University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Perez v. Tilton PC-CA-0033
Docket / Court 3:05-cv-05241-JSW ( N.D. Cal. )
State/Territory California
Case Type(s) Prison Conditions
Special Collection Post-PLRA enforceable consent decrees
California's Prisoners' Rights Bar article
Attorney Organization Prison Law Office
Case Summary
On December 19, 2005, a California state prisoner filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiff sought injunctive relief on behalf of himself and other prisoners for alleged unconstitutional conditions with ... read more >
On December 19, 2005, a California state prisoner filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiff sought injunctive relief on behalf of himself and other prisoners for alleged unconstitutional conditions with respect to dental care provided by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). The plaintiffs were represented by attorneys of the Prison Law Office in California.

This case stemmed from the case Plata v. Schwarzenegger, 3:01-cv-01351-TEH (N.D. Cal.), PC-CA-18 in this Clearinghouse, which was a class action brought on behalf California state prisoners challenging the medical care provided by the CDCR.

On the same date as filing the complaint, the plaintiffs submitted a proposed stipulation and order outlining a settlement agreement that the parties had reached through informal negotiations that commenced in August 2004. Then the parties filed a joint motion for preliminary approval of an amended class settlement.

On May 1, 2006, Judge Jeffrey S. White certified the class for purposes of settlement and for the remedial phase of the litigation and issued its preliminary approval order as to the settlement. The class was: "all current and future California state prisoners in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation with serious dental care needs." Notices of the settlement were sent to class members and a fairness hearing was held on August 18, 2006.

On August 21, 2006, Judge White approved the settlement and adopted the amended stipulation as an order of the court. The amended stipulation required systemic improvements in the delivery of dental care to all inmates by the CDCR. The stipulation referred to the class as "all California state prisoners in the custody of the CDCR who have serious dental care needs." Monitoring of the remedial phase was to be done by CDCR, the plaintiffs and independent court experts. Perez v. Tilton, 2006 WL 2433240 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2006). On February 8, 2007, Judge White appointed Drs. Shulman and Scalzo to act as the court's representatives in connection with the oversight and coordination of the remediation phase in this case with Coleman v. Schwarzenegger, 2:90-cv-00520-LKK-JFM (E.D. Cal.), PC-CA-2 in this Clearinghouse, and Plata v. Schwarzenegger.

Beginning in October 2006, the parties brought the question of salaries and staffing to the attention of the court. The defendants stated that the current salary levels at the CDCR were an impediment to hiring and retaining dental staff and that they were trying to remedy this issue. However, it turned out that in order for the CDCR to obtain the necessary funding to finance these salary a court order was necessary. On June 12, 2007, Judge White ordered the defendants to increase dental salaries, hire key dental managers, and streamline dental hiring practices. Perez v. Hickman, 2007 WL 1697320 (N.D. Cal. June 12, 2007).

On June 28, 2007, Judge White approved a group of six coordination agreements among the parties in order to assist the remedial process in all three cases.

In approximately November 2006, the CDCR began to transfer prisoners to private facilities in other states. It is undisputed that, at the time the parties negotiated the original settlement agreement and the Amended Stipulation, that the parties did not contemplate that Defendants would transfer prisoners out-of-state. As a result of these transfers, a dispute arose between the parties about whether those prisoners who had been transferred to private facilities in other states were members of the class. The parties also disputed whether prisoners who were housed in Community Correctional Facilities ("CCFs") were members of the class. On March 10, 2008, Judge White granted the defendants' motion regarding the class definition and denied the plaintiffs' motion to amend the class definition. Judge White held that the parties did not intend to include out-of-state transfers and prisoners house in CCFs as part of the class. Perez v. Tilton, 2008 WL 686723 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2008).

During the dispute regarding prisoners who the CDCR was transferring out of state, the parties had met to review the dental files for those prisoners eligible for transfer to determine whether they were a member of the class. However, the defendants refused to let the experts review the files. As a result, on October 20, 2008, Judge White granted the plaintiffs' motion to enforce the stipulated injunction and court order regarding experts to allow them access to prisoners' records. Perez v. Cate, 2008 WL 4665130 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2008).

In 2009, the receiver in Plata v. Schwarzenegger, the special master in Coleman v. Schwarzenegger, and the experts in this case and Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger, PC-CA-1 in this Clearinghouse, presented to the judges in the four cases an agreement that they had reached during the coordination meetings for health care administrative appeals. On January 15, 2009, Judge White ordered that the parties in the four cases had until January 30, 2009, to show cause why the agreement should not be adopted as an order of the court.

Then in this case, regarding the prisoners be transferred out of state, the experts filed a report stating that the defendants' screening process was inadequate and that the application of the screening procedure resulted in an increased likelihood that inmates with essential dental care needs would be endorsed for the transfer. The experts also provided a better screening protocol, which the defendants disagreed with. As a result, the plaintiffs asked the court to modify the amended stipulation to require the defendants to implement an effective screening program approved by the experts and to suspend the transfer program pending the development of such a screening program. On February 23, 2009, Judge White ordered the parties to develop a mutually agreeable screening protocol and the defendants to stop transferring a certain class of inmates until the new screening program was developed. Perez v. Cate, 2009 WL 440508 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2009).

Also on February 23, 2009, Judge White granted the plaintiffs' motion to join Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger as a party defendant.

Pursuant to the amended stipulation injunction from 2006, the plaintiffs were entitled to apply for attorneys' fees. In 2007, Judge White had approved the parties' stipulation to periodic payment of attorneys' fees and costs. A dispute arose over the hourly rate for paralegal services. The defendants paid the plaintiffs' requested rate but asked the court to award a lower rate in the future. The disputed amount was $3,553. On September 1, 2009, Judge White ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiffs the disputed $3,553 granting the plaintiffs' motion to compel the disputed 2008 attorneys' fees. Judge White held that the Prison Litigation Reform Act limits courts to an hourly rate that is 150 percent of the rate established for court-appointed counsel under the Criminal Justice Act and does not set a separate benchmark rate for paralegal fees. Perez v. Cate, 2009 WL 2849593 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2009). The defendants appealed this decision.

On January 13, 2011, Judge Sandra Segal Ikuta, writing for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, affirmed the district court's decisions, holding that paralegal fees were subject to the same hourly cap as attorney fees. Perez v. Cate, 632 F.3d 553, 558 (9th Cir. 2011).

In August 2012, the case was dismissed with the exception of the provision requiring construction of dental clinics. The docket shows no activity after May 2013, so the current status of the case is unclear.

Kristen Sagar - 11/13/2008
Jessica Kincaid - 07/13/2014


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Content of Injunction
Goals and Timekeeping
Hire
Monitor/Master
Monitoring
Other requirements regarding hiring, promotion, retention
Reporting
Defendant-type
Corrections
General
Conditions of confinement
Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)
Unconstitutional conditions of confinement
Medical/Mental Health
Dental care
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Type of Facility
Government-run
Causes of Action 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Defendant(s) California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR")
Plaintiff Description Inmates confined by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR").
Indexed Lawyer Organizations Prison Law Office
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Yes
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Attorneys fees
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration 2006 - 2013
Case Closing Year 2013
Case Ongoing No
Case Listing PC-CA-0001 : Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger (N.D. Cal.)
PC-CA-0002 : Coleman v. Brown (E.D. Cal.)
PC-CA-0018 : Plata v. Brown (N.D. Cal.)
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Case Studies Civil Rights Injunctions Over Time: A Case Study of Jail and Prison Court Orders
N.Y.U. Law Review
By: Margo Schlanger (Washington University)
Citation: 81 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 550 (2006)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ] [ External Link ]

  Judicial Policy Making and the Modern State: How the Courts Reformed America's Prisons
By: Malcolm M. Feeley & Edward Rubin (UC Berkeley Boalt Hall School of Law & Vanderbilt School of Law Faculty)
Citation: (1998)
[ Detail ]

Docket(s)
3:05-cv-05241-JSW (N.D. Cal.) 05/15/2013
PC-CA-0033-9000.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Amended Stipulation and Order 08/21/2006
PC-CA-0033-0002.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Granting Motion for Final Approval of Settlement 08/21/2006 (2006 WL 2433240 / 2006 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 63318)
PC-CA-0033-0008.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Order Appointing Court Experts as Court Representatives 02/08/2007 (N.D. Cal.)
PC-CA-0033-0001.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
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 06/12/2007 (2007 WL 1697320 / 2007 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 44432 ) (N.D. Cal.)
PC-CA-0033-0009.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Order Denying Without Prejudice Motion to Compel Compliance with Settlement 03/11/2008 (N.D. Cal.)
PC-CA-0033-0010.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Granting Motion to Enforce Stipulated Injunction 10/20/2008 (2008 WL 4665130) (N.D. Cal.)
PC-CA-0033-0011.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order to Show Cause 01/15/2009 (N.D. Cal.)
PC-CA-0033-0003.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Join Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger as a Party Defendent 02/23/2009 (2009 WL 462747) (N.D. Cal.)
PC-CA-0033-0005.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Modify Stipulated Injunction 02/23/2009 (2009 WL 440508) (N.D. Cal.)
PC-CA-0033-0006.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Granting Motion to Compel Disputed 2008 Attorneys' Fees 09/01/2009 (2009 WL 2849593) (N.D. Cal.)
PC-CA-0033-0007.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opinion [Affirming District Court's Judgment] 01/13/2011 (632 F.3d 553)
PC-CA-0033-0012.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Stipulation and Order Re: Dismissal of Case with Prejudice and Termination of All Provisions of Consent Decree Except Provision Related to Renovation Projects 08/16/2012 (N.D. Cal.)
PC-CA-0033-0014.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Stipulation [re. dismissal] and Order Regarding Plaintiffs' Fees and Costs Post-Dismissal 08/20/2012 (N.D. Cal.)
PC-CA-0033-0013.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Stipulation and Order for Periodic Collection of Attorney's Fees and Costs 11/27/2012
PC-CA-0033-0015.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Requiring Reimbursement 05/15/2013 (N.D. Cal.)
PC-CA-0033-0016.pdf | Detail
Document Source: Bloomberg Law
Judges Gould, Ronald Murray (Ninth Circuit)
PC-CA-0033-0012
Henderson, Thelton Eugene (N.D. Cal.)
PC-CA-0033-0003
Ikuta, Sandra Segal (Ninth Circuit)
PC-CA-0033-0012
Karlton, Lawrence K. (E.D. Cal.)
PC-CA-0033-0003
Korman, Edward Robert (E.D.N.Y.)
PC-CA-0033-0012
White, Jeffrey Steven (N.D. Cal.)
PC-CA-0033-0001 | PC-CA-0033-0002 | PC-CA-0033-0003 | PC-CA-0033-0005 | PC-CA-0033-0006 | PC-CA-0033-0007 | PC-CA-0033-0008 | PC-CA-0033-0009 | PC-CA-0033-0010 | PC-CA-0033-0011 | PC-CA-0033-0013 | PC-CA-0033-0014 | PC-CA-0033-0015 | PC-CA-0033-0016 | PC-CA-0033-9000
Wilken, Claudia Ann (N.D. Cal.) [Magistrate]
PC-CA-0033-0003
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Hardy, Alison (California)
PC-CA-0033-0002 | PC-CA-0033-0008 | PC-CA-0033-0009 | PC-CA-0033-0013 | PC-CA-0033-0015 | PC-CA-0033-9000 | PC-CA-0033-9000
Norman, Sara Linda (California)
PC-CA-0033-9000
Specter, Donald H. (California)
PC-CA-0033-0002 | PC-CA-0033-0008 | PC-CA-0033-0009 | PC-CA-0033-0013 | PC-CA-0033-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Antonen, Charles (California)
PC-CA-0033-9000
Brown, Edmund G. Jr. (California)
PC-CA-0033-9000
East, Rochelle C. (California)
PC-CA-0033-0002 | PC-CA-0033-0008 | PC-CA-0033-0009 | PC-CA-0033-9000
Grunder, Frances T. (California)
PC-CA-0033-0002 | PC-CA-0033-0008 | PC-CA-0033-0009 | PC-CA-0033-9000
Harris, Kamala D. (California)
PC-CA-0033-0013
Humes, James M. (California)
PC-CA-0033-0002
Kirschenbauer, Marisa Yee (California)
PC-CA-0033-0015 | PC-CA-0033-9000
Lewis, Kyle Anthony (California)
PC-CA-0033-9000
Lindsay, Phillip James (California)
PC-CA-0033-9000
Lockyer, Bill (California)
PC-CA-0033-0002
McClain, Damon Grant (California)
PC-CA-0033-0013 | PC-CA-0033-9000
Mello, Paul Brian (California)
PC-CA-0033-0002 | PC-CA-0033-0008 | PC-CA-0033-0009 | PC-CA-0033-9000
Sandman, Alison P. (California)
PC-CA-0033-0008 | PC-CA-0033-9000
Schaefer, Jerrold C. (California)
PC-CA-0033-0002 | PC-CA-0033-0008 | PC-CA-0033-9000
Wolfe, Richard Frederick (California)
PC-CA-0033-0008 | PC-CA-0033-0009 | PC-CA-0033-9000
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -