Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_76-cv-00162/USCOURTS-caed-2_76-cv-00162-17/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

[3320069.1] [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF AMENDED 

CONSENT DECREE, APPOINTING CO-COUNSEL FOR CLASS, AND EXPEDITING HEARING DATE

CARTER C. WHITE – 164149 

KING HALL CIVIL RIGHTS CLINIC 

U.C. Davis School of Law 

One Shields Avenue, Bldg. TB-30 

Davis, California 95616-8821 

Telephone: (530) 752-5440 

Facsimile: (530) 752-5788 

Email: ccwhite@ucdavis.edu 

MICHAEL W. BIEN – 096891 

GAY CROSTHWAIT GRUNFELD – 121944 

MICHAEL FREEDMAN – 262850 

BENJAMIN BIEN-KAHN – 267933 

ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP 

50 Fremont Street, 19th Floor 

San Francisco, California 94105-2235 

Telephone: (415) 433-6830 

Facsimile: (415) 433-7104 

Email: mbien@rbgg.com 

 ggrunfeld@rbgg.com 

 mfreedman@rbgg.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SACRAMENTO DIVISION 

DERRIL HEDRICK, DALE ROBINSON, 

KATHY LINDSEY, MARTIN C. CANADA, 

DARRY TYRONE PARKER, individually and 

on behalf of all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

JAMES GRANT, as Sheriff of Yuba County; 

Lieutenant FRED J. ASBY, as Yuba County 

Jailer; JAMES PHARRIS, ROY LANDERMAN, 

DOUG WALTZ, HAROLD J. “SAM” 

SPERBEK, JAMES MARTIN, as members of 

the YUBA COUNTY BOARD OF 

SUPERVISORS, 

Defendants. 

 Case No. 2:76-CV-00162-EFB 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

JOINT MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF 

AMENDED CONSENT DECREE, 

APPOINTING CO-COUNSEL FOR 

CLASS, AND EXPEDITING 

HEARING DATE 

Judge: Hon. Edmund F. Brennan 

Date: October 24, 2018 

Time: 10:00 a.m. 

Crtrm.: 8, 13th Floor 

Trial Date: None Set 

Case 2:76-cv-00162-EFB Document 248 Filed 11/07/18 Page 1 of 8
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

[3320069.1] 

 1

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF AMENDED 

CONSENT DECREE, APPOINTING CO-COUNSEL FOR CLASS, AND EXPEDITING HEARING DATE

The parties’ Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Amended Consent Decree 

and Request for Expedited Hearing (“Joint Motion”) came on for hearing before this Court 

on October 24, 2018. The Court, having considered the pleadings on the Joint Motion, 

oral argument on the Joint Motion, and the record in this case, and good cause appearing, 

now finds, as follows: 

1. Pursuant to the consent of the parties, this case is now assigned to Magistrate 

Judge Edmund F. Brennan for all purposes. 

2. The Court names Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP (“RBGG”) as cocounsel for the class. The Court finds that RBGG satisfies all of the requirements of Rule 

23(g). 

3. The Court finds that the Amended Consent Decree falls within the range of 

possible approval and is sufficiently fair to warrant the dissemination of notice to the class 

members apprising them of the Amended Consent Decree. 

4. The proposed Amended Consent Decree 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. 

5. The Amended Consent Decree is granted preliminary approval and 

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

Court. 

6. A hearing is appropriate to consider whether this Court should grant final 

approval to this settlement, and to allow adequate time for the members of the class, or 

their counsel, to support or oppose this settlement. 

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING THEREFOR, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

7. The parties’ request to expedite the hearing on this Joint Motion for 

Preliminary Approval of Amended Consent Decree for October 24, 2018, at 10:00 a.m. is 

granted. 

8. The Notice of Amended Consent Decree (“Notice”), attached hereto, is 

approved. The Notice constitutes valid, due, and sufficient notice to the class, constitutes 

Case 2:76-cv-00162-EFB Document 248 Filed 11/07/18 Page 2 of 8
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

[3320069.1] 

 2

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF AMENDED 

CONSENT DECREE, APPOINTING CO-COUNSEL FOR CLASS, AND EXPEDITING HEARING DATE

the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and complies fully with the 

requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The proposed forms of 

Notice apprise class members in a fair and neutral way of the existence of the settlement 

with the Defendants and their rights with respect to the settlement. 

9. Within seven (7) days of this Order, Defendants must post the Notice (1) on 

the County’s official website (www.co.yuba.ca.us/); and (2) in all Jail facilities operated by 

Defendants, including, but not limited to, in all dayrooms, all medical clinic spaces, the 

visiting area, and the intake area in the Yuba County Jail. Copies of the Amended Consent 

Decree shall be available in the Jail library and made available to Jail inmates upon 

request. 

10. Dissemination of the Notice as provided above is hereby authorized and 

approved, and satisfies the notice requirement of Rule 23(e), Federal Rules of Civil 

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

rule(s) of this Court. No later than ten (10) days after this Order, Defendants must file and 

serve on Plaintiffs’ counsel an affidavit affirming that they published notice as required in 

the Court’s order. 

11. Any member of the class may write to the Court about whether the 

settlement is fair. The Court will consider written communications when deciding whether 

to approve the settlement. Comments must include at the top of the first page the case 

name, Hedrick v. Grant, E.D. Cal. No. 2:76-cv-00162-JAM-EFB. Comments must be 

postmarked no later than fifty-two (52) days after the issuance of this Order, and sent to 

the following address: 

Clerk of the Court 

United States District Court 

Eastern District of California 

501 I Street 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 2:76-cv-00162-EFB Document 248 Filed 11/07/18 Page 3 of 8
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

[3320069.1] 

3

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF AMENDED 

CONSENT DECREE, APPOINTING CO-COUNSEL FOR CLASS, AND EXPEDITING HEARING DATE

12. A final approval hearing pursuant to Rule 23(e), Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, will be in the Courtroom of the undersigned on January 23, 2019, in the United 

States District Court for the Eastern District of California, to determine whether the 

proposed settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate, and whether it should be finally 

approved by the Court. The hearing may be continued from time to time without further 

notice. 

13. A joint memorandum of points and authorities in support of final approval 

shall be filed on or before January 9, 2019. 

14. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses on 

October 24, 2018. A hearing on the motion for attorneys’ fees and expenses shall be held 

on January 23, 2019 at 10:00 a.m., the same date as the hearing on the motion for final 

approval, at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, 501 I 

Street, Sacramento, CA 95814. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: November 7, 2018

 Edmund F. Brennan 

Chief United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:76-cv-00162-EFB Document 248 Filed 11/07/18 Page 4 of 8
[3320063.1] 

Attachment A 

Case 2:76-cv-00162-EFB Document 248 Filed 11/07/18 Page 5 of 8
[3320063.1] 

NOTICE OF AMENDED CONSENT DECREE 

Hedrick v. Grant, E.D. Cal. No. 2:76-cv-00162-JAM-EFB, is a federal 

class action about the conditions in the Yuba County Jail (“the Jail”). 

All current and future inmates in the Jail are members of a class that was 

certified by the Court in 1976. 

In 1979, the district court entered an order called a consent decree to 

improve certain aspects of the Jail’s operations (“Consent Decree”). In 

August 2018, the class—represented by the lawyers listed below—and 

the County of Yuba reached an agreement on a proposed Amended 

Consent Decree. The Amended Consent Decree keeps many and 

modifies some of the provisions of the Consent Decree and adds a 

number of new provisions. 

This notice explains the proposed Amended Consent Decree, where 

you can find the Amended Consent Decree, and how you can tell the 

Court whether you think the Amended Consent Decree is fair.

The provisions of the Amended Consent Decree require the County to, 

among other things: adopt a regular exercise schedule for all housing 

units; offer exercise daily on both the Exercise Roof and Exercise Yard 

from 5 a.m. to 11 p.m.; increase the number of medical staff, including 

registered nurses on site 24 hours per day and licensed mental health 

staff 7 days per week; have registered nurses at intake health screenings 

for new inmates; provide timely access to inpatient medical and mental 

health care; adopt policies for the use of telepsychiatry; address all sick 

call slips within 24 hours; provide reasonable accommodations to 

inmates with disabilities; make a number of changes over the next 4 

years to the physical structure of the Jail to improve accessibility; limit 

placement of inmates in safety cells to 24 consecutive hours and 36 

hours in any 120-hour period; create a “step-down” cell for inmates at 

risk of suicide; conduct suicide risk assessments on certain inmates 

placed in Segregated Housing; conduct daily health care rounds on all 

Case 2:76-cv-00162-EFB Document 248 Filed 11/07/18 Page 6 of 8
[3320063.1] 

inmates in Segregated Housing; and increase the amount of out-of-cell 

time for inmates in Segregated Housing. 

The Amended Consent Decree has two provisions that are less favorable 

to the class than the Consent Decree: (a) the Amended Consent Decree 

requires the County to provide all inmates outdoor exercise a minimum 

of 1 hour, 5 days a week and inmates in Segregated Housing outdoor 

exercise for a minimum of 1 hour, 7 days a week, while the Consent 

Decree required the County to provide inmates 8 hours of exercise a 

week (although inmates claimed they received less exercise and the Jail 

faced difficulties due to operational constraints and population growth) 

and (b) the Amended Consent Decree terminates in 4 years unless 

Plaintiffs’ attorneys prove that the County is not in substantial 

compliance, while the Consent Decree did not have an end date. 

Copies of the Amended Consent Decree are available in the Jail Law 

Library, and will be made available to you upon request. You can also 

write to Plaintiffs’ counsel to request a copy of the Amended Consent 

Decree or Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. 

The Court will keep jurisdiction to enforce the Amended Consent 

Decree. The Court will hold a hearing on the fairness of the Amended 

Consent Decree at 10:00 a.m. on January 23, 2019, at the United States 

Courthouse in Sacramento, Courtroom No. 8. 

The lawsuit addresses policies that apply to the class as a whole. 

Because the lawsuit does not seek relief for any specific class member, 

there is no right to opt-out of the class. This action does not seek money 

damages and none will be awarded. 

Plaintiffs’ counsel will ask the Court to have Defendants pay for their 

attorneys’ fees and expenses. The Amended Consent Decree limits the 

attorneys’ fees and expenses to $1.1 million for work from May 15, 

2014 to June 30, 2018 and permits Plaintiffs’ counsel to recover 

attorneys’ fees and expenses for work between July 1, 2018 and final 

approval of the Amended Consent Decree. In the future, the Amended 

Case 2:76-cv-00162-EFB Document 248 Filed 11/07/18 Page 7 of 8
[3320063.1] 

Consent Decree limits the attorneys’ fees and expenses to $115,000 per 

year for monitoring conducted by Plaintiffs’ counsel, excluding 

litigation in the district court or future appeals, if any. The Court will 

decide the amount of these fees and expenses. 

Inmates in the Jail can write to the Court about whether the settlement is 

fair and whether they object to the award of attorneys’ fees. Comments 

MUST include at the top of the page the case name and case number: 

Hedrick v. Grant, No. 2:76-cv-00162-JAM-EFB. Comments MUST be 

postmarked no later than December 30, 2018 and sent to: 

Clerk of the Court 

United States District Court 

Eastern District of California 

501 I Street 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

For more information, you may contact attorneys for the Plaintiff 

class:

ROSEN BIEN 

GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP 

P.O. Box 390 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

(415) 433-6830 

KING HALL 

CIVIL RIGHTS CLINIC 

U.C. Davis School of Law 

One Shields Avenue, Bldg. TB-30 

Davis, CA 95616-8821 

Case 2:76-cv-00162-EFB Document 248 Filed 11/07/18 Page 8 of 8