Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520-556/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RALPH COLEMAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs, NO. CIV. S-9-520 LKK/JFM (PC)

 

v.

 

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

Defendants.

 /

Defendants have filed a motion to terminate all prospective

relief in this case (ECF No. 4275),1 asserting that they are now

delivering constitutionally adequate mental health care to the

plaintiff class. In 1995, this court held that defendants’

delivery of mental health care to inmates with serious mental

disorders violated the Eighth Amendment and appointed a special

master to oversee defendants’ remediation of the constitutional

violation. After almost eleven years of remedial effort,

plaintiffs filed a motion to convene a three-judge court to

1

 Defendants have also filed a motion to vacate or modify the

population reduction order in the three-judge court (ECF No. 4280).

1

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 4316 Filed 01/29/13 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

consider whether overcrowding was preventing defendants from

remedying the Eighth Amendment violation and whether a prison

population reduction order was necessary. In a July 2007 order,

this court found that “[i]n spite of . . . commendable progress .

. . defendants’ mental health care system has not come into

compliance with the Eighth Amendment at any point since this action

began.” Order filed July 23, 2007, at 6. The court found that

numerous orders issued in the preceding eleven and a half years had

failed to remedy the constitutional violation. After review of

substantial evidence, the court concluded “that the overcrowding

crisis in [California’s prisons] is preventing the delivery of

constitutionally adequate mental health care to the plaintiff class

and, therefore, that some form of limitation on the inmate

population must be considered.” Id. at 13. For that reason, the

court requested that a three-judge court be convened pursuant to

18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 2284 to consider whether a

population reduction order was required. 

That request was granted by the Chief Judge of the United

States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In an order filed

August 4, 2009, the three-judge court determined that

constitutional compliance could not be attained unless the

population density in California’s adult prisons is reduced to

137.5% of their combined design capacity. That determination was

affirmed by the United States Supreme Court on May 23, 2011. On

June 30, 2011, the three-judge court issued an order setting a

timetable for achievement of the required population reduction. 

2

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 4316 Filed 01/29/13 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

(ECF No. 4032.)

Defendants press their current motion even though they concede

that the prison population density has not been reduced to 137.5%

of capacity. Indeed, defendants concede that they failed even to

reduce the density to 147% of combined design capacity by December

27, 2012, as required by the three-judge court’s June 30, 2011

order. They assert that constitutional compliance has been

attained without the required population density reduction.2

Accordingly, this court asked the parties to submit papers

explaining “whether this court is precluded by the three judge

court’s finding and by its population reduction order from hearing

defendants’ motion to terminate at this time.” (ECF No. 4290.) 

The parties have timely filed their briefs, both arguing that this

court can hear the motion.

The court agrees that it can hear the motion at this time to

the degree the motion asks this court to determine whether or not

there is an on-going constitutional violation in the delivery of

mental health care to the plaintiff class. Accordingly, this court

will consider whether the California prison mental health care

delivery system is now in constitutional compliance.

To the extent that defendants ask this court to terminate “all

relief” in this action (ECF No. 4275 p. 1), however, the request

cannot be granted. The population reduction order issued by three2

 “... at the current population density, inmates are

receiving health care that exceeds constitutional standards.” 

Motion To Terminate at p.21 (ECF No. 4275 p.26).

3

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 4316 Filed 01/29/13 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

judge court is relief in this action and cannot be terminated by

this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2284.3

The parties are engaged in discovery and the Magistrate Judge

has set a procedure for resolution of discovery disputes that may

arise (ECF No. 4306). The court now sets the following briefing

and argument schedule:

1. Defendants shall cooperate fully in discovery propounded

by plaintiffs so that all discovery required to respond to the

motion to terminate, including but not limited to depositions of

all individuals who have tendered declarations in support of said

motion, has been completed by March 1, 2013. 

2. Plaintiff’s Opposition to defendants’ motion to terminate

is due no later than March 15, 2013, at 4:30 p.m.;

3. Defendants’ Reply, if any, is due no later than March 22,

2013, at 4:30 p.m.;

4. Oral argument shall be heard on March 27, 2013, at

10:00 a.m. The court presently does not intend to entertain

live testimony at the hearing. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 28, 2013.

3

 Moreover, to the extent defendants’ motion could be read

to ask this court to re-litigate or undermine a fully-litigated

adjudication of the three-judge court, specifically affirmed by the

Supreme Court, concerning the necessity for a population reduction

order the court declines to do so. Whether such relitigation might

be proper (an issue this court does not here decide) is a matter

only, if at all, for the three-judge court. 

4

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 4316 Filed 01/29/13 Page 4 of 4