Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_79-cv-01630/USCOURTS-cand-3_79-cv-01630-49/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

Plaintiffs move to postpone the effective date of the automatic stay, which is

scheduled to take effect on September 20, 2007. According to 18 U.S.C. 3626(e)(3), “[t]he

court may postpone the effective date of an automatic stay . . . for not more than 60 days for

good cause.” After reviewing briefs from both parties, the Court finds that “good cause” exists.

Defendants argue that there is no “good cause” to postpone the effective date of the

automatic stay because “there has been no finding of current and ongoing constitutional

violations in any of the areas identified by Plaintiffs.” The Court’s June 21 order considered

whether plaintiffs had demonstrated a current and ongoing violation of constitutional rights. 

Plaintiffs alleged violations of the Eighth Amendment. To show an Eighth Amendment

Case 3:79-cv-01630-WHA Document 1226 Filed 09/10/07 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

2

violation, a party must demonstrate: (1) that there was a sufficiently serious deprivation, and (2)

that prison officials acted with indifference to this deprivation. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.

825, 834 (1994). The Court found that plaintiffs had submitted evidence 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. But further

factual inquiry was needed to determine the severity of the deprivation and the state of mind of

defendants. 

Plaintiffs here 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). Defendants attempt to distinguish between the instant case and Skinner by

saying good cause existed only when there was a current and ongoing risk to plaintiffs’

“safety.” The Court, however, examines current and ongoing constitutional violations, which

include but are not limited to inmates’ safety. A deficient sanitary environment can constitute a

current and ongoing constitutional violation.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS plaintiffs’ motion to postpone the effective date of the

automatic stay. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 10, 2007. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:79-cv-01630-WHA Document 1226 Filed 09/10/07 Page 2 of 2