Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-01351/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-01351-331/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. 2:90-cv-0520 LKK 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 GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART

DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR

EXTENSION OF DECEMBER 31,

2013 DEADLINE

WHEREAS the Court has read and considered the parties’ filings in response to this

Court’s January 13, 2014 Order;

WHEREAS defendants have represented that, in conformance with the terms of this

order, they will develop comprehensive and sustainable prison population-reduction reforms

and will consider the establishment of a commission to recommend reforms of state penal

and sentencing laws;

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2766 Filed 02/10/14 Page 1 of 6
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

WHEREAS defendants have represented that they will not appeal or support an

appeal of this order, any subsequent order necessary to implement this order, or any order

issued by the Compliance Officer to be appointed in conformance herewith that is consistent

with the duties of the Compliance Officer as specified in this order, and will not move or

support a motion to terminate the relief contained in this order until at least two years after

the date of this order and such time as it is firmly established that compliance with the

137.5% design capacity benchmark is durable;

WHEREAS this order is issued in reliance on defendants’ representations; and

WHEREAS the Court finds that the order below is narrowly tailored to the

constitutional violations identified by the Plata and Coleman courts, extends no further than

necessary to remedy those violations, and is the least intrusive possible remedy.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Court GRANTS defendants’ request for an extension of time, but only to

February 28, 2016, to comply with this Court’s June 30, 2011 Order to reduce California’s

prison population to 137.5% design capacity.

2. The deadline to achieve the ordered reduction in the in-state adult institution

population to 137.5% design capacity is extended to February 28, 2016. Defendants will

meet the following interim and final population reduction benchmarks: 

(a) 143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;

(b) 141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and

(c) 137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016.

3. During the extension period, and as long as this Court maintains jurisdiction,

defendants shall not increase the current population level of approximately 8,900 inmates

housed in out-of-state facilities. Defendants shall also explore ways to attempt to reduce the

number of inmates housed in out-of-state facilities to the extent feasible.

4. The Court acknowledges that defendants intend to comply with this order in

part through a combination of contracting for additional in-state capacity in county jails,

community correctional facilities, and a private prison, and through newly enacted programs

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2766 Filed 02/10/14 Page 2 of 6
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

including the development of additional measures regarding reforms to state penal and

sentencing laws designed to reduce the prison population. Defendants shall also immediately

implement the following measures:

(a) Increase credits prospectively for non-violent second-strike 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;

(c) Parole certain inmates serving indeterminate sentences who have

already been granted parole by the Board of Parole Hearings but have future parole dates;

(d) In consultation with the Receiver’s office, finalize and implement an

expanded parole process for medically incapacitated inmates;

(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;

(f) Activate new reentry hubs at a total of 13 designated prisons to be

operational within one year from the date of this order; 

(g) Pursue expansion of pilot reentry programs with additional counties and

local communities; and

(h) Implement an expanded alternative custody program for female inmates. 

5. Defendants will report to this Court monthly on the status of measures being

taken to reduce the prison population, and on the current in-state and out-of-state adult prison

populations. The first report shall be submitted on the 15th of the month following the date

of this order and shall continue until further order of the Court.

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2766 Filed 02/10/14 Page 3 of 6
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

6. The Court will appoint a Compliance Officer for the purpose of bringing

defendants into compliance with any missed benchmark by ordering inmate releases. If

compliance with any benchmark is not achieved within a 30-day period following the

expiration of any missed benchmark, the Compliance Officer shall, within seven days, direct

the release of the number of inmates necessary to achieve compliance with the missed

benchmark and the measures to be followed in selecting the prisoners to be released. The

authority of the Compliance Officer shall extend no further than ordering defendants to

release inmates necessary to ensure defendants’ compliance with any missed benchmark.

(a) In selecting inmates for release, the Compliance Officer shall consider

public safety by minimizing any risk of violent re-offense. The Compliance Officer shall not

be authorized to order the release of condemned inmates or inmates serving a term of life

without the possibility of parole.

(b) The Compliance Officer shall have access to all necessary CDCR data

and personnel regarding the California prison population, including population projections,

risk assessments, recidivism data, statistical data, and prisoner files, and shall receive

administrative support from CDCR to the extent needed to carry out the Compliance

Officer’s duties. In addition, the Compliance Officer may engage the services of a part-time

assistant and/or a part-time secretary upon a showing of good cause within the discretion of

this Court at a rate of pay to be approved by this Court should the parties disagree. If the

Compliance Officer finds good cause to question the accuracy of any data presented to him

or her, the Compliance Officer shall have the authority to verify the accuracy of such data.

(c) The Compliance Officer shall be compensated for all work or services

necessary to ensure compliance with a benchmark, should a benchmark be missed, and all

work or services necessary to verify the accuracy of any data presented to him or her by the

CDCR, should the Compliance Officer find good cause to question the accuracy of such data.

Defendants shall reasonably compensate the Compliance Officer on an hourly basis and for

reasonable expenses, and the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3626(f) shall not apply.

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2766 Filed 02/10/14 Page 4 of 6
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

5

7. The Compliance Officer shall retain all powers, access to information, and

compensation granted under this order after the final 137.5% benchmark is reached and until

it is firmly established that defendants’ compliance with the 137.5% benchmark is durable. 

During this period after compliance with the final benchmark and before such compliance is

durable, if two of defendants’ monthly reports, consecutive, report a prison population above

137.5% design capacity, the Compliance Officer shall, within seven days, direct the release

of the number of inmates necessary to bring the prison population to 137.5% design capacity.

8. The parties shall meet and confer to attempt to make a joint recommendation to

the Court regarding the selection of the Compliance Officer and an appropriate hourly rate of

compensation, which may be subject to increase annually. If the parties are not able to agree,

they may each recommend up to two candidates for the Court’s consideration and a proposed

hourly rate. The parties shall file their recommendations, including a description of any

recommended candidate’s qualifications and an explanation of any proposed hourly rate,

within 30 days of the date of this order. The selection of the Compliance Officer and

compensation rate rests solely within the Court’s discretion, and the Court will not be limited

to the parties’ recommendations, whether separate or joint.

9. To the extent that any state statutory, constitutional, or regulatory provisions,

except the California Public Resources Code, impede the implementation of this order or

defendants’ ability to achieve the population reduction benchmarks, all such laws and

regulations are waived. Although the Court does not issue a general waiver of the Public

Resources Code, defendants may request waivers, as the need arises, of these statutory

provisions that are tailored to specific projects. 

10. This Court shall maintain jurisdiction over this matter for as long as is

necessary to ensure that defendants’ compliance with the 137.5% final benchmark is durable,

and such durability is firmly established.

11. Defendants shall, within 60 days of the date of this order, file with the

Compliance Officer under seal, the categories of prisoners who are least likely to reoffend or

who might otherwise be candidates for early release (the “Low Risk List”) that this Court

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2766 Filed 02/10/14 Page 5 of 6
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

6

previously ordered them to create. The Low Risk List shall not be viewed by the

Compliance Officer unless and until he or she is ordered to do so by this Court. Similarly,

this Court will not inspect the list unless circumstances so warrant. Defendants shall file an

amended list every 60 days, should changes to the list become appropriate.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 02/10/14 

STEPHEN REINHARDT

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

Dated: 02/10/14 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Dated: 02/10/14 

THELTON E. HENDERSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2766 Filed 02/10/14 Page 6 of 6