Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-01351/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-01351-254/pdf.json

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

REPORTS

The United States Supreme Court affirmed this court’s January 12, 2010 Order to

Reduce Prison Population on May 23, 2011, and issued judgment on June 24, 2011. The

January 12, 2010 order provided that its effective date would be “the day following the final

resolution by the Court of a timely-filed appeal of this Order.” Jan. 12, 2010 Order at 6. 

Because judgment was issued on a Friday, the effective date of the order is Monday, June 27,

2011. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C). Accordingly, Defendants must reduce the population

of California’s thirty-three adult prisons as follows:

a. To no more than 167% of design capacity by December 27, 2011.

b. To no more than 155% of design capacity by June 27, 2012.

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2374 Filed 06/30/11 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

c. To no more than 147% of design capacity by December 27, 2012.

d. To no more than 137.5% of design capacity by June 27, 2013.

See Jan. 12, 2010 Order at 4.

Within fourteen days following each of the deadlines described

above, defendants shall file a report advising the court whether

the estimated population reduction has been achieved. This

report shall include the total reduction in the population of

California’s adult prisons that has been achieved; the current

population of those institutions, both in absolute terms and as a

percentage of design capacity; and the reductions associated with

each of the individual measures that defendants described in their

November 12, 2009 plan as well as any additional or alternative

population reduction measures that it may have subsequently

adopted. If the State has failed to achieve the required population

reduction, defendants shall advise the court as to the reasons for

such deficiency and what measures they have taken or propose to

take to remedy it. They also shall advise the court as to whether

such deficiency could have been avoided by the exercise of

executive authority, such as that invested in the Governor and

other officials by the California Emergency Services Act. 

Finally, defendants shall advise the court whether legislative

changes are required to remedy any deficiency and, if so, what

efforts defendants have made to obtain such changes, including

specific proposals made to the legislature and the legislative

responses to such proposals.

Id. at 5.

Defendants’ most recent report, filed on June 23, 2011, expressed uncertainty about

funding for Assembly Bill 109 (“AB 109”), a major component of defendants’ plan to

comply with this court’s order to reduce the prison population. Defendants shall file an

updated report on or before July 21, 2011, explaining whether funding has been secured for

AB 109 and, if so, when AB 109 is intended to go into effect. Defendants’ report shall also

include estimated reductions associated with AB 109 and all other population reduction

measures being implemented by the State, as well as a discussion on whether defendants

expect to meet the December 27, 2011 benchmark and, if not, what further actions are

contemplated and the specific persons responsible for executing those actions.

To keep the court informed of their progress, defendants shall file monthly status

reports due on the 15th of each month, beginning on September 15, 2011, until further order

of this court. These monthly reports shall list the design capacity, actual population, and

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2374 Filed 06/30/11 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

population as a percentage of design capacity at each adult institution, as well as aggregate

figures for the total inmate population housed in adult institutions. The reports shall also

include an updated discussion on whether defendants expect to meet the next six-month

benchmark and, if not, what further actions are contemplated and the specific persons

responsible for executing those actions. Monthly reports shall not be required in January

2012, July 2012, or January 2013, or July 2013; the required information should instead be

incorporated in defendants’ reports following each of the six-month benchmarks.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 06/30/11 

STEPHEN REINHARDT

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

Dated: 06/30/11 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Dated: 06/30/11 

THELTON E. HENDERSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2374 Filed 06/30/11 Page 3 of 3