Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02636/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02636-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SIEN LEE,

Plaintiff,

v

CHARLES C PLUMMER et al,

Defendants. /

No C-04-2636 VRW

ORDER

Plaintiff Sien Lee brings this action under 42 USC § 1983

claiming various civil rights violations. Doc #1. Plaintiff also

asserts various tort claims against defendants pursuant to the

California Tort Claims Act of 1963 (CTCA). Id. Currently pending

before the court is plaintiff’s motion for relief pursuant to Cal

Gov’t Code § 946.6 from the CTCA’s claims presentation requirement,

Cal Gov’t Code § 954.4. Doc #26. For the reasons that follow, the

court DISMISSES plaintiff’s motion for relief and ORDERS plaintiff

to file an amended complaint within twenty days, identifying the

“Doe” defendants in her complaint and the federal claims brought

against them. Further, the court sua sponte modifies its January

Case 3:04-cv-02636-VRW Document 33 Filed 06/20/05 Page 1 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

17, 2005, order to GRANT defendants’ motion to dismiss with respect

to plaintiff’s claims related to medical treatment against the

Sheriff of Alameda County (“the Sheriff”).

I

A

This case arises out of plaintiff’s two-week confinement

at the Santa Rita Jail for civil contempt from June 18, 2003, to

July 1, 2003. Doc #22 at 1, ¶1. Plaintiff alleges, inter alia,

that defendants denied her adequate medical care and access to

legal materials while confined at the jail. Id.

The allegations of plaintiff’s complaint are laid out in

detail in the court’s January 17, 2005, order, in which the court

held that plaintiff may proceed against the Sheriff in his official

capacity on her federal access-to-courts claim, against the Sheriff

on her state medical negligence claim and against the County on her

federal access-to-courts claim. Doc #16 at 12:19-22. In addition,

the court held that plaintiff may obtain discovery as appropriate

on the identities of the “Doe” defendants. Id at 12:22-23. 

Further, on May 10, 2005, the court ordered plaintiff to file an

amended complaint within twenty days of the present order,

identifying the “Doe” defendants named in her complaint. Doc #30. 

B

Under California law, for a plaintiff to bring state law

tort claims against state and local public entities, the plaintiff

must comply with the strict procedural requirements enumerated in

the CTCA, including the CTCA’s requirement that a claimant must

Case 3:04-cv-02636-VRW Document 33 Filed 06/20/05 Page 2 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

first file a written claim with the proper public entity. See Cal

Gov’t Code §§ 815, 905, 905.2. On June 16, 2004, plaintiff

presented a claim for damages against the Sheriff to the Alameda

County Board of Supervisors (the “Board”) pursuant to Cal Gov’t

Code § 905. Doc #26 at 1, ¶2. On that same date, plaintiff

submitted an application to the Board to file a late claim pursuant

to Cal Gov’t Code § 911.4. Doc #22, Ex A. 

On June 22, 2004, the Board returned plaintiff’s claim

for damages as untimely because it was not presented within the six

month period provided in Cal Gov’t Code § 911.2. Id. The Board

also rejected plaintiff’s application to file a late claim. Id. 

On June 30, 2004, plaintiff filed the present action. 

Doc #1. On that same date, plaintiff filed a “near-identical”

action in the Alameda superior court. Doc #22, Ex #1; Doc #26 at 2

n1. The Alameda superior court stayed that action on December 8,

2004, pending determination of plaintiff’s action before this

court. Doc #22, Ex #2. 

On December 17, 2004, plaintiff filed a motion in the

Alameda superior court pursuant to Cal Gov’t Code § 946.6 for

relief from the CTCA’s claims presentation requirement. Doc #22,

Ex #1. On January 12, 2005, the Alameda superior court declined to

consider plaintiff’s motion for relief from the CTCA’s claims

presentation requirement in view of its previously entered stay. 

Doc #22, Ex #2. On April 14, 2005, plaintiff filed the present

motion in this court. Doc #22.

II

Before turning to plaintiff’s motion, the court must

Case 3:04-cv-02636-VRW Document 33 Filed 06/20/05 Page 3 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

first address the scope of the claims subject to the CTCA’s claims

presentation requirement. Specifically, the court must correct its

January 17, 2005, order denying defendants’ FRCP 12(b)(6) motion to

dismiss plaintiff’s state law claims against the Sheriff related to

medical treatment.

The short of it is that the claims presentation

requirement, which the court held applied to plaintiff’s state law

claims against the County, applies equally to state law claims

against the Sheriff. Defendants’ papers filed on the motion to

dismiss are far from a model of clarity, see Doc #7 at 3

(discussing claims presentation only in regard to the County); Doc

#15 at 2 (same), but the court will correct its misstatement of the

law in the interest of consolidating the claims presentation issues

in this case.

With respect to the Sheriff, the court must acknowledge

the requirements of Cal Gov’t Code § 950 et seq, Chapter 3

(“Actions Against Public Employees”). Cal Gov’t Code § 950.2 bars

a cause of action against a public employee for injury resulting

from an act or omission in the scope of his employment as a public

employee if an action against the employing public entity (here,

the County, as the Sheriff is a county official, Cal Gov’t Code §

24000(b)) for such injury is barred under Cal Gov’t Code §§ 911.2,

911.4, 911.6, 945.4 and 946.6. Moreover, the law revision

commission comments following the 1965 amendment to Cal Gov’t Code

§ 950.2 make clear “that suit against a public employee or former

employee is barred when a suit against the entity is barred (1) by

failure to present any claim at all or (2) by presenting a claim

that is insufficient, too late or for any other reason inadequate

Case 3:04-cv-02636-VRW Document 33 Filed 06/20/05 Page 4 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

to support an action against the employing public entity.” 

Because plaintiff has not (yet) met the CTCA’s claims

presentation requirements, as evidenced by plaintiff’s motion for

relief, plaintiff’s cause of action for her state tort claims

against the Sheriff is barred. See Olden v Hatchell, 154 Cal App

3d 1032, 1034 (1984) (“Presentation of a claim against a public

employee or former public employee for injury resulting from an act

or omission in the scope of his public employment is not a

prerequisite to the maintenance of an action against the employee,

but presentation of a claim against the employing public entity is

a prerequisite to bringing such an action.”); see also Dennis v

Thurman, 959 F Supp 1253 (C D Cal 1997) (“When defendants are

public employees, the plaintiff must first submit a written claim

to the public entity that employs them before filing a lawsuit

seeking monetary damages for violations of California law.”). 

Accordingly, plaintiff may not proceed against the

Sheriff on her state medical negligence claim until the CTCA’s

claims presentation requirement is met. The court therefore

modifies its January 17, 2005, order to GRANT defendants’ motion to

dismiss plaintiff’s claims related to medical treatment.

III

Turning to the present motion, the court concludes it

lacks jurisdiction over a motion for relief from the CTCA’s claims

presentation requirement. The court finds no reason to depart from

its prior holding in Hernandez v McClanahan, 996 F Supp 975 (N D

Cal 1998) (Walker, J), that a federal court lacks subject matter

jurisdiction over a petition for judicial relief from denial of a

Case 3:04-cv-02636-VRW Document 33 Filed 06/20/05 Page 5 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

state application to file an untimely CTCA claim.

In Hernandez, the court held that “[t]his court is not

the ‘proper court’ to hear [plaintiff’s] section 946.6 petition.” 

Id at 978 (quoting Cal Gov’t Code § 946.6; citing Leurs v Smith,

941 F Supp 105, 107 (C D Cal 1996)). This court based its decision

on the legislative history of Cal Gov’t Code § 946.6, the Luers

decision and principles of sovereign immunity and concluded that

“[a]bsent an express directive from the legislature to the

contrary, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to consider

section 946.6 petitions.” Id.

The facts now before the court are indistinguishable from

the facts before the court in Hernandez. In Hernandez, plaintiff

brought an action against several public entities and their

employees under 42 USC § 1983 claiming various civil rights

violations. Id at 976. Hernandez also asserted various state law

tort claims against the defendants and petitioned this court for

relief from the CTCA’s claims presentation requirements. Id. 

Based on these facts and the applicable law the court explored in

its decision, the court dismissed plaintiff’s Cal Gov’t Code §

946.6 motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Id at 979. 

Likewise, plaintiff here brings an action against a public entity

and its employees under 42 USC § 1983 claiming various civil rights

violations. Plaintiff also asserts various state law tort claims

against the defendants and now petitions the court for relief from

the CTCA’s claims presentation requirement. Hernandez applies here

with full force.

In Perez v City of Escondido, another court rejected the

Luers and Hernandez decisions and held that a federal district

Case 3:04-cv-02636-VRW Document 33 Filed 06/20/05 Page 6 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

court has jurisdiction to consider a motion for relief pursuant to

Cal Gov’t Code § 946.6. 165 F Supp 2d 1111, 1115 (S D Cal 2001). 

The Perez court stated that “[w]hat the court in Hernandez ignores

is that the state of California has explicitly, by and through the

California Tort Claims Act, waived sovereign immunity in certain

particular circumstances. Therefore, the question is not whether

the state has intended to waive its immunity.” Id. This court

recognizes that the CTCA is a waiver of sovereign immunity “in

certain particular circumstances.” But the relevant question is

under what “certain particular circumstances” did the state waive

its sovereign immunity, and, narrowly construed, that waiver

extends only to proceedings in the sovereign’s own courts -- ie,

the state superior court.

There is no indication that the state intended to extend

the scope of its waiver of sovereign immunity to grant a federal

court concurrent jurisdiction over motions for relief pursuant to

Cal Gov’t Code § 946.6. The Perez court reasoned that since “there

is no plain language in section 946.6 depriving [a federal court]

of jurisdiction,” a federal court may exercise jurisdiction over

motions for relief pursuant to Gov’t Code § 946.6. While the Perez

court is correct in finding that there is no plain language in Cal

Gov’t Code § 946.6 depriving a federal court of jurisdiction over

motions for relief pursuant to Cal Gov’t Code § 946.6, the Perez

court fails to recognize that since there is no plain language in

Cal Gov’t Code § 946.6 granting a federal court jurisdiction over

motions for relief pursuant to Cal Gov’t Code § 946.6, a federal

court has no jurisdiction over such motions. 

This court reiterates that “[w]aiver [of sovereign

Case 3:04-cv-02636-VRW Document 33 Filed 06/20/05 Page 7 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

immunity] by a state statute must be found in the express language

of the statute or by ‘such overwhelming implications from the text

as [to] leave no room for any other reasonable construction’. In

other words, federal courts cannot assume that a state has waived

its sovereign immunity unless the state has explicitly done so.” 

Hernandez, 996 F Supp at 978 (quoting Edelman v Jordan, 415 US 651,

673 (1974)). There is no express language or any overwhelming

implication from the text in Cal Gov’t Code § 946.6 from which a

federal court can reasonably construe a grant of jurisdiction. 

Accordingly, the court DISMISSES plaintiff’s motion for

relief from the CTCA’s claims presentation requirement for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction. The court notes that if plaintiff

successfully petitions the appropriate state court for relief from

the CTCA’s claims presentation requirement, she may then seek to

pursue her state tort claims in this court. While the court

acknowledges plaintiff’s frustration at the “game” she alleges

defendants are playing with her (Doc #29 at 1:24), the court must

play by the rules of the game, notably the principles of sovereign

immunity and the rules of statutory construction. The court finds

no reason why the superior court should not at this time entertain

plaintiff’s motion for relief from the CTCA’s claims presentation

requirement.

IV

There is no reason to delay the proceedings in this court

pending resolution of plaintiff’s motion for relief in the superior

court. All parties to the state law tort claims remain in the case

on federal claims and the court will liberally grant plaintiff

Case 3:04-cv-02636-VRW Document 33 Filed 06/20/05 Page 8 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

leave to amend her complaint to reassert her state law tort claims

if she prevails in the superior court. 

Per the court’s May 5, 2005 order, plaintiff shall within

twenty days file an amended complaint identifying the “Doe”

defendants named in her complaint. Doc #30. Although plaintiff’s

state tort claims against the “Doe” defendants are now futile until

plaintiff’s motion for relief has been adjudicated in the superior

court, the court sees no obstacle to plaintiff amending her

complaint to identify the “Doe” defendants and state the federal

claims brought against them.

 

V

In sum, the court DISMISSES plaintiff’s motion for relief

from the CTCA’s claims presentation requirement (Doc #22) for lack

of jurisdiction; modifies its January 17, 2005, order to GRANT

defendants’ motion to dismiss with respect to plaintiff’s state

tort claims against the Sheriff; ORDERS plaintiff to file an

amended complaint within 20 days identifying the “Doe” defendants

and the federal claims brought against them; and ORDERS the parties

to appear for a further case management conference on August 9,

2005, at 9:00 am, or on such other date as the parties arrange with

the court room deputy, Ms Cora Delfin, 415-522-2039.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:04-cv-02636-VRW Document 33 Filed 06/20/05 Page 9 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

10

Case 3:04-cv-02636-VRW Document 33 Filed 06/20/05 Page 10 of 10