Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02441/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02441-16/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

[1251472-4] 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION 

SETTLEMENT 

CLAUDIA CENTER – 158255 

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 

FOUNDATION 

DISABILITY RIGHTS PROGRAM 

39 Drumm Street 

San Francisco, California 94111 

Telephone: (415) 343-0770 

Facsimile: (415) 395-0950 

Email: ccenter@aclu.org 

KAMALA D. HARRIS – 146672 

Attorney General of California 

JAY C. RUSSELL – 122626 

Supervising Deputy Attorney General 

MICHAEL J. Quinn – 209542 

Deputy Attorney General 

455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 

San Francisco, California 94102-7004 

Telephone: (415) 703-5717 

Facsimile: (415) 703-5843 

E-mail: Jay.Russell@doj.ca.gov 

MICHAEL W. BIEN – 096891 

ERNEST GALVAN – 196065 

BLAKE THOMPSON – 255600 

ROSEN BIEN 

GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP 

315 Montgomery Street, Tenth Floor 

San Francisco, California 94104-1823 

Telephone: (415) 433-6830 

Facsimile: (415) 433-7104 

Email: mbien@rbgg.com 

 egalvan@rbgg.com 

 bthompson@rbgg.com 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

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 LKK-DAD 

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION 

FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF 

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 

Judge: Hon. Lawrence K. Karlton 

Case 2:05-cv-02441-KJM-DAD Document 125 Filed 08/07/14 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

[1251472-4] 1

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION 

SETTLEMENT 

This Court has presided over the proceedings in the above-captioned action and has 

reviewed all of the pleadings, records, and papers on file. 

The parties have entered into a Settlement Agreement, which was filed with the 

Court as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Michael W. Bien in Support of Joint Motion for 

Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement on August 5, 2014. 

The Court has reviewed the Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action 

Settlement, along with the Settlement Agreement and supporting documents, and has 

considered the parties’ arguments concerning the proposed settlement of this action. 

The Court has determined that inquiry should be made as to the fairness and 

adequacy of this proposed settlement. 

Accordingly, good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: 

1. A court should preliminarily approve a class action settlement if it “appears 

to be the product of serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations, has no obvious 

deficiencies, does not improperly grant preferential treatment to class representatives or 

segments of the class, and falls within the range of possible approval.” In re Tableware 

Antitrust Litig., 484 F. Supp. 2d 1078, 1079 (N.D. Cal. 2007). The Court finds that this 

standard is met in this case, as the proposed settlement is the product of arm’s-length, 

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

counsel who have actively prosecuted and defended this litigation, under the guidance of 

the Court’s Special Master in Coleman v. Brown. The Settlement Agreement is granted 

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

order of this Court, subject to the right of Class Members to challenge the fairness, 

reasonableness or adequacy of Settlement Agreement and to show cause, if any exists, why 

a final judgment dismissing this case should not be entered following a Final Fairness 

Hearing. 

2. The Court certifies, for settlement purposes only, under Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure 23(a) & (b)(2), an injunctive relief settlement class (together the 

“Settlement Class”) defined as: all present and future CDCR inmates with psychiatric 

Case 2:05-cv-02441-KJM-DAD Document 125 Filed 08/07/14 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

[1251472-4] 2

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION 

SETTLEMENT 

conditions that are disabilities as defined by the 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 assignment to or participation in the MHSDS [Mental Health Service 

Delivery System] program, including the CCCMS [Correctional Clinical Case 

Management System] and EOP [Enhanced Outpatient Program]. 

3. The Court finds, for settlement purposes only, that the proposed class meets 

the requirements under Rule 23(a) of numerosity, commonality and typicality to justify 

certification, and that there is adequate and fair representation. 

4. The proposed settlement class meets the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2) 

because the issues resolved under the Settlement Agreement “apply generally to the class.” 

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

5. Under Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court appoints 

Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP and the ACLU Foundation of Northern California as 

Class Counsel to represent the Settlement Class for purposes of the Settlement. 

6. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(1), the Court approves the 

substance, form and manner of the Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement (the 

“Notice”) filed by the parties on August 5, 2014, and finds that the proposed method of 

disseminating the Class Notice meets all due process and other legal requirements and is 

the best notice practicable under the circumstances. 

7. Within three days of this Order, the parties are directed to prepare a final 

version of the Notice, incorporating the dates set forth in this Order. 

8. Within thirty days of this Order, CDCR is directed to post the Notice in 

English and Spanish in all California prisons in such a manner as to make the notice visible 

to all prisoners. Within thirty days of this Order, CDCR is also directed to place a copy of 

this Order and the full Settlement Agreement in every CDCR library. Defendants must file 

and serve on Plaintiffs’ counsel a declaration affirming that notice was published as 

required in this order. 

9. A Final Fairness Hearing shall take place at 10:00 a.m. on Friday, December 

Case 2:05-cv-02441-KJM-DAD Document 125 Filed 08/07/14 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

[1251472-4] 3

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION 

SETTLEMENT 

5, 2014 at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, United 

States Courthouse, 501 I St., Sacramento CA 95814, in Courtroom 3, to determine whether 

the proposed settlement of this action on the terms and conditions provided for in the 

Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be finally approved by 

the Court, and whether this action should be dismissed under the settlement. The hearing 

may be continued from time to time without further notice. Any further briefing from the 

parties in advance of the hearing shall be filed no later than November 21, 2014. 

10. Any member of the class may enter an appearance on his or her own behalf 

in this action through that class member’s own attorney (at their own expense), but need 

not do so. Class members who do not enter an appearance through their own attorneys 

will be represented by Class counsel. Alternatively, any member of the class may write to 

the federal court about whether the settlement is fair. The federal court will consider 

written communications when deciding whether to approve the settlement. Comments 

regarding the fairness of the settlement MUST include at the top of the first page the case 

name (Hecker v. CDCR) and the case number (2:05-CV-02441 LKK-DAD). A written 

comment must contain the author’s full name and CDCR number, must include all 

objections and the reasons for them, must include any and all supporting papers (including, 

without limitation, all briefs, written evidence, and declarations), and must be signed by 

the Class Member. A Class Member who desires to comment but who fails to comply 

with the above objection procedure and timeline shall be deemed to have not objected and 

the objection shall not be heard or considered at the hearing. Comments must be 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 2:05-cv-02441-KJM-DAD Document 125 Filed 08/07/14 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

[1251472-4] 4

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION 

SETTLEMENT 

postmarked by November 7, 2014 and must be sent to the following address: 

Clerk of the Court 

United States District Court 

Eastern District of California 

501 “I” Street 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

11. The status conference set for August 8, 2014 at 1:30 p.m. is dropped from 

calendar. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: August 7, 2014 

 

Case 2:05-cv-02441-KJM-DAD Document 125 Filed 08/07/14 Page 5 of 5