Case Citation: Thompson v. Enomoto, 915 F.2d 1383 (1990)
Parties: Maurice Thompson, et al., Plaintiffs Jiro J. Enomoto, et al., Defendants Facts: The plaintiffs were inmates serving sentences in the California State Prison at San Quentin’s death row. In 1979, Thompson filed a claim alleging a breach of his civil rights by attempting to establish cruel and unusual punishment and a denial of due process. On October 23, 1980, the Inmates and prison officials at San Quentin entered into a consent decree. The decree required prison officials to related to adjustments in inmate housing, treatment, and privileges. Inmates essentially lost rights and privileges to be afforded under the decree when they were moved to different housing areas of the prison, some of which were located in segregated areas. The Court granted an extension to their jurisdiction under the decree in an attempt to afford prison officials the opportunity to satisfy provisions within the decree. In June 1982, prison officials had not yet provided satisfactory provisions. The parties failed to reach an agreement, which, on January 11, 1985, led to the plaintiffs filing a motion with the Court requesting the appointment of a special…show more content… §1983 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. A consent decree was entered on October 23, 1980. In 1982, plaintiffs filed two motions towards holding prison officials in contempt; both motions were denied. On January 11, 1985, plaintiffs filed a motion to have a monitor appointed. On March 25, 1985, the Court appointed a monitor; the defendants appealed and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal. On March 10, 1988, parties agreed on a stipulation to alter the decree. On March 17, 1988, the district court approved the modification. On October 5, 1989, the district court adopted the monitor’s fourth report, both parties
