Opinion

(PC) Coleman v. Newsom

Court
District Court, E.D. California
Filed
May 27, 2025
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 35.8%

The opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 RALPH COLEMAN, et al., No. 2:90-cv-0520 KJM SCR P

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER

13 v.

14 | GAVIN NEWSOM, et al.,

1S Defendants.

16

17 On April 30, 2025, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order seeking the court’s

18 | approval of what they present as an agreement concerning the amount of out-of-cell time

19 | defendants must offer class members in mental health crisis beds (MHCBs). ECF No. 8619. The

20 | parties arrived at their stipulation in the context of the ongoing data remediation process. See

21 | generally id. A primary purpose of the data remediation process is to remediate all indicators in

22 | the Continuous Quality Improvement Tool (CQIT), which measures the core requirements of the

23 | Program Guide, the remedial plan that sets the minimum constitutional requirements for the

24 | delivery of mental health care to class members. See Coleman v. Newsom, 2024 WL 5629534,

25 | slip op. at 1 (9th Cir. 2025) (quoting Coleman v. Brown, 938 F.Supp.2d 955, 972 (E.D. Cal.

26 | 2013)); see also, e.g., July 9, 2019 Order at 2, 6, ECF No. 6214 (quoting Coleman v. Brown,

27 | 756 Fed. Appx. 677, 679 (9th Cir. 2018)). In a footnote in the parties’ stipulation, defendants

28 | state they are entering into the stipulation solely for purposes of data remediation, namely to

1 “expediently remediat[e] indicator SP15.1E,” without conceding the threshold requirement the

2 parties propose is constitutionally required and saying the court has not made any findings it is.

3 Id. at 2. n.1. The footnote reflects the parties have not reached a true agreement.

4 The court declines to approve a stipulation on minimum out-of-cell time for class

5 members in MHCBs that includes one side’s statement at odds with the core purposes of data

6 remediation and qualifying the parties’ agreement to the extent they have reached agreement. For

7 this reason, the court does not approve the April 20, 2025 stipulation. The parties are invited to

8 submit a renewed stipulation that reflects a true and complete agreement.

9 IT IS SO ORDERED.

10 DATED: May 23, 2025.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.