Tamrat v. Rhodes
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:20-cv-01323
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Tamrat v. Rhodes, Judge Hamilton denied reconsideration and a stay, requiring Herman Tamrat to show compliance with California’s claims law.
Herman Tamrat, the unnamed police chief defendant who had previously been dismissed, and the two defendants on whom the court had ordered service.
What happened
In Tamrat v. Rhodes, the court denied Herman Tamrat’s request to reconsider the earlier dismissal of a police chief defendant. Tamrat argued that the police chief could be liable under state law, but the court said his filings did not show complete compliance with California’s Government Claims Act.
The court said Tamrat stated that he had timely submitted a claim but had never received a response from the claims board. It allowed him to submit exhibits showing proper compliance by March 29, 2021; if he does so, the court will screen his legal claims. The court also denied his request to pause the case while he remained in custody.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order on February 26, 2021. The order denied both the motion for reconsideration and the request for a stay.
The detailed version
- Tamrat v. Rhodes · No. 4:20-cv-01323
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Feb. 26, 2021
Background
Herman Tamrat, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court had recently ordered service of his third amended complaint on two defendants but dismissed a police chief defendant because Tamrat had not linked that defendant to the incident or stated a valid claim for municipal liability under Monell.
Tamrat moved for reconsideration, arguing that the police chief was liable under state law and should remain in the case. The court analyzed California’s Government Claims Act, which generally requires a person to present certain injury claims to the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board before suing a California governmental entity or employee. The court stated that timely claim presentation and action on or rejection of the claim are conditions that must be satisfied before suit.
Court’s analysis
The court found that neither the third amended complaint nor the motion for reconsideration alleged complete compliance with the Government Claims Act. Tamrat said that he had filed a timely claim with the Board but had never received a response. The court explained that even if he had timely sent a claim, he could not proceed if the claim was not received or was sent to the wrong agency. It also discussed the requirements for presenting a claim to the proper public-entity official.
The court allowed Tamrat to submit exhibits showing proper compliance, including the Board’s response, by March 29, 2021. The court stated that it would screen the legal claims if he demonstrated proper compliance.
Rulings
The court denied Tamrat’s motion for reconsideration, Docket No. 32. It did not restore the dismissed police chief defendant through that motion, while allowing Tamrat to provide additional exhibits by the stated deadline.
The court also denied Tamrat’s request for a stay, Docket No. 31. Tamrat had requested a stay because he said he was on suicide watch after a suicide attempt and was having difficulty litigating while in custody. The court noted that, apart from showing compliance with the Government Claims Act, there were no pending deadlines, and stated that Tamrat could request an extension if needed.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton entered the order on February 26, 2021.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.