Blackburn v. County of Los Angeles
Decision Date | 30 September 1974 |
Citation | 116 Cal.Rptr. 622,42 Cal.App.3d 175 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | David BLACKBURN and Phyllis Blackburn, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. The COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Respondent. Civ. 43068. |
Frederick J. Kling and George A. Mazarakis, Los Angeles, for plaintiffs and appellants.
John H. Larson, County Counsel, Neal Moore, Deputy Counsel, Los Angeles, for defendant and respondent.
Plaintiffs David and Phyllis Blackburn filed an action based on malicious prosecution against defendants County of Los Angeles and certain individual employees of the County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS), Dorothy Gentry, Mary Meyer, and Mildred Reed. The trial court sustained the County's demurrer to plaintiffs' amended complaint without leave to amend and dismissed the action as to the County.
The sole issue on appeal is the constitutionality of sections 815.2, subdivision (b), and 821.6 of the Government Code, which, in combined effect, immunize the County for liability for malicious prosecution.
Plaintiffs' first amended complaint 1 alleges that defendants Gentry, Meyer and Reed, employees of the DPSS, filed a criminal complaint report in January 1972 with the district attorney, accusing plaintiffs of grand theft. (Pen.Code, § 487, subd. 1.) Plaintiffs were arrested, detained, charged by information, arraigned Plaintiffs allege that Gentry, Meyer and Reed acted without probable cause and maliciously, and defendant County knew or should have known that the charges were made without probable cause and done with the intent to vex, harass and injure plaintiffs.
and held for a preliminary hearing. In March 1972 the charges were dismissed for lack of evidence indicating probable cause. In April 1972 defendants Gentry, Meyer and Reed filed the same criminal complaint with the district attorney. Again, plaintiffs were arrested, detained, charged by information, arraigned and held for preliminary hearing. Again, in August 1972, the charges were dismissed for lack of evidence indicating probable cause.
A claim was filed with the County and denied. The complaint sought damages of twelve million dollars.
Plaintiffs' action against the County DPSS employees is barred under section 821.6 of the Government Code, which provides: 'A public employee is not liable for injury caused by his instituting or prosecuting any judicial or administrative proceeding within the scope of his employment, even if he acts maliciously and without probable cause.' Their action against the County is barred by section 815.2, subdivision (b): '(A) public entity is not liable for an injury resulting from an act or omission of an employee of the public entity where the employee is immune from liability.'
These statutes have been held to mean what they say. (Shakespeare v. City of Pasadena, 230 Cal.App.2d 375, 382--383, 40 Cal.Rptr. 863.) The statutes, however, add nothing new to California law. Plaintiffs acknowledge what the Legislative Committee summed up:
Plaintiffs contend, however, that section 821.6 denies them due process of law, because the 'legislation has completely abridged the right of a citizen to appear in a court of justice to seek redress . . ..'
The constitutionality of other restrictive liability statutes has been upheld against challenges that they violate due process, equal protection, or both. (County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, 62 Cal.2d 839, 846, 44 Cal.Rptr. 796, 402 P.2d 868 (§ 854.8); Goff v. County of Los Angeles, 254 Cal.App.2d 45, 51, 61 Cal.Rptr. 840 (same); Hughes v. County of San Diego, 35 Cal.App.3d 349, 353, 110 Cal.Rptr. 754 (§ 844.6); Sanders v. County of Yuba, 247 Cal.App.2d 748, 754--755, 55 Cal.Rptr. 852 (same); Reed v. City & County of San Francisco, 237 Cal.App.2d 23, 24--25, 46 Cal.Rptr. 543 (same).)
That the sections found valid in the cited cases limited, rather than eliminated, an aggrieved person's remedies makes no difference First, County of Sacramento v. Superior Court, 8 Cal.3d 479, 105 Cal.Rptr. 374, 503 P.2d 1382, in holding that section 845.8, which immunizes both the public entity and the public employee, extended to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gates v. Superior Court
...147 Cal.Rptr. 323; Schonfeld v. City of Vallejo (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 401, 419, 123 Cal.Rptr. 669; Blackburn v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 175, 177-178, 116 Cal.Rptr. 622; Burgdorf v. Funder (1966) 246 Cal.App.2d 443, 448-449, 54 Cal.Rptr. 805.) The causes of action at issue ......
-
Martinez v. City of Los Angeles
...summary judgment on that claim in favor of the LAPD. See also Cal. Gov't Code § 815.2(b) (West 1995); 5 Blackburn v. County of Los Angeles, 42 Cal.App.3d 175, 116 Cal.Rptr. 622 (1974). b. Prolonged Detention Martinez also claims the LAPD falsely imprisoned him by allowing him to remain in j......
-
Jenkins v. County of Orange, G006543
...that is a principal use of the statute. [Citations.]" (Id., at p. 497, 203 Cal.Rptr. 33.) The court in Blackburn v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 175, 178, 116 Cal.Rptr. 622 held a criminal investigation fell within the protection of section 821.6: " 'When the duty to investiga......
-
Hernandez v. City of Oakley
...under Cal. Gov't. Code Section 821.6. Id. (citing Cappucio, Inc. v. Harmon, 208 Cal. App. 3d 1496, 1501 (1989); Blackburn v. County of L.A., 42 Cal. App. 3d 175, 177-178 (1974)). D. Opposition In his Opposition brief, Hernandez cites sixteen facts that he believes are still in dispute, argu......