Case: Plata v. Brown (Newsom) / Coleman v. Brown Three-Judge Court

4:01-cv-01351 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Filed Date: April 5, 2001

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

COVID-19 Summary: This is a longstanding case addressing health care and conditions of confinement for prisoners with mental illness, in California. In front of a three-judge court previously convened to address overcrowding, on March 25, 2020, plaintiffs sought emergency releases of particularly vulnerable prisoners in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. The panel denied this motion on April 4, and plaintiffs filed another emergency motion on April 8 requesting downsizing and other emergency prevention relief, which was again denied on April 16. The Court continues to monitor the case amidst the continued pandemic. Many individuals were transferred to another facility, however, some inmates tested positive for COVID-19 soon after the transfer. On June 11, the court ordered testing for the staff involved in the transfer process. The defendant reported on June 15 that 5 years had passed since full compliance with the population reduction order.

SCOPE: This is a separate case record for the proceedings before the three-judge district court in Plata v. Brown (N.D. Cal.) and Coleman v. Brown (E.D. Cal.). At its start, that court included Judge Thelton Henderson (from Plata), Judge Lawrence Karlton (from Coleman), and Judge Stephen Reinhardt (Ninth Circuit). After Judges Karlton and Henderson took inactive status from the bench, they were replaced by Judges Kimberly J. Mueller and Jon S. Tigar, respectively. Judge Reinhardt was replaced by Judge Kim M. Wardlaw after the former passed away. This Clearinghouse case record begins with Governor Schwarzenegger's State of Emergency declaration, in which he declared the California prison system's state of crowding to be an emergency sufficient to authorize the shipping of thousands of prisoners out of state. Then it includes the motions, in both Plata and Coleman, to convene a three-judge court, and brings together key filings before and orders by the three judge court, as well as the appeal to the Supreme Court and its decision. For information on other aspects of Plata and Coleman, see those case records, listed as "related cases" below.

SUMMARY: On October 4, 2006, California Governor Schwarzenegger issued a "Prison Overcrowding State of Emergency Proclamation," describing California's prison overcrowding crisis. Following the Proclamation, the State contracted with two prison companies and began moving several thousand prisoners out of California. (The lawfulness of the Governor's proclamation was subsequently challenged in the state court case California Correctional Peace Officers' Association v. Schwarzenegger.)

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), a population cap on a prison or a prison system may be entered only by a specially constituted three-judge district court. In both Plata - which deals with prison medical care - and Coleman - which deals with prison mental health care - the plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion to convene a three-judge district court on November 13, 2006. (A similar motion was filed in Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger, a large-scale prisoner disability discrimination case, but in that case, Judge Claudia Wilson denied the motion without prejudice to its resubmission.) The plaintiffs’ attorneys sought a reduction in prison population from over 160,000 inmates to 110,000.

The district judges consolidated the three-judge-court motions in Coleman and Plata and granted them on July 23, 2007. The State attempted an appeal, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, by order dated September 11, 2007, dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the appellate court lacked jurisdiction because the appeal was premature. Coleman v. Schwarzenegger, 2007 WL 2669591 (9th Cir. Sept. 11, 2007). The three-judge district court panel convened by Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Mary Schroeder to decide the overcrowding issue consisted of Judge Karlton, from Coleman, Judge Henderson, from Plata, and Judge Reinhardt, selected at random from the Ninth Circuit.

After substantial litigation on intervention, discovery, a failed refereed settlement process, and a 14-day bench trial, the court issued a tentative ruling on February 9, 2009. The court announced its intention to rule in favor of the plaintiffs and require California to reduce overcrowding from 190% of design capacity to something between 120% to 145% of design capacity over the next two or three years. At the time of the order, assuming no new prisons were built, it would mean a reduction of up to 55,000 prisoners. The court invited the parties to negotiate a settlement in light of the tentative ruling. 2009 WL 330960.

California declined the court’s invitation to negotiate and requested the court to issue a final ruling. On August 4, 2009, the court issued an opinion designed to remedy the ongoing constitutional violations with respect to both medical and mental health care in the California prison system. 2009 WL 2430820 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2009). Finding that prisoner release was justified as a narrowly tailored remedy of last resort, the court ordered defendants to reduce the institutional prison population from 190% to 137.5% design capacity within two years. The court suggested that the reduction in prison population of over 40,000 could be accomplished through a combination of measures previously recommended by numerous state commissions and committees and chosen by the state. For example, the state could release some non-dangerous prisoners early, shorten parole revocation terms, or send some prisoners to county jails. Defendants were ordered to submit a plan for compliance within 45 days of the order. They failed to do so and instead submitted a plan for achieving the reduction within five years rather than two. The court rejected this plan. On January 12, 2010, the court approved the defendants' resubmitted two year plan. 2010 WL 99000. The state appealed this order, challenging that it was not consistent with the requirements and procedures set out in the Prison Litigation Reform Act. On May 23, 2011, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy, the Supreme Court affirmed the decisions made below in full. Brown v. Plata, 131 S. Ct. 1910.

On June 30, 2011 the court issued an order requiring interim monthly reports and setting a two year schedule by which defendants were required to reduce the prison population to 137.5% design capacity. The defendants aimed to accomplish this reduction by Assembly Bill 109, known as "Realignment," which shifted responsibility for non-serious, non-violent criminals from the state prison to county jails.

However, the Realignment plan turned out to be insufficient to meet the interim population reduction benchmarks. On February 7, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting that the state demonstrate how it intended to meet the 137.5% reduction by the deadline. The motion was initially denied, but the plaintiffs renewed the motion in May. At first, the defendants responded by stating that they would seek to prove that Eighth Amendment compliance could be achieved at 145% design capacity. On September 7, 2012, the court held firm to the 137.5% population cap but permitted the defendants to file for extensions of the June 27, 2013, deadline for compliance, though the court noted that it would be disinclined to grant any extension past December 31, 2013.

On January 7, 2013, both parties filed plans to meet the 137.5% population cap. However, defendants indicated that they would no longer be complying with the court's order because California Governor Schwarzenegger terminated his emergency proclamation and declared the prison problems resolved. As such, the defendants moved to vacate or modify the order to reduce the prison population.

On April 11, 2013, the court denied defendants' motion to vacate or modify the population reduction order. The court ordered defendants to "immediately take all steps necessary" so that they could comply with the population reduction order by December 31, 2013, because there continued to be ongoing constitutional violations. Specifically, the court ordered the defendants to submit a list of population reduction measures within 21 days. 922 F.Supp.2d 1004. In response, on May 2, 2013, the defendants submitted an amended list of population-reduction measures, including additional construction; diversion of incarcerated persons to other facilities; and alterations to prison credit computation, among other measures. The defendants triaged these measures into those that they believed they had authority to implement; those that they claimed they lacked authority to implement; and those that would be inadvisable to implement, primarily on public safety grounds. The defendants also appealed the April 11th order to the Supreme Court.

On June 20, 2013, the court ordered the defendants to implement an amended plan that expanded good-time credits. The court viewed the defendants' plan regarding good time credits as “highly limited" as it would only reduce the prison population by 247 persons. The court ordered the defendants to adopt a more expansive plan that would result in up to 5,385 persons being released from prison. 952 F. Supp. 2d 901.

The state both appealed to the Supreme Court and moved to stay the June 20th order. The court denied the motion to stay on July 3, 2013. On August 2, 2013, the Supreme Court denied the defendants’ appeal of the June 20th order. 570 U.S. 938. On October 15, 2013, the Supreme Court also dismissed the defendants’ appeal of the lower court’s April 11th order for want of jurisdiction.

Over the next several months, the parties attempted to reach agreement on a solution. No deal was reached, and on January 13, 2014 the court again ordered the defendants to submit a plan within ten days. On February 10, 2014, recognizing that the only “durable” solution to prison population reduction would be through giving the state additional time to comply, the court granted an extension to the state through February 28, 2016. The court also took into account commitments made by the state to appoint a ‘Compliance Officer’ who would have the authority to release prisoners to satisfy benchmarks should the state not meet its reduction requirements at those stages and to “develop comprehensive and sustainable prison population-reduction reforms.” California further agreed not to appeal the order or try to terminate any relief provided by the order for at least two years, until it would be firmly established that compliance with the 137.5% design capacity benchmark was durable. The court also ordered that the defendants take specific measures including expanding credits; establishing parole processes; implementing alternatives to incarceration, such as reentry programs. The court wrote that "this would bring to an end the defendants’ continual appeals and requests for modification of this Court’s orders."

On June 23, 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion suggesting how design capacity should be counted when calculating overcrowding percentages. The plaintiffs did not want the newly built California Health Care Facility (CHCF) included with the thirty-three adult institutions that existed at the times of the original population cap order. While the court denied the plaintiffs' motion, it specified that the state would not be allowed to count capacity that could not be used. (Earlier in the year, the Plata Receiver had closed the CHCF to new medical admissions to allow time to correct identified deficiencies in the provision of medical care. Thus, until admissions were re-opened and the CHCF could be fully used, the defendants were not allowed to count it toward design capacity.) 2014 WL 2889598.

Due to Judge Karlton taking inactive status beginning September 1, 2014, Judge Kimberly J. Mueller took the former’s place on the three-judge panel.

California met the interim benchmark of 143% by August 31, 2014, with the total prison population at 140.2% of design bed capacity. However, on September 16, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a motion for further enforcement relating to the defendants’ good time credit policies and asked the court to order the defendants to order new parole procedures. In November, the court granted the latter part of the plaintiffs' motion for further enforcement, ordering that the defendants implement new parole procedures for non-violent second-strikers by January 1, 2015. The court further ordered the parties to confer with the Compliance Officer regarding the defendants’ credit policies.

On December 19, 2014, the district court approved a stipulation agreed to by the parties expanding 2-for-1 credits for minimum custody inmates. This stipulation resolved all outstanding issues raised in the plaintiffs' motion for further enforcement. Implementation continued throughout 2015, with the defendants meeting the 137.5% benchmark a year ahead of the deadline in February 2015. On March 4, 2016, the court ordered that the defendants must continue to report monthly. While the court commended the parties for making significant progress and reducing the prison population to below the benchmark, it also expressed concern that this would not be “durable” because the state’s ongoing efforts to return incarcerated persons from out-of-state facilities might cause the population to again rise above the threshold. Thus, the court referenced its authority to maintain jurisdiction in justifying monthly reports.

The parties reached a stipulation on June 6, 2017, agreeing to establish a permanent parole process for non-violent offenders. Noting that this would be redundant with the court’s February 10, 2014, order, the court stated on June 20 that it would vacate that provision in the order once a permanent regulation were in place. Until then, however, the court left that requirement in place subject to monthly reports.

In August of 2017, Judge Henderson took inactive status and was replaced by Judge Jon S. Tigar on the three-judge panel.

By November 2017, the court had terminated all intervening parties except the California Correctional Peace Officers’ Association, and had terminated both the Californians United for a Responsible Budget and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. as amici to the case.

Judge Kim M. Wardlaw replaced Judge Reinhardt on April 4, 2018, after the latter passed away the week prior.

The ongoing monitoring in this case was interrupted in March 2020, when the impact of COVID-19 on the country prompted concerns about the prospective damage it would wreak on vulnerable, incarcerated populations. As of March 25, 2020, the state of California had reported over 2,500 cases of confirmed COVID-19.

On March 25, 2020, the plaintiffs filed an emergency motion petitioning the court to take population reduction measures to prevent the spread of the disease. They asked the court to reduce the density of the incarcerated population by ordering the California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (CDCR) to release or relocate incarcerated individuals at high risk for serious illness from COVID-19, especially those at low risk of criminal conduct. As one proposed measure, the plaintiffs asked CDCR to release as many people as possible to parole or post-parole supervision to effectuate social distancing and isolation.

Judge Tigar originally set a hearing for April 1, but after the defendants filed a motion for an extension, the hearing was moved to April 2. After the hearing, the three-judge panel ruled on the plaintiff's emergency motion on April 4. Reasoning that the threat posed by COVID-19 was structurally different from the constitutional violations that led to the prior 137.5% capacity order, the court found that population reduction here was “not actually a modification of the 2009 order but rather new relief based on the new threat of harm posed by COVID-19.” As such, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion because it was premature in light of the requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act that the court must first order “less intrusive relief.” 455 F.Supp.3d 926.

As of January 10, 2022, litigation continued separately in the Plata and Coleman cases regarding the pandemic’s impact on incarcerated populations, but there was no activity in front of this three-judge panel due to this court’s reasoning in its April 4, 2020, order. Because of the state’s efforts in those individual cases to stem the harm of COVID-19, a substantial number of incarcerated individuals have been released before their sentences were originally set to end.

	Document
2:90-cv-00520	Docket [PACER] Coleman v. Newsom U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California	Aug. 3, 2020	Aug. 3, 2020 Docket
4:01-cv-01351 07-16383 09-15864 07-17008 07-17284 08-15063 08-16553 08-16682 08-16717 08-16858 08-17362 09-17154 09-17314 09-17315 11-17208 13-15466 13-17506 3:05-cv-05214 4:20-cv-00731	Docket [PACER] Plata v. Newsom	Aug. 9, 2020	Aug. 9, 2020 Docket
229 4:01-cv-01351	Stipulated Order Re Quality of Patient Care and Staffing Plata vs. Schwarzenegger	Sept. 17, 2004	Sept. 17, 2004 Order/Opinion
	Prison Overcrowding State of Emergency Proclamation Plata v. Schwarzenegger; Coleman v. Schwarzenegger No Court	Oct. 4, 2006	Oct. 4, 2006 Press Release
09-01233	Brief of Coleman Appellees Schwarzenegger v. Plata and Coleman Supreme Court of the United States	Oct. 4, 2006	Oct. 4, 2006 Pleading / Motion / Brief
708 4:01-cv-01351	Brief Of Amicus Curiae Californians United for a Responsible Budget in Support of The Plaintiffs’ Motion to Convene a Three Judge Panel to Limit Prison Population Plata v. Schwarzenegger	June 12, 2007	June 12, 2007 Pleading / Motion / Brief
780 4:01-cv-01351	Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Convene Three-Judge Court Plata v. Schwarzenegger	July 23, 2007	July 23, 2007 Order/Opinion
784 4:01-cv-01351 2:90-cv-00520	Order designating U.S. District Court composed of three judges pursuant to Section 2284, Title 28, U.S. Code Coleman v. Schwarzenegger/Plata v. Schwarzenegger U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit	July 26, 2007	July 26, 2007 Order/Opinion
796 4:01-cv-01351	Order Denying Defendants' Motion for Stay Pending Appeal Plata v. Schwarzenegger	July 31, 2007	July 31, 2007 Order/Opinion
817 4:01-cv-01351 2:90-cv-00520	Order Re: Motions to Intervene and Order Referring Discovery Disputes to Magistrate Judge Coleman v. Schwarzenegger; Plata v. Schwarzenegger U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California	Aug. 17, 2007	Aug. 17, 2007 Order/Opinion

Title	Description		External URL Date / External URL
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation: Population COVID-19 Tracking California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation	Statistics showing the impact of COVID-19 on the incarcerated population in California	April 21, 2020	April 21, 2020 https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/...
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/...
Brown v. Plata: The Oyez Project Chicago-Kent College of Law	Facts of the Case The Prison Law Office in Berkeley, Calif., filed a class-action lawsuit in April 2001 on behalf of Marciano Plata and several other prisoners, alleging that California prison…		http://www.oyez.org/...

ECF Number	Description	Date	Link Date / Link
1	COMPLAINT - class action against all defendants, (Filing Fee: $150.00, receipt number 3320893). Filed by Gilbert Aviles, Steven Bautista, Paul Decasas, Joseph Long, Marciano Plata, Leslie Rhoades, Otis Shaw, Ray Stoderd. (aaa, ) (tn, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/25/2019: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/25/2019: # 2 Filing Fee Receipt) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/10/2001) 1 Civil Cover Sheet View on PACER 2 Filing Fee Receipt View on PACER	April 5, 2001	April 5, 2001 RECAP
2	NOTICE of Related Case C-90-3094 TEH by Gilbert Aviles, Steven Bautista, Paul Decasas, Joseph Long, Marciano Plata, Leslie Rhoades, Otis Shaw, Ray Stoderd. (aaa, ) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/10/2001)	April 5, 2001	April 5, 2001 PACER
3	ADR SCHEDULING ORDER: Case Management Statement due by 7/27/2001. Case Management Conference set for 8/3/2001 at 10:30 AM. (aaa, ) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/10/2001)	April 5, 2001	April 5, 2001 PACER
9	MOTION For permission of Joinder re 1 filed by pro se Elijah J. Sandoval. (aaa, ) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2019: # 1 Envelope) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/02/2001) 1 Envelope View on PACER	April 26, 2001	April 26, 2001 PACER
4	SUMMONS Returned Executed by Gilbert Aviles, Steven Bautista, Paul Decasas, Raymond Johns, Joseph Long, Marciano Plata, Leslie Rhoades, Otis Shaw, Ray Stoderd. Grey Davis served on 4/25/2001, answer due 5/15/2001 (aaa, ) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/01/2001)	May 1, 2001	May 1, 2001 PACER
5	SUMMONS Returned Executed by Gilbert Aviles, Steven Bautista, Paul Decasas, Raymond Johns, Joseph Long, Marciano Plata, Leslie Rhoades, Otis Shaw, Ray Stoderd. B. Timothy Gage served on 4/25/2001, answer due 5/15/2001 (aaa, ) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/01/2001)	May 1, 2001	May 1, 2001 PACER
6	SUMMONS Returned Executed by Gilbert Aviles, Steven Bautista, Paul Decasas, Raymond Johns, Joseph Long, Marciano Plata, Leslie Rhoades, Otis Shaw, Ray Stoderd. Robert Presley served on 4/25/2001, answer due 5/15/2001 (aaa, ) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/01/2001)	May 1, 2001	May 1, 2001 PACER
7	SUMMONS Returned Executed by Gilbert Aviles, Steven Bautista, Paul Decasas, Raymond Johns, Joseph Long, Marciano Plata, Leslie Rhoades, Ray Stoderd. Susann Steinberg served on 4/25/2001, answer due 5/15/2001 (aaa, ) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/01/2001)	May 1, 2001	May 1, 2001 PACER
8	SUMMONS Returned Executed by Gilbert Aviles, Steven Bautista, Paul Decasas, Raymond Johns, Joseph Long, Marciano Plata, Leslie Rhoades, Otis Shaw, Ray Stoderd. Steven Cambra served on 4/25/2001, answer due 5/15/2001 (aaa, ) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/01/2001)	May 1, 2001	May 1, 2001 PACER
	Received Order stipulation for an extension of time to file defendant's motion to dismiss and request to exceed page limit by T. Bui, Donald Calvo, Steven Cambra, Edgar Castillo, Clinton, MTA Cooper, Davis, Grey Davis, Daniel Fuller, B. Timothy Gage, Sanford Hepps, M. Levin, C. Park, Robert Presley, Shankar Raman, L. Richnak, Richard Sandham, Bhaviesh Shah, Joseph Siegel, D. Smith, Michael Songer, Susann Steinberg, Mohan Sundareson, Daniel Thor, M. A. Van Pelt, Andrew Wong, Stephen Wyman, Brian Yee. (rbe, )	May 14, 2001	May 14, 2001 PACER
10	ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Relating case to C90-3094. Case reassigned to Judge Thelton E. Henderson for all further proceedings. Judge Maxine M. Chesney no longer assigned to case. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 05/14/01. (aaa, ) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/21/2001)	May 15, 2001	May 15, 2001 PACER
11	CLERK'S NOTICE Case Management Conference set for 8/20/2001 at 01:30 PM. (rbe, ) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/30/2001)	May 24, 2001	May 24, 2001 PACER
12	ORDER setting page limits anddefendant's Motion to dismiss due by 6/4/2001.Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 5/23/01. (rbe, ) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/30/2001)	May 24, 2001	May 24, 2001 PACER
	Received Order stipulation re plaintiffs' amended complaint and motion to dismiss by Steven Cambra, Grey Davis, B. Timothy Gage, Susann Steinberg. (rbe, )	June 4, 2001	June 4, 2001 PACER
13	MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by pro se Elijah J. Sandoval. (rbe, ) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2019: # 1 Envelope) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/05/2001) 1 Envelope View on PACER	June 4, 2001	June 4, 2001 PACER
14	STIPULATION AND ORDER allowing the defendants to file their motion to dismiss at a later time.. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 6/4/01. (rbe, ) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/07/2001)	June 5, 2001	June 5, 2001 PACER
15	CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Steven Cambra, Grey Davis, B. Timothy Gage, Robert Presley, Susann Steinberg of stipulation re plaintiffs' amended complaint and motion to dismiss (rbe, ) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/18/2001)	June 14, 2001	June 14, 2001 PACER
16	ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson denying 9 Motion for permissive joinder, denying 13 Motion to Appoint Counsel (rbe, ) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/22/2001)	June 21, 2001	June 21, 2001 PACER
	Received Order continuing the Case Management Conference by Steven Cambra, Grey Davis, B. Timothy Gage, Robert Presley, Susann Steinberg. (rbe, )	July 9, 2001	July 9, 2001 PACER
17	Letter from Ras Oluwa. (rbe, ) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/20/2001)	July 17, 2001	July 17, 2001 PACER
18	MOTION for Joinder filed by pro se Gary Alan Smith. (rbe, ) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2019: # 1 d) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/25/2001) 1 d View on PACER	July 19, 2001	July 19, 2001 PACER
	Received Order stipulation re plaintiffs' amended complaint by Steven Cambra. (rbe, )	Aug. 6, 2001	Aug. 6, 2001 PACER
19	STIPULATION AND ORDER re plaintiffs' amended complaint to be filed by 8/20/01; see order for more details. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 8/9/01. (rbe, ) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/14/2001)	Aug. 10, 2001	Aug. 10, 2001 PACER
20	FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT against all defendants. Filed by Gilbert Aviles, Steven Bautista, Paul Decasas, Raymond Johns, Joseph Long, Marciano Plata, Leslie Rhoades, pro se Elijah J. Sandoval, Otis Shaw, pro se Gary Alan Smith, Ray Stoderd. (rbe,) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2019: # 1 d) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/22/2001) 1 d View on PACER	Aug. 20, 2001	Aug. 20, 2001 PACER
21	Minute Entry: Initial Case Management Conference held on 8/20/2001 before Judge Thelton E. Henderson. (Court Reporter Jim Yeomans.) (rbe, ) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/24/2001)	Aug. 20, 2001	Aug. 20, 2001 PACER
	Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 2/4/2002 01:30 PM. (rbe, )	Aug. 20, 2001	Aug. 20, 2001 PACER
22	CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Teresa Rocha re 19 Order re amended complaint (rbe, ) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/28/2001)	Aug. 21, 2001	Aug. 21, 2001 PACER
23	Minute Entry: Status Conference held on 2/4/2002 before Judge Thelton E. Henderson. Motions due by 3/19/2002, to be noticed for 4/29/02. Fairness Hearing set for 5/28/2002 02:00 PM. Status Conference set for 3/25/2002 01:30 PM. (Court Reporter Jeanne Bishop.) (rbe) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/05/2002)	Feb. 4, 2002	Feb. 4, 2002 PACER
24	STIPULATION for Injunctive Relief by Grey Davis, B. Timothy Gage, Robert Presley. (rbe, ) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/06/2002)	Feb. 4, 2002	Feb. 4, 2002 PACER
25	NOTICE of Lodgment of Policies and Procedures (disk) by Grey Davis, B. Timothy Gage, Robert Presley, Susann Steinberg. (rbe, ) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/20/2002)	Feb. 15, 2002	Feb. 15, 2002 PACER
26	NOTICE of Lodgment of "Clinical Indicators" by Grey Davis, B. Timothy Gage, Robert Presley, Susann Steinberg. (rbe, ) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/14/2002)	March 8, 2002	March 8, 2002 PACER
27	STIPULATION AND ORDER resetting Fairness Hearing set for 6/4/2002 02:00 PM. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 3/19/02. (rbe) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/21/2002)	March 18, 2002	March 18, 2002 PACER
28	MOTION to exclude previously litigated and remediated institutions filed by Grey Davis, B. Timothy Gage, Robert Presley, Susann Steinberg. Motion Hearing set for 4/29/2002 10:00 AM. (rbe, ) (Entered: 03/21/2002)	March 19, 2002	March 19, 2002 PACER
29	NOTICE of Lodging Unpublished Authorities in support of Motion to Exclude by Grey Davis, B. Timothy Gage, Robert Presley, Susann Steinberg. (rbe, ) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/22/2002)	March 19, 2002	March 19, 2002 PACER
30	ERRATA re 28 Motion to Exclude by Grey Davis, B. Timothy Gage, Robert Presley, Susann Steinberg. (rbe, ) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/22/2002)	March 20, 2002	March 20, 2002 PACER
31	CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Grey Davis (rbe, ) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/22/2002)	March 21, 2002	March 21, 2002 PACER
32	JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT filed by Grey Davis, B. Timothy Gage, Robert Presley, Susann Steinberg. (rbe) Modified on 3/27/2002 (rbe). (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/27/2002)	March 22, 2002	March 22, 2002 PACER
33	Minute Entry: Status Conference held on 3/25/2002 before Judge Thelton E. Henderson. Further Telephonic Status Conference set for 4/3/2002 01:30 PM. (not reported) (rbe) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/28/2002)	March 25, 2002	March 25, 2002 PACER
34	ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson denying 18 Motion for Joinder (rbe) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/28/2002)	March 26, 2002	March 26, 2002 PACER
	Received Order re settlement of individual claims by Grey Davis. (rbe, )	March 28, 2002	March 28, 2002 PACER

Case: Plata v. Brown (Newsom) / Coleman v. Brown Three-Judge Court

4:01-cv-01351 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Case Summary

Related Cases

People

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Resources

Docket

Case Details