Armstrong, et al v. Davis, et al
Filing
2345
ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING 2236 MOTION FOR A FURTHER ENFORCEMENT ORDER AND DENYING 2236 MOTION TO HOLD DEFENDANTS IN CONTEMPT OF COURT. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/4/2013)
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
5
JOHN ARMSTRONG, et al., on behalf
of themselves and as
representatives of the class,
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiffs,
v.
EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., Governor of
the State of California;
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION;
MICHAEL MINOR, Director of the
Division of Juvenile Justice; DR.
JEFFREY A. BEARD, Secretary of
the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation;
JENNIFER SHAFFER, the Executive
Officer of the Board of Parole
Hearings; DIANA TOCHE, Acting
Director of the Division of
Correctional Health Care
Services; CHRIS MEYER, Director
of the Division of Facility
Planning, Construction and
Management; KATHLEEN DICKINSON,
Director of Adult Institutions;
and DAN STONE, Director of
Division of Adult Parole
Operations,
No. C 94-2307 CW
ORDER GRANTING
MOTION FOR A
FURTHER
ENFORCEMENT ORDER
AND DENYING
MOTION TO HOLD
DEFENDANTS IN
CONTEMPT OF COURT
(Docket No. 2236)
Defendants.
________________________________/
Plaintiffs move to enforce, and hold Defendants in contempt
for violating, the Court’s prior orders, on the basis that
Defendants have consistently failed to provide sign language
interpreters (SLIs) during education and vocational programs at
the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (SATF) and for failing to
provide SLIs during psychiatric technicians’ rounds for patients
housed in administrative segregation housing units.
Defendants
1
oppose Plaintiffs’ motion.
2
Court GRANTS the motion to enforce its prior orders and DENIES the
3
motion to hold Defendants in contempt.
4
BACKGROUND
5
For the reasons set forth below, the
In a series of orders between 1996 and 2002, the Court found
6
that Defendants’ treatment of prisoners with disabilities violated
7
the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) and section 504 of the
8
Rehabilitation Act.
9
On January 3, 2001, Defendants issued the amended Armstrong
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Remedial Plan (ARP) setting forth their own policies and plans to
11
come into compliance with their obligations under these federal
12
laws.
13
See Kendrick Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. 1 (ARP).
Among other things, the ARP addressed effective communication
14
for deaf inmates.
15
importance of communication involving due process or health care,
16
the standard for equally effective communication is higher when
17
these interests are involved.”
18
§ II.E.2.
19
shall not be the sole source used by staff as a means of effective
20
communication involving due process or medical consultations,
21
unless the inmate has no other means of communication.”
22
§ II.E.2.f.
23
interpreters . . . will be provided for all due process functions
24
and medical consultations that fall within the scope of those
25
described below when sign language is the inmate’s primary or only
26
means of effective communication, unless the inmate waives the
27
assistance of an interpreter, reasonable attempts to obtain one
28
are not successful, and/or delay would pose a safety or security
It recognized, “Because of the critical
Kendrick Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. 1, 4,
The ARP mandates that an “inmate’s ability to lip read
Id. at 6,
The ARP also provides, “Qualified sign language
2
1
risk.”
2
language interpreter is not available, or is waived by the inmate,
3
and communication is attempted,” staff are required to “employ the
4
most effective form of communication available, using written
5
notes; staff interpreters who are able to interpret effectively,
6
accurately and impartially, both receptively and expressively,
7
using any necessary specialized vocabulary; or any other
8
appropriate means.”
9
included, for example, those pertaining to “[e]xplanation of
Id. at 5, § II.E.2.d.
In the event that “a qualified sign
Id. at 5-6.
Covered medical consultations
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
procedures, tests, treatment, treatment options, or surgery,” and
11
“mental health evaluations, group and individual therapy,
12
counseling and other therapeutic activities.”
13
of medical consultations is “neither exhaustive nor mandatory, and
14
shall not imply that there are no other circumstances when it may
15
be appropriate to provide interpreters for effective communication
16
nor that an interpreter must always be provided in these
17
circumstances.”
18
prisoners, providing, “Accommodations shall be made to afford
19
equal access to the court, to legal representation, and to health
20
care services, for inmates/parolees with disabilities; e.g.,
21
vision, speech, hearing, and learning disabled.”
22
§ II.G.1
Id.
Id. at 6.
The list
The ARP also requires equal access for deaf
Id. at 7,
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
The ARP designates as DPH “Inmates/parolees who are
permanently deaf or who have a permanent hearing impairment so
severe that they must rely on written communication, lip reading,
or signing because their residual hearing, with aids, does not
enable them either to communicate effectively or hear an emergency
warning.” Kendrick Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. 1, 3, § II.C.2. The Court uses
the term DPH and deaf interchangeably herein.
3
1
The federal ADA regulations define “qualified interpreter” as
“an interpreter who . . . is able to interpret effectively,
3
accurately, and impartially, both receptively and expressively,
4
using any necessary specialized vocabulary.”
5
The ARP defines “qualified sign language interpreter” to include
6
“a person adept at American Sign Language.”
7
Ex. 1, 6, § II.E.3.
8
interpreter, an individual must pass a test and qualify in one of
9
the five categories established by the National Association for
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
2
the Deaf (NAD), one of the three categories established by the
11
Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID), or as a Support
12
Services Assistant Interpreter from the California Department of
13
Rehabilitation.”
14
required “to establish a contract or service agreement with a
15
local signing interpreter service organization in order to provide
16
interpretive services for hearing impaired inmates during due
17
process functions and medical consultations.”
18
28 C.F.R. § 35.104.
Kendrick Decl. ¶ 2,
Under the ARP, to “qualify as an ASL
Id. at 6-7.2
Under the ARP, each institution is
Id.
The ARP further states, “It is the policy of CDC to ensure
19
that all inmates, regardless of any type of disability,
20
participate in educational/vocational, and work programs.”
21
29, § IV.I.14.a.
22
modifications/accommodations shall be provided to ensure access
23
when appropriate for qualified inmates with disabilities to
24
participate in all programs, services, or activities including
25
vocational assignments,” and “Reasonable
Id. at
Thus, it provided, “Reasonable
26
27
28
2
Plaintiffs state that NAD and RID merged their tests into a
single examination called the NIC after the issuance of the ARP.
Pls.’ Reply at 5 n.6.
4
1
modifications/accommodations shall be provided to ensure access to
2
academic programs.”
3
§ II.F (“The Department shall provide reasonable accommodations or
4
modifications for known physical or mental disabilities of
5
qualified inmates/parolees.”).
6
accommodations include special equipment (such as readers, sound
7
amplification devices, or Braille materials), inmate or staff
8
assistance, [and] bilingual or qualified sign language
9
interpreters.”
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Id. at 30, § IV.I.16-17; see also id. at 7,
“Examples of reasonable
Id. at 7, § II.F.
On January 18, 2007, the Court found that Defendants had not
11
met their obligations to comply with federal law and the Court’s
12
orders and continued to violate the rights of prisoners with
13
disabilities in four significant areas.
14
relevant here, the Court found,
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Docket No. 1045, 2.
As
Contrary to law and the Armstrong Remedial Plan,
defendants consistently and systemically deny sign
language interpreters to deaf prisoners. Within
designated prisons, the violations occur most frequently
at deaf [prisoners’] medical and mental health
appointments. Plaintiffs have also presented pervasive
evidence of violations with regard to suicidal
prisoners; in education, work, and other programming;
and during classification hearings, harming deaf signers
by forcing them to rely on ineffective and inadequate
forms of communication such as lip reading and written
notes. As such, deaf signers are unable to understand
or comprehend significant due process proceedings and
medical care provided to them.
Id. at 3.
The Court ordered Defendants to “establish as permanent
civil service positions qualified sign language interpreters for
each prison designated to house prisoners whose hearing
disabilities impact their placement (DPH)” and to “employ, through
whatever salary is necessary, sufficient qualified interpreters to
serve the needs of the DPH prisoners housed at each institution.”
5
1
Id. at 8.
2
policies and procedures contained in the ARP related to these
3
issues, specifically including those regarding effective
4
communication for deaf prisoners contained in Section II.E.
5
at 9.
6
The Court also required Defendants to comply with the
Id.
On October 20, 2009, the Court found that “Plaintiffs have
7
demonstrated that Defendants have violated the rights of prisoners
8
with disabilities under the ADA and Section 504 by . . . denying
9
sign language interpreters to prisoners who need them in
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
educational and substance abuse programs.”
11
The Court found specifically that “Defendants continue to deny
12
deaf inmates access to adequate sign language interpretation in
13
educational programs” and that “sign language interpretation may
14
not be adequate in Defendants’ substance abuse programs.”
15
No. 1700, 5.
16
when an inmate complained that “her inmate interpreter cannot keep
17
up with the course instructor,” in response, “Defendants provided
18
her with written notes and lip reading,” which the Court already
19
found to be inadequate in the 2007 order.
20
Docket No. 1661, 2.
Docket
The Court noted, for example, that in one instance,
Id.
To remedy these violations, the Court ordered Defendants to
21
“develop a Plan that includes funding, staffing, training,
22
resources and an implementation schedule.”
23
The Court directed Defendants to file the plan within sixty days
24
and ordered that the plan “must provide for rapid implementation
25
and funding,” with “no implementation date in the Plan . . . later
26
than August 14, 2010.”
27
Defendants include a “plan to provide sufficient certified sign
28
language interpreters at, or remove deaf inmates from, prisons
Id. at 2-3.
6
Docket No. 1661, 2.
The Court required that
1
that do not have interpreters in education and substance abuse
2
programs,” or “alternatively, a plan for providing sign language
3
interpretation through the Receiver’s videoconferencing capacity
4
including explanation of how any problems or delays in
5
implementing such plan will be resolved.”
6
also ordered that “CDCR staff shall comply with the policies and
7
procedures contained in their Armstrong Remedial Plan relevant to
8
the issues outlined above,” specifically including all of the
9
provisions quoted above, such as Sections II.E, II.F, IV.I.14,
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
IV.I.16 and IV.I.17.
Id. at 4.3
The Court
Id. at 4-5.
On December 21, 2009, Defendants filed their plan to comply
with the October 20, 2009 order.
Docket No. 1686.
On January 11, 2010, Plaintiffs filed their objections to
this plan.
Docket No. 1690.
15
On February 3, 2010, the Court noted that it “has not ordered
16
Defendants to implement their plan” to comply with the October 20,
17
2009 order “or any other,” and that “Plaintiffs indicate that they
18
intend to move for implementation of Defendants’ plan, with
19
modifications.”
20
would entertain Plaintiffs’ motion.
21
No such motion was filed.
Docket No. 1700, 6. The Court stated that it
Id.
In subsequent joint case status
22
statements, the parties represented that Defendants modified their
23
plan after Plaintiffs filed their objections, provided Plaintiffs
24
25
3
26
27
28
In the 2009 order, the Court did not intend the word
“certified” to carry a different meaning than the word “qualified”
that was used in the ARP and the 2007 order. Accordingly, as
discussed at the hearing without opposition from the parties, the
Court substitutes the word “qualified” for “certified” in the 2009
order.
7
1
with their updated plan on May 3, 2010 and began providing
2
in-person sign language interpretation in educational and
3
substance abuse programs in August 2010.
4
9-10; Docket No. 1720, 9-12; Docket No. 1729, 8; Docket No. 1799,
5
8.
6
Defendants’ compliance with the modified plan.
See Docket No. 1706,
The parties also indicated that Plaintiffs were monitoring
7
LEGAL STANDARD
8
A district court has the authority to make an enforcement
9
order to secure compliance with its earlier orders and governing
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
law.
11
694, 4-5; Sept. 20, 1996 Remedial Order, Docket 158, 5.
12
See, e.g., March 21, 2006 Permanent Injunction, Docket No.
A district court also has the inherent authority to enforce
13
compliance with its orders through a civil contempt proceeding.
14
International Union, UMWA v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 827–28 (1994).
15
A contempt sanction is considered civil if it “is remedial, and
16
for the benefit of the complainant.”
17
considered civil and remedial if it either “coerce[s] the
18
defendant into compliance with the court’s order, [or] . . .
19
compensate[s] the complainant for losses sustained.”
20
States v. United Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 303–304 (1947).
Id.
A contempt fine is
United
21
“The standard for finding a party in civil contempt is well
22
settled: The moving party has the burden of showing by clear and
23
convincing evidence that the [non-moving party] violated a
24
specific and definite order of the court.”
25
Media, LLC, 179 F.3d 1228, 1239 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Stone v.
26
City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 856 n.9 (9th Cir.
27
1992)).
28
faith exception to the requirement of obedience to a court order.”
FTC v. Affordable
The contempt “need not be willful, and there is no good
8
1
In re Dual-Deck Video Cassette Recorder Antitrust Litig., 10 F.3d
2
693, 695 (9th Cir. 1993).
3
contempt if his action appears to be based on a good faith and
4
reasonable interpretation of the court’s order.”
5
formatting and quotation marks omitted).
6
compliance’ with the court order is a defense to civil contempt,
7
and is not vitiated by ‘a few technical violations’ where every
8
reasonable effort has been made to comply.”
9
Distrib., Inc. v. Falcon Foam Plastics, Inc., 689 F.2d 885, 891
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
“But a person should not be held in
Id. (internal
“‘Substantial
Id. (citing Vertex
(9th Cir. 1982)).
Thus, the Court may grant a motion for an order of contempt
12
if it finds that Defendants (1) violated a court order, (2) beyond
13
substantial compliance, (3) not based on a good faith and
14
reasonable interpretation of the order, (4) by clear and
15
convincing evidence.
16
burden, the burden “shifts to the contemnors to demonstrate why
17
they were unable to comply” with the court order.
18
at 856 n.9 (citing Donovan v. Mazzola, 716 F.2d 1226, 1240 (9th
19
Cir. 1983)).
20
comply.”
21
(9th Cir. 1976)).
22
Id.
Once the moving party has met its
Stone, 968 F.2d
“They must show they took every reasonable step to
Id. (citing Sekaquaptewa v. MacDonald, 544 F.2d 396, 406
Civil sanctions are appropriate, at the court’s discretion,
23
to encourage Defendants to comply with its order.
24
v. United Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 303-04 (1947).
25
whether to impose a civil contempt sanction, the Court should
26
consider: the harm from non-compliance; the probable effectiveness
27
of the sanction; the contemnor’s financial resources; and the
28
burden the sanctions may impose.
Id. at 303-304.
9
United States
In deciding
1
DISCUSSION
2
As noted, Plaintiffs move for an enforcement order and to
3
hold Defendants in contempt for setting a policy that SLIs would
4
not be provided during psychiatric technicians’ rounds for
5
patients housed in administrative segregation housing units, and
6
for consistently failing to provide qualified SLIs during
7
educations programs at SATF, a facility that houses a large number
8
of deaf inmates.
9
I.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Mental health encounters in segregated housing units
Plaintiffs contend that Defendants are violating the ARP by
11
failing to provide an SLI for hearing-impaired inmates during the
12
rounds that psychiatric technicians conduct for prisoners housed
13
in the segregation units.
14
both parties, the ARP provides that, when sign language is the
15
inmate’s primary or only means of effective communication,
16
qualified sign language interpreters must be provided for medical
17
consultations that fall within the scope of a list of examples,
18
including mental health evaluations and other therapeutic
19
activities.
20
As quoted above, and acknowledged by
On January 3, 2013, Defendants promulgated a new policy
21
detailing sign-language interpretation requirements for medical
22
and mental health encounters.
23
Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. A; see also Defs.’ Opp. at 6.
24
in relevant part,
25
26
27
28
Kendrick Decl., Ex. 31; Eargle
This policy provides
Licensed Psychiatric Technician (PT) rounds are required
for all inmates housed in an Administrative Segregation
Unit (ASU) and Security Housing Units (SHU). These
rounds are conducted in ASU’s daily seven days a week
and weekly for Mental Health Services Delivery System
(MHSDS) inmates or biweekly for non-MHSDS inmates in
SHU’s. The interaction between an inmate and the PT on
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
these rounds does not typically require gathering or the
exchange of medical information or making a mental
health evaluation or assessment. Instead, the PT
observes the inmate and notes what he/she sees. If the
inmate indicates a problem by using “hand gestures” (see
below) or other means of communication, or if a psych
tech has a concern as a result of his/her observation,
the PT should contact the physician or other clinician
on duty for a clinical evaluation/assessment with the
assistance of the SLI on duty (or a contractor if need
be). In such a situation staff shall maintain one-onone observation of the inmate until appropriate clinical
intervention is obtained. Although the Coleman MHSDS
Program Guide notes that the PT is to attend to the
mental health needs of the inmates in ASU, that does not
mean that every encounter between a PT and an inmate is
an evaluation covered by the Armstrong Remedial Plan
(ARP) or that observations of the inmate on rounds are
equivalent to evaluation.
CDCR realizes that mental health clinician encounters
require effective communication. Initial placement in
ASU can occur on any day of the week, at any time of the
day. At the pre-placement screen an SLI will be
provided. At that time the PT and the I/P (with the
assistance of the SLI) will establish additional hand
signals to indicate levels of stress (low, medium, and
high) for the inmate to use during PT rounds at which an
SLI is not present or available. . . .
Eargle Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. A.
Dr. Amy Eargle, the Chief Psychologist of the Headquarters
Clinical Support Unit for CDCR’s Mental Health Program, states
that no SLI assistance is needed during the psychiatric
technicians’ rounds, because they “observe inmates’ appearance and
behavior and note their observations,” and “the exchange of
important medical information takes place” instead during the
“first interaction with the Primary care Provider . . ., which
happens at the initial placement meeting for ASI or SHU Housing
where an SLI is present.
Eargle Decl. ¶ 6.
Dr. Timothy Belavich,
the Acting Director of the Division of Health Care Services of
CDCR, states that the “daily or weekly rounds are brief,
unstructured, interpersonal interactions, typically occurring at
11
1
cell front,” which “are conducted to ensure an inmate-patient’s
2
general well-being and/or determine the potential need for
3
services.”
4
“during rounds does not require the [licensed psychiatric
5
technician (LPT)] to gather or exchange medical information.”
6
“Rather, during rounds, the LPT observes the inmate-patient and
7
notes what he or she sees.”
8
9
Belavich Decl. ¶ 8.
He states that the interaction
Id.
Id.
As acknowledged in the January 2013 policy, CDCR’s MHSDS
Program Guide states that these rounds are to be conducted daily
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
in administrative segregation units and weekly or bi-weekly in
11
security housing units “to attend to the mental health needs” of
12
inmates.
13
It provides that the interactions in these clinical rounds “shall
14
be sufficient to ascertain the inmate’s mental condition
15
particularly during the first ten days” that they are in
16
administrative segregation.
17
the psychiatric technician is expected to identify “inmates who
18
have not been previously identified as having mental health
19
treatment needs but exhibit possible signs and symptoms of a
20
serious mental disorder” and refer to them for a clinical
21
evaluation, and to document any “unusual findings that may require
22
closer observation.”
23
apparently expect to talk to the inmates; the Program Guide
Pls.’ Request for Judicial Notice (RJN), Ex. 1, 12-8-7.4
Id. at 12-7-5.
Id. at 12-8-7.
During the rounds,
The psychiatric technicians
24
25
26
4
27
28
Plaintiffs request, and Defendants do not oppose, that the
Court take judicial notice of excerpts of Defendants’ MHSDS
Program Guide, which was filed in Coleman v. Brown, Case No.
90-520.
12
1
states, “If an inmate refuses to talk to the LPTs, the LPT will
2
discuss the inmate’s functioning with custody staff.”
3
Id.
Defendants argue that the psychiatric technician rounds are
4
not clinical assessments or evaluations and thus that there is no
5
Court order that they have violated by failing to provide a sign
6
language interpreter at these interactions.
7
descriptions of these interactions provided by Defendants’
8
witnesses and their own materials show that these are interactions
9
in which the inmates’ mental health status is evaluated or
However, the
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
assessed in some manner.
11
Court has ordered Defendants to comply, they are required to
12
provide a qualified sign language interpreter at these encounters.
13
Defendants argue that they have complied with the Court’s
Thus, under the ARP, with which this
14
orders, the ARP and the ADA because it is sufficient to meet the
15
needs of these prisoners to provide qualified sign language
16
interpreters during other mental health encounters or to use the
17
predetermined hand signals to communicate.
18
according to their policy, if the psychiatric technician has any
19
concerns about the inmate based on his or her observations during
20
rounds, he or she is required to contact a clinician to conduct an
21
assessment, which would be conducted with the assistance of an
22
SLI.
23
encounters for some or all of the deaf inmates in administrative
24
segregation and they occur much more frequently than other such
25
encounters.
26
harm deaf prisoners by forcing them to rely on inadequate and
27
ineffective forms of communication, such as reading lips and
28
written notes.
They state that,
However, these rounds may be the only mental health
The Court also has previously found that Defendants
Docket No. 1045, 3.
13
The limited hand signals that
1
Defendants use here--in essence, thumbs up or thumbs down--are not
2
adequate “to ascertain the inmate’s mental condition” as the
3
technicians are supposed to do here.
4
inmate cannot communicate effectively during rounds, the
5
technician does not have a comparable opportunity to evaluate a
6
deaf inmate for concerns that would lead him or her to contact a
7
clinician for a full assessment, as for an inmate without a
8
disability.
9
demonstrate that they felt that they could not communicate their
If the technician and a deaf
The declarations submitted by class members further
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
feelings adequately with the technicians.
11
Reply Dec., Ex. 4.5
See, e.g., Kendrick
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
5
Defendants object to portions of Plaintiffs’ reply and
supplemental evidence on the basis that it is untimely and should
have been submitted with their moving papers. Defendants move to
file evidence regarding additional SLI positions created at SATF,
which took place after they filed their opposition brief. In the
interest of considering a full evidentiary record, the Court
GRANTS Defendants’ motion to submit additional evidence, OVERRULES
Defendants’ objections to Plaintiffs’ reply and supplemental
evidence and DENIES Defendants’ motion to strike. Both sides had
an opportunity to address the additional evidence at the hearing
on this motion. Further, the evidence submitted by Plaintiffs
with their reply properly responds to issues raised by Defendants
in their opposition.
Defendants also object that the inmate declarations submitted
with Plaintiffs’ reply brief are inadmissible because they were
written with the assistance of sign language interpreters, who did
not submit declarations addressing their qualifications and the
accuracy of their translations. Even if authentication by the
interpreters who assisted the inmates with the preparation of
these declarations were required, Plaintiffs have since provided
such declarations, see Docket Nos. 2284-6, and Defendants have not
argued that they suffered any prejudice as a result of the
interpreter declarations being filed subsequently. To the extent
that Defendants argue that the inmate declarations are hearsay,
this is unavailing. The inmates themselves signed the
declarations and attested to the truthfulness of their contents
under penalty of perjury, regardless of who prepared the documents
themselves.
28
14
1
Plaintiffs have offered clear and convincing evidence that
2
Defendants have adopted a policy not to provide these interpreters
3
and have not substantially complied with the Court’s orders.
4
ensure compliance with the Court’s past orders, the Court issues
5
an enforcement order requiring Defendants, for all deaf prisoners
6
whose primary means of communication is sign language, to provide
7
a qualified sign language interpreter during all regularly-
8
scheduled mental health rounds and all other encounters within the
9
definition of the ARP.
To
Because there appears to have been a good
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
faith misunderstanding about whether these mental health
11
encounters fell within the terms of the ARP and the Court’s prior
12
orders, which have now been clarified in this order, the Court
13
declines to impose sanctions at this time.
14
Defendants do not argue that they were unable to comply with
15
the Court’s orders or that it would be impossible to do so in the
16
future.
17
sanctions--“$1,000 for each failure to provide an interpreter for
18
mental health professionals’ rounds when deaf prisoners are housed
19
in segregated housing units,” Pls.’ Proposed Order, Docket No.
20
2240, 5--are not warranted because Plaintiffs have not shown that
21
any inmates have been harmed or that the policy to use
22
pre-arranged hand signals does not work to evaluate the mental
23
health of a deaf inmate.
24
Instead, they argue that Plaintiffs’ requested monetary
Although monetary sanctions will not be imposed at this time,
25
the Court notes that Plaintiffs have shown that Defendants’ lack
26
of compliance on this issue has created a substantial and
27
unnecessary risk to class members.
28
substantial evidence that inmates who are in administrative
15
Plaintiffs have offered
1
segregation are at a substantially increased risk of having mental
2
health needs, self-harm and suicide.
3
suicides in CDCR were in segregated housing.
4
Master found that “the likelihood of a CDCR inmate committing
5
suicide in segregated housing units in CDCR prisons is 33.09 times
6
greater than it is in non-segregated housing units, based on total
7
suicides in 2011.”
8
also RJN, Ex. 2 (Coleman Special Master’s report showing that
9
thirty-four percent of the inmates who committed suicide in 2010
Thirty-four percent of all
The Coleman Special
Stewart Reply Decl. ¶ 25, Ex. C, 16-17;6 see
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
were housed in ASU at the time of their deaths).
11
object that these statistics are irrelevant because they are not
12
specific to deaf prisoners in segregated housing units.
13
these statistics include those prisoners; they show an increased
14
risk to all inmates in segregated housing units, not only to those
15
who are not deaf.7
16
deaf prisoners who have been in administrative segregation, who
17
felt depressed and who wanted or attempted to hurt themselves.
18
Kendrick Reply Decl., Exs. 4, 5.
Defendants
However,
Plaintiffs also have offered declarations from
They said that they wanted to
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
Defendants object to Dr. Stewart’s declaration as improper
expert witness testimony because “he is not qualified as an expert
on effective communication with hearing-impaired individuals.”
Docket No. 2279, 1. However, he has shown that he is an expert on
mental health treatment and suicide prevention in prisons,
including in segregated housing units. See, e.g., Stewart Reply
Decl. ¶¶ 1-14. Thus, he is qualified to testify on the standards
of mental health practices in such settings, which is the subject
on which he opines.
7
Plaintiffs request that the Court take judicial notice of
the Special Master’s first report, which was filed in the Coleman
case. Defendants object on the basis that the subject matter of
the report is not limited to hearing-impaired prisoners. Because
the Court has overruled Defendants’ only basis for objection, the
Court grants Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice of the
report.
16
1
tell the mental health staff about their feelings but could not
2
communicate with them.
3
that deaf prisoners were not harmed because none have actually
4
succeeded at committing suicide since this policy was implemented,
5
the Court need not wait until a death to require compliance with
6
its orders.
7
Defendants had consistently and systematically denied sign
8
language interpreters to deaf prisoners, including to suicidal
9
prisoners, causing them significant harm.
Id.
To the extent that Defendants argue
The Court already found in the 2007 order that
Docket No. 1045, 2-3.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for an
11
enforcement order and directs Defendants to provide qualified sign
12
language interpreters during psychiatric technician rounds, and
13
DENIES the motion for contempt.
14
II.
15
Education and vocational programs at SATF
As of March 22, 2013, there were forty-one deaf inmates at
16
SATF who require SLIs.
17
currently enrolled in vocational or educational classes.
18
¶ 6.
19
full-time SLI, who provided interpretation services primarily for
20
due process encounters.
21
educational classes, SATF utilized three companies under contracts
22
with CDCR.
23
Ramirez Decl. ¶ 5.
Of these, twelve are
Id. at
At the time that this motion was briefed, SATF employed one
For SLI services for vocational or
Id. at 7.
Plaintiffs contend that Defendants have consistently failed
24
to provide SLIs at many educational and vocational classes
25
attended by deaf prisoners at SATF.
26
contention, they offer evidence of the SLI logs that were prepared
27
by the SLI scheduler at SATF.
In support of this
See Kendrick Decl. ¶¶ 5-13, 15,
28
17
1
Exs. 2-10, 12; Kendrick Reply Decl. ¶¶ 4-5, Ex. 1;8 see also
2
Sweeny Decl. ¶¶ 6-7, 11-17 & Exs. B, C.
3
that these logs “reflect every session of a course where a DPH
4
inmate is enrolled” and “whether or not a certified SLI was
5
present for a class.”
6
at 11.
7
present at more than a quarter of the classes in which a deaf
8
inmate was enrolled between August 14, 2010 and February 15,
9
2013.9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Defendants acknowledge
Sweeny Decl. ¶¶ 6-9, 11-17; see also Opp.
There is no dispute that the logs show that an SLI was not
Further, there is no dispute that, between November 1,
2012 and February 15, 2013, the time period covered by the most
11
12
13
8
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendants object to the statement in the Kendrick
declarations that SLIs were “needed” but not provided in various
class sessions but do not appear to object to the admissibility of
the logs, which are attached as exhibits to these declarations and
which Defendants have independently offered as evidence and
authenticated. The Court overrules their objection. The Court
understands the statements in the Kendrick declaration to mean
that these were class sessions in which a DPH inmate was enrolled
and no SLI was provided. To the extent that the parties dispute
whether the SLIs were “needed” or not in these instances, the
Court addresses the substance of their dispute later in this
order.
9
Defendants submit the declaration of Aniah Sweeny, who
prepared the SLI scheduling logs. Ms. Sweeny attests that, in
addition to tracking education and vocational classes, the logs
also track the “medical and due process encounters at SATF where
an SLI was scheduled to attend.” Sweeny Decl. ¶ 9. She states
that, of the 5,805 total encounters tracked on the logs between
August 14, 2010 and February 15, 2013, “SLIs were not present for
553 of the encounters (or 9.5%).” Id. She also states that 4,055
of these encounters “were medical, mental health, dental or due
process (disciplinary) appointments,” and of these 4,055
encounters, “an SLI was not present for 57 of the encounters
(1.4%).” Id. at ¶ 10. Subtracting the latter numbers from the
total numbers reveals that, of the remaining approximately 1,750
encounters, which were the educational and vocational classes, an
SLI was not present in about 496 instances, or about 28% of the
time. Cf. Pls.’ Reply, 4 & n.5 (calculating “a 28% error rate”
for this time period).
18
1
recent log produced by Defendants,10 the entries show that there
2
was no SLI present for at least twenty-five percent of the classes
3
that included deaf inmates.11
4
Plaintiffs also submit evidence that deaf prisoners at SATF
5
have filed grievances about the lack of SLIs in their educational
6
and vocational classes.
7
15.
8
that he had not had an interpreter for over a month in his class
9
and that this was disruptive to him.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
See Kendrick Decl. ¶¶ 17-18, Exs. 14 &
In one of these, dated June 20, 2012, a deaf prisoner wrote
Id. at ¶ 17, Ex. 14.
In
response, the warden admitted that
11
the State has a contract with three companies that
provide Sign Language Interpreters (SLI). The SLI are
freelance and the institution has no control over when
they choose to work. It is noted there are not enough
SLIs for one to be assigned to all classes within the
Education and Vocational classes. Moreover, the
institution does not have back up interpreters.
12
13
14
15
Id.
16
when they “are scheduled to lecture, . . . the SLIs are not
17
available.”
18
in his electronics vocational course.
The warden stated that, although teachers inform the SLIs
Id.
In another grievance, an inmate requested an SLI
Id. at ¶ 18, Ex. 15.
In
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs did not provide with their
moving papers any logs covering a period more recent than October
2012. However, Defendants did not turn over the more recent logs
from November 2012 through February 2013 until March 7, 2013, a
week after Plaintiffs filed their motion on February 28, 2013.
See Kendrick Reply Decl. ¶ 4; Docket No. 2236. In addition,
Defendants submitted the updated logs with their opposition brief
and Plaintiffs also offered them with their reply brief, to which
Defendants did not object.
11
Defendants’ evidence indicates that the “log entries . . .
show a certified SLI was present for 74.4% of the classes during
this time period.” Sweeny Decl. ¶ 7. Plaintiffs calculate from
the logs that there were ninety-one classes without an SLI, out of
a total of 334 classes during this time period, resulting in
twenty-seven percent of classes being without an SLI. Kendrick
Reply Decl. ¶ 5.
19
1
response, on September 25, 2012, the associate warden wrote,
2
“Continuous efforts have been made to provide SLI services;
3
however there are not enough SLI interpreters to facilitate the
4
need.”
5
diligent efforts to provide SLI services on a rotational basis
6
depending upon availability of the SLI’s.”
7
Id.
He added that the institution would “continue
Id.
Defendants further argue that the logs do not show those
8
instances where they use the services of an inmate sign language
9
aide (SLA) instead of a qualified SLI to interpret for a deaf
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
prisoner in a class.
11
Defendants did not show how often these SLAs were in classes or
12
that these individuals were qualified as required by the Court’s
13
order.
14
continuing to deny deaf inmates access to adequate sign language
15
interpretation in education and vocational programs and that the
16
unqualified inmate interpreters were not sufficient for this
17
purpose.
18
(recognizing that “using unqualified interpreters may hinder
19
communication”).
20
SLAs are qualified under the ARP or the ADA.12
21
that, because of the failure to provide adequate interpretation,
22
it has already ordered Defendants to establish permanent civil
Id. at 11-12.
Plaintiffs respond that
The Court has previously found that Defendants were
Docket No. 1700, 4-5; see also Docket No. 523, 11
Defendants have not offered evidence that the
The Court notes
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
Defendants have provided evidence that the “inmate job
description” for SLAs includes as a requirement that the inmate be
“Able to communicate using American Sign Language” as “determined
by Mr. Shaewitz, the certified sign language interpreter on
permanent staff at SATF.” Ramirez Decl. ¶¶ 9-10 & Ex. F, 3. No
evidence is provided to show, among other things, that the SLAs
are adept at American Sign Language, are able to interpret
effectively, accurately, and impartially, or have passed any of
the required tests or qualifications.
20
1
service positions for qualified sign language interpreters at each
2
prison designated to house prisoners with hearing disabilities.
3
Defendants also contend that their logs are insufficient to
4
show that they failed to comply with any requirement that they
5
provide qualified interpreters in that the logs do not track
6
instances where the class did not require an interpreter “because
7
the lesson plan did not require verbal communication for that
8
session,” where the deaf student refused the SLI’s services, where
9
a class was cancelled or where the deaf student was absent from
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
the class in which he was enrolled.
11
the logs do identify at least some instances in which the deaf
12
prisoner was absent, the class was cancelled or the deaf prisoner
13
refused the services of an SLI.
14
(indicating “Inmate Refused”); Aniah Decl., Ex. C, 24 (indicating
15
“CLASS CANCELLED”); Aniah Decl., Ex. C, 37 (indicating “INMATE NOT
16
IN CLASS”).
17
classes listed on their logs had lesson plans that did not require
18
verbal communication.
19
information is or is not logged and Defendants, but not
20
Plaintiffs, could have chosen to document these reasons.
21
Defendants failed to log consistently the information that might
22
show that an SLI was not required for a particular class meeting,
23
and in light of the written acknowledgments from the wardens about
24
the reasons that SLIs were not always provided as needed, the
25
Court declines to infer that Defendants’ claimed vitiating
26
circumstances existed regularly.
27
arguments do not undermine Plaintiffs’ prima facie showing that
28
Defendants did not provide SLIs in many education and vocational
Defs.’ Opp. at 11.
However,
See, e.g., Aniah Decl., Ex. B, 48
Defendants have not offered evidence of how many
Defendants, not Plaintiffs, control what
Because
Thus, the Court finds that these
21
1
2
classes in which deaf inmates were enrolled.
Defendants also represent that they have made an effort to
3
schedule a qualified SLI at each class in which a deaf student was
4
enrolled since the middle of 2010 by utilizing contractors, but
5
that the contractors they use are sometimes unable to provide SLIs
6
and that the facility “cannot obtain SLI coverage through other
7
contractors because [it is] required to use the three state-
8
approved contractors.”
9
¶ 6 (noting that the state was required to “accept the lowest-
Sweeny Decl. ¶ 3; see also Ramirez Decl.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
priced proposal” when contracting for these services).
11
this excuse is unavailing.
12
Defendants to establish permanent civil service positions, at
13
whatever salary necessary, in order to provide adequate services
14
for these purposes.
15
SLIs on staff to provide the needed interpretation services.
16
Although there may be instances in which an SLI is unavailable,
17
for example, if a staff member is unexpectedly ill and no
18
substitute can be located, failing to provide an interpreter in
19
education and vocational classes twenty-five percent of the time,
20
without addressing the problem, for years before Plaintiffs filed
21
a motion for contempt, simply does not constitute making a
22
reasonable effort to comply with the Court’s prior orders.
23
However,
The Court previously required
Defendants are required to have sufficient
Defendants could have sought approval for additional civil
24
service positions or increased contractor services but failed to
25
do so, until after Plaintiffs brought this motion.
26
time, Defendants obtained approval to increase the funding for
27
contract SLIs by the equivalent of one full-time position,
28
bringing its total contract SLIs from 2.5 to 3.5 full-time
22
Since that
1
equivalents.
2
went into effect on April 8, 2013.
3
April 30, 2013, the SLIs did not attend eleven of the one hundred
4
scheduled classes; the logs indicate that the reasons for these
5
absences were that a contract “SLI called in sick” or there was
6
“no SLI available per contractor.”
7
A.14
8
that they have also obtained authorization to increase from one to
9
three the number of full-time qualified SLIs at SATF that they
Sweeny Decl. ¶ 5.
The increased contractor services
Between April 8, 201313 and
Sweeny Suppl. Decl. ¶ 2, Ex.
After this motion was briefed, Defendants submitted evidence
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
employ directly in civil service positions.
11
that this increase will make them less reliant on contract SLI
12
services.
13
Defendants also represented that they planned to begin
14
consistently logging additional information, including if a class
15
was cancelled or if a deaf inmate was absent from a class meeting.
16
Defendants contend
Knowles Suppl. Decl. ¶ 8 & Exs. A-C.
At the hearing,
Because of Defendants’ extended failure to provide SLIs in
17
many education and vocational classes in violation of the Court’s
18
prior orders, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce those
19
orders.
20
presently making substantial efforts to reach compliance with the
21
Court’s orders and the ADA requirements by voluntarily increasing
22
both the contract and civil services positions for qualified SLIs
23
at SATF, the Court finds that no civil contempt sanctions are
Because Defendants have demonstrated that they are
24
25
26
13
It appears that there were no classes scheduled between
April 3 and 8. Sweeny Suppl. Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A.
14
27
28
The
Defendants
in sick or
provide an
Court notes that the logs do not show whether
made efforts to find a substitute SLI when one called
whether none of the three contractors was able to
SLI.
23
1
needed at the present time to coerce their compliance.
2
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion for contempt for their failure to
3
provide qualified SLIs at educational and vocational classes at
4
the facility is DENIED.
5
renewal if Defendants fail to provide proper services in the
6
future.
This denial is without prejudice to
7
8
9
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’
motion to enforce and DENIES the motion to hold Defendants in
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
contempt (Docket No. 2236).
11
2297 and 2304.
This order also resolves Docket Nos.
12
The Court hereby orders:
13
1)
For all deaf prisoners whose primary means of
14
communication is sign language, Defendants shall provide a
15
qualified sign language interpreter during all regularly-scheduled
16
mental health rounds, as well as all other encounters within the
17
definition of the Armstrong Remedial Plan.
18
2)
Defendants shall implement their plan regarding sign
19
language interpretation in educational and substance abuse
20
programs, provided to Plaintiffs on May 3, 2010.
21
the Court’s prior orders, Defendants shall establish permanent
22
civil service positions for qualified sign language interpreters
23
for SATF, for as long as it is designated to house DPH prisoners.
24
Defendants shall employ, through whatever salary is necessary,
25
sufficient qualified interpreters to serve the needs of the DPH
26
prisoners housed at SATF, including at all educational and
27
vocational classes in which a DPH inmate is enrolled, barring
28
unforeseen circumstances.
As required in
Defendants may seek relief from this
24
1
provision at SATF if their video conferencing facilities become
2
sufficient to provide all necessary sign language services at that
3
institution.
4
3)
Defendants shall continue to maintain logs on all
5
educational and vocational programs at SATF to document whether
6
deaf prisoners who rely upon sign language as their primary means
7
of communication were provided a qualified sign language
8
interpreter during the program and who the interpreter was.
9
qualified sign language interpreter was not provided, Defendants
If a
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
shall document the reason therefor.
11
previous month’s logs to counsel for Plaintiffs by the fifteenth
12
of each month.
13
Defendants must produce the
The Court finds that the relief ordered herein is narrowly
14
drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation
15
of federal rights, and is the least intrusive means necessary to
16
correct the violation of the federal rights.
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19
20
Dated: 6/4/2013
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
25
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?