Case: Jamison v. Farabee

4:78-cv-00445 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Filed Date: Feb. 28, 1978

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On February 28, 1978, persons confined as patients in California under the Welfare and Institutions Act filed this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the California Department of Mental Health (CDMH), the California Department of Developmental Services (CDDS), and the California Department of Health Services (CDHS). Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and private counsel, they sough…

On February 28, 1978, persons confined as patients in California under the Welfare and Institutions Act filed this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the California Department of Mental Health (CDMH), the California Department of Developmental Services (CDDS), and the California Department of Health Services (CDHS). Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and private counsel, they sought declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that they had been administered antipsychotic medication without informed consent in violation of their Fourteenth Amendment right to due process.

After negotiations led to adoption of regulations concerning the rights of voluntary patients to informed consent, on February 27, 1981, the District Court (Judge William H. Orrick) dismissed that portion of the complaint.

On May 12, 1981, the plaintiffs submitted a Second Amended Complaint and the District Court (Judge Orrick) certified a class consisting of adult patients at Napa State Hospital who had been or in the future would be administered antipsychotic medications and who belonged to a list of enumerated subclasses. The subclasses included (a) patients detained for 72 hours of evaluation and treatment or (b) for 14 days of intensive treatments, and (c) committed by a temporary conservatorship or (d) by a conservator.

Further negotiations ensued and in April 1983 the parties submitted a consent decree to the District Court. Under the consent decree, the parties agreed that administration of antipsychotic drugs without informed consent to patients in any of the four subclasses implicated a liberty interest protected by the Due Process clause. In effect, the consent decree permanently enjoined the CDMH from administering antipsychotic medications to persons in the subclasses and established procedures and standards for administration of such drugs and a selection of independent reviewers. Further, under the consent decree the court retained control of the matter to monitor the defendants' compliance as well as to modify the terms of the agreement. Judge William H. Orrick approved the consent decree on December 13, 1983.

On March 26, 1984, the court ordered the defendants to pay $600,000 in attorneys' fees and costs to the plaintiffs.

The defendants filed one status report on November 30, 1984. The consent decree remained extant, but there were no additional docket entries until 2010.

On December 17, 2010, the court received a letter from personnel at Napa State Hospital responsible for assisting the hospital to maintain compliance with the terms of the consent decree. The letter explained that the hospital had been unable to fulfill the requirements of the consent decree since October 2010 and inquired whether there had been a modification or abandonment of the terms of the consent decree. District Judge William Alsup, who had been assigned the case while it was dormant, realized he had been an attorney for the plaintiffs in this case and recused himself from the case on January 3, 2011. The case was reassigned to Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong.

As of March 9, 2019 no new activity has occurred but the case is technically still open.

Summary Authors

Josh Altman (6/15/2006)

Nick Kabat (10/14/2014)

Jessica Kincaid (2/13/2016)

Carter Powers Beggs (10/30/2019)

People


Judge(s)

Armstrong, Saundra Brown (California)

Orrick, William Horsley Jr. (California)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Alsup, William Haskell (California)

Borgersen, Ellen (California)

Chasan, Jonathan S. (New York)

Cohen, Morton P. (California)

Crosby, Margaret C. (California)

Lazarus, Lewis (California)

Londen, Jack W. (California)

Mitchell, Annina M. (Utah)

Judge(s)

Armstrong, Saundra Brown (California)

Orrick, William Horsley Jr. (California)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Alsup, William Haskell (California)

Borgersen, Ellen (California)

Chasan, Jonathan S. (New York)

Cohen, Morton P. (California)

Crosby, Margaret C. (California)

Lazarus, Lewis (California)

Londen, Jack W. (California)

Mitchell, Annina M. (Utah)

Schlosser, Alan Lawrence (California)

Schwartz, Amitai (California)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Holland, Charlton G. III (California)

Johnson, Ralph M. (California)

Van de Kamp, John K. (California)

Other Attorney(s)

Vance, Steven C (California)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document
11

Docket

Feb. 28, 1978 Docket

Docket [PACER] (2010-present)

March 4, 2013 Docket

Consent Decree

April 26, 1983 Order/Opinion

California Consent Decree Gives Right to Refuse Antipsychotic Medication

No Court

Sept. 1, 1983 Press Release
163

Order of Recusal

Jan. 3, 2011 Order/Opinion

Docket

Last updated May 12, 2022, 8 p.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link

CARD DATE MAl LED

~::: 7d ~'3-11~3

Jamison,Barbara,et al Faeabee,Dale H., et al PAGE _OF __ PAGES

PROCEEDINGS

nan

Jan. 1, 1981

ORDER staying proceedings pending announcement of decision by United States Supreme Court in Okin v. Rogers. Status conference set 11/13/81, 1:30 p.m. WHO Stipulated application for stay of proceedings

83

Plaintiff's notice of change of address

84

MINUTES: 11/13/81 (C/R Pline) status conference. 4/16/82-1:30 for further status. Case cont'd to WHO

nan

85

Clerk's notice to counsel that the status conference is can't to 4/30/82@9:00 a.m.

86

STIPULATION & ORDER:That the status conference is con't to 5/28/82@ 1:30 p.m. WHO

87

Plaintiff's certificate of service of stipulation to can't of statu conference.

88

Letter dated 5/26/82 to F.Cassabonne from J.W.Londen re:status conference.

89

Clerk's notice to counsel that there will be a status conference OJ 8/13/82@1:30 p.m.

90

Plaintiff's joints status certificate.

MINUTES:8/13/82(C/R Pline) Status conference held.Case can't to 10/ 8/82@1:30 p.m. for further status. WHO Defendant's ANSWER TO 2ND AMENDED COMPLAINT.

93

DISCOVERY ORDER: WH<

94

STIPULATION & ORDER to continuance of status conference from 10/8/82 to 10/22/82 at 1:30PM.

95

Joint status certificate.

96

MINUTES 10/22/82 (c/r C. Pline) :Status conference, further status 12/10/82 @ 1:30PM; pretrial conference 4/27/83 @ 5:00PM; trial 5/9/ 83 @ 9:30AM.WHO -over-

PAGE _OF __ PAGE!

PAGE_OF __ PAGE!;

State / Territory: California

Case Type(s):

Mental Health (Facility)

Key Dates

Filing Date: Feb. 28, 1978

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Persons confined as mental patients in California under the Welfare and Institutions Act

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

ACLU Affiliates (any)

ACLU of Northern California

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

California Department of Mental Health, State

California Department of Health Services, State

California Department of Developmental Services, State

Napa State Hospital (Imola), State

Defendant Type(s):

Hospital/Health Department

Jurisdiction-wide

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Attorneys fees

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Amount Defendant Pays: 600,000

Order Duration: 1983 - None

Content of Injunction:

Monitoring

Issues

General:

Informed consent/involuntary medication

Placement in mental health facilities

Disability:

Mental impairment

Mental Disability:

Mental Illness, Unspecified

Medical/Mental Health:

Medication, administration of

Type of Facility:

Government-run