Lopez v. Lee
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:23-cv-03660
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Lopez v. Lee, Judge Gilliam granted defendants’ partial dismissal motion and dismissed Lopez’s California Bane Act claim.
Andrew Lopez’s California Bane Act claim was dismissed. The ruling concerned claims against the named correctional officials; the order did not decide the separate First Amendment allegations.
What happened
Andrew Lopez, an incarcerated plaintiff proceeding without a lawyer, sued correctional officials under federal civil-rights law. He alleged that the officials threatened to restrict his phone calls, time outside his cell, and showers in retaliation for grievances, and he asserted claims under the First Amendment and California’s Bane Act.
The defendants asked the court to dismiss the Bane Act claim because Lopez did not allege that he complied with California’s Government Claims Act or explain why compliance was excused. The court agreed that this requirement applied because Lopez sought damages for a state-law claim against public employees.
In Lopez v. Lee, Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted defendants’ partial motion to dismiss and dismissed the Bane Act claim. The dismissal was without prejudice to seeking leave to amend, but any amendment would need to show compliance with the Government Claims Act or an applicable excuse.
The detailed version
- Lopez v. Lee · No. 4:23-cv-03660
- Haywood Gilliam
- Feb. 25, 2025
Background
Andrew Lopez, an inmate at San Quentin State Prison, filed a civil-rights action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint names Pelican Bay State Prison officers S. Cupp, Hammer, Cross, M. Lee, Brewer, and K. Davis. It alleges that, between May 2020 and March 2021, the defendants retaliated against Lopez’s grievance activity by threatening to deprive him of phone calls, out-of-cell time, or showers. The complaint asserted First Amendment and California Bane Act claims and sought declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, fees, and costs.
Motion and legal standard
The defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss the Bane Act claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint legally states a claim. They argued that Lopez failed to allege compliance with California’s Government Claims Act or facts excusing compliance. The court considered the allegations in the complaint under the usual motion-to-dismiss standard, accepting factual allegations as true but not accepting unsupported legal conclusions as facts.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that California’s Government Claims Act requires a person seeking money damages from a public entity or its employee to timely present a written claim to the relevant public entity and, after rejection, timely file the lawsuit. Compliance with that claim-presentation requirement must be alleged for a state-law tort claim to survive a motion to dismiss.
The court concluded that the Bane Act claim was subject to this requirement because it was a state-law claim seeking damages and the defendants were public employees. Lopez’s complaint did not allege compliance with the Government Claims Act or facts excusing compliance. The court noted that Lopez had implied in a filing seeking more time to respond that he may have presented a claim, but he had not directly alleged compliance or provided evidence of it.
Disposition
The court granted defendants’ partial motion to dismiss and dismissed Lopez’s Bane Act claim. The dismissal was without prejudice to seeking leave to amend the complaint to plead compliance with the Government Claims Act. Any request to amend would have to include a showing that Lopez had complied with the Act or was excused from compliance. The court stated that it would set a briefing schedule on the dispositive motion after addressing a pending discovery motion, and it terminated the motion addressed by the order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.