Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05919/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05919-3/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BLANCA MARTINEZ, ALEJANDRO

FUENTES, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

 v. 

COUNTY OF MADERA, CORRECTIONAL

MANAGED CARE MEDICAL

CORPORATION, et al., 

 Defendants.

1:04-CV-05919 OWW SMS

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS 

(Doc. 34)

Before the court for decision is Defendant County of

Madera’s motion to dismiss the second cause of action in

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint. (Doc. 34-2, filed Nov. 21,

2005.) Defendant Correctional Managed Care Medical Corporation

(“CMCMC”) filed an answer to the second amended complaint. (Doc.

35, filed Dec. 9, 2005.) Plaintiffs failed to file any

opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion to

dismiss. Defendants filed a “notice of non-opposition”

indicating Plaintiffs’ failure to respond and pointing out that

Plaintiffs would therefore not be permitted to present oral

argument at the hearing on this matter. (Doc. 36, filed Jan. 24,

2005.)

Case 1:04-cv-05919-OWW -SMS Document 40 Filed 02/01/06 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

2

I. BACKGROUND

This case concerns the death of Moises Fuentes. Mr. Fuentes

was in the custody of the California state prison system prior to

June 2003. On or about June 22, 2003, Mr Fuentes was transferred

to the custody of the Madera County Department of Corrections

(“MCDC”) based upon an outstanding warrant issued for his failure

to appear in the Madera County Superior Court on criminal

charges. (Doc. 32, second amended complaint, at ¶1-2.) 

Soon after his transfer into MCDC custody, Mr. Fuentes began

to complain that he was in “great pain, had trouble swallowing

and eating, and that he was coughing up blood.” (Id. at ¶4.) He

sought medical treatment and was diagnosed as having a throat

infection. (Id.) Mr. Fuentes’ medical condition worsened over

the next few months, but his requests for medical attention were

largely ignored. (Id. at ¶5.) He was taken to Madera Community

Hospital on September 25, 2003. Allegedly, this was the first

time Mr. Fuentes had seen a physician since entering MCDC

custody. (Id.) 

On September 10, 2003, while Mr. Fuentes awaited trial in

Madera County Superior Court, his public defender filed a motion

to dismiss the criminal charges. (Id. at ¶3.) The complaint

alleges that Mr. Fuentes continued to press his motion to dismiss

as “the only avenue he could pursue to get released so that he

could obtain vital health services.” The District Attorney’s

Office for the County of Madera filed a written opposition to the

dismissal on October 14, 2003. (Id. at ¶7.)

At some point in early to mid October, defendant CMCMC

informed the District Attorney’s office that Mr. Fuentes had been

Case 1:04-cv-05919-OWW -SMS Document 40 Filed 02/01/06 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

3

diagnosed with throat cancer and was going through diagnostic

tests in preparation for “triple modality treatment.” (Id. at

¶9.)

 On October 17, 2003, the District Attorney’s office had the

charges against Mr. Fuentes dismissed. According to the

complaint, “this action coincided with the upcoming costly

medical treatments Mr. Fuentes was to receive....” (Id. at ¶11.) 

Shortly thereafter, Mr. Fuentes was turned over to the

Immigration and Naturalization Service and was deported to

Guatemala. He died there, a few weeks following his deportation. 

(Id. at ¶12.) 

On December 17, 2003, the County of Madera received a claim

for damages filed on Mr. Fuentes’ behalf, alleging that the

“Madera County Jail failed to provide medical treatment,” and

that this failure caused “impact to [Mr. Fuentes’] medical

condition...and eventual death.” (Doc. 34-4, Ex. A to County’s

Request for Judicial Notice.) 

In June 2003, several members of Mr. Fuentes’ family filed

this lawsuit, alleging violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth

Amendments and wrongful death. (Doc. 1.) The parties stipulated

to the amendment of the complaint. (Doc. 22.) Plaintiffs then

filed a first amended complaint. (Doc. 23.) CMCC answered, but

the County moved to dismiss. (Docs. 24 & 25.) 

By order dated Oct. 11, 2005, the County’s motion to dismiss

was granted with leave to amend. Specifically, the court (1)

pointed out defects in Plaintiffs’ standing allegations, (2) held

that Plaintiffs had failed to properly allege a Monell claim

against the County, and (3) found that the Plaintiffs’ had failed

Case 1:04-cv-05919-OWW -SMS Document 40 Filed 02/01/06 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

4

to allege compliance with the California Tort Claims Act’s prior

notice requirement. (Doc. 31.) 

On November 9, 2005, Plaintiffs filed a second amended

complaint. (Doc. 32, second amended complaint (“SAC”).) The

county now moves to dismiss only the second cause of action

(wrongful death), arguing that Plaintiff still has not properly

alleged compliance with the prior notice requirement of

California’s Tort Claims Act. 

The second cause of action is a wrongful death claim under

state law. Plaintiffs allege that, as a result of Defendants’

conduct, plaintiffs have suffered “a tremendous loss, including

the loss of companionship, comfort, advise, affection, solace,

and society of their son. (SAC ¶30.) Plaintiffs seek “general”

and “special” damages against both defendants on both causes of

action. 

 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) provides that a motion to dismiss

may be made if the plaintiff fails “to state a claim upon which

relief can be granted.” However, motions to dismiss under Fed.

R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) are disfavored and rarely granted. The

question before the court is not whether the plaintiff will

ultimately prevail; rather, it is whether the plaintiff could

prove any set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle

him to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73

(1984). “A complaint should not be dismissed unless it appears

beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support

of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Van Buskirk v.

Case 1:04-cv-05919-OWW -SMS Document 40 Filed 02/01/06 Page 4 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

5

CNN, Inc., 284 F.3d 977, 980 (9th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted).

In deciding whether to grant a motion to dismiss, the court

“accept[s] all factual allegations of the complaint as true and

draw[s] all reasonable inferences” in the light most favorable to

the nonmoving party. TwoRivers v. Lewis, 174 F.3d 987, 991 (9th

Cir. 1999); see also Rodriguez v. Panayiotou, 314 F.3d 979, 983

(9th Cir. 2002). A court is not “required to accept as true

allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of

fact, or unreasonable inferences.” Sprewell v. Golden State

Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001). 

III. DISCUSSION

The County moves to dismiss the second cause of action, a

state law claim for wrongful death, on the ground that Plaintiffs

have failed to comply with the prior notice requirement of the

California Tort Claims Act. 

The California Tort Claims Act requires as a prerequisite to

any damages claim against a public entity that the claim be

presented to the entity as a demand for “money or damages.” Cal.

Govt. Code §§ 905, 945.4, Est. of Dacrulis v. Garate, 401 F.3d

1060, 1062 (9th Cir. 2005); See City of San Jose v. Superior

Court, 12 Cal. 3d 447, 454 (1974)(failure to comply with this

requirement is fatal to a claim). It is Plaintiffs’ burden to

allege facts demonstrating compliance with the claim presentation

requirement. State v. Superior Court (Bodde), 32 Cal. 4th, 1234,

1241 (2004).

Here, Plaintiffs allege that

On December 17, 2003, a Claim for Damages for failure

Case 1:04-cv-05919-OWW -SMS Document 40 Filed 02/01/06 Page 5 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

The county asserts that the document, dated December 1

17, 2003 and filed in the name of Mr. Moises I. Fuentes, is

properly the subject of judicial notice because it a fact that is

“capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources

whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” The County’s

reliance on this language from Federal Rule of Evidence 201 is

misplaced, as this is normally applied to other types of

evidence, such as the direction of streets, the weather on a

particular day, etc. This document is judicially noticeable,

however, because it is a public record and its contents are not

in dispute. 

6

to provide medical treatment and the subsequent death

of Moises Fuentes was filed with the County of Madera.

The claim was rejected by the County of Madera on

January 2, 2004.

(SAC ¶15.) Plaintiffs did not attach a copy of the damages claim

to the complaint. The County, however, attaches a copy to its

request for judicial notice. (Doc. 34-4, Ex. A to County’s 1

Request for Judicial Notice.) 

The Claim, dated December 17, 2003, is in the name of Mr.

Moises I. Fuentes. It asserts that “Madera County Jail failed to

provide medical treatment,” and that this failure caused “impact

to [Mr. Fuentes’] medical condition...and eventual death.” (Id.)

The County asserts that this claim is insufficient to put it

on notice of the wrongful death action eventually filed by

Plaintiffs. The County points out the distinction drawn in

California between a “survival” action and a “wrongful death

action.” A survival action is a personal injury action that

survives to permit a decedent’s estate to recover damages that

would have been personally awarded to the decedent had he

survived. See Cal. Code Civ. Pro. §§ 377.20, 377.30. In

contrast, a wrongful death action, is an independent claim for

Case 1:04-cv-05919-OWW -SMS Document 40 Filed 02/01/06 Page 6 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

7

damages personally suffered by a decedent’s heirs as a result of

the decedent’s death. § 377.60. A wrongful death claim is a

remedy governed by statute. Frazier v. Velkura, 91 Cal. App. 4th

942, 945 (2001). 

Here, the County suggests without admitting that the claim

for damages on file with the County might have been sufficient to

support a survival action brought on behalf of Mr. Fuentes. 

However, as the administrative claim makes no mention of Mr.

Fuentes’ heirs, let alone any damages suffered by them, the

County argues that it is insufficient to satisfy the notice

requirement for the pending wrongful death claim. 

Although there appear to be no cases directly on point, the

County points to four pertinent cases in support of its argument. 

First, in Peterson v. City of Vallejo, 259 Cal. App. 2d 757, 765-

66 (1968), a decedent’s daughter who failed to submit a claim for

damages was not permited rely on the tort claim filed by the

decedent’s wife. Similarly, in Lewis v. City and County of San

Francisco, 21 Cal. App. 3d 339, 341 (1971), wrongful death

plaintiffs could not rely on an administrative claim for personal

injuries filed by the decedent prior to his death. In Roberts v.

State of California, 39 Cal. App. 3d 844, 847-48 (1974), a tort

claim filed by a decedent’s employer and worker’s compensation

insurer put the government on notice of a potential claim under

the Labor Code but not on notice that the decedent’s widow might

file a wrongful death action. Finally, in Shelton v. Superior

Court, 56 Cal. App. 3d 66, 81-83 (1976), a husband and wife were

not permitted to assert loss of consortium causes of action where

each had filed tort claims asserting only personal injuries.

Case 1:04-cv-05919-OWW -SMS Document 40 Filed 02/01/06 Page 7 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

8

These cases support the County’s position that the claim for

damages filed on December 17, 2003 in the name of Moises Fuentes

is insufficient to put it on notice of the pending wrongful death

action. 

Plaintiffs have been afforded opportunity to amend the

complaint to allege compliance with the California Tort Claims

statute for the wrongful death claim. They have not done so. 

The County’s unopposed motion to dismiss the second cause of

action is GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 30, 2006.

/s/ OLIVER W. WANGER

____________________________

OLIVER W. WANGER

United States District Judge

Case 1:04-cv-05919-OWW -SMS Document 40 Filed 02/01/06 Page 8 of 8