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