Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 1 Filed 08/04/14 Page 1 of 18

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
11

12 Cassie Cordell Trueblood, next friend of

Ara Badayos, an incapacitated person; 13 The Snohomish County Public Defender

Association, a non-profit corporation; 14

15 v.

Plaintiffs,

No. COMPLAINT

16 The Washington State Department of Social and Human Services; Western
17 State Hospital; Kevin W. Quigley, Secretary of the Department of Social
18 and Human Services, in his personal and official capacity; Ron Alder, Chief
19 Executive Officer of Western State Hospital, in his personal and official
20 capacity; Dr. Brian Waiblinger, Medical Director of Western State Hospital, in his
21 personal and official capacity;

BENCH TRIAL DEMANDED

22

Defendants.

23

24

25

26

27 COMPLAINT - PAGE 1 28

Braden Cyrus Pence Snohomish County Public Defender Association
2722 Colby Avenue, Suite 200 Everett,WA 98201

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 1 Filed 08/04/14 Page 2 of 18

1

INTRODUCTION

2

1. This is a civil action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against

3 Defendants for allowing legally incompetent criminal defendants (hereinafter “patients”)

4 to languish for months in county jails rather than promptly transporting them to a state-run

5 mental health treatment facility for competency restoration treatment as required by court

6 orders, state statutes, and the constitutions of the United States and Washington State.

7

2. Because of Defendants’ acts and omissions, Ms. Ara Badayos has been

8 confined for the past 33 days (as of August 4) in solitary confinement in Snohomish

9 County Jail (without any of the legally and medically necessary treatment) rather than at

10 Western State Hospital (WSH) or an analogous facility where she would have spent the

11 same period of time receiving professional care.

12

3. The maximum allowable time for Defendants to attempt restoration for Ms.

13 Badayos is 45 days.

14

4. Defendants official position (as indicated in sworn testimony and legal

15 filings at various Show Cause hearings in the underlying criminal actions) is that the 45

16 day period does not begin until Ms. Badayos is transported to WSH, and that there is no

17 timeline whatsoever for transporting her.

18

5. Thus, Defendants’ sincerely believe that there is no deadline whatsoever

19 for transporting Ms. Badayos, and that she could lawfully be held indefinitely.

20

6. Plaintiffs, who are advocates for Ms. Badayos and similarly situated

21 persons, have attempted to obtain Defendant’s compliance with the law by repeatedly

22 filing motions in the state trial court.

23

7. The state trial courts, in piecemeal fashion, occasionally order Defendants

24 to transport these patients and rarely dismiss the criminal actions for governmental

25 mismanagement, but have declined to issue a general order requiring Defendants to

26 2 - COMPLAINT
27

28

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 1 Filed 08/04/14 Page 3 of 18

1 transport competency restoration patients within a specific time period.

2

8. The most-recent information (dated August 1) from Defendants admit that

3 (in addition to Ms. Badayos) “approximately 100” other competency restoration patients

4 are waiting in county jails to be transported to WSH; and that the average wait-time for

5 each of these persons is 51 days (just under two months). See Exhibit 3 to Declaration of

6 Trueblood at para. 3.

7

9. This inhumane treatment of mentally ill individuals is an ongoing crisis.

8 Without immediate intervention, Ms. Badayos and at least 100 other similarly situated

9 persons will continue to be unlawfully and indefinitely held in harmful circumstances and

10 without legally and medically necessary treatment.

11

JURISDICTION

12

10. This Court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and

13 1343 because this is an action arising under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth

14 amendments to the United States Constitution.

15

11. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), this Court has supplemental jurisdiction

16 over related claims arising under state law, namely sections Three, Ten, Twelve,

17 Fourteen, and Twenty Two of the Washington State Constitution, and a variety of

18 Washington State statutes.

19

12. The Court has jurisdiction to award declaratory and injunctive relief

20 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983.

21

13. Venue is appropriate in this Court under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(2) because the

22 events giving rise to this complaint occurred in Snohomish County in the Western District

23 of Washington.

24

PARTIES

25 THE PLAINTIFFS

26 3 - COMPLAINT
27

28

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 1 Filed 08/04/14 Page 4 of 18

1

14. Ms. Ara Badayos is a 27year-old U.S. citizen domiciled in Washington

2 State. Though she is “the real party in interest,” she lacks capacity to stand trial due to

3 severe mental illness and cannot serve as Plaintiff in this action. She has no legal

4 guardian and no known family members.

5

15. Because Ms. Badayos is incapacitated and otherwise without

6 representation and because of the emergent nature of these claims, Plaintiff Cassie

7 Cordell Trueblood brings this suit as Ms. Badayos’ “next friend”1, pursuant to FRCP 17

8 (c)(2). Ms. Trueblood is the duly appointed criminal defense attorney representing Ms.

9 Badayos on a criminal charge underlying this civil suit. Ms. Trueblood practices law in

10 Snohomish County, Washington.

11

16. Ms. Trueblood requests the Court appoint a Guardian Ad Litem for Ms.

12 Badayos, pursuant to FRCP 17 (c)(2).

13

17. Ms. Trueblood also brings suit on her own behalf for frustration of mission

14 and injury to resources available to represent other clients.

15

18. Plaintiff Snohomish County Public Defender Association (SCPDA) is a

16 non-profit corporation whose purpose and function is to represent indigent people facing

17 criminal prosecution in Snohomish County, Washington. SCPDA employs Plaintiff Cassie

18 Trueblood as a trial attorney. SCPDA brings this action on its own behalf for frustration of

19 its mission and injury to the organization.

20

19. Because Ms. Trueblood’s and SCPDA’s incompetent in-custody clients

21 face significant obstacles to asserting their own rights (including imminent mootness of

22 individual claims due to transport to WSH during the pendency of the case, and their

23
1 Ms. Trueblood is the only apparent advocate for Ms. Badayos. Ms. Trueblood is professionally and
24 ethically bound to advance every lawful and proper argument for Ms. Badayos. Ms. Trueblood and Ms.
Badayos have a sufficiently close relationship to permit Ms. Trueblood to effectively advance the pertinent
25 claims. Ms. Trueblood is uniquely qualified, by virtue of the confidential attorney-client relationship to litigate
the unconstitutionality of Defendants’ acts and omissions.
26 4 - COMPLAINT
27

28

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 1 Filed 08/04/14 Page 5 of 18

1 impaired mental condition), Plaintiffs also brings this action on behalf of clients – past,

2 present, and future – who suffer injury as a result of Defendants’ acts and omissions.

3 Are not only responsible for advancing every lawful defense and argument for its clients,

4 but also have a “special public duty to improve the overall quality and efficiency of the

5 criminal justice system,” rendering them well-suited to litigate the claims of their clients.

6 DEFENDANTS

7

20. Defendant Washington State Department of Social and Human Services

8 (DSHS) is the governmental entity that oversees a variety of social welfare programs,

9 including Defendant Western State Hospital (WSH).

10

21. Defendant WSH is one of two state-run psychiatric hospitals (the other is

11 Eastern State Hospital), and serves the mentally ill population in the western half of the

12 state. WSH is the facility to which mentally ill criminal defendants are committed for all

13 purposes related to a criminal proceeding, including those (like Ms. Badayos) in need of

14 competency restoration prior to facing prosecution.

15

22. Defendant Kevin W. Quigley is the Secretary of Defendant Washington

16 State Department of Social and Human Services (DSHS). Mr. Quigley is responsible for

17 DSHS’s mental health program (including Western and Eastern State Hospitals) and their

18 compliance with state and federal law. Mr. Quigley, for all purposes relevant to this suit,

19 has acted under color of law.

20

23. Defendant Ron Alder is the Certified Executive Officer of Defendant WSH.

21 In his professional capacity, Mr. Alder is responsible for WSH (including its duty to

22 transport people for restoration of legal competence) and its compliance with state and

23 federal law. Mr. Alder, for all purposes relevant to this suit, has acted under color of law.

24

24. Defendant Dr. Brian Waiblinger is the Medical Director for Defendant WSH.

25 In his professional capacity, Dr. Waiblinger is responsible for supervising the

26 5 - COMPLAINT
27

28

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 1 Filed 08/04/14 Page 6 of 18

1 transportation of patients to the hospital, scheduling admissions, and developing the

2 prioritization algorithm for the admissions waitlist. Mr. Waiblinger, for all purposes

3 relevant to this suit, has acted under color of law.

4

5

STANDING

6

25. SCPDA has standing to sue on its own behalf, for injuries suffered as a result

7 of Defendants' practice of delay in admitting criminal defendants represented by SCPDA to

8 WSH for needed restorative mental health treatment. SCPDA will demonstrate that its

9 ability to represent its clients' interests is being impaired by Defendants' refusal to accept

10 custody, and that it is expending additional resources to effectively represent such clients

11 and to advocate for a just and fair criminal justice system. On that basis, this Court should

12 find that SCPDA has organizational standing. See Oregon v. Mink, 322 F.3d 1101,

13 1108-09 (9th Cir. 2002); Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 368, 379 (1982).

14

15

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

16

26. Ms. Badayos is extremely mentally ill. She is currently subject to a civil

17 commitment order under the “presents a likelihood of serious harm or is gravely disabled”

18 standard, as provided by RCW 71.05.

19

27. She has also been found to be legally incompetent (meaning that she does

20 not have the mental ability to understand the criminal process and aid in the defense, as

21 provided by RCW 10.77). In the Forensic Mental Health Report of Ms. Badayos, the

22 Defendant described her as in a “severely agitated and decompensated state.” See

23 Exhibit 1 to Declaration of Trueblood at .pdf pg. 10, document pg. 8. On August 1, after

24 indicating her agreement to come to court, she removed all of her clothing, made

25 court-inappropriate gestures, and then indicated her refusal to come to court.

26 6 - COMPLAINT
27

28

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 1 Filed 08/04/14 Page 7 of 18

1

28. Ms. Badayos is held in solitary confinement in the Snohomish County Jail

2 on a criminal charge of Assault in the Third Degree for allegedly slapping a police officer.2

3 (Plaintiff Cassie Trueblood, who is employed by Plaintiff SCPDA, is the duly appointed

4 public defender representing Ms. Badayos on this charge.)

5

29. Because Ms. Badayos is legally incompetent, the prosecution is stayed

6 indefinitely pending restoration of competence (in which case, prosecution would

7 resume) or a determination that competence is unlikely (in which case, the charge would

8 be dismissed).

9

30. On July 2, the state trial court ordered Defendants to transport Ms. Badayos

10 to WSH to attempt restoration of legal competence for a period not to exceed 45 days.

11 See Exhibit 2 to Declaration of Trueblood at para. A.

12

31. On August 1, Plaintiff Cassie Trueblood moved the trial court to order WSH

13 to show cause why it failed to transport Ms. Badayos, to pay sanctions for contempt of the

14 trial court’s July 2 order, and to transport to Ms. Badayos to WSH for treatment

15 immediately. The trial court denied all of these motions, instead ordering Defendants to

16

17 2 A summary of the procedural posture of the underlying criminal case: Ms. Badayos has been in- and

18

out-of-custody on the Assault 3 charge since March 14, when the incident allegedly occurred. Ms. Badayos was held on bail in what is called a “felony-expedited” process, which was not to exceed 14 days during

19

which time she was not officially charged. On March 25, Ms. Badayos was charged with Assault in the Third degree. On March 26, bail was set at $2,500. On March 28, she was arraigned and a plea of not guilty was

entered on her behalf. At that time she was released on the charge, but was not actually released until jail
20 staff evaluated her for mental health issues. On April 11, she appeared for an in-custody scheduling

hearing. On April 14, she was released so that she could be admitted to Providence Hospital in Everett for
21 civil commitment. On May 8, she appeared at an out-of-custody scheduling hearing and the case was

continued. On May 30, Ms. Badayos was back in-custody and the trial court ordered Western State Hospital
22 (WSH) to perform an initial evaluation of Ms. Badayos’ legal competence to stand trial. On June 12, defense

counsel noted a motion that WSH show cause why it had failed to perform evaluation. On June 13, WSH
23 submitted the evaluation, concluding that Ms. Badayos is legally incompetent. On July 1, an incident

between Ms. Badayos and a nurse at the residential treatment facility resulted in Ms. Badayos’
24 re-incarceration. Back in custody on July 2, the trial court ordered WSH to attempt restoration of Ms.

Badayos’s legal competence within a 45 day period. When nothing happened, Defense counsel noted a

25 motion for August 1 demanding that WSH show cause for its failure to transport Ms. Badayos for restoration

of competence.

26

7 - COMPLAINT 27

28

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 1 Filed 08/04/14 Page 8 of 18

1 evaluate Ms. Badayos for expedited transportation to WSH under a “medical emergency”

2 exception3 to Defendant’s plainly unconstitutional practice of refusing to transport

3 incarcerated patients.

4

32. The trial court ordered Defendants to perform this “medical emergency”

5 evaluation on Monday, August 4 by 5 p.m. Immediately after the hearing, through their

6 counsel, Defendants indicated to Ms. Trueblood (and not to the trial court) their intent to

7 again violate the trial court’s order by not evaluating Ms. Badayos until Tuesday, August

8 5.

9

33. Since July 2, Defendants have done nothing to comply with the order to

10 transport and treat Ms. Badayos. As of today, August 4, Ms. Badayos is still waiting in

11 solitary confinement.

12

34. In response to Ms. Trueblood’s demand that WSH show cause for its failure

13 to transport Ms. Badayos, Defendant Dr. Brian Waiblinger (WSH’s Medical Director)

14 submitted a sworn declaration (dated July 30). The declaration states that the current

15 waitlist for transportation to WSH is “approximately 100 [patients],” and that the average

16 wait is “51 days.” The declaration also states that WSH anticipates transporting Ms.

17 Badayos “by the third week in August.” See Exhibit 3 to Declaration of Trueblood at para.

18 4. Dr. Waiblinger also testified on the record at the August 1 hearing that he could give a

19 “date certain” for Ms. Badayos’s transport of August 22.

20

35. Defendant’s explanation for this comprehensive refusal to comply with court

21 orders, constitutional and statutory law, and basic human decency is that WSH does not

22

23 3 To Plaintiffs’ knowledge, Defendants have never before offered or even hinted at this “medical
emergency” exception, and there is no authority in statute or administrative materials suggesting such an
24 option. This appears to have been a last-ditch effort to prevent the trial court from ordering sanctions. While
in the opinion of Plaintiffs, Ms. Badayos certainly should qualify for this exception, such an option is entirely
25 beside the point that Defendants continually fial to promptly transport all legally incompetent patients,
medical emergency or no.
26 8 - COMPLAINT
27

28

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 1 Filed 08/04/14 Page 9 of 18

1 have enough physical bed space to promptly treat every patient.

2

36. However, state statute provides Defendants with an alternative to the

3 resource-scarce WSH: “some other facility as determined by the [Defendants] for …

4 treatment.” RCW 10.77.086(1)(a)(ii). Defendants have apparently never even attempted

5 to make such an alternate available to handle the additional demand on its system.

6

37. Defendants also claim that the “performance targets” (enacted in 2012 in

7 response to a similar waitlist problem at WSH) providing that competency restoration

8 patients should be transported to WSH within seven days are non-binding and therefore

9 can be ignored. See RCW 10.77.068.

10

38. Based upon a hair-splitting interpretation, Defendants claim that the statute

11 specifically providing that “[c]onfinement in a county jail or other local facility while

12 awaiting either placement in a treatment program or a court hearing pursuant to this

13 chapter is permitted for no more than seven days” only pertains to other categories of

14 mentally ill individuals (who are held “pursuant to this chapter”), and not competency

15 restoration patients (who are Defendants claim are only held pursuant to their criminal

16 charge). RCW 10.77.220. It is Defendant’s practice to transport NGRI persons within

17 three days.

18

39. In this apparent belief in the total lack of any timeline, Defendants have

19 developed an “algorithm” to determine which patients should be transported first.

20 Defendants concede that this system is not on a first-come, first-served basis. The

21 algorithm always prioritizes other categories of criminally-involved patients over

22 individuals requiring competency restoration. These categories include those patients

23 who have been found Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGRI) and “criminal conversion”

24 patients (meaning they are civilly committed after their criminal action has been

25 dismissed).

26 9 - COMPLAINT
27

28

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 1 Filed 08/04/14 Page 10 of 18

1

40. Defendants’ algorithm also places certain categories of restoration patients

2 before others.4 Ms. Badayos’ category, arbitrarily, is located towards the end of this

3 prioritization scheme. In any event, Defendants confidently assert that they are under no

4 deadline whatsoever to transport any felony restoration patient.

5

41. Defendant’s algorithm, in prosecutorial fashion, perversely benefits those

6 who have admitted the acts underlying their criminal conduct over those who have an

7 unconditional right to dispute their charges. In this respect, Defendant’s system

8 incentivizes Plaintiffs to put their clients through the NGRI process rather than having

9 those clients evaluated for basic legal competence to understand the criminal process.

10

42. It is undisputed that, were Ms. Badayos an NGRI patient, WSH would have

11 made room for her, and she would have been transported to the hospital within seven

12 days of July 2. It is further undisputed that, were the case dismissed, Ms. Badayos would

13 be sent to a treatment facility in three days by a county designated mental health

14 professional and would receive treatment.

15

43. The wait for available beds at WSH is getting worse while Ms. Badayos and

16 similarly situated individuals languish in jail. On July 2 (when Defendants were ordered to

17

18 4 . The maximum period for restoring patients held on misdemeanor charges is 14 days. RCW 10.77.088.

19

The maximum initial period for restoring patients held on non-serious felony charges is 45 days (the initial period is 90 days for “serious” felony offenses), while second and third restoration periods for all felonies are

90 days each. RCW 10.77.088. The algorithm places those patients on 14 day misdemeanor restoration
20 orders and those on the third 90 day felony restoration order before all initial 45 day felony restoration

orders. Those on second 90 restoration orders are last. See Exhibit 5 to Declaration of Trueblood at pg. 4,
21 ln. 7 through pg. 5, ln. 1. Thus, Ms. Badayos, with an initial 45 day order, is located behind all misdemeanor

patients, all felony patients on their last restoration period, and—of course behind those felony patients in
22 the same category as her who were placed on the list before her. Defendants’ explanation for this

convoluted system is their belief that state statute requires them to transport NGRI patients within seven
23 days, criminal conversion patients within three days, and misdemeanor restoration patients within a

“reasonable time.” The rest of the prioritization scheme is simply Defendants’ policy. It may be that
24 Defendants transport other patients before competency restoration patients because of the risk that other

patients will be released otherwise. Defendants need not be concerned that felony restoration patients will

25 be released. Because Defendants are confident Ms. Badayos will stay in jail until she is transported, she

must wait for months while other patients are admitted ahead of her.

26

10 - COMPLAINT 27

28

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 1 Filed 08/04/14 Page 11 of 18

1 take custody of Ms. Badayos), there were approximately 72 patients on the waitlist. On

2 July 25, when Dr. Waiblinger testified in an almost identical scenario in a different case in

3 Snohomish County, he indicated the waitlist had grown to 84 patients. When Dr.

4 Waiblinger testified on August 1, the waitlist was 100 incarcerated, mentally ill people.

5

44. This 100 person waitlist does not include in-custody patients awaiting for

6 Defendants to perform the initial evaluation on competency.

7

45. This 100 person figure does not include competency restoration patients

8 waiting for admission to Eastern State Hospital (the waitlist for which is rumored to be

9 similarly long).

10

46. Defendants caused similar injuries to competency restoration patients in

11 2012. Law suits were prepared but not filed. A legislative fix was attempted, resulting in

12 the “performance targets” of RCW 10.77.068. Unfortunately, the problem has surfaced

13 again, and Defendants only point to the section of RCW 10.77.068 for the proposition that

14 the targets are non-binding.

15

47. Snohomish County Jail records independently corroborate Defendant’s

16 admissions. As of July 30, 2014, 14 mentally ill individuals were subject to a WSH

17 transport order from that jail alone. Those people had waited an average of 38 days

18 before WSH provided the court-ordered transportation and treatment. One individual

19 waited 56 days. See exhibit __ to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

20

48. Given the virtual certainty that some, if not all, of these in-custody mentally

21 ill people qualify for a public defender, they are likely constituents of Plaintiff SCPDA.

22 Unfortunately, there has not been an opportunity prior to the filing of this suit to

23 individually identify and contact these individuals regarding participating in this suit as

24 plaintiffs.

25

49. Plaintiffs Ms. Trueblood and SCPDA have been repeatedly forced to file

26 11 - COMPLAINT
27

28

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 1 Filed 08/04/14 Page 12 of 18

1 briefing, attending hearings, and otherwise expend significant efforts to force Defendants

2 to comply with the law, taking away from Plaintiffs’ resources to effectively advocate for all

3 of their clients on issues more directly related to the substance of criminal prosecution.

4

50. Furthermore, Defendants place Plaintiffs in an ethical quandary. When

5 Plaintiffs reasonably believe that their clients suffer from diminished capacity, RPC 1.14

6 requires the lawyer to take protective action to protect their clients. On the other hand,

7 RPC 1.2 obligates Plaintiffs to abide by their client’s objectives, which universally include

8 avoiding unnecessary incarceration. Raising concerns about a client’s legal competence

9 knowing that doing so will subject the client to injury at the hands of the Defendants

10 creates a real dilemma for conscientious attorneys.

11

51. County jails are neither designed nor prepared to house (let alone treat)

12 mentally ill individuals.5 Jails control inmates through discipline. Such system is

13 ineffective for mentally ill persons, and, in fact, harmful to them.

14

52. The Snohomish County Jail is a particularly inappropriate place to house

15 the mentally ill because of the Jails’ demonstrated inability to care for that population. The

16 U.S. Justice Department (in response to multiple recent inmate deaths at the Jail)

17 investigated the facility, finding that “treatment for mental illness is very limited beyond

18 medications, and treatment planning is inadequate for the number of inmates who have

19 or who likely have a diagnosable mental illness. . . . There is virtually no regular individual

20 or group mental health treatment provided to the inmates.” Exhibit ___ to Plaintiff’s Motion

21

22 5 The Jail can provide medication management for people who are willing to take medications, but cannot
administer medication involuntarily, except in a life-threatening emergency. When resources permit,
23 treatment for “unfit to proceed” defendants may possibly include basic clinical psychiatry and intervention.
Such treatment is designed to stabilize the inmate. However, some inmates, particularly those with mental
24 illness, refuse or do not respond to medication, and do not otherwise respond to the treatment the jails can
provide. Jails tend to segregate the mentally ill. Conversely, WSH provides housing for persons found unfit
25 to proceed is staffed by full-time psychiatrists, psychologists, mental health specialists, recreation
counselors, social workers, mental health technicians, and nurses.
26 12 - COMPLAINT
27

28

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 1 Filed 08/04/14 Page 13 of 18

1 for Preliminary Injunction at page 62.

2

53. County jails are punitive environments—not restorative. They do not

3 provide adequate, if any, services for the mentally ill. The Justice Department’s report

4 also notes that “prisons and jails, which tend to be environments that exacerbate the

5 symptoms of mental illness, inmates with mental illness are especially at risk of harming

6 themselves or others.” Exhibit ___ to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction at page

7 56.

8

54. On August 1, when asked by jail staff, Ms. Badayos initially indicated she

9 would come to court for the show cause hearing against Defendants. When, staff went to

10 her cell to pick her up, she was entirely naked, made obscene anatomical gestures

11 toward jail staff, and then indicated her unwillingness to come to court. The extended

12 isolation in solitary confinement has obviously caused additional damage to her mental

13 state. She has apparently not washed herself for some time. Jail staff were overheard to

14 say that they wished they had a way to remotely flush the toilet in her cell prior to opening

15 the door.

16

55. She is, and has been, isolated in this 8’ by 10’ cell for 23 hours per day for

17 the past 33 days. The cell contains a granite slab for a bed with a ¼” thick piece of rubber

18 padding, a blanket, a fixed, backless stool, concrete bench, and an aluminum toilet. She

19 is allowed out of her cell for one hour a day. During that hour she remains in hand and leg

20 restraints unless she chooses to shower, which she rarely does. Jail staff will not remove

21 her from the cell even to meet with her attorney; Ms. Trueblood is forced to communicate

22 with Ms. Badayos through a closed, locked metal door with a small plexiglass window and

23 hole for a food tray.

24

56. Were she not involved in Washington State’s criminal justice system, Ms.

25 Badayos would be in a community-based in-patient professional mental health facility

26 13 - COMPLAINT
27

28

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 1 Filed 08/04/14 Page 14 of 18

1 receiving treatment, pursuant to the civil commitment order.

2

CAUSES OF ACTION

3

57. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all allegations contained in the preceding

4 paragraphs for purposes of the following causes of action.

5

58. Plaintiffs, Ms. Badayos, and all similarly situated persons have no complete

6 and adequate remedy at law.

7

59. Plaintiffs, on behalf of Ms. Badayos and all similarly situated persons, assert

8 the following causes of action:

9

10 VIOLATION OF SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS

11

60. Due process under the federal and state constitutions require that the

12 nature and duration of confinement bear reasonable relation to the purpose for which the

13 individual is committed.

14

61. Once Ms. Badayos and similarly situated persons are found to be legally

15 incompetent, the only lawful purpose for confinement is to attempt to restore legal

16 competency.

17

62. Delay in transportation and treatment delays Ms. Badayos’s return to court,

18 when requests to reduce bail (if her competence is restored) or to dismiss criminal charge

19 (if she is not restorable) could be made.

20

63. Legally incompetent individuals have a constitutional right to individualized

21 treatment to provide a realistic opportunity to be cured or to improve their mental

22 condition.

23

64. County jails do not have the capacity to provide the restorative mental

24 health treatment required by the State and Federal Constitution.

25

65. Defendants’ acts and omission done under color of law directly and

26 14 - COMPLAINT
27

28

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 1 Filed 08/04/14 Page 15 of 18

1 proximately caused unnecessarily extended confinement, additional injury to the mental

2 state of these individuals, and violation of the constitutional rights to physical freedom and

3 medical treatment.

4

66. Federal and state constitutions and related laws guarantee the right to a fair

5 and speedy trial.

6

67. Defendants’ willful acts and omissions done under color of law directly and

7 proximately caused unnecessary delay to an otherwise speedy trial process, harmful

8 delay in interviewing witnesses and preparing an adequate defense, and violation the

9 constitutional rights to a speedy and fair trial.

10

11 VIOLATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION

12

68. Federal and state Constitutions guarantee equal protection of the law, free

13 from discrimination.

14

69. Ms. Badayos and similarly situated individuals are members of a protected

15 class of individuals who suffer from mental illness.

16

70. Ms. Badayos and similarly situated individuals are incarcerated while

17 awaiting lengthy delays in admission to WSH.

18

71. Unlike other criminal defendants who may be held pretrial pursuant to a bail

19 setting order while awaiting trial, Ms. Badayos and similarly situated individuals are being

20 held without a speedy trial date, without the ability to consult with counsel, and without the

21 constitutionally mandated medical regime to restore them to competency. Because of her

22 mental illness, Ms. Badayos is being held at the jail.

23

72. Defendants’ willful acts and omissions done under color of law directly and

24 proximately caused unnecessary incarceration because of Ms. Badayos mental illness

25 and lack of capacity.

26 15 - COMPLAINT
27

28

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 1 Filed 08/04/14 Page 16 of 18

1

2 CRUEL AND UNUSAL PUNISHMENT

3

73. Federal and state Constitutions guarantee freedom from cruel and unusual

4 punishment.

5

74. Defendants knew or should have known that legally incompetent persons

6 remanded to their custody were temporarily housed in county jails, and knew or should

7 have known that such institutions do not maintain staff or facilities qualified or adequate to

8 provide mental health care and restorative treatment for such persons.

9

75. Because Ms. Badayos is going without treatment, her mental health is

10 further deteriorating. The additional damage to her mental state will likely require

11 additional detention time to accomplish restoration.

12

76. Incarcerating Ms. Badayos for an indefinite period of time without essential

13 psychotropic medication is a form of cruel and unusual punishment.

14

15 AFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

16

77. Plaintiff SCPDA is constitutionally and contractually mandated to provide

17 affective assistance of counsel to all indigent defendants to whom they are appointed.

18

78. To provide affective assistance of counsel within state-mandated and

19 contractual guidelines, SCPDA monitors the number of clients assigned to individual

20 attorneys, represents individuals in court in pretrial, trial, and post-trial proceedings.

21

79. In the last 10 months SCPDA attorneys have filed numerous motions

22 seeking Defendants’ compliance with court orders and the constitution. These motions

23 have resulted in extensive hours of work and litigation above and beyond the attorneys’

24 normal workloads. Every hour devoted to Ms. Badayos and similarly situated individuals

25 is time taken from other clients who the agency is contractually and constitutionally bound

26 16 - COMPLAINT
27

28

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 1 Filed 08/04/14 Page 17 of 18

1 to represent in an affective manner.

2

80. Defendants’ willful and continued acts and omissions done under color of

3 law directly and proximately caused a surge in hours worked by attorneys seeking

4 compliance by Defendants on behalf of their clients. This surge frustrates the agency’s

5 mission to affectively assist other clients.

6

7

8

JURY DEMAND

9

81. Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a jury trial is

10 demanded on all causes of action.

11

12

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

13 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs, on behalf of Ms. Badayos, and all similarly situated

14 persons, respectfully request this Court to enter judgment against Defendants and grant

15 the following relief:

16

A. Temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief requiring

17 Defendants to promptly transport and treat Ms. Badayos and all other similarly situated

18 persons to WSH or another adequate professional mental health treatment facility within

19 a reasonable period of time, but no more than seven (7) days;

20

B. Issue declaratory judgment that Defendants must comply with constitutional

21 requirements by transporting and treating Ms. Badayos and similarly situated individuals

22 within a reasonable time after entry of an order to restore, but no more than seven (7)

23 days;

24

C. Award nominal money damages in the amount of $1;

25

D. Award reasonable attorneys fees and costs, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988;

26 17 - COMPLAINT
27

28

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 1 Filed 08/04/14 Page 18 of 18

1 and

2

E. All such other relief as this honorable Court deems just and proper.

3

4

This ___ day of August, 2014.

5

6

7

8

________________________________

9

Braden Cyrus Pence, WSBA# 43495 Snohomish County Public Defender Association

10

2722 Colby Avenue, Ste. 200

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 18 - COMPLAINT
27

28

 </s> Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 24 Filed 09/12/14 Page 1 of 17

1

The Honorable Marsha J. Pechman

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

10

AT SEATTLE

11 A.B., by and through her next friend Cassie

12

Cordell Trueblood; D.D., by and through his No. 14-cv-01178MJP next friend Andrea Crumpler; K.R., by and

13 through his next friend Marilyn Roberts; Q.M., by and through his next friend

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

14 Kathryn McCormick; all others similarly

FOR INJUNCTIVE AND

situated; and Disability Rights Washington; DECLARATORY RELIEF

15 Plaintiffs,
16

CLASS ACTION

v. 17

Washington State Department of Social and 18 Health Services; Kevin Quigley, in his official

19

capacity as Secretary of the Department of Social and Health Services; Western State

20

Hospital; Ron Adler in his official capacity as Chief Executive Officer of Western State

21

Hospital; Eastern State Hospital; and Dorothy Sawyer in her official capacity as

22 Chief Executive Officer of Eastern State Hospital,

23 Defendants.

24

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 14-cv-01178-MJP - PAGE 1

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 24 Filed 09/12/14 Page 2 of 17

Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, allege the following 1

2 based on information and belief and the investigation of counsel.

3

I. INTRODUCTION

4

1. Defendants Eastern State Hospital (“ESH”) and Western State Hospital (“WSH”)

5 are charged by Washington State law with evaluating and treating individuals with mental health

6 disabilities whose competence to assist in their own defense in criminal proceedings is called

7 into question. If their competency is restored, their criminal cases may be adjudicated; if their

8 competency is not restored, the criminal charges are dismissed. During the evaluation and

9 restoration periods, speedy trial rights are automatically waived, and the criminal proceedings are

10 stayed. Unfortunately, Defendants have persistently failed to perform these services on a timely

11 basis, and stays of criminal proceedings pending evaluation and restoration of competency often

12 last for months. As a result, individuals with mental health disabilities have languished in city

13 and county jails for weeks and months without appropriate mental health treatment while

14 awaiting transport to Defendant ESH or Defendant WSH for evaluation and restoration of
15 competency. These individuals often end up spending more time in jail prior to adjudication
16 than they would if they had pleaded guilty. More importantly, the delays have caused
17 individuals with mental health disabilities to suffer needless deterioration in their mental health
18 as they sit in jails, frequently in prolonged isolation, for weeks and months before receiving the
19
evaluation and restoration services Defendants are responsible for providing. 20

21

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

22

2. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 12132.

23

3. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28

24 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction) and 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (civil rights jurisdiction).

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 14-cv-01178-MJP - PAGE 2

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 24 Filed 09/12/14 Page 3 of 17

4. Venue is properly set within this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. 1

2

III. PARTIES

5. Plaintiff A.B. is a 27-year-old U.S. citizen residing in Washington State who has 3

4 been charged with third degree assault. Plaintiff A.B. has been found incompetent and received

5 a court-order competency evaluation. A.B. has been ordered to receive competency restoration

6 treatment by Defendants.

7

6. A.B.’s current mental state limits her ability to protect her legal interests. A next

8 friend is, therefore, necessary to represent her interests. She could not identify any family with

9 whom she maintains a relationship who could fill this role, although she did identify a former

10 foster mother somewhere in California, but she did not know her contact information. She knew
11 she had an uncle and a cousin, but did not know their names or contact information. In light of
12 the lack of personal contacts who could assist A.B. protect her interests, A.B.’s criminal defense
13 attorney, Cassie Trueblood has volunteered to serve as A.B.’s next friend. 14
7. Plaintiff D.D. is a 28-year-old U.S. citizen residing in Washington State who has 15
been charged with Driving Under the Influence (DUI). D.D. is currently incarcerated at Spokane 16
County Jail awaiting court-ordered competency evaluation. 17
8. D.D.’s current mental state limits his ability to protect his legal interests. A next 18
friend is, therefore, necessary to represent his interests. D.D. indicated he was interested in 19
advocating for his rights and the rights of others to get timely evaluation and restoration services 20 21 but he frequently got confused when discussing how he would do this and what Plaintiff’s
22 counsel would do to help him advocate in this way. D.D.’s criminal defense attorney Andrea
23 Crumpler has previously acted to protect his interests in gaining timely evaluation and

24

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 14-cv-01178-MJP - PAGE 3

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 24 Filed 09/12/14 Page 4 of 17

restoration services, has discussed the instant case with him and his interest in participating, and 1

2 has volunteered to serve as D.D.’s next friend.

3

9. Plaintiff K.R. is a 28-year-old U.S. citizen residing in Washington State who has

4 been charged with third degree assault. K.R. was found incompetent and ordered to receive

5 competency restoration services at Defendant WSH. K.R. is currently incarcerated at the

6 Thurston County Jail awaiting court-ordered competency restoration services.

7

10. K.R.’s current mental state limits his ability to protect his legal interests. A next

8 friend is, therefore, necessary to represent his interests. K.R. explained that he is close to his

9 mother and that she is caring for his belongings and his cats while he is in jail, and that he would

10 like her assistance here as well. K.R.’s mother Marilyn Roberts is actively involved in his life

11 and regularly helps K.R. advocate for adequate mental health treatment. Marilyn Roberts has
12 volunteered to serve as K.R.’s next friend.
13 11. Plaintiff Q.M. is a 28-year-old U.S. citizen residing in Washington State who has
14 been charged with felony harassment. Q.M. has been found incompetent and ordered admitted
15 to Defendant WSH for competency restoration services. Q.M. is currently incarcerated at the
16 King County Jail awaiting court-ordered competency restoration services.
17 12. Q.M.’s current mental state limits his ability to protect his legal interests. A next
18 friend is, therefore, necessary to represent his interests. Q.M.’s mother, Kathryn McCormick, is
19
20 actively involved in his life and frequently advocates on his behalf for him to get adequate
21 mental health care from community providers. She has volunteered to serve as Q.M.’s next

22 friend.

23

13. Plaintiff Disability Rights Washington (“DRW”), a non–profit corporation duly

24 organized under the laws of the State of Washington, is the statewide protection and advocacy

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 14-cv-01178-MJP - PAGE 4

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 24 Filed 09/12/14 Page 5 of 17

system designated by the Governor of the State of Washington to protect and advocate for the 1 2 legal and civil rights of those citizens of this State who have disabilities, pursuant to the DD Act, 3 42 U.S.C. § 15041 et seq., the PAIMI Act, 42 U.S.C. § 10801 et seq., and the PAIR Act, 29 4 U.S.C. § 794e. R.C.W. 71A.10.080(2). As such, DRW fulfills its federal mandate by providing
5 an array of protection and advocacy services to people with disabilities across Washington,

6 including the other plaintiffs to this case and all putative class members. For over eight years,

7 DRW has advocated for reductions in the delay of competency evaluation and restoration

8 services. DRW is governed by a board of directors comprised predominantly by people with

9 disabilities and their family members, and this board is advised by two advisory councils, the

10 Disability Advisory Counci,l and the statutorily mandated Mental Health Advisory Council.

11

14. Defendant Washington State Department of Social and Health Services (“DSHS”)

12 is the sole state agency in the state of Washington designated to administer or supervise the

13 administration of competency evaluation and restoration treatment pursuant to RCW 10.77.010
14 et seq. (involuntary forensic commitment), at Eastern State Hospital in Medical Lake,
15 Washington and Western State Hospital in Lakewood, Washington. As such, DSHS utilizes
16 federal and state funds in operating services in a way that ensures compliance with state and
17 federal constitutional and statutory protections for people involuntarily detained in order to
18
receive mental health services. 19

20

15. Defendant Kevin Quigley is Secretary of DSHS and is sued in his official

21 capacity. Defendant Quigley is responsible for the administration of Defendants WSH and ESH.

22

16. Defendant Western State Hospital (“WSH”) is a state psychiatric hospital that is

23 charged with serving the needs of Washington State individuals with pending criminal

24

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 14-cv-01178-MJP - PAGE 5

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 24 Filed 09/12/14 Page 6 of 17

proceedings who are ordered to receive competency evaluation and/or restoration services. 1

2 Defendant WSH is located in Lakewood, Washington.

3

17. Defendant Ron Adler is the Chief Executive Officer of WSH and is sued in his

4 official capacity. As Chief Executive Officer, Defendant Adler is responsible for oversight,

5 operation, and management of Defendant WSH and competency evaluation and restoration

6 services for individuals with mental health disabilities in pending criminal proceedings.

7

18. Defendant Eastern State Hospital (“ESH”) is a state psychiatric hospital charged

8 with serving the needs of Washington State individuals with pending criminal proceedings who

9 are ordered to receive competency evaluation and/or restoration services. Defendant ESH is

10 located in Medical Lake, Washington.

11

19. Defendant Dorothy Sawyer is the Chief Executive Officer of ESH and is sued in

12 her official capacity. As Chief Executive Officer, Defendant Sawyer is responsible for oversight,

13 operation, and management of Defendant ESH and competency evaluation and restoration
14 services for individuals with mental health disabilities in pending criminal proceedings.
15 IV. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
16 20. Plaintiff DRW and Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., K.R., and Q.M., by and through their
17 next friends, (collectively, the “Class Plaintiffs”) bring this action pursuant to Civil Rule 23(a)
18 and (b)(2) on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated (collectively, the “Class
19
Members”) as members of the following proposed plaintiff class (the “Class”): 20

21

All persons who are now, or will be in the f uture, charged with a crime in the State of Washington, and: (a) who are ordered by a

22

court to either be ev aluated for com petency or to re ceive competency res toration serv ices; and (b) who have waited for

23

court-ordered com petency evaluati on or restoration services for

seven or more days from the da te on which the court order was

24

entered.

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 14-cv-01178-MJP - PAGE 6

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 24 Filed 09/12/14 Page 7 of 17

21. Class Members seek class-wide equitable, declaratory and injunctive relief 1

2 pursuant to Civil Rule 23(b)(2).

3

22. On information and belief, the Class consists of well over 100 individuals making

4 individual joinder of all members impractical. The identities of Class Members are ascertainable

5 through records held by Defendants and/or the courts from which the evaluations or restorations

6 of competency were ordered. Members of the Class may be informed of the pendency of this

7 class action by use of contact information in the possession of Defendants as well as from court

8 records.

9

23. There are questions of law and fact common to the Class.

10

24. The questions of law and fact common to all members of the Class include, but

11 are not limited to: (a) whether Defendants’ failure to admit individuals with mental health
12 disabilities to Defendant WSH or Defendant ESH for competency evaluation and/or restoration
13 services within seven days violates the Fourteenth Amendment; and (b) whether Defendants’
14 failure to admit individuals with mental health disabilities to Defendant WSH or ESH for
15 competency evaluation and/or restoration services within seven days violates the Americans with
16 Disabilities Act. These common questions of law and fact predominate over any questions
17 affecting only individual Class Members.
18 25. Class Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the Class because Defendants
19
20 have uniformly failed to provide timely competency evaluation and/or competency restoration
21 services to Class Plaintiffs and to the Class in the same manner.

22

26. Class Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect interests of the Class. There are

23 no conflicts of interest between the Class Plaintiffs and other Class Members. The Class

24 Plaintiffs will vigorously prosecute this action on behalf of the Class. The Class Plaintiffs are

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 14-cv-01178-MJP - PAGE 7

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 24 Filed 09/12/14 Page 8 of 17

represented by competent counsel with considerable skill and experience in civil rights and class 1

2 action litigation, who will vigorously prosecute this case on behalf of the Class.

3

27. Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the

4 entire class.

5

28. The claims asserted herein are capable of repetition while evading review. There

6 is a continuing and substantial public interest in these matters.

7

29. The class action is the best available method for the efficient adjudication of these

8 legal issues because individual litigation of these claims would be impracticable, and individual

9 litigation would be unduly burdensome to the courts. Further, individual litigation has the

10 potential to result in inconsistent or contradictory judgments. A class action in this case presents

11 fewer management problems and provides the benefits of single-adjudication, economies of

12 scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court.

13 V. FACTS ENTITLING PLAINTIFFS TO RELIEF

14 A.
15

Defendants’ Duty to Admit Individuals with Mental Health Disabilities Suspected or Found To Be Incompetent to Stand Trial to Defendant WSH or Defendant ESH for Competency Evaluation and/or Competency Restoration Services.

16 30. Section 10.77 of the Revised Code of Washington (“RCW”) governs procedures

17 for evaluation and restoration of competency for individuals with mental health disabilities who
18 are being criminally prosecuted, as well as treatment of persons found to be not guilty by reason
19

of insanity. 20

31. Under RCW 10.77.060, whenever there is reason to doubt that an individual with 21

22 mental health disabilities is competent to stand trial, the trial court shall order an evaluation to

23 determine competency. These evaluations are to be conducted by Defendants WSH and ESH.

24

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 14-cv-01178-MJP - PAGE 8

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 24 Filed 09/12/14 Page 9 of 17

32. Whenever an individual with mental health disabilities is found to be 1 2 incompetent, his or her criminal proceedings are stayed under RCW 10.77.084 while restoration 3 of competency is attempted. Treatment to restore competency is to be provided by Defendants

4 WSH and ESH.

5

33. Under RCW 10.77.086, if an individual with mental disabilities is charged with a

6 felony and determined to be incompetent, “until he or she has regained the competency

7 necessary to understand the proceedings against him or her and assist in his or her own defense,

8 or has been determined unlikely to regain competency,” the court “shall commit the defendant to

9 the custody of the secretary [of the Department of Social and Human Services] who shall place

10 such defendant in an appropriate facility of the department for evaluation and treatment.” Time

11 limits permitted for the duration of treatment in the attempt to restore competency vary

12 depending on the nature of the charge. See RCW 10.77.086(1)(a), -(1)(b) and RCW 10.77.088.

13 34. Under RCW 10.77.088, if an individual with mental disabilities is charged with a
14 misdemeanor and determined to be incompetent, the individual is to receive treatment and
15 restoration services in a secure mental health facility operated by or otherwise designated by
16 Defendant DSHS for up to fourteen days, plus any additional time that was not used in the initial
17 order. The timeframe does not include reasonable time for transportation to the mental health
18
facility and does not start running until the individual is actually admitted to the mental health 19

20 facility.

21

35. RCW 10.77.220 establishes a seven-day deadline by which the Department of

22 Social and Human Services must admit an individual with mental health disabilities to a hospital

23 after a court has ordered that the individual to undergo treatment to restore his or her

24

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 14-cv-01178-MJP - PAGE 9

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 24 Filed 09/12/14 Page 10 of 17

competence. See also RCW 10.77.068 (“seven days or less” to admit incarcerated defendant for 1 2 evaluation or restoration of competency).

3 B. 4 5

Jails in the State of Washington Cannot Evaluate the Competency of Individuals Charged with Crimes in the State of Washington or Provide Adequate Medical Treatment to Restore the Competency of Individuals Who Have Been Found Incompetent.
36. City and county jails of the State of Washington, where Plaintiffs and Plaintiff

6 DRW’s affected constituents are incarcerated while they await transport to Defendant WSH or
7 Defendant ESH for competency evaluation and/or restoration services, cannot evaluate
8 competency or provide individuals found to be incompetent with appropriate treatment that will
9 restore Plaintiffs and Plaintiff DRW’s affected constituents to competency.
10
37. While jails can typically provide medication management for people who are 11

12 willing to take medications, they cannot administer medication involuntarily, except in a life-

13 threatening emergency.

14

38. When resources permit, treatment for individuals with mental health disabilities at

15 some jails may include basic clinical psychiatry and intervention designed to stabilize an

16 individual’s mental health condition. Some inmates, however, particularly those with personality

17 disorders, refuse or do not respond to medication, and do not otherwise respond to the limited

18 treatment that jails can provide.

19

39. Jails are not able to provide treatment designed to restore a person to competency,

20 nor can they perform forensic evaluations to determine competency.

21

40. People found incompetent are often overtly psychotic and require special housing

22 or segregation. They are unpredictable and disruptive, taking up valuable resources needed for

23 the care of other inmates. If they refuse to take medications, they often decompensate rapidly.
24 They often are confined in their cells for 22 to 23 hours a day because of their behavior or simply

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 14-cv-01178-MJP - PAGE 10

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 24 Filed 09/12/14 Page 11 of 17

due to policies for anyone with apparent psychiatric disabilities. This exacerbates their mental 1

2 health conditions.

3

41. Jails control inmates through discipline. Disciplinary systems are ineffective for

4 individuals with mental health disabilities, and, in fact, are harmful because forms of discipline

5 may exacerbate their mental health conditions.

6

42. Unlike jails, Defendants WSH and ESH can treat a person’s mental health

7 disabilities.

8

43. At Defendants WSH and ESH, each of the units housing individuals found to be

9 incompetent is staffed by a full-time psychiatrist, a psychologist, a mental health specialist, a

10 recreation counselor, a social worker, a mental health technician, and nurses.

11

44. In addition to assessment, medication evaluation and management, and individual

12 and group psychotherapy, Defendants WSH and ESH provide individuals with mental health

13 disabilities with legal skills training to assist them in learning about the law, pleas, and returning

14 to court. This treatment is designed to restore a person to competency to stand trial and to

15

otherwise exercise their constitutional rights meaningfully.

16

C. 17

Defendants Have Failed to Evaluate and/or Treat Individuals with Mental Health Disabilities Who Have Been Charged with a Crime in the State of Washington in a

Timely Fashion. 18

45. According to the most recent waitlists provided by Defendants, there are 176 19

people waiting in city and county jails for competency evaluation or restoration services from 20

21 Defendants. Defendants have consistently failed to timely admit these individuals to Defendants

22 WSH and ESH for evaluation and restoration of competency.

23

46. Plaintiffs and Plaintiff DRW’s affected constituents each have histories of severe

24 mental health conditions. They have been ordered by courts presiding over their criminal

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 14-cv-01178-MJP - PAGE 11

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 24 Filed 09/12/14 Page 12 of 17

proceedings to be evaluated by Defendants for competency or to be restored to competency to 1 2 stand trial. Plaintiffs and Plaintiff DRW’s affected constituents have languished in city and 3 county jails across the state for weeks and months to the detriment of their overall mental health 4 to receive court-ordered competency evaluation and/or restoration services that Defendants are
5 statutorily required to provide.

6 D.

Defendants Have Failed to Timely Evaluate the Competency and/or Timely Provide Competency Restoration Services to Class Plaintiffs.

7 i. Plaintiff A.B.

8 47. On March 14, 2014, A.B. was arrested and charged with third degree assault for
9

allegedly slapping one of the police officers called to remove her from the premises of an 10

Everett, Washington restaurant after displaying signs of mental instability. 11

12

48. A.B. was booked into the Snohomish County Jail.

13

49. A.B. has had a very hard time communicating with her criminal defense counsel

14 and can respond appropriately to questions sporadically and only for a few seconds at a time.

15 During her time in jail, she did not take medications or attend to her personal hygiene.

16

50. On May 30, 2014, a criminal court ordered that she be evaluated for competency

17 to stand trial.

18

51. A.B. was evaluated on June 13, 2014. The evaluation found that A.B. was not

19 competent to assist in her own defense. The “evaluation” was completed through a small slot in
20 the closed door to A.B.’s isolation cell and lasted approximately 10 minutes. The evaluator 21 indicated that A.B. provided incomprehensible answers to questions and then began screaming, 22 crying and kicking the door to the cell, causing the evaluation to be terminated. 23

24

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 14-cv-01178-MJP - PAGE 12

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 24 Filed 09/12/14 Page 13 of 17

52. On July 2, 2014, upon review of the evaluation, the court determined A.B. was 1 2 not competent and ordered Defendant WSH to admit A.B. so that she could receive competency 3 restoration treatment.

4

53. A.B. was housed in a solitary confinement cell until August 8, 2014, when a court

5 found that incarcerating A.B. any further while awaiting a bed date was “not reasonable” and

6 ordered her release. Within two days of her release, A.B. was civilly committed to Providence

7 Hospital in Everett, Washington because she was considered to be “gravely disabled.”

8

54. A.B. was booked back into the Snohomish County Jail on an arrest warrant issued

9 by her Department of Corrections officer on August 20, 2014 for violations she committed in the

10 two days in which she was neither in jail nor in the hospital.

11

ii. Plaintiff D.D.

12

55. On July 29, 2014, D.D. was arrested and charged with a Driving Under the

13 Influence (DUI).
14 56. D.D. was booked into Spokane County Jail on the same day.
15 57. The court ordered a competency evaluation on August 5, 2014, and Defendant
16 ESH confirmed receipt of the order on August 6, 2014.
17 58. D.D. is decompensating in Spokane County Jail and became suicidal on August
18
14, 2014. He has been placed in solitary confinement on suicide watch. 19

20

iii. Plaintiff K.R.

21

59. On June 23, 2014, K.R. was arrested and charged with third degree assault for

22 allegedly flicking a cigarette at one of the police officers called to respond to a disturbance at a

23 transit center and hitting the officer’s hat.

24

60. A court ordered an evaluation of K.R.’s competency on July 3, 2014.

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 14-cv-01178-MJP - PAGE 13

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 24 Filed 09/12/14 Page 14 of 17

61. The evaluation was completed on July 23, 2014. 1

2

62. On July 30, 2014, the court found K.R. incompetent and ordered that he be

3 admitted to Defendant WSH for competency restoration treatment.

4

63. To date, K.R. remains in the Thurston County Jail where he has spent his time in

5 solitary confinement.

6

64. K.R.’s mental health condition is deteriorating as a result of his prolonged

7 incarceration. He has difficulty focusing on conversations and is highly concerned with his

8 personal safety, religious writings, and the conflict between good and evil. His appearance is

9 dirty because he refuses to shower for fear of being assaulted and he explains that the reason he

10 has grown his fingernails long is to protect him from being assaulted.

11

iv. Plaintiff Q.M.

12

65. On April 13, 2014, Plaintiff Q.M. was arrested and charged with felony

13 harassment for allegedly threatening to enter the house of another individual to hurt them, and
14 for allegedly standing outside the same individual’s house with a stick.
15 66. On August 13, 2014 a court found Q.M. incompetent and ordered that he be
16 admitted to Defendant WSH for restoration treatment.
17 67. Plaintiff Q.M.’s mother was told Q.M. should expect to wait more than 50 days
18
for admission to Defendant WSH for competency restoration treatment. 19

20

68. Plaintiff Q.M. is currently incarcerated in the King County Jail where he has spent

21 a significant amount of time in solitary confinement where he urinates in his cell, sits in his cell

22 without clothes, washes his hair with toothpaste, and refuses to see visitors.

23

24

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 14-cv-01178-MJP - PAGE 14

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 24 Filed 09/12/14 Page 15 of 17

VI. CAUSES OF ACTION 1

COUNT 1 2

(Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (42 U.S.C. §

3

1983))

4

69. The allegations of paragraphs 1–67 above are incorporated herein.

5

70. Due process requires that the nature and duration of confinement must bear a

6 reasonable relation to the purpose for which a person is committed.

7 71. Once an individual is found unable to aid and assist in his own defense, the only
8 lawful purpose for confinement is to treat so as to return him to competency.
9 72. Individuals found unable to aid and assist have a constitutional right to such
10 individualized treatment as will give each of them a realistic opportunity to be cured or to
11
improve their mental condition. 12

13

73. City and county jails do not have the capacity to provide the restorative mental

14 health treatment required by the United States Constitution.

15

74. Acting under color of state law, Defendants have violated and caused violations

16 of the Class Plaintiffs’ due process rights pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment to the United

17 States Constitution.

18

75. Unless enjoined by the Court, Defendants will continue to violate and cause the

19 violation of the constitutional rights of the Class Plaintiffs and the Class Members.

20

COUNT 2

21

(Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12132 et seq.))

22

76. The allegations of paragraphs 1–67 above are incorporated herein.

23

77. Plaintiffs and the Class are qualified disabled persons as defined in the Americans

24 with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12132 et seq.;

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 14-cv-01178-MJP - PAGE 15

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 24 Filed 09/12/14 Page 16 of 17

78. Defendants failed to provide reasonable accommodation of the disability of 1

2 Plaintiffs and the Class; and furthermore

3

79. Unless enjoined by the Court, Defendants will continue to violate and cause the

4 violation of the ADA rights of the Class Plaintiffs and the Class Members.

5

VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

6

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as follows:

7

A. For certification of a class as defined above;

8

B. For a declaration that Defendants are depriving Class Members of their due

9 process rights pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the

10 Americans with Disabilities Act;

11

C. For the issuance of preliminary and permanent injunctions restraining Defendants

12 from violating the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Americans
13 with Disabilities Act in the confinement of individuals awaiting competency evaluation and/or
14 restoration treatment;
15 D. For an award of Plaintiffs’ costs and attorneys’ fees; and
16 E. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
17

18 Dated: September 12, 2014.

19

CARNEY GILLESPIE ISITT PLLP

20

/S/Christopher Carney

Christopher Carney, WSBA No. 30325

21

Sean Gillespie, WSBA No. 35365

Kenan Isitt, WSBA No. 35317

22

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

23

DISABILITY RIGHTS WASHINGTON

24

/s/ David Carlson

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 14-cv-01178-MJP - PAGE 16

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 24 Filed 09/12/14 Page 17 of 17

David R. Carlson, WSBA No. 35767

1

Emily Cooper, WSBA No. 34406

2

Disability Rights Washington 315 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 850

3

Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 324-1521

4

davidc@dr-wa.org emilyc@dr-wa.org

5 ACLU OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION

6 /s/ Sarah A. Dunne

7

Sarah A. Dunne, WSBA No. 34869

Margaret Chen, WSBA No. 46156

8

ACLU of Washington Foundation

900 Fifth Avenue, Suite 630

9

Seattle, Washington 98164

(206) 624-2184

10

dunne@aclu-wa.org

11

mchen@aclu-wa.org

12

PUBLIC DEFENDER ASSOCIATION

13

/s/ Anita Khandelwal

Anita Khandelwal, WSBA No. 41385

14

Public Defender Association

810 Third Avenue, Suite 800

15

Seattle, Washington 98104

(206) 447-3900

16

anitak@defender.org

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 14-cv-01178-MJP - PAGE 17

 </s> Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 84 Filed 10/31/14 Page 1 of 9

1

THE HONORABLE MARSHA J. PECHMAN

2

3

4

5

6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

8

AT SEATTLE

9

A.B., by and through her next friend

Cassie Cordell Trueblood, et al., 10

Plaintiffs, 11

v. 12

Washington State Department of

13

Social and Health Services, et al.,

No. 14-cv-01178-MJP
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER CERTIFYING CLASS

14

Defendants.

15

I. STIPULATION 16

The parties, by and through their counsel of record, stipulate to the certification of a class 17

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(2), described as follow: 18

All persons who are now, or will be in the future, charged with a

19

crime in the State of Washington and: (a) who are ordered by a

court to receive competency evaluation or restoration services

20

through DSHS; (b) who are waiting in jail for those services; and

(c) for whom DSHS receives the court order. 21

The parties stipulate that Defendants cannot perform competency evaluation and 22

restoration services without receipt of the necessary information, which may include the court 23

Stip. and Prop. Order Certifying Class No. 14-cv-01178-MJP - 1

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION 901 FIFTH AVENUE #630 SEATTLE, WA 98164 (206) 624-2184

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 84 Filed 10/31/14 Page 2 of 9

1 referral, charging documents, discovery and criminal history information. See Wash. Rev. Code

2 § 10.77.068(1)(b). The parties also stipulate that when Defendants receive an incomplete referral,

3 it is incumbent upon Defendants to make efforts to expeditiously obtain any of the necessary

4 information not provided. Finally, this stipulation does not deprive the parties of their right to

5 later seek a new class definition, nor does it deprive the Court of its discretion to redefine the

6 class as may be later necessary and appropriate.

7 DATED this 30th day of October, 2014.

8 Respectfully submitted,

9 ACLU OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION ROBERT W. FERGUSON

10 /s/ Sarah A. Dunne

Attorney General

11 Sarah A. Dunne, WSBA No. 34869 La Rond Baker, WSBA No. 43610

/s/ Sarah J. Coats Sarah J. Coats, WSBA No. 20333

12 Margaret Chen, WSBA No. 46156 900 Fifth Avenue, Suite 630

Amber L. Leaders, WSBA No. 44421 John K. McIlhenny, WSBA No. 32195

13 Seattle, Washington 98164 (206) 624-2184

Nicholas A. Williamson, WSBA No. 44470 Office of the Attorney General

14 dunne@aclu-wa.org lbaker@aclu-wa.org

7141 Cleanwater Drive SW P.O. Box 40124

15 mchen@aclu-wa.org

Olympia, WA 98504-0124 (360) 586-6565

16 CARNEY GILLESPIE ISITT PLLP

Sarahc@atg.wa.gov Amberl1@atg.wa.gov

17 /s/ Christopher Carney Christopher Carney, WSBA No. 30325

JohnM5@atg.wa.gov NicholasW1@atg.wa.gov

18 Sean Gillespie, WSBA No. 35365 Kenan Isitt, WSBA No. 35317

Attorneys for Defendants

19 315 Fifth Ave South, Suite 860 Seattle, Washington 98104

20 (206) 445-0212 Christopher.Carney@CGILaw.com

21 Sean.Gillespie@CGILaw.com Kenan.Isitt@CGILaw.com

22 DISABILITY RIGHTS WASHINGTON

23 /s/ David Carlson

Stip. and Prop. Order Certifying Class No. 14-cv-01178-MJP - 2

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION 901 FIFTH AVENUE #630 SEATTLE, WA 98164 (206) 624-2184

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 84 Filed 10/31/14 Page 3 of 9

1 David R. Carlson, WSBA No. 35767 Emily Cooper, WSBA No. 34406
2 315 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 850 Seattle, WA 98104
3 (206) 324-1521 davidc@dr-wa.org
4 emilyc@dr-wa.org
5 PUBLIC DEFENDER ASSOCIATION
6 /s/ Anita Khandelwal Anita Khandelwal, WSBA No. 41385
7 810 Third Avenue, Suite 800 Seattle, Washington 98104
8 (206) 447-3900 anitak@defender.org
9 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Stip. and Prop. Order Certifying Class No. 14-cv-01178-MJP - 3

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION 901 FIFTH AVENUE #630 SEATTLE, WA 98164 (206) 624-2184

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 84 Filed 10/31/14 Page 4 of 9

1

II. ORDER

2

Based on the foregoing stipulation made by the parties herein, Plaintiffs’ Motion for

3 Class Certification and supporting documents, Dkt. Nos. 34-40, and Defendants’ Response to

4 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification and supporting documents, Dkt. Nos. 79-80, the Court

5 certifies the following class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(2):

6

All persons who are now, or will be in the future, charged with a

crime in the State of Washington and: (a) who are ordered by a

7

court to receive competency evaluation or restoration services

through DSHS; (b) who are waiting in jail for those services; and

8

(c) for whom DSHS receives the court order.

9

“The decision to grant or deny class certification is within the trial court’s discretion.”

10 Bateman v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc., 623 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2010). In order to grant

11 class certification, the Court must determine that the criteria of Rule 23(a) are met and that the

12 class fits within one of the three categories of Rule 23(b). Unthaksinkun v. Porter, C11-0588JLR,

13 2011 WL 4502050, at *6 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 28, 2011) (quoting Wal–Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes,

14 ––– U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 2541, 2551, 180 L.Ed.2d 374 (2011)).

15 A. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1): Numerosity

16

Rule 23(a)(1) requires that the class be “so numerous that joinder of all members is

17 impracticable.” The Court finds that joinder of all members of the proposed class would be

18 impractical because of their number and dispersion, and because there are many unnamed,

19 unknown future class members.

20 B. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2): Commonality

21

Rule 23(a)(2) requires that “there are questions of law or fact common to the class.” This

22 standard is interpreted liberally in a civil rights suit such as this one, in which “the lawsuit

23 challenges a system-wide practice or policy that affects all of the putative class members.”

Stip. and Prop. Order Certifying Class No. 14-cv-01178-MJP - 4

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION 901 FIFTH AVENUE #630 SEATTLE, WA 98164 (206) 624-2184

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 84 Filed 10/31/14 Page 5 of 9

1 Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 868 (9th Cir. 2001), abrogated on other grounds by Johnson

2 v. California, 543 U.S. 499, 504-05 (2005). The Court finds that commonality is satisfied

3 because each named Plaintiff and putative class members asserts that: (1) Defendants’ conduct

4 violates their due process rights under the Fourteen Amendment of the United States

5 Constitution and (2) Defendants should be enjoined as such an injunction would provide

6 classwide resolution.

7 C. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3): Typicality

8

Under Rule 23(a)(3), typicality is satisfied “if the claims or defenses of the representative

9 parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class.” The Court finds that the claims of the

10 named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the proposed Class. Each of the named Plaintiffs has

11 alleged harms resulting from prolonged detention in jails while awaiting court-ordered

12 competency evaluation or restoration services from Defendants.

13 D. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4): Adequacy of Representation

14

Rule 23(a)(4) requires that “the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect

15 the interests of the class.” The Court finds that the named Plaintiffs are adequate class

16 representatives. None of the named Plaintiffs have interests in conflict to the Class and that the

17 named Plaintiffs and the Class share a common interest in a remedy that will prevent further

18 violations of their rights under the United States Constitution. The Court also finds that

19 organizational Plaintiff Disability Rights Washington (“DRW”) is an adequate class

20 representative. The interests of DRW and the Class are in complete alignment, as DRW’s

21 constituency includes every putative class member waiting in jail for competency evaluation and

22 restoration by Defendants for a mental disability that affects competency to stand trial.

23

Stip. and Prop. Order Certifying Class No. 14-cv-01178-MJP - 5

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION 901 FIFTH AVENUE #630 SEATTLE, WA 98164 (206) 624-2184

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 84 Filed 10/31/14 Page 6 of 9

1

In addition, the Court has no concerns regarding the adequacy of counsel: they have and

2 will undoubtedly continue to competently, vigorously, and ethically pursue this litigation.

3 E. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2)

4

A class that satisfies the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) may be certified if

5 defendants have “acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final

6 injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a

7 whole.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are violating their due process

8 rights by failing to timely provide competency evaluation and restoration services as required by

9 state law. Plaintiffs seek a court order declaring Defendants’ conduct unconstitutional and

10 requiring Defendants to provide such services in a timely manner. Because the relief sought is

11 systemic, rather than individual, classwide injunctive or declaratory relief may be appropriate.

12 Certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is also appropriate.

13

14

For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court certifies a class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

15 23(a) and 23(b)(2) with Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., K.R., and Disability Rights Washington as Class

16 representatives, and Disability Rights Washington, the Public Defender Association, the

17 American Civil Liberties Union of Washington Foundation, and Carney Gillespie Isitt PLLP as

18 Class counsel.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

Dated this 30th day of October, 2014.

21

A

22

Marsha J. Pechman

23

Chief United States District Judge

Stip. and Prop. Order Certifying Class No. 14-cv-01178-MJP - 6

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION 901 FIFTH AVENUE #630 SEATTLE, WA 98164 (206) 624-2184

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 84 Filed 10/31/14 Page 7 of 9

1

2 Presented by:

3 ACLU OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION

4

/s/ Sarah A. Dunne Sarah A. Dunne, WSBA No. 34869

5

La Rond Baker, WSBA No. 43610 Margaret Chen, WSBA No. 46156

6

900 Fifth Avenue, Suite 630 Seattle, Washington 98164

7

(206) 624-2184 dunne@aclu-wa.org

8

lbaker@aclu-wa.org mchen@aclu-wa.org

9 CARNEY GILLESPIE ISITT PLLP

10 /s/ Christopher Carney

11

Christopher Carney, WSBA No. 30325 Sean Gillespie, WSBA No. 35365

12

Kenan Isitt, WSBA No. 35317 315 Fifth Ave South, Suite 860

13

Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 445-0212

14

Christopher.Carney@CGILaw.com Sean.Gillespie@CGILaw.com

15 Kenan.Isitt@CGILaw.com

16 DISABILITY RIGHTS WASHINGTON

17

/s/ David Carlson David R. Carlson, WSBA No. 35767

18

Emily Cooper, WSBA No. 34406 315 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 850

19

Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 324-1521

20

davidc@dr-wa.org emilyc@dr-wa.org

21 PUBLIC DEFENDER ASSOCIATION

22 /s/ Anita Khandelwal

23

Anita Khandelwal, WSBA No. 41385 810 Third Avenue, Suite 800

Stip. and Prop. Order Certifying Class No. 14-cv-01178-MJP - 7

ROBERT W. FERGUSON Attorney General /s/ Sarah J. Coats Sarah J. Coats, WSBA No. 20333 Amber L. Leaders, WSBA No. 44421 John K. McIlhenny, WSBA No. 32195 Nicholas A. Williamson, WSBA No. 44470 Office of the Attorney General 7141 Cleanwater Drive SW P.O. Box 40124 Olympia, WA 98504-0124 (360) 586-6565 Sarahc@atg.wa.gov Amberl1@atg.wa.gov JohnM5@atg.wa.gov NicholasW1@atg.wa.gov Attorneys for Defendants
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION 901 FIFTH AVENUE #630 SEATTLE, WA 98164 (206) 624-2184

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 84 Filed 10/31/14 Page 8 of 9

1 Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 447-3900
2 anitak@defender.org 3 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Stip. and Prop. Order Certifying Class No. 14-cv-01178-MJP - 8

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION 901 FIFTH AVENUE #630 SEATTLE, WA 98164 (206) 624-2184

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 84 Filed 10/31/14 Page 9 of 9

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2 I hereby certify that on October 30, 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing with the
3 Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the
4 following:
5

• John K McIlhenny (JohnM5@atg.wa.gov) 6

• Nicholas A Williamson (NicholasW1@atg.wa.gov) 7

• Sarah Jane Coats (sarahc@atg.wa.gov) 8

9

• Amber Lea Leaders (amberl1@atg.wa.gov)

10 11 DATED: October 30, 2014, at Seattle, Washington

12

13

/s/ Sarah A. Dunne Sarah A. Dunne, WSBA No. 34869

14

Attorney for Plaintiffs

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Certificate of Service No. 14-cv-01178-MJP

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION 901 FIFTH AVENUE #630 SEATTLE, WA 98164 (206) 624-2184

 </s> 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

9

AT SEATTLE

10 CASSIE CORDELL TRUEBLOOD, et al.,
11 Plaintiffs,
12 v.
13 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT
14 OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES, et al.,
15 Defendants.
16

CASE NO. C14-1178 MJP
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS‘ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

17 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiffs‘ motion for summary judgment on
18 the question of whether current in-jail waiting times for court-ordered competency evaluation
19 and restoration services violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Dkt. No.
20 87.) Having considered the Parties‘ briefing and all related papers, the Court finds the current in-
21 jail wait time experienced by Plaintiffs and class members to be far beyond any constitutional
22 boundary and therefore GRANTS the motion.
23

24

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS‘ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT- 1

1

Summary

2

In this case, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants, the Washington State Department of Social

3 and Health Services and two state hospitals, Western State Hospital and Eastern State Hospital,

4 are violating the constitutional rights of certain pretrial criminal defendants by failing to provide

5 those individuals with timely services. State law requires that Defendants provide competency

6 evaluation and competency restoration services to people who have been charged with a crime,

7 but who state court judges believe may be mentally incompetent to stand trial.

8

Once a court orders that an individual be evaluated for competency or that an

9 incompetent person receive treatment so as to restore competency, that individual waits in the

10 local jail until Defendants are able to provide those services. The hospitals have been unable to

11 provide services within the timeframe suggested by the legislature, seven days, because of an

12 increase in the number of individuals requiring such services and because of a lack of resources,

13 staff, and facilities. The average in-jail waiting times now range from two weeks at the low end

14 to almost two months on the high end.

15

As the Court explains in greater detail below, Defendants‘ failure to provide these court-

16 ordered services within a reasonable amount of time violates the rights guaranteed by the Due

17 Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Due Process Clause protects the liberty

18 interests of individuals to be free from incarceration absent a criminal conviction, and to receive

19 restorative treatment when they are being incarcerated due to mental incompetence. Defendants‘

20 failure to provide timely services to these detainees has caused them to be incarcerated,

21 sometimes for months, in conditions that erode their mental health, causing harm and making it

22 even less likely that they will eventually be able to stand trial. Because this failure violates the

23 due process rights of criminal defendants who are mentally ill or suspected to be mentally ill, the

24

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS‘ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT- 2

1 Court grants Plaintiffs‘ motion and declares that Defendants have violated their constitutional

2 rights. At trial, the Court will hear facts to determine what amount of time detainees can be

3 made to wait without violating their due process rights, and will fashion a remedy accordingly.

4

Background

5

This summary judgment motion is part of a class action brought on behalf of people

6 facing criminal charges who have been found to be, or are suspected to be, mentally incompetent

7 to stand trial. Following a court order that they be evaluated for competency or provided with

8 competency restoration services, these detainees wait in city or county jail until they can be

9 accepted into one of two state hospitals charged by state law with performing competency

10 services for criminal defendants. RCW 10.77 et seq. (2014). At this point, their criminal

11 prosecutions are stayed until they regain competency; if they cannot regain competency, they

12 must be found not guilty by reason of insanity. The hospitals, Western State Hospital (―WSH‖)

13 and Eastern State Hospital (―ESH‖), are chronically short on beds and staff, and thus the waiting

14 time for transfer – not to exceed seven days under a target deadline set by the legislature – can

15 now exceed sixty days. For the period of November 1, 2012 to April 30, 2013, individuals

16 waited in jail on average twenty-nine days for evaluation and fifteen days for restoration at

17 WSH, and fifty days for evaluation and seventeen days for restoration at ESH. (Dkt. No. 42-3 at

18 51.) The legislature‘s target of wait time of seven days or less was met less than fifteen percent

19 of the time. (Id.)

20

Plaintiffs detail the alarming conditions faced by many mentally ill pretrial detainees

21 while in jail awaiting transfer. (Dkt. No. 87 at 7-10.) Without access to medication and facing

22 the extraordinary stresses of being incarcerated, some detainees resort to harming themselves or

23 others. (Dkt. No. 47 at 3-5.) Some detainees withdraw within themselves, refusing to eat and

24

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS‘ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT- 3

1 urinating and defecating on themselves rather than interact with guards and other detainees.

2 (Dkt. No. 52 at 3-5.) Some are forcibly medicated or restrained so as to allow for guards to feed

3 and clean them, and suffer physical injuries from the process. (Dkt. No. 42 at 4-5.) Jails are

4 often not equipped to deal with people with mental health issues, and overwhelmed guards resort

5 to placing mentally ill detainees in solitary confinement, for their own safety or the safety of

6 others. (Dkt. No. 50-1 at 10-14). Alone for 22 to 23 hours a day and without access to

7 medication, some of these detainees lose touch with reality—damage to their mental health that

8 can take years of intensive mental health services to reverse. (Id. at 15-17.)

9

Defendants—WSH, ESH, and the State Department of Social and Health Services—

10 concede that ―current wait times for many criminal defendants are excessive and indefensible.‖

11 (Dkt. No. 95 at 3.) They argue, however, that other waiting periods are reasonable under the

12 circumstances and thus comply with due process. Defendants detail the challenges they face,

13 including a lack of qualified and/or licensed forensic psychologists who can perform competency

14 evaluations and restoration services, concern for the safety of other patients and hospital staff

15 when potentially dangerous arrestees are too hastily transferred to civil units, and the lack of

16 physically acceptable spaces which can be secured sufficiently to serve those facing criminal

17 charges. (Dkt. No. 95 at 3-7.)

18

Plaintiffs argue that Defendants‘ lack of funds, staff, or facilities cannot justify

19 infringement of the liberty interests of those incarcerated, and now seek summary judgment on

20 the question of whether current wait times violate due process.

21

Discussion

22

I. Legal Standards

23

A. Summary Judgment

24

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS‘ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT- 4

1

Summary judgment is proper where ―the movant shows that there is no genuine issue as

2 to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.‖ Fed. R. Civ. P.

3 56(a). The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue

4 of fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). In assessing whether a party has met

5 its burden, the underlying evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-

6 moving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). All

7 material facts alleged by the non-moving party are assumed to be true, and all inferences must be

8 drawn in that party‘s favor. Davis v. Team Elec. Co., 520 F.3d 1080, 1088 (9th Cir. 2008).

9

B. Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

10

―‗The Due Process Clause . . . provides heightened protection against government

11 interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests,‘ . . . ‗forbid[ding] the

12 government to infringe certain ―ufndamental‖ liberty interests at all, no matter what process is

13 provided, unless the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.‘‖

14 Lopez-Valenzuela v. Arpaio, 770 F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (quoting Washington

15 v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 719–20 (1997) and Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 302 (1993))

16 (emphasis in original). The Supreme Court has long recognized that individuals have a

17 fundamental liberty interest in being free from incarceration absent a criminal conviction, and

18 that there are corresponding constitutional limits on pretrial detention. See Lopez-Valenzuela,

19 770 F.3d at 777-78, 780-81.

20

―Incapacitated criminal defendants have liberty interests in freedom from incarceration

21 and in restorative treatment.‖ Oregon Advocacy Ctr. v. Mink, 322 F.3d 1101, 1121 (9th Cir.

22 2003). ―Because incapacitated criminal defendants have not been convicted of any crime, they

23 have an interest in freedom from incarceration. They also have a liberty interest in receiving

24

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS‘ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT- 5

1 restorative treatment.‖ Id. ―[A] person charged by a State with a criminal offense who is

2 committed solely on account of his incapacity to proceed to trial cannot be held more than the

3 reasonable period of time necessary to determine whether there is a substantial probability that

4 he will attain that capacity in the foreseeable future. If it is determined that this is not the case,

5 then the State must either institute the customary civil commitment proceeding that would be

6 required to commit indefinitely any other citizen, or release the defendant. Furthermore, even if

7 it is determined that the defendant probably soon will be able to stand trial, his continued

8 commitment must be justified by progress toward that goal.‖ Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715,

9 738 (1972).

10

―Whether the substantive due process rights of incapacitated criminal defendants have

11 been violated must be determined by balancing their liberty interests in freedom from

12 incarceration and in restorative treatment against the legitimate interests of the state.‖ Mink, 322

13 F.3d at 1121.

14

II. Plaintiffs‘ and Class Members‘ Liberty Interests

15

Plaintiffs and class members have suffered extended periods of incarceration in city and

16 county jails awaiting court-ordered competency evaluation and restoration services, implicating

17 their rights to be free from incarceration absent conviction and to timely restorative treatment

18 when mental incompetence is the purpose of their incarceration.

19

―[T]he paradigmatic liberty interest under the due process clause is freedom from

20 incarceration.‖ Oviatt ex rel. Waugh v. Pearce, 954 F.2d 1470, 1474 (9th Cir. 1992).

21 Furthermore, ―a person committed solely on the basis of his mental incapacity has a

22 constitutional right to receive such individual treatment as will give each of them a realistic

23 opportunity to be cured or to improve his or her mental condition.‖ Ohlinger v. Watson, 652

24

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS‘ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT- 6

1 F.2d 775, 778 (9th Cir. 1980) (internal quotation marks omitted). ―Adequate and effective

2 treatment is constitutionally required because, absent treatment, [they] could be held indefinitely

3 as a result of their mental illness, while those convicted and sentenced‖ need only serve the

4 maximum term for their criminal offense. Id.

5

While Defendants argue that a certain amount of in-jail wait time is both reasonable and

6 constitutional, they agree that Plaintiffs and class members have due process rights to be free

7 from prolonged incarceration absent conviction, and in restorative treatment when they are being

8 incarcerated for the purpose of competency evaluation and restoration. (Dkt. No. 95 at 12, 20.)

9

III. State Interests

10

―The safeguards that the Constitution accords to criminal defendants presuppose that

11 government has a sovereign prerogative to put on trial those accused in good faith of violating

12 valid laws. Constitutional power to bring an accused to trial is fundamental to a scheme of

13 ‗ordered liberty‘ and prerequisite to social justice and peace.‖ Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337,

14 347 (1970) (Brennan, J., concurring). In furtherance of that goal, the state has a legitimate

15 interest in evaluating a potentially incompetent defendant‘s competency so as to determine

16 whether he or she may stand trial, and in restoring the competency of those found incompetent so

17 that they then may be brought to trial. The state has a corresponding interest in an efficient and

18 organized competency evaluation and restoration system, the administration of which uses public

19 resources in an appropriate manner. ―Lack of funds, staff or facilities,‖ however, ―cannot justify

20 the State‘s failure to provide [such persons] with [the] treatment necessary for rehabilitation.‖

21 Mink, 322 F.3d at 1121 (quoting Ohlinger, 652 F.2d at 779).

22

Like the Mink court, this Court can discern no legitimate state interest in ―keeping

23 mentally incapacitated criminal defendants locked up in county jails for weeks or months.‖

24

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS‘ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT- 7

1 Mink, 322 F.3d at 1121. Defendants argue they have a ―legitimate interest in reasonable delays

2 before provision of competency services.‖ (Dkt. No. 95 at 13) (emphasis in original). The Court

3 disagrees. As discussed above, the state has a legitimate interest in an efficient, cost-effective

4 competency services apparatus, and the functioning of that apparatus may require the passage of

5 a certain amount of time before services are provided. There is, however, no legitimate

6 independent interest in delays within the system because delays undermine the state‘s ―primary

7 governmental interest‖ of bringing the accused to trial. (Dkt. No. 95 at 12.) Prolonged

8 incarceration awaiting competency evaluation or restoration undermines that goal because

9 ―[w]hile they are detained in jail, incapacitated criminal defendants do not receive care giving

10 them a realistic opportunity of becoming competent to stand trial.‖ Mink, 322 F.3d at 1121. In

11 other words, because jails are inherently punitive and not therapeutic institutions, the mental

12 health of detainees further erodes with each additional day of wait time, especially when those

13 detainees are held in solitary confinement. Because delays lengthen incarceration, worsening

14 the mental health conditions of detainees, and because ―continued commitment must be justified

15 by progress toward [the] goal‖ of restoration of competency so that the detainee is able to stand

16 trial, Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715, 738 (1972), there is no legitimate independent interest in

17 delays.

18

Defendants also argue there is a legitimate interest in detaining individuals awaiting

19 competency services who have pending criminal charges, particularly when the charges are

20 serious in nature. (Dkt. No. 95 at 13.) While this may be true, Plaintiffs do not challenge the

21 fact of their detention, but rather the length of their detention. (Dkt. No. 87.) The state‘s

22 legitimate interest in detention is not an interest in prolonged or indefinite detention, and is not

23 relevant to the question here.

24

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS‘ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT- 8

1

IV. Due Process Balancing

2

―Whether the substantive due process rights of incapacitated criminal defendants have

3 been violated must be determined by balancing their liberty interests in freedom from

4 incarceration and in restorative treatment against the legitimate interests of the state.‖ Mink, 322

5 F.3d at 1121. The Court concludes that such a balance favors the mentally ill detainees, and that

6 Defendants‘ failure to provide timely services violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

7 Amendment.

8

Detainees incarcerated while waiting for court-ordered competency evaluation and

9 restoration services face extraordinary hardships in city and county jails. Plaintiffs and class

10 members are incarcerated for many weeks not because they have been convicted of a crime and

11 not because they have been found to be dangerous or pose a flight risk; rather, Plaintiffs and

12 class members are incarcerated because Defendants do not have sufficient bed space or available

13 staff to provide the evaluations and restorations they are charged by state law with providing.

14 While any incarceration can be harmful to people with serious mental illness, some detainees are

15 held in solitary confinement—isolated for 22 to 23 hours per day—because city and county jails

16 are ill equipped to handle the challenges posed by mentally ill detainees. For many, solitary

17 confinement exacerbates mental illness and increases the chance of suicide. Plaintiff A.B., for

18 instance, spent thirty-seven days in solitary confinement, where she declined to take medication

19 or wash herself. (Dkt. No. 51 at 2.) Plaintiff D.D. told his attorney he had a plan to end his life

20 because of his ongoing incarceration after spending weeks in solitary confinement. (Dkt. No. 54

21 at 2.) Plaintiff K.R. lost touch with reality after spending four months in jail without medication,

22 much of it in solitary confinement after being assaulted by his cellmate. (Dkt. No. 88 at 2-3, 49

23 at 2-4.) Those not in solitary confinement also suffer deterioration of their mental health, in part

24

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS‘ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT- 9

1 because the rate of medication compliance in jails is low. Plaintiff R.H., for example, told his

2 attorney that he was experiencing visual hallucinations, blurred vision, and constant head pain,

3 and could not remember his own name or whether anyone in his family had visited him in jail.

4 (Dkt. No. 91 at 1-2.)

5

Jails are punitive environments by definition, and the conditions of confinement

6 undermine the mental health of detainees as well as the state‘s interests in competency

7 restoration and trial. While the state‘s interest in an organized, efficient, and cost-effective

8 competency evaluation and restoration apparatus is legitimate, an effective and administrable

9 system in no way requires waiting periods measured in weeks. Defendants themselves concede

10 that their failure to provide timely competency evaluation and restoration services to some

11 detainees has resulted in prolonged incarceration that is ―excessive and indefensible.‖ (Dkt. No.

12 95 at 1.) The Court concludes that the liberty interests of those incarcerated while awaiting

13 court-ordered competency services outweigh countervailing state interests, and that the current

14 waiting periods violate the substantive due process rights of those incarcerated.

15

V. Defendant‘s Motion to Strike

16

Defendants move to strike portions of Plaintiffs‘ Reply because it contains new

17 arguments and new facts not contained in Plaintiffs‘ Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No.

18 103.) Specifically, Defendants move to strike Plaintiffs‘ argument that substantive due process

19 is violated when waiting times exceed seven days as well as the facts contained in declarations

20 attached to Plaintiffs‘ Reply. (Id. at 1.) Defendants contend that a proposed seven-day bright

21 line presents a ―separate and distinct legal question that calls for different analysis, different legal

22 authority, and different material facts,‖ and that Defendants would have responded accordingly

23 had the argument been presented (Id. at 3.)

24

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS‘ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT- 10

1

While Plaintiffs‘ Reply does narrow their original argument, it does not present new

2 issues or a materially different legal approach. Defendants have already substantively responded

3 to the crux of Plaintiffs‘ argument: Defendants‘ Response makes clear that they oppose a bright

4 line of any sort, argues at length the Court should not identify due process violations ―based on

5 arbitrary numbers,‖ and contends that the Court should formulate a narrow rule and wait until

6 trial to make more specific determinations. (Dkt. No. 95 at 7-11.) The Court agrees with

7 Defendants, however, that the introduction of new facts is inappropriate in a reply brief. See,

8 e.g., Roth v. BASF Corp., 2008 WL 2148803, at *3 (W.D. Wash. May 21, 2008). The Court

9 therefore STRIKES the declarations attached to Plaintiffs‘ Reply, but does not strike the legal

10 argument contained therein.

11

Conclusion

12

The state has consistently and over a long period of time violated the constitutional rights

13 of the mentally ill—this must stop. The in-jail wait time experienced by Plaintiffs and class

14 members today is far beyond any constitutional boundary. The Court finds that Defendants‘

15 failure to provide timely competency evaluation and restoration services to Plaintiffs and class

16 members has caused them to languish in city and county jails for prolonged periods of time, and

17 that this failure violates their right to substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.

18 It is clear to the Court that wait times of less than seven days comport with due process, and that

19 anything beyond seven days is suspect. The Court finds, however, that determination of the

20 precise outer boundary permitted by the Constitution depends on facts to be proven at trial. The

21 Court therefore declines to find a constitutionally required bright line at this stage in the

22 litigation.

23

24

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS‘ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT- 11

1

Because Defendants‘ failure to provide timely services, causing the prolonged

2 incarceration of criminal defendants waiting for court-ordered competency evaluation and

3 restoration, violates the substantive due process rights of those detained, the Court GRANTS

4 Plaintiffs‘ motion for summary judgment.

5

6

The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.

7

Dated this 22nd day of December, 2014.

8

9 10

A

Marsha J. Pechman

11

Chief United States District Judge

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS‘ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT- 12

 </s> Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 41 Filed 10/03/14 Page 1 of 27

1

2

The Honorable Marsha J. Pechman

3

4

5

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

8

A.B.; et al.

No. 14-cv-01178-MJP

9

Plaintiffs,

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR

10

vs.

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER AND PRELIMINARY

11 Washington State Department of Social and

INJUNCTION

Health Services; et al.,

12

NOTED FOR: OCTOBER 6, 2014

Defendants.

13

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

14

15

16

“No one sees these individuals or hears their cries for help. It is very hard to get people’s attention or sympathy because these individuals are no longer considered

17

mental health patients deserving treatment but rather, inmates deserving punishment, even though they have not been convicted of any crime. Yet, these

18

individuals are arrested because of behaviors directly stemming from then mental health conditions. The process is inhumane and should stop.”

19

Judy Snow, Pierce County Jail Mental Health Manager

20

(Snow Decl. ¶ 17)

21

22

23

24
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION -- 14-cv-01178-MJP

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 41 Filed 10/03/14 Page 2 of 27

1

I. INTRODUCTION

2

Plaintiff Disability Rights Washington, along with individual named Plaintiffs,

3 respectfully moves the Court for an order: (1) declaring prolonged detention of people with

4 mental conditions in need of competency evaluation and restoration services unconstitutional; (2)

5 enjoining Defendants to contract with private evaluators to immediately bring evaluation waitlist

6 times down to no more than seven days; (3) enjoining Defendants to immediately staff and use

7 all existing space with hardened security at the hospitals for forensic services; (4) requiring

8 immediate transfer any civil patients on the forensic units and those patients not guilty by reason

9 of insanity with conditional or partial conditional releases and those who have attained the

10 highest level from the forensic units to civil units, unless an individual showing is made to this

11 court that a particular patient’s needs cannot be met or they cannot safely be housed in any civil

12 unit. Plaintiffs request this order because the current prolonged delays of weeks and months to

13 provide evaluation and restoration services constitute unlawful action in violation of the Due

14 Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

15

II. BACKGROUND

16 A. 17 18

Plaintiffs and Class Members Suffer Serious Harms as a Result of Defendants’ Failure to Timely Provide Competency Evaluation and Restoration Services.
1. State Law Places Responsibility for Competency Evaluations and Restoration Services on Defendants.

19

A fundamental tenet of the American criminal justice system is that an individual may be

20 prosecuted only if she is competent to have an understanding of the charges against her and to

21 assist her attorney in her own defense. Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960). See also

22 Wash. Rev. Code § 10.77.050 (prohibiting an incompetent person from being “tried, convicted,

23 or sentenced for the commission of an offense so long as such incapacity continues”). To that

24 end, Washington state law charges Defendants with overseeing competency evaluation and

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION -- 14-cv-01178-MJP – Page 1

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 41 Filed 10/03/14 Page 3 of 27

1 restoration services for adult individuals charged with crimes under state law. Wash. Rev. Code

2 §§ 10.77 et. seq. (2014). Whenever there is reason to doubt that an adult individual with mental

3 health disabilities is competent to stand trial, the court orders an evaluation to determine

4 competency. Id. § 10.77.060. Whenever an individual with mental disabilities is found to be

5 incompetent to stand trial, the criminal proceedings are stayed while Defendants attempt to

6 restore an individual to competency. Id. §§ 10.77.084, -.086, -0.88. In recognition of the

7 important liberty interests and constitutional rights implicated by the timeliness of competency

8 evaluations and restoration services, state law sets a target deadline of seven days for Defendants

9 to complete competency evaluations and restoration services for individuals detained in jails. Id.

10 §§ 10.77.068.

11

2. Defendants Have Consistently Failed to Timely Evaluate and Restore Adult

Individuals in Jails to Competency.

12 Delays in the provision of evaluation and restoration services are a notorious and long-

13 standing problem that Defendants have long been aware of. Decl. of Daron Morris (“Morris

14 Decl.”), Ex. A; Decl. of Gordon Karlsson (“Karlsson Decl.”) ¶ 4; Decl. of Kari Reardon

15 (“Reardon Decl.”) ¶¶ 4-5. By Defendant Department of Social and Human Services’s (“DSHS”)

16 own admission, Defendants have failed to timely evaluate and restore the competency of

17 individuals in jails and have in fact maintained a waitlist for evaluation and restoration services

18 for the last fifteen years. Decl. of Emily Cooper (“Cooper Decl.”), Ex. A-C, J at 37. For years,

19 stakeholders, including state court judges, criminal defense attorneys, law enforcement officers,

20 jail staff, mental health providers, and disability and civil rights advocates such as Plaintiff

21 Disability Rights Washington, have attempted to work with Defendants to reduce waitlists and

22 the length of delays for competency evaluation and restoration services through policy and

23 legislative means. Morris Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. B. The legislature responded by enacting Senate Bill

24

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION -- 14-cv-01178-MJP – Page 2

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 41 Filed 10/03/14 Page 4 of 27

1 6492 in 2012. At the time Senate Bill 6492 was under consideration, the average wait time for

2 admission to Defendant WSH or Defendant ESH for court-ordered competency evaluation was

3 forty-one days. Final Bill Report, S.S.B. 6492, 61st Leg., Reg. Sess. (Wash. 2012). Senate Bill

4 6492 created a seven-day target deadline for completing competency evaluation and restoration

5 services for individuals detained in jails. See Wash. Rev. Code § 10.77.068.

6

These attempts at legislative reform have failed to remedy the waitlists and delays in

7 competency evaluation and restoration services for individuals in jails. The independent Joint

8 Legislative Audit and Review Committee (“JLARC”) issued two separate reports on December

9 2, 2012 and April 23, 2014, finding that Defendant WSH and Defendant ESH were failing to

10 meet the statutory guidelines passed by the legislature regarding providing timely competency

11 evaluation and restoration services. Decl. of Judy Snow (“Snow Decl.”), Exs. M-N. According

12 to JLARC: “DSHS is not consistently meeting the performance targets for competency services,

13 as intended by statute. DSHS is also not consistently meeting its assumed evaluator staffing and

14 productivity levels.” Snow Decl., Ex. N at 2. Further, “DSHS has not completed basic planning

15 and analysis necessary to identify the best approach to meet the targets.” Id. From November 1,

16 2012 to April 30, 2013, only 14% of individuals in need of evaluation, and 30% of individuals in

17 need of restoration services, were admitted to Defendant WSH within seven days. Snow Decl.,

18 Ex. N at 7. Defendant ESH provides evaluations within seven days 11% of the time and

19 restoration services 35% of the time. Id. During that period, individuals waited in jail on

20 average waited twenty-nine days for evaluation and fifteen days for restoration services at

21 Defendant WSH, and fifty days for evaluation and seventeen days for restoration services at

22 Defendant ESH. Id.

23

24
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION -- 14-cv-01178-MJP – Page 3

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 41 Filed 10/03/14 Page 5 of 27

1

A year and a half later, there has been no improvement in the waitlists and delays. In

2 fact, the waitlists and delays are longer. According to the most recent waitlists provided by

3 Defendants, there are 256 people waiting in city and county jails for more than seven days for

4 competency evaluation or restoration services from Defendants. Cooper Decl., Ex. C. Ninety of

5 those individuals have already been determined to be incompetent, but are still waiting in jails

6 for restoration services. Cooper Decl., Ex. C. According to testimony provided by Defendants,

7 the current minimum wait for felony restoration treatment is sixty days. Cooper Decl, Ex. J at

8 12-13; Decl. of Mary Kay High (“High Decl.”) ¶¶ 3-4. Indeed, waits for felony restoration

9 services have been as long as seventy-three days. Morris Decl., Ex. B.

10

3. Defendants’ Failure to Reduce Waitlists and Delays in Competency Evaluations

and Restoration Services Cause Prolonged Detentions in Jails Which Harm

11

Plaintiffs and Class Members.

12

Defendants’ failure to timely evaluate and restore individuals in jails to competency

13 causes the individually named Plaintiffs and Plaintiff DRW’s affected constituents continue to

14 languish in jails across the state for weeks and months to the detriment of their overall mental

15 condition in numerous ways. It is well-documented that jails are not therapeutic environments

16 appropriate for individuals with mental conditions. Snow Decl. ¶ 12; Decl. of Dr. Terry Kupers

17 (“Kupers Decl.”), Ex. A, at 4-9 (detailing limits of mental health treatment available in jails).

18 Indeed, Defendants themselves are well-aware of the harms to individuals with mental

19 disabilities in jails. As noted in Defendants’ own consultants’ recent report:

20

Delays in treatment for individuals with severe mental illnesses

entail both short-term and long-term consequences. They continue

21

to suffer from their symptoms in jails that cannot provide a

therapeutic environment, and that often lack resources to identify

22

and offer even initial treatment. This can cause delays in treatment,

but also exacerbation of symptoms for the defendant.

23 Cooper Decl., Ex. K at 16.

24

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION -- 14-cv-01178-MJP – Page 4

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 41 Filed 10/03/14 Page 6 of 27

1

a. Plaintiffs and Class Members Do Not Receive Adequate Mental Health

Treatment in Jails.

2 Individuals with mental disabilities decompensate rapidly in jails while awaiting

3 evaluation or restoration services because jails cannot provide adequate mental health treatment.

4 Kupers Decl., Ex. A at 14; Morris Decl. ¶ 21; Decl. of Melissa Parker (“Parker Decl.”) ¶¶ 12-13;

5 Decl. of Marilyn Roberts (“Roberts Decl.”) ¶ 12. Jails across the state acknowledge their

6 inability to treat the mental health needs of individuals waiting for evaluation and restoration

7 services. Snow Decl. ¶ 9; Karlsson Decl. ¶ 9 (prolonged detention “significantly taxes” mental

8 health resources at King County Correctional Facility); Decl. of Kristina Ray (“Ray Decl.”) ¶ 6

9 (Spokane County Jail mental health module always full and has a waitlist).

10 Prolonged detention in jails without adequate treatment exacerbates individuals’ mental

11 conditions, which manifests in deeply concerning behavior and self-harm. Plaintiff A.B.

12 “declined to take any medications, to wash herself, or to otherwise protect her most basic

13 survival needs.” Decl. of Cassie Cordell Trueblood (“Trueblood Decl.”) ¶ 5. Plaintiff Q.M.

14 “became less coherent and less communicative” and indicated his intent to “urinate in his cell in

15 order to avoid having contact with the jail guards.” Decl. of Kathryn McCormick (“McCormick

16 Decl.”) ¶¶ 20-21. Defense attorney Kari Reardon testifies that clients have “swallow[ed] objects

17 or engag[ed] in other harm to self.” Reardon Decl. ¶ 12. After weeks of waiting in jail, one

18 client “swallowed a razor provided to him by jail staff.” Id. ¶ 13. Indeed, the Pierce County Jail

19 Mental Health Manager Judy Snow testifies that “[i]t is not uncommon for individuals to smear

20 feces or be unable to toilet properly due to decompensating.” Snow Decl. ¶ 14.

21

b. Jail Conditions and Solitary Confinement Exacerbate Harm to Individuals

22

with Mental Health Disabilities.

23

Jails are punitive by nature, and the conditions of confinement in correctional settings

24 often exacerbate the harm suffered by individuals awaiting competency evaluation and
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION -- 14-cv-01178-MJP – Page 5

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 41 Filed 10/03/14 Page 7 of 27

1 restoration services. Kupers Decl., Ex. A at 4-9. It is not uncommon for jails resort to the use of

2 force, restraints, and involuntary medication. Snow Decl. ¶ 14 (“I’ve even seen an individual be

3 put in a restraint chair so that jail staff could clean the cell of feces and urine.”); Decl. of Michael

4 Stanfill (“Stanfill Decl.”) ¶ 6; Roberts Decl. ¶ 15, Ex. C (photographs of bruises on Plaintiff

5 K.R.’s wrists due to the use of restraints). Individuals with mental disabilities are frequently

6 placed in solitary confinement where their liberty, freedom of movement, and social interaction

7 are extremely limited. Trueblood Decl. ¶ 6; McCormick Decl. ¶ 22; Ray Decl. ¶¶ 7-8; Reardon

8 Decl. ¶¶ 9-10; High Decl. ¶ 5; Cooper Decl., Exs. D-G.

9

Individuals with mental disabilities are frequently placed in solitary confinement for

10 multiple reasons, and in all cases, solitary confinement, as an even more restrictive correctional

11 setting, can accelerate decompensation. Kupers Decl., Ex. A at 9-13. Solitary confinement, or 22

12 to 23 hour per day lock-down, “is not therapeutic,” Ray Decl. ¶ 7, and “disproportionately

13 impacts inmates with mental illness as the isolation only continues to exacerbate their mental

14 illness.” Snow Decl. ¶ 9. See also Kupers Decl., Ex. A at 7-11. Many individuals may end up

15 in solitary confinement because their mental states make them less able to follow jail rules.

16 Kupers Decl., Ex. A at 11; Cooper Decl., Exs. D-F. Others may be placed in solitary

17 confinement for suicide watch. Cooper Decl., Ex. G; Reardon Decl. ¶ 11; Kupers Decl., Ex. A,

18 at 10-11. Individuals with mental disabilities may also end up in solitary confinement if they are

19 parties to acts of violence in a jail. Individuals with mental disabilities are often both victims and

20 perpetrators of violence due to their decompensated mental states. Kupers Decl., Ex. A at 10.

21 Plaintiff K.R. was assaulted by another inmate while he was on the phone with his mother.

22 Roberts Decl. ¶ 14. Defense attorney Reardon testifies that a vulnerable client was “attacked by

23

24
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION -- 14-cv-01178-MJP – Page 6

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 41 Filed 10/03/14 Page 8 of 27

1 another inmate, knocked unconscious, and sustained a traumatic brain injury after shards of his

2 own skull pierced his brain.” Reardon Decl. ¶ 14.

3

c. The Harms Suffered by Plaintiffs and Class Members Are Irreparable.

4

Defendants are well-aware of the long-lasting harms suffered by Plaintiffs and Class

5 members due to their prolonged detention in jails. Cooper Decl., Ex. K at 16. Plaintiffs and

6 Class members suffer these harms multiple times over, as individuals with mental disabilities

7 spend more time in jail than those without such disabilities. Karlsson Decl. ¶¶ 6-7; Stanfill Decl.

8 ¶ 9. The longer an individual with mental disabilities is detained in jail, the more difficult it is to

9 restore and maintain that individual’s competency. Kupers Decl., Ex. A at 14-15; Snow Decl. ¶

10 12. Once Defendants WSH and ESH finally admit Plaintiffs and Class members for competency

11 restoration services after they have languished in jail for months, Defendants “struggle because

12 these individuals then require longer stays once they are admitted, straining the resources of the

13 hospital.” Cooper Decl., Ex. K at 16. See also Snow Decl. ¶ 12; Kupers Decl., Ex. A at 12.

14

Plaintiff putative Class members are innocent until proven guilty. Nonetheless, many

15 class members suffer serious irreparable harm far in excess of any criminal punishment that

16 could be levied if convicted due to Defendants’ failure to provide timely competency evaluation

17 and restoration services. For example, Amanda Cook, a twenty-five-year-old mother, committed

18 suicide while she was waiting in Spokane County Jail for competency evaluation services from

19 Defendant ESH. Parker Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. B. Plaintiff Q.M. has languished in jail for five months,

20 largely in isolation, though his sentencing range if convicted is one to three months. Decl. of Ben

21 Goldsmith (“Goldsmith Decl.”) ¶ 7. Others may lose their home, their belongings, or their

22 eligibility for community based services while they wait in jail without a conviction. Cooper

23 Decl., Ex. L.

24
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION -- 14-cv-01178-MJP – Page 7

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 41 Filed 10/03/14 Page 9 of 27

1

4. Defendants’ Repeated and Continued Failure to Provide Timely Evaluation and

Restoration Services is Well-Documented.

2 JLARC issued a recommendation that Defendants “should hire an independent, external

3 consultant” to develop both a service delivery approach to “meet the statutory targets” and “a

4 staffing model to implement the new approach.” Snow Decl., Ex. N at 19. On June 30, 2014,

5 the consultants hired by Defendant DSHS concluded there are systemic problems with

6 Washington’s forensic mental health system, including:

7

[A] lack of infrastructure specific to forensic services, a lack of

8

systemic training and oversight for forensic clinicians, and a lack of

community-based alternatives to lengthy inpatient hospitalization

9

for incompetent defendants and [not guilty by reason of insanity]

acquittees.

10 Cooper Decl., Ex. K at 2. According to Defendants’ own experts, “DSHS currently has an

11 insufficient number of evaluators to conduct all the evaluations required.” Cooper Decl., Ex. K

12 at 10. The report went on to conclude that Washington’s forensic mental health system is

13 inadequately funded, resulting in its inability to fulfill its obligations under state law See Cooper

14 Decl., Ex. K at 11. With pressure from the legislature, Defendants have hired consultants and

15 reached out to stakeholders, but have failed to propose or implement a plan for fixing a fifteen-

16 year-old problem. Cooper Decl., Exs. J-K; Morris Decl. ¶ 22; Snow Decl. ¶ 17.

17 B.
18

Defendants Have Made Clear That They Will Not Take Any Action to Reduce Waitlists and Delays in Competency Evaluations and Restoration Services for Plaintiffs and Class Members.

19

Plaintiffs and Class members now seek relief from this Court to vindicate their due

20 process rights under the United States Constitution, as Defendants have made clear that they will

21 not take any action to remedy the waitlists and delays. Defense attorneys have tried to bring

22 contempt motions seeking to compel Defendants to take action, with little success. Morris Decl.

23 at ¶ 6; Decl. of Andrea Crumper (“Crumpler Decl.”), Exs. D, F; Trueblood Decl., Ex. B; Reardon

24

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION -- 14-cv-01178-MJP – Page 8

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 41 Filed 10/03/14 Page 10 of 27

1 Decl. ¶ 8. For example, Defendants successfully argued that the state court lacked jurisdiction to

2 determine constitutional liberty questions. Crumpler Decl., Exs. D, F. Even where state courts

3 have found Defendants in contempt, Defendants refuse to comply with these court orders.

4 Cooper Decl., Exs. H, J at 53 (Attorney General’s Office stating in contempt proceedings that

5 Defendants will not comply with any state court order for Defendants to immediately transport a

6 pre-trial detainee for competency restoration services). Because neither legislative action nor

7 state courts have appropriately addressed the issue, Plaintiffs bring this action in federal court.

8 C. Plaintiffs Have Vigorously Sought to Eliminate the Harm They Suffer and Have

Timely Brought This Motion.

9

This case was originally brought by the Snohomish County Public Defenders Association

10

(“SCPDA”). When the case was filed, an immediate Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) was

11

also sought. The Court denied that TRO. Almost immediately thereafter, Plaintiffs’ counsel met

12

with SCPDA to discuss amending the complaint and substituting counsel with more experience

13

in this area of practice. Decl. of David Carlson in Support of TRO (“Carlson Decl.”) at ¶¶ 4-5.

14

Since then Plaintiffs’ counsel has engaged in intensive fact development across the state,

15

conducted extensive legal research, substituted counsel, and filed a Second Amended Complaint

16

adding numerous Plaintiffs. Id. ¶¶ 7-8. In addition, Plaintiffs’ counsel has explored in good

17

faith the possibility of alternative dispute resolution with Defense counsel. Id. ¶ 9. As soon as it

18

became evident that there was no way immediate resolve their continued irreparable harm

19

without an Order from this Court, Plaintiffs decided to prepare and file this motion and

20

immediately informed Defense counsel of that decision. Id. ¶¶ 10-12.

21

III. ARGUMENT

22

A. Defendants’ Failure to Provide Evaluation and Restoration Treatment in a Timely

23

Manner Resulting in Irreparable Harm to the Class Supports the Granting of a

Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction.

24

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION -- 14-cv-01178-MJP – Page 9

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 41 Filed 10/03/14 Page 11 of 27

1

1. Legal Standard for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction.

2

When asked to grant a preliminary injunction where the public interest is at stake, a court

3 must consider whether: (1) the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) the plaintiff is

4 likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of the preliminary relief; (3) the balance of

5 equities tips in his or her favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural

6 Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). The standard “is substantially identical for the

7 injunction and the TRO,” Stuhlbarg Intern. Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush & Co., Inc., 240 8 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001), except for the additional requirement that the applicant show

9 immediate relief is necessary to obtain a TRO. See Hunt v. Nat’l Broad. Co., Inc., 872 F.2d 289,

10 292 (9th Cir. 1989); Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A). Each of these requirements is met here.

11

2. Plaintiffs Are Likely to Succeed on the Merits of Their Due Process Claim.

12

It is well-established in the Ninth Circuit that pre-trial detainees in need of evaluation or

13 restoration of competency have substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment,

14 or liberty interests in freedom from incarceration and in restorative services. See Oregon 15 Advocacy Center v. Mink, 322 F.3d 1101, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). To determine whether the due

16 process rights of incarcerated individuals with mental disabilities facing criminal charges have

17 been violated, a court must balance the incarcerated individuals’ “liberty interests in freedom

18 from incarceration and in restorative treatment against the legitimate interests of the state.” Id.

19

While the federal constitution does not set forth arbitrary time limits by when an

20 incarcerated individual needing evaluation or restoration should receive such services, the Ninth

21 Circuit in Mink has found that refusal to provide these incarcerated individuals services in a 22 “timely manner” violates due process. 322 F.3d at 1122 (finding due process violation and

23 upholding injunction against Oregon State Hospital imposing seven-day time limit to admit

24
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION -- 14-cv-01178-MJP – Page 10

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 41 Filed 10/03/14 Page 12 of 27

1 incapacitated criminal defendants). In reaching its decision in Mink, the Ninth Circuit noted that

2 state health agencies do not have a legitimate state interest in keeping pre-trial detainees with

3 mental health disabilities “locked up in county jails for weeks and months.” Id. at 1121 (emphasis 4 added).1 Indeed, delaying evaluation and treatment “undermines the state’s fundamental interest

5 in bringing the accused to trial.” Id. (citing Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 347 (1970) (bringing

6 “accused to trial is fundamental to…ordered liberty and prerequisite to social justice and

7 peace.”))

8

The Ninth Circuit also made clear that “lack of funds, staff or facilities” is not a legitimate

9 state interest that would justify a state health agency violating the substantive due process rights

10 of pre-trial detainees and failing to provide necessary services. Mink, 322 F.3d at 1121. In fact,

11 evidence in this lawsuit proves that delaying services and requiring prolonged incarceration

12 actually costs taxpayers and the State more money than simply providing the services to Class

13 members. The mental health director for King County Jail, the largest jail in the state, testifies

14 that providing mental health services in jail is “much more expensive” than providing the same

15 services in a non-penal setting. Stanfill Decl. ¶ 10 (remarking further that when one adds in the

16 ancillary costs of police, court, and probation, the cost for keeping these individuals in a jail as

17 opposed to community-based programs is “astronomical.”); see also Karlsson Decl. ¶ 9 (King

18 County jail official noting that “the increasing length of stay of the acutely mentally ill in our

19 facility significantly taxes the resources available to us.”); Ray Decl. ¶ 7 (noting Spokane County

20 Jail is overcrowded and women with mental illness are housed in solitary because there is no

21 other place for them). By shifting the burden of housing and treating individuals with mental

22

23 1 Weiss v. Thompson, 120 Wn. App. 402 (2004) (holding that 15 day delay in transporting incapacitated defendant to
WSH did not violate substantive due process but remarking that ongoing, systemic problems with delayed
24 transportation akin to Mink not present in record)
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION -- 14-cv-01178-MJP – Page 11

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 41 Filed 10/03/14 Page 13 of 27

1 disabilities from state hospitals to jails – from facilities trained and equipped to provide

2 therapeutic services to facilities designed for punishment state fiscal interests are not being met.

3 The Washington State Supreme Court recently rejected a similar inappropriate shifting of civil

4 patient services from state hospitals to local emergency rooms. Det. of D.W. v. Dep't of Soc. &

5 Health Servs., 332 P.3d 423 (Wash. 2014). If community hospitals do not provide legally

6 sufficient mental health services, surely jails do not either.

7

Akin to the circumstances in Mink, Washington state law places responsibility for

8 ensuring constitutional compliance and timely treatment of pre-trial detainees in need of

9 competency evaluation or restoration services solely with Defendants WSH and ESH operated by

10 Defendant DSHS. See Wash. Rev. Code §§ 10.77 et. seq. Given the fundamental liberty interests

11 at stake for Class members, state law sets forth a target deadline of seven days for all evaluations

12 and admissions for restoration services to take place. Wash. Rev. Code § 10.77.068.

13

It is undisputed that Defendants for years have routinely failed to provide evaluation and

14 restoration of competency in a timely manner. Morris Decl., Ex. A; Karlsson Decl. ¶ 4; Reardon

15 Decl. ¶¶ 4-5; Cooper Decl., Ex. C. On September 9, 2014, Defendants testified that they have

16 maintained a waitlist for competency restoration and evaluation treatment for fifteen years, and

17 the list has increased dramatically over the last year. Cooper Decl., Ex. J at 37. The cost of

18 these delays are being borne by pretrial detainees decompensating in jail while waiting for these

19 services, the defense attorneys representing them, and the mental health professionals and

20 correctional officers in jail doing their best to try to keep these individuals safe. Parker Decl. ¶ 3

21 (“Amanda committed suicide on December 6, 2013, while waiting in Spokane County Jail for

22 competency evaluation from Eastern State Hospital (“ESH”)); Reardon Decl. ¶ 4; Morris Decl.

23 ¶ 21; Snow Decl. ¶ 17; Stanfill Decl. ¶ 10; Karlsson Decl. ¶ 4.

24
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION -- 14-cv-01178-MJP – Page 12

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 41 Filed 10/03/14 Page 14 of 27

1

A majority of putative Class members have been waiting in jail for services far longer

2 than the seven days identified in state statute, and in fact, have been waiting for many weeks and

3 months in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Cooper Decl., Ex. C (waitlists for

4 Defendant WSH and Defendant ESH). Just last week, a medical provider from Defendant WSH

5 testified in a state court proceeding that the minimum wait time for an incompetent individual

6 charged with a felony to receive restoration services was sixty days. Cooper Decl., Ex. J at 12-

7 13. A report issued by the Washington State Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee in

8 April 2014 also confirms that Defendant WSH and Defendant ESH fail to timely provide

9 evaluations or restoration services. Snow Decl. ¶ 16, Exs. M-N. Even forensic consultants hired

10 by Defendants acknowledge this as well in their June 2014 report. Cooper Decl., Ex. K.

11

The named Plaintiffs and other putative Class members have experienced prolonged

12 delays in receiving competency evaluations or restoration services. See McCormick Decl. ¶¶ 18,

13 24 (Plaintiff Q.M. faced delays over three months for competency restoration services and is still

14 waiting in King County Jail for restoration services); Crumpler Decl. ¶¶ 5, 7 (Plaintiff D.D. has

15 severe mental illness and has been waiting almost two months for a competency evaluation in

16 Spokane County Jail); Roberts Decl. ¶ 13 (Plaintiff K.R. waited over three months in Thurston

17 County Jail for a competency evaluation and restoration services until being released on personal

18 recognizance and is still waiting for restoration services); Trueblood Decl. ¶¶ 8, 11 (Plaintiff

19 A.B. waited over forty-five days to be transported to Defendant WSH for restoration services).

20 Melissa Parker painfully shares that her sister Amanda Cook committed suicide in Spokane

21 County Jail while waiting weeks for a competency evaluation from Defendant ESH. See

22 generally Parker Decl.

23

24
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION -- 14-cv-01178-MJP – Page 13

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 41 Filed 10/03/14 Page 15 of 27

1

Jail officials from around the state confirm what putative Class members are

2 experiencing. Jail administrators from some of the largest jails in the State report extensive

3 delays in pre-trial detainees receiving court-ordered competency evaluations and restoration

4 services. Pierce County Jail officials note that the waitlist to receive evaluations and treatment

5 “began to increase dramatically in 2012” and that “[i]ndividuals are languishing in jail for an

6 indefinite time.” Snow Decl. ¶¶ 8, 17. King County Jail reports that while the “wait time for

7 [WSH] evaluations or restoration was significant” in past years, “the wait time has doubled” in

8 2014. Karlsson Decl. ¶ 4. Spokane County Jail officials observed that “the number of inmates

9 with mental illness waiting for competency evaluation and restoration from [ESH] have

10 significantly increased in the past four years.” Ray Decl. ¶ 10. Indeed, the Mental Health

11 Manager for Spokane County Jail noted that it’s “not uncommon for individuals to spend more

12 time waiting in jail for a competency evaluation than had they been convicted and served their

13 sentence.” Id. ¶ 16. This same official gave an example of a female charged with two

14 misdemeanors who is currently been waiting over 5 months for a competency evaluation. Id.

15

Public defenders from across the state confirm the delays as well. High Decl. ¶¶ 3-4

16 (Pierce County public defender reporting transport delays to WSH for incarcerated individuals

17 waiting at Pierce County Jail for restoration services of 60 days); Morris Decl. ¶¶ 11-12, 18

18 (King County public defender observing delays of weeks to months for court-ordered

19 competency evaluation or restoration services; “particularly heart-breaking to watch people with

20 low-level offenses be held in jail in excess of a year when their maximum sentences, if they were

21 convicted, would be lower than the time spent waiting for admission to WSH.”); Reardon Decl.

22 ¶¶ 4-6, 14 (Spokane County public defender reporting delays of six to eight weeks for

23 competency evaluations and weeks for restoration services from ESH).

24
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION -- 14-cv-01178-MJP – Page 14

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 41 Filed 10/03/14 Page 16 of 27

1

These prolonged delays also violate the procedural due process rights of the Class. As

2 the Ninth Circuit noted in Mink, delaying an individual’s ability to return to competency

3 prolongs her criminal case and in turn, makes it difficult for her attorney to conduct factual

4 investigations, identify witnesses, or engage in plea negotiations. 322 F.3d at 1119, n. 10. Here,

5 public defense supervisors report that the delays in services and treatment have “caused break-

6 downs in attorney-client relationships.” Morris Decl. ¶ 6.

7

Given the well-documented lengthy delays far exceeding seven days, coupled with

8 Defendants’ own statements, see supra Section II.A.4 and II.B, and reports confirming the

9 delays, Plaintiffs are highly likely to succeed on the merits of their due process claim. The issues

10 presented in this case are similar to those of the Mink case, which compels the same result on the

11 merits here.

12

3. Plaintiffs Will Suffer Irreparable Harm If Not Granted Relief.

13

Courts have held that the threat of irreparable harm typically exists when a possible

14 violation of fundamental rights is at stake. Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373-74 (1976) (holding

15 that violation of a constitutional right “for even minimal periods of time [] unquestionably

16 constitutes irreparable injury”). See also Monterey Mechanical Co. v. Wilson, 125 F.3d 702, 715

17 (9th Cir. 1997) (finding invasion of a constitutionally protected interest constitutes an irreparable

18 injury). Following this analysis courts have found that “unnecessary deprivation of liberty clearly 19 constitutes irreparable harm.” United States v. Bogle, 855 F.2d 707, 710-11 (11th Cir. 1988).2

20

21

22

23

2 Finally, in determining whether to grant preliminary relief in a class action, it is proper to analyze the irreparable harm that will be suffered by absent class members as well as by the class representatives. Elkins v. Dreyfus, No.

C10–1366 MJP, 2010 WL 3947499, *9 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 6, 2010).

24

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION -- 14-cv-01178-MJP – Page 15

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 41 Filed 10/03/14 Page 17 of 27

1

State-imposed imprisonment is a “massive curtailment of individual liberty” such that its

2 wrongful imposition should be deemed to rise to rise to the level of irreparable harm. Humphrey

3 v. Cady, 405 U.S. 504, 509 (1972). And while such curtailment might be legally justified under

4 certain circumstances, here Plaintiffs have proven the substantial likelihood that in this instance

5 such a restriction on individual liberty is not justified.

6

The facts and professional opinion show that “the human cost is so much greater than the

7 fiscal cost of treating them in a therapeutic environment.” Snow Decl. ¶ 11, see also Cooper

8 Decl., Ex. L; Stanfill Decl. ¶ 10; Section II.A.3 (detailing irreparable harm). Dr. Terry Kupers

9 describes that “When an average individual who is placed in isolated confinement develops

10 massive free-floating anxiety, hyper-responsiveness, paranoid ideas, confusion, perceptual

11 distortions, motor excitement and so forth, and becomes frightened he will not be able to control

12 his aggressive fantasies, just imagine how difficult it would be for someone who is prone to

13 paranoid psychosis or suicidal despair to remain balanced.” Kupers Decl., Ex. A at 13-14.

14

Individual examples include Ms. Cook’s suicide at Spokane County Jail after learning

15 that her evaluation was once again delayed. Parker Decl. ¶¶15-18. At the same jail, Plaintiff

16 D.D. spent over two months in either solitary confinement or on suicide watch after making

17 numerous statements about wanting to die. Crumpler Decl. ¶ 6. Plaintiff A.B. waited over seven

18 weeks after she was ordered to Defendant WSH for restoration services and spent forty-three of

19 those days in solitary confinement. Trueblood Decl. ¶ 6. Plaintiff K.R. spent four months in jail

20 without medication, and the vast majority of that time was spent in solitary confinement after

21 being assaulted by his cellmate. Roberts Decl., ¶¶ 15-16. During this time he lost a significant

22 amount of weight and lost touch with reality. Id. at ¶13. Plaintiff Q.M. spent the majority of his

23 five and a half month incarceration in solitary confinement, which increased his despair and

24
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION -- 14-cv-01178-MJP – Page 16

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 41 Filed 10/03/14 Page 18 of 27

1 exacerbated his mental condition. McCormick Decl. ¶29. While in solitary he lost significant

2 weight and urinated in his cell to avoid interacting with guards. Id. at ¶¶ 23, 27.

3

This type of treatment can lead to permanent damage. “The tendency to suffer psychiatric

4 breakdown and become suicidal is made even worse by sleep deprivation, which is a frequent

5 occurrence among prisoners in isolated confinement . . . the social isolation and idleness, as well

6 as the near absolute lack of control over most aspects of daily life, very often lead to serious

7 psychiatric symptoms and breakdown.” Kupers Decl., Ex. A at 12-13. Dr. Kupers goes on to

8 explain that “[t]he longer the individual remains at the jail, the worse the outcome and prognosis

9 of his psychiatric disorder, and the less likelihood his competence will be restored (or, in a

10 certain proportion of cases, the longer it will take for competence to be restored.)” Kupers Decl.,

11 Ex. A at 15-16; see also Snow Decl. ¶12.

12

Jails simply are not equipped to provide the same services Defendant hospitals provide.

13 Jail is not a therapeutic environment, and an individual is more likely to decompensate in jail.

14 Snow Decl. ¶ 12; Ray Decl. ¶ 10; Stanfill Dec. ¶¶ 6-7; Kupers Decl., Ex. A at 5. The difference

15 in services is significant because “the neglected and traumatized individual with serious mental

16 illness has a much more dire prognosis than the individual who enjoys a supportive environment

17 and adequate treatment.” Kupers Decl., Ex. A at 17-18. Individuals with acute psychiatric

18 symptoms waiting in these jail for weeks and months to receive court-ordered services is

19 especially troubling considering that dozens of these pre-trial detainees are low-level offenders

20 spending more time in the system than they would if they were convicted. Snow Decl. ¶ 10; Ray

21 Decl. ¶ 14; Stanfill Decl. ¶ 9; Morris Decl. ¶ 21.

22

23

24
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION -- 14-cv-01178-MJP – Page 17

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 41 Filed 10/03/14 Page 19 of 27

1

The putative Class members are clearly facing the continued and future infliction of

2 irreparable harm, both in the violation of their constitutional rights and in the severe damage

3 caused to them by the delays in transporting them for evaluation and restoration services.

4

3. The Balance of Equities Tips Sharply in Favor of Plaintiffs.

5

The equities here clearly favor granting a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs are suffering

6 from a lack of treatment that is exacerbating their mental disabilities. There is no “legitimate

7 state interest in keeping mentally incapacitated criminal defendants locked up in county jails for

8 weeks or months.” Mink, 322 F.3d at 1121.

9

“Lack of funds, staff or facilities cannot justify the State’s failure to provide [plaintiffs]

10 with . . . treatment necessary.” Ohlinger v. Watson, 652 F.2d 775, 779 (9th Cir. 1980). When

11 “faced with . . . a conflict between financial concerns and preventable human suffering,” the

12 Ninth Circuit has had “little difficulty concluding that the balance of hardships tips decidedly in

13 favor of the latter.” Golden Gate Rest. Ass'n v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 512 F.3d 1112,

14 1126 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). See also Lopez v. Heckler, 713 F.2d

15 1432, 1437 (9th Cir. 1983) (“Society’s interest lies on the side of affording fair procedures to all

16 persons, even though the expenditure of governmental funds is required.”).

17

Plaintiffs face irreparable harm and violations of their constitutional rights, weighed

18 against the possibility that it may cost Defendants money to reform their practices. The balance

19 of hardships tips very sharply in favor of Plaintiffs.

20

4. A Temporary Restraining Order Will Serve the Public Interest.

21

“Generally, public interest concerns are implicated when a constitutional right has been

22 violated, because all citizens have a stake in upholding the Constitution.” Preminger v. Principi,

23 422 F.3d 815, 826 (9th Cir. 2005). Not only is there a public interest in protecting the due

24
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION -- 14-cv-01178-MJP – Page 18

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 41 Filed 10/03/14 Page 20 of 27

1 process rights of those in custody who have not been convicted of a crime, but there is also a

2 public interest in ensuring those facing criminal charges proceed to trial in a speedy manner. See

3 Advocacy Ctr. for the Elderly & Disabled v. La. Dep’t of Health & Hosps., 731 F. Supp. 2d 603,

4 626 (2010).

5

As the Ninth Circuit has explained:

6

It is not only the harm to the individuals involved that we must

consider in assessing the public interest. Our society as a whole

7

suffers when we neglect the poor, the hungry, the disabled, or when

we deprive them of their rights or privileges. Society's interest lies

8

on the side of affording fair procedures to all persons, even though

the expenditure of governmental funds is required. It would be

9

tragic, not only from the standpoint of the individuals involved but

also from the standpoint of society, were poor, elderly, disabled

10

people to be wrongfully deprived of essential benefits for any period

of time. It would be unfortunate, but far less harmful to society, were

11

the government to succeed in overturning the preliminary injunction

but be unable to recoup all or a portion of the funds.

12 Lopez, 713 F.2d at 1437. See also Kupers Decl., Ex. A at 17-18 (finding that people with

13 significant mental illness who receive treatment as opposed to similarly situated individuals

14 placed in isolation in jails are far more likely to recover and contribute to society). The issuance

15 of the injunction requested by Plaintiffs would serve the public interest.

16 B.

The Court Should Exercise Its Jurisdiction to Hear This Case and Grant Relief.

17 Younger abstention is improper here for at least three reasons. First, Plaintiffs’ claim does

18 not interfere with state court proceedings because the injunction sought is not directed at state

19 prosecutions and will not determine the outcome of Plaintiffs’ criminal cases. Second, the Court

20 should allow Plaintiffs to seek effective, systemic relief unavailable to them in their individual

21 state court proceedings. Third, Defendants have refused to follow state court orders, and federal

22 court jurisdiction is necessary to protect Plaintiffs’ rights.

23

24
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION -- 14-cv-01178-MJP – Page 19

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 41 Filed 10/03/14 Page 21 of 27

1

1. The Younger Doctrine Does Not Apply Here Because Plaintiffs’ Claim Does Not

Interfere with State Court Proceedings.

2

The abstention doctrine articulated in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), is a narrow

3

exception to the general principle that “federal courts are obliged to decide cases within the

4

scope of federal jurisdiction” and applies only “where the prospect of undue interference with

5

state proceedings counsels against federal relief.” Sprint Commc’ns, Inc. v. Jacobs, 134 S. Ct.

6

584, 588, 187 L. Ed. 2d 505 (2013). See also Baffert v. Cal. Horse Racing Bd., 332 F.3d 613,

7

617 (9th Cir. 2003) (“As a threshold matter, for Younger abstention to apply, the federal relief

8

sought must interfere in some manner with the state litigation”).

9

The Supreme Court has recognized that indigent defendants seeking systemic relief are

10

not barred by Younger where the relief sought does not enjoin the state prosecution. In Gerstein

11

v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975), the plaintiffs sought to enjoin the practice of detaining defendants

12

without holding probable cause hearings. The Supreme Court noted that Younger abstention did

13

not apply because “the injunction was not directed at the state prosecutions as such, but only at

14

the legality of pretrial detention without a judicial hearing, an issue that could not be raised in

15

defense of the criminal prosecution. The order to hold preliminary hearings could not prejudice

16

the conduct of the trial on the merits.” 420 U.S. at 108, n.9.

17

Plaintiffs here are similarly situated to the Gerstein plaintiffs. Granting the relief that

18

Plaintiffs seek would not interfere with state proceedings. While all Class members have pending

19

criminal cases, these criminal proceedings are stayed pending evaluation and restoration

20

services. Wash. Rev. Code § 10.77.084 (providing that after a criminal defendant has been

21

found incompetent, the proceedings against the defendant are stayed); Wash. Ct. R. Crim. R.

22

3.3(e) (excluding all proceedings related to the competency of a defendant to stand trial when

23

computing time for trial). Rather than interfere with state proceedings, granting Plaintiffs relief

24

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION -- 14-cv-01178-MJP – Page 20

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 41 Filed 10/03/14 Page 22 of 27

1 would promote the adjudication of the criminal charges in the state court by restoring those

2 incompetent detainees that can be restored so that they are able to stand trial and confirming

3 when an individual cannot be restored and charges must be dismissed.

4

2. Plaintiffs Cannot Seek Systemic Relief in Individual Criminal Proceedings.

5

Even if the Court finds that the state court proceedings here implicate Younger, Plaintiffs

6 are unable to obtain the same systemic relief sought here in their state court proceedings, and

7 Younger does not apply where the proceedings do not offer litigants the opportunity to raise

8 federal challenges. ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 754 F.3d 754, 759 (9th 9 Cir. 2014).3

10

Here, Plaintiffs seek class-wide relief for criminal defendants with mental disabilities.

11 They seek a systemic solution to Defendants’ violations of their constitutional rights. While

12 individual public defenders have sought to assert the rights of individual clients, none of the

13 public defenders can seek relief on behalf of the entire class of incompetent detainees. The result

14 of a rare successful state court challenge is to move a single defendant to the top of the waitlist, 15 not to eliminate the unconstitutional delays for the entire Class.4 Indeed, state court judges are

16 often reluctant to grant relief in individual cases because it results in that defendant being moved

17 to the top of the waitlist at the expense of other defendants. Goldsmith Decl., Ex. E at 2.

18

3. Defendants’ Refusal to Abide By State Court Orders Renders Abstention

Inappropriate.

19

20

21

22 3 The other requirements for Younger abstention are that there be an ongoing state proceedings and that proceeding
implicates important state interests.
23 4 The primary forms of relief defense attorneys have sought are: 1) dismissal of a case; 2) release of incompetent
detainees on personal recognizance; 3) immediate transport of individual clients. In addition, relief in this case will
24 not enjoin individual criminal cases.
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION -- 14-cv-01178-MJP – Page 21

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 41 Filed 10/03/14 Page 23 of 27

1

Defendants have openly and repeatedly refused to comply with state court orders

2 requiring immediate transport of particular incompetent detainees. Even if this case otherwise

3 met the requirements of Younger, this extraordinary circumstance makes abstention

4 inappropriate. See Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423, 435

5 (1982) (stating that even where all of the requirements of Younger abstention are met, a

6 “showing of bad faith, harassment, or some other extraordinary circumstance . . . would make

7 abstention inappropriate.”).

8

In Younger, the Court held that where there is “danger of irreparable loss [which] is both

9 great and immediate,” and it “plainly appears that [asserting the constitutional defense in state

10 court] would not afford adequate protection,” abstention is not appropriate. 401 U.S. at 45.

11 Plaintiffs and Class members are suffering great and immediate harm. In addition, state courts

12 cannot adequately protect their rights. In at least two instances, state trial trial judges have

13 ordered Defendants to transfer specific incompetent detainees immediately, and Defendants have

14 refused and continue to refuse to comply with these court orders. Cooper Decl., Exs. H, J at 53

15 (Attorney General’s Office has represented to state courts that Defendants will not comply with

16 any state court order for Defendants to immediately transport a pre-trial detainee for competency

17 restoration services).

18 C. Immediate Judicial Intervention is Necessary.

19

Absent Court intervention to temporarily restrain Defendants from continuing to delay

20 services to the Class, hundreds of incarcerated individuals languishing in jails waiting for

21 evaluation and restoration services will suffer long-term damage, Snow Decl. ¶ 12; Kupers Decl.,

22 Ex A at 18, and for an extreme cased like Amanda Cook, it will mean more than continued loss

23 of liberty but loss of life. “A stunning statistic, born out in research around the country, is that

24
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION -- 14-cv-01178-MJP – Page 22

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 41 Filed 10/03/14 Page 24 of 27

1 fully 50% of all successful jail and prison suicides . . . occur among the 3% to 7% of prisoners

2 who are in isolated confinement (segregation). One need merely calculate the chances of a

3 prisoner committing suicide if he or she remains in such a harsh environment for less than seven

4 days (awaiting transfer to WSH or ESH) vs. remaining there for months.” Kupers Decl., Ex A at

5 16.

6

While long-term fixes would still be necessary if the relief requested is granted, Plaintiffs

7 urgently need immediate action by Defendants to stop the irreparable harm now. The requested

8 relief is intended to be practicable given the service delivery system currently available to

9 Defendants. As an example, contracting with evaluators at the average rate of $1,500 per

10 evaluation would cost Defendants only $249,000 to complete the evaluations of the 166 people

11 waiting in jail longer than 7 days, even if all of the evaluations were done by private contractors.

12 See Morris Decl. ¶ 17; Cooper Decl., Ex. C. Additionally, the suggested bed allocations are

13 similar to plans Defendants are already contemplating, and the movement of patients not guilty

14 by reason of insanity to civil beds reflects standard hospital practice of a few years ago. See

15 Cooper Decl., Ex. J at 49-52, ¶13.

16

Plaintiffs’ counsel brought this motion as soon as it realized alternative methods of

17 alleviating the current harm would not be successful. Carlson Decl. ¶¶ 9-12. Continued delay,

18 will only compound the irreparable harm currently suffered by hundreds across the state, and the

19 requested relief is specifically targeted at reducing that harm immediately.

20

D. Plaintiffs Seek a Waiver of the Bond Requirement.

21

Federal courts may exercise their discretion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c) to waive the bond

22 requirements in suits to enforce important federal rights of public interest. Barahona-Gomez v.

23 Reno, 167 F.3d 1228, 1237 (9th Cir. 1999); Cal. ex rel. Van de Kamp v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning

24
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION -- 14-cv-01178-MJP – Page 23

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 41 Filed 10/03/14 Page 25 of 27

1 Agency, 766 F.2d 1319, 1325 (9th Cir. 1985) (no bond required for non-profit group). This

2 Court should do so here.

3

IV. CONCLUSION

4

For all of the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs request that the Court issue their proposed

5 Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, declaring delays in evaluation and

6 restoration of competency unlawful and mandating the elimination of the delays.

7

Dated this 3rd Day of October, 2014.

8

CARNEY GILLESPIE ISITT PLLP

9

/S/Christopher Carney

10

/S/Sean Gillespie

/S/Kenan Isitt

11

Christopher Carney, WSBA No. 30325

Sean Gillespie, WSBA No. 35365

12

Kenan Isitt, WSBA No. 35317

13

DISABILITY RIGHTS WASHINGTON

14

/s/ David Carlson

/s/ Emily Cooper

15

David R. Carlson, WSBA No. 35767

Emily Cooper, WSBA No. 34406

16

Disability Rights Washington

315 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 850

17

Seattle, WA 98104

(206) 324-1521

18

davidc@dr-wa.org

emilyc@dr-wa.org

19

20

21

22

23

24
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION -- 14-cv-01178-MJP – Page 24

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 41 Filed 10/03/14 Page 26 of 27

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION -- 14-cv-01178-MJP – Page 25

ACLU OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION
/s/ Sarah A. Dunne /s/ Margaret Chen Sarah A. Dunne, WSBA No. 34869 Margaret Chen, WSBA No. 46156 ACLU of Washington Foundation 900 Fifth Avenue, Suite 630 Seattle, Washington 98164 (206) 624-2184 dunne@aclu-wa.org mchen@aclu-wa.org
PUBLIC DEFENDER ASSOCIATION
/s/ Anita Khandelwal Anita Khandelwal, WSBA No. 41385 Public Defender Association 810 Third Avenue, Suite 800 Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 447-3900 anitak@defender.org
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 41 Filed 10/03/14 Page 27 of 27

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

I hereby certify that on October 3, 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk

3 of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the following:

4

 John K McIlhenny (JohnM5@atg.wa.gov)

5

 Nicholas A Williamson (NicholasW1@atg.wa.gov)

6

 Sarah Jane Coats (sarahc@atg.wa.gov)

7

 Amber Lea Leaders (amberl1@atg.wa.gov)

8 DATED: October 3, 2014, at Seattle, Washington.
9

10

11

/s/Mona Rennie

Legal Assistant

12

Disability Rights Washington

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 14-cv-01178-MJP

 </s> 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

9

AT SEATTLE

10 CASSIE CORDELL TRUEBLOOD, et al.,
11 Plaintiffs,
12 v.
13 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT
14 OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES, et al.,
15 Defendants.
16

CASE NO. C14-1178 MJP
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

17 Plaintiffs bring this action seeking an order to compel Defendants to provide timely
18 competency evaluation and restoration services to class members—individuals charged with a
19 crime who are detained in city and county jails awaiting services—after a court orders that
20 Defendants provide class members with those services. The Court previously granted Plaintiffs’
21 motion for summary judgment, finding that wait times of up to seven days were constitutional,
22 and that wait times beyond seven days were suspect. In order to determine the precise outer
23 boundary of constitutionally permissible wait times in this case, and to determine the appropriate
24

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW- 1

1 remedy, the Court held a seven-day bench trial, which began on March 16, 2015, and concluded

2 on March 25, 2015. Plaintiffs were represented by Emily Cooper, La Rond Baker, Christopher

3 Carney, Anita Kandelwal, and David Carlson; Defendants were represented by Sarah Coats,

4 John McIlhenny, Amber Leaders, and Nicholas Williamson. After consideration of the evidence

5 and the arguments submitted, the Court makes and enters the following Findings of Fact and

6 Conclusions of Law:

7

Summary

8

The State of Washington is violating the constitutional rights of some of its most

9 vulnerable citizens. The State has consistently failed to provide timely competency evaluation

10 and restoration services, services needed to determine whether individuals understand the

11 charges against them and can aid in their own defenses, which is required in order for them to

12 stand trial. By failing to provide competency evaluation and restoration services within seven

13 days of a court order, the State fails to provide both the substantive and procedural due process

14 required by the Constitution. Our jails are not suitable places for the mentally ill to be

15 warehoused while they wait for services. Jails are not hospitals, they are not designed as

16 therapeutic environments, and they are not equipped to manage mental illness or keep those with

17 mental illness from being victimized by the general population of inmates. Punitive settings and

18 isolation for twenty-three hours each day exacerbate mental illness and increase the likelihood

19 that the individual will never recover.

20

The Department of Social and Health Services has been hampered in providing these

21 required services by insufficient funding for beds and personnel. Without these resources, they

22 cannot collaborate and coordinate with the other agencies and courts involved in the criminal

23 mental health system.

24

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW- 2

1

The Department of Social and Health Services has failed to change its procedures to

2 respond to this ongoing crisis, and has routinely defied the orders of Washington’s state courts, a

3 practice that has resulted in hundreds of thousands of dollars in contempt fines. The Department

4 continues to fail to make significant progress in implementing any of the reforms recommended

5 by auditors and experts. The Department has failed to plan ahead for growth in the demand for

6 competency services, which has increased every year for the last decade, and has failed to show

7 the leadership and capacity for innovation that is required to address the crisis. Other states and

8 counties have been able to meet the constitutional requirements, and so can the State of

9 Washington.

10

In order to stop these continued violations, the Court enters a permanent injunction

11 requiring the provision of competency services within seven days. The Court will appoint a

12 monitor to ensure that progress toward the timely provision of services is being made. The

13 mentally ill are deserving of the protections of the Constitution that our forefathers so carefully

14 crafted. The rights protected can be difficult and sometimes costly to secure; however, the

15 Constitution is a guarantee to all people, and is not dependent upon a price tag. The State must

16 honor its obligations under the law.

17

FINDINGS OF FACT

18

I. The Class

19

1. Class members are all pretrial detainees waiting in jail for court-ordered competency

20 services that Defendants are statutorily required to provide. Putative next friends seek to assert

21 claims on behalf of named Plaintiffs. On October 31, 2014, the Court certified the class as: All

22 persons who are now, or will be in the future, charged with a crime in the State of Washington

23 and: (a) who are ordered by a court to receive competency evaluation or restoration services

24

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW- 3

1 through the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services (“DSHS”); (b) who are

2 waiting in jail for those services; and (c) for whom DSHS receives the court order.

3

2. Plaintiff K.R. was booked into Thurston County Jail on June 23, 2014. On July 3,

4 2014, a court ordered Western State Hospital (“WSH”) to evaluate his competency. The

5 evaluation was completed on July 23, 2014. On July 30, 2014, the court found K.R. incompetent

6 and ordered that he be admitted to WSH for competency restoration treatment. WSH confirmed

7 receipt of the order on July 30, 2014. K.R. was not admitted to WSH for competency restoration

8 until October 3, 2014. While waiting for transportation to WSH for court-ordered competency

9 services, K.R. was incarcerated for more than seventy-five days where he lacked medication and

10 spent the vast majority of that time in solitary confinement after being assaulted by his cellmate.

11

3. Plaintiff A.B. was an inmate at the Snohomish County Jail on July 2, 2014, when a

12 court found her incompetent and ordered her to be admitted to WSH for competency restoration

13 services. Defendants received the court order on or about July 3, 2014. While waiting for

14 transportation to WSH for court-ordered competency services, A.B. was incarcerated for thirty-

15 seven days in solitary confinement where she declined to take medication or wash herself.

16

4. Plaintiff D.D. was booked into Spokane County Jail on July 29, 2014. On August 5,

17 2014, the court ordered that Defendants conduct a competency evaluation. Eastern State

18 Hospital (“ESH”) confirmed receipt of the court order for competency evaluation on August 6,

19 2014. D.D. was evaluated by ESH on September 10, 2014. D.D. waited thirty-five days in

20 solitary confinement or on suicide watch, which is also a form of solitary confinement, after

21 making numerous statements about wanting to die at Spokane County Jail before the evaluation

22 was completed. D.D. was eventually found not competent to stand trial.

23

24

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW- 4

1

5. In the month preceding trial, one class member committed suicide while incarcerated

2 and waiting for DSHS to provide competency services.

3

6. Each named Plaintiff and class member is a constituent of Plaintiff Disability Rights

4 Washington (“DRW”). All fall within DRW’s mandate to ensure that the rights of persons with

5 mental health conditions are protected. DRW’s interests are in complete alignment with those of

6 the class members.

7

7. DRW is a private non-profit organization designated by the Governor of the State of

8 Washington as the protection and advocacy system for individuals with mental, physical,

9 sensory, and developmental disabilities in the state of Washington pursuant to the

10 Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 15041, et seq.; the

11 Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §

12 10801, et seq.; the Protection and Advocacy of Individual Rights Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794e; and

13 RCW 71A.10.080.

14

II. The Competency Process

15

8. Defendant DSHS is charged under Washington law with overseeing competency

16 services, including evaluations and restorations. RCW 10.77 et seq. If an individual is found to

17 be incompetent to stand trial, state law places responsibility on Defendant for “providing mental

18 health treatment and restoration of competency.” RCW 10.77.088; see also 10.77.084 and

19 10.77.086.

20

9. When a court has ordered an individual to undergo competency evaluation or

21 restoration, the individual’s criminal case is stayed during all competency-related proceedings.

22 See RCW 10.77.084 (providing that after a criminal defendant has been found incompetent, the

23 proceedings against the defendant are stayed); Washington State Court Rules: Superior Court

24

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW- 5

1 Criminal Rules, CrR 3.3(e)(1) (excluding all proceedings related to the competency of a

2 defendant to stand trial when computing time for trial).

3

10. Defendants provide competency services in local jails, in the community, or at the

4 two state hospitals, ESH and WSH. See RCW 10.77.060. Nearly ninety percent of evaluations

5 occur outside the state hospitals, either in jails or, for persons who have been released from jail

6 on personal recognizance, in the community.

7

11. The process begins when there is reason for a judge or an attorney to doubt that an

8 individual charged with a crime is competent to stand trial. Because state and federal law forbid

9 the criminal prosecution of individuals who do not understand the charges against them or are

10 unable to aid in their own defenses, courts order that these individuals’ competency be evaluated

11 to determine whether they may stand trial. RCW 10.77.060; See also Medina v. California, 505

12 U.S. 437, 449 (1992) (“the Due Process Clause affords an incompetent defendant the right not to

13 be tried”).

14

12. When a court orders a competency evaluation, the court order is sent to Defendants,

15 who gather the required documentation and assign the case to an evaluator.

16

13. In order to complete an evaluation, an evaluator requires the following documents:

17 (1) the court order; (2) the charging documents; and (3) discovery (e.g., criminal history, police

18 reports). If the evaluation will be completed at one of the state hospitals, the individual must

19 also be medically cleared, i.e., cleared by a medical professional at the jail as stable enough to

20 receive care in a psychiatric hospital, which is not equipped to handle all types of medical

21 emergencies.

22

14. While evaluators require access to the necessary documentation, the evaluation is

23 based primarily on a thirty-to-ninety-minute face-to-face interview with the individual.

24

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW- 6

1

15. After completion of the evaluation, the evaluator provides his or her report and

2 recommendation to the court in which the criminal proceeding is pending. RCW 10.77.065. If

3 the court finds the individual competent to stand trial, the criminal prosecution resumes. If the

4 court finds the individual incompetent, the proceedings are stayed and the court may enter a

5 competency restoration order as allowed by RCW 10.77.086 or 10.77.088.

6

16. Approximately fifty percent of individuals ordered to receive a competency

7 evaluation in Washington are found to be incompetent to stand trial.

8

17. Depending on the nature of the criminal charges against the individual, the court

9 orders restoration periods ranging from two weeks to ninety days. RCW 10.77.088 (non-felony

10 restorations) and 10.77.086 (felony restorations). Restoration periods of forty-five days are

11 ordered for individuals charged with class B and C felonies, and periods of ninety days are

12 ordered for individuals charged with all other felonies. After a hearing, a second ninety-day

13 restoration period may be ordered. If certain conditions are met, a court may order additional

14 restoration treatment for a period of up to six months. Restoration periods of fourteen days, in

15 addition to any unused in-patient evaluation time, are ordered for individuals charged with

16 serious non-felony crimes, for total restoration periods of up to twenty-nine days.

17

18. Individuals charged with non-serious non-felony crimes are not ordered for

18 restoration if they are found incompetent. Instead, their charges are dismissed or stayed, and the

19 individual may be referred for civil commitment under RCW 71.05.

20

19. Sixty percent of individuals charged with misdemeanors have their charges

21 dismissed after the completion of a competency evaluation. Ninety percent of individuals

22 referred for competency evaluations have had prior contact with the criminal justice system.

23 Thirty-seven percent have been referred for a competency evaluation more than once since 2011.

24

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW- 7

1

20. If the court orders that an incompetent individual receive competency restoration

2 services, the individual is placed on a waiting list for admission to one of the state hospitals, ESH

3 or WSH, where DSHS provides competency restoration services. Individuals who receive

4 competency evaluations at the state hospitals and are found to be incompetent are usually

5 transported back to jail, where they must wait until Defendants have sufficient bed space and

6 staff to provide the ordered restoration services.

7

21. From 2001 to 2011, Washington has seen an eighty-two percent increase in the

8 demand for competency evaluations. Demand for competency services has grown, and is

9 expected to continue to grow, at a rate of eight to ten percent per year. In addition to yearly

10 growth, there are seasonal fluctuations in the demand for services each year.

11

22. For years, Defendants have failed to timely provide competency services pursuant to

12 state law and have almost never provided court-ordered competency services within seven days.

13 While much of DSHS’s data is incomplete and unreliable due to poor data collection and

14 management practices and a lack of consistency of practices across the state hospitals, the

15 following chart, based on information provided by DSHS to the legislature in December 2014, is

16 illustrative of the nature and persistence of Defendants’ delays:

17 DSHS Competency Average Number of

18 Service

Days Waiting, ESH

Evaluation in

41.2

19 hospital – bed offer

20 Evaluation in jail – 56.3

21 completed

Restoration in

20.9

22 hospital – bed offer

23

Average Number of Days Waiting, WSH 30.6

Target Number of Days 7

14.7

7

29.8

7

24

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW- 8

1

23. It is the policy of the state of Washington that evaluations should occur within seven

2 days, and that admission to the hospitals should also occur within seven days. See Senate Bill

3 6492; Senate Bill 5889. Defendants have conceded that “some of the waiting periods are

4 excessive and indefensible.” (Dkt. No. 95 at 1.)

5

24. Delays in the provision of competency services result in people with confirmed or

6 suspected mental illness spending more time incarcerated for the same offenses than those

7 without mental illnesses. In King County Correctional Facility, for instance, those with mental

8 illness spend on average three times more time incarcerated than those without mental illness.

9 Furthermore, overincarceration and the postponed adjudication of competence results in

10 significant costs to the public, especially when class members are held in solitary confinement.

11 At all times relevant to this case, class members are pretrial detainees and, as such, have not been

12 convicted of the alleged crime for which they were arrested and sent to jail.

13

III. The Harms Caused by Prolonged Incarceration

14

25. Jails are inherently punitive institutions, and are not designed or administered so as

15 to provide for the needs of the mentally ill. A correctional environment, calibrated to provide

16 safety and order, is incongruous with the particular needs of the mentally ill, and results in

17 people with confirmed or suspected mental illness spending more time in solitary confinement,

18 where their mental health further deteriorates. This deterioration is in direct conflict with the

19 State’s interest in prompt evaluation and treatment so that the individual may be brought to trial,

20 especially for individuals whose illnesses become more habitual and harder to treat while they

21 wait in isolation.

22

26. Washington’s state hospitals provide high levels of care to the individuals they can

23 accommodate, and are an appropriate environment for mental health treatment. The state

24

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW- 9

1 hospitals provide group and individual programming, have outdoor spaces and televisions, and

2 perhaps most importantly, allow class members to enter and exit their living quarters freely.

3 When an individual chooses to remain in his or her room, staff members interact with that

4 individual and attempt to persuade him or her to join the group, a treatment strategy that is

5 essential for individuals who isolate themselves as a symptom of their mental illness. If an

6 urgent situation requires that an individual be involuntarily restrained or held in isolation in a

7 room, the restraint procedures must be authorized by a psychiatrist, must be for a clinical reason,

8 and must be reauthorized as necessary every four hours.

9

27. In jail, by contrast, class members are routinely held in solitary confinement for

10 twenty-three hours a day for reasons unrelated to their mental health needs. Class members are

11 placed in solitary confinement because they are victimized by other inmates, or because

12 symptoms of their illnesses prevent them from following generally applicable rules or behavioral

13 expectations. Sometimes class members are placed in solitary confinement for their erratic or

14 unpredictable behavior, not as punishment for breaking the rules, but to prevent them from

15 continuing to break other rules which may result in additional charges or some other more

16 serious form of punishment. These same solitary confinement cells are used to punish other

17 inmates for bad behavior. Class members cannot enter or exit their cells freely, and are not

18 encouraged to interact with other people. Even class members on suicide watch are observed by

19 video camera; they experience almost no human interaction, even though isolation is known to

20 be clinically destructive to these individuals’ mental health.

21

28. Incarceration, generally, is bad for class members for several reasons. While waiting

22 for long periods of time in local jails, class members are not receiving the mental health

23 treatment they need. Their conditions worsen not only because of lack of treatment, but because

24

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW- 10

1 prolonged incarceration exacerbates mental illness, making symptoms more intense and more

2 permanent, and reducing the likelihood the person’s competency can ever be restored.

3 Incarceration increases the likelihood of suicide. Incarceration also unnecessarily exposes class

4 members to harmful conditions such as jail overcrowding, which leads to increased violence

5 among inmates and to the targeting of individuals perceived as weak. Because class members

6 are stigmatized for what others perceive as erratic and unpredictable behavior, they are less

7 likely to find a social support network within the jail and therefore are less successful than others

8 at navigating the jail environment, increasing their feelings of isolation, terror, and despair.

9

IV. Barriers to Timely Competency Services

10

29. The primary causes of the delay in Defendants’ provision of services to class

11 members are shortages of staff and of beds at both WSH and ESH. The staff and bed shortages

12 are primarily the result of insufficient funding and inadequate planning.

13

30. DSHS identified numerous other structural and clinical barriers to timely services, in

14 addition to the lack of staff and beds. DSHS identified (1) delays of one to three days in

15 receiving all of the required documentation; (2) delays caused by scheduling an interpreter; (3)

16 delays caused by defense attorneys requesting to be present during an evaluation but failing to

17 make themselves available for the interview in a timely manner; (3) delays caused by a litigant’s

18 rejection of an assigned evaluator; (4) delays caused by long travel times for evaluators who

19 travel between county jails; (5) delays caused by waiting for intoxicants to clear out of an

20 individual’s system before performing an evaluation; (6) delays caused by a lack of adequate

21 evaluation rooms or other evaluation facilities at the jails; and (7) delays caused by jail

22 transportation of individuals to the state hospitals.

23

24

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW- 11

1

With appropriate planning, coordination, and resources, none of these barriers prevent

2 DSHS from providing competency services within seven days.

3

31. DSHS’s staff shortage has been exacerbated by DSHS’s inability to effectively hire

4 or retain qualified staff.1 DSHS’s ability to hire has been hampered by the fact that DSHS does

5 not pay competitive wages, by a cumbersome collective bargaining process, and by institutional

6 resistance to expanding the pool of eligible applicants for vacant positions. DSHS has failed to

7 meaningfully explore utilizing other qualified professionals to perform evaluations, including

8 psychiatric nurse practitioners, physician’s assistants, and masters in social work, and has failed

9 to offer the requisite forensic training that could prepare these other professionals to perform

10 evaluations. High evaluator turnover in recent years has also hampered the timely provision of

11 services because new evaluators are unable to complete evaluations as quickly as experienced

12 evaluators, and because temporary vacancies during turnover result in lower system-wide

13 capacity.

14

32. The lack of accurate data and timely performance reporting makes it difficult for

15 DSHS to understand and predict demand for its services, to improve its operating policies and

16 procedures, and to adequately plan for the future. Inconsistent procedures and practices across

17 the hospitals hamper the timely provision of services, as does the fact that the hospitals do not

18 consistently use electronic medical records instead of paper records. Timely services are further

19 hampered by DSHS’s lack of knowledge about, and lack of willingness to use, electronic court

20 records, which are available for most jurisdictions and which contain much of the information

21 needed to provide competency services.

22

23

1 Evaluator availability is further limited because evaluators are not asked to make themselves

available to conduct evaluations in the evenings, on weekends, or on holidays, forcing class members to

24 wait for longer periods even though jails operate twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW- 12

1

33. Long travel times hamper timely evaluation services because all of DSHS’s

2 evaluators are currently stationed at just three locations in the State of Washington: ESH, WSH,

3 and a satellite office in Seattle. DSHS is planning to open a satellite office in Vancouver,

4 Washington, and to station up to two new evaluators in the Yakima or Tri-Cities areas. There is

5 no requirement that evaluators be based at the state hospitals.

6

V. Seven Days is Both Reasonable and Achievable

7

34. Notwithstanding the barriers faced by DSHS, DSHS is capable of providing the

8 services they are charged with providing within seven days with more resources and better

9 management. If the forensic mental health system is given the resources it requires, wait times

10 of seven days or less can be achieved in nine months.

11

35. With full staffing and adequate bed space, DSHS could meet current and future

12 demand by adopting new administrative efficiencies:

13

There is no current attempt to sort class members by the seriousness of their crimes, e.g.

14 whether the charge is a misdemeanor or a felony, and thus no attempt is made to sort between

15 people who would spend two days in jail if convicted and people who would spend years in

16 prison.

17

There is no current attempt to triage or sort class members by the acuity of their mental

18 illnesses and their current manifestations, and thus no attempt to admit those who urgently need

19 hospitalization and intensive care over those who are more stable.

20

There is no system-wide attempt to triage class members based on the amount of time or

21 resources that their cases require, e.g. whether their evaluations are simple and can be done

22 quickly or will require additional interviews and the examination of substantial additional

23 records.

24

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW- 13

1

36. Pierce County currently utilizes a panel of independent contract evaluators to

2 perform evaluations in the Pierce County jail. The panel system is made possible by Senate Bill

3 5551, which allows counties to contract for evaluators when the State is consistently failing to

4 meet the seven-day target for the provision of services. Although there can be a delay of one to

5 three days in securing the necessary documents and assigning the case to an evaluator,

6 approximately ninety-five percent of evaluations are completed within seven days of assignment.

7 These evaluations are reportedly of good quality, and have not been rejected by the courts or the

8 litigants in Pierce County.

9

37. Experts hired by the State have identified as a problem the high percentage of

10 forensic beds currently being occupied by patients found not guilty by reason of insanity

11 (“NGRI”). These experts, Groundswell Services, Inc., advised that Washington is an outlier

12 among states in being overly punitive by failing to identify community-based programs for the

13 NGRI population and instead holding them in hardened forensic facilities. Moving members of

14 the NGRI population to less restrictive housing or to community-based programs would make

15 available beds and staff for competency evaluation and restoration services.

16

38. The system-wide problems in Washington’s forensic mental health system and

17 proposed solutions identified by Groundswell Services are consistent with the problems and

18 solutions identified by the 2012 and 2014 Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee reports,

19 ordered by the state legislature in an effort to aid DSHS in providing timely services.

20

39. Recent attempts by DSHS to implement the suggestions of experts hired by the State

21 show progress. The State’s future planning, however, currently done in two-year increments, is

22 inadequate to accommodate the increase in demand for competency services on a long-term

23 basis. Long-term planning is required in order for DSHS to keep pace with demand and not fall

24

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW- 14

1 back into crisis. DSHS must plan for the long-term future as current estimates project that

2 demand for services will continue to increase at a rate of eight to ten percent each year.

3

40. DSHS consistently ignores court orders to provide class members with services or to

4 admit class members to the state hospitals, even when they have been found in contempt. DSHS

5 has developed a de facto policy to continue to administer the forensic mental health system in the

6 manner it considers best; court orders which conflict with its waiting list methodology are

7 ignored as a matter of course. Numerous orders from numerous courts have been ignored under

8 this policy.

9

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

10

1. DRW has standing to represent the interests of persons who require competency

11 services, and to seek a permanent injunction and declaratory judgment establishing the time

12 frames within which due process requires that services be provided. See Oregon Advocacy Ctr.

13 v. Mink, 322 F.3d 1101, 1112 (9th Cir. 2003); In re Lamb, 173 Wn.2d 173, 196-197 (2011)

14 (citing to federal law providing DRW with the authority to “pursue legal, administrative, and

15 other appropriate remedies . . . to ensure the protection of, and advocacy for, the rights of persons

16 with . . . disabilities.”); Doe v. Stincer, 175 F.3d 879 (9th Cir. 1999); Hunt v. Washington State

17 Apple Advertising Commission, 432 U.S. 333 (1997). Next friends have standing because they

18 have shown that: (1) each Plaintiff is unable to litigate his own cause due to mental incapacity or

19 other similar disability; and (2) each next friend has some significant relationship with, and is

20 truly dedicated to the best interests of, each Plaintiff. Coal. of Clergy, Lawyers, & Professors v. 21 Bush, 310 F.3d 1153, 1159-60 (9th Cir. 2002).2

22

2. Plaintiffs’ burden of proof on their claims is a preponderance of the evidence.

23

24

2 Defendants have not challenged standing.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW- 15

1

3. Constitutional questions regarding the conditions and circumstances of pretrial

2 confinement are properly addressed under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

3 to the United States Constitution. Mink, 322 F.3d at 1120-21.

4

4. The foundational liberty interest under the due process clause is freedom from

5 incarceration. Oviatt ex rel. Waugh v. Pearce, 954 F.2d 1470, 1474 (9th Cir. 1992). Individuals

6 have a fundamental liberty interest in being free from incarceration absent a criminal conviction,

7 and there exist corresponding constitutional limitations on pretrial detention. See Lopez-

8 Valenzuela v. Arpaio, 770 F.3d 772, 777-78, 780-81 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc).

9

5. “Incapacitated criminal defendants have liberty interests in freedom from

10 incarceration and [also] in restorative treatment.” Mink, 322 F.3d at 1121.

11

6. As part of a right to treatment and care, institutionalized persons have liberty interests

12 in reasonable care and safety, reasonably non-restrictive confinement conditions, and such other

13 treatment as may be required to comport fully with the purposes of confinement. See Youngberg

14 v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 319 (1982) (mentally retarded individual committed in state institution

15 has liberty interests requiring state to provide minimally adequate or reasonable training to

16 ensure safety and freedom from undue restraint).

17

7. A determination of constitutionally adequate treatment for Plaintiffs and class

18 members must be measured not by that which must be provided to the general prison population,

19 but by that which must be provided to those committed for mental incompetency. See Ohlinger

20 v. Watson, 652 F.2d 775, 777-78 (9th Cir. 1981) (“a person committed solely on the basis of his

21 mental incapacity has a constitutional right to receive such individual treatment as will give each

22 of them a realistic opportunity to be cured or to improve his or her mental condition”). “Lack of

23 funds, staff or facilities cannot justify the State’s failure to provide [such persons] with [the]

24

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW- 16

1 treatment necessary for rehabilitation.” Mink, 322 F.3d at 1121 (quoting Ohlinger, 652 F.2d at

2 779).

3

8. The purpose of a class member’s incarceration during this portion of his or her case is

4 either the completion of an evaluation in a jail, or admission to a state hospital for competency

5 services. Because class members have not been convicted of any crime, they are not being

6 incarcerated as punishment. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979) (under the Due

7 Process Clause, a pretrial detainee may not be punished prior to an adjudication of guilt in

8 accordance with due process of law.) Furthermore, when competency evaluations or restorations

9 are ordered, class members’ criminal cases are stayed, and the time they spend incarcerated as a

10 consequence of their suspected or confirmed incompetence is excluded when computing time for

11 trial. See RCW 10.77.084; CrR 3.3(e).

12

9. Class members who are found competent to stand trial do not have a right to

13 competency restoration treatment. Nevertheless, while awaiting evaluation services from

14 Defendants, the cause of their incarceration is suspected incompetence, and the purpose of their

15 incarceration is to receive competency services. As such, due process requires, at a minimum,

16 some rational relation between the nature and duration of confinement and its purpose. See

17 Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715, 738 (1972) (“due process requires that the nature and duration

18 of commitment bear some reasonable relation to the purpose for which the individual is

19 committed”). A reviewing court must therefore consider the constitutionality of the detention in

20 light of the detention’s purpose, determine whether the detention is based on permissible goals,

21 and, if it is, evaluate whether the detention is excessive in relation to those goals.

22

10. “Whether the substantive due process rights of incapacitated criminal defendants

23 have been violated must be determined by balancing their liberty interests in freedom from

24

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW- 17

1 incarceration and in restorative treatment against the legitimate interests of the state.” Mink, 322

2 F.3d at 1121.

3

11. Plaintiffs and class members have suffered, and continue to suffer, prolonged

4 incarceration in city and county jails for the purpose of waiting for competency services from

5 Defendants because of suspected or confirmed mental incompetence. Their prolonged

6 incarceration implicates their right to be free from incarceration absent conviction and their right

7 to the competency services which form the basis for their detention.

8

12. The State’s primary governmental interest in regard to Plaintiffs and class members

9 is to bring those accused of a crime to trial. In furtherance of that goal, the state has a legitimate

10 interest in evaluating a potentially incompetent defendant’s competency so as to determine

11 whether he or she may stand trial, and in restoring the competency of those found incompetent so

12 that they may be brought to trial. The state has a corresponding interest in an efficient and

13 organized competency evaluation and restoration system, the administration of which uses public

14 resources appropriately.

15

13. After weighing the interests involved, the Court concludes that due process

16 balancing favors Plaintiffs and class members, and finds seven days to be the maximum

17 justifiable period of incarceration absent an individualized finding of good cause to continue

18 incarcerating that person.

19

14. A seven-day limit is required by the Constitution because of the gravity of the harms

20 suffered by class members during prolonged incarceration—harms which directly conflict with

21 class members’ rights to freedom from incarceration and to the competency services which form

22 the basis of their detention, and also directly conflict with the State’s interests in swiftly bringing

23 those accused of crimes to trial and in restoring incompetent criminal defendants to competency

24

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW- 18

1 so as to try them. Unlike the state psychiatric hospitals, jails cannot provide the environment or

2 type of care required by class members, especially where class members are held in solitary

3 confinement without access to medication, and as a result, jails actively damage class members’

4 mental condition. Each additional day of incarceration causes further deterioration of class

5 members’ mental health, increases the risks of suicide and of victimization by other inmates, and

6 causes illness to become more habitual and harder to cure, resulting in longer restoration periods

7 or in the inability to ever restore that person to competency. The inhumanity of holding class

8 members in jails for prolonged periods of time has been affirmatively recognized by Washington

9 State, which has twice in the last five years passed legislation declaring that the policy of the

10 State of Washington is that competency services should be provided within seven days. A

11 similar policy was established in Oregon, where the state has successfully met the seven-day

12 requirement of the Oregon Advocacy Center v. Mink injunction, an injunction that was upheld

13 by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

14

15. The interests of all Parties are protected and furthered by a seven-day timeframe. For

15 class members, this timeframe provides a real limitation on the amount of time that they can be

16 incarcerated without being convicted of a crime, allows for the provision of greatly needed

17 services, the provision of which forms the basis of their detention, and finally, provides them

18 with prompt treatment and a meaningful chance at recovery. The protections afforded by the

19 Constitution require that society treat all individuals fairly, including our most vulnerable

20 citizens, and require that we organize our institutions so that they do not cause harm to the very

21 people they are created to protect.

22

The State’s interests are also furthered by the seven-day timeframe. The state’s primary

23 interests are in swiftly bringing those accused of criminal acts to trial, and in running its forensic

24

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW- 19

1 mental health system in an organized and cost-effective manner. People who are incarcerated for

2 long periods of time before they receive services require longer and more intensive care,

3 resulting in higher costs to DSHS. Class members’ criminal trials are delayed by long periods of

4 incarceration, especially where the incarceration causes class members to require a longer

5 treatment period. Not only does this contravene the State’s interest in swiftly bringing the

6 accused to trial, it results in significant costs to the public, who pay for the incarceration and the

7 extended treatment. Holding someone in solitary confinement, a common occurrence with class

8 members, is especially taxing on jail resources and expensive to the public. While it is the

9 counties rather than DSHS who directly fund the jails, the public bears the cost nonetheless. An

10 efficient system that moves people through the competency process quickly will thus increase

11 the speed at which competent people are brought to trial, will increase the percentage of

12 incompetent people who can be restored and thus brought to trial, and will reduce the amount of

13 money that the public spends incarcerating people. The State’s interest in an efficient and cost-

14 effective system is furthered by requiring it to adopt sound management practices with

15 measurable results rather than by allowing a poorly managed system to continue to allow itself to

16 be thrown into crisis every time a minor roadblock presents itself. A properly functioning

17 forensic system must be able to plan for and accommodate fluctuations in demand, not be

18 destroyed by them.

19

16. Approximately forty jurisdictions sign orders for evaluations and restorations

20 managed by DSHS. Even with more funding and changes to the practices and policies of the

21 Department, Washington’s forensic mental health system cannot function efficiently without the

22 help of all of its participants. Without clear, consistent court orders that attach all statutorily

23 required information and are immediately transmitted to DSHS, DSHS cannot start the

24

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW- 20

1 evaluation or restoration process. Defense counsel, interpreters, jail wardens, and prosecutors all

2 have unique responsibilities to ensure that evaluations, hearings, and restoration services are

3 offered in a timely manner. Defense attorneys who request to be present at competency

4 evaluations, and thus affect the timeliness of the evaluation with their own scheduling

5 constraints, must be responsive to communications, and must be flexible so as to allow the

6 evaluation to be scheduled as soon as practicable. Defense attorneys should also assist in the

7 process by helping to locate and transmit any missing documentation. Prosecutors make vital

8 decisions when they choose whom to charge, and whom to divert into community treatment

9 programs. Prosecutors must be willing to make difficult decisions about who is in need of social

10 tolerance rather than incarceration. All of these participants are interdependent; a failure by any

11 participant to take their responsibility seriously threatens the seven-day deadline.

12

17. Consequently, this Court declares that incarcerating Plaintiffs and class members for

13 more than seven days while they wait for Defendants to provide competency services, without an

14 individualized determination by a court of good cause to continue incarcerating that person,

15 violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

16

18. Plaintiffs are awarded attorney’s fees and costs. Plaintiffs must petition the Court for

17 a determination of fees and costs within thirty days if the Parties cannot agree on a

18 determination.

19

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS SO ORDERED:

20

The Court orders Defendants to cease violating the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs and

21 class members by providing timely competency evaluation and restoration services, and enters a

22 permanent injunction requiring the following:

23

24

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW- 21

1

(1) Defendants must provide in-jail competency evaluations within seven days of the

2 signing of a court order calling for an evaluation. Where an in-jail evaluation cannot be

3 completed within seven days of a court order, Defendants must secure an extension from the

4 ordering court for individualized clinical good cause, or must immediately admit the individual

5 to a state hospital to finish conducting the evaluation. Clinical good cause means good cause

6 based on the unique medical or psychiatric needs of the particular individual, and does not

7 include a lack of resources or the system’s inability to administratively accommodate the needs

8 of the individual within seven days;

9

(2) Defendants must admit persons ordered to have their competency evaluated in a state

10 hospital into that hospital within seven days of the signing of the court order; and

11

(3) Defendants must admit persons ordered to receive competency restoration services

12 into a state hospital within seven days of the signing of a court order calling for restoration

13 services.

14

Defendants are further ordered to cease violating the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs and

15 class members by reducing wait times as soon as practicable, but no later than nine months from

16 the date of this order. Defendants are ordered to secure sufficient evaluation staff, restoration

17 staff, and administrative staff, so as to allow them to provide competency services within seven

18 days. Defendants are ordered to secure sufficient bed space and other facilities so as to allow for

19 the admission of Plaintiffs and class members to state hospitals within seven days, without

20 sacrificing the therapeutic environment of a psychiatric hospital.

21

Defendants have demonstrated a long history of failing to adequately protect the

22 constitutional rights of Plaintiffs and class members, and have acknowledged that this failure is

23 indefensible. Defendants have not demonstrated that they are adequately planning for the future

24

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW- 22

1 growth in demand for competency services. In order to ensure that Plaintiffs and class members

2 do not face another constitutional crisis in three years, Defendants are ordered to prepare a long-

3 term plan on how they will continue to provide services within seven days, even as demand for

4 such services continues to grow and the state hospitals’ existing campuses reach their full

5 capacities. Defendants are ordered to submit their long-term plan to this Court no later than

6 three months from the date of this order.

7

Defendants have demonstrated a consistent pattern of intentionally disregarding court

8 orders, including where they have been found in contempt of court, and have established a de

9 facto policy of ignoring court orders which conflict with their internal policies. In order to

10 ensure compliance with this order, the Court will appoint a Monitor, as an agent of the Court, to

11 oversee Defendants’ implementation of the injunction’s requirements. The Parties are ordered to

12 provide the Court with a joint recommendation for an appropriately qualified expert to serve as

13 the Monitor within fourteen days of the date of this order. If the Parties cannot agree on a

14 recommendation, the Parties should each submit a list of at least two recommendations.

15 Recommendations should include the name of the proposed Monitor, assurance that the person is

16 willing to serve as a Monitor, and his or her current curriculum vitae. The Monitor will be an

17 agent of the Court, and shall be subject to its orders. Defendants are responsible for all

18 reasonable fees and costs incurred by the Monitor.

19

Defendants shall file a report with the Monitor on the fifth day of every month, which

20 shall include: (1) the number of days between when a court ordered provision of competency

21 services and when provision was completed, for each person ordered to receive competency

22 services during the previous month; (2) data regarding the number of evaluators, bed capacity,

23 physicians, and other resources needed to provide timely competency services; (3) the steps

24

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW- 23

1 taken in the previous month to implement this order; (4) when and what results are intended to

2 be realized by each of these steps; (5) the results realized in the previous month; (6) the steps

3 planned to be taken in the following month; (7) certification by Defendants that they are fully

4 compliant with all deadlines that became due in the previous month; (8) Defendants’ estimate for

5 when the wait times will reach seven days or less, and all data relied on in making that estimate;

6 and (9) any other information the Monitor informs Defendants is necessary for the Monitor to

7 fully review Defendants’ actions and advise the Court.

8

Within thirty days of every third monthly report from Defendants, the Monitor shall file a

9 quarterly public report with the Court which shall include: (1) a summary of Defendants’ actions

10 during the preceding period; (2) the Monitor’s opinion as to the sufficiency of Defendants’

11 progress; (3) the Monitor’s recommendations for actions to remedy any lack of progress or

12 performance by Defendants; and (4) the Monitor’s recommendation on when, and under what

13 circumstances, the Monitor’s services are no longer needed or should be modified. Defendants’

14 monthly reports shall be attached as appendices to the Monitor’s quarterly public report.

15

Upon submission of Defendants’ long-term plan for continued compliance with this order

16 as demand for competency services continues to grow, the Monitor shall provide the Court with

17 an opinion about the sufficiency of the plan and make recommendations for remedying any

18 deficiencies in the plan.

19

When it determines a hearing is necessary based upon its review of the Monitor’s reports

20 or the input of the Monitor and the Parties, the Court will hold a hearing to secure additional

21 evidence or argument about the sufficiency of Defendants’ progress in substantially complying

22 with this Court’s order, and to order any action necessary to remedy a lack of progress or

23 performance in correcting the underlying constitutional violation.

24

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW- 24

1

2

The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.

3

4

Dated this 2nd day of April, 2015.

5

6 7

A

Marsha J. Pechman

8

Chief United States District Judge

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW- 25

 </s> Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 153 Filed 05/06/15 Page 1 of 4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

9

AT SEATTLE

10 CASSIE CORDELL TRUEBLOOD, et al.,
11 Plaintiffs,
12 v.
13 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT
14 OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES, et al.,
15 Defendants.
16

CASE NO. C14-1178 MJP
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION AND RECONSIDERATION

17 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Clarification and
18 Reconsideration. (Dkt. No. 140.) Having reviewed Defendants’ Motion, Plaintiffs’ Response,
19 and all related papers, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the motion.
20 First, Defendants argue that the psychiatric and medical good cause exception to the
21 seven-day timeframe, applicable only to in-jail evaluations, should also apply to class members
22 awaiting transport to a state hospital. (Dkt. No. 140 at 2.) The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that
23 failure to obtain medical clearance is the only good cause applicable to class members waiting
24

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION AND RECONSIDERATION- 1

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 153 Filed 05/06/15 Page 2 of 4

1 for transport to state hospitals. (Dkt. No. 145 at 2-3.) Therefore, the Court modifies the

2 permanent injunction to allow for a good cause exception for class members waiting for transport

3 to a state hospital in the limited circumstance where (1) a class member cannot be medically

4 cleared for transport within seven days of the signing of a court order because of the class

5 member’s health, and (2) Defendants have a documented history of attempting to timely secure

6 medical clearance.

7

Second, Defendants argue that the seven-day timeframe should begin when DSHS

8 receives a court order, rather than when the court order is signed. (Dkt. No. 140 at 3-4.)

9 Defendants’ request is DENIED. The Court is aware that some local courts can take several

10 days to transmit an order to DSHS, and is also aware that the vast majority of orders are

11 transmitted to DSHS within one day of the order being signed. In focusing on the system as it

12 exists now, however, Defendants miss the point.

13

In order to comply with the Court’s injunction, Defendants must take on a more active

14 role in educating and collaborating with other actors in the forensic mental health system.

15 Compliance will require Defendants to think creatively and make efforts above and beyond the

16 efforts they were already making. Rather than seeking to extend the amount of time that class

17 members can be incarcerated awaiting services, Defendants should seek to facilitate the

18 development of a system where DSHS receives court orders promptly. In other words, flaws in

19 the system as it currently exists are not persuasive reasons why a better system cannot be

20 developed.

21

Third, Defendants seek clarification about their obligations where DSHS has requested an

22 extension for good cause, but the local court has not yet ruled on the motion by the seventh day.

23 (Dkt. No. 140 at 4-5.) In these circumstances, Defendants should admit the class member to a

24

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION AND RECONSIDERATION- 2

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 153 Filed 05/06/15 Page 3 of 4

1 state hospital. Again, Defendants must work to improve the efficiency of the system and

2 safeguard the constitutional rights of class members. Substantial compliance can only be

3 achieved through working with local courts and developing systems and methods through which

4 motions for extensions can be brought and ruled on quickly. Until Defendants have attempted to

5 improve the functioning of the system through collaboration with local courts and other actors,

6 requests for modification are premature. The Court declines to allow class members to be

7 incarcerated for additional time based on now-existing barriers to timely services.

8

Lastly, Defendants argue that they should not have to transport class members who are

9 ordered to receive in-jail evaluations to state hospitals when invocation of the right to have

10 defense counsel present at the evaluation blocks compliance with the seven-day timeframe.

11 (Dkt. No. 140 at 5-6.) Once more, Defendants point to flaws in the current system instead of

12 attempting to develop a better one. If DSHS is unable to accommodate a defense attorney’s

13 schedule and still comply with the seven-day timeframe, it should seek more resources and

14 expand services, not seek to incarcerate class members for longer periods of time.

15

If Defendants are still unable to provide in-jail evaluations within seven days after

16 attempting to overcome current barriers to timely services, then the Court will consider

17 modifying the injunction. Until Defendants have made efforts to comply with the injunction—

18 for example by hiring more evaluators, offering evaluations at regular, pre-set times in jails, and

19 offering evaluations outside of court hours and on weekends—Defendants’ request is premature

20 and is DENIED.

21

Conclusion

22

The Court modifies the permanent injunction to allow for a good cause exception to the

23 seven-day timeframe for class members ordered to receive competency services at state hospitals

24

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION AND RECONSIDERATION- 3

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 153 Filed 05/06/15 Page 4 of 4

1 where a class member’s health prevents them from being medically cleared to be transported,

2 despite Defendants’ good faith efforts. Defendants’ other requests for modification are

3 DENIED.

4

5

The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.

6

7

Dated this 6th day of May, 2015.

8

9 10

A

Marsha J. Pechman

11

Chief United States District Judge

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION AND RECONSIDERATION- 4

 </s> Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 162 Filed 06/22/15 Page 1 of 4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

9

AT SEATTLE

10 CASSIE CORDELL TRUEBLOOD, et al.,
11 Plaintiffs,
12 v.
13 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT
14 OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES, et al.,
15 Defendants.
16

CASE NO. C14-1178 MJP
ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS‟ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY‟S FEES AND COSTS

17 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiffs‟ Motion for Attorney‟s Fees and
18 Costs. (Dkt. No. 146.) Having considered the Parties‟ briefing and all related papers, the Court
19 GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the motion.
20 The Court previously awarded attorney‟s fees and costs to Plaintiffs in an amount to be
21 determined. (Dkt. No. 131 at 21.) Plaintiffs now seek a lodestar award of $1,267,769.10 in
22 attorney‟s fees for 3,232.77 hours of work, and an award of $37,237.25 for litigation costs. (Dkt.
23 No. 146 at 10-11.) Defendants agree that Plaintiffs, as prevailing parties, are entitled to
24

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS‟ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY‟S FEES AND COSTS- 1

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 162 Filed 06/22/15 Page 2 of 4

1 attorney‟s fees and costs, but argue that the lodestar amount is excessive and unreasonable, and

2 should be reduced. (Dkt. No. 154 at 1.) Defendants argue that fees should be reduced (1)

3 pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1997, (2) because

4 Plaintiffs‟ lumped billing records prevent the Court from determining whether the billings are

5 reasonable, (3) because reimbursement of meal expenses should be denied, (4) because Plaintiffs

6 overstaffed hearings, resulting in duplicative and excessive billing, (5) because amounts billed in

7 relation to the voluntarily dismissed Americans with Disabilities Act claim should be excluded,

8 and (6) because Ms. Cooper‟s hourly rate is excessive for her position. (Id. at 3-12.)

9

First, Plaintiffs‟ fee award is not governed by the PLRA. Plaintiff Disability Rights

10 Washington is not a prisoner, is not confined to a correctional facility, and has not been detained

11 as a result of being accused of a crime. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e; Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136,

12 1140 (9th Cir. 2000). Disability Rights Washington litigated this suit on behalf of its

13 constituents, (see Dkt. No. 131 at 15), and work on their behalf cannot be separated from work

14 on behalf of the named Plaintiffs who are also class members. See Turner v. Wilkinson, 92 F.

15 Supp. 2d 697, 704 (S.D. Ohio 1999) (“Since not all of the original plaintiffs were prisoners, the

16 Court does not believe that this case can properly be characterized as a suit „brought by a

17 prisoner ...‟”). Therefore, it would be improper to reduce Plaintiffs‟ fee petition even if some

18 Plaintiffs were subject to the PLRA‟s fee cap. See also Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program

19 v. Wood, 584 F. Supp. 2d 1314, 1316 (M.D. Ala. 2008).

20

Second, the Court finds that, based on Plaintiffs‟ billing records, the hours worked and

21 rates billed are reasonable and appropriate. Plaintiffs have submitted detailed declarations and

22 spreadsheets with detail sufficient for the Court to determine the reasonableness of the hours

23 claimed. The Court finds that the ACLU‟s billing records are sufficiently particularized so as to

24

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS‟ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY‟S FEES AND COSTS- 2

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 162 Filed 06/22/15 Page 3 of 4

1 allow the Court to evaluate the amount of time spent on particular activities and distinct claims.

2 The Court also finds that the hourly rates charged by Plaintiffs‟ counsel, including Ms. Cooper,

3 which range from $300 to $450 per hour, are reasonable for the Seattle market for work

4 performed by attorneys of similar skill, experience, and reputation. Accordingly, the Court

5 declines to reduce Plaintiffs‟ fee petition due to alleged block billing or the alleged

6 unreasonableness of the hourly rates charged.

7

Third, the Court declines to reduce Plaintiffs‟ fee award due to the voluntary dismissal of

8 their Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) claim. Plaintiffs have only billed for time spent

9 working on the ADA claim to the extent that that work furthered the litigation of their other

10 claims, and billing for that factual and legal development is appropriate.

11

Fourth, the Court declines to reduce Plaintiffs award for allegedly overstaffing hearings.

12 While Plaintiffs‟ legal team was large, the participation of several attorneys during complex class

13 action litigation—particularly fact-intensive system-reform litigation—is appropriate.

14 Furthermore, the challenges posed by this case‟s expedited trial schedule make the participation

15 of several attorneys especially appropriate.

16

Finally, the Court agrees with Defendants that Plaintiffs‟ counsel‟s meal and office

17 supply expenditures should be excluded. Common overhead expenses such as office supplies

18 and meals, expenses that are not normally charged to a fee-paying client, are not recoverable.

19 Consequently, the Court reduces the costs award by $1,487.57 charged for meals and $349.30

20 charged for office supplies, for a total reduction of $1,836.87.

21

Conclusion

22

The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiffs‟ Motion for Attorney‟s Fees

23 and Costs. The Court finds that Plaintiffs‟ counsel‟s hours and rates are reasonable considering

24

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS‟ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY‟S FEES AND COSTS- 3

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 162 Filed 06/22/15 Page 4 of 4

1 the magnitude and complexity of the matter and the quality of the representation, and

2 consequently awards Plaintiffs their requested lodestar amount of $1,267,769.10 in attorney‟s

3 fees. The Court also awards Plaintiffs their litigation costs, subject to the reductions discussed

4 above, for a total costs award of $35,400.38.

5

6

The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.

7

8

Dated this 22nd day of June, 2015.

9

10 11

A

Marsha J. Pechman

12

Chief United States District Judge

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS‟ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY‟S FEES AND COSTS- 4

 </s> Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 186 Filed 02/08/16 Page 1 of 18

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

9

AT SEATTLE

10 CASSIE CORDELL TRUEBLOOD, et al.,
11 Plaintiffs,
12 v.
13 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT
14 OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES, et al.,
15 Defendants.
16

CASE NO. C14-1178 MJP
ORDER MODIFYING PERMANENT INJUNCTION

17 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Modify Injunction to
18 extend Defendants’ compliance deadline to May 27, 2016. (Dkt. No. 174.) Having heard oral
19 argument and having considered the testimony submitted, the Parties’ briefing, the Parties’
20 stipulation regarding benchmarks, the Court Monitor’s reports to the Court, and the related
21 record, the Court GRANTS the Motion to extend the compliance deadline and makes additional
22 modifications to the injunction as follows.
23 /
24

ORDER MODIFYING PERMANENT INJUNCTION- 1

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 186 Filed 02/08/16 Page 2 of 18

1

Introduction

2

The Washington State Department of Social and Health Services (“DSHS”) is violating

3 the constitutional due process rights of Plaintiffs and class members by failing to provide timely

4 competency evaluation and restoration services. (Dkt. No. 104.) Class members are all pretrial

5 detainees waiting in jail for court-ordered competency services that Defendants are statutorily

6 required to provide. (See Dkt. No. 131.) Class members’ criminal cases are stopped and their

7 trials cannot happen until Defendants provide these services. At all times relevant to this case,

8 class members are presumed innocent and have not been convicted.

9

At trial, the Court found seven days to be the constitutionally permissible waiting time.

10 (See Dkt. No. 131.) While DSHS claimed, and continues to claim, barriers and obstacles prevent

11 it from providing timely services, the gravity of the harm to class members caused by prolonged

12 incarceration while awaiting services is great, and the constitutional due process balancing favors

13 class members. Seven days, therefore, is the maximum justifiable period of incarceration absent

14 an individualized finding of good cause to force a class member to continue to wait for

15 competency services.

16

In order to remedy the constitutional violation and protect the rights of Plaintiffs and

17 class members, the Court issued a permanent injunction on April 2, 2015. (Dkt. No. 131.) The

18 Court ordered Defendants to take appropriate steps to immediately reduce wait times, and

19 ordered Defendants to secure sufficient staff and bed space to allow for the provision of

20 competency services within seven days. The Court ordered Defendants to reduce wait times as

21 soon as practicable, but not later than January 2, 2016. Because Defendants had not

22 demonstrated that they were adequately planning for future growth in the demand for

23 competency services, the Court also ordered Defendants to prepare a long-term plan laying out

24

ORDER MODIFYING PERMANENT INJUNCTION- 2

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 186 Filed 02/08/16 Page 3 of 18

1 how Defendants will continue to provide services within seven days into the future. Finally,

2 because Defendants demonstrated a longstanding and consistent pattern of intentionally

3 disregarding court orders that conflicted with their internal policies, the Court appointed a Court

4 Monitor to oversee Defendants’ implementation of the injunction’s requirements.

5

Instead of complying with the Court’s order or seeking a timely extension, Defendants

6 waited until December 30, 2015, to ask to delay the injunction’s compliance deadline. (Dkt. No.

7 174.) Defendants argue an extension is warranted, and contend that they could not comply with

8 the January deadline due to the enforcement actions and demands from the federal Centers for

9 Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”), which issued six notices of immediate jeopardy to

10 Western State Hospital (“WSH”) following an investigation into patient and staff safety in the

11 fall of 2015. DSHS must achieve compliance with CMS’s conditions of participation by March

12 1, 2016, or risk losing sixty-four million dollars in federal funding as well as WSH’s

13 certification. Arguing that they have made significant efforts and taken concrete steps to reach

14 compliance even while having to reconfigure their compliance plan due to the CMS actions,

15 Defendants now seek an extension of the compliance deadline to allow for their efforts to yield

16 the hoped for results.

17

Legal Standard

18

“A party seeking modification or dissolution of an injunction bears the burden of

19 establishing that a significant change in facts or law warrants revision or dissolution of the

20 injunction.” Sharp v. Weston, 233 F.3d 1166, 1170 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Bellevue Manor

21 Assocs. v. United States, 165 F.3d 1249 (9th Cir.1999) and Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County

22 Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992)). Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) provides a means for parties to seek

23 modification of an injunction “if a significant change either in factual conditions or in law

24

ORDER MODIFYING PERMANENT INJUNCTION- 3

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 186 Filed 02/08/16 Page 4 of 18

1 renders continued enforcement detrimental to the public interest.” Horne v. Flores, 557 U.S.

2 433, 447 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Rufo, 502 U.S. at 384 (Modification

3 may be appropriate where changed factual conditions make compliance with a decree

4 substantially more onerous, where a decree proves to be unworkable because of unforeseen

5 obstacles, or where enforcement of a decree without modification would be detrimental to the

6 public interest.). Once the party seeking relief meets its burden of demonstrating that changed

7 circumstances warrant relief, a court abuses its discretion when it refuses to modify an injunction

8 in light of such changes. Horne, 557 U.S. at 447.

9

Factual Findings

10

After hearing testimony and reviewing the Parties’ submissions, the Court makes the

11 following factual findings:

12

DSHS has failed to comply with the Court’s order to reduce wait times for the provision

13 of competency services to class members to no more than seven days from the signing of a court

14 order no later than January 2, 2016. Indeed, while there has been a slight reduction in wait times

15 for some services since trial, wait times have actually increased for most services. (See Court 16 Monitor’s Second Quarterly Report to the Court, Dkt. No. 180 at 25.)1 Wait times are especially

17 egregious for services to be provided at Eastern State Hospital (“ESH”), where data from

18 December 2015 shows that class members who have been found incompetent spent an average of

19 ninety-four days in jail waiting for competency restoration services at ESH. (Id.)

20

DSHS contends it has been unable to comply because of the enforcement actions and

21 related demands from CMS, which DSHS believes constitute a significant factual change

22

23 1 The Court incorporates into this order the factual findings of the Court Monitor in her
24 Second Quarterly Report to the Court. (Dkt. No. 180.)

ORDER MODIFYING PERMANENT INJUNCTION- 4

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 186 Filed 02/08/16 Page 5 of 18

1 warranting modification of the injunction to extend the time by which DSHS must comply.

2 DSHS and WSH have successfully remedied the immediate jeopardy issues, but as of the date of

3 the status hearing, did not yet know whether their Plan of Correction would be accepted by CMS.

4 None of the CMS actions that form the basis for Defendants’ Motion apply to ESH.

5

While the timing of CMS’s most recent review of WSH and the specific demands

6 resulting from the review have created problems for DSHS’s long-term plan to comply with the

7 injunction, the problems identified by CMS are not new ones but rather are perpetual ones.

8 Indeed, shortages of staff and acceptable physical facilities were identified by the Court in April

9 2015 as the primary causes of DSHS’s failure to provide timely competency services. (See Dkt.

10 No. 131 at 11.) The deficiencies identified by CMS cannot be rectified until more staff is hired

11 and improvements to facilities are made.

12

While the CMS actions have hindered compliance, failures by DSHS itself have

13 prevented it from achieving compliance. As discussed in more detail below, DSHS (1) has failed

14 to hire and retain sufficient staff, (2) has failed to implement a data management system, (3) has

15 failed to modify its waiting list methodology to aid class members in critical need of treatment,

16 (4) has failed to take appropriate emergency action to immediately reduce the backlog of those

17 waiting for services, (5) has failed to seek expedited licensure for newly hired staff, (6) has failed

18 to establish a formal forensic training program, (7) has failed to make evaluations available on

19 evenings and weekends, (8) has failed to make any meaningful progress on the use of video and

20 telemedicine to conduct evaluations in remote parts of the state, (9) has failed to take any

21 meaningful steps towards establishing diversion systems with other stakeholders, (10) has failed

22 to make meaningful progress on out-stationing evaluators throughout the state but especially in

23 Eastern Washington, (11) has failed to hire high-level management staff who could bring

24

ORDER MODIFYING PERMANENT INJUNCTION- 5

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 186 Filed 02/08/16 Page 6 of 18

1 experience, education, and leadership to the challenges faced by DSHS, and (12) has failed to

2 follow its own long-term plan created just seven months ago. All of these failures, in addition to

3 the CMS actions, have led to DSHS’s inability to comply with the Court’s deadline.

4

DSHS’s primary barrier to compliance remains its inability to hire and retain staff.

5 DSHS has struggled to recruit qualified staff because despite some salary increases, DSHS

6 continues to pay below-market wages. DSHS also struggles to recruit and retain qualified staff

7 because of its unattractive workplace culture and rampant safety concerns, which themselves are

8 caused in large part by understaffing. Additionally, DSHS’s ability to hire sufficient staff has

9 been hampered by cumbersome labor contracts that limit the categories of medical professionals

10 that can serve in the state hospitals, and by an institutional unwillingness on DSHS’s part to

11 commence the bargaining process with labor partners who would be affected by changes in

12 working conditions.

13

DSHS’s failure to hire and retain sufficient staff has prevented it from utilizing already-

14 existing facilities and has caused it to instead seek private contractors to perform competency

15 services. Empty beds cannot be opened without sufficient staff. Thirty beds at WSH and fifteen

16 beds at ESH currently sit empty because DSHS does not employ enough doctors, nurses, and

17 other staff to open them.

18

DSHS has failed to hire a Forensic Director, leaving the department without a leader with

19 sufficient education, training, and creativity to effectively recruit staff and push plans forward.

20 After its initial search for a Forensic Director failed, DSHS waited months to restart the process.

21 The lack of a Forensic Director and the other significant vacancies among high-level

22 management staff have hindered recruitment and diffused decision-making responsibility among

23 already-overburdened agency staff, making it difficult to determine who actually made certain

24

ORDER MODIFYING PERMANENT INJUNCTION- 6

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 186 Filed 02/08/16 Page 7 of 18

1 decisions on behalf of DSHS. Because the Court cannot identify which decision maker has made

2 critical decisions on behalf of DSHS, the Court cannot know what education and experience the

3 decision maker is relying on when making those decisions and cannot evaluate whether or not

4 the decisions were made using appropriate considerations.

5

DSHS was given funding to hire two additional full time evaluators to conduct

6 competency evaluations, but decided not to fill those positions despite the fact that current wait

7 times for evaluations are far in excess of seven days. (See Dkt. No. 180 at 25.) The positions

8 remain vacant in part because DSHS has been unable to find candidates who meet its eligibility

9 requirements, and in part because DSHS believes it can process the current volume of evaluation

10 referrals with the quantity of evaluators it now employs. DSHS was not able to provide an

11 explanation as to why it would not benefit from having the two additional evaluators allocated by

12 the Legislature.

13

DSHS has failed to acquire the technical expertise necessary to achieve compliance.

14 Throughout the last nine months, medical records have remained inaccurate and inconsistent

15 across WSH and ESH. DSHS has failed to procure and put into effect an electronic medical

16 records system, and has not moved forward on an electronic records system that could store both

17 medical and court records. DSHS continues to struggle to understand the demand for its services

18 because of its lack of adequate data, and data on wait times is still relatively in flux due to

19 inconsistencies and inaccuracies.

20

Despite a $4.8 million appropriation from the Legislature, DSHS has failed to make any

21 significant progress on diversion. While a DSHS diversion specialist and liaison has held a few

22 preliminary meetings with several counties, DSHS has failed to make any meaningful progress in

23 coordinating with counties, prosecuting attorneys, community mental health systems, or police

24

ORDER MODIFYING PERMANENT INJUNCTION- 7

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 186 Filed 02/08/16 Page 8 of 18

1 departments to develop any concrete plans or systems to divert class members from the criminal

2 justice system.

3

DSHS has made no attempt to develop any triage methods or systems in order to sort

4 class members waiting for competency services by the acuity of their mental illnesses, their need

5 for medication, the amount of resources their cases will require, or the seriousness of the crimes

6 with which they have been charged. Instead, DSHS continues to use the first in, first out waiting

7 list methodology it has used for years, treating class members more like boxes on a warehouse

8 shelf than human beings in need of care. Defendants assert that this decision was based on

9 DSHS’s professional judgment, but have not identified the actual decision maker who made that

10 determination and what experience, training, or education that judgment is based on. Although

11 Defendants contend that they view the state courts as their clients, Defendants continue to ignore

12 court orders for immediate transport where judges have identified class members urgently in

13 need of services—including when held in contempt—instead choosing to prioritize admissions

14 using the existing waiting list system. Two class members have died in jail while waiting for

15 competency services from Defendants over the last nine months.

16

DSHS does not know, and does not take into account, the cost to Washington’s taxpayers

17 of continuing to incarcerate and care for class members in county jails during periods of time

18 where that responsibility is properly with DSHS. DSHS does not know, and does not take into

19 account, the cost to the public caused by significant delays in moving class members through the

20 criminal justice system. DSHS does not know, and did not take into account, the cost to the

21 public of retrofitting the Yakima and Maple Lane alternative restoration facilities for one or two

22 years of use as compared to the cost of securing sufficient staff to use the available empty bed

23 space in the existing state hospital campuses.

24

ORDER MODIFYING PERMANENT INJUNCTION- 8

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 186 Filed 02/08/16 Page 9 of 18

1

Discussion

2

The Court gave Defendants an opportunity to reduce wait times according to a plan of

3 their own design, and provided nine undisturbed months for the hoped-for results to materialize.

4 The compliance deadline now having expired, Defendants have failed to satisfy the Court’s

5 mandate, have failed to meet the goals they themselves laid out in their long-term plan, and have

6 failed to meaningfully improve the lives of class members, who continue to languish in jail while

7 waiting for services from Defendants. Although Defendants claim to be on the brink of

8 providing timely services to those afflicted with mental illnesses, their efforts to date inspire little

9 confidence that compliance can be achieved without stricter oversight and increased participation

10 by the Court, even if the compliance deadline is extended. The recent deaths of two class

11 members incarcerated while waiting for competency services highlight the importance of the

12 constitutional rights at stake here, and the gravity of Defendants’ failure to protect those rights.

13

The Court does not find that the CMS actions constitute a significant change in factual

14 circumstances. Indeed, Defendants’ failure to properly staff the state hospitals is the root cause

15 of both DSHS’s failure to provide timely competency services and the recent CMS enforcement

16 actions. Nevertheless, Defendants’ actions leave the Court with few options other than holding

17 Defendants in contempt or providing the requested extension with a substantial increase in Court

18 oversight. In weighing this decision, the Court is mindful of the fact that dozens of contempt

19 orders by state court judges—with contempt fines imposed now totaling more than one million

20 dollars—have failed to alter DSHS’s conduct or improve the lives of class members in any way.

21 Therefore, at this stage, the Court believes the public interest is best served by extending the

22 compliance deadline while also increasing the Court’s supervision and the authority of the Court

23 Monitor, by scheduling visits by the Court to the DSHS facilities at issue, and by setting interim

24

ORDER MODIFYING PERMANENT INJUNCTION- 9

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 186 Filed 02/08/16 Page 10 of 18

1 deadlines between now and the compliance deadline so that the Court can ensure progress is

2 being made. Furthermore, because Defendants have demonstrated that they are unable to protect

3 the rights of class members when left to determine their own priorities, the Court finds that the

4 public interest is best served by ordering Defendants to take specific actions recommended by

5 the Court Monitor and outlined below. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the permanent

6 injunction be modified as follows:

7

The deadline for Defendants to come into compliance with the injunction is hereby

8 continued to May 27, 2016. Because the Defendants have demonstrated that they are unable to

9 achieve anything resembling compliance when left to determine their own timeframes and

10 priorities, the Court now sets a series of interim deadlines for the completion of specific discrete

11 actions on the path to provision of timely competency services. Whereas Defendants were free

12 to achieve compliance on their own terms before, Defendants will now be required to take the

13 specific actions outlined below. Each of these actions and their associated deadlines are based

14 on recommendations from the Court Monitor, whose appointment was jointly proposed by the

15 Parties. (See Dkt. No. 144.) The Court Monitor’s recommendations for these actions are based

16 on, inter alia, her more than fifteen meetings with the Parties in this case, her more than twenty

17 site visits throughout Washington, and her multiple decades of experience planning, managing,

18 and evaluating systems of care, including ten years in Massachusetts, eight years in Rhode

19 Island, and eight years as a court expert and special master in the District of Columbia. (See

20 Dkt. No. 142-1.)

21

In response to solicitation by the Court, the Court Monitor has recommended the below

22 actions as necessary in order for DSHS to be in compliance by May 27, 2016, and into the future.

23 The Court has considered the less restrictive agreement submitted by the Parties, (Dkt. No. 185),

24

ORDER MODIFYING PERMANENT INJUNCTION- 10

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 186 Filed 02/08/16 Page 11 of 18

1 and finds that the proposal leaves too much to Defendants’ discretion, a result the Court finds

2 unacceptable based on DSHS’s performance under the injunction thus far. Stated differently, the

3 Court finds it necessary to require specific actions and set its own schedule because allowing

4 Defendants to work according to a schedule of their choosing has resulted in an increase in wait

5 times since trial. Failure to meet any one of these deadlines will trigger a hearing on that issue,

6 at which time the Court will determine whether a contempt hearing is necessary or whether other

7 orders should be issued so that compliance is achieved no later than May 27, 2106.

8

In order to reduce wait times for competency evaluations, Defendants are ORDERED to:

9 1. Implement a triage system to sort class

Dates for Completion:

members waiting for in-jail evaluations by the 10 acuity of their mental illnesses and their

11 current manifestations, by the seriousness of their crimes, and by the amount of resources

12 their cases require, by: A. Producing a triage plan for review and
13 comment

March 1, 2016

B. Putting the triage plan into effect, after 14 accounting for the comments received

March 15, 2016

15 C. Reporting on the implementation and

Beginning April 15, 2016, ongoing

effectiveness of the triage plan in Defendants’

16 monthly reports to the Court Monitor

17

2. Eliminate the backlog of class members Dates for Completion: 18 currently waiting for in-jail evaluations2 by:

19 A. Formally notifying DSHS’s forensic evaluators and Pierce County’s panel

February 15, 2016

20 evaluators of plan to eliminate the backlog of people waiting for in-jail evaluations and

21 requesting their help in doing so, and

22

23

2 For purposes of this requirement, “backlog case” means any case where a class member

has been waiting for an in-jail competency evaluation for more than seven days as of the date of

24 this order.

ORDER MODIFYING PERMANENT INJUNCTION- 11

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 186 Filed 02/08/16 Page 12 of 18

1 providing plans to get evaluations done

through the use of extra duty pay and other 2 methods available

3 B. Preparing a list of all backlog cases, organized by jail and by county

March 1, 2016

4 C. Finalizing recruitment of evaluators to aid March 1, 2016 in the backlog elimination effort and setting a
5 schedule for the evaluation of each backlog

case 6 D. Initiating the backlog elimination effort

March 7, 2016

7 E. Completing evaluations for all backlog 8 cases

April 15, 2016

9 3. Implement a triage system to sort class

Dates for Completion:

10 members waiting for in-hospital evaluations

by the acuity of their mental illnesses and 11 their current manifestations, by the

12 seriousness of their crimes, and by the amount of resources their cases require, by:

13 A. Producing a triage plan for review and comment
14 B. Putting the triage plan into effect, after

March 1, 2016 March 15, 2016

accounting for the comments received 15 C. Reporting on the implementation and

Beginning April 15, 2016, ongoing

16 effectiveness of the triage plan in Defendants’ monthly reports to the Court Monitor

17

18

In order to reduce wait times for competency restoration, Defendants are ORDERED to:

19 4. Implement a triage system to sort class
members waiting for restoration services by 20 the acuity of their mental illnesses and their
21 current manifestations, by the seriousness of their crimes, and by the amount of resources
22 their cases require, by: A. Producing a triage plan for review and
23 comment

Dates for Completion: March 1, 2016

24

ORDER MODIFYING PERMANENT INJUNCTION- 12

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 186 Filed 02/08/16 Page 13 of 18

1 B. Putting the triage plan into effect, after
accounting for the comments received 2 C. Reporting on the implementation and

March 15, 2016 Beginning April 15, 2016, ongoing

3 effectiveness of the triage plan in Defendants’ monthly reports to the Court Monitor

4

5 5. Report on the implementation status of the Dates for Completion: CMS Plan of Correction by:
6 A. Producing a written report of compliance February 21, 2016
issues and the dates associated with required 7 work to be done
8 B. Reporting on the implementation status in Beginning March 15, 2016, ongoing Defendants’ monthly reports to the Court
9 Monitor

10

11 6. Plan for recruiting and staffing 30 beds at Dates for Completion: WSH after compliance with CMS’s terms of

12 participation is achieved in March by: A. Producing a written outline of steps that

March 15, 2016

13 need to be taken to secure sufficient staff to

open the 30 currently empty beds at WSH 14 B. Producing a timeframe for opening those March 15, 2016

15 30 beds C. Reporting on the implementation status of Beginning April 15, 2016, ongoing

16 the plan and timeframe in Defendants’

monthly reports to the Court Monitor 17

18 7. Complete Operations Plans for the

Dates for Completion:

alternative restoration facilities in Yakima and 19
Maple Lane by:

20 A. Finalizing and publishing admissions criteria for alternative facilities
21 B. Submitting staffing plans for the
alternative facilities 22 C. Producing policies on seclusion and
23 restraint, risk management, and critical incidents for the alternative facilities

February 21, 2016 February 28, 2016 March 7, 2016

24

ORDER MODIFYING PERMANENT INJUNCTION- 13

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 186 Filed 02/08/16 Page 14 of 18

1 D. Producing policies on client rights and
rights monitoring 2

March 7, 2016

3

In order to plan for growth in the demand for competency services, Defendants are

4 ORDERED to:

5 8. Remove barriers to the expenditure of the Dates for Completion:

6 $4.8 million in currently allocated diversion funds by:

7 A. Providing to the Court Monitor the

February 15, 2016

diversion services request for proposals that 8 was issued

B. Providing to the Monitor the proposals February 28, 2016 9 received and the review and award criteria to

10 be used by DSHS in evaluating proposals C. Announcing the award of diversion funds March 11, 2016

11 D. Executing contracts for implementation April 15, 2016

12 by the selected providers

13

9. Appoint a Director of Forensic Services at Dates for Completion: 14 BHSIA Headquarters by:

15 A. Determining and executing the State of Washington’s re-posting and personnel

February 15, 2016

16 recruiting requirements
B. Engaging experts in the field to identify February 15, 2016 17 potential candidates, to be accomplished by

seeking a list of suggested contacts from the 18
Court Monitor to add to DSHS’s current

19 contacts C. Revamping DSHS’s approach to

February 28, 2016

20 recruiting by engaging senior system leaders

to personally make contact with identified 21 candidates and incorporating other

22 recruitment suggestions by the Court Monitor

23 D. Scheduling interviews with identified

March 15, 2016

candidates, and responding in writing to the

24

ORDER MODIFYING PERMANENT INJUNCTION- 14

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 186 Filed 02/08/16 Page 15 of 18

1 Monitor’s suggestions to improve the

attractiveness of the position 2 E. Completing interviews with identified

April 15, 2016

3 candidates and securing references for those candidates

4 F. Checking references and completing all employment application requirements
5 G. Extending offer of appointment and

April 30, 2016 May 15, 2016

setting start date, or reporting to the Court 6 and the Court Monitor on reasons why no

7 candidate was hired

8 10. Develop a reliable and valid client-level Dates for Completion:

9 data system to support better management

and accountability of the forensic services 10 system by:

11 A. Defining the functionality required of the February 28, 2016 data system, potentially including: data

12 collection, recording, analysis, reporting, knowledge and content management, DSHS
13 resource planning, and forensic decision

support systems 14 B. Performing a gaps analysis to determine March 7, 2016

15 if the current system can be modified to accommodate all the functionality required

16 or if new system design is required

C. Developing a task list and a timeline for March 7, 2016 17 implementation

D. Reviewing the above with the Monitor 18
E. Implementing revisions to the existing

March 15, 2016 May 27, 2016

19 system or initiating development of a new forensic data and management information

20 system

21 Defendants are further ORDERED to submit to the Court no later than February 21,
22 2016, the uniform orders for competency services developed by the Administrative Office of the
23

24

ORDER MODIFYING PERMANENT INJUNCTION- 15

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 186 Filed 02/08/16 Page 16 of 18

1 Courts, as well as a plan for disseminating those orders to all judges in the state who issue such

2 orders.

3

Defendants are further ORDERED to submit a revised long-term plan to the Court. The

4 revised plan should take into account the actions to date and should include all actions being

5 planned to achieve compliance by May 27, 2016. The revised plan should address DSHS’s plan

6 for how it will continue to provide services within seven days into the future as demand grows at

7 a rate of eight to ten percent per year, whether it be through expanded diversion efforts or other

8 means. The revised plan should address Senate Bill 5177 implementation plans, including

9 incentives to promote participation by counties, and should address the plan for returning the

10 beds opened at Yakima and Maple Lane to the accredited clinical setting of the state hospitals.

11 The revised plan should also include plans for evaluating performance in the provision of

12 competency services across the various settings and facilities. A draft revised long-term plan

13 shall be submitted to the Court Monitor no later than March 15, 2016. Defendants shall address

14 in writing any comments or recommendations from the Court Monitor no later than March 31,

15 2016, and should submit the finalized plan to the Court no later than April 15, 2016.

16

Defendants are further ORDERED to work with county executives across the state to

17 determine how much money is currently being expended by the counties to incarcerate and care

18 for class members who await services from DSHS. A report on costs to the counties should be

19 submitted to the Court no later than April 15, 2016.

20

All materials required above should be submitted to the Court Monitor unless otherwise

21 indicated. The Court Monitor, in her discretion, shall determine whether an issue should be

22 brought before the Court for further review and a determination of whether Defendants have

23 failed to meet one of their obligations under this order. Questions regarding the obligations of

24

ORDER MODIFYING PERMANENT INJUNCTION- 16

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 186 Filed 02/08/16 Page 17 of 18

1 Defendants under this order should be directed to the Court Monitor, who shall correspond with

2 the Court to determine the appropriate answer.

3

As discussed above, the Court also finds it necessary to expand the Court Monitor’s role

4 and increase her authority so as to ensure compliance is achieved. Accordingly, the Court

5 ORDERS that any written suggestion, recommendation, or document request made by the Court

6 Monitor to DSHS must be responded to in writing within ten (10) days, with an explanation for

7 DSHS’s position as to the recommendation or request and a rationale for that position, and with

8 the name of the decision maker(s) responsible for that decision. If the Court Monitor, in her

9 discretion, determines that a decision or rationale is inappropriate, the Court Monitor shall

10 immediately bring that issue to the Court for further review.

11

The Court Monitor is ORDERED to increase oversight of DSHS efforts to achieve

12 compliance and of its facilities, particularly the alternative restoration facilities run by private

13 contractors in Yakima and Maple Lane. To the end, the Court Monitor is hereby empowered to

14 hire a local consultant to do more frequent monitoring of the Yakima and Maple Lane facilities.

15 The Court Monitor and her experts and consultants shall have full access to all DSHS facilities at

16 issue in this case at any time. Furthermore, the Court will personally conduct on-site visits to the

17 DSHS facilities in coordination with the Court Monitor.

18

Finally, based upon the agreement of the Parties (See Dkt. Nos. 185 at 5, 185-1 at 5) and

19 the recommendations of the Court Monitor, wait times for competency services for all class

20 members not part of the in-jail evaluation backlog group discussed above are to be reduced

21 according to the following schedule of benchmarks:

22 March 1, 2016 23 April 1, 2016 24

Competency evaluations completed within fourteen (14) days for both state hospitals Competency evaluations completed within ten (10) days for both state hospitals

ORDER MODIFYING PERMANENT INJUNCTION- 17

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 186 Filed 02/08/16 Page 18 of 18

1 April 1, 2016 2 3 May 1, 2016 4 May 1, 2016 5
May 27, 2016 6 7

Competency restoration admission provided within twenty-six (26) days for both state hospitals Competency evaluations completed within seven (7) days for both state hospitals Competency restoration admission provided within thirteen (13) days for both state hospitals Competency evaluations completed and restoration admission provided within seven (7) days for both state hospitals

8 The Court shall set monthly status hearings beginning in March by separate order to
9 ensure observance of the Court’s directives and progress towards compliance with the injunction
10 by May 27, 2016. The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.
11

12 Dated this 8th day of February, 2016.
13

14

15

A

16

Marsha J. Pechman

United States District Judge

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

ORDER MODIFYING PERMANENT INJUNCTION- 18

 </s> Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 216 Filed 04/12/16 Page 1 of 7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

9

AT SEATTLE

10 CASSIE CORDELL TRUEBLOOD, et al.,
11 Plaintiffs,
12 v.
13 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT
14 OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES, et al.,
15 Defendants.
16

CASE NO. C14-1178-MJP
ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

17 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Temporary
18 Restraining Order. (Dkt. No. 193.) Having heard oral argument and having considered the
19 Parties’ briefing, the oral opinions of Dr. Mauch and Dr. Pinals, the observations made by the
20 Court during its March 9, 2016 visit to the Yakima facility, and the related record, the Court
21 GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the Motion.
22

23

24
ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER- 1

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 216 Filed 04/12/16 Page 2 of 7

1

Discussion

2

Plaintiffs move the Court for an order preventing Defendants from transferring any class

3 members to the Yakima alternative restoration facility until a full evidentiary hearing can be held

4 regarding whether or not the program complies with this Court’s Order directing Defendants to

5 provide timely competency restoration services without sacrificing the therapeutic environment

6 of a psychiatric hospital. (Dkt. No. 193.) Defendants oppose the Motion, arguing that the

7 Motion exceeds the scope of the underlying lawsuit and that Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the

8 elements required for issuance of a temporary restraining order. (Dkt. No. 201.)

9

“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on

10 the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the

11 balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v.

12 Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). The standard “is substantially identical for

13 the injunction and the TRO.” Stuhlbarg Intern. Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush & Co., Inc., 240

14 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001).

15

At issue here are both the Yakima program’s physical facility and its ability to create a

16 therapeutic environment in which class members can receive restoration services. Plaintiffs

17 argue the Yakima facility’s environment, necessarily impacted by its location in a former jail, is

18 correctional rather than therapeutic in nature, and therefore does not comply with this Court’s

19 April 2, 2015 Order requiring that competency services be provided within seven days “without

20 sacrificing the therapeutic environment of a psychiatric hospital.” (Dkt. Nos. 131 at 22, 193 at 2-

21 15.) Plaintiffs also identify several parts of the physical facility that pose an unreasonable risk of

22 serious injury to class members who might attempt to injure themselves or others, including (1)

23 the staircase between the first and second floors, (2) the seclusion and restraint room, (3) the

24
ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER- 2

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 216 Filed 04/12/16 Page 3 of 7

1 exposed hinges on the bathrooms’ shower doors, and (4) the grating covering the facility’s air

2 vents. (See Dkt. Nos. 193, 209, 213.)

3

Defendants argue that the Yakima program is not a corrections-based program, pointing

4 to the many differences—both in terms of the physical facility and of the substantive

5 programming provided—between Yakima and the jails where class members currently wait until

6 DSHS can provide them with competency services. (Dkt. No. 201.) Defendants contend that the

7 physical facility has been made safe, and that the program’s constant monitoring of class

8 members will ensure they do not harm themselves or others. At oral argument, Defendants

9 conceded that there is no clear, operative policy on the use of seclusion or restraint at the Yakima

10 facility and that there are internal inconsistencies and contradictions between policies produced

11 to the Court thus far, but maintained that a clear policy is forthcoming.

12

At the status hearing, Dr. Mauch, the Court Monitor, and her expert, Dr. Pinals, opined

13 that the staircase and seclusion and restraint room presented serious jumping, falling, and

14 hanging risks. Dr. Pinals also expressed concern about the facility’s large storage trunks, which

15 are stackable and may be used to hide behind. Dr. Mauch expressed concern that the grating

16 covering the air vents had not been properly tested to determine whether it presents a hanging

17 risk. The Court Monitor and her expert concluded that while no facility can be made absolutely

18 suicide-proof and constant visual monitoring can reduce many risks, mitigating environmental

19 risks such as those posed by the staircase and the seclusion and restraint room is central to the

20 operation of a safe restoration facility.

21

The Court finds that the Yakima facility’s staircase and its seclusion and restraint room

22 present serious and unacceptable risks of irreparable harm to both class members and facility

23 staff. As described in detail by the Court Monitor and Dr. Pinals, the partially covered staircase

24
ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER- 3

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 216 Filed 04/12/16 Page 4 of 7

1 allows for jumping or falling from the area and for throwing items down onto others. The

2 exposed metal bars of the railing allow for hanging. While the Court appreciates the Yakima

3 program’s commitment to monitoring class members at all times to ensure their safety,

4 monitoring cannot prevent suicide from jumping or hanging in many instances because of the

5 speed with which people intent on harming themselves might accomplish those actions. The

6 Court finds the same hanging risk exists in the seclusion and restraint room due to the internal

7 metal grating covering the window in the room’s door. The risks presented by the seclusion and

8 restraint room are amplified here because the Yakima facility does not currently have a clear

9 policy on the use of seclusion and restraint, despite the fact that secluding and restraining a

10 person experiencing psychotic symptoms is one of the riskiest procedures the Yakima facility’s

11 staff might undertake. Importantly, secluding or restraining an individual without proper training

12 and a clear set of rules and procedures poses a serious risk of physical injury to facility staff as

13 well as to the class member being restrained, who could also experience significant trauma if the

14 procedure is not handled appropriately.

15

The Court agrees with Defendants, however, that the immediate closure of the Yakima

16 program is not in the best interests of class members or of the public. Closing the Yakima

17 facility would result in an immediate reduction in system-wide capacity, leading to longer wait

18 times for class members desperately in need of competency services. Many class members are

19 currently being held in solitary confinement, where their mental health and physical well-being

20 are deteriorating rapidly. DSHS has decided to spend millions of dollars in public funds on the

21 Yakima program, a decision the Court did not approve and cannot change by ordering the

22 program to close. While Plaintiffs advance several persuasive arguments regarding the efficacy

23 of hospital-jail hybrid restoration programs such as the Yakima program as compared with those

24
ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER- 4

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 216 Filed 04/12/16 Page 5 of 7

1 based in psychiatric hospitals, there is not yet sufficient data for the Court to determine that the

2 Yakima program cannot provide therapeutic restoration services with a reasonable level of

3 success. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ request to halt usage of the Yakima facility

4 until its environment is made equivalent to a hospital’s environment, and no temporary

5 restraining order will issue in the form requested by Plaintiffs.

6

Nevertheless, the Court cannot allow class members to be placed in a facility the experts

7 agree is dangerous and presents a real and immediate risk of serious harm to class members.

8 Therefore, as laid out below, the Court issues a modified temporary restraining order preventing

9 the use of the Yakima facility’s second floor and seclusion and restraint room unless and until

10 the risks they present have been remediated.

11

The Court derives its authority to issue this order from its Order Modifying Permanent

12 Injunction and the representations made by Defendants in support of their request for additional

13 time to achieve compliance. (Dkt. No. 186.) The Court granted Defendants an additional five

14 months to come into compliance—instead of holding Defendants in contempt—based on the

15 understanding that DSHS had two additional facilities in which it could safely provide

16 competency restoration services to class members. Defendants represented to the Court that the

17 alternative restoration facilities and the care provided there would be similar and comparable to

18 that of the state hospitals, and that the “Department’s alternative sites for restoration will be set

19 up as therapeutic environments.” (Dkt. No. 183 at 2.) Instead, class members are being placed

20 in a facility that presents several serious risks of harm not present at the state hospitals.

21

Furthermore, the Court’s grant of additional time to achieve compliance was contingent

22 upon Defendants complying with a series of interim benchmarks and deadlines. The Yakima

23 facility was to have a policy on the use of seclusion and restraint in place by March 7, 2016.

24
ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER- 5

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 216 Filed 04/12/16 Page 6 of 7

1 (Dkt. No. 186 at 13.) Yet, as discussed above, the facility had no policy in effect as of the date

2 of the April status hearing, despite the fact that Yakima staff had already performed a restraint

3 procedure on at least one class member. Defendants’ violation of this mandatory provision,

4 along with Defendants’ decision to place class members in a facility that poses areas of

5 significant danger, necessitate issuance of this order.

6

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order is GRANTED in part.

7 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

8

(1) No class member may be housed on, or allowed access to, the second floor of the

9 Yakima alternative restoration facility unless and until the jumping, falling, and hanging risks

10 posed by the staircase have been remediated. This includes accounting for the hanging risk

11 presented by the vertical pipes attached to the staircase’s treds. The barrier must be high enough

12 to eliminate the risk that items can be thrown from the stairs to the floor below. Defendants must

13 seal off the staircase so that it may not be used or accessed, and may only allow access to the

14 staircase once it has been made safe for class members.

15

(2) The Yakima alternative restoration facility’s seclusion and restraint room may not

16 be used unless and until it is made safe for use. To make the room safe for use, Defendants must

17 remediate the hanging risk posed by the interior metal grating covering the window in the room’s

18 door. Additionally, before the room can be used, the facility must adopt a clear policy on the use

19 of seclusion and restraint as required by the Court’s Order Modifying Permanent Injunction,

20 must secure approval of that policy from the Court Monitor, and must train its staff about that

21 policy.

22

(3) The bond requirement is waived.

23

24
ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER- 6

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 216 Filed 04/12/16 Page 7 of 7

1

This temporary restraining order will remain in effect until April 22, 2016, or until proof

2 of compliance has been submitted to the Court and the Court Monitor and is found acceptable by

3 the Court, whichever is earlier. Plaintiffs may apply for an extension of the order, if appropriate.

4

SO ORDERED.

5

6

The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.

7

8

Dated this 12th day of April, 2016.

9

10

A

11

Marsha J. Pechman

12

United States District Judge

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24
ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER- 7

 </s> CCaasese2::154-3cv5-406121,7085-/M06JP/201D6o,cIuDm: 9e9n6t 628336,FDilketdEn0t5r/y0:64/1-61, Page 1 of 21
FILED

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

MAY 06 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CASSIE CORDELL TRUEBLOOD, next friend of Ara Badayos, an incapacitated person; A. B., by and through her next friend Cassie Cordell Trueblood; K. R., by and through his next friend Marilyn Roberts; D. D., by and through his next friend Andrea Crumpler; DISABILITY RIGHTS WASHINGTON,

No. 15-35462 D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01178-MJP
OPINION

Plaintiffs - Appellees,

v.

WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES; WESTERN STATE HOSPITAL; EASTERN STATE HOSPITAL; KEVIN W. QUIGLEY, Secretary of the Department of Social and Health Services, in his official capacity; RON ADLER, CEO of Western State Hospital; DOROTHY SAWYER, Chief Executive Officer of Eastern State Hospital in her Official Capacity,

Defendants - Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington
Marsha J. Pechman, Chief District Judge, Presiding

CCaasese2::154-3cv5-406121,7085-/M06JP/201D6o,cIuDm: 9e9n6t 628336,FDilketdEn0t5r/y0:64/1-61, Page 2 of 21
Argued and Submitted December 7, 2015 Seattle, Washington
Before: Michael Daly Hawkins and M. Margaret McKeown, Circuit Judges and Sharon L. Gleason,* District Judge.
Opinion by Judge M. Margaret McKeown, Circuit Judge: Washington State, through its Department of Social and Health Services (“DSHS”),1 has faced considerable challenges—both legal and practical—in administering timely competency evaluation and restoration services to pretrial detainees in city and county facilities. It is well recognized that detention in a jail is no substitute for mentally ill detainees who need therapeutic evaluation and treatment. Long-standing Supreme Court precedent requires that “a person whose mental condition is such that he lacks the capacity to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him, to consult with counsel, and to assist in preparing his defense may not be subjected to a trial.” Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 171 (1975). To honor its constitutional obligations, Washington law provides
* The Honorable Sharon L. Gleason, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.
1 Although the defendants-appellants include Washington State Department of Social and Health Services; Western State Hospital; Eastern State Hospital; Kevin Quigley, Secretary of the Department of Social and Health Services, in his official capacity; Ron Adler, CEO of Western State Hospital, in his official capacity; and Dorothy Sawyer, CEO of Eastern State Hospital, in her official capacity, we use “DSHS” or “the state” by way of collective shorthand.
2

CCaasese2::154-3cv5-406121,7085-/M06JP/201D6o,cIuDm: 9e9n6t 628336,FDilketdEn0t5r/y0:64/1-61, Page 3 of 21
that when “there is reason to doubt [the] competency” of a person facing criminal charges, the defense counsel or prosecutor may request an evaluation or a court may sua sponte order an evaluation to ensure that only those persons competent to stand trial are prosecuted. Wash. Rev. Code § 10.77.060.
Following a bench trial, the district court detailed Washington’s shortcomings in providing competency evaluation and restoration services, the insufficient number of beds and personnel as a result of inadequate funding and planning, and the deleterious effects of prolonged incarceration without evaluation and treatment for mentally ill detainees. The court addressed both initial competency evaluations and the mental health restoration services that follow a determination of incompetency to stand trial and concluded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that services for both categories must be provided within seven days of a court order, absent an individualized determination of clinical good cause. The court entered a permanent injunction to this effect, although Washington appeals only that portion related to initial competency evaluations. Thus, the question we address is a narrow one, focused on the timeliness of the evaluation—does the Due Process Clause compel the state to perform a competency evaluation of pretrial detainees within seven days of a court order requiring evaluation?
3

CCaasese2::154-3cv5-406121,7085-/M06JP/201D6o,cIuDm: 9e9n6t 628336,FDilketdEn0t5r/y0:64/1-61, Page 4 of 21
We agree with the district court that DSHS must conduct competency evaluations within a reasonable time following a court’s order. The district court’s seven-day mandate, however, imposes a temporal obligation beyond what the Constitution requires. Therefore, we vacate the injunction with respect to the seven-day requirement for in-jail competency evaluations and remand to the district court to amend the injunction in a manner consistent with this opinion.
BACKGROUND I. COMPETENCY EVALUATIONS
Consistent with its constitutional obligation, Washington law provides that “[n]o incompetent person shall be tried, convicted, or sentenced for the commission of an offense so long as such incapacity continues.” Wash. Rev. Code § 10.77.050. Once a judge, defense counsel, or prosecutor raises doubt about a criminal defendant’s legal competency, the court must order an evaluation. Id. § 10.77.060(1)(a).
DSHS is responsible for overseeing both competency evaluations and any following restorative services. See id. §§ 10.77.010(5); 10.77.088. The evaluation must be conducted by a trained evaluator and includes a face-to-face interview with the individual whose competency is in doubt, which can occur in one of three settings: a jail, a state hospital, or in the community. Id. § 10.77.060(1).
4

CCaasese2::154-3cv5-406121,7085-/M06JP/201D6o,cIuDm: 9e9n6t 628336,FDilketdEn0t5r/y0:64/1-61, Page 5 of 21
Individuals who are in jail (because they have been denied bail or have not posted bail) generally remain in jail awaiting performance of the competency evaluation. The court may order evaluations to take place at a state hospital if “necessary for the health, safety, or welfare of the defendant.” Id. § 10.77.060(1)(d). Nearly ninety percent of the evaluations occur in a jail or community setting. Detainees retain the right against self-incrimination during competency evaluations, have a right to counsel during the interview process, and may be permitted to have a defense expert for questions of competency. Id. § 10.77.020(4).
Once the requisite information has been gathered, the evaluator’s report and recommendations are presented to the court. Id. § 10.77.065. If an individual is found competent, the criminal prosecution may continue, but if a person is found incompetent to stand trial, criminal prosecution is stayed. Id. § 10.77.084(1)(a). At that point, the court may order restorative services or, if the defendant is charged with a nonfelony crime that is not a serious offense as defined in § 10.77.092, the court may dismiss the case or refer the defendant for civil commitment. Id. §10.77.088.
Washington law, effective July 24, 2015, sets a performance target of seven days or less for competency evaluations, but imposes a fourteen-day maximum time limit, with the possibility of a seven-day extension for clinical reasons. Id.
5

CCaasese2::154-3cv5-406121,7085-/M06JP/201D6o,cIuDm: 9e9n6t 628336,FDilketdEn0t5r/y0:64/1-61, Page 6 of 21
§ 10.77.068(1)(a).2 The target and time limit were to be phased in over a one-year period beginning July 1, 2015. Id. The law provides a number of defenses for failing to meet the deadline, including the inability to obtain necessary information regarding the defendant’s history, insufficient private space in the detention facility to conduct the evaluation, and “lack of availability or participation by counsel, jail or court personnel, interpreters, or the defendant,” any of which, if proven by a preponderance of the evidence, relieve the state of its duty to perform the evaluation within the time allotted. Id. § 10.77.068(1)(c). This provision explicitly “does not create any new entitlement or cause of action” to enforce these deadlines. Id. § 10.77.068(5). II. DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS
This appeal arises out of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action filed in federal district court against DSHS by Cassie Trueblood, on behalf of a single plaintiff, Ara Badayos. Badayos had been found legally incompetent to stand trial and was detained in solitary confinement in the Snohomish County Jail awaiting transfer to a hospital for restorative treatment. The complaint was then amended to include a class of individuals who were either awaiting a competency evaluation or had been
2 From 2012 to 2015, Washington law provided for a seven-day performance target, but no maximum time limits for evaluations. Former Wash. Rev. Code § 10.77.068(1)(a) (2012).
6

CCaasese2::154-3cv5-406121,7085-/M06JP/201D6o,cIuDm: 9e9n6t 628336,FDilketdEn0t5r/y0:64/1-61, Page 7 of 21
found incompetent and were awaiting restorative services. The district court certified the class as:
All persons who are now, or will be in the future, charged with a crime in the State of Washington and: (a) who are ordered by a court to receive competency evaluation or restoration services through DSHS; (b) who are waiting in jail for those services; and (c) for whom DSHS receives the court order. The district court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the question of “whether current in-jail waiting times for court-ordered competency evaluation and restoration services violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,” finding that “current in-jail wait time[s] experienced by Plaintiffs and class members [are] far beyond any constitutional boundary . . . .” Relying substantially on this court’s reasoning in Oregon Advocacy Center v. Mink, 322 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2003), the district court found that substantive due process analysis applied to the plaintiffs’ liberty interest in freedom from incarceration, and concluded that “wait times of less than seven days comport with due process, and that anything beyond seven days is suspect.” The court held a bench trial to determine the “precise outer boundary permitted by the Constitution” based on the specific conditions present in Washington State. During the trial, the district court heard testimony on three main issues: the current state of competency evaluations and restorative services in
7

CCaasese2::154-3cv5-406121,7085-/M06JP/201D6o,cIuDm: 9e9n6t 628336,FDilketdEn0t5r/y0:64/1-61, Page 8 of 21
Washington; the effects of prolonged detention in jail, rather than a hospital, for mentally ill individuals; and the feasibility of providing competency evaluation and restorative services within seven days.
Between 2001 and 2011, demand for competency evaluations in Washington increased by eighty-two percent. The district court found that evaluation services were delayed due to staffing shortages, high evaluator turnover, lack of accurate data and timely reporting, inadequate planning, unwillingness to use electronic court records, and long travel times between jails and evaluators’ offices. Trial testimony also revealed that class members had suffered serious mental health consequences as a result of prolonged detention—often in solitary confinement—pending evaluation or services, including suicidal behavior, selfharm, and refusal to take medications. It was no surprise, therefore, that the district court found “[p]unitive settings and isolation for twenty-three hours each day exacerbate mental illness and increase the likelihood that the individual will never recover.”
The district court concluded that “the foundational liberty interest under the due process clause is freedom from incarceration.” See Oviatt ex rel. Waugh v. Pearce, 954 F.2d 1470, 1474 (9th Cir. 1992). Because the state defendants had a “long history of failing to adequately protect the constitutional rights” of the class
8

CCaasese2::154-3cv5-406121,7085-/M06JP/201D6o,cIuDm: 9e9n6t 628336,FDilketdEn0t5r/y0:64/1-61, Page 9 of 21
and had “demonstrated a consistent pattern of intentionally disregarding court orders,” the district court ordered a permanent injunction requiring (in relevant part):
1) In-jail competency evaluations within seven days of the signing of a court order calling for an evaluation. If such an evaluation cannot be completed within seven days, then DSHS must either transfer the individual to a state hospital pending completion of the evaluation or obtain a court-ordered extension for “clinical good cause.”
2) Admission of individuals whose competency evaluations have been ordered to occur in a state hospital to that hospital within seven days of the signing of the court order.
3) Admission of individuals ordered to receive restoration services to a state hospital within seven days of the signing of the court order.3
DSHS appeals only the first part of the permanent injunction: the requirement that competency evaluations for jailed defendants be conducted within seven days, absent a court-ordered extension for clinical good cause. It does not appeal the injunction as it applies to individuals ordered to be evaluated in a state
3 On February 8, 2016, the district court issued a modified injunction, which, among other things, moved the deadline for compliance with the seven-day evaluation requirement to May 1, 2016.
9

CCaasese2::154-3cv5-406121,7085-/M06JP/201D6o,cIuDm: 9e9n6t 628336,FDilketdEn0t5r/y0:64/1-61, Page 10 of 21
hospital or who have already been found incompetent and are awaiting restorative services.
ANALYSIS We first address the applicable constitutional standard and then turn to the injunction’s remedial scope. Because “[a] permanent injunction involves factual, legal, and discretionary components, . . . [w]e review legal conclusions . . . de novo, factual findings for clear error, and the scope of the injunction for abuse of discretion.” Vietnam Veterans of Am. v. C.I.A, 811 F.3d 1068, 1075 (9th Cir. 2016) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). I. DUE PROCESS REASONABLENESS GOVERNS THE TIMING OF COMPETENCY EVALUATIONS We begin with the premise that due process analysis governs pretrial detention: “Freedom from imprisonment—from government custody, detention, or other forms of physical restraint—lies at the heart of the liberty that [the Due Process] Clause protects.” Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001) (setting presumptively reasonable time limits on immigration detention); see also LopezValenzuela v. Arpaio, 770 F.3d 772, 777–80 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (summarizing case law applying substantive due process to the fundamental liberty interests of pretrial detainees).
10

CCaasese2::154-3cv5-406121,7085-/M06JP/201D6o,cIuDm: 9e9n6t 628336,FDilketdEn0t5r/y0:64/1-61, Page 11 of 21
This principle was reinforced in Mink, where we held that “[p]retrial detainees, whether or not they have been declared unfit to proceed, have not been convicted of any crime. Therefore, constitutional questions regarding the . . . circumstances of their confinement are properly addressed under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment . . . .” 322 F.3d at 1120. Addressing the circumstance of individuals who had been evaluated and found incompetent, but were awaiting treatment, we held that waiting “in jail for weeks or months violates . . . due process rights because the nature and duration of their incarceration bear no reasonable relation to the evaluative and restorative purposes for which courts commit those individuals.” Id. at 1122.
Mink adopted the framework set out in two Supreme Court cases: Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972) and Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (1982). In Jackson, the Supreme Court articulated a general “rule of reasonableness” limiting the duration of pretrial detention for incompetent defendants and requiring, at a minimum, “that the nature and duration of commitment bear some reasonable relation to the purpose for which the individual is committed.” 406 U.S. at 733, 738. Thus, “[w]hether the substantive due process rights of incapacitated criminal defendants have been violated must be determined by balancing their liberty interests in freedom from incarceration and in restorative treatment against the
11

CCaasese2::154-3cv5-406121,7085-/M06JP/201D6o,cIuDm: 9e9n6t 628336,FDilketdEn0t5r/y0:64/1-61, Page 12 of 21
legitimate interests of the state.” Mink, 322 F.3d at 1121 (citing Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 321).
Although the specifics of the calculus may vary, the framework set out in Jackson, and applied to restorative competency services in Mink, is equally applicable to individuals awaiting competency evaluations. Weighing the parties’ respective interests, there must be a “reasonable relation” between the length of time from the court order to the inception of the competency evaluation.
Essentially for the first time on appeal, DSHS argues that the district court applied the wrong constitutional provision to Trueblood’s claims because the more specific Sixth Amendment speedy trial right supercedes substantive due process analysis where plaintiffs challenge delay, rather than the fact or conditions of confinement.4 We exercise our “limited discretion to consider purely legal arguments raised for the first time on appeal,” Lahr v. Nat’l Transp. Safety Bd., 569 F.3d 964, 980 (9th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted), in order to put to rest the
4 Throughout this litigation, DSHS invoked the Fourteenth Amendment as the basis for its arguments. The district court did not consider the Sixth Amendment either at summary judgment or at the trial. DSHS contends that two references to the Sixth Amendment in its trial brief were sufficient to raise the argument before the district court or, alternatively, that as a pure question of law, we should consider the Sixth Amendment argument on appeal.
12

CCaasese2::154-3cv5-406121,7085-/M06JP/201D6o,cIuDm: 9e9n6t 628336,FDilketdEn0t5r/y0:64/1-61, Page 13 of 21
state’s effort to shift the focus of the litigation and because consideration of the legal issue at this stage will not prejudice the class members.
The Sixth Amendment is ill-suited to the claim on appeal. Unlike in Sixth Amendment cases, these class members do not seek relief from prejudicial delays in their criminal prosecutions. Their complaint is that they should receive a timely determination of competency—a go or no-go decision on whether their criminal proceedings will move forward and whether they are eligible for restorative services. Many of them will never be tried, or might not be tried until after a lengthy restorative treatment process. Their focus is not the guarantee of a speedy trial.
To determine whether there has been a speedy trial violation, courts balance the “[l]ength of delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant’s assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant.” Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 (1972). In United States v. Sutcliffe, we excluded delays due to competency issues from both the statutory and constitutional speedy trial analysis in part because “the delays were all either directly caused by Defendant or . . . were deemed necessary in the interests of justice.” 505 F.3d 944, 957 (9th Cir. 2007). Our sister circuits are in accord that competency-related delays are not relevant to the speedy trial
13

CCaasese2::154-3cv5-406121,7085-/M06JP/201D6o,cIuDm: 9e9n6t 628336,FDilketdEn0t5r/y0:64/1-61, Page 14 of 21
inquiry.5 We reject the state’s argument that the Sixth Amendment, not the Due Process Clause, provides the framework for Trueblood’s claims. II. DUE PROCESS REASONABLENESS DOES NOT COMPEL COMPETENCY
EVALUATIONS TO BE COMPLETED IN SEVEN DAYS We recognize the challenges inherent in the district court’s task of setting a reasonable time frame, particularly in light of the state’s history of non-compliance with its own performance targets and with court orders. As the district court found, the state has “demonstrated a consistent pattern of intentionally disregarding court orders . . . and [has] established a de facto policy of ignoring court orders which conflict with [its] internal policies.” The state acknowledges that “some of the waiting periods are excessive and indefensible.” In fashioning a remedy, however, the district court did not ask whether there was some reasonable relation between the timing and the confinement, nor did it distinguish sufficiently between the pre- and post-evaluation categories at issue.
5 See, e.g., United States v. DeGarmo, 450 F.3d 360, 362-63 (8th Cir. 2006) (competency delays not considered under statutory or constitutional speedy trial analysis, even where the defendant did not request the competency evaluation and the evaluation took longer than the state statute required); United States v. Cope, 312 F.3d 757, 777 (6th Cir. 2002) (sixty-six day competency delay not presumptively prejudicial under the Sixth Amendment); United States v. Vasquez, 918 F.2d 329, 333, 337-38 (2d Cir. 1990) (even unreasonable delays in competency evaluations not considered in determining whether the right to a speedy trial was violated).
14

CCaasese2::154-3cv5-406121,7085-/M06JP/201D6o,cIuDm: 9e9n6t 628336,FDilketdEn0t5r/y0:64/1-61, Page 15 of 21
The findings and conclusions elide what is a reasonable delay when providing restorative services with what is a reasonable delay when conducting initial competency evaluations, often assessing both categories together under the rubric of “competency services.” Yet, both the class members and the state have different interests at the pre-evaluation stage than they do once a finding of incompetency has issued. The state, correctly observing that the categories of pre- and postevaluation class members are distinct, does not challenge the seven-day deadline for providing restorative services.
In Mink, all of the detainees had been found incompetent and had a distinct “liberty interest[] in freedom from incarceration” so they could receive restorative treatment. 322 F.3d at 1121. The state had no legitimate interest in keeping them “locked up in county jails for weeks or months” following an incompetency determination. Id. The interests to be weighed before a finding of incompetency bear a similarity to the Mink situation, but are factually distinct. The state argues that it has an interest in accurate evaluations, preventing the stigma of an incorrect determination, avoiding undue separation of a detainee from her counsel and family, and protecting the detainee’s rights to counsel and against selfincrimination. In contrast, Trueblood claims a legitimate interest in mitigating the harm caused to detainees who languish in jail awaiting a competency
15

CCaasese2::154-3cv5-406121,7085-/M06JP/201D6o,cIuDm: 9e9n6t 628336,FDilketdEn0t5r/y0:64/1-61, Page 16 of 21
determination and in reducing the impact of solitary confinement and other conditions often imposed on mentally ill detainees who are awaiting evaluation. The court’s findings neither weigh the interests related to competency evaluations as distinct from other competency services, nor benchmark these interests against a range of constitutionally acceptable timeframes.
With respect to the evaluation deadline, the district court did not articulate a sufficiently strong constitutional foundation to support the mandatory injunction. Indeed, the findings are couched in terms of what is “reasonable and achievable,” not whether the state’s present fourteen-day requirement bears the constitutionally requisite reasonable relationship, or whether the balancing of interests requires a seven-day deadline. Seven days, while perhaps feasible, does not constitute a bright line after which any delay crosses the constitutional Rubicon. Indeed, most jurisdictions in the United States do not require initial competency evaluations to be carried out in seven days. According to the state’s expert report, the national average for competency evaluation deadlines is thirty-one days, while fifteen states have no specific statutory deadline for evaluations, and only six have deadlines under ten days. Federal law allows up to thirty days for federal detainees. 18 U.S.C. § 4247(b). The district court did not consider any less restrictive alternatives, nor did it identify any reason why Washington should be held to such
16

CCaasese2::154-3cv5-406121,7085-/M06JP/201D6o,cIuDm: 9e9n6t 628336,FDilketdEn0t5r/y0:64/1-61, Page 17 of 21
a restrictive rule other than that “[w]ith appropriate planning, coordination, and resources” nothing prevented DSHS from “providing competency services within seven days.” But even if the seven-day time frame is not constitutionally mandated, that does not mean that Washington should let up on achieving its seven-day target.
The injunction has two other deficiencies. First, it mandates compliance within seven days of the signing of a competency evaluation order, not receipt of an order by DSHS. This requirement goes beyond what Trueblood requested and fails to account for any period from issuance of the court order to receipt. To be sure, neither the court nor the state should dally, but practical impediments, such as intervening weekends or the time necessary to obtain documents, can eat up the time period. Notably, even Trueblood’s expert stated only that the majority of evaluations could be completed within ten days of the receipt of a court order. Second, the permanent injunction currently excludes the possibility of an extension for delays attributable to non-clinical interests of a detainee awaiting evaluation, including the unavailability of defense counsel or a defense expert. In such cases, after the evaluation deadline has passed, the criminal defendant would automatically be moved to a state psychiatric hospital, often far from his lawyer and family, and then transferred back to jail if he is found competent, all without
17

CCaasese2::154-3cv5-406121,7085-/M06JP/201D6o,cIuDm: 9e9n6t 628336,FDilketdEn0t5r/y0:64/1-61, Page 18 of 21
the detainee’s consent. To honor the state’s interests in accurate and efficient evaluations and the defendant’s right to counsel, the district court should consider a broader “good cause” exception.
The question then remains: what constitutes a reasonable time in which to conduct the evaluations? We leave the answer to the district court in the first instance, but note that federal courts have often looked to a state’s own policies for guidance because “appropriate consideration must be given to principles of federalism in determining the availability and scope of equitable relief.” Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 379 (1976); see also Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 362 (1996) (concluding that a federal injunction had “failed to give adequate consideration to the views of state [] authorities”).
During the course of this litigation, Washington amended its law to set a fourteen-day maximum time limit for competency evaluations, although the legislation incorporated a non-binding seven-day performance goal. Wash. Rev. Code § 10.77.068. The court’s findings and conclusions do not take into consideration this legislative change, nor do they consider whether this time limit
18

CCaasese2::154-3cv5-406121,7085-/M06JP/201D6o,cIuDm: 9e9n6t 628336,FDilketdEn0t5r/y0:64/1-61, Page 19 of 21
would pass constitutional muster.6 On remand, the district court should evaluate the effects of the revised legislation.
CONCLUSION Washington has thus far failed to comply with its own target goals, which is why a permanent injunction remains an appropriate vehicle for monitoring and ensuring that class members’ constitutional rights are protected. In crafting a structural injunction that alters the state-wide processes by which individuals are evaluated for legal competency, however, the district court melded its findings with respect to competency evaluations and restoration services, did not tailor its findings to the timeliness of initial competency evaluations, and unduly focused its ruling on the timing of services that were attainable as a practical matter rather than the constitutional parameters of the remedy. In light of the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process reasonableness framework, the district court abused its discretion when it concluded that seven days was the “maximum justifiable period” primarily because it was feasible for DSHS to conduct evaluations within seven days in the vast majority of cases. See Katie A., ex rel. Ludin v. Los Angeles Cnty.,
6 At oral argument, Washington proposed that, if there had been a Fourteenth Amendment violation, the best remedy would be to order Washington to comply with its own law.
19

CCaasese2::154-3cv5-406121,7085-/M06JP/201D6o,cIuDm: 9e9n6t 628336,FDilketdEn0t5r/y0:64/1-61, Page 20 of 21
481 F.3d 1150, 1155 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Where an injunction is issued against state officials, a district court will be deemed to have committed an abuse of discretion . . . if its injunction requires any more of state officers than demanded by federal constitutional or statutory law.”) (quoting Clark v. Coye, 60 F.3d 600, 604 (9th Cir. 1995) (omission in original) (internal quotation marks omitted).
We vacate paragraph (1) of the permanent injunction issued on April 2, 2015, with respect to in-jail competency evaluations, and remand this case to the district court to modify the permanent injunction, consistent with this opinion, including considering Washington’s 2015 law and taking into account the balancing of interests related specifically to initial competency evaluations.
Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal. REVERSED AND REMANDED.
20

CCaasese2::154-3cv5-406121,7085-/M06JP/201D6o,cIuDm: 9e9n6t 628336,FDilketdEn0t5r/y0:64/1-61, Page 21 of 21
Counsel Noah G. Purcell (argued), Robert W. Ferguson, Anne E. Egeler, Amber L. Leaders, and Nicholas Williamson, Washington State Office of the Attorney General, Olympia, Washington for Defendants-Appellants. Anita Khandelwal (argued), Public Defender Association, Seattle, Washington; La Rond Baker and Margaret Chen, ACLU of Washington Foundation, Seattle, Washington; David R. Carlson and Emily Cooper, Disability Rights Washington, Seattle, Washington; Christopher Carney, Sean Gillespie, and Kenan Isitt, Carney Gillespie Isitt PLLP, Seattle, Washington for Plaintiffs-Appellees. Harry Williams IV, Law Office of Harry Williams, Seattle, Washington for Amicus Curiae Disability Rights Network.
21

 </s> 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

9

AT SEATTLE

10 CASSIE CORDELL TRUEBLOOD, et al.,
11 Plaintiffs,
12 v.
13 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT
14 OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES, et al.,
15 Defendants.
16

CASE NO. C14-1178-MJP
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

17 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining
18 Order. (Dkt. No. 244.) Having considered the Parties’ briefing, the opinions of the Court
19 Monitor’s experts, the observations made by the Court during its May 10, 2016 visit to the Maple
20 Lane facility, and the related record, the Court GRANTS the Motion with some modification.
21 /
22 /
23

24

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER- 1

1

Discussion

2

Plaintiffs move the Court for an order enjoining Defendants from allowing class members

3 to access the staircases at the Maple Lane alternative restoration facility—which includes

4 enjoining Defendants from housing class members on the second floor of the facility—until such

5 time as the staircases and their railings no longer pose an unreasonable risk to class members’

6 safety. (Dkt. No. 244.) Defendants oppose the Motion, arguing that the staircases are not unsafe

7 and that Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the elements required for issuance of a temporary restraining

8 order. (Dkt. No. 248.)

9

“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on

10 the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the

11 balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v.

12 Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). The standard “is substantially identical for

13 the injunction and the TRO.” Stuhlbarg Intern. Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush & Co., Inc., 240

14 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001).

15

At issue here is access to and use of the second floor of the Maple Lane alternative

16 restoration facility, which includes patient bedrooms. Plaintiffs argue that use of the second

17 floor presents an unreasonable risk of serious injury to class members who might attempt to

18 injure themselves or others by jumping or failing over the uncovered railings on the staircases or

19 by hanging themselves from the staircases’ railings. (Dkt. No. 244.) Plaintiffs argue that the

20 risks posed by the open staircases mirror the risks posed by the open staircase at the Yakima

21 alternative restoration facility, which has already been found to present an unreasonable risk to

22 class members. (Id.)

23

24

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER- 2

1

Defendants argue that the Maple Lane facility is a physically safe facility overall, and

2 that any remaining risks posed by the physical facility have been mitigated through screening

3 and monitoring procedures. (Dkt. No. 248.) Specifically, Defendants argue that patients sent to

4 Maple Lane are pre-screened for suicidal ideation or behaviors, that all staff have been trained on

5 suicide prevention techniques, and that the staircases are monitored by video camera and from

6 the central command station in the center of the facility. (Id.) Defendants argue that remediation

7 efforts are ongoing, and that the DSHS has already planned additional construction to enclose the

8 staircases. (Id.)

9

The Court finds that the open staircases at the Maple Lane facility present a serious and

10 unacceptable risk of irreparable harm to both class members and facility staff. As described by

11 the experts, open staircases allow for jumping or falling, and allow for items to be thrown down

12 onto others. The exposed metal bars of the railing allow for hanging. While the Court

13 appreciates the facility’s commitment to monitoring class members and training staff, monitoring

14 (even by well-trained staff) cannot prevent suicide from jumping or hanging in many instances

15 because of the speed with which people intent on harming themselves might accomplish those

16 actions.

17

The Court agrees with Defendants that their remediation efforts—i.e., the construction of

18 plexiglas and metallic enclosures and barriers around the staircases—are sufficient to remove the

19 unreasonable risk of harm to class members. Accordingly, the Court finds that allowing access

20 to the second floor of Wing A, where construction has been completed, does not present an

21 unreasonable risk of irreparable harm. However, Defendants have allowed access to the second

22 floor of all four of the facility’s wings, and have housed at least two class members on the

23 second floor of Wing D, where the remediation efforts have not been completed. The Court

24

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER- 3

1 cannot allow class members to be housed on or have access to the second floor of Wings B, C,

2 and D when the staircases to those wings continue to present a real and immediate risk of serious

3 harm to class members. Therefore, as laid out below, the Court issues a modified temporary

4 restraining order preventing access to the second floor of Wings B, C, and D until such time as

5 the staircases in those wings are enclosed in the same manner as the staircase in Wing A.

6

As with the temporary restraining order issued regarding the Yakima alternative

7 restoration facility, the Court derives its authority to issue this order from its Order Modifying

8 Permanent Injunction and the representations made by Defendants in support of their request for

9 additional time to achieve compliance. (Dkt. No. 186.) The Court granted Defendants an

10 additional five months to come into compliance—instead of holding Defendants in contempt—

11 based on the understanding that DSHS had two additional facilities in which it could safely

12 provide competency restoration services to class members. Defendants represented to the Court

13 that the alternative restoration facilities and the care provided there would be similar and

14 comparable to that of the state hospitals, and that the “Department’s alternative sites for

15 restoration will be set up as therapeutic environments.” (Dkt. No. 183 at 2.) Instead, class

16 members are being placed in a facility that presents several serious risks of harm not present at

17 the state hospitals.

18

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order is GRANTED with

19 some modification. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

20

(1) No class member may be housed on, or allowed access to, the second floor of

21 Wings B, C, and D of the Maple Lane alternative restoration facility unless and until the

22 jumping, falling, and hanging risks posed by the staircases have been remediated. Because the

23

24

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER- 4

1 Court is satisfied with the remediation efforts completed on the staircase and railing in Wing A,

2 this temporary restraining order does not prohibit the use of the second floor of Wing A.

3

(2) Defendants must seal off the staircases on Wings B, C, and D so that they may not

4 be used or accessed, and may only unseal the staircases once remediation efforts have been

5 completed and the staircases are enclosed in the same manner as Wing A.

6

(3) The bond requirement is waived.

7

This temporary restraining order will remain in effect until June 20, 2016, or until proof

8 of compliance has been submitted to the Court and the Court Monitor and is found acceptable by

9 the Court, whichever is earlier. Plaintiffs may apply for an extension of the order, if appropriate.

10

SO ORDERED.

11

12

The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.

13

14

Dated this 6th day of June, 2016.

15

16 17

A

Marsha J. Pechman

18

United States District Judge

19

20

21

22

23

24

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER- 5

 </s> 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

9

AT SEATTLE

10 CASSIE CORDELL TRUEBLOOD, et al.,
11 Plaintiffs,
12 v.
13 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT
14 OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES, et al.,
15 Defendants.
16

CASE NO. C14-1178-MJP ORDER OF CIVIL CONTEMPT

17 Summary of Ruling
18 THE COURT hereby holds Defendants in contempt of court. Despite the allocation of
19 tens of millions of dollars to solve the problems plaguing Washington’s failing forensic mental
20 health system, Defendants have not taken all reasonable steps to provide timely services.
21 Because Defendants have elected not to take all of the steps necessary to protect the rights of
22 some of our most vulnerable citizens, Defendants have not demonstrated substantial compliance
23 with this Court’s orders. Each additional day that Defendants fail to reduce wait times due to a
24

ORDER OF CIVIL CONTEMPT- 1

1 lack of effort or creativity or to the inability to follow recommendations is an additional day that

2 class members languish in jail in violation of their right to due process as guaranteed by the

3 United States Constitution. The people of Washington deserve to have their mental health needs

4 and the needs of their spouses, parents, children, and friends attended to with the same urgency

5 and dignity our society expects hospitals to respond with when presented with a broken bone or a

6 cancerous tumor. Therefore, in order to compel Defendants’ compliance with its orders and

7 protect the rights of class members, the Court now imposes monetary sanctions as detailed

8 below. The funds collected through these sanctions will be used for diversion programming for

9 the benefit of class members. These contempt fines will continue until Defendants demonstrate

10 substantial compliance with the seven-day standard, thereby purging their contempt.

11

Background

12

On April 2, 2015, this Court issued a permanent injunction requiring Defendants to cease

13 violating the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs and class members by providing competency

14 services in a timely manner. (Dkt. No. 131.) Class members are all pretrial detainees waiting in

15 jail for court-ordered competency services that Defendants are statutorily required to provide.

16 Class members’ criminal cases are stopped and their trials cannot happen until Defendants

17 provide these services. At all times relevant to this case, class members are presumed innocent

18 and have not been convicted.

19

The Court ordered Defendants to reduce wait times consistent with the injunction’s

20 requirements as soon as practicable, but no later than January 2, 2016. On December 30, 2015,

21 Defendants moved to modify the injunction to extend the compliance deadline. (Dkt. No. 174.)

22 Defendants argued that although significant progress in reducing wait times had been made,

23 factual changes related primarily to enforcement actions at Western State Hospital by the federal

24

ORDER OF CIVIL CONTEMPT- 2

1 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services meant that Defendants would not be able to achieve

2 compliance until May 27, 2016. The Court granted the requested extension, and allowed

3 Defendants to set a series of interim deadlines. (Dkt. No. 186.) The Court also set out specific

4 milestones and projects for completion.

5

Despite the extension of the compliance deadline, Defendants have not reduced wait

6 times in compliance with the seven-day standard established by the Court. In May 2016, only

7 twenty percent of class members ordered to receive in-hospital evaluations were admitted within

8 seven days of the signing of a court order. (Dkt. No. 278-1.) For the same month, only thirty-

9 two percent of class members ordered to receive restoration services were admitted within seven

10 days of a court order. Wait times experienced by class members vary widely; one class member

11 admitted for restoration on May 24, 2016, three days before the compliance deadline, spent

12 ninety-seven days waiting in jail for restoration services after having been found incompetent to

13 stand trial. (Dkt. No. 278-1 at 29.)

14

Plaintiffs now ask the Court to hold Defendants in contempt. (Dkt. Nos. 240, 254.)

15 Plaintiffs argue that Defendants’ clear failure to reduce wait times to seven days for the vast

16 majority of class members is a result of Defendants’ decision to prioritize internal policies and

17 preferences over the recommendations of the Court Monitor and her experts, and that reduced

18 wait times could have been achieved had Defendants been more proactive about protecting class

19 members’ constitutional rights. Defendants concede that they are not in compliance because

20 they have not reduced wait times as required by this Court’s orders, but argue that they are not in

21 contempt because they have taken all reasonable steps available to them to comply. (Dkt. No.

22 264.) Defendants argue that their efforts to reach compliance and the progress made to date in

23

24

ORDER OF CIVIL CONTEMPT- 3

1 reducing average wait times demonstrate that Defendants are in substantial compliance with this

2 Court’s orders, making a finding of contempt inappropriate.

3

The Court’s permanent injunction required that in-jail competency evaluations be

4 completed within seven days of a court order, and that admission to a state hospital be provided

5 within seven days of a court order for class members ordered to receive in-hospital competency

6 evaluations or to receive competency restoration services. (Dkt. Nos. 131, 186.) Defendants

7 appealed the portion of the injunction regarding in-jail competency evaluations to the Ninth

8 Circuit Court of Appeals, but did not appeal the portions concerning restoration services and in-

9 hospital evaluations. (See Dkt. No. 233.) Because there are still open issues regarding in-jail

10 evaluations, Plaintiffs’ contempt motions address only the portions of the injunction regarding

11 in-hospital evaluations and restorations.

12

Having considered the Parties’ briefing and the relevant record, having conducted site

13 visits to the alternative restoration facilities at Yakima and Maple Lane as well as Western State

14 Hospital, and having held a three-day evidentiary hearing and heard oral argument, the Court

15 now finds Defendants in contempt of court and imposes monetary sanctions that will continue

16 until such time as the contempt is purged.

17

Findings of Fact

18

1. Defendants have failed to comply with the specific and definite portions of this

19 Court’s orders requiring the admission of class members ordered to receive in-hospital

20 competency evaluations and/or competency restoration services within seven days of a court

21 order. (See Dkt. No. 131 at 22.)

22

2. Data kept by the Washington Department of Social and Health Services (“DSHS”)

23 demonstrate that it is has failed to comply. (Dkt. No. 278-1.) For orders for competency

24

ORDER OF CIVIL CONTEMPT- 4

1 restoration signed by judges in the month of May 2016, thirty-two percent (32%) of class

2 members were admitted within seven days. Accordingly, DSHS failed to comply in sixty-eight

3 percent (68%) of restoration cases. For orders for in-hospital competency evaluations signed by

4 judges in the month of May 2016, twenty percent (20%) of class members were admitted within

5 seven days. Accordingly, DSHS failed to comply in eighty percent (80%) of inpatient evaluation

6 cases.

7

3. At Eastern State Hospital, where there are no issues with Centers for Medicare &

8 Medicaid Services (“CMS”) certification or compliance, the percentage of class members

9 admitted for in-hospital evaluations within seven days was actually lower in May 2016 (7.7%)

10 than in February 2016 (30.8%), when the Court granted Defendants request to extend the

11 compliance deadline. (Dkt. No. 278-1 at 2.)

12

4. Average wait times for competency services have declined since the Court entered its

13 April 2, 2015 order. (See Dkt. No. 266.) Defendants attribute the reduction in average wait

14 times primarily to the opening of additional beds and the hiring of additional staff. Nevertheless,

15 averages cannot provide a complete picture because wait times continue to vary widely by class

16 member. (See Dkt. No. 278-1.) As stated above, one class member admitted for restoration on

17 May 24, 2016 spent ninety-seven (97) days waiting in jail for restoration services after having

18 been found incompetent to stand trial. (Id. at 29.) Another waited ninety-six (96) days until he

19 or she was admitted on May 10, 2016. (Id.) Another class member remained waiting in jail at

20 the time of the contempt hearing, despite having been ordered to receive restoration services on

21 March 16, 2016, a wait of at least ninety-three (93) days. (Id. at 31.) Wait times in excess of

22 forty (40) days are common. (Id. at 28-35.)

23

24

ORDER OF CIVIL CONTEMPT- 5

1

5. The thirty-two percent compliance figure regarding May 2016 admissions for

2 restoration services may overstate compliance because it includes a number of class members

3 who waited zero (0) days between the date the order was signed and admission. (Id. at 1, 34.)

4 These zeros potentially represent class members who were already at a restoration facility but

5 who were not restored to competency during the statutory time period, and thus received an

6 additional order for restoration without being returned to jail. DSHS was unable to provide

7 additional details about the zeros, and did not know whether they represented class members

8 already residing at restoration facilities. If the zeros are removed, the compliance figure for

9 restorations in May 2016 becomes fifteen percent (15%).

10

6. DSHS contends that despite this noncompliance, significant progress has been made

11 in reducing wait times. DSHS does not know, however, when it can achieve compliance with

12 the seven-day standard for most class members. As testified to by Assistant Secretary Carla

13 Reyes, no efforts were made by DSHS in advance of the contempt hearing to determine when

14 compliance could be achieved. The reason proffered for this failure was that only recently-hired

15 DSHS staff were capable of predicting when DSHS could be in compliance, and that they had

16 not begun development of their predictive model early enough to have answers ready for the

17 contempt proceeding. DSHS performed a similar predictive analysis when it choose the May 27,

18 2016 date in its December 2015 request for an extension of the compliance deadline.

19

7. Despite acknowledging noncompliance, DSHS has not requested a second extension

20 of the compliance deadline.

21

8. Defendants have taken many steps to reduce wait times, and have actively worked to

22 facilitate cooperation with other stakeholders in the forensic mental health system. Defendants

23 have succeeded in lobbying for additional legislation to improve the provision of competency

24

ORDER OF CIVIL CONTEMPT- 6

1 services in Washington state. These actions have benefited class members and are to be

2 commended. Defendants actions, however, have more often than not been too small in scale and

3 too late in time, and have prioritized business as usual over the type of systemic reform required

4 to address the constitutional crisis at the heart of this case. Defendants have repeatedly failed to

5 meet deadlines they set for themselves, for example in beginning the hiring process for staff for

6 the second phase of the triage program, as detailed below. While Defendants have taken many

7 steps towards compliance, they have not taken all reasonable steps.

8

9. Since issuance of the permanent injunction, DSHS has hired thirteen new evaluators, a

9 new forensic director, and many administrative and support staff, and has established a new

10 Office of Forensic Mental Health Services. DSHS has successfully lobbied for and implemented

11 salary raises for staff to assist with recruiting and retention, although salaries remain about

12 twenty-five percent lower than those at the Veterans’ Administration, with whom DSHS

13 competes for candidates.

14

10. Since issuance of permanent injunction in April 2015, Defendants have opened

15 twenty-seven (27) new beds at Eastern State Hospital (“ESH”), fifteen (15) new beds at Western

16 State Hospital (“WSH”), and fifty-four (54) new beds at temporary alternative restoration

17 facilities being run by private contractors at former correctional facilities. The temporary

18 alternative restoration facilities at Maple Lane and Yakima do not provide inpatient competency

19 evaluations, and only provide restoration services to certain class members who have, inter alia,

20 low acuity, low risk of self harm, and no major physical health problems outside of their mental

21 capacity. At the time of the contempt proceeding, not all beds at the alternative facilities were

22 filled.

23

24

ORDER OF CIVIL CONTEMPT- 7

1

11. Defendants planned to open an additional thirty (30) beds at WSH, but discontinued

2 that plan after (1) enforcement actions at WSH by CMS threatened the hospital’s certification

3 and funding, and (2) the elopement of two civilly committed patients through an unsecured

4 window in the civil portion of WSH. Following the elopement, DSHS decided to move thirty

5 civilly committed patients into the forensic portion of WSH into an empty forensic ward

6 renovated to be used for class members. DSHS has provided no explanation for why these civil

7 patients were given priority over class members to beds in WSH’s forensic wing, or why the

8 civil ward these civilly committed patients had resided in could not have been secured so that the

9 forensic ward would remain available for class members. The only explanation provided about

10 why arrangements could not have been made so that the empty ward would have been preserved

11 for class members is that DSHS believes additional beds cannot now be safely opened at WSH.

12

12. When asked if the civil patient census at WSH could be reduced in order to

13 accommodate more class members without opening additional beds, Assistant Secretary Reyes

14 agreed that that could be done, but testified that some staff members currently working on civil

15 wards are not appropriately trained to work on forensic wards. Assistant Secretary Reyes agreed

16 that locum tenens and/or other privately-contracted staff could be hired to fill those positions.

17 Assistant Secretary Reyes also testified that moving those found not guilty by reason of insanity

18 (“NGRI patients”) out of the state hospitals and into community settings was part of DSHS’s

19 long-term plan to free up space in the state hospitals, but that DSHS had taken no steps to begin

20 that process as of the date of the contempt hearing.

21

13. Washington’s state psychiatric hospitals provide services to patients facing criminal

22 charges (called forensic mental health services) as well as to patients committed through the civil

23 mental health system. Some patients, for example NGRI patients and other civil flips, begin on

24

ORDER OF CIVIL CONTEMPT- 8

1 the forensic or criminal side of the system and are later moved to the civil side. At trial, experts

2 testified that there are large overlaps between these three patient populations, as an individual

3 with severe mental illness might come into contact with both the criminal and civil systems over

4 a given period of time. Despite the interrelatedness of the systems, there appears to be little, if

5 any, top-level planning and coordination regarding the system-wide provision of mental health

6 services by public institutions in Washington state.

7

14. Defendants have identified the Maple Lane alternative restoration facility, which has

8 thirty restoration beds, as compensating for the unopened beds for class members at WSH.

9 Defendants maintain that the thirty beds will return to WSH in July 2017, but DSHS will not

10 start planning for that until January 2017 at the earliest. Defendants were not able to provide an

11 explanation for why planning could not begin sooner than January 2017, other than that issues

12 with CMS were ongoing and that the existence of the alternative restoration facilities

13 compensated for the beds at WSH. Despite their years-long struggle to hire sufficient staff and

14 the fact that Defendants are frequently unable to meet deadlines they set for themselves,

15 Defendants maintain that they will be able to hire sufficient staff to open thirty beds in July 2017

16 even while refusing to begin the hiring process for those beds before January 2017.

17

15. Although many of the problems identified by CMS (such as safety problems

18 resulting from inadequate staffing) mirror those identified by the Court in this litigation (inability

19 to provide timely services resulting from inadequate staffing), and although the CMS issues

20 pertain only to WSH, Defendants continue to put forward the CMS enforcement actions as a

21 primary reason why DSHS has been unable to provide timely services to class members.

22

16. DSHS’s main barrier to delivering timely competency services is its inability to

23 effectively implement reform. The experience implementing a triage protocol is typical. Even

24

ORDER OF CIVIL CONTEMPT- 9

1 though Defendants have adopted a triage protocol, as required by the Court in its Order

2 Modifying Permanent Injunction, its implementation has been haphazard and its benefits limited.

3 First, because Defendants did not prepare a robust plan for dissemination of the triage protocol

4 they developed, many DSHS employees were unaware of its existence up to a few weeks before

5 the contempt proceeding. The DSHS Community Outreach Liaison testified that DSHS’s failure

6 to inform its own competency evaluators about the triage protocol’s existence was a “massive

7 oversight.” Similarly, the staff person responsible for scheduling admissions to ESH was not

8 aware of the protocol’s existence, and other stakeholders including criminal defense attorneys

9 from several counties also indicated they were not aware of the protocol.

10

Even where there is awareness of the triage protocol, it is not well understood. In Clark

11 County, at least one judge in June 2016 found DSHS in contempt, and required DSHS to perform

12 a triage screening on the class member as a way to purge the contempt. At the time of this

13 Court’s contempt hearing, only seven people from only three counties in Washington had been

14 referred for a triage evaluation. While this stems partly from a lack of awareness about the

15 protocol, it also stems from DSHS’s decision to limit the categories of people eligible for

16 expedited admission to such a small subsection of the class that most class members are

17 excluded. Even though this Court’s Order Modifying Permanent Injunction required the triage

18 protocol to, inter alia, sort class members by the seriousness of the crimes with which they have

19 been charged, the triage protocol adopted by DSHS simply provides for expedited admissions

20 upon request only in the most extreme of circumstances and only for specific diagnoses. This

21 limited triage program was adopted despite recommendations from the Court Monitor to adopt a

22 more robust plan similar to those used in other jurisdictions.

23

24

ORDER OF CIVIL CONTEMPT- 10

1

The second phase of the triage protocol was scheduled to begin on July 1, 2016. Under

2 Defendants’ own timeline, hiring was to begin in April 2016 and was expected to take three

3 months to complete. As of the June 20-22, 2016 contempt hearing, the job openings had not yet

4 been posted, and Defendants conceded that phase two would not proceed on July 1, 2016, as

5 expected.

6

17. Defendants’ diversion and community outreach efforts have been similarly

7 ineffective, despite Defendants’ classification of successful diversion programming as “critical”

8 to DSHS’s long-term ability to comply with the seven-day standard. While DSHS has hired a

9 full-time staff member dedicated to community outreach, the community outreach liaison had

10 met with only eleven of Washington’s thirty-nine counties during the nine months she has been

11 employed. No specific education or outreach was conducted in Clark County after DSHS

12 learned that stakeholders there had misunderstood how the triage protocol functioned.

13 Defendants awarded $1.4 million to four counties to establish pilot diversion programs, but did

14 no research into diversion methods and their success rates before making those awards.

15 Defendants state that they successfully lobbied for legislation to enable “prosecutorial

16 diversion,” but the bill passed by the legislature simply reaffirms the preexisting power of

17 prosecutors to dismiss charges in the interest of justice.

18

18. Defendants contend that their efforts to achieve compliance have been frustrated by

19 third parties, such as criminal defense attorneys whose scheduling conflicts and resistance to the

20 use of the alternative restoration facilities have prevented DSHS from meeting the seven-day

21 standard. (Dkt. No. 264 at 4.) DSHS does not know, however, in what percentage of cases

22 defense attorney availability is the cause of delay because DSHS’s data keeping methodology

23 lumps together defense counsel availability with interpreter availability. DSHS contracts with

24

ORDER OF CIVIL CONTEMPT- 11

1 interpreters, and unlike with a scheduling conflict with a defense attorney, could simply retain

2 additional interpreters to compensate for any scheduling conflict. DSHS conceded that defense

3 attorney availability has no impact whatsoever on the process for admission for restoration

4 services.

5

19. Defendants have failed to take appropriate responsibility for failings caused by

6 DSHS’s own actions and inactions. When CMS first identified safety problems at WSH, former

7 DSHS Secretary Kevin Quigley sought to blame “the courts” for WSH’s failure to provide

8 appropriate care to its patients, lamenting that he had “not be[en] firm enough and courageous

9 enough with the courts.” (Dkt. No. 182-1 at 2-3.) Defendants failed to meet each and every wait

10 time benchmark in the Court’s Order Modifying Permanent Injunction, even though those

11 benchmarks were proposed by DSHS itself. (Dkt. No. 185.) Instead of attempting to identify

12 what went wrong and how it could be fixed, Defendants have repeatedly ignored and/or

13 minimized their failures and shortcomings, instead continually asserting that progress is being

14 made. DSHS’s refusal to examine its own work for errors or to find opportunities for

15 improvement has contributed to its inability to provide timely services.

16

20. Defendants are indifferent to the costs imposed on Washington’s counties, and

17 therefore on Washington’s taxpayers, by DSHS’s failure to provide timely services. As testified

18 to at the time of trial, class members are victimized in jail and sometimes harm themselves or

19 others, resulting in financial liability for those incidents for the counties who are responsible for

20 the care of their inmates. The counties spend millions of dollars a year caring for class members

21 during periods of time where that responsibility lies with DSHS. (See Dkt. No. 218.)

22

21. Since January 2014, when DSHS recordkeeping on this issue began, DSHS has

23 failed to comply with four hundred and seven (407) orders to provide forensic competency

24

ORDER OF CIVIL CONTEMPT- 12

1 services as ordered by the judges of Washington state. Sanctions for failure to comply totaled

2 approximately $1.5 million as of the date of the contempt proceeding, and $132,000 in fines had

3 been paid.

4

22. Defendants did not consult with the Court Monitor or her experts before making

5 multiple important decisions regarding steps to comply with this Court’s orders. Defendants did

6 not consult with the Court Monitor (1) before moving thirty civilly committed patients into beds

7 intended for class members inside the forensic portion of WSH; (2) before signing contracts with

8 private contractors for the operation of the alternative restoration facilities inside former jails; (3)

9 about policies for medication and for the use of seclusion and restraint at the alternative

10 restoration facilities before opening those facilities; (4) about the triage plan’s specifications

11 before it was chosen; (5) about negotiations with CMS and whether steps could be taken that

12 would satisfy both this Court and CMS; and (6) about diversion methods and their success rates

13 before awarding $1.4 million in funds to four counties to establish diversion pilot programs.

14 Because the Court Monitor was not consulted in advance, she was unable to recommend

15 improvements or identify weaknesses before DSHS took the actions.

16

23. Defendants have rejected multiple recommendations from the Court Monitor and her

17 experts. Defendants have declined the Court Monitor’s recommendations (1) to diversify the

18 types of mental health professionals used to serve class members at WSH, including the use of

19 temporary and other privately-contracted staff; (2) to plan, as early as possible, for the opening

20 of additional beds at WSH; (3) to select facilities other than jails in which to build the alternative

21 restoration facilities; and (5) to pursue additional federal dollars for diversion by developing a

22 proposal for a pilot program.

23

24

ORDER OF CIVIL CONTEMPT- 13

1

24. Defendants opened the alternative restoration facilities without remedying the safety

2 problems and other concerns identified by the Court Monitor and her experts, thereby

3 necessitating the issuance of two temporary restraining orders regarding use of those facilities,

4 further slowing DSHS’s progress towards compliance. Both facilities were opened in former

5 jails that spanned two stories, necessitating extensive architectural renovations that required the

6 investment of millions of dollars in public funds. No explanation has been provided as to how

7 the expenditure of millions of dollars in public funds on these facilities is justified considering

8 that Defendants maintain that use of the facilities is temporary and will not exceed two years.

9 Wards in the state hospitals do not span multiple stories.

10

25. Defendants opened the Yakima facility with several obvious problems. The stairwell

11 posed jumping, falling, and hanging risks, and multiple other ligature risks were present at the

12 facility. The facility opened without a clear policy on the use of seclusion or restraint, although

13 being forcibly restrained can be traumatic for class members even when done correctly. The

14 facility opened without a policy on securing medications on an appropriate timeframe that would

15 prevent class members from having to miss doses of their medications. At least one class

16 member missed at least one dose of medication after being transferred to the Yakima facility.

17

26. Defendants opened the Maple Lane facility with several obvious problems. One of

18 the facility’s two seclusion and restraint rooms was a bare concrete cell, and DSHS only placed

19 mattresses on the floor in response to complaints by the Court Monitor. Class members were

20 forced to sleep with the lights on for the convenience of facility staff checking at regular

21 intervals throughout the night that class members were still alive. The facility strip searched the

22 first group of class members admitted, and required class members to change out of their jail

23 clothing and into facility clothing in front of a video camera.

24

ORDER OF CIVIL CONTEMPT- 14

1

27. When first asked about the strip searching at Maple Lane, DSHS staff first denied

2 that strip searches were being conducted. Next, DSHS conceded that strip searches were being

3 conducted, but stated that strip searching was standard practice at the state hospitals. Next,

4 Defendants conceded that strip searching is not conducted at any psychiatric hospital in

5 Washington, and that the strip searching at Maple Lane had been conducted in contravention of

6 DSHS policy. DSHS was unable to identify with certainty the decision maker who instituted

7 strip searching, and was unable to identify who trained staff to conduct strip searches.

8 Defendants did not know whether any disciplinary action had been taken following the

9 revelation that strip searches were being conducted in contravention of DSHS policy.

10

28. The Court Monitor testified that the type of easily-fixable problems present at the

11 alternative restoration facilities (for example, Maple Lane, a co-ed facility, was opened with

12 bathrooms that had open windows without covers facing the main hallways of the facility,

13 meaning that staff and other class members could observe any class member while using the

14 toilet or taking a shower) demonstrate management’s lack of understanding about class members

15 and their needs, and display a lack of concern for class members’ basic dignity.

16

29. Class members continue to suffer grave harm waiting in jail for Defendants to

17 provide competency restoration services and inpatient competency evaluations. Each additional

18 day spent waiting in jail is a day spent without proper medication and appropriate care.

19 Untreated mental illnesses become more habitual over time, meaning it will take longer to

20 restore an individual to competency and that the likelihood that an individual can ever be

21 restored declines. Class members’ functional capacity declines while they wait in jail, often in

22 solitary confinement, and they become less able to communicate with their families and with

23 defense counsel. While waiting in jail, class members may become more aggressive or withdraw

24

ORDER OF CIVIL CONTEMPT- 15

1 into themselves, and can become suicidal. Class members can present a danger to staff and other

2 inmates, and can become targets for harassment and aggression by others while they wait. This

3 immense suffering is both unnecessary and avoidable, and is a tragic result of Defendants’

4 failure to implement the reforms necessary to deliver timely services.

5

Conclusions of Law

6

1. In order for the Court to find a party in civil contempt, the “moving party has the

7 burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that the contemnors violated a specific and

8 definite order of the court. The burden then shifts to the contemnors to demonstrate why they

9 were unable to comply.” F.T.C. v. Affordable Media, 179 F.3d 1228, 1239 (9th Cir. 1999)

10 (quoting Stone v. City and County of San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 856 n.9 (9th Cir.1992)).

11 “The contempt ‘need not be willful,’ and there is no good faith exception to the requirement of

12 obedience to a court order.” In re Dual-Deck Video Cassette Recorder Antitrust Litig., 10 F.3d

13 693, 695 (9th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted).

14

2. Substantial compliance with a court order is a defense to an action for civil contempt.

15 Gen. Signal Corp. v. Donallco, Inc., 787 F.2d 1376, 1379 (9th Cir. 1986). “If a violating party

16 has taken ‘all reasonable steps’ to comply with the court order, technical or inadvertant

17 violations of the order will not support a finding of civil contempt.” Id. A party’s inability to

18 comply with a judicial order also constitutes a defense to a charge of civil contempt. F.T.C. v.

19 Affordable Media, 179 F.3d at 1239.

20

3. Civil contempt sanctions can be imposed for one or both of two distinct purposes: to

21 compel or coerce the defendant into compliance with a court’s order, and to compensate the

22 complainant for losses sustained as a result of the contemnor’s noncompliance. Shuffler v.

23 Heritage Bank, 720 F.2d 1141, 1147 (9th Cir. 1983). “Where a fine is not compensatory, it is

24

ORDER OF CIVIL CONTEMPT- 16

1 civil only if the contemnor is afforded an opportunity to purge.” Int'l Union, United Mine

2 Workers of Am. v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 829 (1994).

3

4. Civil contempt fines can take the form of per diem fines imposed for each day a

4 contemnor fails to comply with an affirmative court order, or of fixed fines imposed and

5 suspended pending future compliance. See Int'l Union, United Mine Workers of Am., 512 U.S.

6 at 829. A court, in determining the amount and duration of a coercive fine, must consider the

7 character and magnitude of the harm threatened by continued contumacy, and the probable

8 effectiveness of any suggested sanction in bringing about the result desired. Whittaker Corp. v.

9 Execuair Corp., 953 F.2d 510, 516 (9th Cir. 1992). “Generally, the minimum sanction necessary

10 to obtain compliance is to be imposed.” Id. at 517.

11

5. Plaintiffs have demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Defendants are in

12 contempt of court. Defendants have failed to comply with the specific and definite portions of

13 this Court’s orders requiring the admission of class members ordered to receive in-hospital

14 competency evaluations and/or competency restoration services within seven days of a court

15 order. Defendants have failed to take all reasonable steps to reduce wait times for competency

16 restoration services and in-hospital competency evaluations, and therefore have not taken all

17 reasonable steps to comply and have not demonstrated substantial compliance. Defendants have

18 not demonstrated that they were unable to comply with the Court’s orders.

19

6. The CMS issues did not make it impossible for Defendants to comply. In fact,

20 because of the overlap in issues underpinning both this suit and the CMS actions, many if not all

21 CMS concerns could be addressed while working towards compliance with this Court’s mandate.

22

7. The scheduling impact of third parties, including defense counsel, did not make it

23 impossible for Defendants to comply. Rather, the evidence shows that insufficient staff and bed

24

ORDER OF CIVIL CONTEMPT- 17

1 space, caused by DSHS’s failure to take aggressive action to implement reforms, is the cause of

2 Defendants’ failure to comply.

3

8. Defendants failed to take all reasonable steps to comply. Defendants failed to make

4 more beds available to class members at WSH, with or without increasing the hospital’s overall

5 census. Defendants failed to diversify the types of medical professionals serving class members,

6 and failed to secure sufficient temporary and contracted staff to fill positions DSHS has not been

7 able to fill permanently. DSHS failed to implement a robust triage program, and has not

8 aggressively pursued diversion as a compliance strategy even while identifying diversion as

9 “critical” to long-term success. DSHS has repeatedly failed to meet the deadlines it sets for

10 itself, including every wait time benchmark leading up to the compliance deadline. DSHS chose

11 to invest millions of dollars and countless working hours to open two alternative restoration

12 facilities, which each required extensive and expensive physical renovations because of their

13 locations in former jails and which will only be used for one or two years.

14

9. In determining the amount and duration of a coercive fine tailored to this situation, the

15 Court is mindful of the grave harms suffered by class members while incarcerated waiting for

16 services. (See Dkt. No. 131 at 9-11.) The Court is also mindful of Defendants’ lengthy history

17 of ignoring court orders, Defendants’ inability to provide the Court with a date by which

18 compliance can be achieved, and Defendants’ failure to prioritize the constitutional rights of

19 class members while making decisions as to how bed space at the state hospitals is allocated.

20 The Court concludes that the fines now imposed, as detailed below, are the minimum sanction

21 necessary in order to obtain compliance.

22

Accordingly, the Court hereby holds Defendants in contempt, and imposes

23 monetary sanctions in order to compel compliance with its orders. The fines will begin to

24

ORDER OF CIVIL CONTEMPT- 18

1 accrue the day after the date of this order, and will continue to accrue each calendar day

2 unless and until Defendants achieve substantial compliance with the seven-day standard,

3 thereby purging the contempt.

4

The fines are imposed on a per class member, per day basis. For each class member,

5 Defendants shall pay a fine for each day spent waiting in jail beyond seven days for in-hospital

6 competency evaluations or for competency restoration services. For each class member who has

7 waited more than seven days but fewer than fourteen days for either of these services, the fine

8 shall be $500 per day. For each class member who has waited fourteen days or more, the fine

9 shall be $1,000 per day.

10

The fines shall be deposited into the Registry of the Court after they are reduced to

11 judgment, and shall remain in the Court’s Registry until further order from the Court. The fines

12 shall be reduced to judgment once per month, or more frequently if the Court in its discretion so

13 orders. The judgments shall bear interest at the federal statutory rate until satisfied.

14

Funds deposited shall be held for the benefit of class members and the development of

15 diversion programs to reduce dependence on the state hospitals. The Parties are ORDERED to

16 develop, in consultation with the Court Monitor, plans for the expenditure of the funds. The

17 plans shall be submitted within thirty (30) days of entry of the first money judgment.

18

In order to facilitate payment of the contempt fines, the Court also imposes a reporting

19 requirement. On the fifteenth day of every month, beginning with the month of July 2016,

20 Defendants shall submit to the Court wait time data in a manner identical to the data submitted

21 on June 17, 2016, in the declaration of Bryan Zolnikov. (Dkt. No. 278.) Additionally,

22 Defendants shall submit a proposed calculation of contempt fines along with the wait time data.

23 The proposed calculation shall specify the amount of the fine to be imposed, and shall contain all

24

ORDER OF CIVIL CONTEMPT- 19

1 calculations performed by Defendants in order to reach the proposed number. As with the

2 monetary sanctions, this monthly reporting requirement shall terminate upon Defendants’

3 achievement of substantial compliance with the seven-day standard for inpatient evaluations and

4 restorations.

5

SO ORDERED.

6

7

The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.

8

9

Dated this 7th day of July, 2016.

10

11

A

12

Marsha J. Pechman

13

United States District Judge

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

ORDER OF CIVIL CONTEMPT- 20

 </s> 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

9

AT SEATTLE

10 CASSIE CORDELL TRUEBLOOD, et al.,
11 Plaintiffs,
12 v.
13 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT
14 OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES, et al.,
15 Defendants.
16

CASE NO. C14-1178-MJP
ORDER MODIFYING PERMANENT INJUNCTION AS TO IN JAIL COMPETENCY EVALUATIONS

17 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on remand from the Ninth Circuit Court of
18 Appeals and on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider Scope of Injunction Regarding In-Jail
19 Evaluations. (Dkt. Nos. 233, 257, 259.) Having held a seven-day bench trial in March 2015 and
20 an evidentiary hearing on July 25, 2016, and having considered oral argument, the Parties’
21 briefing, and the entirety of the related record, the Court hereby ORDERS that the permanent
22 injunction be MODIFIED to require the completion of in-jail competency evaluations within
23 fourteen days of the signing of a court order.
24
ORDER MODIFYING PERMANENT INJUNCTION AS TO IN JAIL COMPETENCY EVALUATIONS- 1

1

Summary

2

The Washington State Department of Social and Health Services (“DSHS”) is violating

3 the constitutional due process rights of class members by failing to provide timely competency

4 evaluation and restoration services. (Dkt. Nos. 104, 131, 233.) Class members are all pretrial

5 detainees waiting in jail for court-ordered competency services that Defendants are statutorily

6 required to provide. (See Dkt. No. 131.) Class members’ criminal cases are stopped and their

7 trials cannot happen until Defendants provide these services. At all times relevant to this case,

8 class members are presumed innocent and have not been convicted.

9

To determine the appropriate remedy for Defendants’ constitutional violations, the Court

10 held a seven-day bench trial in March 2015. (Dkt. Nos. 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125.)

11 Based on the evidence presented at trial and the arguments of the Parties, the Court concluded

12 that a multi-part permanent injunction requiring DSHS to provide timely services was the proper

13 remedy. (Dkt. No. 131.) While Defendants did not appeal the injunction’s requirements as to in-

14 hospital evaluations or as to competency restoration services, Defendants appealed the

15 injunction’s requirement that in-jail competency evaluations be completed within seven days.

16 (See Dkt. No. 233.) The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed that a

17 permanent injunction relating to in-jail evaluations was appropriate to ensure that class members’

18 constitutional rights are protected, but vacated the seven-day requirement after finding that this

19 Court had not made sufficient findings to sustain that requirement. (Id.) The Ninth Circuit then

20 returned the case to this Court to reconsider “what constitutes a reasonable time in which to

21 conduct the evaluations.” (Id. at 18.)

22

Plaintiffs now argue that constitutional due process requires Defendants to complete in-

23 jail competency evaluations within ten days of a court order for such services. (Dkt. No. 259.)

24
ORDER MODIFYING PERMANENT INJUNCTION AS TO IN JAIL COMPETENCY EVALUATIONS- 2

1 Defendants argue that due process and federalism principles counsel in favor of deferring to

2 Washington’s statutory scheme, which requires in-jail evaluations to be completed within

3 fourteen days of DSHS’s receipt of a court order for such services. (Dkt. No. 279.)

4

Having held an evidentiary hearing and having considered the positions of the Parties, in

5 addition to the relevant record, the Court now orders that the injunction be modified to require

6 the completion of in-jail evaluations within fourteen days of the signing of a court order for such

7 services. As explained in more detail below, the Court has balanced the legitimate interests of

8 class members and of the state and finds fourteen days to be the maximum justifiable period of

9 incarceration for an in-jail competency evaluation absent an individualized finding of good cause

10 to continue incarcerating that person. But, while the Court accepts Washington’s statutory

11 fourteen-day standard, it cannot accept the legislature’s list of exceptions to the fourteen-day

12 requirement because the exceptions swallow the rule, leaving mentally ill persons to languish

13 while allowing DSHS to continue to make excuses, as has been its pattern.

14

Procedural Background

15

On April 2, 2015, this Court issued a three-part permanent injunction against Defendants

16 that required Defendants to cease violating class members’ constitutional rights by providing

17 timely competency services by, among other things: (1) completing provision of in-jail

18 competency evaluations within seven days of the signing of a court order, unless an extension is

19 secured for clinical good cause, (2) admitting those ordered to receive an in-hospital competency

20 evaluation to a state hospital within seven days of the signing of a court order, and (3) admitting

21

22

23

24
ORDER MODIFYING PERMANENT INJUNCTION AS TO IN JAIL COMPETENCY EVALUATIONS- 3

1 those ordered to receive competency restoration services to a state hospital within seven days of 2 a court order. (Dkt. No. 131 at 21-23.)1

3

Defendants appealed the portion of the injunction relating to in-jail evaluations. See

4 Trueblood v. Washington State Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 822 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2016).

5 The Ninth Circuit upheld many of this Court’s conclusions regarding the constitutional rights of

6 class members, “agree[ing] that DSHS must conduct competency evaluations within a reasonable

7 time following a court’s order,” and affirming that a permanent injunction “remains an

8 appropriate vehicle for monitoring and ensuring that class members’ constitutional rights are

9 protected.” Id. at 1040, 1046. However, the Ninth Circuit vacated the seven-day deadline

10 imposed by this Court with regards to in-jail evaluations, finding that the Court had not

11 articulated a sufficiently strong constitutional basis for the imposition of the seven-day deadline.

12 Id. at 1046. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case to this Court to reexamine the injunction and

13 the interests of the Parties, and to refashion a remedy that takes into account the interests of class

14 members and of the state as they relate specifically to in-jail competency evaluations.

15 Additionally, the Ninth Circuit instructed this Court to (1) reevaluate the injunction’s

16 requirement that compliance be achieved within a certain amount of time after the court order is

17 signed, rather than within a certain amount of time after DSHS receives the court order, and (2)

18 broaden the good cause exception as it relates to in-jail evaluations. Id. at 1045.

19

20

21

1 Much has happened in this case since the spring of 2015, when the Court issued its

permanent injunction and Defendants appealed the first portion. In the intervening months, for

22 example, Defendants asked for and received an extension of the compliance deadline, and then

were held in civil contempt for failing to take all reasonable steps to achieve compliance as to in-

23 hospital evaluations and restoration services. (See Dkt. Nos. 186, 289.) Because many of these

developments do not impact the considerations here, a lengthy procedural history of the case to

24 date is omitted.

ORDER MODIFYING PERMANENT INJUNCTION AS TO IN JAIL COMPETENCY EVALUATIONS- 4

1

Based upon the evidence and argument presented, the Court hereby makes and enters the

2 following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:

3

Findings of Fact

4

I. The Class

5

1. Class members are all pretrial detainees waiting in jail for court-ordered competency

6 services that Defendants are statutorily required to provide. Putative next friends seek to assert

7 claims on behalf of named Plaintiffs. On October 31, 2014, the Court certified the class as: All

8 persons who are now, or will be in the future, charged with a crime in the State of Washington

9 and: (a) who are ordered by a court to receive competency evaluation or restoration services

10 through the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services (“DSHS”); (b) who are

11 waiting in jail for those services; and (c) for whom DSHS receives the court order. At issue here

12 are those class members ordered to receive competency evaluations in jail, as opposed to in a

13 state hospital or in the community.

14

2. Each named Plaintiff and class member is a constituent of Plaintiff Disability Rights

15 Washington (“DRW”). All fall within DRW’s mandate to ensure that the rights of persons with

16 mental health conditions are protected. DRW’s interests are in complete alignment with those of

17 the class members.

18

3. DRW is a private non-profit organization designated by the Governor of the State of

19 Washington as the protection and advocacy system for individuals with mental, physical,

20 sensory, and developmental disabilities in the state of Washington pursuant to the

21 Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 15041, et seq.; the

22 Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §

23

24
ORDER MODIFYING PERMANENT INJUNCTION AS TO IN JAIL COMPETENCY EVALUATIONS- 5

1 10801, et seq.; the Protection and Advocacy of Individual Rights Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794e; and

2 RCW 71A.10.080.

3

II. The In-Jail Competency Evaluation Process and Statutory Regime

4

4. Defendant DSHS is charged under Washington law with overseeing competency

5 services, including the in-jail evaluations at issue here. RCW 10.77 et seq. If an individual is

6 found to be incompetent to stand trial, state law places responsibility on DSHS for “providing

7 mental health treatment and restoration of competency.” RCW 10.77.088; see also 10.77.084

8 and 10.77.086.

9

5. When a court has ordered an individual to receive an in-jail competency evaluation,

10 the individual’s criminal case is stayed during all competency-related proceedings. See RCW

11 10.77.084 (providing that after a criminal defendant has been found incompetent, the

12 proceedings against the defendant are stayed); Washington State Court Rules: Superior Court

13 Criminal Rules, CrR 3.3(e)(1) (excluding all proceedings related to the competency of a

14 defendant to stand trial when computing time for trial).

15

6. Defendants provide competency evaluations in local jails, in the community, or at the

16 two state hospitals, Eastern State Hospital (“ESH”) and Western State Hospital (“WSH”). See

17 RCW 10.77.060. Nearly ninety percent of evaluations occur outside the state hospitals, either in

18 jails or, for persons who have been released from jail on personal recognizance, in the

19 community.

20

7. The process begins when there is reason for a judge or an attorney to doubt that an

21 individual charged with a crime is competent to stand trial. Because state and federal law forbid

22 the criminal prosecution of individuals who do not understand the charges against them or are

23 unable to aid in their own defenses, courts order that these individuals’ competency be evaluated

24
ORDER MODIFYING PERMANENT INJUNCTION AS TO IN JAIL COMPETENCY EVALUATIONS- 6

1 to determine whether they may stand trial. RCW 10.77.060; See also Medina v. California, 505

2 U.S. 437, 449 (1992) (“the Due Process Clause affords an incompetent defendant the right not to

3 be tried”).

4

8. When a court orders a competency evaluation, the court order and other necessary

5 documents are sent to Defendants, who then assign the case to an evaluator.

6

9. In order to complete an in-jail evaluation that conforms with Washington’s statutory

7 requirements, an evaluator requires the following documents: (1) the court order; (2) the

8 charging documents; and (3) discovery (e.g., criminal history, police reports). As detailed

9 below, Washington law has been changed since trial and now requires court clerks and

10 prosecuting attorneys to provide DSHS with the court order, charging documents, and discovery

11 within twenty-four hours of the signing of a court order for an evaluation. See RCW 10.77.075.

12

10. While evaluators require access to the necessary documentation, the in-jail

13 evaluation is based primarily on a thirty-to-ninety-minute face-to-face interview with the

14 individual.

15

11. On average, completing an in-jail evaluation requires between ten and fourteen hours

16 of work by the evaluator. No credible evidence has been presented that performing the ten to

17 fourteen hours of work within the span of as little as seven days results in rushed or low-quality

18 evaluations. Rather, as demonstrated by the experience with panel evaluators employed by

19 Pierce County under Senate Bill 5551—who complete in-jail evaluations within seven days of

20 assignment in approximately ninety-five percent of cases—evaluations completed within this

21 timeframe are reportedly of good quality and have not been rejected by the courts or the litigants

22 in Pierce County.

23

24
ORDER MODIFYING PERMANENT INJUNCTION AS TO IN JAIL COMPETENCY EVALUATIONS- 7

1

12. After completion of the evaluation, the evaluator provides his or her report and

2 recommendation to the court in which the criminal proceeding is pending. RCW 10.77.065. If

3 the court finds the individual competent to stand trial, the criminal prosecution resumes. If the

4 court finds the individual incompetent, the proceedings are stayed and the court may enter a

5 competency restoration order as allowed by RCW 10.77.086 or 10.77.088.

6

13. Approximately fifty percent of individuals ordered to receive a competency

7 evaluation in Washington are found to be incompetent to stand trial. Expert surveys of

8 Washington’s forensic competency system found no signs of a widespread problem with

9 inappropriate or excessive referrals for competency evaluations.

10

14. Individuals charged with non-serious non-felony crimes are not ordered for

11 restoration if they are found incompetent. Instead, their charges are dismissed or stayed, and the

12 individual may be referred for civil commitment under RCW 71.05.

13

15. Sixty percent of individuals charged with misdemeanors have their charges

14 dismissed after the completion of a competency evaluation. Ninety percent of individuals

15 referred for competency evaluations have had prior contact with the criminal justice system.

16 Thirty-seven percent have been referred for a competency evaluation more than once since 2011.

17

16. If the court orders that an incompetent individual receive competency restoration

18 services, the individual is placed on a waiting list for admission to one of the state hospitals, ESH

19 or WSH, or one of the alternative restoration facilities at Yakima and Maple Lane, where DSHS

20 provides competency restoration services.

21

17. From 2001 to 2011, Washington has seen an eighty-two percent increase in the

22 demand for competency evaluations. Demand for competency services has grown, and is

23

24
ORDER MODIFYING PERMANENT INJUNCTION AS TO IN JAIL COMPETENCY EVALUATIONS- 8

1 expected to continue to grow, at a rate of eight to ten percent per year. In addition to yearly

2 growth, there are seasonal fluctuations in the demand for services each year.

3

18. Delays in the provision of competency services result in people with confirmed or

4 suspected mental illness spending more time incarcerated for the same offenses than those

5 without mental illnesses. In King County Correctional Facility, for instance, those with mental

6 illness spend on average three times more time incarcerated than those without mental illness.

7 Furthermore, overincarceration and the postponed adjudication of competence results in

8 significant costs to the public, especially when class members are held in solitary confinement.

9 The average cost to the public of incarcerating a class member in a Washington jail while they

10 wait for services is $96.13 per person per day. (Dkt. No. 218 at 2.) At all times relevant to this

11 case, class members are pretrial detainees and, as such, have not been convicted of the alleged

12 crime for which they were arrested and sent to jail.

13

19. It is the policy of the state of Washington that evaluations should occur within seven

14 days. See Senate Bill 6492; Senate Bill 5889. Despite this policy, DSHS has struggled for years

15 to provide timely competency evaluations. DSHS has maintained a waiting list for competency

16 evaluations for the last fifteen years.

17

20. In 2012, the Washington state legislature, seeking to remedy DSHS’s persistent

18 problem with providing timely services, enacted Senate Bill 6492, which created a seven-day

19 target deadline for providing court-ordered competency services, including in-jail evaluations,

20 for individuals detained in jails. RCW 10.77.068. The 2012 statute included a legislative

21 purpose section that stated:

22

"The purpose of this act is to sustainably improve the timeliness of services

related to competency to stand trial by setting performance expectations,

23

establishing new mechanisms for accountability, and enacting reforms to ensure

that forensic resources are expended in an efficient and clinically appropriate

24

ORDER MODIFYING PERMANENT INJUNCTION AS TO IN JAIL COMPETENCY EVALUATIONS- 9

1

manner without diminishing the quality of competency services, and to reduce the

time defendants with mental illness spend in jail awaiting evaluation and

2

restoration of competency. This act is necessary for the immediate preservation

of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its

3

existing public institutions, and takes effect May 1, 2012.”

4

21. In 2013, the legislature passed Senate Bill 5551 to further address the problem with

5 persistent delays in the competency system. RCW 10.77.073. Senate Bill 5551 authorized

6 counties to independently contract for evaluators from a panel when DSHS is consistently failing

7 to meet the seven-day target for the provision of in-jail evaluations. DSHS reimburses the

8 counties for the use of an outside evaluator at the rate of $800 per evaluation, which is below the

9 standard market rate for such an evaluation.

10

22. The only county to utilize panel evaluators pursuant to Senate Bill 5551 is Pierce

11 County. Although there can be a delay of one to three days in securing the necessary documents

12 and assigning the case to an evaluator, approximately ninety-five percent of evaluations by panel

13 evaluators are completed within seven days of assignment in Pierce County. These evaluations

14 are reportedly of good quality, and have not been rejected by the courts or the litigants in Pierce

15 County.

16

23. The Court Monitor has recommended that the state expand usage of the panel

17 evaluator system, but to date no other county has employed the panel evaluator system. (See

18 Dkt. No. 180 at 13.)

19

24. In early 2015, the legislature passed Senate Bill 5889 to amend the seven-day target

20 deadline contained in 2012’s Senate Bill 6492. RCW 10.77.068 now establishes a seven-day

21 “performance target” for the “completion of a competency evaluation in jail” and a “maximum

22 time limit of fourteen days, plus an additional seven-day extension if needed for clinical

23 reasons.” RCW 10.77.068. Section (1)(a) provides:

24
ORDER MODIFYING PERMANENT INJUNCTION AS TO IN JAIL COMPETENCY EVALUATIONS- 10

1

The legislature establishes the following performance targets and maximum time

limits for the timeliness of the completion of accurate and reliable evaluations of

2

competency to stand trial and admissions for inpatient restoration services related

to competency to proceed or stand trial for adult criminal defendants. The

3

legislature recognizes that these targets may not be achievable in all cases without

compromise to the quality of competency evaluation and restoration services, but

4

intends for the department to manage, allocate, and request appropriations for

resources in order to meet these targets whenever possible without sacrificing the

5

accuracy and quality of competency evaluations and restorations, and to otherwise

make sustainable improvements and track performance related to the timeliness of

6

competency services.”

7

25. The revised RCW 10.77.068 allows DSHS to exceed the “maximum time limits”

8 described above if DSHS:

9

“can demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the reason for

exceeding the maximum time limits was outside of the department's control

10

including, but not limited to, the following circumstances:

(i) Despite a timely request, the department has not received necessary

11

medical clearance information regarding the current medical status of a defendant

in pretrial custody for the purposes of admission to a state hospital;

12

(ii) The individual circumstances of the defendant make accurate

completion of an evaluation of competency to proceed or stand trial dependent

13

upon review of mental health, substance use disorder, or medical history

information which is in the custody of a third party and cannot be immediately

14

obtained by the department. Completion of a competency evaluation shall not be

postponed for procurement of mental health, substance use disorder, or medical

15

history information which is merely supplementary to the competency

determination;

16

(iii) Completion of the referral is frustrated by lack of availability or

participation by counsel, jail or court personnel, interpreters, or the defendant;

17

(iv) The department does not have access to appropriate private space to

conduct a competency evaluation for a defendant in pretrial custody;

18

(v) The defendant asserts legal rights that result in a delay in the provision

of competency services; or

19

(vi) An unusual spike in the receipt of evaluation referrals or in the

number of defendants requiring restoration services has occurred, causing

20

temporary delays until the unexpected excess demand for competency services

can be resolved.”

21

RCW 10.77.068(1)(c).

22

26. Senate Bill 5889 was introduced in the legislature on February 9, 2015—fifty-five

23

days after this Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment—and was signed by the

24

ORDER MODIFYING PERMANENT INJUNCTION AS TO IN JAIL COMPETENCY EVALUATIONS- 11

1 Governor on March 12, 2015, four days before the trial in this matter began. During her

2 testimony on the day after the bill was introduced, DSHS Assistant Secretary Jane Beyer—who

3 has now been replaced by Assistant Secretary Carla Reyes—asked the Senate Human Services

4 Committee to “move it [Senate Bill 5889] quickly, given an upcoming trial date of March 16.”

5 Hearing on Senate Bill 5889 before the Washington Senate Committee on Human Services,

6 Mental Health and Housing, 2015 Leg., 64th Sess. (Wash. 2015), available at

7 http://www.tvw.org/watch/?eventID=2015021195. Assistant Secretary Beyer later stated that

8 she “believe[d] that the bill . . . established maximum timelines that are consistent with the

9 constitutional provisions that are at issue in the Trueblood litigation.” Id.

10

27. The time limits established in Senate Bill 5889 are calculated using “the date on

11 which the state hospital receives the court referral and charging documents, discovery, police

12 reports, the names and addresses of the attorneys for the defendant and state or county, the name

13 of the judge ordering the evaluation, information about the alleged crime, and criminal history

14 information related to the defendant.” RCW 10.77.068(1)(b). The fourteen-day “maximum time

15 limit” “shall be phased in over a one-year period beginning July 1, 2015, in a manner that results

16 in measurable incremental progress toward meeting the time limits over the course of the year.”

17 Id. RCW 10.77.068(5) states that “[t]his section does not create any new entitlement or cause of

18 action related to the timeliness of competency evaluations or admission for inpatient restoration

19 services related to competency to proceed or stand trial, nor can it form the basis for contempt

20 sanctions under chapter 7.21 RCW or a motion to dismiss criminal charges.”

21

28. Also in 2015, DSHS successfully lobbied the legislature for a new law requiring

22 Washington’s clerks of court to provide DSHS with a court order for a competency evaluation,

23 as well as the charging documents, within twenty-four hours of the order being signed. RCW

24
ORDER MODIFYING PERMANENT INJUNCTION AS TO IN JAIL COMPETENCY EVALUATIONS- 12

1 10.77.075(1)-(3). The law also requires prosecuting attorneys to provide the discovery

2 documents to DSHS within twenty-four hours, and requires jail administrators to provide

3 medical clearance within twenty-four hours for any individual ordered to be transported to a state

4 hospital. Id.

5

29. The regimes governing the provision of competency evaluations in jurisdictions

6 other than Washington state vary widely. For example, states vary in the findings that must be

7 made by an evaluator. Washington, for instance, requires only a description of the evaluation,

8 either a diagnosis or a description of the current mental status of the class member, and, if the

9 class member “suffers from a mental disease or defect, or has a developmental disability,” an

10 opinion as to competency. RCW 10.77.060. Colorado, on the other hand, requires a diagnosis

11 and prognosis of the individual’s mental disability or developmental disability in addition to

12 what is required in Washington. (See Dkt. No. 139 at 23.) Hawaii also requires that evaluators

13 include a diagnosis, and courts in Hawaii are required to provide evaluators with “all existing

14 medical, mental health, social, police, and juvenile records, including those expunged, and other

15 pertinent records in the custody of public agencies, notwithstanding any other statutes.” (Id. at

16 26.) States also vary widely in the time allowed for the performance of the required tasks,

17 ranging from Rhode Island, which allows five days to complete an initial evaluation, to several

18 states that do not statutorily establish a maximum time frame for the completion of an in-jail

19 competency evaluation.

20

30. Despite these legislative attempts to quicken the pace, and despite a 2015 allocation

21 of tens of millions of additional dollars, DSHS has continued to struggle to provide timely

22 services, almost never achieving the seven-day performance target for in-jail evaluations. At the

23 time of trial, much of DSHS’s data was incomplete and unreliable due to poor data collection

24
ORDER MODIFYING PERMANENT INJUNCTION AS TO IN JAIL COMPETENCY EVALUATIONS- 13

1 and management practices and a lack of consistency of practices across the state hospitals.

2 However, information provided by DSHS to the legislature in December 2014 is illustrative of

3 the nature and persistence of Defendants’ delays at the time of trial. Based on that information,

4 the average in-jail wait time for a completed competency evaluation was 14.7 days at WSH and

5 56.3 days at ESH.

6

31. Following trial and the imposition of the Court’s initial injunction, average wait

7 times for in-jail evaluations have declined. Based on information submitted to the Court Monitor

8 as part of DSHS’s July 2016 Monthly Report to the Court Monitor, the average in-jail wait time

9 for a completed in-jail competency evaluation was 10.8 days at WSH and 14.1 days at ESH. The

10 combined average across hospitals was 11.4 days, an increase of one day over the previous

11 month’s average of 10.4 days. Thirty-five percent of in-jail evaluations were completed within

12 seven days of the signing of a court order.

13

32. Following DSHS’s successful efforts to require court clerks and prosecuting

14 attorneys to provide DSHS with the documents necessary to conduct an evaluation within

15 twenty-four hours of the signing of a court order, the average time that elapses between the

16 signing of a court order and DSHS’s receipt of the necessary documents has also declined.

17 According to May 2016 data submitted to the Court Monitor, court orders were received by

18 DSHS on the same day they were signed in approximately seventy-two percent of cases. DSHS

19 received the court order in three days or less in approximately ninety-five percent of cases. Also

20 in May 2016, DSHS received the discovery from prosecuting attorneys on the same day the court

21 order was signed in approximately seventy-one percent of cases. DSHS received the discovery

22 in three days or less in approximately ninety-five percent of cases.

23

24
ORDER MODIFYING PERMANENT INJUNCTION AS TO IN JAIL COMPETENCY EVALUATIONS- 14

1

III. The Harms Caused by Prolonged Incarceration

2

33. Jails are inherently punitive institutions, and are not designed or administered so as

3 to provide for the needs of the mentally ill. A correctional environment, calibrated to provide

4 safety and order, is incongruous with the particular needs of the mentally ill, and results in

5 people with confirmed or suspected mental illness spending more time in solitary confinement,

6 where their mental health further deteriorates. This deterioration is in direct conflict with the

7 State’s interest in prompt evaluation and treatment so that the individual may be brought to trial,

8 especially for individuals whose illnesses become more habitual and harder to treat while they

9 wait in isolation.

10

34. In jails, class members are routinely held in a solitary lock down for twenty-three

11 hours out of every day for reasons unrelated to their mental health needs. Class members are

12 placed in solitary confinement because they are victimized by other inmates, or because

13 symptoms of their illnesses prevent them from following generally applicable rules or behavioral

14 expectations. Sometimes class members are placed in solitary confinement for their erratic or

15 unpredictable behavior, not as punishment for breaking the rules, but to prevent them from

16 continuing to break other rules which may result in additional charges or some other more

17 serious form of punishment. These same solitary confinement cells are used to punish other

18 inmates for bad behavior. Class members cannot enter or exit their cells freely, and are not

19 encouraged to interact with other people. Even class members on suicide watch are observed by

20 video camera; they experience almost no human interaction, even though isolation is known to

21 be clinically destructive to these individuals’ mental health.

22

35. Incarceration, generally, is bad for class members for several reasons. While waiting

23 for long periods of time in local jails, class members are not receiving the mental health

24
ORDER MODIFYING PERMANENT INJUNCTION AS TO IN JAIL COMPETENCY EVALUATIONS- 15

1 treatment they need. Their conditions worsen not only because of lack of treatment, but because

2 prolonged incarceration exacerbates mental illness, making symptoms more intense and more

3 permanent, and reducing the likelihood the person’s competency can ever be restored.

4 Incarceration increases the likelihood of suicide. Incarceration also unnecessarily exposes class

5 members to harmful conditions such as jail overcrowding, which leads to increased violence

6 among inmates and to the targeting of individuals perceived as weak. Because class members

7 are stigmatized for what others perceive as erratic and unpredictable behavior, they are less

8 likely to find a social support network within the jail and therefore are less successful than others

9 at navigating the jail environment, increasing their feelings of isolation, terror, and despair.

10

36. Fifty percent of people ordered evaluated in Washington are found incompetent to

11 stand trial, meaning they are in need of treatment to restore their competency if they are to be

12 legally tried for the charges which form the basis for their detention. For these class members, a

13 finding of incompetency will not make treatment immediately available. Instead, these class

14 members will be placed on a waiting list for admission to a state hospital or alternative

15 restoration facility, and will continue to wait in jail under the same conditions described above

16 until a restoration treatment bed is available. As detailed by the Court in its Order of Civil

17 Contempt regarding restoration services, data from May 2016 demonstrates that wait times in

18 excess of 40 days for a restoration bed to become available were common more than one year

19 after trial. (See Dkt. No. 289 at 4-6.)

20

37. In Washington, sixty percent of individuals charged with misdemeanors have their

21 charges dismissed after the completion of a competency evaluation.

22

38. Class members who are found competent, and therefore who are not in need of

23 mental health treatment in order to stand trial, still suffer from the negative effects of prolonged

24
ORDER MODIFYING PERMANENT INJUNCTION AS TO IN JAIL COMPETENCY EVALUATIONS- 16

1 incarceration discussed above while waiting for a competency evaluation. As discussed above,

2 the time spent waiting for an evaluation is excluded when computing the time for trial, and

3 therefore these class members’ suspected incompetence results in the delayed adjudication of

4 their criminal cases. Because the public bears the cost of incarcerating these class members

5 while they wait for an evaluation, long evaluation wait times for class members who will be

6 found competent results in significant additional cost to the public via the incarceration expenses

7 shifted to the counties. The average cost to the public of incarcerating a class member in a

8 Washington jail while they wait for services is $96.13 per person per day. (Dkt. No. 218 at 2.)

9

39. In the month preceding trial, one class member committed suicide while incarcerated

10 and waiting for DSHS to provide competency services. Since trial, two class members have died

11 while incarcerated and waiting for competency services.

12

40. The harms caused by prolonged incarceration, as described above, are worse for

13 class members than the stigma caused by a temporary stay at a state hospital for the purposes of

14 completing a competency evaluation, and are also worse than the harms caused by the temporary

15 separation from class member’s counsel, family, and community necessary to complete the

16 evaluation at the hospital.

17

IV. The Barriers to Timely Services

18

41. The primary cause of delay in Defendants’ provision of in-jail evaluations to class

19 members has long been a shortage of evaluators throughout Washington state. The evaluator

20 shortages were primarily the result of insufficient funding and inadequate planning, though

21 DSHS believes funding issues have largely been resolved since trial with the legislature’s

22 allocation of funds for thirteen additional evaluators. Nevertheless, inadequate planning and

23 institutional resistance to change remain issues today.

24
ORDER MODIFYING PERMANENT INJUNCTION AS TO IN JAIL COMPETENCY EVALUATIONS- 17

1

42. As of the July 25, 2016, evidentiary hearing, twelve of the new evaluator positions

2 were filled and one was vacant due to recent turnover, an example of DSHS’s struggle to hire

3 and retain qualified staff. DSHS’s ability to hire and retain staff has been hampered by the fact

4 that DSHS does not pay competitive wages, by a cumbersome collective bargaining process, and

5 by institutional resistance to expanding the pool of eligible applicants for vacant positions. Since

6 trial, DSHS has declined to adopt the Court Monitor’s recommendation to utilize other qualified

7 professionals to perform evaluations, including psychiatric nurse practitioners, physician’s

8 assistants, and masters in social work, and has failed to offer the requisite forensic training that

9 could prepare these other professionals to perform evaluations. High evaluator turnover has also

10 hampered the timely provision of services because new evaluators are unable to complete

11 evaluations as quickly as experienced evaluators, and because temporary vacancies during

12 turnover result in lower system-wide capacity.

13

43. DSHS has identified several structural and clinical barriers to timely in-jail

14 evaluations that lie outside of DSHS’s control, in addition to the staffing issues discussed above.

15 DSHS identified (1) delays of one to three days in receiving all of the required documentation;

16 (2) delays caused by scheduling an interpreter; (3) delays caused by defense attorneys requesting

17 to be present during an evaluation but failing to make themselves available for the interview in a

18 timely manner; (4) delays caused by a litigant’s rejection of an assigned evaluator; (5) delays

19 caused by long travel times for evaluators who travel between county jails; (6) delays caused by

20 waiting for intoxicants to clear out of an individual’s system before performing an evaluation; (7)

21 delays caused by an evaluator’s need for additional records or other documents; and (8) delays

22 caused by a lack of adequate evaluation rooms or other evaluation facilities at the jails. While

23 these occurrences can potentially impact the timing of a particular evaluation, none of these

24
ORDER MODIFYING PERMANENT INJUNCTION AS TO IN JAIL COMPETENCY EVALUATIONS- 18

1 occurrences would prevent a well-run and well-staffed competency system from providing

2 timely competency evaluations to most class members most of the time, especially where good

3 cause extensions are available for several of the barriers listed above.

4

44. Some of the barriers identified by DSHS as lying outside of its control are not in fact

5 outside of its control. For example, DSHS can contract directly with interpreters at its

6 convenience. While DSHS faced delays in receiving the documents necessary to conduct an

7 evaluation at the time of trial, DSHS has now successfully lobbied the legislature to legally

8 require court clerks and prosecuting attorneys to transmit the necessary documents within

9 twenty-four hours of a court order. While DSHS cannot control the schedules and availability of

10 defense counsel, DSHS could offer evaluations on nights and weekends, when public defenders

11 do not have to be in court and therefore are more likely to be available. To date, DSHS has not

12 offered night or weekend evaluations, despite the fact that the jails where the evaluations occur

13 operate twenty-four hours a day, every day of the year. Similarly, while long evaluator travel

14 time does impact the timeliness of evaluations, DSHS is under no obligation to base the

15 evaluators in the locations it currently mandates they be located in. These inefficiencies are the

16 result of administrative decisions made by DSHS in how to manage the in-jail evaluations

17 process.

18

45. At the time of trial, because of insufficient staffing, there were delays of

19 approximately six to seven days before an evaluator was assigned to a case after DSHS received

20 all of the necessary documents.

21

46. Despite a requirement by this Court that DSHS adopt a triage system to process class

22 members more efficiently, (Dkt. No. 186 at 11-15), there has been no attempt to sort class

23 members by the seriousness of their crimes, e.g. whether the charge is a misdemeanor or a

24
ORDER MODIFYING PERMANENT INJUNCTION AS TO IN JAIL COMPETENCY EVALUATIONS- 19

1 felony, and thus no attempt is made to sort between people who would spend two days in jail if

2 convicted and people who would spend years in prison. There is no system-wide attempt to

3 triage class members based on the amount of time or resources that their cases require, e.g.

4 whether their evaluations are simple and can be done quickly or will require additional

5 interviews and the examination of substantial additional records. There is no system-wide

6 attempt to sort out class members who have been in the system frequently and whose mental

7 health problems have been previously documented. To date, implementation of the rudimentary

8 triage program adopted by DSHS has been delayed and haphazard, and its benefits limited. (See

9 Dkt. No. 289 at 9-11.)

10

47. DSHS’s ability to provide timely in-jail evaluations has improved dramatically as a

11 result of the increased funding and the additional evaluators hired, as discussed above. As a

12 result, average wait times are now near fourteen days across the state, though figures for average

13 wait times are of limited utility because the actual wait times experienced continue to vary

14 widely by class member. Nevertheless, DSHS’s success in reducing wait times demonstrates

15 that the barriers it identified do not prevent it from providing timely services with adequate

16 resources and planning.

17

48. Although improvement is apparent, the lack of accurate, consistent data has made it

18 difficult for DSHS to understand and predict demand for its services, to improve its operating

19 policies and procedures, and to adequately plan for the future. Inconsistent procedures and

20 practices across the hospitals hamper the timely provision of services, as does the fact that the

21 hospitals do not consistently use electronic medical records instead of paper records. Timely

22 services are further hampered by DSHS’s lack of knowledge about, and lack of willingness to

23 use, electronic court records, which are available for most jurisdictions twenty-four hours a day

24
ORDER MODIFYING PERMANENT INJUNCTION AS TO IN JAIL COMPETENCY EVALUATIONS- 20

1 and which contain much of the information needed to provide competency services. Problems

2 with the integrity of DSHS’s data persist today, fifteen months after the Court issued its initial

3 injunction. For example, DSHS is tracking delays caused by defense counsel availability

4 together with delays caused by interpreter availability, even though DSHS can contract directly

5 with interpreters. Therefore, although DSHS frequently presents defense counsel availability as

6 a major barrier to timely services, it has no data that can demonstrate in what percentage of cases

7 defense counsel availability is the actual cause of delay.

8

49. DSHS consistently ignores court orders to provide class members with services or to

9 admit class members to the state hospitals, even when they have been found in contempt. DSHS

10 has developed a de facto policy to continue to administer the forensic mental health system in the

11 manner it considers best; court orders which conflict with its waiting list methodology are

12 ignored as a matter of course. Numerous orders from numerous courts have been ignored under

13 this policy. On July 7, 2016, DSHS was found in contempt by this Court for failing to take all

14 reasonable steps to achieve compliance with the portions of the injunction regarding in-hospital

15 evaluations and restoration treatment services. (Dkt. No. 289.)

16

50. The Court’s original injunction provided a way to extend the time when based upon

17 the individual needs of the class member. (See Dkt. No. 131 at 22.) This exception was never

18 used and no request has ever been made of a referring court.

19

Conclusions of Law

20

1. DRW has standing to represent the interests of persons who require competency

21 services, and to seek a permanent injunction and declaratory judgment establishing the time

22 frames within which due process requires that services be provided. See Oregon Advocacy Ctr.

23 v. Mink, 322 F.3d 1101, 1112 (9th Cir. 2003); In re Lamb, 173 Wn.2d 173, 196-197 (2011)

24
ORDER MODIFYING PERMANENT INJUNCTION AS TO IN JAIL COMPETENCY EVALUATIONS- 21

1 (citing to federal law providing DRW with the authority to “pursue legal, administrative, and

2 other appropriate remedies . . . to ensure the protection of, and advocacy for, the rights of persons

3 with . . . disabilities.”); Doe v. Stincer, 175 F.3d 879 (9th Cir. 1999); Hunt v. Washington State

4 Apple Advertising Commission, 432 U.S. 333 (1997). Next friends have standing because they

5 have shown that: (1) each Plaintiff is unable to litigate his own cause due to mental incapacity or

6 other similar disability; and (2) each next friend has some significant relationship with, and is

7 truly dedicated to the best interests of, each Plaintiff. Coal. of Clergy, Lawyers, & Professors v.

8 Bush, 310 F.3d 1153, 1159-60 (9th Cir. 2002).

9

2. Plaintiffs’ burden of proof on their claims is a preponderance of the evidence.

10

3. Constitutional questions regarding the conditions and circumstances of pretrial

11 confinement are properly addressed under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

12 to the United States Constitution. Trueblood, 822 F.3d at 1043-44; Mink, 322 F.3d at 1120-21.

13

4. The foundational liberty interest under the due process clause is freedom from

14 incarceration. Oviatt ex rel. Waugh v. Pearce, 954 F.2d 1470, 1474 (9th Cir. 1992). Individuals

15 have a fundamental liberty interest in being free from incarceration absent a criminal conviction,

16 and there exist corresponding constitutional limitations on pretrial detention and other forms of

17 physical restraint. See Lopez-Valenzuela v. Arpaio, 770 F.3d 772, 777-78, 780-81 (9th Cir.

18 2014) (en banc), see also Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001).

19

5. In Mink, “all of the detainees had been found incompetent and had a distinct “liberty

20 interest[] in freedom from incarceration” so they could receive restorative treatment.”

21 Trueblood, 822 F.3d at 1044. The Mink court held that “[w]hether the substantive due process

22 rights of incapacitated criminal defendants have been violated must be determined by balancing

23

24
ORDER MODIFYING PERMANENT INJUNCTION AS TO IN JAIL COMPETENCY EVALUATIONS- 22

1 their liberty interests in freedom from incarceration and in restorative treatment against the

2 legitimate interests of the state.” 322 F.3d at 1121.

3

6. The framework adopted by the Ninth Circuit in Mink, which itself adopted the

4 framework set out by the Supreme Court in Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972), and

5 Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (1982), “is equally applicable to individuals awaiting

6 competency evaluations,” including class members here. Trueblood, 822 F.3d at 1043. “In

7 Jackson, the Supreme Court articulated a general ‘rule of reasonableness’ limiting the duration of

8 pretrial detention for incompetent defendants and requiring, at a minimum, ‘that the nature and

9 duration of commitment bear some reasonable relation to the purpose for which the individual is

10 committed.” Id. (quoting Jackson, 406 U.S. at 733, 738). “Thus, ‘[w]hether the substantive due

11 process rights of incapacitated criminal defendants have been violated must be determined by

12 balancing their liberty interests in freedom from incarceration and in restorative treatment against

13 the legitimate interests of the state.’” Id. (quoting Mink, 322 F.3d at 1121, and Youngberg, 457

14 U.S. at 321.)

15

7. Accordingly, in order to determine whether class members’ substantive due process

16 rights have been violated by Defendants’ failure to provide timely in-jail competency

17 evaluations, the Court must “[w]eigh[] the parties’ respective interests” to determine if there is “a

18 ‘reasonable relation’ between the length of time from the court order to the inception of the

19 competency evaluation.” Trueblood, 822 F.3d at 1043.

20

8. “The interests to be weighed before a finding of incompetency bear a similarity to the

21 Mink situation, but are factually distinct.” Trueblood, 822 F.3d at 1044.

22

9. Class members have suffered, and continue to suffer, prolonged incarceration in city

23 and county jails for the purpose of waiting for in-jail competency evaluations from Defendants

24
ORDER MODIFYING PERMANENT INJUNCTION AS TO IN JAIL COMPETENCY EVALUATIONS- 23

1 because of suspected mental incompetence. Their prolonged incarceration implicates their right

2 to be free from incarceration absent conviction, and their right to the competency evaluations

3 which form the basis for their detention. Class members have “legitimate interest[s] in

4 mitigating the harm caused to detainees who languish in jail awaiting a competency

5 determination and in reducing the impact of solitary confinement and other conditions often

6 imposed on mentally ill detainees who are awaiting evaluation.” Trueblood, 822 F.3d at 1045.

7

10. The State’s primary governmental interest in regard to class members awaiting in-jail

8 evaluations is to bring those accused of a crime to trial. In furtherance of that goal, the state has

9 a legitimate interest in evaluating a potentially incompetent defendant’s competency so as to

10 determine whether he or she may stand trial, and in restoring the competency of those found

11 incompetent so that they may be brought to trial. The state has a corresponding interest in an

12 efficient and organized competency evaluation and restoration system, the administration of

13 which uses public resources appropriately. The state also has interests in “accurate evaluations,

14 preventing the stigma of an incorrect determination, avoiding undue separation of a detainee

15 from her counsel and family, and protecting the detainee’s rights to counsel and against self-

16 incrimination.” Trueblood, 822 F.3d at 1044-45.

17

11. A permanent injunction requiring the provision of timely in-jail competency

18 evaluations remains the most appropriate remedy for Defendants’ constitutional violations. Id. at

19 1046. In refashioning the permanent injunction, the Court must consider not what is “reasonable

20 and achievable,” but instead “whether the state’s present fourteen-day requirement bears the

21 constitutionally requisite reasonable relationship.” Id. at 1045; see also Jackson, 406 U.S. at

22 733-38 (due process requires, at a minimum, some rational relation between the nature and

23 duration of confinement and its purpose).

24
ORDER MODIFYING PERMANENT INJUNCTION AS TO IN JAIL COMPETENCY EVALUATIONS- 24

1

12. The Court must consider Washington’s statutory fourteen-day maximum time limit

2 for competency evaluations, even though wait times at trial were far in excess of fourteen days,

3 because federal courts “have often looked to a state’s own policies for guidance because

4 ‘appropriate consideration must be given to principles of federalism in determining the

5 availability and scope of equitable relief.’” Trueblood, 822 F.3d at 1045-46 (quoting Rizzo v.

6 Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 379 (1976) and citing Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 362 (1996)); see also

7 Katie A., ex rel. Ludin v. Los Angeles Cnty., 481 F.3d 1150, 1155 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Where an

8 injunction is issued against state officials, a district court will be deemed to have committed an

9 abuse of discretion . . . if its injunction requires any more of state officers than demanded by

10 federal constitutional or statutory law.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). At oral

11 argument before the Ninth Circuit, Defendants “proposed that, if there had been a Fourteenth

12 Amendment violation, the best remedy would be to order Washington to comply with its own

13 law.” Trueblood, 822 F.3d at 1046 n.6.

14

13. After weighing the interests of class members and of the state, and having considered

15 the deference due to Washington’s policy judgments stemming from principles of federalism, the

16 Court concludes that there is a reasonable relation between the nature and duration of

17 Washington’s statutory maximum of fourteen days to incarcerate class members while

18 completing an in-jail competency evaluation and the purposes for which class members are

19 incarcerated. See Trueblood, 822 F.3d at 1043-44 (district court should have considered

20 “whether there was some reasonable relation between the timing and the confinement”); see also

21 Jackson, 406 U.S. 715. Therefore, the Court finds Defendants’ proposed fourteen-day standard

22 constitutionally acceptable and rejects Plaintiffs’ request for a stricter ten-day standard. (See

23 Dkt. Nos. 259 at 2, 279 at 1-3.) However, as explained below, the Court concludes that it cannot

24
ORDER MODIFYING PERMANENT INJUNCTION AS TO IN JAIL COMPETENCY EVALUATIONS- 25

1 simply “order Washington to comply with its own law” and instead must impose an injunction

2 that is appropriately enforceable and does not provide a non-exhaustive list of exceptions to the

3 fourteen-day standard because the statutory exceptions function to swallow the rule.

4

14. The Court finds Washington’s statutory maximum of fourteen days constitutionally

5 acceptable because the Court concludes that fourteen days is the maximum justifiable period of

6 time to incarcerate a class member waiting for an in-jail competency evaluation absent an

7 individualized finding of good cause to continue incarcerating that class member. The Court

8 arrives at this conclusion having balanced the legitimate interests of class members and of the

9 state, and having considered Washington’s policy judgment that fourteen days provides an

10 appropriate amount of time in which to conduct an in-jail evaluation and should be the

11 “maximum time limit” for completion of that evaluation unless there is individualized good

12 cause to extend that time limit. See RCW 10.77.068.

13

15. Wait times beyond fourteen days are not constitutionally permissible in this case

14 because longer wait times destroy the reasonable relation between the nature and duration of

15 confinement and its purpose. See Trueblood, 822 F.3d at 1043-44; see also Jackson, 406 U.S.

16 715. This is so because once the system provides for sufficient time to allow for an accurate

17 evaluation (i.e., one that will not incorrectly identify class members as incompetent or mentally

18 ill, thereby stigmatizing them and inappropriately moving them away from their family and

19 counsel) in a manner that uses public resources appropriately and does not force class members

20 to abandon their rights to counsel and against self-incrimination, each additional day of delay

21 actually works against the interests of all Parties, as explained below.

22

16. For class members who are found incompetent, each additional day spent in jail

23 waiting is an additional day spent without access to desperately needed medication and

24
ORDER MODIFYING PERMANENT INJUNCTION AS TO IN JAIL COMPETENCY EVALUATIONS- 26

1 treatment, incarcerated in a place that cannot provide the environment or type of care needed by

2 incompetent class members. Each additional day spent in jail increases the risk of suicide and of

3 other types of self harm, and increases the risk that a class member will be victimized by other

4 inmates. Class members who are incompetent due to reasons other than mental illness, such as

5 those with intellectual disabilities or traumatic brain injuries, are less likely to regain competency 6 with treatment, making their prolonged incarceration tragically unnecessary and inhumane.2 For

7 class members suffering from mental illness, each additional day spent incarcerated—especially

8 in solitary confinement—makes that class member’s mental illness more habitual and harder to

9 cure, resulting in longer restoration periods or in the inability to ever restore that person to

10 competency. Longer restoration treatment periods increase the cost to the state and therefore to

11 the public of treating that individual, and longer restoration periods stymie the efficient use of

12 restoration bed space.

13

All of these results contravene the state’s interest in swiftly bringing the accused to trial,

14 and none are the necessary results of an efficient and organized competency system that uses

15 public resources appropriately. Because the state has determined that fourteen days is sufficient

16 to safeguard its interests in accurate evaluations, in preventing the stigma and separation that

17 result from an incorrect evaluation, and in protecting a class member’s right to counsel and

18 against self incrimination, none of these interests weigh in favor of a standard longer than

19 fourteen days. As explained in more detail below, the Court’s good cause exception to the

20 fourteen-day requirement provides the flexibility DSHS needs to accommodate cases in which an

21 evaluator needs more information or time, or where the class member asserts a right to counsel

22

23

2 Prolonged incarceration is also tragically unnecessary and inhumane for the sixty

percent of individuals charged with misdemeanors who have their criminal charges dismissed

24 after the completion of a competency evaluation.

ORDER MODIFYING PERMANENT INJUNCTION AS TO IN JAIL COMPETENCY EVALUATIONS- 27

1 that requires scheduling beyond fourteen days. The delays in these cases bear a rational relation

2 to the purposes of the confinement, whereas delays in cases without any reason for delay do not.

3

Finally, it must be noted that in-jail competency evaluations are only one piece of an

4 interconnected system. As described above, fifty percent of those evaluated in Washington are

5 found incompetent. For these class members, a finding of incompetence will result most

6 immediately in their placement on another waiting list, and they will continue to wait,

7 incarcerated in the same conditions described above, until a restoration bed becomes available.

8

17. For class members who are found competent, each additional day spent waiting is an

9 additional day spent incarcerated that is excluded from their speedy trial rights under the Sixth

10 Amendment. If a class member was charged only with a misdemeanor, the total length of

11 incarceration experienced may exceed the maximum jail term available for that offense. There

12 remains no attempt by DSHS to sort class members by the nature of their charges to avoid this

13 problem. The state, and the taxpayers, must spend considerable resources paying for the

14 incarceration, in direct contravention of the state’s interest in rapidly bringing the accused to trial

15 and ensuring the efficient administration of justice. As described above, wait times in excess of

16 fourteen days—the amount of time necessary for an accurate evaluation while also safeguarding

17 the state’s other interests—contravene the interests of both the state and class members, and

18 therefore do not bear a reasonable relation to the purpose of the confinement. See Jackson, 406

19 U.S. at 733-38.

20

18. While Washington’s fourteen-day maximum time limit for the completion of in-jail

21 evaluations bears the constitutionally requisite reasonable relation to the purpose of confinement,

22 the remainder of RCW 10.77.068 does not. The remainder of RCW 10.77.068 provides a non-

23 exhaustive list of exceptions to the fourteen-day “maximum time limit,” exceptions which alter

24
ORDER MODIFYING PERMANENT INJUNCTION AS TO IN JAIL COMPETENCY EVALUATIONS- 28

1 the duration of the confinement without the constitutionally requisite reasonable relation to the

2 purpose of confinement. For example, the statute provides an exception to the maximum time

3 limit when there is an “unusual spike” in evaluation referrals, and appears to excuse all delays

4 “until the unexpected excess demand for competency services can be resolved.” RCW

5 10.77.068(1)(c)(vi). The Constitution cannot be so pliable. First, the statute does not define

6 “unusual spike,” which is troubling considering the evidence presented that the volume of

7 referrals regularly fluctuates over time, between years and by season. Therefore, this exception

8 would appear to be available quite frequently. Allowing DSHS to invoke this exception to

9 excuse delays “until the unexpected excess demand for competency services can be resolved” is

10 unacceptable because DSHS has for years been unable to handle the demand for competency

11 services and has failed to plan for growth in demand, resulting in hundreds of contempt orders by

12 state court judges and a contempt finding by this Court last month. Therefore, invocation of this

13 exception would excuse all delays for an unknown and unbounded period of time. Finally,

14 allowing DSHS to use this exception would amount to canceling the fourteen-day requirement

15 whenever DSHS subjectively determines that the quantity of referrals represents an “unusual

16 spike.” This is troubling considering DSHS’s demonstrated history of valuing internal policy

17 preferences and administrative convenience over court orders for timely competency services—

18 even when held in contempt—which suggests DSHS may consider invoking this exception as a

19 financial defense to contempt orders while continuing to value internal policy preferences and

20 administrative convenience over the constitutional rights of class members.

21

Exception (iv) eliminates the fourteen-day maximum time limit when DSHS “does not

22 have access to appropriate private space to conduct a competency evaluation for a defendant in

23 pretrial custody.” RCW 10.77.068(1)(c)(iv). This exception does not pass constitutional muster

24
ORDER MODIFYING PERMANENT INJUNCTION AS TO IN JAIL COMPETENCY EVALUATIONS- 29

1 because, as discussed above, this is the type of structural barrier that justifies a fourteen-day

2 timeframe to conduct the ten to fourteen hours of work an evaluation requires, rather than a

3 shorter seven-day or ten-day timeframe. The evaluation consists primarily of a thirty-to-ninety-

4 minute face-to-face interview, and requires about ten to fourteen hours of work by an evaluator.

5 Allowing an evaluator sufficient time to perform these tasks bears a reasonable relation to the

6 purpose of the confinement; eliminating the maximum time limit altogether because jail space is

7 booked during an evaluator’s first or second preferred time slot during ordinary business hours

8 Monday to Friday does not bear a constitutionally reasonable relation. When easily

9 surmountable barriers hamper timely services without reasonable cause, the State must attempt

10 to overcome the barriers, not move the goalposts and throw out the rules.

11

The remaining statutory exceptions are either covered by the Court’s good cause

12 exception, discussed below—exceptions (ii) (more information needed for accurate evaluation),

13 (iii) (defense counsel availability), and (v) (criminal defendant’s assertion of legal right requires

14 scheduling outside of fourteen-day period)—or are irrelevant to the considerations here

15 (exception (i), medical clearance needed for transport to a state hospital). For any exceptions not

16 listed, the Court is unable to evaluate whether they bear the constitutionally requisite reasonable

17 relation, and therefore cannot condone them.

18

Significantly, the Court also finds the manner in which the statute presents the

19 exceptions—as affirmative defenses to allegations of untimeliness brought by the criminal

20 defendant—and the statute’s explicit unenforceability, see RCW 10.77.068(5), to be

21 inappropriate considering the Ninth Circuit’s determination that the best remedy to ensure that

22 class members’ constitutional rights are protected is a permanent injunction through which this

23 Court can monitor DSHS’s efforts to provide timely competency services. See Trueblood, 822

24
ORDER MODIFYING PERMANENT INJUNCTION AS TO IN JAIL COMPETENCY EVALUATIONS- 30

1 F.3d at 1046. DSHS is the party that for years has violated the constitutional rights of vulnerable

2 citizens and ignored the orders of courts attempting to protect those rights; the burden to

3 demonstrate that there is good cause for delays beyond the “maximum time limit” inside the

4 injunctive framework sits squarely on DSHS’s shoulders, not on the shoulders of criminal

5 defendants suspected to be incompetent, fifty percent of which are in fact incompetent.

6

19. The Court’s injunction requires Defendants to complete in-jail competency

7 evaluations within fourteen days of the signing of a court order, not within fourteen days of

8 DSHS’s receipt of the court order and other documents, for several reasons. First, as discussed

9 above, wait times of longer than fourteen days destroy the reasonable relation between the nature

10 and duration of the confinement and the purposes of the confinement. Second, the date of the

11 court order provides a clear, ascertainable beginning date for tracking the fourteen-day period,

12 tracking necessary to determine whether DSHS has achieved compliance with the injunction.

13 Given DSHS’s longstanding struggle to produce accurate, consistent data, and considering

14 DSHS’s past inability to determine which decision makers made a certain decision and when or

15 why that decision was made—for example, with the strip search policy at the Maple Lane

16 alternative restoration facility, (Dkt. No. 289 at 15)—the Court finds it necessary to maintain a

17 fixed, easy-to-track starting date to monitor compliance. Finally, the rationales presented at trial

18 and before the Ninth Circuit as to why the fourteen days should begin at DSHS’s receipt of the

19 court order and other documents are no longer relevant. As discussed above, court clerks and

20 prosecuting attorneys are now legally required to provide DSHS with all necessary documents

21 within twenty-four hours of the signing of a court order. RCW 10.77.075. Although this law is

22 relatively new and DSHS has only just begun doing outreach to the counties concerning the

23 requirement, the necessary documents are provided to DSHS on the same day the court order is

24
ORDER MODIFYING PERMANENT INJUNCTION AS TO IN JAIL COMPETENCY EVALUATIONS- 31

1 signed in at least seventy-one percent of cases. The necessary documents are provided to DSHS

2 in three days or less in ninety-five percent of cases. DSHS’s community outreach liaison has

3 testified that she intends to continue to contact courts and prosecuting attorneys around the state

4 to inform them of the new legal requirements, and that DSHS expects the percentage of cases in

5 which all necessary documents arrive within twenty-four hours to increase. (Dkt. No. 289 at 11.)

6 And, it is DSHS’s responsibility to develop systems that can interface with courts’ electronic

7 dockets to improve efficiency, not individual class members’ responsibility to make the system

8 work. The Ninth Circuit’s concern about delays in providing the documents to DSHS is no

9 longer relevant.

10

20. The good cause exception to the fourteen-day requirement shall be expanded to

11 include not just the clinical good cause exception contained in the Court’s original injunction,

12 but also a good cause exception that accounts for the non-clinical interests of class members.

13 See Trueblood, 822 F.3d at 1045. As discussed below, the non-clinical good cause exception

14 shall allow extensions for good cause based on the availability of (1) defense counsel, (2) a

15 defense expert, or (3) an interpreter.

16

Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that the permanent injunction be

17 MODIFIED as follows:

18

Paragraph (1) of this Court’s April 2, 2015 permanent injunction concerning in-jail

19 evaluations, (Dkt. No. 131 at 22), vacated by the Ninth Circuit, is hereby amended to state:

20

(1) Defendants must provide in-jail competency evaluations within fourteen days of the

21 signing of a court order calling for an evaluation. Where an in-jail evaluation cannot be

22 completed within fourteen days of a court order, Defendants must secure an extension from the

23 ordering court for individualized good cause, or must immediately admit the individual to a state

24
ORDER MODIFYING PERMANENT INJUNCTION AS TO IN JAIL COMPETENCY EVALUATIONS- 32

1 hospital to finish conducting the evaluation. Individualized good cause encapsulates both

2 clinical good cause—meaning good cause based on the unique medical or psychiatric needs of

3 the particular individual, including the continued presence of intoxicants but not including

4 DSHS’s lack of resources or the system’s inability to administratively accommodate the needs of

5 the individual within fourteen days—and good cause based on class members’ non-clinical

6 interests, i.e., where having their defense counsel, an interpreter, or an expert of their choosing

7 present at the evaluation is not possible to arrange within the fourteen-day timeframe.

8

As stated above, in order to invoke the individualized good cause exception, Defendants

9 must seek an extension from the ordering court. Defendants are ORDERED to track each

10 request for an individualized good cause extension made by DSHS evaluators, and whether the

11 request was granted or denied. This information shall be included in Defendants’ monthly

12 reports to the Court Monitor. Where the request is based on the unavailability of a class

13 member’s defense counsel, Defendants must include in their report to the Court Monitor: (1)

14 defense counsel’s name, and the county in which he or she practices, (2) how long it took for

15 DSHS to assign an evaluator to the case after it received the court order, charging documents,

16 and discovery, (3) how long it took the assigned evaluator to contact defense counsel after

17 assignment, and (4) a statement explaining what efforts were made to schedule the evaluation

18 during the fourteen days, including whether or not defense counsel was offered an evaluation

19 time slot outside of ordinary court hours. Where the request is based on the unavailability of an

20 interpreter, Defendants must include in their report to the Court Monitor: (1) the names of the

21 interpreters contacted by DSHS, their locations in Washington state, and the language(s) for

22 which interpretation was required for that case, (2) how long it took for DSHS to assign an

23 evaluator to the case after it received the court order, charging documents, and discovery, (3)

24
ORDER MODIFYING PERMANENT INJUNCTION AS TO IN JAIL COMPETENCY EVALUATIONS- 33

1 how long it took the assigned evaluator to contact the interpreters after assignment, (4) a

2 statement explaining what efforts were made to schedule the evaluation during the fourteen days,

3 and (5) a statement explaining why DSHS did not contract with another interpreter directly.

4

Defendants are ORDERED to reduce wait times for in-jail competency evaluations in

5 accordance with this injunction as soon as practicable, but no later than thirty (30) days from the

6 date of this order. Defendants will continue to report compliance efforts to the Court Monitor as

7 set out in previous orders of the Court. All other portions of this Court’s orders not explicitly

8 vacated by the Ninth Circuit remain in place unless stated otherwise by the Court.

9

SO ORDERED.

10

11

The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.

12

13

Dated this 15th day of August, 2016.

14

15

A

16

Marsha J. Pechman

17

United States District Judge

18

19

20

21

22

23

24
ORDER MODIFYING PERMANENT INJUNCTION AS TO IN JAIL COMPETENCY EVALUATIONS- 34

 </s> 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

9

AT SEATTLE

10 CASSIE CORDELL TRUEBLOOD, et al.,
11 Plaintiffs,
12 v.
13 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT
14 OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES, et al.,
15 Defendants.
16

CASE NO. C14-1178-MJP
ORDER ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER OF CIVIL CONTEMPT

17 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Reconsider Order of
18 Civil Contempt. (Dkt. No. 298.) Having considered the Motion, Plaintiffs’ Response, and the
19 related record, the Court GRANTS the Motion as to the transcription error in finding of fact
20 three but DENIES the Motion on all other grounds.
21 Under Local Rule 7(h), “[m]otions for reconsideration are disfavored.” LCR 7(h). “The
22 court will ordinarily deny such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior
23 ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its
24

ORDER ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER OF CIVIL CONTEMPT- 1

1 attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” Id.; see also Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos

2 Pharma, 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (finding a motion for reconsideration warranted only

3 when a district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or

4 when there is an intervening change in the controlling law).

5

Here, Defendants argue (1) the contempt finding as to in-hospital evaluations is

6 premature because Defendants moved to reconsider aspects of the injunction relating to in-

7 hospital evaluations, (2) the contempt finding is incorrect because Defendants have taken all

8 reasonable steps to achieve compliance, and (3) several findings of fact should be reexamined

9 and amended. (Dkt. No. 298 at 2-6.)

10

First, Defendants’ argument that a contempt finding is premature is unavailing. As

11 Defendants themselves concede, Defendants raised this argument inside the contempt

12 proceeding, and the Court rejected it. While Defendants have asked the Court to reexamine

13 certain of the injunction’s requirements as they relate to in-hospital evaluations, Defendants’

14 request does not justify their failure to comply with the binding orders of the Court in effect at

15 the time. Defendants’ disagreement with the Court’s decision does not demonstrate manifest

16 error and does not provide grounds for reconsideration. DENIED.

17

Second, Defendants’ argument that they have in fact taken all reasonable steps to achieve

18 compliance is also unavailing. The Court has written at length regarding the reasons it

19 concluded Defendants had failed to take all reasonable steps, (Dkt. No. 289 at 4-18), and the

20 Court will not repeat that discussion here. Again, Defendants’ disagreement with the Court’s

21 conclusions does not provide a basis for reconsideration. DENIED.

22

Finally, Defendants’ request to reexamine and amend certain findings of fact is

23 GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. As to finding of fact three, Defendants are correct that

24

ORDER ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER OF CIVIL CONTEMPT- 2

1 the Court inadvertently cited incorrect figures for in-hospital evaluations at Eastern State

2 Hospital. Finding of fact three is hereby AMENDED to state: “At Eastern State Hospital, both

3 class members ordered to receive in-hospital evaluations in May 2016 were admitted to Eastern

4 State Hospital within seven days. (Dkt. No. 278-2 at 2.)”

5

Reconsideration of the remaining findings of fact is DENIED. Again, that Defendants

6 view the adequacy of their actions differently than the Court does not establish grounds for

7 reconsideration.

8

SO ORDERED.

9

10

The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.

11

12

Dated this 17th day of August, 2016.

13

14

A

15

Marsha J. Pechman

16

United States District Judge

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

ORDER ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER OF CIVIL CONTEMPT- 3

 </s> 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

9

AT SEATTLE

10 CASSIE CORDELL TRUEBLOOD, et al.,
11 Plaintiffs,
12 v.
13 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT
14 OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES, et al.,
15 Defendants.
16

CASE NO. C14-1178-MJP
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO RECONSIDER INJUNCTION REGARDING TIMING OF SERVICES AND INPAIENT EVALUATIONS

17 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Reconsider Scope of
18 Injunction Regarding Timing of Services and Inpatient Evaluations. (Dkt. No. 288.) Having
19 considered the Parties’ briefing and the related record, the Court DENIES the Motion.
20 Background
21 On April 2, 2015, this Court imposed a multipart injunction that required Defendants to
22 cease violating class members’ constitutional rights by providing timely competency services by,
23 among other things: (1) completing provision of in-jail competency evaluations within seven
24
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO RECONSIDER INJUNCTION REGARDING TIMING OF SERVICES AND INPAIENT EVALUATIONS- 1

1 days of the signing of a court order, unless an extension is secured for clinical good cause, (2)

2 admitting those ordered to receive an in-hospital competency evaluation to a state hospital within

3 seven days of the signing of a court order, and (3) admitting those ordered to receive competency

4 restoration services to a state hospital within seven days of a court order. (Dkt. No. 131 at 21-

5 23.)

6

Defendants appealed the portion of the injunction relating to in-jail evaluations, but did

7 not appeal the portions relating to in-hospital evaluations or restoration services. See Trueblood

8 v. Washington State Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 822 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2016). On appeal,

9 the Ninth Circuit affirmed class members’ constitutional right to timely competency evaluations,

10 but vacated the seven-day requirement imposed by this Court as to in-jail evaluations. (See Dkt.

11 Nos. 233, 303.) After reexamination, this Court modified the injunction to require the

12 completion of in-jail evaluations within fourteen days of the signing of a court order for such

13 services. (Dkt. No. 303.)

14

Although Defendants’ appeal concerned only in-jail evaluations, Defendants now argue

15 that the logic and reasoning underlying the Ninth Circuit’s opinion requires reevaluation of two

16 components of the injunction not relating to in-jail evaluations. (Dkt. No. 288.) First,

17 Defendants argue that the time limit for admission to a state hospital for inpatient evaluations

18 and restoration services should be calculated from the date Defendants receive the court order

19 and other necessary documentation, rather than the date the court order is signed. (Id. at 3-10.)

20 Second, Defendants argue the portion of the injunction relating to in-hospital evaluations should

21 be amended to require only that Defendants comply with state law, which requires admission

22 within fourteen days of receipt of the necessary documentation. (Id. at 5-12.)

23

24
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO RECONSIDER INJUNCTION REGARDING TIMING OF SERVICES AND INPAIENT EVALUATIONS- 2

1

Plaintiffs oppose the Motion, arguing that it is time-barred and that nothing in the Ninth

2 Circuit’s opinion requires the revisions Defendants request. (Dkt. No. 291.)

3

Discussion

4

I. Timeliness of Motion

5

Plaintiffs argue Defendants’ Motion is time-barred. Plaintiffs argue that although Local

6 Civil Rule 7(h) requires motions for reconsideration to be filed within fourteen days of the order

7 to which they relate is filed, Defendants’ Motion was filed 455 days after the Court imposed the

8 injunction and 28 days after the Ninth Circuit issued the mandate upon which Defendants’

9 Motion is based. (Dkt. No. 291 at 1-4.) Plaintiffs further argue that Defendants lost the ability to

10 challenge the undisturbed portions of this Court’s injunction when they chose not to appeal them

11 within 30 days of judgment. Plaintiffs contend allowing Defendants to use this Motion as a

12 “backdoor means of appeal would frustrate the interests in finality and judicial economy Rule 4

13 is intended to serve.” (Id. at 3-4.)

14

Defendants argue their Motion is timely under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60, which allows motions

15 brought “within a reasonable time” when a judgment “is based on an earlier judgment that has

16 been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or . . . any other

17 reason that justifies relief.” (Dkt. No. 293 at 1-3) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5)-(6) and (c)(1).)

18

Considering the equitable principles underlying Fed. R. Civ. P. 60’s timing provision, the

19 Court finds it appropriate to consider the merits of Defendants’ Motion. While the Court finds

20 Defendants’ Motion timely under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1), however, the Court finds Defendants

21 have failed to establish an entitlement to relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) based on the Ninth

22 Circuit’s opinion in Trueblood v. Washington State Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 822 F.3d

23 1037 (9th Cir. 2016).

24
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO RECONSIDER INJUNCTION REGARDING TIMING OF SERVICES AND INPAIENT EVALUATIONS- 3

1

II. Time Limit Begins at Date of Court Order

2

Defendants first argue that the time limit for admission to a state hospital for inpatient

3 evaluations and restoration services should be calculated from the date Defendants receive the

4 court order and other necessary documentation, rather than the date the court order is signed.

5 (Dkt. No. 288 at 3-10.) Defendants argue that because the deadline for completion of in-jail

6 evaluations is calculated from the date the Washington Department of Social and Health Services

7 (“DSHS”) receives the court order and other documentation, the deadlines for admission for in-

8 hospital evaluations and restoration services should be calculated in the same manner. (Id.)

9 Plaintiffs oppose the request. (Dkt. No. 291 at 4-9.)

10

Defendants’ argument rests on a proposition already rejected by the Court. After this

11 Motion was fully briefed, the Court issued its Order Modifying Permanent Injunction as to In Jail

12 Competency Evaluations, in which it found that in-jail competency evaluations must be

13 completed within fourteen days of the signing of a court order, not fourteen days from DSHS’s

14 receipt of the court order. (Dkt. No. 303 at 31-32.) In making that determination, the Court

15 found that the concerns articulated by the Ninth Circuit when it remanded the issue for further

16 consideration and repeated here by Defendants were no longer relevant because of, inter alia, (1)

17 statutory changes since trial that now legally require stakeholders to submit documents to DSHS

18 within twenty-four hours of the signing of a court order, (2) the fact that, as of May 2016, all

19 necessary documents were received by DSHS on the same day the court order was signed in at

20 least seventy-one percent of cases, and all necessary documents were received in three days or

21 less in ninety-five percent of cases, and (3) testimony by DSHS’s community outreach liaison

22 that DSHS had just begun contacting stakeholders around the state to inform them of the new

23 twenty-four-hour requirement, and that DSHS expected the percentage of cases in which DSHS

24
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO RECONSIDER INJUNCTION REGARDING TIMING OF SERVICES AND INPAIENT EVALUATIONS- 4

1 receives all necessary documents on the same day the court order is signed to continue to rise

2 over the coming months. (Id. at 14, 31-32.) For the sake of judicial economy, that discussion is

3 not repeated here.

4

In order to provide timely competency services, DSHS cannot passively wait to receive

5 easily available information, but instead must actively participate in building a system that

6 allows courts and other stakeholders to quickly transfer orders, discovery, and other information

7 directly to DSHS. Defendants’ first request is DENIED.

8

III. Seven Days to Admit Class Members to State Hospital for Evaluation

9

Next, Defendants argue the portion of the injunction relating to in-hospital evaluations

10 should be amended to require only that Defendants comply with state law, which requires

11 admission within fourteen days of receipt of the necessary documentation. (Dkt. No. 288 at 512 12.) The Court disagrees.1

13

The Court finds that the statutory fourteen-day requirement for admission for an in-

14 hospital evaluation does not bear a reasonable relation to the purposes of the confinement as it

15 relates specifically to class members awaiting in-hospital evaluations, and concludes now as it

16 did before that seven days is the maximum justifiable period of time to incarcerate a class 17 member waiting for admission to a state hospital for an in-hospital evaluation.2 Once the system

18

19

1 In arriving at these conclusions, the Court relies on testimony and evidence from trial and from

20

the evidentiary hearings held since trial, other evidence in the record, and findings of fact made and entered in Dkt. Nos. 131, 186, 289, and 303.

2 To evaluate Defendants’ request to modify the injunction, the Court must determine whether the

21 nature and duration of the confinement imposed by the statutory fourteen-day standard bears some

reasonable relation to the purpose for which the individual is committed. See Jackson v. Indiana, 406 22 U.S. 715, 733-38 (1972), Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 321 (1982), Trueblood, 822 F.3d at 1043-

45. The Court must make this determination by balancing the legitimate interests of class members

23 against the legitimate interests of the state. Trueblood, 822 F.3d at 1043-45 (finding the framework

adopted by the Ninth Circuit in Oregon Advocacy Ctr. v. Mink, 322 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2003), to be

24 “equally applicable to individuals awaiting competency evaluations”). The Court has written at length
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

RECONSIDER INJUNCTION REGARDING

TIMING OF SERVICES AND INPAIENT

EVALUATIONS- 5

1 provides for a reasonable amount of time in which to transmit information, to arrange and

2 prepare for the transport of an individual from a jail to one of the two state hospitals, and to

3 complete the transport, each additional day of delay works against the interests of all Parties.

4 And, although class members awaiting in-hospital evaluations have some similarities with class

5 members awaiting in-jail evaluations, a number of key differences between the groups and their

6 situations, stemming from the legal framework provided by state law as it relates to the two

7 groups, necessitate different wait-time standards for the two groups:

8

First, the tasks to be completed are different. In-jail evaluations must be completed

9 within fourteen days, whereas the seven-day standard for in-hospital evaluations requires only

10 that Defendants admit class members to a hospital so that an evaluation can begin.

11

Second, because the tasks are different, the interests of the Parties are different. While

12 class members retain their interests in “mitigating the harm caused to detainees who languish in

13 jail awaiting a competency determination and in reducing the impact of solitary confinement and

14 other conditions often imposed on mentally ill detainees who are awaiting evaluation,” the state’s

15 interests in “accurate evaluations, preventing the stigma of an incorrect determination, avoiding

16 undue separation of a detainee from her counsel and family, and protecting the detainee’s rights

17 to counsel and against self-incrimination” are not implicated for the in-hospital evaluation

18 subgroup. Trueblood, 822 F.3d at 1044-45. The time it takes Defendants to admit a class

19 member to a state hospital has no impact on the accuracy of the evaluation conducted entirely

20 after the class member has been admitted, and therefore there can be no impact on any stigma

21 resulting from an incorrect determination. Furthermore, when an evaluator or a court orders a

22
about the interests of class members and of the state at the competency evaluation stage, and about how 23 those interests interact when balanced against each other. (Dkt. No. 303.) The Court now incorporates
that discussion and will not repeat it here except to note how those interests, when considered in the in24 hospital evaluation context, differ from the interests in the in-jail evaluation context.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO RECONSIDER INJUNCTION REGARDING TIMING OF SERVICES AND INPAIENT EVALUATIONS- 6

1 class member to receive an in-hospital evaluation, they will necessarily be separated from their

2 community, counsel, and family. This separation is not “undue”—it is a mandatory component

3 of the decision to order an in-hospital evaluation instead of an in-jail evaluation. Nothing in this

4 Court’s injunction determines whether a class member is ordered for evaluation in a hospital or

5 in a jail—the decision stems entirely from state law and the decision of the state court judge or

6 evaluator. And, because the evaluation occurs entirely after the class member is admitted to the

7 state hospital, the time by which Defendants must admit the class member has no impact on the

8 availability of defense counsel to participate in the actual evaluation.

9

Defendants now argue that the state also has a legitimate interest in reducing “misuse” of

10 the in-hospital evaluation system so as to “avoid[] a system that encourages defendants and

11 defense counsel to seek inpatient evaluations as a means to obtain a faster evaluation” because a

12 system with “shorter timelines for inpatient evaluation versus in-jail evaluation” would “tak[e]

13 away from those who truly need treatment.” (Dkt. No. 288 at 11-12.) The Court disagrees.

14 First, Washington law allows state judges to order in-hospital evaluations in only three

15 circumstances. RCW 10.77.060(d) (“The court may commit the defendant for evaluation to a

16 hospital or secure mental health facility without an assessment if: (i) The defendant is charged

17 with murder in the first or second degree; (ii) the court finds that it is more likely than not that an

18 evaluation in the jail will be inadequate to complete an accurate evaluation; or (iii) the court

19 finds that an evaluation outside the jail setting is necessary for the health, safety, or welfare of

20 the defendant.”). In these circumstances, the court—not the class member or her defense

21 counsel—has found an in-hospital evaluation appropriate. While class members may prefer in-

22 hospital evaluations, that decision is simply not theirs to make. The only other mechanism

23 allowing for in-hospital evaluations is an evaluator’s decision that “inpatient commitment is

24
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO RECONSIDER INJUNCTION REGARDING TIMING OF SERVICES AND INPAIENT EVALUATIONS- 7

1 needed.” RCW 10.77.060(c). Again, the in-hospital evaluation is being conducted because an

2 evaluator—not a class member or her counsel—decided that was preferable, and all evaluators

3 are DSHS employees except for the Pierce County panel evaluators. Second, contrary to

4 Defendants’ assertion, a seven-day time limit for admission to a state hospital for an in-patient

5 evaluation would appear to result in a longer timeframe for inpatient evaluations than for in-jail

6 evaluations, not a shorter timeframe. RCW 10.77.060(c) allows for up to fifteen days to

7 complete the evaluation once admitted to a hospital. Therefore, a completed in-hospital

8 evaluation would take up to twenty-two days (up to seven for admission, up to fifteen for

9 completion), whereas an in-jail evaluation must be completed within fourteen days. Because

10 Defendants have not provided any explanation for their unsupported conclusion that in-hospital

11 evaluations would occur faster than in-jail evaluations, (see Dkt. Nos. 288 at 11-12, 293 at 1-8),

12 the Court is unable to accept this conclusory assertion as a legitimate interest.

13

The legitimate interests maintained by the state in the in-hospital evaluation context—

14 bringing those accused of a crime to trial, evaluating a potentially incompetent defendant’s

15 competency so as to determine whether he or she may stand trial, restoring the competency of

16 those found incompetent so that they may be brought to trial, and maintaining an efficient and

17 organized competency evaluation and restoration system, the administration of which uses public

18 resources appropriately—as well as the legitimate interests of class members awaiting in-hospital

19 evaluations, all weigh against a fourteen-day standard and in favor of a shorter, seven-day

20 standard.

21

Third, the barriers to timely in-jail evaluations and the barriers to timely admission for in-

22 hospital evaluations differ significantly, and there are many fewer barriers in the in-hospital

23 evaluation context. Completing in-jail evaluations within fourteen days requires the cooperation

24
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO RECONSIDER INJUNCTION REGARDING TIMING OF SERVICES AND INPAIENT EVALUATIONS- 8

1 of evaluators, defense counsel, jail administrators, interpreters, defense experts, and other

2 stakeholders. In contrast, admission for in-hospital evaluations requires only that the jail provide

3 medical clearance for the class member, and jails are now legally required to provide medical

4 clearance information within twenty-four hours of the signing of a court order for an evaluation.

5 RCW 10.77.075. The only other thing that needs to be done within the seven days lies entirely

6 within the control of Defendants: providing a bed in a state hospital. In fact, Defendants do not

7 even need the discovery or charging documents because the seven-day timeframe does not

8 require Defendants to actually conduct an evaluation—it simply requires them to open a bed for

9 the class member at a hospital.

10

Finally, in invoking principles of federalism and asking the Court to defer to state law as

11 to the fourteen-day standard, Defendants ask the Court to ignore another state law, and the policy

12 judgments underlying that law. As discussed above, Washington law allows for in-hospital

13 evaluations only in limited circumstances, and ninety percent of competency evaluations in

14 Washington happen outside of a state hospital. (Dkt. No. 131 at 6.) The distinction between

15 class members who receive in-hospital evaluations and those who receive in-jail evaluations was

16 created by Washington law, not by this Court. The policy judgments underlying that

17 distinction—that class members ordered to be evaluated in a hospital are more in need of mental

18 health services in a hospital setting than the other ninety percent of people ordered to receive

19 competency evaluations—are entitled to as much deference from this Court under principles of

20 federalism as the fourteen-day standard enacted four days before trial in this matter. (See Dkt.

21 No. 303 at 10-12.) Additionally, that state law requires either a judge or an evaluator to be the

22 one to make the determination that an in-hospital evaluation is appropriate represents a

23 legislative determination not only that judges and evaluators are capable of identifying people

24
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO RECONSIDER INJUNCTION REGARDING TIMING OF SERVICES AND INPAIENT EVALUATIONS- 9

1 who are actually in need of hospitalization while receiving services, but that judges and

2 evaluators, not DSHS administrators, should be the ones to make that determination.

3 Accordingly, the Court must reject Defendants’ contention that people who receive in-hospital

4 evaluations are “taking spots away from those who truly need treatment.” (Dkt. No. 288 at 12.)

5

Similarly, arguments advanced by Defendants such as a murder charge “alone makes it

6 no more likely that a defendant will be found incompetent or will need the specialized care

7 available in a state hospital,” and therefore that this is “not a population that should be rushed to

8 the hospital,” (Dkt. No. 288 at 11), miss the point entirely. This Court has not ordered that

9 people with murder charges be evaluated in a state hospital—that decision was made by state law

10 in conjunction with the ordering judge or evaluator, and is the binding law of Washington state,

11 whether DSHS agrees with it or not. Defendants have proven themselves capable of lobbying

12 for desired legislation, and principles of federalism counsel that Defendants make these

13 arguments to the legislature, not to this Court.

14

In sum, the Court finds once again that wait times in excess of seven days contravene the

15 interests of both the state and class members, and do not bear a reasonable relation to the purpose

16 of the confinement. See Jackson, 406 U.S. at 733-38. The Court understands Defendants’ desire

17 to reserve scarce hospital bed space for class members already found incompetent and badly in

18 need of restoration and treatment. But the solution is to secure adequate bed space to provide

19 timely services to all class members, not to seek to delay services to those DSHS deems less in

20 need. Washington’s policy is that certain people be evaluated in a hospital; Defendants must

21 meet the obligation contained in that policy judgment while still providing timely restoration

22 services to others. “Lack of funds, staff or facilities cannot justify the State's failure to provide

23 [class members] with [the] treatment necessary for rehabilitation.” Mink, 322 F.3d at 1121

24
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO RECONSIDER INJUNCTION REGARDING TIMING OF SERVICES AND INPAIENT EVALUATIONS- 10

1 (quoting Ohlinger v. Watson, 652 F.2d 775, 779 (9th Cir. 1980)). Defendants have known for

2 years that they lacked sufficient bed space to provide timely services, having been told so by

3 both experts of their own choosing and outside auditors hired by the state legislature.

4 Defendants’ failure to take all reasonable steps to reduce wait times by, inter alia, securing more

5 bed space, has resulted in this Court’s finding that Defendants are in contempt of this Court’s

6 orders. (Dkt. No. 289.) Defendants must rise to the occasion and engage in the serious reforms

7 necessary to improve the timeliness of competency services—the constitutional rights of some of

8 our most vulnerable citizens depend on it. Defendants’ second request is DENIED.

9

Conclusion

10

Defendants’ Motion to Reconsider Scope of Injunction Regarding Timing of Services

11 and Inpatient Evaluations is DENIED. (Dkt. No. 288.)

12

13

The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.

14

15

Dated this 19th day of August, 2016.

16

17

A

18

Marsha J. Pechman

19

United States District Judge

20

21

22

23

24
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO RECONSIDER INJUNCTION REGARDING TIMING OF SERVICES AND INPAIENT EVALUATIONS- 11

 </s> 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

9

AT SEATTLE

10 CASSIE CORDELL TRUEBLOOD, et al.,
11 Plaintiffs,
12 v.
13 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT
14 OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES, et al.,
15 Defendants.
16

CASE NO. C14-1178 MJP
ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS

17 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Second Motion for Attorney’s
18 Fees and Costs. (Dkt. No. 310.) Having considered the Parties’ briefing and all related papers,
19 the Court GRANTS the motion.
20 The Court previously awarded attorney’s fees and costs to Plaintiffs. (Dkt. No. 162.)
21 Plaintiffs now seek that same award of $1,267,769.10 in attorney’s fees for 3,232.77 hours of
22 work, and an award of $35,400.38 for litigation costs. (Dkt. No. 146 at 10-11.) Defendants
23 agree that Plaintiffs, as prevailing parties, are entitled to attorney’s fees and costs, but argue that
24

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS- 1

1 Plaintiffs’ “partial success” (in light of the reversal and remand by the Ninth Circuit Court of

2 Appeals) dictates a corresponding reduction in the Court’s original award. (Dkt. No. 323 at 2-5.)

3

The Court disagrees with Defendants. First, Defendants only appealed a portion of the

4 Court’s order, seeking reversal of the fee award and the requirement that in-jail competency

5 evaluations be completed within seven days. (See Dkt. No. 158, 167 and Cooper Decl. Ex. A-C.)

6 The Ninth Circuit’s order did not even address the fee award, only remanded the matter to this

7 Court to “consider whether [the 14-day] time limit [passed by the Washington legislature while

8 this litigation was pending; see RCW § 10.77.068] would pass constitutional muster.” Trueblood

9 v. Washington State Dept. of Soc. & Health Servs., 822 F.3d 1037, 1046 (9th Cir. 2016).

10

Defendant’s briefing makes it sound as though this is exactly what the Department had

11 argued for1 and that they prevailed on their argument (“The Ninth Circuit agreed with the

12 Department…”; Dkt. No. 323, Response at 4.). In fact, Defendant argued that the Court should

13 be required to follow, not just the fourteen-day evaluation period, but the entire statute (“At oral

14 argument, Washington proposed that… the best remedy would be to order Washington to

15 comply with its own law;” Trueblood, 822 F.3d at 1046 fn.6.). On remand, this Court declined

16 to do so, limiting the revision of the previous order to an increase of the in-jail competency

17 evaluation period to fourteen days but refusing on constitutional grounds to adopt the extensive

18 list of exceptions written into the state statute. (See Dkt. No. 303, Order Modifying Permanent

19 Injunction at 28-31.)

20

To qualify as a “prevailing party,” a litigant need only succeed on “any significant

21 issue… which achieves some of the benefit the parties sought in bringing suit.” Hensley v.

22 Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 440 (1983). “A plaintiff ‘prevails’ for purposes of § 1988 ‘when actual

23
1 “On appeal, the Department argued that the appropriate timeline is at least the fourteen-day maximum
24 outlined in state law.” Dkt. No. 323, Response at 4.

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS- 2

1 relief on the merits of his claim materially alters the legal relationship between the parties by

2 modifying the defendant’s behavior in a way that directly benefits the plaintiff.’” Higher Taste,

3 Inc. v. City of Tacoma, 717 F.3d 712, 715 (9th Cir. 2013)(quoting Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S.

4 103, 111-112 (1992)). This has unquestionably occurred in this case; even while the appeal was

5 pending, Defendants undertook a series of actions in response to the Court’s order, including a

6 43% increase in funding (in the amount of $4.67 million) for additional competency evaluators

7 (Dkt. No. 234, Defendants’ Revised Long-Term Plan, at 6 and 9), resulting in a decrease in class

8 members’ incarceration time from almost two months to less than two weeks. (Dkt. No. 131,

9 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law at 8; Dkt. No. 303, Order Modifying Permanent

10 Injunction at 14.)

11

Even considering the partial reversal, Plaintiffs won a major constitutional victory in this

12 litigation and permanently altered their legal relationship with Defendants. The Court declines

13 Defendants’ invitation to somehow segregate out the work of Plaintiffs’ counsel on the timing of

14 in-jail evaluations – even setting aside the infeasibility of separating out the hours devoted to an

15 issue inextricably intertwined with the entirety of Plaintiffs’ lawsuit, the Court chooses to focus

16 (as the Supreme Court has advised) on the overall excellent results achieved by Plaintiffs’

17 efforts. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434. Without diminishing the significance of Defendants’ success

18 on appeal, the Court finds beyond question that Plaintiffs are fully qualified as the prevailing

19 parties .

20

Defendants continue to argue that fees should be reduced under the Prison Litigation

21 Reform Act (“PLRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1997. As the Court has previously indicated, Plaintiffs’ fee

22 award is not governed by the PLRA.

23

Plaintiff Disability Rights Washington is not a prisoner, is not confined to a correctional

facility, and has not been detained as a result of being accused of a crime. See 42 U.S.C. 24

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS- 3

1

§ 1997e; Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2000). Disability Rights

Washington litigated this suit on behalf of its constituents, (see Dkt. No. 131 at 15), and

2

work on their behalf cannot be separated from work on behalf of the named Plaintiffs

3

who are also class members. See Turner v. Wilkinson, 92 F. Supp. 2d 697, 704 (S.D.

Ohio 1999) (“Since not all of the original plaintiffs were prisoners, the Court does not

4

believe that this case can properly be characterized as a suit ‘brought by a prisoner ...’”).

Therefore, it would be improper to reduce Plaintiffs’ fee petition even if some Plaintiffs

5

were subject to the PLRA’s fee cap. See also Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program v.

Wood, 584 F. Supp. 2d 1314, 1316 (M.D. Ala. 2008). 6

7 Dkt. No. 162 at 2.

8

This ruling finds further support in Ala. Disabilities Advocacy Program (“ADAP”) v.

9 Wood, 584 F.Supp.2d 1314 (M.D.Ala. 2008), another lawsuit initiated by an organization

10 advocating for the rights of mentally-ill detainees. Besides finding that ADAP was not a

11 “prisoner,” the District Court also ruled “[t]he prospective-relief provisions of the PLRA do not

12 apply because this action does not concern ‘prison conditions.’” Id. at 1316. ADAP sought to

13 enforce its right of access under federal law to a group of detainees. DRW sought to enforce the

14 due process rights of its class to timely access to the courts, thus this lawsuit is not concerned

15 with the “conditions” of Plaintiffs’ confinement. The PLRA does not apply to Plaintiffs’ suit.

16

17

Conclusion

18

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Second Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs. As

19 before, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ counsel’s hours and rates are reasonable considering the

20 magnitude and complexity of the matter and the quality of the representation, and consequently

21 awards Plaintiffs their requested lodestar amount of $1,267,769.10 in attorney’s fees. The Court

22 also awards Plaintiffs their litigation costs (subject to the reductions previously detailed in the

23 original order on attorneys’ fees and not contested here) for a total costs award of $35,400.38.

24

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS- 4

1

The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.

2

3

Dated this _13th_ day of October, 2016.

4

5

6 7

A

Marsha J. Pechman

8

United States District Judge

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS- 5

 </s> Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 361 Filed 02/01/17 Page 1 of 10
Trueblood, et al., v. Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, et al.
Case No. C14-1178 MJP DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED PLAN
February 1, 2017

1|Page

Attachment A; Page 1 of 10

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 361 Filed 02/01/17 Page 2 of 10
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................... 3 II. COMPONENT 1: INCREASE COMPETENCY EVALUATION CAPACITY ................................................... 3 III. COMPONENT 2: EXPAND BED CAPACITY FOR INPATIENT COMPETENCY SERVICES .............. 4
1. Create short-term strategies to increase bed capacity to serve class members ........................... 5 2. Create long-term strategies to increase bed capacity to serve class members ............................. 5 3. Increase alternatives to inpatient restoration for defendants not requiring hospitalization.. 6 IV. COMPONENT 3: DIVERSION AND TRIAGE................................................................................................... 7 1. Diversion ................................................................................................................................................................... 7 2. Triage .......................................................................................................................................................................... 7 V. RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ PROPOSAL ......................................................................................................... 7 1. PLAINTIFFS’ RECOMMENDATION 1 .............................................................................................................. 8 2. PLAINTIFFS’ RECOMMENDATION 2 .............................................................................................................. 8 3. PLAINTIFFS’ RECOMMENDATION 3 .............................................................................................................. 8 4. PLAINTIFFS’ RECOMMENDATION 4 .............................................................................................................. 8 5. PLAINTIFFS’ RECOMMENDATION 5 .............................................................................................................. 9 6. PLAINTIFFS’ RECOMMENDATION 6 .............................................................................................................. 9 7. PLAINTIFFS’ RECOMMENDATION 7 .............................................................................................................. 9 8. PLAINTIFFS’ RECOMMENDATION 8 ........................................................................................................... 10 9. PLAINTIFFS’ RECOMMENDATION 9 ........................................................................................................... 10 VI. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................................................ 10

2|Page

Attachment A; Page 2 of 10

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 361 Filed 02/01/17 Page 3 of 10
I. INTRODUCTION
The Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) submits this proposal in accordance with the January 24, 2017 order to present a plan to describe how DSHS would:
1. Admit class members to receive competency evaluation and restoration treatment services (hereafter referred to as “inpatient competency services”) within seven days of signing of a court order; and
2. Provide in-custody evaluation services within 14 days of the signing of a court order.
DSHS engaged the hospital Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) and other staff in capital facilities, budget and operations; consulted the Court Monitor; and reviewed the proposal submitted by Plaintiffs on January 30, 2017 to formulate this proposal. DSHS’s proposal includes three key components:
1. Increase evaluation capacity 2. Expand bed capacity for inpatient competency services 3. Continue to Implement and Improve Triage and Diversion
Finally, DSHS responds to the proposals made by Plaintiffs on January 30, 2017 that are not otherwise addressed as part of DSHS’s own plan (See Dkt. # 358).
II. COMPONENT 1: INCREASE COMPETENCY EVALUATION CAPACITY
1. The Office of Forensic Mental Health Services (OFMHS) has made further progress on recruitment actions identified during status hearing testimony in January 2017. Dr. Kinlen extended an offer on January 27, 2017 for the Western State Hospital (WSH) scheduler/assistant position. The offer was accepted and the new employee will start on February 16, 2017. Dr. Kinlen also extended an offer on January 30, 2017 for the WSH jailbased evaluator supervisor position. This offer was accepted and the new supervisor will start on April 3, 2017. Two other offers were extended for the remaining forensic evaluator supervisor positions and decisions are pending at this time.
2. Ingrid Lewis with OFMHS will reach out to counties by February 10, 2017 to remind them of the opportunity to engage panel evaluators to conduct more timely evaluations at DSHS expense in accordance with state law. Ms. Lewis will begin this outreach to encourage use of panel evaluators in the regularly scheduled meeting with King County Stakeholders scheduled for February 1, 2017. Outreach to remaining counties will include targeted communications to counties where DSHS is not meeting the 14-Day timeline. Ms. Lewis will email a memo to the Washington Association of Counties, Administrative Office of the Courts, Washington Defense Association, and Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, as well as all county commissioners in counties eligible for 5551 reimbursement.

3|Page

Attachment A; Page 3 of 10

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 361 Filed 02/01/17 Page 4 of 10
3. OFMHS staff conducted an Internet search for a Locums Tenens company to provide contracted Forensic Evaluations. Staff did not identify a company that provided qualified examiners for competency to stand trial. Therefore, DSHS will issue a Request for Information (RFI) by February 10, 2017 to solicit potential providers of contracted Forensic Evaluators (which may include psychologists or other suitably qualified professionals) to reduce the current backlog of orders.
4. DSHS respectfully proposes the Court consider a systemic investment of $3.2 million from the fines being accrued to fund increased capacity to meet evaluation timeliness standards. DSHS would use this funding to hire 12 additional evaluators to yield an additional 144 evaluations per month. Based on the data analysis conducted by DSHS (see Attachment A), 12 evaluators for jail-based services would cover any current backlog of cases. This resource investment would also be sufficient to manage future spikes up to 25% higher than the most currently experienced peak in referrals (up to 386 referrals in a month’s time). These evaluators would be responsible for completing any backlog cases, managing any increase in referrals throughout the state for in-custody evaluations, and providing evaluations at off-hour times. Seven of the positions would be out- stationed in locations with enough demand to support an out-station site while the remaining five would be stationed at WSH. Additionally, five forensic evaluator support positions would expedite patient access to care functions--such as scheduling, transcription, and treatment—while evaluator resources are focused on conducting evaluations. In anticipation of an approval of this action, DSHS issued a recruitment posting on January 30, 2017 to expedite the process.
Assuming current demand and recent peak referral experience, these actions are expected to eliminate backlog and achieve ongoing compliance once all actions are completed and resources are operational.
III. COMPONENT 2: EXPAND BED CAPACITY FOR INPATIENT COMPETENCY SERVICES
Following review of past recommendations from Dr. Mauch, Court Monitor as well as additional suggestions provided by her during a telephone call on January 27, 2017, DSHS proposes the following components for expansion of bed capacity to serve class members. DSHS respectfully proposes the Court consider a systemic investment of $600,000 dollars from the fines being accrued to fund the design effort to remodel Building 10 at the Washington Veterans Home in Retsil, the details of which are included in item 2d below.
To meet current and future capacity for inpatient competency services DSHS will:

4|Page

Attachment A; Page 4 of 10

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 361 Filed 02/01/17 Page 5 of 10
1. Create short-term strategies to increase bed capacity to serve class members a. Dr. Kinlen evaluated a proposal by Eastern State Hospitals which Dr. Strandquist spoke about during his testimony at the January status hearing. Analysis of this proposal, which would refurbish a ward for civilly committed former forensic patients would not create significant increases in bed capacity to serve class members. However, in the fall of 2016 DSHS funded the creation of 8 new forensic beds at Eastern State Hospital to directly serve patients from WSH thus freeing up bed capacity to serve class members at WSH without increasing census. Three beds at WSH were vacated by NGRI patients and will be used for competency services beginning January 31, 2017. The remaining five beds at ESH will be made available for inpatient competency services in February 2017.
b. Extend the alternate facilities Contracts for the existing 24 beds at Yakima and 30 beds at Maple Lane will be extended until June 30, 2018.
c. Expand 24 beds at Yakima DSHS will consult the Court Monitor and provide all planning documents to her for review.
2. Create long-term strategies to increase bed capacity to serve class members a. During a January 27, 2017 phone call, Dr. Mauch recommended considering contracting with Evaluation and Treatment (E & T) Centers to provide restoration treatment services. Revised Code of Washington 71.05.020 defines and E & T as “any facility which can provide directly, or by direct arrangement with other public or private agencies, emergency evaluation and treatment, outpatient care, and timely and appropriate inpatient care to persons suffering from a mental disorder, and which is certified as such by the Department.” Dr. Kinlen will work with the Attorney General’s Office to explore the legal authority of E & T’s to provide competency services under the forensic commitment statutes. If the facilities can be determined to have legal authority to operate such programs in accordance with their licensure and relevant statutory authorities, DSHS would conduct an RFI to solicit for consideration potential E & T providers willing and able to provide competency services. DSHS will complete this work and issue, and if viable, issue a Request for Information (RFI) by February 24, 2017. b. Consider remodeling Yakima Valley School to serve up to 30 WSH discharged patients with Developmental or Intellectual disabilities who are low security and need a step down placement. DSHS Capital facilities staff, led by Bob Hubenthal, would clarify the requirements required to change current property obligations, confirm the population that could best be served, identify specific space availability and number of beds that could be created and remodeling costs, as well as associated time frames related to completing the remodel and on-boarding of staff. If this option is found to be viable, once patients are moved from WSH, space

5|Page

Attachment A; Page 5 of 10

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 361 Filed 02/01/17 Page 6 of 10
currently vacant and remodeled to meet class member needs would be put in service to serve class members. c. Consider using Building Number 10 at the Veterans Affairs Campus in Retsil, Washington. This facility was recently made available to DSHS and may offer up to 78 beds. It was not a site available for consideration during the initial review of alternate sites in 2015. DSHS anticipates this facility could be remodeled into a step down low acuity/low security option for patients who are discharged from WSH. We anticipate the facility would require extensive remodel which may not make it viable for operation any sooner than 24 months from project start. DSHS Capital facilities staff, led by Bob Hubenthal, would use the $600,000 systemic investment noted above to clarify the requirements for use of this property. This would include required changes to current property obligations, confirming the population that could best be served, identify specific space availability and number of beds that could be created and remodeling costs, as well as associated time frames related to completing the remodel and on-boarding of staff. If this option is found to be viable, once patients are moved from WSH, space currently vacant and remodeled to meet class member needs would be put in service to serve class members. DSHS would use the $600,000 proposed above to fund the predesign work.
While the specific operational start dates are to be determined by further work by DSHS Capital facilities, we wanted to reiterate that successful transition of patients from WSH to Yakima Valley School and/or Retsil would result in use of available forensic beds (up to 45 currently available) at WSH.
d. Upon successful completion of the Systems Improvement Agreement (SIA) or upon the approval of the CMS approved consultant, the DSHS will pursue expansion of bed capacity at Western State Hospital in accordance with the Governor’s proposed budget. This would yield 205 additional forensic beds by 2023.
3. Increase alternatives to inpatient restoration for defendants not requiring hospitalization a. Not all defendants adjudicated as incompetent to stand trial meet the clinical or security need for hospitalization. On January 31, 2017 Assistant Secretary Reyes approved OFMHS to move forward in its contract with Groundswell Associates to assist in creating demonstration projects in King, Pierce, and Spokane and assisting with required revisions to associated statutes and administrative codes as needed for implementation. b. Ingrid Lewis contacted Groundswell to confirm interest on January 27, 2017; Groundswell replied with interest and willingness to engage in this work. c. Dr. Kinlen will ensure contract is executed by February 17, 2017.

6|Page

Attachment A; Page 6 of 10

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 361 Filed 02/01/17 Page 7 of 10
IV. COMPONENT 3: DIVERSION AND TRIAGE
The third component of DSHS’s long-term plan is to reverse or at least stem the trend of increased demand for competency services through expanded use of Diversion and Triage.
1. Diversion a. Prosecutorial diversion – Contracts were shared with the court monitor on January 27, 2017. A request for review and comments for the next contracting term were made with responses due from the Court Monitor to Ingrid Lewis by March 3, 2017. i. Current funding is available for the next two fiscal years (2018 and 2019). ii. Programs will continue to be evaluated and a decision on whether to continue funding current projects will be made by March 2017. b. Use of contempt fines to fund diversion strategies i. On January 30, 2017, five programs were reviewed with two programs answering all remaining questions fully and three sites needed to provide additional feedback before a final funding recommendation will be made ii. The Court Monitor will brief the Court on the status of deliberations and timelines for final recommendations. iii. Applicants for consideration included Comprehensive (Yakima County), King County, Kitsap County, Great Rivers (Lewis, Cowlitz, Grays Harbor, Wahkiakum and Pacific), and Sunrise (Snohomish)
2. Triage a. Ingrid Lewis will schedule a meeting with the Court Monitor to discuss Triage plans submitted in November 2016 and next steps. b. Ms. Lewis will continue to engage with local DMHP offices to determine when class members may be triaged out of jail. DSHS will participate/present at the next DMHP meeting/conference scheduled in June 2017. c. Ms. Lewis will continue to explore how outreach and triage will address holidays and weekends to ensure that class members have 24/7 access to triage when necessary to address their needs d. Ms. Lewis will explore additional jail outreach options prior to Day 13 e. Ms. Lewis revised the Triage Memo that was distributed to stakeholders and requested input from the Court Monitor on January 31, 2017 for suggested changes. Ms. Lewis will send the revised Memo to stakeholders on February 3, 2017.
V. RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ PROPOSAL
Here, DSHS responds to the proposals made by Plaintiffs on January 30, 2017. These responses are provided only for sections that are not otherwise addressed as part of DSHS’s own plan above.

7|Page

Attachment A; Page 7 of 10

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 361 Filed 02/01/17 Page 8 of 10
1. PLAINTIFFS’ RECOMMENDATION 1: The CEOs of both state hospitals will be provided with the Court Monitor’s recommendations and be encouraged to work directly with her to achieve compliance. Such communication shall include a review of the steps ESH has taken to come into compliance that should be adopted by WSH including hiring a dedicated RN recruiter, building or maximizing forensic beds, and hiring contract staff in all vacant positions across disciplines. a. DSHS does not fully support this recommendation by Plaintiffs and suggests the following revisions. DSHS/OFMHS will continue to share information and Dr. Kinlen will remain the designated point of contact and responsibility for Trueblood actions and implementation. As such, he is responsible to coordinate, as appropriate, with the hospital CEOs and other DSHS staff and leaders. b. In addition, DSHS has already taken steps to implement coordination between ESH and WSH. WSH has adopted similar steps to ESH to assist with recruitment including hiring a dedicated recruiter, etc.
2. PLAINTIFFS’ RECOMMENDATION 2: Implement efficiencies in providing competency services to class members who cycle in and out of the system by creating an electronic system to flag a referral from a class member who has been evaluated or admitted for restoration services within the past five years. Defendants shall also develop methods for streamlining the provision of competency services a. DSHS agrees with this recommendation. DSHS/OFMHS will work on implementing efficiencies for class members who cycle in and out of the system within five years using electronic records once each hospital has an electronic medical record. In addition, DSHS/OFMHS will continue to explore methods to streamline provision of competency restoration services
3. PLAINTIFFS’ RECOMMENDATION 3: Defendants must begin coordinating Trueblood diversion efforts with the Governor’s diversion efforts. This includes involving the Court Monitor or her designee in all meetings regarding diversion efforts. a. DSHS does not fully support this recommendation by Plaintiffs and suggests the following revisions. DSHS/OFMHS commits to coordinating efforts and engaging the Court Monitor in Trueblood related projects or initiatives, including any diversion projects related to competency services. Diversion is a broad concept, not limited just to competency services and it would not be efficient or appropriate to incorporate the Court monitor into “all meetings regarding diversion efforts.”
4. PLAINTIFFS’ RECOMMENDATION 4: Defendants shall also secure the full $4.81 million to supplement current prosecutorial diversion programs. The data from those programs shall be provided to the Court Monitor a. DSHS does not fully support this recommendation by Plaintiffs and suggests the following revisions. DSHS/OFMHS has funding available for prosecutorial diversion in Fiscal Year 2018 and 2019. Additionally, the Governor’s budget earmarks funding well in excess of $ 4.81 million dollars for additional diversion projects which may

8|Page

Attachment A; Page 8 of 10

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 361 Filed 02/01/17 Page 9 of 10
fund prosecutorial diversion as well as other effective diversion initiatives and projects.
5. PLAINTIFFS’ RECOMMENDATION 5: Defendants must submit a Second Revised Long Term Plan by February 10, 2017. Such a plan must have the Governor’s approval and include all steps referenced in Plaintiffs proposal including a consideration of community based restoration as recommended by Groundswell. The Second Revised Long Term Plan will be reviewed by the Court Monitor who will provide a written response regarding the viability of the Plan and suggestions to expedite compliance with this Court’s orders a. DSHS does not fully support this recommendation by Plaintiffs and suggests the following revisions. A Revised Long -Term plan will be provided within 30 days of the enacted budget and will be based on input from the Court following the submission of the Parties’ respective plans. As noted above, consideration will be given to community based restoration and DSHS is pursuing this with Groundswell services (see item 3 above in Component 2).
6. PLAINTIFFS’ RECOMMENDATION 6: Defendants’ monthly reports should include a new section regarding status of compliance that includes both the Monitor’s opinion “as to the sufficiency of Defendants’ progress” and “recommendations for actions to remedy any lack of progress or performance by Defendants” a. DSHS agrees with this recommendation by Plaintiffs. DSHS/OFMHS will add a new section to the monthly reports to allow the Court Monitor to provide updates on the status of compliance.
7. PLAINTIFFS’ RECOMMENDATION 7: Pursuant to RCW 10.77.084(b), Defendants shall determine if the class members’ clinical presentation is such that the provision of competency restoration is a viable option necessitating admission rather than a court hearing to provide this finding. a. It is unclear what Plaintiffs’ intended with this proposal as the suggestion that DSHS can facilitate admission for competency restoration outside the court process is not supported by statute. RCW 10.77.084(1)(b) states: “The court may order a defendant who has been found to be incompetent to undergo competency restoration treatment at a facility designated by DSHS if the defendant is eligible under RCW 10.77.086 or 10.77.088. At the end of each competency restoration period or at any time a professional person determines competency has been, or is unlikely to be, restored, the defendant shall be returned to court for a hearing, except that if the opinion of the professional person is that the defendant remains incompetent and the hearing is held before the expiration of the current competency restoration period, the parties may agree to waive the defendant's presence, to remote participation by the defendant at a hearing, or to presentation of an agreed order in lieu of a hearing. The facility shall promptly notify the court

9|Page

Attachment A; Page 9 of 10

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 361 Filed 02/01/17 Page 10 of 10
and all parties of the date on which the competency restoration period commences and expires so that a timely hearing date may be scheduled.” b. As noted, the parties to the criminal matter and the criminal court may waive a defendant’s presence if a professional person has determined the defendant remains incompetent and the hearing is held prior to the expiration of the commitment period. At this time, DSHS does provide information to the parties regarding the dates on which the competency period commences and expires pursuant to the statute. In addition, DSHS does conduct evaluations prior to the expiration of the commitment period and, to the extent possible, alerts the parties of a finding of continuing incompetence such that waiver is possible. Further, the standardized court orders developed by DSHS and other stakeholders includes a provision for the parties to preemptively activate this waiver provision in RCW 10.77.084(1)(b). See pg. 5 of form order MP 240. However, DSHS cannot unilaterally detain an individual beyond the expiration of the competency period absent action by the criminal parties and court within the required timeframe.
8. PLAINTIFFS’ RECOMMENDATION 8: Defendants should utilize the Court Monitor and her experts as resources for developing compliance plans and ensuring that the actions they take will lead time to comply with this Court’s injunction in a timely manner. a. DSHS largely agrees with this recommendation by Plaintiffs. DSHS/OFMHS will utilize the Court Monitor and experts as resources.
9. PLAINTIFFS’ RECOMMENDATION 9: It may be useful for the Monitor to open and staff a local office and bill Defendants for these costs. a. DSHS does not fully support this recommendation by Plaintiffs. Before funds are expended on the opening and staffing of a local office, there are numerous steps that can be taken to improve communication and feedback between the Monitor and DSHS. Reinstituting the quarterly reports from the Monitor, the new Monitor’s section in the monthly reports, the continued use of local experts, and leveraging technology (web meetings, email, phone, etc.) are all equally effective, and more cost conscious, options for ensuring that the Monitor is more accessible.
VI. CONCLUSION
DSHS is requesting a systemic investment of $3.8 million dollars from the court to hire additional evaluators and provide funds to complete the design effort of a 78-bed facility to provide step down placement for individuals in the community. This will move the system toward expanded capacity in the community and move the hospitals toward expanding services for forensic patients.
DSHS is committed to meeting the requirements of the Trueblood decision and continues to work toward that commitment.

10 | P a g e

Attachment A; Page 10 of 10

 </s> 1

THE HON. MARSHA J. PECHMAN

2

3

4

5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

6

A.B., by and through her next friend CASSIE

No. 14-cv-01178-MJP

7 CORDELL TRUEBLOOD, et al.,

8

Plaintiffs,

9 v.
10 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES, et al.,
11 Defendants.
12

ORDER EXPANDING COURT MONITOR AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITIES

13

The parties submitted a stipulated proposal identifying five potential grant recipients of

14 Trueblood diversion funds. Dkt. 366. As stated previously, it is the Court’s intention to release

15 to the Plaintiffs the funds collected pursuant to the contempt provisions of the permanent

16 injunction entered in this matter, for implementation of the diversion programs, with the Court

17 Monitor taking the role of reviewing the progress of those programs and reporting to the Court.

18

In order to effectuate the Court Monitor’s review and reporting requirements regarding

19 the disbursement of the funds and implementation of the diversion programs, the Court hereby

20 approves the parties’ proposal regarding granting diversion awards to the five identified

21 providers and expands the authority and responsibility of the Court Monitor to effectuate this

22 proposal as follows. Effective from the date of this Order, the Court Monitor will:

23

ORDER EXPANDING COURT MONITOR AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITIES - 1

1

 Oversee Defendants’ compliance with the requirements of the Court’s Orders related

2

to submitting contempt funds for the diversion programs and ensure that the funds

3

administered by Plaintiffs through their contract with Seattle Foundation in this

4

matter (the “Seattle Foundation Fiscal Sponsorship Agreement”) are distributed and

5

utilized in an appropriate manner.

6

 Serve as the primary point of contact to coordinate with Seattle Foundation regarding

7

the recipients, timing and amount of disbursements.

8

 Serve as the contact with the Court to request Orders for periodic disbursement of

9

Diversion Program Funds from the Court Registry to Seattle Foundation.

10

 Direct Seattle Foundation, in conjunction with the Seattle Foundation Fiscal

11

Sponsorship Agreement, to disburse the Diversion Program Funds to the Court-

12

approved providers, consistent with the amounts and duration approved by this Court.

13

 Advise the Court immediately if, in the Monitor’s reasonable judgment, the provider

14

is not in compliance with the reporting obligations or cannot use the funds for the

15

intended purpose. The Monitor will consult with the Trueblood parties on findings of

16

provider noncompliance.

17

 Work with Seattle Foundation to ensure notifications, contracts and other documents

18

are in compliance with Court orders and the approved diversion plan. Consistent with

19

the Seattle Foundation Fiscal Sponsorship Agreement, the Monitor will consult with

20

Trueblood parties to ensure compliance with the Court orders and approved diversion

21

plan.

22

 Receive and review quarterly reports from Seattle Foundation regarding fund receipt

23

and disbursement, as well as the status of contract execution. Copies of these reports

ORDER EXPANDING COURT MONITOR AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITIES - 2

1

will be provided by the Seattle Foundation to the Trueblood parties consistent with

2

the Seattle Foundation Fiscal Sponsorship Agreement. The Monitor will initiate

3

further consultation with the parties regarding these reports will occur, as needed.

4

 Receive and review monthly reports submitted by diversion fund recipients to Seattle

5

Foundation. Copies of these reports will be provided by the Seattle Foundation to the

6

Trueblood parties consistent with the Seattle Foundation Fiscal Sponsorship

7

Agreement. The Monitor will initiate further consultation with the parties regarding

8

these reports will occur as needed.

9

 Receive and review record-keeping associated with the recipients’ monthly reports.

10

Per the Seattle Foundation Fiscal Sponsorship Agreement, copies of this record-

11

keeping will also be provided by the Seattle Foundation to the ACLU Foundation and

12

DRW.

13

 Review analysis of the performance data reported by the recipients; and receive and

14

review outline of key findings from Seattle Foundation based on that data. Copies of

15

these findings will be provided by the Court Monitor to the Trueblood parties and

16

further consultation with the parties regarding these findings will occur as needed.

17

 Work with Seattle Foundation and the Trueblood parties to prepare an evaluation of

18

the diversion services funded by the contempt funds.

19

 Review Seattle Foundation contracts with experts and/or organizations for technical

20

and implementation assistance in support of the diversion services. The Monitor will

21

consult with the Trueblood parties on the review of said contracts, as needed.

22

23

ORDER EXPANDING COURT MONITOR AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITIES - 3

1

 Recommend to the Court that Seattle Foundation be ordered to demand the return of

2

funds from any organization not utilizing those funds properly. The Monitor will

3

consult with the Trueblood parties on the recommendation.

4

 Ensure that the Seattle Foundation provides services as needed and address any

5

concerns regarding same.

6

The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.

7

Dated: February __21__, 2017.

8

9

10

A

11

Marsha J. Pechman

12

United States District Judge

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

ORDER EXPANDING COURT MONITOR AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITIES - 4

 </s> Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 408 Filed 04/26/17 Page 1 of 4

1

2

3

4

5 The Honorable MARSHA J. PECHMAN
6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

8

AT SEATTLE

9

CASSIE CORDELL TRUEBLOOD, next

NO. C14-1178 MJP

friend of A.B., an incapacitated person, et al.,

10

Plaintiffs,

v.

ORDER ADOPTING (IN PART)

11

THE PARTIES’ MEDIATED

THE WASHINGTON STATE

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

12

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH

SERVICES, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14

15 Having reviewed the Joint Motion to Adopt the Mediated Settlement Agreement, Dkt. #
16 389, and discussed the proposed agreement with all Parties at the status hearings held on March
17 21, 2017 and April 18, 2017, the Court partially adopts the Agreement of the parties, and
18 ORDERS that the prior orders of the Court are MODIFIED in the following manner:
19

20

1. Outreach: The Parties will jointly generate outreach documents to inform state courts of their statutory obligations to provide orders for competency

21

services within twenty-four hours, as well as to inform the state courts of a

summary of the Trueblood litigation and injunction. The Parties will jointly

22

request the opportunity to present to Washington State judicial education

23

programs and other outreach that the Parties jointly deem necessary to

ensure third Parties are aware of their obligation to timely provide orders

24

for competency services.

25

2. Deadline for in-jail evaluations: DSHS shall complete in-jail competency

26

evaluations within the shorter of either a) 14 days from receipt of order or

ORDER ADOPTING THE PARTIES’

1

MEDIATED SETTLEMENT

AGREEMENT -- NO. C14-1178 MJP

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 408 Filed 04/26/17 Page 2 of 4

1

b) 21 days from signature of order. Both sets of data will continue to be

2

tracked in DSHS’ monthly reports.

3

3. Deadline for in-patient evaluation and restoration services: DSHS shall

admit class members for either inpatient competency evaluation or

4

restoration within the shorter of either a) 7 days from receipt of order or b)

14 days from signature of order. Both sets of data will continue to be tracked

5

in DSHS’ monthly reports.

6 4. Receipt of Order: When sent electronically, orders are deemed received as

7

of the time they are electronically transmitted to the Department.

8

5. Trigger Point for Notice to Plaintiffs’ Counsel: If at any point in the future

9

the percentage of orders received within 3 days of signature drops below the

table 1 benchmarks for two consecutive months, the Parties shall meet and

10

confer within 30 days to determine if there are factors within Defendants'

control that are causing delays in order transmission that can be changed

11

and/or if there are factors beyond the Defendants' direct control that the

12

Parties can collaborate to influence in the direction of faster transmission of

orders.

13

Table 1. Percentage trigger for orders received within 3 days of

14

signature

15

Jail-based evaluation orders

93

16

Inpatient competency orders

85

17

6. Data Collection: Defendants will continue to track the data referenced in

paragraphs 2, 3, and 5, above, and currently reflected in Appendix A of DSHS’

18

Monthly Reports. Additionally, when DSHS issues its monthly reports, it will

simultaneously provide the data from Appendix A in Excel format to Plaintiffs.

19

20 The Court ORDERS that from this point forward, calculation of compliance with the Court’s

21 Injunction, Dkt. #131, calculation of compliance with the Modified Injunction as to In-jail

22 Evaluations, Dkt. #303, calculation of contempt under the Order of Contempt, Dkt. #289, and

23 any other aspect of the Court’s prior rulings that are not consistent with the Agreement text set

24 forth above, are MODIFED to be in conformance with this Order.

25

26

ORDER ADOPTING THE PARTIES’

2

MEDIATED SETTLEMENT

AGREEMENT -- NO. C14-1178 MJP

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 408 Filed 04/26/17 Page 3 of 4

1 DATED this 26th day of __April__, 2017.
2

3

4 Presented By:
5
6 ACLU OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION

7 s/ La Rond Baker La Rond Baker, WSBA No. 43610

8 Margaret Chen, WSBA No. 46156

900 Fifth Avenue, Suite 630 9 Seattle, Washington 98164

10

(206) 624-2184 lbaker@aclu-wa.org

11 mchen@aclu-wa.org

12 CARNEY GILLESPIE ISITT PLLP

13 s/ Christopher Carney

14

Christopher Carney, WSBA No. 30325 Sean Gillespie, WSBA No. 35365

15 Kenan Isitt, WSBA No. 35317 315 Fifth Ave South, Suite 860

16 Seattle, Washington 98104

(206) 445-0212 17 Christopher.Carney@CGILaw.com

18

Sean.Gillespie@CGILaw.com Kenan.Isitt@CGILaw.com

19 DISABILITY RIGHTS WASHINGTON
20

s/ Emily Cooper 21 David R. Carlson, WSBA No. 35767
22 Emily Cooper, WSBA No. 34406 315 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 850
23 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 324-1521
24 davidc@dr-wa.org
emilyc@dr-wa.org 25

26 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

A
Marsha J. Pechman United States District Judge
ROBERT W. FERGUSON Attorney General
s/ Nicholas Williamson Sarah J. Coats, WSBA No. 20333 Amber L. Leaders, WSBA No. 44421 John K. McIlhenny, WSBA No. 32195 Nicholas A. Williamson, WSBA No. 44470 Office of the Attorney General 7141 Cleanwater Drive SW P.O. Box 40124 Olympia, WA 98504-0124 (360) 586-6565 Sarahc@atg.wa.gov Amberl1@atg.wa.gov JohnM5@atg.wa.gov NicholasW1@atg.wa.gov
Attorneys for Defendants

ORDER ADOPTING THE PARTIES’

3

MEDIATED SETTLEMENT

AGREEMENT -- NO. C14-1178 MJP

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 408 Filed 04/26/17 Page 4 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

ORDER ADOPTING THE PARTIES’

4

MEDIATED SETTLEMENT

AGREEMENT -- NO. C14-1178 MJP

 </s> Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 463 Filed 08/30/17 Page 1 of 4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

9

AT SEATTLE

10

CASSIE CORDELL TRUEBLOOD, et

CASE NO. C14-1178 MJP

al.,

11

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD

Plaintiffs,

MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES

12 v.

AND COSTS

13

WASHINGTON STATE

14

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND

HEALTH SERVICES, et al.,

15 Defendants.

16

17 430, 439, 440
18 The Court has received and reviewed:
19 1. Plaintiffs’ Third Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (Dkt. No. 430),
20 2. Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ Third Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (Dkt.
21 No. 439),
22 3. Plaintiffs’ Reply on Third Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (Dkt. No. 440),
23 all declarations and attachments and relevant portions of the court record, and rules as follows:
24

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS - 1

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 463 Filed 08/30/17 Page 2 of 4

1

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED IN PART, as follows: The fees

2 and costs will be awarded as requested, with the exception of the deductions for meal costs for

3 counsel, duplicative fee/cost requests, drafting a complaint after completion of the trial, and

4 attorney time spent talking to the media. By the Court’s calculation, the remaining costs and fees

5 are awarded to Plaintiffs’ counsel in the amount of $8270.45 and $1,108,351.50, respectively, for

6 a total award of $1,116,621.95.

7

Discussion

8

The Court has already found that Plaintiffs are “fully qualified as the prevailing parties”

9 on the basis that they has achieved “overall excellent results.” (Dkt. No. 332 at 3.) Nothing has

10 occurred to alter that status and the Court reiterates that finding here.

11

Because “[c]omplex civil rights cases seldom end with the grant of a permanent

12 injunction,” post-judgment enforcement activities aimed at securing that relief are a “necessary

13 aspect of plaintiffs’ ‘prevailing’ in the case.” See Association for Retarded Citizens of North

14 Dakota v. Schaefer, 83 F.3d 1008, 1010 (8th Cir. 1996) and Keith v. Volpe, 833 F.2d 850, 857

15 (9th Cir. 1987)(citations omitted). Compensable post-judgment proceedings must be “useful”

16 and “of a type ‘ordinarily necessary’ to secure the litigation’s final result.” Stewart v. Gates, 987

17 F.2d 1450, 1452 (9th Cir. 1993)(citations omitted).

18

A court may award fees “when a litigant preserves or recovers a fund for the benefit of

19 others.” Perry v. O’Donnell, 759 F.2d 702, 704 (9th Cir. 1985)(citation omitted). With a few

20 exceptions, the Court finds the work and costs for which Plaintiffs’ seek fees and costs is fairly

21 characterized as “useful and ordinarily necessary” to achieve the result of bringing Defendants

22 into compliance with the Court’s orders. Further, the contempt fines being used to fund

23 diversion programs represent the recovery by Plaintiffs’ efforts of “a fund for the benefit of

24

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS - 2

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 463 Filed 08/30/17 Page 3 of 4

1 others.” Thus Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. With the

2 exceptions noted below, the Court finds the attorneys’ hours billed were reasonable and

3 necessary, as were the costs claimed.

4

The Court will disallow certain duplicative costs pointed out by Defendants and

5 acknowledged as such by Plaintiffs, as well as costs requested for attorney meals (previously

6 rejected by order of this Court). Plaintiffs have withdrawn the fees requested for drafting a

7 complaint on February 19, 2016 (after conclusion of the trial). The Court will further disallow

8 the attorney fees requested for time spent speaking to the media, which cannot be justified as an

9 activity necessary to securing the relief obtained for the parties. The disallowed costs total

10 $2810.92; the disallowed fees combine to total $8338.50.

11

The Court again rejects Defendants’ argument that the fee award should be reduced

12 pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PRLA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1997. The rationale

13 articulated in the Court’s original order on attorneys’ fees and costs still obtains: work on behalf

14 of Plaintiff Disability Rights Washington (which is not a prisoner) cannot be separated from the

15 work on behalf of those class members who may be incarcerated and subject to the PLRA’s fee

16 cap, thus this case cannot “properly be characterized as a suit ‘brought by a prisoner.’” (See Dkt.

17 No. 162 at 2.)

18

Conclusion

19

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Third Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs. With the

20 exceptions noted supra:

21

• The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ counsel’s hours and rates are reasonable considering the

22

magnitude and complexity of the matter and the quality of representation;

23

24

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS - 3

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 463 Filed 08/30/17 Page 4 of 4

1

• The Court awards Plaintiffs their lodestar amount (minus the deductions describe supra)

2

of $1,108,351.50 in attorney’s fees;

3

• The Court also awards Plaintiffs litigation costs (subject to the reduction previously

4

detailed) of $8270.45

5 for a total award of $1,116,621.95.

6

7

The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.

8

Dated August 30, 2017.

9 10

A

Marsha J. Pechman

11

United States District Judge

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS - 4

 </s> Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 506 Filed 10/19/17 Page 1 of 14

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

9

AT SEATTLE

10

CASSIE CORDELL TRUEBLOOD, et

CASE NO. C14-1178 MJP

al.,

11

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’

Plaintiffs,

SECOND MOTION FOR CIVIL

12 v.

CONTEMPT: JAIL-BASED EVALUATIONS

13

WASHINGTON STATE

14

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND

HEALTH SERVICES, et al.,

15 Defendants.

16

17

18

The Court has received and reviewed:

19

1. Plaintiffs’ Second Motion for Civil Contempt of Court-Ordered In-jail Evaluation

20

Deadlines (Dkt. No. 427);

21

2. Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ Second Motion for Civil Contempt of Court-

22

Ordered In-jail Evaluation Deadlines (Dkt. No. 442);

23

3. Plaintiffs’ Reply on Motion for Civil Contempt of Court-Ordered In-jail Evaluation

24

Deadlines (Dkt. No. 449);

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND MOTION FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT: JAIL-BASED EVALUATIONS - 1

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 506 Filed 10/19/17 Page 2 of 14

1 including all attachments and declarations, plus relevant portions of the court record;

2 additionally, the Court heard in-court testimony and oral argument related to Plaintiffs’ motion.

3

Summary

4

On April 2, 2015, the Court wrote the following summary at the conclusion of the trial in

5 this matter:

6

The State of Washington is violating the constitutional rights of some of its most

vulnerable citizens. The State has consistently failed to provide timely competency

7

evaluation and restoration services, services needed to determine whether individuals

8

understand the charges against them and can aid in their own defenses, which is required

in order for them to stand trial. By failing to provide competency evaluation and

9

restoration services within seven days of a court order,1 the State fails to provide both the

substantive and procedural due process required by the Constitution. Our jails are not

10

suitable places for the mentally ill to be warehoused while they wait for services. Jails

are not hospitals, they are not designed as therapeutic environments, and they are not

11

equipped to manage mental illness or keep those with mental illness from being

12

victimized by the general population of inmates. Punitive settings and isolation for

twenty-three hours each day exacerbate mental illness and increase the likelihood that the

13

individual will never recover.

14

The Department of Social and Health Services has been hampered in providing these

required services by insufficient funding for beds and personnel. Without these

15

resources, they cannot collaborate and coordinate with the other agencies and courts

16

involved in the criminal mental health system.

17 Dkt. No. 131, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (“FOFCOL”) at 2.

18

The Court ordered the Defendants to cease violating the constitutional rights of class

19 members by reducing wait times. The Defendants were given nine months to comply. The

20 Court further stated:

21

The Department of Social and Health Services has failed to change its procedures to

respond to this ongoing crisis, and has routinely defied the orders of Washington’s state

22

courts, a practice that has resulted in hundreds of thousands of dollars in contempt fines.

The Department continues to fail to make significant progress in implementing any of the 23

24 1 This was later amended to fourteen days for in-jail evaluations. (See Dkt. No. 304.)

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND MOTION FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT: JAIL-BASED EVALUATIONS - 2

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 506 Filed 10/19/17 Page 3 of 14

1

reforms recommended by auditors and experts. The Department has failed to plan ahead

for growth in the demand for competency services, which has increased every year for

2

the last decade, and has failed to show the leadership and capacity for innovation that is

3

required to address the crisis. Other states and counties have been able to meet the

constitutional requirements, and so can the State of Washington.

4 Id. at 3.
5 Since the time of trial, the Court has modified its time for evaluations to be completed. It
6 extended the time for compliance based upon the Defendants’ negotiated agreements with the
7 Plaintiffs, and based upon Defendants’ representations and promises. The Defendants have
8 failed to meet all deadlines, including those set by themselves. Their excuses remain the same
9 and their planning remains inadequate. They were given every opportunity to adopt steps that
10 would ameliorate this crisis by doing the following:
11 (1) Expanding the pool of professionals who can do evaluations for competency.
12 (2) Developing a certification process to train the expanded pool of professionals.
13 (3) Setting up a cadre of contract professionals who could respond to increases in demand
14 and adequately paying reasonable rates in order to attract them.
15 (4) Utilizing newly-hired staff to meet the demand.
16 (5) Developing programs to divert class members out of the criminal justice system.
17 The Court continues the order of contempt and increases the fines. The Department’s
18 lack of effort is frustrating, particularly in light of multiple studies and consultants offering
19 concrete solutions that have not been acted upon, and in light of deadlines and other promises
20 which Defendants themselves have made and not kept. As a result of these failures, Defendants
21 continue to amass fines for their contempt, fines which are funneled into a fund in the Registry of
22 the Court. The Defendants’ contempt payments are being used to fund programs agreed to by
23

24

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND MOTION FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT: JAIL-BASED EVALUATIONS - 3

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 506 Filed 10/19/17 Page 4 of 14

1 the parties providing services for and benefits to the class members which Defendants (despite

2 statutory, constitutional and court mandates) have been unable to furnish.

3

Our most vulnerable population, those with mental health needs, deserve the protection of

4 the Constitution and the provision of services to which they are entitled, not the ongoing foot-

5 dragging and rationalizing which Defendants have exhibited to date. The question of why DSHS

6 prefers to pay millions of dollars to the court treasury rather than honor the constitutional rights

7 of the mentally ill population it is mandated to serve remains unanswered.

8

9

Findings of Facts

10 1. Defendants have failed to come into compliance with the timelines for in-jail evaluations for

11

each and every month since the Court’s original order was issued on April 2, 2015.

12 2. The Court allowed the Defendants time to comply and repeatedly allowed them to set new

13

timelines and plans for compliance. (See Dkt. Nos. 186, 329, and 408.)

14 3. Each and every deadline was missed, resulting in a total of $30,696,500 being collected in

15

fines and penalties to date.

16 4. As of June 2017, only 46.2% of the class members waiting in jail received timely service

17

(See Dkt. No. 442, Department’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Civil Contempt of Court-

18

Ordered Jail Evaluation Deadlines, at 11); the remainder of the class members waited beyond

19

the mandated time for services in jail, increasing their distress, slowing the criminal justice

20

system, and increasing the costs for the counties housing these inmates.

21 5. At the time of trial, the Court found the following: “From 2001 to 2011, Washington has seen

22

an eighty-two percent increase in the demand for competency evaluations. Demand for

23

competency services has grown, and is expected to continue to grow, at a rate of eight to ten

24

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND MOTION FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT: JAIL-BASED EVALUATIONS - 4

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 506 Filed 10/19/17 Page 5 of 14

1

percent per year. In addition to yearly growth, there are seasonal fluctuations in the demand

2

for services each year.” (Dkt. No. 131, FOFCOL at 2.)

3 6. The Defendants claim that their inability to comply is explained by the increase in the

4

demand for competency orders generated by the judges of this state and seasonal “spikes.”

5

Yet this was anticipated in 2015 at the time of trial and each study following the trial forecast

6

continuing increases.

7 7. While the Defendants have hired a number of evaluators, they have not adequately predicted

8

the need and the new staff has not been productive enough to meet the increasing demand.

9 8. In 2015, the average number of evaluation orders per month (jail-based and inpatient) signed

10

by the courts was 240.4. In 2016, the average number of orders signed by the courts was

11

295.1. In 2017 (through August of 2017), the average was 322.4. Office of Forensic Mental

12

Health Services September 29, 2017 Monthly Report to Court Monitor; Tables 3A and 3B at

13

10-11.2

14 9. When data regarding monthly averages is limited to in-jail evaluations – the subject of this

15

motion and order – the figures are as follows: In 2015, the average number of in-jail

16

evaluation orders per month issued by the courts was 222.3. In 2016, the average number of

17

in-jail evaluation orders signed by the courts totaled 268.3. In 2017 (through August of

18

2017), the average number of in-jail evaluation orders issuing from the courts was 291.6. At

19

the time of the August 11, 2017 hearing, the number of evaluators totaled thirty-eight.

20

(Testimony of Dr. Kinlen; August 11, 2017.) If each evaluator were accomplishing the

21

modest goal of completing 10 evaluations a month, it would be sufficient to meet current

22

23 2 This report is routinely prepared and delivered to the Court Monitor for inclusion her quarterly reports to the Court.
Since the latest quarterly report has not yet been filed, the Court appends the September 29, 2017 Monthly Report to
24 this order as Attachment A.

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND MOTION FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT: JAIL-BASED EVALUATIONS - 5

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 506 Filed 10/19/17 Page 6 of 14

1

demand. While the increase is more than expected based on 2015 estimates, it does not

2

explain why the percentage of evaluations completed in a timely manner has decreased so

3

significantly. A projection of a 10% increase per year (starting at the 2015 figure of 222 in-

4

jail evaluation orders/month) would have lead one to expect that the number of anticipated

5

orders signed for in-jail evaluations would increase to 268 per month by August of 2017.

6

The current average of an extra 23 in-jail evaluations per month (based on the 291/month

7

average reported by DSHS) would not account for the dramatic decrease in the percentage of

8

evaluations completed in a timely manner.

9 10. The Department offers no explanation and no projections for the number of staff that will be

10

needed to meet this increased demand. Defendants are not optimizing the resources they

11

currently possess by using the staff they do have efficiently. The Department has no

12

satisfactory explanation for its inability to do so, even at current staffing levels. Nor is the

13

Department able to explain why simple human resources calculations concerning vacations,

14

sick leave and other indicators of availability could not be tracked and anticipated. No

15

competent human resources planning has been done to respond to increases in demand for

16

services. Nor are Defendants scheduling their current evaluators at times which would

17

synchronize with the availability of other necessary players in the system such as defense

18

attorneys, translators, and pretrial service officers; i.e., nights and weekends.

19 11. In January 2017, this Court conducted a three-day evidentiary hearing to gather information

20

regarding Defendants’ compliance. Defendants provided conflicting testimony regarding

21

whether hiring additional evaluators would ensure compliance with in-jail evaluation

22

requirements.

23

24

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND MOTION FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT: JAIL-BASED EVALUATIONS - 6

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 506 Filed 10/19/17 Page 7 of 14

1 12. Andi Smith from the Governor’s Office conceded that their own data “suggested that getting

2

more evaluators” was part of coming into compliance with the Court’s orders. (Dkt. No. 428,

3

Cooper Decl. Ex. G at 35.) Interim DSHS Secretary Lashway testified, “[hiring evaluators]

4

is an area that we probably need to over-hire” to timely respond to spikes in demands for

5

services. (Cooper Decl. Ex. H at 523.) Dr. Ward testified that two years after trial there are

6

still not enough evaluators to respond to the demand for competency evaluations. (Cooper

7

Decl. Ex. I at 244.) Dr. Ward went on to testify, “there is a number of evaluators that we

8

could hire on the jail-based evaluations that would absolutely solve the jail problem.” (Id. at

9

235.) However, Dr. Ward admitted that he has not asked for more evaluators. (Id. at 247.)

10 13. When asked when DSHS will reach compliance, Assistant Secretary Reyes testified she did

11

not know nor had she conducted a study to determine how many evaluators would be needed

12

to come into compliance. (Cooper Decl. Ex. G at 100, 114.) When asked by this Court

13

regarding why more evaluators had not been requested, Dr. Kinlen testified that he did not

14

believe that additional staff are needed. (Cooper Decl. Ex. H at 385-386.) Dr. Kinlen was

15

also uncertain regarding what number of evaluators were necessary to come into compliance.

16

(Id.)

17 14. The understanding on the part of the Department of what is needed to comply with the

18

requirements of the Constitution and the orders of this Court is no better currently than it was

19

in January 2017.

20 15. The Court Monitor has submitted three reports. (Dkt Nos. 171, 180, 414-6.) In each of these

21

reports she has proposed recommendations to reduce wait times for in-jail evaluations

22

including: hiring a cadre of evaluators to reduce backlog, diversifying the pool of clinicians

23

who can perform evaluations, and increasing the reimbursement amount to create more

24

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND MOTION FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT: JAIL-BASED EVALUATIONS - 7

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 506 Filed 10/19/17 Page 8 of 14

1

incentives for county-based panel of evaluators. (Dkt. 171 at 32-33; Dkt. 180 at 8-10, 33;

2

Dkt. 414-6 at 11-12.) Defendants have failed to implement these recommendations from the

3

Court Monitor and her experts.

4 16. At the January status hearings, Dr. Kinlen testified that while he was aware of the Court

5

Monitor’s recommendation, he did not hire a contracted cadre of evaluators to address the

6

backlog. (Cooper Decl. Ex. I at 331-332.) Dr. Kinlen also testified that he had been unable

7

to hire the evaluators to which the parties stipulated in September 2016 to help Defendants

8

reach compliance. (Id. at 355-356.) Ultimately, he testified that Defendants also failed to

9

meet the stipulated benchmarks to achieve compliance. (Id. at 357-358.)

10 17. On February 1, 2017, Defendants submitted a proposed compliance plan. (Dkt. 361-1.)

11

Under the section entitled “Increase Competency Evaluation Capacity,” Defendants

12

explained that they were still in the process of hiring additional evaluators. (Id. at 3.)

13

Defendants note that twelve additional evaluators may increase its “capacity to meet

14

evaluation timeliness standards” as well as “manage future spikes” in demand for

15

competency evaluation. (Id. at 4.)

16 18. Defendants’ compliance plan also explains that they were conducting additional outreach to

17

panel evaluators in counties eligible for DSHS reimbursement due to failure to provide

18

timely in-jail competency evaluations. (See Id.) A review of the memo sent to counties

19

reveals the reimbursement rate remained at $800. Dkt. 383-8. Defendants have conceded

20

“most counties have indicated lack of interest in pursuing this option at current rates.” (Dkt.

21

384-1.)

22

23

24

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND MOTION FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT: JAIL-BASED EVALUATIONS - 8

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 506 Filed 10/19/17 Page 9 of 14

1 19. The Department has failed to even find out what a competitive market rate is in the area for

2

evaluations so that a cadre of reserve evaluators could be utilized to perform these tasks

3

when demand peaks or seasonal fluctuations occur.

4 20. Defendants’ attempts to contract for competency evaluators through a Request for

5

Information (RFI) Defendants was flawed. (Dkt. 361-1 at 4.) The RFI asked bidders to

6

complete in-jail evaluations within seven days, not the fourteen days required by this Court’s

7

injunction. (Dkt. 303.)

8 21. All parties have cooperated with the Court and the Monitor to find and fund, from the

9

contempt payments, programs designed to benefit the class members and reduce the demand

10

for jail-based evaluations.

11 22. Plaintiffs have not produced evidence establishing that requiring the assignment of an

12

evaluator within 24 hours of the evaluation order would improve the timeliness of the

13

evaluations.

14 23. Plaintiffs have not produced sufficient evidence for the record regarding what would be a

15

reasonable rate of payment to attract qualified temporary evaluators.

16

17

Applicable Law

18

In order for the Court to find a party in civil contempt, the “moving party has the burden

19 of showing by clear and convincing evidence that the contemnors violated a specific and definite

20 order of the court. The burden then shifts to the contemnors to demonstrate why they were

21 unable to comply.” F.T.C. v. Affordable Media, 179 F.3d 1228, 1239 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting

22 Stone v. City and County of San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 856 n.9 (9th Cir.1992)). “The

23 contempt ‘need not be willful,’ and there is no good faith exception to the requirement of

24

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND MOTION FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT: JAIL-BASED EVALUATIONS - 9

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 506 Filed 10/19/17 Page 10 of 14

1 obedience to a court order.” In re Dual-Deck Video Cassette Recorder Antitrust Litig., 10 F.3d

2 693, 695 (9th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted).

3

Civil contempt is defined as “a party’s disobedience to a specific and definite court order

4 by failure to take all reasonable steps within the party’s power to comply.” Inst. of Cetacean

5 Research v. Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, 774 F.3d 935, 945 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing In re

6 Dual-Deck Video Cassette Recorder Antitrust Litig., 10 F.3d 693, 695 (9th Cir. 1993)).

7

Substantial compliance with a court order is a defense to an action for civil contempt.

8 Gen. Signal Corp. v. Donallco, Inc., 787 F.2d 1376, 1379 (9th Cir. 1986). “If a violating party

9 has taken ‘all reasonable steps’ to comply with the court order, technical or inadvertent

10 violations of the order will not support a finding of civil contempt.” Id. A party’s inability to

11 comply with a judicial order also constitutes a defense to a charge of civil contempt. F.T.C. v.

12 Affordable Media, 179 F.3d at 1239. The emphasis here is on “all reasonable steps.” The

13 Department has made modest changes that have improved the wait times for class members. It is

14 in the improvement on the most pressing of the recommendations that it has failed.

15

A district court has the inherent power to hold a party in civil contempt in order to

16 enforce compliance with an order of the court. Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 370

17 (1966). See also United States v. United Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 303-04 (1947). Courts

18 also have a “wide latitude” in determining whether a party is in contempt of its orders. Gifford v.

19 Heckler, 741 F.2d 263, 266 (9th Cir. 1984). As such, it is up to the court to determine whether an

20 entity is in contempt, and that decision is subject to abuse of discretion review. FTC v.

21 Affordable Media, LLC, 179 F.3d 1228, 1239 (9th Cir. 1999). Once finding a party in contempt,

22 federal courts also have broad remedial powers to address noncompliance. Stone v. City and

23 County of San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 861-62 (9th Cir.1992) (affirming court’s power to

24

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND MOTION FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT: JAIL-BASED EVALUATIONS - 10

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 506 Filed 10/19/17 Page 11 of 14

1 authorize sheriff to override state law). See also, e.g., Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493 (2011)

2 (imposing prison population limit); Nat’l Org. for the Reform of Marijuana Laws v. Mullen, 828

3 F.2d 536 (9th Cir. 1987) (affirming appointment of a Special Master). When the least intrusive

4 measures fail to rectify the problems, more intrusive measures are justifiable. Stone, 968 F.2d at

5 861 (citing Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 687 n.9 (1978)).

6

Civil contempt sanctions can be imposed for one or both of two distinct purposes: to

7 compel or coerce the defendant into compliance with a court’s order, and to compensate the

8 complainant for losses sustained as a result of the contemnor’s noncompliance. Shuffler v.

9 Heritage Bank, 720 F.2d 1141, 1147 (9th Cir. 1983). “Where a fine is not compensatory, it is

10 civil only if the contemnor is afforded an opportunity to purge.” Int'l Union, United Mine

11 Workers of Am. v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 829 (1994).

12

Civil contempt fines can take the form of per diem fines imposed for each day a

13 contemnor fails to comply with an affirmative court order, or of fixed fines imposed and

14 suspended pending future compliance. See Int'l Union, United Mine Workers of Am., 512 U.S. at

15 829. A court, in determining the amount and duration of a coercive fine, must consider the

16 character and magnitude of the harm threatened by continued contumacy, and the probable

17 effectiveness of any suggested sanction in bringing about the result desired. Whittaker Corp. v.

18 Execuair Corp., 953 F.2d 510, 516 (9th Cir. 1992). “Generally, the minimum sanction necessary

19 to obtain compliance is to be imposed.” Id. at 517.

20

21

Conclusions of Law

22 1. The Court has jurisdiction over the parties.

23

24

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND MOTION FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT: JAIL-BASED EVALUATIONS - 11

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 506 Filed 10/19/17 Page 12 of 14

1 2. Plaintiffs have demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Defendants are in

2

contempt of court. Defendants have failed to comply with the specific and definite portions

3

of this Court’s orders requiring the timely completion of in-jail competency evaluations

4

within fourteen days of receipt of a court order or twenty-one days from the date of the court

5

order. Defendants have failed to take all reasonable steps to reduce wait times for in-jail

6

competency evaluations, and therefore have not taken all reasonable steps to comply and

7

have not demonstrated substantial compliance. Defendants have not demonstrated that they

8

were unable to comply with the Court’s orders.

9 3. Defendants failed to hire sufficient staff to timely respond to the demand for in-jail

10

competency services. Defendants failed to diversify the types of medical professionals

11

serving class members, and failed to secure sufficient temporary contracted staff to respond

12

to unanticipated increases in evaluation orders.

13 4. DSHS has repeatedly failed to meet the deadlines it sets for itself, including every wait time

14

benchmark leading up to the compliance deadline.

15 5. In determining the amount and duration of a coercive fine tailored to this situation, the Court

16

is mindful of the grave harms suffered by class members while incarcerated waiting for

17

services. See Dkt. No. 131 at 9-11. The Court is also mindful of Defendants’ lengthy history

18

of failing to comply with court orders, and Defendants’ inability to provide the Court with a

19

date by which compliance can be achieved. There is no other conclusion but that Defendants

20

have chosen not to prioritize the constitutional rights of class members when making

21

decisions as to how many evaluators are necessary to reach compliance and cease violating

22

the constitutional rights of the class, and how much compensation to offer those evaluators

23

such that the position is enticing enough to attract qualified applicants in sufficient numbers.

24

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND MOTION FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT: JAIL-BASED EVALUATIONS - 12

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 506 Filed 10/19/17 Page 13 of 14

1

The Court concludes that the fines now imposed, as detailed below, are the minimum

2

sanction necessary in order to obtain compliance.

3 6. The Court is hopeful that the Defendants will stop their procrastination and false promises

4

and heed the advice of every expert to advise them. They must increase the number of

5

evaluators, expand the pool of types of professionals used to perform evaluations, increase

6

their productivity, and pay outside professionals a competitive rate for assistance.

7 7. The Court continues to hold Defendants in contempt, and imposes monetary sanctions in

8

order to compel compliance with its orders. The monetary fines will increase and be paid into

9

the court registry as per the Court’s previous order.

10

The fines are imposed on a per class member, per day basis. For each class member,

11 Defendants shall pay a fine for each day spent waiting in-jail beyond the shorter of a) fourteen

12 days from their receipt of the court order for in-jail competency evaluation, or b) twenty-one

13 days from the date the court order for in-jail competency evaluation was signed. The daily fine

14 under either the fourteen or twenty-one day standard shall be $750 for each of the first six days

15 of delay and $1500 starting the seventh day and every day thereafter.

16

The fines shall be deposited into the Registry of the Court after they are reduced to

17 judgment, and shall remain in the Court’s Registry until further order from the Court. The fines

18 shall be reduced to judgment once per month, or more frequently if the Court in its discretion so

19 orders. The judgments shall bear interest at the federal statutory rate until satisfied.

20

In order to facilitate payment of the contempt fines, the Court also imposes a reporting

21 requirement. On the fifteenth day of every month, beginning with the month of October, 2017,

22 Defendants shall submit to the Court wait time data in a manner identical to the inpatient

23 competency services data. Additionally, Defendants shall submit a proposed calculation of

24

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND MOTION FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT: JAIL-BASED EVALUATIONS - 13

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 506 Filed 10/19/17 Page 14 of 14

1 contempt fines along with the wait time data. The proposed calculation shall specify the amount

2 of the fine to be imposed, and shall contain all calculations performed by Defendants in order to

3 reach the proposed number. As with the monetary sanctions, this monthly reporting requirement

4 shall terminate upon Defendants’ achievement of substantial compliance with the in-jail

5 competency standard.

6

It is ordered that the Court will hold a further hearing on Tuesday, November 21, 2017

7 at 9 a.m. for the Director of DSHS and a representative of the Governor’s Office to appear and

8 report on the Department’s progress in person.

9

It is further ordered that, prior to the November 21, 2017 hearing, the Defendants

10 research the current rate for evaluators in comparable locations and in this region and report back

11 to the Court at the hearing.

12

13

14

The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.

15

Dated: October 18, 2017.

16

A

17

Marsha J. Pechman

18

United States District Judge

19

20

21

22

23

24

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND MOTION FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT: JAIL-BASED EVALUATIONS - 14

 </s> Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 529-1 Filed 01/12/18 Page 1 of 23

1

2

A.B., by and through TRUEBLOOD, et al., v. DSHS, et al., No. 14-cv-01178-MJP

3

Agreement Resolving Plaintiffs’ Pending Motions and Establishing a Settlement

Negotiation Process

4

5

1. Introduction

6 In consideration of the Parties’ commitment to uphold this Court’s Orders to provide timely

7 competency evaluations and restoration services, the Parties seek approval of a framework to settle

8 Plaintiffs’ claims in this case. This proposal addresses (i) the most immediate opportunities to

9 secure expedited relief for Plaintiffs; (ii) resolution of Plaintiffs’ outstanding motions; and (iii) a

10 process to negotiate and hopefully develop a subsequent comprehensive settlement agreement to

11 reform the current forensic mental health care system. Parties appreciate that reforming the

12 forensic mental health system necessarily requires consideration of civil inpatient and community

13 mental health services. Therefore, the process for negotiating reforms will include examination of

14 these aspects of the state’s mental health care system. If appropriate, reforms of the broader mental

15 health care system may be included or referenced in the subsequent agreement for which the

16 Parties will ultimately seek Court approval. We appreciate the breadth of this undertaking and the

17 challenges that may present themselves along the way. Plaintiffs recognize Defendants’ failure to

18 provide timely competency evaluation and restoration services in violation of the civil rights of

19 class members. Thus, this Agreement contains measurable deadlines that, if missed without good

20 cause, can trigger meaningful consequences. Moreover, the Parties understand that should this

21 process fail to yield measurable results in the timeframe contemplated by this settlement, Plaintiffs

22 anticipate moving the Court for further and appropriate remedies.

23

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RE YCDC AND 3RD MOTIONS FOR CONTEMPT - 1 C14-01178-MJP

Disability Rights Washington 315 5th Avenue South, Suite 850
Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 324-1521  Fax: (206) 957-0729

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 529-1 Filed 01/12/18 Page 2 of 23

1

2. Immediate Actions: Use of Building 27 Instead of Expanding the Yakima

Competency Restoration Center

2

a. Parties agree that the Yakima Competency Restoration Center (hereinafter “YCRC”) will not

3 be expanded. Instead, subject to approval of all necessary permits and licensing requirements,

4 space currently leased for the provision of evaluation and treatment services through December

5 2017 in one half of Building 27 (hereinafter “Building 27 space”) on the grounds of Western

6 State Hospital will be used to serve class members.

7 b. Defendants will use funds intended for the YCRC expansion for the operation of the Building

8 27 space, contingent on approval of all necessary permits and licensing requirements and on

9 the Court authorizing contempt fines to cover necessary construction costs. If the Court does

10 not authorize contempt fines to be used for this purpose, Defendants will not be obligated under

11 this Agreement to operate services for class members in Building 27, will not be restricted

12 under this Agreement from pursuing expansion at YCRC, and Parties will meet to consider

13 whether an alternative agreement can be reached.

14 c. The Parties agree to utilize the renovation process developed by the Court Monitor in

15 coordination with AustinCina architectural firm (hereinafter the “Monitor’s Plan”). See

16 Building 27 space Timeline provided by Court Monitor, and attached as Attachment A. In

17 order to open beds in the Building 27 space in accordance with the Monitor’s Plan before the

18 conclusion of the Systems Improvement Agreement at Western State Hospital, the Parties

19 agree that Building 27 will be licensed and operated as a Residential Treatment Facility (the

20 same licensure and model employed at YCRC and Maple Lane). However, instead of

21 contracting to a third party for the provider services, the Department will operate and manage

22 the Building 27 Residential Treatment Facility (hereinafter “RTF”). The Department agrees

23 to hire the staff necessary to be ready to operate Building 27 as an RTF. Nothing in this

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RE YCDC AND 3RD MOTIONS FOR CONTEMPT - 2 C14-01178-MJP

Disability Rights Washington 315 5th Avenue South, Suite 850
Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 324-1521  Fax: (206) 957-0729

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 529-1 Filed 01/12/18 Page 3 of 23

1

Agreement prevents or limits the authority of the Department from contracting, in accordance

2

with statutory and collective bargaining requirements, for services needed to operate Building

3

27 as an RTF.

4 d. The Parties request that the Court distribute the funds necessary to complete construction

5

required under the Monitor’s Plan from the contempt funds held by the Court for the benefit

6

of class members. Funds shall be distributed directly to the Court Monitor, Project Manager,

7

or Contractor, or as otherwise directed by the Court Monitor.

8 e. In order to allow construction on Building 27 as set forth by the Monitor’s Plan, the Department

9

agrees to execute a lease of the Building 27 space to the chosen Contractor and/or the entity

10

chosen by the Court Monitor as the Project Manager overseeing the construction project. The

11

lease will terminate upon acceptance of the Building 27 space by the State of Washington as

12

described below. In order to ensure that the State of Washington is adequately protected from

13

liability exposure, receives a building that is safe and usable for patients, and ensure that

14

renovations to the building meet all relevant codes and regulations, as well as to ensure that

15

the construction process meets all industry standards, the Parties agree that the renovation and

16

construction process shall be performed in accordance with the following conditions:

17

i) The State of Washington has the authority to approve the scope of work, approve all

18

phases of design, and may participate in all design meetings.

19

ii) The Contractor will warrant that all work conforms to the requirements of the Contract

20

Documents and is free of any defect in equipment, material, or design furnished, or

21

workmanship performed by Contractor for a period of one year. All warranties are to

22

be executed, in writing, for the benefit of the State of Washington.

23

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RE YCDC AND 3RD MOTIONS FOR CONTEMPT - 3 C14-01178-MJP

Disability Rights Washington 315 5th Avenue South, Suite 850
Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 324-1521  Fax: (206) 957-0729

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 529-1 Filed 01/12/18 Page 4 of 23

1

iii) The building permit and final occupancy permit will be the responsibility of the

2

Contractor or Project Manager. Contractor or Project Manager shall obtain permits,

3

certificates, and approvals from all applicable regulatory agencies and authorities

4

having jurisdiction (AHJ), to include the City of Lakewood, Department of Health

5

(DOH), West Pierce Fire Department, and others as required by law. Permitting and

6

licensing for the treatment program will be the responsibility of the Department.

7

iv) Contractor and/or Project Manager shall defend, indemnify, and hold the State of

8

Washington and Architect/Engineer harmless from and against all claims, demands,

9

losses, damages, or costs including but not limited to damages arising out of bodily

10

injury or death to persons and damage to property, caused by or resulting from the

11

negligence of the Contractor or subcontractors.

12

v) The Project Manager and/or Contractor shall coordinate utility outages and any

13

disruptions to WSH patients with a minimum of 1-week of notice to the State of

14

Washington. The Project Manager and/or Contractor must remain aware that WSH

15

patients are served in the other side of Building 27 and outages must not jeopardize

16

patient care or safety.

17

vi) The Project Manager and/or Contractor shall protect from damage all existing

18

structures, equipment, improvements, utilities, and vegetation at or near the project site.

19

vii) The Project Manager and/or Contractor shall comply with all Western State Hospital

20

safety and security procedures, including mandatory safety and security trainings and

21

background and badging requirements.

22

viii) Construction shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.

23

weekdays and between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekends.

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RE YCDC AND 3RD MOTIONS FOR CONTEMPT - 4 C14-01178-MJP

Disability Rights Washington 315 5th Avenue South, Suite 850
Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 324-1521  Fax: (206) 957-0729

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 529-1 Filed 01/12/18 Page 5 of 23

1

ix) The State of Washington may participate in all construction meetings and shall have

2

approval authority for the acceptance process at the end of the project, which includes

3

Substantial Completion and Final Acceptance.

4

x) The Contractor shall carry sufficient insurance to cover all liability, shall be licensed

5

and bonded, and shall have the State of Washington added as a named additional

6

insured.

7

xi)The State of Washington may seek replacement of the Project Manager for cause, in

8

consultation with Plaintiffs and the Court Monitor.

9

3. Resolution of Outstanding Motions

10 This Agreement resolves Plaintiffs’ motion regarding the expansion of the YCRC facility and any

11 related contempt fines; and addresses the enhanced contempt fines sought in Plaintiffs’ Third

12 Motion for Contempt.

13

A. Contempt Fines Resulting from Delay in Operation of Building 27 Space

14 a. Parties agree to adjust contempt fines in order to account for the shift away from the YCRC

15

expansion to the Building 27 space, in the event that this decision leads to a delay in the

16

opening of additional bed capacity.

17 b. Because the Parties have agreed to shift state operating funds away from the expansion of

18

YCRC, the Parties request that the Court modify the contempt fines to account for any

19

associated loss of projected bed capacity. This modification is intended to operate only during

20

the time periods where the Department’s expanded bed capacity would have been otherwise

21

available to serve class members, but because of this Agreement, that bed capacity will not be

22

available.

23

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RE YCDC AND 3RD MOTIONS FOR CONTEMPT - 5 C14-01178-MJP

Disability Rights Washington 315 5th Avenue South, Suite 850
Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 324-1521  Fax: (206) 957-0729

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 529-1 Filed 01/12/18 Page 6 of 23

1 c. The two time periods impacted by this agreed change include: (1) beginning from the time

2

when the YCRC expansion would have opened, and ending when the newly agreed-to bed

3

capacity at the Building 27 space opens, and (2) beginning when the necessary renovations to

4

the Building 27 space would have been completed, had funding been appropriated in a biennial

5

capital budget during the 2017 legislative session such that additional bed capacity would have

6

been added to the previously expanded YCRC capacity.

7

1. The first period shall begin six months from the date the Department delayed

8

expansion to begin negotiation of this Agreement with Plaintiffs. This delay began on

9

September 21, 2017, and therefore the first period shall begin on March 21, 2018. The

10

period shall end 65 days after the Contractor has made at least 24 beds at Building 27

11

available for use, regardless of Defendants’ staffing or patient assignment decisions. If 24

12

beds are made available at Building 27 before the 6-month period expires, there shall be

13

no modification to the contempt fines for the first period.

14

2. The second period shall begin on February 1, 2019, the date on which the Building

15

27 space bed capacity would have been added to expanded YCRC capacity, only if the

16

legislature provides all of the funds requested for both capital improvements and operations

17

that would have been used for Building 27 and all of the other beds in the earlier proposal

18

by June 30, 2018, or by the end of the 2018 legislative session, whichever is later. See Dkt.

19

# 414-8. Under the circumstances that funds are appropriated for capital improvements for

20

Building 27, but those improvements have instead been paid by the Court, the Department

21

shall request transfer of those funds to an existing Department capital project with the

22

purpose of serving class members’ needs, other than YCRC or Maple Lane. Any such

23

transfer would be subject to required approval by the Office of Financial Management and

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RE YCDC AND 3RD MOTIONS FOR CONTEMPT - 6 C14-01178-MJP

Disability Rights Washington 315 5th Avenue South, Suite 850
Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 324-1521  Fax: (206) 957-0729

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 529-1 Filed 01/12/18 Page 7 of 23

1

legislative review. If such a transfer cannot be accomplished, the Department shall allow

2

the funds to lapse, but shall request appropriation of those funds in a future budget for the

3

purpose of creating additional competency services capacity. See Dkt. # 414-8.

4

3. Mirroring the structure of the contempt fines, the proposed modification shall be

5

calculated on a per bed, per day basis. Contempt fines shall be reduced during the two

6

periods specified above by calculating the beds that would have otherwise been available,

7

and reducing contempt fines by $1000 per bed, per day.

8

4. For the first period, contempt fines shall be reduced by a maximum of 24 beds per

9

day, until the period ends, or until replacement bed capacity opens at the Building 27 space.

10

5. For the second period, contempt fines shall be reduced by a maximum of 24 beds

11

per day until further modification of contempt fines is requested by the Parties, or until

12

further order of the Court.

13

B. Enhanced Contempt Fines Motion Withdrawn

14 a. Plaintiff’s Third Motion for Contempt sought increased fines from Defendants for each person

15

who did not receive timely in-hospital competency services. Plaintiffs sought to increase the

16

amounts from $500 to $1,000 per day per person for each of the first six days of delay; from

17

$1,000 to $2,000 for 7-13 days of delay; $3,000 for days 14-20; and $4,000 for every day of

18

delay from 21 days on (“increased rate”.) Defendants contested those increases.

19 b. Through the term of this Agreement, Defendants agree that they will continue to pay in

20

accordance with the existing court orders, and as modified by this Agreement. If Parties cannot

21

reach the subsequent agreement contemplated herein, or if the Court finds that Defendants

22

have not followed the terms of this Agreement, Plaintiffs may renew the Third Motion for

23

Contempt and set an expedited hearing or noting date in consultation with the Court. The

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RE YCDC AND 3RD MOTIONS FOR CONTEMPT - 7 C14-01178-MJP

Disability Rights Washington 315 5th Avenue South, Suite 850
Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 324-1521  Fax: (206) 957-0729

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 529-1 Filed 01/12/18 Page 8 of 23

1

briefing, argument and evidence already provided will be used should this motion be renewed,

2

but each party will have the option to provide a six page update two court days prior to the

3

hearing or noting date.

4 c. This Agreement has no effect on contempt fines relating to the failure to provide timely in-jail

5

competency evaluations, which will continue as directed by the Court’s order.

6 d. Nothing in this Agreement relieves Defendants of their ongoing duty to comply with this

7

Court’s orders.

8

4. Process for Pursuing a Comprehensive Settlement

9 a. At the end of the negotiation period described herein, the Parties’ goal is to provide this Court

10

with a proposed settlement that, if fully implemented, will resolve the issues in this case and

11

bring Defendants into substantial compliance with this Court’s orders. Given the decades of

12

increasing referrals for competency and restoration services, the persistent difficulty in hiring

13

certain critical staff, and other factors that have long contributed to this problem, the Parties

14

know this is a bold statement. We hope to craft a similarly bold solution that details proposed

15

investments in services to divert individuals with behavioral health disorders from the criminal

16

justice system. For example, Parties intend to explore opportunities to provide access to

17

appropriate behavioral health services which are designed to dramatically reduce the number

18

of individuals with mental illness entering the criminal justice system. Parties’ stated goals are

19

to articulate a vision for significant changes to achieve timely competency evaluation and

20

restoration services, to collaborate on a plan to implement those changes, and to discuss how

21

to prepare relevant funding requests for additional resources necessary to fund these changes.

22

Parties are committed to coming together to discuss, negotiate, and design solutions that will

23

truly fix this problem.

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RE YCDC AND 3RD MOTIONS FOR CONTEMPT - 8 C14-01178-MJP

Disability Rights Washington 315 5th Avenue South, Suite 850
Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 324-1521  Fax: (206) 957-0729

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 529-1 Filed 01/12/18 Page 9 of 23

1 b. Should negotiations be successful, designing such a system will take significant time and

2

resources, and it will take years of sustained and focused efforts by the Parties and relevant

3

stakeholders1 to fully implement the plan. During the negotiation and planning process, the

4

Parties will provide the Court and Court Monitor regular updates as appropriate within the

5

boundaries of settlement discussions and will seek input on the options considered during the

6

negotiating and planning phase. If a plan is substantially developed by agreement of the Parties,

7

it will be presented to the Court so that a fairness hearing may be held. If the Court finds the

8

settlement substantially addresses the needs of the class in a fair, reasonable, and adequate

9

manner, the next stage will be to pursue funding by the Legislature during the 2019 legislative

10

session. Parties acknowledge that appropriating adequate funding to substantially implement a

11

subsequent settlement agreement is outside of the Parties’ authority to direct or control, and

12

that adequate funding may not be appropriated in a single biennium. Parties believe that this

13

refocusing of efforts from litigation of piecemeal issues to collaborative efforts over a sustained

14

period of time is the best way to reach compliance and provide class members with competency

15

evaluation and restoration services within constitutional timeframes.

16 c. Parties agree to use best efforts in this process, to negotiate in good faith, and if successful, to

17

file with the Court a subsequent agreement designed to achieve substantial compliance with

18

this Court’s Orders.

19 d. Parties anticipate that if a subsequent agreement is achieved, it will have a significant impact

20

on the state’s budget. Parties’ proposed timeline for negotiating a subsequent agreement and

21

securing approval of that agreement from this Court is designed with this fiscal reality in mind.

22

23
1 Specific stakeholders are described and listed in Section 5(e). SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RE YCDC AND 3RD MOTIONS FOR CONTEMPT - 9 C14-01178-MJP

Disability Rights Washington 315 5th Avenue South, Suite 850
Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 324-1521  Fax: (206) 957-0729

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 529-1 Filed 01/12/18 Page 10 of 23

1

In order to negotiate the terms of the potential subsequent agreement and secure an approval

2

Order from this Court prior to the submission of the governor’s budget for the 2019-2021

3

biennium the parties agree as follows:

4

1. Parties will endeavor to accomplish the goals of this Agreement on or before

5

November 1, 2018.

6

2. Should either party have concerns about how the negotiations are progressing, the

7

parties agree to meet in-person, at least once, to discuss the specific concerns and

8

make a good faith effort to resolve any disputes prior to filing a motion or seeking

9

relief with the Court.

10

3.

If at any point during the negotiations either Party believes that the negotiations

11

have reached a genuine impasse, either Party may notify the Magistrate Judge2 of

12

their belief that negotiations have reached an impasse. The Magistrate Judge shall

13

provide further directions to the Parties. In the event that the Magistrate Judge

14

agrees the negotiations have reached an impasse, the Magistrate Judge shall

15

recommend that the Parties discontinue negotiations, and the Parties shall

16

immediately notify the Court of this development. Nothing in this Agreement shall

17

obligate either Party to enter into a subsequent agreement should negotiations be

18

unsuccessful.

19

4. Parties intend that the above-mentioned negotiations will result in a subsequent

20

agreement that will bring Defendants into compliance with this Court’s previous

21

Orders. The Parties acknowledge that fiscal realities may require that a subsequent

22

23

2 The engagement of a Magistrate Judge is discussed in more detail below in section 4(j).

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RE YCDC AND 3RD

Disability Rights Washington

MOTIONS FOR CONTEMPT - 10

315 5th Avenue South, Suite 850

C14-01178-MJP

Seattle, Washington 98104

(206) 324-1521  Fax: (206) 957-0729

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 529-1 Filed 01/12/18 Page 11 of 23

1

agreement, if achieved, will necessarily be reflected in multiple phases of budget

2

submissions, rather than one package to be included in the Governor’s 2019-2021

3

biennial budget. Parties further acknowledge they lack authority to direct the

4

legislature to make fiscal appropriations that may be necessary to implement a

5

subsequent agreement. But should a subsequent agreement be reached, the Parties

6

agree to collaborate in good faith to seek legislative support to adopt appropriate

7

funding.

8

5. Parties agree that the timeline of activities proposed below is a tentative schedule

9

and subject to change by agreement of the parties in light of stakeholder

10

unavailability, constraints on Parties created by the 2018 legislative session, or

11

other good cause.

12

6. In order to negotiate the terms of a subsequent agreement and, if successful, secure

13

an Order from this Court approving said agreement prior to the submission of the

14

governor’s 2019-2021 biennial budget the parties will:

15

A. Meet frequently to learn from stakeholders, negotiate terms, and inform

16

stakeholders of progress. Parties acknowledge that they lack authority to direct

17

or control the participation or actions of key stakeholders to this Agreement, but

18

agree to seek their participation in good faith. These meetings will include, at a

19

minimum:

20

1. Within one week of the next Court hearing on January 17, 2018– one full

21

day of in-person negotiation;

22

23

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RE YCDC AND 3RD MOTIONS FOR CONTEMPT - 11 C14-01178-MJP

Disability Rights Washington 315 5th Avenue South, Suite 850
Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 324-1521  Fax: (206) 957-0729

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 529-1 Filed 01/12/18 Page 12 of 23

1

2. January through March – one full day in-person negotiation every other

2

week and two in-person, web, or phone based stakeholder listening

3

sessions each month;

4

3. April through July – one full day in-person negotiation and one web or

5

phone based negotiation each month; and

6

4. Throughout – additional meetings as needed of small workgroups

7

comprised of members of the negotiation team and other necessary

8

stakeholders to solicit feedback from stakeholders as described in more

9

detail below.

10

B. Focus on the following tasks with a goal to meet the following interim deadlines

11

on or before the dates listed below, subject to change based on good cause and

12

agreement of the parties:

13

1. January 1, 2018 – May 4, 2018 – Parties attempt to negotiate the key

14

principles and substantive elements of a subsequent agreement;

15

2. Within two weeks of approval of this Agreement – Parties identify

16

necessary stakeholders and devise strategy for stakeholder

17

communications and meetings. Invites are sent to the necessary

18

stakeholders as identified by the parties to solicit input on issues and

19

solutions they have and to begin scheduling in-person, web, or phone

20

based meetings;

21

3. January 15, 2018 – March 31, 2018 – Stakeholder issue and solution input

22

meetings are conducted;

23

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RE YCDC AND 3RD MOTIONS FOR CONTEMPT - 12 C14-01178-MJP

Disability Rights Washington 315 5th Avenue South, Suite 850
Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 324-1521  Fax: (206) 957-0729

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 529-1 Filed 01/12/18 Page 13 of 23

1

4. April 1, 2018 – April 30, 2018 – Parties participate in two full-day

2

negotiations to discuss stakeholder issues and solution input, to be

3

incorporated into a confidential draft containing key principles and

4

substantive elements of a subsequent agreement by May 4, 2018 as

5

referenced below;

6

5. By May 4, 2018 – If the parties are continuing to move toward developing

7

a subsequent agreement, then all key principles and substantive elements

8

will have been agreed to by the parties and are detailed in writing in an

9

initial confidential draft of a subsequent agreement;

10

6. By June 8, 2018 – If the confidential draft outlined above is achieved,

11

Parties present to stakeholders regarding these key principles and

12

substantive elements and solicit feedback;

13

7. June 11, 2018 – July 31, 2018 – Parties consider, incorporate, or otherwise

14

respond to feedback received from stakeholders about key principles and

15

substantive elements. As appropriate, feedback is incorporated into the

16

subsequent agreement;

17

8. By August 1, 2018 – assuming the parties’ negotiations are successful, the

18

language of the subsequent agreement is finalized and circulated to the

19

Parties;

20

9. August 10, 2018 – all signatures on a subsequent agreement have been

21

secured;

22

23

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RE YCDC AND 3RD MOTIONS FOR CONTEMPT - 13 C14-01178-MJP

Disability Rights Washington 315 5th Avenue South, Suite 850
Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 324-1521  Fax: (206) 957-0729

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 529-1 Filed 01/12/18 Page 14 of 23

1

10. August 16, 2018 – the joint motion for primary approval of the subsequent

2

agreement and a proposed notice process for a related fairness hearing is

3

filed with the court;

4

11. August 31, 2018 – a motion for preliminary approval and notice process

5

is noted for court consideration;

6

12. September 7, 2018 – the last day for an order granting preliminary

7

approval and notice process in order to provide a 30 day notice period;

8

13. September 8, 2018 – October 7, 2018 – notice period;

9

14. October 12, 2018 – deadline to send electronically or postmark written

10

objections or notice of intent object in person at the fairness hearing;

11

15. October 17, 2018 – Parties file their response to written objections and

12

declarations confirming completion of approved notice process;

13

16. Week of October 22, 2018 – Fairness hearing to be held on a date to be

14

determined by the court;

15

17. November 1, 2018 –Should a subsequent agreement be reached as

16

outlined above, a court order must be issued by this date in order to meet

17

state budgeting timelines and include relevant provisions regarding that

18

negotiated agreement in the Governor’s budget submission to the

19

legislature. Should the Court alter or amend the subsequent agreement of

20

the Parties in its court order, the State of Washington reserves the right to

21

22

23

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RE YCDC AND 3RD MOTIONS FOR CONTEMPT - 14 C14-01178-MJP

Disability Rights Washington 315 5th Avenue South, Suite 850
Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 324-1521  Fax: (206) 957-0729

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 529-1 Filed 01/12/18 Page 15 of 23

1

appropriately challenge that order and/or exercise its discretion in putting

2

forth a budget as it sees fit.3

3 e. Engaging the stakeholders and managing this schedule over a relatively compressed period of

4

time will take considerable effort, therefore the Parties agree to jointly seek approval from the

5

Court to expend the Court’s contempt fees on employees to help in this process.

6 f. Plaintiffs seek funding for an individual to assist class counsel in providing meaningful input

7

to and oversight of the contempt-funded services and processes. Plaintiffs are relying primarily

8

upon the class counsel to perform these services while performing the more typical job of class

9

counsel: assessing Defendants’ compliance with the law and either negotiating a resolution to

10

this case or bringing motions to enforce the Court’s orders. Plaintiffs respectfully request that

11

a small portion of the contempt fines be provided to DRW to hire a fulltime staff person to

12

meet individually and with groups of various stakeholders across the state including class

13

members and people at imminent risk of becoming class members, courts, defense counsel,

14

prosecutors, community and jail mental health providers, jail staff, law enforcement, and local

15

and state policy and budget makers to:

16

1. Inform class members and other stakeholders of the current status of the case;

17

2. Learn about how to best spend the growing fines in a manner that will support

18

people with mental illness to avoid criminal justice involvement and/or incarceration that

19

stems from it;

20

21

22

23 3 Items 10 through 17 shall only occur should the parties successfully achieve item 9: a fully signed (by all Parties)

subsequent agreement has been secured. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RE YCDC AND 3RD MOTIONS FOR CONTEMPT - 15 C14-01178-MJP

Disability Rights Washington 315 5th Avenue South, Suite 850
Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 324-1521  Fax: (206) 957-0729

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 529-1 Filed 01/12/18 Page 16 of 23

1

3. Oversee a second Request for Information process to help determine which

2

intercepts and interventions should be the focus of additional Requests for Proposals for

3

contempt fines;

4

4. Educate stakeholders about the availability and process for accessing contempt

5

funding and contempt-funded services and processes;

6

5. Serve as a point person to work with the Court Monitor and her experts

7

overseeing subsequent RFP processes that will disperse contempt fines;

8

6. Assess the impact of the implementation of contempt-funded services and

9

processes;

10

7. Understand how the contempt-funded services and processes fit with the changing

11

landscape of Defendants’ mental health system;

12

8. Inform the Court, Court Monitor and her experts, and Parties about the impact

13

contempt-funded services and processes have had on class members and the rest of the

14

mental health system that is designed to meet class members’ needs;

15

9. Develop relationships and regularly communicate with regional and state actors to

16

fully understanding the regional variations and how they fit within the statewide system

17

as well as educating those various regional and state actors on how emerging services fit

18

within the historic service delivery system; and

19

10. Assist stakeholders to coordinate and message the status of the mental health

20

system to policy and budget makers to ensure the benefits reached through contempt-

21

funded projects and the other proposed reforms to the mental health system negotiated in

22

this case are maintained and expanded in a sustainable manner.

23

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RE YCDC AND 3RD MOTIONS FOR CONTEMPT - 16 C14-01178-MJP

Disability Rights Washington 315 5th Avenue South, Suite 850
Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 324-1521  Fax: (206) 957-0729

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 529-1 Filed 01/12/18 Page 17 of 23

1 g. Defendants seek funding for an individual to serve as a full-time Project Manager for the

2

negotiations and agreement described herein. The Project Manager will create and manage a

3

comprehensive project plan that tracks all tasks and deliverables. The Project Manager will

4

provide reports on progress on the project plan at intervals described within the Agreement

5

and as requested by either Party or the Court. The Project Manager will be responsible for

6

coordinating meetings outlined in the Agreement, compiling information gathered in meetings,

7

preparing materials for use by the project team in developing proposals and recommendations,

8

and other tasks as jointly agreed to by the Parties.

9 h. Parties will request that the positions described above be funded. The request will be that each

10

position is funded by the Court’s contempt fund for two years to allow for work throughout

11

the negotiation process, notice period, 2019 legislative session, and a transition period

12

following the legislative session to work on rollout of the subsequent agreement or transition

13

to other permanent hires. Either or both Parties may ask the Court to continue funding such

14

positions beyond this point.

15 i. Parties will seek permission to be reimbursed for individualized expenses that may be incurred

16

by the participation of class members and their family members. Class members and their

17

family members are the most important people in this process but often do not have day jobs

18

that allocate time and pay for their transportation and participation in these meetings. The

19

Parties would like to be able to assist people who may have limited resources for transportation,

20

child care, days off from work, or accommodation needs that require additional costs.

21

Therefore, the Parties will request the Court authorize reimbursement from contempt funds for

22

per diem stipends or actual cost reimbursement, whichever best meets the needs of the

23

individual class members or their family members.

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RE YCDC AND 3RD MOTIONS FOR CONTEMPT - 17 C14-01178-MJP

Disability Rights Washington 315 5th Avenue South, Suite 850
Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 324-1521  Fax: (206) 957-0729

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 529-1 Filed 01/12/18 Page 18 of 23

1 j. The Parties jointly recognize their history of contentious litigation, the complexity and

2

challenges of this negotiation, and the importance of success. Therefore, the Parties jointly

3

ask the Court to assist them by providing access to a Magistrate Judge to serve as a Neutral to

4

assist the Parties through this negotiation process. In accordance with the nature of this

5

settlement negotiation process, and in order to foster open, honest, and fruitful negotiations,

6

the Magistrate Judge shall treat the negotiations as confidential. Information shared by the

7

Magistrate Judge, including with the Court and the Court Monitor, will be limited to that

8

specified in this Agreement, or as agreed to by the Parties.

9

5. Compliance Measures

10 a. Compliance with this Agreement shall be measured by the Parties’ good faith efforts towards

11

achieving both the immediate actions outlined in this proposal as well as a subsequent

12

agreement. As acknowledged above in 4. d. 3. the Parties recognize they cannot guarantee any

13

specific action or outcome by the Washington State Legislature.

14 b. In the event that the Magistrate Judge assigned to act as the Neutral during the negotiation

15

process described in this Agreement determines that either party is not participating in the

16

process in good faith or not making reasonable efforts to comply with the terms of this

17

Agreement, the Neutral may make a recommendation to the Court to find that party in contempt

18

with the order approving this negotiation process.

19

6. Additional Stipulations

20 a. During the term of this Agreement, the Department will continue work in key areas designed

21

to provide relief to class members. Key initiatives currently in progress include:

22

1. Continued collaboration on enhancements to triage—in order to identify and assess the

23

most acute class members for expedited admission to a treatment facility, the Department

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RE YCDC AND 3RD MOTIONS FOR CONTEMPT - 18 C14-01178-MJP

Disability Rights Washington 315 5th Avenue South, Suite 850
Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 324-1521  Fax: (206) 957-0729

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 529-1 Filed 01/12/18 Page 19 of 23

1

will train and distribute the complete guidebooks for prosecutors and defense attorneys as

2

well as jail mental health staff.

3

2. Continued development and implementation of the Forensic Data System—in order to

4

further streamline the evaluation process and enhance the data tracking abilities of the

5

Department’s forensic services the Department will deploy the new data system. The Court

6

Monitor has been engaged as a member for the advisory committee for the build and testing

7

of each of the 15 modules of the system.

8

3. Pilot of Telehealth solutions—The Department continues work to establish and test secure

9

videoconferencing links between the state hospitals, forensic evaluators, and county jails

10

that will allow greater capacity to conduct timely forensic evaluations. The Department is

11

coordinating with judges to foster acceptance of this technology.

12

4. Prosecutorial Diversion—The Department continues work with its three pilot sites to

13

improve diversion options for class members.

14 b. Milestones and progress in each of these areas will be reported in the monthly reports filed

15 with the Court Monitor. The Department will continue to pay the previously ordered contempt

16 fines, which are calculated based on the Department’s performance. These continued contempt

17 fines ensure there is no reason for the Department to delay available compliance efforts during

18 the term of this Agreement.

19 5. Additional Terms

20 a. No filings – The Parties agree to refrain from filing any contested motions prior to November

21

1, 2018 or the termination of this Agreement as otherwise described herein, except for a

22

possible motion to enforce the terms of this Agreement if a Party believes the other Party is

23

not complying with the terms of this Agreement.

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RE YCDC AND 3RD MOTIONS FOR CONTEMPT - 19 C14-01178-MJP

Disability Rights Washington 315 5th Avenue South, Suite 850
Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 324-1521  Fax: (206) 957-0729

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 529-1 Filed 01/12/18 Page 20 of 23

1 b. Monthly updates – During the period prior to the possible filing of a subsequent agreement for

2

preliminary approval by the Court, the Parties will provide monthly updates to the Court and

3

the Court Monitor addressing: 1) the status of negotiations; and, 2) the scope of work parties

4

intend to focus and report on in their next status update.

5 c. Status Hearings – The Court will continue to receive updates on the negotiations through status

6

hearings conducted every two months. These status hearings will provide an opportunity for

7

the Court to address any concerns and give Parties guidance into their negotiations.

8 d. Court and Court monitor involvement – Throughout this process the Parties will remain

9

cognizant of the Court’s comments regarding the Court Monitor being an officer of the Court

10

and the limited role of the Court and its officers in settlement negotiations, and will limit or

11

incorporate the Court and the Monitor’s participation accordingly.

12 e. Stakeholders – Given the prevalence of mental illness, many residents of Washington are

13

touched by Washington’s mental health system. The system is vast and includes many non-

14

state actors. It also touches upon and directly affects many other systems. Therefore, any

15

negotiations to achieve timely competency evaluation and restoration services will require

16

engaging numerous state and local stakeholders, including representatives from various levels

17

of state and local government. The Parties will involve stakeholders, especially class members

18

and legislative partners, in this process of negotiating and developing a subsequent agreement.

19

Stakeholders include, but are not limited to:

20

1. Class members;

21

2. Class members’ families;

22

3. State Legislators;

23

4. Labor organizations;

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RE YCDC AND 3RD MOTIONS FOR CONTEMPT - 20 C14-01178-MJP

Disability Rights Washington 315 5th Avenue South, Suite 850
Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 324-1521  Fax: (206) 957-0729

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 529-1 Filed 01/12/18 Page 21 of 23

1

5. Mental health provider agencies and advocates;

2

6. Behavioral Health Organizations and advocates;

3

7. Law enforcement;

4

8. Local jails;

5

9. State and municipal courts;

6

10. Prosecuting attorneys;

7

11. Defense attorneys;

8

12. Homeless and housing providers and advocates;

9

13. Employment support providers and advocates;

10

14. Individual clinicians;

11

15. Education programs for needed clinicians;

12

16. Other departments of the administration outside DSHS, including the Governor’s

13

Health Sub-Cabinet;

14

17. Local Legislators and Executives; and

15

18. Washington residents.

16 f. The Parties may seek permission to utilize services of a third-party entity, such as the

17

Behavioral Health Council, to help support the administrative aspects of the stakeholder work

18

contemplated by this Agreement. It the Parties agree to utilize these services, the parties shall

19

jointly solicit the Court for funding from the contempt monies.

20 g. Amendment – This Agreement may be modified or amended only by written agreement signed

21

by or on behalf of all Parties with notice to and approval by the Court.

22 h. Waiver – The provisions of this Agreement may be waived only by an instrument in writing

23

executed by the waiving Party, upon notice to and approval by the Court. The waiver by any

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RE YCDC AND 3RD MOTIONS FOR CONTEMPT - 21 C14-01178-MJP

Disability Rights Washington 315 5th Avenue South, Suite 850
Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 324-1521  Fax: (206) 957-0729

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 529-1 Filed 01/12/18 Page 22 of 23

1

Party of any breach of this Agreement shall not be deemed or be construed as a waiver of any

2

other breach, whether prior, subsequent or contemporaneous of this Agreement.

3 i. Construction – None of the Parties hereto shall be considered to be the drafter of this

4

Agreement or to any provision thereof for the purpose of any statute, case law, or rule of

5

interpretation or construction that would or might cause the provision to be construed against

6

the drafter thereof.

7 j. Counterparts – This Agreement may be executed by exchange of executed faxed or .PDF

8

signature pages, and any signature transmitted in such a manner shall be deemed an original

9

signature. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall

10

be deemed to be an original, but all of which when taken together shall constitute one and the

11

same instrument.

12 k. Binding Effect – This Agreement binds and inures to the benefit of the Parties hereto, their

13

assigns, heirs, administrators, executors, and successors-in-interest, affiliates, benefit plans,

14

predecessors, and transferees, and their past and present shareholders, officers, directors,

15

agents and employees.

16 //

17 //

18 //

19 //

20 //

21 //

22 //

23 //

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RE YCDC AND 3RD MOTIONS FOR CONTEMPT - 22 C14-01178-MJP

Disability Rights Washington 315 5th Avenue South, Suite 850
Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 324-1521  Fax: (206) 957-0729

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 529-1 Filed 01/12/18 Page 23 of 23

1 l. Further Assurances – Each of the Parties agree, without further consideration, and as part of

2

finalizing the Agreement hereunder, that they will in good faith promptly execute and deliver

3

such other documents and take such other actions as may be necessary to consummate the

4

subject matter and purpose of the Agreement.

5

6

DATED: January 11, 2018.

7

8

s/ David R. Carlson David R. Carlson, WSBA No. 35767

9

Kimberly Mosolf, WSBA No. 49548 Alexa Polaski, WSBA No. 52683

10

Disability Rights Washington 315 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 850

11

Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 324-1521

12

davidc@dr-wa.org kimberlym@dr-wa.org

13

14 s/ Christopher Carney
15 Christopher Carney, WSBA No. 30325 Sean Gillespie, WSBA No. 35365
16 Kenan Isitt, WSBA No. 35317 Carney Gillespie Isitt PLLP
17 315 5th Avenue South, Suite 860 Seattle, Washington 98104
18 (206) 445-0212 Christopher.Carney@cgilaw.com
19 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
20

s/ Amber L. Leaders Nicholas A. Williamson, WSBA No. 44470 Sarah J. Coats, WSBA No. 20333 Amber L. Leaders, WSBA No. 44421 Office of the Attorney General 7141 Cleanwater Drive SW P.O. Box 40124 Olympia, WA 98504-0124 (360) 586-6565 NicholasW1@atg.wa.gov SarahC@atg.wa.gov AmberL1@atg.wa.gov
Attorneys for Defendants

21

22

23

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RE YCDC AND 3RD MOTIONS FOR CONTEMPT - 23 C14-01178-MJP

Disability Rights Washington 315 5th Avenue South, Suite 850
Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 324-1521  Fax: (206) 957-0729

 </s> Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 584-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 1 of 53
Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement Exhibit A

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 584-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 2 of 53
A.B., by and through TRUEBLOOD, et al., v. DSHS, et al., No. 14-cv-01178-MJP Comprehensive Settlement Agreement
Contents I. INTRODUCTION AND GOALS .........................................................................................2 II. DEFINITIONS ......................................................................................................................4 III. SUBSTANTIVE ELEMENTS..............................................................................................8
A. Competency Evaluation .................................................................................................8 B. Competency Restoration ................................................................................................9 C. Crisis Triage and Diversion Supports ..........................................................................20 D. Education and Training................................................................................................29 E. Workforce Development..............................................................................................32 IV. PHASING, OVERSIGHT, AND IMPLEMENTATION....................................................36 A. Phased Implementation ................................................................................................36 B. Oversight and Advisory Structure ...............................................................................37 C. Dispute Resolution.......................................................................................................43 D. Implementation Plan and Process Commitments ........................................................44 V. COMPLIANCE AND TERMINATION.............................................................................45 A. Contempt Mitigation and Substantial Compliance ......................................................45 B. Termination..................................................................................................................48 VI. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS............................................................................................49 A. Contempt......................................................................................................................49 B. Individual Rights..........................................................................................................49 C. Protection and Advocacy Acts.....................................................................................49
1 Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement
Exhibit A; Page 1 of 52

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 584-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 3 of 53
D. Terms of Agreement ....................................................................................................50 E. Authority to Bind .........................................................................................................50 F. Modifications ...............................................................................................................50 G. Waiver..........................................................................................................................50 H. Severability ..................................................................................................................51 I. Successors ....................................................................................................................51 J. Non-Waiver of Arguments and Issues .........................................................................51 K. Effect of Court Denying Motion to Approve...............................................................51 L. Execution .....................................................................................................................51
I. INTRODUCTION AND GOALS In consideration of the Parties’ commitment to uphold this Court’s orders to provide timely competency evaluation and restoration services, the Parties enter into this Settlement Agreement. The Parties intend that implementation of this Agreement will bring Defendants into substantial compliance with this Court’s orders. The elements of the Agreement aim to deliver an array of services to better deliver the right care, at the right time, in the right place, for the right cost. The ultimate goal of each element in this Agreement is to reduce the number of people who become or remain Class Members and to timely serve those who become Class Members. The Parties recognize that there are multiple players in the forensic and broader mental health systems. This creates challenges in establishing continuity and coordination of care and forming long-term and sustainable solutions. In furtherance of the Parties’ goals of diversion and providing timely services to Class Members, the Parties believe it is important to break down the silos between the system partners within the larger mental health system. To develop a plan that
2 Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement
Exhibit A; Page 2 of 52

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 584-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 4 of 53
yields successful outcomes for Class Members and enhances system collaboration and coordination, this Agreement acknowledges the value brought by every partner in the system and encourages full participation by all of its players.
In developing this Agreement, the Parties held dozens of meetings with hundreds of system partners over the six-month negotiations period.1 This included meetings with:
• Class Members; • Class Members’ families; • State Legislators; • Mental health provider agencies and advocates; • Behavioral Health Organizations and advocates; • Law enforcement; • Local jails; • State and municipal courts and judges; • Prosecuting attorneys; • Defense attorneys; • Homeless and housing providers and advocates; • Employment support providers and advocates; • Individual clinicians; • Education programs for needed clinicians; • Other departments of the administration outside DSHS;
1 Input from these stakeholders is reflected in a publicly-available report, at: https://www.dshs.wa.gov/sites/default/files/BHSIA/FMHS/Trueblood/2018Trueblood/2018-05-Tac-Report.pdf. After this report was drafted, the Parties, collectively and separately, continued to meet with system partners throughout the negotiation process.
3
Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement Exhibit A; Page 3 of 52

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 584-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 5 of 53
• Local Legislators and Executives; and • Washington residents. The solutions in this Agreement focus on pursuing effective outcomes and often incorporate demonstrated successes in current programs, entities, and systems in Washington or from other jurisdictions. In crafting these solutions, the Parties recognize the fundamental goal of this Agreement is to provide timely competency services to Class Members pursuant to the Court’s orders.
II. DEFINITIONS 1. Approval:
a. Final Approval: the Court’s approval of this Agreement following the notice period to Class Members, resolution of any objections, and the fairness hearing.
b. Preliminary Approval: the Court’s initial approval of this Agreement such that the notice period for Class Members begins.
2. BHA: Behavioral Health Administration. 3. CIT: Crisis Intervention Training. 4. CJTC: Criminal Justice Training Commission. 5. Class Member: All persons who are now, or will be in the future, charged with a
crime in the State of Washington and: (a) who are ordered by a court to receive competency evaluation or restoration services through DSHS; (b) who are waiting in jail for those services; and (c) for whom DSHS receives the court order.
4 Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement
Exhibit A; Page 4 of 52

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 584-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 6 of 53
6. Co-responder program: The Mental Health Field Response Teams Program, currently administered by WASPC as a grant program, pursuant to Wash. Rev. Code § 36.28A.440.
7. Crisis triage and stabilization facility: means either a crisis stabilization unit or a triage facility as defined in Wash. Rev. Code 71.05.020.
8. Defendants: the named defendants in the lawsuit, including the Department of Social and Health Services, Eastern State Hospital, and Western State Hospital.
9. DSHS or Department: Department of Social and Health Services. 10. Executive Committee: A committee tasked with making ultimate recommendations
to the Court, as specifically defined in § IV.B.4. This committee shall be composed of representatives from DSHS, OFMHS, HCA, and Plaintiffs’ counsel. The use of this term in any section outside § IV.B.4 refers to the committee defined in § IV.B.4. 11. Forensic Data System: A software program designed by DSHS/BHA information technology to replace two legacy data systems at Western State Hospital and Eastern State Hospital which perform a variety of functions including tracking competency referral data consistently across state hospitals and competency restoration residential treatment facilities. 12. Forensic Risk Assessment: An assessment completed by a forensic evaluator that provides an opinion in regards to whether a criminal defendant meets the standard for not guilty by reason of insanity. 13. General Advisory Committee: The committee specifically defined in § IV.B.2-3 that will be comprised of the Court Monitor, DSHS, HCA, the Governor’s office, OFMHS, Plaintiffs’ counsel, and any applicable representative from outside
5 Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement Exhibit A; Page 5 of 52

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 584-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 7 of 53
partners. The use of this term in any section outside § IV.B.2-3 refers to the committee defined in § IV.B.2-3. 14. HARPS: Acronym for Housing and Recovery through Peer Services. This term references a team generally consisting of one housing support specialist and two peer support specialists, all of whom have been trained in the permanent supportive housing model. HARPS teams also have access to housing bridge subsidies to facilitate maintaining or obtaining housing. 15. HCA: Health Care Authority. 16. Mature Data: Data that has been fully resolved. Distinct from “first look data” as identified in the monthly reports to the Court Monitor. 17. MCR: Mobile Crisis Responders. 18. Outstation: OFMHS offices and/or staff located in geographic regions somewhere other than the campuses of the two state hospitals. 19. OFMHS: Office of Forensic Mental Health Services; an office dedicated to forensic services within the Behavioral Health Administration of the Department of Social and Health Services. 20. Parties: the Plaintiffs and named Defendants in this case. 21. Peer Support Program: A program for providing a peer counselor certification, as described in Wash. Admin. Code § 182-538D-0200. 22. Phased Regions: the Washington State Managed Care Organizations (MCO) and Administrative Service Organizations (ASO) regions in which the changes contemplated by this Agreement will be implemented. Phase One Regions include the Spokane Region, Pierce County Region, and Southwest Washington Region.
6 Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement Exhibit A; Page 6 of 52

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 584-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 8 of 53
Phase Two Regions include King County Region. Phase Three Regions may include additional regions with high rates of Class Member referral. 23. Regions: specific areas within the State of Washington as defined by the MCO/ASO boundaries/regions. 24. Residential supports: “Residential supports”, as used within any section of this Agreement means only the residential supports as described within that section. 25. State: a. Where describing an obligation or action under this Agreement: Executive
branch agencies of the State of Washington. b. Where describing a geographic region or level of government: the State of
Washington. 26. Unstably Housed: As relevant to this Agreement, individuals are unstably housed
if they: a. are living in a place not meant for human habitation, b. are living in an emergency shelter, c. are living in transitional housing, d. are exiting an institution where they temporarily resided, if they resided for
up to 90 days and were in shelter or a place not meant for human habitation immediately prior to entering that institution, or, e. are losing their primary nighttime residence within 14 days and lack resources or support networks to remain in housing. 27. Wait times: the maximum wait times for admission for inpatient competency services or completion of in-jail evaluations as set by the Federal Court in
7 Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement Exhibit A; Page 7 of 52

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 584-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 9 of 53
Cassie Cordell Trueblood, next friend of A.B., an incapacitated person, et al., v. The Washington State Department Of Social And Health Services, et al., Cause No. 2:14-cv-01178-MJP. 28. WASPC: Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs.
III. SUBSTANTIVE ELEMENTS A. Competency Evaluation
1. The State will seek funding for 18 additional forensic evaluators needed to meet future predicted demand, to meet forensic evaluator demand created by the opening of additional forensic wards, to staff outstations, and to maintain compliance with the Court’s injunction during periods of increased demand. The expanded evaluator capacity, when not needed to address periods of increased demand, will be used to perform the Department’s other statutorily required evaluation functions, including: a. Out of custody evaluations; b. Forensic Risk Assessments; c. Civil commitment petitions for individuals found incompetent to stand trial under Wash. Rev. Code § 10.88.086 and referred for civil commitment under Wash. Rev. Code § 71.05.280(3); d. Other duties as assigned at the Department’s sole and exclusive discretion; e. Provided that, during periods of increased demand, the Department will prioritize the completion of in-jail evaluations over the other duties outlined in a - d.
8 Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement
Exhibit A; Page 8 of 52

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 584-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 10 of 53
2. Approximately 13 of these positions shall be posted and recruited between July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2020, and the remaining positions shall be posted and recruited between July 1, 2020 - June 30, 2021.
3. The Department will complete the implementation of the Forensic Data System, and use that System to collect and utilize data to anticipate, and respond to, periods of increased demand.
4. The Department will collect and utilize data to determine if the increased evaluator capacity in § III.A.1 above maintains substantial compliance with the injunction with respect to in-jail competency evaluations, and whether capacity exists to respond to periods of increased demand. In the event the amount of evaluators is inconsistent with actual need, the Department will report the same in the semiannual report as set forth in § IV.(B)(14). The report will include a plan to address the inconsistency going forward.
5. The State will continue the use of Outstations. 6. The State will complete the currently planned implementation of and will continue
the use of telehealth for competency evaluations. B. Competency Restoration
1. Legislative Changes a. During the 2019 legislative session, the State will support and work to achieve legislative changes to reduce the number of people ordered into competency evaluation and restoration, and to use community based restoration services, which may include changes to Wash. Rev. Code § 10.31.110, Wash. Rev. Code § 10.77.086, and
9 Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement
Exhibit A; Page 9 of 52

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 584-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 11 of 53
Wash. Rev. Code § 10.77.088. These efforts may include advancing requests for legislative changes through bill proposals or supporting legislation that has been proposed by others that further the goal of reducing the number of individuals ordered to receive competency evaluation and restoration services. b. If the State fails to pursue legislative changes intended to reduce demand for competency services to aid in reaching substantial compliance with the relevant portions of this Agreement, this will constitute material breach. 2. Community Outpatient Restoration Services a. The State will seek funding and statutory changes to implement a phased roll out of community outpatient restoration services in targeted areas, including Residential Supports as clinically appropriate. These restoration services will be provided in community settings instead of inpatient units of state psychiatric hospitals or other inpatient restoration facilities. b. Criminal defendant eligibility for community outpatient restoration services is determined by the criminal court that is making an order for restoration services pursuant to Wash. Rev. Code § 10.77.086 or 10.77.088. (1) The forensic navigator, as described below in § III.B.3, will provide
information, consistent with state and federal law, to the criminal court to assist the criminal court in determining whether a criminal defendant is appropriate for community outpatient restoration services.
10 Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement Exhibit A; Page 10 of 52

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 584-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 12 of 53
(2) A criminal defendant’s compliance will be monitored by the community outpatient restoration services provider and the forensic navigator. The forensic navigator will provide periodic updates to the criminal court about the criminal defendant’s compliance in the community outpatient restoration program.
c. In accordance with state and federal law, the State will support processes to provide criminal courts with the information necessary to create tailored conditions for release of individuals into community outpatient restoration. The provision of this information will be primarily through the use of forensic navigators as described above in § III.B.3, however, the State may elect to use other means as appropriate.
d. The State will require community outpatient restoration service providers to accept referrals from OFMHS in accordance with an algorithm that prioritizes the intake of Class Members.
e. The State will conduct outreach and will provide technical assistance to criminal courts and other stakeholders, upon request, to support the implementation of community outpatient restoration services, to assist with issues such as: (1) The determination of criminal defendant eligibility for community outpatient restoration; (2) The conditions of the criminal defendant’s participation in community outpatient restoration services; and,
11 Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement Exhibit A; Page 11 of 52

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 584-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 13 of 53
(3) The use of Residential Supports and other services to encourage the use of community outpatient restoration services.
f. If a Class Member is otherwise determined to be eligible for community outpatient restoration services by the criminal court, but is assessed by the forensic navigator as Unstably Housed, the State shall provide Residential Supports, as specified in this Agreement, for the duration of participation in a community outpatient restoration program. The Residential Supports shall not continue for a Class Member referred for inpatient services. The Residential Supports may continue for a Class Member opined to be competent under Wash. Rev. Code § 10.77.065 for up to 14 days following transmission of the competency evaluation.
g. Forensic navigators will coordinate access to housing for all persons enrolled in community outpatient restoration services. Discharge planning for Class Members begins upon admission to the community outpatient restoration program. If HARPS services are deemed necessary, planning should begin as soon as practicable for post-discharge housing support
h. The State will develop Residential Supports for outpatient competency restoration, as specified in this Agreement, through a procurement process to fund community outpatient restoration providers. Providers will be given the flexibility to propose and deliver residential support solutions unique to the needs of the community in which the service is provided, which may include: (1) Capital development through the Department of Commerce;
12 Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement Exhibit A; Page 12 of 52

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 584-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 14 of 53
(2) Capital development through a third party source identified by the provider;
(3) Housing voucher programs; (4) Leveraging existing housing programs locally; (5) Scattered site housing programs. i. The State will seek funding to support community outpatient restoration services with a broader package of treatment and recovery services, including mental health treatment, substance use screening and treatment. The restoration portion of these services may be provided in-person, remotely through live video, or via recorded video. j. For criminal defendants waiting in jail, an offer of admission to the community outpatient restoration services program will occur within the constitutional timelines for restoration as outlined by the Federal Court. 3. Forensic Navigators a. The State will seek funding to implement a new role within the forensic mental health system. This new role, called a forensic navigator, will assist Class Members in accessing services related to diversion and community outpatient competency restoration. (1) Class Members will be assigned a forensic navigator at the time that
a competency evaluation order is received by the Department in the Class Member’s criminal case. The navigator will gather information specific to Class Members, including what services are available for that individual Class Member, and how a community
13 Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement Exhibit A; Page 13 of 52

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 584-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 15 of 53
outpatient restoration order or other court order could be supported. This information will be provided to the criminal court prior to the hearing to determine whether competency restoration should be ordered. The navigator will not make a clinical recommendation to the criminal court. (2) Forensic navigators will be given discretion to manage their caseload, but will do so using the following guiding principles: (a) In recognition of the fact that there is a large portion of Class
Members who are known to the system, and will have recently had contact with the criminal justice or forensic mental health system, forensic navigators may prioritize their efforts to divert these particular Class Members (or high utilizers as referenced in § III.C.4.a.). This prioritization may include beginning work on gathering information immediately upon being assigned the Class Member. (b) In recognition of the fact that a large proportion of criminal defendants who are ordered to receive a competency evaluation will be found competent, forensic navigators may prioritize their efforts in order to provide a less intensive level of service until a finding that the Class Member is incompetent. This prioritization may include delaying intensive work on gathering information until more is
14 Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement Exhibit A; Page 14 of 52

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 584-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 16 of 53
learned about the Class Member. Forensic navigators may use a standardized tool or assessment in order to assess Class Members unknown to the system. (3) Forensic navigators will assist criminal court personnel with understanding diversion and treatment options for individual Class Members in order to support the entry of criminal court orders that may divert Class Members from the forensic mental health system. (4) When a criminal court enters an order directing a criminal defendant to receive restoration services on an outpatient basis, the forensic navigator shall provide services to the criminal defendant ordered to community outpatient restoration, who shall be a client of the forensic navigators. These services will include: (a) Assisting the client with attending appointments and classes related to outpatient competency restoration. (b) Coordinating access to housing for the client. (c) Meeting individually with each client on a regular basis. (d) Performing outreach as needed to stay in touch with clients. (e) Providing information to the criminal court concerning the client’s progress and compliance with the court ordered conditions of the client’s release. This may include appearing at criminal court hearings to provide information to the criminal court.
15 Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement Exhibit A; Page 15 of 52

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 584-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 17 of 53
(f) Coordinating client access to community case management services, mental health services, and follow up.
(g) Assisting clients with obtaining and encouraging adherence to prescribed medication.
(5) The forensic navigator’s services to the criminal defendant shall conclude as follows: (a) If, after the navigator has advised the criminal court as described in § III.B.3.a.(3) above, the criminal court does not order the criminal defendant into community outpatient restoration services, the role of the forensic navigator shall end. The forensic navigator may facilitate a coordinated transition as described below if the circumstances warrant such coordination. (b) If, after the forensic navigator has advised the criminal court as described in § III.B.3.a.(3) above, the criminal court does order the criminal defendant into community outpatient restoration services, the forensic navigator shall: 1) Prior to the conclusion of community outpatient restoration services, facilitate a coordinated transition of the criminal defendant’s case to a case manager in the community mental health system. a) The standards for this coordinated transition shall be established through the use of care
16 Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement Exhibit A; Page 16 of 52

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 584-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 18 of 53
coordination agreements, or some similar agreement. To support these coordinated transitions, the forensic navigator shall attempt to follow up with the client to check whether the meeting between the client and community-based case manager took place, or when the client is an identified high utilizer, the forensic navigator shall attempt to connect the client to high utilizer services. b) To support this coordinated transition, the forensic navigator will also attempt to check in with the Class Member at least once per month, for up to 60 days, but during this time, the client shall not count towards the navigator’s caseload. The navigator will not duplicate the services provided by the community based case manager, but if the navigator believes the coordinated transition is not likely to be successful, the forensic navigator will follow up as appropriate. 2) In cases where a criminal defendant regains competency, is found guilty and is sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment in jail or prison, has criminal
17 Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement Exhibit A; Page 17 of 52

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 584-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 19 of 53
charges dismissed pending a civil commitment hearing, enters or returns to jail due to a revocation of the community outpatient restoration order or the filing of new criminal charges, receives a new or amended order directing inpatient admission for restoration, or declines further services after the court ordered restoration treatment ends, the forensic navigator shall create a summary of treatment provided during community outpatient restoration, including earlier identified diversion options for the individual. Through training and technical assistance, the State will encourage third parties, including jails or prisons where a former Class Member is serving a sentence, to request this summary and related treatment records, as allowed by Wash. Rev. Code § 10.77.210. (c) In other situations not contemplated by this Agreement, the State shall use it discretion in deciding when to end forensic navigator services, and how to accomplish a coordinated transition. (6) A forensic navigator caseload will not exceed twenty-five Class Members at any given time.
18 Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement Exhibit A; Page 18 of 52

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 584-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 20 of 53
4. Additional Forensic Bed Capacity a. The State will open additional forensic beds at Western State Hospital and Eastern State Hospital, pursuant to existing funding authorized in the 2018 capital budget. The projected availability of additional forensic beds is as follows: (1) Develop two forensic wards at Eastern State Hospital by December 31, 2019 (25 beds each for total of 50 beds) (2) Convert two Western State Hospital civil geriatric wards to two forensic wards by December 31, 2019 (21 beds each for a total of 42 beds) b. If the State is unable to open the beds in accordance with the projected schedule above, the State shall provide notice to the Executive Committee that additional time is needed, including the projected delay, and the reasons for the delay. This notice shall allow the State an additional six months of time to open the beds. If the State needs additional time beyond this six-month period, the State may request a further extension of time from the Court.
5. Closure of Maple Lane and Yakima a. In the event wait times for Class Member admission for inpatient competency services reach a median of 13 days or less for four consecutive months, based on mature data, the State will begin ramp down of the Yakima Competency Restoration Program. The Yakima Competency Restoration Program will close, notwithstanding the median wait times
19
Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement Exhibit A; Page 19 of 52

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 584-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 21 of 53
described in this paragraph, no later than December 31, 2021. Failure to close the Yakima Competency Restoration Program by December 31, 2021 constitutes a material breach of this Agreement. b. In the event wait times for Class Member admission for inpatient competency services reach a median of 9 days or less for four consecutive months, based on mature data, the State will begin ramp down of the Maple Lane Competency Restoration Program. The Maple Lane Competency Restoration Program will close, notwithstanding the median wait times described in this paragraph, no later than July 1, 2024. Failure to close the Maple Lane Competency Restoration Program by July 1, 2024 constitutes a material breach of this Agreement C. Crisis Triage and Diversion Supports 1. Crisis Triage and Diversion Capacity: a. During Phase One of this Agreement, the State will seek funding to increase overall capacity for crisis stabilization units and/or triage facilities by 16 beds in the Spokane Region. These beds will address both urban and rural needs. During Phase One of this Agreement, the State will seek to make funds available for enhancements to similar existing or currently funded facilities in the Southwest and Pierce Regions, subject to the identification of appropriate enhancements by community providers in the Southwest and Pierce Regions. b. In Phase One, the State will assess the need for Crisis Triage and Stabilization capacity for Phase Two Regions, and any gaps in existing
20 Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement Exhibit A; Page 20 of 52

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 584-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 22 of 53
capacity in Phase One Regions, and will report the same to the General Advisory Committee. The report will identify existing resources in the Phased Regions, and will include a plan to increase capacity in the Phased Regions. The State will seek funding to increase capacity in accordance with this plan and the schedule set out in § IV.A and the implementation plan in § IV.D. This process will repeat for subsequent phases. 2. Residential Supports for Crisis Triage and Diversion a. The State will seek funding to provide short-term housing vouchers to be deployed throughout Crisis Triage and Stabilization Facilities. These short-term vouchers will be disbursed in accordance with the phased schedule set forth in § IV.A. These short-term vouchers will: (1) Be disbursed by the Crisis Triage and Stabilization Facilities, based
on a clinical assessment of need. (2) The initial housing voucher will cover up to a maximum of 14 days. (3) At the discretion of the crisis triage and stabilization provider, the
short-term housing voucher may be extended up to an additional 14 days. b. The State will seek funding to create residential support capacity associated with the community outpatient competency restoration program in each Region. These Residential Supports will be implemented in accordance with the phased schedule set forth in § IV.A. In addition to the short-term vouchers described in § III.C.2.a. above, this residential support capacity must offer housing support options that are designed to target individuals
21 Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement Exhibit A; Page 21 of 52

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 584-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 23 of 53
who are clinically-assessed to need more intensive support and stability immediately following discharge from Crisis Triage and Stabilization Facilities. These Residential Supports are intended to provide an individual with a better chance of remaining stable while awaiting more permanent housing solutions, including but not limited to the HARPS program. (1) Individuals eligible to use this residential support capacity will meet
all of the following criteria: i. Have had at least one prior contact with the forensic mental system in the past 24 months, or, were brought to a Crisis Triage or Stabilization Facility via arrest diversion under Wash. Rev. Code § 10.31.110 as determined by the crisis triage and stabilization provider; ii. Need assistance accessing independent living options and would benefit from short term housing assistance beyond the 14-day vouchers;
iii. Are diagnosed with an acute behavioral health disorder and are assessed to need housing support beyond what is offered through the Crisis Triage and Stabilization Facilities or the short term voucher as described in § III.C.2.a;
iv. Are Unstably Housed; v. Are not currently in the community outpatient competency
restoration program, and;
22 Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement Exhibit A; Page 22 of 52

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 584-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 24 of 53
vi. Do not meet Involuntary Treatment Act (Wash. Rev. Code 71.05) commitment criteria.
(2) The State shall seek funding to add 10% more Residential Supports as described in § III.C.2.b to the community outpatient restoration program in each Region, with the 10% capacity to be used for this population. In Phase One, the Parties project that the anticipated capacity at any given time will be five individuals in the Pierce Region, three individuals in the Southwest Region, and two individuals in the Spokane Region.
(3) The HARPS housing support program shall also be made available to individuals within this population, for individuals clinicallyassessed to benefit from the HARPS program.
(4) When high utilizers, as defined in § III.C.4.a., are identified through their use of the crisis triage and diversion system, they shall be provided access to the Residential Supports and services as described in § III.C.2.b above.
3. Mobile Crisis and Co-responder Response Programs a. The State will seek funding for Co-Responder Programs as follows: (1) The State shall seek funding to provide law enforcement agencies with dedicated qualified mental health professionals to assist officers in field response to promote diversion of people experiencing behavioral health crisis from arrest and incarceration.
23 Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement Exhibit A; Page 23 of 52

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 584-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 25 of 53
(2) The Parties appreciate the leadership and affirmative efforts taken by the Legislature and the WASPC in establishing a mental health field response team program as described in Wash. Rev. Code § 36.28A.440. The Parties wish to build upon programs like these. Therefore, in the 2019-2021 biennium, the State shall seek $3 million in additional funding to expand the mental health field response program administered by WASPC pursuant to HB 2892 for the purpose of implementing or expanding response team programs in law enforcement or behavioral health agencies located in the Phase One Regions. In the event WASPC determines that the sum appropriated exceeds the needs of these three Regions during Phase One, WASPC may disburse some grant funding to support Phase Two implementation, including law enforcement or behavioral health agencies located in King County. The failure to secure $3 million in funding to expand Wash. Rev. Code § 36.28A.440 program grants as set forth in this paragraph shall not be deemed a material breach. § V.A.2 does not apply to this paragraph.
(3) The State’s implementation plan, as described in § IV.D., shall describe how the State will support and encourage the integration of these programs into the reforms contemplated by this Agreement.
24 Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement Exhibit A; Page 24 of 52

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 584-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 26 of 53
(4) During Phase One of this Agreement, the State shall perform an assessment of law enforcement agency co-responder mental health staffing needs in order to guide future funding requests.
(5) If, during the implementation of this Agreement, it becomes apparent that WASPC has not been appropriated funds for, or is otherwise unable to administer the Co-Responder Program in a manner consistent with, the phased implementation schedule outlined in § IV.A, the Executive Committee will meet and develop recommendations for future action by the Parties regarding use of co-responder programs.
b. The State will seek funding for Mobile Crisis Response (“MCR”) behavioral health services as follows: (1) The State will seek funding to increase MCR services to respond to people experiencing behavioral health crisis in the community. The State will request a plan for the provision of MCR services in each Phased Region, as required by the phased schedule identified in § IV.A. The State will seek funding for MCR services for each Phased Region. This process will be designed to create flexibility that will allow each Phased Region to tailor this resource to meet their local needs. (2) Each Phased Region will be asked to propose new MCR service resources within their Region, including proposing the numbers, credentialing, and location of mental health professionals. Each
25 Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement Exhibit A; Page 25 of 52

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 584-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 27 of 53
regional plan will be tailored to meet the urban and rural needs of the individual Region, considering the need for timely response throughout the entire Region. (3) The regional plans, and the resulting contracts for services, will require that providers make available MCR services on a twenty-four (24) hour, seven (7) day per week basis that may be accessed without full completion of intake evaluations and/or other screening and assessment processes. The State will request a recommendation from WASPC and regional MCR providers as to reasonable response times in each Phased Region. In the regional plans and the resulting contracts for services, the contracting entities will include response time targets, after considering the WASPC and regional MCR providers’ recommendations. During Phase One, the State will institute reporting requirements to gather data on response times of MCR services. In subsequent phases, the Parties will use this data to inform future funding requests, and possible contractual requirements to meet response time targets. c. Co-response teams of law enforcement and mental health professionals will be encouraged to rely on MCRs to accept individuals they have identified as needing mental health services, including people eligible for mental health diversion pursuant to Wash. Rev. Code § 10.31.110.
26 Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement Exhibit A; Page 26 of 52

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 584-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 28 of 53
d. The State will seek funding to cover reasonable administrative costs requested by WASPC to enable it to meet the requirements of § III.C.3.a.2 and§ III.C.3.b.3 above.
4. Intensive Case Management Program for High Utilizers a. The State is developing a model to identify those most at risk of near-term referral for competency restoration. This identified population shall be referred to as high utilizers. The model is designed to identify persons who are likely to be referred for a competency service within the next six months. The model will use available data and include factors such as: (1) Prior referrals for competency evaluation; (2) Prior referrals for competency restoration; (3) Prior inpatient psychiatric treatment episodes; (4) Criminal justice system involvement, and; (5) Homelessness. b. In the semi-annual reports required under § IV.B.14, the State will report on whether or not the model is effective in identifying persons who are likely to be referred for a competency service in the next six months, and the status of outreach to identified high utilizers. This report shall be reviewed by the Oversight and Advisory Committees outlined in § IV.B., and the Executive Committee may make recommendations regarding adjustment of the model.
27 Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement Exhibit A; Page 27 of 52

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 584-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 29 of 53
c. The services provided to this group shall include: (1) Whenever an identified high utilizer is referred for competency evaluation, they shall be offered intensive case management services. (2) The intensive case management program will be developed with a phased implementation as outlined in § IV.A that adheres to the following principles: (a) The program will not duplicate services offered through health and behavioral health benefits provided under other programs, but will leverage services otherwise available and enhance the services available to the high utilizer. (b) The program will have the ability to provide case management services for individuals who have significant barriers to accessing behavioral health and community supports. (c) The initial participation period in the program for each individual will be six months.
d. Program services may be provided through community behavioral health agencies through direct contracts with the State. During the initial participation period, the program shall offer: (1) Funding for engagement activities for those meeting the high utilizer definition.
28
Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement Exhibit A; Page 28 of 52

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 584-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 30 of 53
(2) Housing supports, using the HARPS model, which includes: (a) Securing and maintaining housing, (b) Peer support, (c) Rent or other housing support subsidies, in the amount of up to $1200 per month for up to six months.
(3) Transportation assistance. (4) Training on accessing resources and other independent living skills. (5) Support for accessing healthcare services and other non-medical
services. e. The case management program will include an outreach and engagement
activities component for those currently identified as high utilizers, which may occur outside the context of a competency referral. D. Education and Training 1. Crisis Intervention Training (CIT) a. The State will seek funding to strengthen and expand behavioral health crisis training for law enforcement and corrections officers. At a minimum: (1) The State shall seek funding to offer the 40 hour enhanced CIT
course, to reach a target of 25% of officers on patrol duty in each law enforcement agency within the Phased Regions. The funding will be modeled after the existing funding model used by CJTC, including the current model for any backfill costs, which assumes a State contribution for 16 hours of backfill costs, out of the 40 hours. The 25% target will be measured as reported by CJTC. This target
29
Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement Exhibit A; Page 29 of 52

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 584-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 31 of 53
may be limited by CJTC’s ability to offer the necessary number of courses during each phase, so long as the reason is not strictly the unavailability of funding. If CJTC offers a training different from the 40 hour enhanced CIT course, the Parties may mutually agree that this training may count towards satisfying this target. Whenever possible, the State shall ensure that the agencies serving the areas of highest population density in the Phased Regions meet this training target before other agencies with lower population density. (2) The State shall seek funding to ensure that corrections officers and 911 dispatchers employed by governmental entities within each Phased Region, except those employed by the Washington State Department of Corrections or Federal entities, receive at least eight hours of CIT provided by CJTC, or by an entity approved by CJTC for this purpose. (3) In the semi-annual report, the State shall include data from CJTC on completion rates of training, and barriers to local jurisdictions to attending the training. b. The State and Plaintiffs’ counsel will invite WASPC and CJTC to meet and discuss how to better deliver behavioral health crisis training to officers employed by agencies with ten or fewer officers on staff. c. All training efforts described in this section will be made in accordance with the phased implementation schedule set forth in § IV.A.
30 Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement Exhibit A; Page 30 of 52

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 584-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 32 of 53
2. Technical Assistance a. The State will seek funding for state or contracted resources to develop and provide educational and technical assistance to jails. These efforts will be made in accordance with the phased implementation schedule set forth in § IV.A. The State will include the involvement of peer support specialists in providing this educational and technical assistance. b. The State will work with Washington’s designated Protection and Advocacy System (as designated in Wash. Rev. Code § 71A.10.080), law enforcement entities and associations, and peer support specialists to develop guidance on mutually agreeable best practices for diversion and stabilization of Class Members and potential Class Members in jail during Phase One of this Agreement. To develop this guidance, initial best practices will be proposed by the State, and reviewed and approved by Washington’s designated Protection and Advocacy System. (1) These best practices will at minimum address pre and post-booking diversion, identification of need and access to treatment, guidelines for administration of involuntary medication, continuity of care, use of segregation, and release planning. (2) In delivering education and technical assistance to jails, the State will develop a plan to proactively engage all jails in the State of Washington, in accordance with the phased implementation schedule set forth in § IV.A. This shall involve offering on-site
31 Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement Exhibit A; Page 31 of 52

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 584-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 33 of 53
trainings to jails and a standard method for jails to seek technical assistance and receive timely responses. c. The State may leverage the existing training and technical assistance work of law enforcement entities and associations, as appropriate. E. Workforce Development 1. Enhanced Peer Support Specialists a. The State will develop an enhanced Peer Support Program for individuals that includes specialized training in criminal justice. This program will include individuals participating in the core curriculum, and then participating in the specialized enhanced program for criminal justice. The State will provide ongoing training for enhanced peer support specialists and targeted training and support to assist with establishing these positions in programs purchased by the State. b. The State will encourage the use of this enhanced Peer Support Program by integrating the enhanced peer role into the systems developed throughout this Agreement. The Department recognizes the challenges in employing peers with criminal justice lived experience, but is supportive when the nature of that past experience makes them an appropriate candidate for working with individuals with mental illness. This includes the use of enhanced peer support specialists in the intensive case management program (§ III.C.4.), the community outpatient competency restoration program (§ III.B.2), and the HARPS program (§ III.C.4.d.(2)). The State
32 Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement Exhibit A; Page 32 of 52

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 584-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 34 of 53
will explore whether it is feasible to obtain any federal funding for enhanced peer support specialists, to encourage the wider use of this role. 2. Workforce Development; Degree and Certification Programs a. The State will seek funding to hire, or contract with, workforce development specialists. The positions will be assigned to specific workforce functional areas to include: (1) Community, including crisis response, homeless, in-home,
residential, and clinic based services, (2) In-patient, including residential treatment facilities, private
hospitals, and state hospitals, (3) Law enforcement and corrections, including jails and prisons. b. Workforce development specialists may conduct or manage the following duties: (1) Participate in workforce development workgroups with
stakeholders such as state hospitals, community healthcare organizations, law enforcement, and jails; (2) Conduct training needs surveys/gaps analysis; (3) Assist in the development of a master training plan(s); (4) Develop and coordinate training including standardized training manuals and guidelines; (5) Collaborate with other community-based, organizational workforce development staff; (6) Conduct training program(s) evaluations; and
33 Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement Exhibit A; Page 33 of 52

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 584-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 35 of 53
(7) Other duties as assigned at the sole and exclusive discretion of the State.
c. The functions and duties outlined in this subsection may be implemented with direct hiring, contracting, or any combination thereof.
d. The workforce development specialists may collaborate with other workforce development efforts (for example, the workforce development efforts of the Economic Services Administration), as appropriate.
e. The State will produce a report annually describing the activities of the workforce development specialists outlined in this subsection, and making recommendations about the specific workforce development steps necessary to ensure success of this Agreement. The State will distribute this report to key and interested legislators. This report will also be distributed to the Executive Committee, and that Committee shall consider whether to adopt those recommendations for possible inclusion in future phases of the Agreement. The annual schedule for this report shall be set as to align with the phased approach of this Agreement, and to allow for consideration of the Executive Committee’s recommendations in the established state budget process.
f. The State will assess the need and target areas for training programs, certification programs, and possible degree programs. The State may collaborate with colleges, including community and technical colleges, and universities to accomplish this task, but shall also have discretion to
34 Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement Exhibit A; Page 34 of 52

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 584-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 36 of 53
accomplish this task through other means. This assessment shall include, but not be limited to, the following elements: (1) Existing training, certifications, and degree programs in Washington
for relevant professions; for example, nursing, psychiatry, psychology, counseling, law enforcement, or other professions determined at the discretion of the State. (2) Programs for relevant professions in other states. (3) Statewide staffing needs for all programs covered by this Agreement for a period of the subsequent ten years. g. Upon completion of the assessment in § III.E.2.f. above, the State shall produce a report regarding that assessment that may be shared with appropriate committees of the Legislature. The report will include: (1) High, medium, and low cost recommendations, and (2) Long, medium, and short term recommendations for future action regarding training and certification programs. h. While the State shall pursue the elements outlined this subsection in good faith, the State is not required to establish new degree or certification programs pursuant to this Agreement. i. In addition to the requirements outlined in § III.E.2.a-h. above, the State will make all reasonable efforts to fill the positions required to timely implement all phases of this Agreement, as outlined in § IV.A. Reasonable efforts may include the use of incentives.
35 Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement Exhibit A; Page 35 of 52

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 584-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 37 of 53
IV. PHASING, OVERSIGHT, AND IMPLEMENTATION A. Phased Implementation
1. The Parties agree that the implementation of the programs and services described in this Agreement shall occur in phases. In each phase, the State will focus its efforts toward specifically identified and agreed upon Regions for each of the elements outlined in this Agreement. The Parties have agreed to at least three phases for purposes of implementation, which will run parallel to the Legislative biennia beginning with the 2019-2021 biennium. The Parties agree to the phased roll out to specific Regions as follows: a. Phase One: the State will focus implementation efforts in the Southwest, Spokane and Pierce Regions. This phase will run parallel with the 2019-2021 biennium. b. Phase Two: the State will focus implementation efforts in the King Region. This phase will run parallel with the 2021-2023 biennium. c. Phase Three: the Parties agree there will be a review of the progress during the 2021-2023 biennium of the Phase One and Two Regions. The Executive Committee will then make a decision as to whether the State should a) expand or modify the programs in Phases One and Two for purposes of Phase Three; or b) if Phase One and/or Two have been successful, identify and focus efforts in new high-referral Regions for purposes of Phase Three; or c) some combination of the above. d. Following Phase Three: The Executive Committee will determine as to whether the State should expand or modify programs in additional Regions
36
Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement Exhibit A; Page 36 of 52

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 584-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 38 of 53
through the phasing process. This process shall continue until the termination of this Agreement. 2. In order to begin implementation in each of the Phased Regions as quickly as possible, upon approval of the Agreement the Parties agree to immediately seek approval from the Court to use contempt fines to staff project managers for the identified Regions in Phase One and Two, as well as a single administrative support position to support these project managers. The Parties shall also seek approval from the Court to use contempt fines to provide the funding necessary to begin development of components of this Agreement, which may include housing supports, provision of case management, high utilizer supports, and outreach and communications regarding implementation of the Agreement, as agreed upon by Parties. The use of contempt fines for this purpose is not meant to supplant or otherwise modify the State’s obligations under this Agreement to seek funding for and implement programs and changes described in this Agreement, but instead to ensure that the implementation of Phase One may begin as quickly as possible and that elements of the Agreement have the best chance of overcoming unforeseen funding and implementation challenges. Disbursement of the fines will occur upon Final Approval of this Agreement by the Court. B. Oversight and Advisory Structure 1. Defendants will use a sustainable oversight structure to inform and provide supervision for high-level policy-making, planning, and decision-making on targeted issues, and for the implementation of this Agreement. A description of this structure is set forth below.
37 Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement Exhibit A; Page 37 of 52

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 584-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 39 of 53
2. The Parties agree to the appointment of a General Advisory Committee to be comprised of the Court Monitor, DSHS, HCA, Governor’s office, OFMHS, and Plaintiffs’ counsel, and the Parties agree to invite several representatives from local partners to join the General Advisory Committee, to include, but not limited to: a. A Judge Representative b. A Prosecutor Representative c. A Defender Representative d. Behavioral health treatment program Representative e. A Housing Provider Representative f. A Consumers and families Representative g. A Law Enforcement Representative and/or a CJTC Representative h. A Jail Representative i. Plaintiffs’ Counsel Representative(s) j. Court Monitor Team Representative
3. The General Advisory Committee’s main purpose shall be to provide local community feedback, to flag issues, to review data and outcomes, and to make recommendations at specific decision points during the implementation of this Agreement. The General Advisory Committee will be a consulting body to the Executive Committee, but will not be tasked with decision-making or making contact with the Court. Any recommendation of the General Advisory Committee shall be reviewed and considered by the Executive Committee. The General Advisory Committee shall be specifically empowered to make recommendations to the Executive Committee on the following decisions:
38 Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement Exhibit A; Page 38 of 52

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 584-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 40 of 53
a. The nature of the Phase Three implementation as outlined in this Agreement, as contemplated in § IV.A.1.c. This includes whether Phase Three should proceed to expand into Regions not included in Phases One and Two, or whether Phase Three should focus on the expansion or modification of services in the Regions included in Phases One and Two, or some combination thereof.
b. Identification of areas or issues of concern in the implementation of the Agreement based on stakeholder feedback.
c. Reviewing implementation reports and implementation data, and based on that review, making recommendations for changes or modifications based on areas or issues of concern that have been identified in implementation.
4. There will also be a smaller Executive Committee that will be tasked with making decisions and ultimate recommendations to the Court. This Committee shall be composed of representatives from DSHS, OFMHS, HCA and Plaintiffs’ counsel. The Executive Committee may elect to consult with others outside of the Executive Committee by agreement.
5. The Executive Committee shall be specifically empowered to make decisions regarding items 5.a., 5.c., and 5.d. below. The Executive Committee will make agreed upon recommendations to the Court regarding 5.b. below. a. The nature of the Phase Three implementation as outlined in this Agreement, as contemplated in § IV.A.1.c. This includes whether Phase Three should proceed to expand into Regions not included in Phases One and Two, or whether Phase Three should instead be focused on the
39 Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement Exhibit A; Page 39 of 52

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 584-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 41 of 53
expansion or modification of services in the Regions included in Phases One and Two. b. Changes or modifications based on areas or issues of concern that have been identified in implementation. c. Overseeing the commission of the semi-annual implementation reports and data collection. The Executive Committee may elect to expand or modify the elements for data collection beyond those expressly identified in this Agreement. d. Whether the State should expand or modify programs in additional Regions through the phasing process beyond Phase Three. This process shall continue until the termination of this Agreement. 6. If the Executive Committee is unable to reach consensus on a particular issue, they may engage the use of an agreed upon neutral to resolve the issue. Issues not resolved through a neutral may be presented to the Court for consideration. This process is distinct from the process described regarding material breach below in § IV.C. 7. Each identified entity on the Executive Committee will be solely responsible for choosing its representative(s) to the Executive Committee. 8. Defendants are empowered to (1) provide guidance to state agencies and the Parties about implementation and (2) make decisions regarding the implementation of the Agreement not otherwise identified for review by the General Advisory Committee or Executive Committee.
40 Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement Exhibit A; Page 40 of 52

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 584-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 42 of 53
9. The local partner representatives on the General Advisory Committee will be appointed as determined by the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee will also determine whether to make fixed term appointments or to rotate invitations.
10. The General Advisory Committee will meet quarterly. Twice per year the quarterly meeting will be focused on gathering input from stakeholders and community partners. Twice per year the quarterly meeting will be focused on reviewing the semi-annual report and data. This does not limit what may be covered in any quarterly meeting, but simply gives guidance on each meeting’s focus. a. General Advisory Committee meetings shall be convened in person and via WebEx or a similar remote participation option.
11. The Executive Committee will meet quarterly in alignment with the General Advisory Committee. The Executive Committee may also meet on an as needed basis, and may be convened by the Court Monitor or by majority agreement of the Executive Committee. a. Executive Committee meetings shall be convened in person, via WebEx, or via a similar remote participation option.
12. The Parties may also meet with stakeholders independently on an as needed basis. 13. The General Advisory Committee will be supported by OFMHS, the Trueblood
project manager, and Research and Data Analysis within DSHS. a. The Trueblood project manager will create a project plan, manage the
General Advisory Committee and its meetings, and manage and schedule the Executive Committee meetings.
41 Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement Exhibit A; Page 41 of 52

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 584-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 43 of 53
b. The regional project managers will support implementation of this Agreement through efforts such as support through technical assistance, outreach, trainings, summits, and education to local communities. These efforts shall be made in accordance with the phased implementation schedule in § IV.A. This may include incorporation of and cooperation with any work being done in support of the Trueblood Diversion Programs.
c. The State will support data collection and analysis. Data points for analysis shall be included in the implementation plan described below in § IV.D. Data points will be reviewed and refined over time based on the recommendations of the Executive Committee.
d. The raw data gathered pursuant to this Agreement shall be made publically available to the extent permitted by law.
14. The State shall produce a monitoring report semi-annually. This report shall include, at a minimum: a. Data reporting as described throughout this Agreement b. Data analysis of the various data elements c. Updates on the status of the phase programs, based on each of the elements outlined in the Agreement d. Areas of concern or struggle in implementation e. Areas of positive impacts or programming in implementation f. Recommendations for addressing areas of concern or struggle
42 Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement Exhibit A; Page 42 of 52

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 584-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 44 of 53
C. Dispute Resolution 1. Where one Party believes that the other Party is in material breach of the Agreement, the Parties shall engage the Executive Committee in a good faith effort to resolve the allegation of material breach. 2. This process shall be initiated by one Party sending written notice to the other Party that they believe the Party has materially breached the Agreement. The written notice shall specify the section of the Agreement that the Party believes has been materially breached, and explain in detail how that section has been materially breached, and specify the facts and information that support the conclusion. 3. Within ten days, the responding Party shall provide a written response. This written response shall respond to each allegation of material breach, and explain in detail the responding Party’s position on the alleged breach, and specify the facts and information that support that position. 4. Upon receipt of the written response, the Parties shall schedule a time to meet and confer within three business days in order to determine if the written response resolves the allegation of material breach. 5. If the allegation of material breach is not resolved by the written exchange and the subsequent meet and confer, the Parties shall schedule a mediation session with an agreed upon neutral. The mediation session must be held within 14 days, unless this timeline is modified by an agreement of the Parties, or if the Parties are unable to secure the services of an agreed neutral within that timeframe. 6. If, after completion of the mediation, the Parties have not resolved the allegation of material breach, the Party alleging a breach may seek relief from the Court.
43
Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement Exhibit A; Page 43 of 52

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 584-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 45 of 53
7. At each of the identified steps regarding material breach, the opportunity to cure any alleged breach shall be considered.
D. Implementation Plan and Process Commitments 1. Defendants will develop an implementation plan beginning on the date the Court gives its Preliminary Approval of the Agreement. A preliminary plan to lay the foundation for implementation and overall planning will be completed within 90 days after the Court gives its Final Approval of this Agreement. A final implementation plan, which accounts for any funding or legislative changes accomplished by the Legislature in the 2019 session will be completed within 60 days from the end of the 2019 Legislative session. Certain tasks related to the implementation within each Region may be reserved to the project management plans to be implemented by each regional project manager. 2. Defendants will develop the preliminary and final implementation plans using input from Plaintiffs’ Counsel and the Court Monitor. The implementation plan will: a. Identify and sequence tasks necessary to fulfill the commitments and ultimately achieve the exit criteria; b. Consider estimates produced by the TriWest Bed Flow Analysis, if available; c. Set clear and accountable timelines through the termination of this Agreement; d. Assign responsibility for achieving each task to the appropriate agency or entity;
44 Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement Exhibit A; Page 44 of 52

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 584-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 46 of 53
e. Describe how reporting processes shall be established to report on the data elements specified under this Agreement, as well as the development of the ongoing implementation reports;
f. Develop collaboration models for regional project managers and regional implementations to problem-solve challenges encountered; and
g. Describe the communication and outreach activities to inform the community, stakeholders, and policy makers about the access to services and processes described in this Agreement, including development of documentation that provides sufficient information to explain the purpose of and use of services established by this Agreement, and encourage use of those services.
3. Defendants will submit to the Court for approval the preliminary and final implementation plans, which shall describe how the Defendants will fulfill the commitments of this Agreement.
4. Defendants will comply with the implementation plan that is approved by the Court, and any amendments, pursuant to this Agreement.
5. The Parties will repeat this process for creating a final implantation plan for each future Phased Region during subsequent phases of the Agreement. V. COMPLIANCE AND TERMINATION
A. Contempt Mitigation and Substantial Compliance 1. Assuming the Court’s Final Approval of this Agreement, contempt fines will be suspended beginning December 1, 2018. The fines will continue to be calculated,
45 Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement Exhibit A; Page 45 of 52

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 584-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 47 of 53
but no payment on those fines shall be made. The suspended contempt fines shall be calculated using the current rates under the existing Court orders. a. At the end of each phase, if the State is in substantial compliance, all
suspended fines will be waived. 2. If the funding made available for this Agreement is inadequate to implement the
identified elements during any phase, this will constitute material breach. In considering whether funding is inadequate, funds available from third party sources shall be considered, and supplemental budget requests made during any phase shall also be considered. No allegation of material breach based on inadequate funding may be made until after the completion of the 2019 Legislative Session. 3. Given the scope and breadth of this Agreement, the Parties agree that a material breach of a particular element does not necessarily constitute material breach of the entire Agreement, unless otherwise specified herein. For purposes of this Agreement, and unless otherwise specified herein, “material breach” is defined as a failure to be in "substantial compliance" with the Agreement, and substantial compliance means something less than strict and literal compliance with every provision of this Agreement. Rather, deviations from the terms of the Agreement may occur, provided any such deviations are unintentional and minor, so as not to substantially defeat the object which the Parties intend to accomplish, or to impair the structure of the Agreement as a whole. This Agreement is a product of extensive work with stakeholders and input from experts in their fields. It is an informed and thoughtful estimation of the best plan to resolve the ongoing constitutional crisis before the Court. However, the Parties recognize and acknowledge the need for
46 Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement Exhibit A; Page 46 of 52

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 584-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 48 of 53
flexibility in developing the comprehensive changes proposed, and that the purpose and intent of each element could be achieved by alternative methods. The Parties further agree to give due consideration to the totality of any decisions or actions taken by the Legislature in implementing this Agreement to determine if the spirit of the Agreement, if not the letter, has been upheld before pursuing an allegation of material breach for any element that does not specifically identify what constitutes material breach. 4. Plaintiffs agree to engage in an ordered process in order to raise any allegation of material breach under this Agreement. The process is more fully described in § II.B.6 of the Oversight and Advisory Structure section, but at a minimum this will include (1) bringing the allegation to the attention of the Executive Committee for possible resolution, (2) engaging in a mediation session with an agreed upon neutral, and then (3) if the issue cannot be resolved, by bringing a motion in Court to seek payment of suspended fines, restart contempt fines, increase future contempt fines, or any other appropriate relief. a. If suspended fines are ordered to be paid by the Court, a reasonable schedule
shall be set by the Court for payment of the suspended amount on an installment basis. The first installment payment of the suspended amount shall be made at the earliest opportunity after the Legislature has an opportunity to make an appropriation for this purpose. b. In assessing suspended contempt fines due to a finding of material breach, the Court may look to the magnitude and impact of any such breach to determine if a lesser or more proportionate sanction is appropriate.
47 Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement Exhibit A; Page 47 of 52

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 584-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 49 of 53
B. Termination 1. This Agreement terminates when Defendants demonstrate substantial compliance with the following requirements: a. Completed evaluations for Class Members ordered to receive in-jail evaluations are filed with local criminal courts within the shorter of a) 14 days of the in-jail evaluation order being received by Defendants, or b) 21 days of the criminal court ordering the in-jail evaluation; b. Admission for inpatient evaluation services for Class Members ordered to receive inpatient evaluations within the shorter of a) 7 days of the inpatient evaluation order being received by Defendants or b) 14 days of the criminal court ordering the inpatient evaluation; c. Admission for inpatient restoration services for Class Members ordered to receive inpatient restoration within the shorter of a) 7 days of the inpatient restoration order being received by Defendants or b) 14 days of the criminal court ordering the inpatient restoration; d. Substantial compliance with § V.B.1.a-V.B.1.c has been achieved for nine consecutive months, and evidence does not establish that the State will be unable to continue compliance with the Court’s injunction. Alternatively, the State has achieved substantial compliance in 14 of 16 months, and evidence can establish that the two months where substantial compliance was not achieved are outliers. If inpatient evaluations have such a low volume of referrals in any given month as to make substantial compliance with that category hinge on a small number of cases, due consideration will
48 Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement Exhibit A; Page 48 of 52

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 584-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 50 of 53
be given to the totality of compliance rather than looking only to the rate of compliance. (1) However, after six consecutive months of substantial compliance in
any category, § V.B.1.a-V.B.1.c above, the State may request that certain obligations under this Agreement be suspended pending the full nine months of compliance. VI. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS A. Contempt Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to limit the Court’s powers of contempt or any other power possessed by the Court. B. Individual Rights Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to limit the ability of any individual Class Member to obtain individual relief of any kind to which they would otherwise be entitled under state or federal law other than for the claims for systemic injunctive relief adjudicated by this action. C. Protection and Advocacy Acts Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to limit the ability of Disability Rights Washington (DRW) to fulfill its federal mandates pursuant to the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness (PAIMI) Act, 42 U.S.C. § 10801, et seq., and the regulations promulgated thereto, 42 C.F.R. § 51 et seq., the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights (DD) Act, 42 U.S.C. §15041, et seq., and the regulations promulgated thereto, 45 C.F.R. § 1386 et seq., and the Protection and Advocacy of Individual Rights (PAIR) Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794e.
49 Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement Exhibit A; Page 49 of 52

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 584-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 51 of 53
D. Terms of Agreement This Agreement contains all the terms and conditions agreed upon by the Parties. No other
understandings, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement shall be deemed to exist or to bind any of the Parties hereto.
The Parties have participated, and had an equal opportunity to participate, in the drafting and approval of drafting of this Agreement. No ambiguity shall be construed against any Party based upon a claim that the Party drafted the ambiguous language. E. Authority to Bind
Signors of this Agreement represent and warrant they have full power and authority to enter into this Agreement and to carry out all actions required of them to the extent allowed by law. Each of the signors warrants that he/she has fully read and agrees to all the terms and conditions contained herein. F. Modifications
Distinct from the process set forth in the Oversight and Advisory structure section, § II.B.5, this Agreement may be amended by mutual agreement of the Parties and approval of the Court. In order to be binding, such amendments must be in writing, signed by persons authorized to bind each of the Parties, and approved by the Court. The Parties further agree to work in good faith to obtain Court approval of necessary amendments or modifications. G. Waiver
The provisions of this Agreement may be waived only by an instrument in writing executed by the waiving Party and approved by the Court. The waiver by any Party of any breach of this Agreement shall not be deemed or be construed as a waiver of any other breach, whether prior, subsequent or contemporaneous of this Agreement.
50 Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement Exhibit A; Page 50 of 52

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 584-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 52 of 53
H. Severability The provisions of this Agreement are severable. If any court holds any provision of this
Agreement invalid that invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Agreement. I. Successors
This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the legal representatives and any successor(s) of Plaintiffs and Defendants. J. Non-Waiver of Arguments and Issues
This Agreement represents a compromise of the issues addressed herein. Neither party waives the right to assert legal or factual arguments in any future dispute arising during the term of this Agreement, or in the event that the Agreement ends, terminates, or becomes null and void, for any reason. K. Effect of Court Denying Motion to Approve
If, for any reason, the Court does not ultimately approve this Agreement as a fair, reasonable, and adequate settlement of the Trueblood litigation as between the Plaintiffs and Defendants, this Agreement shall be null and void. L. Execution
This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which will be deemed to be an original and all of which taken together shall constitute a single instrument. This Agreement may be executed by signature via facsimile transmission or electronic mail which shall be deemed the same as an original signature.
51 Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement Exhibit A; Page 51 of 52

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 584-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 53 of 53

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS

By: _____________________________________ DAVID CARLSON, WSBA #35767 Disability Rights Washington

Dated:

By: _____________________________________ KIM MOSOLF, WSBA #49548 Disability Rights Washington
By: _____________________________________ ALEXA POLASKI, WSBA #52683 Disability Rights Washington

Dated: Dated:

By: _____________________________________ CHRISTOPHER CARNEY, WSBA #30325 Carney Gillespie Isitt PLLP
FOR THE DEFENDANTS:

Dated:

8/16/2018 8/16/2018 8/16/2018 8/16/2018

By:

Dated: ____8/16/2018______

CHERYL STRANGE

Secretary

Washington State Department of Social and Health Services

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS:

Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement Exhibit A; Page 52 of 52

 </s> Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 654-1 Filed 03/11/19 Page 1 of 30
Declaration of Randy Head Attachment A

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 654-1 Filed 03/11/19 Page 2 of 30
Trueblood Implementation Report
Preliminary March 11, 2019
Declaration of Randy Head Attachment A; Page 1 of 29

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 654-1 Filed 03/11/19 Page 3 of 30

Background

All criminal defendants have the constitutional right to understand the nature of the charges against them and assist in their own defense. If a court believes a mental disability may prevent a defendant from understanding the charges against them or assisting in their own defense, the court puts the criminal case on hold while an evaluation is completed to determine the defendant’s competency.
If the evaluation finds the defendant competent, they are returned to stand trial. However, if the evaluation shows the person is not competent, the court will then order the defendant to receive mental health treatment to restore competency. The plan will be updated upon the conclusion of the legislative session, consistent with the settlement agreement. This preliminary report remains a work in progress and the Parties anticipate further discussions and edits as appropriate.
The parties recognize that this preliminary plan sets forth markedly ambitious timelines to implement agreement elements within Phase 1. Many of these elements require the development of programs and services that have never existed in the state of Washington. Throughout this document, timelines have been proposed that will challenge the State, and leave little room for unforeseen roadblocks to implementation. As a consequence, the parties agree that the failure to meet these timelines will not constitute material breach, provided that the state has made all reasonable efforts to meet the timelines herein. Rather, the timelines outlined for specific elements should be considered in light of all other evidence in any future dispute as to whether the elements of the settlement agreement have been timely implemented within Phase 1.
In April 2015, a federal court found the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) was taking too long to provide these competency evaluation and restoration services. On December 11, 2018 the federal court approved a Settlement Agreement designed to move the State closer to compliance with the Court’s injunction. This is the Preliminary Implementation Report as required by the Trueblood Settlement Agreement.
Phased Implementation

The Trueblood Settlement Agreement (Agreement) includes a plan for phasing in programs and services. In each phase, the state will focus its efforts within specifically identified and agreed upon regions. The Agreement includes three phases of two years each, and can be expanded to include additional phases. Phases run parallel to the Legislative biennia beginning with the 2019-2021 biennium.

Phase 1:

July 1, 2019 – June 30, 2021

Pierce, Southwest, and Spokane regions

Phase 2:

July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2023

King region

Phase 3:

July 1, 2023 – June 30, 2025

Region to be determined

Trueblood Implementation Report - Preliminary

2|Page
Declaration of Randy Head Attachment A; Page 2 of 29

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 654-1 Filed 03/11/19 Page 4 of 30

Regional Collaboration
Following the hiring and onboarding of additional Project Managers to support the Trueblood Settlement Agreement implementation, the project management team will develop a collaboration model for regional implementation. The goal of the collaboration model is to ensure consistent implementation and communication across all regions.
While developing that plan, the team will ensure it: • Encourages the surfacing of barriers and challenges • Supports the efficient resolution of problems and addresses decision making processes • Facilitates the sharing of information • Engages appropriate members of the various Implementation Teams
The collaboration model will be included in the first semi-annual Monitoring Report.
Regional Stakeholder Engagement
Following the hiring and onboarding of additional Project Managers to support the Trueblood Settlement Agreement implementation, project managers will work with assigned agencies to develop stakeholder engagement plans targeted to each effort.
In advance of that activity, DSHS and the Health Care Authority are convening regional Summits in the three Phase 1 Regions in March and April of 2019. These summits are intended to start conversations with regional partners about the work that lies ahead; both to solicit their participation and engagement and foster understanding about the content of the settlement agreement. Invitees cover a broad range of partners including behavioral health groups, law enforcement, courts, attorneys, jail leadership, community leaders, elected officials, housing partners, tribes, and many more.
Detailed plans and supporting documents prepared for the Summits have been shared with the Trueblood Executive Committee.
Reporting
The status of the Agreement will be provided to the General Advisory Committee (GAC) via the semiannual Monitoring Report required within the Agreement. That report will include:
• Data reporting • Data analysis • Updates on status of the phased programs • Areas of concern in implementation and any resulting recommendations • Areas of positive impact or programming in implementation

Trueblood Implementation Report - Preliminary

3|Page
Declaration of Randy Head Attachment A; Page 3 of 29

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 654-1 Filed 03/11/19 Page 5 of 30

In order to support data reporting and analysis for Trueblood, a Data Workgroup comprised of data and IT members from DSHS and (HCA) will be convened following the finalization of the budget during the 2019 legislative session. The workgroup will:
• Identify business requirements around data for each of the elements
• Assess existing data collection and data storage processes and programs within DSHS and HCA to evaluate whether they will support the new data necessary for Trueblood
• Provide recommendations to agency management on data collection processes for Trueblood which can include manual tracking and/or programmatic changes to existing data collection processes and database systems, development of new data collection processes and database systems, etc. to support data collection and evaluation for Trueblood.
The first Monitoring Report will be provided to the GAC six months following their convening, which is anticipated in August 2019. Therefore the first report would be provided in February of 2020.
Agreement Elements

1 Competency Evaluation – Additional Evaluators
1.1 Assigned Owner
The Department of Social and Health Services’ Behavioral Health Administration’s Office of Forensic Mental Health Services (OFMHS), is responsible for hiring and employing Forensic Evaluators and associated staff.
1.2 Statewide vs. Regional
Evaluators support the entire state of Washington and staff additions are part of the statewide effort with an emphasis on both placement in outstation and inpatient settings.
1.3 Requirements
a. OFMHS will post and hire thirteen (13) evaluators, one supervisor, and two support staff between July 1, 2019 and June 30, 2020.
b. OFMHS will post and hire five (5) evaluators, one supervisor, and two support staff between July 1, 2020 and June 30, 2021.
1.4 Education and Outreach
OFMHS will notify regions impacted when newly hired evaluators are on-boarded via the OFMHS listserv.
Communication with identified outstation areas will occur once a determination of an outstation placement is made. Placement will be based on areas with the highest referrals through calendar year 2018 and half of the calendar year for 2019. Furthermore, in the event that resources are diverted in order to respond to an increase or spike in referrals, the areas impacted will be notified of this shift to Trueblood services using the OFMHS listserv.

Trueblood Implementation Report - Preliminary

4|Page
Declaration of Randy Head Attachment A; Page 4 of 29

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 654-1 Filed 03/11/19 Page 6 of 30
1.5 Action Plan and Timeline
1. Update existing position description forms for the evaluator, support staff, and supervisory positions by April 1, 2019
2. Submit required documentation (request to hire/personnel action requests, updated organization charts, etc.) to human resources by April 30, 2019
3. Advertise the established positions by May 15, 2019 4. Complete recruitment activities including screening, interviewing, and job offers by July 1, 2019 5. Funding allocated to DSHS budget July 1, 2019. 6. Hire and onboard the new employees, including expedited work with jails for jail clearances,
beginning July 1, 2019.
2 Competency Restoration – Legislative Changes
2.1 Assigned Owner
Legislative changes impact multiple agencies. For this reason, this initiative is assigned to the Governor’s Office, with secondary support from the Department of Social and Health Services and the Health Care Authority.
2.2 Statewide vs. Regional
Legislation impacts the state of Washington and is part of the statewide effort.
2.3 Requirements
1. The state will pursue changes in the 2019 legislative session with the intent to reduce the demand for competency services. This includes advancing requests for legislative changes through bill proposals, and could include supporting legislation proposed by others.
2. The state sought statutory changes to implement a phased rollout of community outpatient restoration services in targeted areas, including residential supports as clinically appropriate.
2.4 Education and Outreach
N/A – The State will complete this element prior to first semi-annual Monitoring Report submission.
2.5 Action Plan and Timeline
N/A – The State will complete this element prior to first semi-annual Monitoring Report submission. This work is currently underway.
3 Competency Restoration – Community Outpatient Services
3.1 Assigned Owner
Competency restoration is a coordinated effort between the Department of Social and Health Services and the Health Care Authority.
3.2 Statewide vs. Regional
The state will implement this element of the settlement in selected regions in phases according to the plan outlined in the agreement.

Trueblood Implementation Report - Preliminary

5|Page
Declaration of Randy Head Attachment A; Page 5 of 29

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 654-1 Filed 03/11/19 Page 7 of 30
3.3 Requirements
a. The state will seek funding for outpatient competency restoration (OCR) services in targeted areas (including residential supports as clinically appropriate) and a broader package of treatment and recovery services (including mental health treatment, substance use screening and treatment).
b. The state will identify and will seek necessary statutory changes, and develop policies to fully implement outpatient restoration services in targeted areas.
c. Eligibility for outpatient restoration will be decided by the criminal court ordering restoration services.
d. For criminal defendants waiting in jail, an offer of admission to the community outpatient restoration services program will occur within the timelines for restoration as outlined by the Federal Court.
e. The process for outpatient restoration will provide sufficient information for the court to create tailored conditions for release.
f. Outpatient restoration providers will: i. Accept referrals from OFMHS in accordance with an algorithm that prioritizes the intake of class members. ii. Monitor the individual’s compliance with the court order in conjunction with the Forensic Navigator. iii. Provide residential support solutions to those identified by a Forensic Navigator as unstably housed for the duration of their outpatient participation and up to 14 days following transmission of the competency evaluation that occurs at the end of restoration. iv. Have flexibility in providing residential support solutions which may include capital development through the Department of Commerce (COM) or third party source, housing voucher programs, existing housing programs, and/or scattered site housing programs.
g. The state will provide outreach and technical assistance upon request to support the implementation of community outpatient restoration services.
3.4 Education and Outreach
Initial Education and Messaging Stage: The OCR workgroup will partner with DSHS and HCA communications staff, as well as an HCA contract oversight team, to begin collaboration with the Managed Care Organizations (MCOs), Administrative Service Organizations (ASOs), and Community Behavioral Health providers in the targeted areas.
The OCR workgroup will support the establishment of stakeholder groups for each targeted regional area. Initial outreach to potential stakeholders will include, but not be limited to, regional judges, attorneys, prosecutors, jails, courts, peer counselors, consumers, consumer advocacy groups, general public, managed-care entities, crisis providers, and community behavioral health providers.

Trueblood Implementation Report - Preliminary

6|Page
Declaration of Randy Head Attachment A; Page 6 of 29

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 654-1 Filed 03/11/19 Page 8 of 30

Action Stage –Contracting: DSHS and HCA will coordinate with stakeholder groups, MCOs, ASOs, and behavioral health administrative service organizations (BHASOs) to conduct outreach to the provider network. Education about new programs provided, as well as alerting potential contractors on upcoming contract opportunities.
In partnership with DSHS, HCA will communicate the Request for Application (RFA) procurement process or, if leveraging existing contracts, HCA will negotiate amendments to existing contracts.
DSHS and HCA will coordinate with stakeholder groups, MCOs, ASOs, and BHASOs to announce final contracts and contracting language.
Implementation Stage – Targeted Education and Technical Assistance: DSHS and HCA, in partnership with the Forensic Navigator workgroup, will conduct outreach and provide technical assistance to criminal courts and other stakeholders, upon request, to support community outpatient restoration services. They will assist with issues such as:
• Determining eligibility for community outpatient restoration; • The conditions of the class member’s participation in outpatient restoration; • Community outpatient restoration services; and, • Using Residential Supports and other services to encourage community outpatient
restoration services.
The OCR workgroup will partner with the Forensic Navigator workgroup, the Housing Supports workgroup, and the DSHS/HCA communications team to provide information to the key stakeholders, community partners, and program participants in the targeted regions.
Monitoring Stage: HCA will monitor the early phase of implementation and contract adherence.
In partnership with DSHS, HCA will complete quality assurance monitoring of fidelity to the competency restoration treatment model.
DSHS/HCA will utilize information obtained from monitoring efforts to complete ongoing and targeted technical assistance.
3.5 Action Plan and Timeline
1. Finalize the OCR workgroup charter by May 31, 2019. 2. The OCR workgroup reviews applicable reports to include Groundswell Services’ 2017 and
other relevant national models by July 1, 2019. 3. The OCR workgroup collaborates with DSHS/HCA communications team to develop an
outreach plan for stakeholders to identify challenges by August 30, 2019. 4. Stakeholder groups launched for each of the targeted regions by October 1, 2019. 5. Using stakeholder input, the OCR workgroup will finalize the program model, core elements
and referral criteria. Metrics will be determined in conjunction with data staff by February 29, 2020.

Trueblood Implementation Report - Preliminary

7|Page
Declaration of Randy Head Attachment A; Page 7 of 29

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 654-1 Filed 03/11/19 Page 9 of 30

6. In partnership with HCA contracts team and DSHS, the OCR workgroup solidifies necessary contract language and processes by March 31, 2020.
7. The OCR workgroup coordinates with Forensic Navigator and Residential Support workgroups to coordinate contract efforts, if required, from January 1 – March 31, 2020. Note: Forensic Navigators will need to be hired and onboard before Outpatient Competency Restoration services can begin.
8. Communication plan – DSHS and HCA, in partnership with the Forensic Navigator and Residential Supports workgroups, will coordinate with stakeholder groups and managed care entities in educating the provider network by March 1, 2020. Education about the upcoming program will be provided, as well as training and technical assistance to providers and potential contractors for upcoming opportunities.
9. Communication plan – DSHS and HCA will provide ongoing messaging and technical assistance to the target areas April 1, 2020 – June 30, 2021. The OCR program providers will be given targeted training and technical assistance.
10. Funding permitted, HCA will hire an OCR Program Manager to provide oversight and monitoring to contracts by May 1, 2020.
11. OCR contracts will be finalized and operational within the Phase 1 regions by July 1, 2020. Note: As this is a brand new program in these regions, there may need to be a ramp-up period by the contracted providers before services are fully available.
4 Forensic Navigators
4.1 Assigned Owner
The Department of Social and Health Services is responsible for hiring and employing Forensic Navigators.
4.2 Statewide vs. Regional
The state will implement this element of the settlement in selected regions in phases according to the plan outlined in the agreement.
4.3 Requirements
a. The state will seek funding to implement forensic navigators. b. Forensic Navigators:
i. Will be assigned a caseload of no more than 25. Assignment will occur at the time a competency evaluation is ordered.
ii. Upon assignment and before the hearing, the Forensic Navigator (FN) will gather and provide information to the criminal courts to assist with: • Understanding treatment options to divert members from the forensic mental health system. • Determining whether a defendant is appropriate for community outpatient restoration services. This is not a clinical recommendation. Standardized tools or assessments for those not known to the system may be used. • Recommending tailored release conditions for those ordered to community outpatient restoration services.

Trueblood Implementation Report - Preliminary

8|Page
Declaration of Randy Head Attachment A; Page 8 of 29

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 654-1 Filed 03/11/19 Page 10 of 30

iii. Will prioritize their caseload to focus on diversion of high utilizers (as known to the system) and may provide less-intensive levels of service to those unknown and/or not yet found incompetent.
iv. Will conclude forensic navigator services when a client is found competent or incompetent but not ordered by the court into community outpatient restoration services.
v. For those clients assigned to community outpatient restoration, the FN will: • Monitor compliance (in partnership with community outpatient providers) and provide periodic updates to the court. This may include appearing at court hearings. • Inform providers if an assigned client is unstably housed and needs residential supports. • Coordinate access to housing. • Assist client with attending appointments and classes related to competency restoration. • Meet individually with clients regularly; perform outreach as needed to stay in touch. • Coordinate client access to community case-management services, mental health services, and follow up. • Assist clients with obtaining and encourage adherence to prescribed medication.
vi. For those found incompetent and ordered into community outpatient restoration services, forensic navigator services will conclude and the FN will complete a coordinated transition when: • Charges are dismissed pending a civil commitment hearing. • Client receives a new or amended order directing inpatient admission. • Client declines further services after restoration treatment ends. • Client regains competency, is found guilty, and is sentenced to serve time. • Community outpatient restoration order is revoked or new criminal charges cause a client to enter or return to jail. • In any other situations not listed above, at the discretion of the state.
vii. A coordinated transition will include: • Facilitated transfer to a case manager in the community mental health system using standards for coordinated transition as established through care coordination or similar agreements. • Attempt to confirm meeting between client and community-based case manager following transition. • Creation of summary of treatment provided during community outpatient restoration (including earlier-identified diversion options for the individual). • Attempt check-in with client at least once per month for up to 60 days. During this period, the client does not count towards the Navigator’s caseload. • Attempt to connect identified high utilizers with available high-utilizer services.

Trueblood Implementation Report - Preliminary

9|Page
Declaration of Randy Head Attachment A; Page 9 of 29

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 654-1 Filed 03/11/19 Page 11 of 30

viii. The state, through training and technical assistance, will encourage third parties (like jails and prisons where class members are serving sentences) to request the summary of treatment and related treatment records as allowed by RCW 10.77.210.
4.4 Education and Outreach
Educational Materials
Partner with DSHS/BHA Communications staff to develop the below materials: • Program One-Pager
o High level overview of the program • Presentation driving “Train-the-Trainer” style seminars for relevant parties
o Content TBD o May need multiple versions geared towards specific stakeholder groups
Relevant Parties
• Accused • Potential clients and those at risk of arrest/re-arrest (Mental Health and related Social Service
Agencies, CIT programs, individuals who have previously refused FN services, or are known to the system) • Prosecutors • Defense counsel • Judges • Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) • Legislators and staff • General public • Families of the accused and client advocates working on behalf of class members
Outreach
• Targeted communications to relevant parties • Build database of key contacts and relevant parties for continued outreach and education • Schedule and execute trainings at least annually
o Solicit feedback on both the training itself, and the program overall • On an ongoing basis, use feedback and program-evaluation analytics for constant program
improvement
4.5 Action Plan and Timeline
1. Submit necessary human resource paperwork to create the FN Program Administrator by March 8, 2019.
2. Advertise the Administrator position by April 15, 2019. 3. Complete recruitment activities including screening, interviewing, and job offers by June 15,
2019. 4. Hire and complete new employee onboarding process by July 31, 2019. 5. The Forensic Navigator Administrator will convene a workgroup and hold the first meeting by
August 31, 2019.

Trueblood Implementation Report - Preliminary

10 | P a g e
Declaration of Randy Head Attachment A; Page 10 of 29

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 654-1 Filed 03/11/19 Page 12 of 30

6. Forensic Navigator (FN) Workgroup will complete final draft of Forensic Navigator Program Charter by September 30, 2019.
7. FN Workgroup will review other state and national models related to data and metrics for evaluation of program performance outcomes and quality control by November 30, 2019.
8. FN Workgroup will collaborate with DSHS/HCA communications team to develop a plan for stakeholders to identify and provide challenges and barriers with the workgroup by December 31, 2019.
9. The FN Workgroup will consult with RDA to ensure that the desired data and metrics for evaluation of program performance and quality control can be obtained through the proper database or reporting tool by December 31, 2019.
10. Submit necessary human resource paperwork to create the FN program positions in each region by January 31, 2020.
11. Advertise the forensic navigator positions by February 29, 2020. 12. Meet with partners (courts, AOC, jails, etc.) to develop processes and associated documentation
and forms to be used by Forensic Navigators in the court system. Includes adjusting existing forms by March 31, 2020. 13. Meet with partners (newly established outpatient competency providers, evaluators, etc.) to develop processes and associated documentation needed for those in outpatient restoration. Includes treatment summary, release orders/conditions, etc. by March 31, 2020. 14. Complete recruitment activities including screening, interviewing, and job offers by April 30, 2020. 15. Hire and complete new employee onboarding process by June 15, 2020. 16. Day one of FN Program operations in all three Phase 1 regions expected July 1, 2020.
5 Competency Restoration – Additional Forensic Beds
5.1 Assigned Owner
The Department of Social and Health Services is responsible for managing forensic-bed capacity.
5.2 Statewide vs. Regional
Forensic beds are used by patients across Washington. Adding or converting beds is part of the statewide effort.
5.3 Requirements
a. Convert two wards at Eastern State Hospital into forensic wards containing a total of 50 beds by December 31, 2019.
b. Convert two Western State Hospital civil geriatric wards to two forensic wards containing a total of 42 beds by December 31, 2019.
c. If extensions are needed to either timeline, provide the Executive Committee information on the delay to receive an additional six months of time. If the state needs additional time beyond this six-month period, they may request a further extension of time from the court.
5.4 Education and Outreach
• Provide updates during Executive Leadership Team meetings • Quarterly updates from the Project Manager and Sponsor

Trueblood Implementation Report - Preliminary

11 | P a g e
Declaration of Randy Head Attachment A; Page 11 of 29

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 654-1 Filed 03/11/19 Page 13 of 30
• Maintain a Project Team SharePoint or Website for communication • Schedule, prepare for, and attend job fairs to advertise coming positions
5.5 Action Plan and Timeline – ESH Beds
1. Evaluate contract bids and award contract by February 15, 2019. 2. Construction begins by March 1, 2019. 3. Create position description forms for program positions by August 1, 2019. 4. Submit required documentation (request to hire/personnel action requests, updated
organization charts, etc.) to Human Resources by August 15, 2019. 5. Positions created and allocated by Class and Compensation Unit by October 1, 2019. 6. Develop equipment and supply list, obtain fiscal approval, and purchase necessary items by
November 15, 2019. 7. Substantial completion of construction of 1N3 by January 4, 2020. 8. Substantial completion of construction of 3N3 by February 4, 2020. 9. Final completion of construction by March 4, 2020. This timeline will require notice to the
Executive Committee because it is approximately 65 days beyond the currently set deadline. This estimated completion is within the six-month grace period allowed under the Agreement. 10. Finish installation of furniture, equipment, and supplies by March 31, 2020.
5.6 Action Plan and Timeline – WSH Beds
1. Evaluate contract bids and award contract by June 26, 2019. 2. Construction begins by June 27, 2019. 3. Create position description forms for program positions by August 1, 2019. 4. Submit required documentation (request to hire/personnel action requests, updated
organization charts, etc.) to Human Resources by August 15, 2019. 5. Positions created and allocated by Class and Compensation Unit by October 1, 2019. 6. Develop equipment and supply list, obtain fiscal approval, and purchase necessary items by
November 15, 2019. 7. Substantial completion of construction of Wing B by March 11, 2020. 8. Final completion of construction by April 8, 2020. This timeline will require notice to the
Executive Committee because it is approximately 120 days beyond the currently set deadline. This estimated completion is within the six-month grace period allowed under the Agreement. 9. Finish installation of furniture, equipment, and supplies by April 30, 2020.
6 Competency Restoration – Ramp Down of Maple Lane & Yakima RTFs
6.1 Assigned Owner
The Department of Social and Health Services is responsible for Residential Treatment Facilities (RTFs). The Office of Forensic Mental Health Services oversees the facilities.
6.2 Statewide vs. Regional
Maple Lane and Yakima RTFs support patients across the state of Washington and the closure of those facilities is part of the statewide effort.

Trueblood Implementation Report - Preliminary

12 | P a g e
Declaration of Randy Head Attachment A; Page 12 of 29

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 654-1 Filed 03/11/19 Page 14 of 30

6.3 Requirements
a. Yakima RTF will be ramped down when Class Member wait times for inpatient competency services reaches a median of 13 days or less for four consecutive months based on mature data or no later than December 31, 2021.
b. Maple Lane RTF will be ramped down when Class Member wait times for inpatient competency services reaches a median of 9 days or less for four consecutive months based on mature date or no later than July 1, 2024.
6.4 Education and Outreach
At Start of Phase 1 – June 30, 2019
A letter to community partners and stakeholders will be sent explaining the closure dates for each facility and the median that would need to be met for an earlier closure. The letter, which will also be available online, will outline when the notification process will start.
The CRS will conduct staff meetings and information will be provided about the settlement, the metrics required for an earlier closure, what an earlier closure means, and the set closure date. Multiple meetings will occur to reach all line staff that work at both facilities and want to participate.
The OFMHS Website would include a section on the impending ramp down under the RTF section. The Compliance Reporting Specialist (CRS) will work with DSHS Communications to determine if other outreach would be beneficial.
At Onset of Ramp Down (occurs when data has met threshold for two consecutive months)
At the onset of ramp down, a pre-planned e-mail would be delivered to key partners and stakeholders. The letter would outline the date of closure. A separate letter would be sent to parents/guardians of the patients currently at the facility, only as allowed by either releases of information signed by patients or court assigned guardianship.
CRS will work with the communication team on a press statement regarding the closure and the impacts for both staff and patients.
In-person meetings will occur (with a WebEx option for the facility and stakeholders) and be led by the CRS and the OFMHS leadership.
For the Maple Lane Program, coordinate with Human Resources and the Union to meet facility staff and answer questions regarding the closure and what rights they will have.
Other stakeholder groups that will need to be informed at the on-set of the implementation committee:
• Comprehensive Mental Health – they currently have the contract for the Yakima Facility. They will have representation on the ramp down team.
• Well Path Recovery Solutions – they currently have the contract for the Maple Lane Facility They will have representation on the ramp down team.

Trueblood Implementation Report - Preliminary

13 | P a g e
Declaration of Randy Head Attachment A; Page 13 of 29

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 654-1 Filed 03/11/19 Page 15 of 30
• Department of Corrections (DOC) – currently both facilities are leased from DOC. Maple Lane is leased from Washington State DOC and the Yakima Facility is leased from Yakima County DOC.
• Washington State Federation of Employees (WFSE) – For Maple Lane only. The union will need to be involved once the settlement is signed due to Maple Lane employing represented employees. The CRS will communicate with Kelly Rupert and ask for a union representative to be on the ramp down team. There will need to be clear timelines outlined from the union specifying when they need to be notified so the required notifications are sent timely for the represented employees at Maple Lane.
• Human Resources will work with the Residential Services Manager at Maple Lane and the union to ensure all represented employees receive the proper notifications. Depending on project length, per the contract, represented employees in project status longer than five years will have specific layoff rights outlined in Article 34.17. HR will have a representative on the ramp down team.
• Green Hill School (GHS) – For Maple Lane only. Currently the MOUs for food, laundry, maintenance, and the vehicle are through GHS. The CRS or designee will need to coordinate the impending closure with the facility. DSHS employs eight represented staff at GHS or on site through the project who will require union notification.
• Capital Projects – will need to be involved because DOC may require that we return both facilities to their original floorplan.
• Budget – will need to plan for restoration funds to return the facilities back to their original condition. A representative from Budget will serve on the ramp down team.
• Contracts Manager– Both contracts for the upcoming year should address the impending early closure if the required median is met. The CRS will work with the contract manager on this task.
• The Forensics Admission Coordinator (FAC) - will work with the CRS and serve on the ramp down team tapering down before they close. The FAC would be notified by the CRS if the median wait-time data met the requirements for two consecutive months.
• Western and Eastern State hospitals – will be kept informed as the closure dates get closer in case some patients in the RTF facilities need different placement upon facility closure. In event that were to happen, Western and Eastern State hospitals would work with the Forensic Admissions coordinator.
• All courts and county jails, defense attorneys, and prosecutorial attorneys – will receive the initial letter crafted by the CRS and the communication team. If the required median were met by a facility, a second letter would be sent preparing them for the earlier closure date and when to expect admissions to stop for that facility.
• Families of patients at both facilities where a signed release of information is in place or court assigned guardianship. – four months prior to closure, a form letter would be sent to the families of patients at the affected facility informing them of the closure and possible placement options for their family member. This letter would be crafted by the CRS and communications team.

Trueblood Implementation Report - Preliminary

14 | P a g e
Declaration of Randy Head Attachment A; Page 14 of 29

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 654-1 Filed 03/11/19 Page 16 of 30

6.5 Action Plan and Timeline
1. Identify members and send invitations to potential ramp down team members by April 1, 2019.
2. Convene the first meeting for the ramp down team in April to provide an overview of the draft implementation plan by April 30, 2019.
3. Meet with leadership at both sites to review the settlement and compile questions they may have for OFMHS and/or the AG’s; complete by April 30, 2019.
4. Identify settlement stakeholders and community partners impacted by ramp down (starting list is above in Education and Outreach section) by May 1, 2019.
5. Organize meetings with DOC at Maple Lane and Yakima to discuss the condition they want the facilities returned to after closure; complete by May 31, 2019.
6. Adjust contracts 1512-48444, Comprehensive Competency Restoration Services, 1612-55044, Correct Care Competency Restoration Services, 1561-52933, DOC, Use of Facilities at Maple Lane and 16-DBHR-001, Rehab Administration, Green Hills School Services for ML CR Program during next negotiation period to allow for ramp down during the extension process; complete by June 15, 2019.
7. Meet with budget and Capital Projects to discuss DOC’s requirements and develop an estimated cost and timeline; complete by June 15, 2019.
8. Contact Kelly Rupert to plan for union notification for Maple Lane; triggered by meeting two months’ of the median data threshold set by the Settlement Agreement.
9. Contact human resources for help messaging staff at Maple Lane; triggered by meeting two months’ of the median data threshold set by the Settlement Agreement.
10. Develop adjusted intake and admission procedures and timelines for each RTF based on anticipated closure dates; complete by August 1, 2019.
11. Once mature data threshold met or no later than June 30, 2021, initiate adjusted intake procedures for Yakima.
12. Once mature data threshold met or no later than January 31, 2024, initiate adjusted intake procedures for Maple Lane.
13. For Maple Lane, contact the union and human resources once mature data is met or no later than January 31, 2024, initiate notification to all DSHS employees.
14. Once mature data is met or no later than six months prior to the established final closure date, all courts, jails, and families of patients will be sent a letter notifying them of the impending closure, only as allowed by either releases of information signed by patients or court assigned guardianship.
15. Prior to closure each facility should have a plan regarding where the equipment is to go. The plan should be complete six months prior to closure.
16. Four months prior to closure the RTF will work with the Forensic Admissions coordinator and the contractor to establish an end date for intakes and determine when the staffing pattern will begin to decrease. This will include a detailed flow chart.
17. One month prior to closure the RTF should be at minimum capacity of patients as defined by the adjusted intake procedures.
18. Closure will occur at least two weeks prior to the established date to allow remaining staff time to pack equipment and empty the building.
19. On the closure date, Capital Projects will begin restoring the building to the condition agreed upon by DOC.

Trueblood Implementation Report - Preliminary

15 | P a g e

Declaration of Randy Head Attachment A; Page 15 of 29

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 654-1 Filed 03/11/19 Page 17 of 30
7 Crisis Triage & Diversion – Additional Beds & Enhancements
7.1 Assigned Owner
The Health Care Authority (HCA) is responsible for Crisis Triage and Stabilization facilities in the state of Washington.
7.2 Statewide vs. Regional
The state will implement this element of the settlement in selected regions in phases according to the plan outlined in the agreement.
7.3 Requirements
a. Seek funding to increase crisis stabilization units and/or triage facilities by 16 beds within the Spokane Region. Beds will address both urban and rural needs.
b. Solicit request for and make funds available to community providers of crisis stabilization and/or triage facilities for enhancements.
c. Complete an assessment of need for Crisis triage and stabilization capacity in King County and gaps in existing capacity in Pierce, Southwest, and Spokane regions. Provided report of assessment to the General Advisory Committee with recommendations to address any gaps found.
7.4 Education and Outreach
Initial Education and Messaging: Crisis triage and diversion supports workgroup will partner with DSHS and HCA communications staff, as well as HCA contract oversight team, to collaborate with the MCOs, BHASOs, and community behavioral health providers in the targeted areas.
Request for Application (RFA) and Contracting: HCA to coordinate with stakeholder groups and managed care entities to communicate to provider network. Education about upcoming increase to capacity provided, as well as preparation to potential contractors for upcoming opportunities. Ongoing technical assistance provided to target areas.
In partnership with DSHS, HCA to communicate RFA procurement process.
HCA to coordinate with stakeholder groups and managed care entities to announce successful bidders.
Needs Assessment: HCA will work with partners to evaluate the gap analysis completed by the Public Consulting Group (PCG) and develop a plan for increasing capacity in the phased regions.
The PCG gap analysis report will be shared with the General Advisory Committee and with key stakeholders.

Trueblood Implementation Report - Preliminary

16 | P a g e
Declaration of Randy Head Attachment A; Page 16 of 29

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 654-1 Filed 03/11/19 Page 18 of 30

7.5 Action Plan and Timeline – Gap Analysis and Response
1. Crisis triage and diversion supports workgroup charter finalized by May 31, 2019. 2. Crisis triage and diversion supports workgroup, in collaboration with HCA Communications
team and DSHS partners, will collaborate with key stakeholders, to include the Behavioral Health Administrative Service Organizations (BHASOs) and their contracted crisis facility providers for the targeted regions, on the goals of this element by October 31, 2019. 3. Crisis triage and diversion supports workgroup will share the PCG report at the first General Advisory Committee meeting. 4. HCA will develop recommendations on how to increase crisis capacity in phased regions. Recommendations will be shared with the General Advisory Committee and key stakeholders by March 30, 2020. 5. [GAP] HCA to seek funding for next biennium budget to increase capacity by October 31, 2020.
7.6 Action Plan and Timeline – Enhancements
1. Crisis triage and diversion supports workgroup charter finalized by May 31, 2019. 2. Crisis triage and diversion supports workgroup, in collaboration with HCA Communications
team and DSHS partners, will collaborate with key stakeholders, to include the Behavioral Health Administrative Service Organizations (BHASOs) and their contracted crisis facility providers for the targeted regions, on the goals of this element by October 31, 2019. 3. Using stakeholder input, crisis triage and diversion supports workgroup coordinates with HCA contracts team to develop RFA language or amend current MCO/ASO contracts to allocate the funds by March 1, 2020. 4. Communication plan – HCA to develop a plan by coordinating with stakeholder groups and managed care entities on how to reach entities within the provider network. The plan will include education about upcoming increases to capacity, as well as information for potential contractors about upcoming opportunities April 1 – December 1, 2020. 5. RFA procurement process completed for enhancements if applicable and/or contracts amended or issued and money deployed by July 1, 2020; with services available no later than June 1, 2021.
7.7 Action Plan and Timeline – 16 Bed Facility in Spokane Region
1. Crisis triage and diversion supports workgroup charter finalized by May 31, 2019. 2. Crisis triage and diversion supports workgroup, in collaboration with HCA Communications
team and DSHS partners, will collaborate with key stakeholders, to include the Behavioral Health Administrative Service Organizations (BHASOs) and their contracted crisis facility providers for the targeted regions, on the goals of this element by October 31, 2019. 3. Crisis triage and diversion supports workgroup will partner with Department of Commerce behavioral health facilities program to solidify how capital funding will be included in RFA and procurement process by October 31, 2019. 4. Using stakeholder input, crisis triage and diversion supports workgroup coordinates with HCA contracts team to develop RFA language or amend current MCO/ASO contracts to allocate the funds by March 1, 2020; this will be used in the July 2020 amendment window.

Trueblood Implementation Report - Preliminary

17 | P a g e
Declaration of Randy Head Attachment A; Page 17 of 29

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 654-1 Filed 03/11/19 Page 19 of 30

5. Communication plan – HCA to develop a plan by coordinating with stakeholder groups and managed care entities on how to reach entities within the provider network. The plan will include education about upcoming increases to capacity, as well as information for potential contractors about upcoming opportunities April 1 – July 1, 2020.
6. RFA procurement process completed for contracts amended or issued by July 1, 2020, dependent on the successful implementation of capital funds; with services provided no later than July 1, 2021.
8 Crisis Triage & Diversion – Residential Supports
8.1 Assigned Owner
The Health Care Authority (HCA) is responsible for crisis triage including housing and residential supports in the state of Washington.
8.2 Statewide vs. Regional
The state will implement this element of the settlement in selected regions in phases according to the plan outlined in the agreement.
8.3 Requirements
a. Technical assistance provided to criminal courts and other stakeholders includes using residential supports and other services for Community Outpatient Restoration Services.
b. If a Forensic Navigator assesses someone participating in Community Outpatient Restoration Services as “unstably housed,” that person is eligible to for residential supports the duration of their participation in outpatient competency services. This will cease if referred to inpatient services. For those opined as competent it may continue for up to 14 days following transmission of the competency evaluation.
c. The state developed Residential Supports using procurement. Providers procured through this process could deliver residential supports in a way that met the community needs which might have included capital development through Department of Commerce or a third party, housing voucher programs, leveraging existing local housing programs, or scattered site housing programs.
d. The state sought funding to provide short-term housing vouchers for use in Crisis Triage and Stabilization facilities. Vouchers cover a maximum of 14 days but, at the discretion of the facility, could be extended an additional 14 days.
e. The state sought funding to provide residential support capacity associated with Community Outpatient Competency Restoration in each region.
f. The state sought an additional 10 percent more funding as described in e. to be used for funding g.
g. The state implemented residential support capacity per the phased schedule. This capacity offers housing support options that target individuals who are clinically assessed to need more intensive support immediately following discharge from Crisis Triage and Stabilization facilities. Eligibility requirements include: • Have had at least one prior contact with the forensic mental system in the past 24 months, or, were brought to a Crisis Triage or Stabilization Facility via arrest diversion under RCW 10.31.110 as determined by the crisis triage and stabilization provider;

Trueblood Implementation Report - Preliminary

18 | P a g e
Declaration of Randy Head Attachment A; Page 18 of 29

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 654-1 Filed 03/11/19 Page 20 of 30
• Need assistance accessing independent living options and would benefit from short term housing assistance beyond the 14-day vouchers;
• Are diagnosed with an acute behavioral health disorder and are assessed to need housing support beyond what is offered through the Crisis Triage and Stabilization Facilities or the short term voucher as described in § III.C.2.a;
• Are unstably housed; • Are not currently in the community outpatient competency restoration program, and; • Do not meet Involuntary Treatment Act (RCW 71.05) commitment criteria. h. The Housing and Recovery through Peer Services (HARPS) program is available to individuals clinically assessed to benefit from the HARPS program in Community Outpatient Restoration. i. High Utilizers are provided access to residential supports.
8.4 Education and Outreach
• Coordination with the Washington State Department of Commerce will be conducted to leverage local coordinated entry, deed recording fees, and housing and essential needs resources.
• Principles of the SAMHSA Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) model will be disseminated throughout all projects including Forensic Navigators.
• Training on PSH principles for all HARPS teams will be conducted prior to any services being provided.
8.5 Action Plan and Timeline
1. Funding allocated to HCA budget by July 1, 2019. 2. Assess the need to develop an RFP to contract directly with a provider in the region or
contract with the BHASO by July 31, 2019. 3. DRAFT RFP if applicable to be developed by August 1, 2019 and posted by September 1,
2019. 4. Identify regional forensic programs currently in existence in Pierce, SW Region and Spokane
BHO Region by August 1, 2019. 5. Invite regional community providers to a stakeholder workgroup by September 1, 2019.
a. Brainstorm regional community partners, stakeholders and linkages to stakeholder workgroup.
6. Hire HCA HARPS Program Manager by August 31, 2019. 7. Develop draft contracts and send out to potential providers for review and signature by
December 1, 2019. 8. Short term housing voucher dollars will be available to existing crisis triage facilities
beginning December 1, 2019. 9. HARPS teams hire staff and services are available by March 1, 2020. 10. PSH Principles training to all HARPS staff by June 30, 2020. 11. Ten (10) percent housing supports tied to outpatient competency restoration will be
integrated into contracts by July 1, 2020. 12. Complete initial testing and modeling evaluation for effectiveness by October 1, 2020.

Trueblood Implementation Report - Preliminary

19 | P a g e
Declaration of Randy Head Attachment A; Page 19 of 29

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 654-1 Filed 03/11/19 Page 21 of 30

9 Crisis Triage & Diversion – Mobile Crisis & Co-Responders
9.1 Assigned Owner
The Health Care Authority (HCA) is responsible for community health care including mobile crisis and co-responder programs. The Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs will administer the co-responder program.
9.2 Statewide vs. Regional
The state will implement this element of the settlement in selected regions in phases according to the plan outlined in the agreement.
9.3 Requirements
Co-responders
a. The state sought funding to provide law enforcement agencies with dedicated qualified mental health professionals that assist officers in field response by diverting people experiencing mental health crisis from arrest and incarceration.
b. Within the 2019-2021 biennium, sought $3 million funding for Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC) to expand the mental health field response program they administer. This includes funding to cover reasonable administrative costs requested by WASPC to enable it to meet the requirements of III.C.3.a.2 and III.C.3.b.3.
c. Within Phase 1, assessed law enforcement agency co-responder mental health staffing needs to guide future funding requests.
d. The state’s implementation plan (as described in IV.D.) describes how the state supports and encourages integration of these programs in to the other elements of the agreement.

Mobile Crisis Response (MCR)
a. The state requested a recommendation from WASPC and regional MCR providers on reasonable response times for each region.
b. The state sought funding to increase MCR services for each phased region. c. The state requested from each phased region a plan for providing MCR services. This includes
new MCR services and should include proposing numbers, credentialing and location of mental health professionals. Each plan was tailored to meet the needs of the region, considering the need for timely response throughout the region.
• The plans and any resulting contracts for services, required providers make MCR services available 24/7.
• Services are accessible without fully completing intake evaluations and/or other screening and assessment processes.
• Contracting entities include response time targets, after considering the WASPC and regional MCR providers’ recommendations.
d. During Phase 1, the state instituted reporting requirements to gather data on MCR response times.
e. In Phases 2 and 3, parties used this reported MCR data to inform future funding requests and potentially added contractual requirements to meet response-time targets.

Trueblood Implementation Report - Preliminary

20 | P a g e
Declaration of Randy Head Attachment A; Page 20 of 29

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 654-1 Filed 03/11/19 Page 22 of 30
f. Co-response teams of law enforcement and mental health professionals are encouraged to rely on MCRs to accept individuals identified as needing mental health services.
9.4 Education and Outreach
For each region, the following entities will require written education and outreach materials, webinars and regional presentations:
• Crisis teams • Behavioral health providers • Law enforcement agencies • Emergency departments • Crisis settings, such as: E&Ts, CSUs, Respite, Triage • Tribes • DSHS administrations (DDA and ALTSA) and other social service providers • Ombudsmen and consumer-run organizations • First responders and ambulance companies
Outreach and education will focus on creating awareness of the Mobile Crisis Response service and how to request those services. The HCA will include outreach and education expectations in their contract with the BHASO for the MCR service and provide oversight of outreach materials and community engagement strategies. These will commence at the start of the MCR contracts. The HCA will assist with messaging about MCR services in advance of the regional MCR contracts.
9.5 Action Plan and Timeline
1. Funding allocated to HCA budget by July 1, 2019. 2. WASPC will be invited to participate in the implementation process by July 1, 2019. 3. The state will conduct quarterly check-ins with WASPC to collaborate on integrating these
programs within appropriate elements of the settlement agreement beginning August 1, 2019. 4. Selected regional partners will identify participants to collaborate in developing regional
timeliness expectations by August 31, 2019. 5. Begin holding regional meetings by September 30, 2019. 6. Draft Request for Plans with timeliness standards for each region and post for BHASO response
by November 30, 2019. 7. Develop Mobile Crisis Response draft contract language by December 30, 2019. 8. BHASO response to Request for Plan is due January 31, 2020. 9. HCA, DSHS, and WASPC delegates review Request for Plans by February 28, 2020. 10. BHASOs receive feedback and submit changes by April 30, 2020. 11. Negotiate MCR contract language with BHASO and execute contracts by May 31, 2020. 12. BHASOs hire MCR staff and begin providing services by July 1, 2020. 13. BHASOs and HCA provide outreach and education campaigns within the region to ensure local
system partners are aware of the service and how to seek it by September 30, 2020. 14. First reporting of MCR data submitted to HCA by January 31, 2021.

Trueblood Implementation Report - Preliminary

21 | P a g e
Declaration of Randy Head Attachment A; Page 21 of 29

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 654-1 Filed 03/11/19 Page 23 of 30

10 Crisis Triage & Diversion – Intensive Case Management
10.1 Assigned Owner
The Health Care Authority (HCA) is responsible for community health care including intensive case management (ICM) for high utilizers of the forensic mental health system.

10.2 Statewide vs. Regional
The state will implement this element of the settlement in selected regions in phases according to the plan outlined in the agreement.

10.3

Requirements
a. Develop a model that identifies those most at risk of near-term referral for competency restoration (aka high utilizers). The model should use available data including factors such as prior referrals for competency evaluation or restoration, prior inpatient psychiatric treatment episodes, criminal justice system involvement, and homelessness.
b. Contract with community providers to provide ICM services to high utilizers. Develop strategies for assertive outreach and engagement. Develop a community collaboration effort to identify and coordinate services for those most at-risk.
c. Offer the following services to those identified as high utilizers for a six-month period: • Intensive case management (including outreach and engagement activities occurring outside a competency referral) • Engagement activities • Housing supports using the HARPS model which includes securing and maintaining housing, peer support, and rent or other housing subsidies in the amount of up to $1,200 per month for up to six months • Transportation assistance • Training or accessing resources and other independent living skills • Support for accessing healthcare services and other non-medical services
d. Create effective data tracking system and reporting structure to Trueblood coordinator for tracking coordination activities.
e. Reduce forensic referrals for competency evaluations.

10.4 Education and Outreach
Starting with state partners (DSHS, MCOs, BHASO, regionally funded forensic programs, HCA Trueblood Program contacts) determine appropriate integration of programs.

Outreach will be needed to community behavioral health and forensic service providers in Pierce County, SW Region and Spokane RSA who may be interested in providing services for this program. Targeted outreach will be done to current providers of the Offender Reentry Community Safety Program (ORCSP) once funding is allocated to the program.

The state will contact each agency and local consortiums (i.e.: Pierce County Mental Health Consortium) to request participation in a stakeholder workgroup or conversation about becoming an ICM provider for high utilizers. In addition, the Health Care Authority will issue a public announcement in the event a RFA will be issued if sufficient agencies to deliver the services are not identified.

Trueblood Implementation Report - Preliminary

22 | P a g e
Declaration of Randy Head Attachment A; Page 22 of 29

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 654-1 Filed 03/11/19 Page 24 of 30
A program brochure will be available to contracted providers and community partners for disbursement. An HCA website will provide information regarding how to access ICM services for high utilizers. Depending on the location of the high utilizer data from RDA, providers may have access to a remote site with information on potential participants.
The state will complete outreach and process development with community partners who will be referring or identifying participants for ICM. Those partners may include, but are not limited to: law enforcement, mobile crisis teams, jails, forensic navigators, homeless outreach teams, triage facilities, and peer support programs.
A sampling of participants will complete a satisfaction survey at program completion. Additionally, quarterly interviews will be conducted with contracted providers to assess program needs and observed program trends.
10.5 Action Plan and Timeline
1. Funding allocated to HCA budget by July 1, 2019. 2. Identify regional forensic programs currently in existence in Pierce, SW Region and Spokane
BHO Region by August 1, 2019. 3. Assess the need to develop an RFP to contract directly with a provider in the region or with the
BHASO by August 1, 2019. 4. Draft RFP if applicable by September 1, 2019 and posted for bids by October 1, 2019 5. Cross-agency and partner workgroup with other Trueblood element contacts to include HCA
and DSHS by August 1, 2019. 6. Brainstorm regional community partners, stakeholders and linkages to those programs by
September 1, 2019. 7. Invite regional community providers to a stakeholder workgroup by November 1, 2019. 8. Meet with regional partners to develop contract draft Statement of Work, program processes
and associated documentation and forms to be used when referring parties for intensive case management. Complete by February 1, 2020. 9. Confirm list of interested providers by March 1, 2020. 10. Develop contracts and send out to potential providers for review and signature by April 1, 2020. 11. Execute contracts with providers by July 1, 2020. 12. Complete initial testing and evaluation of modelling for effectiveness by October 1, 2020.
11 Education & Training – Crisis Intervention Training (CIT)
11.1 Assigned Owner
The Criminal Justice Training Center (CJTC) is responsible for conducting CIT training for law enforcement entities.
11.2 Statewide vs. Regional
The state will implement this element of the settlement in selected regions in phases according to the plan outlined in the agreement.

Trueblood Implementation Report - Preliminary

23 | P a g e
Declaration of Randy Head Attachment A; Page 23 of 29

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 654-1 Filed 03/11/19 Page 25 of 30

11.3

Requirements
a. The CJTC offered the 40-hour enhanced Crisis Intervention Training (CIT) course and reached 25 percent of officers on patrol duty in law enforcement agencies within the phased regions.
b. The CJTC provided all 911 dispatchers employed by governmental entities within each phased region, except those employed by the Department of Corrections or federal entities, at least eight (8) hours of CIT.

11.4 Education and Outreach
Law enforcement agencies are already familiar with Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) training. The CJTC will contact agencies in Phase 1 areas to provide education on additional training opportunities, funding and the goal to send 25 percent of patrol officers to the enhanced CIT training. The 40-hour Enhanced CIT training is regionally specific and includes local resources, contacts and procedures for dealing with individuals in a behavioral or substance abuse emergency. We will meet with police chiefs, sheriffs and agency training managers to assist with coordinating training, budget and staffing needs for this settlement. The CJTC has already reached out to the training unit of the state office of 911 telecommunications about how the settlement agreement will impact 911 training during the coming fiscal year.

11.5 Action Plan and Timeline
1. Contact Law Enforcement Agency administrators in the Phase One areas by February 1, 2019. 2. Contact state 911 training unit to plan FY 2020 trainings by April 1, 2019. 3. Funding allocated to DSHS/CJTC budget by July 1, 2019. 4. Finalize training deployment plan for each of the three regions in Phase 1 by July 10, 2019. 5. Review training deployment plan and evaluate staffing needs by Oct. 1, 2019. 6. Conduct and complete a training audit of every LE agency in the Phase 1 regions by December 1,
2019. 7. Complete a minimum of 14 CIT for Dispatch/911 courses by June 30, 2020. 8. Complete a minimum of nine 40-hour enhanced CIT courses in the Phase 1 regions by June 30,
2020.

12 Education & Training – Technical Assistance for Jails
12.1 Assigned Owner
The Department of Social and Health Services, Behavioral Health Administration, Office of Forensic Mental Health Services, is responsible for providing technical assistance to jails as part of the Trueblood agreement.
12.2 Statewide vs. Regional
The state will implement this element of the settlement in selected regions in phases according to the plan outlined in the agreement.
12.3 Requirements
a. The state sought funding for positions to provide educational and technical assistance to jails. b. The state will include the involvement of peer support specialists in providing this educational
and technical assistance.

Trueblood Implementation Report - Preliminary

24 | P a g e
Declaration of Randy Head Attachment A; Page 24 of 29

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 654-1 Filed 03/11/19 Page 26 of 30
c. The state worked with Disability Rights Washington, law enforcement agencies, and peer support specialists to develop guidance on mutually agreeable best practices for diversion and stabilization and produced a manual. This manual addressed: • Pre- and post-booking diversion, identification of need and access to treatment, guidelines for involuntary medication administration, continuity of care, use of segregation, and release planning.
d. In Phase 1, OFMHS will conduct a combination of on-site and tele video trainings for jails. DSHS will provide a website for jails that includes resources and a mailbox that jail staff can use to submit questions.
12.4 Education and Outreach
OFMHS team leads will solicit and approve workgroup membership from jails. As part of this work, the workgroup will develop a communications plan to inform the jails (and other stakeholders) of the status and availability of training and technical assistance materials.
12.5 Action Plan and Timeline
1. Update existing position description forms for two technical assistance positions by June 1, 2019.
2. Submit to human resources required documentation (request to hire/personnel action requests, updated organization charts, etc.) by June 15, 2019.
3. Advertise the established positions by August 1, 2019. 4. Complete recruitment activities including screening, interviewing, and job offers by August 31,
2019. 5. Hire and onboard new employees by September 30, 2019. 6. By May 15, 2019, begin work with HCA to develop a plan to integrate peer support specialists
into technical assistance. 7. Convene first workgroup by November 1, 2020.
a. Conduct work groups with Washington’s Designated Protection and Advocacy Agency and law enforcement entities to develop guidance on mutually agreeable best practices for diversion and stabilization of class members.
b. Ensure HCA membership includes subject matter expert on peer support specialists. 8. Meet monthly, or as needed, to complete work on training manual and website. 9. Develop and conduct training needs assessments as part of the manual completion on best
practices. 10. Training manual and website completed, trained on, and running by June 1, 2020.
a. The peer support specialist enhancement curriculum will be reviewed as part of this process to ensure any and all technical assistance areas are addressed sufficiently.
11. As applicable trainings are finalized they will be made available, with all applicable trainings available beginning July 1, 2020.

Trueblood Implementation Report - Preliminary

25 | P a g e
Declaration of Randy Head Attachment A; Page 25 of 29

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 654-1 Filed 03/11/19 Page 27 of 30

13 Workforce Development
13.1 Assigned Owner
The Department of Social and Health Services is responsible for providing workforce development for DSHS staff and providing limited training resources to the forensic mental health community. HCA will be responsible for developing the enhancement curriculum for the certified peer counselors.
13.2 Statewide vs. Regional
Workforce development evaluation and support will be implemented as part of the statewide effort.
13.3 Requirements
a. Hire or contract workforce development specialists assigned to the functional areas of community, inpatient, and law enforcement. Duties include: I. Participate in workgroups II. Conduct training needs survey/gap analysis III. Develop master training plan(s) IV. Develop and coordinate training including standardized manuals and guidelines V. Collaborate with community-based organizational workforce development staff VI. Evaluate training programs
b. Prepare an annual report on a. above that includes recommendations about specific workforce development steps needed to ensure success of the Trueblood agreement. Distribute the report to Executive Committee, key and interested legislators.
c. Assess the need for and appropriate target areas of training, certification and possible degree programs. Include: I. Existing training, certification, and degree programs in WA for relevant professions II. Programs for relevant professions in other states III. Statewide staffing needs for all programs covered by this agreement for a period of ten years
d. Prepare a one-time report on c. above that is distributed to the appropriate legislative committees and includes: I. High, medium, and low cost recommendations II. Long, medium, and short-term recommendations for future actions regarding training and certification programs
13.4 Education and Outreach
Hospitals and community healthcare organizations, law enforcement, and jails statewide will need to provide information to accomplish the requirements listed above. This will require identifying and engaging appropriate contacts.
13.5 Action Plan and Timeline
1. Update existing position description forms for remaining Workforce Development position by June 1, 2019.

Trueblood Implementation Report - Preliminary

26 | P a g e
Declaration of Randy Head Attachment A; Page 26 of 29

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 654-1 Filed 03/11/19 Page 28 of 30

2. Submit to human resources required documentation (request to hire/personnel action requests, updated organization charts, etc.) by June 15, 2019.
3. Advertise the established positions by August 1, 2019. 4. Complete recruitment activities including screening, interviewing, and job offers by August 31,
2019. 5. Hire and onboard new employees by September 30, 2019. Onboarding will include orientation
to the Trueblood Settlement Agreement and how their role is necessary to carrying out the objectives of the Agreement. 6. Begin organizing and conduct the first stakeholder workgroup meeting in each functional area by November 1, 2019. 7. Develop surveys to assess training needs in the identified functional areas by February 1, 2020. 8. Send surveys by February 15, 2020. 9. Evaluate survey results and develop training plans including requirements by May 1, 2020. 10. Develop training materials which can include guidebooks, presentations, etc. by June 1, 2020. 11. Deliver trainings through Phase 1 regions and complete by June 30, 2021.
Hire Workforce Development Specialists
A position description (PD) for Workforce Development Specialists was developed in November 2018. The Workforce Development Specialist(s) will be responsible for the following primary tasks (community, inpatient, and law enforcement and corrections):
• Participate in workforce development workgroups with stakeholders (both internal, e.g., state hospitals, HCA and community healthcare organizations, law enforcement, and jails.
• Conduct training needs surveys/gaps analysis. • Assist in the development of a master training plan(s). • Develop and coordinate training including standardized training manuals and guidelines. • Collaborate with other community-based, organizational workforce development staff. • Conduct training program(s) evaluations.
Jail Training Needs Assessment Survey
In October 2018, DSHS developed and conducted a state-wide county jail training needs assessment survey. The survey included categories of training needs including psychiatric crisis deescalation, general mental health awareness (for the jail setting), suicide risk assessment, management, and prevention, early admission (to state hospital) referral process, videoconferencing capabilities (for forensic evaluation services), competency restoration process, medication/involuntary medications. A total of eight jails responded to the survey. All jails indicated training needs in the aforementioned areas. The survey also provided information on training delivery preferences, including in-person and webinars.
Triage Training
In November of 2018, DSHS developed a webinar training for the Triage System. This training is presently under review and planned to be scheduled in the first half of 2019.

Trueblood Implementation Report - Preliminary

27 | P a g e
Declaration of Randy Head Attachment A; Page 27 of 29

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 654-1 Filed 03/11/19 Page 29 of 30
14 Enhanced Peer Support
14.1 Assigned Owner
The Health Care Authority (HCA) is responsible for Peer Support Programs in the State of Washington.
14.2 Statewide vs. Regional
The state will implement this element of the settlement in selected regions in phases according to the plan outlined in the agreement.
14.3 Requirements
a. The state created a peer counselor continuing education enhancement program for certified peer counselors that includes specialized training in criminal justice.
b. The state provides ongoing training for these peer support specialists and targets the training and support to assist in establishing these positions in the programs outlined in the settlement agreement.
c. These enhanced peer support specialists are integrated into the following programs: • Technical assistance to jails. • Intensive case management for high utilizers. • Community outpatient competency restoration. • HARPS program.
d. The state explored the possibility of federal funding for peer support specialists to encourage wider use of this role.
14.4 Education and Outreach
Outreach and education will focus on providing information about enhanced CPC roles and activities. The Enhanced Peer Supports Program Administrator will work in partnership with the regions and other Trueblood implementation teams to develop a FAQ, Factsheet, DBHR peer support webpage, Office of Consumer Partnership (OCP) distribution list, recorded webinars, and other communication materials as needed.
For each region, the following entities will require written education and outreach materials, webinars and regional presentations:
• Discussions on operationalizing enhanced certified peer counselors will occur with the technical assistance to jails, intensive case management, and community outpatient competency restoration teams.
• HARPS program • Inform the peer community, stakeholders, jails, forensic navigators etc. about enhanced
CPCs’ roles and activities. • WASPC. • BHAs/BHASOs/MCOs. • Other groups as needed and identified during initial outreach and education.

Trueblood Implementation Report - Preliminary

28 | P a g e
Declaration of Randy Head Attachment A; Page 28 of 29

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 654-1 Filed 03/11/19 Page 30 of 30

14.5

Action Plan and Timeline
1. Funding allocated to HCA budget by July 1, 2019. 2. Hire 1 staff (Program Administrator) by September 1, 2019.
a. Develop position description. b. Recruitment. c. Interviewing. d. Candidate selection/background check/ reference check. e. Candidate accepts and or repost. 3. Meet with partners (OFMHS, providers, etc.) to develop processes, education campaign, and associated documentation and forms to use by November 1, 2019. a. Environmental scan and key informant interviews. b. Integrate training components specific to serving individuals with prior criminal justice
system contact. 4. Develop Curriculum by March 1, 2020.
a. Train the trainers with new curriculum. 5. Implement and roll out trainings by May 1, 2020.
a. Foundational enhancement training. b. Ongoing continuing education. c. Operationalizing enhanced peer support to host organizations.

In Closing

The purpose of this Implementation Plan is to lay the foundation for implementation and overall planning. This preliminary plan will be adjusted based upon any funding or legislative session outcomes during the 2019 Legislative session. The adjusted, final implementation plan for Phase 1 will be ready within sixty days following the end of the 2019 legislative session.

Trueblood Implementation Report - Preliminary

29 | P a g e
Declaration of Randy Head Attachment A; Page 29 of 29

 </s> Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 663-1 Filed 04/18/19 Page 1 of 41
Trueblood Quarterly Implementation Status Report
April 2019
PURSUANT TO THE TRUEBLOOD V. DSHS 2ND REVISED AGREEMENT
Submitted jointly by the Parties | April 18, 2019

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 663-1 Filed 04/18/19 Page 2 of 41
I. Introduction
On December 11, 2018 the Court approved the amended Settlement Agreement submitted by the Parties. During that proceeding, Judge Pechman directed the parties to submit quarterly reports on the implementation beginning in April of 2019. This is the first of those reports.
II. Legislative Efforts
A. Statutory Changes
The Amended Agreement contemplates work by the State during the legislative session to accomplish the goals and requirements of the Agreement. The Agreement outlines two specific provisions directing the State to seek statutory changes, which are in addition to the State seeking funding during the legislative session to implement the Agreement. First, the Amended Agreement states:
“[d]uring the 2019 legislative session, the State will support and work to achieve legislative changes to reduce the number of people ordered into competency evaluation and restoration, and to use community based restoration services, which may include changes to Wash. Rev. Code § 10.31.110, Wash. Rev. Code § 10.77.086, and Wash. Rev. Code § 10.77.088. These efforts may include advancing requests for legislative changes through bill proposals or supporting legislation that has been proposed by others that further the goal of reducing the number of individuals ordered to receive competency evaluation and restoration services.”
Amended Agreement § III.B.1.a.
In addressing this provision of the Agreement, the State advanced Governor’s request legislation that included 1) forensic navigators; 2) law enforcement diversion; 3) outpatient competency restoration; and 4) misdemeanor restoration changes. As suggested by the Agreement, the request legislation made changes to Wash. Rev Code § 10.31.110, § 10.77.086, and § 10.77.088. Both the House and Senate supported these efforts to make statutory changes by advancing identical bills from both chambers (HB 1513 and SB 5444 respectively). As the two identical bills from the House and Senate progressed through the legislative process, the Senate bill (5444) become the primary bill.
PAGE 1

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 663-1 Filed 04/18/19 Page 3 of 41
During the legislative session, the Parties convened at least twice weekly to discuss the Governor’s request legislation, any feedback from stakeholders, and meetings and input from legislators. Formal meetings were held between the Parties on Tuesdays and Thursdays, with many additional informal meetings held within the halls of the Legislature. These meetings between the Parties occurred in addition to numerous meetings both Parties had with other stakeholders, legislators, and legislative staff. The Parties collaborated to advance several amendments based on this work with key stakeholders such as prosecutors, defenders, judges, peers, class members, advocates, and the associations for cities and counties. The Parties also worked collaboratively with legislators, especially the primary sponsors of the bill, Senator Manka Dhingra and Representative Laurie Jinkins, to ensure the passage of statutory changes designed to reduce the number of class members moving through the competency process and to create legislation that not only reflects the requirements of the Agreement, but that creates good policy that promotes greater diversion of class members from the criminal justice system.
On March 7, 2019, Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5444 passed out of the Senate with a 48‐0 unanimous bi‐partisan vote of support. On April 15, 2019, it passed out of the House also with a 97‐0 unanimous bi‐partisan vote of support. The bill is now awaiting full passage by the Legislature and signature by the Governor. For the current status and text of the bill, see https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=5444&Year=2019&Initiative=false
Specifically, the changes signed into law by the Governor detail the role of the forensic navigator in assisting class members to negotiate the criminal justice system, expand permissive diversion for law enforcement officers prior to arrest, explicitly create outpatient competency restoration services for individuals facing felony and misdemeanor charges, and alter the presumption for misdemeanor dismissal such that all misdemeanor cases where there is a finding of incompetency may be dismissed without a period of restoration unless the prosecutor demonstrates a compelling interest in proceeding with the criminal case. Each of these elements create greater diversion opportunities for class members and reduce the number of individuals ordered into competency evaluation and restoration services:
1. Forensic navigators will assist in connecting class members to outpatient restoration and other services when appropriate. These services not only provide for class members to potentially receive restoration services in the community rather than awaiting a bed at an inpatient facility, but will
PAGE 2

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 663-1 Filed 04/18/19 Page 4 of 41
also help to close the revolving door for class members who continually cycle through the criminal justice system 2. Prior law limited permissive law enforcement pre‐arrest diversion to only nonserious misdemeanors. The changes in Wash. Rev. Code expand permissive diversion to all crimes and allows individual jurisdictions to work collaboratively to develop guidelines for diversion, in partnership with advocates. This will allow for greater diversion to the crisis system prior to individuals entering the criminal justice system and becoming class members. 3. Outpatient competency restoration is explicitly created for both felony and misdemeanor cases. This will divert class members away from state hospital beds and into the community for restoration services. Importantly, these changes also address a second provision of the Agreement that states “[t]he State will seek funding and statutory changes to implement a phased roll out of community outpatient restoration services in targeted areas, including Residential Supports as clinically appropriate.” Dkt. No. 599‐1 at 10. 4. Wash. Rev. Code § 10.77.088 previously split misdemeanors into two paths. Nonserious misdemeanors who were found incompetent had their cases dismissed, but all serious misdemeanors who were found incompetent were referred for inpatient competency restoration of up to 29 days. The new law allows for all misdemeanor cases, serious and nonserious, to be dismissed at the time a court makes a finding of incompetency. For serious misdemeanors, those cases will only be eligible for competency restoration if the prosecutor demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that there is a compelling state interest in pursuing restoration, based upon a number of factors. This change should promote the diversion of more misdemeanor class members away from the criminal justice system and into the community or the civil mental health system.
These changes directly address what is contemplated by the Agreement, which is for the State to “work to achieve” legislative changes that will reduce those referred to competency evaluation and restoration and to increase the use of community based services. With the passage of SB 5444, the State, in cooperation with the Plaintiffs, not only worked to achieve this legislative goal, but achieved it. The changes that will be signed into law by the Governor are designed to reduce the number of class members and bring them closer to their communities and to treatment outside of the criminal justice system. This important accomplishment is
PAGE 3

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 663-1 Filed 04/18/19 Page 5 of 41
the product of extensive work between the Parties, and the Parties’ work with stakeholders and with partners in the Legislature.
B. Status of Budget Requests
On December 11, 2019, the same day that this Court held its fairness hearing regarding the Amended Agreement, Governor Jay Inslee rolled out his proposed budget. In it, he advocated for a massive package on behavioral health, including a $90 million request specifically addressing the Agreement. The budget included funding for all of the Agreement elements including competency evaluation, competency restoration, crisis triage and diversion supports, education and training, and workforce development.
On March 25, 2019, the House revealed its operating budget, which proposed strong support for behavioral health with approximately $76 million devoted to the Agreement. On March 29, 2019, the Senate released its operating budget, which similarly devoted funds to behavioral health with approximately $69 million dedicated specifically to implementing the Agreement. On behalf of the Governor, the Office of Financial Management sent letters to the chairs of the Senate and House budget committees on April 4, 2019, expressing concern regarding the funding level for the Agreement and asking the Legislature increase the funding for the Trueblood Agreement to the level proposed by the Governor. Similarly, the Plaintiffs submitted letters to both the House and Senate on April 12, 2019 emphasizing the importance of fully funding the Agreement. Additional discussion and negotiations have occurred and are ongoing with the Legislature as well. At the time of the filing this report, the Senate and House budget continue to be under intensive negotiations and a resolution on the final funding amount during this session has not yet been reached. The Trueblood Budget Comparison 4‐9‐19, Attachment A, is a comparison document that details the differences between the Governor’s proposed budget and the proposed House and Senate budgets. The State will provide additional budget information to the Court at the next quarterly status hearing, which, assuming the Legislature does not go into special session, will occur after the budget is more finalized.
III. Department Meetings and Workgroups
In order to facilitate the timely and successful implementation of the Settlement Agreement, the State has convened the following workgroups and committees. This
PAGE 4

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 663-1 Filed 04/18/19 Page 6 of 41
does not represent the full scope the work being done, as many topics have required one‐time meetings to develop plans of action or assign responsibility.
Behavioral Health Legislative Strategy and Bill Review Team, Trueblood – The full behavioral health team is comprised of over 40 individuals from multiple state agencies. Agencies represented include the Governor’s Office, Office of Financial Management, Department of Health, Health Care Authority, Department of Social and Health Services, and Department of Commerce. A 30‐minute portion of their standard weekly meetings, which began at the end of December 2018, is dedicated to a discussion of bills and legislative actions that could impact the Trueblood Settlement Agreement.
Statewide Implementation Team – This team is comprised of 32 members from multiple agencies and entities that will have a pivotal role in implementation. This group meets in person monthly, which began in January 2019, and participates in weekly telephone huddles to discuss progress and provide updates. See attached Implementation Team Visual 4‐19, Attachment B.
Trueblood Discussion Meetings – Approximately thirteen budget and program staff from DSHS and HCA have met weekly, with a couple of exceptions, since the beginning of February to discuss program development, program interdependencies, and how those may link to different funding sources.
Tools Meetings – At least five meetings have occurred between DSHS and HCA program and information technology staff to determine appropriate project management tools to support the Statewide Implementation Team, to properly vet security for those tools, and determine access levels and training needs. All members of the Statewide Implementation Team are receiving training on these tools, ranging from 30 minutes to four hours depending on the person’s role.
Communications Workgroup – Four communications staff from DSHS and HCA have held a weekly huddle since mid‐November 2018 and convene expanded, in‐person meetings when necessary. For example, numerous additional meetings were held to plan and prepare for the regional Summits held in March and April of 2019.
Contracts Workgroup – Contracts staff from DSHS and HCA were called together to review the Settlement Agreement and its requirements. Contract staff serve as subject matter experts and have supported and will continue to support the individually assigned element leads as needed during the development and execution of implementation plans.
PAGE 5

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 663-1 Filed 04/18/19 Page 7 of 41
Data Workgroup – Research and Data Analysis staff, information technology staff, and program staff have met three times since January 2019 to provide support and planning around the long‐term data needs associated with the Settlement Agreement. This group will develop a calendar for necessary work and consultation following the hire of the Data Manager using the jump start funds provided by the Court.
Public Disclosure, Discovery and Records Workgroup – Eight representatives from both DSHS and HCA began meeting in January 2019 and developed a process for managing consistent response across both agencies to requests that may pertain to the Trueblood Settlement Agreement. The group continues to meet bi‐monthly to ensure process is working smoothly and update as needed based on results of previous execution.
Ramp Down Workgroup – This agency and contractor workgroup convened in April 2019. The 23 members are tasked with developing the full plans and processes for Maple Lane and Yakima facility ramp down including the work needed to prepare and return facilities to their pre‐leased condition upon closure.
IV. Preliminary Implementation Plan
On March 11, 2019 the parties filed with the court a Preliminary Implementation Plan for the Settlement Agreement. The Preliminary Plan is required by the Settlement Agreement and is a precursor to the final implementation plan. While this Preliminary Plan is still subject to additional refinement, the staff responsible for implementing the Agreement have been diligently moving forward with the planning and action steps required to implement the Agreement as laid out in the Preliminary Implementation Plan.
Several action steps within sections of the Settlement Agreement were completed during the period leading up to the creation of this status report. There are no overdue or incomplete action steps within the Preliminary Implementation Plan thus far.
Forensic Evaluators
Position description forms for evaluator positions and ancillary staff were updated and submitted for official entry into the human resources database system. Hiring efforts will begin in earnest once funding becomes available in the 2019‐21 budget.
PAGE 6

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 663-1 Filed 04/18/19 Page 8 of 41
Forensic Navigators
The Forensic Navigator Administrator position was created, submitted through human resources for allocation and legal review, and advertised for recruiting. Hiring will ramp up after funding becomes available in the 19‐21 budget.
Maple Lane and Yakima Facilities
The lead on this initiative is over six weeks ahead of schedule in planning for ramp down. Completion of ramp down planning will ensure that the Department is prepared to execute on ramp down if any of the metrics set out in the Agreement are triggered before the firm deadlines are reached. The project lead has met with leadership at both facilities and reviewed the Settlement Agreement with them. They generated a preliminary list of stakeholders and community partners that might be impacted by closure of these facilities. Members of the Ramp Down workgroup were identified and invited to participate in a Kick‐Off meeting which occurred on April 16, 2019. The lead has also met with building owners for both facilities to discuss requirements around the condition of the facilities when they are returned after closure.
Crisis Intervention Training
The Criminal Justice Training Center has reached out to the State 911 training unit to receive assistance in accurately identifying dispatcher participants and to receive strategic assistance in planning for fiscal year 2020 trainings.
The State continues to monitor timelines within the Preliminary Plan and ensure adequate action is taken, while the Final Implementation Plan is being developed and approved.
Attached is a Phase 1 Elements Visual 4‐19 as Attachment C. This shows the timeline for the elements of the Agreement as outlined in the Preliminary Implementation Plan.
V. Summits
DSHS and HCA jointly planned and executed three summits between March 20, 2019 and April 1, 2019. These summits were held in each of the three regions and were intended to provide a first official contact with the many community partners and stakeholders that will be integral to the successful implementation of the Settlement Agreement.
PAGE 7

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 663-1 Filed 04/18/19 Page 9 of 41
Summits lasted approximately 2.5 hours and included the following general agenda:
 30 minute meet and greet amongst attendees and presenters;  60 minute overview including a brief historical discussion of the lawsuit, a
breakdown of the various elements of the Agreement, a review of data, and how funding will be obtained through the legislature;  45 minute question and answer period; and  15 minute next steps.
A large variety of partners and community stakeholders attended. Based on the sign‐in sheets, courts, defenders, prosecutors, jails, law enforcement, behavioral health providers, tribes, advocacy groups, family members, legislators, and county and city employees were in attendance. Those that participated in a summit were, with their permission, added to the Trueblood listserv.
At the summits, three handouts were provided. Attachments D, E, and F. In addition, participants were given comment cards and asked to provide any questions or comments they had and to answer the question “What do you need to be able to fully support the Trueblood Implementation in your region?”
Following the last summit, a survey was sent to all summit participants seeking specific information regarding their regions, including services currently provided. The Department is awaiting final feedback from these surveys.
VI. Upcoming Conferences
The Parties will be presenting at the Superior Court Judges Association annual conference on April 28th in Spokane. Nick Williamson with the Attorney General’s Office, Alexa Polaski with Disability Rights Washington, and Dr. Danna Mauch will be presenting on the background of Trueblood, the Settlement Agreement, and information about the competency evaluation and restoration process that judges could find useful in their own jurisdiction.
In addition to this upcoming presentation, the Plaintiffs presented at the William L. Dwyer American Inn of Court on April 9th in Seattle. There were law students, attorneys, and judges in attendance at this meeting. The panel presented on the conditions giving rise to the Trueblood litigation, the litigation itself, and efforts underway by various system partners to transform Washington's mental health system to emphasize diversion, crisis intervention, and community‐based treatment in lieu of incarceration.
PAGE 8

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 663-1 Filed 04/18/19 Page 10 of 41
VII. Diversion Programs
The five Trueblood Diversion Phase I programs began operations on July 1, 2017. After completion of the one‐year assessment, the Trueblood Diversion Review Committee recommended that three of the programs receive an additional 18 months of funding commencing on January 1, 2019. One program (Kitsap Mental Health) was extended for a shorter period in order to address corrective actions before a full refunding decision was made. Kitsap has continued to demonstrate progress and the Review Committee will make a final refunding recommendation after a site visit in May.
The three Phase II programs began operations March 1, 2018, and are currently engaged in the one‐year assessment, which will inform any refunding recommendations this summer. The five Phase III programs began operating on July 1, 2018, and have hosted several visits from the site visit team. All programs are expected to have sustainability plans in place, as the contempt fine funding was anticipated for up to three years only. Some of the diversion programs have recently expressed interest in whether anticipated funding from the Trueblood Settlement Agreement might affect their sustainability.
Policy Research Associates (PRA) began working with the Trueblood Diversion Review Committee in the fall of 2018 to help build and facilitate the diversion program learning community, including running bimonthly technical assistance calls to address issues identified by the programs. PRA will also be making two‐day site visits to the four diversion programs that refer the most individuals for competency evaluation and restoration services: King County, Pierce County, Frontier Behavioral Health in Spokane, and Comprehensive in Yakima. PRA is working with these programs to plan the visits for June and July. PRA is also working with the Review Committee to plan a statewide diversion summit that is scheduled for September 11, 2019.
VIII. Fort Steilacoom Residential Treatment Facility
It is anticipated that the remodel of the Fort Steilacoom facility will be completed by June 12, 2019, and that DSHS will assume possession of the building at that time. DSHS anticipates accepting patients approximately eight weeks after possession of the facility is returned to the Department. The Department continues to review this timeline, and is committed to accepting patients as expeditiously as possible after assuming possession of the building. The Department has shortened the timelines
PAGE 9

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 663-1 Filed 04/18/19 Page 11 of 41
for a number of activities that must occur after assuming possession, including staff training, but as of now the primary driver of the eight‐week time period is the time required to achieve full licensure. See Attachment G (matrix of activities following the handoff of keys). This schedule is aggressive, yet achievable—but it remains the Department’s goal to try and beat these timelines wherever possible. If the construction completion date changes, the timeline for patient admissions will adjust accordingly.
An eight‐week staff training curriculum has been prepared that combines classroom instruction, online training, mentoring, and coaching in tandem with hands on practice and drills. Staff will begin training in cohorts of 20‐25 per group with start dates of May 6, 2019, and June 3, 2019. This was determined to be the most efficient method of training over 70 people within practical constraints such as training personnel, classroom size, efficacy of training, and scheduling coordination with partners at WSH. The first group is currently scheduled to begin training on May 6, 2019. Although this training schedule is anticipated to begin approximately nine weeks before the scheduled turnover of Building 27, a number of tasks and trainings will need to be conducted within the Building 27 space after turnover is completed. See the Fort Steilacoom Program Training Plan, Attachment H.
Hiring is on track with 34 of 77.5 positions filled (44% filled). All leadership staff and supervisors have already begun work, and many operational staff, like Institutional Counselors, have May start‐dates. Beyond training, DSHS has many responsibilities to complete to be ready to begin admitting patients, such as completing Department of Health licensure requirements, ensuring all equipment is installed and calibrated, and much more.
All licensures and certifications required to operate Fort Steilacoom are on schedule. These include residential treatment facility licensure (program and construction components), behavioral health agency certification, health care entity licensure, and Drug Enforcement Administration certification. Policies and procedures are finalized, and work instructions are nearing completion to support training, operations, and program implementation.
Other program components also on schedule include: continued cooperation and support from three labor unions; clinical program development and structure including patient, team and class schedules, social learning program, breaking barriers as applied to FSCRP, and software to track active treatment; ordering and delivery of furniture, supplies, materials, and goods; agreements with WSH and other DSHS administrations to identify program support expectations; and the
PAGE 10

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 663-1 Filed 04/18/19 Page 12 of 41
finalization of the emergency management plan, the continuity of operations plan, and the disaster recovery plan. The most recent Department project management report is attached as B27 Monthly Report 3‐29‐19, Attachment I. Building tours and an open house are tentatively scheduled to occur before patients are admitted to the program.
IX. Jump Start Funds
On February 21, 2019 the Court authorized the disbursement of jump start funds to the Seattle Foundation for the hiring of eight staff to support the implementation planning and execution. The status of those positions is listed below: Three Project Managers These positions were created, submitted through human resources for allocation and legal review, and advertised for recruiting. Interviews are underway and candidate selection is expected by May 1, 2019. Administrative Assistant
This position was created, submitted through human resources for allocation and legal review, and advertised for recruiting. Interviews were conducted and a candidate selection made. The candidate is expected to start April 29, 2019. Research and Data Analysis – Research Manager This position was created, submitted through human resources for allocation and legal review, and advertised for recruiting. Interviews were conducted and a candidate selection made. The job offer was accepted, but the new hire then withdrew. A second round of interviews is planned. Forensic Navigator Administrator This position was created, submitted through human resources for allocation and legal review, and is advertised for recruiting. The posting closed April 15, 2019. Interviews are being scheduled and conducted. Workforce Development Specialist This position was created, submitted through human resources for allocation and legal review, and advertised for recruiting. The job posting closed April 14, 2019. Interviews are being scheduled and a job offer is expected by May 1, 2019.
PAGE 11

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 663-1 Filed 04/18/19 Page 13 of 41
Outpatient Competency Restoration Administrator
This position was created and submitted through human resources for allocation and legal review. Due to the new and unfamiliar work field, human resources requested additional supplemental information to make an accurate allocation determination. The additional information was provided and the position is expected to be advertised for recruiting shortly.
X. Executive Committee Meetings
The Agreement formed an Executive Committee that plays a role in guiding implementation and making recommendations to the Court. The Agreement requires that the Executive Committee meet on a quarterly schedule. The Parties initially held a planning session on December 12, 2019, in order to address logistics related to the first meeting of the Executive committee, including which specific people would represent the required entities. The Parties also discussed and approved a charter to guide the work of the Executive Committee, and ensure that the Committee fulfills the purpose set out in the Court‐approved Agreement.
The Executive Committee held its first meeting on January 31, 2019. The Committee again met on March 21, 2019. The next Executive Committee meeting is scheduled for June 24, 2019.
XI. Next Steps/Upcoming Milestones
The implementation efforts outlined above will expand substantially as the 2019‐ 2021 capital and operating budgets become effective on July 1, 2019. After legislative session concludes, the parties will again meet to discuss revisions to the Preliminary Implementation Plan filed on March 11, 2019. The parties anticipate that the timelines set forth in the Preliminary Implementation Plan may be adjusted for a number of reasons, included but not limited to the funding allocated by the legislature in the final budget. Pursuant to § (IV)(D)(1) of the Settlement Agreement, the Final Implementation Plan is due to the court within 60 days of the end of the 2019 legislative session. Thereafter, the State will continue to report compliance data as required by the Court’s orders, and will continue to provide quarterly reports subject to the Court’s direction.
PAGE 12

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 663-1 Filed 04/18/19 Page 14 of 41
Quarterly Implementation Status Report April 2019
Attachment A

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 663-1 Filed 04/18/19 Page 15 of 41
Quarterly Implementation Status Report April 2019
Attachment A - Page 1 of 1

ϮϬϭϵͲϮϭKŵŶŝďƵƐKƉĞƌĂƚŝŶŐƵĚŐĞƚ ĞŚĂǀŝŽƌĂů,ĞĂůƚŚWĂĐŬĂŐĞͲWŽůŝĐǇ/ŶǀĞƐƚŵĞŶƚƐ 'ŽǀĞƌŶŽƌͬ,ŽƵƐĞͬ^ĞŶĂƚĞŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶhƉĚĂƚĞĚ'ƌŽǁƚŚ&ĂĐƚŽƌ ;ŽůůĂƌƐŝŶdŚŽƵƐĂŶĚƐͿ

dƌƵĞďůŽŽĚƵĚŐĞƚůĞŵĞŶƚƐ ϭ ^,^ d͗ŽŵƉĞƚĞŶĐǇǀĂůƵĂƚŽƌƐ

'ŽǀĞƌŶŽƌ;'ϰϬͿ

&d

'&Ͳ^

dŽƚĂů

ϮϬ͘ϱ ϱ ͕ϰϯϵ ϱ ͕ϰϯϵ

Ϯ , d͗DŝƐĚĞĂŵĞĂŶƚŝǀĞƌƐŝŽŶ

ϱ͕ϬϬϬ ϱ ͕ϬϬϬ

ϯ , d͗KƵƚƉĂƚŝĞŶƚŽŵƉ͘ZĞƐƚŽƌĂƚŝŽŶ

ϯ ͕ϭϰϵ ϯ ͕ϭϰϵ

^,ϭϭϬϵ

&d

'&Ͳ^

dŽƚĂů

ϭϴ͘Ϭ ϰ͕ϴϳϭ ϰ͕ϴϳϭ

ϭϭ͕ϲϬϬ ϭϭ͕ϲϬϬ

ϭ͕ϴϵϲ ϭ͕ϴϵϲ

,ŽƵƐĞͬ'ŽǀŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞ

^ĞŶĂƚĞWĂƐƐĞĚ&ůŽŽƌ;^Ͳϯϲϯϲ͘Ϳ

&d

'&Ͳ^

dŽƚĂů

&d

'&Ͳ^

dŽƚĂů

;Ϯ͘ϱͿ ;ϱϲϴͿ ;ϱϲϴͿ ϮϬ͘ϱ ϱ͕ϰϯϵ ϱ͕ϰϯϵ

Ϭ͘Ϭ ϲ͕ϲϬϬ ϲ͕ϲϬϬ

ϱ͕ϬϬϬ ϱ͕ϬϬϬ

Ϭ͘Ϭ ;ϭ͕ϮϱϯͿ ;ϭ͕ϮϱϯͿ

ϯ͕ϭϰϴ ϯ͕ϭϰϴ

ϰ , d͗&ŽƌĞŶƐŝĐ,ZW^Θ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ^ƵƉƉŽƌƚƐ

ϯ ͕ϴϭϯ ϯ ͕ϴϭϯ

ϲ͕ϰϭϲ ϲ͕ϰϭϲ

Ϭ͘Ϭ Ϯ͕ϲϬϯ Ϯ͕ϲϬϯ

ϯ͕ϵϲϮ ϯ͕ϵϲϮ

ϱ ^,^ ϲ , ϳ ^,^ ϴ ^,^

d͗,,ĞĂĚƋƵĂƌƚĞƌƐ^ƚĂĨĨ d͗,,ĞĂĚƋƵĂƌƚĞƌƐ^ƚĂĨĨ d͗EĂǀŝŐĂƚŽƌƐ d͗ĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂů&ŽƌĞŶƐŝĐĞĚĂƉĂĐŝƚǇ

ϵ ^,^ ϭϬ ,

ŽŵƉĞƚĞŶĐǇZĞƐƚŽƌĂƚŝŽŶͲhŶŝƚϭEϯ ŽŵƉĞƚĞŶĐǇZĞƐƚŽƌĂƚŝŽŶͲhŶŝƚϯEϯ d͗zĂŬŝŵĂͬDĂƉůĞ>ĂŶĞůŽƐƵƌĞ d͗ƌŝƐŝƐ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ

ϭϭ :d ϭϮ , ϭϯ :d ϭϰ ^,^ ϭϱ , ϭϲ ^,^

d͗ŽͲZĞƐƉŽŶĚĞƌƐ d͗/ŶƚĞŶƐŝǀĞĂƐĞDĂŶĂŐĞƌƐ d͗ƌŝƐŝƐ/ŶƚĞƌǀĞŶƚŝŽŶdƌĂŝŶŝŶŐ;/dͿ d͗dĞĐŚŶŝĐĂůƐƐŝƐƚĂŶĐĞƚŽ:ĂŝůƐ d͗tŽƌŬĨŽƌĐĞWĞĞƌ^ƵƉƉŽƌƚƐ d͗&ŽƌĞŶƐŝĐtŽƌŬĨŽƌĐĞĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
,dŽƚĂů ^,^dŽƚĂů :ddŽƚĂů
dƌƵĞďůŽŽĚdKd>

ϵ͘Ϭ Ϯ ͕ϵϳϴ ϭ͘Ϭ Ϯϴϵ Ϯϴ͘Ϭ ϲ͕ϳϵϬ ϭϯϲ͘Ϯ ϯ ϯ͕ϵϮϲ

Ϯ ͕ϵϳϴ Ϯ ϴϵ ϲ ͕ϳϵϬ ϯϯ͕ϵϮϲ

ϲϴ͘ϭ

ϭϲ͕ϵϲϯ

ϭϲ͕ϵϲϯ

ϲϴ͘ϭ

ϭϲ͕ϵϲϯ

ϭϲ͕ϵϲϯ

Ͳ Ͳ

ϴ͕ϱϵϵ ϭ Ϯ͕ϯϬϭ

ϭ͘Ϭ ϰ ͕ϬϬϬ ϰ ͕ϬϬϬ ϰ͕ϳϰϮ ϰ ͕ϳϰϮ ϴ ϵϵ ϴ ϵϵ
Ϯ͘Ϭ ϲ ϯϯ ϲ ϯϯ ϭ͘Ϭ ϰϬϰ ϰ Ϭϰ Ϯ͘Ϭ ϲϱϯ ϲ ϱϯ Ϯ͘Ϭ Ϯϱ͕ϵϵϲ Ϯϵ͕ϲϵϴ ϭϵϳ͘ϳ ϱϬ͕ϰϭϵ ϱϬ͕ϰϭϵ ϭ͘Ϭ ϰ͕ϴϵϵ ϰ͕ϴϵϵ
ϮϬϬ͘ϳ ϴϭ͕ϯϭϰ ϴϱ͕Ϭϭϲ

ϰ͘Ϭ ϭ͕ϳϭϮ ϭ͘Ϭ Ϯ ϴϵ ϵ͘Ϭ Ϯ͕ϭϴϯ ϭϬϮ͘Ϭ Ϯϰ͕ϲϱϮ

ϭ͕ϳϭϮ Ϯ ϴϵ Ϯ͕ϭϴϯ Ϯϰ͕ϲϱϮ

ϱϮ͘ϱ

ϭϮ͕ϲϳϴ

ϭϮ͕ϲϳϴ

ϰϵ͘ϱ

ϭϭ͕ϵϳϰ

ϭϭ͕ϵϳϰ

Ͳ Ͳ

ϱ͕ϰϯϰ ϭϬ͕ϮϮϯ

ϭ͘Ϭ ϰ͕ϬϬϬ ϰ͕ϳϰϮ ϴ ϵϵ
Ϯ͘Ϭ ϲ ϯϯ ϭ͘Ϭ ϰ Ϭϰ Ϯ͘Ϭ ϲ ϱϯ Ϯ͘Ϭ ϯϬ͕ϳϴϭ ϭϯϳ͘Ϭ ϯϰ͕ϳϬϰ ϭ͘Ϭ ϰ͕ϴϵϵ
ϭϰϬ͘Ϭ ϳϬ͕ϯϴϰ

ϰ͕ϬϬϬ ϰ͕ϳϰϮ ϴ ϵϵ ϲ ϯϯ ϰ Ϭϰ ϲ ϱϯ ϯϱ͕ϱϳϬ ϯϰ͕ϳϬϰ ϰ͕ϴϵϵ
ϳϱ͕ϭϳϯ

;ϱ͘ϬͿ ;ϭ͕ϮϲϲͿ ;ϭ͕ϮϲϲͿ ϵ͘Ϭ Ϭ͘Ϭ Ͳ Ͳ ϰ͘Ϭ ;ϭϵ͘ϬͿ ;ϰ͕ϲϬϳͿ ;ϰ͕ϲϬϳͿ ϭϭ͘Ϭ ;ϯϰ͘ϮͿ ;ϵ͕ϮϳϰͿ ;ϵ͕ϮϳϰͿ ϭϬϱ͘Ϭ

Ϯ͕ϵϳϴ ϭ͕Ϭϲϯ Ϯ͕ϲϲϳ ϭϲ͕ϮϬϬ

Ϯ͕ϵϳϴ ϭ͕Ϭϲϯ Ϯ͕ϲϲϳ Ϯϰ͕ϲϱϮ

;ϭϱ͘ϲͿ ;ϰ͕ϮϴϱͿ ;ϰ͕ϮϴϱͿ ϱϮ͘ϱ ;ϭϴ͘ϲͿ ;ϰ͕ϵϴϵͿ ;ϰ͕ϵϴϵͿ ϱϮ͘ϱ
Ϭ͘Ϭ Ͳ Ͳ Ϭ͘Ϭ ;ϯ͕ϭϲϱͿ ;Ϯ͕ϬϳϴͿ

ϴ͕ϰϱϮ ϳ͕ϳϰϴ Ͳ ϴ͕ϰϱϭ

ϭϮ͕ϲϳϴ ϭϭ͕ϵϳϰ Ͳ ϭϮ͕ϭϱϯ

Ϭ͘Ϭ Ͳ Ͳ Ϭ͘Ϭ Ͳ Ͳ Ϭ͘Ϭ Ͳ Ͳ Ϭ͘Ϭ Ͳ Ͳ Ϯ͘Ϭ Ϭ͘Ϭ Ͳ Ͳ ϭ͘Ϭ Ϭ͘Ϭ Ͳ Ͳ Ϯ͘Ϭ Ϭ͘Ϭ ϰ͕ϳϴϱ ϱ͕ϴϳϮ ϱ ͘Ϭ ;ϲϬ͘ϳͿ ;ϭϱ͕ϳϭϱͿ ;ϭϱ͕ϳϭϱͿ ϭϰϵ͘ϱ Ϭ͘Ϭ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ
;ϲϬ͘ϳͿ ;ϭϬ͕ϵϯϬͿ ;ϵ͕ϴϰϯͿ ϭϱϰ͘ϱ

ϰ͕ϬϬϬ ϰ͕ϳϰϮ ϴ ϵϵ ϲ ϯϯ ϰ Ϭϰ ϲ ϱϯ Ϯϲ͕ϳϳϬ Ϯϴ͕ϱϳϬ ϰ͕ϴϵϵ
ϲϬ͕Ϯϯϵ

ϰ͕ϬϬϬ ϰ͕ϳϰϮ ϴ ϵϵ ϲ ϯϯ ϰ Ϭϰ ϲ ϱϯ ϯϬ͕ϰϳϮ ϯϳ͕ϬϮϮ ϰ͕ϴϵϵ
ϳϮ͕ϯϵϯ

^ĞŶĂƚĞͬ'ŽǀŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞ

&d

'&Ͳ^

dŽƚĂů

Ϭ͘Ϭ Ͳ Ͳ

EŽƚĞƐ
ǀĂůƵĂƚŽƌƐĨƵŶĚĞĚĂƚƐĂŵĞůĞǀĞůĂƐ'ŽǀΖƐďƵĚŐĞƚŝŶďŽƚŚ,ŽƵƐĞĂŶĚ^ĞŶĂƚĞ͘,ŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕,ŽƵƐĞŽŶůǇ ĨƵŶĚƐϯŽĨƚŚĞϲƐƵƉƉŽƌƚƐƚĂĨĨ͘

Ϭ͘Ϭ Ͳ

Ͳ &ůĞǆŝďůĞĨƵŶĚƐĨŽƌƵƐĞŽĨĚŝǀĞƌƚŝŶŐŝŶĚŝǀŝĚƵĂůƐĨƌŽŵŝŶƉĂƚŝĞŶƚĐĂƌĞ͘ĂŶďĞƵƐĞĚĨŽƌŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ ƐƵƉƉŽƌƚƐ͘

Ϭ͘Ϭ ;ϭͿ ;ϭͿ 'Žǀͬ^ĞŶĂƚĞĂƐƐƵŵĞƐĂŵĞĂŵŽƵŶƚĨŽƌKZƚĞĂŵƐĂŶĚŚŽƵƐŝŶŐƐƵƉƉŽƌƚĚŽůůĂƌƐ͘,ŽƵƐĞĚŽĞƐŶŽƚ ŝŶĐůƵĚĞĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůŚŽƵƐŝŶŐƐƵƉƉŽƌƚĨŽƌKZƉƌŽŐƌĂŵďƵƚĂƐƐƵĞƐŚŽƵƐŝŶŐǁŝůůďĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚďǇƚŚĞ ,ZWƐƚĞĂŵƐŝŶĐƌĞĂĚ͘

Ϭ͘Ϭ ϭ ϰϵ ϭ ϰϵ ,ŽƵƐĞĂƉƉƌŽĂĐŚĞƐŚŽƵƐŝŶŐƐƵƉƉŽƌƚƐĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶƚůǇͲĂƐƐƵŵĞƐΨϱϬϬ͕ϬϬϬƉĞƌ,ZWƐƚĞĂŵ͕ďƵƚĨƵŶĚƐĂƚ ƚŚĞƐĂŵĞůĞǀĞůĨŽƌƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ͘^ĞŶĂƚĞĨƵŶĚƐĂƚƐĂŵĞůĞǀĞůďƵƚŐƌŽƵƉƐŝƚĞŵƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶĐƌŝƐŝƐĂŶĚŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ ƐůŝŐŚƚůǇĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶƚǁŚŝĐŚĂĐĐŽƵŶƚƐĨŽƌƚŚĞΨϭϰϵ͕ϬϬϬĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐŚŽǁŶŚĞƌĞ͘

Ϭ͘Ϭ Ͳ Ͳ ůůďƵĚŐĞƚƐĂƐƐƵŵĞΨϳϬϬ͕ϬϬϬĨŽƌĐŽŵŵƵŶŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐͬŽƵƚƌĞĂĐŚ͘ ϯ͘Ϭ ϳ ϳϰ ϳ ϳϰ ;ϭϳ͘ϬͿ ;ϰ͕ϭϮϯͿ ;ϰ͕ϭϮϯͿ ^ĞŶĂƚĞďƵĚŐĞƚƌĞĨůĞĐƚƐƌĞǀŝƐĞĚĨŝƐĐĂůŶŽƚĞĂƐƐƵŵƉƚŝŽŶƐ͘ ;ϯϭ͘ϮͿ ;ϭϳ͕ϳϮϲͿ ;ϵ͕ϮϳϰͿ ^ĞŶĂƚĞĂŶĚ,ŽƵƐĞĂƐƐƵŵĞůĞƐƐƐƚĂĨĨĂŶĚĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶƚƉŚĂƐĞͲŝŶĂƐƐƵŵƉƚŝŽŶƐďĂƐĞĚŽŶĞǆƉĞĐƚĞĚ
ŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ͘ ;ϭϱ͘ϲͿ ;ϴ͕ϱϭϭͿ ;ϰ͕ϮϴϱͿ ;ϭϱ͘ϲͿ ;ϵ͕ϮϭϱͿ ;ϰ͕ϵϴϵͿ
Ϭ͘Ϭ Ͳ Ͳ Ϭ͘Ϭ ;ϭϰϴͿ ;ϭϰϴͿ ,ŽƵƐĞĂƉƉƌŽĂĐŚĞƐĐƌŝƐŝƐƐƚĂďŝůŝǌĂƚŝŽŶͬƚƌŝĂŐĞĨƵŶĚŝŶŐĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶƚůǇ͘&ƵŶĚƐϭϲďĞĚƐŝŶ^ƉŽŬĂŶĞĂŶĚĂ
ϭϬйĚĂŝůǇďĞĚƌĂƚĞĞŚĂŶĐĞŵĞŶƚĨŽƌ^ttĂŶĚWŝĞƌĐĞ͘,ŽƵƐĞĂŶĚ^ĞŶĂƚĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĨƵŶĚŝŶŐĨŽƌƚŚƌĞĞ ŵŽďŝůĞĐƌŝƐŝƐƚĞĂŵƐ͘ ;ϭ͘ϬͿ Ͳ Ͳ Ϭ͘Ϭ Ͳ Ͳ ƐƐƵŵĞƐŚŽƵƐŝŶŐŝƐƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ,ZWƐƚĞĂŵƐ͘ Ϭ͘Ϭ Ͳ Ͳ Ϭ͘Ϭ Ͳ Ͳ Ϭ͘Ϭ Ͳ Ͳ Ϭ͘Ϭ Ͳ Ͳ ϯ͘Ϭ ϳ ϳϰ ϳ ϳϰ ;ϰϴ͘ϮͿ ;Ϯϭ͕ϴϰϵͿ ;ϭϯ͕ϯϵϳͿ ;ϭ͘ϬͿ Ͳ Ͳ
;ϰϲ͘ϮͿ ;Ϯϭ͕ϬϳϱͿ ;ϭϮ͕ϲϮϯͿ

dƌƵĞďůŽŽĚƵĚŐĞƚŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶͲtŽƌŬŝŶŐƌĂĨƚ

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 663-1 Filed 04/18/19 Page 16 of 41
Quarterly Implementation Status Report April 2019
Attachment B

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 663-1 Filed 04/18/19 Page 17 of 41
Quarterly Implementation Status Report April 2019
Attachment B - Page 1 of 1

Reviews recommendations and makes decisions; attempts to resolve potential breach.
Gathers & analyzes stakeholder feedback and implementation effectiveness.

Executive Steering Committee Convened 1/2019
March/June/September/December Special Assistant (BHA), Director of OFMHS (OFMHS), Medicaid Director (HCA), & Attorney (Plaintiff Counsel)
General Advisory Committee Will Convene 9/2019
February/May/August/November TBD

Trueblood Settlement
Federal Court Judge & Court Monitor Quarterly Status Reports January/April/July/October
Monitors compliance to the Agreement and addresses breaches.

HCA Element Leads Medical Program Specialist 3; Co-Lead (B.2)
Deputy Director DBHR (C.1, C.2) Quality Administrator *alt Medical Program
Specialist 3 (C.3) Recovery Support Services Supervisor (C.4) Recovery Support Services Supervisor *alt Quality
Administrator (E.1)
Other Agency Element Leads Senior Policy Advisors – GOV (B.1) Program Manager of Statewide CIT – CJTC (D.1)
TBD – WASPC (C.3)
DSHS Element Leads Director of OFMHS (A, D.2) Admissions Coordinator; Co-Lead (B.2) Compliance Reporting Specialist (B.3) Chief Executive Officers (B.4) Competency Restoration Specialist (B.5) Workforce Development Administrator (D.2, E.2)

KEY:

Governance

Trueblood Settlement Senior Project Manager
Data Deputy Director & Performance Measurement Coordinator (RDA)
Community Behavioral Health Director of Community Transition
Assistant Attorney Generals Attorneys (ATG)
Housing BHSH Manager (COM)

Statewide Implementation Team
Responsible for implementation of initiatives; statewide and regionally phased
Budget Finance Director (DSHS)
Budget Chief (DSHS) Community Budget Manager (HCA) Fiscal Information Data Analyst (HCA)
Budget Assistant (OFM)
Communications Media Relations Manager (DSHS) Communications Consultant 4 (DSHS) Chief Communications Officer (HCA)
Diversion Liaison and Diversion Specialist

Project Manager

Element Leads

Subject Matter Experts (SMEs)

Rev. 4/15/2019

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 663-1 Filed 04/18/19 Page 18 of 41
Quarterly Implementation Status Report April 2019
Attachment C

Trueblood Settlement Agreement Timeline
Phase 1 – July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2021

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 663-1 Filed 04/18/19 Page 19 of 41
Quarterly Implementation Status Report April 2019
Attachment C - Page 1 of 1

7/1/19

7/1/20

6/30/21

A.

+ Evaluators and Ancillary Staff 7/1/19-6/30/20

+ Evaluators and 3 Ancillary Staff 7/1/20-6/30/21

Outpatient Comp. Restoration 5/31/19-7/1/20

Forensic Navigators 3/8/19-7/1/20

B.

ESH Bed Additions 2/15/19-3/31/20

WSH Bed Additions 6/26/19-4/30/20

Yakima Closure *based on hard date; agreement allows for variable closure date; 4/1/19-12/31/21

16-bed Crisis Triage in Spokane Region 5/31/19-6/30/21

Crisis Enhancements in Pierce & SW Regions 5/31/19-6/1/21

Crisis Vouchers 7/1/19-12/1/19

HARPS Teams 7/1/19-3/1/20 C.
Crisis Housing (10%) 7/1/19-7/1/20

Mobile Crisis Teams 7/1/19-7/1/20

*WASPC Funding for Co Responders Allocated 7/1/19

Intensive Case Management 7/1/19-7/1/20

Crisis Intervention Training 2/1/19-6/30/20 D.
Technical Assistance to Jails 6/1/19-7/1/20

Enhanced Peer Support 7/1/19-5/1/20 E.
Workforce Development 6/1/19-6/30/21 *ongoing activities

 First semi-annual Monitoring Report due 2/2020  2020 Legislative Session 1/8/20-3/8/20  2021 Legislative Session 1/10/21-4/25/21

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 663-1 Filed 04/18/19 Page 20 of 41
Quarterly Implementation Status Report April 2019
Attachment D

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 663-1 Filed 04/18/19 Page 21 of 41

Trueblood Diversion Grant Program and Trueblood Settlement comparison

Trueblood v DSHS (Trueblood) is an active lawsuit that challenged unconstitutional delays in competency evaluation and restoration services. Because of this lawsuit, the state has been ordered to provide court-ordered competency evaluations within 14 days and competency restoration services within seven days. Trueblood helps individuals who are detained in city and county jails awaiting a competency evaluation or restoration services, and individuals who have previously received competency evaluation and restoration services, who are released and atrisk for re-arrest or re-institutionalization.

There are many conversations regarding Trueblood funding. It is important to realize that there are two types of funding with regard to Trueblood and they come from two very different sources to support three different initiatives – Trueblood Grants, Trueblood Settlement (awaiting Legislative approval), and Prosecutorial Diversion funding. It should be clear that the diversion grant program and the prosecutorial diversion programs are separate and are apart from the settlement agreement approved by the Court in December of 2018.

Trueblood Grants:
The State of Washington has paid many millions of dollars to the federal court in fines for failing to comply with the Court’s Orders in Trueblood. In 2016, the Court ordered that some of this money be used to fund programs that divert class members from the criminal justice system and creating a Trueblood Diversion Workgroup comprised of Plaintiff and Defendant counsel, representatives from DSHS, the Court Monitor and an additional expert to assist the Court Monitor. Grant funding is time limited and grantees develop sustainability plans for funding future operations once the court granted funds have run out.
This Workgroup has since identified and funded service providers from around the state who are working to divert people with mental illness and other disabilities from the criminal system. Since late 2016, the Trueblood Diversion Workgroup has released three separate requests for proposals and now funds multiple projects statewide. The most recent RFP is available on the Disability Rights website.
Seattle Foundation was appointed to serve as fiscal sponsor for the program in early 2017 and all contempt fines used to fund the Trueblood diversion programs are housed at the foundation. The Court Monitor oversees the implementation of these 12 programs.
Retrieved Disability Rights Washington from https://www. disabilityrightswa.org/cases/trueblood/ on March 6, 2019.

Trueblood Settlement:
The settlement agreement aims to resolve the Trueblood lawsuit by creating a plan delivering an array of services for class members and potential class members. The settlement is separate and apart from the Trueblood diversion grant program and the prosecutorial diversion program.
This agreement includes expanding residential mental health with crisis services; additional training for jail staff and law enforcement; hiring additional forensic navigators and more mental health professionals to educate courts about the availability of supports that could meet the needs of individuals who have to wait in jail for evaluation and restoration services.
Additionally, the goal is to bring the state into compliance and reduce the number of people who become or remain class members and timely serve those who cannot be diverted from becoming class members and focus on effective outcomes and success of existing programs in Washington.
Separate from the Trueblood grant funding decisions that are approved through the Federal District Court as described above, funding to support the Settlement Agreement would be provided through the Washington state budget process. This process requires that DSHS seek funding from the legislature and the Governor’s Office to support the strategies within the Trueblood Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement is organized into phases, with each phase lasting two years. The first phase of the agreement runs from July 2019 through June 2021. The legislature is currently deliberating on the state budget for that two-year period.

DSHS Prosecutorial Diversion Contracts:
Currently the Department of Social and Health Services’ Office of Forensic Mental Health manages three prosecutorial diversion contracts in King County as well as the Spokane and Tri-City regions. The purpose of these programs is to divert individuals from the criminal justice system through diversion and ensure program participants are receiving services in their community where they are familiar and supported. Funding for these three contracts was provided by the legislature for the current biennium. Funding for the upcoming biennium was part of DSHS’ ongoing maintenance budget request that was submitted to the Governor and legislature. DSHS anticipates continued funding for these contracts through future maintenance budget requests.

For more information on Trueblood and the Settlement Agreement, please visit: www.dshs.wa.gov and search “Trueblood”

Quarterly Implementation Status Report Ap(3r/1i9l) 2019
Attachment D - Page 1 of 1

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 663-1 Filed 04/18/19 Page 22 of 41
Quarterly Implementation Status Report April 2019
Attachment E

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 663-1 Filed 04/18/19 Page 23 of 41

Trueblood v DSHS

Trueblood is an active lawsuit that challenged unconstitutional delays in competency evaluation and restoration services. In April 2015, a federal court found that the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) was taking too long to provide competency evaluation and restoration services. Because of that case, the state entered into a Settlement Agreement that outlines an array of services to better deliver the right care, at the

right time to the right people and reduce the number of people who become or remain class members.
During the first phase of the settlement, July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2021, the following will be implemented statewide pending approval by the legislature. Italicized items are planned for regional implementation. Phase One Regions include Southwest, Pierce, and Spokane.

In order to ensure people receive competency evaluations within the court-ordered timeframe of 14 days we will:
• Add 18 additional forensic evaluators. • Continue implementation of a new forensic data system to better predict and respond to demand.
In order to ensure people receive competency restoration services within the court-ordered timeframe of seven days we will:
• Seek legislative changes to reduce the number of people ordered to restoration services. • Implement outpatient restoration programs with residential supports and case management services. • Add additional inpatient restoration services capacity. • Eventual ramp down of the alternate restoration facilities in Yakima and Maple Lane. • Create Forensic Navigator positions to facilitate the information sharing needed between the courts, class members, providers,
and DSHS.
Many of the problems with untimely competency evaluations are preventable if fewer people with mental illness enter the criminal justice system. When people are able to get the treatment they need when they need it, they are more likely to avoid the criminal justice system. They are also less likely to place strains on the civil inpatient system. We intend to explore opportunities to provide access to appropriate behavioral health services, which dramatically reduce the number of individuals entering the criminal justice system – enabling the state to meet the constitutional competency evaluation and restoration services timelines. We plan to do this through the below supports, trainings and development:

Crisis Triage and Diversion Support:
• Increase funding for Crisis Triage and Stabilization facilities, including adding 16 beds in Spokane Region.
• Assess the need for crisis capacity in King County and develop a plan.
• Expand Mobile Crisis and Co-responder Programs in which police and mental health providers work together.
• Provide residential supports (such as housing subsidies or emergency shelter vouchers) and case management services for select individuals involved in these systems.

Education and Training:
• Expand behavioral health crisis training for emergency dispatchers, jail corrections officers, and patrol officers.
• Provide training and assistance to jails on issues affecting class members.
• Develop best practices for diversion and stabilization of class members.

Workforce Development:
• Develop an enhanced Peer Support Program for individuals with specialized training in criminal justice.
• Integrate the use of Peer Support Specialists into systems developed within the agreement.
• Assess the need for training, certification, and degree programs to better meet the mental health system’s workforce and training needs.

For more information on Trueblood and the Settlement Agreement, please visit: www.dshs.wa.gov and search “Trueblood”

Quarterly Implementation Status Report April 2(03/1199)
Attachment E - Page 1 of 1

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 663-1 Filed 04/18/19 Page 24 of 41
Quarterly Implementation Status Report April 2019
Attachment F

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 663-1 Filed 04/18/19 Page 25 of 41
Trueblood Frequently Asked Questions
What is Trueblood v DSHS?
Trueblood v DSHS (Trueblood) is a case challenging unconstitutional delays in competency evaluation and restoration services. As a result of this case, the state has been ordered to provide court-ordered competency evaluations within 14 days and competency restoration services within seven days. Trueblood helps individuals who are detained in city and county jails awaiting a competency evaluation or restoration services, and individuals who have previously received competency evaluation and restoration services, who are released and at-risk for re-arrest or re-institutionalization.
What is the Trueblood Settlement Agreement?
The settlement agreement aims to resolve the Trueblood lawsuit by creating a plan delivering an array of services for class members and potential class members. This agreement includes expanding residential mental health with crisis services; additional training for jail staff and law enforcement; hiring additional forensic navigators and more mental health professionals to educate courts about the availability of supports that could meet the needs of individuals who have to wait in jail for evaluation and restoration services. Additionally, the goal is to bring the state into compliance and reduce the number of people who become or remain class members and timely serve those who cannot be diverted from becoming class members and focus on effective outcomes and success of existing programs in Washington.
Where will the State start implementing the Trueblood Settlement?
The settlement has three phases. The first phase involves the Southwest, Spokane and Pierce regions – the second phase integrates King County region. After the first two phases are complete, there will be an opportunity to a) expand or modify the first two phases within the already participating regions, or b) if the first two phases are successful, look at integrating the agreement into new, high-referral regions or c) a mixture of both a and b.
Is funding guaranteed as a Phase 1 or Phase 2 region?
We follow the Washington state budget process in requesting funding for the Trueblood Settlement. Each phase will require involvement in the budget process in order to secure funding for these efforts.

For more information on Trueblood and the Settlement Agreement, please visit: www.dshs.wa.gov and search “Trueblood”

Quarterly Implementation Status Report April(32/1091) 9
Attachment F - Page 1 of 2

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 663-1 Filed 04/18/19 Page 26 of 41
Why were those counties/regions selected for Phase 1 and 2?
When selecting regions for the first two phases, the negotiation team looked at how many of the services were already partially or completely underway in various regions. These three regions were selected because of the ability to have a large impact on class members. By implementing in stages, we can build a system that incorporates known successes in current programs in our state and new services in a way that breaks down silos, which become barriers to people in a behavioral health crisis from getting the right care, at the right time and in the right place.
Our county is not a part of the two phases. What does this mean for my county?
Like anything, there will be a learning phase with the implementation of this plan – if you are not in a region taking part in the first two phases, remember, there are still opportunities for all of us to learn what works and what doesn’t from what’s happening during the implementation of this plan and an opportunity to continue adding regions in the future.
Will information be shared about what is success in the settlement? Can regions not selected in phase 1 or 2 implement these successes on their own?
Absolutely. We will share successes regularly. All Regions can choose to implement diversion strategies that work. Currently, there are diversion strategies occurring throughout the state of Washington that are showing a positive impact.
Quarterly Implementation Status Report April 2019
Attachment F - Page 2 of 2

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 663-1 Filed 04/18/19 Page 27 of 41
Quarterly Implementation Status Report April 2019
Attachment G

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 663-1 Filed 04/18/19 Page 28 of 41
Quarterly Implementation Status Report April 2019
Attachment G - Page 1 of 3

Scheduled Key Turnover Date: June 12

Activity
Print/post Manuals (DOH, Fire marshal) Finalize Documents-CRS Schedule DOH CRS Tour
Fire Marshall Tour - CRS City of Lakewood Inspection

Owner
OFMHS AC AC AC AC

Prior to
Keys
X X X X X

Week Week Week Week Week Week Week Week After

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 Opening

6/12-6/19 6/20-6/26 6/27-7/3 7/5-7/10 7/11-7/17 7/18-7/24
Licensures, Certifications and Permits*

7/25-8/1

8/2-8/7

Comments

Receive RTF Licensure

AC

X

Occupancy Permit

AC

X

DOH Behavioral Health Licensure OFMHS

Tour

X

RTF Licensure tour (not announced) OFMHS

DOH HCE inspection

OFMHS

HCE licensure received DEA application submitted

DEA certification

OFMHS

X X X

Personnel records review,

patient rights posting/signage

review, licensure/permit

postings. Equipment and

infrastructure needs to be

intact.

X

Dependent on pyxis install

(below). Takes 7-10 days for

licensure following inspection.

Best case timeframe for

licensure.

Credential number from HCE

licensure is needed for DEA

application.

X

DEA review is 4-6 weeks. This is week 5 (average).

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 663-1 Filed 04/18/19 Page 29 of 41
Quarterly Implementation Status Report April 2019
Attachment G - Page 2 of 3

Activity
Punch list/QA review/ All systems check Capital Programs Walk Thru
Lease Turnover Furniture Install AC
Equipment Install AC Facility Cleaning AC
Internal signage AC IT infrastructure Install (hardware, cabling closet, computer, phones, ID bracelets, printers, software, EBADs)
Pyxis install
Deep Clean
Orders Delivery (commissary, central supply, vendors) DSHS Equipment Install
CMO work orders
Key Core Completion Environment of Care checklist (see excel file)

Owner
AC All AC/O AC AC AC AC OFMHS
DSHS

Prior to
Keys
X X X X X X X
X
X

Week Week Week Week Week Week Week Week After

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 Opening

6/12-6/19

6/20-6/26

6/27-7/3 7/5-7/10 7/11-7/17
Other Contd.

7/18-7/24

7/25-8/1

8/2-8/7

Comments

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Office furniture needs installed prior to computers for work stations. Will do med room first for pyxis install. EBADS to take no more than one week. Requires power, internet, software. Standard cleaning prior to DOH tours

X

Small fridge, VC monitors,

restraint bed, chart racks

X

Orders placed as things break or need to be put together

Identify vision with Mark

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 663-1 Filed 04/18/19 Page 30 of 41
Quarterly Implementation Status Report April 2019
Attachment G - Page 3 of 3

Activity

Owner

Prior to
Keys

Week Week Week Week Week Week Week Week After

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 Opening

6/12-6/19

6/20-6/26

6/27-7/3 7/5-7/10 7/11-7/17
Other Contd.

7/18-7/24

7/25-8/1

8/2-8/7

Comments

Vehicle onsite External Signage

X

X

X

X

Train staff Wireless install Cable install

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

(X)1

X

X

Radios units-delivery, storage, charging stations

X

X

*if these activities are delayed, opening will be delayed.

1Partial Week

Signage external to building to direct traffic to site
Mark to install WAPs from DSHS Cable co. will coordinate with Mark to access the building

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 663-1 Filed 04/18/19 Page 31 of 41
Quarterly Implementation Status Report April 2019
Attachment H

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 663-1 Filed 04/18/19 Page 32 of 41
17APRIL2019
Fort Steilacoom Competency Restoration Program Staff Training Plan and Timeline
The training that is required to onboard and prepare staff for operations at the Fort Steilacoom Competency Restoration Program is extensive. The goal of the initial staff training and orientation is demonstrated competency. Training shall consist of a combination of classroom instruction, self-guided online training, mentoring, and coaching during hands-on practice and drills.
A total of 77 staff members, including 64 direct-care staff and on-call staff, shall be hired to operate the program. While some staff may have experience working with forensic patients in other DSHS facilities, others will be completely new to the setting. Moreover, these staff have not previously worked together as a team or in the new facility. It is therefore essential that the direct care staff train as teams, building skills together, in order to be fully competent in their understanding of the patient population, the expectations of their position in providing excellent care and treatment, the importance of their work in maintaining a safe and therapeutic environment, and all of the policies and procedures that apply to their duties.
The Department conducted a thorough analysis of the training requirements and developed a comprehensive training curriculum master plan and time line (See Exhibit A). The Department also consulted with Greg Roberts, former CEO of Oregon State Hospital and consultant to DSHS regarding optimal time to allocate for training prior to beginning care operations. His recommendation, informed by his experience closing a 72-bed facility and opening a completely new facility, was for a three-month training and orientation period. Recognizing the need to open beds at Building 27 as expeditiously as possible, the Department has put together a schedule that is shorter than this recommendation.
As shown in Figure 1 of Appendix A, a total of eight weeks (from employment start date to satisfactory completion of required training) is needed for training. Staff hiring and training will be done in cohorts depending on hire date. In order to bring beds online as soon as possible, some training will be provided prior to the Department receiving the keys to the facility from the Contractor. However, even using this strategy, not all staff will be able to complete all the training prior to the occupancy permit being granted. The training plan will therefore use training cohorts to maximize training efficiency. Additionally, access to the facility is required to complete much of the training including team practice drills.
The eight week allotted time between gaining access to the building and receiving the first patients will also allow the Department to ensure that the facility is safe and fully ready for operations. As with any new building, it is reasonable to expect that some minor work or modifications may be necessary. Computers, software applications, and other IT-related configurations must be completed during this time period, and computer network access is required for staff to complete required online training. Moreover, while the Department plans to have all staff hired prior to receiving the keys to the building, it is possible that a few staff members may leave employment before operations begin. Thus, the eight week window will allow time to onboard additional staff.
The Department recognizes that modification to the training curriculum and time-line may be necessary in order to adjust for any new training requirements (e.g., additional software training). The goal is to complete training in an expeditious but mindful, reasonable, and practical manner lasting no more than eight weeks.
1
Quarterly Implementation Status Report April 2019
Attachment H - Page 1 of 6

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 663-1 Filed 04/18/19 Page 33 of 41 17APRIL2019
Western State Hospital’s New Employee Orientation (WSH NEO) is a three week program. It is pre-scheduled by the Hospital and conducted almost entirely within the Organizational Development building. Its content meets the basic requirements for State Hospital employment, with its third week exclusive to nursing staff and meets the basic requirements for staff on-boarding at FSCRP. OFMHS has developed six weeks of additional academic and practical training to follow WSH NEO, which includes clinical-skills training in Competency Restoration Services, Social Learning, and Crisis Intervention. This period also includes all software related training for program operations as well as safety training, including facility security procedures and emergency management procedures. Drills for all staff are included, such as room searches, evacuation, fire watch, and elopement. These drills require coordination with Hospital partners such as the Emergency Management Team, the Hospital Command Center, and the Security Department.
Phase 3 of the FSCRP hiring plan will represent a large number of staff requiring training. Capacity and training resources within WSH are regulated and OFMHS staff will be training side-by-side with WSH staff during NEO. Therefore, a plan that contemplates that all staff are hired and progressively trained as a collective group is not possible. Instead, OFMHS will stage cohorts of hired staff for a training program that begins with WSH NEO pursuant to its schedule, and progresses to the OFMHS six week program. (See Figure 2). This plan requires OFMHS to commence training for the first group of trainees six weeks before access to B27 is available. This group will be complete with its training six weeks after access has been provided. However, subsequent staff groups will still be in training. The first group that completes its training will be tasked with assisting FSCRP leadership in preparation of the facility. This plan also provides for the time and likelihood that not all job offers are accepted, requiring the hiring authority to re-engage certified lists of applicants and make new offers.
Figure 1 Training cohorts based on hire dates
2
Quarterly Implementation Status Report April 2019
Attachment H - Page 2 of 6

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 663-1 Filed 04/18/19 Page 34 of 41 17APRIL2019

Figure 2 Detailed breakdown of training modules for each cohort

6-May 13-May

20-May

28-May

3-Jun

10-Jun

17-Jun

24-Jun

1-Jul

8-Jul

15-Jul

22-Jul

Group 1 Group 1

Group 1

Group 1

Group 1

Group 1

WSH NEO WSH CLINICAL OFMHS ELECTRONIC WSH/OFMHS WSH/OFMHS

WSH/OFMHS

SYSTEMS / WSH RTF SAFETY RTF SAFETY

RTF SAFETY

PHARMACY FOR (REFRESHED (REFRESHED ON- (REFRESHED ON-

NURSES

ON-UNIT WITH UNIT WITH GROUP UNIT WITH

GROUP 2 OR 3) 2 OR 3)

GROUP 2 OR 3)

Group 2

Group 2

Group 2

Group 2

WSH NEO

WSH CLINICAL OFMHS ELECTRONIC OFMHS CLINICAL

SYSTEMS / WSH Breaking Barriers

PHARMACY FOR

NURSES

Group 1 OFMHS CLINICAL Social Learning
Group 2 OFMHS CLINICAL Social Learning

Group 1 OFMHS CLINICAL Breaking Barriers

Group 2 WSH/OFMHS RTF SAFETY

Group 2 WSH/OFMHS RTF SAFETY

Group 2 WSH/OFMHS RTF SAFETY

Group 3 WSH NEO

Group 3 WSH CLINICAL

Group 3

Group 3

OFMHS ELECTRONIC OFMHS CLINICAL

SYSTEMS / WSH Breaking Barriers

PHARMACY FOR

NURSES

Group 3

Group 3

Group 3

Group 3

OFMHS CLINICAL WSH/OFMHS WSH/OFMHS WSH/OFMHS

Social Learning RTF SAFETY RTF SAFETY RTF SAFETY

Access to Building 27 (6/12/19)

End of Cohort Training (7/26/19)

Table 1. Training Outline

TRAINING MODULE DESCRIPTION TOPICS COVERED

1 Week - Mandatory WSH NEO GENERAL (All Staff)

FSCRP resides on the grounds of • Introduction

(1 hr)

Western State Hospital. Due to • Infection Control and Bloodborne Pathogens – Employee

the nexus between FSCRP and the

Health

(45 min)

Hospital’s services to the program, • Human Resources

(2 hr)

FSCRP employees will attend the • Situational Awareness

(90 min)

Hospital’s New Employee

• Information Technology Security

(30 min)

Orientation. Basic onboarding functions are served during this week. However, some training during this week that is not relevant to FSCRP employees will be substituted with OFMHS delivered training, e.g. MANDT instead of CPI (used by the Hospital). This week’s training is didactic and hands-on.

• Preventing Patient Abuse, Neglect, Harassment & Exploitation

(2 hr)

• Patient Rights and Suicide Prevention

(90 min)

• Fire Watch, Firebox, Pass Key and Pendants, Handheld Metal

Detectors, Emergency Communication

(3 hr)

• Security & Safety Department Overview

(1 hr)

• Quality Department and FSCRP

(1 hr)

• MANDT physical training

(2 days)

• Presentation by Labor Partners(30 min)

• Safety and Claims

(2 hr)

• Trauma and Resiliency (for staff)

(90 min)

• Restraint Application and Med Sled

(2.5 hr)

• Patient to Patient Intervention

(1 hr)

• Culture of Safety

(1 hr)

• Cultural Competence and Diversity

(1 hr)

• Baseline Behavior

(2 hr)

• Food Handlers Overview – working with WSH

(1 hr)

3
Quarterly Implementation Status Report April 2019
Attachment H - Page 3 of 6

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 663-1 Filed 04/18/19 Page 35 of 41 17APRIL2019

• Labor Partners • ID Badge Photos

(30 min) (30 min)

1 Week - WSH NEO Clinical: (All Staff )

This week’s training introduces all • BLS/CPR

(4hr)

employees in direct-care to shared • Keywatcher Enrollment

(90 min)

clinical concepts and

• Charting and Patient Documentation

(3 hr)

responsibilities. While this is the • Seclusion and Restraint Policy, Expectations, and Best

only training of its type for

Practices

Hospital staff, OFMHS considers • Trauma Informed Care

this basic but foundational for the • Understanding Mental Illness

advanced programmatic training • Therapeutic Engagement and Roll Play

required by FSCRP. This week’s • Stigma training is didactic and hands-on. • Debriefing

(90 min) (2 hr) (1 hr) (1 hr)

• 10 Principles of Recovery

(2 hr)

• Charting and Patient Documentation

(4 hr)

• Treatment Planning

(3 hr)

• Vital Signs/Lifts/Fall Prevention

(2.5 hr)

• Emergency Equipment and Response

(1 hr)

• Assigned Monitoring

(1 hr)

• Suicide Assessment and Monitoring

(1 hr)

• Application of Restraint and Documentation

(3.5 hr)

• Assessing and Preventing Suicide

(1 hr )

• Fall Prevention Documentation

(1 hr)

1 Week - Clinical (Nurses only– RN2, RN3, On-Calls)

This is Employer required training • Diabetes Care

(2 hr)

by all Nurses working in State

• Pharmacy Overview

(30 min)

Hospitals.

• Anti-Depressants

(1 hr)

• Mood Stabilizers

(1 hr)

• Medication Policy Manual

(2.5 hr)

• Anxiolytics and Hypnotics

(30 min)

• Antipsychotics and EPS/TD

(1.5 hr)

• Food and Nutrition – Dietician Services

(30 min)

• Pyxis Tutorials

(1.5 hr)

• Glucometers

(3.5 hr)

• Pharmacological Exam Prep

(2 hr)

• Pharmacy Review/Cases

(1 hr)

• Medi-MAR Phase One

(75 min)

• Pharmacological Exam

(75 min)

• Pharmacy Wrap-Up

(1.5 hr)

• Nursing Assessments and Documentation

(4 hr)

• Ward Orientation with Nurse Educators

(3.5 hr)

• Electronic Training Make-Up

(10 hr)

1 Weeks - FSCRP Electronic Systems Training (all staff)

This week of training is dedicated • Clinical Frequency Reporting System – Social Learning Active

to the several software systems

Treatment Tracking Software

4
Quarterly Implementation Status Report April 2019
Attachment H - Page 4 of 6

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 663-1 Filed 04/18/19 Page 36 of 41 17APRIL2019

that will be utilized by all staff at FSCRP. Time is also allocated for the 10 hours of required LMS online trainings for all staff working in direct care. Nurses will receive training in CACHE and ADT during their Nurse specific week. This training is largely hands-on.

• CACHE – Comprehensive Patient Record Software • ADT – Admission, Discharge, Transfer Record Software (add-on
module to CACHE) • E-AROI – Administrative Reports of Incident Software • Work Orders – Logging service work orders with CMO • LMS – Learning Management System Required Online Training
Courses

2 Weeks - Safety/Security: All Staff

FSCRP maintains a responsibility • Shield Use

(3 hr)

to the Safety and Security of

• Life Safety, Fire Response and Fire Watch

(1.5 hr)

Patients, Staff, and the Public. All • Hospital Watch Duty and Practical Application

(30 min)

staff will be trained in the Safety • Emergency Evacuation

(2 hr)

and Security Curriculum of State • Evidence Collecting and Handling

(2 hr)

Hospitals. This week’s training is • Interviewing Techniques and Methods

(1 hr)

didactic and hands-on.

• Mitigation and Response Strategies and Practical Application

(4 hr)

• Radio Use

(1 hr)

• Conducting Searches

(3 hr)

• Security Inspections: Interior and Exterior

(1.5 hr)

• Core Competencies

(4 hr)

• Emergency Management CEMP COOP ICS

(1 hr)

• Professional Conduct

(1 hr)

• Customer Service, Staff Misconduct, Restraining Orders (1 hr)

• Workplace Violence

(1 hr)

• Ethics

(1 hr)

• Fundamentals, Mindset, Clientele

(2 hr)

• Security Overview and Operations

(1 hr)

• Patient Elopement, Unauthorized Leave Response,

Recognition, Reporting & Patrol Methods

(2 hr)

• Code Response

(3 hr)

• Clientele/Client Engagement

(1 hr)

• Security Incident Report Writing

(4 hr)

• Keys & Emergency Key Sets

(30 min)

• Restraint Use

(2 hr)

• Walkthrough and Patrol Methods

(1 hr)

• Advanced Training: Restraint, Spit Masks, Helmets (4 hr)

• Full Incident Response Scenarios and Evaluation

(16 hr)

3 Weeks - OFMHS Advanced Clinical and Drills

This final block of training is the • Breaking Barriers and CORE Instructor

programmatic content and

• Social Learning Psychosocial Program

practice period that will

• Personality Disorders: Best Practices in Restoration

distinguish FSCRP as a Forensic

Treatment Settings

Center of Excellence. This is also the period in which all staff will drill in critical operational

• Working with Psychiatric Patients: Compassion and Client’s Best Interests

5
Quarterly Implementation Status Report April 2019
Attachment H - Page 5 of 6

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 663-1 Filed 04/18/19 Page 37 of 41 17APRIL2019

functions prior to opening (from lessons learned at Maple Lane) to reduce risk and errors, after opening. These drills will become OJT after opening. This 3 week period is heavy with hands-on learning.

• Working with Psychiatric Patients: Recognizing Warning Signs

and Triggers

• Competency Evaluation in Competency Restoration Settings:

Best Practices for Restoration Staff

• ACIT – Advanced Crisis Intervention Team Training – Trauma

Informed De-Escalation

(3 days)

• Secure Admission/Discharge – Procedures and Drills

• Day Room Incident Scene Clearing – Procedures and Drills

• Manual Holds, Movement to Areas of Reduced Stimulation,

Movement to S/R

• Completed Suicide Incident Management

• Patient Escorting – lines, ratios, and movement Procedures

and Drills

(4 hr)

• Yard Sweep and Fence Security Inspection Procedures and

Drills

(1 hr)

• Interior Physical Security Inspection of B27 Procedures and

Drills

• Emergency Evac – Procedures and Drills, coordination with

WSH partners

• Elopement – Procedures and Drills, coordination with WSH

partners

6
Quarterly Implementation Status Report April 2019
Attachment H - Page 6 of 6

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 663-1 Filed 04/18/19 Page 38 of 41
Quarterly Implementation Status Report April 2019
Attachment I

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 663-1 Filed 04/18/19 Page 39 of 41 B27 MONTHLY STATUS REPORT, APRIL 2019

BUILDING 27 PROJECT
FORT STEILACOOM COMPETENCY RESTORATION PROGRAM

Expanding Restoration Treatment Options in Washington

Project Summary Building 27, located on Western State Hospital campus, will be remodeled as a Residential Treatment Facility (RTF) to provide competency restoration treatment services to 30 patients. This project is a collaborative effort between DSHS and the plaintiffs in the Trueblood et al v. Washington State Department of Social and Health Services (Trueblood) federal court case. Trueblood requires that when a defendant is found not competent to stand trial, they may not wait longer than seven days to be placed into treatment. The Building 27 RTF will add 30 additional beds.

Project Status Update
Overall Status
 Completed  No impact to successful completion  Potential impact to successful completion  Impact to successful completion is present
Project Deliverables Phase 1 - Initiation
Project Summary Project Charter Project Schedule Risk/Issue Log (updated weekly, ongoing) Communications Plan (ongoing) Status Reports (first of each month, ongoing) Construction Drawings (ongoing) IT/Patient Records Needs Assessment Lease Agreement Admissions Criteria DSHS Budget through June 2019 Phase 2 - Planning Policy and Procedures – Master list/court memo Training Plan Staffing Plan ET Scope Requirements IT Scope Requirements Software Requirements

Schedule


Scope


Budget Quality





Schedul e Scope Budget Quality









































































































































Page 1 of 3

Quarterly Implementation Status Report April 2019 Attachment I - Page 1 of 3

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 663-1 Filed 04/18/19 Page 40 of 41 B27 MONTHLY STATUS REPORT, APRIL 2019

Overall Status
DOH CRS Application (ongoing until final approval) DOH CRS Approval (TBD) City of Lakewood Demolition Permit Position Descriptions ESH Admissions to RTFs - Referral Policy Memorandum of Understanding/ IAA’s (TBD) WSH Contract Amendments Ordering List Emergency Management Plan (3/29/19) Continuity of Operations Plan (4/5/19) Disaster Recovery Plan IT/ET bids Phase 3 - Implementation DOH Policies and Procedures Training Materials (3/31)* DOH Licensure Application DOH Certification Application DOH Licensure and Certification Issued (TBD) Health Care Entity Certification Application Draft HCE Procedure Manual Final HCE Procedure Manual (4/1) Heath Care Entity Certification Issued (TBD - May) DEA Certification Application (TBD - May) DEA Certification Issued (TBD - May) Clinical Frequencies Reporting System Purchased* Patient and Facility Schedules* Breaking Barriers Program (TBD) Social Learning Program (4/1) Business License approved Certificate of Coverage issued Phase 1 staff on board (TBD)* Phase 2 staff on board (4/15)* Phase 3 staff on board (TBD) Occupancy Permit (TBD - June) Remodeled Facility (TBD - June 12)* 2019-2021 Budget to operate the facility (TBD) Radio Units Received Radio Expansion (TBD) Electrical Plan (ongoing) VC/T Equipment Vehicle Lease

Schedule



  
 

 
 
         

  

  





    

Page 2 of 3

Scope



  



 
 

Budget



  



 
 

Quality



  
 

 
 

         

  

  



 
    

         

  

  



 
    

         

  

  



 
    

Quarterly Implementation Status Report April 2019 Attachment I - Page 2 of 3

Case 2:14-cv-01178-MJP Document 663-1 Filed 04/18/19 Page 41 of 41 B27 MONTHLY STATUS REPORT, APRIL 2019

Overall Status
B27 Work Instructions (4/15, ongoing)* Windows procured and installed - first 31 (5/29) Windows procured and installed (second set) (TBD) Phase 4 - Closure Closure Report (8/31)* B27 Party (TBD) *Modified since last report

Schedule

  
 

Scope

  
 

Budget

  

Quality

  









Completed Milestones  Phase 1 staffing is complete.  The training materials are complete.  Clinical Frequencies Reporting System Purchased. The first site visit from the contractor was held in March.

Active Issues/Risks (High-level)  Filling beds in B27 (and all restoration beds statewide) requires that patients in any county be able to be referred and treated in any competency restoration facility. This transition is significant, and the Statewide Competency Restorations Referral Project is underway to support this work.  Medical staffing coverage has not been identified to support the program.  Modifications to the construction scope of work will continue to evolve as planning progresses. Changes to the scope of work may translate into higher costs than previously expected and impact the overall timeline.  A budget shortfall remains projected for the 2019-2021 biennium. The governor’s budget included full funding for FSCRP.  As B27 will employ state employees, new positions may translate into large gaps for other agencies and programs.  DEA licensure must occur after HCE licensure. HCE licensure can only be approved once the Pyxis machine is installed on site (after 5/3). The DEA application is prepared but cannot be submitted until HCE licensure is in place and takes 4-6 weeks to process.  B27 remains in fire watch status.

Closed Issues/Risks (High-level)  The conduit installed in the facility by the contractor was not correct. This issue is now closed because the install was approved by Tacoma power.

Additional Updates  Keys are anticipated June 12th. First patient anticipated no later than August 7th.  A revised draft of the HCE manual was submitted to DOH for review. If no additional feedback is received, the manual will be considered final.  Phase 1 staffing is complete.  Phase 2 staffing has 6 out of 7 positions hired.  Phase 3 staffing is underway with 4 out of 65.5 positions hired.  Contract amendments at WSH to support B27 are on track.  IT identified that the UPS battery backup for the radios was not included in the initial bid to upgrade the radio network. The change in cost is +$55,722.

Page 3 of 3

Quarterly Implementation Status Report April 2019 Attachment I - Page 3 of 3

 </s> U.S. District Court United States District Court for the Western District of Washington (Seattle)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:14-cv-01178-MJP

Trueblood, et al v. Washington State Department of Health and Human Services et al Assigned to: Judge Marsha J. Pechman Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question

Date Filed: 08/04/2014 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff
Cassie Cordell Trueblood next friend of Ara Badayos, an incapacitated person

represented by Braden C Pence MAZZONE LAW FIRM PLLC 3002 COLBY AVENUE STE 302 EVERETT, WA 98201 425-259-4989 Email: bradenp@mazzonelaw.com TERMINATED: 09/03/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christopher Robert Carney CARNEY GILLESPIE ISITT PLLP 600 1ST AVE., SUITE LL08 SEATTLE, WA 98104 206-445-0220 Fax: 206-445-0220 Email: christopher.carney@cgilaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David R Carlson DISABILITY RIGHTS WASHINGTON 315 5TH AVE S STE 850 SEATTLE, WA 98104 206-324-1521 Email: DavidC@dr-wa.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sean P Gillespie

CARNEY GILLESPIE ISITT PLLP 600 1ST AVE., SUITE LL08 SEATTLE, WA 98104 206-445-0211 Email: sean.gillespie@cgilaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alexa Helen Polaski DISABILITY RIGHTS WASHINGTON 315 5TH AVE S STE 850 SEATTLE, WA 98104 206-324-1521 Email: alexap@dr-wa.org TERMINATED: 08/27/2019
Anita Khandelwal PUBLIC DEFENDER ASSOCIATION 110 PREFONTAINE PLACE SOUTH, SUITE 502 SEATTLE, WA 98104 206-451-7195 Email: anitak@defender.org TERMINATED: 04/12/2016
Anna Catherine Guy DISABILITY RIGHTS WASHINGTON 315 5TH AVE S STE 850 SEATTLE, WA 98104 206-324-1521 Email: annag@dr-wa.org TERMINATED: 08/08/2017
Elizabeth A. Leonard DISABILITY RIGHTS WASHINGTON 315 5TH AVE S STE 850 SEATTLE, WA 98104 206-324-1521 Email: bethl@dr-wa.org

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Emily Cooper DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON 610 SW BROADWAY STE 200 PORTLAND, OR 97205 503-243-2081 Email: ecooper@droregon.org TERMINATED: 02/20/2018
Kenan Lee Isitt CARNEY GILLESPIE ISITT PLLP 315 FIFTH AVE S STE 860 SEATTLE, WA 98104 206-445-0207 Fax: 206-260-2486 Email: kenan.isitt@cgilaw.com TERMINATED: 01/16/2020
Kimberly Ann Mosolf DISABILITY RIGHTS WASHINGTON 315 5TH AVE S STE 850 SEATTLE, WA 98104 206-324-1521 Email: kimberlym@dr-wa.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
La Rond Baker KING COUNTY DPD 710 SECOND AVE STE 200 SEATTLE, WA 98104 206-263-6884 Email: lbaker@kingcounty.gov TERMINATED: 07/11/2017
Lisa M Daugaard PUBLIC DEFENDER ASSOCIATION 110 PREFONTAINE PLACE SOUTH, SUITE 502 SEATTLE, WA 98104 206-392-0050

Plaintiff
Snohomish County Public Defender Association a non-profit corporation TERMINATED: 09/12/2014

Email: lisa.daugaard@defender.org TERMINATED: 05/23/2016
Margaret Chen AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF WA 901 5TH AVENUE STE 630 SEATTLE, WA 98164 206-624-2184 Email: margaret.chen@gmail.com TERMINATED: 02/23/2017
Sarah A Dunne ACLU OF WASHINGTON 901 FIFTH AVENUE SUITE 630 PO BOX 2728 SEATTLE, WA 98111 206-624-2184 Email: sarahadunne@yahoo.com TERMINATED: 03/31/2015
represented by Braden C Pence (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/03/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christopher Robert Carney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David R Carlson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sean P Gillespie (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anita Khandelwal (See above for address)

Plaintiff
A.B. by and through her next friend Cassie Cordell Trueblood

TERMINATED: 04/12/2016
Emily Cooper (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/20/2018
Kenan Lee Isitt (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/16/2020
Margaret Chen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/23/2017
Sarah A Dunne (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/31/2015
represented by Christopher Robert Carney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David R Carlson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sean P Gillespie (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alexa Helen Polaski (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/27/2019
Anita Khandelwal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/12/2016
Anna Catherine Guy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/08/2017

Elizabeth A. Leonard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Emily Chiang ACLU OF WASHINGTON 901 FIFTH AVENUE SUITE 630 SEATTLE, WA 98164 206-624-2184 Email: echiang@aclu-wa.org TERMINATED: 07/11/2017
Emily Cooper (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/20/2018
Jessica Wolfe ACLU OF WASHINGTON 901 FIFTH AVENUE SUITE 630 SEATTLE, WA 98164 206-624-2184 Email: jwolfe@aclu-wa.org TERMINATED: 07/11/2017
Kenan Lee Isitt (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/16/2020
Kimberly Ann Mosolf (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
La Rond Baker (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/11/2017
Margaret Chen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/23/2017
Sarah A Dunne (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/31/2015

Plaintiff
K.R. by and through his next friend Marilyn Roberts

represented by Christopher Robert Carney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David R Carlson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sean P Gillespie (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alexa Helen Polaski (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/27/2019
Anita Khandelwal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/12/2016
Anna Catherine Guy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/08/2017
Elizabeth A. Leonard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Emily Chiang (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/11/2017
Emily Cooper (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/20/2018
Jessica Wolfe (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/11/2017
Kenan Lee Isitt

Plaintiff Disability Rights Washington

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/16/2020
Kimberly Ann Mosolf (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
La Rond Baker (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/11/2017
Margaret Chen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/23/2017
Sarah A Dunne (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/31/2015
represented by Christopher Robert Carney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David R Carlson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sean P Gillespie (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alexa Helen Polaski (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/27/2019
Anita Khandelwal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/12/2016
Anna Catherine Guy (See above for address)

Plaintiff
D.D. by and through his next friend Andrea Crumpler

TERMINATED: 08/08/2017
Elizabeth A. Leonard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Emily Chiang (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/11/2017
Emily Cooper (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/20/2018
Jessica Wolfe (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/11/2017
Kenan Lee Isitt (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/16/2020
Kimberly Ann Mosolf (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
La Rond Baker (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/11/2017
Margaret Chen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/23/2017
Sarah A Dunne (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/31/2015
represented by Christopher Robert Carney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David R Carlson

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sean P Gillespie (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alexa Helen Polaski (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/27/2019
Anita Khandelwal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/12/2016
Anna Catherine Guy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/08/2017
Elizabeth A. Leonard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Emily Chiang (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/11/2017
Emily Cooper (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/20/2018
Jessica Wolfe (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/11/2017
Kenan Lee Isitt (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/16/2020
Kimberly Ann Mosolf (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
La Rond Baker

Plaintiff
Q.M. by and through his next friend Kathryn McCormick TERMINATED: 10/30/2014

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/11/2017
Margaret Chen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/23/2017
Sarah A Dunne (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/31/2015
represented by Christopher Robert Carney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David R Carlson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sean P Gillespie (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anita Khandelwal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/12/2016
Emily Cooper (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/20/2018
Kenan Lee Isitt (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/16/2020
La Rond Baker (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/11/2017
Margaret Chen (See above for address)

TERMINATED: 02/23/2017
Sarah A Dunne (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/31/2015

V.
Defendant
Washington State Department of Social and Health Services

represented by Amber Lea Leaders ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE (40124-OLY) 7141 CLEANWATER DR SW PO BOX 40124 OLYMPIA, WA 98504-0124 360-586-6504 Email: amberl1@atg.wa.gov TERMINATED: 02/28/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
Randy C. Head ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE (40124-OLY) 7141 CLEANWATER DR SW PO BOX 40124 OLYMPIA, WA 98504-0124 360-586-6565 Email: randyh@atg.wa.gov TERMINATED: 01/14/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY
Gregory K Ziser ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE (40116- OLY) PO BOX 40116 OLYMPIA, WA 98504-0116 360-586-1445 Email: gregory.ziser@atg.wa.gov TERMINATED: 06/16/2020
Jessica Marie Erickson ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE (40124-OLY) 7141 CLEANWATER DR SW PO BOX 40124

OLYMPIA, WA 98504-0124 360-586-6553 Email: JessicaE@atg.wa.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John K McIlhenny ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE (40126-OLY) 7141 CLEANWATER DRIVE SW PO BOX 40126 OLYMPIA, WA 98504-0126 360-586-6300 Email: JohnM5@atg.wa.gov TERMINATED: 12/31/2015
Marko Pavela ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE (LACEY) 7141 CLEANWATER DRIVE SW PO BOX 40124 OLYMPIA, WA 98504-0124 360-534-4866 Email: MarkoP@atg.wa.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Bradley WASHINGTON STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL (CLEANWATER) 7141 CLEANWATER DRIVE SW OLYMPIA, WA 98504 360-664-4966 Email: michael.bradley@atg.wa.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas A Williamson WASHINGTON STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL (CLEANWATER) 7141 CLEANWATER DRIVE SW OLYMPIA, WA 98504 360-586-6459 Email: NicholasW1@atg.wa.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah Jane Coats

Defendant Western State Hospital
Defendant

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE (40124-OLY) 7141 CLEANWATER DR SW PO BOX 40124 OLYMPIA, WA 98504-0124 360-586-6528 Fax: 360-586-6658 Email: sarahc@atg.wa.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amber Lea Leaders (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/28/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
Gregory K Ziser (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/16/2020
Jessica Marie Erickson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John K McIlhenny (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/31/2015
Marko Pavela (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Bradley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas A Williamson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah Jane Coats (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kevin W Quigley Secretary of the Department of Social and Health Services, in his official capacity
Defendant Ron Adler

represented by Amber Lea Leaders (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/28/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
Randy C. Head (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/14/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY
Gregory K Ziser (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/16/2020
Jessica Marie Erickson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John K McIlhenny (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/31/2015
Marko Pavela (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Bradley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas A Williamson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah Jane Coats (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amber Lea Leaders (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/28/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
Randy C. Head

Defendant
Brian Waiblinger Medical Director of Western State Hospital, in his personal and official capacity TERMINATED: 09/12/2014

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/14/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY
Gregory K Ziser (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/16/2020
Jessica Marie Erickson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John K McIlhenny (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/31/2015
Marko Pavela (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Bradley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas A Williamson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah Jane Coats (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amber Lea Leaders (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/28/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
John K McIlhenny (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/31/2015
Nicholas A Williamson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Eastern State Hospital
Defendant Dorothy Sawyer Chief Executive Officer of Eastern State Hospital in her Official Capacity

Sarah Jane Coats (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gregory K Ziser (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/16/2020
Jessica Marie Erickson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marko Pavela (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Bradley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas A Williamson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah Jane Coats (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Randy C. Head (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/14/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY
Gregory K Ziser (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/16/2020
Jessica Marie Erickson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marko Pavela

V. Interested Party Prosecuting Attorney Grace Kingman
Intervenor Daniel Gautier TERMINATED: 07/27/2018
Intervenor

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Bradley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas A Williamson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah Jane Coats (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by P. Grace Kingman PIERCE COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 930 TACOMA AVE S 946 COUNTY CITY BLDG TACOMA, WA 98402-2171 253-798-6721 Email: pkingma@co.pierce.wa.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrew Sean Biviano PAUKERT & TROPPMANN, PLLC 522 W. RIVERSIDE AVE #560 SPOKANE, WA 99201 509-232-7760 Email: abiviano@pt-law.com TERMINATED: 07/27/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

B Y TERMINATED: 07/27/2018

represented by Andrew Sean Biviano (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/27/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 08/04/2014 08/04/2014
08/04/2014
08/04/2014 08/04/2014 08/04/2014 08/06/2014
08/06/2014

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against defendant(s) All Defendants (Receipt # 09813692059), filed by Cassie Cordell Trueblood, Snohomish County Public Defender Association.(Pence, Braden) (Entered: 08/04/2014)
2 Emergency MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order by Plaintiffs Snohomish County Public Defender Association, Cassie Cordell Trueblood. Oral Argument Requested. Noting Date 8/7/2014, (Pence, Braden) (Entered: 08/04/2014)
3 DECLARATION of Plaintiff Cassie Cordell Trueblood filed by Plaintiff Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 2 Emergency MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6)(Pence, Braden) (Entered: 08/04/2014)
4 CIVIL COVER SHEET re 1 Complaint ; filed by Plaintiffs Snohomish County Public Defender Association, Cassie Cordell Trueblood.. (Pence, Braden) (Entered: 08/04/2014)
Judge Marsha J. Pechman added. (MKB) (Entered: 08/04/2014)
5 PROPOSED ORDER (Unsigned) re 2 Emergency MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order (Pence, Braden) (Entered: 08/04/2014)
6 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Sarah Jane Coats on behalf of Defendants Ron Alder, Kevin W. Quigley, Brian Waiblinger, Washington State Department of Social and Human Services, Western State Hospital. (Coats, Sarah) (Entered: 08/06/2014)
7 RESPONSE, by Defendants Ron Alder, Kevin W. Quigley, Brian Waiblinger, Washington State Department of Social and Human Services, Western State Hospital, to 2 Emergency MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order. (Coats, Sarah) (Entered: 08/06/2014)

08/06/2014 08/06/2014 08/06/2014 08/06/2014 08/07/2014 08/07/2014 08/07/2014 08/07/2014

8 DECLARATION of Sarah J. Coats filed by Defendants Ron Alder, Kevin W. Quigley, Brian Waiblinger, Washington State Department of Social and Human Services, Western State Hospital re 2 Emergency MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Coats, Sarah) (Entered: 08/06/2014)
9 DECLARATION of Victoria Roberts filed by Defendants Ron Alder, Kevin W. Quigley, Brian Waiblinger, Washington State Department of Social and Human Services, Western State Hospital re 2 Emergency MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order (Coats, Sarah) (Entered: 08/06/2014)
10 DECLARATION of Dr. Brian Waiblinger filed by Defendants Ron Alder, Kevin W. Quigley, Brian Waiblinger, Washington State Department of Social and Human Services, Western State Hospital re 2 Emergency MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order (Coats, Sarah) (Entered: 08/06/2014)
11 DECLARATION of Amber L. Leaders filed by Defendants Ron Alder, Kevin W. Quigley, Brian Waiblinger, Washington State Department of Social and Human Services, Western State Hospital re 2 Emergency MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Coats, Sarah) (Entered: 08/06/2014)
12 AMENDED COMPLAINT CLASS ACTION against defendant(s) All Defendants, filed by Cassie Cordell Trueblood, Snohomish County Public Defender Association. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Pence, Braden) (Entered: 08/07/2014)
13 Amended MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order by Plaintiffs Snohomish County Public Defender Association, Cassie Cordell Trueblood. Oral Argument Requested. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Service) Noting Date 8/7/2014, (Pence, Braden) (Entered: 08/07/2014)
14 DECLARATION of Pence filed by Plaintiffs Snohomish County Public Defender Association, Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 13 Amended MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Pence, Braden) (Entered: 08/07/2014)
15 ORDER Denying Plaintiffs' 2 Motion for Preliminary Injunction and 13 Amended Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(LMK) (Entered: 08/07/2014)

08/07/2014
08/22/2014 08/22/2014 09/02/2014 09/03/2014 09/03/2014
09/10/2014 09/11/2014 09/12/2014

16 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Marsha J. Pechman- Dep Clerk: Rhonda Miller; Pla Counsel: Braden Pence, Jason Schwarz; Def Counsel: Sarah Coats, Amber Leaders, Eric Nelson; CR: Debbie Zurn; TRO Hearing held on 8/7/2014. Oral argument presented. For the reasons stated orally, Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction is denied. (RM) (Entered: 08/08/2014)
17 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Sarah A Dunne on behalf of Plaintiffs Snohomish County Public Defender Association, Cassie Cordell Trueblood. (Dunne, Sarah) (Entered: 08/22/2014)
18 Agreed MOTION to Substitute Attorney by Plaintiffs Snohomish County Public Defender Association, Cassie Cordell Trueblood. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 8/22/2014, (Dunne, Sarah) (Entered: 08/22/2014)
19 ORDER REGARDING INITIAL DISCLOSURES AND JOINT STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report due by 10/14/2014, FRCP 26f Conference Deadline is 9/30/2014, Initial Disclosure Deadline is 10/7/2014, by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (RM) (Entered: 09/02/2014)
20 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Nicholas A Williamson on behalf of Defendants Ron Alder, Kevin W. Quigley, Brian Waiblinger, Washington State Department of Social and Human Services, Western State Hospital. (Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 09/03/2014)
21 ORDER granting 18 Plaintiffs' Motion to Substitute Attorney. Added attorney Anita Khandelwal,Christopher Robert Carney,Sean P Gillespie for Snohomish County Public Defender Association,for Cassie Cordell Trueblood. Attorney Braden C Pence terminated, by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(MD) (Entered: 09/04/2014)
22 Stipulated MOTION to Amend Complaint by Plaintiff Cassie Cordell Trueblood. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Second Amended Complaint) Noting Date 9/10/2014, (Carney, Christopher) (Entered: 09/10/2014)
23 ORDER granting 22 Stipulated Motion to amend by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(MD) (Entered: 09/12/2014)
24 Second AMENDED COMPLAINT for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief against defendant(s) Western State Hospital, Eastern State Hospital, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Kevin Quigley, Ron Adler, filed by A.B., K.R., Disability Rights Washington, D.D., Q.M..(Dunne, Sarah) (Entered: 09/12/2014)

09/12/2014 09/12/2014
09/15/2014 09/16/2014 09/17/2014 09/30/2014

25 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P 7.1. Filed by A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Q.M. (Dunne, Sarah) (Entered: 09/12/2014)
26 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing held on 8/7/2014 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman.
Parties have ten (10) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.
Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Information regarding the policy can be found on the court's website at www.wawd.uscourts.gov.
To purchase a copy of the transcript, contact court reporter Debbie Zurn, debbie_zurn@wawd.uscourts.gov, 206-370-8504.
Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/11/2014, (DZ) (Entered: 09/12/2014)
27 PRAECIPE TO ISSUE SUMMONS by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Q.M. (Attachments: # 1 Summons Adler, # 2 Summons Western State Hospital, # 3 Summons Quigley, # 4 Summons DSHS, # 5 Summons Sawyer, # 6 Summons Eastern State Hospital)(Dunne, Sarah) (Entered: 09/15/2014)
28 Summons Issued and Mailed to Pltf's cnsl- Sarah Dunne for service as to defendant(s) Ron Alder, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W. Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital. (MD) Modified on 9/16/2014 (MD). (Entered: 09/16/2014)
29 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Sarah Jane Coats on behalf of Defendants Ron Alder, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W. Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Brian Waiblinger, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital. (Coats, Sarah) (Entered: 09/17/2014)
30 MINUTE ORDER: At the request of the parties, an extension of time to file the joint status report is granted. The report will be due on 11/14/2014. All other FRCP 26-related deadlines are adjusted accordingly. Failure to adhere to these deadlines may result in

09/30/2014
10/02/2014 10/02/2014 10/03/2014 10/03/2014 10/03/2014 10/03/2014 10/03/2014 10/03/2014

sanctions, up to and including dismissal of this action. Authorized by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(RM) (Entered: 09/30/2014)
31 WAIVER OF SERVICE of summons upon defendant Ron Alder mailed on 9/19/2014; Eastern State Hospital mailed on 9/19/2014; Kevin W. Quigley mailed on 9/19/2014; Dorothy Sawyer mailed on 9/19/2014; Washington State Department of Social and Health Services mailed on 9/19/2014; Western State Hospital mailed on 9/19/2014 (Attachments: # 1 Quigley Waiver, # 2 Sawyer Waiver, # 3 DSHS Waiver, # 4 ESH Waiver, # 5 WSH Waiver)(Dunne, Sarah) (Entered: 09/30/2014)
32 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL by parties (Cooper, Emily) (Entered: 10/02/2014)
33 DECLARATION OF EMILY COOPER re 32 Stipulation by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Q.M., Cassie Cordell Trueblood (Cooper, Emily) (Entered: 10/02/2014)
34 MOTION to Certify Class by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Q.M., Cassie Cordell Trueblood. Oral Argument Requested. Noting Date 10/6/2014, (Carlson, David) (Entered: 10/03/2014)
35 DECLARATION of Christopher Carney filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Q.M., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 34 MOTION to Certify Class (Carlson, David) (Entered: 10/03/2014)
36 PROPOSED ORDER (Unsigned) re 34 MOTION to Certify Class (Carlson, David) (Entered: 10/03/2014)
37 DECLARATION of David Carlson filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Q.M., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 34 MOTION to Certify Class (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit AB)(Carlson, David) (Entered: 10/03/2014)
38 DECLARATION of Mark Stroh filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Q.M., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 34 MOTION to Certify Class (Carlson, David) (Entered: 10/03/2014)
39 DECLARATION of Sarah Dunne filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Q.M., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 34 MOTION to Certify Class (Carlson, David) (Entered: 10/03/2014)

10/03/2014 10/03/2014 10/03/2014 10/03/2014 10/03/2014 10/03/2014 10/03/2014 10/03/2014 10/03/2014

40 DECLARATION of Anita Khandelwal filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Q.M., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 34 MOTION to Certify Class (Carlson, David) (Entered: 10/03/2014)
41 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Q.M., Cassie Cordell Trueblood. Oral Argument Requested. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 10/6/2014, (Carlson, David) (Entered: 10/03/2014)
42 DECLARATION of Judy Snow filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Q.M., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 41 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-G, # 2 Exhibit H-L, # 3 Exhibit M-N)(Carlson, David) (Entered: 10/03/2014)
43 DECLARATION of David Carlson filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Q.M., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 41 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Carlson, David) (Entered: 10/03/2014)
44 DECLARATION of Mary Kay High filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Q.M., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 41 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Carlson, David) (Entered: 10/03/2014)
45 DECLARATION of Daron Morris filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Q.M., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 41 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-E, # 2 Exhibit F-H)(Carlson, David) (Entered: 10/03/2014)
46 DECLARATION of Gordon Karlsson filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Q.M., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 41 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Carlson, David) (Entered: 10/03/2014)
47 DECLARATION of Kari Reardon filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Q.M., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 41 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Carlson, David) (Entered: 10/03/2014)
48 DECLARATION of Melissa Parker filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Q.M., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 41 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary

10/03/2014 10/03/2014 10/03/2014 10/03/2014 10/03/2014 10/03/2014 10/03/2014 10/03/2014

Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-B)(Carlson, David) (Entered: 10/03/2014)
49 DECLARATION of Marilyn Roberts filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Q.M., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 41 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-C)(Carlson, David) (Entered: 10/03/2014)
50 DECLARATION of Terry Kupers filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Q.M., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 41 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Carlson, David) (Entered: 10/03/2014)
51 DECLARATION of Cassie Trueblood filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Q.M., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 41 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-D)(Carlson, David) (Entered: 10/03/2014)
52 DECLARATION of Kathryn McCormick filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Q.M., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 41 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Carlson, David) (Entered: 10/03/2014)
53 DECLARATION of Michael Stanfill filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Q.M., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 41 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Carlson, David) (Entered: 10/03/2014)
54 DECLARATION of Andrea Crumpler filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Q.M., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 41 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-F)(Carlson, David) (Entered: 10/03/2014)
55 DECLARATION of Ben Goldsmith filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Q.M., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 41 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-E)(Carlson, David) (Entered: 10/03/2014)
56 DECLARATION of Kristina Ray filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Q.M., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 41 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Carlson, David) (Entered: 10/03/2014)

10/03/2014 10/03/2014 10/03/2014 10/03/2014 10/03/2014 10/06/2014 10/06/2014 10/06/2014 10/06/2014

57 DECLARATION of Emily Cooper filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Q.M., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 41 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-C, # 2 Exhibit H-L)(Carlson, David) (Entered: 10/03/2014)
58 SEALED DOCUMENT Declaration of Emily Cooper Exhibits DG by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Q.M., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 30 Minute Order, Set Deadlines,, (Carlson, David) (Entered: 10/03/2014)
59 STIPULATION AND ORDER re 32 Stipulation to file documents under seal filed by K.R., A.B., Q.M., Cassie Cordell Trueblood, Disability Rights Washington, D.D. by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (MD) (Entered: 10/03/2014)
60 RESPONSE, by Defendants Ron Alder, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W. Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital, to 41 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, 34 MOTION to Certify Class . (McIlhenny, John) (Entered: 10/03/2014)
Noting Date Set/Reset re 34 MOTION to Certify Class : RE-Noting Date 10/31/2014- See Local Rule. (MD) (Entered: 10/08/2014)
61 DECLARATION of Victoria Roberts by Defendants Ron Alder, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W. Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Brian Waiblinger, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Coats, Sarah) (Entered: 10/06/2014)
62 DECLARATION of Amber L. Leaders by Defendants Ron Alder, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W. Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Brian Waiblinger, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Coats, Sarah) (Entered: 10/06/2014)
63 DECLARATION of Dorothy Sawyer by Defendants Ron Alder, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W. Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Brian Waiblinger, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Coats, Sarah) (Entered: 10/06/2014)
64 DECLARATION of Brian Waiblinger by Defendants Ron Alder, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W. Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Brian Waiblinger, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Coats, Sarah) (Entered: 10/06/2014)

10/06/2014 10/07/2014
10/07/2014 10/07/2014 10/07/2014 10/07/2014 10/07/2014 10/08/2014

65 RESPONSE, by Defendants Ron Alder, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W. Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Brian Waiblinger, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital, to 41 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. (Coats, Sarah) (Entered: 10/06/2014)
66 NOTICE of Hearing 41 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Q.M., Cassie Cordell Trueblood. Oral Argument Requested. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order). ORAL ARGUMENT/TRO Hearing set for 10/8/2014 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 14206 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman. Each side is allowed 20 minutes for argument, including rebuttal. (RM) (Entered: 10/07/2014)
67 REPLY, filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Q.M., Cassie Cordell Trueblood, TO RESPONSE to 41 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Carlson, David) (Entered: 10/07/2014)
68 DECLARATION of Emily Cooper filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Q.M., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 41 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Carlson, David) (Entered: 10/07/2014)
69 DECLARATION of David Lord filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Q.M., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 41 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Carlson, David) (Entered: 10/07/2014)
70 DECLARATION of Todd Carlisle filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Q.M., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 41 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Carlson, David) (Entered: 10/07/2014)
71 EXHIBIT C To Declaration Amber Leaders re 62 Declaration (non motion), by Defendants Ron Alder, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W. Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Coats, Sarah) (Entered: 10/07/2014)
72 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Marsha J. Pechman- Dep Clerk: Rhonda Miller; Pla Counsel: David Carlson, Sarah Dunne, Christopher Carney, Margaret Chen, Emily Cooper; Def Counsel: John McIlhenny, Amber Leaders, Nicholas Williamson, Tim Hunter; CR: Debbie Zurn; TRO Hearing held on

10/16/2014 10/20/2014 10/22/2014 10/22/2014
10/22/2014

10/8/2014 41 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. After oral argument and for the reasons stated orally, the Court DENIES the motion for TRO. The Court will grant an accelerated trial date and the parties are directed to submit a joint status report no later than 10/20/2014. A scheduling conference is set for 10/22/2014 at 04:00 PM in Courtroom 14206 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (RM) (Entered: 10/08/2014)
73 NOTICE of rescheduled hearing: Status Hearing set for 10/22/2014 at 02:30 PM in Courtroom 14206 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (RM) (Entered: 10/16/2014)
74 JOINT STATUS REPORT signed by all parties estimated Trial Days: 6 - 10. (Dunne, Sarah) (Entered: 10/20/2014)
75 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney La Rond Baker on behalf of Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Q.M.. (Baker, La Rond) (Entered: 10/22/2014)
76 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing held on 10/8/2014 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman.
Parties have ten (10) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.
Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Information regarding the policy can be found on the court's website at www.wawd.uscourts.gov.
To purchase a copy of the transcript, contact court reporter Debbie Zurn, debbie_zurn@wawd.uscourts.gov, 206-370-8504.
Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/20/2015, (DZ) (Entered: 10/22/2014)
77 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Marsha J. Pechman- Dep Clerk: Rhonda Miller; Pla Counsel: David Carlson, Sarah Dunne, Anita Khandelwal, Christopher Carney; Def Counsel: Sarah Coats, John McIlhenney, Victoria Roberts, Tim Hunter, Amber Leaders, Nicholas Williamson; CR: Nancy Bauer; Scheduling Conference held on 10/22/2014. After hearing from the parties, the Court sets a trial date of 3/16/2015. Parties are directed to meet and

10/23/2014 10/27/2014 10/27/2014 10/28/2014 10/29/2014 10/30/2014
10/30/2014 10/30/2014

confer and submit a proposed scheduling order for pretrial deadlines by close of business 10/27/2014. (RM) (Entered: 10/27/2014)
Attorney Kenan Lee Isitt for A.B., for D.D., for Disability Rights Washington, for K.R., for Q.M., for Snohomish County Public Defender Association, for Cassie Cordell Trueblood added; per 75 Notice of Appearance. (TM) (Entered: 10/23/2014)
78 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER re. Scheduling by parties (Dunne, Sarah) (Entered: 10/27/2014)
79 RESPONSE, by Defendants Ron Alder, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W. Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital, to 34 MOTION to Certify Class . (Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 10/27/2014)
80 DECLARATION of Brain Waiblinger re 79 Response to Motion by Defendants Ron Alder, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W. Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Brian Waiblinger, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Coats, Sarah) (Entered: 10/28/2014)
81 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER Regarding Voluntary Dismissal of ADA Claim by parties (Dunne, Sarah) (Entered: 10/29/2014)
Bench Trial is set for 3/16/2015 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman. Joinder of Parties due by 11/19/2014, Expert Witness Disclosure/Reports under FRCP 26(a)(2) due by 12/16/2014, Discovery completed by 1/28/2015, Dispositive motions due by 11/21/2014, Amended Pleadings due by 11/21/2014, Settlement Conference set for 2/23/2015 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman. Motions in Limine due by 2/17/2015, Agreed Pretrial Order due by 2/25/2015, Pretrial Conference set for 3/6/2015 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman. Rebuttal Expert Disclosure/Reports due by 1/12/2015, Trial briefs to be submitted by 3/9/2015, Plaintiffs Pretrial Statement due by 2/2/2015, Defendants Pretrial Statement due by 2/9/2015, Conference of Attorneys completed by 2/12/2015, Oppositions to Motions in Limine due by 2/24/2015 by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (TM) (Entered: 10/30/2014)
82 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal as to party(s) Q.M. (by and through his next friend Kathryn McCormick), filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Q.M.. (Dunne, Sarah) (Entered: 10/30/2014)
Per Stipulation and Proposed Order 81 the Americans with Disabilities Act Claim is dismissed (RS) (Entered: 10/30/2014)

10/30/2014 10/31/2014 10/31/2014
11/04/2014 11/05/2014 11/06/2014 11/06/2014 11/06/2014 11/06/2014

83 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER Certifying Class by parties (Dunne, Sarah) (Entered: 10/30/2014)
84 ORDER re 83 Stipulation certifying class filed by K.R., A.B., Disability Rights Washington, D.D. by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (MD) (Entered: 10/31/2014)
85 AMENDED ORDER SETTING TRIAL DATE AND RELATED DATES; Bench Trial is set for 3/16/2015 at 09:00 AM before Judge Marsha J. Pechman. Joinder of Parties due by 11/19/2014, Amended Pleadings due by 11/21/2014, Rebuttal Expert Disclosure/Reports due by 1/12/2015, Motions due by 1/8/2015, Discovery completed by 1/28/2015, Dispositive motions due by 11/21/2014, Plaintiffs pretrial statement to defts LR 16(h) due 2/2/15; Defendants Pretrial Statement to Plaintiffs LR 16(i) due 2/9/15; LR16(k) pretrial conference of parties due 2/12/15; Motions in Limine due by 2/17/2015, Oppositions to motions in limine must be filed by 2/24/15; Pretrial Order due by 2/25/2015, Trial briefs to be submitted by 3/4/2015, Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law to be submitted by 3/4/2015, Pretrial Conference set for 3/6/2015 at 01:30 PM before Judge Marsha J. Pechman. by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (MD) (Entered: 10/31/2014)
86 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Anna Catherine Guy on behalf of Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood. (Guy, Anna) (Entered: 11/04/2014)
Attorney La Rond Baker for Cassie Cordell Trueblood added; per 86 Notice of Appearance. (TM) (Entered: 11/05/2014)
87 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood. Oral Argument Requested. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 12/5/2014, (Cooper, Emily) (Entered: 11/06/2014)
88 DECLARATION of Emily Cooper filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 87 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-G, # 2 Exhibit H-K)(Cooper, Emily) (Entered: 11/06/2014)
89 DECLARATION of Kari Reardon filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 87 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit AC)(Cooper, Emily) (Entered: 11/06/2014)
90 DECLARATION of Cassie Trueblood filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood

11/06/2014 11/06/2014 11/14/2014 11/21/2014 12/01/2014 12/01/2014 12/01/2014 12/01/2014

re 87 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit AE)(Cooper, Emily) (Entered: 11/06/2014)
91 DECLARATION of Anna Guy filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 87 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-B)(Cooper, Emily) (Entered: 11/06/2014)
92 DECLARATION of Mark Adair filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 87 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit AB)(Cooper, Emily) (Entered: 11/06/2014)
93 ANSWER to 24 Amended Complaint, by Ron Alder, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W. Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Brian Waiblinger, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital.(Coats, Sarah) (Entered: 11/14/2014)
94 AMENDED ANSWER to Second 24 Amended Complaint, by Ron Alder, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W. Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Brian Waiblinger, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital. (Coats, Sarah) (Entered: 11/21/2014)
95 RESPONSE, by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W. Quigley, Brian Waiblinger, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital, to 87 MOTION for Summary Judgment . (Coats, Sarah) (Entered: 12/01/2014)
96 DECLARATION of Dr. Barry Ward re 95 Response to Motion by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W. Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Brian Waiblinger, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Coats, Sarah) (Entered: 12/01/2014)
97 DECLARATION of Alfred Bouvier re 95 Response to Motion by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W. Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Brian Waiblinger, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Coats, Sarah) (Entered: 12/01/2014)
98 DECLARATION of Yaroslav Trusevich re 95 Response to Motion by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W. Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Brian Waiblinger, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Coats, Sarah) (Entered: 12/01/2014)

12/05/2014

99 REPLY, filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., TO RESPONSE to 87 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Baker, La Rond) (Entered: 12/05/2014)

12/05/2014

100 DECLARATION of Emily Cooper in Supp. of Pls.' MSJ Reply filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R. re 87 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit AC)(Baker, La Rond) (Entered: 12/05/2014)

12/05/2014

101 DECLARATION of Dino Sepe in Supp. of Pls.' MSJ Reply filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R. re 87 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, C-G)(Baker, La Rond) (Entered: 12/05/2014)

12/08/2014

102 SURREPLY filed by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W. Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Brian Waiblinger, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital re 87 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Coats, Sarah) (Entered: 12/08/2014)

12/10/2014

103 SURREPLY filed by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W. Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Brian Waiblinger, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital re 87 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Coats, Sarah) (Entered: 12/10/2014)

12/22/2014 104 ORDER granting 87 Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(MD) (Entered: 12/22/2014)
01/13/2015 105 STIPULATION and Proposed Order Re Deposition Scheduling by parties (Coats, Sarah) (Entered: 01/13/2015)

01/16/2015

106 STIPULATION AND ORDER re 105 Stipulation re: Deposition Scheduling filed by Western State Hospital, Brian Waiblinger, Ron Adler, Dorothy Sawyer, Kevin W. Quigley, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Eastern State Hospital, by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (MD) (Entered: 01/16/2015)

01/27/2015 107 OBJECTIONS to Subpoena Duces Tecum by Interested Party Grace Kingman (Kingman, P.) (Entered: 01/27/2015)

02/12/2015 108 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing held on 10/22/2014 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman.

Parties have ten (10) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed,

the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Information regarding the policy can be found on the court's website at www.wawd.uscourts.gov.

To purchase a copy of the transcript, contact court reporter Nancy Bauer, nancy_bauer@wawd.uscourts.gov, 206-370-8506.

Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/13/2015, (NB) (Entered: 02/12/2015)

02/12/2015

109 NOTICE of rescheduled hearing: Pretrial Conference is rescheduled for 3/9/2015 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 14206 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(RM) (Entered: 02/12/2015)

02/17/2015

110 MOTIONS IN LIMINE by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W. Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Brian Waiblinger, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital. Oral Argument Requested. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Defendants' Proposed Order) Noting Date 3/6/2015, (Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 02/17/2015)

02/24/2015

111 RESPONSE, by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., to 110 MOTIONS IN LIMINE . (Baker, La Rond) (Entered: 02/24/2015)

02/25/2015

112 Proposed Pretrial Order by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R.. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Appendix 1, # 2 Appendix Appendix 2, # 3 Exhibit Ex. A [part 1], # 4 Exhibit Ex. A [part 2], # 5 Exhibit Ex. A [part 3], # 6 Exhibit Ex. B [part 1], # 7 Exhibit Ex. B [part 2], # 8 Exhibit Ex. B [part 3], # 9 Exhibit Ex. B [part 4], # 10 Exhibit Ex. C [part 1], # 11 Exhibit Ex. C [part 2], # 12 Exhibit Ex. C [part 3], # 13 Exhibit Ex. C [part 4])(Chen, Margaret) (Entered: 02/25/2015)

03/04/2015 113 TRIAL BRIEF by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R.. (Baker, La Rond) (Entered: 03/04/2015)
03/04/2015 114 Proposed Findings of Fact by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R. (Baker, La Rond) (Entered: 03/04/2015)

03/04/2015

115 Proposed Findings of Fact by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W. Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 03/04/2015)

03/04/2015

116 TRIAL BRIEF by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W. Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital. (Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 03/04/2015)

03/09/2015

117 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Marsha J. Pechman- Dep Clerk: Rhonda Miller; Pla Counsel: David Carlson, Anita Khandelwal, La Rond Baker, Christopher Carney, Emily Cooper; Def Counsel: Sarah Coats, John McIlhenny, Amber Leaders, Nicholas Williamson; CR: Nancy Bauer; Pretrial Conference held on 3/9/2015. General trial procedures discussed. Trial is 8 days, 20 hours per side. All motions in limine are denied as stated on the record. Legislation passed by both houses of the Legislature can be brought forward by either party during trial for determination of its relevance. (RM) (Entered: 03/10/2015)

03/12/2015 118 PRETRIAL ORDER by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (MD) (Entered: 03/13/2015)

03/16/2015

119 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Marsha J. Pechman- Dep Clerk: Rhonda Miller; Pla Counsel: Emily Cooper, La Rond Baker, Christopher Carney, Anita Khandelwal, David Carlson; Def Counsel: Amber Leaders, Nicholas Williamson, John McIlhenny, Sarah Coats; CR: Nancy Bauer; Bench Trial Day One held on 3/16/2015. Opening statements. Plaintiff calls Marilyn Roberts. Plaintiff calls Judy Snow. Plaintiff calls Dr. Donna Muach. Bench Trial continues on 3/17/2015 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 14206 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (RM) (Entered: 03/17/2015)

03/17/2015

120 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Marsha J. Pechman- Dep Clerk: Rhonda Miller; Pla Counsel: Emily Cooper, La Rond Baker, Christopher Carney, Anita Khandelwal, David Carlson; Def Counsel: Amber Leaders, Nicholas Williamson, John McIlhenny, Sarah Coats; CR: Nancy Bauer; Bench Trial Day Two held on 3/17/2015. Dr. Donna Muach resumes testimony. Plaintiff calls Dr. Terry Kupers. Bench Trial continues on 3/18/2015 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 14206 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (RM) (Entered: 03/18/2015)

03/18/2015 121 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Marsha J. Pechman- Dep Clerk: Rhonda Miller; Pla Counsel: Emily Cooper, La

Rond Baker, Christopher Carney, Anita Khandelwal, David Carlson; Def Counsel: Amber Leaders, Nicholas Williamson, John McIlhenny, Sarah Coats; CR: Nancy Bauer; Bench Trial Day Three held on 3/18/2015. Plaintiff recalls Dr. Donna Muach. Plaintiff rests. Defendant calls Jane Beyer. Bench Trial continues on 3/19/2015 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 14206 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (RM) (Entered: 03/19/2015)

03/19/2015

122 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Marsha J. Pechman- Dep Clerk: Rhonda Miller; Pla Counsel: Emily Cooper, La Rond Baker, Christopher Carney, Anita Khandelwal, David Carlson; Def Counsel: Amber Leaders, Nicholas Williamson, John McIlhenny, Sarah Coats; CR: Nancy Bauer; Bench Trial Day Four held on 3/19/2015. Defendant calls Victoria Roberts. Defendant calls Brian Waiblinger. Bench Trial continues on 3/23/2015 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 14206 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (RM) (Entered: 03/20/2015)

03/23/2015

123 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Marsha J. Pechman- Dep Clerk: Rhonda Miller; Pla Counsel: Emily Cooper, La Rond Baker, Christopher Carney, Anita Khandelwal, David Carlson; Def Counsel: Amber Leaders, Nicholas Williamson, John McIlhenny, Sarah Coats; CR: Nancy Bauer; Bench Trial Day Five held on 3/23/2015. Defendant calls Robert Powers. Defendant calls Dr. Barry Ward. Defendant calls W.Timm Fredrickson. Defendant calls Timothy Hunter. Bench Trial continues on 3/24/2015 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 14206 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (RM) (Entered: 03/24/2015)

03/24/2015

124 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Marsha J. Pechman- Dep Clerk: Rhonda Miller; Pla Counsel: Emily Cooper, La Rond Baker, Christopher Carney, Anita Khandelwal, David Carlson; Def Counsel: Amber Leaders, Nicholas Williamson, John McIlhenny, Sarah Coats; CR: Nancy Bauer; Bench Trial Day Six held on 3/24/2015. Testimony of Timothy Hunter resumes.Defendant calls Neil Gowensmith. Bench Trial continues on 3/25/2015 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 14206 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (RM) (Entered: 03/25/2015)

03/25/2015

125 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Marsha J. Pechman- Dep Clerk: Rhonda Miller; Pla Counsel: Emily Cooper, La Rond Baker, Christopher Carney, Anita Khandelwal, David Carlson; Def Counsel: Amber Leaders, Nicholas Williamson, John McIlhenny, Sarah Coats; CR: Nancy Bauer; Bench Trial Day Seven completed on 3/25/2015. Testimony of Neil Gowensmith resumes. Defendant rests. Closing arguments. Parties may file supplemental proposed FFCL for

the Court to consider no later than 3/27/2015 at 5:00 p.m. Court will issue decision one week from 3/27/2015. (RM) (Entered: 03/26/2015)
03/26/2015 126 Bench Trial Witness List (RM) (Entered: 03/26/2015)

03/26/2015 127 Bench Trial Admitted Exhibit List (RM) (Entered: 03/26/2015)

03/27/2015

128 Proposed Findings of Fact by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood (Carlson, David) (Entered: 03/27/2015)

03/27/2015 129 PROPOSED ORDER (Unsigned) Supplemental FOF COL (Coats, Sarah) (Entered: 03/27/2015)

03/31/2015

130 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL: Attorney Sarah A Dunne for Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R.. (Baker, La Rond) (Entered: 03/31/2015)

04/02/2015 131 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (MD) (Entered: 04/02/2015)

04/02/2015

132 JUDGMENT BY COURT - THE COURT HAS ORDERED THAT Defendants are ordered to cease violating the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs and class members by providing timely competency evaluation and restoration services, and a permanent injunction is entered by the Court. (MD) (Entered: 04/02/2015)

04/14/2015 133 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Bench trial, Vol. 1 held on 3/16/2015 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman.

Parties have ten (10) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Information regarding the policy can be found on the court's website at www.wawd.uscourts.gov.

To purchase a copy of the transcript, contact court reporter Nancy Bauer, nancy_bauer@wawd.uscourts.gov, 206-370-8506.

Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/13/2015, (NB) (Entered: 04/14/2015)

04/14/2015 134 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Bench trial, Vol. 2 held on 3/17/2015 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman.
Parties have ten (10) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.
Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Information regarding the policy can be found on the court's website at www.wawd.uscourts.gov.
To purchase a copy of the transcript, contact court reporter Nancy Bauer, nancy_bauer@wawd.uscourts.gov, 206-370-8506.
Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/13/2015, (NB) (Entered: 04/14/2015)
04/14/2015 135 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Bench trial, Vol. 3 held on 3/18/2015 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman.
Parties have ten (10) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.
Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Information regarding the policy can be found on the court's website at www.wawd.uscourts.gov.
To purchase a copy of the transcript, contact court reporter Nancy Bauer, nancy_bauer@wawd.uscourts.gov, 206-370-8506.
Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/13/2015, (NB) (Entered: 04/14/2015)
04/14/2015 136 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Bench trial, Vol. 4 held on 3/19/2015 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman.
Parties have ten (10) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed,

the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.
Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Information regarding the policy can be found on the court's website at www.wawd.uscourts.gov.
To purchase a copy of the transcript, contact court reporter Nancy Bauer, nancy_bauer@wawd.uscourts.gov, 206-370-8506.
Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/13/2015, (NB) (Entered: 04/14/2015)
04/14/2015 137 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Bench trial, Vol. 5 held on 3/23/2015 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman.
Parties have ten (10) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.
Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Information regarding the policy can be found on the court's website at www.wawd.uscourts.gov.
To purchase a copy of the transcript, contact court reporter Nancy Bauer, nancy_bauer@wawd.uscourts.gov, 206-370-8506.
Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/13/2015, (NB) (Entered: 04/14/2015)
04/14/2015 138 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Bench trial, Vol. 6 held on 3/24/2015 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman.
Parties have ten (10) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.
Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through

PACER. Information regarding the policy can be found on the court's website at www.wawd.uscourts.gov.

To purchase a copy of the transcript, contact court reporter Nancy Bauer, nancy_bauer@wawd.uscourts.gov, 206-370-8506.

Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/13/2015, (NB) (Entered: 04/14/2015)
04/14/2015 139 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Bench trial, Vol. 7 held on 3/25/2015 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman.

Parties have ten (10) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Information regarding the policy can be found on the court's website at www.wawd.uscourts.gov.

To purchase a copy of the transcript, contact court reporter Nancy Bauer, nancy_bauer@wawd.uscourts.gov, 206-370-8506.

Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/13/2015, (NB) (Entered: 04/14/2015)

04/16/2015

140 MOTION for Reconsideration re 131 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W. Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Brian Waiblinger, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital. Noting Date 4/16/2015, (Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 04/16/2015)

04/16/2015

141 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER Appointing Dr. Danna Mauch as Court Monitor by parties (Baker, La Rond) (Entered: 04/16/2015)

04/17/2015

142 PRAECIPE to attach document Exhibit 1, CV of Dr. Danna Mauch re 141 Stipulation by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 (Dr. Mauch CV))(Baker, La Rond) (Entered: 04/17/2015)

04/22/2015 143 MINUTE ORDER - The Court requests that Plaintiffs respond to Defendants' Motion for Clarification and Reconsideration. (Dkt. No.

140.) Plaintiffs' response should be submitted within seven days of the date of this order, and should not exceed ten pages, by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (MD) (Entered: 04/22/2015)

04/23/2015

144 STIPULATION AND ORDER re 141 Stipulation appointing Dr. Danna Mauch as Court Monitor filed by K.R., A.B., Disability Rights Washington, D.D., by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (MD) (Entered: 04/23/2015)

04/29/2015

145 RESPONSE, by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., to 140 MOTION for Reconsideration re 131 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law . (Baker, La Rond) (Entered: 04/29/2015)

05/01/2015

146 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 5/22/2015, (Baker, La Rond) (Entered: 05/01/2015)

05/01/2015

147 DECLARATION of Joe Shaeffer filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R. re 146 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs (Baker, La Rond) (Entered: 05/01/2015)

05/01/2015

148 DECLARATION of Salvador A. Mungia filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R. re 146 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs (Baker, La Rond) (Entered: 05/01/2015)

05/01/2015

149 DECLARATION of La Rond Baker filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R. re 146 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Baker, La Rond) (Entered: 05/01/2015)

05/01/2015

150 DECLARATION of David Carlson filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R. re 146 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Baker, La Rond) (Entered: 05/01/2015)

05/01/2015

151 DECLARATION of Christopher Carney filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R. re 146 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Baker, La Rond) (Entered: 05/01/2015)

05/01/2015

152 DECLARATION of Anita Khandelwal filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R. re 146 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Baker, La Rond) (Entered: 05/01/2015)

05/06/2015

153 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 140 Defendants' Motion for Clarification and Reconsideration, by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(MD) (Entered: 05/06/2015)

05/18/2015

154 RESPONSE, by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W. Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Brian Waiblinger, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital, to 146 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs. (Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 05/18/2015)

05/18/2015

155 DECLARATION of John K. McIlhenny filed by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W. Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Brian Waiblinger, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital re 146 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 05/18/2015)

05/18/2015

156 DECLARATION of Amber L. Leaders filed by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W. Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Brian Waiblinger, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital re 146 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs (Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 05/18/2015)

05/22/2015

157 REPLY, filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., TO RESPONSE to 146 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs (Baker, La Rond) (Entered: 05/22/2015)

06/05/2015

158 NOTICE OF APPEAL (15-35462) to Ninth Circuit by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W. Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital. Filing Fee $505, Receipt number 0981-4043847. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Appeal Attachments)(Coats, Sarah) Modified on 6/15/2015 to add CCA#. (RE) (Entered: 06/05/2015)

06/05/2015

159 REPRESENTATION STATEMENT, by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W. Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital, (re: 158 Notice of Appeal,.) (Coats, Sarah) (Entered: 06/05/2015)

06/12/2015

160 TIME SCHEDULE ORDER (15-35462) as to 158 Notice of Appeal, filed by Western State Hospital, Ron Adler, Dorothy Sawyer, Kevin W. Quigley, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Eastern State Hospital: Mediation Questionnaire due by 06/19/2015; Transcript designation due by 07/06/2015; Transcript by court reporter due by 08/04/2015; Appellants opening brief due by 09/14/2015; Appellees response brief due by 10/13/2015; Appellants optional reply

brief due within 14 days of service of the response brief. (RE) (Entered: 06/15/2015)

06/16/2015

161 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W. Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Brian Waiblinger, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital for proceedings held on 03/09/2015, Requesting Attorney: Nicholas A Williamson. (Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 06/16/2015)

06/22/2015

162 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 146 Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney Fees by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(MD) (Entered: 06/23/2015)

06/26/2015

163 ORDER of USCA (15-35462) as to 158 Notice of Appeal, filed by Western State Hospital, Ron Adler, Dorothy Sawyer, Kevin W. Quigley, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Eastern State Hospital. The parties joint motion to expedite is granted. The opening brief is now due August 26, 2015. The answering brief is dueOctober 13, 2015. The optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the answering brief. This case shall be calendared as soon as possible. The provisions of Ninth Circuit Rule 31-2.2(a) regarding streamline extensions shall not apply to this case, and any motion under Ninth Circuit Rule 31-2.2(b) is strongly disfavored and must be supported by a showing of compelling circumstances. (RE) (Entered: 06/26/2015)

07/02/2015

164 REPORT Long Term Plan by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W. Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 07/02/2015)

07/08/2015 165 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Pretrial conference held on 3/9/2015 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman.

Parties have ten (10) business days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Information regarding the policy can be found on the court's website at www.wawd.uscourts.gov.

To purchase a copy of the transcript, contact court reporter Nancy Bauer, nancy_bauer@wawd.uscourts.gov, 206-370-8506.

Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/6/2015, (NB) (Main Document 165 replaced on 3/15/2016) (SG). (Entered: 07/08/2015)

07/17/2015 166 Bench Trial Amended Admitted Exhibit List (RM) (Entered: 07/17/2015)

07/21/2015

167 NOTICE OF APPEAL (15-35601) to Ninth Circuit re 162 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W. Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Brian Waiblinger, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital. Filing Fee $505, Receipt number 0981-4095038. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Williamson, Nicholas) Modified on 7/23/2015 to add CCA#. (RE) (Entered: 07/21/2015)

07/21/2015

168 REPRESENTATION STATEMENT, by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W. Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Brian Waiblinger, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital, (re: 167 Notice of Appeal,.) (Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 07/21/2015)

07/22/2015

169 TIME SCHEDULE ORDER (15-35601) as to 167 Notice of Appeal, filed by Western State Hospital, Brian Waiblinger, Ron Adler, Dorothy Sawyer, Kevin W. Quigley, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Eastern State Hospital: Mediation Questionnaire due by 07/29/2015; Transcript designation due by 08/20/2015; Transcript by court reporter due by 09/21/2015; Appellants opening brief due by 10/29/2015; Appellees response brief due by 11/30/2015; Appellants optional reply brief due within 14 days of service of the response brief. (RE) (Entered: 07/23/2015)

08/06/2015

170 MINUTE ORDER: At Dr. Mauch's request, the Court GRANTS a one week extension to file the Monitor's report. Authorized by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (RM) (Entered: 08/06/2015)

08/18/2015 171 REPORT Monitor's Quarterly Report to the Court by Court Monitor Dr. Danna Mauch. (RS) (Entered: 08/18/2015)

09/02/2015

172 Joint MOTION to Amend Monthly Reporting Date by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W. Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Brian Waiblinger, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital. Noting Date 9/2/2015, (Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 09/02/2015)

09/10/2015 173 ORDER granting 172 Joint Motion to amend monthly reporting date by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(RS) (Entered: 09/10/2015)

12/30/2015

174 MOTION Modify Injunction by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Brian Waiblinger, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital. Noting Date 1/15/2016, (Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 12/30/2015)

12/30/2015

175 DECLARATION of Carla Reyes filed by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Brian Waiblinger, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital re 174 MOTION Modify Injunction (Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 12/30/2015)

12/30/2015

176 DECLARATION of Victoria Roberts filed by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Brian Waiblinger, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital re 174 MOTION Modify Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L)(Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 12/30/2015)

12/30/2015

177 DECLARATION of Amber Leaders filed by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Brian Waiblinger, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital re 174 MOTION Modify Injunction (Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 12/30/2015)

12/31/2015

178 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL: Attorney John K McIlhenny for Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Brian Waiblinger, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital. (Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 12/31/2015)

01/07/2016

179 NOTICE of Hearing: Status Hearing set for 1/25/2016 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 14206 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(RM) (Entered: 01/07/2016)

01/08/2016

180 REPORT Monitor's Quarterly Report to the Court by Court Monitor Dr. Danna Mauch. (Attachments: # 1 Report Part 2, # 2 Report Part 3, # 3 Report Part 4) (AD) (Entered: 01/08/2016)

01/11/2016

181 RESPONSE, by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Q.M., Cassie Cordell Trueblood, to 174 MOTION Modify Injunction . (Cooper, Emily) (Entered: 01/11/2016)

01/11/2016

182 DECLARATION of EMILY COOPER filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Q.M., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 174 MOTION Modify Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Cooper, Emily) (Entered: 01/11/2016)

01/15/2016

183 REPLY, filed by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital, TO RESPONSE to 174 MOTION Modify Injunction (Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 01/15/2016)

01/25/2016

184 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Chief Judge Marsha J. Pechman- Dep Clerk: Gail Glass ; Pla Counsel: Emily Cooper, La Rond Baker, Anita Khandelwal, David Carlson and Christopher Carney; Def Counsel: Amber Leaders, Nicholas Williamson and Sarah Coates; CR: Andrea Ramirez; Time of Hearing: 9:00 a.m.; Courtroom: 14206B;Motion Hearing held on 1/25/2016. The Court hears the arguments of counsel regarding defendants' motion to modify injunction, docket no. 174 . Carla Reyes, Dr. Randall Standquist, Dr. Bryan Zolnikov and Victoria Roberts are sworn and testify on behalf of the defendants. The Court hears final arguments of counsel. For reasons stated on the record, the Court takes the matter under advisement and an order will be issued shortly. ( (Entered: 01/26/2016)

02/03/2016

185 Stipulated MOTION Regarding Benchmarks for Defendants' Compliance by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Brian Waiblinger, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Proposed Order) Noting Date 2/3/2016, (Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 02/03/2016)

02/08/2016 186 ORDER MODIFYING PERMANENT INJUNCTION by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (AD) (Entered: 02/08/2016)

02/19/2016

187 NOTICE of Hearing: Status hearing is scheduled for 3/10/2016 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 14206 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(RM) (Entered: 02/19/2016)

02/19/2016

188 RESPONSE by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Brian Waiblinger, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital Submission of Uniform Orders (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 02/19/2016)

02/19/2016 189 DECLARATION Carla Reyes re 188 Response (non motion), by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley,

Dorothy Sawyer, Brian Waiblinger, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 02/19/2016)
02/19/2016 190 SEALED ORDER by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (PM) cc: emailed order to counsel of record (Entered: 02/19/2016)

03/10/2016

191 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Marsha J. Pechman- Dep Clerk: Rhonda Miller; Pla Counsel: Emily Cooper, La Rond Baker, Anita Khandelwal, Christopher Carney; Def Counsel: Amber Leaders, Sarah Coates; CR: Nickie Drury; Status Hearing held on 3/10/2016. After hearing from the parties, DSHS has one week to provide the court with data that shows it is in compliance with the March 1 requirement that competency evaluations be completed for all class members within 14 days, and if DSHS is not in compliance, to provide a plan for achieving compliance. Status Hearing set for 4/8/2016 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 14206 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (RM) (Entered: 03/11/2016)

03/16/2016 192 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Status Hearing held on 3/10/2016 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman.

Parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Information regarding the policy can be found on the court's website at www.wawd.uscourts.gov.

To purchase a copy of the transcript, contact court reporter Nickoline Drury, nickoline_drury@wawd.uscourts.gov, 206-370-8508.

Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/14/2016, (ND) (Entered: 03/16/2016)

03/17/2016

193 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R.. Oral Argument Requested. Noting Date 3/17/2016, (Baker, La Rond) (Entered: 03/17/2016)

03/17/2016

194 DECLARATION of Emily Cooper filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R. re 193 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B,

# 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L)(Baker, La Rond) (Entered: 03/17/2016)

03/17/2016

195 DECLARATION of Benjamin Goldsmith filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R. re 193 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order (Baker, La Rond) (Entered: 03/17/2016)

03/17/2016

196 DECLARATION of Jason Schwarz filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R. re 193 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order (Baker, La Rond) (Entered: 03/17/2016)

03/17/2016

197 DECLARATION of Judy Snow filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R. re 193 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order (Baker, La Rond) (Entered: 03/17/2016)

03/18/2016 198 PROPOSED ORDER (Unsigned) re 193 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order Dkt. 193-1 (Cooper, Emily) (Entered: 03/18/2016)

03/18/2016

199 NOTICE of Intent to Respond re 193 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order ; filed by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital. (Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 03/18/2016)

03/18/2016

200 DECLARATION of Carla Reyes re 191 Status Conference,,, Set Hearings,, by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 03/18/2016)

03/19/2016

201 RESPONSE, by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital, to 193 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order . Oral Argument Requested. (Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 03/19/2016)

03/19/2016

202 DECLARATION of Carla Reyes re 201 Response to Motion, by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 03/19/2016)

03/19/2016

203 DECLARATION of Bryan Zolnikov re 201 Response to Motion, by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit,

# 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit)(Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 03/19/2016)

03/19/2016

204 DECLARATION of Timothy Hunter re 201 Response to Motion, by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit)(Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 03/19/2016)

03/19/2016

205 DECLARATION of Richard Weaver re 201 Response to Motion, by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 03/19/2016)

03/19/2016

206 DECLARATION of Victoria Roberts re 201 Response to Motion, by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 03/19/2016)

03/21/2016 207 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Evidentiary Hearing held on 1/25/2016 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman.

Parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Information regarding the policy can be found on the court's website at www.wawd.uscourts.gov.

To purchase a copy of the transcript, contact court reporter Andrea Ramirez, andrea_ramirez@wawd.uscourts.gov, 206-370-8509.

Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/20/2016, (AR) (Entered: 03/21/2016)
03/22/2016 208 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Marsha J. Pechman requesting a reply from Plaintiffs to Defendants' 201 Response to Plaintiffs' 193 Motion

for a TRO. Reply due within 48 hours of this order. (PM) (Entered: 03/22/2016)

03/24/2016

209 REPLY, filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood, TO RESPONSE to 193 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order (Cooper, Emily) (Entered: 03/24/2016)

03/24/2016

210 DECLARATION of EMILY COOPER filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 193 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Cooper, Emily) (Entered: 03/24/2016)

03/28/2016

211 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Marsha J. Pechman setting oral argument on Plaintiff's 193 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order. Motion Hearing set for 4/8/2016 at 01:30 PM before Judge Marsha J. Pechman, to be held concurrently with the monthly status hearing in this matter. (PM) (Entered: 03/29/2016)

04/06/2016

212 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Emily Chiang on behalf of Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R.. (Chiang, Emily) (Entered: 04/06/2016)

04/08/2016

213 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Hon. Judge Marsha J. Pechman- Dep Clerk: Gail Glass; Pla Counsel: Emily Cooper, Emily Chiang and Anita Khandelwal; Def Counsel: Nicholas Williamson, Sarah Coats and Amber Leaders; CR: Nickie Drury; Time of Hearing: 1:30 p.m.; Courtroom: 145206; Motion Hearing held on 4/8/2016, re 193 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by K.R., A.B., Disability Rights Washington, D.D. and the Status Conference held on 4/8/2016. Dr. Danna Mauch, PhD., the Court monitor is present. The Court and counsel hear from Dr. Debora Pinals. At the directions of the Court the presence of Carla Reyes is required. After hearing from the parties, DSHS are directed to provide the Court within one week a current status report. A minute order will be issued regarding docket no. 193 ; motion for TRO. (GG) (Entered: 04/11/2016)

04/12/2016

214 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Lisa M Daugaard on behalf of Plaintiff Cassie Cordell Trueblood. (Daugaard, Lisa) (Entered: 04/12/2016)

04/12/2016

215 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL: Attorney Anita Khandelwal for Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R.. (Chiang, Emily) (Entered: 04/12/2016)

04/12/2016

216 ORDER by Judge Marsha J. Pechman granting in part plaintiffs' 193 Motion for TRO. This temporary restraining order will remain in effect until April 22, 2016, or until proof of compliance has been submitted to the Court and the Court Monitor and is found acceptable by the Court, whichever is earlier. (PM) (Entered: 04/12/2016)

04/13/2016 217 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Status Hearing and Motion Hearing held on 4/8/2016 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman.

Parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Information regarding the policy can be found on the court's website at www.wawd.uscourts.gov.

To purchase a copy of the transcript, contact court reporter Nickoline Drury, nickoline_drury@wawd.uscourts.gov, 206-370-8508.

Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/12/2016, (ND) (Entered: 04/13/2016)

04/15/2016

218 DECLARATION of Carla Reyes by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachment A, # 2 Exhibit Attachment B, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 04/15/2016)

04/15/2016

219 DECLARATION of Carla Reyes by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachment A, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 04/15/2016)

04/19/2016

220 NOTICE of Hearing: Status Hearing set for 5/11/2016 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 14206 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(RM) (Entered: 04/19/2016)

04/19/2016

221 MINUTE ORDER: The Court Monitor's request for an extension regarding Defendants' Amended Long Term Plan is GRANTED. Defendants' deadline to reply to the Court Monitor's comments is

extended to April 22, 2016. Defendants' deadline to submit the final plan is extended to May 6, 2016. Authorized by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (RM) (Entered: 04/19/2016)

04/22/2016

222 MOTION Extension of Temporary Restraining Order re 216 Order on Motion for TRO, by Plaintiff Disability Rights Washington. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 4/22/2016, (Carney, Christopher) (Entered: 04/22/2016)

04/22/2016

223 DECLARATION of Emily Cooper filed by Plaintiff Disability Rights Washington re 222 MOTION Extension of Temporary Restraining Order re 216 Order on Motion for TRO, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(Carney, Christopher) (Entered: 04/22/2016)

04/25/2016

224 RESPONSE, by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital, to 222 MOTION Extension of Temporary Restraining Order re 216 Order on Motion for TRO, . (Coats, Sarah) (Entered: 04/25/2016)

04/25/2016

225 DECLARATION of Carla Reyes re 224 Response to Motion, by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Coats, Sarah) (Entered: 04/25/2016)

04/26/2016

226 ORDER by Judge Marsha J. Pechman granting Plaintiff's 222 Motion for extension of the temporary restraining order. The TRO shall remain in effect until 5/6/2016 or until proof of compliance has been submitted to the Court and the Court Monitor and is found acceptable by the Court, whichever is earlier. (PM) (Entered: 04/26/2016)

05/02/2016

227 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. The next monthly status hearing has been set for May 11, 2016 at 9:30 a.m. (Dkt. No. 220 .) The Court will hear from the Parties about the status of Defendants' compliance with the wait time benchmarks and other requirements set by the Court in its February 8, 2016 Order Modifying Permanent Injunction. (Dkt. No. 186 .) Wait time data shall be presented in the manner previously specified by the Court. (See Dkt. No. 211 .) Defendants shall ensure that witnesses are in attendance at the hearing to answer the Court's questions; Assistant Secretary Reyes's presence is required. Additionally, the Parties shall submit all materials for the hearing to the Court no later than 12:00 noon on May 9, 2016. (AD) (Entered: 05/02/2016)

05/05/2016

228 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Plaintiff Cassie Cordell Trueblood. Noting Date 5/5/2016, (Daugaard, Lisa) (Entered: 05/05/2016)

05/05/2016

229 MOTION for Contempt by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R.. Oral Argument Requested. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 5/27/2016, (Baker, La Rond) (Entered: 05/05/2016)

05/05/2016

230 DECLARATION of Emily Cooper filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R. re 229 MOTION for Contempt (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Baker, La Rond) (Entered: 05/05/2016)

05/06/2016

Noting Date Reset to 5/20/2016 re 228 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney, per direction of chambers and LCR 7(d)(3). (PM) (Entered: 05/06/2016)

05/06/2016

231 MOTION EXTEND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER re 216 Order on Motion for TRO, by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 5/6/2016, (Cooper, Emily) (Entered: 05/06/2016)

05/06/2016

232 DECLARATION of EMILY COOPER filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 231 MOTION EXTEND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER re 216 Order on Motion for TRO, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Cooper, Emily) (Entered: 05/06/2016)

05/06/2016

233 OPINION of USCA (NOT THE MANDATE 15-35462) as to 158 Notice of Appeal, filed by Western State Hospital, Ron Adler, Dorothy Sawyer, Kevin W Quigley, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Eastern State Hospital. REVERSED AND REMANDED. (RE) (Entered: 05/06/2016)

05/06/2016

234 REPORT Revised Long-Term Plan by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 05/06/2016)

05/06/2016

235 ORDER of USCA (15-35601) as to 167 Notice of Appeal, filed by Western State Hospital, Brian Waiblinger, Ron Adler, Dorothy Sawyer, Kevin W Quigley, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Eastern State Hospital. We remand this appeal to the district court for reconsideration consistent with this courts opinion in Trueblood v. Washington State Department of Social and Health

Services, No. 15-35462, ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. 2016) (filed May 6,2016). (RE) (Entered: 05/09/2016)

05/09/2016

236 DECLARATION of Carla Reyes by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-1, # 2 Exhibit A-2, # 3 Exhibit B)(Coats, Sarah) (Entered: 05/09/2016)

05/09/2016

237 DECLARATION of Chris Imhoff by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Coats, Sarah) (Entered: 05/09/2016)

05/10/2016

238 ORDER by Judge Marsha J. Pechman granting Plaintiffs' 231 Second Motion for an extension of the temporary restraining order. The TRO shall remain in effect until 5/20/2016, or until proof of compliance has been submitted to the Court and the Court Monitor and is found acceptable by the Court, whichever is earlier. (PM) Modified on 5/10/2016 to indicate "Second" motion (PM). (Entered: 05/10/2016)

05/10/2016

239 NOTICE to Withdraw Pending Motion re 229 MOTION for Contempt ; by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R.. (Baker, La Rond) (Entered: 05/10/2016)

05/10/2016

240 MOTION for Contempt by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R.. Oral Argument Requested. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 5/27/2016, (Baker, La Rond) (Entered: 05/10/2016)

05/10/2016

241 DECLARATION of Emily Cooper filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R. re 240 MOTION for Contempt (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Baker, La Rond) (Entered: 05/10/2016)

05/11/2016

242 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Marsha J. Pechman- Dep Clerk: Rhonda Miller; Pla Counsel: Emily Cooper, La Rond Baker; Def Counsel: Amber Leaders, Sarah Coats, Nicholas Williamson; CR: Debbie Zurn; Status Hearing held on 5/11/2016. Dr. Mauch and Dr. Phillips also in attendance. The Court hears from Dr. Mauch and the parties regarding the status of Defendants' compliance with the wait time benchmarks and other requirements previously set by the Court. Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' motion for contempt is due 10 days after 5/27/2016 and any reply is due 5 days after that. Plaintiffs' contempt motion (Dkt. No. 240) is renoted to 6/10/2016. The parties have one week to notify the Court about which witnesses they wish to call for the contempt hearing, about whether they will call the

Court Monitor or her experts, and about how much time will be needed for the hearing. Plaintiffs have one week to let opposing counsel and the Court know if they intend to go any further in the 9th Circuit with respect to its opinion on the seven day requirement for competency evaluations. If they do not, Plaintiffs shall then begin the briefing process in this Court by filing an opening brief, to be briefed and noted on the motion calendar as a summary judgment motion. Defendants have one week to advise the Court on their positions and preferences regarding remand of the attorney's fees appeal.(RM) (Entered: 05/12/2016)

05/16/2016

243 REQUEST for Partial Termination of TRO by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital re 216 Order on Motion for TRO, 238 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, 226 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Attachment A, # 3 Attachment B, # 4 Attachment C, # 5 Attachment D)(Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 05/16/2016)

05/19/2016

244 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R.. Oral Argument Requested. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 5/19/2016, (Baker, La Rond) (Entered: 05/19/2016)

05/19/2016

245 DECLARATION of Emily Cooper filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R. re 244 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Baker, La Rond) (Entered: 05/19/2016)

05/20/2016

246 ORDER granting defendants' 243 Request to partially terminate temporary restraining order dkt 238 by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (RS) (Entered: 05/20/2016)

05/20/2016

247 NOTICE Of Intent to Respond ; filed by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital. (Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 05/20/2016)

05/21/2016

248 RESPONSE, by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital, to 244 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order . Oral Argument Requested. (Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 05/21/2016)

05/21/2016

249 DECLARATION of Carla Reyes re 248 Response to Motion, by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 05/21/2016)

05/21/2016

250 DECLARATION of Timothy Hunter re 248 Response to Motion, by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I)(Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 05/21/2016)

05/21/2016

251 DECLARATION of Dr. Bryan J. Zolnikov re 248 Response to Motion, by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H)(Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 05/21/2016)

05/21/2016

252 DECLARATION of Amber L. Leaders re 248 Response to Motion, by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 05/21/2016)

05/23/2016

253 ORDER by Judge Marsha J. Pechman granting attorney Lisa Daugaard's 228 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Lisa M Daugaard is permitted to withdraw from further representation of Plaintiffs in this matter. (PM) (Entered: 05/23/2016)

05/26/2016

254 MOTION for Contempt of Court-Ordered In-Hospital Evaluation Deadlines by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R.. Oral Argument Requested. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 6/10/2016, (Baker, La Rond) (Entered: 05/26/2016)

05/27/2016

255 ORDER by Judge Marsha J. Pechman directing Plaintiffs to reply to Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' 244 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order. Reply due within 7 days of this order. (PM) (Entered: 05/27/2016)

06/01/2016

256 NOTICE of Hearing 240 MOTION for Contempt , 254 MOTION for Contempt of Court-Ordered In-Hospital Evaluation Deadlines : Motion Hearing set for 6/20/2016 & 6/21/2016 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 14206 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(RM) (Entered: 06/01/2016)

06/01/2016

257 MANDATE of USCA (15-35462) as to 158 Notice of Appeal, filed by Western State Hospital, Ron Adler, Dorothy Sawyer, Kevin W Quigley, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Eastern State Hospital. The judgment of this Court, entered May 06, 2016, takes effect this date. This constitutes the formal mandate of this Court issued pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. REVERSED AND REMANDED. (RE) (Entered: 06/02/2016)

06/01/2016

258 MANDATE of USCA (15-35601) as to 167 Notice of Appeal, filed by Western State Hospital, Brian Waiblinger, Ron Adler, Dorothy Sawyer, Kevin W Quigley, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Eastern State Hospital. The judgment of this Court, entered May 06, 2016, takes effect this date. This constitutes the formal mandate of this Court issued pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. (RE) (Entered: 06/02/2016)

06/02/2016

259 MOTION Reconsideration of Scope of Injunction Regarding In-Jail Evaluations by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R.. Oral Argument Requested. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 6/24/2016, (Baker, La Rond) (Entered: 06/02/2016)

06/02/2016

260 DECLARATION of Emily Cooper filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R. re 259 MOTION Reconsideration of Scope of Injunction Regarding In-Jail Evaluations (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H)(Baker, La Rond) (Entered: 06/02/2016)

06/03/2016

261 REPLY, filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., TO RESPONSE to 244 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order (Baker, La Rond) (Entered: 06/03/2016)

06/03/2016

262 DECLARATION of Emily Cooper filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R. re 244 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Baker, La Rond) (Entered: 06/03/2016)

06/06/2016 263 ORDER granting plaintiffs' 244 Motion for TRO by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(RS) (Entered: 06/06/2016)

06/06/2016

264 RESPONSE, by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital, to 240 MOTION for Contempt , 254 MOTION for Contempt of Court-Ordered In-Hospital Evaluation Deadlines. Oral Argument Requested. (Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 06/06/2016)

06/07/2016

265 DECLARATION of James Polo re 264 Response to Motion, by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 06/07/2016)

06/07/2016

266 DECLARATION of Thomas Kinlen re 264 Response to Motion, by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 06/07/2016)

06/07/2016

267 DECLARATION of Ingrid Lewis re 264 Response to Motion, by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 06/07/2016)

06/07/2016

268 DECLARATION of Rick Hall re 264 Response to Motion, by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 06/07/2016)

06/07/2016

269 DECLARATION of Victoria Roberts re 264 Response to Motion, by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 06/07/2016)

06/07/2016

270 DECLARATION of Anthony O'Leary re 264 Response to Motion, by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 06/07/2016)

06/07/2016

271 DECLARATION of Carla Reyes re 264 Response to Motion, by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachment A, # 2 Exhibit Attachment B, # 3 Exhibit Attachment C, # 4 Exhibit Attachment D, # 5 Exhibit Attachment E, # 6 Exhibit Attachment F, # 7 Exhibit Attachment G, # 8 Exhibit Attachment H, # 9 Exhibit Attachment I, # 10 Exhibit Attachment J, # 11 Exhibit Attachment K, # 12 Exhibit Attachment L)(Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 06/07/2016)

06/07/2016

272 MOTION Request For Termination of Temporary Restraining Order re 263 Order on Motion for TRO by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 6/7/2016, (Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 06/07/2016)

06/07/2016

273 DECLARATION of Susan Copeland re 272 MOTION Request For Termination of Temporary Restraining Order re 263 Order on Motion for TRO by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 06/07/2016)

06/10/2016

274 ORDER by Judge Marsha J. Pechman granting Defendants' 272 Request and LIFTING the temporary restraining order 263 restricting use of the stairwells at the Maple Lane Competency Restoration Program. (PM) (Entered: 06/10/2016)

06/10/2016

275 REPLY, filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., TO RESPONSE to 240 MOTION for Contempt , 254 MOTION for Contempt of Court-Ordered In-Hospital Evaluation Deadlines (Baker, La Rond) (Entered: 06/10/2016)

06/10/2016

276 DECLARATION of Heather Carroll filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R. re 240 MOTION for Contempt , 254 MOTION for Contempt of Court-Ordered In-Hospital Evaluation Deadlines (Baker, La Rond) (Entered: 06/10/2016)

06/14/2016

277 ORDER CALLING FOR ADDITIONAL DATA by Judge Marsha J. Pechman re Plaintiffs' MOTIONS for Contempt 240 , 254 . Defendants to submit additional data to the Court so that the Court may determine whether Defendants are in compliance with its orders. The additional data shall be submitted no later than 12:00 noon on Friday, June 17, 2016. (PM) (Entered: 06/14/2016)

06/17/2016

278 DECLARATION of Dr. Bryan J. Zolnikov re 277 Order, by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 06/17/2016)

06/20/2016

279 RESPONSE, by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital, to 259 MOTION Reconsideration of Scope of Injunction Regarding In-Jail Evaluations . Oral Argument Requested. (Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 06/20/2016)

06/20/2016

280 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Marsha J. Pechman- Dep Clerk: Rhonda Miller; Pla Counsel: Emily Cooper, La Rond Baker, Christopher Carney; Def Counsel: Amber Leaders, Nicholas Williamson, Sarah Coats; CR: Andrea Ramirez; Contempt Hearing held on 6/20/2016 254 MOTION for Contempt of CourtOrdered In-Hospital Evaluation Deadlines filed by K.R., A.B., Disability Rights Washington, D.D. Opening statements. Danna Mauch is sworn and testifies on behalf of Plaintiff. Plaintiff rests. Bryan Zolnikov and Ingrid Lewis are sworn and testify on behalf of Defendant. Exhibits 1-7 and 100-103, 105, 106 admitted. Contempt Hearing continues on 6/21/2016 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 14206 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (RM) (Entered: 06/21/2016)

06/21/2016

281 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Marsha J. Pechman- Dep Clerk: Rhonda Miller; Pla Counsel: Emily Cooper, La Rond Baker, Christopher Carney; Def Counsel: Amber Leaders, Nicholas Williamson, Sarah Coats; CR: Andrea Ramirez; Contempt Hearing held on 6/21/2016. Ingrid Lewis, Victoria Roberts and Carla Reyes are sworn and testify on behalf of Defendant. Contempt Hearing continues on 6/22/2016 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 14206 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (RM) (Entered: 06/22/2016)

06/22/2016

282 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Marsha J. Pechman- Dep Clerk: Rhonda Miller; Pla Counsel: Emily Cooper, La Rond Baker, Christopher Carney; Def Counsel: Amber Leaders, Nicholas Williamson, Sarah Coats; CR: Andrea Ramirez; Contempt Hearing held on 6/22/2016. Carla Reyes resumes testimony. Rebuttal witness Danna Mauch is sworn and testifies. Exhibits 19, 32, 33 and 104 (pages 8-10) admitted. Closing arguments. Court will issue written ruling. (RM) (Entered: 06/23/2016)

06/24/2016

283 REPLY, filed by Plaintiffs Cassie Cordell Trueblood ,A.B.,K.R., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, TO RESPONSE to 259 MOTION Reconsideration of Scope of Injunction Regarding In-Jail Evaluations (Carney, Christopher) Modified on 6/27/2016 to add additional filers (PM). (Entered: 06/24/2016)

06/24/2016

284 DECLARATION of Emily Cooper filed by Plaintiffs Cassie Cordell Trueblood , A.B. ,K.R., D.D., Disability Rights Washington re 259 MOTION Reconsideration of Scope of Injunction Regarding InJail Evaluations (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Carney, Christopher) Modified on 6/27/2016 to add additional filers (PM). (Entered: 06/24/2016)

06/24/2016 285 DECLARATION of Tenaya Scheinman filed by Plaintiffs Cassie Cordell Trueblood ,A.B., K.R., D.D., Disability Rights Washington

re 259 MOTION Reconsideration of Scope of Injunction Regarding InJail Evaluations (Carney, Christopher) Modified on 6/27/2016 to add additional filers (PM). (Entered: 06/24/2016)

06/27/2016

NOTICE of Docket Text Modification re 283 Reply to Response to Motion, 284 Declaration, 285 Declaration : added additional plaintiffs as filers (PM) (Entered: 06/27/2016)

06/29/2016

286 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER Regarding Use of the Yakima Competency Restoration Program by parties (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed Order)(Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 06/29/2016)

06/30/2016

287 ORDER REGARDING USE OF THE YAKIMA COMPETENCY RESTRORATION PROGRAM by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. Upon review of the stipulation 286 , the Court agrees there is no further restriction on the use of the stairwell at the Yakima Competency Restoration Program, and the stairway and the second floor of the Yakima Competency Restoration Facility may be used freely. (PM) (Entered: 06/30/2016)

06/30/2016

288 MOTION for Reconsideration Scope of Injunction Regarding Timing of Services and Inpatient Evaluations by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 7/15/2016, (Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 06/30/2016)

07/07/2016

289 ORDER OF CIVIL CONTEMPT by Judge Marsha J. Pechman granting Plaintiffs' Motions for Contempt 240 254 . The Court hereby holds Defendants in contempt, and imposes monetary sanctions in order to compel compliance with its orders. (PM) cc: financial deputy (Entered: 07/07/2016)

07/07/2016

290 NOTICE of Hearing 259 MOTION Reconsideration of Scope of Injunction Regarding In-Jail Evaluations : Motion Hearing set for 7/25/2016 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 14206 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(RM) (Entered: 07/07/2016)

07/11/2016

291 RESPONSE, by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., to 288 MOTION for Reconsideration Scope of Injunction Regarding Timing of Services and Inpatient Evaluations. Oral Argument Requested. (Baker, La Rond) (Entered: 07/11/2016)

07/15/2016

292 DECLARATION of Dr. Thomas J. Kinlen by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Brian Waiblinger, Washington State Department of Social and Health

Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 07/15/2016)

07/15/2016

293 REPLY, filed by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital, TO RESPONSE to 288 MOTION for Reconsideration Scope of Injunction Regarding Timing of Services and Inpatient Evaluations (Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 07/15/2016)

07/19/2016 294 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Contempt Hearing held on 6/20/2016 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman.

Parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Information regarding the policy can be found on the court's website at www.wawd.uscourts.gov.

To purchase a copy of the transcript, contact court reporter Andrea Ramirez, andrea_ramirez@wawd.uscourts.gov, 206-370-8509.

Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/17/2016, (AR) (Entered: 07/19/2016)

07/19/2016 295 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Contempt Hearing, Day 2 held on 6/21/2016 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman.

Parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Information regarding the policy can be found on the court's website at www.wawd.uscourts.gov.

To purchase a copy of the transcript, contact court reporter Andrea Ramirez, andrea_ramirez@wawd.uscourts.gov, 206-370-8509.

Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/17/2016, (AR) (Entered: 07/19/2016)

07/19/2016 296 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Contempt Hearing, Day 3 held on 6/22/2016 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman.

Parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Information regarding the policy can be found on the court's website at www.wawd.uscourts.gov.

To purchase a copy of the transcript, contact court reporter Andrea Ramirez, andrea_ramirez@wawd.uscourts.gov, 206-370-8509.

Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/17/2016, (AR) (Entered: 07/19/2016)

07/20/2016

297 JUDGMENT BY COURT against Defendants in the amount of $185,500.00, representing civil contempt fines imposed in this action through July 14, 2016, and payable into the Registry of the Court, to be kept in the Registry until further order of the Court. (PM) cc: financial (Entered: 07/20/2016)

07/21/2016

298 MOTION for Reconsideration re 289 Order on Motion for Contempt,,, by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Brian Waiblinger, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 7/21/2016, (Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 07/21/2016)

07/25/2016

299 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Marsha J. Pechman- Dep Clerk: Rhonda Miller; Pla Counsel: Christopher Carney, La Rond Baker, Emily Cooper; Def Counsel: Amber Leaders, Sarah Coats, Nicholas Williamson; CR: Nickie Drury; Donna Mauch and Thomas Kinlen also in attendance. Motion Hearing held on 7/25/2016 259 MOTION Reconsideration of Scope of Injunction Regarding In-Jail Evaluations filed by K.R., A.B., Disability Rights

Washington, D.D. Opening statements. Plaintiff calls Donna Mauch. Exhibit 1 admitted. Closing arguments. Court directs parties to file proposed FFCL by close of business Friday. Written decision will follow. (RM) (Entered: 07/26/2016)

07/29/2016

300 RESPONSE, by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., to 298 MOTION for Reconsideration re 289 Order on Motion for Contempt,,, . (Chiang, Emily) (Entered: 07/29/2016)

07/29/2016

301 Proposed Findings of Fact by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood (Carney, Christopher) (Entered: 07/29/2016)

07/29/2016 302 PROPOSED ORDER (Unsigned) FofF, CofL (Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 07/29/2016)

08/08/2016

PAYMENT RECEIVED re 297 Judgment by Court. (Receipt# SEA79667) (ST) (Entered: 08/08/2016)

08/15/2016

303 ORDER MODIFYING PERMANENT INJUNCTION AS TO IN JAIL COMPETENCY EVALUATIONS by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (AD) (Entered: 08/15/2016)

08/15/2016

304 JUDGMENT BY COURT; The permanent injunction is MODIFIED so as to require Defendants to cease violating the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs and class members by completing the provision of in-jail competency evaluations within fourteen days of the signing of a court order. (AD) (Entered: 08/15/2016)

08/15/2016

305 DECLARATION of Thomas Kinlen by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Coats, Sarah) (Entered: 08/15/2016)

08/16/2016

306 JUDGMENT BY COURT; Judgment is entered against Defendants in the amount of $512,000.00, representing $498,000.00 in civil contempt fines imposed in this action from July 15, 2016 to August 14, 2016, and $14,000 in outstanding civil contempt fines for the period of July 8, 2016, to July 14, 2016. The $512,000.00 is payable into the Registry of the Court, to be kept in the Registry until further order of the Court. This judgment shall bear interest at the federal statutory rate until satisfied. (AD) (Entered: 08/16/2016)

08/17/2016

307 ORDER ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER OF CIVIL CONTEMPT by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. The Court GRANTS Defendants' 298 Motion as to the transcription error in finding of fact

three but DENIES the Motion on all other grounds. (PM) (Entered: 08/17/2016)

08/19/2016

308 ORDER by Judge Marsha J. Pechman denying Defendants' 288 Motion to Reconsider Injunction Regarding Timing of Services and Inpatient Evaluations. (AD) (Entered: 08/19/2016)

08/19/2016

309 DECLARATION of EMILY COOPER by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Cooper, Emily) (Entered: 08/19/2016)

09/01/2016

310 Second MOTION for Attorney Fees by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 9/16/2016, (Cooper, Emily) (Entered: 09/01/2016)

09/01/2016

311 DECLARATION of EMILY COOPER filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 310 Second MOTION for Attorney Fees (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-C)(Cooper, Emily) (Entered: 09/01/2016)

09/01/2016

312 DECLARATION of DAVID CARLSON filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 310 Second MOTION for Attorney Fees (Cooper, Emily) (Entered: 09/01/2016)

09/01/2016

313 DECLARATION of JESSE WING filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 310 Second MOTION for Attorney Fees (Cooper, Emily) (Entered: 09/01/2016)

09/09/2016

314 NOTICE that the following is RE-NOTED: 310 Second MOTION for Attorney Fees . Filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood. Noting Date 9/23/2016, (Cooper, Emily) (Entered: 09/09/2016)

09/14/2016

315 NOTICE OF APPEAL to Ninth Circuit re 303 Order, Terminate Motions, 304 Judgment by Court, by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital. Filing Fee $505, Receipt number 0981-4600979. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 09/14/2016)

09/14/2016

316 REPRESENTATION STATEMENT, by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western

State Hospital, (re: 315 Notice of Appeal,.) (Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 09/14/2016)

09/14/2016

317 NOTICE OF APPEAL (16-35744) to Ninth Circuit re 308 Order on Motion for Reconsideration by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital. Filing Fee $505, Receipt number 0981-4601024. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Williamson, Nicholas) Modified on 9/15/2016 to add CCA#. (RE) (Entered: 09/14/2016)

09/14/2016

318 REPRESENTATION STATEMENT, by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital, (re: 317 Notice of Appeal,.) (Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 09/14/2016)

09/14/2016

319 TIME SCHEDULE ORDER (16-35744) as to 317 Notice of Appeal, filed by Western State Hospital, Ron Adler, Dorothy Sawyer, Kevin W Quigley, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Eastern State Hospital: Appellants optional reply brief due within 14 days of service of the response brief. (RE) (Entered: 09/15/2016)

09/15/2016

320 DECLARATION of Carla Reyes - SEPTEMBER 2016 DATA & CONTEMPT REPORT by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Williamson, Nicholas) Modified on 9/16/2016 to add full title of document (PM). (Entered: 09/15/2016)

09/16/2016

321 Stipulated MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF COMPLIANCE DEADLINE by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 9/16/2016, (Cooper, Emily) (Entered: 09/16/2016)

09/16/2016

322 DECLARATION of EMILY COOPER filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 321 Stipulated MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF COMPLIANCE DEADLINE (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Cooper, Emily) (Entered: 09/16/2016)

09/19/2016

323 RESPONSE, by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital, to 310 Second MOTION for Attorney Fees . (Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 09/19/2016)

09/19/2016

324 DECLARATION of Marion Portenier re 323 Response to Motion, by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 09/19/2016)

09/19/2016

325 DECLARATION of Nicholas Williamson re 323 Response to Motion, by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 09/19/2016)

09/23/2016

326 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Marsha J. Pechman setting a Status Hearing on 10/6/2016 at 10:00 a.m. before Judge Marsha J. Pechman. Representatives of all parties are required to be in attendance. (PM) (Entered: 09/23/2016)

09/23/2016

327 REPLY, filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Q.M., Cassie Cordell Trueblood, TO RESPONSE to 310 Second MOTION for Attorney Fees (Carney, Christopher) (Entered: 09/23/2016)

10/06/2016

328 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Marsha J. Pechman- Dep Clerk: Rhonda Miller; Pla Counsel: Emily Cooper, La Rond Baker; Def Counsel: Sarah Coats, Nicholas Williamson; CR: Andrea Ramirez; Donna Mauch and Thomas Kinlen also in attendance. Status hearing regarding the utilization of funds generated by contempt fines and the parties' joint request to extend the compliance deadline was held on 10/6/2016. (RM) (Entered: 10/06/2016)

10/06/2016

329 ORDER by Judge Marsha J. Pechman granting the parties' 321 Stipulated Motion for Extension for Compliance Deadline. The deadlines set in this Court's Order at Dkt. 303 are extended to correspond with the dates in the Parties Stipulated Motion for Extension of Deadline (Dkt. 321 ). (PM) (Entered: 10/06/2016)

10/06/2016

330 JUDGMENT BY COURT; Judgment is entered against Defendants in the amount of $911,000.00, representing civil contempt fines imposed in this action through September, 2016, and payable into the Registry of the Court, to be kept in the Registry until further order of the Court. This judgment shall bear interest at the federal statutory rate until satisfied. (PM) cc: financial deputy (Entered: 10/06/2016)

10/07/2016

331 DECLARATION of EMILY COOPER filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 321 Stipulated MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF COMPLIANCE

DEADLINE (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Cooper, Emily) (Entered: 10/07/2016)

10/13/2016

332 ORDER by Judge Marsha J. Pechman granting Plaintiffs' 310 Second Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs. The Court awards Plaintiffs their requested lodestar amount of $1,267,769.10 in attorney's fees. The Court also awards Plaintiffs their litigation costs (subject to the reductions previously detailed in the original order on attorneys' fees and not contested here) for a total costs award of $35,400.38. (PM) (Entered: 10/13/2016)

10/14/2016

333 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital for proceedings held on 07/25/2016 Requesting Attorney: Amber Lea Leaders. (Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 10/14/2016)

10/14/2016

334 DECLARATION of Dr. Thomas Kinlen by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 10/14/2016)

10/17/2016

335 DECLARATION of Amber L. Leaders by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 10/17/2016)

11/04/2016

336 DECLARATION of EMILY COOPER by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Cooper, Emily) (Entered: 11/04/2016)

11/14/2016

337 NOTICE OF APPEAL (16-35945) to Ninth Circuit re 332 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees, by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital. Filing Fee $505, Receipt number 0981-4671290. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Williamson, Nicholas) Modified on 11/16/2016 to add CCA#. (RE). (Entered: 11/14/2016)

11/14/2016

338 REPRESENTATION STATEMENT, by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital, (re: 337 Notice of Appeal,.) (Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 11/14/2016)

11/15/2016

339 DECLARATION of Dr. Thomas Kinlen by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 11/15/2016)

11/15/2016

340 TIME SCHEDULE ORDER (16-35945) as to 337 Notice of Appeal, filed by Western State Hospital, Ron Adler, Dorothy Sawyer, Kevin W Quigley, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Eastern State Hospital: Appellants optional reply brief due within 14 days of service of the response brief. (RE) (Entered: 11/16/2016)

11/17/2016 341 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing held on 7/25/2016 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman.

Parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Information regarding the policy can be found on the court's website at www.wawd.uscourts.gov.

To purchase a copy of the transcript, contact court reporter Nickoline Drury, nickoline_drury@wawd.uscourts.gov, 206-370-8508.

Release of Transcript Restriction set for 2/15/2017, (ND) (Entered: 11/17/2016)

11/23/2016

342 JUDGMENT BY COURT: Judgment is entered against Defendants in the amount of $2,191,000.00, representing civil contempt fines imposed in this action for the period from October 14, 2016 through November 14, 2016, and payable into the Registry of the Court, to be kept in the Registry until further order of the Court. This judgment shall bear interest at the federal statutory rate until satisfied. (PM) cc: financial deputy (Entered: 11/23/2016)

11/23/2016

343 AMENDED JUDGMENT BY COURT: Upon receipt of an amended calculation of contempt fines received from the Director of the Office of Forensic Mental Health Services for the Department of Social and Health Services (see Dkt. No. 320 at 3), an Amended Judgment is entered against Defendants in the amount of $962,500.00, representing civil contempt fines imposed in this action for the period of July 15,

2016 through August 14, 2016, and payable into the Registry of the Court, to be kept in the Registry until further order of the Court. This judgment shall bear interest at the federal statutory rate until satisfied. (PM) cc: financial deputy (Entered: 11/23/2016)

11/23/2016

344 JUDGMENT BY COURT: Upon receipt of an amended calculation of contempt fines received from the Director of the Office of Forensic Mental Health Services for the Department of Social and Health Services (see Dkt. No. 339 , paragraph 7 at 3, an Amended Judgment is entered against Defendants in the amount of $1,368,000.00, representing civil contempt fines imposed in this action from September 15, 2016 through October 13, 2016, and payable into the Registry of the Court, to be kept in the Registry until further order of the Court. This judgment shall bear interest at the federal statutory rate until satisfied. (PM) Modified on 11/25/2016: copy to financial deputy (PM). (Entered: 11/23/2016)

12/06/2016 345 ORDER of USCA (16-35744) as to 317 Notice of Appeal, filed by Western State Hospital, et al.(SG) (Entered: 12/07/2016)

12/15/2016

346 DECLARATION of Thomas Kinlen by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/19/2016

347 ORDER of USCA (16-35945) as to 33 Notice of Appeal, filed by Western State Hospital, Ron Adler, Dorothy Sawyer, Kevin W Quigley, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Eastern State Hospital (SG) (Entered: 12/19/2016)

12/19/2016

348 Joint MOTION to Amend Judgment Imposed as Contempt Sanctions by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 12/19/2016, (Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 12/19/2016)

12/20/2016

349 ORDER by Judge Marsha J. Pechman granting 348 Joint Motion to amend the monetary fines imposed as contempt sanctions. See Dkt. # 348 . The Court ORDERS the entry a single judgment for the total contempt sanctions accrued to date ($7,486,500) for the reporting periods of July 8-14, July 15-August 14, August 15-September 14, September 15-October 13, October 14-November 14, and November 15-December 14. The Court further orders Defendants to pay the outstanding balance of $2,319,000, which is the difference between

what Defendants owe and what they have already paid to the Court. (PM) cc: financial deputy (Entered: 12/20/2016)

01/06/2017

350 NOTICE of Hearing: A status hearing is scheduled for 1/19/2017 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 14206 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(RM) (Entered: 01/06/2017)

01/11/2017

351 NOTICE of Request for Video Recording of Status Hearing on 1/19/2017 at 9:00 before Marsha J. Pechman. Parties must submit PARTY RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR VIDEO RECORDING before 1/17/2017. Please Note: This form must not be filed electronically with the Court. (RM) (Entered: 01/11/2017)

01/13/2017

352 DECLARATION of Thomas Kinlen by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 01/13/2017)

01/17/2017

353 NOTIFICATION REGARDING PROPOSED VIDEO RECORDING. At least one party has opposed the request to video record. The Status Hearing on 1/19/2017 at 9:00 AM will not be video recorded. (RM) (Entered: 01/17/2017)

01/19/2017

355 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Marsha J. Pechman- Dep Clerk: Rhonda Miller; Pla Counsel: Emily Cooper, La Rond Baker, Christopher Carney; Def Counsel: Amber Leaders, Nicholas Williamson, Sarah Coats; CR: Nickie Drury; Status Hearing held on 1/19/2017. Andi Smith, Carla Reyes, Dorothy Sawyer, and Cheryl Strange are sworn and testify on behalf of Defendant. Status Hearing continues on 1/23/2017 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 14206 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (RM) (Entered: 01/20/2017)

01/20/2017

354 JUDGMENT BY COURT is entered against Defendants in the following amounts: $29,000 in contempt fines resulting from an updated calculation of the fines for the period of October 14, 2016 through November 14, 2016; $39,500 in contempt fines resulting from an updated calculation of the fines for the period of November 15, 2016 through December 14, 2016; $2,105,000.00, representing civil contempt fines imposed in this action for the period from December 15, 2016 through January 12, 2017; for a total of $2,173,500. This total is due and payable into the Registry of the Court, to be kept in the Registry until further order of the Court. This judgment shall bear interest at the federal statutory rate until satisfied. (PM) cc: financial deputy (Entered: 01/20/2017)

01/23/2017

356 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Marsha J. Pechman- Dep Clerk: Rhonda Miller; Pla Counsel: Emily Cooper, La Rond Baker, Christopher Carney; Def Counsel: Amber Leaders, Sarah Coats, Nicholas Williamson; CR: Nickie Drury; Status Hearing day two held on 1/23/2017. Barry Ward, Randall Strandquist and Thomas Kinlen are sworn and testify on behalf of Defendant. Status Hearing will continue on 1/24/2017 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 14206 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (RM) (Entered: 01/24/2017)

01/24/2017

357 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Marsha J. Pechman- Dep Clerk: Rhonda Miller; Pla Counsel: Emily Cooper, La Rond Baker, Christopher Carney; Def Counsel: Amber Leaders, Sarah Coats, Nicholas Williamson; CR: Nickie Drury; Status Hearing day three held on 1/24/2017. Thomas Kinlen resumes testimony on cross. Tim Hunter, Ingrid Lewis and Patricia Lashway are sworn and testify on behalf of Defendant. Defendant rests. Exhibits 2-14, 16-21, 105-108, 111, 112, 115-118 admitted. Plaintiffs closing brief due beginning of business on 1/30/2017. Defendants closing brief due by noon on 2/1/2017. Status Hearing continues on 2/2/2017 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 14206 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (RM) (Entered: 01/25/2017)

01/30/2017 358 MOTION for Relief , filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R.. (Baker, La Rond) (Entered: 01/30/2017)

01/31/2017

359 NOTICE OF RESCHEDULED HEARING: Status Hearing is rescheduled for 2/6/2017 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 14206 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(RM) (Entered: 01/31/2017)

02/01/2017

360 STATEMENT Defendants' Proposed Compliance Plan by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 02/01/2017)

02/01/2017

361 EXHIBIT A to Defendants' Compliance Plan re 360 Statement by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 02/01/2017)

02/01/2017

362 EXHIBIT A - Estimated Jail Based Evaluator Need re 361 Exhibit, by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 02/01/2017)

02/02/2017 363 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Day 1 - Status Hearing held on 1/19/2017 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman.

Parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.
Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Information regarding the policy can be found on the court's website at www.wawd.uscourts.gov.
To purchase a copy of the transcript, contact court reporter Nickoline Drury, nickoline_drury@wawd.uscourts.gov, 206-370-8508.
Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/3/2017, (ND) (Main Document 363 replaced on 2/10/2017) (SG). (Entered: 02/02/2017)
02/02/2017 364 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Day 2 - Status Hearing held on 1/23/2017 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman.
Parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.
Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Information regarding the policy can be found on the court's website at www.wawd.uscourts.gov.
To purchase a copy of the transcript, contact court reporter Nickoline Drury, nickoline_drury@wawd.uscourts.gov, 206-370-8508.
Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/3/2017, (ND) (Main Document 364 replaced on 2/10/2017) (SG). (Entered: 02/02/2017)
02/02/2017 365 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Day 3 - Status Hearing held on 1/24/2017 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman.
Parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Information regarding the policy can be found on the court's website at www.wawd.uscourts.gov.

To purchase a copy of the transcript, contact court reporter Nickoline Drury, nickoline_drury@wawd.uscourts.gov, 206-370-8508.

Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/3/2017, (ND) (Main Document 365 replaced on 2/10/2017) (SG). (Entered: 02/02/2017)

02/03/2017

366 DECLARATION OF EMILY COOPER RE STIPULATED SUBMISSION OF PROPOSED DIVERSION PROVIDERS re 289 Order on Motion for Contempt,,, by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachment A: 2017 Trueblood Diversion Proposed Award Recipients)(Cooper, Emily) (Entered: 02/03/2017)

02/07/2017

367 MINUTE ORDER: The Court will re-adjourn the status and compliance hearing in this matter for its final day of testimony on 2/9/2017 at 9:00am PST; The final portion of the hearing will be conducted via telephone bridge by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (RS) (Entered: 02/07/2017)

02/09/2017

368 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Marsha J. Pechman- Dep Clerk: Rhonda Miller; Pla Counsel: La Rond Baker, Emily Cooper, Christopher Carney; Def Counsel: Amber Leaders, Nicholas Williamson, Sarah Coats; CR: Nickie Drury; Telephonic Status Hearing regarding compliance held on 2/9/2017. Carla Reyes, Dr. Danna Mauch, Dr. Thomas Kinlen also appearing telephonically. Dr. Danna Mauch is sworn and testifies on behalf of Plaintiff. Closing arguments. Court will issue written order. (RM) (Entered: 02/09/2017)

02/14/2017

369 DECLARATION of EMILY COOPER re 366 Declaration (non motion), by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Cooper, Emily) (Entered: 02/14/2017)

02/15/2017

370 DECLARATION of Thomas Kinlen by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Brian Waiblinger, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 02/15/2017)

02/16/2017

371 ORDER RE STATUS HEARING: Findings and Directives for Compliance with Court Orders. The first three status hearings are scheduled for 3/21/2017, 4/18/2017, and 5/15/2017 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 14206 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (RM) (Entered: 02/16/2017)

02/16/2017

372 JUDGMENT BY COURT is entered against Defendants in the following amounts: $1,500 in contempt fines resulting from an updated calculation of the fines for the period of January 13, 2017 through February 14, 2017; $1,739,500.00, representing civil contempt fines imposed in this action for the period from December 15, 2016 through January 12, 2017; for a total of $1,741,000. This total is due and payable into the Registry of the Court, to be kept in the Registry until further order of the Court. This judgment shall bear interest at the federal statutory rate until satisfied. (PM) cc: financial deputy (Entered: 02/16/2017)

02/17/2017

373 AMENDED JUDGMENT BY COURT is entered against Defendants in the following amounts: $1,500 in contempt fines resulting from an updated calculation of the fines for the period of December 15, 2016 through January 12, 2017; $1,739,500.00, representing civil contempt fines imposed in this action for the period from January 13, 2017 through February 14,; for a total of $1,741,000. This total is due and payable into the Registry of the Court, to be kept in the Registry until further order of the Court. This judgment shall bear interest at the federal statutory rate until satisfied. (PM) cc: financial deputy (Entered: 02/17/2017)

02/21/2017

374 ORDER EXPANDING COURT MONITOR AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITIES by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (RS) (Entered: 02/21/2017)

02/23/2017 375 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Day 4 - Status Hearing held on 2/9/2017 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman.

Parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Information regarding the policy can be found on the court's website at www.wawd.uscourts.gov.

To purchase a copy of the transcript, contact court reporter Nickoline Drury, nickoline_drury@wawd.uscourts.gov, 206-370-8508.

Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/24/2017, (ND) (Entered: 02/23/2017)

02/23/2017

376 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL: Attorney Margaret Chen for Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R.. (Baker, La Rond) (Entered: 02/23/2017)

02/23/2017

377 MANDATE of USCA (16-35744) as to 317 Notice of Appeal, filed by Western State Hospital, Ron Adler, Dorothy Sawyer, Kevin W Quigley, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Eastern State Hospital. Pursuant to the courts February 15, 2017, order (docket #14), this appeal is remanded to the district court for consideration of the parties settlement. Remand is without prejudice to reinstatement if the district court does not adopt the settlement as agreed to by the parties and as specified in the written settlement agreement. Notice of reinstatement must be filed within 28 days of entry of the district court order denying approval. This order served on the district court shall act as and for the mandate of this court. (CDA) (Entered: 02/24/2017)

02/24/2017

378 Stipulated MOTION for Disbursement of Funds for Diversion Programming, filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed Order & Ex. A) Noting Date 2/24/2017, (Baker, La Rond) (Entered: 02/24/2017)

02/27/2017

379 MOTION for Reconsideration re 371 Order, Set/Reset Hearings , filed by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital. Noting Date 2/27/2017, (Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 02/27/2017)

02/27/2017

380 DECLARATION of Carla Reyes filed by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital re 379 MOTION for Reconsideration re 371 Order, Set/Reset Hearings (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 02/27/2017)

02/27/2017

381 DECLARATION of Avanulas Smiley filed by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital re 379 MOTION for Reconsideration re 371 Order, Set/Reset Hearings (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B,

# 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 02/27/2017)

03/07/2017

382 MINUTE ORDER directing Plaintiffs to file a response to Defendants' 379 Motion for Clarification or Reconsideration. Response due 3/13/2017. Authorized by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (PM) (Entered: 03/07/2017)

03/09/2017

383 DECLARATION of Dr. Thomas Kinlen re 371 Order, Set/Reset Hearings by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O)(Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 03/09/2017)

03/09/2017

384 DECLARATION of Carla Reyes re 371 Order, Set/Reset Hearings by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 03/09/2017)

03/13/2017

385 RESPONSE, by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., to 379 MOTION for Reconsideration re 371 Order, Set/Reset Hearings . (Baker, La Rond) (Entered: 03/13/2017)

03/13/2017

386 DECLARATION of La Rond Baker filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R. re 379 MOTION for Reconsideration re 371 Order, Set/Reset Hearings (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Baker, La Rond) (Entered: 03/13/2017)

03/15/2017

387 DECLARATION of Dr. Thomas Kinlen by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 03/15/2017)

03/16/2017

388 JUDGMENT BY COURT against Defendants in the total amount of $1,883,500. This total is due and payable into the Registry of the Court, to be kept in the Registry until further order of the Court. This judgment shall bear interest at the federal statutory rate until satisfied. (swt) (cc: Financial) (Entered: 03/16/2017)

03/17/2017 389 Joint Stipulated MOTION TO ADOPT THE MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, filed by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern

State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Brian Waiblinger, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B) Noting Date 3/17/2017, (Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 03/17/2017)

03/21/2017

390 ORDER Granting 378 Stipulated Motion to Distribute Contempt Funds for Diversion Programming by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(RM) Modified on 3/22/2017: copy to financial (PM). (Entered: 03/21/2017)

03/21/2017

391 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Marsha J. Pechman- Dep Clerk: Rhonda Miller; Pla Counsel: Christopher Carney, Emily Cooper, La Rond Baker; Def Counsel: Amber Leaders, Sarah Coats, Nicholas Williamson; CR: Andrea Ramirez; Status Hearing held on 3/21/2017. Jessica Wolfe, Dr. Mauch, Dr. Kinlen and Dr. Phillips also in attendance. As stated on the record, the parties reported to the Court on the progress and steps taken to come into compliance. The motion 379 for reconsideration regarding 371 is denied for the reasons stated orally. The next status hearing is scheduled for 4/18/2017 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 14206 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (RM) (Entered: 03/21/2017)

03/21/2017

392 MINUTE ORDER denying 379 motion for reconsideration regarding 371 Order. Authorized by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (RM) (Entered: 03/21/2017)

03/29/2017 393 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Status Hearing held on 3/21/2017 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman.

Parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Information regarding the policy can be found on the court's website at www.wawd.uscourts.gov.

To purchase a copy of the transcript, contact court reporter Andrea Ramirez, andrea_ramirez@wawd.uscourts.gov, 206-370-8509.

Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/27/2017, (AR) (Entered: 03/29/2017)

04/04/2017

394 Stipulated MOTION for Disbursement of Funds , filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 4/4/2017, (Baker, La Rond) (Entered: 04/04/2017)

04/04/2017

395 DECLARATION of La Rond Baker filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R. re 394 Stipulated MOTION for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Baker, La Rond) (Entered: 04/04/2017)

04/07/2017

396 DECLARATION of Carla Reyes re 371 Order, Set/Reset Hearings by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 04/07/2017)

04/07/2017

397 REQUEST by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital for Additional Clarification and Guidance from the Court (Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 04/07/2017)

04/07/2017 398 ORDER granting Stipulated 394 Motion for Disbursement of Funds by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(RS) cc fin'l (Entered: 04/10/2017)

04/10/2017

399 MINUTE ORDER RE REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION AND GUIDANCE; re defendants' 397 Request. Plaintiffs directed to respond by 4/17/17 at 12pm PDT by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (RS) (Entered: 04/10/2017)

04/14/2017

400 DECLARATION of Dr. Thomas Kinlen by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 04/14/2017)

04/17/2017

401 JUDGMENT BY COURT against Defendants in the total amount of $2,467,000. This total is due and payable into the Registry of the Court, to be kept in the Registry until further order of the Court. This judgment shall bear interest at the federal statutory rate until satisfied. (PM) cc: financial (Entered: 04/17/2017)

04/17/2017

402 RESPONSE by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Q.M. re 397 Request, (Carney, Christopher) (Entered: 04/17/2017)

04/18/2017

404 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Marsha J. Pechman- Dep Clerk: Rhonda Miller; Pla Counsel: Christopher Carney, Emily Cooper, La Rond Baker; Def Counsel: Amber Leaders, Nicholas Williamson, Sarah Coats; CR: Nancy Bauer; Jessica Wolfe, Victoria Cantore, Dr. Mauch, Dr. Kinlen and Dr. Phillips also in attendance. Status Hearing held on 4/18/2017. After hearing from the parties, the Court issued additional clarification and guidance as stated on the record. See Order, Dkt. No. 403. Next status hearing is rescheduled for 6/5/2017 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 14206 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (RM) (Entered: 04/19/2017)

04/19/2017

403 ORDER ON REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION AND GUIDANCE; Defendants' proposal to be submitted to plaintiffs and Court Monitor by 5/12/17; Court Monitor and plaintiffs to submit comments to defendants by 5/19/17; by 6/2/17 parties to file with Court their plans; Status Hearing set for 6/5/2017 at 9am by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (RS) (Entered: 04/19/2017)

04/19/2017

405 NOTICE OF APPEAL to Ninth Circuit (17-35335) re 392 Minute Order, 403 Order,, Set/Reset Hearings, 371 Order, Set/Reset Hearings by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital. Filing Fee $505, Receipt number 0981-4847293. (Williamson, Nicholas) Modified on 4/21/2017 to add CCA # (CDA). (Entered: 04/19/2017)

04/19/2017

406 REPRESENTATION STATEMENT, by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital, (re: 405 Notice of Appeal,.) (Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 04/19/2017)

04/20/2017

407 TIME SCHEDULE ORDER (17-35335) as to 405 Notice of Appeal, filed by Western State Hospital, Ron Adler, Dorothy Sawyer, Kevin W Quigley, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Eastern State Hospital. (CDA) (Entered: 04/21/2017)

04/26/2017 408 ORDER adopting in part 389 Stipulated Mediated Settlement Agreement by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(RS) (Entered: 04/26/2017)
04/27/2017 409 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of status conference held on 4/18/2017 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman.

Parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed,

the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Information regarding the policy can be found on the court's website at www.wawd.uscourts.gov.

To purchase a copy of the transcript, contact court reporter Nancy Bauer, nancy_bauer@wawd.uscourts.gov, 206-370-8506.

05/15/2017

Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/26/2017, (NB) (Entered: 04/27/2017)
***Motion terminated at the direction of chambers: 358 MOTION for Relief filed by K.R., A.B., Disability Rights Washington, D.D. The motion was addressed by Judge Pechman's order of 2/16/2017, Dkt. 371 (PM) (Entered: 05/15/2017)

05/15/2017

410 DECLARATION of Dr. Thomas Kinlen by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 05/15/2017)

05/16/2017

411 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Jessica Wolfe on behalf of Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R.. (Wolfe, Jessica) (Entered: 05/16/2017)

05/26/2017

412 DECLARATION of Dr. Thomas J. Kinlen by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 05/26/2017)

06/02/2017 413 JOINT STATUS REPORT signed by all parties (Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 06/02/2017)

06/02/2017

414 DECLARATION of Nicholas Williamson re 413 Joint Status Report by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit

F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K)(Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 06/02/2017)

06/05/2017

415 JUDGMENT BY COURT is entered against Defendants in the following amounts: $18,500 in contempt fines resulting from an updated calculation of the fines for the period of March 15, 2017 to April 13, 2017; $2,557,000 representing civil contempt fines imposed in this action for the period from April 14, 2017 through May 11, 2017; for a total of $2,575,500. This total is due and payable into the Registry of the Court, to be kept in the Registry until further order of the Court. This judgment shall bear interest at the federal statutory rate until satisfied. (PM) cc: financial deputy (Entered: 06/05/2017)

06/05/2017

416 ORDER RE: JUNE 2017 STATUS HEARING by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. The next status review hearing will occur by conference call and will be held on August 11, 2017, at 9:00 a.m. (see order for details) (PM) (Entered: 06/05/2017)

06/05/2017

417 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Marsha J. Pechman- Dep Clerk: Rhonda Miller; Pla Counsel: Christopher Carney, Emily Cooper, La Rond Baker, David Carlson, Jessica Wolfe; Def Counsel: Nicholas Williamson, Amber Leaders; Also appearing: Victoria Roberts, Dr. Mauch, Dr. Kinlen, Carla Reyes CR: Nickie Drury; Status Conference held on 6/5/2017. Parties advised and updated the Court on their efforts to implement the Court's orders in this matter. Next status review conference is scheduled for 8/11/2017 at 9:00 AM and will be held telephonically. See Court's Order (Dkt. No. 416). (RM) (Entered: 06/06/2017)

06/05/2017

418 ORDER RE: JUNE 2017 STATUS HEARING; Status Review Hearing set for 8/11/2017 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (RS) (Entered: 06/06/2017)

06/08/2017

419 Stipulated MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF DIVERSION PROVIDERS' GRANT re 390 Order on Motion for Disbursement of Funds , filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 6/8/2017, (Cooper, Emily) (Entered: 06/08/2017)

06/08/2017

420 DECLARATION of EMILY COOPER IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF DIVERSION PROVIDERS' GRANT filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 419 Stipulated MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF DIVERSION PROVIDERS' GRANT re 390 Order on Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Cooper, Emily) (Entered: 06/08/2017)

06/09/2017

421 ORDER granting 419 Stipulated Motion for Extension of Diversion Providers' Grant; time extended to 18 months; Clerk to disburse $1,126,257 to the Seattle Foundation to fund the extension of these diversion programs consistent with the previous order. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (PM) cc: financial deputy (Entered: 06/09/2017)

06/15/2017

422 DECLARATION of Dr. Thomas J. Kinlen by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 06/15/2017)

06/19/2017

423 JUDGMENT BY COURT entered against defendants in the following amounts: $3,178,500 representing civil contempt fines imposed in this action for the period of May 12, 2017 to June 13, 2017 $16,000 in contempt fines resulting from an updated calculation of the fines for the period of April 14, 2017 to May 11, 2017; $3,000 in contempt fines resulting from an updated calculation of the fines for the period from March 15, 2017 through April 13, 2017 for a total of $3,197,500. This total is due and payable into the Registry of the Court, to be kept in the Registry until further order of the Court. This judgment shall bear interest at the federal statutory rate until satisfied. (RS) cc fin'l (Entered: 06/19/2017)

06/30/2017

424 MANDATE of USCA (17-35335) as to 405 Notice of Appeal, filed by Western State Hospital, Ron Adler, Dorothy Sawyer, Kevin W Quigley, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Eastern State Hospital. The appellants motion (Docket Entry No. 9) under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) for voluntary dismissal is granted. A copy of this order sent to the district court shall act as and for the mandate of this court. (SG) (Entered: 07/05/2017)

07/11/2017

425 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL: Attorney Jessica Wolfe; La Rond Baker and Emily Chiang for Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R.. (Chiang, Emily) (Entered: 07/11/2017)

07/12/2017 426 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Status Hearing held on 6/5/2017 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman.

Parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Information regarding the policy can be found on the court's website at www.wawd.uscourts.gov.

To purchase a copy of the transcript, contact court reporter Nickoline Drury, nickoline_drury@wawd.uscourts.gov, 206-370-8508.

Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/10/2017, (ND) (Entered: 07/12/2017)

07/13/2017

427 Second MOTION for Contempt OF COURT ORDERED IN JAIL EVALUATION DEADLINES, filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood. Oral Argument Requested. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 8/4/2017, (Cooper, Emily) (Entered: 07/13/2017)

07/13/2017

428 DECLARATION of EMILY COOPER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' SECOND MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF COURTORDERED IN JAIL EVALUATION DEADLINES filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 427 Second MOTION for Contempt OF COURT ORDERED IN JAIL EVALUATION DEADLINES (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I)(Cooper, Emily) (Entered: 07/13/2017)

07/13/2017

429 DECLARATION of MARY KAY HIGH filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 427 Second MOTION for Contempt OF COURT ORDERED IN JAIL EVALUATION DEADLINES (Cooper, Emily) (Entered: 07/13/2017)

07/13/2017

430 Third MOTION for Attorney Fees AND COSTS, filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Cooper, Emily) (Entered: 07/13/2017)

07/13/2017

431 DECLARATION of EMILY COOPER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' THIRD MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 430 Third MOTION for Attorney Fees AND COSTS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Cooper, Emily) (Entered: 07/13/2017)

07/13/2017

432 DECLARATION of CHRISTOPHER CARNEY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' THIRD MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 430 Third MOTION for Attorney Fees AND COSTS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Cooper, Emily) (Entered: 07/13/2017)

07/13/2017

433 DECLARATION of EMILY CHIANG IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' THIRD MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 430 Third MOTION for Attorney Fees AND COSTS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Cooper, Emily) (Entered: 07/13/2017)

07/13/2017

434 Second DECLARATION of SALVADOR A. MUNGIA IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' THIRD MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 430 Third MOTION for Attorney Fees AND COSTS (Cooper, Emily) (Entered: 07/13/2017)

07/13/2017

435 DECLARATION of JOE SHAEFFER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' THIRD MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 430 Third MOTION for Attorney Fees AND COSTS (Cooper, Emily) (Entered: 07/13/2017)

07/13/2017

436 PRAECIPE re 428 Declaration,, by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit D, # 2 Exhibit E)(Cooper, Emily) (Entered: 07/13/2017)

07/14/2017

Noting Date Set per direction of chambers: 430 Third MOTION for Attorney Fees AND COSTS : Noting Date 7/28/2017, (PM) (Entered: 07/14/2017)

07/14/2017

437 NOTICE of Unavailability of counsel Emily Cooper for Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood from 8/23/17 - 9/1/17. (Cooper, Emily) (Entered: 07/14/2017)

07/14/2017

438 DECLARATION of Dr. Bryan Zolnikov by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 07/14/2017)

07/24/2017 439 RESPONSE, by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social

and Health Services, Western State Hospital, to 430 Third MOTION for Attorney Fees AND COSTS. (Coats, Sarah) (Entered: 07/24/2017)

07/28/2017

440 REPLY, filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Q.M., TO RESPONSE to 430 Third MOTION for Attorney Fees AND COSTS (Carney, Christopher) (Entered: 07/28/2017)

07/28/2017

441 DECLARATION of Emily Cooper filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Q.M. re 430 Third MOTION for Attorney Fees AND COSTS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Carney, Christopher) (Entered: 07/28/2017)

07/31/2017

442 RESPONSE, by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital, to 427 Second MOTION for Contempt OF COURT ORDERED IN JAIL EVALUATION DEADLINES. Oral Argument Requested. (Coats, Sarah) (Entered: 07/31/2017)

07/31/2017

443 DECLARATION of Dr. Thomas J. Kinlen re 442 Response to Motion, by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Coats, Sarah) (Entered: 07/31/2017)

07/31/2017

444 DECLARATION of Theresa Becker re 442 Response to Motion, by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Brian Waiblinger, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Interested Party Grace Kingman (Coats, Sarah) (Entered: 07/31/2017)

08/01/2017

445 DECLARATION Christopher Carney re 418 Order, Set/Reset Hearings by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Q.M. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit)(Carney, Christopher) (Entered: 08/01/2017)

08/01/2017

446 NOTICE of Expansion of Yakima Competency Restoration Program ; filed by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Coats, Sarah) (Entered: 08/01/2017)

08/01/2017

447 DECLARATION Re Information and Reports for 8/11/17 Status Hearing of Dr. Thomas Kinlen re 418 Order, Set/Reset Hearings by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley,

Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H)(Coats, Sarah) (Entered: 08/01/2017)

08/02/2017

448 PRAECIPE to attach document Corrected Attachment H to Kinlen Declaration re 447 Declaration (non motion), by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Coats, Sarah) (Entered: 08/02/2017)

08/04/2017

449 REPLY, filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood, TO RESPONSE to 427 Second MOTION for Contempt OF COURT ORDERED IN JAIL EVALUATION DEADLINES (Cooper, Emily) (Entered: 08/04/2017)

08/08/2017

450 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL: Attorney Anna Catherine Guy for Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood. (Guy, Anna) (Entered: 08/08/2017)

08/08/2017

451 JUDGMENT BY COURT entered against Defendants in the following amounts: $2,897,500 representing civil contempt fines imposed in this action for the period from June 14, 2017 through July 13, 2017; A decrease of $4,500 in contempt fines for the period of May 12, 2017 through June 13, 2017 (as a result of incorrectly including in the prior calculation defendants who were waiting for admission to a state hospital from the community, not from jail); for a total of $2,893,000. This total is due and payable into the Registry of the Court, to be kept in the Registry until further order of the Court. This judgment shall bear interest at the federal statutory rate until satisfied. (PM) cc: financial (Entered: 08/08/2017)

08/10/2017

452 Third MOTION for Contempt , filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood. Oral Argument Requested. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 9/1/2017, (Cooper, Emily) (Entered: 08/10/2017)

08/10/2017

453 DECLARATION of EMILY COOPER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' THIRD MOTION FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 452 Third MOTION for Contempt (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Cooper, Emily) (Entered: 08/10/2017)

08/11/2017

454 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Marsha J. Pechman- Dep Clerk: Rhonda Miller; Pla Counsel: Emily Cooper, David Carlson; Def Counsel: Nicholas Williamson, Sarah Coats;

CR: Nickie Drury; Evidentiary Hearing on Second MOTION for Contempt OF COURT ORDERED IN JAIL EVALUATION DEADLINES, filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood held on 8/11/2017. Dr. Mauch is sworn and testifies on behalf of Plaintiff. Dr. Kinlen is sworn and testifies on behalf of Defendants. Closing arguments. Court will issue written decision. Hearing on Third MOTION for Contempt filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood is scheduled for 9/11/2017 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 14206 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (RM) (Entered: 08/11/2017)

08/11/2017

455 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Marsha J. Pechman- Dep Clerk: Rhonda Miller; Pla Counsel: Emily Cooper, David Carlson; Def Counsel: Nicholas Williamson, Sarah Coats; CR: Nickie Drury; Status Conference held on 8/11/2017. Parties advise and update the Court on efforts to implement the Court's orders in this matter. The next Status Conference is set for 9/11/2017 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 14206 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (RM) (Entered: 08/11/2017)

08/15/2017

456 DECLARATION of Dr. Thomas J. Kinlen by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 08/15/2017)

08/24/2017 457 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Status Hearing held on 10/6/2016 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman.

Parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Information regarding the policy can be found on the court's website at www.wawd.uscourts.gov.

To purchase a copy of the transcript, contact court reporter Andrea Ramirez, andrea_ramirez@wawd.uscourts.gov, 206-370-8509.

Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/22/2017, (AR) (Entered: 08/24/2017)

08/24/2017

458 MOTION for Contempt REGARDING YCRC, filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood. Oral Argument Requested. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 9/11/2017, (Cooper, Emily) (Entered: 08/24/2017)

08/24/2017

459 DECLARATION of EMILY COOPER IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CONTEMPT REGARDING YCRC filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 458 MOTION for Contempt REGARDING YCRC (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M)(Cooper, Emily) (Entered: 08/24/2017)

08/25/2017

460 Joint Stipulated MOTION To Re-Note Third Motion for Civil Contempt, filed by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital. Noting Date 8/25/2017, (Coats, Sarah) (Entered: 08/25/2017)

08/25/2017

461 DECLARATION of Sarah J. Coats re 460 Joint Stipulated MOTION To Re-Note Third Motion for Civil Contempt by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Coats, Sarah) (Entered: 08/25/2017)

08/28/2017 462 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Status Hearing held on 5/11/2016 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman.

Parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Information regarding the policy can be found on the court's website at www.wawd.uscourts.gov.

To purchase a copy of the transcript, contact court reporter Debbie Zurn, debbie_zurn@wawd.uscourts.gov, 206-370-8504.

Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/27/2017, (DZ) (Entered: 08/28/2017)

08/30/2017

463 ORDER granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's 430 Third Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs. The Court awards Plaintiffs their lodestar amount (minus the deductions describe supra) of $1,108,351.50 in attorney's fees; The Court also awards Plaintiffs litigation costs (subject to the reduction previously detailed) of $8270.45 for a total award of $1,116,621.95. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (TH) (Entered: 08/30/2017)

08/31/2017 464 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Status Hearing held on 8/11/2017 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman.

Parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Information regarding the policy can be found on the court's website at www.wawd.uscourts.gov.

To purchase a copy of the transcript, contact court reporter Nickoline Drury, nickoline_drury@wawd.uscourts.gov, 206-370-8508.

Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/29/2017, (ND) (Entered: 08/31/2017)

09/01/2017

465 NOTICE of Unavailability of counsel Nicholas A Williamson for Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital from 09/29/2017-10/13/2017. (Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 09/01/2017)

09/05/2017

466 MOTION to Exclude Testimony, filed by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 9/5/2017, (Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 09/05/2017)

09/05/2017

467 DECLARATION of Nicholas A. Williamson filed by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital re 466 MOTION to Exclude Testimony (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 09/05/2017)

09/05/2017

468 RESPONSE, by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital, to 452 Third MOTION for Contempt . (Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 09/05/2017)

09/05/2017

469 DECLARATION of Dr. Thomas Kinlen in Support of Deparment's Response to Plaintiffs' Third Motion for Contempt filed by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital re 452 Third MOTION for Contempt (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P)(Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 09/05/2017)

09/05/2017

470 RESPONSE, by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital, to 458 MOTION for Contempt REGARDING YCRC. Oral Argument Requested. (Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 09/05/2017)

09/05/2017

471 DECLARATION of Tyra Villafan re 470 Response to Motion, by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M)(Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 09/05/2017)

09/05/2017

472 DECLARATION of Dr. Bryan Zolnikov re 470 Response to Motion, by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, # 19 Exhibit S, # 20 Exhibit T, # 21 Exhibit U, # 22 Exhibit V)(Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 09/06/2017)

09/06/2017

473 DECLARATION of Pablo Mejia re 470 Response to Motion, by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health

Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 09/06/2017)

09/06/2017

474 DECLARATION of Dr. Frank Garner re 470 Response to Motion, by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 09/06/2017)

09/06/2017

475 DECLARATION of Timothy Hunter re 470 Response to Motion, by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I)(Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 09/06/2017)

09/06/2017

476 DECLARATION of Dr. Thomas Kinlen re 470 Response to Motion, by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 09/06/2017)

09/06/2017

477 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Marsha J. Pechman- Dep Clerk: Rhonda Miller; Pla Counsel: Christopher Carney, Emily Cooper; Def Counsel: Nicholas Williamson, Sarah Coats; CR: Nancy Bauer; Telephonic Motion Hearing held on 9/6/2017 466 MOTION to Exclude Testimony filed by Western State Hospital, Ron Adler, Dorothy Sawyer, Kevin W Quigley, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Eastern State Hospital. Oral argument presented. The Court will not exclude the testimony of Plaintiffs' expert witness, Terry Kupers. The record will be kept open to allow both sides to secure an expert. Direct and cross examination will be held on a date to be determined. (RM) (Entered: 09/06/2017)

09/07/2017

478 JUDGMENT BY COURT entered against Defendants in the following amounts: $2,957,500 representing civil contempt fines imposed in this action for the period from July 14, 2017 through August 14, 2017; A decrease of $36,000 in contempt fines for the period of June 14, 2017 through July 13, 2017 (as a result of incorrectly including in the prior calculation defendants who were waiting for admission to a state hospital from the community, not from jail); A decrease of $21,000 in contempt fines for the period of May 12, 2017 through June 13, 2017 (as a result of incorrectly including in the prior calculation defendants who were waiting for admission to a state hospital from the community, not from jail); for a total of $2,900,000. This total is due and payable

into the Registry of the Court, to be kept in the Registry until further order of the Court. This judgment shall bear interest at the federal statutory rate until satisfied. (TH). (cc: Financial) (Entered: 09/07/2017)

09/08/2017

479 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Gregory K Ziser on behalf of Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital. (Ziser, Gregory) (Entered: 09/08/2017)

09/08/2017

480 REPLY, filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood, TO RESPONSE to 452 Third MOTION for Contempt (Cooper, Emily) (Entered: 09/08/2017)

09/08/2017

481 DECLARATION of EMILY COOPER IN REPLY RE PLAINTIFFS' THIRD MOTION FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 452 Third MOTION for Contempt (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Cooper, Emily) (Entered: 09/08/2017)

09/08/2017

482 REPLY, filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood, TO RESPONSE to 458 MOTION for Contempt REGARDING YCRC (Cooper, Emily) (Entered: 09/08/2017)

09/08/2017

483 DECLARATION of EMILY COOPER IN REPLY RE PLAINTIFFS' THIRD MOTION FOR CONTEMPT REGARDING YCRC filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 458 MOTION for Contempt REGARDING YCRC (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Cooper, Emily) (Entered: 09/08/2017)

09/08/2017

484 DECLARATION of PATRICK FOX filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 458 MOTION for Contempt REGARDING YCRC (Cooper, Emily) (Entered: 09/08/2017)

09/08/2017

485 DECLARATION of ROXANNE LEWIS filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 458 MOTION for Contempt REGARDING YCRC (Cooper, Emily) (Entered: 09/08/2017)

09/09/2017

486 SURREPLY filed by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital re 458 MOTION for Contempt REGARDING YCRC , Defendants' Request to Strike (Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 09/09/2017)

09/11/2017

487 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Marsha J. Pechman- Dep Clerk: Rhonda Miller; Pla Counsel: Emily Cooper, David Carlson, Christopher Carney; Def Counsel: Sarah Coats, Nicholas Williamson, Gregory Ziser; CR: Nancy Bauer; Evidentiary Hearing held on 9/11/2017 regarding 458 MOTION for Contempt REGARDING YCRC, filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood. Donna Mauch and Debra Pinals are sworn and testify on behalf of Plaintiff. Evidentiary hearing continued to 9/13/2017 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 14206 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman. Court will not strike evidence submitted in Plaintiffs reply in support of their contempt motion, but will hold open to allow Defendants opportunity for rebuttal. (RM) (Entered: 09/12/2017)

09/13/2017

PAYMENT RECEIVED re 478 Judgment by Court. (Receipt# SEA086706) (ST) (Entered: 09/13/2017)

09/13/2017

488 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Marsha J. Pechman- Dep Clerk: Rhonda Miller; Pla Counsel: Emily Cooper, Christopher Carney; Def Counsel: Sarah Coats, Nicholas Williamson, Gregory Ziser; CR: Nancy Bauer; Evidentiary Hearing held on 9/13/2017 regarding 458 MOTION for Contempt REGARDING YCRC, filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood. Bill Parretta is sworn and testifies on behalf of Plaintiff. Tyra Villafan (telephonically), and Bryan Zolnikov are sworn and testify on behalf of Defendant. Exhibits 151, 153, 159, 160, 161 admitted. Evidentiary hearing continued to 9/21/2017 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 14206 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (RM) (Entered: 09/14/2017)

09/15/2017

489 DECLARATION of Dr. Thomas J. Kinlen by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 09/15/2017)

09/20/2017 490 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Evidentiary hearing held on 9/11/2017 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman.

Parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release

of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Information regarding the policy can be found on the court's website at www.wawd.uscourts.gov.

To purchase a copy of the transcript, contact court reporter Nancy Bauer, nancy_bauer@wawd.uscourts.gov, 206-370-8506.

Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/19/2017, (NB) (Entered: 09/20/2017)

09/21/2017

491 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Marsha J. Pechman- Dep Clerk: Rhonda Miller; Pla Counsel: Emily Cooper, Christopher Carney; Def Counsel: Sarah Coats, Nicholas Williamson; CR: Nickie Drury; Evidentiary Hearing held on 9/21/2017 regarding 458 MOTION for Contempt REGARDING YCRC, filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood. Bryan Zolnikov resumes testimony. Thomas Kinlen, Victoria Cantore and Carla Reyes are sworn and testify on behalf of Defendant. Defense rests. The record is kept open for additional expert testimony at hearing date to be scheduled. (RM) (Entered: 09/22/2017)

09/22/2017

492 NOTICE of Hearing 452 Third MOTION for Contempt : Evidentiary/ Motion Hearing set for 10/19/2017 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 14206 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(RM) (Entered: 09/22/2017)

09/27/2017

493 NOTICE OF APPEAL to Ninth Circuit (17-35787) re 463 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees, by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital. Filing Fee $505, Receipt number 0981-5033324. (Leaders, Amber) Modified on 9/29/2017 to add CCA # (CDA). (Entered: 09/27/2017)

09/27/2017

494 REPRESENTATION STATEMENT, by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital, (re: 493 Notice of Appeal,.) (Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 09/27/2017)

09/28/2017

495 TIME SCHEDULE ORDER (17-35787) as to 493 Notice of Appeal, filed by Western State Hospital, Ron Adler, Dorothy Sawyer, Kevin W Quigley, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Eastern State Hospital (CDA) (Entered: 09/29/2017)

10/03/2017 496 JUDGMENT BY COURT entered against Defendants in the following amounts: $3,308,000 representing civil contempt fines imposed in this

action for the period from August 15, 2017 through September 14, 2017; An increase of $60,000 in contempt fines for the period of July 14, 2017 through August 14, 2017 (as a result of the addition of orders not timely transmitted to DSHS and thus not included in earlier calculations); An increase of $11,000 in contempt fines for the period of June 14, 2017 through July 13, 2017 (as a result of the addition of a court order not timely transmitted to DSHS and thus not included in earlier calculations); for a total of $3,379,000. This total is due and payable into the Registry of the Court, to be kept in the Registry until further order of the Court. This judgment shall bear interest at the federal statutory rate until satisfied. (PM) cc: financial (Entered: 10/03/2017)
10/04/2017 497 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Evidentiary Hearing held on 9/21/2017 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman.

Parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Information regarding the policy can be found on the court's website at www.wawd.uscourts.gov.

To purchase a copy of the transcript, contact court reporter Nickoline Drury, nickoline_drury@wawd.uscourts.gov, 206-370-8508.

Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/2/2018, (ND) (Entered: 10/04/2017)

10/04/2017

498 NOTICE of Change of Address/Change of Name of Attorney Emily Cooper. Filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood. (Cooper, Emily) Modified contact info for Attorney Emily Cooper on 10/5/2017 (DS). (Entered: 10/04/2017)

10/04/2017

499 DECLARATION OF EMILY COOPER RE STIPULATED PHASE III DIVERSION REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Cooper, Emily) (Entered: 10/04/2017)

10/10/2017 500 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Status Hearing held on 9/13/2017 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman.

Parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Information regarding the policy can be found on the court's website at www.wawd.uscourts.gov.

To purchase a copy of the transcript, contact court reporter Nancy Bauer, nancy_bauer@wawd.uscourts.gov, 206-370-8506.

Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/8/2018, (NB) (Entered: 10/10/2017)

10/13/2017

501 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Kimberly Ann Mosolf on behalf of Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood. (Mosolf, Kimberly) (Entered: 10/13/2017)

10/13/2017

502 DECLARATION of Dr. Thomas J. Kinlen by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 10/13/2017)

10/17/2017

503 MINUTE ORDER re: telephone conference held 10/17/2017. The hearing scheduled for October 19, 2017 will be STRICKEN. The Court will issue an order on the Motion for Contempt re: In-Jail Evaluations (Dkt. No. 427 ); the remaining and currently undecided motions for contempt (Dkt. Nos. 452 and 458 ) will be stayed pending the outcome of the parties' negotiations. Status Report due by 11/2/2017. Authorized by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (PM) (Entered: 10/17/2017)

10/17/2017

504 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Marsha J. Pechman- Dep Clerk: Rhonda Miller; Pla Counsel: David Carlson, Kimberly Mosolf, Alexa Polaski, Christopher Carney, Emily Cooper; Def Counsel: Nicholas Williamson, Sarah Coats, Amber Leaders; CR: Andrea Ramirez; Court Monitor: Dr. Donna Mauch; Telephone Conference held on 10/17/2017. After hearing from the parties, the Court strikes the hearing scheduled for 10/19/2017 and orders the parties to file a status report by 11/2/2017. (RM) (Entered: 10/18/2017)

10/18/2017

505 JUDGMENT BY COURT entered against Defendants in the following amounts: $3,529,000 representing civil contempt fines imposed in this action for the period from September 15, 2017 through October 12, 2017; An increase of $36,500 in contempt fines for the period of August 15, 2017 through September 14, 2017 (as a result of the addition of orders not timely transmitted to DSHS and thus not included in earlier calculations); An increase of $3,000 in contempt fines for the period of July 14, 2017 through August 14, 2017 (as a result of the addition of a court order not timely transmitted to DSHS and thus not included in earlier calculations); for a total of $3,568,500. This total is due and payable into the Registry of the Court, to be kept in the Registry until further order of the Court. This judgment shall bear interest at the federal statutory rate until satisfied. (SWT) (cc: financial) (Entered: 10/18/2017)

10/19/2017

506 ORDER on Plaintiff's 427 Second Motion for Civil Contempt: Jailbased Evaluations; Court will hold a further hearing on Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 9 a.m. for the Director of DSHS and a representative of the Governor's Office to appear and report on the Departments progress in person, signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (SWT) (Entered: 10/19/2017)

10/26/2017

507 MINUTE ORDER. The Court, having received and reviewed the Declaration of Emily Cooper regarding the Stipulated Phase III Diversion Request for Production (Dkt. No. 499 ), indicates its approval of that document and directs the parties to proceed. Authorized by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (TH) (Entered: 10/26/2017)

10/27/2017

508 Stipulated MOTION TO DISTRIBUTE CONTEMPT FUNDS FOR DIVERSION PROGRAMMING, filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Mosolf, Kimberly) (Entered: 10/27/2017)

10/27/2017

509 DECLARATION of KIMBERLY MOSOLF IN SUPPORT OF STIPULATED MOTION TO DISTRIBUTE CONTEMPT FUNDS filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 508 Stipulated MOTION TO DISTRIBUTE CONTEMPT FUNDS FOR DIVERSION PROGRAMMING (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Mosolf, Kimberly) (Entered: 10/27/2017)

10/27/2017

510 DECLARATION of KIMBERLY MOSOLF RE STIPULATED SUBMISSION OF PROPOSED PHASE II DIVERSION PROVIDERS by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie

Cordell Trueblood (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Mosolf, Kimberly) (Entered: 10/27/2017)

10/30/2017

511 ORDER re: 508 Stipulated Motion To Distribute Contempt Funds. It is ordered that the Clerk of this Court shall disburse $50,000.00 to the Seattle Foundation for payment of their September 20, 2017 invoice number 15257. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (PM) cc: finance (Entered: 10/30/2017)

11/01/2017 512 JOINT STATUS REPORT signed by all parties (Carlson, David) (Entered: 11/01/2017)

11/11/2017

513 DECLARATION of Christopher Carney re 506 Order on Motion for Contempt,, Set/Reset Hearings, by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Q.M., Cassie Cordell Trueblood (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit)(Carney, Christopher) (Entered: 11/11/2017)

11/13/2017

514 DECLARATION of Dr. Thomas J Kinlen- Information and Reports for November 21, 2017 Hearing CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P 7.1. Filed by Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Leaders, Amber) Modified on 11/14/2017 (PS). (Entered: 11/13/2017)

11/14/2017

NOTICE of Docket Text Modification re 514 Corporate Disclosure Statement, : Amended docket entry to correctly identify filed document as Declaration of Dr. Thomas J. Kinlen, per counsel request. (PS) (Entered: 11/14/2017)

11/15/2017

515 DECLARATION of Dr. Thomas J. Kinlen by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 11/15/2017)

11/17/2017

516 JUDGMENT BY COURT entered against Defendants in the following amounts: $3,781,500 representing civil contempt fines imposed in this action for the period from October 13, 2017 through November 9, 2017; A decrease of $4,000 in contempt fines for the period of September 15, 2017 through October 12, 2017 (as a result of a recalculation removing several court orders included in the prior calculation); An increase of

$20,000 in contempt fines for the period of August 15, 2017 through September 14, 2017 (as a result of the addition of orders not timely transmitted to DSHS and thus not included in earlier calculations); An decrease of $1,000 in contempt fines for the period of July 14, 2017 through August 14, 2017 (as a result of correcting a court order included in earlier calculations); $224,250 representing civil contempt fines imposed in this action related to failures to meet the in-jail evaluation deadlines for the period from October 13, 2017 through November 9, 2017 for a total of $4,020,750. This total is due and payable into the Registry of the Court, to be kept in the Registry until further order of the Court. This judgment shall bear interest at the federal statutory rate until satisfied. (TH) (cc: Financial) (Entered: 11/17/2017)

11/20/2017

517 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Alexa Helen Polaski on behalf of Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood. (Polaski, Alexa) (Entered: 11/20/2017)

11/21/2017

518 PROPOSED ORDER (Unsigned) re 509 Declaration, RE MOTION TO DISTRIBUTE CONTEMPT FUNDS FOR DIVERSION PROGRAMMING (Mosolf, Kimberly) (Entered: 11/21/2017)

11/22/2017

519 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Marsha J. Pechman- Dep Clerk: Rhonda Miller; Pla Counsel: Christopher Carney, Alexa Polaski, Kimberly Mosolf, David Carlson; Def Counsel: Sarah Coats, Nicholas Williamson, Amber Leaders; CR: Andrea Ramirez; Also in Attendance; Dr. Thomas Kinlen, Carla Reyes, Cheryl Strange, Victoria Cantore, Dr. Donna Mauch. Status Hearing held on 11/21/2017. Parties advise the Court regarding ongoing settlement negotiations and will provide proposed terms of settlement negotiations by end of next week. Next Status Hearing set for 1/10/2018 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 14206 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (RM) (Entered: 11/22/2017)

11/27/2017

520 ORDER granting Stipulated Motion to Distribute Contempt Funds for Diversion Programming. The Clerk of this Court is authorized and directed to draw a check on the funds deposited in the registry of the Court in the principal amount of $4,556,540.50 minus any statutory users fees, payable to the Seattle Foundation. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (PM) cc: finance (Entered: 11/27/2017)

12/04/2017

521 MANDATE of USCA (16-35945) as to 337 Notice of Appeal, filed by Western State Hospital, Ron Adler, Dorothy Sawyer, Kevin W Quigley, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Eastern State Hospital. The joint motion to dismiss this appeal voluntarily (docket # 35) is granted.Fed. R. App. P. 42(b). This order served on

the district court shall act as and for the mandate of this court. (CDA) (Entered: 12/04/2017)

12/06/2017

NOTICE of continued hearing. Status Hearing scheduled for 1/10/2018 is continued to 1/17/2018 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 14206 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (RM) (Entered: 12/06/2017)

12/15/2017

522 NOTICE of Hearing 458 MOTION for Contempt REGARDING YCRC 452 Third MOTION for Contempt : ORAL ARGUMENT/Motion Hearing set for 1/24/2018 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 14206 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(RM) (Entered: 12/15/2017)

12/15/2017

523 DECLARATION of Dr. Thomas J. Kinlen by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 12/15/2017)

12/19/2017

524 JUDGMENT BY COURT entered against Defendants in the following amounts:$2,743,000 representing restoration contempt fines imposed in this action for the period from November 10, 2017 to November 30, 2017; $49,500 representing in-jail evaluation contempt fines imposed in this action for the period from November 10, 2017 to November 30, 2017; A decrease of $1,500 in contempt fines for the period of October 13, 2017 through November 9, 2017 (as a result of a recalculation involving a defendant who was waiting for admission to a state hospital from the community, not from jail); for a total of $2,791,000. This total is due and payable into the Registry of the Court, to be kept in the Registry until further order of the Court. This judgment shall bear interest at the federal statutory rate until satisfied. (PM) cc: finance (Entered: 12/19/2017)

12/19/2017

525 MANDATE of USCA (17-35787) as to 493 Notice of Appeal, filed by Western State Hospital, Ron Adler, Dorothy Sawyer, Kevin W Quigley, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Eastern State Hospital. Pursuant to the courts December 11, 2017, order (docket #7), this appeal isdeemed dismissed voluntarily. Fed. R. App. P. 42(b). This order served on the district court shall act as and for the mandate of this court. (CDA) (Entered: 12/19/2017)

12/28/2017 526 LETTER from James Osborne re class action settlement (mailed copy of docket sheet) (SWT) (Entered: 12/29/2017)

01/08/2018 527 DECLARATION Information for 1/17/18 Hearing of Dr. Thomas Kinlen by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W

Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 01/08/2018)

01/10/2018

MINUTE ORDER rescheduling 1/17/2018 status hearing to 1/24/2018 at 9:00 AM before Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (RM) (Entered: 01/10/2018)

01/11/2018

528 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Amber Lea Leaders Randy C. Head on behalf of Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital. (Leaders, Amber) Modified on 1/12/2018 to correct name of attorney appearing and names of defendants (PM). (Entered: 01/11/2018)

01/12/2018

Attorney Randy C. Head added for Ron Adler, Kevin W Quigley, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services per 528 Notice of Appearance. (PM) (Entered: 01/12/2018)

01/12/2018

529 STIPULATION Joint Submission of the Proposed Agreement of the Parties Declaration of Nicholas A. Williamson by parties (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 01/12/2018)

01/12/2018

530 DECLARATION of Dr. Thomas J. Kinlen by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 01/12/2018)

01/16/2018

531 JUDGMENT BY COURT against Defendants in the following amounts: $4,140,500 representing restoration contempt fines imposed in this action for the period from December 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017; A decrease of $70,000 in restoration contempt fines imposed in this action for the period from November 10, 2017 to November 30, 2017 (resulting from a recalculation based on defendants who were waiting for admission to a state hospital from the community, not from jail); A decrease of $34,000 in contempt fines for the period of October 13, 2017 through November 9, 2017 (as a result of a recalculation involving defendants who were waiting for admission to a state hospital from the community, not from jail); $163,500 representing in-jail evaluation contempt fines imposed in this action for the period from December 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017; An increase in $22,500 in injail contempt fines period from November 10, 2017 to November 30, 2017; A decrease of $13,500 in in-jail contempt fines for the period of October 13, 2017 through November 9, 2017 (as a result of a correction

in three prior orders included in prior calculations); for a total of $4,209,000. This total is due and payable into the Registry of the Court, to be kept in the Registry until further order of the Court. This judgment shall bear interest at the federal statutory rate until satisfied. (PM) cc: finance (Entered: 01/16/2018)

01/16/2018

532 AMENDMENT Notice of Appearance by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Head, Randy) (Entered: 01/16/2018)

01/25/2018

533 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Marsha J. Pechman- Dep Clerk: Rhonda Miller; Pla Counsel: Christopher Carney, Alexa Polaski, Kimberly Mosolf, David Carlson; Def Counsel: Sarah Coats, Nicholas Williamson, Amber Leaders, Randy Head; CR: Nancy Bauer; Status Hearing held on 1/25/2018. Also in attendance were Carla Reyes, Dr. Donna Mauch, Dr. Thomas Kinlen, Kathryn Leathers. Parties provided update on the settlement negotiation process. (RM) (Entered: 01/29/2018)

02/01/2018

534 STIPULATION Revised Joint Submission of Proposed Agreement of Parties - Declaration of Amber Leaders by parties re 529 Stipulation (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 02/01/2018)

02/05/2018

535 STIPULATION Second Revised Joint Submission of Proposed Agreement of Parties - Declaration of Amber Leaders by parties (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 02/05/2018)

02/06/2018

536 MINUTE ORDER striking Plaintiffs' 452 Third Motion for Civil Contempt; striking Plaintiffs' 458 Motion for Civil Contempt Regarding YCRC, per parties' Stipulation. Authorized by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (PM) (Entered: 02/06/2018)

02/09/2018

537 MOTION to NOTICE to Withdraw as Attorney, filed by Plaintiffs Disability Rights Washington, Cassie Cordell Trueblood, A.B., K.R., and D.D.. Noting Date 2/9/2018, (Cooper, Emily) Modified on 2/12/2018 to add additional Plaintiffs as filers (PM). Modified on 2/20/2018; per chambers, motion is terminated as this is a Notice of Withdrawal of Counsel (PM). (Entered: 02/09/2018)

02/12/2018

NOTICE of Docket Text Modification re attorney Emily Cooper's 537 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney: added additional Plaintiffs Cassie C. Trueblood, A.B., K.R. and D.D. as filers. (PM) (Entered: 02/12/2018)

02/15/2018 538 DECLARATION of Dr. Thomas Kinlen by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer,

Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 02/15/2018)

02/20/2018

Per the direction of chambers, Dkt. 537 , MOTION to Withdraw is terminated as this document is actually a Notice of Withdrawal of Counsel. Accordingly, attorney Emily Cooper is withdrawn as counsel for Plaintiffs. (PM) (Entered: 02/20/2018)

02/28/2018

539 NOTICE of Hearing: Status Conference set for 3/22/2018 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 14206 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(RM) (Entered: 02/28/2018)

03/06/2018

540 Stipulated MOTION TO DISTRIBUTE CONTEMPT FUNDS FOR DIVERSION PROGRAMMING, filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 3/22/2018, (Mosolf, Kimberly) (Entered: 03/06/2018)

03/06/2018

541 DECLARATION of KIMBERLY MOSOLF IN SUPPORT OF STIPULATED MOTION TO DISTRIBUTE CONTEMPT FUNDS FOR DIVERSION PROGRAMMING filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 540 Stipulated MOTION TO DISTRIBUTE CONTEMPT FUNDS FOR DIVERSION PROGRAMMING (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Mosolf, Kimberly) (Entered: 03/06/2018)

03/08/2018

542 Joint Stipulated MOTION TO APPROVE FACILITATOR, filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 3/22/2018, (Mosolf, Kimberly) (Entered: 03/08/2018)

03/08/2018

543 DECLARATION of KIMBERLY MOSOLF IN SUPPORT OF STIPULATED MOTION TO APPROVE FACILITATOR filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 542 Joint Stipulated MOTION TO APPROVE FACILITATOR (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Mosolf, Kimberly) (Entered: 03/08/2018)

03/09/2018

544 ORDER granting 540 Stipulated Motion to Distribute Contempt Funds for Diversion Programming. The Clerk of this Court shall disburse $6,922,381 to the Seattle Foundation to fund the diversion programs. It is further ordered that the Clerk of this Court is authorized and directed to draw a check on the funds deposited in the registry of the Court in the principal amount of $6,922,381 minus any statutory users fees,

payable to the Seattle Foundation. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (PM) cc: finance (Entered: 03/09/2018)

03/15/2018

545 DECLARATION of Dr. Thomas J. Kinlen by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 03/15/2018)

03/15/2018

546 DECLARATION of Dr. Thomas J. Kinlen - Information for March 22, 2018 Hearing by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 03/15/2018)

03/16/2018

547 ORDER granting parties' 542 Stipulated Motion to Approve Facilitator signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (TH) (Entered: 03/16/2018)

03/19/2018

548 Stipulated MOTION for Protective Order, filed by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 3/19/2018, (Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 03/19/2018)

03/20/2018

549 JUDGMENT BY COURT is entered against Defendants in the following amounts: $3,503,500 representing restoration contempt fines imposed in this action for the period from February 1, 2018 to February 28, 2018; A decrease of $70,000 in restoration contempt fines imposed in this action for the period from November 10, 2017 to November 30, 2017 (resulting from a recalculation based on defendants who were waiting for admission to a state hospital from the community, not from jail); A decrease of $261,500 in in-patient contempt fines for the period of January 1, 2018 through January 31, 2018 (as a result of a recalculation involving several cases removed due to status changes to PR, charge dismissals, etc.; and one late court order case and one case in need of fines adjustments added); A decrease of $83,000 in in-patient contempt fines for the period of December 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (as a result of a recalculation involving several cases removed due to status changes to PR, charge dismissals, etc.; and two late court order cases added); A decrease of $20,000 in in-patient contempt fines for the period of November 10, 2017 through November 30, 2017 (as a result of a dismissed case); $29,250 representing in-jail evaluation contempt fines imposed in this action for the period from February 1, 2018 to February 28, 2018; for a total of $3,168,250. This total is due

and payable into the Registry of the Court, to be kept in the Registry until further order of the Court. This judgment shall bear interest at the federal statutory rate until satisfied. (PM) cc: finance (Entered: 03/20/2018)

03/22/2018

550 Stipulated MOTION for Attorney Fees , filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Q.M.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 3/22/2018, (Carney, Christopher) (Entered: 03/22/2018)

03/22/2018

551 DECLARATION of Christopher Carney filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Q.M. re 550 Stipulated MOTION for Attorney Fees (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit)(Carney, Christopher) (Entered: 03/22/2018)

03/22/2018

552 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER re 548 Stipulated MOTION for Protective Order. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (PM) (Entered: 03/22/2018)

03/22/2018

553 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Marsha J. Pechman- Dep Clerk: Rhonda Miller; Pla Counsel: David Carlson, Kimberly Mosolf, Alexa Polaski; Def Counsel: Amber Leaders, Nickolas Williamson, Randy Head; CR: Angela Nicolavo; Dr. Donna Mauch, Dr. Thomas Kinlen, Ken Taylor, and Andy Philips are also in attendance. Status Conference held on 3/22/2018. Parties advise the Court of continued settlement progress, updates on phases 1-3, building 27, and compliance with the Court's orders. The next status conference is scheduled for 5/16/2018 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 14206 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (RM) (Entered: 03/23/2018)

03/28/2018

554 ORDER granting 550 Stipulated Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs. Defendants shall, within ten days of the date of this order, pay to Plaintiffs' counsel the sum of $444,473,46. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (PM) (Entered: 03/28/2018)

04/11/2018

555 NOTICE of Hearing: Status Conference is rescheduled for 5/16/2018 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 14206 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(RM) (Entered: 04/11/2018)

04/13/2018

556 DECLARATION of Dr. Thomas J. Kinlen by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 04/13/2018)

04/16/2018

557 JUDGMENT BY COURT is entered against Defendants in the following amounts: $3,519,000 representing restoration contempt fines imposed in this action for the period from March 1, 2018 to March 31, 2018; An increase of $15,500 in restoration contempt fines imposed in this action for the period from February 1, 2018 to February 28, 2018 (resulting from a recalculation based on the addition and removal of several cases); An increase of $1,500 in in-patient contempt fines for the period of January 1, 2018 through January 31, 2018 (as a result of a recalculation involving adding a single case which had been erroneously removed); $49,500 representing in-jail evaluation contempt fines imposed in this action for the period from March 1, 2018 to March 31, 2018; An increase of $750 in in-jail contempt fines for the period of February 1, 2018 through February 28, 2018 (the result of a recalculation adding a single case that was not included in the prior month's report) for a total of $3,586,250. This total is due and payable into the Registry of the Court, to be kept in the Registry until further order of the Court. This judgment shall bear interest at the federal statutory rate until satisfied. (PM) Modified on 4/16/2018: cc to finance (PM). (Entered: 04/16/2018)

04/30/2018

558 JUDGMENT BY COURT is entered against Defendants in the following amounts: $4,334,000 representing restoration contempt fines imposed in this action for the period from January 1, 2018 to January 31, 2018; A decrease of $130,500 in restoration contempt fines imposed in this action for the period from December 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017 (resulting from a recalculation based on defendants who were actually in the community, or had become competent and fully resolved their criminal case); A decrease of $26,000 in restoration contempt fines imposed in this action for the period from November 10, 2017 to November 30, 2017 (resulting from a recalculation based on defendants who were waiting for admission to a state hospital from the community, not from jail); A decrease of $9,000 in restoration contempt fines imposed in this action for the period from October 13, 2017 to November 9, 2017 (resulting from a recalculation based on an intervening court order which was not communicated to the Department which found a defendant competent); $30,000 representing in-jail evaluation contempt fines imposed in this action for the period from January 1, 2018 to January 31, 2018; A decrease of $30,000 in in-jail evaluation contempt fines imposed in this action from December 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017 (resulting from a good cause extension being granted to one individual and the late addition of another individual); for a total of $4,168,500. This total is due and payable into the Registry of the Court, to be kept in the Registry until further order of the Court. This judgment shall bear interest at the federal statutory rate until satisfied. (TH) (cc: Finance) (Entered: 04/30/2018)

05/07/2018

559 DECLARATION of Dr. Thomas J. Kinlen by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 05/07/2018)

05/15/2018

560 DECLARATION of Dr. Thomas J. Kinlen by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 05/15/2018)

05/16/2018

561 JUDGMENT BY COURT: Judgment is entered against Defendants in the following amounts: $3,230,000 representing restoration contempt fines imposed in this action for the period from April 1, 2018 to April 30, 2018; A decrease of $13,000 in restoration contempt fines imposed in this action for the period from March 1, 2018 to March 31, 2018 (resulting from a recalculation based on the addition and removal of several cases); $62,250 representing in-jail evaluation contempt fines imposed in this action for the period from April 1, 2018 to April 30, 2018; A decrease of $1,500 in in-jail contempt fines for the period of March 1, 2018 to March 31, 2018 (the result of a recalculation removing a single case that had been dismissed).for a total of $3,280,750. This total is due and payable into the Registry of the Court, to be kept in the Registry until further order of the Court. This judgment shall bear interest at the federal statutory rate until satisfied.(SWT) (Entered: 05/16/2018)

05/16/2018

562 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Marsha J. Pechman- Status Conference held on 5/16/2018. Next status conference is scheduled for 7/11/2018 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 14206 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (RM) (Entered: 06/05/2018)

06/15/2018

563 Stipulated MOTION TO DISTRIBUTE CONTEMPT FUNDS, filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Mosolf, Kimberly) (Entered: 06/15/2018)

06/15/2018

564 DECLARATION of RANDY HEAD IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISTRIBUTE CONTEMPT FUNDS filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 563 Stipulated MOTION TO DISTRIBUTE CONTEMPT FUNDS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Mosolf, Kimberly) (Entered: 06/15/2018)

06/15/2018

565 DECLARATION of KIMBERLY MOSOLF IN SUPPORT OF STIPULATED MOTION TO DISTRIBUTE CONTEMPT FUNDS filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 563 Stipulated MOTION TO DISTRIBUTE CONTEMPT FUNDS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H)(Mosolf, Kimberly) (Entered: 06/15/2018)

06/15/2018

566 ORDER RE: PAYMENT OF KING COUNTRY SUPERIOR COURT INVOICE signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. By agreement of the parties and this Court, IT IS ORDERED that payment of the invoice is APPROVED; the clerk is authorized and directed to draw a check on the funds deposited in the registry of this court in the principal amount of $3,047.98, payable to King County Superior Court. (PM) cc: finance (Entered: 06/15/2018)

06/15/2018

567 DECLARATION of Dr.Thomas J. Kinlen by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Brian Waiblinger, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 06/15/2018)

06/18/2018

Noting Date Set per LCR 7(d)(1) re 563 Stipulated MOTION TO DISTRIBUTE CONTEMPT FUNDS: Noting Date 6/15/2018. (PM) (Entered: 06/18/2018)

06/19/2018

568 JUDGMENT BY COURT. Judgment is entered against Defendants in the following amounts: $3,778,000 representing restoration contempt fines imposed in this action for the period from May 1, 2018 to May 31, 2018; An increase of $1,500 in in-patient contempt fines imposed in this action for the period from April 1, 2018 to April 30, 2018 (resulting from a recalculation based on the addition and removal of two cases); An increase of $5,000 in in-patient contempt fines imposed in this action for the period from March 1, 2018 to March 31, 2018 (resulting from a recalculation based on the addition and removal of several cases); $90,750 representing in-jail evaluation contempt fines imposed in this action for the period from May 1, 2018 to May 31, 2018; An increase of $31,500 in in-jail contempt fines for the period of February 1, 2018 to February 28, 2018 (the result of a recalculation adding a single case that had not been included in the previous reporting). An increase of $7,500 in in-jail contempt fines for the period of January 1, 2018 to January 31, 2018 (the result of a recalculation adding a single case that had not been included in the previous reporting). For a total of $3,914,250. This total is due and payable into the Registry of the Court,

to be kept in the Registry until further order of the Court. This judgment shall bear interest at the federal statutory rate until satisfied. (TH) (cc: Finance) (Entered: 06/19/2018)

06/19/2018

569 ORDER granting parties' 563 Stipulated Motion TO DISTRIBUTE CONTEMPT FUNDS signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (TH) (cc: Finance) (Entered: 06/19/2018)

06/28/2018

570 NOTICE of Rescheduled Hearing: Status Hearing is rescheduled for 7/20/2018 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 14206 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(RM) (Entered: 06/28/2018)

07/10/2018

571 DECLARATION of Dr. Thomas J. Kinlen - Information for July 20, 2018 Hearing by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 07/10/2018)

07/10/2018

572 DECLARATION of Cheryl Strange by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 07/10/2018)

07/13/2018

573 DECLARATION of Dr. Thomas J. Kinlen by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 07/13/2018)

07/13/2018

574 JUDGMENT BY COURT entered against Defendants in the following amounts: $3,309,000 representing restoration contempt fines imposed in this action for the period from June 1, 2018 to June 30, 2018; A decrease of $40,000 in in-patient contempt fines imposed in this action for the period from May 1, 2018 to May 31, 2018 (resulting from a recalculation based on changes due to a combination of PRs, dismissals, updates to RTF admissions, and late orders); $131,250 representing in-jail evaluation contempt fines imposed in this action for the period from June 1, 2018 to June 30, 2018; for a total of $3,400,250. This total is due and payable into the Registry of the Court, to be kept in the Registry until further order of the Court. This judgment shall bear interest at the federal statutory rate until satisfied.(PM) cc: finance (Entered: 07/13/2018)

07/17/2018

575 Stipulated MOTION To Distribute Contempt Funds, filed by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health

Services, Western State Hospital. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 7/17/2018, (Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 07/17/2018)

07/17/2018

576 DECLARATION of Nicholas A. Williamson filed by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital re 575 Stipulated MOTION To Distribute Contempt Funds (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 07/17/2018)

07/17/2018

577 MOTION to Intervene , filed by Intervenor Parties Daniel Gautier, B. Y.. Oral Argument Requested. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order to Grant Motion to Intervene) Noting Date 8/3/2018, (Biviano, Andrew) (Entered: 07/17/2018)

07/17/2018

578 DECLARATION of Andrew S. Biviano filed by Intervenor Parties Daniel Gautier, B. Y. re 577 MOTION to Intervene (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G1, # 8 Exhibit G2)(Biviano, Andrew) (Entered: 07/17/2018)

07/18/2018

579 ORDER granting parties' 575 Stipulated Motion to Distribute Contempt Funds; authorizing and directing the Clerk to draw a check on the funds deposited in the registry of this Court. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (SWT) (cc: Financial) (Entered: 07/18/2018)

07/20/2018

582 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Marsha J. Pechman- Dep Clerk: Rhonda Miller; Pla Counsel: Andy Phillips, Alexa Polaski, Chris Carney, Kimberly Mosolf, David Carlson; Def Counsel: Cheryl Strange, Nicholas Williamson, Randy Head, Kathryn Leathers; Dr. Thomas Kinlen present. CR: Nancy Bauer; Status Conference held on 7/20/2018. Next status conference and fairness hearing scheduled for 10/30/2018 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 14206 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (RM) (Entered: 08/02/2018)

07/26/2018

580 DISREGARD THIS FILING- Attorney Withdrawal event chosen in error per counsel. Correctly filed as # 581 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL: Attorney Andrew Sean Biviano for Intervenor Parties Daniel Gautier, B. Y.. (Biviano, Andrew) Modified on 7/26/2018 (PS). (Entered: 07/26/2018)

07/26/2018

581 NOTICE to Withdraw Pending Motion re 577 MOTION to Intervene ; by Intervenor Parties Daniel Gautier, B. Y.. (Biviano, Andrew) (Entered: 07/26/2018)

07/26/2018

NOTICE of Docket Text Modification re 580 Notice of Withdrawal of Counsel, : DISREGARD THIS FILING- Attorney Withdrawal event

chosen in error per counsel. Correctly filed as # 581 . (PS) (Entered: 07/26/2018)

08/15/2018

583 DECLARATION of Dr. Thomas J. Kinlen by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H)(Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 08/15/2018)

08/16/2018

584 Stipulated MOTION For Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement, filed by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Brian Waiblinger, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital, Intervenor Daniel Gautier, Interested Party Grace Kingman. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed Order) Noting Date 8/16/2018, (Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 08/16/2018)

08/16/2018

585 DECLARATION of David R. Carlson filed by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Brian Waiblinger, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital re 584 Stipulated MOTION For Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 08/16/2018)

08/16/2018

586 DECLARATION of Amber L. Leaders filed by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Brian Waiblinger, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital re 584 Stipulated MOTION For Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 08/16/2018)

08/16/2018

587 DECLARATION of Judge Beth M. Andrus filed by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Brian Waiblinger, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital re 584 Stipulated MOTION For Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement (Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 08/16/2018)

09/17/2018

588 DECLARATION of Dr. Thomas J. Kinlen - September 2018 Data & Contempt Report by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit

E)(Leaders, Amber) Modified on 9/18/2018 to add full name of document (PM). (Entered: 09/17/2018)

09/18/2018

NOTICE of Docket Text Modification re 588 Declaration: edited text to include full title of document "Declaration of Thomas J. Kinlen September 2018 Data & Contempt Report." (PM) (Entered: 09/18/2018)

09/18/2018

589 JUDGMENT BY COURT entered against Defendants in the following amounts: $6,090,500 representing restoration contempt fines imposed in this action for the period from August 1, 2018 to August 31, 2018; A increase of $500 in in-patient contempt fines imposed in this action for the period from July 1, 2018 to July 31, 2018 (resulting from a recalculation based on changes due to a the addition of a case on July 31, 2018); $235,500 representing in-jail evaluation contempt fines imposed in this action for the period from August 1, 2018 to August 31, 2018; A decrease of $3,000 in in-jail evaluation contempt fines for the period of July 1, 2018 through July 31, 2018 (resulting from one case being added and three cases being removed due to an order completion and an order dismissal) for a total of $6,323,500. This total is due and payable into the Registry of the Court, to be kept in the Registry until further order of the Court. This judgment shall bear interest at the federal statutory rate until satisfied. (TH) (cc: Finance) (Entered: 09/18/2018)

09/20/2018 590 NOTICE striking fairness hearing scheduled for 10/30/2018. (RM) (Entered: 09/20/2018)

09/25/2018

591 Stipulated MOTION for Attorney Fees , filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Q.M.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 9/25/2018, (Carney, Christopher) (Entered: 09/25/2018)

09/25/2018

592 DECLARATION of Christopher Carney filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Q.M. re 591 Stipulated MOTION for Attorney Fees (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit)(Carney, Christopher) (Entered: 09/25/2018)

09/28/2018

593 Joint Stipulated MOTION TO DISTRIBUTE CONTEMPT FUNDS, filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 9/28/2018, (Polaski, Alexa) (Entered: 09/28/2018)

09/28/2018

594 DECLARATION of DR. ANDREW PHILIPS filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 593 Joint Stipulated MOTION TO DISTRIBUTE CONTEMPT FUNDS (Polaski, Alexa) (Entered: 09/28/2018)

10/04/2018 595 ORDER granting parties' 591 Stipulated Motion for Attorney Fees signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (TH) (Entered: 10/04/2018)

10/09/2018

596 ORDER granting the parties' 593 Joint Stipulated Motion to Distribute Contempt Funds for increased costs in the renovations to Building 27. The Clerk of this Court shall disburse Eight Hundred and Thirty One Thousand One Hundred and Ninety-Three Dollars ($831,193) to the Seattle Foundation for increased costs in the renovations to Building 27, as described in the Parties Joint Stipulated Motion to Distribute Contempt Funds. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (PM) cc: finance (Entered: 10/09/2018)

10/15/2018

597 DECLARATION of Dr. Thomas J. Kinlen - October 2018 Data and Contempt Report by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Brian Waiblinger, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 10/15/2018)

10/16/2018

598 JUDGMENT BY COURT. Judgment is entered against Defendants in the following amounts: (See Judgment for details) For a total of $3,047,250. This total is due and payable into the Registry of the Court, to be kept in the Registry until further order of the Court. This judgment shall bear interest at the federal statutory rate until satisfied. (SWT) (cc: Finance) (Entered: 10/16/2018)

10/25/2018

599 Amended Stipulated MOTION For Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement, filed by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed Order) Noting Date 10/25/2018, (Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 10/25/2018)

10/25/2018

600 DECLARATION of Kimberly Mosolf filed by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital re 599 Amended Stipulated MOTION For Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 10/25/2018)

11/01/2018

601 ORDER for Preliminary Approval of Amended Settlement Agreement re parties' 599 Stipulated Motion: Fairness Hearing set for 12/11/2018 at 10:30 AM; Written comments or objections due no later than 11/30/2018; Written notice of intent to appear due by 11/30/2018; Motion for Final Approval of Amended Agreement due no later than

11/30/2018. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (SWT) (Entered: 11/01/2018)

11/06/2018

602 Joint Stipulated MOTION TO DISTRIBUTE CONTEMPT FUNDS, filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 11/6/2018, (Mosolf, Kimberly) (Entered: 11/06/2018)

11/06/2018

603 DECLARATION of KIMBERLY MOSOLF IN SUPPORT OF STIPULATED MOTION TO DISTRIBUTE CONTEMPT FUNDS filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 602 Joint Stipulated MOTION TO DISTRIBUTE CONTEMPT FUNDS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. A)(Mosolf, Kimberly) (Entered: 11/06/2018)

11/08/2018

604 ORDER granting the parties' 602 Stipulated Motion to Distribute Contempt Funds. The Clerk of this Court shall disburse $150,000.00 to the Seattle Foundation for payment of their October 2, 2018 invoice number 15366. It is further ordered that the Clerk of this Court is authorized and directed to draw a check on the funds deposited in the registry of the Court in the principal amount of $150,000.00 minus any statutory users fees, payable to the Seattle Foundation. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (PM) cc: finance (Entered: 11/08/2018)

11/15/2018

605 DECLARATION of Dr. Thomas J. Kinlen - November 2018 Data & Contempt Report by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Complaint H)(Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 11/15/2018)

11/19/2018 606 LETTER from patients at Western State Hospital. (letter sent to all counsel) (PM) (Entered: 11/21/2018)

11/27/2018

607 Joint Stipulated MOTION TO DISTRIBUTE CONTEMPT FUNDS, filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood. Noting Date 11/27/2018, (Mosolf, Kimberly) (Entered: 11/27/2018)

11/27/2018

608 PROPOSED ORDER (Unsigned) re 607 Joint Stipulated MOTION TO DISTRIBUTE CONTEMPT FUNDS (Mosolf, Kimberly) (Entered: 11/27/2018)

11/27/2018

609 DECLARATION of KIMBERLY MOSOLF IN SUPPORT OF STIPULATED MOTION TO DISTRIBUTE CONTEMPT FUNDS filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R.,

Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 607 Joint Stipulated MOTION TO DISTRIBUTE CONTEMPT FUNDS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Mosolf, Kimberly) (Entered: 11/27/2018)

11/30/2018

610 Joint MOTION to Seal , filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 11/30/2018, (Polaski, Alexa) (Entered: 11/30/2018)

11/30/2018

611 DECLARATION of ALEXA POLASKI IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 610 Joint MOTION to Seal (Polaski, Alexa) (Entered: 11/30/2018)

11/30/2018

612 SEALED DOCUMENT Exhibit A to Polaski Declaration (611) by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 610 Joint MOTION to Seal , 611 Declaration (Polaski, Alexa) (Entered: 11/30/2018)

11/30/2018

613 DECLARATION of ALEXA POLASKI CERTIFYING CLASS MEMBERS' COMMENTS TO THE COURT by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Polaski, Alexa) (Entered: 11/30/2018)

12/04/2018

614 ORDER granting the parties' 610 Stipulated Motion to Seal the names of class members who submitted comments on the preliminary settlement agreement but lacked the capacity to consent to public disclosure of their names. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(PM) (Entered: 12/04/2018)

12/04/2018

615 ORDER granting parties' 607 Stipulated Motion to Distribute Contempt Funds. Clerk of this Court is authorized and directed to draw a check on the funds deposited in the registry of the Court in the principal amount of. $380,765.00 minus any statutory users fees. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (PM) (Entered: 12/04/2018)

12/06/2018

616 JUDGMENT BY COURT is entered against Defendants in the total amount of $3,604,000. (See Judgment for details) This total is due and payable into the Registry of the Court, to be kept in the Registry until further order of the Court. This judgment shall bear interest at the federal statutory rate until satisfied. (PM) (cc: Finance) (Entered: 12/06/2018)

12/06/2018 617 Joint MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVEMENT OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT , filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights

Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 12/6/2018, (Polaski, Alexa) (Entered: 12/06/2018)

12/06/2018

618 DECLARATION of ALEXA POLASKI CONFIRMING COMPLIANCE WITH CLASS NOTICE PLAN filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 617 Joint MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVEMENT OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (Polaski, Alexa) (Entered: 12/06/2018)

12/06/2018

619 DECLARATION of DARYA FARIVAR IN SUPPORT OF FINAL APPROVAL OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 617 Joint MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVEMENT OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (Polaski, Alexa) (Entered: 12/06/2018)

12/06/2018

620 DECLARATION of AURA MACARTHUR filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 617 Joint MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVEMENT OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. A)(Polaski, Alexa) (Entered: 12/06/2018)

12/07/2018

621 DECLARATION OF ALEXA POLASKI CERTIFYING ADDITIONAL CLASS MEMBERS' COMMENTS TO THE COURT by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Polaski, Alexa) (Entered: 12/07/2018)

12/11/2018

622 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Marsha J. Pechman- Dep Clerk: Lowell Williams; Pla Counsel: Alexa Polaski, Kimberly Mosolf, Christopher Carney, David Carlson; Def Counsel: Amber Leaders, Randy Head, Nicholas Williamson; DSHS: Cheryl Strange; Governor's Office: Kathryn Leathers; CR: Debbie Zurn; Time of Hearing: 10:30 AM; Fairness Hearing held on 12/11/2018. Court hears from counsel and comments from two class members. Court GRANTS 617 Joint Motion for Final Approval of Settlement Agreement and signs order. Court takes up Kitsap Co case, State v. Weger, and directs counsel to file a report with the information requested. Counsel are further directed to submit quarterly reports to the Court, following their quarterly meetings, and to schedule a hearing in April 2019. Counsel to coordinate the hearing date with the courtroom deputy. (LW) (Entered: 12/11/2018)

12/11/2018

623 ORDER granting 617 Motion for Final Approval of Settlement Agreement signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(LW) (Entered: 12/11/2018)

12/12/2018

624 JUDGMENT BY COURT. Judgment is entered against Defendants for a total amount of $3,772,250. (See judgment for details) This total is due and payable into the Registry of the Court, to be kept in the Registry until further order of the Court. This judgment shall bear interest at the federal statutory rate until satisfied. (PM) cc: finance (Entered: 12/12/2018)

12/14/2018

625 Joint Stipulated MOTION to Distribute Contempt Funds (Joint Submission of Second Request for Additional Building 27 Costs) , filed by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 12/14/2018, (Williamson, Nicholas) Modified on 12/17/2018 to include actual title of document (PM). (Entered: 12/14/2018)

12/14/2018

626 DECLARATION of Dr. Andrew Phillips filed by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital re 625 Joint Stipulated MOTION to Distribute Contempt Funds (Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 12/14/2018)

12/14/2018

627 DECLARATION - December 2018 Data of Dr. Thomas J. Kinlen by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 12/14/2018)

12/14/2018

628 Joint Stipulated MOTION TO DISTRIBUTE CONTEMPT FUNDS FOR DIVERSION PROGRAMMING, filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 12/14/2018, (Mosolf, Kimberly) (Entered: 12/14/2018)

12/14/2018

629 DECLARATION of KIMBERLY MOSOLF IN SUPPORT OF JOINT STIPULATED MOTION TO DISTRIBUTE CONTEMPT FUNDS FOR DIVERSION PROGRAMMING filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 628 Joint Stipulated MOTION TO DISTRIBUTE CONTEMPT FUNDS FOR DIVERSION PROGRAMMING (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Mosolf, Kimberly) (Entered: 12/14/2018)

12/18/2018

630 ORDER granting parties' 628 Stipulated Motion to District Contempt Fines for Diversion Programming. The Clerk of this Court is authorized and directed to draw a check on the funds deposited in the registry of the Court in the principal amount of $4,289,717 minus any statutory users fees, payable to the Seattle Foundation. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (PM) cc: finance (Entered: 12/18/2018)

12/18/2018

631 ORDER granting parties' 625 Stipulated Motion to Distribute Contempt Funds for increased costs in the renovation to Building 27. The Clerk of this Court is authorized and directed to draw a check on the funds deposited in the registry of the Court in the principal amount of Five Hundred and Nine Thousand Six Hundred and Thirty Eight Dollars ($509,638) minus any statutory users fees, payable to the Seattle Foundation. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (PM) cc: finance (Entered: 12/18/2018)

12/18/2018

632 JUDGMENT BY COURT is entered against Defendants in the total amount of $3,999,250. This total is due and payable into the Registry of the Court, to be kept in the Registry until further order of the Court. This judgment shall bear interest at the federal statutory rate until satisfied. (see order for details) (PM) cc: finance (Entered: 12/18/2018)

12/20/2018

633 Stipulated MOTION to Seal Documents, filed by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital. Noting Date 12/20/2018, (Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 12/20/2018)

12/20/2018

634 DECLARATION of Amber L. Leaders re 633 Stipulated MOTION to Seal Documents by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 12/20/2018)

12/20/2018

635 SEALED DOCUMENT Exhibit A to Leaders Declaration (634) by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital re 633 Stipulated MOTION to Seal Documents, 634 Declaration (non motion), (Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 12/20/2018)

12/21/2018

636 Stipulated MOTION for Attorney Fees , filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Q.M.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 12/21/2018, (Carney, Christopher) (Entered: 12/21/2018)

12/21/2018

637 DECLARATION of Christopher Carney filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Q.M. re 636 Stipulated MOTION for Attorney Fees (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(Carney, Christopher) (Entered: 12/21/2018)

01/03/2019 638 ORDER granting parties' 636 Stipulated Motion for Attorney Fees, signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (SWT) (Entered: 01/03/2019)

01/03/2019

639 ORDER granting Parties' 633 Stipulated Motion. It is ordered that the 635 report filed by the Defendants containing the name and personally identifiable protected health information of a specific class member shall be sealed. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (PM) (Entered: 01/03/2019)

01/15/2019

640 DECLARATION of Dr. Thomas J. Kinlen by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 01/15/2019)

01/17/2019

641 JUDGMENT BY COURT is entered against Defendants in the total amount of $42,000. This total is due and payable into the Registry of the Court, to be kept in the Registry until further order of the Court. This judgment shall bear interest at the federal statutory rate until satisfied.(see order for details) (PM) cc: finance (Entered: 01/17/2019)

01/18/2019

642 ORDER re Supplemental Report: The Court is not satisfied with the report produced by the parties 634 Declaration of Amber L. Leaders and 635 additional attachment. The parties are ordered to respond with a supplemental report within 21 days of the filing of this order. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (LW) (Entered: 01/18/2019)

01/23/2019

643 Joint MOTION to Amend December Contempt Judgment, filed by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 1/23/2019, (Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 01/23/2019)

01/24/2019

644 ORDER amending December contempt judgment re parties' 643 Motion. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (SWT) (Entered: 01/24/2019)

02/08/2019

645 MOTION to Seal , filed by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital.

(Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 2/8/2019, (Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 02/08/2019)

02/08/2019

646 DECLARATION of Nicholas A. Williamson filed by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital re 645 MOTION to Seal (Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 02/08/2019)

02/08/2019

647 SEALED DOCUMENT Supplemental Report by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital re 645 MOTION to Seal , 646 Declaration, (Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 02/08/2019)

02/13/2019

648 ORDER re: parties' 645 Stipulated Motion to Seal. It is ordered that the report filed by the Defendants containing the name and personally identifiable protected health information of a specific class member shall be sealed 647 . Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (PM) (Entered: 02/13/2019)

02/15/2019

649 DECLARATION of Thomas J. Kinlen by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 02/15/2019)

02/19/2019

650 STIPULATION STIPULATED MOTION AND PROPOSED ORDER Motion to Distribute Contempt Funds for Settlement Activities by parties (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H, # 10 Exhibit I, # 11 Exhibit J, # 12 Exhibit K)(Williamson, Nicholas) Modified on 2/20/2019 to turn into a motion per request of filer (PM). (Entered: 02/19/2019)

02/20/2019

651 DECLARATION of Aura MacArthur re: 650 Stipulated Motion to Distribute Contempt Funds for Settlement Activities by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Williamson, Nicholas) Modified on 2/20/2019 to link Declaration to Motion (PM). (Entered: 02/20/2019)

02/20/2019

Noting Date Set re 650 Stipulated MOTION to Distribute Contempt Funds for Settlement Activities : Noting Date 2/19/2019. (PM) (Entered: 02/20/2019)

02/20/2019

NOTICE of Docket Text Modification re 651 Declaration, 650 Stipulated MOTION to Distribute Contempt Funds for Settlement Activities: turned Stipulation into a Stipulated Motion noted for 2/19/2019; linked Declaration to Motion. (PM) (Entered: 02/20/2019)

02/21/2019

652 ORDER granting 650 Stipulated Motion to Distribute Contempt Funds for Settlement Activities. The Clerk of this Court is authorized and directed to draw a check on the funds deposited in the registry of the Court in the principal amount of One Million Sixty-Four Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirty-Eight Dollars ($1,064,738) minus any statutory users fees, payable to the Seattle Foundation. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (PM) cc: finance (Entered: 02/21/2019)

02/28/2019

653 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL: Attorney Amber Lea Leaders for Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital. (Leaders, Amber) (Entered: 02/28/2019)

03/11/2019

654 DECLARATION of Randy C. Head by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Preliminary Trueblood Implementation Report) (Head, Randy) Modified on 3/12/2019 to identify name of Exhibit A (PM). (Entered: 03/11/2019)

03/12/2019

NOTICE of Docket Text Modification re 654 Declaration of Randy C. Head: edited text to indentify name of Exhibit A: Preliminary Trueblood Implementation Report. (PM) (Entered: 03/12/2019)

03/15/2019

655 DECLARATION of Dr. Thomas J. Kinlen by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 03/15/2019)

03/19/2019

656 JUDGMENT BY COURT is entered against Defendants for a total of $339,750. This total is due and payable into the Registry of the Court, to be kept in the Registry until further order of the Court. This judgment shall bear interest at the federal statutory rate until satisfied. (PM) cc: finance (Entered: 03/19/2019)

04/04/2019

657 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Jessica Marie Erickson on behalf of Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health

Services, Western State Hospital. (Erickson, Jessica) (Entered: 04/04/2019)

04/10/2019

658 NOTICE of Hearing: Status Conference set for 4/25/2019 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 14206 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(RM) (Entered: 04/10/2019)

04/12/2019

659 Stipulated MOTION to Distribute Contempt Funds for CIT Training, filed by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 4/12/2019, (Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 04/12/2019)

04/15/2019

660 DECLARATION of Dr. Thomas J. Kinlen by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 04/15/2019)

04/17/2019

661 JUDGMENT BY COURT is entered against Defendants for a total of $277,500. This total is due and payable into the Registry of the Court, to be kept in the Registry until further order of the Court. This judgment shall bear interest at the federal statutory rate until satisfied. (MW)(cc: finance) (Entered: 04/17/2019)

04/17/2019

662 ORDER granting 659 Stipulated Motion to Distribute Contempt Funds for Settlement Activities - Crisis Intervention Training. The Clerk of this Court is authorized and directed to draw a check on the funds deposited in the registry of the Court in the principal amount of $82,425 minus any statutory users fees, payable to the Seattle Foundation. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (PM) cc: finance (Entered: 04/17/2019)

04/18/2019

663 DECLARATION Re Quarterly Status Report April 2019 of Randy Head by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Head, Randy) (Entered: 04/18/2019)

04/23/2019

RECEIPT re 661 Judgment by Court,. $277,500.00 deposited into the Court Registry on 4/22/2019 (Receipt # SEA095720) (SV) (Entered: 04/23/2019)

04/25/2019 664 JUDGMENT BY COURT is entered against Defendants for a total of $170,250. This total is due and payable into the Registry of the Court,

to be kept in the Registry until further order of the Court. This judgment shall bear interest at the federal statutory rate until satisfied. (MW)(cc: Finance) (Entered: 04/25/2019)

04/25/2019

665 AMENDED JUDGMENT BY COURT: THE COURT HAS ORDERED THAT this judgment (previously entered as Dkt. No. 656 ) be amended to reflect the corrected total in restoration contempt fines. Judgment is entered against Defendants for a total of $339,750. This total is due and payable into the Registry of the Court, to be kept in the Registry until further order of the Court. This judgment shall bear interest at the federal statutory rate until satisfied. (MW) (Entered: 04/25/2019)

04/25/2019

666 Stipulated MOTION TO DISTRIBUTE CONTEMPT FUNDS, filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 4/25/2019, (Mosolf, Kimberly) (Entered: 04/25/2019)

04/25/2019

667 DECLARATION of KIMBERLY MOSOLF IN SUPPORT OF JOINT STIPULATED MOTION TO DISTRIBUTE CONTEMPT FUNDS filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Q.M., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 666 Stipulated MOTION TO DISTRIBUTE CONTEMPT FUNDS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Mosolf, Kimberly) (Entered: 04/25/2019)

04/25/2019

668 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Marsha J. Pechman- Dep Clerk: Lowell Williams; Pla Counsel: Alexa Polaski, Kimberly Mosolf, Christopher Carney, David Carlson; Def Counsel: Nicholas Williamson, Sean Murphy, Randy Head, Amber Leaders, Jessica Erickson; Also Present: Dr. Danna Mauch, Dr. Andrew Phillips, Dr. Thomas Kinlen, Cheryl Strange, Kathryn Leathers, Melena Thompson, Kenneth Taylor; CR: Nickie Drury; Time of Hearing: 1:30 PM; Status Conference held on 4/25/2019. Court hears from counsel and Court Monitor re legislative efforts, progress toward achieving compliance with the evaluation and restoration deadlines and current status of agencies funded by earlier contempt fund distribution orders. Counsel to coordinate with courtroom deputy to schedule next status conference in August 2019. (LW) (Entered: 04/25/2019)

04/30/2019

669 ORDER granting 666 Stipulated Motion to Disburse Contempt Funds for Bed Flow Analysis. The Clerk of this Court shall disburse $214,993.02 to the TriWest Group LLC to fund the Bed Flow Analysis. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (PM) cc: finance (Entered: 04/30/2019)

05/15/2019

670 DECLARATION May 2019 Data & Contempt Report of Dr. Thomas J. Kinlen by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Head, Randy) (Entered: 05/15/2019)

05/17/2019

671 NOTICE of Hearing: Status Conference set for 9/13/2019 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 14206 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(RM) (Entered: 05/17/2019)

05/17/2019

672 JUDGMENT BY COURT is entered against Defendants for a total of $212,250. This total is due and payable into the Registry of the Court, to be kept in the Registry until further order of the Court. This judgment shall bear interest at the federal statutory rate until satisfied.(TH) (cc: Finance) (Entered: 05/17/2019)

05/24/2019

673 Stipulated MOTION for Attorney Fees , filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Q.M.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 5/24/2019, (Carney, Christopher) (Entered: 05/24/2019)

05/24/2019

674 DECLARATION of Christopher Carney filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Q.M. re 673 Stipulated MOTION for Attorney Fees (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(Carney, Christopher) (Entered: 05/24/2019)

05/28/2019

675 ORDER granting 673 Stipulated Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants shall, within ten days of the date of this order, pay to Plaintiffs' counsel the sum of $260,531.50 in attorney's fees, and $868.25 in costs, for a total of $261,339.75. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (PM) (Entered: 05/28/2019)

05/29/2019

676 RECEIPT re 672 Judgment by Court,. $212,250.00 deposited into the Court Registry on 5/28/2019 (Receipt # SEA096194) (SMG) (Entered: 05/29/2019)

06/14/2019

677 DECLARATION June 2019 Data & Contempt Report of Dr. Thomas J. Kinlen by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I)(Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 06/14/2019)

06/14/2019 678 JUDGMENT BY COURT is entered against Defendants for a total of $177,750. This total is due and payable into the Registry of the Court,

to be kept in the Registry until further order of the Court. (PM) cc: financial (Entered: 06/14/2019)

06/26/2019

RECEIPT re 678 Judgment by Court. $177,750.00 deposited into the Court Registry on 6/25/2019 (Receipt # SEA096638) (SMG) (Entered: 06/26/2019)

06/27/2019

679 DECLARATION Re Submission of Final Implementation Plan of Nicholas Williamson by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 06/27/2019)

07/15/2019

680 DECLARATION July 2019 Data & Contempt Report of Dr. Thomas J. Kinlen by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 07/15/2019)

08/01/2019

681 JUDGMENT BY COURT is entered against Defendants for a total of $333,000. This total is due and payable into the Registry of the Court, to be kept in the Registry until further order of the Court. (TH) (cc: Finance) (Entered: 08/01/2019)

08/07/2019

682 Joint Stipulated MOTION TO DISTRIBUTE CONTEMPT FUNDS FOR DIVERSION PROGRAMMING, filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Mosolf, Kimberly) (Entered: 08/07/2019)

08/07/2019

683 DECLARATION of KIMBERLY MOSOLF filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 682 Joint Stipulated MOTION TO DISTRIBUTE CONTEMPT FUNDS FOR DIVERSION PROGRAMMING (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Mosolf, Kimberly) (Entered: 08/07/2019)

08/09/2019

RECEIPT re 681 Judgment by Court. $333,000.00 deposited into the Court Registry on 8/8/2019 (Receipt # SEA097259) (SMG) (Entered: 08/09/2019)

08/09/2019

684 ORDER granting parties' 682 Stipulated Motion to Distribute Contempt Funds for Diversion Programming. The Clerk of this Court is authorized and directed to draw a check on the funds deposited in the registry of the Court in the principal amount of $5,146,333.50 minus any statutory users fees. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (PM) cc: finance (Entered: 08/09/2019)

08/15/2019

685 DECLARATION August 2019 Data & Contempt Report of Thomas J. Kinlen by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 08/15/2019)

08/16/2019

686 JUDGMENT BY COURT is entered against Defendants in the following amounts: $357,000 representing in-jail evaluation contempt fines imposed in this action for the period from July 1, 2019 to July 31, 2019; A decrease of $15,000 in in-jail evaluation contempt fines for the period of June 1, 2019 to June 30, 2019 (resulting from an updated calculation); resulting in a total for the current reporting period of $342,000 re: 623 Order Granting Final Approval of Amended Settlement Agreement. This total is due and payable into the Registry of the Court, to be kept in the Registry until further order of the Court. (PM) cc: finance (Entered: 08/16/2019)

08/26/2019

687 Stipulated MOTION to Distribute Contempt Funds, filed by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 8/26/2019, (Head, Randy) (Entered: 08/26/2019)

08/26/2019

688 DECLARATION of Dr. Thomas Kinlen filed by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital re 687 Stipulated MOTION to Distribute Contempt Funds (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Head, Randy) (Entered: 08/26/2019)

08/26/2019

689 DECLARATION of Darya Farivar filed by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital re 687 Stipulated MOTION to Distribute Contempt Funds (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Head, Randy) (Entered: 08/26/2019)

08/26/2019

RECEIPT re 686 Judgment by Court,,. $342,000.00 deposited into the Court Registry on 8/26/2019 (Receipt # SEA097533) (SV) (Entered: 08/27/2019)

08/27/2019

NOTICE REGARDING LACK OF PROPER SIGNATURE. The 689 Declaration was improperly signed by Darya Farivar. Signatures must be in accordance with FRCP 11 and must comply with ECF Filing Procedures. Please file corrected signature page

using Praecipe to Attach event and link to original filing. (PM) (Entered: 08/27/2019)

08/27/2019

690 PRAECIPE to attach document Declaration of Darya Farivar re 689 Declaration, by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood (Attachments: # 1 Corrected Declaration)(Carlson, David) (Entered: 08/27/2019)

08/27/2019

691 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL: Attorney Alexa Helen Polaski for Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood. (Polaski, Alexa) (Entered: 08/27/2019)

09/10/2019

692 DECLARATION re Quarterly Status Report September 2019 of Randy Head by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Head, Randy) (Entered: 09/10/2019)

09/13/2019

693 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Marsha J. Pechman- Dep Clerk: Rhonda Miller; Pla Counsel: David Carlson, Kim Mosolf, Christopher Carney; Def Counsel: Jes Erickson, Randy Head; Dr. Thomas Kinlen, Dr. Andy Phillips, Dr. Danna Mauch, Kari Waterland, Sean Murphy, Amber Leaders also present in attendance. ACR: Nancy Bauer; Status Hearing held on 9/13/2019. Parties provide status update on issues related to the settlement. Court will schedule next status hearing in December at a date still to be determined. (RM) (Entered: 09/16/2019)

09/16/2019

694 DECLARATION September 2019 Data & Contempt Report of Dr. Thomas Kinlen by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Head, Randy) (Entered: 09/16/2019)

09/18/2019

695 JUDGMENT BY COURT. Judgment is entered against Defendants in the following amounts: $170,250 representing in-jail evaluation contempt fines imposed in this action for the period from August 1, 2019 to August 31, 2019; A decrease of $3,750 in in-jail evaluation contempt fines for the period of June 1, 2019 to June 30, 2019 (resulting from an updated calculation); resulting in a total for the current reporting period of $166,500. This total is due and payable into the Registry of the Court, to be kept in the Registry until further order of the Court. (PM) cc: financial (Entered: 09/18/2019)

09/25/2019

RECEIPT re 695 Judgment by Court, $166,500.00 deposited into the Court Registry on 9/25/2019 (Receipt # SEA097971) (SMG) (Entered: 09/26/2019)

10/01/2019

696 NOTICE of Hearing: Status Conference set for 12/17/2019 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 14206 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(RM) (Entered: 10/01/2019)

10/01/2019 697 ORDER approving Final Implementation Plan (Dkt. 679 -1). Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (SWT) (Entered: 10/01/2019)

10/15/2019

698 DECLARATION October 2019 Data & Contempt Report of Dr. Thomas J. Kinlen by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 10/15/2019)

10/15/2019

699 Supplemental DECLARATION of Dr. Thomas J. Kinlen filed by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital re 687 Stipulated MOTION to Distribute Contempt Funds (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 10/15/2019)

10/22/2019

700 ORDER granting parties' 687 Stipulated Motion to Distribute Contempt Funds. It is ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall disburse $625,475.00 to the Seattle Foundation. The Seattle Foundation shall disburse the funds pursuant to a contracts entered into with Plaintiffs and Defendants. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (PM) cc: finance (Entered: 10/22/2019)

10/22/2019

701 JUDGMENT BY COURT entering judgment against Defendants in the following amount: $211,500 representing in-jail evaluation contempt fines imposed in this action for the period from September 1, 2019 to September 30, 2019; resulting in a total for the current reporting period of $211,500. This total is due and payable into the Registry of the Court, to be kept in the Registry until further order of the Court. This judgment shall bear interest at the federal statutory rate until satisfied. (PM) cc: finance (Entered: 10/22/2019)

10/23/2019

REGISTRY DISBURSEMENT made on 10/23/2019 to SEATTLE FOUNDATION in the amount of $625,475.00 re 700 Order on Stipulated Motion,. (No PDF image attached) (SMG) (Entered: 10/23/2019)

10/29/2019

702 Stipulated MOTION Request for 3rd and Final Building 27 Costs, filed by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 10/29/2019, (Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 10/29/2019)

10/29/2019

703 DECLARATION of Dr. Danna Mauch filed by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital re 702 Stipulated MOTION Request for 3rd and Final Building 27 Costs (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 10/29/2019)

10/31/2019

704 ORDER granting Parties' 702 Joint Stipulated Motion to Distribute Contempt Funds for the final costs associated with the renovation of Building 27. It is ordered that the Clerk of this Court is authorized and directed to draw a check on the funds deposited in the registry of the Court in the principal amount of Five Hundred and Ninety Seven Thousand Five Hundred and Eleven Dollars and Sixty One Cents ($597,511.61) minus any statutory users fees, payable to the Seattle Foundation. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (PM) cc: finance (Entered: 10/31/2019)

10/31/2019

RECEIPT re 701 Judgment by Court,,. $211,500.00 deposited into the Court Registry on 10/31/2019 (Receipt # SEA098511) (SMG) (Entered: 10/31/2019)

11/01/2019

REGISTRY DISBURSEMENT made on 11/1/2019 to SEATTLE FOUNDATION in the amount of $597,511.61 re 704 Order on Stipulated Motion,,. (No PDF image attached) (SMG) (Entered: 11/04/2019)

11/08/2019

705 Stipulated MOTION for Attorney Fees , filed by Plaintiffs D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Q.M.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 11/8/2019, (Carney, Christopher) (Entered: 11/08/2019)

11/08/2019

706 DECLARATION of Christopher Carney filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Q.M. re 705 Stipulated MOTION for Attorney Fees (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(Carney, Christopher) (Entered: 11/08/2019)

11/14/2019

707 ORDER granting Parties' 705 Stipulated Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs. Defendants shall, within ten days of the date of this order, pay to Plaintiffs' counsel the sum of $149,287.50 in attorney's fees, and $1,193.38 in costs, for a total of $150,480.88. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (PM) (Entered: 11/14/2019)

11/14/2019

708 DECLARATION November 2019 Data & Contempt Report of Dr. Thomas J. Kinlen by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M)(Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 11/14/2019)

11/19/2019

RECEIPT re 707 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees,. $150,480.88 deposited into the Court Registry on 11/19/2019 (Receipt # SEA098834) (SMG) (Entered: 11/20/2019)

11/21/2019

709 Stipulated MOTION for Disbursement of Funds for Attorney Fees and Costs, filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Q.M.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 11/21/2019, (Carney, Christopher) (Entered: 11/21/2019)

11/22/2019

710 ORDER granting Parties' 709 Stipulated Motion to Distribute Funds for Attorney Fees and Costs. The Clerk of this Court shall disburse $150,480.88 to Disability Rights Washington to satisfy Defendants' obligations under this court's November 14, 2019 Order on Attorney Fees and Costs. signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (PM) cc: finance (Entered: 11/22/2019)

11/22/2019

711 JUDGMENT is entered against Defendants for a total of $120,750. This total is due and payable into the Registry of the Court, to be kept in the Registry until further order of the Court. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (PM) cc: finance (Entered: 11/22/2019)

11/26/2019

REGISTRY DISBURSEMENT made on 11/26/2019 to DISABILITY RIGHTS WASHINGTON in the amount of $150,480.88 re 710 Order on Motion for Disbursement of Funds,. (No PDF image attached) (SMG) (Entered: 11/26/2019)

12/11/2019

712 DECLARATION re Quarterly Status Report December 2019 of Randy Head by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Head, Randy) (Entered: 12/11/2019)

12/12/2019

713 Joint Stipulated MOTION TO DISTRIBUTE CONTEMPT FUNDS FOR DIVERSION PROGRAMMING, filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Q.M.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 12/12/2019, (Mosolf, Kimberly) (Entered: 12/12/2019)

12/12/2019

714 DECLARATION of KIMBERLY MOSOLF filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Q.M., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 713 Joint Stipulated MOTION TO DISTRIBUTE CONTEMPT FUNDS FOR DIVERSION PROGRAMMING (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Mosolf, Kimberly) (Entered: 12/12/2019)

12/13/2019

715 DECLARATION December 2019 Data & Contempt Report of Dr. Thomas J. Kinlen by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 12/13/2019)

12/13/2019

RECEIPT re 711 Judgment. $120,750.00 deposited into the Court Registry on 12/13/2019 (Receipt # SEA099133) (SV) (Entered: 12/16/2019)

12/17/2019

716 ORDER granting Parties' 713 Stipulated Motion to Distribute Contempt Funds for Diversion Programming. The Clerk of this Court is authorized and directed to draw a check on the funds deposited in the registry of the Court in the principal amount of $7,728,071 minus any statutory users fees, payable to the Seattle Foundation. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (PM) (Entered: 12/17/2019)

12/17/2019

717 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Marsha J. Pechman- Dep Clerk: Rhonda Miller; Pla Counsel: Kimberly Mosolf, Christopher Carney; Def Counsel: Jes Erickson, Randy Head, Nicholas Williamson; Also Present: Dr. Thomas Kinlen, Cheryl Strange, Keri Waterland, Dr. Donna Mauch, Dr. Andrew Phillips, Sean Murphy, Amber Leaders CR: Nancy Bauer; Status Conference held on 12/17/2019. The parties provide the Court an update on the various aspects of compliance with the orders of the Court and expenditure of the contempt funds. The next Status Conference is set for 4/14/2020 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 14206 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (RM) (Entered: 12/18/2019)

01/06/2020

718 Joint Stipulated MOTION TO DISTRIBUTE CONTEMPT FUNDS, filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 1/6/2020, (Mosolf, Kimberly) (Entered: 01/06/2020)

01/06/2020

719 DECLARATION of KIMBERLY MOSOLF filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 718 Joint Stipulated MOTION TO DISTRIBUTE CONTEMPT

FUNDS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Mosolf, Kimberly) (Entered: 01/06/2020)

01/14/2020

720 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL: Attorney Randy C. Head for Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Brian Waiblinger, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital. (Head, Randy) (Entered: 01/14/2020)

01/14/2020

721 DECLARATION January 2020 Data & Contempt Report of Dr. Thomas J. Kinlen by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 01/14/2020)

01/15/2020

722 JUDGMENT BY COURT is entered against Defendants for a total of $177,000 (December). This total is due and payable into the Registry of the Court, to be kept in the Registry until further order of the Court. (PM) cc: finance (Entered: 01/15/2020)

01/15/2020

723 JUDGMENT BY COURT entered against Defendants in the total amount of $251,250 (November 2019). This total is due and payable into the Registry of the Court, to be kept in the Registry until further order of the Court. (PM) cc: finance (Entered: 01/15/2020)

01/16/2020

724 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL: Attorney Kenan Lee Isitt for Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Q.M., Snohomish County Public Defender Association, Cassie Cordell Trueblood. (Isitt, Kenan) (Entered: 01/16/2020)

01/17/2020

725 ORDER granting parties' 718 Stipulated Motion to Distribute Contempt Funds signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (TH) (cc: Finance) (Entered: 01/17/2020)

01/17/2020

REGISTRY DISBURSEMENT made on 1/17/2020 to SEATTLE FOUNDATION in the amount of $89,527.00 re 725 Order on Stipulated Motion. (No PDF image attached) (SMG) (Entered: 01/17/2020)

01/23/2020

RECEIPT re 722 Judgment by Court, 723 Judgment by Court. $428,250.00 deposited into the Court Registry on 1/23/2020 (Receipt # SEA099714) (SMG) (Entered: 01/24/2020)

01/31/2020

726 Stipulated MOTION to Expend Remaining Jumpstart Funds, filed by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health

Services, Western State Hospital. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 1/31/2020, (Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 01/31/2020)

01/31/2020

727 DECLARATION of Aura MacArthur filed by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital re 726 Stipulated MOTION to Expend Remaining Jumpstart Funds (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 01/31/2020)

02/12/2020

728 ORDER granting parties' 726 Stipulated Motion to Expend Remaining Jumpstart Funds signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (TH) (Entered: 02/12/2020)

02/14/2020

729 DECLARATION February 2020 Data & Contempt Report of Dr. Bryan Zolnikov by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 02/14/2020)

02/18/2020

730 JUDGMENT BY COURT is entered against Defendants in the total amount of $175,000 (January 1, 2020 to January 31, 2020). This total is due and payable into the Registry of the Court, to be kept in the Registry until further order of the Court. Signed by Judge Pechman. (PM) cc: finance (Entered: 02/18/2020)

02/18/2020

731 PRAECIPE re 729 Declaration (non motion), to Substitute Declaration by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 02/18/2020)

02/19/2020

732 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Elizabeth Leonard on behalf of Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood. (Leonard, Elizabeth) (Entered: 02/19/2020)

02/26/2020

RECEIPT re 730 Judgment by Court,. $175,500.00 deposited into the Court Registry on 2/26/2020 (Receipt # SEA100117) (SV) (Entered: 02/26/2020)

03/13/2020

733 DECLARATION March 2020 Data & Contempt Report of Dr. Thomas Kinlen by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 03/13/2020)

03/16/2020

734 JUDGMENT IN CIVIL CASE. Judgment is entered against Defendants in the total amount of $136,500. This total is due and payable into the Registry of the Court, to be kept in the Registry until further order of the Court. This judgment shall bear interest at the federal statutory rate until satisfied. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (PM) cc: finance (Entered: 03/16/2020)

03/24/2020

RECEIPT re 734 Judgment by Court,. $136,500.00 deposited into the Court Registry on 3/24/2020 (Receipt # SEA100430) (SMG) (Entered: 03/25/2020)

04/10/2020

Reset Hearings:Telephonic Status Conference set for 5/8/2020 at 1:00 PM before Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (LW) (Entered: 04/10/2020)

04/15/2020

735 DECLARATION April 2020 Data & Contempt Report of Dr. Thomas J. Kinlen by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 04/15/2020)

04/16/2020

736 JUDGMENT BY COURT is entered against Defendants in the total amount of $313,500. This total is due and payable into the Registry of the Court, to be kept in the Registry until further order of the Court. This judgment shall bear interest at the federal statutory rate until satisfied. (PM) cc: finance (Entered: 04/16/2020)

04/20/2020

737 Stipulated MOTION for Attorney Fees , filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Q.M.. Noting Date 4/20/2020, (Carney, Christopher) (Entered: 04/20/2020)

04/20/2020

738 DECLARATION of Christopher Carney filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Q.M. re 737 Stipulated MOTION for Attorney Fees (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Carney, Christopher) (Entered: 04/20/2020)

04/22/2020

739 ORDER granting Parties' 737 Stipulated Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants shall, within ten days of the date of this order, pay to Plaintiffs' counsel the sum of $302,822.70 in fees, and $2,087.46 in costs, for a total of $304,910.16. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (PM) (Entered: 04/22/2020)

04/30/2020

RECEIPT re 739 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees,. $313,500.00 deposited into the Court Registry on 4/30/2020 (Receipt # SEA100718) (SV) (Entered: 04/30/2020)

05/01/2020

740 Joint Stipulated MOTION TO DISTRIBUTE CONTEMPT FUNDS FOR DIVERSION PROGRAMMING, filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 5/1/2020, (Mosolf, Kimberly) (Entered: 05/01/2020)

05/01/2020

741 DECLARATION of KIMBERLY MOSOLF filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 740 Joint Stipulated MOTION TO DISTRIBUTE CONTEMPT FUNDS FOR DIVERSION PROGRAMMING (Mosolf, Kimberly) (Entered: 05/01/2020)

05/04/2020

742 DECLARATION re Quarterly Status Report May 2020 of Nicholas Williamson by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 05/04/2020)

05/06/2020

743 MOTION for Relief Seeking Additional Time for Ward Construction at Eastern and Western State Hospital, filed by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 5/15/2020, (Williamson, Nicholas) Modified on 5/7/2020 to remove excessive capitalization (PM). (Entered: 05/06/2020)

05/06/2020

744 DECLARATION of Judy Fitzgerald filed by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital re 743 MOTION for Relief SEEKING ADDITIONAL TIME FOR WARD CONSTRUCTION AT EASTERN AND WESTERN STATE HOSPITALS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 05/06/2020)

05/08/2020

745 ORDER granting parties' 740 Stipulated Motion to Distribute Contempt Funds for Diversion Programming. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall disburse $4,349,077 to the Seattle Foundation to fund these diversion programs. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (PM) cc: finance (Entered: 05/08/2020)

05/08/2020

746 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Marsha J. Pechman- Dep Clerk: Lowell Williams; Pla Counsel: Christopher Carney, Kimberly Mosolf, Elizabeth Leonard; Def Counsel: Nicholas Williamson, Jes Erickson; CR: Nancy Bauer; Time of Hearing: 1:00 PM; Status Conference held on 5/8/2020. Also present: Darya Farivar, Cheryl Strange, Sean Murphy, Keri Waterland, Dr. Thomas Kinlen,

Sjan Talbot, Amber Leaders, Dr. Danna Mauch and Dr. Andrew Phillips. Parties provide the Court an update on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on all aspects of this matter: Defendants' progress toward complying with their deadlines, the ability of the agencies funded to accomplish their objectives, delivery of services at Western State Hospital and in-custody evaluations; COVID-19 and settlement implementation and future construction of the new 350-bed forensic hospital. Next status conference to be set in August 2020. (LW) (Entered: 05/08/2020)

05/11/2020

747 NOTICE that the following is RE-NOTED: 743 MOTION for Relief Seeking Additional Time for Ward Construction at Eastern and Western State Hospital. Filed by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital. Noting Date 5/22/2020, (Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 05/11/2020)

05/15/2020

748 DECLARATION of Dr. Thomas J. Kinlen RE May 2020 Contempt & Data Report by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K)(Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 05/15/2020)

05/18/2020

749 JUDGMENT BY COURT is entered against Defendants for the current reporting period in the total amount of $490,500. This total is due and payable into the Registry of the Court, to be kept in the Registry until further order of the Court. This judgment shall bear interest at the federal statutory rate until satisfied. (PM) cc: finance (Entered: 05/18/2020)

05/20/2020

750 RESPONSE, by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood, to 743 MOTION for Relief Seeking Additional Time for Ward Construction at Eastern and Western State Hospital. (Mosolf, Kimberly) (Entered: 05/20/2020)

05/21/2020

751 REPLY, filed by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital, TO RESPONSE to 743 MOTION for Relief Seeking Additional Time for Ward Construction at Eastern and Western State Hospital (Erickson, Jessica) (Entered: 05/21/2020)

05/21/2020 752 ORDER granting Defendants' 743 Motion Seeking Additional Time for Ward Construction at Western and Eastern State Hospitals. It is ordered

that the Department shall be allowed additional time to complete the renovation of four forensic wards at Eastern and Western State Hospitals. The Department is directed to submit a report to the Court on the 1st and 15th of each month, or the next judicial day following these dates. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(PM) (Entered: 05/21/2020)

05/27/2020

753 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Michael Bradley on behalf of Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital. (Bradley, Michael) (Entered: 05/27/2020)

05/27/2020

754 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Marko Pavela on behalf of Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital. (Pavela, Marko) (Entered: 05/27/2020)

06/01/2020

755 REPORT June 1, 2020 Re Construction of New Forensic Wards at ESH and WSH by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Sean Murphy)(Pavela, Marko) (Entered: 06/01/2020)

06/11/2020

REGISTRY DISBURSEMENT made on 6/11/2020 to SEATTLE FOUNDATION in the amount of $4,349,077.00 re 745 Order on Stipulated Motion,. (No PDF image attached) (SMG) (Entered: 06/11/2020)

06/15/2020

756 DECLARATION Re June 2020 Contempt & Data Report of Dr. Thomas J. Kinlen by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Williamson, Nicholas) (Entered: 06/15/2020)

06/15/2020

757 REPORT June 15, 2020 Re Construction of New Forensic Wards at ESH and WSH by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Pavela, Marko) (Entered: 06/15/2020)

06/16/2020

758 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL: Attorney Gregory K Ziser for Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital. (Ziser, Gregory) (Entered: 06/16/2020)

06/17/2020

759 JUDGMENT BY COURT is entered against Defendants in the following amounts: $372,000 representing in-jail evaluation contempt fines imposed in this action for the period from May 1, 2020 to May 31, 2020; resulting in a total for the current reporting period of $372,000. This total is due and payable into the Registry of the Court, to be kept in the Registry until further order of the Court. (PM) cc: finance (Entered: 06/17/2020)

06/18/2020 760 NOTICE of Hearing: Next Status Conference set for 8/20/2020 at 9:00 AM before Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(LW) (Entered: 06/18/2020)

06/30/2020

Reset Hearings: Telephonic Status Conference reset for 8/24/2020 at 4:15 PM before Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (LW) (Entered: 06/30/2020)

07/01/2020

761 REPORT July 1, 2020 Re Construction of New Forensic Wards at ESH and WSH by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Pavela, Marko) (Entered: 07/01/2020)

07/01/2020

RECEIPT re 749 Judgment by Court, 759 Judgment by Court,. $862,500.00 deposited into the Court Registry on 7/1/2020 (Receipt # SEA101208) (SMG) (Entered: 07/02/2020)

07/08/2020

762 Joint Stipulated MOTION TO DISTRIBUTE CONTEMPT FUNDS, filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 7/8/2020, (Mosolf, Kimberly) (Entered: 07/08/2020)

07/08/2020

763 DECLARATION of KIMBERLY MOSOLF filed by Plaintiffs A.B., D.D., Disability Rights Washington, K.R., Cassie Cordell Trueblood re 762 Joint Stipulated MOTION TO DISTRIBUTE CONTEMPT FUNDS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Mosolf, Kimberly) (Entered: 07/08/2020)

07/10/2020

764 ORDER granting the Parties' 762 Stipulated Motion to Distribute Contempt Funds. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall disburse $150,000.00 to the Seattle Foundation for payment of their December 31, 2019 invoice number 15473. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(LH)(CC: Finance) (Entered: 07/10/2020)

07/13/2020

REGISTRY DISBURSEMENT made on 7/13/2020 to SEATTLE FOUNDATION in the amount of $150000.00 re 764 Order on Stipulated Motion,. (No PDF image attached) (SV) (Entered: 07/13/2020)

07/15/2020

765 DECLARATION Re July 2020 Contempt & Data Report of Dr. Thomas J. Kinlen by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I)(Erickson, Jessica) (Entered: 07/15/2020)

07/15/2020

766 REPORT July 15, 2020 Re Construction of New Forensic Wards at ESH and WSH by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Pavela, Marko) (Entered: 07/15/2020)

07/20/2020

767 JUDGMENT BY COURT is entered against Defendants in a total for the current reporting period of $303,750. The parties are advised that registry payments will not be processed between July 27, 2020 and August 10, 2020. The parties are requested to pay the total for the current reporting period into the Registry of the Court prior to July 27, 2020. (PM) cc: finance (Entered: 07/20/2020)

07/28/2020

Set/Reset Hearings: Telephonic Status Conference reset for 8/24/2020 at 1:30 PM before Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(GC) (Entered: 07/28/2020)

07/29/2020

RECEIPT re 767 Judgment by Court,. $303,750.00 deposited into the Court Registry on 7/29/2020 (Receipt # SEA101490) (SMG) (Entered: 07/30/2020)

08/03/2020

768 REPORT August 3, 2020 Re Construction of New Forensic Wards at ESH and WSH by Defendants Ron Adler, Eastern State Hospital, Kevin W Quigley, Dorothy Sawyer, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Pavela, Marko) (Entered: 08/03/2020)


[CONTENT] August 4, 2014 | A.B. | Washington State | the U.S. District Court | the Western District | Washington ||| the Washington Department of Social and Health Services | 42 | 1983 | Americans | 42 | U.S.C | § | 12111 | the Declaratory Judgment Act | 28 |||  ||| A.B. ||| A.B. | State | A.B. ||| State ||| State | seven-day | Washington | the Fourteenth Amendment | Americans ||| September 12, 2014 | three |||  ||| November 6, 2014 ||| December 22, 2014 |||  ||| months ||| Court | Defendants | 2014 | 1 ||| seven-day | March 2015 |||  ||| April 2, 2015 ||| seven days |||  ||| 101 ||| 3d 1010 | W.D. Wash. | 2015 ||| four ||| May 6, 2015 | seven-day |||  ||| June 22, 2015 ||| 1,303,169 |||  ||| December 2014 |||  ||| February 8, 2016 | May 27, 2016 ||| two | two | Yakima Competency Restoration Center ||| First | March 17, 2016 | the Yakima Competency Restoration Center |||  ||| April 12, 2016 |||  |||  ||| Yakima ||| second ||| April 24 | May 10, 2016 | May 20, 2016 ||| May 20, 2016 ||| June 29, 2016 ||| June 30, 2016 | second ||| Second | May 19, 2016 | DSHA | Maple Lane | the Maple Lane ||| June 6, 2016 ||| second | one ||| June 7, 2016 ||| June 10, 2016 |||  ||| May 6, 2016 | the Court of Appeals | the Ninth Circuit ||| 822 | 1037 ||| DSHS | seven-day | Constitution ||| seven-day |||  ||| May 10, 2016 | May 5 ||| May 27, 2016 |||  ||| May 26, 2016 | seven days ||| June 2 ||| 10-day ||| June 30, 2016 ||| July 7, 2016 |||  |||  ||| December 20, 2016 | 7,486,500 |||  ||| August 15, 2016 ||| the Ninth Circuit ||| fourteen days ||| August 17, 2016 ||| August 19, 2016 ||| September 14, 2016 ||| October 13, 2016 | second | 1,267,769.10 | 35,400.38 ||| November 14, 2016 ||| February 1, 2017 ||| DSHS |||  ||| February 21, 2017 ||| the Ninth Circuit ||| February 15, 2017 | the Ninth Circuit ||| February 23, 2017 ||| March 17, 2017 ||| DSHS | 14 days | 21 days | DSHS | 7 days | 14 days ||| April 26, 2017 |||  |||  ||| August 30, 2017 | third | 1,108,351.50 | 8,270.45 ||| September 27, 2017 ||| October 19, 2017 | second |||  |||  ||| December 2017 ||| January 12, 2018 ||| 2017 | 2018 ||| March 28, 2018 | 444,473.46 ||| 263,006.60 | 3,571.80 | October 4, 2018 | 763.21 | January 3, 2019 ||| August 16, 2018 | October 25, 2018 |||  ||| State ||| three |||  ||| December 1, 2018 |||  ||| November 1 ||| December 11 ||| quarterly | April 2019 ||| March 11, 2019 |||  ||| April 2019 ||| State |||  ||| the second half of 2019 ||| August 13, 2020 | State | monthly [SUMMARY] On August 4, 2014, advocates for A.B. and other legally incompetent criminal defendants in county jails in Washington State filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The plaintiffs sued the Washington Department of Social and Health Services under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C §§ 12111 et seq.; and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201. They sought both injunctive and declaratory relief. 

The plaintiffs alleged that the rights of A.B. and similarly situated persons were violated by the delay between being deemed legally incompetent and being transferred to a mental health facility. In response to a prior order for immediate transfer of A.B. to a mental health facility, the State explained that the state-run facility that they ordinarily utilized for legally incompetent defendants such as A.B. did not have enough physical bed space to promptly treat every patient. The State argued it was under no deadline to transport legally incompetent defendants for treatment. The plaintiffs, on the other hand, argued that the State's failure to adhere to a seven-day deadline imposed by Washington law, RCWA 10.77.220, constituted cruel and unusual punishment and violated both the Fourteenth Amendment and the Americans with Disabilities Act. On September 12, 2014, the plaintiffs amended their complaint, added three additional named plaintiffs, and sought class certification. The court granted the class certification. 

On November 6, 2014, the plaintiffs moved for summary judgment and a declaration that the defendants' conduct had violated the due process rights of the named plaintiffs and class members. On December 22, 2014, the court declared: <blockquote> The Due Process Clause protects the liberty interests of individuals to be free from incarceration absent a criminal conviction, and to receive restorative treatment when they are being incarcerated due to mental incompetence. Defendants' failure to provide timely services to these detainees has caused them to be incarcerated, sometimes for months, in conditions that erode their mental health, causing harm and making it even less likely that they will eventually be able to stand trial. Because this failure violates the due process rights of criminal defendants who are mentally ill or suspected to be mentally ill, the Court grants Plaintiffs' motion and declares that Defendants have violated their constitutional rights.</blockquote> 2014 WL 7338747 at *1. 

There was a seven-day bench trial in March 2015. The court heard facts to determine what amount of time legally incompetent detainees could be made to wait for transfer to a mental health facility without experiencing a violation of their due process rights.

On April 2, 2015, the court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law and ordered the defendants to stop violating the class members' constitutional rights by providing timely competency evaluation and restoration services. The court also entered a permanent injunction requiring the provision of competency services within seven days. The court appointed a monitor to ensure that progress toward the timely provision of services was being made. 101 F. Supp. 3d 1010 (W.D. Wash. 2015).

Subsequently, the defendants asked the court to modify the permanent injunction in four ways. On May 6, 2015, the court modified the permanent injunction to allow for a good cause exception to the seven-day timeframe for class members ordered to receive competency services at state hospitals where a class member’s health prevented them from being medically cleared to be transported, despite the defendants’ good faith efforts. The court denied the defendants’ other requests for modification.

On June 22, 2015, the court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and costs. The court awarded $1,303,169 in fees and costs. The defendants also appealed this decision.

The defendants appealed the December 2014 grant of summary judgment to the plaintiffs, the court's judgment, the permanent injunction, and the denial of the defendants' motion to modify the injunction. While the appeal was pending, the defendants again asked the district court to modify the permanent injunction. On February 8, 2016, the district court modified the permanent injunction and extended the defendants’ compliance deadline to May 27, 2016, along with other minor changes. 

At two different points, the plaintiffs moved for temporary restraining orders due to safety issues at two different facilities: Yakima Competency Restoration Center and Maple Lane Competency Restoration Program.

First, on March 17, 2016, the plaintiffs moved for an order temporarily restraining the defendant from assigning class members to receive restoration treatment at the Yakima Competency Restoration Center. They claimed that the partially renovated jail was unsafe and violated the court’s orders, as the class members are to be provided services in a state psychiatric hospital or a facility that is therapeutically comparable to the hospital. After considering the motion, defendants’ response, the plaintiffs’ subsequent reply, oral arguments, and findings from a court visit to the facility, on April 12, 2016, the court granted in part plaintiffs’ motion. The court found that there were unacceptable risks of irreparable harm to class members and staff posed by the facility’s staircase and its seclusion and restraint room. The court explained that these spaces presented an opportunity for suicide, especially given that the facility did not have a clear policy on the use of seclusion and restraint. However, the court agreed with the defendants that immediately closing the Yakima program would not be in the best interest of the class members or the public. Thus, the court issued a modified temporary restraining order prohibiting use of the facility’s second floor and seclusion and restraint room unless and until the risks presented are remediated. Per the plaintiffs’ subsequent motions, the court extended the temporary restraining order twice (April 24 and May 10, 2016), leaving it in effect until May 20, 2016. On May 20, 2016, the court lifted the portion of the order restricting use of the seclusion and restraint room. On June 29, 2016, the parties entered a stipulated agreement regarding use of the facility, specifying that the facility had been modified consistently with the court order. On June 30, 2016, the court issued an order stating that the court agrees that there is no further restriction on the use of the stairwell, and that the stairwell and second floor of the facility may be used freely.

Second, on May 19, 2016, the plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order enjoining DSHA and its Maple Lane contractors from exposing plaintiffs to an unsafe stairwell at the Maple Lane facility.  On June 6, 2016, the court granted the motion with some modification. The court ordered that no members may access the second floor until the staircase risks have been remediated, except for in one wing of the facility in which remediation efforts were completed. On June 7, 2016, the defendants submitted proof of compliance at the facility; they explained that remediation efforts for the rest of the staircases had been completed. On June 10, 2016, the court lifted the temporary restraining order.

Meanwhile, the issue of timeframe for conducting evaluations was being considered on appeal. On May 6, 2016, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion regarding the timeframe for conducting competency evaluations. 822 F.3d 1037. The court agreed with the district court that DSHS must conduct the evaluations “within a reasonable time following a court’s order,” but found that the seven-day mandate “imposes a temporal obligation beyond what the Constitution requires.” The court therefore vacated the injunction with respect to the seven-day requirement and remanded to the district court to amend the injunction. 

The plaintiffs moved the court several times to find the defendants in civil contempt of its prior court orders. On May 10, 2016, the plaintiffs withdrew a previous civil contempt motion (dated May 5) and made a new motion. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants failed to meet important compliance deadlines and were not on track to meet the court’s amended compliance deadline of May 27, 2016. Despite court orders, the plaintiffs claimed that the defendants failed to provide timely competency services. On May 26, 2016, the plaintiffs moved the court to find the defendants in contempt for failing to comply with the court’s order to admit class members to state hospitals for competency evaluations within seven days of a court order.

On June 2 the plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider the scope of the injunction regarding in-jail evaluations. The plaintiffs claimed that a 10-day requirement for completing jail-based competency requirements serves all legitimate state interests regarding timely completion. On June 30, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to reconsider the scope of the injunction regarding timing of services and inpatient evaluations.

On July 7, 2016, the court issued an order of civil contempt. The court imposed monetary sanctions on the defendants, to be continued until the defendants complied by providing timely services. The court issued many money judgments regarding the civil contempt payments throughout the litigation. On December 20, 2016, the court granted the parties’ joint motion to amend the monetary fines imposed as contempt sanctions, ordering a single judgment for $7,486,500 in sanctions to date. After this date, the court made more money judgments.

On August 15, 2016, the court issued an order modifying the permanent injunction as to in-jail competency evaluations. The court considered this matter on remand from the Ninth Circuit. The court modified the injunction to require in-jail competency evaluations to be completed within fourteen days of the signing of a court order.

On August 17, 2016, the court issued an order denying defendants’ motion to reconsider the order of civil contempt in all respects except with regard to a transcription error. On August 19, 2016, the court issued an order denying the defendants’ motion to reconsider the injunction regarding timing of services and inpatient evaluations.

On September 14, 2016, the defendants appealed the judgment and order modifying the permanent injunction as to in jail competency evaluations, and the order denying their motion to reconsider the injunction regarding timing of services and inpatient evaluations. 

On October 13, 2016, the court granted plaintiffs’ second motion for attorney’s fees and costs, awarding plaintiffs $1,267,769.10 in attorneys fees, and $35,400.38 in litigation costs (subject to reductions previously detailed in the original order on attorneys’ fees). On November 14, 2016, the defendants appealed this order.

On February 1, 2017, at the direction of the court, the defendants submitted a proposed compliance plan. The plan details how DSHS would admit class members to receive competency evaluations, treatment services, and in-custody evaluation services. The plan includes proposals to increase competency evaluation capacity, expand bed capacity for inpatient competency services, and diversion and triage, and it also addresses various recommendations that had been made by the plaintiffs.

On February 21, 2017, the court issued an order expanding the court monitor’s authority and responsibilities.

Meanwhile, the parties had been engaging in mediation regarding the issues on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. On February 15, 2017, the parties informed the Ninth Circuit that they resolved the matter contingent on district court approval of their settlement. On February 23, 2017, the appeal was remanded to the district court for consideration of the settlement. On March 17, 2017, the parties made a joint motion to adopt the mediated settlement agreement. The parties’ agreement includes the following principles: the parties will jointly generate outreach documents to inform courts of their obligations regarding timing of services; DSHS shall complete in-jail competency evaluations within either 14 days from receipt of order (or 21 days from signature or order); DSHS shall admit class members for inpatient competency evaluation or restoration within 7 days from receipt of order (or 14 days from signature of order); orders will be deemed received as of the time they are electronically transmitted; the defendants will continue to track the data. 

On April 26, 2017, the court partially adopted the parties' mediated settlement agreement. Specifically, the court adopted the provisions of the proposed settlement agreement concerning outreach, the deadline for in-jail competency evaluations, the deadline for in-patient evaluation and restoration services, receipt of order, the trigger point for notice to plaintiffs' counsel, and the defendants' data collection. Additionally, the court modified the prior orders of the court in order to conform with this new agreement. 

On August 30, 2017, the court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs' third motion for attorney’s fees and costs, awarding plaintiffs $1,108,351.50 in attorneys fees, and $8,270.45 in litigation costs. The defendants appealed this order on September 27, 2017. 

On October 19, 2017, the court issued an order on the plaintiffs' second motion for civil contempt. The court found that the defendants were in contempt of court, as they had failed to: comply with the court’s orders requiring the timely completion of in-jail competency evaluations, take all reasonable steps to reduce wait times for in-jail competency evaluations, hire sufficient staff to timely respond to the demand for in-jail competency services, diversify the types of medical professionals serving class members, and secure sufficient temporary contracted staff to respond to unanticipated increases in evaluation orders. The court noted that it would continue to impose monetary sanctions, as well as a reporting requirement in order to facilitate payment of the contempt fines. 

In December 2017, the defendants voluntarily dismissed their appeals of the court's attorney’s fees and costs awards.

On January 12, 2018, the parties submitted an agreement resolving the pending motions and setting up a settlement negotiation process. Throughout 2017 and 2018, the court continued to issue many money judgments regarding the civil contempt payments. 

On March 28, 2018, the court granted the parties' stipulated motion for attorneys' fees and costs, awarding the plaintiffs $444,473.46 in total. The court awarded an additional $263,006.60 in attorneys' fees and $3,571.80 in costs on October 4, 2018, as well as an additional $290,181.00 in attorneys' fees and $763.21 in costs on January 3, 2019. 

After filing a motion for preliminary approval of a settlement agreement on August 16, 2018, the parties filed an amended settlement agreement on October 25, 2018. The agreement covered the substantive areas of competency evaluation; competency restoration; crisis triage and diversion supports; education and training; and workforce development. The agreement required the State to support and work to achieve legislative changes to reduce the number of people ordered into competency evaluation and restoration, and to use community-based restoration services. The agreement contained three implementation phases, focusing on various regions. Additionally, the defendants agreed to use a sustainable oversight structure  to inform and provide supervision for high-level policymaking, planning, and  decision-making on targeted issues. The parties also asked the court to suspend the entry of judgments for continuing contempt fines beginning December 1, 2018 (except those fines accumulated under the court's order regarding jail-based evaluations). Finally, the agreement's terms would remain in effect until the defendants achieve substantial compliance with its various requirements. 

On November 1, the court issued its order for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement. Following a fairness hearing on December 11, the court issued its final approval of the settlement agreement. The court directed the parties to submit quarterly reports on the implementation beginning in April 2019.  

On March 11, 2019, the parties filed with the court a preliminary implementation plan for the settlement agreement. This preliminary plan will be subject to refinement and will eventually result in a final implementation plan. 

The April 2019 implementation report noted the passage of several legislative enactments that would create greater diversion opportunities for class members and reduce the number of individuals ordered into competency evaluation and restoration services. The report also noted that the State had created several work groups and committees to implement the agreement. There were no overdue or incomplete action steps within the preliminary implementation plan. Finally, the report noted that implementation efforts will expand substantially during the second half of 2019.

As of August 13, 2020, the court is holding periodic status conferences, the State is continuing to report compliance data, monitoring is ongoing, and the court continues to issue monthly monetary contempt judgments against the defendants.