Huffman v. California CA4/1 (2013) · DecisionDepot
Huffman v. California CA4/1
California Court of Appeal Nov 12, 2013 No. D063025Unpublished
Filed 11/12/13 Huffman v. California CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DANIEL G. HUFFMAN, D063025
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2012-00091220- CU-CR-CTL) STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Defendant and Respondent.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Judith F.
Hayes, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions.
Okorie Okorocha for the Plaintiff and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Jonathan L. Wolff and Michelle Des Jardins,
Assistant Attorneys General, Vickie P. Whitney and John Paul Walters, Deputy
Attorneys General, for the Defendant and Respondent.
Plaintiff and appellant Daniel G. Huffman, a former inmate at R.J. Donovan
Correctional Facility (Facility), appeals from a judgment entered after the trial court
sustained without leave to amend the demurrer of the State of California (the State) to
Huffman's first amended complaint. Huffman had sued the State and several "John Doe"
correctional officers, alleging in part that he was beaten by the officers and other inmates
while housed at Facility, and that the State was vicariously liable for the acts of the
individual defendants. In part, the trial court ruled the State was immune from liability
under Government Code1 sections 844.6 and 845.6. On appeal, Huffman contends he
could have stated facts sufficient to establish vicarious liability against the State and thus
the trial court abused its discretion by sustaining the State's demurrer without leave to
amend. He further contends the trial court erred by dismissing sua sponte his "Doe"
defendants.
We conclude the trial court correctly sustained without leave to amend the State's
demurrer to the causes of action alleged in Huffman's first amended complaint because
his allegations place his case within the immunity from liability afforded the State under
section 844.6, subdivision (a)(2). However, we hold Huffman has shown he should have
been granted leave to amend to allege a violation of section 845.6. We further conclude
the court erred by dismissing the action as to the Doe defendants. Accordingly, we
reverse the judgment and remand with directions set forth below.
1 Statutory references are to the Government Code unless otherwise specified.
2
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In setting out the background facts, we accept as true the properly pleaded and
material allegations of Huffman's first amended complaint. (C.A. v. William S. Hart
Union High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 866; Carter v. Prime Healthcare
Paradise Valley LLC (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 396, 401.)
From March 2008 to November 2011, Huffman was incarcerated at Facility and
housed in a gymnasium within the general population main line. While there, it was
known he suffered from anxiety disorder and bipolar disease, and was severely depressed
and sick. Despite these conditions, he was placed on the top bunk of a three-tiered bunk.
Huffman was supposed to be under protective custody and constantly checked.
On April 15, 2010, a decision was made to take Huffman off his medications. He
was told he would have to wait to see a doctor. On May 1, 2010, at approximately 2:00
a.m., Huffman was beaten by correctional officers and other inmates and suffered
massive brain trauma and other neck injuries. That day, Huffman's mother received a call
stating that her son had been hurt and was on his way to the hospital, and that she should
get there immediately. When she arrived, the hospital ombudsman told her the incident
had occurred at 2:00 a.m. and that Huffman had initially been taken to a hospital that
could not treat him due to the extent of his injuries. He also told her Huffman had been
in surgery since 4:00 a.m., and that he had severe brain injuries. Huffman was stabilized
and transferred to Scripps Mercy Hospital Trauma Center in San Diego. He underwent
3
surgery for over nine hours and was on complete life support for over five weeks, and on
partial life support from mid-June 2010 to approximately September 2010.
Huffman had a very large right temporal hematoma, several areas in his brain were
bleeding, and his neck was fractured in several places. He came to the hospital emaciated
and with pneumonia complicated by methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus 10. As a
result of his injuries, Huffman has been incapacitated. Huffman obtained relief from his
late filing of a state tort claim, and also filed an application for his mother to be guardian
ad litem on his behalf.
Huffman eventually filed suit in superior court, and in July 2012 filed a first
amended complaint against the State and "John Doe" correctional officer Nos. 1 through
7, asserting causes of action for negligence, assault, battery by a peace officer, intentional
infliction of emotional distress, and disability discrimination in violation of Civil Code
section 52, subdivision (a) (the Unruh Civil Rights Act; see Civ. Code, § 51, subd. (a)).
As for his claim of negligence, Huffman alleges the individual defendants owed him a
duty to take reasonable measures to ensure his safety and security while in their custody,
including properly classifying him so that he was in protective custody, and also breached
a duty to him by "allowing [him] to be severely injured from an alleged fall from a
gymnasium bunk bed . . . ." In his cause of action for assault, Huffman alleges the
individual defendants acted with intent to cause "harmful contact" and "touched . . . [him]
in an harmful manner" without his consent. In his claim of battery by a peace officer,
Huffman alleges the individual defendants intentionally touched him and "used
4
unreasonable force . . . for no legitimate law enforcement purpose" without his consent.
Huffman alleges that the individual defendants' assault and battery was outrageous and an
"abuse of a position of authority" and that they knew he was vulnerable to emotional
distress and that their conduct would likely result in such distress. Finally, in his cause of
action for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Huffman alleges the individual
defendants "discriminated against [him] by refusing to accommodate his injuries and
resulting disability that was either the result of their negligence in allowing [him] to fall
from a higher bunk when he was supposed to be in protective custody, or as a result of a
violent assault upon him resulting in massive head and neck injuries." As to each cause
of action, he alleges the individual defendants were all acting within the course and scope
of their employment with the State and that the State was vicariously liable for their
tortious acts.
The State demurred to Huffman's first amended complaint on grounds it failed to
state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. It argued it was statutorily immune
from liability under sections 844.6, subdivision (a)(2) and 845.6 for all of Huffman's
causes of action, including those alleging injury to him as a prison inmate or failure to
furnish medical care, and Huffman had not alleged any facts showing those statutory
immunities did not apply. The State asked the court to disregard Huffman's contention in
his first amended complaint that the State was "vicariously liable" for the acts of the
individual Doe defendants. As for Huffman's disability discrimination cause of action,
the State argued the claim was brought under the Unruh Civil Rights Act to which the
5
broad statutory immunities likewise applied. It argued the section 845.6 exception,
which imposes liability on a public entity if the employee "knows or has reason to know
that the prisoner is in need of immediate medical care and he fails to take reasonable
action to summon" it, did not apply to Huffman's claims because he did not allege facts
establishing he had a serious and obvious medical condition requiring immediate care.
The trial court sustained the State's demurrer without leave to amend. Citing
Government Code sections 844.6 and 845.6, as well as Civil Code section 52 and Wright
v. State (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 659, it ruled Huffman did not cure the defects in his
original complaint, and that the State was immune from liability. The court's September
28, 2012 minute order, which the court signed, states, "The Court orders the entire action
dismissed without prejudice."
On October 3, 2012, Huffman and his guardian ad litem moved to clarify the
court's order.2 Arguing the State could be vicariously liable for the acts of its employees
if the employees were not themselves immune, he asserted the court's order was vague in
that it did not provide an explanation as to (a) why the complaint did not properly state
2 After completion of briefing in this matter, the State moved to augment the record on appeal to include Huffman's clarification motion and reply, as well as his motion for reconsideration filed on November 1, 2012, the trial court's November 13, 2012 minute order, and the trial court's December 5, 2012 judgment of dismissal. The first two documents are already within the augmented clerk's transcript filed in March 2013 after this court granted Huffman's unopposed motion to augment the record. We grant the State's unopposed request as to the remaining documents, which are part of the superior court file in this case. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.155(a)(1)(A) [on the motion of any party, the reviewing court may augment the record to include any document filed or lodged in the case in superior court].)
6
liability against the State and (b) why the defect could not be corrected with leave to
amend. The State opposed the motion in part stating it was premature: that the State had
not yet filed a proposed order and the final order had not been filed or issued. It also
argued plaintiffs had waived their challenge to the order by submitting to the tentative
ruling, thus acquiescing to or contributing to any error, and that the court's order was
nevertheless clear and complete.
On October 31, 2012, Huffman filed his notice of appeal.3 The next day,
Huffman moved for reconsideration and asked to vacate the court's September 2012 order
to the extent it had dismissed the Doe defendants.
On November 13, 2012, the trial court denied Huffman's motion for clarification.
As for Huffman's reconsideration motion, the court disregarded the motion on grounds it
was not calendared and was untimely filed and served.
On December 5, 2012, the court entered a judgment of dismissal of the action
against the State. The judgment states: "The demurrer of defendant State of California
was fully briefed, and presented for oral argument on September 28, 2012, at which time
the court adopted the tentative ruling and sustained the demurrer without leave to amend.
3 Huffman's notice of appeal was not premature even though it was filed before the court entered its judgment of dismissal of the action against the State. Though an order sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend is not appealable, an appeal is proper after entry of a dismissal on such an order. (See Berri v. Superior Court (1955) 43 Cal.2d 856, 860; Los Altos Golf and Country Club v. County of Santa Clara (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 198, 202.) As we point out below, the trial court's September 28, 2012 minute order, because it was signed, was an effective judgment of dismissal of the entire action from which an appeal could properly be taken. (Code Civ. Proc., § 581d.)
7
Plaintiff was served with notice of the ruling on the demurrer on October 2, 2012. The
court issued an order sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend as to defendant
State of California on October 30, 2012. Defendant State of California is entitled to
dismissal of the first amended complaint with prejudice. [¶] IT IS ORDERED that
plaintiff's first amended complaint against defendant State of California is dismissed with
prejudice, and that plaintiff take nothing from this defendant."
DISCUSSION
I. The State's Demurrer
A. Standard of Review
"On appeal from a judgment dismissing an action after sustaining a demurrer
without leave to amend, . . . [w]e give the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading
it as a whole and its parts in their context. [Citation.] Further, we treat the demurrer as
admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but do not assume the truth of contentions,
deductions or conclusions of law." (City of Dinuba v. County of Tulare (2007) 41 Cal.4th
859, 865.) We review the complaint de novo and determine whether the pleading alleges
facts sufficient to state a cause of action. (McCall v. PacifiCare of Cal., Inc. (2001) 25
Cal.4th 412, 415.) When a demurrer is sustained without leave to amend, "we decide
whether there is a reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment: if it
can be, the trial court has abused its discretion and we reverse." (City of Dinuba, at p.
865.) A plaintiff may seek leave to amend for the first time on appeal. (Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 472c, subd. (a); City of Stockton v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 730, 746; San
8
Diego City Firefighters, Local 145, v. Board of Administration etc. (2012) 206
Cal.App.4th 594, 606.) If the judgment is correct on any ground stated in the demurrer,
we will affirm it regardless of the trial court's stated reasons. (San Diego City
Firefighters, at p. 605; Schuster v. Gardner (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 305, 312.)
B. The State is Entitled to Section 844.6 Immunity With Respect to Injuries Incurred by
Huffman
We need not determine whether Huffman's allegations of negligence, assault and
battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, or violation of the Unruh Civil Rights
Act state a cause of action. Where the issue of governmental immunity is dispositive as
to those causes of action, as is the case here, we may for expediency resolve that question
first and assume that the first amended complaint adequately states those causes of action.
(See Kisbey v. State of California (1984) 36 Cal.3d 415, 418, fn. 3; Lanier Investments v.
Department of Water & Power (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 1, 7.)
Section 815 provides that "[a] public entity is not liable for an injury, whether such
injury arises out of an act or omission of the public entity or a public employee or any
other person," "[e]xcept as otherwise provided by statute." (§ 815, subd. (a).)
Subdivision (b) of section 815 states "[t]he liability of a public entity established by this
part . . . is subject to any immunity of the public entity provided by statute . . . ." Public
entity tort liability is "exclusively statutory" under section 815. (C.A. v. William S. Hart
Union High School Dist., supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 868; see San Mateo Union High School
District v. County of San Mateo (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 418, 427.) Under these laws,
9
"direct tort liability of public entities must be based on a specific statute declaring them to
be liable, or at least creating some specific duty of care, and not on the general tort
provisions of Civil Code section 1714." (Eastburn v. Regional Fire Protection Authority
(2003) 31 Cal.4th 1175, 1183; see also Miklosy v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (2008) 44
Cal.4th 876, 899 ["section 815 abolishes common law tort liability for public entities"].)
Thus, " '[s]overeign immunity is the rule in California; governmental liability is limited to
exceptions specifically set forth by statute.' " (Castaneda v. Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 1051, 1069-1070 (Castaneda), quoting
Cochran v. Herzog Engraving Co. (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 405, 409.)
Section 815.2 subjects public entities to "liability, based on respondeat superior
principles, for the misconduct of their employees that occurred in the scope of their
employment." (Zelig v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1112, 1127; Lawson v.
Superior Court (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1372, 1388.)4 But "that rule does not apply in
the case of injuries to prisoners." (Lawson, at p. 1383.)
Sections 844 through 846 contain provisions applicable to correctional facilities.
As pertinent here, section 844.6, subdivision (a)(2) provides that, with specified
4 Section 815.2 provides: "(a) A public entity is liable for injury proximately caused by an act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment if the act or omission would, apart from this section, have given rise to a cause of action against that employee or his personal representative. [¶] (b) Except as otherwise provided by statute, a public entity is not liable for an injury resulting from an act or omission of an employee of the public entity where the employee is immune from liability."
10
exceptions, public entities are not liable for "an injury to any prisoner" unless liability is
imposed by statute.5 The statute, however, does not immunize a public employee from
liability for injury proximately caused by the employee's negligent or wrongful act or
omission. (§ 844.6, subd. (d).) Under it, a public entity may, but is not required, to pay
any judgment or settlement against a public employee; however, it "shall pay" a judgment
or settlement based on a medical malpractice claim against specified public employees.6
Section 845.6 grants public entities and public employees immunity from liability
for "injury proximately caused by the failure of the employee to furnish or obtain medical
5 More fully, section 844.6 states: "(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, except as provided in this section and in Sections 814 [liability based on contract], 814.2 [workers compensation], 845.4 [interference with right of prisoner to judicial determination or review of legality of confinement] and 845.6 [failing to obtain medical care for prisoners who are in need of medical care], or in Title 2.1 (commencing with Section 3500) of Part 3 of the Penal Code [relating to biomedical research on prisoners], a public entity is not liable for: [¶] . . . [¶] (2) An injury to any prisoner. [¶] (b) Nothing in this section affects the liability of a public entity under Article 1 (commencing with Section 17000) of Chapter 1 of Division 9 of the Vehicle Code. [¶] (c) Except for an injury to a prisoner, nothing in this section prevents recovery from the public entity for an injury resulting from the dangerous condition of public property under Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 830) of this part."
6 In full, section 844.6, subdivision (d) provides: "Nothing in this section exonerates a public employee from liability for injury proximately caused by his negligent or wrongful act or omission. The public entity may but is not required to pay any judgment, compromise or settlement, or may but is not required to indemnify any public employee, in any case where the public entity is immune from liability under this section; except that the public entity shall pay, as provided in Article 4 (commencing with Section 825) of Chapter 1 of this part, any judgment based on a claim against a public employee who is lawfully engaged in the practice of one of the healing arts under any law of this state for malpractice arising from an act or omission in the scope of his employment, and shall pay any compromise or settlement of a claim or action, based on such malpractice, to which the public entity has agreed." 11
care for a prisoner in his custody . . . ." (§ 845.6.7) But, with exceptions not applicable
here, that statute imposes liability on a public employee, and also the public entity where
the employee is acting in the scope of employment, "if the employee knows or has reason
to know that the prisoner is in need of immediate medical care and he fails to take
reasonable action to summon such medical care." (Ibid.) "The first clause of section
845.6 establishes the immunity generally of both the public entity and its employees from
liability 'for injury proximately caused by the failure of the employee to furnish or obtain
medical care for a prisoner in his custody.' . . . The second phrase creates a limited
public-entity liability when: (1) the public employee 'knows or has reason to know [of
the] need,' (2) of 'immediate medical care,' and (3) 'fails to take reasonable action to
summon such medical care.' " (Castaneda, supra, 212 Cal.App.4th at p. 1070.)
By his arguments, Huffman concedes section 844.6 immunity applies to the State.
His sole contention is that he can state facts demonstrating he falls within the exceptions
7 Section 845.6 provides: "Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for injury proximately caused by the failure of the employee to furnish or obtain medical care for a prisoner in his custody; but, except as otherwise provided by Sections 855.8 and 856, a public employee, and the public entity where the employee is acting within the scope of his employment, is liable if the employee knows or has reason to know that the prisoner is in need of immediate medical care and he fails to take reasonable action to summon such medical care. Nothing in this section exonerates a public employee who is lawfully engaged in the practice of one of the healing arts under any law of this state from liability for injury proximately caused by malpractice or exonerates the public entity from its obligation to pay any judgment, compromise, or settlement that it is required to pay under subdivision (d) of Section 844.6."
12
to the rule, including the section 845.6 exception for failure to summon medical care.8
He argues: "Appellant believes that the severity of his injuries were due to a deliberate
indifference to his medical needs by Respondent correctional officers, allowing him to
'bleed out[,'] and only when he was close to death did medical care arrive. Because of
this failure to immediately summon the prison medical facilities, Appellant's injuries
were more severe. These facts, while not adequately stated in the amended complaint,
absolutely could have been stated, and Respondent would then be subject to vicarious
liability for the wrongful action of the now Doe Defendants. As such, the trial court
abused its' [sic] discretion in sustaining the Respondent's demurrer without leave to
amend and then dismissing the case."
The factual allegations of Huffman's first amended complaint demonstrate, and
neither party disputes, that during the events described in the complaint, Huffman was a
"prisoner" as that term is defined under the Tort Claims Act. (§ 844; Lawson v. Superior
Court, supra, 180 Cal.App.4th at p. 1384 [" ' "prisoner" includes an inmate of a prison,
jail, or penal or correctional facility' "].) And, each of Huffman's causes of action for
negligence, assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violation of
Civil Code section 52, seeks damages for Huffman's personal injuries. As we have
explained, Government Code section 844.6 confers immunity on the State from liability
8 Huffman seems to suggest that he may state facts showing the section 844.6, subdivisions (b) and (c) exceptions for injuries caused by negligent operation of a vehicle or dangerous condition of public property apply here. But Huffman does not meaningfully explain how he could amend his complaint to state facts invoking those exceptions. 13
for such injuries. Based on Government Code section 844.6 immunity, the trial court
properly sustained the State's demurrer to the above-referenced causes of action without
leave to amend.
C. Huffman Has Shown a Reasonable Possibility He Can State a Cause of Action Under
Section 845.6 for Failure to Take Reasonable Action to Summon Medical Care
" 'In view of the fact that tort causes of action against public entities are now based
on statute, the general rule that statutory causes of action must be pleaded with
particularity is applicable. Every fact essential to the existence of statutory liability must
be pleaded.' " (Richardson-Tunnell v. School Ins. Program for Employees (SIPE) (2007)
157 Cal.App.4th 1056, 1061, quoting Susman v. City of Los Angeles (1969) 269
Cal.App.2d 803, 809.) We assess whether Huffman has pleaded, or if there is a
reasonable possibility he can plead, specific and essential facts sufficient to support a
statutory cause of action under section 845.6.
In Castaneda, the Court of Appeal explained: "Section 845.6 is very narrowly
written to authorize a cause of action against a public entity for its employees' failure to
summon immediate medical care only, not for certain employee's malpractice in
providing that care. The 1963 Law Revision Commission comments to section 845.6
clarify, 'This section limits the duty to provide medical care for prisoners to cases where
there is actual or constructive knowledge that the prisoner is in need of immediate
medical care. The standards of medical care to be provided to prisoners involve basic
governmental policy that should not be subject to review in tort suits for damages.'
14
[Citation.] Thus, section 845.6 creates out of the general immunity a limited cause of
action against a public entity for its employees' failure to summon immediate medical
care only. [Citation.] The statute does not create liability of the public entity for
malpractice in furnishing or obtaining that medical care. [Citations.] Nor does the statute
make the State ' "vicariously liable for the medical malpractice of its employees.
[Citation.] Although the State is required to pay the judgment assessed against its
employees for medical malpractice committed against a prisoner, the State is immune
from suit directly." ' " (Castaneda, supra, 212 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1070-1071.)
We conclude there is a reasonable possibility Huffman can plead specific facts
sufficient to impose liability against the State under this statute. As we have explained
above, to state a cause of action against the State under section 845.6, Huffman must
allege a public employee, acting within the scope of employment, knew or had reason to
know the need for immediate medical care, but failed to take reasonable action to
summon it. Huffman alleged he was beaten by correctional officers and other inmates,
and his allegations about his ensuing injuries and hospitalization suggest he suffered a
serious and obvious trauma requiring immediate medical care. On appeal, Huffman
explains he can plead that the time frame within which the officers summoned medical
care for him was not reasonable; that after his beating they let him "bleed out" and did not
take reasonable steps to summon medical care quickly enough given the severe nature of
his injuries. These facts and arguments suggest a reasonable possibility that Huffman can
state a cause of action against the State under section 845.6.
15
We are not persuaded by the State's arguments to the contrary. It argues Huffman
never attempted to state such a cause of action in his first amended complaint, which does
not contain any allegations regarding the failure to summon medical care. It points out
Huffman alleges that the correctional officers did in fact summon medical care, which
resulted in him being, in the State's words, "quickly transported from the prison to an
outside hospital." It essentially argues that there can be no liability under section 845.6—
that the officers' actions were reasonable as a matter of law—based on Huffman's
allegations that he was transported, treated, stabilized and placed in surgery within two
hours of the beating. Citing Watson v. State of California (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 836, the
State characterizes Huffman's burden as having to plead the prison guard knows or has
reason to know of the need "of immediate medical care and . . . fails to summon such
care."
It is irrelevant that Huffman did not attempt to plead a statutory cause of action
under section 845.6, as our task on review of the sustaining of a demurrer is to decide
whether he can state any cause of action. "On demurrer . . . , the question is whether the
facts alleged in the complaint might support any cause of action, even one not explicitly
articulated in the document." (Lee v. Bank of America (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 197, 216.)
Having assessed that question, we are not prepared to say that allegations that Huffman
was in surgery within two hours after his beating show that the correctional officers took
reasonable action to summon medical care, obviating liability under section 845.6 as a
matter of law. Further, the State's characterization of section 845.6 liability reads the
16
reasonableness element out of the statute; it ignores the statutory language stating that the
employee must fail to take reasonable action to summon medical care, a question that
Castaneda recognizes is one of fact for the jury. (Castaneda, supra, 212 Cal.App.4th at
p. 1073 [the public employee's knowledge of the need for immediate health care and the
reasonableness of his or her actions in summoning care are factual questions for the jury],
citing Hart v. County of Orange (1967) 254 Cal.App.2d 302, 307.) Here, Huffman has
shown he can allege correctional officers waited to summon medical care while they
watched him "bleed out" and he suffered "massive brain trauma" as a result.
We also reject the State's argument that under Castaneda, claims regarding delays
in medical care are in the purview of negligence and malpractice, which fall outside the
immunity exception conferred by section 845.6. Castaneda does not stand for that
proposition. Castaneda involved a judgment following a jury trial, in which the jury
found the State had violated section 845.6 by failing to take reasonable action to summon
medical care for a prisoner. (Castaneda, supra, 212 Cal.App.4th at p. 1057.) The Court
of Appeal reversed that judgment, holding that the facts viewed in the light most
favorable to the verdict did not amount to a failure to summon medical care. (Id. at p.
1074.) It was undisputed that the prisoner, who was in pain and had a lesion, was
examined by a doctor on intake and referred to a urologist, and then three weeks later for
a biopsy. (Id. at p. 1058.) The biopsy referral was denied because the prisoner was being
transferred to his permanent placement the next day where he would be screened and his
referral would be handled. (Ibid.) The prisoner was then examined by a nurse
17
practitioner and scheduled to go to a urology clinic but he was released to federal
authorities in March 2006, days before his appointment. (Id. at p. 1059.) After his
release from federal custody in February 2007, the prisoner was diagnosed with cancer.
(Ibid.)
On appeal, the Court of Appeal agreed the evidence established the State's
immunity by virtue of the prisoner's examination on intake by the physician and also by
the nurse practitioner who both assessed him, included cancer as part of a differential
diagnosis, and referred him for further treatment. (Castaneda, supra, 212 Cal.App.4th at
p. 1072.) According to the court, the failure of the employees to provide further
treatment, ensure further diagnosis, or monitor him for follow up went to the
reasonableness of the medical care, it was not a failure to summon medical care. (Id. at
p. 1072.) Further, the denial of the prisoner's biopsy involved the exercise of medical
judgment, and was not subject to a tort suit for damages. (Id. at pp. 1072-1073.) All of
the omissions fell under the rubric of obtaining or providing medical care, for which
actions the State was immune. (Id. at p. 1073.) The Court of Appeal held that, "[o]nce
summoned, the quality of medical care is a matter of medical policy and practice,
imposing on medical practitioners a duty to exercise that degree of diligence, care, and
skill possessed by other members of the profession, but it is not a violation of the
employee's obligation to summon medical care under section 845.6." (Id. at p. 1074.)
In sum, we conclude Huffman has shown he should be granted leave to amend a
statutory cause of action against the State for violation of section 845.6.
18
II. The Trial Court Erred by Dismissing the Doe Defendants
The trial court's September 28, 2012 minute order, because it was signed, was an
effective judgment of dismissal of the entire action. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 581d ["All
dismissals ordered by the court shall be in the form of a written order signed by the court
and filed in the action and those orders when so filed shall constitute judgments and be
effective for all purposes, and the clerk shall note those judgments in the register of
actions in the case"]; Brehm v. 21st Century Ins. County. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1225,
1233-1234 & fn. 5; cf. Powell v. County of Orange (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1573, 1577-
1579 [unsigned minute order dismissing complaint was not effective as a judgment].)
Huffman contends the trial court abused its discretion by sua sponte dismissing his action
against the Doe defendants, which denied him an adjudication on the merits. He points
out the individual defendants were not subject to the State's demurrer and could be
identified with discovery, permitting amendment of the first amended complaint.
The State concedes the trial court might have erred by dismissing the Doe
defendants. It argues, however, that Huffman waived the right to challenge the court's
dismissal by submitting to the court's tentative ruling sustaining the demurrer without
leave to amend, failing to raise the status of the Doe defendants in his clarification
motion, and failing to otherwise challenge the dismissal order before filing his notice of
appeal.
The State's waiver arguments are unavailing. It fails to recognize that after
Huffman filed his notice of appeal, which was properly taken from the appealable
19
September 28, 2012 judgment, all proceedings were stayed and the trial court was
divested of subject matter jurisdiction to take any further action in the case. (See Varian
Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180, 189, 196-197; Macaluso v.
Superior Court (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1042, 1047; Young v. Tri-City Healthcare Dist.
(2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 35, 41.) Thus, the trial court could not have given Huffman
relief even had he properly and timely moved for it.
It is of no moment that the parties did not raise the subject matter jurisdiction issue
either below or in their briefs on appeal. Subject matter jurisdiction " 'either exists or
does not exist' "; it "cannot be conferred by stipulation, consent, waiver or estoppel." (In
re A.C. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 854, 860.) The trial court erred by dismissing Huffman's
complaint against the individual defendants, as the State's demurrer did not address the
causes of action against them.
20
DISPOSITION
We reverse the judgment of dismissal as to the State of California and the Doe
defendants and remand the matter to the superior court with directions to enter an order
sustaining without leave to amend the State of California's demurrer as to Daniel G.
Huffman's causes of action against the State only for negligence, assault, battery by a
peace officer, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violation of the Unruh Civil
Rights Act, and granting Huffman leave to amend to allege a cause of action under
Government Code section 845.6. The action shall proceed as against the Doe
defendants. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
O'ROURKE, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
NARES, J.
21
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that while the State is immune from liability for most of the plaintiff's claims under Government Code section 844.6, the plaintiff should have been granted leave to amend his complaint to allege a violation of Government Code section 845.6 regarding the failure to summon medical care. Additionally, the court held that the trial court erred by dismissing the action against the "Doe" defendants.
Issues
Whether the State is immune from liability for the plaintiff's claims under Government Code section 844.6.
Whether the plaintiff should have been granted leave to amend to allege a violation of Government Code section 845.6.
Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the action as to the "Doe" defendants.
Disposition. Reversed and remanded
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“We conclude the trial court correctly sustained without leave to amend the State's demurrer to the causes of action alleged in Huffman's first amended complaint because his allegations place his case within the immunity from liability afforded the State under section 844.6, subdivision (a)(2).”
“However, we hold Huffman has shown he should have been granted leave to amend to allege a violation of section 845.6. We further conclude the court erred by dismissing the action as to the Doe defendants.”