Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_90-cv-03094/USCOURTS-cand-3_90-cv-03094-4/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 EDMUND G. BROWN JR.

Attorney General ofthe State ofCalifornia

2 DAVID S. CHANEY

ChiefAssistant Attorney General

3 FRANCEST.GRUNDER

Senior Assistant Attorney General

4 ROCHELLE C. EAST

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

5 MICHAEL JORGENSON, State Bar No. 201145

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

6 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102-7004

7 Telephone: (415) 703-5629

Fax: (415) 703-5843

8 Email: Michael.Jorgenson@doj.ca.gov

9 Attorneys for Defendants Tilton, Horel, and McLean

STEVENFAMA, State BarNo. 99641

Prison Law Office

General Delivery

San Quentin, CA 94964-0001

Telephone: (415) 457-9144

Fax: (415) 457-9151

Email: sfama@prisonlaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

17 ALEJANDRO MADRID, et al., C 90-3094 TEH

20 JAMES TILTON, et al.,

18

19 v.

Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE

STATEWIDE USE OF FORCE

POLICY

21 Defendants.

22

23 The parties stipulate to the implementation ofthe attached document (Department

24 Operations Manual Chapter 5, Article 1, Use of Force) as the statewide use-of-force policy for

25 the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's (CDCR) Division of Adult

26 institutions. The parties further stipulate and request that the Court order that the attached

27 document be implemented to govern the Division ofAdult Institution's procedures pertaining to

28

Stip. and [Proposed] Order re CDCR Use ofForce Policy

1

Madrid v. Tilton

C 90-3094 TEH

Case 3:90-cv-03094-TEH Document 2143 Filed 05/14/08 Page 1 of 4
1 the use-of-force,as set forth in Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 32681/ and replace the current use-of2 force policy at Pelican Bay State Prison (Pelican Bay).

3 ill support of this stipulation, the parties briefly report to the Court the processes that

4 resulted in the creation ofthe attached statewide use-of-force policy.

5 PROCEDURAL HISTORY

6 On July 12, 2000, this Court ceased monitoring Defendants' use-of-force policies following

7 a report and recommendation by the Special Master. ill that Order the Court determined that the

8 proposed use-of-force policy revisions did not conflict with the Court's orders, adequately

9 addressed the operational problems associated with earlier remedial plans, and adequately

10 addressed any constitutional issues related to use-of-force regarding Pelican Bay State Prison's

11 use-of-force policy.

12 Counsel for CDCR'forwarded to Special Master John Hagar a proposed statewide use-of13 force policy on Decemberl ", 2007. On January 10, 2008, the Special Master asked the parties

14 to meet with Court Experts Michael Gennaco and Dr. Pat Maher to ensure that any statewide use15 of-force policy would be consistent with the current use-of-force policy at Pelican Bay, which

16 was part ofthe Court-Ordered remedial plan. The mission was to achieve uniformity throughout

17 the state prison system while maintaining the features of the current Pelican Bay policy that

18 adequately address constitutional issues related to use-of-force.

19 The parties and other interested stakeholders began meeting in earnest to achieve these goals

20 on January 25, 2008. That meeting was chaired by Court Experts Michael Gennaco, Stephen

21 Connolly, and Dr. Pat Maher, and attendees included counsel for the parties, representatives of

22 the CDCR, the CDCR's Office ofInternal Affairs, the Governor's Office and the Office of

23 Inspector General's Bureau ofIndependent Review. At the first meeting, the parties identified

24 differences between the draft statewide policy and the current Pelican Bay use-of-force policies.

25 The parties assessed these differences in terms oftheir significance, their practical implications,

26

1. The parties recognize that Section 52100.17.6, Health Care StaffUse ofForce-Reporting

27 Requirements, contains a provision in the last paragraph that will require approval ofthe Receiver

28 and Court in the Plata litigation and await any further instruction regarding the appropriate

mechanism for achieving that approval process.

Stip. and [Proposed] Order re CDCR Use ofForce Policy Madrid v. Tilton

C 90-3094 TEH

2

Case 3:90-cv-03094-TEH Document 2143 Filed 05/14/08 Page 2 of 4
1 and possible approaches for their reconciliation.

2 The parties then worked extensively to.achieve a mutually acceptable statewide use-of-force

3 plan. Along with considerable work by individual subcommittees and regular correspondence

4 between the parties, subsequent meetings were held on February 4 and 20,2008. At the February

5 20, 2008 meeting, representatives from Pelican Bay attended and offered their insight and

6 comments regarding the development ofthe statewide policy through their specific practical

7 experiences at Pelican Bay. During both ofthose meetings, the parties and interested

8 stakeholders made progress toward consensus.

9 On March 3, 2008, a conference call was held among the parties and stakeholders, and all

10 remaining issues regarding the statewide use-of-force policy were resolved. The Court experts

11 then reviewed the final policy and concurred that the final statewide use-of-force policy met

12 constitutional standards.tThe Court experts further concluded that the statewide policy achieves

13 the goal ofuniformity, while preserving Pelican Bay concepts and applying them statewide..

14 CONCLUSION

15 The working group developed a use-of-force policy for all adult institutions statewide as

16 provided in the attached document. The parties stipulate that the attached statewide use-of-force

17 policy adequately addresses constitutional issues related to use-of-force and that it shall upon

18 formal adoption and implementation by Defendants replace the Madrid use-of-force policy at

19 II

20 II

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Stip. and [Proposed] Order re CDCR Use ofForce Policy

3

Madrid v. Tilton

C 90-3094 TEH

Case 3:90-cv-03094-TEH Document 2143 Filed 05/14/08 Page 3 of 4
, 1'h,ejtoilE~}Ienderson"--'--"'­

U.S, District Court Judge

!I

IjI:

I II Pelican Bay. Defendants shan file and SCl"Ve a written notice of adoption and implementation of

2. II the attached statewide use-of-force policy within ten (10) calendar days of the date ofthat action.

'"l Ii ,) Ii

4 j!I' Dated:"""_",!!'!:J""".!.~ :2()~~ __,.~(2,_. _._.",,- I, Michael jorgel~ 5!iArrorneyfor Defendants Tilton, Horel, and'

I Mcl.ean

6 d ,

7 !] 111 811 Dated:l·J+;J4!pt(

- I,

9 II

1011 IT IS SO ORDERED.

i)' ,

111

I' 12,1 Dated: II, ------.....--.....- 13 !~ 1

14 Ii

i! J .. j; ,) i

1.61

17 11

1 II

1,. 'I

::s li

r

19

11, 20.i

II

21 t

I

l

I

22 I

i

I

cs I

241Ii

25 11,J

2.6 11

'nil

,., 'II

')0 n, z.o .Ii

ii

1Slip, and (Proposed] Orderre CDCRUseof ForcePolicy

I . , 4

M,ti:lrid v. Tilton

C 90·3094TEB:

.1

I

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

Judge Thelton E. Henderson

05/13/08

Case 3:90-cv-03094-TEH Document 2143 Filed 05/14/08 Page 4 of 4