Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_79-cv-01630/USCOURTS-cand-3_79-cv-01630-24/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAURICE THOMPSON ET AL., on behalf of

themselves and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

JAMES E. TILTON, Acting Secretary,

California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation, and EDDIE YLST, Acting

Warden, San Quentin State Prison,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 79-01630 WHA

ORDER RE BRIEFING

At the hearing on August 17, 2006, the Court ordered further briefing. The following

list of topics restates those mentioned at the hearing and adds new ones. Responses are due

SEPTEMBER 1, 2006. 

1. California Penal Code Section 5058, including how it impacts, if at all, the

authority under state law of defendants Eddie Ylst and James E. Tilton to apply

to condemned inmates the proposed Condemned Manual instead of all applicable

provisions of Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations. If there is such an

impact, how does it affect application of 18 U.S.C. 3626(a)(1) and 3626(c)(1) to

the pending motion to modify the decree. 

2. The impact on this action of 18 U.S.C. 3626 generally, including whether

granting the motion to modify the consent decree and approving the consent

decree would constitute prospective relief under 18 U.S.C. 3626(a)(1) and/or

Case 3:79-cv-01630-WHA Document 967 Filed 08/22/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

approval or entry of a consent decree under 18 U.S.C. 3626(e)(1). If the answer

to either question is “yes,” what findings would be required to permit the

requested relief and what would be the required mode of analysis to reach such

findings? 

3. What conditions exist at San Quentin State Prison currently that violate a federal

right, as that term is used in 18 U.S.C. 3626(a)(1)? If there is such a condition,

why have plaintiffs and intervenor not moved to hold defendants in contempt? 

4. The procedural history of this action since Gilmore v. California, 220 F.3d 987

(9th Cir. 2000). The Court wants to know why no one asked for an evidentiary

hearing, if that is the case. 

5. Under what circumstances, if any, can a court look into the future to a building

not yet constructed and declare that it will be permissible to segregate and

classify prisoners there according to a particular formula. 

6. The desirability of a seven- or eight-member group of representative plaintiffs. 

What decision-making process will such a group of condemned inmates use? 

(Dexter Williams states that he no longer wants to represent the class.) 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 21, 2006 WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:79-cv-01630-WHA Document 967 Filed 08/22/06 Page 2 of 2