Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00420/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00420-7/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

Both parties agreed that at the time plaintiff filed this complaint, March 3, 2005, the 1

charges against plaintiff had been dismissed. The charges were subsequently re-filed. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PETER T. HARRELL,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-0420 GEB CMK

vs.

DARREL LEMOS, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Mr. Harrell, who is proceeding without counsel and in forma pauperis, has filed

this civil rights action against defendants. He alleges various federal and civil rights violations

stemming from an August 22, 2003 arrest. This case came on for hearing on defendant Merril’s

and defendant Riggins’s motion to dismiss on October 26, 2006. Phillip B. Price appeared on

behalf of defendants; Mr. Harrel appeared on his own behalf. 

During the course of the hearing, it became clear based on the statements of both

Mr. Harrell and Mr. Price that criminal charges stemming from plaintiff’s August 22, 2003 arrest

are currently pending against plaintiff. The court also discussed plaintiff’s failure to specifically 1

allege compliance with the requirements of the California Government Tort Liability Act. 

Case 2:05-cv-00420-GEB -CMK Document 46 Filed 10/30/06 Page 1 of 3
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

2

In order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or

imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a

conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has

been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal

authorized to make such a decision, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ

of habeas corpus. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). A claim for damages

bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not

cognizable under § 1983. 

Prior to bringing suit for damages against a public entity, a plaintiff must prove

presentation of the claim to the appropriate public entity, which must have resolved it. See Cal.

Gov. Code §§ 911.2, 915, 945.4. A claim must be presented to the appropriate public entity not

later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action. See id. § 911.2. This serves to give

the public entity prompt notice of a claim so that it may investigate the strengths and weaknesses

of a the claim while the evidence is still fresh and witnesses are available, affords an opportunity

for amicable adjustment, and informs the public entity of potential liability so it can better

prepare for the fiscal year. See Renteria v. Junenile Justice Dep’t. of Corrections, 135 Cal. App.

4th 903 (Cal. App. 2006). Because plaintiff’s suit is against a public entity and public

employees, he must allege that he presented a timely claim to the County of Siskiyou and 

Siskiyou County’s Board of Supervisors acted on that claim. See See Cal. Gov. Code §§ 945.4,

950.2 and 950.6. 

At the hearing, plaintiff averred that he had presented his claim to the Siskiyou

County Board of Supervisors on May 12, 2004. However, plaintiff fails to make any such

allegations in his complaint. Moreover, the court notes that May 12, 2004 is more than six

months after the September 23, 2003 arrest, which is when plaintiff’s cause of action accrued. 

Plaintiff’s notion of adding the oblique language of “timely communicated notice” is of no

assistance to him, and certainly not to the court in the ultimate resolution of his dispute since

Case 2:05-cv-00420-GEB -CMK Document 46 Filed 10/30/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

“timely” is not a subjective standard. 

Accordingly, the court declines to rule on defendants’ motion to dismiss at this

time. Instead, the court will order plaintiff to file an amended complaint which addresses the

afore mentioned deficiencies. 

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff, Peter Harrell, shall have fifteen days from the date this order is filed

within which to file an amended complaint alleging that:

a. The criminal charges against him stemming from the September 23,

2003 arrest have been dropped or resolved in his favor and;

b. He has complied with the aforementioned requirements of California’s

Governmental Tort Liability Act, by specifically attaching as an Exhibit to the amended

complaint a copy of his claim satisfying the requirements of Gov. Code §§ 910, et seq.

2. If plaintiff fails to do so, the court will dismiss plaintiff’s complaint, without

prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

3. The court will consider defendants’ motion to dismiss after the filing of any

amended complaint or expiration of time to file such. 

DATED: October 27, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00420-GEB -CMK Document 46 Filed 10/30/06 Page 3 of 3