Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520-899/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 

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 

28 

1 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RALPH COLEMAN, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., et al., 

Defendants. 

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

ORDER 

As required by court order, ECF No. 5786, this matter came on for further status 

conference regarding staffing and telepsychiatry on June 28, 2018. The parties filed a joint status 

report, ECF No. 5841, as required by the order, and the parties were represented by counsel at the 

hearing. See ECF No. 5842. 

 On October 10, 2017, the court set a one-year deadline by which “all outstanding 

issues pertaining to achieving adequate mental health staffing levels must be resolved and the 

required staffing levels achieved.” ECF No. 5711 at 28. An initial status conference, set for 

April 12, 2018, was advanced to February 15, 2018 to address a dispute that arose following 

prison tours conducted unilaterally by consultants retained by defendants to address staffing 

issues. See ECF No. 5786 at 1 (citing ECF No. 5771 at 3). By order after hearing, the court 

directed the Special Master to “take all steps necessary to create a complete factual record for 

///// 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 5850 Filed 07/03/18 Page 1 of 10
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 

28 

2

consideration and resolution of” three issues outlined in the order, and directed the parties, under 

the Special Master’s guidance, to address the questions, as follows: 

1. Can defendants hire a sufficient number of psychiatrists, through 

salary adjustments, forensic psychiatric fellowships, exhaustion of 

clustering, and other recruiting and retention efforts, to meet the 

staffing levels for psychiatrists required by the 2009 court-ordered 

staffing ratios, ECF No. 3693, with a maximum ten percent vacancy 

rate as required by the court’s June 13, 2002 order, ECF No. 1383? 

2. What role does and can telepsychiatry play, consistent with the 

Eighth Amendment, to aid in solving the psychiatrist staffing 

shortage? 

3. Keeping in mind that the staffing levels that preceded the current 

ratios were constitutionally inadequate, are there any adjustments to 

the psychiatrist staffing ratios that could be made to alleviate the 

psychiatrist staffing shortages without compromising the 

constitutionally required access to adequate mental health care? 

ECF No. 5786 at 3-4. The purpose of the June 2018 status conference was to inform the court of 

the progress in resolving these questions, with an eye to ensuring timely compliance with the 

October 10, 2017 order. 

Though significant work remains, the court is encouraged by the progress reported by the 

parties and by the Special Master. The court remains hopeful that with continued diligent focus 

on collaboration and the critically important end goal of permanent achievement of 

constitutionally adequate mental health staffing levels, the parties and the Special Master will be 

able to report compliance with the October 10, 2017 order by the one-year deadline. To that end, 

this order provides further guidance on the three questions outlined above, considering both the 

progress and the disputes on those issues reported in the parties’ joint status report, as well as 

additional information provided to the court by the Special Master. 

I. Staffing Ratios 

Regarding the third question set forth above, on May 17, 2018, defendants submitted to 

the Special Master and the plaintiffs a proposal to eliminate positions allocated in the 2009 

Staffing Plan that either have never been implemented or, in defendants’ view, are not required 

under the Revised Program Guide. ECF No. 5786 at 8 & Ex. 2 (hereafter “Staffing Proposal”). 

Plaintiffs have responded to the Staffing Proposal, it has been presented to the All-Parties’ 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 5850 Filed 07/03/18 Page 2 of 10
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 

28 

3

Workgroup, and the Special Master’s experts have provided their preliminary responses, 

signaling approval of some aspects and suggesting some modifications. Id. at 8. The Special 

Master has not formulated a final position on the Staffing Proposal, and it will be the subject of 

discussion at the next All-Parties’ Workgroup meeting, scheduled for July 9, 2018. 

Defendants are applauded for the wisdom reflected in conducting a concrete evaluation of 

the functions described in the 2009 Staffing Plan, considering current circumstances. While the 

court takes no position on the merits of any aspect of the Staffing Proposal at this time, much of 

the proposal appears to hold significant promise. The court will allow the process being managed 

by the Special Master to run its course until October 2018. 

II. Hiring/Clustering 

The parties’ positions with respect to the first question in the February 15, 2016 order are 

clearly outlined in the joint status report and appear essentially unchanged from their prior 

positions. See ECF No. 5711 at 9-10. Defendants do not believe additional increases in mental 

health salaries or further clustering of mentally ill inmates will help them meet the operative 

staffing ratios at the required ten percent vacancy rate, and that further clustering “may in fact be 

detrimental” to their recruitment and retention efforts. ECF No. 5841 at 5-6. Plaintiffs believe 

defendants’ conclusion on salaries is premature and that further discussion about clustering is 

necessary. Id. at 6. 

 Defendants report they have “retained a labor economics group to support their efforts to 

respond to questions raised regarding salary, compensation, and labor market trends.” Id. at 6 

n.2. They state they have retained this expertise “[i]n anticipation of the possible need to move to 

modify the 2009 Staffing Model” if the parties are unable to agree on the Staffing Proposal. Id. 

After the court’s June hearing, the Special Master confirmed to the court that, as he has 

previously signaled to the parties, he intends to move forward with hiring an independent labor 

economist and that he will be doing so within the next three weeks. At this juncture, therefore, 

the court directs the parties to refrain from any further motion practice. The court previously has 

directed the Special Master to “create a complete factual record for consideration and resolution” 

of this issue, as well as the other issues identified in the February 15, 2018 order. ECF No. 5786 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 5850 Filed 07/03/18 Page 3 of 10
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 

28 

4

at 3. Accordingly, the parties will be directed to report to the court on the status of defendants’ 

Staffing Proposal and any outstanding staffing disputes in a joint status report to be filed by 

September 7, 2018. At the October 2018 hearing, the court will consider only material disputes 

about any remaining obstacles to timely compliance with the October 10, 2017 order. As used in 

this order, a material dispute is one whose resolution is required to achieve timely compliance 

with the October 10, 2017 order. The parties shall prepare their status report in consultation with 

the Special Master so that he can certify the following with respect to each identified dispute: (1) 

whether it is material; (2) that good faith efforts to resolve the dispute have been exhausted; and 

(3) the dispute is not susceptible of resolution except by the court. By September 14, 2018, the 

Special Master shall provide to the parties and file with the court all parts of the developed factual 

record relevant to resolution of any dispute he certifies satisfies all three criteria. 

III. Telepsychiatry 

The area of work on the above list closest to completion is defendants’ telepsychiatry 

policy. The parties report four areas of disagreement: whether the policy complies with key 

provisions of the court’s October 10, 2017 order concerning limitations on its use in inpatient 

settings; whether, and to what extent, telepsychiatry may be used as a substitute for on-site 

psychiatry at all levels of the Mental Health Services Delivery System (MHSDS); whether 

telepsychiatry may be used at cell-fronts; and whether psychiatric nurse practitioners should be 

authorized to provide telepsychiatry services. ECF No. 5841 at 7-8. 

The first two disputes arise from a disagreement over interpretation of the relevant 

requirements of the court’s October 10, 2017 order. Defendants’ reading of the court’s order, or 

any purported misunderstanding regarding the order’s meaning, borders on the frivolous, given 

that the position defendants take now is substantially similar to the position they took in 

objections that have been effectively overruled by the court. See ECF No. 5591 at 5-9; ECF No. 

5711 at 22-23. Nonetheless, the court now confirms the following: 

///// 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 5850 Filed 07/03/18 Page 4 of 10
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 

28 

5

The recommendations of the Special Master concerning the use of telepsychiatry, as 

clarified by the October 11, 2017 order, shall – or should, in the obligatory sense -- form the basis 

of the telepsychiatry addendum to the Revised Program Guide. ECF No. 5711 at 23, 30.1

 

A. CCCMS 

Specifically, consistent with the Special Master’s recommendations, telepsychiatry should 

not replace on-site psychiatry at any level of care above CCCMS. The Special Master has 

clarified for the court that his experts agree telepsychiatry may replace on-site psychiatry at the 

CCCMS level of care as long as the conditions described in the October 10, 2017 order are met, 

namely: (1) telepsychiatrists visit the institution at least twice a year; and (2) defendants continue 

a good faith effort to recruit on-site psychiatrists for all institutions providing a CCCMS level of 

care. ECF No. 5711 at 21. At hearing, the parties represented there is no dispute over the use of 

telepsychiatry at the CCCMS level of care. 

Until the court approves a final telepsychiatry policy, defendants shall proceed forthwith 

will full implementation of telepsychiatry at the CCCMS level of care, conditioned on biannual 

visits from telepsychiatrists to CCCMS programs and continued good faith efforts by defendants 

to recruit on-site psychiatrists for these programs. 

B. EOP 

Telepsychiatry may supplement on-site psychiatry at the Enhanced Outpatient (EOP) level 

of care but it should not replace on-site psychiatry. Although EOP is labeled an “outpatient” 

program, outpatient is contextual and relative to inpatient programs within the MHSDS; 

moreover, the Revised Program Guide makes clear EOP is a residential program, synonymous 

 

1

 To the extent defendants’ asserted confusion arises from use of the word “should” at 21:4, 

21:12, 23:10, 23:11 and 30:8 of the October 10, 2017 order, the court observes that this is the 

term used by the Special Master in the recommendations that were adopted by the court. See, 

e.g., ECF No. 5711 at 21 (quoting ECF No. 5564 at 15-17). It is true that “shall” is mandatory, 

while “should” can be either obligatory or permissive. Compare 

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/shall (definition of shall) with

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/should (definition of should). However, the 

overarching directive of the October 10, 2017 order is that those recommendations are to form the 

basis of the telepsychiatry policy; in addition, the policy was to be finalized under the guidance of 

the Special Master and his experts. Thus, the guidance of the Special Master and his experts 

about whether “should” carries its obligatory meaning in these contexts controls development of 

the policy. 

 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 5850 Filed 07/03/18 Page 5 of 10
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 

28 

6

with an inpatient setting. All inmates at this level of care are housed in separate specifically 

designated EOP housing units, which provide housing, treatment and programming for seriously 

mentally ill inmates “whose mental illness precludes their placement and participation in the” 

general population. Revised Program Guide at 12-4-1. Any telepsychiatrist assigned to an EOP 

unit must visit that unit at least four times a year. See ECF No. 5711 at 21. 

C. MHCB 

Telepsychiatry may not be used at the MHCB level of care except “‘as a last resort or in 

emergency situations when an on-site psychiatrist is not available.’” Id. at 21 (internal citation 

omitted). 

D. Finalization of Policy 

In issuing the October 10, 2017 order, the court specifically rejected as insufficient 

evidence tendered by defendants in an effort to demonstrate that telepsychiatry can and should be 

widely used at all levels of the MHSDS. Id. at 21-22. Defendants would be well advised to cease 

their continued reliance here on evidence the court has rejected. Having considered defendants’ 

argument at the June 2018 hearing, that the telepsychiatry policy should not be finalized until 

overlapping staffing allocation and ratio issues are resolved, the court is not persuaded. Rather, 

the court confirms its tentative position, shared at the hearing, that finalizing the telepsychiatry 

policy now will clarify the staffing landscape so that other outstanding issues can be resolved in a 

manner most likely to gain the court’s approval. Accordingly, the court will direct the Special 

Master to finalize a proposed telepsychiatry policy that is in his view consistent with the 

provisions of the October 10, 2017 order and the recommendations of his experts. Specifically, 

the Special Master shall propose in the final draft policy resolutions to the third and fourth 

disputes raised by the parties, concerning cell-front telepsychiatry and whether psychiatric nurse 

practitioners should be permitted to provide telepsychiatry services. The Special Master shall 

circulate that proposal to the parties and obtain their responses. In preparing their responses, the 

parties shall bear in mind that the Special Master’s opinions are informed and guided by a team of 

nationally recognized experts in correctional mental health, many of whom have served in an 

expert capacity for most of the twenty-three years this case has been in the remedial phase. See, 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 5850 Filed 07/03/18 Page 6 of 10
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 

28 

7

e.g., ECF No. 669 at 2-3 & attached curriculum vitae (Jeffrey L. Metzner, M.D.); ECF No. 920 at 

1-2 & attached curriculum vitae (Kerry C. Hughes, M.D.); ECF No. 2161-1 at 3 & ECF No. 

2162-1 (Mary Perrien, Ph.D.); ECF No. 2211-1 at 3-4 & attached curriculum vitae (Henry A. 

Dlugacz, Esq.). The Special Master shall file the proposed policy together with any party’s 

responses within thirty days from the date of this order. 

Finally, the court notes the Revised Program Guide contemplates annual modifications, as 

appropriate. The October 10, 2017 order contemplates the possibility that ongoing monitoring 

may lead to modification of the telepsychiatry policy, see ECF No. 5711 at 30, and nothing in this 

order precludes such modifications as may be required, including as a result of the completion of 

the work required by the October 10, 2017 order. 

IV. Additional Matters 

At hearing, the court authorized the parties to file, by August 3, 2018, a joint status report 

addressing any additional process, including discovery or motion practice, the parties believe 

might be required to ensure timely compliance with the October 10, 2017 order. It cannot be said 

too many times: the court looks with great disfavor on further litigation now to resolve any 

staffing issues, particularly given the progress the parties are making when focused on 

constructive problem solving. Nonetheless, should it be apparent to the parties, with the Special 

Master’s oversight, that discovery will be necessary to a full and fair presentation of a material 

staffing dispute as described above, the parties may, by August 3, 2018, file a joint status report 

describing the nature of the dispute and the narrow scope of discovery any party believes is 

required. No discovery or motion practice is authorized unless or until the court approves it. 

The October 10, 2017 order requires the parties to file a joint status report not later than 

thirty days prior to the status conference. ECF No. 5711 at 31. That order will be modified to 

require discussion of the following specific matters in a joint status report to now be filed by 

September 7, 2018. 

1. The status of defendants’ Staffing Proposal, and if full agreement has not been 

reached, remaining disputes shall be described and presented to the court consistent 

with the provisions of this order; 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 5850 Filed 07/03/18 Page 7 of 10
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 

28 

8

2. The status of implementation of the final telepsychiatry policy, which will have been 

approved by the court in August 2018; 

3. Whether defendants will timely achieve compliance with the October 10, 2017 order 

and, if not, why not; 

4. If defendants will not timely achieve compliance, the parties’ respective positions on 

enforcement; and 

5. If defendants will timely achieve compliance, the parties’ respective positions on 

durability of the staffing remedy, with due consideration given to the fact that the 

adequacy of telepsychiatry must be monitored for at least one year, as well as to future 

projections for the size of the mental health population and what steps, if any, may be 

required to maintain staffing levels commensurate with that population. 

V. Conclusion 

For the reasons explained in this order, the court is encouraged by the progress to date on 

the critically important task of achieving and maintaining constitutionally adequate mental health 

staffing levels in California’s prisons. The court expects and anticipates that the parties will 

continue to work with an eye to avoiding litigation, and that the September 7, 2018 status report 

will demonstrate that compliance with the October 10, 2017 order will be achieved. 

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

1. Within thirty days from the date of this order, the Special Master shall complete a 

final proposed telepsychiatry policy, circulate that proposed policy to the parties, 

obtain their responses, and file the proposed policy together with any responses 

from the parties. 

2. Defendants shall proceed forthwith will full implementation of telepsychiatry at 

the CCCMS level of care, conditioned on biannual visits from telepsychiatrists to 

CCCMS programs and continued good faith efforts by defendants to recruit on-site 

psychiatrists for these programs. 

3. Should the parties and the Special Master believe that discovery will be necessary 

to a full and fair presentation of a material dispute central to resolution of 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 5850 Filed 07/03/18 Page 8 of 10
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 

28 

9

outstanding staffing issues, the parties shall file, not later than August 3, 2018, a 

joint status report addressing any additional process, including discovery or motion 

practice, that any party believes may be required to resolve such issue(s) to ensure 

timely compliance with the October 10, 2017 order. Any such joint status report 

shall specifically describe the dispute and the scope of the discovery a party 

believes is required. 

4. The October 10, 2017 order requiring a joint status report not later than thirty days 

prior to the October 11, 2017 hearing is modified to require discussion of the 

following specific matters in a joint status report to be filed by September 7, 2018: 

a. The status of defendants’ Staffing Proposal; if full agreement has not been 

reached, remaining disputes shall be described and presented to the court 

consistent with the provisions of this order; 

b. The status of implementation of the final telepsychiatry policy; 

c. Whether defendants will timely achieve compliance with the October 10, 

2017 order and, if not, why not; 

d. If defendants will not timely achieve compliance, the parties’ respective 

positions on enforcement; and 

e. If defendants will timely achieve compliance, the parties’ respective 

positions on durability of the staffing remedy, with due consideration given 

to the fact that the adequacy of telepsychiatry must be monitored for at 

least one year, and consideration of future projections of the size of the 

mental health population as well as what steps, if any, may be required to 

maintain staffing levels commensurate with that population. 

The status report shall be prepared in consultation with the Special Master, who as 

discussed above shall certify whether any remaining dispute is material, that good 

faith efforts to resolve the dispute have been exhausted, and that the dispute is not 

susceptible of resolution except by the court. The Special Master shall provide to 

///// 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 5850 Filed 07/03/18 Page 9 of 10
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 

28 

10

the parties and the court all parts of the developed factual record relevant to 

resolution of any outstanding dispute so certified. 

DATED: July 3, 2018. 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 5850 Filed 07/03/18 Page 10 of 10