United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, 2025

(PC) Coleman v. Newsom

(PC) Coleman v. Newsom
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · Decided May 27, 2025
(PC) Coleman v. Newsom

Trial Court Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 RALPH COLEMAN, et al., No. 2:90-cv-0520 KJM SCR P 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER 13 v. | GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., 1S Defendants.

17 On April 30, 2025, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order seeking the court’s | approval of what they present as an agreement concerning the amount of out-of-cell time | defendants must offer class members in mental health crisis beds (MHCBs). ECF No. 8619. The | parties arrived at their stipulation in the context of the ongoing data remediation process. See | generally id. A primary purpose of the data remediation process is to remediate all indicators in | the Continuous Quality Improvement Tool (CQIT), which measures the core requirements of the | Program Guide, the remedial plan that sets the minimum constitutional requirements for the | delivery of mental health care to class members. See Coleman v. Newsom, 2024 WL 5629534, | slip op. at 1 (9th Cir. 2025) (quoting Coleman v. Brown, 938 F.Supp.2d 955, 972 (E.D. Cal. | 2013)); see also, e.g., July 9, 2019 Order at 2, 6, ECF No. 6214 (quoting Coleman v. Brown, | 756 Fed. Appx. 677, 679 (9th Cir. 2018)). In a footnote in the parties’ stipulation, defendants | state they are entering into the stipulation solely for purposes of data remediation, namely to “expediently remediat[e] indicator SP15.1E,” without conceding the threshold requirement the 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 members in MHCBs that includes one side’s statement at odds with the core purposes of data remediation and qualifying the parties’ agreement to the extent they have reached agreement. For this reason, the court does not approve the April 20, 2025 stipulation. The parties are invited to submit a renewed stipulation that reflects a true and complete agreement.

9 IT IS SO ORDERED.

10 DATED: May 23, 2025.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.