FIRST DISTRICT APPELLATE PROJECT

475 Fourteenth Street, Suite 650 • Oakland, California 94612 • (415) 495-3119 • Facsimile: (415) 495-0166

August 18, 2020

Mr. Charles Johnson
Clerk/Executive Officer
Court of Appeal, First District
350 McAllister St.
San Francisco, CA 94102

In re Ivan Von Staich, A160122, Div. Two

Petitioner’s Letter Brief Providing an Explanation of His Current
Health Condition in Response to This Court’s August 14 Order

Dear Mr. Johnson:

On August 14, this court requested “simultaneous letter briefs providing a
thorough and definitive explanation of Petitioner’s current health condition.”
Petitioner Ivan Von Staich submits this letter brief, as ordered by the Court
of Appeal. It is based on a declaration by counsel L. Richard Braucher (Exh.
S) and a report emailed by Dr. George Beatty, a physician and surgeon
practicing at San Quentin State Prison (Exh. T).
Report from Ivan Von Staich
As of August 17, Mr. Von Staich continues to be held in a double-cell on the
fourth tier of West Block. (Exh. S, ¶3.) He reports that he has been told that
he is already in “quarantine” in his cell and that his COVID-19 case has been
“resolved.” (Exh. S, ¶4.) Asked if he wanted a medical evaluation, he replied
in the affirmative, adding that he had submitted three requests to prison
authorities for medical evaluations in May, 2020, to which he received no
response. Although medical staff had been making rounds taking vital signs,
he had never received an actual examination or evaluation by a medical
doctor during the outbreak, despite his requests. (Exh. S, ¶5.) (As discussed
further below, later that day, at counsel’s request, a San Quentin doctor did
conduct a very brief cell-side examination of Mr. Von Staich later that day.)
Mr. Von Staich reported that he and other inmates in West Block continue to
be locked in their cells 24 hours a day. They are let out of their cells one day
a week to take a shower. He continues to be aware of many symptomatic
inmates around him. He continues to hear coughing. He continues to hear
Mr. Charles Johnson, Clerk/Executive Officer
August 18, 2020
Page 2

cries of “man down” (indicating someone is gravely ill and requires medical
attention); he heard this call for help four or five times over the past
weekend. He does not know if the symptomatic inmates in his open cellblock
are newly infected inmates or reinfected. He continues to fear becoming
reinfected with COVID-19. (Exh. S, ¶7.)
Mr. Von Staich strongly opposes being transferred elsewhere in San Quentin
for two reasons. First, he does not believe he can be kept safe from
reinfection anywhere in the prison. Second, he fears that transfer within the
prison will allow authorities to effectively retaliate against him, by
“quarantining him in the hole” or in some other location not designed or fit
for housing an inmate. In any event, he fears that any such intra-prison
transfer will ultimately constitute punishment as it will result in solitary
confinement and the loss of his property. (Exh. S, ¶8.)
Communication with Dr. George Beatty
On August 14, in an email reply to counsel’s request for a confidential phone
call with Mr. Von Staich, San Quentin Litigation Coordinator Eryn
Cervantes told counsel, “We can also have one of our doctors contact you with
his recorded health status as well if you would like.” Counsel, anticipating a
health evaluation, replied in an email that he accepted the Litigation
Coordinator’s offer, and would like to speak with the doctor conducting the
health evaluation. (Exh. S, ¶9.)
On the morning of August 17, Dr. George Beatty called counsel. Dr. Beatty is
a physician and surgeon practicing at San Quentin State Prison, where he
has worked for six and a half years. Dr. Beatty read from Mr. Von Staich’s
medical records. When Dr. Beatty was informed that Mr. Von Staich had
requested a medical evaluation on three separate occasions in May, 2020, but
had not received a response, he said that his record did not show these
requests, but that given the chaotic situation at San Quentin, the nurses may
still have them. Dr. Beatty said that the records indicated that Mr. Von
Staich had not had a medical evaluation at all during the COVID-19
outbreak—no medical evaluation since October 15, 2019. (Exh. S, ¶10.)
Dr. Beatty agreed to attempt to do a limited cell-side medical examination of
Mr. Von Staich that day, and call counsel afterward to discuss it. (Exh. S,
¶11.)
Counsel told Dr. Beatty that Mr. Von Staich did not believe he could safely
quarantine and be kept safe from COVID-19 infection or reinfection
Mr. Charles Johnson, Clerk/Executive Officer
August 18, 2020
Page 3

anywhere in San Quentin. Dr. Beatty agreed, and said, “Off the record, he
should be at home. He can’t be kept safe anywhere here. There is a complete
inability here to even try to isolate people.” Dr. Beatty said that the testing
strategies at San Quentin are utterly inadequate. He said, the physical
structure and housing situation is such that, “it does not matter what you do:
you cannot control the virus in an institution like this.” (Exh. S, ¶12.)
Dr. Beatty reported that he and his colleagues had urged the prison to take
steps before the outbreak in June, to protect inmates (he mentioned
specifically the construction of a special hospital for prospective COVID-19
patients), but the prison refused to act. He had expected hundreds to die
when the outbreak began, and expressed astonishment that far fewer people
were killed by the virus. He emphasized that the miracle was not the result
of anything the prison authorities did to protect inmates, but was due to the
unflagging efforts of medical staff to save lives. (Exh. S, ¶13.)
Dr. Beatty expressed extreme sadness at the loss of life and misery at San
Quentin. He said that he and others had wanted to speak out about the
conditions at San Quentin and had expected to do so at some point. He said
he feared retaliation (both overt and covert) from authorities for speaking to
counsel or signing a declaration for Mr. Von Staich. He expressed concern
about losing his pension. Dr. Beatty believed, however, that he was
responding to the Court of Appeal’s request in good faith, after having been
made available by the CDCR to counsel to answer questions. (Exh. S, ¶14.)
After conducting the cell-side medical evaluation of Mr. Von Staich, Dr.
Beatty emailed his notes to counsel (Exh. T), and called counsel. (Exh. S,
¶15-16.)
We believe Dr. Beatty’s notes speak for themselves as to Mr. Von Staich’s
current health situation. (Exh. T) Briefly, Mr. Von Staich tested positive for
COVID-19 on June 29. He had a cough and shortness of breath on one day at
the outset but did not experience other symptoms. The prison deemed his
case “resolved” as of July 23 (although it does not appear that he was ever
given a subsequent test after the initial positive test on June 29). Dr.
Beatty’s notes indicate that Mr. Von Staich’s exposure to the virus may give
him some short-term immunity from re-infection (months), but that “duration
of probab[le] protection remains unknown. He was at higher risk of
complications due to his age and possible pre-existing pulmonary
scarring/bronchiectasis/bronchitis.” (Exh. T)
Mr. Charles Johnson, Clerk/Executive Officer
August 18, 2020
Page 4

Dr. Beatty’s examination notes also state that, notwithstanding any near-
term possible protection from COVID-19, Mr. Von Staich will remain
vulnerable in the event of exposure to any other similar infectious diseases in
the crowded conditions at San Quentin. “I agree that under current housing
condition, population density, limitations in access, frequency and timeliness
of testing, this gentleman cannot be safely protected, as evidenced by
[approx.] 70% population prevalence observed during current covid 19
outbreak.” (Exh. T)
Counsel explained to Dr. Beatty that counsel would be drafting a declaration
based on his initial conversation and his notes for his signature. Counsel
drafted such a declaration, and emailed it to Dr. Beatty, asking him to look it
over and sign it, if correct, or make any necessary changes, if incorrect.
Counsel explained that a prompt reply was necessary given the tight
deadline for filing the letter brief. Dr. Beatty did not reply that day, August
17. (Exh. S, ¶17.)
The next morning, August 18, counsel emailed Dr. Beatty asking him to reply
and reminding him that a letter brief had to be filed that afternoon. Dr.
Beatty emailed back stating: “I am being told that anything I sign has to be
vetted through legal here, or I will be in violation of my contract, so am
waiting to hear back from the chief, as I do not know how this happens. I am
not optimistic about a timely response from them, unfortunately, but will let
you know when I do. The deadline may just be too tight, I'm afraid.” (Exh. S,
¶18.)
Counsel replied to Dr. Beatty’s email, asking him to forward the declaration
as soon as he is able. Counsel informed Dr. Beatty that we would be including
a summary of the conversation, as discussed above, along with his written
evaluation, to the court. Counsel explained that he intended to let the court
know that Dr. Beatty is very concerned about possible retaliation (overt as
well as covert) as a result of speaking with counsel.
In the event, Dr. Beatty is permitted to sign a declaration after it has been
“vetted” by legal staff, we will submit that declaration to the Court.
***
As summarized here, Mr. Von Staich did test positive for COVID-19 in late
June and experienced some limited symptoms, but the symptoms did not
persist. He is not currently experiencing symptoms, and his infection has
Mr. Charles Johnson, Clerk/Executive Officer
August 18, 2020
Page 5

been deemed “resolved” as of July 23. Consequently, he is suitable for release

from San Quentin into quarantine.
The conditions at San Quentin continue to pose a grave risk to Mr. Von
Staich and similarly situated inmates who are either age 60 or above or who
have pre-existing medical conditions. Moreover, while his exposure may
possibly give Mr. Von Staich some short-term protection from re-infection, it
remains unknown how long that will last.
In summary, we stand on our position that the only meaningful relief for Mr.
Von Staich –both on an interim basis pending resolution of the habeas
proceeding and as a final disposition – is an order requiring his release from
San Quentin, first into quarantine and then into a re-entry program.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ J. Bradley O'Connell
J. Bradley O'Connell
Assistant Director (Bar No. 104755)

/s/ L. Richard Braucher

L. Richard Braucher
Staff Attorney (Bar No. 173754)
 Exhibit S

Declaration of L. Richard Braucher

 DECLARATION OF L. RICHARD BRAUCHER

I, L. Richard Braucher, declare:

1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in California, and
have been appointed by the Court of Appeal to represent
Petitioner Von Staich in Case No. A160122.

Communication with Ivan Von Staich

2. On August 17, 2020, I obtained a confidential telephone call
with Mr. Von Staich at San Quentin State Prison.
3. During the call he told me that he continues to be held in a
double-cell on the fourth tier of West Block.
4. He reports that he has been told that he is already in
“quarantine” in his cell and that his COVID-19 case has
been “resolved.”
5. I asked him if he wished to have a medical evaluation. He
replied in the affirmative, adding that he had submitted
three requests to prison authorities for medical evaluations
in May, 2020, to which he received no response. In spite of
his requests, during the outbreak, although medical staff
had been making rounds taking vital signs, he had never
received an actual examination or evaluation by a medical
doctor.
6. As discussed later in this declaration, after speaking with
Mr. Von Staich, I asked Dr. George Beatty to conduct a
medical evaluation (only a cell-side evaluation was
possible) which occurred later in the day on August 17.

1
7. Mr. Von Staich reported that he and other inmates in West
Block continue to be locked in their cells 24 hours a day.
They are let out of their cells one day a week to take a
shower. He continues to be aware of many symptomatic
inmates around him. He continues to hear coughing. He
continues to hear cries of “man down” (indicating someone
is gravely ill and requires medical attention); he heard this
call for help four or five times over the past weekend. He
does not know if the symptomatic inmates in his open
cellblock are newly infected inmates or reinfected. He
continues to fear becoming reinfected with COVID-19.
8. Mr. Von Staich strongly opposes being transferred
elsewhere in San Quentin for two reasons. First, he does
not believe he can be kept safe from reinfection anywhere
in the prison. Second, he fears that transfer within the
prison will allow authorities to effectively retaliate against
him, by “quarantining him in the hole” or in some other
location not designed or fit for housing an inmate. In any
event, any such intra-prison transfer will ultimately
constitute punishment as it will result in solitary
confinement and the loss of his property.
Communication with Dr. George Beatty
9. On August 14, I emailed San Quentin Litigation
Coordinator Eryn Cervantes with a request for a
confidential phone call with Mr. Von Staich. I received a
prompt reply from Ms. Cervantes, assuring me that her
office would do their best to fulfill my request. She also

2
 stated, “We can also have one of our doctors contact you
with his recorded health status as well if you would like.”
In a reply to the email, I wrote, “We would really
appreciate speaking with the doctor who does the health
evaluation.”
10. On August 17, Dr. George Beatty called me in the morning,
telling me that he had been told I wanted to speak to him
about Mr. Von Staich’s current medical condition. Dr.
Beatty is a physician and surgeon practicing at San
Quentin State Prison, where he has worked for California
Prison Healthcare Services for six and a half years.
Apparently having access to Mr. Von Staich’s medical
records, he read from some of them, while I asked him some
questions. I told him that Mr. Von Staich had requested a
medical evaluation on three separate occasions in May,
2020, but had not received a response. Dr. Beatty said
that his record did not show these requests, but that given
the chaotic situation at San Quentin, the nurses may still
have them. Dr. Beatty said that the records indicate that
Mr. Von Staich’s last medical evaluation was on October
15, 2019, by Doctor Espinoza.
11. I asked Dr. Beatty if he could do a medical examination of
my client. He told me that he could attempt to do a limited
cell-side medical examination of Mr. Von Staich that day,
and call me afterward to discuss it.
12. I told him that my client did not believe he could safely
quarantine and be kept safe from COVID-19 infection or

3
 reinfection anywhere in San Quentin. Dr. Beatty agreed,
and said, “Off the record, he should be at home. He can’t be
kept safe anywhere here. There is a complete inability to
here to even try to isolate people.” Dr. Beatty said that the
testing strategies at San Quentin are utterly inadequate.
He said, the physical structure and housing situation is
such that, “it does not matter what you do: you cannot
control the virus in an institution like this.”
13. Dr. Beatty said that he and his colleagues urged the prison
to take steps before the outbreak in June to protect inmates
(he mentioned specifically the construction of a special
hospital for prospective COVID-19 patients), but the prison
refused to act. He expected hundreds to die when the
outbreak began, and expressed astonishment that far fewer
people were killed by the virus. He emphasized that the
miracle was not the result of anything the prison
authorities did to protect inmates, but was due to the
unflagging efforts of medical staff to save lives.
14. Dr. Beatty said he was extremely saddened by the loss of
life and misery at San Quentin. He said that he and others
had wanted to speak out about the conditions at San
Quentin and had expected to do so at some point. He said
he feared retaliation (both overt and covert) from
authorities for speaking to me or signing a declaration for
Mr. Von Staich. He expressed concern about losing his
pension. He believed, however, that he was responding to
the Court of Appeal’s request in good faith, after having

4
 been made available by the CDCR to me, to answer
questions.
15. After this initial conversation, Dr. Beatty told me he would
do the cell-side medical evaluation of Mr. Von Staich and
call me back.
16. Later that afternoon, Dr. Beatty called to discuss his
evaluation of Mr. Von Staich. He emailed me a copy of his
notes (Exh. T).
17. I told Dr. Beatty that I would be drafting a declaration
based on his initial conversation and his report for his
signature. I then drafted such a declaration, and emailed it
to him, telling him to look it over and sign it, if correct, or
make any necessary changes, if incorrect. I told him to
reply as soon as possible, given the court’s tight deadline.
18. Dr. Beatty did not reply that day. However, the next
morning, August 18, shortly before 10:00, I emailed him
asking him to contact me, and reminding him that a letter
brief had to be filed that afternoon. Approximately 10
minutes later, Dr. Beatty emailed back stating: “I am being
told that anything I sign has to be vetted through legal
here, or I will be in violation of my contract, so am waiting
to hear back from the chief, as I do not know how this
happens. I am not optimistic about a timely response from
them, unfortunately, but will let you know when I do. The
deadline may just be too tight, I'm afraid.”
19. I replied to Dr. Beatty’s email, asking him to forward the
declaration as soon as he is able. I wrote: “The court has

5
 asked for an explanation of Mr. Von Staich's current
medical condition, which you are providing. I am going to
have to include a summary of our conversation, along with
your written evaluation, to the court. Please let me know if
CDCR takes any adverse action against you as a result of
speaking with me, because the court of appeal will want to
know. I intend to let the court know that you are very
concerned about retaliation (overt as well as covert) as a
result of speaking with me. I don't want to see you harmed
in any way for doing the right thing, --telling the truth to
me, after the CDCR made you available to talk to me about
my client's welfare.”
20. As of this writing (mid-afternoon Tues. Aug. 18), I have not
received any further communications from Dr. Beatty so I
am assuming that the legal staff is still “vetting” the
proposed declaration. As summarized above, I am
concerned that Dr. Beatty may face adverse consequences
for speaking candidly with me regarding the circumstances
at San Quentin. However, in view of this Court’s order for
letter briefs today on Mr. Von Staich’s current condition, I
believed it was important to communicate to the Court all
the information I received from Dr. Beatty.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and

correct. Executed at Albany, California, on August 18, 2020.

_________/s/________________
L. RICHARD BRAUCHER

6
 Exhibit T

Examination Notes of Dr. George Beatty

History of Present Illness Problem List/Past Medical History
I was asked to see this gentleman for wellness check and to opine regarding ability Ongoing
to safely quarantine during covid outbreak. Astigmatism, left
64 year old gentleman w/ hx GSW to L chest/spine, chronic LBP, CTS, knee and Chronic foot pain
foot pain, who tested covid + on 6/29/20. No symptoms were reported at the time Chronic knee pain
but patient states that he had cough and SOB x 1 d at onset, but had no further Chronic low back pain
symptoms. He was isolated x 21d, completed 7/23/20. He does think his exercise Onychomycosis of toenails
tolerance has not returned to his baseline, however, but denies and SOB at rest, Oral aphthous ulcer
orthopnea, PND. He does not carry a diagnosis of COPD but has been told that he Pterygium of left eye
as "chronic bronchitis" possibly related to old lung injury on L. He does not currently Right carpal tunnel syndrome
use any inhalers. He does not smoke tobacco. Otherwise he continues to Unspecified depressive disorder
experience LBP and stiffness, chronic bilat knee and ankle pain, and feels generally Historical
debilitated after spending so much time confined to his cell during covid outbreak. Adjustment disorder with anxious
mood
Physical Exam
Gunshot wound
LIMITED ASSESSMENT, cell-side.
RR 12, P 80 Procedure/Surgical History
Gen: elderly, appears older than stated age, but NAD colonoscopy 2015, EGD 2016.
HNT: L eye pterygium, non inflamed. conj o/w clear no sinues TTP, OP clear w/o
exudate or tonsillar hypertrophy, neck supple, nl JVP, no LAN Medications
CV: RRR no M R G Active Medications:
Chest: few coarse rhonchorous BS bilat, end exp wheeze, o/w CTA bilat, no rub. nl diclofenac 1% Gel 100 gm (Voltaren)
I:E (diclofenac 1% topical gel) 4 gm 2 app
Abd: obese NT ND No H/SM nl BS Topical QID-KOP KOP
EXTR: no c c e ibuprofen 400 mg 1 tab Oral TID-KOP
MSK: TTP midline thoroughout L/S spine, no thoracic or cervical tenderness. SLR KOP PRN: pain
not performed. Unable to do neuro exam in confines of cell but LE strength, sens ketotifen 0.025% Soln-Opth 5 mL
grossly intact. (Zaditor 0.025% ophthalmic solution) 1
drop Both eyes BID-KOP KOP PRN:
Assessment/Plan allergy symptoms
1. Coronavirus infection lidocaine 5% Film (Lidoderm 5% topical
COVID resolved. Pt advised that his infection is resolved and updated on current film) 1 patch Topical Daily-KOP KOP
understanding re: immunity, ie, that this is likely present but of unclear clinical PRN: pain
significance and duration at this time. He plans to c/w wearing mask and socially prednisoLONE acetate 0.12% Susp-Opth
distancing as he has been doing, hand sanitation and cell cleaning. 5 mL (0174-05) (Pred Mild 0.12%
Pt also advised that to the best of our knowledge, he is not at increased risk of ophthalmic suspension) 1 drop Left eye
repeat covid infection in near (ie mths) future, but that duration of probably BID-KOP KOP
protection remains unknown. He was at higher risk of complications attributable
to his age and prossible pre-existing pulmonary Allergies
scarring/bronchiectasis/bronchitis. He may well have some mild residual decrease Saline Nasal Spray
in exercise tolerance as sequelae but difficult to quantify without baseline data. I omeprazole
do think it is worth checking CXR to r/o any interstitial process/scarring, possible Lab Results
preexisting scar, bronchiectasis, etc. and to establish current baseleine. He may SARS CoV 2 RNA (COVID19) DETECTED
also benefit from ongoing consultation with pulmonologist specializing in covid, 06/29/2020 05:00 PDT (Abnormal)
once this service becomes available. I will give him a trial of a SABA to see if he
gets subjective relief.
Thus, pt is not at risk of further complications of covid based on his housing
conditions per se, but regarding ability to "safely quarantine" pt in the event of
outbreak of different infectious disease with similar aerosol transmission
characteristics, or surge of hypothetical different type of SARS-CoV-2 that would
have ability to re infect, I agree that under current housing conditions, population
density, limitations in access, frequency, and timeliness of testing, this gentleman
cannot be safely protected, as evidenced by ~70% population prevalence
observed during current covid 19 outbreak.
2. Low back pain
Pt has modearate DJD of L spine at L4-5 and L5-S1 by xray last year, that had
progressed from prior exam. He also had disc hernation noted in old CT from
1990s. No alarm signs today, but had been referred to PT prior to covid outbreak
and should fu asap, c;w nsaids as needed and re address at next full eval for
consideration for LESI or other more aggressive strategy vs neurosurgical
consultation. Pt prefers miniminally invasive approach currently as he is hopeful
for imminent release. MRI may not be feasible dep on location of shrapnel.
3. Gunshot wound
 Per pt report this involved L lung (chest tube scar visible on L), spine and poss
subdiaphragm invovlement but no records available. SOme question was raised in
prior evaluations as to whether or not he had splenectomy--pt does not know. As
above, likely contributory to his back pain, and possibly to pulmonary
symptomology, though this appears to be mild., WIll f/u on CXR and further w/u
of LBP.
4. Itchy eyes
likely d/t allergy, controlled currently w/ ketotifen gtts
5. Astigmatism, left
Pt will have f.u with opt when service again available
6. Recurrent pterygium of left eye
as above
8. Healthcare maintenance
colonoscopy 11/2015 mild tics; due for repeat 2025
Lipids 2011 LDL 116,Lipid ASCD risk = 6.7 will repeat if pt will agreee
HgbA1C 5.4 2015, repeating
PSA 0.7 2011 defer repeat pending d/w pcp
HIV neg 2018
HCV nonreactive 2015, consider repeat
Varicella immune (lab 2016)
Hep B documented by prior PCP 2015 (non immune lab 2015)
Shingrix, discussed
TdaP 11/18, flu 2019.
NEEDS PVX23 next year if agreeable, and strongly consider now, as well as
prevnar13, if sig chance that he is asplenic, along with HIb and menactra.

Encounter Info: Patient Name: IVAN STAICH,DOB: 06/30/1956,CDCR: E10079,FIN: 10000003711094217E10079,Facility:

SQ,Encounter Type: Institutional Encounter
 DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY MAIL AND ELECTRONIC SERVICE BY TRUEFILING
Re: In re Ivan Von Staich Case No.: A160122

We, the undersigned, declare that we are over 18 years of age and not a party to the
within cause. We are employed in the County of Alameda, State of California. Our
business address is 475 Fourteenth Street, Suite 650, Oakland, CA, 94612. Our electronic
service address is eservice@fdap.org. On August 19, 2020, we served a true copy of the
Letter to Court and Declarations attached on each of the following, by placing same in
an envelope(s) addressed as follows:
Marin County Superior Court Marin County District Attorney
3501 Civic Center Drive 3501 Civic Center Drive
San Rafael, CA 94903 San Rafael, CA 94903
(Served by Mail) (Served by Mail)

Ivan Von Staich

(Petitioner)
(Served by Mail)

Each said envelope was sealed and the postage thereon fully prepaid. We are
familiar with this office’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing
with the United States Postal Service. Under that practice each envelope would be
deposited with the United States Postal Service in Oakland, California, on that same day in
the ordinary course of business.
On August 19, 2020, we transmitted a PDF version of this document by TrueFiling
to the following:
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General Court of Appeal, First Appellate District
Office of the Attorney General
(sfagdocketing@doj.ca.gov)
(Respondent)

We declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that
the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on August 19, 2020, at Oakland and El Cerrito,
California.
/s/ Elizabeth Wilkie /s/ BL Palmer
Elizabeth Wilkie BL Palmer
Declarant for Postal Delivery Declarant for TrueFiling