US judge says state corrections department ‘knowingly misled’ court on prisoner mental health care

State prison officials "knowingly misled" the court and provided only "partial explanations" when they were caught in relation to a long-running case involving treatment of mentally ill prisoners, U.S. District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller said in a scathing ruling

Mueller stopped short of giving explicit instructions to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation in her ruling Tuesday but wrote, "A remedial order will be issued in the near future." Coleman v. Newsom, 90CV00520 (E.D. Cal., filed April 23, 1990).

Michael W. Bien, a partner with Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP, said he expects that order could be delivered before the end of the year. He said he is optimistic Mueller will institute changes sought by the plaintiffs in how the agency compiles and shares mental health data, including more external oversight.

Bien added it is important to keep in mind the original case ended 24 years ago.

"We want to be in a position of trust," Bien said. "This litigation is in a remedial phase. We've already won the case. That was in 1995. Some of my employees weren't born yet. We're supposed to be in a position where we are not fighting about the facts anymore but working together on the solutions."

"At this time, we are reviewing the judge's order," said Jeffrey Callison, assistant secretary for communications with the Department, by email.

The order followed days of hearings in October that were prompted by a 2018 whistleblower report from Dr. Michael Golding, the chief psychiatrist at the prisons department. Goldman alleged the department was systematically hiding evidence that it was not meeting court-mandated improvements in mental health care.

One allegation Golding wrote about that came up repeatedly in court involved the agency changing the definition of a "monthly" visit from at least every 30 days to 4, 5 and later 60 days without notifying the court. He reiterated many of these charges in a response filed to the court on Oct. 23 through his attorney, Wendy Musell with Stuart & Musell LLP in Emeryville. In that document, Golding accused the department of making "demonstrably false claims" and engaging in a "blame the whistleblower" defense.

The whistleblower report came at a key time, Bien said.

"We came within days of signing a stipulation that would have reduced the number of psychiatrists by around 20, 25 percent," he said. "That's what this case is about, and they almost won."

"It is apparent defendants lost complete sight of the reasons remediation is required here. Defendants adopted a laser focus in an effort to obtain termination of court supervision, which lead to a stark 'ends justify the means' approach," Mueller wrote.

"Moreover, this is the second time in less than 10 years that defendants have embarked on a litigation strategy that delayed and frustrated compliance with staffing requirements," she added.

In her order, Mueller said two of the witnesses who are now former employees of the department's Statewide Mental Health Program provided credible testimony and took responsibility for mistakes they made.

However, she deemed the testimony of Dr. Laura Ceballos, mental health administrator of quality for the department's inpatient facilities, "simply not credible." The judge wrote Ceballos, who testified extensively on how incorrect and misleading data was delivered to the court and special masters in charge of overseeing care, "betrayed little or no appreciation for the letter or the spirit of court orders." In particular, Ceballos "maintained a false distinction" between internal and external data, ignoring a requirement that the correct data be disclosed.

In one positive development for the Department of Corrections, Mueller did not find the defendants committed fraud on the court. While it is undeniable the agency provided false information, showing fraud requires a high standard of proof that wasn't met, the judge ruled. In many cases, defendants provided partial information or believed they were in compliance, she found.

Bien said he was comfortable with Mueller's no-fraud finding.

"While there were individuals who might have done a better job, this was a collective failure by the state," Bien said. "The signals coming from the lawyers and the governor's office and high officials were, 'Win at any cost.'"