# Steward v. County of Santa Clara

> District Court, N.D. California · February 25, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10063175

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. California
- **Decided:** February 25, 2020
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10063175

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10 AARON STEWARD, Case No. 18-cv-04119-SI

11 Plaintiff,
ORDER DIRECTING
12 v. SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING –
DUE BY 3PM ON FEBRUARY 28, 2020
13 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, et al.,

14 Defendants.

15
16 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is scheduled for a hearing on March 6, 2020.
17 Defendants’ motion contends, inter alia, that plaintiff’s federal and state law claims against
18 defendant Graham1 should be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Specifically,
19 defendants argue that the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), requires that a
20 prisoner exhaust available administrative remedies prior to filing suit in federal court, and
21 defendants have submitted evidence showing that plaintiff did not file a grievance regarding the
22 “rough ride” against defendant Graham. See Duran Decl. ¶¶ 8-9, Ex. 2. Plaintiff’s opposition does
23 not specifically address defendants’ administrative exhaustion requirement.
24 The PLRA provides that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under
25 section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or
26
1 Plaintiff brings three causes of action against defendant Graham arising out of the alleged
27
“rough ride”: a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights; a
1 other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42
2 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (emphasis added). The PLRA exhaustion requirement does not apply to state law
3 claims.
4 However, based upon the Court’s research, there is a separate exhaustion requirement for
5 state law claims pursuant to California law. The California Tort Claims Act, see Cal. Gov’t Code
6 §§ 810, et seq. – commonly referred to as the California Government Claims Act by the courts, see
7 City of Stockton v. Sup. Ct., 42 Cal. 4th 730, 741-42 (Cal. 2007) – requires a person to present his
8 claim to the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board (“Board”) before he
9 may file an action for damages against a California governmental entity or employee “for death or
10 for injury to person or to personal property.” Cal. Gov’t Code § 911.2; see Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 905.2,
11 911.2, 945.4, 950.2. The Government Claims Act has strict time limits for filing such a claim with
12 the Board and for filing an action in court after the rejection of such a claim. A claimant must
13 present his claim to the Board within six months of the accrual of the cause of action. See Cal. Gov't
14 Code § 911.2. Additionally, an action against a governmental entity or employee covered by the
15 claims-presentation requirement must be filed within six months following written notice of
16 rejection of the claim by the Board. See Cal. Gov’t Code § 945.6(a)(1). Timely claim presentation
17 is “a condition precedent to plaintiff’s maintaining an action against [a state employee or entity]
18 defendant.” California v. Superior Court (Bodde), 32 Cal. 4th 1234, 1240 (Cal. 2004); see also
19 Harris v. Escamilla, 736 F. App’x 618, 621-22 (9th Cir. May 24, 2018) (applying Government
20 Claims Act requirements to Bane Act claim); Miller v. Adonis, Case No. 1:12-cv-00353-DAD-EPG-
21 PC, 2019 WL 4076441, at *18 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2019) (granting summary judgment on Bane Act
22 claim based on prisoner plaintiff’s failure to comply with Government Claims Act); see also
23 Huapaya v. Davey, Case No. 1:17-cv-01441-DAD-SAB (PC), 2019 WL 4033964, at *4-8 (E.D.
24 Cal. Aug. 27, 2019) (addressing and distinguishing between administrative exhaustion under PLRA
25 and compliance with Government Claims Act for state law claims).
26
27 ///
1 The Court directs the parties to file supplemental briefs and any supporting evidence
2 || regarding whether plaintiff complied with the California Government Claims Act with regard to his
3 state law claims against defendant Graham. The briefs shall be filed by 3 p.m. on Friday, February
4 || 28, 2020.
5
6 IT IS SO ORDERED.
Suan Late
8 Dated: February 25, 2020
SUSAN ILLSTON
9 United States District Judge
10
11
a 12

13

©
15
16

it

Z 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10063175. Public record. Not legal advice.