Arista v. Mule Creek State Prison CA3

Filed 9/27/13 Arista v. Mule Creek State Prison CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Amador)

ALFRED ARISTA, C068541

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 09CV6221)

v.

MULE CREEK STATE PRISON et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Plaintiff and appellant Alfred Arista brings this pro se appeal from the judgment following a grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants Michael Martel, warden, Mule Creek State Prison, and California’s Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). Because Arista has failed to provide an adequate record on appeal, we cannot conclude the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. Moreover, Arista does not dispute he failed to comply with the claims presentation requirements of the Government Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 810 et seq.; hereafter Act), a prerequisite to his maintaining this action. Accordingly, we shall affirm the judgment.

1

BACKGROUND In October 2008, Arista, an inmate at Mule Creek State Prison, was a passenger in a van owned and operated by CDCR. The van was struck by another state-owned vehicle. Arista claims to have suffered physical injuries in the collision. Arista filed the underlying personal injury action in August 2009; the complaint is not in the record on appeal. In his appellate brief, Arista suggests the complaint alleges the state is liable for injuries he suffered as a result of the failure of CDCR personnel to fasten his seatbelt prior to the accident. In November 2010, defendants Martel, Mule Creek State Prison, and CDCR moved for summary judgment on the ground Arista failed to comply with the Act, in that he failed to file a claim with the Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board (Board) within six months of the accident. Although defendants appear to have filed with their motion a statement of undisputed facts and declarations of counsel, these documents are not in the record on appeal. Arista filed no opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Instead, he responded by filing a written request for appointment of counsel to represent him in this action. Arista was also prompted by defendants’ motion to submit a claim to the Board in December 2010, for $15 million as compensation for injuries he claims to have sustained in the October 2008 accident, and to request that the Board accept his belated filing. Following a reported hearing at which Arista appeared by telephone, the trial court denied plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel. It granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, on the ground defendants demonstrated there are no triable issues of material fact as to whether plaintiff failed to timely file a government claim.