Case: Napper v. County of Sacramento

2:10-cv-01119 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California

Filed Date: May 6, 2010

Closed Date: Jan. 31, 2013

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

In May 2010, individuals with mental illness filed this suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California to challenge the County of Sacramento's proposed reductions in mental health services. The plaintiffs alleged that the County's plan to eliminate funding for Regional Support Team (RST) programs and the Transitional Community Opportunities for Recovery and Engagement (TCORE) program would put the plaintiffs at risk of institutionalization, as they would no longer have …

In May 2010, individuals with mental illness filed this suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California to challenge the County of Sacramento's proposed reductions in mental health services. The plaintiffs alleged that the County's plan to eliminate funding for Regional Support Team (RST) programs and the Transitional Community Opportunities for Recovery and Engagement (TCORE) program would put the plaintiffs at risk of institutionalization, as they would no longer have access to the services that ensure their successful placement in the community. Although the County had indicated a desire to open new clinics to meet their needs, no plans had been announced. Thus, the plaintiffs sought to enjoin the County from closing the clinics.

On June 9, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to immediately prevent the closure of the clinics and a motion for class certification. The County filed its opposition to this motion on July 14, and on July 19, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a Statement of Interest supporting the plaintiffs' motion. On July 21, Judge John A. Mendez granted the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction, but denied their motion for class certification as premature.

After a period of discovery and negotiations, the parties entered a settlement agreement in January 2012. The consent decree gave the County one year to develop a new plan that would preserve adequate outpatient mental health care while cutting costs. The agreement outlined a number of factors that the County would consider in developing its new continuum of care plan: peer-staffed clinics, help lines, intake procedures, etc. The agreement also provided that the County would hold public meetings to provide mechanisms for public input into the process. The consent decree expired in 2013, and the case is now closed.

Summary Authors

Beth Kurtz (11/16/2012)

Andrew Junker (10/29/2014)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5856337/parties/napper-v-county-of-sacramento/


Judge(s)

Brennan, Edmund F. (California)

Mendez, John A. (California)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Alger, Maureen P. (California)

Bird, Melinda R. (California)

Branick-Abilla, Margaret I. (California)

Dozier, Antionette D (California)

Freeman, William S. (California)

Gee, Suzanna (California)

Koslofsky, Jay B. (California)

Lewis, Kimberly (California)

Judge(s)

Brennan, Edmund F. (California)

Mendez, John A. (California)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Alger, Maureen P. (California)

Bird, Melinda R. (California)

Branick-Abilla, Margaret I. (California)

Dozier, Antionette D (California)

Freeman, William S. (California)

Gee, Suzanna (California)

Koslofsky, Jay B. (California)

Lewis, Kimberly (California)

Nash, Amy E. (California)

Newman, Robert D. Jr. (California)

Rashkis, Sean (California)

Schell, Will (California)

Seaborn, Stuart (California)

Swain, Kimberly C. (California)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Bach, Michelle (California)

Heyer, Rick (California)

Powells-Mays, June (California)

Ryan, Robert Arthur Jr. (California)

Other Attorney(s)

Bagenstos, Samuel R. (District of Columbia)

Breen, Philip L. (District of Columbia)

Perez, Thomas E. (District of Columbia)

Preis, James Joseph (California)

Rush, Regan (District of Columbia)

Wodatch, John L. (District of Columbia)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Docket (PACER)

May 3, 2012 Docket
1

Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief

Napper v. County of Sacremento

May 6, 2010 Complaint
16

Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Injunction

May 8, 2010 Pleading / Motion / Brief
54

Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Class Certification

Napper v. County of Sacremento

May 9, 2010 Pleading / Motion / Brief
53

Notice of Motion and Motion for Class Certification

May 9, 2010 Pleading / Motion / Brief
17

Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Napper v. County of Sacramentro

May 9, 2010 Pleading / Motion / Brief
68

Answer to Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief

May 23, 2010 Pleading / Motion / Brief
83

Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification

July 7, 2010 Pleading / Motion / Brief
82

Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction

July 7, 2010 Pleading / Motion / Brief
96

Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Class Certification

July 14, 2010 Pleading / Motion / Brief

Resources

Title Description External URL

Napper v. County of Sacramento

Disability Rights California

Disability Rights California and Sacramento County entered into an interim agreement in a class action case concerning the county's outpatient mental health services. A federal court had determined t… Jan. 25, 2012 https://www.disabilityrightsca.org/cases/napper-v-county-of-sacramento#:~:text=Napper%20case%20update%3A%20Sacramento%20County,county's%20outpatient%20mental%20health%20services.

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5856337/napper-v-county-of-sacramento/

Last updated May 11, 2022, 8 p.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link
80

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 7/1/10 GRANTING-in-PART and DENYING-in-PART 73 Motion for Discovery. (Donati, J)

July 1, 2010 RECAP
95

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 7/13/10 ORDERING pltfs may file a reply memorandum of up to 15 pages in length in support of their Motion for Preliminary Injunction subject to the terms specified in this order. (Carlos, K)

July 13, 2010 RECAP
111

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 7/27/10 ORDERING that Plaintiffs' 16 motion for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED. (Becknal, R) (Main Document 111 replaced on 7/29/2010) (Donati, J).

July 28, 2010 RECAP
133

STIPULATION AND ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 1/24/12: Consent Decree shall remain in effect through January 31, 2013. (Attachments: # 1 Consent Decree)(Kaminski, H)

1 Consent Decree

View on PACER

Jan. 25, 2012 RECAP
138

STIPULATION and ORDER extending time to file Motion for Costs and Fees by plaintiffs 136 signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 4/19/12; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, absent an agreement, Plaintiffs shall file their cost bill and motion to recover their fees and litigation expenses no later than May 14, 2012.(Matson, R)

April 20, 2012 RECAP

State / Territory: California

Case Type(s):

Public Benefits/Government Services

Special Collection(s):

Olmstead Cases

Key Dates

Filing Date: May 6, 2010

Closing Date: Jan. 31, 2013

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Plaintiffs are individuals with mental illness who receive services under California's Medicaid program, Medi-Cal. The plaintiffs alleged that reductions in mental health coverage would place them at risk of institutionalization.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

NDRN/Protection & Advocacy Organizations

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Denied

Defendants

County of Sacramento, County

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.

Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701

Medicaid, 42 U.S.C §1396 (Title XIX of the Social Security Act)

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Order Duration: 2012 - 2013

Content of Injunction:

Monitoring

Reasonable Accommodation

Preliminary relief granted

Issues

General:

Classification / placement

Deinstitutionalization/decarceration

Habilitation (training/treatment)

Placement in mental health facilities

Public benefits (includes, e.g., in-state tuition, govt. jobs)

Discrimination-basis:

Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)

Disability:

Integrated setting

Least restrictive environment

Mental impairment

Mental Disability:

Mental Illness, Unspecified

Medical/Mental Health:

Mental health care, general

Mental health care, unspecified

Benefit Source:

Medicaid