Plata et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 2417

ORDER to meet and confer re: post-Receivership planning. Joint report due by 04/30/12. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 01/17/12. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/17/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 7 MARCIANO PLATA, et al., 8 Plaintiffs, EDMUND G. BROWN JR., et al., 11 For the Northern District of California v. 10 United States District Court 9 NO. C01-1351 TEH ORDER TO MEET AND CONFER RE: POSTRECEIVERSHIP PLANNING Defendants. 12 13 As reflected in the Receiver’s most recent tri-annual report, significant progress has 14 been made on the Turnaround Plan of Action approved by the Court on June 16, 2008. 15 While some critical work remains outstanding – most notably on construction issues – it is 16 clear that many of the goals of the Receivership have been accomplished. In addition, we are 17 approaching the end of the second cycle of medical inspections by the Office of the Inspector 18 General (“OIG”), and, with one exception to date, scores on these inspections reflect 19 improved conditions.1 For the 25 out of 33 prisons that have completed the second 20 inspection cycle, the average increase in scores from the first cycle was approximately 7.5%. 21 The average score from the second cycle to date is 78.9%, with a high of 89.5% and a low of 22 73.0%. Although the parties have yet to agree on the significance of these scores and 23 whether any particular score indicates constitutional compliance, the instrument developed 24 by the OIG – in conjunction with the Receiver and the parties – was designed to measure 25 compliance with the policies and procedures that formed the basis of the original stipulation 26 27 1 The score at Central California Women’s Facility decreased slightly, from 77.9% in 28 cycle one to 77.5% in cycle two. 1 for injunctive relief in this case.2 Consequently, the OIG scores unquestionably provide 2 some guidance as to whether the care being provided at an individual institution is 3 constitutionally adequate. 4 The Order Appointing Receiver provides that the Receivership “shall cease as soon as 5 the Court is satisfied, and so finds in consultation with the Receiver, that Defendants have the 6 will, capacity, and leadership to maintain a system of providing constitutionally adequate 7 medical health care services to class members.” Feb. 14, 2006 Order at 7. Given the 8 Receivership’s progress to date, the end of the Receivership appears to be in sight, and the 9 Court seeks to get the parties’ and the Receiver’s views on when the Receivership should be 11 encourages the parties to attempt to reach agreement on the post-Receivership phase of this For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 terminated and how this case should progress after the Receivership has ended. The Court 12 case, which the Court currently contemplates will consist of a period of oversight to ensure 13 that Defendants can, in the absence of a receivership, sustain the progress that has been and 14 will be achieved. 15 With good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties and the 16 Receiver shall meet and confer on post-Receivership planning as soon as possible. They 17 shall file a joint report on their meet-and-confer efforts on or before April 30, 2012. Their 18 discussion shall include the following: 19 • How substantial compliance should be measured, including how the OIG scores 20 should be used and whether the court experts should be involved; 21 • Criteria for determining when it is appropriate to move from the Receivership to a less 22 intrusive system of oversight, including factors the Court should consider when 23 evaluating Defendants’ will, capacity, and leadership to maintain a system of 24 providing constitutionally adequate medical health care services to class members; 25 26 2 The parties agreed that an audit score of 85% was one of several factors necessary to demonstrate substantial compliance, but they allowed a score of 75% to qualify at the 27 discretion of the court experts. June 13, 2002 Stip. & Order at 10. However, the relevant paragraph was discontinued by the Court following the Receiver’s appointment and prior to 28 the development of the OIG inspection instrument. Sept. 6, 2007 Order at 10. 2 1 • Whether the parties agree that the current Receiver can act as a monitor or special 2 master once the Receivership ends and, if not, how the parties propose selecting a 3 monitor or special master; 4 • Criteria for ending court oversight and concluding this case, including initial length of 5 the post-Receivership monitoring period and whether the OIG inspection program or 6 other independent process for inspections must be institutionalized before the Court 7 ends its supervision; 8 • The parties’ views on what the Receiver should include in the Plan for Post- 9 Receivership Governance he must submit to the Court, see Feb. 14, 2006 Order at 8 (“Prior to the cessation of the Receivership, the Receiver shall develop a Plan for 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 Post-Receivership Governance of the system, which shall include consideration of its 12 structure, funding, and governmental responsibility for its long-term operation. The 13 Receiver shall present this plan to the Court for approval and adoption as an order.”); 14 • How, if at all, the Court should consider the status of Defendants’ progress in 15 satisfying the orders of the related three-judge court when determining when to end 16 the Receivership and this case; and 17 • Any other issues the parties or the Receiver deem relevant. 18 The parties and the Receiver must invoke the services of Mr. Starr Babcock, the Court19 appointed Special Assistant, if they believe they have reached an impasse on any of the 20 above. They are also free to call on the Special Assistant at any time in the meet-and-confer 21 process when they believe his assistance would be helpful. 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 Dated: 01/17/12 26 THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 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?