Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520-1330/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 On October 18, 2023, the Special Master provided the parties with a proposed resolution 

18 for a pending data remediation dispute over whether medical holds should be removed as 

19 suspending events from the indicators developed to measure timeliness of class members 

20 transfers to Enhanced Outpatient Program (EOP) and Correctional Clinical Case Management 

21 System (CCCMS) programs. The Special Master recommends removing the medical hold 

22 language from the suspending events language, scoring transfers to EOP and CCCMS programs 

23 that exceed timeframes required by the Program Guide as not meeting those timeframes, and 

24 modifying the indicators to include drill down information regarding any reasons for delayed 

transfers. See ECF No. 8040 at 10-12.1 25 

1

 Citations to page numbers in documents filed in the Court’s Electronic Case Filing 

(ECF) system are to the page number assigned by ECF and located in the upper right hand corner 

of the page. 

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 8206 Filed 04/18/24 Page 1 of 5
2 

1 In an order filed November 16, 2023, the court reviewed the Special Master’s proposed 

2 resolution, id., defendants’ objections to the proposal, ECF No. 8040 at 1-8, and plaintiffs’ 

3 response to defendants’ objections, ECF No. 8052. Nov. 16, 2023 Order at 14-15, ECF No. 8069. 

4 The court discussed the need for reconciliation between medical policy, as reflected in the Health 

5 Care Department Operations Manual (HCDOM) provisions defendants cited in their objections, 

6 and mental health care policy and granted the parties a period of thirty days to “meet and confer 

7 under the supervision of the Special Master to develop proposed exceptions to the Program Guide 

8 timelines for transfer to CCCMS and EOP levels of care that comport with other court-approved 

9 exceptions to Program Guide transfer timelines and avoid unnecessary conflict with relevant 

10 provisions of the HCDOM.” Id. at 16-17. 

11 At the end of the thirty-day period the parties reported they were “unable to reach 

12 agreement on terms for a medical hold exception” to transfer to CCCMS and EOP programs. 

13 ECF No. 8090 at 2. They request the court resolve the data remediation dispute based on the 

14 original briefing. Id. Alternatively, plaintiffs suggest that the court “refer the dispute over the 

15 specific language of a medical hold exception to the data dispute resolution process so that the 

16 Special Master can make a recommendation of appropriate language.” Id. at 3. 

17 For the reasons explained below, the court overrules defendants’ objections and adopts the 

18 Special Master’s recommendation in full. It also directs the parties to file a joint statement to 

19 assist the court in resolving an outstanding question related to conflicting medical and mental 

20 health policies. 

21 I. LEGAL STANDARD: SPECIAL MASTER’S FINDINGS 

22 The court adopts the Special Master’s findings of fact unless those findings are “clearly 

23 erroneous.” December 11, 1995 Order of Reference, ECF No. 640, at 8; see also ECF No. 7847 

24 at 8-9. “A finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although there is evidence to support it, the 

25 reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake 

26 has been committed.” United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948) (quoted in 

27 Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985)). 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 8206 Filed 04/18/24 Page 2 of 5
3 

1 II. SPECIAL MASTER’S RECOMMENDATIONS 

2 The issue before the court is whether in the data remediation process documentation, i.e., 

3 business rules, for the CCCMS and EOP transfer timeline indicators should be written so that 

4 periods when inmate-patients are subject to medical holds are exempted from the Program Guide 

5 timelines for CCCMS and EOP transfers. The Special Master recommends that such periods not 

6 be exempted from the CCCMS and EOP transfer timeline indicators and that these two indicators 

7 should be modified to include “drill down information” regarding the reason(s) for transfer 

8 delays. ECF No. 8040 at 11. The Special Master observes that this proposed resolution is 

9 “congruent” with the court’s resolution of an identical dispute over the Short Term Restricted 

10 Housing/Long Term Restricted Housing (STRH/LTRH) transfer timeline indicator. Id. at 11-12 

11 (discussing Oct. 11, 2023 Order, ECF No. 8010). 

12 In its November 16, 2023 order, the court concluded the Special Master’s proposed 

13 resolution of this dispute is consistent with the court’s reasoning in its October 11, 2023 order, 

14 resolving the analogous dispute in the context of the STRH/LTRH transfer timeline indicator. 

15 The court also concluded the proposed resolution is “entirely within the confines of this action, 

16 [as] appropriate given the Special Master’s role.” ECF No. 8069 at 17. As noted above, the court 

17 deferred final ruling on the dispute to allow the parties an opportunity to reconcile applicable 

18 medical and mental health care policy. Id. 

19 For reasons the parties do not explain in their joint statement, and despite the parties’ 

20 agreement to several other Program Guide addenda created to reconcile the medical hold policy 

21 with other mental health transfer timelines and approved by the court, see, e.g., Sept. 27, 2019 

22 Order, ECF No. 6295 (approving exceptions to Program Guide timelines for transfer to mental 

23 health crisis beds (MHCBs), ECF No. 6261.1), the parties have been unable to agree on an 

24 appropriate reconciliation in the context of transfers to EOP and CCCMS units. As the court 

25 explained in its November 16, 2023 order “this is an instance where medical policy and mental 

26 health policy must be reconciled.” ECF No. 8069 at 17. Rather than further slowing the already 

27 delayed data remediation process pending this necessary reconciliation, the court will adopt the 

28 ///// 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 8206 Filed 04/18/24 Page 3 of 5
4 

1 Special Master’s reasonable proposed resolution but order the parties to make a further filing as 

2 outlined below. 

3 III. PROGRAM GUIDE EXCEPTIONS 

4 As the court explained in the November 16, 2023 order, “for defendants to comply with 

5 the Eighth Amendment” the conflict between the medical holds policy set out in the HCDOM and 

6 the mental health policy reflected in the transfer timelines at issue “must be resolved.” ECF No. 

7 8069 at 17. In view of the parties’ failure to resolve this conflict in the meet and confer process 

8 the court previously directed, the court will direct the parties to submit the outstanding conflict 

9 over appropriate Program Guide exceptions to the court for review and final resolution. 

10 Specifically, within seven days, the parties shall file a joint statement of their respective final 

11 positions as presented in the meet and confer process required by the court’s November 16, 2023 

12 order accompanied by the last proposal discussed prior to the parties’ determination they could 

13 not reach agreement and a brief statement setting out their respective positions as to whether the 

14 court should require defendants to adopt that as an addendum to the Program Guide. 

15 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

16 1. Defendants’ October 27, 2023 Objections to the Special Master’s Proposed Resolution 

17 of Data Remediation Dispute on AC7.1 (Timely Transfer to EOP) and AC7.4 (Timely Transfer to 

18 CCCMS) – Suspending Events are OVERRULED. 

19 2. The Special Master’s Proposed Resolution of Data Remediation Dispute on AC7.1 

20 (Timely Transfer to EOP) and AC7.4 (Timely Transfer to CCCMS) is ADOPTED in full. 

21 3. The medical hold language shall be removed from the suspending events sections of 

22 the documentation for AC7.1 and AC7.4 and transfers to CCCMS and EOP settings that exceed 

23 required timeframes shall be scored as not satisfying the relevant Program Guide requirement. 

24 Concurrently, defendants shall modify these indicators to include drill down information 

25 regarding any reasons for delayed transfers to EOP and CCCMS settings, including medical 

26 holds. 

27 4. Within seven days from the date of this order, the parties shall file a joint statement of 

28 their respective final positions as presented in the meet and confer process required by the court’s 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 8206 Filed 04/18/24 Page 4 of 5
5 

1 November 16, 2023 order accompanied by the last proposal discussed prior to the parties’ 

2 determination they could not reach agreement and a brief statement setting out their respective 

3 positions as to whether the court should require defendants to adopt that proposal as an addendum 

4 to the Program Guide. 

5 DATED: April 17, 2024. 

6 

7 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 8206 Filed 04/18/24 Page 5 of 5