From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kaiser v. Cnty. of Sacramento

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRIC T OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 6, 2013
Case No. CIV S-91-0300 GGH P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2013)

Opinion

Case No. CIV S-91-0300 GGH P

03-06-2013

JOSEPH WALTER KAISER, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, a California public entity Defendants.

JOHN F. WHISENHUNT, County Counsel JAMES R. WOOD, Deputy County Counsel [State Bar No. 151333] COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO Attorneys for County of Sacramento


JOHN F. WHISENHUNT, County Counsel
JAMES R. WOOD, Deputy County Counsel

[State Bar No. 151333]
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

Attorneys for County of Sacramento

ORDER AMENDING CONSENT

DECREE

Whereas, on January 28, 1993, a Consent Decree was entered into by plaintiffs Joseph Walter Kaiser, et al. and defendants County of Sacramento and the Sheriff of Sacramento County.

Whereas the parties respectfully request that the Court grants the proposed modification of the existing consent decree and amend paragraph 2 of the Consent Decree as follows:

The defendants shall maintain a law library at the Sacramento County Main Jail and the Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center to which inmates shall be provided on reasonable notice, subject to reasonable rules and regulations governing the conduct of the inmates therein and operations thereof, access to conduct legal research using computers and kiosks that have, but are not limited to, software provided by LexisNexis or an equivalent. Inmates housed at the Main Jail and the Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center shall each be notified of the rules and regulations governing access to legal materials, including the contents of the library and access to computerized research systems. Notification to inmates of
updates as to contents shall be made at reasonable intervals and in a reasonable manner.
Defendants shall ensure that sufficient users manuals are available for any computerized research system. Defendants shall use reasonable efforts to ensure that the computerized research systems are maintained in working order.

Except as expressly amended herein, all other terms of the Consent Decree shall remain unchanged.

This order of modification shall become final if no objections are received within twenty-one calendar days. If objections are received, the court will conduct appropriate proceedings to resolve them.

IT IS SO ORDERED:

Gregory G. Hollows

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Kaiser v. Cnty. of Sacramento

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRIC T OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 6, 2013
Case No. CIV S-91-0300 GGH P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2013)
Case details for

Kaiser v. Cnty. of Sacramento

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH WALTER KAISER, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, a California…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRIC T OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Mar 6, 2013

Citations

Case No. CIV S-91-0300 GGH P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2013)