Greene v. CDCR, et al
Filing
41
MEMORANDUM and ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 02/06/24 DENYING Defendants' 31 Motion for Partial Judgment on the pleadings. (Benson, A.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
----oo0oo----
11
12
WENDY GREENE,
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
No. 2:23-cv-00082 WBS DMC
v.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE:
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE
PLEADINGS
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION, BRIAN KIBLER, M.
KNEDLER, J. FLORES, R. CHANDLER,
S. KELLY, J. YOCIUS, M. KELLY,
M. ZARATE, M. WOODRUFF, E. HALL,
L. OCHOA, B. RICE, A. DAVY, V.
HAUSER, K. OLIVER, and DOES 135,
Defendants.
21
----oo0oo----
22
23
Plaintiff Wendy Greene brought this action alleging
24
failure to protect, deliberate indifference to serious medical
25
needs, and deprivation of familial association under 42 U.S.C. §
26
1983, and negligence and wrongful death under California law.
27
(Compl. (Docket No. 1).)
28
plaintiff’s son, Michael Hastey, who was incarcerated at High
This action concerns the death of
1
1
Desert State Prison and was killed by two other inmates on
2
February 18, 2022.
3
(See id. ¶¶ 1-2.)
Defendants -- the California Department of Corrections
4
(“CDCR”) and various prison officials -- now move for partial
5
judgment on the pleadings on plaintiff’s wrongful death and
6
negligence causes of action on the ground that plaintiff failed
7
to comply with the California Government Claims Act.
8
31.)
9
I.
10
(Docket No.
Judicial Notice
Though a court generally may not consider material
11
outside the complaint on a motion to dismiss, the court may look
12
beyond the pleadings at “matters of which a court may take
13
judicial notice.”
14
551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007).
15
court may take judicial notice of an adjudicative fact that is
16
“not subject to reasonable dispute because it: (1) is generally
17
known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction; or (2)
18
can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose
19
accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.”
20
Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd.,
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 201, a
Fed. R. Evid. 201(b).
Defendants request that the court take judicial notice
21
of plaintiff’s government claim form filed pursuant to the
22
California Government Claims Act, Cal. Gov’t Code § 900 et
23
seq.
24
does not dispute the accuracy of the document provided by
25
defendant and does not object to the court taking judicial notice
26
of the claim form.
27
therefore grant defendants’ request for judicial notice.
28
City of Sausalito v. O’Neill, 386 F.3d 1186, 1223 (9th Cir. 2004)
(See Docket No. 31 at 13-14 (“Claim Form”).)
(See Docket No. 38 at 4.)
2
Plaintiff
The court will
See
1
(a court “may take judicial notice of a record of a state agency
2
not subject to reasonable dispute”).
3
II.
4
California Government Claims Act
The California Government Claims Act requires
5
presentation of a claim as a condition precedent to maintaining
6
any cause of action seeking damages against a public entity.
7
Cal. Gov’t. Code § 905; City of San Jose v. Superior Court, 12
8
Cal. 3d 447, 454 (1974); Mangold v. Cal. Pub. Utilities Comm’n,
9
67 F.3d 1470, 1477 (9th Cir. 1995).
See
“Compliance with the claims
10
statutes is mandatory and failure to file a claim is fatal to the
11
cause of action,” see City of San Jose, 12 Cal. 3d at 454
12
(internal citations omitted), including for actions asserting
13
tort claims, see Donohue v. State, 178 Cal. App. 3d 795, 797 (2d
14
Dist. 1986).
15
To sufficiently present a claim, the claimant must
16
include “[t]he date, place and other circumstances of the
17
occurrence or transaction which gave rise to the claim asserted,”
18
and “[a] general description of the indebtedness, obligation,
19
injury, damage or loss incurred so far as it may be known at the
20
time of the presentation of the claim.”
21
The claim must “provide the public entity sufficient information
22
to enable it to adequately investigate claims and to settle them,
23
if appropriate, without the expense of litigation.”
24
Jose, 12 Cal. 3d at 455.
25
Cal. Gov’t. Code § 910.
City of San
In Stockett v. Association of California Water Agencies
26
Joint Powers Insurance Authority, 34 Cal. 4th 441 (2004), the
27
California Supreme Court thoroughly explained the standards a
28
claim must meet to satisfy the Government Claims Act.
3
The Court
1
stated that a claim “need not contain the detail and specificity
2
required of a pleading” or “specify each particular act or
3
omission later proven to have caused the injury,” but rather
4
“need only fairly describe what the entity is alleged to have
5
done.”
6
adopted).
7
entity notice sufficient for it to investigate and evaluate the
8
claim, not to eliminate meritorious actions, the claims statute
9
should not be applied to snare the unwary where its purpose has
10
Id. at 446 (internal quotation marks omitted, alteration
“As the purpose of the claim is to give the government
been satisfied.”
11
Id. (internal quotations omitted).
“A complaint’s fuller exposition of the factual basis
12
beyond that given in the claim is not fatal, so long as the
13
complaint is not based on an entirely different set of facts.”
14
Id. at 447 (internal quotation marks omitted).
15
has been a complete shift in allegations, usually involving an
16
effort to premise civil liability on acts or omissions committed
17
at different times or by different persons than those described
18
in the claim, have courts generally found the complaint barred.”
19
Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
20
merely elaborates or adds further detail to a claim, but is
21
predicated on the same fundamental actions or failures to act by
22
the defendants, courts have generally found the claim fairly
23
reflects the facts pled in the complaint.”
24
Court explained that because additional “theories [of liability]
25
do not represent additional causes of action,” they “need not be
26
separately presented” in a claim to satisfy the Government Claims
27
Act.
28
“Only where there
“Where the complaint
Id.
Further, the
Id.
The court finds that plaintiff’s claim form in this
4
1
case adequately provides a general description of the injury
2
alleged and gives sufficient notice of defendants’ alleged
3
wrongful conduct.
4
the incident that led to Mr. Hastey’s death, along with his name
5
and CDCR number.
6
that the claimant seeks damages for the “[p]re-death injuries and
7
death of Michael Hastey” and describes the incident, stating:
8
“Michael Hastey . . . was violently murdered by two armed inmates
9
on the yard at High Desert State Prison.”
The claim includes the date and location of
(See Claim Form at 1.)
The claim indicates
(Id.)
The claim
10
indicates that CDCR officials were aware of Mr. Hastey’s “unique
11
vulnerability” to harm by other inmates.
12
alleges that CDCR officials “failed to safely house” Mr. Hastey.
13
(Id.)
14
view of corrections officers” and that CDCR and its employees
15
“failed to . . . adequately protect” him, indicating that CDCR
16
officials were present at the time of the incident and failed to
17
prevent his death.
(See id.)
The claim
It also alleges that Mr. Hastey’s death occurred “in full
(See id.)
18
The claim form closely tracks several of the
19
allegations made in support of the wrongful death and negligence
20
causes of action.
21
defendants were “correctional officials charged with intervening
22
during the attack that claimed Michael’s life”); id. ¶¶ 86, 94
23
(“As Michael’s jailers, each of the Individual Correctional
24
Defendants had an affirmative duty to protect Michael from
25
reasonably foreseeable harm inflicted by third parties, including
26
[the inmates who killed him].”).)
27
28
(See, e.g., Compl. ¶ 29 (certain of the
Defendants argue that the additional facts and theories
presented in the complaint were not fairly presented in the
5
1
claim.
Specifically, defendants point to the complaint’s
2
allegations that correctional officials failed to act in a manner
3
that would protect Michael by placing him at High Desert, where
4
he was likely to be targeted due to his father being a local CDCR
5
guard; failing to place him in protective custody given his
6
vulnerability; failing to transfer him to a different facility
7
where he would not be targeted; failing to search the other
8
inmates for weapons before entering the yard where the incident
9
occurred; failing to fire shots to intervene during the attack;
10
and failing to summon or provide medical care following the
11
attack.
(See Compl. ¶¶ 3-10, 80, 88.)1
12
These details constitute merely additional theories of
13
liability under plaintiff’s negligence and wrongful death causes
14
of action, which also rely upon the allegations cited above that
15
more closely mirror the content of the claim.
16
97.)
17
causes of action -- need not have been specifically expounded
18
upon in the claim, and plaintiff is not precluded from asserting
19
them now.
20
Stockton v. Superior Ct., 42 Cal. 4th 730, 738 (2007) (“[t]he
21
purpose of the claims statutes is not to prevent surprise, but to
22
provide the public entity sufficient information to enable it to
(See Compl. ¶¶ 83-
As a result, these details -- which do not present separate
See Stockett, 34 Cal. 4th at 447; see also City of
23
At oral argument, defense counsel also referenced a
supposed allegation that defendants “disseminated” Mr. Hastey’s
juvenile records. However, the court does not find that the
complaint makes such an allegation. The complaint refers to the
content of those records becoming known among High Desert
officials and inmates, but does not accuse any entity or
individual of disseminating that information and does not appear
to directly premise liability on the spread of that information.
(See Compl. ¶¶ 51-56.)
6
1
24
25
26
27
28
1
adequately investigate”).
2
Further, contrary to defendants’ arguments, the
3
allegations of the complaint “are predicated on the same
4
fundamental actions or failures to act by the defendants” alleged
5
in the claim form, see Stockett, 34 Cal. 4th at 447 -- namely,
6
the failure to prevent Mr. Hastey’s death resulting from the
7
attack by other inmates that occurred on February 18, 2022.
8
claim form alleged that defendants failed to “safely house” Mr.
9
Hastey despite his “unique vulnerability” to other inmates (see
The
10
Claim Form at 1), which fairly reflects the complaint’s
11
allegations that defendants placed Mr. Hastey at risk despite
12
their knowledge of his vulnerability by housing him at High
13
Desert, failing to place him in protective custody, and failing
14
to transfer him to a different facility.
15
that correctional officers were present at the time of the attack
16
yet “failed to . . . adequately protect” Mr. Hastey (see id.),
17
which fairly reflects the complaint’s allegations that defendants
18
failed to intervene during the attack and failed to summon
19
medical care following the attack.
20
assertions, the claim refers not merely to the isolated actions
21
of the inmates in attacking Mr. Hastey, but also the broader
22
context in which that attack occurred and caused Mr. Hastey’s
23
death.
The claim also alleged
Contrary to defendants’
24
It is reasonable to expect that the state, based on the
25
information provided in the claim, would investigate the chain of
26
events leading to the attack, correctional officials’ actions
27
during the attack, and officials’ actions immediately following
28
the attack.
Indeed, is hard to imagine how the state could
7
1
adequately investigate whether it was liable for Michael’s death
2
without investigating those facts, which are inherently connected
3
to both the incident itself and the notion that defendants were
4
in some way at fault for Mr. Hastey’s death.
5
Because the additional theories pled in plaintiff’s
6
complaint “did not shift liability to other parties or premise
7
liability on acts committed at different times or places,” the
8
claim “fairly reflects the facts pled in the complaint.”
9
Stockett, 34 Cal. 4th at 447-48.
See
See also Blair v. Superior
10
Court, 218 Cal. App. 3d 221, 226 (3d Dist. 1990) (where claim
11
alleged that state negligently maintained highway surface by
12
failing to sand it to prevent icing, it was permissible for
13
complaint to assert that state failed to provide warning signs
14
and a guardrail because both the claim and complaint “generally
15
assert[ed] negligence in the construction and general maintenance
16
of the highway”) (cited with approval in Stockett, 34 Cal. 4th at
17
448-49); White v. Superior Court, 225 Cal. App. 3d 1505, 1511
18
(1st Dist. 1990) (where claim alleged that officer assaulted and
19
battered plaintiff, it was permissible for complaint to assert
20
claims for negligent hiring and intentional failure to train
21
because there had not been any “shift in the fundamental facts
22
about her injury”) (cited with approval in Stockett, 34 Cal. 4th
23
at 447).
24
Accordingly, the court concludes that plaintiff’s claim
25
satisfied the requirements of the California Government Claims
26
Act.
27
III. Statutory Immunity
28
Generally, a California public entity “is not liable
8
1
for . . . an injury proximately caused by any prisoner . . . [or]
2
[a]n injury to any prisoner.”
3
failure to summon medical care is an exception to this statutory
4
immunity.
5
statutorily immune from suit under § 844.6(a).
6
See id. § 845.6.
Cal. Gov’t Code § 844.6(a).
The
Defendants argue that CDCR is
Only the negligence cause of action is brought against
7
CDCR.
(See Compl. at 17.)
The negligence cause of action
8
alleges failure to “promptly summon and/or procure life-saving
9
medical care.”
(See id. ¶ 87.)
The negligence cause of action
10
also expressly cites the statute establishing the exception to
11
CDCR’s statutory immunity for causes of action alleging failure
12
to summon medical care.
13
845.6).)
14
failure to summon medical care, CDCR is not statutorily immune
15
from suit on that cause of action.2
(See id. at 17 (citing Cal. Gov’t Code §
Because the cause of action against CDCR asserts
16
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants’ motion for
17
partial judgment on the pleadings (Docket No. 31) be, and the
18
same hereby is, DENIED.
19
Dated:
February 6, 2024
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
To the extent defendants argue that CDCR is immune
because plaintiff’s claim did not provide adequate notice of the
failure to summon theory, this argument fails. As explained
above, the court concludes that plaintiff’s claim form provided
adequate notice of the content of the complaint, including the
failure to summon medical care theory.
9
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?