-EFB (PC) Degner v Athanassious, No. 2:2010cv01673 - Document 21 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 5/20/11 RECOMMENDING that 17 MOTION for JUDGMENT on the pleadings as to plaintiffs state law negligence claim be granted. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections to F&R due within 14 days.(Dillon, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-EFB (PC) Degner v Athanassious Doc. 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DONALD DEGNER, 11 12 13 Plaintiff, vs. ATHANASSIOUS, 14 Defendant. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / 15 16 No. CIV S-10-1673 JAM EFB P Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel and in forma pauperis in an action 17 brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On October 7, 2010, the court screened plaintiff’s June 30, 19 2010 complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and found that it stated a cognizable claim for 20 relief against defendant Athanassious. Liberally construed, the complaint alleges both a state 21 law negligence claim and an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim. 22 On March 29, 2011, defendant Athanassious moved under Rule 12(c) of the Federal 23 Rules of Civil Procedure for judgment on plaintiff’s state law negligence claim on the ground 24 that plaintiff had not plead compliance with the California Government Claims Act (“Act”).1 25 26 1 Athanassious filed an answer on February 11, 2011. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 The Act requires that a plaintiff who seeks to prosecute a claim for damages against a state 2 employee first present that claim to the California Victim Compensation and Government Board 3 within six months of the accrual of the claim, to obtain leave to file a late claim, or to obtain 4 judicial relief from the claim-presentation requirement. Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 905, 905.2, 910, 5 911.2, 911.4, 911.6, 945.4, 950-950.2; California v. Super. Ct. (Bodde), 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1245 6 (2004). To state a tort claim against a state employee, the plaintiff must allege compliance with 7 the presentation requirement. Bodde, 32 Cal.4th at 1245; Karim-Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep’t, 8 839 F.2d 621, 627 (9th Cir. 1988). Plaintiff did not allege such compliance in his complaint. 9 On May 4, 2011, plaintiff filed a “Letter to U.S. District Judge and Magistrate Judge,” 10 requesting that the court “take judicial notice that [he] did not file [his] complaint under 11 negligence [], but rather deliberate indifference.” Dckt. No. 20. Plaintiff requested that the court 12 deny defendant’s motion on that ground. The court construes plaintiff’s letter as a statement of 13 non-opposition to dismissal of plaintiff’s state law negligence claim, on the ground that plaintiff 14 did not to intend to pursue a negligence claim, but rather intended to pursue only an Eighth 15 Amendment deliberate indifference claim. 16 Given that plaintiff has not alleged compliance with California’s tort claim presentation 17 rules, and that he does not oppose dismissal of any state law negligence claim, the court finds 18 that defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the negligence claim must be 19 granted. 20 21 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendant’s March 29, 2011 motion for judgment on the pleadings as to plaintiff’s state law negligence claim be granted. 22 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 23 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 24 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 25 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 26 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 2 1 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 2 Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 Dated: May 20, 2011. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
