Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00875/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00875-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr 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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUBEN DARIO GARCIA, Jr., Civil

No.

3:14-CV-875 LAB (BGS)

Plaintiff, REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION: GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

DISMISS

[Doc. No. 21]

v.

R. BLAHNIK, et al. ,

Defendant.

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to United States District Judge Larry

A. Burns pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 72.3.

I. INTRODUCTION

PlaintiffRuben Dario Garcia,Jr.,(“Plaintiff”), a prisoner currently incarcerated atR.J.

Donovan Prison, is a litigant proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [Complaint at 1, ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”).]1

Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging causes of action against Defendants Blhanik, Estes,

Olsen, Ramirez, Seibel, Cariman, Benyard, Rutledge, Flores, Hernandez, Mendoza, and 

Canada in each of their individual and official capacities for: (1) retaliation in violation of

the First Amendment [Id. at 5]; (2) denying his right to equal protection under the California

Page numbers for docketed materials cited in this Report and Recommendation refer to 1

those imprinted by the Court’s electronic case filing system.

1 14cv875-LAB(BGS)

Case 3:14-cv-00875-LAB-BGS Document 21 Filed 04/07/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
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

State Constitution, Article I, Section 7 [Id. at 22]; and (3) violation of the California Code

of Regulations, section 3084.1(d), and Penal Code section 2600, which prohibits retaliation

for filing inmate appeals. [Id.] Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant Blhanik violated his

right to privacy under the California Constitution by allowing prisoner-clerks to copy his

legal materials, rather than allowing Plaintiff to make the copies himself. [Id. at 7, 9, 22-23.]

The present motion to dismiss solely concerns Plaintiff’s state law claims and stems

from his failure to file a Government Claim with the Victims Compensation and

Government Claims Board (“VCGCB”). [Motion to Dismiss at 2, ECF No. 20-1 (“Mot. to

Dis.”).] For the reasons set forth below, this Court RECOMMENDS that Defendants’

Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED.

II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On April 11, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Complaint, and Defendants moved ex parte to

request additional time to respond in order to investigate whether Plaintiff had filed a

Government Claim. [Compl. at 1; ECF Nos. 2-3, 18.] The Court granted Defendants’

request and extended Defendants’ time to respond to the Complaint. [ECF No. 19.]

Following their investigation, Defendants filed the instant Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s

state law claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) after determining that Plaintiff never

filed a Government Claim. [ECF No. 20.] Plaintiff did not file an opposition or any other

response to Defendants’ Motion to date.

2

III. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendants contend that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his remedies under the

Government Claims Act, which requiresthat a claim against a public entity or its employees

be presented to the VCGCB no more than six months after the cause of action accrues. See

Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 905.2, 910, 911.2, 945.4, 950-950.2; [Mot. to Dis. at 5.] Defendants

argue that presentation of a written claim and action on or rejection of the claim are

conditions precedent to suit. [Mot. to Dis. at 5.] Defendants contend that Plaintiff has only

Under Civil Local Rule 7.1.f.3.c if an opposing party fails to file the papers in the manner

2

required by Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2, that failure may constitute a consent to the granting of a

motion or other request for ruling by the court.

2 14cv875-LAB(BGS)

Case 3:14-cv-00875-LAB-BGS Document 21 Filed 04/07/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
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

filed two Government Claims since February 2012, and neither made allegations against any

of the Defendants in this action, nor did they relate to the allegations in the Complaint. [Id.

at 6.] Thus, Defendants posit that Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Government

Claims Act, therefore his state law claims of violation of privacy, violation of the Equal

Protection Clause of the California Constitution, and violation of the California Penal Code

and Code of Regulations should be dismissed. [Id.]

IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for motions to

dismiss for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b)(6). In considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the court must

accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S.

89 (2007), and construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Jenkins

v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969); Meek v. County of Riverside, 183 F.3d 962, 965

(9th Cir. 1999). A claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial

plausibility. Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial

plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556

U.S. at 678. Attachments to a complaint are considered to be part of the complaint for

purposes of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v.

Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1555 n. 19 (9th Cir. 1990).

A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim should not be granted unless it

appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claims

which would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984). 

In general, pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by

lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). The court has an obligation to

construe such pleadings liberally. Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1027 n. 1 (9th Cir.

1985) (en banc). The court’s liberal interpretation of a pro se complaint however, may

not supply essential elements of the claim that were not pled. Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of

3 14cv875-LAB(BGS)

Case 3:14-cv-00875-LAB-BGS Document 21 Filed 04/07/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
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

Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

V. ANALYSIS

A. Exhaustion under the California Tort Claims Act

1. Legal Standard

The California Tort Claims Act requires that any state law tort claim made against

a public entity or its employees first be presented to the California VCGCB, formally

known as the State Board of Control, no more than six months after the cause of action

accrues. Cal. Gov't Code §§ 905.2, 910, 911.2, 945.4, 950-950.2 (West 2007). Before

filing suit in state or federal court, a written claim must be made to the Board, and the

Board must take action or reject the claim. State v. Superior Court of Kings County

(Bodde), 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1245 (2004); Mangold v. Cal. Pub. Utilities Comm'n, 67 F.3d

1470, 1477 (9th Cir.1995). Accordingly, to state a California Tort Claims Act claim

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff must allege compliance with the Act's exhaustion

requirements. Mangold, 67 F.3d at 1477; Parthemore v. Col, 221 Cal. App. 4th 1372,

1376 (2013) (“Plaintiff's obligation to exhaust the administrative remedies available to

prisoners concerning the medical treatment they receive is independent of the obligation

to comply with the Government Claims Act.”). 

If a civil complaint does not affirmatively allege compliance with the claim

presentation requirements, or allege facts showing the applicability of a recognized

exception or excuse for noncompliance, it must be dismissed. State v. Superior Court,

32 Cal.4th 1234, 1242-43 (2003); Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept., 839 F.2d

621, 627 (9th Cir.1988). In fact, the Ninth Circuit has expressly held that compliance

with California’s Tort Claims Act is a substantive element of any pendent state law cause

of action against the State or its employees. See U.S. v. California, 655 F.2d 914, 918

(9th Cir. 1980) (holding that claim filing statutes are the appropriate law and that

plaintiff United States failed to file in time). The fact that Plaintiff’s claims are alleged

under the California Constitution as opposed to traditional tort claims does not excuse

Plaintiff from complying with the Government Claims Act. Walker v. Cal. Dep’t of

4 14cv875-LAB(BGS)

Case 3:14-cv-00875-LAB-BGS Document 21 Filed 04/07/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
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

Corr., No:209-cv-0568 WBS KJN, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7895 (E.D. Cal. Jan 21, 2014)

(holding plaintiff must exhaust privacy claim under California Constitution to state a

claim for relief); Arocha v. Sauceda, No. 2:11-cv-2959 LKK KJN P, 2013 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 178480 * 27-28 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2013) (same).

2. Application to Plaintiff’s Complaint

Plaintiff alleges violations of state law, including a violation of privacy, violation

of the Equal Protection Clause of the California Constitution, and violation of the

California Penal Code and Code of Regulations. [Mot. to Dis. at 5.] Defendants argue

that Plaintiff is barred from pursuing his state law claims because he did not allege

compliance with the Government Claims Act. [Id. at 6.] Moreover, even if Plaintiff’s

complaint alleged compliance, Defendants’ posit that their motion to dismiss still

prevails because he never actually filed a claim with the VCGCB. [Id.]

In support of this argument, Defendants rely on the declaration of G. Brooks,

custodian of records for the VCGCB. [Decl. of G. Brooks, Custodian of Records,

VCGCB’s Government Claims Program at 1., ECF No. 20-3 at (“Decl.”) .] G. Brooks

avers that Plaintiff has only filed two claims with the VCGCB since February 17, 2012.

[Decl. at 2.] A search of the VCGCB’s records revealed the following: (1) “Claim

number G 615053, which claimed an incident date June 4, 2012, and contained

allegations against doctors and medical professional for failure to provide medical

treatment;” and (2) “Claim number G 617143, which claimed an incident dated January

4, 2013, and contained allegations of improper withdrawal from the claimant’s trust

account.” [Id.] Neither claim is related to the allegations in the instant complaint against

any of the Defendants in this action, nor did the facts of the VCGCB claims relate to any

of the allegations in the instant matter. 

In ruling on a motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the Court may

take judicial notice of “matters of public record” pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence

201. Mack v. S. Bay Beer Distribs., Inc., 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. 1986). 

Defendants’ filed a request for judicial notice in support of the present motion. 

5 14cv875-LAB(BGS)

Case 3:14-cv-00875-LAB-BGS Document 21 Filed 04/07/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
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

Consequently, this Court takes judicial notice of the documents attached to G. Brook’s

declaration as they are matters of public record. [ECF No. 20-2 at 1.]

Accordingly, Plaintiff has not met his burden to allege compliance with the

Government Claims Act procedures in his complaint, nor has he demonstrated that he

filed a relevant claim with the VCGCB. For these reasons, Plaintiff’s state law claims

should be dismissed without prejudice.

VI. CONCLUSION

Having reviewed the matter, the undersigned Magistrate Judge recommends that

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED and these claims be DISMISSED

without prejudice but without leave to amend. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that no later than April 24, 2015 after receiving a

copy of this Report and Recommendation, any party to this action may file written

objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. This document should be

captioned “Objections to Report and Recommendation.”

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections shall be filed with

the Court and served on all parties within ten days of being served with the objections.

Defendant must also serve this REPORT and RECOMMENDATION on Plaintiff

at his last known address and file the Proof of Service with the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 7, 2015

Hon. Bernard G. Skomal

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

6 14cv875-LAB(BGS)

Case 3:14-cv-00875-LAB-BGS Document 21 Filed 04/07/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6