Coleman, et al v. Schwarzenegger, et al
Filing
5092
ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 2/27/14 re 4232 Order re: 4205 Twenty-Fourth Round Monitoring Report. Defendants are required to work under the guidance of the Special Master, with input from plaintiffs' counsel, on this task until it is completed. The court expects that the Special Master will report to the court in due course when this necessary step has been accomplished. (Meuleman, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
RALPH COLEMAN, et al.,
12
13
14
15
No. CIV. S-90-520 LKK/DAD (PC)
Plaintiffs,
v.
ORDER
EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
By order filed August 30, 2012, defendants were directed to,
18
over a six month period, review and assess their existing quality
19
assurance process and “develop an improved quality improvement
20
process by which they can address issues with the quality of care
21
that is delivered, as described in the Special Master’s Twenty-
22
Fourth Round Monitoring Report.”
23
(ECF No. 4232) at 5.
24
of the Special master and his staff, with participation and
25
input” from plaintiffs.
26
Order filed August 30, 2012
This was to take place “under the guidance
Id. at 6.
Subsequently, the Special Master informed the court that
27
compliance with the August 30, 2012 order had been interrupted by
28
motions filed by defendants in 2013 to terminate this action and
1
1
to vacate or modify the population reduction order of the three-
2
judge court.
3
For that reason, the court extended the time for compliance with
4
the August 30, 2012 order to July 1, 2013 and directed the
5
Special Master to report to the court on the outcome of the
6
process by August 2, 2013.
7
See Order filed April 23, 2013 (ECF No. 4561) at 1.
Id. at 2.
On August 2, 2013, the Special Master filed his Report on
8
Defendants’ Quality Improvement Process (hereafter Report).
9
No. 4730.)
(ECF
The Report includes recommendations for further work
10
on the quality improvement process.
11
reports that defendants had agreed with him to refine the
12
Continuous Quality Improvement Tool (CQIT) tool and re-pilot the
13
tool at the same eight institutions as the original pilot.1
14
Report (ECF No. 4730) at 29.
15
recommend any specific orders by this court in the Report.
16
The Special Master also
The Special Master did not
On August 16, 2013, plaintiffs filed a response to the
17
Report.
18
this court extending the quality improvement monitoring process
19
through the end of 2013, requiring defendants’ full cooperation
20
therein, and requiring a further report from the Special Master
21
on said process.
22
defendants filed a response to plaintiffs’ request.
23
4780.)
24
25
26
27
28
(ECF No. 4757.)
Therein, plaintiffs request an order by
Pursuant to court order, on September 3, 2013,
(ECF No.
Plaintiffs’ request arises from a letter from counsel for
defendants to the Special Master responding to the Report.
1
In
The Special Master also reported that “[t]o facilitate this repilot, CDCR and the special master have agreed to suspend
commencement of the upcoming twenty-sixth round of monitoring
until the re-pilot has been completed.” Id. at 31.
2
1
relevant part, counsel for defendants states that “[t]he time
2
period specified by the Court [in the August 30, 2012 and April
3
23, 2013 orders] has ended, and both CDCR and the Special Master
4
have completed their required duties under the order.
5
agreed to a re-pilot of CQIT, and while Defendants will cooperate
6
with your staff during the re-piloting process, these continuing
7
joint efforts go above and beyond the Court’s requirements.”
8
B to Pls. Resp. (ECF No. 4757-2) at 3.
9
requested order both because of the “critical importance of the
CDCR has
Ex.
Plaintiffs seek the
10
quality improvement process” and to avert possible further delays
11
in the Special Master’s twenty-sixth round of monitoring.
12
Resp. (ECF No. 4757) at 5.
13
Pls.
In their response, defendants contend that (1) the “current
14
quality assurance process is constitutionally adequate, and an
15
order directing Defendants’ [sic] to revise further a
16
presumptively constitutional process is not needed”; and (2)
17
defendants “have been working, and remain willing to cooperate
18
fully, with the Special Master to improve the quality improvement
19
process without a coordinator.”
20
Defendants represent that they will continue to work with the
21
Special Master to assess the quality improvement process but they
22
object to anything from plaintiffs’ counsel beyond “input” and
23
they “object to any order that either expressly states or implies
24
that the CQIT is to serve at [sic] a new benchmark for
25
determining Defendants’ compliance with the Constitution.”
26
Defs. Resp. (ECF No. 4780) at 2.
Id.
At this juncture, for the reasons set forth infra the court
27
has determined that, while defendants’ objections to the orders
28
requested by plaintiffs miss the mark, issuance of the requested
3
1
orders will not adequately serve the underlying goal of the
2
court’s August 30, 2012 order and the Special Master’s
3
recommendation on which that order is based.
4
By its terms, the order is directed at ending federal court
5
oversight of the delivery of mental health care in California’s
6
prisons.2
7
recommendation that they be ordered to review and assess their
8
existing quality assurance process and develop an improved
9
quality improvement process as part of the transition to self-
Defendants did not object to the Special Master’s
10
monitoring and the end of federal court oversight; indeed, as the
11
court noted in the August 30, 2012 order, they acquiesced in the
12
recommendation.
See id. at 3.
13
The dispute at bar apparently arises from the fact that the
14
August 30, 2012 order set a six-month period for compliance, see
15
id. at 6, which was extended by April 23, 2013 order.
16
month time frame was set in an effort to effect a level of “focus
17
and diligence” on that task and the other tasks remaining to
18
complete the remedy in this action.
19
set with the view that compliance would become voluntary if the
20
task was not completed within six months.
21
task was not completed within six months for reasons explained by
22
the Special Master in his Report and well known to the parties
23
and this court.
24
25
26
27
28
See id. at 5.
The six-
It was not
As it turns out, the
Rather than set a new deadline, the court will reiterate
that defendants’ development and implementation of an improved
2
This is also made clear in the Special Master’s Twenty-Fourth
Round Monitoring Report, on which the order is based. See
Twenty-Fourth Round Monitoring Report (ECF No. 4205) at, e.g.,
71, 74.
4
1
quality improvement process is fundamental to ending federal
2
court oversight in this action.
3
obligation to end its supervision of defendants’ delivery of
4
mental health care to members of the plaintiff class when
5
defendants have implemented a durable remedy for the Eighth
6
Amendment violations in the delivery of that care.
7
Flores, 557 U.S. 433, 450 (2009).
8
remedy is the development and implementation of an adequate
9
quality improvement process by which defendants will self-monitor
It is grounded in this court’s
See Horne v.
A key component of a durable
10
and, as necessary, self-correct inadequacies in the delivery of
11
mental health care to the thousands of seriously mentally ill
12
inmates incarcerated in California’s prisons.
13
required to work under the guidance of the Special Master, with
14
input from plaintiffs’ counsel, on this task until it is
15
completed.
16
to the court in due course when this necessary step has been
17
accomplished.
Defendants are
The court expects that the Special Master will report
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
DATED:
February 27, 2014.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?