Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520-1170/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. 

GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., 

Defendants. 

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

ORDER

On August 3, 2020, the court ordered the parties, on an annual basis, to jointly file an 

updated Program Guide and updated Compendium of Custody Related Remedial Measures 

(Compendium) (hereafter Annual Update). August 3, 2020 Order, ECF No. 6806, at 17. At the 

same time, the court provisionally approved an update process, directed that it be followed for 

one year, and directed the parties to file with the 2021 Annual Update a joint submission on the 

efficacy of the provisionally approved update process. Id. at 15, 17. After receiving two 

extensions of time, ECF Nos. 7292, 7322, the parties filed the joint submission and the 2021 

Annual Update on September 29, 2021. ECF Nos. 7332, 7333. 

As the court previously has expressed to the parties, it is not clear the provisionally 

approved updating process was ever followed and, in any event, it became apparent some time 

ago the process was unworkable. See Reporter’s Transcript of Proceedings (RT of 10/7/21 Status 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 7456 Filed 02/07/22 Page 1 of 4
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 

Conference and Hearing on Motion to Strike), ECF No. 7345, at 13:19-22. Moreover, the one 

year test period for the provisional process for updates has expired by the express terms of the 

court’s order providing for the provisional process in the first place, and that process is no longer 

in effect. Id.; see also ECF No. 7342. 

The Program Guide and the Compendium are of course “‘[t]he primary court-approved 

remedial documents in this action.’” See July 1, 2021 Order, ECF No. 7216, at 2. The court has 

“approved several additional remedial plans in aid of the primary remedies, including ‘a courtordered mental health staffing plan, see ECF Nos. 3613 at 2 (court order) & 3693 (staffing plan), 

regular mental health bed projections, see ECF No. 3629, and concomitant planning for and 

building of necessary mental health beds and clinical treatment space, see, e.g. ECF No. 3556,’” 

id. at 3 (quoting July 9, 2019 Order, ECF No. 6214, at 2). In so doing, the court repeatedly has 

stressed that “‘defendants’ development and implementation of an improved quality improvement 

process is fundamental to ending federal court oversight in this action.’” ECF No. 7216 at 3 

(quoting ECF No. 6846 at 10 (internal citation omitted)). The quality improvement process is 

comprehensive, distilling elements of the Program Guide, the Compendium and the other 

remedial measures. The court has written extensively about the years of effort to focus 

implementation of these remedies. See, e.g., ECF No. 6846, passim. Those years of effort have, 

since late 2012, included work on development of a continuous quality improvement tool (CQIT), 

“a comprehensive tool that, once finalized, defendants will . . . use as part of a process to ‘selfmonitor’ the key components of the remedy in this action.” Id. at 10 (citing ECF No. 5439 at 

108). 

In July 2019, “the court held that remedial planning in this action was complete, opening 

the door to updating and finalizing CQIT.” ECF No. 7216 at 2 (citing ECF No. 6214 at 17-18). 

A year later, the court issued a detailed order to “provid[e] a compilation and synthesis [and] 

avoid the need for revisiting the contours of the established and comprehensive remedy in this 

case.” ECF No. 6846 at 29. In that order, the court “identifie[d] CQIT’s ‘key indicators’ as the 

functional equivalent of ‘benchmarks’ that . . . signify the material provisions of the Program 

Guide and the Compendium that must be durably implemented at a degree of compliance the 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 7456 Filed 02/07/22 Page 2 of 4
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 

court will confirm in a subsequent order.” Id. at 28; see also ECF No. 7216 at 4 (“The ‘key 

indicators’ in CQIT ‘signify the material provisions of the Program Guide and the Compendium 

that must be durably implemented’ in order to satisfy the Eighth Amendment.”). Most recently, 

in July 2021, the court provisionally approved a list of CQIT key indicators and ordered the 

Special Master to “test and monitor the functionality and efficacy of” those indicators during his 

Twenty-Ninth Monitoring Round and to report his findings to the court in his Twenty-Ninth 

Round Monitoring Report. ECF No. 7216 at 14. The Twenty-Ninth Monitoring Round is 

underway now. The court anticipates the Special Master will file the Twenty-Ninth Round 

Monitoring Report this Fall and the court will shortly thereafter give final approval to the list of 

CQIT key indicators. 

As the foregoing demonstrates, the impending completion of the list of key CQIT 

indicators will pave the way for full implementation of the material provisions of the courtordered remedy in this case as necessary to meet the requirements of the Eighth Amendment. 

Maintaining the focus on these indicators also will achieve judicial and case management 

efficiencies. 

For the foregoing reasons, after consideration of the September 2021 Annual Update, the 

parties’ joint submission, in camera discussions as requested by the parties relating to Program 

Guide updating, review of the record and good cause appearing, the court HEREBY ORDERS as 

follows: 

1. The 2021 Program Guide Update is APPROVED; 

2. The parties’ dispute over the five policies omitted from the 2021 Program 

Guide Update is referred to the Special Master for consideration as to whether 

the substantive provisions of those policies are, or should be, reflected in the 

list of Continuous Quality Improvement Tool (CQIT) indicators currently 

under review as part of the Twenty-Ninth Monitoring Round; 

3. The 2021 Compendium Update is APPROVED; 

4. The court gives FINAL APPROVAL to Paragraph 15 of the parties’ 

stipulation regarding the use of Therapeutic Treatment Modules (TTMs) in 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 7456 Filed 02/07/22 Page 3 of 4
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 

inpatient settings, see Stipulation and Order, ECF No. 7392, at 6, and the 

parties’ agreement over the use of TTMs in inpatient settings, which the court 

otherwise previously approved on December 9, 2021, ECF No. 7392, with the 

provisions regarding TTMS referred to the Special Master for consideration as 

to whether they are, or should be, reflected in the list of CQIT indicators 

currently under review during the Twenty-Ninth Monitoring Round; 

5. The court will give final approval to a list of CQIT indicators by the end of this

year following submission of the Special Master’s Twenty-Ninth Monitoring

Round Report;

6. The court anticipates that final approval of a list of CQIT indicators will

replace the need for annual updates to the Program Guide and the Compendium 

and, therefore, the parties’ obligation to file further annual updates to the 

Program Guide and the Compendium is DISCONTINUED unless or until 

further order of the court; and

7. Defendants’ January 4, 2022 motion, ECF No. 7411, and defendants’ 

January 6, 2022 motion, ECF No. 7412, are mooted by this order and therefore 

are DENIED. 

DATED: February 4, 2022. 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 7456 Filed 02/07/22 Page 4 of 4