Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00130/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00130-0/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAY GONZALES and SHEILA 

DEOCAMPO, in each case individually 

and as successor-in-interest to Joshua 

Gonzales, deceased,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF LINDSAY and DOES 1–10, 

inclusive,

Defendant.

No. 1:16-cv-00130-DAD-EPG

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS

(Doc. No. 5)

This matter came before the court on April 5, 2016, for hearing on defendant’s motion to 

dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Attorney Jaime A. Leanos

appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs and Attorney Bruce D. Praet appeared on behalf of the 

defendant. Oral argument was heard and defendant’s motion was taken under submission. For 

the reasons set forth below, defendant’s motion to dismiss will be granted.

I. Introduction

On January 27, 2016, Ray Gonzales and Sheila Deocampo (“plaintiffs”) filed a complaint 

against the City of Lindsay (“defendant”) alleging multiple violations of federal and state law in 

relation to the wrongful killing of their son, Joshua Gonzales (“decedent”), by officers of the 

Lindsay Police Department. (Doc. No. 1., Complaint “Compl.”) More specifically, plaintiffs 

Case 1:16-cv-00130-DAD-EPG Document 12 Filed 04/06/16 Page 1 of 5
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

allege six claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and four claims arising under state law. The 

state law claims include false arrest/imprisonment, battery, negligence, and violation of the Bane 

Act, codified at California Civil Code § 52.1. Plaintiffs are suing in both their individual capacity 

and as representatives of decedent’s estate. 

Plaintiffs’ claims stem from an encounter between decedent and two officers of the 

Lindsay Police Department on April 10, 2015. In their complaint, plaintiffs allege as follows. On 

April 10, 2015, officers of the Lindsay Police Department responded to a call concerning an 

altercation between decedent and one of his neighbors. (Compl. at ¶ 21.) When the officers 

arrived, decedent was on his property, standing behind a four-foot tall chain link fence. (Id. at ¶ 

22.) The decedent was not armed, and the officers had no reason to believe that anyone was 

armed. (Id. at ¶ 21.) The officers proceeded to speak with decedent; however, at some point, the 

officers reached over the fence and grabbed decedent, pulling him over the fence. (Id. at ¶ 22.) 

As decedent was being pulled, his pant leg became caught in the fence, and as a result, he landed 

head first on the ground. (Id.) The officers then hog-tied decedent and placed him in their police 

car. (Id. at ¶¶ 23-24.) Decedent died while being transported by the officers. (Id. at ¶ 25.) 

Plaintiffs claim decedent died because of positional asphyxia resulting from the position in which 

he was restrained. (Id.) 

On February 29, 2016, defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Doc. No. 5.) Defendant seeks to dismiss plaintiff Ms. Deocampo’s 

state-based causes of action, claiming that they are time barred pursuant to the California 

Government Claims Act, codified at California Government Code §§ 910, et seq. The California 

Government Claims Act imposes preconditions a plaintiff must satisfy before he can bring suit 

against a public entity. City of Stockton v. Superior Court, 42 Cal. 4th 730, 738 (2007). Per the 

defendant, Ms. Deocampo did not file a written claim within six months of her son’s death with 

the appropriate public entity as required by California Government Code § 911.2. 

In their opposition to the pending motion to dismiss, plaintiffs present two arguments as to 

why Ms. Deocampo’s state-based claims should not be dismissed. First, plaintiffs claim that Ms. 

Deocampo should not be prohibited from pursuing her state-based causes of action because Mr. 

Case 1:16-cv-00130-DAD-EPG Document 12 Filed 04/06/16 Page 2 of 5
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

Gonzalez’s timely filing of a written claim provided defendant with adequate notice. (Opp. at 3–

4.) Second, plaintiffs argue that Ms. Deocampo’s state law claims should not be dismissed 

because, while Ms. Deocampo did not adhere to the timeline imposed by California Government 

Code § 911.2, she has timely filed an application with defendant seeking leave from the 

requirements of that provision as permitted by § 911.4.1 Plaintiffs also argues that in the event 

defendant denies Ms. Deocampo’s application for leave to file a late claim she will petition the 

superior court for an order relieving her from the requirements of the California Government 

Code, as permitted by California Government Code § 946.6.

II. Legal Standard

The purpose of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is to test the legal 

sufficiency of the complaint. N. Star Int’l v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, 720 F.2d 578, 581 (9th Cir. 

1983). “Dismissal can be based on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of 

sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.” Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 

F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). A plaintiff is required to allege “enough facts to state a claim to 

relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A 

claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw 

the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

In determining whether a complaint states a claim on which relief may be granted, the 

court accepts as true the allegations in the complaint and construes the allegations in the light 

most favorable to the plaintiff. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984); Love v. 

United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 (9th Cir. 1989). It is inappropriate to assume that the plaintiff 

“can prove facts which it has not alleged or that the defendants have violated the . . . laws in ways 

that have not been alleged.” Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Cal. State Council of 

Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526 (1983).

/////

 

1 At the April 5, 2016 hearing, plaintiffs informed the court that the City of Lindsay had rejected

Ms. Deocampo’s application to file a late claim on March 24, 2016. 

Case 1:16-cv-00130-DAD-EPG Document 12 Filed 04/06/16 Page 3 of 5
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

In ruling on a motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the court is permitted 

to consider material which is properly submitted as part of the complaint, documents that are not 

physically attached to the complaint if their authenticity is not contested and the plaintiff’s 

complaint necessarily relies on them, and matters of public record. Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 

250 F.3d 668, 688–89 (9th Cir. 2001).

III. Analysis

California’s Government Claims Act provides that “no suit for money or damages may be 

brought against a public entity on a cause of action for which a claim is required to be presented 

. . . until a written claim therefor has been presented to the public entity and has been acted upon 

by the board[.]” Cal. Gov’t Code § 945.4. Lawsuits that seek monetary relief based on claims 

sounding in tort, as well as claims sounding in contract, are lawsuits for “money or damages.” 

See City of Stockton, 42 Cal. 4th at 738. Such a written claim must be filed within six months of 

the conduct alleged in the cause of action. Cal. Gov’t Code § 911.2(a) (citing Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 

945.4 & 950.2). “The filing of a claim is a condition precedent to the maintenance of an action 

under state law and an integral part of the cause of action.” Dennis v. Thurman, 959 F. Supp. 

1253, 1264 (C.D. Cal. 1997) (citing Karim–Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept., 839 F.2d 621, 

627 (9th Cir.1988)). The Government Claims statutes “must be satisfied even in the face of the 

public entity’s actual knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the claim.” City of Stockton, 

42 Cal. 4th at 738.

The law is clear: in California, a plaintiff must file a written claim before she can 

maintain an action against a public entity. See Shirk v. Vista Unified Sch. Dist., 42 Cal. 4th 201, 

209 (2007) (“Timely claim presentation is not merely a procedural requirement, but is . . . a 

condition precedent to a plaintiff maintaining an action against [a public entity], and thus [is] an 

element of the plaintiff’s cause of action.”) (emphasis added). Here, plaintiff Deocampo did not 

file a timely claim pursuant to § 911.2. Thus, she is prevented from pursuing her state-based 

causes of action against defendant. Additionally, plaintiffs cannot seek to evade the requirements 

of the California Government Claims Act by arguing that Mr. Gonzalez’s timely claim provided 

defendant with adequate notice, thus excusing Ms. Deocampo from having to file her own written 

Case 1:16-cv-00130-DAD-EPG Document 12 Filed 04/06/16 Page 4 of 5
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

claim. This is because “[w]here two or more persons suffer separate and distinct injuries from the 

same act or omission, each person must submit a claim, and one cannot rely on a claim presented 

by another.” Nelson v. County of Los Angeles, 113 Cal. App. 4th 783, 797 (2003). 

This court also finds plaintiffs’ attempt to preserve Ms. Deocampo’s state-based claims by 

pointing to her § 911.4 application and her planned § 946.6 appeal following the denial of that 

application to be unavailing with respect to the resolution of the present motion. While §§ 911.4 

and 946.6 do provide an avenue whereby plaintiff may be excused from the strictures of §§ 911.2 

and 945.4, this court also notes that “filing a request for permission to file a late claim does not 

constitute the actual filing of a claim.” Hill v. City of Clovis, No. 1:11-cv-1391, 2012 WL 

787609, at *11 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2012). Thus, Ms. Deocampo has yet to satisfy the conditions 

precedent imposed by the California Government Claim Act for filing a tort claim against a 

public entity, and her state-based claims alleged in the complaint before this court must be 

dismissed.

IV. Conclusion

For the above state reasons, this court grants defendant’s motion (Doc. No. 5) and 

dismisses plaintiff Deocampo’s state based claims without prejudice.2 Should Ms. Deocampo 

succeed in her appeal to the superior court and be granted leave to file a § 911.2 claim and does 

so, this court would allow her to amend her complaint to once again include her state based

claims.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 5, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

2

The parties agreed at the hearing that in light of this dismissal, no amended complaint deleting 

plaintiff Deocampo’s state based claims need be filed. Rather, this order dismissing those claims 

is sufficient and defendant will file an answer to the complaint with that understanding.

Case 1:16-cv-00130-DAD-EPG Document 12 Filed 04/06/16 Page 5 of 5