Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_96-cv-01486/USCOURTS-cand-3_96-cv-01486-45/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order re: Revisions to Remedial Plan (C 96-1486 CRB)

KAMALA D. HARRIS

Attorney General of California

JAY C. RUSSELL

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

DANIELLE F. O’BANNON

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

SHARON A. GARSKE

Deputy Attorney General

State Bar No. 215167

 1515 Clay Street, 20th Floor

 Oakland, CA 94612

Telephone: (510) 622-4464

Fax: (510) 622-2270

E-mail: Sharon.Garske@doj.ca.gov

Attorneys for Defendants

PRISON LAW OFFICE

DONALD SPECTER – 83925

SARA NORMAN – 189536

RANA ANABTAWI – 267073

ALISON HARDY - 135966

1917 Fifth Street

Berkeley, California 94710

Telephone: (510) 280-2621

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

DERRICK CLARK, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

C 96-1486 CRB

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER RE: REVISIONS TO

REMEDIAL PLAN

The parties propose to enter into the following stipulation to revise the Remedial Plan as

amended on March 1, 2002:

RELEVANT BACKGROUND

Under the Settlement Agreement entered into by the parties in this case, the parties

adopted a Remedial Plan which governs, in general, the identification of inmates with

developmental disabilities, and the services Defendants are to provide to inmates in the

Developmental Disability Program (DDP).

Presently, under the Remedial Plan, if an inmate in the DDP is found guilty of a rules

violation, the Chief Disciplinary Officer must review the completed Rules Violation Report in

Case 3:96-cv-01486-CRB Document 519 Filed 12/22/15 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

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order re: Revisions to Remedial Plan (C 96-1486 CRB)

accordance with California Code of Regulations, Title 15, Section 3312. Then the Chief

Disciplinary Officer must consult with the DDP clinician regarding the findings and disposition

of the hearing before taking action. Remedial Plan, Amended March 1, 2002 at 50. The clinician

must provide input as to the effectiveness of the disposition in correcting the inmate’s behavior.

Id. Both the Chief Disciplinary Officer and the clinician must sign the completed Rules Violation

Report. Id. By signing this form, the DDP clinician does not endorse the rules violation

disposition, but only acknowledges the consultation. Id. The need for the Chief Disciplinary

Officer to consult with clinicians concerning the rules violation disposition for inmates in the

DDP must be incorporated into applicable lesson plans, post orders, and operational procedures at

designated institutions. Id.

I. ELIMINATION OF POST- RULES VIOLATION CONSULTATION BETWEEN THE CHIEF

DISCIPLINARY OFFICER AND DDP CLINICIAN AND ADOPTION OF COLEMAN RULESVIOLATION EVALUATION PROCESS.

Presently, the Chief Disciplinary Officer and DDP clinician consult after the findings and

disposition of a rules-violation hearing have been issued, but before disciplinary action is taken.

The parties have determined that the better course of action is to follow the newly instituted rulesviolation process developed in Coleman v. Brown (2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC), attached to

this stipulation.

Under the revised process, inmates in the DDP who are alleged to have committed a rules

violation shall receive a mental health assessment, noted on a CDCR Form 115-MH-A, Rules

Violation Report: MH Assessment Request. This mental health assessment incorporates clinical

input into the disciplinary process when cognitive or adaptive functioning deficits may have

contributed to behavior resulting in a rules violation. Mental health assessments shall be

considered by the hearing officer or other official during the disciplinary proceedings when

determining whether and how to discipline an inmate. The new process also provides

mechanisms to mitigate discipline, allows for alternative forms of documenting inmate behavior,

and excludes certain behaviors from Rules Violation Reports.

The parties agree to amend the Remedial Plan to eliminate the post rules-violation

consultation between the Chief Disciplinary Officer and DDP clinician, and to use the attached

Case 3:96-cv-01486-CRB Document 519 Filed 12/22/15 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

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order re: Revisions to Remedial Plan (C 96-1486 CRB)

rules-violation review process, effective on the date of the Order approving the parties’

stipulation.

The parties have also agreed to revise the Rules Violation Report policies, procedures, and

staff training to reflect the above revision to the Remedial Plan. CDCR will implement the

following:

a. Revised Title 15, Sections 3310(d), 3315(h), 3317, 3317.1, 3317.2 (Attachment 1; in

draft form);

b. Revised Departmental Operating Manual Section 52080.5.8 (Attachment 2; in draft

form); and,

c. Revised Mental Health Assessment Form (115-MH-A) (Attachment 3).

STIPULATION

Defendants and Plaintiffs stipulate to the above.

Date: December 16, 2015 /s/Danielle F. O’Bannon

DANIELLE F. O’BANNON

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

Office of the California Attorney General

Attorneys for Defendants

Date: December 16, 2015 /s/Sara Norman

SARA NORMAN

Prison Law Office

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

It is so ordered.

Dated: ____________, 2015 __________________________________

United States District Court

CF1997CS0006

90597907.doc

December 21st

Case 3:96-cv-01486-CRB Document 519 Filed 12/22/15 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

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order re: Revisions to Remedial Plan (C 96-1486 CRB)

As required by Local Rule 5-1, I, Sharon A. Garske, attest that I obtained concurrence in

the filing of this document from Sara Norman and that I have maintained records to support this

concurrence.

DATED: December 16, 2015 KAMALA D. HARRIS

Attorney General of California

DANIELLE F. O’BANNON

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

/s/ Sharon A. Garske

SHARON A. GARSKE

Deputy Attorney General

Attorneys for Defendants

Case 3:96-cv-01486-CRB Document 519 Filed 12/22/15 Page 4 of 5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Case Name: Clark v. State No. C 96-1486 CRB

I hereby certify that on December 16, 2015, I electronically filed the following documents with

the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system:

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: REVISIONS TO REMEDIAL PLAN;

ATTACHMENTS 1-3

I certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and that service will be

accomplished by the CM/ECF system.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California the foregoing is true

and correct and that this declaration was executed on December 16, 2015, at San Francisco,

California.

D. Criswell s/ D. Criswell

Declarant Signature

CF1997CS0006

20799459.doc

Case 3:96-cv-01486-CRB Document 519 Filed 12/22/15 Page 5 of 5