Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01411/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01411-4/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES WASHINGTON,

 Plaintiff,

v.

M. BITER, et al., 

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01411-LJO-MJS (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

TO:

(1) GRANT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

FOR PARTIAL DISMISSAL (ECF No. 

25); AND

(2) GRANT DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST 

FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE (ECF No. 26)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY OBJECTION 

DEADLINE

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter proceeds against 

Defendant Gomez on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment failure to protect and state law 

negligence claims, and against Defendant Swanson on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment 

excessive force and state law assault and battery claims. 

On May 15, 2015, Defendants filed a motion for partial dismissal and a request 

for judicial notice. (ECF Nos. 25 and 26.) Plaintiff filed an opposition. (ECF No. 34.) 

Defendants filed a reply. (ECF No. 35.)

Case 1:14-cv-01411-LJO-MJS Document 36 Filed 07/13/15 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

These matters are deemed submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l). 

II. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 

Defendant asks the Court to take judicial notice of a certified letter, dated March 

30, 2015, from the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board 

(“VCGCB”), stating that Plaintiff did not file or present a tort claim with the Board 

between January 1, 2010 and January 31, 2013. 

The Court may take judicial notice of records and reports of administrative 

bodies, including the VCGCB. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); Marsh v. San Diego Cnty., 432 

F. Supp. 2d 1035, 1043-44 (S.D. Cal. 2006); Swartz v. KPMG LLP, 476 F.3d 756, 763 

(9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (“[I]n order to prevent plaintiffs from surviving a Rule 

12(b)(6) motion by deliberately omitting documents upon which their claims are based, 

a court may consider a writing referenced in a complaint by not explicitly incorporated 

therein if the complaint relies on the document and its authenticity is unquestioned.” 

(citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, Defendants’ request for 

judicial notice should be granted.

III. MOTION TO DISMISS 

A. Legal Standard

A motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency 

of a claim, and dismissal is proper if there is a lack of a cognizable legal theory or the 

absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory. Conservation Force 

v. Salazar, 646 F.3d 1240, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2011). In resolving a 12(b)(6) motion, a 

court’s review is generally limited to the operative pleading. Daniels-Hall, 629 F.3d at

998.

To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, 

accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 

556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570

(2007)); Conservation Force, 646 F.3d at 1242; Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 

962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The Court must accept the factual allegations as true and draw 

Case 1:14-cv-01411-LJO-MJS Document 36 Filed 07/13/15 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

all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Daniels-Hall, 629 F.3d at 

998. Pro se litigants are entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have 

any doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1121.

In resolving a 12(b)(6) motion, a court’s review is generally limited to the 

operative pleading. Daniels-Hall, 629 F.3d at 998. However, courts may properly 

consider matters subject to judicial notice and documents incorporated by reference in 

the pleading without converting the motion to dismiss to one for summary judgment. 

Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir. 1986); Mack v. S. Bay Beer 

Distributors, Inc., 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. 1986).

B. Parties’ Arguments

Defendants seek to dismiss Plaintiff’s state law claims on the ground Plaintiff did 

not file a claim with the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board 

(VCGCB) before filing suit. Accordingly, Defendants argue, Plaintiff’s state law claims 

are barred by California’s Government Tort Claims Act.

Plaintiff argues only that he is not required to file a claim with the VCGCB before 

bringing suit for Eighth Amendment violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He does 

not dispute his failure to file a claim with the VCGCB, nor does he specifically argue that 

his state law claims are viable.

C. Legal Standard – State Law Claims

Under the California Tort Claims Act (“CTCA”), a plaintiff may not maintain an 

action for damages against a public employee unless he has presented a written claim 

to the state VCGCB within six months of accrual of the action. Cal. Gov't Code §§ 905, 

911.2(a), 945.4 & 950.2; Mangold v. California Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 67 F.3d 1470, 1477 

(9th Cir. 1995). Failure to demonstrate such compliance constitutes a failure to state a 

cause of action and will result in the dismissal of state law claims. State of California v. 

Superior Court (Bodde), 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1240 (2004).

Case 1:14-cv-01411-LJO-MJS Document 36 Filed 07/13/15 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

D. Analysis

The Court’s screening order did not address whether Plaintiff’s state law claims 

had been presented to the VCGCB as required under the CTCA. (ECF No. 10.) 

Plaintiff’s complaint alleged compliance with “state tort claim . . . administrative 

procedures, and laws/regulations regarding exhaustion.” (ECF No. 1 at 9.) However, 

documents presented by Defendants and subject to judicial notice demonstrate 

otherwise. The Court is not required to accept as true allegations that are contradicted 

by documents attached to the complaint. Roth v. Garcia Marquez, 942 F.2d 617, 625

n.1 (9th Cir. 1991). Additionally, the Court may consider documents subject to judicial 

notice without converting a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. Lee, 

250 F.3d at 688; Mack, 798 F.2d at 1282.

Based on the letter from the VCGCB and the arguments presented by the 

parties, it is apparent that Plaintiff did not present his claims to the VCGCB as required 

under the CTCA. Accordingly, his state law claims must be dismissed. Defendants’ 

motion for partial dismissal should be granted.

VI. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff failed to present his state 

law claims in accordance with the CTCA, and his state law claims therefore are barred. 

Accordingly, the Court recommends that Defendants’ request for judicial notice (ECF 

No. 26) and motion for partial dismissal (ECF No. 25) be granted, and that the case 

remain open for further proceedings on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims. 

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States 

District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) days after being served with the findings and 

recommendations, the parties may file written objections with the Court. The document 

should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations.” A party may respond to another party’s objections by filing a 

response within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of that party’s 

Case 1:14-cv-01411-LJO-MJS Document 36 Filed 07/13/15 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

objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 

may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 

(9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 13, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01411-LJO-MJS Document 36 Filed 07/13/15 Page 5 of 5