Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520-1077/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 May 29, 2020, the Special Master filed a Report on His Expert’s Analysis of 

Psychiatrist Employment Conditions and Compensation at the California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) (Special 

Master’s Report). ECF No. 6695. The Special Master attaches the expert report that is the 

subject of his Report as Appendix A and also includes four appendices. Id. at 186-317. As 

directed by the court, see ECF No. 6712, the parties have filed a joint status report setting forth 

their respective positions as to the proper timeline for filing objections to the Special Master’s 

Report. ECF No. 6726 at 20-27. Plaintiffs take the position the timeline for objections to the 

Report is the ten-day period set forth in the Order of Reference, ECF No. 640. Defendants’ view 

is that the thirty-day period set forth in the July 29, 2019 Stipulation and Order modifying the 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 6799 Filed 07/31/20 Page 1 of 6
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 

Order of Reference, ECF No. 6230, controls. As explained below, with a limited exception, the 

ten-day period in the Order of Reference applies.1 

The background leading to this court’s approval of the Special Master’s request to 

hire an independent labor economist is set forth in the Special Master’s Report and incorporated 

by reference here. ECF No. 6695 at 2-11. In relevant part, the court approved the Special 

Master’s request to retain EmployStats “to evaluate current salary rates and the efficacy, if any, of 

compensation increases on defendants’ ability to recruit and retain necessary mental health staff 

to comply with the October 10, 2017 order and the prior court orders described therein. . . .”; the 

court specifically provided that “consistent with the history of these remedial proceedings, the 

work of these experts is for use as directed by the Special Master and not as an ‘independent 

source of evidence’ in proceedings before this court.” ECF No. 5919 at 2.2

 

Consistent with this approval, the Special Master directed EmployStats to conduct 

market and salary analyses for both CDCR mental health psychiatrists and DSH psychiatrists and 

to prepare a report of the findings.3 ECF No. 6695 at 11-15. EmployStats provided a draft report 

to the Special Master on August 14, 2019, and the Special Master distributed the report to the 

parties the next day. Id. at 15. Defendants were given a total of sixty days to respond to the draft, 

thirty days longer than the standard thirty-day period the Special Master provides for the parties 

to respond to draft reports. See, e.g., ECF No. 5993 (Special Master granted defendants’ request 

1

 The court reminds defendants that the novel coronavirus pandemic does not excuse 

unilateral failures to comply with or timely seek relief from this court’s orders or the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure, nor does it require any party to accede to such failures. Cf. ECF No. 

6726 at 25:4-7. 

2

 The October 10, 2017 order required defendants, within one year, to come into 

compliance with the staffing ratios in their 2009 Mental Health Staffing Plan, ECF No. 3963, and 

the maximum ten percent staff vacancy rate required by the court’s June 13, 2002 order, ECF No. 

5711 at 30. More than twenty months after the deadline set by that order, defendants still are not 

in compliance with its requirements. While enforcement proceedings have been delayed for a 

number of reasons, they cannot be further deferred, as the court addresses in a separate order. 

3

 Although defendants are required to be in compliance with their staffing ratios for all 

positions, subject to the vacancy rate in the June 13, 2002 order, for the past several years 

remedial efforts have focused primarily on ongoing large vacancy rates in psychiatrist positions. 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 6799 Filed 07/31/20 Page 2 of 6
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 

for a seven-day extension of time to respond to August 27, 2018 draft suicide re-audit report; 

responses were submitted October 3, 2018). Defendants submitted objections to the draft report 

to which, at the direction of the Special Master, EmployStats responded. ECF No. 6695 at 16-18. 

EmployStats’ responses are set out in Appendix D to its report. See ECF No. 6695 at 299-317. 

As noted above, the Special Master’s Report was filed May 29, 2020. 

Two orders govern timelines for the parties to respond to reports from the Special 

Master. The Order of Reference, ECF No. 640, provides a ten-day response period for 

compliance reports circulated by the Special Master to the parties in draft form so that they may 

submit specific written objections to him within a “reasonable time” for consideration before a 

final report is filed. ECF No. 640 at 4. A stipulation and order filed July 29, 2019, sets a thirtyday deadline for filing objections to “any report by the Special Master that has not been circulated 

to the parties for review and comment prior to filing. . . .” ECF No. 6230 at 2-3. As noted above, 

plaintiffs contend the ten-day period applies here; defendants argue the thirty-day period applies. 

While recognizing some ambiguity in the inclusion of the words “compliance 

report” in the Order of Reference, the court here resolves any such ambiguity by clarifying that 

the ten-day period in that order controls here. Since entry of the July 29, 2019 order, the key 

issue is whether the report “was circulated to the parties for review and comment prior to filing.” 

ECF No. 6230 at 2. Here, it was. As noted, defendants had ample time to provide comments and 

they did so. Under the circumstances, the ten-day period in the Order of Reference controls and 

their objections, if any, were due ten days after the Special Master’s Report was filed on May 29, 

2020. 

To support their contention the thirty-day rule should apply, defendants note the 

expert report appended to the Special Master’s Report “has supplemental material not included in 

the August draft.” ECF No. 6726 at 25. Specifically, they identify Appendix D to the 

EmployStats’ Report, which contains EmployStats’ detailed responses to defendants’ objections, 

and a page commenting “on the impact of COVID-19 on staffing the labor market.” Id. As to 

the former, it is standard practice for the Special Master to incorporate in some manner his and/or 

his experts’ response to comments from the parties on draft reports in his final report. The 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 6799 Filed 07/31/20 Page 3 of 6
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 

inclusion of Appendix D is consistent with this practice and does not change the time for filing 

objections.4 

It appears undisputed the comments in the EmployStats’ Report on “COVID-19 

Considerations” were added after the report was circulated and, therefore, that defendants did not 

have an opportunity to respond to them. Those comments are as follows: 

COVID-19 Considerations 

In addition to the labor market analysis findings and 

recommendations as described above, the potential impact of the 

current global pandemic COVID-19 on the staffing 

recommendations discussed in this report is discussed. The impacts 

of COVID-19 on employment and staffing in the medical field are 

not fully known at the current time and it is not clear what the full 

extent of the effects will be on recruitment, hiring, and retainment 

at CDCR. However, in relation to CDCR and the federally 

mandated staffing levels, the COVID-19 pandemic may have 

several impacts as discussed below. 

There may be a number of effects on the labor market for 

psychiatrists. For instance, changing certain professional licensure 

requirements for health professionals, including psychiatrists, due 

to COVID-19 could result in an increase in supply. On the contrary, 

due to the circumstances of COVID-19, psychiatrists, along with 

other healthcare workers, could be less likely to enter the workforce 

for the short term due to quarantine, sickness, or taking care of their 

family. This could make meeting staffing requirements more 

difficult for CDCR. 

In addition, the demand for psychiatrists at CDCR may be 

impacted. For example, a reduction in the inmate population may 

aid in CDCR reaching its mandated staffing levels of psychiatrists. 

If CDCR’s inmate population were to decrease, then CDCR’s 

staffing levels, which are based on the size of the mental health 

inmate population, would increase. According to CDCR’s COVID19 preparedness, as of April 13, 2020 CDCR expedited the release 

of approximately 3,500 inmates. If these types of inmate population 

reductions were to continue, it is possible that CDCR’s mental 

health inmate population based psychiatrist staffing levels could 

increase. 

4

 It is not entirely clear whether defendants also rely on the fact that the Special Master’s 

Report itself was not circulated to the parties before it was filed as part of his submission of the 

EmployStats’ Report to support their contention they should be given thirty days to respond. The 

Special Master’s Report is in the nature of a cover report containing relevant background material 

about the process that led to submission of the EmployStats’ Report and defendants have given no 

indication that anything in the Special Master’s Report is itself objectionable. 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 6799 Filed 07/31/20 Page 4 of 6
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 

In addition, it is possible that CDCR psychiatrists will place greater 

emphasis on their office space and facility working conditions. As 

described in this report, CDCR psychiatrists reported that their 

office space was inadequate prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. The 

psychiatrists’ dissatisfaction in relation to office space is likely to 

increase during the pandemic as cleaning procedures and safety 

equipment will need to be implemented and concerns regarding 

employee health rise. 

ECF No. 6695 at 194. With respect to these comments, as defendants have repeatedly suggested, 

managing the prison population in light of COVID-19 is the “new normal” for which there 

currently is no horizon. At the September 10, 2020 hearing now set on enforcement of the 

October 10, 2017 order, all parties will be given a full and fair opportunity to present both 

evidence and argument concerning the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on appropriate 

remedies for ongoing violations of that order. The parties are cautioned that the court is not 

inclined to find the COVID-19 pandemic is grounds for significant permanent substantive 

changes in court-approved remedies in this case, particularly with respect to staffing, given that 

the previously court-approved remedies establish a constitutional floor. See ECF No. 5711 at 14-

19 (discussing extensive record showing staffing ratios based on constitutional standards and 

“heavy burden” faced by defendants in seeking to change those ratios). 

For all the foregoing reasons, with the limited exception of the comments 

regarding COVID-19 added on page 194, the time for filing objections to the Special Master’s 

Report and the accompanying EmployStats’ Report expired ten days after those reports were filed 

on May 29, 2020. The court anticipates issuing a further order shortly on the Special Master’s 

Recommendation that the EmployStats’ Report and its findings and recommendations be adopted. 

Although defendants’ June 29, 2020 objections, ECF No. 6744, are untimely, in view of the 

clarification this order provides the court will consider those objections. Plaintiffs’ July 2, 2020 

request to respond to defendants’ objections, ECF No. 6749, is granted and the court will consider 

any response filed by plaintiffs on or before August 15, 2020. Defendants’ objection to the 

COVID-19 Considerations added to the EmployStats’ Report after defendants responded to the 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 6799 Filed 07/31/20 Page 5 of 6
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 

draft report and any response by plaintiffs will be considered in connection with enforcement 

proceedings on the October 10, 2017 order, now set for September 10, 2020. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: July 30, 2020. 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 6799 Filed 07/31/20 Page 6 of 6