Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-01351/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-01351-28/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCIANO PLATA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C01-1351 TEH 

 CLASS ACTION

ORDER ADOPTING AUGUST 20,

2007 STIPULATION BETWEEN

RECEIVER AND STATE

PERSONNEL BOARD

In April 2007, the Receiver filed a Motion for Waiver of State Law Re Receiver

Career Executive Assignments to address the severe void in qualified health care executive

level managers within the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

(“CDCR”). Defendants filed a Statement of Non-Opposition. Plaintiffs’ response did not

oppose in principal the Receiver’s proposal to create Receiver Career Executive Assignments

(“RCEAs”) but argued that additional information should be provided. The State Personnel

Board (“SPB”) which is not a party, but was invited to submit a response in the capacity of

amicus curiae, raised concerns regarding the constitutionality of the Receiver’s proposal. 

The Receiver subsequently filed a reply to the responses of the SPB and Plaintiffs. In his

papers, the Receiver emphasized that he expected to slowly phase in the proposed health care 

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 827 Filed 09/11/07 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 The reasons underlying the Court’s July 3, 2007 Order, as well as further

background to the motion, are set forth in the Court’s July 3, 2007 Order and will not be

repeated here.

2

executive/administrator hiring program “in order to ensure that the new management

structure is effectively implemented.” See July 3, 2007 Order at 9. Specifically, the Receiver

anticipated starting with a pilot program at three prisons along with regional level nursing

and physician positions. See Receiver’s Reply at 10; Hagar Dec. ¶¶ 7, 18-19.

After considering all of the above, The Court deferred ruling on the Receiver’s motion

and instead directed the “Receiver and the SPB to meet and confer as soon as practical, and

within 45 days . . . submit a joint report . . . as to whether the Receiver and SPB are able to

agree upon a mechanism for hiring medical health care executives/administrators in the

CDCR” that satisfactorily addresses the needs of the Receiver in a manner consistent with

the California Constitution. See July 3, 2007 Order at 11. The Court also stated that it would

approve implementation of any such agreement on a pilot basis, consistent with the

Receiver’s plan to first pilot a health care executive/administrator hiring program at three

prisons, as well as at the regional level. Id. at 9-10.1

After extensive discussions, the Receiver and the SPB reached an agreement, and on

August 20, 2007 they filed a Joint Report and Stipulation (hereafter “August 20, 2007

Stipulation”or “Stipulation”) that sets forth a mechanism for the hiring of medical health care

executives/administrators that is consistent with the Court’s July 3, 2007 Order. As

described in the Stipulation, “the core elements of [the agreed upon mechanism] will allow

the Receiver to begin addressing the lack of medical leadership in CDCR through the use of

new civil service classifications with minimum qualifications the Receiver concurs are

essential for developing and maintaining a constitutionally-adequate medical care system.” 

Stipulation at 2. In particular, the Receiver “can appoint individuals on a limited term (nontenured) basis for up to two years, during which time the incumbent will be subject to

discipline for cause or release without cause.” Id. “Once permanent status is granted by the

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 827 Filed 09/11/07 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 On August 21, 2007, the day after the Stipulation was filed, the Association of

California State Supervisors (“ACSS”) filed an Application for Leave to File Amicus Brief,

along with a proposed brief in opposition to the Receiver’s Motion for Waiver of State Law

Re Receiver Career Executive Assignments. This Application is woefully untimely. ACSS

was served with the Receiver’s Motion for Waiver of State Law Re Receiver Career

Executive Assignments in April 2007 and offers no explanation or justification for delaying

its amicus application until August 21, 2007. Nor does it address the relevant issues before

the Court since its proposed amicus brief addresses only the original motion and not the

Court’s subsequent July 3, 2007 Order or the August 20, 2007 Stipulation. Accordingly, the

application is denied as untimely. The Court also notes that ACCS’ request for an

opportunity to conduct discovery goes well beyond the role of an amicus curiae. In addition,

the Court observes that it is not unsympathetic to ACCS’ concern that raising medical care

standards within the CDCR to minimum constitutional levels may have implications for other

state agencies. As the Court has previously stated, however, it “can not subjugate its

obligations to remedy constitutional violations – violations that involve, in this instance,

issues of life and death – because of speculative impacts on other agencies not under court

order . . . [H]owever, if this becomes a serious concern, the Department of Finance can work

with the Legislature to address . . .broader governmental issue[s]” that remedying the CDCR

medical care system may reveal. See October 17, 2006 Order at 13 n. 7. Finally, the Court

notes that under the August 20, 2007 Stipulation state employees will be fully eligible to

compete for any medical health care executive/administrator positions that become available

pursuant to the August 20, 2007 Stipulation.

3

Receiver it will be followed by a one-year probationary period.” Id. The implementation

details of this plan are set forth in paragraphs 1-5 of the August 20, 2007 Stipulation. 

As the Stipulation emphasizes, the agreed-upon hiring program is a “trial” plan which 

may require modification or fine tuning as the Receiver and the SPB gain experience with its

implementation. Thus the Stipulation provides that the Receiver and the SPB agree to “meet

and confer as necessary in order to effectively implement [the] stipulation, to address

problems which may arise, and to propose to the Court modifications to the stipulation which

may prove necessary.” Stipulation at 1 and ¶ 6.2

The Court’s July 3 2007 Order permitted the parties to file responses to the Receiver

and SPB’s Joint Report and Stipulation within 7 days of receipt. The Court has received no

such responses. The Court has reviewed the August 20, 2007 Stipulation and concludes that

it will permit the Receiver to adequately address the severe void in qualified medical health

care executive level managers within the CDCR while at the same time respecting the

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 827 Filed 09/11/07 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 The Court’s July 3, 2007 Order stated that it would direct the Receiver to file two

special status reports regarding implementation of a medical health care executive/

administrator hiring program. This issue is now satisfactorily addressed by paragraph six of

the August 20, 2007 Stipulation, and thus does not need to be a separate subject of this

Order.

4

parameters of the California Constitution. Indeed, the Stipulation does not even require the

waiver of any state laws and thus moots the Receiver’s original motion.

Accordingly, and good cause appearing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Receiver’s Motion for Waiver of State Law Re Receiver Career Executive

Assignments is mooted by the August 20, 2007 Stipulation Between the Receiver and the

California State Personnel Board (Docket No. 818).

2. The August 20, 2007 Stipulation Between the Receiver and the California State

Personnel Board (“Stipulation”) is HEREBY ADOPTED as an Order of this Court.

3. Consistent with this Court’s July 3, 2007 Order, the Receiver shall proceed with

the medical health care executive/administrator hiring program set forth in the Stipulation

with respect to positions needed to fully staff the Receiver’s contemplated pilot program at

three prisons as well as regional nursing and physician positions. The Receiver may seek

approval of additional positions as he obtains more information regarding the specific needs

of the remedial process.3

4. The Court finds that the above remedy is narrowly drawn to remedy the

constitutional violations at issue, extends no further than necessary to correct a current and

ongoing violation of a federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct

these violations. The Court also is amply satisfied that this relief will impose no unnecessary

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 827 Filed 09/11/07 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

burden on Defendants and will have no adverse impact on either the safety of the public or

the operation of the criminal justice system.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 11, 2007 

 THELTON E. HENDERSON

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 827 Filed 09/11/07 Page 5 of 5