Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-01351/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-01351-212/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

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 DENYING

DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST TO

SHORTEN TIME ON MOTION

TO STAY MARCH 24, 2009

ORDER

On March 24, 2009, this Court entered an order denying Defendants’ motion to

replace the Receiver with a special master and to terminate the Receiver’s construction plans. 

Defendants appealed that order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on

April 23, 2009. On the same date, Defendants filed a motion to stay this Court’s March 24,

2009 order pending appeal and, pursuant to this Court’s local rules, noticed the motion to

stay for June 1, 2009. Defendants also simultaneously filed an ex parte request to shorten

time on the motion to stay, such that the motion could be heard on May 18, 2009, or,

alternatively, for a temporary stay until the June 1 hearing date. Plaintiffs and the Receiver

both filed oppositions to Defendants’ request to shorten time.

Upon careful review of the parties’ and the Receiver’s written arguments, this Court

does not find good cause to grant Defendants’ request. Defendants ask to shorten time

because they “stand to suffer substantial harm each day a stay is not implemented as the

Receiver’s plans for construction are allowed to proceed.” Req. to Shorten Time at 2. This

argument is undermined, however, by Defendants’ own delay in appealing the Court’s

March 24 order and seeking a stay. If Defendants were suffering substantial harm each day

that the Court’s March 24 order remained in effect, then it would be expected that they would

have appealed and sought a stay as soon as possible, rather than waiting thirty days to do so. 

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2148 Filed 05/01/09 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

Moreover, Defendants present no reason why they would suffer any harm in the two-week

period between the scheduled June 1 hearing date and the May 18 hearing date that

Defendants now seek.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ request to shorten time is

DENIED. Defendants’ motion to stay the Court’s March 24, 2009 order shall be heard on

June 1, 2009, at 10:00 AM, with opposition papers due on May 11, 2009, and reply papers

due on May 18, 2009. The Court will, at that time, consider the arguments raised in

Defendants’ motion, including Defendants’ argument that their appeal divested this Court of

jurisdiction over the Receiver’s construction plan.

Because Defendants fail to present any argument or authority for granting a temporary

stay of this Court’s March 24 order pending hearing on a motion to stay that same order,

Defendants’ request for a temporary stay is also DENIED. However, it appears that

Defendants’ primary concern is that this Court not renew its October 27, 2008 order to pay

$250 million to fund the Receiver’s construction planning, now that the Ninth Circuit has

dismissed Defendants’ appeal of that order, prior to the June 1 hearing before this Court on

Defendants’ motion to stay. The Court assures Defendants it has no intent to do so.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 05/01/09 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2148 Filed 05/01/09 Page 2 of 2