Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520-1106/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 KJN P 

ORDER 

The court convened the fourth and final quarterly status conference of 2020 by 

videoconference on December 18, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. See ECF No. 6998. At hearing, the court 

signaled its intention to strike from the record all suggestions for court action presented under the 

guise of status reports and other documents the court deems non-responsive to its orders. The 

court also indicated it would provide further clarification following hearing, as it does here. 

As the court reviewed on the record, examples of the type of filing the court is 

striking include, but are not limited to: 

1. Plaintiffs’ suggestion that Enhanced Outpatient Program (EOP)

inmates should not be housed in administrative segregation

units. See, e.g., ECF No. 6937 at 10-11.

2. Defendants’ brief attached to their staffing proposal, ECF No.

6978. 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 7003 Filed 12/24/20 Page 1 of 2
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 

3. Defendants’ statement on specific suicide prevention issues,

ECF No. 6980, to the extent it refers to definitions of

foreseeability and preventability as “the Special Master’s”

definitions and, more generally, to the extent they suggest

“foreseeability” and “preventability” analyses have been

separated from suicide reviews, particularly in the area of

review of clinical inadequacies leading to suicides.

4. Plaintiffs’ suggestion that the court can interpret arguments in

plaintiffs’ July 15, 2020 brief, ECF No. 6766, as a motion for

referral of this matter to a three-judge court for consideration of

prison population reduction measures targeting the plaintiff

class.

Defendants’ brief attached to the staffing proposal, ECF No. 6978, is stricken in its entirely. The 

staffing proposal, ECF No. 6978-1, however, remains of record. The other content referenced 

above is stricken from the documents in which it is found, though the documents otherwise 

remain part of the record to the extent they contain material not stricken. The court will not act 

on those items or any other such requests that may remain on the court’s docket. Nothing in this 

order precludes any party from seeking leave to file a motion on these matters consistent with the 

further requirements of this order set forth below. 

Going forward, any party seeking relief from this court, including from any 

existing order of this court, must first file a request for leave to file a motion, describing with 

particularity the relief to be sought and the steps the party has taken to exhaust meet and confer 

efforts with all opposing counsel. The request also should describe communications with the 

Special Master regarding the proposed motion as part of the requester’s due diligence in 

determining whether the parties are at impasse. Any such request must not exceed five (5) pages. 

The court will not entertain any motion unless a request for leave to file that complies with this 

order is first filed and then the court grants it. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: December 23, 2020. 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 7003 Filed 12/24/20 Page 2 of 2