION by Warren E. George on behalf of Plaintiffs re motion reply [631−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/11/2018: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/14/2000)

08/11/2000 635 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs of declaration [634−1], declaration [633−1], declaration [632−1], motion reply [631−1], objection [630−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/14/2000)

08/14/2000 636 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : extending time for plaintiffs to file motions to compel (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/14/2000)

08/14/2000 637 EX−PARTE APPLICATION before Judge Claudia Wilken by Plaintiff to extend time for motion on remedial plans for individual CDC institutions [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/14/2000)

08/14/2000 638 DECLARATION by Sara Norman on behalf of Plaintiff re motion to extend time for motion on remedial plans for individual CDC institutions [637−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/14/2000)

08/14/2000 639 RESPONSE by defendants re motion to extend time for motion on remedial plans for individual CDC institutions [637−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/15/2000)

08/14/2000 640 DECLARATION by James M. Humes on behalf of defendants re response [639−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/15/2000)

08/30/2000 641 CLERK'S LETTER dated 8/30/00 to Don J.H. Ortega re: letters submitted were forwarded to class counsel [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/31/2000)

09/01/2000

642 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken that plaintiffs shall retain right to file motion re: the written institutional policies [637−1] by 1/5/01 ( Date Entered: 9/6/00) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/06/2000)

09/06/2000

643 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken confirming undisputed attorneys' fees and costs on the first quarterly statement of 2000 ( Date Entered: 9/6/00) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/06/2000)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 99 of 265

09/07/2000 09/07/2000 09/27/2000 10/03/2000 10/06/2000
10/06/2000
10/06/2000 10/10/2000 10/11/2000
10/12/2000 10/23/2000 10/23/2000
10/24/2000 10/27/2000
11/01/2000 11/01/2000 11/01/2000

EXHIBIT LOCATION for plaintiffs: stored at Shelf No. A−5; [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/07/2000)
644 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : extending time to file motions re: transition plan and forms until 9/29/00 (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/08/2000)
645 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : extending time for defendants to file revised remedial plans to 11/1/00 (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/28/2000)
649 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : extending time to file motion re: Transition Plan to 10/30/00 (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/11/2000)
646 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by Plaintiffs to compel first quarter 2000 fees and expenses with Notice set for 11/10/00 at 10:00am [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/06/2000)
647 DECLARATION by Michael W. Bien on behalf of Plaintiff re motion to compel first quarter 2000 fees and expenses [646−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/11/2018: # 1 Part 2) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/06/2000)
648 DECLARATION by Donald Specter on behalf of Plaintiff re motion to compel first quarter 2000 fees and expenses [646−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/06/2000)
651 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken re: defendant BPT's forms: (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/13/2000)
650 REVISED NOTICE OF MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by Plaintiffs to compel first quarter 2000 fees and expenses with Notice set for 11/14/00 at 2:00pm [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/12/2000)
652 MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by Plaintiff to enter permanent injunction [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/16/2000)
653 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by Plaintiff to enter permanent injunction with Notice set for 12/1/00 at 10:00am [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/24/2000)
654 SECOND REVISED MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by Plaintiff to compel 1st quarter 2000 fees and expenses with Notice set for 12/1/00 at 10:00am [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/24/2000)
655 NOTICE by Plaintiff of entry of [651−1] order [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/24/2000)
656 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken confirming undisputed attorneys' fee and costs on the second quarterly statement of 2000 ( Date Entered: 10/30/00) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/30/2000)
657 OPPOSITION by defendants to motion to compel 1st quarter 2000 fees and expenses [654−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/02/2000)
658 DECLARATION by Jessica N. Blonien on behalf of defendant re opposition [657−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/02/2000)
659 DECLARATION by James P. Schratz on behalf of defendant re opposition [657−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered:

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 100 of 265

11/13/2000 11/15/2000 11/15/2000 11/15/2000 11/15/2000 11/30/2000 11/30/2000 12/04/2000
12/06/2000 12/07/2000 12/15/2000 12/22/2000 02/01/2001
02/01/2001
02/01/2001

11/02/2000)
660 MEMORANDUM by defendant Gray Davis in opposition to motion to enter permanent injunction [653−1], motion to enter permanent injunction [652−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/14/2000)
661 REPLY by Plaintiff to opposition to motion to enter permanent injunction [653−1], motion to enter permanent injunction [652−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/15/2000)
662 Evidentiary OBJECTIONS by Plaintiff to declaration of James P. Schratz [624−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/15/2000)
663 REPLY by Plaintiff to opposition to motion to compel 1st quarter 2000 fees and expenses [654−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/15/2000)
664 DECLARATION by Michael W. Bien on behalf of Plaintiff re motion reply [663−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/15/2000)
665 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : extending time to file revised remedial plans until 12/15/00 (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/04/2000)
666 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken re: training schedule: (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/04/2000)
667 MINUTES: before Judge Claudia Wilken ( C/R Easteller Bruihl) ( Hearing Date: 12/1/00) that plaintiffs motion to enter permanent injunction [653−1], [652−1] is submitted; granting plaintiffs' motion to compel 1st quarter 2000 fees and expenses [654−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/07/2000)
668 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant of order [665−2] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/07/2000)
669 Citations to the record in support of defendants' proposed injunction filed by defendants [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/08/2000)
670 RESPONSE by Plaintiff re defendants' citations to the record [669−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/15/2000)
671 REPLY by defendants to response to citations to the record [670−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/26/2000)
672 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by Plaintiffs for attorney fees and expenses for post−judgment work arising from proceedings against the Board of Prison Terms and to set 20001 rates with Notice set for 3/9/01 at 10:00am [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/01/2001)
673 DECLARATION by Michael W. Bien on behalf of Plaintiffs re motion for attorney fees and expenses for post−judgment work arising from proceedings against the Board of Prison Terms and to set 20001 rates [672−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/12/2018: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/01/2001)
674 DECLARATION by Donald Specter on behalf of Plaintiffs re motion for attorney fees and expenses for post−judgment work arising from proceedings against the Board of Prison Terms and to set 20001 rates [672−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/12/2018: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/01/2001)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 101 of 265

02/01/2001 02/01/2001 02/01/2001 02/01/2001 02/20/2001 02/21/2001
02/23/2001 02/27/2001 03/02/2001 03/02/2001 03/02/2001 03/09/2001 03/09/2001 03/09/2001 03/19/2001 03/19/2001

675 DECLARATION by Warren E. George on behalf of Plaintiff re motion for attorney fees and expenses for post−judgment work arising from proceedings against the Board of Prison Terms and to set 20001 rates [672−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/01/2001)
676 DECLARATION by Caroline M. Mitchell on behalf of Plaintifsf re motion for attorney fees and expenses for post−judgment work arising from proceedings against the Board of Prison Terms and to set 20001 rates [672−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/01/2001)
677 DECLARATION by Richard Pearl on behalf of Plaintiffs re motion for attorney fees and expenses for post−judgment work arising from proceedings against the Board of Prison Terms and to set 20001 rates [672−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/01/2001)
678 DECLARATION by John W. Keker on behalf of Plaintiffs re motion for attorney fees and expenses for post−judgment work arising from proceedings against the Board of Prison Terms and to set 20001 rates [672−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/01/2001)
679 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken confirming undisputed attorneys' fees and costs on the third quarterly statement of 2000 ( Date Entered: 2/21/01) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/21/2001)
680 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : resetting hearing on motion for attorney fees and expenses for post−judgment work arising from proceedings against the Board of Prison Terms and to set 20001 rates [672−1] at 10:00am on 3/23/01; opposition due 3/2/01; reply due 3/9/01 (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/22/2001)
RECORD on Appeal to USCA, cnsl notified. re appeal [531−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/23/2001)
681 AMENDED Remedial Plan by defendants [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/28/2001)
682 LETTER dated 3/1/01 from G. Michael German re: submission of the corrected CDC From 1845 [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/05/2001)
683 OPPOSITION and OBJECTIONS by defendant Gray Davis to motion for attorney fees and expenses for post−judgment work arising from proceedings against the Board of Prison Terms and to set 20001 rates [672−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/05/2001)
684 Plaintiffs' reservations to amended remedial plan [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) Modified on 12/12/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/05/2001)
685 REPLY by Plaintiffs to opposition to motion for attorney fees and expenses for post−judgment work arising from proceedings against the Board of Prison Terms and to set 20001 rates [672−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/12/2001)
686 DECLARATION by Shana Margolis on behalf of Plaintiffs re motion for attorney fees and expenses for post−judgment work arising from proceedings against the Board of Prison Terms and to set 20001 rates [672−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/12/2001)
687 DECLARATION by Roderick Coleman [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/13/2001)
688 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken regarding post−trial discovery: (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/19/2001)
689 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken denying plaintiffs' motion to strike motion defendants' unsupported factual contentions re: CDC monitoring [558−1] ( Date

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 102 of 265

Entered: 3/20/01) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/20/2001)

03/19/2001

690 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken awarding plaintiffs $108,352.38 in attorneys' fees and costs incurred in Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections v. Yeskey [505−1], [565−1] ( Date Entered: 3/20/01) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/20/2001)

03/19/2001 691 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting plaintiffs' motion to compel first quarter 2000 fees and expenses [646−1], [654−1] ( Date Entered: 3/20/01) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/20/2001)

03/21/2001

692 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees and expenses arising from proceedings against the board of prison terms [594−1] ( Date Entered: 3/23/01) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/23/2001)

03/21/2001

693 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees and expenses for post−judgment work arising from proceedings against the Board of Prison Terms and to set 20001 rates [672−1] ( Date Entered: 3/23/01) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/23/2001)

03/21/2001

694 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken that the court enters the following injunction (see document for details) against all defendants except the Chairman of the Board of Prison Terms; court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this injunction in accordance with the law [653−1], [652−1] ( Date Entered: 3/23/01) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/23/2001)

03/23/2001 695 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : extending time to file individual institutions' revised remedial plans to 3/20/01 (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/26/2001)

03/26/2001 696 RECEIPT from USCA of clerk's record on appeal [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/27/2001)

04/18/2001

697 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendants Gray Davis, et al from Dist. Court decision order [691−1], order [690−1], order [693−1], order [692−1] Fee status pd, receipt #4403437 [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/19/2001)

04/19/2001

Docket fee notification form and case information sheet to USCA [697−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/19/2001)

04/19/2001

Copy of notice of appeal and docket sheet to all counsel [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/19/2001)

04/19/2001 698 CLERK'S LETTER dated 4/19/01 to William J. Newman re: returned of documents [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/20/2001)

04/20/2001 699 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Gray Davis from Dist. Court decision order [694−1] Fee status pd, receipt #4403453 [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/23/2001)

04/23/2001 2793 Docket fee notification form and case information sheet to USCA [699−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/23/2001)

04/23/2001

Copy of notice of appeal and docket sheet to all counsel [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/23/2001)

04/26/2001 2792 NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate Docket Number 01−15779 [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) Modified on 12/13/2018 (cp, COURT STAFF). (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/30/2001)

04/27/2001 700 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION and Ordering Form filed by defendants for dates 12/4/00 ; C/R: Easteller Bruihl; appeal [697−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/01/2001)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 103 of 265

05/01/2001

Additional RECORD on Appeal to USCA, cnsl notified. re appeal [531−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/01/2001)

05/03/2001 2794 NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate Docket Number 01−15805 [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/07/2001)

05/09/2001 701 AMENDED TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION and Ordering Form filed by defendant for dates 12/1/00 ; C/R: Easteller Bruihl; appeal [697−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/11/2001)

05/10/2001 702 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 12/1/00 ( C/R: Easteller Bruihl) minutes [667−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/14/2001)

05/14/2001 2795 CERTIFICATE of Record mailed to USCA, counsel notified. [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/14/2001)

05/14/2001

703 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken confirming disputed attorneys' fees and costs on undisputed time on the third quaterly statement of 2000 ( Date Entered: 5/15/01) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/13/2018: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/15/2001)

05/14/2001

704 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken confirming disputed attorneys' fees and costs on undisputed time on the second quarterly statement of 2000 ( Date Entered: 5/15/01) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/14/2018: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/15/2001)

05/17/2001 705 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : extending time in which to file individual institutions' revised remedial plans (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/21/2001)

05/18/2001 707 PROOF OF SERVICE by William L. Abrams of letter dated 4/24/01 to Millard Murphy [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/23/2001)

05/21/2001 706 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION and Ordering Form filed by defendant for dates 12/1/00; C/R: Easteller Bruihl; appeal [699−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/22/2001)

05/22/2001 2796 CERTIFICATE of Record mailed to USCA, counsel notified. [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/22/2001)

05/31/2001 708 LETTER from deputy clerk dated 5/29/01 to Frank Balcorta re: forwarding his letter dated 5/14/01 to class counsel [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/01/2001)

06/06/2001 2797 RECEIVED stipulated extension of time in which to file individual institutions' revised remedial plans and order thereon submitted by defendant [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/06/2001)

06/07/2001 709 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken extending time to file individual institutions' revised remedial plan : (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/08/2001)

06/11/2001 2798 RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) confirming further undisputed attorneys' fees and costs for 2000 [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/11/2001)

06/11/2001 2799 RECEIVED Letter from Frank Balcorta [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/11/2001)

06/11/2001

710 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken confirming further undisputed attorneys' fees and costs for 2000 ( Date Entered: 6/12/01) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/14/2018: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/12/2001)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 104 of 265

06/14/2001 711 LETTER from Frank Balcorta [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/15/2001)

06/15/2001 712 IN FORMA PAUPERIS AFFIDAVIT by Peter Daniel for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [4:94−cv−02307] ***DOCUMENT RETURNED PER ORDER #719*** (cp, COURT STAFF) Modified on 07/10/2001 (Entered: 06/21/2001)

06/15/2001 713 IN FORMA PAUPERIS AFFIDAVIT by David Charles Keller for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [4:94−cv−02307] ***DOCUMENT RETURNED PER ORDER #719*** (cp, COURT STAFF) Modified on 07/10/2001 (Entered: 06/21/2001)

06/15/2001

714 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS filed by Davied Keller, Peter Daniel [4:94−cv−02307] ***DOCUMENT RETURNED PER ORDER #719*** (cp, COURT STAFF) Modified on 07/10/2001 Modified on 1/7/2019 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/21/2001)

06/26/2001 2800 RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiffs) confirming undisputed attorneys' fees and costs on the fourth quarterly statement of 2000 [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/26/2001)

06/29/2001

715 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE re petition for writ of mandamus by plaintiffs David Keller and Peter Daniel [714−1] [4:94−cv−02307] ***DOCUMENT RETURNED PER ORDER #719*** (kc, COURT STAFF) Modified on 07/10/2001 Modified on 1/7/2019 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/03/2001)

07/02/2001

716 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken confirming undipusted attorneys' fees and costs on the fourth quarterly statement of 2000 ( Date Entered: 7/3/01) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/7/2019: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/03/2001)

07/05/2001 717 LETTER dated 7/3/01 from deputy clerk to Frank Balcorta re: return of documents submitted [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/10/2001)

07/05/2001 718 LETTER dated 7/3/01 from deputy clerk to Louis Tamale re: return of documents submitted [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/10/2001)

07/05/2001

719 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken that the Clerk shall unfile and return to petitioners Peter Daniel and David Keller's petition for writ of mandamus [714−1], affidavit motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [713−1], affidavit motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [712−1], and request for judicial notice [715−1] ( Date Entered: 7/10/01) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/10/2001)

07/09/2001 2807 RECEIVED stipulated extension of time in which to file individual institutions' revised remedial plans and order thereon submitted by defendants [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/10/2001)

07/09/2001 2806 RECEIVED Proposed Order (Plaintiffs) confirming "Yeskey" fees and costs claimed during 2000 [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/10/2001)

07/09/2001 2805 RECEIVED Proposed Order (Plaintiffs) confirming undisputed attorney's fees and costs on the first quarterly statement of 2001 [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/10/2001)

07/12/2001

720 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken confirming "Yeskey" fees and coss claimed during 2000 ( Date Entered: 7/13/01) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/7/2019: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/13/2001)

07/12/2001

721 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken confirming undisputed attorneys' fees and costs on the first quarterly statement of 2001 ( Date Entered: 7/13/01) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/7/2019: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/13/2001)

07/12/2001 722 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : extending time to file individual institutions' revised remedial plans (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp,

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 105 of 265

COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/7/2019: # 1 Envelope) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/19/2001)

07/17/2001 723 LETTER dated 7/15/01 from Douglas L. Cecrle re: citation, and challenge the policy [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/20/2001)

07/19/2001 724 LETTER dated 7/18/01 from deputy clerk to Luke Oerleman re: return of documents [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/20/2001)

07/30/2001 725 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken that C−01−1281−MMC and C−94−2307−CW are NOT RELATED ( Date Entered: 8/1/01) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/01/2001)

08/16/2001 2808 RECEIVED stipulated extension of time in which to file individual institutions' revised remedial plans and order thereon submitted by defendants [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/16/2001)

08/21/2001

726 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken: extension of time in which to file individual institutions' revised remedial plans; Department of Corrections to file copies of revised OPs with the Court not later than 9/24/01; (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/24/2001)

08/27/2001

727 Notice and MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by David Charles Keller pursuant to Rule 24(a) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [4:94−cv−02307] ***RETURNED −see doc. #731*** (kc, COURT STAFF) Modified on 09/06/2001 (Entered: 08/29/2001)

08/27/2001 728 DECLARATION by Peter Daniel in support of motion pursuant to Rule 24(a) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [727−1] [4:94−cv−02307] ***RETURNED−see doc. #731*** (kc, COURT STAFF) Modified on 09/06/2001 (Entered: 08/29/2001)

08/27/2001

729 DECLARATION by David Charles Keller in support of motion pursuant to Rule 24(a) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [727−1] [4:94−cv−02307] ***RETURNED − see doc. #731*** (kc, COURT STAFF) Modified on 09/06/2001 (Entered: 08/29/2001)

08/27/2001 730 REQUEST by Louis Richard Fresquez to have enclosed documents ***RETURNED−per letter (doc. #732)*** (kc, COURT STAFF) Modified on 09/12/2001 (Entered: 08/29/2001)

09/06/2001 731 LETTER dated 9/6/01 to David Keller re: return of documents (#s 727−729) filed on 8/27/01 [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/06/2001)

09/10/2001 732 LETTER dated 9/10/01 to Louis R. Fresquez re: returned of document (doc. #730) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/12/2001)

09/20/2001 733 NOTICE OF APPEAL by David Charles Keller, Peter Daniel from Dist. Court decision letter [731−1] Fee status not paid [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/25/2001)

09/25/2001

Docket fee notification form and case information sheet to USCA [733−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/25/2001)

09/25/2001

Copy of notice of appeal and docket sheet to all counsel [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/25/2001)

09/25/2001 2813 Mailed request for payment of docket fee to appellant (cc to USCA) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/25/2001)

09/25/2001 2812 CERTIFICATE of Record mailed to USCA, counsel notified. [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/25/2001)

10/02/2001 2811 NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate Docket Number 01−16913 re 733 Notice of Appeal [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF).

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 106 of 265

Modified on 1/8/2019 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/05/2001)

10/05/2001 734 IN FORMA PAUPERIS AFFIDAVIT by Peter Daniel for leave to proceed in forma pauperis ON APPEAL [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/09/2001)

10/09/2001 735 IN FORMA PAUPERIS AFFIDAVIT by Peter Daniel for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/16/2001)

10/10/2001 2809 RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiffs) confirming undipusted BPT attorneys' fees and costs on the second quarterly statement of 2001 [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/15/2001)

10/10/2001 2810 RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiffs) confirming undisputed CDC attorneys' fees and costs on the second quarterly statement of 2001 [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/15/2001)

10/10/2001 740 LETTER dated 10/7/01 from Peter Daniel re: request for transcript designation form [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/22/2001)

10/12/2001

737 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken confirming undisputed CDC attorneys' fees and costs on the second quarterly statement of 2001; $424,371.75 becomes collectable and legal interest begins accruing on such sum as of the date this Order is entered; (Date Entered: 10/17/01) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/8/2019: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/17/2001)

10/15/2001 2814 RECEIVED letter from David Charles Keller regarding request to proceed in forma pauperis [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/16/2001)

10/15/2001 736 IN FORMA PAUPERIS DECLARATION by David Charels Keller in support of request leave to proceed in forma pauperis [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/16/2001)

10/15/2001

738 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken confirming undisputed BPT attorneys' fees and costs on the second quarterly statement of 2001; $43,393.40 becomes collectalbe and legal interest begins accruing on such sum as of the date this Order is entered; (Date Entered: 10/17/01) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/8/2019: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/17/2001)

10/19/2001 739 COPY of USCA Order: granting appellants' motion for an extension of time to file the reply brief until 11/16/01 [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/22/2001)

10/22/2001 741 NOTICE by Peter Daniel re: no transcripts necessary on appeal [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/23/2001)

10/22/2001

742 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken denying Peter Daniel's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal [735−1] ( Date Entered: 10/29/01) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/29/2001)

10/22/2001

Docket Modification (Administrative) to order [742−1] denying Peter Daniel's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis ON APPEAL [734−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/29/2001)

10/24/2001 743 COPY of USCA Order: that within 21 days from the date of this order that appellant Keller pay the $105 fee or file an IFP [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/29/2001)

10/24/2001 744 NOTICE of no transcripts necessary on [733−1] appeal [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/29/2001)

10/29/2001 745 COPY of USCA Order: that appellants David Keller, et al shall move for voluntary dismissal or show cause why it should not be dismissed for lack of jurisidiction within

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 107 of 265

21 days after entry of this order [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/30/2001)

10/30/2001

746 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken DENYING affidavit motion in support of request leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal by David Charles Keller [736−1] (Date Entered: 11/01/01) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/01/2001)

11/05/2001

747 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by Plaintiff for an order requiring defendants to make prison facilities structurally accessible [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/06/2001)

11/05/2001

748 DECLARATION by Sara Norman on behalf of Plaintiff re motion for an order requiring defendants to make prison facilities structurally accessible [747−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/8/2019: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/06/2001)

11/05/2001

749 DECLARATION by Peter M. Robertson on behalf of Plaintiff re motion for an order requiring defendants to make prison facilities structurally accessible [747−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/8/2019: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/06/2001)

11/08/2001

750 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Peter Daniel from Dist. Court decision order [742−1] Fee status NOT PAID [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) Modified on 11/14/2001 (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/8/2019: # 1 Envelope) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/14/2001)

11/08/2001 751 DECLARATION by Peter Daniel on behalf of Peter Daniel re appeal [750−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/8/2019: # 1 Envelope) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/14/2001)

11/14/2001 2818 Docket fee notification form and case information sheet to USCA [750−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/14/2001)

11/14/2001

Copy of notice of appeal and docket sheet to all counsel [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/14/2001)

11/14/2001 2819 Mailed request for payment of docket fee to appellant (cc to USCA) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/14/2001)

11/14/2001 2820 CERTIFICATE of Record mailed to USCA, counsel notified. [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/14/2001)

11/19/2001

752 EX−PARTE APPLICATION before Judge Saundra B. Armstrong by defendant to extend time to file opposition to hear, motion for order requiring defendants to make prison facilities structurally accessible [4:94−cv−02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/20/2001)

11/19/2001 2815 RECEIVED Proposed Order ( defendant) re: motion to extend time to file opposition to hear, motion for order requiring defendants to make prison facilities structurally accessible [752−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/20/2001)

11/21/2001

753 OPPOSITION by Plaintiffs to motion to extend time to file opposition to hear, motion for order requiring defendants to make prison facilities structurally accessible [752−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/26/2001)

11/26/2001 2816 NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate Docket Number 01−17304 [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/30/2001)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 108 of 265

11/26/2001 754 IN FORMA PAUPERIS AFFIDAVIT by Peter Daniel for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/30/2001)

11/26/2001

755 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting motion to extend time to file opposition to hear, motion for order requiring defendants to make prison facilities structurally accessible [752−1] to and including 1/18/02; hearing will be held at 10:00am on 2/8/02 ( Date Entered: 11/30/01) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/30/2001)

12/05/2001 2817 RECEIVED individual institutions' revised remedial plans & proposed order for implementation submitted by defendant [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/11/2001)

12/05/2001

756 Individual Institutions' Revised Remedial Plans VOLUME I− EXHIBITS A−L [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/10/2019: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/10/2019: # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibits J−L) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/11/2001)

12/05/2001

757 Individual Institutions' Revised Remedial Plans VOLUME II− EXHIBITS M−W filed by defendants [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/14/2019: # 1 Exhibit M, # 2 Exhibit N, # 3 Exhibit O, # 4 Exhibit P, # 5 Exhibit Q, # 6 Exhibit R, # 7 Exhibit S, # 8 Exhibit T, # 9 Exhibit U) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/14/2019: # 10 Exhibit V, # 11 Exhibit W) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/11/2001)

12/05/2001

758 Individual Institutions' Revised Remedial Plans VOLUME III− EXHIBITS X−GG filed by defendants [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/14/2019: # 1 Exhibit X, # 2 EXHIBIT Y, # 3 Exhibit Z, # 4 Exhibit AA, # 6 Exhibit BB, # 7 Exhibit CC, # 8 Exhibit DD) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/14/2019: # 9 Exhibit EE) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/14/2019: # 10 Exhibit FF, # 11 Exhibit GG) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/11/2001)

12/07/2001

759 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken denying Peter Daniel's affidavit motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [754−1] on appeal of denial of in forma pauperis application ( Date Entered: 12/12/01) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/12/2001)

12/20/2001 760 MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by Robert Cantwell to intervene [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/02/2002)

12/20/2001 761 MEMORANDUM in support of motion to intervene by Robert Cantwell [760−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/02/2002)

12/20/2001 762 DECLARATION by Robert Cantwell in support of motion to intervene [760−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/02/2002)

12/20/2001 763 IN FORMA PAUPERIS AFFIDAVIT for leave to proceed in forma pauperis by Intervenor Robert Cantwell [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/02/2002)

12/27/2001 764 NOTICE by Plaintiffs of reservations to defendants' Individual Institutions' Remedial Plans [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/23/2019: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/03/2002)

01/16/2002 2824 RECEIVED stipulation and proposed order regarding time for defendant BPT's compliance with the permanent injunction submitted by Plaintiff [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/18/2002)

01/17/2002 765 MEMORANDUM by defendants in opposition to motion for an order requiring defendants to make prison facilities structurally accessible [747−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/18/2002)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 109 of 265

01/17/2002

766 DECLARATION by Ernest C. Van Sant on behalf of defendants in opposition to motion for an order requiring defendants to make prison facilities structurally accessible [747−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/18/2002)

01/17/2002 767 EXHIBIT A to the declaration of Ernest C. Van Sant [766−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/30/2019: # 1 part 1, # 2 part 2, # 3 part 3, # 4 part 4, # 5 part 5) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/18/2002)

01/17/2002 768 EXHIBIT B to the declaration of Ernest C. Van Sant [766−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/25/2019: # 1 Part 2) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/18/2002)

01/17/2002 769 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE by defendants [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/18/2002)

01/18/2002 770 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken regarding time for defendant BPT's compliance with the permanent injunction: (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/22/2002)

01/22/2002

771 CERTIFIED COPY of JUDGMENT from USCA affirming in part, reversing in part, vacating in part, remanding in part the decision of the District Court [Appeal [531−1]; Costs $910.32 awarded to appellees [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/23/2002)

01/23/2002 772 CLERK's letter spreading the mandate to counsel. re appeal [531−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/23/2002)

01/23/2002 773 NOTICE by Plaintiff of entry of [770−1] order [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/28/2002)

01/24/2002 774 CERTIFIED COPY of judgment from USCA dismissing the appeal [750−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/28/2002)

01/25/2002 776 REPLY by Plaintiffs to opposition to motion for an order requiring defendants to make prison facilities structurally accessible [747−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/29/2002)

01/25/2002 777 DECLARATION by Sara Norman on behalf of Plaintiffs in support of motion reply [776−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/22/2019: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/29/2002)

01/25/2002 2822 RECEIVED Proposed Order (Plaintiffs) re: motion for an order requiring defendants to make prison facilities structurally accessible [747−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/29/2002)

01/28/2002 775 CLERK's letter spreading the mandate to counsel. re appeal [750−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/28/2002)

01/29/2002

778 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken setting briefing schedule re: proposed revised injunction and revised class certification order to meet the requirements stated by the Ninth Circuit ( Date Entered: 1/30/02) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/30/2002)

01/29/2002 779 RECORD ON APPEAL RETURNED FROM USCA [531−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/06/2002)

01/29/2002 780 Additional RECORD ON APPEAL RETURNED FROM USCA [531−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/06/2002)

01/31/2002 786 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE and prayer for relief filed by Robert Cantwell [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/12/2002)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 110 of 265

02/01/2002 02/06/2002 02/06/2002
02/06/2002
02/06/2002
02/08/2002 02/11/2002 02/11/2002 02/11/2002 02/11/2002 02/11/2002 02/11/2002 02/12/2002

789 DECLARATION by David Charles Keller in support of request to proceed without prepayment of filing fees [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/14/2002)
781 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken approving defendants' Individual Institutions' Revised Remedial Plan ( Date Entered: 2/11/02) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/11/2002)
782 Individual Institutions' Revised Remedial Plans Volume I − EXHIBITS A−L [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/1/2019: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/1/2019: # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/1/2019: # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/1/2019: # 9 Exhibit I) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/1/2019: # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/11/2002)
783 Individual Institutions' Revised Remedial Plans Volume II− EXHIBITS M−W [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/31/2019: # 1 Exhibit M) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/1/2019: # 2 Exhibit N, # 3 Exhibit O) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/1/2019: # 4 Exhibit P, # 5 Exhibit Q, # 6 Exhibit R, # 7 Exhibit S, # 8 Exhibit T) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/1/2019: # 9 Exhibit U, # 10 Exhibit V) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/1/2019: # 11 Exhibit W) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/11/2002)
784 Individual Institutions' Revised Remedial Plans Volume III− EXHIBITS X−GG [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/31/2019: # 1 Exhibit X) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/31/2019: # 2 Exhibit Y) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/31/2019: # 3 Exhibit Z, # 4 Exhibit AA, # 5 Exhibit BB, # 6 Exhibits CC & DD) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/31/2019: # 7 Exhibit EE, # 8 Exhibit FF, # 9 Exhibit GG) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/11/2002)
785 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting motion for an order requiring defendants to make prison facilities structurally accessible [747−1] ( Date Entered: 2/12/02) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/12/2002)
787 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken re: class certification: (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/12/2002)
788 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken re: revised injunction: (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/12/2002)
790 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by David Charles Keller to intervene pursuant to rule 24(a) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/14/2002)
791 MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by David Keller, Peter Daniel for Writ of Mandamus [4:94−cv−02307] ***DOCUMENT RETURNED PER ORDER # 826 *** (cp, COURT STAFF) Modified on 05/13/2002 Modified on 2/4/2019 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/14/2002)
792 DECLARATION by Peter Daniel re motion to intervene pursuant to rule 24(a) [790−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/4/2019: # 1 Envelope) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/14/2002)
793 DECLARATION by David Charles Keller re motion to intervene pursuant to rule 24(a) [790−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/14/2002)
794 MINUTES: before Judge Claudia Wilken ( C/R Starr Wilson) ( Hearing Date: 2/8/02) granting motion for an order requiring defendants to make prison facilities structurally

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 111 of 265

accessible [747−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/20/2002)

02/26/2002

795 ORDER confirming attorney's fees by Judge Claudia Wilken confirming that $310,194.11 becomes collectable and legal interest begins accruing on such sum as of the date this Order is entered fees (Date Entered: 3/1/02) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/1/2019: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/01/2002)

02/27/2002 796 COPY of judgment from USCA DISMISSING the appeal [733−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/1/2019: # 1 Order) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/01/2002)

03/01/2002 797 CLERK's letter spreading the mandate to counsel re appeal [733−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/01/2002)

03/04/2002

798 Notice and MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by Robert Cantwell for permissive joinder in intervention [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/4/2019: # 1 Envelope) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/07/2002)

03/06/2002

799 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken confirming undisputed BPT attorney's fees and costs on the third quarterly statement of 2001; $85,500.42 becomes collectable and legal interest begins accruing on such sum as of the date this Order is entered; (Date Entered: 3/7/02) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/4/2019: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/07/2002)

03/11/2002 800 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE by Peter Daniel, David Charles Keller [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/15/2002)

04/12/2002 2829 RECEIVED proposed order confirming undisputed BPT attorneys' fees and costs on the 4th quarterly statement of 2001 submitted by Plaintiff [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/15/2002)

04/12/2002 2828 RECEIVED proposed order confirming undisputed CDC attorneys' fees and costs on the 4th quarterly statement of 2001 submitted by Plaintiff [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/15/2002)

04/12/2002 801 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE by Robert Cantwell [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/16/2002)

04/17/2002

802 ORDER confirming undisputed BPT attorneys' fees and costs on the fourth quarterly sttement of 2001 − $136,140.86 by Judge Claudia Wilken ( Date Entered: 4/18/02) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2019: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/18/2002)

04/17/2002

803 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken confirming undisputed CDC attorneys' fees and costs on the fourth quarterly statement of 2001 − $396,251.40 ( Date Entered: 4/18/02) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2019: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/18/2002)

05/01/2002

804 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken that the Clerk shall unfile and return to petitioners the Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed 6/15/01 ( Date Entered: 5/9/02) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/09/2002)

05/09/2002 805 NOTICE of submission pursuant to 2/8/02 court order filed by defendants [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/13/2002)

05/09/2002 806 DECLARATION by A.L. Cota on behalf of defendants addressing CDC's compliance with 2/8/02 court order [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/13/2002)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 112 of 265

05/09/2002 05/09/2002 05/09/2002 05/09/2002 05/09/2002 05/09/2002 05/09/2002 05/09/2002 05/09/2002 05/09/2002 05/09/2002 05/09/2002 05/09/2002
05/09/2002
05/09/2002 05/09/2002

807 DECLARATION by Patti Magee on behalf of defendants addressing CDC's compliance with 2/8/02 court order [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/13/2002)
808 DECLARATION by Mellie E. Briggs on behalf of defendants addressing CDC's comliance with 2/8/02 court order [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/13/2002)
809 DECLARATION by Scott Williams on behalf of defendants addressing CDC's comliance with 2/8/02 court order [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/13/2002)
810 DECLARATION by Robert R. Priolo on behalf of defendants addressing CDC's compliance with 2/8/02 court order [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/13/2002)
811 DECLARATION by James Yates on behalf of defendants addressing CDC's compliance with 2/8/02 court order [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/13/2002)
812 DECLARATION by Kim Blackseth on behalf of defendants addressing CDC's compliance with 2/8/02 court order [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/13/2002)
813 DECLARATION by D.R. Busser on behalf of defendants addressing CDC's compliance with 2/8/02 court order [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/13/2002)
814 DECLARATION by R. Padilla on behalf of defendants addressing CDC's compliance with 2/8/02 court order [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/13/2002)
815 DECLARATION by Han Schindeler on behalf of defendants addressing CDC's compliance with 2/8/02 court order [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/13/2002)
816 DECLARATION by Toni S. Frazer on behalf of defendants addressing CDC's compliance with 2/8/02 court order [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/13/2002)
817 DECLARATION by Vincent S. Cullen on behalf of defendants addressing CDC's compliance with 2/8/02 court order [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/13/2002)
818 DECLARATION by Deborah Sheppard−Brooks on behalf of defendants addressing CDC's compliance with 2/8/02 court order [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/13/2002)
819 DECLARATION by Lea Ann Chrones on behalf of defendants addressing CDC's compliance with 2/8/02 court order [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/20/2019: # 1 Exhibits A−E, # 2 Exhibits F, # 3 Exhibits G−L) (cpS, COURT STAFF). Modified on 2/20/2019 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/13/2002)
820 DECLARATION by David M. White on behalf of defendants addressing CDC's compliance with 2/8/02 court order [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/19/2019: # 1 Exhibit A) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/19/2019: # 2 Exhibits B−E) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/13/2002)
821 DECLARATION by Sidney Cates on behalf of defendants addressing CDC's compliance with 2/8/02 court order [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/15/2019: # 1 Exhibits A−G, # 2 Exhibits H−S) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/13/2002)
822 DECLARATION by J.L. Texeira on behalf of defendants addressing CDC's compliance with 2/8/02 court order [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/14/2019: # 1 Exhibits A−H, # 2 Exhibits I−O) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/13/2002)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 113 of 265

05/09/2002 05/09/2002 05/09/2002 05/10/2002 06/06/2002

823 DECLARATION by Howard G. Taylor on behalf of defendants addressing CDC's compliance with 2/8/02 court order [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/21/2019: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/21/2019: # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/13/2002)
824 DECLARATION by Jose H. Linan on behalf of defendants addressing CDC's compliance with 2/8/02 court order [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/21/2019: # 1 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibits C−D) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/13/2002)
825 DECLARATION by Richard Louis Traversi, Jr. on behalf of defendants addressing CDC's compliance with 2/8/02 court order [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/21/2019: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/21/2019: # 2 Exhibits B−E) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/13/2002)
826 AMENDED ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken that the Clerk shall unfile and return to the petitioners the petition for writ of mandamus filed 2/11/02 [791−1] motion for Writ of Mandamus ( Date Entered: 5/13/02) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/13/2002)
827 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken denying motion for permissive joinder in intervention [798−1], denying motion to intervene pursuant to rule 24(a) [790−1], denying motion to intervene [760−1] ( Date Entered: 6/13/02) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2019: # 1 ORDER) (cpS, COURT STAFF). Modified on 2/5/2019 (cpS, COURT STAFF).

***DISREGARD ATTACHMENT 1 AS DUPLICATE***

(Entered: 06/13/2002)

06/11/2002 2836 RECEIVED stipulation and order re: defendants' compliance with the court's order to make prison facilities structurally accessible submitted by Plaintiffs [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/17/2002)

06/12/2002

828 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken re: defendants' compliance with the court's order to make prison facilities structurally accessible : (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/17/2002)

06/26/2002 829 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Robert Cantwell, Peter Daniel, David Keller from Dist. Court decision order [827−1] Fee status not paid [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/27/2002)

06/27/2002 2833 Docket fee notification form and case information sheet to USCA [829−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/27/2002)

06/27/2002

Copy of notice of appeal and docket sheet to all counsel [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/27/2002)

06/27/2002 2835 Mailed request for payment of docket fee to appellant (cc to USCA) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/27/2002)

06/27/2002 2834 CERTIFICATE of Record mailed to USCA, counsel notified. [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/27/2002)

07/03/2002 2832 RECEIVED Proposed Order (Plaintiffs) confirming undisputed BPT attorney's fees and costs on the first quarterly statement of 2002, seting rates for 2002, and resolving disputed fees from 2001 [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/05/2002)

07/03/2002 2831 RECEIVED Proposed Order (Plaintiffs) confirming undisputed CDC attorneys' fees and costs on the first quarterly statement of 2002, setting rates for 2002, and resolving disputed fees from 2001 [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/05/2002)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 114 of 265

07/05/2002 2830 NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate Docket Number 02−16302 [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/08/2002)

07/05/2002 830 CERTIFICATE of NO transcripts necessary on appeal re: appeal [829−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/12/2002)

07/17/2002

831 Copy of USCA ORDER within 21 days of the entry of order, appellants to pay filing fee, file motions to proceed in forma pauperis, or otherwise show cause why appeal should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute; (Date Entered: 7/22/02) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/22/2002)

07/23/2002

832 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken confirming undisputed CDC attorneys' fee and costs on the first quarterly statement of 2002, setting rates for 2002, and resolving disputed fees from 2001 ( Date Entered: 7/26/02) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2019: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/26/2002)

07/23/2002

833 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken confirming undisputed BPT attorneys' fees and costs on the first quarterly statement of 2002, setting rates for 2002, and resolving disputed fees from 2001 ( Date Entered: 7/26/02) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2019: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/26/2002)

08/22/2002 834 CLERK'S LETTER dated 8/22/02 to Joseph Alldredge re: return of his letter dated 4/16/02 [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/27/2002)

08/22/2002 835 CLERK'S LETTER dated 8/22/02 to Michael Harnett re: return of his letter dated 5/27/02 [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/27/2002)

09/12/2002 836 LETTER to Joseph Alldredge, dated 9/12/02, returning letter dated 8/26/02 [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/13/2002)

09/13/2002

837 Copy of USCA ORDER that appellants shall pay $105.00 to the District Court within 21 days of the date of Order; (Date Entered: 9/13/02) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/13/2002)

10/09/2002 838 CLERK'S LETTER dated 10/8/02 to Jamie Gonzalo re: return of document submitted to the court [4:94−cv−02307] (oh, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/11/2002)

10/15/2002 839 NOTICE of submission by defendants pursuant to February 8, 2002 Court Order [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/18/2002)

10/15/2002

840 DECLARATION by Architect Howard G. Taylor on behalf of defendants addressing CDC's compliance with February 8, 2002 Court Order [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/20/2019: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/18/2002)

10/15/2002

841 DECLARATION by Architect David M. White on behalf of defendants addressing CDC's compliance with February 8, 2002 Court Order [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/20/2019: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/20/2019: # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E) (cpS, COURT STAFF). Modified on 2/20/2019 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/18/2002)

10/15/2002

842 DECLARATION by Architect Richard Louis Traversi, Jr. on behalf of defendants addressing CDC's compliance with February 8, 2002 Court Order [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/20/2019: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E) (cpS, COURT STAFF).

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 115 of 265

10/15/2002 10/28/2002 10/28/2002 12/02/2002 12/04/2002 12/19/2002 01/10/2003 01/10/2003
03/05/2003 03/07/2003 03/17/2003 04/15/2003 04/21/2003
04/21/2003

(Entered: 10/18/2002)
843 DECLARATION by Architect Jose H. Linan on behalf of defendants adressing CDC's compliance with February 8, 2002 Court Order [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/20/2019: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/18/2002)
844 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken confirming undisputed CDC attorneys' fees and costs on the second quarterly statement of 2002 ( Date Entered: 10/29/02) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2019: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/29/2002)
845 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken confirming undisputed BPT attorneys' fees and costs on the second quaterly statement of 2002 ( Date Entered: 10/29/02) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2019: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/29/2002)
846 CERTIFIED COPY of USCA Order: dismissing the appeal [829−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/04/2002)
847 CLERK's letter spreading the mandate to counsel. re appeal [829−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/04/2002)
848 MAIL [847−1], [846−1] addressed to Sharon N. Perley returned from Post Office [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/19/2002)
849 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken confirming undisputed BPT attorneys' fees and costs on the third quarterly statement of 2002 ( Date Entered: 1/10/03) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/13/2003)
850 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken confirming undisputed CDC attorneys' fees and costs on the third quarterly statement of 2002 ( Date Entered: 1/13/03) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/25/2019: # 1 ORDER) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/13/2003)
851 CERTIFIED COPY of judgment from USCA affirming the decision of the District Court [699−1] Costs Taxed: $113.30 [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/07/2003)
852 CLERK's letter spreading the mandate to counsel. re appeal [699−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/07/2003)
853 MAIL [852−1] addressed to Sharon N. Perley returned from Post Office [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/18/2003)
854 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : modifying protective order (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/16/2003)
855 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken confirming undisputed BPT attorney fees and costs on the fourth quarterly statement of 2002; wherefore it is confirmed that $100,380.98 becomes collectable and legal interest begins accuring on the sum as of the date of this order ( Date Entered: 4/22/03) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (oh, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/22/2003)
856 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken confirming undisputed CDC attorney fees and costs on the fourth quarterly statement of 2002; wherefore it is confirmed that $397,081.76 becomes collectable and legal interest begins accuring on such sum as of the date this order is entered ( Date Entered: 4/22/03) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (oh, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/22/2003)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 116 of 265

04/30/2003 05/02/2003 05/16/2003 06/04/2003 06/30/2003 07/11/2003
08/05/2003
08/19/2003 10/02/2003 10/16/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 11/26/2003 12/09/2003 01/30/2004

857 CERTIFIED COPY of judgment from USCA affirming the decision of the District Court [697−1] Costs Taxed: $1,009.10 [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/01/2003)
858 CLERK's letter spreading the mandate to counsel. re appeal [697−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/02/2003)
859 MAIL [858−1] addressed to Sharon Perley, Esq. returned from Post Office [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/19/2003)
860 NOTICE by Plaintiffs of change of address re Caroline N. Mitchell [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/09/2003)
861 NOTICE by Plaintiffs of change of address [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/01/2003)
862 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken confirming undisputed CDC attorneys' fees and costs on the First Quarterly Statement of 2003; $330,882.26 becomes collectable and legal interest begins accruing on such sum as the date this Order is entered; (Date Entered: 7/14/03) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/14/2003)
863 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken confirming undisputed BPT attorneys' fees and costs on First Quarterly Statement of 2003; $89,843.00 becomes collectable and legal interest begins accruing on such sum as of the date this Order is entered; (Date Entered: 8/6/03) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/06/2003)
Docket Modification (Administrative) terminating case [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/19/2003)
864 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : regarding post−trial discovery (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/06/2003)
865 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken confirming undisputed CDC attorneys' fees and costs on the second quarterly statement of 2003 ( Date Entered: 10/20/03) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/20/2003)
866 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken confirming undisputed BPT attorneys' fees and costs on the second quarterly statement of 2003 ( Date Entered: 10/24/03) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/24/2003)
867 REPORT by Plaintiffs regarding Board of Prison Terms and California Dept. of Correction pilot program for parole revocation [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/24/2003)
868 DECLARATION by Ernest Galvan on behalf of Plaintiff re report [867−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/25/2019: # 1 Exhibits A−E, # 2 Exhibits F−K) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/24/2003)
869 LETTER dated 11/26/03 from deputy clerk to Douglas Raymond Nelson re: returned of documents submitted [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/02/2003)
870 Copy of LETTER dated 12/9/03 to Douglas Raymong Nelson returning documents submitted in pro per [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/10/2003)
871 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken confirming undisputed BPT attorneys' fees and costs on the third quarterly statement of 2003 ( Date Entered: 2/4/04) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/04/2004)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 117 of 265

02/05/2004 02/25/2004 03/04/2004 03/04/2004
03/08/2004 03/26/2004 04/07/2004 04/08/2004 05/07/2004 05/12/2004 05/18/2004 05/18/2004 06/08/2004 06/23/2004 07/01/2004 07/13/2004

872 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken confirming undisputed CDC attorneys' fees and costs on the third quarterly statement of 2003 ( Date Entered: 2/10/04) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/10/2004)
873 CLERK'S LETTER to William J. Newman re returned of document (order to show cause and temporary restraining order) submitted to the court [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/27/2004)
874 NOTICE by defendants of redesignation of counsel service [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/10/2004)
Docket Modification (Administrative) to notice [874−1] terminating attorneys Frances T. Grunder for Gray Davis, attorney James M. Humes for Gray Davis, attorney David P. Druliner for James Nielsen, attorney Morris Lenk for James Nielsen, attorney James M. Humes for James Nielsen, attorney David P. Druliner for BPT, attorney Morris Lenk for BPT, attorney James M. Humes for BPT, attorney Danette E. Valdez for Robert Presley, attorney Morris Lenk for Kevin Carruth, attorney Morris Lenk for Kyle McKinsey, attorney George D. Prince for James Gomez, attorney Morris Lenk for James Gomez, attorney Morris Lenk for Joseph C. Sandoval, attorney Morris Lenk for Marisela Montes and substituting attorney Jennifer G. Perkell [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/10/2004)
875 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants of notice [874−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/11/2004)
876 LETTER to Maario Zapata, dated 3/24/04, from Deputy Clerk regarding return of documents submitted in reference to Armstrong v Davis [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/30/2004)
877 LETTER to Mario Zapata dated 4/7/04 from Deputy Clerk re: returned of document (supplement to request for judicial notice) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/08/2004)
878 LETTER to J. Aldredge, dated 4/8/04, from Deputy Clerk returning documents submitted in reference to this case [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/12/2004)
879 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken confirming undisputed CDC attorneys' fees and costs on the fourth quarterly statement of 2003 ( Date Entered: 5/10/04) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/10/2004)
880 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken confirming undisputed BPT attorneys' fees and costs on the fourth quarterly statement of 2003 ( Date Entered: 5/14/04) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/14/2004)
881 MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by Jon Remalia to intervene as a plaintiff [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/20/2004)
882 PROOF OF SERVICE of motion to intervene as a plaintiff [881−1] [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/20/2004)
883 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken denying Jon Remalia's motion to intervene as a plaintiff [881−1] ( Date Entered: 6/10/04) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/10/2004)
884 NOTICE to counsel for withdrawal of exhibits in accordance with LR 79−4(b) [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/24/2004)
885 RECEIPT of returned trial exhibits by plaintiffs [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) Modified on 07/02/2004 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/02/2004)
886 MAIL [884−1] addressed to Sharon N. Perley, Esq. returned from Post Office [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/13/2004)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 118 of 265

07/20/2004 07/30/2004 07/30/2004 08/03/2004 10/13/2004 10/19/2004 02/10/2005 02/10/2005 04/18/2005
04/27/2005
08/10/2005 08/10/2005 10/03/2005

889 CLERK'S LETTER dated 7/26/04 to Kirk M. Davis re: returned of documents [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/04/2004)
887 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken concerning undisputed attorneys' fees and costs on the First Quarterly Statement of 2004; (Date Entered: 8/3/04) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/03/2004)
888 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken confirming undisputed attorneys' fees and costs on the First Quarterly Statement of 2004; (Date Entered: 8/3/04) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/03/2004)
890 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken re unpaid appllate fees and expenses; Defendants to pay to Plaintiffs counsel the principal amount of $248,650 in reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/04/2004)
891 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken confirming undisputed CDC attorneys' fees and costs on the second quarterly statement of 2004 ( Date Entered: 10/19/04) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/19/2004)
892 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken confirming undipusted BPT attorneys' fees and costs on the second quarterly statement of 2004 ( Date Entered: 10/25/04) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/25/2004)
893 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken confirming undisputed CDC attorneys' fees and costs on the 3rd quarterly statement of 2004 ( Date Entered: 2/11/05) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/11/2005)
894 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken confirming undisputed BPT attorneys' fees and costs of the 3rd quarterly statement of 2004 ( Date Entered: 2/11/05) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/11/2005)
895 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken confirming undisputed BPT attorneys' fees and costs on the fourth quarter statement of 2004 and resolving disputed attorneys' fees and costs on the third quarterly statement of 2004 ( Date Entered: 4/20/05) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/11/2019: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/20/2005)
896 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken confirming undisputed CDC attorneys' fees and costs on the fourth quarterly statement of 2004 and resolving disputed attorneys' fees and costs on the third quarterly statement of 2004 ( Date Entered: 4/29/05) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/11/2019: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/29/2005)
897 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken confirming undisputed BPT attorneys' fees and costs on the first quarterly statement of 2005 (Date Entered: 8/11/05) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/11/2005)
898 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken confirming undisputed CDC attorneys' fees and costs on the first quarterly statement of 2005 (Date Entered: 8/11/05) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/11/2005)
899 Clerk's Letter dated 10/3/05 to Louis R. Fresquez re: returned of submitted document [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/04/2005)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 119 of 265

10/06/2005 10/06/2005
01/11/2006 01/18/2006

900 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken confirming undisputed BOARD OF PAROLE attorneys' fees and costs on the second quarterly statement of 2005 ( Date Entered: 10/7/05) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/07/2005)
901 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken confirming undisputed CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION and REHABILITATION, ADULT OPERATINGS AND ADULT PROGRAMS attorneys' fees and costs on the second quarterly statement of 2005 ( Date Entered: 10/7/05) (cc: all counsel) [4:94−cv−02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/07/2005)
902 ORDER confirming undisputed board of parole hearing attorneys' fees and costs on the third quarterly statement of 2005. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/11/06. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/11/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/20/2006)
903 ***DISREGARD MAIN DOCUMENT. INCORRECT ATTACHMENT. SEE ATTACHMENT 1***

02/03/2006 02/06/2006 04/21/2006 04/21/2006
04/25/2006 05/02/2006 05/02/2006 05/04/2006 05/05/2006

ORDER confirming undisputed California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation, Adult Operations and Adult Programs attorneys' fees and costs on the Third Quarterly Statement of 2005. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/18/06. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/18/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/8/2019: # 1 ORDER) (cpS, COURT STAFF). Modified on 3/8/2019 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/24/2006)
904 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Benjamin Terrence Rice (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Service by mail)(Rice, Benjamin) (Filed on 2/3/2006) (Entered: 02/03/2006)
905 CLERK'S NOTICE to counsel Benjamin Rice re: Documents E−Filed in a case not designated for ECF (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/6/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/06/2006)
906 MOTION for order to enforce paragraphs 15−17 of the permanent injunction filed by John Armstrong. Motion Hearing set for 5/26/2006 10:00 AM. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/21/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/24/2006)
928 Declaration of Holly Baldwin in Support of 906 MOTION for order to enforce paragraphs 15−17 of the permanent injunction filed byJohn Armstrong, et al. (Related document(s) 906 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/21/2006)***FILED UNDER SEAL***
(cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/22/2006)
907 MOTION to Seal declaration of Holly Baldwin filed by John Armstrong, et al. Motion Hearing set for 5/26/2006 10:00 AM. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/25/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/25/2006)
908 MOTION for Extension of Time to File an opposition to motion to enforce the permanent injunction filed by defendants. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/2/2006) Modified on 5/3/2006 (cp, COURT STAFF). (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/03/2006)
909 Declaration of Benjamin T. Rice in Support of 908 MOTION for Extension of Time to File filed bydefendants (Related document(s) 908 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/2/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/03/2006)
910 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 908 MOTION for Extension of Time to File an opposition to motion to enforce the permanent injunction filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 908 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/4/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/05/2006)
911 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 908 Motion for Extension of Time to File an opposition to plaintiff's motion to enforce the permanent injunction, up to and including 5/12/06 (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/5/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/05/2006)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 120 of 265

05/11/2006 05/11/2006 05/12/2006
05/12/2006
05/12/2006 05/12/2006 05/12/2006 05/12/2006 05/15/2006 05/17/2006 05/18/2006 05/18/2006 05/18/2006 05/18/2006

912 Letter from deputy clerk re: returned of application for an emergency injunction for violation of ADA Americans with disabilities submitted by Gordon D. Meador. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/11/2006) Modified on 5/17/2006 (kk, COURT STAFF). (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/15/2006)
913 ORDER confirming undisputed CA Dept. of Correction and Rehabilitation, Adult Operatings, and Adult Programs attorneys' fees and costs on the fourth quarterly statement of 2005. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 5/11/06. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/11/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/15/2006)
914 Memorandum in Opposition to plaintiff's motion to enforce permanent injunction filed byJoseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/12/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/15/2006)
915 DECLARATION of Pat Cassady in opposition to plaintiffs' motion to enforce permanent injunction filed byJoseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/12/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/15/2006)
916 DECLARATION of Robert Ambroselli in opposition filed byJoseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/12/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/15/2006)
917 Declaration of Benjamin T. Rice filed byJoseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/12/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/15/2006)
918 Declaration of Mary L. Swanson filed byJoseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/12/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/15/2006)
919 Declaration of Alberto Caton filed byJoseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/12/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/15/2006)
920 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Sharon N. Perley. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/15/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/15/2006)
921 ORDER confirming undisputed Board of Parole Hearings Attorneys' fees and costs on the fourth quarterly statement of 2005. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 5/17/06. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/17/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/17/2006)
922 MOTION to Seal declarations of Holly Baldwin, and Anne Mania filed by John Armstrong, et al. Motion Hearing set for 5/26/2006 10:00 AM. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/18/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/18/2006)
923 AMENDED MOTION to Seal declarations of Holly Baldwin, and Anne Mania in support of motion for order to enforce paragraphs 15−17 of the permanent injunction filed by John Armstrong. Motion Hearing set for 5/26/2006 10:00 AM. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/18/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/18/2006)
924 Reply Memorandum in support re 906 MOTION for order to enforce paragraphs 15−17 of the permanent injunction filed byJohn Armstrong. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/18/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/18/2006)
925 Reply Declaration of Mary Swanson re 906 MOTION for order to enforce paragraphs 15−17 of the permanent injunction filed byJohn Armstrong, et al. (Related document(s) 906 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/18/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/18/2006)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 121 of 265

05/18/2006
05/18/2006 05/18/2006 05/18/2006

926 Reply Declaration of Michael W. Bien in Support of 906 MOTION for order to enforce paragraphs 15−17 of the permanent injunction filed byJohn Armstrong, et al. (Related document(s) 906 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/18/2006) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/13/2019: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B (part1 ), # 3 Exhibit B (part 2), # 4 Exhibit B (part 3), # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D, # 7 Exhibit E, # 8 Exhibit F, # 9 Exhibit G) (cpS, COURT STAFF). Modified on 3/13/2019 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/18/2006)
927 STIPULATION AND ORDER to file underseal the declaration of Holly Baldwin in support of motion for order to enforce paragraphs 15−17 of the permanent injunction by Judge Claudia Wilken; ****terminated 907 Motion to Seal (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/18/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/22/2006)
929 STIPULATION AND ORDER to file underseal the reply declarations of Holly Baldwin and Anne Mania in support of motion for order to enforce paragraphs 15−17 of the permanent injunction by Judge Claudia Wilken. ***terminated 923 Motion to Seal Document (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/18/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/22/2006)
930 Reply Declaration of Anne Mania in Support of 906 MOTION for order to enforce paragraphs 15−17 of the permanent injunction filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 906 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/18/2006)***FILED UNDER SEAL***

05/18/2006
05/26/2006 05/30/2006 06/30/2006 07/31/2006
08/25/2006 09/11/2006 10/03/2006 10/11/2006

(cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/22/2006)
931 Reply Declaration of Holly Baldwin in Support of 906 MOTION for order to enforce paragraphs 15−17 of the permanent injunction filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 906 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/18/2006)***FILED UNDER SEAL***
(cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/22/2006)
932 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 5/26/2006 before Claudia Wilken (Date Filed: 5/26/2006) re 906 MOTION for order to enforce paragraphs 15−17 of the permanent injunction filed by John Armstrong,. (Court Reporter Diane Skillman.) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 5/26/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/31/2006)
933 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 906 Motion to enforce revised permanent injunction (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/30/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/31/2006)
934 ORDER confirming undisputed Board of Parole Hearings attorneys' fees and costs on the first quarterly statement of 2006. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 6/30/06. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/30/2006) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/11/2019: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/03/2006)
935 ORDER confirming undisputed CA Dept. of Corrrections and Rehabilitation, Adult Operations and Adult Programs attorneys' fees and costs on the first quarterly statement of 2006. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 7/31/06. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/31/2006) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/11/2019: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/01/2006)
936 Joint certification of meet and confer results pursuant to 5/30/06 order granting motion to enforce permanent injunction by John Armstrong, et al (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/25/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/25/2006)
937 STIPULATION AND ORDER amending Armstrong Remedial Plan. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 9/11/06. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/11/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/12/2006)
938 ORDER confirming undisputed CDCR/AOAP attorneys' fess and costs on the second quarterly statement of 2006. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 9/29/06. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/3/2006) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/11/2019: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/04/2006)
939 ORDER confirming undisputed Board of Parole Hearings attorneys' fees and costs on the second quarterly statement of 2006. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/11/06.

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 122 of 265

(cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/11/2006) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/11/2019: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/12/2006)

10/17/2006

940 ORDER confirming undisputed Division of Adult Parole Operations attorneys' fee and costs on the second quarterly statement of 2006. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/17/06. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/17/2006) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/11/2019: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/19/2006)

11/02/2006

941 Notice of Motion and MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction to enjoin Defendants' illegal transfers filed by Peter Richardson, Steven Hill, John Armstrong, David Rose, David Blessing, Elio Castro, Elmer Umbenhower, Raymond Hayes, Gene Horrocks, James Amauric, Kiah Mincey, Clifton Feathers, Willie Johnson, David Badillo, James Simmons, Richard Ponciano, Flora Abrams, Joey Gough, Timothy Whisman, Jack Swensen, Billy Beck, Judy Fendt, Walter Fratus, Gregory Sandoval, Darlene Madison. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/2/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/02/2006)

11/02/2006

942 Declaration of Donald Specter in Support of 941 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and preliminary injunction to enjoin Defendants' illegal transfers filed byPeter Richardson, Steven Hill, John Armstrong, David Rose, David Blessing, Elio Castro, Elmer Umbenhower, Raymond Hayes, Gene Horrocks, James Amauric, Kiah Mincey, Clifton Feathers, Willie Johnson, David Badillo, James Simmons, Richard Ponciano, Flora Abrams, Joey Gough, Timothy Whisman, Jack Swensen, Billy Beck, Judy Fendt, Walter Fratus, Gregory Sandoval, Darlene Madison. (Related document(s) 941 ) (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/2/2006) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/11/2019: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/02/2006)

11/02/2006 2840 Received Proposed Order re 941 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/2/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/02/2006)

11/02/2006

943 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken DENYING 941 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and DENYING without prejudice to re−filing as a noticed motion the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/2/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/02/2006)

11/07/2006

944 Notice of Motion and MOTION for permissive intervention and for modification of protective order; memorandum of points and authorities filed by Plaintiffs−Intervenors. Motion Hearing set for 12/15/2006 at 10:00 AM. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/7/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/08/2006)

11/07/2006

945 Declaration of Michael W. Bien in Support of 944 MOTION for permissive intervention and for modification of protective order filed by Plaintiffs−Intervenors. (Related document(s) 944 ) (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/7/2006) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/1/2019: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/08/2006)

11/09/2006 946 NOTICE of Change of Law Firm Name and Address by John Armstrong (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/9/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/09/2006)

11/15/2006

947 NOTICE of assignment of counsel by Joseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/16/2006)

11/15/2006

948 MOTION to Seal declarations of Sara Norman, Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld, Thomas Nolan, Amy Whelan, Anne Mania, and Megan Hagler filed by John Armstrong, et al. Motion Hearing set for 12/22/2006 10:00 AM. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/16/2006)

11/15/2006

949 MOTION to convene a three judge panel to limit prison population filed by John Armstrong, et al. Motion Hearing set for 12/22/2006 10:00 AM. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2006) Modified on 11/16/2006 (cp, COURT STAFF). (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/16/2006)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 123 of 265

11/15/2006 11/15/2006 11/15/2006 11/15/2006 11/15/2006 11/15/2006 11/15/2006 11/15/2006 11/15/2006 11/15/2006 11/15/2006 11/15/2006

950 MOTION for enforcement and further remedial orders filed by John Armstrong, et al. Motion Hearing set for 12/22/2006 10:00 AM. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/16/2006)
951 Declaration of Elsie Barnes in Support of 950 MOTION for enforcement and further remedial orders, 949 MOTION to convene a three judge panel to limit prison population filed byJohn Armstrong, et al. (Related document(s) 950 , 949 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2006) Modified on 11/16/2006 (cp, COURT STAFF). (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/16/2006)
952 Declaration of Darryl Slack in Support of 950 MOTION for enforcement and further remedial orders, 949 MOTION to convene a three judge panel to limit prison population filed byJohn Armstrong, et al. (Related document(s) 950 , 949 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2006) Modified on 11/16/2006 (cp, COURT STAFF). (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/16/2006)
953 Declaration of William Ewing in Support of 950 MOTION for enforcement and further remedial orders, 949 MOTION to convene a three judge panel to limit prison population filed byJohn Armstrong, et al. (Related document(s) 950 , 949 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2006) Modified on 11/16/2006 (cp, COURT STAFF). (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/16/2006)
954 Declaration of Paul Bonaiuto in Support of 950 MOTION for enforcement and further remedial orders, 949 MOTION to convene a three judge panel to limit prison population filed byJohn Armstrong, et al. (Related document(s) 950 , 949 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2006) Modified on 11/16/2006 (cp, COURT STAFF). (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/16/2006)
955 Declaration of Jamie Cerna in Support of 950 MOTION for enforcement and further remedial orders, 949 MOTION to convene a three judge panel to limit prison population filed byJohn Armstrong, et al. (Related document(s) 950 , 949 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2006) Modified on 11/16/2006 (cp, COURT STAFF). (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/16/2006)
956 Declaration of Anthony Craig in Support of 950 MOTION for enforcement and further remedial orders, 949 MOTION to convene a three judge panel to limit prison population filed byJohn Armstrong, et al. (Related document(s) 950 , 949 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/16/2006)
957 Declaration of Gary Hines in Support of 950 MOTION for enforcement and further remedial orders, 949 MOTION to convene a three judge panel to limit prison population filed byJohn Armstrong, et al. (Related document(s) 950 , 949 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/16/2006)
958 Declaration of Peter Cole in Support of 950 MOTION for enforcement and further remedial orders, 949 MOTION to convene a three judge panel to limit prison population filed byJohn Armstrong, et al. (Related document(s) 950 , 949 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/16/2006)
959 Declaration of Carlos Marsh in Support of 950 MOTION for enforcement and further remedial orders, 949 MOTION to convene a three judge panel to limit prison population filed byJohn Armstrong, et al. (Related document(s) 950 , 949 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/16/2006)
960 Declaration of Mark Arrington in Support of 950 MOTION for enforcement and further remedial orders, 949 MOTION to convene a three judge panel to limit prison population filed byJohn Armstrong, et al. (Related document(s) 950 , 949 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/16/2006)
961 Declaration of Javier Balbuena in Support of 950 MOTION for enforcement and further remedial orders, 949 MOTION to convene a three judge panel to limit prison population filed byJohn Armstrong, et al. (Related document(s) 950 , 949 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered:

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 124 of 265

11/15/2006 11/15/2006
11/17/2006 11/17/2006 11/17/2006 11/20/2006
11/21/2006 11/21/2006 11/21/2006 11/22/2006 11/22/2006

11/16/2006)
962 Declaration of Kory Roby in Support of 950 MOTION for enforcement and further remedial orders, 949 MOTION to convene a three judge panel to limit prison population filed byJohn Armstrong, et al. (Related document(s) 950 , 949 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/16/2006)
963 Declaration of Michael W. Bien in Support of 950 MOTION for enforcement and further remedial orders, 949 MOTION to convene a three judge panel to limit prison population filed byJohn Armstrong, et al. (Related document(s) 950 , 949 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2006) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/13/2019: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, # 19 Exhibit S, # 20 Exhibit T, # 21 Exhibit U, # 22 Exhibit V, # 23 Exhibit W, # 24 Exhibit X) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/16/2006)
964 MOTION for an order to enjoin transfers filed by John Armstrong, et al. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/17/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/20/2006)
965 Declaration of Donald Specter in Support of 964 MOTION for an order to enjoin transfers filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 964 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/17/2006) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/1/2019: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/20/2006)
966 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Sharon N. Perley. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/17/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/20/2006)
967 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by John Armstrong re 962 Declaration in Support,, 954 Declaration in Support,, 950 MOTION for enforcement and further remedial orders, 949 MOTION to convene a three judge panel to limit prison population, 955 Declaration in Support,, 951 Declaration in Support,, 956 Declaration in Support,, 948 MOTION to Seal, 952 Declaration in Support,, 957 Declaration in Support,, 958 Declaration in Support,, 960 Declaration in Support,, 953 Declaration in Support,, 961 Declaration in Support,, 959 Declaration in Support,, 963 Declaration in Support, etc. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/20/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/21/2006)
968 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by John Armstrong re 944 MOTION for permissive intervention and for modification of protective order, 945 Declaration in Support (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/21/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/21/2006)
971 MOTION for Extension of Time to File an opposition to motion for permissive intervention and for modification of protective order, and motion for rescheduling of hearing date filed by Gray Davis. Motion Hearing set for 12/15/2006 10:00 AM. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/21/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/22/2006)
972 Declaration of Katherine K. Nelson in Support of 971 MOTION for Extension of Time to File an opposition to motion for permissive intervention and for modification of protective order, and motion for rescheduling of hearing date filed byGray Davis, et al. (Related document(s) 971 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/21/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/22/2006)
969 MOTION to reschedule the hearing date and date to respond to plaintiffs' motions to convene a three−judge panel and for enforcement filed by Gray Davis, et al. Motion Hearing set for 12/22/2006 10:00 AM. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/22/2006) Modified on 11/22/2006 (cp, COURT STAFF). Modified on 11/22/2006 (cp, COURT STAFF). (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/22/2006)
970 Declaration of Katherine K. Nelson in Support of 969 MOTION to reschedule the hearing date and date to respond to plaintiffs' motions to convene a three−judge panel and for enforcement filed byGray Davis, et al. (Related document(s) 969 ) (cp,

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 125 of 265

11/22/2006 11/22/2006 11/22/2006 11/22/2006 11/22/2006
11/22/2006 11/27/2006 11/27/2006 11/27/2006
11/27/2006 11/27/2006 11/27/2006 11/28/2006 11/28/2006 11/28/2006

COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/22/2006) Modified on 11/22/2006 (cp, COURT STAFF). (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/22/2006)
973 Memorandum in Opposition to defendants' request for extension of time and motion for rescheduling of hearing date filed byRobert Hecker, Ralph Coleman. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/22/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/27/2006)
974 DECLARATION of Michael W. Bien in opposition to defendants' motion for rescheduling of hearing date filed byRobert Hecker, Ralph Coleman. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/22/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/27/2006)
975 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Robert Hecker, Ralph Coleman re 973 Memorandum in Opposition, 974 Declaration in Opposition by messenger service (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/22/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/27/2006)
976 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Robert Hecker, Ralph Coleman re 973 Memorandum in Opposition, 974 Declaration in Opposition by US mail (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/22/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/27/2006)
977 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting in part 971 Motion for Extension of Time to File opposition, and reset hearing date and briefing schedule; opposition due 12/1/06; reply is due 12/8/06; hearing on plaintiffs' motion for permissive intervention and modification of the protective is set for 12/22/06 (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/22/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/27/2006)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 944 MOTION for permissive intervention and for modification of protective order. Motion Hearing set for 12/22/2006 10:00 AM. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/22/2006) (Entered: 11/27/2006)
978 Letter from John Wodatch re removal of Sharon Perley and Mary Beth Uitti from the docket sheet and service list. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/27/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/27/2006)
981 MOTION for extension of time to implement disability tracking system and plan ordered on 5/30/06 filed by Arnold Schwarzenegger, et al. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/27/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/28/2006)
982 Declaration of Katherine K. Nelson in Support of 981 MOTION for extension of time to implement disability tracking system and plan ordered on 5/30/06 filed byArnold Schwarzenegger. (Related document(s) 981 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/27/2006) Modified on 11/29/2006 (cp, COURT STAFF). (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/28/2006)
983 Declaration of Michael K. Brady in Support of 981 MOTION for extension of time to implement disability tracking system and plan ordered on 5/30/06 filed byArnold Schwarzenegger, et al. (Related document(s) 981 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/27/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/28/2006)
984 CERTIFICATION of funding pursuant to 5/30/06 order by Arnold Schwarzenegger, et al (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/27/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/28/2006)
987 Letter from Gregg McLean Adam dated 11/22/06 re: request for permission to file Amicus Curiae. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/27/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/01/2006)
979 RESPONSE to defendants' request to reschedule hearing and briefing dates by John Armstrong, et al. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/28/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/28/2006)
980 Declaration of Sara Norman in Support of 979 Response filed byJohn Armstrong, et al. (Related document(s) 979 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/28/2006) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/1/2019: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/28/2006)
985 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Arnold Schwarzenegger re 970 Declaration in Support,, 969 MOTION to reschedule the hearing date and date to respond to plaintiffs' motions to convene a three−judge panel and for enforcement

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 126 of 265

(supplemental) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/28/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/29/2006)

11/30/2006

986 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting in part and denying in part 969 MOTION to reschedule the hearing date, and date to respond to plaintiffs' motions to convene a three−judge panel and for enforcement (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/30/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/30/2006)

11/30/2006 2846 Received Document: Stipulation and Proposed Order by Arnold Schwarzenegger, et al. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/30/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/30/2006)

11/30/2006

988 ORDER granting re 987 Letter from CA Correctional Peace Officers' Association (CCPOA) requesting leave to file an amicus curiae brief; brief to be filed and served by 5:00pm on 11/30/06. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 11/30/06. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/30/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/01/2006)

11/30/2006

989 Memorandum in Opposition re 981 MOTION for extension of time to implement disability tracking system and plan ordered on 5/30/06 filed byJohn Armstrong, et al. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/30/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/01/2006)

11/30/2006

990 Declaration of Ernest Galvan in opposition re 981 MOTION for extension of time to implement disability tracking system and plan ordered on 5/30/06 filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 989 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/30/2006) Modified on 12/1/2006 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/1/2019: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/01/2006)

11/30/2006

991 DECLARATION of Anne Mania in Opposition to 981 MOTION for extension of time to implement disability tracking system and plan ordered on 5/30/06 filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 981 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/30/2006) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/1/2019: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/01/2006)

11/30/2006

992 DECLARATION of Holly Baldwin in Opposition to 981 MOTION for extension of time to implement disability tracking system and plan ordered on 5/30/06 filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 981 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/30/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/01/2006)

11/30/2006 2845 RECEIVED DOCUMENT: Proposed Order Denying re 981 MOTION for extension of time to implement disability tracking system and plan ordered on 5/30/06 by John Armstrong. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/30/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/01/2006)

11/30/2006

993 STIPULATION AND ORDER that the hearing for 12/22/06 is taken off calendar; plaintiffs' 964 MOTION to enjoin transfers is DENIED AS MOOT, and hearing on that motion only is vacated. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 11/30/06. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/30/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/01/2006)

12/01/2006

994 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by John Armstrong re 990 Declaration in Support,, 992 Declaration in Opposition, 991 Declaration in Opposition, 989 Memorandum in Opposition (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/1/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/01/2006)

12/01/2006

995 Amicus Curiae Brief entered by Christine Albertine, Benjamin C. Sybesma, Jennifer Spencer Stoughton, Ronald Yank, Esq, Gregg McLean Adam, Esq on behalf of California Correctional Peace Officers' Association. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/1/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/01/2006)

12/01/2006 996 Memorandum in Opposition re 944 MOTION for permissive intervention and for modification of protective order filed byArnold Schwarzenegger. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/1/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/04/2006)

12/01/2006 997 Declaration of Katherine Nelson in Support of 996 Memorandum in Opposition filed byArnold Schwarzenegger. (Related document(s) 996 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/1/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/04/2006)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 127 of 265

12/01/2006

998 Request for Judicial Notice filed byArnold Schwarzenegger. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/1/2006) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/1/2019: # 1 Exihibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/04/2006)

12/01/2006 1000 STIPULATION AND ORDER to extend time to file amicus curiae brief. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 12/1/06. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/1/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/05/2006)

12/04/2006 999 Memorandum in Opposition re 949 MOTION to convene a three judge panel to limit prison population filed byArnold Schwarzenegger. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/4/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/05/2006)

12/05/2006 1001 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by California Correctional Peace Officers' Association re 988 Order, (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/5/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/05/2006)

12/08/2006

1002

MOTION to Appoint Counsel Notice of Assignment of Counsel and Request to Argue at Hearing on Hecker Plaintiffs' Motion for Permissive Intervention and Modification of Protective Order filed by Joseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger. Motion Hearing set for 12/22/2006 10:00 AM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (Mello, Paul) (Filed on 12/8/2006) (Entered: 12/08/2006)

12/08/2006 1003 Reply Memorandum in support of 944 MOTION for permissive intervention and for modification of protective order filed byRobert Hecker, Ralph Coleman. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/8/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/11/2006)

12/08/2006

1004

Reply Declaration of Michael W. Bien in Support of 944 MOTION for permissive intervention and for modification of protective order filed byRobert Hecker, Ralph Coleman. (Related document(s) 944 ) (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/8/2006) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/1/2019: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/11/2006)

12/08/2006

1005

Reply to Opposition re 949 MOTION to convene a three judge panel to limit prison population filed byPeter Richardson, Steven Hill, John Armstrong, David Rose, David Blessing, Elio Castro, Elmer Umbenhower, Raymond Hayes, Gene Horrocks, James Amauric, Kiah Mincey, Clifton Feathers, Willie Johnson, David Badillo, James Simmons, Richard Ponciano, Flora Abrams, Joey Gough, Timothy Whisman, Jack Swensen, Billy Beck, Judy Fendt, Walter Fratus, Gregory Sandoval, Darlene Madison. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/8/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/11/2006)

12/11/2006 1006 AMENDED Stipulation and Order re 993 STIPULATION AND ORDER. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 12/11/06. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/11/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/12/2006)

12/12/2006

1007

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Joseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger re 977 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File, (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/12/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/12/2006)

12/12/2006

1008

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Joseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger re 993 Stipulation and Order, (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/12/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/12/2006)

12/13/2006 1009 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by California Correctional Peace Officers' Association re 1000 Stipulation and Order (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/13/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/13/2006)

12/13/2006 1010 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting in part and denying in part 948 Motion to Seal attorneys' declarations (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/13/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/13/2006)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 128 of 265

12/14/2006 1011 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken DENYING 981 Motion for Extension of Time to implement disability tracking system and plan ordered on 5/30/06. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/14/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/14/2006)

12/18/2006 1012 STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISION filed byArnold Schwarzenegger, et al. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/18/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/19/2006)

12/19/2006 1013 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 944 Motion for permissive intervention and for modification of protective order (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/19/2006)

12/19/2006 1014 ORDER continuing hearing 949 MOTION to convene a three judge panel to limit prison population filed by John Armstrong to 1/12/07 at 10:00am; vacating 12/22/06 hearing. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 12/19/06. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/19/2006)

12/19/2006

Set/Reset Deadlines as to 950 MOTION for enforcement and further remedial orders, 949 MOTION to convene a three judge panel to limit prison population. Motion Hearing set for 1/12/2007 10:00 AM. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2006) (Entered: 12/19/2006)

12/19/2006 1015

***ENTERED IN ERROR, SEE DOCUMENT #1016***

Redacted Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld in Support of 950 MOTION for enforcement and further remedial orders, 949 MOTION to convene a three judge panel to limit prison population filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 950 , 949 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2006) Modified on 12/20/2006 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/20/2006)

12/19/2006

1016

Redacted Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld with exhibit A in Support of 950 MOTION for enforcement and further remedial orders, 949 MOTION to convene a three judge panel to limit prison population filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 950 , 949 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2006) Modified on 12/20/2006 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/1/2019: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/20/2006)

12/19/2006

1017

Redacted Declaration of Megan Hagler in Support of 950 MOTION for enforcement and further remedial orders, 949 MOTION to convene a three judge panel to limit prison population filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 950 , 949 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/20/2006)

12/19/2006

1018

Redacted Declaration of Anne Mania with exhibits D & R in Support of 950 MOTION for enforcement and further remedial orders, 949 MOTION to convene a three judge panel to limit prison population filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 950 , 949 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2006) Modified on 12/20/2006 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/1/2019: # 1 Exhibit D, # 2 Exhibit R) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/20/2006)

12/19/2006

1019

Redacted Declaration of Thomas Nolan in Support of 950 MOTION for enforcement and further remedial orders, 949 MOTION to convene a three judge panel to limit prison population filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 950 , 949 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/20/2006)

12/19/2006

1020

Redacted Declaration of Amy Whelan with exhibits C,K,P & T in Support of 950 MOTION for enforcement and further remedial orders, 949 MOTION to convene a three judge panel to limit prison population filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 950 , 949 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2006) Modified on 12/20/2006 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/1/2019: # 1 Exhibit C, # 2 Exhibit K, # 3 Exhibit P, # 4 Exhibit T) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/20/2006)

12/19/2006 1021 Redacted Declaration of Sara Norman with exhibits A−E & V in Support of 950 MOTION for enforcement and further remedial orders, 949 MOTION to convene a

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 129 of 265
three judge panel to limit prison population filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 950 , 949 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2006) Modified on 12/20/2006 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/2/2019: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibits B−E, V) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/20/2006) 12/19/2006 1022 EXHIBITS B−Z re 1016 Redacted Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1016 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2006)
***FILED UNDER SEAL***
(cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/20/2006) 12/19/2006 1023 EXHIBITS A−Z re 1017 Redacted Declaration of Megan Hagler, filed byJohn
Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1017 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2006)
***FILED UNDER SEAL***
(cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/20/2006) 12/19/2006 1024 EXHIBITS AA−ZZ re 1017 Redacted Declaration of Megan Hagler, filed byJohn
Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1017 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2006)
***FILED UNDER SEAL***
(Additional attachment(s) added on 8/13/2019: # 1 Exhibits AA−FF, # 2 Exhibits GG−OO, # 3 Exhibits PP−ZZ) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/20/2006) 12/19/2006 1025 EXHIBITS AAA−YYY re 1017 Redacted Declaration of Megan Hagler, filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1017 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2006)
***FILED UNDER SEAL***
(Additional attachment(s) added on 8/13/2019: # 1 Exhibits NNN−YYY) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/20/2006) 12/19/2006 1026 EXHIBITS A,B,D−J,L−O,Q−S re 1020 Redacted Declaration of Amy Whelan, filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1020 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2006)
***FILED UNDER SEAL***
(cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/20/2006) 12/19/2006 1027 EXHIBITS A−C, E−Q, S re 1018 Redacted Declaration of Anne Mania, filed byJohn
Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1018 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2006)
***FILED UNDER SEAL***
(cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/20/2006) 12/19/2006 1028 EXHIBITS A−S re 1019 Redacted Declaration of Thomas Nolan, filed byJohn
Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1019 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2006)
***FILED UNDER SEAL***
(cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/20/2006) 12/19/2006 1029 EXHIBITS F−U, W−Z, AA−HH re 1021 Declaration in Support, filed byJohn
Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1021 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2006)
***FILED UNDER SEAL***
(cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/20/2006)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 130 of 265

12/22/2006 1030 Memorandum in Opposition re 950 MOTION for enforcement filed byArnold Schwarzenegger, et al. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/22/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/22/2006)

12/22/2006 1031 Declaration of Katherine Nelson in Support of 1030 Memorandum in Opposition filed byArnold Schwarzenegger. (Related document(s) 1030 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/22/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/22/2006)

12/22/2006 1032 Declaration of Alberto Caton in Support of 1030 Memorandum in Opposition filed byArnold Schwarzenegger. (Related document(s) 1030 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/22/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/22/2006)

12/22/2006 1033 Declaration of Scott Kernan in Support of 1030 Memorandum in Opposition filed byArnold Schwarzenegger. (Related document(s) 1030 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/22/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/22/2006)

12/28/2006 1034 Letter to Ramon Esparza, dated 12/28/06, from Deputy Clerk regarding return of documents. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/28/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/03/2007)

12/29/2006

1035

Reply to Opposition re 950 MOTION for enforcement and further remedial orders filed byPeter Richardson, Steven Hill, John Armstrong, David Rose, David Blessing, Elio Castro, Elmer Umbenhower, Raymond Hayes, Gene Horrocks, James Amauric, Kiah Mincey, Clifton Feathers, Willie Johnson, David Badillo, James Simmons, Richard Ponciano, Flora Abrams, Joey Gough, Timothy Whisman, Jack Swensen, Billy Beck, Judy Fendt, Walter Fratus, Gregory Sandoval, Darlene Madison. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/29/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/03/2007)

12/29/2006

1036

REPLY Declaration of Sara Norman in Support of 950 MOTION for enforcement and further remedial orders filed byPeter Richardson, Steven Hill, John Armstrong, David Rose, David Blessing, Elio Castro, Elmer Umbenhower, Raymond Hayes, Gene Horrocks, James Amauric, Kiah Mincey, Clifton Feathers, Willie Johnson, David Badillo, James Simmons, Richard Ponciano, Flora Abrams, Joey Gough, Timothy Whisman, Jack Swensen, Billy Beck, Judy Fendt, Walter Fratus, Gregory Sandoval, Darlene Madison. (Related document(s) 950 ) (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/29/2006) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/3/2019: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/03/2007)

12/29/2006

2847

Received Proposed Injunction by Peter Richardson, Steven Hill, John Armstrong, David Rose, David Blessing, Elio Castro, Elmer Umbenhower, Raymond Hayes, Gene Horrocks, James Amauric, Kiah Mincey, Clifton Feathers, Willie Johnson, David Badillo, James Simmons, Richard Ponciano, Flora Abrams, Joey Gough, Timothy Whisman, Jack Swensen, Billy Beck, Judy Fendt, Walter Fratus, Gregory Sandoval, Darlene Madison. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/29/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/03/2007)

12/29/2006

Received Modified Protective Order by Peter Richardson, Steven Hill, John Armstrong, David Rose, David Blessing, Elio Castro, Elmer Umbenhower, Raymond Hayes, Gene Horrocks, James Amauric, Kiah Mincey, Clifton Feathers, Willie Johnson, David Badillo, James Simmons, Richard Ponciano, Flora Abrams, Joey Gough, Timothy Whisman, Jack Swensen, Robert Hecker, Ralph Coleman, Billy Beck, Judy Fendt, Walter Fratus, Gregory Sandoval, Darlene Madison. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/29/2006) (Entered: 01/03/2007)

12/29/2006

1037

REPLY Declaration of Ernest Galvan in Support of 950 MOTION for enforcement and further remedial orders and 949 MOTION to convene a three judge panel to limit prison population filed byPeter Richardson, Steven Hill, John Armstrong, David Rose, David Blessing, Elio Castro, Elmer Umbenhower, Raymond Hayes, Gene Horrocks, James Amauric, Kiah Mincey, Clifton Feathers, Willie Johnson, David Badillo, James Simmons, Richard Ponciano, Flora Abrams, Joey Gough, Timothy Whisman, Jack Swensen, Billy Beck, Judy Fendt, Walter Fratus, Gregory Sandoval, Darlene Madison. (Related document(s) 950 , 949 ) (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/29/2006) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/3/2019: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/03/2007)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 131 of 265

12/29/2006

1038

REPLY Declaration of Walter L. Kautzky in Support of 950 MOTION for enforcement and further remedial orders filed byPeter Richardson, Steven Hill, John Armstrong, David Rose, David Blessing, Elio Castro, Elmer Umbenhower, Raymond Hayes, Gene Horrocks, James Amauric, Kiah Mincey, Clifton Feathers, Willie Johnson, David Badillo, James Simmons, Richard Ponciano, Flora Abrams, Joey Gough, Timothy Whisman, Jack Swensen, Billy Beck, Judy Fendt, Walter Fratus, Gregory Sandoval, Darlene Madison. (Related document(s) 950 ) (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/29/2006) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/3/2019: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/03/2007)

12/29/2006

1039

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Peter Richardson, Steven Hill, John Armstrong, David Rose, David Blessing, Elio Castro, Elmer Umbenhower, Raymond Hayes, Gene Horrocks, James Amauric, Kiah Mincey, Clifton Feathers, Willie Johnson, David Badillo, James Simmons, Richard Ponciano, Flora Abrams, Joey Gough, Timothy Whisman, Jack Swensen, Billy Beck, Judy Fendt, Walter Fratus, Gregory Sandoval, Darlene Madison re 1037 Declaration in Support,,, 1038 Declaration in Support,, (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/29/2006) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/03/2007)

01/03/2007

1040

Certification of Implementation of Interim Plan and Tracking System by Joseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/3/2007) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/04/2007)

01/10/2007 1041 Clerk's Letter to Barry S. Jameson re return of documents submitted. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/10/2007) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/11/2007)

01/12/2007

1046

Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 1/12/2007 before Claudia Wilken (Date Filed: 1/12/2007). GRANTING 950 Motion for enforcement and further remedial order. Motion 949 to Convene a three judge panel to limit prison population is SUBMITTED. Status Conferences set for 3/30/2007 at 01:30 PM and 6/8/2007 at 1:30 PM. (Court Reporter Diane Skillman.) (kc, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 1/12/2007) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/19/2007)

01/16/2007 1044 Modified PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/17/07. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/16/2007) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/18/2007)

01/17/2007 1042 Letter to Judge Claudia Wilken, dated 1/16/2007, from Sara Norman regarding drafts of Injunction. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/17/2007) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/17/2007)

01/17/2007 1043 Letter to Judge Claudia Wilken, dated 1/16/2007, from Katherine Kylin Nelson regarding proposed Injunction. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/17/2007) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/18/2007)

01/18/2007 1045 INJUNCTION. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/18/07. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/18/2007) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/18/2007)

01/22/2007

Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 6/8/2007 01:30 PM. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/22/2007) (Entered: 01/22/2007)

01/22/2007

Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 3/30/2007 01:30 PM. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/22/2007) (Entered: 01/22/2007)

01/22/2007 1047 NOTICE of reassignment of counsel by defendants(cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/22/2007) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/22/2007)

01/23/2007 1048 ORDER confirming undisputed Division of Adult Parole Operations attorneys' fees and costs on the third quarterly statement of 2006. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/23/07. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2007) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/4/2019: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/24/2007)

01/23/2007 1049 ORDER confirming undisputed Board of Parole Hearings attorneys' fees and costs on the third quarterly statement of 2006. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/23/07. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2007) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/4/2019: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/24/2007)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 132 of 265

02/01/2007 1050 STIPULATION AND ORDER rescheduling Status Conference to 3/23/2007 01:30 PM before Hon. Claudia Wilken.. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 2/1/07. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/1/2007) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/02/2007)

02/01/2007

1051

ORDER confirming undisputed CA Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Adult Operations and Adult Programs attorneys' fees and costs on the third quarterly statement of 2006. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 2/1/07. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/1/2007) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/4/2019: # 1 Exhibit A) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/02/2007)

02/01/2007

1052

Procedures regarding ADA accessibility at parole proceedings (Part 1) by Joseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Arnold Schwarzenegger (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/1/2007) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/5/2019: # 1 Part 2, # 2 Part 3, # 3 Part 4, # 4 Part 5) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/02/2007)

02/01/2007

1053

Procedures regarding ADA accessibility at parole proceedings (Part II) by James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Arnold Schwarzenegger (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/1/2007) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/12/2019: # 1 part 2, # 2 part 3) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/12/2019: # 3 part 4) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/02/2007)

02/01/2007

1054

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Joseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger re 1053 Notice (Other), Notice (Other), 1052 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/1/2007) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/02/2007)

02/02/2007

1055

AMENDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Joseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger re 1053 , 1052 Procedures regarding ADA accessibility at parole hearings Part I and Part II (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/2/2007) Modified on 2/5/2007 (kc, COURT STAFF). (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/05/2007)

02/15/2007 1056 Review of sign−language interpreter contracts utilized for parole proceedings by Arnold Schwarzenegger, et al (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/15/2007) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/15/2007)

02/20/2007 1057 Plan to ensure reasonable accomodations for parole proceedings by defendants (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/20/2007) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/20/2007)

03/16/2007

1058

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by John Armstrong, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/16/2007) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/4/2019: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/19/2007)

03/23/2007 1060 Minute Entry: Status Conference held; (Date Filed: 3/23/2007). Further Status Conference set for 6/7/2007 02:00 PM before Hon. Claudia Wilken. (Court Reporter Diane Skillman.) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 3/23/2007) (Entered: 03/27/2007)

03/23/2007 1061 Minute Entry: Status Conference (Date Filed: 3/23/2007). Status Conference set for 6/7/2007 02:00 PM before Hon. Claudia Wilken. (Court Reporter Diane Skillman.) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 3/23/2007) (Entered: 03/28/2007)

03/27/2007 1059 CLERK'S NOTICE re Inclusion of Case Into E−Filing Program (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/27/2007) (Entered: 03/27/2007)

03/28/2007 1062 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 1/12/07 before Judge Claudia Wilken. Court Reporter: Diane E. Skillman.. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/28/2007) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/29/2007)

04/03/2007 1063 Proposed Order Confirming Undisputed California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Adult Operations and Adult Programs Attorneys' Fees and Costs on

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 133 of 265

the Fourth Quarterly Statement of 2006 by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 4/3/2007) (Entered: 04/03/2007)

04/05/2007 1064 Proposed Order Confirming Undisputed Board of Parole Hearings Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the Fourth Quarterly Statement of 2006 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 4/5/2007) (Entered: 04/05/2007)

04/06/2007 1065 Proposed Order Confirming Undisputed Division of Adult Parole Operations Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the 4th Quarterly Statement 2006 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 4/6/2007) (Entered: 04/06/2007)

04/11/2007 1066 ORDER re 1065 Confirming Undisputed Division of Adult Parole Operations Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the 4th Quarterly Statement 2006. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 4/11/07. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/11/2007) (Entered: 04/11/2007)

04/11/2007 1067 ORDER re 1064 Confirming Undisputed Board of Parole Hearings Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the Fourth Quarterly Statement of 2006. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 4/11/07. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/11/2007) (Entered: 04/11/2007)

04/11/2007

1068

ORDER re 1063 Confirming Undisputed California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Adult Operations and Adult Programs Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the Fourth Quarterly Statement of 2006. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 4/11/07. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/11/2007) (Entered: 04/11/2007)

04/17/2007 1069 Letter from Donald Specter. (Specter, Donald) (Filed on 4/17/2007) (Entered: 04/17/2007)

04/18/2007

1070

NOTICE OF RECENT DECISION by Joseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit COURTESY COPY OF DECISION)(Nygaard, Jennifer) (Filed on 4/18/2007) Modified on 4/19/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/18/2007)

04/20/2007 1071 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: APPOINTMENT OF COURT EXPERT Show Cause Response due by 4/30/2007.. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 4/20/07. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/20/2007) (Entered: 04/20/2007)

04/27/2007 1072 ORDER RE: SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 4/27/07. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/27/2007) (Entered: 04/27/2007)

04/30/2007

1073

RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: APPOINTMENT OF COURT EXPERT by Joseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger (Nygaard, Jennifer) (Filed on 4/30/2007) Modified on 5/1/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/30/2007)

04/30/2007 1074 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by John Armstrong. (Specter, Donald) (Filed on 4/30/2007) (Entered: 04/30/2007)

04/30/2007 1075 ORDER RE: APPOINTMENT OF COURT EXPERT. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 4/30/07. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/30/2007) (Entered: 04/30/2007)

05/09/2007

1076

*** DOCUMENT REMOVED, PLEASE SEE REFILED DOCUMENT, DOCKET # 1083 . *** Declaration of Ernest Galvan in Support of Supplemental Briefing re Motion to Convene a Three−Judge Panel filed byJohn Armstrong. (Galvan, Ernest) (Filed on 5/9/2007) Modified on 5/10/2007 (ewn, COURT STAFF). Additional attachment(s) added on 5/22/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). Modified on 5/22/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/09/2007)

05/09/2007 1077 ***DOCUMENT REMOVED, PLEASE SEE REFILED DOCUMENT DOCKET # 1084 . *** Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld in Support of Supplemental Briefing re Motion to Convene a Three−Judge Panel filed byJohn Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 134 of 265
(Filed on 5/9/2007) Modified on 5/10/2007 (ewn, COURT STAFF). Additional attachment(s) added on 5/22/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). Modified on 5/22/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/09/2007)
05/09/2007 1078 Declaration of Sara Norman in Support of Plaintiffs' Supplemental Briefing filed byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits A through F# 2 Exhibit Exhibits G through N)(Norman, Sara) (Filed on 5/9/2007) (Entered: 05/09/2007)
05/09/2007 1079 Declaration of Megan Hagler in Support of Plaintiffs' Supplemental Briefing filed byJohn Armstrong. (Norman, Sara) (Filed on 5/9/2007) (Entered: 05/09/2007)
05/09/2007 1080 Declaration of Susan Christian in Support of Plaintiffs' Supplemental Briefing filed byJohn Armstrong. (Norman, Sara) (Filed on 5/9/2007) (Entered: 05/09/2007)
05/09/2007 1081 Declaration of Zoe Schonfeld in Support of Plaintiffs' Supplemental Briefing filed byJohn Armstrong. (Norman, Sara) (Filed on 5/9/2007) (Entered: 05/09/2007)
05/09/2007 1082 Brief Plaintiffs' Supplemental Briefing in Support of Motion to Convene Three−Judge Panel filed byJohn Armstrong. (Norman, Sara) (Filed on 5/9/2007) (Entered: 05/09/2007)
05/09/2007 1083 Declaration of Ernest Galvan CORRECTION OF DOCKET # 1076 filed byJohn Armstrong. (Galvan, Ernest) (Filed on 5/9/2007) (Entered: 05/09/2007)
05/09/2007 1084 Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld in Support of Plaintiffs' Supplemental Briefing CORRECTION OF DOCKET # 1077 filed byJohn Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 5/9/2007) (Entered: 05/09/2007)
05/10/2007 1085 Declaration of Megan Hagler (Supplemental) in Support of Plaintiffs' Supplemental Briefing filed byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Specter, Donald) (Filed on 5/10/2007) (Entered: 05/10/2007)
05/10/2007 1086 Declaration of Mark Anthony Jones in Support of Plaintiffs' Supplemental Briefing filed byJohn Armstrong. (Specter, Donald) (Filed on 5/10/2007) (Entered: 05/10/2007)
05/10/2007 1087 Declaration of Vincent Matthews in Support of Plaintiffs' Supplemental Briefing filed byJohn Armstrong. (Specter, Donald) (Filed on 5/10/2007) (Entered: 05/10/2007)
05/10/2007 1094 EXHIBITS re 1079 Declaration of Megan Hagler in Support of Plaintiffs' Supplemental Briefing filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1079 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/10/2007)
***FILED UNDER SEAL***
(cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/17/2007)
05/10/2007 1095 EXHIBITS re 1080 Declaration of Susan Christian in Support of Plaintiffs' Supplemental Briefing filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1080 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/10/2007)
***FILED UNDER SEAL***
(cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/17/2007)
05/10/2007 1096 EXHIBIT A re 1083 Declaration of Ernest Galvan in Support of supplemental briefing re motion to convene a three−judge panel to limit prison population filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1083 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/10/2007)
***FILED UNDER SEAL***
Modified on 5/17/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/17/2007)
05/10/2007 1097 EXHIBITS re 1084 Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld in Support of supplemental briefing re motion to convene a three−judge panel to limit prison population filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1084 ) (cp, COURT

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 135 of 265

STAFF) (Filed on 5/10/2007)

***FILED UNDER SEAL***

(cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/17/2007)

05/11/2007

1088

MOTION to Seal Exhibits to Declarations of Gay Grunfeld, Ernest Galvan, Susan Christian, and Megan Hagler in Support of Supplemental Briefing re Motion to Convene Three−Judge Panel filed by John Armstrong. Motion Hearing set for 6/7/2007 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 5/11/2007) (Entered: 05/11/2007)

05/11/2007 1089 [Proposed] Order Granting Administrative Motion to File Exhibits to Declarations Under Seal filed by John Armstrong. Motion Hearing set for 6/7/2007 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 5/11/2007) Modified on 5/14/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/11/2007)

05/15/2007 1090 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1088 Motion to Seal Exhibits to Declarations of Gay Grunfeld, Ernest Galvan, Susan Christian, and Megan Hagler in Support of Supplemental Briefing re Motion to Convene Three−Judge Panel (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/15/2007) (Entered: 05/15/2007)

05/17/2007 1091 Proposed Order Confirming Payment of the Remaining Board of Parole Hearings and Division of Adult Parole Operations Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Third Quarter of 2006 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 5/17/2007) (Entered: 05/17/2007)

05/17/2007 1092 MOTION to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document Improperly Redacted Declarations of Grunfeld and Galvan filed by John Armstrong. Motion Hearing set for 6/7/2007 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 5/17/2007) (Entered: 05/17/2007)

05/17/2007 1093 Proposed Order Permanently Deleting Improperly Redacted Declarations of Grunfeld and Galvan filed by John Armstrong. Motion Hearing set for 6/7/2007 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 5/17/2007) Modified on 5/18/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/17/2007)

05/21/2007 1098 ORDER re 1091 Confirming Payment of the Remaining Board of Parole Hearings and Division of Adult Parole Operations Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Third Quarter of 2006 (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/21/2007) (Entered: 05/21/2007)

05/21/2007

1099

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO CONVENE A THREE−JUDGE PANEL TO LIMIT PRISON POPULATION by Joseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Nygaard, Jennifer) (Filed on 5/21/2007) Modified on 5/22/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/21/2007)

05/21/2007

1100

DECLARATION OF KATHRYN P. JETT IN SUPPORT OF 1099 DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO CONVENE A THREE−JUDGE PANEL TO LIMIT PRISON POPULATION filed byJoseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Related document(s) 1099 ) (Nygaard, Jennifer) (Filed on 5/21/2007) Modified on 5/22/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/21/2007)

05/21/2007

1101

DECLARATION OF DEBORAH HYSEN IN SUPPORT OF 1099 DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO CONVENE A THREE−JUDGE PANEL TO LIMIT PRISON POPULATION filed byJoseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Related document(s) 1099 ) (Nygaard, Jennifer) (Filed on 5/21/2007) Modified on 5/22/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/21/2007)

05/21/2007 1102 DECLARATION OF SCOTT KERNAN IN SUPPORT OF 1099 DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO CONVENE A THREE−JUDGE PANEL TO LIMIT PRISON POPULATION filed

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 136 of 265

byJoseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Related document(s) 1099 ) (Nygaard, Jennifer) (Filed on 5/21/2007) Modified on 5/22/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/21/2007)

05/21/2007

1103

DECLARATION OF JOAN PETERSILIA IN SUPPORT OF 1099 DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO CONVENE A THREE−JUDGE PANEL TO LIMIT PRISON POPULATION filed byJoseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(Related document(s) 1099 ) (Nygaard, Jennifer) (Filed on 5/21/2007) Modified on 5/22/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/21/2007)

05/22/2007 1104 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1092 Motion to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document Improperly Redacted Declarations of Grunfeld and Galvan (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/22/2007) (Entered: 05/22/2007)

05/25/2007 1105 Proposed Order Confirming Payment of Certain Disputed CDCR/AOAP Attorneys' Fees and Costs from 2005−2006 filed by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 5/25/2007) Modified on 5/29/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/25/2007)

05/29/2007 1106 Reply to re 1082 Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief in Support of Motion for Three−Judge Panel to Limit Prisoner Population filed byJohn Armstrong. (Norman, Sara) (Filed on 5/29/2007) Modified on 5/30/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/29/2007)

05/29/2007 1107 Declaration of Gabriel Martinez in Support of 1082 Brief Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief in Support of Motion for Three−Judge Panel to Limit Prisoner Population filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1082 ) (Norman, Sara) (Filed on 5/29/2007) (Entered: 05/29/2007)

05/29/2007 1108 Declaration of Jerome Crane in Support of 1082 Brief Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief in Support of Motion for Three−Judge Panel to Limit Prisoner Population filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1082 ) (Norman, Sara) (Filed on 5/29/2007) (Entered: 05/29/2007)

05/29/2007 1109 Declaration of Oscar Newsome in Support of 1082 Brief Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief in Support of Motion for Three−Judge Panel to Limit Prisoner Population filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1082 ) (Norman, Sara) (Filed on 5/29/2007) (Entered: 05/29/2007)

05/29/2007 1110 Declaration of Robert Rand in Support of 1082 Brief Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief in Support of Motion for Three−Judge Panel to Limit Prisoner Population filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1082 ) (Norman, Sara) (Filed on 5/29/2007) (Entered: 05/29/2007)

05/29/2007

1111

Reply Declaration of Sara Norman in Support of 1082 Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief in Support of Motion for Three−Judge Panel to Limit Prisoner Population filed byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5 # 6 # 7 # 8 # 9 # 10)(Related document(s) 1082 ) (Norman, Sara) (Filed on 5/29/2007) Modified on 5/30/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/29/2007)

05/29/2007 1112 Declaration of James Austin in Support of 1106 Supplemental Reply Brief filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1106 ) (Norman, Sara) (Filed on 5/29/2007) Modified on 5/30/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/29/2007)

05/30/2007 1113 ORDER re 1105 Confirming Payment of Certain Disputed CDCR/AOAP Attorneys' Fees and Costs from 2005−2006 . Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 5/30/07. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/30/2007) (Entered: 05/30/2007)

05/30/2007 1114 RESPONSE to Order re Appointment of Court Expert by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 5/30/2007) (Entered: 05/30/2007)

05/30/2007 1115 Proposed Order Appointing Court Expert Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 706 by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 5/30/2007) (Entered: 05/30/2007)

05/31/2007 1116 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1)(Norman, Sara) (Filed on 5/31/2007) (Entered: 05/31/2007)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 137 of 265

05/31/2007 1117

***FILED IN ERROR, SEE DOCUMENT # 1118 ***

Declaration of Joanne Cordy in Support of 1116 Case Management Statement (Joint) filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1116 ) (Norman, Sara) (Filed on 5/31/2007) Modified on 6/5/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/31/2007)

06/04/2007

1118

Declaration of Joanne Cordy in Support of 1116 Case Management Statement (Joint) filed byJoseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Related document(s) 1116 , 1117 ) (Nygaard, Jennifer) (Filed on 6/4/2007) Modified on 6/5/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/04/2007)

06/06/2007 1119 Notice of action in related cases filed byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1)(Specter, Donald) (Filed on 6/6/2007) Modified on 6/7/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/06/2007)

06/07/2007

1120

Minute Entry: Further Case Management Conference held on 6/7/2007 before Claudia Wilken (Date Filed: 6/7/2007), Motion Hearing held on 6/7/2007 before Claudia Wilken (Date Filed: 6/7/2007) re 949 MOTION to convene a three judge panel to limit prison population filed by John Armstrong. Further Case Management Conference set for 8/16/2007 03:00 PM. (Court Reporter Diane Skillman.) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 6/7/2007) (Entered: 06/11/2007)

06/07/2007 1122 AMENDED Minute Entry: Further Case Management Conference held on 6/7/2007 before Claudia Wilken (Date Filed: 6/7/2007), Motion Hearing held on 6/7/2007 before Claudia Wilken (Date Filed: 6/7/2007). (Court Reporter Diane Skillman.) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 6/7/2007) (Entered: 06/12/2007)

06/11/2007 1121 ORDER re 1115 Appointing Court Expert Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 706. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 6/11/07. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/11/2007) (Entered: 06/11/2007)

06/15/2007 1123 MOTION to Enforce Enforce Compliance with May 30, 2006 Order; Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed by John Armstrong. Motion Hearing set for 7/26/2007 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 6/15/2007) Modified on 6/18/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/15/2007)

06/15/2007 1124 Declaration of Holly Baldwin in Support of 1123 MOTION to Enforce Compliance with May 30, 2006 Order filed byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits A−F# 2 Exhibit Exhibits G−O)(Related document(s) 1123 ) (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 6/15/2007) Modified on 6/18/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/15/2007)

06/15/2007

1125

Declaration of Anne Mania in Support of 1123 MOTION to Enforce Compliance with May 30, 2006 Order filed byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−E# 2 Exhibit F# 3 Exhibit G, Part 1# 4 Exhibit G, Part 2# 5 Exhibit H−O# 6 Exhibit P−Q# 7 Exhibit R, Part 1# 8 Exhibit R, Part 2# 9 Exhibit S−T)(Related document(s) 1123 ) (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 6/15/2007) Modified on 6/18/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/15/2007)

06/15/2007 1126 Proposed Order re 1123 MOTION to Enforce Compliance with May 30, 2006 Order by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 6/15/2007) Modified on 6/18/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/15/2007)

06/19/2007 1127 Proposed Order Confirming Undisputed Board of Parole Hearings Attorneys' Fees and Costs For the First Quarter of 2007 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 6/19/2007) (Entered: 06/19/2007)

06/19/2007 1128 Proposed Order Confirming Undisputed Division of Adult Parole Operations Attorneys' Fees and Costs For the First Quarter of 2007 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 6/19/2007) (Entered: 06/19/2007)

06/20/2007 1129 ORDER re 1127 Confirming Undisputed Board of Parole Hearings Attorneys' Fees and Costs For the First Quarter of 2007. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 6/20/07. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/20/2007) (Entered: 06/20/2007)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 138 of 265

06/20/2007 1130 ORDER re 1128 Confirming Undisputed Division of Adult Parole Operations Attorneys' Fees and Costs For the First Quarter of 2007. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 6/20/07. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/20/2007) (Entered: 06/20/2007)
06/25/2007 1131

***FILED IN ERROR, SEE DOCUMENT # 1132 ***

STIPULATION STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO RESET HEARING DATE ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH THE MAY 30, 2006 ORDER by Joseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Attachments: # 1 Signature Page (Declarations/Stipulations) Declaration of Service by U.S. Mail)(Nygaard, Jennifer) (Filed on 6/25/2007) Modified on 6/25/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). Modified on 6/26/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/25/2007)

06/25/2007

1132

STIPULATION STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO RESET HEARING DATE ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH THE MAY 30 2006 ORDER by Joseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Nygaard, Jennifer) (Filed on 6/25/2007) (Entered: 06/25/2007)

06/26/2007 1133 ORDER. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 6/26/07. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/26/2007) (Entered: 06/26/2007)

06/29/2007 1134 ORDER re 1132 granting STIPULATION TO RESET HEARING DATE ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH THE MAY 30 2006 ORDER. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 6/29/07. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/29/2007) (Entered: 06/29/2007)

07/02/2007

1135

FURTHER STATEMENT ADDRESSING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO CONVENE A THREE−JUDGE PANEL TO ADDRESS POPULATION ISSUES filed byJoseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Attachments: # 1 Signature Page (Declarations/Stipulations) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE# 2 Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit B (PART 1 OF 2)# 4 Exhibit B (PART 2 OF 2)# 5 Exhibit C (PART 1 OF 3)# 6 Exhibit C (PART 2 OF 3)# 7 Exhibit C (PART 3 OF 3)# 8 Exhibit D (PART 1 OF 3)# 9 Exhibit D (PART 2 OF 3)# 10 Exhibit D (PART 3 OF 3)# 11 Exhibit E (PART 1 OF 3)# 12 Exhibit E (PART 2 OF 3)# 13 Exhibit E (PART 3 OF 3))(Nygaard, Jennifer) (Filed on 7/2/2007) Modified on 7/3/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/02/2007)

07/03/2007 1136 Proposed Case Management Conference Order by John Armstrong. (Norman, Sara) (Filed on 7/3/2007) Modified on 7/5/2007 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/03/2007)

07/05/2007

1137

*** FILED IN ERROR. SEE DOCUMENT # 1138 . *** NOTICE of Appearance by Edward W. Swanson Notice of Appearance (Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 7/5/2007) Modified on 7/9/2007 (br, COURT STAFF). Modified on 7/17/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). Modified on 7/17/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). Additional attachment(s) added on 7/17/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/05/2007)

07/06/2007 1138 MOTION to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document filed by Edward Swanson. (Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 7/6/2007) Modified on 7/9/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/06/2007)

07/09/2007 1139 RESPONSE to re 1133 Order Regarding Coordination Agreements by John Armstrong. (Norman, Sara) (Filed on 7/9/2007) (Entered: 07/09/2007)

07/09/2007 1140

***FILED IN ERROR, SEE DOCUMENT # 1141 ***

RESPONSE to DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PROPOSED AGREEMENTS OF

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 139 of 265

JUNE 26, 2007 ORDER by Joseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Attachments: # 1 Signature Page (Declarations/Stipulations) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE)(Nygaard, Jennifer) (Filed on 7/9/2007) Modified on 7/10/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/09/2007)

07/09/2007

1141

RESPONSE to DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PROPOSED AGREEMENTS OF JUNE 26, 2007 ORDER by Joseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Attachments: # 1 Signature Page (Declarations/Stipulations) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE)(Nygaard, Jennifer) (Filed on 7/9/2007) (Entered: 07/09/2007)

07/12/2007 1142 Letter from Clerk. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/12/2007) (Entered: 07/12/2007)

07/12/2007 2849 RECEIVED DEPOSIT in the amount of $100,000.00, receipt #44611000975 pursuant to order document no. 1121 for interim payment of expert cost submitted by defendants. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/12/2007) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/12/2007)

07/12/2007 1143 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE ORDER: Further Case Management Conference set for 8/16/2007 03:00 PM.. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 7/12/07. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/12/2007) (Entered: 07/12/2007)

07/12/2007

1144

Memorandum in Opposition TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH MAY 30, 2006 ORDER filed byJoseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Attachments: # 1 Signature Page (Declarations/Stipulations) DECLARATION OF SERVICE)(Nygaard, Jennifer) (Filed on 7/12/2007) Modified on 7/13/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/12/2007)

07/12/2007

1145

Declaration of JENNIFER NYGAARD in Support of 1144 Memorandum in Opposition, TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH MAY 30, 2006 ORDER filed byJoseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Related document(s) 1144 ) (Nygaard, Jennifer) (Filed on 7/12/2007) Modified on 7/13/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/12/2007)

07/12/2007

1146

Declaration of JOANNE CORDY in Support of 1144 Memorandum in Opposition, TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH MAY 30, 2006 ORDER filed byJoseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Related document(s) 1144 ) (Nygaard, Jennifer) (Filed on 7/12/2007) Modified on 7/13/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/12/2007)

07/12/2007

1147

Declaration of ERIC ARNOLD in Support of 1144 Memorandum in Opposition, TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH MAY 30, 2006 ORDER filed byJoseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Related document(s) 1144 ) (Nygaard, Jennifer) (Filed on 7/12/2007) Modified on 7/13/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/12/2007)

07/12/2007

1148

Declaration of RHONDA SKIPPER−DOTTA in Support of 1144 Memorandum in Opposition, TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH MAY 30, 2006 ORDER filed byJoseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Related document(s) 1144 ) (Nygaard, Jennifer) (Filed on 7/12/2007) Modified on 7/13/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/12/2007)

07/12/2007 1149 Declaration of ALBERTO CATON in Support of 1144 Memorandum in Opposition, TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH MAY 30, 2006

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 140 of 265

ORDER filed byJoseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Related document(s) 1144 ) (Nygaard, Jennifer) (Filed on 7/12/2007) Modified on 7/13/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/12/2007)

07/12/2007

1150

Declaration of LORI MACIAS−PRICE in Support of 1144 Memorandum in Opposition, TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH MAY 30, 2006 ORDER filed byJoseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Related document(s) 1144 ) (Nygaard, Jennifer) (Filed on 7/12/2007) Modified on 7/13/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/12/2007)

07/12/2007

1151

Declaration of TRACY LEIFKER in Support of 1144 Memorandum in Opposition, TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH MAY 30, 2006 ORDER filed byJoseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Related document(s) 1144 ) (Nygaard, Jennifer) (Filed on 7/12/2007) Modified on 7/13/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/12/2007)

07/12/2007

1152

Declaration of JENNIFER YOUNG in Support of 1144 Memorandum in Opposition, TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH MAY 30, 2006 ORDER filed byJoseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Related document(s) 1144 ) (Nygaard, Jennifer) (Filed on 7/12/2007) Modified on 7/13/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/12/2007)

07/12/2007

1153

Declaration of CAROL KREIS in Support of 1144 Memorandum in Opposition, TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH MAY 30, 2006 ORDER filed byJoseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Related document(s) 1144 ) (Nygaard, Jennifer) (Filed on 7/12/2007) Modified on 7/13/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/12/2007)

07/16/2007 1154 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1138 Motion to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/16/2007) (Entered: 07/16/2007)

07/19/2007 1155 Proposed Order Confirming Undisputed CDCR Adult Operations and Adult Programs Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the First Quarterly Statement of 2007 by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 7/19/2007) (Entered: 07/19/2007)

07/19/2007 1156 OBJECTIONS to Defendants' Declarations in Support of Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce Compliance with the May 30, 2006 Order by John Armstrong. (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 7/19/2007) (Entered: 07/19/2007)

07/19/2007 1157 Proposed Order Sustaining Plaintiffs Objections to Defendants Declarations in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion to Enforce Compliance with the May 30, 2006 Order by John Armstrong. (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 7/19/2007) (Entered: 07/19/2007)

07/19/2007 1158 Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Enforce Compliance with the May 30, 2006 Order filed byJohn Armstrong. (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 7/19/2007) (Entered: 07/19/2007)

07/19/2007 1159 REVISED Proposed Order re 1123 Granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce the May 30, 2006 Order by John Armstrong. (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 7/19/2007) Modified on 7/20/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/19/2007)

07/19/2007

1160

Reply Declaration of Anne H. Mania in Support of 1123 Motion to Enforce Compliance with the May 30, 2006 Order filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1123 ) (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 7/19/2007) Modified on 7/20/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). Modified on 7/20/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/19/2007)

07/19/2007 1161 *** FILED IN ERROR. PLEASE SEE DOCKET # 1173 . *** EXHIBITS A−B (Part I) re 1160 Declaration in Support of Motion to Enforce

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 141 of 265
Compliance with the May 30, 2006 Order filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1160 ) (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 7/19/2007) Modified on 7/20/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). Modified on 7/20/2007 (ewn, COURT STAFF). Modified on 7/26/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). Additional attachment(s) added on 7/26/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/19/2007)
07/19/2007 1162 EXHIBIT B (Part II) re 1160 Declaration in Support of Motion to Enforce Compliance with the May 30, 2006 Order filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1160 ) (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 7/19/2007) Modified on 7/20/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/19/2007)
07/19/2007 1163 EXHIBITS C−G re 1160 Declaration in Support of Motion to Enforce Compliance with the May 30, 2006 Order filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1160 ) (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 7/19/2007) Modified on 7/20/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/19/2007)
07/19/2007 1164 EXHIBITS H−I re 1160 Declaration in Support of Motion to Enforce Compliance with the May 30, 2006 Order filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1160 ) (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 7/19/2007) Modified on 7/20/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/19/2007)
07/19/2007 1165 Reply Declaration of Holly M. Baldwin in Support of 1123 Motion to Enforce Compliance with the May 30, 2006 Order filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1123 ) (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 7/19/2007) Modified on 7/20/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/19/2007)
07/19/2007 1166 EXHIBITS A−B re 1165 Declaration in Support of Motion to Enforce Compliance with the May 30, 2006 Order filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1165 ) (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 7/19/2007) Modified on 7/20/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/19/2007)
07/19/2007 1167 EXHIBIT C re 1165 Declaration in Support of Motion to Enforce Compliance with the May 30, 2006 Order filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1165 ) (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 7/19/2007) Modified on 7/20/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/19/2007)
07/19/2007 1168 EXHIBITS D−G re 1165 Declaration in Support of Motion to Enforce Compliance with the May 30, 2006 Order filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1165 ) (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 7/19/2007) Modified on 7/20/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/19/2007)
07/19/2007 1169 Declaration of Ronald Yank in Support of 1158 Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Enforce Compliance with the May 30, 2006 Order filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1158 ) (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 7/19/2007) (Entered: 07/19/2007)
07/19/2007 1170 EXHIBITS A−B re 1169 Declaration in Support of Motion to Enforce Compliance with the May 30, 2006 Order filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1169 ) (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 7/19/2007) Modified on 7/20/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/19/2007)
07/20/2007 1171 First MOTION to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document Docket #1161 filed by John Armstrong. Motion Hearing set for 8/2/2007 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland. (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 7/20/2007) (Entered: 07/20/2007)
07/20/2007 1172 Proposed Order re 1171 First MOTION to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document Docket #1161 by John Armstrong. (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 7/20/2007) (Entered: 07/20/2007)
07/20/2007 1173 EXHIBITS re 1160 Declaration in Support CORRECTION OF DOCKET # 1161 filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1160 ) (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 7/20/2007) (Entered: 07/20/2007)
07/23/2007 1174 Plata Receiver's Response to Plaintiffs' Position Regarding Coordination Agreements by Robert Sillen. (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 7/23/2007) Modified on 7/24/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/23/2007)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 142 of 265

07/23/2007 1175 Certificate of Service re 1174 Plata Receiver's Response to Plaintiffs' Position Regarding Coordination Agreements (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 7/23/2007) Modified on 7/24/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/23/2007)
07/24/2007 1176 SCHEDULING ORDER: Motion hearing set for 8/2/07 is continued to 8/16/07 at 3:00 p.m.. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 7/24/07. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/24/2007) (Entered: 07/24/2007)
07/24/2007 1177 Attachment to re 1174 Plata Receiver's Response to Plaintiffs' Position Regarding Coordination Agreements filed byRobert Sillen. (Related document(s) 1174 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 7/24/2007) Modified on 7/25/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/24/2007)
07/25/2007 1178 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1171 MOTION to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document Docket #1161 (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/25/2007) (Entered: 07/25/2007)
07/25/2007 1179 ORDER re 1155 Confirming Undisputed CDCR Adult Operations and Adult Programs Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the First Quarterly Statement of 2007. Signed by Judge CLAUDIA WILKEN on 7/25/07. (Attachments: # 1)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/25/2007) (Entered: 07/25/2007)
07/30/2007 1180 Revised Proposed Order Granting re 1123 Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce Compliance with May 30, 2006 Order by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 7/30/2007) Modified on 7/31/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/30/2007)
08/09/2007 1181 First MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Declaration of Anne Mania In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce May 30, 2006 Order filed by John Armstrong. Motion Hearing set for 8/16/2007 03:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland. (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 8/9/2007) (Entered: 08/09/2007)
08/09/2007 1182 Declaration of Anne Mania in Support of 1181 First MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Declaration of Anne Mania In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce May 30, 2006 Order filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1181 ) (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 8/9/2007) (Entered: 08/09/2007)
08/09/2007 1183

***FILED IN ERROR, SEE DOCUMENT # 1185 ***

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1)(Norman, Sara) (Filed on 8/9/2007) Modified on 8/10/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). Modified on 8/13/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). Additional attachment(s) added on 8/13/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/09/2007)

08/09/2007 1184 Declaration of Joanne Cordy in Support of 1183 Case Management Statement (Joint) filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1183 ) (Norman, Sara) (Filed on 8/9/2007) (Entered: 08/09/2007)

08/09/2007 1185 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT with corrected attachments filed by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1)(Norman, Sara) (Filed on 8/9/2007) (Entered: 08/09/2007)

08/10/2007 1186 First MOTION to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document Joint Status Conference Statement With Attachments, Docket Number 1183 filed by John Armstrong. (Specter, Donald) (Filed on 8/10/2007) (Entered: 08/10/2007)

08/10/2007 1187 Proposed Order to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document, Docket Number 1183 by John Armstrong. (Specter, Donald) (Filed on 8/10/2007) (Entered: 08/10/2007)

08/13/2007 1188 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1186 Motion to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/13/2007) (Entered: 08/13/2007)

08/16/2007

1191

Minute Entry: Further Case Management Conference held on 8/16/2007 before Claudia Wilken (Date Filed: 8/16/2007), Motion Hearing held on 8/16/2007 before Claudia Wilken (Date Filed: 8/16/2007) re 1123 MOTION to Enforce Compliance with May 30, 2006 Order. (Court Reporter Raynee Mercado.) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 8/16/2007) (Entered: 08/23/2007)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 143 of 265

08/20/2007 1189 NOTICE of assignment of Counsel by Jay Craig Russell (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 8/20/2007) Modified on 8/21/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/20/2007)

08/22/2007 1190 Letter from Anne Mania to Court re August 16, 2007 Hearing. (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 8/22/2007) (Entered: 08/22/2007)

08/23/2007

Set/Reset Hearings: Further Case Management Conference set for 10/23/2007 02:30 PM. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/23/2007) (Entered: 08/23/2007)

08/24/2007 1192 ORDER APPROVING COORDINATION STATEMENTS ATTACHED TO JUNE 26, 2007 ORDER. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 8/24/07. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/24/2007) (Entered: 08/24/2007)

08/27/2007 1193 Proposed Order Regarding Payment by Edward Swanson. (Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 8/27/2007) (Entered: 08/27/2007)

09/05/2007 1194 CLERK'S NOTICE of deficiency re docket #1193 (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/5/2007) (Entered: 09/05/2007)

09/06/2007 1195 First MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and Proposed Order filed by Edward Swanson. (Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 9/6/2007) (Entered: 09/06/2007)

09/06/2007 1196 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1195 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/6/2007) (Entered: 09/06/2007)

09/06/2007 1197 Proposed Order re Case Management Conference of August 16, 2007 by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 9/6/2007) (Entered: 09/06/2007)

09/07/2007 1198 Letter from Gay Grunfeld re Proposed Order re 8/16/07 CMC. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 9/7/2007) (Entered: 09/07/2007)

09/11/2007 1199 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting in part 1123 Motion to Enforce Judgment; granting 1181 Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Declaration of Anne Mania In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce May 30, 2006 Order (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/11/2007) (Entered: 09/11/2007)

09/12/2007 1200 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE ORDER: Case Management Conference set for 10/30/2007 02:30 PM.. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 9/12/07. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/12/2007) (Entered: 09/12/2007)

09/17/2007 1201 Second MOTION for Disbursement of Funds filed by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 9/17/2007) (Entered: 09/17/2007)

09/18/2007 1202 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1201 Second Motion for Disbursement of Funds (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/18/2007) (Entered: 09/18/2007)

10/02/2007 1203 Letter from Plaintiffs' Counsel to Judge Wilken re: out of state monitoring. (Norman, Sara) (Filed on 10/2/2007) (Entered: 10/02/2007)

10/02/2007 1204 Proposed Order re 1203 Letter to Judge Wilken re: out of state monitoring by John Armstrong. (Norman, Sara) (Filed on 10/2/2007) (Entered: 10/02/2007)

10/04/2007 1205 Letter from Jay Russell to Honorable Claudia Wilken re: Proposed Order of October 2, 2007. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 10/4/2007) (Entered: 10/04/2007)

10/10/2007 1206 ORDER re 1203 REGARDING PLAINTIFFS' OCTOBER 2, 2007 LETTER TO THE COURT. Signed by Judge CLAUDIA WILKEN on 10/10/07. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/10/2007) (Entered: 10/10/2007)

10/11/2007

1207

MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND STAY SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 ORDER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF SAME filed by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, James Tilton, John Monday, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 10/11/2007) Modified on 10/12/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/11/2007)

10/11/2007 1208 Declaration of Stephen W. Kessler in Support of 1207 MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND STAY SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 ORDER filed byArnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, James Tilton, John Monday. (Related document(s) 1207 ) (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 10/11/2007) Modified on

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 144 of 265

10/12/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/11/2007)

10/11/2007

1209

Declaration of Scott Kernan in Support of 1207 MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND STAY SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 ORDER filed byArnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, James Tilton, John Monday. (Related document(s) 1207 ) (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 10/11/2007) Modified on 10/12/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/11/2007)

10/11/2007

1210

Declaration of Margie McCune in Support of 1207 MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND STAY SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 ORDER filed byArnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, James Tilton, John Monday. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(Related document(s) 1207 ) (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 10/11/2007) Modified on 10/12/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/11/2007)

10/11/2007

1211

DOCUMENT REMOVED PER COURT ORDER # 1229 Declaration of Jay C. Russell in Support of 1207 MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND STAY SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 ORDER filed byArnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, James Tilton, John Monday. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F# 7 Exhibit G# 8 Exhibit H)(Related document(s) 1207 ) (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 10/11/2007) Modified on 10/12/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). Additional attachment(s) added on 10/25/2007 (kc, COURT STAFF). Modified on 10/25/2007 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/11/2007)

10/11/2007 1212 Proposed Order GRANTING MOTION TO RECONSIDER SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 ORDER by Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, James Tilton, John Monday. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 10/11/2007) (Entered: 10/11/2007)

10/11/2007 1213 Proposed Order GRANTING STAY OF ENFORCEMENT OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 ORDER by Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, James Tilton, John Monday. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 10/11/2007) (Entered: 10/11/2007)

10/11/2007 1216 Clerk's Letter to Larry E. Beltson, Sr re returned of documents. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/11/2007) (Entered: 10/15/2007)

10/12/2007

Set/Reset Deadlines as to 1207 MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND STAY SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 ORDER. Motion Hearing set for 11/15/2007 02:00 PM. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/12/2007) (Entered: 10/12/2007)

10/12/2007 1214 MOTION to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document filed by Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, James Tilton, John Monday. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Motion to Remove an Incorrectly Filed Document)(Russell, Jay) (Filed on 10/12/2007) (Entered: 10/12/2007)

10/12/2007

1215

Declaration of Jay C. Russell IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 ORDER AND REQUEST FOR STAY WITH AMENDED EXHIBITS filed byArnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, James Tilton, John Monday. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F# 7 Exhibit G# 8 Exhibit H)(Russell, Jay) (Filed on 10/12/2007) (Entered: 10/12/2007)

10/15/2007 1217 MOTION Order Regarding Out−of−State Monitoring filed by John Armstrong. Motion Hearing set for 10/30/2007 02:30 PM in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland. (Norman, Sara) (Filed on 10/15/2007) (Entered: 10/15/2007)

10/15/2007 1218 Proposed Order re 1217 MOTION Order Regarding Out−of−State Monitoring by John Armstrong. (Norman, Sara) (Filed on 10/15/2007) (Entered: 10/15/2007)

10/15/2007 1219 Declaration of Sara Norman in Support of 1217 MOTION Order Regarding Out−of−State Monitoring filed byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−B# 2 Exhibit C−H)(Related document(s) 1217 ) (Norman, Sara) (Filed on 10/15/2007) (Entered: 10/15/2007)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 145 of 265
10/16/2007 1220 *** FILED IN ERROR. PLEASE SEE DOCKET # 1221 . *** Third MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and [Proposed] Order for Payment filed by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 10/16/2007) Modified on 10/17/2007 (ewn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/16/2007)
10/16/2007 1221 Third MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and [Proposed] Order for Payment CORRECTION OF DOCKET # 1220 . filed by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 10/16/2007) (Entered: 10/16/2007)
10/22/2007 1222 Memorandum in Opposition re 1217 MOTION Order Regarding Out−of−State Monitoring filed byArnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, James Tilton, John Monday. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 10/22/2007) (Entered: 10/22/2007)
10/22/2007 1223 Declaration of Jay C. Russell in Support of 1222 Memorandum in Opposition filed byArnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, James Tilton, John Monday. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Related document(s) 1222 ) (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 10/22/2007) (Entered: 10/22/2007)
10/23/2007 1224 Proposed Order Confirming Undisputed Board of Parole Hearings Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Second Quarter of 2007 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 10/23/2007) (Entered: 10/23/2007)
10/23/2007 1225 Proposed Order Confirming Undisputed Division of Adult Parole Operations Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the Second Quarter of 2007 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 10/23/2007) (Entered: 10/23/2007)
10/23/2007 1226 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, James Tilton, John Monday. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D)(Russell, Jay) (Filed on 10/23/2007) (Entered: 10/23/2007)
10/24/2007 1227 SCHEDULING ORDER: Status Conference set for 11/15/2007 02:00 PM.. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/24/07. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/24/2007) (Entered: 10/24/2007)
10/24/2007 1228 SCHEDULING ORDER: MOTION REGARDING OUT−OF−STATE MONITORING. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/24/07. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/24/2007) (Entered: 10/24/2007)
10/24/2007 1229 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1214 Motion to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/24/2007) (Entered: 10/24/2007)
10/24/2007 1230 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1221 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/24/2007) (Entered: 10/24/2007)
10/25/2007 1231 ORDER re 1225 Confirming Undisputed Division of Adult Parole Operations Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the Second Quarter of 2007. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/25/07. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/25/2007) (Entered: 10/25/2007)
10/25/2007 1232 ORDER re 1224 Confirming Undisputed Board of Parole Hearings Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Second Quarter of 2007. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/25/07. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/25/2007) (Entered: 10/25/2007)
10/25/2007 1233 NOTICE by Edward Swanson of Filings in Perez v. Tilton, C 05−5241 JSW (Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 10/25/2007) (Entered: 10/25/2007)
10/25/2007 1234 Memorandum in Opposition re 1207 MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND STAY SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 ORDER filed byJohn Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 10/25/2007) (Entered: 10/25/2007)
10/25/2007 1235 Declaration of Holly Baldwin in Support of 1234 Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Reconsider and Stay September 11, 2007 Order filed byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C)(Related document(s) 1234 ) (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 10/25/2007) (Entered: 10/25/2007)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 146 of 265

10/25/2007 1236 Declaration of Michael Bien in Support of 1234 Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Reconsider and Stay September 11, 2007 Order filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1234 ) (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 10/25/2007) (Entered: 10/25/2007)

10/25/2007 1237 Declaration of Steve Weiss in Support of 1234 Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Reconsider and Stay September 11, 2007 Order filed byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Related document(s) 1234 ) (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 10/25/2007) (Entered: 10/25/2007)

10/25/2007 1238 OBJECTIONS to re 1209 Declaration in Support, 1210 Declaration in Support, 1215 Declaration in Support, 1208 Declaration in Support, Objections to Defendants' Declarations in Support of Motion to Reconsider and Stay September 11, 2007 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 10/25/2007) (Entered: 10/25/2007)

10/25/2007 1239 Proposed Order re 1238 Objection, Sustaining Objections to Defendants' Declarations in Support of Motion to Reconsider and Stay September 11, 2007 Order by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 10/25/2007) (Entered: 10/25/2007)

10/25/2007 1240 Proposed Order re 1207 MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND STAY SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 ORDER Proposed Order Denying Defendants' Motion to Reconsider and Stay September 11, 2007 Order by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 10/25/2007) (Entered: 10/25/2007)

10/29/2007 1241 Proposed Order Confirming Undisputed California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Adult Operations and Adult Programs Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the Second Quarterly Statement of 2007 by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 10/29/2007) (Entered: 10/29/2007)

10/31/2007

1242

ORDER re 1241 Confirming Undisputed California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Adult Operations and Adult Programs Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the Second Quarterly Statement of 2007. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/31/07. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/31/2007) (Entered: 10/31/2007)

11/01/2007 1243 Reply to Opposition to Motion to Reconsider and Stay September 11, 2007 Order filed byArnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, James Tilton, John Monday. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 11/1/2007) Modified on 11/2/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/01/2007)

11/01/2007

1244

Reply to Plaintiffs' Objections to Defendants' Declarations in Support of Motion to Reconsider and Stay September 11, 2007 Order filed byArnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, James Tilton, John Monday. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 11/1/2007) Modified on 11/2/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). Modified on 11/2/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/01/2007)

11/13/2007

1245

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE until 11/26/2007 why the agreement should not be adopted as an order of the court.. Signed by Judges Claudia Wilken, Lawrence K. Karlton, Thelton E. Henderson, Jeffrey S. White on 11/13/07. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/13/2007) Modified on 11/14/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/14/2007)

11/15/2007

1247

Minute Entry: Further Case Management Conference held on 11/15/2007 before Claudia Wilken (Date Filed: 11/15/2007), Motion Hearing held on 11/15/2007 before Claudia Wilken (Date Filed: 11/15/2007) re 1217 MOTION Order Regarding Out−of−State Monitoring filed by John Armstrong, 949 MOTION to convene a three judge panel to limit prison population filed by John Armstrong, 1207 MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND STAY SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 ORDER filed by James Tilton, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Arnold Schwarzenegger, John Monday. Further Case Management Conference set for 1/15/2008 02:00 PM. (Court Reporter Starr Wilson.) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 11/15/2007) (Entered: 11/19/2007)

11/15/2007

1249

AMENDED Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 11/15/2007 before Claudia Wilken (Date Filed: 11/15/2007) re 1217 MOTION Order Regarding Out−of−State Monitoring filed by John Armstrong, 949 MOTION to convene a three judge panel to limit prison population filed by John Armstrong, 1207 MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND STAY SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 ORDER filed by James Tilton, California

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 147 of 265

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Arnold Schwarzenegger, John Monday, Further Case Management Conference held on 11/15/2007 before Claudia Wilken (Date Filed: 11/15/2007).

(CORRECTION OF DOCUMENT # 1248

(Court Reporter Starr Wilson.) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 11/15/2007) (Entered: 11/20/2007)
11/19/2007 1246 Fourth MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and [Proposed] Order filed by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 11/19/2007) (Entered: 11/19/2007)
11/20/2007 1248

***DISREGARD, PLEASE SEE DOCUMENT # 1249 ***

AMENDED Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 11/15/2007 before Claudia Wilken (Date Filed: 11/20/2007) re 1217 MOTION Order Regarding Out−of−State Monitoring filed by John Armstrong, 949 MOTION to convene a three judge panel to limit prison population filed by John Armstrong, 1207 MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND STAY SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 ORDER filed by James Tilton, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Arnold Schwarzenegger, John Monday, Further Case Management Conference held on 11/15/2007 before Claudia Wilken (Date Filed: 11/20/2007). Further Case Management Conference set for 1/15/2008 02:00 PM. (Court Reporter Starr Wilson.) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 11/20/2007) Modified on 11/20/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/20/2007)

11/26/2007 1250 RESPONSE TO RE: 1245 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by John Armstrong for Perez v. Tilton. (Hardy, Alison) (Filed on 11/26/2007) Modified on 11/27/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/26/2007)

11/26/2007 1251 RESPONSE TO RE: 1245 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by John Armstrong for Plata Plaintiffs. (Hardy, Alison) (Filed on 11/26/2007) Modified on 11/27/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/26/2007)

11/26/2007 1252 RESPONSE TO RE: 1245 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 11/26/2007) Modified on 11/27/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/26/2007)

11/26/2007 1253 RESPONSE TO RE: 1245 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by John Armstrong "Coleman Plaintiffs' Response". (Whelan, Amy) (Filed on 11/26/2007) Modified on 11/27/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/26/2007)

11/26/2007

1254

RESPONSE to re: 1245 November 13, 2007 Order To Show Cause filed byJoseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, James Tilton, John Monday. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 11/26/2007) Modified on 11/27/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/26/2007)

11/26/2007

1255

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Joseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, James Tilton, John Monday (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 11/26/2007) (Entered: 11/26/2007)

11/28/2007 1256 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1246 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 Attachment) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/28/2007) (Entered: 11/28/2007)

11/30/2007 1257 ORDER. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 11/30/07. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/30/2007) (Entered: 11/30/2007)

11/30/2007 1258 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 11/15/07 before Judge Claudia Wilken. Court Reporter: Starr Wilson. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/30/2007) (cpS, COURT

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 148 of 265

STAFF). (Entered: 12/03/2007)

12/07/2007

1259

NOTICE by Robert Sillen of Filing of Receiver's Quarterly Progress Report on Coordination Agreements (Attachments: # 1 Quarterly Report, # 2 Exhibit 1 to Quarterly Report, # 3 Exhibit 2 to Quarterly Report, # 4 Exhibit 3 to Quarterly Report, # 5 Exhibit 4 to Quarterly Report, # 6 Exhibit 5 to Quarterly Report)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 12/7/2007) Modified on 12/10/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/07/2007)

12/14/2007

1260

Notice of Appeal from the Court's September 11, 2007 Order; (fee Not paid) by Joseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, James Tilton, John Monday(Russell, Jay) (Filed on 12/14/2007) Modified on 12/18/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). Modified on 12/26/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). Modified on 9/30/2010 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/14/2007)

12/17/2007 1261 Receiver's Response to Parties' Objections and Responses to Order to Show Cause re Construction Coordination Agreement filed byRobert Sillen. (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 12/17/2007) Modified on 12/18/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/17/2007)

12/18/2007 2850 Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 1260 Notice of Appeal (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/18/2007) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/18/2007)

12/18/2007

Copy of Notice of Appeal and Docket sheet mailed to all counsel (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/18/2007) (Entered: 12/18/2007)

12/18/2007 2851 Mailed request for payment of docket fee to appellant (cc to USCA) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/18/2007) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/18/2007)

12/19/2007

1262

Amended Notice of Appeal by Joseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, James Tilton, John Monday (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 12/19/2007) Modified on 12/20/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/19/2007)

12/19/2007

1263

Notice of Appeal of November 20, 2007 Amended Minute Order; (fee Not paid) by Joseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, James Tilton, John Monday (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 12/19/2007) Modified on 12/20/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). Modified on 12/26/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/19/2007)

12/21/2007 2852 Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 1263 Notice of Appeal (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/21/2007) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/21/2007)

12/21/2007

Copy of Notice of Appeal and Docket sheet mailed to all counsel re 1263 Notice of Appeal (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/21/2007) (Entered: 12/21/2007)

12/21/2007 2853 Mailed request for payment of docket fee to appellant re 1263 Notice of Appeal(cc to USCA) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/21/2007) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/21/2007)

12/21/2007 1264 NOTICE by John Armstrong Notice of Withdrawal of Counsel of Elaine B. Feingold as Plaintiffs' Counsel (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 12/21/2007) (Entered: 12/21/2007)

12/21/2007

1265

NOTICE by Joseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, James Tilton, John Monday Defendants−Appellants' Representation Statement (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 12/21/2007) (Entered: 12/21/2007)

12/26/2007 2848 USCA Case Number 07−17342 Ninth Circuit re 1260 Notice of Appeal (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/26/2007) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/27/2007)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 149 of 265

12/27/2007 2855 USCA Appeal Fees received $ 455 receipt number 44611001651 re 1260 Notice of Appeal (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/27/2007) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/27/2007)

12/27/2007 2854 Amended Notification Information sent to USCA re 1260 Notice of Appeal (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/27/2007) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/27/2007)

12/27/2007

1266

Transcript Designation and Ordering Form by Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, James Tilton, John Monday for proceedings held on 11/15/07, 8/16/07 before Judge Claudia wilken re 1260 Notice of Appeal (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/27/2007) Modified on 12/28/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/28/2007)

12/31/2007

1267

DEFENDANTS−APPELLANTS REPRESENTATION STATEMENT RE: NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED DECEMBER 19, 2007 by Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, James Tilton, John Monday. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 12/31/2007) Modified on 1/2/2008 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/31/2007)

12/31/2007 1268 TRANSCRIPT filed for dates of 8/16/2007 before Judge Claudia Wilken, Court Reporter: Raynee Mercado re 1260 Notice of Appeal. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/31/2007) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/02/2008)

01/02/2008 2856 Certificate of Record Mailed to USCA re 1260 Notice of Appeal (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/2/2008) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/02/2008)

01/04/2008 1269 Fifth MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and [Proposed] Order filed by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 1/4/2008) (Entered: 01/04/2008)

01/07/2008 1270 STIPULATION and Proposed Order Rescheduling Case Management Conference to February 14, 2008 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 1/7/2008) (Entered: 01/07/2008)

01/08/2008 1271 ORDER re 1270 granting as modified STIPULATION Rescheduling Case Management Conference. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/8/08. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/8/2008) (Entered: 01/08/2008)

01/09/2008 2858 USCA Appeal Fees received $455.00, receipt number 44611001694 re 1263 Notice of Appeal (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/9/2008) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/09/2008)

01/09/2008 2857 Amended Notification Information sent to USCA re 1263 Notice of Appeal (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/9/2008) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/09/2008)

01/28/2008 1272 Proposed Order Confirming Undisputed California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Adult Operations and Adult Programs Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the Third Quarterly Statement of 2007 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 1/28/2008) (Entered: 01/28/2008)

01/28/2008 1273 Proposed Order Confirming Undisputed Board of Parole Hearings Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Third Quarter of 2007 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 1/28/2008) (Entered: 01/28/2008)

01/28/2008 1274 Proposed Order Confirming Undisputed Division of Adult Parole Operations Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the Third Quarterly Statement of 2007 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 1/28/2008) (Entered: 01/28/2008)

01/29/2008 1275 Sixth MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and [Proposed] Order filed by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 1/29/2008) (Entered: 01/29/2008)

01/29/2008 1276 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1269 Fifth Motion for Disbursement of Funds (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/29/2008) (Entered: 01/29/2008)

01/30/2008 1277 ORDER re 1274 Confirming Undisputed Division of Adult Parole Operations Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the Third Quarterly Statement of 2007. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/30/08. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(scc, COURT STAFF)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 150 of 265

(Filed on 1/30/2008) (Entered: 01/30/2008)

01/30/2008 1278 ORDER re 1273 Confirming Undisputed Board of Parole Hearings Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Third Quarter of 2007. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/30/08. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/30/2008) (Entered: 01/30/2008)

01/30/2008

1279

ORDER re 1272 Confirming Undisputed California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Adult Operations and Adult Programs Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the Third Quarterly Statement of 2007. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/30/08. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/30/2008) (Entered: 01/30/2008)

01/30/2008 1280 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1275 Sixth MOTION for Disbursement of Funds (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/30/2008) (Entered: 01/30/2008)

01/31/2008 1281 CLERK'S NOTICE CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE. Status Conference set for 3/11/2008 02:00 PM. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/31/2008) (Entered: 01/31/2008)

02/04/2008 1282 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Show Cause Response due by 2/15/2008.. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 2/4/08. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/4/2008) (Entered: 02/04/2008)

02/15/2008 1283 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Arnold Schwarzenegger re IT System. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Proof of Service)(East, Rochelle) (Filed on 2/15/2008) (Entered: 02/15/2008)

02/26/2008 1284 ORDER. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 2/26/08. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/26/2008) (Entered: 02/26/2008)

02/26/2008 1285 Seventh MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and [Proposed] Order filed by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 2/26/2008) (Entered: 02/26/2008)

02/26/2008 1286 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by John Armstrong, Arnold Schwarzenegger, et al. (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 2/26/2008) Modified on 2/27/2008 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/26/2008)

02/26/2008 1287 EXHIBITS re 1286 Case Management Statement Exhibits A−F filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1286 ) (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 2/26/2008) (Entered: 02/26/2008)

02/26/2008 1288 EXHIBITS H−J filed byJohn Armstrong. (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 2/26/2008) (Entered: 02/26/2008)

02/26/2008 1289 EXHIBITS re 1286 Case Management Statement Exhibit G, part 1 filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1286 ) (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 2/26/2008) (Entered: 02/26/2008)

02/26/2008 1290 EXHIBITS re 1286 Case Management Statement Exhibit G, part 2 filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1286 ) (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 2/26/2008) (Entered: 02/26/2008)

03/04/2008 1291 Letter from Plaintiffs' Counsel Responding to Defendants' Claim That the Court Has Lost Jurisdiction to Enforce the September 11, 2007 Order. (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 3/4/2008) (Entered: 03/04/2008)

03/10/2008 1292 ORDER APPROVING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY COORDINATION AGREEMENT. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 3/10/08. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/10/2008) (Entered: 03/10/2008)

03/10/2008 1293 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1285 granting Seventh MOTION for Disbursement of Funds (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/10/2008) (Entered: 03/10/2008)

03/11/2008 1296 Minute Entry: Further Case Management Conference held on 3/11/2008 before Claudia Wilken (Date Filed: 3/11/2008). (Court Reporter Diane Skillman.) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 3/11/2008) (Entered: 03/13/2008)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 151 of 265

03/12/2008 1294 Eighth MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and [Proposed] Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 3/12/2008) (Entered: 03/12/2008)

03/13/2008 1295 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Show Cause Response due by 3/28/2008.. Signed by Judge CLAUDIA WILKEN on 3/13/08. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/13/2008) (Entered: 03/13/2008)

03/13/2008

Set/Reset Hearings: Further Status Conference set for 5/6/2008 02:30 PM. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/13/2008) (Entered: 03/13/2008)

03/14/2008 1297 Notice of Filing of Receiver's Seventh Quarterly Report by J. Clark Kelso. (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 3/14/2008) Modified on 3/17/2008 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/14/2008)

03/14/2008

1298

EXHIBITS re 1297 Receiver's Seventh Quarterly Report filed byJ. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14)(Related document(s) 1297 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 3/14/2008) Modified on 3/17/2008 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/14/2008)

03/19/2008 1299 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1294 Eighth MOTION for Disbursement of Funds for Payment (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/19/2008) (Entered: 03/19/2008)

03/28/2008

1300

Response to Order to Show Cause 1295 Order to Show Cause Defendants' Response to Order to Show Cause re: Pilot Program for Chief Executive Officer byJoseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (East, Rochelle) (Filed on 3/28/2008) (Entered: 03/28/2008)

04/01/2008 1301 ORDER APPROVING CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PILOT PROGRAM COORDINATION AGREEMENT. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 4/1/08. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/1/2008) (Entered: 04/01/2008)

04/09/2008 1302 Proposed Order Confirming Undisputed Board of Parole Hearings Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Fourth Quarter of 2007 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 4/9/2008) (Entered: 04/09/2008)

04/09/2008 1303 Proposed Order Confirming Undisputed Division of Adult Parole Operations Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the Fourth Quarterly Statement of 2007 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 4/9/2008) (Entered: 04/09/2008)

04/09/2008 1304 Proposed Order Confirming Undisputed California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Adult Operations and Adult Programs Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the Fourth Quarterly Statement of 2007 by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 4/9/2008) (Entered: 04/09/2008)

04/14/2008 1305 ORDER re 1303 Confirming Undisputed Division of Adult Parole Operations Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the Fourth Quarterly Statement of 2007. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 4/14/08. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/14/2008) (Entered: 04/14/2008)

04/14/2008 1306 ORDER re 1302 Confirming Undisputed Board of Parole Hearings Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Fourth Quarter of 2007. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 4/14/08. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/14/2008) (Entered: 04/14/2008)

04/15/2008

1307

ORDER re 1304 Confirming Undisputed California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Adult Operations and Adult Programs Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the Fourth Quarterly Statement of 2007. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 4/15/08. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/15/2008) (Entered: 04/15/2008)

04/18/2008 1308 Ninth MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and [Proposed] Order filed by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 4/18/2008) (Entered: 04/18/2008)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 152 of 265

04/22/2008 1309 ORDER DIRECTING ADDITIONAL INTERIM PAYMENT OF COSTS. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 4/22/08. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/22/2008) (Entered: 04/22/2008)

04/22/2008 1310 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1308 Ninth MOTION for Disbursement of Funds (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/22/2008) (Entered: 04/22/2008)

04/25/2008

1311

MOTION to Stay THE DISTRICT COURTS SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 ORDER PENDING APPEAL; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES filed by Arnold Schwarzenegger. Motion Hearing set for 6/12/2008 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (Zelidon−Zepeda, Jose) (Filed on 4/25/2008) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

04/25/2008 1312 Proposed Order re 1311 MOTION to Stay THE DISTRICT COURTS SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 ORDER PENDING APPEAL; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES by Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Zelidon−Zepeda, Jose) (Filed on 4/25/2008) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

04/29/2008

1313

Joint Status Conference Statement filed by Joseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits A − B, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit C part 1, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit C part 2, # 4 Signature Page (Declarations/Stipulations) Declaration of Service by U.S. Mail)(Russell, Jay) (Filed on 4/29/2008) Modified on 4/30/2008 (kcS, ). (Entered: 04/29/2008)

05/06/2008

1314

Minute Entry: ***Motions terminated: 1311 MOTION to Stay THE DISTRICT COURTS SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 ORDER PENDING APPEAL; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES filed by Arnold Schwarzenegger., Further Case Management Conference held on 5/6/2008 before Claudia Wilken (Date Filed: 5/6/2008). Further Case Management Conference set for 7/22/2008 02:30 PM. (Court Reporter Raynee Mercado.) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 5/6/2008) (Entered: 05/08/2008)

05/06/2008

Set/Reset Hearings: Further Case Management Conference set for 7/22/2008 at 02:30 PM. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/6/2008) (Entered: 05/09/2008)

05/13/2008 1315 Transcript of Proceedings held on March 23, 2007, before Judge Claudia Wilken. Court Reporter Diane Skillman. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/13/2008) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/14/2008)

05/13/2008 1316 Transcript of Proceedings held on June 7, 2007 before Judge Claudia Wilken. Court Reporter Diane Skillman. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/13/2008) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/14/2008)

05/14/2008 1317 Transcript of Proceedings held on March 11, 2008, before Judge Claudia Wilken. (C/R Diane E. Skillman). (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/14/2008) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/15/2008)

05/14/2008 1318 Transcript of Proceedings held on May 6, 2008, before Judge Claudia Wilken. (C/R Raynee H. Mercado). (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/14/2008) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/15/2008)

05/16/2008 1319 Tenth MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and [Proposed] Order filed by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 5/16/2008) (Entered: 05/16/2008)

05/19/2008 1320 DISREGARD − INCORRECT DOCUMENT. SEE DOCKET NUMBER 1321 FOR CORRECT DOCUMENT

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1319 Tenth MOTION for Disbursement of Funds. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/19/2008) Modified on 5/20/2008 (scc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/19/2008)
05/20/2008 1321 ORDER re 1319 granting Tenth MOTION for Disbursement of Funds. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 5/19/08. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/20/2008) (Entered: 05/20/2008)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 153 of 265

05/28/2008 1322 Proposed Order Confirming Payment of Certain Disputed CDCR/AOAP Attorneys' Fees and Costs from 2006−2007 by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 5/28/2008) (Entered: 05/28/2008)

06/02/2008 1323 NOTICE of Change of Address by Sara Linda Norman (Norman, Sara) (Filed on 6/2/2008) (Entered: 06/02/2008)

06/11/2008 1324 ORDER re 1322 Confirming Payment of Certain Disputed CDCR/AOAP Attorneys' Fees and Costs from 2006−2007. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 6/11/08. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/11/2008) (Entered: 06/11/2008)

06/11/2008 1325 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds Eleventh Motion for Disbursement of Funds and [Proposed] Order filed by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 6/11/2008) (Entered: 06/11/2008)

06/12/2008 1326 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1325 Eleventh Motion for Disbursement of Funds (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/12/2008) (Entered: 06/12/2008)

06/17/2008 1327 NOTICE by J. Clark Kelso Notice of Filing of Receiver's Eighth Quarterly Report (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 6/17/2008) (Entered: 06/17/2008)

06/17/2008

1328

EXHIBITS re 1327 Notice (Other) Exhibits to The Receiver's Eighth Quarterly Report filed byJ. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibits 2 to 5, # 3 Exhibit 6−part 1, # 4 Exhibit 6−part 2, # 5 Exhibit 6−part 3, # 6 Exhibits 7 to 9, # 7 Exhibit 10−part 1, # 8 Exhibit 10−part 2, # 9 Exhibits 11 to 14)(Related document(s) 1327 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 6/17/2008) (Entered: 06/17/2008)

06/19/2008 1329 Proposed Order Confirming Payment of Undisputed California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Adult Operations and Adult Programs Attorneys' Fees and Costs for Quarter One of 2008 by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 6/19/2008) (Entered: 06/19/2008)

06/19/2008 1330 Proposed Order Confirming Undisputed Board of Parole Hearings Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the First Quarter of 2008 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 6/19/2008) (Entered: 06/19/2008)

06/19/2008 1331 Proposed Order Confirming Undisputed Division of Adult Parole Operations Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the First Quarterly Statement of 2008 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 6/19/2008) (Entered: 06/19/2008)

06/27/2008 1332 ORDER re 1330 Confirming Undisputed Board of Parole Hearings Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the First Quarter of 2008. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 6/27/08. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/27/2008) (Entered: 06/27/2008)

06/27/2008 1333 ORDER re 1331 Confirming Undisputed Division of Adult Parole Operations Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the First Quarterly Statement of 2008. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 6/27/08. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/27/2008) (Entered: 06/27/2008)

06/27/2008

1334

ORDER re 1329 Confirming Payment of Undisputed California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Adult Operations and Adult Programs Attorneys' Fees and Costs for Quarter One of 2008. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 6/27/08. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/27/2008) (Entered: 06/27/2008)

06/30/2008 1335 AMENDED ORDER re 1333 Confirming Undisputed Division of Adult Parole Operations Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the First Quarterly Statement of 2008. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 6/30/08. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/30/2008) (Entered: 06/30/2008)

07/14/2008 1336 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds Twelfth Motion for Disbursement of Fund and [Proposed] Order filed by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 7/14/2008) (Entered: 07/14/2008)

07/15/2008 1337 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Exhibits A−H, # 2 Exhibit Defendants' Exhibits A−D)(Loren, Stewart) (Filed on 7/15/2008) (Entered: 07/15/2008)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 154 of 265

07/22/2008 1339 Minute Entry: Further Case Management Conference held on 7/22/2008 before Claudia Wilken (Date Filed: 7/22/2008). Further Case Management Conference set for 10/7/2008 02:30 PM. (Court Reporter Raynee Mercado.) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 7/22/2008) (Entered: 08/07/2008)

07/29/2008 1338 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1336 Twelfth Motion for Disbursement of Fund (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/29/2008) Modified on 7/30/2008 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/29/2008)

08/13/2008 1340 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds Thirteenth Motion for Disbursement of Funds and [Proposed] Order filed by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 8/13/2008) (Entered: 08/13/2008)

08/29/2008 1341 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1340 Thirteenth Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/29/2008) (Entered: 08/29/2008)

09/05/2008 1342 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Show Cause Response due by 9/26/2008.. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 9/5/08. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/5/2008) (Entered: 09/05/2008)

09/10/2008 1343 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds Fourteenth Motion for Disbursement of Funds and [Proposed] Order filed by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 9/10/2008) (Entered: 09/10/2008)

09/16/2008 1344 NOTICE by J. Clark Kelso Notice of Filing of Receiver's Ninth Quarterly Report (Attachments: # 1 Receiver's Report − Part 2)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 9/16/2008) (Entered: 09/16/2008)

09/16/2008 1345 Appendix re 1344 Notice (Other) Table of Appendencies and Appendencies 1 through 2 to Receiver's Ninth Report filed byJ. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix 1, # 2 Appendix 2)(Related document(s) 1344 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 9/16/2008) (Entered: 09/16/2008)

09/16/2008

1346

Appendix re 1344 Notice (Other) Appendices 3 through 12 to Receiver's Ninth Report filed byJ. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix 4, # 2 Appendix 5, # 3 Appendix 6, # 4 Appendix 7, # 5 Appendix 8, # 6 Appendix 9, # 7 Appendix 10, # 8 Appendix 11, # 9 Appendix 12)(Related document(s) 1344 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 9/16/2008) (Entered: 09/16/2008)

09/16/2008 1347 Appendix re 1344 Notice (Other) Appendices 13 through 15 to Receiver's Ninth Report filed byJ. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix 14, # 2 Appendix 15)(Related document(s) 1344 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 9/16/2008) (Entered: 09/16/2008)

09/16/2008 1348 Appendix re 1344 Notice (Other) Appendices 16 through 20 to Receiver's Ninth Report filed byJ. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix 17, # 2 Appendix 18, # 3 Appendix 19, # 4 Appendix 20)(Related document(s) 1344 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 9/16/2008) (Entered: 09/16/2008)

09/16/2008

1349

Appendix re 1344 Notice (Other) Appendices 21 through 29 to Receiver's Ninth Report filed byJ. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix 22, # 2 Appendix 23, # 3 Appendix 24, # 4 Appendix 25, # 5 Appendix 26, # 6 Appendix 27, # 7 Appendix 28, # 8 Appendix 29)(Related document(s) 1344 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 9/16/2008) (Entered: 09/16/2008)

09/17/2008 1350 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1343 Fourteenth Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/17/2008) (Entered: 09/17/2008)

09/19/2008

1351

STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order to Continue Status Conference by Joseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, James Tilton, John Monday. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 9/19/2008) (Entered: 09/19/2008)

09/22/2008 1352 ORDER re 1351 granting STIPULATION to Continue Status Conference. Status Conference set for 10/14/2008 02:00 PM.. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 9/22/08. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2008) (Entered: 09/22/2008)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 155 of 265

09/26/2008

1353

MOTION to Compel Production of Billing Statements in Electronic Format filed by Joseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, James Tilton, John Monday. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 9/26/2008) Modified on 9/29/2008 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/26/2008)

09/26/2008

1354

Declaration of Katherine Tebrock in Support of 1353 MOTION to Compel Production of Billing Statements in Electronic Format filed byJoseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, James Tilton, John Monday. (Related document(s) 1353 ) (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 9/26/2008) Modified on 9/29/2008 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/26/2008)

09/26/2008

1355

Declaration of Jay C. Russell in Support of 1353 MOTION to Compel Production of Billing Statements in Electronic Format filed byJoseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, James Tilton, John Monday. (Related document(s) 1353 ) (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 9/26/2008) Modified on 9/29/2008 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/26/2008)

09/26/2008

1356

Proposed Order re 1353 MOTION to Compel Production of Billing Statements in Electronic Format by Joseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, James Tilton, John Monday. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 9/26/2008) Modified on 9/29/2008 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/26/2008)

09/29/2008 1357 Response to Order to Show Cause re Space Coordination byArnold Schwarzenegger. (East, Rochelle) (Filed on 9/29/2008) Modified on 9/30/2008 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/29/2008)

09/29/2008

Set/Reset Deadlines as to 1353 MOTION to Compel Production of Billing Statements in Electronic Format. Motion Hearing set for 11/6/2008 02:00 PM. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/29/2008) (Entered: 09/29/2008)

09/30/2008 1358 Proposed Order Confirming Undisputed California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Adult Operations and Adult Programs Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the Second Quarterly Statement of 2008 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 9/30/2008) (Entered: 09/30/2008)

09/30/2008 1359 Proposed Order Confirming Undisputed Board of Parole Hearings Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Second Quarter of 2008 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 9/30/2008) (Entered: 09/30/2008)

09/30/2008 1360 Proposed Order Confirming Undisputed Division of Adult Parole Operations Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the Second Quarterly Statement of 2008 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 9/30/2008) (Entered: 09/30/2008)

10/01/2008

1361

ORDER re 1358 Confirming Undisputed California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Adult Operations and Adult Programs Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the Second Quarterly Statement of 2008. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/1/08. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/1/2008) (Entered: 10/01/2008)

10/01/2008 1362 ORDER re 1359 Confirming Undisputed Board of Parole Hearings Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Second Quarter of 2008. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/1/08. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/1/2008) (Entered: 10/01/2008)

10/01/2008 1363 ORDER re 1360 Confirming Undisputed Division of Adult Parole Operations Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the Second Quarterly Statement of 2008. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/1/08. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/1/2008) (Entered: 10/01/2008)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 156 of 265

10/07/2008 1364 ORDER APPROVING SPACE COORDINATION AGREEMENT. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/7/08. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/7/2008) (Entered: 10/07/2008)

10/07/2008

1365

Joint Status Conference Statement filed by Joseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, James Nielsen, Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, James Tilton, John Monday, John Armstrong, et al. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits A to C)(Russell, Jay) (Filed on 10/7/2008) Modified on 10/8/2008 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/07/2008)

10/09/2008 1366 Declaration of Receiver J. Clark Kelso Regarding Coordination Agreement for Transition, Activation and Management of 10,000 Bed Project filed byJ. Clark Kelso. (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 10/9/2008) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/09/2008)

10/09/2008 1367 Declaration of John Hagar Regarding Coordination Agreement for Transition, Activation and Management of 10,000 Bed Project filed byJ. Clark Kelso. (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 10/9/2008) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/09/2008)

10/10/2008 1368 ORDER re 1353 CONCERNING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF BILLING STATEMENTS IN ELECTRONIC FORM. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/10/08. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/10/2008) (Entered: 10/10/2008)

10/10/2008 1369 MOTION to Withdraw From the Court Docket Erroneously Filed Declarations Regarding Coordination Agreement for Transition, Activation and Management of 10,000 Bed Project filed by J. Clark Kelso. (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 10/10/2008) Modified on 10/14/2008 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/10/2008)

10/10/2008 1370 Proposed Order re 1369 MOTION to Withdraw From the Court Docket Erroneously Filed Declarations Regarding Coordination Agreement for Transition, Activation and Management of 10,000 Bed Project by J. Clark Kelso. (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 10/10/2008) Modified on 10/14/2008 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/10/2008)

10/13/2008 1371 Memorandum in Opposition re 1353 MOTION to Compel Production of Billing Statements in Electronic Format filed byJohn Armstrong. (Walczak, Kenneth) (Filed on 10/13/2008) (Entered: 10/13/2008)

10/13/2008 1372 DECLARATION of Michael W. Bien in Opposition to 1353 MOTION to Compel Production of Billing Statements in Electronic Format with Exhibits 1−5 filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1353 ) (Walczak, Kenneth) (Filed on 10/13/2008) (Entered: 10/13/2008)

10/13/2008 1373 DECLARATION of Donald Specter in Opposition to 1353 MOTION to Compel Production of Billing Statements in Electronic Format filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1353 ) (Walczak, Kenneth) (Filed on 10/13/2008) (Entered: 10/13/2008)

10/13/2008 1374 DECLARATION of Geoffrey T. Holtz in Opposition to 1353 MOTION to Compel Production of Billing Statements in Electronic Format filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1353 ) (Walczak, Kenneth) (Filed on 10/13/2008) (Entered: 10/13/2008)

10/14/2008 1375 EXHIBITS re 1374 Declaration in Opposition to Motion to Compel Production of Billing Statements in Electronic Format (Exhibit A to Declaration of Geoffrey T. Holtz) filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1374 ) (Walczak, Kenneth) (Filed on 10/14/2008) (Entered: 10/14/2008)

10/14/2008 1376 ORDER by Judge CLAUDIA WILKEN granting 1369 Administrative Motion to Withdraw From the Court Docket Erroneously Filed Declarations Regarding Coordination Agreement for Transition, Activation and Management of 10,000 Bed Project (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/14/2008) (Entered: 10/14/2008)

10/14/2008 1378 Minute Entry: Status Conference (Date Filed: 10/14/2008). Status Conference set for 12/16/2008 02:00 PM. (Court Reporter Diane Skillman.) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 10/14/2008) (Entered: 10/16/2008)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 157 of 265

10/15/2008 1377 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds Fifteenth Motion for Disbursement of Funds and [Proposed] Order filed by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 10/15/2008) (Entered: 10/15/2008)

10/16/2008 1379 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1377 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/16/2008) (Entered: 10/16/2008)

10/20/2008 1380 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1353 Motion to Compel Production of Billing Statements in Electronic Format (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/20/2008) (Entered: 10/20/2008)

10/24/2008 1381 Letter from Jay C. Russell, Deputy Attorney General and [Proposed] Protective Order. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 10/24/2008) (Entered: 10/24/2008)

10/24/2008

1382

Declaration of Ernest Galvan in compliance with the court's 1380 Order on Motion to Compel Production of Billing Statements in Electronic Form filed byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, Copy of Proposed Order Lodged Herewith, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Related document(s) 1380 ) (Galvan, Ernest) (Filed on 10/24/2008) Modified on 10/27/2008 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/24/2008)

10/24/2008 1383 Proposed Order re 1380 Order on Motion to Compel Production of Billing Statements in Electronic Form by John Armstrong. (Galvan, Ernest) (Filed on 10/24/2008) (Entered: 10/24/2008)

10/30/2008 1384 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Show Cause Response due by 11/10/2008.. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/30/08. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/30/2008) (Entered: 10/30/2008)

11/10/2008 1385 Sixteenth Motion for Disbursement of Funds and Proposed Order filed by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 11/10/2008) Modified on 11/12/2008 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/10/2008)

11/10/2008 1386 PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 11/10/08. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/10/2008) (Entered: 11/10/2008)

11/10/2008

1387

RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Joseph C. Sandoval, James Gomez, Kyle McKinsey, Kevin Carruth, Marisela Montes, Robert Presley, California Board of Prison Term, Arnold Schwarzenegger, James Tilton, John Monday Re: Transition, Activation, and Management of the Receiver's 10,000 Bed Project. (East, Rochelle) (Filed on 11/10/2008) (Entered: 11/10/2008)

11/12/2008 1388 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1385 Sixteenth Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/12/2008) (Entered: 11/12/2008)

11/17/2008 1389 RESPONSE of Receiver J. Clark Kelso to Defendants' Response to OSC re: Transition, Activation, and Management of Receiver's 10,000 Bed Project Coordination Agreement by J. Clark Kelso. (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 11/17/2008) Modified on 11/18/2008 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/17/2008)

11/19/2008 1390 ORDER MODIFYING REPORTING REQUIREMENTS. Signed by Judge CLAUDIA WILKEN on 11/19/08. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/19/2008) (Entered: 11/19/2008)

11/25/2008 1391 NOTICE of Appearance by Mark Raymond Feeser (Feeser, Mark) (Filed on 11/25/2008) (Entered: 11/25/2008)

12/01/2008 1392 ORDER RE: TRANSITION PLANNING COORDINATION AGREEMENT. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 12/1/08. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/1/2008) (Entered: 12/01/2008)

12/09/2008 1393 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Exhibits A−H, # 2 Exhibit Defendants' Exhibits A−F)(Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 12/9/2008) (Entered: 12/09/2008)

12/09/2008 1394 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 1386 Protective Order by Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Filing fee $ 455.00, receipt #44611002926. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/9/2008) (Additional attachment(s)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 158 of 265

added on 4/4/2019: # 1 Receipt) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/10/2008)

12/10/2008 1395 Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 1394 Notice of Appeal (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/10/2008) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/10/2008)

12/10/2008

Copy of Notice of Appeal and Docket sheet mailed to all counsel (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/10/2008) (Entered: 12/10/2008)

12/11/2008 1396 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds Seventeenth Motion and [Proposed] Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 12/11/2008) (Entered: 12/11/2008)

12/12/2008 1397 USCA Case Number 08−17664 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for 1394 Notice of Appeal filed by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Attachments: # 1 USCA Time Scheduling Order)(kk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/12/2008) (Entered: 12/12/2008)

12/12/2008 1398 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1396 Seventeenth Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/12/2008) (Entered: 12/12/2008)

12/16/2008 1399 Minute Entry: Further Case Management Conference held on 12/16/2008 before Claudia Wilken (Date Filed: 12/16/2008). Further Case Management Conference set for 2/24/2009 02:00 PM. (Court Reporter Starr Wilson, pro tem.) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 12/16/2008) (Entered: 12/17/2008)

12/19/2008 1400 Statement re 1394 Notice of Appeal Defendants−Appellants' Representation Statement Re: Notice of Appeal filed December 9, 2008 by Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 12/19/2008) (Entered: 12/19/2008)

12/22/2008 1401 Transcript Designation and Ordering Form for proceedings held on 10/14/08 before Judge Claudia Wilken, (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/22/2008) (Entered: 12/23/2008)

01/09/2009 1402 Proposed Order Confirming Undisputed California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Adult Operations and Adult Programs Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the Third Quarterly Statement of 2008 by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 1/9/2009) (Entered: 01/09/2009)

01/09/2009 1403 Proposed Order Confirming Undisputed Board of Parole Hearings Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Third Quarter of 2008 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 1/9/2009) (Entered: 01/09/2009)

01/09/2009 1404 Proposed Order Confirming Undisputed Division of Adult Parole Operations Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the Third Quarterly Statement of 2008 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 1/9/2009) (Entered: 01/09/2009)

01/12/2009

1405

ORDER re 1402 Confirming Undisputed California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Adult Operations and Adult Programs Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the Third Quarterly Statement of 2008. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/12/09. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/12/2009) (Entered: 01/12/2009)

01/12/2009 1406 ORDER re 1404 Confirming Undisputed Division of Adult Parole Operations Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the Third Quarterly Statement of 2008. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/12/09. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/12/2009) (Entered: 01/12/2009)

01/12/2009 1407 ORDER re 1403 Confirming Undisputed Board of Parole Hearings Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Third Quarter of 2008. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/12/09. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/12/2009) (Entered: 01/12/2009)

01/13/2009 1408 STATUS REPORT Concerning the Meet and Confer Process Following the Court's Case Management Conference Order of December 16, 2008, and Agreement that Court Should Reconsider November 10, 2008 Protective Order and Instead Enter Revised Protective Order by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 1/13/2009)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 159 of 265

(Entered: 01/13/2009)

01/13/2009

1409

Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld In Support of re 1408 Plaintiffs' Report Concerning the Meet and Confer Process Following the Court's Case Management Conference Order of December 16, 2008, and Agreement that Court Should Reconsider November 10, 2008 Protective Order and Instead Enter Revised Protective Order by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 1/13/2009) Modified on 1/14/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/13/2009)

01/13/2009 1410 Proposed Order re 1408 Status Report by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 1/13/2009) Modified on 1/14/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/13/2009)

01/14/2009 1411 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds Eighteenth Motion for Disbursement of Funds and [Proposed] Order filed by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 1/14/2009) (Entered: 01/14/2009)

01/15/2009 1412 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Show Cause Response due by 1/30/2009.. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/15/09. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/15/2009) (Entered: 01/15/2009)

01/15/2009 1413 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (re Transcription and Dictation Coordination Agreement) Show Cause Response due by 1/30/2009.. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/15/09. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/15/2009) (Entered: 01/15/2009)

01/15/2009 1414 MOTION to Strike Pleadings filed by Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 1/15/2009) Modified on 1/16/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/15/2009)

01/15/2009 1415 Declaration of Jay C. Russell in Support of 1414 MOTION to Strike Pleadings filed byArnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Related document(s) 1414 ) (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 1/15/2009) Modified on 1/16/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/15/2009)

01/15/2009 1416 Proposed Order re 1414 MOTION to Strike Pleadings by Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 1/15/2009) Modified on 1/16/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/15/2009)

01/16/2009 1417 Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Administrative Motion to Strike Pleadings filed byJohn Armstrong. (Feeser, Mark) (Filed on 1/16/2009) (Entered: 01/16/2009)

01/16/2009 1418 Proposed Order re 1414 Administrative Motion to Strike Pleadings by John Armstrong. (Feeser, Mark) (Filed on 1/16/2009) Modified on 1/20/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/16/2009)

01/16/2009

1419

Transcript of Proceedings held on 12/16/08, before Judge Claudia Wilken. Court Reporter/Transcriber Starr A. Wilson, Telephone number (415) 239−8398. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. Redaction Request due 2/3/2009. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/13/2009. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/13/2009. (Wilson, Starr) (Filed on 1/16/2009) (Entered: 01/16/2009)

01/20/2009 1420 NOTICE of Filing of Receiver's Tenth Tri−Annual Report by J. Clark Kelso(Attachments: # 1 Receiver's Tenth Tri−Annual Report)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 1/20/2009) Modified on 1/21/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/20/2009)

01/20/2009 1421 Table of Appendices and Appendices 1 to 5 re 1420 Notice by J. Clark Kelso(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 1/20/2009) Modified on 1/21/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/20/2009)

01/20/2009 1422 Appendices 6 to 13 re 1420 Notice by J. Clark Kelso(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 1/20/2009) Modified on 1/21/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/20/2009)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 160 of 265
01/20/2009 1423 Appendices 14 to 15 re 1420 Notice by J. Clark Kelso(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 1/20/2009) Modified on 1/21/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/20/2009)
01/20/2009 1424 Appendices 16 to 18 re 1420 Notice by J. Clark Kelso (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 1/20/2009) Modified on 1/21/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/20/2009)
01/20/2009 1425 Appendices 19 to 23 re 1420 Notice by J. Clark Kelso(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 1/20/2009) Modified on 1/21/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/20/2009)
01/20/2009 1426 Appendices 24 to 25 re 1420 Notice by J. Clark Kelso(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 1/20/2009) Modified on 1/21/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/20/2009)
01/20/2009 1427 Appendices 26 to 29 re 1420 Notice by J. Clark Kelso (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 1/20/2009) Modified on 1/21/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/20/2009)
01/20/2009 1428 Appendices 30 to 34 re 1420 Notice by J. Clark Kelso(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 1/20/2009) Modified on 1/21/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/20/2009)
01/20/2009 1429 Appendices 35 to 43 re 1420 Notice by J. Clark Kelso(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 1/20/2009) Modified on 1/21/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/20/2009)
01/21/2009 1430 NOTICE of Appearance by Cynthia Clarke Fritz (Fritz, Cynthia) (Filed on 1/21/2009) (Entered: 01/21/2009)
01/26/2009 1431 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken denying 1414 Motion to Strike Pleadings (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/26/2009) (Entered: 01/26/2009)
01/26/2009 1432 NOTICE OF INTENT TO RECONSIDER. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/26/09. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/26/2009) (Entered: 01/26/2009)
01/26/2009 1433 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1411 Eighteenth Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/26/2009) (Entered: 01/26/2009)
01/30/2009 1434 RESPONSE to re 1432 Order by Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Zelidon−Zepeda, Jose) (Filed on 1/30/2009) (Entered: 01/30/2009)
01/30/2009 1435 [PROPOSED] REVISED PROTECTIVE ORDER by Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Zelidon−Zepeda, Jose) (Filed on 1/30/2009) Modified on 2/2/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/30/2009)
01/30/2009 1436 Amended Administrative Motion and [Proposed] Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 1/30/2009) Modified on 2/2/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/30/2009)
01/30/2009 1437 Response to Order to Show Cause Re: Transcription and Dictation Coordination Agreement byArnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Fritz, Cynthia) (Filed on 1/30/2009) (Entered: 01/30/2009)
01/30/2009 1438 Response to Order to Show Cause Re: Health Care Administrative Appeals Coordination Agreement byArnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Fritz, Cynthia) (Filed on 1/30/2009) (Entered: 01/30/2009)
02/02/2009 1439 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1436 Amended Administrative Motion for Payment (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/2/2009) (Entered: 02/02/2009)
02/02/2009 1440 Defendants' Supplemental Statement Regarding Request For Approval Of The Coordination Agreement On Transition Planning by Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Lewis, Kyle) (Filed on 2/2/2009) Modified on 2/3/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/02/2009)
02/02/2009 1441 Joint Statement re Coordination Agreement Regarding Transition, Activation and Management of 10,000 Bed Project by J. Clark Kelso(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 2/2/2009) Modified on 2/3/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/02/2009)
02/03/2009 1442 Updated Analyses Regarding Projected Need for Long−Term Care Facilities for CDCR Inmate−Patients by J. Clark Kelso(Attachments: # 1 Exhibits 1 to 4)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 2/3/2009) Modified on 2/4/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered:

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 161 of 265

02/03/2009)

02/03/2009 1443 Receiver's Initial Reply to Defendants' Response to OSC re Transcription and Dictation Coordination Agreement by J. Clark Kelso(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 2/3/2009) Modified on 2/4/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/03/2009)

02/04/2009 1444 Reply to Defendants' Response to the Court's January 26, 2009 Notice of Intent to Reconsider by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 2/4/2009) Modified on 2/5/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/04/2009)

02/06/2009 1445 NOTICE by J. Clark Kelso Receiver's Report on Options for Long−Term Care Bed Construction (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 2/6/2009) (Entered: 02/06/2009)

02/10/2009 1446 Plaintiffs' Response to re 1443 Receiver's Reply to Defendants' Response to OSC re Transcription and Dictation Coordination Agreement by John Armstrong (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 2/10/2009) Modified on 2/11/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/10/2009)

02/13/2009 1447 Nineteenth Motion for Disbursement of Funds and [Proposed] Order filed by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 2/13/2009) Modified on 2/17/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/13/2009)

02/17/2009

1448

JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT filed by John Armstrong, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, *** # 2 Exhibit PLEASE SEE DOCKET # 1451 re Exhibit A *** )(Specter, Donald) (Filed on 2/17/2009) Modified on 2/18/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). Modified on 2/25/2009 (ewn, COURT STAFF). Modified on 2/26/2009 (ewn, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/5/2009: # 2 Exhibit A) (cp, COURT STAFF). Modified on 3/5/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/17/2009)

02/18/2009 1449 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1447 Nineteenth Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/18/2009) (Entered: 02/18/2009)

02/23/2009 1450 ORDER CONCERNING PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 2/23/09. (Attachments: # 1 Draft Protective Order)(cwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/23/2009) (Entered: 02/23/2009)

02/24/2009

1455

Minute Entry: Further Case Management Conference held on 2/24/2009 before Claudia Wilken (Date Filed: 2/24/2009). Further Case Management Conference set for 3/3/2009 02:00 PM. Further Case Management Conference set for 4/28/2009 02:30 PM. (Court Reporter Diane Skillman.) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 2/24/2009) Modified on 3/3/2009 (scc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/03/2009)

02/25/2009 1451 EXHIBIT A CORRECTION OF DOCKET #[1448−3] by John Armstrong. (Specter, Donald) (Filed on 2/25/2009) Modified on 2/26/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/25/2009)

02/25/2009 1452 MOTION to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document Docket #1448−3 filed by John Armstrong. (Specter, Donald) (Filed on 2/25/2009) (Entered: 02/25/2009)

02/25/2009 1453 Proposed Order re 1452 MOTION to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document Docket #1448−3, 1451 Status Report by John Armstrong. (Specter, Donald) (Filed on 2/25/2009) (Entered: 02/25/2009)

03/02/2009 1454 PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 3/2/09. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/2/2009) (Entered: 03/02/2009)

03/03/2009 1457 Minute Entry: Further Case Management Conference held on 3/3/2009 before Claudia Wilken (Date Filed: 3/3/2009). (Court Reporter Diane Skillman.) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 3/3/2009) (Entered: 03/09/2009)

03/04/2009 1456 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1452 Motion to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/4/2009) (Entered: 03/04/2009)

03/11/2009 1458 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds Twentieth Motion and [Proposed] Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 3/11/2009) (Entered: 03/11/2009)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 162 of 265

03/13/2009 1459 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1458 Twentieth Motion for Payment (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/13/2009) (Entered: 03/13/2009)

03/20/2009 1460 MANDATE of USCA as to 1394 Notice of Appeal filed by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Arnold Schwarzenegger (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/20/2009) (Entered: 03/20/2009)

03/20/2009 1461 CLERKS Letter Spreading Mandate to Counsel as to 1394 Notice of Appeal (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/20/2009) (Entered: 03/20/2009)

04/01/2009 1462 Proposed Order Confirming Undisputed Division of Adult Parole Operations Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the Fourth Quarterly Statement of 2008 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 4/1/2009) (Entered: 04/01/2009)

04/03/2009 1463 ORDER re 1462 Confirming Undisputed Division of Adult Parole Operations Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the Fourth Quarterly Statement of 2008. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 4/3/09. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/3/2009) (Entered: 04/03/2009)

04/06/2009 1464 Proposed Order Confirming Undisputed Board of Parole Hearings Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Fourth Quarter of 2008 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 4/6/2009) (Entered: 04/06/2009)

04/07/2009 1465 Proposed Order Confirming Undisputed CDCR Adult Operations and Adult Programs Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the Fourth Quarterly Statement of 2008 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 4/7/2009) (Entered: 04/07/2009)

04/13/2009 1466 Twenty−first Administrative Motion and [Proposed] Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 4/13/2009) Modified on 4/14/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/13/2009)

04/16/2009

1467

ORDER re 1465 Confirming Undisputed California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Adult Operations and Adult Programs Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the Fourth Quarterly Statement of 2008. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 4/16/09. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/16/2009) Modified on 4/17/2009 (scc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/16/2009)

04/16/2009 1468 ORDER re 1464 Confirming Undisputed Board of Parole Hearings Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Fourth Quarter of 2008. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 4/16/09. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/16/2009) (Entered: 04/16/2009)

04/16/2009 1469 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1466 Twenty−first Administrative Motion for Payment (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/16/2009) (Entered: 04/16/2009)

04/21/2009 1470 JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT filed by Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, John Armstrong, et al. (Fritz, Cynthia) (Filed on 4/21/2009) Modified on 4/22/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/21/2009)

04/28/2009

1471

Minute Entry: Further Case Management Conference held on 4/28/2009 before Claudia Wilken (Date Filed: 4/28/2009). Further Case Management Conference set for 7/9/2009 02:00 PM. Motion Hearing set for 7/9/2009 02:00 PM. (Court Reporter David Disbrow, pro tem.) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 4/28/2009) (Entered: 05/01/2009)

05/08/2009 1472 MOTION TO CLARIFY OR MODIFY JANUARY 18, 2007 INJUNCTION filed by Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Fritz, Cynthia) (Filed on 5/8/2009) Modified on 5/11/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). Modified on 5/14/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF).

***For Table of Contents, see document # 1477 ***

(Entered: 05/08/2009)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 163 of 265

05/08/2009

1473

Declaration of Cynthia C. Fritz in Support of 1472 MOTION TO CLARIFY OR MODIFY JANUARY 18, 2007 INJUNCTION filed byArnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Related document(s) 1472 ) (Fritz, Cynthia) (Filed on 5/8/2009) Modified on 5/11/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/08/2009)

05/08/2009

1474

Declaration of Rick Wells in Support of 1472 MOTION TO CLARIFY OR MODIFY JANUARY 18, 2007 INJUNCTION filed byArnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Related document(s) 1472 ) (Fritz, Cynthia) (Filed on 5/8/2009) Modified on 5/11/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/08/2009)

05/08/2009

1475

Proposed Order Granting re 1472 MOTION TO MODIFY JANUARY 18, 2007 INJUNCTION by Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Fritz, Cynthia) (Filed on 5/8/2009) Modified on 5/12/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). Modified on 5/12/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/08/2009)

05/08/2009

1476

Proposed Order Granting re 1472 MOTION TO CLARIFY JANUARY 18, 2007 INJUNCTION by Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Fritz, Cynthia) (Filed on 5/8/2009) Modified on 5/12/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). Modified on 5/12/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). Modified on 5/12/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/08/2009)

05/13/2009 1477 TABLE OF CONTENTS AND AUTHORITIES re 1472 MOTION TO CLARIFY OR MODIFY JANUARY 18, 2007 INJUNCTION by Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Fritz, Cynthia) (Filed on 5/13/2009) Modified on 5/14/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/13/2009)

05/15/2009 1478 Twenty−Second Administrative Motion and [Proposed] Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 5/15/2009) Modified on 5/18/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/15/2009)

05/19/2009 1479 STIPULATION and Proposed Order Extending Time in Which Plaintiffs May Move to Compel Certain Disputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs Incurred in 2008 by John Armstrong, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 5/19/2009) Modified on 5/20/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/19/2009)

05/21/2009 1480 ORDER re 1479 GRANTING STIPULATION Extending Time in Which Plaintiffs May Move to Compel Certain Disputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs Incurred in 2008. Signed by Judge CLAUDIA WILKEN on 5/21/09. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/21/2009) (Entered: 05/21/2009)

05/21/2009 1481 Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants Motion to Clarify or Modify January 18, 2007 Injunction filed byJohn Armstrong. (Godbold, Penelope) (Filed on 5/21/2009) (Entered: 05/21/2009)

05/28/2009 1482 MOTION to Seal Document; Declaration of Holly Baldwin filed by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 5/28/2009) Modified on 5/29/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/28/2009)

05/28/2009 1483 Proposed Order re 1482 MOTION to Seal Document by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 5/28/2009) Modified on 5/29/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/28/2009)

05/28/2009

1484

MOTION to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails and Ensure Access to a Workable Grievance Procedure filed by John Armstrong. Motion Hearing set for 7/9/2009 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland. (Bien, Michael) (Filed on 5/28/2009) Modified on 5/29/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/28/2009)

05/28/2009 1485 Proposed Order re 1484 MOTION to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails and Ensure Access to a Workable Grievance Procedure by John Armstrong. (Bien, Michael) (Filed on 5/28/2009) Modified on 5/29/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/28/2009)

05/28/2009 1486 Declaration of F. Nura Maznavi in Support of 1484 MOTION to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members Housed in County

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 164 of 265

Jails and Ensure Access to a Workable Grievance Procedure filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1484 ) (Bien, Michael) (Filed on 5/28/2009) Modified on 5/29/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/28/2009)

05/28/2009

1487

Declaration of Ernest Galvan in Support of 1484 MOTION to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails and Ensure Access to a Workable Grievance Procedure filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1484 ) (Bien, Michael) (Filed on 5/28/2009) Modified on 5/29/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/28/2009)

05/28/2009 1488 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by John Armstrong (Bien, Michael) (Filed on 5/28/2009) (Entered: 05/28/2009)

05/28/2009

1489

*** FILED IN ERROR. PLEASE REFER TO DOCUMENT 1492 . *** Declaration of Anne Mania in Support of 1484 MOTION Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails and Ensure Access to a Workable Grievance Procedure filed byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibits B through F, # 3 Exhibit Exhibits G through K, # 4 Exhibit Exhibits L through T, # 5 Exhibit Exhibits U through BB, # 6 Exhibit Exhibits CC through EE, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit FF Part 1, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit FF Part 2, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit GG, # 10 Exhibit Exhibits HH through LL)(Related document(s) 1484 ) (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 5/28/2009) Modified on 5/29/2009 (ewn, COURT STAFF). Modified on 5/29/2009 (feriab, COURT STAFF). Modified on 6/9/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/28/2009)

05/28/2009

1490

MOTION to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document Declaration of Anne Mania in Support of Motion to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members in County Jails and Ensure Access to a Workable Grievance Procedure filed by John Armstrong. (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 5/28/2009) (Entered: 05/28/2009)

05/28/2009

1491

Proposed Order re 1490 MOTION to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document Declaration of Anne Mania in Support of Motion to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members in County Jails and Ensure Access to a Workable Grievance Procedure by John Armstrong. (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 5/28/2009) (Entered: 05/28/2009)

05/28/2009

1510

Declaration of F. Nura Maznavi in support of plaintiffs' motion to require defendants to track and accommodate needs of Armstrong class members housed in County Jails and ensure access to a workable grievance procedure filed byFlora Abrams, James Amauric, John Armstrong, David Badillo, Billy Beck, David Blessing, Elio Castro, Clifton Feathers, Judy Fendt, Walter Fratus, Joey Gough, Raymond Hayes, Steven Hill, Gene Horrocks, Willie Johnson, Darlene Madison, Kiah Mincey, Richard Ponciano, Peter Richardson, David Rose, Gregory Sandoval, James Simmons, Jack Swensen, Elmer Umbenhower, Timothy Whisman.

***FILED UNDER SEAL***

(cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/28/2009) (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/10/2009)

05/28/2009

1511

Declaration of Ernest Galvan in support of plaintiffs' motion to require defendants to track and accommodate needs of Armstrong class members housed in County Jails and ensure access to a workable grievance procedure filed byFlora Abrams, James Amauric, John Armstrong, David Badillo, Billy Beck, David Blessing, Elio Castro, Clifton Feathers, Judy Fendt, Walter Fratus, Joey Gough, Raymond Hayes, Steven Hill, Gene Horrocks, Willie Johnson, Darlene Madison, Kiah Mincey, Richard Ponciano, Peter Richardson, David Rose, Gregory Sandoval, James Simmons, Jack Swensen, Elmer Umbenhower, Timothy Whisman.

***FILED UNDER SEAL***

(cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/28/2009) (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/10/2009)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 165 of 265

05/29/2009

1492

Declaration of Anne Mania in Support of 1484 MOTION to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails and Ensure Access to a Workable Grievance Procedure CORRECTION OF DOCKET # 1489 . filed byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B−F, # 3 Exhibit G−K, # 4 Exhibit L−T, # 5 Exhibit U−BB, # 6 Exhibit CC−EE, # 7 Exhibit FF Part 1, # 8 Exhibit FF Part 2, # 9 Exhibit GG, # 10 Exhibit HH−LL)(Related document(s) 1484 ) (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 5/29/2009) (Entered: 05/29/2009)

05/29/2009 1493 Reply to Opposition re 1472 MOTION TO CLARIFY OR MODIFY JANUARY 18, 2007 INJUNCTION filed byArnold Schwarzenegger, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Fritz, Cynthia) (Filed on 5/29/2009) Modified on 6/1/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/29/2009)

06/01/2009 1494 NOTICE by J. Clark Kelso Notice of Filing of Receiver's Eleventh Tri−Annual Report (Attachments: # 1 Eleventh Tri−Annual Report, # 2 Table of Appendices)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 6/1/2009) (Entered: 06/01/2009)

06/01/2009 1495 Appendix re 1494 Notice (Other) Appendices 1 to 10 filed byJ. Clark Kelso. (Related document(s) 1494 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 6/1/2009) (Entered: 06/01/2009)

06/01/2009 1496 Appendix re 1494 Notice (Other) Appendices 11 to 12 filed byJ. Clark Kelso. (Related document(s) 1494 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 6/1/2009) (Entered: 06/01/2009)

06/01/2009 1497 Appendix re 1494 Notice (Other) Appendices 13 to 15 filed byJ. Clark Kelso. (Related document(s) 1494 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 6/1/2009) (Entered: 06/01/2009)

06/01/2009 1498 Appendix re 1494 Notice (Other) Appendices 16 to 18 filed byJ. Clark Kelso. (Related document(s) 1494 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 6/1/2009) (Entered: 06/01/2009)

06/01/2009 1499 Appendix re 1494 Notice (Other) Appendices 19 to 24 filed byJ. Clark Kelso. (Related document(s) 1494 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 6/1/2009) (Entered: 06/01/2009)

06/02/2009 1500 NOTICE of Change of Address by Martin H. Dodd Notice of Change of Firm Name and Firm Address (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 6/2/2009) (Entered: 06/02/2009)

06/04/2009 1501 MOTION to Compel Disputed Costs and Expenses From Quarters 3 and 4 of 2008 filed by John Armstrong. Motion Hearing set for 7/9/2009 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 6/4/2009) (Entered: 06/04/2009)

06/04/2009 1502 Declaration of Gay C. Grunfeld in Support of 1501 MOTION to Compel Disputed Costs and Expenses From Quarters 3 and 4 of 2008 filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1501 ) (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 6/4/2009) (Entered: 06/04/2009)

06/04/2009 1503 Declaration of Geoffrey T. Holtz in Support of 1501 MOTION to Compel Disputed Costs and Expenses From Quarters 3 and 4 of 2008 filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1501 ) (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 6/4/2009) (Entered: 06/04/2009)

06/04/2009 1504 Declaration of Michael Rubin in Support of 1501 MOTION to Compel Disputed Costs and Expenses From Quarters 3 and 4 of 2008 filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1501 ) (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 6/4/2009) (Entered: 06/04/2009)

06/04/2009 1505 Declaration of James W. Morando in Support of 1501 MOTION to Compel Disputed Costs and Expenses From Quarters 3 and 4 of 2008 filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1501 ) (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 6/4/2009) (Entered: 06/04/2009)

06/04/2009 1506 Proposed Order re 1501 MOTION to Compel Disputed Costs and Expenses From Quarters 3 and 4 of 2008 by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 6/4/2009) (Entered: 06/04/2009)

06/08/2009 1507 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting as modified 1482 Motion to Seal Document (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/8/2009) (Entered: 06/08/2009)

06/08/2009 1508 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1490 Motion to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/8/2009) (Entered: 06/08/2009)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 166 of 265

06/08/2009 1509 STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Arnold Schwarzenegger, John Armstrong, et al. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 6/8/2009) Modified on 6/9/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/08/2009)

06/11/2009 1512 ORDER re 1509 granting STIPULATION. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 6/11/09. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/11/2009) (Entered: 06/11/2009)

06/11/2009 1513 MOTION and [Proposed] Order for Disbursement of Funds (Twenty−Third Administrative Motion) filed by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 6/11/2009) Modified on 6/12/2009 (cjl, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/11/2009)

06/11/2009 1514 Letter from Clerk to Richard Barker. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/11/2009) (Entered: 06/11/2009)

06/11/2009 1515 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1478 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/11/2009) Modified on 6/12/2009 (cjl, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/11/2009)

06/15/2009 1516 NOTICE of Appearance by Scott John Feudale (Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 6/15/2009) (Entered: 06/15/2009)

06/16/2009 1517 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1513 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds (Twenty−Third Administrative Motion) (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/16/2009) (Entered: 06/16/2009)

06/18/2009

1518

Memorandum in Opposition re 1501 MOTION to Compel Disputed Costs and Expenses From Quarters 3 and 4 of 2008 Defendants' Opposition To Plaintiffs' Motion To Compel Disputed Costs and Expenses filed byCalifornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 6/18/2009) (Entered: 06/18/2009)

06/25/2009

1519

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO REQUIRE DEFENDANTS TO TRACK AND ACCOMMODATE NEEDS OF ARMSTRONG CLASS MEMBERS HOUSED IN COUNTY JAILS AND TO ENSURE ACCESS TO A WORKABLE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE filed byCalifornia Board of Prison Term, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Midge Carroll, Kevin Carruth, Gray Davis, James Gomez, Judith McGillivray, Kyle McKinsey, John Monday, Marisela Montes, James Nielsen, Robert Presley, Joseph C. Sandoval, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Susanne Steinberg, Cal A. Terhune, James Tilton, David Tristan, Pete Wilson. (Zelidon−Zepeda, Jose) (Filed on 6/25/2009) Modified on 6/26/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/25/2009)

06/25/2009

1520

Declaration of LORI MACIAS−PRICE in Support of 1519 Opposition filed byCalifornia Board of Prison Term, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Midge Carroll, Kevin Carruth, Gray Davis, James Gomez, Judith McGillivray, Kyle McKinsey, John Monday, Marisela Montes, James Nielsen, Robert Presley, Joseph C. Sandoval, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Susanne Steinberg, Cal A. Terhune, James Tilton, David Tristan, Pete Wilson. (Related document(s) 1519 ) (Zelidon−Zepeda, Jose) (Filed on 6/25/2009) Modified on 6/26/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/25/2009)

06/25/2009

1521

Declaration of PATRICIA CASSADY in Support of 1519 Opposition filed byCalifornia Board of Prison Term, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Midge Carroll, Kevin Carruth, Gray Davis, James Gomez, Judith McGillivray, Kyle McKinsey, John Monday, Marisela Montes, James Nielsen, Robert Presley, Joseph C. Sandoval, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Susanne Steinberg, Cal A. Terhune, James Tilton, David Tristan, Pete Wilson. (Related document(s) 1519 ) (Zelidon−Zepeda, Jose) (Filed on 6/25/2009) Modified on 6/26/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/25/2009)

06/25/2009

1522

Memorandum in Opposition CORRECTION OF DOCKET # 1519 filed byCalifornia Board of Prison Term, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Midge Carroll, Kevin Carruth, Gray Davis, James Gomez, Judith McGillivray, Kyle McKinsey, John Monday, Marisela Montes, James Nielsen, Robert Presley, Joseph C. Sandoval, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Susanne Steinberg, Cal A. Terhune, James Tilton, David Tristan, Pete Wilson. (Zelidon−Zepeda, Jose) (Filed on 6/25/2009) (Entered: 06/25/2009)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 167 of 265

06/25/2009

1523

Declaration of JOHN OLIVA in Support of 1522 Memorandum in Opposition, filed byCalifornia Board of Prison Term, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Midge Carroll, Kevin Carruth, Gray Davis, James Gomez, Judith McGillivray, Kyle McKinsey, John Monday, Marisela Montes, James Nielsen, Robert Presley, Joseph C. Sandoval, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Susanne Steinberg, Cal A. Terhune, James Tilton, David Tristan, Pete Wilson. (Related document(s) 1522 ) (Zelidon−Zepeda, Jose) (Filed on 6/25/2009) (Entered: 06/25/2009)

06/25/2009

1524

Proposed Order Denying plaintiff's motion to require defendants to track and accommodate needs of Armstrong class members housed in county jails and ensure a workable grievance procedure by California Board of Prison Term, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Midge Carroll, Kevin Carruth, Gray Davis, James Gomez, Judith McGillivray, Kyle McKinsey, John Monday, Marisela Montes, James Nielsen, Robert Presley, Joseph C. Sandoval, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Susanne Steinberg, Cal A. Terhune, James Tilton, David Tristan, Pete Wilson. (Zelidon−Zepeda, Jose) (Filed on 6/25/2009) Modified on 6/26/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/25/2009)

06/25/2009

1525

OBJECTIONS to PLAINTIFFS EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO REQUIRE DEFENDANTS TO TRACK AND ACCOMMODATE NEEDS OF ARMSTRONG CLASS MEMBERS HOUSED IN COUNTY JAILS by California Board of Prison Term, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Midge Carroll, Kevin Carruth, Gray Davis, James Gomez, Judith McGillivray, Kyle McKinsey, John Monday, Marisela Montes, James Nielsen, Robert Presley, Joseph C. Sandoval, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Susanne Steinberg, Cal A. Terhune, James Tilton, David Tristan, Pete Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Zelidon−Zepeda, Jose) (Filed on 6/25/2009) (Entered: 06/25/2009)

06/25/2009 1526 Reply Memorandum re 1501 MOTION to Compel Disputed Costs and Expenses From Quarters 3 and 4 of 2008 filed byJohn Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 6/25/2009) (Entered: 06/25/2009)

06/25/2009 1527 Reply Declaration of Gay C. Grunfeld ISO Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Disputed Costs and Expenses From Quarters Three and Four of 2008 filed byJohn Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 6/25/2009) Modified on 6/26/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/25/2009)

06/25/2009 1528 Reply Declaration of James W. Morando ISO Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Disputed Costs and Expenses From Quarters Three and Four of 2008 filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1526 ) (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 6/25/2009) Modified on 6/26/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/25/2009)

07/02/2009

1529

MOTION to Seal Document Declarations of F.Nura Maznavi and Melanie Wilkinson in Support of Plaintiffs' Resposne to Defendants' Objections to Plaintiffs' Evidence in Support of the Motion to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members in County Jails and Declaration of Anne Mania in Support filed by John Armstrong. Motion Hearing set for 7/9/2009 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland. (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 7/2/2009) (Entered: 07/02/2009)

07/02/2009

1530

Proposed Order re 1529 MOTION to Seal Document Declarations of F.Nura Maznavi and Melanie Wilkinson in Support of Plaintiffs' Resposne to Defendants' Objections to Plaintiffs' Evidence in Support of the Motion to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate by John Armstrong. (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 7/2/2009) (Entered: 07/02/2009)

07/02/2009 1531 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by John Armstrong, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Joint Status Conference Statement)(Godbold, Penelope) (Filed on 7/2/2009) Modified on 7/6/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/02/2009)

07/02/2009

1532

Declaration of Holly Baldwin In Support of Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Objections to Plaintiffs' Evidence in Support of the 1484 Motion to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members in County Jails filed byJohn Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 7/2/2009) Modified on 7/6/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/02/2009)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 168 of 265

07/02/2009

1533

Declaration of Ernest Galvan In Support of Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Objections to Plaintiffs' Evidence In Support of the 1484 Motion to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members in County Jails filed byJohn Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 7/2/2009) Modified on 7/6/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/02/2009)

07/02/2009

1534

Declaration of F. Nura Maznavi In Support of Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Objections to Plaintiffs' Evidence In Support of the 1484 Motion to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members in County Jails filed byJohn Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 7/2/2009) Modified on 7/6/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/02/2009)

07/02/2009

1535

Declaration of Melanie Wilkinson In Support of Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Objections to Plaintiffs' Evidence In Support of the 1484 Motion to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members in County Jails filed byJohn Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 7/2/2009) Modified on 7/6/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/02/2009)

07/02/2009 1536 RESPONSE to Defendants' Objections to Plaintiffs' Evidence In Support of the Motion to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members in County Jails by John Armstrong. (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 7/2/2009) (Entered: 07/02/2009)

07/02/2009

1537

Reply in support of re 1484 MOTION to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails and Ensure Access to a Workable Grievance Procedure filed byJohn Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 7/2/2009) Modified on 7/6/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/02/2009)

07/02/2009 1693 Declaration of Melanie Wilkinson in support of response to defendants' objections to plaintiffs' evidence in support of the motion to require defendants to track and accomodate needs of Armstrong class members in county jails filed byJohn Armstrong. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/2/2009)

***FILED UNDER SEAL***

(cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/22/2010)
07/02/2009 1694 Declaration of F. Nura Maznavi in support of response to defendants' objections to plaintiffs' evidence in support of the motion to require defendants to track and accommodate needs of Armstrong class members in county jails filed byJohn Armstrong. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/2/2009)

***FILED UNDER SEAL***

(cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/22/2010)

07/06/2009 1538 Proof of Service of Unredacted Declarations of Melanie Wilkinson and F. Nura Maznavi In Support of Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Evidentiary Objections (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 7/6/2009) Modified on 7/7/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/06/2009)

07/09/2009 1539 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds Twenty−Fourth Administrative Motion and [Proposed] Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 7/9/2009) (Entered: 07/09/2009)

07/09/2009

1543

Minute Entry: Further Case Management Conference held on 7/9/2009 before Claudia Wilken (Date Filed: 7/9/2009), Motion Hearing held on 7/9/2009 before Claudia Wilken (Date Filed: 7/9/2009) re 1501 MOTION to Compel Disputed Costs and Expenses From Quarters 3 and 4 of 2008 filed by John Armstrong, 1472 MOTION TO CLARIFY OR MODIFY JANUARY 18, 2007 INJUNCTION filed by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Arnold Schwarzenegger, 1484 MOTION to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails and Ensure Access to a Workable Grievance Procedure filed by John Armstrong. Further Case Management Conference set for 9/22/2009 02:30 PM. (Court Reporter Diane Skillman.) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 7/9/2009) Modified on 7/16/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/15/2009)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 169 of 265

07/09/2009

Set/Reset Hearings: Further Case Management Conference set for 9/22/2009 02:30 PM. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/9/2009) (Entered: 07/16/2009)

07/10/2009 1540 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1501 Motion to Compel PAYMENT OF DISPUTED COSTS (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/10/2009) (Entered: 07/10/2009)

07/10/2009 1541 ORDER DIRECTING ADDITIONAL INTERIM PAYMENT OF COSTS. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 7/10/09. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/10/2009) (Entered: 07/10/2009)

07/14/2009 1542 DEFENDANTS REQUEST TO SUBMIT STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISION filed byCalifornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Attachment)(Zelidon−Zepeda, Jose) (Filed on 7/14/2009) Modified on 7/15/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/14/2009)

07/20/2009 1544 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1539 Twenty−Fourth Administrative Motion for Payment (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/20/2009) (Entered: 07/20/2009)

08/06/2009 1545 Proposed Order Confirming Undisputed Attorney's Fees and Costs for the First Quarter of 2009 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 8/6/2009) (Entered: 08/06/2009)

08/07/2009

1546

NOTICE OF APPEAL as 1543 Minute Order by Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bernard Warner, Matthew Cate, Sharon August, Deborh Hysen, Suzan Hubbard, and Robert Ambroselli. Filing fee $ 455.00, receipt #44611003972. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/7/2009) Modified on 12/12/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/4/2019: # 1 Receipt) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/10/2009)

08/07/2009 1547 Appellants' Representation Statement re 1546 Notice of Appeal (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/7/2009) (Entered: 08/10/2009)

08/07/2009 1548 RECEIVED: Civil Appeals Docketing Statement forwarded to 9th Circuit US Court of Appeals by Arnold Schwarzenegger re 1546 Notice of Appeal (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/7/2009) (Entered: 08/10/2009)

08/10/2009

Copy of Notice of Appeal and Docket sheet mailed to all counsel (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/10/2009) (Entered: 08/10/2009)

08/12/2009 1549 USCA Case Number 09−16716 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for 1546 Notice of Appeal filed by Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Attachments: # 1 USCA Time Scheduling Order)(kk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/12/2009) (Entered: 08/12/2009)

08/14/2009 1550 MOTION to Seal Document and Declaration of Lisa Ells filed by John Armstrong. (Ells, Lisa) (Filed on 8/14/2009) (Entered: 08/14/2009)

08/14/2009 1551 Proposed Order re 1550 MOTION to Seal Document and Declaration of Lisa Ells by John Armstrong. (Ells, Lisa) (Filed on 8/14/2009) (Entered: 08/14/2009)

08/14/2009

1552

Declaration of Thomas Nolan In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Enforcement and Further Remedial Orders filed by John Armstrong. (Ells, Lisa) ***REDACTED VERSION*** (Filed on 8/14/2009) Modified on 8/17/2009 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/14/2009)

08/14/2009

1553

Declaration of Anne Mania In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Enforcement and Further Remedial Orders filed by John Armstrong. (Ells, Lisa) ***REDACTED VERSION*** (Filed on 8/14/2009) Modified on 8/17/2009 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/14/2009)

08/14/2009

1554

Declaration of Lisa Ells In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Enforcement and Further Remedial Orders filed by John Armstrong. (Ells, Lisa) ***REDACTED VERSION*** (Filed on 8/14/2009) Modified on 8/17/2009 (kc, COURT STAFF). Modified on 8/17/2009 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/14/2009)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 170 of 265

08/14/2009 1555 EXHIBITS re 1554 Declaration in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Enforcement and Further Remedial Orders (Exhibits A−H) filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1554 ) (Ells, Lisa) (Filed on 8/14/2009) (Entered: 08/14/2009)

08/14/2009 1556 EXHIBITS re 1554 Declaration in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Enforcement and Further Remedial Orders (Exhibits I−L) filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1554 ) (Ells, Lisa) (Filed on 8/14/2009) (Entered: 08/14/2009)

08/14/2009 1557 EXHIBITS re 1554 Declaration in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Enforcement and Further Remedial Orders (Exhibits M−X) filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1554 ) (Ells, Lisa) (Filed on 8/14/2009) (Entered: 08/14/2009)

08/14/2009 1558 EXHIBITS re 1554 Declaration in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Enforcement and Further Remedial Orders (Exhibits Y−QQ) filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1554 ) (Ells, Lisa) (Filed on 8/14/2009) (Entered: 08/14/2009)

08/14/2009

1559

Declaration of Megan Hagler In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Enforcement and Further Remedial Orders filed by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−C, # 2 Exhibit D−F, # 3 Exhibit G−K, # 4 Exhibit L, # 5 Exhibit M, # 6 Exhibit N, # 7 Exhibit O−KK)(Hagler, Megan) ***REDACTED VERSION*** (Filed on 8/14/2009) Modified on 8/17/2009 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/14/2009)

08/14/2009 1560 Declaration of Sara Norman in Support of Motion for Enforcement and Further Remedial Orders filed byJohn Armstrong. (Norman, Sara) (Filed on 8/14/2009) (Entered: 08/14/2009)

08/14/2009 1561 Proposed Order for Enforcement by John Armstrong. (Norman, Sara) (Filed on 8/14/2009) (Entered: 08/14/2009)

08/14/2009 1562 MOTION for Enforcement and Further Remedial Orders filed by John Armstrong. Motion Hearing set for 9/22/2009 02:30 PM. (Norman, Sara) (Filed on 8/14/2009) Modified on 8/17/2009 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/14/2009)

08/14/2009 1620 Declaration of Lisa Ells in Support of 1562 MOTION to Enforce Judgment and Further Remedial Orders filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1562 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/14/2009)

***FILED UNDER SEAL***

(Additional attachment(s) added on 8/14/2019: # 1 Part 2 of 2) (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/02/2009)
08/14/2009 1621 Declaration of Thomas Nolan in Support of 1562 MOTION to Enforce Judgment and Further Remedial Orders filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1562 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/14/2009)

***FILED UNDER SEAL***

(cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/02/2009)
08/14/2009 1622 Declaration of Anne Mania in Support of 1562 MOTION to Enforce Judgment and Further Remedial Orders filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1562 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/14/2009)
***FILED UNDER SEAL***
(cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/02/2009)
08/14/2009 1623 Declaration of Megan Hagler in Support of 1562 MOTION to Enforce Judgment and Further Remedial Orders filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1562 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/14/2009)
***FILED UNDER SEAL***
(Additional attachment(s) added on 8/15/2019: # 1 Exhibits A−H, # 2 Exhibits I−M, # 3 Exhibits N−Z, # 4 Exhibits AA−KK) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/02/2009)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 171 of 265

08/17/2009 1563 ORDER re 1545 Confirming Undisputed Attorney's Fees and Costs for the First Quarter of 2009. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 8/17/09. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/17/2009) (Entered: 08/17/2009)

08/17/2009 1564 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds Twenty−fifth Administrative Motion and [Proposed] Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 8/17/2009) (Entered: 08/17/2009)

08/20/2009 1565 ORDER directing Defendants to comply with July 10, 2009 order or show cause why they should not be held in contempt. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 8/20/09. (cwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/20/2009) (Entered: 08/20/2009)

08/21/2009 1566 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1564 Twenty−fifth Administrative Motion for Payment. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/21/2009) (Entered: 08/21/2009)

08/25/2009 1567 DECLARATION OF JAY C. RUSSELL IN RESPONSE TO AUGUST 20, 2009 ORDER filed byCalifornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 8/25/2009) Modified on 8/26/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/25/2009)

08/27/2009 2859 RECEIVED $100,000.00 (Receipt #44611004037) from defendants of additional interim payment of cost per order # 1541 filed 7/10/09. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/27/2009) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/28/2009)

08/28/2009

1568

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Arnold Schwarzenegger, John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Signature Page (Declarations/Stipulations) Certificate of Service)(Russell, Jay) (Filed on 8/28/2009) Modified on 8/31/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/28/2009)

08/31/2009 1569 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken CONCERNING HEALTH CARE APPLIANCE AND EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION TRAINING 1472 (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/31/2009) (Entered: 08/31/2009)

09/01/2009 1570 ORDER re 1568 granting STIPULATION. Motion Hearing set for 10/13/2009 02:30 PM. Status Conference set for 10/13/2009 02:30 PM.. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 9/1/09. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/1/2009) (Entered: 09/01/2009)

09/15/2009 1571 Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Enforcement and Further Remedial Orders filed byCalifornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Zelidon−Zepeda, Jose) (Filed on 9/15/2009) Modified on 9/16/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/15/2009)

09/15/2009 1572 Declaration of LARRY HUFF in Support of 1571 Memorandum in Opposition filed byCalifornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Related document(s) 1571 ) (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 9/15/2009) (Entered: 09/15/2009)

09/15/2009 1573 STIPULATION for Administrative Relief to File Documents Under Seal; Proposed Order by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, John Armstrong, et al. (Zelidon−Zepeda, Jose) (Filed on 9/15/2009) Modified on 9/16/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/15/2009)

09/15/2009 1574 Declaration of P. Cochrane in Support of 1571 Memorandum in Opposition filed byCalifornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Related document(s) 1571 ) (Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 9/15/2009) (Entered: 09/15/2009)

09/15/2009

1575

Declaration of GENE NIES in Support of 1571 Memorandum in Opposition filed byCalifornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Related document(s) 1571 ) (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 9/15/2009) (Entered: 09/15/2009)

09/15/2009

1576

Declaration of Robert Keldgord in Support of 1571 Memorandum in Opposition filed byCalifornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Related document(s) 1571 ) (Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 9/15/2009) (Entered: 09/15/2009)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 172 of 265

09/15/2009 1577 Declaration of L. Trexler in Support of 1571 Memorandum in Opposition filed byCalifornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Related document(s) 1571 ) (Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 9/15/2009) (Entered: 09/15/2009)

09/15/2009

1578

*** FILED IN ERROR. REFER TO DOCUMENT 1588 . *** Declaration of CAROLYN COOPER in Support of 1571 Memorandum in Opposition filed byCalifornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J)(Related document(s) 1571 ) (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 9/15/2009) Modified on 9/17/2009 (feriab, COURT STAFF). (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/15/2009)

09/15/2009

1579

*** FILED IN ERROR. REFER TO DOCUMENT 1589 . *** OBJECTIONS to Plaintiff's Evidence in Support of Motion for Enforcement by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Zelidon−Zepeda, Jose) (Filed on 9/15/2009) Modified on 9/16/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). Modified on 9/17/2009 (feriab, COURT STAFF). (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/15/2009)

09/15/2009 1580 Declaration of Jacqueline Ramirez in Support of 1571 Memorandum in Opposition filed byCalifornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Related document(s) 1571 ) (Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 9/15/2009) (Entered: 09/15/2009)

09/15/2009 1581 Declaration of JULIAN MARTINEZ in Support of 1571 Memorandum in Opposition filed byCalifornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Related document(s) 1571 ) (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 9/15/2009) (Entered: 09/15/2009)

09/15/2009 1582 Declaration of Joseph Prud'Homme in Support of 1571 Memorandum in Opposition filed byCalifornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Related document(s) 1571 ) (Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 9/15/2009) (Entered: 09/15/2009)

09/15/2009 1583 Declaration of Robert D. Canning, Ph.D. in Support of 1571 Memorandum in Opposition filed byCalifornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Related document(s) 1571 ) (Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 9/15/2009) (Entered: 09/15/2009)

09/15/2009 1584 Declaration of Beverly Graham in Support of 1571 Memorandum in Opposition filed byCalifornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Related document(s) 1571 ) (Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 9/15/2009) (Entered: 09/15/2009)

09/15/2009 1585 Declaration of A. Bonilla in Support of 1571 Memorandum in Opposition filed byCalifornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Related document(s) 1571 ) (Zelidon−Zepeda, Jose) (Filed on 9/15/2009) (Entered: 09/15/2009)

09/15/2009 1586 Proposed Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Enforcement and Further Remedial Orders by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 9/15/2009) Modified on 9/16/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/15/2009)

09/15/2009 1638 Opposition to plaintiffs' motion for enforcement and further remedial orders filed byArnold Schwarzenegger. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2009) ***FILED UNDER SEAL***

(cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/09/2009)
09/15/2009 1639 Declaration of Jacqueline Ramirez in Support of 1638 Memorandum in Opposition filed by Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Related document(s) 1638 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2009)

***FILED UNDER SEAL***

Modified on 10/9/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/09/2009)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 173 of 265
09/15/2009 1640 Declaration of Robert Keldgord in Support of 1638 Memorandum in Opposition filed by Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Related document(s) 1638 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2009)
***FILED UNDER SEAL***
Modified on 10/9/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/09/2009)
09/15/2009 1641 Declaration of Gene Nies in Support of 1638 Memorandum in Opposition filed by Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Related document(s) 1638 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2009)
***FILED UNDER SEAL***
Modified on 10/9/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/09/2009)
09/15/2009 1642 Declaration of Joseph Prud'Homme in Support of 1638 Memorandum in Opposition filed by Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Related document(s) 1638 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2009)
***FILED UNDER SEAL***
Modified on 10/9/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/09/2009)
09/15/2009 1643 Declaration of Carolyn Cooper in Support of 1638 Memorandum in Opposition filed by Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Related document(s) 1638 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2009)
***FILED UNDER SEAL***
Modified on 10/9/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/09/2009)
09/15/2009 1644 Declaration of L. Trexler in Support of 1638 Memorandum in Opposition filed by Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Related document(s) 1638 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2009)
***FILED UNDER SEAL***
Modified on 10/9/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/09/2009)
09/15/2009 1645 Declaration of A. Bonilla in Support of 1638 Memorandum in Opposition filed byArnold Schwarzenegger. (Related document(s) 1638 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2009)
***FILED UNDER SEAL***
(cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/09/2009)
09/15/2009 1646 Declaration of P. Cochrane in Support of 1638 Memorandum in Opposition filed byArnold Schwarzenegger. (Related document(s) 1638 ) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2009)
***FILED UNDER SEAL***
(cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/09/2009)
09/15/2009 1647 OBJECTIONS to plaintiff's evidence in support of motion for enforcement by Arnold Schwarzenegger. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2009)
***FILED UNDER SEAL***
(cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/09/2009)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 174 of 265

09/16/2009 1587 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1484 Motion to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails and Ensure Access to a Workable Grievance Procedure (cwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/16/2009) (Entered: 09/16/2009)

09/16/2009

1588

Declaration of CAROLYN COOPER CORRECTION OF DOCKET #1578 filed byCalifornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J)(Zelidon−Zepeda, Jose) (Filed on 9/16/2009) (Entered: 09/16/2009)

09/16/2009

1589

OBJECTIONS to plaintiffs' evidence in support of motion for enforcement CORRECTION OF DOCKET # 1579 by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Zelidon−Zepeda, Jose) (Filed on 9/16/2009) Modified on 9/17/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/16/2009)

09/17/2009

1590

MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF TO REMOVE INCORRECTLY FILED DOCUMENT filed by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Motion Hearing set for 10/13/2009 02:30 PM in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland. (Attachments: # 1 Signature Page (Declarations/Stipulations) Certificate of Service)(Zelidon−Zepeda, Jose) (Filed on 9/17/2009) (Entered: 09/17/2009)

09/17/2009

1591

Declaration of JOSE A. ZELIDON−ZEPEDA in Support of 1590 MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF TO REMOVE INCORRECTLY FILED DOCUMENT filed byCalifornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Related document(s) 1590 ) (Zelidon−Zepeda, Jose) (Filed on 9/17/2009) (Entered: 09/17/2009)

09/17/2009 1592 Proposed Order re 1590 MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF TO REMOVE INCORRECTLY FILED DOCUMENT by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Zelidon−Zepeda, Jose) (Filed on 9/17/2009) (Entered: 09/17/2009)

09/23/2009 1593 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds Twenty−Sixth Administrative Motion and [Proposed] Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 9/23/2009) (Entered: 09/23/2009)

09/24/2009 1594 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1590 Motion Remove documents 1578 and 1579 from the docket. (fj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/24/2009) (Entered: 09/24/2009)

09/25/2009 1595 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 1587 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief by Arnold Schwarzenegger. Filing fee $ 455.00, receipt #44611004179. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/25/2009) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/4/2019: # 1 receipt) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/28/2009)

09/25/2009 1596 Appellants' Representation Statement re: 1595 Notice of Appeal (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/25/2009) (Entered: 09/28/2009)

09/25/2009 1597 RECEIVED: Civil Appeals Docketing Statement forwarded to 9th Circuit US Court of Appeals by John Armstrong re 1595 Notice of Appeal (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/25/2009) (Entered: 09/28/2009)

09/28/2009

Copy of Notice of Appeal and Docket sheet mailed to all counsel (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/28/2009) (Entered: 09/28/2009)

09/29/2009 1598 Amended MOTION to Seal and Declaration of Lisa Ells filed by John Armstrong. Motion Hearing set for 10/13/2009 02:30 PM in Courtroom, 2nd Floor. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed Order re Motion to File Under Seal)(Ells, Lisa) (Filed on 9/29/2009) Modified on 9/30/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/29/2009)

09/29/2009

1599

*** PLEASE REFER TO DOCUMENT 1605 . *** Reply to Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Enforcement filed byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Megan Hagler and Exh A−B, # 2 Exhibit Exh. C−1 to Hagler Dec, # 3 Exhibit Exh. C−2 to Hagler Dec, # 4 Exhibit Exh. C−3 to Hagler Dec, # 5 Proposed Order Corrected [Proposed] Enforcement Order)(Hardy, Alison) (Filed on 9/29/2009) Modified on 9/30/2009 (feriab, COURT STAFF). (cp, COURT

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 175 of 265

STAFF). (Entered: 09/29/2009)

09/29/2009 1600 OBJECTIONS to Defendants' Evidence ISO Def's Opp to Pltfs' Mtn to Enforce by John Armstrong. (Hardy, Alison) (Filed on 9/29/2009) (Entered: 09/29/2009)

09/29/2009 1601 RESPONSE to Defs' Objections to Pltfs' Declarations of Mania, Nolan, Hagler, Norman, and Ellis in support of Motion to Enforce by John Armstrong. (Hardy, Alison) (Filed on 9/29/2009) Modified on 9/30/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/29/2009)

09/29/2009 1602 Reply Declaration of Lisa Ells in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Enforcement and Further Remedial Orders filed byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibits B−X)(Related document(s) 1599 ) (Ells, Lisa) (Filed on 9/29/2009) Modified on 9/30/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/29/2009)

09/29/2009

1603

Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld in Reply to Opposition re Plaintiffs' Motion for Enforcement and Further Remedial Orders filed byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits 1−17)(Related document(s) 1599 ) (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 9/29/2009) Modified on 9/30/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/29/2009)

09/29/2009

1604

Reply Declaration of Thomas Nolan in Support of re Plaintiffs' Motion for Enforcement and Further Remedial Orders filed byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A−B, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit C, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit D−F, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit G)(Related document(s) 1599 ) (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 9/29/2009) Modified on 9/30/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/29/2009)

09/29/2009

1605

Reply to Opposition re Plaintiffs' Motion for Enforcement and Further Remedial Orders filed byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Decl. of Megan Hagler and Exh. A−B, # 2 Exhibit Ex. C−1 to Hagler Decl., # 3 Exhibit Ex. C−2 to Hagler Decl., # 4 Exhibit Ex. C−3 to Hagler Decl., # 5 Proposed Order)(Specter, Donald) (Filed on 9/29/2009) Modified on 9/30/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/29/2009)

09/29/2009 1606 First MOTION to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document filed by John Armstrong. (Specter, Donald) (Filed on 9/29/2009) (Entered: 09/29/2009)

09/29/2009 1607 Proposed Order re 1606 First MOTION to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document by John Armstrong. (Specter, Donald) (Filed on 9/29/2009) (Entered: 09/29/2009)

09/29/2009 1608 USCA Case Number 09−17144 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for 1595 Notice of Appeal filed by Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Attachments: # 1 USCA Time Scheduling Order)(kk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/29/2009) (Entered: 09/30/2009)

09/29/2009 1652 Reply to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Enforcement and Further Remedial Orders filed byJohn Armstrong. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/29/2009)

***FILED UNDER SEAL***

(cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/16/2009)
09/29/2009 1653 Declaration of Megan Hagler in support of plaintiffs' reply to defendants' opposition to plaintiffs' motion for enforcement and further remedial orders filed byJohn Armstrong. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/29/2009)

***FILED UNDER SEAL***

(cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/16/2009)
09/29/2009 1654 Reply Declaration of Thomas Nolan in support of plaintiffs' motion for enforcement and further remedial orders filed byJohn Armstrong. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/29/2009)

***FILED UNDER SEAL***

(cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/16/2009)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 176 of 265

09/29/2009 1655 Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld in reply to defendants' opposition to plaintiffs' motion for enforcement and further remedial orders filed byJohn Armstrong. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/29/2009)
***FILED UNDER SEAL***
(cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/16/2009)
09/29/2009 1656 Reply Declaration of Lisa Ells in support of plaintiffs' motion for enforcement and further remedial orders filed byJohn Armstrong. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/29/2009)
***FILED UNDER SEAL***
(cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/16/2009)
09/29/2009 1657 OBJECTIONS to defendants' evidence in support of opposition to plaintiffs' motion for enforcement and further remedial orders by John Armstrong. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/29/2009)

***FILED UNDER SEAL***

(cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/16/2009)
09/29/2009 1658 RESPONSES to defendants' objections to plaintiffs' declarations of Mania, Nolan, Hagler, Norman and Ells in support of plaintiffs' motion for enforcement filed byJohn Armstrong. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/29/2009)

***FILED UNDER SEAL***

(cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/16/2009)

09/30/2009

1609

MOTION to Stay ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO REQUIRE DEFENDANTS TO TRACK AND ACCOMMODATE THE NEEDS OF ARMSTRONG CLASS MEMBERS AND ENSURE ACCESS TO A WORKABLE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE filed by Arnold Schwarzenegger. Motion Hearing set for 10/13/2009 02:30 PM in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland. (Attachments: # 1 Signature Page (Declarations/Stipulations) Certificate of Service)(Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 9/30/2009) (Entered: 09/30/2009)

09/30/2009

1610

Declaration of LORI MACIAS−PRICE in Support of 1609 MOTION to Stay ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO REQUIRE DEFENDANTS TO TRACK AND ACCOMMODATE THE NEEDS OF ARMSTRONG CLASS MEMBERS AND ENSURE ACCESS TO A WORKABLE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE filed byArnold Schwarzenegger. (Related document(s) 1609 ) (Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 9/30/2009) (Entered: 09/30/2009)

09/30/2009

1611

Proposed Order re 1609 MOTION to Stay ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO REQUIRE DEFENDANTS TO TRACK AND ACCOMMODATE THE NEEDS OF ARMSTRONG CLASS MEMBERS AND ENSURE ACCESS TO A WORKABLE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE by Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 9/30/2009) (Entered: 09/30/2009)

09/30/2009

1612

STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER SHORTENING TIME re 1609 MOTION to Stay ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO REQUIRE DEFENDANTS TO TRACK AND ACCOMMODATE THE NEEDS OF ARMSTRONG CLASS MEMBERS AND ENSURE ACCESS TO A WORKABLE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE by Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Attachments: # 1 Signature Page (Declarations/Stipulations) Certificate of Service)(Zelidon−Zepeda, Jose) (Filed on 9/30/2009) Modified on 10/1/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/30/2009)

09/30/2009 1613 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by John Armstrong Declarations of Lisa Ells, Thomas Nolan and Gay Grunfeld In Support of Plaintiffs' Reply to Opposition to Motion for Enforcement and Further Remedial Orders (Docket No.1605) (Mania, Anne) (Filed on 9/30/2009) (Entered: 09/30/2009)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 177 of 265

09/30/2009 1614 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1550 Motion to Seal Document (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/30/2009) (Entered: 09/30/2009)

09/30/2009 1615 NOTICE by J. Clark Kelso Notice of Filing of Receiver's Twelfth Tri−Annual Report (Attachments: # 1 Receiver's Twelfth Tri−Annual Report, # 2 Table of Appendices)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 9/30/2009) (Entered: 09/30/2009)

09/30/2009 1616 Appendix re 1615 Notice (Other) Appendices 1 through 8 filed byJ. Clark Kelso. (Related document(s) 1615 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 9/30/2009) (Entered: 09/30/2009)

09/30/2009 1617 Appendix re 1615 Notice (Other) Appendices 9 through 17 filed byJ. Clark Kelso. (Related document(s) 1615 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 9/30/2009) (Entered: 09/30/2009)

10/01/2009 1618 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1593 Twenty−Sixth Administrative Motion for Payment (Attachments: # 1 INVOICE) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/1/2009) Modified on 10/2/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/01/2009)

10/02/2009 1619 ORDER re 1573 Stipulation and Requiring Defendants to File Administrative Motion to Seal. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/2/2009. (cwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/2/2009) (Entered: 10/02/2009)

10/02/2009

1624

ORDER re 1612 granting STIPULATION SHORTENING TIME re 1609 MOTION to Stay ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO REQUIRE DEFENDANTS TO TRACK AND ACCOMMODATE THE NEEDS OF ARMSTRONG CLASS MEMBERS AND ENSURE ACCESS TO A WORKABLE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/2/09. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/2/2009) (Entered: 10/02/2009)

10/06/2009 1625 MOTION to Seal Document ; Declaration of Jay C. Russell in Support of Same filed by Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Russell, Jay) (Filed on 10/6/2009) Modified on 10/7/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/06/2009)

10/06/2009 1626 Proposed Order re 1625 MOTION to Seal Document by Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 10/6/2009) Modified on 10/7/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/06/2009)

10/06/2009 1627 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT and Exhibits A−G filed by John Armstrong, Arnold Schwarzenegger, et al. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits A−G)(Hagler, Megan) (Filed on 10/6/2009) Modified on 10/7/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/06/2009)

10/07/2009 1628 MOTION to Seal Documents; Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld filed by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 10/7/2009) Modified on 10/8/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/07/2009)

10/07/2009 1629 Proposed Order re 1628 MOTION to Seal Documents by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 10/7/2009) Modified on 10/8/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/07/2009)

10/07/2009

1630

Memorandum in Opposition re 1609 MOTION to Stay ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO REQUIRE DEFENDANTS TO TRACK AND ACCOMMODATE THE NEEDS OF ARMSTRONG CLASS MEMBERS AND ENSURE ACCESS TO A WORKABLE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE filed byJohn Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 10/7/2009) Modified on 10/8/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/07/2009)

10/07/2009

1631

Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld in Support of 1630 Memorandum in Opposition,, to Defendants' Motion to Stay the Court's Order Requiring Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails and Ensure Access to a Workable Grievance Procedure filed byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A through C Part 1, # 2 Exhibit C Part 2, # 3 Exhibit C Part 3 through F, # 4 Exhibit G through N)(Related document(s) 1630 ) (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 10/7/2009) (Entered: 10/07/2009)

10/07/2009 1632 Declaration of Holly Baldwin in oppositionto Defendants' Motion to Stay the Court's Order Requiring Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails and Ensure Access to a Workable Grievance

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 178 of 265

Procedure filed byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 through 4, # 2 Exhibit 5 through 12) (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 10/7/2009) Modified on 10/8/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/07/2009)

10/07/2009

1633

OBJECTIONS to Defendants' Evidence on Motion to Stay Order Requiring Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members and Ensure Access to a Workable Grievance Procedure by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 10/7/2009) Modified on 10/8/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/07/2009)

10/07/2009

1634

Proposed Order Sustaining Plaintiffs' Objections to Defendants' Declaration in Support of Motion to Stay the September 16, 2009 Order and Denying Defendants' Motion to Stay the September 16, 2009 Order by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 10/7/2009) Modified on 10/8/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/07/2009)

10/07/2009 1635 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by John Armstrong re 1631 Declaration in Support,, (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 10/7/2009) (Entered: 10/07/2009)

10/07/2009

1662

Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld in support of plaintiffs' opposition to defendants' motion to stay the court's order requiring defendants to track and accomodate needs of Armstrong class members housed in county jails and ensure access to a workable grievance procedure filed byJohn Armstrong. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/7/2009)

***FILED UNDER SEAL***

(cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/21/2009)

10/09/2009 1636 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1598 Motion to Seal (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/9/2009) (Entered: 10/09/2009)

10/09/2009 1637 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1625 Motion to Seal Document (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/9/2009) (Entered: 10/09/2009)

10/13/2009 1648 MOTION and [Proposed] Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 10/13/2009) Modified on 10/14/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/13/2009)

10/13/2009 1649 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken denying 1609 Defendants' Motion to Stay (cwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/13/2009) (Entered: 10/13/2009)

10/13/2009

1659

Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 10/13/2009 before Claudia Wilken (Date Filed: 10/13/2009) re 1609 MOTION to Stay ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO REQUIRE DEFENDANTS TO TRACK AND ACCOMMODATE THE NEEDS OF ARMSTRONG CLASS MEMBERS AND ENSURE ACCESS TO A WORKABLE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE filed by Arnold Schwarzenegger, 1562 MOTION to Enforce Judgment and Further Remedial Orders filed by John Armstrong, Further Case Management Conference held on 10/13/2009 before Claudia Wilken (Date Filed: 10/13/2009). (Court Reporter Diane Skillman.) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 10/13/2009) (Entered: 10/19/2009)

10/15/2009 1650 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1606 Motion to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/15/2009) (Entered: 10/15/2009)

10/15/2009 1651 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1648 MOTION for Payment (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/15/2009) (Entered: 10/15/2009)

10/19/2009 1660 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1628 Motion to Seal (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/19/2009) (Entered: 10/19/2009)

10/20/2009 1661 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1562 Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce Judgment (cwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/20/2009) (Entered: 10/20/2009)

10/20/2009

Set/Reset Hearings: Further Case Management Conference set for 12/15/2009 02:30 PM. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/20/2009) (Entered: 10/20/2009)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 179 of 265

10/23/2009

1663

Transcript of Proceedings held on 7−09−09, before Judge Claudia Wilken. Court Reporter/Transcriber Diane E. Skillman, Telephone number 510−451−2930. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. Redaction Request due 11/10/2009. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/20/2009. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/19/2010. (Skillman, Diane) (Filed on 10/23/2009) (Entered: 10/23/2009)

10/27/2009 1664 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION and ORDERING FORM by Arnold Schwarzenegger for proceedings held on July 9, 2009 before Judge Claudia Wilken.. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 10/27/2009) (Entered: 10/27/2009)

10/28/2009 1665 Certificate of Record forwarded to USCA re appeal 1595 Notice of Appeal : (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/28/2009) (Entered: 10/28/2009)

11/06/2009 1667 MOTION to Intervene as a plaintiff filed by Albert Hayes. (Attachments: # 1 envelope)(cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/6/2009) Modified on 11/10/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/10/2009)

11/10/2009 1666 ORDER of USCA denying appellant's motion for stay pending appeal as to 1595 Notice of Appeal filed by Arnold Schwarzenegger (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/10/2009) (Entered: 11/10/2009)

11/12/2009 1668 MOTION for Payment and Proposed Order, filed by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 11/12/2009) Modified on 11/13/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/12/2009)

11/12/2009 1669 Proposed Order Confirming Undisputed California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Adult Operations and Adult Programs Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Second Quarter of 2009, by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 11/12/2009) Modified on 11/13/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/12/2009)

11/12/2009 1670 Proposed Order Confirming Undisputed Board of Parole Hearings Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Second Quarter of 2009, by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 11/12/2009) Modified on 11/13/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/12/2009)

11/12/2009 1671 Proposed Order Confirming Undisputed Division of Adult Parole Operations Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Second Quarter of 2009, by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 11/12/2009) Modified on 11/13/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/12/2009)

11/13/2009 1672 ORDER of USCA re: OSC discharged. (kk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/13/2009) (Entered: 11/13/2009)

11/16/2009 1673 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1668 MOTION for Payment (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/16/2009) (Entered: 11/16/2009)

11/19/2009

1674

ORDER re 1669 Confirming Undisputed California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Adult Operations and Adult Programs Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Second Quarter of 2009. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 11/18/09. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/19/2009) (Entered: 11/19/2009)

11/19/2009 1675 ORDER re 1670 Confirming Undisputed Board of Parole Hearings Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Second Quarter of 2009. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 11/19/09. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/19/2009) (Entered: 11/19/2009)

11/19/2009 1676 ORDER re 1671 Confirming Undisputed Division of Adult Parole Operations Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Second Quarter of 2009. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 11/19/09. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/19/2009) (Entered: 11/19/2009)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 180 of 265

11/19/2009 1677 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken denying 1667 Motion to Intervene (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/19/2009) (Entered: 11/19/2009)

11/19/2009

1678

NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 1661 Order by Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bernard Warner, Matthew Cate, Sharon August, Deborah Hysen, Suzan Hubbard, Robert Ambroselli. Filing fee $ 455.00, receipt #44611004471. Appeal Record due by 12/21/2009. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/19/2009) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/4/2019: # 1 Receipt) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/20/2009)

11/19/2009 1679 Appellants' Representation Statement re 1678 Notice of Appeal filed by Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bernard Warner, Matthew Cate, Sharon August, Deborah Hysen, Suzan Hubbard, Robert Ambroselli (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/19/2009) Modified on 11/20/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/20/2009)

11/19/2009 1680 RECEIVED: Civil Appeals Docketing Statement forwarded to 9th Circuit US Court of Appeals by Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bernard Warner, Matthew Cate, Sharon August, Deborah Hysen, Suzan Hubbard, Robert Ambroselli re 1678 Notice of Appeal, (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/19/2009) (Entered: 11/20/2009)

11/20/2009

Copy of Notice of Appeal and Docket sheet mailed to all counsel (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/20/2009) (Entered: 11/20/2009)

11/23/2009 1681 USCA Case Number 09−17632 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for 1678 Notice of Appeal, filed by Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Attachments: # 1 USCA Time Scheduling Order)(kk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/23/2009) (Entered: 11/23/2009)

12/08/2009 1682 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and [Proposed] Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 12/8/2009) Modified on 12/9/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/08/2009)

12/08/2009 1683 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by John Armstrong, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−M)(Norman, Sara) (Filed on 12/8/2009) Modified on 12/9/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/08/2009)

12/10/2009 1684 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1682 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/10/2009) (Entered: 12/10/2009)

12/15/2009 1685 Minute Entry: Status Conference (Date Filed: 12/15/2009). Status Conference set for 2/24/2010 01:30 PM. (Court Reporter Raynee Mercado.) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 12/15/2009) (Entered: 12/18/2009)

12/21/2009 1686 RESPONSE to October 20, 2009 Enforcement Order by Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 12/21/2009) Modified on 12/22/2009 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/21/2009)

12/23/2009 1687 Proposed Findings of Fact by John Armstrong. (Norman, Sara) (Filed on 12/23/2009) (Entered: 12/23/2009)

12/24/2009 1688 OBJECTIONS to 1687 [PROPOSED] FINDINGS OF FACT by Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 12/24/2009) Modified on 12/28/2009 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/24/2009)

12/31/2009 1689 FINDINGS OF FACT re 1543 Minute Order of July 9, 2009. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 12/31/2009. (cwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/31/2009) (Entered: 12/31/2009)

01/11/2010 1690 OBJECTIONS to Defendants' Plan by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit)(Hagler, Megan) (Filed on 1/11/2010) (Entered: 01/11/2010)

01/15/2010 1691 NOTICE by J. Clark Kelso of Filing of Receiver's 13th Tri−Annual Report (Attachments: # 1 Receiver's 13th Tri−Annual Report, # 2 Table of Contents to Appendices, # 3 Appendices 1 to 7)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 1/15/2010) (Entered: 01/15/2010)

01/19/2010

***Deadlines terminated re Release of Transcript Restriction as to 1663 Transcript (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/19/2010) (Entered: 06/01/2010)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 181 of 265

01/21/2010

1692

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1529 MOTION to Seal Document Declarations of F.Nura Maznavi and Melanie Wilkinson in Support of Plaintiffs' Resposne to Defendants' Objections to Plaintiffs' Evidence in Support of the Motion to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members in County Jails and Declaration of Anne Mania in Support (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/21/2010) (Entered: 01/21/2010)

01/29/2010 1695 MOTION and [Proposed] Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 1/29/2010) Modified on 2/1/2010 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/29/2010)

02/02/2010 1696 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1695 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/2/2010) (Entered: 02/02/2010)

02/02/2010 1697 Proposed Order Confirming Undisputed California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Adult Operations and Adult Programs Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Third Quarter of 2009 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 2/2/2010) (Entered: 02/02/2010)

02/02/2010 1698 Proposed Order Confirming Undisputed Board of Parole Hearings Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Third Quarter of 2009 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 2/2/2010) (Entered: 02/02/2010)

02/02/2010 1699 Proposed Order Confirming Undisputed Division of Adult Parole Operations Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Third Quarter of 2009 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 2/2/2010) (Entered: 02/02/2010)

02/03/2010 1700 FINDINGS OF FACT for 1661 Order of October 20, 2009. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 2/3/2010. (cwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/3/2010) (Entered: 02/03/2010)

02/03/2010 1701 ORDER re 1697 Confirming Undisputed California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Adult Operations and Adult Programs Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Third Quarter of 2009. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 2/3/10. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/3/2010) (Entered: 02/03/2010)

02/03/2010 1702 ORDER re 1698 Confirming Undisputed Board of Parole Hearings Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Third Quarter of 2009. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 2/3/10. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/3/2010) (Entered: 02/03/2010)

02/03/2010 1703 ORDER re 1699 Confirming Undisputed Division of Adult Parole Operations Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Third Quarter of 2009. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 2/3/10. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/3/2010) (Entered: 02/03/2010)

02/11/2010 1704 MOTION and [Proposed] Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 2/11/2010) Modified on 2/12/2010 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/11/2010)

02/12/2010 1705 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1704 Administrative Motion for Payment (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/12/2010) (Entered: 02/12/2010)

02/17/2010 1706 Joint Status Conference Statement filed by Arnold Schwarzenegger, John Armstrong, et al. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Russell, Jay) (Filed on 2/17/2010) Modified on 2/18/2010 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/17/2010)

02/24/2010 1707 Minute Entry: Status Conference (Date Filed: 2/24/2010). Further Status Conference set for 5/4/2010 01:30 PM. (Court Reporter Diane Skillman.) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 2/24/2010) (Entered: 02/25/2010)

03/12/2010 1708 MOTION and [Proposed] Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 3/12/2010) Modified on 3/15/2010 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/12/2010)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 182 of 265

03/15/2010 1709 ORDER/MANDATE of USCA granting appellant's motion for voluntary dismissal as to 1678 Notice of Appeal, filed by Arnold Schwarzenegger (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/15/2010) (Entered: 03/15/2010)

03/22/2010 1710 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1708 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/22/2010) (Entered: 03/22/2010)

04/05/2010 1711 ORDER DIRECTING ADDITIONAL INTERIM PAYMENT OF COSTS.Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 04/05/2010. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/5/2010) (Entered: 04/05/2010)

04/13/2010 1712 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds; [Proposed] Order filed by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 4/13/2010) Modified on 4/14/2010 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/13/2010)

04/16/2010 1713 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1712 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/16/2010) (Entered: 04/16/2010)

04/21/2010 1714 Proposed Order Confirming Undisputed California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Adult Operations and Adult Programs Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Fourth Quarter of 2009 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 4/21/2010) (Entered: 04/21/2010)

04/21/2010 1715 Proposed Order Confirming Undisputed Board of Parole Hearings Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Fourth Quarter of 2009 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 4/21/2010). (Entered: 04/21/2010)

04/21/2010 1716 Proposed Order Confirming Undisputed Division of Adult Parole Operations Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Fourth Quarter of 2009 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 4/21/2010) (Entered: 04/21/2010)

04/23/2010

1717

ORDER re 1714 Granting Confirming Undisputed California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Adult Operations and Adult Programs Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Fourth Quarter of 2009. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 04/23/2010. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/23/2010) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/23/2010: # 1 Exhibit A) (ndr, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/23/2010)

04/23/2010 1718 ORDER re 1716 Granting Confirming Undisputed Division of Adult Parole Operations Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Fourth Quarter of 2009. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 04/23/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/23/2010) (Entered: 04/23/2010)

04/23/2010 1719 ORDER re 1715 Granting Confirming Undisputed Board of Parole Hearings Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Fourth Quarter of 2009. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 4/23/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/23/2010) (Entered: 04/23/2010)

04/23/2010 2860 RECEIVED DEPOSIT in the amount of $100,000.00, receipt #44611005084 pursuant to order document no. 1711 for interim payment of expert cost submitted by defendants. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/23/2010) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/23/2010)

04/27/2010 1720 JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT filed by John Armstrong, Arnold Schwarzenegger, et al. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Hagler, Megan) (Filed on 4/27/2010) Modified on 4/28/2010 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/27/2010)

05/04/2010 1728 Minute Entry: Status Conference (Date Filed: 5/4/2010). Status Conference set for 7/20/2010 01:30 PM. (Court Reporter Diane Skillman.) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 5/4/2010) (Entered: 06/21/2010)

05/11/2010 1721 Letter from Dated May 11, 2010. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/11/2010) (Entered: 05/12/2010)

05/14/2010

***Deadlines terminated re Status Conference as to 1707 Status Conference. (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/14/2010) (Entered: 06/01/2010)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 183 of 265

05/19/2010 1722 MOTION and [Proposed] Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 5/19/2010) Modified on 5/20/2010 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/19/2010)

05/27/2010 1723 NOTICE by J. Clark Kelso Notice of Receiver's Fourteenth Tri−Annual Report (Attachments: # 1 14th Tri−Annual Report, # 2 Table of Appendices, # 3 Appendices 1 to 6, # 4 Appendices 7 to 12)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 5/27/2010) (Entered: 05/27/2010)

05/28/2010 1724 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1722 Motion for Order for Payment (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/28/2010) (Entered: 05/28/2010)

06/11/2010 1725 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and Proposed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 6/11/2010) Modified on 6/14/2010 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/11/2010)

06/15/2010 1726 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1725 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 Invoice #16941) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/15/2010) (Entered: 06/15/2010)

06/18/2010 1727 Letter from Clerk to John Barros. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/18/2010) (Entered: 06/18/2010)

07/13/2010 1729 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by John Armstrong, Arnold Schwarzenegger, et al. (Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 7/13/2010) Modified on 7/14/2010 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/13/2010)

07/16/2010 1730 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and [Proposed] Order filed by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 7/16/2010) Modified on 7/19/2010 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/16/2010)

07/19/2010 1731 Proposed Order Confirming Undisputed California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Adult Operations and Adult Programs Attorney's Fees and Costs for the First Quarter of 2010 by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 7/19/2010) (Entered: 07/19/2010)

07/19/2010 1732 Proposed Order Confirming Undisputed Board of Parole Hearings Attorney's Fees and Costs for the First Quarter of 2010 by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 7/19/2010) (Entered: 07/19/2010)

07/19/2010 1733 Proposed Order Confirming Undisputed Division of Adult Parole Operations Attorney's Fees and Costs for the First Quarter of 2010 by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 7/19/2010) (Entered: 07/19/2010)

07/19/2010 1734 ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE TO SEPTEMBER 7, 2010 AT 1:30 P.M.; Status Conference set for 9/7/2010 01:30 PM in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland.. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 7/19/2010. (cwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/19/2010) (Entered: 07/19/2010)

07/21/2010 1735 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1730 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 Invoice #17030) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/21/2010) (Entered: 07/21/2010)

07/22/2010 1736 ORDER re 1733 Granting Proposed Order Confirming Undisputed Division of Adult Parole Operations Attorney's Fees and Costs for the First Quarter of 2010. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 7/22/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/22/2010)

07/22/2010

1737

ORDER re 1731 Granting Proposed Order Confirming Undisputed California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Adult Operations and Adult Programs Attorney's Fees and Costs for the First Quarter of 2010. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 7/22/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/22/2010)

07/23/2010 1738 ORDER re 1732 Granting Proposed Order Confirming Undisputed Board of Parole Hearings Attorney's Fees and Costs for the First Quarter of 2010. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 7/23/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/23/2010) (Entered: 07/23/2010)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 184 of 265

07/28/2010 1739 STIPULATION and Proposed Order Extending Time in Which Plaintiffs May Move to Compel Compensation at 2010 Rates by John Armstrong, Arnold Schwarzenegger, et al. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 7/28/2010) Modified on 7/29/2010 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/28/2010)

07/30/2010 1740 ORDER re 1739 Granting Stipulation Extending Time in Which Plaintiffs May Move to Compel Compensation at 2010 Rates. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 7/30/2010. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/30/2010) (Entered: 07/30/2010)

08/11/2010 1741 Letter from Clerk to James E. Rojo. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/11/2010) (Entered: 08/11/2010)

08/12/2010

1742

USCA Memorandum: vacated and remanded to the district court to issue a clarified order consistent with this decision and the requirements of the PLRA, unless developments in the ongoing negotiations between the parties have rendered the issue moot as to 1546 Notice of Appeal filed by Arnold Schwarzenegger (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/12/2010) (Entered: 08/12/2010)

08/19/2010 1743 ORDER of USCA denying as moot appellees' motion to dismiss appellants' appeal as to 1546 Notice of Appeal filed by Arnold Schwarzenegger (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/19/2010) (Entered: 08/19/2010)

08/20/2010 1744 Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 8/20/2010) Modified on 8/23/2010 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/20/2010)

08/20/2010 1745 MOTION to Compel Compensation at Plaintiffs' Counsel's Reasonable 2010 Hourly Rates filed by John Armstrong. Motion Hearing set for 9/30/2010 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland. (Bien, Michael) (Filed on 8/20/2010) (Entered: 08/20/2010)

08/20/2010 1746 Declaration of Michael W. Bien in Support of 1745 MOTION to Compel Compensation at Plaintiffs' Counsel's Reasonable 2010 Hourly Rates filed byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits 1−28)(Related document(s) 1745 ) (Bien, Michael) (Filed on 8/20/2010) Modified on 8/23/2010 (cp, COURT STAFF).

*** SEE DOCUMENT # 1762 FOR EXHIBIT 28***

(Entered: 08/20/2010)
08/20/2010 1747 Declaration of Geoffrey T. Holtz in Support of 1745 MOTION to Compel Compensation at Plaintiffs' Counsel's Reasonable 2010 Hourly Rates filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1745 ) (Bien, Michael) (Filed on 8/20/2010) (Entered: 08/20/2010)
08/20/2010 1748 Declaration of Sara Norman in Support of 1745 MOTION to Compel Compensation at Plaintiffs' Counsel's Reasonable 2010 Hourly Rates filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1745 ) (Bien, Michael) (Filed on 8/20/2010) (Entered: 08/20/2010)
08/20/2010 1749 Declaration of Maria V. Morris in Support of 1745 MOTION to Compel Compensation at Plaintiffs' Counsel's Reasonable 2010 Hourly Rates filed byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−10)(Related document(s) 1745 ) (Morris, Maria) (Filed on 8/20/2010) (Entered: 08/20/2010)
08/20/2010 1750 Declaration of Linda D. Kilb in Support of 1745 MOTION to Compel Compensation at Plaintiffs' Counsel's Reasonable 2010 Hourly Rates filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1745 ) (Bien, Michael) (Filed on 8/20/2010) (Entered: 08/20/2010)
08/20/2010 1751 Declaration of Richard M. Pearl in Support of 1745 MOTION to Compel Compensation at Plaintiffs' Counsel's Reasonable 2010 Hourly Rates filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1745 ) (Bien, Michael) (Filed on 8/20/2010) (Entered: 08/20/2010)
08/20/2010 1752 Declaration of Sidney M. Wolinsky in Support of 1745 MOTION to Compel Compensation at Plaintiffs' Counsel's Reasonable 2010 Hourly Rates filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1745 ) (Bien, Michael) (Filed on 8/20/2010)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 185 of 265

(Entered: 08/20/2010)

08/20/2010 1753 Declaration of Jon B. Streeter in Support of 1745 MOTION to Compel Compensation at Plaintiffs' Counsel's Reasonable 2010 Hourly Rates filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1745 ) (Bien, Michael) (Filed on 8/20/2010) (Entered: 08/20/2010)

08/20/2010 1754 Declaration of Thomas V. Loran III in Support of 1745 MOTION to Compel Compensation at Plaintiffs' Counsel's Reasonable 2010 Hourly Rates filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1745 ) (Bien, Michael) (Filed on 8/20/2010) (Entered: 08/20/2010)

08/20/2010 1755 Declaration of David S. Steuer in Support of 1745 MOTION to Compel Compensation at Plaintiffs' Counsel's Reasonable 2010 Hourly Rates filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1745 ) (Bien, Michael) (Filed on 8/20/2010) (Entered: 08/20/2010)

08/20/2010 1756 Declaration of Edward P. Sangster in Support of 1745 MOTION to Compel Compensation at Plaintiffs' Counsel's Reasonable 2010 Hourly Rates filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1745 ) (Bien, Michael) (Filed on 8/20/2010) (Entered: 08/20/2010)

08/20/2010 1757 Declaration of James W. Morando in Support of 1745 MOTION to Compel Compensation at Plaintiffs' Counsel's Reasonable 2010 Hourly Rates filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1745 ) (Bien, Michael) (Filed on 8/20/2010) (Entered: 08/20/2010)

08/20/2010 1758 Declaration of Rory K. Little in Support of 1745 MOTION to Compel Compensation at Plaintiffs' Counsel's Reasonable 2010 Hourly Rates filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1745 ) (Bien, Michael) (Filed on 8/20/2010) (Entered: 08/20/2010)

08/20/2010 1759 Declaration of Alan B. Exelrod in Support of 1745 MOTION to Compel Compensation at Plaintiffs' Counsel's Reasonable 2010 Hourly Rates filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1745 ) (Bien, Michael) (Filed on 8/20/2010) (Entered: 08/20/2010)

08/20/2010 1760 (Proposed) Finding of Facts, Conclusion of Law and Order Granting re 1745 MOTION to Compel Compensation at Plaintiffs' Counsel's Reasonable 2010 Hourly Rates by John Armstrong. (Bien, Michael) (Filed on 8/20/2010) Modified on 8/23/2010 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/20/2010)

08/23/2010 1761 STIPULATION Regarding Upcoming Case Management Conference; (Proposed) Order by John Armstrong, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Norman, Sara) (Filed on 8/23/2010) Modified on 8/24/2010 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/23/2010)

08/23/2010 1762 NOTICE of filing of Exhibit 28 re 1746 Declaration in Support, 1745 MOTION to Compel Compensation at Plaintiffs' Counsel's Reasonable 2010 Hourly Rates Exhibit 28 by John Armstrong. (Morris, Maria) (Filed on 8/23/2010) Modified on 8/24/2010 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/23/2010)

08/24/2010 1763 ORDER re 1761 Granting Stipulation Regarding Upcoming Case Management Conference. Status Conference set for 11/16/2010 02:00 PM. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 8/24/2010. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/24/2010) (Entered: 08/24/2010)

08/24/2010 1764 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1744 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 Invoice #17141) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/24/2010) (Entered: 08/24/2010)

08/31/2010

Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 11/16/2010 01:30 PM.

** Time of Hearing Corrected **

(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/31/2010) (Entered: 08/31/2010)
09/07/2010 1765 USCA Memorandum as to appeal 07−17342 (kk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/7/2010) (Entered: 09/07/2010)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 186 of 265

09/07/2010 1766 ORDER of USCA re: costs (kk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/7/2010) (Entered: 09/07/2010)

09/07/2010 1767 USCA Memorandum as to 1595 Notice of Appeal filed by Arnold Schwarzenegger (kk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/7/2010) (Entered: 09/07/2010)

09/07/2010 1768 ORDER of USCA re costs in 09−17144 (kk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/7/2010) (Entered: 09/07/2010)

09/07/2010 1769 MANDATE of USCA as to 1546 Notice of Appeal filed by Arnold Schwarzenegger (kk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/7/2010) (Entered: 09/07/2010)

09/07/2010 1770 CLERKS Letter Spreading Mandate to Counsel (09−16716) (kk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/7/2010) (Entered: 09/07/2010)

09/09/2010

1771

ASSOCIATION of Counsel DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL FOR SERVICE by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Attachments: # 1 Signature Page (Declarations/Stipulations) Certificate of Service)(O'Bannon, Danielle) (Filed on 9/9/2010) (Entered: 09/09/2010)

09/09/2010 1772 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL by Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 9/9/2010) (Entered: 09/09/2010)

09/13/2010 1773 ORDER re 1772 Granting Stipulation TO CONTINUE HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL. Motion Hearing set for 11/16/2010 01:30 PM. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 9/13/2010. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/13/2010) (Entered: 09/13/2010)

09/14/2010 1774 ORDER of USCA granting appellee's motion to transfer consideration of attorneys' fees and expenses to the district court as to 1546 Notice of Appeal filed by Arnold Schwarzenegger (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/14/2010) (Entered: 09/14/2010)

09/20/2010 1775 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and Proposed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 9/20/2010) Modified on 9/21/2010 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/20/2010)

09/22/2010 1776 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1775 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 Invoice #17267) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2010) (Entered: 09/22/2010)

09/28/2010 1777 STIPULATION and Proposed Order continuing hearing and briefing schedule on 1745 MOTION to Compel Compensation at Plaintiffs' Counsel's Reasonable 2010 Hourly Rates by John Armstrong. (Morris, Maria) (Filed on 9/28/2010) Modified on 9/29/2010 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/28/2010)

09/29/2010 1778 MANDATE of USCA as to 1260 Notice of Appeal, Appeal No. 07−17342 filed by Arnold Schwarzenegger (vlk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/29/2010) Modified on 9/29/2010 (vlk, COURT STAFF). Modified on 9/30/2010 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/29/2010)

09/29/2010 1779 CLERKS Letter Spreading Mandate to Counsel (vlk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/29/2010) (Entered: 09/29/2010)

09/29/2010 1780 NOTICE by J. Clark Kelso Notice of Filing of Receiver's Fifteenth Tri−Annual Report (Attachments: # 1 15th Tri−Annual Report, # 2 Table of Appendices)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 9/29/2010) (Entered: 09/29/2010)

09/29/2010 1781 Appendix re 1780 Notice (Other) Appendices 1 to 7 to Receiver's 15th Tri−Annual Report filed byJ. Clark Kelso. (Related document(s) 1780 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 9/29/2010) (Entered: 09/29/2010)

09/29/2010 1782 Appendix re 1780 Notice (Other) Appendices 8 to 12 to Receiver's 15th Tri−Annual Report filed byJ. Clark Kelso. (Related document(s) 1780 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 9/29/2010) (Entered: 09/29/2010)

10/04/2010 1783 ORDER re 1777 Granting Stipulation continuing hearing and briefing schedule for Plaintiff's MOTION to Compel Compensation. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/4/2010. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/4/2010) (Entered: 10/04/2010)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 187 of 265

10/04/2010 1784 NOTICE by J. Clark Kelso Notice of Filing of Receiver's Amended 15th Tri−Annual Report (Attachments: # 1 Amended Page − Notice, # 2 Receiver's Amended 15th Report)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 10/4/2010) (Entered: 10/04/2010)

10/05/2010

Set/Reset Deadlines as to 1745 MOTION to Compel Compensation at Plaintiffs' Counsel's Reasonable 2010 Hourly Rates. Motion Hearing set for 2/24/2011 02:00 PM. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/5/2010) (Entered: 10/05/2010)

10/05/2010

Set/Reset Deadlines as to 1745 MOTION to Compel Compensation at Plaintiffs' Counsel's Reasonable 2010 Hourly Rates. Motion Hearing set for 2/24/2011 01:30 PM. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/5/2010) (Entered: 10/05/2010)

10/07/2010 1785 ORDER ON BRIEFING FOR ATTORNEYS FEES INCURRED ON APPEAL. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/7/2010. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/7/2010) (Entered: 10/07/2010)

10/08/2010 1786 ORDER of USCA (07−17342) Granting Plaintiffs'−Appellees' motion to transfer consideration of attorneys' fees and expenses to the district court (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/8/2010) (Entered: 10/08/2010)

10/12/2010 1787 Proposed Order Confirming Undisputed California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Adult Operations and Adult Programs Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Second Quarter of 2010 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 10/12/2010) (Entered: 10/12/2010)

10/12/2010 1788 Proposed Order Confirming Undisputed Board of Parole Hearings Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Second Quarter of 2010 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 10/12/2010) (Entered: 10/12/2010)

10/12/2010 1789 Proposed Order Confirming Undisputed Division of Adult Parole Operations Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Second Quarter of 2010 by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 10/12/2010) (Entered: 10/12/2010)

10/13/2010 1790 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and [Proposed] Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 10/13/2010) Modified on 10/14/2010 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/13/2010)

10/13/2010 1791 Letter from Clerk to Paul Roberts. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/13/2010) (Entered: 10/13/2010)

10/14/2010 1792 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1790 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 October 8, 2010/Invoice #17370) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/14/2010) (Entered: 10/14/2010)

10/18/2010 1793 STIPULATION re 1785 Order and Proposed Order Re Procedure for Resolving Attorney's Fees Incurred on Appeal by John Armstrong, Arnold Schwarzenegger, et al. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 10/18/2010) Modified on 10/19/2010 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/18/2010)

10/25/2010 1794 ORDER re 1793 Granting Stipulation Re Procedure for Resolving Attorney's Fees Incurred on Appeal. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/25/2010. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/25/2010) (Entered: 10/25/2010)

10/26/2010

1795

ORDER re 1787 Order Confirming Undisputed California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Adult Operations and Adult Programs Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Second Quarter of 2010. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/26/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/26/2010) (Entered: 10/26/2010)

10/26/2010 1796 ORDER re 1788 Confirming Undisputed Board of Parole Hearings Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Second Quarter of 2010. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/26/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/26/2010) (Entered: 10/26/2010)

10/26/2010 1797 ORDER re 1789 Confirming Undisputed Division of Adult Parole Operations Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Second Quarter of 2010. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/26/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/26/2010) (Entered: 10/26/2010)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 188 of 265

11/09/2010 1798 Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 11/9/2010) Modified on 11/10/2010 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/09/2010)

11/09/2010 1799 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by John Armstrong, Arnold Schwarzenegger, et al. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Thompson, Blake) (Filed on 11/9/2010) Modified on 11/10/2010 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/09/2010)

11/16/2010 1801 Minute Entry: Status Conference (Date Filed: 11/16/2010). Status Conference set for 1/25/2011 02:00 PM. (Court Reporter Leo Mankiewicz.) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 11/16/2010) (Entered: 11/24/2010)

11/19/2010 1800 NOTICE of Change of Address by Linda D. Kilb : NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS FOR DREDF (Kilb, Linda) (Filed on 11/19/2010) (Entered: 11/19/2010)

11/30/2010 1802 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1798 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 November 5, 2010/Invoice # 17476) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/30/2010) (Entered: 11/30/2010)

12/06/2010

1803

Transcript of Proceedings held on 11/16/10, before Judge Claudia Wilken. Court Reporter/Transcriber Leo T. Mankiewicz, Telephone number (415) 722−7045; email: leomank@gmail.com. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/7/2011. (Mankiewicz, Leo) (Filed on 12/6/2010) (Entered: 12/06/2010)

12/10/2010 1804 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and [Proposed] Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 12/10/2010) Modified on 12/13/2010 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/10/2010)

12/15/2010 1805 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1804 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 Invoice #17572) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/15/2010) (Entered: 12/15/2010)

12/20/2010 1806 Proposed Order Confirming Undisputed California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Third Quarter of 2010, and Confirming Resolution of Certain Attorney's Fees and Costs Incurred on Appeal by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 12/20/2010) (Entered: 12/20/2010)

12/22/2010

1807

ORDER Confirming Undisputed California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Third Quarter of 2010, and Confirming Resolution of Certain Attorney's Fees and Costs Incurred on Appeal. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 12/21/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A − C)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/22/2010) (Entered: 12/22/2010)

12/22/2010 1808 Letter from Clerk to James Carpenter. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/22/2010) (Entered: 12/22/2010)

12/28/2010 1809 ORDER of USCA denying petition for rehearing en banc as to 1595 Notice of Appeal filed by Arnold Schwarzenegger (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/28/2010) (Entered: 12/28/2010)

12/28/2010 1810 MANDATE of USCA as to 1595 Notice of Appeal filed by Arnold Schwarzenegger (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/28/2010) (Entered: 12/28/2010)

12/30/2010 1811 MOTION to Change Time Under Northern District Local Rule 6−3 filed by Arnold Schwarzenegger. (O'Bannon, Danielle) (Filed on 12/30/2010) Modified on 1/3/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/30/2010)

12/30/2010

1812

Declaration of Danielle O'Bannon in Support of 1811 MOTION to Change Time Under Northern District Local Rule 6−3 filed byArnold Schwarzenegger. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Related document(s) 1811 ) (O'Bannon, Danielle) (Filed on 12/30/2010) Modified on 1/3/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/30/2010)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 189 of 265

12/30/2010 1813 Proposed Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Change Time Under Northern District Local Rule 6−3 by Arnold Schwarzenegger. (O'Bannon, Danielle) (Filed on 12/30/2010) (Entered: 12/30/2010)

01/03/2011 1814 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 1811 MOTION to Change Time Under Northern District Local Rule 6−3 filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1811 ) (Bien, Michael) (Filed on 1/3/2011) (Entered: 01/03/2011)

01/03/2011 1815 DECLARATION of Michael W. Bien in Opposition to 1811 MOTION to Change Time Under Northern District Local Rule 6−3 filed byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−B)(Related document(s) 1811 ) (Bien, Michael) (Filed on 1/3/2011) (Entered: 01/03/2011)

01/03/2011 1816 Proposed Order Denying Defendants' Motion to Change Time Under Northern District Local Rule 6−3 by John Armstrong. (Bien, Michael) (Filed on 1/3/2011) (Entered: 01/03/2011)

01/05/2011

1817

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING in part 1811 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 1745 MOTION to Compel Compensation at Plaintiffs' Counsel's Reasonable 2010 Hourly Rates Opposition due by 3/8/2011. Reply due by 3/21/2011. (cwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/5/2011) (Entered: 01/05/2011)

01/05/2011

***Deadlines terminated. 1817 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. 2/24/2011 Hearing on 1745 Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel VACATED. (cwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/5/2011) (Entered: 01/05/2011)

01/12/2011 1818 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and [Proposed] Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 1/12/2011) Modified on 1/13/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/12/2011)

01/14/2011 1819 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1818 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 January 6, 2011/Invoice # 17672) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/14/2011) (Entered: 01/14/2011)

01/14/2011 1820 STIPULATION and (Proposed) Order to Continue the January 25, 2011 Status Conference by Edmund G. Brown, Jr., John Armstrong, et al (Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 1/14/2011) Modified on 1/18/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/14/2011)

01/18/2011 1821 NOTICE of Filing of Receiver's Sixteenth Tri−Annual Report by J. Clark Kelso (Attachments: # 1 16th Tri−Annual Report, # 2 Table of Contents for Appendices)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 1/18/2011) Modified on 1/19/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/18/2011)

01/18/2011 1822 Appendix re 1821 Receiver's 16th Report filed byJ. Clark Kelso. (Related document(s) 1821 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 1/18/2011) Modified on 1/19/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/18/2011)

01/18/2011 1823 ORDER of USCA granting appellees' unopposed motion to transfer considration of attorney's fees and expenses to the district court as to 1595 Notice of Appeal filed by Arnold Schwarzenegger (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/18/2011) (Entered: 01/18/2011)

01/18/2011 1824 STIPULATION and Proposed Order Re Procedure for Resolving Attorney's Fees Incurred on Appeal by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr.. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 1/18/2011) Modified on 1/19/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/18/2011)

01/19/2011

1825

ORDER GRanting 1820 Stipulation to Continue the January 25, 2011 Status Conference. Joint Status Conference Statement due February 22, 2011. Status Conference set for 3/1/2011 01:30 PM before Hon. Claudia Wilken. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/19/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/19/2011) (Entered: 01/19/2011)

01/19/2011 1826 ORDER Granting 1824 Stipulation Re Procedure for Resolving Attorney's Fees Incurred on Appeal. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/19/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/19/2011)

** DISREGARD JUDGE'S SIGNATURE IS MISSING FROM THE ORDER.

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 190 of 265

SEE DOCKET 1827 **

(Entered: 01/19/2011)

01/19/2011 1827 ORDER Granting 1824 Stipulation Re Procedure for Resolving Attorney's Fees Incurred on Appeal. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/19/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/19/2011) (Entered: 01/21/2011)

02/03/2011 1828 MOTION to Shorten Time for Defendants' Motion to Compel filed by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit In Support of Motion, # 2 Proposed Order)(Morris, Maria) (Filed on 2/3/2011) (Entered: 02/03/2011)

02/07/2011 1829 Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Administrative Motion for Defendants' Motion to Compel to be Heard on Shortened Time filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 2/7/2011) Modified on 2/8/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/07/2011)

02/07/2011 1830 Declaration of Scott J. Feudale in Support of 1829 Memorandum in Opposition filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Related document(s) 1829 ) (Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 2/7/2011) (Entered: 02/07/2011)

02/07/2011 1831 Proposed Order Denying Plaintiff's' Administrative Motion for Defendants' Motion to Compel to be Heard on Shortened Time by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 2/7/2011) (Entered: 02/07/2011)

02/07/2011 1832 EXHIBITS A, B, & C to Declaration of Scott J. Feudale (Doc. 1830 ) filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 2/7/2011) Modified on 2/8/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/07/2011)

02/07/2011

1833

Request to Submit Reply in Support of Plaintiffs' Administrative Motion for Defendants' Motion to Compel To Be Heard on Shortened Time (By the Court Rather Than a Magistrate Judge), and Reply filed byJohn Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 2/7/2011) Modified on 2/8/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/07/2011)

02/09/2011

1834

Request for Status Conference Call at the Court's Earliest Convenience by John Armstrong (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Maria V. Morris in Support of Plaintiffs' Request for Status Conference Call at the Court's Earliest Convenience, # 2 Exhibit Exhibits A−F to Morris Declaration, # 3 Proposed Order)(Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 2/9/2011) Modified on 2/10/2011 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/09/2011)

02/10/2011

1835

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS 1828 MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME, GRANTING PLAINTIFFS 1833 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUBMIT REPLY AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS 1834 REQUEST FOR TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/10/2011) (Entered: 02/10/2011)

02/11/2011 1836 STIPULATION and Proposed Order Regarding Depositions by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 2/11/2011) Modified on 2/14/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/11/2011)

02/14/2011 1837 Administrative Motion and [Proposed] Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 2/14/2011) Modified on 2/15/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/14/2011)

02/15/2011 1838 ORDER Granting 1836 Stipulation Regarding Depositions. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 2/15/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/15/2011) (Entered: 02/15/2011)

02/16/2011 1839 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1837 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 Invoice #17766) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/16/2011) (Entered: 02/16/2011)

02/16/2011 1840 MOTION to Compel Further Responses to Defendants' Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Signature Page (Declarations/Stipulations) Certificate of

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 191 of 265

Service)(O'Bannon, Danielle) (Filed on 2/16/2011) Modified on 2/17/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). Modified on 2/18/2011 (kk, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/16/2011)

02/16/2011

1841

Declaration of Danielle F. O'Bannon in Support of 1840 MOTION toCompel Further Responses to Defendants' Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Related document(s) 1840 ) (O'Bannon, Danielle) (Filed on 2/16/2011) Modified on 2/17/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/16/2011)

02/16/2011 1842 Separate Statement re 1840 MOTION toCompel Further Responses to Defendants' Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (O'Bannon, Danielle) (Filed on 2/16/2011) Modified on 2/17/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/16/2011)

02/22/2011 1843 Joint Status Conference Statement filed by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr, et al. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−F)(Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 2/22/2011) Modified on 2/23/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/22/2011)

02/22/2011

1844

MOTION for Protective Order and to Quash Defendants' Subpoenas, and Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Compel Further Responses filed by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Maria V. Morris, # 2 Supplement Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Separate Statement)(Morris, Maria) (Filed on 2/22/2011) Modified on 2/23/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/22/2011)

02/22/2011

1845

Proposed Order re 1844 MOTION for Protective Order and to Quash Defendants' Subpoenas, 1840 MOTION toCompel Further Responses to Defendants' Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents by John Armstrong. (Morris, Maria) (Filed on 2/22/2011) Modified on 2/23/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/22/2011)

02/24/2011

1846

REPLY (re 1844 MOTION for Protective Order and to Quash Defendants' Subpoenas, 1840 MOTION toCompel Further Responses to Defendants' Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents ) filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Signature Page (Declarations/Stipulations) Certificate of Service)(O'Bannon, Danielle) (Filed on 2/24/2011) (Entered: 02/24/2011)

03/01/2011 1847 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken DENYING 1840 Defendants' Motion to Compel and GRANTING 1844 Plainitiffs' Motion for Protective Order and To Quash Defendants' Subpoenas (cwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/1/2011) (Entered: 03/01/2011)

03/01/2011 1875 Minute Entry: Status Conference (Date Filed: 3/1/2011). (Court Reporter Leo Mankiewicz.) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 3/1/2011) (Entered: 04/18/2011)

03/04/2011 1848 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER EXTENDING THE BRIEFING SCHEDULE REGARDING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL COMPENSATION by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 3/4/2011) (Entered: 03/04/2011)

03/04/2011 1849 NOTICE of Filing of Additional Declaration by John Armstrong in Support of 1745 MOTION to Compel Compensation at Plaintiffs' Counsel's Reasonable 2010 Hourly Rates (Morris, Maria) (Filed on 3/4/2011) Modified on 3/7/2011 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/04/2011)

03/04/2011 1850 Declaration of Sanford Jay Rosen in Support of 1745 Motion to Compel Compensation at 2010 Hourly Rates filed by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−5, # 2 Exhibit 6−12)(Related document(s) 1745 ) (Morris, Maria) (Filed on 3/4/2011) Modified on 3/7/2011 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/04/2011)

03/04/2011 1851 Supplemental Declaration of Richard M. Pearl in Support of 1745 Motion to Compel Compensation at Plaintiffs' Counsel's 2010 Hourly Rates filed by John Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1745 ) (Morris, Maria) (Filed on 3/4/2011) Modified on 3/7/2011 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/04/2011)

03/04/2011 1852 Supplemental Declaration of Geoffrey T. Holtz in Support of 1745 Motion to Compel Compensation at 2010 Hourly Rates filed by John Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1745 ) (Morris, Maria) (Filed on 3/4/2011) Modified on 3/7/2011 (kc, COURT

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 192 of 265

STAFF). (Entered: 03/04/2011)

03/04/2011

1853

DISREGARD, SEE DOCKET ENTRY 1855 ORDER GRANTING 1848 Stipulation EXTENDING THE BRIEFING SCHEDULE REGARDING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL COMPENSATION. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 3/4/2011. (cwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/4/2011) Modified on 3/7/2011 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/04/2011)

03/04/2011 1854 Proposed Order Confirming Undisputed California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Fourth Quarter of 2010, and Confirming Resolution of Certain Attorney's Fees and Costs Incurred on Appeal by John Armstrong. (Baldwin, Holly) (Filed on 3/4/2011) (Entered: 03/04/2011)

03/04/2011

Set/Reset Deadlines as to 1745 MOTION to Compel Compensation at Plaintiffs' Counsel's Reasonable 2010 Hourly Rates. Responses due by 3/22/2011. Replies due by 4/11/2011. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/4/2011) (Entered: 03/07/2011)

03/07/2011 1855 ORDER Granting 1848 Stipulation EXTENDING THE BRIEFING SCHEDULE REGARDING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL COMPENSATION. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 3/7/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/7/2011) (Entered: 03/07/2011)

03/09/2011

1856

ORDER Granting 1854 Confirming Undisputed California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Fourth Quarter of 2010, and Confirming Resolution of Certain Attorney's Fees and Costs Incurred on Appeal Proposed Order, filed by John Armstrong. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 3/9/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/9/2011) (Entered: 03/09/2011)

03/10/2011 1857 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and Proposed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 3/10/2011) Modified on 3/11/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/10/2011)

03/22/2011 1858

***STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD, PURSUANT TO ORDER, DOCUMENT # 1865 ***

MOTION to Strike Plaintiffs' Evidence Submitted in Support of Their Motion to Compel Compensation filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 3/22/2011) Modified on 3/23/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). Modified on 3/25/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/22/2011)

03/22/2011 1859 OPPOSITION (re 1745 MOTION to Compel Compensation at Plaintiffs' Counsel's Reasonable 2010 Hourly Rates ) filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 3/22/2011) Modified on 3/23/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/22/2011)

03/22/2011 1860 Declaration of James Blevins in Support of 1859 Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Compensation filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Related document(s) 1859 ) (Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 3/22/2011) Modified on 3/23/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/22/2011)

03/22/2011

1861

Declaration of Scott J. Feudale in Support of 1859 Opposition to Motion to Compel Compensation, filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Related document(s) 1859 ) (Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 3/22/2011) Modified on 3/23/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/22/2011)

03/22/2011 1862 Declaration of Gary Greenfield in Support of 1859 Opposition to Motion to Compel Compensation filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Related document(s) 1859 ) (Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 3/22/2011) Modified on 3/23/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/22/2011)

03/22/2011 1863 Declaration of Danielle O'Bannon in Support of 1859 Opposition to Motion to Compel Compensation filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Related document(s) 1859 ) (Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 3/22/2011) Modified on 3/23/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF).

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 193 of 265

(Entered: 03/22/2011)

03/24/2011 1864 STIPULATION and proposed order regarding periodic filing of status statements by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr, et al. (Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 3/24/2011) Modified on 3/25/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/24/2011)

03/24/2011 1865 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken DENYING without prejudice 1858 Defendants' Motion to Strike (cwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/24/2011) (Entered: 03/24/2011)

03/25/2011 1866 MOTION for Leave to File an Amended Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Compensation filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 3/25/2011) Modified on 3/28/2011 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/25/2011)

03/25/2011 1867 Proposed Order re 1866 MOTION for Leave to File an Amended Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Compensation by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 3/25/2011) Modified on 3/28/2011 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/25/2011)

03/28/2011 1868 ORDER Granting 1864 Stipulation REGARDING JOINT FILING OF PERIODIC STATUS STATEMENTS. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 3/28/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/28/2011) (Entered: 03/28/2011)

03/28/2011 1869 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting Defendants' Administrative 1866 Motion for Leave to File. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/28/2011) (Entered: 03/28/2011)

03/29/2011 1870 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld of Amy Whelan (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 3/29/2011) (Entered: 03/29/2011)

03/29/2011 1871 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld of Anne Mania (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 3/29/2011) (Entered: 03/29/2011)

03/29/2011 1872 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld of Holly Baldwin (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 3/29/2011) (Entered: 03/29/2011)

04/12/2011 1873 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and Proposed Order filed by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 4/12/2011) Modified on 4/13/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/12/2011)

04/15/2011

1874

REPLY (re 1745 MOTION to Compel Compensation at Plaintiffs' Counsel's Reasonable 2010 Hourly Rates ) , Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Strike, and Motion to Strike Declaration of Gary Greenfield filed byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Michael W. Bien, Supplemental, # 2 Affidavit of Maria V. Morris, Supplemental)(Morris, Maria) (Filed on 4/15/2011) (Entered: 04/15/2011)

04/18/2011 1876 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 1873 Administrative Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 Invoice # 18006) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/18/2011) (Entered: 04/18/2011)

04/20/2011 1877 Letter from CRD to James Carpenter. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/20/2011) (Entered: 04/20/2011)

04/20/2011 1878 Letter from CRD to Leroy Andreozzi. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/20/2011) (Entered: 04/20/2011)

05/09/2011 1879 MOTION to Quash Plaintiffs' Notice of Deposition and Request for Production of Documents; Motion for a Protectiver Order filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 5/9/2011) Modified on 5/10/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/09/2011)

05/09/2011 1880

***REMOVED PURSUANT TO ORDER #1896***

Declaration of Jay C. Russell in Support of 1879 MOTION to Quash filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exh. A_Part1, # 2 Exhibit Exh. A_Part2, # 3 Exhibit Exh. A_Part3, # 4 Exhibit Exh. A_Part4, # 5 Exhibit B, # 6 Exhibit C, # 7

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 194 of 265

Exhibit D, # 8 Exhibit E, # 9 Exhibit F, # 10 Exhibit G, # 11 Exhibit H, # 12 Exhibit I, # 13 Exhibit J, # 14 Exhibit K, # 15 Exhibit L)(Related document(s) 1879 ) (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 5/9/2011) Modified on 5/10/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). Modified on 6/7/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/09/2011)

05/09/2011 1881 Proposed Order re 1879 MOTION to Quash Plaintiffs' Notice of Deposition and Request for Production of Documents; Motion for a Protectiver Order by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 5/9/2011) Modified on 5/10/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/09/2011)

05/09/2011

1882

Declaration of Jay C. Russell in Support of 1883 Stipulated Ex Parte Request for an Order Shortening Time to Hear Defendants' Motion to Quash and for Protective Order filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Related document(s) 1883 ) (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 5/9/2011) Modified on 5/10/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/09/2011)

05/09/2011 1883 Stipulation and (Proposed) Order Shortening Briefing Schedule on Defendants' Motion to Quash and for a Protective Order by Edmund G. Brown, Jr., John Armstrong, et al (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 5/9/2011) Modified on 5/10/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/09/2011)

05/10/2011

Set/Reset Deadlines as to 1879 MOTION to Quash Plaintiffs' Notice of Deposition and Request for Production of Documents; Motion for a Protectiver Order. Motion Hearing set for 6/23/2011 02:00 PM before Hon. Claudia Wilken. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/10/2011) (Entered: 05/10/2011)

05/11/2011 1884 ORDER Granting 1883 Stipulation Shortening Briefing Schedule on Defendants' Motion to Quash and for a Protective Order. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 5/11/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/11/2011) (Entered: 05/11/2011)

05/13/2011 1885 Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 5/13/2011) Modified on 5/16/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/13/2011)

05/16/2011 1886 NOTICE by J. Clark Kelso Notice of Filing of Receiver's Seventeenth Tri−Annual Report (Attachments: # 1 Receiver's 17th Report, # 2 Table of Contents to Appendices, # 3 Appendices 1 thru 8)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 5/16/2011) (Entered: 05/16/2011)

05/16/2011 1887 Joint Case Status Statement by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al. (Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 5/16/2011) Modified on 5/17/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/16/2011)

05/16/2011

1888

*** FILED IN ERROR. REFER TO DOCUMENT 1889 . *** RESPONSE (re 1879 MOTION to Quash Plaintiffs' Notice of Deposition and Request for Production of Documents; Motion for a Protectiver Order ) filed byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Proposed Order)(Thompson, Blake) (Filed on 5/16/2011) Modified on 5/17/2011 (feriab, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/16/2011)

05/17/2011 1889 RESPONSE (re 1879 MOTION to Quash Plaintiffs' Notice of Deposition and Request for Production of Documents; Motion for a Protectiver Order ) Correction of Docket # 1888 filed byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Proposed Order)(Thompson, Blake) (Filed on 5/17/2011) (Entered: 05/17/2011)

05/20/2011 1890 REPLY (re 1879 MOTION to Quash Plaintiffs' Notice of Deposition and Request for Production of Documents; Motion for a Protectiver Order ) filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 5/20/2011) Modified on 5/23/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/20/2011)

05/23/2011 1891 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 1885 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 May 6, 2011/Invoice #18122) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/23/2011) (Entered: 05/23/2011)

05/24/2011 1892 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken DENYING DEFENDANTS 1879 Motion to Quash. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/24/2011) (Entered: 05/24/2011)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 195 of 265

06/01/2011

1893

MOTION to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document Defendants' Motion for Administrative Relief to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (part 1), # 2 Exhibit A (part 2), # 3 Exhibit A (part 3), # 4 Exhibit A (part 4), # 5 Exhibit A (part 5), # 6 Exhibit A (part 6))(Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 6/1/2011) (Entered: 06/01/2011)

06/01/2011 1894 STIPULATION of Non−Opposition re 1893 MOTION to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document Defendants' Motion for Administrative Relief to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document by Edmund G. Brown, Jr., John Armstrong (Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 6/1/2011) Modified on 6/2/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/01/2011)

06/01/2011 1895 Proposed Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Administrative Relief to Remove Incorrectly Filed Documents by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 6/1/2011) (Entered: 06/01/2011)

06/03/2011 1896 Order granting 1893 Motion to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document entered by Hon. Claudia Wilken. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 06/03/2011)

06/07/2011

1897

Amended Declaration of Jay Russell in Support of 1879 Motion to Quash by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (CORRECTION OF DOCKET 1880 pursuant to Docket 1896 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (part 1), # 2 Exhibit A (part 2), # 3 Exhibit A (part 3), # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D, # 7 Exhibit E, # 8 Exhibit F, # 9 Exhibit G, # 10 Exhibit H, # 11 Exhibit I, # 12 Exhibit J, # 13 Exhibit K, # 14 Exhibit L)(Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 6/7/2011) Modified on 6/8/2011 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/07/2011)

06/13/2011 1898 Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 6/27/2011. Replies due by 7/5/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 6/13/2011) Modified on 6/14/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/13/2011)

06/20/2011 1899 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 1898 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 invoice #18218) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/20/2011) (Entered: 06/20/2011)

07/08/2011 1900 Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 7/22/2011. Replies due by 7/29/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 7/8/2011) Modified on 7/11/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/08/2011)

07/11/2011 1901 Stipulation and (Proposed) Order to Change the Time to File the Joint Status Statement filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr, Edmund G. Armstrong. (Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 7/11/2011) Modified on 7/12/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/11/2011)

07/13/2011 1902 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1900 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 Invoice # 18324) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/13/2011) (Entered: 07/13/2011)

07/13/2011 1903 ORDER Granting 1901 Stipulation to Change the Time to File the Joint Status Statement. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 7/13/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/13/2011) (Entered: 07/13/2011)

07/14/2011 1904 NOTICE by John Armstrong of Filing of Orders of the Eastern District of California Temporarily Taking Off Calendar Motions by the Valdivia and L.H. Classes to Compel 2010 Rates (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 7/14/2011) (Entered: 07/14/2011)

07/20/2011

1905

STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING COUNTY JAIL DISCOVERY by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Signature Page (Declarations/Stipulations) Certificate of Service)(Russell, Jay) (Filed on 7/20/2011) Modified on 7/21/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/20/2011)

07/22/2011 1906 Joint Case Status Statement by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al. (Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 7/22/2011) Modified on 7/25/2011 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/22/2011)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 196 of 265

07/28/2011 1907 ORDER Granting 1905 Stipulation FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING COUNTY JAIL DISCOVERY. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 7/28/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/28/2011) (Entered: 07/28/2011)

07/28/2011 1908 Proposed Order Confirming Undisputed Attorney's Fees and Costs for the First Quarter of 2011 by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit s A−C)(Walczak, Kenneth) (Filed on 7/28/2011) (Entered: 07/28/2011)

07/29/2011 1909 ORDER Confirming Undisputed CDCR Attorney's Fees and Costs for the First Quarter of 2011 re 1908 . Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 7/29/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A−C)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/29/2011) Modified on 8/1/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/29/2011)

08/04/2011 1910 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal ; Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld filed by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 8/4/2011) Modified on 8/5/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). Modified on 8/10/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/04/2011)

08/04/2011 1911 Proposed Order re 1910 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal ; Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 8/4/2011) (Entered: 08/04/2011)

08/04/2011

1912

RENEWED MOTION to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails and Ensure Access to a Grievance Procedure and Motion to Enforce 2001 Permanent Injunction filed by John Armstrong. Motion Hearing set for 9/8/2011 02:00 PM in Courtroom 4, 3rd Floor, Oakland before Hon. Claudia Wilken. Responses due by 8/18/2011. Replies due by 8/25/2011. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 8/4/2011) Modified on 8/5/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/04/2011)

08/04/2011

1913

Declaration of Jeanne Woodford in Support of 1912 Renewed Motion to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails and Ensure Access to a Grievance Procedure and Motion to Enforce 2001 Permanent Injunction filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1912 ) (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 8/4/2011) Modified on 8/5/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/04/2011)

08/04/2011

1914

Declaration of Blake Thompson in Support of 1912 Renewed Motion to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails and Ensure Access to a Grievance Procedure and Motion to Enforce 2001 Permanent Injun ction filed byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A through O, # 2 Exhibit P through CCC)(Related document(s) 1912 ) (Thompson, Blake) (Filed on 8/4/2011) Modified on 8/5/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/04/2011)

08/04/2011

1915

Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld in Support of 1912 Renewed Motion to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails and Ensure Access to a Grievance Procedure and Motion to Enforce 2001 Permanent Injun ction filed byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Through II, # 2 Exhibit JJ Through NN, # 3 Exhibit OO Through RR, # 4 Exhibit SS Through HHH, # 5 Exhibit III Part 1, # 6 Exhibit III Part 2 Through JJJ, # 7 Exhibit KKK Through QQQ)(Related document(s) 1912 ) (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 8/4/2011) Modified on 8/5/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/04/2011)

08/04/2011

1916

Declaration of Michael Freedman in Support of 1912 Renewed Motion to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails and Ensure Access to a Grievance Procedure and Motion to Enforce 2001 Permanent Injun ction − Redacted filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1912 ) (Freedman, Michael) (Filed on 8/4/2011) Modified on 8/5/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/04/2011)

08/04/2011

1917

Proposed Order re 1912 Renewed Motion to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails and Ensure Access to a Grievance Procedure and Motion to Enforce 2001 Permanent Injunction by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 8/4/2011) Modified on 8/5/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/04/2011)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 197 of 265

08/08/2011 1918 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by John Armstrong re 1916 Declaration in Support, 1914 Declaration in Support, (Thompson, Blake) (Filed on 8/8/2011) (Entered: 08/08/2011)

08/08/2011 1919 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING 1745 Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Compensation at their Counsel's Reasonable 2010 Hourly Rates (cwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/8/2011) (Entered: 08/08/2011)

08/09/2011 1920 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 1910 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/9/2011) **DISREGARD. DATE AND SIGNATURE MISSING. SEE DOCKET NO 1921** (Entered: 08/09/2011)

08/09/2011 1921 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 1910 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/9/2011) (Entered: 08/10/2011)

08/10/2011

1922

DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 1921 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Declaration of Blake Thompson In Support of Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion To Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails and Ensure Access to a Grievance Procedure and Motion to Enforce 2001 Permanent Injunction by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Through O, # 2 Exhibit P Through JJ, # 3 Exhibit KK Through CCC)(Thompson, Blake) (Filed on 8/10/2011) (Entered: 08/10/2011)

08/10/2011

1923

DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 1921 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Declaration of Michael Freedman In Support of Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails and Ensure Access to a Grievance Procedure and Motion to Enforce 2001 Permanent Injunction by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Through T)(Freedman, Michael) (Filed on 8/10/2011) (Entered: 08/10/2011)

08/16/2011

1924

STIPULATION and Proposed Order to Change Time for Filing and Hearing Dates on Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails and Ensure Access to a Grievance Procedure and Motion to Enforce 2001 Permanent Injunction by Edmund G. Brown, Jr., John Armstrong, et al (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 8/16/2011) Modified on 8/17/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/16/2011)

08/17/2011 1925 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and Proposed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 8/31/2011. Replies due by 9/7/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 8/17/2011) Modified on 8/18/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/17/2011)

08/18/2011

1926

ORDER GRANTING 1924 Stipulation to Change Time for Filing and Hearing Dates on Plaintiffs' 1912 Renewed Motion to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails and Ensure Access to a Grievance Procedure and Motion to Enforce 2001 Permanent Injunction. Responses due by 9/29/2011. Replies due by 10/13/2011. Motion Hearing set for 10/27/2011 02:00 PM before Hon. Claudia Wilken. Signed by Judge CLAUDIA WILKEN on 8/18/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/18/2011) Modified on 8/19/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/18/2011)

08/19/2011 1927 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1925 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/19/2011) (Entered: 08/19/2011)

08/19/2011

***Deadlines terminated. (cwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/19/2011) (Entered: 08/19/2011)

09/08/2011 1928 Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 9/22/2011. Replies due by 9/29/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 9/8/2011) Modified on 9/9/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/08/2011)

09/09/2011 1929 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1928 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/9/2011) (Entered: 09/09/2011)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 198 of 265

09/09/2011 1930 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1857 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/9/2011) (Entered: 09/09/2011)

09/13/2011 1931 ORDER DIRECTING ADDITIONAL INTERIM PAYMENT OF COSTS. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 9/13/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/13/2011) (Entered: 09/13/2011)

09/15/2011 1932 JOINT STATUS REPORT by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 9/15/2011) Modified on 9/16/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/15/2011)

09/15/2011 1933 NOTICE by J. Clark Kelso Notice of Filing of Receiver's 18th Tri−Annual Report (Attachments: # 1 Receiver's 18th Report, # 2 Table of Appendices)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 9/15/2011) (Entered: 09/15/2011)

09/15/2011 1934 Appendix Part 1 − Appendices 1 through 7 to Receiver's 18th Report filed byJ. Clark Kelso. (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 9/15/2011) (Entered: 09/15/2011)

09/15/2011 1935 Appendix Part 2 − Appendices 8 through 12 to Receiver's 18th Report filed byJ. Clark Kelso. (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 9/15/2011) (Entered: 09/15/2011)

09/19/2011 1936 STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order re: Motion to Compel Payment of Plaintiffs' Counsel's 2011 Rates by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al. (Walczak, Kenneth) (Filed on 9/19/2011) Modified on 9/20/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/19/2011)

09/19/2011 1937 ORDER Granting 1936 Stipulation re: Motion to Compel Payment of Plaintiffs' Counsel's 2011 Rates. Motions due by 11/18/2011. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 9/19/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/19/2011) (Entered: 09/19/2011)

09/29/2011

1938

RESPONSE (re 1912 RENEWED MOTION to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails and Ensure Access to a Grievance Procedure and Motion to Enforce 2001 Permanent Injunction ) filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 9/29/2011) (Entered: 09/29/2011)

09/29/2011 1939 Declaration of Terri McDonald in Support of 1938 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Related document(s) 1938 ) (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 9/29/2011) (Entered: 09/29/2011)

09/29/2011 1940 Request for Judicial Notice re 1938 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A_Part1, # 2 Exhibit A_Part2, # 3 Exhibit A_Part3, # 4 Exhibit B_Part1, # 5 Exhibit B_Part2, # 6 Exhibit B_Part3)(Related document(s) 1938 ) (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 9/29/2011) (Entered: 09/29/2011)

09/30/2011 1941 Proposed Order for Payment of Attorney's Fees for 2010 and the First Quarter of 2011, Pursuant to the Court's August 8, 2011 Order, with Exhibits A−D by John Armstrong. (Walczak, Kenneth) (Filed on 9/30/2011) (Entered: 09/30/2011)

10/03/2011 1942 ORDER Granting 1941 Proposed Order for Payment of Attorney's Fees for 2010 and the First Quarter of 2011, Pursuant to the Court's August 8, 2011 Order, with Exhibits A−D. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/3/20112. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/3/2011) (Entered: 10/03/2011)

10/04/2011 1943 Proposed Order Confirming Undisputed Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Second Quarter of 2011, with Exhibits A−C by John Armstrong. (Walczak, Kenneth) (Filed on 10/4/2011) (Entered: 10/04/2011)

10/04/2011 1944 STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order Resolving Certain Disputed Attorney's Fees from the First Quarter of 2011, with Exhibit A by John Armstrong, Edmund g. Brown, Jr., et al. (Walczak, Kenneth) (Filed on 10/4/2011) Modified on 10/5/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/04/2011)

10/05/2011 1945 ORDER Granting 1943 Proposed Order Confirming Undisputed Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Second Quarter of 2011, with Exhibits A−C. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/5/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/5/2011) (Entered: 10/05/2011)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 199 of 265

10/05/2011 1946 ORDER Granting 1944 Stipulation Resolving Certain Disputed Attorney's Fees from the First Quarter of 2011, with Exhibit A. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/5/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/5/2011) (Entered: 10/05/2011)

10/07/2011 1947 Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 10/21/2011. Replies due by 10/28/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 10/7/2011) Modified on 10/11/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/07/2011)

10/11/2011 1948 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1947 Motion for Payment. (Attachments: # 1 exhibits) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/11/2011) (Entered: 10/11/2011)

10/13/2011

1949

REPLY (re 1912 RENEWED MOTION to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails and Ensure Access to a Grievance Procedure and Motion to Enforce 2001 Permanent Injunction ) filed byJohn Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 10/13/2011) (Entered: 10/13/2011)

10/13/2011

1950

Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld in Support of 1912 RENEWED MOTION to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails and Ensure Access to a Grievance Procedure and Motion to Enforce 2001 Permanent Injunction, filed byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−L, # 2 Exhibit M−S)(Related document(s) 1912 ) (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 10/13/2011) Modified on 10/14/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/13/2011)

10/13/2011 1951 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order and Stipulation)(Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 10/13/2011) (Entered: 10/13/2011)

10/13/2011

1952

REDACTED REPLY Declaration of Blake Thompson in Support of 1912 RENEWED MOTION to Require Defendants to Track and Accommodate Needs of Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails and Ensure Access to a Grievance Procedure and Motion to Enforce 2001 Permanent Injunction ) filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1912 ) (Thompson, Blake) (Filed on 10/13/2011) Modified on 10/14/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/13/2011)

10/13/2011 1953 EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS to re 1939 Declaration in Support by John Armstrong. (Thompson, Blake) (Filed on 10/13/2011) Modified on 10/14/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/13/2011)

10/14/2011 1954 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by John Armstrong re 1951 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (Thompson, Blake) (Filed on 10/14/2011) (Entered: 10/14/2011)

10/17/2011 1955 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 1951 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/17/2011) (Entered: 10/17/2011)

10/17/2011 1956 DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 1955 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Declaration of Blake Thompson in Support of 1949 Reply to Opposition/Response by John Armstrong. (Thompson, Blake) (Filed on 10/17/2011) (Entered: 10/17/2011)

10/17/2011 1957 Receipt #44611007772 in the amount of $100,000.00 interim payment of costs from defendants. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/17/2011) (Entered: 10/18/2011)

10/20/2011 1958 OBJECTIONS to Plaintiff's Evidence by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Feudale, Scott) (Filed on 10/20/2011) (Entered: 10/20/2011)

10/24/2011 1959 FURTHER OBJECTIONS to Plaintiffs' Evidence by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 10/24/2011) Modified on 10/25/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/24/2011)

10/27/2011 1963 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 10/27/2011 before Claudia Wilken (Date Filed: 10/27/2011). (Court Reporter Jennifer Macato.) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 10/27/2011) (Entered: 11/07/2011)

10/31/2011 1960 Proposed Order for Payment of Attorney's Fees For The First Two Quarters of 2011 at 2011 Rates by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 10/31/2011) (Entered: 10/31/2011)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 200 of 265

11/01/2011 1961 ORDER Granting 1960 Proposed Order. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 11/1/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/1/2011) (Entered: 11/01/2011)

11/04/2011 1962 Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 11/18/2011. Replies due by 11/28/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 11/4/2011) Modified on 11/7/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/04/2011)

11/07/2011 1964 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 1962 Motion (Attachments: # 1 Invoice # 18744) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/7/2011) (Entered: 11/07/2011)

11/10/2011 1965 STIPULATION and Proposed Order to Change the Time to File the Joint Case Statement by John Armstrong. (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 11/10/2011) Modified on 11/14/2011 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/10/2011)

11/14/2011 1966 ORDER Granting 1965 Stipulation to Change the Time to File the Joint Case Statement. Status Report due by 2/15/2012. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 11/14/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/14/2011) (Entered: 11/14/2011)

11/22/2011 1967 Joint Case Status Statement by John Armstrong. (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 11/22/2011) Modified on 11/23/2011 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/22/2011)

12/06/2011 1968 Proposed Order Confirming Undisputed Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Third Quarter of 2011 by John Armstrong. (Walczak, Kenneth) (Filed on 12/6/2011) (Entered: 12/06/2011)

12/07/2011 1969 ORDER Granting 1968 Proposed Order Confirming Undisputed Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Third Quarter of 2011. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 12/7/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/7/2011) (Entered: 12/07/2011)

12/07/2011 1970 Administrative Motion and [Proposed] Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 12/21/2011. Replies due by 12/28/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 12/7/2011) Modified on 12/8/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/07/2011)

12/08/2011 1971 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 1970 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/8/2011) (Entered: 12/08/2011)

01/10/2012 1972 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and Proposed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 1/24/2012. Replies due by 1/31/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 1/10/2012) Modified on 1/11/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/10/2012)

01/11/2012 1973 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 1972 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/11/2012) (Entered: 01/11/2012)

01/13/2012

1974

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING PLAINTIFFS 1912 RENEWED MOTION TO REQUIRE DEFENDANTS TO TRACK AND ACCOMMODATE NEEDS OF ARMSTRONG CLASS MEMBERS HOUSED IN COUNTY JAILS, ENSURE ACCESS TO A GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE, AND TO ENFORCE 2001 PERMANENT INJUNCTION. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/13/2012) (Entered: 01/13/2012)

01/13/2012 1975 NOTICE by J. Clark Kelso Notice of Filing of Receiver's Nineteenth Tri−Annual Report (Attachments: # 1 Receiver's Report No. 19, # 2 Table of Contents re Appendices)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 1/13/2012) (Entered: 01/13/2012)

01/13/2012 1976 Appendix re 1975 Notice (Other) Appendices 1 to 6 filed byJ. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix 7, # 2 Appendices 8 to 10)(Related document(s) 1975 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 1/13/2012) (Entered: 01/13/2012)

02/07/2012 1977 Administrative Motion and [Proposed] Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 2/21/2012. Replies due by 2/28/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 2/7/2012) Modified on 2/8/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/07/2012)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 201 of 265

02/10/2012

1978

DEFENDANTS MOTION UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 60(b)(1) OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, RULE 60(b)(5), TO CORRECT AN ERROR OF LAW IN, OR TO MODIFY, THE JANUARY 13, 2012 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS RENEWED MOTION TO REQUIRE DEFENDANTS TO TRACK AND ACCOMMODATE THE NEEDS OF ARMSTRONG CLASS MEMBERS HOUSED IN COUNTY JAILS AND ENSURE ACCESS TO A WORKABLE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE AND MOTION TO ENFORCE 2001 PERMANENT INJUNCTION filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. Responses due by 2/24/2012. Replies due by 3/2/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Russell, Jay) (Filed on 2/10/2012) Modified on 2/13/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/10/2012)

02/10/2012

1979

Declaration of Maria Franco in Support of 1978 DEFENDANTS MOTION UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 60(b)(1) OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, RULE 60(b)(5), TO CORRECT AN ERROR OF LAW IN, OR TO MODIFY, THE JANUARY 13, 2012 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS RENEWED MOTION TO REQUIRE DEFENDANTS TO TRACK AND ACCOMMODATE THE NEEDS OF ARMSTRONG CLASS MEMBERS HOUSED IN COUNTY JAILS AND ENSURE ACCESS TO A WORKABLE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE AND MOTION TO ENFORCE 2001 PERMANENT INJUNCTION filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Related document(s) 1978 ) (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 2/10/2012) Modified on 2/13/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/10/2012)

02/10/2012

1980

Declaration of Tim Fowler in Support of 1978 DEFENDANTS MOTION UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 60(b)(1) OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, RULE 60(b)(5), TO CORRECT AN ERROR OF LAW IN, OR TO MODIFY, THE JANUARY 13, 2012 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS RENEWED MOTION TO REQUIRE DEFENDANTS TO TRACK AND ACCOMMODATE THE NEEDS OF ARMSTRONG CLASS MEMBERS HOUSED IN COUNTY JAILS AND ENSURE ACCESS TO A WORKABLE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE AND MOTION TO ENFORCE 2001 PERMANENT INJUNCTION filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Related document(s) 1978 ) (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 2/10/2012) Modified on 2/13/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/10/2012)

02/10/2012

1981

Declaration of Dan Stone in Support of 1978 DEFENDANTS MOTION UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 60(b)(1) OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, RULE 60(b)(5), TO CORRECT AN ERROR OF LAW IN, OR TO MODIFY, THE JANUARY 13, 2012 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS RENEWED MOTION TO REQUIRE DEFENDANTS TO TRACK AND ACCOMMODATE THE NEEDS OF ARMSTRONG CLASS MEMBERS HOUSED IN COUNTY JAILS AND ENSURE ACCESS TO A WORKABLE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE AND MOTION TO ENFORCE 2001 PERMANENT INJUNCTION filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Related document(s) 1978 ) (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 2/10/2012) Modified on 2/13/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/10/2012)

02/10/2012

1982

Declaration of Brian Clay in Support of 1978 DEFENDANTS MOTION UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 60(b)(1) OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, RULE 60(b)(5), TO CORRECT AN ERROR OF LAW IN, OR TO MODIFY, THE JANUARY 13, 2012 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS RENEWED MOTION TO REQUIRE DEFENDANTS TO TRACK AND ACCOMMODATE THE NEEDS OF ARMSTRONG CLASS MEMBERS HOUSED IN COUNTY JAILS AND ENSURE ACCESS TO A WORKABLE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE AND MOTION TO ENFORCE 2001 PERMANENT INJUNCTION filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Related document(s) 1978 ) (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 2/10/2012) Modified on 2/13/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/10/2012)

02/10/2012

1983

Proposed Order re 1978 DEFENDANTS MOTION UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 60(b)(1) OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, RULE 60(b)(5), TO CORRECT AN ERROR OF LAW IN, OR TO MODIFY, THE JANUARY 13, 2012 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS RENEWED MOTION TO REQUIRE DEFENDANTS TO TRACK AND ACCOMMODATE THE NEEDS OF ARMSTRONG CLASS MEMBERS HOUSED IN COUNTY JAILS AND ENSURE ACCESS TO A WORKABLE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE AND MOTION TO ENFORCE 2001 PERMANENT INJUNCTION by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 2/10/2012) Modified on 2/13/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/10/2012)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 202 of 265

02/10/2012

1984

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 60(b)(1), OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE 60(b)(5), TO CORRECT AN ERROR OF LAW IN, OR TO MODIFY, THE JANUARY 13, 2012 ORDER filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service, # 2 Exhibit A part 1 of 2, # 3 Exhibit A part 2 of 2)(Russell, Jay) (Filed on 2/10/2012) Modified on 2/13/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/10/2012)

02/10/2012

1985

MOTION TO STAY ENFORCEMENT OF ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS RENEWED MOTION TO REQUIRE DEFENDANTS TO TRACK AND ACCOMMODATE NEEDS OF ARMSTRONG CLASS MEMBERS HOUSED IN COUNTY JAILS, ENSURE ACCESS TO A GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE, AND TO ENFORCE 2001 PERMANENT INJUNCTION PENDING DEFENDANTS MOTION AND SUBSEQUENT APPEAL OR, ALTERNATIVELY, TO MODIFY COMPLIANCE DATES filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. Responses due by 2/24/2012. Replies due by 3/2/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Russell, Jay) (Filed on 2/10/2012) Modified on 2/13/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/10/2012)

02/10/2012

1986

Declaration of Robert Ambroselli in Support of 1985 MOTION TO STAY ENFORCEMENT OF ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS RENEWED MOTION TO REQUIRE DEFENDANTS TO TRACK AND ACCOMMODATE NEEDS OF ARMSTRONG CLASS MEMBERS HOUSED IN COUNTY JAILS, ENSURE ACCESS TO A GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE, AND TO ENFORCE 2001 PERMANENT INJUNCTION PENDING DEFENDANTS MOTION AND SUBSEQUENT APPEAL OR, ALTERNATIVELY, TO MODIFY COMPLIANCE DATES filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Related document(s) 1985 ) (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 2/10/2012) Modified on 2/13/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/10/2012)

02/10/2012

1987

Proposed Order re 1985 MOTION TO STAY ENFORCEMENT OF ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS RENEWED MOTION TO REQUIRE DEFENDANTS TO TRACK AND ACCOMMODATE NEEDS OF ARMSTRONG CLASS MEMBERS HOUSED IN COUNTY JAILS, ENSURE ACCESS TO A GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE, AND TO ENFORCE 2001 PERMANENT INJUNCTION PENDING DEFENDANTS MOTION AND SUBSEQUENT APPEAL OR, ALTERNATIVELY, TO MODIFY COMPLIANCE DATES by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 2/10/2012) Modified on 2/13/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/10/2012)

02/13/2012

Set/Reset Deadlines as to 1985 MOTION TO STAY ENFORCEMENT OF ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS RENEWED MOTION TO REQUIRE DEFENDANTS TO TRACK AND ACCOMMODATE NEEDS OF ARMSTRONG CLASS MEMBERS HOUSED IN COUNTY JAILS, ENSURE ACCESS TO A GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE, AND TO ENFORCE 2001 PERMANENT INJUNC, 1978 DEFENDANTS MOTION UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 60(b)(1) OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, RULE 60(b)(5), TO CORRECT AN ERROR OF LAW IN, OR TO MODIFY, THE JANUARY 13, 2012 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS RENEWED MOTION TO REQUIRE DEFENDANTS TO TRACK AND ACCOMM. Motion Hearing set for 3/22/2012 02:00 PM before Hon. Claudia Wilken. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/13/2012) (Entered: 02/13/2012)

02/15/2012 1988 Joint Case Status Statement by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr.. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 2/15/2012) Modified on 2/16/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/15/2012)

02/21/2012 1989 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 1977 Administrative Motion for Payment (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/21/2012) (Entered: 02/21/2012)

02/24/2012 1990 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order and Stipulation)(Thompson, Blake) (Filed on 2/24/2012) (Entered: 02/24/2012)

02/24/2012

1991

RESPONSE (re 1985 MOTION TO STAY ENFORCEMENT OF ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS RENEWED MOTION TO REQUIRE DEFENDANTS TO TRACK AND ACCOMMODATE NEEDS OF ARMSTRONG CLASS MEMBERS HOUSED IN COUNTY JAILS, ENSURE ACCESS TO A GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE, AND TO ENFORCE 2001 PERMANENT INJUNC ) filed byJohn Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 2/24/2012) (Entered: 02/24/2012)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 203 of 265

02/24/2012 1992 Appendix re 1991 Opposition/Response to Motion, Appendices A through E filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1991 ) (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 2/24/2012) (Entered: 02/24/2012)

02/24/2012 1993 Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld in Support of 1991 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1991 ) (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 2/24/2012) (Entered: 02/24/2012)

02/24/2012 1994 *** FILED IN ERROR. REFER TO DOCUMENT 1999 . *** Declaration of Blake Thompson in Support of 1991 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1991 ) (Thompson, Blake) (Filed on 2/24/2012) Modified on 2/28/2012 (feriab, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/24/2012)

02/24/2012 1995 Declaration of Shirley Huey in Support of 1991 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1991 ) (Huey, Shirley) (Filed on 2/24/2012) (Entered: 02/24/2012)

02/24/2012 1996 Declaration of Ken Walczak in Support of 1991 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1991 ) (Walczak, Kenneth) (Filed on 2/24/2012) (Entered: 02/24/2012)

02/24/2012

1997

RESPONSE (re 1978 DEFENDANTS MOTION UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 60(b)(1) OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, RULE 60(b)(5), TO CORRECT AN ERROR OF LAW IN, OR TO MODIFY, THE JANUARY 13, 2012 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS RENEWED MOTION TO REQUIRE DEFENDANTS TO TRACK AND ACCOMM ) filed byJohn Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 2/24/2012) (Entered: 02/24/2012)

02/24/2012 1998 Proposed Order denying re 1978 , 1985 Motions by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 2/24/2012) Modified on 2/27/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/24/2012)

02/27/2012 1999 Declaration of Blake Thompson in Support of 1991 Opposition/Response to Motion, Correction of Docket # 1994 filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 1991 ) (Thompson, Blake) (Filed on 2/27/2012) (Entered: 02/27/2012)

03/02/2012

2000

REPLY (re 1978 DEFENDANTS MOTION UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 60(b)(1) OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, RULE 60(b)(5), TO CORRECT AN ERROR OF LAW IN, OR TO MODIFY, THE JANUARY 13, 2012 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS RENEWED MOTION TO REQUIRE DEFENDANTS TO TRACK AND ACCOMM ) filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 3/2/2012) (Entered: 03/02/2012)

03/02/2012

2001

Supplemental Request for Judicial Notice re 1978 DEFENDANTS MOTION UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 60(b)(1) OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, RULE 60(b)(5), TO CORRECT AN ERROR OF LAW IN, OR TO MODIFY, THE JANUARY 13, 2012 ORDER filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit b)(Related document(s) 1978 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 3/2/2012) Modified on 3/5/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/02/2012)

03/02/2012

2002

REPLY (re 1985 MOTION TO STAY ENFORCEMENT OF ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS RENEWED MOTION TO REQUIRE DEFENDANTS TO TRACK AND ACCOMMODATE NEEDS OF ARMSTRONG CLASS MEMBERS HOUSED IN COUNTY JAILS, ENSURE ACCESS TO A GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE, AND TO ENFORCE 2001 PERMANENT INJUNC ) filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 3/2/2012) (Entered: 03/02/2012)

03/02/2012 2003 Declaration of RHONDA SKIPPER−DOTTA in Support of 2002 Reply to Opposition/Response, filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Related document(s) 2002 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 3/2/2012) (Entered: 03/02/2012)

03/02/2012 2004 Declaration of TERESA MCDANIEL in Support of 2002 Reply to Opposition/Response, filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Related document(s) 2002 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 3/2/2012) (Entered: 03/02/2012)

03/02/2012 2005 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Authorizing Sealing of a Document −Declaration of Theresa McDaniel supporting reply to opposition to motion to stay court's 1/13/2012 order filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 204 of 265

3/2/2012) Modified on 3/5/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/02/2012)

03/02/2012

2006

DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATIONS OF ROBERT AMBROSELLI, TIM FOWLER, DAN STONE, MARIA FRANCO, AND BRIAN CLAY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STAY ENFORCEMENT OF ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS RENEWED MOTION TO REQUIRE DEFENDANTS TO TRACK AND ACCOMMODATE NEEDS OF ARMSTRONG CLASS MEMBERS HOUSED IN COUNTY JAILS, ENSURE ACCESS TO A GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE, AND TO ENFORCE 2001 PERMANENT INJUNCTION PENDING DEFENDANTS MOTION AND SUBSEQUENT APPEAL OR, ALTERNATIVELY, TO MODIFY DATES byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 3/2/2012) Modified on 3/5/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/02/2012)

03/05/2012 2007 Letter from CRD to Rick Green. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/5/2012) (Entered: 03/05/2012)

03/05/2012 2008 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by John Armstrong re 1999 Declaration in Support (Thompson, Blake) (Filed on 3/5/2012) (Entered: 03/05/2012)

03/06/2012 2009 Proposed Order Confirming Undisputed Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Fourth Quarter of 2011 by John Armstrong. (Walczak, Kenneth) (Filed on 3/6/2012) (Entered: 03/06/2012)

03/07/2012 2010 ORDER Confirming Undisputed Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Fourth Quarter of 2011 re 2009 . Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 3/7/2012. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/7/2012) Modified on 3/8/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/07/2012)

03/07/2012 2011 Order granting 1990 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal entered by Hon. Claudia Wilken. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 03/07/2012)

03/07/2012 2012 Order granting 2005 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal entered by Hon. Claudia Wilken. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 03/07/2012)

03/07/2012 2013 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 3/21/2012. Replies due by 3/28/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 3/7/2012) (Entered: 03/07/2012)

03/08/2012 2014 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2013 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/8/2012) (Entered: 03/08/2012)

03/09/2012

2015

DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 2011 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Declaration of Blake Thompson in support of plaintiffs' opposition to defendants' motion to stay enforcement of order granting plaintiffs' renewed motion to require defendants to track and accomodate needs of Armstrong class members housed in county jails, etc by John Armstrong. (Thompson, Blake) (Filed on 3/9/2012) Modified on 3/12/2012 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/09/2012)

03/09/2012 2016 OBJECTIONS to re 2004 Declaration in Support, 2003 Declaration in Support by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 3/9/2012) (Entered: 03/09/2012)

03/09/2012 2017 OBJECTIONS to Defendants' February 27, 2012 County Jail Plan and Request for status conference by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 3/9/2012) Modified on 3/12/2012 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/09/2012)

03/09/2012 2018 Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld in Support of 2017 Objection filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 2017 ) (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 3/9/2012) (Entered: 03/09/2012)

03/16/2012 2019 MOTION to Strike SUR−REPLY BRIEF (DOCKET No. 2016 ) filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. Responses due by 3/30/2012. Replies due by 4/6/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 3/16/2012) Modified on 3/19/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/16/2012)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 205 of 265

03/16/2012 2020 Proposed Order re 2019 MOTION to Strike SUR−REPLY BRIEF (DOCKET No. 2016 ) by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 3/16/2012) Modified on 3/19/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/16/2012)

03/16/2012 2021 RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS COUNTY JAIL PLAN AND REQUEST FOR STATUS CONFERENCE by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 3/16/2012) Modified on 3/19/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/16/2012)

03/19/2012 2022 Letter from CRD to L.R. Fresquez. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/19/2012) (Entered: 03/19/2012)

03/22/2012 2023 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Granting Administrative Motion to File Under Seal)(Godbold, Penelope) (Filed on 3/22/2012) (Entered: 03/22/2012)

03/22/2012

2024

MOTION for Order to Show Cause and Notice of Motion and Motion for an Order Holding Defendants in Contempt of Court filed by John Armstrong. Motion Hearing set for 4/26/2012 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland before Hon. Claudia Wilken. Responses due by 4/5/2012. Replies due by 4/12/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order [Proposed] Order to Show Cause Regarding Contempt, # 2 Proposed Order [Proposed] Order Holding Defendants in Contempt of Court)(Godbold, Penelope) (Filed on 3/22/2012) (Entered: 03/22/2012)

03/22/2012 2025 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 3/22/2012 before Claudia Wilken (Date Filed: 3/22/2012). (Court Reporter Diane Skillman.) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 3/22/2012) (Entered: 03/29/2012)

03/29/2012

2026

Transcript of Proceedings held on March 22, 2012, before Judge Claudia Wilken. Court Reporter Diane E. Skillman, Telephone number 510−451−2930, Diane_Skillman@cand.uscourts.gov. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. Redaction Request due 4/19/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/30/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/27/2012. (Skillman, Diane) (Filed on 3/29/2012) (Entered: 03/29/2012)

04/06/2012 2027 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 4/20/2012. Replies due by 4/27/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 4/6/2012) (Entered: 04/06/2012)

04/06/2012 2028 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER TO CHANGE TIME TO FILE JOINT STATUS STATEMENT filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr, John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 4/6/2012) Modified on 4/9/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/06/2012)

04/06/2012

2029

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER TO CHANGE TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION AND REPLY PAPERS, AND TO MOVE THE APRIL 26, 2012 DATE, REGARDING PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR AN ORDER HOLDING DEFENDANTS IN CONTEMPT OF COURT filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 4/6/2012) Modified on 4/9/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/06/2012)

04/09/2012 2030 Order granting 2028 Stipulation entered by Hon. Claudia Wilken. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 04/09/2012)

04/09/2012 2031 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2027 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 Invoice # 19310) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/9/2012) (Entered: 04/09/2012)

04/09/2012 2032 Certificate/Proofs of Service, Declarations of Service by Hand of Penny Godbold and Brandy Sigler re 2024 MOTION for Order to Show Cause and Notice of Motion and Motion for an Order Holding Defendants in Contempt of Court, 2023 Administrative

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 206 of 265

Motion to File Under Seal filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 2024 , 2023 ) (Godbold, Penelope) (Filed on 4/9/2012) Modified on 4/10/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/09/2012)

04/10/2012

2033

ORDER Granting 2029 STIPULATION TO CHANGE TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION AND REPLY PAPERS, AND TO MOVE THE APRIL 26, 2012 DATE, REGARDING PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR AN ORDER HOLD Set/Reset Deadlines as to 2024 MOTION for Order to Show Cause and Notice of Motion and Motion for an Order Holding Defendants in Contempt of Court. Responses due by 5/10/2012. Replies due by 5/24/2012. Motion Hearing set for 6/7/2012 02:00 PM before Hon. Claudia Wilken. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 4/10/2012. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/10/2012) (Entered: 04/10/2012)

04/11/2012

2034

AMENDED 1974 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS 1912 RENEWED MOTION TO REQUIRE DEFENDANTS TO TRACK AND ACCOMMODATE NEEDS OF ARMSTRONG CLASS MEMBERS HOUSED IN COUNTY JAILS, ENSURE ACCESS TO A GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE, AND TO ENFORCE 2001 PERMANENT INJUNCTIONORDER. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 4/11/2012. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/11/2012) (Entered: 04/11/2012)

04/11/2012 2035 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING IN PART, AND DENYING IN PART, 1978 MOTION TO CORRECT OR MODIFY, DENYING 1985 MOTION TO STAY AND GRANTING 2019 MOTION TO STRIKE.(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/11/2012) (Entered: 04/11/2012)

04/30/2012

2036

*** FILED IN ERROR. PLEASE SEE DOCKET # 2039 . *** NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th CCA Edmund G. Brown, Jr.(Appeal fee of $455 receipt number 0971−6782377 paid.) (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 4/30/2012) Modified on 5/1/2012 (ewn, COURT STAFF). Modified on 10/8/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/30/2012)

04/30/2012

2037

DEFENDANTS−APPELLANTS REPRESENTATION STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE 2039 NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURTS APRIL 11, 2012 AMENDED ORDER AND APRIL 11, 2012 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO CORRECT OR MODIFY JANUARY 13, 2012 ORDER by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 4/30/2012) Modified on 5/1/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/30/2012)

04/30/2012 2038 Joint Case Status Report by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A part 1, # 2 Appendix A part 2, # 3 Appendix B and C)(Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 4/30/2012) Modified on 5/1/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/30/2012)

04/30/2012 2039 Notice of Appeal (CORRECTION OF DOCKET # 2036 ) by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement April 11, 2012 Order 1, # 2 Supplement April 11, 2012 Order 2)(Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 4/30/2012) Modified on 5/1/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/30/2012)

05/01/2012 2040 USCA Case Number 12−16018 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for 2036 Notice of Appeal, filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr.. (kk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/1/2012) (Entered: 05/02/2012)

05/04/2012 2041 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING 2023 MOTION AND STIPULATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/4/2012) (Entered: 05/07/2012)

05/08/2012

2042

Declaration of Penny Godbold [Redacted] in Support of 2024 MOTION for Order to Show Cause and Notice of Motion and Motion for an Order Holding Defendants in Contempt of Court filed byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−9, # 2 Exhibit 10−11, # 3 Exhibit 12−19, # 4 Exhibit 20−27, # 5 Exhibit 28−29, # 6 Exhibit 30 Part 1, # 7 Exhibit 30 Part 2, # 8 Exhibit 30 Part 3, # 9 Exhibit 30 Part 4, # 10 Exhibit 30 Part 5, # 11 Exhibit 31−36, # 12 Exhibit 37−40, # 13 Exhibit 41−45, # 14 Exhibit 46−49, # 15 Exhibit 50−53, # 16 Exhibit 54)(Related document(s) 2024 ) (Godbold, Penelope) (Filed on 5/8/2012) (Entered: 05/08/2012)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 207 of 265

05/08/2012 2043 Declaration of Rebekah Evenson [Redacted] in Support of 2024 MOTION for Order to Show Cause and Notice of Motion and Motion for an Order Holding Defendants in Contempt of Court filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 2024 ) (Godbold, Penelope) (Filed on 5/8/2012) (Entered: 05/08/2012)

05/08/2012 2044 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 5/22/2012. Replies due by 5/29/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 5/8/2012) (Entered: 05/08/2012)

05/10/2012 2045 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2044 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/10/2012) (Entered: 05/10/2012)

05/10/2012 2046 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 5/10/2012) (Entered: 05/10/2012)

05/10/2012 2047 Declaration of Jay C. Russel in Support of 2046 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Related document(s) 2046 ) (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 5/10/2012) (Entered: 05/10/2012)

05/10/2012 2048 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 2046 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr., John Armstrong, et al. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 5/10/2012) Modified on 5/11/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/10/2012)

05/10/2012 2049 RESPONSE (re 2024 MOTION for Order to Show Cause and Notice of Motion and Motion for an Order Holding Defendants in Contempt of Court ) filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/10/2012) Modified on 5/11/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/10/2012)

05/10/2012 2050 Declaration of ROBERT M. CALDERON in Support of 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Related document(s) 2049 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/10/2012) (Entered: 05/10/2012)

05/10/2012 2051 Declaration of JULIAN MARTINEZ in Support of 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Related document(s) 2049 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/10/2012) (Entered: 05/10/2012)

05/10/2012 2052 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Edmund G. Brown, Jr re 2050 Declaration in Support, 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, 2051 Declaration in Support, (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/10/2012) (Entered: 05/10/2012)

05/10/2012 2053 Amended Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Russell, Jay) (Filed on 5/10/2012) (Entered: 05/10/2012)

05/10/2012 2054 Declaration of Jay C. Russell in Support of 2053 Amended Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Related document(s) 2053 ) (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 5/10/2012) (Entered: 05/10/2012)

05/10/2012

2055

AMENDED STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER AUTHORIZING SEALING OF DOCUMENTS filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr., John Armstrong (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B)(Russell, Jay) (Filed on 5/10/2012) Modified on 5/11/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/10/2012)

05/15/2012 2056 NOTICE by J. Clark Kelso Notice of Filing of Receiver's Twentieth Tri−Annual Report (Attachments: # 1 Receiver's 20th Tri−Annual Report, # 2 Table of Appendices)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 5/15/2012) (Entered: 05/15/2012)

05/15/2012 2057 Appendix re 2056 Notice (Other) Appendices 1 to 8 re Receivers 20th Report filed byJ. Clark Kelso. (Related document(s) 2056 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 5/15/2012) (Entered: 05/15/2012)

05/15/2012 2058 Appendix re 2056 Notice (Other) Appendices 9 to 10 re Receivers 20th Report filed byJ. Clark Kelso. (Related document(s) 2056 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 5/15/2012) (Entered: 05/15/2012)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 208 of 265

05/17/2012 2059 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING 2053 MOTION AND 2055 STIPULATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/17/2012) (Entered: 05/17/2012)

05/21/2012 2060 DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 2059 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, Order on Stipulation Declaration of M. Overstreet by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012

2061

*** FILED IN ERROR. PLEASE SEE DOCKET # 2103 . *** Declaration of M. Overstreet [Redacted] in Support of 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Related document(s) 2049 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) Modified on 5/22/2012 (ewn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012 2062 Declaration of C. Arthur [Redacted] in Support of 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Related document(s) 2049 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012 2063 Declaration of G. Jaime in Support of 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Related document(s) 2049 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012 2064 Declaration of J. L. Cutillo [Redacted] in Support of 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Related document(s) 2049 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012 2065 Declaration of D. Zanchi [Redacted] in Support of 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (PART 1), # 2 Exhibit A (PART 2), # 3 Exhibit B)(Related document(s) 2049 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012 2066 Declaration of Michael Mayes [Redacted] in Support of 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Related document(s) 2049 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012

2067

*** FILED IN ERROR. PLEASE SEE DOCKET # 2104 . *** Declaration of V.Cullen [Redacted] in Support of 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O)(Related document(s) 2049 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) Modified on 5/21/2012 (fff, COURT STAFF). Modified on 5/22/2012 (ewn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012

2068

Declaration of J. Cavazos [Redacted] in Support of 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, # 19 Exhibit S, # 20 Exhibit T)(Related document(s) 2049 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012

2069

Declaration of S. Aref [Redacted] in Support of 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J)(Related document(s) 2049 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012 2070 Declaration of S. Smith [Redacted] in Support of 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Related document(s) 2049 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 209 of 265

05/21/2012

2071

Declaration of T. Miguel [Redacted] in Support of 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R)(Related document(s) 2049 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012

2072

Declaration of J. Curzon [Redacted] in Support of 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L)(Related document(s) 2049 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012 2073 Declaration of K. Cheney [Redacted] in Support of 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Related document(s) 2049 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012 2074 Declaration of A. Favila [Redacted] in Support of 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Related document(s) 2049 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012 2075 Declaration of R. Binkele [Redacted] in Support of 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Related document(s) 2049 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012 2076 Declaration of D. Fischer [Redacted] in Support of 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Related document(s) 2049 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012 2077 Declaration of R. W. Nipper [Redacted] in Support of 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Related document(s) 2049 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012 2078 Declaration of J. C. Blim [Redacted] in Support of 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Related document(s) 2049 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012 2079 Declaration of R. Sweeny [Redacted] in Support of 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Related document(s) 2049 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012

2080

Declaration of G. Stratton [Redacted] in Support of 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K)(Related document(s) 2049 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012

2081

*** FILED IN ERROR. PLEASE SEE DOCKET # 2116 . *** Appendix of Objections to Plaintiffs' Evidence on Plaintiffs' Motion for an Order to Show Cause and a Contemp Order filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) Modified on 5/22/2012 (cpS, COURT STAFF). Modified on 5/25/2012 (ewn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012

2082

*** FILED IN ERROR. PLEASE SEE DOCKET # 2117 . *** DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 2059 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, Order on Stipulation APPENDIX OF DEFENDANTS OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS EVIDENCE ON PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND A CONTEMPT ORDER by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix part 1 of 2, # 2 Appendix part 2 of 2)(Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) Modified on 5/25/2012 (ewn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/21/2012)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 210 of 265

05/21/2012

2083

DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 2059 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, Order on Stipulation DECLARATION OF G. STRATTON IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND CONTEMPT ORDER by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to K)(Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012

2084

DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 2059 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, Order on Stipulation DECLARATION OF R. SWEENY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND CONTEMPT ORDER by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to C)(Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012

2085

DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 2059 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, Order on Stipulation DECLARATION OF J. C. BLIM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND CONTEMPT ORDER by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to B)(Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012

2086

DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 2059 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, Order on Stipulation DECLARATION OF R. W. NIPPER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND CONTEMPT ORDER by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012

2087

DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 2059 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, Order on Stipulation DECLARATION OF D. FISCHER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND CONTEMPT ORDER by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to B)(Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012

2088

DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 2059 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, Order on Stipulation DECLARATION OF S. K. CHENEY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND CONTEMPT ORDER by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to E)(Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012

2089

DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 2059 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, Order on Stipulation DECLARATION OF J. CURZON IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND CONTEMPT ORDER by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to L)(Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012

2090

DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 2059 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, Order on Stipulation DECLARATION OF R. BINKELE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND CONTEMPT ORDER by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to B)(Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012

2091

DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 2059 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, Order on Stipulation DECLARATION OF A. FAVILA IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND CONTEMPT ORDER by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to B)(Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012

2092

DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 2059 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, Order on Stipulation DECLARATION OF S. SMITH IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND CONTEMPT ORDER by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to F)(Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012 2093 DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 2059 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, Order on Stipulation DECLARATION OF T.MIGUEL IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND CONTEMPT ORDER by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: #

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 211 of 265

1 Exhibit A−R)(Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012

2094

DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 2059 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, Order on Stipulation DECLARATION OF J. CAVAZOS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND CONTEMPT ORDER by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−T)(Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) Modified on 5/22/2012 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012

2095

DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 2059 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, Order on Stipulation DECLARATION OF V. CULLEN IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND CONTEMPT ORDER by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−O Part 1 of 2, # 2 Exhibit A−O Part 2 of 2)(Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012

2096

DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 2059 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, Order on Stipulation DECLARATION OF M. OVERSTREET IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND CONTEMPT ORDER by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−E)(Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012

2097

DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 2059 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, Order on Stipulation DECLARATION OF C. ARTHUR IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND CONTEMPT ORDER by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012

2098

DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 2059 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, Order on Stipulation DECLARATION OF G. JAIME IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND CONTEMPT ORDER by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012

2099

DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 2059 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, Order on Stipulation DECLARATION OF MICHAEL MAYES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND CONTEMPT ORDER by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−G)(Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012

2100

DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 2059 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, Order on Stipulation DECLARATION OF S. CHAPMAN IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND CONTEMPT ORDER by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−C)(Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012

2101

DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 2059 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, Order on Stipulation DECLARATION OF D. ZANCHI IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND CONTEMPT ORDER by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−B Part 1 of 3, # 2 Exhibit A−B Part 2 of 3, # 3 Exhibit A−B Part 3 of 3)(Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012

2102

DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 2059 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, Order on Stipulation DECLARATION OF J.L. CUTILLO IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND CONTEMPT ORDER by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−F)(Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/22/2012 2103 *** FILED IN ERROR. REFER TO DOCUMENT 2132 . *** Declaration of M. Overstreet [Redacted] in Support of 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Related document(s) 2049 ) (Goldman, Jay)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 212 of 265

(Filed on 5/22/2012) Modified on 6/1/2012 (fff, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/22/2012)

05/22/2012

2104

Declaration of V. Cullen [Redacted] in Support of 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O)(Related document(s) 2049 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/22/2012) (Entered: 05/22/2012)

05/24/2012 2105 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Granting Administrative Motion to File Under Seal)(Godbold, Penelope) (Filed on 5/24/2012) (Entered: 05/24/2012)

05/24/2012 2106 Letter from CRD. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/24/2012) (Entered: 05/24/2012)

05/24/2012 2107 REPLY (re 2024 MOTION for Order to Show Cause and Notice of Motion and Motion for an Order Holding Defendants in Contempt of Court ) filed byJohn Armstrong. (Godbold, Penelope) (Filed on 5/24/2012) (Entered: 05/24/2012)

05/24/2012 2108 Declaration of Lisa Ells in Support of 2107 Reply to Opposition/Response filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 2107 ) (Godbold, Penelope) (Filed on 5/24/2012) (Entered: 05/24/2012)

05/24/2012 2109 Declaration of Laura Boysen−Aragon in Support of 2107 Reply to Opposition/Response to Plaintiffs' Request for an Order to Show Cause and Motion for a Finding of Contempt filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 2107 ) (Godbold, Penelope) (Filed on 5/24/2012) (Entered: 05/24/2012)

05/24/2012 2110 Declaration of Vincent Quan in Support of 2107 Reply to Opposition/Response to Plaintiffs' Request for an Order to Show Cause and Motion for a Finding of Contempt filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 2107 ) (Godbold, Penelope) (Filed on 5/24/2012) (Entered: 05/24/2012)

05/24/2012 2111 Declaration of Michael Freedman in Support of 2107 Reply to Opposition/Response to Plaintiffs' Request for an Order to Show Cause and Motion for a Finding of Contempt filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 2107 ) (Godbold, Penelope) (Filed on 5/24/2012) (Entered: 05/24/2012)

05/24/2012 2112 Declaration of Thomas Nolan in Support of 2107 Reply to Opposition/Response to Plaintiffs' Request for an Order to Show Cause and Motion for a Finding of Contempt filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 2107 ) (Godbold, Penelope) (Filed on 5/24/2012) (Entered: 05/24/2012)

05/24/2012 2113 Declaration of Blake Thompson in Support of 2107 Reply to Opposition/Response to Plaintiffs' Request for an Order to Show Cause and Motion for a Finding of Contempt filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 2107 ) (Godbold, Penelope) (Filed on 5/24/2012) (Entered: 05/24/2012)

05/24/2012 2114 Proof of Service of non−redacted documents by John Armstrong. (Godbold, Penelope) (Filed on 5/24/2012) Modified on 5/25/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/24/2012)

05/24/2012 2115 Proof of Service of non−redacted documents by John Armstrong. (Godbold, Penelope) (Filed on 5/24/2012) Modified on 5/25/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/24/2012)

05/24/2012 2116 Appendix of defendants' objections to plaintiffs' evidence on plaintiffs' motion for an order to show cause and contempt order (Redacted) filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 5/24/2012) Modified on 5/25/2012 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/24/2012)

05/24/2012 2117 DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 2059 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, Order on Stipulation Appendix objections to plaintiff's evidence by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 5/24/2012) (Entered: 05/24/2012)

05/29/2012 2118 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION by Edmund G. Brown, Jr for proceedings held on 10/27/11 & 03/22/12 before Judge Claudia Wilken.. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 5/29/2012) (Entered: 05/29/2012)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 213 of 265

05/31/2012 2119 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING 2105 MOTION AND STIPULATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/31/2012) (Entered: 05/31/2012)

05/31/2012

2120

*** FILED IN ERROR. REFER TO DOCUMENT 2121 . *** OBJECTIONS to re 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, Objections to Plaintiff's Reply and Reply Evidence Filed Re; Combined Request for Order to Show Cause for Contempt and Motion for an Order Holding Defendants in Contempt by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/31/2012) Modified on 5/31/2012 (fff, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/31/2012)

05/31/2012

2121

OBJECTIONS to re 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, DEFENDANTS EVIDENTIARY AND PROCEDURAL OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS REPLY AND REPLY EVIDENCE FILED RE COMBINED REQUEST FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CONTEMPT AND MOTION FOR AN ORDER HOLDING DEFENDANTS IN CONTEMPT by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/31/2012) (Entered: 05/31/2012)

05/31/2012 2122 Declaration of Penny Godbold in Support of 2107 Reply to Opposition/Response to Plaintiffs' Request for an Order to Show Cause and Motion for a Finding of Contempt [REDACTED] filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 2107 ) (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 5/31/2012) (Entered: 05/31/2012)

05/31/2012 2123 Declaration of Rebekah Evenson in Support of 2107 Reply to Opposition/Response to Plaintiffs' Request for an Order to Show Cause and Motion for a Finding of Contempt [REDACTED] filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 2107 ) (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 5/31/2012) (Entered: 05/31/2012)

05/31/2012 2124 Declaration of Corene Kendrick in Support of 2107 Reply to Opposition/Response to Plaintiffs' Request for an Order to Show Cause and Motion for a Finding of Contempt [REDACTED] filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 2107 ) (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 5/31/2012) (Entered: 05/31/2012)

05/31/2012 2125 Declaration of Megan Hagler in Support of 2107 Reply to Opposition/Response to Plaintiffs' Request for an Order to Show Cause and Motion for a Finding of Contempt [REDACTED] filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 2107 ) (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 5/31/2012) (Entered: 05/31/2012)

05/31/2012 2126 Response to Defendants' re 2116 Appendix of Evidentiary Objections filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 2116 ) (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 5/31/2012) Modified on 6/1/2012 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/31/2012)

05/31/2012

2127

DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 2119 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Declaration of Rebekah Evenson in Support of Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Request for an Order to Show Cause and Motion for a Finding of Contempt by John Armstrong. (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 5/31/2012) (Entered: 05/31/2012)

05/31/2012

2128

DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 2119 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Declaration of Corene Kendrick in Support of Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Request for an Order to Show Cause and Motion for a Finding of Contempt by John Armstrong. (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 5/31/2012) (Entered: 05/31/2012)

05/31/2012

2129

DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 2119 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Declaration of Megan Hagler in Support of Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Request for an Order to Show Cause and Motion for a Finding of Contempt by John Armstrong. (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 5/31/2012) (Entered: 05/31/2012)

05/31/2012 2130 DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 2119 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Appendix of Evidentiary Objections by John Armstrong. (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 5/31/2012) (Entered: 05/31/2012)

05/31/2012 2131 DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 2119 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Declaration of Penny Godbold in Support of Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Request for an Order to Show Cause and Motion

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 214 of 265

for a Finding of Contempt by John Armstrong. (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 5/31/2012) (Entered: 05/31/2012)

06/01/2012

2132

*** FILED IN ERROR. REFER TO DOCUMENT 2134 . *** Declaration of M. Overstreet in Support of 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, [Redacted] filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A TO E)(Related document(s) 2049 ) (Quinn, Michael) (Filed on 6/1/2012) Modified on 6/1/2012 (fff, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/01/2012)

06/01/2012 2133 Proposed Order re 2024 MOTION for Order to Show Cause and Notice of Motion and Motion for an Order Holding Defendants in Contempt of Court by John Armstrong. (Specter, Donald) (Filed on 6/1/2012) (Entered: 06/01/2012)

06/01/2012 2134 Declaration of M. Overstreet in Support of 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, [Redacted] filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A TO E)(Related document(s) 2049 ) (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 6/1/2012) (Entered: 06/01/2012)

06/04/2012 2135 MOTION to Strike Plaintiffs' sur−reply brief (Administrative Motion) filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. Responses due by 6/18/2012. Replies due by 6/25/2012. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 6/4/2012) (Entered: 06/04/2012)

06/04/2012 2136 Proposed Order re 2135 MOTION to Strike Plaintiffs' sur−reply brief (Administrative Motion) by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 6/4/2012) (Entered: 06/04/2012)

06/04/2012 2137 DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 2041 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Declaration of Rebekah Evenson In Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Contempt by John Armstrong. (Godbold, Penelope) (Filed on 6/4/2012) (Entered: 06/04/2012)

06/04/2012

2138

DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 2041 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Declaration of Penny Godbold In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Contempt and Exhibits 1−54 by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−9, # 2 Exhibit 10−11, # 3 Exhibit 12−19, # 4 Exhibit 20−27, # 5 Exhibit 28−29, # 6 Exhibit 30, # 7 Exhibit 31−32, # 8 Exhibit 33−36, # 9 Exhibit 37−40, # 10 Exhibit 41−45, # 11 Exhibit 46−49, # 12 Exhibit 50−52, # 13 Exhibit 53−54)(Godbold, Penelope) (Filed on 6/4/2012) (Entered: 06/04/2012)

06/05/2012

2139

Administrative MOTION to File Unredacted and Redacted Copies of Two Previously Filed Declarations re 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. Responses due by 6/19/2012. Replies due by 6/26/2012. (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 6/5/2012) Modified on 6/6/2012 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/05/2012)

06/05/2012 2140 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 2139 MOTION Administrative Motion to File Unredacted and Redacted Copies of Two Previously Filed Declarations re 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 6/5/2012) (Entered: 06/05/2012)

06/06/2012 2141 Order granting 2140 Stipulation entered by Hon. Claudia Wilken. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 06/06/2012)

06/06/2012

2142

*** FILED IN ERROR. REFER TO DOCUMENT 2143 . *** Declaration of S. Chapman in Support of 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, [Redacted] filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Related document(s) 2049 ) (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 6/6/2012) Modified on 6/6/2012 (fff, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/06/2012)

06/06/2012 2143 DECLARATION of S. Chapman re 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, [REDACTED] filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Related document(s) 2049 ) (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 6/6/2012) Modified on 6/7/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/06/2012)

06/06/2012 2144 DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 2059 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, Order on Stipulation Aref Declaration in Support of Document 2049 by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A TO J)(Nguyen, Giam) (Filed

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 215 of 265

on 6/6/2012) (Entered: 06/06/2012)

06/06/2012

2145

Declaration of Robert Calderon in Support of 2049 Opposition/Response to Motion, Declaration of Robert Calderon Regarding Amended and Updated DPP Accountability Logs filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service, # 2 Exhibit A [Redacted], # 3 Exhibit B [Redacted], # 4 Exhibit C [Redacted], # 5 Exhibit D [Redacted], # 6 Exhibit E [Redacted], # 7 Exhibit F [Redacted], # 8 Exhibit G [Redacted])(Related document(s) 2049 ) (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 6/6/2012) (Entered: 06/06/2012)

06/07/2012 2146 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 6/21/2012. Replies due by 6/28/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 6/7/2012) (Entered: 06/07/2012)

06/07/2012 2147 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 6/7/2012 before Claudia Wilken (Date Filed: 6/7/2012). (Court Reporter Diane Skillman.) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 6/7/2012) (Entered: 06/08/2012)

06/11/2012 2148 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2146 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 Invoice). (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/11/2012) (Entered: 06/11/2012)

06/12/2012 2149 Proposed Order Confirming Undisputed Attorney's Fees and Costs for the First Quarter of 2012 by John Armstrong. (Walczak, Kenneth) (Filed on 6/12/2012) (Entered: 06/12/2012)

06/13/2012 2150 ORDER Granting 2149 Proposed Order Confirming Undisputed Attorney's Fees and Costs for the First Quarter of 2012. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 6/13/2012. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/13/2012) (Entered: 06/13/2012)

06/15/2012 2151 *** FILED IN ERROR. REFER TO DOCUMENT 2153 . *** STATUS REPORT Joint Case Status Report by John Armstrong. (Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 6/15/2012) Modified on 6/22/2012 (fff, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/15/2012)

06/19/2012

2152

Transcript of Proceedings held on October 27, 2011, before Judge Claudia Wilken. Court Reporter/Transcriber Jennifer M. Macato, Telephone number 209−513−0194. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. Redaction Request due 7/10/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/20/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/17/2012. (oh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/19/2012) (Entered: 06/19/2012)

06/22/2012 2153 Joint Case Status Report − Correction of Docket # 2151 by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al. (Thompson, Blake) (Filed on 6/22/2012) Modified on 6/25/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/22/2012)

07/06/2012 2154 MOTION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR PAYMENT filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 7/20/2012. Replies due by 7/27/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 7/6/2012) Modified on 7/9/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/06/2012)

07/10/2012 2155 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2154 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (cwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/10/2012) (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/12/2012: # 1 invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/10/2012)

07/13/2012 2156 Response re 2147 June 7, 2012 Minute byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 7/13/2012) Modified on 7/16/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/13/2012)

07/13/2012 2157 Submission in Response to the Court's re 2147 Minute by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order [Proposed] Order Modifying Jan. 18, 2007 Injunction, # 2 Exhibit Defendants' Objections to Plaintiffs' Proposed Order Modifying Jan. 18, 2007 Injunction)(Godbold, Penelope) (Filed on 7/13/2012)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 216 of 265

Modified on 7/16/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/13/2012)

07/13/2012 2158 [Proposed] Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Armstrong Remedial Plan of Jan. 3, 2001, # 2 Exhibit Defendants' Nov. 21, 2008 Memo re Staff Accountability)(Godbold, Penelope) (Filed on 7/13/2012) Modified on 7/16/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/13/2012)

07/16/2012 2159 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal and Declaration of Michael Freedman filed by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Administrative Motion to File Under Seal)(Freedman, Michael) (Filed on 7/16/2012) (Entered: 07/16/2012)

07/16/2012

2160

MOTION to Shorten Time for Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce Court's Orders Re Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails filed by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Gay Grunfeld in Support of Motion to Shorten Time, # 2 Proposed Order Granting Motion to Shorten Time)(Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 7/16/2012) (Entered: 07/16/2012)

07/16/2012

2161

MOTION to Enforce The Court's Orders Re Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails filed by John Armstrong. Motion Hearing set for 8/9/2012 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland before Hon. Claudia Wilken. Responses due by 7/30/2012. Replies due by 8/6/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Gay Grunfeld in Support of Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion to Enforce the Courts Orders Re Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails, # 2 Proposed Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce the Courts Orders Re Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails)(Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 7/16/2012) Modified on 7/17/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/16/2012)

07/18/2012

CLERKS NOTICE. Notice is hereby given that counsel must re−notice not re−file the 2161 emergency motion to enforce pursuant to L.R. 7−2(a). If OST is granted, the clerk will advance the hearing date accordingly. Hearing date of Thursday, August 6, 2012, is vacated.

(This is a text only docket entry, there is no document associated with this notice.)

(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/18/2012) (Entered: 07/18/2012)

07/18/2012

2162

Renotice motion hearing re 2161 MOTION to Enforce The Court's Orders Re Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails filed byJohn Armstrong. Motion Hearing set for 8/23/2012 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland before Hon. Claudia Wilken. (Related document(s) 2161 ) (Thompson, Blake) (Filed on 7/18/2012) (Entered: 07/18/2012)

07/19/2012 2163 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by John Armstrong re Declaration of Michael Freedman − filed under seal. (Thompson, Blake) (Filed on 7/19/2012) Modified on 7/20/2012 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/19/2012)

07/19/2012 2166 ORDER of USCA Granting Appellants Motion to Enlarge the time to file a motion for reconsideration; Motion for reconsideration is DENIED without prejudice; Expediting the appeal as to 2039 NOTICE OF APPEAL, filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/19/2012) (Entered: 07/23/2012)

07/20/2012 2164 RESPONSE (re 2159 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal and Declaration of Michael Freedman ) filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Smith, Janelle) (Filed on 7/20/2012) (Entered: 07/20/2012)

07/20/2012

2165

RESPONSE (re 2160 MOTION to Shorten Time for Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce Court's Orders Re Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails ) UNDER N.D. CAL RULE 6−3 filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A, # 2 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 7/20/2012) Modified on 7/23/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/20/2012)

07/30/2012 2167 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 7/30/2012) (Entered: 07/30/2012)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 217 of 265

07/30/2012 2168 Declaration of GIAM M. NGUYEN in Support of 2167 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Related document(s) 2167 ) (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 7/30/2012) (Entered: 07/30/2012)

07/30/2012 2169 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 2167 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr., John Armstrong, et al (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 7/30/2012) Modified on 7/31/2012 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/30/2012)

07/30/2012 2170 RESPONSE (re 2161 MOTION to Enforce The Court's Orders Re Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails ) filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 7/30/2012) (Entered: 07/30/2012)

07/30/2012

2171

Declaration of Bob Underwood in Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Emergency Motion RE: County jails 2170 (REDACTION) by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6)(Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 7/30/2012) Modified on 7/31/2012 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/30/2012)

07/30/2012 2172 Request for Judicial Notice re 2170 Opposition/Response to Motion filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Related document(s) 2170 ) (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 7/30/2012) (Entered: 07/30/2012)

08/01/2012

CLERKS NOTICE. Notice is hereby given that the 2161 motion to enforce the court's orders re armstrong class members housed in county jails, previously set for Thursday, August 23, 2012, at 2:00 p.m., will be heard at 1:30 p.m., in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612.

(This is a text only docket entry, there is no document associated with this notice.)

(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/1/2012) (Entered: 08/01/2012)
08/01/2012 2173 Order denying 2160 Motion to Shorten Time entered by Hon. Claudia Wilken. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 08/01/2012)
08/06/2012 2174 REPLY (re 2161 MOTION to Enforce The Court's Orders Re Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails ) filed byJohn Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 8/6/2012) (Entered: 08/06/2012)
08/08/2012 2175 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and Proposed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 8/22/2012. Replies due by 8/29/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 8/8/2012) Modified on 8/9/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/08/2012)
08/09/2012 2176 Order granting 2175 Motion for Disbursement of Funds entered by Hon. Claudia Wilken. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 08/09/2012)
08/13/2012 2177 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to change time to file joint status statement filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr, John Armstrong. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 8/13/2012) Modified on 8/14/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/13/2012)
08/14/2012 2178 ORDER Granting 2175 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and Proposed Order for Payment. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 8/09/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/14/2012) (Entered: 08/14/2012)
08/17/2012 2179 Order granting 2177 Stipulation entered by Hon. Claudia Wilken. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 08/17/2012)
08/22/2012 2180 ORDER by Judge Claudia WilkenDENYING 2024 MOTION FOR CONTEMPT, DENYING AS MOOT 2135 MOTION TO STRIKE AND MODIFYING PERMANENT INJUNCTION. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/22/2012) (Entered: 08/22/2012)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 218 of 265

08/22/2012 2181 Joint Case Status Report by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 8/22/2012) Modified on 8/22/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/22/2012)

08/23/2012 2182 ORDER of USCA: parties shall file reporter's transcript of the district court's 8/23/2012 proceeding, as well as any order issued thereafter re emergency motion to enforce court's orders regarding Armstrong Class members housed in County Jails (cpS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/23/2012) (Entered: 08/24/2012)

08/23/2012 2184 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 8/23/2012 before Claudia Wilken (Date Filed: 8/23/2012). (Court Reporter Raynee Mercado.) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 8/23/2012) (Entered: 08/27/2012)

08/27/2012 2183 ORDER by Judge Claudia WilkenGRANTING PLAINTIFFS 2159 MOTION TO SEAL AND GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS 2167 MOTION TO SEAL AND 2169 STIPULATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/27/2012) (Entered: 08/27/2012)

08/27/2012

2185

Transcript of Proceedings held on August 23, 2012, before Judge Claudia Wilken. Court Reporter Raynee H. Mercado, Telephone number 510−451−7530, raynee_mercado@cand.uscourts.gov. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. Redaction Request due 9/17/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/27/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/26/2012. (rhm, ) (Filed on 8/27/2012) (Entered: 08/27/2012)

08/27/2012 2186 Proposed Order re 2161 MOTION to Enforce The Court's Orders Re Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 8/27/2012) (Entered: 08/27/2012)

08/27/2012 2187 Proposed Order to Distribute County Jail Plan by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 8/27/2012) (Entered: 08/27/2012)

08/27/2012 2188 Proposed Order to Enforce January 13, 2012 and April 11, 2012 Orders by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 8/27/2012) (Entered: 08/27/2012)

08/28/2012 2189 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Edmund G. Brown, Jr re 2188 Proposed Order (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 8/28/2012) (Entered: 08/28/2012)

08/28/2012 2190 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Edmund G. Brown, Jr re 2187 Proposed Order (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 8/28/2012) (Entered: 08/28/2012)

08/28/2012

2191

DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 2183 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal,, Order on Stipulation Declaration of Michael Freedman In Support Of Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion to Enforce the Court's Orders Regarding Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails by John Armstrong. (Freedman, Michael) (Filed on 8/28/2012) (Entered: 08/28/2012)

08/28/2012 2192 Declaration of Michael Freedman in Support of 2161 MOTION to Enforce The Court's Orders Re Armstrong Class Members Housed in County Jails [Redacted] filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 2161 ) (Freedman, Michael) (Filed on 8/28/2012) (Entered: 08/28/2012)

08/28/2012 2193 ORDER DISTRIBUTING AND ENFORCING THE AMENDED COUNTY JAIL ORDER AND PLAN. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 8/28/2012. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/28/2012) (Entered: 08/28/2012)

08/28/2012

2194

OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER DISTRIBUTING AND ENFORCING THE AMENDED COUNTY JAIL ORDER AND PLAN re 2161 . Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 8/28/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/28/2012) Modified on 8/28/2012 (ndr, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/28/2012)

09/07/2012 2195 MOTION and Proposed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 9/21/2012. Replies due by 9/28/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 9/7/2012) Modified on 9/10/2012 (cpS, COURT STAFF).

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 219 of 265

(Entered: 09/07/2012)

09/11/2012 2196 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2195 Motion for Payment. (Attachments: # 1 invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/11/2012) (Entered: 09/11/2012)

09/12/2012 2197 Proposed Stipulated Order Confirming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Second Quarter of 2012 by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr.. (Thompson, Blake) (Filed on 9/12/2012) Modified on 9/13/2012 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/12/2012)

09/14/2012 2198 NOTICE by J. Clark Kelso of Filing of Receiver's Twenty−First Tri−Annual Report (Attachments: # 1 Receiver's 21st Report, # 2 Table of Contents to Appendices)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 9/14/2012) Modified on 9/17/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/14/2012)

09/14/2012 2199 Appendices 1−10 to Receiver's 21st Report filed byJ. Clark Kelso. (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 9/14/2012) Modified on 9/17/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/14/2012)

09/14/2012 2200 ORDER Granting 2197 Stipulated Order confirming undisputed attorneys' fees and costs for the second quarter of 2012 . Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 9/14/2012. (Attachments: # 1 attachment)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/14/2012) Modified on 9/17/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/14/2012)

09/18/2012

2201

NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th CCA Edmund G. Brown, Jr, Michael Minor, Matthew Cate, Diana Toche, Chris Meyer, Kathleen Dickinson, Margarita Perez. Appeal of Order 2180 (Appeal fee of $455 paid, receipt #44611009424.) (Attachments: # 1 Representation statement)(cpS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/18/2012) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/4/2019: # 2 Receipt) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/19/2012)

09/19/2012 2202 USCA Case Number 12−17103 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for 2201 Notice of Appeal, filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr.. (kk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/19/2012) (Entered: 09/20/2012)

09/27/2012

2203

NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th CCA filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. Appeal of Order, 2194 , Order 2193 (Appeal fee of $455 paid, receipt #44611009468.) (Attachments: # 1 Representation statement)(cpS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/27/2012) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/4/2019: # 2 Receipt) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/01/2012)

10/02/2012 2204 USCA Case Number 12−17198 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for 2203 Notice of Appeal filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr.. (kk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/2/2012) (Entered: 10/03/2012)

10/05/2012 2205 Administrative MOTION and Proposed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 10/19/2012. Replies due by 10/26/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 10/5/2012) Modified on 10/9/2012 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/05/2012)

10/10/2012 2206 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2205 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice # 19990) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/10/2012) (Entered: 10/10/2012)

10/15/2012 2207 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION and Ordering Form by Edmund G. Brown, Jr for proceedings held on June 7, 2012 before Judge Claudia Wilken.. (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 10/15/2012) (Entered: 10/15/2012)

10/15/2012

2208

Transcript of Proceedings held on June 7, 2012, before Judge Claudia Wilken. Court Reporter Diane E. Skillman, Telephone number 510−451−2930, Diane_Skillman@cand.uscourts.gov. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. Redaction Request due 11/5/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/15/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/14/2013. (Skillman, Diane) (Filed on 10/15/2012) (Entered: 10/15/2012)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 220 of 265
10/15/2012 2209 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by John Armstrong. (Godbold, Penelope) (Filed on 10/15/2012) Modified on 10/16/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/15/2012)
10/26/2012 2210 Transcript Designation and Ordering Form for proceedings held on 8/23/12 (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Smith, Janelle) (Filed on 10/26/2012) (Entered: 10/26/2012)
10/29/2012 2211 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 10/29/2012) (Entered: 10/29/2012)
11/05/2012 2212 Proposed Protective Order Regarding Disclosure of Defendants' Employees' Personnel Information filed by Court Expert. (Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 11/5/2012) Modified on 11/6/2012 (kcS, ). (Entered: 11/05/2012)
11/07/2012 2213 Administrative MOTION for Payment and Proposed Order filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 11/21/2012. Replies due by 11/28/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 11/7/2012) Modified on 11/8/2012 (kcS, ). (Entered: 11/07/2012)
11/07/2012 2215 MOTION for Leave to File Independent Allegations of Armstrong Remedial Plan Non−Compliance and Request for Corrective Action filed by Paul D. Roberts. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/7/2012) (Entered: 11/13/2012)
11/08/2012 2214 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2213 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (Attachments: # 1 invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/8/2012) (Entered: 11/08/2012)
11/15/2012 2216 Letter from CRD to Paul Roberts. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2012) (Entered: 11/15/2012)
11/26/2012 2217 OBJECTIONS to Edward Swanson's Recommended Protective Order Regarding Disclosure of Defendants' Employees' Personnel Information by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 11/26/2012) (Entered: 11/26/2012)
11/26/2012 2218 Statement re 2217 Objection Plaintiffs' Statement of Non−Opposition by John Armstrong. (Godbold, Penelope) (Filed on 11/26/2012) (Entered: 11/26/2012)
12/05/2012 2219 PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING DISCLOSURE OF DEFENDANTS EMPLOYEES PERSONNEL INFORMATION. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 12/5/2012. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/5/2012) (Entered: 12/05/2012)
12/06/2012 2220 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 12/20/2012. Replies due by 12/27/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 12/6/2012) (Entered: 12/06/2012)
12/06/2012 2221 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2220 Administrative Motion for Disbursement of Funds Order for Payment. (Attachments: # 1 invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/6/2012) (Entered: 12/06/2012)
12/12/2012 2222 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Extend Time to File Joint Conference Statement filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 12/12/2012) (Entered: 12/12/2012)
12/13/2012 2223 Order granting 2222 Stipulation entered by Hon. Claudia Wilken. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 12/13/2012)
12/28/2012 2224 Proposed Order Confirming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Third Quarter of 2012 by John Armstrong. (Thompson, Blake) (Filed on 12/28/2012) (Entered: 12/28/2012)
01/02/2013 2225 ORDER Granting 2224 Proposed Order Confirming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Third Quarter of 2012. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/2/2013. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/2/2013) (Entered: 01/02/2013)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 221 of 265

01/08/2013 2226 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 1/22/2013. Replies due by 1/29/2013. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 1/8/2013) (Entered: 01/08/2013)

01/15/2013 2227 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2226 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/15/2013) (Entered: 01/15/2013)

01/25/2013 2228 Notice of Filing of Receiver's Twenty−Second Tri−Annual Report by J. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Table of Appendices, # 2 Appendix Part 1 of 3 − Appendices 1−6, # 3 Appendix Part 3 of 3 − Appendices 8−13)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 1/25/2013) Modified on 1/28/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/25/2013)

01/25/2013 2229 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Joint Case Management Statement filed by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit December 2012 Correctional Facility Program Accessibility Plan)(Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 1/25/2013) Modified on 1/28/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/25/2013)

01/28/2013

2230

Part 2 of 3 − Appendix 7 to Receiver J. Clark Kelso's Twenty−Second Tri−Annual Report by J. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Section 2 of 6 to Part 2 of 3 − Appendix 7 to Receiver J. Clark Kelso's Twenty−Second Tri−Annual Report, # 2 Appendix Section 3 of 6 to Part 2 of 3 − Appendix 7 to Receiver J. Clark Kelso's Twenty−Second Tri−Annual Report, # 3 Appendix Section 4 of 6 to Part 2 of 3 − Appendix 7 to Receiver J. Clark Kelso's Twenty−Second Tri−Annual Report, # 4 Appendix Section 5 of 6 to Part 2 of 3 − Appendix 7 to Receiver J. Clark Kelso's Twenty−Second Tri−Annual Report, # 5 Appendix Section 6 of 6 to Part 2 of 3 − Appendix 7 to Receiver J. Clark Kelso's Twenty−Second Tri−Annual Report)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 1/28/2013) Modified on 1/29/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/28/2013)

02/04/2013 2231 ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE BRIEFS ADDRESSING MONITORING BY THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 2/4/2013. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/4/2013) (Entered: 02/04/2013)

02/07/2013 2232 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and Proposed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 2/21/2013. Replies due by 2/28/2013. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 2/7/2013) Modified on 2/8/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/07/2013)

02/08/2013 2233 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2232 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (Attachments: # 1 invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/8/2013) (Entered: 02/08/2013)

02/25/2013 2234 NOTICE of Appearance by Warren E. George (George, Warren) (Filed on 2/25/2013) (Entered: 02/25/2013)

02/28/2013 2235 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Stipulation and Proposed Order)(Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 2/28/2013) (Entered: 02/28/2013)

02/28/2013

2236

MOTION for a further enforcement Order and an Order Holding Defendants in Contempt of Court filed by John Armstrong. Motion Hearing set for 4/4/2013 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland before Hon. Claudia Wilken. Responses due by 3/14/2013. Replies due by 3/21/2013. (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 2/28/2013) Modified on 3/1/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/28/2013)

02/28/2013

2237

Declaration of Corene Kendrick in Support of 2236 MOTION for Further Enforcement Order and an Order Holding Defendants in Contempt of Court filed byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 (Redacted), # 2 Exhibit Exhibits 2−3 (Redacted), # 3 Exhibit Exhibits 4−8 (Redacted), # 4 Exhibit Exhibits 9−13 (Redacted), # 5 Exhibit Exhibits 14−23 (Redacted), # 6 Exhibit Exhibits 24−28 (Redacted), # 7 Exhibit Exhibits 29−32 (Redacted))(Related document(s) 2236 ) (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 2/28/2013) Modified on 3/1/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/28/2013)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 222 of 265

02/28/2013 2238 Declaration of Penny Godbold in Support of 2236 MOTION for Further Enforcement Order and an Order Holding Defendants in Contempt of Court filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 2236 ) (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 2/28/2013) Modified on 3/1/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/28/2013)

02/28/2013 2239 Request for Judicial Notice re 2236 MOTION for Further Enforcement Order and an Order Holding Defendants in Contempt of Court filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 2236 ) (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 2/28/2013) Modified on 3/1/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/28/2013)

02/28/2013 2240 Proposed Order re 2236 MOTION for Further Enforcement Order and an Order Holding Defendants in Contempt of Court by John Armstrong. (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 2/28/2013) Modified on 3/1/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/28/2013)

03/04/2013 2241 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Extend Time to File Opposition and Reply Papers filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 3/4/2013) (Entered: 03/04/2013)

03/04/2013 2242 Declaration of G. Nguyen in Support of 2241 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Extend Time to File Opposition and Reply Papers filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Related document(s) 2241 ) (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 3/4/2013) (Entered: 03/04/2013)

03/05/2013 2243 MOTION and Proposed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 3/19/2013. Replies due by 3/26/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 3/5/2013) Modified on 3/6/2013 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/05/2013)

03/05/2013

CLERKS NOTICE. Please take notice that the 2241 stipulation of counsel, submitted on 3/4/2013, is declined, without prejudice because the court needs 14 days between the final brief and the hearing.

(This is a text only docket entry, there is no document associated with this notice.)

(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/5/2013) (Entered: 03/05/2013)

03/05/2013 2244 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2243 Motion for Disbursement for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/5/2013) (Entered: 03/05/2013)

03/06/2013

2245

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER To Change Time to File Opposition and Reply Papers, and to Move the April 4, 2013 Hearing Date on Plaintiffs' Motion for a further Enforcement Order and For an Order Holding Defendants in Contempt of Court filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 3/6/2013) Modified on 3/7/2013 (kcS, ). (Entered: 03/06/2013)

03/06/2013

2246

Declaration of G. Nguyen in Support of 2245 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER To Change Time to File Opposition and Reply Papers, and to Move the April 4, 2013 Hearing Date on Plaintiffs' Motion for a further Enforcement Order and For an Order Holding Defen filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Related document(s) 2245 ) (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 3/6/2013) Modified on 3/7/2013 (kcS, ). (Entered: 03/06/2013)

03/07/2013 2247 CORRECTED MOTION and Proposed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 3/21/2013. Replies due by 3/28/2013. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 3/7/2013) Modified on 3/8/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/07/2013)

03/07/2013 2248 NOTICE by John Armstrong Notice of Change of Firm (Holtz, Geoffrey) (Filed on 3/7/2013) (Entered: 03/07/2013)

03/11/2013 2249 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2247 Corrected Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/11/2013) Modified on 3/11/2013 (ndr, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/11/2013)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 223 of 265

03/14/2013 2250 Order granting 2245 Stipulation entered by Hon. Claudia Wilken. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 03/14/2013)

03/14/2013

Reset Deadlines as to 2236 MOTION for a further enforcement Order and an Order Holding Defendants in Contempt of Court : Responses due by 3/26/2013; Replies due by 4/4/2013; Motion Hearing set for 4/18/2013 02:00 PM before Hon. Claudia Wilken. See Text Order, Docket No. 2250 . (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/14/2013) (Entered: 03/14/2013)

03/15/2013 2251 STATUS REPORT and Request for Status Conference by John Armstrong. (Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 3/15/2013) (Entered: 03/15/2013)

03/18/2013 2252 Response to Order Directing Parties to File Briefs Addressing Monitoring by the Office of the Inspector General byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 3/18/2013) (Entered: 03/18/2013)

03/18/2013 2253 Declaration of Julian Martinez in Support of 2252 Response filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Related document(s) 2252 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 3/18/2013) (Entered: 03/18/2013)

03/18/2013 2254 Request for Judicial Notice re 2252 Response filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H)(Related document(s) 2252 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 3/18/2013) (Entered: 03/18/2013)

03/21/2013

2255

ORDER SETTING A STATUS CONFERENCE AND CONTINUING HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS 2236 MOTION FOR A FURTHER ENFORCEMENT ORDER AND ORDER HOLDING DEFENDANTS IN CONTEMPT OF COURT. Status Conference / Motion Hearing set for 5/2/2013 02:00 PM before Hon. Claudia Wilken. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 3/21/2013. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/21/2013) (Entered: 03/21/2013)

03/22/2013 2256 Proposed Stipulated Order Confirming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Fourth Quarter of 2012 by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Thompson, Blake) (Filed on 3/22/2013) Modified on 3/25/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/22/2013)

03/22/2013 2257 ORDER re 2256 Confirming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Fourth Quarter of 2012. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 3/22/2013. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/22/2013) (Entered: 03/22/2013)

03/26/2013 2258 Stipulated Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 3/26/2013) Modified on 3/27/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/26/2013)

03/26/2013 2259 Declaration of G. NGUYEN in Support of 2258 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Related document(s) 2258 ) (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 3/26/2013) Modified on 3/27/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/26/2013)

03/26/2013 2260 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 2258 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr, John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 3/26/2013) Modified on 3/27/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/26/2013)

03/26/2013 2261 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Edmund G. Brown, Jr re 2258 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 3/26/2013) Modified on 3/27/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (see attachment re certificate of service) (Entered: 03/26/2013)

03/26/2013 2262 RESPONSE (re 2236 MOTION for a further enforcement Order and an Order Holding Defendants in Contempt of Court ) filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 3/26/2013) Modified on 3/27/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/26/2013)

03/26/2013 2263 Request for Judicial Notice re 2262 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Related document(s) 2262 ) (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 3/26/2013) (Entered: 03/26/2013)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 224 of 265

03/26/2013 2264 Declaration of Jay M. Goldman in Support of 2262 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Related document(s) 2262 ) (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 3/26/2013) (Entered: 03/26/2013)

03/26/2013 2265 Declaration of D. Chandler in Support of 2262 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Related document(s) 2262 ) (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 3/26/2013) (Entered: 03/26/2013)

03/26/2013 2266 Declaration of Dr. Timothy Belavich in Support of 2262 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Related document(s) 2262 ) (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 3/26/2013) (Entered: 03/26/2013)

03/26/2013 2267 Declaration of Dr. Amy Eargle in Support of 2262 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Related document(s) 2262 ) (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 3/26/2013) (Entered: 03/26/2013)

04/03/2013 2268 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER extending time to respond to Feb 4, 2013 Order filed by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al. (Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 4/3/2013) Modified on 4/3/2013 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/03/2013)

04/03/2013 2269 Order granting 2268 Stipulation entered by Hon. Claudia Wilken. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 04/03/2013)

04/04/2013

Reset Hearings: 2236 Status Conference / MOTION for a further enforcement Order and an Order Holding Defendants in Contempt of Court set for 5/16/2013 02:00 PM before Hon. Claudia Wilken. See Docket No. 2269 . (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/4/2013) (Entered: 04/04/2013)

04/04/2013 2270 Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 4/18/2013. Replies due by 4/25/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 4/4/2013) Modified on 4/5/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/04/2013)

04/04/2013 2271 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Stipulation and Proposed Order)(Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 4/4/2013) (Entered: 04/04/2013)

04/04/2013 2272 REPLY (re 2236 MOTION for a further enforcement Order and an Order Holding Defendants in Contempt of Court ) filed byJohn Armstrong. (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 4/4/2013) (Entered: 04/04/2013)

04/04/2013 2273 Declaration of Corene Kendrick in Support of 2272 Reply to Opposition/Response filed byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 (Redacted), # 2 Exhibit Exhibits 2−5 (Redacted))(Related document(s) 2272 ) (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 4/4/2013) (Entered: 04/04/2013)

04/04/2013 2274 Declaration of Pablo Stewart, M.D. in Support of 2272 Reply to Opposition/Response filed byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits A−E (Redacted), # 2 Exhibit Exhibits F−H (Redacted))(Related document(s) 2272 ) (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 4/4/2013) (Entered: 04/04/2013)

04/04/2013 2275 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by John Armstrong Proof of Service to Defendants of Documents Filed Under Seal (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 4/4/2013) (Entered: 04/04/2013)

04/05/2013 2276 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2270 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (Attachments: # 1 invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/5/2013) (Entered: 04/05/2013)

04/08/2013 2277 NOTICE of Supplemental Authority re 2236 MOTION for a further enforcement Order and an Order Holding Defendants in Contempt of Court (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 4/8/2013) Modified on 4/9/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/08/2013)

04/11/2013 2278 ORDER DIRECTING ADDITIONAL INTERIM PAYMENT OF COSTS. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 4/11/2013. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/11/2013) (Entered: 04/11/2013)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 225 of 265

04/11/2013

2279

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS AND REQUEST TO STRIKE THE EXPERT DECLARATION OF PABLO STEWERT, AND EXHIBITS 3−5 AND PARAGRAPH 7 TO THE DECLARATION OF CORENE KENDRICK IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO DEFEDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR A FURTHER ENFORCEMENT ORDER AND CONTEMPT ORDER by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 4/11/2013) Modified on 4/12/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/11/2013)

04/18/2013 2280 AMENDED STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Confirming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Fourth Quarter of 2012 (Amended) filed by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 4/18/2013) Modified on 4/19/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/18/2013)

04/18/2013 2281 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by John Armstrong. (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 4/18/2013) (Entered: 04/18/2013)

04/18/2013 2282 Declaration of Corene Kendrick in Support of 2281 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal and [Proposed] Order Granting Motion to File Under Seal filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 2281 ) (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 4/18/2013) (Entered: 04/18/2013)

04/18/2013 2283 RESPONSE to re 2279 Objection, Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Evidentiary Objections by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 4/18/2013) (Entered: 04/18/2013)

04/18/2013 2284 Declaration of Liz Mendoza in Support of 2283 Response ( Non Motion ) Redacted Declaration of Liz Mendoza filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 2283 ) (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 4/18/2013) (Entered: 04/18/2013)

04/18/2013 2285 Declaration of Nadine Valentien in Support of 2283 Response ( Non Motion ) Redacted Declaration of Nadine Valentien filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 2283 ) (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 4/18/2013) (Entered: 04/18/2013)

04/18/2013 2286 Declaration of Jessica Saravia in Support of 2283 Response ( Non Motion ) Redacted Declaration of Jessica Saravia filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 2283 ) (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 4/18/2013) (Entered: 04/18/2013)

04/18/2013 2287 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by John Armstrong re 2284 Declaration in Support, 2286 Declaration in Support, 2285 Declaration in Support Proof of Service to Defendants of Documents Filed Under Seal (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 4/18/2013) (Entered: 04/18/2013)

04/18/2013 2288 Defendants Status Conference Statement by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 4/18/2013) Modified on 4/19/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/18/2013)

04/19/2013 2289 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2280 AMENDED STIPULATION Confirming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Fourth Quarter of 2012. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/19/2013) (Entered: 04/19/2013)

04/22/2013 2290 RESPONSE to Feb. 4 Order re Monitoring by OIG by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Rebekah Evenson, # 2 Declaration Steven Fama, # 3 Declaration Gay Grunfeld)(Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 4/22/2013) (Entered: 04/22/2013)

05/06/2013 2291 DEFENDANTS REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE BRIEFS ADDRESSING MONITORING BY THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/6/2013) Modified on 5/7/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/06/2013)

05/06/2013 2292 Declaration of Richard Wells in Support of 2291 Reply filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−B)(Related document(s) 2291 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/6/2013) Modified on 5/7/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/06/2013)

05/06/2013 2293 Declaration of M. Knowles in Support of 2291 Reply filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Related document(s) 2291 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/6/2013) Modified on 5/7/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/06/2013)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 226 of 265

05/06/2013

2294

Request for Judicial Notice re 2291 Reply filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, # 19 Exhibit S, # 20 Exhibit T, # 21 Exhibit U, # 22 Exhibit V, # 23 Exhibit W, # 24 Exhibit X, # 25 Exhibit Y, # 26 Exhibit Z, # 27 Exhibit AA, # 28 Exhibit BB, # 29 Exhibit CC, # 30 Exhibit DD, # 31 Exhibit EE)(Related document(s) 2291 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/6/2013) Modified on 5/7/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/06/2013)

05/06/2013

2295

MOTION to Strike PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO FEBRUARY 4, 2013, ORDER REAGARDING MONITORING BY THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. Responses due by 5/20/2013. Replies due by 5/28/2013. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/6/2013) Modified on 11/22/2013 (ndr, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/06/2013)

05/06/2013 2296 Proposed Order re 2295 Motion to Strike plaintiffs' response to February 4, 2013, order regarding monitoring by the Office of the Inspector General by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/6/2013) Modified on 5/7/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/06/2013)

05/06/2013 2297 MOTION to Strike PLAINTIFFS SUR−REPLY RESPONSE AND DECLARATIONS filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. Responses due by 6/3/2013. Replies due by 6/17/2013. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/6/2013) (Entered: 05/06/2013)

05/06/2013 2298 Proposed Order re 2297 MOTION to Strike PLAINTIFFS SUR−REPLY RESPONSE AND DECLARATIONS by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/6/2013) (Entered: 05/06/2013)

05/07/2013 2299 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/7/2013) (Entered: 05/07/2013)

05/07/2013 2300 Declaration of G. Nguyen in Support of 2299 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Related document(s) 2299 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/7/2013) (Entered: 05/07/2013)

05/07/2013 2301 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 2299 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr., John Armstrong (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/7/2013) Modified on 5/8/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/07/2013)

05/07/2013 2302

***FILED IN ERROR, PER NOTICE, DOCUMENT # 2313 ***

MOTION to Submit Evidence of Sign Language Interpreter Services and Positions at the Substance Abuse and Treatment Facility During April 2013 filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. Responses due by 5/21/2013. Replies due by 5/28/2013. (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 5/7/2013) Modified on 5/10/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/07/2013)
05/07/2013 2303

***FILED IN ERROR, PER NOTICE, DOCUMENT # 2313 ***

Proposed Order re 2302 MOTION to Submit Evidence of Sign Language Interpreter Services and Positions at the Substance Abuse and Treatment Facility During April 2013 by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 5/7/2013) Modified on 5/10/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/07/2013)

05/07/2013

2304

MOTION to Submit Evidence of Sign language Interpreter Services and Positions at the Substance Abuse And Treatment Facility During April 2013 filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 5/7/2013) Modified on 5/8/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). Modified on 5/9/2013 (ndr, COURT STAFF). Modified on 5/10/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/07/2013)

05/07/2013 2305

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 227 of 265

***FILED IN ERROR, PER NOTICE, DOCUMENT # 2313 ***

Declaration of Giam M. Nguyen in Support of 2302 MOTION to Submit Evidence of Sign Language Interpreter Services and Positions at the Substance Abuse and Treatment Facility During April 2013 filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to C)(Related document(s) 2302 ) (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 5/7/2013) Modified on 5/10/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/07/2013)

05/07/2013

2306

Declaration of Giam M. Nguyen in Support of 2304 MOTION to Submit Evidence of Sign language Interpreter Services and Positions at the Substance Abuse And Treatment Facility During April 2013 Declaration of Giam M. Nguyen In Support of Defendants' Administrative Motion to Submit Evidence of Sign Language Interpreter Services and Positions at SATF During April 2013 filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to C)(Related document(s) 2304 ) (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 5/7/2013) Modified on 5/8/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). Modified on 5/9/2013 (ndr, COURT STAFF). Modified on 5/10/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/07/2013)

05/07/2013

2307

RESPONSE (re 2295 MOTION to Strike PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO FEBRUARY 4, 2013, ORDER REAGARDING MONITORING BY THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ) and Administrative Motion To Exceed Page Limits filed byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Rebekah Evenson, # 2 Proposed Order)(Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 5/7/2013) (Entered: 05/07/2013)

05/07/2013

2308

Proposed Order re 2304 MOTION to Submit Evidence of Sign language Interpreter Services and Positions at the Substance Abuse And Treatment Facility During April 2013 Proposed Order Granting Defendants' Administrative Motion to Enter Evidence of Sign Language interpreter Services and Positions at SATF in April 2013 by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 5/7/2013) Modified on 5/8/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). Modified on 5/9/2013 (ndr, COURT STAFF). Modified on 5/10/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/07/2013)

05/08/2013 2309 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 5/22/2013. Replies due by 5/29/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 5/8/2013) (Entered: 05/08/2013)

05/08/2013

2310

RESPONSE (re 2297 MOTION to Strike PLAINTIFFS SUR−REPLY RESPONSE AND DECLARATIONS, 2302 MOTION to Submit Evidence of Sign Language Interpreter Services and Positions at the Substance Abuse and Treatment Facility During April 2013 ) filed byJohn Armstrong. (Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 5/8/2013) (Entered: 05/08/2013)

05/09/2013 2311 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2309 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/9/2013) (Entered: 05/09/2013)

05/09/2013 2312 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING ( 2235 , [2235−1], 2258 , 2260 , 2271 , 2281 , 2299 , 2301 )MOTIONS AND STIPULATIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/9/2013) (Entered: 05/09/2013)

05/09/2013

2313

NOTICE by Edmund G. Brown, Jr re 2303 Proposed Order, 2302 MOTION to Submit Evidence of Sign Language Interpreter Services and Positions at the Substance Abuse and Treatment Facility During April 2013 , 2305 Declaration in Support, Defendants' Notice of Mistakenly Filed Documents (Nguyen, Giam) (Filed on 5/9/2013) (Entered: 05/09/2013)

05/09/2013

2314

DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 2312 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal,, Order on Stipulation,,,, DECLARATION OF KNOWLES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR FURTHER ENFORCEMENT ORDER AND ORDER HOLDING DEFENDANTS IN CONTEMP OF COURT by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/9/2013) Modified on 5/10/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/09/2013)

05/09/2013 2315 DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 2312 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal,, Order on Stipulation,,,, PANNETT DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR FURTHER

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 228 of 265

ENFORCEMENT ORDER AND ORDER HOLDING DEFENDANTS IN CONTEMP OF COURT by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/9/2013) (Entered: 05/09/2013)

05/09/2013

2316

DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 2312 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal,, Order on Stipulation,,,, RAMIREZ DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR FURTHER ENFORCEMENT ORDER AND ORDER HOLDING DEFENDANTS IN CONTEMP OF COURT by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit G, # 4 Exhibit H, # 5 Exhibit I, # 6 Exhibit J, # 7 Exhibit K, # 8 Exhibit L)(Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/9/2013) (Entered: 05/09/2013)

05/09/2013

2317

DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 2312 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal,, Order on Stipulation,,,, EXHIBIT B TO SWEENY DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR FURTHER ENFORCEMENT ORDER AND ORDER HOLDING DEFENDANTS IN CONTEMP OF COURT by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/9/2013) (Entered: 05/09/2013)

05/09/2013

2318

DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 2312 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal,, Order on Stipulation,,,, EXHIBIT C TO SWEENY DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR FURTHER ENFORCEMENT ORDER AND ORDER HOLDING DEFENDANTS IN CONTEMP OF COURT by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/9/2013) (Entered: 05/09/2013)

05/09/2013

2319

DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 2312 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal,, Order on Stipulation,,,, EXHIBIT B TO KNOWLES DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR FURTHER ENFORCEMENT ORDER AND ORDER HOLDING DEFENDANTS IN CONTEMP OF COURT by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/9/2013) (Entered: 05/09/2013)

05/09/2013

2320

Declaration of Aniah Sweeny in Support of 2312 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal,, Order on Stipulation,,,, IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR FURTHER ENFORCEMENT ORDER AND ORDER HOLDING DEFENDANTS IN CONTEMP OF COURT filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Related document(s) 2312 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/9/2013) (Entered: 05/09/2013)

05/09/2013

2321

Declaration of M. Knowles in Support of 2312 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal,, Order on Stipulation,,,, IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR FURTHER ENFORCEMENT ORDER AND ORDER HOLDING DEFENDANTS IN CONTEMP OF COURT filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit C)(Related document(s) 2312 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/9/2013) (Entered: 05/09/2013)

05/09/2013

2322

EXHIBITS re 2312 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal,, Order on Stipulation,,,, TO RAMIREZ DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR FURTHER ENFORCEMENT ORDER AND ORDER HOLDING DEFENDANTS IN CONTEMP OF COURT filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit D, # 2 Exhibit E, # 3 Supplement F)(Related document(s) 2312 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/9/2013) (Entered: 05/09/2013)

05/10/2013

2323

Administrative Motionto submit supplemental evidence regarding monitoring by the Office of Inspector General filed by John Armstrong. Motion Hearing set for 5/16/2013 02:00 PM before Hon. Claudia Wilken. Responses due by 5/24/2013. Replies due by 5/31/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 5/10/2013) Modified on 5/10/2013 (ndr, COURT STAFF). Modified on 5/13/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/10/2013)

05/10/2013 2324 Declaration of R. Knudsen in support of defendants' opposition to plaintiffs' motion for further enforcement order and order holding defendants in contempt of court filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/10/2013) Modified on 5/13/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/10/2013)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 229 of 265

05/10/2013 2325 Declaration of G. Pannett in support of defendants' opposition to plaintiffs' motion for further enforcement order and order holding defendants in contempt of court (redacted) filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/10/2013) Modified on 5/13/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/10/2013)

05/10/2013

2326

Declaration of V. Ramirez in support of defendants' opposition to plaintiffs' motion for further enforcement order and order holding defendants in contempt of court (redacted) filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit G, # 4 Exhibit H, # 5 Exhibit I, # 6 Exhibit J, # 7 Exhibit K, # 8 Exhibit L) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/10/2013) Modified on 5/13/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/10/2013)

05/10/2013

2327

EXHIBITS B AND C TO DECLARATION OF A. SWEENY in support of defendants' opposition to plaintiffs' motion for further enforcement order and order holding defendants in contempt of court (REDACTED) filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit C)((Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/10/2013) Modified on 5/13/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/10/2013)

05/10/2013

2328

EXHIBIT B TO KNOWLES DECLARATION in support of defendants' opposition to plaintiffs' motion for further enforcement order and order holding defendants in contempt of court (REDACATED) filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/10/2013) Modified on 5/13/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/10/2013)

05/10/2013

2329

DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 2312 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal,, Order on Stipulation,,,, EXHIBIT A TO A. SWEENY DECLARATION in support of defendants' opposition to plaintiffs' motion for further enforcement order and order holding defendants in contempt of court by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/10/2013) (Entered: 05/10/2013)

05/10/2013 2330

***FILED IN ERROR, SEE DOCUMENT # 2331 ***

RESPONSE (re 2323 MOTION Submit Newly Discovered Evidence ) filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/10/2013) Modified on 5/10/2013 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/10/2013)

05/10/2013 2331 OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION REQUESTING RETROACTIVE APPROVAL TO DOUBLE THE PAGE LIMIT FOR THEIR BRIEF FILED ON APRIL 22, 2013 byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/10/2013) Modified on 5/13/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/10/2013)

05/10/2013

2332

DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 2312 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal,, Order on Stipulation,,,, Declaration of Corene Kendrick in Support of Motion for Further Enforcement Order and an Order Holding Defendants in Contempt of Court by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−2, # 2 Exhibit 3−4, # 3 Exhibit 5−6, # 4 Exhibit 7−8, # 5 Exhibit 9−12, # 6 Exhibit 13−24, # 7 Exhibit 25−28, # 8 Exhibit 29−32)(Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 5/10/2013) (Entered: 05/10/2013)

05/10/2013 2333 DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 2312 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal,, Order on Stipulation,,,, Declaration of Corene Kendrick in Support of Reply to Opposition/Response by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2−5)(Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 5/10/2013) (Entered: 05/10/2013)

05/10/2013

2334

DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 2312 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal,, Order on Stipulation,,,, Declaration of Pablo Stewart, M.D. in Support of Reply to Opposition/Response by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−E, # 2 Exhibit F−H)(Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 5/10/2013) (Entered: 05/10/2013)

05/10/2013 2335 DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 2312 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal,, Order on Stipulation,,,, Declaration of Liz Mendoza by John Armstrong. (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 5/10/2013) (Entered: 05/10/2013)

05/10/2013 2336 DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 2312 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal,, Order on Stipulation,,,, Declaration of Nadine Valentien by John

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 230 of 265

Armstrong. (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 5/10/2013) (Entered: 05/10/2013)

05/10/2013 2337 DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 2312 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal,, Order on Stipulation,,,, Declaration of Jessica Saravia by John Armstrong. (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 5/10/2013) (Entered: 05/10/2013)

05/13/2013 2338 RESPONSE (re 2323 MOTION to submit supplemental evidence regarding monitoring by the Office of Inspector General ) filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/13/2013) (Entered: 05/13/2013)

05/16/2013 2339 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 5/16/2013 before Claudia Wilken (Date Filed: 5/16/2013), Status Conference held on 5/16/2013 before Claudia Wilken (Date Filed: 5/16/2013). Status Report due by 7/15/2013. (Recording #2:11:00 − 2:48:43.) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 5/16/2013) (Entered: 05/17/2013)

05/20/2013 2340 TRANSCRIPT ORDER by John Armstrong for Court Reporter FTR − Oakland. (Galvan, Ernest) (Filed on 5/20/2013) (Entered: 05/20/2013)

05/22/2013

2341

Notice of Filing of Receiver's Twenty−Third Tri−Annual Report by J. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Table of Appendices, # 2 Appendix Part 1 of 3: Appendices 1−4, # 3 Appendix Part 2 of 3: Apppendix 5, # 4 Appendix Part 3 of 3: Appendices 6−11)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 5/22/2013) Modified on 5/23/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/22/2013)

05/23/2013 2342 TRANSCRIPT ORDER − CJA for Court Reporter FTR − Oakland. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 5/23/2013) (Entered: 05/23/2013)

05/24/2013 2343 Receipt in the amount of $100,000.00 as an interim payment of costs from CA Dept. of Corrections. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/24/2013) (Entered: 05/31/2013)

06/03/2013 2344 ORDER REGARDING MONITORING. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 6/3/2013. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/3/2013) (Entered: 06/03/2013)

06/04/2013 2345 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING 2236 MOTION FOR A FURTHER ENFORCEMENT ORDER AND DENYING 2236 MOTION TO HOLD DEFENDANTS IN CONTEMPT OF COURT. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/4/2013) (Entered: 06/04/2013)

06/10/2013 2346 Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 6/24/2013. Replies due by 7/1/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 6/10/2013) Modified on 6/11/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/10/2013)

06/13/2013 2347 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2346 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (Attachments: # 1 invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/13/2013) (Entered: 06/13/2013)

06/14/2013 2348 RESPONSE to Receiver's 23rd Tri−Annual Report by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 6/14/2013) (Entered: 06/14/2013)

06/14/2013 2349 Declaration of Diana Toche, DDS. In Support of Defendants' Response to the Receiver's 23rd Tri−Annual Report filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Russell, Jay) (Filed on 6/14/2013) (Entered: 06/14/2013)

06/14/2013 2350 Declaration of Deborah Hysen In Support of Defendants' Response to the Receiver's 23rd Tri−Annual Report filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Russell, Jay) (Filed on 6/14/2013) (Entered: 06/14/2013)

06/17/2013 2351 Proposed Order Confirming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the First Quarter of 2013 by John Armstrong. (Thompson, Blake) (Filed on 6/17/2013) (Entered: 06/17/2013)

06/19/2013 2352 ORDER Granting 2351 Proposed Order Confirming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the First Quarter of 2013. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 6/19/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/19/2013) (Entered: 06/19/2013)

06/21/2013 2353 Transcript of Proceedings held on May 16, 2013, before Judge Claudia Wilken. Transcriber Diane E. Skillman, Telephone number 510−451−2930,

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 231 of 265
Diane_Skillman@cand.uscourts.gov, Diane.transcripts@aol.com. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/19/2013. (Related documents(s) 2342 , 2340 ) (Skillman, Diane) (Filed on 6/21/2013) (Entered: 06/21/2013)
07/09/2013 2354 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and Proposed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 7/23/2013. Replies due by 7/30/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 7/9/2013) Modified on 7/10/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/09/2013)
07/12/2013 2355 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2354 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/12/2013) (Entered: 07/12/2013)
07/15/2013 2356 JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT filed by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr.. (Godbold, Penelope) (Filed on 7/15/2013) Modified on 7/16/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/15/2013)
07/15/2013 2357 EXHIBITS re 2356 Joint Case Status Statement April and May 2013 Correctional Facility Program Accessibility Plan Monthly Reports filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 2356 ) (Godbold, Penelope) (Filed on 7/15/2013) Modified on 7/16/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/15/2013)
07/17/2013 2358 Letter from CRD to Lawrence Davis. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/17/2013) (Entered: 07/17/2013)
07/17/2013 2359 Letter from CRD to Mike Escalante. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/17/2013) Modified on 7/18/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/17/2013)
08/06/2013 2360 Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 8/20/2013. Replies due by 8/27/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 8/6/2013) Modified on 8/7/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/06/2013)
08/07/2013 2361 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2360 Motion for Payment (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/7/2013) (Entered: 08/07/2013)
08/20/2013 2362 Letter from CRD to Mr. Sprinkle. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/20/2013) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/4/2019: # 1 letter (re−scanned version)) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/20/2013)
08/20/2013 2363 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/20/2013) (Entered: 08/20/2013)
09/10/2013 2365 Mail sent to Penelope Marie Godbold returned as undeliverable re 2362 Letter. Mail Returned; response required by 11/12/2013. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/10/2013) (Entered: 09/11/2013)
09/11/2013 2364 Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 9/25/2013. Replies due by 10/2/2013. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 9/11/2013) Modified on 9/11/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/11/2013)
09/11/2013 2366 NOTICE of Change of Address by Penelope Marie Godbold (Godbold, Penelope) (Filed on 9/11/2013) (Entered: 09/11/2013)
09/12/2013 2367 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2364 Motion for Disbursement of Funds for Payment. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/12/2013) (Entered: 09/12/2013)
09/16/2013 2368 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by John Armstrong, Edmund g. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit June/July 2013 Facility Program Accessibility Reports)(Godbold, Penny) (Filed on 9/16/2013) Modified on 9/17/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/16/2013)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 232 of 265
10/01/2013 2369 Notice of Filing of Receiver's Twenty−Fourth Tri−Annual Report by J. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Table of Appendices, # 2 Appendix 1, # 3 Appendix 2, # 4 Appendix 3, # 5 Appendix 4)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 10/1/2013) Modified on 10/2/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/01/2013)
10/01/2013 2370 Appendix re 2369 Status Report, filed byJ. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix 5 − Part 2 of 3, # 2 Appendix 5 − Part 3 of 3, # 3 Appendix 6)(Related document(s) 2369 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 10/1/2013) (Entered: 10/01/2013)
10/01/2013 2371 Appendix re 2369 Status Report, Appendices 7−12 filed byJ. Clark Kelso. (Related document(s) 2369 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 10/1/2013) (Entered: 10/01/2013)
10/02/2013 2372 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Confirming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Second Quarter of 2013 filed by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 10/2/2013) (Entered: 10/02/2013)
10/07/2013 2373 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2372 Stipulation Confirming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Second Quarter of 2013. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/7/2013) (Entered: 10/07/2013)
10/08/2013 2374 OPINION of USCA AFFIRMED as to 2203 Notice of Appeal filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr.; DISMISSED as moot as to 2039 Notice of Appeal, filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (cpS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/8/2013) (Entered: 10/08/2013)
10/08/2013 2375 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 10/22/2013. Replies due by 10/29/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 10/8/2013) Modified on 10/9/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/08/2013)
10/09/2013 2376 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2375 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 Invoice No. 21404) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/9/2013) (Entered: 10/09/2013)
11/07/2013 2377 Administrative MOTION and Proposed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 11/21/2013. Replies due by 12/2/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 11/7/2013) Modified on 11/8/2013 (kcS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/07/2013)
11/13/2013 2378 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2377 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/13/2013) (Entered: 11/13/2013)
11/15/2013 2379 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Joint Case Status Statement filed by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 11/15/2013) Modified on 11/18/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/15/2013)
12/03/2013 2380 ORDER of USCA DENYING petition for rehearing en banc as to 2203 Notice of Appeal filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr., 2039 Notice of Appeal, filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/3/2013) (Entered: 12/03/2013)
12/09/2013 2381 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 12/23/2013. Replies due by 12/30/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 12/9/2013) (Entered: 12/09/2013)
12/10/2013 2382 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2381 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (Attachments: # 1 invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/10/2013) (Entered: 12/10/2013)
12/12/2013 2383 MANDATE of USCA as to 2203 Notice of Appeal filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr., 2039 Notice of Appeal, filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (cpS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/12/2013) (Entered: 12/12/2013)
01/14/2014 2384 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Change Time to File Joint Status Conference Statement filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr., John Armstrong, et al (Smith, Janelle) (Filed on 1/14/2014) Modified on 1/14/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/14/2014)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 233 of 265

01/14/2014 2385 MOTION for payment and Proposed Order filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 1/28/2014. Replies due by 2/4/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 1/14/2014) Modified on 1/14/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/14/2014)

01/14/2014 2386 Order granting 2384 Stipulation entered by Hon. Claudia Wilken. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 01/14/2014)

01/14/2014 2387 Order granting 2385 Motion to pay invoice entered by Hon. Claudia Wilken. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 01/14/2014)

01/14/2014 2388 ORDER Granting 2385 MOTION for Payment. (Signed Version of 2387 Order ). Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/14/2014. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/14/2014) (Entered: 01/15/2014)

01/15/2014

***See text order 2386 . Set Deadlines Joint Status Statement due by 2/3/2014. (cpS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/15/2014) (Entered: 01/15/2014)

01/27/2014 2389 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Confirming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Third Quarter of 2013 by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Thompson, Blake) (Filed on 1/27/2014) Modified on 1/28/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/27/2014)

01/28/2014 2390 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Ganting 2389 Stipulation Confirming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Third Quarter of 2013 (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/28/2014) (Entered: 01/28/2014)

02/03/2014

2391

Notice of Filing of Receiver's Twenty−Fifth Tri−Annual Report by J. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix 1, # 2 Appendix 2, # 3 Appendix 4, # 4 Appendix 5, # 5 Appendix 6, # 6 Appendix 7 − Part 1 of 2, # 7 Appendix 7 − Part 2 of 2, # 8 Appendix 8)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 2/3/2014) Modified on 2/3/2014 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/03/2014)

02/03/2014

2392

Appendices 9−14 to re 2391 Notice of Filing of Receiver's Twenty−Fifth Tri−Annual Report filed byJ. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix 9 − Part 2 of 2, # 2 Appendix 10, # 3 Appendix 11, # 4 Appendix 12, # 5 Appendix 13, # 6 Appendix 14)(Related document(s) 2391 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 2/3/2014) Modified on 2/3/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/03/2014)

02/03/2014

2393

Appendix 3, Parts 1−10 of 20 to Notice of Filing of Receiver's Twenty−Fifth Tri−Annual Report filed byJ. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix 3 − Part 2 of 20, # 2 Appendix 3 − Part 3 of 20, # 3 Appendix 3 − Part 4 of 20, # 4 Appendix 3 − Part 5 of 20, # 5 Appendix 3 − Part 6 of 20, # 6 Appendix 3 − Part 7 of 20, # 7 Appendix 3 − Part 8 of 20, # 8 Appendix 3 − Part 9 of 20, # 9 Appendix 3 − Part 10 of 20)(Related document(s) 2391 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 2/3/2014) Modified on 2/3/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). Modified on 2/3/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/03/2014)

02/03/2014

2394

Appendix 3, Parts 11−20 of 20 to 2391 Notice of Filing of Receiver's Twenty−Fifth Tri−Annual Report filed byJ. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix 3 − Part 12 of 20, # 2 Appendix 3 − Part 13 of 20, # 3 Appendix 3 − Part 14 of 20, # 4 Appendix 3 − Part 15 of 20, # 5 Appendix 3 − Part 16 of 20, # 6 Appendix 3 − Part 17 of 20, # 7 Appendix 3 − Part 18 of 20, # 8 Appendix 3 − Part 19 of 20, # 9 Appendix 3 − Part 20 of 20)(Related document(s) 2391 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 2/3/2014) Modified on 2/3/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/03/2014)

02/03/2014 2395 Joint Case Status Statement by John Armstrong, Edmung D. Brown, Jr. (Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 2/3/2014) Modified on 2/4/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/03/2014)

02/10/2014 2396 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and Proposed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 2/24/2014. Replies due by 3/3/2014. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 2/10/2014) Modified on 2/11/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/10/2014)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 234 of 265

02/11/2014 2397 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2396 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/11/2014) (Entered: 02/11/2014)

03/10/2014 2398 Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 3/24/2014. Replies due by 3/31/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 3/10/2014) Modified on 3/11/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/10/2014)

03/14/2014 2399 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER TO CHANGE TIME TO FILE JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr., John Armstrong, et al (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 3/14/2014) Modified on 3/17/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/14/2014)

03/14/2014 2400 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2398 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (Attachments: # 1 invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/14/2014) (Entered: 03/14/2014)

03/17/2014 2401 Order granting 2399 Stipulation entered by Hon. Claudia Wilken. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 03/17/2014)

03/18/2014

Reset Deadline (see docket no. 2401 : Joint Status Report due by 3/28/2014. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/18/2014) (Entered: 03/18/2014)

03/25/2014 2402 Case Number 13−1056 U.S. Supreme Court re: petition for writ of certiorari (kk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/25/2014) (Entered: 03/25/2014)

03/26/2014 2403 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Confirming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Fourth Quarter of 2013 by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al. (Thompson, Blake) (Filed on 3/26/2014) Modified on 3/27/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/26/2014)

03/27/2014 2404 Joint Case Status Statement by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Defendants' attachment)(Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 3/27/2014) Modified on 3/28/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/27/2014)

03/31/2014 2405 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2403 Stipulation Confirming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Fourth Quarter of 2013. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/31/2014) (Entered: 03/31/2014)

04/10/2014 2406 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 4/24/2014. Replies due by 5/1/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 4/10/2014) Modified on 4/11/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/10/2014)

04/14/2014 2407 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2406 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (Attachments: # 1 invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/14/2014) (Entered: 04/14/2014)

04/30/2014 2408 ORDER DIRECTING ADDITIONAL INTERIM PAYMENT OF COSTS. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 4/30/2014. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/30/2014) (Entered: 04/30/2014)

05/06/2014 2409 MOTION for Payment and Proposed Order filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 5/20/2014. Replies due by 5/27/2014. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 5/6/2014) Modified on 5/7/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/06/2014)

05/08/2014 2410 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2409 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (Attachments: # 1 invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/8/2014) (Entered: 05/08/2014)

06/02/2014 2411 STATUS REPORT Notice of Filing of Receiver's Twenty−Sixth Tri−Annual Report by J. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix 1−3, # 2 Appendix 5−11)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 6/2/2014) Modified on 6/3/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/02/2014)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 235 of 265

06/02/2014

2412

Appendix re 2411 Status Report Appendix 4 to Notice of Filing of Receiver's Twenty−Sixth Tri−Annual Report filed byJ. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix 4 − Part 2 of 8, # 2 Appendix 4 − Part 3 of 8, # 3 Appendix 4 − Part 4 of 8, # 4 Appendix 4 − Part 5 of 8, # 5 Appendix 4 − Part 6 of 8, # 6 Appendix 4 − Part 7 of 8, # 7 Appendix 4 − Part 8 of 8)(Related document(s) 2411 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 6/2/2014) (Entered: 06/02/2014)

06/04/2014 2413 Receipt in the amount of $100,000.00 from defendants pursuant to order 2408 . (cpS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/4/2014) (Entered: 06/04/2014)

06/04/2014 2414 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Joint Case Status Statement filed by John Armstrong, Edmung G. Brown, Jr., et al. (Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 6/4/2014) Modified on 6/5/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/04/2014)

06/09/2014 2415 Proposed Stipulated Order Confirming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the First Quarter of 2014 by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al. (Thompson, Blake) (Filed on 6/9/2014) Modified on 6/9/2014 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/09/2014)

06/10/2014

2416

ORDER GRANTING 2415 STIPULATED PROPOSED ORDER CONFIRMING UNDISPUTED ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS FOR THE FIRST QUARTER OF 2014. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 6/10/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/10/2014) (Entered: 06/10/2014)

06/12/2014 2417 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 6/26/2014. Replies due by 7/3/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 6/12/2014) Modified on 6/13/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/12/2014)

06/12/2014 2418 ORDER of Supreme Court of the United States: petition for a writ of certiorari is denied as to 2402 Supreme Court of the U.S. (cpS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/12/2014) (Entered: 06/12/2014)

06/16/2014 2419 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2417 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Administrative Motion and Order for Payment). (Attachments: # 1 invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/16/2014) (Entered: 06/16/2014)

06/25/2014 2420 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER Regarding Prison Facilities filed by John Armstrong, Edmung G. Brown, Jr. (Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 6/25/2014) Modified on 6/26/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/25/2014)

07/01/2014 2421 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2420 Stipulation Regarding Prison Facilities (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/1/2014) (Entered: 07/01/2014)

07/08/2014 2422 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 7/22/2014. Replies due by 7/29/2014. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 7/8/2014) Modified on 7/9/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/08/2014)

07/14/2014 2423 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER TO CHANGE TIME TO FILE JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr., John Armstrong, et al (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 7/14/2014) Modified on 7/15/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/14/2014)

07/15/2014 2424 Order granting 2423 Stipulation entered by Hon. Claudia Wilken. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 07/15/2014)

07/15/2014 2425 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2422 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/15/2014) (Entered: 07/15/2014)

08/05/2014 2426 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 8/5/2014) (Entered: 08/05/2014)

08/08/2014 2427 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and Proposed Order filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 8/22/2014. Replies due by 8/29/2014. (Attachments: # 1

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 236 of 265

Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 8/8/2014) Modified on 8/11/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/08/2014)
08/18/2014 2428 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2427 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (Attachments: # 1 invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/18/2014) (Entered: 08/18/2014)
09/09/2014 2429 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and Proposed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 9/23/2014. Replies due by 9/30/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 9/9/2014) Modified on 9/9/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/09/2014)
09/10/2014 2430 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2429 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (Attachments: # 1 invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/10/2014) (Entered: 09/10/2014)
09/18/2014 2431 CLERK'S NOTICE. Notice is hereby given that a Telephonic Case Management Conference has been set for February 5, 2015, at 10:30 a.m. All counsel shall contact CourtCall at (866) 582−6878 to make arrangements for the telephonic appearance. Case Management Statement due by January 29, 2015.

(This is a text only docket entry, there is no document associated with this notice.)

(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/18/2014) (Entered: 09/18/2014)
09/19/2014 2432 CLERK'S NOTICE. Notice is hereby given that the Telephonic Case Management Conference, previously set for February 5, 2015, is vacated.

(This is a text only docket entry, there is no document associated with this notice.)

(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/19/2014) (Entered: 09/19/2014)

09/19/2014 2433 Proposed Order Confirming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Second Quarter of 2014 by John Armstrong. (Thompson, Blake) (Filed on 9/19/2014) (Entered: 09/19/2014)

09/26/2014 2434 USCA OPINION as to 2201 Notice of Appeal, filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (cpS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/26/2014) (Entered: 09/26/2014)

09/29/2014 2435 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr.. (Attachments: # 1 Stipulation and Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit E−S REDACTED, # 3 Exhibit E−S UNREDACTED)(Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 9/29/2014) Modified on 9/30/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/29/2014)

09/29/2014

2436

MOTION Further Enforcement order to Prohibit Defendants from Housing Class Members in Administrative Segregation Due to Lack of Accessible Housing filed by John Armstrong. Motion Hearing set for 11/6/2014 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland before Hon. Claudia Wilken. Responses due by 10/14/2014. Replies due by 10/21/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Rebekah Evenson, # 2 Exhibit A−D, # 3 Exhibit E−S, # 4 Proposed Order)(Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 9/29/2014) (Entered: 09/29/2014)

10/01/2014 2437 STATUS REPORT Notice of Filing of Receiver's Twenty−Seventh Tri−Annual Report by J. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Table of Appendices, # 2 Appendix 1−3, # 3 Appendix 5−8, # 4 Appendix 9−12)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 10/1/2014) (Entered: 10/01/2014)

10/01/2014

2438

Appendix re 2437 Status Report Appendix 4 − Part 1 of 7 filed byJ. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix 4 − Part 2 of 7, # 2 Appendix 4 − Part 3 of 7, # 3 Appendix 4 − Part 4 of 7, # 4 Appendix 4 − Part 5 of 7, # 5 Appendix 4 − Part 6 of 7, # 6 Appendix 4 − Part 7 of 7)(Related document(s) 2437 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 10/1/2014) (Entered: 10/01/2014)

10/01/2014 2439 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Change Time to File Opposition and Reply Papers. and to Move the November 6, 2014 Hearing Date on Plaintiffs' Motion for a Further Enforcement Order to Prohibit Defendants from Housing Class

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 237 of 265

Members in Administrative Segregation Due to Lack of Accessible Housing filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr., John Armstrong (Quinn, Michael) (Filed on 10/1/2014) Modified on 10/2/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/01/2014)

10/01/2014

2440

Declaration of Michael Quinn in Support of 2439 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Change Time to File Opposition and Reply Papers. and to Move the November 6, 2014 Hearing Date on Plaintiffs' Motion for a Further Enforcement Order to Prohibit Defendants from Housing Class Members in Administrative Segregation Due to Lack of Accessible Housing filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − (INCORRECT ATTACHMENT, SEE DOC. # 2441 )(Related document(s) 2439 ) (Quinn, Michael) (Filed on 10/1/2014) Modified on 10/2/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/01/2014)

10/02/2014 2441 EXHIBITS re 2440 Declaration in Support, CORRECTION OF DOCKET # [2440−1] filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Related document(s) 2440 ) (Quinn, Michael) (Filed on 10/2/2014) Modified on 10/2/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/02/2014)

10/03/2014 2442 Order granting 2439 Stipulation entered by Hon. Claudia Wilken. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 10/03/2014)

10/06/2014

Reset Deadlines as to 2436 MOTION Further Enforcement order to Prohibit Defendants from Housing Class Members in Administrative Segregation Due to Lack of Accessible Housing: Responses due by 11/10/2014; Replies due by 11/24/2014; Motion Hearing set for 12/4/2014 02:00 PM before Hon. Claudia Wilken. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/6/2014) (Entered: 10/06/2014)

10/08/2014 2443 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and Proposed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 10/22/2014. Replies due by 10/29/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 10/8/2014) Modified on 10/9/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/08/2014)

10/09/2014 2444 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2443 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (Attachments: # 1 invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/9/2014) (Entered: 10/09/2014)

10/15/2014 2445 Joint Case Status Statement by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al. (Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 10/15/2014) Modified on 10/16/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/15/2014)

10/16/2014 2446 ORDER GRANTING 2433 STIPULATED ORDER CONFIRMING UNDISPUTED ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS FOR THE SECOND QUARTER OF 2014. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/16/2014. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/16/2014) (Entered: 10/16/2014)

10/20/2014 2447 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2435 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/20/2014) (Entered: 10/20/2014)

10/21/2014 2448 MANDATE of USCA as to 2201 Notice of Appeal, filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (cpS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/21/2014) (Entered: 10/22/2014)

11/04/2014

2449

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER TO CHANGE TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION AND REPLY PAPERS, AND TO MOVE THE DECEMBER 4, 2014 HEARING DATE filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr., John Armstrong (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Michael Quinn)(Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 11/4/2014) Modified on 11/5/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). Modified on 11/5/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/04/2014)

11/06/2014 2450 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2449 Stipulation TO CHANGE TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION AND REPLY PAPERS, AND TO MOVE THE DECEMBER 4, 2014 HEARING DATE. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/6/2014) (Entered: 11/06/2014)

11/06/2014

Reset Deadlines as to 2436 MOTION Further Enforcement order to Prohibit Defendants from Housing Class Members in Administrative Segregation Due to Lack of Accessible Housing : Responses due by 12/8/2014; Replies due by 12/22/2014; Motion Hearing set for 1/8/2015 02:00 PM before Hon. Claudia Wilken. (ndr,

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 238 of 265

COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/6/2014) (Entered: 11/06/2014)

11/07/2014 2451 [TENTATIVE] ORDER TO REVISE THE MODIFIED INJUNCTION (Docket No. 2180 ). Status Report due by 11/21/2014. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 11/7/2014. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/7/2014) (Entered: 11/07/2014)

11/10/2014 2452 Letter from CRD to Mr. Koklich. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/10/2014) (Entered: 11/10/2014)

11/10/2014 2453 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re 2452 Letter (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/10/2014) (Entered: 11/10/2014)

11/11/2014 2454 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and Proposed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 11/25/2014. Replies due by 12/2/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 11/11/2014) Modified on 11/12/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/11/2014)

11/12/2014 2455 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2454 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/12/2014) (Entered: 11/12/2014)

11/21/2014 2456 RESPONSE to re 2451 Order, Set Deadlines/Hearings by John Armstrong. (Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 11/21/2014) (Entered: 11/21/2014)

11/21/2014 2457 STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO TENTATIVE ORDER TO REVISE MODIFIED INJUNCTION by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 11/21/2014) Modified on 11/24/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/21/2014)

12/04/2014 2458 MOTION to Continue on Plaintiffs' Motion for Further Enforcement Order to Prohibit Defendants from Housing Class Members in Administrative Segregation Due to Lack of Accessible Housing filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 12/4/2014) (Entered: 12/04/2014)

12/04/2014

2459

Declaration of Jay M. Goldman in Support of 2458 MOTION to Continue on Plaintiffs' Motion for Further Enforcement Order to Prohibit Defendants from Housing Class Members in Administrative Segregation Due to Lack of Accessible Housing with Exhibit A filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Related document(s) 2458 ) (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 12/4/2014) (Entered: 12/04/2014)

12/04/2014 2460 Proposed Order re 2458 MOTION to Continue on Plaintiffs' Motion for Further Enforcement Order to Prohibit Defendants from Housing Class Members in Administrative Segregation Due to Lack of Accessible Housing by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Goldman, Jay) (Filed on 12/4/2014) (Entered: 12/04/2014)

12/04/2014

2461

RESPONSE (re 2458 MOTION to Continue on Plaintiffs' Motion for Further Enforcement Order to Prohibit Defendants from Housing Class Members in Administrative Segregation Due to Lack of Accessible Housing ) filed byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Rebekah Evenson)(Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 12/4/2014) (Entered: 12/04/2014)

12/05/2014 2462 ORDER REVISING THE 2180 MODIFIED INJUNCTION. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 12/5/2014. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/5/2014) (Entered: 12/05/2014)

12/05/2014 2463 Proposed Order re 2462 Order by John Armstrong. (Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 12/5/2014) (Entered: 12/05/2014)

12/08/2014 2464 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING DEFENDANTS ADMINISTRATIVE 2458 MOTION TO AMEND BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND HEARING DATE. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/8/2014) (Entered: 12/08/2014)

12/08/2014

Reset Deadline/Hearing as to 2436 (see docket no. 2464 ): MOTION Further Enforcement order to Prohibit Defendants from Housing Class Members in Administrative Segregation Due to Lack of Accessible Housing . Responses due by 12/15/2014; Replies due by 1/12/2015; Motion Hearing set for 1/29/2015 02:00 PM before Hon. Claudia Wilken. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/8/2014) (Entered: 12/08/2014)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 239 of 265

12/09/2014 2465 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds Administrative Motion and Propsed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 12/23/2014. Replies due by 12/30/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 12/9/2014) (Entered: 12/09/2014)

12/09/2014 2466 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2465 Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/9/2014) (Entered: 12/09/2014)

12/11/2014 2467 Letter from CRD to Mr. Dunsmore. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/11/2014) (Entered: 12/11/2014)

12/12/2014 2468 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Confirming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Third Quarter of 2014 filed by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al. (Thompson, Blake) (Filed on 12/12/2014) Modified on 12/12/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/12/2014)

12/15/2014 2469 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER To Change Time to File Joint Status Statement filed by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr.. (Godbold, Penny) (Filed on 12/15/2014) Modified on 12/15/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/15/2014)

12/15/2014 2470 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2468 Stipulation Confirming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Third Quarter of 2014. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/15/2014) (Entered: 12/15/2014)

12/15/2014 2471 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2469 Stipulation To Change Time to File Joint Status Statement. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/15/2014) (Entered: 12/15/2014)

12/15/2014

Reset Deadlines (see docket no. 2471 ) : Status Report due by 1/15/2015. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/15/2014) (Entered: 12/15/2014)

12/15/2014

2472

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Bryan Kao, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit Redacted − Exhs G; I to M (part 1 of 2) for Decl of Knowles − Exhs G; I to M (part 1 of 2) for Decl of Knowles, # 4 Exhibit Redacted − Exhs G; I to M (part 2 of 2) for Decl of Knowles, # 5 Exhibit Unredacted − Exhs G; I to M (part 1 of 2) for Decl of Knowles, # 6 Exhibit Unredacted − Exhs G; I to M (part 2 of 2) for Decl of Knowles)(Kao, Bryan) (Filed on 12/15/2014) Modified on 12/16/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/15/2014)

12/15/2014 2473 RESPONSE (re 2436 MOTION Further Enforcement order to Prohibit Defendants from Housing Class Members in Administrative Segregation Due to Lack of Accessible Housing ) filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Kao, Bryan) (Filed on 12/15/2014) (Entered: 12/15/2014)

12/15/2014 2474 Declaration of Jay Goldman in Support of 2473 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Related document(s) 2473 ) (Kao, Bryan) (Filed on 12/15/2014) (Entered: 12/15/2014)

12/15/2014 2475 Declaration of Trina Hirsig in Support of 2473 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Related document(s) 2473 ) (Kao, Bryan) (Filed on 12/15/2014) (Entered: 12/15/2014)

12/15/2014 2476 Declaration of Mike Knowles in Support of 2473 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to M (part 1 of 2), # 2 Exhibit A to M (part 2 of 2))(Related document(s) 2473 ) (Kao, Bryan) (Filed on 12/15/2014) (Entered: 12/15/2014)

12/15/2014 2477 Request for Judicial Notice re 2473 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Related document(s) 2473 ) (Kao, Bryan) (Filed on 12/15/2014) (Entered: 12/15/2014)

12/17/2014 2478 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING 2472 MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/17/2014) (Entered: 12/17/2014)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 240 of 265

12/29/2014 2479 ORDER re 2463 MODIFYING JANUARY 18, 2007 INJUNCTION. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 12/29/2014. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/29/2014) Modified on 12/29/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/29/2014)

01/08/2015 2480 Administrative MOTION and Propsed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 1/22/2015. Replies due by 1/29/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 1/8/2015) Modified on 1/9/2015 (kcS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/08/2015)

01/12/2015 2481 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2480 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (Attachments: # 1 invoice) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/12/2015) (Entered: 01/12/2015)

01/12/2015

2482

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Rebekah Evenson, # 2 Proposed Order and Stipulation, # 3 Exhibit B − Redacted, # 4 Exhibit B − Under Seal, # 5 Exhibit C − Redacted, # 6 Exhibit C − Under seal, # 7 Exhibit D − Redacted, # 8 Exhibit D − Under seal, # 9 Exhibit E − Redacted, # 10 Exhibit E − Under seal, # 11 Exhibit F − Redacted, # 12 Exhibit F − Under seal)(Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 1/12/2015) (Entered: 01/12/2015)

01/12/2015

2483

REPLY (re 2436 MOTION Further Enforcement order to Prohibit Defendants from Housing Class Members in Administrative Segregation Due to Lack of Accessible Housing ) filed byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Richard Subia, # 2 Declaration Second Decl. of Rebekah Evenson)(Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 1/12/2015) (Entered: 01/12/2015)

01/15/2015 2484 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING 2482 MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/15/2015) (Entered: 01/15/2015)

01/15/2015 2485 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Godbold, Penny) (Filed on 1/15/2015) Modified on 1/16/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/15/2015)

01/20/2015

2486

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS to the Expert Declaration of Richard Subia, and Exhibits B−F to the Declaration of Rebekah Evenson, in Support of Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for a Further Enforcement Order by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Russell, Jay) (Filed on 1/20/2015) Modified on 1/21/2015 (kcS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/20/2015)

01/22/2015 2487 Letter from CRD to Mr. Foust. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/22/2015) (Entered: 01/22/2015)

01/23/2015 2488 RESPONSE to re 2486 Evidentiary Objection by John Armstrong. (Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 1/23/2015) Modified on 1/26/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/23/2015)

01/23/2015 2489 ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' 2486 OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' DECLARATION. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/23/2015. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2015) Modified on 1/26/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/23/2015)

01/28/2015 2490 REPLY to Plaintiff's Subia Declaration by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Kao, Bryan) (Filed on 1/28/2015) Modified on 1/29/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/28/2015)

01/28/2015

2491

Declaration of Vince Cullen in Support of OPPOSITION to re MOTION Further Enforcement order to Prohibit Defendants from Housing Class Members in Administrative Segregation Due to Lack of Accessible Housing filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to D)(Related document(s) 2490 ) (Kao, Bryan) (Filed on 1/28/2015) Modified on 1/29/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/28/2015)

01/29/2015 2492 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. Claudia Wilken: Hearing on Motion re: Further Enforcement order to Prohibit Defendants from Housing Class Members in Administrative Segregation Due to Lack of Accessible Housing held on 1/29/2015. Court Reporter: Kathy Wyatt. (jjoS, COURT

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 241 of 265

STAFF) (Date Filed: 1/29/2015) (Entered: 01/30/2015)

02/02/2015 2493 Notice of Filing of Receiver's Twenty−Eighth Tri−Annual Report by J. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Table of Appendices, # 2 Appendix 1−4, # 3 Appendix 5−6, # 4 Appendix 7−8, # 5 Appendix 9−10, # 6 Appendix 12−17)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 2/2/2015) Modified on 2/3/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/02/2015)

02/02/2015

2494

Appendix 11 to re 2493 Receiver's Twenty−Eighth Tri−Annual Report filed byJ. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix 11 Part 2 of 5, # 2 Appendix 11 Part 3 of 5, # 3 Appendix 11 Part 4 of 5, # 4 Appendix 11 Part 5 of 5)(Related document(s) 2493 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 2/2/2015) Modified on 2/3/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/02/2015)

02/02/2015 2495 TRANSCRIPT ORDER by John Armstrong for Court Reporter Katherine Wyatt. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 2/2/2015) (Entered: 02/02/2015)

02/03/2015 2496 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING 2436 MOTION FOR FURTHER ENFORCEMENT. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/3/2015) (Entered: 02/03/2015)

02/03/2015 2497 TRANSCRIPT ORDER by Edmund G. Brown, Jr for Court Reporter Katherine Wyatt. (Kao, Bryan) (Filed on 2/3/2015) (Entered: 02/03/2015)

02/10/2015 2498 Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 2/24/2015. Replies due by 3/3/2015. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 2/10/2015) Modified on 2/11/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/10/2015)

02/12/2015

2499

Transcript of Proceedings held on 1−29−15, before Judge Claudia Wilken. Court Reporter/Transcriber Katherine Wyatt, Telephone number 925−212−5224. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. (Re 2495 Transcript Order, 2497 Transcript Order ) Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/13/2015. (Related documents(s) 2495 , 2497 ) (kpw, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/12/2015) (Entered: 02/12/2015)

02/12/2015 2500 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2498 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Invoice) (mklS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/12/2015) (Entered: 02/12/2015)

02/27/2015 2501 NOTICE of Appearance by Bryan An−Chieh Kao Notice of Association of Counsel (Kao, Bryan) (Filed on 2/27/2015) (Entered: 02/27/2015)

02/27/2015

2502

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Regarding Submission of Report Regarding the Housing of Armstrong Class Members in Administrative Segregation Due to Lack of Accessible Housing filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr., John Armstrong, et al (Kao, Bryan) (Filed on 2/27/2015) Modified on 3/2/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/27/2015)

03/03/2015 2503 Order granting 2502 Stipulation entered by Hon. Claudia Wilken. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 03/03/2015)

03/05/2015 2504 MOTION for Order of Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 3/19/2015. Replies due by 3/26/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 3/5/2015) Modified on 3/6/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/05/2015)

03/06/2015 2505 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2504 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (mklS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/6/2015) (Entered: 03/06/2015)

03/16/2015 2506 Joint Case Status Statement filed by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al. (Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 3/16/2015) Modified on 3/17/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/16/2015)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 242 of 265

03/16/2015

2507

Defendants' Report in Response to the Court's February 3, 2015 Order by Edmund G. Brown, Jr, California Board of Prison Term, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Midge Carroll, Kevin Carruth, Gray Davis, James Gomez, Judith McGillivray, Kyle McKinsey, John Monday, Marisela Montes, James Nielsen, Robert Presley, Joseph C. Sandoval, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Susanne Steinberg, Cal A. Terhune, James Tilton, David Tristan, Pete Wilson. (Fluet, Edward) (Filed on 3/16/2015) Modified on 3/17/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/16/2015)

03/18/2015

2508

Proposed Order Directing Additional Interim Payment of Cost by Edmund G. Brown, Jr, California Board of Prison Term, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Midge Carroll, Kevin Carruth, Gray Davis, James Gomez, Judith McGillivray, Kyle McKinsey, John Monday, Marisela Montes, James Nielsen, Robert Presley, Joseph C. Sandoval, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Susanne Steinberg, Cal A. Terhune, James Tilton, David Tristan, Pete Wilson. (Fluet, Edward) (Filed on 3/18/2015) (Entered: 03/18/2015)

03/18/2015 2509 ORDER DIRECTING ADDITIONAL INTERIM PAYMENT OF COSTS. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 3/18/2015. (mklS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/18/2015) (Entered: 03/18/2015)

03/26/2015 2510 Proposed Order Confirming Undisputed Attorneys Fees and Costs for the Fourth Quarter of 2014 by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 3/26/2015) Modified on 3/27/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/26/2015)

03/27/2015 2511 STIPULATED ORDER CONFIRMING UNDISPUTED ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS FOR THE FOURTH QUARTER OF 2014. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 3/27/2015. (mklS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/27/2015) (Entered: 03/27/2015)

03/27/2015 2512 Receipt #44611012287 in the amount of $100,000.00 from defendant pursuant to order 2509 . (cpS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/27/2015) (Entered: 03/30/2015)

04/09/2015 2513 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and Propsed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 4/23/2015. Replies due by 4/30/2015. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 4/9/2015) Modified on 4/10/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/09/2015)

04/24/2015 2514 Letter from CRD to Mr. Williams. (tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/24/2015) (Entered: 04/24/2015)

04/24/2015 2515 Letter from CRD to Mr. Brown. (tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/24/2015) (Entered: 04/24/2015)

05/06/2015 2516 Order by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2513 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (Attachments: # 1 Invoices)(tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/6/2015) (Entered: 05/06/2015)

05/08/2015 2517 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and Proposed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 5/22/2015. Replies due by 5/29/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 5/8/2015) Modified on 5/11/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/08/2015)

05/13/2015 2518 Order by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2517 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (Attachments: # 1 Invoices)(tmiS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/13/2015) (Entered: 05/13/2015)

05/13/2015 2519 Letter from CRD to Mr. Jones. (tmiS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/13/2015) (Entered: 05/13/2015)

05/15/2015 2520 Joint Case Status Statement by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 5/15/2015) Modified on 5/18/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/15/2015)

05/20/2015 2521 Letter from CRD to Mr. Alvarez. (tmiS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/20/2015) (Entered: 05/20/2015)

05/22/2015 2522 MOTION to Substitute Attorney; (Proposed) Order by California Correctional Peace Officers Association (Adam, Gregg) (Filed on 5/22/2015) Modified on 5/26/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/22/2015)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 243 of 265

05/22/2015 2523 MOTION to Substitute Attorney: (Proposed) Order by California Correctional Peace Officers Association (Adam, Gregg) (Filed on 5/22/2015) Modified on 5/26/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/22/2015)

05/26/2015 2524 NOTICE of Substitution of Counsel: (Proposed) Order by Jennifer Spencer Stoughton (Stoughton, Jennifer) (Filed on 5/26/2015) Modified on 5/27/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/26/2015)

05/26/2015 2525 Order by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2522 Motion to Substitute Attorney. (tmiS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/26/2015) (Entered: 05/26/2015)

05/26/2015 2526 Order by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2523 Motion to Substitute Attorney..(tmiS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/26/2015) (Entered: 05/26/2015)

06/01/2015 2527 Notice of Filing of Receiver's Twenty−Ninth Tri−Annual Report by J. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Table of Appendices, # 2 Appendix 1 of 5, # 3 Appendix 2 of 5, # 4 Appendix 4 of 5, # 5 Appendix 5 of 5)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 6/1/2015) Modified on 6/2/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/01/2015)

06/01/2015

2528

Appendix 3 to re 2527 Receiver's Twenty−Ninth Tri−Annual Report filed byJ. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix 3 Part 2 of 6, # 2 Appendix 3 Part 3 of 6, # 3 Appendix 3 Part 4 of 6, # 4 Appendix 3 Part 5 of 6, # 5 Appendix 3 Part 6 of 6)(Related document(s) 2527 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 6/1/2015) Modified on 6/2/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/01/2015)

06/04/2015 2529 Letter from CRD to Mr. Whitsett. (tmiS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/4/2015) (Entered: 06/04/2015)

06/08/2015 2532 Notification of Clerk Interference and Denial of Due Process filed by Gustavo Alvarez (cpS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/8/2015) (Entered: 06/18/2015)

06/09/2015 2530 Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 6/23/2015. Replies due by 6/30/2015. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 6/9/2015) Modified on 6/10/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/09/2015)

06/12/2015 2531 Order by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2530 Motion for Payment of Court Expert. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(tmiS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/12/2015) (Entered: 06/12/2015)

06/25/2015 2533 Order Denying Motion for Certificate of Appealability. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 06/25/2015. (tmiS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/25/2015) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/25/2015: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (tmiS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/25/2015)

06/26/2015 2534 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Confirming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the First Quarter of 2015 filed by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al. (Thompson, Blake) (Filed on 6/26/2015) Modified on 6/29/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/26/2015)

06/29/2015 2535 Order by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2534 Stipulation for Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the First Quarter of 2015.(tmiS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/29/2015) (Entered: 06/29/2015)

07/06/2015 2536 Mail sent to Gustavo Alvarez returned as undeliverable re 2533 Certificate of Appealability Denied. (vlkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/6/2015) (Entered: 07/07/2015)

07/08/2015 2537 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds; Proposed Order filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 7/22/2015. Replies due by 7/29/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 7/8/2015) Modified on 7/9/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/08/2015)

07/09/2015 2538 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2537 Motion for Payment of Court Expert. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice) (mklS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/9/2015) (Entered: 07/09/2015)

07/15/2015 2539 Joint Case Status Statement by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr.,et al. (Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 7/15/2015) Modified on 7/16/2015 (cpS, COURT

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 244 of 265

STAFF). (Entered: 07/15/2015)

08/10/2015 2540 First MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and Proposed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 8/24/2015. Replies due by 8/31/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 8/10/2015) Modified on 8/11/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/10/2015)

08/18/2015 2541 Order by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2540 Motion for Disbursement of Funds.(jebS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/18/2015) (Entered: 08/18/2015)

09/08/2015 2542 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 9/22/2015. Replies due by 9/29/2015. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 9/8/2015) Modified on 9/9/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/08/2015)

09/15/2015 2543 Joint Case Status Statement by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 9/15/2015) Modified on 9/16/2015 (kcS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/15/2015)

09/17/2015 2544 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Confirming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Second Quarter of 2015 filed by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr.. (Thompson, Blake) (Filed on 9/17/2015) Modified on 9/18/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/17/2015)

09/25/2015 2545 Order by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2542 Motion for Disbursement of Funds.(napS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/25/2015) (Entered: 09/25/2015)

09/25/2015 2546 STIPULATION AND ORDER CONFIRMING UNDISPUTED ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS FOR THE SECOND QUARTER OF 2015 by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2544 Stipulation.(napS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/25/2015) (Entered: 09/25/2015)

09/28/2015 2547 NOTICE of Change of Address by Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 9/28/2015) (Entered: 09/28/2015)

10/01/2015 2548 Notice of Filing of Receiver's Thirtieth Tri−Annual Report by J. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix 1, # 2 Appendix 2, # 3 Appendix 3, # 4 Appendix 4, # 5 Appendix 6)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 10/1/2015) Modified on 10/2/2015 (kcS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/01/2015)

10/01/2015

2549

Appendix re 2548 Notice of Filing of Receiver's Thirtieth Tri−Annual Report filed by J. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix 5, Part 1 of 7, # 2 Appendix 5, Part 2 of 7, # 3 Appendix 5, Part 3 of 7, # 4 Appendix 5, Part 4 of 7, # 5 Appendix 5, Part 5 of 7, # 6 Appendix 5, Part 6 of 7, # 7 Appendix 5, Part 7 of 7)(Related document(s) 2548 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 10/1/2015) Modified on 10/2/2015 (kcS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/01/2015)

10/08/2015 2550 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and Proposed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 10/22/2015. Replies due by 10/29/2015. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 10/8/2015) Modified on 10/9/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/08/2015)

10/14/2015 2551 Proposed Order Directing Additional Interim Payment of Costs by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Kao, Bryan) (Filed on 10/14/2015) (Entered: 10/14/2015)

10/15/2015 2552 ORDER granting 2550 Motion for Disbursement of Funds by Judge Claudia Wilken (jebS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/15/2015) Modified on 10/16/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/15/2015)

10/15/2015 2553 ORDER DIRECTING ADDITIONAL INTERIM PAYMENT OF COSTS re 2551 Proposed Order filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/15/15. (jebS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/15/2015) (Entered: 10/15/2015)

11/02/2015 2556 MOTION to Reopen Action and hold defendants in criminal contempt, for class action status, appointment of counsel. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/2/2015) (Entered: 11/06/2015)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 245 of 265
11/05/2015 2554 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Confirming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Third Quarter of 2015 filed by John Armstrong. (Thompson, Blake) (Filed on 11/5/2015) (Entered: 11/05/2015)
11/06/2015 2555 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 11/20/2015. Replies due by 11/27/2015. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 11/6/2015) Modified on 11/9/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/06/2015)
11/06/2015 2557 STIPULATED ORDER CONFIRMING UNDISPUTED ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS FOR THE THIRD QUARTER OF 2015 by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2554 Stipulation. (jebS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/6/2015) (Entered: 11/06/2015)
11/06/2015 2558 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION AND ORDER FOR PAYMENT by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2555 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (jebS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/6/2015) (Entered: 11/06/2015)
11/09/2015 2559 ORDER REGARDING COMPENSATION OF COURT EXPERT. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 11/9/15. (jebS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/9/2015) (Entered: 11/09/2015)
11/10/2015 2560 Receipt #44611012905 in the amount of $100,000.00 from defendants pursuant to order # 2553 . (cpS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/10/2015) (Entered: 11/10/2015)
11/13/2015 2561 Joint Case Status Statement filed by John Armstrong. (Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 11/13/2015) Modified on 11/16/2015 (kcS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/13/2015)
11/13/2015 2562 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Change Time to File Joint Status Conference Statement filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Garske, Sharon) (Filed on 11/13/2015) Modified on 11/16/2015 (kcS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/13/2015)
11/16/2015 2563 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CHANGE TIME TO FILE JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2562 Stipulation. (jebS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/16/2015) (Entered: 11/16/2015)
11/16/2015 2564 Letter from CRD to Gregory Downs. (jebS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/16/2015) (Entered: 11/16/2015)
11/20/2015 2565 NOTICE of Appearance by Kelly Jean Knapp (Knapp, Kelly) (Filed on 11/20/2015) (Entered: 11/20/2015)
12/07/2015 2566 MOTION for payment of invoice dated December 4, 2015; (Proposed) Order filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 12/21/2015. Replies due by 12/28/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 12/7/2015) Modified on 12/8/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/07/2015)
01/08/2016 2567 NOTICE by Office of the Inspector General of Related Cases (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit)(Spurling, James) (Filed on 1/8/2016) (Entered: 01/08/2016)
01/11/2016 2568 MOTION for payment of invoice dated January 11, 2016 and (Proposed) Order filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 2/8/2016. Replies due by 2/22/2016. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 1/11/2016) Modified on 1/12/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/11/2016)
01/13/2016 2569 ORDER FOR PAYMENT by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2566 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (jebS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/13/2016) (Entered: 01/13/2016)
01/13/2016 2570 ORDER FOR PAYMENT by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2568 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (jebS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/13/2016) (Entered: 01/13/2016)
01/14/2016 2571 RESPONSE to re 2567 Notice (Other) Notice of Related Case by John Armstrong. (Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 1/14/2016) (Entered: 01/14/2016)
01/22/2016 2572 RESPONSE to re 2567 Notice (Other), 2571 Response ( Non Motion ) by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (O'Bannon, Danielle) (Filed on 1/22/2016) (Entered: 01/22/2016)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 246 of 265

02/01/2016 2573 Notice of Filing of Receiver's Thirty−First Tri−Annual Report by J. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix 1, # 2 Appendix 2, # 3 Appendix 3, # 4 Appendix 4, # 5 Appendix 5)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 2/1/2016) Modified on 2/2/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/01/2016)

02/01/2016

2574

Table of Appendices re 2573 Notice of Filing of Receiver's Thirty−First Tri−Annual Report filed byJ. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix 6, 1 of 6, # 2 Appendix 6, 2 of 6, # 3 Appendix 6, 3 of 6, # 4 Appendix 6, 4 of 6, # 5 Appendix 6, 5 of 6, # 6 Appendix 6, 6 of 6, # 7 Appendix 7)(Related document(s) 2573 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 2/1/2016) Modified on 2/2/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/01/2016)

02/02/2016 2575 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Confirming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Fourth Quarter of 2015 filed by John Armstrong. (Thompson, Blake) (Filed on 2/2/2016) (Entered: 02/02/2016)

02/02/2016 2576 STIPULATED ORDER CONFIRMING UNDISPUTED ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS FOR THE FOURTH QUARTER OF 2015 by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2575 Stipulation. (jebS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/2/2016) (Entered: 02/02/2016)

02/02/2016 2577 REQUEST by Obiel Crisp III to be removed as a declared, recognized and or associated class member. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(cpS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/2/2016) (Entered: 02/04/2016)

02/08/2016 2578 Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 2/22/2016. Replies due by 2/29/2016. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 2/8/2016) Modified on 2/9/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/08/2016)

02/08/2016 2579 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION AND ORDER FOR PAYMENT by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2578 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (jebS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/8/2016) (Entered: 02/08/2016)

02/12/2016 2580 Proposed Order Directing Additional Interim Payment of Costs by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Kao, Bryan) (Filed on 2/12/2016) (Entered: 02/12/2016)

02/12/2016 2581 Joint Case Status Statement filed by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr.. (Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 2/12/2016) Modified on 2/16/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/12/2016)

03/02/2016 2582 Letter from CRD to Obiel Crips III. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (jebS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/2/2016) (Entered: 03/02/2016)

03/03/2016 2583 ORDER DIRECTING ADDITIONAL INTERIM PAYMENT OF COSTS re 2580 Proposed Order filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 3/3/16. (jebS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/3/2016) (Entered: 03/03/2016)

03/07/2016 2585 Letter from O. Crisp III re no or little to none actual class action member representation (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(cpS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/7/2016) Modified on 3/11/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/11/2016)

03/10/2016 2584 Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 3/24/2016. Replies due by 3/31/2016. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 3/10/2016) Modified on 3/11/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/10/2016)

03/11/2016 2586 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER To Change Time to File Joint Status Conference Statement filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Garske, Sharon) (Filed on 3/11/2016) Modified on 3/11/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/11/2016)

03/14/2016

2587

*** Entered in error, please see docket no. 2588 for corrected entry *** ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION AND ORDER FOR PAYMENT by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2584 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (jebS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/14/2016) Modified on 3/14/2016 (jebS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/14/2016)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 247 of 265

03/14/2016 2588 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION AND ORDER FOR PAYMENT re 2584 MOTION for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 3/14/16. (jebS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/14/2016) (Entered: 03/14/2016)

03/14/2016 2589 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CHANGE TIME TO FILE JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2586 Stipulation. (jebS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/14/2016) (Entered: 03/14/2016)

03/14/2016

Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 5/16/2016. (jebS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/14/2016) (Entered: 03/14/2016)

03/16/2016 2590 Joint Discovery Letter Brief re discovery of OIG records filed by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 3/16/2016) Modified on 3/17/2016 (kcS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/16/2016)

03/16/2016 2591 RESPONSE to re 2590 Joint Discovery Letter Brief re discovery of OIG records Defendants' Response to Third−Party Subpoena Discovery Dispute by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(O'Bannon, Danielle) (Filed on 3/16/2016) Modified on 3/17/2016 (kcS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/16/2016)

03/17/2016 2592 REPLY (re 2590 Joint Discovery Letter Brief re discovery of OIG records ) filed byJohn Armstrong. (Evenson, Rebekah) (Filed on 3/17/2016) (Entered: 03/17/2016)

03/18/2016 2593 Receipt No. 44611013237 in the amount of $100,000.00, from defendants pursuant to order re 2588 . (jlmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/18/2016) (Entered: 03/18/2016)

04/04/2016 2594 ORDER REGARDING JOINT DISCOVERY DISPUTE LETTER by Hon. Claudia Wilken regarding 2590 Discovery Letter Brief. (jebS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/4/2016) (Entered: 04/04/2016)

04/05/2016 2595 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Sharon Anne Garske Notice of Change in Designation of Counsel for Defendants; and Association of Counsel (Garske, Sharon) (Filed on 4/5/2016) (Entered: 04/05/2016)

04/12/2016 2596 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Corene T. Kendrick (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 4/12/2016) (Entered: 04/12/2016)

04/14/2016 2597 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds; and Proposed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 4/28/2016. Replies due by 5/5/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 4/14/2016) Modified on 4/15/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/14/2016)

04/19/2016 2599 ORDER FOR PAYMENT re 2597 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds filed by Edward Swanson. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 4/19/16. (napS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/19/2016) (Entered: 04/19/2016)

05/06/2016

2600

MOTION to Compel Office of Inspector General to Respond to Subpoena filed by John Armstrong. Motion Hearing set for 6/14/2016 02:30 PM in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland before Hon. Claudia Wilken. Responses due by 5/20/2016. Replies due by 5/27/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 5/6/2016) (Entered: 05/06/2016)

05/06/2016 2601 Declaration of Corene Kendrick in Support of 2600 MOTION to Compel Office of Inspector General to Respond to Subpoena filed byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits 1 and 2)(Related document(s) 2600 ) (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 5/6/2016) (Entered: 05/06/2016)

05/12/2016 2602 Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 5/26/2016. Replies due by 6/2/2016. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 5/12/2016) Modified on 5/13/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/12/2016)

05/16/2016 2603 Order by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2602 Motion for Disbursement of Funds.(napS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/16/2016) (Entered: 05/16/2016)

05/16/2016 2604 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr.. (Godbold, Penny) (Filed on 5/16/2016) Modified on 5/17/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/16/2016)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 248 of 265

05/20/2016

2605

RESPONSE (re 2600 MOTION to Compel Office of Inspector General to Respond to Subpoena ) filed byOffice of the Inspector General. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of James C. Spurling, # 2 Exhibit A to Declaration, # 3 Exhibit B to Declaration, # 4 Exhibit C to Declaration, # 5 Exhibit D to Declaration, # 6 Exhibit E to Declaration)(Spurling, James) (Filed on 5/20/2016) (Entered: 05/20/2016)

05/25/2016 2606 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Corene T. Kendrick re: Kelly Knapp (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 5/25/2016) (Entered: 05/25/2016)

05/26/2016 2607 NOTICE of Appearance by Margot Knight Mendelson (Mendelson, Margot) (Filed on 5/26/2016) (Entered: 05/26/2016)

05/26/2016 2608 REPLY (re 2600 MOTION to Compel Office of Inspector General to Respond to Subpoena ) filed byJohn Armstrong. (Mendelson, Margot) (Filed on 5/26/2016) (Entered: 05/26/2016)

06/01/2016 2609 Notice of Filing of Receiver's Thirty−Second Tri−Annual Report by J. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix 1, # 2 Appendix 2, # 3 Appendix 4)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 6/1/2016) Modified on 6/2/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/01/2016)

06/01/2016

2610

Table of Appendices re 2609 Notice of Filing of Receiver's Thirty−Second Tri−Annual Report filed byJ. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix 3, Part 1, # 2 Appendix 3, Part 2, # 3 Appendix 3, Part 3, # 4 Appendix 3, Part 4, # 5 Appendix 3, Part 5, # 6 Appendix 3, Part 6)(Related document(s) 2609 ) (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 6/1/2016) Modified on 6/2/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/01/2016)

06/03/2016

2611

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING DISCLOSURE OF DEFENDANTS' EMPLOYEES' PERSONNEL INFORMATION AND CORRECTIVE ACTION PLANS filed by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, John Armstrong, et al. (Kamberian, Van) (Filed on 6/3/2016) Modified on 6/6/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/03/2016)

06/06/2016 2612 STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2611 Stipulation.(napS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/6/2016) (Entered: 06/06/2016)

06/08/2016 2613 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 6/22/2016. Replies due by 6/29/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 6/8/2016) Modified on 6/9/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/08/2016)

06/08/2016 2614 NOTICE is hereby given that the Court, on its own motion, shall take the 2600 MOTION to Compel Office of Inspector General to Respond to Subpoena under submission on the papers. The hearing previously scheduled for June 14, 2016 is vacated.

(This is a text only docket entry, there is no document associated with this notice.)

(afmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/8/2016) (Entered: 06/08/2016)

06/08/2016 2615 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2613 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (cc: Financial)(afmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/8/2016) (Entered: 06/08/2016)

06/08/2016

2616

MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief Regarding Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel filed by California Correctional Peace Officers Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Amicus Curiae Brief, # 2 Declaration of Brent S. Colasurdo in Support of Amicus Curiae Brief, # 3 Proposed Order)(Colasurdo, Brent) (Filed on 6/8/2016) (Entered: 06/08/2016)

06/09/2016 2617 Proposed Order Directing Additional Interim Payment of Costs by Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Kao, Bryan) (Filed on 6/9/2016) (Entered: 06/09/2016)

06/09/2016 2618 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2616 Motion for Leave to File Brief. (afmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/9/2016) (Entered: 06/09/2016)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 249 of 265

06/09/2016

2619

AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF re 2600 MOTION to Compel Office of Inspector General to Respond to Subpoena filed byCalifornia Correctional Peace Officers Association. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Brent S. Colasurdo in Support of CCPOA's Amicus Curiae Brief)(Related document(s) 2600 ) (Colasurdo, Brent) (Filed on 6/9/2016) Modified on 6/10/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/09/2016)

06/10/2016 2620 ORDER DIRECTING ADDITIONAL INTERIM PAYMENT OF COSTS. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 6/9/2016. (cc: Financial) (afmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/10/2016) (Entered: 06/10/2016)

06/10/2016 2621 NOTICE of Substitution of Counsel by Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 6/10/2016) (Entered: 06/10/2016)

06/14/2016 2622 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Confirming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the First Quarter of 2016 filed by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 6/14/2016) Modified on 6/15/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/14/2016)

06/15/2016 2623 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2622 Stipulation Confirming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the First Quarter of 2016. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/15/2016) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

06/22/2016 2624 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken ON 2600 MOTION TO COMPEL. (granting in part and denying in part 2600 ). (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/22/2016) (Entered: 06/22/2016)

07/01/2016

2625

Third Party MOTION to Intervene and Modify Protective Order filed by California Correctional Peace Officers Association, Correctional Officers 1−13. Motion Hearing set for 8/9/2016 02:30 PM in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland before Hon. Claudia Wilken. Responses due by 7/15/2016. Replies due by 7/22/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Brent S. Colasurdo, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Proposed Order Proposed Amended Protective Order)(Colasurdo, Brent) (Filed on 7/1/2016) (Entered: 07/01/2016)

07/06/2016

2626

CLERK'S NOTICE VACATING 8/9/16 HEARING DATE. You are hereby notified that the hearing on the Third Party Motion to Intervene (docket number 2625) is vacated. The motion will be decided on the papers. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (napS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/6/2016) (Entered: 07/06/2016)

07/08/2016 2627 Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 7/22/2016. Replies due by 7/29/2016. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 7/8/2016) Modified on 7/11/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/08/2016)

07/14/2016 2628 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER for Protective Order Pursuant to re 2624 Order on Motion to Compel filed by Office of the Inspector General, John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al. (Spurling, James) (Filed on 7/14/2016) Modified on 7/15/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/14/2016)

07/15/2016 2629 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al. (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 7/15/2016) Modified on 7/18/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/15/2016)

07/15/2016 2630 Order by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2627 Motion for Disbursement of Funds.(napS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/15/2016) (Entered: 07/15/2016)

07/15/2016 2631 RESPONSE (re 2625 Third Party MOTION to Intervene and Modify Protective Order ) filed byJohn Armstrong. (Norman, Sara) (Filed on 7/15/2016) (Entered: 07/15/2016)

07/15/2016

2632

RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION (re 2625 Third Party MOTION to Intervene and Modify Protective Order ) filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration DECLARATION OF SEAN COTULLA IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO MOTION OF NON−PARTIES CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS 1−13 FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AND TO MODIFY PROTECTIVE ORDER, # 2 Declaration DECLARATION OF L. CANTWELL IN

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 250 of 265
SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION OF NON−PARTIES CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS 1−13 FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AND TO MODIFY PROTECTIVE ORDER, # 3 Certificate/Proof of Service CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE)(Garske, Sharon) (Filed on 7/15/2016) Modified on 7/18/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/15/2016)
07/18/2016 2633 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2628 Stipulation.(napS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/18/2016) (Entered: 07/18/2016)
07/22/2016 2634 REPLY (re 2625 Third Party MOTION to Intervene and Modify Protective Order ) filed byCalifornia Correctional Peace Officers Association, Correctional Officers 1−13. (Umberg, Thomas) (Filed on 7/22/2016) (Entered: 07/22/2016)
07/26/2016 2635 Receipt #44611013550 in the amount of $250,000.00 for interim payment of cost from Defendants pursuant to order 2620 . (cpS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/26/2016) (Entered: 07/26/2016)
08/11/2016 2636 Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 8/25/2016. Replies due by 9/1/2016. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 8/11/2016) Modified on 8/11/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/11/2016)
08/12/2016 2637 Order by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2636 Motion for Disbursement of Funds.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/12/2016) (Entered: 08/12/2016)
08/16/2016 2638 ORDER ON MOTION OF NON−PARTIES FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AND TO MODIFY PROTECTIVE ORDER by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting in part and denying in part 2625 Motion to Intervene.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/16/2016) (Entered: 08/16/2016)
08/16/2016 2639 MODIFIED PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING DISCLOSURE OF DEFENDANTS EMPLOYEES PERSONNEL INFORMATION AND CORRECTIVE ACTION PLANS. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 8/16/16. (dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/16/2016) (Entered: 08/16/2016)
08/19/2016 2641 MOTION requesting the court's intervention and/or findings pursuant to FRCP 23(b) filed by Darryl E. Brown. Responses due by 9/2/2016. Replies due by 9/9/2016. (Attachments: # 1 letter, # 2 Envelope)(cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/19/2016) Modified on 8/30/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/29/2016)
08/24/2016 2640 MOTION to Intervene filed by J.L. Howze. Responses due by 9/7/2016. Replies due by 9/14/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(cpS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/24/2016) (Entered: 08/24/2016)
08/29/2016 2642 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Confirming Undisputed Attorneys Fees and Costs for the Second Quarter of 2016 by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 8/29/2016) Modified on 8/30/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). Modified on 9/16/2016 (dtmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/29/2016)
08/30/2016 2643 Letter from CRD to Darryl E Brown re 2641 Motion to Intervene. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/30/2016) (Entered: 08/30/2016)
08/30/2016 2644 Letter from CRD to J.L. Howze re 2640 Motion to Intervene. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/30/2016) (Entered: 08/30/2016)
09/12/2016 2645 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION for Payment of invoice dated September 8, 2016; Proposed Order filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 9/26/2016. Replies due by 10/3/2016. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 9/12/2016) Modified on 9/13/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/12/2016)
09/13/2016 2646 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION AND ORDER FOR PAYMENT by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2645 Motion.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/13/2016) (Entered: 09/13/2016)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 251 of 265

09/15/2016 2647 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by John Armstrong and defendants. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 9/15/2016) Modified on 9/16/2016 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/15/2016)

09/16/2016 2648 STIPULATED ORDER CONFIRMING UNDISPUTED ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS FOR THE SECOND QUARTER OF 2016 by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2642 Stipulation.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/16/2016) (Entered: 09/16/2016)

09/19/2016 2649 NOTICE of Appearance of Rita Katherine Lomio as Counsel, filed by John Armstrong (Lomio, Rita) (Filed on 9/19/2016) Modified on 9/20/2016 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/19/2016)

10/03/2016

2650

Notice of Filing of Receiver's Thirty−Third Tri−Annual Report by J. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Table of Appendices, # 2 Appendix Appendix 1, # 3 Appendix Appendix 2, # 4 Appendix Appendix 3 − Part 1 of 6, # 5 Appendix Appendix 3 − Part 2 of 6, # 6 Appendix Appendix 3 − Part 3 of 6, # 7 Appendix Appendix 3 − Part 4 of 6, # 8 Appendix Appendix 3 − Part 5 of 6, # 9 Appendix Appendix 3 − Part 6 of 6, # 10 Appendix Appendix 4)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 10/3/2016) Modified on 10/4/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/03/2016)

10/12/2016 2651 Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 10/26/2016. Replies due by 11/2/2016. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 10/12/2016) Modified on 10/13/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/12/2016)

10/14/2016 2652 Order by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2651 Motion for Disbursement of Funds.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/14/2016) (Entered: 10/14/2016)

11/11/2016 2653 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 11/25/2016. Replies due by 12/2/2016. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 11/11/2016) (Entered: 11/11/2016)

11/15/2016 2654 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION AND ORDER FOR PAYMENT by Hon. Claudia Wilken.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2016) (Entered: 11/15/2016)

11/15/2016 2655 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Joint filed by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al. (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 11/15/2016) Modified on 11/16/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/15/2016)

12/09/2016 2656 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 12/23/2016. Replies due by 12/30/2016. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 12/9/2016) (Entered: 12/09/2016)

12/14/2016 2657 Order by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2656 Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/14/2016) (Entered: 12/14/2016)

12/16/2016 2658 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Confirming Undisputed Attorneys Fees and Costs for Third Quarter of 2016 filed by John Armstrong., Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 12/16/2016) Modified on 12/19/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/16/2016)

12/21/2016 2659 Order by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2658 STIPULATION CONFIRMING UNDISPUTED ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS FOR THE THIRD QUARTER OF 2016.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/21/2016) (Entered: 12/21/2016)

01/13/2017 2660 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT, filed by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 1/13/2017) Modified on 1/17/2017 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/13/2017)

01/17/2017 2661 Administrative MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and Proposed Order for Payment, filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 1/31/2017. Replies due by 2/7/2017. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 1/17/2017) Modified on 1/18/2017 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/17/2017)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 252 of 265

01/23/2017 2662 Order by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2661 Motion for Disbursement of Funds.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2017) (Entered: 01/23/2017)

02/01/2017

2663

NOTICE OF FILING OF RECEIVER'S 34TH TRI−ANNUAL REPORT by J. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Table of Appendices, # 2 Appendix Appendix 1, # 3 Appendix Appendix 2 (1 of 6), # 4 Appendix Appendix 2 (2 of 6), # 5 Appendix Appendix 2 (3 of 6), # 6 Appendix Appendix 2 (4 of 6), # 7 Appendix Appendix 2 (5 of 6), # 8 Appendix Appendix 2 (6 of 6), # 9 Appendix Appendix 3)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 2/1/2017) Modified on 2/2/2017 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/01/2017)

02/10/2017 2664 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Sharon Anne Garske NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL (Garske, Sharon) (Filed on 2/10/2017) (Entered: 02/10/2017)

02/13/2017 2665 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION for Payment and Proposed Order for filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 2/27/2017. Replies due by 3/6/2017. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 2/13/2017) Modified on 2/14/2017 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/13/2017)

02/15/2017 2666 Order by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2665 Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/15/2017) (Entered: 02/15/2017)

03/08/2017 2667 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Confirming Undisputed Fees and Costs for Fourth Quarter 2016 filed by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr.. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 3/8/2017) Modified on 3/8/2017 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/08/2017)

03/13/2017 2668 Order by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2667 STIPULATION CONFIRMING UNDISPUTED ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS FOR THE FOURTH QUARTER OF 2016.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/13/2017) (Entered: 03/13/2017)

03/14/2017 2669 Administrative Motion for Payment of invoice dated March 13, 2017 filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 3/28/2017. Replies due by 4/4/2017. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 3/14/2017) Modified on 3/14/2017 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/14/2017)

03/15/2017 2670 Order by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2669 Motion for Order for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/15/2017) (Entered: 03/15/2017)

03/15/2017 2671 JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT filed by John Armstrong. (Godbold, Penny) (Filed on 3/15/2017) Modified on 3/17/2017 (vlkS, COURT STAFF). Modified on 3/17/2017 (vlkS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/15/2017)

03/24/2017

2672

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER RE MODIFIED PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING DISCLOSURE OF DEFENDANTS EMPLOYEES PERSONNEL INFORMATION AND CORRECTIVE ACTION PLANS filed by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, California Correctional Peace Officers Association, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., John Armstrong. (Garske, Sharon) (Filed on 3/24/2017) Modified on 3/27/2017 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/24/2017)

03/24/2017

2673

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation re 2672 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] MODIFIED PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING DISCLOSURE OF DEFENDANTS EMPLOYEES PERSONNEL INFORMATION AND CORRECTIVE ACTION PLANS Certificate of Service (Garske, Sharon) (Filed on 3/24/2017) (Entered: 03/24/2017)

03/28/2017 2674 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2672 Stipulation RE MODIFIED PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING DISCLOSURE OF DEFENDANTS EMPLOYEES PERSONNEL INFORMATION AND CORRECTIVE ACTION PLANS. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/28/2017) (Entered: 03/28/2017)

04/13/2017 2675 MOTION for Payment of invoice dated April 11, 2017 filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 4/27/2017. Replies due by 5/4/2017. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 4/13/2017) Modified on 4/14/2017 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/13/2017)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 253 of 265

04/17/2017 2676 Order by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2675 Administrative Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/17/2017) (Entered: 04/17/2017)

05/03/2017 2677 Letter from William Thornton re being treated unfairly and discriminated. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(cpS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/3/2017) (Entered: 05/08/2017)

05/09/2017 2678 Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment of invoice dated May 9, 2017 filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 5/23/2017. Replies due by 5/30/2017. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 5/9/2017) Modified on 5/10/2017 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/09/2017)

05/10/2017 2679 Order by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2678 Administrative Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/10/2017) (Entered: 05/10/2017)

05/15/2017 2680 JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT filed by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr.. (Kendrick, Corene) (Filed on 5/15/2017) Modified on 5/16/2017 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/15/2017)

05/25/2017 2681 STIPULATION WITH [PROPOSED] ORDER Confirming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the First Quarter of 2017 filed by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Galvan, Ernest) (Filed on 5/25/2017) Modified on 5/26/2017 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/25/2017)

06/01/2017 2682 Order by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2681 STIPULATION CONFIRMING UNDISPUTED ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS FOR THE FIRST QUARTER OF 2017.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/1/2017) (Entered: 06/01/2017)

06/01/2017

2683

Notice of Filing of Receiver's 35th Tri−Annual Report by J. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Table of Appendices, # 2 Appendix 1, # 3 Appendix 2, # 4 Appendix 3 (Part 1 of 6), # 5 Appendix 3 (Part 2 of 6), # 6 Appendix 3 (Part 3 of 6), # 7 Appendix 3 (Part 4 of 6), # 8 Appendix 3 (Part 5 of 6), # 9 Appendix 3 (Part 6 of 6), # 10 Appendix 4)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 6/1/2017) Modified on 6/2/2017 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/01/2017)

06/13/2017 2684 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael Louis Freedman (Freedman, Michael) (Filed on 6/13/2017) (Entered: 06/13/2017)

06/14/2017 2685 Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment of Invoice dated 6/13/2017 filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 6/28/2017. Replies due by 7/5/2017. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 6/14/2017) Modified on 6/15/2017 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/14/2017)

06/21/2017 2686 Order by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2685 Administrative Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/21/2017) (Entered: 06/21/2017)

07/12/2017 2687 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 7/26/2017. Replies due by 8/2/2017. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 7/12/2017) Modified on 7/13/2017 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/12/2017)

07/14/2017 2688 JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT filed by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr.. (Godbold, Penny) (Filed on 7/14/2017) Modified on 7/17/2017 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/14/2017)

07/17/2017 2689 Order by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2687 Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/17/2017) (Entered: 07/17/2017)

08/23/2017 2691 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER CONFIRMING UNDISPUTED ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS FOR THE SECOND QUARTER OF 2017 filed by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr.. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 8/23/2017) Modified on 8/24/2017 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/23/2017)

08/25/2017 2692 Order by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2691 Stipulation Confirming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Second Quarter of 2017.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/25/2017) (Entered: 08/25/2017)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 254 of 265

08/28/2017 2693 Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment of invoice dated 8/11/2017 filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 9/11/2017. Replies due by 9/18/2017. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 8/28/2017) Modified on 8/29/2017 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/28/2017)

08/30/2017 2694 Order by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2693 Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/30/2017) (Entered: 08/30/2017)

09/12/2017 2695 MOTION for Payment and (Proposed) Order filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 9/26/2017. Replies due by 10/3/2017. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 9/12/2017) Modified on 9/13/2017 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/12/2017)

09/13/2017 2696 Order by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 2695 Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/13/2017) (Entered: 09/13/2017)

09/15/2017 2697 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al. (Godbold, Penny) (Filed on 9/15/2017) Modified on 9/16/2017 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/15/2017)

09/25/2017 2698 NOTICE of Change of Address by Martin H. Dodd (Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 9/25/2017) (Entered: 09/25/2017)

10/02/2017

2699

Notice of Filing of Receiver's 36th Tri−Annual Report by J. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Table of Appendices, # 2 Appendix 1, Part 1 of 6, # 3 Appendix 1, Part 2 of 6, # 4 Appendix 1, Part 3 of 6, # 5 Appendix 1, Part 4 of 6, # 6 Appendix 1, Part 5 of 6, # 7 Appendix 1, Part 6 of 6, # 8 Appendix 2)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 10/2/2017) Modified on 10/3/2017 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/02/2017)

10/10/2017 2700 MOTION for Payment of invoice dated October 9, 2017; (Proposed) Order filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 10/24/2017. Replies due by 10/31/2017. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 10/10/2017) Modified on 10/11/2017 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/10/2017)

10/12/2017 2701 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2700 Motion for Disbursement of Funds for Payment of invoice dated October 9, 2017. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/12/2017) (Entered: 10/12/2017)

11/13/2017 2702 MOTION for Payment of invoice dated 11/10/2017 and Proposed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 11/27/2017. Replies due by 12/4/2017. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 11/13/2017) Modified on 11/14/2017 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/13/2017)

11/14/2017 2703 ORDER by District Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2702 Adminstrative Motion for Disbursement of Funds for Payment of 11/10/17 Invoice. (Attachments: # 1 11/10/17 Invoice)(ig, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/14/2017) (Entered: 11/14/2017)

11/15/2017 2704 JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT filed by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown Jr. (Godbold, Penny) (Filed on 11/15/2017) Modified on 11/16/2017 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/15/2017)

12/08/2017 2705 Administrative Motion for Payment of invoice December 7, 2017 and Proposed Order filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 12/22/2017. Replies due by 12/29/2017. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 12/8/2017) Modified on 12/10/2017 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/08/2017)

12/13/2017 2706 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2705 Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/13/2017) (Entered: 12/13/2017)

12/18/2017 2707 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Confirming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Third Quarter of 2017 filed by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 12/18/2017) Modified on 12/19/2017 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/18/2017)

12/19/2017 2708 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2707 Stipulation Confirming Undisputed Attorney Fees and Costs for Third Quarter of 2017.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2017) (Entered: 12/19/2017)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 255 of 265
01/16/2018 2709 Joint Case Status Statement filed by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr.. (Godbold, Penny) (Filed on 1/16/2018) Modified on 1/17/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/16/2018)
01/18/2018 2710 Administrative Motion and (Proposed) Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 2/1/2018. Replies due by 2/8/2018. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 1/18/2018) Modified on 1/19/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/18/2018)
01/19/2018 2711 Proposed Order Directing Additional Interim Payment of Costs by Edmund G. Brown, Jr, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Kao, Bryan) (Filed on 1/19/2018) (Entered: 01/19/2018)
01/22/2018 2712 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2710 Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/22/2018) (Entered: 01/22/2018)
01/23/2018 2713 ORDER DIRECTING ADDITIONAL INTERIM PAYMENT OF COSTS. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/23/18. (dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2018) (Entered: 01/23/2018)
02/01/2018 2714 Notice of Filing of Receiver's 37th Tri−Annual Report by J. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Table of Appendices, # 2 Appendix 1 through 6)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 2/1/2018) Modified on 2/2/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/01/2018)
02/12/2018 2715 MOTION and Proposed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 2/26/2018. Replies due by 3/5/2018. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 2/12/2018) Modified on 2/13/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). Modified on 2/13/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/12/2018)
02/22/2018 2716 Receipt #44611015081 in the amount of $200,000.00 per order, dkt. # 2713 . (cpS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/22/2018) (Entered: 02/22/2018)
02/27/2018 2717 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2715 Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/27/2018) (Entered: 02/27/2018)
03/12/2018 2718 Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 3/26/2018. Replies due by 4/2/2018. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 3/12/2018) Modified on 3/13/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/12/2018)
03/14/2018 2719 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2718 Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/14/2018) (Entered: 03/14/2018)
03/14/2018 2720 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Sharon Anne Garske NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL (Garske, Sharon) (Filed on 3/14/2018) (Entered: 03/14/2018)
03/15/2018 2721 UPDATED CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al. (Godbold, Penny) (Filed on 3/15/2018) Modified on 3/16/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). Modified on 3/16/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/15/2018)
03/26/2018 2722 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Confirming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Fourth Quarter of 2017 filed by John Armstrong, Edmung G. Brown, Jr. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 3/26/2018) Modified on 3/27/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/26/2018)
03/28/2018 2723 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2722 Stipulation Confirming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Fourth Quarter of 2017.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/28/2018) (Entered: 03/28/2018)
04/11/2018 2724 Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment re April 11, 2018 Invoice filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 4/25/2018. Replies due by 5/2/2018. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 4/11/2018) Modified on 4/12/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/11/2018)
04/13/2018 2725 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2724 Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/13/2018) (Entered: 04/13/2018)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 256 of 265

05/14/2018 2726

***Attachment 3, Exhibit C removed per order 2736 . Re−filed at document # 2728 ***

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Joint filed by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Mendelson, Margot) (Filed on 5/14/2018) Modified on 5/15/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). Modified on 5/15/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). Modified on 5/18/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Attachment 3 replaced on 5/18/2018) (napS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/14/2018)

05/14/2018 2727 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Sharon Anne Garske OF CHANGE OF COUNSEL (Garske, Sharon) (Filed on 5/14/2018) Modified on 5/15/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/14/2018)

05/15/2018 2728 EXHIBITS re 2726 Case Management Statement, Corrected Exhibit C filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 2726 ) (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 5/15/2018) (Entered: 05/15/2018)

05/15/2018 2730 Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 5/29/2018. Replies due by 6/5/2018. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 5/15/2018) Modified on 5/16/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/15/2018)

05/15/2018 2732 MOTION to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document Unopposed filed by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 5/15/2018) (Entered: 05/15/2018)

05/16/2018

Electronic filing error. Please submit Proposed Order pursuant to Local Rule 5−1(g). Re: 2732 MOTION to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document filed by John Armstrong (dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/16/2018) (Entered: 05/16/2018)

05/16/2018 2733 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2730 Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/16/2018) (Entered: 05/16/2018)

05/16/2018 2734 Proposed Order re 2732 MOTION to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document Unopposed by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 5/16/2018) (Entered: 05/16/2018)

05/17/2018 2736 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2732 Motion to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/17/2018) (Entered: 05/17/2018)

06/01/2018

2742

Notice of Filing of Receiver's 38th Tri−Annual Report by J. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Table of Appendices, # 2 Appendix 1, Part 1 of 7, # 3 Appendix 1, Part 2 of 7, # 4 Appendix 1, Part 3 of 7, # 5 Appendix 1, Part 4 of 7, # 6 Appendix 1, Part 5 of 7, # 7 Appendix 1, Part 6 of 7, # 8 Appendix 1, Part 7 of 7, # 9 Appendix 2, # 10 Appendix 3)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 6/1/2018) Modified on 6/3/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/01/2018)

06/19/2018 2743 MOTION for Payment and [Proposed] Order filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 7/3/2018. Replies due by 7/10/2018. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 6/19/2018) Modified on 6/20/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/19/2018)

06/20/2018 2744 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Confirming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the First Quarter of 2018 filed by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 6/20/2018) Modified on 6/21/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/20/2018)

06/26/2018 2745 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2744 Stipulation Confirming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the First Quarter of 2018.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/26/2018) (Entered: 06/26/2018)

06/26/2018 2746 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2743 Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/26/2018) (Entered: 06/26/2018)

07/09/2018 2747 NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Garske, Sharon) (Filed on 7/9/2018) Modified on 7/10/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/09/2018)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 257 of 265

07/16/2018 2749 JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT filed by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al. (Godbold, Penny) (Filed on 7/16/2018) Modified on 7/17/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/16/2018)

07/18/2018 2750 Administrative Motion and [Proposed] Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 8/1/2018. Replies due by 8/8/2018. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 7/18/2018) Modified on 7/19/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/18/2018)

07/19/2018 2751 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2750 Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/19/2018) (Entered: 07/19/2018)

08/14/2018 2755 Administrative Motion and Proposed Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 8/28/2018. Replies due by 9/4/2018. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 8/14/2018) Modified on 8/15/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/14/2018)

08/24/2018 2761 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2755 Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/24/2018) (Entered: 08/24/2018)

09/11/2018 2766 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Confirming Undisputed Attorneys' fees and Costs for the Second Quarter of 2018 filed by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 9/11/2018) Modified on 9/12/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/11/2018)

09/12/2018 2772 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2766 Stipulation Confirming Undisputed Attorneys Fees and Costs for the Second Quarter of 2018.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/12/2018) (Entered: 09/12/2018)

09/17/2018 2773 JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT filed by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al. (Godbold, Penny) (Filed on 9/17/2018) Modified on 9/17/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/17/2018)

09/25/2018 2774 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR PAYMENT filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 10/9/2018. Replies due by 10/16/2018. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 9/25/2018) Modified on 9/26/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/25/2018)

09/28/2018 2775 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2774 Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/28/2018) (Entered: 09/28/2018)

10/01/2018

2776

Notice of Filing of Receiver's 39th Tri−Annual Report by J. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Table of Appendices, # 2 Appendix 1 Part 1 of 7, # 3 Appendix 1 Part 2 of 7, # 4 Appendix 1 Part 3 of 7, # 5 Appendix 1 Part 4 of 7, # 6 Appendix 1 Part 5 of 7, # 7 Appendix 1 Part 6 of 7, # 8 Appendix 1 Part 7 of 7, # 9 Appendix 2, # 10 Appendix 3)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 10/1/2018) Modified on 10/1/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/01/2018)

10/12/2018 2777 Administrative MOTION for Disbursement of Funds and [Proposed] Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 10/26/2018. Replies due by 11/2/2018. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 10/12/2018) Modified on 10/15/2018 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/12/2018)

10/15/2018 2778 NOTICE of Change of Address by Penny Marie Godbold (Godbold, Penny) (Filed on 10/15/2018) (Entered: 10/15/2018)

10/23/2018 2779 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2777 Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/23/2018) (Entered: 10/23/2018)

11/09/2018 2784 Administrative MOTION and [Proposed] Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 11/23/2018. Replies due by 11/30/2018. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 11/9/2018) Modified on 11/13/2018 (kcS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/09/2018)

11/14/2018 2785 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2784 Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/14/2018) (Entered: 11/14/2018)

11/15/2018 2786 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Joint filed by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al.. (Godbold, Penny) (Filed on 11/15/2018) Modified on 11/16/2018

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 258 of 265

(jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/15/2018)

12/20/2018 2801 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Confirming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Third Quarter of 2018 filed by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 12/20/2018) Modified on 12/21/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/20/2018)

12/21/2018 2802 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR PAYMENT filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 1/4/2019. Replies due by 1/11/2019. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 12/21/2018) Modified on 12/24/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/21/2018)

01/02/2019 2803 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2802 Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/2/2019) (Entered: 01/02/2019)

01/02/2019 2804 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2801 Stipulation Confirming Attorney Fees for 3rd Quarter of 2018.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/2/2019) (Entered: 01/02/2019)

01/15/2019 2821 JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT filed by John Armstrong, Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Godbold, Penny) (Filed on 1/15/2019) Modified on 2/13/2019 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/15/2019)

01/23/2019 2823 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR PAYMENT filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 2/6/2019. Replies due by 2/13/2019. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 1/23/2019) Modified on 1/24/2019 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/23/2019)

01/24/2019 2825 ORDER SUBSTITUTING GOVERNOR GAVIN C. NEWSOM AS A DEFENDANT. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/24/19. (dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/24/2019) (Entered: 01/24/2019)

01/24/2019 2826 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2823 Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/24/2019) (Entered: 01/24/2019)

02/01/2019

2827

Notice of Filing of Receiver's 40th Tri−Annual Report by J. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Table of Appendices, # 2 Appendix 1 Part 1 of 7, # 3 Appendix 1 Part 2 of 7, # 4 Appendix 1 Part 3 of 7, # 5 Appendix 1 Part 4 of 7, # 6 Appendix 1 Part 5 of 7, # 7 Appendix 1 Part 6 of 7, # 8 Appendix 1 Part 7 of 7, # 9 Appendix 2, # 10 Appendix 3)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 2/1/2019) Modified on 2/4/2019 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/01/2019)

02/20/2019 2837 ADMINISTRATIVE Motion for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 3/6/2019. Replies due by 3/13/2019. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 2/20/2019) Modified on 2/21/2019 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/20/2019)

02/25/2019 2838 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2837 Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/25/2019) (Entered: 02/25/2019)

03/06/2019 2839 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Confirming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Fourth Quarter of 2018 filed by John Armstrong, Gavin C. Newsom. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 3/6/2019) Modified on 3/7/2019 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/06/2019)

03/12/2019 2841 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2839 Stipulation Confirming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Fourth Quarter of 2018.(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/12/2019) (Entered: 03/12/2019)

03/14/2019 2842 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR PAYMENT filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 3/28/2019. Replies due by 4/4/2019. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 3/14/2019) Modified on 3/15/2019 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/14/2019)

03/15/2019 2843 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2842 Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/15/2019) (Entered: 03/15/2019)

03/15/2019 2844 Joint Case Status Statement filed by John Armstrong, Gavin C. Newsom. (Godbold, Penny) (Filed on 3/15/2019) Modified on 3/17/2019 (cpS, COURT STAFF).

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 259 of 265

(Entered: 03/15/2019)

04/17/2019 2861 Administrative Motion for Order of Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 5/1/2019. Replies due by 5/8/2019. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 4/17/2019) Modified on 4/17/2019 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/17/2019)

04/18/2019 2862 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2861 Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/18/2019) (Entered: 04/18/2019)

05/15/2019 2863 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by John Armstrong, Gavin C. Newsom, et al. (Godbold, Penny) (Filed on 5/15/2019) Modified on 5/16/2019 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/15/2019)

05/20/2019 2864 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR PAYMENT filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 6/3/2019. Replies due by 6/10/2019. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 5/20/2019) Modified on 5/21/2019 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/20/2019)

05/23/2019 2865 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Confirming Undisputed Attorneys Fees and Costs for the First Quarter of 2019 filed by John Armstrong, Gavin C. Newsom. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 5/23/2019) Modified on 5/24/2019 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/23/2019)

05/30/2019 2866 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2864 Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/30/2019) (Entered: 05/30/2019)

05/30/2019 2867 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2865 Stipulation Confirming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for First Quarter of 2019.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/30/2019) (Entered: 05/30/2019)

05/31/2019 2868 NOTICE by J. Clark Kelso of Filing of Receiver's 41st Tri−Annual Report (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Table of Appendices, # 2 Appendix 1, # 3 Appendix 2, # 4 Appendix 3, # 5 Appendix 4)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 5/31/2019) Modified on 6/3/2019 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/31/2019)

06/06/2019 2869 Statement for TRO Injunction Relief filed by Shadale L. Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(cpS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/6/2019) (Entered: 06/07/2019)

06/07/2019

2870

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 2869 . Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 6/7/19. (cwlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/7/2019) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/10/2019: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (dtmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/07/2019)

06/13/2019 2871 NOTICE of Association of Counsel by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Garske, Sharon) (Filed on 6/13/2019) Modified on 6/14/2019 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/13/2019)

06/20/2019 2872 Administrative Motion and [Proposed] Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 7/5/2019. Replies due by 7/12/2019. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 6/20/2019) Modified on 6/21/2019 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/20/2019)

06/28/2019 2873 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2872 Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/28/2019) (Entered: 06/28/2019)

07/15/2019 2874 JOINT CASE STATUS STATEMENT filed by John Armstrong, Gavin C. Newsom. (Freedman, Michael) (Filed on 7/15/2019) Modified on 7/16/2019 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/15/2019)

07/16/2019 2875 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION for Payment and [Proposed] Order filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 7/30/2019. Replies due by 8/6/2019. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 7/16/2019) Modified on 7/17/2019 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/16/2019)

07/29/2019 2876 RECEIVED DOCUMENT: Letter from G. Martin dated 7/23/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(cpS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/29/2019) (Entered: 07/29/2019)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 260 of 265
08/02/2019 2877 Notice of Association of Counsel by Sharon Anne Garske (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service Certificate of Service)(Garske, Sharon) (Filed on 8/2/2019) Modified on 8/4/2019 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/02/2019)
08/12/2019 2878 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2875 Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/12/2019) (Entered: 08/12/2019)
08/15/2019 2879 ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR EX PARTE RELIEF 2876 . Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 8/15/19. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/15/2019) (Entered: 08/15/2019)
08/15/2019 2880 Administrative Motion and [Proposed] Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 8/29/2019. Replies due by 9/5/2019. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 8/15/2019) Modified on 8/16/2019 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/15/2019)
08/16/2019 2881 [Proposed] Order Directing Additional Interim Payment of Costs by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Garske, Sharon) (Filed on 8/16/2019) Modified on 8/19/2019 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/16/2019)
08/20/2019 2882 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2880 Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/20/2019) (Entered: 08/20/2019)
08/20/2019 2884 ORDER DIRECTING ADDITIONAL INTERIM PAYMENT OF COSTS. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 8/20/19. (dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/20/2019) (Entered: 08/20/2019)
08/27/2019 2885 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Confirming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Second Quarter of 2019 filed by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 8/27/2019) (Entered: 08/27/2019)
08/29/2019 2886 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2885 Stipulation Confirming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Second Quarter of 2019.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/29/2019) (Entered: 08/29/2019)
09/16/2019 2887 Joint Case Status Statement filed by John Armstrong. (Godbold, Penny) (Filed on 9/16/2019) Modified on 9/17/2019 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/16/2019)
09/19/2019 2888 Administrative Motion and [Proposed] Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 10/3/2019. Replies due by 10/10/2019. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 9/19/2019) Modified on 9/20/2019 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/19/2019)
09/23/2019 2889 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2888 Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/23/2019) (Entered: 09/23/2019)
10/01/2019 2890 Notice of Filing Receiver's 42nd Tri−Annual Report of the Federal Receiver by J. Clark Kelso. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Table of Appendices, # 2 Appendix 1, # 3 Appendix 2)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 10/1/2019) Modified on 10/2/2019 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/01/2019)
10/18/2019 2891 Administrative Motion and [Proposed] Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 11/1/2019. Replies due by 11/8/2019. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 10/18/2019) Modified on 10/21/2019 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/18/2019)
10/22/2019 2892 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2891 Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/22/2019) (Entered: 10/22/2019)
10/31/2019 2893 Receipt No. 44611016606 for $200,000.00 from defendants Re: 2884 Order Directing Additional Interim Payment of Costs filed on August 20, 2019.(cjlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/31/2019) (Entered: 10/31/2019)
11/01/2019 2894 Receipt in the amount of $200,000.00 from State of California, receipt #44611016606, receipt date 10/31/2019. (pals, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/1/2019) (Entered: 11/01/2019)
11/05/2019 2895 NOTICE of Association of Counsel by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom. (Hood, Joanna) (Filed on 11/5/2019) Modified on 11/6/2019 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/05/2019)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 261 of 265

11/06/2019

Electronic filing error. Incorrect event used. [err101] Attorney Lodholz, must Register with the Electronic Filing System and File a Notice of Appearance. This filing will not be processed by the clerks office. Please re−file in its entirety Re: 2895 Notice (Other) filed by Gavin C. Newsom, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (cjlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/6/2019) (Entered: 11/06/2019)

11/15/2019 2896 Joint Case Status Statement filed by John Armstrong, Gavin C. Newsom. (Godbold, Penny) (Filed on 11/15/2019) Modified on 11/18/2019 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/15/2019)

11/27/2019 2897 Administrative Motion and [Proposed] Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 12/11/2019. Replies due by 12/18/2019. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 11/27/2019) Modified on 11/27/2019 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/27/2019)

11/27/2019 2898 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION To Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related filed by F.J., R.E., D.B.. Responses due by 12/2/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix F.J. et al. v. Diaz et al. Complaint, No. 3:19−cv−7814)(Galvan, Ernest) (Filed on 11/27/2019) (Entered: 11/27/2019)

12/02/2019 2899 NOTICE of Association of Counsel by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom. (Hood, Joanna) (Filed on 12/2/2019) Modified on 12/3/2019 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/02/2019)

12/02/2019

2900

STIPULATION WITH [PROPOSED] ORDER Changing Time for Defendants to Respond to Plaintiff's Adminstrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related filed by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom, R.E., F.J., D.B. (De La Torre−Fennell, Annakarina) (Filed on 12/2/2019) Modified on 12/3/2019 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/02/2019)

12/03/2019 2901 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2897 Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/3/2019) (Entered: 12/03/2019)

12/03/2019 2902 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2900 Stipulation Extending Time to Respond to Motion to Relate Case.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/3/2019) (Entered: 12/03/2019)

12/03/2019 2903 Defendants' Response and Opposition to 2898 Motion to Relate Cases filed by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom. (De La Torre−Fennell, Annakarina) (Filed on 12/3/2019) Modified on 12/4/2019 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/03/2019)

12/06/2019 2904 CLERK'S NOTICE. The Court finds that Cases C94−2307 CW and C19−7814 KAW are not related. re 2898 (dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/6/2019) Modified on 12/6/2019 (dtmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/06/2019)

12/16/2019 2905 Administrative Motion and [Proposed] Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 12/30/2019. Replies due by 1/6/2020. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 12/16/2019) Modified on 12/16/2019 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/16/2019)

12/17/2019 2906 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2905 Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/17/2019) (Entered: 12/17/2019)

12/17/2019 2907 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Confirming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Third Quarter of 2019 filed by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 12/17/2019) (Entered: 12/17/2019)

01/02/2020 2908 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2907 Stipulation Confirming Attorneys Fees and Costs.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/2/2020) (Entered: 01/02/2020)

01/02/2020 2909 ORDER REGARDING COMPENSATION OF COURT EXPERT. Objections due by 1/17/2020. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/2/20. (dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/2/2020) (Entered: 01/02/2020)

01/15/2020 2910 Joint Case Status Statement filed by John Armstrong. (Godbold, Penny) (Filed on 1/15/2020) Modified on 1/16/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/15/2020)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 262 of 265

01/16/2020 2911 Administrative Motion and [Proposed] Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 1/30/2020. Replies due by 2/6/2020. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 1/16/2020) Modified on 1/17/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/16/2020)

01/16/2020 2912 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2911 Motion for Payment.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/16/2020) (Entered: 01/16/2020)

02/03/2020 2913 NOTICE of Filing Receiver's 43rd Tri−Annual Report of the Federal Receiver by J. Clark Kelso (Attachments: # 1 Appendix TABLE OF APPENDICES, # 2 Appendix APPENDIX 1, # 3 Appendix APPENDIX 2)(Dodd, Martin) (Filed on 2/3/2020) Modified on 2/4/2020 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/03/2020)

02/18/2020 2914 Administrative Motion and [Proposed] Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 3/3/2020. Replies due by 3/10/2020. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 2/18/2020) Modified on 2/19/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/18/2020)

02/18/2020 2915 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2914 Motion for Disbursement of Funds.(amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/18/2020) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/19/2020: # 1 Invoice) (amgS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/18/2020)

02/25/2020 2916 STIPULATION WITH [PROPOSED] ORDER to Set Briefing Schedule and Allow Memoranda in Excess of Twenty−Five Pages filed by John Armstrong, Gavin C. Newsom. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 2/25/2020) Modified on 2/26/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/25/2020)

02/26/2020

2917

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken. Granting 2916 Stipulation TO SET BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND ALLOW MEMORANDA IN EXCESS OF TWENTY−FIVE PAGES. Motions due by 2/28/2020, Responses due by 4/27/2020, Replies due by 5/11/2020 and Motion Hearing set for 5/19/2020 02:30 PM before Judge Claudia Wilken. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/26/2020) (Entered: 02/26/2020)

02/26/2020 2918 [Proposed] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER Regarding Disclosure of Defendants' Employees' Personnel Information filed by Gavin C. Newsom, John Armstrong. (Hood, Joanna) (Filed on 2/26/2020) Modified on 2/27/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/26/2020)

02/27/2020 2919 Order by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2918 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING DISCLOSURE OF DEFENDANTS EMPLOYEES PERSONNEL INFORMATION. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/27/2020) (Entered: 02/27/2020)

02/27/2020

2920

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal in Support of Motion to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against People with Disabilities at RJ Donovan Correctional Facility filed by John Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Michael Freedman in Support of Administrative Motion to Seal, # 2 Declaration Jessica Winter in Support of Administrative Motion to Seal, # 3 Proposed Order, # 4 Certificate/Proof of Service, # 5 Redacted Version of Declaration of Eldon Vail in Support of Motion to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against People with Disabilities at RJ Donovan Correctional Facility, # 6 Unredacted Version of Declaration of Eldon Vail in Support of Motion to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against People with Disabilities at RJ Donovan Correctional Facility)(Freedman, Michael) (Filed on 2/27/2020) (Entered: 02/27/2020)

02/27/2020

2921

EXHIBITS re 2920 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal in Support of Motion to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against People with Disabilities at RJ Donovan Correctional Facility filed byJohn Armstrong. (Attachments: # 1 Redacted Version of Declaration of Michael Freedman in Support of Motion to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against People with Disabilities at RJ Donovan Correctional Facility, # 2 Unredacted Version of Declaration of Michael Freedman in Support of Motion to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against People with Disabilities at RJ Donovan Correctional Facility, # 3 Redacted Exhibits 1−30b to Declaration of Michael Freedman, # 4 Redacted Exhibits 31−63b to Declaration of Michael Freedman, # 5 Redacted Exhibits 64−90 to Declaration of Michael Freedman, # 6 Unredacted

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 263 of 265

Exhibits 1−30b to Declaration of Michael Freedman, # 7 Unredacted Exhibits 31−63b to Declaration of Michael Freedman, # 8 Unredacted Exhibits 64−90 to Declaration of Michael Freedman)(Related document(s) 2920 ) (Freedman, Michael) (Filed on 2/27/2020) (Entered: 02/27/2020)

02/28/2020

2922

MOTION for Permanent Injunction to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against People with Disabilities at R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility filed by John Armstrong. Motion Hearing set for 5/19/2020 02:00 PM before Judge Claudia Wilken. Responses due by 4/27/2020. Replies due by 5/11/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Gay Grunfeld in Support of Motion, # 2 Declaration [Redacted] Michael Freedman in Support of Motion, # 3 [Redacted] Exs. 1−30b to Declaration of Michael Freedman, # 4 [Redacted] Exs. 31−63b to Declaration of Michael Freedman, # 5 [Redacted] Exs. 64−90 to Declaration of Michael Freedman, # 6 Declaration [Redacted] Eldon Vail in Support of Motion, # 7 Declaration Penny Godbold in Support of Motion, # 8 Proposed Order)(Freedman, Michael) (Filed on 2/28/2020) (Entered: 02/28/2020)

03/02/2020

2923

CLERK'S NOTICE. Notice is hereby given that counsel must re−notice not re− file the 2922 MOTION for Permanent Injunction to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against People with Disabilities at R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility. Judge Wilken holds Civil Law and Motion at 2:30 pm. Please re−notice the previously set incorrect hearing time of 2:00 p.m. The briefing schedule remains in effect. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/2/2020) (Entered: 03/02/2020)

03/02/2020 2924 Renotice motion hearing re 2922 MOTION for Permanent Injunction to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against People with Disabilities at R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility filed byJohn Armstrong. (Related document(s) 2922 ) (Freedman, Michael) (Filed on 3/2/2020) (Entered: 03/02/2020)

03/02/2020

2925

Declaration of Lodholz in Response to 2920 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal in Support of Motion to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against People with Disabilities at RJ Donovan Correctional Facility filed by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Gavin C. Newsom. (Lodholz, Sean) (Filed on 3/2/2020) Modified on 3/3/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/02/2020)

03/02/2020

Reset Hearing as to 2922 MOTION for Permanent Injunction to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against People with Disabilities at R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility. Motion Hearing set for 5/19/2020 02:30 PM before Judge Claudia Wilken. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/2/2020) (Entered: 03/02/2020)

03/06/2020 2926 [Proposed] Stipulated Order Confirming Undisputed Attorneys' Fees and Costs for the Fourth Quarter of 2019 filed by John Armstrong. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 3/6/2020) Modified on 3/9/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/06/2020)

03/06/2020 2927 STIPULATED ORDER CONFIRMING UNDISPUTED ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS FOR THE FOURTH QUARTER OF 2019 by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2926 Stipulation. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/6/2020) (Entered: 03/06/2020)

03/10/2020 2928 STIPULATION WITH [PROPOSED] ORDER to Change Time to File Joint Status Conference Statement filed by John Armstrong, Gavin C. Newsom. (Godbold, Penny) (Filed on 3/10/2020) Modified on 3/11/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/10/2020)

03/10/2020 2929 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 2928 STIPULATION TO CHANGE TIME TO FILE JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT. Joint Status Conference Statement due by 4/15/2020. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/10/2020) (Entered: 03/10/2020)

03/17/2020

2930

STIPULATION WITH [PROPOSED] ORDER re 2922 MOTION for Permanent Injunction to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against People with Disabilities at R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility filed by John Armstrong, Gavin C. Newsom. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 3/17/2020) Modified on 3/18/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/17/2020)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 264 of 265

03/17/2020 2931 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2930 STIPULATION PROHIBITING RETALIATION. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/17/2020) (Entered: 03/17/2020)

03/18/2020 2932 Administrative Motion and [Proposed] Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 4/1/2020. Replies due by 4/8/2020. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 3/18/2020) Modified on 3/18/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/18/2020)

03/18/2020 2933 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2932 Motion for Payment. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/18/2020) (Entered: 03/18/2020)

04/10/2020 2934 Administrative Motion and [Proposed] Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 4/24/2020. Replies due by 5/1/2020. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 4/10/2020) Modified on 4/13/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/10/2020)

04/15/2020 2935 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2934 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/15/2020) (Entered: 04/15/2020)

04/15/2020 2936 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by John Armstrong, Gavin c. Newsom. (Godbold, Penny) (Filed on 4/15/2020) Modified on 4/16/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/15/2020)

04/16/2020 2937 STIPULATION WITH [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME filed by John Armstrong, Gavin C. Newsom. (Grunfeld, Gay) (Filed on 4/16/2020) Modified on 4/17/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/16/2020)

04/17/2020 2938 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2937 Stipulation.(amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/17/2020) (Entered: 04/17/2020)

04/17/2020

Reset Deadlines as to 2922 MOTION. Response due by 5/26/2020. Reply due by 6/9/2020. Motion Hearing set for 6/16/2020 02:30 PM before Judge Claudia Wilken. See Docket No. 2938 . (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/17/2020) (Entered: 04/17/2020)

05/13/2020 2939 ASSOCIATION of Counsel by Gavin C. Newsom. (Hood, Joanna) (Filed on 5/13/2020) (Entered: 05/13/2020)

05/20/2020 2940 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion filed by Gavin C. Newsom, John Armstrong. (Hood, Joanna) (Filed on 5/20/2020) Modified on 5/21/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/20/2020)

05/21/2020 2941 ***DISREGARD. SEE 2942 FOR CORRECTED ORDER*** ORDER AS MODIFIED BY THE COURT by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2940 Stipulated Request for Extension of Time.(amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/21/2020) Modified on 5/21/2020 (amgS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/21/2020)

05/21/2020 2942 CORRECTED ORDER AS MODIFIED BY THE COURT by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2940 Stipulated Request for Extension of Time. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 5/21/2020. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/21/2020) (Entered: 05/21/2020)

05/21/2020

Reset Deadlines and Hearing re 2922 MOTION. Response due by 6/9/2020. Reply due by 6/30/2020. Motion Hearing set for 7/21/2020 02:30 PM before Judge Claudia Wilken. See Docket No. 2942 (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/21/2020) (Entered: 05/21/2020)

05/21/2020 2943 Administrative Motion and [Proposed] Order for Payment filed by Edward Swanson. Responses due by 6/4/2020. Replies due by 6/11/2020. (Attachments: # 1 invoice)(Swanson, Edward) (Filed on 5/21/2020) Modified on 5/22/2020 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/21/2020)

05/22/2020 2944 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 2943 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR ORDER FOR PAYMENT.(amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/22/2020) (Entered: 05/22/2020)

Case: 4:94-cv-2307 As of: 05/30/2020 03:14 PM PDT 265 of 265
05/29/2020 2945 NOTICE of Appearance by Alicia Anne Bower OF COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS (Bower, Alicia) (Filed on 5/29/2020) (Entered: 05/29/2020)

 
 Davis v. Armstrong, 537 U.S. 812 (2002)
123 S.Ct. 72 Supreme Court of the United States Gray DAVIS, Governor of California, et al.,
petitioners, v.
John ARMSTRONG, et al. No. 01-1501. | Oct. 7, 2002.
Case below, 275 F.3d 849.

Opinion Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Parallel Citations 123 S.Ct. 72 (Mem), 154 L.Ed.2d 14, 70 USLW 3656, 71 USLW 3207, 71 USLW 3234
	  

1