Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_01-cv-01351/USCOURTS-cand-4_01-cv-01351-241/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

1

The Court extends the terms of Ms. LaMarre and Dr. Puisis to be concurrent with the

terms of all other Board members. Mr. Richard Bayquen, an original member of the Board,

voluntarily resigned in September 2009.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCIANO PLATA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C01-1351 TEH

ORDER RE-APPOINTING

ADVISORY BOARD

On June 6, 2008, this Court appointed nine individuals to the Advisory Board and

subsequently appointed three additional members. Ms. Madeleine LaMarre and Dr. Michael

Puisis were appointed to terms that expire on June 30, 2011. All other members of the

Board have terms that expire on June 15, 2010.

The Court has found the services of the Board to be extremely useful in its

consideration and evaluation of the Receivership and all other aspects of the remedial

process in this case. Each member of the Board has provided valuable contributions at

regular meetings and, in many cases, in between such meetings. Accordingly, with good

cause appearing, the following members shall be reappointed to the Board, with terms

expiring on June 30, 2012: Mr. Starr Babcock (as an ex officio member), Dr. Henry

Chambers, Ms. Rebecca Craig, Dr. Joe Goldenson, Ms. Kathleen Howard, Ms. Madeline

LaMarre, Dr. David Lawrence, Dr. Michael Puisis, Mr. Arnold Perkins, Dr. Jacqueline

Tulsky, and Professor Robert Weisberg.1

 All other provisions of the June 6, 2008 Order

Appointing Advisory Board shall remain in effect as to all Board members.

Case 4:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2313 Filed 05/12/10 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

In addition, when the Court initially appointed the Advisory Board, it indicated the

possibility that the Board might be asked “to consider specific questions concerning the

remedial process and to perform other duties as assigned,” as well as reviewing the

Receiver’s periodic reports and advising the Court on the Receiver’s progress. June 6, 2008

Order at 2. The Court may, for example, request individual members to conduct reviews of

one or more aspects of the Receiver’s operations, especially in cases where the Board may

suggest to the Court that such reviews are necessary for the Board to fulfill its mission. 

While some Board members may be willing to undertake small projects pro bono, the Court

understands that this may not be feasible in all instances and directs that reasonable

compensation shall be provided when requested. The Court will resolve any compensation

issues on an individual basis, and the Receiver shall enter into written contracts with the

necessary Board members for administrative purposes only. Any such contracts shall not

undermine the independence of the Board, which shall continue to report solely to the Court. 

Moreover, they shall not change the confidential and privileged status of the

communications by members of the Board with the Court, with other members of the Board,

or with the Receiver and his staff.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 05/12/10 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 4:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2313 Filed 05/12/10 Page 2 of 2