Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Parsons v. Ryan

United States District Court, D. Arizona

November 10, 2016

Victor Antonio Parsons, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
Charles L Ryan, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          David K. Duncan United States Magistrate Judge

         The outstanding issues from the November 9, 2016 Status Conference are addressed below.

         1. Date Calculations and Performance Measure 86.

         The parties have informed the Court that they cannot resolve their impasse about every "X" days and PM 86 and that this dispute is not covered by their pending meet-and-confer about the Monitoring Manual. (Docs. 1717, 1718, 1719, 1731, 1732)

         After a careful review of the parties' briefing, the Court appreciates the nuances left untouched by the earlier Order. (Doc. 1673) To expand on the issues, the Court revives hypothetical Inmate PM86, whose medication was discontinued on January 10 and is, therefore, reclassified. (Id. at 6) First, it appears that the parties do not agree on when to start measuring PM 86: when his medication was discontinued or when he was reclassified. Under its plain language, PM 86 applies to MH-3D prisoners "for a minimum of six months after discontinuing medication." (Doc. 1185-1 at 14, 32) Accordingly, the start date for calculating compliance is the date that medication is discontinued.

         As previously noted, Inmate PM86 discontinued medication on January 10 and, therefore, must be seen by a mental health clinician by April 10 and again by July 10. If he was seen by April 10 and his record is selected for review in May or June, then it is compliant with PM 86 in May and June even though he was not seen in those months. (Id.) However, this explanation does not address the situation where Inmate PM86 is seen on April 15 (i.e., untimely) and his record is selected for review in May or June. How should compliance be assessed for May and June? Nor does it resolve when his second visit is due: July 10 or July 15? Another hypothetical not explicitly decided by the Stipulation is the result when Inmate PM86 is seen on March 15 (i.e., ahead of schedule). Is his second visit due on June 15 or July 10?

         Because the parties have not been able to answer these questions, the Court does so as follows. As noted above, measuring compliance for Inmate PM86 starts on January 10. If Inmate PM86 is seen by a mental health clinician on April 10, his April, May, and June records are compliant without any additional visits.

         In contrast, if Inmate PM86 is seen by a mental health clinician on April 15 (or any other day after April 10), his April, May, and June records are not compliant. And his second visit must occur by July 10 (i.e., 90 days from when he should have been seen the first time). If Inmate PM86 is instead seen on March 15 (or any date ahead of the April 10 deadline), then his March, April, and May records are compliant without any additional visits. And his second visit must occur by June 15 (i.e., a minimum of 90 days after he was first seen).

         Although this timing analysis is based on the language of Performance Measure 86, the Court expects that this same structure for monitoring compliance will be applied to other performance measures with similar issues. However, if these additional hypotheticals do not address all of the scenarios confronting the parties, they may submit additional scenarios for the Court's consideration.

         2. Potentially Outstanding Items.

         The Court asks both parties to provide an update on the following matters:

• Performance Measure 85 and reclassification of inmates from MH-3D to MH-3E;
• Maximum custody notebook document production issues;
• Production of documents demonstrating Defendants' response to ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.