Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-01351/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-01351-70/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

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART

RECEIVER’S SUPPLEMENTAL

APPLICATION NO. 2 FOR

ORDER WAIVING STATE

CONTRACTING STATUTES,

ETC.

On June 4, 2007, this Court approved the Receiver’s Master Application for Order

Waiving State Contracting Statutes, Regulations, and Procedures and authorized three

alternative substitute procedures for the bidding and award of contracts: expedited formal

bidding, urgent informal bidding, and sole-source bidding.

On November 20, 2007, the Receiver filed his Supplemental Application No. 2 for an

Order Waiving State Contracting Statutes, Regulations, and Procedures and Approving

Receiver’s Substitute Procedure for Bidding and Award of Contracts. This application

concerns the Receiver’s planned “quality improvement projects,” including the Asthma

Initiative, which is designed to eliminate preventable inmate deaths due to undiagnosed or

uncontrolled asthma. The development of this initiative follows an analysis of inmate-patient

deaths in 2006, which concluded that asthma accounted for the single highest number of

preventable deaths during that time period.

On November 30, 2007, the Court ordered the parties to file objections or statements

of non-opposition to the Receiver’s Supplemental Application No. 2 by December 14, 2007. 

Plaintiffs timely filed an opposition, and the Court construes Defendants’ failure to file any

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 1066 Filed 01/25/08 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

objections as a statement of non-opposition. The Receiver filed a timely reply to Plaintiffs’

opposition on December 21, 2007.

Having carefully considered the Receiver’s application and reply, Plaintiffs’

opposition papers, and the record in this case, the Court finds good cause to grant the

Receiver’s Supplemental Application No. 2 as it relates to the Asthma Initiative. The Court

is satisfied by the points raised in the Receiver’s reply papers that Plaintiffs’ objections are

unwarranted. As discussed in the declaration of Terry Hill, the Receiver is taking and will

continue to take short-term remedial measures to address quality of care for asthma patients,

including taking adverse action against clinicians deemed responsible for identifiable deaths. 

However, the Court agrees with the Receiver that such measures are insufficient to effectuate

sustainable change and that, therefore, the Asthma Initiative is a necessary part of the

Receiver’s reform efforts. The Court further agrees that it would be ineffective to attempt to

implement existing models, such as that developed at Pelican Bay State Prison over a number

of years, on a statewide basis, as such implementation would be likely to lead to unnecessary

delay and greater numbers of preventable deaths, and, more importantly, because no

California prison is even attempting to meet national standards regarding asthma education

and prevention. Finally, the Receiver has adequately explained why outside expertise is

needed to develop the Asthma Initiative, and the Court is satisfied that a twelve-month time

frame to implement the majority of the proposed clinical interventions is, if anything,

aggressive and not prolonged.

In short, the Court agrees with the Receiver that the Asthma Initiative is critical to

establishing a constitutional system of medical care delivery in California’s prisons, and that

failure to obtain a waiver of state law would prevent the Receiver from achieving that goal in

a timely fashion. Moreover, the Court is satisfied that there is no alternative to the requested

waiver that would achieve a constitutional remedy in this instance.

That said, the Court does not find it appropriate to grant the Receiver his requested

waiver of state law as to all “quality improvement projects.” The Receiver’s application

identifies and discusses only one such project – the Asthma Initiative – and granting a

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 1066 Filed 01/25/08 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

broader waiver as to unidentified projects would not comport with the careful manner in

which this Court has approached waiving state law when necessary.

Accordingly, with good cause appearing for the reasons discussed above, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Receiver’s Supplemental Application No. 2 for a waiver of state law is

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The application is DENIED without

prejudice as to all unidentified “quality improvement projects.” Should the need for a waiver

arise once the Receiver develops the contemplated quality improvement projects, the Court

will re-evaluate an application for a waiver at that time. To reduce inefficiency, the Receiver

shall attempt to seek a stipulation from the parties before filing any further supplemental

applications for waivers of state law.

2. The application for a waiver of state law is GRANTED as to the Receiver’s

Asthma Initiative, and the following state codes and laws shall be waived with respect to the

Asthma Initiative that is described more fully in the Receiver’s Supplemental Application

No. 2: 

• California Government Code (“Gov’t Code”) sections 14825-14828 and State

Contracting Manual (“SCM”) sections 5.10A, 5.75, and 5.80 (governing

advertisement of state contracts);

• California Public Contract Code (“PCC”) sections 10290-10295, 10297, 10333,

10335, 10351, and 10420-10425; Gov’t Code section 14616; and SCM sections

4.00-4.11 (governing approval of contracts by Department of General Services

(“DGS”) and exemption from and consequences of failure to obtain DGS

approval);

• PCC sections 10308, 10309, and 10314; SCM, volume 2; and State

Administrative Manual (“SAM”) sections 3500-3696.3 (governing procurement

of goods);

• PCC sections 6106, 10109-10126, 10129, 10140, 10141, 10180-10185, 10220,

10301-10306, 10340-10345, 10351, 10367, and 10369; Gov’t Code sections

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 1066 Filed 01/25/08 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

4

4525-4529.20, 4530-4535.3, 7070-7086, 7105-7118, and 14835-14837;

California Military and Veterans Code sections 999-999.13; California Code of

Regulations, title 2, sections 1195-1195.6; SCM sections 5.00-6.40; and

Management Memo (“MM”) 03-10 (governing competitive bidding, required

language in bid packages, non-competitive bid (“NCB”) procedures, preferential

selection criteria, contractor evaluations and notice, contract award and protest

procedures for service, consulting service, construction project management, and

public works contracts);

• PCC sections 10314 and 10346 (governing progress payment limitations);

• Gov’t Code section 13332.09 and MM 06-03 (governing vehicle purchases);

• PCC sections 12100-12113, 12120-12121, and 12125-12128; SCM, volume 3;

and SAM sections 4800-4989.3 and 5200-5291 (governing procurement of

information technology, telecommunications, and data processing goods and

services and applicable alternate protest procedures);

• Gov’t Code sections 13332.10, 14660, 14669, and 15853 (governing acquisition

and leasing of real property);

• Gov’t Code sections 13332.19 and 15815 (governing plans, specifications, and

procedures for major capital projects); and

• PCC sections 10365.5 and 10371; and SCM section 3.02.4 (governing

restrictions on and approval for multiple contracts with the same contractor).

3. The Receiver shall follow the alternative contracting procedures set forth in this

Court’s June 4, 2007 order for the Asthma Initiative. 

4. At the Receiver’s discretion, he may either (1) publish provisions requiring

contractor certifications of compliance on his website and include a single representation in

the contracts he awards to the effect that the contractor has read, and attests that he/she/it is

in compliance with, the required provisions; or (2) directly incorporate into the agreements

standard contract provisions pertaining to contractor certifications of compliance utilized by

DGS and available online on DGS’s website.

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 1066 Filed 01/25/08 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

5. The Receiver’s quarterly progress reports shall contain a summary that

(1) specifies each contract the Receiver has awarded during the quarter under this waiver;

(2) provides a brief description of each such contract; and (3) identifies the method the

Receiver utilized to award the contract (i.e., expedited formal bidding, urgent informal

bidding, or sole-source bidding).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 01/25/08 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 1066 Filed 01/25/08 Page 5 of 5