Filed Date: April 23, 1990
Clearinghouse coding complete
COVID-19 Summary: This is a class action for California prisoners with mental illness. After a three-judge court denied a motion for a prisoner release order as premature (see PC-CA-0057), plaintiffs sought relief before a single district judge. This has been granted in part; on April 10, Judge Mueller ordered the defendants to provide a strategic plan for achieving compliance with CDC guidance on managing COVID-19 in correctional detention facilities. On April 24, the court ordered the Program Guide requirements for the transfer of class members to DSH inpatient hospital beds to be temporarily modified to include COVID-19 screening. On November 4, the court ordered that the defendants consult with the Special Master and make modifications to the staffing plan and on December 3, 2020, the court adopted the Special Master's report in full and directed the defendants to file a list of the persons who would be most knowledgeable of the steps required to complete implementation of the recommendations adopted by the court. The defendants appealed this order
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 related 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 the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“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, and 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.
On July 12, 2013, Judge Karlton ordered that defendants establish a suicide prevention management workgroup (“SPMW”) in response to a report reviewing the suicides that occurred during the first six months of 2016. The group comprised of CDCR clinical and administrative staff, DSH staff, experts provided by the Special Master, among others. The group was intended to adopt measures that would reduce suicides.
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.
The Special Master’s expert conducted an audit of all 34 CDCR institutions and reported his findings on January 14, 2015. The report found that although the CDCR improved its suicide prevention practices, it had not implemented a standardized program for the identification, treatment, and supervision of inmates at risk for suicide. On February 3, 2015, the Court ordered that the defendants adopt the recommendations included in the report. Annual audits of the suicide prevention practices continued with steady progress.
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 10, 2016 the parties held a status conference in which the Court ordered that the defendants show cause explaining why the waitlists for inpatient care were increasing, in violation of orders to eliminate the waitlists and prevent their recurrence. The defendants responded that they would not be able to eliminate the deadlines for the foreseeable future, and certainly not by the specified date. As such, the Court ordered another status conference be held on January 23, 2017. There, the Court ordered that the defendants work with the Special Master and plaintiffs where applicable to adopt continuous quality improvements to work toward an elimination of the waitlists. The defendants were also ordered to confer with the Special Master at least thirty days in advance of any changes to inpatient beds.
On April 19, 2017, after the defendants failed to do so for an extended period of time, the Court ordered that the defendants come into compliance with the Program Guide requirements that inmates be transferred to the appropriate level of care in a timely manner. The defendants appealed this order to the Ninth Circuit on May 19, 2017. On November 28, 2018, the Ninth Circuit denied the appeal, determining that the Ninth Circuit did not have jurisdiction since the order was not “final.” 743 Fed. Appx. 875.
On October 10, 2017, the Court issued an order that the defendants come into compliance with the Revised 2009 Program Guide, in terms of the ratios of bed and staff needed for the prisoners. The Court noted that the defendants should be able to use the annual population projections to determine the approximate number of beds and staff needed. The Court stated that the issue must be remediated with greater urgency than had been shown, and noted that it appeared additional bed space needed to be built. On November 9, 2017 the defendants appealed this order to the Ninth Circuit as well, arguing that failing to adhere completely to the Program Guide was not an Eighth Amendment violation. On November 28, 2018, the Ninth Circuit denied the appellant’s request, finding that the Program Guide set the constitutional standards by which the defendants must adhere or else place its prisoners at serious risk. 756 Fed. Appx. 677.
Following the October 10, 2017 order from the Court, Judge Mueller noted that progress had been made with regards to staffing levels, significant improvement was still needed in order for the defendant to be in compliance. The parties disagreed over the requirements for using telepsychiatry services, and the Court ordered the Special Master to evaluate the appropriateness and draft recommendations. The defendants appealed this order to the Ninth Circuit, on August 1, 2018. The Ninth Circuit denied the appeal, finding that it did not have jurisdiction since the order was not an injunction directed at the defendants, but rather it was directed at the Special Master. 2019 WL 7173051. Through additional status conferences throughout August and September of 2018, the parties were able to agree to standards for telepsychiatry services.
On October 5, 2018, the plaintiffs requested a status conference after Dr. Golding, one of the defendant’s psychiatrist experts, alleged that compliance data provided to the court was inaccurate and presented in a materially misleading way. After reviewing a report prepared by Dr. Golding detailing the alleged fraud, the Court ordered that an independent investigator be hired to review the allegations. On December 28, 2018, the defendants appealed the hiring of an independent investigator. On January 14, 2020, the defendants voluntarily dismissed the appeal.
On December 14, 2018, the Court issued an order appointing Charles J. Stevens of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher as a neutral expert to conduct an independent investigation into certain allegations raised in the Golding Report. The neutral expert found that some of Dr. Golding’s allegations that CDCR’s data reporting practices resulted in the reporting of misleading data, but that the evidence did not indicate that CDCR intentionally misled the Court or Special Master. Specifically, the neutral expert found that two issues were misleading:
Although the neutral expert did not recommend evidentiary hearings on the matter, the Court did recommend that the defendants and Special Master confirm the language of the Program Guide to prevent future misleading information.
On July 3, 2019, the Court approved the Special Master's 2018 Revision to the Mental Health Services Delivery System Program Guide ("2018 Program Guide Revision"). In response to a court order, the Special Master submit a report and recommendation on December 19, 2019, which included a list of negotiated or court-ordered remedial measures covering custodial issues that were not included in the 2018 Program Guide Revision. The court adopted the Special Master's report and recommendation on February 11, 2020.
On April 29, 2019, the Court ordered the defendants to file a status report on the funding process for the construction of 100 mental health crisis beds, and further
ordered the defendants to file an update every thirty days until the funding process is complete.
On February 4, 2020, the court ordered defendants to deposit $950,000 with the
Clerk of the Court to be invested in the interest-bearing account previously opened
for this action. On April 7, 2020, in light of the exigent circumstances posed by the novel coronavirus, the court ordered defendants to deposit an additional $2,000,000 into the account.
In their May 15, 2020, status report, defendants reported that 108,850 inmates were housed in the State’s adult institutions and no inmates were housed in out-of-state facilities. Defendants further reported that the State’s prison population is approximately 127.9% of design capacity.
On May 29, the special master recommended the court to employ his expert's analysis of the psychiatrist employment compensation at the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the Department of State Hospitals. The expert had detailed the following five recommendations to aid the hiring and retention of psychiatrists:
- Provide a system of consistent and larger salary increase opportunities for psychiatrists throughout their employment tenure at CDCR and DSH;
- Provide a system of compensation differentials to incentivize psychiatrists to fill [CDCR] Central Valley positions, and to retain incumbents in those positions
- Increase and improve the office space and facilities provided to [CDCR and DSH] psychiatrists to perform their job functions at its facilities;
- Improve the working environment for CDCR and DSH psychiatrists;
- In conjunction with improving CDCR and DSH psychiatrists’ overall working conditions, better inform psychiatrists of the value of their compensation and their compensation relative to their peers.
The defendants opposed the implementation of the recommendations, arguing that they were “too vague and ambiguous to adopt.”
On June 5, 2020, the defendants were ordered to pay the special master $3,000,000, as per the 1995 order requiring that the special master’s fees and expenses be borne by the defendants.
According to defendant's May 27 status report, the Governor’s proposed budget for the 2020-21 fiscal year contains an appropriation of $91,032,000 for construction of 50 new licensed crisis beds, which will be considered by the Legislature in the 2020 Budget Act. The defendants do not expect any COVID-19-related delays.
COVID-19 Update: On March 20, 2020, during a quarterly status conference, Judge Mueller ordered the Special Master to convene a COVID-19 task force to address the health risks posed to prisoners. The plaintiffs then filed a Motion for Modification of the Population Cap. The plaintiffs requested that the population cap (set at 137.5% of designed capacity) be reduced given the changed circumstances, the increased risk of contraction faced by prisoners by the COVID-19 pandemic, and the lack of alternative remedy. A three-judge panel denied the motion, finding that under FRCP 60(b)(5) and PLRA 18 U.S.C. 3626, the motion was not properly before the Court. The case was initially brought to determine whether a release of prisoners was necessary to remedy California's structural failure to provide constitutionally adequate medical and mental health care services within the state prisons. Although the Court denied the motion on April 4, it did so without prejudice allowing the plaintiffs to seek relief in procedurally appropriate forums. 2020 WL 1675775. Meanwhile, the defendants released a statement of their plan to address COVID-19.
In the two days after the Three-Judge Panel denied the plaintiff's Motion for Modification of Population Cap, four more prisoners (including one member of the Coleman class) tested positive for COVID-19, bringing the total to seventeen as of April 6, 2020. In anticipation of the parties' upcoming status conference, Judge Mueller issued an order requiring the parties to file briefs determining the constitutional minima for physical safety, and what steps would need to be taken to ensure adequate physical distancing. Judge Mueller also ordered the defendants to provide a plan to achieve a defined level of physical distancing for class members, including the number of class members per institution and mental health level of care and descriptions of the housing space at each institution.
In response to this order, the plaintiffs argued that the Constitution requires that incarcerated persons be protected from substantial and known risks of serious harm. The plaintiffs filed a declaration provided by Dr. Marc Stern attesting to the risks posed by COVID-19 in the defendants' facilities. The defendant, meanwhile, argued that the Eighth Amendment's deliberate indifference standard cannot be measured by physical distancing alone, but must be considered alongside the other steps the defendant alleged to have implemented such as suspending admissions and accelerating the release of several thousand prisoners. Together, the parties filed a joint status report addressing the Court's questions. In the report, the defendants detailed process changes to reduce physical contact, such as adjusting scheduled movements and dining schedules. However, the plaintiffs contested that, although the defendants implement the aforementioned procedures, those plans do not comply with the Court's order for physical distancing. As evidence to their claim, the plaintiffs noted that the total number of prisoners tested positive for COVID-19 increased to 33, including 22 class members, as of April 9, 2020.
On April 10, Judge Mueller ordered the defendants to provide a strategic plan for achieving compliance with CDC guidance on managing COVID-19 in correctional detention facilities. The plan was ordered to include housing objectives and timelines for class members not granted early release, and continuity plans for providing mental health care. In the same order, Judge Mueller authorized the plaintiffs to conduct limited discovery concerning the availability of extra space at state hospitals to provide the care that is necessary to class members. The defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of this order.
The defendants noted in their strategic plan the steps taken by CDCR to minimize the spread of COVID-19. Among these included releasing 3,400 prisoners early who were within sixty days of their official release date, increasing cleaning within the institution and making hand sanitizer available to prisoners, and transferring prisoners from dormitory housing to empty housing units. The defendants also included steps they plan to take moving forward. To communicate information to prisoners, staff, and the public, the CDCR created a website that includes a tracking tool for prisoner testing and results (https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/covid19/). The defendants stated their intention to restrict transfer of prisoners unless necessary. An expedited release plan was implemented, where prisoners not convicted of a violent crime and with less than sixty days left to serve were released early. The defendants suspended public visitation, and worked with Global Tel Link and JPay to provide some additional free calls and electronic messaging.
Judge Mueller also extended the waiver of state law licensing requirements to allow the defendants to convert 37 cells into 70 temporary ICF beds and two observation rooms for high-custody prisoners referred for ICF care.
As per an April 17 order to file a stipulation identifying the “temporary departures from certain Program Guide requirements” for the provision of mental health care that the defendants had implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. On April 24, the court ordered the Program Guide requirements for transfer of class members to DSH inpatient hospital beds to be temporarily modified to include COVID-19 screening in accordance with the protocols agreed upon by the parties. 2020 WL 1974229.
On May 7, 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion for reconsideration or clarification. In doing so, the Court stated that it would consider a stipulation of the parties. In the following weeks, the parties met and conferred on a number of occasions under the supervision of the Special Master regarding DSH access, in light of the coronavirus pandemic.
On May 13, the plaintiffs agreed that the defendants' current processes for transferring class members to DSH hospital beds were consistent with Program Guide requirements. The parties further agreed that the current procedures, while adequate in practice, were not fully captured in the defendant’s written guidelines, which the defendants agreed to update. The stipulation was approved on May 18.
On May 26, the defendants appealed the April 24 and May 7 orders to the Ninth Circuit. This appeal, which was assigned USCA Case Number 20-16062, was later voluntarily dismissed by the defendants on October 9, 2020.
A status conference was held on June 26 and the court ordered an amount of $968,100.89 in fees and costs for the First Quarter of 2020 as the parties previously agreed.
On July 2, the plaintiffs submitted a brief of evidence supporting their claims of serious mental illness as a risk factor for COVID-19 and the need for mental health interventions.
On July 23, the defendants were ordered to pay $3,000,000.00 as part of the agreed Special Master’s fees and expenses.
On July 24, the parties sought a 30-day extension of the March 27 stipulation for the implementation of a provisional policy regarding the the use of telepsychiatry to provide mental health services to its inmate-patients due to COVID-19, which was granted on July 27. On July 28, the court ordered the defendants to continue delivering mental health care during the pandemic and to promptly identify whether any incarcerated persons with serious mental illness will have to be moved to accommodate the isolation and quarantine bed set-asides. Two days later, the court ordered the parties to file briefs regarding how the defendants could reduce the number of persons with mental illness in CDCR prisons to levels that that will bring defendants into compliance with the requirements of the October 10, 2017 order.
On August 3, the court reviewed the Special Master's February 2020 amended report, and provisionally adopted its recommendations for one year, and ordered the parties to jointly file an updated Program Guide and an updated Compendium of Custody Related Remedial Measures beginning September 1, 2021, and continuing annually thereafter.
On August 21, the defendants sought to delay and vacate the hearing set for September 10, which the plaintiffs opposed. The district court denied the motion, but delayed the hearing date by fourteen days. On September 2, the defendants appealed the August 3 order to the Ninth Circuit, which was assigned USCA Case Number 20-16734. On September 25, the district court ordered the defendants to file a report on staffing capacity within 7 days and subsequently every 4 weeks.
On November 4, 2020, the court ordered that the defendants consult with the Special Master and task force, make minimal modifications to the staffing plan, such as by including psychiatric nurse practitioners, and submit their proposed revisions to the court. On December 3, 2020, the court adopted the Special Master's report in full and directed the defendants to file a list of the persons who would be most knowledgeable of the steps required to complete implementation of the recommendations adopted by the court. On December 17, 2020, the court also ordered the defendants to update the continuous quality improvement tool within three months.
On January 4, 2021, the defendants appealed the December 3 order. The appeal was assigned USCA Case Number 21-15039. Later that month, on January 22, the defendants provided the list of persons most knowledgeable of the steps required to complete implementation of the court's recommendations.
The parties continue to file joint status reports and hold status conferences. A status conference is scheduled for May. The case remains ongoing.
[Don't use] [Don't use] (4/5/2013)
Jessica Kincaid (11/8/2015)
Justin Hill (4/19/2020)
Elena Malik (5/17/2020)
Averyn Lee (9/25/2020)
Zofia Peach (4/7/2021)
Matthew Feng (4/19/2022)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4161512/parties/pc-coleman-v-newsom/
Barnes, Deborah (California)
Drozd, Dale Alan (California)
Farris, Joseph Jerome (Washington)
Ferguson, Warren John (California)
Fletcher, Betty Binns (Washington)
Henderson, Thelton Eugene (California)
Karlton, Lawrence K. (California)
Kennedy, Anthony McLeod (District of Columbia)
King, Carolyn Dineen (Texas)
Moulds, John F. (California)
Barnes, Deborah (California)
Drozd, Dale Alan (California)
Farris, Joseph Jerome (Washington)
Ferguson, Warren John (California)
Fletcher, Betty Binns (Washington)
Henderson, Thelton Eugene (California)
Karlton, Lawrence K. (California)
Kennedy, Anthony McLeod (District of Columbia)
King, Carolyn Dineen (Texas)
Moulds, John F. (California)
Mueller, Kimberly Jo (California)
Pregerson, Harry (California)
Rawlinson, Johnnie B. (Nevada)
Reinhardt, Stephen Roy (California)
Tashima, Atsushi Wallace (California)
Thomas, Sidney Runyan (Montana)
Tigar, Jon Steven (California)
Wardlaw, Kim McLane (California)
White, Jeffrey Steven (California)
Wilken, Claudia Ann (California)
Acharya, Ranjini (California)
Anderson, Sara W. (California)
Austin, Roy L. (District of Columbia)
Bien, Michael W. (California)
Bien [this was a mistake], Rosen (California)
Bornstein, Jeffrey L (California)
Boysen-Aragon, Laura Barbara (California)
Center, Claudia B. (California)
Cesare−Eastman, Megan F. (California)
Craig, Amelia A. (California)
Ells, Lisa Adrienne (California)
Evenson, Rebekah B. (California)
Falkenstien, Kate Martin (California)
Fama, Steven (California)
Feeser, Mark Raymond (California)
Fischer, Aaron Joseph (California)
Fisher, Jeffrey Thomas (California)
Freedman, Michael Louis (California)
Garske, Sharon Anne (California)
George, Warren E. Jr. (California)
Gibson, Andrew (California)
Goff, Richard L. (California)
Gourse, Alexander Ross (California)
Grunfeld, Gay Crosthwait (California)
Hardy, Alison (California)
Hart, Sophie Jedeikin (California)
Heath, Tyler Vance (California)
Heather, Fred D (California)
Henkels, Robert W. (California)
Hennes, Lucas L. (California)
Kahn, Jane E. (California)
Karliner, Adela B. (California)
Kilb, Linda D. (California)
Leverett, Ingrid S. (California)
Lomio, Rita Katherine (California)
Loughrey, Raymond E (California)
Mendelson, Margot Knight (California)
Mitchell, Caroline N. (California)
Morris, Maria V (California)
Nolan, Thomas Bengt (California)
Norman, Sara Linda (California)
Nunez, Michael S (California)
Samuels, Jocelyn (District of Columbia)
Sangster, Edward P (California)
Schaefer, Jerrold C. (California)
Shinn-Krantz, Marc J (California)
Silberfeld, Roman M. (California)
Specter, Donald H. (California)
Stark, Jennifer Lori (California)
Stone-Manista, Krista Michelle (California)
Thompson, Blake (California)
Trapani, Cara Elizabeth (California)
Walczak, Kenneth M. (California)
Whelan, Amy E. (California)
Winter, Jessica L. (California)
Wolinsky, Sidney M. (California)
Xu, Amy (California)
Yelin, Jenny Snay (California)
Antonen, Charles (California)
Becerra, Xavier (California)
Brice, David Eugene (California)
Brown, Edmund G. Jr. (California)
Capizzi, Michael R (California)
Castro, Ismael A. (California)
Cavanagh, Joan W. (California)
Chaney, David S. (California)
Ciccotti, Christine Marie (California)
Creighton, Susan Abouchar (California)
Danas, Glenn A. (California)
Downer, William H. (California)
East, Rochelle C. (California)
Ellis, Ian Michael (California)
Gille, Ryan Thomas (California)
Gomez, Gregory George (California)
Grunder, Frances T. (California)
Hansen, Ann M. (California)
Hanson, Catherine I. (California)
Harris, Kamala D. (California)
Hoch, Andrea Lynn (California)
Holzmann, Rochelle Corinne (California)
Hrvatin, Adriano (California)
Humes, James M. (California)
Huynh, Neah (California)
Igra, Misha D (California)
Jacob, Renju Palanilkumuryil (California)
Johnson, S. Anne (California)
Kamberian, Van (California)
Kim, Jessica Soojin (California)
Kossick, Daniel Joseph (California)
Kotwani, Namrata (California)
Lewis, Kyle Anthony (California)
Lockyer, Bill (California)
Lundgren, Daniel E. (California)
Mayer, Karl S. (California)
McClain, Damon Grant (California)
McKinney, Patrick R. (California)
Mello, Paul Brian (California)
Musell, Wendy Ellen (California)
Myers, Joshua (California)
Nayeri, Sahar (California)
Neill, Jennifer Anne (California)
Neri, Miguel Angel (California)
O'Bannon, Danielle Felice (California)
Oliver-Thompson, Megan (California)
Patterson, Thomas S. (California)
Ramsey, Samantha H. (California)
Ruhparwar, Nasstaran (California)
Russell, Jay C. (California)
Sandoval, Jose (California)
Schmidt, Dean M. (California)
Schneider, Walter R. (California)
Sharma, Maneesh (California)
Slavin, Bruce Michael (California)
Snyder, Tobias (California)
Steele, Jeffery (California)
Thorn, Elise (California)
Tigno, Fiel D (California)
Tillman, Lisa Anne (California)
Vorous, Debbie Jean (California)
Voth, Kevin Allen (California)
Ward, Philip S. (California)
Weck, Jennifer (California)
Willett, David E. (California)
Wolff, Jonathan L. (California)
Zimmerman, Rick C. (California)
Adam, Gregg Mclean (California)
Albertine, Christine (California)
Alexander, Kimberly Anne (California)
Baker, Andrew H. (California)
Baran, Brian Christopher (District of Columbia)
Barlow, Kimberly Hall (California)
Bird, Donald Paul II (California)
Blumberg, Jeffrey (District of Columbia)
Brennan, Edmund F. (California)
Carroll, Adam (California)
Chenen, Arthur M (California)
Colson, Tamara Michelle (California)
Coon, Laura (District of Columbia)
Dato, Robert M. (California)
Davenport, Kimberly S. (California)
Davids, Peter (California)
Dodd, Martin H. (California)
Dupree, Jamie L (California)
Fox, Deborah J. (California)
Fuentes, Theresa J (California)
Galvan, Ernest (California)
Ghali, Teresa Wang (California)
Goldman, Jared (California)
Green, Geri L. (California)
Hemesath, Paul Andrew (California)
Hoffstadt, Brian Matthew (California)
Hughes, William Charles (California)
Kaufhold, Steve Shea (California)
Keck, Anne L (California)
Leonard, Natalie (California)
Lui, Elwood (California)
MacClean, Greg (California)
Myrthil, Marlysha (District of Columbia)
Paternoster, Rocco Robert (California)
Pavone, Benjamin Laurence (California)
Pierson, Cassie M (California)
Romano, Michael Stone (California)
Rush, Regan (District of Columbia)
Sanders, David Allen (California)
Saxton, Steven Paul (California)
Shapiro, Avner (District of Columbia)
Sheldon, Barbara Louise (California)
Smiddie, Kyle (District of Columbia)
Smith, Jonathan Mark (District of Columbia)
Spillane, Shaun R. (California)
Spurling, James Casey (California)
Stegeman, Chad Allen (California)
Stevens, Charles Joseph (California)
Stoughton, Jennifer Spencer (California)
Sybesma, Benjamin C. (California)
Tsai, Ivy M (California)
Wagner, Benjamin B. (California)
Wang, Theresa (California)
Weisselberg, Charles David (California)
West, Amber Lynn (California)
Wilcox, Linda (California)
Woodward, Carol L. (California)
Yank, Ronald (California)
Yen, Anne I. (California)
Arnold, Molly (California)
Cate, Matthew (California)
Chen, John (California)
Chivaro, Richard J. (California)
Dezember, Robin (California)
Drown, Stuart (California)
Giberson, Laurie (California)
Hagar, John H. Jr. (California)
Hayes, Lindsay M. (Massachusetts)
Keating, J. Michael Jr. (Rhode Island)
Keeshen, Kathleen (California)
Lopes, Matthew (Rhode Island)
Manwiller, Pam (California)
Neville, Donna (California)
Rifkin, Lori Ellen (California)
Robinson, Gary (California)
Rose , Elise (California)
Sillen, Robert (California)
Starkey, Paul M. (California)
Stern, Marc F. (Washington)
Stracener, Warren Curt (California)
Tama, Samantha D. (California)
Walker, Yvonne (California)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4161512/pc-coleman-v-newsom/
Last updated May 12, 2022, 8 p.m.
State / Territory: California
Filing Date: April 23, 1990
Case Ongoing: Yes
All inmates with serious mental disorders who were or would be confined within the California Department of Corrections.
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Causes of Action:
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Order Duration: 1995 - None
Content of Injunction:
Type of Facility: