Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520-1010/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., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., 

Defendants. 

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

ORDER 

 

 On November 15, 2019, the Special Master filed a request for extension of time to 

comply with the court’s July 3, 2019 order, ECF No. 6211, which required submission of 

proposed processes for regular updates to the 2018 Program Guide and to any part of the remedy 

for this action found in state regulations and/or provisions of the California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) Department Operations Manual (DOM). ECF No. 6390. 

The Special Master seeks an extension of ninety days, to and including February 14, 2020, to 

comply with the July 3, 2019 order. Id. at 1.1 The Special Master’s request is predicated on the 

fact that negotiations over the proposed processes, which have been ongoing in the All-Parties 

 

1

 With the exceptions of citations to page numbers in Reporter’s Transcripts of Proceedings, 

references to page numbers in documents filed in the Court’s Electronic Case Filing (ECF) 

system are to the page number assigned by the ECF system and located in the upper right-hand 

corner of the page. 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 6396 Filed 11/19/19 Page 1 of 5
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

Workgroup, have “stalled” because “defendants’ intention to include mental health regulations 

into the HC [Health Care] DOM administered by California Correctional Health Care Services 

(CCHCS) ha[s] only recently become clear to plaintiffs and the Special Master.” Id. at 3. The 

court DECLINES to grant the Special Master’s request as presented and DEFERS a decision on 

whether to grant the request in part as explained below. 

 CCHCS is run by the Receiver in Plata v. Newsom, Case No. C01-1351 JST (N.D. 

Cal.). Plata is a class action lawsuit brought in the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of California by prisoners with serious medical conditions. See Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 

493, 500 (2011). This separate Coleman action is a class action lawsuit brought by prisoners with 

serious mental disorders. Id. The two actions are brought by two distinct classes of plaintiffs and 

are being remedied in separate federal district courts. Id. In this action, remediation is supervised 

by a court-appointed Special Master, while the Plata court has appointed a Receiver to implement 

the remedy in that case. See id. at 506-07. 

 In 2006, the Coleman court and the Plata court recognized the need for both courts 

to “closely coordinate activities in both cases.” Reporter’s Transcript, June 8, 2006, ECF No. 

1848 (6/8/06 RT), at 1:23-24. To that end, the courts jointly convened a status conference to 

address coordination with the parties. Id.; see also ECF No. 1834. The goals of the coordination 

process were express: to be sure that everyone in both cases was “working on the same page”; to 

“head . . . off at the pass” any “possible divergence of views” in any significant substantive area; 

and a “desire for efficiency.” 6/8/06 RT at 2:7-3:6. The courts were both clear: coordination was 

intended to avoid any surprises in the remedial proceedings in either case. See id. at 4:2-7 (Plata

judge explaining Coleman Special Master and Plata Receiver “will be meeting regularly and 

coordinating so that nothing that my team does is a surprise to anything and vice versa”); cf. id. at 

10:10-16 (plaintiffs’ counsel noting “important for us to be kept informed”), 11:5-7 (defendants’ 

counsel representing “the State very much appreciates the coordination and will certainly, of 

course, work very, very closely with the Masters and Receiver”). The courts also were clear that 

the Coleman case would not “be forthwith folded into Plata” and that each court had “individual 

obligations” under their respective decrees. Id. at 2:21-25. The Plata court underscored “[t]hat 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 6396 Filed 11/19/19 Page 2 of 5
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

there would be transparency here. Nothing would be done in secret or decided in secret.” Id. at 

12:15-21; id. at 12:22-13:2. 

 In early 2007, the coordination process expanded to include another class action, 

Perez v. Tilton, Case No. C05-05241 JSW (N.D. Cal.), a case involving dental care in 

California’s prisons.2 The order issued by the three courts was equally clear: nothing in the 

coordination process would “alter or amend” any reporting requirements in the individual cases or 

“such rights of the parties in each action as have been or may be established by court orders. . . .” 

ECF No. 2119 at 2. A fourth class action, Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger, Case No. C 94-2307 

(N.D. Cal.), joined the coordination process that year. See ECF No. 2522. In 2007 and 2008, the 

coordinating courts considered and entered orders approving several agreements, including some 

governing information technology (IT) coordination. See ECF Nos. 2247 & 2300 (approving 

Receiver’s assumption of, inter alia, long-term IT program including medical and mental health 

programs, subject to quarterly reporting requirements of “all tasks and metrics necessary to the 

contracting functions”) & 2711 (approving IT coordination agreement presented by Receiver and 

Special Master, inter alia, on condition that Receiver coordinate with Department of Mental 

Health (DMH) “to facilitate technological compatibility and communication regarding patient 

care between DMH and CDCR,” with additional understandings memorialized in attachment); 

see also ECF Nos. 2300, 2696, 2739, 3073. The Plata and Coleman courts jointly considered 

additional agreements in 2008 and 2009. See, e.g., ECF Nos. 3334, 3498, 3499. 

 No court orders have modified the letter or intent of the courts’ initial coordination 

determination in 2006. The coordination process remains an ongoing, important element of the 

proceedings in this case. Against this backdrop, defendants’ failure to timely and clearly disclose 

to the Special Master and to plaintiffs their apparent intention to work under the auspices of the 

Plata Receiver to incorporate mental health regulations into the HC DOM appears at odds with 

the coordination process, not to mention tone deaf in light of the recent proceedings before this 

court occasioned by the Golding Report. See, e.g., Reporter’s Transcript of Proceedings, Oct. 23, 

 

2

 The Perez action was terminated in 2012 and is no longer part of the coordination process. See 

Perez v. Cate, Case No. 05-05241 JSW (N.D. Cal.), ECF Nos. 729, 738. 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 6396 Filed 11/19/19 Page 3 of 5
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

2019, ECF No. 6380 (10/23/19 RT), at 458:25-459:12. Defendants have made other recent 

representations suggesting the possibility there are additional substantive areas in which 

defendants have, to one degree or another, embarked on remedial efforts under the auspices of the 

Plata Receiver without fully informing this court, the Special Master or plaintiffs. These 

representations include statements by defense counsel at the September 13, 2019 second quarterly 

status conference in this action, see ECF No. 6312 at 6 n.4, as well as in a document the court 

required defendants to file after the October 2019 evidentiary hearing, ECF No. 6370. 

 As the court reminded defendants in its October 8, 2019 order, their “remedial 

responsibilities in this action are to this court and its Special Master. Any remedial work on 

matters within the jurisdiction of this court must, at a minimum, be fully disclosed in the first 

instance to the Special Master and ultimately to this court to ensure the needs of the plaintiff class 

here will be met and any necessary coordination can be achieved.” ECF No. 6312 at 6 n.4. 

Disclosure is essential given the Special Master’s obligations, which include working with 

defendants on the remedy in this case and, as necessary, to consult with counsel for all parties in 

order to fulfill his duties under the Order of Reference. See ECF No. 640 at 2-3. 

 For the second time in less than a month, the court is required to remind 

defendants that their transparency with the court, the Special Master and the plaintiffs is essential 

to a fair assessment of their progress toward compliance with the approved remedy in this case. 

See, e.g., 10/23/19 RT at 463:13-20. That this court saw fit to appoint a Special Master, as a 

means more respectful of defendants’ own management of their correctional institutions and less 

intrusive than could have been imposed by the appointment of a Receiver, elevates the 

fundamental requirement of full transparency in this case to a non-negotiable gold standard. Id. 

The court has renewed serious doubts that defendants are meeting that standard. 

 For all of the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The Special Master’s November 15, 2019 request for enlargement of time, 

ECF No. 6390, is DENIED pending a full discussion with the parties at the 

quarterly status conference set for December 13, 2019, at which the court will 

///// 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 6396 Filed 11/19/19 Page 4 of 5
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

consider a new shorter deadline for compliance with the court’s July 3, 2019 

order. 

2. While the court will issue a full agenda for the December 13, 2019 status 

conference in the near future, it advises the parties that the first agenda item will 

be a discussion of whether, and to what extent, defendants are unilaterally 

coordinating remedial efforts with the Plata Receiver, advising the court and 

Special Master only after significant effort has been expended; whether, and to 

what extent, any such efforts have been properly and timely disclosed to the 

Special Master and/or the plaintiffs; and whether plaintiffs should be granted a 

period of discovery designed to identify answers to these questions. Once the 

full agenda for the status conference is set, the parties will be directed to file 

separate statements addressing the issues identified in this paragraph 2. 

3. The discussion on December 13th described above also will review the reporting 

channels and committee/subcommittee structures relevant to mental health data 

collection and reporting, whether currently in place or put on hold during the 

Golding proceedings. Defendants are directed to file within seven (7) days a 

separate statement identifying any and all such reporting channels, committees 

and subcommittees. 

DATED: November 18, 2019. 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 6396 Filed 11/19/19 Page 5 of 5