Coleman, et al v. Schwarzenegger, et al

Filing 6886

ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 9/25/2020 DIRECTING the Defendants to file a report on staffing capacity within 7 days from the date of this order. Following the filing of the 6th Joint Updates, further updates shall be fi led every 4 weeks. The 10/23/2020 Evidentiary Hearing is CONFIRMED. Paragraph 3 of 6807 Order is MODIFIED to require the parties to file, on or before 10/9/2020, a joint statement identifying witnesses and documentary evidence to be offered at hearing. (Donati, J)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RALPH COLEMAN, et al., 12 Plaintiffs, 13 14 15 No. 2:90-cv-0520 KJM DB P v. GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., ORDER Defendants. 16 17 18 The court held a videoconference hearing on September 24, 2020 to hear from the 19 parties regarding defendants’ ongoing non-compliance with the court’s October 10, 2017 order 20 governing mental health care staffing, ECF No. 5711; to also hear defendants’ August 31, 2020 21 motion to modify court orders, ECF No. 6843; and for purposes of conducting the third quarterly 22 status conference for 2020. This order addresses one item preliminary to further orders 23 addressing the question of compliance with the October 10, 2017 order, resolves the parties’ 24 request to amend the schedule for filing joint updates on the work of the COVID-19 task force, 25 and confirms the October 23, 2020 evidentiary hearing as previously set. Defendants’ motion to 26 modify will be addressed in a separate order. 27 28 At hearing, counsel for defendants represented that defendants could use the number of mental health positions actually filled, including telepsychiatrists, contractors, 1 1 psychiatric nurse practitioners (PNPs) and all providers who work under the supervision of a 2 psychiatrist, to determine the size of the mental health population that can be served under the 3 ratios required by the 2009 Staffing Plan. 4 The 2009 Staffing Plan does not include a staffing ratio for PNPs and defendants 5 have not yet formalized a policy in consultation with the Special Master outlining the role of 6 PNPs in the provision of mental health care or their impact on the staffing ratios in the 2009 7 Staffing Plan. Recognizing this, and also that there is basic agreement among the parties that 8 PNPs have a role to play, albeit one requiring careful clarification, in the provision of mental 9 health care to class members, defendants will be directed to file a report within seven days, 10 prepared under the Special Master’s supervision, that describes with specificity and including 11 charts as necessary the number of class members at each level of the Mental Health Care Delivery 12 System (MHSDS) that can be served by the current filled mental health staffing positions using 13 the positions and the ratios set out in the 2009 Staffing Plan, including telepsychiatrists as 14 authorized under the provisionally approved telepsychiatry policy, as well as regular contractors, 15 and allowing for a ten percent vacancy rate. Nothing in this order precludes defendants from also 16 providing a second set of calculations that includes specific information about the number of class 17 members at each level of the MHSDS that can be served if currently employed PNPs are included 18 as providers. Should defendants choose to provide this second set of calculations they shall 19 clearly identify the differences between the first set of calculations and the second set of 20 calculations and describe with specificity the policy proposals for use of PNPs that underlie the 21 second calculation. While the court remains open to an agreement of the parties approved by the 22 Special Master concerning the use of PNPs, nothing in this order shall be construed as prior court 23 approval of any such agreement or of the use of PNPs in achieving compliance with the October 24 10, 2017 order absent such approval. 25 Additionally, at the status conference, the parties requested an adjustment to the 26 time for filing joint updates on the work of the COVID-19 Task Force. The court approved a one 27 week extension for filing the Sixth Joint Update. ECF No. 6883. The Sixth Joint Update is now 28 2 1 due Friday, October 2, 2020. Thereafter, the updates shall be filed every four weeks until further 2 order of the court. 3 With respect to the evidentiary hearing set for October 23, 2020, plaintiffs take the 4 position the hearing should go forward; defendants disagree. After consideration of the 5 arguments of counsel, and good cause appearing, the October 23, 2020 hearing date is confirmed. 6 Paragraph 3 of the court’s August 3, 2020 order, ECF No. 6807, will be modified to require the 7 parties to file a joint statement identifying witnesses and documentary evidence to be offered at 8 hearing, with the joint statement filed on or before October 9, 2020. 9 10 11 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Defendants shall file the report on staffing capacity described above within seven days from the date of this order; 12 2. Following the filing of the Sixth Joint Updates on the Work of the COVID-19 13 Task Force on October 2, 2020, further Joint Updates shall be filed every four 14 weeks; 15 3. The evidentiary hearing set for October 23, 2020 is confirmed; and 16 4. Paragraph 3 of the court’s August 3, 2020 order, ECF No. 6807, is modified to 17 require the parties to file, on or before October 9, 2020, a joint statement 18 identifying witnesses and documentary evidence to be offered at hearing. 19 DATED: September 25, 2020. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?