Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02441/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02441-22/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

[1377603-1] 

ORDER FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO DIVISION 

ROBERT HECKER, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, 

et al., 

Defendants. 

 Case No. 2:05-CV-02441 KJM-DAD 

ORDER FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF 

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 

RALPH COLEMAN, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., et al., 

Defendants. 

 Case No. 2:90-CV-00520-KJM-DAD 

Case 2:05-cv-02441-KJM-DAD Document 148 Filed 03/02/15 Page 1 of 5
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

[1377603-1] 1

ORDER FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 

WHEREAS, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement 

Agreement (the “Joint Motion”) and supporting pleadings on August 5, 2014; and 

WHEREAS, the Court has reviewed the Joint Motion and supporting pleadings 

thereto; and 

WHEREAS, on August 7, 2014, the Court preliminarily approved of the Settlement 

Agreement submitted as part of the Joint Motion (the “Settlement”), and ordered that 

notice of the proposed settlement be disseminated to the Plaintiff Class within thirty days 

of the August 7, 2014 order; and 

WHEREAS, as of September 8, 2014, the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation (CDCR) posted the Settlement Notice in all housing units and libraries of 

each CDCR prison. 

WHEREAS the August 7, 2014 Order required that any objections to the Settlement 

be sent to the Court and postmarked by November 7, 2014, and the Court did not receive 

any objections to the Settlement. 

WHEREAS, on December 8, 2014, this matter came before the Court for hearing 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) and the Order of this Court dated 

August 7, 2014, to consider final approval of the proposed settlement set forth in the 

parties Joint Motion, with no objectors appearing at the hearing; 

WHEREAS, on January 16, 2015, the Court approved a modified notice to the class 

and ordered it posted not later than January 22, 2015 in all inpatient mental health units 

operated by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the 

Department of State Hospitals in which class members may be housed; 

WHEREAS, on January 22, 2015, counsel for Defendants filed certification that the 

January 16, 2015 Order had been complied with; and 

WHEREAS, due and adequate notice having been given to the Plaintiff Class 

defined below as required by the Court’s August 7, 2014 and January 16, 2015 Orders and 

the Court having considered all papers filed and proceedings in this case, the pleadings and 

papers filed in support of preliminary approval of the Settlement, and otherwise being fully 

Case 2:05-cv-02441-KJM-DAD Document 148 Filed 03/02/15 Page 2 of 5
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

[1377603-1] 2

ORDER FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 

informed regarding this litigation and good cause appearing therefore; the Court now finds 

and orders as follows: 

FINDINGS 

1. The Court finds that the proposed settlement is the product of arm’s-length, 

serious, and non-collusive negotiations between experienced and knowledgeable counsel 

for the Plaintiff Class and Defendants, who have actively and competently prosecuted and 

defended this litigation. 

2. The Court finds that distribution of notice to the class has been completed in 

conformance with the Court’s August 7, 2014 and January 16, 2015 Orders and that no 

class member objected to the proposed settlement. 

3. The Court, having carefully considered the Settlement set forth in the parties’ 

Joint Motion and supporting documents filed August 5, 2014, finds that the Settlement is 

fair, adequate and reasonable, and further finds that the benefit to the Plaintiff Class 

supports final approval of the proposed settlement in light of all of the relevant 

considerations. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

1. This action is determined to be properly maintained as a class action 

pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, with an 

injunctive relief settlement class consisting of all present and future CDCR inmates with 

psychiatric conditions that are disabilities as defined by the Americans with Disability Act 

(ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act, and who are allegedly excluded and/or screened out 

from any prison program, service, or activity on the basis of their psychiatric disability 

status. 

2. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this litigation and over 

all parties to the action, including all members of the Plaintiff Class as defined above. 

3. The notices disseminated to the Plaintiff Class as described in Paragraphs 6 

through 8 of the Court’s August 7, 2014 Order constituted the best notice practicable under 

the circumstances. Said notices provided due and adequate notice of proceedings for 

Case 2:05-cv-02441-KJM-DAD Document 148 Filed 03/02/15 Page 3 of 5
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

[1377603-1] 3

ORDER FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 

approval of the Settlement and of the matters set forth therein, including the proposed 

Settlement set forth in the Joint Motion, to all persons entitled to such notice, and said 

notices fully satisfied the requirements of Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, the Constitution of the United States, due process and any other applicable 

rule(s) of this Court. 

4. A district court’s role in reviewing the substance of a class action settlement 

under Rule 23 is to ensure that it is ‘fair, adequate, and free from collusion.’” Lane v. 

Facebook, Inc., 696 F.3d 811, 819 (9th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 8 (2013) 

(quoting Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1027 (9th Cir. 1998)). The Court finds 

that in all respects the settlement in this case is fair, adequate, and free from collusion, and 

that all of the relevant Hanlon factors weigh in favor of granting final approval in this case. 

See Hanlon, 150 F.3d 1011 at 1026. The Court thus grants final approval of the settlement 

pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

5. The parties’ Settlement Agreement, attached as Exhibit A1

, is granted final 

approval and incorporated by reference, and has the full force and effect of an order of this 

Court. The Court orders that the matters addressed in Paragraphs 21 and 22 of the 

Settlement Agreement are hereby incorporated into the Coleman Remedial Process, and 

that the Coleman Special Master shall have the power to monitor and enforce the parties’ 

agreements on these issues. The Court orders the Coleman Special Master to oversee the 

process of amending the Program Guide to incorporate the changes required by the 

Settlement Agreement, and hereby orders the Coleman Special Master to work with the 

parties through the Coleman remedial process to promptly attempt to resolve the remaining 

issues described in Paragraphs 21 and 22 of the Settlement Agreement. 

 

1

 At the December 8, 2014 hearing the parties confirmed that the Settlement Agreement 

executed by defendant Dr. Jeffrey A. Beard on August 4, 2014, appended at page 13(A) of 

Exhibit A to this order, also included paragraphs 35 through 39 of the Settlement 

Agreement approved by this order. 

Case 2:05-cv-02441-KJM-DAD Document 148 Filed 03/02/15 Page 4 of 5
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

[1377603-1] 4

ORDER FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 

6. The Court in Coleman will hereafter have jurisdiction to enforce and 

administer the Settlement Agreement, including resolving disputes arising under Paragraph 

23 of the Settlement Agreement regarding allegations of disability discrimination against 

class members or the exclusion of class members from Defendants’ programs and services 

on the basis of disability. For purposes of resolving disputes regarding discrimination 

against or the exclusion of class members from Defendants’ programs and services on the 

basis of a disability, the Coleman Court will address whether the specific systemic 

policies, practices and procedures identified under Paragraphs 21 and 22 of the Settlement 

Agreement violate the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, and if so what prospective relief is 

appropriate. The Coleman Court shall have jurisdiction to resolve any dispute regarding 

attorneys’ fees as set forth in Paragraph 30 of the Settlement Agreement. 

7. The revised Coleman notice agreed to by the Parties filed on January 23, 

2015, attached as Exhibit B, is approved. Within ten days from the date of this order the 

revised Coleman notice shall be posted in all thirty-four California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation institutions and in all California Department of Corrections 

and Rehabilitation and Department of State Hospital inpatient mental health units in which 

members of the Coleman class are housed. Defendants shall serve on Plaintiffs’ counsel a 

declaration affirming that the revised Coleman notice was published as required in this 

order. 

8. The Hecker action is hereby dismissed with prejudice except as to claims 

regarding assignment of (MHSDS) inmates to fire/conservation camps, as described in 

Paragraph 25 of the Settlement Agreement, which are dismissed without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: March 2, 2015. 

Case 2:05-cv-02441-KJM-DAD Document 148 Filed 03/02/15 Page 5 of 5