Coleman, et al v. Schwarzenegger, et al

Filing 5605

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 4/13/2017 WAIVING State Law Regarding L-Wing at California Medical Facility. (Donati, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

XAVIER BECERRA
Attorney General of California
WILLIAM C. KWONG
Acting Senior Assistant Attorney General
DANIELLE F. O’BANNON
JAY C. RUSSELL
Supervising Deputy Attorneys General
ELISE OWENS THORN, State Bar No. 145931
CHRISTINE M. CICCOTTI, State Bar No. 238695
CHAD A. STEGEMAN, State Bar No. 225745
Deputy Attorneys General
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000
San Francisco, CA 94102-7004
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants

10
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
SACRAMENTO DIVISION
13
14
15

RALPH COLEMAN, et al.,

2:90-cv-00520 KJM-DB (PC)

16
17

Plaintiffs, STIPULATION AND ORDER WAIVING
STATE LAW REGARDING L-WING AT
CALIFORNIA MEDICAL FACILITY

v.

18
EDMUND G. BROWN JR., et al.,
19
Defendants.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
STIPULATION AND ORDER WAIVING STATE LAW (2:90-cv-00520 KJM-DB (PC))

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Defendants propose to convert 37 cells on the first floor of the L-Wing at the Correctional
Medical Facility (L-1), into 70 temporary unlicensed Intermediate Care Facility level-of-care
beds and two observation and restraint rooms for high-custody inmate-patients on the inpatient
wait list. The addition of these beds will expand capacity for high-custody inpatient care in the
near term and allow Defendants to admit all patients waiting beyond Program Guide timelines.
Funds have been earmarked for needed facility modifications and staffing. However, in order to
move forward with this solution, temporary waivers of state licensing requirements are needed,
which are justified by the current bed shortage and the ongoing risk of serious harm to patients
caused by delayed access to inpatient psychiatric hospitalization.
The “Supreme Court has stated that otherwise valid state laws or court orders cannot stand
in the way of a federal court’s remedial scheme if the action is essential to enforce the scheme.”
Stone v. City and County of San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 862 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting North
Carolina State Bd. of Educ. v. Swann, 402 U.S. 43, 45 (1971)). The Court’s March 24, 2017
order (ECF No. 5583) mandated that Defendants “completely and permanently” comply with
Program Guide timelines and eliminate the wait lists for inpatient care. The Court recognized
that the addition of the proposed beds at L-1 is an integral part of addressing the immediate need
for high-custody Intermediate Care Facility beds. (ECF No. 5583 at 9:17-18; 12:25-13:11.) In
light of this urgency, and in order to activate these beds as quickly as possible, Defendants and
Plaintiffs jointly request that the Court waive the same state licensing requirements at the L-Wing
that the Court waived in 2011.1
Within 60 days of the Court’s approval of the requested waiver, Defendants shall convert
and open the L-1 inpatient beds. Defendants will limit the duration of these waivers to eighteen
months following entry of this Court’s order. The parties will revisit the need for the waivers

24
1

25
26
27
28

This Court has held on at least five prior occasions that state licensing requirements
temporarily give way to the use of unlicensed Mental Health Crisis Beds and Intermediate Care
Facility inpatient beds. (See ECF Nos. 4095 and 1800, Orders filed October 7, 2011, and May 6,
2006, respectively, concerning California Men’s Colony; ECF No. 3748, Order filed December
11, 2009, concerning California State Prison, Sacramento; ECF No. 3516, Order filed February
17, 2009, concerning California Institution for Men; and ECF No. 4120, Order filed November
17, 2011, concerning the same beds at issue here at California Medical Facility.)
2
STIPULATION AND ORDER WAIVING STATE LAW (2:90-cv-00520 KJM-DB (PC))

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

after twelve months following the Court’s order to determine whether any further extension is
required. Defendants agree that inmate-patients housed in L-1 will not routinely be restrained (1)
when moving from L-1 to programming, (2) on the L-1 Unit, including the dayroom, or (3) when
using the N-1 dining room, unless deemed custodially necessary on an individual and
documented basis. Defendants also agree that no inmate who is both custodially approved by
CDCR and clinically cleared by the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) for placement in one of
the DSH facilities will remain or be placed in L-1, absent some extenuating circumstance.
When this Court previously waived state laws to allow Defendants to operate L-1 to address
the shortage of inpatient psychiatric hospital beds in November 2011, the Unit was staffed and
run by DSH and was single-celled, with a capacity of 36. Defendants’ current plan is for L-1 to
be staffed and run by CDCR, and for the unit to be double-celled, with a maximum capacity of 70
patients. Plaintiffs have raised various objections and concerns about both of these changes. To
address their concerns, Defendants agree that CDCR’s operation of L-1 will be subject to
monitoring by the Special Master and that a report will issue regarding its implementation in the
normal rounding reports completed by the Special Master or a specific report, as the Court deems
appropriate. Defendants further agree that any standards and guidelines that emerge from the “lift
and shift” process will also apply to L-1. In addition, Defendants will work to limit doublecelling on L-1 to the extent possible. Defendants also agree to staff and operate L-1 to offer a
minimum 12 hours per day of out-of-cell time, including weekends (including but not limited to
treatment hours, socialization yard, and other time out of cell).
Good cause presented to the Court and appearing, the parties stipulate that the Court should
waive the licensing requirements described below so that CDCR can convert the 37 cells in L-1
into 70 temporary unlicensed Intermediate Care Facility beds and two observation and restraint
rooms.
IT IS STIPULATED AS FOLLOWS:

26
27
28
3
STIPULATION AND ORDER WAIVING STATE LAW (2:90-cv-00520 KJM-DB (PC))

1
2
3

1.

temporary Intermediate Care Facility beds and two observation and restraint rooms in the LWing, L-1, at California Medical Facility:

4

A. California Health and Safety Code section 1250(j); and

5
6
7
8
9
10

The following state licensing requirements shall be waived with respect to the 70

B. California Code of Regulations, Title 22, sections 79501–79861.
2.

Defendants shall apprise the Court promptly should any delays prevent the L-1

conversion from being completed within 60 days of this order.
3.

The duration of waiver is eighteen months from the date of this order, and the parties

shall consider the need for an extension of the waiver after twelve months.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.

11
XAVIER BECERRA
Attorney General of California
DANIELLE F. O'BANNON
Supervising Deputy Attorney General

Dated: April 6, 2017
12
13
14

/S/ CHAD A. STEGEMAN
CHAD A. STEGEMAN
Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Defendants

15
16
17

Dated: April 6, 2017

/S/ MICHAEL W. BIEN
MICHAEL W. BIEN
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

18
19
20
21
22

*

23

ORDER

24

*

*

The court has reviewed the stipulation and proposed order. While approving the three

25

provisions of the parties’ stipulation providing for the requested waiver, the court clarifies that

26

this approval should not be construed to condone or approve any continuation of wait lists for

27

inpatient care that exceed Program Guide timelines.

28
4
STIPULATION AND ORDER WAIVING STATE LAW (2:90-cv-00520 KJM-DB (PC))

1
2
3
4
5
6

The court further clarifies that, with respect to the text of the parties’ filing preceding
their stipulation, on page 2, line 15, the court has not taken a position with respect to any of the
alternatives available to defendants beyond recognizing the existence of those alternatives. That
said, the court recognizes the apparent agreement of the parties that the 70 temporary
Intermediate Care Facility beds and 2 observation and restraint rooms in the L-1 Wing are
integral to addressing the immediate need for high-custody Intermediate Care Facility beds.

7

The court’s approval of the stipulation is on the following conditions:

8

(1) To facilitate the Special Master’s monitoring of the L-1 Wing unit,

9

defendants shall report to the Special Master monthly as to whether there

10

are any inmate-patients in L-1 wing who have been custodially approved by

11

CDCR and clinically cleared by the Department of State Hospitals (DSH)

12

for placement in one of the DSH facilities and, if so, why any such inmate-

13

patient is in the L-1 Wing rather than in a DSH facility consistent with the

14

patient’s Least Restrictive Housing designation or other appropriate DSH

15

facility.

16

(2) In recognition that the court’s October 18, 2007 order, ECF No. 2461,

17

contains important requirements for CDCR operation of inpatient mental

18

health units, see ECF No. 2461 at 5 ¶¶ 6-7, the parties are directed to work

19

with the Special Master to bring the plans for the L-1 Wing unit into

20

compliance, as necessary and as expeditiously as possible, with the

21

requirements of the October 18, 2007 order.

22
23

With these clarifications and conditions, the stipulation and proposed order are
approved.

24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 13, 2017.

27

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28
5
STIPULATION AND ORDER WAIVING STATE LAW (2:90-cv-00520 KJM-DB (PC))