Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 24STCV11654, Date: 2024-09-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV11654    Hearing Date: September 5, 2024    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Board of Parole Hearings (“Defendant”) demurs to the Complaint filed by Plaintiff Albert J Hamilton (“Plaintiff”).

The Court SUSTAINS the demurrer WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

Background

The Complaint appears to allege that, in 2003, Plaintiff was treated as having a conviction for kidnapping under Penal Code, section 207. Plaintiff alleges that he had no knowledge of such a conviction in 2003. Plaintiff alleges that he did not learn that he had such a conviction until 2014. Plaintiff appears to allege that there is no evidence supporting the kidnapping conviction. Plaintiff alleges that he was assigned 14 points by Defendant in determining his custody level. Materials submitted for judicial notice appear to indicate that Defendant revoked Plaintiff’s parole due to the erroneous kidnapping charge. (Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice, Ex. 4 at p. 4.)

Plaintiff appears to allege that Defendant changed the counts given by the Los Angeles District Attorney (“DA”) from Penal Code sections 245(a) and 422 to Penal Code section 207.

Plaintiff filed this action on May 9, 2024. The form complaint contains two pages dedicated to causes of action. The first cause of action page is for negligence, wherein Plaintiff alleges that he was erroneously convicted. The second cause of action page is for an intentional tort and appears to be a claim for violation of Penal Code, section 4900 for an incorrect conviction. The caption page of the Complaint also references the 8th Amendment and the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which the Court interprets as additional causes of action arising out of the same facts.

Request for Judicial Notice

The Court grants Plaintiff’s requests for judicial notice. The Court takes notice of the Penal Code, section 4900 as a legislative enactment of the State of California. The Court takes notice of the remaining requested materials as public records.

The Court grants Defendant’s request for judicial notice and takes notice of the requested materials as public records.

Legal Standard

“The party against whom a complaint or cross-complaint has been filed may object, by demurrer or answer as provided in Section 430.30, to the pleading on any one or more of the following grounds:

(a) The court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the pleading.

(b) The person who filed the pleading does not have the legal capacity to sue.

(c) There is another action pending between the same parties on the same cause of action.

(d) There is a defect or misjoinder of parties.

(e) The pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

(f) The pleading is uncertain. As used in this subdivision, “uncertain” includes ambiguous and unintelligible.

(g) In an action founded upon a contract, it cannot be ascertained from the pleading whether the contract is written, is oral, or is implied by conduct.

(h) No certificate was filed as required by Section 411.35.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10.)

As a general matter, in a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) “A demurrer tests the pleading alone, and not the evidence or facts alleged.” (E-Fab, Inc. v. Accountants, Inc. Servs. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1315.) The court assumes the truth of the complaint’s properly pleaded or implied factual allegations. (Ibid.) The only issue a demurrer is concerned with is whether the complaint, as it stands, states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.)

Where a demurrer is sustained, leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.) The burden is on the plaintiff to show the court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Ibid.; Lewis v. YouTube, LLC (2015) 244 Cal.App.4th 118, 226.) However, “[i]f there is any reasonable possibility that the plaintiff can state a good cause of action, it is error to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend.” (Youngman v. Nevada Irrigation Dist. (1969) 70 Cal.2d 240, 245).

Discussion

Statute of Limitations as to Constitutional Claims

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations.

The Court first analyses the statute of limitations with respect to Plaintiff’s federal constitutional claims. 42 U.S.C. section 1983 authorizes civil actions for the deprivation of any rights secured by the Constitution. (42 U.S.C. § 1983.) “Federal courts borrow from state law to determine any applicable statute of limitations for § 1983 claims, including tolling provisions.” (Lockett v. County of Los Angeles (9th Cir. 2020) 977 F.3d 737, 740.) Federal courts have determined that California’s 2-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions applies to section 1983 claims. (Ibid, see also Code Civ. Proc., § 335.1.)

The Code of Civil Procedure provides for up to two years of tolling for time when a person entitled to bring a claim is imprisoned on a criminal charge or in execution of a sentence. (Code Civ. Proc., § 352.1.)

Plaintiff appears to allege that the underlying wrong occurred in 2003. Plaintiff was released from custody on April 19, 2009. (Complaint, Ex. J4.) Plaintiff alleges that he discovered the incorrect conviction record in 2014.

Even allowing for a two-year tolling and a statute of limitations running from 2014, Plaintiff’s constitutional claims are time barred. At the very latest, Plaintiff would have had to file his claims by 2018. Plaintiff filed this action On May 9, 2024.

Plaintiff also argues that there is no statute of limitations for the crime of kidnapping. However, this is not a criminal case where the defendant is charged with kidnapping. This is a civil case where Plaintiff alleges that his underlying kidnapping conviction was wrongful. The statute of limitations for kidnapping is not controlling in this case.

The Court therefore sustains the demurrer without leave to amend as to Plaintiff’s 8th Amendment and 14th Amendment claims.  Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he can solve the statute of limitations problem by amendment.

Statute of Limitations as to Section 4900 Claim

The Court next analyzes Plaintiff’s claim under Section 4900.  “A claim under Section 4900, accompanied by a statement of the facts constituting the claim, verified in the manner provided for the verification of complaints in civil actions, is required to be presented by the claimant to the California Victim Compensation Board within a period of 10 years after judgment of acquittal, dismissal of charges, pardon granted, or release from custody, whichever is later.” (Penal Code, § 4901, subd. (a).)

The Court does not sustain the demurrer on statute of limitations grounds with respect to Plaintiff’s section 4900 claim. That claim has a 10-year statute of limitations which would end sometime in 2024. Plaintiff does not allege when in 2014 he discovered that he was incorrectly assigned a kidnapping conviction. The Court therefore cannot determine from the face of the Complaint whether Plaintiff’s section 4900 claim is time-barred. However, as discussed below, the Court finds that the section 4900 claim must be brought in front of the California Victim Compensation Board, rather than the Court.

Section 4900 Claim Generally

As stated above, “[a] claim under Section 4900, accompanied by a statement of the facts constituting the claim, verified in the manner provided for the verification of complaints in civil actions, is required to be presented by the claimant to the California Victim Compensation Board within a period of 10 years after judgment of acquittal, dismissal of charges, pardon granted, or release from custody, whichever is later.” (Penal Code, § 4901, subd. (a).)

Section 4900 does not state that a claimant has a right of civil action. Rather, it provides that a wrongfully imprisoned person may present a claim to the California Victim Compensation Board. Plaintiff must therefore seek relief from the California Victim Compensation Board, rather than from the Court.

The Court therefore sustains the demurrer to Plaintiff’s section 4900 claim without leave to amend. Because the Court sustains the demurrer to Plaintiff’s underlying section 4900 claim and constitutional claims, it sustains the demurrer to Plaintiff’s negligence and intentional tort claims without leave to amend.  Plaintiff has not shown he can solve the problem of lack of a private cause of action by amendment.