Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00734/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00734-2/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 

ARTHUR GLENN JONES, SR., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SAM WONG, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-0734 AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge for all purposes 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Local Rule 305(a). ECF No. 4. Currently before the court is 

plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. ECF No. 8. 

Where reconsideration of a non-final order is sought, the court has “inherent jurisdiction 

to modify, alter or revoke it.” United States v. Martin, 226 F.3d 1042, 1049 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Generally stated, reconsideration is appropriate where there has been an intervening change in 

controlling law, new evidence has become available, or it is necessary to correct clear error or 

prevent manifest injustice. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 

1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). 

Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the April 28, 2016 screening order which dismissed 

his state tort claims with leave to amend. ECF No. 8. Plaintiff argues that the court should 

Case 2:15-cv-00734-TLN-AC Document 9 Filed 05/09/16 Page 1 of 4
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

exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over his state tort claims because they arise out of the same 

factual basis. Id. at 4. He further argues that he was not required to comply with the California 

Tort Claims Act because he filed his complaint in federal court rather than state court. Id. 

 In screening the complaint, the court did not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction 

over plaintiff’s state tort claims. ECF No. 6 at 4-5. Plaintiff’s state tort claims were dismissed 

with leave to amend because they failed to state a claim. Id. Under California law, the timely 

presentation of a claim under the California Tort Claims Act is a condition precedent and 

therefore is an element of the cause of action that must be pled in the complaint. Shirk v. Vista 

Unified Sch. Dist., 164 P.3d 630, 634 (Cal. 2007) (quoting State v. Superior Court, 90 P.3d 116, 

119-20 (Cal. 2004)). In other words, because submitting a timely claim is an element of the 

action, plaintiff must establish it whether he files in state court or federal court. Plaintiff did not 

show that he had complied with the California Tort Claims Act by submitting a timely claim to 

the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board (“Claims Board”) or that he 

was excused from compliance. Because plaintiff did not plead facts to establish a necessary 

element of his claim, his state tort claims were dismissed, but he was given leave to amend the 

complaint to fix the defect. 

 Plaintiff appears to confuse the exhaustion requirement for bringing § 1983 claims with 

the separate requirements established by California law for state tort claims. ECF No. 8 at 7-8, ¶¶ 

3-4. Plaintiff is correct that he is not required to file a claim under the California Tort Claims Act 

to bring a federal claim under § 1983 and instead must exhaust his administrative remedies. For 

that reason, plaintiff’s claims brought under § 1983 were recognized as claims which he could 

pursue based upon the allegations in the complaint. However, plaintiff’s state tort claims are not 

federal claims and are governed by the requirements of state law, which requires compliance with 

the California Tort Claims Act. 

Plaintiff did not present facts or even allege that he timely submitted a claim to the Claims 

Board or that he was excused from timely filing and his state tort claims were properly dismissed 

for failure to state a claim. Hust v. Wyoming, 372 F. App’x 708, 710 (9th Cir. 2010) (district 

court properly dismissed all state tort claims that did not comply with applicable state tor claim 

Case 2:15-cv-00734-TLN-AC Document 9 Filed 05/09/16 Page 2 of 4
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

filing statutes). Since plaintiff may be able to cure the deficiency in his complaint, he was given 

the option to file an amended complaint to allege facts that show he submitted a timely claim to 

the Claims Board or was excused from timely filing. Plaintiff has not established grounds for 

altering the screening order and his motion for reconsideration will be denied. Plaintiff will be 

given additional time to notify the court on how he would like to proceed with this case. 

As plaintiff was previously advised, he may either (1) proceed immediately on his Eighth 

Amendment claims against defendants Heatley, Williams, Cuppy, and Wong or (2) try to amend 

the complaint to state claims for professional negligence. If plaintiff wants to go forward without 

amending the complaint, his professional negligence claims will remain dismissed without 

prejudice. If plaintiff chooses to amend his complaint, the first amended complaint must include 

all of the claims plaintiff wants to make, including the ones that have already been found to state 

a claim, because the court will not look at the claims or information in the original complaint. In 

other words, any claims not in the first amended complaint will not be considered. Plaintiff must 

complete the attached notification showing what he wants to do and return it to the court. Once 

the court receives the notice, it will issue an order telling plaintiff what he needs to do next (i.e. 

file an amended complaint or complete and return service paperwork). 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 8) is denied. 

 2. Within twenty-one days of service of this order, plaintiff shall complete and return the 

attached form notifying the court whether he wants to proceed on the screened complaint or 

whether he wants to file a first amended complaint. 

DATED: May 9, 2016 

Case 2:15-cv-00734-TLN-AC Document 9 Filed 05/09/16 Page 3 of 4
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 

ARTHUR GLENN JONES, SR., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SAM WONG, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-0734 AC P 

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE ON HOW TO 

PROCEED 

 Check one: 

_____ Plaintiff wants to proceed immediately on his Eighth Amendment claims against 

defendants Heatley, Williams, Cuppy, and Wong without amending the complaint. 

Plaintiff understands that going forward without amending the complaint means that his 

state tort professional negligence claims will remain dismissed without prejudice. 

_____ Plaintiff wants to amend the complaint. 

DATED:_______________________ 

 

 ARTHUR GLENN JONES, SR. 

 Plaintiff pro se

Case 2:15-cv-00734-TLN-AC Document 9 Filed 05/09/16 Page 4 of 4