Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-01351/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-01351-294/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. 2:90-cv-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 REQUIRING LIST OF

PROPOSED POPULATION

REDUCTION MEASURES

Concurrently with the filing of this order, this Court denies defendants’ Motion to

Vacate or Modify Population Reduction Order (Plata ECF No. 2506/Coleman ECF No.

4280). We reiterate that defendants must immediately take further steps to comply with this

Court’s June 30, 2011 Order, as amended on January 29, 2013 (“Order”), requiring

defendants to reduce the overall prison population to 137.5% design capacity by

December 31, 2013. To ensure that they do so, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within 21 days of the date of this order, defendants shall submit a list (“List”)

of all prison population reduction measures identified or discussed as possible remedies in

this Court’s August 2009 Opinion & Order, in the concurrently filed Opinion & Order, or by

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2591 Filed 04/11/13 Page 1 of 6
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

plaintiffs or defendants in the course of these proceedings (except for out-of-state prisoner

housing, discussed in 2(g)). Defendants shall also include on the List any additional

measures that they may presently be considering. Defendants shall list all of these measures

in the order that defendants would prefer to implement them, without regard to whether in

defendants’ view they possess the requisite authority to do so. For each measure, defendants

shall include the following information:

a. Defendants’ best estimate as to the extent to which the measure would,

in itself, assist defendants in reducing the prison population to 137.5% design capacity by

December 31, 2013, including defendants’ best estimate as to the number of prisoners who

would be “released,” see 18 U.S.C. § 3626(g)(4), as a result of the measure. If the measure

permits retroactive application, defendants shall include two sets of estimates – one

calculated on the basis of applying the measure prospectively only, and the other calculated

on the basis of applying the measure both prospectively and retrospectively.

b. Whether defendants, including Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr.,

currently possess the authority to implement the measure and, if not, what action or actions

must be taken by the Legislature or any administrative body or agency before defendants

may implement the measure and, if such action or actions have not yet been taken, which

specific constitutional provisions, statutes, regulations, or rules must be amended, modified,

or waived in order for defendants to be able to implement the measure.

c. If defendants must obtain further authorization to implement the

measure, the latest date by which that authorization must be obtained for the measure to have

a substantial effect on defendants’ ability to comply with the Order.

d. A list of specific steps necessary to implement the measure, other than

those related to obtaining the necessary authorization, and the dates by which these specific

steps must be taken for the measure to have a substantial effect on defendants’ ability to

comply with the Order.

//

//

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2591 Filed 04/11/13 Page 2 of 6
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

2. Within 21 days of the date of this order, defendants shall submit a plan 

(“Plan”) for compliance with the Order. This Plan shall identify measures from the List that

defendants propose to implement, without regard to whether in defendants’ view they

possess the requisite authority to do so. The Plan shall include a number of additional

measures (contingency measures) should any of these measures prove infeasible or fail to

meet the anticipated numbers. Defendants shall also include the following information

regarding the Plan:

a. For each measure in the Plan as to which defendants currently possess

the requisite authority: the dates by which the specific steps to implement the measure will

be taken, and the person or persons responsible for taking each step.

b. For each measure in the Plan as to which defendants currently lack the

requisite authority: the necessary authorization, approval, or waivers, including listing the

specific constitutional provisions, statutes, regulations, or rules involved.

c. For each measure in the Plan: defendants’ best estimate as to the extent

to which the measure would assist defendants in reducing the prison population to 137.5%

design capacity by December 31, 2013, including defendants’ best estimate as to the number

of prisoners who would be “released” as a result of the measure.

d. For the Plan as a whole but excluding contingency measures:

defendants’ best estimate as to the total number of prisoners who would be “released” and

defendants’ best estimate as to the remaining prisoner population as a percentage of design

capacity. These estimates shall not double count prisoners who may fall within more than

one measure.

e. For the measures included in the List but not in the Plan: defendants’

reasons, excluding lack of authority, why they do not propose to implement these measures. 

Other reasons that shall be excluded are all reasons that were previously offered at the trial

leading to this Court’s August 2009 Opinion & Order and rejected in that Opinion & Order.

f. An explanation of how the measures in the Plan would, individually and

collectively, provide a durable solution to the problem of prison overcrowding, such that the

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2591 Filed 04/11/13 Page 3 of 6
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

prison population would be sustained at a level at or below 137.5% design capacity beyond

the December 31, 2013 deadline.

g. If defendants wish to include in the Plan a measure relating to slowing

or eliminating the return of inmates being housed in out-of-state prisons, they shall include

an estimate regarding the extent to which this measure would assist defendants in reducing

the prison population to 137.5% design capacity by December 31, 2013. They shall also

explain the effect on durability of failing to return the number of prisoners anticipated to be

returned in the Blueprint during the current year, and in particular whether those prisoners

and other out-of-state prisoners will be added to the prison population in future years.

3. All defendants, including the Governor, shall use their best efforts to

implement the Plan.

a. For each measure in the Plan as to which defendants currently possess

the requisite authority: Defendants shall immediately commence taking the steps necessary

to implement the measure.

b. For the remaining measures in the Plan: Defendants shall forthwith

attempt in good faith to obtain the necessary authorization, approval, or waivers from the

Legislature or any relevant administrative body or agency.

4. Following the filing of the List and the Plan, defendants shall include in their

monthly status reports the following information:

a. For each measure in the Plan as to which defendants currently possess

the requisite authority: the steps that have been taken towards such implementation. If any

step has not been taken by its intended date (as provided for in 2(a)), defendants shall explain

the reasons and list specific steps, including revised dates and persons responsible, such that

the measure will be implemented in time to have a substantial effect on defendants’ ability to

comply with the Order. “Reasons” shall not include any explanation that challenges the

validity of this Court’s orders or the necessity of defendants’ compliance.

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2591 Filed 04/11/13 Page 4 of 6
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

5

b. For the remaining measures in the Plan: all actions that have been taken

by defendants, including the Governor, to obtain the necessary authorization, approval, or

waivers from the Legislature or any relevant administrative body or agency, and the specific

actions taken by the Legislature or the administrative body or agency in response, if any.

5. Two years ago, the Supreme Court stated: “The three-judge court, in its

discretion, may also consider whether it is appropriate to order the State to begin without

delay to develop a system to identify prisoners who are unlikely to reoffend or who might

otherwise be candidates for early release.” Brown v. Plata, 131 S. Ct. 1910, 1947 (2011). 

We have inquired about defendants’ ability to develop such a system, and they have advised

us that they are able to do so. Defs.’ Resp. to Sept. 7, 2012 Order at 5 (Plata ECF No. 2479/

Coleman ECF No. 4243). Given the passage of time and defendants’ failure to take all steps

necessary to comply with our Order thus far, we now order defendant to develop a system to

identify prisoners who are unlikely to reoffend or who might otherwise be candidates for

early release, to the extent that they have not already done so. If defendants fail to reduce the

prison population to 137.5% design capacity in a timely manner, this system will permit

defendants to nevertheless comply with the Order through the release of low-risk prisoners. 

Accordingly, defendants shall design the system such that it will be effective irrespective of

defendants’ partial or full implementation of some or all of the measures in the Plan. Within

100 days of the date of this order, defendants shall submit a report to this Court regarding the

actions taken thus far regarding this identification system, its current status as of that date,

and – if the system is not yet fully developed – defendants’ best estimate as to when it will be

fully developed.

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2591 Filed 04/11/13 Page 5 of 6
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

6

For the purposes of this order, the term “defendants” shall refer to each defendant,

individually and collectively.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 04/11/13 

STEPHEN REINHARDT

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

Dated: 04/11/13 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Dated: 04/11/13 

THELTON E. HENDERSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2591 Filed 04/11/13 Page 6 of 6