Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520-525/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

The Court denied plaintiffs’ first motion without prejudice on March 22, 2012.

2

Defendants released “The Future of California Corrections,” which purports to be a

“blueprint” for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, on April 23,

2012. In that report, which is available at http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/2012plan/index.html,

defendants project that, absent additional measures to comply with this Court’s order, “the

prison population is expected to drop to about 141 percent of design capacity” by June 2013,

and they signal their intention to seek a modification of the Court’s order. Report at 50. 

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 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 FURTHER

BRIEFING

On May 9, 2012, plaintiffs renewed their motion for an order requiring defendants to

demonstrate how they will achieve the required population reduction by June 2013.1

Defendants filed an opposition to the motion on May 23, 2012, in which they confirm their

intention to seek a modification of the Court’s order from 137.5% of design capacity to

145% of design capacity.2

 On May 31, 2102, plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 4193 Filed 06/07/12 Page 1 of 2
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

If the parties are in agreement, in lieu of further briefing they may file in the same

fifteen-day period a stipulation setting forth a proposed schedule for proceedings on a motion

to modify.

2

motion. Therein plaintiffs contend, inter alia, that defendants’ proposed motion to modify

will present questions of fact as well as law and, therefore, that proceedings on any motion to

modify “will require significant factual investigation, including expert evaluations and

reports, and expert discovery.” Reply at 5. Good cause appearing, the parties will be granted

a period of fifteen days to file further briefs addressing plaintiffs’ contention and proposing,

separately or jointly, a schedule for proceedings on a motion to modify.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 06/07/12 

STEPHEN REINHARDT

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

Dated: 06/07/12 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Dated: 06/07/12 

THELTON E. HENDERSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 4193 Filed 06/07/12 Page 2 of 2