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)

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