ORDER DIRECTING COMPLIANCE OFFICER TO CONFER WITH PARTIES

KIMBERLY J. MULLER, District Judge.

On February 10, 2014, this Court extended the deadline for defendants to reduce the in-state adult institution prison population to no more than 137.5% design capacity and set two intermediate population benchmarks. Feb. 10, 2014 Order at 2 (ECF No. 2766/5060).1 In addition, the Court ordered defendants to "immediately implement" several specific population reduction measures, which were taken almost verbatim from defendants' own proposed order. The Court expressly imposed immediate implementation as the standard, declining to adopt defendants' more lenient proposal that the measures be implemented "promptly." Compare id. at 3 with Defs.' Jan. 23, 2014 Proposed Order at 2 (ECF No. 2755/5023). These measures included the following:

Feb. 10, 2014 Order at 3.

Plaintiffs contend that defendants have failed to fully implement these measures and now seek an order for further enforcement. In particular, plaintiffs ask that defendants be ordered to: (1) implement 2-for-1 credits for minimum custody inmates who are ineligible for fire camps; (2) grant 33.3% credits to all non-violent second strikers, including those with a prior sex offense; and (3) implement new parole procedures for non-violent second-strikers by January 1, 2015.2

In opposition, defendants assert that: (1) granting 2-for-1 good time credits to minimum custody inmates who are ineligible for fire camps would deplete participation in fire camps by causing higher turnover at minimum support facilities ("MSFs"), where such inmates perform jobs that are "critical to the daily functioning of each institution, including garage, recycle and refuse collections, and various Plant Operations positions in support of institutional tradespersons," Sept. 30, 2014 Singh Decl. ¶ 5 (ECF No. 2813-4/5223-4), thereby "forc[ing] [CDCR] to draw down its fire camp population to fill these vital MSF positions," id. ¶ 7; (2) they "have always indicated" that sex offenders would be excluded from the population of non-violent second-strikers eligible for increased good time credits, and they should be permitted to do so "to minimize the risks of public safety," particularly when they are currently in compliance with the Court's population benchmarks, Opp'n at 5 (ECF No. 2813/5223); and (3) they "have made substantial progress" on implementing a new parole process for non-violent second-strikers, id. at 3, but that doing so is a "time-consuming process," Sept. 30, 2014 Meier Decl. ¶ 3 (ECF No. 2813-3/5223-3), which they anticipate completing "prior to July 1, 2015" and "primarily" impacting the final benchmark, id. ¶ 5.

Upon consideration of the parties' written submissions, the Court has determined that further factual development would assist the Court in resolving plaintiffs' motion. For example, as to fire camps, it is not clear whether there are any minimum custody inmates who are ineligible for both MSF placement and fire camps, in which case defendants' argument would not apply. It is also not clear whether granting 2-for-1 credits as plaintiffs request would have the impact on fire camp participation that defendants "believe" is "likely." Singh Decl. ¶¶ 6-7. As to increasing credits for non-violent second-strikers, although defendants excluded "sex registrants" from prior estimates on the population impact of increasing good time credits, May 2, 2013 Atkinson Decl. ¶¶ 5, 12 (ECF No. 2608/4571), and the Court previously relied on those estimates, June 20, 2013 Op. & Order at 37 (ECF No. 2659/4662), defendants did not exclude sex offenders in their January 23, 2014 proposed order that became the basis of this Court's February 10, 2014 order.3 It is unclear whether this omission was intentional. The Court also lacks any current information on the number of non-violent second strikers excluded by defendants, what types of crimes form the basis for the exclusion, or the impact that including sex offenders in this measure would have on reducing the overall population. Finally, as to the parole process, the Court is skeptical that a 17-month delay between the Court's order and final implementation is reasonable and additional information would be helpful to assess defendants' diligence.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Compliance Officer shall promptly confer with the parties and gather facts relevant to resolving plaintiffs' motion.4 The parties shall fully cooperate with the Compliance Officer. The Compliance Officer shall report confidentially to this Court on the issues raised above, as well as on any other issues he deems relevant to these matters. Plaintiffs' motion remains under submission.

IT IS SO ORDERED.