Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-05796/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-05796-66/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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 California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUREKA DIVISION

TODD ASHKER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BROWN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 09-cv-05796-CW (NJV)

ORDER RE MOTION TO COMPEL 

COMPLIANCE WITH SETTLEMENT 

AGREEMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 553

On June 7, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking an order compelling CDCR to: (1) 

conduct DRB reviews within 60 days for all prisoners who were initially referred to the DRB 

under Paragraph 27 more than 100 days before the court’s order, and within 2 weeks of the 

Court’s order, create and share with Plaintiffs and the court a plan to ensure that all remaining 

reviews of prisoners referred to the DRB under Paragraph 27 be completed within 100 days of the 

Court’s order, and that all future DRB reviews be completed within 100 days of DRB referral; and 

(2) transfer all debriefers to nonsegregated housing or, in the alternative, afford them RCGP 

privileges, within thirty days. (Doc. 553.) Defendants filed an opposition on June 21, 2016, and 

Plaintiffs filed a reply on June 28, 2016. (Docs. 570, 576.) The matter was heard on July 12, 

2016. (Doc. 582.) The court took the matter under submission and ordered Defense Counsel to 

provide statistics to the court and to opposing counsel at their next meeting. Id. 

At the meeting with the court on July 20, 2016, Defense Counsel provided the court and 

Plaintiffs' Counsel with the required statistics in the form of copies of a document entitled, 

"Security Threat Group Institution Classification Committee Results as of July 18, 2016." 

Defense Counsel also provided copies of a CDCR document entitled, "Streamline of the Security 

Threat Group Debrief Process." The court ordered Defense Counsel to provide Plaintiffs' counsel 

by August 1, 2016, with a list prioritized by segregation placement date of 90 men with the new 

Case 4:09-cv-05796-CW Document 608 Filed 08/03/16 Page 1 of 2
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 California

privileges. (Doc. 591.) The court also ordered Defense Counsel to provide Plaintiffs' Counsel on 

a monthly basis with an updated snapshot of data regarding segregated populations. Id. 

Pursuant to Paragraph 27 of the Settlement Agreement, "[i]f the Institutional Classification 

Committee refers a case to the Departmental Review Board pursuant to this Paragraph, the

Departmental Review Board shall prioritize these case reviews and expeditiously conduct the

hearing and render its placement decision." After reviewing the information provided by Defense 

Counsel, the court finds that Defendants' substantial compliance with the requirements of 

Paragraph 27 makes it unnecessary to implement Plaintiffs' request for imposition of specific 

timetables.

Pursuant to Paragraph 25 of the Settlement Agreement, "[i]f an inmate has not been found 

guilty of a SHU-eligible rule violation with a proven STG nexus within the last 24 months, he 

shall be released from the SHU and transferred to a General Population level IV 180-design 

facility, or other general population institution consistent with his case factors." Plaintiffs contend 

that the CDCR's practice of retaining debriefers in the SHU during Phase I of the debriefing 

process is a violation of this provision. Defendants allege that the CDCR is currently moving 

debriefing inmates from the SHU to protective segregated housing while providing them nondisciplinary segregation status, which allows them enhanced visitation and programming 

opportunities. As has been discussed at the meetings between counsel and the court, this is a fluid 

situation, with the CDCR moving debriefing inmates to successively less restrictive housing, 

which comes with increased privileges. The court continues to work with counsel to address the 

Eighth Amendment and safety concerns regarding both the inmates and the institutional staff, and 

under the realities of managing this unique segment of the prison population, finds that Defendants 

have substantial complied with the requirements of Paragraph 25.

Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Compliance is 

HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 3, 2016 ______________________________________

NANDOR J. VADAS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:09-cv-05796-CW Document 608 Filed 08/03/16 Page 2 of 2