Bradford v. Sherman, et al.
Filing
21
ORDER to SHOW CAUSE why Plaintiff's claims under California Law should not be dismissed for failure to comply with California's Government Claims Act signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 4/10/2019. Show Cause Response due within 21-Days. (Lundstrom, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
Case No. 1:17-cv-01601-LJO-SKO (PC)
11
DWIGHT LARRY BRADFORD,
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
SHERMAN, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PLAINTIFF’S
CLAIMS UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW SHOULD
NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH CALIFORNIA’S
GOVERNMENT CLAIMS ACT
(Doc. 18)
21-DAY DEADLINE
17
18
Plaintiff, Dwight Larry Bradford, is a prisoner in the custody of the California
19
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding in forma
20
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 19, 2018, the Court
21
issued an order finding that Plaintiff’s claims under § 1983 were cognizable, but that he failed to
22
show compliance with California’s Government Claims Act (“the CGCA”), Cal. Govt. Code §§
23
810 et seq., to proceed on claims under California law. (Doc. 17.) Leave to amend was granted
24
for Plaintiff to establish compliance with the CGCA in a second amended complaint. (Id.)
25
Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) on May 10, 2018. (Doc. 18.) In
26
the SAC, Plaintiff alleged that a claim had been submitted in compliance with the CGCA and
27
included a separate application for leave to present a late claim, which as of the date of filing of
28
1
1
the SAC, had neither been accepted or rejected. (Id., at ¶12.)1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
If a claimant misses a deadline, within a year after the accrual of the cause of action, he or
she may file a written application for leave to file a late claim. Cal. Govt. Code § 911.4. If
application for leave to file a late claim is denied, within six months after the application is denied
or deemed to be denied pursuant to section 911.6, a petition for relief may be made to the superior
court. Cal. Govt. Code § 946.6. In the SAC, Plaintiff alleged that the associated state law claims
identified were asserted prematurely, and would subsequently be amended or supplemented as
appropriate to reflect the claim’s status. (Id.) Despite lapse of nearly a year from the date of
filing the SAC, Plaintiff has neither amended his pleading, nor filed any motion requesting leave
to do so to reflect the claim’s status.
11
12
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that, within twenty-one (21) days of the date
of service of this order, Plaintiff SHALL either show cause why all claims under California law
13
should not be dismissed due to his lack of compliance with the CGCA; alternatively, Plaintiff
14
may file a third amended complaint which contains allegations showing compliance with the
15
CGCA, or a notice of voluntary dismissal of all claims under California law.
16
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
Dated:
April 10, 2019
/s/
Sheila K. Oberto
.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Plaintiff also alleges that compliance with the administrative appeals process through the prison suffices as
compliance with the CGCA. (Doc. 18, ¶13.) However, an inmate’s obligation to comply with the CGCA is separate
and independent of the obligation to exhaust available administrative remedies on a claim. See Parthemore v. Col,
221 Cal. App. 4th 1372, 1376 (2013).
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?