Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520-677/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

6137863.2

KAMALA D. HARRIS

Attorney General of the State of California

JONATHAN L. WOLFF

Senior Assistant Attorney General

JAY C. RUSSELL

PATRICK McKINNEY 

Supervising Deputy Attorneys General

DEBBIE VOROUS - 166884

MANEESH SHARMA - 280084

Deputy Attorneys General

455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102-7004

Telephone: (415) 703-5500

Facsimile: (415) 703-5843

Email: Patrick.McKinney@doj.ca.gov

HANSON BRIDGETT LLP

JERROLD C. SCHAEFER - 39374

PAUL B. MELLO - 179755

WALTER R. SCHNEIDER - 173113

SAMANTHA D. WOLFF - 240280

MEGAN OLIVER THOMPSON - 256654

425 Market Street, 26th Floor

San Francisco, California 94105

Telephone: (415) 777--3200

Facsimile: (415) 541-9366

pmello@hansonbridgett.com

Attorneys for Defendants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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.

CASE NO. 2:90-cv-00520 LKK DAD P

THREE-JUDGE COURT

CASE NO. C01-1351 TEH

THREE-JUDGE COURT

JOINT STIPULATION TO DISMISS 

DEFENDANTS’ APPEAL TO THE 

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT 

FROM THE THREE-JUDGE COURT’S 

SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 ORDER 

MARCIANO PLATA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

EDMUND G. BROWN JR., et al.,

Defendants.

///

///

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 5091 Filed 02/26/14 Page 1 of 3
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

6137863.2 2

On October 24, 2013, Defendants appealed the Three-Judge Court’s September 

24, 2013 Order to Meet and Confer (“Order”) to the United States Supreme Court under 

28 U.S.C. § 1253. (Plata Dock. No. 2734; Coleman Dock. No. 4889.) Defendants 

simultaneously filed a protective notice of appeal of the same Order to the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a), stating that the appeal

would only be perfected in the event the Supreme Court held that it had no jurisdiction 

over the matter. (Plata Dock. No. 2735 at 2; Coleman Dock. No. 4890.) 

Defendants subsequently successfully sought an extension of time within which to 

file a jurisdictional statement in the Supreme Court, stating in their application that “[i]f 

Appellants obtain an acceptable extension that obviates the need for additional out-ofstate capacity, it would not be necessary for Appellants to challenge the injunction.” 

(Defs.’ App. To the Hon. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy as Circuit Justice for the Ninth Cir. 

at 3 (attached as Exhibit A).) On February 10, 2014, the Three-Judge Court granted 

Defendants’ request for an extension of time to comply with the Court’s population 

reduction order, thus eliminating the need for Defendants’ challenge to the September 

24, 2013 Order. (See Feb. 10, 2014 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part 

Defendants’ Request for Extension of December 31, 2013 Deadline, Plata Dock. No. 

2766; Coleman Dock. No. 5060.)

Accordingly, consistent with United States Supreme Court Rule 18.5, the parties 

stipulate to the Three-Judge Court’s dismissal of Defendants’ appeal to the United States 

Supreme Court filed on October 24, 2013.1 (Plata Dock. No. 2734; Coleman Dock. No. 

4889.)

/ / /

1 Defendants’ notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit was docketed by the circuit clerk and 

assigned case number 13-17506. (Plata Dock. No. 2747.) Federal Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 42(b) requires dismissal agreements to be filed with the Court of Appeals, not 

the district court, once an appeal has been docketed. Accordingly, the parties will file a 

similar dismissal agreement with the Ninth Circuit in case number 13-17506.

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 5091 Filed 02/26/14 Page 2 of 3
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

6137863.2 3

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

DATED: February 21, 2014 KAMALA D. HARRIS

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA

By: /s/ Patrick McKinney 

PATRICK MCKINNEY

Attorneys for Defendants Edmund G. Brown Jr., et al.

DATED: February 21, 2014 HANSON BRIDGETT LLP

By: /s/ Paul Mello 

PAUL MELLO

Attorneys for Defendants Edmund G. Brown Jr., et al.

DATED: February 21, 2014 PRISON LAW OFFICE

By: /s/ Alison Hardy

ALISON HARDY

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Marciano Plata, et al.

DATED: February 21, 2014 ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP

By: /s/ Ernest Galvan

ERNEST GALVAN

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Ralph Coleman, et al.

Pursuant to the foregoing stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED:

DATED: _________________ ______________________________________

Stephen Reinhardt

United States Circuit Judge

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

DATED: _________________ ______________________________________

Lawrence K. Karlton

Senior United States District Judge

Eastern District of California

DATED: _________________ ______________________________________

Thelton E. Henderson

Senior United States District Judge

Northern District of California

02/26/2014

02/26/2014

02/26/2014

________________________

tephen Reinhardt

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 5091 Filed 02/26/14 Page 3 of 3