Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520-751/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. 

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

Defendants. 

No. 2:90-cv-0520 LKK DAD P 

ORDER 

 By order filed June 19, 2014, the court ordered defendants to review and, as 

appropriate, revise their existing mental health staffing plan in order to come into compliance 

with a prior court order concerning maximum mental health staffing vacancy rates, and to report 

to the court on the results of the review. ECF No. 5171 at 4.1

 The June 19, 2014 order requires 

defendants to “assume primary responsibility for completion of this task, with the Special Master 

providing guidance and expertise where necessary, to ensure its timely completion, and to ensure 

that plaintiffs are provided notice and an opportunity for input as appropriate.” ECF No. 5171 

at 3. 

 After receiving an extension of time, see ECF No. 5210, on February 2, 2015 

defendants filed the required report. ECF No. 5269. On February 13, 2015, plaintiffs filed a 

 1

 All references to page numbers are to those assigned by the court’s Electronic Case 

Filing (ECF) system, which appear at the top of documents filed in ECF. 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 5307 Filed 05/18/15 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 

request for leave to file a response to the staffing report. ECF No. 5277. The court granted 

plaintiffs’ request by minute order issued February 18, 2015. ECF No. 5279. On February 23, 

2015, plaintiffs filed objections to the staffing report and a request for further orders. ECF No. 

5281. On February 25, 2015, defendants filed a motion for leave to file a response to plaintiffs’ 

objections and opposition to the request for further orders. ECF No. 5282. The court granted 

defendants’ motion by order filed March 3, 2015. ECF No. 5286. Defendants filed their 

response and opposition on March 16, 2015. ECF No. 5290. 

 In order to meet their Eighth Amendment obligations to the plaintiff class, 

“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). Currently, mental health staffing 

levels are governed by a court-ordered staffing plan developed by defendants under the guidance 

of the Special Master and filed on September 30, 2009. ECF No. 3693. Defendants are required 

to have no more than a ten percent vacancy rate among clinical staff, including contracted 

clinicians. See Order filed June 13, 2002, ECF No. 1383, at 2. 

 As recently as last year, the court found “that defendants continue to struggle with 

the task of hiring sufficient mental health staff, particularly psychiatrists,” in spite of defendants’ 

report that their salary structure for prison psychiatrists is competitive both within California and 

nationally and that they have “authority to ‘offer newly hired psychiatrists salaries in excess of 

the minimum starting salary in the State pay scale range.’” ECF No. 5171 at 2-3 (quoting Defs.’ 

Status Report and Req. Modify Bed Plan, ECF No. 5123, at 3). The court therefore required 

defendants to 

revisit and, as appropriate, revise their existing mental health 

staffing plan in order to resolve the ongoing problem of mental 

health staffing shortages and come into compliance with the 

requirements of this court’s June 13, 2002 order (ECF No. 1383) 

concerning maximum mental health staff vacancy. 

ECF No. 5171 at 4. The order required defendants to “assume primary responsibility for this 

task, with the Special Master providing guidance and expertise where necessary, to ensure its 

timely completion, and to ensure that plaintiffs are provided notice and an opportunity for input 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 5307 Filed 05/18/15 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 

as appropriate.” ECF No. 5171 at 3. Defendants’ report and plaintiffs’ objections and request for 

further court orders follow from that order. 

 Appropriately, defendants have focused their review on staffing levels for mental 

health clinicians: psychiatrists, psychologists, and licensed clinical social workers (LCSWs). 

They report to the court that with use of contract staff they are maintaining staffing levels for 

psychologists and LCSWs at over 90 percent. ECF No. 5269 at 6. They also report, however, 

that “even with the use of contract staff, filled psychiatry levels remain just above 80%” of levels 

required by the 2009 staffing plan. ECF No. 5269 at 6. They “attribute[ ] the difficulty in 

recruiting psychiatrists, in part, to a national shortage in psychiatrists.” ECF No. 5269 at 6. 

Defendants plan four steps to address the ongoing shortages: (1) creation of a psychiatric medical 

assistant (PMA) classification to increase retention of staff psychiatrists by relieving psychiatrists 

of clerical tasks that have become part of their job duties, ECF No. 5269 at 6-8; (2) expansion of 

their internship and fellowship programs for psychologists and psychiatrists, respectively, ECF 

No. 5269 at 8-9; (3) increased salaries and retention bonuses for psychiatrists working at “hardto-recruit institutions,” ECF No. 5269 at 9; and (4) continued use of their established 

telepsychiatry program, ECF No. 5269 at 9-10. 

 Plaintiffs object to three of the four proposals. ECF No. 5281.2

 They contend the 

PMA position is “at this stage, ill defined,” are concerned that the proposed monitoring of the 

position is “inadequate,” and that defendants’ “clear goal” is to use this new position to “justify a 

unilateral reduction in the total number of allocated psychiatry positions systemwide.” ECF No. 

5281 at 3. Plaintiffs challenge the foundation for defendants’ report that the salaries for prison 

psychiatrists are in fact competitive, ECF No. 5281 at 4, and they object that defendants had not, 

when they filed the report, taken even initial steps to secure funding for the pay increases 

defendants propose. ECF No. 5281 at 5. Finally, plaintiffs object to the alleged absence of 

“adequate policies and procedures governing the appropriate use of telepsychiatry.” ECF No. 

5281 at 7. Plaintiffs request several orders from this court requiring detailed plans from 

 2

 Except to note that the internship and fellowship proposal will not help with staffing 

shortages, plaintiffs do not object to that part of defendants’ plan. ECF No. 5281 at 6-7. 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 5307 Filed 05/18/15 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 

defendants and continued targeted monitoring and reporting by the Special Master. See ECF No. 

5281 at 6, 9. 

 Defendants oppose plaintiffs’ request for further court orders on the grounds that 

(1) it is an improper and untimely request for reconsideration of the June 19, 2014 order, ECF No. 

5290 at 2-4; (2) defendants are in full compliance with the June 19, 2014 order, id. at 4; and (3) it 

is premature, id. at 5. 

 Defendants’ contention that plaintiffs’ request is an improper request for 

reconsideration of the June 19, 2014 order is without merit. While the order describes a process 

for the required review and, as appropriate, revision of defendants’ staffing plan and requires a 

report to the court, it is silent as to the process following submission of that report. Defendants 

have presented the results of their review to the court in the form of four proposals, and they 

represent that “CDCR is committed to working with the Special Master and his team to assess 

whether” the solutions they propose are effective to cure the ongoing deficiencies in required 

levels of mental health staffing.3

 As litigants in these proceedings, absent an order indicating 

clearly that the court would accept whatever report defendants filed and that their proposals 

would be self-executing without further order of the court, plaintiffs had a right to file a response 

to that report and to request whatever further action they deem necessary to represent the interests 

of their clients. 

 For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs’ objections and request for further court 

orders are properly before the court. To the extent plaintiffs object that one or more of the 

defendants’ proposals is thin on detail, that objection is well-taken given the amount of time that 

has elapsed since the court’s June 19, 2014 order. Indeed, in their response to plaintiffs’ 

objections, defendants suggest they could have provided plaintiffs with more information about 

 3

 Plaintiffs observe that defendants’ report purports to be from the California Department 

of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), while the June 19, 2014 order was directed to 

defendants generally, and that other defendants in this action include California’s Governor and 

the state Department of Finance. ECF No. 5281 at 2. This observation, however correct, is of no 

consequence unless one of the other defendants in this action were to take a position inconsistent 

with the representations made by the CDCR defendants in the report before the court The court 

assumes by their silence that the other defendants do not take inconsistent positions. 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 5307 Filed 05/18/15 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 PMA position, the pay differential proposal, and the telepsychiatry policies and procedures 

had plaintiffs presented their current requests to defendants during the meet-and-confer process. 

See ECF No. 5290 at 5-6. 

 Defendants also contend plaintiffs’ requests for additional orders are premature. 

Defendants acknowledge that the proposals now before the court “have not yet been fully and 

finally implemented,” ECF No. 5290 at 5, and they contend they should be permitted to fully 

implement and assess the efficacy of these proposals before additional measures are required. 

 Ultimately, it is defendants’ responsibility to meet their constitutional obligations 

to class members. To that end, defendants must be given an opportunity to test the efficacy of 

their current proposals. However, there are at least two potential areas of concern in the 

proposals currently before the court. First, defendants apparently are broadening their reliance on 

telepsychiatry while the development of positions and procedures for this method of care, and 

assessment of its adequacy, is ongoing. This is troubling, particularly because there may be class 

members not susceptible to this method of care. Second, plaintiffs raise serious questions about a 

reduction in psychiatry positions once the new PMA positions are established and filled. Good 

cause appearing, defendants will be directed to seek the approval of the Special Master and leave 

of this court before making any changes to the staffing ratios under which the mental health 

program is currently operating. Finally, inadequate mental health staffing levels have plagued the 

remedial phase of this litigation since its inception and after almost twenty years of effort this 

problem must be finally and fully remedied. To that end, the court will require ongoing focused 

monitoring by the Special Master of staffing issues, separate from and in addition to his 

scheduled 26th and 27th round monitoring efforts. Specifically, the Special Master will be 

directed to report to the court in 180 days on the status of defendants’ implementation of the 

proposals contained in defendants’ February 2, 2015 staffing report (ECF No. 5269) and to 

include in his report such recommendations as may be necessary to address any ongoing staffing 

deficiencies. 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 5307 Filed 05/18/15 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 

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

 1. Defendants shall move forward with the proposals contained in the report on 

review of mental health staffing filed February 2, 2015 (ECF No. 5269); 

 2. Defendants shall seek the approval of the Special Master and leave of court 

prior to making any changes in their existing mental health staffing ratios; 

 3. Within 180 days from the date of this order the Special Master shall report to 

the court on the status of defendants’ implementation of the proposals contained in defendants’ 

February 2, 2105 staffing report (ECF No. 5269) and shall include in that report such 

recommendations as may be necessary to address any ongoing mental health staffing deficiencies; 

and 

 4. Plaintiffs’ February 23, 2015 request for further court orders (ECF No. 5281) is 

denied. 

DATED: May 15, 2015. 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 5307 Filed 05/18/15 Page 6 of 6