Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-01351/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-01351-190/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

AND THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RALPH COLEMAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-90-0520 LKK JFM P (E.D. Cal.)

v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

MARCIANO PLATA, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. C 01-1351 TEH (N.D. Cal.)

v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CARLOS PEREZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. C 05-5241 JSW (N.D. Cal.)

v.

MATTHEW CATE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 1862 Filed 12/01/08 Page 1 of 3
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

2

JOHN ARMSTRONG, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. C 94-2307 CW (N.D. Cal.) 

v.

ORDER RE: TRANSITION PLANNING

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, COORDINATION AGREEMENT

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

The Receiver in Plata, the Special Master in Coleman, and the Court Representatives in

Perez and Armstrong presented to the judges in the above-captioned cases an agreement

concerning planning for the transition, activation, and management of the Receiver’s 10,000 Bed

Project. On October 30, 2008, the courts granted the parties until November 10, 2008, to show

cause why the agreement should not be adopted as a court order. Defendants filed objections;

Plaintiffs did not. 

On November 17, 2008, the Receiver filed a timely response to Defendants’ objections. 

In his response, the Receiver proposed “that he institute a series of meetings commencing in the

near future to which relevant stakeholders will be invited for the purpose of discussing the

10,000 bed project and the Receiver’s plans for managing the facilities to be constructed.” 

Response at 3. Upon careful consideration, the courts find good cause to adopt the Receiver’s

proposal.

Accordingly, the Receiver is HEREBY ORDERED to meet and confer with relevant

stakeholders, including the parties, Special Master, and Court Representatives, concerning the

coordination agreement on transition planning attached to the court’s October 30, 2008 Order to

Show Cause. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Receiver and Defendants shall file a joint

supplemental statement on or before February 2, 2009. If necessary, this joint statement may

//

//

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 1862 Filed 12/01/08 Page 2 of 3
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

3

include sections setting forth the Receiver’s and Defendants’ separate contentions. The request

for approval of the coordination agreement on transition planning will subsequently be taken

under submission for individual and joint consideration by the undersigned.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 12/01/08 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DATED: 12/01/08 

THELTON E. HENDERSON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DATED: 12/01/08 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DATED: 12/01/08 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 1862 Filed 12/01/08 Page 3 of 3