Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520-687/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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RALPH COLEMAN, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., et al.,

Defendants. 

No. CIV. S-90-520 LKK/DAD (PC) 

ORDER 

On March 19, 2014, plaintiffs filed an application for leave 

to file out of time a reply brief on defendants’ revisions to 

their use of force policies. (ECF No. 5118.) Plaintiffs 

acknowledge that pursuant to the court’s January 23, 2014 order 

(ECF No. 5021) their reply was due on March 13, 2014, and that 

the deadline has passed. They explain that their failure to 

timely file the reply was inadvertent and occurred because they 

were focused on responding to additional changes in the use of 

force policies that were attached to a Declaration of Michael 

Stainer filed on March 12, 2014. In addition to the reply brief, 

plaintiffs seek to tender comments from their use of force 

expert, Eldon Vail, on the further policy revisions. 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 5124 Filed 03/28/14 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 

2 

 At this juncture, the court has before it extensive evidence 

and argument from the parties concerning the use of force issues 

at bar. Moreover, as the court has observed more than once, the 

remedial process in this case represents and requires ongoing 

effort while the evidentiary hearing must necessarily focus on a 

snapshot in time. Put another way, resolution of the motions at 

bar requires a balance between consideration of relevant evidence 

and closure of the record in order to permit adjudication of the 

motion. The time to close the record has passed and plaintiffs’ 

use of force motion is submitted. The court will not take 

further argument or evidence on that motion prior to ruling 

thereon.1

 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 

plaintiffs’ March 19, 2014 application for leave to file a late 

reply brief is denied. The proposed reply and accompanying 

declaration (ECF No. 5119) is stricken from the record. 

DATED: March 27, 2014. 

 

 

1

 This order is without prejudice to the right of any party to seek 

reconsideration of specific parts of the court’s ruling should events that 

intervened after the record was closed warrant such reconsideration. 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 5124 Filed 03/28/14 Page 2 of 2