Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-01351/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-01351-284/pdf.json

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

MARCIANO PLATA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

EDMUND G. BROWN JR., et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C01-1351 TEH

ORDER OVERRULING

DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS

TO RECEIVER’S TWENTYSECOND TRI-ANNUAL

REPORT

On February 13, 2013, Defendants filed objections to the Receiver’s Twenty-Second

Tri-Annual Report (“Report”), which was filed on January 25, 2013. Defendants object to

two statements in the Report – (1) that “[o]vercrowding and its consequences are and have

been a chronic, widespread and continuing problem for almost twenty years,” Report at 29,

and (2) that “there is no persuasive evidence that a constitutional level of medical care has

been achieved system-wide,” id. at 30 – and request that they be stricken. Both the Receiver

and Plaintiffs filed timely responses following this Court’s February 14, 2013 order.

After carefully considering the report, the objections, and the responses thereto, the

Court now OVERRULES the objections and DENIES the request to strike. Defendants have

cited no rule or other legal authority to support their request to strike statements from the

Receiver’s report. Defendants disagree with the Receiver’s statements, but their objections

go to the weight of the Receiver’s conclusions and not to whether the Receiver is entitled to

include them in his reports to the Court. Whether the consequences of overcrowding

continue to be a problem, and whether there is persuasive evidence that a constitutional level

of medical care has been achieved systemwide, are questions that will be addressed at the

appropriate time – by stipulation or by motion, by this Court or by the three-judge court

convened in this case and Coleman v. Brown, Case No. CIV S-90-0520 LKK JFM P (E.D.

Cal.). Nothing in this order prevents Defendants from contesting the weight that should be

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2554 Filed 02/28/13 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

given to the Receiver’s conclusions or from presenting evidence to support a contrary

conclusion when the issues are properly before this or the three-judge court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 02/28/13 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2554 Filed 02/28/13 Page 2 of 2