Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-01351/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-01351-310/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AND THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT COMPOSED OF THREE JUDGES

PURSUANT TO SECTION 2284, TITLE 28 UNITED STATES CODE

RALPH COLEMAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

EDMUND G. BROWN JR., et al.,

Defendants.

NO. CIV S-90-0520 LKK JFM P

THREE-JUDGE COURT

MARCIANO PLATA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

EDMUND G. BROWN JR., et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C01-1351 TEH

THREE-JUDGE COURT

ORDER RESPONDING TO

DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR

CLARIFICATION AND

MODIFYING STATUS REPORT

REQUIREMENTS

Defendants request that this Court clarify the extent to which our June 20, 2013 Order

waives state laws. See Defs.’ Request for Clarification (ECF. No. 2674/4686). This Court

hereby provides such clarification by reiterating that all state laws that impede the

implementation of the Amended Plan and any authorized substitutions to that Plan, see

June 20, 2013 Op. & Order at 48-50 (ECF No. 2659/4662), are waived. As we stated in our

Order:

To the extent that any . . . state or local laws or regulations

impede the immediate implementation of the Amended Plan, we

waive [them] and direct defendants to provide us with a list of

such laws and regulations within 20 days of this Opinion & 

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2693 Filed 08/09/13 Page 1 of 4
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

Order. Our purpose for waiving these laws and regulations is to

enable defendants to implement or commence implementation of

all measures in the Amended Plan immediately. We will

therefore not accept as a reason for non-compliance any

contention that our Order failed to waive the necessary laws or

regulations. Defendants must act forthwith as if they have full

legal authorization to do so.

Id. at 44. This waiver includes all laws and constitutional provisions that defendants cite in

their Request for Clarification as restricting the expenditure of state funds without legislative

appropriation and as impeding the early release of prisoners. See Defs.’ Request for

Clarification at 1-2. 

This Court emphasizes, however, that the waiver applies only to the extent that the

laws impede the implementation of the Amended Plan including the authorized substitutions

to that Plan as specified in our June 20 Order. It does not serve to waive statutory and

constitutional requirements as to any measures not in the Amended Plan including authorized

substitutions to that Plan. For example, the waiver extends to “slowing the return” of 3,569

out-of-state prisoners, as that measure is included in the Amended Plan. June 20, 2013 Op.

& Order at 28-29. It does not apply to transferring more prisoners to out-of-state facilities, as

that measure is neither in the state’s Plan for compliance, submitted on May 2, 2013, nor in

the List the state submitted on that same date of all measures discussed over the course of

this litigation. See Defs.’ Resp. to Apr. 11, 2013 Order (ECF No. 2069/4542). Defendants

state in their Request for Clarification that “[d]efendants construe the June 20 order as

providing the necessary authorization for Defendants to implement all aspects of the

amended court-ordered plan . . . [n]otwithstanding the absence of any specific authorization

under state law.” Defs.’ Req. for Clarification at 3. Defendants are correct. This Court’s

June 20 Order provides the necessary authorization for implementation of the Amended Plan

and the authorized substitutions to that Plan – and not for any other action.

//

//

//

//

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2693 Filed 08/09/13 Page 2 of 4
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

Defendants shall also submit the biweekly reports due on August 15 and 29 as

previously ordered in our June 20 Opinion & Order.

3

In the future, if defendants conclude that other laws need to be waived in order to

allow them to comply with our June 20 Order, they shall submit a list of such laws forthwith.

They need not, however, wait for “clarification,” as we have already stated that all laws that

impede the implementation of our June 20 Order are waived. See June 20, 2013 Op. & Order

at 44.

The Court modifies defendants’ reporting requirements as follows: Defendants shall

submit a report by September 16, 2013, informing us of their estimate of the prison

population as of the then-current date and as of December 31, 2013, and how they plan on

reaching the 137.5% design capacity ratio by the latter date. Specifically, defendants shall

report: (1) the status of the Low Risk List; (2) which measures of those allowed by our

June 20 Order they have chosen to implement; (3) how they plan on implementing those

measures by December 31, 2013; (4) the number of prisoners each measure selected will

directly affect, and the extent to which each such measure will serve to reduce the prison

population; and (5) any unexpected change to the prison population that will require further

action within the Amended Plan and authorized substitutions. Defendants shall continue to

submit biweekly reports thereafter updating this Court on that information and on any

changes thereto.1

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2693 Filed 08/09/13 Page 3 of 4
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

4

No effort to reduce the prison population by measures other than those authorized in

the June 20 Order shall serve to excuse the failure to reduce the prison population to 137.5%

design capacity by December 31, 2013. Nor will we “accept as a reason for non-compliance

[with that Order] any contention that our Order failed to waive the necessary laws or

regulations.” Id. at 44.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 08/09/13 

STEPHEN REINHARDT

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

Dated: 08/09/13 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Dated: 08/09/13 

THELTON E. HENDERSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2693 Filed 08/09/13 Page 4 of 4