donald specter – 083925 rita k. lomio – 254501€¦ · 20/07/2020 · true and correct copy of...

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

27

28

[3569342.2]

Case No. C94 2307 CWDECLARATION OF RITA LOMIO IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO PROTECT

ARMSTRONG CLASS MEMBERS DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC

DONALD SPECTER – 083925 RITA K. LOMIO – 254501 MARGOT MENDELSON – 268583 PRISON LAW OFFICE 1917 Fifth Street Berkeley, California 94710-1916 Telephone: (510) 280-2621 Facsimile: (510) 280-2704

MICHAEL W. BIEN – 096891 GAY C. GRUNFELD – 121944 PENNY GODBOLD – 226925 MICHAEL FREEDMAN – 262850 ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP 101 Mission Street, Sixth Floor San Francisco, California 94105-1738 Telephone: (415) 433-6830 Facsimile: (415) 433-7104

LINDA D. KILB – 136101 DISABILITY RIGHTS EDUCATION & DEFENSE FUND, INC. 3075 Adeline Street, Suite 201 Berkeley, California 94703 Telephone: (510) 644-2555 Facsimile: (510) 841-8645

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN ARMSTRONG, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. GAVIN NEWSOM, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C94 2307 CW [REDACTED] DECLARATION OF RITA LOMIO IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO PROTECT ARMSTRONG CLASS MEMBERS DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC Judge: Hon. Claudia Wilken Crtrm.: TBD

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2996-1 Filed 07/14/20 of 133

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

27

28

[3569342.2]

1 Case No. C94 2307 CWDECLARATION OF RITA LOMIO IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO PROTECT


I, Rita Lomio, declare:

1. I am an attorney duly admitted to practice law in California and a member of

the bar of this Court. I am a staff attorney at the Prison Law Office, counsel of record for

Plaintiffs. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein, and if called as a

witness, I could competently so testify. I make this declaration in support of Plaintiffs’

Motion to Protect Armstrong Class Members During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

2. On March 13-14, 2019, I visited the California Institution for Men (“CIM”)

as part of an Armstrong monitoring tour. On March 13, 2019, I visited Joshua Hall on

Facility A with Shira Tevah, who then was a staff attorney in my office. While in Joshua

Hall, Ms. Tevah and I directed institution staff to take photographs of certain areas in the

dorm. Attached hereto as Exhibit A are true and correct copies of five photographs taken

by institution staff, as directed by me and Ms. Tevah, in Joshua Hall.

3. On October 28-30, 2019, I again visited CIM as part of an Armstrong

monitoring tour. On October 30, 2019, I again visited Joshua Hall with Ms. Tevah. While

in Joshua Hall, Ms. Tevah and I directed institution staff to take photographs of certain

areas in and outside the dorm. Attached hereto as Exhibit B are true and correct copies of

fourteen photographs taken by institution staff, as directed by me and Ms. Tevah, in and

outside Joshua Hall.

4. On May 4, 2020, Megan Lynch, then an investigator in my office, sent an

email to Tamiya Davis, counsel for Defendants, reporting that an Armstrong class member

at CIM, who was designated DPW and who had a confirmed case of COVID-19, “reports

that he requires assistance with ambulation as a result of his disability and that because he

is in medical isolation housing he is unable to get assistance from ADA workers.”

Ms. Lynch asked that Defendants “please ensure that [he] is able to ambulate in and

around his bed, to and from the showers, bathrooms, phones, medical lines, and yard.” A

true and correct copy of Ms. Lynch’s email is attached hereto as Exhibit C.

5. On May 7, 2020, Ms. Lynch sent an email to Ms. Davis, reporting that

another Armstrong class member at CIM, who was designated DPM, had been housed in


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

27

28

[3569342.2]



two inaccessible locations, reportedly without access to an ADA shower with a bench or

grab bars, and without access to a toilet with grab bars. Ms. Lynch asked Defendants to

explain why the class member was being held in an inaccessible location and how he was

being accommodated. A true and correct copy of Ms. Lynch’s email is attached hereto as

Exhibit D.

6. On May 22, 2020, the parties in Plata v. Newsom, No. 01-cv-01351-JST

(N.D. Cal.), conducted a virtual site visit of several housing units on Facilities A and D at

CIM. I observed the virtual site visit as Plaintiffs’ counsel in Armstrong. While in a dorm

on Facility A, Plaintiffs’ counsel in Plata directed institution staff to take a photograph of

the sleeping area. That photograph, which I have reprinted below, was included in the

subsequent Plata Joint Case Management Conference Statement. See Doc. 3332 at 7 (May

27, 2020). We did not visit Joshua Hall during the virtual site visit. In the Statement,

Plata Plaintiffs wrote: “We were not able to see CIM-A’s other five dorms, because they

housed people on medical quarantine or isolation, and thus were declared off limits by

CDCR; we believe those five dorms are arranged the same as the other three at CIM-A

[which Plaintiffs did visit].” Id.


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

27

28

[3569342.2]



7. On June 5, 2020, Ms. Lynch and I sent a letter to Ms. Davis, reporting

concerns regarding how Armstrong class members have been accommodated at CIM

during the pandemic, including related to inaccessible housing, deteriorating physical

plant, and the ADA worker program. We requested (at page 14) “written plans for all

designated institutions regarding how they will accommodate impacting-placement class

members in the event of an outbreak, including what areas will be designated for isolation

and quarantine purposes, and what, if any, modifications to those areas, including

installation of grab bars, shower benches, and shower hoses, have been or will be made.”

A true and correct copy of our letter is attached hereto as Exhibit E.

8. On June 11, 2020, Tania Amarillas, an investigator in my office, sent an

email to Ms. Davis, reporting that another class member at CIM, who was designated

DPM, was housed in an inaccessible location and had reported that he had been unable to

shower since April 30, 2020, because there were no grab bars or a shower chair or bench.

A true and correct copy of Ms. Amarillas’s email is attached hereto as Exhibit F.

9. On June 11, 2020, Ms. Lynch and I spoke with three staff members at CIM:

Brandon Castorena, Associate Warden and ADA Coordinator; Brandon Strobelt, CAMU

CCII; and Larry Cain, Plant Manager. Alexander Powell, counsel for Defendants, also

participated. Ms. Lynch and I asked about, among other things, ADA staff’s role in

decisions to place Armstrong class members in inaccessible and/or newly-designated living

areas at CIM during the pandemic.

10. On June 18, 2020, Ms. Lynch and I sent another letter to Ms. Davis,

reporting our continued concerns about people with disabilities at CIM, including related

to inaccessible housing, the ADA worker program, and lack of orientation of blind class

members to new building layouts. We noted our concern (on page 2) that “[t]he ADA

Coordinator at CIM reported that ADA staff had (and have) no involvement in housing

decisions for Armstrong class members during the pandemic.” We explained (at page 7)

that unless the issues outlined in our letter were addressed, we were prepared to seek court

intervention. A true and correct copy of our letter is attached hereto as Exhibit G.


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

27

28

[3569342.2]



11. On June 22, 2020, Vincent S. Cullen, Director, Corrections Services,

California Correctional Health Care Services, sent an email stating that he planned to visit

CIM on June 24, 2020, to discuss the content of Plaintiffs’ letters and his own findings.

Mr. Cullen asked whether there was anything else he should review or discuss. The next

day, I responded by email with a summary of additional areas of concern based on class

member interviews my office had conducted that week, including related to the ADA

worker program and role of ADA staff. A true and correct copy of Mr. Cullen’s email on

June 22, 2020, and my response on June 23, is attached hereto as Exhibit H.

12. On June 26, 2020, during a regularly scheduled meeting between the parties,

Mr. Cullen and Adam Fouch, Assistant Deputy Director, Program Operations, Division of

Adult Institutions, gave an oral report to Plaintiffs and the Court Expert regarding their

findings from their visit to CIM on June 24. They stated that Armstrong class members

had been housed in inaccessible placements longer than Defendants believed was

medically necessary. I asked whether Defendants had any plans to fast-track modifications

to the institution to install accessible features such as grab bars and ramps, and encouraged

Defendants to do so. I also raised concerns with the availability of ADA workers at CIM,

the adequacy of their training, and the adequacy of the personal protective equipment

provided to them. During the meeting, Mr. Cullen also informed Plaintiffs that additional

people had tested positive in Joshua Hall; that to save their lives, Defendants might have to

move Armstrong class members to inaccessible placements; and that he welcomed any

recommendations from Plaintiffs. I asked whether Defendants had considered overrides to

allow class members on Facility A, where Joshua Hall is located, to move to any

accessible placements available on Facility D. The parties agreed to discuss the situation

in Joshua Hall separately, and I said I would reach out to Ms. Davis to schedule a time to

do so.

13. Shortly after the meeting, I sent an email to Ms. Davis, offering to talk about

the situation in Joshua Hall later that day or over the weekend. I also asked to schedule a

follow-up call to discuss CIM-specific issues that had not been fully addressed during the


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

27

28

[3569342.2]



parties’ meeting on June 26. Ms. Davis responded on Sunday, June 28, 2020, offering to

talk Monday afternoon about Joshua Hall and on Wednesday about the remaining CIM-

specific issues. I responded by email on June 29, 2020, proposing a time and asking

whether Mr. Cullen should be invited to the Wednesday call as “[w]e do have one question

that implicates the healthcare side of things—how the institution was identifying when

people could be released from inaccessible housing in isolation or quarantine (or while

pending test results, to the extent the institution treated that as a different category), how

that resulted in delays in movement out of inaccessible placements, and how that has been

addressed now.” Ms. Davis subsequently was not able to talk on Monday afternoon

regarding the situation in Joshua Hall, but scheduled a meeting for Tuesday, June 30 with

CIM staff. A true and correct copy of emails between me and Ms. Davis on June 26, 28,

and 29, 2020, is attached hereto as Exhibit I.

14. On June 30, 2020, Ms. Lynch and I spoke with additional staff at CIM:

Louie Escobell, Health Care Chief Executive Officer; Dr. Muhammad Farooq, Chief

Medical Executive; and Kellie McCullough, Chief Nurse Executive. Ms. Davis and

Mr. Fouch also participated on the call. I began the meeting by asking questions about the

situation in Joshua Hall, including where Armstrong class members were housed. Staff

informed me that “positive” and “negative” people were housed on separate sides of

Joshua Hall, separated by the bathroom and shower area. When I tried to discuss the issue

further, Ms. Davis informed me that she had told institution staff only that I wanted to

discuss the issues set forth in my email dated June 29, 2020 (that is, procedures related to

release of class members from inaccessible housing), and therefore they were not prepared

to discuss other issues (such as Joshua Hall).

15. Also on June 30, 2020, Ms. Amarillas sent an email to Ms. Davis, reporting

that a 74-year-old, blind Armstrong class member at the California Substance Abuse

Treatment Facility and State Prison, Corcoran, reported that “during the pandemic, . . . he

largely is confined to the housing unit because he cannot always get a sighted guide to help

him” walk for exercise during his yard time, and that housing officers told him that ADA


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

27

28

[3569342.2]



workers must stay in the housing unit unless they are guiding people to specific programs.

Ms. Amarillas asked how the ADA worker program is operating on the class member’s

facility during the pandemic and how he will be provided sighted guide assistance. A true

and correct copy of Ms. Amarillas’s email is attached hereto as Exhibit J.

16. On July 1, 2020, Ms. Lynch and I spoke again with ADA staff at CIM:

Mr. Castorena and Mr. Strobelt. We were joined by Ms. Davis; Mr. Fouch; Landon Bravo,

Chief, Class Action Management Unit; Ed Swanson, Court Expert; and Margot

Mendelson, a staff attorney at the Prison Law Office. Mr. Fouch stated that his

understanding was that “positive” and “negative” people were housed on separate sides of

Joshua Hall, separated by the bathroom and shower area. Ms. Mendelson and I expressed

our concern that Armstrong class members remained housed in Joshua Hall alongside

people with confirmed, active cases of COVID-19, apparently because there were no other

accessible places at the institution to house them. I asked whether class members in

Joshua Hall could receive overrides that would allow them to be placed in different

accessible areas at the institution, whether they could be transferred out of the institution,

and whether additional construction was planned to create new accessible areas.

Mr. Castorena reported that there is little he can do in light of the insufficient number of

accessible beds other than put people up for “expedited” transfer, which he acknowledged

is of no practical benefit as transfers had been indefinitely suspended. He said that, other

than Joshua Hall, there is nowhere to house class members with impacting-placement

disabilities on Facility A.

17. On July 3, 2020, Ms. Davis sent an email to me, asking whether I would like

“a written response to the CIM advocacies.” I responded that I would. A true and correct

copy of the emails between Ms. Davis and me is attached hereto as Exhibit K. To date, I

have not received a written response to the emails and letters outlined in Paragraphs 4, 5,

7, 8, 10, and 11 of this declaration.

18. On July 6, 2020, Ms. Mendelson and I sent a letter to Ms. Davis, informing

her that we intended to seek judicial relief regarding Defendants’ failure to accommodate


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

27

28

[3569342.2]



Armstrong class members during the COVID-19 pandemic. We outlined our concerns

with what happened to Armstrong class members at CIM during the outbreak there, and

also summarized our concerns with the inadequacy of Defendants’ bed planning. We

wrote (on page 6) that on July 1, 2020, “[t]he ADA Coordinator stated that fourteen class

members who should be housed in Joshua Hall, the only accessible building on Facility A,

are not there because there are no beds available.” A true and correct copy of our letter,

without attachments, is attached hereto as Exhibit L. (The attachments to the letter dated

July 6, 2020, are the documents that separately are attached to this declaration as

Exhibits E and G.)

19. On July 5, 2020, I sent an email to Ms. Davis regarding the housing of

Armstrong class members in Joshua Hall at CIM. I wrote that in calls with institution staff

that week, “[s]taff reported that people in Joshua Hall, the only accessible housing unit on

Facility A, were tested for COVID-19 on June 23, and at least 20 people tested positive.

Staff reported that they could not move medically high-risk Armstrong class members out

of Joshua Hall because no other accessible placements are available. Staff said that, as a

result, Armstrong class members who recently tested negative for COVID-19 and who

have not previously had the disease are being housed on a different side of Joshua Hall

than people who tested positive. Staff acknowledged that everyone in Joshua Hall,

however, shares the same bathroom and shower facilities.” I wrote that, based on my

office’s review of relevant documents, “[i]t appears that some class members who tested

negative (and who have not before tested positive) are in fact housed on the same side of

Joshua Hall as people with confirmed, active cases.” I asked Defendants whether this was

true and asked for a layout of Joshua Hall, “with an indication of which beds no longer are

available due to cohorting,” “whether the institution has modified or plans to modify other

housing areas so that Armstrong class members can be safely housed if the outbreak

continues in Joshua Hall”; and photographs of the institution that Plaintiffs had requested

on June 19, 2020.


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

27

28

[3569342.2]



20. On July 7, 2020, Ms. Davis responded to my email, stating that “[i]n A6

[Joshua Hall] there are Armstrong class members on both sides of the housing unit. There

are 26 positives on one side and 87 negatives or recovered on the other side. Confirmed

positive cases are not housed on the same side as individuals that are negative.” Ms. Davis

attached an Excel spreadsheet with two sheets. The first contained a layout of the beds,

restroom, and office in Joshua Hall. The second contained a list of “Not in Service” cells.

Ms. Davis also attached a memorandum from Mr. Castorena to Mr. Bravo, entitled, “Plan

for accessible showers for inmate while on expedited transfer status,” and dated July 3,

2020.

21. A true and correct copy of my email to Ms. Davis on July 5, 2020, and her

response on July 7, with attachments, is attached hereto as Exhibit M.

22. I responded by email that same day, July 7, 2020. In my email, I stated that

Ms. Davis’s representation did not appear to be correct: “it appears that Armstrong class

members who tested negative are housed on the same side of the building as people who

tested positive.” I provided a list of people housed in Joshua Hall, including bed numbers

and COVID-19 status, to support that conclusion.

23. Ms. Davis responded that afternoon: “To get clarification on your questions,

I reached out to CIM for follow-up. As you know ADAC Castorena is on out [sic] on

vacation, so CIM management responded in his absence. In Joshua Hall, the positive

inmates are housed in beds 141-160. Between those beds and beds 161-180 is a pony wall

and CIM has installed plexiglas type barriers above the pony walls.”

24. A true and correct copy of my email to Ms. Davis on July 7, 2020, and her

response, is attached hereto as Exhibit N.

25. Later that day, my colleague Steven Fama, who is counsel of record for

Plaintiffs in Plata v. Newsom, sent an email to the Receiver, stating: “We write to ask that

you give immediate direction to the California Institution for Men to provide separate

appropriate housing for people, including Armstrong class members, who are COVID-

negative and currently housed in Joshua Hall (A6). Joshua Hall is a dorm that currently is


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

27

28

[3569342.2]



housing patients with confirmed, active cases of COVID-19, including on the same side of

the dorm as people who are COVID-negative, and who in any event share the same

bathroom and shower facilities. A number of the COVID-negative patients are in their

60s, 70s, or 80s. We believe this housing presents a substantial risk of harm to all negative

patients. As you may recall, Judge Tigar last week, referencing our report on this situation

in the Case Management Conference Statement, said, ‘How can that be happening?’ Thank

you for your anticipated prompt consideration and action regarding this matter.”

26. The next day, Leticia Martinez, Staff Services Manager I, Health Care

Compliance Support Section, Risk Management Branch, Policy and Risk Management

Services, responded: “The information regarding COVID-negative patients housed at CIM,

Facility A, Joshua Hall, has been provided to the Regional Health Care Executive to

address as appropriate.”

27. A true and correct copy of Mr. Fama’s email on July 7, 2020, and

Ms. Martinez’s response, is attached hereto as Exhibit O.

28. On July 8, 2020, Ms. Lynch, Ms. Mendelson, and I spoke with Mr. Cullen

and Mr. Fouch to discuss the situation in Joshua Hall. Mr. Swanson; Mr. Bravo;

Mr. Powell; and Chance Andes, Captain, Class Action Management Unit, also

participated. Mr. Cullen proposed that, in the event of a future confirmed case in Joshua

Hall, Defendants would call Plaintiffs’ counsel to discuss what to do. I responded that we

always would be happy to talk, but the institution needed to prepare now (through, for

example, creation of additional accessible housing areas), so when people tested positive in

the future, there would be accessible places ready to house Armstrong class members to

keep them and others safe. I asked whether class members residing in Joshua Hall had

been retested and whether any had tested positive. Defendants were not able to answer

that question during the call. I asked several other questions that Defendants were not able

to answer during the call.

29. Following the call on July 8, 2020, I sent an email to Ms. Davis and

Mr. Fouch, memorializing the information Defendants had agreed to provide during the


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

27

28

[3569342.2]



call: (1) the cleaning schedule and process for sanitizing items in shared spaces, including

toilets, showers, sinks, and phones; (2) the most recent test result and date of most recent

test for each person currently housed in Joshua Hall; (3) the date(s) on which people in

Joshua Hall will next be tested; (4) when Plexiglas was installed in Joshua Hall, where it

was installed, and coverage area (including whether it goes up to and touches the ceiling);

(5) size, location, and direction of all fans in the building, and whether and how air is

extracted and replaced in the building; (6) status and anticipated completion date of all

construction related to COVID-19 bed planning at the institution; (7) where people who

currently reside in Joshua Hall, including impacting-placement class members, will be

housed if they test positive for the novel coronavirus, what accessible features are available

there, and how many people, including how many impacting-placement class members,

can be accommodated there; (8) why the Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”), Chief Medical

Executive (“CME”), Chief Nurse Executive (“CNE”), ADA Coordinator (“ADAC”),

CAMU CII, and Warden all were unaware, for at least twelve days, that people with

confirmed, active cases were housed on the same side of Joshua Hall as people who had

not before tested positive; and (9) what has been done to address this situation.

30. By separate email from Mr. Cullen that afternoon, I learned that additional

people in Joshua Hall had tested positive for COVID-19. I wrote again to Mr. Fouch at

4:31 p.m. that afternoon: “[I]n light of the new positive test results, #7 is even more

urgent. Our initial review indicates that five of the six new positive cases are Armstrong

class members, and four have impacting-placement disabilities. Where will they be

housed?” Mr. Fouch responded: “I will be in touch with the Warden who will work with

CIM Health care staff to determine housing.”

31. A true and correct copy of my emails with Mr. Fouch on July 8, 2020, are

attached hereto as Exhibit P.

32. Also by email on July 8, 2020, Ms. Davis provided partial responses to four

of my questions regarding Joshua Hall. Among other things, she wrote: “The separate

populations have access to the restroom at the same time. The scheduling of use of the


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

27

28

[3569342.2]



restroom to separate times would negative [sic] impact the population, especially the

elderly and incontinent, who need access more frequently. The restrooms are cleaned by

trained porters six times a day as documented on the cleaning log.” She did not answer

“[w]here people who currently reside in Joshua Hall, including impacting-placement class

members, will be housed if they test positive for the novel coronavirus, what accessible

features are available there, and how many people, including how many impacting-

placement class members, can be accommodated there.”

33. I responded the next morning, asking “whether there have been any housing

changes since test results were returned yesterday, and, if so, where people now are

housed[.]”

34. A true and correct copy of Ms. Davis’s email on July 8, 2020, and my

response on July 9, 2020, is attached hereto as Exhibit Q.

35. I did not receive a response until 11:00 a.m. on Friday, July 10, 2020, when

Ms. Davis sent an email with additional information and four photographs of Joshua Hall.

Among other things, she wrote: “The newly identified positive Armstrong inmates were

rehoused in A5, which has been equipped with grab bars on showers and toilets, as well as

shower hoses. Ramps are also being placed in identified inaccessible areas with an

estimated installation completion date of July 11.” She still provided no response to

“[w]hy the CEO, CME, CNE, ADAC, CAMU CII, and Warden all were unaware, for at

least twelve days, that people with confirmed, active cases were housed on the same side

of Joshua Hall as people who had not before tested positive.” A true and correct copy of

Ms. Davis’s email on July 10, 2020, including photograph attachments, is attached hereto

as Exhibit R.

36. Also on July 10, 2020, at the request of the Court Expert, the parties held

another telephonic meeting to discuss the situation in Joshua Hall. I asked where

Armstrong class members would be housed if additional people in Joshua Hall tested

positive, how many class members could be accommodated there, where in particular class

members designated DPW would be housed, and whether Defendants had revisited the


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

27

28

[3569342.2]



issue of overrides in light of the health risk to class members who are kept in dorms with

confirmed, active cases. Defendants stated that they still were reviewing options,

including regarding where people designated DPW could be housed.

37. After the parties’ call on July 10, 2020, I sent an email to Mr. Fouch at his

request, summarizing concerns raised by class members housed in Joshua Hall during legal

calls with Plaintiffs’ counsel on July 9, 2020. A true and correct copy of my email is

attached as Exhibit S.

38. Also on July 10, 2020, Ms. Amarillas sent an email to Mr. Fouch, stating that

she had spoken earlier that day with the four impacting-placement class members who had

been transferred from Joshua Hall to Mariposa Hall. She summarized disability-related

concerns that they were having in Mariposa Hall. A true and correct copy of

Ms. Amarillas’s email is attached as Exhibit T.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America

that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration is executed at Berkeley,

California, this 14th day of July, 2020.

/s/ Rita Lomio Rita Lomio


Exhibit A


Facility A

Armstrong v. Brown (94-cv-2307-CW) March 2019 CIM Tour

CDCR 106


Facility A


CDCR 107


Facility A


CDCR 108


Facility A


CDCR 109


Facility A


CDCR 110


Exhibit B


A-Joshua Mini Yard

Armstrong v. Newsom (94-cv-2307-CW) October 2019 CIM Tour

CDCR 23


A-Joshua Lockers and Beds


CDCR 25


A-Joshua Lockers and Beds


CDCR 26


Door 8


CDCR 27


Door 6


CDCR 28


A-Joshua Sinks


CDCR 29


A-Joshua Bathroom


CDCR 30


A-Joshua Bathroom


CDCR 31


A-Joshua Bathroom


CDCR 32


A-Joshua Door 5


CDCR 33


A-Joshua Door 3


CDCR 34


A-Joshua Door 2


CDCR 35


A-Joshua Door 1


CDCR 36


Sign in A-Joshua


CDCR 37


Exhibit C


1

From: Megan Lynch <[email protected]> on behalf of Megan LynchSent: Monday, May 4, 2020 4:22 PMTo: Davis, Tamiya@CDCRCc: Rita Lomio; Michael Brodheim; Armstrong Team; Armstrong Team - RBG

only; Ed Swanson; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Stringer, Robin@CDCR; Lopez, Amber@CDCR; CDCR OLA Armstrong CAT Mailbox

Subject: ARM | COVID-19 Issue and Request for Legal Call

Tamiya, I write regarding , a DPW Armstrong class member who has a confirmed case of COVID-19 at CIM. Mr. is housed in Cedar Hall on Facility D. Mr. reports that he requires assistance with ambulation as a result of his disability and that because he is in medical isolation housing he is unable to get assistance from ADA workers. Similarly, he reports that staff members are trying to limit their contact with people. We request a legal call with Mr. . It is our understanding that phones and private locations inside Cedar Hall have been made available for confidential legal calls with class members through Plata. In the meantime, we ask that you please ensure that Mr. is able to ambulate in and around his bed, to and from the showers, bathrooms, phones, medical lines, and yard. Thank you, Megan -- Megan Lynch Investigator Prison Law Office Berkeley, CA (510) 280-2621 ______________________________________________ This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or attorney work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.


Exhibit D


1

From: Megan Lynch <[email protected]> on behalf of Megan LynchSent: Thursday, May 7, 2020 5:49 PMTo: Davis, Tamiya@CDCRCc: Ed Swanson; Armstrong Team; [email protected];

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Stringer, Robin@CDCR; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Annakarina De La Torre-Fennell

Subject: ARM | COVID-19 Advocacy, , DPM, CIM

Dear Tamiya, I write regarding , a DPM Armstrong class member who uses a wheelchair at CIM. Mr. was housed on Facility D before being moved to Facility C while pending test results for the novel coronavirus. Mr. has since moved back to Facility D but was moved into a cell in West Dorm. Both Facility C and West Dorm are not designated for people with significant mobility disabilities. Mr. reports that in West Dorm, he does not have access to an ADA shower with a bench or grab bars, he does not have access to a toilet with grab bars, and he is unable to get his wheelchair through the width of the cell door. He reports that he had the same problems when housed on Facility C. I toured West Dorm in October 2019 and observed that one must climb several steps or a steep ramp to enter the building. Similarly, the doorways within West Dorm are very narrow and may not be wide enough for a wheelchair to pass through. The showers in West Dorm are not accessible, with barriers of various heights that one must step over to access the shower. Consistent with what Mr. reports, to the best of my recollection, there is no ADA shower with a bench or grab bars in West Dorm. And, at the time of the tour in October, the pathway to West Dorm was severely cracked and uneven, with tree roots breaking through the pavement. Most of these features are included in pictures that were produced to us following the October 2019 monitoring tour.


2

We are concerned that Mr. has repeatedly been placed in inaccessible locations during and after quarantine. Please report on why Mr. is housed in West Dorm and how he is being accommodated to ensure that he is able to safely access all programs, services, and activities, including entering and exiting the building, accessing a toilet and shower, and navigating the pathway to and from the building. Thank you, Megan -- Megan Lynch Investigator Prison Law Office Berkeley, CA (510) 280-2621 ______________________________________________ This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or attorney work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.


Exhibit E


[3557114.1] Board of Directors

Penelope Cooper, President Margaret Johns, Vice President Marshall Krause, Treasurer Harlan Grossman • Christiane Hipps Cesar Lagleva Jean Lu • Laura Magnani Michael Marcum

Ruth Morgan Seth Morris Vishal Shah Michele WalkinHawk

PRISON LAW OFFICE General Delivery, San Quentin, CA 94964

Telephone (510) 280-2621 Fax (510) 280-2704 www.prisonlaw.com

VIA EMAIL ONLY

June 5, 2020 Ms. Tamiya Davis CDCR Office of Legal Affairs RE:

Armstrong v. Newsom: Defendants’ Response to the COVID-19 Outbreak at the California Institution for Men

Dear Ms. Davis:

We are deeply concerned about how Armstrong class members have been accommodated at the California Institution for Men (CIM) during the COVID-19 pandemic. That institution houses over 600 Armstrong class members, including a significant number of class members with impacting-placement mobility disabilities (of whom at least 86 use wheelchairs), blind class members, and Deaf class members who communicate through sign language.

The institution has been particularly affected by COVID-19. The first confirmed case in a

person housed at the institution was reported on March 27, 2020. A month later, the number of confirmed cases had grown to 112, with one death. As of this morning, the number of confirmed cases has grown to 702, with twelve deaths (see graphic below).

The Armstrong population also has been particularly affected; over 150 class members at the institution have been infected with the virus, and seven have died.

Director: Donald Specter Managing Attorney: Sara Norman Staff Attorneys: Rana Anabtawi Patrick Booth Steven Fama Alison Hardy Sophie Hart Corene Kendrick Rita Lomio Margot Mendelson


Ms. Tamiya Davis Re: Defendants’ Response to COVID-19 Outbreak at CIM

June 5, 2020 Page 2

[3557114.1]

Plaintiffs’ counsel have only an incomplete, limited, and delayed view of conditions at the institution. Requests for basic information regarding the housing and accommodation of class members at the institution during the pandemic largely have gone unanswered, as have requests for staff and class member interviews. Defendants have taken the position that Plaintiffs’ counsel are not allowed to conduct legal calls with class members in buildings designated for quarantine or isolation and also are not allowed to conduct remote visits to those units. On May 29, 2020, Defendants stated that, as a result, Plaintiffs’ counsel could access class members in only four housing units at the prison (Angeles, Del Norte, Magnolia, and Willow), which collectively house only 79 (or 13% of) class members, and stated that, as the disease spreads, those housing units might be closed off to Plaintiffs’ counsel as well. Of those four housing units, at least as of June 3, it appears that only Angeles, with 30 class members, does not have confirmed and active cases.

In the meantime, there have been significant program and housing changes at the

institution. People, including Armstrong class members, have been moved to gyms, tents on the yard, and a newly opened unit that Defendants previously had closed on the grounds that it could no longer safely house people (Oak Hall). Class members with impacting-placement disabilities have been moved to housing units known to be inaccessible. Notwithstanding repeated requests, Defendants have been unable to provide information about the process for moving class members or any accessible features that have been or will be installed in those areas.

Defendants face an enormous and, in many ways, unprecedented challenge and are

evaluating how to protect people at the institution who have not yet been infected. We continue to have concerns, however, regarding our ability to access our clients, monitor changing conditions in the prison, and ensure that Armstrong class members are safe, informed, and able to access the same programs, services, and activities as their peers. On May 22, 2020, we observed a Plata site visit, through Skype, to several housing units at the institution. Although Defendants had represented that social cohorting had been implemented there, we quickly saw that that was not in fact true; cohorts were clearly not separated by six feet in all directions, as seen in the below photograph taken during the visit. Defendants have represented that they now are taking action to address this serious problem.



June 5, 2020 Page 3

[3557114.1]

Although we do not have a complete understanding of current conditions in the institution, we below describe some areas of concern based on class member correspondence, including the handful of legal calls we have been able to conduct. We ask that Defendants investigate and address these concerns at the institution level, to the extent the problems remain. We also ask that Defendants take timely and concrete steps to prepare other institutions that may face similar problems in the event of an outbreak so that these issues do not repeat themselves. I. Inaccessible Housing In the last few months, Armstrong class members repeatedly have been housed in inaccessible locations at the institution. As of this Monday, June 1, twelve class members were housed in locations inconsistent with their disability codes. And at least 24 class members, including several people who use walkers, were housed in newly designated housing areas, including tents, gyms, and Oak Hall. Defendants have not provided information about any accessible features in these areas. Class members also reported frequent movements between housing units and yards. For example, one class member reported that he was moved from Alder (Facility D) to Colusa (Facility C) to Cedar (Facility D) to Oak (Facility D) to Juniper (Facility D) within a two- or three-week period. Another class member reported that he was moved from Elm to Cedar to the OHU to Cedar to Elm (Facility D). He reported that he was asked to then move to Oak but refused because he did not think it would be accessible to him as a full-time wheelchair user. In another example, a class member was moved from Elm to Facility C to Cedar to Oak and back to Elm all within a few weeks. We received a report that several people who use wheelchairs were moved from Cedar to Oak but, a few days later, were moved back to Cedar. It is not clear whether that was because they could not be properly accommodated in Oak. (One class member temporarily housed in Oak reported that he was transferred out a few days later because of mold.) Given reports that multiple wheelchair users were transferred to Oak and then transferred back, we have serious concerns that there is no process in place to ensure that class members will be adequately accommodated before they are transferred to new areas. For example, it is not clear whether the institution is using the 128-B Accommodation Chrono process to evaluate and document accommodation needs prior to moving someone to an inaccessible location or what efforts, if any, Defendants have made to install accessible features in inaccessible housing areas.1

1 Defendants’ memorandum regarding “Disability Placement Program Inmates During

COVID-19 Pandemic,” dated April 10, 2020, does not appear to apply to this situation. It states only: “For those inmates qualifying for expedited transfers, staff will complete an Accommodations Chrono, identifying specific accommodations an inmate will need while housed at a non-designated institution either on a CDCR Form 128-B or Strategic Offender



June 5, 2020 Page 4

[3557114.1]

Several class members reported that there was no discussion of their disability needs prior to being told to move to newly designated housing areas. Class members, including those moved to gyms and tents, also reported that Form 1824s were not available in their new housing locations and that there was no place to submit those forms even if they had been available. During a call between the parties on May 8, 2020, Defendants stated that ADA staff at CIM had been instructed to walk through the housing units and ensure that accessibility was maintained. It is not clear what assessments of accessibility, if any, staff made, and what, if any, corrective actions were taken in response. Defendants subsequently produced an email from the Assistant Deputy Director, Program Operations, Division of Adult Institutions, dated May 4, 2020, that directed the ADA Coordinator and ADA CCII at CIM to “on a rotating basis, tour the newly activated gyms” and “[e]nsure 1824’s are available in each gym.” It is not clear whether similar direction has been given with respect to tents, Oak Hall, or other inaccessible housing areas, such as Facility C. Many of the issues listed below presumably should have been identified and corrected through this process, but apparently were not. During a call between the parties on May 22, 2020, a CCHCS representative stated that he believed that inappropriate housing of Armstrong class members should not go on the Armstrong accountability logs because there are “medical reasons” for such placement and that the inappropriate housing will not last “for much longer” because “movements and transfers are occurring.” Plaintiffs’ counsel remain concerned. There appear to be very serious and preventable failures to ensure accessible housing and accommodations for class members at CIM, and it remains entirely unclear whether these failures have been identified and referred to the Armstrong accountability process and, if not, how any lessons Defendants have learned from this experience will be applied to other institutions. In any event, during a call between the parties in the Plata case on June 4, 2020, a different CCHCS representative stated that all further movement out of CIM, including the planned transfer of over 600 people that had been scheduled for this weekend, has been suspended due to two recent instances in which people transferred out of CIM to other institutions subsequently tested positive for COVID-19. A. Pending Test Results It appears that the institution placed people, regardless of DPP code, on Facility C pending test results. Facility C is not designated to house class members with impacting-placement DPP codes. People apparently stayed on Facility C for days or weeks. Armstrong class members, including those designated DPW and others who use walkers or wheelchairs, were housed on Facility C and reported significant access problems.

Management System (SOMS) case note (see attachment).” We have received only one such chrono from Defendants related to CIM.



June 5, 2020 Page 5

[3557114.1]

For example, , DPM, who uses a wheelchair, reported that he was moved to Facility C pending test results. He reported that, while there, he did not have access to an ADA shower with a bench or grab bars, that he did not have access to a toilet with grab bars, and that he was unable to get his wheelchair through the width of the cell door. We previously reported this problem to Defendants by email dated May 7, 2020. We have not yet received a response. Similarly, , DPM, who uses a walker, reported that while he was housed on Facility C, he did not have access to a toilet with grab bars, which he requires to safely use the toilet. He also reported that the shower he had access to did not have grab bars or a shower chair. He reported that there was a bench, but it is unclear from his correspondence with us whether it could be used while showering or only while dressing. As we reported on May 6, 2020, six people on Facility C reported that meals are placed on the ground in front of the cell, not through the food slot, which could make it difficult for some people with mobility disabilities to pick it up. Defendants stated on May 8 that they would provide a written response soon, but have not yet done so. Plaintiffs’ counsel are concerned that Facility C, an inaccessible facility, was chosen as the location to house people pending test results without any apparent regard for the high number of DPP class members housed at CIM who inevitably would require placement there and without any apparent effort to install or procure accessible features on an expedited basis.

B. After Negative Test Results It is not clear how the institution chose to house people with impacting-placement DPP

codes after test results came back negative. , DPM, reported that after he tested negative, he was moved to West Dorm (Facility D), which is not designated for people with DPM codes. He reported that he had the same problems as he had while housed on Facility C, as discussed above. Again, it appears that housing decisions are being made without regard to disability needs, and accessible features are not being installed or procured in response to the new designation of inaccessible areas during the pandemic.

C. Medical Isolation

Armstrong class members with confirmed cases of COVID-19 were placed in inaccessible housing locations, including Mariposa Hall (Facility A), which is not designated for class members with impacting-placement mobility or vision disabilities. Class members reported that they struggled to access the toilets, showers, and sinks.



June 5, 2020 Page 6

[3557114.1]

, DPO, for example, uses a wheelchair to ambulate and can take only a few steps at a time without it. He reported that he was moved to Mariposa Hall when he was confirmed to have COVID-19. Mr. reported that he struggled to use the toilets and shower because they lacked accessible features. The toilets, for example, had no grab bars and were lower than a typical accessible toilet. He reported that he found it “very difficult” to stand up from the toilet. Similarly, he reported that the sinks were too high for someone using a wheelchair to access. He further reported that Mariposa Hall did not have an accessible shower, that none of the showers had grab bars or fold-down benches, and that no shower chair was available. He also reported that he found it “very tricky” to navigate stairs that do not have railings and that he had to do so while living in Mariposa Hall, although we do not have information about where those stairs are located and when he had to navigate them.

Mr. has since been moved to the OHU. Other class members, including , DPM, and , DPO, however, remain in Mariposa Hall and

have been there for at least 24 days. Plaintiffs’ counsel acknowledge the difficulty of the situation at CIM. Nonetheless, we

have been asking, since March 2020, for Defendants to plan for the appropriate housing of class members during an outbreak, including through the identification of adequate isolation beds at prisons with high numbers of wheelchair users. This does not appear to have happened at CIM, and Defendants apparently have not identified accessible isolation beds at other prisons. Defendants also apparently have made no effort, at CIM or elsewhere, to install accessible features on an expedited basis in the event that they plan to continue to use inaccessible areas to house class members with impacting-placement DPP codes in response to COVID-19 outbreaks.

II. Deteriorating Physical Plant and Unsafe Living Conditions

CIM has long been plagued with an aging and deteriorating physical plant. During our last

monitoring tour, the Correctional Plant Manager acknowledged that the “infrastructure is falling apart,” and stated that there is no way he and his current staff can respond to all the repair and maintenance needs at CIM. Toilets, showers, and sinks regularly are broken. Before the pandemic, Armstrong class members were allowed to use a shower in a neighboring building when the accessible shower in their unit was out of order. That, however, is no longer an option given restrictions on movement due to COVID-19. In addition, class members report that maintenance delays have only increased because the inmate work crew that previously assisted maintenance staff is no longer able to do so. . . . . . . . . . . . .



June 5, 2020 Page 7

[3557114.1]

On May 6, 2020, we reported the following physical plant concerns, which had been raised by our clients:

1. In Magnolia Hall (Facility D), two of the showers and the ADA shower in the East

bathroom are inoperable, as well as five sinks and two urinals. As a result, the West bathroom in Magnolia Hall is crowded such that social distancing is not possible. It also was reported that the ADA shower hose is broken and that the ADA toilet does not flush in the West bathroom. Two urinals and two additional showers also reportedly are inoperable in the West bathroom of Magnolia Hall.

2. In Elm Hall (Facility D), the hot water works for only a few hours a day and all the non-ADA showers are inoperable, resulting in the entire building sharing only the three ADA showers, making access limited.

3. In Oak Hall (Facility D), some showers and toilets are inoperable.

4. In Borrego Hall (Facility A), toilets and sinks in the bathroom are breaking weekly, one of the showers does not turn off, and some of the sinks leak.

To date, we have not received a response to these issues from Defendants, although they were removed from the parties’ weekly agenda on Defendants’ representation on May 8, 2020, that they would respond soon in writing.

We continue to receive reports of unsafe and inaccessible conditions at the institution. For

example, one class member who was moved into the gym on Facility C reported that the sinks leak constantly, resulting in water on the floor at all times, posing a slip-and-fall hazard.

In addition, , DPW, reported that only one bathroom was in use at

Cedar Hall while he was living there. The other was boarded up and could not be used. He stated that in the one bathroom that he and everyone else had access to, there were five toilets, only one of which was an accessible toilet, and all of the urinals were broken. He estimates that there were several dozen if not more than a hundred people living in Cedar Hall at the time, which caused the toilets, including the accessible toilet, to be in near constant use. Mr. reported that, one time, he urinated on himself because the one accessible toilet was already in use and he was unable to use any of the other toilets due to his disability. He also reported that the accessible shower was broken when he was at Cedar Hall; the hose did not work and no water came out. He reported that he and at least one other person who used a wheelchair were forced to bird bath in their wheelchairs because there was no shower that they could use. We also received reports that electrical cords obstructed the path of travel in Juniper and Magnolia Halls, making it dangerous for people with vision and/or mobility disabilities, including



June 5, 2020 Page 8

[3557114.1]

people who use walkers. During the Plata site visit on May 22, 2020, we observed thick electrical cords across the floor in Magnolia Hall, where class members would walk. We were unable to evaluate this problem at Juniper Hall due to Skype connectivity issues in that building. Although physical plant problems at CIM predate the pandemic, broken showers, toilets, and sinks are of even greater concern during the pandemic, when it is critical that people be able to safely clean themselves regularly. Please report on the specific physical plant problems identified above. Please also provide a plan for how CIM will meet the essential challenge of ensuring physical plant problems are timely addressed during the pandemic.

III. ADA Worker Program

Defendants have not provided information regarding changes to and the operation of the ADA worker program at CIM during the pandemic.2 ADA workers perform a critical role in the California prison system. Among other things, they serve as sighted guides for blind class members; assist class members in wheelchairs to move throughout the housing unit and to and from appointments, including medical encounters; help class members carry trays and cups during mealtimes; clean cells and bed areas; and read and write for class members unable to do so themselves. A. Limited Availability of ADA Workers Armstrong class members and ADA workers alike have reported limited access to ADA workers at the institution during the pandemic. This may be due, at least in part, to movement restrictions. That is, prior to the pandemic, class members with impacting-placement DPP codes were housed primarily in Joshua Hall (Facility A), which is the only building on that yard designated for such class members, and Elm Hall (Facility D). According to the ADA worker rosters, however, as of May 15, 2020, most ADA workers are housed in other locations. And some housing units, including Borrego (Facility A), Cedar Hall (Facility D), and Oak Hall (Facility D), do not house any ADA workers. If most, if not all, of the housing units at the institution house people on quarantine or isolation status, ADA workers may not be able to leave one housing unit to help Armstrong class members in another unit. If that is the case, staff would be expected to assist class members. We have heard, however, that staff are fearful for their own health and safety (and those of their loved ones), and therefore are disinclined to provide help to class members that would involve close contact, as most ADA worker responsibilities do.

2 Plaintiffs’ counsel raised a number of concerns related to the ADA worker program at CIM

on May 6, 2020. On May 8, Defendants represented that they would respond soon in writing. They have not yet done so.



June 5, 2020 Page 9

[3557114.1]

Several ADA workers have reported that while their buildings were on quarantine or isolation status, they were not allowed to work outside their housing units. ADA workers on Facility C reported that they have not been let out of their cells to provide assistance, in one case for 25 days and in another for the duration of the modified program. Several ADA workers who live in buildings with fewer class members reported that they have not had any work to do because they cannot report to the buildings that have class members who need assistance. For example, an ADA worker who lives in Sequoia (Facility A) reported that he used to report to Joshua Hall to perform his duties, but during the modified program he has not been “permitted to work.” And an ADA worker who lives in Juniper Hall (Facility D) reported that he has not been able to go to Elm Hall to provide assistance since the modified program began. Previously, he explained, he reported to Elm Hall daily to help class members. He wrote to us: “I was told there was no work, til further notice!” An ADA worker living in Elm Hall reported that “since COVID-19 the only ADA workers working are the few who live here in Elm.” He further explained that there are five ADA workers who live in Elm Hall and that two of the five are not working during the pandemic (we do not have information as to why). As a result, he said, only three ADA workers are available to provide assistance to the many class members living in Elm Hall. He stated that this is not enough.

, DPW, is a good example of the problem. We spoke with him on May 19, 2020, after he had recovered from COVID-19. He described conditions at the prison before and after he was confirmed to have COVID-19. In particular, he reported that before he received his test results, and when he was housed in Cedar Hall, he was unable to get the assistance he needed to access pill call and meals. He reported that there were no ADA workers housed in Cedar Hall at the time and, due to the quarantine and isolation measures throughout the facility, no ADA worker was allowed to help class members housed there. He reported that he was assigned to the North medical clinic, which is on the opposite side of the yard from the housing unit. In normal circumstances, he reported, he would have an ADA worker push his wheelchair to the pill line and then to the dining hall. (Mr. reported that he must get his medications before going to eat because he receives insulin.) He reported that without ADA worker assistance, he had to try to get himself to the medical clinic and dining hall, which he could do only very slowly and with great effort, and that by the time he received his medications, the dining hall often was closed.

In addition, , DPW, reported that meals are being served in the building for people housed in Joshua Hall. He reported that although there are a few ADA workers in the building, there are not enough to provide assistance during meals or for other activities. In his words: “I do need help getting food, or someone to carry my trays. I don’t have any help at all.”



June 5, 2020 Page 10

[3557114.1]

Plaintiffs’ counsel are concerned that ADA workers are not available to all class members who need assistance. Please provide information regarding the availability of ADA workers to all units housing class members and what efforts, if any, the institution has made to ensure that class members are receiving the help they need.

B. Personal Protective Equipment, Training, and Assignments Armstrong class members and ADA workers risk exposure to the virus when they come into close contact with one another and, due to the type of assistance provided, they regularly come within inches or feet of one another, if not direct contact with one another (or their wheelchair, walker, food tray, or other personal items). When asked to describe how close he comes to the people he is assisting, one ADA worker responded: “Close because I’m pushing them in a wheelchair. Or, I’m at their bunk changing their sheets.” Another ADA worker explained: “I often touch them, help them stand/sit, push them in a wheelchair sometimes, always within 1-3 [feet].”3

We have asked Defendants to enact measures to ensure class members’ and ADA workers’ safety during such encounters, including by assigning ADA workers to help certain people, limiting exposure between cohorts of people, and providing adequate personal protective equipment. Defendants’ memorandum dated April 10, 2020, states that ADA workers will be provided “a mask, face covering, gloves, etc. if available.” We have received inconsistent reports from ADA workers at CIM regarding access to personal protective equipment and training. ADA workers uniformly reported that they now have been provided cloth face coverings (as has the entire incarcerated population) and that they wear them during interactions. However, we received inconsistent reports regarding the availability of gloves. An ADA worker on Facility C reported that he is provided gloves only when he is assigned to the dining hall. One class member on Facility A reported that it “is not safe because [ADA workers] are in close contact with us with no gloves nor any kind of skills.” An ADA worker on Facility A reported that he and other ADA workers have not been issued gloves. Two other ADA workers on Facility A, however, reported that they have been issued gloves and one also reported that he had been instructed to use hand sanitizer after assisting someone.

3 The risk of serious illness and death from these interactions is, unfortunately, not

hypothetical. Seven of the twelve people who have died at CIM were Armstrong class members. died on May 6, 2020. Before he died, Mr. told his family that he believed he contracted the disease from a hard-of-hearing friend whose wheelchair Mr. would push and to whom Mr. would repeat conversations so the friend would not feel so isolated due to his hearing disability.




[3557114.1]

Most ADA workers reported that they have not received any special training about how to protect themselves and others during the performance of their duties during the pandemic. As one ADA worker explained in a letter we received on June 1, 2020:

I was simply told to wear gloves and mask if I go to work. This is not adequate training because I was not told where to get gloves and what kind of mask? How often should I change my PPE (gloves/mask)? I also wonder why our nurses come daily into our unit wearing PPE (gowns, mask, face shield, gloves, etc.) to take our temperatures with a laser gun, never touching us, but I am expected to physically help ADA inmates without the same level of protection? . . . [I would like] an ADA-Worker training handout specific to COVID-19, be clear of what we can and cannot do. Where do we get PPE? How much PPE do we need and how to properly use it and how often do we need to change it or clean it? Can I help someone with COVID-19? If I get COVID-19 do I lose my job? Can I still work if I am A-symptomatic [sic]? These are some basic things which have not been covered.

We note that a few ADA workers in Elm Hall reported that they were trained by both

custody and medical staff and that they feel informed about when and how to do their job during this pandemic.

We also have received inconsistent reports about whether and when ADA workers can

assist people who have been confirmed to have the disease or who are awaiting test results. In Butte (Facility C), for example, an ADA worker reported that mass testing was done on May 13, 2020, and that staff members provide assistance to people who were confirmed to have the disease. The ADA worker reported that he is allowed to help only people who do not have the disease. Reports out of Elm Hall (Facility D) are more concerning. Two ADA workers reported that they have tested negative for the disease and are living on the “negative” side of the building, but that they continue to assist people in the building who have confirmed cases. One reported that the only time he has been given gloves when performing his duties was when he pushed an “ill” person to the TTA (we do not know whether his reference to “ill” refers to someone who has COVID-19). He reported, however, that he has pushed several other “ill” people to the TTA during the pandemic without gloves.

Plaintiffs’ counsel remain extremely concerned about the safety of ADA workers during

the pandemic. We renew our request for ADA workers to be provided additional protective equipment, for them to receive specific training regarding how to protect themselves from the coronavirus during their work, and for them to be assigned in a way that limits their direct contact with different people to the extent possible.




[3557114.1]

IV. Other Issues

A. Lack of Accessible Dining Areas in Joshua Hall Class members have reported that meals now are served in Joshua Hall (Facility A), and

not in the dining hall. They reported that people are eating both inside the building and at the few tables located on the mini-yard directly outside the building. They reported, however, that there are no accessible tables on the mini-yard, and only one accessible table in the building (which can accommodate only one class member at a time), which has limited common area space.4 They reported that there is not enough space between the bunks for people with wheelchairs to pull up beside their bed and, presumably, use their bed as a table (the bed likely is too low in any event to serve as a table); that transferring between the wheelchair and bed, with the tray, is difficult if not impossible to do without direct help; and that there is not sufficient room in the aisle for people with wheelchairs to sit and eat even if they could find a way to safely balance the tray on their laps. (As of June 1, 2020, Joshua Hall housed at least 21 class members who use a wheelchair.) As one class member explained: “DPW inmates can only go where our wheelchair allows us.” It is not clear why tables—including the wheelchair-accessible tables used in visitation, which now is closed—have not been brought for use during meals.

Diagram of Joshua Hall by Class Member

4 We previously have raised concerns with the inadequate number of accessible tables in

Joshua Hall. See Letter from Shira Tevah & Megan Lynch, Plaintiffs’ Counsel, to Russa Boyd & Nick Meyer, CDCR Office of Legal Affairs, Physical Plant Issues at CIM 3-4 (Jan. 8, 2020) (noting that the two accessible tables on the Joshua Hall mini-yard had been removed); id. at 5 (reporting that there is only one accessible place at the table in the dayroom and that it is difficult for people in the housing unit to navigate to the dayroom).




[3557114.1]

Joshua Hall (October 2019) Joshua Hall Mini-Yard (October 2019)

Joshua Hall Dayroom (March 2019)

We request that accessible dining placements be identified for class members in Joshua Hall during the pandemic. If accessible tables cannot be brought to Joshua Hall while people are being fed in the housing unit, we request an explanation why.5

B. Limited Access to Clean Clothing and Linens

Several class members on quarantine or isolation status reported that they have had difficulty getting laundry exchanges for clothing and linens. Several class members reported that after they moved housing units because they were on quarantine or isolation status, they were not given sheets or blankets for several days. Other class members in Cedar and Oak Halls have 5 On May 6, 2020, we also reported that a class member notified us that people with

“wheelchairs and walkers are unable to fit in the narrow halls where lines are made” in Elm Hall (Facility D). We have continued to receive reports indicating that some class members may not have the accommodations they need during mealtime in Elm Hall.




[3557114.1]

reported that for the duration of their isolation or quarantine, which may last several weeks, they were unable to get clean clothes and that people instead had to lend one another clothing items. Please ensure that all class members have ready access to clean clothing and linens following transfer to a new housing placement.

* * * * *

We are deeply concerned about the health and safety of Armstrong class members at the California Institution for Men during the pandemic. Defendants have been unable to provide any information over the last few months regarding how, if at all, they are accommodating class members at the institution. The limited information we have received from class members and ADA workers, however, suggests that people have been, and continue to be, in unsafe situations.

To help us better understand the situation and determine next steps, we requested a virtual

tour by letter dated May 12, 2020. You said you believed that we did not need the court expert’s involvement and, last week, said you would work on setting up the requested staff and limited class member interviews. We have not heard anything since then. We look forward to discussing the matter further with you and the court expert next Monday.

Finally, in addition to the requests made throughout this letter, we request written plans for

all designated institutions regarding how they will accommodate impacting-placement class members in the event of an outbreak, including what areas will be designated for isolation and quarantine purposes, and what, if any, modifications to those areas, including installation of grab bars, shower benches, and shower hoses, have been or will be made. We request that those written plans be produced by next Friday, June 12.

Sincerely yours,

Rita Lomio Staff Attorney

Megan Lynch Investigator

cc: Co-Counsel Ed Swanson, Court Expert




[3557114.1]

Nicholas Meyer, Erin Anderson, Alexander Powell, Amber Lopez, [email protected], Patricia Ferguson (OLA) Lois Welch, Steven Faris (OACC) Adam Fouch, Teauna Miranda, Laurie Hoogland, Landon Bravo (DAI) Vince Cullen, Don Meier, Laurene Payne, Ceasar Aguila, Samantha Lawrence-Chastain, Olga Dobrynina, [email protected], Alexandrea Tonis, Barbara Pires, Bruce Beland, Cathy Jefferson, Ceasar Aguila, Cindy Flores, Dawn Malone-Stevens, Desiree Collum, Donald Meier, Gently Armedo, John Dovey, Laurene Payne, Lynda Robinson, Ngoc Vo, Robin Hart, Steven Blum, Joseph Williams (CCHCS) Adriano Hrvatin, Joanna Hood, Damon McClain, Sean Lodholz (DOJ)


Exhibit F


1

From: Tania Amarillas <[email protected]> on behalf of Tania AmarillasSent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 3:12 PMTo: Davis, Tamiya@CDCR; Ed Swanson; Rita Lomio; Margot Mendelson; Juliette

Mueller; Corene Kendrick; Armstrong Team; Gay C. Grunfeld; Penny Godbold; Thomas Nolan; Nathalie Welch; Armstrong Team - RBG only; Patrick Booth; Ben Bien-Kahn; Michael Freedman; Jenny Yelin; Powell, Alexander@CDCR; Meyer, Nicholas@CDCR; Ferguson, Patricia@CDCR; Lopez, Amber@CDCR; Anderson, Erin@CDCR; Stringer, Robin@CDCR; CDCR OLA Armstrong CAT Mailbox; [email protected]; [email protected]; Joanna Hood; Sean Lodholz; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Miranda, Teauna@CDCR; Bravo, Landon@CDCR; Hoogland, Laurie@CDCR; Beland, Bruce; Gaultney, Robert; John D@CDCR Dovey; Donald@CDCR Meier; Hart, Robin@CDCR; CCHCS Accountability Log@CDCR; Flores, Cindy@CDCR; Joseph@CDCR Williams; [email protected]; Jefferson, Cathy@CDCR; Vince Cullen; [email protected]; Robinson, Lynda@CDCR; Pires, Barbara@CDCR; Vo, Ngoc@CDCR; [email protected]; Dobrynina, Olga@CDCR; Stevens, Dawn@CDCR; Tonis, Alexandrea@CDCR; Armedo, Gently@CDCR; Lois@CDCR Welch; Faris, Steven@CDCR; Alayna O'Bryan

Subject: Armstrong Advocacy | , DPM (CIM)

Dear Tamiya: I write on behalf of a 74-year-old class member. Mr. is listed as DPM and uses a walker to help him ambulate. He is currently being housed in Butte on Facility C at CIM, which is not designated for people with impacting placement disabilities. I spoke with Mr. yesterday. He reported he had not showered since April 30, 2020. He reported that he instead has been bird bathing. Mr. explained that the showers on Facility C have largely been inaccessible due to a lack of grab bars and shower chair or bench. Mr. was previously housed at Joshua Hall in Facility A and apparently was moved to Colusa on Facility C for quarantine. He remained in Colusa for 14 days. Mr. stated there were no grab bars in the shower at Colusa. Mr. was moved to Butte on May 14, after completing his time in quarantine. He reported similar issues accessing the showers in Butte due to a lack of grab bars. He was then moved to Del Norte after a week or two. He stated that Del Norte's showers were completely inaccessible because they lacked both grab bars and a shower chair or bench. He was transferred back to Butte on June 9, 2020. During these many transfers, Mr. reported that no one (ADA staff or otherwise) came to talk to him about accommodations he might need given that Facility C is not designated to house people with his DPP code. He reported that he did try to talk to custody staff on multiple occasions about his disability-related issues, but they expressed that the situation was out of their hands given the pandemic. Mr. also reported that he has difficulty going to chow because the walkways on the yard are cracked and pose a tripping hazard while using his walker. He reported that there are also steps going up to the chow hall, which he also cannot navigate. He reported that some officers have tried to be accommodating by taking him


2

through a back entrance to the chow hall that does not have steps. While he appreciates this accommodation, Mr. reported that this accommodation is not consistently provided. Additionally, because of the state of the walkways, Mr. has similar issues accessing canteen. We are concerned by the lack of accommodations provided to Mr. and the length of time he has been inappropriately housed. We request that Mr. be properly accommodated with an accessible shower and path to chow. If it is not possible to provide appropriate accommodations on Facility C, we request that he be rehoused elsewhere. Thank you, Tania -- Tania Amarillas Investigator Prison Law Office [email protected] (510) 280-2621 Preferred pronouns: she/her ATTENTION: The State of California has ordered all residents to shelter in place until further notice, in response to COVID-19. PLO staff are working remotely. There may be a delay in processing and responding to U.S. mail, phone calls, and emails. We apologize for any inconvenience, and we appreciate your patience. _______________________________________ This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged, and/or attorney work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, reliance, or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.


Exhibit G


Board of Directors Penelope Cooper, President Margaret Johns, Vice President Marshall Krause, Treasurer

Harlan Grossman • Christiane Hipps Cesar Lagleva Jean Lu • Laura Magnani Michael Marcum Ruth Morgan Seth Morris Vishal Shah Michele WalkinHawk



VIA EMAIL ONLY

June 18, 2020 Ms. Tamiya Davis CDCR Office of Legal Affairs RE: Armstrong v. Newsom: Defendants’ Response to the COVID-19 Outbreak at the

California Institution for Men (Part II) Dear Ms. Davis:

Since our last letter to you on June 5, 2020, an additional 122 people incarcerated at the California Institution for Men (CIM) have tested positive for COVID-19, including at least twenty Armstrong class members and three ADA workers. Since the outbreak began, at least 203 (over 30% of) Armstrong class members and 21 (over 22% of) ADA workers at the institution have tested positive for the disease.

On June 10 and 11, 2020, we interviewed 29 class members, the ADA Coordinator,

CAMU CCII, and Plant Manager. These interviews confirmed what we reported in our previous letter and deepened our concerns about the health and safety of our clients.1 Defendants’ continued inaction puts Armstrong class members, and the ADA workers who assist them, at an unacceptable risk of harm.

We understand that this is a public health emergency and that rapid action has been

required. That is no excuse, however, for (a) not planning for the need to have accessible medical isolation and quarantine housing, (b) not taking immediate action to install accessible features in otherwise inaccessible locations, and (c) not adequately protecting and training ADA workers. See Brooklyn Ctr. for Indep. of Disabled v. Bloomberg, 980 F. Supp. 2d 588, 658 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (holding that City violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act because, among other things, its emergency preparedness program did “not require that the shelter system be sufficiently accessible, either architecturally or programmatically, to accommodate people with disabilities in an emergency”).

1 Defendants continue to bar Plaintiffs’ counsel from conducting legal calls with class

members housed in buildings designated for medical isolation or quarantine, including class members who are blind or who use sign language to communicate, and Defendants have not allowed remote video visits in those areas. As a result, Plaintiffs’ counsel still has only an incomplete and delayed view of conditions at the institution.



Ms. Tamiya Davis Re: Defendants’ Response to the COVID-19 Outbreak at CIM (Part II)


I. Inaccessible Housing

Accessible housing, including wheelchair-accessible cells and lower bunk, lower tier beds, have always been in short supply in California prisons. Defendants cannot meet their legal obligations during a pandemic with such narrow margins. In addition, Defendants may not unilaterally suspend their obligations under Armstrong and the Americans with Disabilities Act during this time, as they appear to have done at CIM. People must be moved to accessible locations, including for medical isolation and quarantine, and, if there are not sufficient accessible locations available, more must be created or people must be released from custody.

The ADA Coordinator at CIM reported that ADA staff had (and have) no involvement in

housing decisions for Armstrong class members during the pandemic. In fact, he reported that his office receives no advance notice of inaccessible housing placements, and he instead learns of such placements only by running a SOMS report each morning. He also reported that he and his staff do not visit or otherwise interview people housed in inaccessible placements, and instead he simply informs custody staff, although he acknowledged that custody staff does not have control over placement decisions either. The ADA Coordinator reported that he also has no role in deciding whether additional accessible features should be installed or a person should be moved out of an inaccessible placement, stating that he waits for medical to make those decisions. It does not appear that any new accessible features have been installed at CIM during the outbreak.

When asked to what extent he was involved in the placement of class members in newly

designated housing areas, including gyms, tents, and Oak Hall, the ADA Coordinator responded: “Our role was none at all. We were told after the fact that it was happening. . . . Medical made all those decisions. We didn’t have any input.” He continued: “When tents went in, I called the unit and said please try not to house any impacting inmates in there if possible. But, again, it was medical’s decision. . . . We were basically just cleaning up every day after medical; notifying the facilities. It is really challenging.”

In an email dated June 11, 2020, Defendants appear to endorse the exclusion of ADA staff

from bed planning decisions by quoting a portion of Section IV.C of the Armstrong Remedial Plan: “The inmate’s health care needs shall take precedence in determining placement.”2 But Defendants ignore the Section’s other requirements, including that, “[i]n the exceptional case where placement cannot directly meet both the health care and DPP needs of the inmate, HCPM and Classification Services Unit staff will work together to address the inmate’s dual needs for an appropriate placement.” It appears that did not happen (and is not happening) at CIM.

2 This position differs from what Defendants have claimed for months during weekly calls

between the parties. Defendants repeatedly have stated that ADA staff at the institution are representing the ADA interests of class members during bed planning decisions.




Universally, class members said that they were not consulted regarding their disability

needs before or after being moved to inaccessible housing areas. They reported struggling to stand up from the toilet without something to grasp onto; not being able to navigate steps or stairs in the path of travel to the bathroom, dayroom, or dining hall; and struggling to clean themselves in the absence of grab bars, benches, seats, or hoses. In a few cases, units had some accessible features, but class members reported that they were broken and could not be used.3 For example, at least one shower in Del Norte (Facility C) reportedly had a shower bench, but it was broken.

We also received widespread reports that paths of travel around inaccessible housing areas are severely cracked and difficult to navigate. Several class members who are or had been housed on Facility C reported falling while trying to navigate the pathway around the yard. Similarly, a class member reported that there are several large cracks and uneven pavement on the path of travel from West Dorm (Facility D), often caused by tree roots breaking through the concrete. He reported that he had to lift his wheelchair over the breaks in the pavement.

The problem is not an isolated one. We reviewed the housing history reports for people

who had a DPW or DPO code and who also had tested positive for COVID-19. Of the 22 people who met that criteria on June 3, 2020, 36% were housed in at least one inaccessible location between March 1, 2020, and June 15, 2020, and 18% were housed in multiple inaccessible locations during that period. The lengths of stay in inaccessible placements varied; a class member with a DPW code spent six days in inaccessible housing, and a class member with a DPO code spent 44 days in three different inaccessible locations. People with DPM, DPV, and DLT codes also were placed in inaccessible locations. We spoke with one 74-year-old class member designated DPM, who had been housed in inaccessible locations for 42 consecutive days and who had not been able to shower during that time because there were no grab bars and he was not provided a shower chair. Another class member designated DPM spent at least 18 days in four inaccessible locations, and has been moved nine times since April 6, 2020.

We previously informed you that as of June 1, 2020, twelve people at the institution were

housed in locations inconsistent with their disability codes. That number now has increased to eighteen, and includes people who use wheelchairs and walkers and people who are blind. On the next page is a list of people who were inappropriately housed as of June 17, 2020. An asterisk (*) identifies those people who also were inappropriately housed on June 1, 2020.

The six class members on Facility A are housed in inaccessible dorms. Of those, five are

designated as having either a confirmed, active case of COVID-19 or having a resolved case. The remaining class member, an 89-year-old man, has not yet tested positive for the disease. The twelve class members housed on Facilities C and D all are housed in inaccessible cells.

3 We will send you a list of physical plant concerns separately.




Facility A (Dorms)

DPM Angeles Hall DPO Cleveland Hall

DPM Cleveland Hall DPM Cleveland Hall DPM Mariposa Hall DPM Mariposa Hall

Facility C (Cells)

DPM Alpine DPM Butte DPM Butte DPM Butte DPO Butte DPM, DNH Colusa

DPM, DNH Del Norte DPM, DNH Del Norte

Facility D (Cells)

DPV West Dorm DPV, DLT West Dorm DPV West Dorm DPH West Dorm

Defendants immediately must develop a process to ensure that people are appropriately

housed. See Communities Actively Living Indep. & Free v. City of Los Angeles, No. CV 09-0287, 2011 WL 4595993, at *14 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2011) (rejecting “City’s contentions that it can make ad hoc reasonable accommodations upon request” and observing that “[t]he purpose of the City’s emergency preparedness program is to anticipate the needs of its residents in the event of an emergency and to minimize the very type of last-minute, individualized requests for assistance described by the City, particularly when the City’s infrastructure may be substantially compromised or strained by an imminent or ongoing emergency or disaster”).

If a person is housed in an area inconsistent with their DPP code, they must be moved to

an accessible location. For those who are not designated DPW or DPO, if no accessible location is available, Defendants must immediately, with the revocable consent of the class member and




after consultation with the class member, medical staff, ADA staff, and facilities staff familiar with the area, provide all appropriate accommodations, including built-in ramps, reliable shower chairs and benches, guard rails, and grab bars. If the class member still cannot be appropriately accommodated by structural and program changes, they immediately must be placed in an accessible location and, if one is not available, Defendants must reduce the population by whatever means necessary to ensure that sufficient accessible housing is available.

II. ADA Workers

With a few exceptions, the ADA workers we have been in contact with do not feel that they have been adequately trained on how to protect themselves when helping people who have COVID-19. Last week, the ADA Coordinator told us that no specific training had been given to ADA workers because “we never got anything officially from headquarters in regards to ADA workers.”

ADA workers also continue to report inconsistent access to personal protective equipment. One ADA worker on Facility C reported that he has been told to wear gloves, but they are not provided to him. Another ADA worker on Facility C said that he has been told to wear gloves when working closely with others, but that his ability to get gloves depends on which officer is working at the time. He also reported that the handwashing stations sometimes are out of water. Another ADA worker wrote, “We need more protection like gloves, masks and disinfectant.” Defendants’ statement in an email dated June 11, 2020, that ADA workers have been directed to “wear[] facemasks and gloves (if available) at all times” is unacceptable (emphasis added). ADA workers and all others providing similar assistance must be provided the equipment they need to protect themselves and the people they help. Particularly when working closely with people who are or may be infected with the novel coronavirus, ADA workers should be given personal protective equipment similar to what nurses are provided, including plastic face shields, gloves, high quality disposable masks, and extra clothing.

As we informed you in our letter dated June 5, 2020, an ADA worker in Elm Hall, who did not have the disease, was assisting people living in Elm Hall who did. In a letter that we received on June 16, 2020, he reported that he now has tested positive for COVID-19 himself:

I had to perform my job assignment as any ADA Assistant – semi-skilled. My main responsibility was to assist [redacted], a totally blind inmate who was positive. I was also directed to take other sick inmates from Elm and other dorms (Cedar) to the hospital. Because, I was one of the few ADA workers and the only one with skills I worked every day and all day.




This case does not appear to be an outlier. Over 22% of ADA workers at the institution now have tested positive for COVID-19. On June 15, 2020, we received a letter from an ADA worker on Facility C, reporting that although he does not have the disease, he assists people who may have the disease and are pending test results. On June 16, 2020, we received a letter from an ADA worker on Facility D, reporting that he tested positive for COVID-19, but he still is assisting people who are pending test results. During our interviews last week, class members continued to report lack of access to ADA workers, including that they were unable to receive assistance from ADA workers while in medical isolation or quarantine, and that they were unable to get help packing their property and carrying it. In some cases, staff members reportedly provided a cart, which the staff person pushed, but in many cases this assistance was not provided. We also continue to receive reports from people in dorms like Joshua Hall (Facility A), where people with disabilities are clustered, that there are not enough ADA workers to help everyone and that they often must instead ask other incarcerated people for assistance, but those people “are very not dependable or ADA trained.” In an email dated June 11, 2020, Defendants report that “[v]olunteers are utilized to help in areas . . . where no ADA workers were housed,” but it does not appear those volunteers have been trained on how to help people with disabilities and necessary COVID-19 precautions. III. Orientation of Blind Class Members to New Building Layouts In an attempt to slow the transmission of the disease in congregate living areas, Defendants have rearranged building layouts to separate beds into cohorts. Changes to the building design or path of travel must be clearly and appropriately communicated to people who are blind or have low vision, and those people must be shown how to safely navigate through their living spaces. The ADA Coordinator, however, acknowledged that blind and low-vision class members were not oriented to the new building layouts. One class member designated DPV explained that there are several support pillars in his building and that the pillars used to be right next to some of the beds, so he knew where they were and could navigate around them. With the new building layout, however, the pillars no longer are located next to the beds. He reported that he did not receive any orientation or information about the new layout of his housing unit. He reported that when the beds were first moved, he would trip over the legs of bunks or other things in the walkways as he was relearning his paths of travel throughout the building by trial and error. IV. Limited Access to Clean Clothing and Linens

Class members also confirmed that there were significant barriers in getting clothing and

linens in Oak Hall. For example, one class member explained that when he moved from Cedar Hall to Oak Hall, he was told to leave all state-issued clothing in Cedar Hall. However, when he arrived in Oak Hall, he was not issued a full set of clothing. For the approximately two weeks




that he was in Oak Hall, he reported, he had only two pairs of underwear, one pair of pants, no t-shirts, one blue top, and no state-issued socks. He reported that he was not permitted to go to the laundry building for a new set of clothing.

* * * * * The parties in Plata v. Newsom have reached an agreement in principle to begin moving people who are 65 years of age and older from dorms into any available cells within their home institution in an effort to protect particularly vulnerable people from COVID-19. This process will implicate Armstrong issues, particularly given the limited number of accessible cells in the prison system, and will have to be addressed by the parties.

This new Plata process, however, does not directly affect the issues outlined in this letter. Of the Armstrong class members currently in inaccessible placements at CIM, only one—an 89-year-old man with an impacting-placement disability—would be eligible for movement, as he currently both has not yet tested positive for COVID-19 and is housed in a dorm. The remainder either (a) are housed in inaccessible cells, or (b) are housed in inaccessible dorms and have already tested positive for COVID-19. The Plata process also does not address concerns with ADA worker safety and orientation of blind class members to new building layouts.

We ask that Defendants be prepared to discuss the issues set forth in this letter and in our letter dated June 5, 2020, during next Friday’s telephonic meeting. We ask that all appropriate decision-makers for Defendants be present. In advance of the meeting, we renew our request for the COVID-19 bed plans; Defendants previously said they would produce them by June 16, 2020, but have not yet done so.

Unless we see movement on these issues, we are prepared to seek court intervention.

Sincerely yours,

Rita Lomio Staff Attorney

Megan Lynch Investigator




cc: Co-Counsel

Ed Swanson, Court Expert Nicholas Meyer, Erin Anderson, Alexander Powell, Amber Lopez, [email protected], Patricia Ferguson (OLA) Lois Welch, Steven Faris (OACC) Adam Fouch, Teauna Miranda, Laurie Hoogland, Landon Bravo (DAI) Vince Cullen, Don Meier, Laurene Payne, Ceasar Aguila, Samantha Lawrence-Chastain, Olga Dobrynina, [email protected], Alexandrea Tonis, Barbara Pires, Bruce Beland, Cathy Jefferson, Ceasar Aguila, Cindy Flores, Dawn Malone-Stevens, Desiree Collum, Donald Meier, Gently Armedo, John Dovey, Laurene Payne, Lynda Robinson, Ngoc Vo, Robin Hart, Steven Blum, Joseph Williams (CCHCS) Adriano Hrvatin, Joanna Hood, Damon McClain, Sean Lodholz (DOJ)


Exhibit H


1

From: Rita Lomio <[email protected]> on behalf of Rita LomioSent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 10:55 PMTo: Cullen, Vincent@CDCR; Davis, Tamiya@CDCRCc: Don Specter; Ed Swanson; Armstrong Team; [email protected];

Powell, Alexander@CDCR; Meyer, Nicholas@CDCR; Ferguson, Patricia@CDCR; Lopez, Amber@CDCR; Anderson, Erin@CDCR; Stringer, Robin@CDCR; CDCR OLA Armstrong CAT Mailbox; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Fouch, Adam@CDCR; Miranda, Teauna@CDCR; Bravo, Landon@CDCR; Hoogland, Laurie@CDCR; Beland, Bruce@CDCR; Gaultney, Robert@CDCR; Dovey, John@CDCR; Meier, Donald@CDCR; Hart, Robin@CDCR; CCHCS Accountability Log@CDCR; Flores, Cindy@CDCR; Williams, Joseph@CDCR; Allen, Kelly@CDCR; Jefferson, Cathy@cdcr; Edwards, Joseph.K@CDCR; Robinson, Lynda@CDCR; Pires, Barbara@CDCR; Vo, Ngoc@CDCR; Solis, Miguel@CDCR; Dobrynina, Olga@CDCR; Stevens, Dawn@CDCR; Tonis, Alexandrea@CDCR; Armedo, Gently@CDCR; Welch, Lois@CDCR; Faris, Steven@CDCR

Subject: RE: ARM | Defendants' Response to the COVID-19 Outbreak at CIM (Part II)

Hi Vince and Adam, We interviewed nineteen class members at CIM over the past two days. The interviews largely confirmed what we already reported in our two letters regarding Defendants’ response to the COVID-19 outbreak at CIM. We did want to pass along a few rough notes in case they are useful to you: 1. ADA Worker Program. You may want to speak with , DPV, an ADA worker who was housed in Elm Hall before he tested positive for COVID-19. He reported that his caseload increased due to the limited number of available ADA workers during the pandemic. He reported that before he tested positive, he was responsible for helping class members on both sides of Elm Hall and that about three times a week, he would help class members housed in other buildings. He reported that one officer in Elm Hall would give him gloves upon request, but otherwise he did not have access to gloves. He reported having to help class members experiencing incontinence without gloves. He reported that he frequently escorted class members experiencing COVID-19 symptoms to the TTA/hospital/yard triage tent. Mr. is the ADA worker quoted on the bottom of page 5 of our June 18, 2020 letter. 2. Procurement Process. When we spoke with the Plant Manager on June 11, 2020, we did not ask about the current inventory of items to make areas more accessible, including shower hoses, benches, grab bars, and materials for ramps. He did report, however, that even when he and his staff walk a request through, it can take 2-3 weeks to get an item. Is there any way to expedite that process? We continue to receive reports of broken ADA toilets and showers, broken or missing shower hoses, and areas that need modification. One DPW class member reported that he had been housed in Colusa (Facility C), which is not designated for impacting placement class members. He reported that there was a large step or steep ramp in the path of travel, and therefore he could not get to the showers.


2

3. Monitoring by ADA Staff. The ADA Coordinator on June 11, 2020, told us that when he learns of a class member housed in an inaccessible location, he calls the yard and directs custody staff to tell the class member about the 1824 process. It is not clear from our interviews that that process is working. For example, one class member who was temporarily housed on Facility C said he was never told about the 1824 process. (Somewhat surprisingly, most of the class members on Facility A also were unfamiliar with the 1824 process.) As a result, it is not clear whether the ADA office is being notified of significant access issues. For example, one DPW class member who was temporarily housed on Facility C reported that he was unable to use his wheelchair in the cell and that he struggled to stand from the toilet. He reported that food trays were placed on the floor in front of his cells, and he struggled to pick them up. We understand the need to limit opportunities for transmission, but it seems that more direct involvement by ADA staff, even if through video calls (similar to the Plata virtual site visits), is warranted. 4. Communication with the Incarcerated Population. The ADA IAC representative on Facility D reported that he is unable to adequately perform his duties because he is housed in Elm Hall, which has been on a modified programming for most of the last three months. He reported that although he has attended meetings with the warden and captains, he is unable to share that information with anyone outside his housing unit and he is unable to gather information from other housing units. We largely found that class members were confused about whether they or others in their unit had resolved cases (or whether they still could transmit the virus), including people who had tested positive months ago and presumably now have resolved cases, and that class members did not know that they could request accommodations (or how to do so). They also largely did not understand housing and program decisions, including whether they were in medical isolation or quarantine. 5. Social Distancing. We received a number of reports that, in practice, there is very little social distancing. For example, in Joshua Hall (Facility A), we received consistent reports that limits on the number of people in the dayroom are not enforced. (Only ten people reportedly are supposed to be in the dayroom at the same time.) We received reports that people do not maintain six feet of distance between one another when in line for meals, temperature checks, and mass tests. During temperature checks, a large number of people (exceeding the ten-person limit) reportedly are crowded into the dayroom with one another. We also received reports that officers do not always wear cloth face coverings. Similarly, in Elm Hall (Facility D), we received consistent reports that there is very little social distancing, both within each side (i.e., people in A/B coming into close contact with one another) and between sides (i.e., people on A/B coming into close contact with people on C/D). We were told that people on A/B side will come over to the C/D side dayroom to play cards with people on C/D. We were told that officers sometimes do not know that the sides are supposed to be kept separate, and will let A/B and C/D people out for mini-yard at the same time. (This reportedly last happened a few days before our interview.) Every other day, the officers passing out breakfast reportedly do not wear cloth face coverings. When incarcerated people ask them to put them on, they then do. In addition, the institution reportedly put people in the wrong places. For example, staff moved people who were negative to one side and then, three or four days later, staff said, “No, you were on the wrong side,” and moved them to the other side. 6. Canteen. One class member in Elm Hall reported that people in medical isolation or quarantine are allowed to go to canteen only when they have money on their account. As a result, people who are indigent can no longer get aspirin, ibuprofen, or other items. Is this true? If so, how can people who are indigent get access to these items, and what education was provided to them? I hope the above information is helpful to you. Good luck tomorrow; we look forward to hearing how it goes. Rita

From: Cullen, Vincent@CDCR [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, June 22, 2020 2:03 PM


3

To: Rita Lomio <[email protected]>; Davis, Tamiya@CDCR <[email protected]> Cc: Don Specter <[email protected]>; Ed Swanson <[email protected]>; Armstrong Team <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Powell, Alexander@CDCR <[email protected]>; Meyer, Nicholas@CDCR <[email protected]>; Ferguson, Patricia@CDCR <[email protected]>; Lopez, Amber@CDCR <[email protected]>; Anderson, Erin@CDCR <[email protected]>; Stringer, Robin@CDCR <[email protected]>; CDCR OLA Armstrong CAT Mailbox <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Fouch, Adam@CDCR <[email protected]>; Miranda, Teauna@CDCR <[email protected]>; Bravo, Landon@CDCR <[email protected]>; Hoogland, Laurie@CDCR <[email protected]>; Beland, Bruce@CDCR <[email protected]>; Gaultney, Robert@CDCR <[email protected]>; Dovey, John@CDCR <[email protected]>; Meier, Donald@CDCR <[email protected]>; Hart, Robin@CDCR <[email protected]>; CCHCS Accountability Log@CDCR <[email protected]>; Flores, Cindy@CDCR <[email protected]>; Williams, Joseph@CDCR <[email protected]>; Allen, Kelly@CDCR <[email protected]>; Jefferson, Cathy@cdcr <[email protected]>; Edwards, Joseph.K@CDCR <[email protected]>; Robinson, Lynda@CDCR <[email protected]>; Pires, Barbara@CDCR <[email protected]>; Vo, Ngoc@CDCR <[email protected]>; Solis, Miguel@CDCR <[email protected]>; Dobrynina, Olga@CDCR <[email protected]>; Stevens, Dawn@CDCR <[email protected]>; Tonis, Alexandrea@CDCR <[email protected]>; Armedo, Gently@CDCR <[email protected]>; Welch, Lois@CDCR <[email protected]>; Faris, Steven@CDCR <[email protected]> Subject: RE: ARM | Defendants' Response to the COVID-19 Outbreak at CIM (Part II) To All, I plan to visit CIM on Wednesday to discuss the content of the letters and my own findings. I am hopeful Adam Fouch will be able to attend with me as well. Anything else of interest you would like me to review/discuss?

VINCENT S. CULLEN DIRECTOR Corrections Services California Correctional Health Care Services (916) 691-2887 office [email protected]

From: Rita Lomio <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2020 9:31 PM To: Davis, Tamiya@CDCR <[email protected]> Cc: Don Specter <[email protected]>; Ed Swanson <[email protected]>; Armstrong Team <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Powell, Alexander@CDCR <[email protected]>; Meyer, Nicholas@CDCR <[email protected]>; Ferguson, Patricia@CDCR <[email protected]>; Lopez, Amber@CDCR <[email protected]>; Anderson, Erin@CDCR <[email protected]>; Stringer, Robin@CDCR <[email protected]>; CDCR OLA Armstrong CAT Mailbox <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Fouch, Adam@CDCR <[email protected]>; Miranda, Teauna@CDCR <[email protected]>; Bravo, Landon@CDCR <[email protected]>; Hoogland, Laurie@CDCR <[email protected]>; Beland, Bruce@CDCR <[email protected]>; Gaultney, Robert@CDCR <[email protected]>; Dovey, John@CDCR <[email protected]>; Meier, Donald@CDCR <[email protected]>; Hart, Robin@CDCR <[email protected]>; CCHCS Accountability Log@CDCR


4

<[email protected]>; Flores, Cindy@CDCR <[email protected]>; Williams, Joseph@CDCR <[email protected]>; Allen, Kelly@CDCR <[email protected]>; Jefferson, Cathy@cdcr <[email protected]>; Cullen, Vincent@CDCR <[email protected]>; Edwards, Joseph.K@CDCR <[email protected]>; Robinson, Lynda@CDCR <[email protected]>; Pires, Barbara@CDCR <[email protected]>; Vo, Ngoc@CDCR <[email protected]>; Solis, Miguel@CDCR <[email protected]>; Dobrynina, Olga@CDCR <[email protected]>; Stevens, Dawn@CDCR <[email protected]>; Tonis, Alexandrea@CDCR <[email protected]>; Armedo, Gently@CDCR <[email protected]>; Welch, Lois@CDCR <[email protected]>; Faris, Steven@CDCR <[email protected]> Subject: ARM | Defendants' Response to the COVID-19 Outbreak at CIM (Part II) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of CDCR/CCHCS. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Tamiya, Attached please find a second letter outlining our concerns with Defendants’ response to the COVID-19 outbreak at the California Institution for Men. This letter is based on class member and staff interviews that were conducted last week. We ask that Defendants be prepared to discuss the issues set forth in this letter and in our letter dated June 5, 2020, during next Friday’s telephonic meeting. We ask that all appropriate decision-makers for Defendants be present. In advance of the meeting, we renew our request for the COVID-19 bed plans; Defendants previously said they would produce them by June 16, 2020, but have not yet done so. Unless we see movement on these issues, we are prepared to seek court intervention. Rita Rita K. Lomio Staff Attorney Prison Law Office 1917 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710 (510) 280-2632 Pronouns: she/her


Exhibit I


1

From: Davis, Tamiya@CDCR <[email protected]> on behalf of Davis, Tamiya@CDCR

Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 6:29 PMTo: Megan Lynch; Rita LomioSubject: RE: CIM

Hi Megan, I have booked a conference line for tomorrow at 9 am. That was when both Vince and CIM CEO Escobell are available for a call. Please let me know if that doesn’t work for plaintiffs. Thank you, Tamiya Davis Attorney III, Class Action Team Office of Legal Affairs California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Phone: 916.341.6960 Cell: 916.247.5094

From: Megan Lynch <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 3:04 PM To: Rita Lomio <[email protected]>; Davis, Tamiya@CDCR <[email protected]> Subject: RE: CIM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of CDCR/CCHCS. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Tamiya, We haven’t heard from you and wanted to check to see if you’re available to talk about the situation in Joshua Hall at 3:30 pm today. Can we give you a call then? Thanks, Megan

From: Rita Lomio <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 8:28 AM To: Davis, Tamiya@CDCR <[email protected]> Cc: Megan Lynch <[email protected]> Subject: RE: CIM Thanks, Tamiya. How does 3.30 pm today work for you? In advance of today’s call, would you please send us the current PSR for CIM?


2

On Wednesday, our schedule is largely flexible in the afternoon, so please let us know what time works best for you. Is Adam available to join? We largely would like to discuss his findings from last week’s site visit. We do have one question that implicates the healthcare side of things—how the institution was identifying when people could be released from inaccessible housing in isolation or quarantine (or while pending test results, to the extent the institution treated that as a different category), how that resulted in delays in movement out of inaccessible placements, and how that has been addressed now. Are you and/or Adam able to discuss that, or do we need to speak with Vince?

From: Davis, Tamiya@CDCR [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2020 10:32 PM To: Rita Lomio <[email protected]> Cc: Megan Lynch <[email protected]> Subject: RE: CIM I can be available tomorrow afternoon to talk about Joshua Hall as well as Wednesday for CIM-specific issues. Tamiya Davis Attorney III, Class Action Team Office of Legal Affairs California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Phone: 916.341.6960 Cell: 916.247.5094

From: Rita Lomio <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 3:38 PM To: Davis, Tamiya@CDCR <[email protected]> Cc: Megan Lynch <[email protected]> Subject: CIM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of CDCR/CCHCS. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Tamiya, Please let us know if you or someone on your team would like to talk about the situation at Joshua Hall. We’re available the rest of today and this weekend. Also, would next Wednesday afternoon work for a call about remaining CIM-specific issues? Rita Rita K. Lomio Staff Attorney Prison Law Office 1917 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710 (510) 280-2632 Pronouns: she/her


Exhibit J


1

From: Tania Amarillas <[email protected]> on behalf of Tania AmarillasSent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 3:54 PMTo: Davis, Tamiya@CDCR; Ed Swanson; Rita Lomio; Margot Mendelson; Juliette

Mueller; Corene Kendrick; Armstrong Team; Gay C. Grunfeld; Penny Godbold; Thomas Nolan; Nathalie Welch; Armstrong Team - RBG only; Patrick Booth; Ben Bien-Kahn; Michael Freedman; Jenny Yelin; Powell, Alexander@CDCR; Meyer, Nicholas@CDCR; Ferguson, Patricia@CDCR; Lopez, Amber@CDCR; Anderson, Erin@CDCR; Stringer, Robin@CDCR; CDCR OLA Armstrong CAT Mailbox; [email protected]; [email protected]; Joanna Hood; Sean Lodholz; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Miranda, Teauna@CDCR; Bravo, Landon@CDCR; Hoogland, Laurie@CDCR; Beland, Bruce; Gaultney, Robert; John D@CDCR Dovey; Donald@CDCR Meier; Hart, Robin@CDCR; CCHCS Accountability Log@CDCR; Flores, Cindy@CDCR; Joseph@CDCR Williams; [email protected]; Jefferson, Cathy@CDCR; Vince Cullen; [email protected]; Robinson, Lynda@CDCR; Pires, Barbara@CDCR; Vo, Ngoc@CDCR; [email protected]; Dobrynina, Olga@CDCR; Stevens, Dawn@CDCR; Tonis, Alexandrea@CDCR; Armedo, Gently@CDCR; Lois@CDCR Welch; Faris, Steven@CDCR; Skye Lovett

Subject: Armstrong Advocacy | , DPV (SATF)

Dear Tamiya: I write regarding , a 74-year-old blind class member currently housed at SATF. I spoke with Mr. today. Mr. requires a sighted guide to walk around the yard. He reported that, before the pandemic, he would walk every day for exercise and to lower his cholesterol, and that he really enjoyed doing that. He reported that during the pandemic, however, he largely is confined to the housing unit because he cannot always get a sighted guide to help him. He reported that housing officers have told him that ADA workers are available only to guide people to specific programs, such as chow, canteen, and pill call, and not for general yard time. He further reported that housing officers told him that ADA workers otherwise must stay in the housing unit. He reported that housing officers told him that a volunteer could help him, and officers have at times asked for volunteers for him, but people do not always volunteer to help him during their yard time. Please explain how Mr. will be provided sighted guide assistance during the pandemic during his yard time. Please also explain how the ADA worker program is operating on Facility F, including any changes due to the pandemic, and produce all related documentation. If the institution will rely in whole or in part on volunteers, please explain what training volunteers have received on the sighted guide technique, what if any PPE is distributed or COVID-19 precautions are taken, and what the institution will do if no one volunteers to assist Mr. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.


2

Tania -- Tania Amarillas Investigator Prison Law Office [email protected] (510) 280-2621 Preferred pronouns: she/her ATTENTION: The State of California has ordered all residents to shelter in place until further notice, in response to COVID-19. PLO staff are working remotely. There may be a delay in processing and responding to U.S. mail, phone calls, and emails. We apologize for any inconvenience, and we appreciate your patience. _______________________________________ This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged, and/or attorney work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, reliance, or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.


Exhibit K


1

From: Rita Lomio <[email protected]> on behalf of Rita LomioSent: Friday, July 3, 2020 5:05 PMTo: Davis, Tamiya@CDCRSubject: Re: CIM

Hi Tamiya, So sorry for the delay in responding. We appreciated the discussion with CIM staff this week, but we still would like a written response to the specific issues set forth in our letters. Rita

On Jul 3, 2020, at 12:40 AM, Davis, Tamiya@CDCR <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Rita, CIM is inquiring whether the call on Wednesday addressed your concerns or do you still want a written response to the CIM advocacies? Thank you, Tamiya Davis

Attorney III, Class Action Team Office of Legal Affairs California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Phone: 916.341.6960 Cell: 916.247.5094

From: Rita Lomio <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 3:38 PM To: Davis, Tamiya@CDCR <[email protected]> Cc: Megan Lynch <[email protected]> Subject: CIM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of CDCR/CCHCS. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Tamiya, Please let us know if you or someone on your team would like to talk about the situation at Joshua Hall. We’re available the rest of today and this weekend.


2

Also, would next Wednesday afternoon work for a call about remaining CIM-specific issues? Rita Rita K. Lomio Staff Attorney Prison Law Office 1917 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710 (510) 280-2632 Pronouns: she/her


Exhibit L


Board of Directors Penelope Cooper, President Margaret Johns, Vice President Marshall Krause, Treasurer

Harlan Grossman • Christiane Hipps Cesar Lagleva Jean Lu • Laura Magnani Michael Marcum Ruth Morgan Seth Morris Vishal Shah Michele WalkinHawk



VIA EMAIL ONLY

July 6, 2020 Ms. Tamiya Davis CDCR Office of Legal Affairs RE: Notice of Intention to Seek Judicial Relief Regarding Defendants’ Failure to

Accommodate Armstrong Class Members During the COVID-19 Pandemic Dear Ms. Davis:

We write to inform you that we intend to seek relief from the Armstrong court with respect to Defendants’ failure to provide accessible housing to Armstrong class members during the COVID-19 pandemic and to otherwise accommodate class members’ disabilities. Defendants have failed to account for the disability needs of Armstrong class members in their ad hoc efforts to prevent and manage the spread of the novel coronavirus throughout state prisons. As a result, Armstrong class members have been and continue to be left in unsafe and dangerous living environments.

Defendants’ treatment of Armstrong class members during the outbreak at the

California Institution for Men (CIM), which began in late March 2020 and continues today, is illustrative. There, Armstrong class members have been placed for purposes of medical isolation and quarantine in inaccessible housing units due to a shortage of accessible beds at the institution. And other class members currently are housed in the same crowded dorm as people with confirmed, active cases because the institution simply has no other accessible place to house them. This puts our clients in an untenable position; they either are unable to perform hygiene tasks independently (if they are moved to an inaccessible housing unit), or they are at heightened risk for exposure to COVID-19 (if they are not). Reducing housing to these grim options is not allowed by the Americans with Disabilities Act or the Court’s prior orders, and is particularly alarming given that many Armstrong class members are at high risk of getting very sick or dying from COVID-19 due to disability, advanced age, and/or chronic medical conditions. See July 5, 2020 Order, Plata v. Newsom, No 01-cv-01351-JST, at 1 (“. . . we know that [COVID-19] . . . disproportionately kills the elderly and the medically vulnerable”). In fact, 52% of incarcerated people who have died from the disease are Armstrong class members, although they make up only 10% of the total population.

To date, there have not been significant outbreaks at most institutions that are

designated to house people with serious (impacting-placement) disabilities. But with the



Ms. Tamiya Davis Notice of Intention to Seek Judicial Relief

July 6, 2020 Page 2

number of infected people in California prisons dramatically increasing, and with the pandemic projected to continue, preparations should already have been completed.1 Notwithstanding our repeated requests for information since March 2020, including as to what areas will be designated for medical isolation and quarantine at each institution, Defendants waited until three months into the pandemic to direct institutions to develop housing plans for Armstrong class members. Those plans were produced to us on June 19.

As explained below, Defendants’ plans are woefully inadequate. The plans identify

quarantine and isolation housing units that would be far too small to provide sufficient accessible housing in the event of an outbreak similar in size to those already experienced in California prisons. They contemplate the use of accessible cells for quarantine and isolation placements without addressing the displacement of the class members who currently live in those cells. They fail to direct construction work or procurement to expand the accessibility of existing housing units and other areas that could serve as nontraditional housing. Some plans state that class members will be transferred between institutions to address shortages of accessible housing, despite the current moratorium on inter-institution transfers and the likelihood of future transfer restrictions. Many of the plans simply state that the institution will work with Headquarters to deal with accessible housing issues after an outbreak has begun—the very approach that led to the current crisis at CIM, where the institution finds itself with insufficient accessible housing, and where 37% of (or approximately 228) Armstrong class members have been infected, and nine have died.

Defendants’ failure to provide accessible housing and to account for the disability needs

of Armstrong class members in their pandemic response plainly violates the Armstrong Remedial Plan and the Americans with Disabilities Act. We intend to seek an order from the court enforcing our clients’ rights to accessible housing and requiring Defendants to take immediate action to expand accessibility features at all prisons that house class members with impacting placement disabilities, including through installation of grab bars, guard rails, ramps, shower benches, and shower wands. Defendants must demonstrate that they can provide accessible housing to class members in the event of an outbreak. If they cannot provide safe and accessible housing, they must take immediate steps to reduce the population of people with impacting-placement disabilities.

1 Kristine A. Moore et al., The Future of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned from

Pandemic Influenza, COVID 19: The CIDRAP Viewpoint, Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (April 30, 2020) at 6 (predicting “at least another 18 to 24 months of significant COVID-19 activity”).



July 6, 2020 Page 3

History of the Issue

Since late March 2020, Plaintiffs repeatedly have raised concerns about the reduced number of accessible beds due to Defendants’ rearrangement of sleeping areas to allow for some measure of social distancing, as well as the need to ensure accessible housing for purposes of medical isolation and quarantine. Plaintiffs also raised concerns about the accessibility of alternative living areas, including gyms, tents, chapels, and dayroom cots, which Defendants had designated in response to the pandemic. We demanded that Defendants account for the needs of Armstrong class members in its pandemic response and planning.

Plaintiffs requested that these issues be discussed during the parties’ telephonic meetings

with the Court Expert on April 7, April 10, April 17, April 24, May 1, May 8, May 21, June 5, June 11, and June 26. Defendants provided little to no substantive information during those calls or during the parties’ bimonthly meet and confer on May 12.

According to Defendants’ online tracker, the first confirmed COVID-19 case in an

incarcerated person at CIM was on March 27, 2020. By the time of the parties’ meeting on May 8, the institution had 319 confirmed, active cases. Nonetheless, Defendants were unable to respond to questions that had been posed by Plaintiffs in advance of the meeting, including which yards and buildings were being used at CIM for purposes of medical isolation or quarantine, and what accessibility features were available in a newly opened building used to house Armstrong class members with impacting-placement disabilities. Defendants stated that they would provide that information in writing to Plaintiffs soon. They represented that Headquarters was in contact with ADA staff at the institution “almost daily” and that ADA staff at the institution was involved in decisions regarding housing of class members.

After almost a month went by with no further information (written or otherwise) from

Defendants regarding housing of class members at CIM during the ongoing outbreak, Plaintiffs compiled information gathered through surveys and limited legal calls with Armstrong class members who were not in medical isolation or quarantine. In a letter sent to Defendants on June 5, 2020, Plaintiffs reported:

Class members with impacting-placement disabilities had been moved to housing units

known to be inaccessible, including while pending test results, while in medical isolation, and after receiving negative test results.

Class members reported that they had been housed for weeks in areas where they could not safely access toilets, sinks, and showers; climb stairs in their housing units; or fit their wheelchair through the cell door.



July 6, 2020 Page 4

People, including dozens of Armstrong class members, had been moved to gyms, tents

on the yard, and a newly opened unit that Defendants previously had closed on the grounds that it could no longer safely house people.

Notwithstanding repeated requests, Defendants had been unable to provide information about the process for moving class members or any accessible features that have been or will be installed in those areas.

ADA workers and Armstrong class members were at increased risk of harm due to inadequate personal protective equipment and mixing between people who were sick and people who were not.

See Attachment A: Letter from Rita Lomio & Megan Lynch, Plaintiffs’ Counsel, to Tamiya Davis, CDCR Office of Legal Affairs, Defendants’ Response to the COVID-19 Outbreak at the California Institution for Men (June 5, 2020).

On June 11, 2020, Plaintiffs interviewed ADA staff at CIM. ADA staff stated unequivocally that they had no involvement in placement decisions for Armstrong class members during the pandemic. Indeed, they said they received no advance notice that impacting-placement class members were going to be moved into inaccessible cells; they learned of such placements only by running a SOMS report each morning. When asked about their role in placement of class members into newly designated housing areas, the ADA Coordinator responded: “Our role was none at all. We were told after the fact that it was happening. . . . Medical made all those decisions. We didn’t have any input.” He continued: “When tents went in, I called the unit and said please try not to house any impacting inmates in there if possible. But, again, it was medical’s decision. . . . We were basically just cleaning up every day after medical; notifying the facilities. It is really challenging.” The ADA Coordinator acknowledged that the only way to address the shortage of accessible housing placements at CIM would be to reduce the population of people who require them.

That same day, Defendants sent an email to Plaintiffs stating that “for the appropriate

medical treatment of individual [sic] that have tested positive for COVID-19, it may be necessary to temporarily house class members in beds not consistent with their DPP code” and asserting that “CIM ensures these inmates are being reasonably accommodated.” In response, Plaintiffs noted that, contrary to Defendants’ claims, class members were being held in inaccessible placements for long periods of time and were not properly accommodated:

We reviewed the housing history reports for people who had a DPW or DPO code and who also had tested positive for COVID-19. Of the 22 people who met that criteria on June 3, 2020, 36% were housed in at least one inaccessible location between March 1, 2020, and June 15, 2020, and 18% were housed in multiple inaccessible



July 6, 2020 Page 5

locations during that period. The lengths of stay in inaccessible placements varied; a class member with a DPW code spent six days in inaccessible housing, and a class member with a DPO code spent 44 days in three different inaccessible locations. People with DPM, DPV, and DLT codes also were placed in inaccessible locations. We spoke with one 74-year-old class member designated DPM, who had been housed in inaccessible locations for 42 consecutive days and who had not been able to shower during that time because there were no grab bars and he was not provided a shower chair.

Attachment B: Letter from Rita Lomio & Megan Lynch, Plaintiffs’ Counsel, to Tamiya Davis, CDCR Office of Legal Affairs, Defendants’ Response to the COVID-19 Outbreak at the California Institution for Men (Part II) (June 18, 2020) at 3.

Representatives from CCHCS and CDCR visited CIM on June 24, 2020, to review the information set forth in Plaintiffs’ letters. In a report to Plaintiffs and the Court Expert on June 26, Defendants acknowledged that the institution at times “didn’t do the follow-through” and ensure that people were moved out of inaccessible living areas after they were confirmed negative for COVID-19 or had recovered from COVID-19. Defendants stated that, due to a “disconnect,” ADA staff had not been involved in placement decisions at CIM. Defendants could not explain what had caused the disconnect or why it had not been discovered sooner. In response to Plaintiffs’ inquiry whether the institution planned to install accessible features, Defendants responded that they did not, and instead said that they planned to rely on ADA workers and staff to assist Armstrong class members. Defendants acknowledged that the outbreak at CIM “definitely lasted longer than [we] thought.” Defendants then stated that they were trying to figure out what to do with class members housed in Joshua Hall, the only accessible building on Facility A, where at least twenty people had recently tested positive. By Defendants’ own account, the dangerous and degrading conditions for class members at CIM persist. Plaintiffs spoke with the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Medical Executive, and Chief Nurse Executive at CIM on June 30, and spoke again with ADA staff on July 1. Medical staff confirmed that cohorting for purposes of social distancing had greatly reduced the number of accessible beds at the institution, while the population of class members requiring those beds has not changed. When asked whether they had considered moving high-risk Armstrong class members to other accessible areas in the prison or elsewhere, they responded:

We’ve made that request since 17th of March. To help alleviate some of our congestion at CIM. That’s something we’ve pursued through DOC, through our channels, warden has pursued up her channels. That would be ideal for us, to move some of these high



July 6, 2020 Page 6

risk ADA patients to other institutions. That would be the best case scenario for us. But as you can see, we are sitting here today, end of June, with no progress on that.

On July 1, ADA staff reported that although they now are included on emails and invited

to meetings related to placement of Armstrong class members, there is little they can do in light of the insufficient number of accessible beds other than put people up for “expedited” transfer, which they acknowledged is of little practical benefit at this time as transfers have been indefinitely suspended. As the ADA Coordinator explained, “Our whole problem is we don’t have backspace to displace the COVID-negative ADA inmates anywhere else on the facility.”

The ADA Coordinator stated that fourteen class members who should be housed in

Joshua Hall, the only accessible building on Facility A, are not there because there are no beds available. Those people instead remain in housing units that were never designed to house people with serious disabilities. ADA staff said they intend to install certain accessibility features to expand class members’ access to toilets and showers, but these features are not yet in place. And even once installed, they will not address class members’ ability to safely access dining, recreation, and medical facilities. Sadly, the number of people inappropriately housed will only increase. Five class members who require accessible housing in Joshua Hall are presently in outside hospitals and will need to be housed upon their return. At least three class members from Joshua Hall who currently are receiving medical treatment in the OHU also will be discharged and require housing on the mainline, further straining the scarce supply of accessible beds. ADA staff reported that, through the end of the year, only five class members currently housed in Joshua Hall are expected to be released on parole.

And a number of class members who are accessibly housed at CIM are nonetheless in

life-threatening situations, apparently due to their disability. Class members housed in Joshua Hall who do not have COVID-19 are forced to reside in a crowded dorm with people with confirmed, active cases of the disease, and must share the same bathroom and shower facilities. This includes 28 class members in their 60s, 70s, and 80s, and a class member with a COVID weighted risk level of 10, indicating that, according to data produced by the Plata Receiver’s Office, the class member is at very high risk of dangerous complications from COVID-19.

Judge Tigar, during a status hearing in Plata v. Newsom on July 2, 2020, stated, of the

comingling in Joshua Hall of people with active cases and those without, “How can that be happening?” But the answer is clear and undisputed: The institution lacks sufficient accessible housing to separate these populations and keep Armstrong class members, who are among the most likely to suffer serious or deadly complications from COVID-19, protected from the virus. Or, as the ADA Coordinator explained to Plaintiffs on July 1: “Joshua is the only place we can



July 6, 2020 Page 7

house ADA class members. There’s nowhere else except for Joshua on Facility A. There’s nowhere else. If they can’t be housed there, they’re inappropriately housed.”

Defendants’ ADA COVID-19 Bed Plans

In light of the serious and ongoing harm to class members at CIM, Plaintiffs requested

that Defendants produce written plans outlining how each institution that houses class members with disabilities impacting placement will accommodate those class members in the event of an outbreak. We asked Defendants to identify which areas at each institution will be designated for medical isolation and quarantine and what physical plant modifications have been or will be made. On June 19, 2020, Defendants produced bed plans, in the form of short Excel spreadsheets, for twenty designated institutions.2 As Plaintiffs explained during the parties’ telephonic meeting on June 26, the bed plans are cursory and superficial, and they fail to demonstrate the planning and actions necessary to prevent the unsafe housing of Armstrong class members that has occurred during the months-long outbreak at CIM. We outline several overarching concerns below.

First, in nearly every bed plan, Defendants identify quarantine and isolation housing

units that would be vastly too small to provide sufficient accessible housing in the event of a medium or large outbreak, similar to those that already have occurred at San Quentin State Prison (1,420 confirmed cases as of July 5, 2020), Chuckawalla Valley State Prison (1,012 confirmed cases), Avenal State Prison (943 confirmed cases), California Institution for Men (919 confirmed cases), California Correctional Center (224 confirmed cases), and CSP-Los Angeles County (128 confirmed cases). For example, Defendants’ plan for California Medical Facility (CMF) states that if a class member in the Outpatient Housing Unit (OHU) or Correctional Treatment Center (CTC) tests positive for COVID-19, they will be moved to S3, which is an empty administrative segregation unit with 18 beds. There currently are 71 class members with impacting placement codes in the OHU and CTC. The 18-bed unit therefore would be unable to meet their needs if even a third of the class members (and no other people) in the OHU and CTC were infected. Moreover, 26 of those class members are full-time wheelchair users, and, according to the bed plan, S3 cannot accommodate any DPWs. The same problem appears in the housing plan for the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison, Corcoran (SATF), which states that people from Facilities A, E, F, and G all will be placed on E1 for purposes of “quarantine/isolation.” Facility A alone, however, houses 14 DPW class members, while E1 has only two DPW beds. Similarly, at

2 Defendants did not produce a bed plan for CIM, apparently because the outbreak was

already underway by the time the plans were devised. They also did not produce bed plans for institutions designated to house DLT class members, who frequently require lower bunk/lower tier placements that are in short supply throughout the system.



July 6, 2020 Page 8

CSP-Sacramento, Defendants designate two cells in the CTC for isolation of class members in segregated housing units. Currently, there are 12 people with impacting placement codes living in segregation units.

Second, most of the bed plans indicate that specific accessible cells will be used for quarantine or isolation without addressing where the current occupants of those cells will be placed. The bed plan for CSP-Corcoran, for example, states that ten cells in the Correctional Treatment Center (CTC) “will be used for both Isolation/Quarantine DPW inmates. Upon notice from medical that a DPW code inmate requires the use of these beds, the current occupants will be moved out.” The plan fails to address the fact that all ten of those cells currently are occupied by DPW class members and fails to identify where those class members will be housed if those cells are repurposed in the event of an outbreak. Similarly, Defendants’ plan for SATF designates one section of the Short-Term Restricted Housing Unit (STRH) to house people in medical isolation. That section has the STRH’s only two DPW cells, 148 and 149, which currently are occupied by Armstrong class members designated DPW.

Third, in light of the shortage of accessible beds, it is likely that certain institutions may have to designate additional housing areas in response to an outbreak, as CIM and San Quentin found it necessary to do through placing people in gyms, tents, and previously-unoccupied housing units, and may have to install additional accessible features in existing housing units. Very few of Defendants’ plans, however, contemplate the creation or use of nontraditional housing settings. And those that do provide no information beyond a cursory statement that, for example, a gym “can be used to house quarantined inmates with Administrative approval” (SATF). There is no information provided about whether and which Armstrong class members can be housed there or what if any construction will be done in advance to expand accessibility. Such measures are essential to prepare for outbreaks and are long overdue. Fourth, for many institutions, Defendants’ plan is simply to make a plan. The plan for the California Health Care Facility, Stockton (CHCF), which houses 1,259 class members, for example, is to “[i]n the event of a large scale outbreak affecting multiple housing units, CHCF will collaborate with the Health Care Placement Oversight Program team to assist with inter-facility transfers of I/Ps.” A plan that relies on inter-facility transfers during an outbreak is unlikely to succeed, as tragedy at San Quentin starkly illustrates. If Defendants have determined that CHCF cannot house class members in the event of an outbreak that affects multiple housing units, Defendants should be taking immediate steps to expand accessibility at that institution or to limit the number of impacting placement class members living there.

For almost every institution with specialized medical or mental health beds, Defendants reported that they will consult “HCPOP AND CCHCS in utilizing and/or creating space to house the affected inmate(s).” It is not clear how space will be created or utilized, and



July 6, 2020 Page 9

regardless, it is unacceptable to wait for an outbreak to start that consultation and only then, as the virus is moving rapidly through the prison, identify needed resources and begin construction and procurement. The purpose of the written plans is to prevent the last-minute, ad hoc scramble at CIM that found the institution unprepared to accommodate Armstrong class members during the outbreak and that resulted in serious, ongoing harm.

Indeed, several bed plans simply fail to set forth a plan or process to address class members’ housing needs. For Mule Creek State Prison, which currently houses 857 class members, Defendants’ plan states four times that “COVID 19 positive inmates will be evaluated for placement on a case-by-case basis.” For Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility, which houses 966 class members, the plan is simply that “[u]pon notice from medical that an inmate requires isolation or quarantine the inmates will be moved out of the cell to alternate accessible housing.” For Kern Valley State Prison, the plan simply states that “ADA inmates will be housed commensurate with their case factors and ADA needs.” There is no indication that Defendants have considered where or how this will be achieved.

In sum, Defendants simply fail to address the reality of their limited supply of accessible

housing. This supply has only decreased during the pandemic as a result of social distancing measures, and cannot fulfill the isolation and quarantine needs of Armstrong class members in the event of a COVID-19 outbreak. And, as we have seen at CIM, transfer restrictions and public health concerns likely will impede Defendants’ standard practice of transporting people from an institution with an active outbreak across the state to maximize scarce DPW and other accessible beds. Nonetheless, in the three months since the pandemic began, Defendants have not expanded accessible housing and have not reduced the demand on existing accessible beds by meaningfully reducing the population of people who need them.

And, even if Defendants are able to designate sufficient accessible housing, they must also ensure that class members are otherwise appropriately accommodated in light of program restrictions. For example, the plans do not address how class members will safely access ADA workers, who perform critical roles such as pushing people in wheelchairs to appointments, guiding blind people to the dining hall, cleaning bed areas, and reading and writing for those who cannot do so themselves. We note that Armstrong class member Melford Henson, who had been housed at CIM, died of COVID-19 on May 8. Mr. Henson believed he contracted the disease because he helped another Armstrong class member, who was infected with the novel coronavirus, by, among other things, pushing his wheelchair. Defendants’ plans also fail to address how Deaf class members will access videophones if they are transferred away from the buildings in which those phones are located, or how blind class members will access auxiliary aids, such as text-to-speech and electronic magnification equipment.



July 6, 2020 Page 10

Conclusion Defendants’ failure to provide accessible housing to class members violates the Armstrong Remedial Plan, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and multiple orders of the Armstrong court prohibiting CDCR from housing class members “at any placements without adequate accessible housing.” Jan. 18, 2007 Injunction, Docket No. 1045, at 6; see also Mar. 21, 2001 Permanent Injunction, Docket No. 694, at 3 (“CDCR has a duty to maintain in operable working condition structural features and equipment necessary to make the prison system’s services, programs, and activities accessible to disabled inmates.”); Armstrong Remedial Plan, Sec. I at 1 (no prisoner with a disability “shall, because of that disability, be excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of services, programs, or activities of the Department or be subjected to discrimination.”); 42 U.S.C.A. § 12132 (same).

Defendants must address the needs of people with disabilities during an emergency. See Brooklyn Ctr. for Indep. of Disabled v. Bloomberg, 980 F. Supp. 2d 588, 658 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (holding that City violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act because, among other things, its emergency preparedness program did not “require that the shelter system be sufficiently accessible, either architecturally or programmatically, to accommodate people with disabilities in an emergency”). This includes ensuring that Armstrong class members are appropriately housed. See Communities Actively Living Indep. & Free v. City of Los Angeles, No. CV 09-0287 CBM RZX, 2011 WL 4595993, at *14 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2011) (rejecting “the City’s contentions that it can make ad hoc reasonable accommodations upon request” and observing that “[t]he purpose of the City’s emergency preparedness program is to anticipate the needs of its residents in the event of an emergency and to minimize the very type of last-minute, individualized requests for assistance described by the City, particularly when the City’s infrastructure may be substantially compromised or strained by an imminent or ongoing emergency or disaster.”). Simply put, the time has long passed for incremental, reactive steps and half-measures. If Defendants are unable to provide safe and accessible housing to this high-risk population, they must take immediate action to expedite and enhance community and parole placements. We are available this week to meet and confer with Defendants and the Court Expert regarding these issues. However, in light of the urgency of the issue and Plaintiffs’ previous attempts to engage in discussion of these issues without success, we intend to present this issue promptly to the Armstrong court.

Sincerely, /s/ Margot Mendelson /s/ Rita Lomio Margot Mendelson Rita Lomio Staff Attorney Staff Attorney



July 6, 2020 Page 11

cc: Co-Counsel

Ed Swanson, Court Expert Nicholas Meyer Alexander Powell Patricia Ferguson Joanna Hood, Damon McClain, Jeremy Duggan Anthony Tartaglio Trace Maiorino Sean Lodholz Bruce Beland Robert Gaultney


Exhibit M


1


Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2020 10:30 AMTo: Rita Lomio; Powell, Alexander@CDCRCc: Armstrong Team; Armstrong Team - RBG only; Ed Swanson; Ferguson,

Patricia@CDCR; Fouch, Adam@CDCRSubject: RE: ARM | Joshua Hall at CIMAttachments: Josh A6 Updated 7-6-2020.xlsx; Plan for ADA inmates awaiting epedited

transfer.docx

Hi Rita, Please see responses below to your information requests.

1. Please confirm that no person with a confirmed, active case of COVID-19 is housed on the same side of Joshua Hall as Armstrong class members without confirmed cases (active or resolved). Response: In A6 there are Armstrong class members on both sides of the housing unit. There are 26 positives on one side and 87 negatives or recovered on the other side. Confirmed positive cases are not housed on the same side as individuals that are negative.

2. Please send us a layout of Joshua Hall, with bed numbers and with an indication of which beds no longer are

available due to cohorting.

Response: See attached excel spreadsheet for layout and designated inactive beds.

3. Please explain whether the institution has modified or plans to modify other housing areas so that Armstrong class members can be safely housed if the outbreak continues in Joshua Hall.

Response: Written plans to modify identified housing units to add accessibility features were sent to CAMU HQ on Friday, July 3. (See attached Word document).

4. Please send us the photographs of CIM that we requested on June 19.

Response: Photographs have been completed. Per our normal procedure, the photographs will be sent to the Office of Attorney General for cataloguing, Bates numbering, and production to Plaintiffs. We will expedite the production process as much as possible.

Thank you, Tamiya Davis Attorney III, Class Action Team Office of Legal Affairs California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Phone: 916.341.6960 Cell: 916.247.5094


2

From: Rita Lomio <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, July 5, 2020 12:59 PM To: Davis, Tamiya@CDCR <[email protected]>; Powell, Alexander@CDCR <[email protected]> Cc: Armstrong Team <[email protected]>; Armstrong Team - RBG only <[email protected]>; Ed Swanson <[email protected]> Subject: ARM | Joshua Hall at CIM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of CDCR/CCHCS. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Tamiya, Thank you for arranging calls with the medical and ADA staff at the California Institution for Men last week. Staff reported that people in Joshua Hall, the only accessible housing unit on Facility A, were tested for COVID-19 on June 23, and at least 20 people tested positive. Staff reported that they could not move medically high-risk Armstrong class members out of Joshua Hall because no other accessible placements are available. Staff said that, as a result, Armstrong class members who recently tested negative for COVID-19 and who have not previously had the disease are being housed on a different side of Joshua Hall than people who tested positive. Staff acknowledged that everyone in Joshua Hall, however, shares the same bathroom and shower facilities. We compared the COVID-19 Registry from June 30 with the DPP Roster from July 1. It appears that some class members who tested negative (and who have not before tested positive) are in fact housed on the same side of Joshua Hall as people with confirmed, active cases. We request the following information:

1. Please confirm that no person with a confirmed, active case of COVID-19 is housed on the same side of Joshua Hall as Armstrong class members without confirmed cases (active or resolved).

2. Please send us a layout of Joshua Hall, with bed numbers and with an indication of which beds no longer are available due to cohorting.


4. Please send us the photographs of CIM that we requested on June 19. Please give me a call if you would like to discuss. I will be traveling tomorrow morning, but can be reached on my cell: Thanks, Rita Rita K. Lomio Staff Attorney Prison Law Office 1917 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710 (510) 280-2632


3

Pronouns: she/her


140 130 120 110

139 129 119 109

138 128 118 108

137 127 117 107

136 126 116 106

135 125 115 105

134 124 114 104

133 123 113 103

132 122 112 102

131 121 111 101

171

161 151 141

172 162 152 142

173 163 153 143

174 164 154 144

175 165 155 145

176 166 156 146

177 167 157 147

178 168 158 148

179 169 159 149

170 160 150180

DAYROOM

RESTROOM OFFICE

JOSHUA A-6Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 2996-1 Filed 07/14/20 of 133

Area/Bed ID Housing Custody Configuration ADA DPP A JH 1-000103U Non-Designated Program Facility Medium (A) Dorm DPP DPH, DPSA JH 1-000106L Non-Designated Program Facility Medium (A) Dorm DPP DPO, DPM, DLT, DPH, DPV, DPSA JH 1-000106U Non-Designated Program Facility Medium (A) Dorm DPP DPH, DPSA JH 1-000108L Non-Designated Program Facility Medium (A) Dorm DPP DPO, DPM, DLT, DPH, DPV, DPSA JH 1-000108U Non-Designated Program Facility Medium (A) Dorm DPP DPH, DPSA JH 1-000113L Non-Designated Program Facility Medium (A) Dorm DPP DPO, DPM, DLT, DPH, DPV, DPSA JH 1-000113U Non-Designated Program Facility Medium (A) Dorm DPP DPH, DPSA JH 1-000116L Non-Designated Program Facility Medium (A) Dorm DPP DPO, DPM, DLT, DPH, DPV, DPSA JH 1-000116U Non-Designated Program Facility Medium (A) Dorm DPP DPH, DPSA JH 1-000118L Non-Designated Program Facility Medium (A) Dorm DPP DPO, DPM, DLT, DPH, DPV, DPSA JH 1-000118U Non-Designated Program Facility Medium (A) Dorm DPP DPH, DPSA JH 1-000123L Non-Designated Program Facility Medium (A) Dorm DPP DPO, DPM, DLT, DPH, DPV, DPSA JH 1-000123U Non-Designated Program Facility Medium (A) Dorm DPP DPH, DPSA JH 1-000126L Non-Designated Program Facility Medium (A) Dorm DPP DPO, DPM, DLT, DPH, DPV, DPSA JH 1-000126U Non-Designated Program Facility Medium (A) Dorm DPP DPH, DPSA JH 1-000128L Non-Designated Program Facility Medium (A) Dorm DPP DPO, DPM, DLT, DPH, DPV, DPSA JH 1-000128U Non-Designated Program Facility Medium (A) Dorm DPP DPH, DPSA JH 1-000133L Non-Designated Program Facility Medium (A) Dorm DPP DPO, DPM, DLT, DPH, DPV, DPSA JH 1-000133U Non-Designated Program Facility Medium (A) Dorm DPP DPH, DPSA JH 1-000136L Non-Designated Program Facility Medium (A) Dorm DPP DPO, DPM, DLT, DPH, DPV, DPSA JH 1-000136U Non-Designated Program Facility Medium (A) Dorm DPP DPH, DPSA JH 1-000138L Non-Designated Program Facility Medium (A) Dorm DPP DPO, DPM, DLT, DPH, DPV, DPSA JH 1-000138U Non-Designated Program Facility Medium (A) Dorm DPP DPH, DPSA JH 1-000143L Non-Designated Program Facility Medium (A) Dorm DPP DPO, DPM, DLT, DPH, DPV, DPSA JH 1-000143U Non-Designated Program Facility Medium (A) Dorm DPP DPH, DPSA JH 1-000146L Non-Designated Program Facility Medium (A) Dorm DPP DPO, DPM, DLT, DPH, DPV, DPSA JH 1-000146U Non-Designated Program Facility Medium (A) Dorm DPP DPH, DPSA JH 1-000149L Non-Designated Program Facility Medium (A) Dorm DPW DPW, DPO, DPM, DLT, DPH, DPV, DPSA JH 1-000149U Non-Designated Program Facility Medium (A) Dorm DPP DPH, DPSA JH 1-000153L Non-Designated Program Facility Medium (A) Dorm DPP DPO, DPM, DLT, DPH, DPV, DPSA JH 1-000153U Non-Designated Program Facility Medium (A) Dorm DPP DPH, DPSA JH 1-000155L Non-Designated Program Facility Medium (A) Dorm DPP DPO, DPM, DLT, DPH, DPV, DPSA JH 1-000155U Non-Designated Program Facility Medium (A) Dorm DPP DPH, DPS


A JH 1-000158L Non-Designated Program Facility Medium (A) Dorm DPP DPO, DPM, DLT, DPH, DPV, DPSA JH 1-000158U Non-Designated Program Facility Medium (A) Dorm DPP DPH, DPSA JH 1-000162L Non-Designated Program Facility Medium (A) Dorm DPW DPW, DPO, DPM, DLT, DPH, DPV, DPSA JH 1-000162U Non-Designated Program Facility Medium (A) Dorm DPP DPH, DPSA JH 1-000165L Non-Designated Program Facility Medium (A) Dorm DPP DPO, DPM, DLT, DPH, DPV, DPSA JH 1-000165U Non-Designated Program Facility Medium (A) Dorm DPP DPH, DPSA JH 1-000168L Non-Designated Program Facility Medium (A) Dorm DPP DPO, DPM, DLT, DPH, DPV, DPSA JH 1-000168U Non-Designated Program Facility Medium (A) Dorm DPP DPH, DPSA JH 1-000173L Non-Designated Program Facility Medium (A) Dorm DPP DPO, DPM, DLT, DPH, DPV, DPSA JH 1-000173U Non-Designated Program Facility Medium (A) Dorm DPP DPH, DPSA JH 1-000176L Non-Designated Program Facility Medium (A) Dorm DPP DPO, DPM, DLT, DPH, DPV, DPSA JH 1-000176U Non-Designated Program Facility Medium (A) Dorm DPP DPH, DPSA JH 1-000179L Non-Designated Program Facility Medium (A) Dorm DPW DPW, DPO, DPM, DLT, DPH, DPV, DPSA JH 1-000179U Non-Designated Program Facility Medium (A) Dorm DPP DPH, DPS


Status As of Date Not in Service 5/28/2020Not in Service 5/28/2020Not in Service 5/28/2020Not in Service 5/28/2020Not in Service 5/28/2020Not in Service 5/28/2020Not in Service 5/28/2020Not in Service 5/28/2020Not in Service 5/28/2020Not in Service 6/5/2020Not in Service 5/28/2020Not in Service 5/30/2020Not in Service 5/28/2020Not in Service 5/28/2020Not in Service 5/28/2020Not in Service 5/31/2020Not in Service 5/28/2020Not in Service 5/28/2020Not in Service 5/28/2020Not in Service 5/28/2020Not in Service 5/28/2020Not in Service 5/28/2020Not in Service 5/28/2020Not in Service 6/5/2020Not in Service 5/28/2020Not in Service 6/5/2020Not in Service 5/28/2020Not in Service 5/28/2020Not in Service 5/28/2020Not in Service 5/30/2020Not in Service 5/28/2020Not in Service 6/5/2020Not in Service 5/29/2020


Not in Service 5/28/2020Not in Service 5/28/2020Not in Service 6/16/2020Not in Service 6/5/2020Not in Service 6/12/2020Not in Service 6/12/2020Not in Service 5/28/2020Not in Service 5/28/2020Not in Service 6/16/2020Not in Service 6/16/2020Not in Service 5/30/2020Not in Service 5/28/2020Not in Service 6/16/2020Not in Service 6/12/2020


STATE OF CALIFORNIA — DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR

DIVISION OF ADULT INSTITUTIONS California Institution for Men PO Box 128 Chino, CA 91708

July 3, 2020 Landon Bravo Associate Warden-Chief Class Action management Unit Plan for accessible showers for inmate while on expedited transfer status. This is in response the your email from Charles Callahan, Deputy Director, Facility Support dated July 1, 2020 regarding Armstrong inmates access to services while on expedited transfer status. This email was forwarded to my office for review and response. The CIM ADA staff met with CIM Plant Operations Manager L. Cain on 7/2/2020 to discuss implementation of the direction given in the 7/1/2020 email. Additional stakeholders were also part of this meeting to discuss building to designate where these impacted inmates will be housed pending transfer to a designated institution. CIM has identified Facility A, Building 5 (Mariposa Hall) to be the housing unit where inmates will be housed pending transfer to a designated institution. A shower chair is available in A-5. Grab bars for two (2) showers and four (4) toilets will be installed. In addition, two (2) shower wands will be installed. No ramps will be required to enter the shower area. As A-5 has a step to enter the building and each entrance, Entrance ramps will be installed for access. This unit has a designated pathway to the canteen, dining hall and health care services as well as education and program services. CIM has also identified Facility B, unit 2, (Birch Hall) 1st tier, cells 138,140, 142, 144 & 146 will have grab bars for toilets and ramps for entering the cells installed. This unit already has a Certified Access Specialist (CASp) approved ADA shower with grab bars, shower bench and hi/lo shower head and shower wand. Unit has a designated pathway to the canteen, dining hall and health care services as well as education and program services. The estimated time for completion of this plan is 07/17/2020 pending availability and receipt of parts (ramps) and will monitored weekly until completed. Plant Operations began installing the grab bars in the showers and toilets today in A-5. The ADA Coordinator or designee update you as to the status of this plan until all is completed. The ADA Coordinator or designee will make frequent rounds to check on the impacted inmates ensuring assistance is being provided for all programs, services and activities.


If you have any further questions, please contact me at (909) 591-1821, extension 7123. Brandon Castorena Associate Warden ADA-Coordinator California Institution for Men


Exhibit N


1


Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2020 1:00 PMTo: Rita LomioCc: Armstrong Team; Armstrong Team - RBG only; Ed Swanson; Powell,

Alexander@CDCR; Ferguson, Patricia@CDCR; Fouch, Adam@CDCRSubject: RE: ARM | Joshua Hall at CIM

Hi Rita, To get clarification on your questions, I reached out to CIM for follow-up. As you know ADAC Castorena is on out on vacation, so CIM management responded in his absence. In Joshua Hall, the positive inmates are housed in beds 141-160. Between those beds and beds 161-180 is a pony wall and CIM has installed plexiglas type barriers above the pony walls. Thank you, Tamiya Davis Attorney III, Class Action Team Office of Legal Affairs California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Phone: 916.341.6960 Cell: 916.247.5094

From: Rita Lomio <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2020 11:06 AM To: Davis, Tamiya@CDCR <[email protected]> Cc: Armstrong Team <[email protected]>; Armstrong Team - RBG only <[email protected]>; Ed Swanson <[email protected]>; Powell, Alexander@CDCR <[email protected]>; Ferguson, Patricia@CDCR <[email protected]>; Fouch, Adam@CDCR <[email protected]> Subject: RE: ARM | Joshua Hall at CIM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of CDCR/CCHCS. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Tamiya, Your answer indicates that there are two sides of Joshua Hall, and that negatives/recovered are on one side, and positives are on the other. Based on the layout you sent, one side of the building comprises bunks 101-140, and the other 141-180.


2

Based on our review of the DPP roster, COVID-19 registry, and electronic medical record, however, it appears that Armstrong class members who tested negative are housed on the same side of the building as people who tested positive—that is, the side with bunks 141-180.

DPO 71 7 23-Jun active DPM 67 8 23-Jun active DNM, DPV 57 5 23-Jun active DNH 73 5 23-Jun active DPM, DNH 77 7 23-Jun active DPM 54 0 23-Jun active DPM, DNH 87 5 23-Jun active DPS 50 0 23-Jun active DPM 76 4 23-Jun active DPW, DNH 70 9 23-Jun active DPM 79 5 23-Jun active DPM 58 5 23-Jun active DPM 74 8 23-Jun active DPM 60 1 23-Jun active DPM 67 7 23-Jun active DPM 70 11 23-Jun active DPW 53 4 26-May resolved DPM 63 1 26-May resolved

DPM, DNH 75 6 27-May resolved DPM 66 9 n/a negative DNH 58 4 n/a negative DPM, DNH 75 5 n/a negative DPO 62 6 n/a negative DPO, DNH 67 4 n/a negative DPO 32 1 n/a negative DPO 60 4 n/a negative DPM 64 0 n/a negative DPM 47 2 n/a negative DPO, DNH 50 4 29-May Resolved DPO 78 9 n/a negative DPO, DNH 78 7 n/a negative

Would you please explain whether our analysis is correct and, if so, what the institution plans to do to address it? We request a response by 1 pm today. Rita

From: Davis, Tamiya@CDCR [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2020 10:30 AM To: Rita Lomio <[email protected]>; Powell, Alexander@CDCR <[email protected]> Cc: Armstrong Team <[email protected]>; Armstrong Team - RBG only <[email protected]>; Ed Swanson <[email protected]>; Ferguson, Patricia@CDCR <[email protected]>; Fouch, Adam@CDCR


3

<[email protected]> Subject: RE: ARM | Joshua Hall at CIM Hi Rita, Please see responses below to your information requests.

1. Please confirm that no person with a confirmed, active case of COVID-19 is housed on the same side of Joshua Hall as Armstrong class members without confirmed cases (active or resolved). Response: In A6 there are Armstrong class members on both sides of the housing unit. There are 26 positives on one side and 87 negatives or recovered on the other side. Confirmed positive cases are not housed on the same side as individuals that are negative.

2. Please send us a layout of Joshua Hall, with bed numbers and with an indication of which beds no longer are

available due to cohorting.

Response: See attached excel spreadsheet for layout and designated inactive beds.


Response: Written plans to modify identified housing units to add accessibility features were sent to CAMU HQ on Friday, July 3. (See attached Word document).

4. Please send us the photographs of CIM that we requested on June 19.

Response: Photographs have been completed. Per our normal procedure, the photographs will be sent to the Office of Attorney General for cataloguing, Bates numbering, and production to Plaintiffs. We will expedite the production process as much as possible.

Thank you, Tamiya Davis Attorney III, Class Action Team Office of Legal Affairs California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Phone: 916.341.6960 Cell: 916.247.5094

From: Rita Lomio <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, July 5, 2020 12:59 PM To: Davis, Tamiya@CDCR <[email protected]>; Powell, Alexander@CDCR <[email protected]> Cc: Armstrong Team <[email protected]>; Armstrong Team - RBG only <[email protected]>; Ed Swanson <[email protected]> Subject: ARM | Joshua Hall at CIM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of CDCR/CCHCS. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.


4

Hi Tamiya, Thank you for arranging calls with the medical and ADA staff at the California Institution for Men last week. Staff reported that people in Joshua Hall, the only accessible housing unit on Facility A, were tested for COVID-19 on June 23, and at least 20 people tested positive. Staff reported that they could not move medically high-risk Armstrong class members out of Joshua Hall because no other accessible placements are available. Staff said that, as a result, Armstrong class members who recently tested negative for COVID-19 and who have not previously had the disease are being housed on a different side of Joshua Hall than people who tested positive. Staff acknowledged that everyone in Joshua Hall, however, shares the same bathroom and shower facilities. We compared the COVID-19 Registry from June 30 with the DPP Roster from July 1. It appears that some class members who tested negative (and who have not before tested positive) are in fact housed on the same side of Joshua Hall as people with confirmed, active cases. We request the following information:

1. Please confirm that no person with a confirmed, active case of COVID-19 is housed on the same side of Joshua Hall as Armstrong class members without confirmed cases (active or resolved).

2. Please send us a layout of Joshua Hall, with bed numbers and with an indication of which beds no longer are available due to cohorting.


4. Please send us the photographs of CIM that we requested on June 19. Please give me a call if you would like to discuss. I will be traveling tomorrow morning, but can be reached on my cell: . Thanks, Rita Rita K. Lomio Staff Attorney Prison Law Office 1917 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710 (510) 280-2632 Pronouns: she/her


Exhibit O


1

From: CDCR CCHCS PCS Para7 <[email protected]> on behalf of CDCR CCHCS PCS Para7

Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2020 11:12 AMTo: Steven FamaCc: Kelso, Clark@CDCR; Clark Kelso; Yang, Mellonie@CDCR; Barrow,

Roscoe@CDCR; Stafford, Carrie@CDCR; Scofield, Bryant; Kyle Lewis; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; McElroy, Donald@CDCR; Boparai, Meet@CDCR; Schaper, Laura@CDCR; Bal, Jasdeep@CDCR; Brockenborough, Rainbow@CDCR; Bradford, Deborah@CDCR; Saich, Lara@CDCR; Gouldy, DeAnna@CDCR; Oltean, Amanda@CDCR; Blackwood, Allan@CDCR; Lopez, Kristine@CDCR; Meier, Sara@CDCR; Dinnell, Doug@CDCR; Chase, Andrew@CDCR; Le, Amanda@CDCR; Sunita Randhawa; Rana Anabtawi; Sophie Hart; Alison Hardy; Sara Norman; Don Specter; Rita Lomio; Davis, Tamiya@CDCR; Ed Swanson; Angie Cooper; Braxton Medlin; Brian Main; Cindy Radavsky; Henry Dlugacz; James DeGroot; Jeffrey Metzner; Joseph P. Soras; Kahlil Johnson; Karen Rea; Kerry F. Walsh; Kerry Hughes; Kristina Hector; Latricea McClendon-Hunt; Lindsay Hayes; Maria Masotta; Mary Perrien; Matthew A. Lopes, Jr; Michael Ryan; Mohamedu F. Jones; Patricia Williams; Regina Costa; Rod Hickman; Sofia Millham; Timothy Rougeux; William Trezvant; Zelia M. Tavares

Subject: RE: Plata - request for appropriate housing for COVID-negative patients at CIM, Facility A, Joshua Hall (Unit A-6)

Good morning Mr. Fama, The information regarding COVID-negative patients housed at CIM, Facility A, Joshua Hall, has been provided to the Regional Health Care Executive to address as appropriate. Thank you, Leticia Martinez Staff Services Manager I Health Care Compliance Support Section Risk Management Branch Policy and Risk Management Services 916-691-2750 Office [email protected] E-MAIL DISCLAIMER: Please note that the information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential, protected from disclosure, and/or intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, distribution, copying or other dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you received this communication in error, please immediately reply to the sender, delete the message, and destroy all copies of it.


2

From: Steven Fama <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2020 4:09 PM To: Kelso, Clark@CDCR <[email protected]>; Clark Kelso <[email protected]>; CDCR CCHCS PCS Para7 <[email protected]> Cc: Yang, Mellonie@CDCR <[email protected]>; Barrow, Roscoe@CDCR <[email protected]>; Stafford, Carrie@CDCR <[email protected]>; Scofield, Bryant <[email protected]>; Kyle Lewis <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; McElroy, Donald@CDCR <[email protected]>; Boparai, Meet@CDCR <[email protected]>; Schaper, Laura@CDCR <[email protected]>; Bal, Jasdeep@CDCR <[email protected]>; Brockenborough, Rainbow@CDCR <[email protected]>; Bradford, Deborah@CDCR <[email protected]>; Saich, Lara@CDCR <[email protected]>; Gouldy, DeAnna@CDCR <[email protected]>; Oltean, Amanda@CDCR <[email protected]>; Blackwood, Allan@CDCR <[email protected]>; Lopez, Kristine@CDCR <[email protected]>; Martinez, Leticia@CDCR <[email protected]>; Meier, Sara@CDCR <[email protected]>; Bagan, Joanne@CDCR <[email protected]>; Williams, Jennifer@CDCR <[email protected]>; Dinnell, Doug@CDCR <[email protected]>; Chase, Andrew@CDCR <[email protected]>; Le, Amanda@CDCR <[email protected]>; Rana Anabtawi <[email protected]>; Sophie Hart <[email protected]>; Alison Hardy <[email protected]>; Sara Norman <[email protected]>; Don Specter <[email protected]>; Rita Lomio <[email protected]>; Davis, Tamiya@CDCR <[email protected]>; Ed Swanson <[email protected]> Subject: Plata - request for appropriate housing for COVID-negative patients at CIM, Facility A, Joshua Hall (Unit A-6) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of CDCR/CCHCS. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mr. Kelso and CCHCS, We write to ask that you give immediate direction to the California Institution for Men to provide separate appropriate housing for people, including Armstrong class members, who are COVID-negative and currently housed in Joshua Hall (A6). Joshua Hall is a dorm that currently is housing patients with confirmed, active cases of COVID-19, including on the same side of the dorm as people who are COVID-negative, and who in any event share the same bathroom and shower facilities. A number of the COVID-negative patients are in their 60s, 70s, or 80s. We believe this housing presents a substantial risk of harm to all negative patients. As you may recall, Judge Tigar last week, referencing our report on this situation in the Case Management Conference Statement, said, “How can that be happening?” Thank you for your anticipated prompt consideration and action regarding this matter. Sincerely,


3

Steven Fama Staff Attorney Prison Law Office


Exhibit P


1

From: Fouch, Adam@CDCR <[email protected]> on behalf of Fouch, Adam@CDCR

Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2020 5:01 PMTo: Rita LomioCc: Armstrong Team; Armstrong Team - RBG only; Powell, Alexander@CDCR;

Ferguson, Patricia@CDCR; Davis, Tamiya@CDCR; Ed Swanson; Cullen, Vincent@CDCR

Subject: RE: ARM | Joshua Hall at CIM

More unfortunate news. I will be in touch with the Warden who will work with CIM Health care staff to determine housing. As you will see in the response from Tamiya, CIM has installed grab bars in showers and toilets in A5, as well as shower hoses. We will update you as to where the positive inmates have moved. Adam Fouch Assistant Deputy Director Program Operations Division of Adult Institutions Office (916) 323-2931 Cell (415) 342-6120

From: Rita Lomio <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2020 4:31 PM To: Fouch, Adam@CDCR <[email protected]> Cc: Armstrong Team <[email protected]>; Armstrong Team - RBG only <[email protected]>; Powell, Alexander@CDCR <[email protected]>; Ferguson, Patricia@CDCR <[email protected]>; Davis, Tamiya@CDCR <[email protected]>; Ed Swanson <[email protected]>; Cullen, Vincent@CDCR <[email protected]> Subject: RE: ARM | Joshua Hall at CIM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of CDCR/CCHCS. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Thank you, Adam. Obviously, in light of the new positive test results, #7 is even more urgent. Our initial review indicates that five of the six new positive cases are Armstrong class members, and four have impacting-placement disabilities. Where will they be housed?

From: Fouch, Adam@CDCR [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2020 4:15 PM


2

To: Rita Lomio <[email protected]> Cc: Armstrong Team <[email protected]>; Armstrong Team - RBG only <[email protected]>; Powell, Alexander@CDCR <[email protected]>; Ferguson, Patricia@CDCR <[email protected]>; Davis, Tamiya@CDCR <[email protected]>; Ed Swanson <[email protected]>; Cullen, Vincent@CDCR <[email protected]> Subject: RE: ARM | Joshua Hall at CIM Hi Rita, I received the response back to the highlighted questions and recently sent to Tamiya. The ones not highlighted will follow…most likely tomorrow. Adam Fouch Assistant Deputy Director Program Operations Division of Adult Institutions Office (916) 323-2931 Cell (415) 342-6120

From: Rita Lomio <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2020 4:08 PM To: Fouch, Adam@CDCR <[email protected]> Cc: Armstrong Team <[email protected]>; Armstrong Team - RBG only <[email protected]>; Powell, Alexander@CDCR <[email protected]>; Ferguson, Patricia@CDCR <[email protected]>; Davis, Tamiya@CDCR <[email protected]>; Ed Swanson <[email protected]> Subject: RE: ARM | Joshua Hall at CIM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of CDCR/CCHCS. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Adam, Thank you for speaking with us today about Joshua Hall. I am writing to confirm the follow-up questions we had. We look forward to getting your responses later today. 1. The cleaning schedule and process for sanitizing items in shared spaces, including toilets, showers, sinks, and phones. 2. The most recent test result and date of most recent test for each person currently housed in Joshua Hall. I see that Vince just sent a spreadsheet, so that may answer this question. 3. The date(s) on which people in Joshua Hall will next be tested. 4. When Plexiglas was installed in Joshua Hall, where it was installed, and coverage area (including whether it goes up to and touches the ceiling). We did not request photographs of the Plexiglass in Joshua Hall on the call, but we do so now. 5. Size, location, and direction of all fans in the building, and whether and how air is extracted and replaced in the building. – not with as much detail as you are asking in this question 6. Status and anticipated completion date of all construction related to COVID-19 bed planning at the institution.


3

7. Where people who currently reside in Joshua Hall, including impacting-placement class members, will be housed if they test positive for the novel coronavirus, what accessible features are available there, and how many people, including how many impacting-placement class members, can be accommodated there. 8. Why the CEO, CME, CNE, ADAC, CAMU CII, and Warden all were unaware, for at least twelve days, that people with confirmed, active cases were housed on the same side of Joshua Hall as people who had not before tested positive. 9. What has been done to address this situation. Thanks, Rita


Exhibit Q


1

From: Rita Lomio <[email protected]> on behalf of Rita LomioSent: Thursday, July 9, 2020 6:34 AMTo: Davis, Tamiya@CDCR; Fouch, Adam@CDCRCc: Armstrong Team; Armstrong Team - RBG only; Powell, Alexander@CDCR;

Ferguson, Patricia@CDCR; Ed Swanson; Cullen, Vincent@CDCRSubject: RE: ARM | Joshua Hall at CIM

Thank you, Tamiya. We look forward to the remaining answers as soon as possible. In the meantime, would you please let us know whether there have been any housing changes since test results were returned yesterday, and, if so, where people now are housed?

From: Davis, Tamiya@CDCR [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2020 6:41 PM To: Fouch, Adam@CDCR <[email protected]>; Rita Lomio <[email protected]> Cc: Armstrong Team <[email protected]>; Armstrong Team - RBG only <[email protected]>; Powell, Alexander@CDCR <[email protected]>; Ferguson, Patricia@CDCR <[email protected]>; Ed Swanson <[email protected]>; Cullen, Vincent@CDCR <[email protected]> Subject: RE: ARM | Joshua Hall at CIM Hi Rita, Below please find the answers to your questions that we are able to provide today. As Adam indicated in his previous email, the remaining answers will follow. Thank you, Tamiya Davis

Attorney III, Class Action Team Office of Legal Affairs California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Phone: 916.341.6960 Cell: 916.247.5094

From: Fouch, Adam@CDCR <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2020 4:15 PM To: Rita Lomio <[email protected]> Cc: Armstrong Team <[email protected]>; Armstrong Team - RBG only <[email protected]>; Powell, Alexander@CDCR <[email protected]>; Ferguson, Patricia@CDCR <[email protected]>; Davis, Tamiya@CDCR <[email protected]>; Ed Swanson <[email protected]>; Cullen, Vincent@CDCR <[email protected]> Subject: RE: ARM | Joshua Hall at CIM Hi Rita, I received the response back to the highlighted questions and recently sent to Tamiya. The ones not highlighted will follow…most likely tomorrow.


2

Adam Fouch Assistant Deputy Director Program Operations Division of Adult Institutions Office (916) 323-2931 Cell (415) 342-6120

From: Rita Lomio <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2020 4:08 PM To: Fouch, Adam@CDCR <[email protected]> Cc: Armstrong Team <[email protected]>; Armstrong Team - RBG only <[email protected]>; Powell, Alexander@CDCR <[email protected]>; Ferguson, Patricia@CDCR <[email protected]>; Davis, Tamiya@CDCR <[email protected]>; Ed Swanson <[email protected]> Subject: RE: ARM | Joshua Hall at CIM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of CDCR/CCHCS. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Adam, Thank you for speaking with us today about Joshua Hall. I am writing to confirm the follow-up questions we had. We look forward to getting your responses later today. 1. The cleaning schedule and process for sanitizing items in shared spaces, including toilets, showers, sinks, and phones. RESPONSE: The restrooms are scrubbed with cleanser, Cell Block 64, and sprayed with bleach. The separate populations have access to the restroom at the same time. The scheduling of use of the restroom to separate times would negative impact the population, especially the elderly and incontinent, who need access more frequently. The restrooms are cleaned by trained porters six times a day as documented on the cleaning log. 2. The most recent test result and date of most recent test for each person currently housed in Joshua Hall. I see that Vince just sent a spreadsheet, so that may answer this question. 3. The date(s) on which people in Joshua Hall will next be tested. 4. When Plexiglas was installed in Joshua Hall, where it was installed, and coverage area (including whether it goes up to and touches the ceiling). We did not request photographs of the Plexiglass in Joshua Hall on the call, but we do so now. RESPONSE: On June 4, 2020, the installation of Lexan, or plexi-type material started. While waiting for enough material to complete install in all units, a thick plastic was utilized. Once the rest of the Lexan/ plexi-type material arrived it was installed and the thick plastic was removed from the units on June 27. Requested photos will follow. 5. Size, location, and direction of all fans in the building, and whether and how air is extracted and replaced in the building. RESPONSE: There are two fans on each side of the unit. The fans are positioned at the end of the unit, face each other, and blow air into that side of the unit. 6. Status and anticipated completion date of all construction related to COVID-19 bed planning at the institution.


3

RESPONSE: Facility A6 is an ADA compliant housing unit. Additionally, in A5 grab bars were installed at two toilets and two showers, two shower hoses were added, and temporary ramps will be installed in A5 to assist with the housing of positive inmates that are ADA that cannot be housed in A6. 7. Where people who currently reside in Joshua Hall, including impacting-placement class members, will be housed if they test positive for the novel coronavirus, what accessible features are available there, and how many people, including how many impacting-placement class members, can be accommodated there. 8. Why the CEO, CME, CNE, ADAC, CAMU CII, and Warden all were unaware, for at least twelve days, that people with confirmed, active cases were housed on the same side of Joshua Hall as people who had not before tested positive. 9. What has been done to address this situation. Thanks, Rita


Exhibit R


1


Sent: Friday, July 10, 2020 11:00 AMTo: Meyer, Nicholas@CDCR; Rita Lomio; [email protected]: Armstrong Team; Armstrong Team - RBG only; Powell, Alexander@CDCR;

Ferguson, Patricia@CDCR; Ed Swanson; Fouch, Adam@CDCRSubject: RE: ARM | Joshua Hall at CIMAttachments: DSC00736.JPG; DSC00740.JPG; DSC00743.JPG; DSC00745.JPG

Hi Rita, We are working on the document request. There are approximately 450 photographs from CIM. 400 have been completed and will be uploaded to Watchdox for production. About 50 had identifiable inmates in the photos and will need to be blurred. Those will be sent once completed. In response to the outstanding questions below: 1. The cleaning schedule and process for sanitizing items in shared spaces, including toilets, showers, sinks, and phones. RESPONSE: The restrooms are scrubbed with cleanser, Cell Block 64, and sprayed with bleach. The separate populations have access to the restroom at the same time. The scheduling of use of the restroom to separate times would negative impact the population, especially the elderly and incontinent, who need access more frequently. The restrooms are cleaned by trained porters six times a day as documented on the cleaning log. 2. The most recent test result and date of most recent test for each person currently housed in Joshua Hall. I see that Vince just sent a spreadsheet, so that may answer this question. 3. The date(s) on which people in Joshua Hall will next be tested. RESPONSE: CDCR is working with CCHCS for response. 4. When Plexiglas was installed in Joshua Hall, where it was installed, and coverage area (including whether it goes up to and touches the ceiling). We did not request photographs of the Plexiglass in Joshua Hall on the call, but we do so now. RESPONSE: On June 4, 2020, the installation of Lexan, or plexi-type material started. While waiting for enough material to complete install in all units, a thick plastic was utilized. Once the rest of the Lexan/ plexi-type material arrived it was installed and the thick plastic was removed from the units on June 27. Requested photos attached. 5. Size, location, and direction of all fans in the building, and whether and how air is extracted and replaced in the building. RESPONSE: There are two fans on each side of the unit. The fans are positioned at the end of the unit, face each other, and blow air into that side of the unit. Photos attached. 6. Status and anticipated completion date of all construction related to COVID-19 bed planning at the institution.


2

RESPONSE: Facility A6 is an ADA compliant housing unit. Additionally, in A5 grab bars were installed at two toilets and two showers, two shower hoses were added, and temporary ramps will be installed in A5 to assist with the housing of positive inmates that are ADA that cannot be housed in A6. 7. Where people who currently reside in Joshua Hall, including impacting-placement class members, will be housed if they test positive for the novel coronavirus, what accessible features are available there, and how many people, including how many impacting-placement class members, can be accommodated there. RESPONSE: The newly identified positive Armstrong inmates were rehoused in A5, which has been equipped with grab bars on showers and toilets, as well as shower hoses. Ramps are also being placed in identified inaccessible areas with an estimated installation completion date of July 11. 8. Why the CEO, CME, CNE, ADAC, CAMU CII, and Warden all were unaware, for at least twelve days, that people with confirmed, active cases were housed on the same side of Joshua Hall as people who had not before tested positive. 9. What has been done to address this situation. RESPONSE: CCHCS will address concerns with health Care staff. The concerns related to custody were shared with the Director of DAI, who will address with the Warden, and give direction to be in daily communication with health care staff and the ADAC, and to be familiar with placement and status of all Armstrong class members. The CAMU CCII and ADAC will provide CAMU a daily update of the housing status in Joshua Hall and all Armstrong class members who are housed on non-designated facilities. Tamiya Davis Attorney III, Class Action Team Office of Legal Affairs California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Phone: 916.341.6960 Cell: 916.247.5094


Exhibit S


1

From: Rita Lomio <[email protected]> on behalf of Rita LomioSent: Friday, July 10, 2020 12:43 PMTo: Davis, Tamiya@CDCR; Meyer, Nicholas@CDCR; [email protected]: Armstrong Team; Armstrong Team - RBG only; Powell, Alexander@CDCR;

Ferguson, Patricia@CDCR; Ed Swanson; Fouch, Adam@CDCRSubject: RE: ARM | Joshua Hall at CIM

Thanks, Tamiya. We will review these responses and look forward to further information and photographs. Adam, below are some concerns we received yesterday from class members housed in Joshua Hall. Overall, there seemed to be a great deal of uncertainty and fear about how people can protect themselves in the dorm (particularly when it also was housing confirmed, active cases), whether people who had been infected a long time ago still could transmit the virus, and whether the fans would blow the virus to and then infect them. Several class members also were fearful of where they would be moved if they did become infected, as they knew there were no other accessible housing areas on Facility A. It seems like increased and better education about Covid-19 and communication of Defendants’ response planning at minimum would help. Have Defendants reviewed whether there is appropriate ventilation in the dorm? We also received a report that there are no ADA workers or other people available to help push people in wheelchairs, at least on one side of the building, to get their meal and then back into the dorm and to their bed to eat. We received reports that some lockers for people with active, confirmed cases (when they were housed in Joshua Hall) were very close to and accessed at the same time as lockers for people without confirmed cases. There also are a number of shared facilities, including toilets, sinks, showers, dayroom, and mini yard. This particularly was a concern when people with confirmed, active cases were housed in the dorm. We agree that it is important for our class members to have access to toilets, sinks, and other areas whenever they need them. Can additional facilities be made available, and can the cleaning schedule be increased? (We heard that shared facilities are not cleaned for a significant period of time between the afternoon and next morning.) Are there any plans to reduce the number of people housed in Joshua Hall? We also heard that people were responsible for cleaning their own cloth face coverings, and that they must do so in the communal sinks with their own soap. Our understanding, however, had been that they could send those items to the laundry. Would you please confirm the policy regarding cleaning cloth face coverings, and ensure that people in Joshua Hall are aware of it and that it is being correctly implemented? Thank you, Rita


Exhibit T


1

From: Tania Amarillas <[email protected]> on behalf of Tania AmarillasSent: Friday, July 10, 2020 4:40 PMTo: Adam@CDCR; Tamiya@CDCRCc: Armstrong Team; Armstrong Team - RBG only; Alexander@CDCR;

Nicholas@CDCR; Joanna Hood; Patricia@CDCR; Ed SwansonSubject: ARM | Class members transferred from Joshua Hall to Mariposa Hall on

7/8/20

Hi Adam, Today, I spoke with the four impacting-placement class members at the California Institution for Men who were transferred from Joshua Hall to Mariposa Hall on July 8 after testing positive for COVID-19. All four informed me that they are having issues with accommodations at Mariposa Hall. Below is a summary of the issues:

All four class members reported that a grab bar has been installed in the shower area, but there is only one grab bar along the wall, and because the showers are not stalls, there is little to grab onto when getting into and out of the shower area. Class members reported feeling unsafe using the showers and having to use extreme caution to get into the showers to avoid falling.

It is unclear if grab bars for the toilets have been installed, and if so, where. One class member told me there was a grab bar by one toilet. The other three class members told me that there are no grab bars for the toilets. Regardless, each class member reported difficulty using the toilets because the toilets apparently are very low to the ground. The class members have to try and support themselves with the back wall when getting up and down from the toilet. Additionally, class members reported the toilets are situated very close to one another, making it impossible to get a wheelchair close to the toilet. One class member, who uses a wheelchair part-time, said he has to get out of his wheelchair whenever he enters the restroom and walk over to the toilets, which is difficult for him to do.

Two ramps were installed for the two entrance doors (Door 5 and Door 6) yesterday. However, class members reported there are four additional doors that have a large step and do not have ramps. These doors are for dayroom and to get to the entrance.

Would you please look into and address these issues as soon as possible? We encourage ADA staff to meet with each class member to discuss needed accommodations; all four reported that no one has spoken with them about their disability needs since they tested positive. Please also provide us with an update as soon as possible, including photographs of the toilet, shower, and entrance areas. Tania -- Tania Amarillas Investigator Prison Law Office [email protected] (510) 280-2621


2

Preferred pronouns: she/her ATTENTION: The State of California has ordered all residents to shelter in place until further notice, in response to COVID-19. PLO staff are working remotely. There may be a delay in processing and responding to U.S. mail, phone calls, and emails. We apologize for any inconvenience, and we appreciate your patience. _______________________________________ This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged, and/or attorney work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, reliance, or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.


donald specter – 083925 rita k. lomio – 254501€¦ · 20/07/2020 · true and correct copy of...

Documents