Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520-1177/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 

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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RALPH COLEMAN, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:90-cv-0520 KJM DB P 

ORDER

Plaintiffs have moved to clarify the court’s June 13, 2002 order requiring defendants to 

“maintain the vacancy rate among psychiatrists and case managers at a maximum of ten percent, 

including contracted services,” June 13, 2002 Order, ECF No. 1383, at 4 (hereafter 2002 Order). 

ECF No. 7118. Specifically, plaintiffs seek clarification regarding whether the 2002 Order 

applies to chief psychiatrist and senior psychiatrist supervisor positions. Id. at 3.1

 Defendants 

oppose the motion, ECF No. 7137, and plaintiffs have filed a reply, ECF No. 7149. In addition, 

1

 In this order citations to page numbers in documents filed in the Court’s Electronic Case 

Filing (ECF) system are to the page number assigned by ECF and located in the upper righthand 

corner of the page. 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 7504 Filed 03/18/22 Page 1 of 6
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 

as authorized by the court, ECF No. 7472, the parties have filed focused supplemental briefing.2 

ECF Nos. 7482, 7488.3 

As part of their duty “to provide inmates with access to constitutionally adequate mental 

health care, defendants must employ mental health staff in ‘sufficient numbers to identify and 

treat in an individualized manner those treatable inmates suffering from serious mental 

disorders.’” Coleman v. Wilson, 912 F. Supp. 1282, 1306 (E.D.Cal. 1995). For more than two 

decades, myriad court orders and significant remedial efforts have been focused on achieving 

adequate mental health staffing levels including, as relevant here, directives to reduce staffing 

vacancy rates. 

On July 26, 1999, the court issued an order adopting, among other things, May 19, 1999 

recommendations of the Special Master, ECF No. 1032, that defendants “[w]ithin ninety days . . . 

reduce the vacancy rate among psychiatrists to 25 percent or less and among psych social workers 

to ten percent or less, while keeping vacancy rates among other categories of mental health staff 

at present or comparable rates” and, within the same ninety day period, reduce the employment of 

short-term contract psychiatrists. July 26, 1999 Order, ECF No. 1055 at 4. Ultimately, the court 

provided defendants until December 31, 2000 to comply with the July 26, 1999 directive 

concerning reduction of vacancy rates among psychiatrists and psychiatric social workers, and 

directed the Special Master to file a report on the adequacy of defendants’ compliance with that 

directive and to “make such recommendations to ensure compliance as appear necessary at that 

2

 The parties’ supplemental briefing is focused on a decision of the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Rasho v. Jeffreys, 22 F.4th 703 (7th Cir. 2022). Rasho is not 

binding on this court. Even if it were, it is factually distinguishable in several critical ways. In 

particular, in the instant case “it is established through several long-standing orders of this court 

that full implementation of the 2009 Staffing Plan is necessary to remedy the Eighth Amendment 

violation in this case.” March 16, 2022 Order, ECF No. 7502, at 2 (citing Coleman v. Brown, 

938 F. Supp. 2d 955, 969 (E.D. Cal. 2013) and October 10, 2017 Order, ECF No. 5711, at 16-18). 

Cf. Rasho, at 711 (“there is no evidence that the terms of the settlement and IDOC’s staffing plan 

matched the constitutional floor. . . .”). 

3

 Plaintiffs filed a declaration with their supplemental brief. ECF No. 7488-1 (Decl. of 

Shinn-Krantz). On March 14, 2022, defendants filed a request for leave to file a motion to strike 

that declaration. ECF No. 7493. The court has not considered the Shinn-Krantz Declaration in 

resolving plaintiffs’ motion to clarify. Defendants’ request thus will be denied as moot. 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 7504 Filed 03/18/22 Page 2 of 6
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 

time.” August 28, 2000 Order, ECF No. 1198, at 3. The Special Master filed the required report 

on December 20, 2000. ECF No. 1227. In April 2001, the court adopted that report and its 

recommendations in full and directed the Special Master to file quarterly reports on defendants’ 

progress in developing alternatives for reducing staffing vacancies “and their impact on staff 

vacancy rates.” April 4, 2001 Order, ECF No. 1262, at 4. The Special Master filed the first 

quarterly report on September 26, 2001, ECF No. 1304, and the second report on February 26, 

2002, ECF No. 1351. 

In the second quarterly report, the Special Master reported that as of that time defendants 

had “largely succeeded in addressing their mental health staffing deficiencies through two 

strategies, namely, aggressive contracting of temporary clinicians and an increasing emphasis on 

the use of psychologists to provide case management services.” ECF No. 1351 at 5. Given 

defendants’ relative success achieved through the “use of expanded contract services and the 

concentration of case management services in psychologists to counter weaknesses in 

[defendants’] ability to attract sufficient numbers of permanent clinical staff,” the Special Master 

found it was “absolutely critical that the defendants maintain their current patterns of contracting 

for clinical services and resist any temptation to reduce such services in response to calls for 

budget reductions.” Id. at 6. His first recommendation, which he also characterized as critical, 

was that: 

The defendants should be directed to maintain a vacancy rate 

among psychiatrists and case managers at a maximum of ten 

percent, including contracted services. The recommendation 

recognizes that defendants have been consistently unable to meet 

the staffing vacancy goals established in mid-1999, but have 

effectively narrowed the gap between allocated and filled clinical 

positions through increasingly aggressive use of contracted 

clinicians. The recommended directive seeks to secure by means of 

a court order this somewhat oblique compliance with the spirit of 

the July 26, 1999 mandate on vacancies. 

ECF No. 1351 at 11-12. As noted above, on June 13, 2002, the court issued the order adopting 

this recommendation and requiring defendants to “maintain the vacancy rate among psychiatrists 

and case managers at a maximum of ten percent, including contracted services.” ECF No. 1383 

at 4. 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 7504 Filed 03/18/22 Page 3 of 6
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 

Plaintiffs’ motion for clarification arises from a dispute between the parties over whether 

the ten percent vacancy rate applies to chief psychiatrists and senior psychiatrist supervisors as 

well as to staff psychiatrists. Plaintiffs contend the established vacancy rate applies to all 

allocated psychiatrist positions, including chief psychiatrists and senior psychiatrist supervisors. 

ECF No. 7118 at 3. Defendants disagree, contending plaintiffs are seeking to “effectively 

expand” the scope of the June 13, 2002 order. ECF No. 7137 at 2. 

The parties agree, correctly, that the context in which the 2002 order was issued is key to 

the court’s resolution of the pending motion. See, e.g., ECF No. 7118 at 7; ECF No. 7137 at 2. 

Defendants argue that “when read appropriately with fidelity to the record leading up to the 2002 

order, the word ‘psychiatrists’ clearly refers to staff psychiatrists only.” ECF No. 7137 at 2 

(emphasis in original). The court of course must read the record carefully and with fidelity to its 

contents and meaning. As explained below, the record as relevant to the court’s 2002 order 

shows conclusively that the Special Master’s reference to “psychiatrists” in his reports on staffing 

vacancies was to all allocated psychiatrist positions, including chief psychiatrists, senior 

psychiatrists, and staff psychiatrists. 

In his May 19, 1999 report on staffing vacancies, the Special Master included a 

“breakdown of key mental health staffing positions and vacancies in December, 1998 and April, 

1999.” ECF No. 1032 at 2. That breakdown included a total of 136.1 authorized “psychiatrists” 

in December 1998, and 135.5 authorized “psychiatrists” in April 1999. Id. at 3. Exhibit A to the 

report shows that in December 1998 defendants had 23.5 authorized Chief Psychiatrist positions, 

9 authorized Senior Psychiatrist positions, and 103.6 Staff Psychiatrist positions, for a total of 

136.1 authorized psychiatrist positions. Id. at 18. Similarly, in April 1999 defendants had 23.5 

authorized Chief Psychiatrist positions, 9 authorized Senior Psychiatrist positions, and 103 Staff 

Psychiatrist positions, for a total of 135.5 authorized psychiatrist positions. It is clear from this 

that the Special Master’s May 19, 1999 recommendation to reduce vacancy rates among 

“psychiatrists,” which the court adopted in full in its July 26, 1999 order, encompassed all 

psychiatrist positions allocated by defendants. 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 7504 Filed 03/18/22 Page 4 of 6
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 

The Special Master also relied on total allocated psychiatrist positions in reporting on the 

“vacancy rate among psychiatrists” in his September 26, 2001 first quarterly report. See ECF 

No. 1304 at 2, 24. He relied on the same statistics in his February 26, 2002 report. See ECF 

No. 1351 at 2 (“The measurement of clinical staffing vacancy rates is not difficult. In December 

2000, the reported vacancy rate among psychiatrists was 29.36 percent. In mid-July 2001, the 

rate was nearly four percentage points lower at 25.49 percent. . . .”). 

The foregoing makes it clear that the Special Master’s February 26, 2002 recommendation 

to “maintain the vacancy rate among psychiatrists . . . at a maximum of ten percent” included 

within its ambit all allocated psychiatrist positions. That recommendation, which the court 

adopted in full in its June 13, 2002 order, was expressly tied to the July 26, 1999 order; the 

February 26, 2002 recommendation was expressly made to “secure by means of a court order this 

somewhat oblique compliance with the spirit of the July 26, 1999 mandate on vacancies.” ECF 

No. 1351 at 12. The July 26, 1999 mandate on vacancies applied to all psychiatrist positions – 

Chief Psychiatrists, Senior Psychiatrists, and Staff Psychiatrists – as does its successor, the 

June 13, 2002 order. 

In February 2018, the court ordered defendants to file monthly vacancy reports on 

psychiatry vacancy rates, presenting in those reports “all data for psychiatrist vacancies contained 

in the report titled Correctional Health Care Services Mental Health Institution Vacancies: 

Summary By Institution By Classification.”4 February 15, 2018 Order, ECF No. 5786, at 4-5. 

That order followed a February 14, 2018 hearing, at which the court specifically called attention 

to the line in the CCHCS Mental Health Vacancy Report for staff psychiatrist positions. 

Reporter’s Transcript of Proceedings (2/14/18 RT), ECF No. 5793, at 19. The court’s calling 

attention to one line in the CCHCS Mental Health Vacancy Report did not amend the June 13, 

2002 order. Nonetheless, it appears defendants’ monthly vacancy reports have, to date, been 

based on staff psychiatrist allocations only. Going forward, defendants will be directed to include 

4

 This is referred below to as the CCHCS Mental Health Vacancy Report. 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 7504 Filed 03/18/22 Page 5 of 6
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 

6 

vacancy rates for Chief Psychiatrists and Senior Psychiatrist Supervisor positions in these 

monthly reports as well. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiffs’ April 9, 2021 motion for clarification is GRANTED; 

2. The June 13, 2002 order as issued at that time applied to all allocated 

psychiatrist positions and continues to so apply; 

3. Defendants’ March 14, 2022 request for leave to file a motion to strike is 

denied as moot; and 

4. Beginning with the next monthly psychiatry vacancy report and going forward, 

defendants shall include vacancy rates for Chief Psychiatrist and Senior 

Psychiatrist supervisor positions, as well as vacancy rates for Staff 

Psychiatrists. 

DATED: March 17, 2022. 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 7504 Filed 03/18/22 Page 6 of 6