Case: DOJ CRIPA Investigation of Patton State Hospital

2:06-cv-02667 | U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

Filed Date: 2006

Closed Date: 2016

Clearinghouse coding in progress

Case Summary

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 inter…

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)

Related Cases

U.S. v. California, Central District of California (2006)

DOJ CRIPA Investigation of Atascadero State Hospital, Atascadero, California, Central District of California (2006)

People


Judge(s)

Eick, Charles F. (California)

Schiavelli, George P. (California)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

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)

Judge(s)

Eick, Charles F. (California)

Schiavelli, George P. (California)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

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)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Angelopoulos, Tracey L. (California)

Burns, Janet E (California)

Furtek, Frank S. (California)

Prince, George D. (California)

Rodriguez, Cynthia (California)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

2:06-cv-02667

Docket [PACER]

United States of America v. State of California

April 28, 2016

April 28, 2016

Docket

Re: Patton State Hospital, Patton, California

No Court

May 2, 2006

May 2, 2006

Findings Letter/Report
9

2:06-cv-02667

(Amended) Consent Judgment

U.S.A. v. State of California

Feb. 27, 2007

Feb. 27, 2007

Settlement Agreement

Resources

Docket

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

Case Details

State / Territory: California

Case Type(s):

Mental Health (Facility)

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

Patton State Hospital, State

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997 et seq.

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

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: 2006 - 2011

Content of Injunction:

Implement complaint/dispute resolution process

Recordkeeping

Reporting

Required disclosure

Training

Issues

General:

Assault/abuse by staff

Classification / placement

Conditions of confinement

Confinement/isolation

Counseling

Failure to supervise

Incident/accident reporting & investigations

Placement in mental health facilities

Reassessment and care planning

Record-keeping

Restraints : physical

Sexual abuse by residents/inmates

Sex w/ staff; sexual harassment by staff

Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)

Disability:

Integrated setting

Mental Disability:

Intellectual/developmental disability, unspecified

Medical/Mental Health:

Medical care, general

Medication, administration of

Mental health care, general

Suicide prevention

Type of Facility:

Government-run