Filed Date: Aug. 20, 2001
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
NOTE: Documents relating to the prison overcrowding proceedings in this case under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which led to imposition of a statewide prison population cap, affirmed by the Supreme Court, are presented in a different case record. See "related cases" below.
Summary: On April 5, 2001, nine male California incarcerated persons filed this class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, against officials of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), alleging that the CDCR's medical services were inadequate and violated the Eighth Amendment, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and §504 of Rehabilitation Act. The plaintiffs, represented by the Prison Law Office and private counsel, sought declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. The complaint was quickly amended on August 20, 2001, to include a tenth named plaintiff and to explicitly outline a subclass of individuals with disabilities as defined by the ADA. The case was assigned to Judge Thelton E. Henderson.
The plaintiffs' specific complaints mirrored those raised in an earlier case, Shumate v. Wilson, No. CIV S-95-0619 (E.D. Cal. 1995), a case brought by female incarcerated persons of the California Institution for Women and the Central California Women's Facility. In Shumate, the plaintiffs alleged that California Department of Corrections officials provided inadequate medical services, including sick call, triage, emergency care, nurses, urgent care, chronic care, specialty referrals, medical screenings, follow-up care, examinations, medications, diets, terminal care, health education, and dental care. That case was settled in 1997.
The Plata parties stipulated to injunctive relief on June 13, 2002, requiring the CDCR to implement a series of health care improvements and subjecting the CDCR to a series of audits to determine compliance. The parties did not agree whether or not individuals at two facilities at issue in Shumate should be members of the class but provided that upon the defendants' motion, the court would resolve the issue. After a fairness hearing, the district court adopted the class action settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate, on June 20.
Earlier, on March 19, the defendants had moved to exclude individuals involved in Shumate from the class. Judge Henderson denied the defendants' motion, and ordered the Shumate plaintiffs be included in the class on May 20. However, the defendants appealed that order on June 3, 2002. On May 27, 2003, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal. Writing for the court, Judge Wardlaw held that, because there was no reviewable final order before the court and because the prerequisites for interlocutory appeal were not met, the court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal. 329 F.3d 1101.
On May 10, 2005, the District Court issued an order to show cause regarding the placement of an interim receiver for California's prison medical care system. On June 30, 2005, following hearings, Judge Henderson ruled from the bench that the court would order California’s prison health system to be placed into receivership. Judge Henderson elaborated on October 3 that the State’s prison medical system was “broken beyond repair” and that future harm was “virtually guaranteed in the absence of drastic action,” which justified appointing a receiver. 2005 WL 2932253. Consequently, on February 14, 2006, Robert Sillen was appointed as Receiver. In that capacity, Mr. Sillen was charged to act as the executive manager of the State's prison medical care system and given full authority to direct improvements necessary to bring the system up to constitutional standards. The California Prison Health Care Receivership Corp., a San Jose-based non-profit organization, was created to house the activities of the Receiver.
The Receiver issued his first report on July 5, 2006. That report detailed the initial evaluations of the problems plaguing the prison health care system and immediate recommendations for change. Certain pilot programs were announced to provide immediate relief while the Receiver and his staff started developing a long-range plan for systemic reform. The Receiver’s bimonthly reporting requirements were adjusted on February 21, 2007, to be quarterly and then adjusted again on November 17, 2008, to be tri-annually.
To facilitate the proposed changes, the court at various points waived state law so that the Receiver could make necessary hires or contract bids. For example, on October 17, 2006, Judge Henderson allowed the Receiver to waive California state law and increase salaries of critical medical staff and physicians to bring them in line with comparable positions. Similarly, on June 4, 2007, Judge Henderson permitted a narrow waiver of state law with respect to contract bidding requirements for a specific set of proposed projects.
While the Plata case involved the overhaul of the CDCR's medical delivery systems, the CDCR faced legal challenges in other areas of its operation. The CDCR's mental health services were the subject of a separate federal class action lawsuit Coleman v. Brown, while dental service issues were litigated in the federal class action lawsuit Perez v. Tilton and violations of the Americans with Disability Act were alleged in the class action case Armstrong v. Davis. Each case was handled by a separate federal district court judge: Plata (Judge Henderson), Coleman (Judge Lawrence Karlton), Armstrong (Judge Claudia Wilken), and Perez (Judge Jeffrey White). In early 2007, the presiding judges in the former three cases instructed representatives of the remedial efforts in each to work together to streamline their progress.
On May 10, 2007, the Receiver filed a plan of action in the Plata case that outlined his plan for restructuring and developing a constitutionally adequate health care system in California's prisons. On May 15, 2007, the Receiver issued another report, detailing the problem of prison overcrowding and its interfering effect on overhauling the prison health care system. A supplemental overcrowding report was filed by the Receiver on June 11, 2007.
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, a population cap on a prison or prison system may be entered only by a specially constituted three-judge district court. The plaintiffs filed a motion to convene a three-judge district court to impose a population cap. A similar motion was filed in the related class action case Coleman v. Brown in which the CDCR's health care system was subject to Court oversight and remediation, and also in Armstrong v. Schwarzenneger, a large-scale prisoner disability discrimination case. These motions and the resulting proceedings are described in a separate case summary, with many of the crucial documents.
On January 23, 2008, the court appointed J. Clark Kelso to be the new Receiver, replacing Robert Sillen. On February 26, 2008, the court approved a construction agreement which involved three different construction projects, including a medical center at the San Quentin Prison; additional office, clinical, supply, and record space at existing CDCR adult prisons; and approximately 5,000 CDCR medical beds and 5,000 CDCR mental health beds.
On March 11, 2008, the Receiver issued a draft strategic plan, which detailed what needed to be done in order to bring California's prison health care up to Constitutional standards. On June 16, 2008, following a period inviting public comment and working group review, the district court (Judge Henderson) approved the Receiver's plan, re-termed a “turnaround” plan. However, on May 29, 2008, the California State Senate had voted down SB1665, a bill that would have provided $7 billion for the Receiver's prison health care strategic plan. Because the State government did not want to provide the funding for the plan, on August 13, 2008, the Receiver asked the court to issue an order instructing the State government to provide the necessary funding. The Receiver also filed a motion asking the court to hold the defendants in contempt for their failure to fund the remedial projects. The court heard oral argument on the Receiver's motion on October 6, 2008.
On October 27, 2008, Judge Henderson ordered the defendants to transfer $250 million to the Receiver by November 5, 2008. On October 31, 2008, the defendants concurrently filed an appeal and a motion to stay Judge Henderson's order that they transfer the money to the receiver. On November 7, 2008, Judge Henderson heard oral argument on the motion to stay and subsequently issued an order denying the motion. 2008 WL 4847080. However, later that same day, the Ninth Circuit granted the defendants' motion to stay proceedings, vacating the district court’s ruling. On March 25, 2009, the Ninth Circuit ultimately dismissed the defendants’ appeal, holding that the order was not appealable and that issuance of a writ of mandamus would also be unwarranted. 560 F.3d 976.
Separately, on January 28, 2009, the defendants filed a motion seeking two things. First, the defendants moved to replace the Receiver with a Special Master, who would have comparatively less power and autonomy. In the transition period, the defendants also hoped to constrain the Receiver by requiring him to comply with state and federal law, which had frequently been waived during the Receivership. Second, the defendants moved to terminate the Receiver’s construction plan on the grounds that it “exceed[ed] the minimum necessary to cure the federal violation.” Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), the defendants' motion to "modify or terminate prospective relief" would trigger an automatic stay of the injunction 30 days after the motion. The Receiver responded on February 20 by moving for postponement of the automatic stay for the maximum of 60 days allowed under the PLRA. On February 26, Judge Henderson granted a 30-day delay of the automatic stay, delaying it until April 1, 2009. 2009 WL 500813.
On March 16, 2009, oral argument was heard on the defendants’ motion. On March 24, 2009, Judge Henderson denied the defendants' motion, finding that the Receiver and the construction plan were “narrowly drawn, extend[ed] no further than necessary, and [were] the least intrusive remedy that will vindicate Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights” in line with the PLRA’s requirements. 2009 WL 799392. The defendants appealed this decision to the Ninth Circuit. On April 30, 2010, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court, holding that Receivership was an appropriate remedy under the PLRA and that the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to review the district court’s refusal to terminate the construction plan. 603 F.3d 1088.
On January 13, 2012, the Receiver filed his 19th tri-annual report. In light of the “significant progress” observed, the court on January 17 ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding a post-Receivership plan. Thus, on May 7, the parties and the Receiver filed their court-ordered report regarding post-Receivership planning. The parties agreed not only that the Receivership led to “significant progress in improving the delivery of medical care in California’s prisons” but also that important tasks remained to be done. However, the parties disputed both when the Receivership should end and how to evaluate whether the level of care being provided at any particular institution was constitutional. As a result, on May 30, Judge Henderson issued an order proposing a Receivership transition plan and ordered the parties to respond by June 29, 2012.
After the parties responded to the proposed plan, on September 5, 2012, Judge Henderson ordered for an incremental transition away from the Receiver to defendants through the use of revocable delegations of authority regarding specific tasks. The court also ruled that the adequacy of care would be determined by both court expert evaluations and medical inspections by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG).
The Receiver’s 25th tri-annual report – released on February 1, 2014 – stated that new transfers to the recently-activated California Health Care Facility (CHCF) had been halted as of January 27, 2014. This was because of ongoing concerns with providing adequate medical care at CHCF. As a result of this report, the court also ordered the Receiver on March 27 to take particular care to report on the level of care at CHCF, as well as “increasing difficulties with recruiting and retaining medical staff statewide,” in his next report, due June 1. The Receiver’s next report detailed “significant progress” related to the level of care at CHCF as well as ongoing initiatives regarding hiring and recruiting.
On March 10, 2015, Judge Henderson revised the September 5, 2012, order plan for transitioning away from the Receivership. The order clarified the process by which the Receiver would transition authority to the CDCR and the legal nuances of that transition. For example, the order described that the Receiver transitioning authority over a particular facility would create a “rebuttable presumption” that that facility had a constitutionally adequate level of care while a year-long shift in authority would create a presumption also that it was sustainable. The rebuttable presumption language was clarified on May 27 to reflect the reality that some changes that would be in the process of being implemented would not prevent a valid transfer of authority.
On August 14, 2017, the case was reassigned to Judge Jon S. Tigar.
On March 23, 2018, the Receiver delegated the California Correctional Center (CCC), reverting authority to the State. On June 27, the plaintiffs moved to reverse delegation, pointing to court experts whose opinions were that inadequate care remained at the CCC. However, on September 6, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion on the grounds that they had not met their burden of proof given that the defendants had a rebuttable presumption of adequate care – experts existed that supported each side’s contentions.
The ongoing monitoring in this case continued, with the Receiver releasing tri-annual reports that described challenges and progress in the prison medical system. However, that monitoring was interrupted in March 2020, when the impact of COVID-19 on the country prompted concerns about the prospective damage it would wreak on vulnerable, incarcerated populations. As of March 25, 2020, the state of California had reported over 2,500 cases of confirmed COVID-19.
In the three-judge proceedings, the plaintiffs filed an emergency motion petitioning the court to take population reduction measures to prevent the spread of the disease. They asked the court to reduce the density of the incarcerated population by ordering the CDCR to release or relocate incarcerated individuals at high risk for serious illness from COVID-19, especially those at low risk of criminal conduct. This motion, however, was rejected on April 4, with the three-judge court ruling that the threat posed by COVID-19 was structurally different from the constitutional violations that led to its prior population reduction order. Thus, population reduction here was “not actually a modification of the 2009 order but rather new relief based on the new threat of harm posed by COVID-19.” As such, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion because it was premature in light of the requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act that the court must first order “less intrusive relief.” 455 F.Supp.3d 926.
Back in the independent Plata proceedings, the plaintiffs moved on April 8 for substantively similar relief, again asking the court to order the defendants to reduce population density in the prisons; to ensure the safety of high-risk individuals; and to immediately provide emergency procedures in case of inmate or staff quarantine and staff care for children or ill relatives. The court scheduled a hearing on this motion for April 16. On April 13, the defendants filed their response to the emergency motion, arguing that the "reasonable and aggressive" response measures they had taken – including the suspension of new intake, release of incarcerated persons through early parole, and transfer to lower-density housing – were sufficient. The defendants argued that granting the plaintiffs' requested relief would be unsafe for the incarcerated individuals and society. The plaintiffs argued that the CDCR was inadequately prepared, that it did not have plans for how it would implement social distancing, and that even in the time since these emergency measures had first been requested, dozens of inmates and staff had tested positive for COVID-19.
After the April 16 hearing, Judge Tigar denied the plaintiffs' emergency motion for relief on the 17th. The Court declared that it could only grant the requested relief if it found that a federal right had been violated, and it made no such finding in this case. The Court found that the CDCR had reduced the prison population by 3,973 individuals, transferred approximately 1,300 individuals out of dormitory housing, limited the movement and transfer of incarcerated persons, and implemented sanitizing procedures. Thus, Judge Tigar could not conclude that the "[d]efendants' actions [were] constitutionally deficient" or that the defendants were “deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm to inmate health or safety.” The Court did, however, retain oversight of the case, stating that it would continue to monitor the defendants' response to the COVID-19 crisis. 2020 WL 1908776.
Several joint case management conference statements were made the next few weeks, with the plaintiffs alleging that the defendants' actions were inadequate to stem the spread of the virus inside the prisons.
The joint case conference statement dated June 8, 2020, stated that 194 medically high-risk incarcerated persons were transferred between May 28-30. Although they had tested negative for COVID-19, shortly after the transfer, many of them tested positive. Consequently, Judge Tigar ordered on June 11 to test all staff who had contact during the transfer process and for a comprehensive plan for testing staff at all prisons in the CDCR. 2020 WL 3107794. After a meeting between the parties, the defendants agreed to conduct baseline testing at all prisons.
On July 7, the court announced its intention to issue an order requiring the defendants to set aside sufficient space in order for the defendants to "follow public health guidance on isolating and quarantining patients in the event of a COVID-19 outbreak." The parties were ordered to meet and confer regarding such an order.
Joint case management conferences continued to be held. The plaintiffs maintained concerns regarding prison conditions and overcrowding that exacerbated risks of spreading the disease. Specific concerns were also raised, including, for example, concerns that symptomatic staff were not being properly tested such that outbreaks could be contained via contact tracing. The defendants maintained that thousands of incarcerated persons continued to be released and that their efforts continued to be adequate.
On July 22, the court ordered the defendants to set aside 100 beds at each institution for isolation and quarantine space and to assess whether additional space would be needed. Because of some concerns that the defendants were not moving quickly enough to set aside this space, the court on September 22 set deadlines for various prisons at which the space had not been created.
On July 24, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to modify the CDCR’s staff testing plan, arguing that it lacked symptomatic staff testing and did not adequately test during an outbreak. The defendants opposed this motion, arguing that the current staffing plan was adequate to mitigate the risks of COVID-19 and that such an order would be legally impermissible as the plaintiffs have not established CDCR’s deliberate indifference. An oral argument was held regarding the motion on August 12, during which the defendants indicated that CDCR’s staff testing plan was being revised and that a new and updated plan would be developed under the guidance of the California Department of Public Health. This motion was terminated without prejudice on November 5.
On November 20, 2020, the court issued an order ordering prison staff to follow face covering regulations promulgated during the pandemic and ordered the OIG to monitor compliance with the order. The court reaffirmed the continued monitoring by OIG on March 29, 2021.
As early as February 2021, the question of mandatory vaccinations had been considered by the parties, the Receiver, and court experts. On August 4, 2021, in light of the Delta variant, the Receiver filed a report endorsing mandatory vaccinations, subject to religious and medical exemptions, of CDCR workers as well as incarcerated persons who either worked in off-site fire camps or received in-person visitors. Following an August 9 order to show cause for why it should or should not adopt the Receiver’s recommendation, the court on September 27 adopted the Receiver’s recommendation.
In that opinion, the court noted that while the defendants did not contest the need to vaccinate incarcerated persons who either worked off-site or had in-person visitation, there was disagreement about whether or not prison staff could be required to receive vaccinations as an Eighth Amendment remedy. Despite the defendants’ argument that the presence of unvaccinated incarcerated individuals alleviated any obligation to mandate vaccination for their staff as the “least restrictive means,” the court found that unvaccinated staff posed a sufficient threat to vaccinated incarcerated individuals as well so as to amount to deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 2021 WL 4448953.
On October 12, 2021, the defendants appealed the district court’s September 27 ruling to the Ninth Circuit. On the same day the defendants filed a notice of appeal, they also joined the Receiver in filing a plan to meet the court’s vaccination requirements by November 29. On October 27, 2021, the court set a January 12, 2022, deadline for vaccination. Recognizing that worker unions had objected to the Receiver’s plan on the grounds that it would not give the defendants ample time to meet and confer with the unions to which correctional officers belonged, the court noted that this deadline would give the defendants ample time to also satisfy their obligation to meet and confer.
The defendants on October 30 amended their notice of appeal to state that the subject of their appeal was the October 27 order setting a vaccination deadline rather than the September 27 order mandating vaccination. On November 17, the district court denied the defendants’ and California Correctional Peace Officers’ Association’s motions to stay its vaccine mandate rulings pending appeal. 2021 WL 5410608. However, on November 26, the Ninth Circuit granted the defendant-appellants’ motion to stay the district court’s rulings pending appeal. 2021 WL 5561659.
On April 25, the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's vaccine mandate in an unpublished decision. Reasoning that "[a] decision to adopt an approach that is not the most medically efficacious does not itself establish deliberate indifference," the court held that CDCR's efforts to curb the effects of the pandemic short of a vaccine mandate were sufficient to satisfy their standard of care toward incarcerated individuals. Specifically, the court noted, among other measures, that vaccines were available, that unvaccinated persons were subject to testing, and that masking requirements were in place for correctional staff. Additionally, the Ninth Circuit found that the district court failed to provide adequate evidence refuting CDCR's concern that employees would opt to retire instead of receiving the vaccine.
This case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Matthew Feng (2/14/2022)
Coleman v. Brown, Eastern District of California (1990)
Madrid v. Gomez, Northern District of California (1990)
Plata v. Brown (Newsom) / Coleman v. Brown Three-Judge Court, Northern District of California (2001)
Perez v. Tilton, Northern District of California (2005)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4183159/parties/plata-v-newsom/
Acquisto, Stephen (California)
Anderson, Robert R. (California)
Adam, Gregg Mclean (California)
Albertine, Christine (California)
Alexander, Kimberly Anne (California)
Canby, William Cameron Jr. (Arizona)
Cousins, Nathanael M. (California)
Hawkins, Michael Daly (Arizona)
Henderson, Thelton Eugene (California)
Karlton, Lawrence K. (California)
Noonan, John T. Jr. (California)
Reinhardt, Stephen Roy (California)
Schroeder, Mary Murphy (Arizona)
Tashima, Atsushi Wallace (California)
Tigar, Jon Steven (California)
Wardlaw, Kim McLane (California)
Bein, Michael William (California)
Bornstein, Jeffrey L (California)
Center, Claudia B. (California)
Ells, Lisa Adrienne (California)
Evenson, Rebekah B. (California)
George, Warren E. Jr. (California)
Hart, Sophie Jedeikin (California)
Haskett, Christine Saunders (California)
Knapp, Kelly Jean (California)
Lomio, Rita Katherine (California)
Loughrey, Raymond E (California)
Mitchell, Caroline N. (California)
Norman, Sara Linda (California)
Plunkett, Stuart Christopher (California)
Rifkin, Lori Ellen (California)
Sangster, Edward P (California)
Specter, Donald H. (California)
Acquisto, Stephen (California)
Anderson, Robert R. (California)
Appelbaum, John M. (California)
Brown, Edmund G. Jr. (California)
Carrasco, David A. (California)
Colson, Tamara Michelle (California)
East, Rochelle C. (California)
Fritz, Cynthia Clarke (California)
Grunder, Frances T. (California)
Harris, Kamala D. (California)
Jacob, Renju Palanilkumuryil (California)
Lee, Michael Gregory (California)
Lewis, Kyle Anthony (California)
McKinney, Patrick R. (California)
Mello, Paul Brian (California)
O'Bannon, Danielle Felice (California)
Oliver-Thompson, Megan (California)
Patterson, Thomas S. (California)
Quinn, Michael James (California)
Riches, John W. II (California)
Roldan, Alberto S. (California)
Schaefer, Jerrold C. (California)
Schneider, Walter R. (California)
Siggins, Peter J. (California)
Slavin, Bruce Michael (California)
Stracener, Warren Curt (California)
Tama, Samantha D. (California)
Thomas, Christopher Evan (California)
Williams, Michael James (California)
Williams [DUP], Michael James (California)
Adam, Gregg Mclean (California)
Albertine, Christine (California)
Alexander, Kimberly Anne (California)
Austin, James Ph.D. (District of Columbia)
Barlow, Kimberly Hall (California)
Brosnahan, James J. (California)
Burkhalter, Alton G (California)
Chivaro, Richard J. (California)
Fuentes, Theresa J (California)
Ghali, Teresa Wang (California)
Hagar, John H. Jr. (California)
Hector, Kristina Marie (California)
Hughes, William Charles (California)
Kaufhold, Steve Shea (California)
Keeshen, Kathleen (California)
Kessler, Daniel Joseph (California)
Knotz, Galit Avitan (California)
Lindsay, Daniel M. (California)
Neri, Miguel Angel (California)
Pierman, Brooke D. (California)
Pierson, Cassie M (California)
Romano, Michael Stone (California)
Sanders, David Allen (California)
Sheldon, Barbara Louise (California)
Stegeman, Chad Allen (California)
Stoughton, Jennifer Spencer (California)
Swanholt, Erik Christian (California)
Sybesma, Benjamin C. (California)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4183159/plata-v-newsom/
Last updated March 22, 2024, 3:05 a.m.
State / Territory: California
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
California's Prisoners' Rights Bar article
Key Dates
Filing Date: Aug. 20, 2001
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
All prisoners who are now, or will in the future be, under the custody of the California Department of Corrections.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, State
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.
Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Content of Injunction:
Other requirements regarding hiring, promotion, retention
Order Duration: 2002 - None
Issues
General/Misc.:
Affected Sex/Gender(s):
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:
Crowding: Post-PLRA Population Cap
Solitary confinement/Supermax (conditions or process)
Medical/Mental Health Care: