Jones v. California CA2/4

Filed 11/13/13 Jones v. California CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

JASON EARL JONES, B247752

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC487259) v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Yvette M. Palazuelos, Judge. Affirmed. Jason Earl Jones, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Burke, Williams & Sorensen, Susan E. Coleman and Kristina Doan Gruenberg for Defendant and Respondent.

Plaintiff Jason Earl Jones is a prisoner incarcerated at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison in Corcoran, California. He

is serving a determinate term of 27 years, plus two consecutive terms of 25 years to life.1 Acting in pro. per., he sued the State of California for breach of contract, seeking $7.3 billion in damages and an injunction compelling his release from custody. The trial court sustained the State’s demurrer to the complaint without leave to amend. Jones appeals, and we affirm the judgment.2

BACKGROUND Jones’ complaint alleged that on June 27, 2007, the State entered an agreement whereby it agreed to release him from custody and pay damages for “trespass upon plaintiff’s proprietary trade name in commerce.” According to the complaint, the State committed a “private tort” by filing an allegedly “fraudulent” felony complaint against Jones that resulted in his conviction of “shooting [and killing] a known gang member who’d threatened and stalked plaintiff.” Moreover, there was “gross misconduct by law enforcement and prosecutorial agents in connection with the matter.” The complaint sought, inter alia, damages of $7.3 billion and an injunction ordering the State “to immediately release plaintiff from custody and any purported interest in his person, in accord with the provisions of the agreement ratified by the defendants.”