Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520-1390/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 July 12, 2024, the court ordered the parties to show cause in writing why it “should not 

18 initiate formal proceedings to appoint a temporary receiver to assume responsibility, with this 

19 court’s oversight, for completion of all tasks necessary to implementation of the remedy in this 

20 action” and set the order to show cause for hearing on August 20, 2024. July 12, 2024 Order at 

21 15, ECF No. 8330. In that order, the court discussed several areas of defendants’ on-going non22 compliance with the remedies required in this action and set out reasons for its tentative 

23 conclusion that appointment of a temporary receiver to provide “professional, neutral leadership, 

24 external to the named defendants and their institutions, will be necessary to complete remediation 

25 on a reasonable timetable, as an alternative to the serial contempt proceedings the court is 

26 otherwise prepared to convene.” Id. at 14. 

27 On August 2, 2024, the parties filed a joint response to the order to show cause. ECF No. 

28 8347. The parties jointly nominated the receiver in Plata v. Newsom, Case No. C01-1351 JST 

RALPH COLEMAN, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:90-cv-0520 KJM SCR P 

ORDER 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 8494 Filed 12/16/24 Page 1 of 6
2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

(N.D. Cal.), Clark Kelso, to serve as temporary receiver in this action. Id. at 3-5. Separately, 

defendants represented they did “not concede that appointment of a receiver other than 

Mr. Kelso” was “appropriate.” Id. at 6. They contended they “have made great strides in 

establishing a robust mental health care system” and that the court would not “be able to make the 

requisite findings to support the appointment of a receiver.” Id. at 8, 11. They also contended 

that the court should take evidence and “cross-examine the court experts (to the extent the court 

intends to rely on their findings in support of a receiver’s appointment).” Id. at 12. Plaintiffs 

contended (1) the court would be required to make factual findings to justify appointment of a 

receiver regardless of the parties’ agreement; (2) “[t]here is a grave and immediate threat of harm 

to the plaintiff class . . . ‘as a result of defendants’ ongoing non-compliance’ with various orders”;

(3) the court’s continued reliance on “less-extreme measures” would be futile because the court

has exhausted all such measures; (4) defendants’ “intransigence” over time weighs in favor of a

receivership; and (5) no further hearing would be required because the record amply supports

appointment of a receiver. Id. at 11-16.

Since receiving the parties’ response to the order to show cause, the court has taken the 

16 following steps: 

17  Conducted the August 20, 2024 hearing on the Order to Show Cause, see ECF

18 Nos. 8360, 8366, and a further show cause hearing on August 21, 2024, see ECF

19 Nos. 8364, 8394.

20  Signaled its intention to appoint a technical advisor to assist the court in “applying

21 relevant organizational principles to the designation of a receiver in this case and,

22 particularly, in assessing objectively whether the Plata receiver can serve as a

23 separate and independent receiver in this action,” August 22, 2024 Order at 2,

24 ECF No. 8368; see also Reporter’s Transcript of August 21, 2024

25 Videoconference Proceedings, at 4, ECF No. 8394, and thereafter, without

26 objection from either party, appointed Eric Douglas to serve as technical advisor

27 with the costs of his time to be borne by defendants, Aug. 27, 2024 Order, ECF

28 No. 8377. Without any objection from the parties, the court has continued to

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 8494 Filed 12/16/24 Page 2 of 6
3 

1 consult the technical advisor as it considers other candidates for temporary 

2 receiver, after the Plata Receiver withdrew his name from consideration. See, 

3 e.g., November 6, 2024 Order, ECF No. 8457 (directing payment of technical

4 advisor’s fees for services rendered in September and October 2024).

5  Authorized discussions between the Special Master and the Plata Receiver

6 concerning the possibility of the latter’s appointment as Receiver in this action.

7 As noted, Receiver Kelso subsequently withdrew his name from consideration for

8 such appointment. See Sept. 24, 2024 Order at 1, ECF No. 8406;

9  Accepted the parties’ nomination of a second candidate for temporary receiver,

10 ECF No. 8442, subsequently identified as Martin Hoshino, and met in camera

11 with Mr. Hoshino, who then advised the court he was not available to serve as

12 temporary receiver but agreed voluntarily to meet with the parties to identify other

13 possible candidates. ECF No. 8463.

14  Conducted a special status conference on December 5, 2024 with the parties to

15 review its communications with Mr. Hoshino, ECF No. 8482, and signaled one

16 option it was considering was to meet in camera with Michael Wilkening, the

17 temporary receiver candidate identified following Mr. Hoshino’s meetings with

18 the parties, ECF No. 8483. At the December 5, 2024 status conference, plaintiffs

19 expressed support for the court’s meeting with Mr. Wilkening while defendants

20 represented they would not agree to Mr. Wilkening’s appointment and renewed

21 their request for an evidentiary hearing and an opportunity for further briefing in

22 the event the court continues to move forward with appointment of a temporary

23 receiver.

24  Met with Mr. Wilkening on December 9, who has indicated he will report back to

25 the court to advise whether he wishes to be considered as the receiver in this case.

26 In its July 12, 2024 order, cited above, the court reviewed several areas in which 

27 defendants have not achieved constitutionally required remediation and in which required 

28 remediation has been delayed and “stalled in a seemingly endless cycle of conflict and delay.” 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 8494 Filed 12/16/24 Page 3 of 6
4 

1 ECF No. 8330 at 3-7. The court also reviewed the several factors it considers in deciding whether 

2 to appoint a receiver. Id. at 8-16. That order is incorporated in this order in full. 

3 With respect to the remedial areas discussed in the July 12, 2024 order, the record has 

4 since been updated with the following relevant facts: 

5  The staffing vacancy report defendants filed on November 27, 2024, shows

6 institutional fill rates for psychiatrists and clinical social workers above the 90

7 percent rate required by the court’s orders. See ECF No. 8477 at 17-21. That

8 report also shows defendants have not yet achieved the required fill rate among the

9 other three mental health classifications, nor have defendants achieved the required

10 fill rates among psychiatrists, psychologists, or clinical social workers in the

11 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) Psychiatric

12 Inpatient Programs (PIPs). Id.

13  Defendants remain out of compliance with at least ten court-ordered suicide

14 prevention measures. See Reporter’s Transcript of Proceedings at 39-40, ECF No.

15 8433; see also Nov. 27, 2024 Order, ECF No. 8478.

16  Data remediation will not be completed by the end of 2024; the court has set a new

17 deadline of May 1, 2025. See Dec. 6, 2024 Order, ECF No. 8485. Completion of

18 data remediation is an essential threshold step to finalization of the continuous

19 quality improvement tool (CQIT) and, ultimately, transition to defendants’ self20 monitoring and the end of federal court oversight. See, e.g., January 4, 2023

21 Order, ECF No. 7695; see also, e.g., September 3, 2020 Order at 10, ECF No.

22 6846.

23 Viewed as whole, the record currently contains sufficient evidence of non-compliance for the 

court to move forward with appointment of a temporary receiver.1 24 

1

 As noted, defendants requested an opportunity to cross-examine court experts, 

presumably the Special Master and members of his team, to the extent the court relies on the 

Special Master’s reports to support appointment of a temporary receiver. Defendants’ request 

perpetuates their persistent unwillingness to accept that the Special Master is an arm of the court, 

not a party to this litigation. He and his team do not come within the provisions of Federal Rule 

of Evidence 706. The parties have ample opportunity to file objections, including evidence as 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 8494 Filed 12/16/24 Page 4 of 6
5 

1 Moreover, defendants’ position with respect to appointment of a temporary receiver 

2 continues to reflect their ongoing commitment to an endless cycle of litigation and delay: they 

3 agreed to appointment of the Plata Receiver on terms the parties had agreed to, and not to appeal 

4 any order appointing the Plata Receiver on the specific terms agreed to by the parties, but 

5 requested an evidentiary hearing if the court did not enter the precise order the parties jointly 

6 requested. ECF No. 8347. They signaled unqualified agreement to the second jointly proposed 

7 candidate. See ECF No. 8442. It cannot be true that the standards have been met for appointment 

8 of a temporary receiver in this action but only if defendants consent to the appointment of a 

9 particular person as temporary receiver on specific terms. This type of attempted “gotcha” 

10 litigation strategy has marked defendants’ approach to compliance with their constitutional 

11 obligations for too long, causing incalculable and unnecessary delay and expenditure of 

12 resources. See generally ECF No. 8330 at 9-14. Without closer court management of the case, 

13 there would be no end in sight. Under these circumstances, the court remains convinced it has 

14 “no choice but to conclude that professional, neutral leadership, external to the named defendants 

15 and their institutions, will be necessary to complete remediation in this action on a reasonable 

16 timetable.” Id. at 14. 

17 In an abundance of caution, the court will allow the parties to file closing briefs on their 

18 respective positions concerning appointment of a temporary receiver, without regard to any 

19 particular person the court may appoint to serve as Receiver. In their briefs, the parties shall also 

20 address the question of durability of the remedy, including but not limited to (1) how long after 

21 full implementation of the remedy they believe the court should retain jurisdiction to ensure the 

22 remedy is durable; and (2) if there is any lawful reason not to provide that the temporary 

23 receiver’s tenure include a period of durability. 

24 ///// 

necessary, to each report from the Special Master prior to the court’s consideration of such 

reports. See Dec. 13, 1995 Order of Reference, ECF No. 640; see also July 29, 2019 Order, ECF 

No. 6230. Defendants’ unwarranted request to cross-examine the Special Master and his experts 

arguably provides further support for appointment of a temporary receiver with full authority to 

implement the remedy in this case, although the court does not rely on it in moving forward. 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 8494 Filed 12/16/24 Page 5 of 6
6 

1 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall file the 

2 briefs required by this order within thirty (30) days from the date of this order. 

3 DATED: December 13, 2024. 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 8494 Filed 12/16/24 Page 6 of 6