Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520-727/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

1

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

both Plata v. Brown, No. C01-1351 TEH (N.D. Cal.), and Coleman v. Brown, No. 2:90-cv0520-KJM DAD (PC) (E.D. Cal.). This Court includes the docket number of Plata first, then

Coleman.

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. 2:90-cv-0520 KJM DAD (PC)

THREE-JUDGE COURT

MARCIANO PLATA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

EDMUND G. BROWN JR., et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C01-1351 TEH

THREE-JUDGE COURT

ORDER DIRECTING

COMPLIANCE OFFICER TO

CONFER WITH PARTIES

On February 10, 2014, this Court extended the deadline for defendants to reduce the

in-state adult institution prison population to no more than 137.5% design capacity and set

two intermediate population benchmarks. Feb. 10, 2014 Order at 2 (ECF No. 2766/5060).1

In addition, the Court ordered defendants to “immediately implement” several specific

population reduction measures, which were taken almost verbatim from defendants’ own

proposed order. The Court expressly imposed immediate implementation as the standard,

declining to adopt defendants’ more lenient proposal that the measures be implemented

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 5236 Filed 10/29/14 Page 1 of 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

2

Plaintiffs also initially challenged defendants’ compliance with paragraph 4(e) of the

February 10, 2014 order concerning elderly parole. However, they did not reiterate that

argument in their reply. Reply at 4 (ECF No. 2816/5227) (mentioning only non-violent

second-striker but not elderly parole). In addition, Defendants have submitted evidence that

they have implemented the new parole process required by paragraph 4(e). Sept. 30, 2014

Shaffer Decl. ¶¶ 5-7 (ECF No. 2813-1/5223-1) (discussing progress and noting that “[u]se of

the revised risk assessments will begin on October 1, 2014, for hearings of elder inmates”);

see also Ex. B to Oct. 15, 2014 Status Report at 4 (ECF No. 2818-2/5231-2) (confirming that

the “revised risk assessments were prepared for elderly parole hearings held on or after

October 1, 2014”).

2

“promptly.” Compare id. at 3 with Defs.’ Jan. 23, 2014 Proposed Order at 2 (ECF No.

2755/5023). These measures included the following:

(a) Increase credits prospectively for non-violent secondstrike offenders and minimum custody inmates. Non-violent

second-strikers will be eligible to earn good time credits at 33.3%

and will be eligible to earn milestone credits for completing

rehabilitative programs. Minimum custody inmates will be

eligible to earn 2-for-1 good time credits to the extent such

credits do not deplete participation in fire camps where inmates

also earn 2-for-1 good time credits;

(b) Create and implement a new parole determination process

through which non-violent second-strikers will be eligible for

parole consideration by the Board of Parole Hearings once they

have served 50% of their sentence; [and] 

. . .

(e) Finalize and implement a new parole process whereby

inmates who are 60 years of age or older and have served a

minimum of twenty-five years of their sentence will be referred

to the Board of Parole Hearings to determine suitability for

parole[.]

Feb. 10, 2014 Order at 3.

Plaintiffs contend that defendants have failed to fully implement these measures and

now seek an order for further enforcement. In particular, plaintiffs ask that defendants be

ordered to: (1) implement 2-for-1 credits for minimum custody inmates who are ineligible for

fire camps; (2) grant 33.3% credits to all non-violent second strikers, including those with a

prior sex offense; and (3) implement new parole procedures for non-violent second-strikers

by January 1, 2015.2

In opposition, defendants assert that: (1) granting 2-for-1 good time credits to

minimum custody inmates who are ineligible for fire camps would deplete participation in

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 5236 Filed 10/29/14 Page 2 of 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

3

Defendants appear to use the terms “sex registrants” and “sex offenders”

interchangeably. Compare, e.g., May 2, 2013 Atkinson Decl. ¶¶ 5, 12 (ECF No. 2608/4571)

with May 3, 2013 Am. Defs.’ Resp. at 11:14-16 (ECF No. 2612/4576 ). 

3

fire camps by causing higher turnover at minimum support facilities (“MSFs”), where such

inmates perform jobs that are “critical to the daily functioning of each institution, including

garage, recycle and refuse collections, and various Plant Operations positions in support of

institutional tradespersons,” Sept. 30, 2014 Singh Decl. ¶ 5 (ECF No. 2813-4/5223-4),

thereby “forc[ing] [CDCR] to draw down its fire camp population to fill these vital MSF

positions,” id. ¶ 7; (2) they “have always indicated” that sex offenders would be excluded

from the population of non-violent second-strikers eligible for increased good time credits,

and they should be permitted to do so “to minimize the risks of public safety,” particularly

when they are currently in compliance with the Court’s population benchmarks, Opp’n at 5

(ECF No. 2813/5223); and (3) they “have made substantial progress” on implementing a new

parole process for non-violent second-strikers, id. at 3, but that doing so is a “timeconsuming process,” Sept. 30, 2014 Meier Decl. ¶ 3 (ECF No. 2813-3/5223-3), which they

anticipate completing “prior to July 1, 2015” and “primarily” impacting the final benchmark,

id. ¶ 5.

Upon consideration of the parties’ written submissions, the Court has determined that

further factual development would assist the Court in resolving plaintiffs’ motion. For

example, as to fire camps, it is not clear whether there are any minimum custody inmates

who are ineligible for both MSF placement and fire camps, in which case defendants’

argument would not apply. It is also not clear whether granting 2-for-1 credits as plaintiffs

request would have the impact on fire camp participation that defendants “believe” is

“likely.” Singh Decl. ¶¶ 6-7. As to increasing credits for non-violent second-strikers, 

although defendants excluded “sex registrants” from prior estimates on the population impact

of increasing good time credits, May 2, 2013 Atkinson Decl. ¶¶ 5, 12 (ECF No. 2608/4571),

and the Court previously relied on those estimates, June 20, 2013 Op. & Order at 37 (ECF

No. 2659/4662), defendants did not exclude sex offenders in their January 23, 2014 proposed

order that became the basis of this Court’s February 10, 2014 order.3

 It is unclear whether

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 5236 Filed 10/29/14 Page 3 of 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 4

This order does not re-open formal discovery between the parties.

4

this omission was intentional. The Court also lacks any current information on the number of

non-violent second strikers excluded by defendants, what types of crimes form the basis for

the exclusion, or the impact that including sex offenders in this measure would have on

reducing the overall population. Finally, as to the parole process, the Court is skeptical that a

17-month delay between the Court’s order and final implementation is reasonable and

additional information would be helpful to assess defendants’ diligence.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Compliance Officer shall promptly

confer with the parties and gather facts relevant to resolving plaintiffs’ motion.4

 The parties

shall fully cooperate with the Compliance Officer. The Compliance Officer shall report

confidentially to this Court on the issues raised above, as well as on any other issues he

deems relevant to these matters. Plaintiffs’ motion remains under submission.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 10/29/14 

STEPHEN REINHARDT

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

Dated: 10/29/14 

THELTON E. HENDERSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Dated: 10/29/14 

KIMBERLY J. MUELLER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 5236 Filed 10/29/14 Page 4 of 4