Redmayne-Titley v. Palumbo CA4/1 (2013) · DecisionDepot
Redmayne-Titley v. Palumbo CA4/1
California Court of Appeal Jun 28, 2013 No. D062043Unpublished
Filed 6/28/13 Redmayne-Titley v. Palumbo CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
BRETT REDMAYNE-TITLEY, D062043
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2010-00061785- CU-NP-CTL) JONI FRANCINE PALUMBO,
Defendant and Respondent.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Robert P. Dahlquist, Judge. Affirmed.
Brett Redmayne-Titley, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Thomas E. Montgomery, County Counsel, and James M. Chapin, Deputy County
Counsel, for Defendant and Respondent.
Brett Redmayne-Titley appeals from a summary judgment in favor of Joni Francine
Palumbo, an Animal Control Officer for the County of San Diego. Redmayne-Titley
contends the trial court erred in finding (1) he was required to file a government claim
under the California Tort Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 900 et seq.) as a precondition to filing
his lawsuit, and (2) he could not maintain his claim against Palumbo under 42 United
States Code section 1983 (section 1983). We find no merit to Redmayne-Titley's
because it is presumed that the prosecutor filing the complaint exercised independent
judgment in determining that probable cause for an accused's arrest exists at that time."
6
(Id. at p. 266.) The filing of charges "break[s] the chain of causation between an arrest and
prosecution." (Id. at p. 267.) "This presumption may be rebutted, however. For example,
a showing that the district attorney was pressured or caused by the investigating officers to
act contrary to his independent judgment will rebut the presumption and remove the
immunity." (Id. at p. 266.)
Here, Greenwood, the deputy district attorney, testified that he exercised
independent judgment in determining which charges to file. Redmayne-Titley did not
present any admissible evidence to the trial court rebutting Greenwood's testimony or
demonstrating that Palumbo was motivated by personal animus against Redmayne-Titley.
In the absence of such evidence, the trial court properly granted summary judgment in
favor of Palumbo.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Palumbo is entitled to costs on appeal.
MCINTYRE, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
O'ROURKE, J.
AARON, J.
7
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that the plaintiff's state law claims were barred for failure to comply with the California Tort Claims Act and that his section 1983 claim failed because he did not rebut the presumption that the prosecutor exercised independent judgment in filing charges.
Issues
Whether the plaintiff was required to file a government claim under the California Tort Claims Act as a precondition to his lawsuit.
Whether the plaintiff could maintain a section 1983 claim against the defendant despite the prosecutor's independent judgment in filing charges.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“The evidence before the trial court demonstrates that all of the tortious conduct Redmayne-Titley alleges was within the scope of Palumbo's employment as an Animal Control Officer.”
“Redmayne-Titley did not present any admissible evidence to the trial court rebutting Greenwood's testimony or demonstrating that Palumbo was motivated by personal animus against Redmayne-Titley.”