U.S. v. Cal.

™ ™ ™™ • • • • • • • • • • H I
PC-CA-013-005

1 JAMES P. TURNER
ARTHUR E. PEABODY, JR.

2 BENJAMIN P. SCHOEN
VERLIN HUGHES

3 GAYLE D. FIDLER
U.S. Department of Justice

4

Civil Rights Division 320 First Street, N.W.

5

Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 272-6065

6 DAVID F. LEVI

7

United States Attorney 3305 Federal Building

8

650 Capitol Mall Sacramento, California 95814

9 (716) 551-2700

10

Attorneys for the United States of America

LODGED
SEP 1 * 1989
CUERK U- S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BY

11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

12

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

14

Plaintiff,

)

15

v.

) )

16

)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA: HONORABLE GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN,)

Governor of the State of California; JAMES

)

17 ROWLAND, Director, California Department of

)

Corrections; DR. NADIM KHOURY, Assistant Deputy )

18 Director for Health Services, California

)

Department of Corrections; EDDIE YLST,

)

19 Superintendent, California Medical Facility; and )

DR. KENNETH SHEPARD, Medical Director, California)

20 Medical Facility,

)

21

Defendants.

)

22

23

CONSE r 89-1233 EJG-JFM

E

24

1. This case was instituted byCRtEhe United states on

25

SEP 1 2 1989

, 1989, pursuant to the Civil Rights of

26 Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 1997.

1

2. This Court has jurisdiction over this civil action

2 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §13 45.

3

3. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b).

^

4. The United States is authorized to institute this action

c pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997a.

«

5. The Attorney General has met all prerequisites to

7 instituting this civil action prescribed by 42 U.S.C. §1997 et

8 sea*

g

6. The Defendants are the State of California; the

Honorable George Deukmejian, Governor; James Rowland, Director,

California Department of Corrections; Dr. Nadim Khoury, Assistant

Deputy Director, Health Services, California Department of
Corrections; Eddie Ylst, Superintendent, California Medical 13
Facility; and Dr. Kenneth Shepard, Medical Director, California 14
Medical Facility. The individual defendants are sued in their

official capacities. 16
7. The Defendants have the authority and responsibility for

the operation of the California Medical Facility and are officers
of the Executive Branch of the State of California. 19
8. On March 7, 1985, the United States Department of 20
Justice, by and through Assistant Attorney General Wm. Bradford 21
Reynolds, gave notice to Governor Deukmejian of its intention to 22
investigate alleged unlawful conditions of confinement at 23
California Medical Facility, Vacaville, California (hereinafter 24
CMF), pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons 25
Act, 42 U.S.C. §1997 et sea. 26
- 2-

\M K >

1

9. Following a thorough investigation, the Attorney

2 General, by and through the Assistant Attorney General, Civil

3 Rights Division, informed California state officials of the

4 alleged conditions that deprived CMF inmates of rights secured to

5 them by the Constitution of the United States and the pattern or

g practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of those rights, the

1 supporting facts giving rise to such conditions and the minimum

g measures which he believes may remedy those conditions and the

g pattern or practice.

1Q

10. It is recognized that, prior to entering into this

...- Consent Decree, the State of California voluntarily took

.J2 affirmative steps towards improvement of conditions at CMF,

..« including, but not limited to, increases in staffing for medical

... and psychiatric services, improvements in inmate access to sick

call and specialized medical services, elimination of inmates

from the provision of direct patient services, renovation of

medical and psychiatric hospital facilities, provision for

staffing and operation of acute psychiatric services by the 18
California Department of Mental Health, improvements in staffing

and operation of the medical record system, and a decrease in the
number of inmates housed at CMF. 21
11. The parties agree that the confinement of inmates at 22
CMF implicates rights secured and protected by the Constitution 23
of the United States and, recognizing these constitutional 24
interests and for the purpose of avoiding protracted and 25

26

- 3-

1 adversarial litigation, agree to the provisions set forth in this

2 Consent Decree.

3

12. In entering into this Consent Decree, the Defendants do

4 not admit any violation of law and this Consent Decree may not be

5 used as evidence of liability in any other proceeding.

g

13. The provisions of this Consent Decree are a fair,

j equitable and appropriate resolution of this case.

o

14. The provisions of this Consent Decree and the plans

g submitted herewith resolve all matters under the investigation

-Q commenced by the United States on March 7, 1985.

11

15. This Consent Decree shall be applicable to and binding

_ upon all of the parties, their officers, agents, employees,

assigns, and successors. 13
I. Purpose and Objective 14
The State of California and the United States stipulate and

agree that the purpose and objective of this Consent Decree is to 16
establish as promptly as practicable medical, dental, and

psychiatric care the adequacy and timeliness of which do not 18
demonstrate deliberate indifference to the serious medical,
19
dental, and psychiatric needs of inmates at CMF, in order to
20
ensure that they are not being deprived of rights,

privileges or immunities secured to them by the Constitution of

the United States.
23
II. Definitions
24
As used in this Consent Decree, the following terms are 25
defined as follows:
26

- 4-

< 'Bl> «'• M XK •

1

1. "Facility": California Medical Facility (CMF), located

2 in Vacaville, California.

3

2. "Outpatient": Any CMF inmate who is a Category J, K, T,

4 or Psychiatric Attention inmate, as those terms are defined in

5 the plans submitted with this Decree. This definition excludes

g any CMF inmate who has been admitted to the Vacaville Psychiatric

j Program (VPP) and who receives psychiatric care at CMF in areas

o under the control and supervision of the Department of Mental

9 Health (DMH).

10

3. "Physician": A medical doctor lawfully entitled to

practice medicine.

4. "Psychiatrist": A physician who is certified by or is

eligible for certification by the American Board of Psychiatry

and Neurology or who has successfully completed an approved 14
residency program in psychiatry and upon completion of post
10
residency requirements will become eligible for examination for

such certification. 17
5. "Psychologist": A person who has attained at least a 18
master's degree in the field of psychology. 19
6. "State": The Executive Branch of the Government of the 20
State of California, specifically including the Governor of the 21
State of California, the State Department of Corrections, and any 22
and all of their officials, agents, employees, or assigns. 23
III. Staffing 24
The State agrees to consistently maintain at least eight (8) 25
psychiatrists and eleven (11) psychologists on staff to provide 26

- 5-

• K V iBI). »" V VH •

1 services to outpatient inmates, as outpatient is defined in

2 Section II (2). In no event shall the State permit the

3 staff-to-inmate ratios at CMF to fall below 1:150 for

4 psychiatrists and 1:100 for psychologists.

5 IV. Plans

c

The State of California has drafted the attached plans to

j implement this Decree. Such plans set forth:

g

1. The measures that will be undertaken to provide and

Q

insure psychiatric care to out-patient inmates,

in

including medical monitoring of drugs, periodic follow-

up for discharged inpatients, periodic review and/or

assessment of inmates receiving psychiatric care at

CMF, and the recordkeeping procedures to be used to 13
provide complete documentation in the inmate's file of 14
psychiatrists' and psychologists' orders, with • o
appropriate written justification for any delay in or 16
denial of access to psychiatric care.

2. The policies and procedures to be utilized to insure 18
timely access by seriously ill inmates to medical 19
services and treatment, on-site or elsewhere as
20
necessary, including measures to insure that 21
specialized medical services, diagnostic tests, and 22
appropriate follow-up care are administered in a timely 23
manner, as necessary, and the recordkeeping procedures
24
to be used to provide complete documentation in the

25

26 - 6-

' K M 'iH.') .»'•
V \ K •:

1

inmate's file of physicians' orders, with appropriate

2

written justification for any delay in or denial of

3

access to medical care.

4

3. The policies and procedures to be utilized to insure

g

timely access by inmates to dental care, including the

g

measures the State will take and the procedures to be

j

utilized to ensure timely identification, evaluation

«

and treatment of and follow-up care for inmates' dental

g

needs, and the recordkeeping procedures to be used to

in

provide complete documentation in the inmate's file of

11

dental orders, with appropriate written justification

.

for any delay in or denial of access to dental care.

4. The plans state the specific date or dates by which

each shall be implemented in toto. The plan shall be 14
fully implemented no later than one year after entry of

this Consent Decree. 16
V. Construction and Implementation 17
In construing and implementing the terms of the Consent 18
Decree, the following are agreed to by the parties:
19
l.(a) If State officials seek to modify the plan submitted 20
herewith or any portion thereof, State officials shall serve the
21
Court and the United States with a copy of the proposed 22
modification. The United States shall have sixty (60) days from
23
the receipt of any proposed modification in which to file with
24
the Court a response to the proposed modification. If the United
25
States objects to the modification sought, State and Federal
26
- 7-

•KM iBI)

1 officials shall meet or otherwise confer in a good faith effort

2 to resolve their differences concerning the proposed

3 modification. If State and Federal officials are unable to

4 resolve their differences through negotiation, the adequacy of

5 the proposed modification to achieve the purposes and objectives

g set forth in Part I of this Consent Decree shall be determined by

j the Court. The Defendants shall have the burden to persuade the

o Court that the modified plan is adequate under this standard.

q

(b) Any such modifications to which the United States does

..Q not object within 60 days of such service shall be deemed moved

1 1 for approval by the Court.

12

2. All plans submitted with this Decree are part of the

... Decree and are enforceable as orders of this Court. 13

..

3.(a) The State shall submit periodic compliance reports to

the United States and the Court setting forth the progress the
State is making towards implementing its plans. A compliance 16
report shall be filed 60 days after the entry of this Consent

18 Decree and every 60 days thereafter, continuing until such time
as this Consent Decree is terminated. 19
(b) The format of these compliance reports shall be

within the discretion of the State. The content of the reports
21
shall include specific information with regard to implementation
22
of each of the State's plans and a specific assessment of the
23
State's progress towards meeting the conditions set forth in
24
Part I. The United States may from time-to-time request that the
25
State include additional information in the Compliance reports.
26

-8 -

'RM uB[).. \H K

1

4. The United States and its attorneys, consultants and

2 agents shall have reasonable access to CMF, its facilities,

3 records, inmates, and employees upon reasonable notice to the

4 State for the purpose of ascertaining compliance with the Decree,

e Such access shall continue until this Consent Decree is

c terminated.

j

5. All confidential records or other confidential documents

a provided to the United States are to be treated as confidential

p and may not be disclosed by either the United States or the State

without the consent of both parties or on order of the

appropriate Court, unless authorized by law. Disclosure of such

records or documents to the United States shall not be deemed a 12
waiver of any privileges applicable to such records or documents 13
provided by the State in compliance with the Consent Decree. 14
6. Within 20 days of receipt, the State shall provide to

the United States specific written answers to specific written

questions by the United States regarding the State's compliance

reports or the status of implementation of its plans.
7. All parties shall bear their own costs of this action, 19
including attorney fees. 20
VI. Termination of Decree 21
1. The Defendants shall fully and faithfully implement all 22
provisions of this Consent Decree and the plans submitted 23
herewith no later than one year from date of entry of this 24
Decree. 25
26

— Q mm

•Rv i 'Si!

1

2. The Court shall retain jurisdiction of this action for

2 all purposes under this Consent Decree until the Defendants shall

3 have fully and faithfully implemented all provisions of the

4 Consent Decree and plans submitted herewith and until the

c judgment be discharged.

e

3. On or after the date on which the Defendants have fully

_ and faithfully implemented all provisions of this Consent Decree

8 and plans submitted herewith, the Defendants may move that the

injunctions entered herein be dissolved, the judgment discharged,

jurisdiction terminated, and the case closed and dismissed with

prejudice, on grounds that the Defendants have fully and

faithfully implemented and maintained all provisions of this

Consent Decree and plans submitted pursuant thereto; Provided 13
that no such motion may be filed prior to eight months from the

date of entry of this Decree. 15
4. Dismissal shall be granted unless, within sixty (60) 16
days after receipt of the Defendants' motion, the United States

objects to the motion. If such an objection is made with 18
particularity, the Court shall hold a hearing on the motion and
19
the burden shall be on the United States to demonstrate that the 20
Defendants have not fully and faithfully implemented all
21
provisions of this Consent Decree or the plan(s) or any part 22
thereof and, if objection is based upon failure to implement any 23
plan or part thereof, that such plan or part thereof is essential
24
to the achievement of the purpose and objective set forth in Part
25
I of this Consent Decree. If the United States fails to meet
26
-10-

• K M •.•Bll

1 this burden, the injunctions shall be dissolved, the judgment 2 shall be discharged, jurisdiction shall

3 be terminated forthwith, and the case shall be closed and

4 dismissed with prejudice.

5 CONSENTED TO BY THE UNDERSIGNED:

6 FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

7 BY:
8( Afjts-s^ zs/v^>
9 JOE G . SANDOVAL
;retary
10 Y^juth and Adult Correctional
Agency
11

a. BY:
JAMESPTTURNER
Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division

12

13

SS ROWLAND irector

14

California Department of 'Corrections

15

DAVID F. LEVI United States Attorney Eastern District of California

16

-^r*^>

DR. NADLH KHOURY 7T
17 Assistant Deputy j/irector
Health services
18 California Department of
Corrections
19

ARTHUR E. PEABODY, Chief Special Litigation Section

20

21 EDDIE YLST

22

Superintender California Medical Facility

23

I
BENJAMIN P. SCHOEN Deputy Chief Special Litigation Section

24

25

DR. KENNETH SHEPARQ7 fedical Director

26 California Medical Facility

GAYLE 6. FIDLER Attorney Special Litigation Section

-11-

1

2.

<

CUNEO

3

Attorney General

Law Section

4

VERLIN '-HUGHES Attorney Special Litigation Section

5

WHEREFORE, the parties to this action having agreed to the

6 provisions in the Consent Decree set forth above, and the Court

7 being advised in the premises, this Consent Decree is hereby

8 entered as the JUDGMENT of this Court.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED, this

day of

, 1989, at

10 Sacramento, California.

11

12

13

14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

-12-

 
 /
HBR:ABP;BPSIXXDjJR!drl DJ 168-11Z-12

U,S,y,Cal. PC-CA-013-001
MAR 1985

Bonor«M« Go*»rnor. stat* of California Stat* Hous* Sa«raM*nto, CA 95914
JM» I n v a l i d a t i o n of California Medical Facility

Dear Coverncr P»UKBN»J ian:

I ra writing t o lot you Xnov of cur lnt«ntion to tnv««tlgat« renditions at th« California Mudicat f a c i l i t y * Vaeavill*« California. This Inrostiqation occur* purev-snt to th« Civil flights of Znstituticnalls«d f^ra^na Act. 42 U.tt.e.

p

of thla {nv«mtlgaticn » t l i h« to

th"»r« #xiat any violations ot t^» f<*<!oral

Icnal

ot ymtton* inc»rc*»r«t«-4 in thl* f a c i l i t y vith

to Radical »«rviot>» an<i w*4 lest ion practie^a.

ctJodit lof»a, overcrowding and claaalf icat lon# Th« lr.itiat lr-n

of tMa i«v*»Bti3*tio« in no vay lndicAt**a any j?r*Ju1-;«cnt en

our part that ?3<3*ral rtflhta hav* b*t«n vtolatf-0. If any

violation* «r« founds v» v t l l look CorvaM to ccrt^^rrimj with

you «M yottr otaff concerning correct iv» action* th«t wight

b

A* a 8M«ana ot co«mnclng t h i s inv«ftfgatic«4r J vlah to propo«« an I n i t i a l o«(»tlny in tha n**ar ?ut«r* N)tw«fi our attorntjya nn<5 r*j>r*««nt«tir«» of yewr office* It ha« b«:*n our •xpori«*ne# that »«ch a pr»»H»i«»ry ccnfsrftnc* c*n s u b s t a n t i a l l y axp^dit^ th« tftvvatlgaticn process. %> v l t l a l s o wiah t o arrange for our attorney*, consultants And possibly a^«nt» of th« federal Bureau oJ Xnvasti^atlon t o t i « i t th» f a c i l i t y . tt« s h a l l b« fn touch with your eta?f t o
work out tfc* apecifict of our acatirv; and later vt«it».

cc: Records Chrono Peabcdy 8cho«n

Russoll Davi s Fitx Bold

appractat* your

n i n tt't* -~i.\ctot. Sincerely,

attorney Jvn^

John Van i^a Tta?ar> Accorn*? bea
Joseph ?. UntccJ 3c.iC*3
£ tf0 Such Sush«:it Dlruccoc

 
 U.S. v. Cal. PC-CA-013-002

U.S. Department . Justice Civil Rights Division

Office of the Assistant Attorney General

Washington. DC. 20530

JAN 6 1??.?

Honorable George Deukmejian Governor of the State of California State Capitol Sacramento, California 95814
Re: Investigation of California Medical Facility
Dear Governor Deukmejian:
Pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. 1997b, I am writing to inform you of the findings of the United States Department of Justice in its investigation of the California Medical Facility (CMF) in Vacaville, California.
In the course of our investigation, staff attorneys from our Special Litigation Section conducted tours of CMF with outside expert consultants. During these tours, the consultants examined inmate medical records and interviewed inmates and staff. In addition, they reviewed numerous documents provided by staff such as institutional policies and procedures, schedules of specialty clinics, staffing rosters, and minutes of infection control and other clinical staff committee meetings.
The California Medical Facility, situated adjacent to the Northern Reception Center and the California Medical Facility-South, serves a unique function within the California Department of Corrections (CDC) insofar as its primary purpose is to provide medical and/or psychiatric evaluation and treatment to those male inmates whose condition requires acute, chronic or recuperative care not available elsewhere within the CDC system. Thus, the great majority of the roughly 3,300 inmates at CMF have serious medical or psychiatric needs. In addition, CMF must provide general medical care to more than 1,000 support service prisoners and to hundreds of prisoners who are undergoing initial classification and evaluation at the Northern Reception Center (NRC) yet, due to severe overcrowding at NRC, are housed within CMF. CMF staff also occasionally perform medical/psychiatric evaluations and prescribe psychoactive medications for inmates at California Medical Facility-South.

_ 2—
Based upon our extensive investigation, we believe that conditions exist at CMF which deprive inmates of their right to be free from deliberate indifference to their serious medical needs. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976). Set forth below are our findings and recommendations. We will discuss only those areas which in our opinion are violative of the constitutional rights of inmates confined to the facility.
General/Acute Medical Care
Staffing
In numerous areas CMF requires additional professional staff to meet the medical needs of the facility's burgeoning inmate population with serious and acute medical conditions. Staff shortages at the primary care outpatient clinic and various specialty clinics result in the failure to provide timely diagnoses and treatment for serious medical conditions.
Members of the CMF medical staff freely stated that many inmates with serious medical conditions experience substantial and undue delays in access to the sick call clinic. Due to lack of staff and limited hours of operation many inmates fail to receive timely evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of serious medical needs. Finally, security staff often fail to release inmates seeking medical attention from work assignments and arbitrarily deny access to sick call. Inadequate access to medical services due to lack of staff has resulted in deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of CMF inmates.
Staffing in CMF clinics designed to provide specialized services for the most serious medical problems of CMF inmates is likewise inadequate. Inmates afflicted with chronic renal failure, diabetes, cancer, bone/joint/muscle injuries, serious infections, and other acute illnesses and conditions fail to receive adequate medical care. In brief, there is insufficient staff to evaluate, diagnose, and treat serious illnesses and acute medical conditions.
Staffing on the evening shift and weekends is grossly inadequate. Only one medical doctor is on duty during these time periods. This individual is the only physician on duty to provide medical coverage to over 3,300 CMF inmates, including those in acute\surgical hospital units, as well as more than 1,000 NRC overflow inmates. Such inadequate medical coverage in a facility such as this one amounts to deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of the inmates.

- 3-
In the operating room and elsewhere at CMF, inmates are regularly entrusted to perform direct patient services. These inmates also have direct access to inmate medical records. There is no evidence of formalized training of these inmates or that they possess the qualifications necessary to perform these medical duties. Moreover, staff shortages do not permit adequate supervision of inmate attendants by properly qualified professional staff. While inmates may be used to perform minor incidental medical tasks, the system of using inmate medical attendants, as currently administered at MF, is unconstitutional. At a minimum, there must be a showing that nonprofessionals can perform the tasks assigned, have been trained to do so, and are properly supervised.
In conclusion, lack of adequate professional staffing at CMF prevents the facility from providing medical care and services sufficient to avoid deliberate indifference to inmates' serious medical needs.
Psychiatric Care For The Seriously Mentally 111
Professional psychiatric staff at CMF is grossly inadequate. The shortage of trained, competent psychiatric staff was acknowledged by CMF administrators. Due to lack of staff and space in the acute psychiatric care units, CMF is unable to provide psychiatric care necessary to address the medical needs of inmates who are seriously mentally ill.
In the acute care units, our consultant noted a near-total absence of psychiatric care except for sporadic efforts to handle "crisis" cases. Further, due to the constant pressure to make housing space available for new admissions into the psychiatric units (including the admission of inmates without legitimate psychiatric diagnoses but requiring protective custody and inmates who are merely disruptive), inmates are quickly discharged to outpatient units where care is inadequate. Untreated, these inmates with serious mental illnesses are exposed to undue risks to their personal safety. Decisions to release inmates from acute care units often appear to be based primarily upon a shortage of space and other custodial, rather than medical, consideratons. Moreover, inmates on psychotropic drug regimens are not adequately monitored by medical or psychiatric staff. There are no or inadequate efforts to evaluate inmates for adverse drug side effects or toxicity. Finally, our consultants concluded that the number of suicides and suicide attempts within the psychiatric care units at CMF indicate a failure to identify or to monitor properly suicide-prone individuals.

- 4-
In sum, the professional psychiatric staff and other resources at CMF are so deficient as to constitute deliberate indifference to the needs of inmates with serious mental illnesses.
Medical Records
Medical recordkeeping at CMF is grossly inadequate. Our review of medical recordkeeping at CMF revealed a pattern of failures to perform or document necessary diagnoses, treatments and monitoring.
Medical records frequently do not indicate either a patient's course of treatment or any treatment planning. Due to shortages in clerical staff, dictated medical notations, the results of physical examinations and other information frequently are not incorporated into inmates' medical charts in a timely manner. Minutes of staff committee meetings confirm that medical records often fail to contain psychiatric nursing notes. In one internal audit, CMF staff found that as many as 400 nursing charts were incomplete and noted that failures to incorporate necessary treatment records into inmates' medical files result in "inconsistent medical therapy with multiple, conflicting orders on some patients." Finally, medical records on many outpatients are not available to the medical doctor on duty in the evenings, nights, and on weekends. The obvious importance of available, accurate and minimally complete medical records in the treatment of serious medical needs renders their absence "deliberate indifference" in the constitutional sense.
Environmental Conditions
Serious deficiencies exist with regard to environmental conditions at CMF. These conditions have a direct, adverse impact upon the provision of medical care at the facility. Several housing units visited by our consultant were extremely crowded and were poorly ventilated and lighted. In one unit housing more than 80 inmates, many of whom were in wheelchairs, there were two toilets, three communal shower heads (without operable temperature controls), and one bathtub without special fittings for the handicapped. Several inmate treatment and housing areas also were unsanitary. In the acute medical/surgical hospital unit, provisions for medical isolation were grossly inadequate. General provisions for infectious waste disposal were also inadequate. These deficiencies endanger inmates by subjecting them to serious risk of infectious diseases.

- 5-
Overcrowding
Due to overcrowding, CMF's capacity to render adequate chronic and acute medical care as well as psychiatric care is strained beyond reasonable limits. The serious medical needs of prisoners for access to sick call, specialty clinics, and to basic care for continuing medical impairments are not being adequately met. Overcrowding also exacerbates deficiencies present with respect to sanitation and infection control. Further, overcrowded conditions and lack of resources also undermine CMF's ability to provide adequate psychiatric care to inmates who are seriously mentally ill. The impact of crowding on the provision of medical services is so great as to constitute a constitutional violation.
Minimally Necessary Remedies
Remedial measures must be taken to ensure that prisoners confined to California Medical Facility are not deprived of rights guaranteed to them under the Constitution of the United States. We propose to enter into a legally binding and judicially enforceable agreement with the State of California designed to provide constitutionally adequate conditions at CMF and to provide a means by which compliance with said agreement may be verified. The following minimum measures are those that may be necessary to remedy the conditions described above:
1) Professional medical staff must be increased, as necessary, to ensure that inmates have reasonable and prompt access to care and treatment necessary to respond to their serious medical needs, including psychiatric care sufficient to address the medical needs of seriously mentally ill inmates.
2) CMF must expand and improve the operation of its sick call clinic and procedures for general health surveillance to ensure that serious medical conditions are identified and treated in a timely fashion.
3) Sick call procedures must be established and implemented to ensure timely access by inmates, irrespective of classification or work status, to medical services.
4) CMF must expand the availability of specialized medical services (e.g., urology, physiotherapy, orthopedics) in order to meet the most serious medical needs of inmates confined at the facility.

- 6-
5) Housekeeping, infectious waste disposal, and general sanitation procedures must be improved.
6) The use of inmates as medical attendants providing direct health care must be discontinued or permitted only after training and under supervision, with respect to such incidental medical tasks as nonprofessionals are able to provide.
7) Steps must be taken to ameliorate and eliminate the effects of overcrowding.
We would be pleased to consult with you regarding ways in which we might be able to assist you in correcting the deficiencies described. For example, we would be pleased to provide you with copies of our experts1 reports. You may also wish to consult with the National Institute of Corrections and/or the Federal Bureau of Prisons. We would be pleased to assist you in any inquiries you may wish to make about the possibility of obtaining technical and other assistance through programs they administer.
We appreciate the cooperation that the California Attorney General's Office and the staff and administration at CMF have extended us. We hope that a cooperative spirit will continue to prevail so that this matter can be concluded promptly and amicably. My staff will contact you shortly to arrange a meeting to discuss this matter further.

Enclosures
cc: John K. Van De Kamp Attorney General

Wm. Bradford Reynolds Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division

- 7-
Eddie Ylst Superintendent California Medical Facility
Peter A. Nowinski United States Attorney
Norman Carlson Director Bureau of Prisons
Raymond Brown Director National Institute of Corrections

 
 J.S. v. Cal.

•• •• • • • •
C-CA-013-003
1 JAMES P . TURNER ARTHUR E . PEABODY, J R .
2 BENJAMIN P . SCHOEN
VERLIN HUGHES 3 GAYLE D. FIDLER
U.S. Department of J u s t i c e A Civil Rights Division
320 F i r s t S t r e e t , N.W.
5 Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 272-6065
6 DAVID F. LEVI _ United States Attorney ' 3305 Federal Building
650 Capitol Mall ** Sacramento, California 95814
(716) 551-2700

FILED
SEP IZ !Z 20 Pi! '89
z^-.. . . -'%'jj ^ -^ <A: ... ^vo " BY —
"tJ Y

Attorneys for the United States '" of America

11

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

is

plaintiff'

, «NB-j 89-1233

v.

)

16

,

STATE OF CALIFORNIA; HONORABLE GEORGE )

17 DEUKMEJIAN, Governor of the State of )

California; JAMES ROWLAND, Director, )

18 California Department of Corrections; )

DR. NADIM KHOURY, Assistant Deputy

)

19 Director for Health Services,

)

California Department of Corrections; )

20 EDDIE YLST, Superintendent, California )

Medical Facility; and DR. KENNETH

)

21 SHEPARD, Medical Director, California )

Medical Facility,

)

22

)

Defendants.

)

23

)

Civil Action No.

24

COMPLAINT 25

26

The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by and through its Attorney

1 General, Dick Thornburgh, brings this action pursuant to the

2 Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C.

3 §1997, to enjoin the named defendants from depriving persons

4 imprisoned at the California Medical Facility-Main (CMF) of

5 rights, privileges or immunities secured or protected by the

g United States Constitution. Attached hereto, and incorporated

j herein by reference, is the Certificate of the Attorney General

g required by 42 U.S.C. §1997b. In support of its Complaint in

g this action, the United States alleges the following:

1Q

JURISDICTION. STANDING. AND VENUE

.

1. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28

U.S.C. §1345.

2. The United States has standing to initiate this action
13
14 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1997a.
3. Venue in the Eastern District of California is proper

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391. The claims set forth in this 16
Complaint all arose in said District. 17
4. CMF is an "institution" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 18
§1997(1). 19
PARTIES
20
5. Defendant STATE OF CALIFORNIA is a "state" within the 21
meaning of 42 U.S.C. §1997. The State of California owns and 22
operates CMF which is an adult prison facility. 23
6. Defendant GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN is the Governor of 24
California and, in this capacity, heads the executive branch of 25
26

-2-

-• the state government. He appoints the Director of the Department

2 of Corrections.

3

7. Defendant JAMES ROWLAND is the Director of the

. California Department of Corrections and, in this capacity, has

- responsibility for the operation of CMF. He appoints and

e supervises the Superintendent of CMF.

_

8. Defendant EDDIE YLST is the Superintendent of CMF and,

in this capacity, is the chief administrator of CMF and has o
responsibility for supervising operations of CMF.

9. Defendant DR. KENNETH SHEPARD is the Medical Director 10
of CMF and, in this capacity is the chief medical administrator

of CMF and has responsibility for supervising medical care at
CMF. 13
10. The individual Defendants identified in paragraphs 5 14
through 9, above, are officers of the executive branch of 15
California and are sued in their official capacities. 16
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 17
11. Defendants are legally responsible, in whole or in 18
part, for the operation of and the conditions at CMF and for the
19
safety of persons imprisoned at that institution.
20
12. At all relevant times, the Defendants or their
21
predecessors in office have acted or failed to act, as alleged
22
herein, under color of state law.
23
13. Defendants are failing to provide persons imprisoned at
24
CMF with constitutionally required medical care for their serious
25
medical needs.
26
-3-

1

14. Defendants are failing to provide persons imprisoned at

2 CMF with constitutionally required dental care for their serious

3 dental needs.

4

15. Defendants are failing to provide persons imprisoned at

c CMF with constitutionally required psychiatric care for their

« serious psychiatric needs.

VIOLATIONS AT.T/ffftFD

8o

16. The acts and omissions of Defendants alleged in each of

_ paragraphs 11 through 15 constitute patterns or practices of

resistance to the full enjoyment of rights, privileges, and

immunities secured or protected by the Constitution of the United

States and deprive persons confined at CMF of such rights,
privileges, and immunities. 13
17. Unless restrained by this Court, Defendants will 14
continue to engage in the conduct and practices set forth in

paragraphs 11-15 above that deprive persons confined at CMF of 16
rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the

Constitution of the United States, and cause grievous harm to CMF 18
inmates. 19
PRAYER FOR RELIEF 20
18. The Attorney General is authorized under 42 U.S.C. 21
§1997 to seek only equitable relief. 22
WHEREFORE, the United States prays that this Court enter an 23
order permanently enjoining Defendants, their officers, agents, 24
employees, subordinates, successors in office, and all those 25
acting in concert or participation with them from continuing the 26
-4-

•j acts, omissions and practices at CMF set forth in each of 2 paragraphs 11-15 above and to take such actions as will provide 3 constitutional conditions of confinement to inmates at CMF. The 4 United States further prays that this Court grant such other and 5 further equitable relief as it may/deem k s t and proper.

6

7
DICK THO

8

Attorney General of the

9

1 0 DAVID F . LEVI

^AMES P . 'TURNER

11 United States Attorney

Acting Assistant Attorney General

Eastern District of California Civil Rights Division

12

13

ARTHUR E. PEABODY,

Chief

'*

Special Litigation Section

15

16

BENJAMIN P. SCHOEN

Deputy Chief

17

Special Litigation Section

18

19

GAYLE/D. F I D L E R ~

Attorney <^Y .

20

Special ^iti^atiozi Section

! / I\ I /

21

22

VERLIN HUGHES

Attorney

23

Special Litigation Section

Civil Rights Division

24

U.S. Department of Justice

Washington, D.C. 20530

25

(202) 272-6065

26 -5-

©fftr* nf tip Attorn*]) <§znsxn\

CERTIFICATE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

I, Dick Thornburgh, Attorney General of the United States,

certify that with regard to the foregoing Complaint, I have

complied with the provisions of 42 U.S.C. §1997b(a)(1). I

certify as well that I have complied with all subsections of 42

U.S.C. §l997b(a)(2). I further certify pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1997b(a)(3) my belief that this action by the United States

regarding conditions of confinement at the California Medical

Facility, Vacaville, California, is of general public importance

and will materially further the vindication of rights,

privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the

Constitution of the United States.

I further certify that I have the "reasonable cause to

believe" set forth in 42 U.S.C. §l997a(a) to initiate this

action. 'I finally certify that all prerequisites to the

initiation of suit under 42 U.S.C. §1997 have been met.

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1997a(c), I have personally signed

the foregoing Complaint. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1997b(b), I am

personally signing this Certificate.

Signed this ^ Y/i

day of-^yi&ydfc:>? . 1989, at

Washington, D.C.

DICK THORNBURGH A t t o r n e y General df
t h e Unj/fc£d SfcStes

 
 r MI
* * ' • S ^ 4 »i«.i 'ova* iftaM* WMI f#*« * -, _ ^ ^ . , , | ^ f |
iltMT I I I IMITNUCTIOMS ON THI MVIftSt 0» TH|
I (a) PLAINTIFFS
Jnited States of America

CIVIL CCVSR SHEET

'J«.t»o Sum

1974 , -wu.'to 'or >n« , „0» , „ , C!#

„.,„», -V. .

DEFENDAWTS
State of California; Honorable Georg Deukmejian, Governor of the State of California; James Rowland, Director Calif. Dept of Corrections, et.al.

( b ) COUNTY OF HESIOENCE OF FIRST USTgO • EXCEPT I N u S POINT'^F CASES)

S a c r a m e n t p C O U N T Y OF RESIOENCE OF FIRST USTEO OEFENOANT S a c r a m e n t :
UN U S POINTIFF CASES CNLY1 NOTE. IN LANO CONDEMNATION CASES. USE THE LOCATION OF n , g
TRACT OF L»NO INVOLVEO

( C ) ATTORNEYS 1 FIRM NAME. AGC*ESS. ANO TELEPHONE NUMBER)
David F. Levi U.S. Attorney 650 Capitol Mall, Federal Bldg Sacramento, CA 95814

I?. BASIS OF JURISDICTION •UCI Ma • x

TOO U.S. Oovamnwnt

Z 3 F« (US Oavwrwnant Not a Party)

z z u.s. awOTHww

z * .iracata C.tii«njfi.o of
Pint** '" item ill)

IV. CAUSE O F ACTION cm~«u» cm. ITITVTI KCW
30 >«T art mwoc-ncniL
42 U.S.C. S1997

ATTORNEYS (IF KNOWN)

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES
(For Omwwy Caaaa Only)

CIOMI of TMa SW
C W M Of AnotfMT
CHtMwar 1 i H | i n a « » Foratfn Country

•31 - 1 =3 33

In TKM M

rrr OIF z* z• ISIS
It I«

V. NATURE O F SUIT i PLACE AN « IN ONS BOX ONLY)

aunua
110 120 130 140 ISO

Town

K M 0 M L WJUHT

310 . 31S

Z M3 » w » y . v i -

I 330 •

! 'Si i 1 S3

: tto

: :

no IM

: n21o0*L**M,
:no««« : 240 i n a LM
' 24$ Dm *^oua u.

340 34S 3M <
OWL MMTI

I 370 orw * u « I 371 nuti • ! 300 Ox*
FMMMBI WIIWM ZS10
: sso
; $40
: sso c~

1433 a use'
1423. a use '
Z M l "Ml'MMI
: M 3 0iww :MC««I KOBMLTUMTS Z 170 1171 i m -
2»u»c

1430 I4S0 C 3 470 i
:anw O^vatson 1110
Z ITS :.»o'»
•2 . S C M<0
MI M3
IM 900 ••Maa)'<*
w^dar got** Acc
M0
Sun Simta HO O I W t M X

VI. ORIGIN
X X I 0ngm«)

3 2
Suit Court

i PLACE AN * IN ONE BOX ONLY)

3 RamanoM from AOP«M«I« Court

- 4 nmntuma or ntootrnd

3 1 anoaw &ma (•

• MuAtttnct UogMon

3 7 JuOO* "om Magitirait

VII. REQUESTED IN CHECK IF TM« IS A CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT = <*••" " c " 23

DEMAND S

rtS on*K ^ a«m«io«<J •«
JURY OeMANO: 3

VW.

RELATED CASE(S)
IF ANY Gates v.

Deukmejian,

JUDGE . LKK-JFM CIVS 87-1636 LKK-JFM

. oocxrr NUMMA CIVS87-1636

UMfTiD STATIS OtmNCT COUMT

LLOWS, AUSA, Chief, Civil Division

itBtrirt
for tht E u U n District of Califoraia

SEP iZ

Plaintiff,
vs.

m-
NO. CIV S-
ORDER SETTING STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING)
CONFERENCE

Defendant.

This action has been assigned to the Honorable Edward J. Garcia, on this date.

Pursuant to the provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. §16, as amended effective August 1, 1983, IT IS ORDERED:

I. That a Preliminary Scheduling Conference is set for YYLLMJLKJ JL*I f^"'

at f h ' ^fl ft -m• befogs Judge Garcia, in Courtroom #2; (j

(J~

II. That all parties to the action shall appear by counsel (or in person if acting without counsel);

III. That in order to enable the court to comply with the 120-day time limit specified in Rule 16(b), Plaintiff(s) SHALL COMPLETE SERVICE OF PROCESS ON ALL PARTIES WITHIN 45 DAYS OF THE DATE OF FILING THE COMPLAINT HEREIN;

IV. That concurrently with the service of process, or as soon thereafter as possible. Plaintiff(s) shall serve upon each of the parties named herein, and upon all parties subsequently joined, a copy of this Order, and shall file with the Clerk a certificate reflecting such service;

V. That in the event an,action is originally filed in a state court and is thereafter removed to this court, the removing party or parties shall, immediately following such removal, serve upon each of the other parties named herein, and upon all parties subsequently joined, a copy of this Order, and shall file with the Clerk a certificate reflecting such service;

VI. That each party shall file a Status Report, in duplicate, with the Court and serve the same upon the opposing party, or the opposing party's counsel, if an appearance by counsel has been made, not later than 10 days prior to the conference date. The report shall briefly set forth the views of the party making the report on the following matters:

(a) Service of process on parties not yet served;

Page One of Two

4/5/88 (6/1/87)

Order Setting Status Conference, cont.
(b) Jurisdiction and venue;
(c) Anticipated motions with suggested Law and Motion dates;
(d) Anticipated or outstanding discovery;
(e) Further proceedings, including setting dates for submission of further status reports, if necessary, suggested discovery cut-off, pretrial and trial dates (It is the policy of this Court to cut-off discovery and set a Pretrial Conference 90 days prior to the scheduled trial date. Furthermore, no dispositive law and motion shall be heard later than 60 days prior to the Pretrial Conference without the Court's specific approval. The parties shall be required to disclose witnesses about 60 days prior to discovery cut-off. IN SUMMARY: the parties shall be prepared to commence trial 5 months after witness disclosure.);

(f) Appropxiateness of special procedures such as reference to a special master or Magistrate or the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation;

(g) Modification of the standard pretrial procedures specified by the Rules because of the relative simplicity or complexity of the action or proceedings;

(h) Prospects for settlement; in this regard, each party shall report to the court concerning its willingness to stipulate that the trial judge may act as a settlement judge;

(i) Whether this action is related to any matter pending in either this court or the bankruptcy court of this district;

(j) Any other matters which may be conducive to the just, efficient and economical determination of the action or proceedings; and

(k) Whether an exchange of witness lists and a disclosure of experts, if any, 60 days before final pretrial conference would be advisable.

The parties are advised that failure to file a status report in accordance with this order may result in sanctions, including the dismissal of the action.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that except in cases of legitimate emergencies, requests for continuances of this conference will not be entertained unless made at least THREE (3) DAYS prior to the scheduled date.

BY THE COURT'S DIRECTION.

JAMES R. GRINDSTAFF, CLERK

Dated:
-7 / Q Q f , t / ? / a a i

By: (* 44^^{{J C. Lydon, Deputy

.

P a r r o TVr.-. n f T « n

U.S. v. Cal. PC-CA-013-004

 
 Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 1 of 8

APPEAL, CLOSED
U.S. District Court Eastern District of California - Live System (Sacramento) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:89-cv-01233-LKK-JFM

Usa v. California, et al Assigned to: Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton Referred to: Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds Demand: $0 Cause: 42:1981 Civil Rights

Date Filed: 09/12/1989 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff USA

represented by Judith C Preston United States Department of Justice Special Litigation/Civil Rights PO Box 66400 Washington, DC 20035 202-514-6260 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Verlin Hughes United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section P O Box 66400 Washington, DC 20035-6400 202-514-6260 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant State of California

represented by James Edmund Flynn Attorney General of the State of California 1300 P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 (916) 323-1976 Fax: (916) 324-5205 Email: James.Flynn@doj.ca.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Allen Santoki

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 2 of 8

Defendant Hon George Deukmejian
Defendant James Rowland
Defendant Dr. Nadim Khoury
Defendant Eddie Ylst

Attorney General's Office for the State of California PO Box 944255 1300 I Street Suite 125 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 916-445-9555 Fax: 19163235345 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James Edmund Flynn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Allen Santoki (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James Edmund Flynn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Allen Santoki (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James Edmund Flynn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Allen Santoki (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James Edmund Flynn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 3 of 8

Defendant Dr. Kenneth Shepard
Intervenor Raymond D Jackson, Sr
Intervenor Richard Lauranzano

Michael Allen Santoki (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James Edmund Flynn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Allen Santoki (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Raymond D Jackson, Sr C-27148 CMF California Medical Facility PO Box 2000 1600 California Drive Vacaville, CA 95696-2000 PRO SE
represented by Richard Lauranzano C-84058 CMF California Medical Facility PO Box 2000 1600 California Drive Vacaville, CA 95696-2000 PRO SE

Date Filed 05/04/1990
05/07/1990 05/15/1990 06/12/1990

#

Docket Text

46 NOTICE by Gates Class & Subclass of refiling corrected caption of declaration of Michael W. Bien in support of Gates renewed motion to intervene. (old) (Entered: 05/09/1990)

47 MINUTES of 5-7-90; Gates class, motion to interven, DENIED.Pltf to prep ord w/i 10dys of transcript. (old) (Entered: 05/11/1990)

48 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT of 5/7/90. (old) (Entered: 05/23/1990)

49 LETTER to court fr DAG Flynn re req for crt to sign proposed ord by USA. (old) (Entered: 06/15/1990)

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 4 of 8

06/15/1990 06/19/1990 07/05/1990 08/01/1990
08/01/1990
08/15/1990 09/10/1990 10/11/1990
11/26/1990 01/17/1991 03/07/1991 05/17/1991 10/15/1991 10/15/1991 12/04/1991 02/11/1992 03/27/1992 07/15/1992

50 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff Usa to prop ord of Gates Plaintiffs (old) (Entered: 06/19/1990)
51 ORDER: Pltf Gates mot/intervene is DENIED by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 06/22/1990)
52 PROOF OF SERVICE by plaintiff Usa of order [51-1] (old) (Entered: 07/09/1990)
53 FIRST COMPLIANCE REPORT by defendant State Of California, defendant Hon George Deukmejian, defendant James Rowland, defendant Dr. Nadim Khoury, defendant Eddie Ylst, defendant Dr. Kenneth Shepard of Defendants' (old) (Entered: 08/01/1990)
54 SECOND COMPLIANCE REPORT by defendant State Of California, defendant Hon George Deukmejian, defendant James Rowland, defendant Dr. Nadim Khoury, defendant Eddie Ylst, defendant Dr. Kenneth Shepard of Defendants' (old) (Entered: 08/01/1990)
55 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings 5/7/90 (old) (Entered: 08/21/1990)
56 THIRD COMPLIANCE REPORT by defendant (old) (Entered: 09/11/1990)
57 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton terminating case ordering that the clk administratively terminate the action w/o prejudice to the right of the parties to reopen the proceddings for the entry of any stip, mtn, order or any other purpose required to obtain final determination of the litigation (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 10/15/1990)
58 4TH COMPLIANCE RPT by defendant (old) (Entered: 11/28/1990)
59 NOTICE by defendant of 5th compliance rpt (old) (Entered: 01/18/1991)
60 NOTICE by defendant of 6th compliance rpt (old) (Entered: 03/11/1991)
61 NOTICE by defendant of seventh compliance report (old) (Entered: 05/20/1991)
62 Eighth Compliance Report by defendant (old) (Entered: 10/16/1991)
63 Ninth Compliance Report by defendant pursuant to consent decree (old) (Entered: 10/16/1991)
64 NOTICE by defendant State Of California of tenth compliance report. (old) (Entered: 12/05/1991)
65 ELEVENTH COMPLIANCE REPORT by defendant pursuant to consent decree (old) (Entered: 02/12/1992)
66 TWELFTH COMPLIANCE REPORT submitted by defendant pursuant to consent decree (old) (Entered: 03/31/1992)
LODGED Stipulation and Order RE consent decree (kh) (Entered: 07/16/1992)

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 5 of 8

07/22/1992
09/10/1992 09/11/1992 10/06/1992 10/06/1992 11/17/1992 01/06/1993
01/19/1993 03/18/1993 04/13/1993 07/13/1993 10/04/1993 01/05/1994 02/14/1994

67 STIPULATION and ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton : [0-1 Dismissing section IV, para 2 and 3 of the Consent Decree and subject areas II and III of the Action Plan; all other terms and provisions of the Consent Decree and Action Plan shall remain in full force and effect (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 07/22/1992)
69 LETTER to court from defendant State Of California responding to Judge Karlton's letter of 9/1/92 (old) (Entered: 09/14/1992)
68 LETTER to court from plaintiff's Gates attorney in CIV-S-87-1636 LKK JFM re Partial Dismissal (old) (Entered: 09/14/1992)
70 LETTER to court from plaintiff Usa re Stipulation and Order Dismissing Portions of Consent Decree Entered in this case (old) (Entered: 10/07/1992)
71 LETTER: from Honorable Lawrence K Karlton directing all 3 recipients to file a letter brief within 10 days (old) (Entered: 10/07/1992)
72 Thirteenth complaince report by defendants (old) (Entered: 11/17/1992)
73 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton re letter to the court dated 8/25/92, expressing concern over the entry of7/22/92 stipulation and order; The court concludes that serious questions exist as to the propriety of entry of the 7/22/92 stipulation and order and accordingly this matter is REFERRED to JFM for proceedings to determine whether entry of theis stipulation and order was appropriate under the circumstances and whether the order should be vacated; The magistrate may invite the Gates plaintiffs to join the proceedings in an amicus status (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 01/06/1993)
74 NOTICE by defendant of fourteenth compliance report (old) (Entered: 01/20/1993)
75 NOTICE by plaintiff Usa of change of address from US Dept of Justice to Special Litigation Section P O Box 66400 Washington DC 20035 (old) (Entered: 03/19/1993)
76 NOTICE by defendants of Fifteenth compliance report (old) (Entered: 04/15/1993)
77 NOTICE by defendants of the filing of their sixteenth compliance report (old) (Entered: 07/15/1993)
78 NOTICE by defendants of filing seventeenth compliace report (old) (Entered: 10/05/1993)
79 EIGHTEENTH Compliance Report by defendants (old) (Entered: 01/06/1994)
80 NOTICE by plaintiff USA of change of address of Verlin Hughes to Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section, 10th and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Room 1748-A, Washington, DC, 20530 (old) (Entered: 02/15/1994)

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 6 of 8

04/07/1994 05/02/1994 05/06/1994
05/09/1994
07/11/1994 10/05/1994 01/12/1995 03/29/1995 07/14/1995 09/18/1995 02/27/1996 04/29/1996 07/01/1996
09/24/1996
01/27/1997 02/03/1997 02/05/1997

81 NINETEENTH COMPLIANCE REPORT by defendants (old) (Entered: 05/09/1994)
LODGED stipulation for modification of consent decree by defts (old) (Entered: 05/09/1994)
82 PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS by plaintiff to propsed stipulation and request for transfer to magistrate judge for hearing (old) (Entered: 05/09/1994)
83 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton ORDERING The stipulation for modification of the consent decree entered on 3/8/90 is REFERRED to Magistrate Judge John F Moulds for findings and recommendations re the 5/2/94 stipulation (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 05/09/1994)
84 Defendants Twentieth Status Report (old) (Entered: 07/12/1994)
85 TWENTY-FIRST COMPLICANCE REPORT by defendants (old) (Entered: 10/06/1994)
86 TWENTY-SECOND COMPLAINCE REPORT by defendants (old) (Entered: 01/13/1995)
87 DEFENDANTS' TWENTY-THIRD COMPLIANCE REPORT (old) (Entered: 04/14/1995)
88 NOTICE by defendant State of California of submission of twenty-fourth compliance report (old) (Entered: 07/17/1995)
89 NOTICE by defendant State of California regarding filing of twenty-fifth compliance report (old) (Entered: 09/18/1995)
90 TWENTY-SIXTH COMPLIANCE REPORT by defendants (old) (Entered: 03/01/1996)
91 TWENTY-SEVENTH COMPLIANCE REPORT by dft (old) (Entered: 04/30/1996)
92 NOTICE by defendants State of California, Hon George Deukmejian, James Rowland, Dr. Nadim Khoury, Eddie Ylst and Dr. Kenneth Shepard regarding twenty-eighth compliance report (old) Modified on 07/03/1996 (Entered: 07/02/1996)
93 TWENTY-NINTH COMPLIANCE REPORT by dfts State of California, Hon George Deukmejian, James Rowland, Dr. Nadim Khoury, Eddie Ylst and Dr. Kenneth Shepard (old) (Entered: 09/25/1996)
94 DFTS' THIRTIETH COMPLIANCE REPORT (kdc) (Entered: 01/28/1997)
95 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE of Andrew J Barrick enters his appearance as counsel for pltf USA (old) (Entered: 02/04/1997)
LODGED stipulation and joint motion to dismiss (old) (Entered: 02/06/1997)

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 7 of 8

02/07/1997 02/14/1997
02/14/1997 04/11/1997 04/11/1997 04/11/1997 04/11/1997 04/16/1997 05/05/1997 05/05/1997 05/20/1997 08/08/1997 09/10/1997 10/08/1997

96 PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS by plaintiff USA to proposed stipulation & request for transfer to Magistrate Judge for hearing (old) (Entered: 02/11/1997)
97 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton GRANTING stipulation and joint motion to dismiss; in this court's view, the parties have agreed to dismiss an aciton are entitled to stip litigating, so long as their agreement does not impair substantial rights possessed by other individuals; the court does not adopt as fact the representation contained in the stipulation submitted with joint motion to dismiss, and the dismissal is without prejudice to any rights or claims of the pltfs in the related case (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 02/14/1997)
LODGED Document not to be signed lodged on 2/5/97 (old) (Entered: 02/14/1997)
98 MOTION for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis by plaintiff USA Motion Hearing not noticed (old) (Entered: 04/14/1997)
99 MOTION for certificate of probable cause by plaintiff USA Motion Hearing not noticed (old) (Entered: 04/14/1997)
100 NOTICE OF APPEAL by non-party from District Court decision ( fee status ifp) (old) Modified on 06/12/1997 (Entered: 04/14/1997)
101 PROOF OF SERVICE by pltf of motion for certificate of probable cause; notice of appeal; motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis (old) (Entered: 04/14/1997)
102 MAILED case information/docket fee payment notice copy of Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals copy of appeal and certified copy of docket sheet to all parties (dd) (Entered: 04/16/1997)
103 NOTIFICATION by 9th Circuit of Appellate Docket Number 97-35382 (dd) (Entered: 05/06/1997)
104 TIME SCHEDLUE ORDER from 9th Circuit (dd) (Entered: 05/06/1997)
107 MOTION to intervene by Raymond D Jackson Sr, Richard Lauranzano (ndd) (Entered: 10/08/1997)
105 MOTION for reconsideration of intervention under Federal rules of Civil procedure 23 and 24 ; Motion Hearing not noticed (old) (Entered: 08/11/1997)
106 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis by plaintiff USA [98-1] is DENIED (cc: all counsel) (kdc) (Entered: 09/10/1997)
108 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING that inmate Richard Lauranzano's 4/11/97 motion for certificate of probable cause [99-1] is DENIED; inmate Richard Lauranzano's 8/8/97 motion for reconsideration [105-1] is GRANTED in part; Clerk is directed to file the motion to intervene, appended to the 8/8/97 motion for reconsideration,

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005

Live 2.4 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California - Docket Report

Page 8 of 8

10/23/1997 10/30/1997 10/30/1997 12/24/1997

nunc pro tunc to5/20/97; the 5/20/97 motion of inmates Raymond D Jackson Sr, Richard Lauranzano to intervene [107-1] is DENIED (cc: all counsel) (ndd) (Entered: 10/08/1997)
109 ORDER from 9th Circuit appeal [100-1] DISMISSED (dd) (Entered: 10/23/1997)
110 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Richard Lauranzano from District Court decision ( fee status request to proceed ifp) (ndd) (Entered: 12/16/1997)
111 MOTION to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal by inv Richard Lauranzano (ndd) Modified on 12/16/1997 (Entered: 12/16/1997)
112 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING pltf's 10/30/97 appeal [110-1] is not taken in good faith; motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal by inv Richard Lauranzano [111-1] is DENIED; the Clerk of the Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 12/24/1997)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

07/06/2005 12:38:03

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

2:89-cv-01233-LKKJFM

Billable Pages: 4

Cost:

0.32

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?565141027378737-L_280_0-1

7/6/2005