Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520-1337/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 For over nine years, defendants have been under court orders to implement twenty-nine 

18 recommendations made by the Special Master’s expert on suicide prevention, Lindsay Hayes, as 

19 part of the remediation necessary to the ongoing Eighth Amendment violations in this class 

20 action. See generally Jan. 6, 2023 Order at 3-9, ECF No. 7696. In December 2020, the court set 

21 out clear standards for Mr. Hayes to use in further reporting to the court on defendants’ 

22 compliance or noncompliance. Id. at 6-8 (quoting Dec. 3, 2020 Order at 7-10, ECF No. 6973). 

23 By the beginning of 2023, the court observed defendants still had not adequately implemented 

24 fifteen of the twenty-nine recommendations “sufficiently for Mr. Hayes to report full 

25 implementation.” Id. at 21. 

26 On February 28, 2023, the court ordered defendants to “complete implementation of all 

27 outstanding suicide prevention recommendations on or before April 1, 2023 so that 

28 implementation is complete before Mr. Hayes starts his sixth round re-audit” and also ordered 

RALPH COLEMAN, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:90-cv-0520 KJM DB P 

ORDER 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 8238 Filed 05/16/24 Page 1 of 6
2 

1 that “[f]ines in the amount of $1,000 per outstanding recommendation per date [would] begin 

2 accumulating on April 1, 2023.” Feb. 28, 2023 Order at 4, ECF No. 7743. The court observed 

3 that “Mr. Hayes [would] file his sixth round re-audit report, after circulating it in draft to the 

4 parties, in accordance with the standard practice in this action as set out in the Order of 

5 Reference, ECF No. 640.” Id. Anticipating the time that would “pass between completion of 

6 Mr. Hayes’s sixth round re-audit report and its filing,” the court authorized the Special Master to 

7 “in his discretion, allow defendants during the period up to and including the time for objections 

8 to the draft report to demonstrate to the Special Master and to Mr. Hayes that they have 

9 completed work on outstanding recommendations after the April 1, 2023 deadline set by this 

10 order” without extending the time for filing such objections. Id. at 4 & n.4 (emphasis added). 

11 On February 26, 2024, the court issued a minute order that provided in full: 

12 The Special Master has advised the court that his suicide prevention expert, Lindsay 

13 Hayes, has substantially completed his Sixth Round Re-Audit Report which 

14 includes findings that Defendants have failed to complete implementation of all 

15 outstanding suicide prevention recommendations, as required by the court’s 

16 February 28, 2023 Order, ECF No. 7743. Given the significance of Mr. Hayes’ 

17 findings on his sixth round re-audit, the court will direct the Special Master to file 

18 Mr. Hayes’ Sixth Round Re-Audit Report directly with the court and without 

19 circulation of a draft report to the parties. Cf. Feb. 28, 2023 Order at 4, ECF No. 

20 7743. The parties will have thirty days from the date Mr. Hayes' Sixth Round Re21 Audit Report is filed in which to file responses to the report. No extensions of time 

22 will be granted absent a showing of exceptional cause. IT IS SO ORDERED. 

23 Feb. 26, 2024 Minute Order, ECF No. 8137. Neither party filed objections to that minute order. 

24 On March 1, the Special Master filed Mr. Hayes’ Sixth Re-Audit Report. ECF Nos. 8143, 

25 8143-1. The Special Master and Mr. Hayes report defendants have “fully implemented only one 

26 (Recommendation 20) of the fifteen remaining suicide prevention recommendations” for CDCR’s 

27 outpatient mental health programs. The Sixth Re-Audit Report also includes a first re-audit of 

28 defendants’ compliance with the court’s January 6, 2023 order to implement sixteen 

29 recommended suicide prevention measures in the California Department of Corrections and 

30 Rehabilitation (CDCR) Psychiatric Inpatient Programs (PIPs). On April 1, 2024, defendants filed 

31 objections to the Sixth Re-Audit Report that are 106 pages in length and accompanied by a 

32 request for judicial notice of several declarations. ECF No. 8179, 8180. Section IV of those 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 8238 Filed 05/16/24 Page 2 of 6
3 

1 objections, approximately 75 pages in length, comprises specific objections to Mr. Hayes’ 

2 findings concerning the status of defendants’ implementation of each of the recommendations at 

3 the audited prison institutions, as well as his findings and recommendations related to the PIPs. 

ECF No. 8179 at 28-103.1 4 

5 On April 3, 2024, plaintiffs filed a request for leave to respond to defendants’ objections. 

6 ECF No. 8185. Defendants opposed the request. ECF No. 8186. On April 8, 2024, the court 

7 granted plaintiffs’ request in part and ordered focused briefing by the parties. See generally

8 Apr. 8, 2024 Order, ECF No. 8192. On May 3, 2024, the court granted plaintiffs’ request in 

9 additional part and authorized a response from plaintiffs and a reply from defendants to the 

10 objections raised in Section III of defendants’ objections. See generally May 3, 2024 Order, 

11 ECF No. 8227. 

12 In their April 3, 2024 request, plaintiffs also seek an order requiring the Special Master to 

13 respond to defendants’ objections and to revise Mr. Hayes’ report “if he determines any revisions 

14 are warranted.” ECF No. 8185 at 3. In the briefing, defendants also oppose this part of plaintiffs’ 

15 request, see generally, ECF No. 8186, though at a status conference on April 26, 2024 defendants 

16 suggested that Mr. Hayes’ informal review of defendants’ objections to a draft report might have 

17 led to changes in the final report. 

18 The court has conducted a preliminary review of the Sixth Re-Audit Report and Section 

19 IV of defendants’ objections. As discussed with the parties at the April 26, 2024 status 

20 conference, the court intends to treat those objections separately from the objections raised in 

21 Section III. The court also intends to rule on the findings and recommendations with respect to 

22 the PIPs by separate order, as these are separate from the recommendations defendants were 

23 required to implement by April 1, 2023. 

24 At the outset, the court rejects defendants’ contention at the status conference that they 

25 were unable to present Mr. Hayes with any of the voluminous information presented in their 

1

 In this order, citations to page numbers in documents filed in the Court’s Electronic Case 

Filing (ECF) system are to pages assigned by ECF and located in the upper right hand corner of 

the pages. 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 8238 Filed 05/16/24 Page 3 of 6
4 

1 objections at any point before Mr. Hayes completed his draft report. As both the Special Master 

2 and Mr. Hayes confirmed at the status conference, Mr. Hayes is accompanied by CDCR’s 

3 headquarters/regional staff on each of his site visits, and he has a longstanding practice, well4 known to defendants, of conducting an exit meeting for each prison institution and PIP shortly 

5 after completion of each site visit. He has regularly scheduled monthly meetings with defendants 

6 where they are able to present him with any updates on their progress toward compliance. He 

7 also observes weekly Suicide Prevention Response Unit staff meetings, which provide yet another 

8 opportunity for defendants to report any new updates on compliance. In short, defendants have 

9 always known at least the general contours of Mr. Hayes’ audit findings at the conclusion of his 

10 site visits and they have had ample opportunity to report new information to him both weekly and 

11 monthly. Moreover, defendants did not object to the February 26, 2024 minute order directing 

12 the Special Master to file the Sixth Re-Audit Report directly with the court, although the Sixth 

13 Re-Audit Report was not filed until March 1, 2024 and notwithstanding their current belated 

14 objection that they were prejudiced by this direct filing. See ECF No. 8179 at 12-13. 

15 The clear purpose of the court’s February 28, 2023 order was two-fold: to order 

16 defendants to comply with the outstanding suicide prevention recommendations by April 1, 2023, 

17 and, if such compliance was not timely achieved, to demonstrate compliance to the Special 

18 Master and Mr. Hayes as soon as it was achieved to minimize the accumulation of coercive fines. 

19 That is the only reasonable reading of the order under the present circumstances. It is clear from 

20 the order that the Special Master had the discretion to accept evidence of compliance from 

21 defendants at any time between Mr. Hayes’ completion of a site visit and the time defendants 

22 allege they achieved compliance. It also is clear from the record that defendants had ample 

23 opportunity over the past year to present such evidence if it existed. Defendants’ argument that 

24 they could not present this evidence to Mr. Hayes until he had reduced all his findings to one draft 

25 report is simply incorrect, and smacks of gamesmanship. 

26 Defendants’ approach, which the court can only conclude remains more focused on 

27 litigation strategy than on their Eighth Amendment responsibilities, requires that the court act to 

28 compel compliance, having exhausted all other reasonable approaches. The action the court will 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 8238 Filed 05/16/24 Page 4 of 6
5 

1 take, at this juncture, is two-pronged, requiring steps to protect the Eighth Amendment rights of 

2 the plaintiff class and steps to end ongoing non-compliance with this court’s longstanding orders 

3 regarding suicide prevention. To that end, the court orders plaintiffs to respond to the following 

4 questions presented by Section IV of defendants’ objections within thirty days: 

5 1. The court’s initial review of defendants’ objections suggests that even if the court 

6 were to sustain all of defendants’ objections to specific findings in the Sixth Re-Audit 

7 Report, defendants would remain out of compliance with Recommendations 3, 9, 18, 

8 21, 28, 29, 31, and 32, and that defendants have offered no facts to rebut the specific 

9 findings of non-compliance in the Report with respect to Recommendations 17 and 31. 

10 Defendants argue principally that Recommendation 17 is “redundant” of other 

11 recommendations and should be stricken, and they object that Mr. Hayes’ findings 

12 with respect to Recommendation 31 are in some way or another “improper” but do not 

13 make a factual showing of compliance with this Recommendation. Do some or all of 

14 Mr. Hayes’ findings of non-compliance with these recommendations or any other of 

15 the fourteen outstanding suicide prevention recommendations support contempt 

16 proceedings because defendants would remain out of compliance even if the court 

17 were to sustain all of their specific objections to Mr. Hayes’ findings as to particular 

18 suicide prevention recommendations? If so, which ones? 

19 2. Do any of defendants’ specific objections suggest the need for a further re-audit by 

20 Mr. Hayes as to one or more of the outstanding recommendations. If so, which ones, 

21 and what is the most expeditious and fully effective method for completing any 

22 necessary re-audit? 

23 3. Is defendants’ non-compliance with one or more of the specific recommendation(s) 

24 attributable to the ongoing mental health understaffing the court is addressing in 

25 separate orders so as to suggest the non-compliance with a recommendation is solely a 

26 consequence of defendants’ contempt of the court’s orders to remedy mental health 

27 understaffing in California’s prisons? 

28 ///// 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 8238 Filed 05/16/24 Page 5 of 6
6 

1 Plaintiffs may include such additional response to Section IV of defendants’ objections as 

2 they deem necessary, and should include their response, if any, to Section IV(N) of defendants’ 

3 objections. Defendants are granted a period of fourteen days to file a response to plaintiffs’ 

4 response, at which point the court will submit this matter for decision. 

5 DATED: May 15, 2024. 

6 

7 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 8238 Filed 05/16/24 Page 6 of 6