Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520-1346/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 

20053643.1 [4513925.1] 1 

Stip. Request and Order Denying Defs. Leave to File Motion to Stay (2:90-cv-00520 KJM-DB (PC)) 

 ROB A. BONTA, State Bar No. 202668 

Attorney General of California 

DAMON MCCLAIN, State Bar No. 209508 

Supervising Deputy Attorney General 

ELISE OWENS THORN, State Bar No. 145931 

NAMRATA KOTWANI, State Bar No. 308741 

Deputy Attorneys General 

1300 I Street, Suite 125 

P.O. Box 944255 

Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 

Telephone: (916) 210-7318 

Fax: (916) 324-5205 

E-mail: Elise.Thorn@doj.ca.gov 

Attorneys for Defendants

HANSON BRIDGETT LLP 

PAUL B. MELLO, SBN 179755 

SAMANTHA D. WOLFF, SBN 240280 

KAYLEN KADOTANI, SBN 294114 

DAVID C. CASARRUBIAS, SBN 321994 

 1676 N. California Boulevard, Suite 620 

 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 

Telephone: (925) 746-8460 

Fax: (925) 746-8490 

E-mail: PMello@hansonbridgett.com 

Attorneys for Defendants

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SACRAMENTO DIVISION 

RALPH COLEMAN, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 2:90-cv-00520 KJM-DB (PC) 

STIPULATED REQUEST; ORDER 

DENYING DEFENDANTS LEAVE TO 

FILE MOTION TO STAY THE MAY 20, 

2024 ORDER [ECF NO. 8242] 

Judge: The Hon. Kimberly J. Mueller 

On May 20, 2024, this Court ordered Defendants to roll out by August 31, 2024, a pilot of 

the START-NOW treatment modality for class members with personality disorders at San 

Quentin State Prison and Valley State Prison, and directed the Special Master to monitor the pilot 

programs in a manner he deems appropriate and consistent with his authority under the Order of 

Reference. (ECF No. 8242 at 7.) On June 6, 2024, Defendants appealed the May 20 order to the 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (ECF Nos. 8262.) Because the May 20 order requires that 

Defendants implement the pilot by August 31, 2024, Defendants intend to seek a stay of the order 

during the pendency of the appeal to avoid wasting of state’s resources, and the parties’ and the 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 8288 Filed 06/21/24 Page 1 of 4
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 

20053643.1 [4513925.1] 2 

Stip. Request and Order Denying Defs. Leave to File Motion to Stay (2:90-cv-00520 KJM-DB (PC)) 

Special Master’s time that will be required to comply with the May 20 order, if it is later ruled 

unlawful by the appellate court. 

Defendants contacted Plaintiffs to meet and confer on the request for leave and the stay 

motion. Plaintiffs agreed that they would not oppose Defendants’ request for leave to file a stay 

motion so long as Defendants stipulated to a briefing schedule that allows Plaintiffs a 21-day 

period in which to file an opposition to the stay motion. 

Accordingly, the parties jointly request that the Court enter an order that permits 

Defendants to file the motion to stay the May 20 order with the following briefing schedule: 

1. Defendants shall file their motion to stay the May 20 order on or before June 14, 

2024; 

2. Plaintiffs’ opposition, if any, to Defendants’ motion to stay the May 20 order shall be 

due within twenty-one days of the date Defendants file the motion to stay; and 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 8288 Filed 06/21/24 Page 2 of 4
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 

20053643.1 [4513925.1] 3

Stip. Request and Order Denying Defs. Leave to File Motion to Stay (2:90-cv-00520 KJM-DB (PC)) 

3. Defendants’ reply to Plaintiffs’ opposition, if any, shall be filed within seven days

after Plaintiffs’ opposition is filed. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

Dated: June 12, 2024 ROB A. BONTA

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA

DAMON MCCLAIN

SUPERVISING DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL

/s/ Elise Owens Thorn

ELISE OWENS THORN

DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL

Attorneys for Defendants

Dated: June 12, 2024 HANSON BRIDGETT LLP 

/s/ Samantha D. Wolff

PAUL MELLO

SAMANTHA D. WOLFF

Attorneys for Defendants 

Dated: June 12, 2024 ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP

/s/Lisa Ells (as authorized on 06/12/24) 

LISA ELLS

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

+ + +

ORDER 

At a status conference on April 26, 2024, defense counsel stated in open court “that 

defendants have made clear that they are going forward with [the] program” that is the subject of 

the May 20, 2024 order, ECF No. 8242. Reporter’s Transcript of Proceedings (RT) at 7:1-2, ECF

No. 8244. Defendant Dr. Amar Mehta represented in open court that defendants were 

“anticipating” rolling out the pilot program in August of this year, id., and the court accepted that 

representation in making the May 20, 2024 order. ECF No. 8242 at 6. As noted in the order, the 

court finds meritless defendants' contention that the treatment to be provided by the pilot program 

is not part of the required remedy in this action and confirms its finding that “for eighteen years

defendants have been required by court order to implement their remedial plan for the delivery of

mental health care, the Program Guide, including the requirement to provide treatment for class 

members with personality disorders.” Id. at 5. 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 8288 Filed 06/21/24 Page 3 of 4
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 

20053643.1 [4513925.1] 4 

Stip. Request and Order Denying Defs. Leave to File Motion to Stay (2:90-cv-00520 KJM-DB (PC)) 

In short, defendants by their proposed motion to stay would seek an order from this court 

to stay implementation of a pilot program they have represented to this court they intend to 

implement, and to stay that implementation past the date they represented to this court they had 

targeted for its implementation. The court expects defendants to adhere to the representations 

they and their counsel have made in open court. 

For the reasons explained in this order, the stipulation of the parties is DENIED. The 

court will not entertain the proposed motion to stay. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 20, 2024. 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 8288 Filed 06/21/24 Page 4 of 4