Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-01351/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-01351-231/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 GRANTING

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION RE:

PROCEDURE FOR SUBMITTING

ATTORNEYS’ FEE REQUESTS

ARISING FROM THREE-JUDGE

COURT PROCEEDINGS

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion for an order directing

Plaintiffs to comply with the periodic fees order in this case in submitting requests for

attorneys’ fees and costs arising from the related three-judge court proceedings. Having

reviewed the parties’ written arguments, the Court does not find oral argument to be

necessary and hereby VACATES the hearing scheduled for September 28, 2009.

On August 26, 2009, this Court ruled that Plaintiffs are entitled to reasonable

attorneys’ fees and costs for work performed before the three-judge court based on the

June 13, 2002 Stipulation and Order for Injunctive Relief. Aug. 26, 2009 Order at 1-3. 

Thus, the only matter to be decided on this motion is whether the Court should clarify that

the periodic fees order in this case governs Plaintiffs’ fee requests for such work, and that the

deadlines for filing requests for attorneys’ fees under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

and this Court’s Civil Local Rules do not apply. Defendants do not dispute the Court’s

discretion to modify the deadlines under the federal and civil local rules, nor do they present

any argument for the Court not to do so. Defendants’ only argument is that this Court should

deny Plaintiffs’ motion because it lacks jurisdiction over fee requests for work before the

three-judge court – an argument this Court already considered and rejected in its August 26,

2009 order.

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2236 Filed 09/18/09 Page 1 of 2
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

1

This ruling should not be construed as an opinion that judgment in the three-judge

court proceedings is required prior to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs, nor that the

three-judge court’s August 4, 2009 opinion constitutes a judgment.

2

With good cause appearing based on the Court’s prior ruling regarding entitlement to

fees, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion. The deadlines and requirements of the

Plata periodic fees order, and not the deadlines and requirements set forth in Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 54(d) and Civil Local Rules 54-1 through 54-6, shall govern the fee requests

at issue.1

 However, as previously ordered, “[t]he Court temporarily stays enforcement of all

orders to pay attorneys’ fees related to proceedings before the three-judge court pending

resolution of Defendants’ motion to stay, noticed for hearing on October 19, 2009.” 

Sept. 16, 2009 Order at 5. In addition, the Court understands that a similar motion is pending

before the district court in Coleman v. Schwarzenegger, Case No. Civ. S-90-0520 LKK JFM

(E.D. Cal.), and reiterates that “[i]f the Coleman court subsequently issues a ruling

inconsistent with this order . . ., then this Court will entertain a motion for leave to file a

motion for reconsideration under Civil Local Rule 7-9 and may reconsider its ruling.” 

Aug. 26, 2009 Order at 3 n.3.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 09/18/09 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2236 Filed 09/18/09 Page 2 of 2