Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-01351/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-01351-195/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

AND THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RALPH COLEMAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-90-0520 LKK JFM P (E.D. Cal.)

v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

MARCIANO PLATA, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. C 01-1351 TEH (N.D. Cal.)

v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CARLOS PEREZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. C 05-5241 JSW (N.D. Cal.)

v.

MATTHEW CATE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2003 Filed 01/15/09 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

2

JOHN ARMSTRONG, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. C 94-2307 CW (N.D. Cal.) 

v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

The Receiver in Plata, the Special Master in Coleman, and the Court Representatives in

Perez and Armstrong have presented to the judges in the above-captioned cases an agreement

that they have reached during the coordination meetings that they have held to date. The

agreement, which is attached to this order, is presented to the undersigned for review and

approval.

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties in the abovecaptioned cases are granted until January 30, 2009, to show cause why the attached agreement

should not be adopted as an order of the court. Any response to this order to show cause shall be

filed in each of the above-captioned cases and served on all of the parties to all of the cases and

on the Receiver, the Special Master, and the Court Representatives. Thereafter, the request for 

approval of the agreement will be taken under submission for individual and joint consideration

by the undersigned.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 01/15/09 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2003 Filed 01/15/09 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

3

Dated: 01/15/09 

THELTON E. HENDERSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Dated: 01/15/09 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Dated: 01/15/09 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2003 Filed 01/15/09 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

4

Health Care Administrative Appeals

Coordination Agreement

In May 2007, the Receiver filed his first Plan of Action. One of the objectives of the plan

of action was to “[r]edesign, pilot and implement a credible complaint and appeal process that is

efficient, responsive and effective in achieving rapid resolutions.” To achieve this objective a

plan of action was developed which included: 1) conducting a statewide analysis of the current

appeals process, 2) conducting stakeholder meetings, 3) drafting new policies and procedures,

and 4) developing a new process map that outlined the proposed Health Care Appeals,

Correspondence and Patient Advocacy (HCACPA) Program. This objective was incorporated

into the Receiver’s Turnaround Plan of Action which was filed with the Plata court on June 6,

2008. The Court approved the Receiver’s Turnaround Plan of Action on June 16, 2008. 

A statewide analysis of the current appeals process was completed and a series of four

stakeholder meetings and two focus group meetings were conducted. Participants in the

stakeholder meetings included representatives from the Prison Law Office, Rosen, Bien, and

Galvan, the Perez Court Experts, and representatives of the Coleman Special Master, Inmate

Appeals Branch (IAB), Office of the Attorney General, CDCR Office of Court Compliance,

CDCR Office of Legal Affairs, CDCR Division of Correctional Health Care Services and

California Prison Health Care Services (CPHCS) staff. As a result of the stakeholder and focus

group meetings, a list of recommended revisions to the current health care appeals process was

submitted and approved by the stakeholders. Once approved, the recommended revisions were

submitted to the Receiver’s Chief of Staff for approval. The recommended revisions were

approved on June 16, 2008, and have been rolled out as a pilot program at four institutions

(Central California Women’s Facility, Mule Creek State Prison, Pelican Bay State Prison and

San Quentin State Prison), beginning on November 1, 2008. Once the pilot program has been

completed and assessed, recommendations will be submitted to the Receiver and the court

representatives for the Armstrong, Coleman and Perez cases for statewide implementation.

To determine whether to complete the transition of all health care appeals from custody

to the California Prison Health Care Services (CPHCS), staff is currently conducting an analysis

of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) appeals process including a review of the current

Armstrong Remedial Plan, forms and past appeal responses. Once the analysis is completed,

CPHCS staff will reconvene the task force, comprised of the stakeholders listed above and the

Armstrong Court Expert, to discuss issues and possible changes to the current ADA Health Care

Appeals process. The task force recommendations will also address all current Armstrong court

orders and will be submitted to the Class Action Coordination group (also known as the

coordinating group or the coordinating parties) for comment.

The Receiver will assume responsibility for the new statewide health care appeals

program. To accomplish the initiatives described above, the Receiver has determined a need to

request a waiver of state law regarding the governance and process of administrative appeals

related to health care concerns. The request for waiver will only address those regulations which

fall under Title 15, California Code of Regulations, section 3084, et seq.

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2003 Filed 01/15/09 Page 4 of 4