Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-01351/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-01351-311/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

JOINT REQUEST FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING REFEEDING OF HUNGER STRIKING AND ORDER THEREON

CASE NO. C01-1351 TEH

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

FUTTERMAN DUPREE 

DODD CROLEY 

MAIER LLP

FUTTERMAN DUPREE DODD CROLEY MAIER LLP

MARTIN H. DODD (104363)

180 Sansome Street, 17th Floor

San Francisco, California 94104

Telephone: (415) 399-3840

Facsimile: (415) 399-3838

mdodd@fddcm.com

Attorneys for Receiver

J. Clark Kelso

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCIANO PLATA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C01-1351 TEH

JOINT REQUEST FOR ORDER 

AUTHORIZING REFEEDING UNDER 

SPECIFIED CONDITIONS OF HUNGER 

STRIKING INMATE-PATIENTS AND 

ORDER THEREON

Plaintiffs, Defendants, and Receiver J. Clark Kelso (“Receiver”) (collectively, the 

“Parties” and individually, a “Party”)), by and through their respective attorneys, hereby submit

this Joint Request for an order substantially in the form set forth below which authorizes the 

refeeding under specified conditions of inmate-patients who are participating in a current hunger 

strike. 

1. On or around July 8, 2013, a very large number of inmates throughout the California 

prison system began refusing meals in connection with a hunger strike. Since that time, 

the number of inmates refusing meals has dropped dramatically. As of August 19, 2013, 

a core of approximately 129 inmates, of whom 69 have participated in the strike since the 

beginning, are currently refusing meals. The hunger strikers are spread across six prisons 

(Centinela State Prison (“CEN”), California Men’s Colony (“CMC”), California Medical 

Facility (CMF), Corcoran State Prison (“COR”), Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”) and, 

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2699 Filed 08/19/13 Page 1 of 5
2

JOINT REQUEST FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING REFEEDING OF HUNGER STRIKING AND ORDER THEREON

CASE NO. C01-1351 TEH

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

FUTTERMAN DUPREE 

DODD CROLEY 

MAIER LLP

Sacramento State Prison (“SAC”).

2. A widespread, orchestrated hunger strike poses significant challenges in the prison setting 

and presents difficult, sometimes conflicting, policy questions concerning institutional 

safety and security, inmate-patient autonomy over their person and the receipt of medical 

treatment, the ability of medical staff to monitor and provide adequate care to striking 

inmates and medical ethical requirements pertaining to the protection of patients from 

harm while respecting patient autonomy. See generally Cruzan v. Director, Missouri 

Dep’t of Health, 497 U.S. 261(1990); Thor v. Superior Court, 5 Cal. 4th 725 (1990).

3. California Correctional Health Care Services (“CCHCS”) has adopted Policy 4.22.2 (the 

“Mass Hunger Strike Policy”) which was intended to address at what point, and under 

what conditions, from a medical ethical standpoint, medical staff may attempt refeeding 

of hunger striking inmates. The Mass Hunger Strike Policy is attached hereto as Exhibit 

A.

4. Experience has shown, however, that the Mass Hunger Strike Policy in its current form

may be insufficiently flexible or detailed to address a number of issues posed by the 

hunger strike. Among other things, CDCR is concerned that it does not account for 

security and safety concerns. Medical staff are concerned that it does not provide 

sufficient guidance with respect to when clinicians may refeed in the face of possible, but 

uncertain, coerced participation in the strike or coerced execution of “do not resuscitate” 

directives. Plaintiffs’ counsel is concerned that it may not provide adequate guidance

regarding respecting inmate-patient autonomy.

5. The Parties have met and conferred and agree that the interests of the Parties, including

medical and custodial staff, will be best advanced and protected during the current strike

if the Court establishes appropriate conditions for when refeeding may occur and further 

agree that, as discussed in Paragraph 6 of this Joint Request, the Court may enter an order 

substantially in the form set forth below.

6. The Parties affirmatively agree to the provisions of paragraphs one and two of the 

proposed order below. CDCR has requested, and the Receiver does not oppose, inclusion 

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2699 Filed 08/19/13 Page 2 of 5
3

JOINT REQUEST FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING REFEEDING OF HUNGER STRIKING AND ORDER THEREON

CASE NO. C01-1351 TEH

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

FUTTERMAN DUPREE 

DODD CROLEY 

MAIER LLP

of paragraph three in the order. Plaintiffs do not object to the inclusion of paragraph 

three, provided that the order applies only to the current hunger strike and that following 

the strike CCHCS undertakes to revise the Mass Hunger Strike Policy to avoid the 

necessity of requesting ad hoc revisions from the Court under the pressured and difficult 

circumstances presented by a hunger strike. Both CDCR and the Receiver agree that the 

conditions proposed by Plaintiffs are reasonable and may be included in the order.

7. The Parties also agree that, in making this joint request for the order set forth below, they 

are not waiving any arguments they may have made or may make in support of or in 

opposition to a request to refeed inmates during the current hunger strike or their right to 

object to any future hunger strike policy or the application thereof to a future hunger 

strike and are not agreeing to the authorization of refeeding, or to the conditions under 

which refeeding may be undertaken, during any future hunger strike.

Dated: August 19, 2013 FUTTERMAN DUPREE DODD CROLEY 

MAIER LLP

By: /s/ Martin H. Dodd

Martin H. Dodd

Attorneys for Receiver J. Clark Kelso

Dated: August 19, 2013 KAMALA D. HARRIS

Attorney General of the State of California

By: /s/ Patrick McKinney

Patrick McKinney

HANSON BRIDGETT LLP

By: /s/ Walter R. Schneider

Walter R. Schneider

Attorneys for Defendants

Dated: August 19, 2013 PRISON LAW OFFICE

By: /s/ Donald Specter

Donald Specter

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2699 Filed 08/19/13 Page 3 of 5
4

JOINT REQUEST FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING REFEEDING OF HUNGER STRIKING AND ORDER THEREON

CASE NO. C01-1351 TEH

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

FUTTERMAN DUPREE 

DODD CROLEY 

MAIER LLP

ORDER

The Court having considered the Parties’ Joint Request for an order authorizing refeeding 

under specified conditions of hunger striking inmates, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY 

ORDERED that:

1. If the Chief Medical Executive (“CME”) at an affected prison determines, to a reasonable 

degree of medical certainty, that a hunger striker is at risk of near-term death or great 

bodily injury in the absence of intervention or has become incompetent to give consent or 

make medical decisions, refeeding or other lifesaving measures may commence 

immediately without need of a further court order, provided that the hunger striker has not 

previously executed a valid “do not resuscitate” directive. 

2. For purposes of this order, a previously executed “do not resuscitate” directive will not be 

considered valid if a) the CME, reasonably and in good faith, determines it was the result 

of coercion or otherwise not the product of the hunger striker’s free will when executed; 

b) a court has determined the directive is invalid as a matter of law; or c) the hunger 

striker, or an attorney-in-fact for the hunger striker acting pursuant to a properly executed 

power of attorney, revokes such directive. 

3. In addition, in view of the risk that inmates may be or have been coerced into 

participating in the hunger strike, for purposes of this order a ‘do not resuscitate’ directive 

executed by a participant in the hunger strike at or near the beginning of or during the 

strike will be deemed not valid.

4. This Order is applicable only to the refeeding of inmate-patients during the hunger strike 

which commenced on July 8, 2013, as described more fully in the Parties’ joint request,

and CCHCS is ordered to review and, if appropriate, revise the Mass Hunger Strike 

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2699 Filed 08/19/13 Page 4 of 5
5

JOINT REQUEST FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING REFEEDING OF HUNGER STRIKING AND ORDER THEREON

CASE NO. C01-1351 TEH

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

FUTTERMAN DUPREE 

DODD CROLEY 

MAIER LLP

Policy to address the issue of refeeding of hunger striking inmates in any future mass 

hunger strike.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _____________, 2013 By:

Hon. Thelton E. Henderson

United States District Judge

08/19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

Judge Thelton E. Henderson

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2699 Filed 08/19/13 Page 5 of 5