Troy Anderson vs. Secretary of CDCR

34-2022-00334137-CU-MM-GDS: Troy Anderson vs. Secretary of CDCR 10/15/2024 Hearing on Demurrer in Department 53

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.pdf.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk

34-2022-00334137-CU-MM-GDS: Troy Anderson vs. Secretary of CDCR 10/15/2024 Hearing on Demurrer in Department 53

will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING: This matter was continued from October 8, 2024, for oral argument only. The original tentative ruling is republished below.

Oral Argument will take place on October 15, 2024, at 1:30 p.m., in this Department.

The Clerk shall fax a copy of this tentative ruling to the litigation coordinator. The litigation coordinator shall provide the tentative ruling to Plaintiff Troy Anderson within 48 hours.

The litigation coordinator is directed to have Plaintiff Troy Anderson available at oral argument on October 15, 2024, at 1:30 p.m. Appearance will be by ZOOM. Department 53 Zoom ID is: 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom by phone, call (833) 568-8864 and enter 161 4650 6749#. Appearance is required.

Defendant Kathleen Allison’s unopposed demurrer to self-represented Plaintiff Tory Anderson’s first amended complaint (“FAC”) is ruled upon as follows.

Plaintiff began this action by filing his complaint on December 2, 2022, against Defendant, and numerous government official, entities and their employees. The complaint appeared to allege claims for general negligence, intentional tort, breach of contract, violation of civil rights, medical malpractice, defamation, and professional negligence in connection with incidents in 2017 and January 2020 through December 2022 at the California Medical Facility, Salinas Valley State Prison, and Kern Valley State Prison. On February 29, 2024, this Court sustained Defendant’s demurrer to the complaint with leave to amend.

Plaintiff’s approximately 100 page FAC appears to be essentially identical to the previous version of the complaint except that the FAC does not attach the more than 600 pages of exhibits that the complaint attached. The FAC also includes seven pages which cites various legal standards, the California Department of Corrections’ operations manual and conclusions of law. (FAC at. pp. 6-12.)

Defendant now demurs to the FAC on the basis that Plaintiff has failed to plead any sufficient facts to constitute any cause of action against her and also that she is immune.

A demurrer “tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters.” (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905.) The purpose of a demurrer is to test the legal sufficiency of a claim. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal. App. 4th 968, 994.) For the purpose of determining the effect of a complaint, its allegations are liberally

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00334137-CU-MM-GDS: Troy Anderson vs. Secretary of CDCR 10/15/2024 Hearing on Demurrer in Department 53

construed, with a view toward substantial justice. (CCP § 452; Amarel v. Connell (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 137, 140-141; Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 43, fn. 7.) The Court treats the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law, and considers matters which may be judicially noticed. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d at 318; Poseidon Development, Inc. v. Woodland Lane Estates, LLC (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1111-1112.)

A general demurrer does not admit contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law alleged in the complaint; facts impossible in law; or allegations contrary to facts of which a court may take judicial notice. (Blank, supra, 39 Cal. 3d at 318, William S. Hart Union High School Dist. v. Regional Planning Com. (1991) 226 Cal. App. 3d 1612, 1616 fn.2.) Extrinsic evidence may not properly be considered on demurrer or on a motion to strike. (Ion Equipment Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal. App. 3d 868, 881; Hibernia Savings & Loan Soc. v.

Thornton (1897) 117 Cal. 481, 482.)

A demurrer may be sustained only if the complaint lacks any sufficient allegations to entitle the plaintiff to relief. (Financial Corp. of America v. Wilburn (1987) 189 Cal. App. 3d 764, 778.) “Plaintiff need only plead facts showing that he may be entitled to some relief . . ., we are not concerned with plaintiff's possible inability or difficulty in proving the allegations of the complaint.” (Highlanders, Inc. v. Olsan (1978) 77 Cal. App. 3d 690, 696-697.) “[Courts] are required to construe the complaint liberally to determine whether a cause of action has been stated, given the assumed truth of the facts pleaded.” (Picton v.

Anderson Union High School Dist. (1996) 50 Cal. App. 4th 726.) A demurrer admits the truth of all material facts properly pled and the sole issue raised by a general demurrer is whether the facts pled state a valid cause of action - not whether they are true. (Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal. 3d 584, 591.)

Failure to Plead Facts

As she did in connection with the complaint, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed to allege any cause of action against her. The Court previously held that it had “carefully reviewed the handwritten allegations in the body of the complaint and finds no mention of defendant Allison’s name and no specific allegations about what she is claimed to have done or not done with respect to any of the events/incidents described therein. Coupled with the absence of any factual allegations which tend to establish that defendant Allison as former Secretary of CDCR may be held vicariously liable for any or all of the acts and/or omissions of CDCR employees, defendant Allison’s demurrer to the complaint on the grounds it fails to plead facts sufficient to state a valid cause of action against her shall also be sustained.” (February 24, 2024, Minute Order)

As noted above, the FAC includes the identical factual allegations which were found deficient. The additional seven pages in the FAC which includes seven pages which cites various legal standards, the California Department of Corrections’ (“CDCR”) operations manual and conclusions of law does not cure the defects identified above. Defendant is mentioned once in the seven pages in the allegation that she “accepts all liabilities bestowed upon its employees on behalf of the state and the public entity.” (FAC at p. 10.) But Defendant is not mentioned

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00334137-CU-MM-GDS: Troy Anderson vs. Secretary of CDCR 10/15/2024 Hearing on Demurrer in Department 53

anywhere else in the FAC which sets forth conduct spanning almost four years. The FAC, like the complaint, fails to contain any specific allegations about what Defendant is claimed to have done or not done with respect to any of the conduct in the FAC. Similarly, the FAC like the complaint, lacks any factual allegations which could show that Defendant, as former Secretary of CDCR may be held vicariously liable for any or all of the acts and/or omissions of CDCR employees.

Defendant’s demurrer to the FAC on the basis that Plaintiff has failed to state any facts showing a valid cause of action against her is sustained.

Immunity

The Court previously sustained Defendant’s demurrer on the basis that a number of immunities appeared to apply to the conduct alleged in the complaint based on her status as the former Secretary of CDCR, even though it was not clear what Defendant is alleged to have done or not done. (February 24, 2024, Minute Order) The Court’s previous ruling cited to “Government Code §820.8 [public employee not liable for injury caused by another]; Weaver v. State of California (1998 (Rev. denied)) 63 Cal.App.4th 188, 202 [CHP commissioner immune from liability based on acts of subordinates]; Government Code §845.6 [immunity for failure to furnish medical care for prisoner]; Government Code §820.2 [immunity for discretionary acts]; Government Code §820.4 [immunity for acts in execution or enforcement of law]; Government Code §821 [immunity for injury caused by failure to enforce enactment]; and Government Code §822.2 [immunity for injury caused by misrepresentations].” (Id.)

No factual allegations have changed from what was in the original complaint versus what is now in the FAC which would avoid the immunities cited above and in the Court’s prior order sustaining Defendant’s demurrer. Again, the FAC is based on essentially the identical factual allegations as the complaint.

Given the above, the Court need not address Defendant’s additional argument that the FAC is fatally uncertain. In any event, that argument could have been, but was not, raised in connection with Defendant’s demurrer to the complaint. “A party demurring to a pleading that has been amended after a demurrer to an earlier version of the pleading was sustained shall not demur to any portion of the amended complaint, cross-complaint, or answer on grounds that could have been raised by demurrer to the earlier version of the complaint, cross-complaint, or answer.” (CCP § 430.41(b).)

The Court previously granted Plaintiff leave to amend and he did not cure the defects in the complaint or oppose the instant demurrer. Nevertheless, the demurrer is again sustained with leave to amend. The Court will grant Plaintiff an additional opportunity to amend the pleading out of an abundance of caution.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00334137-CU-MM-GDS: Troy Anderson vs. Secretary of CDCR 10/15/2024 Hearing on Demurrer in Department 53

Where leave was given, Plaintiff may file and serve an amended complaint no later than November 15, 2024. Defendant shall file and serve her response within 30 days thereafter, 35 days if the amended complaint is served by.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.