Coleman, et al v. Schwarzenegger, et al

Filing 5188

ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 7/25/2014. Defendants'Objections to recommendations contained in Special Master's 5/30/2014 Report on Adequacy of Inpatient Mental Health Care are OVERRULED. The recommendations contained in the Special Master's 5/30/2014 Report on Adequacy of Inpatient Mental Health Care are ADOPTED in full. Plaintiffs' 6/20/2014 Request for Additional Orders is DENIED without prejudice. (Marciel, 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

Pursuant to the court’s July 11, 2013 order (ECF No. 4688),

18

on May 30, 2014, the Special Master filed a Report on the

19

Adequacy of Inpatient Mental Health Care for Inmates of the

20

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Report)

21

(ECF No. 5156).

22

the Report and a request for additional court orders (ECF No.

23

5177).

24

responses to the Report (ECF No. 5176).

25

corrected objections and responses on July 1, 2014 (ECF No.

26

5179).

On June 30, 2014, plaintiffs filed a response to

On June 30, 2014, defendants filed objections and
Defendants filed

27

As required by the July 11, 2013 order, the Special Master’s

28

Report is based on one round of monitoring of the adequacy of the
1

1

six inpatient mental health programs that provide inpatient

2

mental health care to members of the plaintiff class.

3

monitoring was conducted from August 2013 through March 2014.

4

Report (ECF No. 5156) at 3.

5

monitoring, the Special Master makes three recommendations, as

6

follows:

7

inpatient programs, two by paper review and four by on-site

8

monitoring; second, that the California Department of Corrections

9

and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and Department of State Hospitals

The

Based on the results of his

first, that he be directed to review further all six

10

(DSH), under the guidance of the Special Master and his staff, be

11

directed to review and re-evaluate the use of orientation, cuff

12

status, Discretionary Program Status (DPS), at all six programs

13

(including their various processes) “and whether those policies,

14

as designed and implemented, achieve the proper balance between

15

legitimate security needs and access to necessary inpatient

16

mental health care” and to report to the court thereafter; and

17

third, that CDCR and DSH, with the guidance of the Special Master

18

and his staff, be directed to review and re-evaluate existing

19

clinical staffing levels.

20

Special Master also recommends that he be required to report to

21

the court on the results of the foregoing and any conclusions he

22

may draw therefrom.

23

Report (ECF No. 5156) at 56-57.

The

Defendants object that (1) court orders are unnecessary

24

because they are continuing to work with the Special Master on

25

the issues raised in the recommendations; and (2) adoption of the

26

recommendations would contravene the requirements of 18 U.S.C. §

27

3626(a)(1)(A), which codifies the requirements for prospective

28
2

1

injunctive relief in civil actions concerning prison conditions.

2

Both of these objections are overruled.1

3

Plaintiffs request seven additional orders which they

4

contend are necessary to remedy deficiencies in the delivery of

5

inpatient mental health care identified in the Report.

6

discussed above, the Report is based on one round of monitoring

7

by the Special Master and his team and they will be conducting

8

additional monitoring.

9

all parties to seek relief from the court as appropriate, at this

As

While the court recognizes the right of

10

stage of these remedial proceedings the court expects that over

11

the course of the ongoing monitoring of their inpatient mental

12

health programs defendants will, consistent with the

13

representation in their corrections objections, continue to work

14

with the Special Master to address identified deficiencies, and

15

that the Special Master will identify those matters which require

16

court-ordered remediation.

17

orders will be denied without prejudice.

18

Plaintiffs’ request for additional

For all of the foregoing reasons, the Special Master’s

19

recommendations are adopted in full.

20

pertain to the institutions’ treatment and care of the members of

21

the Coleman class only.

22

The orders issued thereon

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

23
24
25
1

26
27
28

The court recognizes that the second objection serves to preserve
defendants’ position on appeal from the court’s July 11, 2013 order. The
issues presented by that objection have been addressed by this court in the
July 11, 2013 order (ECF No. 4688) and the court’s September 5, 2013 order
denying defendants’ motion for a stay of that order pending appeal (ECF No.
4784).

3

1

1.

Defendants’ objections to the recommendations contained

2

in the Special Master’s May 30, 2014 Report on Adequacy of

3

Inpatient Mental Health Care are overruled;

4

2.

The recommendations contained in the Special Master’s

5

May 30, 2014 Report on Adequacy of Inpatient Mental Health Care

6

are adopted in full;

7

3.

The Special Master shall review further all six

8

inpatient programs, by means of paper review of the California

9

Institution for Women Psychiatric Inpatient Program and Coalinga

10

State Hospital, and by on-site monitoring of Atascadero State

11

Hospital, California Health Care Facility, Salinas Valley

12

Psychiatric Program, and Vacaville Psychiatric Program.

13

Following the conclusion of his further review, he shall report

14

his findings and conclusions to the court.

15

4.

The CDCR and DSH defendants shall, under the guidance of

16

the Special Master and his staff, review and re-evaluate the use

17

of orientation, cuff status, Discretionary Program Status, and

18

the steps/stages processes and any variations thereon at the six

19

inpatient programs, and whether those policies, as designed and

20

implemented, achieve the proper balance between legitimate

21

security needs and access to necessary inpatient mental health

22

care.

23

results of this review and re-evaluation following its

24

conclusion.

25

The Special Master shall report to the court on the

5.

The CDCR and DSH defendants shall, under the guidance of

26

the Special Master and his staff, review and re-evaluate existing

27

clinical staffing levels in the six inpatient programs and their

28

effect on the delivery of treatment to CDCR patients in those
4

1

programs, and to the extent indicated, develop a plan to adjust

2

clinical staffing levels where necessary to ensure that adequate

3

and sufficient treatment can be delivered to class members at

4

those programs.

5

the results of this review and re-evaluations following its

6

conclusion.

7
8
9

6.

The Special Master shall report to the court on

Plaintiffs’ June 30, 2014 request for additional orders

is denied without prejudice.
DATED:

July 25, 2014.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5