Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01722/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01722-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

Case No.: 5:15-cv-03282-EJD

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MICHAEL S. BERMAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

EDMUND G. BROWN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:15-cv-03282-EJD 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

In this action against California Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. and Corrections 

Secretary Jeffrey A. Beard (the “State Defendants”), Plaintiffs Michael S. Berman and Darrell B. 

Stapp (“Plaintiffs”) challenge the state’s implementation of a corrections program known as the 

Alternative Custody Program (“ACP”). According to Plaintiffs, the ACP permits a form of 

supervised release which “allows prisoners to reunite with their families in their home 

communities in lieu of incarceration.” Plaintiffs allege the ACP as presently authorized by 

California Penal Code § 1170.5 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth 

Amendment because it categorically excludes male prisoners from participating in the program. 

They seek two forms of relief: a declaration that the exclusion of male prisoners from the ACP is 

unconstitutional, and an injunction precluding further enforcement of the exclusion. 

On July 27, 2015, the State Defendants filed a notice under Civil Local Rule 3-13 due to 

the pendency of another case asserting a similar challenge to the ACP. See Docket Item No. 18. 

That action, Sassman v. Brown, Case No. 14-CV-01679-MCE-KJN (PR), was filed in the Eastern 

District of California on July 16, 2014, and is currently assigned to Chief Judge Morrison C. 

England. 

Case 2:15-cv-01722-MCE-KJN Document 19 Filed 07/28/15 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No.: 5:15-cv-03282-EJD

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

The Sassman action is nearly identical to this case in all material aspects. Indeed, aside 

from those details particular to the initiating parties, the factual allegations contained in the 

Sassman Complaint track those of Plaintiffs’ Complaint word-for-word. The relief requested is 

also the same: Sassman, like Plaintiffs, seeks declaratory and injunctive relief enjoining the State 

Defendants from excluding men from the ACP. Moreover, Sassman sought the same preliminary 

injunction that Plaintiffs seek in this case. 

Because the Sassman action is further progressed, the State Defendants request this case be 

stayed or transferred to the Eastern District. Having considered this issue, the court concurs that a 

transfer of venue to permit coordination with the Sassman action is appropriate. 

Accordingly, the court hereby issues an order to show cause why this action should not be 

transferred to the Eastern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).1 If Plaintiffs do 

not, by August 10, 2015, file a response to this order which demonstrates good cause in writing 

why this case should not be transferred, the court will enter an order transferring venue pursuant to 

§ 1404(a). 

The State Defendants may file a reply to Plaintiffs’ response, if any, on or before August 

14, 2015. No hearing will be held on the order to show cause unless otherwise ordered by the 

court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 28, 2015

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

 

1 Under § 1404(a), “a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division 

where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented” 

for the convenience of parties and witnesses. Such an order may be entered sua sponte “‘so long 

as the parties have the opportunity to present their views on the issue.’” Am. Realty Investors, 

Inc. v. Prime Income Mgmt., Inc., No. 2:13-cv-00278-APG-CWH, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

159075, at *3, 2013 WL 5947221 (D. Nev. Nov. 4, 2013) (quoting Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 

1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986)).

Case 2:15-cv-01722-MCE-KJN Document 19 Filed 07/28/15 Page 2 of 2