Holt v. Gardner
| Docket Number | F083001 |
| Decision Date | 06 June 2023 |
| Parties | CALVIN HOLT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. W. GARDNER, Defendant and Respondent |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Kings County No 19C-0100. Kathy Ciuffini, Judge.
Calvin Holt, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Monica N. Anderson, Neah Huynh, and Martha Ehlenbach, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant and Respondent.
Plaintiff and appellant Calvin Holt appeals from a judgment of dismissal entered after the superior court sustained defendant and respondent W. Gardner's demurrer to plaintiff's third amended complaint (TAC) without leave to amend. We construe the notice of appeal as including an appeal from the order sustaining the demurrer.
In his TAC, plaintiff alleged claims involving several different incidents that occurred in the period 2016 through 2019. In this opinion, we conclude the superior court properly sustained the demurrer without leave to amend as to all claims except for one which relates to an alleged incident that occurred in approximately July or August of 2019 (the "alleged July/August 2019, incident"). As to the latter claim, we conclude the superior court properly sustained the demurrer but that leave to amend should have been granted. Consequently, we reverse the judgment, and affirm, in part, and reverse, in part, the court's order sustaining the demurrer.
During all times relevant, plaintiff was an inmate in the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). On March 7, 2019, plaintiff, acting in propria persona, filed a "COMPLAINT - Personal Injury, Property Damage, Wrongful Death (Jud. Council Form PLD-PI-001)" (boldface type omitted) alleging causes of action for "General Negligence" and "Constitutional Violations" against "W. Gardner, Correctional Officer, et al."[1] in connection with the alleged mishandling of plaintiff's mail.
Plaintiff's original claims stemmed from his attempt to receive mail from the state prison in Corcoran, California. Plaintiff alleged that on April 9, 2018, he was summoned to his "Facility's Package/Parcel Window" by Gardner. At Gardner's instruction, plaintiff signed for receipt of a package. Then, in plaintiff's plain view, Gardner ripped open the package, which plaintiff "immediately recognized" as containing legal documents. Plaintiff confronted Gardner, told him the package was clearly marked "Sheriff's - Civil" so as to alert Gardner that its contents were legal in nature, and told Gardner he violated California state regulations in opening the package. Gardner took possession of the contents of the package and left. He returned to say the package would be kept and then redistributed via "legal mail procedures."
Plaintiff alleged that, after a "reasonable time" had passed, he still had not received the legal documents that were mailed to him. As a result, plaintiff "filed an appeal" with the CDCR's Office of Appeals ("OOA") and pursued relief through the prison's administrative process. He alleged he received the OOA's "Final/Third Level of Administrative Appeal Review" and was interviewed as part of the process. He was told the alleged violations of mail protocols were due to" 'inadvertence.'" In response, plaintiff alleged Gardner violated his obligations under California Code of Regulations, title 15, section 3395, which provides: "Employees must not sleep or be less than alert and in full possession of all faculties while on duty." (Cal. Code. Regs, tit. 15, § 3395.)
Plaintiff also alleged that he filed a Government claim in connection with the above events on September 7, 2018, which "was denied on or about [September] 21[, 20]18 or later"; that the OOA administrative appeal process concluded on or about January 24, 2019; that he suffered mental anguish and distress as a result of the incident; and that he "suffered a default judgment as the result of the mail violation."
On May 31, 2019, the Attorney General of California (A.G.), on behalf of Gardner, filed a Notice to Adverse Party of Removal to Federal Court (boldface type and unnecessary capitalization omitted) indicating Gardner had removed the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.
The district court screened the case and granted plaintiff leave on three occasions to amend his pleadings in order state a cognizable claim for relief under federal law resulting in plaintiff filing his TAC in the district court.
The TAC alleged causes of action against Gardner and other correctional officers (C.O.s) - i.e., J. Vanaman, C.O. Pano, and C. Gonzales. As described by the district court, the TAC alleged "causes of action under 42 U.S.C. [section] 1983; 15 C.C.R. sections 3084, et seq.; and what appear[ed] to be state law claims for negligence." In addition to the claims set forth in plaintiff's original complaint, plaintiff alleged, without limitation, that, on or about October 10, 2016, Officer Vanaman threw plaintiff's mail in the trash thereby depriving him of his mail; that plaintiff began subscribing to the Bayview Newspaper in late 2017 or early 2018 and renewed his subscription in January of 2019 for monthly distribution, but he had only received approximately eight newspapers "for which CDCR John/Jane Does are culpable"; that in 2018, Officer Pano deprived him of a "medical shower" to which he was entitled due to a medical ailment he suffered, and that plaintiff was denied or hampered in his ability to obtain redress for the violation due to various mail violations of CDCR personnel; and that "in approximately July or August of 2019," Gardner informed plaintiff that plaintiff had received a package in the mail containing an extension cord but that plaintiff was not authorized to have the extension cord. With regard to this latter alleged event, plaintiff alleged he informed Gardner he wanted to return the extension cord, completed the necessary paperwork to facilitate the return, provided Gardner with the cost of postage by providing him "10 prepaid indigent envelopes," but that Gardner improperly disposed of plaintiff's extension cord, never processed the return, and never returned the cost of the postage that plaintiff provided Gardener.
Ultimately, on July 17, 2020, the district court dismissed plaintiff's federal law claims for failure to state a cognizable claim, and remanded plaintiff's state law claims to the Kings County Superior Court. The superior court received the remand order on July 20, 2020.
On August 17, 2020, Gardner demurred to plaintiff's TAC pursuant to subdivision (e) of Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10.[2] The grounds for the demurrer were "that the federal claims are barred for lack of jurisdiction and by res judicata"; that the TAC "does not state facts sufficient to constitute any cause of action"; and that the TAC "does not include facts demonstrating compliance with the Government Claims Act." As part of his demurrer, Gardner requested the superior court take judicial notice of various documents filed by plaintiff in the district court after it was removed to federal court and before it was remanded back to the superior court. In addition, Gardner requested the court take judicial notice of various documents filed in the matter Holt v. Vanaman (Super. Ct. Kings Co., 2018, No. CV0082) (the "Vanaman lawsuit") - i.e., the lawsuit plaintiff claimed to have suffered a default judgment in as a result of alleged mail violations committed by Gardner.
On August 20, 2020, the superior court received a proposed second amended complaint ("proposed SAC") from plaintiff despite the fact plaintiff had already filed a third amended complaint (i.e., the TAC) in federal court. Among the exhibits to the proposed SAC were (1) a Government Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 810 et seq.) claim against Gardner signed and dated by plaintiff on September 7, 2018; and (2) a Government Claims Act claim against "Gardner, C. Gonzales, et al." signed and dated by plaintiff on January 9, 2020. The proposed SAC bears a "RECEIVED" stamp from the superior court. However, the Case Summary does not indicate it was filed with the court.
The superior court's Case Summary shows that the court issued an order on August 28, 2020. A copy of the order was not included in the record on appeal, but the case summary describes its provisions as "Directing the Clerk to Receive Pleading from Plaintiff; Order Finding that the [TAC] received March 9, 2020 is the Operative Complaint in This Case and That the Hearing on Demurrer Remains on Calendar" (italics omitted).[3] As described below, an order containing similar provisions was also filed by the clerk of court on September 15, 2020.
On September 14, 2020, plaintiff filed his opposition to Gardner's demurrer. In his opposition, plaintiff argued among other things, that the superior court implied his first amended complaint (FAC) would be held in abeyance and/or filed; that, as a result, Gardner's demurrer was "moot/frivolous" and should have been directed toward the FAC, and not the TAC that was filed in the federal district court; that plaintiff's request to file the proposed SAC was pending; and that plaintiff was being denied prison library privileges to which he was...
To continue reading
Request your trial