Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00345/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00345-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:2672pi Federal Tort Claim Act - Personal Injury

---

- 1 -

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

BEA BEAUMONT,

Plaintiff,

vs.

GOVERNMENT CLAIMS BOARD 

VICTIMS COMPENSATION GRANT,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 19cv345-LAB (LL)

ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO SHOW 

CAUSE; DENYING MOTIONS TO 

APPOINT COUNSEL [Dkts. 3, 6]

Plaintiff Bea Beaumont brought this case seeking to recover damages from the 

California “Government Claims Board Victims Compensation Grant” related to an assault 

she allegedly suffered while employed as a high school teacher. Complaint, Dkt. 1. 

Noting that disputes with the Claims Board are matters for state courts and agencies, the 

Court issued an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) on February 25, 2019, requiring Beaumont 

to demonstrate why this case should not be dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction. 

Beaumont has partially responded. First, she notes that there are three claims she 

would like to bring that might give rise to diversity jurisdiction: a case against a hotel in 

Rochester, Minnesota; a case against the University of Indiana; and a case related to a 

probate matter also in Indiana. While it’s true these various claims may give rise to federal 

jurisdiction if brought separately, they are wholly unrelated to her claim in this case, which 

is that she is entitled to damages under a California statute for her assault as a school 

Case 3:19-cv-00345-LAB-LL Document 7 Filed 03/21/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
- 2 -

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

teacher. “Unrelated claims against different defendants belong in different suits,” so 

Beaumont cannot premise federal jurisdiction in this case on her claims against hotels in 

Minnesota and family members in Indiana. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 

2007). Beaumont also suggests that her claim might be properly brought in federal court 

because she was discriminated against by her employer based on her disability. 

Disability discrimination may give rise to federal jurisdiction in certain circumstances, but 

it’s unclear from the limited information provided how this discrimination claim relates to 

her assault and her claim for relief from the Claims Board. 

In short, this case is only about Beaumont’s assault and why she’s entitled to 

recovery from the Claims Board. If she can show that this specific case against the 

Claims Board belongs in federal court, she is GRANTED an extension of time to respond 

to the OSC until April 22, 2019. This is not, however, an invitation for a fishing 

expedition—any other miscellaneous claims she may have against defendants other than 

the Claims Board will likely need to be brought in a different lawsuit. If she fails to show 

cause or does not respond, this case will be dismissed without prejudice. Her response 

to the OSC must be no longer than 5 pages.

Beaumont’s requests for appointment of counsel, (Dkts. 3, 6), are DENIED at this 

time, but may be renewed later if circumstances change. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 

965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[A] court may under ‘exceptional circumstances’ appoint 

counsel for indigent civil litigants, . . . [but] generally[] a person has no right to counsel in 

civil actions.”). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 20, 2019

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

Chief United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-00345-LAB-LL Document 7 Filed 03/21/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2