Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-05241/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-05241-2/pdf.json

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

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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 QUESTIONS FOR

HEARING

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR THE HEARING SCHEDULED ON

APRIL 7, 2006, AT 9:00 A.M.:

Motion for Class Certification

1. Is the Court correct in its assumption that although it was not filed as a joint

motion, Defendants do not oppose the motion for class certification?

Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement

2. Regarding the Stipulation in which the substance of the settlement is set forth,

given when this case was filed, and the deadlines set forth therein, have the

parties been moving forward in an effort to meet those deadlines? If not, why

and what deadlines will need to be modified to address that fact?

a. Specifically, have the requirements set forth in paragraphs 15 ad 16 of the

Stipulation been implemented?

3. Is Exhibit A to the Settlement intended to be the final version of the policies and

procedures that will be put in place? If so, the parties will need to address

Case 3:05-cv-05241-JSW Document 23 Filed 04/06/06 Page 1 of 4
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

numerous typographical errors before it is made available to inmates. For

example, there are numerous references to a Chapter 7, which no longer exists

and the references appear to refer to Chapter 5. In addition, the document varies

between references to the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation (CDCR) and the California Department of Corrections (CDC). 

Unless there is a difference, such references should be made consistent to the

appropriate name of the entity. In addition, Section 2.5 still contains redline

additions. See also page 3.1-8 at IV.A.13.b. The Court will provide the parties

with a list of what appears to be other typographical errors that it located during

its review of the policies and procedures.

4. Exhibit B to the Stipulation is clearly marked “Draft” and has proposed dates for

completion of certain projects. Although some of the projects have actually been

completed, it appears that there are a number of dates that are now overdue. Do

the parties intend to submit an updated version of this document with the

stipulation? The Court notes that it would prefer to see an updated version

included in the materials provided as part of the notice.

5. Many of the sections, e.g. 1.3, Section I., refer to “medical” needs - why do the

parties not refer to “dental” needs (and/or services) in a consistent fashion, given

that these policies are intended to focus on dental care and services? See also

Chapter 2.14 re Hygiene Intervention.

6. Is the rationale for providing dental examinations to inmates under 50 every two

years based on numbers, such that more frequent examinations are not feasible? 

Is this the opinion of experts who helped formulate policies? Similarly, what is

the rationale for providing root canals to inmates with less than six months

remaining only on an emergency basis and limiting specific levels of dental care

to inmates with less than one year or six months remaining respectively? See

Chapters 2.9, Section III.G. and 5.4, Section III.E

Case 3:05-cv-05241-JSW Document 23 Filed 04/06/06 Page 2 of 4
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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. What is “DOM Section 52040.5,” which is referenced in Chapter 3.2, Section

III.E?

8. Is there a specific time frame needed for the maintenance described in Chapter

4.6 at page 4.6-4, Sections F and G? If so, why was it not included?

9. Chapter 4.8 provides for Inmate Dental Workers. Is it feasible to have an inmate

work as a dental laboratory technician yet not operate medical or dental

equipment? See page 4.8-1, Section III.A.5.

10. With reference to the co-payments, is the intent of Chapter 5.1, Section III.C that

in addition to inmate initiated visits, an inmate is to be charged for any dental

service that is not inmate initiated? 

11. What is the rationale for making a cancellation or request to reschedule an

intentional failure to report for an appointment? Do the parties contemplate any

exception for requests supported by good cause? See page 5.2-2 at Section III.B. 

Are failure to report to an appointment and refusing treatment possible

disciplinary actions? See page 5.2-3 at Section III.C.4 and page 5.7-1 at Section

III.G? If so, what is the rationale for this?

12. What is the difference, if any, between Chapters 5.8 and 5.10? The Court also

notes that it appears the list of potential dental emergencies listed in these two

sections is not coextensive. Was there a reason for this?

13. In Chapter 6.4, the parties use the term “Medical/Dental Chrono”, but do not use

it consistently. Is there a reason for this? The Court has the same question with

respect to the reference to medical/dental layins in Chapter 6.5.

Stipulation re Class Notice

14. Is there a reason the parties chose not to include the name of the particular

attorney at attorney general, as in Plata, responsible for case or at the very least

the address of the Office of the Attorney General?

Case 3:05-cv-05241-JSW Document 23 Filed 04/06/06 Page 3 of 4
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

4

15. Do Defendants confirm that improvements did, as represented, begin in January

2006 at certain facilities?

16. Do the parties plan to include a summary of the important improvements be

provided as in Plata? 

Dated: April 6, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05241-JSW Document 23 Filed 04/06/06 Page 4 of 4