Peasley v. City of Scotts Valley Police CA6

Filed 3/25/15 Peasley v. City of Scotts Valley Police CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DAVID PEASLEY, H039749 (Santa Cruz County Plaintiff and Appellant, Super. Ct. No. CV175018)

v.

CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY POLICE,

Defendant and Respondent.

David Peasley, proceeding in pro per, appeals the dismissal of his civil action against the City of Scotts Valley, Scott Freeman, Jayson Rutherford, Mark Lopez and Kami Raabe. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant provides a very scant record from the trial court of the procedure of this case, and provides no underlying facts of this litigation. We glean from the limited record that appellant filed a civil complaint against the City of Scotts Valley and individual defendants. Respondents filed a motion to strike and demurrer to appellant’s complaint.1 The hearing on respondents’ motion and demurrer was scheduled for February 15, 2013.

1 Neither the dates for these filings, nor the documents themselves are contained in the record on appeal.

Appellant, who was incarcerated in state prison at the time, appeared telephonically on February 15, 2013, and requested a continuance of the hearing. The court granted the request, and continued the hearing to February 25, 2013. On February 21, 2013, appellant filed a notice to appear by telephone for the February 25, 2013 hearing. Appellant did not appear at the February 25, 2013 hearing. At that hearing, the court granted respondents’ motion to strike the individual defendants from the complaint. The court also sustained respondents’ demurrer to complaint without leave to amend as to all of the causes of action except negligence. As to the negligence cause of action, the court granted appellant 45 days leave to amend. At some point, appellant filed a motion for reconsideration.2 On March 26, 2013, the court denied the motion. On April 8, 2013, appellant filed a “motion to withdraw/retract.” This motion appears to be a motion for reconsideration of the demurrer based on appellant’s contention that the prison did not facilitate his telephonic appearance for the hearing on February 25, 2013. On May 15, 2013, the court denied appellant’s “motion to withdraw/retract,” and dismissed appellant’s action based on his failure to file an amended complaint by April 12, 2013. Appellant appeals the dismissal of his case. DISCUSSION Although appellant is actually challenging the court’s dismissal of his action based on its sustaining respondents’ demurrer, he focuses his arguments in this appeal on his contention that prison officials did not facilitate his telephonic appearance at the hearing