Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01646/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01646-21/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

 Because the instant Order and Findings and Recommendations addresses numerous

motions, the Court will identify each by its Docket Number to avoid confusion.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERALD LEE MILLER, JR.

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-1646 LKK EFB P

vs.

JANNE WOODFORD, et al.,

ORDER AND 

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Currently outstanding are several motions filed by plaintiff directed toward

obtaining the current address of defendant G. Costra in order to effect service, Dckt. Nos. 60, 87,

93, 1031

, a motion concerning a prior default order against defendant L. Dial, Dckt. No. 83, and a

request that the Court reconsider a prior order denying plaintiff’s request for a temporary

restraining order (“TRO”), Dckt. No. 67. Also before the Court is a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s

state-law causes of action filed by defendants Cox, Huckabee, James, and Dial, Dckt. No. 88. 

////

////

Case 2:07-cv-01646-LKK-EFB Document 115 Filed 01/28/10 Page 1 of 7
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

For the following reasons, the Court denies plaintiff’s requests for leave to file an amended

motion to compel, Dckt. No. 60, and for the Court’s assistance in locating defendant G. Costra,

Dckt. Nos. 87, 93, 103. Further, the Court recommends denial of plaintiff’s requests for an ex

parte hearing, Dckt. No. 83, and reconsideration of his motion for a TRO, Dckt. No. 67. Finally,

the Court recommends that defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s state-law causes of action,

Dckt. No. 88, be granted.

I. Plaintiff’s Motions Regarding G. Costra

On April 22, 2009, plaintiff filed a “Motion for Leave to File an Amended Motion to

Compel Discovery,” Dckt. No. 60, seeking an order compelling defendants to respond to his

discovery requests inquiring into the whereabouts of defendant G. Costra. Plaintiff filed a nearly

identical motion on June 5, 2009, Dckt. No. 71, which the Court denied on August 25, 2009,

Dckt. No. 95. For the same reasons provided in that order, the Court also denies plaintiff’s April

22, 2009 motion, Dckt. No. 60. 

Plaintiff has also filed two “Motion[s] for Intervention,” the first on July 31, 2009, Dckt.

No. 87, and the second on August 20, 2009, Dckt. No. 93. By these motions, plaintiff seeks to

have the Court intervene on his behalf to locate G. Costra. In an order dated April 16, 2008, the

Court informed plaintiff that he could seek G. Costra’s address “through discovery, the

California Public Records Act, California Government Code §§ 6250, et seq., or any other means

available.” Plaintiff states that defendants will not answer his discovery requests about G.

Costra’s whereabouts and that his imprisonment in a high security facility prevents him from

filing a Public Records Act request to obtain the information. Plaintiff has not explained why his

imprisonment prevents him from seeking the information through a request under the Public

Records Act. Indeed, from his prosecution of the instant action it appears that plaintiff is able to

file legal requests despite his incarceration. In addition, on August 25, 2009, the Court granted

plaintiff’s request to modify the discovery scheduling order to permit him to serve an amended

discovery request to defendants regarding G. Costra’s location. As plaintiff has not shown that

Case 2:07-cv-01646-LKK-EFB Document 115 Filed 01/28/10 Page 2 of 7
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

he cannot obtain G. Costra’s address through the currently available avenues of discovery or a

Public Records Act request, the Court denies plaintiff’s requests for the Court’s intervention,

Dckt. Nos. 87, 93. For the same reasons, the Court denies plaintiff’s request that the Court itself

provide plaintiff with G. Costra’s address, Dckt. No. 103. 

II. Plaintiff’s Motion for Ex Parte Hearing

On July 20, 2009, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Default Judgment. Petitioner Request for

Ex Parte Hearing Before the Court and Judgment without Further Notice,” Dckt. No. 83. 

Plaintiff states that the Court entered default judgment against defendant L. Dial on April 14,

2009 and requests an ex parte hearing “to determine the actual amount due to the petitioner by

defendant L. Dial.” However, in an order dated September 30, 2009, Dckt. No. 104, adopting

the July 31, 2009, findings and recommendations, Dckt. No. 86, the Court noted that the default

judgment that had been entered against L. Dial was no longer in effect, because it was based on

the Second Amended Complaint, which was no longer the operative pleading. Accordingly, the

Court ruled that plaintiff’s request for default judgment against L. Dial, dated February 6, 2009,

was moot. Because no effective default judgment has been entered against L. Dial under the

currently-operative Third Amended Complaint, plaintiff’s request for an ex parte hearing to

determine the amount due under such a judgment, Dckt. No. 83, must be denied.

III. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of TRO Ruling

In his “Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration of Temporary Restraining

Order,” Dckt. No. 67, plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its order of August 28, 2009, Dckt.

No. 97, adopting the May 27, 2009 findings and recommendations, and denying plaintiff’s

request for interim injunctive relief to stop prison staff from interfering with his mail and legal

documents.

////

////

////

Case 2:07-cv-01646-LKK-EFB Document 115 Filed 01/28/10 Page 3 of 7
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

4

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), the Court may relieve a party from the

effect of an order for:

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;

(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have

been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);

(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or

misconduct by an opposing party;

(4) the judgment is void;

(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an

earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is

no longer equitable; or

(6) any other reason that justifies relief.

Plaintiff has not made any showing justifying relief under Rule 60(b). Moreover, his request for

a temporary restraining order remains defective as described in the Findings and

Recommendations of May 27, 2009: he does not demonstrate any probability of success on the

merits of his suit, the allegations in the request for the restraining order are unrelated to the

allegations of the complaint, the restraining order request fails to specify which of the defendants

participated in the wrongdoing alleged, and plaintiff’s allegations are unsupported by evidence. 

While plaintiff allegedly did not receive the Court’s April 16, 2009 order until a few days after

the April 24, 2009 deadline provided by that order had passed, he did receive the order and has

since been relieved from the deadline provided therein. Plaintiff has not shown that any of the

defendants have engaged in wrongdoing that prevented him from receiving that order or other

mail or have otherwise interfered with his documents. Accordingly, plaintiff has not shown that

he will be subject to imminent harm absent an injunction. See Winter v. Natural Res. Def.

Council, Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008) (holding that a party seeking a

preliminary injunction must show “[1] that he is likely to succeed on the merits, [2] that he is

likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, [3] that the balance of

equities tips in his favor, and [4] that an injunction is in the public interest.”) As plaintiff has not

made any showing justifying the Court’s reconsideration of its order denying his request for a

temporary restraining order, the undersigned recommends that his request for reconsideration,

Case 2:07-cv-01646-LKK-EFB Document 115 Filed 01/28/10 Page 4 of 7
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

5

Dckt. No. 67, be denied.

IV. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss State-Law Causes of Action

On August 10, 2009, defendants Cox, Huckabee, James and Dial filed a “Motion to

Dismiss State Law Causes,” seeking the dismissal of the fifth, sixth, eighth, and ninth causes of

action alleged in plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint. These causes of action assert wholly

state law claims (for intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, assault and battery,

and “violation of California law”). Defendants seek dismissal of these claims under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, because plaintiff has failed to allege

that he presented the claims to the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims

Board (“the Board”) prior to filing suit.

The California Tort Claims Act (“the Act”) requires that a plaintiff who seeks to

prosecute a claim for damages against a state employee first present that claim to the Board

within six months of the accrual of the claim. Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 900.2, 905, 905.2, 910, 911.2,

945.4, 950-950.2; California v. Super. Ct. (Bodde), 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1245 (2004). To state a tort

claim against a state employee, the plaintiff must allege compliance with the presentation

requirement. Bodde, 32 Cal.4th at 1245; Karim-Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 627

(9th Cir. 1988). Plaintiff has not done so here.

Plaintiff argues that California’s tort claim presentation rules do not apply to his lawsuit

because it is brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, citing Felder v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131, 146-51

(1988). While it may be true that plaintiff’s causes of action under § 1983 are not subject to the

presentation rules, his state tort claims are subject to those rules and are not exempted from them

merely because plaintiff has also alleged causes of action under § 1983. See Karim-Panahi, 839

F.2d at 627 (affirming dismissal of supplemental state tort claims where plaintiff failed to allege

compliance with California’s tort claim procedures). As plaintiff has not alleged compliance

with California’s tort claim presentation rules, defendants’ motion to dismiss his state-law claims

should be granted, with leave to amend to allow plaintiff to file an amended complaint alleging

Case 2:07-cv-01646-LKK-EFB Document 115 Filed 01/28/10 Page 5 of 7
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 argues that the time for defendant Dial to answer the complaint has expired

and thus the motion to dismiss should be disregarded as to Dial. Plaintiff argues that the time for

Dial to answer should be computed from the filing of the initial complaint, although it has since

been amended twice and the currently-operative pleading is the Third Amended Complaint. 

Plaintiff presents no authority or persuasive argument why the time should be computed from the

filing of the initial complaint. Instead, “[i]t is hornbook law that an amended pleading

supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.” Bullen v. De

Bretteville, 239 F.2d 824, 832 (9th Cir. 1956). As this Court recommended only on July 31,

2009 that the Third Amended Complaint was operative and that plaintiff’s request for default

against Dial was moot (adopted by the District Court Judge on September 30, 2009), Dial’s

appearance by the instant motion to dismiss (filed August 10, 2009) is not untimely.

6

his compliance with the Act.2

V. Conclusion 

For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s “Motion for Leave to File an Amended Motion to Compel Discovery,”

Dckt. No. 60, is DENIED;

2. Plaintiff’s two “Motion[s] for Intervention,” dated July 31, 2009, Dckt. No. 87, and

August 20, 2009, Dckt. No. 93, are DENIED; and

3. Plaintiff’s “Request for U.S. Marshal to be Provide[d] with the Present or Last Known

Address of Defendant G. Costra for Service of Summons and Complaint,” Dckt. No. 103, is

DENIED.

Further, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff’s “Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration of Temporary

Restraining Order,” Dckt. No. 67, be DENIED;

2. Plaintiff’s “Motion for Default Judgment. Petitioner Request for Ex Parte Hearing

Before the Court and Judgment without Further Notice,” Dckt. No. 83, be DENIED; and

3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s state law causes, Dckt. No. 88, be

GRANTED, and the fifth, sixth, eighth, and ninth causes of action in plaintiff’s Third Amended

Complaint be dismissed; and

////

Case 2:07-cv-01646-LKK-EFB Document 115 Filed 01/28/10 Page 6 of 7
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

7

4. Plaintiff be granted leave to amend his complaint to allege his compliance with the

California Tort Claims Act, if he can, within 30 days of any order adopting these

recommendations. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one

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.” Failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: January 28, 2010.

Case 2:07-cv-01646-LKK-EFB Document 115 Filed 01/28/10 Page 7 of 7