Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-05241/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-05241-31/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARLOS PEREZ, et al.

Plaintiffs,

 v.

RODERICK HICKMAN, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-05241 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR

HEARING

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED June 1, 2007, AT 9:00 A.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ memoranda of points and authorities and, thus, does

not wish to hear the parties reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to

rely on authorities not cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing

counsel of these authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available

at the hearing. If the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit

the citations to the authorities only, without argument or additional briefing. See N.D. Civil

Local Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their

reliance on such authority.

The Court tentatively GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion. The parties are also ORDERED to

file and serve proposed Orders outlining their respective positions by June 1, 2007.

Case 3:05-cv-05241-JSW Document 126 Filed 06/01/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of 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

2

The parties each shall have forty (40) minutes to address the following questions:

1. Do Defendants dispute the vacancy rates outlined in the Court Representatives’ Report

and Supplemental Report? 

2. Do the parties have any additional information about when the State Legislature is likely

to act on the Governor’s proposed budget?

3. Is there still a dispute about the timing of ensuring that salary increases are reflected in

an employee’s paycheck?

4. The Legislative Analysis Office Report suggests that the “Administration” indicated the

funds were meant to be a placeholder until further Court action was taken. Do the

parties have any information as to the basis on which that statement was made?

5. The duties of the Statewide Dental Director, as outlined in the finance letter attached as

Exhibit B to the Hardy Supplemental Reply declaration are quite extensive. What is

Defendants’ response to Plaintiffs’ assertion that a Statewide Deputy Director is

necessary to oversee clinical operations on a day-to-day basis? (See Reply at 9, noting

that Project Manager is not a clinician.) 

a. With the exception of recruitment, the Court requests that the parties clearly

outline the remaining disputes on hiring and staffing issues and where there are

any differences between the Court Representatives recommendations and

Plaintiffs’ request for relief. 

6. In light of the fact that the Defendants’ proposed Recruitment Plan impacts this case and

the Coleman case, have the parties and Court Representatives in this case consulted with

the parties and Special Master in the Coleman case so as to avoid potentially conflicting

Orders? In addition, has the plan been provided to the parties and or the Receiver in the

Plata case?

a. What do Defendants intend to do with respect to recruiting the appropriate staff

if the Legislature rejects the proposal for the Recruitment Coordinator and what

do they intend to do about recruitment while that proposal is pending?

Case 3:05-cv-05241-JSW Document 126 Filed 06/01/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of 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

3

7. In their response to the Defendants’ most recent Hiring and Recruitment Plan, the Court

Representatives raise a number of questions. Have the Defendants responded to the

Court Representatives on these points? If not, Defendants shall be prepared to address

them at the hearing so as to assist the Court in evaluating these proposals. The Court

requests that the parties be prepared to address those questions at the hearing and to

advise the Court whether any further disputes have been resolved.

8. What are Defendants’ responses to the recommendations set forth in the Court

Representatives Response regarding the revised Recruitment and Hiring Plan?

9. Is there anything further any party wishes to address? 

Dated: June 1, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05241-JSW Document 126 Filed 06/01/07 Page 3 of 3