Case: Plata v. Newsom

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

Filed Date: Aug. 20, 2001

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

NOTE: Documents relating to the prison overcrowding proceedings in this case under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which led to imposition of a statewide prison population cap, affirmed by the Supreme Court, are presented in a different case record. See "related cases" below. Summary: On April 5, 2001, nine male California incarcerated persons filed this class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, against officials of the California Department of C…

NOTE: Documents relating to the prison overcrowding proceedings in this case under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which led to imposition of a statewide prison population cap, affirmed by the Supreme Court, are presented in a different case record. See "related cases" below.

Summary: On April 5, 2001, nine male California incarcerated persons filed this class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, against officials of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), alleging that the CDCR's medical services were inadequate and violated the Eighth Amendment, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and §504 of Rehabilitation Act. The plaintiffs, represented by the Prison Law Office and private counsel, sought declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. The complaint was quickly amended on August 20, 2001, to include a tenth named plaintiff and to explicitly outline a subclass of individuals with disabilities as defined by the ADA. The case was assigned to Judge Thelton E. Henderson.

The plaintiffs' specific complaints mirrored those raised in an earlier case, Shumate v. Wilson, No. CIV S-95-0619 (E.D. Cal. 1995), a case brought by female incarcerated persons of the California Institution for Women and the Central California Women's Facility. In Shumate, the plaintiffs alleged that California Department of Corrections officials provided inadequate medical services, including sick call, triage, emergency care, nurses, urgent care, chronic care, specialty referrals, medical screenings, follow-up care, examinations, medications, diets, terminal care, health education, and dental care. That case was settled in 1997.  

The Plata parties stipulated to injunctive relief on June 13, 2002, requiring the CDCR to implement a series of health care improvements and subjecting the CDCR to a series of audits to determine compliance. The parties did not agree whether or not individuals at two facilities at issue in Shumate should be members of the class but provided that upon the defendants' motion, the court would resolve the issue. After a fairness hearing, the district court adopted the class action settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate, on June 20.

Earlier, on March 19, the defendants had moved to exclude individuals involved in Shumate from the class. Judge Henderson denied the defendants' motion, and ordered the Shumate plaintiffs be included in the class on May 20. However, the defendants appealed that order on June 3, 2002. On May 27, 2003, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal. Writing for the court, Judge Wardlaw held that, because there was no reviewable final order before the court and because the prerequisites for interlocutory appeal were not met, the court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal. 329 F.3d 1101.

On May 10, 2005, the District Court issued an order to show cause regarding the placement of an interim receiver for California's prison medical care system.  On June 30, 2005, following hearings, Judge Henderson ruled from the bench that the court would order California’s prison health system to be placed into receivership. Judge Henderson elaborated on October 3 that the State’s prison medical system was “broken beyond repair” and that future harm was “virtually guaranteed in the absence of drastic action,” which justified appointing a receiver. 2005 WL 2932253. Consequently, on February 14, 2006, Robert Sillen was appointed as Receiver. In that capacity, Mr. Sillen was charged to act as the executive manager of the State's prison medical care system and given full authority to direct improvements necessary to bring the system up to constitutional standards. The California Prison Health Care Receivership Corp., a San Jose-based non-profit organization, was created to house the activities of the Receiver.

The Receiver issued his first report on July 5, 2006. That report detailed the initial evaluations of the problems plaguing the prison health care system and immediate recommendations for change. Certain pilot programs were announced to provide immediate relief while the Receiver and his staff started developing a long-range plan for systemic reform. The Receiver’s bimonthly reporting requirements were adjusted on February 21, 2007, to be quarterly and then adjusted again on November 17, 2008, to be tri-annually.

To facilitate the proposed changes, the court at various points waived state law so that the Receiver could make necessary hires or contract bids. For example, on October 17, 2006, Judge Henderson allowed the Receiver to waive California state law and increase salaries of critical medical staff and physicians to bring them in line with comparable positions. Similarly, on June 4, 2007, Judge Henderson permitted a narrow waiver of state law with respect to contract bidding requirements for a specific set of proposed projects.

While the Plata case involved the overhaul of the CDCR's medical delivery systems, the CDCR faced legal challenges in other areas of its operation. The CDCR's mental health services were the subject of a separate federal class action lawsuit Coleman v. Brown, while dental service issues were litigated in the federal class action lawsuit Perez v. Tilton and violations of the Americans with Disability Act were alleged in the class action case Armstrong v. Davis. Each case was handled by a separate federal district court judge: Plata (Judge Henderson), Coleman (Judge Lawrence Karlton), Armstrong (Judge Claudia Wilken), and Perez (Judge Jeffrey White). In early 2007, these four presiding judges instructed representatives of the remedial efforts in each case to work together to streamline their progress.

On May 10, 2007, the Receiver filed a plan of action in the Plata case that outlined his plan for restructuring and developing a constitutionally adequate health care system in California's prisons. On May 15, 2007, the Receiver issued another report, detailing the problem of prison overcrowding and its interfering effect on overhauling the prison health care system. A supplemental overcrowding report was filed by the Receiver on June 11, 2007.

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, a population cap on a prison or prison system may be entered only by a specially constituted three-judge district court. The plaintiffs filed a motion to convene a three-judge district court to impose a population cap. A similar motion was filed in the related class action case Coleman v. Brown in which the CDCR's health care system was subject to Court oversight and remediation, and also in Armstrong v. Schwarzenneger, a large-scale prisoner disability discrimination case. These motions and the resulting proceedings are described in a separate case summary, with many of the crucial documents.

On January 23, 2008, the court appointed J. Clark Kelso to be the new Receiver, replacing Robert Sillen. On February 26, 2008, the court approved a construction agreement which involved three different construction projects, including a medical center at the San Quentin Prison; additional office, clinical, supply, and record space at existing CDCR adult prisons; and approximately 5,000 CDCR medical beds and 5,000 CDCR mental health beds.  

On March 11, 2008, the Receiver issued a draft strategic plan, which detailed what needed to be done in order to bring California's prison health care up to Constitutional standards. On June 16, 2008, following a period inviting public comment and working group review, the district court (Judge Henderson) approved the Receiver's plan, re-termed a “turnaround” plan. However, on May 29, 2008, the California State Senate had voted down SB1665, a bill that would have provided $7 billion for the Receiver's prison health care strategic plan. Because the State government did not want to provide the funding for the plan, on August 13, 2008, the Receiver asked the court to issue an order instructing the State government to provide the necessary funding. The Receiver also filed a motion asking the court to hold the defendants in contempt for their failure to fund the remedial projects. The court heard oral argument on the Receiver's motion on October 6, 2008.

On October 27, 2008, Judge Henderson ordered the defendants to transfer $250 million to the Receiver by November 5, 2008. On October 31, 2008, the defendants concurrently filed an appeal and a motion to stay Judge Henderson's order that they transfer the money to the receiver. On November 7, 2008, Judge Henderson heard oral argument on the motion to stay and subsequently issued an order denying the motion. 2008 WL 4847080. However, later that same day, the Ninth Circuit granted the defendants' motion to stay proceedings, vacating the district court’s ruling. On March 25, 2009, the Ninth Circuit ultimately dismissed the defendants’ appeal, holding that the order was not appealable and that issuance of a writ of mandamus would also be unwarranted. 560 F.3d 976.

Separately, on January 28, 2009, the defendants filed a motion seeking two things. First, the defendants moved to replace the Receiver with a Special Master, who would have comparatively less power and autonomy. In the transition period, the defendants also hoped to constrain the Receiver by requiring him to comply with state and federal law, which had frequently been waived during the Receivership. Second, the defendants moved to terminate the Receiver’s construction plan on the grounds that it “exceed[ed] the minimum necessary to cure the federal violation.” Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), the defendants' motion to "modify or terminate prospective relief" would trigger an automatic stay of the injunction 30 days after the motion. The Receiver responded on February 20 by moving for postponement of the automatic stay for the maximum of 60 days allowed under the PLRA. On February 26, Judge Henderson granted a 30-day delay of the automatic stay, delaying it until April 1, 2009. 2009 WL 500813.

On March 16, 2009, oral argument was heard on the defendants’ motion. On March 24, 2009, Judge Henderson denied the defendants' motion, finding that the Receiver and the construction plan were “narrowly drawn, extend[ed] no further than necessary, and [were] the least intrusive remedy that will vindicate Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights” in line with the PLRA’s requirements. 2009 WL 799392. The defendants appealed this decision to the Ninth Circuit. On April 30, 2010, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court, holding that Receivership was an appropriate remedy under the PLRA and that the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to review the district court’s refusal to terminate the construction plan. 603 F.3d 1088.

On January 13, 2012, the Receiver filed his 19th tri-annual report. In light of the “significant progress” observed, the court on January 17 ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding a post-Receivership plan. Thus, on May 7, the parties and the Receiver filed their court-ordered report regarding post-Receivership planning. The parties agreed not only that the Receivership led to “significant progress in improving the delivery of medical care in California’s prisons” but also that important tasks remained to be done. However, the parties disputed both when the Receivership should end and how to evaluate whether the level of care being provided at any particular institution was constitutional. As a result, on May 30, Judge Henderson issued an order proposing a Receivership transition plan and ordered the parties to respond by June 29, 2012.

After the parties responded to the proposed plan, on September 5, 2012, Judge Henderson ordered for an incremental transition away from the Receiver to defendants through the use of revocable delegations of authority regarding specific tasks. The court also ruled that the adequacy of care would be determined by both court expert evaluations and medical inspections by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG).

The Receiver’s 25th tri-annual report – released on February 1, 2014 – stated that new transfers to the recently-activated California Health Care Facility (CHCF) had been halted as of January 27, 2014. This was because of ongoing concerns with providing adequate medical care at CHCF. As a result of this report, the court also ordered the Receiver on March 27 to take particular care to report on the level of care at CHCF, as well as “increasing difficulties with recruiting and retaining medical staff statewide,” in his next report, due June 1. The Receiver’s next report detailed “significant progress” related to the level of care at CHCF as well as ongoing initiatives regarding hiring and recruiting.

On March 10, 2015, Judge Henderson revised the September 5, 2012, order plan for transitioning away from the Receivership. The order clarified the process by which the Receiver would transition authority to the CDCR and the legal nuances of that transition. For example, the order described that the Receiver transitioning authority over a particular facility would create a “rebuttable presumption” that that facility had a constitutionally adequate level of care while a year-long shift in authority would create a presumption also that it was sustainable. The rebuttable presumption language was clarified on May 27 to reflect the reality that some changes that would be in the process of being implemented would not prevent a valid transfer of authority.

On August 14, 2017, the case was reassigned to Judge Jon S. Tigar.

On March 23, 2018, the Receiver delegated the California Correctional Center (CCC), reverting authority to the State. On June 27, the plaintiffs moved to reverse delegation, pointing to court experts whose opinions were that inadequate care remained at the CCC. However, on September 6, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion on the grounds that they had not met their burden of proof given that the defendants had a rebuttable presumption of adequate care – experts existed that supported each side’s contentions.

The ongoing monitoring in this case continued, with the Receiver releasing tri-annual reports that described challenges and progress in the prison medical system. However, that monitoring 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.

In the three-judge proceedings, 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 CDCR to release or relocate incarcerated individuals at high risk for serious illness from COVID-19, especially those at low risk of criminal conduct. This motion, however, was rejected on April 4, with the three-judge court ruling that the threat posed by COVID-19 was structurally different from the constitutional violations that led to its prior population reduction order. Thus, 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.

Back in the independent Plata proceedings, the plaintiffs moved on April 8 for substantively similar relief, again asking the court to order the defendants to reduce population density in the prisons; to ensure the safety of high-risk individuals; and to immediately provide emergency procedures in case of inmate or staff quarantine and staff care for children or ill relatives. The court scheduled a hearing on this motion for April 16. On April 13, the defendants filed their response to the emergency motion, arguing that the "reasonable and aggressive" response measures they had taken – including the suspension of new intake, release of incarcerated persons through early parole, and transfer to lower-density housing – were sufficient. The defendants argued that granting the plaintiffs' requested relief would be unsafe for the incarcerated individuals and society. The plaintiffs argued that the CDCR was inadequately prepared, that it did not have plans for how it would implement social distancing, and that even in the time since these emergency measures had first been requested, dozens of inmates and staff had tested positive for COVID-19.

After the April 16 hearing, Judge Tigar denied the plaintiffs' emergency motion for relief on the 17th. The Court declared that it could only grant the requested relief if it found that a federal right had been violated, and it made no such finding in this case. The Court found that the CDCR had reduced the prison population by 3,973 individuals, transferred approximately 1,300 individuals out of dormitory housing, limited the movement and transfer of incarcerated persons, and implemented sanitizing procedures. Thus, Judge Tigar could not conclude that the "[d]efendants' actions [were] constitutionally deficient" or that the defendants were “deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm to inmate health or safety.” The Court did, however, retain oversight of the case, stating that it would continue to monitor the defendants' response to the COVID-19 crisis. 2020 WL 1908776.

Several joint case management conference statements were made the next few weeks, with the plaintiffs alleging that the defendants' actions were inadequate to stem the spread of the virus inside the prisons.

The joint case conference statement dated June 8, 2020, stated that 194 medically high-risk incarcerated persons were transferred between May 28-30. Although they had tested negative for COVID-19, shortly after the transfer, many of them tested positive. Consequently, Judge Tigar ordered on June 11 to test all staff who had contact during the transfer process and for a comprehensive plan for testing staff at all prisons in the CDCR. 2020 WL 3107794. After a meeting between the parties, the defendants agreed to conduct baseline testing at all prisons.

On July 7, the court announced its intention to issue an order requiring the defendants to set aside sufficient space in order for the defendants to "follow public health guidance on isolating and quarantining patients in the event of a COVID-19 outbreak." The parties were ordered to meet and confer regarding such an order.

Joint case management conferences continued to be held. The plaintiffs maintained concerns regarding prison conditions and overcrowding that exacerbated risks of spreading the disease. Specific concerns were also raised, including, for example, concerns that symptomatic staff were not being properly tested such that outbreaks could be contained via contact tracing. The defendants maintained that thousands of incarcerated persons continued to be released and that their efforts continued to be adequate.

On July 22, the court ordered the defendants to set aside 100 beds at each institution for isolation and quarantine space and to assess whether additional space would be needed. Because of some concerns that the defendants were not moving quickly enough to set aside this space, the court on September 22 set deadlines for various prisons at which the space had not been created.

On July 24, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to modify the CDCR’s staff testing plan, arguing that it lacked symptomatic staff testing and did not adequately test during an outbreak. The defendants opposed this motion, arguing that the current staffing plan was adequate to mitigate the risks of COVID-19 and that such an order would be legally impermissible as the plaintiffs have not established CDCR’s deliberate indifference. An oral argument was held regarding the motion on August 12, during which the defendants indicated that CDCR’s staff testing plan was being revised and that a new and updated plan would be developed under the guidance of the California Department of Public Health. This motion was terminated without prejudice on November 5.

On November 20, 2020, the court issued an order ordering prison staff to follow face covering regulations promulgated during the pandemic and ordered the OIG to monitor compliance with the order. The court reaffirmed the continued monitoring by OIG on March 29, 2021.

As early as February 2021, the question of mandatory vaccinations had been considered by the parties, the Receiver, and court experts. On August 4, 2021, in light of the Delta variant, the Receiver filed a report endorsing mandatory vaccinations, subject to religious and medical exemptions, of CDCR workers as well as incarcerated persons who either worked in off-site fire camps or received in-person visitors. Following an August 9 order to show cause for why it should or should not adopt the Receiver’s recommendation, the court on September 27 adopted the Receiver’s recommendation. 

In that opinion, the court noted that while the defendants did not contest the need to vaccinate incarcerated persons who either worked off-site or had in-person visitation, there was disagreement about whether or not prison staff could be required to receive vaccinations as an Eighth Amendment remedy. Despite the defendants’ argument that the presence of unvaccinated incarcerated individuals alleviated any obligation to mandate vaccination for their staff as the “least restrictive means,” the court found that unvaccinated staff posed a sufficient threat to vaccinated incarcerated individuals as well so as to amount to deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 2021 WL 4448953.

On October 12, 2021, the defendants appealed the district court’s September 27 ruling to the Ninth Circuit. On the same day the defendants filed a notice of appeal, they also joined the Receiver in filing a plan to meet the court’s vaccination requirements by November 29. On October 27, 2021, the court set a January 12, 2022, deadline for vaccination. Recognizing that worker unions had objected to the Receiver’s plan on the grounds that it would not give the defendants ample time to meet and confer with the unions to which correctional officers belonged, the court noted that this deadline would give the defendants ample time to also satisfy their obligation to meet and confer. 

The defendants on October 30 amended their notice of appeal to state that the subject of their appeal was the October 27 order setting a vaccination deadline rather than the September 27 order mandating vaccination. On November 17, the district court denied the defendants’ and California Correctional Peace Officers’ Association’s motions to stay its vaccine mandate rulings pending appeal. 2021 WL 5410608. However, on November 26, the Ninth Circuit granted the defendant-appellants’ motion to stay the district court’s rulings pending appeal. 2021 WL 5561659.

On April 25, the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's vaccine mandate in an unpublished decision. Reasoning that "[a] decision to adopt an approach that is not the most medically efficacious does not itself establish deliberate indifference," the court held that CDCR's efforts to curb the effects of the pandemic short of a vaccine mandate were sufficient to satisfy their standard of care toward incarcerated individuals. Specifically, the court noted, among other measures, that vaccines were available, that unvaccinated persons were subject to testing, and that masking requirements were in place for correctional staff. Additionally, the Ninth Circuit found that the district court failed to provide adequate evidence refuting CDCR's concern that employees would opt to retire instead of receiving the vaccine.

This case is ongoing.

Summary Authors

Matthew Feng (2/14/2022)

Related Cases

Coleman v. Brown, Eastern District of California (1990)

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

Plata v. Brown (Newsom) / Coleman v. Brown Three-Judge Court, Northern District of California (2001)

Perez v. Tilton, Northern District of California (2005)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4183159/parties/plata-v-newsom/


Judge(s)

Bybee, Jay S. (Nevada)

Canby, William Cameron Jr. (Arizona)

Cousins, Nathanael M. (California)

Hawkins, Michael Daly (Arizona)

Henderson, Thelton Eugene (California)

Karlton, Lawrence K. (California)

Noonan, John T. Jr. (California)

Reinhardt, Stephen Roy (California)

Schroeder, Mary Murphy (Arizona)

Tashima, Atsushi Wallace (California)

Judge(s)

Bybee, Jay S. (Nevada)

Canby, William Cameron Jr. (Arizona)

Cousins, Nathanael M. (California)

Hawkins, Michael Daly (Arizona)

Henderson, Thelton Eugene (California)

Karlton, Lawrence K. (California)

Noonan, John T. Jr. (California)

Reinhardt, Stephen Roy (California)

Schroeder, Mary Murphy (Arizona)

Tashima, Atsushi Wallace (California)

Tigar, Jon Steven (California)

Wardlaw, Kim McLane (California)

White, Jeffrey Steven (California)

Wilken, Claudia Ann (California)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Bein, Michael William (California)

Booth, Patrick (California)

Bornstein, Jeffrey L (California)

Center, Claudia B. (California)

Ells, Lisa Adrienne (California)

Ernst, Samuel F. (California)

Evenson, Rebekah B. (California)

Fama, Steven (California)

Galvan, Ernest (California)

George, Warren E. Jr. (California)

Hanson, Shawn A. (California)

Hardy, Alison (California)

Hart, Sophie Jedeikin (California)

Haskett, Christine Saunders (California)

Hayden, Sara K. (California)

Heather, Fred D (California)

Kendrick, Corene (New York)

Knapp, Kelly Jean (California)

Lomio, Rita Katherine (California)

Loughrey, Raymond E (California)

Mitchell, Caroline N. (California)

Morris, Maria V (California)

Morrisey, John (California)

Norman, Sara Linda (California)

Plunkett, Stuart Christopher (California)

Rifkin, Lori Ellen (California)

Sangster, Edward P (California)

Specter, Donald H. (California)

Trujillo, E. Ivan (California)

Whelan, Amy E. (California)

Winthrop, Pillsbury (California)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Acquisto, Stephen (California)

Anderson, Robert R. (California)

Antonen, Charles (California)

Appelbaum, John M. (California)

Arnold, Molly (California)

Brown, Edmund G. Jr. (California)

Carrasco, David A. (California)

Chan, Maria G. (California)

Chaney, David S. (California)

Colson, Tamara Michelle (California)

Dillon, Garrett (California)

East, Rochelle C. (California)

Fritz, Cynthia Clarke (California)

Giberson, Laurie (California)

Gifford, Paul D. (California)

Grunder, Frances T. (California)

Harris, Kamala D. (California)

Igra, Misha D (California)

Jacob, Renju Palanilkumuryil (California)

Krenzin, Tami M. (California)

Kwong, William C (California)

Lee, Michael Gregory (California)

Lewis, Kyle Anthony (California)

Lockyer, Bill (California)

McKinney, Patrick R. (California)

Mello, Paul Brian (California)

Neville, Donna (California)

O'Bannon, Danielle Felice (California)

Oliver-Thompson, Megan (California)

Patterson, Thomas S. (California)

Powell, Daniel J (California)

Quinn, Michael James (California)

Riches, John W. II (California)

Roldan, Alberto S. (California)

Roost, Kenneth (California)

Russell, Jay C. (California)

Schaefer, Jerrold C. (California)

Schneider, Walter R. (California)

Sharma, Maneesh (California)

Siggins, Peter J. (California)

Slavin, Bruce Michael (California)

Starkey, Paul M. (California)

Stracener, Warren Curt (California)

Tama, Samantha D. (California)

Thomas, Christopher Evan (California)

Warwick, Tami M. (California)

Williams, Michael James (California)

Williams [DUP], Michael James (California)

Wolff, Jonathan L. (California)

Zelidon-Zapeda, Jose Alfonso (California)

Other Attorney(s)

Adam, Gregg Mclean (California)

Albertine, Christine (California)

Alexander, Kimberly Anne (California)

Barlow, Kimberly Hall (California)

Bien, Michael W. (California)

Brian, Brad D. (California)

Burkhalter, Alton G (California)

Cate, Matthew (California)

Chivaro, Richard J. (California)

Davids, Peter (California)

Dezember, Robin (California)

Dodd, Martin H. (California)

Drown, Stuart (California)

Dupree, Jamie L (California)

Fuentes, Theresa J (California)

Ghali, Teresa Wang (California)

Green, Geri L. (California)

Hagar, John H. Jr. (California)

Hector, Kristina Marie (California)

Hughes, William Charles (California)

Kahn, Andrew J. (California)

Kaufhold, Steve Shea (California)

Keck, Anne L (California)

Keeshen, Kathleen (California)

Kessler, Daniel Joseph (California)

Knotz, Galit Avitan (California)

Leonard, Natalie (California)

Lindsay, Daniel M. (California)

Lui, Elwood (California)

Manwiller, Pam (California)

Mixon, Peter (California)

More, Paul (California)

Myers, Joshua (California)

Neri, Miguel Angel (California)

Pierson, Cassie M (California)

Post, Charles L (California)

Robinson, Gary (California)

Romano, Michael Stone (California)

Rose , Elise (California)

Sanders, David Allen (California)

Sheldon, Barbara Louise (California)

Sillen, Robert (California)

Stegeman, Chad Allen (California)

Stoughton, Jennifer Spencer (California)

Swanholt, Erik Christian (California)

Sybesma, Benjamin C. (California)

Tigno, Fiel D (California)

Tsai, Ivy M (California)

Wang, Theresa (California)

West, Amber Lynn (California)

Wilcox, Linda (California)

Woodward, Carol L. (California)

Yank, Ronald (California)

Expert/Monitor/Master

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

Bick, Joseph (California)

Brosnahan, James J. (California)

Foss, Tammatha (California)

Hoffman, Thomas (California)

Kelso, J. Clark (California)

Lynch, Megan (California)

Pierman, Brooke D. (California)

Smith, Gary Alan (California)

Stern, Marc F. (Washington)

Vijayan, Tara (California)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Docket [PACER]

Plata v. Brown

April 27, 2020 Docket
1

Complaint Class Action

Plata v. Davis

April 5, 2001 Complaint
20

First Amended Complaint Class Action

Plata v. Davis

Aug. 1, 2001 Complaint
67/68

Stipulation for Injunctive Relief

Plata v. Davis

June 13, 2002 Pleading / Motion / Brief
69

Order Adopting Class Action Stipulation as Fair, Reasonable and Adequate

Plata v. Davis

June 20, 2002 Order/Opinion

Reported Opinion

Plata v. Davis

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

329 F.3d 1101, 2003 U.S.App.LEXIS 10437

May 27, 2003 Order/Opinion
161

Order Re: Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents

Plata v. Davis

Aug. 13, 2003 Order/Opinion

Plata v. Schwarzenneger, 2nd report, part 1

Plata v. Schwarzenegger

July 9, 2004 Monitor/Expert/Receiver Report

Plata v. Schwarzenneger, 2nd report, part 2

Plata v. Schwarzenegger

July 16, 2004 Monitor/Expert/Receiver Report
294

Order to Show Cause Re Civil Contempt and Appointment of Interim Receiver

Plata v. Schwarzenegger

2005 WL 2932243

May 10, 2005 Order/Opinion

Resources

Title Description External URL

The Evolution of Quality Health Care in the Correctional Facilities of the State of California

Karina Purcell

Examples of medical care that both far outshine and fall below the care available to the general public can be found in California jails and prisons. As with public hospitals and clinics this dichoto… Jan. 1, 2012 None

Il Carcere al Tempo della Crisi

Fondazione Giovanni Michelucci

On matters concerning prison terms, from affectivity to limited numbers, from life imprisonment to the unconstitutionality of the Fini-Giovanardi law, a change of culture is required. There word must… Dec. 1, 2013 http://www.michelucci.it/...

Integrating Evidence-Based Practices Into Judicial Sentencing in the Wake of Realignment's Split Sentencing

Camille Frausto

Part I of this comment discusses the Supreme Court cases that led to the passage of the Realignment Act, along with a review of some of the major reform changes. Part I also highlights the gaps in cr… May 1, 2018 None

Courts and the Penal State: Lessons from California's Decades of Prison Litigation and Expansion

Jonathan Steven Simon

The Supreme Court’s 2011 Brown v. Plata decision may mark a turning point in the history of mass incarceration in California and nationwide. Between the mid-1970s and 2009 the California prison popul… Oct. 26, 2013 None

A case for revisiting peer review: Implications for professional self-regulation and quality improvement

Terry E. Hill, Peter F. Martelli & Julie H. Kuo

Quality improvement in healthcare has often been promoted as different from and more valuable than peer review and other professional self-regulation processes. In spite of attempts to harmonize thes… June 28, 2015 https://journals.plos.org/...

Polycentricity and Queue Jumping in Public Law Remedies: A Two-Track Response

Kent Roach

This article examines complex public law remedies in light of Lon Fuller’s famous critique that courts are ill-equipped to deal with polycentric or multifaceted issues and the related critique that r… Dec. 21, 2016 https://heinonline.org/...

Reviving the Carefully Limited Exception: From Jail to GPS Bail

Alexis Causey

California's prisons are grossly overcrowded, violating the United States Constitution.' To solve this problem, the California Legislature passed the Public Safety Realignment Act, Assembly Bill 109.… Jan. 1, 2019 https://heinonline.org/...

Trends in Prisoner Litigation, as the PLRA Enters Adulthood

Margo Schlanger

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), enacted in 1996 as part of the Newt Gingrich "Contract with America," is now as old as some prisoners. In the year after the statute's passage, some commenter… Jan. 1, 2015 https://repository.law.umich.edu/...

The Consequences of Brown v. Plata Are Nothing to Dismiss: The California Prison Case Continues

Tamara Tabo

Oct. 13, 2017 https://abovethelaw.com/...

Prison Overcrowding and Brown v. Plata

Marie Gottschalk

Today the United States is the world’s warden, incarcerating more people than any other country. With just 5 percent of the world’s population, it has 25 percent of its prisoners. Since the 1970s, th… June 8, 2011 https://newrepublic.com/...

BROWN V. PLATA ACLU

ACLU

Whether a federal court appropriately exercised its authority by ordering the State of California to reduce the size of its prison population, which was more than double the system’s intended c… May 11, 2011 https://www.aclu.org/...

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 http://harvardcrcl.org/...

Brown v. Plata: The Oyez Project

Chicago-Kent College of Law

Facts of the Case <br />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/...

Litigation Over Prison Medical Services

Aaron Rappaport

On August 4, 2009, a specially constituted panel of three federal judges issued a remarkable ruling requiring the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) to release approxima… Dec. 1, 2010 None

Three Judge Panel Takes Further Step Toward Prison Cap on California

GoverningThroughCrime.blogspot.com

The drama of whether and when federal courts in California will order population caps on California's super-sized and massively overcrowded prison system took another step forward yesterday. The thre… Oct. 11, 2007 http://governingthroughcrime.blogspot.com/...

Decency, Dignity, and Desert: Restoring Ideals of Humane Punishment to Constitutional Discourse

Eva S. Nilsen

Nov. 1, 2007 http://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/...

The Caged Canary

Elizabeth Alexander

The United States has experienced an explosion in the number of people in prison, an explosion that cannot be attributed to changes in the crime rate, but rather reflects changes in public policy, pa… Dec. 1, 2008 http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/...

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4183159/plata-v-newsom/

Last updated May 12, 2022, 8 p.m.

ECF Number Description 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 PACER

Received Order continuing the Case Management Conference by Steven Cambra, Grey Davis, B. Timothy Gage, Robert Presley, Susann Steinberg. (rbe, )

July 9, 2001 PACER
17

Letter from Ras Oluwa. (rbe, ) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/20/2001)

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 PACER

Received Order stipulation re plaintiffs' amended complaint by Steven Cambra. (rbe, )

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 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 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 PACER

Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 2/4/2002 01:30 PM. (rbe, )

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 PACER
31

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Grey Davis (rbe, ) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/22/2002)

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 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 PACER
34

ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson denying 18 Motion for Joinder (rbe) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/28/2002)

March 26, 2002 PACER

Received Order re settlement of individual claims by Grey Davis. (rbe, )

March 28, 2002 PACER

Proposed Order re settlement of individual claims by Grey Davis. (rbe, )

March 28, 2002 PACER

Received Order stipulation regarding furnishing notice of the proposed settlement by Grey Davis. (rbe, )

April 1, 2002 PACER
35

ORDER re settlement of individual claims. Matter is referred to Mag. Judge James for settlement conference. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 4/1/02. (rbe) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/05/2002)

April 2, 2002 PACER
36

NOTICE of ERRATA supplying exhibit "A" to [the stipulation regarding furnishing notice of the proposed settlement to plaintiff class] by Edgar Castillo, Grey Davis, B. Timothy Gage, Robert Presley, Susann Steinberg. (rbe) Modified on 4/9/2002 (rbe). (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/18/2019: # 1 Exhibit A) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/09/2002)

1 Exhibit A

View on PACER

April 4, 2002 PACER
37

ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Laporte for Settlement; case was inadvertently referred to MEJ earlier. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 4/3/02. (rbe) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/09/2002)

April 4, 2002 PACER
38

CLERK'S NOTICE Settlement Conference before Mag. Judge James set for 5/22/2002 02:00 PM. (rbe) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/10/2002)

April 5, 2002 PACER
39

Plaintiffs' Opposition to 28 motion to exclude previously litigated and remediated institutions filed by Marciano Plata. (rbe) Modified on 4/10/2002 (rbe). (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/10/2002)

April 8, 2002 PACER
40

DECLARATION of Caroline N. Mitchell in Support of 39 Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Exclude filed by Marciano Plata. (Related document(s) 39 ) (rbe) Modified on 4/10/2002 (rbe). (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/10/2002)

April 8, 2002 PACER
41

Plaintiffs' AMENDED Opposition to 28 Motion to Exclude filed by Marciano Plata. (rbe) Modified on 4/11/2002 (rbe). (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/11/2002)

April 9, 2002 PACER
42

STIPULATION AND ORDER re furnishing notice of the proposed settlement to plaintiff class; see document for details. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 4/8/02. (rbe) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/11/2002)

April 9, 2002 PACER
43

Defendants' Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to defendants' motion to exclude filed by Edgar Castillo, Grey Davis, B. Timothy Gage, Robert Presley, Susann Steinberg. (rbe) Modified on 4/16/2002 (rbe). (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/16/2002)

April 15, 2002 PACER
61

MOTION to Intervene filed by unnamed class members. (rbe) Modified on 6/12/2002 (rbe). (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/28/2019: # 1 envelope) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/12/2002)

1 envelope

View on PACER

April 19, 2002 PACER
44

NOTICE to the Court of the Solano State Prison class' opposition to the proposed settlement and stipulation by Antolin Andrews. (rbe) Modified on 4/29/2002 (rbe). (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/29/2019: # 1 envelope) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/29/2002)

1 envelope

View on PACER

April 23, 2002 PACER
45

ORDER vacating the 5/22/02 settlement conference. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 4/24/02. (rbe) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/29/2002)

April 24, 2002 PACER
46

ORDER Settlement Conference set for 6/20/2002 09:30 AM. Signed by Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte on 4/25/02. (rbe) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/03/2002)

April 26, 2002 PACER
47

Response to plaintiffs' demands for monetary damages by Grey Davis. (rbe, ) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/03/2002)

April 26, 2002 PACER
48

Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 4/29/2002 before Judge Thelton E. Henderson. Motion to Exclude is submitted. Status Conference set for 6/4/2002 02:00 PM. (Leo Mankiewicz) (rbe) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/03/2002)

April 29, 2002 PACER
49

ORDER Fairness Hearing set for 6/13/2002 09:00 AM. Objections to the settlement to be filed by 5/28/02; any responses due by 6/5/02. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 5/6/02. (rbe) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/09/2002)

May 7, 2002 PACER
50

ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson denying 28 Motion to Exclude Previously Litigated and Remediated Institutions Central California Women's Facility and California Institution for Women. (rbe) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/23/2002)

May 21, 2002 PACER
51

OBJECTIONS to settlement agreement by the women class members. (rbe, ) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/31/2002)

May 28, 2002 PACER
52

DECLARATIONS and EXHIBITS (Volume I) in support of 51 Objections of Women Class Members filed by Women Class Members. (Related document(s) 51 ) (rbe) Modified on 5/31/2002 (rbe). (Entered: 05/31/2002)

May 28, 2002 PACER
53

DECLARATIONS and EXHIBITS (Volume II) in support of 51 Objections of Women Class Members filed by the Women Class Members. (Related document(s) 51 ) (rbe) Modified on 5/31/2002 (rbe). (Entered: 05/31/2002)

May 28, 2002 PACER
54

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by the Women Class Members (rbe) Modified on 6/3/2002 (rbe). (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/03/2002)

May 29, 2002 PACER
55

NOTICE of lodgment of policies and procedures re pregnant inmate care and birth of children by Grey Davis, B. Timothy Gage, Robert Presley, Susann Steinberg. (rbe, ) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/05/2002)

May 30, 2002 PACER
60

NOTICE OF APPEAL re 50 by Edgar Castillo, Grey Davis, B. Timothy Gage, Robert Presley, Susann Steinberg. (Filing fee $105 receipt number 3335744) (rbe, ) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/28/2019: # 1 Filing Fee Receipt) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/10/2002)

1 Filing Fee Receipt

View on PACER

June 3, 2002 PACER
56

MEMORANDUM of points and authorities in Support of the fairness of the settlement filed by plaintiffs. (rbe) Modified on 6/6/2002 (rbe). (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/06/2002)

June 5, 2002 PACER
57

DECLARATION of Donald Specter in Support of the fairness of the settlement filed by the plaintiffs. (rbe) Modified on 6/6/2002 (rbe). (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/06/2002)

June 5, 2002 PACER
58

DECLARATION of Steven Fama in Support of the fairness of the settlement filed by the plaintiffs. (rbe) Modified on 6/6/2002 (rbe). (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/06/2002)

June 5, 2002 PACER
59

Response to comments regarding proposed class stipulation by Grey Davis, B. Timothy Gage, Robert Presley, Susann Steinberg. (rbe, ) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/06/2002)

June 5, 2002 PACER
62

ORDER granting plaintiffs' request to appear at the settlement conference by telephone. Signed by Mag. Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte on 6/6/02. (rbe) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/13/2002)

June 7, 2002 PACER
63

ORDER DENYING pro se motion by class member Steven Baird to intervene. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 6/11/02. (rbe) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/18/2002)

June 12, 2002 PACER
64

Defendants' AMENDED Response to comments. (rbe) Modified on 6/18/2002 (rbe). (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/18/2002)

June 12, 2002 PACER
65

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Grey Davis. (rbe, ) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/18/2002)

June 12, 2002 PACER
66

Minute Entry: Fairness Hearing and Further Case Management Conference held on 6/13/2002 before Judge Thelton E. Henderson. Further Case Management Conference set for 7/15/2002 01:30 PM. Dr. Ronald Shansky testified; Court approved the stipulation for injunctive relief and signed proposed stipulation and order appointing experts. Court will assign a magistrate to preside over mediation or any dispute. Plaintiff's request for a 60-day extension in terms of preparing the judgment is granted. (Court Reporter Diane Skillman) (rbe) Modified on 6/19/2002 (rbe). (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/19/2002)

June 13, 2002 PACER
67

ORDER appointing experts pursuant to Rule 706. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 6/13/02. (rbe) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/19/2002)

June 13, 2002 PACER
68

STIPULATION AND ORDER for injunctive relief. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 6/13/02. (rbe) (tn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/19/2002)

June 13, 2002 PACER

USCA Case Number re appeal 60 . USCA Case #02-16161 (rbe, )

June 18, 2002 PACER

USCA Case Number re appeal 60. USCA Case #02-16161 (rbe, )

June 18, 2002 PACER
69

ORDER adopting class action stipulation as fair, reasonable and adequate. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 6/20/02. (rbe) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/26/2002)

June 20, 2002 PACER
70

Minute Entry: Settlement Conference held on 6/20/2002 before Mag. Judge Laporte. Partial settlement as to damages. (Tape #SC-02-013) (rbe) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/26/2002)

June 20, 2002 PACER
71

TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION by Grey Davis. (rbe, ) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/27/2002)

June 24, 2002 PACER
72

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Grey Davis (rbe, ) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/27/2002)

June 24, 2002 PACER
73

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Grey Davis. (rbe, ) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/12/2002)

July 10, 2002 PACER
74

Minute Entry: Status Conference held on 7/15/2002 before Judge Thelton E. Henderson. Status Conference set for 8/19/2002 01:30 PM. (not reported) (rbe) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/22/2002)

July 15, 2002 PACER
75

ORDER of USCA re inclusion in the Mediation Program (rbe, ) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/30/2002)

July 29, 2002 PACER
76

TRANSCRIPT for dates 4/29/02 by Leo Mankiewicz. (rbe, ) (Entered: 07/30/2002)

July 29, 2002 PACER
77

REQUEST to be entered as a co-complaintant by pro se Gary Coleman Gray. (aaa, ) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/05/2002)

Aug. 2, 2002 PACER

Received Order stipulation extending time for plaintiffs to file motion for attorneys' fees by Marciano Plata. (rbe, )

Aug. 9, 2002 PACER
78

STIPULATION AND ORDER extending time for plaintiffs to file motion for attorneys' fees until 10/12/02. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 8/12/02. (rbe) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/19/2002)

Aug. 13, 2002 PACER
79

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Marciano Plata. (rbe, ) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/19/2002)

Aug. 14, 2002 PACER
80

Minute Entry: Telephonic Status Conference held on 8/19/2002 before Judge Thelton E. Henderson. Further Status Conference set for 9/30/2002 01:30 PM. (not reported) (rbe) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/26/2002)

Aug. 19, 2002 PACER
81

TRANSCRIPT for dates 4/29/02 by Leo Mankiewicz. (rbe, ) (Entered: 08/28/2002)

Aug. 23, 2002 PACER

Certificate of Record Mailed to USCA re appeal 60 : (rbe, )

Aug. 27, 2002 PACER

Certificate of Record Mailed to USCA re appeal 60: (rbe, )

Aug. 27, 2002 PACER

Received Document Stipulation and Proposed Order Regarding Compensation of the Independent Court Experts by Gilbert Aviles, Steven Bautista, Paul Decasas, Raymond Johns, Joseph Long, Clifford Myelle, Marciano Plata, Leslie Rhoades, pro se Elijah J. Sandoval, Otis Shaw, pro se Gary Alan Smith, Ray Stoderd. (vlh, ) (Entered: 09/06/2002)

Sept. 5, 2002 PACER

Received Document Stipulation and Proposed Order Regarding Compensation of the Independent Court Experts by Gilbert Aviles, Steven Bautista, Paul Decasas, Raymond Johns, Joseph Long, Clifford Myelle, Marciano Plata, Leslie Rhoades, pro se Elijah J. Sandoval, Otis Shaw, pro se Gary Alan Smith, Ray Stoderd. (vlh, )

Sept. 5, 2002 PACER
82

STIPULATION AND ORDER re compensation of the independent court experts. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 9/16/02. (rbe) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/19/2002)

Sept. 17, 2002 PACER
83

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Grey Davis, B. Timothy Gage, Robert Presley, Susann Steinberg. (rbe, ) (tnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/02/2002)

Sept. 24, 2002 PACER
84

TRANSCRIPT for dates 6/13/02 by Diane Skillman. (rbe, ) (Entered: 10/02/2002)

Sept. 24, 2002 PACER

Received Order ; stipulation re posting and distribution of notice to plaintiff class by Marciano Plata. (rbe, )

Sept. 27, 2002 PACER

State / Territory: California

Case Type(s):

Prison Conditions

Special Collection(s):

Court-ordered receiverships

California's Prisoners' Rights Bar article

Solitary confinement

Key Dates

Filing Date: Aug. 20, 2001

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

All prisoners who are now, or will in the future be, under the custody of the California Department of Corrections.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

Prison Law Office

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, State

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Corrections

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.

Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701

Constitutional Clause(s):

Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Monetary Relief

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Attorneys fees

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Litigation

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Order Duration: 2002 - None

Content of Injunction:

Other requirements regarding hiring, promotion, retention

Receivership

Monitor/Master

Monitoring

Hire

Recordkeeping

Reporting

Issues

General:

Conditions of confinement

Solitary confinement/Supermax (conditions or process)

Crowding:

Crowding / caseload

Post-PLRA Population Cap

Affected Gender:

Female

Male

Medical/Mental Health:

Medical care, general

Type of Facility:

Government-run