91 Cal.App.5th 1313
Cal. Ct. App.2023Background
- Four medically compromised inmates in CDCR correctional treatment centers nearing their parole dates required skilled nursing care; CDCR staff were unable to secure skilled-nursing placements in the inmates’ counties of last legal residence.
- On their release dates, CDCR paroled and transported the individuals to Kern Medical Center (KMC) emergency department (a safety-net hospital); KMC performed screenings and admitted them because they could not care for themselves (three were later placed elsewhere; one died).
- Kern County Hospital Authority (operator of KMC) sued for a writ of mandate and injunction, arguing CDCR ‘‘dumped’’ patients at KMC without arranging admission and violated correctional treatment center transfer regulations.
- The trial court granted a peremptory writ permanently enjoining CDCR from transferring any prisoner or parolee under care at a licensed CDCR medical facility to Hospital Authority’s facilities without Hospital Authority’s express agreement, except in bona fide medical emergencies.
- CDCR appealed, arguing (1) no ministerial duty required pre-transfer hospital consent, (2) the injunction unlawfully infringed parole-release authority and liberty interests. The Court of Appeal affirmed but modified the writ to permit transfers when a parolee requests medical discharge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does regulation 79789 require CDCR to make advance arrangements (including receiving-hospital assent) before transferring patients from correctional treatment centers? | Regulation 79789(b) prohibits transferring a patient to another facility unless arrangements for admission are made in advance; Hospital Authority must consent. | CDCR contends “arrangements” need not include the receiving hospital’s express assent and that EMTALA/Parole rights allow delivering parolees to an ED for screening. | Regulation 79789 applies to correctional treatment center patients (including those whose status becomes parolee while remaining in the facility) and requires a mutual agreement to admit the patient before transfer. |
| Does the transfer/regulation apply after an inmate’s status changes to parolee? | Hospital Authority: a patient’s status change does not eliminate the facility’s obligations; the regulation protects patients irrespective of custodial status. | CDCR: once released, parole status and liberty interests mean CDCR cannot condition release on hospital consent; regulation should not enlarge §1250’s inmate-focused scope. | Court: the regulation protects patients even if they become parolees while remaining under the facility’s care; CDCR must comply with 79789 before delivering such patients to another facility. |
| Does an injunction requiring pre-transfer hospital consent unlawfully interfere with CDCR’s parole-placement discretion or force continued confinement past release? | Hospital Authority: injunction enforces regulatory duties to protect patient safety and prevents patient dumping. | CDCR: injunction improperly conditions release on hospital administrators’ approval and interferes with parole-placement discretion under Penal Code §3003. | Court: injunction is warranted to enforce 79789 but must be modified to allow CDCR to transport a parolee to an ED without prior hospital agreement when the parolee has requested a medical discharge. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Picklesimer, 48 Cal.4th 330 (discusses mandamus elements and ministerial duty)
- Citizens for Amending Proposition L v. City of Pomona, 28 Cal.App.5th 1159 (ministerial vs. discretionary duties; mandamus scope)
- Morris v. Harper, 94 Cal.App.4th 52 (correctional treatment center licensing and writs compelling legal duties even when third-party cooperation required)
- Barris v. County of Los Angeles, 20 Cal.4th 101 (EMTALA obligations and prohibition on patient-dumping)
- City of Susanville v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, 204 Cal.App.4th 377 (CDCR’s parole-placement discretion)
- McQuillion v. Duncan, 306 F.3d 895 (parole release creates a cognizable liberty interest)
- In re Dannenberg, 34 Cal.4th 1061 (parole eligibility and release framework)