Coleman, et al v. Schwarzenegger, et al

Filing 7368

ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 11/5/2021 DIRECTING the parties to SHOW CAUSE in writing why the court should not enter an order: (1) approving Section I of 7366 Stipulation, entitled Defendants' Plan; (2) modifyin g Section II of 7366 Stipulation, entitled Enforcement, to set a deadline of 1 year from court approval of Defendants' Plan for resolution of any and all issues "related to enforcement or interpretation of the commitments" set out in the stipulation as approved by the court, and, so modified, approving Section II; and (3) declining to approve Section III of 7366 Stipulation. It is hereby ORDERED that within 14 days the parties shall file the responses, which may be in the form of a joint statement if the parties wish to respond in that manner. (Huang, H)

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-DB Document 7368 Filed 11/08/21 Page 1 of 2
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

v.

No. 2:90-cv-0520 KJM DB P

ORDER

GAVIN NEWSOM, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18

The parties have filed a stipulation and proposed order for approval of defendants’ plan

19

regarding use of Therapeutic Treatment Modules (TTMs) to deliver mental health care to class

20

members on Maximum custody (“Max custody) in Psychiatric Inpatient Programs (PIPs). ECF

21

No. 7366. The stipulation represents an agreement of the parties reached during three days of

22

settlement negotiations supervised by Magistrate Judge Kendall Newman. Id. at 1. The Special

23

Master also was present for the settlement discussions. Id.

24

The parties are directed to show cause in writing why the court should not enter an order:

25

(1) approving Section I of the stipulation, entitled Defendants’ Plan;

26

(2) modifying Section II of the stipulation, entitled Enforcement, to set a deadline of one

27

year from court approval of Defendants’ Plan for resolution of any and all issues “related to

28
1

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-DB Document 7368 Filed 11/08/21 Page 2 of 2
1

enforcement or interpretation of the commitments” set out in the stipulation as approved by the

2

court, and, so modified, approving Section II; and

3
4
5
6
7

(3) declining to approve Section III of the stipulation for one or more of the following
reasons:
a. Section III covers an ongoing dispute concerning whether use of TTMs violates
the Eighth Amendment; and
b. Section III contains an agreement that Defendants’ Plan will not be included in

8

either the Mental Health Services Delivery System (MHSDS) Program Guide or the

9

Compendium and thus appears to implicate the question of what updating process the court will

10
11

adopt for the Program Guide in the future, a matter not yet resolved.
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within fourteen days the

12

parties shall file the responses called for by this order, which may be in the form of a joint

13

statement if the parties wish to respond in that manner.

14

DATED: November 5, 2021.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2