Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520-382/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

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.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

et al.,

Defendants.

NO. CIV S-90-0520 LKK JFM P

THREE-JUDGE COURT

MARCIANO PLATA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C01-1351 TEH

THREE-JUDGE COURT

ORDER RULING ON

EVIDENTIARY MATTERS

RELATED TO OPINION AND

ORDER

Several evidentiary matters are before the court and resolved by this order.

The parties to these proceedings, including intervenors, filed exhibits in support of

their respective positions and tendered objections to exhibits offered by other parties. In

addition, the parties, including intervenors, tendered objections to expert witness declarations

proferred by other parties and to deposition excerpts designated by other parties. All

objections to exhibits, portions of expert witness declarations, and deposition excerpts cited

in the opinion and order filed concurrently with this order are overruled. We find no need to

reach objections to exhibits, portions of expert witness declarations, and deposition excerpts

not cited in the order as we have not relied on such evidentiary material in making our ruling.

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 3642 Filed 08/04/09 Page 1 of 7
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

On January 23, 2009, plaintiffs filed a request, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence

201, that the court take judicial notice of the following eleven documents: 

1. Assembly Bill 8, commonly known as ABX1_8, passed by

the California Legislature on December 18, 2008.

2. Governor Schwarzenegger’s veto message for ABX1_8,

dated January 6, 2009.

3. Assembly Bill 10, commonly known as ABX1_10, passed

by the California Legislature on December 18, 2008.

4. Governor Schwarzenegger’s veto message for ABX1_10,

dated January 6, 2009.

5. 2009-2010 Governor’s Budget General Fund Proposals.

6. The U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Prisoner

Statistics Program report entitled Census of State and

Federal Correctional Facilities, 2005, October 2008, NCJ

222182, by James J. Stephan, BJS Statistician (referred to

herein as National Prisoner Statistics Program report).

7. The Plata Receiver’s October 27, 2006 Newsletter, vol. 1,

No. 4.

8. The Tenth Tri-Annual Report of the Plata Receiver’s

Turnaround Plan of Action, dated January 15, 2009 and

filed in Plata and Coleman on January 20, 2009.

9. The November 7, 2008 order of the United States Court of

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Plata v. Schwarzenegger, No. 08-17412, staying the district court’s October 27,

2008 order.

10. The homepage of the website of the University of

California at Irvine Center for Evidence-Based

Corrections, setting forth the mission of the Center and its

relationship with the California Department of

Corrections.

11. The “About the Commission” page of the website of the

Little Hoover Commission, setting forth the mission and

make-up of the Little Hoover Commission.

See Jan. 23, 2009 Req. for Judicial Notice at 2-4. On February 2, 2009, defendants filed

objections to the request for judicial notice, contending that (1) admission of the eleven

documents after the close of evidence in these proceedings “is manifestly unfair” and would

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 3642 Filed 08/04/09 Page 2 of 7
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

Defendants also assert that admission of the evidence would be prejudicial to the

defendant-intervenors, but none of the defendant-intervenors have filed objections to

plaintiffs’ request, nor have any of them joined in defendants’ objections.

3

be prejudicial to defendants1

; (2) some of the proposed evidence is barred by a provision of

this court’s July 2, 2008 order preventing admission at trial of evidence of “changed prison

conditions after August 30, 2008”; and (3) the documents are not properly subject to judicial

notice. Defendants contend that plaintiffs have not satisfied their burden of identifying

which facts within the eleven documents can be judicially noticed. Defendants also contend

that it is improper to take judicial notice of the entire contents of the documents and that

judicial notice, if any, should be limited to the fact that the documents exist.

Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides in relevant part: 

(a) Scope of rule.

This rule governs only judicial notice of adjudicative facts.

(b) Kinds of facts.

A judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable

dispute in that it is either (1) generally known within the

territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate

and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy

cannot reasonably be questioned.

(c) When discretionary.

A court may take judicial notice, whether requested or not.

(d) When mandatory.

A court shall take judicial notice if requested by a party and

supplied with the necessary information.

(e) Opportunity to be heard.

A party is entitled upon timely request to an opportunity to be

heard as to the propriety of taking judicial notice and the tenor of

the matter noticed. In the absence of prior notification, the

request may be made after judicial notice has been taken.

(f) Time of taking notice.

Judicial notice may be taken at any stage of the proceeding.

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 3642 Filed 08/04/09 Page 3 of 7
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

On July 2, 2008, the court issued an order for pretrial preparation following a

June 27, 2008 status conference. In that order, the court held that “[a]dditional site

inspections of prison facilities may be conducted through and including August 30, 2008. 

No evidence of changed prison conditions after August 30, 2008 shall be admitted at trial. 

This prohibition does not include evidence of legislative changes that may occur after

August 30, 2008.” July 2, 2008 Order, at 3. 

4

Fed. R. Evid. 201(a)-(f). Rule 201 “permits a court to take judicial notice of adjudicative

facts ‘not subject to reasonable dispute.’” United States v. Chapel, 41 F.3d 1338, 1342 (9th

Cir. 1994). “Adjudicative facts are simply the facts of the particular case.” Advisory Notes

to Fed. R. Evid. 201. 

The two assembly bills and the Governor’s vetoes thereof are relevant to the matters

at bar and properly subject to judicial notice. Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice is granted

as to these four documents.2

On January 7, 2009, the court ordered the state to, “advise the Court and the parties

whether the Governor has submitted a budget proposal to the legislature containing any

provisions relating to the release of prisoners” and, if so, to “further advise the Court and the

parties whether such provisions include any statements regarding public safety as well as the

method by which any reductions in the prison system should be accomplished” and “what

effect, if any, the provisions in the Governor’s proposed budget have on the State’s position

in this lawsuit.” Jan. 7, 2009 Order at 1. The state was directed to “attach to its response . . .

a copy of all relevant portions of the Governor’s proposed budget.” Id. The state filed its

response on January 16, 2009, accompanied by a declaration to which is appended several

pages of the Governor’s 2009-10 Budget Proposal that is the subject of plaintiffs’ request for

judicial notice. Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice is granted as to the budget proposal. 

The Receiver’s Tenth Tri-Annual Report is dated January 15, 2009, and it was filed in

both of the underlying actions on January 20, 2009. On September 5, 2008, the court ordered

that the Receiver’s Ninth Tri-Annual Report would be admissible at trial as to fifteen items

contained therein and identified in a request filed by defendants on August 29, 2008. The

September 5, 2008 order specifically provided that, in making the order, the court was

permitting “a limited exception” to the August 30, 2008 cut-off for evidence of changed

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 3642 Filed 08/04/09 Page 4 of 7
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

Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice was filed on the same day that plaintiffs and the

other parties in this action filed, pursuant to court order, proposed findings of fact and

conclusions of law. Plaintiffs filed a corrected version of their proposed findings of fact and

conclusions of law on January 28, 2009. Plaintiffs’ corrected proposed findings of fact and

conclusions of law contain citations to nine of the eleven documents for which judicial notice

is sought, including the Receiver’s Tenth Tri-Annual Report. The court construes plaintiffs’

request for judicial notice as a request for judicial notice of the specific facts for which the

Receiver’s Tenth Tri-Annual Report is cited in the corrected proposed findings of fact and

conclusions of law. 

5

prison conditions. It appears that plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice of the Receiver’s

Tenth Tri-Annual Report seeks admission of the Report in part as evidence of the impact of

crowding on the delivery of medical care, in part as evidence to impeach defendants’ reliance

on the Receivership and the work of the Receiver and his staff as a defense in these

proceedings, and in part as evidence of delays that have attended plans to construct new

facilities and the length of time that would be required to do so.3

The court has not considered as evidence in these proceedings any part of the

Receiver’s Tenth Tri-Annual Report that addresses the impact of crowding on the delivery of

medical care or the impact of an alleged lack of state funding on the Receiver’s schedule for

construction of new healthcare facilities. The court does take judicial notice of the ongoing

litigation in Plata concerning the state’s refusal to comply with court orders in that case to

provide funds to the Receiver and the state’s motion to terminate the Receivership, but it

does so with reference to documents filed by the state in Plata and relevant court orders

rather than through the Receiver’s Tenth Tri-Annual Report. See Chandler v. United States,

378 F.2d 906, 909 (9th Cir. 1967) (it is “established rule” that “federal district court can take

judicial notice of its own records”). Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice of the Receiver’s

Tenth Tri-Annual Report is denied. 

The November 7, 2008 order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth

Circuit in Plata v. Schwarzenegger, No. 08-17412, staying the district court’s October 27,

2008 order is properly subject to judicial notice and relevant to issues at bar, specifically the

state’s refusal to provide court-ordered funding to the Receiver. Plaintiffs’ request for

judicial notice is granted as to this document. 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 3642 Filed 08/04/09 Page 5 of 7
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

6

The court has already taken judicial notice of the Plata Receiver’s October 27, 2006

Newsletter, vol.1, No. 4, in connection with its consideration of defendants’ motion for

summary judgment and, as a consequence, the document is part of the record in these

proceedings. See Nov. 3, 2008 Order; Ex. B to Req. for Judicial Notice in Supp. of Pls.’

Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss and/or Mot. for Summ. Judgment/Adjudication.

The court has not considered as evidence in these proceedings the Bureau of Justice

Statistics report. Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice of this document is denied.

Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice of the two web pages is granted. 

On February 25, 2009, defendants filed a request for judicial notice of Senate Bill 14,

signed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger on February 20, 2009. There are no objections

to this request. The request is granted. 

On June 8, 2009, and July 29, 2009, plaintiffs filed two additional requests for judicial

notice, seeking judicial notice of various documents related to proposals by Governor

Schwarzenegger to reduce the prison population. Defendants have filed objections to both

requests. These requests were filed well after final argument in these proceedings and this

court’s Feb. 9, 2009 tentative ruling, but the documents may be relevant in connection with

the court’s consideration of any plan produced by defendants in response to the court’s order. 

Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice of these documents is denied without prejudice.

On December 1, 2008, defendants filed a motion to strike paragraphs 15 and 53 of the

expert report of Dr. James Austin, wherein Dr. Austin reports that he was asked to give an

opinion on whether overcrowding is the primary cause of the constitutional violations and

then gives that opinion. On December 4, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion to strike similar

portions of the expert report of Dr. James Marquart. Both parties contend that these

witnesses were not proferred as witnesses during Phase I of the trial, which focused on the

causation question. Plaintiffs do not oppose defendants’ motion. Defendants oppose

plaintiffs’ motion to the extent that it might cover matters related to Phase II issues. The

court has not considered the opinions of either Dr. Austin or Dr. Marquart concerning

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 3642 Filed 08/04/09 Page 6 of 7
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

7

whether overcrowding is the primary cause of the constitutional violations in the underlying

cases. Accordingly, both motions to strike are denied as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 08/04/09 /s/ 

STEPHEN REINHARDT

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

Dated: 08/04/09 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Dated: 08/04/09 

THELTON E. HENDERSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 3642 Filed 08/04/09 Page 7 of 7