Case: U.S. v. California

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

Filed Date: May 2, 2006

Closed Date: 2013

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On May 2, 2006, the United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against California and state officials responsible for operation of two California mental hospitals: the Metropolitan State Hospital and the Napa State Hospital. The United States sued under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act ("CRIPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 1997, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C § 12101. The United States sought declaratory and injunctive relief to end the substantial departures from generally accepted professional standards of care at each hospital that the Department of Justice had identified in multiple CRIPA investigations during the proceeding years.

The first investigation involved the Metropolitan State Hospital ("MSH"). On May 13, 2003, the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division ("DOJ") sent a findings letter to California's governor, advising him that it had identified "significant and wide-ranging" deficiencies in child and adolescent patient care at MSH, a state facility housing children, adolescents, and adults who suffered from mental illness. The letter resulted from a CRIPA investigation of MSH that occurred during June and July 2002. The letter listed minimally-acceptable remedial measures for each of these categories. It also invited continued collaboration toward resolving the many deficiencies and alerted the state that, absent improvement, a CRIPA lawsuit would be filed to compel correction of the deficiencies and protection of MSH patients' rights.

During the investigation, DOJ and expert consultants visited the facility, reviewed a wide array of documents, and conducted interviews with personnel and residents. The letter commended MSH staff for providing a high level of cooperation during the investigation, as well as the dedication many showed for patient well-being. Nevertheless, the DOJ concluded that deficiencies at MSH existed in a dozen topic areas, including (1) psychiatry; (2) nursing services; (3) psychology; (4) pharmaceutical services; (4) general medical care, including deficiencies in vision services, x-ray reviews, and incontinence and headache evaluation; (5) infection control; (7) dental care; (8) dietary services; (9) placement in the most integrated setting; (10) special education; (11) protection from harm; and (12) First Amendment and due process rights to confidentially communicate with investigators.

On February 19, 2004, the DOJ sent another findings letter to the governor that focused on adult patient care at MSH. The letter described the investigation process as essentially the same as used in reviewing the younger patients' situations; however, the larger number of adult patients (and of programs housing them) made for lengthier investigative and evaluative processes. The findings, however, were equally gloomy. Overall, the DOJ identified significant and wide-ranging deficiencies in MSH's provision of care to adult patients. The letter set out categories of deficiency as follows: (1) substandard integrated treatment planning; (2) inadequate psychiatric, psychological, rehabilitative, and social history assessments; (3) poor to almost-nonexistent discharge planning for placement in the most integrated setting; (4) substantial departures from generally accepted professional standards of care in each of MSH's psychiatric, psychological, nursing and unit-based, pharmaceutical, general medical, infection control, dental, physical and occupational therapy, and dietary treatment services; (5) insufficient documentation of patient care and progress; (6) excessive and unnecessarily restrictive use of seclusion, restraints, and "as-needed" medications; (7) failure to protect patients from harm, stemming from ineffective incident management and quality assurance systems and from multiple environmental hazards; and (8) denial of patients' First Amendment and due process rights to confidentially communicate with investigators.

This second findings letter listed almost twenty pages of minimally-acceptable remedial measures addressing each of these categories. It invited continued collaboration toward resolving the many deficiencies and again alerted the state that, absent improvement, a CRIPA lawsuit would be filed to compel correction of the deficiencies and protection of MSH patients' rights.

A third DOJ findings letter dated June 27, 2005, addressed deficiencies found at the Napa State Hospital ("NSH"), another California mental health facility. The letter began by noting that the state had stopped cooperating with DOJ investigators, denying them and their consultants access to NSH and other state mental health facilities the DOJ was then investigating (Patton and Atascadero state hospitals). The DOJ advised that it drew an adverse conclusion about the facility from the state's non-cooperation. It also considered information from regulatory and standards agencies that had surveyed NSH and information from interviews of NSH staff, advocates, family members of patients, and patients. Not only did DOJ find "significant and wide-ranging" deficiencies in NSH patient care, it concluded these deficiencies were "widespread and systemic." NSH deficiencies had been the subject of a prior CRIPA investigation, which led to a 1990 consent decree that was dismissed in 1995. Nevertheless, the DOJ found that significant problems at NSH had recurred. These problems included: (1) failure to protect patients from harm from assaults and suicide (and from staff sales of illegal drugs to patients); (2) inappropriate use of seclusion, restraint and PRN ("pro re nata" or "as-needed") psychotropic medications; and (3) inadequate medical, nursing and psychiatric care. In addition to the recurring problems, the DOJ received information showing (4) deficient mental health treatment planning, programming, and nutritional management; (5) unsanitary conditions; and (6) failure to place patients in the most integrated setting, as required by law. For each of these categories, the findings letter included several specific examples of malfeasance or misfeasance, often describing instances of neglectful or cruel conduct by state personnel. The DOJ noted that it could obtain remedial measures by filing a CRIPA lawsuit against the state, although the letter invited the state to avoid litigation and work cooperatively with DOJ to resolve the identified deficiencies.

The DOJ letters eventually resulted in cooperative resolution of these hospitals' many problems, at least on paper. California's officials and the DOJ reached an agreement that became the basis of a consent judgment filed contemporaneously with this lawsuit. The consent judgment contained an explicit "Enhancement Plan" nearly eighty pages long. The plan set out details of standards for comprehensive improvements in care and conditions at MSH and NSH. The consent judgment named an expert independent monitor, Mohamed El-Sabaawi, M.D., to oversee the process of implementing these standards. Dr. El-Sabaawi would have full access to the facilities, patients, and staff, and his periodic reports would go to the court, the parties, and hospital administrators.All terms of the plan were to be implemented within three years, except for the immediate implementation of suicide prevention components of the plan. By its terms, the consent judgment would terminate after five years, with earlier termination possible if the state complied earlier. While the consent judgment remained in effect, the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the order. District Judge George P. Schiavelli promptly accepted the settlement and entered the consent judgment.

Also on May 2, the DOJ sent California findings letters based on its CRIPA investigations of conditions and practices at two more state mental health facilities: Patton State Hospital and Atascadero State Hospital. DOJ officials and expert consultants had visited the facilities, reviewed a wide array of documents and conducted interviews with personnel and residents. The investigations found significant deficiencies in patient care at both Patton and Atascadero Hospitals, specifically with respect to psychiatric and pharmaceutical services, medical care, protection from harm, use of restraints, seclusion, and medications. The findings were broadly similar to those of the MSH and NSH investigations.

On February 27, 2007, the parties filed an amended consent judgment. Its terms and duration remained the same, but it added as defendants the officials operating Patton State Hospital and Atascadero State Hospital. Thus, all four hospitals were subject to the consent judgment's enhancement plan. Judge Schiavelli again entered judgment in accordance with the parties' agreement.

On December 12, 2007, a detainee in Coalinga State Hospital filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the defendants to comply with the amended consent judgment. The plaintiff argued that the judgment applied to the Coalinga State Hospital, where he was being detained. On August 19, 2008, the court denied the petition, finding that the judgment did not apply to residents of the Coalinga State Hospital.

A pro se group of residents at Atascadero moved to intervene in the suit on June 21, 2011. The United States and the defendants both opposed the motion to intervene, and the district court denied the motion on October 31, 2011. The residents appealed, but the Ninth Circuit (Judges Michael D. Hawkins, Sidney R. Thomas, and M. Margaret McKeown) upheld the district court's decision. In a decision filed on August 13, 2013, the panel found that the residents' motion to intervene had been filed too late. 538 F. App'x 759.

Back in November 2011, the court found Atascadero and Patton State Hospitals had sufficiently complied with the consent judgment and no longer were subject to the court's jurisdiction. MSH was later released from the consent agreement in October 2012.

In October 2012, the court released NSH from the consent judgment except regarding sections pertaining to placing residents in prone restraints. A recent restraint death at the hospital prompted the court to continue the restraint-related sections of the consent judgment for one more year. Napa State Hospital was eventually released from the consent judgment in October 2013. The case is now closed.

	Document
2:06-cv-02667	Docket (PACER) U.S.A. v. State of California	April 28, 2016	April 28, 2016 Docket
	RE: Investigation of Metropolitan State Hospital, Norwalk, California DOJ CRIPA Investigation of Metropolitan State Hospital, Norwalk, California No Court	May 13, 2003	May 13, 2003 Findings Letter/Report
	Re: Metropolitan State Hospital, Norwalk, California DOJ CRIPA Investigation of Metropolitan State Hospital, Norwalk, California No Court	Feb. 19, 2004	Feb. 19, 2004 Findings Letter/Report
	Re: Napa State Hospital, Napa, California DOJ CRIPA Investigation of Napa State Hospital, Napa, California No Court	June 27, 2005	June 27, 2005 Findings Letter/Report
	Re: Atascadero State Hospital, Atascadero, California DOJ CRIPA Investigation of Metropolitan State Hospital, Norwalk, California No Court	May 2, 2006	May 2, 2006 Findings Letter/Report
1 2:06-cv-02667	Complaint	May 2, 2006	May 2, 2006 Complaint
2:06-cv-02667	Consent Judgment	May 2, 2006	May 2, 2006 Settlement Agreement
	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	Feb. 27, 2007	Feb. 27, 2007 Settlement Agreement
297-1 2:06-cv-02667	Order USA v. State of California	Oct. 3, 2012	Oct. 3, 2012 Order/Opinion

ECF Number	Description	Date	Link Date / Link
1	COMPLAINT against defendants Stephen W Mayberg, Sharon Smith Nevins, Dave Graziani, State of California, Arnold Schwarzeneggar.(No Filing fee Required), filed by plaintiff United States of America.(pj, ) (Entered: 05/08/2006)	May 2, 2006	May 2, 2006 Clearinghouse
	20 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint - (Discovery) 1 as to Stephen W Mayberg, Sharon Smith Nevins, Dave Graziani, State of California, Arnold Schwarzeneggar. (pj, )	May 2, 2006	May 2, 2006 PACER
2	STIPULATION for Consent Judgment And Agreeement filed by plaintiff United States of America. Lodged Consent Judgment. (bg, ) (Entered: 05/09/2006)	May 2, 2006	May 2, 2006 PACER
4	NOTICE OF ERRATA regarding Consent Judgment 3 and Stipulation for Judgment 2 filed by Plaintiff United States of America. (ir, ) (Entered: 05/17/2006)	May 5, 2006	May 5, 2006 PACER
	PLACED IN FILE - NOT USED re Consent Judgment submitted by plaintiff United States of America. (bg, )	May 15, 2006	May 15, 2006 PACER
3	CONSENT JUDGMENT by Judge George P. Schiavelli : The interdisciplinary teams membership shall be dictated by the particular needs and strengths of the individual in the teams care. All provisions of this Consent Judgment shall have ongoing effect until the final dismissal of this action. The Court shall retain jurisdicition for all purposes until such time as this action dismissed. Independent of the foregoing, if the United States and the Defendants agree that the State Hospitals have achieved substantial compliance with each section of this Consent Judgment, the Parties shall file a joint motion to dismiss this action. ( MD JS-6, Case Terminated )(bg, ) (Entered: 05/16/2006)	May 15, 2006	May 15, 2006 PACER
8	NOTICE OF DISCREPANCY AND ORDER: by Judge George P. Schiavelli, ORDERING Request to Submit Pertinent Urgent Information received on 7/28/2006 is not to be filed but instead rejected. Denial based on: case termed.(yl, ) (Entered: 08/11/2006)	July 21, 2006	July 21, 2006 PACER
5	NOTICE OF DISCREPANCY AND ORDER: by Judge George P. Schiavelli, ORDERING Request to submit pertinent and urgent information submitted by Danny Atterbury received on 7/20/06 is not to be filed but instead rejected. Denial based on: Local Rule 11-4.1 No copy provided for judge. Local Rule 56-1 Statement of uncontroverted facts and/or proposed judgment lacking. FRCP 5(d) No proof of service attached to document(s).(bg, ) (Entered: 07/27/2006)	July 25, 2006	July 25, 2006 PACER
6	AMENDED COMPLAINT against defendants Melvin E Hunter, Octavio Carlos Luna, Stephen W Mayberg, Sharon Smith Nevins, Dave Graziani, State of California, Arnold Schwarzeneggar amending Complaint - (Discovery) 1 (bg, ) (Entered: 08/07/2006)	Aug. 3, 2006	Aug. 3, 2006 PACER
7	STIPULATION TO AMEND CONSENT JUDGMENT and Agreement filed by Plaintiff United States of America. Lodged Proposed Order. (yl, ) (Entered: 08/11/2006)	Aug. 3, 2006	Aug. 3, 2006 PACER
11	ORDER AMENDING CONSENT JUDGMENT AND AGREEMENT by Judge George P. Schiavelli, re Consent Judgment, 3 ORDERED that the Consent Judgment and Agreement entered as an order of this Court on 5/15/06, is herewith amended such that the term State Hospital shall include Patton State Hospital and Atascadero State Hospital and any facility that supplements or replaces them, and that Defendants shall implement at Patton and Atascadero all provisions of the Consent Judgment and Agreement that apply to Metropolitan State Hospital and Napa State Hospital. (bg, ) (Entered: 02/28/2007)	Aug. 16, 2006	Aug. 16, 2006 PACER
10	AMNEDED STIPULATION TO AMEND CONSENT JUDGMENT AND AGREEMENT AND ORDER by Judge George P. Schiavelli : the parties request that this court enter the attached Amended Consent Judgment, so that the Defendants shall implement at Patton and Atascadero all provisions of the original Consent Judgment and Agreement that apply to Metropolitan State Hospital and Napa State Hospital, and that the Monitor, and persons or entitles hired or retained by the Monitor, shall not be liable for any claim arising out of the Monitoring of this Consent Judgment, except claims before this Court for enforcement or payment of contracts or subcontracts for monitoring the Consent Judgment re Stipulation to Amend/Correct 7 .(bg, ) (Entered: 02/28/2007)	Nov. 21, 2006	Nov. 21, 2006 PACER
9	AMENDED CONSENT JUDGMENT by Judge George P. Schiavelli that pursuant to the Stipulation, and good and reasonable cause appearing therefore, Judgment shall be entered in this matter pursuant to the following terms and conditions. Related to: Stipulation to Amend/Correct 7, Consent Judgment,, 3 .(bg, ) (Entered: 02/28/2007)	Feb. 27, 2007	Feb. 27, 2007 Clearinghouse
13	MAIL RETURNED addressed to Anita C Snyder at United States Department of Justice regarding Order 11 (ir, ) (Entered: 05/11/2007)	April 18, 2007	April 18, 2007 PACER
12	MAIL RETURNED addressed to Anita C Snyder at United States Departmente of Justice regarding Stipulation and Order 10 (ir, ) (Entered: 05/11/2007)	May 10, 2007	May 10, 2007 PACER
15	Petition for Writ of writ of mandamus to compel consent judgmentfiled by petitioner Mark S Sokolsky.(lc) (Entered: 01/16/2008)	Dec. 12, 2007	Dec. 12, 2007 PACER
14	MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Judge George P. Schiavelli : In December 2007, Petitioner Mark S. Sokolsky (Petitioner orSokolsky) filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus to compel Defendants to comply with the Amended Consent Judgment. Sokolsky is presently detained at the Coalinga State Hospital pursuant to an order by the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Petitioner alleges that the terms of the Amended Consent Judgment apply to the Coalinga State Hospital because it is a facility that supplements or replaces one of the four noted hospitals.To address the Petition, the Court orders the parties to brief: (1) whether the Amended Consent Judgment governs the Coalinga State Hospital; (2) whether Petitioner has standing to urge these claims and, if so, (3) whether he has done so through the proper vehicle. Respondents shall file their Opposition to the Petition by February 1, 2008. Petitioner shall reply onMarch 3, 2008. After receiving all pleadings, the Court will schedule ahearing if necessary. (lc) (Entered: 01/15/2008)	Jan. 14, 2008	Jan. 14, 2008 PACER
16	NOTICE OF CLERICAL ERROR: Due to clerical error Re: Petition for Writ of writ of mandamus 15 with pro se address was not docketed after Minutes denying petition was docketed 14 ; copy of minutes attached to this notice. (Attachments: # 1 minutes) (lc) (Entered: 01/16/2008)	Jan. 16, 2008	Jan. 16, 2008 PACER
17	CORRECTED NOTICE OF CLERICAL ERROR: Due to clerical error Re: Notice of Clerical Error (G-11), incorrectly stated that Mark Soloksy petition was denied; Petition is still pending, see copy of minutes 16 (Attachments: # 1 minutes) (lc) (Entered: 01/16/2008)	Jan. 16, 2008	Jan. 16, 2008 PACER
	NOTICE OF STATISTICAL ADJUSTMENT submitted MD JS-5 Case Reopened. (lc)	Jan. 16, 2008	Jan. 16, 2008 PACER
	NOTICE OF STATISTICAL ADJUSTMENT(closed case reopened in error) submitted MD JS-6. Case Terminated. (lc)	Jan. 17, 2008	Jan. 17, 2008 PACER
18	REQUEST for Extension of Time to File State Respondent's to File Brief Responding to court's Inquiries filed by Respondent Department of Mental Health Stephen W Mayberg. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of John Venegas in Support of State Respondent's to File Brief Responding to Court's Inquiries# 2 Proposed Order in support of State Respondent's to File Brief Responding to Court's Inquiries)(Kim, Jennifer) (Entered: 01/28/2008)	Jan. 28, 2008	Jan. 28, 2008 PACER
19	BRIEF filed by Respondents State of California. RESPONDENTS' BRIEF IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT'S JANUARY 14, 2008 MINUTE ORDER (Kim, Jennifer) (Entered: 02/01/2008)	Feb. 1, 2008	Feb. 1, 2008 PACER
20	BRIEF filed by Petitioner United States of America. Plaintiff's Brief in Response to Court's January 14, 2008 Order regarding Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held,,,, 14 . (Daniels, Howard) (Entered: 02/01/2008)	Feb. 1, 2008	Feb. 1, 2008 PACER
21	MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Judge George P. Schiavelli : Order Granting Ex Parte Application. Respondents shall file their response by February 25, 2008, and Sokolsky shall reply by March 24, 2008. As noted in the previous Order, the Court will schedule a hearing if necessary after receiving all pleadings. (sce) (Entered: 02/04/2008)	Feb. 1, 2008	Feb. 1, 2008 PACER
25	REPLY to plaintiffs and respondents answer to courts orderof 1/14/08 20 filed by Petitioner Mark S Sokolsky (lc) (Entered: 03/18/2008)	March 14, 2008	March 14, 2008 PACER
26	MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Judge George P. Schiavelli: Court Denies Petition for Writ of mandamus 15 . (lc) (Entered: 08/20/2008)	Aug. 19, 2008	Aug. 19, 2008 PACER
28	NOTICE OF DISCREPANCY AND ORDER: by Judge Audrey B. Collins, ORDERING Plaintiffs' Request for intervention submitted by Movant Vadim Stanley Mieseges, received on 3/21/11, is not to be filed but instead rejected. Denial based on: Case closed. (lom) Modified on 3/31/2011 (lom). (mailed origninal 3/31/11) (Entered: 03/31/2011)	March 22, 2011	March 22, 2011 PACER
31	NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Exercise of Rights for Intervention filed by Movants Vadim Stanley Mieseges and other Residents at Atascadero State Hospital. (ir) (Entered: 06/23/2011)	June 21, 2011	June 21, 2011 PACER
30	NOTICE OF DOCUMENT DISCREPANCIES AND ORDER by Judge Audrey B. Collins ORDERING Motino for Exercise of Rights for Intervention submitted by Movant Vadim Stanley Mieseges received on 6/21/11 to be filed and processed; filed date to be the date the document was stamped Received but not Filed with the Clerk. (ir) (Entered: 06/23/2011)	June 23, 2011	June 23, 2011 PACER
32	MINUTE: ORDER RE: Motion for Exercise of Rights for Intervention 31 (In Chambers): On June 21, 2011, the Court received a Motion for Exercise of Rights for Intervention, submitted by a group of residents at Atascadero State Hospital (the Proposed Intervenors), which is subject to a consent decree in this case. The Court ORDERS that the document be filed. The Court ORDERS Defendants State of California, et al., to respond to the motion no later than Monday, July 11, 2011. The government may respond to the motion and/or defendants response no later than Monday, July 25, 2011. Proposed Intervenors may reply to these submissions no later than Monday, August 15, 2011IT IS SO ORDERED by Judge Audrey B. Collins. (ir) (Entered: 06/23/2011)	June 23, 2011	June 23, 2011 PACER
35	PROPOSED INTERVENOR'S MOTION FOR CORRECTION By Deputy Clerk In Re: Court's Order Of June 23, 2011 32 filed by movants. (bm) (Entered: 07/15/2011)	July 8, 2011	July 8, 2011 PACER
33	REQUEST for Extension of Time to File Response to Motion for Intervention filed by DEFENDANTS Stephen W Mayberg, State of California. (Attachments: # 1 Order granting Extension of Time to File Response to Motion for Intervention)(Burns, Janet) (Entered: 07/13/2011)	July 13, 2011	July 13, 2011 PACER
34	ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME To File Response to Motion for Intervention by Judge Audrey B. Collins: NOTE: CHANGES MADE BY THE COURT. The request for extension of time is GRANTED. Defendants State of California, et al., has until no later than Thursday, 7/28/2011 to respond to the motion. Plaintiff may respond to the motion and/or Defendants' response by no later than Thursday, 8/11/2011; and Proposed Intervenors may respond to these submissions by no later than Thursday, 8/25/2011. granting 33 Request for Extension of Time to File (lw) (Entered: 07/14/2011)	July 14, 2011	July 14, 2011 PACER
44	RESPONSE in Opposition to re: MOTION to Intervene 31 filed by Defendants Stephen W Mayberg, State of California. (Burns, Janet) (Entered: 07/28/2011)	July 28, 2011	July 28, 2011 PACER
55	OPPOSITION to MOTION to Intervene 31 filed by Plaintiff United States of America. (Daniels, Howard) (Entered: 08/11/2011)	Aug. 11, 2011	Aug. 11, 2011 PACER
56	APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO MOTION TO INTERVENE RE: MOTION to Intervene 31 filed by Movants Ernest Aguire, Victor Alvarez, Jose Ampriz, Arthur Arrellanes, Jason Athiede, Jose Avalos, Michael Beaver, George Bell, Ricky Benson, Wayne Bishop, Reginald Blaunt, John Carver, Donald Casnell, Eddie Cassidy, Eduardo Castanon, Robert Castorena, Juan Daniel Chavez, Lloyd Clark, Peter Cobb, Brian Colombein, Neil Core, Joseph M Cortes, Richard Cortez, William Curtis, Ron Cynman, James Deby, Ray Delong, Gary Dingest, Jerry Eates, George Eden, Hugo Edilberto, C Edwards, Marc Endsley, Lon Don Ferguson, Julio Flores, Ernesto Fuentes, Angel G, Nicandro Galaviz, Luis Garcia, Michael Garcia, Paul Gazaway, Sean Greenshields, Juan Gutierrez, David Guzman, Kennet H, Michael Hamilton, S Henderson, Harold Hines, Ramon Holguin, Brandon Howard, Ali Jones, Tod Koep, Andrew Kyle, Chris L, Warren Lanker, Michael Lanning, Keith Law, John Lowe, Ronnie Lucero, Curtis M, Jimmy Martinez, Damon Matheny, Michael McGee, Ron McLean, James McMann, Vadim Stanley Mieseges, Orrin A Patrick, R Phillips, Terry Powell, Gary Ramirez, Brooks Robert, Artay Scruggs, Andy Sessions, Dan Sloria, David Smith, Billy W Soto, Richard Soto, Larry Struchen, Tim Taylor, Billy Thomas, Paul Thompson, Paul Thurman, Daniel Tigner, Frank Travalini, Daniel Trebas, Samuel Turner, Johnny Walker, Banner Walter, Tom L Ward, Kenfort Williams, Scott Zimmerman, Movant C.L.. (lw) (Entered: 08/29/2011)	Aug. 25, 2011	Aug. 25, 2011 PACER
57	STIPULATION for Order Extending Court's Jurisdiction filed by Plaintiff United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Jones, Terrence) (Entered: 10/28/2011)	Oct. 28, 2011	Oct. 28, 2011 PACER
58	ORDER by Judge Audrey B. Collins. This Court, having read and considered the Parties' Stipulation to Extend Court's Jurisdiction, and findings good cause therfor, hereby orders that, absent any motion by either Party that is accepted by this Court, both the Amended Consent Judgment and this Court's jurisdiction over this case will automatically terminate on November 15, 2011. (bp) (Entered: 11/01/2011)	Oct. 31, 2011	Oct. 31, 2011 PACER
59	MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER DENYING Motion for Exercise of Rights for Intervention by Judge Audrey B. Collins: On June 21, 2011, a Motion for Exercise of Rights for Intervention was filed by a pro se group of residents at Atascadero State Hospital (the "Proposed Intervenors"). (Docket No. 31.) Defendants State of California, et al. ("Defendants") opposed on July 28, 2011 and Plaintiff United States opposed on August 11, 2011. The Proposed Intervenors replied on August 25, 2011. The Court has not set a date for oral argument and finds no oral argument necessary. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. For the reasons below, the motion is DENIED...the Court also DENIES the Proposed Intervenors' motion for correction, filed on July 8, 2011. (Docket No. 35.)....The Court finds the Proposed Intervenors' motion is untimely, so the Court need not address any other factor justifying intervention. See Smith, 194 F.3d at 1053; Oregon, 913 F.2d at 589. The motion is DENIED. (PLEASE REVIEW DOCUMENT FOR FULL AND COMPLETE DETAILS) denying 31 Motion to Intervene; denying 35 Motion to Amend/Correct (lw) (Entered: 11/01/2011)	Oct. 31, 2011	Oct. 31, 2011 PACER

Case: U.S. v. California

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

Case Summary

Related Cases

People

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Docket

Case Details