Silva v. Worth et al

Filing 46

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why the First Amended Complaint Should Not Be Stricken From the Record Based on Plaintiff's Failure to Comply With the California Government Claims Act 43 , signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 1/14/2019: 21-Day Deadline. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

Case No. 1:16-cv-01131-AWI-SKO (PC)
ANTHONY SILVA,
Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

WORTH, et al.,
Defendants.

13

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT BE
STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD BASED ON
PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH
THE CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CLAIMS
ACT
(Doc. 43)
TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE

14
15
16

A.

17

Plaintiff, Anthony Silva, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

Background

18

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In Plaintiff’s original Complaint, he stated a

19

cognizable claim under the Eighth Amendment for failure to protect against J. Worth on which he

20

elected to proceed. (Docs. 24, 27, 28.) On May 15, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion to file a first

21

amended complaint, which was granted without opposition. (Docs. 37, 41, 42.) Plaintiff’s First

22

Amended Complaint (“FAC”) (Doc. 43) is before the Court for screening. The only substantive

23

difference between the allegations on which Plaintiff currently proceeds and the FAC is the

24

addition of a negligence claim in Claim II against three new defendants. As discussed below,

25

Plaintiff fails to show compliance with the California Government Claims Act so as to be allowed

26

to pursue Claim II in this action. It therefore appears that the FAC should be stricken from the

27

record.

28
1

1

B.

2

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

Screening Requirement

3

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The

4

Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally

5

frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary

6

relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2); 28 U.S.C.

7

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii).

8

C.

9

Plaintiff is currently housed at Pleasant Valley State Prison in Coalinga, California, where

Summary of the First Amended Complaint

10

the acts of which he complains occurred. Claim I, (Doc. 43, pp. 3-6), is nearly a verbatim

11

duplicate of the allegations from Plaintiff’s original Complaint (Doc. 1, pp. 3-7) regarding events

12

which allowed a riot to occur on the yard where Plaintiff was located, and which were found to

13

state a cognizable claim against Defendant Worth. However, Claim II is for negligence against

14

L.C. Lomber, B. Elenes, and A. Cano whom Plaintiff seeks to add as defendants (“the New

15

Defendants”). Claim II is a negligence claim against the New Defendants based on the use of a

16

“40mm” and “Launcher-XM 1006, Exact Impact Sponge Rounds” to quell the riot. (Id., pp. 4, 7.)

17

Plaintiff must, but does not show, compliance with the California Government Claims Act

18

(“CGCA”) so as to be allowed to proceed on Claim II since it is based on California law. If

19

Plaintiff can show compliance, he may proceed on the FAC. If Plaintiff, however, is unable to

20

show compliance, he should not be allowed to proceed on the FAC, and it should be stricken from

21

the record—alternatively, Plaintiff my voluntarily dismiss the FAC. If Plaintiff is unable to

22

establish compliance with the CGCA, this action will proceed against Defendant Worth on

23

Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim found cognizable in the original Complaint (Doc. 1).
D.

24

State Law Claims
a.

25

California Government Claims Act

Under the California Government Claims Act,1 set forth in California Government Code

26
27
1

28

The Government Claims Act was formerly known as the California Tort Claims Act. City of Stockton v. Superior
Court, 42 Cal.4th 730, 741-42 (Cal. 2007) (adopting the practice of using “Government Claims Act” rather than

2

1

sections 810 et seq., a plaintiff may not bring a suit for monetary damages against a public

2

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

3

Compensation and Government Claims Board (“VCGCB” or “Board”), and the Board acted on

4

the claim, or the time for doing so expired. “The Tort Claims Act requires that any civil

5

complaint for money or damages first be presented to and rejected by the pertinent public entity.”

6

Munoz v. California, 33 Cal.App.4th 1767, 1776 (1995). The purpose of this requirement is “to

7

provide the public entity sufficient information to enable it to adequately investigate claims and to

8

settle them, if appropriate, without the expense of litigation,” City of San Jose v. Superior Court,

9

12 Cal.3d 447, 455 (1974) (citations omitted), and “to confine potential governmental liability to

10

rigidly delineated circumstances: immunity is waived only if the various requirements of the Act

11

are satisfied,” Nuveen Mun. High Income Opportunity Fund v. City of Alameda, Cal., 730 F.3d

12

1111, 1125 (9th Cir. 2013). Compliance with this “claim presentation requirement” constitutes

13

an element of a cause of action for damages against a public entity or official. State v. Superior

14

Court (Bodde), 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1244 (2004). Thus, in the state courts, “failure to allege facts

15

demonstrating or excusing compliance with the claim presentation requirement subjects a claim

16

against a public entity to a demurrer for failure to state a cause of action.” Id. at 1239 (fn.

17

omitted).

18

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

19

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

20

702, 704 (9th Cir.1969); Mangold v. California Public Utilities Commission, 67 F.3d 1470, 1477

21

(9th Cir.1995). State tort claims included in a federal action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,

22

may proceed only if the claims were first presented to the state in compliance with the claim

23

presentation requirement. Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Department, 839 F.2d 621, 627

24

(9th Cir.1988); Butler v. Los Angeles County, 617 F.Supp.2d 994, 1001 (C.D.Cal.2008). Plaintiff

25

must establish compliance with the CGCA to be allowed to pursue Claim II in this action since it

26

is a negligence claim under California law. Although Plaintiff may have done so, it is not

27
28

“California Tort Claims Act”).

3

1

reflected in the First Amended Complaint. Thus, Plaintiff is given opportunity to demonstrate

2

compliance with the CGCA on Claim II.

3
4

b.

Supplemental Jurisdiction

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), in any civil action in which the district court has original

5

jurisdiction, the district court “shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims in the

6

action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under

7

Article III,” except as provided in subsections (b) and (c). “[O]nce judicial power exists under §

8

1367(a), retention of supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims under 1367(c) is

9

discretionary.” Acri v. Varian Assoc., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1000 (9th Cir. 1997).

10

“The district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under

11

subsection (a) if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original

12

jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Parra v. PacifiCare of Ariz., Inc., 715 F.3d 1146, 1156

13

(9th Cir. 2013); Herman Family Revocable Trust v. Teddy Bear, 254 F.3d 802, 805 (9th Cir.

14

2001); see also Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1117-18 (9th Cir. 2012) (even in the presence

15

of cognizable federal claim, district court has discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over

16

novel or complex issue of state law of whether criminal statutes give rise to civil liability). The

17

Supreme Court has cautioned that “if the federal claims are dismissed before trial, . . . the state

18

claims should be dismissed as well.” United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715,

19

726 (1966). If Plaintiff has complied with the CGCA, jurisdiction over Claim II under California

20

negligence law will only be exercised by this Court as long as Plaintiff has federal claims

21

pending.

22

E.

23

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that, within twenty-one (21) days from the

24
25

Order

date of service of this order:
1.

Plaintiff SHALL show cause why the First Amended Complaint should not be

26

stricken from this action due to lack of compliance with the California

27

Government Claims Act with regard to the events raised in Claim II;

28

2.

If Plaintiff did not comply with the California Government Claims Act on the
4

1

events raised in Claim II, Plaintiff shall file a statement voluntarily dismissing the

2

First Amended Complaint; and

3

3.

Plaintiff’s failure to timely respond to this order will result in

4

recommendation that this action be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to obey a

5

court order.

6
7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 14, 2019

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5

.