Clark, et al v. State of California, et al

Filing 519

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: REVISIONS TO REMEDIAL PLAN 518 . Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 12/21/2015. (afmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/22/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General of California
JAY C. RUSSELL
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
DANIELLE F. O’BANNON
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
SHARON A. GARSKE
Deputy Attorney General
State Bar No. 215167
1515 Clay Street, 20th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants

PRISON LAW OFFICE
DONALD SPECTER – 83925
SARA NORMAN – 189536
RANA ANABTAWI – 267073
ALISON HARDY - 135966
1917 Fifth Street
Berkeley, California 94710
Telephone: [phone]

9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

12
13
14
15
16
17

DERRICK CLARK, et al.,

C 96-1486 CRB
Plaintiffs, STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER RE: REVISIONS TO
REMEDIAL PLAN

v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

18

Defendants.

19
20
21

The parties propose to enter into the following stipulation to revise the Remedial Plan as
amended on March 1, 2002:

22

RELEVANT BACKGROUND

23

Under the Settlement Agreement entered into by the parties in this case, the parties

24

adopted a Remedial Plan which governs, in general, the identification of inmates with

25

developmental disabilities, and the services Defendants are to provide to inmates in the

26

Developmental Disability Program (DDP).

27
28

Presently, under the Remedial Plan, if an inmate in the DDP is found guilty of a rules
violation, the Chief Disciplinary Officer must review the completed Rules Violation Report in
1
Stipulation and [Proposed] Order re: Revisions to Remedial Plan (C 96-1486 CRB)

1

accordance with California Code of Regulations, Title 15, Section 3312. Then the Chief

2

Disciplinary Officer must consult with the DDP clinician regarding the findings and disposition

3

of the hearing before taking action. Remedial Plan, Amended March 1, 2002 at 50. The clinician

4

must provide input as to the effectiveness of the disposition in correcting the inmate’s behavior.

5

Id. Both the Chief Disciplinary Officer and the clinician must sign the completed Rules Violation

6

Report. Id. By signing this form, the DDP clinician does not endorse the rules violation

7

disposition, but only acknowledges the consultation. Id. The need for the Chief Disciplinary

8

Officer to consult with clinicians concerning the rules violation disposition for inmates in the

9

DDP must be incorporated into applicable lesson plans, post orders, and operational procedures at

10

designated institutions. Id.

11

I.

12

ELIMINATION OF POST- RULES VIOLATION CONSULTATION BETWEEN THE CHIEF
DISCIPLINARY OFFICER AND DDP CLINICIAN AND ADOPTION OF COLEMAN RULESVIOLATION EVALUATION PROCESS.

13

Presently, the Chief Disciplinary Officer and DDP clinician consult after the findings and

14

disposition of a rules-violation hearing have been issued, but before disciplinary action is taken.

15

The parties have determined that the better course of action is to follow the newly instituted rules-

16

violation process developed in Coleman v. Brown (2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC), attached to

17

this stipulation.

18

Under the revised process, inmates in the DDP who are alleged to have committed a rules

19

violation shall receive a mental health assessment, noted on a CDCR Form 115-MH-A, Rules

20

Violation Report: MH Assessment Request. This mental health assessment incorporates clinical

21

input into the disciplinary process when cognitive or adaptive functioning deficits may have

22

contributed to behavior resulting in a rules violation. Mental health assessments shall be

23

considered by the hearing officer or other official during the disciplinary proceedings when

24

determining whether and how to discipline an inmate. The new process also provides

25

mechanisms to mitigate discipline, allows for alternative forms of documenting inmate behavior,

26

and excludes certain behaviors from Rules Violation Reports.

27

The parties agree to amend the Remedial Plan to eliminate the post rules-violation

28

consultation between the Chief Disciplinary Officer and DDP clinician, and to use the attached
2
Stipulation and [Proposed] Order re: Revisions to Remedial Plan (C 96-1486 CRB)

1

rules-violation review process, effective on the date of the Order approving the parties’

2

stipulation.

3

The parties have also agreed to revise the Rules Violation Report policies, procedures, and

4

staff training to reflect the above revision to the Remedial Plan. CDCR will implement the

5

following:

6
7
8
9
10

a. Revised Title 15, Sections 3310(d), 3315(h), 3317, 3317.1, 3317.2 (Attachment 1; in
draft form);
b. Revised Departmental Operating Manual Section 52080.5.8 (Attachment 2; in draft
form); and,
c. Revised Mental Health Assessment Form (115-MH-A) (Attachment 3).

11
12

STIPULATION
Defendants and Plaintiffs stipulate to the above.

13
14

Date: December 16, 2015

/s/Danielle F. O’Bannon
DANIELLE F. O’BANNON
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
Office of the California Attorney General
Attorneys for Defendants

Date: December 16, 2015

/s/Sara Norman
SARA NORMAN
Prison Law Office
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

It is so ordered.
December 21st
Dated: ____________, 2015

__________________________________
United States District Court

CF1997CS0006
90597907.doc

25
26
27
28
3
Stipulation and [Proposed] Order re: Revisions to Remedial Plan (C 96-1486 CRB)

1

As required by Local Rule 5-1, I, Sharon A. Garske, attest that I obtained concurrence in

2

the filing of this document from Sara Norman and that I have maintained records to support this

3

concurrence.

4
5

DATED: December 16, 2015

KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General of California
DANIELLE F. O’BANNON
Supervising Deputy Attorney General

6
7

/s/ Sharon A. Garske
SHARON A. GARSKE
Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Defendants

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order re: Revisions to Remedial Plan (C 96-1486 CRB)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Case Name:

Clark v. State

No.

C 96-1486 CRB

I hereby certify that on December 16, 2015, I electronically filed the following documents with
the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system:
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: REVISIONS TO REMEDIAL PLAN;
ATTACHMENTS 1-3
I certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and that service will be
accomplished by the CM/ECF system.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California the foregoing is true
and correct and that this declaration was executed on December 16, 2015, at San Francisco,
California.

D. Criswell
Declarant
CF1997CS0006
20799459.doc

s/ D. Criswell
Signature