Case: Ashker v. Brown

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

Filed Date: Dec. 9, 2009

Closed Date: Jan. 23, 2024

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…

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 22.5 to 24 hours a day in a windowless cell with a concrete bed, a concrete desk, and a concrete stool. The complaint alleged that prisoners 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 died after he filed the action.

The plaintiffs alleged that 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—if the administration moved a prisoner from the SHU, the general population assumed the prisoner had agreed to become an informant. They alleged that this endangered not only the prisoners’ lives, but their family members’ lives as well. The plaintiffs also claimed that prison officials could interpret any speech, even a simple greeting, as evidence of gang affiliation that justified continued confinement in the SHU.

Two prisoners in the SHU who had been incarcerated there since 1989 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 claim, which alleged that the prison’s refusal to allow hardcover books in the SHU violated the plaintiffs’ right to freedom of speech. 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 on the qualified immunity, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the decision on July 30, 2009.

The two plaintiffs filed a new pro se complaint on August 11, 2005 (Docket No. 4:05-03286 (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. District Judge Claudia Wilken 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 prison’s procedure for determining whether had active gang affiliations; (3) the negligence claim; and (4) the intentional tort claim. 2007 WL 1725417.

On March 25, 2009, the court granted summary judgment for the defendants on all remaining claims except the First Amendment claim for late delivery of incoming mail. 2009 WL 801557. Judge Wilken entered judgment for the defendants on the mail claim on March 18, 2010. 2010 WL 1029102. The plaintiff appealed on April 21, 2010. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decisions to dismiss and to grant summary judgment on January 11, 2012. 465 F. App’x 718.

The prisoners filed a new complaint on December 9, 2009. They alleged that the prison’s secret review process to “validate” them as gang members violated their due process rights, as they had been in the SHU for more than a decade with no outside contact. The prisoners also claimed that the “validation” process relied on secret evidence in violation of the First Amendment, and that the prison’s conditions of confinement violated international law and the Eighth Amendment.

On February 16, 2010, Judge Wilken screened the complaint, as required when prisoners file lawsuits under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court 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. 2010 WL 11808439. The plaintiffs paid the filing fee and filed an amended complaint on May 21, 2010.

In the summer of 2011, prisoners in the Pelican Bay SHU led two system-wide hunger strikes to protest the SHU. The hunger strikes each lasted three weeks and ended after the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) agreed to negotiations with hunger strike representatives. 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 system and expanding qualifications for SHU placement.

Represented by the Center for Constitutional Rights, the prisoners filed a second amended class action complaint on September 10, 2012. They claimed that the psychological harm caused by the prolonged confinement constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. They also challenged their confinement in the SHU under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction on December 6, 2012, claiming that prison officials moved one of the plaintiffs to a different cell block of the SHU in retaliation for this litigation. The transfer eliminated all communication between him and the other plaintiffs, separated him from his longtime writing assistant assigned by CDCR under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and frustrated counsel’s ability to litigate the class action. Judge Wilken denied this motion on April 18, 2013. The court found that the 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. 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 the plaintiffs did not rebut defendants' non-retaliatory justification for the transfer (prisoner safety). 2013 WL 1701702.

On December 17, 2012, the defendants moved to dismiss the case. Judge Wilken denied this motion on April 9, 2013. The court 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.

Another hunger strike took place in 2013 to protest the lack of progress regarding the length of solitary confinement. The strike began on July 8, 2013 and lasted for almost two months, with more than 30,000 prisoners participating. 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 Wilken partially granted class certification. The court certified two classes: (1) a Due Process Class of “all inmates who are 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 (2) an Eighth Amendment Class of “all inmates who are now, or will be in the future, assigned to the Pelican Bay SHU for a period of more than ten continuous years.” 2014 WL 2465191.

The parties continued with discovery in 2014 and 2015. The plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint on March 11, 2015, which added 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, CDCR 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. The parties also asked the court to certify a supplemental settlement class of “inmates who have now, or will have in the future, been housed by Defendants at Pelican Bay State Prison’s Security Housing Unit (SHU) for ten or more years and who then were transferred to another CDCR SHU facility in connection with CDCR’s Step Down Program.” The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement and certified the supplemental settlement class (for settlement purposes only) on October 14, 2015.

On January 26, 2016, Judge Wilken granted final approval of the class settlement. The 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. The 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: (1) misuse of unreliable confidential information to return class members to solitary confinement, (2) inadequate procedural protections related to placement and retention of class members in the Restricted Custody General Population Unit, and (3) 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 the defendants to supplement their production of certain documents relevant to plaintiff's motion to extend the settlement agreement. 2018 WL 11358739. On July 3, 2018, the plaintiffs alleged that the subsequent documents produced by the CDCR demonstrated that the defendants had systematically violated due process rights regarding confidentiality of the information. The 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 on whether the defendants had a basis to stay further proceedings.

On December 7, 2018, the court issued three orders, citing them as responses to the defendants' violation of the settlement agreement on July 3, 2018. These orders adopted the plaintiffs’ Out-of-Cell Time remedial plan and the plaintiffs’ Walk-Alone status plan, ordering the defendants to take all steps necessary to implement these plans. The order also granted the defendants' motion to stay the enforcement of the remedial plans pending appeal. 2018 WL 11300426.

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) the defendants would not retaliate 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 (“ICC”) 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. Illman granted the plaintiffs' motion to extend the settlement for twelve months. The court cited 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. 2019 WL 330461.

In February 2019, the defendants moved to stay the January 25 order, arguing that the lack of a stay would cause irreparable harm. The court denied this motion on April 10, 2019, reasoning that the court held jurisdiction to extend the agreement. 2019 WL 1558932.

On April 24, 2019, the defendants moved for a de novo determination on the April 10 dismissal of defendants' motion. The court granted the motion on June 26, 2019, 2019 WL 11880374, and reaffirmed the court's initial dismissal of the motion on April 10, 2019. 2019 WL 1558932.

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, District Judge James Gwin rejected 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, Judge Gwin 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. Judge Gwin found that the settlement agreement did not require the defendant to provide group time and group activities to prisoners on “walk-alone” status. The Ninth Circuit 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, CDCR had “substantially complied” with this section to the extent that it could. In reversing the decision, the Ninth Circuit vacated the remedial plans set forth on December 7, 2018. 968 F.3d 939. In response, the plaintiffs petitioned the Ninth Circuit on August 31, 2020 to rehear the case en banc. The Ninth Circuit denied the petition on October 14, 2020.

The plaintiffs moved to extend the settlement agreement on September 15 and September 25, 2020. They claimed that the systemic due process violations were ongoing, which warranted extension.

On April 9, 2021, Judge Wilken approved Judge Illman’s recommendation to extend the settlement agreement for another twelve months. Judge Wilken found that the defendants continued to use old gang validations without acknowledging the flaws and unreliability of those procedures, and held that those flaws resulted in violations of the class members' right to a meaningful parole hearing. The defendants appealed this order to the Ninth Circuit on May 7, 2021.

Meanwhile, both parties filed dueling motions for attorneys fees on March 16, 2021. Judge Wilken awarded the plaintiffs $311,968.50.

On July 28, 2021, the plaintiffs moved for a new dispositive ruling on their request to extend the settlement agreement based on systemic due process violations. Judge Willken held a hearing on October 28, 2021.

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

The court clarified the timeline of the settlement agreement’s extension on February 24, 2022. The defendants appealed this order and the February 2 order extending the settlement agreement on March 4, 2022. On the same day, the defendants moved to stay the proceedings pending the appeal. Judge Wilken declined to grant the stay on April 4, 2022, holding that the collateral order doctrine did not prevent the court from enforcing the February 2 extension, and that the defendants failed to prove the need for a stay.

The plaintiffs filed several enforcement motions throughout 2022, including two motions to enforce the anti-retaliation provision of the settlement agreement (filed on March 1 and June 14, and one motion to remedy proven constitutional violations (filed on August 10). Throughout 2023, the plaintiffs alleged several more violations of the settlement agreement.

Meanwhile in the Ninth Circuit, after failed mediation in March and April of 2022, oral argument took place before Circuit Judge J. Clifford Wallace, Circuit Judge Ryan D. Nelson, and Judge Gwin on May 18, 2023.

On August 24, 2023, the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s February 2022 extension of the settlement agreement. In an opinion by Judge Nelson, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court’s first extension of the settlement agreement was improper, so the court’s jurisdiction of the matter automatically ended in October 2017. Judge Wilken thus lacked the jurisdiction to extend the agreement a second time in February 2022.

The settlement agreement itself provided that, to obtain an extension, prisoners must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence “(1) a current and ongoing systemic constitutional violation (2) either alleged in the Complaint or resulting from the Settlement Agreement’s reforms to its Step Down Program or SHU policies.” The Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiffs failed to meet this burden, and thus Judge Wilken should never have granted an extension. Writing for the panel, Judge Nelson gave CDCR “significant deference on its safety determinations.” 81 F.4th 863.

The plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing en banc on September 7, 2023, which the Ninth Circuit denied on November 14, 2023.

Back in the district court, the plaintiffs moved on September 29, 2023 for attorneys’ fees and costs for the thirty-first quarter of monitoring and enforcement of the settlement agreement. The defendants responded with a motion for relief from attorneys’ fees under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) on October 13, 2023.

The court issued tentative rulings on the motion for attorneys’ fees on December 14, 2023. The parties agreed on January 23, 2024 that the defendants would pay the plaintiffs’ counsel $349,300 in attorneys’ fees and costs, and waived all other claims.

The case is now closed.

show full summary

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)

Sophia Acker (2/21/2024)

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)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Agathocleous, Alexis (New York)

Akel, Richard Livingston (California)

Attorney for Defendant

Expert/Monitor/Master/Other

ADMITTED, Timothy C (California)

Albertine, Christine Albertine (California)

Alcantara, James W (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)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Agathocleous, Alexis (New York)

Akel, Richard Livingston (California)

Arouty, Stanley (California)

Ayala, Ronaldo Medrano (California)

Bell, Michael David (New York)

Blank, Daniel Paul (California)

Bostic, Edson A. (California)

Brayton, Alan R. (California)

Bremer, Carmen E. (Texas)

Bremer, Steven (California)

Caballero, Miguel G (California)

Cappella, Anne (California)

Carbone, Charles F.A. (California)

Castillo, Monica (California)

Chu, Kimberly Joy (California)

Clare, Andrew Steven (California)

Corrigan, James T. (California)

Creighton, Susan Abouchar (California)

Danz, Alan David (California)

Davis, Matthew D. (California)

Donadio, David R. (California)

Edwards, Byard Edwards (California)

Eichler, Nancy Seidler (California)

Ewald, Edward L. (California)

Faulman, Sara Lyn (California)

Ferrell, Scott J (California)

Fish, David J. (California)

Franck, Herman (California)

Frisch, Andrew Ross (California)

Girardi, Thomas V. (California)

Greenberg, Evan (California)

Hafif, Greg K (California)

Hardin, Kenneth J. (California)

Harrison, John (California)

Hilton, Kimberly A. (California)

Huang, Aaron (California)

Hull, Gregory (California)

Johns, Emily Rose Naomi (California)

Johnson, Richard (California)

Kalar, Steve Gary (California)

Karbelashvili, Irene (California)

Karbelashvili, Irakli (California)

Kelly, Michael Albert (California)

Klaus, Fenja (California)

Kunze, John C (California)

Lack, Walter John (California)

Larsen, Jonathan S. (California)

Leavit, Karin R. (California)

LeRoy, Lloyd F. (California)

Lesser, Seth R. (California)

Lidman, Scott M (California)

Lobel, Jules L. (Pennsylvania)

Long, Barbara C. (California)

Lott, Ward J (California)

Lundy, Scott E (California)

Masry, Edward L. (California)

McGillivary, Gregory Keith (California)

McMahon, Marilyn (California)

Meeropol, Rachel (New York)

Miller, Samuel Rand (New York)

Mott, Joseph Nathan (California)

Noah, Oren Paul (California)

Noll, David M. (California)

Obaro, Bambo (California)

Orr, Matthew R (California)

Parsons, Steven J. (California)

Petersen, Gregory G (California)

Pinto, Kenneth Joseph (California)

Price, Donald W. (California)

Rabkin, Rebecca Noa (California)

Renfro, Aaron Lewis (California)

Rescher, Owen Jeffrey (California)

Rudich, Fran L. (California)

Samuel-Frank, Somalia L. (New York)

Sandley, Caitlin (California)

Sarrail, James Albert (California)

Sherrod, Henry F (California)

Siegel, Dan (California)

Siegel, Daniel Mark (California)

Simpich, William Morris (California)

Snyder, C. Michael (California)

Strickman, Carol (California)

Strugar, Matthew D. (California)

Tillotson, Jeffrey Mark (California)

Troxell, Danny (California)

Tsadik, Tesfaye Wolde (California)

Uzoh, Ugochukwu (California)

Vogt, Randall L. (California)

Ware, Daniel D. (California)

Wasylyk, Peter N. (California)

Weills, Anne Butterfield (New York)

Welch, T. Wade (California)

Wheeler, Alexander Azure (New York)

Wilson, Scot D (California)

Wooten, Ross W. (California)

Attorney for Defendant

Andrada, J. Randall (California)

Bragg, Robert Lawrence (California)

Brattin, Sarah M (California)

Burns, Gordon Bruce (California)

Chen, Janet Nah (California)

Ciccotti, Christine Marie (California)

D'Agostino, Martine Noel (California)

Dhadwal, S. Andrew (California)

Doernberger, Jeremy Charles (California)

Emerson, John G. (California)

Esquivel, Diana (California)

Felix, Cristina (California)

Feudale, Scott John (California)

Fisher, Jeffrey Thomas (California)

Fluet, Edward Rheem (California)

Fox, Gregory M. (California)

Garske, Sharon Anne (California)

Goldman, Jay Michael (California)

Goldstein, Seth E. (California)

Gordon, Alexandra Robert (California)

Guild, John Franklin (California)

Haefele, Robert Turner (California)

Hakl, Anthony R (California)

Harris, Kamala D. (California)

Henderson, Jennifer T. (California)

Hickerson, Michelle (California)

Hood, Joanna Breiden (California)

Hrvatin, Adriano (California)

Hurst, Michael K (California)

Huynh, Neah (California)

Inan, S. Michele (California)

Jackson, Daniel Mark (California)

Jacob, Renju P (California)

Jennings, Christopher D. (California)

Kamberian, Van (California)

Kao, Bryan (California)

Kim, Jennifer M (California)

Kirschenbauer, Marisa Y. (California)

Koss, Catherine Elizabeth (California)

Kwong, William C (California)

Laird, T Michelle (California)

LoPalo, Christopher R. (California)

Lyons, Le-Mai D (California)

Mahoney, Dennis J (California)

McKinney, Patrick R. (California)

Morazzini, Zackery Paul (California)

Nguyen, Giam Minh (California)

O'Bannon, Danielle Felice (California)

O'Brien, Jillian Renee (California)

O'Brien, Anthony Paul (California)

O'Donnell, Elizabeth G (California)

Oliver-Thompson, Megan (California)

Pachter, Tamar (California)

Patterson, Thomas Stuart (California)

Peth, Erin (California)

Phillips, Steven J. (California)

Powell, Daniel J. (California)

Poynter, Scott E. (California)

Quinn, Michael James (California)

Rich, Jonathan E (California)

Roman, Matthew Worchesek (California)

Roman, Nicole Lynne (California)

Russell, Jay C. (California)

Samson, Kelly Ariana (California)

Schaefer, Jerrold Charles (California)

Schneider, Walter Raymond (California)

Sheehy, Terrence F (California)

Shryock, Cassandra Jean (California)

Simon, Loran Michael (California)

Smith, Janelle M. (California)

Steele, Jeffrey (California)

Stein, Paul Evan (California)

Stroh, Dena DeNooyer (California)

Tangri, Shiraz Dinshaw (California)

Torre-Fennell, Annakarina De (California)

Turner, Ethan A. (California)

Tyra, David W. (California)

Waters, George Michael (California)

Wimer, Harvey W (California)

Yamada, Will M. (California)

Expert/Monitor/Master/Other

ADMITTED, Timothy C (California)

Albertine, Christine Albertine (California)

Alcantara, James W (California)

Anderson, Robert R (California)

Ashker, Todd (California)

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

Bacharach, N. Albert (California)

Barlow, Kimberly Hall (California)

Brinkman, Emily L. (California)

Campbell, Ward Allen (California)

Colasurdo, Brent Scott (California)

Collins, Terry J. (Ohio)

Coyle, Andrew PhD (Ohio)

Daniels, Lawrence M (California)

Delgado-Rucci, David (California)

Esq., Gregg McLean (California)

Gargaro, Stephen Thomas (California)

Glassman, David Frederick (California)

Haney, Craig William (California)

Hartwig, Elizabeth Ann (California)

Hawkley, Louise C. (Illinois)

Henry, Robert Spencer (California)

Johns, EmilyRose Naomi (California)

Johnson, Leslie S. (California)

Jorgenson, Michael Wayne (California)

Keltner, Dacher Ph.D. (California)

Kenny, John Boyce (California)

Kent, Leanne Marie (California)

Kilday, Bruce Alan (California)

Kopis, William F. (California)

Kupers, Terry (California)

Lesko, Paul A. (California)

Lieberman, Gary A (California)

Lieberman, Matthew D. (California)

Luma, Daren A. (California)

Lungren, Daniel E (California)

McDonough, Timothy J. (California)

McNamer, Anthony Edward (California)

Mendéz, Juan E. (District of Columbia)

Murray, Phillip A. (California)

Nishi, Thomas (California)

Norman, Jan B (California)

O'Carroll, Megan R. (California)

Paternoster, Charles J. (California)

Peiffer, Joseph C. (California)

Pollack, Carol Wendelin (California)

Price, Jeff Dominic (California)

Quillen, Emily Allison (California)

Sparkman, Emmitt L. (Mississippi)

Stegeman, Chad Allen (California)

Stoughton, Jennifer Spencer (California)

Sybesma, Benjamin Cornelius (California)

Thorn, Douglas Robert (California)

Umberg, Thomas John (California)

Wedekind, Jennifer A. (District of Columbia)

Williamson, George H (California)

Wilson, Douglas L (California)

Yank, Ronald (California)

Attorney Contact Information via CourtListener

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

	Document
4:09-cv-05796	Docket [PACER]	Sept. 9, 2021	Sept. 9, 2021 Docket
1 05-03286	Civil Rights Complaint for Damages, Injunctive, and Declaratory Relief Ashker v. Schwarzenegger	Aug. 11, 2005	Aug. 11, 2005 Complaint
140 05-03286	Order Granting in Part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Denying it in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint Ashker v. Schwarzenegger	June 14, 2007	June 14, 2007 Order/Opinion 2007 WL 1725417
336 05-03286	Order Granting, In Part, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Denying Plaintiffs' Cross Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction Ashker v. Schwarzenegger	March 25, 2009	March 25, 2009 Order/Opinion 2009 WL 801557
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
380 05-03286	Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law Regarding Delayed Mail Claim and Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Supplemental Filing (Doc. #378) Ashker v. Schwarzenegger	March 18, 2010	March 18, 2010 Order/Opinion 2010 WL 1029102
10 4:09-cv-05796	First Amended Complaint for Damages and Injunctive- Relief [42USC1983] and Demand for Jury Trial Ashker v. Schwarzenegger	May 21, 2010	May 21, 2010 Complaint
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

show / hide documents

Resources

Title	Description		External URL Date / External URL
Participatory Litigation: A New Framework for Impact Lawyering Jules Lobel	This Article argues that the manner in which class-action and impact lawyers have traditionally litigated leaves little room for class participation in lawsuits, and that a new, participatory framewo…	Jan. 1, 2022	Jan. 1, 2022 None
Plata v. Brown and Realignment: Jails, Prisons, Courts, and Politics Margo Schlanger	This Article explores pertinent features of the relevant legal and political ecosystem in which California shrank its prison population. Informed by court documents, state reports and policy papers,…	Dec. 1, 2013	Dec. 1, 2013 https://clearinghouse-umich-production.s3.amazonaws.com/...

show / hide resources

Docket

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

Last updated April 22, 2024, 3:03 a.m.

Change selected docket

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 Clearinghouse
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 Clearinghouse
	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 Clearinghouse
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 Clearinghouse
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 Clearinghouse
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

show / hide docket entries

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

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: Dec. 9, 2009

Closing Date: Jan. 23, 2024

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Prisoners incarcerated in the Security Housing Unit ("SHU") at California's Pelican Bay prison for a period of 11–22 years, on behalf of (1) 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 (2) 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:

ACLU National (all projects)

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):