Opinion
F083990
06-28-2023
ANTHONY L. JOHNSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION et al., Defendants and Respondents.
Anthony L. Johnson, in pro. per, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Danielle F. O'Bannon, Emily D. W. Sweet, Norman D. Morrison, for Defendants and Respondents.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tuolumne County No. CV63818. Frank Dougherty, Judge. (Retired judge of the Merced County Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.)
Anthony L. Johnson, in pro. per, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Danielle F. O'Bannon, Emily D. W. Sweet, Norman D. Morrison, for Defendants and Respondents.
OPINION
SMITH, J.
Plaintiff Anthony Johnson sued the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and two individual defendants. The trial court sustained defendants' demurrer to his complaint and dismissed the case. Johnson appeals the trial court's sustainment of the demurrer. We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Johnson is an inmate who has been incarcerated in the CDCR following his conviction in 2016 of various offenses, including sex crimes. In 2019, Johnson was incarcerated at Sierra Conservation Center (SCC). On May 7, 2021, he filed the instant complaint based on alleged events that occurred at SCC in 2019. He named CDCR, "unknown employees" of SCC, and two civilian physical fitness instructors on the SCC staff (K.D. and A.F.), as defendants.
The complaint alleged that in July 2019, K.D. and A.F. accessed, from SCC computers, confidential information regarding Johnson's crimes and revealed it to two inmates (Catlett and Ferrando) who assisted K.D. and A.F. The complaint further alleged that on August 2, 2019, inmate Ferrando confronted Johnson with information about Johnson's crimes and violently attacked and assaulted Johnson. The complaint asserted two causes of action for general negligence and two intentional tort causes of action, as well as causes of action for civil conspiracy, sexual harassment (Johnson alleged he was "harass[ed]" in that Catlett and Ferrando leaked "information" about his "sex crime" to "the general population"), and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Defendants demurred to the complaints on multiple grounds, including failure to comply with the Government Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 900 et seq.). Johnson filed an opposition 48 hours before the hearing on the demurrer. The trial court rejected the opposition as untimely and improperly filed. In rejecting the opposition, the trial court noted: "The court disregarded plaintiff's opposition as untimely and improperly filed. Plaintiff's opposition was not served on defendants' counsel until approximately 48 hours prior to this hearing, and was not properly filed with the court." The trial court also sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. Specifically, the trial court ruled:
"The Court hereby sustains the defendants' demurrers to plaintiff's complaint without leave to amend. Under the Government Claims Act (Claims Act), plaintiff was required to file a timely claim for money or damages with the public entity, and the failure to do so bars the plaintiff from suing the entity or its employees. (California Restaurant Management Systems v. City of San Diego (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1581, 1591; State of California v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1239.) The failure to allege facts demonstrating or excusing compliance with the claims presentation requirements subjects a claim against a public entity to a demurrer for failure to state a cause of action. (State of California, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 1239.)
"Although plaintiff alleges compliance with the Claims Act, defendants have introduced evidence establishing plaintiff failed to comply with the requirements of the Claims Act. Late or defective notice is regarded as the equivalent of no notice at all. (Rand v. Andreatta (1964) 60 Cal.2d 847, 849-850; Peterson v. City of Vallejo (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 757, 767.)
"Plaintiff's Claims Act notice (claims notice), attached as an exhibit to his complaint, fails to comply with the requirements of the Government Code and is fatally defective. Plaintiff's claims notice fails to comply with the required elements of Government Code section 910, subdivision (1). Plaintiff's claims notice fails to identify any information regarding the facts, claims, basis for liability, alleged legal liability, or otherwise include sufficient information to allow the state to make an investigation on the merits of the claim. Plaintiff's claims notice further failed to identify either of the [individual] defendants named in the complaint. Plaintiff's claims notice cannot rely upon the doctrine of substantial compliance because he has failed to set forth essential elements of the claim, and failed to comply meaningfully with the statute. (Watson v. State of California (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 836, 845; Donohue v. State of California (1986) 178 Cal.App.[3d] 795, 804-805.)
"Plaintiff bears the burden of ensuring that a claims notice complying with the Claims Act is actually received by Department of General Services. (DiCampli-Mintz v. County of Santa Clara (2012) 55 Cal.4th 983, 991; Life v. County of Los Angeles (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 894, 901.) 'If an appropriate public employee or board never receives the claim, an undelivered or misdirected claim fails to comply with the statute.' (Judicial Council of California v. Superior Court (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1083, 1091 (quoting Life, supra, 227 Cal.App.3d at p. 901; DiCampli-Mintz, supra, 55 Cal.4th at p[p]. 992-993).)
"Where a plaintiff alleges compliance with the claims presentation requirements, but the public records do not demonstrate compliance, the governmental entity can request the court to take judicial notice under Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (c) that the governmental entity's records do not show compliance. (Gong v. City of Rosemead (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 363, 376; Fowler v. Howell (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1746, 1752.) This court takes judicial notice of the declarations and exhibits of F. Covey and Nicholas Wagner submitted in support of defendants' demurrer. The court further recognizes these documents were previously submitted in connection with plaintiff's prior lawsuit regarding the same facts and events, Johnson v. Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Ralph Diaz, et al., [citation], and this court previously took judicial notice of these documents in that action as well.
"The declaration and exhibits of F. Covey and Nicholas Wagner demonstrate plaintiff did not comply with the Claims Act, and that after Plaintiff was notified of the defects in his claims notice by the Department of General Services on January 22, 2020, no further response or claim was received from plaintiff. Further, the declarations and exhibits of F. Covey and Nicholas Wagner establish that the claims notice actually received by the Department of General Services does not identify or allege any claim, or any facts or basis for any claim, against the individual defendants.
"The defendants have established no further claim, or amendment, was received by the Department of General Services, and therefore plaintiff's complaint is barred.
"As plaintiff failed to comply with the Government Claims Act, and the time for doing so has expired, the court lacks jurisdiction to hear plaintiff's complaint, and further finds that plaintiff is unable to amend his complaint to cure the defect.
"Accordingly, the Court sustains the defendants' demurrer to plaintiff's complaint without leave to amend."
DISCUSSION
I. Trial Court Properly Sustained Demurrer Without Leave to Amend
A. Standard of Review
"When the trial court sustains a demurrer, we review the complaint de novo to determine whether it contains sufficient facts to state a cause of action." (Glen Oaks Estates Homeowners Assn. v. Re/Max Premier Properties, Inc. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 913, 918.)" 'While the decision to sustain or overrule a demurrer is a legal ruling subject to de novo review on appeal, the granting of leave to amend involves an exercise of the trial court's discretion. [Citations.] When the trial court sustains a demurrer without leave to amend, we must also consider whether the complaint might state a cause of action if a defect could reasonably be cured by amendment. '" (Green Valley Landowners Assn. v. City of Vallejo (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 425, 432.) "If the plaintiff cannot show an abuse of discretion, the trial court's order sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend must be affirmed." (Ibid.)
B. Johnson's Claims Are Barred Under the Government Claims Act
Johnson's claims are barred under the Government Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 900 et seq.). Pursuant to the Government Claims Act, a plaintiff seeking money damages against public entities and public employees acting within the scope of their employment, is required to file an initial claim with the relevant public entity. (See Gov. Code, §§ 905, 950.2.) Failure to do so bars the plaintiff from suing the relevant public entity and public employees. (Gov. Code, § 945.4.) Generally, the initial claim must be presented to the relevant public entity within six months of accrual of the claim.(Gov. Code, § 911.2.) "A person sentenced to imprisonment in a state prison may not commence a suit .. . unless he presented a claim." (Gov. Code, § 945.6, subd. (c).) A claimant must file suit within six months after such a claim is mailed (however, there is an exception for state inmates). (Gov. Code, § 945.6, subd. (a)(1), (b).) Johnson did not assert below, and does not assert on appeal, that he was not required to submit a claims notice under the Government Claims Act prior to filing the instant lawsuit. Accordingly, for purposes of our analysis, we assume he was required, as a threshold matter, to file a claim.
"Claims for personal injury and property damage must be presented within six months after accrual; all other claims must be presented within a year." (Judicial Council of California v. Superior Court (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1083, 1091; Gov. Code, § 911.2.)
(i) Background
The record includes documents that show that, on December 2, 2019, the Department of General Services (DGS) received a claims notice form from Johnson. The claims notice form was not fully filled out. Many boxes on the form were left entirely blank, including the boxes asking for the "[l]ocation of the incident"; a description of "the specific damage or injury"; an explanation of "the circumstances that led to the damage or injury"; and an explanation of why "the state [was] responsible for the damage or injury." Johnson stated he was making a claim for $350,000 but left blank a box asking for an explanation as to "how [he] calculated the amount." Johnson stated on the form that the claim was made against CDCR, but he did not assert his claim was based on the alleged disclosure by SCC staff of his criminal history to two inmates working with them, resulting in one of the inmates assaulting Johnson. Nor did Johnson identify K.D. and A.F. or assert he was unaware of the identities of the SCC staff who made the alleged disclosures.
On January 22, 2020, DGS sent Johnson a notice informing him that his claim was "incomplete." DGS's notice further stated: "[p]lease provide a general description of the injury, damage, or loss that formed the basis of this claim"; "[p]lease provide a statement which explains why you believe the State of California is responsible for the claimed damages"; "[p]lease provide the exact location where the incident occurred"; "[p]lease explain how you determined the dollar amount of the claim"; and "[p]lease explain the circumstances that led to the claimed damages." The notice explained that the Government Claims Program (GCP) "cannot initiate an investigation or take action on this claim until the information is received." The notice added: "We must receive a written response to this notice before we can process your claim further."
Johnson attached to his complaint, a purported letter from him to DGS, dated February 2, 2020, that appears to respond to the deficiency notice from DGS (the copy of Johnson's putative February 2, 2020 letter to DGS included in the record is illegible). At the same time, the record contains sworn certifications from F. Covey, a senior legal analyst with the Correctional Law Section of the Department of Justice, and Nicholas Wagner, a manager with the Government Claims Program, to the effect that DGS had on file only Johnson's December 2, 2019 claim regarding the alleged 2019 incident at SCC (DGS did not receive any letter supplementing the December 2, 2019 claim).
(ii) Johnson's Claims Notice was Fatally Deficient
"The essential elements of a claim are set forth in Government Code section 910. They include (1) the names and addresses of the claimant and the person to whom notices are to be sent, (2) a statement of the facts supporting the claim, (3) a description of the injury and the amount claimed as of the time of presentation, and (4) the name(s) of the public employee(s) who caused the injury, if known." (Loehr v. Ventura County Community College Dist. (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 1071, 1082 (Loehr); Olson v. Manhattan Beach Unified School Dist. (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 1052, 1060-1061 (Olson).)
Here, the claims notice filed by Johnson on December 2, 2019, did not provide any facts or other information regarding the incident underlying the claim, nor did it provide any description of the alleged injuries or identify who was involved in causing the injuries. Similarly, the claims notice did not provide any information as to any liability on the part of the public agency in question or its employees, with respect to Johnson. In short, the December 2, 2019 claims notice did not satisfy the requirements of Government Code section 910 and did not constitute a claim for damages within the meaning of Government Code section 945.4. Furthermore, DGS notified Johnson that his claims notice was incomplete and deficient, but DGS never received a supplemental claim from Johnson. (Westcon Construction Corp. v. County of Sacramento (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 183, 201 [the plaintiff bears the burden of proving actual notice]; Judicial Council of California v. Superior Court, supra, 229 Cal.App.4th at p. 1091 ["If an appropriate public employee or board never receives the claim, an undelivered or misdirected claim fails to comply with the statute."].)
(iii) Substantial Compliance Doctrine Does Not Apply
Johnson argues he was excused from the claim filing requirement under several legal doctrines, including the doctrine of substantial compliance and the "claim as presented" doctrine. As for the doctrine of substantial compliance, under that doctrine" 'the court may conclude a claim is valid if it substantially complies with all of the statutory requirements for [a] valid claim even though it is technically deficient in one or more particulars.'" (Olson, supra, 17 Cal.App.5th at p. 1060; Loehr, supra, 147 Cal.App.3d at p. 1083 [under substantial compliance test, "the court must ask whether sufficient information is disclosed on the face of the filed claim 'to reasonably enable the public entity to make an adequate investigation of the merits of the claim and to settle it without the expense of a lawsuit' "].) "The doctrine of substantial compliance, however, cannot cure total omission of an essential element from the claim or remedy a plaintiff's failure to comply meaningfully with the statute." (Loehr, supra, 147 Cal.App.3d at p. 1083.)
Here, Johnson's December 2, 2019 claims notice did not provide any facts whatsoever regarding the basis of the claim, did not identify any injuries or damages he had suffered, and did not indicate who was involved (or, alternatively, explain he was not aware of the identities of those involved) in any alleged wrongdoing. Thus, the claim form submitted by Johnson omitted material facts and failed to apprise CDCR" 'of the nature of the claim[s] so that it [might] investigate and settle those having merit without litigation.'" (Olson, supra, 17 Cal.App.5th at p. 1061.) The doctrine of substantial compliance has no application here. (See Watson, supra, 21 Cal.App.4th at p. 845 ["doctrine of substantial compliance does not apply where the claim fails to set forth the factual basis for recovery"]; Loehr, supra, 147 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1082-1083 ["Although a claim need not conform to pleading standards, the facts constituting the causes of action pleaded in the complaint must substantially correspond with the circumstances described in the claims as the basis of the plaintiff's injury."].) We conclude the December 2, 2019 claims notice was "insufficient as a matter of law to satisfy the requirements of a claim." (Loehr at p. 1084.)
(iv) "Claim as Presented" Doctrine Does Not Apply
Johnson next contends the instant matter involved a "claim as presented."" 'A "claim as presented" is a claim that is defective in that it fails to comply substantially with Government Code sections 910 and 910.2, but nonetheless puts the public entity on notice that the claimant is attempting to file a valid claim and that litigation will result if it is not paid or otherwise resolved. A "claim as presented" triggers a duty on the part of the governmental entity to notify the claimant of the defects or omissions in the claim. A failure to notify the claimant of the deficiencies in a "claim as presented" waives any defense as to its sufficiency.' [Citation.] '[A] document constitutes a "claim as presented" . . . if it discloses the existence of a "claim" which, if not satisfactorily resolved, will result in a lawsuit against the entity.'" (Olson, supra, 17 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1061-1062.) Here, the claim form submitted by Johnson is not a "claim as presented" as it lacks basic factual information and does not disclose the existence of a claim against CDCR and SCC staff members that, if not satisfactorily resolved, would result in litigation. More specifically, the document did not specify that a specific wrong was committed by the agency, a related demand was being made on the agency, and that litigation would be initiated if the demand was not satisfied. (See Olson, supra, at p. 1062; Green v. State Center Community College Dist. (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1348, 1359 ["There is nothing in the subject letter that makes it readily discernible that appellant was making a compensable claim against the District or that the failure to satisfy it would result in litigation."].)
(v) Johnson's Claim Was Not Rejected By Operation of Law
Johnson further argues that because DGS did not notify him regarding deficiencies in his claim form within the 45-day period for acting on a claim (Gov. Code, § 912.4, subd. (a)), his claim should be deemed rejected by operation of law. The defendants respond: "Because the claim was wholly deficient, and does not qualify as a recognizable or valid governmental claim, or 'claim as presented,' it did not trigger the requirements for a response. Nevertheless, DGS attempted to provide appellant with an opportunity to cure the defects and in that effort, responded to appellant by letter on January 22, 2020, outlining the deficiencies in appellant's Claim Notice. [Citation.] No response was received from appellant and an amended governmental claim was not submitted by appellant." We are persuaded by the defendants' argument that Johnson's claim form did not constitute a claim to which a response was required pursuant to Government Code section 912.4.
In sum, we affirm the trial court's ruling sustaining defendants' demurrer to Johnson's complaint. Furthermore, no amendment can cure Johnson's failure to comply with the Government Claims Act, as that obligation had to be met within six months or one year of the incident and before he filed suit. (Gov. Code, § 911.2; Mercury Ins. Co. v. Pearson (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 1064, 1072 [" 'it is the plaintiff's burden to show "that the trial court abused its discretion" and "show in what manner he can amend his complaint and how that amendment will change the legal effect of his pleading"' "].) Accordingly, we also affirm the trial court's decision to sustain the demurrer without leave to amend.
See footnote 1, ante.
Defendants' request to this court to take judicial notice of Johnson's prior cases is denied as moot.
II. Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Disregarding, as Untimely, Johnson's Opposition to Defendants' Demurrer
"A trial court has broad discretion under rule 3.1300(d) of the Rules of Court to refuse to consider papers served and filed beyond the [applicable] deadline without a prior court order finding good cause for late submission." (Bozzi v. Nordstrom, Inc. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 755, 765; Rancho Mirage Country Club Homeowners Assn. v. Hazelbaker (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 252, 261-262 ["trial court has broad discretion to accept or reject late-filed papers," especially where the relevant party made "no attempt to demonstrate good cause for having failed to adhere to the applicable deadline"]; Mackey v. Trustees of California State University (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 640, 657 [no abuse of discretion by court in rejecting declarations filed three days before hearing date on motion for summary judgment].) Pro per litigants, such as Johnson, are held to the same standards as attorneys, including as to obligations to file opposition papers by statutory deadlines and otherwise comply with the dictates and rules of civil procedure. (Kobayashi v. Superior Court (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 536, 543; Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984-985; Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247.)
Here, defendants' demurrer was noticed to be heard on Thursday, December 9, 2021. Johnson was required to file and serve any opposition no later than Wednesday, November 24, 2021, nine court days prior to the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b); Hupp v. Freedom Communications, Inc. (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 398, 407.) The trial court noted Johnson did not serve his opposition on defendants' counsel until approximately 48 hours prior to the motion hearing and did not properly file the opposition with the court. Johnson did not give the trial court an explanation for the delay. Given these circumstances, we cannot say the court abused its discretion in disregarding the opposition.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Each side to bear its own costs.
WE CONCUR: PENA, Acting P. J., DE SANTOS, J.