Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520-1377/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 August 16, 2024, as part of his comprehensive thirtieth round of monitoring in this 

18 action the Special Master filed a monitoring report on the delivery of mental health care at 

19 thirteen institutions in the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) with 

20 Correctional Clinical Case Management (CCCMS) Programs (30D Report). ECF No. 8359 at 1, 

15.1 21 The Special Master makes numerous findings in the 30D Report but no “formal 

22 recommendations” or “request(s) for additional court orders.” Id. at 109. On August 26, 2024, 

23 defendants filed objections to the 30D Report, ECF No. 8374; with leave of court, Sept. 4, 2024 

24 Minute Order, ECF No. 8386, on September 9, 2024, plaintiffs filed a response to defendants’ 

25 objections, ECF No. 8393. The court resolves defendants’ objections by this order. 

1

 Citations to page numbers in documents filed in the Court’s Electronic Case Filing 

(ECF) system are to page numbers assigned by ECF and located in the upper right hand corner of 

the page. 

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 8447 Filed 10/30/24 Page 1 of 14
2 

1 

2 I. LEGAL STANDARD 

3 Paragraph C of the Order of Reference provides in relevant part: 

4 [A]ny compliance report of the special master filed in accordance with paragraph 

5 A(5) above shall be adopted as the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the 

6 court unless, within ten days after being served with the filing of the report, either 

7 side moves to object or modify the report. . . . The objecting party shall note each 

8 particular finding or recommendation to which objection is made, shall provide 

9 proposed alternative findings or recommendations, and may request a hearing before 

10 the court. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(e) (2), the court shall accept the special 

11 master’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. 

12 Dec. 11, 1995 Order at 8, ECF No. 640. As required, the court adopts the Special Master’s 

13 findings of fact unless those findings are “clearly erroneous.” Id. “A finding is ‘clearly 

14 erroneous’ when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire 

15 evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United 

16 States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948) (quoted in Anderson v. City of Bessemer 

17 City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985)). 

18 In their objections, defendants acknowledge the standard of review for the Special 

19 Master’s factual findings set out in the Order of Reference, ECF No. 640. At the same time, as 

20 they have before, defendants note that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53 “was ‘revised 

21 extensively’ in 2003,’ and notably, the standard of review was changed for findings of fact made 

22 or recommended by a master.” ECF No. 8374 at 5 (quoting Committee Note on Rules – 2003 

23 Amendment). In relevant part, the 2003 amendment requires the court to “decide de novo all 

24 objections to findings of fact made or recommended by a master unless the parties, with the 

25 court’s approval, stipulate that . . . the findings will be reviewed for clear error.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26 53(f)(3). Defendants observe that the parties have not stipulated to application of a standard of 

27 review other than the de novo standard now set out in Rule 53(f)(3). Id. They acknowledge that 

28 in 2009, the court declined to apply the de novo standard of review in current Rule 53(f)(3) to 

29 factual findings covered by the Order of Reference because “[t]he question of whether the 

30 provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)(3) should apply in these proceedings has not been briefed by 

31 the parties, and plaintiffs cite no authority mandating its application,” Nov. 23, 2009 Order at 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 8447 Filed 10/30/24 Page 2 of 14
3 

2 n.1, ECF No. 3731 (quoted in ECF No. 8374 at 5),2 1 and that both this court and its predecessor 

2 have in several orders continued to apply the clearly erroneous standard of review. ECF No. 

3 8374 at 5 and orders cited therein. It is not clear whether defendants contend the court should 

4 now apply the de novo standard of review set out in the current version of Rule 53(f)(3) to the 

5 Special Master’s factual findings in the 30D Report. The question of whether that standard 

6 “should apply in these proceedings [still] has not been briefed by the parties, and [defendants] cite 

7 no authority mandating its application.” ECF No. 3731 at 2 n.1. Nor have the parties briefed the 

8 question of whether this court should reconsider the November 23, 2009 order, which the 

9 previously-assigned district judge issued. Cf. Zeyen v. Bonneville Joint District # 93, 114 F.4th 

10 1129, 1137-38 (9th Cir. 2024) (clarifying standard for review of interlocutory order by prior 

11 judge in same case is found in Delta Sav. Bank v. United States, 265 F.3d 1017, 1027 (9th Cir. 

12 2001) and includes as one prong that prior decision is “clearly erroneous and its enforcement 

13 would work a manifest injustice”). Given the record and the posture of the defendants’ pending 

14 objections, the court reviews for clear error the Special Master’s factual findings. See ECF No. 

15 640 at 8. 

16 Defendants also contend the court should apply a de novo standard of review to “any 

17 conclusions of law made or recommended by the Special Master.” ECF No. 8374 at 5 (citing 

18 Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)(4)). The court has always applied a de novo standard of review to its 

19 consideration of legal questions, and does so here. See, e.g., N.L.R.B. v. FMG Industries, 820 

20 F.2d 289, 291 (9th Cir. 1987) (“A Special Master’s conclusions of law receive no deference.”) 

21 ///// 

22 ///// 

2

 The 2009 order resolved a defense motion to modify the Special Master’s expert’s 

Report on Suicides Completed in [CDCR] in Calendar Year 2007, opposed by plaintiffs. See 

ECF No. 3731 at 1. Plaintiffs pointed to Rule 53(f)(3) in a footnote in their opposition in which 

they observed defendants had not, in their motion, identified “the relevant standard of review with 

regard to their objections.” ECF No. 3714 at 6 n.1. Plaintiffs there contended that under either 

the “clearly erroneous” standard set out in the Order of Reference, citing former Fed. R. Civ. P. 

53(e)(2), or the de novo standard set out in Rule 53(f)(3), defendants’ motion failed. Id. 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 8447 Filed 10/30/24 Page 3 of 14
4 

1 II. DISCUSSION 

A. Defendants’ Objections3 2 

3 Defendants’ objections fall into four categories: (1) objections arising from the Special 

4 Master’s alleged failure to provide defendants with information underlying certain findings in the 

5 30D Report; (2) objections to inferences defendants contend are suggested by findings in the 30D 

6 Report or conclusions the Special Master draws from his findings; (3) objections to the Special 

7 Master’s decision to use sample sizes smaller than those recommended by his data expert for 

8 certain assessments; and (4) objections to factual findings in the 30D Report. The previously9 assigned district judge addressed the impropriety of objections that fall into the second category. 

10 See, e.g., February 28, 2013 Order at 9-10, ECF No. 4361 (overruling objections to conclusions 

11 drawn by “Special Master and his experts [who are] well-qualified to draw conclusions from 

12 findings on matters within the scope of their duties” “without prejudice to defendants’ right to 

13 make appropriate argument” in proper substantive motion); see also id. at 9 n.11 (discussing 

14 “perva[sive] defect [in] defendants objections to “‘any implication or conclusion’” to be drawn 

15 from reported facts without objecting to underlying facts themselves.). Defendants have shown 

16 no grounds for revisiting the court’s determination that these types of objections are improper. 

17 Cf. Zeyen, supra. Except where additional discussion is required, objections that fall into this 

18 second category will be summarily overruled. 

3

 In the introduction to their objections, defendants contend they now have a Hobson’s 

choice in raising objections following the court’s admonishment in its May 16, 2024 order 

adopting the Special Master’s Thirtieth Round Monitoring Report – Part C. In that order, the 

court cautioned counsel that they will be sanctioned for raising arguments that disregard the law 

of the case unless they bring an appropriate motion under established procedures. ECF No. 8239 

at 7. Defendants contend they must now either risk sanctions by raising objections to the 30D 

Report that “are based on the same factual and legal positions” they have taken in the past except 

that they are focused on findings made during the most recent monitoring round and therefore 

“not previously reported to the court,” or they can “giv[e] up their right to file objections to 

findings in the Report.” ECF No. 8374 at 4. Defendants mischaracterize the court’s order. 

Defendants are always free to raise good faith objections to findings in the Special Master’s 

monitoring reports under applicable standards. What defendants may no longer do without 

risking imposition of sanctions is ignore or disregard application of legal principles the court 

previously has determined when raising those objections. 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 8447 Filed 10/30/24 Page 4 of 14
5 

1 1. Request for Information on Patient Reviews 

2 Defendants’ first objection falls into the first category: defendants contend the 30D 

3 Report “omits information Defendants request regarding the identity of the twenty or fewer 

patients reviewed at each level of care at each institution.” ECF No. 8374 at 6.4 4 Defendants 

5 contend that “[w]ithout information regarding which patients were reviewed, including the 

6 timeframe of the review and the level of care, CDCR does not have the information available to 

7 properly review and comment on the Report.” Id. Plaintiffs contend the objection “does not 

8 attack a factual finding”; they say defendants have all patient information relied on by the Special 

9 Master and “can use their own records to refute findings if they have legitimate objections.” ECF 

10 No. 8395 at 5. 

11 This objection arises in the context of the Special Master’s review of “each institution’s 

12 satisfaction of Program Guide requirements for timeliness of initial and routine clinical contacts 

and IDTTs.” ECF No. 8359 at 20; see ECF No. 8359-1 at 7.5 13 The Special Master’s findings were 

14 based on “manual review of patient records” by his monitors at the prison institutions they visited 

15 during the thirtieth monitoring round. ECF No. 8359 at 20; see also id. at, e.g., 418 (Special 

16 Master’s monitor “randomly selected and reviewed the healthcare records of 20 mainline 3CMS 

17 patients” at Wasco State Prison). The patient records at issue are created and maintained by 

18 defendants and their agents and made available to the Special Master by defendants and their 

19 agents. Defendants are responsible in the first instance for complying with Program Guide 

20 requirements. See Mar. 3, 2006 order at 2, ECF No. 1773 (ordering defendants to “immediately 

21 implement” Program Guide). As part of their duty to provide adequate mental health treatment to 

22 the plaintiff class, defendants and their agents at prison institutions that provide mental health 

23 care should know routinely whether Program Guide requirements, including those for timely 

4

 The parties both note the Special Master has agreed to provide this information going 

forward. Id.; ECF No 8393 at 5. For the reasons explained in this section, regardless of any 

action the Special Master may take voluntarily going forward, he is not required to provide the 

information defendants seek. 

5

 “The Program Guide is defendants’ plan, approved by the court, to remedy identified 

violations in the delivery of mental health care to the plaintiff class.” Sept. 3, 2020 Order at 4, 

ECF No. 4. 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 8447 Filed 10/30/24 Page 5 of 14
6 

1 initial and routine clinical contacts, are being met and if not, why not. After thirty rounds of 

2 monitoring, defendants and their agents are well aware of the substantive areas monitored by the 

3 Special Master and the substantive information he requires to complete his monitoring 

4 responsibilities. If defendants are not aware of the current status of their compliance with 

5 Program Guide requirements, which the Special Master regularly monitors, they have access to 

6 all the records necessary to glean that information. 

7 The court overrules this objection. 

8 2. Requests for Clarification of Document Requests 

9 The Special Master reports that following the conclusion of the thirtieth monitoring round 

10 he requested documents from defendants in preparation for his tours of new Enhanced Outpatient 

11 Program (EOP) units as part of his thirty-first monitoring round, which commenced at the end of 

12 May 2024. In response to this request, Melissa Bentz, an attorney with CDCR’s Office of Legal 

13 Affairs, sent him a twelve page letter “outlining myriad demands, questions, concerns, and 

14 ‘objections.’” ECF No. 8359 at 39 (citing Exhibit L to 30D Report) (emphasis in 30D Report). 

15 The Special Master reports that defendants subsequently have represented that the objections 

16 raised in the letter “were ‘standing objections’ going forward”; he “suggest[s] that [defendants’] 

17 aggressive litigation tactics may have crossed the line into resistance to (and the impeding of) the 

18 Special Master’s performance of his basic, court-ordered duties.” Id. at 40. Defendants object to 

19 the Special Master’s characterization and say their requests were not “efforts to obstruct 

20 monitoring,” but instead were intended “to clarify whether remediated data would be used and 

21 asking detailed questions about the requests.” ECF No. 8374. Plaintiffs contend the objection is 

22 meritless, requires no court action, and that defendants do not contend this section of the 30D 

23 Report is “inaccurate” or that it should be rejected. ECF No. 8393 at 5-6. 

24 This objection is not properly before the court. Good cause appearing, however, given 

25 that the court has reviewed the letter, the court will set a special status conference to discuss the 

26 letter with Melissa Bentz, Esq., who shall be directed to appear for discussion at the status 

27 conference in person. 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 8447 Filed 10/30/24 Page 6 of 14
7 

1 3. Findings Concerning Telepsychiatry 

2 Defendants object that the 30D Report “incorrectly suggests that CDCR is having 

3 difficulty recruiting and retaining staff through the Telepsychiatry Program, and that 

4 telepsychiatry has not had a positive impact on the overall psychiatry fill rate.” ECF No. 8374 at 

5 6-7. Plaintiffs respond defendants have failed to cite any specific findings that form the basis for 

6 this objection, and the objection is “explicitly rebutted” by the statement in the 30D Report that 

7 “‘the Special Master and the Court support the use of telepsychiatry and acknowledge that it has 

8 been helpful in reducing psychiatry vacancies.’” ECF No. 8393 at 6 (quoting ECF No. 8359 at 

9 50). 

10 This objection falls into the second category described above. It is summarily overruled. 

11 4. Sample Sizes 

12 Defendants next question the Special Master’s purported failure to explain in the 30D 

13 Report why his monitors used smaller sample sizes than recommended by the Special Master’s 

14 data expert to assess the timeliness of initial evaluations, clinical contacts, or IDTT 

15 [Interdisciplinary Treatment Team] meetings. ECF No. 8374 at 8-9. Plaintiffs contend this 

16 objection repeats an objection the court has previously overruled and, in any event, is without 

17 merit. ECF No. 8393 at 8-9. 

18 This objection falls into the third category above, and mirrors a nearly identical objection 

19 defendants raised to the Special Master’s 30C Monitoring Report (hereafter 30C Report). 

20 Compare ECF No. 8374 at 8-9 & n.2 with ECF No. 8108 at 9-10. While the court did not provide 

21 an extended discussion of this aspect of defendants’ objections in its order on the 30C Monitoring 

22 Report, see generally ECF No. 8239, it did explicitly reject defendants’ request for an “order 

23 directing the Special Master to ‘use . . . remediated data and on-site audits, including sample size, 

24 audit questions, and scoring, in all future monitoring rounds.’” Id. at 6. The court’s reasons for 

25 rejecting that request apply with equal force to the present objection. The 30D Report straddles 

26 the transition period between the disclosure that defendants were presenting misleading data to 

27 ///// 

28 ///// 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 8447 Filed 10/30/24 Page 7 of 14
8 

1 the court and prospective full remediation of defendants’ data system. Defendants have not 

2 shown error in the present report as a result of sample sizes the Special Master selected. 

3 The court overrules this objection. 

4 5. Status and Impact of Data Remediation 

5 Defendants object to what they characterize as “criticism” of “CDCR for asking that the 

6 Special Master’s expert respond to their data remediation requests within a certain timeframe as 

7 an attempt to obstruct the Special Master’s monitoring,” contending this suggestion lacks context. 

8 ECF No. 8374 at 9. Plaintiffs contend the objection is irrelevant and does not negate any of the 

9 findings in the report. ECF No. 8393 at 9. 

10 This objection falls primarily into the second category above. It arises from findings 

11 included by the Special Master to support his assessment that defendants are “weaponiz[ing the 

12 data remediation process] as a means to hinder the Special Master’s access to needed 

13 information” as part of an overall pattern of “resistance to the court-ordered duties of the Special 

14 Master and his role as an ‘arm of the court’. . . .” ECF No. 8359 at 41. The findings challenged 

15 by defendants are reported at ECF No. 8359 at 42. 

16 Defendants do not dispute these facts, nor do the additional facts they offer for “context” 

17 alter the impact of these events on the Special Master’s authority or his exercise of his 

18 supervisory authority over the data remediation process. 

The court overrules this objection.6 19 

20 6. Thresholds for Determining Compliance 

21 Defendants object that the Special Master has applied “incorrect thresholds for 

22 determining compliance” in seven areas. ECF No. 8374 at 11-16. Plaintiffs contend these 

23 objections are without merit. ECF No. 8393 at 11-16. These objections fall generally into the 

24 fourth category above. The court addresses each in turn below. 

6

 As noted, the Special Master has filed a status report on the data remediation process. 

The court has directed the Special Master to restructure the data remediation process, as necessary 

to ensure its prompt and efficient completion. 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 8447 Filed 10/30/24 Page 8 of 14
9 

1 

2 a) MHCB Initial Psychiatry Contacts 

3 Defendants object to the Special Master’s findings that “timely initial psychiatry contacts 

4 for MHCB patients were compliant if they occurred before the initial IDTT and within 24 hours 

5 of arrival,” contending “that is not the appropriate standard for initial psychiatry contacts in the 

MHCB.” ECF No. 8374 at 11.7 6 Defendants cite to pages 137, 233, 260, and 449 of the 30D 

7 Report to support their objection. Id. The objection conflates Program Guide requirements for 

8 initial mental health evaluations following admission to MHCBs with Program Guide 

9 requirements for psychiatry contacts required “to address psychiatric medication issues” among 

10 MHCB patients. ECF No. 7333-1 at 85. 

11 The Program Guide includes the following requirements relevant to this objection: 

12  At the time an inmate is referred to an MHCB, the referring clinician is required to 

13 complete a CDCR Form 7386, entitled “Mental Health Evaluation.” ECF No. 

14 7333-1 at 82 (italics in original). 

15  “An admission note [must] be completed within 24 hours of admission to the 

16 MHCB by the admitting clinician. . . .” Id. at 81. 

17  “Upon admission to the MHCB unit” the Mental Health Evaluation form must be 

18 reviewed and updated “immediately” determining, “[a]t a minimum, a provisional 

19 diagnosis”; “an initial plan in the ‘Recommended Follow Up/Initial Treatment 

20 Plan’ section of the [Mental Health Evaluation form], shall be formulated within 

21 24 hours for immediate care planning . . .” ECF No. 7333-1 at 82 (italics in 

22 original). 

23  An initial IDTT meeting must be held within 72 hours. Id. at 83. 

24  “An inmate-patient’s condition [must] be assessed and monitored daily by the 

25 treating clinician, either a psychiatrist or psychologist.” Id. at 84. 

7

 Defendants rely in part on the parties in the data remediation process having reached an 

agreement to require initial MHCB psychiatry contacts within 72 hours. ECF No. 8374 at 11. 

The Special Master declined to revise this section of his Draft Report because the parties reached 

the data remediation agreement after the end of his monitoring period. ECF No. 8359 at 24-25. 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 8447 Filed 10/30/24 Page 9 of 14
10 

1  “The assigned psychiatrist shall evaluate each MHCB inmate-patient at least twice 

2 weekly to address psychiatric medication issues.” Id. at 85. 

3 Within the pages and page ranges referenced by the defendants, the Special Master reports 

4 on both the timeliness of the initial clinical evaluations that must be completed within 24 hours 

5 and in advance of initial IDTT meetings, and the timeliness of “routine psychiatry contacts.” See

6 ECF No. 8359 at 137, 233-34, 260, 449. Defendants have not shown error in these findings. 

7 The court overrules this objection. 

8 

9 b) Timeline Requirements for Routine Clinical Contacts in Short-term 

10 Restricted Housing Units (STRHUs) 

11 Defendants object that the Special Master applied a seven-day timeline requirement in 

12 evaluating the timeliness of routine primary clinician contacts in the STRHUs, rather than the 

13 definition of “weekly” agreed to by all stakeholders in the data remediation process in their 

14 December 18, 2023 stipulation, ECF No. 8374 at 13; under the stipulation, “weekly” is defined 

15 “as occurring ‘at least once per calendar week, but not to exceed ten days between contacts’ for 

16 purposes of measuring clinical contact timeframes.” ECF No. 8359 at 24. The Special Master 

17 acknowledged the stipulation in the 30D Report but did not change the content of the 30D Report 

18 because the agreement postdated the periods of review covered in the report. Id. This was not 

19 error. 

20 The court overrules this objection. 

21 

22 c) Clinical Contacts Conducted in a Non-confidential Setting 

23 Defendants object the 30D Report fails to make clear that clinical contacts reported as 

24 “non-confidential” due to “patient refusal” are nonetheless compliant with the Program Guide. 

25 ECF No. 8374 at 13. As plaintiffs observe, the Special Master does not find these types of 

26 contacts non-compliant with the Program Guide. ECF No. 8393 at 12. Rather, the Special 

27 Master expressly excludes non-confidential contacts due to patient refusal from his findings 

28 concerning the “overall rate” of non-confidential clinical contacts set out in summary of his 

29 findings. ECF No. 8359 at 66-67. 

30 The court overrules this objection. 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 8447 Filed 10/30/24 Page 10 of 14
11 

1 d) Yard Time in STRHUs 

2 Defendants next object to the Special Master’s use of the term “yard” rather than 

3 “exercise out of their cell” to report 100 percent compliance with the Program Guide requirement 

4 that CCCMS inmates in STRHUs “‘be offered 18.5 weeks of exercise out [sic] of their cell.’” 

5 ECF No. 8374 at 13 (quoting ECF No. 7333-1 at 452). As defendants note, the Special Master 

6 reports 100 percent compliance with this requirement. See ECF No. 8359 at 231. Defendants’ 

7 objection frivolously elevates semantics over substance. 

8 The court overrules this objection. 

9 

10 e) Initial Interdisciplinary Treatment Team Meetings (IDTTs) in 

11 Reception Centers (RCs) 

12 Defendants object to the Special Master’s finding that “‘[n]otably, RC patients [at North 

13 Kern State Prison] were placed in RC 3CMS without an IDTT and generally transferred prior to a 

14 required annual IDTT,’” contending the Program Guide “does not require initial IDTTs for RC 

15 CCCMS patients,” that the challenged sentence impermissibly implies otherwise, and that the 

16 parties have agreed during data remediation to exclude RC CCCMS patients “from the initial 

17 IDTT business rule.” ECF No. 8374 at 14 (quoting ECF No. 8359 at 443). The Special Master 

18 declined to modify the 30D Report in response to this objection because the data remediation 

19 agreement was reached after the end of the monitoring period. ECF No. 8359 at 24-25; see also

20 note 7 supra. 

21 The finding to which defendants object is included in a discussion of class members at 

22 North Kern State Prison’s reception center who were placed in the CCCMS program at that 

23 reception center after the reception process was complete. See ECF No. 8359 at 437-443 

24 (findings concerning reception center at NKSP). The Program Guide requires the development of 

25 “initial treatment plans” for all inmate-patients at Reception Centers “who are identified as 

26 requiring mental health services.” ECF No. 7333-1 at 29. These plans are developed by 

27 psychologists or psychiatrists, and by psychiatrists when medication is required. Id. at 27. 

28 Reception center inmate-patients must be provided with “regular treatment” in accordance with 

29 these plans. Id. at 29. The Program Guide requires initial IDTTs for inmate-patients arriving at 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 8447 Filed 10/30/24 Page 11 of 14
12 

1 CCCMS programs to be held “no later than 14 working days of the arrival” to the program, id. at 

2 641, and that reception center CCCMS inmate-patients be transferred to mainline CCCMS 

3 programs within 90 days of referral to the CCCMS level of care, or 60 days “if clinically 

4 indicated.” Id. at 19. Thereafter, IDTTs for CCCMS inmate-patients “are updated at least 

5 annually. . . .” Id. at 44. 

6 The sentence defendants challenge does not include any finding of non-compliance with 

7 relevant Program Guide requirements and defendants neither contend nor present evidence that 

8 the facts reported by the Special Master are incorrect. 

9 The court overrules this objection. 

10 f) Findings Concerning Confidentiality of CCCMS IDTTs 

11 Defendants next object to findings that IDTTs observed at NKSP and WSP were “‘not 

12 confidential, as there was a camera in the rooms at NKSP and WSP and officers stood in the room 

13 at WSP.’” ECF No. 8374 at 15 (quoting ECF No. 8359 at 121). Defendants acknowledge the 

14 Program Guide defines a “‘confidential setting’” as one that “‘affords confidentiality of sight and 

15 sound from other inmates and confidentiality of sound from staff members. . . ,’” id. at 14-15 

16 (quoting ECF No. 7333-1 at 636), but they assert sound was not enabled on the cameras at either 

17 prison and that the Program Guide authorizes correctional officers to attend IDTTS, id. at 15. 

18 Plaintiffs respond, correctly, that defendants have presented no evidence to support their 

19 assertions concerning the sound capabilities of the cameras. ECF No. 8393 at 13. Plaintiffs also 

20 respond that defendants have omitted from their objections the Special Master’s observations that 

21 the correctional officers in question “walked in and out of the room during the meeting” and ‘did 

22 not contribute to the IDTT process and provided no information.” ECF No. 8359 at 26 (cited in 

23 ECF No. 8393 at 14). Defendants have not shown these findings are erroneous. 

24 The court overrules this objection. 

25 ///// 

26 ///// 

27 ///// 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 8447 Filed 10/30/24 Page 12 of 14
13 

1 g) Failure to Note that Mainline CCCMS Group Treatment Exceeds 

2 Program Guide Requirements. 

3 Defendants have not shown that the statements they challenge concerning groups offered 

4 to mainline CCCMS patients are factually incorrect. Moreover, defendants’ assertion that 

5 provision of groups led by clinicians in CCCMS units goes “above and beyond what the Program 

6 Guide requires,” ECF No. 8374 at 16, is erroneous: the Program Guide includes a requirement 

7 that “group psychotherapy” be “provided as clinically indicated” in CCCMS units. ECF No. 

8 7333-1 at 36. 

9 The court overrules this objection. 

10 7. Staffing Data 

11 Finally, defendants object that some of the staffing information in the 30D Report does 

12 not match data in the comparable monthly staffing report defendants have filed with the court. 

13 ECF No. 8374 at 16-17. The Special Master is not required to rely on any particular data source 

14 in making his monitoring reports and defendants have not shown the data he chose to report is 

15 incorrect. 

16 In response to an inquiry from the court, the Special Master has provided a chart entitled 

17 “WSP Facility Mental Health Staffing and Telemedicine: July 1, 2023 to December 31, 2023,” 

18 which defendants provided to the Special Master’s monitor during the site visit to WSP. A copy 

19 of the chart is included as Attachment A to this order. The chart adequately supports the Special 

20 Master’s reported finding. Specifically, the Special Master’s summary of the fill rate for 

21 telepsychiatrist positions is consistent with the data in the chart showing that WSP had five 

22 telepsychiatrist positions available to it during the review period, and that four of those were 

23 filled. See ECF No. 8359 at 47-50; see also Attachment A. 

24 This court overrules this objection. 

25 ///// 

26 ///// 

27 ///// 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 8447 Filed 10/30/24 Page 13 of 14
14 

1 III. CONCLUSION 

2 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Special Master’s 

3 August 16, 2024 Thirtieth Round Monitoring Report Part D, ECF No. 8359, is ADOPTED in full. 

4 DATED: October 29, 2024. 

5 

6 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 8447 Filed 10/30/24 Page 14 of 14