Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-05241/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-05241-4/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

27

28

Preliminary Approval Order

Perez v. Hickman, C-05-5241

CARLOS PEREZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

v.

RODERICK HICKMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

No. C05-5241 JSW

[PROPOSED] PRELIMINARY

APPROVAL ORDER

The plaintiffs in this action, California state prisoners who have serious dental

conditions, allege that the defendants have failed to provide minimally adequate dental care

services. Plaintiffs assert that the failure to provide them with dental care for their serious

dental needs constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the Eighth

Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. 

The parties have moved jointly for preliminary approval of a settlement agreement

set forth in a Stipulation and [Proposed] Order, and plaintiffs have moved concurrently for

the certification of a class of California state prisoners in the custody of the California

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation with serious dental care needs. The parties

have submitted a proposed Notice to the Class, as well as a proposed order regarding the

distribution of the order to the plaintiff class.

JAMES TILTON an Amended Stipulation and [Proposed] Order (hereinafter, the "Stipulation"), Perez v. Tilton,

Case 3:05-cv-05241-JSW Document 33 Filed 05/01/06 Page 1 of 4
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

Preliminary Approval Order

Perez v. Hickman, C-05-5241 2

I. Overview of Terms of Settlement

The parties agree that the remedy 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). Under the terms of the

Stipulation:

1. Defendants will implement the Dental Services Policies and Procedures. The

Stipulation provides that the Policies and Procedures shall be implemented on a staged basis, with

certain prisons starting in July, 2006, and additional prisons starting each successive year, through

2009. 

2. Implementation of the Stipulation will be executed according to the Defendants’

Implementation Plan, which is incorporated into the Stipulation.

3. Defendants will complete a state-wide staffing study by June 1, 2006 to determine

dental staffing needs, and based on the study, will hire staff sufficient to meet their needs to fulfill

their duties under the Stipulation.

4. Defendants will immediately provide at all prisons access to 24-hour emergency

dental care, fluoridated toothpaste or toothpowder, and dental floss or interdental cleaners. 

5. Defendants will develop and implement a dental care tracking system, and will

provide all prisoners with dental self-care education.

6. Plaintiffs’ counsel and experts will have reasonable access to the prisons in order to

evaluate the adequacy of the dental care delivery system and the proposed remedies, and the

parties shall negotiate a document production agreement to provide Plaintiffs with information

from the prisons and headquarters regarding dental care delivery.

7. The parties request that this Court appoint two specifically-named dental experts to

advise the Court on compliance with the Stipulation.

8. Defendants will conduct audits of compliance with the Dental Services Policies and

Procedures. Defendants will use an audit instrument to be developed by Defendants, in

consultation with the Court experts and Plaintiffs, by June 30, 2006. 

9. Defendants may move to vacate the Stipulation and dismiss this case when all

December 1, 2006. Perez v. Tilton,

Case 3:05-cv-05241-JSW Document 33 Filed 05/01/06 Page 2 of 4
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

Preliminary Approval Order

Perez v. Hickman, C-05-5241 3

institutions have been found in substantial compliance under the terms of the Stipulation.

10. Plaintiffs are the prevailing parties and may apply for attorneys’ fees.

11. The Court retains the power to enforce the Stipulation through specific performance

and all other remedies permitted by law. 

II. Rule 23(e) Requires Settlement To Be Fair, Adequate and Reasonable

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) requires this Court to determine whether the

proposed Stipulation and [Proposed] Order is fundamentally fair, adequate and reasonable. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 23(e). “It is the settlement taken as a whole, rather than the individual component parts,

that must be examined for overall fairness.” Hanlon v. Chrysler Corporation, 150 F.3d 1011,

1026 (9 Cir. 1998). th

Here, the parties, both represented by counsel with decades of experience in prison

conditions litigation, have engaged in extensive negotiations over 18 months. These negotiations

resulted in the development of comprehensive dental services policies and procedures to be

implemented at each of California’s 32 state prisons. The dental services policies and procedures

have been reviewed and approved by both parties’ dental experts. The agreement, set forth in the

parties’ Stipulation and [Proposed] Order, provides immediate and important benefits to the

plaintiff class, and permits the defendants to immediately focus resources on addressing dental

care deficiencies rather than engage in a protracted and expensive litigation battle at the taxpayers’

expense. 

The notification procedures suggested by the parties are well-calculated to alert interested

California state prisoners to the existence of the lawsuit, the nature of the allegations and claims,

and the proposed terms of relief. It is reasonable to assume that these notification procedures will

allow class members who believe their interests have not been adequately represented in the

settlement to present objections to the settlement proposal to the Court and the parties. The Court

will then be well-positioned to make any appropriate adjustments to the final version of the order. 

As a preliminary matter, this Court finds that the proposed settlement set forth in the

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order is fair, adequate and reasonable.

Perez v. Tilton,

Case 3:05-cv-05241-JSW Document 33 Filed 05/01/06 Page 3 of 4
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

Preliminary Approval Order

Perez v. Hickman, C-05-5241 4

III. Scheduling Order

1. The parties shall furnish notice of the proposed settlement to the plaintiff class

according to the parties’ Stipulation Regarding Furnishing Notice of the Proposed Settlement to

Plaintiff Class. Notice shall be posted and distributed by ________.

2. Class members wishing to object to or comment on the terms of the Stipulation and

[Proposed] Order must do so in writing by no later than _______. 

3. The parties are permitted to file replies (separately or jointly) to any objections or

comments received pursuant to the above paragraph. Such replies must be filed no later than

________.

4. The Court will conduct a final fairness hearing on ______ in Courtroom 2, 17th

Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California, to consider whether to give the

settlement final approval.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ___________________

______________________

JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

May 9, 2006 July 14, 2006 August 4, 2006. August 18, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. May 1, 2006

Perez v. Tilton,

Case 3:05-cv-05241-JSW Document 33 Filed 05/01/06 Page 4 of 4