Gregory Smith v. C.D.C.R. et al.

3) DEMURRER

The unopposed demurrer of Defendants California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) and “Ron Bloomfield” (collectively “Defendants”) to the second amended complaint of Plaintiff Gregory Smith (“Plaintiff”) is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

Discussion

This is the third time this case has been before the Court on demurrer. At the last hearing on April 21, 2026, the Court sustained Defendants’ demurrer to the first amended complaint. As part of that ruling, the Court notified Plaintiff that he had one final opportunity to cure the defects in his complaint by amendment. On May 29, 2026, Plaintiff filed his second amended complaint.

Plaintiff is an inmate at San Quentin State Prison. Based on his statements, he is apparently bringing an action for damages alleging he was injured when he slipped on grease on the floor of the prison kitchen. His second amended complaint, however, is once again defective because it contains no factual allegations. Instead, Plaintiff has filed a form complaint that simply asserts causes of action for “contractual liability [sic]”, general negligence, and for an unspecified intentional tort. Plaintiff “CDCR, et al” as the Defendants.

Defendants filed their latest demurrer on June 29, 2026. Although Plaintiff filed an untimely opposition to the previous demurrer, he has not filed a response or opposition to the present demurrer. The failure of a party to oppose a demurrer may be construed as having abandoned the claims. (Herzberg v. County of Plumas (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1, 20.) Thus, the failure to

oppose is treated as consent to the granting the motion. (Calif. Rules of Court, rule 8.54(c); Civ. Local Rule 2.8G.1.) Defendants’ demurrer is sustained on this basis.

Moreover, as set forth in the Court’s prior orders sustaining the previous demurrer, public entities are not liable for injuries suffered by prisoners. (Gov. Code, § 884.6; Towery v. State of California (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 226, 231.) Plaintiff’s second amended complaint does not contain any allegations that could demonstrate liability on the behalf of the CDCR or any individual and therefore fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10.)

Plaintiff is a self-represented inmate and has been provided with multiple opportunities to correct his pleadings. Indeed, at the last case management conference, the Court specifically informed Plaintiff that he needed to cure the defects in his pleading by amendment and that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the action.

Courts have consistently held that self-represented parties must comply with all rules that would apply to represented parties, including pleading requirements in demurrer proceedings. (See Barton v. New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1200, 1210.) Plaintiff has failed to cure the defects of his prior complaint. The demurrer is therefore sustained without further leave to amend.

All parties must comply with Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.10(B) to contest the tentative decision. Parties who request oral argument are required to appear in person or remotely by ZOOM. Regardless of whether a party requests oral argument in accordance with Rule 2.10(B), the prevailing party shall prepare an order consistent with the announced ruling as required by Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.11.

The Zoom appearance information for August, 2026 is as follows: https://marin-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/1605267272?pwd=908CbP6TV2mhCAyai1nzo6lyz2dKaw.1 Meeting ID: 160 526 7272 Passcode: 026935

If you are unable to join by video, you may join by telephone by calling (669) 254-5252 and using the above-provided passcode. Zoom appearance information may also be found on the Court’s website: https://www.marin.courts.ca.gov