Plata et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 2857

ORDER modifying rebuttable presumption upon delegation by Receiver (Paragraph 4(b) of 2841 ORDER modifying Receivership transition plan). Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 05/27/15. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/27/2015)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 MARCIANO PLATA, et al., Plaintiffs, 5 6 7 8 v. EDMUND G. BROWN JR., et al., Case No. 01-cv-01351-TEH ORDER MODIFYING REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION UPON DELEGATION BY RECEIVER Defendants. 9 As part of the plan for transitioning away from the Receivership, this Court ordered 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 that, “[a]fter the OIG releases each medical inspection report, the Receiver shall determine 12 whether that institution is suitable for return to CDCR control,” and, if he finds that it is, 13 “will execute a revocable delegation of authority to the Secretary of CDCR to take over 14 management of that institution’s medical care program.” Mar. 10, 2015 Order Modifying 15 Receivership Transition Plan at 5. The Court further ordered that “[a] revocable 16 delegation will create a rebuttable presumption that care at the institution has reached a 17 level of constitutional adequacy.” Id. at 6. 18 The Court now modifies the rebuttable presumption to clarify that systemic 19 problems will not prevent delegation as long as those problems are being adequately 20 addressed. For example, the Healthcare Facilities Improvement Program (“HCFIP”) has 21 not been completed at any institution, and these facilities upgrades are necessary to provide 22 adequate care sustainably. However, the ongoing nature of HCFIP, or other improvement 23 initiatives such as the implementation of an electronic health record system, should not 24 prevent delegation of an institution by the Receiver. Accordingly, Paragraph 4(b) of the 25 March 10, 2015 order is hereby modified to read: “A revocable delegation will create a 26 rebuttable presumption that care at the institution has reached a level of constitutional 27 adequacy, subject to the completion of ongoing statewide or institution-specific initiatives 28 to correct systemic deficiencies.” 1 The Court finds that, in conjunction with the March 10, 2015 order, this order is 2 narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of Plaintiffs’ 3 constitutional rights concerning inmate medical care, and is the least intrusive means 4 necessary to correct the violation of those rights. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 9 Dated: 05/27/15 _____________________________________ THELTON E. HENDERSON United States District Judge 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?