Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01325/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01325-6/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM CLIFTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEAN PIERRE, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01325 DAD DLB PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

TO DISMISS

(Document 25)

THIRTY-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE

Plaintiff William Clifton (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s Third 

Amended Complaint for (1) violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendant Talley; (2) 

violation of the First Amendment against Defendant Talley; (3) medical negligence against 

Defendants Pierre and Talley; and (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress against Defendant 

Talley.

Defendants filed the instant motion to dismiss on September 28, 2015. Plaintiff filed his 

opposition on October 28, 2015, and Defendants filed their reply on October 30, 2015. The motion 

is ready for decision pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

///

///

Case 1:13-cv-01325-DAD-GSA Document 33 Filed 03/21/16 Page 1 of 5
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

A. LEGAL STANDARD

A motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of a claim, 

and dismissal is proper if there is a lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts 

alleged under a cognizable legal theory. Conservation Force v. Salazar, 646 F.3d 1240, 1241-42 

(9th Cir. 2011) (quotation marks and citations omitted). In resolving a 12(b)(6) motion, a court’s 

review is generally limited to the operative pleading. Daniels-Hall v. National Educ. Ass’n, 629 

F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010); Sanders v. Brown, 504 F.3d 903, 910 (9th Cir. 2007); Huynh v. Chase 

Manhattan Bank, 465 F.3d 992, 1003-04 (9th Cir. 2006); Schneider v. California Dept. of Corr., 151 

F.3d 1194, 1197 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998). 

To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted 

as true, to state a claim that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 

(citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)) (quotation marks omitted); 

Conservation Force, 646 F.3d at 1242; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 

2009). The Court must accept the well-pleaded factual allegations as true and draw all reasonable 

inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Daniels-Hall, 629 F.3d at 998; Sanders, 504 F.3d at 

910; Huynh, 465 F.3d at 996-97; Morales v. City of Los Angeles, 214 F.3d 1151, 1153 (9th Cir.

2000).

Courts may not supply essential elements not initially pled, Litmon v. Harris, 768 F.3d 1237, 

1241 (9th Cir. 2014), but “[c]ourts in this circuit have an obligation to give a liberal construction to 

the filings of pro se litigants, especially when they are civil rights claims by inmates,” Blaisdell v. 

Frappiea, 729 F.3d 1237, 1241 (9th Cir. 2013). Pro se complaints “may only be dismissed ‘if it 

appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would 

entitle him to relief.’” Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Wilhelm v. 

Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012)). “This rule relieves pro se litigants from the strict 

application of procedural rules and demands that courts not hold missing or inaccurate legal 

terminology or muddled draftsmanship against them.” Blaisdell, 729 F.3d at 1241. 

///

///

Case 1:13-cv-01325-DAD-GSA Document 33 Filed 03/21/16 Page 2 of 5
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

B. DISCUSSION

Defendants move to dismiss the California state law claims based on Plaintiff’s failure to 

comply with the administrative claim requirement of the California Government Claims Act 

(“CGCA”).

1. CGCA Requirements

The CGCA prohibits a plaintiff from filing suit and raising state law claims against a public 

employee or entity unless the plaintiff first presented the claim to the California Victim 

Compensation and Government Claims Board (“Board”). Cal. Gov. Code §§ 810 et seq. Also, the 

Board must have acted on the claim or the time for doing so expired. “The Tort Claims Act requires 

that any civil complaint for money or damages first be presented to and rejected by the pertinent 

public entity.” Munoz v. California, 33 Cal.App.4th 1767, 1776 (1995). The purpose of this 

requirement is “to provide the public entity sufficient information to enable it to adequately 

investigate claims and to settle them, if appropriate, without the expense of litigation.” City of San 

Jose v. Superior Court, 12 Cal.3d 447, 455 (1974) (citations omitted). Compliance with this “claim 

presentation requirement” constitutes an element of a cause of action for damages against a public 

entity or official. State v. Superior Court (Bodde), 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1244 (2004). Thus, in the state 

courts, “failure to allege facts demonstrating or excusing compliance with the claim presentation 

requirement subjects a claim against a public entity to a demurrer for failure to state a cause of 

action.” Id. at 1239 (fn.omitted).

Federal courts likewise must require compliance with the CTGA for pendant state law claims 

that seek damages against state public employees or entities. Willis v. Reddin, 418 F.2d 702, 704 

(9th Cir.1969); Mangold v. California Pub. Util. Comm’n, 67 F.3d 1470, 1477 (9th Cir.1995). State 

tort claims included in a federal action, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, may proceed only if the 

claims were first presented to the state in compliance with the claim presentation requirement. 

Karim–Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 627 (9th Cir.1988); Butler v. Los Angeles 

County, 617 F.Supp.2d 994, 1001 (C.D.Cal.2008).

///

///

Case 1:13-cv-01325-DAD-GSA Document 33 Filed 03/21/16 Page 3 of 5
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

2. Analysis

Defendants are correct that Plaintiff has failed to plead compliance with the requirements of 

the CTGA. In his Third Amended Complaint, he does not allege that he filed a claim with the 

Board, nor does he attach any evidence of a claim. Plaintiff also fails to set forth any facts that 

would excuse exhaustion.

In Plaintiff’s opposition, he only restates the elements of his claims. He does not address his 

failure to file a claim with the Board in any way.

Defendants argue that the state law claims should be dismissed without leave to amend 

because they believe that Plaintiff cannot amend to allege compliance. In support of their argument, 

they submit the Declaration of Katrina Del Caro, Custodian of Records at the Board. Ms. Del Caro 

indicates that she has searched the records but could not locate a claim filed by Plaintiff for events at 

issue in the complaint.1 ECF No. 25-2, at 4.

In resolving a 12(b)(6) motion, a court’s review is generally limited to the operative pleading. 

Daniels-Hall v. National Educ. Ass’n, 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010); Sanders v. Brown, 504 

F.3d 903, 910 (9th Cir. 2007); Huynh v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 465 F.3d 992, 1003-04 (9th Cir. 

2006); Schneider v. California Dept. of Corr., 151 F.3d 1194, 1197 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998). However, 

courts may properly consider matters subject to judicial notice and documents incorporated by 

reference in the pleading without converting the motion to dismiss to one for summary judgment. 

U.S. v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003). Under the doctrine of incorporation by reference, 

a court may consider a document provided by the defendant which was not attached to the pleading 

if the plaintiff refers to the document extensively or if it forms the basis of the plaintiff’s claim. 

Ritchie, 342 F.3d at 908; also Daniels-Hall, 629 F.3d at 998. 

Ms. Del Caro’s declaration is therefore properly before this Court on this 12(b)(6) motion. 

Given her statements, as well as Plaintiff’s failure to discuss the exhaustion issue at all in his 

opposition, the Court finds that Plaintiff cannot allege compliance with the CGCA.

///

 

1

 The Court may take judicial notice of matters of public record, including records and reports of administrative 

agencies. United States v. 14.02 Acres of Land More or Less in Fresno County, 547 F.3d 943, 955 (9th Cir. 2008) 

(quotations marks and citations omitted).

Case 1:13-cv-01325-DAD-GSA Document 33 Filed 03/21/16 Page 4 of 5
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

C. RECOMMENDATION

Based on the above, the Court recommends that Defendants’ motion to dismiss be 

GRANTED, and that Plaintiff’s state law claims be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND 

WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within THIRTY (30) 

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written 

objections with the Court. Local Rule 304(b). The document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Responses, if any, are due within 

FOURTEEN (14) days from the date the objections are filed. Local Rule 304(d). The parties are 

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on 

appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 

F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 19, 2016 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01325-DAD-GSA Document 33 Filed 03/21/16 Page 5 of 5