DOCSLIB.ORG

Plata V. Brown

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Plata V. Brown Case3:01-cv-01351-TEH Document2433 Filed05/07/12 Page1 of 47 FUTTERMAN DUPREE DODD CROLEY HANSON BRIDGETT LLP 1 MAIER LLP JERROLD C. SCHAEFER (39374) MARTIN H. DODD (104363) PAUL B. MELLO (179755) 2 180 Sansome Street, 17th Floor WALTER R. SCHNEIDER (173113) San Francisco, California 94104 SAMANTHA D. WOLFF (240280) 3 Telephone: (415) 399-3840 RENJU P. JACOB (242388) Facsimile: (415) 399-3838 425 Market Street, 26th Floor 4 [email protected] San Francisco, California 94105 Attorneys for Receiver J. Clark Kelso Telephone: (415) 777-3200 5 Fax: (415) 541-9366 PRISON LAW OFFICE [email protected] 6 DONALD SPECTOR (83925) Attorneys for Defendants STEVEN FAMA (99641) 7 ALISON HARDY (135966) KAMALA D. HARRIS 1917 Fifth Street Attorney General of the State of California 8 Berkeley, California 94710 JONATHAN L. WOLFF Telephone: (510) 280-2621 Senior Assistant Attorney General 9 Fax: (510) 380-2704 JAY C. RUSSELL (122626) [email protected] Supervising Deputy Attorney General 10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs KYLE A. LEWIS (201041) PATRICK R. MCKINNEY (215228) 11 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, California 94102 12 Telephone: (415) 703-3035 Fax: (415) 703-5843 13 [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants 14 15 16 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 18 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 19 SAN FRANCISCO 20 21 MARCIANO PLATA, et al., Case No. C01-1351 TEH 22 Plaintiffs, 23 v. RECEIVER’S AND PARTIES’ JOINT REPORT AND RESPONSES TO 24 EDMUND G. BROWN JR., et al., COURT’S JANUARY 17, 2012 ORDER TO MEET AND CONFER RE: POST- 25 Defendants. RECEIVERSHIP PLANNING 26 27 28 FUTTERMAN DUPREE DODD CROLEY JOINT REPORT RE POST-RECEIVERSHIP PLANNING MAIER LLP CASE NO. C01-1351 TEH Case3:01-cv-01351-TEH Document2433 Filed05/07/12 Page2 of 47 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 Page 3 RECEIVER’S SUMMARY OF RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ........................1 4 Filing of this Action and pre-Receivership remedial efforts. ..............................................1 5 Appointment of the Receiver. ..............................................................................................2 6 Remedial efforts by initial Receiver. ...................................................................................2 7 Appointment of current Receiver and Receiver’s Turnaround Plan of Action. ..................3 8 Court order for Post-Receivership Planning and the Meet and Confer Process. .................4 9 PARTIES’ INTRODUCTORY STATEMENTS ............................................................................5 10 Plaintiffs’ Introduction .........................................................................................................5 11 A. Defendants’ Lack of Will .........................................................................................5 12 B. Defendants’ Lack of Capacity .................................................................................6 13 C. Defendants’ Lack of Leadership ..............................................................................9 14 Defendants’ Introduction ...................................................................................................10 15 A. Most of the Goals of the Receiver’s Turnaround Plan of Action Have Been Accomplished. .......................................................................................................12 16 1. The Receiver’s First Goal—Ensure Timely Access to Health Care 17 Services—Is Substantially Complete. ....................................................... 12 18 2. The Receiver’s Second Goal—Establish a Prison Medical Program Addressing the Full Continuum of Health Care Services—Is 19 Substantially Complete. ............................................................................ 13 20 3. The Receiver’s Third Goal—Recruit, Train, and Retain a Well- Qualified Medical Care Workforce—Is Complete. .................................. 14 21 4. The Receiver Has Established a Robust Quality Improvement 22 Program Sufficient to Accomplish his Fourth Goal. ................................ 14 23 5. The Receiver Has Completed Many of the Objectives Necessary to Complete His Fifth Goal: Establish Medical Support Infrastructure. ....... 16 24 6. The Receiver Has Delegated Authority to Defendants to Complete 25 the Receiver’s Sixth Goal: Provide Needed Clinical, Administrative, and Housing Facilities..................................................... 17 26 B. Public Safety Realignment. ....................................................................................18 27 28 i FUTTERMAN DUPREE DODD CROLEY JOINT REPORT RE POST-RECEIVERSHIP PLANNING MAIER LLP CASE NO. C01-1351 TEH Case3:01-cv-01351-TEH Document2433 Filed05/07/12 Page3 of 47 C. On April 23, 2012, The State Released Its Integrated Plan to Effectively 1 And Efficiently Manage CDCR Post Realignment. ..............................................19 2 RECEIVER’S AND PARTIES’ RESPONSES TO PLANNING ORDER ISSUES ....................20 3 1. How substantial compliance should be measured, including how the OIG scores should be used and whether the court experts 4 should be involved. ................................................................................... 20 5 Receiver’s Response ............................................................................................. 20 6 Plaintiffs’ Response .............................................................................................. 21 7 Defendants’ Response ........................................................................................... 24 8 2. Criteria for determining when it is appropriate to move from the Receivership to a less intrusive system of oversight, including 9 factors the court should consider when evaluating Defendants’ will, capacity and leadership to maintain a system of providing 10 constitutionally adequate medical care services to class members. .......... 26 11 Receiver’s Response ............................................................................................. 26 12 Plaintiffs’ Response .............................................................................................. 28 13 Defendants’ Response ........................................................................................... 31 14 3. Whether the parties agree that the current Receiver can act as a monitor or special master once the Receivership ends and, if not, 15 how the parties propose selecting a monitor or special master. ................ 35 16 Receiver’s Response ............................................................................................. 35 17 Plaintiffs’ Response .............................................................................................. 35 18 Defendants’ Response ........................................................................................... 36 19 4. Criteria for ending court oversight and concluding this case, including initial length of the post-Receivership monitoring period 20 and whether the OIG inspection program or other independent process for inspections must be institutionalized before the Court 21 ends its supervision. .................................................................................. 37 22 Receiver’s Response ............................................................................................. 37 23 Plaintiffs’ Response .............................................................................................. 37 24 Defendants’ Response ........................................................................................... 39 25 5. The parties’ view on what the Receiver should include in the Plan for Post-Receivership Governance he must submit to the court. .............. 39 26 Receiver’s Response ............................................................................................. 39 27 Plaintiffs’ Response .............................................................................................. 40 28 ii FUTTERMAN DUPREE DODD CROLEY JOINT REPORT RE POST-RECEIVERSHIP PLANNING MAIER LLP CASE NO. C01-1351 TEH Case3:01-cv-01351-TEH Document2433 Filed05/07/12 Page4 of 47 Defendants’ Response ........................................................................................... 40 1 6. How, if at all, the Court should consider the status of Defendants 2 progress in satisfying the orders of the related three-judge court when determining when to end the Receivership and this case. ............... 41 3 Receiver’s Response ............................................................................................. 41 4 Plaintiffs’ Response .............................................................................................. 41 5 Defendants’ Response ........................................................................................... 41 6 7. Any other issues the parties or the receiver deem relevant. ...................... 42 7 Receiver’s Response ............................................................................................. 42 8 Defendants’ Response ........................................................................................... 42 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 iii FUTTERMAN DUPREE DODD CROLEY JOINT REPORT RE POST-RECEIVERSHIP PLANNING MAIER LLP CASE NO. C01-1351 TEH Case3:01-cv-01351-TEH Document2433 Filed05/07/12 Page5 of 47 1 The parties and Receiver J. Clark Kelso (“Receiver”), by and through their respective 2 counsel, submit this joint response to the Court’s January 17, 2012 Order to Meet and Confer
Load more

Recommended publications
  • California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
    California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Institution abbreviation, City, State and zip code. Prison Name Abbreviation City State Zip Avenal State Prison ASP Avenal CA 93204 California City Correctional Center CAC California City CA 93505 California State Prison, Calipatria CAL Calipatria CA 92233 California Correctional Center CCC Susanville CA 96130 California Correctional Institution CCI Tehachapi CA 93561 Centinela State Prison CEN Imperial CA 92251 Central California Women’s Facility CCWF Chowchilla CA 93610 California Health Care Facility CHCF Stockton CA 95215 California Institution for Men CIM Chino CA 91710 California Institution for Women CIW Corona CA 92878 California Men's Colony CMC San Luis Obispo CA 93409 California Medical Facility CMF Vacaville CA 95696 California State Prison, Corcoran COR Corcoran CA 93212 California Rehabilitation Center CRC Norco CA 92860 Correctional Training Facility CTF Soledad CA 93960 Chuckawalla Valley State Prison CVSP Blythe CA 92225 Deuel Vocational Institute DVI Tracy CA 95376 Folsom State Prison FSP Represa CA 95671 High Desert State Prison HDSP Susanville CA 96127 Ironwood State Prison ISP Blythe CA 92225 Kern Valley State Prison KVSP Delano CA 93216 California State Prison, Lancaster LAC Lancaster CA 93536 Mule Creek State Prison MCSP Ione CA 95640 North Kern State Prison NKSP Delano CA 93215 Pelican Bay State Prison PBSP Crescent City CA 95531 Pleasant Valley State Prison PVSP Coalinga CA 93210 RJ Donovan Correctional Facility RJD San Diego CA 92179 California State Prison, Sacramento SAC Represa CA 95671 Substance Abuse Treatment Facility SATF Corcoran CA 93212 Sierra Conservation Center SCC Jamestown CA 95327 California State Prison, Solano SOL Vacaville CA 95696 San Quentin SQ San Quentin CA 94964 Salinas Valley State Prison SVSP Soledad CA 93960 Valley State Prison VSP Chowchilla CA 93610 Wasco State Prison WSP Wasco CA 93280 N.A.
    [Show full text]
  • Democracy Needs Everyone Report / 2019 Authors & Contributors
    DEMOCRACY NEEDS EVERYONE THE URGENCY OF ENDING FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT IN CALIFORNIA MARCH 2019 DEMOCRACY NEEDS EVERYONE REPORT / 2019 AUTHORS & CONTRIBUTORS AUTHORS Taina Vargas-Edmond Gregory Fidell Lisa Schottenfeld Sasha Feldstein PRESENTED BY Initiate Justice RESEARCH / WRITING CONTRIBUTORS Hugo Gonzalez Richard Edmond-Vargas James Doernberg Eric Henderson Kristine Boyd Arvene Knox PHOTOGRAPHY Mike Dennis DESIGN Julie Mai TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 KEY FINDINGS 5 DEMOGRAPHICS & METHODOLOGY 9 BACKGROUND 11 I. “DEMOCRACY NEEDS EVERYONE” 13 II. “WE DO WHAT WE CAN FOR EACH OTHER” 17 III. “I WANT EVERYONE TO FEEL SAFE” 19 RECOMMENDATIONS 21 CONCLUSION 23 ABOUT INITIATE JUSTICE 25 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 27 END NOTES 28 INTRODUCTION “I Want to Be a Voter” by Juan Moreno Haines After 23 years of incarceration, my lived experience is one of witnessing and documenting negative treatment by those who hold power in our society toward the powerless ones. I have felt powerless because I am restricted from voting – the result being I have no say in policies that affect my everyday life. Part of my rehabilitation involves understanding the effect that my crimes had on our community. As I began to understand what I’ve done, I became acutely aware of what my harmful behavior produced – a loss of connection to the place where I grew up, went to school, and made friends. That made me conscious of society’s sole intent for incarcerating me – punishment. I accepted it, embraced it, and learned from my mistakes. Over time, however, I began to realize that I have a stake in my community as a citizen of the state of California, even if I have been separated from society.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
    Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2132 Filed 03/24/09 Page 1 of 24 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 5 MARCIANO PLATA, et al., NO. C01-1351 TEH 6 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 7 v. REPLACE RECEIVER WITH SPECIAL MASTER AND TO 8 ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, TERMINATE THE RECEIVER’S et al., CONSTRUCTION PLAN 9 Defendants. 10 11 12 This matter came before the Court on March 16, 2009, on Defendants’ motion (1) to 13 replace the Receiver with a special master and, during the transition, establish a process to 14 ensure the Receiver’s compliance with state and federal law and (2) to terminate the 15 Receiver’s construction plan. After carefully considering the parties’ and the Receiver’s 16 written and oral arguments, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs and Defendants that an 17 evidentiary hearing is unnecessary and, for the reasons set forth below, now DENIES 18 Defendants’ motion. 19 20 I. BACKGROUND 21 Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on April 5, 2001, alleging constitutional violations in the 22 delivery of medical care to inmates confined in California state prisons.1 The parties had 23 been in informal negotiations concerning prison medical care since July 1999 and ultimately 24 agreed to a stipulation for injunctive relief, which the Court entered as an order on June 13, 25 26 1This case originally did not include Pelican Bay State Prison, which was under the Court’s jurisdiction in a separate action, Madrid v. Cate, Case No. C90-3094 TEH.
    [Show full text]
  • Challenges in Correction 1986-87
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. " ," Challenges in Correction 1986-87 'NCJRS California JUN ~«j; IS88 Department of Corrections " ~, ,.t'l <, 111967 1/1'11.,7 U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the person or organization Originating It. Points of view or opinions stated In thiS document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the offiCial posItion or pOlicies of the National Institute of Justice, Permission to reproduce this copyrighted material has been granted by California Department of Corrections to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permis­ sion of the copYright owner Challenges in Corrections ~: California Department of Corrections I 1986-87 Annual Report I i 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Governor George Deukmejian I, YOUTH AND ADULT CORRECTIONAL AGENCY Secretary N. A. Chaderjian Undersecretary Craig Brown DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Director James Rowland Chief Deputy Director James H. Gomez COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Assistant Director Robert J. Gore Editor jInformation Officer Christine May Information Officer Mike Van Winkle Research Assistant Susan Kempsky ! ' I' ----------------------------------------------------- A Message from the Governor Protecting our citizens from crime and violence is the fundamental obligation of any civil society. As Governor, nothing is more important to me than getting criminals off the streets and behind bars where they belong. The California Department of Corrections has been entrusted with this very important role in protecting the pUblic. Tougher laws and more severe penalties are resulting in an increase in the number of felons committed to the custody of corrections.
    [Show full text]
  • Sacramento) CIVIL DOCKET for CASE #: 2:90−Cv−00520−KJM−DB
    Case: 2:90-cv-520 As of: 08/03/2020 05:06 PM PDT 1 of 513 PRISONER_CIVIL_RIGHTS,APPEAL U.S. District Court Eastern District of California − Live System (Sacramento) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:90−cv−00520−KJM−DB (PC) Coleman v. Newsom, et al. Date Filed: 04/23/1990 Assigned to: Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller Jury Demand: Defendant Referred to: Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights Demand: $0 Jurisdiction: Federal Question Related Cases: 2:19−cv−01989−KJM−DB 2:18−cv−00362−KJM−DB 1:18−cv−00080−KJM−DB 2:05−cv−02441−KJM−DAD 2:05−cv−00876−KJM−DB 2:13−cv−00021−LKK−DAD 1:14−cv−01959−KJM−DB 1:15−cv−00266−KJM−DB 2:17−cv−01402−KJM−DB 2:18−cv−00340−KJM−DB Case in other court: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 07−16361 Supreme Court of the United States, 09−00416, 09−01232 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 13−15931, 13−16637, 14−16691 USCA, 17−17328 USCA, 18−16445 USCA, 19−15006 USCA, 20−16062 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 95−17039, 97−15667, 97−16622 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 97−17014, 07−16361, 10−17546 Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights Special Master Matthew A Lopes, Jr represented by Matthew A. Lopes , Jr. Pannone Lopes Devereaux & O'Gara LLC 1301 Atwood Ave. Suite 215N Johnston, RI 02919 401−824−5100 Fax: 401−824−5123 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Plaintiff Ralph Coleman represented by Cara Elizabeth Trapani Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP 101 Mission Street, 6th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105−1738 415−433−6830 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Jessica L.
    [Show full text]
  • San Quentin News
    San Quentin News WRITTEN BY THE INCARCERATED – ADVANCING SOCIAL JUSTICE VOL. 2020 NO.1 January 2020 Edition 124 SAN QUENTIN, CALIFORNIA 94964 www.sanquentinnews.com POPULATION 4,885 Lawrence Bartley leads new Marshall Project endeavor Photo courtesy of Lawrence Bartley Lawrence Bartley By Rahsaan Thomas Photo by Javier Jimenez, SQN Contributing Writer Participants hold up trans lives matter sign on Nov. 20 The Marshall Project publishes stories about the ex- periences of those impacted by the penal system in the one place most incarcerated people don’t have access to: SQ Transgender Day of Remembrance online. That changed when Lawrence Bartley returned to society after serving 27 years in prison. He’s now the By Joe Garcia “Just because I’m not a part of society Many voices from the packed crowd re- producer of Inside News Magazine which shares stories and Juan Haines doesn’t mean that as a transwoman I don’t sponded, “That’s right, Lisa.” published on The Marshall Project website in print form matter,” said incarcerated trans activist “They deserved better than this,” she for 38 prisons. For the first time in its history, San Lisa Strawn, who spearheaded the Trans- continued. “To have been shot, stabbed On Oct. 12, Bartley attended a Society of Professional Quentin State Prison joined the nation- gender Day of Remembrance ceremony in and burned beyond recognition at the Journalists meeting at San Quentin and shared his story wide movement on Nov. 20 to memori- the SQ chapel. hands of murderers—it makes no sense.” with incarcerated journalist. alize 22 transpersons killed by hatred “I am still a person and so are the 22 See BARTLEY on Page 4 across the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • State of California
    California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)/ RFP Number: SD15-00047 California Correctional Health Care Services (CCHCS) Exhibit H List of Participating CDCR Institutions and Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) Facilities HEALTHCARE REGISTRY SERVICES NETWORK MANAGEMENT PROVIDER LIST OF PARTICIPATING CDCR INSTITUTIONS Institution Institution Avenal State Prison (ASP) California Rehabilitation Center (CRC) 1 Kings Way 5th Street & Western Avenal, CA 93204 Norco, CA 92860 (559) 386-0587; Fax (559) 386-7461 (951) 737-2683; Fax: (909) 736-1488 California City Correctional Center (CAC) California State Prison–Corcoran (COR) 22844 Virginia Boulevard 4001 King Avenue California City, CA 93505 Corcoran, CA 93212-8309 (760) 373-1764; (760) 373-3529 (559) 992-8800 x7992; Fax (559) 992-6196 California Correctional Center (CCC) 711-045 Center Road California State Prison, Los Angeles County (LAC) Susanville, CA 96127 th (530) 257-2181 x4167; Fax (530) 252-3073 44750 60 Street West Lancaster, CA 93536-7620 (661) 729-2000 x7046; Fax: (661) 729-6909 California Correctional Institution (CCI) 24900 Highway 202 California State Prison – Sacramento (SAC) Tehachapi, CA 93561 Prison Road (661) 822-4402; Fax (661) 823-5043 Represa, CA 95671 (916) 985-8610; Fax (916) 294-3135 California Health Care Facility – Stockton (CHCF) California State Prison - San Quentin (SQ) 7707 South Austin Road San Quentin, CA 94964 Stockton, CA 95215 (415) 454-1460; Fax (415) 455-5091 (209) 467-2500; Fax (209) 467-4677 California Institution for Men (CIM) California
    [Show full text]
  • Valley Fever at Pleasant Valley and Avenal State Prisons, 6/24/2013
    Case3:01-cv-01351-TEH Document2661 Filed06/24/13 Page1 of 25 1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 8 MARCIANO PLATA, et al., NO. C01-1351 TEH 9 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR 10 v. RELIEF RE: VALLEY FEVER AT PLEASANT VALLEY AND 11 EDMUND G. BROWN JR., et al., AVENAL STATE PRISONS a inrf Califo inrf a 12 Defendants. 13 14 This matter came before the Court on June 17, 2013, on Plaintiffs’ motion concerning District o ernrthe Nor thFo Nor ernrthe 15 Valley Fever at Pleasant Valley State Prison (“PVSP”) and Avenal State Prison (“ASP”). 16 Plaintiffs’ original motion requested an order for Defendants to: 17 (1) expand their exclusionary factors so that no prisoners in United States District Court the known at-risk groups of African-Americans, people of 18 Filipino descent, Inuits, persons with diabetes, HIV, or any immunocompromised state are sent to Pleasant Valley and 19 Avenal, and suspend the transfer of inmates without HIV test results to PVSP and ASP; 20 (2) fully implement their exclusion of these same at-risk 21 groups by ensuring that all such prisoners are transferred 22 from Pleasant Valley and Avenal within 30 days; and 23 (3) immediately request a health hazard evaluation and an epidemiological evaluation at Pleasant Valley and Avenal 24 by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health and the Centers for Disease Control and 25 Prevention. 26 Mot. at 10. Plaintiffs further requested a referral to the existing three-judge court “for an 27 order suspending the transfer of all inmates into Pleasant Valley and Avenal” if these steps 28 were not completed within 30 days.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
    1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS 2 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 AND THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT COMPOSED OF THREE JUDGES 5 PURSUANT TO SECTION 2284, TITLE 28 UNITED STATES CODE 6 7 8 RALPH COLEMAN, et al., 9 Plaintiffs, NO. CIV S-90-0520 LKK JFM P 10 v. THREE-JUDGE COURT 11 ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 14 MARCIANO PLATA, et al., 15 NO. C01-1351 TEH Plaintiffs, 16 THREE-JUDGE COURT v. 17 ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, OPINION AND ORDER 18 et al., 19 Defendants. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 3 I. INTRODUCTION .................................................. 6 4 II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ..................... 10 5 A. Plata (Medical Care)........................................... 10 6 1. Complaint, Stipulation, and Order for Injunctive Relief .......... 11 7 2. Appointment of Court Experts and Their Findings .............. 13 8 3. Periodic Status Conferences................................ 15 9 4. Proceedings To Determine Whether a Receiver Should Be 10 Appointed .............................................. 16 11 5. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Concerning Continuing 12 Failure To Meet Constitutional Standards and Necessity of a 13 Receivership ............................................ 17 14 6. Interim Remedies........................................ 20 15 7. Appointment of the Plata Receiver .......................... 21 16 B. Coleman (Mental Health Care)................................... 22 17 1. Findings of Eighth Amendment Violations .................... 23 18 2. Remedial Orders......................................... 26 19 a. Mental Health Care Beds and Treatment Space ........... 28 20 b. Transfers to Appropriate Level of Care.................. 32 21 c. Staffing .......................................... 33 22 3. Special Master’s 2006 Monitoring Reports .................... 34 23 C. Crowding in California’s Prison System...........................
    [Show full text]
  • California State Superior Courts
    CALIFORNIA STATE COURTS (and state prisons in those court districts) California State Superior Courts Alameda County Superior Court 1225 Fallon Street, #209 Oakland, CA 94612-4293 Alpine County Superior Court 14777 State Route 89 PO Box 518 Markleeville, CA 96120 Amador County Superior Court 500 Argonaut Lane Jackson, CA 95642 Mule Creek State Prison Butte County Superior Court One Court Street Oroville, CA 95965 Calaveras County Superior Court 891 Mountain Ranch Road San Andreas, CA 95249-9709 Colusa County Superior Court 532 Oak St. Colusa, CA 95932-2495 Contra Costa County Superior Court 725 Court Street Martinez, CA 94553-1233 Del Norte County Superior Court 450 H Street, Room 209 Crescent City, CA 95531 Pelican Bay State Prison El Dorado County Superior Court 495 Main Street Placerville, CA 95667-5699 Fresno County Superior Court 1100 Van Ness Fresno, CA 93724-0002 Pleasant Valley State Prison Glenn County Superior Court 526 West Sycamore Street Willows, CA 95988 Humboldt County Superior Court 825 Fifth Street Eureka, CA 95501-1153 Imperial County Superior Courts 939 West Main Street El Centro, CA 92243-2842 Calipatria State Prison, Centinela State Prison Inyo County Superior Court 168 Edwards Street Independence, CA 93526-0618 Kern County Superior Court 1415 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301-4172 Cal. Correctional Institution, Kern Valley State Prison, North Kern State Prison, Wasco State Prison Kings County Superior Court 1426 South Drive Hanford, CA 93230-5997 Avenal State Prison, CSP-Corcoran, Substance Abuse Treatment Facility
    [Show full text]
  • If You Have Issues Viewing Or Accessing This File Contact Us at NCJRS.Gov
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. ,>-; - ,- " ..... -"- ~.,."'~, ~1". - N.A. "CHAD" CHADERJIAN One man made the difference ... This year's Challenges In Corrections is dedicated to the memory of N.A. "Chad" Chaderjian, Youth and Adult Correctional Agency Secretary from January 1983 until his death in July 1988. Chad will be remembered for his steady hand in managing the largest prison system in the nation. Under his direction, California prisons added nearly 20,000 adult beds--a legacy that continues to grow today. To those who walk the "toughest beat in the state," Chad will always be recognized as one man who made a difference. 1928-19882 133494 U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the person or organization originating it. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily repr~sent the official position or policies of the National Institute of Justice. Permission to reproduce this copyrighted material has been granted by California D~tmEn± ___ of ,Illsi-j cp to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permis. sion of the copyright owner. -"'''_-'':::::'''-''-';1 J Challenges in Corrections California Department of Corrections 1987-88 Annual Report I l STATE OF CALIFORNIA Governor George Deukmejian I ) 1 YOUTHAND ADULT CORRECTI0NAL AGENCY Secretary Joe Sandoval I Undersecretary Craig Bro-wn "f 1 l DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS t Director James Rowland ! Chief Deputy Director James H.
    [Show full text]
  • Case 4:01-Cv-01351-JST Document 3417 Filed 08/11/20 Page 1 of 27
    Case 4:01-cv-01351-JST Document 3417 Filed 08/11/20 Page 1 of 27 XAVIER BECERRA PRISON LAW OFFICE 1 Attorney General of California DONALD SPECTER (83925) 2 DAMON MCCLAIN (209508) STEVEN FAMA (99641) Supervising Deputy Attorney General ALISON HARDY (135966) 3 NASSTARAN RUHPARWAR (263293) SARA NORMAN (189536) IRAM HASAN - 320802 4 RANA ANABTAWI (267073) Deputy Attorneys General SOPHIE HART (321663) 5 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 1917 Fifth Street San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 Berkeley, California 94710 6 Telephone: (415) 703-5500 Telephone: (510) 280-2621 7 Facsimile: (415) 703-3035 Fax: (510) 280-2704 [email protected] [email protected] 8 HANSON BRIDGETT LLP 9 Attorneys for Plaintiffs PAUL B. MELLO (179755) 10 SAMANTHA D. WOLFF (240280) 425 Market Street, 26th Floor 11 San Francisco, California 94105 12 Telephone: (415) 777-3200 Facsimile: (415) 541-9366 13 [email protected] 14 Attorneys for Defendants 15 16 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 18 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, OAKLAND DIVISION 19 20 MARCIANO PLATA, et al., CASE NO. 01-1351 JST 21 22 Plaintiffs, JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 23 v. 24 Date: August 12, 2020 GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., Time: 10:00 a.m. 25 Crtrm.: 6, 2nd Floor Defendants. Judge: Hon. Jon S. Tigar 26 27 28 -1- Case No. 01-1351 JST JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT Case 4:01-cv-01351-JST Document 3417 Filed 08/11/20 Page 2 of 27 1 The parties submit the following joint statement in advance of the August 12, 2020 2 Case Management Conference.
    [Show full text]