Trueblood, et al v. Washington State Department of Health and Human Services et al
Filing
1012
ORDER for Briefing on Proposed Judgment. The Court ORDERS the following briefing schedule: (1) Defendants shall file a brief of no more than 12 pages due within 14 days of this Order; (2) Plaintiffs shall file a response brief of no more than 12 pages due 14 days after Defendants file their brief; and (3) Defendants shall file a reply brief of no more than 6 pages due 7 days after the response is filed. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (SB)
Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 1012 Filed 07/18/23 Page 1 of 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
8
9
10
A.B., by and through her next friend
CASSIE CORDELL TRUEBLOOD, et
al.,
11
Plaintiffs,
12
CASE NO. C14-1178 MJP
ORDER FOR BRIEFING ON
PROPOSED JUDGMENT
v.
13
WASHINGTON STATE
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND
HEALTH SERVICES, et al.,
14
15
Defendants.
16
17
The Court issues this Order sua sponte after reviewing the Declaration of Dr. Thomas J.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Kinlen – July 2023 Data & Contempt Report. (Dkt. No. 1011.) In his declaration, Dr. Kinlen
states:
In June 2022, RCW 10.77.068 was modified to permit Good Cause Extensions (GCE) of
in-jail evaluations under the circumstances allowed by the Court’s permanent injunction.
The Department made modifications to the Forensic Data System (FDS) to account for
these changes, however, recently learned that the FDS build was not acting as intended
with regard to the calculation of in-jail contempt fines. In response, Research and Data
Analysis (RDA) recently implemented an update to FDS that correctly calculates
contempt fines when a GCE are granted. As a result of this update, the calculation of
ORDER FOR BRIEFING ON PROPOSED JUDGMENT - 1
Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 1012 Filed 07/18/23 Page 2 of 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
previously reported monthly in-jail fines were impacted, dating back to December 2022.
See, Attachments I-O for detailed updated monthly calculations. Specifically, the
Department has calculated that $2,820,750 in payments previously calculated between
December 2022 and May 2023 should have been decreased because GCE were granted in
the applicable cases. In applying this amount as a credit and taking into account the
$93,000 proposed total due in June (See, ¶ 13, supra), the Department proposes that
$2,727,750 remain credited for use for future in-jail evaluation contempt fines.
(Kinlen Decl. ¶ 23.) The statute to which Dr. Kinlen refers states, in part:
The department shall provide written notice to the court when it will not be able to meet
the maximum time limits under subsection (2) of this section and identify the reasons for
the delay and provide a reasonable estimate of the time necessary to complete the
competency service. Good cause for an extension for the additional time estimated by the
department shall be presumed absent a written response from the court or a party received
by the department within seven days.
RCW 10.77.068(5).
The Court has significant concerns about whether Dr. Kinlen is correct that RCW
10.77.068 provides for good cause extensions that are “allowed by the Court’s permanent
injunction” and whether the proposed fines are correctly calculated. (Kinlen Decl. ¶ 23.) The
Court’s permanent injunction states:
Defendants must provide in-jail competency evaluations within fourteen days of the
signing of a court order calling for an evaluation. Where an in-jail evaluation cannot be
completed within fourteen days of a court order, Defendants must secure an extension
from the ordering court for individualized good cause, or must immediately admit the
individual to a state hospital to finish conducting the evaluation. Individualized good cause
encapsulates both clinical good cause—meaning good cause based on the unique medical
or psychiatric needs of the particular individual, including the continued presence of
intoxicants but not including DSHS’s lack of resources or the system’s inability to
administratively accommodate the needs of the individual within fourteen days—and
good cause based on class members’ non-clinical interests, i.e., where having their
defense counsel, an interpreter, or an expert of their choosing present at the evaluation is
not possible to arrange within the fourteen-day timeframe.
As stated above, in order to invoke the individualized good cause exception,
Defendants must seek an extension from the ordering court. Defendants are ORDERED
to track each request for an individualized good cause extension made by DSHS
evaluators, and whether the request was granted or denied. This information shall be
included in Defendants’ monthly reports to the Court Monitor.
24
ORDER FOR BRIEFING ON PROPOSED JUDGMENT - 2
Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 1012 Filed 07/18/23 Page 3 of 3
1
(Permanent Injunction at 32-33 (Dkt. No. 303) (emphasis added).) The Permanent Injunction
2
requires an individualized determination by the ordering court, which also requires a specific
3
finding of clinical good cause. The amended law to which Dr. Kinlen refers appears to allow for
4
a good cause exception to be presumed if DSHS provides a written notice that it will not meet
5
the Court-imposed timelines for competency services and a “reasonable estimate of the time
6
necessary to complete the competency service.” RCW 10.77.068(5). The state law does not
7
appear to abide by the Court’s Permanent Injunction.
8
In order to address the Court’s concerns, the Court ORDERS the Parties to brief whether:
9
(1) there is any authority supporting the proposition that a state statute can amend or gut a federal
10
court’s permanent injunction that enforces a federal constitutional right; (2) the good cause
11
exception in RCW 10.77.068 comports with the Permanent Injunction; (3) if RCW 10.77.068 is
12
not consistent with the Permanent Injunction, what remedy, if any, the Court should order; and
13
(4) the proposed fines proposed in Dr. Kinlen’s Declaration (Dkt. No. 1011) should be entered or
14
whether some other amount is due, and whether any prior judgments should be amended if the
15
Court finds that RCW 10.77.068 is inconsistent with the Permanent Injunction. The Court
16
ORDERS the following briefing schedule: (1) Defendants shall file a brief of no more than 12
17
pages due within 14 days of this Order; (2) Plaintiffs shall file a response brief of no more than
18
12 pages due 14 days after Defendants file their brief; and (3) Defendants shall file a reply brief
19
of no more than 6 pages due 7 days after the response is filed.
20
The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.
21
Dated July 18, 2023.
22
A
23
Marsha J. Pechman
United States Senior District Judge
24
ORDER FOR BRIEFING ON PROPOSED JUDGMENT - 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?