Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01329/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01329-19/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEREK MATTHEWS,

Plaintiff,

v.

PINCHBACK, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:22-cv-1329-DJC-CSK-P

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, filed this civil rights 

action on July 27, 2022. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On August 26, 2024, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations 

herein which were served on all Parties and which contained notice to all Parties that 

any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen 

days. (ECF No. 83.) Plaintiff filed timely objections. (ECF No. 84.)

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, the Court has 

conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the filings, the 

Court finds the majority of the findings and recommendations are supported by the 

record and by proper analysis. Accordingly, the Court will adopt the findings and 

recommendations in part. 

Case 2:22-cv-01329-DJC-CSK Document 87 Filed 12/20/24 Page 1 of 9
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

However, the Court declines to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation 

that Plaintiff’s state law claims for sexual assault and battery and intentional infliction of 

emotional distress against Defendants Sysmobath, Tout, and Does 1–10 be dismissed. 

In relevant part, Plaintiff alleges that, from May 2015 through October 2015, he was 

sexually harassed and assaulted by Defendant Pinchback. (ECF No. 64 ¶¶ 5, 26–30.) 

Plaintiff alleges that, on or about October 15, 2015, the sexual misconduct was 

discovered by a prison employee and reported to prison authorities. (Id. ¶ 31.) That 

same day, Plaintiff alleges he was detained and questioned concerning the sexual 

misconduct. (Id. ¶¶ 32–36.) During the questioning, Plaintiff alleges the investigators 

implied that, instead of Plaintiff being the victim, Plaintiff may have been the one who 

raped Defendant Pinchback. (Id. ¶ 33.) 

Following the interrogation, Plaintiff alleges he was taken to a room where he 

was handcuffed and shackled. (Id. ¶ 36.) Plaintiff alleges Defendant Sysmobath and 

Does 1-10 “forcefully pulled down [Plaintiff’s] underwear and administered a 

procedure on [his] penis.” (Id.) Defendant Sysmobath “inserted an object into 

[Plaintiff’s] penis, causing [him] immense pain.” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges Defendants

purportedly performed this ”non-consensual penetration of [Plaintiff’s] penis” in order 

to obtain Defendant Pinchback’s DNA from Plaintiff’s body. (Id. ¶ 37.) However, 

Plaintiff alleges that the procedure served “no investigatory purpose,” but instead 

“was intended solely to humiliate, degrade, and intimidate [Plaintiff] and cause cruel 

and extreme pain and suffering for retaliatory and sadistic purposes.” (Id.) Plaintiff 

claims Defendant Sysmobath performed this procedure in the presence of Defendant 

Tout and while Defendant Tout held down Plaintiff’s arms. (Id. ¶ 38.) Based on these 

allegations, Plaintiff asserts claims for sexual assault and battery and intentional 

infliction of emotional distress against Defendants Sysmobath, Tout, and Does 1-10.1

(Id. ¶¶ 135–60.)

1 Although Plaintiff brings causes of action for negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress 

against all Defendants, his allegations as to these causes of action pertain only to Defendant Price. (See 

Case 2:22-cv-01329-DJC-CSK Document 87 Filed 12/20/24 Page 2 of 9
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 Magistrate Judge recommends these claims be dismissed for two reasons: 

(1) the claims are time-barred and (2) Plaintiff failed to file a government tort claim 

before bringing this case. (ECF No. 83 at 34–37, 40–43, 50–51.) For the reasons set 

forth below, the Court disagrees, and finds that Plaintiff’s claims for sexual assault and 

battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress are timely and Plaintiff is 

excused from filing a government tort claim as to these claims. Thus, the claims will 

not be dismissed. 

I. Plaintiff’s State Law Claims Against Defendants Sysmobath, Tout, and 

Does 1–10 Are Subject to a Ten-Year Statute of Limitations

California’s statute of limitations for personal injury claims is two years. Cal. Civ. 

Proc. Code § 335.1. California tolls the statute of limitations during imprisonment for 

up to two years under certain conditions, including when a person is “imprisoned on a 

criminal charge, or in execution under the sentence of a criminal court for a term of 

less than for life.” Civ. Proc. Code § 352.1(a). Because Plaintiff was incarcerated at all 

relevant times, Plaintiff had at least four years to bring his state law claims. 

However, Plaintiff contends that his state law claims are subject to a ten-year,

not four-year, statute of limitations because they fall under the revival provisions of 

California Civil Procedure Code section 340.16. (See ECF No. 81 at 14–15.) Section 

340.16 provides, in relevant part, “any civil action for recovery of damages suffered as 

a result of sexual assault” shall be commenced within “10 years from the date of the 

last act, attempted act, or assault,” and that any action seeking to recover damages 

suffered as a result of a sexual assault “based upon conduct that occurred on or after 

January 1, 2009, and is commenced on or after January 1, 2019 . . . [is] hereby revived 

and may be commenced until December 31, 2026.” Civ. Proc. Code § 340.16(a), 

(b)(3). Plaintiff brought his state law claims against Defendants Sysmobath, Tout, and 

Does 1–10 on July 27, 2022, based on allegations they sexually assaulted him on 

ECF No. 64 ¶¶ 161–168.) Thus, the Court finds Plaintiff has not asserted claims for negligence and 

negligent infliction of emotional distress against Defendants Sysmobath and Tout.

Case 2:22-cv-01329-DJC-CSK Document 87 Filed 12/20/24 Page 3 of 9
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

October 15, 2015. Thus, Plaintiff argues these claims are timely because they were

filed after January 1, 2019, and were brought within ten years of the October 15, 

2015, accrual date. (ECF No. 81 at 13.)

Further, Plaintiff argues his allegations meet the definition of sexual assault in 

the statute. Section 340.16 defines “sexual assault” as any of the crimes described in 

California Penal Code sections 243.4, 261, 264.1, 286, 287, or 289. Civ. Proc. Code

§ 340.16(b)(1). Penal Code section 243.4(a) defines sexual battery as touching the 

intimate part of another person, while unlawfully restrained,2 against their will for the 

specific purpose of sexual arousal, sexual gratification, or sexual abuse. The California 

Court of Appeal has held that sexual abuse, as used in Penal Code section 243.4, 

includes non-consensual touching of a person’s intimate body part “for the purpose of 

insulting, humiliating, or intimidating” that person. In re Shannon T., 144 Cal. App. 4th 

618, 622 (2006) (“Shannon T.”). Thus, Plaintiff argues his allegations against

Defendants Sysmobath, Tout, and Does 1–10 qualify as sexual battery under Penal 

Code section 243.4(a) because the procedure on his penis served no investigatory 

purposes and was sadistic sexual contact intended solely to humiliate, degrade, and 

intimidate him. (ECF No. 81 at 15 (citing ECF No. 64 ¶¶ 37, 64, 93, 116, 143, 152).) 

The Magistrate Judge disagreed with Plaintiff, finding that Plaintiff had not 

alleged sexual battery as defined in section 243.4 because there was no sexual 

purpose for Defendants Sysmobath, Tout, and Does 1–10’s actions. (See ECF No. 83 

at 36–37.) Rather, the Magistrate Judge found that Defendants had performed the 

procedure on Plaintiff’s penis for a non-sexual, investigatory purpose—to obtain DNA 

from Plaintiff’s body. (Id.) In particular, the Magistrate Judge contrasted the facts of 

2 Although Penal Code section 243.4(a) refers to unlawful restraint, lawful restraint can become unlawful 

when the original lawful purpose is replaced with or supplemented by an unlawful purpose. See 

People v. Alford, 235 Cal. App. 3d 799, 802–4 (1991) (holding a correctional officer who sexually 

assaulted two female inmates on different occasions while the women were physically restrained and 

being transported from one correctional facility to another was properly convicted of sexual battery 

under section 243.4 given that the correctional officer restrained the women not solely for the purpose 

of transporting them but also to enable him to commit sexual batteries against them).

Case 2:22-cv-01329-DJC-CSK Document 87 Filed 12/20/24 Page 4 of 9
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

this case with Shannon T., reasoning “[P]laintiff’s allegations regarding [D]efendants 

Sysmobath and Tout do not involve a sexual touching or provide a sexual context like 

that found in the surrounding circumstances cited in Shannon T., 144 Cal. App. 4th at 

622-23.” (Id. at 36.) Thus, the Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff’s claims were 

subject to a four-year, not ten-year, statute of limitations. (Id. at 37.)

However, the Court finds this reading of Shannon T. too narrow. In Shannon T., 

a 14-year-old boy approached a 16-year-old girl at school, directed that she get off 

the phone, called her “[his] ho,” and then after the girl walked away from him, saying 

“whatever,” slapped her face, grabbed her arm, and pinched her breast, causing her 

to cry and leaving a large bruise. 144 Cal. App. 4th at 620. The boy challenged the 

juvenile court’s subsequent sexual battery finding, arguing there was no specific intent 

because he and the victim had simply been “engaged in ‘playful hitting’ of each 

other.” Id. at 621. After observing that the statute, Penal Code section 243.4, did not 

define “sexual abuse” and that no published case had addressed the issue, the 

appellate court concluded that “‘sexual abuse’ includes the touching of a woman’s 

breast, without consent, for the purpose of insulting, humiliating, or intimidating the 

woman, even if the touching does not result in actual physical injury.” Id. at 622. The 

court affirmed the juvenile court’s finding, concluding that “the minor’s purpose in 

pinching the victim’s breast [could] be inferred from the act itself together with its 

surrounding circumstances” and that the “circumstances support[ed] a conclusion that 

the minor pinched the girl’s breast for the specific purpose of insulting, humiliating, 

intimidating, and even physically hurting her.” Id. at 622–23. Thus, Shannon T. does 

not hold that a “sexual context” is required to establish sexual abuse. Touching

another’s intimate body part without their consent for the purpose of insulting, 

humiliating, and intimidating them is enough. 

Here, Plaintiff alleges his penis was penetrated without his consent, purportedly

to obtain Defendant Pinchback’s DNA from Plaintiff’s body. (ECF No. 64 ¶ 37.) 

However, Plaintiff alleges this procedure was unnecessary because the DNA could 

Case 2:22-cv-01329-DJC-CSK Document 87 Filed 12/20/24 Page 5 of 9
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

have been obtained in less intrusive ways and Defendants had other evidence a 

sexual encounter had taken place between Plaintiff and Defendant Pinchback, 

including an eyewitness account. (Id.) Further, the procedure was conducted 

immediately after Plaintiff was questioned about the sexual misconduct, during which 

the investigators implied that Plaintiff may have raped Defendant Pinchback. (Id.

¶ 33.) Thus, Plaintiff contends there was no investigatory purpose served by the 

penetration of his penis; rather, the procedure was conducted “solely to humiliate, 

degrade, and intimidate him” in order to penalize him for the suspected rape. (Id.

¶ 37.) Based on the standard set forth in Shannon T., the Court finds these allegations 

plausibly support a claim for sexual battery under Penal Code section 243.4(a). The 

statute of limitations for Plaintiff’s sexual assault and battery claim is ten years. 

Plaintiff’s other state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is 

also premised upon his sexual assault and battery allegations against Defendants 

Sysmobath, Tout, and Does 1–10. (See id. ¶¶ 155–160). Thus, this claim benefits from 

the ten-year statute of limitations as well. See Acevedo v. eXp Realty, LLC, 713 F. 

Supp. 3d 740, 790–92 (C.D. Cal. 2024) (finding that section 340.16, by its terms, is not 

limited to claims of sexual assault, but applies to any action seeking damages as a 

result of sexual assault, and holding an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim 

was revived under section 340.16(b)(3) along with a sexual battery claim because 

plaintiffs alleged defendants caused plaintiffs emotional distress by “subjecting them 

to forceful sexual touching and assault,” meaning plaintiffs sought to “recover 

damages that [they] would not have suffered, but for their sexual assault”).

Accordingly, the Court holds Plaintiff’s claims for sexual assault and battery and 

intentional infliction of emotional distress against Defendants Sysmobath, Tout, and 

Does 1–10 are timely as they were filed within the ten-year statute of limitations under 

California Civil Procedure Code section 340.16.

////

////

Case 2:22-cv-01329-DJC-CSK Document 87 Filed 12/20/24 Page 6 of 9
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

II. Plaintiff is Excused from Filing a Government Tort Claim for his State Law 

Causes of Action against Defendants Sysmobath, Tout, and Does 1–10

Under the California Government Claims Act, California Government Code 

sections 810 et seq., a plaintiff may not bring a suit for monetary damages against a 

public employee or entity unless the plaintiff first presents the claim to the California 

Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, and the Board acts on the 

claim, or the time for doing so expires. Compliance with this “claim presentation 

requirement” constitutes an element of a cause of action for damages against a public 

entity or official. State v. Superior Ct., 32 Cal. 4th 1234, 1244 (2004). However, under

Government Code section 945.9(a), “[a] claim arising out of an alleged sexual assault 

by a law enforcement officer” is exempt from the requirement to file a government tort 

claim “if the alleged assault occurred while the officer was employed by a law 

enforcement agency.” Cal. Gov’t Code § 945.9(a).

Here, Plaintiff alleges Defendants Sysmobath, Tout, and Does 1–10 sexually

assaulted him while employed as law enforcement officers with the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and/or California Prison Industry 

Authority. (ECF No. 64 ¶¶ 7–10, 36–38.) Thus, Plaintiff argues he is exempt from the 

government tort claim presentation requirement for his claims arising out of 

Defendants’ alleged sexual assault. (ECF No. 81 at 16–17.) 

The Magistrate Judge found that “the alleged actions or omissions of

[D]efendants Sysmobath and Tout did not take place in a sexual context, and

therefore [P]laintiff’s state law claims against Sysmobath and Tout are not exempt 

under § 945.9(a) from the claim presentation requirement of the California 

Government Claims Act.” (ECF No. 83 at 43.) However, as held in Section I supra, 

Plaintiff has plausibly alleged a timely sexual assault and battery claim against 

Defendants Sysmobath, Tout, and Does 1–10. 

Accordingly, the Court finds that section 945.9(a) applies and excuses Plaintiff 

from the claim presentation requirement imposed by the Government Claims Act. 

Case 2:22-cv-01329-DJC-CSK Document 87 Filed 12/20/24 Page 7 of 9
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

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 83) are ADOPTED in part.

2. CDCR Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 80) is GRANTED in part as 

follows: 

a. Plaintiff’s Fourth and Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants

Price, Sysmobath, Tout, and Does 1–10 are dismissed based on Plaintiff’s 

concession that such claims are time-barred; 

b. Plaintiff’s First Amendment claims against Defendants Price, Sysmobath, 

Tout, and Does 1–10 are dismissed as time barred;

c. Plaintiff’s claims for negligence and negligent infliction of emotional 

distress against Defendants Price and Does 1–10 are dismissed as barred 

by the statute of limitations and based on Plaintiff’s failure to file a 

government tort claim as required by California Government Code 

section 911.2 and failure to submit a request to file a late government 

tort claim as required under California Government Code section 911.4; 

and

d. Dismissal of these claims is without leave to amend because amendment 

would be futile. 

3. CDCR Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 80) is DENIED in part as follows:

a. Plaintiff’s claims for sexual assault and battery and intentional infliction of 

emotional distress against Defendants Sysmobath, Tout, and Does 1–10 

will not be dismissed as they are timely and Plaintiff’s failure to file a 

government tort claim as required by California Government Code 

section 911.2 is excused under California Government Code section 

945.9(a).

////

////

Case 2:22-cv-01329-DJC-CSK Document 87 Filed 12/20/24 Page 8 of 9
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

9

4. Defendant Pinchback’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 69) is GRANTED as follows:

a. Plaintiff’s state law claims against Defendant Pinchback are dismissed 

due to Plaintiff’s failure to file a government tort claim as required by 

California Government Code section 911.2 and failure to submit a 

request to file a late government tort claim as required under California 

Government Code section 911.4; and

b. Dismissal of these claims is without leave to amend because amendment 

would be futile.

5. This case shall proceed on Plaintiff’s claims for sexual assault and battery and 

intentional infliction of emotional distress against Defendants Sysmobath, Tout, 

and Does 1–10 only.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 20, 2024 

Hon. Daniel J. Calabretta

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DJC4 – Matthews22cv1329

Case 2:22-cv-01329-DJC-CSK Document 87 Filed 12/20/24 Page 9 of 9