Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05378/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05378-6/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PEYTON SHOTWELL,

Plaintiff, CV F 04 5378 REC WMW P

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OFFICER FERGUSON, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a federal civil rights action against

Bakersfield Police Officers Stevenson and Ferguson. Pending before the court is defendants’

motion to dismiss plaintiff’s state law claims. 

This action proceeds on the November 9, 2005, second amended complaint. Plaintiff,

currently in the custody of the California Department of Corrections, brings this action against

defendants for conduct that occurred prior to plaintiff’s incarceration. Plaintiff claims that he

was subjected to excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 

Plaintiff’s specific allegations are that he was subjected to excessive force by defendants on

December 11, 2003. Plaintiff, riding a bicycle, was stopped by Officers Stevenson and

Ferguson. Plaintiff alleges that Officer Ferguson held him down while Officer Stevenson beat

him. Plaintiff alleges that he offered no resistance.

Defendants move to dismiss this action on the ground that plaintiff failed to comply with

Case 1:04-cv-05378-LJO -WMW Document 38 Filed 05/30/06 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

provisions of the California Tort Claims Act that require a claim to be presented to the State

Board of Control before a tort claim can be filed. The California Tort Claims Act requires that

tort claims against a public entity or its employees be presented to the State Board of Control no

more than six months after the cause of action accrues. Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 905.2, 945.4,950-

950.6. Presentation of a written claim, and action on or rejection of the claim are conditions

precedent to suit. State v. Superior Court of Kings County (Bodde), 32 Cal. 4th 1234, 1245,

(2004); Mangold v. California Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 67 F.3d 1470, 1477 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Defendants correctly argue that plaintiff has failed to plead compliance with the

California Tort Claims Act. There are no allegations in the second amended complaint that

indicate compliance with the Tort Claims Act. Plaintiff does, however, address his efforts to

comply in his response to the motion. Specifically, plaintiff states that he placed his claim in the

mail from the Lerdo Correctional Facility on December 24, 2003. Because the second amended

complaint does not include this allegation, the court will grant plaintiff leave to file a third

amended complaint that includes allegations of his efforts to comply with the California Tort

Claims Act.

Plaintiff is also informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make

plaintiff's amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended complaint

be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a general rule,

an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57

(9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no longer

serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint,

each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 

The court will therefore recommend that defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s second

amended complaint be granted with leave to amend regarding any state law claims. The court

notes, however, that the original complaint was filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. There is no

Case 1:04-cv-05378-LJO -WMW Document 38 Filed 05/30/06 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

record of an answer or any other response to the complaint that addresses plaintiff’s federal

claims. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendants’ motion to dismiss be

granted with leave to amend as to plaintiff’s state law claims. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B). Within

thirty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file

written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the

objections shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. Failure to

file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. 

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 26, 2006 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05378-LJO -WMW Document 38 Filed 05/30/06 Page 3 of 3