Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520-1205/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 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 On May 17, 2022, as part of his comprehensive twenty-ninth round of monitoring in this 

18 action the Special Master filed a monitoring report on inpatient mental health care at the six 

19 psychiatric inpatient programs (PIPs) operated by the California Department of Corrections and 

20 Rehabilitation (CDCR) (hereafter Report). ECF No. 7555. The Report covers the period between 

May 24, 2021 and October 26, 2021. Id. at 14.1 21 On May 27, 2022, defendants filed objections to 

22 the Report, ECF No. 7559, and on June 10, 2022, plaintiffs filed a response to defendants’ 

23 objections, ECF No. 7567. 

24 ///// 

25 ///// 

1

 In this order, citations to page numbers in documents filed in the Court’s Electronic Case 

Filing (ECF) System are to the page number assigned by the ECF System and located in the upper 

right hand corner of the page. 

RALPH COLEMAN, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:90-cv-0520 KJM DB 

ORDER 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 7608 Filed 08/29/22 Page 1 of 6
2 

1 The Special Master recommends the court enter an order containing the following three 

2 directives: 

3 1. That CDCR be ordered to develop a comprehensive plan within 30 days, under 

4 the guidance and supervision of the Special Master, and with input from the 

5 plaintiffs as appropriate, to remedy the seriously deficient staffing levels at the 

6 Lift and Shift PIPs identified in this report. 

7 

8 2. Consistent with the recommendations contained in the Special Master’s 

9 2021 Inpatient Care Report, to the extent necessary to remedy any 

10 deficiencies identified in this report, within 90 days CDCR, under the 

11 guidance and supervision of the Special Master, and with input from the 

12 plaintiffs as appropriate, shall develop minimum standards for the 

13 provision of structured therapeutic activities, unstructured out-of-cell 

14 activities, treatment planning, and individual treatment, consistent with 

15 a psychiatric inpatient level of care, and shall also develop plans to provide 

16 such structured therapeutic activities, unstructured out-of-cell activities, 

17 treatment planning, and individual treatment consistent with the established 

18 minimum standards. CDCR shall further develop and implement a system 

19 for tracking and reporting adherence to the standards developed. 

20 

21 3. That the Special Master be directed to review the CIW [California Institution for 

22 Women]-PIP and SQ [San Quentin]-PIP via paper review in the next 

23 monitoring round. 

24 

25 ECF No. 7555 at 164-65. As explained below, while the court adopts the Special Master’s factual 

26 findings it will refer the issues that are the subject of the Special Master’s first two 

27 recommendations back to the Special Master for focused discussions with CDCR Secretary 

28 Kathleen Allison to allow them to resolve those issues as appears entirely possible. 

29 In the absence of objections, the third recommendation will be adopted. By this order, the 

30 court clarifies that going forward, the Special Master shall have full authority to determine how 

31 he will accomplish his monitoring duties at each institution and he may proceed by institutional 

32 visits, paper review, or some combination of the two, without seeking leave of court. 

33 I. LEGAL STANDARD 

34 Paragraph C of the Order of Reference provides in relevant part: 

35 [A]ny compliance report of the special master filed in accordance with paragraph 

36 A(5) above shall be adopted as the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the 

37 court unless, within ten days after being served with the filing of the report, either 

38 side moves to object or modify the report. . . . The objecting party shall note each 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 7608 Filed 08/29/22 Page 2 of 6
3 

1 particular finding or recommendation to which objection is made, shall provide 

2 proposed alternative findings or recommendations, and may request a hearing before 

3 the court. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(e) (2), the court shall accept the special 

4 master’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. 

5 ECF No. 640, at 8. As required, the Special Master’s findings of fact are adopted unless those 

6 findings are “clearly erroneous.” Id. “A finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although there is 

7 evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm 

8 conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 

9 395 (1948) (quoted in Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985)). 

10 II. ANALYSIS 

11 A. Defendants’ General Objections 

12 At the start of their objections, defendants assert that they “continue to disagree with and 

13 object to the Report for the reasons stated in their April 11, 2022 objections, and reassert those 

14 objections to certain aspects of the Report, as set forth below.” ECF No. 7559 at 2. In the 

15 conclusion of the objections, defendants request that “any order flowing from the Report address 

16 the issues noted above and in Defendants’ April 11, 2022 objections at Exhibit B to the Report.” 

17 Id. at 4. Defendants’ April 11, 2022 objections were interposed to the draft Report circulated to 

18 the parties by the Special Master in accordance with the Order of Reference. ECF No. 640, 

19 at 4-5. Defendants do not acknowledge the Report’s discussion of those objections, see ECF 

20 No. 7555 at 22-36, nor do they tailor their general reassertion of the April 11, 2022 objections to 

21 the responses provided by the Special Master in the final Report. In the absence of particularized 

22 reassertion of specific objections, the court will not consider defendants’ generalized reassertion 

23 of their April 11, 2022 objections. 

24 B. Defendants’ Objections to Recommendations No. 1 and 2 

25 Defendants do raise particularized objections to the Special Master’s first and second 

26 recommendations. Each objection is addressed in turn. 

27 1. Defendants’ Objections to Recommendation No. 1 

28 As noted above, the Special Master first recommends “[t]hat CDCR be ordered to develop 

29 a comprehensive plan within 30 days, under the guidance and supervision of the Special Master, 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 7608 Filed 08/29/22 Page 3 of 6
4 

1 and with input from the plaintiffs as appropriate, to remedy the seriously deficient staffing levels 

2 at the Lift and Shift PIPs identified in this report.” ECF No. 7555 at 164. Defendants object that 

3 the recommendation is premature and likely unnecessary in light of CDCR’s recent 

4 implementation of “a significant pay differential and retention bonus structure for CDCR 

5 psychiatrists and psychologists who work in the PIPs” and ongoing efforts to address staffing 

6 level deficiencies. ECF No. 7559 at 2. Defendants also contend thirty days “is insufficient time 

7 to develop a draft ‘comprehensive plan,’ meet and confer with Plaintiffs’ counsel, and finalize 

8 this contemplated plan.” Id. at 3. 

9 For at least the past three years, the planning part of the remedial phase of this action has 

10 been largely complete and the focus now must continue to be on implementation and, if 

11 necessary, enforcement of the remedy that has been developed so painstakingly over the past 

12 twenty-five years. See September 3, 2020 Order, ECF No. 6846, at 3-4 (quoting July 9, 2019 

13 Order, ECF No. 6214, at 4, 6-7) and, e.g., 26. At this juncture, the court’s primary focus is on 

14 setting and meeting clear deadlines by which each component of the remedy in this action will be 

15 durably implemented. It is evident defendants do not disagree with the fundamental objective of 

16 the Special Master’s first recommendation – achievement of adequate clinical staffing levels in 

17 the PIPs – and, as the court found six years ago, “defendants have a wide range of options 

18 available to meet their constitutional obligations to hire sufficient” mental health staff. 

19 October 10, 2017 Order, ECF No. 5711, at 27. The court has been encouraged recently by the 

20 constructive resolution of seemingly intractable issues achieved in direct discussions between the 

21 Special Master and CDCR Secretary Kathleen Allison. Accordingly, the court will refer the issue 

22 of durable achievement of adequate mental health staffing levels in the PIPs to the Special Master 

23 and the Secretary for further discussions over a six-month period consistent with this and other 

24 remedial orders of this court concerning staff as well as ongoing efforts that may impact full 

25 implementation of the staffing remedy. If the Special Master and Secretary Allison are able to 

26 agree on resolution of this issue within that six-month period, the court will accept a declaration 

27 from Secretary Allison setting out that resolution, which shall include confirmation that the 

28 Special Master has advised the plaintiffs of the resolution and obtained their agreement to it. 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 7608 Filed 08/29/22 Page 4 of 6
5 

1 2. Defendants’ Objections to Recommendation No. 2 

2 As noted above, the Special Master’s second recommendation is as follows: 

3 Consistent with the recommendations contained in the Special Master’s 2021 

4 Inpatient Care Report, to the extent necessary to remedy any deficiencies identified 

5 in this report, within 90 days CDCR, under the guidance and supervision of the 

6 Special Master, and with input from the plaintiffs as appropriate, shall develop 

7 minimum standards for the provision of structured therapeutic activities, 

8 unstructured out-of-cell activities, treatment planning, and individual treatment, 

9 consistent with a psychiatric inpatient level of care, and shall develop plans to 

10 provide such structured therapeutic activities, unstructured out-of-cell activities, 

11 treatment planning, and individual treatment consistent with the established 

12 minimum standards. CDCR shall also develop and implement a system for tracking 

13 and reporting adherence to the standards developed. 

14 ECF No. 7555 at 164-65. 

15 Defendants object to this recommendation as too vague, not necessary to remedy an 

16 Eighth Amendment violation, and not in accordance with the standards imposed for injunctive 

17 relief by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). ECF No. 

18 7559 at 3-4. Defendants also object to the recommendation to the extent it recommends 

19 simultaneous development of a system for tracking and reporting on policies that do not yet exist. 

20 Id. at 4. In reply, plaintiffs observe that this recommendation mirrors a recommendation 

21 contained in the Special Master’s 2021 Report on inpatient mental health programs (2021 

22 Inpatient Report), ECF No. 7039 at 118. The court accepted that report, declining to issue any 

23 additional orders at that time. August 17, 2022 Order, ECF No. 7605, at 12-13. 

24 In response to the virtually identical recommendation in the Special Master’s 2021 

25 Inpatient Report, defendants had committed to development and submission of plans to the 

26 Special Master within ninety days and “to working with the Special Master to clarify the required 

27 components requested in this recommendation.” ECF No. 7051 at 9. Defendants have not 

28 followed through on the commitment they made to the Special Master and to this court, and they 

29 provide no cogent explanation for this failure. In the interests of maintaining a proper focus on 

30 the work that remains to be done, while expressing its disappointment, the court will refer this 

31 issue as well to the Special Master and Secretary Allison for discussions aimed at remediating the 

32 deficiencies identified in the Report by a date certain. If the Special Master and Secretary Allison 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 7608 Filed 08/29/22 Page 5 of 6
6 

1 are able to agree on resolution of this issue within four months from the date of this order, the 

2 court will accept a declaration from Secretary Allison setting out that resolution, which shall 

3 include confirmation that the Special Master has advised the plaintiffs of the resolution and 

4 obtained their agreement to it. 

5 III. CONCLUSION 

6 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

7 1. The findings in the Special Master’s May 17, 2022 29th Round Monitoring Report Part 

8 A, ECF No. 7555, are adopted in full; 

9 2. The issues presented by the Special Master’s first and second recommendations are 

10 referred to the Special Master and Secretary Allison for focused discussions and reporting as 

11 required by this order; 

12 3. The Special Master’s third recommendation is adopted in full. The Special Master 

13 shall review the CIW-PIP and SQ-PIP via paper review in the next monitoring round; and 

14 4. Going forward, the Special Master shall have full authority to determine how he will 

15 accomplish his monitoring duties at each institution and he may proceed by institutional visits, 

16 paper review, or some combination of the two, without seeking further leave of court. 

17 DATED: August 29, 2022. 

 18 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 7608 Filed 08/29/22 Page 6 of 6