Court Ends Oversight in Landmark Case over California's Failure to Treat Mentally Ill People in Pretrial Detention

We are dismayed that a court has ended oversight in Stiavetti v. Clendenin, stemming from a lawsuit that the ACLU filed in 2015 to challenge the state’s inhumane treatment of mentally ill people awaiting trial.

Still, our 11-year lawsuit led to sweeping changes in how the California Department of State Hospitals (DSH) and Department of Developmental Services (DDS) treat people with severe mental illness and developmental disabilities who are in pretrial detention.

“While we continue to have concerns about California’s long-term compliance, the lawsuit brought about changes that will help protect vulnerable people in state custody and help save lives,” said Emi MacLean, senior attorney at the ACLU of Northern California.

On September 21, the court terminated monitoring in Stiavetti, finding that DSH was in “substantial compliance with the judgment.” DDS, the other defendant in the lawsuit, was found to be in substantial compliance in October 2025.

In 2015, the ACLU and our legal partner Sullivan & Cromwell filed the lawsuit against the state on behalf of people whose family members were left to languish in jails for months before receiving any treatment after being deemed “incompetent to stand trial.”

The case resulted in a landmark 2019 ruling, which was upheld in 2021 by the Court of Appeal. It required that people deemed incompetent to stand trial must receive treatment designed to make them competent to stand trial within 28 days.

“I am grateful we have helped to move the needle in the right direction for a population that has historically experienced unacceptable delays in accessing treatment. Still, I am hesitant to express optimism given how hard the state has fought us every step of the way,” said Stephanie Stiavetti, the lead plaintiff, whose brother had been detained in solitary confinement pretrial for an extended period of time after having been deemed incompetent. “The progress we have seen shows what is possible when systems are held accountable, but it also underscores why sustained attention remains so important.”

Other plaintiffs in the lawsuit included the daughters of someone who committed suicide in jail while awaiting treatment, and two mothers whose children were detained for many months pretrial, one of whom was subjected to repeated rapes while awaiting treatment.

“This case marks an important victory for thousands of people with mental illness and developmental disabilities in California jails,” said Laura Oswell, a Partner at Sullivan & Cromwell, “Because of the significant changes brought about over the course of this litigation, people who are deemed incompetent to stand trial no longer expect to spend months languishing in jail pretrial before accessing treatment. This is an extraordinary success.”

Over the last decade, propelled by this litigation and advocacy from the ACLU and others, there have been critical reforms to how people deemed incompetent to stand trial are treated in California.

• There are now more opportunities for treatment and diversion, rather than warehousing in jails, especially for lower-level offenses.

• Judges are required to evaluate whether it is in the public interest to seek to restore individuals to competency for prosecution, and this is no longer an option for the lowest-level offenses.

• Los Angeles has led the way with a visionary community-based treatment program, with the Office of Diversion and Re-entry, which has grown considerably and shown tremendous results, including especially in producing very low recidivism rates.

However, the state has also increasingly relied on jail-based programming which will require continued monitoring to ensure that California does not revert to the warehousing of this vulnerable population in jails.