Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02441/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02441-4/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

 This action is proceeding on plaintiffs’ second amended complaint, filed October 20, 1

2006. On November 17, 2006, defendants California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation (CDCR), Schwarzenegger, Tilton, Woodford, Poulos and Dovey filed the instant

motion. On November 27, 2006, defendants Hernandez, Wong, Malfi, Mendoza-Powers and

Curry filed a motion to join in the motion to dismiss. On November 30, 2006, defendant FarberSzekrenyi filed a motion to join in the motion to dismiss. Good cause appearing, the November

27, 2006 and November 30, 2006 motions to join in the November 17, 2006 motion are granted. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT HECKER, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-05-2441 LKK JFM P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS AND

REHABILITATION, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiffs are state prisoners proceeding through counsel with a proposed class

action raising claims under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act

of 1990, and California Government Code § 11135. This matter came on for hearing before the

undersigned on February 8, 2006 on defendants’ motion to dismiss and to strike allegations

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), (6) and 12(f). Claudia Center, Esq. and Michael Bien, Esq., 1

Case 2:05-cv-02441-KJM-DAD Document 65 Filed 02/27/07 Page 1 of 3
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

2

appeared as counsel for plaintiffs. Jay Craig Russell, Deputy Attorney General, and Kurt

Franklin, Esq., appeared as counsel for defendants. 

At issue is the extent of the relationship between the claims raised in the instant

action and those litigated in the related class action, Coleman v. Schwarzenegger, Case No. CIV

S-90-0520 LKK JFM P. The parties in the Coleman case have been working with a special

master for over eleven years to remedy constitutional violations in the delivery of mental health

care to seriously mentally ill inmates in the California Department of Corrections. Plaintiffs in

the instant action raise claims which they contend have arisen as a consequence of the remedial

efforts in the Coleman case. During the hearing, it became apparent that the interests of the

parties and of judicial economy will be well-served by an assessment by the Coleman special

master as to whether the claims raised in the instant action can be resolved within the remedial

phase of the Coleman case. (See Transcript of Proceedings, February 8, 2007 Hearing re:

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, filed February 9, 2007, at 13-15.)

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is

directed to serve a copy of these findings and recommendations on the parties in Coleman v.

Schwarzenegger, Case No. CIV S-90-0520 LKK JFM P and on the special master in the

Coleman case; and

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. This matter be referred to the special master in Coleman v. Schwarzenegger,

No. CIV S-90-0520 LKK JFM for a report and recommendation as to whether the claims raised

herein can be resolved within the remedial phase of that action, said report to be filed within

ninety days from the date of any order by the district court adopting these findings and

recommendations; and

2. This matter be stayed until said report from the Coleman special master has

been filed and considered by the district court.

/////

Case 2:05-cv-02441-KJM-DAD Document 65 Filed 02/27/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that

failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: February 26, 2007.

12

heck2441.frs

Case 2:05-cv-02441-KJM-DAD Document 65 Filed 02/27/07 Page 3 of 3