petition for writ of mandate with exhibits - youth law

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

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE (CODE CIV. PROC. §1085)

KIMBERLY LEWIS (No. 144879) Email: [email protected] RICHARD A. ROTHSCHILD (No. 067356) JENNIFER A. FLORY (No. 239004) WESTERN CENTER ON LAW

& POVERTY, INC. 3701 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 208 Los Angeles, California 90010 Telephone: 213/487-7211 Facsimile: 213/487-0242

DANIEL BRZOVIC (No. _89493) E-mail: [email protected] ANDREW MUDRYK (No. 249173) SEAN RASHKIS (No.232533) PROTECTION & ADVOCACY, INC. 1330 Broadway, Suite 500 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 267-1200 Facsimile: (510) 267-1201

[See Next Page For Additional Counsel]

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

MENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION IN CALIFORNIA; CALIFORNIA NETWORK OF MENTAL HEALTH CLIENTS; NATIONAL ALLIANCE ON MENTAL ILLNESS CALIFORNIA; DAWNA MOONEY; ARIANNE HASTINGS; ANDREA MASSINI; MIKHAEL GALL

Petitioners and Plaintiffs,

v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor of California; California Department of Mental Health; STEPHEN W. MAYBERG, Director, California Department of Mental Health; DOES 1-10,

Respondents and Defendants.

No.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

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


JAMES PREIS (No. 82690) MENTAL HEALTH ADVOCACY SERVICES 3255 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 902 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: 213/389-2077 Facsimile: 213/389-2595

PATRICK GARDNER (No. 208119) Email: [email protected] NATIONAL CENTER FOR YOUTH LAW 405 14th Street, 15th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: 510/835-8098 Facsimile: 510/835-8099

Attorneys for all Petitioners

STEVEN L. MAYER (No. 62030) Email: [email protected] REBECCA M. KAHAN (No. 244423) HOWARD RICE NEMEROVSKI CANADY

FALK & RABKIN A Professional Corporation Three Embarcadero Center, 7th Floor San Francisco, California 94111-4024 Telephone: 415/434-1600 Facsimile: 415/217-5910

Attorneys for Petitioners MENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION IN CALIFORNIA; CALIFORNIA NETWORK OF MENTAL HEALTH CLIENTS; and NATIONAL ALLIANCE ON MENTAL ILLNESS CALIFORNIA

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

-1-


INTRODUCTION

1. In November 2004, the voters of California approved Proposition 63, and

thereby enacted an initiative statute entitled the Mental Health Services Act (“MHSA” or the

“Act” ). The MHSA requires that funds generated by a new tax on high incomes be used

only to supplement existing mental health services, and not to replace funds used to pay for

such services prior to the approval of Proposition 63. To ensure compliance with this

requirement, the MHSA also includes a “maintenance of effort” (“MOE”) provision, which

specifically requires that the State maintain pre-existing levels of support for mental health

programs.

2. Among the programs covered by the MHSA’s MOE provision is the Integrated

Services for Homeless Adults with Serious Mental Illness program (the “Homeless Adults

Program”). This program, which existed at the time the MHSA was enacted, provides

persons with severe mental illness housing, job training, mental health services, and other

supports to enable them to rejoin their communities. Without the Program, Californians

such as the individual plaintiffs would be homeless and without adequate treatment.

Because of the Homeless Adult Program, these plaintiffs now have a roof over their heads,

food on the table, a place to take care of personal hygiene, treatment and supportive services,

and opportunities for education and employment.

3. Despite the voters’ intent to maintain pre-existing mental health programs such as

the Homeless Adults Program and the MHSA’s statutory language safeguarding such

programs against financial cuts, in August 2007 Governor Schwarzenegger eliminated the

program through a line-item veto of all the funds appropriated by the Legislature to support

it. He attempted to justify the veto by stating that the Homeless Adults Program could be

continued by substituting a variety of revenue sources, including funding from the MHSA.

However, the MHSA expressly prohibits the use of MHSA funds to pay for mental health

services existing when that measure was passed, including the Homeless Adults Program.

4. Petitioners are mental health advocacy organizations and individuals who receive

mental health services through mental health programs operated by a county or under

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

-2-


contract with a city or county. These individuals depend on critical services provided by the

Homeless Adults Program in order to reside and thrive in their communities. As a result of

Governor Schwarzenegger’s illegal reduction in funding for mental health services,

Petitioners are not only in jeopardy of losing the critical mental health services provided in

the Homeless Adults program, they also will be deprived of the expansion of mental health

services promised by Proposition 63 and required by the MHSA. Approximately 4,700

adults with serious mental illness are likely to lose housing, employment, and other support,

thus destroying the progress they have made in managing their illnesses and reintegrating

into society.

PARTIES

A. Petitioners and Plaintiffs.

5. Petitioner and Plaintiff Mental Health Association in California (“MHAC”) is an

organization providing advocacy, education, information and other assistance to ensure that

all people who require mental health services are able to receive the services that they need,

and are not denied any other benefits, services, rights, or opportunities based on their need

for mental health services. MHAC membership includes persons with mental illness.

MHAC has an interest that the provisions of MHSA be followed in order to expand the level

of mental health services available in California so that its members and other persons with

severe mental illness may benefit from these services.

6. Petitioner and Plaintiff California Network of Mental Health Clients (“California

Network” ) is an organization run solely by consumers of mental health services, whose

membership consists of affiliates and over 1500 individuals throughout the state. The

California Network represents mental health consumers and as such is a critical participant

in all statewide mental health policy processes. The California Network also lends support

to consumer self help and mutual support groups and programs throughout the state. It

provides services to consumers such as trainings, networking, conferences, policy advocacy,

education, and information. The California Network has an interest that the provisions of

MHSA be followed in order to both preserve and expand the level of mental health services

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

-3-


available in California so that its members and other persons with severe mental illness may

benefit from these services.

7. Petitioner and Plaintiff National Alliance on Mental Illness California (NAMI

California) is a grass roots organization of individuals and families whose lives have been

affected by serious mental illness. NAMI California provides advocacy, education, and

support throughout California and works to provide a system that offers a continuum of care

for the long-term needs of people with mental illness. NAMI California has an interest that

the provisions of MHSA be followed in order to provide expanded services for persons with

severe mental illness.

8. Petitioner and Plaintiff Dawna Mooney is 51 years old and a resident of Berkeley,

California. She has been diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder that makes it difficult for her

to meet her basic needs, including maintaining housing. She has had long periods of

homelessness since 1992. She was accepted into the Berkeley Homeless Adults Program in

April 2005. Prior to that time she was a resident of a public nursing home in Alameda

County, for about six months, and before that she lived in a homeless shelter. Through the

City of Berkeley’s Homeless Adults Program, she receives supported housing and personal

services coordination (case management services). Because of the supportive services she

receives, she has been able to stop using drugs. As part of her program, she is responsible

for various chores where she lives, such as setting the table for meals and cleaning

countertops, which helps her self esteem. When she was homeless, she was forced to eat out

of garbage cans and had no clothes other than those on her back. The Homeless Adults

Program provided her with shelter, a hot shower, a place to eat, and helped her shop for

clothes. Without the help from this Program she believes she would still be homeless. She

has an interest in seeing that the Homeless Adults Program services be restored and continue

both for herself and for other similarly situated persons.

9. Petitioner and Plaintiff Arianne Hastings is 33 years old and a resident of

Berkeley, California. She was homeless for many years. Due to a psychiatric disorder, she

did not attend school after the sixth grade but at age 18 was able to obtain a GED. She has

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

-4-


taken some college classes. She is currently unable to work because she is too disoriented,

disorganized, has trouble staying awake, and sometimes has auditory hallucinations. She

first began receiving mental health services from the City of Berkeley about two years ago.

She began receiving supported housing and personal services coordination (case

management services) under the Berkeley Homeless Adults Program about one year ago.

This is the first program that has helped her get her life together after years of homelessness.

She is currently living in a board and care facility with multiple residents but will be moving

to her own apartment soon. Having stable housing has helped her continue to remain stable

on her psychiatric medications. When she was homeless, she had no water, had no place to

keep up her hygiene, and no place to store her medications. Now that she has stable

housing, she has been able to care for herself. She has become healthier by losing 100

pounds. The program has helped her with grocery shopping and clothes shopping, and will

help her buy furniture for her new apartment. Without this program, she believes she would

still be homeless. Now she plans to attend college and develop the skills she needs to work.

10. Petitioner and Plaintiff Andrea Massini is an enrollee of the Homeless Adults

Program in Long Beach, California. In early 2007, Ms. Massini enrolled in the program as a

homeless adult with a drug and alcohol abuse problem who has been diagnosed with a

psychiatric disorder. While enrolled in the Homeless Adults Program, she has received the

assistance she needed to get an apartment, begun transitional employment, received

treatment for her drug and alcohol abuse and her mental illness, and received additional

supportive services that enabled her to stay employed and off the streets. If she were to lose

those services, she believes she would be homeless again soon. She has an interest in seeing

that the Homeless Adults Program services be restored and continue both for herself and for

other similarly situated persons.

11. Petitioner and Plaintiff Mikhael Gall is a homeless adult male with a history of

drug and alcohol abuse who needs mental health services to control the voices that he hears

in his head. He has been identified by the County of Los Angeles as a good candidate for

the Homeless Adults Program and would have been enrolled, but such program no longer

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

-5-


exists. In the meantime, he is waiting to enroll in a MHSA-funded full-service partnership

program. He has an interest in seeing that Homeless Adults Programs are not merely

replaced with MHSA-funded programs so that the Homeless Adults Programs are expanded

to serve him and other similarly situated persons who need the services.

B. Respondents and Defendants.

12. Respondent and Defendant Arnold Schwarzenegger is the Governor of the State

of California. He is sued in his official capacity.

13. Respondent and Defendant California Department of Mental Health (“DMH”) is

the state department responsible for complying with the MHSA with regard to the provision

and funding of mental health services, as well as for overseeing the administration of the

MHSA and ensuring that each county or city mental health program that receives MHSA

funds complies with that statute.

14. Respondent and Defendant Stephen W. Mayberg is the Director of DMH and is

responsible for the direction, supervision, and administration of that department. He is sued

in his official capacity. His duties include supervision and control of the implementation of

MHSA to secure full compliance by both DMH and the county and city mental health

programs that receive MHSA funding.

15. Petitioners and Plaintiffs are presently unaware of the true names and capacities

of defendants sued as DOES 1-10, inclusive, and therefore sue these defendants by such

fictitious names. Petitioners and Plaintiffs will amend this complaint to allege their true

names and capacities when these names and capacities are ascertained. Plaintiffs are

informed and believe and on that basis do allege that each of these defendants is responsible

in some manner for events set forth in this Petition and Complaint.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. The Homeless Adults Program (AB 34/2034).

16. The Homeless Adults Program was implemented in 1999 through the passage 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

-6-


Assembly Bill 34. 1999 Stat., ch. 617. What began as a three-county demonstration project

to provide comprehensive mental health services to mentally ill adults who were homeless or

at risk of becoming homeless was expanded in 2000 to 32 other counties and cities through

the passage of AB 2034. 2000 Stat., ch. 518. These two bills amended significant portions

of the Adult and Older Adult Mental Health System of Care Act (“Adult System of Care” )

found in Part 2 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, beginning with Section 5802.1 Both

bills sought to create comprehensive systems of care for severely mentally ill adults and

older adults so that those adults might avoid homelessness, incarceration, or hospitalization.

See 1999 Stat., ch. 617 & 2000 Stat., ch. 518: Sec. 1 (Findings and Declarations).

17. The Homeless Adults Program, as part of the Adult System of Care, targets adults

with serious mental illness who are homeless, at risk of becoming homeless, recently

released from a county jail or state prison, or who are untreated, unstable, and at significant

risk of incarceration or homelessness unless treatment is provided to them. Services are

provided beyond traditional clinical office-based mental health care and are characterized by

small caseloads; 24-hour, 7-day-a-week availability, field based services, housing and work

first focus. These services include transitional and permanent housing, supported housing,

intensive case management or personal services coordination, assistance in obtaining health

care and services, including mental health services, support in maintaining and improving

family and social relationships, pre-vocational and other employment services, and various

other interventions necessary to maintain housing and improve life such as providing

security deposits, furniture, food, clothing and financial assistance and services not provided

by other programs. The program includes the flexibility to provide and pay for whatever it

takes to support the success of the person receiving the care and services in the community.

See Ex. A (Mayberg, Steven, Effectiveness Of Integrated Services For Homeless Adults With

Serious Mental Illness: A Report to the Legislature as Required by Division 5, Section 5814

1All statutory references hereafter are to the Welfare & Institutions Code, unless

specifically otherwise indicated.

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

-7-


of the California Welfare and Institutions Code (May 2003) (excerpts)).

18. Respondents have acknowledged the importance of the Homeless Adults

Program. In May, 2003, the Governor and the DMH reported to the State Legislature that

funding the Program “ represents the [Legislature’s and Governor’s] continued interest in

addressing community mental health needs which have largely gone unmet for those persons

whose illness leads them to being homeless or incarcerated, often repeatedly so . . . .[yet

who] frequently either avoid contact with mental health services or ware without any

benefits, including Medi-Cal.” Ex. A at 1.

19. The Homeless Adults Program has been rigorously evaluated and has proved

remarkably successful. The AB2034 Legislative Report contains a study of over 4,800

clients served in the program from November, 1999 through January, 2003, showing that the

number of days of psychiatric hospitalization dropped 55.8%, days of incarceration dropped

72.1% and days spent homeless dropped 67.3%. Ex. A at ii. At the same time the number

of days of full-time employment increased 65.4% and days of part-time employment

increased 53.1%. Id. These results led the Governor and the DMH to conclude that

“enormous benefits, both clinical and fiscal, are likely to accrue from expanding and

increasing these types of services.” Ex. A at 36.

20. The Homeless Adults Program’s success was trumpeted in the Governor’s 2004-

05 Budget Summary, which described the Program as having “a proven track record of

success in treating and providing services to the mentally ill. Additionally, evaluations have

shown that this program leads to significant savings at the local level, and continuing this

program provides essential fiscal relief to counties in these difficult times.” Ex. B

(Governor’s Budget Summary 2004-05 (excerpts)) at 112.

21. The Homeless Adults Program is also highlighted in the final report for the

President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. See Ex. C (Final Report from the

President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health (2003) (excerpts)). In April 2002,

the President of the United States directed the newly-formed New Freedom Commission on

Mental Health to study the problems in the mental health system and make concrete

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

-8-


recommendations for immediate improvements. Ex. C (attaching Executive Order 13263).

The New Freedom Report, among other findings, praised the Homeless Adults Program as

an exemplar that “produce[s] positive outcomes that benefit individuals, families and society

while most efficiently using resources” and recommended that all states and localities

develop a similar “comprehensive strategy” to coordinate mental health and other supportive

services. Ex. C at 44.

22. The Homeless Adults Program was cited during the planning stages of

California’s Ten-Year Chronic Homelessness Action Plan as a program to emulate in

eliminating chronic homelessness. The action plan cites the program for its effectiveness in

serving a variety of client needs, including housing and car management, and points to the

huge reduction in costly hospitalizations and incarcerations while moving clients toward

self-sufficiency through employment. See Ex. D (Drafting California’s Ten-Year Chronic

Homelessness Action Plan: State of California Highlight AB 2034 (June 21-23, 2006)).

23. By 2006, the Homeless Adults Program was serving almost 5,000 individuals per

year with psychiatric disabilities who previously were homeless.

B. The Mental Health Services Act (Proposition 63).

24. In November 2004, the MHSA was enacted by the electorate when it approved

Proposition 63. MHSA imposes an additional one percent tax in California on personal

incomes over one million dollars to pay for “expanded services” for those with mental health

needs “while protecting other vital state services from being cut.” Ex. E (California General

Election, Official Voter Information Guide 32 (Nov. 2, 2004) (excerpts)) at 103 (MHSA

§§2(f) & (g)).

25. The MHSA requires that “ [t]he funding established pursuant to this act shall be

utilized to expand mental health services.” §5891. It therefore provides that MHSA funds

shall not be used to “supplant existing state or county funds utilized to provide mental health

services.” Id. The Act also requires the state to “continue to provide financial support for

mental health programs with not less than the same entitlements, amounts of allocations

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

-9-


from the General Fund and formula distributions of dedicated funds as provided in the last

fiscal year which ended prior to the effective date of this act.” Id. Additionally, Section 7 of

the Act, describing the expansion of services for adults with severe mental illness, states,

“The funding shall only cover the portions of those costs of services that cannot be paid for

with other funds including other mental health funds . . .” §5813.5(b).

26. The MHSA provides additional funding for the Adult System of Care programs,

among others, that existed at the time the Act was passed. One such program was the

Homeless Adults Program. Indeed, the MHSA expressly names the Homeless Adult

Program as a model program that should be expanded through the Act. Ex. 3 at 103 (MHSA

§2(e)). It also incorporated the eligibility and scope of service requirements of the Homeless

Adult Program directly into the Act. §5813.5.

27. The Act’s provisions requiring the State to maintain existing levels of support for

existing mental health programs and prohibiting the use of MHSA funds for such purposes

was extensively discussed in the ballot materials that accompanied the submission of

Proposition 63 to the electorate. For example, the Attorney General’s Official Title and

Summary states that the Act “provides funds to counties to expand services” and “ [p]rohibits

state from decreasing funding levels for mental health services below current levels.” See

Ex. E at 32. The Legislative Analyst’s Analysis explained these requirements in more detail:

The proposition specifies that the revenues generated from the tax surcharge must be used to expand mental health services and could not be used for other purposes. In addition, the state and counties would be prohibited from redirecting funds now used for mental health services to other purposes. The state would specifically be barred from reducing General Fund support, entitlements to services, and formula distributions of funds now dedicated for mental health services below the levels provided in 2003-04. [¶] The state would also be prohibited from changing mental health programs to increase the share of their cost borne by a county or to increase the financial risk to a county for the provision of such services unless the state provided adequate funding to fully compensate for the additional costs or financial risk. (Id. at 34 (emphasis added))

28. The fact that the MHSA would require the State to maintain existing levels of

support for existing mental health programs was not disputed by either the proponents or the

opponents of the measure. In fact, the Argument Against Proposition 63 presented to the

voters attacked the MHSA specifically for freezing state spending at existing levels. Id. at

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

-10-


37 (“This new law forces the Legislature to continue funding existing mental health

programs at their current level, regardless of their effectiveness or efficiency” (emphasis

omitted)). The Rebuttal to Argument Against Proposition 63 promised that MHSA

“expands a program that works” referring to the Homeless Adults Program. Id.

29. In fact, the Homeless Adults Program is the focus of the Rebuttal to the

Argument Against Proposition 63, contained in the ballot pamphlet:

After decades of neglecting mental illness, California began an experimental, community-based mental health program five years ago. It helps teenagers and adults get the care they need from one place. Special community teams offer treatment, medicines, housing, job training, and other assistance.

The program has been studied extensively. (See www.AB34.org.) The results show that three times more people found employment than had worked previously. Those enrolled had a 66% reduction in hospital days and an 81% reduction in jail days.

A panel of nationally recognized experts calls this program a model for the nation.

Right now, the program is small, reaching fewer than 10% of those who could benefit. Thousands are turned away. (Emphasis omitted)

Proposition 63 makes this new model program available to the thousands now turned away. (Id. (emphasis in original))

30. After the MHSA was enacted, Respondent DMH issued two policy directives to

city and county mental health programs interpreting Section 5891 of the Act and instructing

the cities and counties on their obligations concerning funding mental health services. The

first letter clarifies how MHSA funds must be utilized to expand mental health services:

“The Department has interpreted expansion to represent services not provided or funded in

the county at the time of enactment of the MHSA (new services) or expansion of program

capacity beyond what existed at the time of enactment of the MHSA (expansion of existing

services).” Ex. F (DMH Letter No. 05-04 (July 18, 2005)) at 4. In a subsequent policy

directive letter, the Department sent a county-by-county allocation table of “Resources

Required to be used for Mental Health Services under the Mental Health Services Act.”

Funds allocated for the Homeless Adults Program are listed in the second column for each

participating county under DMH State General Fund Allocations, Community Services,

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

-11-


totaling $54,282,328 statewide for 2004-2005. Ex. G (DMH Letter No. 05-08 (Oct. 5,

2005)) at Enclosure 1. Thus, DMH agrees that over $54 million must be spent on the

Homeless Adult Program each year to comply with Proposition 63.

31. On August 24, 2007, Respondent Schwarzenegger signed the 2007-2008 state

budget. In doing so, he terminated the Homeless Adult Program by eliminating the

$54,850,000 that the Legislature had appropriated from the general fund for the Homeless

Adults Programs as required by the MHSA. In his veto message he stated that “ [t]his

reduction is necessary to limit program expansions” and that “ [t]o the extent counties find

this program beneficial and cost-effective, it can be restructured to meet the needs of each

county’s homeless population using other county funding sources, such as federal funds,

realignment funds, or Proposition 63 funds.” S.B. 77, 2007-2008 Leg. Sess. (emphasis

added).

32. On September 12, 2007, Respondent DMH announced that it would allocate $64

million in MHSA funds that were previously reserved for planning costs in order to replace

the $55 million in funding previously allocated to local mental health programs for the

Services for Homeless Adults program. This money was not allocated according to the pre-

existing formula for allocating MHSA funds to local mental health programs. The new

formula promised each local mental health program that had lost Homeless Adults Program

funding funds because of the Governor’s veto that it would receive MHSA funds to replace

the funding vetoed by the Governor.

C. Impact Of The Governor ’s Actions To Eliminate Of Homeless Adults Program.

33. As a result of the Governor’s elimination of the funding for the Homeless Adults

Programs, 34 counties and cities, which run or contract for a total of 35 programs, have been

forced to find alternative funding to continue services previously provided to individuals

through the Homeless Adults Programs.

34. Since the 35 local mental health programs stopped receiving dedicated funds from

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

-12-


the state for the Homeless Adults Program, those programs have been forced to shut down

their Homeless Adult Programs, as they previously existed. In some local mental health

programs the individuals previously served by these programs were moved into similar

services or programs funded by the MHSA, called “ full service partnerships or FSPs.” In

those programs, the one time unused Administrative funds ($64 million) have been

committed to provide serves to this same population. Furthermore, the local mental health

programs themselves had spent money to continue the programs throughout July and August

and were not informed that these expenses would not be paid until the Governor’s veto in

late August. No funding exists to reimburse these expenses.

35. In other local mental health programs, the individuals previously served in the

Homeless Adults Programs have lost these mental health, housing and supportive services

altogether and are now desperately seeking alternative services that might be available from

the county. These individuals are at substantial risk of psychiatric hospitalization,

homelessness and incarceration.

36. Even in those local mental health programs where individuals previously served by

the Homeless Adults Program have been moved into the MHSA full-service partnerships,

those individuals are still at risk of losing their current services once the one time, $64

million, in unused MHSA planning funds from the State runs out in 2008. Moreover, under

the MHSA, that $64 million was required to be used to create a new mental health program,

or expand the Homeless Adults Program or some other pre-existing program, and not to

replace a program that existed when Proposition 63 was enacted.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Wr it of Mandate To Enforce Welf. & Inst. Code §5891)

37. Petitioners reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation

contained in the above paragraphs.

38. Respondents have a clear and present duty to administer the MHSA in accordance

with state law.

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

-13-


39. Respondents’ elimination of the Homeless Adults Program violates Section 5891.

Section 5891 requires that the State of California maintain the level of mental health services

existing at the time of the passage of MHSA. Section 5891 also requires that the state or

counties not use MHSA funds to pay for such pre-existing programs.

40. Petitioners are beneficially interested in the respondents’ performance of their

duties. Petitioners are entitled to a writ of mandate under Code of Civil Procedure Section

1085 enjoining respondents’ refusal to maintain the Homeless Adults Program in accordance

with the mandates of the law. At all times relevant to this action, respondents have had the

ability to fulfill their duties under the law.

41. Written demand was made upon the respondents to perform their duties. In direct

contravention of the law and petitioners’ demand, the respondents have failed and refused to

perform their duties expressly mandated by law, despite their ability to carry out those

duties.

42. Petitioners have no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of

law. Unless this court grants the relief requested, respondents will continue to fail and

refuse to perform their legal duties. No money damages or other legal remedy could

adequately compensate the petitioners and others for the hardship caused by respondents’

failure to perform their legal duty.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Injunctive Relief for Violation of Welf. & Inst. Code §5891)



44. Petitioners have no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of

law. Monetary damages cannot adequately compensate for the irreparable injuries caused by

Respondents’ actions in violation of MHSA.

45. Unless enjoined by this Court, Respondents will continue to violate Section 5891

through the elimination of the Homeless Adults Program. Section 5891 requires that 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

-14-


State of California maintain the level of mental health services existing at the time of the

passage of MHSA. Section 5891 also requires that the State not use MHSA funds to pay for

such pre-existing programs, including the Homeless Adults Program.

46. Petitioners are entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. Absent

intervention by the Court, Petitioners, or others similarly situated, have suffered and will

suffer irreparable harm in that they and the members of their organizations will be forced to

go without the integrated services that the Homeless Adults Program provides and to which

they are entitled under the MHSA. Petitioners and others similarly situated will not have the

access to housing, mental health services, and other supportive services that they need and

will face homelessness, hospitalization, and incarceration.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Declaratory Relief for Violation of Welf. & Inst. Code §5891)



48. An actual controversy exists between the petitioners and respondents because

petitioners contend that Respondents’ elimination of the funding for the Homeless Adults

Program violates Welfare and Institutions Code Section 5891. Respondents deny that they

have done anything illegal.

49. Petitioners therefore seek a judicial declaration according to Code of Civil

Procedure Section 1060 that respondents have violated this statutory provision as well as a

declaration that respondents’ actions to eliminate the Homeless Adults Program are in fact

illegal.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Petitioners request that this Court:

1. Issue its alternative writ of mandate and/or order to show cause ordering

Respondents to reinstate the Homeless Adults Program and issue ongoing and retroactive

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

-15-


payment to the counties and cities for such programs or, in the alternative, to show cause

why a peremptory writ as set forth below should not issue;

2. Upon return of the alternative writ and/or the hearing on the order to show cause,

or alternatively in the first instance, issue a peremptory writ ordering Respondent to reinstate

the Homeless Adults Program and issue ongoing and retroactive payment to the counties and

cities for such programs;

3. Issue an order enjoining Respondents from eliminating funding for mental health

services that existed before the passage of MHSA in violation of Welfare and Institutions

Code Section 5891;

4. Issue a declaratory judgment that Respondents’ elimination of the funding for the

Homeless Adults Program violates Welfare and Institutions Code Section 5891; and

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

-16-


5. Grant Petitioners their costs, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and such other relief that

the Court deems proper.

DATED: December __, 2007.

Respectfully,

STEVEN L. MAYER REBECCA M. KAHAN HOWARD RICE NEMEROVSKI CANADY

FALK & RABKIN A Professional Corporation

By: STEVEN L. MAYER

Attorneys for Petitioners

petition for writ of mandate with exhibits - youth law

Documents