Rhoden v. County of Orange CA4/3

Filed 4/27/16 Rhoden v. County of Orange CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

LAWTIS DONALD RHODEN, G051321 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 30-2014-00705339) v. OPINION COUNTY OF ORANGE,

Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Franz E. Miller, Judge. Affirmed. Lawtis Donald Rhoden, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Lawrence Beach Allen & Choi, David D. Lawrence, Christina M. Sprenger, and Daniel S. Cha for Defendant and Respondent. * * *

Lawtis Donald Rhoden appeals from the trial court’s order denying his petition under Government Code 946.6 (all further undesignated statutory references are to this code) for a declaration he timely notified the County of Orange he intended to file a lawsuit seeking money damages for his alleged false imprisonment when he remained civilly confined under the Sexually Violent Predators Act. (SVP Act, or SVPA; Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 6600 et seq.) But Rhoden misapprehends the nature and purpose of section 946.6, which invests the trial court with discretion to relieve a petitioner from untimely presentation of his or her claim “through mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect unless the public entity establishes that it would be prejudiced . . . .” (§ 946.6, subd. (c)(1); cf. Code Civ. Proc., § 473.) Accordingly, the trial court was not required to entertain or decide Rhoden’s assertion his notice to the county was timely; he could have put that claim to the test by filing his lawsuit, which the record suggests he never did. As we explain, the trial court did not err in rejecting Rhoden’s alternative argument that if his notice to the county was untimely, he should be relieved under section 946.6 because he could not timely calculate a precise damages figure for his false imprisonment. We therefore affirm the trial court’s order. I FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND According to Rhoden’s petition, in January 2013 after successive SVPA proceedings had resulted in his civil commitment for nine years at Coalinga State Hospital, a Department of Mental Health evaluator reviewed and updated her report to reflect her revised conclusion that Rhoden, now in his 60’s, was not likely to reoffend upon his release. According to Rhoden: “At that point in time, [all] state SVP evaluators were of the opinion that [he] did NOT meet the SVPA criteria and was ‘not likely to reoffend.’” (Second brackets added.) The record is not clear, but apparently the district attorney did not agree, and in the ensuing SVP commitment proceeding either located an evaluator who testified Rhoden remained a serious risk, or otherwise persuaded a jury the