Coleman, et al v. Schwarzenegger, et al

Filing 5116

ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 3/18/14 ORDERING that 4984 Motion regarding their long-range mental health bed plan is granted in part (see order for details). (Dillon, M)

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

No. CIV. S-90-520 LKK/DAD (PC)

Plaintiffs,
v.

ORDER

EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

On January 21, 2014, defendants filed a motion regarding

18

their long-range mental health bed plan (ECF No. 4984).

On

19

February 5, 2014, plaintiffs filed a response to defendants’

20

motion and a request for further orders (ECF No. 5052), and on

21

February 25, 2014, defendants filed a corrected reply (ECF No.

22

5090-1).

23

conference on March 10, 2014.

24

counsel for plaintiffs.

25

General, appeared as counsel for defendants.

Pursuant to court order, the matter came on for status
Michael Bien, Esq., appeared as

Patrick McKinney, Deputy Attorney

26

In their motion defendants (1) update the court on the

27

status of all court-approved projects in the long-range bed plan;

28

(2) “address previously approved changes to projects at
1

1

California State Prison-Lancaster and Central California Women’s

2

Facility,” Defs. Mot. Re: Long-Range Bed Plan, filed January 21,

3

2014 (ECF No. 4984) at 31; and (3) move for relief from the

4

requirement of the court’s January 4, 2010 order (ECF No. 3761)

5

that the mental health beds in the California Health Care

6

Facility in Stockton (CHCF) be fully activated by the end of

7

2013.

8

required for delays reported in the projects at California State

9

Prison-Lancaster (LAC) or Central California Women’s Facility

Id.

Defendants assert no further court orders are

10

(CCWF) but if orders are required they request approval of the

11

current activation dates for those two projects.

12

respect to CHCF, defendants represent that difficulties with

13

recruitment and retention of staff psychiatrists are preventing

14

the opening of five remaining mental health units.2

15

Id.

With

In part relevant to defendants’ motion, plaintiffs oppose

16

defendants’ request for what plaintiffs characterize as an “open-

17

ended” delay in full activation of CHCF, and they contend

18

defendants are in violation of, and require relief from, court

19

orders with respect to the projects at LAC and CCWF.

20

also seek additional relief with respect to bed-planning.

21

request is addressed infra.

22
23

Plaintiffs
That

The three projects at issue are part of defendants’ longrange bed plan (Plan).

The Plan was filed pursuant to this

24
1

25
26
27
28

All citations to page numbers in documents filed in this action
are to the ECF page number at the top of the document.
2

At the
that two
2014 and
possibly

status conference, counsel for defendants represented
more mental health units will open at CHCF on March 24,
defendants expect to activate all remaining units
by this summer.
2

1

court’s September 24, 2009 order (ECF No. 3686).

2

part, that order required defendants to file “a detailed long-

3

range plan, including activation schedules” which was to include,

4

inter alia, “a schedule with a date certain for completion of

5

each project included in the long-range plan.”

6

September 24, 2009 (ECF No. 3686) at 3.

7

provided that “[t]he timetables for completion of each step

8

described in the plan shall be developed in such a way that all

9

projects in the long-range plan will be fully staffed and

In relevant

Order filed

The order specifically

10

activated by the 2013 target date defendants have established.”

11

Id.

12

Defendants filed the Plan on November 6, 2009 (ECF No.

13

3724).

14

previously ordered by this court.

15

filed November 6, 2009 (ECF No. 3724) at 9.

16

completion date of September 12, 2012.

17

approved in an order filed January 4, 2010 order (ECF No. 3761).

18

The LAC project was included in the Plan as a project
See Defs. Long-Range Plan,
It had a projected

Id. at Ex. 6.

It was

The CCWF project was added pursuant to provisions of the

19

court’s January 4, 2010 order (ECF No. 3761) requiring defendants

20

to file a detailed plan to meet the long-range bed needs of

21

female EOP (Enhanced Outpatient) inmates.

22

January 4, 2010 (ECF No. 3761) at 4; Defs. Resp. to January 4,

23

2010 Order (ECF No. 3805).

24

the CCWF project included 70 new EOP-GP (general population) beds

25

and construction of a new building to provide treatment and

26

office space for the projected 124 female EOP-GP inmates.

27

Resp. to January 4, 2010 Order (ECF No. 3805) at 1.

See Order filed

As initially presented to the court,

28
3

The

Defs.

1

activation schedule for this project had a completion date of

2

December 31, 2013.

3

Id.

On January 11, 2012, defendants filed notice of their

4

intention to seek modification of the Plan based on reductions in

5

California’s prison population.

6

2012 (ECF No. 4144).

7

a revised activation schedule for the CCWF project.

8

3.

9

project by December 31, 2013.

10

Defs. Update, filed January 11,

The update was accompanied by, inter alia,
Id. at Ex.

The revised schedule still indicated completion of the
Id.

On June 12, 2012, defendants filed a request to revise the

11

Plan due to “significant population reductions occurring under

12

the newly enacted prison realignment legislation.”

13

Re: Revised Long-Range Bed Plan, filed June 12, 2012 (ECF No.

14

4196) at 4.

15

of the LAC project to eliminate the 150 EOP-GP beds and to

16

rescope the treatment and office space facility to treat 100 EOP-

17

ASU (Administrative Segregation Unit) inmates.

18

Defendants requested modification of the CCWF project to

19

eliminate the 70 planned EOP-GP beds and to rescope the treatment

20

and office space project to provide space for the existing 54

21

EOP-GP beds.

22

Defs. Req.

In relevant part, defendants requested modification

Id. at 12.

Id. at 12-13.

By order filed June 15, 2012, defendants’ request was

23

granted in relevant part.

24

4199) at 4, 5.

25

prior “orders concerning construction and conversion in

26

Defendants’ existing bed plan” to allow implementation of

27

defendants’ “revised mental health bed plan.”

Order filed June 15, 2012 (ECF No.

Specifically, the June 15, 2012 order “modified”

28
4

Id. at 3.

1

These modifications included (1) modification of the January

2

4, 2010 order (ECF No. 3761) to revise the CCWF project “to

3

construct treatment and office space and convert existing housing

4

unit beds to 70 EOP-GP beds with a project to construct treatment

5

and office space for the existing 54 EOP-GP beds only”; and (2)

6

modification of an October 18, 2007 order (ECF No. 2461) and the

7

January 4, 2010 order (ECF No. 3761) to revise the LAC project

8

“to construct treatment and office space and convert housing for

9

150 EOP-GP inmates with a project to construct treatment and

10

office space for 100 EOP-ASU inmates only.”

11

Id. at 4.

Since at least mid-2009, defendants have been required to

12

report to the Special Master the status of all court-ordered

13

construction projects, including whether the projects remain on

14

schedule or are delayed.

15

3613) at 2; Order filed September 24, 2009 (ECF No. 3686) at 3-4;

16

Order filed January 4, 2010 (ECF No. 3761) at 5.

17

2010 order modified prior orders to require notice of schedule

18

changes only where completion of a project would be delayed by

19

more than thirty days.

20

3761) at 5.

21

See Orders filed June 18, 2009 (ECF No.

The January 4,

Order filed January 4, 2010 (ECF No.

Nothing in the notice requirements, however, altered the

22

fundamental requirement, set in the court’s September 24, 2009

23

order, that all constructions projects be completed by December

24

31, 2013.3

25

of court to extend the deadline for completion of any project

26
27

Thus, defendants were required to timely seek leave

3

In the June 15, 2012 order, the court approved an extension of
the Dewitt project to permit full occupancy of that project by
May 31, 2014. Order filed June 15, 2012 (ECF No. 4199) at 4.

28
5

1

that would not be completed by the end of 2013; notice to the

2

court and the Special Master of delays was and is insufficient.4

3

The court will extend the deadline for full activation of the LAC

4

project to March 31, 2014, and the deadline for full activation

5

of the CCWF project to June 2015.

6

forthwith file a new activation schedule for the CCWF project.

7

The notice and reporting provisions of this court’s January 4,

8

2010 order (ECF No. 3761) shall apply in full force to this

9

project, including but not limited to monthly reports as to

Defendants will be directed to

10

whether the project has been or can be accelerated.

11

will be ordered to complete the project not later than June 2015,

12

and to take all feasible steps to accelerate that date.

13

addition, defendants will be required to seek leave of court to

14

extend by more than thirty days any interim date set in the new

15

activation schedule for this project.

16

The issues with respect to CHCF are different.

Defendants

In

Construction

17

of that facility is complete.

18

the mental health program at CHCF centers, according to

19

defendants, on their inability despite diligent efforts to fully

20

staff that program.

21

that they should not house seriously mentally ill inmates in

22

hospital units unless those units are sufficiently and adequately

23

staffed.

The delay in full activation of

The court agrees with defendants’ judgment

The court will require defendants to provide monthly

24
25
4

26
27
28

In fact, defendants’ prior request for modification suggests
they understood that leave of court was required for material
modifications to their bed plan, including extensions of time for
projects that would not be completed by the December 31, 2013
deadline.
6

1

updates to this court and to the Special Master until staffing is

2

complete.5

3

At the status conference, defendants estimated that all

4

mental health units at CHCF would be activated in a matter of

5

months.

6

plaintiffs’ response to defendants’ motion, on January 27, 2014,

7

the Plata Receiver closed admissions to CHCF pending resolution

8

of “major deficiencies” at the facility.

9

5052) at 6.

Plaintiffs raise two concerns.

First, as noted in

Pls. Resp. (ECF No.

At the status conference, defendants agreed to file

10

a written report to this court on the status of resolution of

11

those deficiencies.

12

days from the date of this order.

13

conference plaintiffs suggested that a review of whether the

14

current salary schedule for psychiatrists is competitive both

15

within California and nationally is warranted, and defendants

16

have agreed to conduct such a review.

17

directed to include the results of said review in the first

18

monthly status report to be filed pursuant to this order.6

19

That report shall be filed within fifteen
Second, at the status

Defendants will be

As noted above, plaintiffs request a number of court orders

20

in their opposition to defendants’ motion.

21

plaintiffs’ requests center on their contention that (1)

In substantial part,

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5

As part of his duties, the Special Master is monitoring all
inpatient mental health programs for CDCR inmates, including the
programs at CHCF. Nothing in the reporting requirement imposed
by this order alters or in any way affects the duty of the
Special Master to monitor those programs.
6

In view of the report from defendants on conditions at CHCF to
be filed in accordance with this order, the time for the Special
Master to file his report on defendants’ inpatient programs will
be extended to April 30, 2014.
7

1

defendants currently lack sufficient inpatient hospital beds,

2

mental health crisis beds, and EOP beds to meet the need for such

3

services; and (2) the most recent mental health bed need study

4

shows that the projected bed need has increased over the need on

5

which defendants’ current bed plan is based.

6

defendants contend (1) plaintiffs’ requests are not properly

7

before the court because they exceed the scope of defendants’

8

motion; (2) the recent order of the three-judge court extending

9

defendants time to comply with the population reduction order of

In their reply,

10

that court “nullifies” the Fall 2013 population projections

11

because compliance with the new deadline of the three-judge court

12

will involve implementation of measures that affect the Coleman

13

class; (3) defendants currently have sufficient capacity to meet

14

bed needs; and (4) the order requiring defendants to provide bed

15

need studies to the Special Master and plaintiffs’ counsel has

16

expired by its own terms.

17

Defendants are correct that plaintiffs’ opposition and

18

request for orders exceeds the precise issues raised by

19

defendants on their motion.

20

by plaintiffs are significant, and defendants’ responses appear

21

on first review to miss the mark.

22

On the other hand, the issues raised

Defendants are now before the court requesting an extension

23

of time until mid-2015–the twenty-year point in the remedial

24

phase of this action—to complete their planned treatment space.

25

Moreover, it is now apparent both that the remedial phase of this

26

action has extended past the end of 2013, the time originally set

27

by the court for completion of all construction in the currently

28
8

1

approved bed plan, and that the remedial phase will continue at

2

least into 2016.7

3

As this court has made clear, defendants’ remedy for the

4

Eighth Amendment violations in their delivery of mental health

5

care to class members must be durable.

6

2014 (ECF No. 5092) at 5.8

7

termination motion, this court observed that “[s]hortages in

8

treatment space and access to beds at each level of mental health

9

care have plagued the entire remedial phase of this action.”

See Order filed March 3,

In denying defendants’ January 2013

10

Coleman v. Wilson, 938 F.Supp.2d 955, 983 (E.D.Cal. 2013).

11

shortages in necessary beds and treatment space at every level of

12

defendants’ mental health services delivery system (MHSDS) was

13

for years a seemingly intractable problem, manifesting in

14

egregious delays in access to necessary levels of care and

15

inappropriate housing placements for seriously mentally inmates,

16

including but not limited to actively suicidal class members.

17

See id. at, e.g., 969-970 (E.D.Cal. 2013).

18

seventeen years of remedial effort to achieve significant gains

19

in “timely and adequate access to inpatient care.”

20

At least in 2013, defendants still lacked a sufficient number of

21

adequate mental health crisis beds, id. at 982-83, and the

22

parties dispute whether that deficiency has been remedied.

23

durable solution to constitutional violations that have taken

24

7

25
26
27
28

The

It took almost

Id. at 982.

A

February 28, 2016 is the new deadline for defendants to reduce
the prison population to 137.5% design capacity. Three-Judge
Court Order filed February 10, 2014 (ECF No. 5060) at 2.
8

The three-judge court has also stressed the need for a durable
solution to the problem of prison overcrowding in California, a
requirement acknowledged by defendants. See Corrected Reply (ECF
No. 5090-1) at 9.
9

1

more than twenty years to remedy must include both an adequate

2

number of mental health beds in operation prior to final

3

termination of this action, and development and implementation of

4

a process for forecasting and planning for adequate bed and

5

treatment space for the mentally ill inmate population going

6

forward.

7

The court recognizes the complexities inherent in the tasks

8

required by the foregoing.

9

informed the court that they are still contracting with John

At the status conference, defendants

10

Misener and McManis Consulting to project future mental health

11

population and bed needs.

12

this juncture, the court will require defendants to confirm that

13

their revised mental health bed plan (the so-called “Blueprint”),

14

see Defs. Ex Parte Req. filed June 12, 2012 (ECF No. 4196) at 4,

15

provides for a sufficient number of mental health beds required

16

through December 2016 for the mental health population projected

17

in the Spring 2014 population projections, and to develop a new

18

bed plan if it does not.

19

consultation with the Special Master with notice to plaintiffs’

20

counsel at the discretion of the Special Master.

21

June 13, 2014, defendants shall report to the court on whether

22

the Blueprint is sufficient to meet the bed needs of the mental

23

health population projected through December 2016 by the Spring

24

2014 population projections.

25

That is encouraging information.

At

This determination shall be made in

Not later than

Defendants shall also develop a process for forecasting and

26

planning for adequate bed and treatment space for the mentally

27

ill inmate population thereafter.

28

primary responsibility for the development of this process, which
10

Defendants shall assume

1

shall be overseen by the Special Master to provide guidance and

2

expertise where necessary, to ensure its timely completion, and

3

to ensure that plaintiffs are provided notice and an opportunity

4

for input as appropriate.9,10

5

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

6

1. Defendants January 21, 2014 motion regarding their

7

long-range mental health bed plan (ECF No. 4984) is

8

granted in part as follows:

9

a. Defendants are granted an extension of time

10

until March 31, 2014 to fully activate the LAC

11

project;

12

b. The deadline for full activation of the CCWF

13

project is extended.

14

complete that project by June 2015 and to

15

accelerate its completion if feasible.

16

Defendants shall forthwith file a new

17

activation schedule for the CCWF project.

18

notice and reporting provisions of this court’s

19

January 4, 2010 order (ECF No. 3761) shall

20

apply in full force to this project, including

21

but not limited to monthly reports as to

22

whether the project has been or can be

23

accelerated.

Defendants are ordered to

The

No interim completion dates set

24
9

25
26
27
28

The court will not set a specific deadline for completion of
this task in this order, but expects defendants to work
diligently to complete it.
10

The court expects all parties to take all steps necessary to
reduce or eliminate potential disputes as they arise and to work
diligently to avoid further litigation in these areas.
11

1

in the new activation schedule shall be

2

extended without leave of court.

3

c. Defendants are granted an extension of time to

4

fully activate all mental health units at CHCF.

5

Defendants shall provide monthly updates to

6

this court and to the Special Master until this

7

task is accomplished.

8

2014 defendants shall file with the court and

9

serve on the Special Master and plaintiffs a

On or before March 24,

10

written report to this court on the status of

11

resolution of the deficiencies at CHCF

12

identified by the Plata Receiver.

13

defendants shall include in the first monthly

14

status report the results of their review of

15

whether the current salary schedule for prison

16

psychiatrists is competitive both within

17

California and nationally.

18

In addition,

2. The deadline for the Special Master to file his

19

report on inpatient care is extended to April 30,

20

2014.

21

3. On or before June 13, 2014, defendants shall report

22

to the court on whether their revised mental health

23

bed plan (the Blueprint) is sufficient to meet the

24

bed needs of the mental health population projected

25

through December 2016 by the Spring 2014 population

26

projections.

27

4. Defendants shall develop a process for forecasting

28

and planning for adequate bed and treatment space
12

1

for the mentally ill inmate population going

2

forward.

3

responsibility for development of this process,

4

which shall be overseen by the Special Master in

5

accordance with this order.

6

DATED:

Defendants shall assume primary

March 18, 2014.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13