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