Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00234/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00234-12/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

FERNIE GARZA,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. ALVARA, Lieutenant; D. ROBERTS, 

Captain; E. ALVA, Correctional 

Counselor; S. TORRES, Correctional 

Counselor; N. BARKSDALE, MSW, 

ACSW; P. VIRK, M.D., CMO; N. 

MALAKKLA, M.D.; W. ZHANG, M.D.; 

K. TOOR, M.D.; and RICKI BARNETT, 

M.D.,

Defendants.

No. 1:15-cv-00234-DAD-SKO

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION THAT 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE 

COMPLAINT BE GRANTED IN PART

ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF FILE AN 

AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN 30 DAYS 

OF SERVICE OF THIS ORDER

(Doc. Nos. 47, 60)

Plaintiff Fernie Garza, a state prisoner represented by counsel, commenced this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on February 10, 2015. (Doc. No. 1.) 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 July 8, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations,

recommending defendant’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint (Doc. No. 47) be granted in 

part. (Doc. No. 60.) Specifically, the assigned magistrate judge recommended: (1) that 

defendants’ motion be denied as to plaintiff’s civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and (2) 

Case 1:15-cv-00234-DAD-SKO Document 64 Filed 09/14/16 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

27

28

2

that defendants’ motion be granted as to plaintiffs’ state law claims for general and medical 

negligence. (Id.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff that same day and 

contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fifteen days. (Id.) On July 18, 

2016, plaintiff timely filed objections with respect to dismissal of his state law claims. (Doc. No. 

61.) 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s 

objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 

by proper analysis.

“[A] district court has discretion, but is not required, to consider evidence presented for 

the first time in a party’s objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation.” United States v. 

Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621 (9th Cir. 2000). Nevertheless, arguments and factual allegations 

presented for the first time in objections cannot be used to correct the defects of the complaint. 

Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1208 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding it is within the district court’s 

discretion “not to consider an opposition to a motion to dismiss inappropriately presented by 

plaintiff for the first time in objections”); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 

In his objections, plaintiff alleges facts fleshing out several theories not addressed in either 

his amended complaint or in his opposition and supplemental briefing on the instant motion to 

dismiss. For the first time, in his objections plaintiff argues that the discovery rule tolls the date 

of accrual of his state law claims because he had no ability to investigate the prison staff’s roles in 

placing him in housing with a dangerous inmate and that the accrual date with respect to those 

claims was also tolled by excusable neglect because he was incapacitated from the attack and 

could not act effectively on his own behalf. (Doc. No. 61 at 1–3.) Plaintiff’s contentions are not 

inconsistent with the magistrate judge’s finding that regardless of whether plaintiff’s arguments 

for tolling the accrual date, this court lacks jurisdiction to hear such arguments. (Doc. No. 60 at 

16–20.) In fact, plaintiff appears to concede as much. (See Doc. No. 61 at 6.)

Plaintiff further contends that the assigned magistrate judge erred by finding that 

“transfer” of the petition to the state superior court would be futile. (See Doc. Nos. 60 at 18–20; 

Case 1:15-cv-00234-DAD-SKO Document 64 Filed 09/14/16 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

27

28

3

61.) As the magistrate judge stated, 

. . . Plaintiff has not asked the Court to remand the case to state 

court for consideration of his claims and his Petition in lieu of 

dismissing his state law claims outright. Rather, Plaintiff has 

requested that the Court “transfer” his Petition to the state court for 

consideration. (Doc. 52, pp. 7-8.) Plaintiff appears to contemplate 

that such transfer would preserve his federal filing date of February 

10, 2015, so that his Petition would be timely filed within six 

months of the Board’s October 16, 2014, denial of his claim. (See

Doc. 56, p. 4.) However, Plaintiff provides no authority to 

demonstrate the Court has the ability to sever a single claim -- the 

Petition -- from the case and “transfer” it to state court in such a 

way that the Petition’s filing date in federal court would be 

preserved, and the undersigned has found no such authority. Given 

that the Court cannot sever Plaintiff’s Petition for “transfer” to the 

state court and Plaintiff’s Petition would be untimely if now filed in 

the state superior court, it appears that any further action on the 

Petition would be futile and dismissal is appropriate.

(Doc. No. 60 at 19–20.) While plaintiff acknowledges that a petition for relief from the claim 

presentation requirements of the Government Claims Act must be filed in a proper state court, he 

offers no legal basis for requiring this court to remand that issue to a state court. (See Doc. No. 

61 at 5–6.) As the magistrate judge implied and as plaintiff concedes, the governing statue, 

California Government Code § 946.6, does not provide a procedure for remand, and plaintiff has 

not demonstrated here that such relief is possible or appropriate in any event. 

Accordingly, 

1. The July 8, 2016 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 60) are adopted in full; 

2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 47) is granted in part; and

3. Plaintiff’s state law claims for general negligence and medical negligence are 

dismissed from the amended complaint with prejudice and without leave to amend. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 13, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00234-DAD-SKO Document 64 Filed 09/14/16 Page 3 of 3