Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520-782/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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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. 

MARCIANO PLATA, et al., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

EDMUND G. BROWN JR., et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 2:90-cv-0520 KJM KJN P 

THREE-JUDGE COURT

Case No. 01-cv-01351-TEH 

THREE-JUDGE COURT 

ORDER REQUIRING ADDITIONAL 

REPORTING 

On February 10, 2014, this court granted defendants’ request for a two-year 

extension in which to comply with the court’s June 30, 2011 order to reduce California’s 

in-state adult institution population to no more than 137.5% of design capacity. The twoyear extension gave defendants until February 28, 2016 to meet the court-ordered 

reduction. Feb. 10, 2014 Order at 2 (ECF No. 2766/5060).1

 Since receiving the extension, 

defendants have made laudable progress, and achieved compliance with the percentage 

 1

 All filings in this Three-Judge Court are included in the individual docket sheets 

of both Plata v. Brown, No. 01-cv-01351-TEH (N.D. Cal.), and Coleman v. Brown, No. 

2:90-cv-0520 KJM KJN P (E.D. Cal.). This court includes the docket number of Plata

first, then Coleman. 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 5416 Filed 03/04/16 Page 1 of 4
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

benchmark one year early, with the population remaining below the benchmark since 

February 2015: 

Date 

In-state 

adult 

institution 

population

% 

Design 

Capacity

Out-ofstate 

population

In-state 

private 

prison 

population 

(California 

City)

In-state 

contract 

bed 

capacity 

(MCCFs)

2

February 11, 2015 112,993 136.6% 8,828 1,973 4,218 

March 11, 2015 112,106 135.5% 8,778 1,893 4,218 

April 8, 2015 111,863 135.3% 8,394 1,999 4,218 

May 13, 2015 111,341 134.6% 8,060 2,152 4,218 

June 10, 2015 111,370 134.7% 7,726 2,308 4,218 

July 8, 2015 111,168 134.4% 7,277 2,339 4,218 

August 12, 20153 111,485 134.8% 6,961 2,225 4,218 

September 9, 2015 111,656 135.0% 6,508 2,245 4,218 

October 14, 2015 112,195 135.7% 5,907 2,147 4,218 

November 11, 2015 112,350 135.8% 5,447 2,071 4,218 

December 9, 2015 112,510 136.0% 5,264 1,978 4,218 

January 13, 2016 112,737 136.3% 5,173 1,882 4,218 

February 10, 2016 112,887 136.5% 5,088 1,813 4,218 

See Defs.’ Monthly Status Reports (ECF Nos. 2838/5278, 2842/5289, 2846/5300, 

2848/5306, 2860/5322, 2862/5331, 2864/5336, 2870/5354, 2874/5368, 2876/5379, 

 2

 Defendants’ monthly reports all state that there are 4,218 MCCF (modified 

community correctional facility) beds “that are in various stages of activation and 

transfer.” 

3

 The court uses the figures on page 1 of Defendants’ August status report, which 

appear to be correct based on the weekly report available at http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/ 

Reports_Research/Offender_Information_Services_Branch/WeeklyWed/TPOP1A/TPOP1

Ad150812.pdf. The figures at the top of Exhibit A to the August report appear not to have 

been updated from the July report. 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 5416 Filed 03/04/16 Page 2 of 4
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 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

2880/5388, 2882/5400, 2886/5411). Even as the benchmark has been attained, as reflected 

in the above table, however, the in-state adult institution population has been gradually 

increasing since July 2015. Part of this growth is due to the State’s commendable efforts 

to return inmates from out-of-state facilities, but there still remain over 5,000 inmates in 

out-of-state facilities. There are also approximately 5,500 inmates housed in in-state 

contract facilities.4

 Moreover, defendants project that the total number of inmates will 

increase by over 3,600 over the next few years, which in itself threatens to push the 

population back over the threshold. See An Update to the Future of California 

Corrections: January 2016 at 25, available at http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Blueprint-Update2016/An-Update-to-the-Future-of-California-Corrections-January-2016.pdf. 

The court commends defendants for achieving the required reduction in the current 

in-state adult institution population. It also commends the parties for working 

cooperatively to ensure that the court’s orders are fully implemented. E.g., Stip. & Order 

in Response to Nov. 14, 2014 Order (ECF No. 2830/5254). 

At the same time, as this court has previously ordered and as defendants recognize, 

the court will “maintain jurisdiction over this matter for as long as is necessary to ensure 

that defendants’ compliance with the 137.5% final benchmark is durable, and such 

durability is firmly established.” Feb. 10, 2014 Order at 5. Additional work remains for 

defendants to demonstrate that they can maintain compliance with the population 

benchmark in the absence of court-ordered remedies. To that end, defendants shall 

// 

// 

// 

// 

 4

 As of midnight February 10, 2016, which is the source of the population data in 

defendants’ most recent status report, there were 5,530 inmates housed in in-state contract 

beds, including the 1,813 inmates housed at California City. See CDCR, Weekly Rpt. of 

Population, Feb. 10, 2016, available at http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Reports_Research/ 

Offender_Information_Services_Branch/WeeklyWed/TPOP1A/TPOP1Ad160210.pdf. 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 5416 Filed 03/04/16 Page 3 of 4
4 

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

continue to report to the court monthly as required by the February 10, 2014 Order. Id.

at 3. Defendants’ monthly reports shall include a discussion of the steps defendants are 

taking to ensure that compliance with the 137.5% benchmark is durable. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 03/04/16 _______________________________________ 

STEPHEN REINHARDT 

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE 

NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS 

Dated: 03/04/16 

THELTON E. HENDERSON 

 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

 

Dated: 03/04/16 

KIMBERLY J. MUELLER 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 5416 Filed 03/04/16 Page 4 of 4