Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-01351/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-01351-21/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCIANO PLATA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C01-1351 TEH

ORDER DENYING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR

STAY PENDING APPEAL

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ motion to stay, pending appeal, 

this Court’s July 23, 2007 Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Convene Three-Judge Court. 

After carefully considering Defendants’ arguments, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion

for the reasons set forth below.

As an initial matter, Defendants have failed to file a notice of appeal in this case, and

their basis for requesting a stay is thus non-existent. There is no reason to stay a case

pending an appeal that has not been filed.

Assuming that Defendants’ failure to file a notice of appeal was an inadvertent error

or an indication of Defendants’ mistaken belief that filing a notice of appeal in Coleman v.

Schwarzenegger, Case No. CIV S-90-0520 LKK JFM (E.D. Cal.), properly appealed this

Court’s decision in this case, the Court nonetheless finds no basis for staying its July 23,

2007 order. First, as a practical matter, there is nothing from the July 23 order that remains

to be stayed. When the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion, the only action the Court requested

was that the Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

designate a three-judge court to consider a prisoner release order pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

§ 3626(a)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 2284. Chief Judge Mary Schroeder entered an order

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 796 Filed 07/31/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

designating such a three-judge court on July 26, 2007. No other relief was ordered by this

Court; consequently, there is no remaining relief from the Court’s July 23 order to be stayed.

Moreover, even if this Court had the authority to stay the proceedings of a three-judge

court that has already been convened, Defendants have failed to persuade the Court that a

stay is appropriate in this instance. Defendants correctly cite the factors this Court should

consider in weighing Defendants’ request for a stay pending appeal: “(1) whether the stay

applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether

the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will

substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public

interest lies.” Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987). Here, Defendants have made

no showing of any likelihood of success on the merits because they have provided no

jurisdictional basis for the appealability of the Court’s July 23 order. In their notice of appeal

of the companion order requesting that a three-judge court be convened in Coleman,

Defendants state that they are appealing a final decision of the district court. However, the

decision to request that a three-judge court be convened clearly is not final on its face

because it does not end the litigation, and Defendants have failed to demonstrate that the

request should be construed as an appealable final decision under the collateral order

doctrine. See Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 468 (1978) (holding that for an

interlocutory order to be construed as an appealable final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,

“the order must conclusively determine the disputed question, resolve an important issue

completely separate from the merits of the action, and be effectively unreviewable on appeal

from a final judgment”). Nor does the convening of a three-judge court satisfy any of the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a), which allows for interlocutory appeals in certain instances

not present here, and this Court also does not find that its July 23, 2007 order satisfies the

criteria specified in 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), which allows a district court to certify an order for

interlocutory appeal.

In addition, Defendants provide no support for their statement that “issuance of a

prisoner release order by a three-judge panel will pose a risk to public safety,” Mot. at 5, and

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 796 Filed 07/31/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Defendants fail to weigh properly the harm to members of the Plaintiff class that will result

from a delay in proceedings. The harm is not simply a temporal delay; as this Court has

repeatedly stated, the inadequacies in California’s delivery of medical health care to prison

inmates literally present matters of life and death. Beyond that, the three-judge court has

only been convened and has not issued any orders or, in fact, even decided whether the

criteria for entering a prisoner release order have been satisfied. Defendants’ argument of the

potential for irreparable harm may have been more convincing if this Court or the three-judge

court had ordered Defendants to take or refrain from taking any particular action. For now,

however, the Court finds that the balance of equities in this case does not tip in favor of

granting Defendants’ request for a stay.

Accordingly, with good cause appearing for all of the above reasons, Defendants’

motion for a stay pending appeal of this Court’s July 23, 2007 order is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 07/31/07 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 796 Filed 07/31/07 Page 3 of 3