Coleman, et al v. Schwarzenegger, et al

Filing 5212

ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 8/29/2014 ORDERING the plans and policies filed by defendant on 8/29/2014 are APPROVED. The 10/10/2002 1440 Order is DISCHARGED. The court's 4/10/2014 5131 Order is MODIFIED as follows: The cert ification requirement in paragraph 2e is replaced by the CDCR's CCCMS-Long Term Restricted Housing Unit Plan approved by this court. Defendants shall forthwith, under the guidance of the Special Master, implement the plans and policies approved by this order consistent with the representations in the report that accompanies the plans and policies. Implementation of the plans and policies shall be monitored by the Special Master in accordance with his monitoring and reporting duties in this action.(Donati, J)

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 April 10, 2014 (ECF No. 5131), defendants

18

were ordered to work under the guidance of the Special Master to,

19

inter alia, “develop a protocol for administrative segregation

20

decisions, including, as appropriate, a plan for alternative

21

housing, that will preclude placement of any Coleman class member

22

in existing administrative segregation units when clinical

23

information demonstrates substantial risk of exacerbation of

24

mental illness, decompensation, or suicide from such placement.”

25

Order filed April 10, 2014 (ECF No. 5131) at 73.

26

order, defendants were prohibiting from housing any class member

27

at any segregated housing unit (SHU) in California’s prison

28

system “unless that class member’s treating clinician certifies
1

By the same

1

that (1) the behavior leading the SHU assignment was not the

2

product of mental illness and the inmate’s mental illness did not

3

preclude the inmate from conforming his or her conduct to the

4

relevant institutional requirements; (2) the inmate’s mental

5

illness can be safely and adequately managed in the SHU to which

6

the inmate will be assigned for the entire length of the SHU

7

term; and (3) the inmate does not face a substantial risk of

8

exacerbation of his mental illness or decompensation as a result

9

of confinement in a SHU.”

Id. at 74.

In addition, defendants

10

were prohibited from returning any class member “to any SHU unit

11

if said inmate has at any time following placement in a SHU

12

required a higher level of mental health care.”

13

filed May 13, 2014, the time for developing the protocol for

14

administrative segregation decisions was extended to August 1,

15

2014.

16

deadline for compliance with all of the foregoing provisions of

17

the April 10, 2014 order was subsequently extended to August 15,

18

2014 and then to August 29, 2014.

19

(ECF No. 5195) and August 26, 2014 (ECF No. 5207).

20

Id.

By order

See Order filed May 13, 2014 (ECF No. 5150) at 2.

The

Orders filed August 11, 2014

On August 29, 2014, defendants filed plans and policies

21

responsive to the requirements of the April 10, 2014 order

22

described in the preceding paragraph.

23

have filed a plan for creation of “specialty housing units for

24

housing mentally ill inmates who are removed from the general

25

population for disciplinary reasons” that will “provide inmates

26

with additional out-of-cell activities and increased mental

27

health treatment.

28

Defendants are also undertaking a “case-by-case review” of class

In particular, defendants

Ex. A to Defs. Resp. (ECF No. 5211-1) at 2.

2

1

members with “lengthy segregation terms in an attempt to decrease

2

overall lengths of stay for inmates in segregated environments

3

when it is determined that they can be safely returned to a

4

general population setting.”

5

established a policy requiring clinical case conferences at

6

discharge for all inmates admitted from a SHU to a Department of

7

State Hospitals (DSH) or California Department of Corrections and

8

Rehabilitation (CDCR) inpatient mental health program.

9

Ex. A to Defs. Resp. (ECF No. 5211-4) at 2.

Id.

Finally, defendants have

Ex. 3 to

Among other relevant

10

provisions, the policy prohibits discharge of any inmate-patient

11

from inpatient mental health care to a SHU.

12

Id.

In order to implement the plans tendered to the court,

13

defendants request discharge of this court’s October 10, 2002

14

order prohibiting defendants from housing class members in

15

Standalone Administrative Segregation Units without court

16

approval.

17

intend to use the Standalone units to create the new Correctional

18

Clinical Case Management Short Term Restricted Housing (CCCMS-

19

STRH) program created to comply with the April 10, 2014 order.

20

Good cause appearing, this request will be granted.

21

Defendants seek discharge of this order because they

Defendants also request modification of the certification

22

requirement of paragraph 2e of the April 10, 2014 order to

23

substitute their new CCCMS-Long Term Restricted Housing (CCCMS-

24

LTRH) plan in place of the certification requirement.

25

appearing, this request will also be granted.

26

Good cause

The court has reviewed defendants’ report and the

27

accompanying plans and policies, which now complete compliance

28

with all of the requirements of the court’s April 10, 2014
3

1

order.1

2

Special Master and his team for the substantial effort that

3

resulted in the materials tendered to the court.

4

agrees with defendants that the policies and procedures satisfy

5

the requirements of the April 10, 2014 order.

6

plans and policies will be approved.

7

to implement the plans and policies forthwith consistent with the

8

representations in their report.

9

monitored by the Special Master in accordance with his monitoring

10

Once again, the court commends the parties and the

The court

Accordingly, the

Defendants will be directed

Said implementation shall be

and reporting duties in this action.

11

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

12

1.

13

2014 are approved.

14
15

The plans and policies filed by defendant on August 29,

2.

This court’s October 10, 2002 order (ECF No. 1440) is

discharged.

16

3.

The court’s April 10, 2014 order (ECF No. 5131) is

17

modified as follows:

18

2e of the April 10, 2014 order is replaced by the CDCR’s CCCMS-

19

Long Term Restricted Housing Unit plan approved by this order.

20

4.

The certification requirement of paragraph

Defendants shall forthwith, under the guidance of the

21

Special Master, implement the plans and policies approved by this

22

order consistent with the representations in the report that

23

accompanies the plans and policies.

24
25
26
1

27

The other requirements of the April 10, 2014 order were satisfied by plans
and policies filed by defendants on August 1, 2014 (ECF No. 5190) and approved
by the court by order filed August 11, 2014 (ECF No. 5196).

28
4

1

5.

Implementation of the plans and policies approved by

2

this order shall be monitored by the Special Master in accordance

3

with his monitoring and reporting duties in this action.

4

DATED:

August 29, 2014.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5