Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520-1175/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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 

1 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RALPH COLEMAN, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:90-cv-0520 KJM DB P 

ORDER

The parties have presented a stipulation and proposed order regarding their proposed 

resolution of defendants’ July 27, 2021 Motion to Modify the 2009 Staffing Plan, ECF No. 7250. 

ECF No. 7486. For the reasons explained below, the court defers consideration of the stipulation 

as presented. 

The parties’ proposed modification incorporates a defense assertion that “neither the 2009 

Staffing Plan itself nor any of the adjustments in this proposal are necessary to remedy an Eighth 

Amendment violation. Nor do they reflect “relief ... [that 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).” ECF No. 

7486-1 at 2 n.1. The 2009 Staffing Plan includes a similar disclaimer. See ECF No. 3693 at 7 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 7502 Filed 03/16/22 Page 1 of 3
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 

n.1.1 In its October 10, 2017 order requiring defendants to come into full compliance with the 

2009 Staffing Plan, the court specifically noted that, notwithstanding that disclaimer, “the 

Staffing Plan was developed in response to a court order to ‘resolve all outstanding staffing 

allocation issues’ to remedy an ongoing constitutional violation.” October 10, 2017 Order, ECF 

No. 5711, at 16 n.5 (citing ECF No. 3613 at 2). Moreover, it is established through several longstanding orders of this court that full implementation of the 2009 Staffing Plan is necessary to 

remedy the Eighth Amendment violation in this case. See, e.g., Coleman v. Brown, 938 F.Supp.2d 

955, 969 (E.D. Cal. 2013); see also October 10, 2017 Order, ECF No. 5711 at 16-18. The 

findings in those orders are sufficient to satisfy the need-narrowness-intrusiveness requirements 

of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). 

Footnote 1 of Exhibit A signifies that defendants are asking the court to approve an 

agreement for staffing that, in their view, does not satisfy the need-narrowness-intrusiveness 

requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). The court can only approve the present agreement if 

it does not constitute “prospective relief” or if the court is satisfied such approval does satisfy the 

need-narrowness-intrusiveness requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). 

While the court approves in principle the substance of the parties’ agreement, 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3626(a)(1)(A) precludes it from entering the requested order as presented until the record is 

clear either that an order on the proposed modification is not “prospective relief” within the 

meaning of the statute or, in the alternative, that such an order meets the need-narrownessintrusiveness requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). 

 Accordingly, good cause appearing, the parties are GRANTED fourteen days from the 

date of this order in which to file either an amended stipulation and proposed order resolving the 

obstacle to court approval of their agreement or, in the alternative, a proposed schedule with page 

///// 

1

 In this order citations to page numbers in documents filed in the Court’s Electronic Case 

Filing (ECF) system are to the page number assigned by the ECF system and located in the upper 

righthand corner of the page. 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 7502 Filed 03/16/22 Page 2 of 3
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 

limits for supplemental briefing and submission of evidence relevant to resolution of the issue 

identified by this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: March 15, 2022. 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 7502 Filed 03/16/22 Page 3 of 3