Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520-1211/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 

The court held a focused evidentiary hearing on October 23, 2020, to address class 

member access to Department of State Hospitals (DSH) inpatient mental health programs. The 

parties filed final exhibit lists on October 30, 2020. ECF Nos. 6931, 6933. Defendants filed 

objections to plaintiffs’ request to admit evidence after the close of witness testimony. ECF No. 

6932. Plaintiffs filed a response to the objections accompanied by two declarations. ECF Nos. 

6939, 6943, 6944. On November 8, 2020, defendants moved to strike one of plaintiffs’ 

declarations, ECF No. 6945; plaintiffs opposed the motion, ECF No. 6947. In late 2020, the 

parties filed several briefs related to issues raised at hearing. See ECF Nos. 6948, 6949, 6960, 

6975, 6976. On December 11, 2020, plaintiffs moved to strike evidence filed by defendants with 

their supplemental brief, ECF No. 6982; defendants opposed the motion, ECF No. 6997. As 

required by the court, ECF No. 7029, on January 28, 2021 defendants filed an update on the status 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 7635 Filed 10/24/22 Page 1 of 7
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 

of admissions to DSH programs, ECF No. 7041. Also as required by the court, ECF No. 7107, 

the parties have filed briefing on whether the court should find the matters raised at the 

evidentiary hearing moot. ECF Nos. 7117, 7119. 

Before the evidentiary hearing, in an order filed May 7, 2020, the court identified three 

issues for consideration at the hearing: 

(1) as required by the April 24, 2020 order, have DSH and CDCR 

been complying with the Program Guide requirements, as modified 

by the temporary addition of COVID-19 screening, for transfer of 

class members to inpatient hospital beds; (2) if they are not 

complying with those requirements, in what way or ways are they 

deviating from those requirements; and (3) what is the rationale for 

any deviation. 

May 7, 2020 Order, ECF No. 6660, at 2. Following the hearing, as noted in the March 26, 2021 

order to show cause, ECF No. 7107, during the week of March 8, 2021, the Special Master 

informed the court (1) there was at that time no wait list for class member access to DSH 

inpatient beds; (2) DSH was following appropriate quarantine and isolation policies as required 

by the COVID-19 pandemic, which allowed facilitation of class member transfer to DSH 

inpatient programs; (3) DSH and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 

(CDCR) had recently resumed working collaboratively with the Special Master to review all class 

members’ referrals to inpatient hospital beds; and (4) that collaboration was appropriately 

informed by public health considerations and had, since its resumption at least until the week of 

March 8, 2021, resulted in compliance with the requirements of the April 24, 2020 order. March 

26, 2021 Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 7107, at 2. Based on this information, the court issued 

the order directing the parties to show cause in writing why the court should not find moot the 

matters raised at the October 23, 2020 evidentiary hearing. 

 In their brief responding to the order to show cause, defendants contend the specific issues 

identified in the court’s May 7, 2020 order are moot, see ECF No. 7117 at 4-5, but that another 

question concerning the scope of defendant Clendenin’s authority to act in a public health 

emergency remains, id. at 5-7. Plaintiffs contend the issues are not moot because class members 

have continued to experience extended delays in access to necessary inpatient care and defendants 

are over-relying on the COVID-19 exception to the Program Guide transfer timelines, see April 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 7635 Filed 10/24/22 Page 2 of 7
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 

24, 2020 Order, ECF No. 6639, at 11. ECF No. 7119 at, e.g., 3. For the reasons explained below, 

the court declines to make retrospective factual findings based on the evidence adduced at the 

October 2020 hearing or to make further remedial orders at this time on the issues raised at that 

hearing. 

The relief ordered in this action is injunctive relief, which equitable and operates 

prospectively. At this stage, as this court has reviewed in numerous prior orders, these 

proceedings are governed by longstanding court directives ordering that injunctive relief and 

remedial plans prepared in accordance with those orders. After more than twenty-five years of 

remedial effort, the court expects and understands that the need for new forms of relief should be 

exceedingly rare. At the same time, it is possible that discreet needs for modification of existing 

injunctions may arise until this court finds, or all stakeholders agree, that a durable remedy has 

been fully implemented. As set out above, the issues presented at the October 2020 hearing 

related to the efficacy of the April 24, 2020 modification to existing injunctive relief governing 

transfers of class members to Department of State Hospital (DSH) programs for necessary 

inpatient care entered after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic; they also relate to defendants’ 

application of that modification and whether further modifications to the existing relief are 

required. See ECF No. 6639 at 10. 

Courts retain the authority to modify injunctions based on new or changed circumstances. 

See United States v. Swift & Co., 286 U.S. 106, 114 (1932). 

The source of the power to modify is of course the fact that an 

injunction often requires continuing supervision by the issuing court 

and always a continuing willingness to apply its powers and 

processes on behalf of the party who obtained that equitable relief. 

Firmness and stability must no doubt be attributed to 

continuing injunctive relief based on adjudicated facts and law, and 

neither the plaintiff nor the court should be subjected to the 

unnecessary burden of re-establishing what has once been 

decided. Nevertheless the court cannot be required to disregard 

significant changes in law or facts if it is ‘satisfied that what it [h]as 

been doing has been turned through changing circumstances into an 

instrument of wrong.’ United States v. Swift & Co., supra, 286 U.S. 

at pages 114—115, 52 S.Ct. at page 462. A balance must thus be 

///// 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 7635 Filed 10/24/22 Page 3 of 7
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 

struck between the policies of res judicata and the right of the court 

to apply modified measures to changed circumstances. 

Sys. Fed'n No. 91, Ry. Emp. Dep't, AFL-CIO v. Wright, 364 U.S. 642, 647–48 (1961). 

An injunction is an exercise of a court’s equitable authority, to be 

ordered only after taking into account all of the circumstances that 

bear on the need for prospective relief. See United States v. Swift & 

Co., 286 U.S. 106, 114, 52 S.Ct. 460, 76 L.Ed. 999 (1932). See 

also Weinberger v. Romero–Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 312, 102 S.Ct. 

1798, 72 L.Ed.2d 91 (1982); Hecht Co. v. Bowles, 321 U.S. 321, 329, 

64 S.Ct. 587, 88 L.Ed. 754 (1944); 11A C. Wright, A. Miller, & M. 

Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2942, pp. 39–42 (2d 

ed.1995) (hereinafter Wright & Miller). Equitable relief is not 

granted as a matter of course, see Weinberger, 456 U.S., at 311–312, 

102 S.Ct. 1798, and a court should be particularly cautious when 

contemplating relief that implicates public interests, see id., at 312, 

102 S.Ct. 1798 (“In exercising their sound discretion, courts of equity 

should pay particular regard for the public consequences in 

employing the extraordinary remedy of injunction”); Harrisonville 

v. W.S. Dickey Clay Mfg. Co., 289 U.S. 334, 338, 53 S.Ct. 602, 77 

L.Ed. 1208 (1933) (“Where an important public interest would be 

prejudiced, the reasons for denying the injunction may be 

compelling”). 

Salazar v. Buono, 559 U.S. 700, 714–15 (2010). 

Fundamentally, the issues addressed by the October 2020 hearing included the Eighth 

Amendment right of class members to timely access to inpatient mental health care and the public 

interest in management of the COVID-19 pandemic in congregate living facilities, here state 

prisons and hospitals. Management of the COVID-19 pandemic has not followed a straight line 

given the initial emergency occasioned by its detection and the continual changes in the public 

health landscape as the COVID-19 virus took hold and then mutated repeatedly. These 

circumstances only serve to heighten the imperative that this court proceed with caution when 

considering additional relief. The Special Master’s March 2021 report to the court showed that 

between October 2020, when the hearing was held, and March 2021, defendants had made 

substantial progress in incorporating COVID-19 protocols into the inpatient care transfer process 

and implementing a collaborative process for transferring class members to DSH for necessary 

inpatient care under the circumstances of the pandemic. The report supports the conclusion that 

findings predating those accomplishments would serve no useful purpose. Plaintiffs’ response to 

the order to show cause also supports the conclusion that relevant facts on the ground continue to 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 7635 Filed 10/24/22 Page 4 of 7
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 

evolve. See ECF No. 7119 at, e.g., 2-4. See also Ahlman v. Barnes, 2020 WL 3547960, slip op. 

at 5 (9th Cir. 2020) (recognizing “circumstances surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic are 

evolving rapidly”). Finally, defendants’ monthly reports on transfers to inpatient care show that 

for at least the past seven reporting months (March 2022 through September 2022), no class 

members have been waiting beyond Program Guide timelines for transfer to inpatient care at 

DSH programs, as those timelines were modified by the April 24, 2020 order. See ECF Nos. 

7628 at 4, 7612 at 4, 7604 at 4, 7590 at 4, 7572 at 4, 7552 at 4, and 7529 at 4. 

Here, the extended nature of defendants’ effort to complete remediation in this action and 

the need for public officials to respond rapidly, nimbly, and flexibly to the demands of the 

COVID-19 pandemic both counsel restraint. The record shows the remedial framework 

concerning timely transfers to inpatient care took approximately two decades to develop and 

implement; it also shows the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic interrupted progress toward full 

implementation of this part of the remedy. The court’s April 24, 2020 order represents a specific 

and necessary modification to account for the COVID-19 pandemic. The information the Special 

Master provided to the court in March 2021 indicated the modification had been incorporated into 

an updated and collaborative transfer process. Since March 2022, defendants’ reports on waitlists 

for access to inpatient care at DSH show only four inmates for whom the COVID-19 exception 

was invoked when those inmates were referred to inpatient care; all three were transferred when 

the exception was cleared. See ECF Nos. 7628 at 4, 7590 at 5, 7572 at 4. There is no basis in the 

current record for further modification to the court’s orders concerning timely access to inpatient 

mental health care; concomitantly, this information confirms there is no need for this court to 

make retrospective factual findings from the October 2020 evidentiary hearing. 

In their response to the order to show cause defendants suggested an ongoing issue with 

respect to the court’s determination in its April 24, 2020 that DSH Director Stephanie Clendenin 

was required to seek modification of this court’s orders before relying exclusively on state law to 

suspend class members’ admission to DSH inpatient programs. As this court has previously 

noted, the April 24, 2020 order and the subsequent May 7, 2020 order “stand for the basic and 

unremarkable proposition that any party bound by a court order may not act unilaterally in 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 7635 Filed 10/24/22 Page 5 of 7
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 

violation of that order but, instead, must seek relief from the court that issued the order.” June 17, 

2020 Order, ECF No. 6730, at 6. Nothing in the case on which defendants rely, Jacobson v. 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), alters that proposition. Jacobson

determined that the state may, in the exercise of its police power and without running afoul of the 

United States Constitution, enact reasonable regulations to protect the public health and safety, 

including by delegating specific public health decision-making to local governing bodies. 

Jacobson, 197 U.S. at 24-31. Jacobson did not involve the impact of federal court orders on state 

actors and does not undermine the basis of the court’s April 24, 2020 and May 7, 2020.1 

In the March 26, 2021 order to show cause, the court also signaled it anticipated resolving 

outstanding evidentiary disputes from the post-hearing briefing following the October 2020 

hearing in order to make the record clear. See ECF No. 7107 at 3. After further consideration, 

the court finds such resolution unnecessary. For the reasons explained in this order, the court 

makes no retrospective factual findings based on any evidence tendered at the October 2020 

hearing, nor does it order any modification to existing injunctions. Defendants’ October 30, 2020 

objections to plaintiffs’ request to admit evidence after hearing, ECF No. 6932, are sustained 

without prejudice to plaintiffs’ right to seek, as appropriate, admission of some or all of that 

evidence should it become relevant in future proceedings. The dispute over Dr. Pablo Stewart’s 

testimony concerning eleven class members, see Reporter’s Transcript of Proceedings (RT 

10/23/20), ECF No. 6935 at, e.g. 271, is mooted by this order.2

 Defendants’ November 8, 2020 

motion to strike the declaration of Amy Xu will be granted without prejudice to plaintiffs’ right to 

seek, as appropriate, admission of the declaration and any or all of the exhibits appended thereto 

1

 The court has not imposed sanctions or made any other orders based on its findings concerning 

Director Clendenin’s violation of its orders; the only modification ordered by the April 24, 2020 

and May 7, 2020 orders permits defendants to conduct COVID-19 screenings prior to transferring 

class members to inpatient care. See ECF No. 6730 at 6. 

2

 The court nevertheless notes with concern the apparent, unexplained contradiction between 

defense counsel’s representation at hearing concerning access to the medical records for those 

eleven inmate patients, see RT 10/23/20, ECF No. 6935 at 270, and Dr. Mehta’s subsequent 

testimony concerning his review of eleven records identified by, presumably, Dr. Stewart, id. at 

302. 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 7635 Filed 10/24/22 Page 6 of 7
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 

should they become relevant in future proceedings. Similarly, plaintiffs’ December 11, 2020 

motion to strike five declarations submitted by defendants will be granted without prejudice to 

defendants’ right to seek, as appropriate, admission of any or all of the declarations should they 

become relevant in future proceedings. 

In accordance with the above, the court declines to make any factual findings or additional 

remedial orders based on the matters considered at the October 23, 2020 evidentiary hearing. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The evidentiary dispute concerning Dr. Stewart’s testimony is mooted by this order; 

2. Defendants’ objections to plaintiff’s request to admit evidence after hearing, ECF No. 

6932, are sustained without prejudice to plaintiffs’ right to seek, as appropriate, admission of 

some or all of that evidence should it become relevant in future proceedings; 

3. Defendants’ motion to strike the declaration of Amy Xu, ECF No. 6945, is 

GRANTED; 

4. The declaration of Amy Xu, ECF No. 6944, is STRICKEN, without prejudice; 

5. Plaintiffs’ December 11, 2020 motion to strike declarations, ECF No. 6982, is 

GRANTED; and 

6. The five declarations filed at ECF Nos. 6976-1 through 5 are STRICKEN, without 

prejudice. 

DATED: October 20, 2022. 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 7635 Filed 10/24/22 Page 7 of 7