Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01126/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01126-3/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KIMBERLY R. OLSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-1126 DFL CMK

vs.

DARREL LEMOS, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Ms. Olson, who is proceeding without counsel and in forma pauperis, has filed

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

stemming from an August 22, 2003 arrest. 

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. 

Case 2:06-cv-01126-TLN-CMK Document 17 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

Plaintiff has not alleged that any pending criminal charges, conviction or sentence

stemming from the September 23, 2003 arrest have been dismissed, reversed, expunged,

declared invalid or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. 

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

the claim was presented 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, she must allege that she 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. 

In her complaint, plaintiff alleges that she “...timely communicated notice of her

tort claims to Defendants.” This general allegation does not, however, satisfy the requirements

of California’s Tort Liability Act. Plaintiff must allege the date she presented her claims to the

appropriate public entity, to what public entity she provided notice of her claims, and whether

the public entity acted upon her claims. Plaintiff’s notion of adding the oblique language of

“timely communicated notice” is of no assistance to her, and certainly not to the court in the

ultimate resolution of her dispute since “timely” is not a subjective standard. 

 Accordingly, the court will order plaintiff to file an amended complaint which

 addresses the afore mentioned deficiencies. 

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff, Kimberly Olson, shall have fifteen days from the date this order is

Case 2:06-cv-01126-TLN-CMK Document 17 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

filed within which to file an amended complaint alleging that:

a. Any criminal charges, conviction or sentence stemming from the

September 23, 2003 arrest have been dropped or otherwise resolved in her favor and;

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

Governmental Tort Liability Act, by specifically attaching as an Exhibit to the complaint a copy

of her claim satisfying the requirements of Gov. Code §910.

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 again consider defendants’ August 9, 2006 motion to dismiss

after the filing of any amended complaint or expiration of time to file such. It will not be

necessary to reset or renotice said motion.

DATED: October 27, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-01126-TLN-CMK Document 17 Filed 10/30/06 Page 3 of 3