Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-05241/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-05241-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

Class Certification Order

Perez v. Hickman, C-05-5241

CARLOS PEREZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

v.

RODERICK HICKMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

No. C05-5241 JSW

[PROPOSED] ORDER CERTIFYING

CLASS

Plaintiff’s motion for class certification is pending before this Court. The parties

have reached a settlement in this action, set forth in the Stipulation and [Proposed] Order,

stating that this shall be maintained as a class action for the purposes of the remedial phase

of the litigation. 

BACKGROUND

This action arises under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 et seq and the

Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiff alleges, on his own behalf and on

behalf of all California state prisoners, that defendants have failed to provide necessary

dental services for prisoners’ serious dental conditions. The settlement reached by the

parties in this action provides for class-based relief to provide for the delivery of dental

services to all California state prisoners in the custody of the California Department of

JAMES TILTON, Amended Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Perez v. Tilton,

FOR PURPOSES OF 

SETTLEMENT AND 

REMEDIAL PHASE OF THE 

LITIGATION and for purposes of Settlement.

Case 3:05-cv-05241-JSW Document 32 Filed 05/01/06 Page 1 of 4
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

Class Certification Order

Perez v. Hickman, C-05-5241 2

Corrections and Rehabilitation. 

LEGAL STANDARD

A court may certify a class if the plaintiff demonstrates that all of the requirements

of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) are satisfied and at least one of the requirements

of Rule 23(b) is satisfied. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23; Valentino v. Carter-Wallace, Inc., 97

F.3d 1227 (9 Cir. 1996). Rule 23(a) requires that the four following factors be met: (1) th

the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable (“numerosity”), (2)

there are questions of law or fact common to the class (“commonality”), (3) the claims or

defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class

(“typicality”), and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the

interests of the class (“adequacy”). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). 

In addition to demonstrating that the Rule 23(a) requirements are met, plaintiff must

establish one or more of the following grounds for maintaining the suit as a class action

pursuant to Rule 23(b): (1) that there is a risk of substantial prejudice from separate

actions; (2) that declaratory or injunctive relief benefitting the class as a whole would be

appropriate; or (3) that common questions of law or fact predominate and the class action

is superior to other available methods of adjudication. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b). Here,

plaintiff asserts that this class falls within Rule 23(b).

DISCUSSION

I. Rule 23(a) Requirements

A. Numerosity

Rule 23(a)(1) requires that the number of potential plaintiffs makes joinder

impracticable. Here, the state of California currently houses in 33 state prisons

approximately 164,000 prisoners, all of whom require dental screening, and many of whom

will require dental services for serious dental conditions. The numerosity requirement is

easily met.

B. Commonality

“[C]ommonality is satisfied where the lawsuit challenges a system-wide practice or

Perez v. Tilton,

Case 3:05-cv-05241-JSW Document 32 Filed 05/01/06 Page 2 of 4
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

Class Certification Order

Perez v. Hickman, C-05-5241 3

policy that affects all of the putative class members.” Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849,

868 (9 Cir. 2001). The failure to provide minimally adequate dental care to state th

prisoners constitutes a system-wide practice, satisfying the commonality requirement.

C. Typicality

Typicality exists if the named plaintiff’s claims are “reasonably coextensive” with

those of absent class members. Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 120 (9 Cir.

th

1988). Typicality does not mean that the claims of class members must be identical but

rather that “the injuries result from the same, injurious course of conduct.” Armstrong v.

Davis, 275 F.3d at 869. Here, the injury suffered by the named plaintiff, i.e., the

deprivation of necessary dental services, is identical to that suffered by other class

members.

D. Adequacy

The adequacy of representation factor requires that the named plaintiff’s interests be

“co-extensive with, and not antagonistic to, the interests of the class, and that the named

plaintiffs, and thus the class, be represented by qualified and experienced counsel.” 

Perez-Funez v. District Director, I.N.S., 611 F.Supp. 990 (C.D. Cal. 1984), citing Johnson

v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 417 F.2d 1122, 1124-25 (5th Cir.1969).

There is no evidence that the named plaintiff’s interests are at odds with the

interests of the class. The class is represented by qualified and experienced counsel who

have been lead counsel in numerous successful prisoners’ rights class actions. Plaintiff has

met the adequacy factor.

II. Rule 23(b) Requirements

Once the four 23(a) requirements are met, the Court must determine whether the

case meets any of the three requirements of Rule 23(b). Plaintiff argues this class should

be certified under Rule 23(b)(2), which provides that a class action may be maintained if

the Rule 23(a) prerequisites are met and

the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally

applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or

corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.

Perez v. Tilton,

Case 3:05-cv-05241-JSW Document 32 Filed 05/01/06 Page 3 of 4
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

Class Certification Order

Perez v. Hickman, C-05-5241 4

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2).

Here, plaintiff alleges, and defendants have stipulated, that defendants have acted in

a manner generally applicable to the class. Accordingly, the Court concludes that

certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is appropriate.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, the Court hereby GRANTS

plaintiff’s motion for class certification. The Court hereby certifies the following class: all

current and future California state prisoners in the custody of the California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation with serious dental care needs. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ___________________

______________________

JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

May 1, 2006

Perez v. Tilton

for purposes of Settlement and 

the remedial phase of this 

litigation.

Case 3:05-cv-05241-JSW Document 32 Filed 05/01/06 Page 4 of 4