Source: https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=573&amp;search=
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 05:48:47+00:00

Document:
NOTE: All the documents in this case relating to the prison overcrowding proceedings, which led to imposition of a statewide prison population cap, affirmed by the Supreme Court, are presented in a different case record, PC-CA-0057. See "related cases" below.
On April 23, 1990, mentally ill inmates in California state prisoners filed this class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The inmates sued the California corrections and mental health officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The inmates alleged that mental health care provided at most California penal institutions violated their constitutional rights. They also filed a claim under the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, but that claim was eventually dismissed. The inmates, represented by the Prison Law Office, Legal Aid, the Disability Rights and Education Defense Fund, and private counsel sought declaratory and injunctive relief.
The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds. On October 14, 1991, the court (Judge Lawrence K. Karlton) certified a class of all present and future inmates with serious mental disorders at California penal institutions (except San Quentin State Prison, Northern Reception Center at Vacaville and California Medical Facility-Main at Vacaville).
A preliminary injunction was issued concerning the exposure of inmates on psychotropic medications to extreme heat. Subsequently, following significant discovery, the matter was tried in an extensive trial before the magistrate during March, April and May of 1993. After the state filed objections to the magistrate's June 1994 recommended findings in favor of the plaintiffs, the court (Judge Karlton) on September 13, 1995, granted a permanent injunction, holding that the evidence supported the magistrate's factual findings and that the defendants had been deliberately indifferent to systemic deficiencies in inmates' mental healthcare, including inadequate screenings, understaffing, delays in access to care, deficiencies in medication management and involuntary medication, inadequacy of medical records, inadequately trained staff, improper housing of mentally ill inmates in administrative segregation, and the deliberately indifferent use of tasers and 37mm guns on inmates with serious mental disorders. Coleman v. Wilson, 912 F.Supp. 1282 (E.D. Cal. 1995). The court ordered that new policies and protocols be developed, and ordered that a special master be appointed to monitor compliance with the court-ordered injunctive relief. On December 11, 1995, the court (Judge Karlton) appointed J. Michael Keating, Jr., to serve as Special Master, setting out his duties, powers and compensation.
The Special Master began work and hired staff, but ceased his work pending further court direction after passage of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). On July 12, 1996, the court (Judge Karlton) held that the Special Master's compensation was not subject to the limitations contained in the PLRA. Wilson v. Coleman, 933 F.Supp. 954 (E.D. Cal. 1996). This ruling, along with two others also involving compensation of special masters under the PLRA, were heard together on appeals filed by inmates seeking writs of mandamus to vacate the district court orders that the PLRA not apply to master's appointed prior to its passage. On December 24, 1996, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Judges Fletcher, Farris and Tashima) rejected these claims. Wilson v. District Court, 103 F.3d 828 (9th Cir. 1996), and the Supreme Court denied certiorari on May 19, 1997. Wilson v. District Court, 520 U.S. 1230 (1997).
The state in 1996 appealed the early preliminary order concerning inmate exposure to heat, but on November 14, 1996, this appeal was rejected due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Judges Fletcher, Ferguson and Samuel P. King), holding in an unpublished opinion that no final order had ever been issued concerning the heat exposure. Coleman v. Wilson, 101 F.3d 705, 1996 WL 665551 (9th Cir. Cal.) Nov. 14, 1996).
The parties litigated disputes over attorneys' fees and costs, which were substantial in this case, and the United States intervened in the case filing a memorandum of law on the constitutionality of the relevant PLRA provisions. The court subsequently issued a number of orders granting various payments of fees.
On June 6, 1997, the Special Master reviewed the remedial plans submitted by the state, and made a number of recommendations about modifications to them. On June 27, 1997, Judge Karlton approved those recommendations, and approved the defendants' remedial plans as so modified, directing the Special Master to monitor defendants' implementation of them.
Between 1998 and 2006, the court accepted numerous compliance reports from the Special Master and issued a number of orders regarding compliance and implementation of remedial measures, including orders related to filling vacancies in mental health staffing, training, suicide prevention, outpatient beds, transfers of inmates to places that would better serve their mental health needs, and other measures. In May and August 2006, the court accepted plans submitted concerning long-term care and bed utilization. In September, 2006, the court adopted the inclusion of language in the Revised Program Guide concerning the clinical competency of psychiatrists. Subsequent reports addressed suicide trends in administrative segregation units.
On October 4, 2006, California Governor Schwarzenegger issued the Prison Overcrowding State of Emergency Proclamation. See PC-CA-0057 for more discussion. In this case, the inmates moved for a TRO to prevent the transfer of inmates out-of-state. After a hearing on November 3, 2006, Judge Karlton denied the motion but ordered that an appropriately-credentialed mental health clinician employed by CDCR accompany the inmates on their transfer flight.
Under the PLRA, a population cap on a prison or a prison system may be entered only by a specially constituted three-judge district court. The inmates accordingly filed a motion to convene a three-judge district court to impose a prison population cap. A similar motion was filed in the related class action case Plata v. Schwarzenegger in which the CDCR's health care system was subject to Court oversight and remediation [PC-CA-18], and also in Armstrong v. Schwarzenneger [PC-CA-0001], a large-scale prisoner disability discrimination case. These motions and the resulting proceedings are described in PC-CA-0057, with many of the crucial documents.
While litigation over prison overcrowding ensued, the Special Master continued remediation work. His reports and corresponding court orders addressed issues which included: annual projections for mental health program populations, creation of a data collection system to track inmate referrals to various mental health services and administrative segregation, improvements in the pay scales of state mental health care workers, retrofitting of Administrative Segregation Unit Intake Cells for suicide prevention, assessment and treatment of inmates with exhibitionist or paraphilia behaviors; implementation of an Enhanced Outpatient Program at Reception Centers and creation of additional mental health beds.
On October 9, 2007, Judge Karlton appointed Matthew A. Lopes, Jr., previously the deputy special master, to become the special master for this case. On February 26, 2008, the court approved a construction settlement between the parties. The agreement provided for the construction of 5000 mental health beds and 5000 medical beds, and the Plata Receiver was required to file quarterly reports.
On October 7, 2008, the court ordered the Defendants to do the following: 1) develop a plan to address overall dysfunction in custody/mental health relations at Salinas Valley State Prison (SVSP) within 90 days; 2) develop a plan for maximum utilization of all dormitory beds at SVSP within 90 days; 3) implement and maintain institutional electronic and manual tracking logs for inmates who have been placed into alternative housing pending Mental Health Crisis Bed (MHCB) transfers, and dates, times, and places of return to regular housing for inmates not transferred to an MHCB; 4) construct the mental health treatment and counseling space at SVSP and the mental health treatment and programming space at California Medical Facility (CMF) as described in their development Proposals submitted in response to the Court's 10/18/07 Order; and 5) disseminate the complete Monthly Report of Information Requested and Response to Court Order regarding Staff Vacancies and CDCR Mental Health Crisis Bed Monthly Report on a regular and timely basis.
Remedial work (in particular building) was somewhat stalled while the overcrowding three-judge-proceedings moved along. For details on that part of the case, see PC-CA-0057. The three-judge court ordered a reduction in prison population (and the Supreme Court affirmed), and this case continued.
In January of 2013, the state moved to terminate the injunction on the grounds that it was no longer necessary to correct the ongoing violation of a federal right. Under the PLRA, the court was required to rule on that motion within three months or the challenged injunction would be stayed pending resolution of the motion. On April 5 2013, Judge Karlton rejected the termination motion holding that the state's evidence was tainted by ethical violations committed to obtain it. Furthermore, he found that the state had failed to demonstrate that the court-enforced relief was no longer necessary.
The following week, on April 11, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce the existing judgment, and seeking additional relief relating to in-patient care; on May 6, 2013, they filed a similar motion relating to segregation (solitary confinement); on May 29, 2013, they filed another similar motion relating to use of force and disciplinary measures. Trial on the first, in-patient motion was held June 19 to June 24, 2013; Judge Karlton granted the motion in part on July 11, 2013, ordering the special master to report to the court on the adequacy of staffing levels at the Salinas Valley Psychiatric Program SVPP; and to complete one round of monitoring of the adequacy of all inpatient programs and report to the court by the end of March 2014.
Trial on the solitary confinement and use of force motions began October 1, 2013, and spread over 28 days in October, November, and December 2013. Judge Karlton granted the motions in part on April 10, 2014, ordering the defendants to revise policies and create plans related to use of force and segregated housing involving inmates with mental illness. On August 29, 2014, the defendants submitted plans and policies addressing sections of the April 10 order. The defendants also requested the October 10, 2002, order be discharged and that a section of the April 10 order be modified. In particular, the defendants planned to create "specialty housing units for housing mentally ill inmates who are removed from the general population for disciplinary reasons."
On August 29, 2014, Judge Karlton approved the defendants' plans, discharged the October 10, 2002 order, and modified the April 10 as requested by the defendants. Finally, Judge Karlton ordered the defendants to implement their proposed plan. The defendants also continued to submit the triannual reports and additional ordered reports in 2014. Because Judge Karlton was retiring from the federal bench, also on August 29, this case was reassigned to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller for all further proceedings.
On March 2, 2015, the district court approved the parties' new settlement agreement. The CDCR agreed to implement revised policies to ensure that prisoners with psychiatric disabilities will not be unlawfully excluded from prison programs and services or be discriminated against because of their disabilities. The settlement agreement also provided that the implementation of these revised policies will be monitored by the Special Master.
On May 4, 2015, the court issued a stipulated response and order on the special master's January 2015 report on the CDCR's implementation of policies and procedures on rules violation. In August of 2015, the parties had a status conference to discuss the issue of timely access to inpatient psychiatric hospitalization because the plaintiffs alleged that the CDCR had allowed significant backsliding to occur.
On November 6, 2015 the case was temporarily assigned to Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman because Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd was elevated to the position of District Judge. On August 2, 2016 the case was reassigned to Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes.
On May 19, 2017, the defendants appealed this April 19 order to the Ninth Circuit. The defendants also stated that they would not seek any stay pending the appeal and specified that they "remain strongly committed to providing inmate-patients with timely access and care."
Plaintiff Description All inmates with serious mental disorders who were or would be confined within the California Department of Corrections.
Citation: Social Justice (Fall 1994).

References: § 1983
 § 794
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.