Newsom

(PC) Coleman v. Newsom

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaFebruary 28, 20232:90-cv-00520California2,341 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RALPH COLEMAN, et al., No. 2:90-cv-0520 KJM DB P Plaintiff, v. ORDER GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., Defendants. 16 To correct longstanding Eighth Amendment violations in this decades-old class action lawsuit, defendants must remedy ongoing inadequate mental health staffing levels in California’s prisons. See, e.g., Coleman v. Brown, 938 F. Supp. 2d 955, 984-88 (E.D. Cal. 2013). That remedial effort requires defendants’ full implementation of their staffing plans. October 10, 2017 Order, ECF No. 5711, at 1. Eight years after the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) defendants filed their mental health staffing plan, the court gave these defendants one year to “take all steps necessary to come into complete compliance with the staffing ratios in their 2009 Staffing Plan and the maximum ten percent vacancy rate required by the court’s June 13, 2002 order.” October 10, 2017 Order, ECF No. 5711, at 30. The…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.