Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520-1312/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 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

Defendants have filed a motion to exclude the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation (CDCR) policy, which provides for review of maximum custody inmate-patients 

placed in CDCR’s Psychiatric Inpatient Programs (PIPs) (hereafter PIP Max Custody Review 

Policy), from the continuous quality improvement tool (CQIT). ECF No. 8076; see also

November 16, 2023 Order, ECF No. 8069, at 13. Plaintiffs oppose the motion. ECF No. 8084. 

For the reasons explained in this order, this matter is set for a videoconference hearing before the 

undersigned on February 7, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. 

CQIT “‘is a comprehensive tool that, once finalized, defendants will ultimately use as part 

of a process to “self-monitor” the key components of the remedy in this action.’” July 1, 2021 

Order, ECF No. 7216, at 2 (quoting September 3, 2020 Order, ECF No. 6846, at 10 (internal 

citation omitted)). The PIP Max Custody Review policy was developed and implemented as part 

28 of a settlement agreement between the parties allowing defendants to use Therapeutic 

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 8124 Filed 02/02/24 Page 1 of 5
2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

Treatment Modules (TTMS) as part of providing treatment to maximum custody inmate-patients 

in CDCR’s PIPS (TTM Stipulation). See generally ECF No. 7392. 

Section I of the TTM Stipulation describes “Defendants’ Plan” for development and 

implementation of the PIP Max Custody Review Policy “to provide direction regarding the 

preference for and ability to remove the designation of Max custody from Coleman class

members in PIPs when appropriate” and for placement of TTMs in areas of CDCR PIPs only in 

“areas where Max custody patients program.” Id.at 2. The plan includes a two-year period 

during which defendants would “submit to the Special Master and Plaintiffs a quarterly report on 

the status of implementation” of the Max Custody Review Policy, and for a further meet and 

confer at the end of the two-year period “about the frequency and scope of” defendants’ reporting 

obligations. Id. at 3-4. 

Section III of the TTM Stipulation sets out expressly a disagreement between the parties

over whether the use of TTMs violates the Eighth Amendment and whether the Max Custody 

Review Policy “is a necessary part of the Eighth Amendment remedy in this case.” Id. at 4. 

Paragraph 15 of the TTM Stipulation provides: “The parties agree that Defendants’ plan shall not 

be included in the MHSDS Program Guide or Compendium. This stipulation sets forth the 

entirety of the remedy related to the issues set forth above.” Id. at 5. 

On December 9, 2021, the court approved the first fourteen paragraphs of the TTM 

Stipulation and conditionally approved paragraph 15 “pending final resolution of what updating 

process the court will adopt for the Program Guide in the future.” Id. at 6. On February 7, 2022, 

the court gave final approval of paragraph 15 of the TTM Stipulation and referred the provisions 

regarding the use of TTMS to the Special Master “for consideration as to whether they are, or 

should be, reflected on the list of CQIT indicators currently under review during the TwentyNinth Monitoring Round.” February 7, 2022 Order, ECF No. 7456, at 3-4. The motion before 

the court arises from the Special Master’s recommendation that a CQIT indicator should be 

created to measure defendants’ compliance with the Max Custody Review Policy. See ECF No. 

8039 at 10. The Special Master makes this recommendation in large part because he “has 

28 consistently monitored and reported his findings regarding treatment inadequacies for PIP 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 8124 Filed 02/02/24 Page 2 of 5
3 

1 patients on max custody status . . . [and] has consistently identified the lack of mental health 

2 treatment provided to max custody patients – particularly those housed in the PIPS – to be a 

3 highly concerning deficiency.” Id. at 13. In his view, the Max Custody Review Policy 

4 memorandum issue included in the TTM stipulation “appears intended to remedy this 

5 longstanding deficiency.” Id. 

6 Defendants objected to the Special Master’s recommendation in large part based on their 

7 contention that the TTM Stipulation is by its terms excluded from the Program Guide, and the 

8 court directed defendants to bring a motion to focus on this threshold question. ECF No. 8069 at 

9 13. In their motion, defendants contend the TTM Stipulation is expressly excluded from the

10 Program Guide and the Compendium, which are the two primary remedial plans in this action;

11 they say the exclusion is provided by the terms of the settlement agreement and therefore the

12 Stipulation cannot be included in CQIT. See generally ECF No. 8076. Plaintiffs disagree,

13 contending that the parties’ intent was to exclude the PIP Max Custody Review policy from the

14 annual Program Guide update process, which the court has now discontinued, and not from the

15 remedy in this action. See generally ECF No. 8084.

16 The court has reviewed the following: the Special Master’s recommendation to create a 

17 CQIT key indicator to measure compliance with the PIP Max Custody Review policy, ECF No. 

8039 at 10-14; the parties’ briefing on defendants’ motion,1 18 as well as the November 4, 2021 

19 Stipulation of the parties, ECF No. 7366; the court’s November 8, 2021 Order to Show Cause, 

20 ECF No. 7368; the parties’ Joint Response to the Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 7380; the 

21 court’s order approving paragraphs 1 through 14 of the parties’ stipulation and conditionally 

22 approving paragraph 15 thereof, December 9, 2021 Order, ECF No. 7382; and the court’s 

23 February 7, 2022 order giving final approval to paragraph 15 of the parties’ stipulation and 

24 referring to the Special Master the question of whether the provisions of the parties’ stipulation 

25 “are, or should be, reflected in the list of CQIT indicators,” February 7, 2022 Order, ECF No. 

1

 On December 26, 2023, defendants filed a reply in support of the motion. ECF No. 

8100. On December 27, 2023, plaintiff filed objections to the reply as unauthorized; they ask that 

the court strike or disregard the reply. ECF No. 8102. Ruling on plaintiffs’ objections is deferred 

pending further order of the court. 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 8124 Filed 02/02/24 Page 3 of 5
4 

1 7456, at 4. Having completed this review, the court has identified some issues that require further 

2 discussion with the parties. 

3 First, the better reading of paragraph 15 specifically and the record more generally 

4 suggests the purpose of paragraph 15 was to exclude the Max Custody Review Policy and the 

5 plan for use of TTMs from the Program Guide and the Compendium to avoid their inclusion in an 

6 updating process then under consideration by the court, rather than to exclude the parties’ 

7 agreement from the remedy in this case entirely. While the Program Guide and the Compendium 

8 are primary remedial documents in this action, they do not constitute the entire remedy. See

9 September 3, 2020 Order, ECF No. 6846, at 4-6 (discussing Program Guide, Compendium, and 

10 “several additional remedial measures” ordered by the court). The second sentence of paragraph 

11 15 suggests the TTM Stipulation, after the court approved it, would be its own remedial document 

12 in this action for the issues it covers. Defendants, however, disagree this was what they intended 

13 when they insisted on the inclusion of paragraph 15 in the TTM Stipulation. 

14 Beyond this dispute over the meaning of paragraph 15, defendants have gone one step 

15 further and now request the TTM Stipulation be set aside and the court’s order thereon vacated if 

16 the court determines that a CQIT indicator is required for the PIP Max Custody Review policy. 

17 ECF No. 8076. Before making any conclusive findings or taking steps that could set aside the 

18 settlement agreement, the court will set this matter for hearing via videoconference. 

19 The parties shall be prepared to address the following issues at hearing: 

20 1. Whether defendants’ interpretation of paragraph 15 of the TTM Stipulation effectively

21 excludes from the plaintiff class Max custody inmates in the CDCR PIPs; 

22 2. Whether such an exclusion, not made express in the TTM Stipulation, is valid; and

23 3. If these class members remain part of the class, how defendants intend to demonstrate

24 to the court they are meeting their Eighth Amendment obligations to them. 

25 In addition, the parties shall be fully prepared to address whether and if so how the issues 

26 presented by defendants’ motion and the Special Master’s recommendation can be resolved 

27 without setting aside the TTM Stipulation and precipitating further litigation. 

28 ///// 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 8124 Filed 02/02/24 Page 4 of 5
5 

1 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is set for 

2 videoconference before Chief Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on February 7, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. 

3 DATED: February 1, 2024. 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 8124 Filed 02/02/24 Page 5 of 5