Filed Date: 2006
Closed Date: 2016
Clearinghouse coding in progress
On May 2, 2006, the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division sent a letter to California's governor, advising him of the results of the December 2005 DOJ investigation of conditions and practices at the Patton State Hospital ("PSH"), a facility housing mentally ill persons. The investigation occurred under the authority of the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act ("CRIPA"). DOJ and expert consultants visited the facility, reviewed a wide array of documents and conducted interviews with personnel and residents. The investigation found "significant and wide-ranging" deficiencies in patient care at PSH, specifically with respect to psychiatric and pharmaceutical services, medical care, protection from harm, use of restraints, seclusion, and medications. The DOJ filed a complaint in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California the same day as its advisement. The case was assigned Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick.
On August 17, 2006, PSH was added to a May 15, 2006 Stipulation for Consent Judgment and Agreement between the DOJ and the State of California. The May consent judgment initially named only the Napa State Hospital. The Atascadero State Hospital and the Metropolitan State Hospital were added later to the consent judgment. Each hospital was added to the consent decree on a single District Court docket, 2:06-cv-02667.
The consent judgment detailed minimally-acceptable remedial measures under an "enhancement plan" negotiated by the state and the DOJ. The enhancement plan required the hospitals to provide therapeutic services for patients consistent with generally accepted professional standards of care, implement regular rehabilitation programs, track program progress, tailor medication to individual patient needs, and undertake additional reforms. The court appointed a monitor to assess the hospitals' compliance with the consent judgment, and required remedial action within 12 months. The court's jurisdiction over the consent judgment was set to terminate in November 2011.
On November 14, 2011, the DOJ stipulated that PSH had substantially complied with the consent judgment, and asked the court not to extend its jurisdiction over PSH. The DOJ asked the court to extend its jurisdiction regarding to other remaining hospitals subject to the consent judgment. On November 16, 2011, the court removed PSH from its supervision.
After PSH was removed for the consent judgment, the case remained open with respect to other facilities. The court continued supervising the remaining defendants until October 3, 2013, when the court dissolved the consent agreement and closed the case pursuant to its finding that the defendants had fully complied with the terms of the consent agreement.
Summary Authors
Mike Fagan (5/22/2008)
Andrew Junker (11/12/2014)
Nathaniel Flack (10/18/2018)
U.S. v. California, Central District of California (2006)
Eick, Charles F. (California)
Schiavelli, George P. (California)
Bohan, Mary (District of Columbia)
Brown Cutlar, Shanetta Y. (District of Columbia)
Cuncannan, Jacqueline (District of Columbia)
Daniels, Howard F. (California)
Donnelly, Matthew J. (District of Columbia)
Jones, Terrence M (California)
Kim, Wan J. (District of Columbia)
Maddox, William G. (District of Columbia)
Eick, Charles F. (California)
Schiavelli, George P. (California)
Bohan, Mary (District of Columbia)
Brown Cutlar, Shanetta Y. (District of Columbia)
Cuncannan, Jacqueline (District of Columbia)
Daniels, Howard F. (California)
Donnelly, Matthew J. (District of Columbia)
Jones, Terrence M (California)
Kim, Wan J. (District of Columbia)
Maddox, William G. (District of Columbia)
Plessman, Gary L. (California)
Seltman, Lee (District of Columbia)
Snyder, Anita C. (District of Columbia)
Tayloe, Benjamin O. (District of Columbia)
Weidman, Leon W. (California)
Yang, Deborah W. (California)
Angelopoulos, Tracey L. (California)
Burns, Janet E (California)
Furtek, Frank S. (California)
Prince, George D. (California)
Rodriguez, Cynthia (California)
State / Territory: California
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: 2006
Closing Date: 2016
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
U.S. DOJ (Civil Rights Enforcement Division)
Plaintiff Type(s):
U.S. Dept of Justice plaintiff
Attorney Organizations:
U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997 et seq.
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
Order Duration: 2006 - 2011
Content of Injunction:
Implement complaint/dispute resolution process
Issues
General:
Incident/accident reporting & investigations
Placement in mental health facilities
Reassessment and care planning
Sexual abuse by residents/inmates
Sex w/ staff; sexual harassment by staff
Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)
Disability:
Mental Disability:
Intellectual/developmental disability, unspecified
Medical/Mental Health:
Type of Facility: