Wheeler v. Sahni CA4/1
Filed 2/26/21 Wheeler v. Sahni CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
ERIC WHEELER, D076967
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2019-00012041-CU-NP-CTL) NAMEETA SAHNI et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Randa Trapp, Judge. Affirmed. Eric Wheeler, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Monica N. Anderson, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Neah Huynh and Andrew M. Gibson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendants and Respondents. Eric Wheeler is a self-represented litigant incarcerated at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility. He appeals from a judgment of dismissal entered after the court sustained a demurrer to all causes of action in his operative second amended complaint without leave to amend. Respondents are three psychologists employed by the California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation. Wheeler contends: (1) respondents are not entitled to immunity under Civil Code section 47, subdivision (b) and Government Code sections 820.2, 845.8, and 855.8, as the Information Practices Act of 1977 (IPA; Civ. Code, § 1798 et seq.)1 applies and is mandatory; and (2) his claims are not barred by the favorable termination doctrine set forth in Heck v. Humphrey (1994) 512 U.S. 477 (Heck) and Yount v. City of Sacramento (2008) 43 Cal.4th 885 (Yount). We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Wheeler sued Dr. Nameeta Sahni, who prepared a comprehensive risk assessment report (CRA) about Wheeler for use at his parole hearing, at which he was denied parole. Wheeler also sued Dr. Sahni’s supervisor, Dr. Jasmine Tehrani, who reviewed the CRA, and Chief Psychologist Dr. Cliff Kusaj, who approved it. Wheeler alleged state law causes of action for negligence, defamation, and violation of the IPA, as well as one federal cause of action for violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause. Wheeler sought $200,000 in compensatory and punitive damages.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)