Case: Ashker v. Brown

4:09-cv-05796 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Filed Date: Dec. 9, 2009

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On December 9, 2009, two prisoners at California's Pelican Bay prison who had been kept in solitary confinement for decades filed this § 1983 action against the State of California in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs, originally proceeding pro se, asked the court for declaratory, injunctive, and compensatory relief, claiming violations of their First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that the "in…

On December 9, 2009, two prisoners at California's Pelican Bay prison who had been kept in solitary confinement for decades filed this § 1983 action against the State of California in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs, originally proceeding pro se, asked the court for declaratory, injunctive, and compensatory relief, claiming violations of their First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that the "indefinite status" designation process for keeping them in solitary confinement on the basis of undisclosed informant information about gang affiliation, among other information, violated their constitutional rights.

The Pelican Bay supermax facility was opened in 1989 as the most restrictive prison in the California state prison system. The Security Housing Unit ("SHU") was developed as an especially secure area of the prison, with 1,024 cells for solitary confinement. Prisoners placed there were alone for 22½ to 24 hours a day in a windowless cell with a concrete bed, a concrete desk, and a concrete stool. They were permitted a single book, 3 showers a week, and breaks for 'exercise,' court appearances, or emergency medical care, but no vocational or educational opportunities. Contact with other prisoners or outsiders was severely limited. One plaintiff claimed that he had only spoken with his mother twice in the past twenty-two years, once in 1998, and once in 2000. She had died since the filing of the action.

The criteria for placing and keeping prisoners in the SHU was based mainly on real or perceived gang affiliation. After a landmark case (Madrid v. Gomez, 889 F. Supp. 1146 (N.D. Cal. 1995), the prison was required to develop standards and procedures for determining whether a particular person should remain in detention in the SHU. The new "indefinite status" procedure excluded the prisoners from these hearings, which are supposed to be conducted every six months.

According to the plaintiffs, there were only three ways out of the SHU: expiration of sentence, death, and 'debriefing.' Debriefing was a process by which a SHU prisoner agreed to become a confidential informant for the prison administration in exchange for return to the general population. The plaintiffs claimed that this amounted to a death sentence: the assumption among the general population being that if a prisoner gets moved from SHU there must have been an agreement to become an informant. As a result, it puts into danger not only the prisoners' lives, but their family members' lives as well. Increasing the likelihood of indefinite detention in the SHU, the plaintiffs claimed, was that any speech, even a simple greeting, could be construed by prison officials as evidence of gang affiliation, warranting continued confinement in the SHU.

Two prisoners in the SHU who had been incarcerated there since 1989 first filed a pro se lawsuit against the prison in 2004 (Docket No. 4:04-cv-01967 (N.D. Cal. May 19, 2004)). Most of the claims were dismissed on June 2, 2005, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court also granted absolute and qualified immunity from the damages claims. The court did not dismiss the plaintiffs' First Amendment freedom of speech claim arising from the prison's policy of not allowing hardcover books in the SHU. On March 8, 2006, the court determined that the prison's prior policy on hardcover books was unconstitutional. The court, however, did not issue an injunction because the prison had revised its policy and no longer prohibited hardcover books with their covers removed. The court also granted qualified immunity to one of the defendants. The plaintiffs appealed the qualified immunity decision, but the Ninth Circuit affirmed the decision on July 30, 2009.

The two plaintiffs filed a new pro se complaint in 2005 (Docket No. 4:05-cv-03286 (N.D. Cal. Aug 11, 2005)) raising claims, originally filed on May 19, 2004, that were previously dismissed without prejudice. On June 14, 2007, the court again dismissed most of the claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court determined that four claims had been exhausted: (1) the First Amendment claim regarding access to certain magazines; (2) the due process claim based on the defendants' procedure for determining whether the plaintiffs were active or inactive gang members; (3) the negligence claim; and (4) the intentional tort claim. On March 25, 2009, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment as to all remaining claims, except the claim for prospective injunctive relief for late delivery of incoming mail against the warden acting in his official capacity. The court also denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment and motion for preliminary injunction. On March 18, 2010, the court rule for the defendants on the First Amendment claim regarding late delivery of incoming mail. On January 11, 2012, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decisions to dismiss and to grant summary judgment.

On December 9, 2009, these two prisoners filed a new complaint, in this lawsuit, alleging that they were being deprived of due process of the laws through the secret review process that would "validate" them as gang members (both had been in SHU for more than a decade with no outside contact). They also claimed that a 'validation' could be based on secret evidence that they had associated with persons who may or may not have gang affiliation and that this violated the First Amendment. Lastly, they alleged that the conditions of confinement were in violation of international law and the Eighth Amendment.

On February 16, 2010, the Court (Judge Claudia Wilken) screened the complaint, as required when prisoners file lawsuits against their jailers under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. She dismissed the complaint because out of the twenty-four named defendants, "it [was] not clear which actions proximately caused each constitutional violation." The Court also found that because one of the plaintiffs could afford the filing fee, the complaint would be dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiffs paid the filing fee and filed an amended complaint.

On December 20, 2010, the Court granted leave for the plaintiffs to serve the defendants with the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The Court cautioned the defendants to not needlessly waste resources through insisting on formal service, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d).

Still pro se, the Plaintiffs filed motions to enlist the help of the U.S. Marshals in serving the defendants (their own ability to serve the defendants was extremely limited in the SHU). The plaintiffs also moved to compel prison officials to cooperate in photocopying their legal documents, which the Court granted on October 11, 2011.

In the summer of 2011, prisoners in the Pelican Bay SHU led two system-wide hunger strikes protesting indefinite solitary confinement and the notorious SHU conditions at Pelican Bay. The hunger strikes, each lasting three weeks, ended after California Department of Corrections agreed to negotiations with hunger strike representatives over their demands. In late 2012, CDCR implemented a pilot program to release those held in the SHU on gang charges. However, prisoners and their advocates denounced the program for keeping the most objectionable aspects of the old program and expanding qualifications for SHU placement.

Meanwhile in court, on June 24, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for an Emergency Protective Order, alleging that defendants had begun confiscating key pieces of evidence of defendants' illegal acts. The District Court ordered further briefing on the issue on October 12, 2011. The Emergency Protective Order was denied without prejudice on March 13, 2012, in part due to the fact that plaintiffs had retained counsel from the Center for Constitutional Rights.

Assisted by new counsel, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on September 10, 2012. The plaintiffs claimed that the psychological harm caused by the prolonged confinement was cruel and unusual under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. They also challenged the due process grounds for confining prisoners for decades in the SHU, and included class action allegations, thus naming eight additional plaintiffs.

On December 6, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction, claiming that in retaliation for this litigation, one of the individual plaintiffs was moved to a different cell block of the SHU. The transfer eliminated all communication between him and the other plaintiffs, separated him from his longtime writing assistant assigned by the California Department of Corrections under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and allegedly frustrated counsels' ability to litigate the class action. Judge Wilken denied this motion on April 18, 2013. Judge Wilken found that plaintiffs had not satisfied the requirements for a preliminary injunction because retaliation was not a claim in the class action complaint, and a preliminary injunction would thus provide relief beyond that which would be granted if the plaintiffs prevailed in the suit. Judge Wilken also denied the motion under the All Writs Act because the evidence did not indicate that the individual plaintiff's transfer was motivated by retaliatory animus, and plaintiffs did not rebut defendants' non-retaliatory justification for the transfer (prisoner safety).

On December 17, 2012, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss. Judge Wilken denied this motion on April 9, 2013. Judge Wilken found that the plaintiffs' claims were not moot because the defendants' pilot program for gang management policies did not permanently cure the due process violations alleged, and that the plaintiffs adequately pleaded Eighth Amendment and due process claims. 2013 WL 1435148 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2013).

In 2013, dissatisfied with CDCR's progress regarding the length of solitary confinement and conditions of confinement, prisoners began to call for another hunger strike. The strike began on July 8, 2013, and lasted for almost two months. More than 30,000 prisoners participated in the initial strike. The strike ended when two California state lawmakers announced that they would hold public hearings on the state's use of solitary confinement. However, most of the prisoners' demands had not been met and they vowed to continue fighting. For more information about this hunger strike, see this article from Mother Jones.

On June 2, 2014, Judge Wilkens granted in part the plaintiffs' May 2, 2013, motion to certify the class. Judge Wilkens certified two classes. The Due Process Class consisted of all prisoners who were assigned to an indeterminate term at the Pelican Bay SHU on the basis of gang validation, under the policies and procedures in place as of September 10, 2012. The Eighth Amendment Class consisted of all prisoners who were or would be assigned to the Pelican Bay SHU for a period of more than ten continuous years. 2014 WL 2465191 (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2014).

The parties continued with discovery in 2014 and 2015. Many expert reports were filed in 2015 as part of discovery. In addition, on March 11, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended class-action complaint to cover prisoners who were held in the Pelican Bay SHU for over ten years, but then were transferred out to the Tehachapi SHU where conditions were similar.

On September 1, 2015, the parties reached a settlement agreement and submitted it to the court for approval. In the agreement, the CDC agreed to end indeterminate solitary confinement in prisons across California, stop the use of "gang affiliation" as a basis for placing people in isolation, dramatically reduce the number of people in solitary, and create a new step-down program designed to return those sent to the SHU to general population in two years or less. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the agreement for two years, but the plaintiffs had the option to seek an extension at the end of the two years by presenting evidence of ongoing constitutional violations.

On January 26, 2016, Judge Wilkens granted final approval of the class settlement. Plaintiffs moved for $4,550,000 in attorneys' fees and costs incurred from the start of the case to September 1, 2015. This amount was awarded on July 1, 2016, and underwent final approval on August 26, 2016. Plaintiffs continued to seek judgment on various dispositive matters, and attorneys' fees and costs for litigation throughout.

On November 20, 2017, the plaintiffs moved for an extension of the settlement agreement based on systemic due process violations. They stated three grounds for the extension: first, the misuse of unreliable confidential information to return class members to solitary confinement; second, inadequate procedural protections related to placement and retention of class members in the Restricted Custody General Population Unit; and third, the retention of CDCR's old, constitutionally infirm gang validations, which were still being relied on to deny class members a fair opportunity for parole.

On February 6, 2018, the district court ordered defendants to supplement their production of certain documents relevant to plaintiff's motion to extend the settlement agreement. On July 3, 2018, plaintiffs alleged that the subsequent documents produced by the CDCR demonstrated that the defendant had systematically violated due process rights regarding confidentiality of the information. Plaintiffs stated concerns regarding the systematic nature of these due process violations, and that CDCR's due process violations created a substantial risk of error of a prisoner being wrongfully sent to solitary for years and losing good time credits, which would prolong prison terms.

On August 21, 2018, the parties met and conferred to present joint status reports. The parties disagreed whether defendants had a basis to stay further proceedings.

On December 7, 2018, the court issued three orders, citing them as responses to defendants' violation of the settlement agreement on July 3, 2018. These orders stipulated that the court adopted the plaintiffs' Out-of-Cell Time remedial plan and the plaintiffs' walk-alone status remedial plan, ordering the defendants to take all steps necessary to implement these plans. The order also granted defendants' motion to stay the enforcement of the remedial plans pending appeal.

The Out-of-Cell Time plan provided that: (1) all class members be accorded an amount of time out of their cells that is meaningfully greater than when they were in SHU; (2) the CDCR keep a documentation of their compliance and to make it readily available to the plaintiffs' counsel; (3) the parties meet every three months to discuss implementation and every six months with the Magistrate Judge to assess progress (this monitoring was to continue for one year with the plaintiffs retaining the right to seek an extension); (4) an expert be included as part of the plaintiffs' monitoring; and (5) defendants be prohibited from retaliating against any class representatives.

The Walk-Alone status plan provided that: (1) the determination of whether a prisoner be classified as a walk-alone or allowed to exercise in a group was to be made by the Institution Classification Committee and the determination would be reassessed every two months; (2) the ICC would provide reasoning for its determination; (3) prisoners would have the right to waive their right to group activity; (4) walk-alone prisoners would be afforded adequate alternatives for social contact; and (5) plaintiffs' counsel would be entitled to monitor the group programming status of each prison for one year and the right to seek an extension.

On December 19, 2018, the defendants appealed.

On January 25, 2019, Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illlman granted plaintiffs' motion to extend the settlement for twelve months, citing continued due process violations, specifically the misuse of confidential information to return class members to solitary confinement and the use of unreliable gang validations to deny class members a fair opportunity to seek parole.

In February 2019, the defendants moved to stay the January 25 order, arguing they would be irreparably harmed absent a stay. The court denied this motion on April 10, 2019, arguing that the court held jurisdiction to extend the agreement.

On April 24, 2019, defendants moved for a de novo determination on the April 10th dismissal of defendants' motion. The court granted the motion on June 26, 2019, and reaffirmed the court's initial dismissal of the motion on April 10, 2019.

On July 16, 2020, Judge Wilken moved the deadline for filing to extend the settlement agreement again to September 25, 2020 due to COVID-19.

However, shortly after on August 3, 2020, the Ninth Circuit reversed the court’s earlier July 3, 2018 ruling that the defendants had violated the settlement agreement. Writing for the court, Judge James Gwin disagreed with the plaintiffs’ claim that the settlement agreement implicitly required increased out-of-cell time for prisoners moved to the general population. Citing the plain text of the settlement agreement, he pointed out that the plaintiffs had defined out-of-cell time for SHU prisoners but not those moved back to the general population, leaving the latter to the discretion of the defendants. Secondly, the court found that contrary to the plaintiffs’ assertion, the settlement agreement did not require the defendant to provide group time and group activities to prisoners on “walk-alone” status. It reasoned that the paragraph discussing these purported requirements was “aspirational,” and that while it indicated prisoners should be moved to “small group yards,” it did not specify that more than one prisoner need occupy those yards. Moreover, the defendant had “substantially complied” with this section to the extent that it could. In reversing the decision, the court vacated the remedial plans set forth on December 7, 2018. 968 F.3d 939, 944-946. In response, the plaintiffs petitioned the Ninth Circuit on August 31, 2020 to rehear the case en banc. Their petition was denied on October 14, 2020.

The plaintiffs also filed a new motion for extension of the settlement agreement on September 25, 2020 based on the same systemic due process violations that the appeals court had evaluated. On April 9, 2021, Judge Wilken approved the magistrate judge's recommendation that the settlement agreement be extended for another twelve months. Judge Wilken found that the defendants continued to use old gang validations without acknowledging that those procedures are flawed and unreliable, which resulted in violations of the class members' right to a meaningful hearing in the context of parole. The defendants appealed this order to the Ninth Circuit.

Meanwhile, the plaintiffs and defendants filed dueling motions for attorneys fees. Both parties won aspects of the case and both believed they were entitled to some amount of money. The magistrate judge recommended that the plaintiffs' motion be granted and the defendants' motion be denied. Judge Wilken agreed and awarded the plaintiffs $311,968.50.

On February 2, 2022, Judge Wilken extended the settlement agreement for an additional one-year term. She had found that the defendants continued to violate the due process rights of imprisoned men and that CDCR was relying on inaccurate and fabricated confidential information to place individuals in solitary confinement, using unfounded gang affiliations to deny them a fair opportunity for parole, and holding them in a restricted unit in the general population without adequate procedural safeguards. The case is ongoing.

Summary Authors

Blase Kearney (6/5/2012)

Samantha Kirby (10/20/2014)

Jessica Kincaid (1/6/2016)

Jennifer Huseby (11/2/2018)

Jack Kanarek (10/23/2020)

Justin Hill (9/12/2021)

Related Cases

Madrid v. Gomez, Northern District of California (1990)

Ashker v. California Department of Corrections, Northern District of California (1997)

Lopez v. Brown, Northern District of California (2015)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4176731/parties/ashker-v-newsom/


Judge(s)

Gwin, James S. (Ohio)

Illman, Robert M. (California)

Nelson, Ryan Douglas (District of Columbia)

Vadas, Nandor J. (California)

Wallace, John Clifford (California)

Wilken, Claudia Ann (California)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Agathocleous, Alexis (New York)

Bell, Michael David (New York)

Bremer, Carmen E. (Texas)

Cappella, Anne (California)

Judge(s)

Gwin, James S. (Ohio)

Illman, Robert M. (California)

Nelson, Ryan Douglas (District of Columbia)

Vadas, Nandor J. (California)

Wallace, John Clifford (California)

Wilken, Claudia Ann (California)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Agathocleous, Alexis (New York)

Bell, Michael David (New York)

Bremer, Carmen E. (Texas)

Cappella, Anne (California)

Carbone, Charles F.A. (California)

Greenberg, Evan (California)

Huang, Aaron (California)

Hull, Gregory (California)

Johns, Emily Rose Naomi (California)

Lobel, Jules L. (Pennsylvania)

McMahon, Marilyn (California)

Meeropol, Rachel (New York)

Miller, Samuel Rand (New York)

Obaro, Bambo (California)

Samuel-Frank, Somalia L. (New York)

Siegel, Daniel Mark (California)

Strickman, Carol (California)

Strugar, Matthew D. (California)

Weills, Anne Butterfield (New York)

Wheeler, Alexander Azure (New York)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Andrada, J. Randall (California)

Brattin, Sarah M (California)

Ciccotti, Christine Marie (California)

D'Agostino, Martine Noel (California)

Fisher, Jeffrey Thomas (California)

Harris, Kamala D. (California)

Hrvatin, Adriano (California)

Kwong, William C (California)

Lyons, Le-Mai D (California)

O'Brien, Jillian Renee (California)

Roman, Nicole Lynne (California)

Russell, Jay C. (California)

Samson, Kelly Ariana (California)

Shryock, Cassandra Jean (California)

Simon, Loran Michael (California)

Other Attorney(s)

Murray, Phillip A. (California)

Price, Jeff Dominic (California)

Wedekind, Jennifer A. (District of Columbia)

Expert/Monitor/Master

Austin, James Ph.D. (District of Columbia)

Collins, Terry J. (Ohio)

Coyle, Andrew PhD (Ohio)

Haney, Craig William (California)

Hawkley, Louise C. (Illinois)

Keltner, Dacher Ph.D. (California)

Kupers, Terry (California)

Lieberman, Matthew D. (California)

Mendéz, Juan E. (District of Columbia)

Sparkman, Emmitt L. (Mississippi)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

4:09-cv-05796

Docket [PACER]

Sept. 9, 2021

Sept. 9, 2021

Docket
1

4:09-cv-05796

Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial

Dec. 9, 2009

Dec. 9, 2009

Complaint
7

4:09-cv-05796

Order Denying Applications to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Screening Complaint Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and Dismissing Complaint with Leave to Amend

Feb. 16, 2010

Feb. 16, 2010

Order/Opinion
51

4:09-cv-05796

Motion for Emergency Protective Order Prohibiting Retaliatory Acts and Return of Property

June 24, 2011

June 24, 2011

Pleading / Motion / Brief
81

4:09-cv-05796

Plaintiff's Notice and Motion For An Order Compelling the Defendants to Answer Interrogatories and Produce Documents

Dec. 1, 2011

Dec. 1, 2011

Pleading / Motion / Brief
101

4:09-cv-05796

Opinion

2012 WL 847750

March 13, 2012

March 13, 2012

Order/Opinion
136

4:09-cv-05796

Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint

Sept. 10, 2012

Sept. 10, 2012

Complaint
155

4:09-cv-05796

Order Amending Schedule and Granting in Part Motions for Administrative Relief

Nov. 16, 2012

Nov. 16, 2012

Order/Opinion
183

4:09-cv-05796

Joint Case Management Conference Statement

Ruiz v. Brown

March 7, 2013

March 7, 2013

Pleading / Motion / Brief
191

4:09-cv-05796

Order Denying Motion to Dismiss

2013 WL 1435148

April 9, 2013

April 9, 2013

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4176731/ashker-v-newsom/

Last updated May 28, 2022, 3:17 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT (no process) against William Barlow, D. W. Bradbury, Mathew Cate, Robert Doyle, Susan Fisher, Hollis Gillingham, Robert Harmon, John Harrison, A. Hernandez, Roderick Q. Hickman, Robert Horel, Francisco Jacquez, R. L. Johnson, Richard Kirkland, Robert Marquez, Joe McGrath, J. McKinney, R. Rice, Arnold Schwarzenegger, D. Smith, B. Thornton, S. Tucker, G. H. Wise, Jeanne Woodford. Filed byDanny Troxell, Todd Ashker. (Attachments: # 1 complaint (part 2), # 2 envelope)(cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/9/2009) (Entered: 12/17/2009)

1 complaint (part 2)

View on PACER

2 envelope

View on PACER

Dec. 9, 2009

Dec. 9, 2009

RECAP
2

CLERK'S NOTICE re completion of In Forma Pauperis affidavit or payment of filing fee due within 30 days as to Todd Ashker (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/9/2009) (Entered: 12/17/2009)

Dec. 9, 2009

Dec. 9, 2009

PACER
3

CLERK'S NOTICE re completion of In Forma Pauperis affidavit or payment of filing fee due within 30 days as to Danny Troxell (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/9/2009) (Entered: 12/17/2009)

Dec. 9, 2009

Dec. 9, 2009

PACER
4

Letter from Todd Ashker re this action is related to two cases C-04-1967-CW and C-05-3286-CW. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/9/2009) (Entered: 12/17/2009)

Dec. 9, 2009

Dec. 9, 2009

RECAP

CASE DESIGNATED for Electronic Filing. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/9/2009)

Dec. 9, 2009

Dec. 9, 2009

PACER
5

MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Danny Troxell. (Attachments: # 1 envelope)(cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/12/2010) (Entered: 01/15/2010)

1 envelope

View on PACER

Jan. 12, 2010

Jan. 12, 2010

PACER
6

MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Todd Ashker. (Attachments: # 1 envelope)(cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/12/2010) (Entered: 01/15/2010)

1 envelope

View on PACER

Jan. 12, 2010

Jan. 12, 2010

PACER
7

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken denying 5 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; denying 6 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, screening complaint pursuant to 28 USC section 1915A and dismissing complaint with leave to amend (cwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/16/2010) (Entered: 02/16/2010)

Feb. 16, 2010

Feb. 16, 2010

RECAP

Filing fee: $ 350.00, receipt number 44611004932. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/15/2010)

March 15, 2010

March 15, 2010

PACER
8

MOTION for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration of part of the 2/16/2010 order filed by Todd Ashker, Danny Troxell. (Attachments: # 1 Troxell Declaration, # 2 Ashker Declaration, # 3 Proof of Service, # 4 Envelope)(cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/12/2010) (Entered: 04/13/2010)

1 Troxell Declaration

View on PACER

2 Ashker Declaration

View on PACER

3 Proof of Service

View on PACER

4 Envelope

View on PACER

April 12, 2010

April 12, 2010

PACER
9

MOTION for Extension of Time to File First Amended Complaint filed by Todd Ashker, Danny Troxell. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Todd Ashker, # 2 Declaration of Danny Troxell, # 3 envelope)(kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/14/2010) (Entered: 04/15/2010)

1 Declaration of Todd Ashker

View on PACER

2 Declaration of Danny Troxell

View on PACER

3 envelope

View on PACER

April 14, 2010

April 14, 2010

PACER
10

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against William Barlow, D. W. Bradbury, Mathew Cate, Robert Doyle, Susan Fisher, Hollis Gillingham, Robert Harmon, John Harrison, A. Hernandez, Roderick Q. Hickman, Robert Horel, Francisco Jacquez, R. L. Johnson, Richard Kirkland, Robert Marquez, Joe McGrath, J. McKinney, R. Rice, Arnold Schwarzenegger, D. Smith, B. Thornton, S. Tucker, G. H. Wise, Jeanne Woodford, Derral Adams. Filed byDanny Troxell, Todd Ashker. (Attachments: # 1 amended complaint part 2, # 2 envelope)(cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/21/2010) (Entered: 05/24/2010)

1 amended complaint part 2

View on PACER

2 envelope

View on PACER

May 21, 2010

May 21, 2010

RECAP
11

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING 8 Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration; GRANTING 9 Motion for Extension of Time to File Amended Complaint. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint due no later than (45) forty-five days from the date of this Order. (cwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/28/2010) Modified on 6/2/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/28/2010)

May 28, 2010

May 28, 2010

RECAP
12

ORDER SCREENING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT UNDER 28 U.S.C. ยง 1915A AND GRANTING PLAINTIFFS LEAVE TO SERVE DEFENDANTS. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 12/20/2010. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/20/2010) (Entered: 12/20/2010)

Dec. 20, 2010

Dec. 20, 2010

RECAP
13

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re 12 Order (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/20/2010) (Entered: 12/20/2010)

Dec. 20, 2010

Dec. 20, 2010

PACER
14

RESPONSE to re 12 Order, with clarification and Request for further guidance by Todd Ashker. (Attachments: # 1 Ashker Declaration, # 2 Troxell Declaration, # 3 envelope)(cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/3/2011) (Entered: 01/04/2011)

1 Ashker Declaration

View on PACER

2 Troxell Declaration

View on PACER

3 envelope

View on PACER

Jan. 3, 2011

Jan. 3, 2011

PACER
16

CORRECTED RESPONSE to re 12 Order, with clarification and Request for further guidancere by Todd Ashker, Danny Troxell. (Attachments: # 1 Ashker Declaration, # 2 Troxell Declaration, # 3 envelope)(cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/6/2011) (Entered: 01/07/2011)

1 Ashker Declaration

View on PACER

2 Troxell Declaration

View on PACER

3 envelope

View on PACER

Jan. 6, 2011

Jan. 6, 2011

PACER
15

ORDER Regarding Plaintiff's 14 Request for Clarification. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/6/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/7/2011) (Entered: 01/07/2011)

Jan. 7, 2011

Jan. 7, 2011

RECAP
17

MOTION for allowance to change warden defendant, and extend time re U.S. Marshal Service assist notification filed by Todd Ashker. (Attachments: # 1 Ashker Declaration, # 2 Troxell Declaration, # 3 Proof of service, # 4 envelope)(cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/7/2011) (Entered: 01/11/2011)

1 Ashker Declaration

View on PACER

2 Troxell Declaration

View on PACER

3 Proof of service

View on PACER

4 envelope

View on PACER

Jan. 7, 2011

Jan. 7, 2011

PACER
18

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING 17 PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE DEFENDANT AND FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO REQUEST ASSISTANCE FOR SERVICE. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/14/2011) (Entered: 01/14/2011)

Jan. 14, 2011

Jan. 14, 2011

RECAP
19

MOTION for extension of time to seek U.S. Marshal's Service of FAC filed by Todd Ashker. (Attachments: # 1 Ashker Declaration, # 2 Troxell Declaration, # 3 envelope)(cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/4/2011) (Entered: 02/04/2011)

1 Ashker Declaration

View on PACER

2 Troxell Declaration

View on PACER

3 envelope

View on PACER

Feb. 4, 2011

Feb. 4, 2011

PACER
20

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING PLAINTIFFS 19 MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE DEFENDANTS. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/10/2011) (Entered: 02/10/2011)

Feb. 10, 2011

Feb. 10, 2011

RECAP
21

ORDER SUBSTITUTING GOVERNOR EDMUND G. BROWN AS DEFENDANT. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 2/14/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/14/2011) (Entered: 02/14/2011)

Feb. 14, 2011

Feb. 14, 2011

RECAP
22

MOTION to correct and clarify an omission in their first amended complaint filed by Todd Ashker, Danny Troxell. (Attachments: # 1 envelope)(cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/11/2011) (Entered: 03/14/2011)

1 envelope

View on PACER

March 11, 2011

March 11, 2011

PACER
23

Declarations of Todd Ashker, Danny Troxell filed byTodd Ashker, Danny Troxell. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/11/2011) Modified on 3/14/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/14/2011)

March 11, 2011

March 11, 2011

RECAP
24

MOTION requesting permission to preserve option of obtaining U.S. Marshal's Assistance filed by Todd Ashker, Danny Troxell. (Attachments: # 1 Ashker Declaration, # 2 Troxell Declaration, # 3 envelope)(cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/21/2011) (Entered: 03/22/2011)

1 Ashker Declaration

View on PACER

2 Troxell Declaration

View on PACER

3 envelope

View on PACER

March 21, 2011

March 21, 2011

PACER
25

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING PLAINTIFFS 24 MOTION TO PRESERVE OPTION OF REQUESTING SERVICE BY UNITED STATES MARSHAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/28/2011) (Entered: 03/28/2011)

March 28, 2011

March 28, 2011

RECAP
26

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken DENYING PLAINTIFFS 22 MOTION TO CORRECT OMISSION IN FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/28/2011) (Entered: 03/28/2011)

March 28, 2011

March 28, 2011

RECAP
27

MOTION for order permitting taped depositions of defendants and agent Hawks filed by Todd Ashker, Danny Troxell. (Attachments: # 1 Ashker declaration, # 2 Troxell declaration, # 3 envelope)(cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/4/2011) (Entered: 04/05/2011)

1 Ashker declaration

View on RECAP

2 Troxell declaration

View on RECAP

3 envelope

View on RECAP

April 4, 2011

April 4, 2011

RECAP
28

NOTICE by William Barlow, D. W. Bradbury, Edmund G. Brown, Jr, Mathew Cate, John Harrison, A. Hernandez, Robert Horel, Francisco Jacquez, R. L. Johnson, Greg Lewis, Joe McGrath, J. McKinney, R. Rice, B. Thornton, G. H. Wise, Jeanne Woodford of Represention and Notice of Intent to File Answer (Roman, Nicole) (Filed on 4/11/2011) (Entered: 04/11/2011)

April 11, 2011

April 11, 2011

RECAP
29

MOTION for relief from defendants' interference with ability to prosecute this case filed by Todd Ashker, Danny Troxell. (Attachments: # 1 Ashker declaration, # 2 Troxell declaration, # 3 Envelope)(cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/14/2011) (Entered: 04/14/2011)

1 Ashker declaration

View on RECAP

2 Troxell declaration

View on RECAP

3 Envelope

View on RECAP

April 14, 2011

April 14, 2011

RECAP
30

RESPONSE (re 27 MOTION for order permitting taped depositions of defendants and agent Hawks ) filed byWilliam Barlow, D. W. Bradbury, Edmund G. Brown, Jr, Mathew Cate, John Harrison, A. Hernandez, Robert Horel, Francisco Jacquez, R. L. Johnson, Greg Lewis, Joe McGrath, J. McKinney, R. Rice, B. Thornton, G. H. Wise, Jeanne Woodford. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Roman, Nicole) (Filed on 4/19/2011) (Entered: 04/19/2011)

1 Proof of Service

View on RECAP

April 19, 2011

April 19, 2011

RECAP
31

MOTION for Court to Order Defendant's Agent to photocopy proposed SAC filed by Todd Ashker, Danny Troxell. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(kc, ) (Filed on 4/25/2011) (Entered: 04/26/2011)

1 Envelope

View on RECAP

April 25, 2011

April 25, 2011

RECAP
32

Declaration of Todd Ashker in Support of 31 MOTION for Court to Order Defendant's Agent to photocopy proposed SAC filed byTodd Ashker, Danny Troxell. (Related document(s) 31 ) (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/25/2011) (Entered: 04/26/2011)

April 25, 2011

April 25, 2011

PACER
33

Declaration of Danny Troxell in Support of 31 MOTION for Court to Order Defendant's Agent to photocopy proposed SAC filed byTodd Ashker, Danny Troxell. (Related document(s) 31 ) (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/25/2011) (Entered: 04/26/2011)

April 25, 2011

April 25, 2011

PACER
34

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken DENYING PLAINTIFFS 31 REQUEST TO ORDER PHOTOCOPYING OF SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/5/2011) (Entered: 05/05/2011)

May 5, 2011

May 5, 2011

RECAP
35

ORDER FOR RESPONSE FROM DEFENDANTS ON PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM INTERFERENCE. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 5/5/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/5/2011) (Entered: 05/05/2011)

May 5, 2011

May 5, 2011

RECAP
36

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken DENYING PLAINTIFFS 27 MOTION FOR TAPED DEPOSITIONS AS PREMATURE. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/5/2011) (Entered: 05/05/2011)

May 5, 2011

May 5, 2011

RECAP
37

ANSWER to Amended Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial byWilliam Barlow, D. W. Bradbury, Edmund G. Brown, Jr, Mathew Cate, John Harrison, A. Hernandez, Robert Horel, Francisco Jacquez, R. L. Johnson, Greg Lewis, Joe McGrath, J. McKinney, R. Rice, B. Thornton, G. H. Wise, Jeanne Woodford. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Roman, Nicole) (Filed on 5/5/2011) (Entered: 05/05/2011)

1 Proof of Service

View on PACER

May 5, 2011

May 5, 2011

RECAP
38

REPLY Brief in Support of 27 MOTION for order permitting taped depositions of defendants and agent Hawks filed byTodd Ashker, Danny Troxell. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/9/2011) (Entered: 05/10/2011)

1 Envelope

View on PACER

May 9, 2011

May 9, 2011

PACER
39

Declaration of Danny Troxell in Support of 38 Reply Brief filed byTodd Ashker, Danny Troxell. (Related document(s) 38 ) (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/9/2011) (Entered: 05/10/2011)

May 9, 2011

May 9, 2011

PACER
40

Declaration of Todd Ashker in Support of 38 Reply Brief filed byTodd Ashker, Danny Troxell. (Related document(s) 38 ) (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/9/2011) (Entered: 05/10/2011)

May 9, 2011

May 9, 2011

PACER
41

RESPONSE (re 29 MOTION for relief from defendants' interference with ability to prosecute this case ) DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM INTERFERENCE WITH PLAINTIFFS' ABILITY TO PROSECUTE filed byWilliam Barlow, D. W. Bradbury, Edmund G. Brown, Jr, Mathew Cate, John Harrison, A. Hernandez, Robert Horel, Francisco Jacquez, R. L. Johnson, Greg Lewis, Joe McGrath, J. McKinney, R. Rice, B. Thornton, G. H. Wise, Jeanne Woodford. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Elizabeth McCumsey in Support of Defendans' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Relief from Interference with Plaintiffs' Ability to Prosecute)(Roman, Nicole) (Filed on 5/19/2011) (Entered: 05/19/2011)

1 Declaration of Elizabeth McCumsey in Support of Defendans' Opposition to P

View on PACER

May 19, 2011

May 19, 2011

PACER
42

Re-Submission of MOTION for order to permit taped depositions filed by Todd Ashker, Danny Troxell. (Attachments: # 1 Troxell's Declaration, # 2 Ashker's Declaration, # 3 Envelope)(cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/20/2011) (Entered: 05/23/2011)

1 Troxell's Declaration

View on PACER

2 Ashker's Declaration

View on PACER

3 Envelope

View on PACER

May 20, 2011

May 20, 2011

PACER
43

MOTION for Court Order for U.S. Marshal Assistance with Service of FAC on Defendant Kirkland filed by Todd Ashker, Danny Troxell. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/2/2011) (Entered: 06/03/2011)

1 Envelope

View on PACER

June 2, 2011

June 2, 2011

PACER
44

Declaration of Todd Ashker in Support of 43 MOTION for Court Order for U.S. Marshal Assistance with Service of FAC on Defendant Kirkland filed byTodd Ashker, Danny Troxell. (Related document(s) 43 ) (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/2/2011) (Entered: 06/03/2011)

June 2, 2011

June 2, 2011

PACER
45

Declaration of Danny Troxell in Support of 43 MOTION for Court Order for U.S. Marshal Assistance with Service of FAC on Defendant Kirkland filed byTodd Ashker, Danny Troxell. (Related document(s) 43 ) (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/2/2011) (Entered: 06/03/2011)

June 2, 2011

June 2, 2011

PACER
47

REPLY (re 29 MOTION for relief from defendants' interference with ability to prosecute this case ) filed byTodd Ashker, Danny Troxell. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration - Troxell, # 2 Declaration - Ashker, # 3 Envelope)(cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/6/2011) (Entered: 06/07/2011)

1 Declaration - Troxell

View on PACER

2 Declaration - Ashker

View on PACER

3 Envelope

View on PACER

June 6, 2011

June 6, 2011

PACER
48

MOTION for the court to order defendants' agent(s) to photocopy their proposed second amended complaint (SAC) filed by Todd Ashker, Danny Troxell. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration - Ashker, # 2 Declaration - Troxell, # 3 Envelope)(cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/6/2011) (Entered: 06/07/2011)

1 Declaration - Ashker

View on PACER

2 Declaration - Troxell

View on PACER

3 Envelope

View on PACER

June 6, 2011

June 6, 2011

PACER
46

OPPOSITION (re 42 MOTION for order to permit taped depositions ) OF DEFENDANTS AND AGENT HAWKES filed by William Barlow, D. W. Bradbury, Edmund G. Brown, Jr, Mathew Cate, John Harrison, A. Hernandez, Robert Horel, Francisco Jacquez, R. L. Johnson, Greg Lewis, Joe McGrath, J. McKinney, R. Rice, B. Thornton, G. H. Wise, Jeanne Woodford. (Roman, Nicole) (Filed on 6/7/2011) Modified on 6/8/2011 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/07/2011)

June 7, 2011

June 7, 2011

PACER
49

ANSWER to Amended Complaint AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL byRichard Kirkland, Robert Marquez. (Roman, Nicole) (Filed on 6/15/2011) (Entered: 06/15/2011)

June 15, 2011

June 15, 2011

RECAP
50

Notice and Resubmission of REPLY (re 42 MOTION for order to permit taped depositions ) filed byTodd Ashker, Danny Troxell. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration - Troxell, # 2 Declaration - Asker, # 3 Envelope)(cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/24/2011) (Entered: 06/24/2011)

1 Declaration - Troxell

View on PACER

2 Declaration - Asker

View on PACER

3 Envelope

View on PACER

June 24, 2011

June 24, 2011

PACER
51

MOTION for emergency protective order prohibiting retaliatory acts and return of property filed by Todd Ashker, Danny Troxell. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration - Ashker, # 2 Declaration - Troxell, # 3 Declaration - Crawford, # 4 Envelope)(cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/24/2011) (Entered: 06/24/2011)

1 Declaration - Ashker

View on PACER

2 Declaration - Troxell

View on PACER

3 Declaration - Crawford

View on PACER

4 Envelope

View on PACER

June 24, 2011

June 24, 2011

PACER
52

RESPONSE (re 51 MOTION for emergency protective order prohibiting retaliatory act and return of property ) DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER PROHIBITING RETALIATORY ACTS AND RETURN OF PROPERTY filed byWilliam Barlow, D. W. Bradbury, Edmund G. Brown, Jr, Mathew Cate, John Harrison, A. Hernandez, Robert Horel, Francisco Jacquez, R. L. Johnson, Richard Kirkland, Greg Lewis, Robert Marquez, Joe McGrath, J. McKinney, R. Rice, B. Thornton, G. H. Wise, Jeanne Woodford. (Attachments: # 1 DECLARATION OF SERGEANT JOSHUA PIEREN IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER PROHIBITING RETALIATORY ACTS AND RETURN OF PROPERTY, # 2 Exhibits to Declaration of Sergeant Joshua Pieren, # 3 DECLARATION OF SERGEANT JEREMY FRISK IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER PROHIBITING RETALIATORY ACTS AND RETURN OF PROPERTY, # 4 Exhibits to Declaration of Sergeant Jeremy Frisk)(Roman, Nicole) (Filed on 7/11/2011) (Entered: 07/11/2011)

1 DECLARATION OF SERGEANT JOSHUA PIEREN IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PL

View on PACER

2 Exhibits to Declaration of Sergeant Joshua Pieren

View on PACER

3 DECLARATION OF SERGEANT JEREMY FRISK IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLA

View on PACER

4 Exhibits to Declaration of Sergeant Jeremy Frisk

View on PACER

July 11, 2011

July 11, 2011

PACER
53

ANSWER to Amended Complaint; Demand for Jury Trial by Robert Doyle, Susan Fisher, Hollis Gillingham, Robert Harmon, D. Smith, S. Tucker. (Roman, Nicole) (Filed on 7/22/2011) Modified on 7/25/2011 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/22/2011)

July 22, 2011

July 22, 2011

RECAP
54

MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Summary Judgment or other Dispositive Motion; and Declaration of Nicole Roman in Support Thereof filed by William Barlow, D. W. Bradbury, Edmund G. Brown, Jr, Mathew Cate, Robert Doyle, Susan Fisher, Hollis Gillingham, Robert Harmon, John Harrison, A. Hernandez, Robert Horel, Francisco Jacquez, R. L. Johnson, Richard Kirkland, Greg Lewis, Robert Marquez, Joe McGrath, J. McKinney, R. Rice, D. Smith, B. Thornton, S. Tucker, G. H. Wise, Jeanne Woodford. (Roman, Nicole) (Filed on 8/1/2011) Modified on 8/2/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/01/2011)

Aug. 1, 2011

Aug. 1, 2011

PACER
55

MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 51 MOTION for emergency protective order filed by Todd Ashker, Danny Troxell. (Attachments: # 1 Troxell's declaration, # 2 Ashker's declaration, # 3 Envelope)(cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/8/2011) (Entered: 08/09/2011)

1 Troxell's declaration

View on PACER

2 Ashker's declaration

View on PACER

3 Envelope

View on PACER

Aug. 8, 2011

Aug. 8, 2011

PACER
56

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting Defendants' 54 Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for Summary Judgment. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/9/2011) (Entered: 08/09/2011)

Aug. 9, 2011

Aug. 9, 2011

RECAP
57

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPLY RE: 51 MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER.(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/10/2011) (Entered: 08/10/2011)

Aug. 10, 2011

Aug. 10, 2011

RECAP
58

REPLY (re 51 MOTION for emergency protective order prohibiting retaliatory act and return of property ) filed byTodd Ashker, Danny Troxell. (Attachments: # 1 Troxell's Declaration, # 2 Ashker's Declaration, # 3 Proof of service, # 4 Envelope)(cpS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/19/2011) (Entered: 08/23/2011)

1 Troxell's Declaration

View on PACER

2 Ashker's Declaration

View on PACER

3 Proof of service

View on PACER

4 Envelope

View on PACER

Aug. 19, 2011

Aug. 19, 2011

PACER
59

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING PLAINTIFFS 48 MOTION FOR PHOTOCOPY OF SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/5/2011) (Entered: 10/05/2011)

Oct. 5, 2011

Oct. 5, 2011

RECAP
60

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING PLAINTIFFS 43 MOTION FOR COUNSEL TO PROVIDE COURT WITH INFORMATION REGARDING DEFENDANT AND FOR SERVICE BY UNITED STATES MARSHAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/11/2011) (Entered: 10/11/2011)

Oct. 11, 2011

Oct. 11, 2011

RECAP
61

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken DENYING PLAINTIFFS 29 MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM INTERFERENCE. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/11/2011) (Entered: 10/11/2011)

Oct. 11, 2011

Oct. 11, 2011

RECAP
62

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING PLAINTIFFS 42 RENEWED MOTION FOR TAPED DEPOSITIONS. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/11/2011) (Entered: 10/11/2011)

Oct. 11, 2011

Oct. 11, 2011

RECAP
63

STATUS REPORT AND RESPONSE TO COURT ORDER AT DOCKET NO. 60 by William Barlow, D. W. Bradbury, Edmund G. Brown, Jr, Mathew Cate, Robert Doyle, Susan Fisher, Hollis Gillingham, Robert Harmon, John Harrison, A. Hernandez, Robert Horel, Francisco Jacquez, R. L. Johnson, Richard Kirkland, Greg Lewis, Robert Marquez, Joe McGrath, J. McKinney, R. Rice, D. Smith, B. Thornton, S. Tucker, G. H. Wise, Jeanne Woodford. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Roman, Nicole) (Filed on 10/11/2011) (Entered: 10/11/2011)

1 Exhibit A

View on RECAP

2 Certificate/Proof of Service

View on RECAP

Oct. 11, 2011

Oct. 11, 2011

RECAP
64

ORDER FOR FURTHER BRIEFING ON PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER PROHIBITING RETALIATORY ACTS AND FOR RETURN OF PROPERTY. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/12/11. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/12/2011) (Entered: 10/12/2011)

Oct. 12, 2011

Oct. 12, 2011

RECAP
65

MOTION for Extension of Time to File Supplements to Submitted Motions re (1) Prohibiting Interference, and (2) Motion for Protective Order, filed by Todd Ashker. (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/19/2011) (Entered: 10/20/2011)

Oct. 19, 2011

Oct. 19, 2011

PACER
66

Declaration of Todd Ashker in Support of 65 Motion for Extension of Time to File Supplements to Submitted Motions re (1) Prohibiting Interference, and (2) Motion for Protective Order, filed byTodd Ashker. (Related document(s) 65 ) (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/19/2011) Modified on 10/21/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/20/2011)

Oct. 19, 2011

Oct. 19, 2011

PACER
67

MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint, filed by Todd Ashker. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Second Amended Complaint, Part 1 of 10, # 2 Proposed Second Amended Complaint, Part 2 of 10, # 3 Proposed Second Amended Complaint, Part 3 of 10, # 4 Proposed Second Amended Complaint, Part 4 of 10, # 5 Proposed Second Amended Complaint, Part 5 of 10, # 6 Proposed Second Amended Complaint, Part 6 of 10, # 7 Proposed Second Amended Complaint, Part 7 of 10, # 8 Proposed Second Amended Complaint, Part 8 of 10, # 9 Proposed Second Amended Complaint, Part 9 of 10, # 10 Proposed Second Amended Complaint, Part 10 of 10)(jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/19/2011) (Entered: 10/20/2011)

1 Proposed Second Amended Complaint, Part 1 of 10

View on RECAP

2 Proposed Second Amended Complaint, Part 2 of 10

View on RECAP

3 Proposed Second Amended Complaint, Part 3 of 10

View on RECAP

4 Proposed Second Amended Complaint, Part 4 of 10

View on RECAP

5 Proposed Second Amended Complaint, Part 5 of 10

View on RECAP

6 Proposed Second Amended Complaint, Part 6 of 10

View on RECAP

7 Proposed Second Amended Complaint, Part 7 of 10

View on RECAP

8 Proposed Second Amended Complaint, Part 8 of 10

View on RECAP

9 Proposed Second Amended Complaint, Part 9 of 10

View on RECAP

10 Proposed Second Amended Complaint, Part 10 of 10

View on RECAP

Oct. 19, 2011

Oct. 19, 2011

RECAP
68

Declaration of Todd Ashker in Support of 67 Motion for Leave to Second Amended Complaint, filed byTodd Ashker. (Related document(s) 67 ) (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/19/2011) (Entered: 10/20/2011)

Oct. 19, 2011

Oct. 19, 2011

PACER
69

Declaration of Danny Troxell in Support of 67 Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint, filed by Todd Ashker. (Related document(s) 67 ) (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/19/2011) (Entered: 10/20/2011)

Oct. 19, 2011

Oct. 19, 2011

PACER
70

RESPONSE (re 65 MOTION for Extension of Time to File ) to File Supplements to the Submitted Motions filed byWilliam Barlow, D. W. Bradbury, Edmund G. Brown, Jr, Mathew Cate, Robert Doyle, Susan Fisher, Hollis Gillingham, Robert Harmon, John Harrison, A. Hernandez, Robert Horel, Francisco Jacquez, R. L. Johnson, Richard Kirkland, Greg Lewis, Robert Marquez, Joe McGrath, J. McKinney, R. Rice, D. Smith, B. Thornton, S. Tucker, G. H. Wise, Jeanne Woodford. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Roman, Nicole) (Filed on 10/21/2011) (Entered: 10/21/2011)

1 Certificate/Proof of Service

View on PACER

Oct. 21, 2011

Oct. 21, 2011

PACER
71

RESPONSE to re 64 Order for Clarification Regarding Cell Search by William Barlow, D. W. Bradbury, Edmund G. Brown, Jr, Mathew Cate, Robert Doyle, Susan Fisher, Hollis Gillingham, Robert Harmon, John Harrison, A. Hernandez, Robert Horel, Francisco Jacquez, R. L. Johnson, Richard Kirkland, Greg Lewis, Robert Marquez, Joe McGrath, J. McKinney, R. Rice, D. Smith, B. Thornton, S. Tucker, G. H. Wise, Jeanne Woodford. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Roman, Nicole) (Filed on 10/26/2011) (Entered: 10/26/2011)

1 Certificate/Proof of Service

View on PACER

Oct. 26, 2011

Oct. 26, 2011

PACER
72

RESPONSE (re 67 MOTION for Leave to File ) filed byWilliam Barlow, D. W. Bradbury, Edmund G. Brown, Jr, Mathew Cate, Robert Doyle, Susan Fisher, Hollis Gillingham, Robert Harmon, John Harrison, A. Hernandez, Robert Horel, Francisco Jacquez, R. L. Johnson, Richard Kirkland, Greg Lewis, Robert Marquez, Joe McGrath, J. McKinney, R. Rice, D. Smith, B. Thornton, S. Tucker, G. H. Wise, Jeanne Woodford. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Roman, Nicole) (Filed on 10/28/2011) (Entered: 10/28/2011)

1 Certificate/Proof of Service

View on PACER

Oct. 28, 2011

Oct. 28, 2011

PACER
73

MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Summary Judgment or Other Dispositive Motion; and Declaration of Nicole Roman in Support Thereof filed by William Barlow, D. W. Bradbury, Edmund G. Brown, Jr, Mathew Cate, Robert Doyle, Susan Fisher, Hollis Gillingham, Robert Harmon, John Harrison, A. Hernandez, Robert Horel, Francisco Jacquez, R. L. Johnson, Richard Kirkland, Greg Lewis, Robert Marquez, Joe McGrath, J. McKinney, G. H. Wise, Jeanne Woodford. (Roman, Nicole) (Filed on 11/7/2011) Modified on 11/8/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/07/2011)

Nov. 7, 2011

Nov. 7, 2011

PACER
74

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING DEFENDANTS 73 MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTION. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/17/2011) (Entered: 11/17/2011)

Nov. 17, 2011

Nov. 17, 2011

RECAP
75

MOTION for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration of Oct. 11, 2011 Court's Order filed by Todd Ashker, Danny Troxell. (Attachments: # 1 Ashker declaration, # 2 Troxell declaration, # 3 Certificate/Proof of Service, # 4 Envelope)(cpS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/17/2011) (Entered: 11/17/2011)

1 Ashker declaration

View on PACER

2 Troxell declaration

View on PACER

3 Certificate/Proof of Service

View on PACER

4 Envelope

View on PACER

Nov. 17, 2011

Nov. 17, 2011

PACER
76

REPLY (re 67 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint ) filed byTodd Ashker, Danny Troxell. (Attachments: # 1 Ashker declaration, # 2 Troxell declaration, # 3 Certificate/Proof of Service, # 4 Envelope)(cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/17/2011) (Entered: 11/18/2011)

1 Ashker declaration

View on PACER

2 Troxell declaration

View on PACER

3 Certificate/Proof of Service

View on PACER

4 Envelope

View on PACER

Nov. 17, 2011

Nov. 17, 2011

PACER
77

REPLY to re 71 RESPONSE to re 64 Order for Clarification Regarding Cell Search by Todd Ashker, Danny Troxell. (Attachments: # 1 Troxell declaration, # 2 Ashker declaration, # 3 Certificate/Proof of Service, # 4 Envelope)(cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/17/2011) (Entered: 11/18/2011)

1 Troxell declaration

View on PACER

2 Ashker declaration

View on PACER

3 Certificate/Proof of Service

View on PACER

4 Envelope

View on PACER

Nov. 17, 2011

Nov. 17, 2011

PACER
78

REPLY (re 67 MOTION for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint) filed byTodd Ashker, Danny Troxell. (Attachments: # 1 letter, # 2 Envelope)(cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/17/2011)***DUPLICATE COPY OF DOCUMENT # 76 WITH SIGNATURE; NO SIGNATURE ON ORIGINAL DOCUMENT # 76 *** (Entered: 11/18/2011)

1 letter

View on PACER

2 Envelope

View on PACER

Nov. 17, 2011

Nov. 17, 2011

PACER
79

NOTICE by William Barlow, D. W. Bradbury, Edmund G. Brown, Jr, Mathew Cate, Robert Doyle, Susan Fisher, Hollis Gillingham, Robert Harmon, John Harrison, A. Hernandez, Robert Horel, Francisco Jacquez, R. L. Johnson, Richard Kirkland, Greg Lewis, Robert Marquez, Joe McGrath, J. McKinney, R. Rice, D. Smith, B. Thornton, S. Tucker, G. H. Wise, Jeanne Woodford NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY OF COUNSEL (Roman, Nicole) (Filed on 11/29/2011) (Entered: 11/29/2011)

Nov. 29, 2011

Nov. 29, 2011

PACER
80

RESPONSE (re 75 MOTION for Leave to File ) A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF COURT'S ORDER OF OCT. 11, 2011 filed byWilliam Barlow, D. W. Bradbury, Edmund G. Brown, Jr, Mathew Cate, Robert Doyle, Susan Fisher, Hollis Gillingham, Robert Harmon, John Harrison, A. Hernandez, Robert Horel, Francisco Jacquez, R. L. Johnson, Richard Kirkland, Greg Lewis, Robert Marquez, Joe McGrath, J. McKinney, R. Rice, D. Smith, B. Thornton, S. Tucker, G. H. Wise, Jeanne Woodford. (Roman, Nicole) (Filed on 12/1/2011) Modified on 12/2/2011 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/01/2011)

Dec. 1, 2011

Dec. 1, 2011

PACER
81

MOTION to Compel defendants to answer interrogatories and produce documents filed by Todd Ashker. (Attachments: # 1 Ashker declaration, # 2 Troxell declaration, # 3 Envelope)(cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/1/2011) (Entered: 12/05/2011)

1 Ashker declaration

View on RECAP

2 Troxell declaration

View on RECAP

3 Envelope

View on RECAP

Dec. 1, 2011

Dec. 1, 2011

RECAP
82

Letter from Todd Ashker request subpoenas. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/5/2011) (Entered: 12/07/2011)

1 Envelope

View on PACER

Dec. 5, 2011

Dec. 5, 2011

PACER
83

ORDER OF REFERENCE TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE for Discovery purposes re 81 MOTION to Compel. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 12/13/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/13/2011) (Entered: 12/13/2011)

1 Certificate/Proof of Service

View on PACER

Dec. 13, 2011

Dec. 13, 2011

RECAP

Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas added. PSLC ECK no longer assigned to case. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/13/2011)

Dec. 13, 2011

Dec. 13, 2011

PACER

***Set/Clear Flags (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/13/2011)

Dec. 13, 2011

Dec. 13, 2011

PACER
84

CLERKS NOTICE Continuing Motion Hearing, Set/Reset Deadlines as to 81 MOTION to Compel. Motion Hearing set for 1/31/2012 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas. (glm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/14/2011) (Entered: 12/14/2011)

Dec. 14, 2011

Dec. 14, 2011

PACER
85

RESPONSE (re 81 MOTION to Compel ) filed byDerral Adams, William Barlow, D. W. Bradbury, Edmund G. Brown, Jr, Mathew Cate, Robert Doyle, Susan Fisher, Hollis Gillingham, Robert Harmon, John Harrison, A. Hernandez, Roderick Q. Hickman, Robert Horel, Francisco Jacquez, R. L. Johnson, Richard Kirkland, Greg Lewis, Robert Marquez, Joe McGrath, J. McKinney, R. Rice, Arnold Schwarzenegger, D. Smith, B. Thornton, S. Tucker, G. H. Wise, Jeanne Woodford. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Request for Judicial Notice, # 2 Exhibit)(Roman, Nicole) (Filed on 12/15/2011) (Entered: 12/15/2011)

1 Supplement Request for Judicial Notice

View on PACER

2 Exhibit

View on PACER

Dec. 15, 2011

Dec. 15, 2011

PACER
86

MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re motion to compel discovery filed by Todd Ashker, Danny Troxell. (Attachments: # 1 Troxell declaration, # 2 Ashker declaration, # 3 Envelope)(cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/3/2012) (Entered: 01/04/2012)

1 Troxell declaration

View on PACER

2 Ashker declaration

View on PACER

3 Envelope

View on PACER

Jan. 3, 2012

Jan. 3, 2012

PACER
87

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas granting 86 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (njvlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/9/2012) (Entered: 01/09/2012)

1 Certificate/Proof of Service

View on PACER

Jan. 9, 2012

Jan. 9, 2012

PACER
88

REPLY (re 81 MOTION to Compel ) filed by Todd Ashker, Danny Troxell. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/11/2012) (Entered: 01/12/2012)

Jan. 11, 2012

Jan. 11, 2012

PACER
89

Declaration of Danny Troxell in Support of 88 Reply filed by Todd Ashker. Danny Troxell. (Related document(s) 88 ) (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/11/2012) Modified on 1/12/2012 (kc, COURT STAFF). Matter transcribed by Joan Columbini. Modified on 3/2/2018 (notewarelS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/12/2012)

Jan. 11, 2012

Jan. 11, 2012

PACER
90

Declaration of Todd Ashker in Support of 88 Reply filed byTodd Ashker, Danny Troxell. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Related document(s) 88 ) (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/11/2012) (Entered: 01/12/2012)

1 Envelope

View on PACER

Jan. 11, 2012

Jan. 11, 2012

PACER
91

Minute Entry: Motion Hearing not held on 2/1/2012 before Nandor J. Vadas (Date Filed: 2/1/2012). Status Conference set for 2/7/2012 01:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas. (Recording #10:23-10:39.) (glm, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 2/1/2012) (Entered: 02/01/2012)

Feb. 1, 2012

Feb. 1, 2012

PACER
92

Request for Judicial Notice pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. #201 filed byTodd Ashker, Danny Troxell. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/1/2012) (Entered: 02/03/2012)

1 Envelope

View on PACER

Feb. 1, 2012

Feb. 1, 2012

PACER
93

CLERKS NOTICE Continuing Motion Hearing, Set/Reset Deadlines as to 81 MOTION to Compel. Motion Hearing set for 2/22/2012 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas. Phone instructions included in Clerk's Notice (glm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/6/2012) (Entered: 02/06/2012)

Feb. 6, 2012

Feb. 6, 2012

PACER
95

Minute Entry: Motion Hearing not held on 2/22/2012 before Nandor J Vadas (Date Filed: 2/22/2012). New date will be set following defense counsel's communication with plaintiffs new counsel. (Recording #10:02.) (glm, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 2/22/2012) Modified on 2/27/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/24/2012)

Feb. 22, 2012

Feb. 22, 2012

PACER
94

NOTICE of Appearance by Charles Francis-Antonio Carbone et al. (Carbone, Charles) (Filed on 2/23/2012) (Entered: 02/23/2012)

Feb. 23, 2012

Feb. 23, 2012

PACER
96

MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 305, receipt number 0971-6615129.) filed by Todd Ashker, Danny Troxell. (Greenberg, Evan) (Filed on 2/24/2012) (Entered: 02/24/2012)

Feb. 24, 2012

Feb. 24, 2012

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: California

Case Type(s):

Prison Conditions

Special Collection(s):

Post-PLRA enforceable consent decrees

California's Prisoners' Rights Bar article

Solitary confinement

Post-WalMart decisions on class certification

Key Dates

Filing Date: Dec. 9, 2009

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Prisoners incarcerated at the Security Housing Unit for a period of 11–22 years on behalf of one class of all prisoners who were assigned to an indeterminate term at the Pelican Bay SHU on the basis of gang validation under the policies and procedures in place as of September 10, 2012 and another class of all prisoners who were or would be assigned to the Pelican Bay SHU for a period of more than ten continuous years.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR)

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: Yes

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

State of California (Del Norte), State

Defendant Type(s):

Corrections

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Constitutional Clause(s):

Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Due Process

Freedom of speech/association

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Attorneys fees

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Amount Defendant Pays: $4,550,000

Order Duration: 2016 - None

Content of Injunction:

Monitoring

Preliminary relief denied

Recordkeeping

Reporting

Issues

General:

Access to lawyers or judicial system

Administrative segregation

Assault/abuse by staff

Classification / placement

Conditions of confinement

Disciplinary procedures

Disciplinary segregation

Education

Food service / nutrition / hydration

Grievance Procedures

Law library access

Library (non-law) access

Loss or damage to property

Mail

Over/Unlawful Detention

Phone

Protective custody

Records Disclosure

Recreation / Exercise

Rehabilitation

Religious programs / policies

Sanitation / living conditions

Solitary confinement/Supermax (conditions or process)

Suicide prevention

Totality of conditions

Visiting

Crowding:

Crowding / caseload

Medical/Mental Health:

Medical care, general

Mental health care, general

Self-injurious behaviors

Suicide prevention

Type of Facility:

Government-run