Valson v. State of Cal. CA5

Filed 10/27/22 Valson v. State of Cal. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SILUS M. VALSON, F083687 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. S1500CV279903) v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al., OPINION Defendants and Respondents.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Kern County. Thomas S. Clark, Judge. Silus M. Valson, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Neah Huynh and Giam M. Nguyen, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendants and Respondents. -ooOoo-

* Before Hill, P. J., Levy, J. and Snauffer, J.

Appellant Silus M. Valson1 challenges the trial court’s decision to deny his request to substitute parties in a case first filed in 2013 but dismissed in 2014. Our review of the record provided to this court and the relevant legal authorities leads us to conclude this appeal is sought from an unappealable order, and further, if treated as a request for a writ from an unappealable order, the trial court acted appropriately by denying appellant’s attempt to revive the action by substituting in new parties. The order entered by the trial court is affirmed. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY2 On July 24, 2013, plaintiff filed a complaint for damages alleging that while he was incarcerated at Kern Valley State Prison, he was exposed to unhealthy levels of arsenic in the prison drinking water, resulting in plaintiff experiencing physical symptoms or injuries to his heart and circulatory system. In June 2014, the trial court sustained a demurrer to the complaint stating appellant failed to file a claim under the Government Claims Act, and further, that certain claims were barred due to immunities provided under federal law. The case was then dismissed in July 2014. Instead of appealing from this dismissal, appellant filed a motion in the trial court in September 2014 for relief from the judgment, citing Code of Civil Procedure3 section 473, subdivision (b). Concluding appellant failed to present any facts showing

1 We take note of a discrepancy in the record regarding appellant’s first name. While orders issued by the Kern County Superior Court incorrectly refer to appellant as “Silas,” appellant, the Attorney General, and this court all use the spelling “Silus.”