Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki, Case Number: 24STCV31056, Date: 2025-03-28 Tentative Ruling

Department 58

Tentative Ruling: The Demurrer to the Complaint is sustained.

This is a wrongful incarceration action. Plaintiff Owens D. Kelly (Plaintiff), a former California state prisoner, seeks to recover wrongful incarceration damages from Defendant California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Defendant CDCR) on the basis that he should have been granted parole earlier.

On February 26, 2025, Defendant demurred to the entire Complaint. No opposition was filed.

A demurrer is an objection to a pleading, the grounds for which are apparent from either the face of the complaint or a matter of which the court may take judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.30, subd. (a); see also Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) The purpose of a demurrer is to challenge the sufficiency of a pleading “by raising questions of law.” (Postley v. Harvey (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 280, 286.) “In the construction of a pleading, for the purpose of determining its effect, its allegations must be liberally construed, with a view to substantial justice between the parties.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 452.) The court “ ‘ “treat[s] the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law . . . .” ’ ” (Berkley v. Dowds (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 518, 525.) In applying these standards, the court liberally construes the complaint to determine whether a cause of action has been stated. (Picton v. Anderson Union High School Dist. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 726, 733.)

Defendant CDCR demurs to the Complaint on the grounds that Plaintiff has failed to allege compliance with the Government Tort Claims Act, the claim is barred by the statute of limitations, Plaintiff is barred from collaterally attacking prior denials of parole, the claim is barred by res judicata, and Defendant is immune from liability under the Government Code.

The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff’s Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when Plaintiff was “over-detained” without due process.

The demurrer argues that before any claim can be brought against Defendant, a public entity, Plaintiff must comply with the Government Tort Claims Act; Defendant argues that Plaintiff failed to allege compliance.

“[N]o suit for money or damages may be brought against a public entity on a cause of action for which a claim is required to be presented ... until a written claim therefor has been presented to the public entity and has been acted upon ... or has been deemed to have been rejected ....” (Gov. Code, § 945.4.) “Thus, under these statutes, failure to timely present a claim for money or damages to a public entity bars a plaintiff from filing a lawsuit against that entity.” [Citation.]’ ” (DiCampli-Mintz v. County of Santa Clara (2012) 55 Cal.4th 983, 990 [quoting City of Stockton v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 730, 737-738].)

“Generally, this claim presentation requirement is an element of a valid cause of action against a public entity.” (Campbell v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 151, 153.) “Thus, a complaint failing to allege facts demonstrating timely presentation of a claim or that such presentation was excused is subject to a general demurrer for not stating facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.” (Willis v. City of Carlsbad (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 1104, 1119.)

Here, the Complaint is devoid of any allegations that Plaintiff complied with the Government Claims Act. (See generally, Compl.,) Thus, the demurrer is sustained on this ground.

Plaintiff cites two statutes as the gravamen of his claims: (1.) 42 U.S.C. section 1983 and (2.) Civil Code section 52.3. (Compl., p. 1, 4.) The statute of limitations for an action arising under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 is three years. (Smith v. Cremins (9th Cir. 1962) 308 F.2d 187, 189-190.) The statute of limitations under California Civil Code section 52.3 is also three years. (Code Civ Proc., § 833, subd. (a).)

The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff was released from prison on August 4, 2017. (Compl., 6:14-16.) The Complaint was not filed until November 25, 2024 – approximately seven years later. Thus, the demurrer is also sustained on this ground.[1]

Accordingly, the demurrer is sustained. Plaintiff shall have leave to amend. An amended pleading shall be filed and served on or before April 28, 2025.

[1] Defendant also demurs on several other grounds. (Dem., 10:21-14:24.) The Court need not address these additional grounds after finding that the demurrer is well taken on the Government Tort Claims Act and the statute of limitations.