Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-01351/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-01351-256/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.

EDMUND G. BROWN JR., et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C01-1351 TEH

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

CLARIFY OCTOBER 17, 2006

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Edmund G. Brown Jr.’s motion to

clarify the Court’s October 17, 2006 order. Plaintiffs and the Receiver filed statements of

non-opposition to the motion. Interested third party Service Employees International Union,

Local 1000 (“SEIU”) opposes the motion. After carefully reviewing the submitted written

arguments, the Court finds oral argument to be unnecessary and now VACATES the hearing

scheduled for August 29, 2011, and GRANTS IN PART Defendant’s motion. The Court

agrees with Defendant that it has the authority to clarify its prior orders but disagrees as to

the impact of such clarification.

BACKGROUND

This motion concerns the Court’s October 17, 2006 order, which granted the

Receiver’s September 12, 2006 motion to waive state law to allow for increasing the salary

ranges for certain positions relevant to the remedial phase of this case. The parties’

September 26, 2006 responses to the motion expressed no opposition, although Defendants

requested certain clarifications that the Court addressed in its order.

The Court made the following “essentially undisputed findings”:

1. The recommended salary adjustments are appropriate and 

necessary to attract and retain qualified permanent, full-time, 

clinical employees within the CDCR, and without such 

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2391 Filed 08/25/11 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

2

adjustments Defendants will be unable to address their

chronically high vacancy rates in the area of medical health care.

2. Satisfactorily addressing the chronically high vacancy rates

within CDCR’s health care division is a necessary predicate to

achieving a constitutionally adequate medical health delivery

system.

3. Defendants have been given every opportunity to address this

issue in a timely manner and are unable or unwilling to

remedy the chronically high vacancy rates on their own and

this inaction is clearly preventing the Receiver from

developing or implementing a constitutionally adequate

medical health care system and otherwise carrying out his

duties as set forth in this Court’s February 14, 2006 Order.

4. The requested waiver, as invited by Defendants, is necessary

because there are no adequate alternatives that have been

presented to the Court.

Oct. 17, 2006 Order at 10. The Court further concluded that:

the Receiver has satisfactorily demonstrated that he has satisfied

the standard for obtaining a waiver set forth in this Court’s

February 14, 2006 Order. Specifically, he has shown that he has 

“made all reasonable efforts to exercise his powers . . . in a

manner consistent with California state laws” but that a “state

law” or “state inaction” is “clearly preventing him from

developing or implementing a constitutionally adequate medical

health care system” and that “other alternatives are inadequate.” 

See February 14, 2006 Order at Section II (D).

Id. at 10-11. Accordingly, the Court waived California Government Code sections 3516.5,

3517, 19816, 19826, 19829, 19832, and 19836, and title 2, section 599.681 of the California

Code of Regulations, “for the sole and limited purpose of enabling the Receiver to direct the

implementation, adjustment, and administration of the proposed salaries and structural

changes to the pay system set forth in Exhibit 6 to the Receiver’s Motion for Waiver.” Id. at

11 (emphasis in original). The Court continued: “In granting this limited waiver, the Court

clarifies that such waiver is not intended to relieve Defendants or the State of any of their

duties and responsibilities under California law, including the obligation to collectively

bargain regarding salaries.” Id. Finally, in compliance with the Prison Litigation Reform

Act of 1996, the Court found:

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

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2391 Filed 08/25/11 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

3

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 burden on defendants and will have no

adverse impact on either the safety of the public or the operation

of the criminal justice system.

Id. at 11-12 (footnote omitted). The Court denied the Receiver’s request for an on-going

waiver of state law relating to salaries and instead ordered the Receiver to meet and confer

with the parties if “the Receiver determines that additional salary modifications are necessary

to achieve a constitutionally adequate medical health care system.” Id. at 13.

The positions affected by the Court’s October 17, 2006 order include positions in

Bargaining Units 17 and 20, which are represented by the SEIU. The SEIU reached

collective bargaining agreements with the Department of Personnel Administration (“DPA”)

in June 2006 as to these bargaining units. The memoranda of understanding (“MOUs”) were

approved by the California Legislature and then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and

became effective on September 6, 2006. The MOU for Bargaining Unit 17 provided that an

“equity increase” of 7.5% shall be added to “the maximum salary rate” for all classifications

in that unit effective January 1, 2007. Ex. B to SEIU’s Req. for Judicial Notice at 73. 

Similarly, the MOU for Bargaining Unit 20 provided that 10% shall be added to “the

maximum salary rate” for certain classifications in that unit, and that 5% shall be added to

“the maximum salary rate” for other classifications, all effective January 1, 2007. Ex. C to

SEIU’s Req. for Judicial Notice at 77. Although the agreements became effective prior to

the briefing on the Receiver’s motion for waiver of state law, neither the Receiver’s nor

Defendants’ briefing mentioned the future increases contained in these MOUs.

To date, DPA has not authorized payment of the above percentage salary increases

because it has taken the position that the salary ranges in the Court’s October 17, 2006 order

superceded all previously negotiated salaries, including future increases not yet effective as

of the date of the Court’s order. SEIU subsequently filed a grievance, which was decided in

SEIU’s favor at arbitration. DPA then filed a petition to vacate the arbitration award in state

court, but the state trial court found no grounds for doing so. The case is currently pending

on appeal before the California Third District Court of Appeal.

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2391 Filed 08/25/11 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

1

Of course, while adequate staffing “is a necessary predicate to achieving a

constitutionally adequate medical health delivery system,” Oct. 17, 2006 Order at 10, 

increased staffing alone could not and has not remedied the constitutional violations at issue

in this case.

4

DISCUSSION

As the October 17, 2006 order unambiguously stated, the increased clinical salaries

required by that order were the least intrusive means of ensuring that clinical positions could

be filled with qualified candidates, such that the level of care provided to California inmates

could be brought to constitutional levels.1

 Thus, the Court agrees with Defendant’s assertion

that “the Receiver and this Court intended in 2006 to establish new salary ranges, above

then-existing wages, that would be sufficiently high to fill clinical positions with qualified

candidates, but at the least possible cost to the State.” Reply at 7.

The intent of the Court’s order was to replace all then-existing salary ranges with the

new ranges proposed by the Receiver, as set forth in Exhibit 6 to the Receiver’s

September 12, 2006 motion. The Court was unaware at the time that any clinical salaries

were due to be increased under collective bargaining agreements in January 2007 – less than

three months later – and may well have denied those increases after such a short time had

they been timely presented to the Court. For example, had Defendants requested clarification

in their response to the Receiver’s motion as to whether percentage salary increases due to

become effective at a later date would be nullified by the Receiver’s requested waiver of

state law, the Court could have addressed the issue in a timely manner. However, no

evidence of any such increases was presented to the Court, and the Court cannot now say that

it intended to waive something of which it was unaware.

Defendant has submitted evidence with his motion that no further salary increases are

necessary based on current vacancy rates in the positions at issue. Such evidence would be

relevant if the Receiver were seeking a further waiver of state law to increase salaries, or if

any party were requesting an order that salaries be raised, but neither is the case here. The

Court did not and does not now approve any salary increases beyond those contained in

Exhibit 6 to the Receiver’s September 12, 2006 motion for waiver of state law, and no party

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2391 Filed 08/25/11 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

has requested such an order, let alone made the required showing that such increases are

required to remedy the constitutional issues in this case. However, the Court also did not and

does not now prohibit any salary increases that are implemented consistent with state law.

Defendant’s motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART consistent with

the above discussion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 08/25/11 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2391 Filed 08/25/11 Page 5 of 5