Mainez v. Gore

3 Citing cases

  1. Higuera v. Martinez

    3:23-cv-1083-BTM-KSC (S.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2024)

    . People v. Scott, 58 Cal.4th 1415, 1418 (Cal. 2014); see also Mainez v. Gore, 2017 WL 6453595, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2017). In passing the Realignment Act, the legislature stated: “Criminal justice policies that rely on building and operating more prisons to address community safety concerns are not sustainable, and will not result in improved public safety.” Cal. Penal Code § 17.5(a)(3).

  2. Butler v. San Diego Sheriff's Dep't

    22-cv-690-MMA (DEB) (S.D. Cal. Jul. 19, 2022)

    Proposition 57, otherwise known as the Criminal Justice Realignment Act of 2011, “significantly change[d] the punishment for some felony convictions” in California. People v. Scott, 58 Cal.4th 1415, 1418 (2014); see also Mainez v. Gore, 2017 WL 6453595, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2017). As relevant here, the Act shifted responsibility for housing and supervising certain felons from the state to the individual counties.

  3. Mansour v. CDCR

    Case No.: 3:19-cv-01325-AJB-LL (S.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2020)   Cited 3 times

    (See ECF No. 20 at 1-5; ECF No. 21 at 1-3.) Proposition 57, otherwise known as the Criminal Justice Realignment Act of 2011, "significantly change[d] the punishment for some felony convictions" in California. People v. Scott, 58 Cal. 4th 1415, 1418 (2014); see also Mainez v. Gore, 2017 WL 6453595, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2017). As relevant here, the Act shifted responsibility for housing and supervising certain felons from the state to the individual counties.