Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00234/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00234-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FERNIE GARZA,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. ALVARA, Lieutenant; D. ROBERTS, 

Captain; E. ALVA, Correctional Counselor; S. 

TORRES, Correctional Counselor; N. 

BARKSDALE, MSW, ACSW; P. VIRK, 

M.D., CMO; N. MALAKKLA, M.D.; W. 

ZHANG, M.D.; K. TOOR, M.D.; RICKI 

BARNETT, M.D.; and DOES 10 through 50, 

inclusive,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:15-cv-00234-DAD-SKO

ORDER THAT THE PARTIES FILE 

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS

ORDER VACATING THE HEARING 

SET FOR JUNE 22, 2016

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Fernie Garza, a state prisoner represented by counsel, filed this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on February 10, 2015. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s first 

amended complaint against Defendants Lieutenant J. Alavara, Captain D. Roberts, Correctional 

Counselor E. Alva, Correctional Counselor S. Torres, Social Worker N. Barksdale, Chief Medical 

Officer P. Virk, M.D., N. Malakkla, M.D., W. Zhang, M.D., K. Toor, M.D., and Ricki Barnett, 

M.D., at California Correctional Institution (“CCI”), for violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth 

Amendments. (Doc. 31 (Amended Complaint).) 

On May 5, 2016, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule

12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 47.) Plaintiff filed his opposition on June 

1, 2016, and Defendants filed their reply on June 8, 2016. (Docs. 52; 53-54.) 

Case 1:15-cv-00234-DAD-SKO Document 55 Filed 06/13/16 Page 1 of 6
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 reviewed Plaintiff's motion and supporting material, supplemental briefing is 

required on the issue of Plaintiff’s compliance with the claim presentation requirements of the 

California Tort Claims Act. 

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff was celled with and attacked by Inmate Tourdot on January 2, 2014. On January 

24, 2014, Plaintiff overheard medical staff “asking why an inmate with Tourdot’s history of 

mental illness had been placed in a position to attack [Plaintiff].” 

Plaintiff filed his claim with the Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board (the 

“Board”) on July 11, 2014, more than six months after the date of the attack. The Board “denied 

[Plaintiff’s] application to present a late claim and rejected the claim itself” on the merits on 

October 24, 2014. On February 10, 2015, Plaintiff filed his Complaint with an attached Petition 

for Relief seeking an order relieving him from the claim presentment requirement of the California 

Tort Claims Act (the “Act”). Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 945.4, 946.6(a). (See Doc. 1-2.) Defendants 

seek dismissal of Plaintiff’s state law claims with prejudice for failure to comply with the claim 

presentment requirement of the Act. (See Doc. 47.) 

III. DISCUSSION

Under the Act, plaintiffs “must timely file a claim for money or damages with the public 

entity” before filing a suit like the instant action. State v. Super. Ct. (Bodde), 32 Cal. 4th 1234, 

1237 (2004) (citing Cal. Gov’t Code § 911.2). “Claims for personal injury and property damage 

must be presented within six months after accrual.” City of Stockton v. Super. Ct., 42 Cal. 4th 730, 

738 (2007) (citing Cal. Gov’t Code § 911.2). Generally speaking, a claim accrues at “the time 

‘when, under the substantive law, the wrongful act is done,’ or the wrongful result occurs, and the 

consequent ‘liability arises.’” Norgart v. Upjohn Co., 21 Cal. 4th 383, 397 (1999) (citation 

omitted). In other words, the statute of limitations begins to run “when the cause of action is 

complete with all of its elements.” Id. (citation omitted). 

Here, Plaintiff was attacked by Inmate Tourdot on January 2, 2014, and did not file a claim 

with the Board until July 11, 2014, more than six months after the “wrongful act” occurred. 

Therefore, Plaintiff did not timely present his claims within six months of accrual as required by 

Case 1:15-cv-00234-DAD-SKO Document 55 Filed 06/13/16 Page 2 of 6
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

the Act. See Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 911.2, 945.4. In such circumstances, “a written application may 

be made to the public entity for leave to present that claim”; however, this written application for 

leave to present a late claim must itself be made “within a reasonable time not to exceed one year 

after the accrual of the cause of action.” Cal. Gov’t Code § 911.4(a)-(b) (emphasis added). Here, 

Plaintiff filed his claim with the Board on July 11, 2014, and specifically argued that his claim was 

not a late filing. Plaintiff has never filed an application for leave to file a late claim; rather, 

Plaintiff maintains that his July 11, 2014, claim was timely and was improperly denied as late. 

(See Petition; Doc. 52, pp. 4-5.) 

One who, like Plaintiff here, presents neither (1) a timely claim for money or damages to 

the public entity, nor (2) a timely application for leave to present a late claim within one year of 

the accrual date, is effectively barred from filing a lawsuit against that entity. See Bodde, 32 Cal. 

4th at 1239; City of Los Angeles v. Super. Ct., 14 Cal. App. 4th 621, 627 (1993) (The “failure to 

timely comply with the Government Code requirements concerning claims bars a subsequent 

suit”) (citations omitted). In such circumstances, Plaintiff’s only recourse was to “obtain a court 

order for relief from the requirements of the claims act before filing suit.” City of Los Angeles, 14 

Cal. App. 4th at 627 (emphasis added). Specifically, pursuant to Cal. Gov’t Code § 946.6, a 

petition for such an order must have been filed with the superior court within six months after the 

application was denied or deemed denied. Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 946.6(b), 911.6. 

Here, Plaintiff does not allege that he petitioned any superior court for relief from the Act’s 

claim presentation requirements under Cal. Govt. Code § 946.6 within six months of the Board’s 

denial of his untimely claim. Rather, Plaintiff concurrently filed a petition with his original 

complaint in this Court on February 10, 2015, seeking to be excused from compliance with the 

Act. (See Doc. 1-2 (Petition).) 

Plaintiff argues that relief from the claim presentation requirements should be granted by 

this Court because his claim to the Board was improperly deemed untimely and erroneously 

denied on the merits. (See id.) Defendants contend this Court does not have subject matter 

jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s petition for relief from the claim presentation requirements of Cal. 

Gov’t Code § 946.6(a), which unambiguously vests such jurisdiction with the California state 

Case 1:15-cv-00234-DAD-SKO Document 55 Filed 06/13/16 Page 3 of 6
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

superior courts. (Docs. 47-1; 53.) 

Plaintiff responds that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction to decide his petition. 

(Doc. 52, pp. 5-7 (citing Perez v. City of Escondido, 165 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1114 (S.D. Cal. 2001). 

Should the Court find it lacks jurisdiction to rule on Plaintiff’s petition for relief pursuant to Cal. 

Gov’t Code § 946.6, Plaintiff asks in the alternative that the Court transfer this case to Fresno 

County Superior Court for a ruling on the petition. (Id, pp. 7-8.) Regardless of the merits of 

Plaintiff’s petition, it is unclear that any effort to petition the superior court at the present time 

would be viable because the petition for relief under § 946.6 appears to be untimely. 

The cause of action accrued on January 2, 2014, the date of Tourdot’s attack, and Plaintiff 

did not present his claim to the Board until July 11, 2014, more than six months later. Plaintiff’s 

claim was thereby deemed untimely by the Board and denied on October 24, 2014. To obtain 

relief from noncompliance with the Act, Plaintiff was required to file an application for leave to 

present a late claim with the proper superior court “within a reasonable time not to exceed one 

year after the accrual of the cause of action.” Cal. Gov’t Code § 911.4(b); Garber v. City of 

Clovis, 698 F. Supp. 2d 1204, 1218 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (“A trial court has broad discretion in ruling 

on a petition for relief from the claim-filing requirement as long as the issue is whether the late 

claim was presented within a ‘reasonable time’ not to exceed one year after the accrual of the 

cause of action. When an application to file a late claim is not filed within one year, the court is 

without jurisdiction to grant relief under Section 946.6”) (internal quotations and citations 

omitted). Having had his claim deemed untimely, however, Plaintiff did not then file an 

application for leave to present a late claim within one year of the January 2, 2014 -- or his alleged 

January 24, 2014 -- accrual date. (See generally, Doc. 1 (Complaint filed on February 10, 2015).) 

A petition pursuant to § 946.6 must be filed “within six months after the application to the 

board is denied or deemed denied.” Cal. Gov’t Code § 946.6. Here, well over six months have 

elapsed since the Board denied Plaintiff’s untimely July 11, 2014, claim. (See Doc. 1 (Complaint, 

filed February 10, 2015); Doc. 1-2, p. 15 (Board denial letter dated October 24, 2014).) It is 

therefore unclear whether the superior court would even entertain Plaintiff’s petition at this 

juncture. 

Case 1:15-cv-00234-DAD-SKO Document 55 Filed 06/13/16 Page 4 of 6
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

The Court notes that relief from the claim presentation requirement may be granted 

pursuant to any of several enumerated exceptions. See Cal. Gov’t Code § 946.6(c). However, 

Plaintiff does not allege that his failure to timely present his claim was through mistake, 

inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, id., § (c)(1), or that he was physically or mentally 

incapacitated during the entirety of the time for presentation of the claim or that by reason of that 

disability he failed to present a claim, see id., § (c)(3). (See Am. Compl.) Accordingly, it is 

appears that, regardless of the merits of Plaintiff’s claim, any such petition to the superior court 

would be considered untimely and would be subject to dismissal. Cal. Gov’t Code. § 946.6; see 

City of Los Angeles, 14 Cal. App. 4th at 626 (“[P]laintiffs were required to file their petition 

pursuant to section 946.6 within six months of July 17, 1991, and they failed to do so. Plaintiffs’ 

action for . . . [personal] damages is therefore barred”). 

It is not clear from Plaintiff’s opposition whether Plaintiff’s petition for relief from the 

claims presentment requirement, if transferred to the superior court for consideration under 

§ 946.6, would even be entertained by the superior court as the petition was filed in this Court 

more than a year after the cause of action accrued -- regardless of whether the court finds the date 

of accrual to be January 2, 2014 (the date of the attack) or January 24, 2014 (the date Plaintiff 

contends he first learned of Defendants’ liability). Therefore, the parties are ORDERED to further 

brief the issue of the viability, or futility, of Plaintiff’s petition to the superior court for an order 

pursuant to Cal. Gov’t Code § 946.6. 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. By no later than June 17, 2016, Plaintiff shall file a supplemental brief of no more 

than 5 pages in support of its opposition to the motion to dismiss addressing the 

issue of the viability, or futility, of Plaintiff’s petition to the superior court for an 

order pursuant to Cal. Gov’t Code § 946.6 as discussed above; and

2. By no later than June 22, 2016, Defendants shall file a response to Plaintiff’s 

supplemental brief, if any, of no more than 5 pages in support of its motion to 

dismiss addressing the issue of the viability, or futility, of Plaintiff’s petition to the 

Case 1:15-cv-00234-DAD-SKO Document 55 Filed 06/13/16 Page 5 of 6
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

6

superior court for an order pursuant to Cal. Gov’t Code § 946.6 as discussed above; 

and

3. The hearing on Defendants’ motion currently set for June 22, 2016, is hereby 

VACATED, and will be reset upon receipt of the parties’ briefs, if deemed 

necessary by the Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 13, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00234-DAD-SKO Document 55 Filed 06/13/16 Page 6 of 6