Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520-1350/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 In December 15, 2023, the court ordered the Special Master to supervise the parties in 

18 discussions aimed at clarifying “whether, and if so what, outstanding disputes remain over 

19 defendants’ Telemental Health Services Policy” and, thereafter, to file a short report on the 

20 outcome of those discussions together with a proposed Telemental Health Services policy for the 

21 court’s approval. Dec. 15, 2023 Order at 2, ECF No. 8087. The Special Master filed his report 

22 on March 21, 2024. ECF No. 8165. The court extended the deadline for the parties to respond to 

23 the Special Master’s report. See Apr. 2, 2024 Am. Stip. and Order, ECF No. 8182. The parties 

24 filed responses to the Special Master’s report on May 28, 2024. ECF Nos. 8252 (Pls.’ Objs.), 

25 8253 (Defs.’ Resp.). Plaintiffs request the opportunity to respond to defendants’ objections, ECF 

26 No. 8256, and defendants oppose in part, ECF No. 8258. 

27 Plaintiffs seek permission to respond to defendants’ objections on the grounds that 

28 defendants have in their objections advanced “both new argument and new expert evidence”; 

RALPH COLEMAN, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 90-cv-0520 KJM DB 

ORDER 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 8295 Filed 06/26/24 Page 1 of 3
2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

plaintiffs seek to respond to the legal arguments and contend they have a right to contest the new 

evidence. ECF No. 8256 at 1. Plaintiffs seek forty-five days to respond, claiming good cause is 

shown by the “extensive expert testimony” presented by defendants, the numerous upcoming 

deadlines in this case, other ongoing tasks in this action, and scheduled vacations. Id. at 2-3. 

Defendants do not oppose plaintiffs’ request to respond to defendants’ objections and, 

indeed, represent they will respond to plaintiffs’ filing if the court authorizes responses. ECF No. 

8258 at 2. Defendants object to plaintiffs’ request for forty-five days to file their response, 

contending the court should limit the time for responding given that (1) defendants shared their 

Telemental Health Policy more than ten months ago; and (2) defendants will be prejudiced by 

delay “particularly as they face impending contempt fines due to staffing vacancies.” Id.

1

The extent to which defendants may rely on telepsychiatry and telemental health for the 

delivery of mental health care to class members, consistent with the Eighth Amendment, has been

the subject of both agreement and dispute over the past several years. As it repeatedly has noted, 

the court has never closed the door to further expansion of defendants’ use of telepsychiatry and 

telemental health, through appropriate means. See, e.g., Rep.’s Tr. of Hr’g (RT 9/29/23) at 9–10, 

ECF No. 8013. The Special Master’s March 21, 2024 report presents the court with the 

opportunity to address the proper scope of that expansion. Given the significance of this issue 

both for the adequacy of care provided to the plaintiff class and for defendants’ urgent need to 

remedy ongoing understaffing and their proposed reliance on telemental health to aid this 

remediation, the court sets the briefing schedule below to balance the competing interests at stake.

21 ///// 

22 ///// 

23 ///// 

24 ///// 

25 ///// 

1

 The court has now issued an order imposing civil contempt fines due to defendants’ 

ongoing noncompliance with the court’s orders to achieve constitutionally adequate mental health 

staffing levels. June 25, 2024 Order, ECF No. 8291. 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 8295 Filed 06/26/24 Page 2 of 3
3 

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

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

1. Plaintiffs’ June 3, 2024 Request for Leave to Respond to Defendants’

Objections to the Special Master’s Telemental Health Report and Revised

Policy, ECF No. 8256, is granted in part.

2. On or before July 12, 2024, plaintiffs shall file and serve their response to

defendants’ objections, ECF No. 8253, and defendants shall file and serve

their response to plaintiffs’ objections, ECF No. 8252. The parties shall

include in their respective briefs discussion of whether any issues raised by

the briefing is pending on appeal.

3. The parties are granted until July 26, 2024. to file closing briefs.

4. The court will then submit for decision without oral argument absent

12 further order of the court.

13 DATED: June 25, 2024. 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 8295 Filed 06/26/24 Page 3 of 3