CRUZ v. COUNTY OF FRESNO, 1:93-cv-05070-MCE. (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20120217790
Visitors: 13
Filed: Feb. 16, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 16, 2012
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., District Judge. This action arose nearly twenty years ago out of allegations of unconstitutional overcrowding in the Fresno County jails. In February of 1994, the original dispute was resolved via a "Stipulation re Permanent Injunction; Order," referred to by the parties as the "Consent Decree." Presently before the Court is the Fresno County Superior Court's ("Superior Court") July 14, 2011, Motion to Intervene in this case for the limited purpos
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., District Judge. This action arose nearly twenty years ago out of allegations of unconstitutional overcrowding in the Fresno County jails. In February of 1994, the original dispute was resolved via a "Stipulation re Permanent Injunction; Order," referred to by the parties as the "Consent Decree." Presently before the Court is the Fresno County Superior Court's ("Superior Court") July 14, 2011, Motion to Intervene in this case for the limited purpose..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., District Judge.
This action arose nearly twenty years ago out of allegations of unconstitutional overcrowding in the Fresno County jails. In February of 1994, the original dispute was resolved via a "Stipulation re Permanent Injunction; Order," referred to by the parties as the "Consent Decree." Presently before the Court is the Fresno County Superior Court's ("Superior Court") July 14, 2011, Motion to Intervene in this case for the limited purpose of requesting clarification of the term "capacity" as it is used in the Consent Decree.
Upon stipulation of the existing parties, however, this Court has since issued an Order modifying the Consent Decree such that the term "capacities" in paragraphs 2.B and 2.J and the term "capacity" in paragraph 3 of that Decree are defined as "actual staffed capacities" and "actual staffed capacity," respectively. Accordingly, since the clarification sought by the Superior Court has already been provided, its Motion to Intervene (ECF No. 44) is hereby DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
