- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 AARON STEWARD, Case No. 18-cv-04119-SI 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING 12 v. SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING – DUE BY 3PM ON FEBRUARY 28, 2020 13 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is scheduled for a hearing on March 6, 2020. 17 Defendants’ motion contends, inter alia, that plaintiff’s federal and state law claims against 18 defendant Graham1 should be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Specifically, 19 defendants argue that the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), requires that a 20 prisoner exhaust available administrative remedies prior to filing suit in federal court, and 21 defendants have submitted evidence showing that plaintiff did not file a grievance regarding the 22 “rough ride” against defendant Graham. See Duran Decl. ¶¶ 8-9, Ex. 2. Plaintiff’s opposition does 23 not specifically address defendants’ administrative exhaustion requirement. 24 The PLRA provides that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under 25 section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or 26 1 Plaintiff brings three causes of action against defendant Graham arising out of the alleged 27 “rough ride”: a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights; a 1 other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 2 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (emphasis added). The PLRA exhaustion requirement does not apply to state law 3 claims. 4 However, based upon the Court’s research, there is a separate exhaustion requirement for 5 state law claims pursuant to California law. The California Tort Claims Act, see Cal. Gov’t Code 6 §§ 810, et seq. – commonly referred to as the California Government Claims Act by the courts, see 7 City of Stockton v. Sup. Ct., 42 Cal. 4th 730, 741-42 (Cal. 2007) – requires a person to present his 8 claim to the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board (“Board”) before he 9 may file an action for damages against a California governmental entity or employee “for death or 10 for injury to person or to personal property.” Cal. Gov’t Code § 911.2; see Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 905.2, 11 911.2, 945.4, 950.2. The Government Claims Act has strict time limits for filing such a claim with 12 the Board and for filing an action in court after the rejection of such a claim. A claimant must 13 present his claim to the Board within six months of the accrual of the cause of action. See Cal. Gov't 14 Code § 911.2. Additionally, an action against a governmental entity or employee covered by the 15 claims-presentation requirement must be filed within six months following written notice of 16 rejection of the claim by the Board. See Cal. Gov’t Code § 945.6(a)(1). Timely claim presentation 17 is “a condition precedent to plaintiff’s maintaining an action against [a state employee or entity] 18 defendant.” California v. Superior Court (Bodde), 32 Cal. 4th 1234, 1240 (Cal. 2004); see also 19 Harris v. Escamilla, 736 F. App’x 618, 621-22 (9th Cir. May 24, 2018) (applying Government 20 Claims Act requirements to Bane Act claim); Miller v. Adonis, Case No. 1:12-cv-00353-DAD-EPG- 21 PC, 2019 WL 4076441, at *18 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2019) (granting summary judgment on Bane Act 22 claim based on prisoner plaintiff’s failure to comply with Government Claims Act); see also 23 Huapaya v. Davey, Case No. 1:17-cv-01441-DAD-SAB (PC), 2019 WL 4033964, at *4-8 (E.D. 24 Cal. Aug. 27, 2019) (addressing and distinguishing between administrative exhaustion under PLRA 25 and compliance with Government Claims Act for state law claims). 26 27 /// 1 The Court directs the parties to file supplemental briefs and any supporting evidence 2 || regarding whether plaintiff complied with the California Government Claims Act with regard to his 3 state law claims against defendant Graham. The briefs shall be filed by 3 p.m. on Friday, February 4 || 28, 2020. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. Suan Late 8 Dated: February 25, 2020 SUSAN ILLSTON 9 United States District Judge 10 11 a 12 13 © 15 16 it Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Document Info
Docket Number: 3:18-cv-04119
Filed Date: 2/25/2020
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 6/20/2024