Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520-540/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

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. CIV S-90-0520 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 TO DEVELOP PLANS

TO ACHIEVE REQUIRED

PRISON POPULATION

REDUCTION

Upon careful consideration of defendants’ response to the Court’s September 7, 2012

order and plaintiffs’ response thereto, the Court finds good cause to order the following:

1. Defendants shall develop plans to achieve the required population reduction to

137.5% design capacity by (a) June 27, 2013, and (b) December 27, 2013, and shall submit

those plans to this Court on or before January 7, 2013.

2. To assist in facilitating defendants’ compliance with this order, the parties shall

meet and confer on proposed plans that would achieve the above-stated goals. The parties

shall consider all of the alternatives that this Court, affirmed by the Supreme Court, found

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 4251 Filed 10/11/12 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

27

28

2

could be implemented without an adverse impact on public safety or the operation of the

criminal justice system. Additionally, in light of defendants’ stated preference to return

nearly 5,000 prisoners from out-of-state facilities before December 27, 2013, the parties shall

discuss how other alternatives would timely achieve the required population reduction while

allowing the return of all, or a portion, of these inmates. 

 3. The parties may jointly file a proposed plan on or before the date specified in the

first paragraph of this order. The parties may submit a plan only for December 27, and not

June 27, 2013, if they agree that it would be appropriate for the Court to extend the

compliance deadline to the later date. If the parties cannot reach agreement on all provisions,

including the appropriate deadline, then they shall each submit a plan that includes as many

agreed upon provisions as possible. Each plan shall also contain any individually proposed

provisions for achieving the required reduction. Any disputed provisions shall include the

proposing party’s justifications and the opposing party’s objections.

4. Defendants shall identify in their filing, whether joint or separate, which, if any,

state laws would have to be waived for the provisions proposed jointly or by either party. 

Defendants shall also specify which of these laws may be waived by the Governor and

which, if any, it contends that this Court is without authority to waive. Defendants shall

provide justifications for their assertions, and plaintiffs may state their objections to

defendants’ contentions.

5. Defendants shall provide reasonable access to data so that plaintiffs may

participate meaningfully in the meet-and-confer process. Magistrate Judge Moulds shall

oversee any disputes if the parties cannot agree on what constitutes reasonable access.

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 4251 Filed 10/11/12 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

27

28

3

The Court is informed that the Honorable Peter Siggins remains available to assist the

parties during the meet-and-confer process.

Nothing in this order with respect to the meet-and-confer process shall relieve

defendants of their obligation to submit a timely plan or plans, either jointly or separately.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 10/11/12 

STEPHEN REINHARDT

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

Dated: 10/11/12 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Dated: 10/11/12 

THELTON E. HENDERSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 4251 Filed 10/11/12 Page 3 of 3