Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-01351/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-01351-335/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 RE: COURT EXPERTS

The court experts are currently under order to “proceed as quickly as possible to

complete their evaluations of individual prisons” that have received overall third-round

Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) scores of 85% or greater or, at their and the Receiver’s

discretion, prisons that have received overall scores of between 75% and 85% in any round

of the OIG inspections. Apr. 18, 2013 Order at 3. The Court now suspends that requirement.

Having reviewed the Receiver’s most recent tri-annual report and discussed the issue

with both the Receiver and the court experts, and having given careful consideration to how

best to move this case forward and ensure sustainable reforms, the Court finds that the

experts should re-direct their focus from individual institution evaluations towards more

systemwide problems. To that end, the court experts are directed to assist headquarters,

regional, and facility staff in correcting the systemic issues that the experts have identified in

their first ten reports. In addition, because a meaningful, independent system of evaluating

the quality of care is critical to ensuring sustainability of the reforms implemented through

this case, the experts are further directed to work with the OIG (1) to refine the OIG’s

inspection instrument so that it becomes an adequate and sustainable mechanism, either

standing alone or in connection with internal audits already developed by the Receiver’s

office, for monitoring the quality of inmate medical care, and (2) to ensure that OIG staff are

fully qualified and capable of conducting meaningful evaluations of inmate medical care. 

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2772 Filed 03/11/14 Page 1 of 2
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

The court experts and the Receiver shall explore alternate means of ensuring meaningful,

independent, and sustainable evaluations if it becomes apparent that the OIG is unable to

develop or is incapable of implementing such a system. Regardless of which entity performs

the evaluations, the Court expects clinical staff who monitor the quality of care to meet the

minimum requirements to work as primary care physicians or nurses in California’s adult

prisons, including that physicians be board certified or board eligible in family practice or

internal medicine.

The Receiver shall work with the court experts to determine a reasonable schedule for

the experts’ work. Defendants shall continue to pay the experts through the Court registry

using the existing procedure for processing invoices.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 03/11/14 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2772 Filed 03/11/14 Page 2 of 2