Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-05241/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-05241-32/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

ORDER GRANTING IN PART,

AND DENYING AS MOOT IN

PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION

FOR ORDER REQUIRING

DEFENDANTS TO INCREASE

DENTAL SALARIES, HIRE KEY

DENTAL MANAGERS AND

STREAMLINE DENTAL HIRING

PRACTICES

INTRODUCTION

This matter came before the Court on June 1, 2007, upon consideration of Plaintiffs’

Motion for Order Requiring Defendants to Increase Dental Salaries, Hire Key Dental Managers

and Streamline Dental Hiring Practices. At the hearing, the Court ordered the parties to submit

further briefs on the issues presented by this motion and to clearly outline the parties’ positions

in light of the revisions made by Defendants in the hiring and recruitment plan. 

On June 6, 2007, the Court received the Court Representatives’ Revised

Recommendations Relating to Analysis of California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation Perez and Coleman Recruitment and Hiring, Salary and Staffing Plans (Docket

No. 129), Plaintiffs’ Response to the Court Experts’ Revised Recommendations (Docket No.

128), and Defendants’ Statement Regarding Disputed Issues with Plaintiffs’ Motion (Docket

No. 130).

Case 3:05-cv-05241-JSW Document 133 Filed 06/12/07 Page 1 of 11
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

Having considered the parties’ pleadings, relevant legal authority, and having had the benefit of

oral argument, the Court HEREBY GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES AS MOOT IN PART

Plaintiffs’ Motion.

BACKGROUND

On December 19, 2005, Plaintiff Carlos Perez, on behalf of himself and all similarly

situated persons (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”), filed this action and alleged that the dental care

system operated by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) was

constitutionally inadequate. (Compl. ¶ 1.) On that same date, Plaintiffs submitted a proposed

Stipulation and Order outlining a settlement agreement that the parties had reached through

informal negotiations that commenced in August 2004. (See Docket Nos. 3, 4.) That

stipulation was subsequently amended and submitted to the Court for preliminary and final

approval. 

On August 21, 2006, this Court held entered final approval of the Amended Stipulated

Settlement Agreement (“Amended Stipulation”). (See Docket No. 69.) Pursuant to the

Amended Stipulation, the parties agreed to implement policies and procedures that were

“designed to meet at least the minimum level of dental care necessary to fulfill Defendants’

obligations under the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.” (Id. at ¶ 11.) Defendants

further agreed to “make all reasonable efforts to secure the funding necessary to implement the

Policies and Procedures,” and also agreed to “make all reasonable efforts to ... hire and train

necessary dental personnel.” (Id. ¶¶ 11, 12.) 

On August 31, 2006, the Court appointed two experts to assist the parties and to

evaluate and monitor implementation of the Amended Stipulation (See Docket No. 73.) On

February 8, 2007, the Court issued an Order appointing these experts as Court Representatives

to facilitate coordination of the remedial efforts in this case with the remedial efforts in

Coleman, et al. v. Schwarzenegger, et al., No. CIV S-90-0520 LKK JFM P (E.D. Cal.) and

Plata, et al. v. Shwarzenegger, et al., No. C 01-1351 TEH (N.D. Cal.). 

Beginning in October 2006, the parties brought the question of salaries and staffing to

the attention of the Court. In a Status Conference Statement submitted on October 20, 2006,

Case 3:05-cv-05241-JSW Document 133 Filed 06/12/07 Page 2 of 11
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

Defendants stated that “current salary levels at CDCR are an impediment to hiring and retaining

dental staff. Defendants are currently attempting to remedy this issue. However, in order for

the CDCR to obtain the necessary funding to finance these salary increases, the parties may

need to seek a further order from this Court.” (Docket No. 80 at 3.) 

In a January 26, 2007, Status Conference Statement, the parties noted that the

Governor’s 2007-2008 budget included “57,800,000 for potential salary increases for CDCR

dental personnel.” The parties candidly acknowledged that the Legislature would have to

approve the budget before those funds could be available. (Docket No. 90 at 2.) Plaintiffs

noted that CDCR’s attempts at hiring were “stymied” by the existing salary levels, which had

resulted in high vacancy rates. As such, Plaintiffs set forth their belief that a court order

waiving state law would be necessary to remedy both problems. (Id. at 2-3.) 

At a February 2, 2007 status conference, the Court advised the parties that it wished to

hear from the Court Representatives on these issues. Accordingly, on March 23, 2007, the

Court Representatives issued a Report regarding the Personnel and Management Issues Related

to Dental Services in the California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation (“March 23

Report”). (See Declaration of Allison Hardy in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion, Ex. E.) 

The parties also addressed the staffing and salary issues in a joint status conference

statement dated March 23, 2007. (Docket No. 101.) In light of the substantive issues raised in

the status conference statement and the lack of agreement on this issue, on March 30, 2007, the

Court ordered Plaintiffs to file a motion with respect to any relief that they might seek with

respect to salaries and staffing. (Docket No. 106.) 

ANALYSIS

A. Legal Standards Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.

This case was brought under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). Pursuant to

the PLRA, the Court may grant prospective relief in a particular case if it finds that “such relief

is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal

right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.” 

18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). 

Case 3:05-cv-05241-JSW Document 133 Filed 06/12/07 Page 3 of 11
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

1 Although the parties do not agree on the method by which salaries should be

increased, they and the Court Representatives have agreed that the increases in salaries

should be made retroactive to April 1, 2007, and also have agreed that certain PERSability

requirements be implemented with the salary increases. Accordingly, these agreements shall

be incorporated into this Court’s Order.

4

In this case, Plaintiffs ask the Court for relief that would require Defendants to exceed

their authority under State law. As such, the Court can only grant relief if it finds that “(i)

Federal law requires such relief to be ordered in violation of State ... law; (ii) the relief is

necessary to correct the violation of a Federal right; and (iii) no other relief will correct the

violation of the Federal right.” Id. § 3626(a)(1)(B)(i)-(iii).

B. Salary Increases.

The parties agree that salaries for CDCR dental personnel must be increased. The

parties do not agree on the process by which this should occur. Plaintiffs ask the Court to Order

the salary increases. Defendants argue that because the Governor has included funds for salary

increases and for new dental positions in the 2007-2008 budget, and because they have

negotiated with and received agreement on salary increases from the applicable unions, the

Court should defer to the legislative process.1

 (See Opp. at 5-7; Declaration of Julie Chapman.) 

It is undisputed that as of January 2007, vacancy rates for dentists and dental assistants

were 53% and 35%, respectively, at the 14 rollout institutions identified in the Amended

Stipulation. The vacancy rates for all institutions and CDCR Headquarters are 39.4% for

dentists, 17.1% for chief dentists, and 45.9% for dental assistants. (See Declaration of Alison

Hardy (“Hardy Decl.”), Ex. E (March 23 Report) at 4.) The Court Representatives further

conclude that to comply with the Settlement Agreement, Defendants must hire approximately

158 new dentists. (Id.) 

The Court recognizes the efforts Defendants have made with respect to obtaining the

necessary salary increases in this case. Defendants do not, however, come before this Court

with a clean slate. This case is but one of a handful of federal court cases addressing various

Case 3:05-cv-05241-JSW Document 133 Filed 06/12/07 Page 4 of 11
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 Court uses the term “medical care” broadly to encompass health, mental

health and dental care.

5

medical2

 care issues within the CDCR, and the Court will not ignore Defendants’ past inability

to effect meaningful change without court intervention. (See Hardy Decl., Exs. A-C.) 

Moreover, the parties began to negotiate the Settlement Agreement in 2004. It is

therefore reasonable for the Court to conclude that, at the time they entered into the Settlement

Agreement with Plaintiffs, Defendants were aware of the steps they would need to be take to

fulfill their obligations under that agreement. Indeed, as early as October 2006, the parties

acknowledged that increased salaries were an issue in this case. Finally, at the hearing on this

motion, the parties acknowledged that there is no guarantee that the Legislature will act on July

1 to approve the 2007-2008 budget. Thus, as of the date of this Order, the Defendants’ proposal

has been pending for six months with no action and no guaranty that any action will be taken in

the near future. 

The Court also expresses its concern with statements made by the Legislative Analysis

Office (“LAO”). In its report on the proposal for the salary increases, the LAO stated:

Action on Proposals Premature. Without prejudice to the possible merit

of these proposals, we believe legislative action on them is premature

until the federal courts have issued further orders in the Coleman and

Perez cases.

In the Perez case, the court has been considering whether to order

increases in compensation for dental staff at the prisons in order to

address persistent difficulties in recruiting and retaining such clinicians. 

The administration has indicated the request is meant to be a placeholder

until final court action has been taken, at which time it intends to adjust

the level of funding that has been requested for this purpose. Once

further court decisions have been issued in both of these cases, the 2007-

08 budget requests related to these health care issues could require

significant adjustments.

Analyst’s Recommendation. We withhold recommendation on these

proposals at this time and will comment once the federal courts have

taken further actions in these cases. [emphasis added].

(See Hardy Decl., Ex. E at 5.) 

Although this recommendation is not binding on the Legislature, in light of the

“administration’s” statement that the request is intended to be a “placeholder until final court

Case 3:05-cv-05241-JSW Document 133 Filed 06/12/07 Page 5 of 11
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 None of these positions are contained in the budget proposal pending before

the Legislature.

6

action has been taken,” the Court is not convinced that allowing the legislative process to run its

course will succeed. Rather, the findings set forth with regard to vacancy rates in the Court

Representatives Report, the parties’ agreement that salary increases are necessary to remedy

these vacancy rates and to ensure Defendants meet their obligations under the Amended

Stipulation, the lack of certainty with respect to legislative action, and the lack of control that

this Court has over the Legislature, compels the conclusion that Court intervention is necessary. 

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to the extent it seeks an Order regarding

salary increases. 

C. Hiring, Staffing, and Recruiting Issues.

On April 20, 2007, Defendants submitted their “Recruitment and Hiring Plan for Dental

and Mental Health Programs” to the parties. (Hardy Decl. Ex. F.) After consulting with

Plaintiffs and the Court Representatives about this plan, on May 14, 2007, Defendants

submitted a revised “Recruitment and Hiring Plan for Dental and Mental Health Programs.” 

(See Declaration of Alison Hardy in Support of Supplemental Reply (“Hardy Supp. Reply

Decl.”), Ex. A.) As set forth above, on June 6, 2007, Plaintiffs, Defendants, and the Court

Representatives submitted additional recommendations to the Court in light of the revised plan.

1. Staffing

The Court Representatives recommend changes to the existing CDCR dental

organizational structure, including creating and funding positions for: (1) a Deputy Statewide

Dental Director; (2) support staff for the Statewide Deputy Dental Director; and (3) support

staff for the four Regional Dental Directors.3

 Plaintiffs concur with these recommendations. 

Each of the Court Representatives has significant experience in correctional and public

health care, with a focus on dental care. (See Declaration of Alison Hardy in Support of

Plaintiffs’ Reply (“Hardy Reply Decl.”), Ex. A.) Based on their collective experience, they

opine that a Deputy Statewide Dental Director is necessary, because the “Statewide Dental

Director is stretched too thin to manage the Dental Program, comply with the Perez Stipulation

Case 3:05-cv-05241-JSW Document 133 Filed 06/12/07 Page 6 of 11
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

7

Agreement, and deal with internal and external stakeholders.” (Hardy Decl., Ex. E at 9.) They

note that “[t]ypically in all large institutional health care systems, the Director has a deputy or

chief of staff to deal with the day-to-day issues ... allowing the Director to focus on dealing with

external stakeholders, planning, and dealing with quality assurance and problematic issues.” 

(Id.) The Court Representatives also note that the Deputy should be a dentist so that he or she is

able to deal with clinical issues on a daily basis. (Hardy Supp. Reply Decl., Ex. E at 11.) 

In response, Defendants have presented the Declaration of Brigid Hanson, who is the

Director (A) for the Division of Correction Health Care Services at the CDCR and a named

defendant. (Declaration of Brigid Hanson (“Hanson Decl.”), ¶ 1.) Ms. Hanson attests that

because there are “significant levels of management already being considered for the dental

program,” and because it “would not be an effective utilization of resources,” she decided not to

include a Deputy Statewide Dental Director in the dental program’s organizational structure. 

(Id. ¶ 3.) Ms. Hanson and Defendants did not provide the Court with any information about Ms.

Hanson’s expertise on these issues. Plaintiffs, however, submit evidence that Ms. Hanson’s

employment history pertains to labor relations. (Declaration of Alison Hardy in Support of

Reply (“Hardy Reply Decl.”), Ex. C.) There is no evidence in the record to suggest that Ms.

Hanson has any clinical dental experience. Thus, the Court Representatives opinions as to what

is required from a clinical perspective to ensure compliance with the Amended Stipulation

essentially are undisputed. Given the significant duties the Statewide Dental Director will have,

the Court concludes that the recommendation to include a Deputy Statewide Dental Director

and support staff for that position is well taken. For these same reasons, the Court concludes

that the recommendation that Defendants fund and create the support staff for the Regional

Directors also is well taken. Plaintiffs’ motion is therefore GRANTED IN PART on this basis

as well.

2. Hiring.

The parties again agree that in order to comply with the Amended Stipulation, the

Defendants must be able to recruit additional staff members and hire staff members in a timely

fashion. The Court Representatives and Plaintiffs ask the Court to Order Defendants to

Case 3:05-cv-05241-JSW Document 133 Filed 06/12/07 Page 7 of 11
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

8

implement a Hiring Finance Letter that would establish a hiring unit within the CDCR. (Hardy

Supp. Reply Decl., Ex. B.) 

With respect to the actual hiring practices, Defendants submitted a revised proposal with

their opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion. (Declaration of Nancy Bither (“Bither Decl.”), Ex. A.) 

At the meeting held on June 1, 2007, Defendants voluntarily agreed to implement this plan and

to provide the Court Representatives and the Plaintiffs with information by which compliance

and efficacy of the plan can be monitored. Therefore, Defendants argue that it is not necessary

for the Court to order the Defendants to implement the proposed streamlined hiring practices. 

For the reasons set forth above, the Court concludes that action is required at this time, and

Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED IN PART on this basis as well.

3. Recruitment.

 As part of their Hiring and Recruitment plan, Defendants state that they intend to rely

on a “Recruitment Contractor.” However, the request for a Recruitment Contractor stems from

the Department of Personnel Administration, which is not a party to this action, and, at this

stage, is only a proposal. Moreover, it appears that the Court Representatives have withdrawn

their recommendations with regard to the issue of recruitment, and ask only that the Court

revisit the issue by no later than December 2007. Accordingly, the Court DENIES AS MOOT

this aspect of Plaintiffs’ motion. 

If, however, Plaintiffs or the Court Representatives determine that, notwithstanding the

salary increases provided by this Order and the streamlined hiring practices, Defendants are

unable to recruit qualified candidates, such that they cannot fill vacant positions this ruling is

without prejudice to filing a motion for further relief. 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. By no later than thirty days after the date of this Order Defendants shall fund

and implement the salaries for all classifications of Dentists, including the Statewide Dental

Director, proposed in Governor Schwarzenegger’s proposed budget, as set forth in Table 2 of

March 23, 2007 Report of the Court Representatives on Personnel and Management Issues

Case 3:05-cv-05241-JSW Document 133 Filed 06/12/07 Page 8 of 11
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 4 Declaration of Julie Chapman, Exhibit A.

9

Related to Dental Services in the California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation

(“March 23, 2007 Report”).

2. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the salary increases required by paragraph 1 of

this Order, shall be retroactive to April 1, 2007, and that as set forth in the Agreement Reached

on May 3, 2007 Between the Department of Personnel Administration and Union of American

Physicians and Dentists (UAPD) Concerning Raises for CDCR Dentists,4

 PERSability for the

affected classes shall be implemented in stages not to exceed three years to reach full

PERSability, as follows: (1) salary increases below 15% shall be fully PERSable; (2) salary

increases between 15%-29% shall be implemented in stages over a two-year period; and (3)

salary increases above 30% shall be implemented in stages over a three year period.

3. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the salary increases required by paragraph 1 of

this Order shall be included in the paychecks of currently employed dentists within ninety days.

4. It is FURTHER ORDERED that in the event the Legislature passes the budget

and approves the salary increases as set forth in Table 2 of the March 23, 2007 Report, the

portion of this Order requiring Defendants to fund and implement those salaries shall be

deemed moot. 

5. It is FURTHER ORDERED that within thirty days of the date of this Order

Defendants shall establish and fill the position of Statewide Dental Director.

6. It is FURTHER ORDERED that within sixty days of the date of this Order,

Defendants shall:

a. Fund, establish, and fill the position of Deputy Statewide Dental Director, who

shall be a dentist, and shall set a salary for this position between that set for the Statewide

Dental Director and the Regional Directors, as set forth in Table 2 of the March 23, 2007

Report;

b. Fund, establish and fill positions for the following support staff for the Deputy

Statewide Dental Director: Executive Secretary, Associate Government Program Analyst/Staff

Service Analyst; and Health Program Specialist I;

Case 3:05-cv-05241-JSW Document 133 Filed 06/12/07 Page 9 of 11
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

5 If either party believes other provisions of state law must be waived, they

shall submit a statement to the Court within five (5) days of the date of this Order outlining

which provisions they request be included and the basis of any such request.

10

c. Fund, establish and fill positions for the following support staff for each of the

Regional Directors: Secretary, Associate Government Program Analyst/Staff Service Analyst;

and Health Program Specialist I

7. It is FURTHER ORDERED that within thirty (30) days of the date of this

Order, Defendants shall implement the Hiring Finance Letter attached as Exhibit B to the Hardy

Supplemental Reply Declaration, which establishes the hiring unit within the CDCR.

8. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall implement the Streamlined

Hiring Requirements, as set forth in Exhibit A to the Bither Declaration, for a ninety day trial

period, which shall commence 45 days after both the salary increase required by paragraph 1

and the implementation of the Hiring Finance Letter required by paragraph 7 become effective. 

During this ninety day period, Defendants shall provide bi-weekly reports to the Court

Representatives and to Plaintiffs listing: (1) name of candidate; (2) date of completed

application; (3) institution(s) for which candidate applied; (4) date applicant was initially

contacted by CDCR; (5) date interview took place; (6) date of hiring decision; (7) date of offer;

and (8) start date.

9. The following state law requirements shall be waived for the sole and limited

purpose of enabling Defendants to effect and implement the directives contained in this Order

with respect to salary increases and the hiring of key dental managers: (1) California

Government Code sections 3516.5, 3517, 19816, 19826, 19829, 19836, and (2) California Code

of Regulations: Title 2, section 599.681.5

10. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3126(a)(1), the Court finds that the remedies set forth

above are narrowly drawn to remedy the constitutional violations at issue, extend no further

than necessary to correct a current and on-going federal right, and is the least intrusive means

necessary to correct these violations. 

Case 3:05-cv-05241-JSW Document 133 Filed 06/12/07 Page 10 of 11
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

11

11. The Court also finds that this relief will not pose an unnecessary burden on

Defendants and will not have an adverse impact on either the safety of the public or on the

operation of the criminal justice system.

12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall appear for a status conference

on Friday, October 26, 2007 at 1:30 p.m. The parties’ joint status conference statement shall be

due by no later than Friday, October 19, 2007. If either party or the Court Representatives

believe a status conference is required before then, they shall submit a motion for administrative

relief, or a stipulation and proposed order, setting forth the basis for their request for an earlier

status date.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 12, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05241-JSW Document 133 Filed 06/12/07 Page 11 of 11