Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00060/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00060-20/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

 The court ruled therein that Inmate Thornton’s medical and/or mental health history and 1

treatment included privileged communications and would not be disclosed.

 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. 2

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD REED, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-0060 RRB GGH P

vs.

DR. WILLIAMS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Pursuant to this court’s Order filed on 10/18/07, defendants were directed, inter

alia, to demonstrate, within ten (10) days, that confidentiality within the prison has been

maintained with respect to the medications prescribed to Inmate Thornton for treatment of any

mental health condition for a specified period of time or the court would require disclosure of

Thornton’s medication prescriptions to plaintiff. Defendants made a timely response which 1

includes a declaration by T. Weinholdt, employed as a CDCR Correctional Health Care 2

Administrator II at Mule Creek State Prison (MCSP), an individual who states under penalty of

perjury that he or she is familiar with the CDCR policies and procedures with regard to

Case 2:05-cv-00060-JAM-KJN Document 76 Filed 11/08/07 Page 1 of 3
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

2

disclosure of medical and psychiatric medication records. See Declaration of T. Weinholdt, ¶¶ 1-

2. 

According to declarant Weinholdt, correctional officers are not permitted any

access to information about an inmate’s medications, with the sole exception of those

medications designated as “heat meds,” and are only informed about inmates taking such

medications because a patient exposed to high temperatures while taking heat meds could suffer

a severe reaction, including death. Weinholdt Declaration (Dec.), ¶ 3. Officers are only

informed about an inmate taking a heat med so that the appropriate cooling measures can be

provided in hot weather. Id. T. Weinholdt also declares that correctional officers do not have

access to an inmate’s medical or psychiatric records but are only aware of which inmates are

included in the mental health treatment program because such designations affect the custodial

classification procedure. Id., at ¶ 4. Furthermore, MCSP general population inmates who

receive psychiatric treatment at the Enhanced Outpatient (EOP) level of care, according to

defendants’ declarant, are housed in specifically designated units; thus, officers would be aware

from an inmate’s housing assignment whether he is receiving psychiatric services at the EOP

care level. Id.

According to the declaration submitted by defendants, therefore, correctional

officers are kept in the dark about the mental condition of inmates and the medications they are

prescribed, thus having no idea of the dangerous propensities of prisoners for purposes of cell

assignment or for assessing the appropriateness of yard and/or job placement. By this

declaration, an inmate could be a raving lunatic suffering from an acute psychosis (or psychoses),

dangerous to both himself and others, and such information would not be conveyed to

correctional/custodial staff. Simply knowing that an inmate is designated as participating in the

EOP program gives no indication or direction whatever as to what precautions or actions should

be taken with regard to that inmate. While the submitted declaration may be sufficient to

preclude production of Inmate Thornton’s record of medication prescribed for any mental health

Case 2:05-cv-00060-JAM-KJN Document 76 Filed 11/08/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

condition to plaintiff herein, plaintiff may well be able to use the declaration for pertinent

purposes at trial. 

In the 10/18/07, Order defendants were also directed to submit a proposed

protective order designed to preclude dissemination of information that is to be disclosed to

plaintiff regarding Inmate Thornton’s disciplinary records. The court’s review of the proposed

order, filed on 11/1/07, reveals that it skips from clause no. 7 to clause no. 10, and it is unclear

whether this is simply a typographical error or whether some portions of the proposed order are

missing. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Based on their representation by way of a declaration under penalty of perjury

that confidentiality within the prison is maintained regarding inmate medications, defendants will

not be required to disclose the medications prescribed to inmate Thornton for treatment of any

mental health condition;

2. Defendants must inform the court forthwith, and at the latest, within five

calendar days, whether their proposed protective order, with respect to the information to be

disclosed to plaintiff concerning Inmate Thornton’s disciplinary history, is complete (and simply

misnumbered) as filed; if not complete, defendants must file a corrected and complete proposed

order within that same time period. 

DATED: 11/8/07 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 _______________________________

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

reed0060.pro

Case 2:05-cv-00060-JAM-KJN Document 76 Filed 11/08/07 Page 3 of 3