Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_79-cv-01630/USCOURTS-cand-3_79-cv-01630-58/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

ANDREW LANCASTER, JEFFERY MILLS,

DEXTER WILLIAMS, WILLIAM DENNIS,

STEVE LIVADITIS, JIMMY VAN PELT,

H. LEE HEISHMAN III AND JOHNATON

GEORGE,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

JAMES E. TILTON, Acting Secretary,

California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation, and ROBERT L. AYERS, JR.,

Acting Warden, San Quentin State Prison,

Defendants. /

No. C 79-01630 WHA

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO

POSTPONE EFFECTIVE DATE

OF AUTOMATIC STAY

On August 21, 2007, defendants filed a motion to terminate the consent decree

(Doc. 1192). According to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, an automatic stay will take effect

thirty days after the filing of a motion to modify or terminate prospective relief. See 18 U.S.C.

3626(e)(2). Plaintiffs’ therefore moved to postpone the effective date of the automatic stay on

August 31, 2007. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3626(e)(e), “[t]he court may postpone the effective

date of an automatic stay . . . for not more than 60 days for good cause.” On September 10,

2007, the motion was granted for “good cause” (Doc. 1226). 

On September 26, 2007, however, the Court stayed all proceedings pending defendants’

appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from the order issued on June 21, 2007,

because of jurisdictional concerns (Doc. 1252). Defendants then filed a motion to dismiss their

Case 3:79-cv-01630-WHA Document 1296 Filed 11/19/07 Page 1 of 3
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

appeal of the June 21 order, which was granted by the Ninth Circuit on October 15, 2007. 

The Court subsequently reset the hearing on defendants’ motion to terminate the consent decree

on October 22, 2007 (Doc. 1260). Without further action from the Court, the PLRA’s

automatic stay will go into effect thirty days from October 22, 2007, which is November 21,

2007. Plaintiffs now move to postpone the effective date of this automatic stay. This order

finds that “good cause” exists and will grant plaintiff’s motion to postpone the effective date of

the automatic stay.

This order adopts the ruling in its September 10 order. Defendants claim that

“the record as a whole does not demonstrate the existence of widespread and on-going

constitutional violations” (Opp. 3). The June 21 order considered whether plaintiffs had

demonstrated a current and ongoing violation of their Eighth Amendment rights. To show an

Eighth Amendment violation, a party must demonstrate: (i) that there was a sufficiently serious

deprivation, and (ii) that prison officials acted with indifference to this deprivation. Farmer v.

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). The June 21 order found that plaintiffs had submitted

evidence arguably supporting the allegation that current and ongoing conditions violated the

Eighth Amendment, especially with respect to the sanitation situation and failure to provide

adequate linens and towels. Further factual inquiry was required. The June 21 order also found

that plaintiffs appropriately relied on Skinner v. Uphoff, 410 F.Supp.2d 1104 (D. Wyo. 2006)

(holding that inmates demonstrated good cause when they made allegations of ongoing

inmate-on-inmate violence and delays in officials’ remedial actions and joint expert raised

various concerns). Because a deficient sanitary environment can also constitute a current and

ongoing constitutional violation, the June 21 order granted plaintiffs’ motion to postpone the

effective date of the automatic stay.

Defendants now argue that plaintiffs have moved for an order further postponing the

effective date of the automatic stay for a total of one-hundred-fifty days. The Court has

therefore “fully exercised its discretion to postpone the stay” and is not authorized to make

further postponements (Opp. 2). This order disagrees. In Benjamin v. Jacobson, 172 F.3d 144

(2d Cir. 1999), the Second Circuit reversed the district court’s vacating of a consent decree and

Case 3:79-cv-01630-WHA Document 1296 Filed 11/19/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

remanded. The Second Circuit stated, “Since the district court here did not allow plaintiffs to

make a record with respect to the need for a continuation of prospective relief, we instruct that

the 30-day period prior to the commencement of the automatic stay is to be deemed to begin on

the day following the issuance of our mandate herein.” Id. at 366. The Second Circuit reset the

thirty-day period following its decision that the plaintiffs be given the opportunity to respond to

the defendant’s motion for termination of a prison consent decree. Here, defendants have not

contested that the automatic stay will take effect on November 21, 2007, which is thirty days

after the date the Court reset the termination-motion hearing. If the consent decree is subject to

the automatic stay thirty days after October 22, 2007, the Court also has the discretion pursuant

to 18 U.S.C. 3626(e)(3) to postpone that automatic stay for sixty days for good cause. 

Furthermore, defendants offer no explanation as to why the Court should not exercise its

discretion to postpone the stay if the Court were without jurisdiction when it issued the

September 10 order. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS plaintiffs’ motion to postpone the

effective date of the automatic stay.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 19, 2007. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:79-cv-01630-WHA Document 1296 Filed 11/19/07 Page 3 of 3