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
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?