CUEVA’s Demurrer
Case No. CU23-02408
CUEVA’s Demurrer
Defendant D. CUEVA (“CUEVA,” erroneously sued as WARDEN OF CALIFORNIA MEDICAL FACILITY) demurs to Plaintiff TROY ANDERSON’s complaint for negligence and intentional tort.
Legal Standard on Demurrer. “The function of a demurrer is to test the sufficiency of the complaint as a matter of law.” (Holiday Matinee, Inc. v. Rambus, Inc. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1413, 1420.) A complaint is sufficient if it alleges ultimate rather than evidentiary facts, but the plaintiff must set forth the essential facts of his or her case “with reasonable precision and with particularity sufficient to acquaint [the] defendant with the nature, source and extent” of the plaintiff’s claim. (Doheny Park Terrace Homeowners Assn., Inc. v.
Truck Ins. Exchange (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1099.) Legal conclusions are insufficient. (Id. at 1098–1099; Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 551, fn. 5 [ultimate facts sufficient].) The Court “assume[s] the truth of the allegations in the complaint, but do[es] not assume the truth of contentions, deductions, or conclusions of law.” (California Logistics, Inc. v. State of California (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 242, 247.)
Analysis. Plaintiff’s complaint does not state a cause of action against CUEVA. The complaint states that Plaintiff brought some of his concerns to CUEVA on April 22, 2022 and CUEVA agreed with Plaintiff that Plaintiff having to wear a control jumpsuit during emergency medical transports was unreasonable; CUEVA then directed his subordinates to enforce his orders. The complaint also states that CUEVA would approve Plaintiff’s phone calls to a legal help center but another defendant, B. EBERT, would interfere and delay or deny the calls. There is no cognizable action stated against CUEVA in these allegations.
Leave to Amend. Leave to amend is proper where identified defects are amenable to cure. (Vaccaro v. Kaiman (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 761, 768
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Plaintiff filed opposition to the demurrer on April 17, 2026. The opposition papers include a proposed amended complaint. However, the proposed amended complaint is substantially a restatement of the operative complaint and so does not demonstrate a reasonable possibility that amendment would cure the lack of a cognizable action against CUEVA in the operative complaint. Where the proposed amended complaint adds new material it adds only legal argument and allegations of general inequality in the prison system that do not implicate CUEVA specifically.
Conclusion. CUEVA’s demurrer is sustained without leave to amend.
JAVON CHRISTINA ROSS vs. RONALD DEAN SCRIVNER; ET AL.